#i hope you guys DO understand by now that you're getting an essay of context in the tags of all these synopses

[chuuyanakaahara]

10 <3

10. girl's night out.

series: mirror sentiments

gin akutagawa & original female character(s)

Gin Akutagawa has a murky history, hiding from even the organization that gives her purpose. It's rare to find her with her guard down, let alone entirely vulnerable. Gin is only human, though, and there are days when the bloodstains on her hands won't go away. Those are the days she lets herself relax. Those are the days she wonders if she's even human.

[antebunny]

as a huge fan of the original ACD canon, I desperately want to hear your elaboration about why you don't like BBC's Sherlock :D

hi OP I hope you're ready for a monster essay in response because that's what I ended up with!

For ease of reading I've divided up my answer into four sections: 1) explaining Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock with historical context, 2) analyzing BBC Sherlock/Moffat's Sherlock using a cross-section of Watsonian and Doylist techniques and sheer spite, 3) my thoughts on Johnlock, 4) comparing & contrasting Doyle's Sherlock with Moffat's Sherlock. Disclaimer: I'm not a historian, although I do I have some understanding of the history of detective fiction. Mostly I'm just an avid reader/fan.

Part I: Original Sherlock

To start with! I will talk about the characterization of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. Here's something which people who have never read the stories don't seem to know: Sherlock is kind.

He's not particularly nice, I'll give you that. He tends to think he's the smartest person in the room, and you know what? He almost always is. He has plenty of dry and sarcastic comments for the London police, for clients who don't bring any evidence, etc. But he goes out of his way to be kind. My favorite example of this is the Boscombe Valley Mystery.

The Boscombe Valley Mystery is far from my favorite Sherlock story in terms of mystery-solving, but one of the best in terms of characterizing Sherlock. To summarize: two wealthy, widower landowners, John and Charles, are next-door neighbors with one kid each–John, a daughter named Alice and Charles, a son named James.

Sherlock gets called in when Charles is found murdered, and everyone suspects James of doing it. Of course, it's not that easy. It turns out that twenty years ago, John was a highway robber in Australia, and he robbed Charles but left him alive. John then left the life of crime, started a family and settled in England a wealthy man. Then Charles moved in next door, recognized John, and proceeded to blackmail him for money, land, etc. This escalated until eventually Charles demanded Alice's hand in marriage for his son James. John refuses, and eventually kills Charles to protect Alice and to free himself from Charles' blackmailing/tyranny.

(The problem is that James is actually a decent person, and he and Alice are secretly in love, but there's also a bar maid involved and it's complicated and not relevant. Anyways).

Of course, Sherlock being Sherlock, he figures out that John is the murderer. But here's the thing: he defends John. He doesn't turn John (or his signed confession) over to the authorities. In fact, Sherlock goes to court to protect James by arguing that there's not enough evidence to find him guilty. Sherlock catches a murderer, goes "you know what? He was kind of right tho" and looks away.

Do you understand how radical this is for Victorian England? This is the 1890s. People still believe in God over gravity. The idea that a criminal isn't a criminal for life? That a highway robber can turn over a new leaf? That a murderer can be in the right? [Now would be a good time for a source] Like this is so new, I can't think of a way to translate it to the 21st century.

And it's key to who Sherlock is. He puts his reputation on the line for this case. He says that he didn't manage to solve this case, even though he did. His professional pride and reputation is worth less to him than protecting John, a MURDERER, and James, his son who admittedly is a nice guy whose worst crime is making dumb decisions in college (see: the bar maid).

Because here's the thing about Sherlock's "professional pride:" it's not "I'm the smartest person" or "I'm always right." Sherlock genuinely believes in his deduction method, not as a superpower which he alone possesses, but as a tool which anyone can use if they apply themselves. Which brings me to my second example: Irene Adler.

If you (general audience) only know Irene Adler from BBC Sherlock, I'm gonna ask you to forget all of that right now. Arthur Conan Doyle's Irene Adler is an American opera singer who used to be in a relationship with the future King of Bohemia. The king asks for Sherlock's help retrieving an incriminating photograph that Irene Adler has threatened to send to the king's future wife (a Scandinavian princess) and her family. (Irene Adler is currently in England, getting married to some guy named Norton).

Sherlock promptly gets outsmarted by Irene Adler. She leaves for America with Norton and the photograph, though she promises not to use it against the King of Bohemia, and keeps her promise. Because here's the thing about Irene Adler: she's not a criminal. She's not a bad guy in any way. She doesn't blackmail the king. She had a fling with the King of Bohemia, eventually moved on with her life and married Norton. When Sherlock came sniffing around for her private property, which she was under no obligation to return/give up, she got the hell out of England.

Despite this, Irene Adler is often framed not only as a criminal but also as Sherlock's love interest in adaptations. (And I'm not even talking about BBC Sherlock, trust me, we'll get to that). I think this is due to a fundamental failure or refusal to understand the nature of Sherlock's interest in Irene Adler. He explicitly states that he is not romantically attracted to her. (And neither is she to him). He is impressed by her intellect. It is rare enough for Sherlock to be outsmarted; I think Irene Adler may be the only example in the original stories where the person/group who outsmarted Sherlock was not a career criminal or other type of evil-doer (such as the KKK, in The Five Orange Pips, yes that KKK).

For all intents and purposes, Irene Adler is an ordinary woman, trying to do an ordinary thing (get married to Some Guy), who just so happens to get one over Sherlock in a case where he is arguably in the wrong. That is what makes her so special. Sherlock believes that his deduction methods can be implemented by anybody, but here's somebody, actually implementing them! And she was trained as an opera singer, not as a detective or some such field! And she's not using it to systematically murder or blackmail or anything else, she just wants to live her best life away from this Bohemian nonsense!

Sherlock is excited when someone outsmarts him. And it is so rare for there to be no horrific crime taking away from that excitement.

In summary: Sherlock Holmes is a perfectly well-mannered English gentleman (the social class, not polite descriptor) with shockingly progressive morals for the 1890s, a need for brain puzzles and adventures, and a non-debilitating addiction to crack cocaine.

Some other notes about original Sherlock before I move on to the next section:

Sherlock indirectly caused someone's death in The Adventure of the Speckled Band, and does not feel at all broken up about it. Honestly? I respect that.

Doyle was not perfect. Irene Adler was smart "for her sex." All of the stories mentioned above contain examples of foreigners importing struggles to England. Violent Americans from Five Orange Pips, armed robberies from Australia in Boscombe Valley, loose(?) Bohemians(???) in A Scandal in Bohemia, a mercenary and violent "doctor" from Calcutta (though English by birth) in Speckled Band, etc. I could go on. And I am sure that he made some claims later proved to be scientifically inaccurate.

Aside from Doyle's biases, the Sherlock Holmes stories are also prone to the same real-world changes as any other famous series. Doyle famously killed off Sherlock only to bring him back due to the public outrage. The many, many short stories vary quite a bit in quality, and a little in consistency. Sometimes you just have to throw your hands up and go with the Doylist (heh) reading. We'll get back to this.

Sherlock would not be caught dead in Buckingham Palace wearing only a bedsheet. He often disguises himself in the short stories, as a grandfatherly figure, faking a Cockney accent, as all a manner of (typically older, and therefore less threatening) men. Part of his strength as a detective is his awareness of social circles and the workings of society. He uses it to his advantage, he doesn't provoke public scandal.

He's a private person. He didn't ask to be famous, or to be memorialized as a genius, and again, he doesn't go around looking for adoration or outrage.

Sherlock scorns romance, yes, but not in an internalized aphobia, "I'm suppressing my emotions/desire for the sake of The Case" kind of way, but in an "I'm the only reasonable person here, the rest of you are just weird" kind of way. We'll get back to that one.

Sherlock did have Moods. He also did drugs. But drugs didn't have the social context of drugs now.

Sherlock was superhumanly strong, for no particular reason? There's one story where someone threatens him (in his own flat, no less!) and he remains very polite and unflustered by it. Once the man leaves, he picks up the metal poker that the man bent and straightens it.

Honestly the disguises and the hand-to-hand combat made original Sherlock so OP. I'm not projecting modern values onto old characters, you are. Send Tweet.

Doyle was a spiritualist?!?!?! Like a committed believer in ghosts. Like so committed it ruined his friendship with Houdini. Yes, Harry Houdini. This is not relevant, I'm just impressed that an author so spiritual could write a character so famously and firmly rational.

Okay that's the important bits for original Sherlock. I could easily double the length of that section, but I hope it's clear enough now why I consider original Sherlock to be Very Cool and Interesting.

Part II: BBC Sherlock

Boy oh boy oh boy oh boy. Where to start with this one. Well, here's hbomberguy's 2-hour video essay on why BBC Sherlock is trash, to start. It's been a long time since I watched it but I recall it focusing more on its creator, Steven Moffat (and what that man did to Doctor Who as well, God sometimes I just lay awake thinking about every precious thing Moffat was allowed to put his slimy hands on). So I will attempt to focus on a few key things I don't remember hearing in that video essay.

First: The Trope of the Autistic Genius. I'm sure you (general audience) have seen this in some form of media: a socially awkward or unaware character, perhaps outright on the autism spectrum, perhaps just Weird™ who is a genius in a particular field. It's related to the Idiot Savant trope, thanks TV tropes, and portrayals range from a cute fictional romance with an autistic lawyer in Extraordinary Attorney Woo to the somewhat real-to-life story of John Nash, a real mathematician who made incredible contributions to the field of economics and also had incredibly difficult personal relationships due to his schizophrenia.

For some reason, Moffat decided to use this trope for Sherlock Holmes. I say "some reason" but it's pretty clear why: Sherlock is a genius. And there's a long tradition of "genius as a curse" characters where their intelligence comes at a cost: their ease of relationships with other people. Sometimes this is an explicit curse where the character traded power/intelligence/money etc. for the ability to feel (romantic) love (see: Howl's Moving Castle the movie). For the autistic genius, usually the price of their ability to grasp concepts (usually math or some type of science) beyond the understanding of Mere Mortals is their ability to understand people and social cues.

The thing is, the way Moffat does this with Sherlock makes no damn sense. He's a detective. His whole ass job is to understand social cues, human behavior, motivations and generally what makes people tick. There's probably a good way to make Sherlock autistic. However, the way Moffat does it creates this inherent contradiction, where Sherlock swings wildly from totally missing social cues to perfectly understanding people's desire and motivations. Make it make sense. Make up your mind. Is your Sherlock a tortured genius who cannot understand or relate to normal Molly Hooper, or is he a brilliant detective who Gets how people work? You (Moffat) can't have it both ways. It doesn't make any sense.

Second: the Reading People as Superpower thing. Moffat fully subscribes to the idea that you (general) can just look at somebody and deduce their whole backstory. This one pisses me off personally because it leaks to real life all the damn time. The phone charger is probably the most infamous example of why this doesn't work. (Fun fact, if the area around your phone charger is scratched from you repeatedly failing to plug it in, that doesn't mean you are an alcoholic!)

But it occurs both in BBC Sherlock and IRL. Usually IRL people are nice enough to only say out loud something that they think is positive. But here's the thing: they're almost never right. I've had nice little old ladies tell me "I can see that you are XYZ type of person" in the most well-meaning of ways and be completely off the mark. Not a single person who has guessed my race (out loud) has gotten it right. But I'm not just saying "don't make assumptions for the big things like race/sexuality/religion etc." I'm saying, we all make those assumptions when we first meet someone, whether we like it or not. But we have a choice whether to act on those assumptions. Reading people is not a fun thing smart people do in media, it's a common thing all of us do despite not having a higher chance of being correct than Moffat was with the phone charger thing.

The "you can read into anything because there's secret meanings behind everything" that BBC Sherlock encouraged led to one of the funniest and most pathetic phenomena in fandom: The Secret Good Sherlock finale. There's a good 1.5 hour video essay about it and how a portion of BBC Sherlock fans deluded themselves into thinking that the horrible, horrible ending of BBC Sherlock couldn't be real, and that there was a real finale coming if you just followed the clues where Johnlock was canon (more on that later). Because they just couldn't accept that this show which portrayed itself as so clever and Moffat as a 4D chess-master always fifteen steps ahead, was just Not Good.

(Side note: I missed all of the BBC Sherlock fandom experience despite watching the show, because I watched the show with my family. We all knew Doyle, you see; my father read those stories to my siblings and I as bedtime stories when I was little. I still remember his reading cadence and the character voices that he did. So when we heard about BBC Sherlock, we thought "hey, we know that guy!" and settled in to watch it as a family. I distinctly remember thinking that it was…fine? Like, just okay. But nothing about it was better than the original, and I would how much worse it was years later).

Third: Sherlock is just weirdly mean? All the time? In BBC Sherlock. I can only assume this is some sort of power trip fantasy, where the author self-insert (we'll come back to that) Sherlock is the most perfect boy who is always right and correct and so much smarter than everyone else that he just doesn't have to put up with their stupidity.

Like many of the gripes I have with BBC Sherlock, what I hate the most is how Moffat's portrayal seems to have influenced the general public's perception of who Sherlock is. Would this type of Victorian Sherlock exist without the type of arrogant monologuing that Moffat favored? I mean, maybe. I can't prove it. I just feel like they're related. (To be clear, I like Sherlock in that scene. I just think it's inconsistent with original Sherlock's interactions with the police, but to be fair, original Sherlock didn't have a little sister in jail for murder).

Fourth, IRENE ADLER MY BELOVED I WILL AVENGE YOU ONE DAY I SWEAR.

So Steven Moffat cannot for the life of him write a female character I'd feel bad for him if it wasn't so painful to watch in Doctor Who, Sherlock, and basically everything else he's ever done. Moffat, like many adaptors of Sherlock, was dead-set on making Irene Adler a femme fatale. She's not only a criminal, she's also sexy and very weirdly interested in Sherlock (again, the author self-insert strikes again. All the women must be interested in me I mean my most perfect boy!)

I am far from the only person who noticed this. Here's a Reddit post which calls Irene Adler out for basically sexually harassing BBC Sherlock throughout that episode. I don't disagree with the substance but I disagree with the reading. That post takes a Watsonian approach: Irene Adler repeatedly expresses sexual interest in Sherlock, who does not reciprocate. Despite this, the characters around him assume he reciprocates and at the end of the episode his brother Mycroft blames his nonexistent/unconfirmed interest in Irene Adler as the reason why she got one over him. When he does his dramatic "I am Sherlocked" reveal, he is saying 1) that he's really not interested, 2) that she didn't get one over him, and 3) that her emotional/sexual investment(?) in him is why she lost.

Here's the Doylist reading: Moffat's fantasy is the sexiest/coolest woman (Irene Adler) chasing after his author self-insert (Sherlock) who remains coolly aloof despite her advances, because he's cool. Everyone else's assertions that he's secretly interested stems from society's need to smash two dolls together and say "now kith" regardless of what the dolls in question are saying. At the end of the episode Sherlock makes the points that I made above, yes, but Moffat's also reaffirming that no one is allowed to outsmart his most special, most perfect boy (/self-insert), not even the character that CANONICALLY OUTSMARTED HIM. (Although to reiterate: original Irene Adler was not a criminal, did not blackmail anyone, and was not interested in Sherlock. Also she was American lmao).

There's one key scene (which I loathe with all my heart) that demonstrates how Moffat sees Irene Adler, and that's her introduction scene. Why? Because she walks in naked. Why? Because that way Sherlock cAn'T rEaD hEr. (Which brings us back to point #2, Reading People as Superpower).

This is mind-bogglingly, mind-bafflingly stupid. If Irene Adler really wanted Sherlock to """"not be able to read her"""" she should've just stolen the clothes of the first woman she saw that was her size. Or men's clothes, not her size, and not hers. That way any traces of character left on the clothes (i.e. coffee stains, hems worn down from constant worrying, cat fur, etc.) would've belonged to someone else, thus throwing Sherlock off even more.

And it's not like the body lacks marks unique to the person. Jesus Christ. Surgeries leave scars, as do accidents and injuries. Birthmarks, bite marks, stretch marks, scar marks, people drawing reminders or hearts on themselves with sharpies, tattoos, the list goes on and on and on and on and on. Bodies are not blank canvases.

There is no good Watsonian reading for why Irene Adler walks in naked. There is only a Doylist reading: Moffat thought it'd be hot for his femme fatale to meet his self-insert butt-ass naked. That is why I disagree with the Reddit post I linked which I assume you (general audience) read. Irene Adler's actions don't make sense when framed as "she's smart but obsessed with Sherlock despite never having met him before." I mean, it's possible? But it makes her far less intelligent from the very start than the show tells you she is. Her actions only make sense when framed as "Moffat thought it would be hot." (Dear Moffat: it's not).

Fifth, and finally: The Big Bad. This is not Moffat-specific: the need to have one main villain, to have everything in a series building to the big showdown with the Big Bad exists all over the place. Episodes are getting longer and longer while seasons get shorter and shorter. Sherlock, originally a series of short stories (with some long-form stories, my favorites <3 thrown in the mix), is perfect for the 30-45 minute 12-16 episode seasons. Instead it got…BBC Sherlock. With Moriarty as The Big Bad. Who Irene Adler is working for? For some reason? And has come back to life maybe? It's dumb. Bring back my case-of-the-week type stories :(

There are plenty more gripes I could list about BBC Sherlock, but those are the main ones. This is already getting much longer than I intended, so onto part three: my thoughts on Johnlock.

Part III: Do I ship Johnlock?

No.

Part IV: Just kidding!

Well, I don't not ship them. A friend asked me recently if I shipped them, and I thought about it for a minute and eventually said: "Honestly? I am so thoroughly neutral about them."

You could convince me of Johnlock. However, I remain unconvinced by the vast majority, if not all, of BBC Johnlock. It essentially feels like a derivative form of a derivative and vastly inferior form of the real Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. Basically: the Johnlock that you (general BBC Johnlock shipper) are a fan of are just two people who happen to share names with the characters I know as the great detective Sherlock Holmes and the good doctor John Watson. But they're not actually Holmes and Watson, thus what you're shipping isn't even "real" Johnlock.

There are two parts of Johnlock's dynamic that I think are missing from the broader conversation (which is not to say that they're not talked about, just that they should be talked about more).

First, we're back to Watsonian vs Doylist readings, this time with the origin of the term in mind! (My literary analyst heart cackles in delight). You see, the Doylist reason for Watson's existence is to chronicle Sherlock's adventures. Genius characters are near-impossible to write from their perspective. The mystery and ingenuity vastly improves when explained by Sherlock to Watson after the fact. We, the audience, need John Watson to exist for the stories to be enjoyable. He is a plot device.

Now, I'm not saying that because John Watson exists for plot purposes, we can't consider the emotional connection between him and his flatmate. The Watsonian reading, according to Johnlock shippers, is that Sherlock and John live together because they are gayandinlove.

Which brings me to part two of their dynamic: the QPR-ness of it all. I think there's a lack of conversation about anything between "straight" and "gayandinlove" when there's so much gray area to discuss. Johnlock, in both the original and in my preferred version, strike me as a very comfortable queer-platonic relationship. It feels wrong for Sherlock to have a wife, husband, boyfriend, lover, etc. because it is so contradictory to who Sherlock is. I just can't picture him engaging in any modern or Victorian-era dating or courtship ritual. And not just because he explicitly derides and expresses his lack of interest in romance in the originals. After all, it's impossible to separate Sherlock's bachelorhood from the part where it was obviously impossible for him to marry a man in the 1890s; the institution of marriage simply didn't mean then what it does now. He certainly never and would never speak about sex, or his sexual preferences. I am sure they were assumed to be Good And Heterosexual. Which isn't to say that Victorian times were less queer than modern times. Doyle's contemporary, the Irish poet Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) was very famously (/infamously) gay. The author Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) is also rumored to have cheated on his wife with her brother/his publisher.

No, I've always seen Sherlock as aroace just because…he comes across as very aroace? I don't know how to explain it other than "read it and tell me I'm wrong." And Johnlock always came across as very comfortable to me. Like there was a total lack of yearning. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand projecting into characters, so if you (general Johnlock shipper) add yearning to your Johnlock I'm not criticizing you. (And no, I'm not getting into Mary Morstan and her differing characterizations because then we'd really be here all day).

I also don't subscribe to the idea that Sherlock is aromantic because of his genius, his detective career, or his suppression of natural instincts in favor of the aforementioned reasons. It's aphobic and it's not how Sherlock works. The man is not judging himself for his lack of interest, he's judging you (aphobe) for thinking there's some deeper cause or something wrong with him for not being interested in romance.

And I can't fathom him engaging in sex except as an intellectual exercise. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I always thought BBC Sherlock was so weird about the concept of being gay. I mean, there were gay jokes galore but They Were Not Gay and Moriarty was gay-coded but John was definitely not into Sherlock and Sherlock was not gay but he wasn't into Irene Adler either, but that didn't make him asexual either, just…a genius?? Apparently??? Like he's straight but he's also too smart to be fooled by Irene Adler's wily wily feminine wiles. Like Straight 2.0 where they make you pay more for the same product with ads this time.

Which finally brings me to the last section: comparing original Sherlock and BBC Sherlock!

Part IV: We all know where this is going

Honestly most of this section has written itself already.

Original Sherlock Holmes was remarkably progressive for its times; BBC Sherlock was somehow less progressive despite being made centuries later. Its portrayal of women was somehow worse than the thing written in the 1890s. I'm a big believer in judging things with historical and social context in mind, which makes original Sherlock all the more astounding, and BBC Sherlock all the more regressive.

Original Sherlock Holmes was an excitable bloodhound who believed in his rational method and was genuinely delighted when he met his match. He was irritable and moody and indirectly killed a man with no remorse. BBC Sherlock is an arrogant, self-obsessed jerk who constantly belittled and mocked the intelligence and achievements of others. He, despite not understanding people, popularized the "you wear that sweater to remind you of your dead mother. You feel lost without her and are seeking a substitute in Macys Mother's Day line products" type of armchair psychoanalysis.

Original Sherlock loves a good case but sees his clients as human, at the end of the day. BBC Sherlock cannot stand to be wrong.

Original Sherlock and John are companions, comfortably; not normal/regular friends, though I would never say "more" than friends. Maybe, in a modern era, they'd be romantic partners of some sort, maybe not; I don't really care. BBC Sherlock and John are…friends but you gotta believe Moffat when he tells you that they are Definitely Not Gay. Like Not At All. Not Even A Little.

In conclusion: I loathe BBC Sherlock with all my heart. It is an insult to the legacy of Sherlock Holmes. A regression in the face of how radical Arthur Conan Doyle was. i genuinely feel sorry for all the people who have watched that show but never read the originals because they have no idea who Sherlock is, and original Sherlock is so damn cool.

[ironyscleverer]

Can I do a little rant about Nate Shelley for a sec? Im gonna rant about Nate Shelley for a sec. Just becuase for a show about masculinity and healthy relationships and self-love, I HATED how they handled his character arc so fucking much.

Nate starts off in season 1 as this meek, nerdy, short, chubby Asian man who's routinely bullied by the guys (players) that he works for. He's very specifically disrespected becuase he's not conventionally masculine. It's important to note that Asian guys especially are emasculated a lot in society, doubly so if you're shy and/or brainy like Nate is.

But then once he starts getting a little respect and attention from Ted, we first get to see his confidence grow, but then we also start to see a nastier side of him emerge. He uses his new position of power to feed his insecurities and he becomes vindictive, cruel and resentful. He takes it out on his players, his former bullies, but even then he chooses the weakest person to pick on (ie Colin, who's a closeted queer man as we discover later).

And I actually think this part of the arc is really well done and interesting; it feels very real and throughout season 2, even though he's absolutely horrible, I can still see how it's stemming from a place of pain and bitterness. Being part of a system that abuses and disrespects you, especially when race is a factor, can really turn people sour and warp their perception of reality. Frankly, I think I would have a lot less sympathy for Nate's character if he was just another resentful white man, but his being brown really adds a lot of layers to the character.

And it's important to note that even once he becomes a coach Nate still suffers becuase of how he presents himself! The people at Richmond do occasionally make jabs at him (Jan Maas and the suit), and you can't tell me the situation at the Greek restaurant wasn't some kind of racist power trip. Even though he has more systemic power now, he still doesn't get respect becuase of how he exists in the world.

In that context, his choice to go work for Rupert at the end of season 2 makes complete sense. Richmond was a toxic environment for him given his past experiences there, and he was not going to get the mentorship or understand that he needed. I hoped that his season 3 redemption arc would involve him untangling his victim complex, learning to trust and stand up for himself, and looking out for people who are weaker than him (so basically this fic lmao). Basically, I wanted him to step up to the challenge of being a head coach and really confront his insecurities and their roots. Maybe he could've talked to another coach of color or something. I don't know.

But ultimately, the direction they went in with Nate in season 3 was frustrating to me because he ends up right back where he started at the beginning of the show; at Richmond, working as a kit man for a bunch of white people. Sure, he's forgiven by Ted and he learns his lesson about power, but none of the actual, very understandable hurts on his end are really addressed. He's right back to the same environment he was in before, albeit a bit less toxic. He isn't allowed to grow or distance himself from that chapter of his life. (the writers also decided to just give him a girlfriend and make that fix everythin which I don't appreciate, but that's another essay entirely).

If I had it my way, I would have had him do the whole scene with coach Beard, reconcile with Ted, but respecfully tell them that he can't go back to Richmond. There's too much history there, and even if they've forgiven each other, it would be a bad environment for him. Then Nate and Ted/Beard/others can have a new relationship as equals, built on respect, rather than a boss/employee dynamic. But maybe that's just me being delusional.

Anyway, in conclusion, Nate deserved a better ending and I'm disappointed that they didn't give it to him. Thank you for reading this completely unedited rant, I may do another in the future about Ted Lasso's queer rep or its female characters. Lmk if you want to hear it.

[peppertaemint]

I've always felt that the jikookers vs. taemin feud kinda mirrored the taekookers vs. jimin situation, but at a much smaller scale, of course. I agree with you that they feel threatened by taemin's indisputable stature as an artist, as it disrupts the narrative that bts is always the first and always the best at everything, and also because jimin looks up to him and is influenced by him (as if it wasn't obvious enough before, now we got the confirmation from the man himself, thank you very much). This reminds me of taekookers getting mad at jimin for standing out so much as a performer. I mean, he obviously does, that's why they're always all up in his business instead of focusing on their favs' "records". Also, they hate the fact that they're close because they read taemin as queer, which makes them think that they actually might have kissed, once, at a party (just once). Kookie's friends look straight enough to them, so they can stay. A bit homophobic if you ask me. I'm sure that if we saw taemin around jimin publicly more often, he would've been already promoted to the same The Other Woman™ role jimin occupies for tkks. And besides all that, I could write an essay on why jimin's friendships have always been under scrutiny because many people can't take the fact that he has more going on in his life besides being the members' cheerleader and jungkook's devoted wife, but that's a different topic.

Thank you for this Ask, Anon. You raised a lot of salient points here. The one I'm gonna pick up on is Taemin's perceived queerness, with emphasis on perceived.

There is an odd thing that happens with non-fans. They mostly think he's gay, that it's obvious, and they don't really like their favourite having a connection to him. While, within the fandom community, shawols cannot decide if they think he's gay. If you were to ask around, you'd get quite a few different opinions.

I find it interesting because the "outside" community has very specific and strong opinions of him. I connected with a Korean-American lady in her 50s a while ago and talked about all things Kpop. She wasn't a shawol. One of the first things she said, unprompted, was, oh Taemin, he's gay but can never come out, what a shame/challenge for him (I was chatting from a 2Min account, just for context). I was a little floored at how readily she shared this fully-formed opinion.

It seems the world outside shawols have already made up their minds about him, in one way or another. I think about when he was young and had that beautiful long hair, but his frame was still so slight that the gender confusion for an onlooker was understandable. It must have been hard to have the world decide that you were sitting somewhere on the trans spectrum. And to know everyone thinks they know you're gay.

There is a zero percent chance of him not feeling these things, and he's certainly done both reactionary hetero-leaning performances and queer performances. Pretty Boy is and Internet War are the first that come to mind. And it's worth remembering that sometime in the early 2010s, there was a Korean news report about homosexuality in kpop idols, and he and Jonghyun were named in it (as a couple, I think 💀).

I don't love the song Pretty Boy, but the choreography with its military steps and these lyrics have a lot to say.

Hey you, tough guy / Relax your hardened shoulders / Hey feel the way I move

I’m like a speeding train / You’ll be surprised / Look at that poor girl, I hope you notice / She says “you’re a guy so…” like a habit / Why is being sensitive and prepared the opposite of being a man?

Cause I do it I do it for you / I won’t pretend to be innocent like a puppet / Everyone talks so easily

I may always seem pretty, I may always seem good / I may seem nice, I may seem soft / But that’s all a part of your imagination that’s over my head / (Pretty Boy)

[gatheringbones]

Hi! I saw your advice on another ask and so am hoping you might be open to taking another. If not, it’s ok if you disregard I don’t mean for this to be an obligation.

What’s your suggestion for people who frame abuse and bullying (and, at this point, severe and longterm cyberstalking) as an appropriate punishment for actions of yours they deem wrong? I haven’t interacted with this person in years because I eventually realized they would never stop finding reasons to “punish” and then “forgive” me and the punishments just got worse and worse. But now they’ve been harassing me and recently my family too because they’ve convinced all their friends that me going no-contact is further evidence of my “guilt”.

Really, I’m looking for any kind of resources that are specifically designed for or about this type of abuse. If you know of anything I can do to prevent it that doesn’t involve the police or deleting social media (I’ve already done the second many times but I won’t force my family to do it too) that would help too.

Oh, love this. This person has figured out that if they label you an abuser, they can do whatever they want to you and your primary relationships with no consequences. They get to fulfill a variety of emotional needs by fixating on a revenge crusade that allows them to play a role that makes them feel powerful and safe, and they get to manipulate you and your family members into whatever roles support that narrative. They'll go on trying to start up new opportunities for role-play as long as it continues to net them positive rewards; the only way to prevent that is to make every attempt as boring and as frustrating as possible.

The only suggestion I can think of is to talk to your family members about not feeling the need to defend or protect you or engage with them on your behalf, to not even try to "save" you from the story that's been presented to them. They don't need to stand up for you, or devote time to figuring out whatever fresh tactic this person comes up with, or discern whether you're really guilty or not. It's fine. You guys can talk amongst each other about what guilt and accountability mean to each of you for as long as you want, which is the most important part of making sure that your family members get their needs met with you so they don't need to attempt to fix or solve or understand the issue from the mouth of the crusader. The more you can all avoid being distracted or debilitated by shame and fear, the better, even if you were really at "fault" for something.

There's an opportunity buried at the heart of this that's hard to describe, but I really want to recommend some of the essays from Beyond Survival, especially the ones by kai cheng thom and adrienne marie brown about what the community response ought to be when harm takes place, and what structures exist in our imaginations that shape the dynamics and flow of energy and the words and symbols used during conversations and interactions surrounding harm.

Whose methodology is it to use harm done as a pretext for judging/shaming/categorizing/sterilizing/liquidating? What empires perfected and shaped entire aspects of society around these same pretexts? Where does it all stop, and when does harm done to harm done become inert and dissipated and creates no further context and opportunity for harm? Who benefits?

[a-tale-never-told]

Historical Document#2: The Stasi Biography.

//Greetings everyone, this is Mod Sam. I present to you the second history review of the bunch, the Stasi review. Now I'm pretty sure that most of you were expecting this review instead of the Soviet one, given that the Stasi are currently the biggest threat to the blog as of this season, It would make sense to do an analysis on them and what their tactics and operations are. But due to my poor organizational skills, I instead did the Soviet one first, and that review was... disappointing to say the least, but now I understand why it wasn't as successful: it wasn't relevant to the main story yet.

//That's certainly not to say every historical post should be connected to the story, but given the stakes that we have now, it makes perfect sense to talk about them now and explain why they are so dangerous. How I didn't recognize that earlier is beyond me.

//But anyway, I think I did slightly better here in comparison to the last review, where it got way too overcomplicated for anyone to understand, aside from a few aspects. But I think I managed to make it understandable enough for you guys to understand. An added bonus is that the review is shorter, thus you don't have to spend hours reading it, so that's a drastic improvement.

//Given that I've seen a lot of Stasi-related asks during the story, consider this a firsthand survival guide on the Stasi, and what they do exactly firsthand. Consider them a more terrifying version of the KGB and the North Japanese secret police force, at least for now.

//I just want to apologize for the lack of activity on this blog for a while, aside from answering asks and me complaining. I've calmed down since the last time I made that rant, and I eventually realized that I need to take it easy with you guys and not force you because if there is anything people don't like, it's being told what to do, and I feel ashamed that I tried to do that. I hope you all can accept my forgiveness and just no that I meant no ill intentions towards you guys. I was just... so stressed that day and I pretty much lost it.

//But besides that, I'm ready to possibly get back into the story. If all goes to plan, I should have the next story chapter by around Friday or Saturday at the latest. But in the meantime, you have this file to occupy your attention while I start working on the next chapter, so be vigilant for a new chapter coming out soon.

//To close this post off, let me show you the ID card of Vladimir Putin while he was in the Stasi. And before you ask, yes, this is 100% real and accurate, this was actually what he looked like when he was younger. Viewer discretion is advised.

//At the very least, he had some hair, so I'll give him that.

//This shall probably be the last historical post I do for now, as I prefer to continue working on the story since these posts aren't going to really matter to anyone unless we focus on the actual plot itself. I know I just said that before, but I wanted to add more context as to why. Plus, it's pretty much a slog for me to write these long essays in Google Docs since I highly doubt anyone here reads a Google Doc for a review. Still, though, I hope you enjoyed these reviews as that's all you're going to get untill the end of this arc or even the season, it's up to my own volition on how I shall conduct this type of strategy.

//This is Mod Sam from A Tale Never Told, signing out for now. Have a great rest of the day everyone ^^.

[that-crazy-five-foot-two-chick]

Getting nostalgic thinking about my babystay days 🥲 I literally remember where I was sitting and how my computer was positioned when I first sat down and listened to Back Door for the first time (I think that was my first skz song). And fool that I was, my reaction was "meh" 😭

(For context, I've always been a lyrics person with music and Back Door is admittedly not that deep, but I've since come to appreciate that not all songs have to be deep and sometimes what we need is a song that's just there for the vibes and that is perfectly acceptable and serves its purpose and there are some GREAT songs in that category!)

I've obviously since changed my mind about Back Door, but I started liking skz for them (which is every marketer's dream) because I somehow stumbled across them amidst BTS Pinterest and thought they were funny crackheads (one of the things I also loved BTS for).

But I'm also remembering how later that summer (2021) I heard TOP in an anime openings compilation that my brother begged me to put on and—not knowing it was skz—I just stopped and went "wait wait hold up this is GOOD" and then "by Stray Kids" came onscreen and I was like "huh that's funny, but surely it's some jpop band with the same name" and then "3racha" came on in the credits with their respective names and I flipped my freaking gourd as my Southern dad would say

So suffice to say, I can prove decidedly that I would also like their music if I didn't give a flying flip about the boys lol. But I do and it's lowkey a problem but I also lowkey don't care and my fandom Pied Piper-ness has been successful in the past, so it will in fact not be stopping cuz we still constructing keep it coming HAH WHY U MAD BRAH

actually please stop me sometimes

It doesn't feel like that long ago and it feels weird that I'm more "veteran" than like half the Stays in existence now aghhhh but their growth never really hit me because to me, each win just felt like a natural course of events. Like, "yeah, of course this should blow up, it's awesome and we know it's awesome!" And it's not like them getting bigger has changed them either. All that's changed is a growing obsession with grabbing each other's butts imo 🤣 That, and the natural course of maturing a little around the edges as you get older.

Which, in the end, is what makes me STAY and always will. The heart and mind of each Stray Kid is fascinating to me and I can't properly describe how much I love how they process the world around them. If you need any further proof, watch the Maxident album intro segment about what love means to them, because if you see what I saw, you'll see eight men with a better understanding of the concept than many people far older than them, each with their own slant on it.

Where did this essay come from, I was only posting about those first two babystay moments— Rather than rambling further, because I want to do other things with my life today, I'm just gonna say, if you're reading this, Chris, I'm glad. I hope this little segment of my "Stay Story" makes your day a little brighter! You guys inspire me more than you know in more ways than you know, but rather than letting that pressure you, I hope it lets you know that you're doing well.

And if any newer/almost Stays are reading this, I hope this was a fun story and makes you want to get to know them even better!

Because I don't have any better ideas on when to shut up, I'm gonna put on my Chan hat beanie for a second and end this with a biiiiig hug 🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂

Thank you Stays~

Thank you Babystays~

And I'll see youuuu next time!

[euos-the-cat]

Long post about writing things ahead (Basic Story Structure):

The biggest problem I've had with attempting creative writing is that I'd been in honors English classes for half of my schooling. That sounds insane until you hear that they only taught writing essays, and eventually just one kind of essay. It wasn't until I decided to move to basic English in 12th grade that I actually started to learn more about constructing stories and creative writing, something I was told by a teacher the year before I'd learn in college.

Now, if you're any flavor of neurodivergent like I am, the way story structure was taught in school at the more basic levels was... Confusing at best. I didn't understand the whole "rise to the conflict and then conclusion" part, since to me, stories didn't operate that way, and trying to fit them into that structure felt restricting even as a kid.

This structure is known as the "classic structure", and the reason it didn't make that much sense to me is the fact that, well, not every story is set up like that. Even the stories young children read aren't only set up with that one structure. You can see what I mean on this reedsy article; while each structure contains elements of the classic structure, they all have variations that can make it hard to see how they do fit into that structure.

Since I'm not going to college and I was barely taught how stories actually function (which, in turn, made writing essays about them stupidly confusing for me), I'm kinda stuck having to figure this out from scratch. This whole long post is just to introduce me figuring this out on my own, and taking you guys with me so that you can get something out of me trying to reverse engineer this knowledge.

So, what are my basics? How do you form a story?

Before we go curving the lines like every other story structure, let's just start with a line:

start ===========> goal

Now, I know more can come after obtaining the goal, but that complicates the line. For now, this is what we're starting with. We need to establish how things start, and what the characters are working towards.

Let's imagine a mouse, it's sitting in a hole, wanting to eat a piece of cheese sitting at the table. Pretty simple, but if the mouse were able to just eat the cheese without anything else happening, that's not an interesting story.

That's why you've gotta add obstacles, which in most story structures, will cause the bends you see in the lines.

start ======/=====> goal

Now we have an obstruction to the goal. The mouse can't get to the cheese because there's a cat patrolling the house, and if it tries to leave the hole, it will be eaten itself.

The way your characters respond to these obstacles will not only tell you more about the characters themselves, but shape the way the story progresses.

That seems obvious to some people, but considering how bare bones a lot of this stuff is taught, even outright excluding vital information, having that basic line to start with can help some people make more sense of why stories work the way they do. A spoiler to the end of a movie doesn't mean much if you don't have context to plug it into, after all. It's hard to build off of skills you're taught if some basic piece of information is excluded (trying to learn Japanese has been an actual nightmare for me for this very reason. Many lessons skip casual speech until later when casual speech forms the foundations for more formal speech).

I hope this helps at least someone else, and if not.. eh, I still have it for myself, so it's not a waste.

[give-soup-please]

Previous anon here

I understand. Hell, I even get your perspective, at first you were Just Some Guy, but then I saw more of you. You're the guy who really likes soup, who likes analysing and enjoying fan content, who ran away from home. The guy who lived a life worth considering a story in of itself. When someone makes something that I enjoy, I feel happy and associate that happiness with them. I always rejoiced whenever I saw your comments, I love hearing what authors think of their works, or just commentary on it. Just. The person behind the art puts a lot of the art into context.

And I'll be honest, I've read your response over and over again. I don't think it's still sunk in that this blog has an expiration date. Despite that, I feel pressured by myself to say "oh, you can still think of the characters, you can still love them", but considering your ride or die artistry, I feel more negative will come from positive there. (Apologies if this is a bit all over the place, it is roughly 4am.)

Just. I care about you. I feel emotions for you. I see a you behind the curtain of words that you display, and I care. I feel comforting warmth when you post, showing you're alive. I feel conflicted and bittersweet about this whole situation, and I feel hopeless yet hopeful that there'll be a happy ending to this. I want to say that you can walk your own path, but I don't know enough to say that. I want and wish to be able to help or know what to say for comfort, but instead it's just this jambling mess. I'll miss you, and I'll be concerned for you. What I want to do is pull you close, hug you tight enough to make all the bad problems be squeezed out, and work together on the ones that can't be squeezed out. But I am a stranger on the Internet staying up well past their bedtime. And you are another stranger on the Internet, probably sleeping much more consistently than me. I wish I could end this on something thoughtful and daring and caring, but I'm nearly passing out every time I close my eyes. So, know that you are loved, even if it's the most distant, platonic love you've ever seen.

See ya soupman 🍜🍜🍜

I've kept this in my inbox for a while now, just smiling every time I read it. I'm glad that you and others have gotten joy out of what I've produced over the summer, and I'm doubly glad that people are enjoying the glimpses they see of the person behind the blog.

The relationship I have between my hobbies, my academic life, and the characters I love dearly is a complicated one. Even now, despite the fact that I've been thinking through a response for this for 2+ weeks, I still have trouble defining it. I will always love TSP, there's no way out of it, and I believe that the narrator is one of those exceptionally rare characters who I will always enjoy thinking about and rotating in my head. That won't go away, despite my attempts to suppress how I feel about the game. Believe me, I tried. It didn't work, the narrator lives rent free in my head and is outrageously smug about it. Even now, if I concentrate, I can see him grinning, kicking his feet back, and refusing to go. And frankly, I love him for it. Smug bastard.

The blog can't continue, I already made that determination when I started looking at what being a full time student means. It's a shame, but I only have the brainpower to focus on one at a time. And rather than keep stringing people along and have them wait and hope I get to their request, I decided it would be easier on all of us to make a clean break.

Me going off to college is... technically a happy ending in its own right. It's a matter of perspective, really. I'm majoring in English, my long standing passion. The thing it feels like I was born to do. I wrote my first story when I was five, devoured my first analysis essay at twelve, and I was set on the road for wonderful things. I get to read books and write all day, and you can bet that I'm looking forward to it. On top of that, if I keep my GPA high enough, I've got guaranteed housing for the next 2-3 years, depending on how I play my cards. (That's a long story by itself, a combination of unexpected financial help and scholarships.) As a technically homeless youth living in the most expensive state in America, that's huge. Housing is so hard to come by, and I'm incredibly lucky to have the resources I do. It's either go to college, or risk going to the streets. I know which choice I'm making.

While the direction my life is taking isn't the happy fairytale ending everyone hopes for, it's definitely not a tragedy either. It's a complicated transition between one phase of my life and another. There's grief and bitterness and sorrow, but also a lot of joy and excitement.

There are lovely books in this ivory tower, and the gilded cage is comfortable. I am genuinely content, now that the grief is starting to pass. I mean- they're offering a 'video games and culture' class. C'mon, I'm going to take that for the pure excuse and joy to rant about TSP in essay format. Hell, I'll do my dissertation on it down the line, if the chance ever presents itself. Even within complicated situations, there are ways to find joy and entertainment. I'm planning on taking fun, easy A classes wherever I can. Life will be good, because I'm going to make it that way, even within my limitations.

I appreciate your words, whoever you are. I do not know you, I do not recognize your writing style, but your words are seen and appreciated. Hugs, both physical and virtual, are appreciated too.

I'm wishing you well, anon, just as much as you wish it for me.