in reference to your "if you like tom taylor's writing you're white" post, could you possibly elaborate? i don't want this to sound rude so i'm a little nervous about sending but!! i like his writing, i am also white, and i would like to know any issues in his writing that i can look out for so i can enjoy it critically. i realize i'm not entitled to an answer, but if you feel like it then i would appreciate it greatly!
Of course darling.
Now, I was just going to talk about some dumb plotlines if this ever came up (like the telenovela shit and the fact that he uses cameos from beloved stories to make up for the fact that very little of his plotlines are original) but I didn't expect such a genuine answer and I have some free time... so I guess I'm doing doing a breakdown of all of the bullshit in his writing.
For the record: I'm not going to speak on how he handles disabled people. It's neither on topic nor my place. Several people have done this well here, here, and here if this interests you.
There are two main reasons why (tw for a bunch of stuff, don't read if you're sensitive):
How he treats race
I bring to the stand: "the romani smile incident".
Listen, I feel like this one was good-intentioned. Maybe. Probably. However, it's just so fucking weird from every angle I try and look at it from.
Telling someone they have a "(insert race here) smile" is already just... a very strange way to do representation. If you want to call back to/confirm his Romani heritage, which I would be all for, do it in a way that makes sense. Please. Literally anyone that thought about it for longer than half a second stopped and went "sorry, what the fuck".
I saw some people theorizing that he probably thought that, since there's such thing as a "white person smile", there had to be something like that for other races. And I hope that's the case.
It's funny... and also way better than the alternative.
Because there is a phrase like that for Romani people: "they had a (g-slur) smile". It generally means all of the things that are stereotyped about that culture. Mischievous, free-spirited, mysterious, etc. Changing it so the slur isn't used doesn't change the connotation and continues the perpetuation of stereotypes.
And then there's the entirety of this picture:
I don't even know where to start with this one, honestly.
Damian has been whitewashed to hell and back.
Duke isn't even there. He is considered part of the core batfam nowadays, so it's very strange that he hasn't been included. Especially since he's the only black character. Tom defended himself by saying that Duke hasn't appeared in a Nightwing comic in quite some time, but he has control over who is in the comics. He is the writer. And, since Cass is in the background of one of the pictures, the whole "there wasn't enough room!" doesn't really work.
And, speaking of that, Cass is in the background? The people of color are just not winning today. She's even in the background of Steph's picture, which makes it worse. Steph isn't even a part of the batfam, she can't be for the sake of Timsteph fans, she's just a family friend. Why did the family friend get to be in the front of the frame? Why is Cass, an Asian woman, considered a literal background character?
... anyways.
Then there's the zionism
This was 2013, so I genuinely would give the benefit of the doubt here... but Tom Taylor recently defended his past self by saying that "it's fiction, that doesn't mean I agree that he should have forced them to sign a peace treaty!", which means he still doesn't understand what is wrong with implying that the war in the middle east isn't a group of people trying to fight back against their oppressors.
2. Performative activism
The reason I have this second, despite feeling like it's the stronger argument, is because performative activism isn't strictly a White Person Thing... but, also, yes it is. So, let's get into his politics.
The treatment of homeless people: It's strange to see Dick Grayson suddenly "discover" homeless people in the most recent Nightwing comics, especially since he was homeless for a while in a previous run. I brushed past this, originally, though, because I figured he just wanted to address the recent talking point about how Bruce Wayne (and, by extension, his kids) should be using his money to help people in need rather than beat up the poor and I wanted to see what he did with it. I no longer let it go, because Tom Taylor has nothing to say. Homelessness bad. Yeah? You gonna address it at all, buddy? Some solutions? Some explanations for why homelessness exists? No? "Donate to the homeless" is all you're gonna say? Alright. Thank you for all your wisdom and new ideas, I guess.
The whole 'school gun violence' plotline with Jon was whack. It honestly deserves its own post, but I refuse to spend even more time thinking about it. Instead I'm just gonna sum up the villain's motivation and leave it there: the villain... wants school shootings to stop and therefore tries to draw attention to them... by shooting up a school.
Jon Kent... honestly, his whole thing at the moment is very white-savior-y, which is already annoying in itself, but that's not the real point here. His whole thing is saving the planet in the environmental sense, but Tom Taylor loves "good billionaires". He made Nightwing a billionaire. For some reason, I don't have much faith in his understanding of the global climate crisis.
Basically, if I see one more person call Tom Taylor a leftist I will scream. I am a leftist, he's an annoying liberal. We are not the same.
More seriously, the reason that I think performative activism is almost strictly White Person Thing, though, is because most people of color think more about what's going on and have more to say. Not because we want to know a lot about things like this, but because we have to. Systemic issues are our problems to deal with and white people's problem to sometimes talk about when they want some "good person points". And yet they never seem to do anything more than point at an issue and say it's an issue. It's a privileged position to be in.
And, we're done. If you want more information, try going through the 'anti tom taylor' tag. I'm lazy and don't have enough time to do any more before class. Byeeeee.
110 notes
·
View notes
Concept: the justice league finds out that Blaze and Satanus, the rulers of hell, are kids of their ‘even more of a boy scout than Superman’ coworker’s “boss” and think Shazam is the Christian God. They ask Billy really vague questions that lead Billy into confusing them even more and they become convinced that Marvel’s Wizard guy is God with a capital G and Marvel’s either an angel or the second coming of Jesus.
Meanwhile Shazam doesn’t even know what the Bible is and his knowledge about religion is so outdated he still thinks Solomon’s Judaism is new age and not worth his time to research such a ‘fad’ religion, but he knows humans will make a religion out of anything as well as bastardize existing ones and very well could have mixed up actual tales that involve him, his allies, and his children into some sort of melting pot of a religion.
So when someone finally asks Marvel outright if his “boss” is God, Billy goes ‘wait… old guy in white robes and sandals, with long white hair and a beard… lives in space… aka the “heavens”, whose a ghost(Holy Spirit), and knows everything(historama)??? I need to dig deeper into this hold on guys’ and goes off to ask the wizard.
So when Billy asks the Wizard he just tells Billy “well, my boy, if so many things match up, maybe it is so and the tales of myself and my champions grew so estranged from their origins or mixed in with other beliefs that it can explain the things that aren’t true to our reality.”
Then The Canonical Character To The DC Universe, Jesus of Nazareth, shows up.
201 notes
·
View notes
Idk if this is a hot take but why is it always “Kai slaved away and worked his ass off to raise his sister” and never the other way round or them working hard together?
Like, I know he’s older but in the show, does he really… act older? Like if you think about Kai and Nya’s dynamic yknow? Because from my understanding:
When Kai and Nya are introduced we see Kai fail at making a sword and Nya being the one to chide him for it. Kai makes an overconfident statement about wanting to be a better blacksmith than his father. This suggests that one, Kai is rather rash as well as inexperienced (something that lines up with the rest of his character arc in the pots and also generally), with Nya being the more mature figure in contrast
Also just a note but in the shorts: “I can handle it!” “No you can’t, stupid”
Kai frequently being very good at neglecting people or things: leaving Lloyd at an arcade whilst being focused on finding samurai x, not even knowing samurai x was Nya or that she only did it because she felt left out by him, completely abandoning both Nya and Lloyd in s3 (and Ik he was going through it at the time, but in line with the fandom’s characterisation of him)
Kai in season 5: “After I lost my dad, I lost my way. But I was lucky to have my sister watch over me”
Generally, their dynamic isn’t one where Kai really provides for Nya at all. In fact, judging by the fact that Nya can make entire mechs and Kai struggled to make a sword, Nya was probably busting her ass to provide for Kai. And judging by the s5 quote, that’s probably true. I’m not saying Nya raised Kai, it just rubs me the wrong way when she’s treated like a decorative flourish to a narrative that paints Kai as a burnt out child who was forced to grow up too soon especially since that is such a mischaracterisation of him in the first place.
175 notes
·
View notes
There’s this pretty big disparity I’ve noticed between how nolan (omniman) is interpreted in mainstream stuff vs his like actual character in both show/comic
Fanon nolan interpretation:
-doesn’t feel remorse or empathy
-oh he’s soooo cool he’s so swag and smooth talking
-genuinely doesn’t care for his son esp not his wife
-never cared for the guardians
-you don’t get it he’s actually right guys!! Genocide good!
-this also ties in with just reducing mark to the “guy who gets beat up nonstop” and debbie to “the pet”
-they definitely think this version of nolan abides by human bigotry shit like sexism
Canon nolan (according to show and comic):
-oblivious to A LOT of social cues and overall very socially inept (very blunt and dry tone of voice so he always sounds kinda mad even if he isn’t)
-actually cares about his family and friends but has trouble expressing it verbally, more show than tell
-cared ab the guardians and they were his friends but he repressed the hell out of what he did bc of guilt (and he’s dumb)
-says things like “curses” and “moon it up”
-monologues a bunch like holy shit
-very physically affectionate with the people he’s v close too (he also smiles guys!)
-makes jokes without trying (kinda hard to catch bc of the deadpan tone at times)
-would realistically be confused by earth’s own forms of bigotry and shit
-bookworm and wrote and documented things even before becoming a writer on earth!
-feels extreme remorse and guilt for his past actions but again has trouble showing it
88 notes
·
View notes
I don't know how I'd ever convey this in art but. Thinking very deeply about how in boy king au, a very crucial part of characterization is that Seb is a wolf in sheep(or lamb more specifically)'s clothing and Fernando is a sheep in wolf's clothing.
Seb is very unassuming, very delicate, seemingly very vulnerable and malleable. But, deep down, he can be very ruthless. It's in the the way he hesitantly declares war, with a spark in his eye and a suppressed smirk. In the way he challenges someone to a card game or a horse race, proclaiming that he's not great, but winning every round and prancing around the room and mentioning it ad infinitum. The way he's able to instantly turn the tide in a debate in one fell swoop. By showing all his cards constantly and letting himself be vulnerable, he's making himself invulnerable. No one would ever consider him to be able to make big moves, so he wins every single time, because no one even thinks to expect it from him.
Fernando on the other hand, is constantly committed to having a looming presence and harsh reputation, but deep down, he's soft. He knows what happens to people when they're vulnerable, and he's not going to let himself be taken advantage of. The way he keeps a brave face when being informed of the marriage proposal, but goes back to his room and cries. The way he proclaims that he was always going to be the rightful ruler of Spain, but confides to Flavio that he never thought there was any real chance of it ever happening. The way he takes himself so seriously in public, but inside feels so giddy whenever he can make someone laugh. Everything to him always feels unstable and ready to crumble at any moment, and he's not willing to contribute to that by letting himself relax.
I think thats why it's very difficult for them to get along at first, because they have completely different approaches to how they carry themselves and make their way through life. Seb is confused at Fernando because he feels that he's very bland and overly serious at first, but truthfully he's not really seeing the actual Fernando. And Fernando finds Seb to be naive and easily taken advantage of, but that's because he's never seen Seb at his most cruel. Seb really loves when he eventually gets to see Fernando being vulnerable, and Fernando really admires and respects Seb when he sees him being serious. I think it just takes a while for them to show the other their full and complete selves, even the parts they can sometimes be ashamed of. There's this very compelling dichotomy in Seb laying out all his cards, but still being very difficult to read, and Fernando keeping his cards to his chest, but his intentions often being easily seen through.
25 notes
·
View notes