#not to be all women need to be xyz to be interesting… | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tossball-stick · 8 hours

Note

heyy i saw your latest post about john's aromantic trutherism and i didn't exactly understand what you mean by that... could you explain? i too don't think he is actually in love with abigail if that's what you were saying...?

hiii!!! 1: thank you for asking about this im excited to write and analyze him in this way

2: plsplspls get the idea outta ur head that aromantic people cant love. noooo i couldnt have been misunderstood more. i wanna clarify that i do think john loves abigail. i just dont think that love is all that romantically motivated and ive got a few reasons to believe so.

3: uhhhh uhhh this ended up being like 2.5k words of analysis on john im sorry. no one on tumblr has asked me my thoughts about him before so this is the first time im talking about a lot of the stuff here and theres so much ive thought about johns character and its all messy and intertwined. itll be a little all over the place. i am deeply sorry.

okay. first reason? hes otherwise not much of a romantic. whether he wants to be or not, he falls flat on his face every attempt there is at being romantic with abigail (rarely do we see him be romantic with other women) is usually met with disdain, if there even are many to begin with. its rare to hear john say something pleasant about having a woman, and its rare to ever witness them having a good time together while in the gang.

...up until the epilogue and john gets his shit together. but by that point i could argue further analysis as to how john isnt wholly himself by that point. hear me out.

john and arthur are two halves of one whole to me. its clear theres some sort of void in john after arthur dies, and he still holds the memory of arthur very very dear. he does his best to keep the memories alive, in fact, in a way to keep arthur alive.

this starts extending to some kinda interesting parallels, though. writing and drawing in arthurs journal like he did, the hat being placed on johns head, john proposing with marys ring, the phrasing and tone of johns proposal is also shockingly familiar to arthur telling john that itd make him happy if john went to his family... after arthurs death, i find john taking on many of his traits even. he becomes more quiet and closed off, we see it even in rdr2 with arthur telking him to "knock it off with the whole being mysterious thing" or whatever. arthur claims its to act like dutch, but ill do you one better, its clearly just john idolizing his older brother and trying to be like him to be a proper man. this brings me to my next point...

the time period of rdr2!!! yayyy cowboys, the victorian era, Did u know. being a man was something you had to do in previous american and european cultures? this slowly started fading as we roll over into the 20th century, but there was a lot of emphasis placed on performing your role as a man. to be a good man, you must do xyz. otherwise, you are seen as immature, as a boy, as a child.

throughout the entire series of red dead redemption, both 1 and 2, theres a lot of stuff pointing towards jogns struggle to Be A Man. arthur and dutch frequently refuse to let him grow up, still calling him "little john" and still treating him like hes a rowdy unruly boy that needs to learn better, not a man who should know better. hosea is the only man treating john like hes a man, and even then id say hes fairly lax with the guy. only as the story of rdr2 progresses do we see arthur start to shift his view towards john. not as a boy to stay a boy, because the gang isnt gonna be around forever. john cant keep being a boy. he needs to become a man, take care of his family.

working off a distinctly gentleman influenced view of masculinity, johns inability to be a man is almost directly tied to his inability to be a proper romantic for his wife. compared to arthur, who is seen taken women on dates and flirting with them just to make them laugh at times. hes dancing with the ladies and helping them up and down the coaches, wagons, and horses. john like. just barely remembers to do that for abi in the epilogue. again, his failings to be a true romantic are tied with his failings as a man.

in rdr1, this even extends to bill having the bit of dialogue, "you always were a scared little boy!" continuing to imply that john is not a man, hes never been a man. the only reason we can read him as a man Now is because we are going by arthurs definition of manhood. we can extend this further and say bill still views john as a boy because john does not live up to bills expectations of manhood- while arthur may view being a man as something chivalrous, more gentlemanly, bill clearly views masculinity as power and violence, without much to do with women. john does not live up to that, to bill, until the end.

if you read "masculinity" as "being romantic and chivalrous towards women", then, as john fails at being a romantic, he too fails at being a man. there are a lot of other ways john is immature and childish but this is a really easy one to point out if you know the time period and just how much emphasis was placed on both romanticism and manliness, and how they intertwined.

third reasoning for aro john: his family wasnt his for so much of his life. this one is another one that needs a bit of elaboration i fear.

the story of john and abigail getting together is simple enough. she joined the gang at 17 as a sex worker, slept around with some of the gang, then for one reason or another, very clearly believed that the pregnancy was johns. john runs away for a year.

in this time, we dont know a whole lot about what gang life was like without john. however, with arthurs comments about marrying abigail himself and loving her, and his close relationship with jack, i think its pretty clear arthur was the one being a man in johns place. when john left, there was a john shaped hole arthur had to fill. (i also like to think this because the potential misery of arthur having to lose his family a second time once john returns is fun to me.)

even in the story of rdr2, we see john Love and Care For his family, but its never in the same, romantic way arthur seems to involve himself in abi and jacks lives. john will defend them with his life, but when it actually comes to pulling himself up by his bootstraps and being a father or a husband, he kinda just drags his feet and gets lost. he has to be told to reunite with his family at jacks party, despite, in my eyes, his love for jack being very clearly displayed while they were looking for him.

this is only bolstered by the conclusion of rdr2, with john and arthur on the mountain. arthur, in all his holy parallels, like jesus passing the virgin mary off to john the beloved, arthur tells john it would make him very happy if [john] went to be with his family and left. arthur is passing his family off onto john, the same as jesus passed his family onto saint john. (this one hits harder if you know the rest of the "arthur is jesus" parallels and symbolism but i feel like those would be more impactful as a web weave, and i cant make one right now haha. most obvious one i can think of to support this though is arthur being a scapegoat, dying for the gangs sins.) remember these points they are the most important and will come back later.

reason number four: "but javier-!" shhhhshshsh lemme talk. yes. john is infinitely more intimate with javier than abigail. however, again, we must take the time period into account.

not that far off from many disgusting redpill communities today, back in the 1800s it was typically expected for men to socialize with men and women with women. there was a certain level of bonding you only had with your wife, as well as a certain level of bonding you only had with the men who were close to you.

i have got to grab this fandom by the shoulders and say rockstar did not make these men as affectionate as they should have been with each other, and thats completely platonically. this is taking romance out of the equation, these men considered each other brothers and family. they were all in a cult together. they would have been very close, and also very affectionate! they would confide in each other and hold each other and cry to each other. they would make gifts for each other and sing and dance together. you can at least see them all pass around beer bottles between each other.

do i think john and javier are closer than most? yes absolutely. do i think javier is in love with john in some way? yes absolutely. do i think its romantic? ehhh maybe. do i think john loves javier? yes absolutely. do i think its romantic? ....noo not really. their whole dynamic reads as one sided through and through to me. even if they ever got together im sure they were quickly apart again, and i doubt the relationship would have been fulfilling in the ways javier would want, leaving him longing still.

the "ive always loved you, even now" immediately funneling into a crate being shoved onto john to knock him over can also be metaphorical- javiers love is disarming to john Because he does not know how to react to it. hes never known how to react to it. hes never known how to react to love from anyone, because "love" seems to feel so much different for everyone but him.

reason ff. fiiiiive. dear god. im sorry for this being this long: john loves. he clearly loves very hard. he was clearly wrecked by arthurs death, he would clearly crawl through hell for his family, he was clearly hurt because his love for javier eventually stabbed him in the back. however, to me, a lot of this love feels similar to the love john has for dutch, or arthur, really. its familial, its platonic, it sure as hell isnt romantic. (even if the games themselves like to joke about it being so lol.)

its just clear to me that he loves. he cant not love jack and abi after everything hes done for them. he cant not love javier after being so close for so long. but in the same vein, he cant not love dutch for the same reasons. ysee what i mean? his devotion to his wife and child feels identical to the devotion to dutch, compared to arthur, whos devotion to eliza and isaac directly went against his devotion to dutch.

much like with dutch, where john was still seen as a boy, he will ferociously do the big things for his family (saving jack, defending the ranch, tackling gangsters and robbers). he will almost always fail to do the little things that would make him a true man, though. yknow. winding down, relaxing, just working, not getting involved in fights. spending some time with his family maybe.

he can shape up and be good, he just never does.

and i think thats why hes so torn between leaving on his own, leaving with his family, or staying with the gang. theres no difference between romantic, platonic, or familial love for him. when arthur tells him to go be with his family and john replies "youre my brother" its not only announcing arthur as family, but i think it only reinforces that blurred line of what love is for john. "i love you the same as them, why must i leave you behind? if they are family and i love them, then you too must be family, for i love you."

point six: i hope you remembered the first few points like i told you to. you did remember right

this brings us back around to john not being a man by not being a romantic, arthurs family being passed off to him, and also john not wholly being himself later on. in the epilogue, between 1899 and 1908, we hear about how john has been unable to avoid trouble and has them on the run still. whenever abigail asks something of him, he instead goes and does what he wants. its only after she leaves him (ultimate failure of being a man) do we see him start to shape himself up again, and i would argue this shaping up increases substantially after he reunites with charles. charles sets him on the right path and reawakens that memory of arthur. i imagine being close to blackwater also helps here. id argue due to charles' apparent closeness with arthur, and then sudden closeness to john due to john being all thats left of arthur... it makes john also feel like hes all thats left of arthur. i believe after speaking with charles and thinking to himself, he decides to fulfill the one dream arthur had, seemingly, at the end: take care of the family he had lost. well, eliza and isaac are six feet in the dirt so next best option: abi and jack.

john starts to become quieter and more in his own shell- by rdr1 hes struggling to even really ask people for help with the most basic things. he becomes a lot more of a romantic speaker. he had always used fancy words with the gang, but never with charismatic purpose in the way i feel he does in rdr1. he starts making the decisions he thinks arthur would make. as a result, the hole that arthur left behind when he died, does not get filled by john. instead it simply gets filled with whatever arthur john can muster from within himself.

id also like to bring up john being the favorite, but not the golden boy. he was the youngest and most spoiled, but he was not the one dutch turned to for just about everything. he was still living in arthurs shadow, so i imagine all of that also plays a role in johns choice to live like arthur to get his family back, to be a man. he failed at being a man by his own merits. arthur was a real man by his own merits, lets just do what we've always done and look up to our older brother about it. copy what he does. clearly hes got it all figured out, even though you know he didnt, after reading the journal.

this all is finally bolstered by john making the choice to kill micah and repeat the VDL cycle of violence, which ruins the perfect life he made for himself. he makes another decision HE, not arthur, HE would make, and thus has to deal with the consequences.

in conclusion: i think john loves a lot and very hard. hes passionate about these people. but in his own words towards javier that start to become readable as projection, "hes a cynic that wants to be a romantic" and "hes all passion, no love ('no love' being how he perceives it, due to the views of those around him. he loves abigail and jack, he loved arthur, though because his version of love was different than theirs, its not read as love. therefore, he has none in his own eyes)."

all of this coupled with a detached attachment style that leaves him cold and distant leaves him being tugged along in romances he truthfully does not feel the same about. he says he does, because he loves, but he doesnt know why the love isnt the same. so, clearly, since he loves, he must want the romance. he has to perform it for love regardless of if he truly does want romance or not. if he loves, he must be a romantic, and hes failing at being a romantic, so he cant be himself. he must be someone else in order to convey his love to his family.

i hope i got everything across alright ^-^ feel free to ask questions or send more asks ive got plenty more where that came from

#john marston #red dead redemption #red dead redemption 2 #rdr #rdr2 #rdr1 #red dead redemption analysis #rdr2 analysis #red string on the corkboard #if anything ive written is insensitive towards arospec people lmk and ill fix it ^-^

13 notes · View notes

youremyheaven · 5 months

Note

Hello :) I was reading about Venusians and I kind of feel represented by this energy, maybe not strongly but I do. I don't have any Venus nakshatra in my primary placements, and my question is: if both of my ascendant nakshatra and rasi lords are in venusian nakshatras. Does it have an effect? could it be considered "dominant" or significant in some way? because I never get examples of this. In the community, they always talk about their Big 3, and in research, they give Big 3 examples, and they almost never consider those things as significant, which makes me feel like a wannabe Venusian 😬

Okay first of all , I think we need to ask ourselves why we cling to the idea of "dominance" so much. I've never thought of myself as anything dominant because I feel the effects of my whole chart in different areas/in different ways because that's how it's supposed to be?? (as each planet represents a different area of life?). I think this concept had its origins with Claire's astro beauty research where she associated the planet/nak that had the most physical influence on a person is their "dominant" placement but I think this way of thinking is inherently flawed because as interesting as I find Claire's astro beauty research to be, I don't actually think it holds ground because every person's appearance is a sum of many influences? Anybody can nitpick some common recurring features (esp when the women depicted are mostly just white women) and say xyz nak has caused it. Traditionally different body parts and features are associated with different planets and the astrology of appearance is very much real but it's not a hyper specific science the way Claire makes it seem. It's more like "mercury rules the forehead so many mercurials tend to have bigger foreheads" etc

Anywayyyys, you don't have to be anything "dominant" to relate to some nak or planet's impact. In fact if someone feels one placement more acutely than others, it's probably because of the astrological transits they're experiencing or because they're very spiritually underevolved. I do think a point arrives in one's spiritual journey where you feel completely detached from your chart or equally proximate/distant from every placement. It is the working of the ego that makes one over identify with one placement or another as a way to classify our experiences/personalities. By transcending the ego, we'll stop caring.

I think the whole chart affects an individual not just their big 3 and I take atmakaraka/amatyakaraka/lagna lord/1h & 2h placements/conjunction/debilitated/exalted planets etc into consideration as well.

Also check your d9 chart

You can relate to Venusian energies for so many different reasons (maybe check your dasha? see if you're experiencing Venus mahadasha or antardasha??)

I don't think it's healthy to obsess over dominance and I also don't think it's healthy to want to be any planet/nak?? That's literally the ego at play. Everybody wants to be Venusian but tbh Venus is as full of pros & cons as any other planet, it's not in any way shape or form "better". You can relate to something without labelling yourself as a Venusian? If I had Saturn ak and I related to that placement a lot, I wouldn't start calling myself a Saturnian. At the end of the day, it's all energies and let's not make this an American personality test type fixation

26 notes · View notes

butcharondir · 4 months

Note

i am also a michaela stirling truther— the more i think about it, the more i want it. i’ll definitely be a little disappointed if the rumors turn out to be false. don’t get me wrong, masali baduza is stunning and as a bisexual i already feel like a winner either way… but my god, she and Francesca would make such a gorgeous couple 😭

and i know people keep saying that gender bending Michael would erase important plot points but honestly i can think of several ways off the top of my head that they could maintain the integrity of the story even with Michaela as the lead instead of Michael.

and honestly, not that i have any reason to believe they’re actually going to genderbend Sophie, but they could easily rework Benedict’s story in a similar way— it irritates me that people are insisting there is no way they could make it work.

the book purists insisting xyz could not possibly happen because “that’s not how the story goes!” are making little sense to me. the show has already made many changes to the stories, large and small, and i don’t think “but the book story won’t work that way!” is a valid argument at this point. the writers have shown themselves very willing and even eager to uproot expectations and tell the story in a new way.

TOTALLY. i was previously on the "we should not expect queer rep from bridgerton they are clearly not very invested in it" train until jess brownell explicitly confirmed that a queer romance is coming and now im being a full ass clown about it. yea....when i think about masali baduza as michaela i actually need to lie down, it would end me. but also send an angel to protect her if that's actually true because some of the fandom....uh.....absolutely cannot handle that even remotely, and they WILL make it her problem.

but yes, i agree, there are many ways in which michael feels like a prime option for gender-bending. obviously when he was wicked has fans, but i think in general they're a little less rabid than some of the kanthony, polin, benophie, and philoise fans who would be specifically up in arms about major character changes to "their" ship. when he was wicked is later in the series, more disconnected, francesca's less present in the general narrative, etc.

also, because francesca has a widowhood storyline, it feels....how do i say this....deeply boring for bridgerton the show to introduce a man like john stirling, only to kill him off to make room for another random man. it would be exceedingly more interesting to have a queer element to the story, not least of all because it would add more tension to the "we cant be together because you're my dead husband's cousin" vibes.

also, women in the 19th century could inherit property. sometimes the property itself was not entailed and therefore not necessarily inherited by the male title holder. if francesca is living in the house....and michaela inherits the house....well, that's a pretty great set-up for a queer happy ending, which is, according to julia quinn, apparently impossible in a world where gay marriage isn't legal.

also, ALSOOOOO....a lesbian rake. i rest my case.

either way, im interested to see how they interpret when he was wicked's relationship to colonialism (if they do so), given that the show has now shown the Stirlings, or at least john stirling, to be Black. Kate's home and backstory in India has had some relevance to her characterization, and I'm curious to see if they take a similar tack with the stirlings (and how well they manage to execute it).

okay i think those are all of my michaela thoughts thank you so much for giving me an excuse to rant about them. truthers gotta stick together (until our hearts are inevitably dashed by cold hard reality)

#michaela stirling #i guess thats a decently safe tag #asks #thank you for sharing your thoughts!!!!!#bridgerton spoilers

23 notes · View notes

clairedaring · 2 hours

Text

Compilation post of my favorite Nadao actors (Nonkul Chanon, JJ Krissanapoom, Tor Thanapob) & Bright Rapheephong giving some interview answers on why they decided to star in queer/LGBTQ+ coded series/roles, some of their takes on being in BL (Y)/Queer series.

note: if you find this post familiar, it's because i've posted this on Reddit before. reposting here for archival purposes

TOR THANAPOB

Tor Thanapob interview in April 2023 when being asked about starring in Midnight Museum (a queer-coded GMMTV series) - (translation by infinitygraph_)

Tor: I think nowadays we should stop talking about gender. It doesn't mean that I have to act with women all the time or I can't act with men at all. I feel that I have proved to everyone that, work is work, and everything is about art. Even my team who are staying with me all the time has all kind of sexualities. It's not strange if someday we want to try telling story of other sexualities that we feel that we might be able to help them telling. If you ask me if today I am like that, today I might not, but I have a chance to understand them more, so I want to do it. Q: Is it because of the spoiler that [Midnight Museum] might be a series Y (BL)? Tor: Nothing to do with it. I tell you, sincerely, it has nothing to do with the spoiler. I just want to say that you don't have to overthink about it because nothing is fixed. Actors are actors. These days there are some award shows don't divide genders into categories anymore. I think this is a great step. Actresses also don't have to act with men all the time, they can act with women. And they both being the main characters Right. Because not all the main characters from every project have to come with the word 'love'. Even if there's 'love', there're many kinds of love. It's up to the audience what kind of feeling they have. Do they feel the same as me or they even feel more than I do? Q: So that means these days you can accept the work without any limit about what you are, which genders... Everything is about the story/script-writing? Tor: Right. I admit that I was afraid before. I wasn't afraid about my image, I was afraid that I would tell the story without understanding it, because I didn't have any experience at all. But at some point I found the chance to be more open-minded, brave to act it out all the way, such as Midnight Museum...

Tor's Vogue Interview in February 2024 on Spare Me Your Mercy as another important milestone as an actor (all translation by saltymarbles on twitter)

Tor: As for Euthanasia, I’ve been interested in it just from its name. If we were to go back in time to the period of the Prime Ministerial elections last year, there was some talk regarding the laws about euthanasia. As such, I know the meaning of it but if I had to explain it, I wouldn’t dare to because I don’t know that deeply about it. Tor: Up to the day that this drama happens, the owner of this project told me he wanted to set this question before anything changed in society: ‘Actually, are humans capable of choosing their death?’. Tor: This question shot through the core of my brain and immediately, i was like: ‘I need to tell this story’. And the role that he hoped to give me also served that function too. It’s a character which sets up the question of ‘what is right?’.(t/n: "this question" likely refers to a more philosophical kind of question regarding morality which asks what does being ‘correct’ mean — what is ‘objective morality’ (if it exists)) Tor: Do the people who are really suffering have the right to ask to leave? (t/n: "leave" is just a polite way of saying die (Thai people usually don’t use directly use the word die when talking about humans, usually use a more polite way like how we say ‘passed away’ or ‘xyz has left us’) Tor: Thus I decided to play along with knowing that the timeline of Euthanasia will remain with one in a hundred (people), so I like shades of the polar opposite. If the first story is navy blue, the other will be red — not close at all.

NONKUL CHANON

Nonkul's response to the question “If you have a chance, would you consider playing in a BL series? If accepted, who do you to co-act with?” in a Facebook Q&A video in 2021

Nonkul: If that series is an interesting storyline for me, I am always open to any kind of genre. I never categorized BL series as an BL series, I just think of it as a series with another plot as part of my work. It is a normal series that can have any of the plots which I will categorize as Romantic Comedy, Drama or whatever. Thus, when I choose the BL series I want to work with, the love preference of the character does not affect my decision. If the plot of the series is interesting, of course I’m gonna do it for sure. Every work that I chose, I personally think it at least enjoyable for me. Of course, if in the future, there are BL series with plots that I find interesting, that I enjoyed the script. “Like, wow, that’s my type!”, I will definitely selected it to be my future project. A good written series is a good series. This is what I believe as an actor. For BL Series, I think I can work with everyone. I don’t think I have anyone in particular. One thing! I desire the character of that person/actor? to be close to the character in the series. At that point I will be satisfied. Sometimes, I as an actor have a chance to work with people who don't have a lot of acting experience. I will still discover something new from him as well. And there is a BL novel which I really like! [Nonkul explains the plot of his favorite BL Novel ‘Peremo’] I would prefer to choose the “heroine” role because it will be a new experience for me as an actor because it will be a new experience for me as an actor. Because basically I only play as a hero role for the main character or support character in my work, but a “heroine” role in a BL series is the only chance for me to play a character more feminine. So it is a new experience for me. [Nonkul continues raving about 'Peremo’]. But if you think that you can make [an adaptation of Peremo], please do not forget me, Nonkul! Pleaseeeeeeee, I will do my best, I promise!!! However, I’m not only fixated on this novel. I’m also open for many more BL series if there is an interesting plot.

Nonkul's response to being ask if he's worried about filming NC scenes in IFYLITA (translation by saltymarbles)

Nonkul: I have to say when I had finished reading [the novel] and it’s made me want to act (in this series). I am probably worried more about the CG because if it’s a fantasy story with time travel, if the CG isn’t good, people will feel that it’s ‘off’. Because CG is something we don’t know anything about until we see the final product. One of the reasons that I accepted this role is because for some series, when I’ve read (the script/novel) for homework, I don’t accept them because there are some scenes that are forced in just for the sake of fan service. And I’m not really into that. If it’s a natural NC scene, then I’m not bothered. I’m a person who places a lot of importance on the story in series making sense. So to me, if an NC scene is reasonable, I won’t be bothered by it. But if it seems forced, I’m not into it. It’s important to show human-ness.

Two clips of Nonkul being asked what he thinks about doing NC scenes in IFYLITA (Clip 1 and Clip 2). Nonkul said that he places great importance on the character's actions. If an NC scene is reasonable he wouldn't mind but would if it's not reasonable. For Nonkul, understanding character is very important, especially for himself as an actor. Nonkul also said previously he had rejected some BL series offers because he can feel when NC scenes are put in just for fan service, which is also a reason why Nonkul accepted to play Jom in IFYLITA is because the love scenes are natural and make sense.

JJ KRISSANAPOOM aka JAYLERR

JJ's interview in February 2024 on Spare Me Your Mercy and his chemistry with Tor (translation by saltymarbles)

JJ: The pilot of ‘Euthanasia’ has been received well since the novel has many fans already who are excited about it. JJ & Tor are similarly excited and are committed to doing their best. The chemistry between Tor & JJ need not be questioned according to JJ since they are already close with each other. The series is in the phase of pre-production currently.

One of my favorite fictional characters of ALL TIME (not just in Thai or BL series) has got to be Tangmo from Great Men Academy (2019) (the series that a lot of BL audience refused to admit it's a queer series). The character Tangmo (played by Jaylerr) was questioned by the press about his gay crush on the protagonist: "Do you think being gay affect your chance of winning the competition?" to which his reply was a stellar "Well then let me ask you something, Does being gay make my good deeds meaningless?"

This isn't the first time JJ has played a queer role, JJ has played a gay character in TWO seasons of the LGBTQ+ series Diary of Tootsies (2016 and 2017). JJ plays Gus, the love interest of the main character.

So even though many BL fans consider Spare Me Your Mercy to be JJ's "first" BL series (which I don't agree with this strict interpretation of BL series), it is definitely not his first QL (Queer Love) series nor queer-adjacent roles as shown through out his filmography.

It is also noteworthy that even during the airing of these series, JJ was already in a public relationship with his fellow actress girlfriend Thanaerng (who has also played sapphic roles). You can see that the real life relationship of JJ or Thanaerng do not influence how/what projects they take on because work is just work :D

BRIGHT RAPHEEPHONG (all translation by saltymarbles on twitter)

Bright at Mono29 Lineup event

Bright: I think that, as I’ve previously said, BL series are just like other ordinary series or movies. Like IFYLITA can be changed to be said to be more like a period drama. I feel that BL is just about two people loving each other, not about whether it’s about male-male or female-male. This series is a period drama and it’s a romantic comedy and the other series is an action drama.

Bright's Interview with LIPS Magazine

Q: What if one day, we’re sucked in by the ship? Bright: I think fans in this day and age don’t need actors to do fan service to that extent. For myself, I’ve never intended for it to be the foundation (of his work). I think it’s a matter of being partners and working together. As such, it’s somewhat good in every aspect because it’s not forcing it. But in some moments, there may some actions that may just be the result of being friends. So even if fans ship, it’s cute to me. (smiles) Q: Do you feel a sense of “newness” stepping into a full-fledged BL? Bright: I feel that BL series are another branch of acting. I don’t think of it as being a specific form of male to male communication. It’s just another type of series just like action dramas, comedy etc, it’s just another kind of role that we can play.

Bright's Interview with Praew Magazine

Q: How is it working with Nonkul? Bright: Nonkul is a person who already does a good job at his work. He does his homework and he is also good at delivering and receiving emotions when on set. It isn’t just Nonkul who is great but the other characters in this series too, this includes P’Tee, the director. We can always talk about ideas which made the work even better. If asked whether entering the scenes with Nonkul made me shy, I would say that BL series are just another branch (of acting), it is just another role. I don't think that when acting with another man, that there’s a need to feel anything. I feel that it’s just another form of work. Another thing is that our workshops were very complete. When we work together I know what level and extent I can go to, what I should do and also trying my best in how I should feel. Thus, I felt at ease working together.

Bright’s Interview with NineEntertain

Q: Are you happy to do “ship” activities like this? Bright: I feel that if there’s an opportunity with regards to being an actor, I don’t want to be stuck in ships like this. I accepted this role with the status of an actor and I want to accept various roles too. It doesn’t always need to be BL or a specific kind of series. I will have another series next year which is ordinary boy-girl relationship and not a BL series. I feel that BL series are just another category of series — not like BL series are just BL series. It’s another category like action, romcom, or drama. It’s just another category. Q: There is still the possibility of coming to act as per usual. (unclear of what the interviewer said) Bright: I feel that with every work opportunity, it’s more about the script and storyline of the work that I were to accept. For example, I accepted the role of Khun Yai in IFYLITA as i felt that it was a script that was suitable for me. I didn’t think of it as “oh it’s a BL series, I need to accept it” because to be honest, I have been contacted for various BL series but because [IFYLITA] storyline is really good, I wanted to try acting in it. Q: What is the difficulty of acting in BL as an actor? Bright: I feel like there isn’t any difference compared to regular series. I feel that when two men love each other or kiss, I don’t think of it as (me and) a man, I think of it more as each of the characters or persons. Q: Does that affect the trend of being a ship? Bright: Hmm… Actually I am not able to answer that because I feel like it depends on people’s perspectives. Because some people may prefer that (an actor) has a (onscreen) gf/bf but some people may be upset about it. I feel like the trend depends on the people’s perspectives as people have different ways of thinking (about it). I think that I am open to listening to all different opinions on this. I feel that working (in this industry), you should be able to explore different things and you should not be fixed in one thing. We need to continue moving onto the next thing. I feel that Non has his own work and I also have my own work, and other actors too have their own upcoming work. It doesn’t mean that coming to act in IFYLITA means that you stay in IFYLITA forever. Q: Some may feel that it’s sad their their ship is coming to an end and that they are gonna work with different people. Bright: Actually, there are still some upcoming pair events but as I’ve said earlier, everyone needs to continue to do their own duties as an actor. Q: What if people change their minds about shipping your ship in the future? Bright: I think it’s a normal thing. I feel that when someone (likes us), they also like our work. I feel like our fanclub likes both Yai and Jom, and they also like Bright and Non. They like the characters and that Bright and Non play these characters and they so they like us at this point. I feel like people who came to like us are also fans of other people. I feel that they are a source of encouragement for me when they like me but I am also glad if they meet someone new or support another person. I feel happy when they come to meet me and if they’re happy when they meet other (celebs), it’s a good thing for them. If there’s a new person, an older person, a regular person or a person they just met that they are happy to meet, I feel that it’s nothing to be stressed about. Let’s say a fan comes and likes me and is following my work and there’s someone new who enters and they like their work, I am glad for them to go support that other person because that person can bring happiness to the fan.

Wow, I really got carried away with this compilation but as a fan who's followed Nonkul, JJ and Tor since their Nadao days, watching them star in queer-coded series/roles like Bangrak Soi 9/1, Hormones, Diary of Tootsies, Great Men Academy... (or in Bright's case a gay character in lakorn Rivalry), I'm just so proud that they have been able to receive "BL" series script offers that they would like to take on.

I've never sat well with the difference in the treatment of the press to "BL actors" and "non-BL actors". I wish there weren't such a distinction because it feels like the notion itself holds a lot of prejudices baggage with it, to both "BL" and "non-BL" actors. To quote a friend on Reddit, "I believe most actors would feel more fulfilled if they knew their fans loved/respected them as individual artists, instead of only seeing them as one part of a unit whose value is lower when 'separated' from their official partner."

7 notes · View notes

cassierobinsons · 2 months

Text

to the anon from a few days ago: sorry i'm only just getting back to you on the sam + classism discussion. putting this under a cut because it's rambly

To me the whole Sam classism thing is very much like coming from an immigrant family the people you will meet who complain about "illegals" because they didn't do it "the right way". Like generally, these are not people who hate immigrants or approve of ICE or anything like that, but they still feel a certain moral superiority in having improved their situation "the correct way". I don't think Sam thinks homeless people should all be sent to prison or anything, but I think he still looks at himself as having done something morally correct in getting out of his situation (even though he really didnt in the long run excluding the finale). You see this attitude with other things like when he asks Max why didn't you just leave. I don't think he has no empathy for these situations, but there's like a mental block of not understanding the barriers that other people might face that he didnt.

Oh i extremely know what you mean as a fellow child of immigrants. my mum will make a snide comment while watching the news and i’ll be like 🤨 oh so now we’re pretending that your friend [DATA EXPUNGED] is here totally legally huh. it comes from a small-c conservative belief that there exists a group of people who are less "deserving" than them.

“Morally correct” also happens to be how the fandom sees sam's escape from the family, when it’s just Morally neutral? Like it’s a good thing. But says nothing about sam’s moral fibre because it was for self-preservation reasons. that's not a bad thing either! and i obviously don't think fandom is bad for thinking of sam's hard work as an admirable trait but there needs to be some acknowledgement of his perspective is a little skewed.

Max is a great example to use because sam isn’t being spiteful, but he is being thoughtless and most of it is due to him literally being a man in his early 20s but like, it’s also because of how he grew up and how he got out.

sam’s judgy moments are at their most interesting in s1 because there’s so many of them and because they’re so intentional. Like, intentional on the part of the writers, not sam. his response to max is a reflection of how idk, myopic? sam’s read of dean and their family situation is. It’s an in-universe character flaw he has to work on in order to repair the bond between them, just as dean’s seething resentment over sam’s departure is something he needs to work on too. s1 is about both of them learning to see other as their dad's victim.

I think in general in the fandom you get these sort of knee jerk reactions like "no they can't be racist/sexist/homophobic/classist/etc, they don't hate xyz people" but really no one is saying they do. Like no one is saying Sam spits on poor people. No one is saying Dean thinks women are beneath him. But they both clearly have some ingrained beliefs that are ultimately prejudiced! These aren't immutable characteristics. In fact, I think for the most part if someone had an actual deep discussion with them about it they'd probably come around fairly easily, but that doesn't mean Sam scoffing at Dean hustling pool or Dean saying "sweetheart this ain't gender studies" aren't bad things to do. Like they're often understandable character flaws based on the characters backgrounds, but they're still there.

Honestly, i’d argue that plenty of people ARE saying that dean sees women as beneath him or that sam despises the poor or vice-versa etc. but like. Hmm. this is a tv show for a narrow group of people written by an even narrower group of people and thus the show reflects the views & prejudices of the people writing them. There are moments in which we’re supposed to approve of dean’s sexism but there are also moments where we’re supposed to disapprove while simultaneously approve of or at least be okay with sam’s sexism. There are moments where we’re supposed to think sam’s being a judgy snob, but there are still others where we’re supposed to wrinkle our noses at how uncouth and lumpenprole dean is in comparison to college boy sam. And that goes for the many other -isms in the show. characters are often used as vectors for the beliefs of the writers, good or bad. It’s up to the individual how they choose to make peace with that, but the problem with this fandom is that discussions about isms get heavily wrapped up with stan wars.

Lemme give an example. It’s incredibly common in samgirl spaces to paint dean as a homophobic neanderthal. they usually do this by taking a shitty comment from season 3 and extrapolating it until they’re talking about s15 dean as if he can’t so much as look at a gay person without threatening to kill them in that sense they’re no different to the desticule circa 2020-2023 WHOA WHO SAID THAT anyway they pretend it’s just a heehee haha jokeyjoke but like. it is 2024 and they STILL can’t engage with conversations about queer dean without talking about deangirls as if they are personally endorsing homophobia! As a result if someone points out that sam makes just as many homophobic jokes as dean does and he’s just slyer about it they flip the fuck out because they’re lowkey projecting and think you’re judging them as hard as they judge you. This is why the mildest criticisms of sam prompt an insane amount of backlash.

(i talk a little more about this phenomenon here)

and so we come to discussions about sam and classism that feel like people trying to defend him at every turn because they sincerely think we're trying to cancel him and it's pissing me off because if we can't even suggest fictional character sam winchester is maybe a little classist how the hell are we going to address the DERANGED lvls of classism throughout this fandom. i've never been in a fandom where so many people think going to college makes a str8 person better equipped to talk about queerness than actual queer people until i joined spn fandom.

(discussions about racism/racialised misogyny get a lot more complicated and a lot more depressing than anything mentioned above so i'm not approaching that topic for now. "but-" don't care didn't ask plus i probably have more melanin than you. i don't wanna talk about it!!!)

anyway. idk what i'm saying. i think i get where the defensiveness is coming from but it's annoying. what if we just mutually agreed that we're not to blame for spn's bigotry but we also have a responsibility not to reproduce that same bigotry? what if???

EDIT: coming back a day later to say that I do agree with your assertion that a deep conversation could be enough to change them! I just think that a certain part of fandom is allergic to acknowledging ANY flaw at all and that's the biggest hurdle in these discussions.

#asks #anonymous

13 notes · View notes

battlestar-royco · 2 years

Text

it's amazing how fandoms will gag for a ship dynamic when it's two white people (mm or mf mostly, and ff on the rare occasion that the ship gets enough attention) but once it becomes a biwoc and a white man (especially a black woman) the discourse all of a sudden is "you all are crazy for shipping them, you need more friends" or "omg i love their friendship" or "he is lowkey toxic to her i can't believe people are into this :/"

like it really just is amazing how no one sees the pattern! because the wild thing is that most of the time the ship will literally be the most common romantic setup, like two coworkers with a shared interest or two roommates. deadass the most obvious romantic coding and the basis of the most popular rom coms and sitcoms ever in existence. monica and chandler, jim and pam, nick and jess, jake and amy etc etc. but all of a sudden when it's a black woman and a white man it's just so OBVIOUS that the writers aren't going there, that the actors just have good chemistry and fans are reading too much into it, that it would be problematic for them to be together because of xyz.

and idk it's kind of hilarious that people expect me to take these arguments seriously and act like it's not fandom being weird about black women written in a romantic capacity or as objects of desire. because the most popular ships du jour always like CANONICALLY include white men either being genocidal maniacs and/or beating the absolute shit out of their love interests!! like i really do just have to laugh....!

#bc i thought i just watched u wanting the brick chin guy to be with grey worm after he drop kicked him out of the sky for 8 weeks straight!#i thought i just watched u wanting a teenage girl to be erotically choked by her uncle all summer!!#but now 2 coworkers supporting each other is just too problematic 😒#yes this is bc i just watched #the bear #misogynoir

191 notes · View notes

canmom · 6 months

Note

Since you're anisports posting, can you share your thoughts about Yuasa's Ping pong ?

the very short answer is man I really gotta watch more of Ping-Pong! so far I've only seen the first episode, but it was pretty interesting in terms of character dynamics. I hear the animation is really creative later on - I mean go figure, it's a Yuasa project - so I really gotta watch more. (I am actually really bad at getting round to watching stuff outside the context of the movie night... hell I'm like 7 episodes behind dunmeshi right now.)

so, from memory then... what I did find striking in the first episode is this theme of like, elitism and international rivalry. the story begins with a Chinese player coming to Japan and finding himself contemptuous of how shitty the Japanese players are in this pathetic backwater where nobody is good at ping-pong. and being good or bad at ping-pong is a big deal for these characters.

'China is much better at ping-pong' is not a concept I'd really been exposed to before that! (I absolutely could not tell you what countries are supposed to be good at ping-pong.) but it does resonate with a certain broader recurring theme you occasionally see of like... whether Japanese (xyz) can hope to stack up against the mighty (xyz)-doers of whatever other country. whether that's playing ping-pong or building fighter planes (a sentiment you see motivating the characters in The Wind Rises).

and that makes me think about odd places I've seen that sorta nationalist underdog sentiment crop up, not just in Japan. whether Chinese social media critics writing scathingly about guómàn out of a perceived need to rise to the level of Japanese and American animation, or Japanese game developers taking to heart the cruel sentiments expressed about Japanese games by other developers during the 2010s and talking about wanting to make Japanese RPGs (for example) compare with Western ones. maybe even the South Korean government going all in on supporting a fraudulent geneticist out of a feeling that the country had to prove itself scientifically.

these examples are all from Asian countries but I definitely don't think this is something that only happens in Asia lol. that said, it's kind of a contrast to the general attitude in my country, where nationalist sentiment more often looks like empire-nostalgia or blithely presuming superiority. people don't so often seem to feel like we collectively have something to prove. maybe there's a sense of embarassment when the UK loses the football [soccer] again, since that one's supposed to be our thing. it was kinda darkly funny when the womens' team actually did win the football, and suddenly people cared about womens' football.

I don't really have much of a thesis on that though, I'm just running along a tangent here. I'll have more interesting things to say about the sports, and the boys that play the sports, when I give Ping-Pong a proper watch through.

#also still need to watch kemonozume and the tatami galaxy on the yuasa front #anime

9 notes · View notes

susandsnell · 1 year

Note

🌻

I almost missed this one!!

I'm a big fan of all kinds of gothic romances, absolutely morally bankrupt characters (and the fucked up ways they might fall in love or lust or obsession or something in between), villains and foes and psychosexual nightmares, all that good stuff. I do not believe fiction needs to be moral or didactic in this respect. I say this as a preface to what I have to say next because I think it's a genuinely unpopular opinion:

This is an Edward Rochester hate zone.

I cannot abide this man. I hated him when I was thirteen, and I hate him at twenty-five. (I believe I once wrote "he should have gotten crispy in that fire" in some free reading assignment or other.) His Byronicisms all fall just in the wrong way for me, in large part because they are gross in a way that feels painfully real that isn't fun to read about, and they aren't tempered by any traits to recommend him. I find him not at all interesting and entirely unsympathetic. The only time I ever liked him was when he was doing the most with the drag act, but even then that was pretty loaded.

This all makes him a realistic jerk so he is perhaps well-constructed and well-written, but I for the life of me have never gotten the appeal of this dickwad. He's so mired in his own privilege and unearned self-pity that I genuinely find him to be insufferable. This is a bit bizarre to me as I have adored characters who have done objectively far worse and behaved far more cruelly and violently than he ever did, but again, as asserted earlier - I can get into an awful person being awful if they're doing so in a way that's interesting to witness, and/or if this is balanced out by humanizing elements. Heathcliff abuses women and children and kills innocent animals and he's still intensely sympathetic. Sweeney Todd did all of that and I feel for his plight and love his wry sense of humour and capacity for deep love. The Vampire Chronicles' entire thesis is that even the truly monstrous among us are made human by their ability to connect to art and to one another. To clarify, I know that a character need not have suffered/had a tragic backstory to be sympathetic or interesting just as people we know don't require xyz to be deserving of compassion (for instance I enjoy Dracula being The Worst because he's interesting, he's irredeemable with some zazz), but in terms of what he feels and how he acts, I cannot find any avenue for this connection to come in. I know that it's not uncommon as a modern reader to feel horror for Bertha Mason rather than at her (and it's not '''purity culture"/Puriteens/whatever paper skinned English majors are coming up with now to dismiss any critical discussion of books they like to feel this way!), and this plays a large part in my reading, but he's also cruel and dehumanizing to Jane in a way that feels very much like a Victorian era equivalent of negging/overpraise, which strikes exactly the wrong nerve in me compared to other destructive romances I've liked. That's not to say that one is more or less realistic than another, and comes down to personal bias, but I feel what I feel, and this is a free opinion sunflower emoji ask lolol.

I understand Jane Eyre and like most of it. I understand what a huge step it was as a protofeminist work, the reversing of the power balance by having him be humbled and reliant on her by the end, the emphasis on Jane's freewill and self-worth in the face of her horrific struggles and turmoil.

I cannot grasp wanting to be around this man for more than five minutes. Truly no judgment to those who get something out of this guy, but I just Don't See It.

#posts that will get me kicked out of gothic literature fandom #i'm interested in hearing people's counterpoints on why they like him #less so in debates on this post lolol #no judgment to anyone on either end of this love you all xoxo

25 notes · View notes

oreo-creampie · 6 months

Note

Heeey, I'm sorry you're becoming disenfranchised with fandom at the moment, it happens to the best of us. Just know what ever you choose to do, stay or go, we love and support you 😙😙😙

Hi sweetness and thank you! I really don't want to loose my love for the show simple because of the fandom. But everytime I go through the tags or my feed I come across something so incredible toxic and it makes me wanna log off n do something else

I enjoy the characters of the show so much. So maybe I just need to stay within my own little bubble, enjoy the show for what it is, talk to a few people about the show and stay out of major part of the fandom (aka ignore the fuck outta my dash and any tags)

Part of me has been thinking about writing for other fandoms and leaving jjk behind for a while. At the same time I still have several ideas for the characters. But I enjoy other fandoms way way more

It could be cause jjk is the biggest fandom there is which comes with it’s natural set if discourse. And so I'm not used to so much fandom discourse going on 24/7

Plus the whole can black writers not write because xyz and then seeing people agree makes me feel very very unwelcomed. And Im not the type of person to stay where I'm not wanted

im a black person who is hypersexual. I don't spit on those or look down at people are aren't hypersexual. Why should I? Different walks of life fit different type of people. It doesn't make anyone any better simply because they don't like smut fics as much as the rest

I don't understand the reason of complaining about other people not creating what they want to see. And expecting other people to feel shame over being overly sexual with their fics simple because you want hand holding and kissing

I do agree that smut fics get a lot more attention than fluff. But if they want fluff please create it. It seems there is a growing amount of people very upset cause they want to see more fluff fics but most of them don't want to create it themselves

I do some writers on a high horse looking down at smut writers. Which I don't understand at all? No genre of fanfiction is superior to the other, we can all have our preferences to what we prefer but that doesn't make them the best option.

There is also the whole big issue of black women have been fighting stereotypes for so long. So many people of color have as well. We can all understand how they are harmful to type a whole group as something.

Not all black woman are hyper sexual clearly by the amount of non hyper sexual black women who want fluff. And so what if a black woman is hyper sexual? Would they have less of a problem with it if it was a women of a different ethnicity being hyper sexual?

Or is it the hyper sexual that they look down on as a whole? Simply because they aren’t that sexual they get to look down on those who are?

I guess their problem with hypersexually could steam from the fear of the stereotype. Since hypersexuality is apart of that and they don't want hyper sexual black woman to represent them and it to go around still that all black woman are hypersexual.

To this to I say that a group of hyper sexual black woman should not be viewed as the representation of the whole. By this year of 2024 we should be coming to the point of realizing that there are gonna be various types of people with various interest, morals, sex drive and sexuality are all the same skin tone. And they do not speak for each other

Also what does someone skin tone have to do with someone sex drive? Can a girly pop be horny in peace without seeing it’s wrong cause I'm black and upholding a dangerous stereotype?

Anyway after this long rant cause it looks like I've had a lot building up. Thank you sweetness

9 notes · View notes

oflgtfol · 4 months

Note

Okay same venom 2003 anon again. I dont have anything else to add to what ur saying as again i didnt read venom 2003 So im just nodding respectfully and wisely to everything your saying but re ur tags is the artist you mean Humberto Ramos? Bc if it is if it helps he's a pretty unpopular artist amongst people (though usually for criticisms about his art being “too cartoony” instead of anything meaningful like the objectification of women which i personally despise when people do that. No more realism sexy super models i want hyper stylisation ONLY in my comic books just to piss those people off). I also personally do not care about him as an artist no hate nor respect towards him but again the bar is so low 😭 ive seen so many genuinely boring deeply misogynistic artists who treat women the exact same awful objectifying way but who get passes in comic book spaces because their art is more Conventionally Likeable. Like if im gonna be forced to see a woman be drawn as only one body type and face and breasting boobily id much rather take the uglier style or the more stylised style just to have something Interesting To Look At then Another Boring Generic Guy Drawing Semi Realism with Soft Shading Based off 1950s Pin ups but thats just me personally as a lifelong comic book guy

YES HUMBERTO RAMOS. i hate the venom 2003 art but in the past two hours i've come to realize that humberto ramos is my real enemy here and the only real fault of venom 2003 is its resemblance of ramos's art (of course in addition to its own home brewed sexism).

i really love stylized art and i hate realistic styles. i love the classic ASM look because it struck a nice balance between the two: the 1960s-80s need to depict the human form in a standardized, realistic way (likely due to toy sales, at least if its caused by the same phenomenon of 80s cartoons, a la he-man, having that same look to them), but the flat colors, limited color palette, and cell shading were so so wonderfully simple and sleek in a really fun way. gave such a distinct Look to the comic, and the simplicity of the colors also made the realistic lineart not too realistic. it just felt very intentional, very careful, very creative with their technological limitations, and it's such a timeless look that has aged so well even still to the 2020s

so while i love the classique look, i also love when comic styles go even further to really break the mold and stylize further!! herrera in venom 2003, and ramos's whole *gestures broadly* COULD be good, if only they were done a little bit more purposefully, and yknow, minus the outrageous sexism

and yes sexism is overall so entrenched in marvel comics and i wouldn't be surprised if it also infected literally all other comic companies out there, considering We Live In A Society. anyone who dares to argue that misogyny doesn't exist needs to go become a comic geek and read hundreds of marvel comics and see

1. how utterly shallow women are characterized compared to their male counterparts

2. how female characters so rarely get to exist on their own outside of a male character; ie. female characters who are only side characters for a male hero, or superheroines who are literaly just "female version of xyz popular male character!", etc etc etc

3. the way women are visually depicted compared to men. men, especially the superheroes, are still subject to white patriarchal standards of beauty of course, but the huge muscles they're drawn with are a form of power, a "look how cool i am." you will never get that with a female character. they are only ever depicted with the same fucking face, the same fucking body type, the same fucking curves and tasteful cleavage and pouty lips and cat eye makeup.

4. and while the men have these like insane muscles that do not exist irl, they at least get to POSE in ways that are not sexualized. the women characters, even if their designs are not objectifying, will still be posed so that their butts face the camera, they have a pretty side profile to show off the silhouette of their breasts, etc. if you really pay careful attention to the way women are placed in comic panels compared to men it's so insane. so fucking insane

but yknow, all of those things tend to manifest in subtle ways, ways that you really can only pick up when you've read so many comics over a decent amount of time, and when you're otherwise prepared to read for and pick up on sexist elements. so i guess i REALLY draw my line and get pissed the fuck off beyond belief when comic writers and/or artists then begin to just be, blatantly, fucking sexist. a la those terrible panels from ASM spider island. a la that one she-hulk issue. a la spider-man/red sonja. when it's blatant it means you give NO fucks, it means you don't even believe women are people because you don't expect them to be engaging your works and thus you don't expect any sort of audience outcry from your blatant sexism, it means you literally only see women as objects for your male audience to oogle over, it's beyond frustrating

#ask #Anonymous #comics posting

2 notes · View notes

witchoflegends · 2 years

Text

You know what I can't stand? Every single dickbabs post I see online always has to have at least one comment like "Kori is better". Stfu. They're fictional ships. If you're the type of person that sees a ship post and immediately go to reply/comment 'XYZ ship is better', just shut up. No one cares. Let people enjoy what they enjoy. I am willing to ship just about anything under the sun (within reason), but no one needs or wants to know that you like a certain ship better than another.

Also, it's inherently pitting Kori and Babs against each other. As if all they are are accessories to Dick Grayson. Like, come on. Don't belittle them like that. They're both badass women, and much more than just love interests for a man.

#ooc

3 notes · View notes

onewomancitadel · 2 years

Text

(Correction for the tags above: turning the female heroine into someone who needs nothing etc.)

It is just more pedestals and it's why I feel that whilst ultimately well-intentioned the self-consciousness surrounding the depiction of women (and this applies elsewhere, but for the sake of this topic and Cinder I'm limiting it) ends up, well, being self-conscious. It's not an appeal to completely ignoring gender; that's still its own unique topic, and really, the female characters that are written like male characters (e.g. of the blockbuster variety) end up not being all that good, either - if empowerment for a female character is only possible through embodying the most extreme and unreal masculine ideals, that's pretty demoralising.

But then what the fuck are you supposed to do? Everyone online sits around twiddling their thumbs about this bad depiction of that female character and the way you should write this character instead and why this guy is a bad guy and why this that everything. None of it's really motivated by something fundamentally respecting or understanding narrative because it's a conversation in service to the morally didactic purpose that fiction should serve, and that will always, always stifle writing, and it will always stifle holistic depiction. It's an untenable position, but it limits self-expression, too, even and especially of people of those actual experiences.

Sure, I'm not diminishing there are genuine things you need to be concerned about, but those genuine things you need to be concerned about can be approached with, well, genuine intent and humanity. If there's language you'd want to avoid you should avoid it. On the other hand, does every woman agree being called 'slut' is empowering? Does every woman agree with the notion of 'slutshaming'? Does everyone describe their feelings the same way? It gets ambiguous quickly. There's not always a monolith.

The irony underscoring this is that narrative is fundamentally an empathetic act. It is empathetic writing something and it is empathetic reading something. You are in someone else's head; you see someone else's world. This is not to make a categorical assertion everyone is empathetic, but whether you are empathetic or not is not the same as engaging in an empathetic act. As I've said before, the failure to write women is a failure to write people, and a failure to write people is a technical failure of writing, and it's a technical failure of empathy. It's actually failing at what narrative does by design. (You might say that no, you want to write something that intentionally rejects the reader. Great news: you're still aware of something fundamental to narrative and you're interested in subverting it).

My point sort of is that I'm never interested in browbeating people over, say, given the previous few posts, the inability to respond to female characters as characters and putting them in feminine archetypal prisons. I don't want to say 'you need a better feminist way of doing it because you are a bad person' because to me it's something happening on an even deeper level. It's happening on an artistic level. But political functionalism will tell you everything is a consequence of politics, but I don't think the relationship is as simple as that; politics is a consequence of everything human.

Anyway, there's obviously a crisis right now in storytelling about what to do with this uncomfortable question of how to write xyz character not traditionally valued in mainstream storytelling and pop culture. I'm commenting on the way fandom responds to this. Fandom wants to fix the problem by putting the female characters on pedestals (per tags); Rey doesn't need anyone and is a perfect, unloved saint; Cinder doesn't need anyone and is a perfect yet broken, unloved saint; on and on and on and on and on. That's obviously boring and dehumanising in a different way.

#stirring the pot #is my thesis coherent is the real question

1 note · View note