#especially when that work is inherently problematic

[neon-danger]

To be less rude about that anon, I have said quite a few times now that I will not be writing a milk fic

For one thing, it’s against my rules and I expect you as readers to respect that, but also the original creator of the milk fic is just all around Bad.

While I don’t think the actual contents of the milk fic are bad or problematic, I do not want my name associated with the milk fic, the writer, or their reputation.

There’s nothing wrong with enjoying that sort of content, and I have absolutely no judgement in that regard, but it’s kinda not cool for people to continue asking after I’ve said no A Few Times Now

Consent is a big thing in a lot of my fics, and I expect you as readers to know that No Means No, not ask again later.

[wonder-worker]

The division between the two families [the Woodvilles and the Nevilles] and their allies can be seen in the royal charters that they witnessed. Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville of York, while serving as chancellor and afterwards, were fairly constant witnesses to royal charters and consequently often appeared together. This was not, however, the case for other family members and friends. From 1466 to 1469, if Scales or Woodville associates like Sir John Fogge, John Lord Audley or Humphrey Lord Stafford of Southwick witnessed royal charters, then members of the Neville group, such as John Neville, earl of Northumberland, or John Lord Wenlock would not, and vice versa. Discounting the ubiquitous Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville, of the twenty-four charters issued between February 1466 and June 1469, twelve were witnessed by men associated with the Woodvilles, eight by men associated with the Nevilles and two were witnessed by no member of either group beyond the two earls at their heads and the archbishop; only two charters, both from 1466, featured associates of both families.

Such striking segregation of witnesses suggests that something more than simple convenience or availability was at play. [...] The evidence of these witness lists does show the extent of the split between the two groups from early in Edward's [first] reign and of the need for political society to work with that cleavage in the heart of the Yorkist regime."

-Theron Westervelt, "Royal charter witness lists and the politics of the reign of Edward IV"

*This is specifically applicable for Edward IV's first reign; in contrast, the charters in his second reign displayed a great deal of aristocratic and domestic unity and cohesion.

[in-class-daydreams]

i think what the anon actually meant when they said “incestuous” was if their relationship contained any EMOTIONAL incest on sen’s side?

when reading, sen does seem to have some form of emotionally incestuous feelings towards his mother but it doesn’t seem like the mother has those same feelings. whether he does have those feelings or not is entirely up to you.

this isn’t to say your writing is bad or anything. it’s actually very good and i thoroughly enjoy this au. i wouldn’t change a single thing about the way you write, especially when it comes to sen and his relationships.

there’s also nothing wrong with writing about emotional incest. it’s a very real thing and can happen in situations like the one in your au. as long as it isn’t romanticized or sexualized, it shouldn’t be a problem.

obviously, you don’t owe anyone an explanation but the people that are turned off by that impression might feel better with some clarification on the relationship.

(also, idk if you do emoji anons but if so, perhaps could i be 🦤?)

Emotionally, it sure seems that way, doesn't it? I've said he's weird, I've said he's a bit yandere about it, but I feel this is one of those things readers have to interpret themselves. Is his behavior appropriate? And regardless of the answer, can you (the general "you" not you specifically) sympathize with how he ended up that way? Did we expect a boy - burdened with great power from birth, plunged into an inherently flawed society - to turn out well-adjusted?

And I'm not blasting you in particular, this ask is very polite/constructive - especially compared to a lot of other asks I've gotten since this AU blew up - it's just that I write expecting readers to do some mental legwork on the more complex themes.

Take Nabokov's Lolita for example. It deals with some pretty gross and problematic subject matter, but Nabokov is expecting readers to be able to read between the lines that just because that inappropriate behavior is at the forefront of the novel, the actual message is that this sort of behavior is reprehensible. The average person isn't sitting there like, "Wow, these are all great ideas!"

This AU won't be everyone's cup of tea, and that's ok, because work portraying problematic themes has a right to exist, but in the same vein, people have the right not to read it.

~

Thank you so much for the ask!

Click [here] for more of Sen being mean to his dad | Ask stuff about Sen and the fam [here]

[annabelle--cane]

I got into tma in 2022 on a road trip with no internet and then only tangentially interacted with the fandom (light hcs, fanart) and I am. so compelled to understand what the fandom was like in 2020. what were the takes. why was it so awful. does it explain why every time I try to look into protocol I get a rancid Vibe and jump back 5 feet.

to preface: on scale, it really wasn't any worse than your average fandom, it just A) got Very popular over a short period and B) that period was during a time of particularly high stress where many people suddenly could only experience a social life online. tma is also a fairly political and progressive work, which inevitably leads to certain kinds of Takes. it also got Very popular right at the point where the episodes were reaching their peak of explicit social commentary and sustained morbid tone, which, especially combined with point B from above, drew out some really visceral reactions from a lot of people. nothing was actually inherently rancid about 2020-2021 tma fandom, there was just a bit of a perfect storm of factors.

having said that. some common discourse themes:

the perennial shipping discourse. georgie is the only one of our leads to have never killed a person, but really, I pinky promise that your ship between two unrepentant serial killers is 100x more problematic than my ship between two unrepentant serial killers.

asexuality: how dangerous is it? on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being "mostly" to 5 being "completely," how humiliating is it to be asexual? what is the singular true asexual experience that is unproblematic to write about?

wow, jonny was so out of line for writing this episode, what gives him the right to--oh he said it's directly based on personal experiences? so sorry, my bad, I'll learn for next time. wow, jonny was so out of line for writing this epi--

I did not like this episode. this is obviously a direct act of violence against me. why would an episode be Not Good when there is, in the world, Sadness?

hello, I have sorted all of the characters into a simple chart that clearly delineates which of them are completely irredeemable monsters with no interiority or motives and which of them are perfect angel victims who have only ever been nice and never hurt anyone, ever (and if they did hurt someone then that person deserved it). if I see you adding nuance to any of my rulings, I will kill you. this also extends to the podcast writers. #ilovebinaries.

the characters... are queer... and maybe even other marginalized identities as well... and yet, they do bad things? there's not even a single completely morally innocent character? by god, did they not think about the implications this might have!

web!martin. lol people are so stupid for thinking that the theory is at all plausible, media comprehension much? that would lichrally imply that a queer, poor, mentally ill character might be capable of badness. what do you mean we are currently listening to an arc where he's an accomplice to serial murder.

[creatingblackcharacters]

Hi! Neve sent an ask before, so I don't know how this works, but I'll chip in an obligatory I love your account; your reblogs especially were very helpful for my character casts! I'm currently working on a short-ish story where one of my main protagonists falls for a black woman. Their relationship is supposed to have conflicts, but ultimately they're endgame and supposed to be a genuine example of true love. But the thing is, I'm a white woman. I've searched a fair amount of your posts, but I haven't found anything on interracial relationships (Correct me if I've missed it!) What are things you noticed/dislike about how interracial relationships are portrayed in current media? And what are common harmful tropes/misconceptions included in them? I apologize if this subject derails from the conversation, but there's not many places I can find info on this topic, so I might as well ask here:!

Hello! Please capitalize Black when sending me asks. I'll put it on my pinned post, just so everyone is aware.

Tbh, this was likely one I was going to do a full lesson on at some point, so for now, I can give you some points of things that I personally don't like and/or find problematic or distasteful. Also, I've discussed these things in my lessons, particularly 3, 4, and 6. Please refer to my pinned post.

1. When the White partner is always the desirable one.

Black people are attractive, are sexy, have charisma, allure, endearing traits. It's gotten quite old that the partner that's always doing the chasing, regardless of their own quality of character, is the Black character. Maybe the White partner should be putting in the work!

2. An offshoot of that is that the White partner is described as being beautiful and attractive... Because they're White.

Now many people may not realize they're perpetuating this white supremacist belief, but when you're emphasizing "pale" (when we know you mean white) and light, thin hair, colorful eyes and other European beauty standards as what makes them the most attractive person in this story (versus mousy brown hair and tanned skin and plain brown eyes), you're implying that everything else is somehow less than. Especially when their partner is Black. If you're not putting in that much effort to describe the beauty and or marvel of the Black partner and character... It reveals your (however unconscious) beliefs!

3. How the White character is the "weaker", "more gentle", "purer" one.

This tends to happen with White women and white gay men characters. The idea that the Black character is inherently stronger, larger, more brutish, in need of being tamed... It's rooted in racism. Sometimes the White character could wait hand and foot on the Black one to show love and devotion 🤷🏾‍♀️ maybe it's the White character that needs to get their shit together 🤷🏾‍♀️ Black men characters can be masculine and gentle too. Black women characters can be softhearted and strong too. We are as capable of nuance as anyone else.

4. The idea that the Black character is meant to help the White one unlearn racism.

Now this is a touchy one. Because on the one hand, there's obviously going to be learning about culture and exchange in an interracial relationship. It's not wrong to have your Black character point things out to your white one, to help them be a better person bc they're in love and they need to understand and love and respect their partner's Blackness. Preferably they'd already know everything, but that's society. It's an active process.

But... There's this idea that somehow racism will be overcome because "love", and that's just not true. I personally don't think it's very romantic for a racist white woman to meet a Black man and through the story the message is "oh I learned how to see his humanity as we fell in love!" That's not... Cute to me. It is not hot in any way to have some guy or girl find my humanity and I'm supposed to thank and love them for that. That's the bare minimum. I'll respect them when they put in the work to show that they're unlearning, and when they get to a safe point, I'll be like okay. Certainly not "oh she's racist now but I know there's a good heart in there" noooo not really.

5. Every interracial relationship with a white person is not gonna result in a light-skinned baby.

Oohhoohoo I can't wait to elaborate on this one next lesson. 😈

These are my main ones. If any other Black fans have any opinions to add, I'd love to hear them!

[hairtusk]

i'm curious to know your thoughts on pulling apart problematic feminist canon, it's something i don't have a lot of experience with. like dworkin is obviously famous for her writing against porn and irl harassment of sex workers but she also wrote Right Wing Women which seems to be foundational and very correct when talking about gender and the far right. i haven't heard of of her discussion of pedophilia and bestiality, but she clearly wasn't afraid of controversial topics.

you seem, for lack of better words, smart about this kind of thing and i'd love to know how you think about these tensions!

This is a very interesting question. Unfortunately, before I can even begin to get into this topic, I need to address a few key points of your above.

'... like dworkin is obviously famous for her writing against porn and irl harassment of sex workers but she also wrote Right Wing Women which seems to be foundational and very correct...'

The wording in your above is very odd to me. The 'but' here seems to insinuate that, while Dworkin's work in Right Wing Women is 'correct', she is 'wrong' for her writings against 'sex work' and pornography.

Firstly, I refuse to use the terminology of 'sex worker', as I believe it normalises the idea that men can buy access to the bodies of women. I am firmly of the belief that consent cannot be bought, and that if consent is not given freely and without coercion, it is rape. Money is coercion. If sex can be bought, then rape is just wage theft, and I refuse to be party to that idea. That being said, I have enormous compassion and respect for women who are currently, or who have formerly been, prostituted. I want them to have access to dignity, respect, safety and protection in law, as far as is physically possible.

I hold the same view of pornography. People have always enjoyed watching other people have sex - this is inescapable, and I have no problem with the sensual or the erotic. However, the erotic and the pornographic hold no relation to one another - please read this short Gloria Steinem essay for more clarity on what I mean by this [source 1]:

I firmly believe that there is absolutely no ethical or moral way to establish an industry based on pornography. It is inherently exploitative and degrading, especially to women and homosexual men. Even if there are women who freely consent to appear in pornography (and I don't believe that's possible in our current society), I believe that even if one women was exploited, trafficked, coerced or forced into it that the whole industry should be abolished. Nobody's orgasm is more important than the safety, dignity, or health of a woman. This goes for both pornography and prostitution.

So, you can see how I find it difficult to answer your question in good faith when you posit that Dworkin's work fighting pornography and prostitution are somehow 'incorrect' or wrong. Indeed, I believe one of Dworkin's best essays details the exploitation of prostitution, and how it normalises rape. See the below pages for a taste of how she tackles this subject [source 2] and find more in her book Pornography: Men Possessing Women (1981):

Another vitally important point - you say that Dworkin was famous for her 'irl harassment of sex workers.' However, Dworkin was, in your words, a 'sex worker.' See the below extract of an article by Catherine Bennett in The Observer [source 3]:

Additionally, I can find absolutely no evidence that Dworkin ever 'harrassed' prostituted women or men, and, if you've ever seen her interviewed, you would know that she is incredibly gentle and soft spoken. Please watch the below video of Dworkin appearing on After Dark, to observe her manner of debate:

It's very funny, because the amount of misinformation spread about Dworkin floating around the internet has resulted in this [source 3, ibid.]:

I would be extremely interested in whether you could provide a legitimate source for her 'harrassment', beyond her academic and political criticism of the so-called 'sex industry'.

I really do appreciate that you say I seem educated on this particular topic. And I would, absolutely in good faith, be interested in answering your main question, if you still care to hear my opinion. However, you can see why I had to clear up these topics above, to make my stance absolutely blatant before we delve into more complex feminist politik.

Bibliography:

Bennett, Catherine, 'Doubts About Dworkin', The Observer, 8th June 2000 (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2000/jun/08/society) [accessed 12th September 2024] [source 3]

Dworkin, Andrea, 'Whores', in Pornography, Men Possessing Women (New York: 1981, The Women's Press) pp. 203-204 [source 2]

Feminist VHS Archive, After Dark: What is Sex For?, Online Video Recording, YouTube, 2022 [link] [accessed 12th September 2024]

Steinem, Gloria, 'Erotica and Pornography: A Clear and Present Difference', in Take Back the Night: Women on Pornography, ed. Laura Lederer (New York: Morrow Quill Paperback, 1982) pp. 35-39 [source 1]

[franki-lew-yo]

Chicken Run 2 things I did really like:

It's a fun and small nod to irl chicken farming, but I like that the pen the chickens are kept in in Funtime Farms is an indoor pen. That's how modern poultry gets by on the "free range" excuse.

Genuinely appreciate how much and how well this movie states Ginger's awesomeness through Rocky or other people. It's not too distracting and it's earned. She is the iron chicken and it's a good way to hype up the character without telling you rather than showing you. God. I love Ginger.

Nick and Fetcher needed more scenes with Molly because them being attached and joining in just to save their "niece" is adorable and a great expanse on their characters. Good.

Rocky was a great dad and way better written than the original but still very much Rocky. That's how you do a 'wrote a potentially problematic love interest 20 years ago now here's them updated for modern ''wokeness' standards,' PIXAR. I liked him being both a hinderence and an accessory to Ginger. Shows why and what I like about them as a couple. I especially like how, without even showing you, that Rocky was the one to tell Molly what she needed to know but did not expand on just how traumatized Ginger really is from her ordeal. That's both in character and a believable thing a parent would do when their kid is simply prodding about their past, rather than directly asking their parent. Also, given it's Rocky and he already didn't have a perfect sitch going on as a circus animal, he probably didn't hype it up as perfect but more or less leaned into how adventurous he and Ginger were.

Ginger and Molly and their whole plot of not understanding each other was fine. Ginger being an overprotective parent who never wants to leave the island now and is enforcing her flock never to leave works better here than in contrived direct to video movies like Lion King 2 or Little Mermaid 2. The annoying thing about these kinds of stories is, simply put, the audience is screaming at the parent to just better communicate with their kids, especially when it's not like Ginger is too haunted to talk about the farm to other characters. What was needed, I think, was real establishment that Molly knows her mom escaped from a farm but doesn't truly know what a farm is and what would happen to her on one. Maybe also have it clear that Ginger is so set on being a "free chicken" she refuses to even talk about her past with Molly- somehow thinking that her old life before was beneath what she is now, even though she was the one who escaped from it and was always worth the lifestyle she deserves. Would be a great call forward to Ginger's slight (understandable) apathy for chickens outside her flock that would come full circle to her being the character she always is and is best at. Over all I liked her, Rocky and Molly a lot. I just wished I could have heard Julia Sawahla instead.

Pacing actually moved decently for once for a modern animated kids film. That's impressive, especially for a sequel.

Mrs. Tweedy saying she "gave Ginger everything a hen could ask for" was really illuminating for her character. Really, much as I wish this wasn't the same character, I love Mrs. Tweedy wanting revenge on Ginger. On a chicken. Her dialogue revealing that she thought the life she gave the chickens on her old farm was "good" for them tells you so much about her and how she sees herself as a good farmer only if she's a successful farmer.

Haha the ending shot is perfect.

Okay one thing about this movie- this may be actually be a bad thing depending on your diet choices -this movie makes me actually really hungry for chicken and chicken nuggets. This whole franchise isn't inherently vegetarian or trying to be anti meat, granted, but that is the take away from the character's perspective given that they are the chickens. To put this a different way: the first movie makes eating chicken really unappetizing from the beginning with the "roll call" scene and the pies the chickens would potentially turn into, over the top as it is, also unpleasant. You definitely don't get anything close to the "roll call" scene in this film. A chicken does die but it's all so offscreen it has no impact, so when she's cartoonishly instantly turned into nuggets that Mrs. Tweedy eats, you don't feel anything...you kind of wanna eat the nuggets. Apologies to any chickens reading that. Here, have some happy chickens to counteract the pain:

[lunamond]

The argument that the switch-up between Tamlin and Rhysand as love interests was SJM making a clever commentary on the inherently problematic nature of the Beauty and the Beast tale is actually really annoying to me.

I'm absolutely not above being critical of this story.

However, just because there are problematic aspects in the foundational version of this story doesn’t mean that modern iterations automatically possess these as well.

So let's look at how modern retellings deal with the most commonly criticised element of the story: the kidnapping.

For me personally, the most important thing to look at when judging how "problematic" the kidnapping in any given Beauty and the Beast story is, is to look at what the actual power dynamics at play are.

Most of these stories tend to feature some inherent power imbalance between the Beauty and the Beast characters. However, most retellings also feature a curse/curser who puts pressure on the Beast to kidnap Beauty in the first place. This means there is always some kind of higher power/authority who holds significant power over the Beast as well.

In the og Fairytale version, we have a scorned Fae/Witch who curses the Beast. The stakes for the Beast are to find a woman, make her fall in love with him, or stay a Beast forever.

How much this gives the Beast a pass for the crime of kidnapping is, of course, sth each person has to decide for themself.

However, most modern retellings tend to significantly increase the severity of the conditions and consequences of said curse, often times putting many lives outside of the Beast's own at stake.

This increase in stakes, at least for me, significantly impacts how much I condemn the actions of the Beast character.

We see this in the Disney version were all the people living and working in the castle were turned into animate objects and risk turning inanimate once the time-limit for the curse runs out, which is essentially a child friendly way of saying that they will all die.

In the YA novel Cruel Beauty (which I already compared to Acotar in an older post), the Beast character is forced to take a new bride every century. Due to the specifics of the curse, the safety of an entire country is dependent on his compliance with the conditions put on him. So, despite the fact that he initially appears much more powerful than the Beauty character, they are essentially both stuck under the same curse.

The first Acotar book works the same way. Tamlin kidnaps Feyre, not because he wants to but because the conditions of the curse put not just the fate of the SC but of the entirety of Prythian at stake.

That's, of course, not to say that this isn't a violent experience for Feyre and her family. But it does mean that Tamlin isn't the instigator of this violent act, but the person responsible for the curse, aka Amarantha.

The attempt to turn this into a subversion of the BnB story by revealing Tamlin as a violent and abusive partner becomes incredibly frustrating, because most of the violent undertone present in the 1st book, that fans like to point towards as an early sign of his future abusive behaviors are not caused by Tamlin himself but by Amarantha (and her batwinged lackey).

But SJM's attempt is especially nonsensical because Feyre's new romance with Rhysand is just a worse version of BnB.

I am aware that the second book, Acomaf, is most commonly marketed as a Hades/Persephone retelling.

But here is the thing; the modern interpretation of Hades/Persephone as a romance is much more akin to the story of Beauty and the Beast than the hymn to Demeter (the og source text featuring the myth of Hades/Persephone), which as the title suggests is much more concerned with the feelings of grief and rage a mother feels in response to her daughter's abduction than anything else.

So, let's judge Feysand's story with the same standards we just used for other modern BnB retellings.

Immediately, we run into the issue that Rhysand doesn't have a higher power above him forcing him to kidnap Feyre (unless you want to count the mating bond, but that is clearly meant to be seen as a positive so that doesn't really work, Amarantha doesn't count either).

However, it gets worse.

He is the one who forces the bargain on Feyre, ensuring she has to spend 1 week in the NC for the rest of her life. When he later kidnaps her, he is fulfilling the curse he himself put on her.

In this version, the Beast character, Rhysand, is not the cursed but the curser. So he is at once the kidnapper AND the higher power enforcing the curse/the cause for the kidnapping.

In a direct comparison between the way Tamlin and Rhysand each fullfill the Beast role, it becomes pretty apparent how utterly SJM's supposed criticism of the BnB story has failed; Tamlin kidnaps Feyre because he is forced to, Rhysand does because he WANTS to.

[biracy]

The inherent racialization and xenophobia of USAmerican anti-drug laws in general, but especially in the American Southwest, was always going to be something Breaking Bad inherited, and is Honestly, in my Latin opinion, not something it necessarily handles with a lot of grace. I understand that brba is not About that, it's not one of the themes, but it's still there, because you cannot talk about the drug trade in any even semi-serious context without talking about race and class, even if it's not intentional. In general I think brba is more sympathetic towards drug users and more critical towards the police institution than a lot of other shows of a similar vein, but there's still a very clear throughline of "dangerous" Latin America and Latinos, particularly Mexico and Mexicans. I know this is the "white gay people talking about how great 'Problematic Representation' is" website, and that a post about, well, "problematic representation" will probably fall on deaf ears, but when almost All of the lead characters in your show are white, and the main Hispanic characters are a bunch of Mexican drug lords, a Chilean drug lord, and a cop who gets to be One Of The Good Ones by working against The Bad Ones, people (me) are allowed to notice that lol. Obviously I love the show, this isn't a condemnation of it, but it is something that stood out to me and should be allowed to be critiqued lol

[ripplestitchskein]

I think it’s important to note in discussions that a power imbalance on its face is not an issue. I would argue MOST people have relationships with people who hold some level of power over them or an imbalance in some capacity. Stay at home parents or single income households, households with large income disparities all are financially beholden to the money holding partner. I am in such a relationship and have been for 18 years, my partner has been a stay at home parent for 9 of those but I’ve always been the primary income because my skill set leads to better opportunities and increased income potential. People enter into relationships with coworkers, either explicitly boss/employee or supervisor/employee or where they are not direct reports but still hold a higher position in the hierarchy. Since we spend a majority of our time at our workplaces that is a really common way to meet people, especially for those of us who don’t date traditionally. People with medical complexities or mental illness and neurodivergence may be partially or whole reliant on others to give care and may be vulnerable in ways that inherently give the other party more power. People are in relationships with those who possess greater social capital, like media influencers or politicians. People are in relationships with people who have greater physical prowess or jobs that could be potentially problematic from a legal standpoint such as cops, judges, military or government agents. Even non romantic relationships feature power imbalances, letting someone crash on your couch, providing housing or necessities, or providing palliative care etc.

Where it becomes a problem is when it is coercive in nature, when that power is leveraged to harm the other, or threatened, and when consent cannot be given such as in the case of minors or mental/physical incapacity.

Stolas being an employee of IMP at some point in the future is not on its face an issue unless there is coercion, an issue of consent or if power is leveraged by the narrative in a way that would make him feel that he has no choice in entering a relationship with Blitz or will have his position threatened. The implicit threat itself, that of someone working and gaining financial benefit from someone they are in a relationship with is a standard part of society and something we interact with in our own relationships as a matter of course and especially in cases of mental or physical health issues or neurodivergence sometimes unavoidable.

[kairos-polaris]

Beloved, why do you ship jonelias? Why do they consume your waking thoughts so?

I am glad you asked :D

So! I really enjoy uneven "problematic" power dynamics and this was what originally attracted me to jonelias. I listened to mag 92 and thought "jonelias seems like something I would ship" because even then I could tell they fit my taste. I also just like protagonist/antagonist ships, complicated relationships are my favourites

mag 92 is one of my favourite episodes as a jonelias shippers for a couple of reasons. at first it was solely the conversation between Jon and Elias and how it was about Jon getting changed by Elias, because of Elias. Jon was being openly vulnerable! "Am I still human, Elias?" he asks Elias who has just confessed to murder and keeping people hostage. Jon, who had so much respect and admiration for Elias' expertise, turns to him even in that moment. It is Elias who he seeks reassurance from, he asks another monster if he is one

Another aspect of mag 92 I am obsessed with is the opening statement and the way Elias puts Jon above everyone else (telling him to discard everyone in his pursuit) while also placing Jon on the same level as him

(Side note: I am still not sure if I prefer Jon to sit on Elias' lap/have Elias clean his wound or to focus more on what they don't do, on the gaping distance between them that they both wish wasn't there but both have their own reasons to not bridge it. Both are so good)

Vampire metaphor! Jon is a walking vampire metaphor and Elias is his maker, his creator. I am so obsessed with the idea of Jon feeding on Elias, pulling fear from his mind and Elias enjoying the intrusion and the freedom the compulsion brings. He said it felt tingly! Freak (affectionate). Also, telepathy and mind meld is so delicious

What I love most about jonelias is what I love in others ships: obsession and fully knowing each other. Beholding allows to take knowing and seeing your partner to another level, Jon and Elias can know and see each other in ways other people in their lives can't

Moral corruption is inherently fascinating to me and especially Jon. He gets worse throughout the series, his only anchors to humanity are his own guilt and the people around him who more often than not just reinforce that guilt (this makes sense in the context of the story but you can't guilt yourself into being a better person and that's why it doesn't really work for Jon but I digressed). I like thinking about all the ways Jon could be worse, the ways Jonah could push Jon into following his worst impulses, into choosing to be a monster instead of drowning in guilt to not feel helpless and powerless

I love jonelias when it's about all the things they wish to do but don't because they have other priorities, because they know but don't understand each other just like their patron. I love jonelias when it's Jon giving in, letting go. Of his morals, of his guilt, letting Elias shape him into something new. I love the idea of Jonah Magnus who worships no god, not even the one he serves, adoring and worshipping Jon and especially the parts of Jon that he himself had shaped. The Pygmalion and Galatea of it

Jonah chose Jon! He saw him and knew he was right! Jonah wants the Archivist and he wants the Archivist to be Jon. Sure, Jon was marked by the Web first but Jonah picked him too and I love it. It's fascinating from both of theirs perspective, Jonah feeling proud he made the right choice and Jon having a complicated mix of feelings about it. He hates that he was chosen and he just a little happy that he was chosen and he hates himself for it

Another thing I really like is the way they say each other's name! Elias calls Jon by his name a lot and I hate when people act like he doesn't

Jon and Jonah are very similar and I find that fascinating too. They are both workaholics and nerds and losers and freaks!! And I love them for that. And and and I really do think they could have eventually been truly equal if not for Jonahs prioritising his evil plan

Also they are sexy, I don't make the rules

[hylialeia]

thoughts on the Daevabad Trilogy, short version: holy shit that was good

longer version:

holy shit that was good.

I adored the writing style, the imagery, the worldbuilding, the characters, the character dynamics, and the pacing all the way through. I first picked up this series because of how Global Medievalism talked about it as a stepping stone away from Eurocentric medieval fantasy and it definitely delivered. this is tied with Spinning Silver for my favorite recent reads--which is even more impressive since SS was a standalone, meanwhile this series kept up a consistently high quality across three separate books.

after Fourth Wing masquerading as a rich, complex adult fantasy and then being What It Actually Was, this was an immensely satisfying series to pick up. it skirts the fantasy staple of the Inherently Evil Race/Species that so many works fall into (even asoiaf with the Others) and instead opts to explore in-depth religious and racial prejudices, revolutions, bigotry, power, and privilege in ways that can be frightening for a lot of authors (and readers). I can see why this series would frustrated a large swath of fantasy fans and not just because it steps completely away from the Europe-but-slightly-to-the-left settings that they're so familiar with; people looking for escapism and a palatable black-and-white conflict definitely wouldn't find it here.

that said, I also think the narrative did a fantastic job of showcasing the brutality of oppression, as well as cycles of revenge and violence, without turning into a sermon about how anyone who fights back is Just As Bad as the oppressor. you can sympathize with any faction within the trilogy while still seeing that there's a clear hierarchy. this is a series that asks the reader to be open minded and to sympathize with a variety of people's suffering while still condemning heinous actions, crimes, and ways of thinking. portrayals of violence, swearing, and sex aside, this is where I believe the adult label is earned. the Daevabad Trilogy outshines Fourth Wing in its entirety, actually following through on promises of depth, complexity, and exploration.

I don't think the series reaches into absolutely flawless territory; on reflection, there are a lot of scenes I wish we'd seen happening in the moment rather than summarized or briefly flashed back to. this goes especially for the end of the last book, Empire of Gold, which would have enhanced the pacing quite a bit. there's a bit of rushing through the final battle, and though it's still quite fantastic and follows through on a deal of foreshadowing and character build-up, it definitely feels over too soon. there are also a few loose ends and potential conflicts when it comes to the characters themselves that the series felt too tired to actually flesh out by the end. I can forgive that chiefly because of just how well-rounded and consistent the characters themselves are, even despite those instances.

and holy shit did I adore these characters. I've only seen the barest tip of the iceberg of discourse this series caused (which I'm sure was insane when it first came out), but thankfully the 10 million+ Way More Problematic Characters (that I also love) in asoiaf has made me immune to whatever the hell was going on over there. I also couldn't get involved in a ship war if you paid me.

I think the first book made a good call only having Nahri and Ali's POVs not just from a technical standpoint (Dara's POV wouldn't have added much, and may have even spoiled some meaningful twists) but also in priming the reader for what is the heart of the entire trilogy: their dynamic. Nahri and Ali carry the series whether they're young, platonic best friends who should be enemies, awkward ex-friends who still get a long way too well, or best friends who are deeply in love which each other but too traumatized to admit it. they both stand incredibly well as individuals (evidenced by the fact that they don't even meet until over the halfway mark in the first book), with Ali being a particular favorite of mine from the very beginning. their opposite upbringings yet similar interests made them a fantastic duo, one where it made sense the impact each one would have on the other's journey. there's something so incredibly endearing about their inability to legitimately dislike each other despite their circumstances, one that makes sense based on their already established personalities; they propel the series' most meaningful moments.

for the elephant in the room: as frustrating as Dara's POV could be I found it a worthy and fascinating addition in the later books, one that I think a lot of people missed the weight of if they were too busy excusing him/hating him. his perspective, biased and misguided as it often was, provided so much rich exploration of the trilogy's overall themes: militarism, religious fanaticism, prejudice, free will, just war, revolution, cycles of violence, conditioning and abuse, etc. that so much of this seemed to fall to the wayside in a strive to decide if he was excusable or not (and thus a viable love interest or not) is a huge shame. his ending was, to me, profoundly satisfying; not redeemed but finally allowed to act of his own free will, no longer bound by outside magic or internalized religious obligation. I never violently disliked Dara and Nahri's romantic entanglement so much as I knew it was doomed from the moment Ali had a POV chapter.

the secondary characters were no less engaging for me, especially as their prominence grew throughout the books, antagonists or otherwise. it was refreshing to see Muntadhir and Jamshid's individual characters (and thus their relationship) become a more prominent aspect of the story--again, especially after the tokenism in Fourth Wing. side characters always seemed to have deeper personalities and roles to play, with even early character deaths like Anas having lasting impacts for our main POVs. their presence was as vital to the immersion and depth of the world as much as the setting and imagery--which are also aspects that completely blew me away. from character, technical, to thematic standpoints, the Daevabad Trilogy absolutely amazed me.

final thoughts and rating: if you give me a book where two married characters are in love with the other's brother and expect me not to give it a high rating you're insane. 8/10. maybe even 9/10. go read these books.

[cowboy-robooty]

imma be so fr rn i think its homophobic when people are fine with yuri but go up in arms about yaoi. like seriously. because its so fucking stupid to act as though yuri is somehow less fetishistic than yaoi when legit the entire fetish appeal of lesbianism in yuri is the fact that its "so pure and untainted by men". Straight men who consume yuri love it because they have a thing for purity in a similar vein as straight women love yaoi for being guys "sinning" and shit. I think both of these sentiments are foul in their own respective ways and its plain ignorant to act as though the "purity" of yuri is made out of a respect for lesbians instead of fetishistic appeal. And dont get it twisted rn and think im saying yaoi and yuri both suck; you know i love both of these genres, but i can criticize it without saying the genre as a whole is some evil demon shit. Straight erotica also houses a plethora of problematic themes and sentiments because every genre is going to have issues, especially when its lewd content. Lewd content is made TO BE fetishistic because well... its lewd; the problems that arise are not black or white matters and I think that if people are willing to enjoy straight erotic manga critically but unwilling to give the same grace to yaoi or yuri then thats plain homophobic. Because when people act as though yaoi and yuri having these problems means that the genres as a whole are unsalvagable while straight erotica can still be excused, it implies that homosexuals are obligated to be BETTER than heterosexual content to be accepted. It creates this idea that homosexual content is somehow inherently more dirty and needs to make up for this fact by being morally superior in other ways. 50 shades of gray and twilight can exist with a littany of foul tropes and problematic themes that are completely put into a fetishistic light, and yes it recieves mockery and is called cringe (because it is), but how come thats all it gets while some yaoi has the same shit going on and is treated like the entire genre as a whole needs to be exterminated??????? nobody has ever said that all shitty novels made for lonely women need to be demolished because of twilight and 50 shades of gray, and anyone who has gets called out for their misogyny because its fucking stupid to act like an entire genre of content should be killed for some cringe loser shit being mixed in with it. All porn has problematic tropes, and its so homophobic to act like specifically the genre of gay men having sex is the most egregious offender of these tropes while passing off yuri as fine because the problematic tropes it houses feed into the idea of purity.

Like oh my god, the majority of yuri is not made for lesbians. Even though it is made by women, these women are not fucking queer women. They're straight women who are feeding into the misogynistic ideals of pure, feminine women remaining pure and feminine by keeping untainted by men while exploring eachothers bodies. thats why yaoi and yuris problems mirror eachother in that you see an abundance of heteronormativity in yaoi (big semes, small ukes; with the smaller feminine one being lured into a tainted world of sin by being gay or whatever) while yuri has the opposite problem with a lack of body diversity because it focuses on ideal feminine ladies remaining untouched by "sin" by only touching eachother. Why do you think that around the same time yaoi was full of shit like junjou romantica bullshit yuri was also notorious for being boring as hell with two girls thats have no personalities making out together? Because BOTH of these genres had these issues much more severely in the 2000s-2010s. Yaoi was too crazy with that sinning fetish while Yuri was too boring with that purity fetish. Its also so stupid when people keep using examples from that era of yaoi as evidence that western mlm work is sooooo much better and superior compared to the entire fucking genre because its comparing shit from ten years ago to shit made now. Idk if you remember but literally ten years ago pedo bear was a normal thing that was goddamn EVERYWHERE online. Culture changes and i can assure you western gay media was not so squeaky clean during that time either; but this is a whole 'nother enchilada to be devoured another time.

Anyways in short; its homophobic as hell if you embrace yuri but shun yaoi. All you're doing is showing you have a fundamental lack of understanding concerning the roots of yuri and who yuri is actually made for. You're acting like gay men having sex is inherently "dirtier" than straight people having sex and that they need to compensate by being more morally righteous. I'm not saying that the different problematic tropes found in each type of erotica is good and shouldn't be changed, but its homophobic to excuse straight porn while refusing that same grace to yaoi. And it disgusts me seeing people continue to perpetuate the sentiment of gay men being seen as sin and lesbian women being seen as pure (in an almost baby-fying way) only wrapped up in a new convoluted form of packaging while acting like theyre protecting homosexuals.

[cogaytes]

i know it's not directed at me, but my conversation starter is that i personally find fandom as a place for anyone and everyone. i think my genuine confusion for the discourse is that the age limit to use ao3 is 13, and that most of these works in question are properly tagged as well. (if they aren't then that's an entirely different conversation.)

oh and also that teenagers have sex?

if you don't wanna see it that's never a huge problem! of course you should stay within your comfort zone and avoid things that make you feel uncomfortable (especially if you're on the younger age of the spectrum of minors on these websites!)

but arguing that smut shouldn't exist is something i've never truly understood. Sexuality is something that people (yes that includes young people) can and should explore if they want to. Writing and consuming it in fandom is a way for many older teenagers and young adults to do that in a safe and healthy way.

Especially when it is those things like rape and non-con stuff--shouldn't we be relieved that instead of causing harm to others, people are just using their creativity to write about it?

Tumblr has always been the Gay People Site™, and to me and my expression of both my gender and sexuality, sex is a huge part of that. People have sex! Teenagers have sex! Some people even like to read and write about it!

Unfortunately for a lot of people, their self expression is not socially accepted as the norm, and they can--and may already have--faced disgust and discrimination for their private interests. Sites like Archive of our Own and Tumblr were made for the freedom of self expression and exploring personal interests in an anonymous way, especially those that may be considered taboo.

Will you find me reading incest fics? Probably not, that's not my cup of tea. But I won't complain either, because I know that it may be that for the author and some other people. As long as a fic is properly tagged, I personally do not have issue with content as long as it does not cause mental or physical harm to other (real world) people.

These are fictional characters, and I truly believe that censoring authors and artists just because what they're creating is considered problematic or even just openly disobeys what is widely accepted as the norm is silly and reductive of what we've been fighting for for decades. Humans are sexual beings with sexual minds, and in our modern age we use our thoughts to write whatever we feel like. Sometimes that happens to be sex!

It may be uncomfortable, and may not be for you, but the existence of fanfiction as a whole can open up more understanding for people who are looking for connection, not just connection that you yourself deem "acceptable."

Sex is not something that's impure nor dirty, it is inherently human. It's personal and intimate, but it is not wrong.

this ask is mostly applied to what i've found in kotlc as a fandom, but my inbox is open anytime if you (or anyone who may read this) wants me to expand more on fandom spaces as a whole. i have more thoughts on real world people and a lot of other topics, but i tried to keep it to just what applied to keeper. (trying not to write an entire essay in yours haha.)

i'm aware that i may have a more lenient view on this than most as well, so i'd love to hear your thoughts <3

yeah no i agree basically with all of this! it's something i've been really grappling with over the last few years (especially recently as a ship i really find uncomfortable has become big in some of my circles of mutuals, which has been interesting to see how i thought about it when it was first a thing 3ish years ago and how my reactions have changed now). i think as i grew up i just stopped almost. caring about what other people make? like i just. filter shit out on ao3 and on tumblr and scroll past shit i don't want to see. i unfollow or block if it really becomes an issue.

but personally i just really don't like the idea of any art being given a moral value, even when it portrays topics we really don't want to think about or might feel uncomfortable with. like, my parents wouldn't let me read the hunger games until i was a certain age because the mass child death etc were just so fucking horrifying that they didn't want me exposed to it. and even reading it as an adult i'm like. okay. holy fuck. but that doesn't mean it's immoral or gross or disgusting just because it portrays fucked up things as fiction. and it definitely doesn't say anything about the author that she wrote it.

you don't have to read smut if you're not comfortable with it! you're allowed to be made uncomfortable by sex! but as long as it's properly warned for so you can avoid it, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed to exist.

[moistvonlipwig]

hypothetically if i just sent you every heart in that ask as a lovely littlel rainbow…??? :D

I'm assuming for Supergirl again? ;)

I cut out a few that I just didn't have an answer for at all. The rest are under the cut. Again, kvetching about a CW superhero show awaits.

❤: Which character do you think is the most egregiously mischaracterized by the fandom?

I have had to click out of so many fics because they feel the need to get in a throwaway dig at James that often has absolutely nothing to do with his canon characterization. ("He was only interested in Lena because he liked the prestige and perks of dating a billionaire!" No??? Wrong??? Do not pass Go??? Do not collect $200???)

🧡: What is a popular (serious) theory you disagree with?

I don't agree with the idea that Kara is some sort of "genius" just because she's from Krypton. Being from a more '''advanced''' society (which is a thorny and problematic label in and of itself) does not make you ''smarter" than people from a '''less advanced''' society (see what I mean? Thorny and problematic). Living in a society with hyper-advanced technology doesn't mean that you know how that technology works or the fundamental principles that underlie its construction, especially if you are 13 years old. Also, even if you did, that is not inherently a more valuable form of knowledge than, say, knowing how to make dumplings – a skill I'm sure Kara herself would say is incredibly valuable, and which Kryptonians do not possess.

And that's not even getting into the fact that knowledge itself isn't the same thing as intelligence, which is a hard-to-define concept that has been historically used and still is used today in deeply problematic ways, but which I would argue is more about creativity, imagination, and the ability to generate new solutions to problems given the resources and education available to you than it is about simply knowing stuff. I certainly wish we got to see Kara display her resourcefulness, knowledge, & skills more often on the show, but fandom's insistence that she's actually way smarter than all these silly backwards primitive humans because she's from a planet that's made certain scientific advancements is incredibly fucking weird and frankly strikes me as the product of a colonialist mindset.

(I also just kind of think it's an uninteresting take on her character? She already has so many incredible abilities and interesting character traits, why does she ALSO have to be a "genius" who can rival Brainy & Lena in scientific thinking?)

💛: What is a popular ship you just can’t get behind, and why?

Supercat, for all the reasons I listed in my other post, and Sanvers, because the whole whitewashing thing is really egregious to me and also the way they were written just kind of grated on my nerves. Also Agentcorp. No real reason, I have no zingers to deliver about it. I just don't see it.

💚: What does everyone else get wrong about your favorite character?

You and I have already talked about how I don't actually think Lena has a "one-strike policy", and how the only person she actually cut off after only one strike was Andrea, whose betrayal came at a time when Lena was extremely vulnerable. I believe I've also mentioned to you in an ask that I think people read her politics wrong -- a lot of people classify her as a conservative when she is, IMO, clearly a libertarian, hence her pro-business, pro-gun, anti-secret government agencies, generally socially progressive views. (Additionally, one of the quirks of Supergirl's casting is that they accidentally cast all of Lena's past friends/lovers as people of color, which has some truly fascinating implications about Lena's racial politics.)

🤍: Which character is not as morally bad as everyone else seems to think?

Lena is the obvious answer, although the real truth about Lena is that she is, actually, quite morally all over the place, it's just that she's not any more morally all over the place than anyone else on the show. Andrea, also, I think gets a bad rap from some people and from the show itself, which I talked more about in my other post. Um...I don't think Clark is a bad person for leaving Kara with the Danverses? To quote one of Once Upon a Time's most repeated lines, he gave her her best chance. He wasn't ready to parent her and he knew it -- I think that takes real integrity to admit, actually. Does that mean Kara can't have complicated feelings about it? Of course not, but I don't think it's fair to say he "abandoned" her. Placing a child in a loving home is not "abandoning" them. It's quite the opposite.

(The Clark situation admittedly gets worse post-Crisis when suddenly he has two teenage sons who would've been born around the time Kara's pod landed, which means maybe Earth Prime Clark was down for being a parent but just didn't want to parent Kara specifically, which is much more dubious. But also, Crisis was very bad, so I prefer not to think about it.)

💔: If you had to remove one major character from the series, who would you choose?

I guess it depends on if my options are "remove them vs. change how they were written" or "remove them vs. keep them as is"? If I have to keep them as is if I don't remove them, then the clear answer is Mon-El, whose presence I would argue damaged the show more irrevocably than any other writing decision.

If I can change how they were written, that's a different story -- Mon-El in the comics is a cool character and I think the show could've adapted his story in a genuinely interesting way. Imagine if, in S2, Kara had discovered a pod with an amnesiac child inside who appeared to be Kryptonian. Not only is she now just a little less alone, she now has a chance to make amends for her inability to take care of Clark! Except then we find out -- he's not Kryptonian, he's a Daxamite. The same species as Kryptonians, but they left Krypton ages ago (or were driven out -- perhaps the stories Kara was told as a child didn't tell the entire truth) and are known to be isolationist and xenophobic, with a particular hatred for Kryptonians. The Daxamite boy (who Kara named "Mon-El") gets accidentally exposed to lead, and Kara must banish him the way she herself was banished. Then, S3 comes along, and would you look at that - the Legion of Super-Heroes is here from the future! And their leader is none other than Kara's adopted baby brother Mon-El, now grown up and with all his memories returned to him. Cue drama! (While I'm making up a version of Supergirl that didn't exist, I'd also like this version of Mon-El to be Asian. We truly didn't need more white guys on this show.)

So if I were allowed to rewrite characters like that, I'd have to opt for getting rid of a character who wasn't just executed poorly, but conceived poorly as well. William is a pretty obvious choice, as they clearly only created him to be a love interest and had no earthly idea what to do with him when that didn't work out (or, well, at any point in time, actually). Even when the show moves him away from his S5 misogyny and his (kind of baffling, given how little effort she puts into the job he values so much) late S5-early S6 interest in Kara, the only character trait they can think up for him is "baking", which kind of says it all, really. Winn, I feel, is also extraneous; even if you get rid of his misogyny in S1, I just don't think we needed a nerdy white guy character. Lena and Brainy have the scientist role covered. So, IDK, either of them, I don't care lol.

💕: What is an unpopular ship that you like?

I already talked about Guardiancorp in my previous post and that's probably my only actually unpopular ship. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

💀: If you had to choose one major character to die, who would you choose?

I don't think killing characters off truly fits with the vibe of the show, which is one of a long list of reasons why William's death was bad. If I could instead put a character on a bus, it'd probably be J'onn -- they clearly ran out of ideas for his character partway through the show (and David Harewood frankly seemed to run out of interest in portraying the character as well). Which, honestly, that usually happens with older male mentor figures in shows about young women coming into their own -- look at Giles post-S5 on Buffy, for example. IMO both M'gann and Malefic (both of whom actually did get put on buses to Mars in the show proper) would be much more interesting Martians to have on the show full-time.

[laundrybiscuits]

I've recently been tagged in a few WIP/"last thing you've written" type games, and…to be completely candid, I haven't been writing any kind of fic lately because I've become a little bit obsessed with analyzing the Broadway revival of Merrily We Roll Along.

Not for any particular purpose, I just saw it at the Hudson a little while back and have a lot of feelings about it! In my tiny scraps of spare time, I've been working on an essay about Merrily and inevitability that will probably end up rotting in my google docs*, because that's how I approach writing as a hobby.

There's just so much there, holy shit. I'm focusing particularly on "Franklin Shepard, Inc." because Radcliffe's Charley brings a frenetic, desperate vulnerability to the performance that reads so, so differently from earlier productions. Throughout the show, I was consistently blown away by the heavy lifting Radcliffe, Mendez, and Groff do in shifting the core tension from "art vs commerce" (fine but basic, and difficult to keep modern) to "how people prioritize different types of relationships in their lives."

In an effort to make this slightly less wildly off-topic for this blog: this has gotten me thinking about the way that platonic relationships are treated in narratives, particularly but not exclusively in fandom.

"Found family" is and has always been a popular trope, but I do think its current incarnation trades a lot on the underlying fantasy of relationship permanence. When we recategorize friendships as familial relationships, we're making a claim—whether or not it's justified—about the indelibility of those relationships.

That's not inherently bad (or, god forbid, problematic). I think it's very very natural, especially for those who don't necessarily have a lot of experience with the way adult friendships change over time. Why wouldn't you want something as precious and unique and amazing as a good friendship to stay with you forever?

Certain people can feel like pillars of your world, and it's fucking terrifying to think about that being yanked out from under you—or even worse, to think about your lives slowly shifting like geologic plates until suddenly you realize it's been weeks, then months, then years since you last really talked.

CHARLEY: We're not that kind of close any more, the way we used to be. And a friendship's like a garden. You have to water it and tend it and care about it. And you know what? I want it back.

It's a peculiar, particular kind of grief when it happens, because even though it's a fairly common human experience, it doesn't get socially acknowledged in the same way as e.g. a romantic breakup.

So yeah, it makes a lot of sense that found family is a popular trope in all kinds of media, not just fandom.

However...at this point, I've developed a knee-jerk wariness to the phrase "found family," because I've found it often correlates with a really flat, simplistic depiction of human relationships. In extreme cases, it simply recontextualizes a relationship within the socially acknowledged/acceptable framework of a stereotypical family unit.

This does a disservice to familial and nonfamilial relationships alike. Every family is different, so why do so many found families in media look the same?

(I was monologuing about this to my very patient girlfriend, and she pointed out that this also sets up a success/failure binary condition in relationships, where permanence is the arbiter of success in both romantic and nonromantic contexts. She is of course both beautiful and correct!)

I have friends with whom I can sometimes share a glance and know exactly what they're thinking. I even have a running joke with one friend about the sheer number of times we've said the same thing in unison over the last 15 years. I still need to be intentional about building those relationships, extending empathy when we differ, and carving out time to reconnect. Truly intimate long-term relationships of any kind involve disagreements, conflicting priorities, and negotiating and renegotiating boundaries.

Being "basically the same person" or "sharing a braincell" actually sounds super fucking lonely to me, personally, and it handily elides the difficult, essential process of keeping people in your life.

FRANK: Old friends let you go your own way. CHARLEY: Help you find your own way. MARY: Let you off when you're wrong. F: If you're wrong. C: When you're wrong. M: Right or wrong, the point is, old friends shouldn't care if you're wrong. F: Should, but not for too long. C: What's too long?

That's a more complicated and much more mature narrative to tell than "friendship will save the day!" Because it's not that common and there's not a deep bank of references to draw from, it takes a lot of effort and skill to depict well, and I don't blame creators for not wanting to let it suck up all the air in the room. However, I think it's important to acknowledge that platonic relationships can also be flanderised and flattened.

In the context of fandom, which has always traded heavily in Romance genre conventions, I would really like to see more thoughtful explorations of complicated nonromantic relationships. I'm not even talking about genfic here! I've actually been thinking about Stobin specifically because that relationship (rightly & understandably) tends to show up in any Steve-centric fic, including the vast ocean of Steddie fics, so it makes the issue slightly more visible than I've seen in other fandoms.

I'm not saying I want to see them fight, or not be friends, or not love each other fiercely and near-obsessively in the way that lonely teenagers can. I'm just saying I want them to be distinct individuals who view the world in very different ways, and choose each other anyway. They already have a complicated past; I know from personal experience that it's possible as a lesbian to be best friends with a guy who once made a little speech about how into you he was, but that little layer of history never quite goes away.

I don't want frictionless relationships in my life. I want people who will challenge me and whom I can challenge, in the context of love and trust. I want people in my life whom I have to work to understand, because my life is richer when I do. And sometimes, I want narratives that will reflect the grief of friendships that are no longer part of my life, despite the best efforts of everyone involved.

In Merrily, Charley sings, "Friendship's something you don't really lose—" but Radcliffe's thready, pleading delivery makes it all too clear: Charley already knows he's lying. The audience just needs to catch up.

*Other essays in that particular graveyard: understanding the cast of Peanuts through the lens of anomie, humor and subversive linguistic nationalism in 00s Singaporean TV, how to fix Miss Saigon. WHY am I this way.