#i just think we appreciate how valuable *blatant* lgbt characters are

[riddle-man]

look gotham might not be the perfect show but can we just appreciate the way it has a canon gay plotline, in the TEXT of the show and played by lgbt+ actors.

i love shows like hannibal and good omens as much as the next queer, they're works of art, but i can't deny that im tired of the most celebrated queer shows being subtext, up to interpretation, implied.

[gayregis]

1/2 ngl i think many western witcher book fans make the series out to be way more progressive than it actually is. part of it is mistranslation ofc, like for example with the 'man was not made for monogamy' bit where the use of singular man is rlly misleading and it should be "a man" or "men aren't" bc originally it's just dandelion being a sexist cheating dick and not some openminded progressive the way ive seen this interpreted sometimes, But

2/2 there's a lot of plainly bad takes out there that i feel are partially an issue of just worldviews and circumstances. like obv its not some Enormous difference and im not saying that "hurr durr westerners Bad and Stupid" or whatever but in regard to stuff like lgbt issues or coding or feminism ive seen so many bonkers horrible takes that like. with my experience as a closeted polish trans homo are truly fucking concerning in how naive they are

(fucking 3/2 bc i can't count) but like. just from the top of my head the godawful girlboss femdom #feminism shit ppl pull with yennefer bc they cant admit shes not all that well written and that shes borderline abusive at times, people trying to make sapkowski out to be pro-lgbt which is fucking baffling with the blatant homophobic storylines/writing, the "GERALT IS CODED X" shit when hes a blatant cishet whiteman power/oppression fantasy rolled up in one like. idk im really tired and its a lot

(4/2 ok i SWEAR im done im sorry) like. i think what im trying to say is that i feel like theres a lot of like. kinda rose-colored-glasses type of naivety and a lack of understanding of how the general reality of life for women, lgbt people etc. is way different in poland and further east than it is in the states or britain or even fucking germany, so people just take very blatant bigotry and uncritically try to twist it to fit their western uwu pseudofeminism and whatnot

no, LITERALLY THIS. i think [mostly western] progressives on tumblr especially want and long to see  progressive messages or representation where there simply are not any, or where the messages that are there are largely milquetoast centrist and not actually saying anything radical. (this post i made is more specific to an aspect topic but it voices some of my opinions on it)

i think it’s of course fine to have separate interpretations of the characters / rewritten characters in your mind that you appreciate, but in order to do that you need to engage with the source material and acknowledge the reality of what is written on the page (for instance, what you said about yennefer being a #girlboss when in canon she struggles with characterization at times and especially in the short stories comes off poorly, almost abusive, and her and geralt’s relationship is definitely not some kind of #goals). 

i think that there are some redeeming features and it’s not all bad, everything is very grey - for instance, sapkowski wrote yennefer poorly when it came to her first introduction to ciri, but then her training of ciri that immediately follows it is much better. and geralt is a power fantasy in his heterosexuality and protagonist-isms, but spends the saga in turmoil over trying to protect ciri because he’s a good father. everything kind of blends together and does not just mean ONE thing only, because it’s understandable by many people. for instance, geralt being mopey and upset that he’s abnormal can be related to by MANY different types of people. 

i think the issue is when people state that characters are definitely “coded” one way or another (not like, actual canon relationships, like saying ciri is gay because she had relations with mistle... that’s a can of sapkowski-worms for another day... i’m saying, for example, arguing that dandelion is intended to be coded as gay because he wears colorful clothes or something like this). i don’t think it’s very valuable at all to look at the content and say “sapkowski intended THIS,” because i don’t find much value in what mr. centrist sells-the-rights-to-netflix had to say. i find value in what you have to say, personally, and what it means to you. 

sorry to speak about my minor again for like 0.2 seconds (it’s relevant) but it reminds me a lot of posts on here about ancient greece or rome that are like “ancient greeks and romans were GAY, we have ALWAYS BEEN HERE!!” like you really want to claim kinship with the violent imperialists who practice pedastry...? or posts claiming that X female figure, such as sappho, was a feminist. we call it an anachronistic interpretation: it’s a completely different time period, context, culture, and intention than what we understand in a modern sense. you can’t project your modern and western culture onto ancient greece and rome, because they are ancient societies.

similarly, i don’t think that you can take american feminism from 2020 and apply it to a fantasy series written by a polish man in the 1990s. you may reinterpret the characters how you so choose, of course you will have favorite characters and appreciate specific ones for specific things... but you cannot say that sapkowski’s intentions were specifically this or that as you understand them yourself in your own life, and you cannot do this with very many authors unless you are the author yourself. 

specifically for the witcher because as you said, there is a cultural misunderstanding: “[a] type of naivety and a lack of understanding of how the general reality of life for women, lgbt people etc. is way different in poland and further east than it is in the states or britain or even fucking germany.”  

i think in the english-speaking progressive social media circles currently for a few years there has been this very big hyperfocus on good representation for people of color, for women, for lgbt people, and in this quest for representation many are willing to overlook blatant bigotry in hopes of claiming another character ‘for the gays’ or whatever. for example dandelion hating on yennefer in a little sacrifice because she is old - i’m pretty sure sapkowski didn’t write this because he intended it to be like dandelion is gay and jealous of her! you can headcanon that if you like, but don’t claim that’s what it is and nothing else, because you need to acknowledge the misogyny present there.

i think it’s dangerous because you end up parading the original content around like it’s fantasic and progressive when it’s really not. i encourage people to have lgbt headcanons if they choose, but you really shouldn’t be saying it was sapkowski’s 100% intention to make this character X or Y because you really must take the writing into context with the author’s biases, life, culture, setting...

[fantaseatrash]

Here's the thing. I love Sarah J. Maas' books (a lot), but they are not the pinnacle of writing excellence. I enjoy SJM's writing but I feel like it lacks diversity in many areas and I can understand why other people don't like it when they have well-backed reasons. (does that make sense or am I about to majorly insult someone by saying that)

Let it be known that I love SJM’s books with a passion—this isa fan blog, after all. But I agree with you.

I agree with you, and am always open to hearing points fromboth sides, so please feel free to respond as you see fit—without fear ofoffense. This kind of conversation can lead to learning opportunities.

While SJM may not be the “pinnacle of writing excellence,”which is quite a feat to achieve, she is a talented writer and excellent worldbuilder. Her writing, it seems to me, is that of someone trying to delve intothe world of diversity for (possibly) the first time, and I think that effort deservesto be commended. However, as readers and activists (many ofus privileged), we have a responsibility to draw attention to her shortcomings. @sjmaas‘s writing lacks in diversity when it comes to race, religion, and sexuality (but I willdefend her writing style and subject matter fiercely). I’ll explain in threeparts.

Before I get started on where the books lack diversity, I’dlike to point out my personal qualms with some of the targeted postscirculating about SJM’s characters. I believe at one point SJM was probably thestereotypical “white feminist”—it’s difficult not to be if your white privilegeis not something you are aware of. Her effort to include diversity in herwriting shows us, however, that she is working to improve.

That being said, SJM has written her main characters to bevery empathetic, driven, and present. It is unsettling to see posts describing Aelinas a “Mary Sue” (we have to remember that this is a fantasy world, socharacters will have unrealistic abilities) or “bitch” for reasons unrelated todiversity, but have those phrases defended by SJM’s lack of diversity. I feelthis shows a level of internalized sexism among readers in which they have becomeuncomfortable with a female character owning her flaws and working to improvewhile also growing to loving herself, and I think as readers we often use anauthor’s shortcomings to deflect from our own—but that is not what thisdiscussion is about.

RACE

This discussion is about diversity, starting with race.While it is to be appreciated that in ToG Nehemia is given adjectives that pointreaders toward imagining her as Egyptian, her skin is merely described as “deeplytanned.” In ACOTAR/ACOMAF, Rhys, other Illyrians, and the Summer Court are alsodescribed as varying levels of “tan,” and this can be interpreted in many ways.Readers can use some outside information from the world we live in to deducethat Illyrians are similar to the indigenous people of North America, but thatis only possible if the reader has been exposed to that kind of diversity; unfortunately,that is not something we can count on.

So, I have a problem with only describing characters as possessingdifferent levels of tans. “Deeply tanned” is only a descriptor of how much sunsomeone has been exposed to and gives very little information about the actual color of someone’s skin. It can be interpreted as a fair complexionedperson who has been exposed to a lot of sun. This is a problem because it lendsmuch more to the possibility of characters being white-washed. I feel thisproblem could be solved by using shades of brown as a descriptor. As for therest of her characters and the general lack of more “tan” characters, perhapsthis can be attributed to the amount of diversity SJM herself is exposed to. Ifthis is the case, she must work to resolve her own shortcomings in thisrespect, and we readers are not obligated to be patient about it.

RELIGION

As for religion, SJMagain shows an effort at diversity, but falls short and perhaps regresses. Wesee in ACOTAR/ACOMAF the “Children of the Sun,” or something like that, afanatical group that dresses similarly to Christian nuns. It’s concerning,though, that these people, the only group that shows religious diversity, arepainted as an “other” group. Whether intentional or not, this normalizesreligious prejudices among readers. My hope is that, in ACOWAR, the sisterswill prove themselves to be valuable assets to Prythian.

As for the priestesses, their presence does little forreligious diversity since they are the “church” of Prythian and are centeredaround the Cauldron. Similarly, in the ToG series, it seems all religions arethe same, if not just named with different gods. While this is true ofAbrahamic religions in our world, it is not true of Buddhism, Hinduism,Germanic/Celtic religions, and tribal religions. Again, I am hopeful that thenext installment in the series, Chaol’s book, rectifies some of this, but I amcautiously so.

SEXUALITY

Finally, we have sexuality.I can’t think of a single same sex couple in ACOxxx. Not even the priestesses,who place (possibly) the most value on sexual expression, have been mentionedto enter into sexual acts with each other, and only describe sex as acelebration of fertility (i.e. reproduction—possible only during M/F sex). Ifeel this is a blatant dismissal of different sexual orientations.

As for the ToG series, the only, ONLY, same sex relationshipwe see is the brief and underdeveloped relationship between Emrys and Malakai,who resided in Mistward during HoF. The most disappointing part of thisrelationship is that the couple didn’t develop it on their own, they recognizedeach other as mates right away. It’s nice that their love for each other wasn’tportrayed as a choice in sexuality, but this approach can be harmful for LGBT+readers. It does not reflect realistically upon relationship building. WhileRowaelin and Chaelin showed realistic relationship development, it is harderfor LGBT+ characters to relate to because it is so dreadfully hetero. SJM’s onlyperceivable saving grace for ToG would be a relationship between Manon andanother female, to the chagrin of Morian shippers.

To conclude this mini-dissertation, SJM’s books, while richin relevant issues, lack diversity in race, religion, and sexuality. Thiscould be because SJM is surrounded by little diversity, but it is important thatshe recognize this in her life and writing so that she may provide morerepresentation and safer reading for her diverse audience.