#harmful) but some certain design tropes do exist for a reason

[caffeineandsociety]

The thing about the transmasc hatred discourse and what to call it is that it's kinda made me realize -

Systemic misandry doesn't exist. Systemic androphobia does, as a patriarchal tool of control.

Missing White Woman Syndrome is androphobia - the idea that ~strange men~ are always out to get you.

Many antiblack racist tropes take the form of androphobia - the idea that Black men are Too Manly To Be Real Men, "primitive", "animalistic", having all the qualities we value in white men but Too Much To Control; meanwhile Black women aren't REAL women, they're Too Manly, we must interrogate them at every turn to prove they're Really Women, they're Too Big And Scary, and that's DANGEROUS.

Much of transmisogyny is bioessentialist androphobia - a MAN in the wrong place is a THREAT, there MUST be an ulterior motive; there's NO reason for someone designated as a MAN to want to play sports with women, that's OBVIOUSLY just cheating because MEN are always BIG and STRONG and SCARY, and there's NO reason for someone designated as a MAN to want to use a women's restrooms that isn't SEXUAL ABUSE because that's what MEN do-

In fact, "men just CAN'T help themselves" is an androphobic claim - one which has origins in certain shitty men trying to defend their own refusal to take "no" for an answer.

Of course, we don't tend to recognize androphobia for what it is, because for the most privileged men, it takes the form of unearned respect (or at least it appears to) -

But the moment a man is Black, or fat, or bald, or disabled in certain ways, or gay, or not actually a man, or any number of other things, that respect turns into the kind of fear that results in the cops being called on some guy who's just asking for help, that gets Black men killed for just minding their own business in the wrong place, that gets queer people labeled as groomers for just existing - sometimes even just being alt is enough to get people speculating that a random guy is "probably a future mass shooter"!

It's unique among constructs like this because it's made to benefit the people it misrepresents, and it does have a positive flip side for some - it lets men excuse their worst impulses and tendencies and demand that unearned respect - but this doesn't make it any less of a distortion, nor does it make the harm done to the men who don't win the full-privilege lottery any less real.

It's all white supremacist bullshit and it's all bad.

[ducktracy]

Do you happen to have any character design tips or tricks? I have a folder full of model sheets and scans from funny animal comics and cartoons that I look at for inspiration, but I fear that might be making my designs too derivative. I'm starting to think there might be only so many ways to draw a toon wolf haha.

WELL… your method is the exact same as mine LMAO. so the first thing i’d say is don’t worry about being too derivative or not derivative enough! it’s GREAT to be conscious about the decisions in your designs, and very important too! but it can get stifling if it’s all you focus on. be derivative—you have time to change things later if you’d like!

i’m like you, i hoard anything i take inspiration in (and sometimes don’t look at it ever again because i get so caught up in the hoarding over applying HAHA), and that’s a great start. your mind is a bank—the more you store, the more you have to use from. expand from your horizons and search in corners you may not think to look, because you may find something you want to incorporate!

it’s no secret i don’t draw much original art, which is something i aim to fix this year. it’s not on purpose, i just have so much that i want to draw and not enough time to do it that i try to prioritize what i want to see the most, and my own characters aren’t the highest on that list

(but it’s growing… the reason i’ve been relatively quiet on here outside of work is because i reset my Animal Crossing island and plan to put my characters in it so i have motivation to keep the island HAHA so i’ve been preoccupied with that. Bluebear says hi)

IN ANY CASE, i think the importance of shape language does get a little too much exposure; i don’t like sticking to the formula of men are stocky strong squares women are futile hourglass figures etc etc etc, i strongly encourage breaking those old stereotypes and drawing the way you want, BUT with my own designs i do like to incorporate the importance of shapes.

to self advertise i’ll use my character Tyson as an example since she came from Me Own Brain and has been with me for awhile. below is Ye Old Evolution, from 2016-2021:

almost all of these designs are VERY derivative in some form, and her current design is purposefully derivative! the second and third were heavily inspired by Camp Lazlo, Ren and Stimpy, SpongeBob, and Chowder, and it shows (i just straight up stole Chowder’s nose and Ren’s eye colors)—the fourth was post-LT, where my own style was coming into play. slightly more constructed and less stylized/flat

the last two are purposefully “generic”, so to speak—i referenced drawings by Otto Messmer and Jim Tyer and tried to incorporate what i liked about them in her design. i aim to make a webcomic with her and the rest of the characters, and my goal is to make it look as close to an actual comic book from 70-80 years ago as much as i can.

as a result, i borrowed a lot of design clues; i simplified her leopard spots to be generic, opaque circles, matching with the “funny animal” style of leopards, but also to make people instantly say “okay, that’s a leopard”. same with the cat ears—she looks much more like a kitten than a leopard, which is also slightly intentional. i felt the triangular ears also gave her a bit more energy as opposed to the soft, circular ears—diagonal angles convey energy and movement, but i rounded them out to still make her seem young and “soft”.

Tyson’s current design is very purposeful. leopards are quiet, elusive, good at blending in with their surroundings. i wanted Tyson to be the total opposite—she’s a brash, hyperactive overly optimistic kid who has a big heart but loves to get into trouble. she tries to make friends with everyone she meets and is undoubtedly annoying. so, to reflect her antithetical nature, i made her bright red, social, and loud, purposefully contradicting everything leopards are not. she’s the odd one out and isn’t ashamed of it for a second.

i made her uniform baggy and dirty to make her seem a little naïve, inexperienced, out of place while unafraid of getting down and dirty. she’s the only character on the team without shoes to make her seem more “wild”. it’s hard to see with the raised cheeks, but (for now) i have her eyes slightly angled off, with round tops but a flat, squared off bottom, like a tall half circle shape. i feel it gives her more rigidity and energy, and taps into certain design trends of yesteryear

THIS IS SO LONG AND I AM SO SORRY. here i am dumping about my characters when it’s the last thing you asked. the truth is—i’m not exactly sure! because you’re method is mine as well. but taking inspiration and keeping a vast reference of things you enjoy will help you wonderfully, and you can always change your designs however you see fit. while i think shapes shouldn’t purely dictate the personality of the characters (seeing as it can lead to certain tropes or stereotypes), i do like to do it in little doses as an “easter egg” of sorts. i don’t expect people to point out everything i just said when i show my designs, but it’s something i CAN mention when discussing them, and it’s certainly something i will mention when introducing my other characters.

in my case, having an end goal certainly helped—i purposefully want to mimic the look of funny animal comics and draw inspiration from them constantly, so that’s an easier situation for me when i’m purposefully trying to be derivative, but i also try to make them my own. take it from me personally—your style will develop naturally. you ask yourself how and how and how and why and it’s not developing and this is stupid the internet lies to me, and all of a sudden you have a style. you can change it anytime you like. sticking to one style of drawing is very limiting and suffocating. but it WILL happen and you will find a method that works for you.

if at all possible, try to enjoy the process more than focusing on if you’re doing something right or wrong! the more you draw and more you surround yourself in things that inspire you, the clearer things will be.

[thedeadflag]

I’m so confused! I know it’s not your responsibility to educate me but in your post bringing awareness to the negative aspects of g!p fanfic you say

“Why do these g!p characters rarely if ever involve experiences reflective of trans/intersex women? Why are they so utterly cis and perisex-washed? Why do nearly all writers have zero idea that tucking is a thing? “

Doesn’t that answer your original question? The reason they don’t reflect those groups of ppl is bc g!p isn’t trying to represent those groups of people or else it WOULD be transphobic to limit them to one specific fetish right? it just refers to a canonically female character with the addition of a penis (I don’t argue the name “g!p” should be changed bc that’s a no brainer why that could be offensive). But the fanfic in general, how could it be harmful? I’ve noticed in my time reading it as a non binary person it’s given me great gender euphoria reading a reader insert where reader has a penis while being a femme representing person just bc that’s a reflection of my personal experience. I don’t see anywhere where g!p fanfic ever references or tries to emulate the experiences of trans or intersex people so how could it be offensive?

Sorry this is way too long I’m just very confused

I'm going to try and lay this out as politely as I can. It's after 3:30 in the morning here, so this could be a bit disjointed and rambling. More under the cut:

In real life, ~99.999999% of women with penises are trans women. Which puts us in a tricky situation of (A) being the only women with penises around for media involving women with penises to reflect back on, and (B) being in the lovely position of precious few people actually having had meaningful real life exposure to trans women, meaning (C.) all those stigmas and all that misinformation are going to purely affect us and it’s going to be uncritically gobbled up by the masses, since they don’t have any meaningful information to fill in the blanks with instead.

When we peer into the depths of femslash fandoms and see all these folks who aren't trans women writing about women with penises, and using cis women’s bodies as platforms for these penises, it’s the simplest thing.

I mean, some of those folks might actually be struggling and confused about why they’re into it, what the real appeal is, why they get off on it, why they might have some feelings about wanting a penis of their own…

…but from our vantage point, it’s really easy to gauge 99.99% of the time. We can generally see valid, legitimate yearning to have a penis pretty damn easily in a piece of art/writing, and we can also see when people who create this media are just hung up on a boatload of baggage and fetishization.

And 99.9% of the time, the creators are just hung up on a boatload of baggage and fetishization, and see trans women’s bodies as a perfect vehicle to tap into that, generally due to deeply held cissexist views that link us and our bodies and genitals directly to cis men, to maleness. As if penises are rooted in maleness and masculinity (which is absolutely not true).

And I have sympathy for NB folks (certainly TME ones who have reached out to me in the past about this) who might be struggling with that, but just because they’re non-binary, it doesn’t mean they get to appropriate our bodies and reproduce transmisogyny and trans fetishization in their attempts at feeling better. Shit doesn't work like that.

Because again, the only women with penises in this world, essentially, are trans women. Meaning any woman with a penis in media is a trans woman, implicitly or explicitly. Meaning that when people who aren’t us want to write us, intent doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter if it’s just the writer’s fantasy, it’s still going to attach a variety of messages directly onto us.

And more often than not, due to cissexism, those messages are linking us to maleness, to toxic masculinity, etc..

While I do want to believe they're a fairly small minority, a lot of NB folks in fandom spaces like g!p characters in part because they see penises as male and the rest of the body as female and think that duality is interesting and would be comfortable, and is a nice balance of “both worlds” or a nice position “between male and female”, but that’s a wholly cissexist, transmisogynistic view to have, and it’s one that absolutely cannot be supported without directing sexual violence against trans women and invalidating our entire existence. Certainly not all NB folks into g!p like it for that reason, but holy shit a fair bit of them do and it’s weird and wrong and fetishistic.

g!p emerged from the idea that women can't have penises, and drew on the transmisogyny and cissexism of tr*nny porn to structure that frame of desire and the core patterns and trends within these works. It's always been trans women's bodies being used as a vehicle, whether or not the writers of these fics are explicitly aware of it, because the trope itself still holds true to its original patterns and cissexism. It's not the name that's the problem, it's the content; changing the name would be a surface level change that wouldn't affect anything.

g!p objectifies women with penises (trans women). A woman with a penis is more than just a woman with a penis, but the use of the term and trope is literally to (A) remind people that women don't have penises, otherwise the g!p term wouldn't be needed if people actually accepted women with penises as women, and that (B) this is a story centered on a scenario where there's a woman with a penis, with key focus on that genitalia specifically. it's the drawing point, it's the lure, it's what everything is centered on. It is a means for folks to write lesbian sex while also writing about penis in vagina and getting off to it. It's also no surprise that the penises so clearly emulate cis men's penises in these works, that is by design.

As I’ve said many times before, if you’re only writing trans women’s bodies to showcase cis men’s penises, you’re not respecting the womanhood of trans women, and this ultimately has nothing inherent to do with penis-owning women, it has to do with (cis) men and their penises, because trans women are just being used as a vehicle to emulate them. When NB folks do the same thing, and imagining themselves as those g!p characters, they are ultimately embodying cis men, their maleness, and often toxic masculinity, in a way that feels safe and distanced enough for them, a shell that they often code as cisnormative due to their own unprocessed cissexism.

And trans women don’t deserve that.

You seem caught in the idea that if something doesn't directly perfectly reflect trans women, that it can't be linked to us., which ignores the long long history of media being used to misrepresent marginalized peoples and cast us in insulting, dehumanizing lights. You show a lack of understanding of the g!p trope and the long history of its usage across a few other names, even if the content and patterns remained the same. It shows a lack of understanding of tr*nny porn and transmisogynistic stigmas, which the trope draws heavily from.

I think we can all recognize that most 'lesbian' prn that's made does not represent actual lesbians, it's overwhelmingly catered to the male gaze. We can also recognize that this category of porn has led to a lot of harassment towards lesbians from cis men who at the very least want to believe lesbians are just like they are in the porn he watches, that lesbians just need the right man. Lesbians are being used as a vehicle for a fantasy that was created externally to them, and doesn't represent their realities.

It's the same kind of situation here. The way g!p fics play out overwhelmingly doesn't reflect trans women's realities, but they are inherently linked to us regardless, as we're the vehicles for those fantasies, as unrealistic and harmful as they may be.

g!p characters are built in our fetishized image that’s based on a deeply cissexist misunderstanding of us, of the gender binary, and of bodies in general.

I mean, when 99% of cis folks don’t understand how trans women tend to be sexually intimate… when they don’t understand what dysphoria is and how it works and how it can affect us physically and emotionally…when they don’t understand almost any of our lived experiences…then they’re not going to be able to accurately portray us even if they wanted to.

And I’ve read enough g!p fics where authors wrote those as a means of trying to add trans rep, but because they didn’t understand us at all, it wasn’t remotely representative, and it was ultimately fetishistic, even if there was an undercurrent of sympathy and a lack of following certain common g!p patterns there that differentiated it from the norm.

If g!p fics were at all about reducing dysphoria or finding euphoria, then it wouldn’t be explicitly tied up in the performance of very specific sex acts, very specific forms of misogyny and toxic masculinity, very specific forms of sexual violence and exertion of sexual power, etc.

But it is.

So the notion that creating g!p fics helps NB folks? Nope. It CAN certainly prevent/delay those folks from facing a whole boatload of shit they’ve internalized, and coddle them at the expense of trans women.

Because if it was really about bodies and dysphoria/euphoria, there would be a considerable push (allying with out own) to end our fetishization and to represent us in and out of sexual contexts with accuracy, respect, and care. Because they wouldn’t care what sex acts were performed and what smut beats were hit, they’d just want to see someone with a body like their ideal being loved, being sexual, connecting, being authentic, etc. Which very much is not the case in the overwhelming majority of g!p fics. That's what we want, and it's not what g!p writers want, it's nothing they give a shit about.

Like, a ways back I started doing random pulls of g!p fics from various fandoms and assessing them for certain elements to provide some quantitative clarity. I started on The 100 here, and did OuaT here. Never finished the 100 one since the results leveled out and stayed pretty consistent as the sample size grew, so I didn't really see the point in continuing any further after about 140 fics when the data wasn't really changing much at all.

Lastly, media influences people. I've read countless posts and comments from people who use fanfiction as a sex ed guide, in essence. Which is ridiculous, but I also know sex ed curricula often isn't very accurate or extensive in a lot of areas, so people take what they can get. Representation in media can be powerful, and when it overwhelmingly misrepresents people, that's also powerful. Just because fandom is a bit smaller than televised media, it doesn't make that impact any lesser, certainly not for those whose primary media intake is within fandom.

Virtually all trans representation in f/f fanfiction is misrepresentative of us. That has a cost in how people understand us, how people react to us, and how people treat us. Not just online, but in physical spaces, and in intimate settings.

I invite you to read that post you referenced again, or perhaps this longer one which is a response to a trans guy who seemed to feel something similar to you with this trope.

All I can do is lay it out there and try to explain this. It's up to you how you handle this. All I know is whenever there's a big surge in g!p in a fandom, trans women generally leave it en masse, because it's a very clear and consistent message that we're not valued, respected, and that people value getting off on us over finding community with us.

[savrenim]

i am running thru ur tumblr to find ONE POST to cite for tvtropes, and i agree so hard with the soulmate stuff. what if my soulmate is an awful abuser, i want the choice to NOT be with them without some painful physical consequence or loss of perception if i don't date them just because the universe said we were "meant to be"... plus if it's just a magic thing it "feels" more justified in-universe that soulmates exist and less like an ass pull so you could justify getting 2 characters together

oH gods this is something that I have SO many feelings about that probably is slightly informed by my own orientation and preferences, but. feelings. this got long so it's going under the cut

so there are three and a half major things that I have a problem with in terms of general soulmate tropes that are "there is one person who is your perfect romantic partner" (which to be fair I've seen a number of soulmate AUs do that trope with the addendum "although it only applies to a certain percentage of the population / not everyone has soulmates / everyone has soulmates but not everyone has SUPER PERFECT ROMANTIC soulmates" which at least somewhat avoids the statistic inevitability of abusive soulmates if combined with Fate Can See The Future And So Your Fated Soulmate Just Won't Be) and these complaints aren't even from the "I'm poly where's my poly rep" kind of place which is a whole 'nother bag of worms, but let's go:

1. I aggressively believe that love is a choice. Love is something that is built, not predetermined before you meet someone. There might be initial compatibility aspects going down when you first meet someone, but, like. statistically there are more than seven and a half billion people on this planet. If there is only a single person perfectly meant for you, again, statistically, you are not going to meet them, I've seen the figure thrown that on average a person will meet on the order 10,000 people in their lifetime but let's even go 100,000, you will meet 0.001% of the world's population. Unless you think some sort of divine coincidence or fate is guiding you to a soulmate which throws free will out the window and then I can't help you but, like. discarding the math, I think it is actively harmful to a relationship to believe that it can be sustained on chemistry or predetermined 'but we're perfect for each other' alone. It requires work. You choose who is in your life, you choose who stays in your life, you choose who you want to be important to you based on what they contribute to your life and what you contribute to theirs.

(I am assuming this ask is at least partially in reaction to my soulmate post, which actually the fic in question, a buried and a burning flame, has since gone up. I highly recommend reading Hands of the Emperor by Victoria Goddard first, but besides the setup for arson wizards that alas is never used because the fire mage with a soulmate in question is Responsible, I decided to both tackle 'okay soulmarks trope too let's throw it in', which leads to the not-really-a-spoiler passage that appears fairly early on about actually the full layout (albeit with less detail on the 'yeah for mages it just helps ground their magic, nothing romantic about it' part) of my Soulmate Rules:

Soulmates existed, both in the Empire of Astandalas and across the Wide Seas. They just worked slightly differently in Vangavaye-ve than the rest of the worlds.

The rest of the Empire seemed to view soulmates as a monolith. From what Cliopher had been able to glean, the tradition was grounded in their magic. Magi had soulmates, or rather, magic-workers would each have a soulmate. Cliopher wasn't clear if all magic-workers had a soulmate, or if magic-workers simply could have one, but there was always a mage in soulmate pairs, and it was always a pair. There were no marks, no visible signs involved, as soulmates were something that were sensed with magic. They were permanent, intrinsic, and to be recognized immediately.

To Wide Sea Islanders, soulmates were a choice.

The soul-marks, lana and lani-voa, would appear the first time you touched someone that you had chosen to love, with the full knowledge that you loved them. Cliopher had the marks of his mother and father, his sisters, Basil and Dimiter, Bertie and Ghilly. His skin was covered lovingly with the colors of his love, marks that he had gotten used to concealing with long sleeves in Astandalas when he had gotten tired of the constant staring at his 'primitive tattoos'.

Buru Tovo had been the only one to give him lani-voa, a greater mark of the soul. The pattern, with its thick lines and twisting design in a deep blue, extended over the entirety of his left arm and shoulder. They were the dances of his family pressed onto his skin, and he had traced them over with reverent and feather-light touch for months after he had received them. A lani-voa marked someone who had changed your life for the better in a deep and irrevocable way. It was a great honor to have even one.

And now, with the gold stretching up his right arm, new patterns that he didn't recognize stretching up from a handprint of pure gold that was expanding the longer he held that first contact with Tor—

now he had two.

(Buru Tovo is Cliopher's great uncle, for context. In fact, everyone listed there is either a familial or platonic relationship, with a single relationship that used to be romantic but settled into platonic.))

so. yeah. Love is a choice! The Biggest Of Moods! any soulmate lore that undermines that is a Bad Message, in my opinion.

The emphasis also on platonic soulmates leads into my second point:

2. I have found in my life that platonic relationships that I have are and have always been as important if not moreso than the romantic relationships. the emphasis of a single romantic relationship as the most important relationship that you can be in maybe fits for some people, but as a generalization to absolutely everyone I think is toxic and harmful. and not just for aro people! I'm not aro, but I would be miserable to write off my friends as Less Important And Meaningful to me than my parter, whom I love with all my heart! (I've actually ended up in my life settling into what I call the red/blue/gold system for 'relationships that I treat with the importance that society treats romantic relationships', but that's a personal thing). The standard soulmate trope tends to really solidly deliver the thesis of "there is a single romantic relationship that is the single most important relationship in your life" and I just think that's a very bad thesis.

3. Finally, I think the emphasis on permanent/forever is a harmful one for relationships in general. People change. you drift closer to people or further away from them. you move, they move, your schedules change, your interests change, your life changes. if you are living with a romantic partner you're going to keep seeing each other every day, but that doesn't stop you from changing as a person, which means see Point 1 Love Is A Choice; but even if you choose to remain together, you are probably eventually going to Ship Of Theseus your entire relationship. I think it is an important message that if that happens and it is no longer a relationship that is as deeply positive as it once was in your life, you don't...have to keep it out of loyalty to what it once was.

It's okay for people to drift out of your life that were once the most important person in your life. It doesn't invalidate how important and meaningful that relationship used to be, and it isn't a betrayal to let yourself and them and your relationships change and evolve. The idea that something has to be forever for it to matter I think is the idea about soulmates that I disagree with the most. Probably because that was the hardest lesson for me to learn as a kid and a teenager, and the life lesson that I am proudest for learning.

3.5 your point 'plus if it's just a magic thing it "feels" more justified in-universe that soulmates exist' is exactly on the nose, literally I am unable to write anything without attempting to write down a universal theory of everything for How The World Works. if something soulmate-wise is going down even if it never appears on the page you bet your ass I have either figured out the general cosmology and theology of "are there gods or divine forces who have instituted this policy? if so, why? what purpose does it serve", or in the case of abaabf which already has such interesting magic rules in the original canon of "is there an evolutionary reason for soulmates to exist" which I don't go tracing out full evolutionary biology for a fic necessarily mostly because I would want the full evolutionary biology in canon to make sure mine is compliant enough but that sure as hell does translate to "if soulmates exist and it's not for the reason of Because Godlike Beings Said So, there better be a practical purpose". I find at least long-form soulmate fics (ie things With Plot and a Developed Setting that aren't just "let's do a ficlet with this well-known trope") that Do Not Feel Like They've At Least Thought About Why Soulmates Happen To Exist hurt my soul. which I think slightly intersects with my "I hate it when the rules of the universe/ laws of physics are human-centric" instead of "the base rules which were not designed for humans came first, and how the human world works arose in reaction to them" and. yeah. consistent desire to know at least for myself why things are set up the way that they're set up which gods ifmlam is wild and completely bullshit and pulls from quantum multiverse philosophy I started writing that thing when I was like. eighteen? nineteen? but at least it's there so I can be consistent.

as a caveat for everything above: I don't actually think that fiction, fanfiction in particular, needs to perfectly reflect what A Good Relationship or A Good Message About Relationships should be. it is a very human desire in a chaotic and confusing world to want a simple, absolute, binary thing to hold onto. fiction is a place for escapism or wish fulfillment or even exploring things that you wouldn't actually want in real life, I think that the movement in fandom/fiction that all of the messaging in your story should match the advice you'd give for a real-life setup is a bad and harmful one. mostly my opinions on soulmates and hence desire to do inversions of the soulmate trope in my fic and things like the red/blue/gold system and heavy emphasis on platonic relationships in original work that I'm writing is about a desire to see representation for me and the things I love and find important and my sort of relationships in the stories that are a big part of my life. but I am really glad that in doing so I seem to have struck a chord in other people, who maybe want to see the same thing!

[richincolor]

SomeThoughts about Netflix's Shadow & Bone

This past Friday, the highly anticipated Shadow and Bone series premiered on Netflix and fans of the Grishaverse all over the world logged in to watch their favs come to life. There was much discussion of the inclusion of numerous characters from throughout the Grishaverse and that diversity was a focus in the casting of the show, especially Jessie Mei Li who is biracial, therefore changing the main character’s ethnicity to biracial Shu Han. Unfortunately, that decision didn’t pay off to well due to the showrunner’s handling of Alina’s ethnicity. Twitter blew up as people shared their hurt and warned others about what to expect.

I had planned to watch the show and happened to see one such warning before I watched the series so I was prepared. I watched a couple of episodes, then called it a night. The next morning I was unsettled and reached out to my fellow contributors here on Rich in Color. No one had seen it yet, but Jessica said she was planning to as well. As we chatted, I felt that our conversation should be shared with our readers, so Jessica and I decided to write our thoughts down and have a conversation after she watched a few episodes herself.

Oh, and spoilers abound!

First off, before we dive into this conversation: Have you read the Grishaverse series? How much did you know about the story going in?

K. Imani: As everyone knows I love fantasy so I’m open to reading all sorts of fantasy books. I read the Shadow & Bone series a few years ago and enjoyed it. When the Six of Crows duology came out I read those too and actually enjoyed those better than the original series. Why - more diversity? It also expanded the world and the different perspectives of “Grisha” like folk from other cultures. It was very clear from the writing that Bardugo realized her first series was very lacking in diversity and worked hard to change it. I actually re-read both series during quarantine, so I had a fair idea of what the Netflix series would be about.

Jessica: I’ve actually never read a single Grishaverse book! I know, shocking. I only knew two things about the series going into the show: 1) Six of Crows is a heist book? 2) Ben Barnes is a person who exists.

The cast announcement for any show is always so exciting, and Shadow and Bone was no different. How did you feel about the casting -- before and after you watched the show? What did you think was done well, and what did you think could be improved?

K. Imani: Before watching the show I was actually a bit confused about some of the casting choices. I didn’t understand why 3 of the main Six of Crows characters were in the show and I honestly did not make the connection to Alina and Mal being biracial. Knowing that the Grishaverse is “Russian-based” and knowing that some ethnic Mongolians are considered Russian I just found it cool that the show cast a person who didn’t fit a Russian stereotype. Oh boy was I way off! Overall I was pleased with the casting and think all the actors did a great job. I liked the few changes they did make with casting actors of colors for other roles to round out the diversity of the world.

Bringing it back to Mal, I was confused as to if he was supposed to be coded as biracial. I missed the reference in the show, but I did read somewhere that he was supposed to be as well and that is what bonded him to Alina. If that’s the case, then how come Alina was the only person to experience racism? That thought continues to sit on my heart because it shows that the writers did not really think through how they wanted to express racism and included it for the wrong reasons.

Jessica: My reaction was basically, “I’m happy that other people seem happy!” since again, I had no context for the show. Casting on Netflix shows often seems to be a case of “cool, this is some exciting casting… but definitely could be better and even more intentional.”

K. Imani: “More intentional” That is the word right there! Making a story more diverse is wonderful and fully reflects the world we live in, however if you just randomly do it without thinking it through it comes off as insensitive. I know Leigh Bardugo used this show as an opportunity to make her story better (and I do not begrudge her of that fact) but when one doesn’t think it through, the criticism that is being expressed is a direct result.

Jessica: Sidenote -- I ended up watching a booktube video titled “Darker Jesper, Fat Nina, Shadow and Bone Casting Thoughts” on booktube channel Chronicles of Noria about the casting. Highly recommend checking it out. I also recommend this profile on Jessie Mei Li, who talks about being gender nonconforming.

Did any changes in the Netflix adaptation stick out to you? Were there changes you liked or disliked?

K. Imani: My favorite part of the adaptation is how well the show runners included the Six of Crows characters into the narrative. The storyline completely worked for me and connected the two stories together. I really enjoyed the Arken storyline (and the character tbh) as it was used to flesh out the world of the Grishaverse, which made the series much more interesting. I also liked the change of making Ivan and Fedyor a couple instead of just Darkling’s henchmen as it humanized them and actually made me like Ivan because they were so cute together. Though how that will come into play after the events of Episode 8 will be interesting. I’m a sucker for the Enemies to Lover trope so I loved that Nina’s & Matthia’s story of how they came together was included here. In either Six of Crows or Crooked Kingdom (I don’t remember), it was told as a flashback, but I loved that it was moved here as their “origin story”, so to speak, and how it connects to the events of the Alina timeline.

What I didn’t like...the casual racism. It really bothered me and left me sad the next morning. For example, a certain poster shown in the first episode had me physically cringe and I was upset that 1)  the production designers even created it and 2) no one, at no point, said that was a bad idea? Come on! It was horrible to see and I can imagine the hurt an AAPI would experience seeing that. And then, it got worse. Racial slurs thrown around a couple of times in the first couple of episodes to show that Alina is an outsider. They were jarring and took me out of the narrative. Having read the books I knew there was tension between the Ravkans and Shu Han, so I could understand what the show runners were trying to do, but it was actually never explained in show, hence making the racism feel random and just there for shock value.

Jessica: I saw tweets going around alluding to the racism Alina (and other characters to a less frequent extent) faced, so I braced myself for it. I’m only a few episodes in, and the instances so far were brief… but it just didn’t feel right. The foundation for this portrayal of racism wasn’t laid properly. And if the work of laying the foundation and really digging into what it means for the overall worldbuilding doesn’t happen… then why include it at all? Especially if it might be painful for certain viewers? I’m sure harm wasn’t the intent, but that’s the impact. Why not leave it out and let the show be escapism?

K. Imani: Jessica, the eyes comment took me out, not gonna lie. I audibly screamed. Anyone who has experienced a racist comment based on their looks felt that in their gut which is horrible when watching a show for escapism.

Jessica: Yeah, the eyes and rice-eater comments were especially frustrating. On top of it being a reminder of the racism Asians experience daily… it doesn’t make much sense. Like, canonically, do people in Ravka not eat rice? An American’s conception of racism isn’t necessarily going to make sense in a (Imperial Russia-inspired) fantasy world. But maybe I’m missing something since I didn’t read the original books.

And the eyes comment… whoof. When I was a kid, other kids would make fun of my eyes and ask me to, like, count seagulls because surely, I couldn’t see out of my eyes… And the other kids were also Asian! Internalized racism is so real. It’s disappointing that Shadow and Bone would include this experience as, I don’t know, discrimination flavor text. Surely there were better ways to portray discrimination that made sense within the Grishaverse…

Ellen Oh really said it so well: “If a writer is going to show racism against Asians, it's important to balance it with the beauty of all that makes us Asian also.” Where is the balance? Where is the nuance? Even if Alina’s Shu Han mother isn’t alive, couldn’t Alina have had a treasured Shu Han pendant? Just spitballing here. There were so many possibilities.

K. Imani: Exactly. I agree with Ellen and unfortunately there is no balance. That’s what makes it so hurtful. The focus is on how bad it is that she’s biracial and how bad the Shu Hans are for no specific reason. Because Alina is an orphan and grew up in Ravka, she unfortunately has no connection to Shu Han culture (or at least what is shown on screen) so all that she identifies as is Ravkan who just happens to look like a Shu Han person, but she doesn’t exhibit any pride in being Shu Han. Her ethnicity is just another obstacle to overcome which is all the more cringeworthy and why having Alina be biracial just to be biracial without thinking it through ended up being so problematic. Having her be biracial and using casual racism as an “obstacle” that she has to overcome is such a shallow interpretation of racism and shows the writers didn’t do the work to really think about the why the racism exists.

In addition to talking about what was done well and what went wrong or felt off about certain representation, it’s important to look at the “how.” How did this happen?

Jessica: I read on Twitter that one of the show writers is Korean and biracial -- which is awesome! I was really heartened to hear that. But at the same time, this highlights how important it is to have multiple marginalized voices in the room who can speak with some level of expertise. I don’t know the decision-making process that went into including this sort of surface-level, simplistic version of real world racism, but I wonder if anyone, at any point, said “is there a more nuanced and original way to portray this?” or “how will this affect Asian viewers?” Did someone bring it up, and they were overruled? What happened?

This absolutely isn’t a judgment on the Asian writers or staff on the show. When I’ve done collaborative writing, there were times I caught an issue and said “we need to be more sensitive about this” -- and there were other times when my teammates pointed out something I didn’t notice. It happens! That’s why it’s so important to have multiple marginalized perspectives when creating something -- especially when it’s a work as impactful and far-reaching as a Netflix show. Placing the burden of complex, nuanced representation on one, or a scant handful, of marginalized creators is just not going to work… and it’s not fair to the creators, either.

Frankly, this is a problem in so many industries -- film, publishing, games... there are so many “diverse” shows, games, etc with all-white or majority white teams. Good, nuanced representation can only happen when BIPOC / marginalized creators are the majority and have power behind-the-scenes. (This is why I’m really excited to watch the show Rutherford Falls -- half the writers room are Indigenous writers, as is the co-creator!)

K. Imani: Exactly! It’s great that one of the writers is biracial and Korean, but if she’s the only one how much input did she really have? I’m by no means knocking her experience but, say for example, that particular poster in the first episode. No one else behind the scenes found it problematic? There are many steps to a production process and that poster, if there had been more diverse voices present on the production staff instead of just 1 writer, would have been flagged as a huge problem and redone. The poster was supposed to be a “short cut” to show Ravkan/Shu Han tension but instead it came off as so profoundly racist and unnecessary. There are many other non-racist ways to explore the tensions between the two countries that could have been explored instead of just jumping to racism. And...as someone on Twitter pointed out, we never see the tension between the Ravkans and the Shu Han, but we openly see fighting between the Ravkans and the Fjierdans, so why were they not vilified to the same extent?

Jessica: Right. I’m definitely not saying racism can’t be portrayed in fantasy ever. But if you’re going to do it, make it make sense within the world. Don’t just use it as shorthand for “this character is Other.” I mean, experiencing racism isn’t what makes me Asian…

K. Imani: Boom! I’m going to repeat that for the people in the back...experiencing racism is not what makes a person Asian or Black, and if you are going to have racism in a work of art, be sure to provide balance to show all the other aspects of a person of color’s life.

Since we’re talking creators behind-the-scenes… which YA fantasy books by Asian authors do you think would make great Netflix shows or movies?

Jessica: I’ve got a list about a mile long, but I’ve cut it down to my top four:

These Violent Delights by Chloe Gong

Forest of a Thousand Lanterns by Julie C. Dao

The Tiger at Midnight by Swati Teerdhala

The Epic Crush of Genie Lo by F.C. Yee

You’re welcome, Netflix execs who are totally reading this blog. Hop to it!

K. Imani: I second the Tiger at Midnight series! I loved the first two books and can’t wait for the conclusion in June. While not YA, the City of Brass series would make an excellent Netflix series. Anything Maurene Goo writes would be fun rom-coms (because we need those too!).

Jessica: I mean, with To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before complete… Netflix clearly needs to start adapting Maurene Goo’s books.

K. Imani: Yes, the people demand it! I don’t care which book, just grab one of them and get the production started.

On a final note, I do want to say that despite the criticism the show rightly deserves, there was much about the show that was enjoyable. The storytelling was strong and moved at a good pace, the costuming was on point, special effects worked seamlessly into the narrative, and even small touches such as how the Grishas used their small science was visually interesting. Book adaptations are always hard to pull off well and the Shadow and Bone production team did a good job overall. Their intention towards adding more diversity is a step in the right direction, but just didn’t do enough. Let’s hope they learn from their mistakes and improve for season 2.

[vendettacanons]

5. What is a character you love, but don’t think you can write? 6. Name 3 things you love most about your muse/muses. 7. What is one overrated roleplay trend? 13. Is there one trope you can’t stand? 23. Your favorite fandom to write in?

⚔️ Meme for Roleplaying Muns // CLOSED ⚔️

5. What is a character you love, but don’t think you can write?

// Character I love but don't think I can write? There's quite a few. I considered picking up Venom, Sand Man, Doc Ock, and Spider-Man at some point. What stopped me is the fact that I'm like... not up to date on Marvel lore at all... Like, I've seen maybe 5 MCU movies in total, and I've never read the comics. The most knowledge I have comes from the Raimi original trilogy and the newer Venom movies, plus No Way Home. So I don't feel like I'd really do the characters justice when I'm so disconnected from the source material. That, and the fandom is something I want absolutely no beef with because I've heard they're vicious with portrayals. That being said, I have picked up a couple Marvel/DC muses before as selective testers, and I might pick these guys up just for the hell of it and write them with some canon divergence thrown in. I don't know yet.

6. Name 3 things you love most about your muse/muses.

// I love a lot of things about my muses honestly. It's hard to pick three things because I have so many but I'll try. I like muses like Vaas who have a lot of subtle lore/backstory that has a lot of references to it, but is still left just open-ended enough for us to speculate and come up with our own interpretations and conclusions. I love the Resident Evil muses just because the lore and the plot of the series appeals to my nerdy scientific fascination with things like viruses, medicine, and development of medical technology. Also mutants and apocalypse scenarios. I always find those fun to think about and design, even though they freak me out. I also really like writing with animal muses too - they feel so easy and freeing to write. Good for warmups and it's fun to consider things from a non-human perspective. I love stories like Watership Down or Wolfwalkers and fantasy stuff with animals.

7. What is one overrated roleplay trend?

// There's a couple I can think of. Overformatted text is the one that comes most to mind. I don't mean responses with bold or italics or with a couple spaces between words. I mean responses that import fonts that are barely legible and overly stylized. Teeny tiny fonts with non-existing kerning or leading between lines and a thousand spaces between each and every word. Or colored with text that makes it super hard to read even on the regular dashboard. I don't know if it's as common anymore, but that kind of styling just seems very counterintuitive. Why write things if nobody else can read what it says?

13. Is there one trope you can’t stand?

// Sudden forgiveness after something horrible has been done to someone. In certain scenarios, this trope does make sense. Like in unhealthy/toxic relationships where it's become a conditioned response, or after the perpetrator has already been made to pay for the harm they've done/had a legitimate redemption arc, or in certain scenarios where victim characters realize that forgiveness isn't about excusing the perp's actions but letting go of the hatred they feel so that they themselves can start distancing/recovering from the harm. That's all well and dandy assuming it's written in a respectful and tactful way. I'm talking about forgiving someone after they've done terrible things for absolutely no other reason than ✨friendship✨ or something like that. I don't know, that trope that "everyone deserves a second chance even if they've done nothing to warrant it" just grates on me for some reason...

23. Your favorite fandom to write in?

// My favorite fandom to write in thus far has been the Welcome to the Game/Reflect Studios fandom. Despite how small and niche and absolutely sporadic it tends to be with activity, everyone I've met and written with in it, however briefly, has been super friendly and cordial and the plots are always interesting. It was the original fandom I got into when I started roleplaying again and it continues to be one of the most fun and interesting in my opinion. I just wish it was a little more lively. ^ ^;

[phynali]

Canonization and Fandom Purity Culture

I wrote a 1k-word twitter thread (as proof that I am Not made for Twitter and it’s goddamn 240-character limit) and am pasting it here with edits and updates (it’s now 2k words). 

I have thoughts to share (which I know have been stated more eloquently before by others) about this trend of demanding/obsessing that certain ships become "canon" and how it overlaps with the rise of fandom purity culture.

Under the cut.

Here in 2021 there is a seemingly large and certainly loud and active contingent of online fandoms who desire (or even demand) "canon validation" for a given interpretation of a source material. This is more true with shipping than anywhere else.

First, it is important to note that the trend is not limited to queer ships or to any single fandom. In the past few years I've seen it for Riverdale, Voltron, Supernatural (perhaps most extreme?), The 100, etc., and less recent with the MCU, Sherlock, Teen Wolf, Hawaii 5-0, etc. It is a broad trend across ships, fandoms, and mediums.

So if it is more common for queer ships, it is hardly unique to them. Similarly, pretending that it is about queer representation is a clever misdirect to disguise the fact that it is most often about ships and shipping wars. If you ever need proof of that, consider that a character can be queer without being in a given relationship or reciprocating another character's affections. Thus a call for more/better queer rep itself is very different than a call for specific ships to be made canon.

Also note that when audiences frame it as wanting to recognize a specific *character* as queer, it is almost always in the context of a ship. Litmus test: would making that character queer but having them *explicitly reject* the other half of the ship be seen as a betrayal?

(Note: none or this is to say we shouldn't push for more queer rep and more *quality and well-written* queer rep! Just that that isn't what I'm talking about here, and not what seeking canon validation for a specific interpretation or a specific ship is almost ever about.)

Why does this matter?

the language of representation and social justice should not be co-opted to prop up ship wars

it is reciprocal with a trend toward increasing toxicity in transformative fandom spaces

Number 1 here is self-explanatory (I hope). Let's chat about 2.

Demands for canon validation correlate with a rise in fanpol / fandom purity culture. What is fandom purity culture (and fandom policing)? This toxic mentality is about justifying one's shipping preferences and aiming to be pure (non-problematic) in your fictional appetites regarding romance and sex.

Note that this purity culture is so named as it arises linearly from American Protestantism, conservative puritanical anxiety around thought crimes, and overlaps in many ways with terf ideologies and regressively anti-kink paradigms.

It goes like this: problematic content is "gross" and therefore morally reprehensible. Much like how queer sex/relationships get labelled as "gross" (Other) and thus morally sinful, or how kink gets labelled as "harmful" and thus morally wrong. The Problematic label is applied by fanpol to ships with offset age or power dynamics, complicated histories, and anything they choose to label as "harmful". As such, they would decry my comparison here to queerphobia itself as also being harmful, because their (completely fictional) targets are ~actually~ evil.

(The irony of this is completely lost on them).

This mode of interacting with creative works leaves no room to explore dark or erotic themes or dynamics which may exist in fiction but not healthily in reality. Gothic romance is verboten. Even breathe the word incest and you will be labelled a monster (nevermind Greek tragedy or GoT).

As with most puritanical bullshit, fanpol ideology only applies these beliefs to sex and never to violence/murder/etc, proving what lies at its core. It also demands its American-based values be applied to all fictional periods and places as the One True Moral Standard. It evangelizes – look no further than how these people try to recruit others to their cause, aim to elevate themselves as righteous, and try to persuade (‘save’) others from their degenerate ways of thinking. 

“See the light” they promise “here are our callouts and blog posts to convince you. Decry your past sins of problematic shipping, be baptized by our in-group adulation and welcome, and then go forth and send hate to others until they too see the light.” In many ways “get therapy” by the antis is akin to “I’ll pray for you” by the Christian-right (and ultimately ironic).

(Although it has been pointed out to me that these fans are likely not themselves specifically ex-evangelicals, but rather those who have brushed up with evangelical norms and modes of thinking without specifically being victims of it. In many ways they are more simply conservative Christian in temperament and attitude without necessarily being raised into religion by belief).

What this has to do with canon validation is that these fans look to canon for approval, for Truth. On the one hand, if it is in the canon then it must be good / pure or at least acceptable. The authority (canon) has deemed it thus. It is safe and acceptable to discuss and to enjoy watching or consuming. In this way, validation from canon means a measure of safety from being Bad and Problematic. 

For example, where a GoT fan could discuss Cersei/Jaime's (toxic, interesting) dynamic in depth as it related to the canon, fans who shipped Jon/Sansa (healthy, interesting) were Gross and Bad. The canon as Truth provided a safety net, a launch point. "It's GRRM, not me, who is problematic." It wasn’t okay to ship the problematic bad gross incest ship, but it being in the canon material meant it was open for discussion, for nuance, for “this adds an interesting layer to the story” which is denied to all non-canon ships labelled as problematic.

(Note: there are of course people who have zero interest in watching GoT for a whole slew of very valid reasons, including but not limited to the incest. That’s a different to this trend. A less charged example might be The Umbrella Academy, where a brother canonically is in love with his sister and antis still praise the show, but if you dare to ship any of the potential incest ships then you are the one who is disgusting).

On the other hand, a very interesting alternate (or additional) explanation for this phenomenon was raised to me on twitter. (These ideas aren’t mine originally, but I wholly endorse them as a big part of what is likely going on): Namely, as with authoritarian individuals in general, they see themselves as right and correct, but the canon (which has not yet validated their ship) is not correct, and is in fact problematic, and so they can save the canon from itself.

As mentioned, these fanpol types see their interpretation as Good and Pure. So if they can push (demand, bully) the canon into conforming to their worldview and validating their interpretation, then they have shown the (sinful) creators the light and led them to the righteous path. This only works if the canon allows itself to saved though, otherwise the creators remain Evil for spurning them.

How is this different from fans simply hoping for their ship to be canon?

For a second here, let’s rewind to the 90s (since Whedon has been in the news recently). This “I want it to be canon” thing isn’t 100% new, of course. We saw this trend then for the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but it was different then. At the time, fans who hoped for a ship to be canon might have been cheering for a problematic one to begin with (Buffy/Spike). So shipping was still present, minus vocal fanpol.

(And Buffy fans learned that canon validation...can leave a lot to be desired. A heavy lesson was learned about the ways that fan desires can play out horrifically in canon, and how some things are best left out of the hands of canon-writers).

These days, this is still largely true. Many fans hope for their ships to go canon, as they always have. There are tropes like “will they/won’t they” that TV shows may even be designed around, which a certain narrative anticipation and a very deliberate build up to that.

But while shipping *hopes* occur for many fans, almost all ships fans that *demand* to go canon and obsess over are now the ones deemed as Unproblematic, or as Less Problematic. I’m talking here about the ships that aren’t necessarily an explicit will/won’t they dynamic but do have some canon dynamic that leads them to being shipped, but which the creators aren’t necessarily deliberately teasing and building up a romantic end-game for.

These ships often have fans who are happy to stick to fandom, but there has also been a huge uptick in the portion of fans who are approaching shipping with an explicit lens of “will they go canon?” and “don’t you want them to be canon?” and now even “they have to go canon” and “the canon is wrong if they don’t make this ship canon”, to a final end-point of “if the ship doesn’t go canon, the source material is Wrong and Bad.”

These latter opinions are the one we see more by extreme fans (‘stans’), hardcore shippers, but especially by fanpol-types, the ones who embrace fandom purity culture at least to some extent.

Why them?

In pushing for canon validation, fanpol types seek to elevate their (pure) interpretation of canon. As mentioned above, it’s validation of their authority, a safety-net, and a way to save the canon from itself if only they can bully the canon into validating their right and good interpretation. 

There’s also another reason, which is that canon validation is a tool to bludgeon those seen as problematic. They can use it to denounce other (problematic) ships as Not Being Canon and therefore highlight their own as Right and Good, because it is represented in the True Meaning of the Work.

Canon validation then is a cudgel sought by virtuous crusaders to wield against their unclean enemies. It is an ideological pursuit. It is organised around identity and in groups sometimes as insular as cults.

How does this happen?

Fanpol tend to be younger or more vulnerable fans, susceptible to authoritarian manipulators. As many have highlighted before, authoritarian groups and exclusionary ideologies like terfs are very good at using websites like tumblr to mobilize others around their organizing beliefs. Fanpol tend to feel legitimate discomfort, but instead of taking responsibility for their media engagement, ringleaders stoke and help them direct their discomfort as anger onto others; “I feel ashamed and uncomfortable, and therefore you should be held accountable for my emotions.” Authoritarian communities endorse social dominance orientations, deference to ringleaders, and obedient faith to the principles those ringleaders endorse.

As these fans attach more and more of their identity to a given media (or ship), and derive more and more validation and more of their belongingness needs from this fanpol community, they also become more and more anxious about being excluding from this group. This is because such communities have rigid rules and very conditional bases for social acceptance. Question or "betray" the organizing ideology and be punished or excommunicated. If that is all you have, you are left with nothing. Being labelled problematic then is a social death.

What this means is that these fans cannot accept all interpretations of a media as equally valid: to do so Betrays the ideology. It promises exclusion. And, in line with a perspective around ‘saving’ canon and leading others into the light – forcing and bending the canon to their will is what will make it Good (and therefore acceptable to enjoy, and therefore proof of them as righteous by having saved others). As was also pointed out to me on twitter, endorsement from canon or its creators also satiates that deep need they have for authority figures to approve of them.

Due to all of this, these fans come to obsess over canon validation of their own interpretation. In a way, they have no other option but to do so. They need this validation -- as their weapon, as their authority, as their safety net, as their approval, as their evangelical mission of saviorship.

Canon validation is proof: I am Good. I am Right(eous). I am Safe.

(In many ways, I do ache for some of these people, so wrapped up in toxic communities and mindsets and so afraid to step out of line for fear of swift retribution, policing their own thoughts and art against the encroaching possibility that anything be less than pure. It’s not healthy, it’s never going to be healthy.)

In the end, people are going to write their own stories. You are well within your rights to critique those stories, to hate them, to interpret them how you will, but you can never control their story (it's theirs).

Some final notes:

This trend may be partially to do with queer ships now being *able* to go canon where before so no such expectation would exist. Similarly, social media has made this easier to vocalize. Still, who makes these demands and the underlying reasons are telling. There are also many legitimate critiques of censorship, queerbaiting (nebulous discussions to be had here), and homophobia in media to be had, and which may front specific ships in their critique. But critique is distinct from asking that canon validate one's own interpretation.

[good-omens-classic]

Hi Good Omens fans, ever since making this blog, and trawling through the archives for old art, I have been thinking again about trends from before the TV-show, and the way people draw Aziraphale and Crowley.  I wanted to make this post addressing it but this is not “discourse” or to start a fight, in fact I would be perfectly content if all I did was make people think critically about what I am about to say and not even interact with this post at all, but I feel like I need to say it.

Talking about any racist undertones to the way people draw our two favorite boys usually makes people dig their heels in pretty fast.  This is not a callout post for any artist in particular, this is not me trying to be overly critical of artists especially since they have more talent and skill than I do, and I’m going to address some common counterpoints that I frankly find unsatisfactory.  Let’s just take a moment to set aside our defensiveness and think objectively about these trends.  It took me a while to unlearn my dismissive attitude about these concerns so maybe I can help others get over that hurdle a little faster.  Now let’s begin.

I’ve been kicking around the Good Omens fandom since maybe 2015 and for art based in book canon, whether it was made before the TV show came out, or because the artist is consciously drawing different, original designs, I’m going to estimate that a decent 75% of all fanart looks like this

Aziraphale is white and blonde and blue-eyed while Crowley is the typical “racially ambiguous” brown skin tone it’s become so popular to draw podcast characters as nowadays.

And the question is why?  With the obvious answer being “it’s racist,” but let’s delve a little deeper than that.

A common thing I hear is that people get appearance headcanons fixed in their mind because the coverart of the book pictures the characters a certain way.  My first point is this only shifts the question to why the illustrators drew them that way, when there aren’t many physical descriptions in the book.  My second point is that while there definitely are cover arts that picture Aziraphale as cherubic, blonde, and white and Crowley as swarthy, dark-skinned, and racially ambiguous...

(side note: why is Crowley’s hand so tiny?  what the hell is going on in this cover?)

It’s much more common for the covers to simplified, stylized, and without any particular unambiguous skin tones

I don’t know about the UK but the most popular version in the United States is the dual black and white matching covers

And while you could make an argument that the shading on Crowley’s face could suggest a darker skintone, it seems obvious to me that lacking any color these are not supposed to suggest any particular race for either of these two, and the contrasting colors are a stylistic choice to emphasize how they are on opposite sides.  If anything, to me it suggests they are both white.

In short I simply do not buy the argument that people are drawing Aziraphale and Crowley this way because that’s how they were represented on the cover art of the book.  If you draw them the way they are on the cover then whatever, I don’t care, but I don’t believe that’s what’s driving this trend.

The second thing people will say is that Good Omens is a work of satire, and it’s based in Christian mythology which has this trend of depicting angels as white, and it is embodying the trope of a “white, cherubic angel” paired with a dark-skinned demon for the explicit purpose of subverting the trope of “white angel is good, dark demon is bad” since Aziraphale is not an unambiguous hero and Crowley is not a villain.  “It’s not actually like that because Crowley isn’t a bad demon, and Aziraphale isn’t actually a perfect angel” is the argument.  This has a certain logic to it and allows some nuance to the topic, but to this I say:

Uncritically reproducing a trope, even in the context of a satire novel, is not enough to subvert it.  Good Omens is not criticising the racist history of the church, and while the book does have some pointed jabs at white British culture (such as Madam Tracy conning gullible Brits with an unbelievably ignorant stereotype of a Native American) it is not being critical of the conception of angels as white and blonde or the literal demonization of non-white people.  That’s just not what the book is about.  So making the angel white and the demon dark-skinned, playing directly into harmful tropes and stereotypes, is not somehow subversive or counter-cultural when doing so doesn’t say anything about anything.

Please consider fully the ramifications of the conception of white and blonde people as innocent and cherubic and dark-skinned people as infernal and mischievous, especially in modern contexts...

Black people are more likely to be viewed as violent, angry, and dangerous.  Priming with a dark-skinned face makes people more likely to mistake a tool for a gun.  Black people are viewed as experiencing pain less intensely by medical professionals.  Black men are viewed as physically larger and more imposing than they actually are.  The subconscious racial bias favoring light skin is so ingrained it’s measurable by objective scientific studies, on top of the anecdotal evidence of things like news stories choosing flattering, “cherubic” pictures of white and blond criminals while using unflattering mugshots for non-white offenders.

This is why I say that if you’re going to invoke the “whites are angelic” trope, you better have a damn good subversion of it to justify it, because this idea causes real harm to real people in the real world.  And Aziraphale being a bit of a bastard despite being an angel, I just don’t see that as sufficient.  I am especially cautious of when it’s my fellow white fans that make this argument, not because I believe they do this out of any sort of malice or hatred of people with dark skin, but because I know first-hand it stems from a dismissiveness rooted in not wanting to think about it for too long because it makes us uncomfortable.  Non-white people do not have the luxury of not thinking about it, because it’s part of their life.

Now the strongest textual evidence people use, in the absence of much real descriptor, is this:

"Many people, meeting Aziraphale for the first time, formed three impressions: that he was English, that he was intelligent, and that he was gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide. Two of these were wrong; Heaven is not in England, whatever certain poets may have thought, and angels are sexless unless they really want to make an effort" 

This piece of art has circulated in the fandom for so long I don’t know the original artist and it’s been used for everything from fancovers to perfume.  This is where I found it and it’s one of the first things that come up when you google this quote about Aziraphale.  

Doesn’t it just feel like this is the man that’s describing, some blonde effeminate gay man?  Well guess what, there’s the “blonde as innocence” trope rearing its ugly head again, because the stereotype of gay men and effeminacy as being a white and blonde thing is--ding ding ding you guessed it--racism.  And why would intelligent suggest a white and blonde person, except if the stereotype of a dark-skinned person is less intelligent?

Now the point of “people assume Aziraphale is British” is another sticking point people will often use, claiming that the stereotype of a British person is white and blonde.  I guess this has some merit, since the British empire was one of the biggest forces behind white colonial expansion, and it seems disingenuous to assign “British” as “nonwhite” as soon as we’re being satirical, in the same way I found it distasteful that the TV show made God female when so many of the criticisms of the church are about its misogyny and lose their teeth as soon as God is no longer male.

However consider that 1.4 million Indian people live in the UK.  I heard a man say aloud once that the concept of a black person having a British accent was a little funny, as though Doctor Who doesn’t exist and have black people on it.  And I’m not overly familiar with the social landscape of the UK, but I understand they’re experiencing a xenophobia boom and non-white Brits aren’t considered “really British.”  The stereotype of non-white people not being British only exists because of reinforcement in media.  If you really want to be subversive, drawing Aziraphale as Indian goes way further than drawing him as white IMO.

Now let’s talk about Crowley.  He is almost always drawn with a darker skin tone than Aziraphale, even when they are both white, and while I’ve outlined above how this is problematic on terms of linking light skin with innocence, I think it does have an extra layer.  I think it also has to do with the exotification and fetishization of brown skin and non-white people.

This artist’s tumblr is gone now but their art is still on dA and while it’s definitely beautiful and well-done, I think this is a very good example of what I’m talking about.

Crowley and Aziraphale necessarily contrast each other, so describing Aziraphale as “British” might suggest that Crowley is “foreign-looking.”  I also know *ahem* that the fandom generally thirsts over Crowley to hell and back, so making him a swarthy, tall dark and handsome is not necessarily surprising.

An interesting thing happened when the TV show came out, and everyone started drawing Michael Sheen!Aziraphale and David Tennant!Crowley more and more often:  It’s not ubiquitous, but it does happen that sometimes artists will draw David Tennant’s skin darker than it actually is.  The subconscious urge to see Crowley with dark skin is for some reason that strong for many people.  And I really encourage people doing this to think about why.  Not naming any names but I’ve working with fanartists before for collabs who I had to ask to lighten “bad guy” demon’s skin tones because it looked like they were making the skin darker on purpose to make them look scarier.  This person is a perfectly pleasant person who tries not to be racist!  And we both still fell into it accidentally, and it took me a while to notice and point it out, because the ingrained stigmatization of darker skin is pervasive yet often goes unnoticed.

What is the solution?  I don’t know, and as a white person I’m not really qualified to make that call.  Do we draw them both with the exact same skin tone?  Is it better to make them both white?  Should we make both of them non-white?  Should we only make Aziraphale non-white?  I am consciously aware of the fact that the Good Omens fandom is mostly white people, so most of the art we make is being both made by and consumed by white people, so I don’t feel comfortable saying “draw these characters of color specifically” because that can also veer into fetishization territory very quickly.  This is not specific to good omens but I think we should pay attention to what fans of color say in all fandom spaces and weigh our choices even if they seem insignificant.  And it’s important to realize that fans of color will not be a monolith in their opinion either, and it’s our responsibility to recognize that everyone can be affected by racism and social issues differently, the same way all women are affected by misogyny differently so just because one woman says such as such is misogynistic and another says it’s not.  I’m sure there are non-white fans who think it’s perfectly fine to draw Aziraphale as white and Crowley as ambiguously non-white.  I’m not saying they’re wrong.  And I’m not saying you can’t reblog this kind of art, or that people who make or made it should feel bad about themselves.  But so often this sort of thing goes unaddressed just because people don’t like thinking about it, and well, avoiding hard questions never really goes well I think.

[emblemxeno]

Why do people think fates is terrible? I thought it was... Okay, not great but not bad as people claim to be. (maybe it's because i got into FE very recently but i personally enjoyed Fates)

There’s a mix of things that people think why. (Long post, sorry)

People think the maps and gameplay are gimmicky, especially in Revelation, though Conquest is free from this criticism and is praised for having great design. The prevailing opinion is that the maps in Birthright and Revelation are either bland, boring, and easy at best and tedious and dreadful at worst. I can understand those criticisms to a certain extent, but I would take gimmicks and tedium over the map being wide open and bloated with enemies like Awakening or just a lack of design in general like Echoes.

The characters in general are accused of being one note tropes, which I don’t agree with at all. Every character in the history of storytelling have their defining traits, and have more depth when you dive into more complex storylines, and this applies to every Fire Emblem cast as well. The thing with Fates is that it has the same issue that Awakening did where most characters have supports with most every other character of the opposite sex (for the children mechanic) which leads to some support conversations being very simple. However, just because that’s the case, I don’t think it’s valid to then just ignore all the great supports and characterization that Fates’ characters do have. It’s just not fair to ignore the good because of a bloat of simplicity.

By far the biggest reasons why people think it’s bad are they think the story is irredeemable garbage,  and current fandom mentality leading people to believe it’s problematic. 

My thoughts on why the former reason is the case are very accusatory and presumptuous, though it’s based on previous examples of the series, and that it’s because the story didn’t go the way people wanted it to, the protagonist isn’t a proactive, no nonsense badass, and other circumstances. Corrin isn’t a cool badass that solves things by hitting them, and makes a lot of “dumb” decisions, so people think they’re a weak protagonist and often come up with other accusations that just... don’t make sense, like they’re a mary sue that everyone is in love with and get no consequence for their actions and they’re an idiot for not doing everything that’s morally righteous (even when it wouldn’t be realistic) but also they’re too perfect somehow.

Revelation and Conquest get the most story hate (Birthright is seen as passable and harmless because it’s the most traditional), the former because of the aforementioned “everyone loves Corrin they’re a mary sue” accusation and the latter because people think Corrin is an idiot for siding with the EVIL KINGDOM OF NOHR, and not rebelling at every possible opportunity despite the game telling you that that would be a dumb idea. There’s more to it than that, but that’s the gist.

And the fandom mentality thing is that people think it’s problematic because it has *gasp*! Step sibling and cousin incest! Disgusting fanservice of the female characters! Conversion therapy! Harmful gay stereotypes! The petting minigame was basically sexual assault! And countless other things, don’t you see how problematic this game is, anon???? /s

Needless to say, it’s overblown. The series has been “problematic” for years. There’s canon incest in FE4 and strong enough undertones in FE8 that it became an in series joke, fanservice has existed in most anime-esque games, the conversion therapy doesn’t exist and was a lie perpetuated by gaming news outlets, the “harmful gay stereotypes” were written much better in japanese and were made more ‘problematic’ in the localization, and the petting game was literally a non issue, the western world are kind of just prudish and think any form of physical contact that isn’t like a handshake or a hug or violent in some way must be sexual. 

Current fandom mentality is toxic and think anything that isn’t a 100% pure or accurate depiction of anything is garbage, and I think it’s best to ignore people like that. That’s what I do, anyway.

[silverstrangequark]

A spoiler-free review of SwSh

I don't talk much, but there are things that need to be said, especially for the people out there who are still considering whether or not they want to invest on the new Switch titles. Here's what I've noticed of the several aspects of the game while playing it. Most of these impressions were already evident as early as before the first badge, and didn't change throughout the game. I'm still not done, but I've put a good 12+ hours in and I think that's enough to have an informed opinion of it. If anything changes, I'll update this journal. I fully realise that the following are entirely personal opinions and that some people may differ in their thoughts and impressions of the game. That's fine and understandable. I have written this journal respectfully and with no intention to attack those who are enjoying the games. I ask that you reserve me the same politeness and courtesy. 1. Story It's not a mystery that Pokémon doesn't have the best storytelling, with few notable exceptions like BW. SwSh doesn't really deliver anything exceptional in this sense. The story isn't terrible, just thoroughly uninteresting and hard to get into. The characters feel more like tropes and caricatures than actual people, though this is also a problem in a good portion of the mainline games, so I'll just count it as a point of neutrality rather than a full negative. [/] 2. Mechanics Up to personal opinion, but I find the new battle mechanics absolutely unnecessary. The Pokémon Company has stated previously in official conferences that they want to bring the franchise "back to the roots", and Dynamax is not the way to do it. I can deal with Mega Evolution and Z-moves being removed, but what was introduced in their stead is basically a combination of both with a different flavour (increasing different stats and changing the effect of special moves), at which point I'm really questioning why they didn't maintain the original mechanics in the first place, or just wipe them out altogether. I personally liked battling the way it was before. I don't find that new battle gimmicks make a game more interesting - they make it more annoying, if anything, as they basically force you into a specific battle style to keep up with your opponents. [-] 3. Gameplay What in the world is pacing?!? The game takes you through several hours of early-game tutorials (bits of which are skippable, so at least that's a good thing, I don't want to be shown how to catch Pokémon for the 20th time) which give the player the impression that the game will be long and rich. Once you get to the first gym, that very impression is crushed and you start steamrolling leader by leader in rapid succession. There are moments in the game in which you travel through literally ONE ROUTE and then the next gym is one town over. Kalos has sparked some complaints for awkward pacing after the third gym, but this is just a whole another level of bad game flow management. [-] 4. Designs This is likely the most personal point of all, but I find the new Pokémon okay. Some of them look weird, but overall the designs are true to the series and more or less what I'd expect from Pokémon. I don't have as many favourites in this generation as I do for the others, which means in general terms it didn't really impress me, but if Galar is your thing then go for it. I can at least give them credit for introducing regional evolutions, that's likely one of the most interesting things they've done in this game - one which I hope they keep into the future, as I'd like to see more regional variants and evolved forms thereof. [+] 5. Graphics The one selling point of this game according to its very developers! Graphics have got to be good, right? Nope. 5.a. The overworld is really well done. Cities and towns blend into each other seamlessly and there is a very three-dimensional sense of perspective throughout the region. Lighting is more realistic than ever before (for how realistic a Pokémon game can be, that is), and there is better texturing work than in the previous installments of the series. [+] 5.b. ...Unfortunately, that's about all I can say. The Wild Area, advertised as the game's major attraction, fails to deliver - at least compared to my expectations. While the overworld itself is well done graphically, the WA showcases several odd graphical choices and the shapes, colours and textures are all weirdly unnatural and simplistic. The character keeps glitching in and out of the screen (not sure if this was intended, but I didn't like it; please provide a consistent camera view). The area itself is not even that big and can be completely explored in maybe 30 minutes total. Considering that this game has half the average amount of routes because of the Wild Area, I don't think this is quite enough to make up for what was cut. [-] 5.c. Pokémon models and attack animations are all 100% reused from previous generations. They don't feel any more interesting or realistic and we still have Pokémon shooting Flamethrower and Ice Beam out of something other than their mouths in an average case, or a completely alien corner point of the screen in particularly bad cases. You would think in 2019 they would at least care enough to fix this, but they didn't. [-] 5.d. Battle backgrounds are completely awful and a huge step down from the Sun and Moon generation. If you fight indoors, you will have NO BACKGROUND. There will just be a flat gradient. Even outdoors backgrounds are not perfect, as there are several areas near the sea in which you will just get a weird grassy terrain background (usually recycled from the previous route or some other nearby location). Sun and Moon had individual backgrounds even for battles in the Trainer School, for crying out loud! Who thought this was a good idea? [-] 5.e. Characters look, move, and feel much in the same ways as they did in the 3DS games and I've seen some hilarious gifs comparing the new friendly rival to Hau. They use the exact same movements. I would give this a neutral point if they had at least made an effort. [-] 6. Variety Dexit is obviously an issue, but one that I had coming eventually. With the sheer amount of Pokémon ever invented, there was bound to be a cut somewhere along the line. The selection of around 400 is overall not too small but also not great, and leaves a certain amount to be desired. [/] 7. Music Likely my first time playing a Pokémon game and being thoroughly uninterested in the soundtrack. Several themes are reused throughout, not just in routes (which is average for Pokémon) but also in places like caves, and the city themes feel like an odd mashup of old generations in which the originals definitely did it better. Apart from a couple battle themes of "relevant" characters, I find it really hard to get invested in the music. [-] Appendix: Overall At 2 positives, 2 neutrals, and a whopping 7 negatives, I have to say this is the most disappointing Pokémon game I've ever played, and I've played every single main series release. I enjoyed Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee much more, because at least I knew what to expect and the game was exactly what I expected it to be. Sword and Shield were marketed as some mind-blowing innovative titles with amazing graphics and a whole new gameplay experience, and I can honestly say they don't meet that promise at all. The Dexit rage and #GameFreakLied hashtag have more than a reason to exist. 3/10 If you're a long-term fan, skipping these won't harm you at all. In fact, as a long-term fan myself, I can say it's pretty likely these games will leave a bitter taste in your mouth for how unfinished they obviously are. Some people are enjoying them as-is, and that's fine, I can respect that, but I don't believe they're anywhere near worth their current price tag. If you're not a long-term fan but just looking to get into Pokémon, please please start with a different generation. There are so many good games to play out there, that deserve your time and money more than SwSh do.

[velvyy]

Hey, Rad... Alex... Alexlememe? I know that's the name you used to go by and I know you've kinda disconnected yourself from Viv's fanbase after ZP ended, and I remember your memes and such but I kinda just wanted to get your take on the Hazbin drama since you reblogged the headcanon blog's post on the subject. More or less regarding the issue of her being uncharitable to fans and non-fans alike, plus that one callout post on twitter?

So this is weird. I wasn’t expecting to get asks on the subject since like you said, I’ve generally been disconnected from the fanbase aside from the few reblogs here and there retaining to Hazbin and its more recent developments. But yeah I guess I could give my take on this since I mean.. old fans still follow me. Idk why, but they do!So, really. In regards to that callout post (which is now deleted) I really, really don’t care that much. For one thing, Initially I did because I really hated to see someone be slandered so viciously with inaccurate and uncharitable attacks, but I kinda just stopped because even when I linked the addresses from both Viv, and the Ken dude regarding all the drama mentioned, it was either ignored and resulting in me being called a “pedo sympathizer” or “It wasn’t even an apologyyyyy weh” and like, whatever. I stopped giving a shit.

Terms of the traced animation thing... Lol, ok. I mean homages do exist, and her animation thingy was based on a meme so whatevs.

Anyways,I knew from the very start that the whole “tracing” and “stealing designs” stuff was nonsense since there was an entire like, tumblr drama arc on the issue, and albeit Viv’s post is gone, there’s evidence of legal contracts regarding Jiji and that whole nonsense that was years ago. In regards to her drawing pictures of Blaire White and Shoe… Eh. I mean, yeah, fuck em, but she’s made it clear that she doesn’t support those views anymore, and she wasn’t even really aware of the other things they’d done at that point, and I see no real reason not to believe her because what does lying about that gain her? Yeah her comment on the “blackface” thing if you wanna call it that was dumb as shit, but considering 2016 was a rough year for her in terms of trying to find where she fell in the political sphere, I can relate because I was in the same boat. A lot of sjw cringe comps, shaming feminists, and purposely misgendering transpeople… Not a good time for me either! Course I’ve changed. I went from being a reactionary alt-centrist to an anarchist so. Whether that’s an improvement is up to you.

As for the whole pedo/zoo shit, I really don’t see it. I mean like, look, obviously porn art portraying people fucking feral animals is disgusting right. Not saying it isn’t problematic or anything, but to be fair, she did draw this shit like 8 years ago. I’ve seen worse from even more well-established artists and I don’t see people trying to cancel them? Also, the art was suggestive for one thing and not necessarily 100% porn. I mean it’s still creepy and gross, and I’d understand scolding them if they continued to do so but a lot worse, but I haven’t seen anything like that from Viv past those 2 drawings. As for the pedo shit… The relationship between a 17 year old and a 19 year old is… hardly creepy and reminiscent of pedo shit. So yeah no fuck that. Now with the drawing of Mirage and Kestrel and the tag that said something jokingly like “Mirage and her pedo tendencies” or whatever… Yeah idk, I can’t defend that lmfao. Again, Viv said she disapproves of those drawings and doesn’t care to think about them, but that one piece of artwork definitely had some baggage to it that made me feel uncomfortable after reading the tags.Only issue I took in terms of her addressing that, is that she was very adamant about it being an inside joke… Which if that’s true, you must’ve had some fucked up friends like damn.

I would also like to state that cub art is legitimately disgusting and I am of the belief that it can cause harm depending on the context since I assume the consumption of cub art can reinforce the urge for pedophiles to act on their desires instead of finding healthy coping mechanisms for it through therapy. There have been stories from younger users on the internet that older people have tried to groom them and have the notion of pedos preying on them be normalized by sending them art depicting kids in sexual acts with adults. Of course in isolation cub art isn’t as harmful as the actual act of raping a child, and I would argue that people have their priorities kind of messed up since the illustration being acknowledged should be part of combating pedophiles preying on children. However, people, typically twitter wokescolds tend to focus on the art solely and I don’t know why. There’s a lot of MAPS trying to find their way into LGBT spaces and it’s fucking gross.

Now with Hazbin itself… It’s meh. Initially I watched it with rose-tinted glasses and loved it. After watching it for like… the 3rd, 4th, 5th time? It’s alright. I don’t hate it, but it’s far from perfect. Now ofc I know it’s a pilot but a very lengthy pilot I’ll say. My biggest gripe with the pilot is that the editing is really fucking weird. Like the editing where Angel tells Alastor “I can suck yah dick!” and the scene that followed was really off. It seemed like too many cuts were made in that instance and seemed very cluttered. It also feels that way during Charlie singing “Inside Every Demon is a Rainbow” and how many little animated bits were like almost wiped off the screen by how fast it came by, and ntm there was just so much happening all at once on screen as well. I had to pause at points just to process everything that was happening. The palette is also very, very, verrrry red. There’s so much red going on and like… I get it, it’s in hell. But lemme rest my eyes on something else besides red, please. The palette they use needs to be better diversified, and the same goes for the characters too. Every character seems to have red on them. Whenever Baxter shows up later he’s gonna look really out of place. Some of the jokes were ok, and others seemed non-clever. I didn’t think Angel’s joke about sucking Al’s dick was funny. I did like the joke with Pentious and Angel though. “SON??” Some of it could’ve been written better too.

Regarding the drama with the show itself… Personally I don’t get it. Like, I don’t feel as if Angel is homophobic as a character since his queerness isn’t at the face of the jokes he makes? He just happens to be sex worker which… sex workers are fine? Support sex workers y’all, seriously. There’s also nothing intrinsically wrong with being sexually active either? As long as it’s within reason and you’re being trustworthy.The issue lies in the fact that people viewed the things I just mentioned as negative, and associate it with gay people as said negatively portrayed thing to push the sentiment of “Gay man do sex a lot therefore the gays bad” or that sort of thing. Also there’s a bit where it shows there’s more emotional depth to him and I’m hoping they’ll expand on that later. Honestly though, the criticisms in regards to that have been pretty uncharitable. Same with the criticisms for Vaggie. Apparently Vaggie is racist because… she’s loud and angry? Again, this is a case where people assume those traits are negative, and because it’s assumed to be negative, the negatively portrayed thing pushes the sentiment of “Being a loud fiery woman made, and latina women are that, therefore latina women bad” or some shit.  There are stereotypes that are bad no matter what the context is like sambo-esque caricatures of black people. Then there are tropes that are applied to certain demographics that have the capability to be written well into characters without it being offensive or disrespectful. Vaggie is literally angry because she’s protective of her gf. Like. C’mon.

So, I think that settles what I think about that? It honestly seems like superficial shit to me tbh, and I’m saying this as an sjw-y beta cuck anarchist.

The only REAL gripe I have, is with what the mod from @zpheadcanons posted. Because I know this is probably true as much as it hurts me to say it. Faust def has a history of being pretty petty and bully-like to people she deems undesirable, and Viv harbors it by not criticizing it, and if anyone else within their friend group does it then you’re scolded vehemently and treated like garbage. Her attitude also stretches to harboring an audience full of white knights that I personally don’t approve of.

There’s also this

Faust has hurt distant people I personally know and… yeah. Maybe I’m biased but I can’t vibe with that. Sorry. If you don’t make an effort to criticize abusive behavior within your own friend circles then that makes you just as bad, because then you’re just a bystander to things you could have prevented.

This isn’t to say Viv herself hasn’t dealt with bad faith actors, or people who had the intention to hurt her, or very uncharitable criticism. Particularly from the badwebcomics forums which is honestly 4chan like in how they operate. It’s vicious as hell, and a lot of their criticisms boil down to insults and personal attacks, which serve to be nonconstructive. That’s not to say Viv has been kind to even the more charitable criticism though. I know because when I happened to send an ask to the zoophobia criticism blog (where did it go???) regarding something relatively minor and superficial, she blocked me from her blog. I’m still blocked lmfao. I’m not blocked on twitter though! (not yet anyways). Faust has me blocked there though, and I have no idea why. She’s had me blocked for years even though I haven’t spoken out against her till recently. So, there’s that.

As for her apology itself, I feel like it was fine. I think it could’ve been worded better? The take I disagree with in terms of that is like… If I made a mistake in the past, and I make it clear that I don’t care for what I did, I don’t feel as if me explaining why I felt compelled to do certain things negate me from still not caring for my past actions? That’s just me providing context. That’s a really weird take, but I guess that could be viewed as an excuse idk. Personally I think people are holding the bar super high to a state of irrationality.

*sigh* So yeah there’s that. I miss the old days where honestly I could be ignorant about this, but at the same time I look at my old obsessive posts and I kinda just… cringe. I was such an irrational stan I almost hate myself for it. Fuck XD

Edit: I’d also like to point out that I’m not saying Viv or Faust are totally awful or totally good people, and I know they’re capable of being better. It’s a matter of whether or not they wanna be better.

[shoezuki]

Hey!! Some I’m practicing character design, snd a have some concepts for characters in mind HOWEVER. i wanna make a nonbinary character but I’m cis and I don’t wanna like. Make them accidentally fall under a certain trope?? I don’t know what ideas would be harmful when it comes to nb ocs and which aren’t??? Any tips?

aaaaa yeah np! im sure i can think up some things. ofc, im not like. the Paragon of Nonbinary Knowledge n all that but yeah i know theres some

somethin thats notable of like. any of the Few nonbinary characters in media are always like. nonhuman creatures as well. at face value thats cool like yeah whatev robots n aliens are sick but Also. its kind of like, an association between nonbinary genders and unnatural, fantasy, strange things. Like nb robots Can exist ofc but its somethin to keep in mind, that its an overused and cheap coppout for ‘representation’ while also saying 'theres something nonhuman about enbies’

when referring to a nb characters’ past, Never say something like 'when they were a girl’ or whatever. its better to refer to such as 'before they came out’. (not always applicable to real enbies ofc but cis ppl should never do this w characters or especially ppl)

the Visage that usually is representative of enbies is almost always an androgynously presenting, thin, fair white person that looks more masculine than feminine. thats lame. theres no one way enbies look

to expand on that: theres no One way a nonbinary person looks or presents! some ppl are comfy wearing entirely 'feminine’ clothes or 'masculine’ clothes, some in between or mixing between styles theyre comfy with. theres really no nonbinary 'look’.

dont bring up gender assigned at birth. dont be like 'this person is an afab person!’ especially if its not ever relevant. which like, it never really is? a lot of the time with cis ppl, wanting to point out or know an enbies 'assigned gender at birth’ is basically just asking 'but what is your actual gender’ and thats nobody’s business

all enbies experience their own genders differently. like, how they consider their own gender? but its best to leave in depth exploration of a nb characters’ gender to nb ppl.

in terms of pronouns, they/them is the most common and recognizable for a nonspecific pronoun so thats probably your best bet. although nb ppl Do go by all and any pronouns, sometimes different pronouns according to different situations. (for me, only my family and good friends can call me she/her or he/him because that feels weird otherwise)

nonbinary isnt a 'third’ gender. thats not how shit works. nonbinary is more of an umbrella term for genders that are not completely associated with 'binary’ genders.

dont act like ur character is all 'cool’ and 'hip’ and 'openminded’ for simply being nb. being nonbinary shouldnt be treated like something Radical and Progressive.

dont focus on your nb characters struggles, dysphoria or maybe lack thereof, etc. cis ppl cant really Know first hand what nonbinary struggles are like specifically so you shouldnt write only about them.

theres no way to 'look’ cis or 'look’ nb. like, 'cis passing’ has been thrown at me a lot and its bullcrap. if a person, or a character, is nonbinary, regardless of how they look, then there nonbinary.

and MORESO. the Biggest thing i can think of (besides like. makin nb characters lizard people or something like being inhuman is the Reason theyre able to be nb lmao that sucks) is that theres diversity in how nb people present and are comfortable? some ppl have beards, wear jeans, baggy sweaters, get top surgery, and that doesnt make them 'more like a man’. Some enbies like wearing dressing and makeup and high heels and that doesnt make them 'more like a woman’. Takin or referring to nb characters who might present more masculinely as 'practically a man’ or some sort is really. bad.

if ur nb character is in a relationship, their partner doesnt NEED to be pansexual to date an nb person. thats dumb. Especially if its phrased like pansexuallity is more 'progressive’ because it includes nb ppl.

uuhhhhh yeah thats all that i can think of rn??? again! im not the Paragon of Enby Knowledge and im p isolated in my community from other enbies so like! its always good to do research, look into biographies of nb ppl (academic phrasing in terms of nonbinary stuff is really Impersonal). but as long as you respect nb identities, understand what aspects of nonbinary genders u cant personally know or express, then u should be fine.

[sanrionharbor-blog]

Sansa and Tyrion’s Character Arcs (Part I: Tyrion)

Being a writer, I’ve been pouring through Shawn Coyne’s The Story Grid over the past two weeks. One of the points he makes is that every part of a story–from beat to arc–has the same 5 elements: inciting incident, complication, crisis, climax, resolution.

And being as obsessed as I am with Sansa and Tyrion of GOT in particular, I thought I’d use the hey-day of the series season finale episodes to indulge in some character metas. 

We’re going to (mainly) focus on the inciting incident.

So, not only does GOT have an overarching inciting incident/complication/crisis/climax/resolution that it’s moving towards, but each season has them, each episode/chapter has them, each  subplot has them, and each character has them.

According to Shawn Coyne, an inciting incident promises one thing: “…the ending.”

So let’s dive a little deeper and see what Sansa’s inciting incident and Tyrion’s inciting incident tells us about them. I’m writing separate posts since they’re both long–first up is Tyrion!

Tyrion

To start on a side note that will eventually get to the point:

I really wonder if show-Tyrion and book-Tyrion can come to the same conclusion. 

Book-Tyrion is much more morally grey than show-Tyrion, for one. They make different decisions after the Purple Wedding (in the show Tyrion is notably celibate whereas book-Tyrion hits an all-time low and is not above sleeping with drugged-up, unresponsive prostitutes–though he manages to empathize with them, he still uses them to run from his own darkness). 

Now, I’m equally invested in both versions of the character and believe they have the same arc/themes overall. So on one hand I can see them playing out beat-by-beat, just with different palettes, if you would, but only because of the power of the inciting incident:

So, an inciting incident does more than promise an ending–it sets the character on a path of no return. So, more than a character’s introduction, it’s when their story first goes down an irreversible path.

Furthermore, an inciting incident is called an incident for a reason: it’s not necessarily a decision made by a character, but something that happens to him (but more on that in a minute).

Tyrion’s Introduction

First we’ll note Tyrion’s introduction in the book:

“Jon found it hard to look away from [Jaime]. This is what a king should look like, he thought to himself as the man passed.

Then he saw the other one, waddling along half-hidden by his brother’s side. Tyrion Lannister, the youngest of Lord Twyin’s brood and by far the ugliest. All that the gods had given to Cersei and Jaime, they had denied Tyrion. He was a dwarf, half his brother’s height, struggling to keep pace on stunted legs….one green eye and one black one peered out from under a lanky fall of hair so blond it seemed white. Jon watched him with fascination.”

Later, still in the same chapter:

“The dwarf grinned down at [Jon]. ‘Is that animal a wolf?’

‘A direwolf,’ Jon said. ‘His name is Ghost….what are you doing up there? Why aren’t you at the feast ?’

‘Too hot, too noisy, and I’d drunk too much wine,’ the dwarf told him. ‘…might I have a closer look at your wolf?’

…he pushed himself off the ledge into empty air. Jon gasped, then watched with awe as Tyrion Lannister spun around in a tight ball, landed lightly on his hands, then vaulted backward.

Ghost backed away from him uncertainly.

The dwarf dusted himself off and laughed. ‘I believe I’ve frightened your wolf. My apologies.’”

They talk a little more, and it’s interesting to note that Tyrion isn’t threatened by Ghost, merely fascinated, and he correctly deduces that Ghost is more shy than harmful, despite Ghost baring his teeth. This could be foreshadowing that the Lannisters will have dominion over the Starks soon, but Tyrion was never a player in that. Despite his loyalties to his family, he was the one that reached out to Jon when he saw Jon was crying, he was the one who bonded with Jon at the wall and honored Jon’s request to take care of Bran, he was the one who took the time to design a saddle for Bran, and who later treated Sansa with dignity despite every cultural and social protocol having taught him to do the opposite.

No, I think this has more to do with Tyrion’s fascination with direwolves, and perhaps the Wolf, in general. I also believe it’s foreshadowing (not the deliberate kind, but the instinctual kind that most writers aren’t even aware of), to Tyrion’s possible later loyalty/ally status with the Stark’s. More on that when we get to his first POV.

Tyrion’s First POV Chapter

The very first POV that features Tyrion ends on this line (I know most of you have read it before):

“When he opened the door, the light from within threw his shadow clear across the yard, and for just a moment, Tyrion Lannister stood tall as a king.”

And then there is Tyrion’s first chapter written in his POV–where certain details stand out to me [all emphases mine]:

“Somewhere in the great stone maze of Winterfell, a wolf howled. The sound hung over the castle like a flag of mourning…something about the howling of a wolf took a man right out of his here and now and left him in a dark forest of the mind, running naked before the pack.”

That’s the opening of Tyrion’s first POV. No lion metaphors here. Instead, Tyrion briefly imagines being part of a wolf pack–is he running in front as a leader, naked and free and accepted, or because he’s being chased down, naked and hunted and vulnerable? 

Regardless, the chapter ends here:

“‘My sweet brother,” [Jaime] said darkly, “there are times you give me cause to wonder whose side you are on,”

Tyrion’s mouth was full of bread and fish. He took a swallow of strong black beer to wash it all down, and grinned up wolfishly at Jaime. ‘Why, Jaime, my sweet brother,’ he said, ‘you wound me. You know how much I love my family.’”

For some reason, Tyrion is metaphorically identifying with wolves. These exchanges also tune us into the hint of whimsy and empathy in his character, which co-exists with his book-smart/world-weary outlook. 

Still, neither of these moments include Tyrion’s inciting incident. No, Tyrion’s inciting incident is a direct result of ASOIAF’s inciting incident: the moment Catelyn Stark receives a letter from her sister Lysa Arryn about the death of Jon Arryn, Lord Paramount of the Vale and Hand to the King.

This is powerful stuff in itself, even if the death had been natural. But we’re about to be lead through a political spiderweb that’s being spun over a dark, fuzzy expanse; and we can only make out what that darkness is when the spiderweb isn’t so clearly in focus: Winter, and not just any Winter, but the Long Night. 

This is all happening at once, and Tyrion is actually an early witness to the complementary foci of ASOIAF:

Myth: He visits the Wall with Jon Snow and, while he doesn’t encounter any wights, he does encounter several people who’re convinced about such things. He’s skeptical, but we learn over time that Tyrion is a closeted romantic. Sure, he’s reading up on the lives of Maesters and pouring through ledgers and history books half the time–but he’s also obsessed with true love and handsome knights and dragons.

Humanity: He’s a casualty of Jon Arryn’s murder and Catelyn Stark’s having been deceived (though Catelyn acts heroically based on what she believes to be the truth). He’s kidnapped by Lady Stark and forced to stand trial for two murders he did not commit. This is his inciting incident. It’s what gets Tywin to declare war on the Starks and what inadvertently puts Tyrion in the pathway of both Bronn and Shae. It leads him to his newfound confidence as a military strategist, even as a pseudo-knight, in subsequent battles–including the one that costs him his nose, and any illusion that his looks could be improved or his stature increased by acting like a knight. Acting like a knight (like Jaime, like the son his father wanted, like the heroes Tyrion grew up reading about) did not win him the approval of Tywin, the adoration of the people, the reality of knighthood, or the true affection of any lady. And we know how his story goes from here.

But none of it would have happened without Tyrion’s Inciting Incident. And he had no choice in the matter either. This was his point of no return.

So, what are the themes established here?

Themes from his introduction:

-Even though he’s compared unfavorably to his brother Jaime, who is described as “what kings should look like,” the POV ends with Tyrion standing “tall as a king.” So, in a word, kingliness. 

-His intro through Jon’s eyes establishes him as larger than life, despite his size. He’s breezy, irreverent, whip-smart, aware of his status (as a Lannister and as a pariah), and even surprisingly acrobatic (or at the very least self-sufficient, and possessing the element of surprise). He’s also empathetic–he gives Jon advice on how to navigate the world and finds common place between them. Remember, he’s a noble and Jon is a bastard. He’s under no obligation to treat him kindly. It’s simply his character; one of Tyrion’s better qualities. 

-In short, Tyrion fulfills a role as: outcast (dwarf) and elite (Lannister noble), adviser (or Hand), jester (“Generations of capering fools in motley…’), and, at least inwardly, a king. And all of these are mythical archetypes and play well into the fantasy tropes that GRRM is exploring, deconstructing, and reconstructing.

-I also highlighted the part about Tyrion’s one black eye and one green, and his hair so pale it was almost white. This has less bearing in the TV show, obviously, but many of these clues not only point out his physical otherness, but can symbolically point to:

Looking at the world from two perspectives

Divided loyalties (the green eyes of the Lannister’s, and that one dark eye–dark like the Stark’s?)

Or does it represent a divided lineage?

B/C, though I’m not sold on the theory, one wonders if the “Tyrion as the third head of the dragon” isn’t hinted through his white-blond hair? Yet another secret Targaryen?

Themes from his first POV chapter:

-Tyrion finds it easy to identify with the Wolf (and yes, with a capital ‘W,’ encompassing the Starks, the direwolves, the archetype). And throughout the story he easily empathizes with the Starks, despite the Shakespearean-level rift between his family and theirs.

-He loves his family. But he is also separate from his family. 

-Tyrion’s strength (and weakness) will be his mind

Themes from his inciting incident:

-I see themes of justice/injustice, truth/deception, and acceptance/prejudice.

-In fact, Catelyn Stark seizes him with these words: “…I call upon you to seize him and help me return him to Winterfell to await the king’s justice.”

-To return to Winterfell. 

-To await the king’s justice.

Tyrion: The Ending Is In The Beginning

So this essay has been largely book-focused. The biggest differences between book-Tyrion and show-Tyrion, in the first arc anyway, are simply Tyrion’s sex appeal. Let’s be honest. In the show, his introduction comes by way of brothel (and it’s also a way to introduce the show-only character, Roz), whereas in the books it comes by way of unfavorable comparison with his brother. Peter Dinklage is also very handsome, and I’m not complaining AT ALL about his casting (because I love him), and D&D had a limited range to pick from anyway, but Tyrion in the show is more attractive and that colors several scenes–especially the ones with Shae and Sansa.

But it doesn’t matter that much in the end. Because the point is that Tyrion’s arc isn’t about his overall attractiveness (but physicality, yes). Tyrion is still playing roles that are traditionally given to conventionally handsome characters, not just to outsiders or “monstrous” archetypes. 

So the interesting part is that his looks play a tangential role, but not a main one. His physicality is always at play, but not so much his attractiveness. For example, both show and book Tywin hate that their son is a dwarf; the ugliness of book-Tyrion is just the T.P. at the bottom of Tywin’s ill-fitting shoe. Again, tangential. It changes the palettes of book and show Tyrion’s overall story visual, but not the actual shape of their story.

So regardless of the differences between the show and the book, Tyrion’s ending can still be found in the book A Game of Thrones’. And not only because that’s a universal law of storytelling (the inciting incident promises the ending) but it’s exactly what George R.R. Martin has confirmed. 

So what can we infer about Tyrion’s ending from his beginning?

Here is where we find Tyrion at the end of season 1 of GOT and in his last POV in the first book of ASOIAF [all emphases mine]:

In the wake of Jaime’s kidnapping, Tywin has just told Tyrion he’s sending him to King’s Landing. 

“It was the last thing Tyrion Lannister would ever have anticipated. He reached for his wine, and considered for a moment as he sipped. ‘And what am I to do there?’

‘Rule,’ his father said curtly.

Tyrion hooted with laughter. ‘My sweet sister might have a word or two to say about that!’

That part about Cersei seems more pertinent now that we’re heading into Season 8 of Game of Thrones and she’s a prominent villain. She’s at least a major obstacle in Tyrion’s current story line (and, in fact, always has been). 

But more importantly is his father’s command to rule. Tyrion Lannister is groomed for rulership throughout his story, and this will probably be his destiny: whether that come in the capacity of being king or some other kind of leader. Perhaps there won’t even be an Iron Throne at the end of all of this, but Tyrion, worldly and well-traveled and ruthless and empathetic as he is, could be a spearhead for a new political system. Perhaps the Magna Carta of Westeros is coming? 

Let’s hark back to Tyrion’s inciting incident. He was going to await the king’s justice. What if the king’s justice turns out to be Tyrion’s justice? And Tyrion, after being held accountable all his life for things he had not done wrong (though not being punished for the things he has done wrong–after all, he’s no saint), will find his justice by a king, someway-somehow. Either with Tyrion as said King, or by being Hand to just such a King, or even, tragically, by finally facing a justice he cannot escape–at the hands of a king. (Or Queen). 

Tyrion’s arc will end when he is finally taken off trial. He thought he’d finally made it when he was free of his father’s (physical) shadow and when he found full acceptance (he thought) with Daenerys. But here’s where Tyrion’s theme of divided loyalties comes into play. He’s been struggling with finding where he stands throughout his storyline. Even when he was advising for Dany, he was still hoping that Cersei had the capacity for change. I think what he loved most about Cersei was her motherly instincts, her children (sans Joffrey). And he probably does feel guilt over Myrcella’s death. So Tyrion is seeking justice; he wants Cersei’s baby to live because he loves him/her instinctually, because it “atones” for the other children, because blood runs thicker than water, because he won’t be the reason the Lannister name is snuffed out. 

“…To return to Winterfell and await the king’s justice.”

In Season 8, Tyrion does return to Winterfell. If there were a third trial (orchestrated perhaps by Daenerys or by Cersei), it would probably take place at King’s Landing or the Dragon Pit, but there’s still the fact that Tyrion’s story is inextricably linked with Winterfell. 

He is particularly bound up in the stories of Bran, Sansa, and Jon. And in a series inspired by the War of the Roses, he could be the link that brings the Lannisters (Lancasters) and Starks (Yorks) to true peace. To finally establish justice and resolve the conflict that started this whole saga. 

Tyrion has been denounced in two trials and made to suffer consequences to his agency and reputation, despite the deception at play. His agency and reputation still need restoring. He still has neither of these things with Daenerys. 

He needs to emerge victorious from a third trial. Whether that third trial is literal or metaphorical.  It’s very possible that Tyrion will finally stand trial for a murder he is guilty of: Cersei could put him on trial for the murder of Tywin Lannister, and Tyrion will have to face the spiritual shadow of his father and the reality of his guilt once and for all. 

This third trial will establish Tyrion’s character; it will close his arc. Whether he dies physically or not, he will be spiritually enlightened/restored. 

And I’d have to agree with Peter Dinklage–that would be a really beautiful end for Tyrion Lannister, however it plays out. 

(Please share your thoughts as I am OBSESSED with Tyrion theories). 

(Next Up: Sansa Stark). 

[toastycabbage]

cis people show their fundamental misunderstanding of being trans when they say things like "You can't just deny your biology! Science says aksjdkdjf etc etc" like ya we know dumpass? whats ur point? just cause some guy with a coat said something about chromosomes and peepees doesn't mean i can't change my name, social identity, body, and the words i use for myself as i see fit. plus human sexes aren't even restricted to a binary and just because people with intersex traits are an """outlier""" doesnt mean they don't exist or shouldn't be given protections/attention.. 🤷‍♂️ like yeah should we just start taking away ALL minorities' rights or harass them for raising public awareness just because they belong to an "outlier" group? Wait....this sounds familiar....

They also like to act like we don't belong in discussions about our own anatomy/identities because it's "making it about us." (ex, abortion for trans men, womens rights for trans women, etc)

We have the same body parts/genders as yall and your opinions arent inherently more valid just because you're cis. foh with the elitism and gatekeeping bls 👌 and stop using the words of a random trans person to talk over another one "well my trans friend said he hates this and it makes him dysphoric and no trans people would ever enjoy that etc etc so you're wrong and you shouldn't talk about this" bc u arent being remotely slick.

We aren't a big delusional self hating overdramatic man-in-dress dyed-hair screeching overly sensitive 300 gender monolith like yall like to portray us. We're literally just human beings with our own interests, preferences, and subgroup culture....like all of you are. 🤷‍♂️

being trans isnt all about genitals, surgery and hormones even though it's a big part of the process for a lot of us. We don't just constantly think about our genitals. And face it, most of you are obsessed with your bodies just as much if not moreso. We don't reduce cis women down to the ones who get plastic surgery, and it isn't our business to generalize them based on that or ask every single one we meet if they have titty implants or designer vaginas. We understand that it can affirm confidence, especially in a world where appearances are heavily criticised and women get objectified relentlessly. Yet, we recognize that it's still their CHOICE. Plus, some women have medical reasons for certain surgeries deemed "aesthetic". So..why do we do that to trans people??? Before you jump to justify it in your head, consider that you're falling back into the web of stereotypes that make you fail to understand in the first place. Look at trans people the same way you look at yourself and all your preferences and insecurities. There is literally no difference.

The only reason it is shocking to you is because you aren't used to it and have a profound gender binary full of stereotypes instilled in you since babyhood, plus you're used to seeing outrage, propoganda and politics. That mental image of a creepy, hairy, mentally unstable, fetishistic old man in a dress, that fragile androgynous autistic nonbinary teen with colorful hair who identifies as a plant, the "screaming entitled liberals"..you might not be thinking about them consciously, but some part of you feels disgusted when you hear about trans people because you associate them with these cringe tropes. Honestly, those two things aren't even that bad or shame-worthy as long as someone isn't being harmed or harassed, but you're used to cringe culture telling you they are. You don't think we should be focused on because we aren't a part of your personal agenda and you think whatever you find important should be a part of ours. We know. We see through it. We don't have to all believe the same things to have our voice respected.

also, just because the tone of this is sarcastic doesn't mean it should be dismissed. There is a point here, but I'm sure a lot of yall want to find reasons to discredit and tone police us before thinking critically about what we're actually saying. I know, crazy. I've written too many thorough, polite yet completely worthless arguments to cis people to care about my tone at this point. This is a visual approximation of how much you exhaust us!

Yall are indeed the ones making it about our genitals more than even we do. In reality, you don't truly understand us, and don't consider us as quite the same as you........n well, unless you make an effort to understand without intentionally using dehumanizing and inflammatory language to dogwhistle us, its called transphobia babes

[busyorc-blog]

Truth about Gamers mindset on Women's Issues.

So as you all know this has been a contentious issue for some time. Even now people keep posting "controversy" click bait articles on why video games are sexist and misleading articles.

Why are Gamers so hostile to female gamers or gamer girls?

Well its quite simple and its the typical gamer is extremely competitive.

Competition fuels our desires of being legitimized by our fellow men and women.

"But busyorc there are specific things male gamers say hurtful sexist things to women." This is true, but it is not used for the sake of demeaning women for their sex and gender, its a tool to make the female player make a mistake. Is it ok to do? No, but the real reason behind the verbal attacks is because of toxic competition.

So ladies, if a gamer tells you to go the kitchen and make you a sandwich reply with "I must be doing pretty well if you need me to put down my controler." Gamers ARE OVER COMPETITIVE!

Now many of you might say this just enables more bad behavior but to put it bluntly it could be and it is worse already and I jave yet seen a real solution for stopping it. If anything, this sense of competitive overtones comes with the territory.

Now the argument of misogyny is true but only a small minority that actually hate women. These are the bad apples mixed with a whole lot of good and inbetween personal moral codes.

However those who complain about misogyny in games use half truths and bais focus groups to make their point and some are simply over reacting. SOME are. There are legit concerns in gaming that need to be addressed, but they are not as wide spread as some has sought to believe.

Personally I think women feel left out and I can understand this because they didnt really get an invite in the first place. This is due to the fact gamers focusing so much on games and their own past bitterness of being social rejects for enjoying this hobby in the first place.

Take that bitterness and then put that angst into the game you are playing. The game makes gamers feel accomplished when won in contrast where they failed in real life. This is common for many gamers out there and to their reasoning is the argument of the resentment towards women in general but this is only a handful of gamers as I just mentioned earlier they are not the majority.

The real answer is that there is no real hatred for women in general, but there is real hatred towards those women who choose to use gaming for gaining popularity.

The dreaded Gamer Girl!

This was an attempt to weakly associate with video games for popularity and profit which was quickly rejected by the gaming masses. There was swift and heavy backlash that started this whole problem in the first place.

In actuality if you are a girl and you play games, you are already a gamer. There were many girls who played games before this whole issue began. Having pride in being a gamer and a girl is great but when its used to get attention in the first place the argument falls flat. This was figured out by many intelligent young women but got lost by association in the battle of the genders.

When you use your gender to state who you are in this gaming society, it proves you are more interested in recieving a positive label than playing the game and earning one through practice and skill. This is how some gamers view this as one of the key reasons of their resentment. Double standards are all over the place and both specific sides are accusing eachother for its unfair practices. But lets focus on this issue right here.

Now how does this connect to my main point, well its obvious to me and you, that certain gamer girls expected perks to being a girl among boys but got the opposite. That said its a smack in the face to their competitive nature and in a gaming world where your skill and knowledge and hard work isn't affected by what gender you have or what social structure you lived in.

If you have hands then you are already on equal footing as any gamer.

Some women within the feminist 3rd wave movement will contest it does matter as to which I strongly disagree.

When the fact what content you are playing with in the end its all 1s and 0s. However these women are right that it plays to tropes that we are accustomed to, but to that I say "so what." Tropes are entertaining and because one group doesnt find it entertaining anymore doesnt mean that its a legitimate reason to stop. You can say its harmful to society but lets face facts, its entertainment, designed to take our minds off of society and relax. To blame entertainment for its influence is rediculous and shows a lack of self control and a major loose grasp of reality and poor parenting. Parent's job is to teach a child whats important and what isnt, and the content to which entertainment intention is to entertain not warp our actual sense of reality.

But I have gone off point. It comes down to toxic competition; gamers are being scrutinized for their own backlash from pretenders and are already very tense from competing and are bound to explode over defensively.

Toxic Competition isnt just in video games but everywhere in sports and events that are centered around one group fighting for supremacy over the other.

Its gotten so bad it bled into our politics and caused riots.

To me it was obvious that the problem was toxic competition but the loud minority wants to put the blame on a deeper issue to which I have said isnt the actual problem.

The problem is Toxic Competition. Competitors are even taught to goad their opponent to mess up. Sexist and racist comments are simply a tool rather than a motivator. This doesnt excuse bad behavior but its the cause of it. You can look at a guy and say that if he loses to a girl he is then emasculated, when infact it all comes down to being defeated. T

My point is we often look for more controversial issues for bad behavior, when its simply being too competitive.

It would be nice for Gamers to calm down and be civil, and it would be nice that female developers to make what they want without critism, but the solutions people are coming up with adress complex issues to which doesnt focus on the real problem which is competitive behavior. We live in reality to where the internet exists, and when you put yourself out there you will be seen and judged harshly. So you cant expect constructive critism when it could from anyone and anywhere.

We need to look at the real issue here, not misogyny, not sexism, but toxic competition.

The solution we have isnt a perfect one but I think can still work if you have strength in yourself. Thay solution is sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Learn to ignore obvious negative remarks and insults, and ALWAYS be a good sport. Dont gloat when you win and dont explode when you lose.

Its really hard to do but like excersize it doesnt work unless you keep doing it.

You green buddy

BUSYORC

[trinuviel]

ALL IS SUBTEXT - A Case for Jon and Sansa (part 5)

This is the fifth installment in my analysis of the romantic subtext in the scenes between Jon and Sansa in seasons 6 and 7 of Game of Thrones (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). I’ve examined the different techniques that the show employs to create this subtext through primarily visual means. This post is is a direct continuation of part 3 and part 4 where I began examining the romantic tropes that inform the scenes between their. Once again I’ve had to break up my analysis because there are so many tropes in play and I am trying to be meticulous in my analysis. So here is yet another very long post.

KNOW YOUR TROPES

The ambiguous romantic subtext in the scenes between Jon and Sansa exists almost entirely on the level of the visual - and that means that we have to pay close attention to non-verbal cues, costume design, image composition and editing. 

I have previously mentioned that tropes are excellent tools when it comes to creating subtext because they function as a narrative shorthand. They rely on audience familiarity and genre conventions, which mean that there’s no need to spell things out - and subtext exists at the level of the unspoken.

So without further ado, let’s have a look as some more JonSa scenes where romantic tropes are in play.

Gentle readers, gird your loins - this post is hella long.

Declaration of Protection. This trope occurs when the hero’s motivation is built around protecting another person. This is usually the love interest but it can also pertain to other kinds of relationships (as well as larger entities such as a home or the realm as per Jon’s season 7 arc).

Both seasons 6 and 7 make it clear that Sansa is the hidden reason for many of Jon’s actions. She’s the one that gives him the will to live and fight again. She shakes him out of his depression and disillusionment after he’s been resurrected - and he is determined to protect her at any cost. The night before the Battle of the Bastards, Jon issues a solemn declaration of protection when Sansa states that she’ll never let Ramsay take her alive, hinting that she’ll kill herself if Jon loses the battle.

(GIFs by https://giffferrplanet.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/game-of-thrones-the-night-before-the-battle/)

Sansa’s reaction is heartbreaking. No one has be able to protect her since her father died and her scepticism in the face of Jon’s promise is understandable yet so very sad. However, the thing to notice here is Jon’s sad puppy-dog face when Sansa leaves - now it isn’t just Winterfell that hangs in the balance, Sansa’s very life rests on his shoulders as well.

Battle Couple. This trope pertains to a couple who are partners in combat:

This is the kind of couple where bullets figure prominently in the story of their romance. Where “war buddy” and “significant other” are synonyms. If you harm either one of them, the survivor will kill you as surely as the sun rises. (TVTropes)

Jon and Sansa may not fight side-by-side in the physical sense but Sansa’s presence at the parley with Ramsay (as well as her involvement with raising troops, etc) puts them into the territory of Battle Couple. Furthermore, the visuals repeatedly puts them side-by-side to emphasize them as a team.

The parley with Ramsay offers a number of shots that presents Jon and Sansa as a united front. 

In short, they look “beautiful and majestic” together  (as the script explicitly states).

Ruling Couple. This trope is generally used in relation to a monarchial setting:

A ruling couple, on the other hand, are equal or near equal partners, and may even be Happily Married. Rather then one ruling and one staying in the palace they jointly rule. The rulers will rely on each other as trusted counselors and they will be The Good King and The High Queen in one. Perhaps they will show this by receiving audiences on two thrones. Perhaps the consort will have a regular seat in the royal council and a vote. Perhaps even the two of them will discuss deep and labyrinthine affairs of state during matrimonial activities.

On many occasions, they will also be a Battle Couple. (TVTropes)

Jon and Sansa may not be a Ruling Couple in the traditional sense (not yet anyway). However, the visuals repeatedly show them sitting side-by-side, looking regal, when they interact with their bannermen.

The shot below is an especially strong visual because it offers a simple yet effective image composition. Jon and Sansa are placed firmly in the centre of the shot, framed by the large hearth that forms a pale background against which and they stand out visually. They are further framed by the black silhouette of the bannermen. This, along with the slow zoom in, serve to highlight them visually in a way that ruling couples often are presented. Once again, Jon and Sansa look beautiful and majestic together.

This shot is not only visually striking but it may very well be narratively significant as a piece of subtle foreshadowing. The kingmaking scene follows the most narratively important reveal in the entire show: the revelation of Jon’s true parentage as the son of Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar Targaryen. Immediately after this revelation, Jon is chosen as King in the North based on his status as Ned Stark’s bastard son and he’s thus elected under false pretenses even though he is unaware of his true parentage.

Placing the parentage reveal before the kingmaking is an interesting (and very deliberate) editing choice because it introduces the possibility that Jon’s parentage may become a problem for his kingship in the future. Jon’s true parentage relates to several popular tropes: Really Royalty Reveal, Hidden Back-up Prince, Secret Legacy - or as I like to call it: the Hidden Prince. When a narrative employs this trope, the truth will ALWAYS come out and it is always be of extreme narrative importance. While Jon relinquished his kingship in season 7, his status as a leader in the North may very well be further imperilled when the truth comes out. There’s been written several metas on how a marriage between Jon and Sansa would effectively unite the competing claims to North and unite House Stark firmly under Jon’s leadership, so I won’t go further into this argument here. 

Rather, I’d just point out that by placing the parentage reveal right before a scene that invokes a visual iconography of a ruling couple in such a strong image composition, the show simultaneously teases the likelihood of a  future conflict as well as its possible solution - in one single image!

When Jon is declared King in the North, despite Sansa having the heriditary claim to Winterfell, he turns to Sansa to gauge her reaction. he wants her to approval before he accepts the kingship - and she smilingly approves without uttering a single word. Yet another instance of them being in accord.

It is a move that is similar to this interaction between King Leonidas of Sparta and his queen Gorgo in 300 (2007) - spouses in accord, there’s no need for words.

Whilst Sansa isn’t Jon’s formal co-ruler, the show continues to seat her next to Jon when he exerts his authority as king. This is especially important since Winterfell’s Great Hall lacks the visual stage-setting of power that characterizes the Red Keep and Dragonstone. Jon’s “throne” is just a regular chair and he is placed on the same level as his subjects - yet he maintains a certain distance by standing behind a separate table at the end of the room, right in front of the visual centre provided by the hearth. The table acts as a physical and visual barrier between him and his bannermen so even though he’s not physically elevated above his vassals, he does inhabit a space that is sectioned off from them (though he quickly moves beyond it). Sansa inhabits this same space, right by his side!

However, Davos also sits next to Jon, at the same side of the table. Here it is important to pay attention to the image composition! As you can see, Davos is seated a bit farther from Jon than Sansa - and this slight separation is visually emphasized by the hearth where the light reflected on the lower mantel creates a visual barrier between Jon and Davos. No such barrier exist between Jon and Sansa - and the slightly skewed perspective also makes them look closer to each other. In short, though three persons are seated side by side, Jon and Sansa are grouped together in a visually distinct manner that evokes the iconography of a Ruling Couple.

Even their costumes support this trope! @jonsalways has penned an amazing costume meta that about Jon and Sansa’s costumes in seasons 6 and 7. She notes that the colours and the overall silhouettes of their costumes match each other, which not only makes them look good together but also serve to underscore them as a team. I’m going to quote her here because she cuts to the heart of the matter in such a succinct manner:

When you look at the items they wear (it) is also wonderful. They both have a cloak, a cape, a dress/shirt, a “metal necklace”, a collar over the necklace and a belt. Every single detail in Jon’s costume has a equivalent on Sansa’s. It’s almost as they wear the female and male version of the same outfit. 

When they are side by side, they look beautiful because their costumes match in pieces and their silhouette look just right. It’s comfortable to look at them because they look so similar. It’s almost like you don’t see two characters wearing two different concepts. You see them together as one whole concept. If they could switch their cloaks/capes, the colors would work just fine. And they are the only Starks whose costumes do that. Michele Clapton does it for a reason.

The elements mentioned in the quotes work on the level of the visual sub-conscious, i.e. we simply notice that they look aesthetically pleasing together but it is seldom something that the general audience give much thought to.

However, there are obvious symbolic elements to their costumes that we are most definitely are meant to notice; elements that also work as statements about their characters and their narrative journeys. In the case of Jon and Sansa, the symbolic element is the Stark direwolf, the heraldic sigil of their House - and this element tells the story of two characters travelling towards the same destination in season 6 and on parallel lines in season 7.

In season 6, we see Sansa visually reclaim her identity as a Stark through an act of (literal) self-fashioning: she makes a beautiful dress where the bodice acts as the canvas for the presentation of the Stark direwolf, made with materials that probably are supposed to evoke the natural landscape of the North - such a irregularly cut squares of mother-of-pearl (that made me remember the wonderful mussel shell necklace that Karsi wore in season 5).

Sansa’s homemade dress is a profound act of self-reclamation. She emblazons her chest with the ancestral symbol of her family - almost as an answer to the way the Lannisters put their heraldic stamp on her neck in season 3:

Throughout the season she’s repeatedly insulted as being no Stark - Lord Glover tells her House Stark is dead and Lady Mormont snidely calls her both a Lannister and a Bolton. Sansa answers that she will always be a Stark - and it is written on her body for all to see.

Jon is also wearing a single direwolf on his costume to match Sansa. However, his symbol is much more discrete in form and placement - probably both for reasons practical and symbolic. Sansa is the trueborn Stark after all. Jon’s cloak is a gift from Sansa, she made it herself - and the show actually takes the time to show us this:

We don’t see Sansa make the dress that is so important to her identity - but we get to witness her make a garment for Jon that is invested with a profound emotional, symbolic and political value. When Sansa gifts Jon with a cloak stamped with the Stark direwolf she wordlessly acknowledges and claims him as a Stark for all the world to see - the very thing that always has been Jon’s greatest wish! It is really very beautiful - she’s the one that makes a matching pair out of them (since she probably also made her own Stark fur). 

Politically, Jon’s new cloak is also significant - not just because of the Stark sigil but also because it is just like the one Eddard Stark wore! The patriarch whom the North once were sworn to, for whom they went to war! It is a politically savy move because Sansa Stark understands that clothing isn’t just about covering your body, it is also a language.

(the two edits below are by @baelerion)

Season 7 builds on this symbolic aspect of Jon and Sansa’s costumes. Now they both wear a pair of direwolves facing each other. Notice how they wear the Stark sigil on the same part of their bodies in both seasons - on the chest and then at the neck! Once again they match. 

The double direwolves are interesting because, unlike season 6, their stories have moved beyond becoming Starks (again). Now their narrative journey is about their partnership and that is signalled by the double direwolves. They have to learn to act in tandem. While they have their differences and instances of miscommunication, season 7 is about them acting as a ruling team, as King in the North and Lady of Winterfell - two titles that originally belonged to just one person. Once again they are being posited as two halves of a whole - the ruling pair of the North, which is formalized when Jon names Sansa his regent before he travels south.

Interestingly enough, Jon and Sansa’s double direwolves have their echoes in two earlier costumes. When Bran acted as Robb’s regent in season 2, he wore a gorget just like Jon’s - and when Robb attended the Red Wedding as KitN he wore a pair of direwolf clasps just like Sansa’s! Now the costumes are reversed, the gorget for the KitN and the clasps for his regent. An interesting detail that very likely is significant, considering Michele Clapton’s symbolic and narrative approach to the costumes of GoT.

Even down to the smallest detail, the costume design presents Jon and Sansa  to the audience looking like a ruling couple; a couple that are on parallel narrative journeys. It is also worth noting that it is only Jon and Sansa who wear the Stark sigil in season 7! Neither Arya nor Bran appear to wear the Stark direwolf even after they’ve returned home to Winterfell. Perhaps that is because it is Jon and Sansa who are the leaders of House Stark and the North.

I’m going to return to the issue of image composition in relation to the Ruling Couple trope. When season 6 aired, HBO released this wonderful and very memorable photo. (I’ve reversed it for visual variety)

This beautiful image doesn’t actually match what we see on out TV screens! This is a still photograph, taken by a separate photographer (a unit still photographer). Not only do we not see this exact pose in the episode in question but it is also clear that this image has been through a graphics editor since the bluish tint from the episode has been removed in favour of a stronger visual contrast with the background so Jon and Sansa’s figures capture the eye immediately.

Still photographs like this are created specifically for publicity and marketing. This image became very popular with the media outlets that cover the show - not surprisingly since it is one of the most visually arresting images among the promotional material released to the press. This image became a very popular header picture in several reviews, think pieces and post-season articles, such as this one in TIME where a possible Jonsa marriage is discussed.

I hesitate to name this photo “iconic” because I think it is too early to use that designation. It is, however, an extremely striking image with the clear-cut profiles, the matching costumes and the sharp silhouettes against the light background - there’s no visual “clutter” to distract the eye from the regal couple. Jon and Sansa really stand out against the background and everything from the direction of their gazes to their matching colours and silhouettes tie them together visually as a couple. They look like a king and queen in this image and since it was a popular choice with the media outlets, it is an image that has repeatedly been presented to the people who follow the coverage of the show online. That kind of image repetition can also work to plant the idea of Jon and Sansa as a couple on the subconscious level.

This image is pretty much the incarnation of the line from the script about Jon and Sansa looking “beautiful and majestic”.  They look like a King and Queen, there’s no need for crowns here.

No other couple has looked as regal as these two in the entire show! 

In contrast, one of the most popular stills of Jon and Dany from season 7 is markedly different. @jonsalways has noted how Jon and Dany’s costumes never truly match, neither in colour nor in silhouette. That also is very apparent in this image. What is even more interesting is the fact that this composition doesn’t convey harmony and togetherness like the regal image above, which makes sense since Jon and Dany isn’t one the same page in this season. Not only do they have conflicting interests and goals, the one is also intent on subjugating the other. In short, they don’t look like a romantic couple.

In terms of body language Jon and Dany are completely out of sync and there’s a distinct lack of communication between them. Whilst Dany is gazing at Jon, her body turned towards him, Jon’s attention is elsewhere. He faces away from her and doesn’t even seem to acknowledge her presence. When compared with the JonSa image above, the background almost feels visually “cluttered”, which also means that it is much less attention-grabbing than the first image. When it comes to drawing visual attention to something, less is generally more.

As said, the regal image of Jon and Sansa doesn’t appear in the show itself. The closest the show matches the promotional image is this double profile shot:

This shot is of particular interest in relation to the Ruling Couple trope because the image composition adhere to a common iconographic schema for portraits of royal couples.

Fx in this coin minted for the 70th wedding anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.

Or this design for a stamp featuring Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary of Denmark. These are but a few example from a vast number of offical royal portraits.

Throughout seasons 6 and 7, the show presents the audience with a large number of visuals that depict Jon and Sansa in a manner that is associated with ruling couples.

Interestingly enough, the Stark-centric cover of Entertainment Weekly in 2017 positively screams Northern Royal Family! This is of course a group portrait of a group of siblings (even though Jon is actually their cousin). However, not only is Sansa placed next to Jon (instead of fx between Bran and Arya), the combination of a standing male and a seated female evokes a time-honoured compositional template for official royal portraits. I’ve included a couple of examples for comparison.

Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Daniel of Sweden.

King Frederik IX and Queen Ingrid of Denmark.

Then there’s this lovely portrait of Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary of Denmark.

This is a slightly different variation on the pose but it is also a popular one in royal portraiture. Notice how we also have a very similar image of Jon and Sansa in the last episode of season 6?

It is unclear whether the cinematographer consciously chose to model these shots of Jon and Sansa on popular visual conventions for royal portraiture. It is entirely possible that these similarities are coincidental to a certain degree. By that I mean that when we see a lot of pictures, certain types of composition becomes so familiar to us that we don’t register them consciously. However, I do think that the similarities between the image composition in the shots where Jon and Sansa are placed side-by-side are the result of some conscious choices, especially since directors and cinematographers often turn to art for inspiration (like Dan Sackheim took inspiration from Caravaggio’s art for Jon’s resurrection scene). 

To be continued...

(GIFs and edits not mine)