#i automatically write off their opinion it’s invalid

[nightswatchdisbandmentera]

ASOIAF stans can be very annoying because a common characteristic in any discussion about leadership in this series always delves into readers zeroing in on failures while they completely write off any successes. This happens with just about any person thrust into a position of power, but I see these bizarre standards most applied to Jon Snow and Daenerys (especially Dany). You’d think that after years and years of analyzing the text to death, we’d come up with more compelling arguments than “Jon Snow bad Lord Commander” and “Dany bad (she’s just bad)”. Fans have decided to define these two by the mistakes they make while completely writing off all the good they do. And then the most baffling thing is when they say that Dany and Jon are failures so someone else should be the endgame ruler….and then they name Young Griff as their chosen champion.

Setting aside the obvious role Aegon plays as a narrative foil to Jon and Dany, how can anyone say he would do a better job? He has done literally nothing. His skills are a blank slate. Where is the evidence that he would have better reforms for the Watch than Jon did? That he would know how to better handle the different factions at the Wall than Jon did? That he would know how to prepare for the upcoming food shortage than Jon did? Where is the evidence that he would know how to better handle Meereen than Dany did? That he would know how to better deal with the obviously gargantuan task of abolishing slavery?

The point is that ruling is hard. There’s no such thing as a perfect ruler in this series and if anyone thinks that there is, they obviously have not been paying attention. All who have been put in a position of leadership in this story fail in some way. That’s the nature of the job. Even good-hearted, well-intentioned people like Jon and Daenerys struggle with the weight of leadership. So even as they do such incredible good, they still have blind spots. That’s because they’re human and human beings are not perfect. And let’s be real, people would complain if they were suddenly so good at ruling despite their young age and inexperience. So it’s insane to me that fans will read these books and come to the conclusion that all that is needed, instead of Jon and Dany, is a perfect leader who will make everything ok - even more baffling when they name Aegon/Young Griff or some other person who has zero experience with administration so far. Please, let us be serious for once.

[mythalism]

despite being a clear solas stan i do genuinely understand and empathize with people who feel slighted by the blatant narrative focus on him versus other characters, especially if he doesn’t particularly resonate with you. people often call him as “controversial” which is undeniably true among the fans, but i honestly wonder if he was written to be controversial or if it was an unexpected consequence of his writing that they didn’t anticipate. the devs with the most creative power and agency all clearly adore him, if not as a person at least as an interesting character. but i remember how much the popular opinion towards him changed after the release of trespasser, from "some guy i never talked to because hes boring" to "evil maniac" and i honestly cannot imagine the developers would intentionally create a character, whom they knew would one day become effectively the central point around which the narrative orbits, and make him.... hated by like half of players? and not just hated as in "love to hate" but like genuinely hated. like i know people who are literally are not going to buy this game because it focuses so heavily on a character they dgaf about or dont like. and the devs definitely know this. they literally changed the name from "dreadwolf" to "the veilguard" because they didnt want to make it seem like it was all about solas. they literally said this when asked about the change. which is just... fascinating because... he was written this way!!!! he was written to be an asshole to people who dont like him. hes literally a pride demon who hates people who hate him LMFAO. and he only really becomes sympathetic if you put effort into getting to know him. but what incentive does a player have to get to know him??? LITERALLY NONE??? like he actively dissuades you from getting to know him. and the game really does not give you any other reason to until the very end, when you find out he was sketchy... but some people just do not care? and why would they? a ton of people played inquisition as their first game and would barely know who fen'harel is despite a few vague mentions in the temple of mythal and like... 2 codex entries. some people dont even read the codex entries. and all of this is made even more insane because all of this was necessarily for him to be in-character as a trickster god cosplaying as a nerdy loser. and a lot of fellow solas lovers write off criticism of him or people who just dont like him as automatically wrong and invalid because "he becomes what you think of him" and while thats true, he basically becomes Pride or Wisdom depending on how the player treats him, it still presents an insane conundrum that has led us to this point of contention. but the worst part is i literally dont even know what else they wouldve done?? like i dont have any fixes for this LMFAO. making him bestie coded just so people liked him going forward would be completely out of character. i just find it so interesting that we have ended up here, and while obviously im personally glad there is such a narrative focus on him because i love him, and i think the way he molds to the perception of the player reflects the "expectation makes reality" concept that exists in spirits is a brilliant narrative tool (that also further suggests he was originally a spirit), it also makes perfect sense to me how he has become so divisive with people interpreting him as two entirely different characters, literally an evil pride demon or a beloved wisdom spirit, and i wonder how they are going to continue it in veilguard

[aeide-thea]

[psychiatric/pathologizing terminology, holocaust imagery, slurs, in-group/reclamatory deployments of]

i've seen people complain in the past that the term 'paranoid reading' is ableist, and i thought, μέν i'm always open to refining the framings i use for things, δέ maybe i should, you know, actually go look at the sedgwick before formulating an opinion—only it turns out 4 in the morning is not, shocker, actually the best time to be trying to wrap yr head around anything complex? however at first glance it does seem worth noting that whatever one's stance on psychiatric-flavored terminology, the original essay is not in fact deploying it accidentally or, i'd argue, wholly appropriatively—it's very explicitly connecting the label to its history of use against queer people to pathologize queerness. so my initial instinct here is that while i do still see why the term might make people flinch, it does seem like sedgwick's deployment of it was deliberate, informed, and in a certain sense reclamatory. doesn't mean it's therefore invalid to flinch at it! but does make flinching at it fairly analogous to flinching at deliberate, informed, reclamatory deployments of the pink triangle, or of language like queer, fag, dyke, etc—id est, something it's valid to want to avoid, if it triggers you, but not in fact categorically inappropriate.

it obviously gets more complicated as we move away from 'queer [still at the time of writing literally pathologized in the DSM!] theorist discussing/attempting to practice antihomophobic theorizing' towards 'people of unspecified positionality applying sedgwick's concepts to arenas farther afield from either queerness or pathologization,' and i do really want to be mindful here of how comparatively little i've personally been subject to this sort of involuntary pathologizing labeling and how that positions me vis-à-vis this discourse, and also of hierarchies of psychiatric pathologization more broadly, but. my initial sense (while still not, to be clear, having fully digested or even finished reading the sedgwick piece!) is that the action item wrt this particular language is less 'strike it from our lexica' and more 'be mindful of its potential to twist in our hands and cut people, and use it with the respect any knife is due, and with attention to our safety circle.'

which is really, i think, the answer more often than not: we often seem to want things to be an automatic, no-thought-required yes/no, when in fact there's very little that has no potential for harm and requires no thought, and also very little that ought to be categorically off limits. most things are situational, really, and deserve more active (re)examination than they often get; but we do so love our thin-slicing!

[hephaestiions]

you literally glorified infidelity in your wireless 2020, fic writers like you really need to die out before you damage the community at large

you know, i’ve cycled through many iterations of a response to this ask. 

first i thought, let’s respond with a bit of sass. let’s say something like, ‘bold of you to assume i haven’t already died out, that tumblr isn’t just a congregation of ghosts moaning about the lives they wish they had’ or ‘what’s a community’ or maybe even a screenshot of the actual definition of glorification (which, well, i do suggest you look up anyway). 

then i thought, why entertain it at all? this is my space, this is my blog, it’s my fic. i can delete this ask, turn off anons and be done with it. i would be within my rights to do that. 

i also thought many times of explaining the contents of my fic. of explaining myself. contemplated answering this with poetry that metaphorically explains the many many things wrong with this. 

but here’s what i finally settled on:

honestly, anon, i’m feeling a little salty. it seems to me that you want fandom to be a highly sanitised space that fits into your personal parameters of ‘safe’ or consumable. what concerns me about that, and about this particular genre of anon hate in general is– for some reason your safe and sanitised world does not exclude sending people comments such as “...[you] need to die out”. i would argue that suggesting someone needs to die is maybe exponentially more threatening and damaging to ‘the community at large’ than a tagged fic that includes a disclaimer stating i do not endorse the behaviour i am writing about, but hey! personal opinions, am i right? 

i’m not going to defend my fic. i don’t feel the need to.

but if you think fanfiction about infidelity, fictional work that does not automatically demonise individuals who do something awful as the worst kind of monsters to exist, will actively push people to cheat on their partners (which is what i am assuming your definition of ‘damage’ to be in this scenario)... i’m going to have to ask you to reevaluate. fiction is not validation. it is exploration in a world where there are no real life casualties or consequences. 

i cannot believe that people have to keep repeating this: sanitising fan spaces by censoring content you personally find offensive will not in any way make fandom safer.  

in fact, this is literally the kind of comment that puts people and the ‘community’ in danger. 

i’ll explain. 

imagine this: people listen to you. people say, well, the glorification of infidelity really is quite awful, quite traumatising, we ought to ban it. but who determines what glorification is? who determines what romanticisation is? the line is too blurry anon, the only way forward here is to ban infidelity in fics completely. 

now readers who found comfort and solace in reading infidelity fics with hurt/comfort, with forgiveness or with freedom, with a particular quote that resonated with them, readers who turned to this fic at 3 am... they’ve lost it too. 

but hey, let’s take it further still, because that’s what this type of censorship will open fandom up to. let’s talk about how this will validate people who find content with any exploration of nsfw themes, r*cism, mis*gyny, homoph*bia, transph*bia, r*pe offensive. let’s talk about how they will approach the showrunners of censorship with the same argument: this content could be traumatising, could be validating for someone’s darker impulses, let’s ban it. and it all gets banned. 

enemies to lovers, banned because it might be construed as abusive. a/b/o, might be construed as misogynistic or codependent. hmm. high-school/college, oh god, that could be underage! soulmates? where’s the agency?! kid-fics? a minefield, any parenting is bad parenting to parents who do not parent that way. mcd? let’s not even go there. body-swap? the consent issues!! 

“alright. what about ‘there was only one bed’?” “well, i mean, i’m really not comfortable with that, it’s really creepy how writers will just force characters who don’t want to consent to that kind of intimacy into each others’ spaces.”

now i’m not saying that your personal opinions on these tropes, these themes, these topics is invalid. i’m not saying that if you’re triggered or made uncomfortable by these things, you should still read them. i’m saying that enforcing your personal preferences and takes on every single person in a community is not what critical consumers of media do, it’s what fascist and authoritarian governments and abusive individuals who do not understand boundaries do. 

here’s the truth about media that antis don’t like: there are antis for the media they actually do like. you ban something, you open up the goddamn floodgates for fluff antis to present their cases about how making characters ooc in fluff can be highly traumatic to people and how it should be banned. you start this brand of censorship, you risk losing fandom and the community you are so concerned about me damaging entirely. 

i’ll leave you with a realisation i’ve come to by reading all the posts made by people better with words than i am: the fastest way to create a dystopia is for someone to think their version of utopia is universal.

further reading for folks who might be interested in tumblr posts about fanfic: 

fanfiction as a collective exists as a combination of the ideal state and all the broken pieces that are left behind.  fanfiction: the stories mainstream showrunners won’t tell. for the people trying to make fandom a better place.

coexistence of hurt and healing

there are thousands of other such posts, articles, books, academic articles, maybe even interviews on the subject, and if anyone wants to send a few mine (and anon’s) way, feel free!

[writingwithcolor]

B’nei mitzvah in spaceship without Jewish community | Jewish character celebrating Christmas

Hi! Thank you so much for running this blog. I appreciate how much time and effort all the mods have put into it. I finished reading through the whole Jewish tag a few days ago, and I’ve learned so much! I’m writing a Voltron fic (I *know* lol) and decided to make one of the protagonists a white nonbinary Ashkenazi Reform Jewish girl. Her astronaut brother mysteriously disappears in space and is presumed dead, so she runs away from home a couple of months before her b'nei mitzvah to find him. Now, she’s in a group of rebels in space fighting against an Empire. I have two concerns:

1. Everyone on the ship misses home, so part of the way they cope is through getting in touch with their cultures. They’re gonna celebrate (a mostly non-Americanized) Christmas because it matters a lot to some of the characters for non-religious reasons. To what extent can my Jewish character participate in the celebration without it being weird? I want her to enjoy herself more because she’s with her friends than because Jesus etc. They’ll also celebrate Chanukah, if that helps. I know Chanukah isn’t a major holiday, so I also want to have her celebrate a more significant one like Rosh Hashanah and/or Purim with them. Is it okay for gentiles to participate in those holiday celebrations, or should she do that alone?

2. Throughout most of the story, she’ll struggle with choosing whether to prioritize fighting the Empire or finding her brother and bringing him home. When she eventually does find her brother (who also turns out to be a rebel), he lets her decide whether they stay or go home. I thought it would be nice if she decided to stay and keep fighting for the greater good after she finally has her b'nei mitzvah. Her friends and other experiences are also a big part of why she decides to stay, but the b'nei mitzvah would be what gives her the final push she needs to decide. I don’t know if it would be okay for me to write the ceremony itself or if she can even have one if only two of the eight people on the ship are Jewish. I read that not everyone has a b'nei mitzvah and that it’s not required, but I feel like it’d be a big deal to her character. Should I keep the b'nei mitzvah idea, or am I heading towards appropriative territory here?

I want to make her Jewishness a big part of her character’s growth, and I really want to make sure I do it respectfully and accurately. I plan on finding a sensitivity reader when I’ve made more progress with actually writing everything out. Thank you for any insight you might offer!

It feels off to me to join a community symbolically when you’re far away FROM the community. Why not just have had her already have done the ceremony before she has all these adventures? That way it could just be a straightforward story about a Jewish teen having exciting heroic adventures in space, rather than a story about what happens when you have to miss aspects of Jewish life because you’re in space. It would also make the “….well, I guess I’m around for Christmas” bit less weighted because then that would be the only one of those instead of having two of those.

–Shira 

I’ll cover some other territory here. For those who don’t know, b'nei mitzvah is something you just automatically become at the correct age, the ceremony is simply to celebrate that with the community. Not all people have the ceremony, but if you are Jewish, and of age (for religious purposes), your status changes with or without it. Personally, I’m comfortable with showing a Jewish character finding a way to have a Jewish celebration when the circumstances are less than ideal, for me the other aspects of the story are more troubling. 

On the subject of having a Jewish character celebrate Christmas with their friends… look I don’t like this trope. There are many Jewish people, who are completely secular, who don’t celebrate Christmas, because it is explicitly a Christian holiday, and secular Jewish people are still Jewish. Some Jewish people (secular or otherwise) do choose to celebrate other holidays, and I am very comfortable with those folks telling their own stories. What I’m not happy with is the push from outside of the community for every Jewish character to slide into assimilation. 

Some Jewish people will go to Christmas parties and not eat the food, because they keep kosher, or won’t stay for a tree-lighting, because that feels like it goes too far, or will give presents but not receive them. There are a huge number of ways we might handle Christmas, and I appreciate that you plan to show holidays other than just Chanukah (and yes, it’s fine for non-Jewish characters to join her in her holidays, if she invites them), but I always question why a non-Jewish writer is so keen to show Jewish characters celebrating Christmas. The most generous version of me wants to assume that you get so much out of Christmas that you want to share it, but the part of me that knows about the pressures to assimilate, and the history of increased antisemitic violence around Christmas thinks… just leave this kid alone. She missed her celebration, she’s far from her community, and now she has to go put on a Happy Assimilated Smile for the culturally Christian folks around her. From a nonbinary Jewish perspective, it’s a little unusual for your nonbinary character to use she/her pronouns, and use b'nei mitzvah as a gender neutral alternative to the gendered bat mitzvah. In secular life, at least in the US, it’s not uncommon for people to use multiple pronouns, but I haven’t met, or even heard of, a single person using gendered pronouns secularly, and using new neutral alternatives religiously. It absolutely could happen but, because it is so unusual, to me it reads as either invalidating the character’s gender, or tokenizing her in the religious sphere. 

–Dierdra 

Shira, I think that’s a really good idea to make the character post-b'nei mitzvah. That way you just have a Jewish character having adventures rather than her culture being The Conflict. (And also, a pre-b'nei mitzvah seems a bit young for this storyline? Can she really consent to fighting alongside the rebels? Do they habitually take unaccompanied children on their ship? To me a teenager would make more sense, but hey it’s not my story!)

Dierdra, your answer regarding the Christmas aspect was awesome and really thorough. Thanks for your thoughts on the pronouns as well, it also jarred with me but I was waiting to hear your opinion as you have lived experience. My worry is if you use gender neutral terms for one but not the other, you risk falling into to the stereotype that only marginalised religious folks have to change our language etc to be inclusive to LGBTQ+ people, but everyone else is fine. 

I wanted to come back to the point about Rosh Hashana. First of all, thank you for acknowledging that we have holidays that are more important than Chanukah! Sooo many OP’s don’t know that. In terms of how she would celebrate it, I agree it’s fine to invite non-Jewish people along. However, given how community-based Jewish life is, making her keep Yom Tov on her own feels a bit like a torture story, especially when others have people to celebrate Christmas with. I wonder if you’ve thought about giving her a Jewish friend on the ship? Especially if you want her Jewishness to be part of her growth as you mentioned, an older Jewish friend and mentor could be a huge help :)

–Shoshi

As you can see, we have a wide range of possibilities for “what happens when you ask a Jewish person about celebrating Christmas.” I didn’t mind hanging around it as an outsider myself until a certain subset of Christians started being mean-spirited about it in the news plus some personal trauma that time of year, as long as everyone involved was clear that I was just participating from the outside and this didn’t somehow change me. (If I may make an analogy: compare it to going to a baby shower when you want to support your friend or family member but also really don’t want kids of your own. You’re going to have a whole different experience if your decision is respected vs. if all the other guests treat you like you being there means you’ll change your mind about not wanting kids.)

That being said, it’s still all over the map. Some people IRL are okay even going to mass with their partner’s Catholic family (without participating in communion obvs.) Some would never, ever do that and are sitting here with shocked faces that I even typed that. But what becomes important is the way it’s written. Sitting around listening to the Christmas story is probably a bad fit for your fanfic, but helping other people bake Christmas cookies or put ornaments on a tree could work. The ornament thing could remind her of decorating a sukkah, and she could point that out to the others. 

I guess I’m saying is 

keep her participation secular, and 

keep her participation from leaning into the idea that we’re unhappy with our customs and would prefer to do it their way. 

I have literally never in my life felt jealous of the kids who “got to do Santa” (for example) and while I’m sure some kids were and they’re valid too, I think it’s important to show that it’s not a universal phenomenon.

–Shira

[musingsofanunorgainizedmind]

Supernatural: Unpopular Opinions

This is mostly a stream of consciousness cause I’ve seen a lot of strong opinions and some I agree with and some I disagree with. I don’t know if anyone will agree with any of these opinions, but I just wanted to get them out there in case anyone does. If you disagree, that’s totally fine! I mean no disrespect to anyone who sees things differently :)

1. Both Bisexual Dean and Straight Dean are valid interpretations of the text. Believing that Dean is straight does not automatically make you homophobic. Believing that Dean is bisexual doesn’t make you delusional. Personally? I think he’s bisexual. Either way, jumping onto anyone’s post with the sole purpose of invalidating their reading of the text or name-calling is rude.

2. My own personal headcanon? I think Jensen Ackles take on the character is genuinely that Dean’s feelings for Castiel are “open to interpretation”. My belief is that even Dean doesn’t even know the nature of his own feelings in regards to Castiel. It’s not something he’s ever really looked at too closely, you know? I think the confession probably shook him, but he figures it doesn’t matter now anyway. Regardless of the nature of his feelings for Castiel, I still think he would have immediately looked for Cas in heaven. He’s still his best friend. 

3. John Winchester is one of my favorite characters. Top five, definitely. However, I believe that “Lebanon” and “Carry On” gave him far too much credit. John is far from perfect. But he’s not a monster either. It’s his complexity and nuance that makes him so interesting. On the one hand, he’s a terrible father. He treats his sons like soldiers, does a number on both their psyches, and can be very narrow-minded. On the other hand, he only ever did what he thought was best for his sons, he was a “righteous man” and a hero, and he was working through a lot of trauma himself. He’s very flawed, but he’s not actively malicious. He loves his sons, but he makes a lot of mistakes. He’s a complicated character and I both love and hate him simultaneously. That’s what makes him such a good character. 

4. Carver Era is my least favorite Era. I don’t hate it and there are a lot of great episodes in that time. But this was the Era where I almost quit the show and got so bored that I had to force myself through the episodes. It wasn’t until they brought back Lucifer that I started getting excited again and it wasn’t until “Don’t Call Me Shurley” that I actually started enjoying the show again. 

5. Chuck Shurley is another one of my top five characters (the other three being Dean, Castiel, and Gabriel). I love dorky prophet Chuck, I love absent father Chuck, and I love evil maniacal Chuck. The writing is inconsistent, but they’re all so compelling to watch and interesting for different reasons. Honestly, I just think Rob Benedict is a really great actor and deserves major props for playing three separate characters for the price of one. I still think it’s a shame that they weren’t able to pull off a wrathful antagonistic (but not fully evil) Chuck. I love the meta of the character’s defeating the writer, but how cool would a disappointed and tired Chuck finally losing his patience with humanity and going all Noah’s Arc/Sodom and Gomorrah on Earth have been???

6. I believe Sam’s ending is just as tragic as Castiel and Dean’s. Castiel was never told he was loved and Dean never got to live his life. But the ending I cried the most about was Sam’s. Sam had to watch as all of his hunting friends and surrogate family disappeared before his eyes. He lost Eileen again. We have no idea whether he ever reunited with any of them or not. He lost his best friend and wasn’t even there to say goodbye to him. His son flew the coop. Not too long after, he lost his brother. Sam lost everyone he loved. Sam then spends the next forty years mourning all those who he’s lost and tries to live the life he thinks they’d want for him so that their sacrifices were worth it. It’s just so...depressing.

7. I ship Destiel, Saileen, Dean/Jo, Megstiel, and Sabriel. I feel like these ships can all coexist since they all existed at different times in the story. They don’t have to be in competition with each other. They all had potential and they all ended tragically. 

8. Rufus was the best part of the finale. The fact that the only characters (outside of Sam and Dean) who were mentioned were Bobby, Castiel, Jack, John, Mary, Donna, and Rufus is so funny to me. I mean, I know why, but still. There are so many unanswered questions and emotional arcs left unresolved, but at least we know Rufus is in Dean and Sam’s heaven. Also my favorite headcanon from the DeanCas wedding is that Rufus taught them the Hora and that they did the chair lift because I imagine Dean would hate every second of it and Castiel would spend the whole time trying to calm him down and assuring him that he won’t fall off the chair. 

9. None of the main actors deserve any hate. They’ve all said and done stupid things, but they all seem like overall good people. They’re all friends with each other. Trying to compare their friendships, put certain actors on pedestals, and demonize other actors is just....pointless and immature. We don’t know these people.

10. Canon ends when Chuck is defeated and the author is rendered powerless. Anything after the beach scene is subjective and you can choose your own ending. Does Jack become the new God? Does Dean die on a hunt a few weeks later? Five years later? Does Dean save Cas from the empty? Does Sam marry Eileen? Do Dean and Cas reunite in heaven? Does Sam start a hunting network? Does Sam quit hunting? Does his son get into the hunting life or does he have a normal life? Is the purgatory and empty situation resolved? It’s all up to your interpretation. 

[maryqueenofmurder]

Reasons to write Sympathetic Wilbur (only ignoring a little bit of canon!)

First off I’m not trying to invalidate anybody/say their experiences don’t matter/enable or excuse bad behavior.  I’m simply soft for edgy boys.

A.)  During the war for L’manberg he was good.  Surely, he can be good again.

B.)  He babied Fundy and kind of excluded him (Fundy wasn’t part of the theme song/Fundy didn’t get a government title) but that could be taken as him just being over-protective.  Maybe overcompensating for the fact that there was a literal war going on.  Wilbur’s trying to be a better dad now, so that’s got to count for something, even if he is a ghost?

C.)  He definitely didn’t handle things with Fundy well in the time before the election.  He said some pretty mean things about Fundy.  However, I would like to point out that he might not have necessarily meant them, Tommy says he hates people all the time and let’s be real, nobody believes him.

D.)  I’m pretty sure Ghostbur said that at one point when he was president he would just scream and cry into a pillow when he wasn’t on stage.  Clearly he was not okay.

E.)  He was summarily betrayed by a. Eret, b. Schlatt, c. Tubbo (Before you get angry at me, he did betray them.  It was only for a short time, but he wasn’t a spy in the beginning.  Not only did he betray them, he then proceeded to betray Schlatt.  His loyalty wavered from them once, who was to say it wouldn’t happen again?  It would only take a moment of weakness...) d. Fundy.  Maybe Fundy was a traitor from the beginning, but Wilbur didn’t know that.

F.)  Didn’t Eret and Niki plan to possibly blow up L’manberg as well?  Did everybody collectively decide they didn’t care?  Maybe it doesn’t matter because they didn’t succeed, or because no significance was placed on the fact that they might blow up L’manberg, like there was on Wilbur.

G.)  Wilbur telling Tommy that they can’t trust anybody.  I hear a lot of people call this manipulative/gaslighting and I have to say... you’re right.  One of the definitions of gaslighting is literally trying to get someone to question their own perceptions.  Which isn’t always a bad thing?  He probably should’ve been more gentle.  Like I said earlier, Tubbo betrayed them, but they reconciled.  Maybe Wilbur saw Tommy and Tubbo as a repeat of him and Schlatt.  Wilbur was betrayed by a friend (every five minutes videos) who he (assumedly) reconciled with.  Just like Tommy and Tubbo.  Wilbur was betrayed a second time, and he probably has no interest in seeing if history will repeat with Tommy and Tubbo.

H.)  Tubbo literally didn’t care that Wilbur wanted to blow up L’manberg, going as far as to call it a good idea.  (I think?)  Nobody is dragging his character through the mud for that.

I.)  The pit.  I will freely admit that this was very wrong of Wilbur to do.  I’m not here to paint him as some kind of saint or erase his sins.  I’m here to say that while he might not deserve a redemption arc, and maybe he shouldn’t have one (he is one of the best villains on the server) there is the possibility that he could have one.  He messed up, and should be held accountable for it.  However, everybody makes mistakes.  I’m not equating goading your brothers into fighting as a little oopsie that you stick a bandaid on.  I’m just saying that it doesn’t automatically make him irredeemable.  Sapnap killed so many people’s pets, and I don’t see nearly the same level of hate.

J.)  This man went into battle on the 16th without any armour.  Does that seem like the kind of thing somebody who was mentally healthy would do?  He literally asked his dad to kill him.

K.)  I think I would call Wilbur self-destructive.  Somebody please help him.  He literally said he was the traitor.  What kind of good traitor does that?  Wilbur is such a tragic character.

L.)  I have also seen some people saying that Wilbur tried to elect Tommy as president so that it would hurt worse when he destroyed it.  However, Ghostbur said that he picked Tubbo after Tommy because Tubbo had a better story.  This implies that Wilbur was picking people based off of their stories.  So Wilbur just thought that Tommy had the best story.

M.)  The whole “If I can’t have it then no one can” bit seems kind of absurd.  Like, I kind of get it.  However, they offered him the presidency.  They gave him L’manberg.  It’s contradictory.

All in all, I don’t think Wilbur is going to get a redemption arc, at least not while alive.  However, if it does happen I will gladly eat my words.  I’d like to see more fanfiction of Wilbur being good, or at least just being insane instead of some sort of truly horrible person.  I think he was just deeply hurt.  Once again, not trying to offend anybody, you’re welcome to your own opinion, this is just mine.

[rappaccini]

one thing i absolutely despise about fandom discourse is the idea that being a shipper of something automatically invalidates your opinion.

like... everyone is biased? not-shipping something is just as much of a bias as shipping something. caring about shipping is just as much of a bias as throwing up your hands and saying ‘eh, whatever goes.’ it all affects how we engage with our fiction, and how we write our meta and outline our hopes for the future of it, and no one is exempt from it.

and seeing people titter about how ~mmm i’m not one of those dirty shippers~ or ~ooh, you ship xyz? guess we know how you feel huh. guess you want to infect My Thing with romance, huh~ is remarkably off-base and just makes people seem like pretentious jackasses.

[im-the-punk-who]

Can you explain how a slave revolt in the Bahamas could have changed the history of America?

HELLO ANON FROM LIKE FOUR MONTHS AGO! I kept meaning to go back to this and then uhhh forgetting to do that. (Also thank you for indulging me and sending this sort-of-directly-asked-for-question lmao)

So. Here’s a brief overview of how a successful slave revolt like in Black Sails could have changed the history of not just America, but the entire world. And quite, well - easily - had the circumstances in Black Sails presented themselves. 

First off, standard disclaimer that this is all conjecture based on my own research and knowledge of both history and Black Sails. It isn’t meant as a takedown of anyone else’s views, or the character’s actions. The strongest I would call this is a wishful critique of the choices the writers made to include the things they did in the way they were included, and the way those same writers chose to end the story they chose to tell. And maybe, a little bit, a frustration of how the inevitability of american history is used as a given in fandom to defend certain character’s actions - but it is not meant to invalidate the reasons behind those actions. Just to point out that those reasons were more emotionally than factually driven (Which is cool! And very real to the kinds of tragedies that play out in real life revolutions! Vive le realismé!)

Also quite obviously I’m not a professional in any way. I was eating soup from a can as I wrote this. I am now eating cookies for dinner. I am writing this because it’s fun for me. It’s fun!! If deep thought-experiment type analysis of media isn’t your cuppa, that’s fine - you can keep scrolling.

I’ve included major historical events from 1700-1740 since that is the general time period that Black Sails draws its history from. In particular, most of the later seasons’ historical references come from the 1730s. While I’ve tried to be as thorough as possible...there are so many ways history could have been changed by a tiny action that it would be impossible to cover them all. For brevity, I’m focusing on the history of the Bahamas, the Caribbean, and Colonial America. I’ll touch on other places as is relevant but like......it’s world history for a reason.

Okay, here goes.

So first and foremost, to understand how it’s destruction could have changed America, you really need to understand just how much economic power chattel slavery gave colonial empires and England in particular. 

Slavery was the most important economic force in Colonial England, and not just in what the slaves produced. The slave trade itself was the most lucrative business in existence at the time. If you want to learn more about that, I highly recommend listening to this podcast, which does an excellent job of explaining how the economic buying and selling and bonding of slaves was of such value to colonial empires. This is important because the most powerful contemporary argument for the continuation of slavery was that it “could not be ended in the Americas until there was certainty that it wouldn’t create social or economic irritation.” (Thomas Jefferson, 1783.)

(Slavery in itself is not something that was unique to the british empire or even the Imperialist governments that created it. Most cultures have had some form of slavery. However, this was not the type of generational slavery that colonial empires employed. In most cases before the 1400s, slaves were not kept slaves solely based on the color of their skin - they were war prisoners, criminals, or debtors. In most cases, slaves could work to buy their freedom, and most importantly, slavery was not an inherited state that passed from parent to child. 

What we think of in terms of colonial slavery is chattel slavery - which is the kind of slavery Europeans imposed on Africans starting in the fifteenth century. These slaves could not buy their freedom. They were viewed as property instead of human beings based on their race and their children were automatically enslaved in the same way they were. They were mistreated, and viewed as subhuman, without any chance of escaping the bonds which had been forced upon them.

Because of this new type of slavery that started in the colonial era, Europeans needed to justify why they were entitled to own other people as slaves. They needed to convince themselves and other people that there was some moral justification for chattel slavery. This is what led to all the myths of ‘happy’ servitude, racial inferiority, and any ‘benefits’ slavery imparted to slaves. These were all lies created by philosophical thinkers and plantation owners and politicians that let settlers convince themselves they were not committing crimes of immense magnitude against other human beings. For much of the colonial era, these were the norm in thinking and their vestiges still linger today. But these were used to justify slavery because of how important it was economically.

And of course there were always dissenters. Since slavery was first introduced to the colonies there were people who knew that this sort of treatment was just not very gucci. These people argued that slavery went against the very nature of a ‘just’ society. That benefitting off the mistreatment of other human beings was akin to spiritual robbery, and that “European colonies should be destroyed rather than create so many unfortunates!” (Louis Jaucourt, 1754). With your goddamn motherfucking chest Jaucourt. The Quakers of Pennsylvania were strong proponents of abolition since the 1670’s! James Oglethorpe(yes, that Oglethorpe) himself was a staunch abolitionist who went as far as to make slavery illegal in Georgia when he formed the colony in 1733.

The economic power of slavery was used as a justification to keep it intact for hundreds of years and many colonists were happy with this, but it’s important to remember that not everyone was. England and the colonists were far from unanimously in support of the practice. This becomes important later! Like, this is the basis for the whole argument of how a drawn out war in the Bahamas could have ended slavery and changed colonial imperialism.)

OKAY NOW THAT WE’VE GOT THAT COVERED. 

Now let’s go to the people it affected. Enslaved black people have been fighting against their enslavement since they were taken from their homes and brought across the Atlantic in the 15th century. Starting in the 1700s, slave revolts started to see more and more success in these efforts, until in the late 1700s and early 1800s public opinion of slavery finally dropped enough that it was outlawed in the colonial empires of England and France. In the years of 1700-1740, there were several rebellions in the North American area including:

1712 New York Slave Revolt (British Province of New York)

1730 Chesapeake rebellion (British Chesapeake Colonies)

1733 St. John Slave Revolt (Danish Saint John)

1739 Stono Rebellion ((British Province of South Carolina)

1741 New York Conspiracy (British Province of New York)

And of course, 

1728-1739 First Maroon War (British Jamaica)

This is the war which the war in Black Sails is based on. The treaty that was offered by Woodes Rogers in Black Sails is almost word for word(minus the pirates bit) the treaty offered to the Leeward Maroons in this war. There are references to the factions in this war and even some of the historical people involved in it. The major difference? The Maroon war was successful. The Maroons were so good at warfare on their turf that the British were unable to sustain any major victories against them. After ten years they offered the Maroons a treaty granting them governmental agency(although not independence). In return, the Maroons agreed to return any escaped slaves back to the British, and to help the British fight off “invaders”. The Leeward maroons led by Cudjoe(Julius, in Black Sails) took this offer to avoid more fighting because he believed in an honorable peace with the enemy. Queen Nanny and her Windward Maroons(The Maroon Queen and Madi in Black Sails) refused because like....bruh those terms suck. After a year she was pressured into relenting by Cudjoe, but within thirty years the Maroons had started another war, dissatisfied with how the treaty was being carried out. 

(This is Queen Nanny. And yes, she is better than you.)

I also need to mention that Africans were not the only ones in North America hurt by British Colonialism, nor the only ones for whom abolition and an end to colonial empire was attractive. The Native Americans were also a constant frustration to the colonies, and, because it’s relevant to later things, I want to mention one incident in particular: 

The Yamasee War (1715-1717)

The Yamasee were a Lower Creek tribe that lived in what is today Georgia/Florida. The war was fought over a bunch of different things, including trading systems and colonists depleting the game in the area, but also because of the colonists’ nasty habit of trying to enslave Native American people. Bummer. So a bunch of tribes(and I mean a bunch - there were Shawnee and Cherokee factions, as well as about half a dozen other distinct nations that joined in the fight in sort of that loose ‘hey you hate these guys? we hate these guys!’ way.)

 Long story short, this war was a pretty significant factor in the colonists in the South not enslaving(outright) Native Americans anymore, and instead increasing the import of African slaves to the south. After this war the Yamasee split into two factions, one anti-colonist and one pro-colonist. The pro-colonist people called themselves the Yamacraw, and it was these people who granted Oglethorpe(yes, that Oglethorpe) the land which he used to found Georgia. Moral of the story, alliances between abolitionists and indigenous tribes were already in place in the colonies. Just waiting for a chance to be used.

(Tomochichi, the leader of the Yamacraw and very cool accessorizor)

(Yet ANOTHER thing to keep in mind is that before the end of the 18th century, both Haiti and Grenada would see major revolutions against their colonial empires. Slaves in all provinces and colonies were continually fighting for their freedom. What they lacked was a unifying force that supplied them enough power and cohesion to fight the empire man-to-man, so to speak.)

SO. INTO THIS SCENE, ENTER JAMES FLINT - ANGRIEST OF MLM SCALLYWAGS AND TACTICIAN EXTRAORDINAIRE.

(So cute.)

Anyway, the Golden Age of Piracy was largely over by the early 1720 - most of the pirates of Nassau took Rogers’ pardon and reintegrated as citizens of society. That or they like....died. A lot of them died. Gruesomely. Nasty business, piratry. So, if we assume that in Black Sails’ history that Flint and Silver managed to convince the Maroons to rebel ten years earlier, join with the pirates who did not want to assimilate, and start a revolution; now instead of two separate wars Britain is now fighting one much bigger, nastier, more expensive one. 

Backed by people with a good deal of money at their disposal. Cha-ching.

Keep in mind that Britain had already been at war for almost thirty years with first the Glorious Revolution and the Jacobite risings(1688-forever) and the War of Spanish Succession(1701-1714). Their resources had already been depleted. And this was why the American colonies(and India) had become so important to them. Remember what I said about the economic importance of slavery? It’s because Brtitain was using the slave trade to refill its coffers after an extensive and costly military campaign. 

So now, this new war is not only putting an additional drain on the empire’s resources before Britain has had a chance to replenish itself but it is also taking away the very source of income needed to replenish itself. (Since the war would target places heavy with slave trading.) In addition, the pirates handed a significant defeat to the British Navy that ended with the Navy retreating - turning tail and running from the island. This was actually a huge victory and one that was sort of downplayed in the show but would be incredibly significant in the event of a long campaign.

Rogers is not taking Nassau with the full support of Britain. He is only fighting with the traitors who did not return when the Navy withdrew. That is why he has to go to Spain in the first place. 

The show has also told us that this rebellion is already starting to be widely known - pirates and slaves from Barbados, the Bahamas, as far as Massachusetts are coming to aid the rebellion in the hopes of freedom. This is not a small thing. 

Even with the loss of the Walrus and most of the Walrus crew, there are still thousands of fighters on the Maroon Island. Slaves, mainland pirates - the defeat of the Walrus was a personal defeat but in the grand scheme of a larger war it was a small loss in what was ultimately a huge victory. 

Rogers has been squarely defeated. Because of that, they now have Nassau as a base. The war now has two strongholds - one protected by the forest and one protected by a fort - into which they can store supplies, retreat, and organize attacks from. If they can free the rest of the slaves on the island of Nassau and either oust or convert the puritans, all the better. 

The war at the point Rogers is defeated was far from a never-ending thing. In fact I would say that Flint is absolutely right - they are incredibly close to a decisive victory. England cannot afford to muster a large enough force to defeat two entrenched enemies working together - especially ones as well financed as we’re led to believe the chest would make the Maroons and Pirates. Even if Britain could somehow convince Spain and/or France to join them, both of those nations have also been severely depleted by wars of their own. And again, the more nations that Britain brings in, the more potentially disaffected people could be brought in to join the pirates(see, Haiti and Grenada specifically, both of which were French colonies at the time, and the Spanish colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc). 

So from here, the smartest thing for the rebellion to do would be to hit large plantations: to both free the slaves and cripple Britain’s economy. Make slavery more costly to enforce than it is profitable to sustain, and build their numbers for the war as well, as well as like, you know, freeing slaves. Make it so that Britain could not sustain the cost of trying to fight it - as James said all the way back in 1705. Force a surrender on economic grounds.

So now, the power behind the empire has been broken. Even assuming a modest victory, the course of the entire world - not just the Americas - has changed. In victory, let’s say the Bahama/Caribbean islands are freed from British rule. Slavery in the americas will also never be able to get the foothold it does, historically. 

With a free nation actively willing to target slave plantations and ships sitting between it and Africa, the colonial slave trade is finished. Now sure, they could use the existing slaves, but it would be oh-so-easy for the Pirates and Maroons, alongside their hopeful new Native and abolitionist allies, to target large plantations and cripple them. 

If slavery never gets a foothold in the south, northern colonies never build the banks and mills and economic powerhouses that profit from the cheap produce, and most find another way to survive. Perhaps, if we’re going really all out, they start working with the native americans - learning ways to cultivate and grow crops with the land and in balance, rather than clearing thousands of acres for damaging cash crops. 

I want to be really, really clear about this because it is incredibly important. Without slavery, the British empire would not have bee able to sustain itself. It would not have the power. And the more it tried to tax the colonists to recoup its losses, the angrier those people were likely to get, and perhaps join the Maroons and Pirates, or perhaps evens start the american revolution early - maybe even with the help of the newly independent Jamaican/Bahaman island nations. 

This break in the power of colonial empires would shift world history into something unrecognizable as we know it. The empires would still exist, of course, but they would be set on their heels - France and Spain would see what happened to Britain and be less inclined to keep slavery legal in their own colonies. Power is split more evenly among the world, and indigenous and black/African nations are not wiped out in genocidal bids for power. 

Which brings me to India. If the Indian rebellions learned of what happened in America and the Bahamas, or if america had drained enough of britain’s resources that the British East India Trading Company was not able to be as controlling of the area, this could have meant independence centuries earlier, as well as a much easier path to independence. Think about what could have been if the Indian people had been able to oust a struggling empire from its shores an entire century before it historically did. 

(This bad boy is Mangal Pandey, who led the first major Indian revolution in the mid 1800s. In the movie adaptation his boyfriend best friend is played by Toby Stephens so I’m connecting the dots.)

Once the colonies of America and India are gone, Britain loses almost the entirety of its colonial power. (And this isn’t even including all the smaller colonies which could cloak their own independence in these big revolutions and the lack of (as much) of an indigenous genocide in many of these places. The economic disparity that defines Black experience in places that the British colonial system touched never gets a hold, and they are able to build their own economies in ways that benefit them and the places they live. 

Think about the wealth of culture in ALL nations that would not have been destroyed, had Britain not been allowed to swallow whole swaths of land whole. 

And, look. I know this is fiction. I know that of course, none of this happened, and that Black Sails is a fictional landscape. I know that so many things could go differently than I imagine them. I know that to extrapolate like this relies heavily on actually caring about a world that is completely different from ours and envisioning how that could come about. 

I also know, that it is just as important to tell these sorts of stories as telling stories about how small acts could have changed things immensely, as it is to tell them about how society must stay the same. It is just as important to tell stories about ‘what if colonialism were able to be stopped’ as it is to tell dystopian stories about the end of the world. It may not be as much fun, but it is important to remember that our power doesn’t lie an indiscernible amount of time in the future, after the world has already gone to shit. It lies with us, right now. And that even if it is hard to see, our actions have the power to shape history.

[nightswatchdisbandmentera]

Welp, I’m going to talk about Robb’s Will…

I’ve been seeing some strange commentary on Robb’s Will lately that I found a little annoying and wanted to address. People seem to think that the will is invalid or irrelevant for a slew of reasons. I’ve seen people say that the will is automatically moot because it was made with the assumption that Bran and Rickon were dead, but since they are alive then it’s contents are invalid and can be ignored. Others have also agued that Jon cannot possibly be the named heir since he is not a Tully, so the Riverlords would be unlikely to follow him. This last point has given rise to the rather nonsensical theory that Lady Catelyn was named heir instead of Jon.

I don’t particularly understand or agree with these opinions. While there are several issues with the will, I don’t think it’s fair to completely write off its validity. It’s true that Bran’s and Rickon’s survival complicates matters, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Jon is out of the picture in regards to Winterfell’s succession. The last part about Catelyn can simply be disproven since it’s already been confirmed (through TWOIAF app and the wiki) that Jon was the named heir.

The thing is, I see Robb’s will acting on multiple fronts all of which are working in tandem toward a larger goal. The will:

Legitimizes Jon as a Stark

Names him heir to all of Robb’s lands and titles

Presumably makes allowances for Jon to be freed from his vows, and

Places Jon’s claim over Sansa’s (most probably moves her to the end of the line)

Given all these points, I’m going to try and parse through the text in this post to explain why I think that Robb’s Will can be regarded as a valid document and why Jon is still Robb’s heir.

Disclaimer: I understand that we do not know of the will’s actual contents. The wording Robb used matters a lot and can be subject to interpretation - depending on which side of the aisle the Northern lords will choose to fall under. I am not arguing that Jon will be made King solely based on the Will either, we’ll have to wait for the next two books to see how the situation develops. I will also admit that my knowledge of medieval succession is not extensive. Thus, I’ll try to interpret this purely on the basis of what is provided in the text itself - with some added commentary from George R.R. Martin where necessary.

I. Jon’s Legitimization

So let’s start with what I consider to be the will’s first act, which is Robb’s decision to legitimize Jon. This is probably the most undervalued and the most important part of the document since it’s the very basis of Jon’s legal claim to Winterfell. This is because Jon cannot be made heir before he is legitimized (presumably).

The main point with Jon’s legitimization is that Robb acknowledges him as the last of his brothers. Sansa is still alive but she is currently married to Tyrion Lannister. This does not please Robb as the Lannisters would be able to claim Winterfell through her; and Lady Catelyn agrees that this scenario is quite unpleasant. Robb also knows that Bran and Rickon are dead, as they were allegedly killed by Theon Greyjoy. So, Robb wants to name Jon heir since he is the last living son of Eddard Stark. But first, he must legitimize him in order to give him a legal claim.

“Mother.” There was a sharpness in Robb’s tone. “You forget. My father had four sons.”

She had not forgotten; she had not wanted to look at it, yet there it was. “A Snow is not a Stark.”

“Jon’s more a Stark than some lordlings from the Vale who have never so much as set eyes on Winterfell.”

[…]

He is set on this. Catelyn knew how stubborn her son could be. “A bastard cannot inherit.”

“Not unless he’s legitimized by a royal decree,” said Robb. “There is more precedent for that than for releasing a Sworn Brother from his oath.”

- Catelyn V, ASOS

Previously, Catelyn had suggested some distant cousin in the Vale as a potential heir over Sansa, but Robb shuts it down because they would not be familiar with Winterfell. Jon is though, and Robb further recognizes that Ned Stark had four sons - three trueborn, one a bastard. Robb means to reverse the issue of Jon’s illegitimate birth through legitimization and cites that there is enough precedent to do this.

Catelyn, for her part, does not challenge the legality of this. Instead, she later resorts to emotional pleas - the Blackfyre rebellions, Sansa’s and Arya’s rights - to try and get Robb to reconsider, but she is unsuccessful because Robb is set on the idea. Even when she tries to make her case as a mother supporting her son, it doesn’t work:

“I cannot,” she said. “In all else, Robb. In everything. But not in this … this folly. Do not ask it.”

“I don’t have to. I’m the king.” Robb turned and walked off, Grey Wind bounding down from the tomb and loping after him.

- Catelyn V, ASOS

Robb throws his status as king in Catelyn’s face, further cementing that he has the will and the power to legitimize Jon; and Catelyn once again does not and cannot challenge him. So this can be regarded as a legally sound act.

Robb wasn’t the only one who thought that he could use his power as king to legitimize Jon. Stannis also tried to act on his power as King of the Seven Kingdoms in order to install Jon as a much needed northern ally:

“I am the only true king in Westeros, north or south. And you are Ned Stark’s bastard.” Stannis studied him with those dark blue eyes. “Tywin Lannister has named Roose Bolton his Warden of the North, to reward him for betraying your brother. The ironmen are fighting amongst themselves since Balon Greyjoy’s death, yet they still hold Moat Cailin, Deepwood Motte, Torrhen’s Square, and most of the Stony Shore. Your father’s lands are bleeding, and I have neither the strength nor the time to stanch the wounds. What is needed is a Lord of Winterfell. A loyal Lord of Winterfell.”

[…]

He would make me Lord of Winterfell. The wind was gusting, and Jon felt so light-headed he was half afraid it would blow him off the Wall. “Your Grace,” he said, “you forget. I am a Snow, not a Stark.”

“It’s you who are forgetting,” King Stannis replied.

Melisandre put a warm hand on Jon’s arm. “A king can remove the taint of bastardy with a stroke, Lord Snow.”

- Jon XI, ASOS

The context here is a bit different since Stannis offering Jon the position of Lord of Winterfell and not king. However, legitimizing Jon is still something Stannis has to do in order to install Jon as Lord of Winterfell. Even further, I would think that it’s the first thing he ought to do since this is what would give Jon the legal right to hold this position. Stannis’ offer here, much like Robb’s Will, would act on multiple fronts: first Jon has to be legitimized, then he has to be made Lord of Winterfell. So legimization presumably stands on its own unless Stannis specifically states that Jon is only legitimate insofar as he serves as Winterfell’s lord. Though I’m not sure how this could even be worked into the royal decree or how necessary it would be.

We also have more evidence for a bastard being legitimized and made heir with Ramsay Bolton - this happened due to the lack of any other successors.

When asked about the issue of Robb’s Will, GRRM stressed that only a king has the power to legitimize a bastard.

As to what is and is not moot... the key point is, only a =king= can legitimize a bastard......

- SSM, 08/20/2000

It’s important to note the context for this SSM, as the person asking this question was talking about the validity of Jon rejecting Stannis’ offer given Robb’s Will. Still, the point is that a king can legitimize a bastard and, well, Robb was the King in the North.

So, Jon is legitimate. Full stop. Even if Bran and Rickon are revealed to still be alive, this part cannot be changed. In fact, part of Catelyn’s argument is that the legitimization of a bastard cannot be undone.

“[…] If you make Jon legitimate, there is no way to turn him bastard again.”

- Catelyn V, ASOS

So there you have it. And because Jon is legitimate, he now has a legal claim to Winterfell.

We don’t know the specifics of where legitimized bastards are placed in the line of succession, and I’m sure that Martin will want to explore those tensions should there be a Stark succession crisis. However, as things stand, Jon is the oldest legitimate surviving son of Eddard Stark. His age over his siblings’ also gives him an advantage per the normal rules of succession. That is unless the will was written in such a way that Jon’s legitimization depends entirely on Bran and Rickon being dead, but I see no logical reason why that would be the case. At this point, Robb was very sure that his two younger brothers were dead and so Jon’s legitimization would not be impacted; and it’s likely that they would not be mentioned anyway. So, until the next two books state otherwise, I consider Jon’s legitimization to be an act that stands on its own regardless of his siblings’ status.

Now, there is obviously an issue with this first clause because we can assume that Robb legitimized Jon as the son of Eddard Stark. As we know, Jon is not Ned’s natural born son. He is Lyanna’s. So we ask, can the will still be valid if this one singular point is false? I would argue, yes!

“Mother.” There was a sharpness in Robb’s tone. “You forget. My father had four sons.”

- Catelyn V, ASOS

Ned may not have sired Jon, but he still took him in and claimed him as his son. Bastard or not, in the eyes of the North, Jon is Ned’s son. This recognition is the sole reason for Jon having a bastard’s surname, unlike unrecognized bastards like Gendry. And Jon being so publicly recognized as Ned’s bastard is a big deal, at least to Catelyn.

Many men fathered bastards. Catelyn had grown up with that knowledge. It came as no surprise to her, in the first year of her marriage, to learn that Ned had fathered a child on some girl chance met on campaign. He had a man’s needs, after all, and they had spent that year apart, Ned off at war in the south while she remained safe in her father’s castle at Riverrun. Her thoughts were more of Robb, the infant at her breast, than of the husband she scarcely knew. He was welcome to whatever solace he might find between battles. And if his seed quickened, she expected he would see to the child’s needs.

He did more than that. The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him “son” for all the north to see. When the wars were over at last, and Catelyn rode to Winterfell, Jon and his wet nurse had already taken up residence.

- Catelyn II, AGOT

It seems that the expectation was that Ned would provide for the child and leave it at that. But Ned went beyond that and even installed Jon in Winterfell before Catelyn and Robb even got there. As Catelyn laments, Ned took Jon in “and called him “son” for all the North to see”.

Not only did Ned claim Jon and choose to raise him along his true born siblings in Winterfell, Jon also grew up to look like Ned; something that could not be said for any of Catelyn’s own sons.

Jon was never out of sight, and as he grew, he looked more like Ned than any of the trueborn sons she bore him. Somehow that made it worse.

- Catelyn II, AGOT

It’s important that Jon looks so much like Ned in universe. His identity as a Stark cannot be challenged; and we see this when he meets people, e.g., Craster. Because Jon looks so much like Ned, his identity as Ned’s son is ironclad.

The North, in general, is very aware of Jon’s status as Ned Stark’s son.

Alys knelt before him, clutching the black cloak. “You are my only hope, Lord Snow. In your father’s name, I beg you. Protect me.”

- Jon IX, ADWD

And Jon himself is not afraid to remind the Northern lords of this when necessary.

“[…] I may seem a green boy in your eyes, Lord Norrey, but I am still a son of Eddard Stark.”

- Jon XI, ADWD

And that’s not all. You see, everyone knows about Ned Stark’s bastard son.

“You were never the boy you were,” Robert grumbled. “More’s the pity. And yet there was that one time … what was her name, that common girl of yours? Becca? No, she was one of mine, gods love her, black hair and these sweet big eyes, you could drown in them. Yours was … Aleena? No. You told me once. Was it Merryl? You know the one I mean, your bastard’s mother?”

- Eddard II, AGOT

“Snow, the boy is called,” Pycelle said unhelpfully.

“I glimpsed him once at Winterfell,” the queen said, “though the Starks did their best to hide him. He looks very like his father.”

- Cersei IV, AFFC

“I am Tyrion Lannister.”

“I know,” Jon said. He rose. Standing, he was taller than the dwarf. It made him feel strange.

“You’re Ned Stark’s bastard, aren’t you?”

- Jon I, AGOT

The singer rose to his feet. “I’m Mance Rayder,” he said as he put aside the lute. “And you are Ned Stark’s bastard, the Snow of Winterfell.”

- Jon I, ASOS

“My lady?” Ned said at last. “You have a baseborn brother … Jon Snow?”

- Arya VIII, ASOS

“I will permit you to take the black. Ned Stark’s bastard is the Lord Commander on the Wall.”

- Jaime VI, AFFC

Myranda gave a shrewed little smile. "Yes she was the very soul of wisdom, that good lady. [...] There's a new High Septon, did you know?. Oh, and the Night's watch has a boy commander, some bastard son of Eddard Stark's."
"Jon Snow?" she blurted out, surprised.
"Snow? Yes it would be Snow, I suppose"

- Alayne II, AFFC

“Ned Stark was here?”

“At the dawn of Robert’s Rebellion. The Mad King had sent to the Eyrie for Stark’s head, but Jon Arryn sent him back defiance. Gulltown stayed loyal to the throne, though. To get home and call his banners, Stark had to cross the mountains to the Fingers and find a fisherman to carry him across the Bite. A storm caught them on the way. The fisherman drowned, but his daughter got Stark to the Sisters before the boat went down. They say he left her with a bag of silver and a bastard in her belly. Jon Snow, she named him, after Arryn.

- Davos I, ADWD

As far as Westeros and the North know, Jon is Ned Stark’s son because he was claimed as such. So, should Jon’s true parentage be revealed, a crafty supporter may argue that since Ned claimed Jon as his own, raised him in Winterfell, and gave him a lordling’s education, then the will could be taken as a form of legal adoption. Of course, Robb had no idea of Jon’s true parentage but given that he had no other options at the time, I believe his decision would still have been the same if he knew.

The wording may once again make or break Jon’s case. If the will specifically states that Jon is legitimized as a true born son, born of Ned’s body, then there’s very few loopholes that can be exploited. However, if the will’s language is vague enough, then Jon can still be regarded as the oldest surviving Stark child.

It also depends on Howland Reed’s position since he is perhaps the only person who knows that King Robb Stark’s heir is Prince Rhaegar Targaryen’s last surviving son. We will have to wait for the rest of the series to see how Reed navigates this issue, but it is by design that he is seemingly the nexus of all this information regarding Jon Snow. Robb’s envoys were specifically sent to Reed, so we can safely assume that he has a part to play in the upcoming novels.

II: Jon as Robb’s Heir

The minute Jon became legitimate, he gained a legal claim to Winterfell. Again, we do not know where legitimized bastards fall in the line of succession but I will assume that their inheritance over any trueborn heirs would be contested unless stated otherwise.

This brings us to the next point, that Robb specifically designated Jon as his heir once he legitimized him. The wording in this part matters since there is the chance that this clause is conditional. Obviously, Jon became Robb’s heir in the event that Robb did not sire any sons of his own; and we know that Robb died without issue. There’s the question of whether Jon was named heir presumptive or heir apparent given that this will was to be acted on in the future; though it’s most probably the former option. All we know is that, per the will, Jon was set to inherit everything once Robb died without heirs of his own.

But we know that Robb’s siblings are still alive and they would have inherited too so the question becomes, how does Jon fit in with his siblings?

Arya is missing and believed to be dead so it’s safe to assume that Robb makes no allowances for her in the will.

“[…] No one has seen or heard of Arya since they cut Father’s head off. Why do you lie to yourself? Arya’s gone, the same as Bran and Rickon […]”

- Catelyn V, ASOS

Arya may very well turn up alive with a giant wolf pack at her back, which would undoubtedly prove her identity as a Stark, but again we are not sure if she could take precedence over Jon now that he’s the eldest legitimate son of the previous, previous Lord of Winterfell.

Sansa has a claim but that can be challenged since this entire situation arose out of Robb wanting to prevent the Lannisters from claiming Winterfell and the North through her or her potential sons by Tyrion. As such, the will either bumps her down the line of succession or perhaps provides some stipulations that prevent her from inheriting so long as she remains wedded to Tyrion Lannister. We do not know the exact wording. Either way, we can assume that Jon is placed above her.

“A king must have an heir. If I should die in my next battle, the kingdom must not die with me. By law Sansa is next in line of succession, so Winterfell and the north would pass to her.” His mouth tightened. “To her, and her lord husband. Tyrion Lannister. I cannot allow that. I will not allow that. That dwarf must never have the north.”

“No,” Catelyn agreed. “You must name another heir, until such time as Jeyne gives you a son.”

- Catelyn V, ASOS

Bran and Rickon, I think, are the main problem here. Bran is often regarded as Robb’s heir throughout the series and even holds the title Prince of Winterfell, which denotes this status. Rickon also holds this title as Bran’s heir. So some lords may ask, “how can Jon be Robb’s heir when the true born brothers are still living?” And, there are some Northern lords who do know of the boys’ survival, considering that Wyman Manderly has pledged to join King Stannis should Ser Davos bring him Rickon Stark. This is definitely a problem and they might need to work things out through means outside of this will’s framework - i.e., whatever the northern lords ultimately want because this part of the will is possibly very open to interpretation. Arguments will certainly be made over who is more fit to rule given age and experience; and both of these would work in Jon’s favor.

I would also imagine that the wording makes all the difference. Does Robb reference Bran’s and Rickon’s deaths? Or does he only allude to his own lack of a son? We simply don’t know but I would argue that even if Bran and Rickon were mentioned, Jon is still not discounted from inheriting Winterfell. This is because it goes back to the first point: Jon is now the oldest surviving legitimate son of Ned Stark.

Anyway, what we do know is that Robb mentions wanting Jon to succeed him if he dies without issue.

“Jon is the only brother that remains to me. Should I die without issue, I want him to succeed me as King in the North.”

- Catelyn V, ASOS

This point might be hotly contested because Robb thinks Jon is the only one of his brothers who still alive. Again, how the will is worded and interpreted will make all the difference. We just have to wait for the books to come out.

An anti-Jon argument that has arisen from some (specific) sections of the fandom is that Jon could not have been named Robb’s heir because he is not a Tully and thus cannot rule over the Riverlords. The alternative is that Catelyn was named heir instead of Jon so as to appease the Riverlords. Laughably, this is no solution at all and causes even more problems than it solves. I am not entirely sure what basis this theory stands on - though we know why it came about, the originator is notedly against Jon as evidenced by his more general commentary on the character.

Whether or not Jon is a Tully ultimately is not much of a hinderance. Jon would not be taking their castles; the Riverlords would still be in charge, albeit under a different king now. They might want someone with Tully blood to inherit and so they would be inclined to support Catelyn’s children, but the current lord of Riverrurn is a signee of the document. And I would assume that since the will is a legal decree, its contents are biding. And, there is no mention of any of the Riverlords who were present at the signing raising any objections to Robb’s decree as it was passed around. We also know that the Riverlords who signed the will are still alive, free or not, which is a point that George R.R Martin has been keen to stress.

Edmure and the Greatjon are prisoners, true... but you are forgetting the envoys that Robb sent to Howland Reed... Galbart Glover, Maege Mormont, Jason Mallister... they are all alive and free.

- SSM, 08/06/2000

Coupled with the confirmation on the WOIAF and the Wiki, Jon is Robb’s heir and a legal claimant to not just the King in the North title, but the King of the Trident one as well; of course, this is dependent on whether the Riverlords would want to rejoin the Northern kingdom down the line.

III: Jon and the Night’s Watch Vows

So we’ve come to the last point - that is the issue of Jon’s vows as a sworn brother of the Night’s Watch. The vows dictate that Jon cannot hold any lands and titles so long as he remains a black brother.

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post.

- Jon VI, AGOT

As far as we know, these lifelong vows are taken very seriously and the very first chapter in the series even features a Night’s Watch deserter being executed.

So the main problem is: even if Jon is legitimized and named as Robb’s heir, he still cannot inherit due to his vows. And this problem is a big one. Well, it seems that Robb intended to make allowances for Jon to be relieved from his post:

“Jon is a brother of the Night’s Watch, sworn to take no wife and hold no lands. Those who take the black serve for life.”

“So do the knights of the Kingsguard. That did not stop the Lannisters from stripping the white cloaks from Ser Barristan Selmy and Ser Boros Blount when they had no more use for them. If I send the Watch a hundred men in Jon’s place, I’ll wager they find some way to release him from his vows.”

- Catelyn V, ASOS

The dismissal of Ser Barristan and Ser Boros from the Kingsguard - another lifelong sworn brotherhood - is taken as enough precedent for Jon being released from the Night’s Watch vows. This part is quite tricky, though, because it seems that the Watch has to be the one releasing Jon from his vows. We’re not exactly sure how much power Robb can wield over the Watch since it’s technically an independent institution; thus, Jon’s situation is different from Barristan’s and Boros’ since the Kingsguard answers to the crown.

However, there are still some loopholes that Robb seemingly wants to exploit. The Watch is not in its prime and it’s resources and manpower has dwindled considerably over the centuries. Robb seems to recognize that they desperately need men and so intends to work that to his favor. He argues that the trade of 100 men for one boy seems fair enough and may even be beneficial to the Watch.

Catelyn does not push back on his reasoning. She seems to implicitly agree that there is precedent for Jon to be freed from his vows. She instead brings up Jon’s bastardy, which has already been addressed in previous sections. And her later objections do not mention that the Watch may refuse to cooperate or that Robb has no power to do this. She instead tries to make emotional appeals to Robb - appeals that have nothing to do with the Watch. So while this act may be tricky, it’s reasonable to assume that it can be done through some work arounds.

And once again, Robb is not the only one who thinks that Jon can be released from his vows given the right authority. When Stannis offers him Winterfell, Jon mentions that he swore vows not to hold lands or father children. Yet Stannis does not seem to care about this as much as Jon does. Instead, Stannis completely bypasses this point and goes on a tangent about the conflict with the wildlings and the need for a united north under a lord who is sworn to him. In fact, he doesn’t address it at all.

“Yes,” he said, hesitantly, “kings have legitimized bastards before, but … I am still a brother of the Night’s Watch. I knelt before a heart tree and swore to hold no lands and father no children.”

[…]

“As you wish. But consider quickly. I am not a patient man, as your black brothers are about to discover.” Stannis put a thin, fleshless hand on Jon’s shoulder. “Say nothing of what we’ve discussed here today. To anyone. But when you return, you need only bend your knee, lay your sword at my feet, and pledge yourself to my service, and you shall rise again as Jon Stark, the Lord of Winterfell.”

- Jon XI, ASOS

We’re back again to the main point of Stannis’ offer: that he will legitimize Jon as a Stark and make him Lord of Winterfell. Once again, there is an implicit understanding on Stannis’ part that he has enough will and power to bypass Jon’s vows. And it seems that this was Robb’s thought as well.

And we know that there have been people who were offered kingship despite being sworn to a lifelong vow. Maester Aemon, who serves as one of Jon’s parallels, is one such example. Aemon reveals in AGOT that his vows have been tested three times.

“Three times the gods saw fit to test my vows. Once when I was a boy, once in the fullness of my manhood, and once when I had grown old. By then my strength was fled, my eyes grown dim, yet that last choice was as cruel as the first.”

- Jon VIII, AGOT

One of these times is presumably an offer of kingship, which was extended to him in 233 after the death of Maekar I. This is what the wiki tells us:

A Great Council was called in 233 AC after Maekar's death in the Peake Uprising. Since Prince Aegon was considered by some lords to be "half a peasant, it was suggested that Aemon could be released from his sworn vows and thereby succeed his late father. Aemon quietly refused, however, ceding rule to his younger brother, who became Aegon V.

ref.

So there is historical precedent, beyond just Robb and Stannis, for someone being offered an out from their vows.

Martin has also touched on the topic of exceptions made for those sworn to lifelong vows:

Q: The second concerns the oaths of the Night Watch, Maesters, King's Guard, silent sisters, etc. Both Robb and Stannis, and presumably Robb's great lords, thought it was possible that Jon could be released form his oaths. Other than the precedent established by Joffrey with Ser Barristan, is there any other past precedent with any of the other organizations were the members swear poverty, celibacy, etc. to be honorably released from their vows? I ask because if the NW has been around for 8000 years, and many great lords and/or their families may have joined (not entirely willing in some cases), there seems to be a lot of potential for "exceptions" to develop as time went on.

A: Yes, there have been a few other cases, but they have been very rare. Such vows are taken very seriously.

While he acknowledges that such vows are taken seriously, he does not challenge the notion that exceptions develop over time. So the point is, while the NW vows are sworn for life, Jon can be freed from them based on precedent and given the right authority. Robb, as King in The North, seems to think that he is that right authority. We do not know exactly how he planned on approaching the Night’s Watch or if this clause to free Jon from his vows was specifically mentioned in the Will. However, since the will is essentially an emergency document, I think we can assume that Robb made some allowances for this should he be unable to see things through.

A Conclusion of Sorts

If you’ve had no patience to read that wall of text, here’s a TL;DR

Jon is legitimized by Robb and his legitimization stands on its own. Arguably, it is not dependent on Bran and Rickon being alive. As such, Jon is now the eldest of the legitimate Stark children. Though there is an issue with him not being Ned’s natural born son, one can argue that Ned still claimed and raised him as one.

There is no reason to believe that Jon was not made Robb’s heir. We have plenty of meta-textual confirmation that he was the named heir in the will. Bran’s and Rickon’s survival is a roadblock, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that Jon is now legitimate, older than both, and has more experience than any of his siblings.

Jon being a sword brother of the Night’s Watch is certainly a big issue, but there is precedent for people being released from lifelong vows. Because the will is an emergency document - was made in the event that Robb dies without heirs of his own - it’s safe to assume that Robb provided some sort of framework that could be used to remove Jon from his vows.

All this to say that in spite of the various issues surrounding it, I don’t see why Robb’s Will cannot be regarded as a valid decree. And thus, I cannot see why we shouldn’t say that Jon is Robb’s heir.

Before I close out, allow me the opportunity to ask a Doylist question. If the will’s contents can so easily be thrown aside, why would George R.R Martin go out of his way to write it in (two chapters before the Red Wedding, mind you) if it wasn’t to play a role somehow? Why would he spend page time not only writing the conversation between Robb and Catelyn, but also writing cases of historical precedent that can be used in Jon’s favor?

The will’s purpose can’t just be to create drama between the Stark kids. There is plenty of that without Jon being added as a factor - especially since Jon wasn’t even a claimant before the will was written. Now that Robb is dead and Winterfell needs to be restored to the Starks, Martin obviously intends to do something with the will. He even made sure to emphasize that a bastard can be legitimized by a king and there are people still living who know of the will’s contents when asked about it.

I’m not arguing that Jon will automatically become king solely because of the will. What I am arguing is that the will is a valid document and Jon now has as much right to Winterfell as his siblings.

So as it stands, Jon is Robb’s legal heir. How that pans out and develops? Well, we’ll just have to wait for the next two books.

[mystic-kitten-writer]

Okay so I'm glad you responded to my ask and I read what people commented under it and that kinda hurt me because I wasnt meant to be rude to you at all? I feel like people are getting so defensive that you as a writer can't receive any criticism or feedback anymore because it's all 'bad and rude'. Me losing interest and telling you wasnt meant to be rude. It was more to let you know. I thought most writers would like to know how readers react to whatever they do related to their writing -🔥

Don't get me wrong the death threats and insults are in no way okay. But why can't I be upset about the fact that there hasnt been an update for awhile? I feel like everytime someone even mentions it they get attacked by every reader on here. I'm aware of all the things going on in your life and that things sometimes take awhile but I can't even say anything anymore about chapter 35 without hearing 'its for free don't be rude'. Sure it's for free, but I got invested and it never came -🔥

So I'm sorry I wasnt meant to be rude. But how people react to criticism on here is kind of a problem to me. Losing interest had nothing to do with not supporting you. It just happens. Anyway I hope you haven't blocked me so you can receive these. This is the third and last ask of the things I wanted to say. For people asking for my @ after telling you that I lost interest. I wont ask this one anonymously. I'm not scared. In my opinion I did nothing wrong. I hope you are feeling well! -🔥

I'm going to make this very clear; I'm not going to expose your @. I don't feel comfortable with it. 

With that aside, let's move on to the rest, shall we?

As a writer, I have received multiple critics and feedback. I think it is because of it; the story is the way it is. However, the problem is that people don't understand the difference between genuine constructive criticism versus entitlement/hate/personal attack.

You're no longer reading Limerence, not because of the plot, or character development, or anything of these likings. You're no longer reading Limerence because you don't like how often I update.

When I update doesn't affect the actual quality of the story itself. 

By this statement, I mean this;

if I were to update this story once every year until I finish it and you were to wait till it's all done and read it in one sitting, you would've enjoyed the story. Nothing in the actual story itself turns you off; what you don't enjoy is the update schedule.

This is why I didn't view your ask as valid criticism because your 'feedback' doesn't change the fact that I don't have time to update. I can't change time itself. If you were to say, 'hey, I don't like the pacing, I find that x and y part moves quickly and you should slow it down' then naturally, this is a valid criticism.

You gave me something to work with, you aren't invalidating me in any way, and it's useful. This is what you wrote;

Anonymous asked:

Hey, I kinda lost interest because not only does it take ages for you to update, you also don't keep your promises. Hope you're doing well, bye. -🔥

Reading this, you can not honestly say this was supportive feedback.

This isn't to invalidate your frustration for a lack of updates. Because I can tell, with the utmost certainty, my readers have made it clear they're also frustrated. We all are annoyed, but, here comes the infamous saying, 'this is free.'

I know it's a redundant statement, but there's a reason why it comes up often - and it's because it's true.

You invested yourself in this story, and because of this, you want an update. I get it, hell, I've been waiting for an update for a year for a fanfic I love after they tried multiple times to update, but it fell through. Do I get frustrated and annoyed? Yes.

However, just because I'm invested in a story doesn't entitle me to an update.

If you think you've invested into a story by reading it, how do you think the authors of these stories feel when they're trying super hard to write these chapters, but life keeps screwing them over? You writing 'I got invested and it never came' screams entitlement. Just because you read a story doesn't automatically mean you deserve an update.

If I or any other writer wants to, we can stop writing whenever we please.

I could, right now, delete everything, and my readers would be devasted, but they also know that I have every right to do it because it's my work.

If I want to kill off every character, turn this into some superman x ATLA crossover in the next chapter - I can do it. 

Authors love criticism because it's their jobs, but fanfiction writers? If they don't ask for it, don't give it. This is a hobby.

When you play a game with friends, your friends don't start criticizing your every move because it's all for fun! Unless you purposely ask for it or people ask if you're open to criticism and you accept, then it's wanted.

For future reference, don't criticize people's fanfictions without asking or knowing they want it - because, for many, this isn't a job, including me. I don't mind genuine constructive criticism; I even include this in my author's notes on Wattpad, Quotev, and Ao3.

I hope this explains why many people were upset by your ask. We've had discussions about my lack of updates on this blog, no problems in the slightest.

People got upset because the way you expressed your disappointment was laced with a tone of entitlement, you insulted me and suggested I'm unable to uphold promises (a personal attack) - and none of this has yet to improve my story-writing or Limerence as a whole.

[lunannex]

honestly, it sucks that more people write parkner than peter/Ned (what even is their ship name anyway?? Do they even have one??). The few Peter/Ned fics I have read, they’re really good!! Whenever I try to read parkner, I’m just like 🥴 because their dynamic never feels right (they haven’t even met like you said!! And I don’t even think they met off-screen either unless they suddenly decided to become buddies during Tony’s funeral)

Anyway, I can rec some Peter/Ned fics if you like! (You’ll have to give me a few minutes to find them though)

Most people (including me) just call their ship name Interwebs, which is just the CUTEST ship name ever, in my opinion! And please do!!!! I unfortunately haven't gotten the chance to dive into the Interwebs tag on AO3 as much as I'd like to (mostly because a lot of the fics just feature Ned/Peter as a background element that's barely even the focus of the fic, so I get turned off by that) but I would LOVE to read more fics if you're willing to rec some! I'd appreciate that so much, but take your time ofc❤

Alright now to rant a little:

One of the great things about fandom is all the endless possibilities that comes with it. From all the AU's you can make, to the character dynamics you can write about, the pairings you can draw, the characters you can explore in more depth than the canon material did, etc. There's just such a large variety of things that you can do and yet…a lot of people only choose to focus on the white characters, mainly the white men. It's so disappointing entering fandoms as a POC and seeing so little content of all the characters of color. A lot of the time, they're only there to prop up their white friends, to be sidelined or to be demonized, and sometimes they're not even there at all. It's ridiculous and so hurtful that some people aren't even willing to put in the effort.

I've seen some people excuse it as "well they're just a supporting character in canon" or "they're just not interesting enough" but those arguments are ultimately invalid since:

1. Nile Freeman is the main protagonist of The Old Guard but you wouldn't know it from the fandom. She's one of the most compelling and well-rounded characters out there and yet she STILL gets ignored.

2. A white character only being in a supporting role hasn't stopped people from writing in-depth character studies about them in the past (see: Harley Keener himself). 

Then there's the shipping aspect of it all. I've seen people who don't ship Interwebs because they "only see them as best friends" since they "can't see any type of romantic chemistry between", which is fine, but they have no issues with romantically pairing up characters who've never interacted on screen. And in this case, who've never even glanced at each other once. The problem isn't necessarily about what ships a person does and doesn't like, it's mostly about the underlying racist issue that lies beneath it. In most cases these two characters are skinny white guys, and I don't think that's a coincidence. This happens consistently across all fandoms to the point where you start to notice a pattern and it's not only baffling and disappointing, but it also doesn't surprise me. Because of course it's the white mlm pairing that gets the most attention. Some people don't actually care about mlm representation when it doesn't include skinny white guys and it shows.

And if you dismiss the legitimate concerns POC have over how characters of color get treated within fandoms purely for the sake of your "enjoyment" and "freedom of expression" then I'm sorry, but I'll automatically assume the worst of you. Most people don't want to admit that they might be contributing to these problems in one way or another, but the only way you'll learn how to recognize your unconscious biases is by asking yourself the hard questions that you might not want to know the answers to. We all have biases, but it's how we each choose to react to the knowledge that we have them that differentiates us.

[obeysword]

@nabigeshonidol​​ asked: What is the general opinion of your muse’s fandom about them? Do you agree with it? meme

i was hoping someone would ask me this. i really don’t. i really hate that yu is called a “chad” or even a “pimp” esp by the twitter community which is just a cesspool of toxic shit. this is the most common joke / hot take about his character bc yes, he’s pretty & he’s acts charming & he can be a little pervy. i mean he’s a teenage boy?? i makes jokes about him being called this, sure. but it’s for the full fact i’m spiteful from having to see it so much. it’s up there with referring to the p3 protag. as “door-kun” or calling him a door bc he had to be the seal & p much gave up his life in order to save the world. it’s a really big invalidation to the characters, their struggles, & the fact that, again, minato p much dies to save everyone. yes, he became a seal & didn’t have to be locked into all the romances with the female characters that, if you finish their confidant, you’re locked in automatically. it’s so distasteful. the fact that narukami is actually a very respectful person especially to his female teammates. he treats everyone as an equal & knows how strong each one of them are. yes he’s charming, can be flirty. but he’s shy & soft-spoken. he’s referred to as ‘quiet boy’ & the name yu means quite in japanese. he likes the attention, any guy would, but he’s not a jerk about it. he’s a very genuine, almost naive feeling character. writing him off as a player is really...gross tbh. you can even see in the anime with ai, he really doesn’t feel comfy wanting to kiss her in the photobooth & starts shouting for her to get off him when she’s not taking no for an answer. (comic point, his ringtone for her is the song from catherine). this is one of the bigger things i see in fandom. go watch a youtube clip of p4 & you’ll find in the comments someone referring to him as a “chad.”

[fr-msfrh]

First off, this issue is outdated tho im not sure y its blowing up only now.

Is this shocking? Not even close.

These artists have made their statement, taking responsibility for their actions, management have stepped in to settle the issue.

These artists have made it clear time & again that they r exposed to drugs, girls, wtv money can buy. They aint fckin saints! Dont call yrself a fan if u dun even read thru their lyrics /bc surprise: they write their own lyrics!/

To those who think the memes r funny, reflect on that. Those affect the artists confidence, making them doubt themselves, indirectly affecting their future works. When they release any future works, & its not up to your standard, dont be saying ‘ohh, so & so is slackin, hes trash blah blah’ 🙄 Be more mature & give constructive criticism instead of being a troll. Unless yall have diseased non-functioning brains & unless you can make music better than them 🤷🏽‍♀️

Plus, there is no ‘stanning’ culture in hiphop. Dont come bringing yr kpop culture into this community (this is a no-no).

If u wish to ‘un-stan’, just quietly make yr exit. Your mean comments r not needed.

NO you DO NOT get to get away with sending hate messages to other users who u blatantly know r sensitive to such issues . You guys r BULLIES. Is this how u get yrself off??! Uggh TOXIC 🤢

Come off anon & we can have real talk. I wanna deeply understand your actions so that u realise your negative energy is unneeded in this khh community. Until you reflect on your behaviour, just shut yr trap if u aint have any positive things to say. Bc ur opinion is invalid.

Another point. Yes they use weed. Yes their music is good. Both is a fact. Both facts exist at the same time. Just like how some of you who listen to kpop & also like kdramas. Both facts may not be co-related but both is true. Just bc they use drugs doesn’t automatically disqualify the fact that their songs can still make u vibe with it. You just dun have the balls to admit it for wtv reasons.

If we cant see eye to eye, ill just accept the fact that we just hold different morals in our lives. Drop a message if u wanna talk bc ill make time for yall. We can all use some couch time.

[13eyond13]

what do you think of an OOC in a character? Have you ever read/write some kind of OOC about B, L or any other character? And how do we know when a character acts like ooc and they're not themselves?

Hi anon! I think the main thing I care about in fan works is the characters seeming in-character, and I would be open to almost anything as long as I felt the characterization was good. Meaning even ships I don't normally care about or haven't considered before, or a fic where characters I normally like together don't like each other but it's portrayed well, or just an interesting exploration of the world where everyone feels like themselves and nothing is bothering me or seeming really out of place. I think at times characters seeming OOC actually is necessary for the story too, such as in AUs where they live completely different lives or go on wildly diverging paths from the canon one. I think people/characters are always solid mixes of nature AND nurture. So it makes sense that significantly changing something about them in these categories would lead to them having somewhat different values or behaviours or habits or personalities, too. I'm at the point now where I'm pretty picky and have strong ideas of the characters and lose interest quickly in fan works that don't match my own ideas of them in certain ways. But when I am newer to a series I am much more open to tons of different interpretations because I am still trying to get a grasp on the characters myself, and it is really helpful for forming my own takes.

I think it takes quite a while to develop a strong sense of accurate characterization for any cast of complex characters, and lots of trial and error with attempting to depict them yourself, and that the taking in of other people's opinions and analyses (even if you initially disagree with them) is really helpful for forming your own as well. I think it's good to take notice of the things that make you go "ahh yes that's exactly right!" And the things that make you go "this is really bugging me somehow." Both reactions are very useful for helping you articulate what your own idea of the character is and why that aspect of them is important for you in how they are portrayed. I like to listen to other fans who are my faves' harshest critics, or who seem to understand certain characters more intuitively than me and who care about them more than I do, too. Ideally I would want to portray even my least favourite characters in ways that would seem accurate to their biggest stans, I think. Revisiting canon is also a good idea if you are uncertain about a particular aspect of a character, or in a disagreement about it with someone else. Oftentimes when I see fans get into big disagreements over an aspect of a character I find it's usually because the trait or character motivation they are attached to is one they found relatable and/or interesting and/or comforting in the character, so someone trying to remove it from the character feels threatening or personally insulting to them. I see this happen a lot with L for example; some people really like to see him as shy and polite and mostly well-meaning, and some people as bold and arrogant and shady. It can be just as insightful for yourself as a person as it can be for the characters to take in a lot of these discussions and to examine your own reactions to them, sometimes uncomfortably so! 😅

I think it's worth considering people aren't always coming from the same version of the story with their interpretations of a character, either. Writing L based on how he came off to you in the Japanese dub of the anime might be different than how he came off in the English dub, or in the manga, and the translation of the manga would probably make a difference to how you see him as well. I've been in the DN fandom so long now that I can usually guess pretty accurately which version of the story someone took in just by how they portray him in a fic. I think it's helpful to specify which version(s) you are drawing from and to know which version(s) the other person is drawing from when taking in their portrayal, as well as to take in multiple versions so you have a broader and better understanding of the different canon depictions of the same personality too. I see it as something you can pick and choose the aspects of you like best and that feel most interesting or true to you about the character. So if you prefer one version more than the other you don't have to just do away with your preferred idea of the character after taking in another one if you would rather not. In the end it's all just for fun! I think the best thing to do is to always keep in mind that other fans having diverging interpretations isn't necessarily wrong, especially given that you maybe took in different versions of the story when forming your opinions. It doesn't invalidate your own personal take just because someone has a different one. But that being said, I am not a huge fan of people just hollowing out a character entirely to insert themselves in it with no self-awareness about this, or characterizing them super lazily and then getting offended if other fans don't think it's accurate, which I have seen around sometimes. Lazy characterization in this fandom seems especially prevalent when it comes to characters people dislike/don't understand. And to B in general I think, as most people don't even bother to read the novel at all before trying to use him in a fan work. I also get that sometimes fans are newer to the series or just playing around with canon the way you might have played dolls as a kid or whatever, though. And even though I am picky about characterization it's really not that big a deal to me when people do this, as long as they aren't trying to dictate everyone else's interpretations or acting like more canon-compliant ones are automatically fussy or worse somehow, too.

[rpbetter]

Today I learned a popular vent blog is repressing submissions about the drama with the now defunct resource blog. They probably have a relationship to the resource blog admin, or they are the admin. I know two people who sent submissions that were not published, but new submissions they made after were. The admin is silent after inquiries about it. They are ignoring everyone who tries to talk about it. It is so hard to find a place in the rpc that is transparent right now, a place that does not censor people who need to get things off their chest. Of all places that should keep their bias in check. It should not be a vent blog. That is one of the last places people go when they can not confide in their rp partners, or people in real life. Sometimes just having a vent post published can be everything. It is more silencing than people think.

Okay, I do know what you're talking about. I've said in the past that I specifically look around the RPC to gauge a rounder set of experiences, problems, etc. That blog is such a place that I have visited in the past to do so, and I have both noticed and been told what you're telling me now. I will admit, because I do believe in honesty here as a part of transparency one should strive to uphold off of their RP and personal blogs, that I have held exactly these suspicions since the blog choose to "handle" recent events the way they did. That is why I was paying attention to the disparity in both original submissions published and the responses to them.

What I have seen is a little uncomfortable feeling. It isn't just The Topic itself, it's also anything relating too closely to that mun's repeatedly expressed positions on things as well. Well, you know, a frightening number of people do feel the same way, do engage in those behaviors, so I am willing to believe that I am merely seeing shit where it doesn't exist. I am, after all, just a person, doing what people do, being fallible. I'm not acting on any information that anyone else out there isn't privy to, I also want t be clear about that. It's the opposite of my interest to withhold information, make it up, or inflame the situation.

Like everyone else in the RPC right now, it's incredibly difficult to not be suspicious. So many really ugly things were revealed and transpired, it was like every three hours there was something horrifying and new going on. And the way that it was left off, with the meme blog mun and with that vent blog just served to chafe those feelings for many.

So, again, while I am not trying to give this all a spritzer of gasoline, and neither am I acting on any knowledge none of you have, I've had suspicions since the time that vent blog decided that it was fully appropriate to refuse action for what went on that there was a bit of a personal connection going on. When your blog has established that it will mass-block people for far less, but suddenly, over this, it's a useless effort not going to help anyone? I'm sorry, that's suspicious to me. If nothing else, it was incredibly shitty to tell muns who were targetted because of interactions on their blog to just get over it and be adults when the adult thing is to approach the mods (hello, it does stand for moderator) with concerns, and this is a serious concern.

One that has done exactly as you say - effectively shut down venting and communication on that blog. I love that the direction is constantly to take things to the comments lmao gee, I wonder why no one is willing to openly comment anymore? Total mystery! Could it be that even you feel you can handle potential harassment, you don't want to endanger anyone else who might not be able to? Possibly.

Venting has a negative connotation here anyway, that doesn't help. Months before this all happened, I was seeing an increasing number of people equating such blogs to burnbooks, or at best, "childish echo chambers."

However, venting on one's own blog is not alright either. We're not supposed to have a visible problem with anyone or anything they're doing, ever. It's supposed to work out every time like this: you approach the person(s) causing you this problem and discuss it maturely with them in private, the issue is resolved, and everyone goes off into the sunset crapping rainbows. Double ones, even.

The problem is...it doesn't work out like that very often. That isn't to say it shouldn't be your first action, it should. Sometimes, especially if you've been both lucky and extremely careful about your writing partners, you'll be wonderfully surprised and it'll be a great conversation that helps both muns. So much of the time though, it instigates a fight because everyone is automatically defensive as hell, or one or both muns are so afraid of that happening that they'll refuse to have a meaningful confrontation (confrontation is not always negative, we need to stop viewing it that way). One or both say whatever is necessary to smooth over the problem, while they change nothing at all, making the feelings of anger so much worse.

And maybe, this problem isn't that big of a deal, one needs to work themselves up into addressing it, or they've cause to actually fear the other mun's response to them.

So, they have three options, and none of them is alright with the RPC:

vent to a friend - this is unacceptable because it is always seen as talking shit behind another mun's back, bringing drama to others, and trying to force people to take sides, no matter how much none of these may be the case and hold a lot of variables depending on the type of venting and the relationship of the muns involved

vent/vague on the dash - not always the same thing, not always occurring at the same time, and not always invalid either, but always viewed as incredibly malicious and wrong. Even if the result was either getting the friend who wouldn't stop refusing to engage to have a meaningful conversation with you or finding a new partner because someone else has been experiencing it too, you know you're not going to do this to each other, and a mutual you've been ignoring is now a valued partner

vent on a vent blog - seen as even worse than venting on one's blog in some corners because it's a more open to visit place, it's just stirring up drama and fights, this makes everyone feel vagued about and suspicions and accusations of being mentioned/mentioning someone run wild. Everyone wants a drama-free dash, no one wants to allow anyone a better place to do it

Venting is important. I think it is necessary to maintaining a less explosive environment. It's called "venting" for a reason!

Maybe it is the most ridiculous complaint in history, but those things do build. And build. And build. Until they blow up all over in someone's face, it might even be someone totally innocent who happened to be in the right place at the wrong time with exactly the worst coincidental words spoken to you. These places allow for people to get it out without hurting anyone's feelings or starting a massive argument when it wasn't even anything that serious. They offer, or used to, different perspectives that let muns feel seen while helping them to decide whether they are just blowing things out of proportion, misunderstanding/potentially unaware of another aspect, or even in a worse situation than they were allowing themselves to be aware of with a harmful relationship.

It goes beyond just venting when there are conversations going on about the topics! Sometimes, people just need to feel like they're not so isolated. Sometimes, they legitimately lack the tools and perspectives to approach a problem more directly or successfully. And yes, sometimes, they even need to see that this is kind of shitty of them and they should reevaluate.

Vent blogs are difficult to manage.

We all have biases, and when it comes to more personal situations we can recognize or see ourselves within, that is never more likely to become a point of extra difficulty to keep in check. This is actually why I left that vent blog the first time around, there was way too much bias being expressed with a mod taking it upon themselves to opine on submissions, fight with people about them, and refuse to post them while vaguing about them. Among other, increasingly perturbing behaviors I had no desire to keep seeing daily on my dash.

When you decide to create or accept a position moderating such a blog, you have to know that you will be thus challenged. Someone is going to vent about someone you'll recognize, a situation you feel passionately about, or say something in a vent that upsets you. You have got to remain visibly impartial. Go on and vent about it yourself to friends, write a post on your personal, do whatever the hell you need to in order to not be visibly biased and acting upon that bias.

I see blogs like this, as well as other places of moderation, often becoming incensed and offering the angry justification that "mods are people." Yes, I should hope you are! No one is saying you must be an impossibly perfect person without opinions, biases, or mistakes. We are holding you to a higher standard of you deal with these things out in the open where you hold this position, yes. That's literally what your job is, my friends. Go off about it, feel your feelings, even cultivate a block list from that blog! But you don't show it, you don't ever make people feel worse when the point of your blog is to allow them a voice.

The only time you need to give a personal opinion is when it is requested or you need to express that a submission was declined/comment had to be moderated due to you exercising your judgment that it violated the rules.

This is supposed to be a safe place for muns to anonymously let it out of their systems and discuss these topics. Not a place where they'll feel exposed, judged by the mods themselves, and denied a voice because of a mod's biases being exercised.

And I'm extremely sorry that people are being made to feel this way, all over again in some cases, because someone cannot handle the position they took up. I'm sorry for the whole community who has lost an important outlet. I wish that I could recommend another place for people to go that might provide a better experience, but as yet, I do not. Hopefully, that'll be changing in the near-enough future, but for right now...all of the vent blogs I was familiar with have long since closed down.

If anyone has any currently running vent blog suggestions, I'd love to know about them and share them! Please, they do have to be legitimate vent blogs. I'm not going to recommend here that might be too close to actually being burnbook-like, deals in publishing URLs, and so on. If you want to engage with that, it's absolutely your choice, but it's not something I want to give certified approval to on this blog, and I hope you understand why. If they're legitimately anonymous, safer places serving as vent blogs, let me know so I can check them out for a few days and publish your ask!

It wasn't my intention with this blog, though I did offer that a couple of times just to get people talking about problems important to them in the past, but if you want to vent here, I'll do my best to publish them (unless you request otherwise) in a relatively timely fashion.

I'm just not a proper vent blog, and people should be aware of that! I do offer opinions on those matters. It's more in line with the point of this blog to do so - I want to be able to give some point of assistance in publishing them. I cannot promise, therefore, to be impartial, but I can promise to not judge you or ignore what you send because I don't agree, am tired of it, etc.

I'd just ask that, once again, everyone realize that sending hateful messages to me isn't going to result in me being nice to you in return. If you've a complaint to lodge, lodge it respectfully if you desire to be treated that way yourself. This blog will publish anon hate, that doesn't mean I'm going to be nice when you send it. Anything else, however, I will genuinely try to offer you the opportunity to be seen and heard, some advice, experiences I might have had with a similar issue, and to approach it fairly.

Sorry that everyone is going through a hard time, that it just doesn't seem to stop, and probably will not for some time now. Thank you for sending this, I hope it made you feel a little better! That has been, and will continue to be, my objective in publishing asks relating to this matter - I just want everyone to feel like they have some agency and respect somewhere, that they're being seen, and that they have the support of others in the community.