#interpretive materials

[valtsv]

[thatbuddie]

"eddie isn't queer/gay," you say. "he is straight in canon, so him being gay is just a head canon. it's ok for others to think of him as straight because that's what he is."

let's ignore for a second the fact that eddie has never ever ever ever not even once, said in canon that he is a heterosexual very straight guy. seriously!!! he has never once said it!!! if i am "assuming" he's gay then you are also "assuming" he is straight even though he has never once said it!!

how do you think we got bi buck as canon? like i am serious right now, answer the question. how do you think we go bi buck canon? evan buckley was never conceived to be a bisexual man at the beginning of 911. the reason we have evan buckley as a canonically bisexual character today is because us, queer fans of 911, interpreted him and headcanoned him as bisexual. i would go even further and say that it was us, BUDDIE FANS, who interpreted him and headcanoned him as bi. even before the writers were explicitly writing him as bisexual. we read his actions and his story and his identity and said: "this is a bi character!" and the writers looked back and realized that it made sense! and so they started writing him explicitly and canonically as bi.

was it wrong of us to headcanon a character as bisexual then? like for all intents and purposes we were reading a "straight" character as bi. were we doing something wrong? how come you are not complaining/chastising us/shaming us for how we took evan buckley, an otherwise straight character, and saw him as bi? is it because it now serves a purpose to you that he is bi?

also, taking characters that aren't confirmed queer and reading them as queer is what the queer community, and specifically the queer fandom community, has been doing for DECADES. look up the history of queer coding, i am begging you. it has been through the means of queer coding and the perseverance of people that are engaged in it that actual queer representation in media has increased. and let me tell you right now, eddie diaz is, undoubtedly and undeniably, one of the most queer coded characters there is. whether you think this queer coding is conscious by the writers or not. eddie diaz is queer coded.

and i want everyone who says things like "eddie diaz is not a queer character. he is straight in canon. it's wrong to assume a character is queer without the character saying so" to know that this is exactly what straight and homophobic people say. you are using the SAME rhetoric that has been used to shame queer fans for decades for seeing themselves and their experiences in fictional characters of all types. in fact, us, queer fans (and again BUDDIE FANS), were told so many times by straight fans that we were wrong for reading buck as bisexual. and where are we now? where did reading buck as bi take us? oh yeah, to having bi buck in canon.

so please just stop with the "eddie isn't queer in canon" comments. if you don't want to interpret eddie as queer then that is your prerogative. i will be judging why that is, for sure, but it is your right. but be honest about it. it has nothing to do with whether or not he is straight (which hasn't been said) or queer coded (which he so obviously is seeing as so many of us can very easily read him as queer). it's a personal preference and you're not engaging with canon better because of it.

[stolligaseptember]

a small detail from the final episode that made me go unreasonably feral;

when they're all sitting around discussing su yin's evil stepmother era what happened to huai'en, siming has a sword by his side

and i remember thinking "since when does he carry a sword???"

but he doesn't

it's jinbao's

and it would have been perfectly reasonable for jinbao to place it against the table if he had been on the other side of it, but at the start of the scene he's standing behind siming with his hands on siming's shoulders

later in the scene he even moves even further away from his sword and places himself on the other side of siming

so this little ball of sunshine that takes his martial arts oh so seriously still handed over his sword to his husband for safekeeping while his young master threw yet another fit of despair

[hhhhleb]

getting to know each other

they got stuck in the Void(?) for an indefinite period of time…without Ink's brush and vials.. they have nothing to do but talk i guess..(more thoughts in tags)

related to this thing with sci and this red ink thing

[brethilach]

I think it's kind of hilarious that in PJ's movies one of the main reasons why Thorin doubles down and refuses to deal with Thranduil (instead keeping the Company imprisoned for perhaps longer than necessary) is because he just has THAT much faith in Bilbo and believes he's not only still alive (which he has no proof of at this point), but that Bilbo will ALSO come back and find a way to save all of them within the relatively short amount of time they have before they miss Durin's Day

On one hand, he was right!! Bilbo DID do all of that, and it's really heartwarming that Thorin believed in him!!

But on the other, I can never think about this without also thinking about the fact that Bilbo was living in Thranduil's walls for multiple weeks (according to the book) and probably had little to eat nor ample opportunity to rest. All while Thorin could have taken Thranduil's deal and stopped it at any moment

I'm not saying that (movie) Thorin was wrong for not doing so (I probably also wouldn't trust the word of someone who tried to make a deal with me as "one king to another" while also bargaining the freedom of my family and friends, even if I didn't have a century-long grudge on top of it), but I can't imagine a reality that Thorin lives where Bilbo wouldn't have something to say about it. I don't know if he would necessarily be angry or upset at Thorin, but I think he'd at least feel some type of way about it

[lillazyboithings]

Wiggly!Richie

In these trying times (me recovering my voice while studying for midterms), I have decided it was the best time to bust out my watercolors and do this

[eliounora]

my pet peeve is those "historians thought they were very good friends" jokes, like obviously for sure there are homophobic historians, but the study of same-sex desire and relationships of the past is also quite complex and you can't often go and simply label people's relationships or identities of time gone by, and sometimes it's more complicated and elusive than "they were a couple" or even "they were in love"

[now-you-sound-like-a-jedi]

Okay, that's it, you are no longer allowed to come into my notes and says that Satine banned armour/speaking Mando'a/etc on Mandalore unless you can provide me with a full Harvard-referenced citation and included bibliography of exactly where in canon you got that piece of information

[thunderboltfire]

I have a lot of complicated feelings when it comes to what Neflix has done with the Witcher, but my probably least favourite is the line of argumentation that originated during shitstorms related to the first and second season that I was unlucky to witness.

It boils down to "Netflix's reinterpretation and vision is valid, because the Witcher books are not written to be slavic. The overwhelming Slavic aestetic is CDPR's interpretation, and the setting in the original books is universally European, as there are references to Arthurian mythos and celtic languages" And I'm not sure where this argument originated and whether it's parroting Sapkowski's own words or a common stance of people who haven't considered the underlying themes of the books series. Because while it's true that there are a lot of western european influences in the Witcher, it's still Central/Eastern European to the bone, and at its core, the lack of understanding of this topic is what makes the Netflix series inauthentic in my eyes.

The slavicness of the Witcher goes deeper than the aestetics, mannerisms, vodka and sour cucumbers. Deeper than Zoltan wrapping his sword with leopard pelt, like he was a hussar. Deeper than the Redanian queen Hedvig and her white eagle on the red field.

What Witcher is actually about? It's a story about destiny, sure. It's a sword-and-sorcery style, antiheroic deconstruction of a fairy tale, too, and it's a weird mix of many culture's influences.

But it's also a story about mundane evil and mundane good. If You think about most dark, gritty problems the world of Witcher faces, it's xenophobia and discrimination, insularism and superstition. Deep-seated fear of the unknown, the powerlessness of common people in the face of danger, war, poverty and hunger. It's what makes people spit over their left shoulder when they see a witcher, it's what makes them distrust their neighbor, clinging to anything they deem safe and known. It's their misfortune and pent-up anger that make them seek scapegoats and be mindlessly, mundanely cruel to the ones weaker than themselves.

There are of course evil wizards, complicated conspiracies and crowned heads, yes. But much of the destruction and depravity is rooted in everyday mundane cycle of violence and misery. The worst monsters in the series are not those killed with a silver sword, but with steel. it's hard to explain but it's the same sort of motiveless, mundane evil that still persist in our poorer regions, born out of generations-long poverty and misery. The behaviour of peasants in Witcher, and the distrust towards authority including kings and monarchs didn't come from nowhere.

On the other hand, among those same, desperately poor people, there is always someone who will share their meal with a traveller, who will risk their safety pulling a wounded stranger off the road into safety. Inconditional kindness among inconditional hate. Most of Geralt's friends try to be decent people in the horrible world. This sort of contrasting mentalities in the recently war-ridden world is intimately familiar to Eastern and Cetral Europe.

But it doesn't end here. Nilfgaard is also a uniquely Central/Eastern European threat. It's a combination of the Third Reich in its aestetics and its sense of superiority and the Stalinist USSR with its personality cult, vast territory and huge army, and as such it's instantly recognisable by anybody whose country was unlucky enough to be caught in-between those two forces. Nilfgaard implements total war and looks upon the northerners with contempt, conscripts the conquered people forcibly, denying them the right of their own identity. It may seem familiar and relevant to many opressed people, but it's in its essence the processing of the trauma of the WW2 and subsequent occupation.

My favourite case are the nonhumans, because their treatment is in a sense a reminder of our worst traits and the worst sins in our history - the regional antisemitism and/or xenophobia, violence, local pogroms. But at the very same time, the dilemma of Scoia'Tael, their impossible choice between maintaining their identity, a small semblance of freedom and their survival, them hiding in the forests, even the fact that they are generally deemed bandits, it all touches the very traumatic parts of specifically Polish history, such as January Uprising, Warsaw Uprising, Ghetto Uprising, the underground resistance in WW2 and the subsequent complicated problem of the Cursed Soldiers all at once. They are the 'other' to the general population, but their underlying struggle is also intimately known to us.

The slavic monsters are an aestetic choice, yes, but I think they are also a reflection of our local, private sins. These are our own, insular boogeymen, fears made flesh. They reproduce due to horrors of the war or they are an unprovoked misfortune that descends from nowhere and whose appearance amplifies the local injustices.

I'm not talking about many, many tiny references that exist in the books, these are just the most blatant examples that come to mind. Anyway, the thing is, whether Sapkowski has intended it or not, Witcher is slavic and it's Polish because it contains social commentary. Many aspects of its worldbuilding reflect our traumas and our national sins. It's not exclusively Polish in its influences and philosophical motifs of course, but it's obvious it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

And it seems to me that the inherently Eastern European aspects of Witcher are what was immediately rewritten in the series. It seems to me that the subtler underlying conflicts were reshaped to be centered around servitude, class and gender disparity, and Nilfgaard is more of a fanatic terrorist state than an imposing, totalitarian empire. A lot of complexity seems to be abandoned in lieu of usual high-fantasy wordbuilding. It's especially weird to me because it was completely unnecessary. The Witcher books didn't need to be adjusted to speak about relevant problems - they already did it! The problem of acceptance and discrimination is a very prevalent theme throughout the story! They are many strong female characters too, and they are well written. Honestly I don't know if I should find it insulting towards their viewers that they thought it won't be understood as it was and has to be somehow reshaped to fit the american perpective, because the current problems are very much discussed in there and Sapkowski is not subtle in showing that genocide and discrimination is evil. Heck, anyone who has read the ending knows how tragic it makes the whole story.

It also seems quite disrespectful, because they've basically taken a well-established piece of our domestic literature and popular culture and decided that the social commentary in it is not relevant. It is as if all it referenced was just not important enough and they decided to use it as an opportunity to talk about the problems they consider important. And don't get me wrong, I'm not forcing anyone to write about Central European problems and traumas, I'm just confused that they've taken the piece of art already containing such a perspective on the popular and relevant problem and they just... disregarded it, because it wasn't their exact perspective on said problem.

And I think this homogenisation, maybe even from a certain point of view you could say it's worldview sanitisation is a problem, because it's really ironic, isn't it? To talk about inclusivity in a story which among other problems is about being different, and in the same time to get rid of motifs, themes and references because they are foreign? Because if something presents a different perspective it suddenly is less desirable?

There was a lot of talking about the showrunners travelling to Poland to understand the Witcher's slavic spirit and how to convey it. I don't think they really meant it beyond the most superficial, paper-thin facade.

[bi-the-wei]

Seeing hot takes about Wei Wuxian's personality and confidence levels floating around again so thought I'd chime in with my own.

Wei Wuxian does not lack confidence. In fact he is often overly confident, as noted by himself post resurrection.

I think his biggest issues are

1. He views kindness towards himself as transactional. He must pay back any kindness as best he can. However, his own kindness is free of charge. Remember what others do for you, not what you do for others.

2. If someone has to get hurt, he'd rather it be him. This, i believe is the core (cough) of the hero complex Jiang Cheng scolds him for. Its okay if he gets hurt because its him. And he knows he can handle it. And if he can handle it, he has to.

3. He has a fundamental, deep set mistrust of authority figures. His own experiences teach him thst its better to ask forgiveness than permission because youll get punished either way. If you want something done itnis your responsibility. His support from those in power growing up was inconsistent which makes it hard to ask for help.

On paper, these line up with a lot of what the reader may experience as anxiety or lack of confidence/self-worth in their own life. Overcompensation, inability to ask for help, self-sacrifice and the like. The issue is that the motive isnt the same, even if the symptoms are similar. The reason people, including myself at times, depict wwx as being anxious or lacking self-worth i think is mostly projection turned fanon. Its cathartic and easier to relate to.

Wwx does not see himself as worth less of than others in his life. In fact thats part of what raises some other characters hackles. How dare this son of a servant act like he's one of us?!

I think a lot of his issue is really about debt (that he will repay if it kills him(spoiler: it does)), overconfidence in his own ability (though i think he is forcing that out of desperation at the end of his first life because he can't afford to be wrong (spoiler: he was wrong)), a lack in confidence in the skill or motives of others (not completely unjustified ngl), and a desire to keep those he love from harm as much as he can (success may vary).

[vellichorom]

almost 2 years into post-ultra deluxe stanley parable fandom & i think we've all beyond lost the plot

[possamble]

stop over-thinking your writing to appease the imaginary bad faith audience you preemptively torture yourself with. stop over-thinking your writing to appease the imaginary bad faith audience you preemptively torture yourself with. stop over-thinking your writing to appease the imaginary bad faith audie

[paintpanic]

Kirbtober Day 10: Magic!

[lunathewafflelord]

she/her they/them cool hat but it’s all the same character

[deathlessathanasia]

Every time I see people try to make the children of Kronos and Rhea into some big happy loving family who are so close and would do anything for one another I can't help but instantly remember that Demeter had her child kidnapped by one of her brothers and that another brother sanctioned the kidnapping and didn't bother to inform her either before or after, that the same brother killed her lover (it is pretty clear in the Odyssey at least that Demeter slept with Iasion willingly), that her third brother raped her, that Hera and Poseidon tried to put Zeus in chains, that in multiple variants Hera is responsible for the birth of Typhon because of her anger against Zeus, that Zeus inflicted on Hera a form of public torture the ancient Greeks used for slaves, that he made a Giant try to rape her and only killed him when she cried out for help, that Poseidon dried up the rivers of the Argolid in revenge for them choosing Hera instead of him to preside over the region, that in Claudian's De Raptu Proserpinae Ceres imagines Juno taking satisfaction in her suffering, that-

[daemon-in-my-head]

Gortash symbolises humanity. Bear with me.

He is a researcher, a scientist, an inventor. He is progress personified. He constructed the Steelwatch from nothing, and he discarded all ethics to do so. And while vile, that is something that has been done a lot in the past. Humans have ever since crossed the line in the name of research and progress. They have done unspeakable things, all in the name of 'advancement' and knowledge. Especially those who had certain degrees of power or in not exceptionally peaceful times, ethics are the first thing that is discarded to conduct research properly. And that is precisely what Gortash does. He ranked his desire for progress higher than personal attachments or sentimentality, and in its name, he's done unspeakably sadistic things in his 'lair' like countless did before him.

But that's not the only thing. Gortash is a tyrant, a conqueror. He invaded places people already existed in and claimed these places, their treasures and their people for himself—something humans love to do and still do to this day. And he was also an arms dealer. The thing that allowed humans to suppress even those physically stronger and more advanced was weaponry. The thing that allowed progression to this degree is where his roots lie.

He paid attention in his history lessons. He made sure to learn from Sarevok's failures. Perhaps even the shortcomings of Bane's old chosen. But even despite, or perhaps because he knew that history, he made the mistake of repeating it. He was so focused on not repeating Sarevok's mistakes that he forgot the other downfalls others have had to experience. Exactly how humanity continues to learn of its own history but always gets focused on specific parts, and as such, he forgot some others and was bound to repeat them just like we're currently repeating mistakes that have happened before.

There is also Gortash's dismissal of the Netherbrain. His 'how bad could it be'-stance. He dismissed a force of nature, dismissed natural evolution because he thought himself above it, kept silent about it, and as such allowed a plague to spread through the sword coast. Something that has happened repeatedly in our past. The last time wasn't even that long ago, if we're honest.

Even the god he serves, his patron, is the only 'humane' one out of the dead three. Bhaal is a force of nature. He is death itself. Myrkul is almost an eldritch being. He's the explanation for what happens after death, and how to defeat the unknown. But Bane is human. His domain is human. Conquest, rulership, tyranny, worship. Those are human things. These are desires only humans have in that way.

But most importantly, he reigned in and controlled the weapon that is Durge. After their murder spree, and after their worship and temple management, he was the one who stilled Durge's hand. Who reminded them of their own humanity. Who insisted they were human. He became their ties to humanity to them.

So, Gortash symbolises humanity, but simply all it's flaws. He's the brutality, the ruthlessness, the endless desire and strive for progress. The desperation to be 'more'. The cruelty we display in the name of power and knowledge. The sheer lack of compassion, empathy and humanity that only humans are capable of.

And now, this also makes it really funny that he needs to die for you and your companions to succeed. It's almost like you need to kill off that cruelty in a last act of brutality to embrace a 'peaceful' future.

Expect if you're durge cuz you're fucked regardless but that's a diff topic.