#that’s okay! like I do think a basic understanding of diverse experiences is important | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

possibilistfanfiction · 1 year

Note

"the neoliberal rhetoric of the pronoun (ESPECIALLY in english) as the ultimate form of advocacy" -- it's such a relief to hear your take on ava's thoughts on pronouns bc i've always been frustrated by how limiting they are? how much stress they cause? i know pronouns are important for some folks but also we're so much more than that...

whew like ok i work in dei, mostly for youth (sport, schools, etc) but also doing lgbtq 101 workshops for upper level execs who run big sports orgs, school districts, blah blah, & it's like... people really think that getting someone's pronouns right (or even trying to get someone's pronouns right) is like........ you have done it! u are not transphobic! u understand the nuances of everyone's gender if you use the right pronoun!

& like... i get paid a fair amount of money to lowkey sell out & explain what a pronoun is (lol) but at the same time it is the fucking bane of my existence. i personally hate pronouns. i think they are legitimately so stupid lol. like... to distill the vast nuanced experience of both having a gender identity AND being perceived at all times as a gendered being (which sometimes match & sometimes don't) into a PRONOUN is just baffling to me.

i think cis people (especially those who don't really want to do the work needed to understand what abolition means -- how queerness & especially gender expansive trans identities are a crucial part of the intersection of where that ethic is rooted) just see pronouns as a sort of easy way out. like you're cool with trans people if you can remember someone's they/them pronouns. it's so gross & so deeply tried up in representational politics (diverse oppressors are still oppressors, white supremacy can be present in ethic & politic even without a white person in the room, etc).

& of course like you said pronouns are definitely important to some people (it is always nice to feel seen & respected at the most basic level 🤪) & definitely not at all saying that anyone should like get people's pronouns wrong, obviously, but i just really hate the concept of how my entire experience as a dyke & a person in general has to be reflected to the world at all times in a silly word which is so vastly incomplete. & i genuinely (not anyone's fault!) hate how that can get tied up in my writing, especially my writing about queerness. when ppl rly care abt terms & IDs etc i can understand bc the common messaging is all rooted in neoliberalism & "representation" instead of anti-state resistance, etc, so it's like. okay lol. but i am intentional in the way i write queerness bc of my own ethic & politic, so you know

ANYWAY yes. queerness & transness is so deeply expansive, to make it only about (or mostly about) pronouns is, to me, ethically against what queerness & transness really is, especially if those pronouns are mostly talked about in the context of english. & i would be remiss in saying that using non-normative &/or neopronouns is a privilege rooted in safety. often i don't disclose they/them pronouns bc i just don't want to explain myself, & i deeply do not care, but i'm always protected in a lot of ways by my whiteness (& that i'm educated, able-bodied, cis-passing, employed, etc etc etc). for a lot of people, for a lot of reasons, pronouns aren't safe. being out as trans isn't safe. but that doesn't mean their gender identities are any different or less important or less vital.

so yah ur right sorry this is a rant lmfao & once & for all.... ava is the most anti-state anti-institution character lmao. she genuinely would not give a flying fuck about her own pronouns. god doesn't fit into a pronoun anyway :)

#this is so much sorry but there's been so many weird asks really wanting to like #define ava's gender so deeply ??#& i try to write queerness thoughtfully & precisely & with purpose so #it's like a part of what i believe as a person outside of / beyond fic blah blah #anon u are RIGHT i AGREE lol

47 notes · View notes

fluideli123 · 2 years

Note

Would you mind giving me a crash course on writing plurality? It interested me the moment I read your analysis on Raph being plural, even more so when I went after the links in the post.

I'm going to be completely honest and upfront first. Writing Plurality can be hard when you know nothing about the community or only know how the media presents DID. Plurality is a diverse experience, so it's going to challenge your choice of perspective in your story, word choice, and self-awareness when you're falling into demonization about the experience. Especially when characters can be stereotypical and fall into demonization "easily."

Writing a system is like writing a disabled character, a neurodiverse character, a cluster b character, a POC character, and so on. It takes a lot of understanding and discovering things you will have no idea how to explain because you've never experienced them or just don't know how to comprehend them. But the most important rule to writing any character(s) that go through things you don't is to remember that as long as you try your best, admit your mistakes, fix your errors, and never stop learning. You'll be able to achieve what story you want to tell with these characters.

Like any community, you have a lot of different opinions, and the views from the community you're trying to write about are something you've got to at least have a basic awareness of. Because understanding what may be seen as problematic or what might cause someone to come bursting into your comment section on a fic or so on will help you decide whether you're going to change what this person takes issue with or keep it despite their beliefs on it.

That doesn't mean you get to brush actual problematic things off, though. It's just a fine balance, especially if you're singlet.

But with that out of the way! I will try my best to give a basic crash course on how to write Plurality. Now, I'm a very understanding, patient, detail-orientated person, so if you or anyone else needs to ask questions or need me to "dumb" things down, please don't hesitate to do so! This is a safe space; I enjoy teaching people and bringing more acceptance to issues and experiences many people don't understand, so it's okay to make mistakes here with the intent of fixing them!

It All Starts With You

The first step to writing Plurality is to start with you. Now you might think, "What do I have to do about writing a system? Why does it matter that I've gotta start with myself first? :/" Well, I'll give a simple answer:

Everything you write reflects who you are as a person and what work you're willing to do for your writing.

Now, I don't mean reflecting yourself as in, "Oh no! You write about murders, so you must be a murderer!" No, I mean how you perceive yourself, the world, and others affect your writing.

An example of this is one of my favorite books, Life of Pi by Yann Martel. The author enjoys learning and believes in the ability to participate in multiple religions, so the character Pi in his story holds that characteristic, affecting how the story is written. I suffer from intrusive thoughts, so I write Mikey from ROTTMNT with pure O OCD (someone whose OCD doesn't showcase/have outward compulsions), which affects how I write his interactions with the environment and his internal dialogue.

Why this is important is because if you believe there is such a thing as an "evil alter," that only disordered systems are true systems, and/or that there's no such thing as Plurality and people are just faking it, it'll show in your work whether you want it to or not. So, it's important to tackle your stance on Plurality. How who you are and what you believe and participate in affect how you write a system.

I'll use myself as a perfect example! I'm very open-minded, but I'm very afraid of ghosts and demons. So when I learned that Possestive Systems were a thing, it scared me because the idea of being possessed makes me scared. I'm still afraid of demons and ghosts, but it no longer affects my interpretation and understanding of possessive systems.

I'm not religious, but I love learning about religion and how people interpret it so learning about Spirigenic Systems was super cool! I believe endo systems deserve respect and exist. I also think that persecutors do not deserve to be treated unfairly, negatively, and purposefully hurt by their systems or those outside the system. They also deserve respect and understanding.

This shows in my writing because I write Raphael as a diversian median system with a mixed origin with truamagenic and endogenic origins. I've made a few posts about Leonardo being a non-truamagenic system with non-religious spiritual connections to his ancestors (here, here, and here). I have even blatantly had Leonardo state in my Figuring It Out series the same perspective I have about Plurality:

In summary, Leo's brother is a part of a system, and if anyone were to ever make Raph, or Mind and Red for that matter, feel awful about that in any way, he and his brothers and sister would fight them without hesitation. There was nothing wrong with being a part of a system, and anyone who disagreed could eat a dirty, used pizza box for all they cared. Red and mind are a part of their family, and no idiot could ever change that.

Becoming aware of how Plurality makes you feel, think, and do is important, so while learning about Plurality, it's good to take time to assess why things make you feel this way or that way. Why you don't want to even try and write that experience but feel drawn to write about that one.

And, by the way, it's okay not to write some experiences! I don't write much about DID systems, but a friend of mine does! A part of writing systems is writing what is most interesting/relatable/understandable to you! There will always be some system that resonates with a characteristic you've written about, and it's okay if you can't write some system experiences perfectly or at all!

This leads to the other half of what I said, that who you are will affect the amount of work you'll put into writing about Plurality, and I shall use myself as another example to help you understand what I mean.

I am extremely passionate about learning about Plurality, so I am heavily involved in the community. I follow a lot of Plural blogs, have Plural friends, am a part of Plural discord servers, in activism, spend my time teaching others about Plurality, and have spent hours reading through Plural systems experiences over genuine, literal years. Because of this, I am very knowledgeable and deeply understand Plurality that not many singlets and even some systems have an understanding of. (This doesn't mean I am an expert and all-knowing, however. Please remember this. I am not a professional). I am willing to put years of research and interactions with the community into a piece of writing.

You may be the same way, or you may just want to only know enough to get the basics down to a T, which in my opinion, is valid if done correctly! Understanding how willing you are to dedicate yourself to learning about Plurality to write it is just as crucial as understanding how you feel about it and tackling any Pluralphobia or hatred you have towards the community/experience.

TL;DR: You have to figure out how you feel about Plurality and make sure you fix any issues you have towards or about Plurality. You have to understand how far you're willing to go to write Plurality, whether it's dedicating years to it or just wanting to know the basics.

Where to Learn About Plurality

Since I've spent years dedicating a portion of my life to learning and helping the plural community, I know a couple of ways that you can learn about Plurality for yourself and for your writing (because it is crucial you research before writing something). If you enjoy a laidback way of doing it, I recommend following blogs! If you want to read a lot, I recommend the dictionary! If you talk to the community directly, I recommend certain blogs, discord servers, and spaces where learning is the main idea!

Never just barge into any system/plural safe space with questions and concerns unless you know for certain they want to teach you. It isn't anyone's job to teach you or spend their day explaining what you want to know. They are beings with lives of their own, and they do not owe you anything. Respect is important; if you don't respect a system's time, boundaries, and wishes, you are in the wrong period. It is always important to ensure that you're asking questions and talking to systems that want to answer your questions with respect and patience.

Here are the blogs and sites I recommend interacting with if you're not sure where to start (I will take any mentions off if those I've mentioned would rather I not @ them):

@mixed-origin-system-culture-is

@funnier-as-a-system

@positively-plural

@dear-systems

@persecutorlifeandsupport

@endo-memes

@non-traumagenicsupport

Pluralpedia

Power to the Plurals

I am available to ask questions or get to know Plurality better, but as I said before, I am not an expert; I am not all-knowing; I am simply one opinion/experience in a sea of many, many others. Do not take my word as law and an end-all.

I recommend following and interacting with open communities specifically for the kind(s) of Plurality you want to write. This will help you in writing system experiences/struggles/achievements/interactions relating to those experiences you choose to write about.

TL;DR: To write Plurality correctly and to the best of your abilities, you have to learn about Plurality in the best way that suits your learning needs. Also, systems don't owe you anything. Respect them.

What to Avoid and How to Avoid it

Now, because there are a lot of stigmas, demonizations, misinformation, and discourse about systems, I am only going to talk about the main things you should always or at least try to avoid.

1) Gatekeeping Plurality

Whether you're a system or a singlet, this is extremely important to remember. It is not your place to dictate who, when, or what is deemed "Plural enough," especially system experiences you/you& do not experience yourself/yourselves.

You should avoid gatekeeping since it excludes systems from communities, help, and safe spaces. It's awful, and it hurts systems a fuck-ton. It's something that gets on my nerves because exclusion is literally the absolute worst. Excluding beings/groups/communities/experiences literally does nothing but hurt those just trying to exist. And it's never okay to hurt others on purpose.

As someone who's super open-minded in the way that I am, it's honestly difficult for me to gatekeep, but here's what I have heard that might help keep you from gatekeeping:

Not everything is about you. You may not get/need it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist/someone needs it.

The existence of something/someone doesn't mean less for someone else who isn't a part of that group.

If it isn't hurting anyone, it's not a problem. (There may be struggles or a change that needs to be made, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily hurting someone/a group.)

Everyone is capable of change, and that's okay.

Everyone makes mistakes, and that's okay.

Everyone is allowed their own opinions, and that's okay.

There are no rules for how being exist.

2) The So-Called Evil Alter(s)

We've all seen those characters in media that have that one side/alter who is slapped with the label of being evil. A perfect example is the Goblin from Spider-Man, the Beast from Glass, and literally any media you consume that has DID villainized. When writing Plurality, it is your job to avoid hurtful and harmful stereotypes such as the "Evil Alter."

The reason it's important to avoid falling into the stereotype is simple: It's overused, demonizes, stigmatizes, villainizes, and continues to push forth the idea that systems are to be feared. Systems are real and valid, and creating fear around their experiences and existence causes real-life problems. If you're choosing to write about marginalized groups (just like drawing, it should be something you practice/incorporate often), you must always keep this in mind. What you write affects real beings. Write responsibly.

The best way to flick a middle finger to the evil stereotype is by ensuring that a headmate is well-rounded, an actual individual instead of a plot device or just a flat character. It is okay to have characters who may fall into stereotypes, be a persecutor, or do bad things because they're a being; they're capable of such things. But you have to make sure to get across to the audience that they are not evil. You can do this by not having a headmate be the antagonist in the story or filling the common roles a villain does in most stories.

If you're incapable or aren't sure you can write a character like that, avoid writing headmates who can fall into being a villain in your story. If you're sharing your work publically, it's best not to incorporate it at all, but I highly recommend practicing privately on how to write demonized headmates in a stigma-free light in your own time and pace. You're going to fail at first; what matters is that you're trying.

3) Writing Only "Evil" or Antagonists as Pural

Similar to what I said above, even if you don't follow the "Evil Alter" villainization of a headmate, it's important to always pay attention if all or most of your system characters are villains/antagonists in your story. While having a diverse set of characters with various roles in a story is fine, it's important to ensure that you're not accidentally falling into the thin line of villainizing characters.

The best way to avoid this is to make sure you have an equal balance of plural characters spanning from "good" to "many shades of grey" to "bad." And to not use demonizing characteristics with "bad" characters but instead in good or a certain grey area. This will challenge you to break norms and think outside the box, depending on your character. But in the end, if you don't feel capable, practice! Learn! As long as you're trying, that's what matters!

4) Final Fusion

Many singlets don't know this, so I won't just link what Final Fusion is but define it. In the simplest explanation I can give, Final Fusion is when a system becomes a singlet.

I would avoid this in writing at all costs. The point of writing Systems isn't to make them singlet, and it's like learning how to write black characters to make them white. You just don't do that. You write systems to write about system experiences/have a genuinely diverse cast of characters, not to make their existence in stories an end goal to become one single being in a body.

If you're singlet, don't ever write about Final Fusion. In my opinion, it isn't your place to write about that; leave that to systems as it is a touchy subject and not one singlets should handle.

TL;DR: When writing about Plurality, avoid gatekeeping Plural experiences/groups, falling into evil stereotypes, making all your plural characters antagonists, and writing anything on Final Fusion.

General Writing Rules

How you write systems depends on what system you decide to write about, the headmates within that system, and any other characteristics you choose to add to the body or the headmates themselves will influence how you actually write things out. An example is how I write my Shard System (fic here).

First, my Shard System has polyconsciousness and can communicate internally, though it changes depending on who's talking and fronting. This leaves me having to find a format for the audience to know what is internal and external and who is specifically talking. I wrote that lil fic I shared while sleep-deprived, so it isn't the prettiest-looking format, but it's a format nonetheless, and that helps readers! I recommend having a key or using consistent formatting so readers understand what is happening.

Secondly, my Shard System dissociates when switching and co-fronting, so I describe the experience as I would an emotion or when a character is using their powers. When you have systems that have characteristics that affect the body and their perception when fronting or in the inner world, it's good to describe it like you would anything else! And if there's something significant about it or it changes depending on what perspective you're writing from, that's just as important as writing feelings or background characteristics!

Thirdly, systems have characteristics where they have a quirk where they'll write/type/speak in that quirk. For example, my Shard System has a few quirks where Red types in bold (hence why I wrote his dialogue in bold) and has a Spanish accent and a deep voice when fronting and in the inner world. Savage speaks in broken English, so it'll be very prominent when he communicates. Considering the little details about your headmates when writing them in your stories is never bad! Especially when it's a common quirk in systems to have!

Finishing Thoughts

There is nothing wrong with wanting to learn how to write Plurality or any other marginalized and demonized experience. You're going to make mistakes, and you're going to be a fool the first time you write Plural characters, and hey, it's all a part of the learning process! What matters is that you try and remember to check in to ensure you're not excluding or creating real-life problems in your writing.

This long-ass answer to your ask or anyone wanting to write about Plurality isn't meant to scare you off or overwhelm you; it's to simply inform you how you can write Plurality to the best of your ability. And like learning to do anything, it takes time and patience. Not everything will make sense right away, and it's expected that your first emotions learning about something you don't understand are fear, anger, and denial. But to grow as a person and as a writer is to tackle those feelings and remember why you're writing these experiences.

I write about plural characters and experiences because I love Plurality. I love it so much that I just want to express my love through my favorite characters and spend my time learning and consuming content on it. I write plural characters because I care so deeply for the plural community. I am passionate about giving them media and content they can enjoy, where they feel safe, heard, and understood. I write plural characters to destroy the idea that Plurality is something to fear and hide away when systems should take pride and be able to be wholeheartedly themselves. I write plural characters because I choose to. Because I want to.

Having a reason, no matter how "dumb" or "profound," for wanting to write Plurality is valid and good as long as it doesn't hurt real-life beings. And I am more than ecstatic to hear that you and others may want to write plural characters, even if you're singlet or not!

It isn't that hard to write once you get the hang of it and the moment you get the basic understanding of the system experiences you're trying to write. But, I want you to know that no matter how hard it gets, how challenging and maybe even overwhelming it may be, your best is enough, and your trying is enough. That doesn't mean you need to stop learning because you're always going to keep learning things until you die, but just know that your best is enough and will always be enough.

Thank you so much for reaching out, and I hope this long-ass post helped you or you&! I tried my best to cover everything, but if anyone else has anything more to add, feel free!

Thank you so much for the ask! <3

65 notes · View notes

polyamorousmood · 2 years

Note

Anon from before- Yes please, if you could, elaborate. I know I have see polycule? And Triad as terms but anything else I haven't. Thank you so much in advance for the information. I haven't asked anything about it before because it is a bit like being introduced to a part of me I didn't know or recognize or whatever and honestly I've just been scared of it, kinda? Anyway, yeah...lol

I'm shure more questions will follow. Lol

I'm happy to explain! I know new stuff can be really overwhelming, so please don't hesitate to send as many asks as you need 💖 There's plenty of articles out there as well that explain things, but I don't have any on-hand I'd recommend over any others (though if any followers do, please drop them in the notes!)

I'm going to go ahead and slap on a read more cause I already know this is gonna be long [spoiler alert: I was right. What's below the cut is some definitions and information about some broad ideas of dynamics in polyamory]

First, little disclaimer that I'm not the foremost authority. These are my perceptions, and I hope to give you an overview of common understandings, but its a diverse community. I'm sure someone'll disagree with me on something.

Alright, let's make sure we have some common understanding of the terms you dropped:

Polycule: Any arrangement of multiple partners, but especially used in large or complicated situations. The name comes from "poly"+"molecule". If you recall your chemistry lessons, you should recognize that molecules come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes, so it makes sense!

Triad (also called "throuple"): Three people all dating each other.

And a few basic related terms just to avoid any confusion

Polyamory: The choice or orientation to have multiple romantic interests at a time. Oftentimes, polyamory will see itself as distinct from open relationships, swinging, and other forms of non-monogamy in that you are romantically invested in all your partners, but there is overlap.

Non-monogamy: any relationship dynamic where you are not sexually and/or romantically exclusive to a single partner or vice-versa. You'll also see "ethical non-monogamy" or "enm" for short often to emphasize this is done with consent as opposed to cheating. I'm of the opinion this is redundant, but I don't knock people for their preferred verbiage.

V or Vee: a three-person relationship where one person is dating the other two, but the other two are not dating each other.

Metamour: a partner of your partner's

Please note there are a lot of words for specific polycules (like triad and V) I'm not even going to touch on here. It gets really complicated really fast, and you can worry about those once you've got your feet wet 😂

Because the point is not, in my opinion, to pick a "shape" you want for you love life, but to have an idea of what sort of dynamic you want. Its very important, so I am once again going to tack on the disclaimer once again that you don't have to have these answers. And if you think you have an answer, but change your mind later after experimenting, that's totally okay, too. You're living your life, and life doesn't always have simple answers. Its just a little more convenient if you can describe to (potential) partners what you're looking for.

My goal is to describe some broad options so you have a better understanding of some different ways things can look. Then hopefully you can sort out what you're chill with.

These are paired as "versus" but in reality they are are spectrums. In any real relationship there will be middle ground and negotiations to be had.

Hierarchical vs. Non-hierarchical

In Hierarchical polyamory, you have one primary partner who is most important to you. They will take up more of your time, love, attention, etc than your other partner(s). For example, this may look like a man having a wife, who he lives with, plans on having children with, and consults for major life decisions, as well as a girlfriend he sees a couple times a week and loves, but never plans to progress the relationship beyond that. He will likely prioritize his wife's wishes over his girlfriend's when there are conflicts

In non-hierarchical polyamory, you don't rank partners. Different relationships are considered to be roughly/functionally equal to you. Examples of this might be a triad, where all the partners live together and make major decisions as a team, or it might be a relationship anarchy sort of thing. Relationship anarchy is by its nature hard to define, but it focuses on setting rules/understandings with individual partners based on each unique relationship.

Kitchen Table Polyamory vs Parrallel Polyamory

Predictably, kitchen table polyamory is when all involved parties can regularly "sit around a kitchen table together." Everyone knows their metamours personally, at least, and may also consider them friends or start dating them as well. This can also become what I call a "poly commune" situation where everyone ends up co-habitating or even raising children together.

Opposite of this is parallel polyamory, so named because your various relationships never "intersect." Your partners all know the others exist, but aren't expected to meet each other or interact. This might look like a married couple who have laid out rules for who and how the other person is allowed to date, but otherwise have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on other relationships, or it might look a woman who dates several other people semi-casually and will reference them to each other but just feels its easier if they don't meet (or a lot of other things. The examples I list for this whole thing could never be exhaustive.).

I've also seen references to garden-party or birthday-party polyamory, which is sort of in between the other two. The idea is, as you could probably guess, that regular interaction doesn't occur, but for big events like birthday parties, you invite multiple partners. So in our example earlier of the man with a wife and a girlfriend, the wife and the girlfriend might see each other a couple times a year, for the man's birthday and his famous [big sporting event] party.

Degree of "Openness"

What sort of limitations do you have on who you date/sleep with? For example, you may only be allowed to date within the existing polycule (this is called "polyfidelity") (triads are stereotypically depicted as being "closed" in this way). You may have a relationship anarchy situation where you're allowed to date or have sex with anyone you want no questions asked. Maybe you're in a committed relationship with a primary and they want you to check in and talk it over before dating someone new, and you have an agreement to always use condoms with anyone but your primary. Maybe you and your primary are only wanting to date together. Maybe you have a partner who is fine with you dating anyone but their friends.

Polyamory vs Open Relationship or Swinging

Basically, are you loving other people or is it sex-only. I'm not going to get into it too deep here since you're on a poly blog, but if you haven't yet, you might take some time to figure out if what you want isn't just sexual freedom in an otherwise monogamous romance.

So that's a lot, but I think its a pretty good synopsis of common ways polyamory can manifest. As mentioned before, these are all spectrums, and its likely you or your partner(s) will have their own little caveats. You can also be in multiple of these at a time! You may have one partner who doesn't want to meet your other partners, and several other partners who all like to come kick it on your couch together. I encourage you though to imagine which of these you'd be comfortable with. Some people, for example, feel very strongly that they either need to know or not know who their partner is dating. Its really important as you go through this process to sit through your feelings without judgement and to communicate clearly with all your (potential) partners. (You'll also want to be able to listen to their feelings without judgement, even when its difficult to hear, but start with yourself.)

Phew! I hope that covers it. Or covers it well enough you have some stuff to sit and think on or research independently. I know its a lot. But there are so many people who are willing to help you figure it out, myself included, so feel free to send as many questions as you have. Welcome~ 💙❤️🖤

#about polyamory #ask box is always open #poly relationships #poly vocab

23 notes · View notes

naynay5155 · 3 years

Text

C!Tommy’s Storyline With C!Dream Is A Very Concerning Depiction Of Abuse

Wild Title

Okay, I’m sure that this probably isn’t too new information for anyone paying attention to the overall story of the DreamSMP, especially C!Tommy’s storyline, but I figured I’d give my two cents for this anyways.

C!Tommy is an Abuse Victim who has gone through horrific stuff at the hands of C!Dream. This is not an arguable fact. regardless of if C!Dream had reasons for doing what he did, if C!Dream also later gets abused, or if ultimately the abuse portrayal could be considered in some ways flawed or unrealistic, that stuff doesn’t ultimately matter. Because we’ve seen what happened to C!Tommy during Exile, have seen the physical, emotional, and mental abuse he was put through. Just because they won’t call it Abuse doesn’t mean it isn’t Abuse.

Now, C!Tommy being an abuse victim is an interesting idea from a storytelling perspective. It has a lot of potential to lead to genuine character development, or to affect relationships and story beats in interesting ways. And it could be an interesting way to really say something about abuse and coping with it.

And to an extent, an argument could be made that it has, though I’d argue the exact way those are handled in canon, but not the point. The point is, abuse is not just something that you get to gloss over. If you want to include themes of abuse in the story, a story you are making available to the public for millions to see, then there needs to be a clear and obvious message being portrayed with including abuse in the story. Preferably, that abuse is bad, and can have majorly negative effects on anyone, especially children. We don’t always get that lucky, but whatever.

But, from my months of watching the story of the DreamSMP, and trust me I’ve been here a long while, I haven’t seen C!Tommy’s abuse being handled very... well. I could, of course, be wrong in some aspects, and maybe be misremembering stuff since this dumpster fire has been happening for a year now, and feel free to correct me or bring up more points if you know something I don’t. But, I still think that overall, I have a point of view that should be considered.

So basically, C!Tommy is an abuse victim, right? this is easy to see, very obvious in the way he acts and behaves. Or... is it?

Abuse is a complex topic and one that, in real life, presents itself in all sorts of forms. Many abuse victims were raised in unloving homes and ended up becoming more vulnerable to abuse later on in life as a result of that. Others never properly learned how to express emotions or turn people down and got taken advantage of. Others were abused from the start, and develop various ways of coping and dealing with that, even ways that they might not be fully conscious of themselves. Abuse is not a one-way street, it could hardly be considered a street at all given how diverse and differing the people who experience it end up developing into are.

So I’m not saying that, if C!Tommy were a real person, that he isn’t “Being traumatized enough” or that “Why isn’t he more like what I expect him to be like?”. That is not what I’m saying at all.

What I am saying, is that C!Tommy is a fictional character who exists within a narrative, a story. And in a good story, consistency is half the battle. I, as the audience consuming the story, need to be able to look at C!Tommy and pick up on and understand the effects abuse has had on him. And these effects need to be consistent, otherwise, as an audience member, I’m going to get confused and start having questions about why he acts one way here but doesn’t somewhere else.

I also need to be able to clearly see and understand, by being given narrative stepping stones, if something is changing for his character.

As the saying goes, “Show don’t tell”. C!Tommy can’t just say he “Goes to Puffy for Therapy” offhandedly one time, as a means of handwaving away why he doesn’t really consistently act as traumatized as he used to even though it’s literally only been a few weeks, or months at most. To explain how he can jump back between being really sad and depressed about something, to joking about Women and Twitter. It seems weird if he’s able to just so seamlessly, so effortlessly, go back and forth. Almost as if he’s bouncing between OOC and IC, but that’s a whole other discussion.

Sure, C!Tommy is representing real mental health issues, but he is, ultimately a Fictional Character existing in a story. I need to be given signs, proof, foreshadowing, to explain when he has certain reactions and behaviours in order to understand his character. And these need to be consistent, otherwise we get plotholes and general confusion.

I criticize the inconsistency and the offscreen handwaving because it’s generally not very good writing. It’s the same reason I disliked Eret’s basically off-screen-sort-of-redemption-arc. It’s the same reason people dislike it when Villains of previous seasons suddenly come back as fully reformed good guys for seemingly no reason. There is no arc, no development, no progress is shown to us.

Because when you’re telling a story about a character having some major change or developing in some way, or having an important character trait, if I don’t see it on screen, then it didn’t happen. How am I supposed to root for C!Tommy’s progress, or understand what he’s doing to progress, if a never see his coping mechanisms? His therapy appointments?

You can’t just say something, or inconsistently portray something, and expect me to jump through hoops to connect these nearly transparent dots that keep getting thrown around.

Show don’t tell. Show me Tommy getting better, because otherwise you’re just telling me he made character development, and showing me this completely different character as proof. No, last I remembered C!Tommy was having panic attacks and yelling when C!Dream was even mentioned. You can’t tell me that a day later he can interact normally after days of being in the prison and a month of being dead.

Or, if you are gonna have him flip flop back and forth, don’t have it be so sudden and jarring, give an explanation. Is he faking being fine? Does he have memory issues? C!Tommy doesn’t read to me as the type who’s good at suppressing his emotions, he wears his heart on his sleeve. So you’re going to have to explain, clearly, in a way that isn’t ambiguous, what’s happening with C!Tommy here.

You’re not really saying anything about the abuse C!Tommy goes through, if all of that trauma is automatically wiped from the story when the writers get too lazy or too scared to keep it in. At best, you are showing abuse and trauma for the sole purpose of showing it, with no intention of properly dealing with and addressing it in the story. At worst, you are basically just doing torture porn.

Pain, Hurt, Trauma for the sake of it. Not with any goal in mind. Just for the drama of it, or to hurt the audience.

And then your audience is just supposed to take that content in uncritically, and they gain no true understanding of how abuse victims survive and cope after their traumatic treatment.

Exile Arc sure did a good job at making C!Tommy suffer. But as soon as that arc ended, a lot of the stuff that happened in it went completely glossed over and unaddressed for a long while. That might have been fine in the lead-up to Doomsday, since a lot of plot stuff had been going on and stopping to handle C!Tommy’s issues might (Might is heavily doubted cause it certainly isn’t impossible) mess with the pacing a bit. But then after Doomsday, there isn’t really any excuse to put it off. Because nothing was really happening for a good while, and nobody had anything to do plotwise.

And this became even more true with C!Dream being locked in Prison. Nothing was really happening, so what was stopping the story from taking the time to properly discuss and deal with this stuff?

Well, nothing really. So, the Hotel Arc happened. And oh boy, was it a mess.

So, C!Tommy being angry at C!Dream for the abuse and trauma he has suffered at Dream’s hand isn’t an issue. It’s an incredibly common thing for victims to feel angry at their abusers, and to even go so far as to wish for vengeance against them in some way. And that’s a totally valid and fine feeling.

You’re hurting, you’re scared, you’re in pain. I get that. When we’re hurting, we don’t always act rationally or healthily.

But, ultimately, that rage, and hurt, and want for vengeance is not a healthy thing to hold onto. In many circumstances with an abuse victim wanting to inflict pain back on their abuser, we run into various problems.

For one, getting vengeance on your abuser is quite frequently going to give you more emotional pain than it will fulfilment. Especially if you are young, or are letting this want for vengeance take over your entire livelihood. It does you no good ultimately, to attempt to bring pain to the person who hurt you, because not only will you often be unsuccessful, you frequently won’t find emotional healing and stability in that.

(The only exception to this rule being if ignoring them or moving on from them isn’t an option for you right now.)

Actions have consequences, and if you invest more time in that person who hurt you, then you have no time to work on yourself or the relationships around you. You have no time to heal, and this can become self-destructive.

Spending time around an abuser, as a victim, is in all likelihood just going to upset you more. You’re retraumatizing yourself by spending time around them, and as you make attempts to give them their comeuppance, you could possibly end up internalizing the methods they used on you, and just end up perpetuating the cycle of abuse again.

And even if you have no problem with doing that to this particular person, consider how fully internalizing these abusive behaviours could affect your friends or family. Frequently, even when they don’t mean to, abuse victims can internalize the things that they went through and then use those same behaviours against people in their life later on. Being shitty to your support system because of what you went through isn’t a good move, for you or them.

Basically just, an Abuse Victim has more to gain from working on themselves while finding ways to heal and overcome their trauma and abuse, than they do spending their time and energy on the abuser. Its frequently unhealthy, distressing, and self-destructive to indulge in that too much.

(Of course, I don’t speak for everyone, but from what iIve looked into and seen, this is the healthiest method of actually healing from your abuse. That doesn’t mean you just... leave your abuser alone and never address or talk about what they did, you don’t let them get away with it, of course not. It just means you don’t waste your mental well being and time obsessing over someone, especially someone who has hurt you so much.

You deserve better than that. You deserve to heal.)

Now, let’s get back to C!Tommy.

C!Tommy, instead of finding a proper means of coping with his issues (proper therapy, diagnosis for his issues, forming and maintaining healthy support systems, focusing on things he loves, etc) is shown to repeatedly focus back on C!Dream. When he was making Big Innit Hotel, it did seem like he was to an extent finding ways to cope with his shit. He was still kinda shitty and his hotel was not exactly made and run by the most morally great standards, though I suppose I can’t expect too much when he is a very traumatized teen and doesn’t really know what he’s doing.

But, ultimately, this all fell apart when he got locked in Pandora’s Vault with C!Dream. Arguably, it was already falling apart the moment he decided to keep pursuing C!Dream even when he was locked up.

See, the thing is, C!Tommy can never just… have trauma. Having trauma that he can healthily and methodically work through is something that for him as a Character, is basically impossible. His character is an angry one, one built on spite and childishness, and who holds the mantle, unfortunately, of “Spunky Male Protagonist In A YA Novel”. So, his mental health issues can never just be a struggle he has to cope with, especially not when the DreamSMP can never seem to have anything between “A lot is happening right now omg” or “Literally nothing is happening and nobody is playing on the server at all omg”.

Instead, his issues have to be seen as a battle, and they fuel the narrative of the story. Him having been abused by C!Dream cannot just exist as a thing that he as a person has to work through slowly with the help of others around him. It has to be seen as this Epic Triumph Against Evil, another battle of Tommyinnit VS Dream on the DreamSMP, a classic Villain versus Hero fight.

This, of course, isn’t too great. By C!Tommy’s abuse plotline being framed in this manner, it makes it so that C!Tommy is constantly obsessing over his abuser and recklessly throwing himself into dangerous and triggering situations is some attempt at an “Epic Battle With Evil”, rather than this being treated like the self-harm it actually is. And yes, it is self-harm, a form of it.

C!Tommy uses his trauma and issues as fuel for the story, making it so that its impossible for him to truly progress and a character, and the moment he does start growing, he has to get retraumatized again so he goes right back to where he was.

C!Tommy does not become a better person when he’s around C!Dream, nor does he find any form of fulfilment in being around him. He gets shaky and panicky at just the sight of him. He regularly has violent and explosive outbursts at just the mention of him. When C!Dream talks to him, he gets nervous and basically can’t help but listen due to conditioning he still listens to.

When C!Tommy went to go visit C!Dream the first time in Pandora’s Vault, he brought with him stacks of TnT. He did it because he wanted to mimic what C!Dream had done to him in Exile, where he would take all of C!Tommy’s newly gained items and blow them up underground for dramatic effect.

C!Dream did this for control over C!Tommy, to manipulate him, for his suffering.

And C!Tommy wanted to do this to C!Dream, because he was feeling vindictive.

When C!Tommy got into the prison, he mocked C!Dream, hit him repeatedly, and tried to boss him around. He made him write ridiculous books and verbally berated the man. He did this in a feeble attempt to gain some feeling of control over C!Dream. This, evidently, did not work. At best his success was momentary. And this sense of achievement he gained was gained through projecting his abuse trauma onto someone else.

He repeated the cycle.

After he got brought back from the dead and let out of the prison, he was much much worse. C!Tommy was now paranoid, anxious, constantly thinking about C!Dream, and had his mindset solely on getting revenge on him, by killing him.

It got so bad, he ended up doing lacklustre “Exposure Therapy” to help himself not panic when he went into Pandora’s Vault to kill C!Dream. It got so bad he dragged C!Tubbo and C!Ranboo into this, putting them in danger and putting more pressure on another two teenagers’ shoulders.

It got so bad, that Ghostbur died, C!Sam closed off even more, and C!Wilbur came back.

Objectively, C!Tommy leaving C!Dream alone would be the better thing for everyone. And yet he keeps repeating the cycle. Because C!Tommy is not meant to grow, learn and heal. He is made to suffer.

The problem is not so much showing an unhealthy depiction of a mentally ill or traumatized person. Because trauma and mental illness and the effects of abuse are not always pretty, and they shouldn’t always have to be portrayed and pretty or sympathetic to be accurate.

It becomes a problem when you get this depiction of C!Tommy’s coping being presented uncritically to an audience of a lot of underaged and young people.

Nobody in canon, whether they be adults or fellow teens, has ever tried to question C!Tommy’s methods for coping. C!Ranboo and C!Tubbo just limply went along with his plans for Exposure Therapy with no consideration of if this was a good idea. No adults really offer to genuinely step in and help C!Tommy deal with his shit, and the ones that do leave him or get corrupted in some way, often leaving him with more trauma as they do.

C!Puffy’s therapy methods are dubious at best, and the most we ever see of her actually helping C!Tommy is her humouring his toxic behaviours, and C!Tommy making offhanded mentions to vague therapists appointments we never see.

C!Technoblade stopped giving a shit as soon as C!Tommy walked off the screen. C!Wilbur was dead, and now that he isn’t he certainly isn’t helping C!Tommy. C!Phil isn’t C!Tommy’s dad and has no obligation to do anything for him as a result. C!Ranboo has the backbone of a chocolate eclair. C!Tubbo is too busy repressing his own trauma to help C!Tommy with his. C!Sam is being ruled by the prison and C!Quackity. C!Quackity has become an Ancap.

Nobody in this story is a reliable or trusted person to C!Tommy, who could properly tell him his methods are unhealthy and give him better alternatives. And as a result, nobody is able to tell the audience that C!Tommy is wrong

Unreliable Narrators are only effective when the narrative in some way has their unreliableness pointed out or proven to the audience. If you go into a story with the assumption that everybody watching will be able to see past C!Tommy’s POV and not take him at face value, then you are naive. Especially when this fandom is made up of many teens and children.

I only know C!Tommy’s methods are unhealthy because I care way too much and do my research. A vast majority of the world doesn’t have the same understanding and education on these topics, especially not children and teenagers. A good chunk of people, especially neurodivergent and mentally ill people, could very well take the story at face value and automatically assume that what Tommy’s doing is actually a good coping mechanism because they don’t know any better.

There is no clarification or safety net for preventing misinterpretation. And being of the opinion that “Well, they should know better than to trust a bunch of Minecraft Youtubers for this stuff” or “We can’t expect them to be psychologists! You expect too much” is just… not helping.

Because I shouldn’t have to explain why children and teenagers, especially those that are using these people to cope, are not always going to make level-headed and common-sense decisions. They will be influenced by these Content Creators, whether we think it’s “Stupid” or not.

And I can say with certainty that, while yes, this might be a bit much to expect from a bunch of British/American white guys who play Minecraft to handle, may I also point out that nobody fucking made them put this stuff in the story. There are ways to write a story without stepping outside of your realm of true understanding. Nobody begged these MCYTs to go and make torture porn for a 16 year old, nobody asked them to touch on topics they have no fucking clue about.

They put that in themselves. And we have the right to point out the problems and flaws in it, and criticize them for not handling this stuff better.

You don’t start applying for a job you don’t meet the requirements for. You don’t start an expensive project you can’t finish.

You don’t include elements in a story you aren’t willing to fully go through with and address in a proper and sensitive way.

#hope this makes sense #dreamsmp roleplay #dream smp critical #dreamsmp #dream smp #character analysis #c!tommy #c!dream #tw abuse discussion #tw abuse #negativity #dsmp critical #critical dsmp

379 notes · View notes

smhalltheurlsaretaken · 3 years

Note

Sorry but what exactly is up with the bad batch arc? I've heard people talk about the issues with echo's white skin but I haven't heard that many bad things about the arc itself? (ik you said you don't want to be negative on your blog so I would absolutely understand if you didn't answer this ask)

Oooooooooooh boy. Well I just had a long, long, LONG rant about it with someone, but I guess I’ve got an excuse to put all of my points onto a post and talk about it publicly now that I got an ask x) I’ll keep it under the cut so I don’t throw my salt in people’s face. I really don’t want to upset people who love that arc - it has redeeming qualities, but overall it pisses me off so much for so many reasons. So here:

The first issue is obviously two members of the Bad Batch (minus Echo) being being just about the furthest thing from maori no matter how much you're willing to stretch it.

Like... yeah, nah. I wouldn’t even accept Crosshair and Tech (grey haired guy and goggles guy) as Jango’s natural biological sons, nevermind as his clones.

The problem is that their different appearances are justified by them being described simply as clones with desirable mutations (i.e superpowers). But why the hell did the creators have to change their appearances for that to be a thing? How does that correlate? Sure, the concept of clones with different faces is interesting, except... no, no it’s not, and I’m gonna rant about it in a few secs. But basically it's like they thought giving them different faces would be a good substitute for having different personalities (another thing I’ll come back to). If they really wanted to have buff clones with super eyesight or whatnot they could have just done that, without making them lose what little melanin the lighting of the show had allowed the other Clones to keep.

But the gigantic problem is... showing that the "regular" clones have VERY distinct identities despite their identical faces has been one of the themes of the show from episode 1. Literally, the first episode of TCW has Yoda taking time out of a mission with galactic stakes to tell the three clones he’s with (who tell him they’re all the same because they have the same faces) that they’re wrong, and that they’re very different in the Force, that their appearance doesn’t matter, that they’re all equally unique and important, and he lists all of their individual skills, strengths and weaknesses.

And it’s not just me being bothered by that, here’s a post by @cacodaemonia saying the same thing.

Introducing the Bad Batch as "unique" clones who are "different" and "not like their brothers" because they have different faces and skills completely breaks that theme of the show!! Because the entire point of the Clones in TCW is that their faces don't matter, they ARE unique!

(Plus the Bad Batch’s character designs are so cliche and uninspired it’s just laughable to try and justify bleaching their freaking skin for the sake of visual diversity.

This took like 10 seconds. I found the first guy by literally googling “soldier movies,” and the other two are Team Fortress characters that look a LOT like Wrecker and Crosshair. One is “Heavy” and one is “Sniper” lmao.

And behold:

The above picture is a Team Fortress reference that I found just by looking up “bad batch clone wars,” so I’m not the only person who sees it.)

And the batchers don't even have personalities to justify calling them unique! They have no character traits beyond the most cliché american soldier tropes ever. We have a token loner sniper, a token "smart tech guy" who knows everything from xenoanthropology to biology to Separatist computers to sound waves to encryption, a token Badass Brooding Leader and a token “dumb muscle guy.”

I dare anyone to find more about their personalities than this: - Crosshair is the perpetually grumpy sniper who looks down on "regs,” - Wrecker likes to blow up stuff and doesn't like heights, - Hunter is the leader and is friends with Cody, - Tech is smart doesn't trust Echo.

That’s it, that’s literally it. Four episodes about them and that's all we get. These character tropes are literally the least inventive ever. FFS, Hunter even has a freaking KNIFE! Not a vibroblade, mind you, like in kriffing Star Wars. A knife. Against metal droids. Why. They couldn’t make this more of an american-war-movies cliché fest if they tried. (And sure, he can feel electromagnetic waves so maybe it does make sense for him not to carry a vibroblade and maybe this is nitpicking, but he looks like a ripoff of a Predator character and it pisses me off).

Another thing is that when you introduce characters you have to make them likable - and them despising the normal Clones is a terrible way to do that! And they don't even grow from that because at the end of the 4 episodes arc they just see Rex as not bad "for a reg" and they see Echo as no longer a reg, and both of these things are infuriating!

The worst thing imo is that Echo then becomes part of them (and irreparably loses his melanin in the process, uuuuuuuuugh) when there is nothing to justify this.

The dialogue goes like this:

ECHO: You coming? TECH: Not really our thing. CROSSHAIR: Accolades. WRECKER: Yeah, we're just in it for the thrill. Yo! HUNTER: You sure it's your thing? ECHO: What do you mean? HUNTER: Your path is different. Like ours. If you ever feel like you don't fit in with them, well, find us. (they leave) REX: Those are some of the finest troopers I've ever fought alongside. Echo. You and I go way back. If that's where you feel your place is, then that's where you belong.

Echo doesn't feel like he belongs anymore, okay, but why would he feel like he belongs with the assholes who up to the last five minutes of the mission thought he was probably a traitor, and also verbally expressed that he was not worth saving?? In all of the arc, Echo himself never voices that he feels he’s not ‘like the other Clones’ anymore and that he feels it’s a problem. His relationship with Rex immediately picks up where they left things off - the first thing he does upon being lucid again for the first in over a year is cracking a joke for Rex’s benefit.

Why would Echo feel like he doesn’t belong in the 501st anymore, when we don't even see him interacting with anyone from his past life except for Rex and Anakin (who are both extremely very supportive of him)?? If there had been one scene of a “regular” Clone (ugh) looking at him with horror and disgust or something, or just Kix and Jesse cracking jokes with Echo awkwardly standing by the side not getting it, I could forgive the show trying to make it feel like he has an identity crisis, but this was so shallow!

The only thing that makes Echo and the Bad Batch’s experiences similar is that they *look* different. It’s so against the themes of the Clones I’m seething just from thinking about it. And what the hell? Echo ALREADY didn’t fit in. That was the WHOLE POINT of Domino Squad. They didn’t fit in because they thought they were better than anyone else because they had trouble getting along with their brothers, so obviously it had to be their brothers’ fault (ahem, Bad Batch?). And you know what happened? Domino Squad OVERCAME that. And Echo and Fives still didn’t “fit in” because their personalities were unique and creative, and they became ARC Troopers because Cody, Rex and the Jedi VALUED THEM FOR PRECISELY THAT. Echo having new and unique skills and a modified appearance is the most bs justification for him feeling like he doesn’t belong!!

And that brings me to my biggest issue: Rex telling Echo the bad batch are some of the best troopers he's ever met. I'm sorry, based on WHAT? What Rex values above everything is loyalty and brotherhood, and the Bad Batch DOESN'T DISPLAY ANY OF THAT. We never see them even expressing concern for each other! Wrecker treats saving Cody’s life like a trivial issue, because it’s just ‘sO eAsY’ for him, and beyond that we never see them supporting each other or genuinely expressing affection for each other beyond boasting about each other’s skills...

Sure they can destroy a lot of droids, but they're dismissive of Rex's brothers, and the entire Umbara arc and this arc showed what he thought of that. They keep saying things like "not bad for a reg,” don't show any trust in Rex's skills or experience (even though they can't have been fighting in the war for more than a year and a half when he’s been there from the beginning, and he outranks all of them), they are essentially guerilla fighters which has only minimal value in a galactic war, and they never grow beyond their views of what regs are, and can and can’t do.

None of that should make them good troopers in Rex's book. Going back to Echo not fitting in, remember who taught the Domino Squad the importance of seeing all of your brothers as important and equally valuable? Shaak Ti, true, but more importantly? 99! The guy the Bad Batch are named after. He did have value and was important and was no less of a trooper than his brothers, even though his mutations made him LESS powerful, not more. (And btw, just from a writing standpoint, the batchers don’t have any weaknesses, which is shit.) Cody and Rex mourned 99 as a true soldier even though it wasn’t his sacrifice that brought them victory (which would have implied that he had value as a soldier and a brother because he saved them, as opposed to him having that value intrinsically), because that’s what a fine trooper is to them. A BROTHER first a foremost, someone altruistic, brave and loyal. The Bad Batch distort the meaning of 99's character with their behavior. They’re not altruistic, their bravery is mitigated by the fact that they’re freaking invincible, so of course they take risks (again, see Wrecker saving Cody without a care because it’s easy to him, as opposed to Rex being ready to run into a burning ship about to explode because his brother is in there, and having to be physically dragged away). The Bad Batch denigrate their brothers for being less skilled, thinking their own abilities make them unique somehow, when 99 could barely fight and was still the one who taught Hevy about being a good soldier.

And again the batchers don't grow from that. Which is all the more frustrating because the original ending didn’t have Echo joining them, from what I remember of the unfinished episodes, and the arc actually ended with them receiving their medals in front of regular troopers who cheer for them, as opposed to them smugly ostracizing themselves and dismissing the ceremony as trivial and meaningless. (original ending vs s7 ending: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab1eCfzKamw)

It’s so annoying. Do you know what characters never had an entire arc dedicated to them and still have far more personality and more interesting designs and more symbolic weight??

Jesse, for starters. Kix. Dogma. Cut. Slick. Keeli. Ponds. Rys, Jek and Thire. Commander Doom. Commander Fox. Wolffe. Hevy. Hardcase.

Cody was a more interesting character just in his RotS appearances.

Waxer and Boil had one episode about them and then only two cameos plus Waxer’s death, and they’re still some of the most memorable, beloved Clones of the whole show. And Boil was grouchy and prejudiced like Crosshair, but he has so much growth that we could make a whole thread about it.

I'd say the last problem with the Bad Batch is that it has cash grabbing money hungry vibes. Different faces are more marketable, cliché personalities are more toy-friendly, and it's basically a big ad for the Bad Batch series. And they throw Echo in the Batch at the end for bs reasons (again, it wasn’t in the original ep from what I remember) and they tease Cody in the show to make sure fans will still watch even if they notice the lack of soul. And less melanin sells more at Disney apparently.

So that’s my whole pissed rant.

520 notes · View notes

ganymedesclock · 3 years

Note

These are questions I've had for some while and it's hard to find someone who'll answer with grace. This mostly relates to disabilities (mental or physical) in fiction.

1) What makes a portrayal of a disability that's harming the character in question ableist?

2) Is there a way to write a disabled villain in a way that isn't ableist?

In the circles I've been in, the common conceptions are you can't use a character's disability as a plot point or showcase it being a hindrance in some manner. heaven forbid you make your villain disabled in some capacity, that's a freaking death sentence to a creative's image. I understand historically villains were the only characters given disabilities, but (and this is my personal experience) I've not seen as many disabled villains nowadays, heck, I see more disabled heroes in media nowadays.

Sorry if this comes off as abrasive, I'd really like to be informed for future media consumption and my own creative endeavors.

Okay so the first thing I'm going to say is that while it IS a good idea to talk to disabled people and get their feedback, disabled people are not a monolith and they aren't going to all have the same take on how this goes.

My personal take is biased in favor that I'm a neurodivergent person (ADHD and autism) who has no real experience with physical disabilities, so I won't speak for physically disabled people- heck, I won't even speak for every neurotype. Like I say, people aren't a monolith.

For myself and my own writing of disabled characters, here's a couple of concepts I stick by:

Research is your friend

Think about broad conventions of ableism

Be mindful of cast composition

1. Research is your friend

Yeah this is the thing everybody says, so here's the main bases I try to cover:

What's the story on this character's disability?

Less in terms of 'tragic angst' and more, what kind of condition this is- because a congenital amputee (that is to say, someone who was born without a limb) will have a different relationship to said limb absence than someone who lost their limb years ago to someone who lost their limb yesterday. How did people in their life respond to it, and how did they respond to it? These responses are not "natural" and will not be the same to every person with every worldview. This can also be a great environment to do worldbuilding in! Think about the movie (and the tv series) How To Train Your Dragon. The vikings in that setting don't have access to modern medicine, and they're, well, literally fighting dragons and other vikings. The instance of disability is high, and the medical terminology to talk about said disabilities is fairly lackluster- but in a context where you need every man you possibly can to avoid the winter, the mindset is going to be not necessarily very correct, but egalitarian. You live in a village of twenty people and know a guy who took a nasty blow to the head and hasn't quite been the same ever since? "Traumatic Brain Injury" is probably not going to be on your lips, but you're also probably going to just make whatever peace you need to and figure out how to accommodate Old Byron for his occasional inability to find the right word, stammers and trembles. In this example, there are several relevant pieces of information- what the character's disability is (aphasia), how they got it (brain injury), and the culture and climate around it (every man has to work, and we can't make more men or throw them away very easily, so, how can we make sure this person can work even if we don't know what's wrong with them)

And that dovetails into:

What's the real history, and modern understandings, of this?

This is where "knowing the story" helps a lot. To keep positing our hypothetical viking with a brain injury, I can look into brain injuries, what affects their extent and prognosis, and maybe even beliefs about this from the time period and setting I'm thinking of (because people have had brains, and brain injuries, the entire time!) Sure, if the setting is fantastical, I have wiggle room, but looking at inspirations might give me a guide post.

Having a name for your disorder also lets you look for posts made by specific people who live with the condition talking about their lives. This is super, super important for conditions stereotyped as really scary, like schizophrenia or narcissistic personality disorder. Even if you already know "schizophrenic people are real and normal" it's still a good thing to wake yourself up and connect with others.

2. Think about broad conventions of ableism

It CAN seem very daunting or intimidating to stay ahead of every single possible condition that could affect someone's body and mind and the specific stereotypes to avoid- there's a lot under the vast umbrella of human experience and we're learning more all the time! A good hallmark is, ableism has a few broad tendencies, and when you see those tendencies rear their head, in your own thinking or in accounts you read by others, it's good to put your skeptical glasses on and look closer. Here's a few that I tend to watch out for:

Failing the “heartwarming dog” test

This was a piece of sage wisdom that passed my eyeballs, became accepted as sage wisdom, and my brain magnificently failed to recall where I saw it. Basically, if you could replace your disabled character with a lovable pet who might need a procedure to save them, and it wouldn’t change the plot, that’s something to look into.

Disability activists speak often about infantilization, and this is a big thing of what they mean- a lot of casual ableism considers disabled people as basically belonging to, or being a burden onto, the able-bodied and neurotypical. This doesn’t necessarily even need to have an able neurotypical in the picture- a personal experience I had that was extremely hurtful was at a point in high school, I decided to do some research on autism for a school project. As an autistic teenager looking up resources online, I was very upset to realize that every single resource I accessed at the time presumed it was talking to a neurotypical parent about their helpless autistic child. I was looking for resources to myself, yet made to feel like I was the subject in a conversation.

Likewise, many wheelchair users have relayed the experience of, when they, in their chair, are in an environment accompanied by someone else who isn’t using a chair, strangers would speak to the standing person exclusively, avoiding addressing the chair user.

It’s important to always remind yourself that at no point do disabled people stop being people. Yes, even people who have facial deformities; yes, even people who need help using the bathroom; yes, even people who drool; yes, even people whose conditions impact their ability to communicate, yes, even people with cognitive disabilities. They are people, they deserve dignity, and they are not “a child trapped in a 27-year-old body”- a disabled adult is still an adult. All of the “trying to learn the right rules” in the world won’t save you if you keep an underlying fear of non-normative bodies and minds.

This also has a modest overlap between disability and sexuality in particular. I am an autistic grayromantic ace. Absolutely none of my choices or inclinations about sex are because I’m too naive or innocent or childlike to comprehend the notion- disabled people have as diverse a relationship with sexuality as any other. That underlying fear- as mentioned before- can prevent many people from imagining that, say, a wheelchair user might enjoy sex and have experience with it. Make sure all of your disabled characters have full internal worlds.

Poor sickly little Tiffany and the Red Right Hand

A big part of fictional ableism is that it separates the disabled into two categories. Anybody who’s used TVTropes would recognize the latter term I used here. But to keep it brief:

Poor, sickly little Tiffany is cute. Vulnerable. How her disability affects her life is that it constantly creates a pall of suffering that she lives beneath. After all, having a non-normative mind or body must be an endless cavalcade of suffering and tragedy, right? People who are disabled clearly spend their every waking moment affected by, and upset, that they aren’t normal!

The answer is... No, actually. Cut the sad violin; even people who have chronic pain who are literally experiencing pain a lot more than the rest of us are still fully capable of living complex lives and being happy. If nothing else, it would be literally boring to feel nothing but awful, and people with major depression or other problems still, also, have complicated experiences. And yes, some of it’s not great. You don’t have to present every disability as disingenuously a joy to have. But make a point that they own these things. It is a very different feeling to have a concerned father looking through the window at his angel-faced daughter rocking sadly in her wheelchair while she stares longingly out the window, compared to a character waking up at midnight because they have to go do something and frustratedly hauling their body out of their bed into their chair to get going.

Poor Sickly Little Tiffany (PSLT, if you will) virtually always are young, and they virtually always are bound to the problems listed under ‘failing the heartwarming dog’ test. Yes, disabled kids exist, but the point I’m making here is that in the duality of the most widely accepted disabled characters, PSLT embodies the nadir of the Victim, who is so pure, so saintly, so gracious, that it can only be a cruel quirk of fate that she’s suffering. After all, it’s not as if disabled people have the same dignity that any neurotypical and able-bodied person has, where they can be an asshole and still expect other people to not seriously attack their quality of life- it’s a “service” for the neurotypical and able-bodied to “humor” them.

(this is a bad way to think. Either human lives matter or they don’t. There is no “wretched half-experience” here- if you wouldn’t bodily grab and yank around a person standing on their own feet, you have no business grabbing another person’s wheelchair)

On the opposite end- and relevant to your question- is the Red Right Hand. The Red Right Hand does not have PSLT’s innocence or “purity”- is the opposite extreme. The Red Right Hand is virtually always visually deformed, and framed as threatening for their visual deformity. To pick on a movie I like a fair amount, think about how in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, the title character is described- “Strong. Fast. Had a metal arm.” That’s a subtle example, but, think about how that metal arm is menacing. Sure, it’s a high tech weapon in a superhero genre- but who has the metal arm? The Winter Soldier, who is, while a tormented figure that ultimately becomes more heroic- scary. Aggressive. Out for blood.

The man who walks at midnight with a Red Right Hand is a signal to us that his character is foul because of the twisting of his body. A good person, we are led to believe, would not be so- or a good person would be ashamed of their deformity and work to hide it. The Red Right Hand is not merely “an evil disabled person”- they are a disabled person whose disability is depicted as symptomatic of their evil, twisted nature, and when you pair this trope with PSLT, it sends a message: “stay in your place, disabled people. Be sad, be consumable, and let us push you around and decide what to do with you. If you get uppity, if you have ideas, if you stand up to us, then the thing that made you a helpless little victim will suddenly make you a horrible monster, and justify us handling you with inhumanity.”

As someone who is a BIG fan of eldritch horror and many forms of unsettling “wrongness” it is extremely important to watch out for the Red Right Hand. Be careful how you talk about Villainous Disability- there is no connection between disability and morality. People will be good, bad, or simply just people entirely separate from their status of ability or disability. It’s just as ableist to depict every disabled person as an innocent good soul as it is to exclusively deal in grim and ghastly monsters.

Don’t justify disabilities and don’t destroy them.

Superpowers are cool. Characters can and IMO should have superpowers, as long as you’re writing a genre when they’re there.

BUT.

It’s important to remember that there is no justification for disabilities, because they don’t need one. Disability is simply a feature characters have. You do not need to go “they’re blind, BUT they can see the future”

This is admittedly shaky, and people can argue either way; the Blind Seer is a very pronounced mythological figure and an interesting philosophical point about what truly matters in the world. There’s a reason it exists as a conceit. But if every blind character is blind in a way that completely negates that disability or makes it meaningless- this sucks. People have been blind since the dawn of time. And people will always accommodate their disabilities in different ways. Even if the technology exists to fix some forms of blindness, there are people who will have “fixable” blindness and refuse to treat it. There will be individuals born blind who have no meaningful desire to modify this. And there are some people whose condition will be inoperable even if it “shouldn’t” be.

You don’t need to make your disabled characters excessively cool, or give them a means by which the audience can totally forget they’re disabled. Again, this is a place where strong worldbuilding is your buddy- a handwave of “x technology fixed all disabilities”, in my opinion, will never come off good. If, instead, however, you throw out a careless detail that the cool girl the main character is chatting up in a cyberpunk bar has an obvious spinal modification, and feature other characters with prosthetics and without- I will like your work a lot, actually. Even if you’re handing out a fictional “cure”- show the seams. Make it have drawbacks and pros and cons. A great example of this is in the series Full Metal Alchemist- the main character has two prosthetic limbs, and not only do these limbs come with problems, some mundane (he has phantom limb pains, and has to deal with outgrowing his prostheses or damaging them in combat) some more fantastical (these artificial limbs are connected to his nerves to function fluidly- which means that they get surgically installed with no anesthesia and hurt like fuck plugging in- and they require master engineering to stay in shape). We explicitly see a scene of the experts responsible for said limbs talking to a man who uses an ordinary prosthetic leg, despite the advantages of an automail limb, because these drawbacks are daunting to him and he is happier with a simple prosthetic leg.

Even in mundane accommodations you didn’t make up- no two wheelchair users use their chair the exact same way, and there’s a huge diversity of chairs. Someone might be legally blind but still navigate confidently on their own; they might use a guide dog, or they might use a cane. They might even change their needs from situation to situation!

Disability accommodations are part of life

This ties in heavily to the previous point, but seriously! Don’t just look up one model of cane and superimpose it with no modifications onto your character- think about what their lifestyle is, and what kind of person they are!

Also medication is not the devil. Yes, medical abuse is real and tragic and the medication is not magic fairy dust that solves all problems either. But also, it’s straight ableism to act like anybody needing pills for any reason is a scary edgy plot twist.

(and addiction is a disease. Please be careful, and moreover be compassionate, if you’re writing a character who’s an addict)

3. Be mindful of cast composition

This, to me, is a big tip about disability writing and it’s also super easy to implement!

Just make sure your cast has a lot of meaningful disabled characters in it!

Have you done all the work you can to try and dodge the Red Right Hand but you’re still worried your disabled villain is a bad look? They sure won’t look like a commentary on disability if three other people in the cast are disabled and don’t have the same outlook or role! Worried that you’re PSLT-ing your main character’s disabled child? Maybe the disability is hereditary and they got it from the main character!

The more disabled characters you have, the more it will challenge you to think about what their individual relationship is with the world and the less you’ll rely on hackneyed tropes. At least, ideally.

Ultimately, there’s no perfect silver bullet of diversity writing that will prevent a work from EVER being ableist, but I hope this helped, at least!

#disability #writing ruminations #readmore

190 notes · View notes

booklindworm · 3 years

Text

A rant against Karen Traviss' understanding of history and her FAQ answers

Did you base the Mandalorians on the Spartans?

<cite> No. I didn't. </cite> Fair enough.

<cite> I really wish history was taught properly - okay, taught at all - in schools these days, because history is the big storehouse that I plunder for fiction. It breaks my heart to hear from young readers who have no concept even of recent history - the last fifty years - and so can't see the parallels in my books. You don't have to be a historian to read my novels, but you'll get a lot more out of them if you explore history just a little more. Watch a history channel. Read a few books. Visit some museums. Because history is not "then" - it's "now." Everything we experience today is the product of what's happened before. </cite> Yeah, I do to. Please, Ms Traviss, go on, read some books. Might do you some good. And don't just trust the history channels. Their ideas about fact-checking differ wildly.

<cite> But back to Mandos. Not every military society is based on Sparta, strange as that may seem. In fact, the Mandos don't have much in common with the real Spartans at all. </cite> You mean apart from the absolute obsession with the military ["Agoge" by Stephen Hodkinson], fearsome reputation ["A Historical Commentary on Thucydides" by David Cartwright], their general-king ["Sparta" by Marcus Niebuhr Tod], the fact that they practically acted as mercenaries (like Clearch/Κλέαρχος), or the hyper-confidence ("the city is well-fortified that has a wall of men instead of brick" [Plutarch, Life of Lycurgus])...

<cite> A slightly anarchic, non-centralized, fightin' people? Sounded pretty Celtic to me. Since I went down that path, I've learned more about the Celts (especially the Picts), and the more I learn, the more I realise what a dead ringer for Mandos they are. But more of how that happened later... </cite>

The Celtic people are more than one people, more than one culture. Celtic is a language-family! In the last millennium BC nearly every European ethnic group was in some ways Celtic, and they were not one. Later, after the Germanic tribes (also not one people, or a singular group) moved westwards, the Celtic cultures were still counted in the hundreds. Not only Scotland was Celtic! Nearly all of Western Europe was (apart from the Greek and Phoenician settlers on the Mediterranean coasts). The word “Celts” was written down for the first time by Greek authors who later also used the word “Galatians”. The Romans called these people “Gauls”, and this word was used to describe a specific area, bordered by the Atlantic Ocean, the Cévennes and the Rhine: “Gaul”. So the Celts, the Galatians and the Gauls were all part of the same Celtic civilisation. "Celts, a name applied by ancient writers to a population group occupying lands mainly north of the Mediterranean region from Galicia in the west to Galatia in the east [] Their unity is recognizable by common speech and common artistic traditions" [Waldman & Mason 2006] Mirobrigenses qui Celtici cognominantur. Pliny the Elder, The Natural History; example: C(AIUS) PORCIUS SEVERUS MIROBRIGEN(SIS) CELT(ICUS) -> not just one culture "Their tribes and groups eventually ranged from the British Isles and northern Spain to as far east as Transylvania, the Black Sea coasts, and Galatia in Anatolia and were in part absorbed into the Roman Empire as Britons, Gauls, Boii, Galatians, and Celtiberians. Linguistically they survive in the modern Celtic speakers of Ireland, Highland Scotland, the Isle of Man, Wales, and Brittany." [Celtic Culture: a historical encyclopedia. by John Koch] "[] the individual CELTIC COUNTRIES and their languages, []" James, Simon (1999). The Atlantic Celts – Ancient People Or Modern Invention. University of Wisconsin Press. "All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae live, another in which the Aquitani live, and the third are those who in their own tongue are called Celtae, in our language Galli." [Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico] <= I had to translate that in school. It's tedious political propaganda. Read also the Comentarii and maybe the paper "Caesar's perception of Gallic social structures" that can be found in "Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State," Cambridge University Press. The Celtic tribes and nations were diverse. They were pretty organized, with an academic system, roads, trade, and laws. They were not anarchic in any way. They were not warriors - they were mostly farmers. The Celts were first and foremost farmers and livestock breeders

The basic economy of the Celts was mixed farming, and, except in times of unrest, single farmsteads were usual. Owing to the wide variations in terrain and climate, cattle raising was more important than cereal cultivation in some regions.

Suetonius addressing his legionaries said "They are not soldiers—they're not even properly equipped. We've beaten them before." [not entirely sure, but I think that was in Tacitus' Annals]

Regarding the Picts, in particular, which part of their history is "anarchic"? Dál Riata? the Kingdom of Alba? Or are you referring to the warriors that inspired the Hadrian's Wall? Because no one really knows in our days who the fuck they were. The Picts’ name first appears in 297 AD. That is later. <cite> Celts are a good fit with the kind of indomitable, you-can't-kill-'em-off vibe of the Mandos. Reviled by Rome as ignorant savages with no culture or science, and only fit for slaughter or conquest, the Celts were in fact much more civilized than Rome even by modern standards. </cite> That's how the Romans looked at pretty much every culture that wasn't Greek, Roman, Phoenician, Egyptian, or from Mesopotamia (read, if you want, anything Roman or Greek about the Skyths, the Huns, Vandals, Garamantes...).

<cite> They also kicked Roman arse on the battlefield, and were very hard to keep in line, so Rome did what all lying, greedy superpowers do when challenged: they demonized and dehumanized the enemy. (They still used them in their army, of course, but that's only to be expected.) </cite> They were hard to keep in line, but they most definitely did not kick Roman arse on the battlefield. Roman arse was kicked along the borders of the Roman Empire, such as the Rhine, the Danube, the Atlas mountains, etc. And mostly by actually badly organized, slightly anarchic groups, such as the Goths or the Huns (BTW the Huns were not a Germanic people, even though early 20th century British propaganda likes to say so). Though they were also decisively stopped by the Parthians. Who were very organized. Ah well. <cite> While Rome was still leaving its unwanted babies to die on rubbish dumps - a perfectly acceptable form of family planning to this "civilisation" - and keeping women as chattels devoid of rights, the barbarian Celts had a long-standing legal system that not only gave women what we would think of as equal rights, but also protected the rights of the elderly, children, and the disabled. They had a road network across Europe and worldwide trade long before the Romans ever got their act together. And their science - well, their astronomical calculations were so sophisticated that it takes computers to do the same stuff today. </cite> See? You even say yourself that they weren't actually anarchic. Also you're not completely right: 1. women (of most Celtic cultures, with one notable exception being the Irish) were not allowed to become druids, e.g. scientists, physicians, priests, or any other kind of academics, so they did not have equal rights. Also, as in other Indo-European systems, the family was patriarchal. 2. the roads they had were more like paths, and did not span the entirety of Europe; the old roads that are still in use are nearly all of them Roman. Had the Celtic inhabitants of Gallia or Britannia built comparable roads, why would the Romans have invested in building a new system on top? 3. world-wide? Yeah, right. They traded with those who traded with others and so were able to trade with most of southern Eurasia and northern Africa, as well as few northern parts (Balticum, Rus), but that's (surprise) not the whole world. 4. most people use computers for those calculations you mention because its easier. It's not necessary. I can do those calculations - give me some time to study astronomy (I'm a math major, not physics) and some pencils and paper. 5. and - I nearly forgot - the kids didn't die. That was a polite fiction. The harsh truth is that most Roman slaves were Romans... <cite> So - not barbarians. Just a threat to the empire, a culture that wouldn't let the Pax Romana roll over it without a fight. (Except the French tribes, who did roll over, and were regarded by the Germanic Celts [...]) </cite> WTF Germanic Celts? What are you smoking, woman? Isn't it enough that you put every culture speaking a language from the Celtic family in one pot and act as if they were one people, now you have to mix in a different language-family as well? Shall we continue that trend? What about the Mongolian Celts, are they, too, proof that the Celts were badass warriors? I think at this point I just lost all leftover trust in your so-called knowledge. <cite> [...] as being as bad as the Romans. Suck on that, Asterix... </cite> Asterix was definitely a Celt, and unlike the British Celts, he was not a citizen of the Roman Empire.

<cite> Broad brush-stroke time; Celts were not a centralized society but more a network of townships and tribes, a loose alliance of clans who had their own internal spats, but when faced with some uppity outsider would come together to drive off the common threat. </cite> They might have tried, but they didn't. The first and only time a Celtic people really managed to drive off some uppity outsider would be 1922 following the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921*. The fact that France, Spain, Portugal speak Romance languages and the British (or Irish) Isles nearly uniformly speak English should be proof enough.

*Unless you count Asterix. <cite> You couldn't defeat them by cutting off the head. There was no head to cut off. </cite> You mean unlike Boudica and Vercingetorix. Oh wait. Tacitus, in his Annals, said that Boudica's last fight cost 80,000 Britons and 400 Romans their lives. He was probably exaggerating. But it definitely stopped much of the British resistance in its tracks. <cite> To the centralized, formal, rather bureaucratic Romans, for whom the city of Rome was the focus of the whole empire, this was a big does-not-compute. The Celts were everything they didn't understand. And we fear what we don't understand, and we kill what we fear. </cite> While that is totally true, it's also completely off the mark. The Romans demonized the druids, not every Celt, and they were afraid of what was basically an academic network. That had nothing to do with war. <cite> Anyway, Mandos....once I took a single concept - in this case, the idea of clans that operated on a loose alliance system, like the Celts - the rest grew organically. I didn't plan it out in detail from the start. </cite> That's really obvious. Maybe looking at some numbers and remembering that you weren't planning a small, local, rural, medieval community would have helped, too. I mean lets have a look at, say, Scotland (since you specifically mentioned the Picts): they still have less than 6 mio. people all together, and that's today. Mandalore is a sector. A sector of Outer Space with at least 2000 inhabited planets. How do you think that translates? It doesn't. <cite> I just asked myself what a culture of nomadic warriors would value, how they would need to operate to survive, and it all grew inexorably by logical steps. The fact that Mandos ended up as very much like the Celts is proof that the technique of evolving a character or species - find the niche, then work out what fits it - works every time. It creates something very realistic, because that's how real people and real societies develop. </cite> Celtic people were usually not nomadic! And, once again, non of them were predominantly warriors! It's really hard to be a nomadic farmer. I believe the biggest mistake you made, Ms Traviss, is mixing up the Iron Age (and earlier) tribes that did indeed sack Rome and parts of Greece, and that one day would become the people the Romans conquered. And apart from the Picts they really were conquered. <cite> So all I can say about Mandos and Spartans is that the average Mando would probably tell a Spartan to go and put some clothes on, and stop looking like such a big jessie. </cite>

I'd really like to see a Mando – or anyone – wearing full plate without modern or Star Wars technology in Greece. Happy heatstroke. There is a reason they didn't wear a lot (look up the Battle of Hattîn, where crusaders who didn't wear full helmets and wore chainmail* still suffered badly from heat exhaustion). [Nicolle, David (1993), Hattin 1187: Saladin's Greatest Victory] *chainmail apparently can work like a heatsink CONCLUSION You're wrong. And I felt offended by your FAQ answers. QUESTION You're English. You're from England. A group - a nation - that was historically so warlike and so successful that by now we all speak English. A nation that definitely kicked arse against any Celtic nation trying to go against them (until 1921, and they really tried anyway). A nation that had arguably the largest Empire in history. A nation that still is barbaric and warlike enough that a lost football game has people honestly fearing for their lives.

Also, a Germanic group, since you seem to have trouble keeping language-families and cultures apart. If we were to talk about the family, we could add on the current most aggressively attacking nation (USA) plus the former most aggressively attacking nations (the second and third German Reich), also the people who killed off the Roman Empire for good (the Goths and Visigoth), the original berserkers (the Vikings) and claim at the very least the start of BOTH WORLD WARS. Why did you look further?

Some other sources:

Histoire de la vie privée by Georges Duby and Philippe Ariès, the first book (about the antiquity) I read it translated, my French is ... bad to non-existent

The Day of the Barbarians: The Battle That Led to the Fall of the Roman Empire (about the Huns) by Alessandro Barbero

If you speak Dutch or German, you might try

Helmut Birkhan: Kelten. Versuch einer Gesamtdarstellung ihrer Kultur, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien

Janssens, Ugo, De Oude Belgen. Geschiedenis, leefgewoontes, mythe en werkelijkheid van de Keltische stammen. Uitgeverij The House of Books

DISCLAIMER

I’m angry and I wrote this down in one session and thus probably made some mistakes. I’m sorry. Or maybe I’m not sorry. I’m still angry. She can’t know who reads her FAQ and at least two of her answers (on her professional website) were offensive to the reader.

#history #england #scotland #ancient celts #roman empire #mandalorians #sparta #proud warrior race #shitty research #rant #me ranting #fuck this #karen traviss

81 notes · View notes

samwisethewitch · 4 years

Text

Divination Basics

From the Roman priest reading auguries to interpret the will of the gods to the modern fortune teller reading with a deck of playing cards, divination has been a part of human spirituality for thousands of years. Today, divination is an important part of many witches’ practices, and can be an important tool for self-reflection and analysis.

Merriam-Webster defines divination as, “the art or practice that seeks to foresee or foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge usually by the interpretation of omens or by the aid of supernatural powers.” Divination can be used for many things, not just to predict the future. It can be used to understand the past, identify patterns at work in your present, or as a tool for working through trauma.

In the book You Are Magical, author Tess Whitehurst describes divination as, “a way of bypassing your linear, thinking mind and accessing the current of divine wisdom and your own inner knowing.” As I’ve discussed in a previous post, all of us are receiving psychic information all the time, though many of us don’t realize it. Divination tools like tarot cards or rune stones act as triggers to help kickstart our natural psychic gifts.

Divination relies on the use of our intuition. Intuition is defined my Merriam-Webster as, “the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference.” These are the things you know without needing to be told. Another way of thinking of it is this: your intuition is the way you interpret the information you receive through your psychic senses.

The most important thing to remember when doing divination is that the tool you are using isn’t giving you information — it’s simply helping you to access information you already know. The revelations come from you, not from the cards or whatever other tool you may be using.

When using divination to foresee the future, it’s important to remember that the future is never set in stone. These tools can only show you the most likely outcome based on your current direction.

Beginner-Friendly Divination Tools

These are the divination methods I would recommend for beginners. For one thing, most of these systems are fairly easy to learn and use. For another, these are some of the most popular divination methods among modern witches, so it’s easy to find information about them and/or talk to other practitioners about their experience.

As you’ll see, each divination method has its own strengths and weaknesses, so you may choose to learn several methods that you can combine to get stronger readings. Or you may find that you can get all the information you need from a single method, which is also okay.

Tarot. This is my personal favorite divination method, but it’s also the one with the most misconceptions surrounding it. Tarot cards do not open a portal to the spirit world, and they probably didn’t originate in Ancient Egypt. In fact, evidence suggests that the tarot comes from a medieval Italian card game called Tarocchi, although the modern tarot deck as we know it didn’t come around until the 20th century. Tarot cards are not any more or less supernatural than ordinary playing cards. (Which, incidentally, can also be used for divination.)

Tarot makes use of archetypes, and many readers interpret the cards as a map of an archetypal spiritual journey. For this reason, tarot cards are especially useful for identifying the underlying patterns and hidden influences in any given situation.

Most tarot decks follow the same set of basic symbolism. Unfortunately, this does mean that new readers will need to study the accepted meanings. This isn’t to say that your readings will always match up 100% with the standard meanings of the cards — you may receive intuitive messages that deviate from tradition. Still, it’s helpful to know a little of the history and traditional symbolism behind this powerful divination tool. The good news is that, since most decks use similar symbolism, once you learn the traditional meanings you can successfully read with almost any tarot deck.

I’m planning to post a more in-depth introduction to tarot very soon, but in the meantime, if you want to learn this divination method I recommend starting with the book Tarot For Beginners by Lisa Chamberlain and/or with the website Biddy Tarot.

Oracle Cards. Oracle cards have been rapidly gaining popularity in the witchcraft and New Age communities in the last few years, and it’s easy to see why. One major appeal of oracle cards is how diverse they are — there are countless different oracle decks out there, each with its own theme and symbolism. Another big plus is how beginner-friendly they are; Oracle cards are usually read intuitively, so most decks won’t require you to learn a complex system of symbolism. (Of course, the fact that every oracle deck uses different symbolism can be frustrating for some readers, because they have to learn a new set of symbols for every deck.)

Some readers (myself included) also find that oracle cards usually give more surface level information. Tess Whitehurst says that, “While oracle cards can help us answer the questions ‘What direction should I take?’ and ‘What is the lesson here?’ tarot cards are more suited to helping us answer the questions ‘What is going on?’ and ‘What is the underlying pattern at work here?'” For this reason, many readers choose to use tarot and oracle cards together to get a more well-rounded look at the situation.

Another common complaint about oracle cards is that many decks are overwhelmingly positive and shy away from dark themes or imagery, which creates an imbalanced reading experience. I think this is best summed up by one Amazon review for the Work Your Light Oracle, which says: “Basically, this is very much a deck for Nice White Ladies(TM) who like crystals and candles but aren’t ‘super into all that witchy stuff.'”

There ARE oracle decks out there that address darker themes, but many of the most popular decks on the market are overwhelmingly positive. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes a little positive encouragement is more helpful than brutal honesty. However, too much focus on the positive can lead you to ignore your problems, which only makes things worse in the long run. For this reason, finding balanced decks is important — if you’re going to use a very shiny happy deck, my advice would be to alternate it with more grounded decks, or with a deck specifically designed for shadow work.

That being said, oracle cards are a great divination tool if you can find a good deck, especially for beginners who are intimidated by more structured systems like tarot and the runes. If you’re interested in working with oracle cards, the best way to start is to find a deck that 1.) you feel a strong attraction to, and 2.) has a good guidebook. (My favorite oracle deck is the Halloween Oracle by Stacey Demarco, which I use for readings all year.)

Runes. The Elder Futhark alphabet is a runic alphabet that originated in ancient Scandinavia around 200 AD. While this was an actual writing system, it also had magical and mythological associations in the cultures that originally used it. While using the runes for divination is a modern practice, it is based on the historical sense of magic surrounding these symbols.

Like tarot, the runes have a traditional set of meanings. However, because there are only twenty-four runes, there aren’t as many meanings to learn as there are with tarot. Some rune sets also contain a blank stone, which has its own special meaning. I have personally found the runes to be a great source of wisdom and insight, although they do tend towards “big picture” messages rather than small details.

However, there is one major stain on the runes’ history; they were studied and used by Nazi occultists before and during World War II. Like many symbols associated with historical Germanic paganism, the runes were appropriated as part of Nazi propaganda — for example, the Sowilo rune was incorporated into the SS logo. This isn’t to say that you can’t reclaim the Elder Futhark alphabet, but I do think it’s important to know the history going in. Because of their association with Nazism, it’s best to avoid wearing or publicly displaying the runes.

There are other ancient alphabets that are used for divination, like the Anglo-Saxon runes or the Irish Ogham, but the Elder Futhark is the most popular.

If you’re interested in learning divination with runes, I recommend the book Pagan Portals: Runes by Kylie Holmes.

Pendulums. Pendulums are interesting because, unlike tarot, oracle cards, and runes, they can be used to answer yes or no questions. For this reason, many readers use pendulums to get clarification on readings they’ve done with other divination methods, but you can also use pendulums on their own.

A pendulum is any small, weighted object hanging from a chain or string. You can buy a pendulum made specifically for divination from a metaphysical shop or an Etsy seller, but you can just as easily use something you already have: a necklace, your housekey, or a small rock or crystal tied to a string.

Pendulums may be the easiest divination method to learn. The only thing you need to do to learn how to interpret a pendulum is ask it what its “yes” and “no” motions look like. To do this, simply hold your pendulum in your hands and focus on your connection to it. Then, let the pendulum hang from its chain or string so it can swing freely. Say or think, “Show me ‘yes’.” Allow the pendulum to swing, and pay attention to its movements. “Yes” is often a forwards-and-backwards swing or a clockwise circle, but your “yes” may look different. (Some witches even notice that different pendulums in their collection have different “yes” and “no” movements!) Once you’ve gotten the pendulum to show you its “yes,” ask it to show you its “no.” For many readers, “no” is a side-to-side swing or a counterclockwise circle, but again, yours may be different.

The biggest downside to pendulums is that because they typically only answer “yes” or “no,” you have to be very specific with your questions. Pendulums aren’t the best tool for general energy readings or open-ended advice. However, that specificity makes them great for validating your gut feelings, interpreting your dreams, identifying a deity or spirit that you think may be reaching out to you, or any other situation that requires a little clarification.

2K notes · View notes

worstloki · 3 years

Note

please read the article 'How White Fandom is Colonizing "Character-Coding"' by Shafira Jordan and quit while you're ahead

Okay, so I read it and see the problem, and I’ll try to address all their points in order because I don’t wholly agree with the article. I know it’s a lot to read so I’ve put tldr; sections at the end of each :)

Misusing the Term Reinforces Negative Stereotypes for Marginalized People

The article essentially argues that labeling characters which are villainous as POC-coded is bad because they’re not morally pure and doing so "reinforces the idea that people of color are naturally dangerous and not to be trusted.”

Which is fair as you don’t want all the representation to be of ‘bad’ characters, but I also don’t believe all representative characters have to be ‘good’ either as it would be equally racist to divide good/bad in such a way. Not that I would place Loki under ‘bad’ to begin with, but arguing that characters shouldn’t be labelled as POC-coded for reasons unrelated to what’s presented in the narrative or because they did bad things is :/ even if lack of good representation is a prevalent issue in current Western and influenced media.

Ideally there should be a range of representative characters that fall into ‘good’, ‘bad’, and ‘anywhere in-between’ because variety and complexity in character types should, in theory, be treated as common practice (which can only happen with a multitude of representation!).

And a bit unrelated but... within the fictional context of Thor 1, all the Jotnar (sans Loki) are presented to the audience as ‘bad’ by default. They desperately want to get their Casket back to the point of attempting stealing it (from the ‘good’ characters), they fight the heroes and even when the gang and Thor (’good’ characters) are enjoying or going overboard with taking lives it’s inconsequential, Laufey wants to kill the opposing king (who just happens to be a ‘good’ character) and will resort to low-handed methods to do so, etc. The narrative itself is from the frame of reference of the ‘good’ and we only see warriors of Jotunheim though so we understand why it’s like this, because regardless of their race/experiences the narrative carries, even if it most definitely would be seen as racist from our real-life perspectives if the ‘monstrous’ race were presented by actual people of colour, even if it would make sense for the people on on different realms living in different environments to be different from each other, and realistic even for that to be the root of some conflict.

tldr; not using a specific label to prevent negative presentations of the characters seems a bit strange to do when the coding would be based off the text, but with limited representation available I see why it would be done, even if I still believe minority-coding is free game to expand/interpret.

Improperly Labeling a Character as “POC-coded” Suggests the Experiences of All People of Color are the Same

The article argues that labeling Loki as POC-coded “suggests that all people of color have the same experiences, when in reality, people of color come from different places, have different cultures, and have different traditions.” And while it’s true that the term doesn’t go into detail about which particular experiences (and these experiences can vary vastly due to diversity!) the appropriate measure would be to remove the umbrella term POC altogether as people of colour tend to also vary. But that’s also exactly why it’s an all-encompassing general term? It’s a way to denote anyone who isn’t “white” and has the associated cultural privilege that comes with the concept of white supremacy.

And, obviously, in the fictional setting presented, the concept of white supremacy is not prodded at, but cultural supremacy is definitely one that makes recurring appearances, right next to the parts about Asgard being a realm built on imperialism with ongoing colonial practice.

My take on this is that Loki’s narrative features a struggle with identity after finding out he’s of a different race and was being treated differently his entire life and being Jotun was presumably a part of the reasoning even if he didn’t know it. He’s basically treated as of less worth for inherently existing differently. I do believe that racism is a common-enough POC experience, but that while Loki was born with blue skin he passes/appears white which is why I don’t say that Loki is a POC, just that he has been coded/can be interpreted this way.

There’s also the entire thing with Loki trying to fit in and prove he belongs by trying to fit the theory and be The Most Asgardian by committing genocide (which ultimately makes no difference as he’s still not the ‘acceptable’ version of Asgardian), and the denial/rejection of his birth culture in destructively lashing out towards them (which even Thor is confused by because Loki isn’t typically violent), and the fact his self worth plummets and he is passively suicidal upon finding out he’s Jotun (internalized racism? general drop in self-worth after finding out he’s adopted and has been lied to? Bit of both?), but what do I know, I’m sure none of those are, at their base, common experiences or relatable feelings for anyone or decent rep because we see such themes on-screen presented wonderfully in different lights all the time.

tldr; every set of experiences could be different, some types of discrimination could overlap, if you limit an umbrella term to only very specific circumstances then it’s no longer an umbrella term.

Suggesting that White Characters are Meant to be Seen as People of Color Ignores the Actual Characters of Color that are Present in these Stories

I don’t agree with most of this section, but that may just be the way the arguments are put together, which I don’t blame the author for.

“ Implying that Loki is a person of color completely ignores Heimdall and Hogun, the only Black and Asian Asgardians who appear in the movie. ”

Characters such as Hogun and Heimdall which are played by actual people of colour have smaller roles in the films and any prejudice they could face for being POC in-universe isn’t made apparent, while Loki at the very least comes to the realization that something he couldn’t change (race, parentage,) was having him treated differently his whole life and had to come to terms with it. The Vanir/Aesir are also both treated similarly on-screen, and Heimdall having dark skin isn’t plot relevant, whereas Jotnar are treated as lesser consistently and are relevant through the movie (breaking into the vault, Thor and co. attack Jotunheim, Loki’s deal with Laufey, the attempted regicide (and the successful one XD), destroying jotunheim, Loki saying he’s not Thor’s brother,).

I also see including characters as POC-coded as... more representation? In all canon-compliant interpretations of the characters Hogun being Vanir is always explicitly mentioned because it’s a fact that just is, up to the appearance and even the world-building of Vanaheim in some fanworks use particularly East Asian culture as inspiration. I have never come across a Marvel fandom Heimdall interpretation where he’s not Black... but because these characters are more minor/side-characters of course they get less attention!

“ In Loki’s fandom, Heimdall’s name sometimes gets thrown in to suggest that it was he all along who was the real villain due to his “racism” against Loki and the rest of the Jotun. It is, of course, ironic to suggest that somehow the only Black Asgardian to appear in the movie can oppress the privileged white prince. “

I... don’t know where to start with this. But the example of theorizing given in the article wasn’t suggesting Heimdall was bad or trying to explain his actions in Thor 1 by saying he is Black... and just looking at a character’s actions shouldn’t be done less or more critically because of skin tone in my opinion. Heimdall may have been trying to do what was best and protect the realm but if the audience didn’t know that Loki was up to dodgy things then the coding would be switched around because he was trying to spy and committed treason and then tried to kill Loki. People... can hold feelings towards others... regardless of skin... and suspect them... for reasons other than skin... although I do still have questions about whether Heimdall knew Loki was Jotun or not. (Even if I personally don’t think it’d make a difference to how he’d treat Loki?)

Some Loki fans have also suggested that because Jotuns have blue skin that this alone makes him a person of color (even if the audience is only allowed to see Loki in his true Jotun form for mere seconds of screentime). This, again, shows a lack of understanding when it comes to race. It doesn’t matter what skin color the Jotuns have.

Race can differentiate between physical and/or behavioural characteristics!! Not being blue all the time doesn’t make him any less Jotun!! He’s got internalized stuff to work through and is used to being Aesir!! At least 1 parent is Jotun so even if Loki was passing as Aesir he’s probably Jotun!! (I don’t know how magic space genetics work for sure but Loki being Jotun was an entire very important jump-starting point in Thor 1!!). It’s a fantasy text and typically things like having different coloured skin indicates a different race or is sometimes if a species has multiple then is just considered a skin colour. That’s how coding works!! The Jotnar are very specifically the only race we see in the movie with a skin-tone not within the ‘normal’ human range, which alienates them to the audience from the get-go!! They’re an “other” and on the opposite side to the ‘good’ characters.

Both Loki and his birth father, Laufey (Colm Feore), are played by white men, and it is impossible for a white man to successfully play a character of color.

The specification of men here bothers me, but yes, you don’t get ‘white’ people to play characters of colour if it can be avoided. (And it can be avoided.)

This also connects with the previous point made that people of color come from various places. There is nothing specifically about the Jotun that could be traced to any specific person of color, and even if there were, there would be no way for white men to portray them without being disrespectful.

This is where arguments about the definition of coding and how specificity/generalizations and do/don’t come in. I know I’m subjective and lean towards the more rep the better, but while I agree ‘white’ people wouldn’t be able to respectfully play a POC I don’t think that rule should have to carry over into fantasy-based fiction. I know texts reflect on reality and reality can reflect within texts, but if contextually there is racial discrimination and there are similar ideas which resonate with the audience’s own experiences I’d say it’s coded well enough to allow that.

tldr; Thor 1′s narrative revolves mainly around Thor and Loki, of which race is kinda kinda a significant theme in Loki’s part of the story. Not so much explored with less-developed side characters such as Heimdall and Hogun, even though their actors are actual people of colour.

How Much of this is Really Well-Intentioned?

In the fantasy space viking world Heimdall and Hogun don’t face any on-screen prejudice and their appearance is not mentioned (which is nice, for sure! good to have casual rep!) but adding on to the roles they play in the narrative the explicit fantasy-racism in the movie isn't aimed at Asian/Black characters, but towards the Humans -to a lesser extent- and the Jotnar, including Loki, who only just found out he comes under that bracket.

The article mentions how fandom space toxicity often “reaches the actors who portray the characters,“ which is true, and it’s shameful that people have to justify their roles or presences are harassed for the pettiest things like skin tone/cultural background, but I don’t see coding characters as removing the spotlight from interesting characters such as those which are actually POC, rather expressing a demand for more rep, since well-written complex characters which are diverse are often absent/minor enough in the media, and therefore can get easily brushed aside in both canon and fandom spaces.

tldr; It’s obviously not a replacement for actual representation, but, if a character is marginalized and can be interpreted as coded, even if they would only be considered so within the context of the textual landscape, I don’t see why spreading awareness through exploring the coding as a possibility for the character shouldn’t be done, even if the media is being presented by people who are ‘white’ or privileged or may not fall into the categories themselves, as long as it’s done respectfully to those it could explicitly represent.

#please don’t patronize me by asking to quit while i’m ahead #it doesn't help anyone #so anyway i've summarized my opinion on the coding thing here for the many anons whose answers could be answered in this ask alone #i think i covered everything?#the article started out okay but I found it kinda :/ in places even though there were valid concerns #I do believe that in-universe context and creators of the media should be taken into account #and that if marginalized themes can be touched on by non-marginalized groups then... great? fictional texts can help people understand #i do also think that rep being presented should if not on-screen have people working on the product to support and ensure it's done well #the world is cold and harsh and cruel and i just wanted a desi Loki AU but here we are #I've got to try and summarize how I think Thor 1 presents Loki's part of the narrative well with POC-coding there because of fantasy-racism #even if the POC-coding is ignored the themes of racism are far too apparent to ignore #loki spends the entire film being a multi-dimensional character and having an entire downfall fueled by grief and a desire to be loved #I don't think attaching a label to such a character would be a negative thing... but perhaps for casual watchers it'd be a bit :/#apparently not everyone takes into account the 1000+ years of good behavior around that 1 year of betrayal/breakdown/identity crisis/torture #MetaAnalysisForTheWin #MAFTW #ThisPostIsLongerThanMyLifeSpan #TPILTMLS #AgreeToDisagreeOrNot #ATDON #poc-coding #yes i ignored everything not about loki in the article what about it #hmmm I know people are going to disagree with me with what should and shouldn't be allowed #I know some people are okay with it but some don't like the poc-coding thing #and that's fine #completely understandable #makes me uncomfy to talk about fictional space racism in comparison to real life but I do think that lack of rep is why coding is important #for some people coding is all that they get #but also!! @ifihadmypickofwishes suggested the term racial allegory and I do believe that is also suitable here!! so I’ll try using that too #rather than poc-coding even though I still believe it applies

141 notes · View notes

queenangst · 4 years

Note

I've been a pjo fan for a long time, but I never was very into the online fandom until recently. So my question is this: what is considered "problematic" with Rick Riordan, from what I've seen he's just tried to always please fans, if not a little too much, but like I said I only got online very very recently.

oh, boy.

there’s a lot to unpack.

i’m going to be honest, generally when i criticize i don’t do it on my very public blog. most discussions i’ve had are private, with people i trust; i’m not saying i won’t discuss it with you, what i mean by this is if you look on my blog you probably won’t find a lot of pjo/hoo/rr crit in the past.

before i get into it, here’s a couple things to keep in mind.

1. it is okay to absolutely love percy jackson and criticize it. they are not mutually exclusive. it’s important and healthy to be able to take a step back and look at the media you’re reading with a critical eye and from different perspectives.

2. sometimes, reading crit can kind of hurt. acknowledging that an author or a creator you look up to is flawed can hurt. no creator is perfect, and no critic is perfect. just understand that when you read crit you’re likely looking through the lens of someone who probably has seen something damaging, etc in rick’s writing.

also, it doesn’t really matter if you’ve been part of the fandom for a long time or not; online or not; these issues stem from rick and the writing itself.

okay:

here’s my pjo crit tag and my hoo crit tag. like i said, they’re pretty scarce, because most of me talking about what went wrong in hoo is in private circles.

the issues become much more apparent in hoo, because hoo was kind of a hot mess. so you might tend to see more hoo crit than pjo crit, but there are flaws in both series that deal with diversity or lack thereof, tokenism, racism, stereotypes, and also just some bad writing choices and bad narrative.

here’s some bloggers who have great discussions about pjo/hoo/rick + problems.

@transannabeth - anti rick tag (tea also has a pjo crit, hoo crit, and some other tags but i think most posts fall under anti rick)

@reynaisalesbian - hoo crit tag

@bananannabeth - hoo crit tag

some other bloggers who don’t (afaik) have crit under tags or have a couple posts, but who have made good posts/points/etc: @blackjacktheboss, @ofswordsandpens, @gr33kg0ds, @sawasawako.

if you want to look outside of these bloggers or tags (which i encourage you to), common tags that people use for criticism on tumblr are: anti pjo, anti hoo, anti rick/riordan/rr, pjo crit, hoo crit, rr crit, pjo criticism, hoo criticism.

i... do not have the time or energy to address every single issue that comes up in pjo, hoo, and with rick. i’m sorry. there’s a lot of books, a lot of characters, and a lot of bad narrative. and bad choices. i’d go through the links above, maybe reach out to people (reach out to me, or anyone), discuss, look at the books and step back from what you like and want to defend and use your critical thinking skills.

i guess to get you started (since i can’t cover every single issue ever) here’s something i was discussing with @wisdom-walks-alone and a couple other people earlier; the east asian/asian representation (hello! that’s me!) is uh, not hot, to say the least. for example, if you look at the canonical asian pjo characters—

ethan nakamura, who is basically the only one in pjo, dies. he’s a kid on the wrong side, he tries to defy kronos, and he dies. cool! then we hop on over to hoo, and we have two whole east asian characters. one of them is drew tanaka, who is reduced to stereotypes and a ‘queen bitch’ like character, vain and petty and rude to say the least. her focus is completely on her appearance. she doesn’t get development. she’s there to be pitted against piper, another woman of color.

but that’s okay, because we have frank, right? frank zhang, who is actually chinese. except i never identified with him because he was 1) extremely underdeveloped for a main character of the series and 2) his arc is, as i remember it, getting buff. let’s see.

he’s a chinese character, which means there are a lot of conflicting and interesting values to play with and develop. i really liked him in son, and with the shapeshifting abilities and his life stick, as well as his discomfort in his own body; those could have really been elements in a fantastic character arc. sacrifice, duty, loyalty to your family, to your country/people (i.e. the romans).... these are all things that are important to chinese people, and could have played a larger role (which is why i liked that frank burned his own stick to free thanatos). but eventually he’s given a fireproof bag so his stick will never burn and he just... gets buff and strong, because that’s important. that’s some surface level criticism because i don’t remember much of what happens to frank in the series (probably not much?), but yeah. i’m not saying frank’s character arc should revolve around him being chinese, or that being chinese should play a huge role in the series, but a fundamental part of character is background. there are a hundred different experiences rick could have pulled from, and each of them are unique. tfw your “rep” isn’t rep at all.

so the three east asian characters i get to read about, who look like me, who might have grown up like me, who i’m supposed to relate to... one is dead, one is a stereotypical bitch, and one is.. i don’t even know. so it’s something to think about, yeah?

EDIT: do not take this post as saying you have to ‘hate’ hoo or hate pjo or hate rick now. (though some of us do, for good reason.) just keep the criticism in mind and accept it as a part of your view of rick and his writing as a whole. you can still love pjo! you can still love hoo! you can still like rick. that’s okay. don’t put them on a pedestal. form your own opinions, and let them shape your experience.

i think he has done some good things. i think he can write well. but there’s also a lot of problems that should be addressed and that could be improved upon.

#hey everyone who i @d im sorry this is not a fun post :(#i love u guys yall are the real mvps though #ive been here for like however many years going YEAH YOURE FUCKING RIGHT #pjo #pjo crit #hoo crit #rr crit #anti rr #asks #long post #ask to tag ig #i talked about frank for this part of crit bc we were just talking about it and its fresh on my mind #and its personal to me and easier to criticize from my perspective #anonymous #ok to rb #thinking ab frank makes me want to scream. hello.

969 notes · View notes

a-dumb-sarcastic-bisexual · 3 years

Text

So I rewatched Raya.

And I was really trying to watch it without a skeptical lens. I wanted to be able to act like the oblivious kids in that theater and just enjoy the movie. But I just couldn't. I've mentioned it before it's a gorgeous movie but there are so many things wrong with it that just bug me. And I’ve mentioned before the changes that could be made to fix it and the main one being just completely scrapping the movie and starting from scratch with a tv show. And because I’m on spring break and I have nothing to do (also I’m a perfectionist and I tend to hyper-fixate on things that I know have easy solutions) I broke down how I would make it better in two different categories. The first one being kind of baseline stuff like animation and character designs and other stuff I had small problems with and the second being plot.

Section One:

Okay so I know we all hate Sisu’s design. As someone who grew up with Naga carvings and paintings all around my house seeing this Elsa fursona was like a slap to the face. Like I know I really shouldn’t expect more from Disney but I did. I mentioned in this post that I would have loved to see a longer series even if it meant the animation quality went down. And I feel like Neeith_ on TikTok did a great job of drawing what Sisu could have looked like which only disappointed me more. Caldatelier on Twitter also pointed out the many flaws with Raya’s outfit design which fully proved to me that Disney did little to no research and chose style points over historical accuracy. I also felt like the designs of the main characters were very unremarkable and before you’re like “that the whole point it’s supposed to be normal people saving the world” I don't mean that I mean it feels like they took previous designs and just made them Asian. Like my sister and I were talking about it and she said the baby just reminded her of the boss baby and Tong reminded her of one of the twins from rapunzel with a little more depth. This is also kind of a small thing but it kind of bugged me that they were all the same skin tone if not lighter. SEA is incredibly diverse and if they weren’t going to represent all of the cultures in full then they could at least shown their features. I feel like the food should have been more important. I know I mentioned it in my last post but food is an incredibly important part of our culture. It’s not a placeholder or a set-piece to make a scene look more aesthetically pleasing. It’s a way for us to bond and show each other we care it’s a way we show genuine love and appreciation. And when you have a main character who is emotionally stunted it felt like food was a perfect way for her to show her love and they blew it. Like can you imagine Raya and her dad getting into huge fights and then bringing each other food as an apology sitting in front of that window not needing to say a word because they simply get each other? Can you imagine Raya visiting Namaari and stocking up on foods that she knows Namaari loves but also hasn’t been able to eat for a while? We could have had genuinely heartwarming scenes centered around food but instead, we got set pieces and props. And one more thing that stuck with me was the voice acting this movie should have been a change for SEA voice actors to really put their names out there and be a part of a really big Disney project but as always out voiced were overshadowed by someone lighter.

Section Two:

(I’m going to warn you this is gonna be really long because I’m essentially rewriting the entire plot because as I said before I’m a perfectionist)

I feel like the first ep should be dedicated to the backstory and the lore

How were the Druuns made how where they defeated

I feel like it would have been interesting to see them fighting over the gem

But I think it would have been really interesting to see from the get-go how Sisu wasn’t the one who made the gem

So instead of having this big reveal alongside Raya, we would know that her hope of finding this all powerful Naga is hopeless because the story was a lie

Another thing I think another person who should have had more screentime was Raya’s dad

I think it would have been interesting to know his backstory and get some questions answered like “why does he have so much faith in the other rulers to help him on his journey to make Kumandra a thing?” “When did he become the protector of the gem?” “And how many attempts of stealing the gem has he thwarted”

Also as much as I love him I feel like his personality incredibly unrealistic because all SEA men I’ve met have been really emotionally stunted

Idk it’s just a small thing that made me go “eh he talks to his daughter. What kind of magic world is this?”

I would have liked to see Raya’s various attempts at becoming a protector of the gem

I think it would have been a really good way to show how resilient she is from a very young age

And when she finally succeeds the audience could have celebrated with her like a small “yes she finally got it and all her hard work finally paid off” moment

I feel like we should have gotten more Raya and Namaari moments right from the start

Like how they meet is basically the same but Raya doesn’t trust her with the gem’s location an hour after meeting her

It's a trust that both of them fought for in their own way

Like you get to see them bond over their mutual understanding of “well the worlds fucked”

So when Namaari finally stabs Raya in the back when she betrays her for the first time it hurts when she says the throwaway line about them being friends in another world in burns Raya

Because she thought they were friends and she genuinely trusted Namaari

Which would have really justified her distrust in the world

And again I feel like we should have seen that 6 year period of Raya trying to find Sisu

We would get to experience the frustration of building up the hope of finally finding her just to have it knocked down when she’s not there

It could also do two more things

Raya making genuine connections with people

And Raya and Namaari’s strange alliance forming

Now for the first one, I feel like it would have been really cool for Raya to be introduced to the different lands

And yeah sure I feel like it would make her feel like kind of a tourist but I feel like it would be really interesting to see her go through culture shock

Because she really thought she knew these places but boom they’re completely different from what she was told

And while she’s making her way around she learns about the different lands and the people inhabiting them and also their culture

We could have seen Raya make genuine connections outside of the main cast

And if you’re feeling a little masochistic we could see her lose those people because of the druune or simply because they died

But the main point is we would be able to see her become less and less selfish

Now back to Raya and Namaari’s alliance/romance later on

I mentioned in my other post that when Raya trusted Namaari to put the gem back together it felt very flat very fake

So I feel like it would be cool for the series to be split into two parts the first part being from Raya’s perspective and the second part being Namaari’s

I also feel like Namaari would have to be a constant in Raya’s journey

And what I mean by that is like she’s there every other episode either trying to stop Raya or she’s trying to save her from life or death situations

And later on down the line, we find out the main reason why she kept helping Raya (in her own way) was that she didn’t want to see her get seriously hurt

But anyway that’s mostly backstory and now we’re in the present tense

And like I said before we know that Sisu wasn’t the one who made the gem so we know that Raya’s quest is pointless

But because we’ve seen her various attempts at becoming the protector of the gem and the six years of looking for Sisu we know she’s too stubborn to give up just yet

So she and Sisu head out to find the other gem pieces

Now with context, her and Namaari’s standoff has more tension because for the first time in years Namaari doesn’t know the motives behind Raya’s actions

I don’t really have many ideas for Sisu other than she starts to trust people less and less

Like she’s still really innocent for the most part but there’s a small part of her a really small part that’s kind of lost faith in humanity

And after this, we meet Boun

I feel like we should have known more about Boun considering the fact he’s the first side characters we met

But it’s very clear they gave no thought to his character I’m sure they just wrote down “funny kid who lost his family”

This is such a shame because he could have been so much more than just “Raya’s funny younger brother”

Like he could have been this selfless kid who hands out food to the orphans around and offering his ship to homeless people during the night

Next with the baby and the monkeys, there’s really not much you can do with them unless you seriously age them up

Like at the very least have Noi be a grade-schooler who can express more emotions than mad and hungry

Like she can still be the baby of the group while taking care of herself and expressing her emotions a great example of this is Polly from amphibia (which is a great show with a SEA main character you should check it out)

With Tong, I have two words: Survivors Guilt which is something Raya would be able to relate to in fact they all would

I feel like Tong’s entire character arc would be him realizing that he can’t save everyone

Which yeah sure would seem pretty contradictory with the ending being them literally saving everybody but I have a fix for that too

And finally, we get to Namaari who is selfless to a fault

Giving me very much typical Disney princess she gives up food to kids who seem particularly hungry

She’s usually the one who tells the stories to the kids but her mom was taking over that day

She helps her people in any way she can and honestly, she’s wearing herself a little thin

Because while she’s doing all that she’s also saving Raya & co from their own mistakes

Giving me very much burning the candle at both ends

So you see all these characters bonding over the course of at least a year

Making and losing more allies along the way

And because Namaari has been helping them they trust her… for the most part

But there have been times when she trips them up and makes their end goal all the more difficult

And because they haven’t known her as long as Raya has each character has at least one moment when they look up at the sky and scream in frustration “What is this binturi’s deal!”

But anyway they finally get to fang and Raya is more open to the idea of just talking to Namaari because she trusts her not because Sisu told her to but because she’s seen Namaari do good

And Namaari is even more reluctant to take the gem pieces by force because she has a decent relationship with Raya like yeah sure they’re not best friends but they’re in a good place

And shocker shocker she’s maybe just maybe head over heels in love with the princess of heart

But her mother gives her an ultimatum and that is “either you take it from her or I will”

Because here’s the thing, Queen Virana isn't a moron the exact opposite in fact and she knows her daughter has been going easy on Raya these past six years

She also knows that she could squash Raya under her shoe if she damn well pleased and Namaari knows this too

So when Namaari gets her necklace back she doesn’t even hesitate to take her crossbow when she leaves

The meet up goes basically the same except its more Raya talking Namaari down than Sisu

And while they’re having their little heart to heart Sisu notices Namaari’s finger twitch and she goes to jump in front of Raya

And Namaari was shaken by the sudden movement and fires and kills Sisu

I feel like this would make Raya furious for two reasons one she killed her best friend and two she deep down trusted Namaari to do the right thing

So when the fight goes down instead of the whole “I don't care if you trust me because Sisu did” it would be “I trusted you and you murdered her”

And when the dust settles Raya realizes that this battle doesn’t matter because fighting Namaari isn’t going to bring Sisu and she’s also sick and tired of hurting the people she loves

And she decides to help people instead not because Sisu would want her to but because its the right thing to do

Which is cliche sure but its better than the scene they gave us which really wasn’t faithful to her character arc of not caring for people who aren't close to her

And I feel like Namaari joining her makes more sense with my context if anything else

And here’s how I would fix this scene even with them fighting the Druune off to the best of their abilities there are still falling buildings and the gem can’t really save people from that

So they lose some people not because of the Druune but because death happens even when the heroes are fighting their hardest

And because I feel like this would just affirm Tong’s character arc because there are people dying under these buildings he knows it’ll take too long to save them and its not time they have

So he leaves them behind prioritizing the people he knows he can save

Anyway, after a long battle scene, they finally end up underground

And it goes basically the same except it doesn’t take Raya as long to convince them

And instead of Raya’s reasoning of “Sisu told us to” it's more “all this fighting isn't going to bring Sisu back” and “I know she’s done something terrible and you can be mad at her after this but for now trust her”

So when they all make their sacrifices it’s less “I’m doing this for Raya” and more “I’m doing this because deep down I know you’ll do the right thing”

And Namaari does do the right thing obviously

Sisu comes back and it's all “yay we saved the world!” but it doesn’t really end there

Because I hate the “lifetime” ending of “even though we all went through incredibly traumatic events we’re all fine months later” no they’re running around for months and years fixing their mess

And while this is happening Raya and Namaari is mending their relationship they’ve apologized for all the terrible things they’ve done to each other

And when they’re fixing their world they’re helping each other become the best versions of themselves

That’s when they really fall in love

Like don't get me wrong they loved each other when all the bad shit was going down but there was too much bad blood them to really process it and talk it out

But that’s exactly what they do when it’s all over they talk it out for hours

In fact, they both said its the most they’ve heard the other speak

They both agree they’re in the best place to start a relationship and so they do

#disney raya #raya #namaari #rayaari #raya and the last dragon #did I just basically write the rough draft for a tv show in the span of 4 hours #yes yes I did

44 notes · View notes

comfy-whumpee · 4 years

Text

Whumping Safely 101

Many people in this community have mental health problems, face various types of discrimination, and have complicated relationships with some parts or types of whump. In particular, I aim this at people who care about the experience of survivors and others with triggers – partially because I am an abuse survivor who often flirts with triggering content as part of my love of whump.

Keeping your blog safe is difficult, takes effort, and is never a perfect process. But as the community grows and grows, it’s really important that we hold ourselves to a high standard. I would argue that this is a responsibility of all content creators, but especially those of us in the messy playground of whump.

I’ve got three sections in here: content warnings, writing with care, and community interaction. I’ve tried to make it navigable. It’s about 1.8k words. Shorter than a lot of drabbles! I welcome good-faith criticism on this topic and further questions on my own views.

Content Warnings

The biggest responsibility, in my opinion, is empowering your reader to make their own decision on whether they want to expose themselves to your writing. This also happens to be by far the easiest way to help people whump safely.

What to warn

This is a big and ever-changing topic. Some things you should warn for as a rule of thumb are anything NSFW, pet whump and box boy whump, drugs and alcohol, medical and hospital content, graphic gore, intimate partner violence, and animal harm. It can be tricky to draw the line of what counts – what needs a warning? If you’re in doubt, just warn it anyway. It doesn’t hurt.

If someone requests a trigger be warned for, even if it’s something that feels obscure or tame, show compassion and agree to the request. This is someone who cares enough about being able to read your writing that they wrote in! They want to be able to read it and enjoy it. You’re being complimented.

Otherwise, look at what other blogs tag for. You’ll see some variation in styles and levels of detail, but it’s a good way to gauge what people think is warn-worthy, when we’re often writing stuff that would already be R-rated in mainstream media.

The easiest way to make sure people don’t see your triggering content is to use a cut. Tumblr is not a very functional website and likes to delete cuts, but a cursory check of your posted content will usually tell you whether it’s worked. With asks, cuts are very spotty, so don’t be afraid to post an ask response separately with a screengrab of the original question. People often then respond to the ask itself with a link to the post, especially if it’s a whole drabble. Tumblr is weird and bad so just do your best.

Content notices

I.e., a quick summary before the drabble, usually in bold, to state what will be coming. I like to distinguish between using content notes (CN) and trigger warnings (TW) to indicate severity. Others might use the old phrase ‘dead dove do not eat’ to indicate this is a heavy piece, and often you will see qualifiers like ‘intense’, ‘mild’, ‘mention’, ‘referenced’ (i.e. it is discussed but not actively happening), and ‘implied’ (as the opposite of ‘explicit’). I’ve also seen a couple of people use ‘vibes’, which is a really nice way of demonstrating that it’s there, but not the focus. A quick paragraph like this, or just a line, lets people make a quick risk assessment on their reading.

This is also important if you’re sending in asks or requests to people. If you want to ask about something triggering, send an inquiry first about whether the blog is okay to hear it.

Tagging

Tagging is a chore, but it’s your primary way of warning people about your content. The main benefit of tagging is that you can be as detailed as you want, because can be tagging for content in general, not just triggers.

In a best case scenario, you’d tag the kind of whump you’re doing, tag triggers, tag characters, and even your ‘verses, because tagging is your index for your blog. If you tag reliably, you help your future self and your readers find stuff, and you also make your blog really dang safe. People who have unusual triggers can blacklist tags, and will pick up on your content tags to help them.

Don’t just tag your own writing. Tag your reblogs, tag your prompts, tag your asks. Yes, edit your asks to add the tags. Tag your images and gifs. Tag your images as images and your gifs as gifs.

If you aren’t up for detailed tagging for whatever reason, just tag for triggering content, and add stuff to that list if you’re asked to. My usual technique is to make a mental note of tags while I’m formatting and editing before posting.

Be aware that your first five tags will be used in search results. If you’re using tags that are associated with kink too, such as ‘shibari’, you might want to rethink your tag order if you don’t want interaction from those blogs. Also think about what tags might come up in non-whump contexts, such as ‘collar’ or ‘PTSD’. Some tactics for getting around this I’ve seen are adding ‘whump’ after the content or writing the tags in past tense (i.e., ‘collared’).

It is also a good idea to watch out for when you might be reblogging something whumpy that is intended as kink / porn / fetish, especially in images. Tagging these as spicy / nsfw / kink is a sensible move.

Writing with Care

Okay, now for the harder stuff.

I mean here to lay out some guidelines for how to write in a way that helps your reader build good faith. This is a much more nuanced topic, and it’s different for everyone. There will always be differing opinions on what should and shouldn’t be written about, what a good depiction of a sensitive topic is, and how to discuss that topic. I tried to strip this back into absolute basics that I hope we can all agree on.

Maybe your whump involves abuse. Maybe it’s gaslighting. Maybe it’s severe mental health problems, or addiction, or slavery, or you write about or analogise real-world issues. Whump deals with the dark stuff, and that’s a big part of its appeal. But don’t ever forget you’re writing the dark stuff.

(Try to) Know what you’re doing

Some of us play fast and loose with plots, medical accuracy, worldbuilding, and other things that get in the way of the pain we crave. This is all well and good, but when we start using whump that speaks true to people’s lived experiences, we shouldn’t be careless with it. I’m particularly talking about things that get represented poorly in mainstream media, such as abusive relationships, issues around marginalisation, mental illness and disability.

Be critical of media that you’ve consumed. Think about how its depicted things that you want to depict in turn. Look for opinions on fictional representations of those issues. Be aware that you might be more ignorant of things than you realise.

Look at how others are writing these issues, particularly if they’re writing from a perspective different to yours. If you haven’t personally experienced what you’re writing about, e.g., if you don’t have PTSD and you want to depict a character who does, seek out stuff written from or with experience. Listen to the experts.

If you’re looking for stuff about representation specifically, I recommend this collection of posts about ‘Braving Diversity’ cultivated by Writing With Colour, who are in themselves a fantastic resource for this topic, and have recommendations for other blogs that deal with intersecting issues.

Listen to others

Missteps are inevitable. Nobody is perfect. If constructive criticism is offered, that’s also a compliment to your writing. Someone read your work and thought about it, and thought you’d care about improving it. They’re offering themselves as a resource for helping you see your work in a new light.

Criticism is hard and sometimes hurtful, but even if we don’t think it’s accurate, there’s often a grain of truth in it. If someone tells you that your writing is harmful, think about why they’ve said that, not whether or not they’re correct. This is an opinion! Opinions are subjective! But what drove someone to send that in?

You don’t have to respond to all your criticism and definitely don’t respond straight away. Being respectful to those who are trying to help you means taking the time to consider it properly. Sometimes, they don’t need a response. Others, you might want to learn more about what they think before deciding. You might have already discussed the topic, in which case, you might just want to reblog your previous posts.

If it’s sent in bad faith or is outright hateful, you’re well within your rights to just delete it and move on. You might get the same criticism over and over again, and that’s exhausting, and you don’t have to retrace your steps for everyone.

But if it’s new, even if it puts your hackles up, you can always stop and wonder why someone felt that strongly about your work.

Take a step back

One of my better-known characters is a pet whumper who conditioned his victim to adore and depend on him. It’s not always easy to represent how deeply messed up that is within the text – though I think that’s part of the challenge – but in meta-commentary, I am always describing him as a creeptastic bastard lacking compassion and self-reflection. I hope to always give the reader the confidence that I know just how wrong it is.

This is a really simple thing you can do just to give readers good faith in you. Show that you know what you’re writing is dark and messed up. Show your understanding for the issues you’re handling and that they’re complicated. It might seem self-evident, but when you’re writing the really dark stuff, or unhealthy relationships, or institutionalised whump, you can inadvertently create the impression that you just think it’s fun. The fact that it’s fiction does not automatically absolve you. Show that you care about doing it right.

Community Interaction

I’m going to keep this one short and sweet because I will almost entirely be preaching to the choir here.

Be polite to others. Imagine saying what you’re saying to their face.

Don’t send anon hate. Just don’t. If you can send criticism off anon, do so.

Nobody is obligated to interact with you.

Nobody is obligated to monitor their own reader base.

If someone says do not interact, do not interact.

If someone says do not interact, why they’ve said that is none of your business.

You don’t need to spread the word about someone’s bad politics.

Ask yourself if your input is needed, or if what you’ve said has already been said.

You don’t have to take a side.

Take care of yourself. Take breaks. Remind yourself that whump is a small part of the world.

That’s all from me, folks. Stay safe.

#discourse...adjacent?#whump community #whump etiquette

464 notes · View notes

chemicalpink · 3 years

Note

Hey, I hope you are doing good this was a thing that was wondering me so there are lot of bts future spouse /soulmate/twinflame videos being made on youtube and honestly everyone is being psychic like it has become a shitshow and what was previously just for curiosity fun and entertainment are becoming extremely emotionally invested in the topic especially for maknae line soulmate it would be interesting if the can do a tarot reading or your spiritual experience why is the future spouse saga turning ugly and does universe what us to know something through it !? Because it's becoming pretty crazy right now

Okay so I believe that yes, the spiritual part has a lot to do behind this occurrence, but I also think its roots lay on psicosocial matters and honestly I could go on for days about this but I’ll try to restrict it to a few points that you’ve mentioned

Why all of a sudden everyone seems to be tarot readers/astrologers/psychic?

The capitalism behind celebrities and how does that play a part in what is going on?

Are these people accurate at all?

How does energy shifting play a part in this?

Is the soulmate journey even something a third person would be able to note?

But first a Disclaimer: this opinion/rant is based on my experience with spirituality, I am obviously a mere mortal, so I do not hold the absolute truth. Spirituality is a constant learning process and it is open to discussion and interpretation of each person. I am also now a proud sociologist graduate that specialises in a lot of the stuff that has to do with what anon is asking, I’m a social behaviouralist applied to the entertainment industry as well but I’ll also provide my resources in the end.

A/N: Some of you might not yet be ready to read all of this, if I see ANY of you trying to start beef with me, even after the disclaimer, I'm gonna block you. If you want to talk more about it or want to discuss it further, DO SO OFF ANON. ISTG you’ve been warned, I’ve been working on this for the longest time, it even has resources to back all of it up! I’m so glad anon asked, I’m done being diplomatic on this topic (I know people that usually ask stuff are so respectful and i love you guys for it, this note is for those people that regularly jump on my asks to stir things up)

You guys are in for a whole academic article if you decide to read this

SO FUN AND EXCITINGGGG Let us start with behavioural economics as our base to understand the whole phenomenon, it's such a broad and kinda complex concept (especially since I’m trying to extrapolate it to this particular scenario) so let me do my best. It has a lot to do with trend following, although at least to me, it's unclear how exactly this content came to be (soulmate readings, channeling messages, etc) I am guessing it had something to do with an intersectionality between the general spirituality boom that we’ve met with during the pandemic and some person that just as any other marketable opportunity, saw a bridge between fandom life and this spiritual life (both prominent trends in the last two years or so) and honestly, it worked perfectly, whatever their initial intentions were, they threw out a new “product” and it kind of sold itself, two different trends coming together… turned into a behavioural game theory where if you played the part that allows your content to be consumed, you’ll get rewarded for it. In more simple words, tarot meets fandoms (alternatively, tarot meets BTS) is great as it is! but the fan behaviour (which we’ll talk about in a bit) positions the most private parts of the celebrities’ lives to be much more interesting than things that we are already able to see (personal experience, love readings do so much better than idk career readings and it all comes down to behavioural trends of perceiving ‘love’ as something very intimate)

Now, this is where we’ll begin to talk about capitalism as a whole, even in non-monetary systems like social media, where it takes more of a rewarding system via likes, views, reblogs, etc. The whole principle of us living in such a system is being aspirational, we see others profiting off of something, we might want to reach out and do the same so we can profit ourselves, which honestly, I think is what happened with the whole BTS soulmate readings boom, they get a lot of attention, and as a basic market law, as demand goes up and a few people that initially did these readings are no longer capable to satisfy the need of the people wanting to know all the tea, there are market opportunities for other people to do the same thing and increase the offer, although since this whole theory is behavioural, it is very context-dependant, which ends up not following the principle of the consumers being rational about how much and what content they consume, they just sort of consume all of it, regardless of whether the content creator is qualified to offer such content or not, which ultimately only adds onto a never ending cycle of more people claiming they are tarot readers/astrologers/psychics and fear nothing because this is the internet, you don't really have to enter any qualifications to be able to create content, whether someone is reliable in internet terms is basically all about how many likes they’ve got (which is why I always tell you guys to please consume content responsible).

When it comes to accuracy- I guess that’s the hardest part of all, we can’t just have pointers that would automatically tells us if someone’s craft is valid or not, since everyone’s craft is different all craft is valid to a certain extent (you can easily find scammers of course but that’s another story) what we can have are personal standards and deciding what content to consume or whose content to consume, but that’s entirely a personal decision and since so many people are invested in it- it seems really hard that these “market tendencies” might change any time soon. On that same note of accuracy, I really feel the need to talk about a major occurrence I’ve come across in this whole soulmate scene, minors. Now, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with being a minor and approaching spirituality (I was very much a minor when I started) but there’s a huge difference between just playing around and deciding to create content for the whole world to have access to. Of course I’m aware not all tarot readers in the BTS fandom are minors, and ARMY is very diverse and even if they were only minors it would be wrong to invalidate them, but we can’t ignore the statistics of it when touching this particular topic, according to 2020 data, 50,31% of ARMY are below 18 years old, and 42,59% are between 18-29 but why is this important? because the exact historical and economic moment we are living in mainly impacts these two age groups, thus making all 92,90% of ARMY a potential target to consuming or falling in a behavioural game theory of creating this content without them necessarily being qualified for it. But hey, why do you keep talking about the importance of being qualified? Glad you asked, creating spiritual content all comes down to one amazing term: accountability.

And this will explore two main phases of it, one applicable for that 50,31% that could potentially be drawn to create spiritual content and other for the 42,59% that could potentially be dragged to creating that content without much spiritual knowledge. For the first one, it has a lot to do with cognitive aspects, young people tend to do stuff without much further thought about how their actions impact other people, which, as they should, they are kids, they shouldn’t have to worry too much about emotional responsibility as us adults do, furthermore, they are in life stages where they can’t really comprehend many abstract concepts that we later learn in life, and spirituality is one of those concepts, so they tend to just have fun with it with no regards on how their content might impact other minors (this is where the whole feeding a false scenario that is potentially delusional in exchange of more views, likes comes into play) on a more spiritual level, they also aren’t able to comprehend the boundaries of the celebrities they’re reading for, us readers have to always be careful about the information we give out since it is not ours to give. As for the second group, some of this is still applicable since theorists consider a full cognitive maturity until 23 years of age, but since it is very intersectional itself, i would found it more to a spiritual responsibility, since they are young adults, and if they haven’t been spiritually guided as kids, they’re most probably eager to learn and just awakening yet to some of them the drive to this spirituality is content creation instead of inner work, so they get their hands on a tarot deck, might kind of read a few things, call it a day and start reading for BTS (note: not all of them, I’m aware)

As for the maknae line being the most sought out people with this content, I guess it kinda makes sense now that I’ve said all of the information above, maknae line is closest to the age group of 92,90% of ARMY, so they instantly become more marketable to this content creation and the whole Game Theory that we are seeing. With all that being said, and just adding a note coming from my own spiritual experience, soulmates in any form are a difficult topic for a third person to prode, which is why I, personally, tend to not touch that topic, love is one hell of a concept, especially since we all have different conceptions of love and interpersonal relationships. I do know for a fact that there’s only so far we can go in terms of fated connections, like with astrology, but even then, we would have to know their birth times exactly (so we can check for any indicator or a soulmate connection), and/or compare BTS with the rest of the world’s population in order to accurately tell if someone has a soulmate synastry/overlay/composite with them. Also, soulmate journeys are intimate and we are all just fans, what right do we even have to look for things that do not and will never belong to us?

This is why I’m always telling you guys to PLEASE consume content responsibly! Really! Us content consumers also have our part to play that can help us get more accurate, more drama-free content

REFERENCES (what? you thought I was joking? they’re in alphabetical order)

ARMYCENSUS 2020

Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Projection bias in predicting future utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1209-1248.

March, J. G. (1978). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 587-608.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633-644.

Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc, R. B. (1993). Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 723-729.

Samson, A., & Voyer, B. (2014). Emergency purchasing situations: Implications for consumer decision-making. Journal of Economic Psychology, 44, 21-33.

Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: Ecco.

Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 207-222.

Thaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. Allen Lane.

Thaler, R. H. (2008). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 27, 15-25.

Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2009). The habitual consumer. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 579-592.

#i really said: thesis? wHERE #im sorry i jump at any given opportunity to rant #especially if it gives me an opportunity to share knowledge with you guys

18 notes · View notes

geshertzarmeod · 3 years

Text

Favorite Books of 2020

I wanted to put together a list! I read 74 new books this year, and I keep track of that on Goodreads - feel free to add or follow me if you want to see everything! I’m going to focus on the highlights, and the books that stuck with me personally in one way or another, in approximate order. Also, all but two of them (#5 and #7 on the honorable mention list) are queer/trans in some way. Links are to Goodreads, but if you’re looking to get the books, I suggest your library, the Libby app using your library, your local bookstore, or Bookshop.

The Faggots & Their Friends Between Revolutions by Larry Mitchell, illus. by Ned Asta (originally published 1977). I had a hard beginning of the year and was in a work environment where my queerness was just not welcomed or wanted. I read this in the middle of all of that, and it helped me so much. I took this book with me everywhere. I read it on planes. I read it on the bus, and on trains, and at shul. I showed it to friends... sometimes at shul, or professional development conferences. It healed my soul. Now I can’t find it and might get a new copy. When I reviewed it, in February, I wrote: “I think we all need this book right now, but I really needed this book right now. Wow. This book is magic, and brings back a sense of magic and beauty to my relationship with the world.” Also I bought my copy last July, in a gay bookstore on Castro St. in SF, and that in itself is just beautiful to me. (Here’s a post I made with some excerpts)

Once & Future duology, especially the sequel, Sword in the Stars, by A.R. Capetta and Cory McCarthy. Cis pansexual female King Arthur Ari Helix (she's the 42nd reincarnation and the first female one) in futuristic space with Arab ancestry (but like, from a planet where people from that area of earth migrated to because, futuristic space) works to end Future Evil Amazon.com Space Empire with her found family with a token straight cis man and token white person. Merlin is backwards-aging so he's a gay teenager with a crush and thousands of years of baggage. The book’s entire basis is found family, and it's got King Arthur in space. And the sequel hijacks the original myth and says “fuck you pop culture, it was whitewashed and straightwashed, there were queer and trans people of color and strong women there the whole time.” Which is like, my favorite thing to find in media, and a big part of why I love Xena so much. It’s like revisionist history to make it better except it’s actually probably true in ways. Anyway please read these books but also be prepared for an absolutely absurd and wild ride. Full disclosure though, I didn’t love the first book so much, it’s worth it for the sequel!

The Wicker King by K. Ancrum. This book hurt. It still hurts. But it was so good. It took me on a whole journey, and brought me to my destination just like it intended the whole time. The author’s note at the end made me cry! The sheer NEED from this book, the way the main relationship develops and shifts, and how you PERCEIVE the main relationship develops and shifts. I’m in awe of Ancrum’s writing. If you like your ships feral and needy and desperate and wanting and D/S vibes and lowkey super unhealthy but with the potential, with work, to become healthy and beautiful and right, read this book. This might be another one to check trigger warnings for though.

The Entirety of The Daevabad Trilogy by S.A. Chakraborty. I hadn’t heard of this series until this year, when a good friend recommended it to me. It filled the black hole in me left by Harry Potter. The political and mystical/fantasy world building is just *chef’s kiss* - the complexity! The morally grey, everyone’s-done-awful-things-but-some-people-are-still-trying-to-do-good tapestry! The ROMANCE oh my GOD the romance. If I’m absolutely fully invested in a heterosexual romance you know a book is good, but also this book had background (and then later less background) queer characters! And the DRAMA!!! The third book went in a direction that felt a little out of nowhere but honestly I loved the ride. I stayed up until 6am multiple times reading this series and I’d do it again.

An Unkindness of Ghosts by Rivers Solomon. I loved this book so much that it’s the only book I reviewed on my basically abandoned attempt at a book blog. This book is haunting, horrifying, disturbing, dark, but so, so good. The character's voices were so specific and clear, the relationships so clearly affected by circumstance and yet loving in the ways they could be. This is my favorite portrayal of gender maybe ever, it’s just... I don’t even have the words but I saw a post @audible-smiles made about it that’s been rattling in my head since. And, “you gender-malcontent. You otherling,” as tender pillow talk??? Be still my heart. Be ready, though, this book has all the triggers.. it’s a .

Felix Ever After by Kacen Callender. This book called me out on my perspective on love. Also, it made me cry a lot. And it has two different interesting well-written romance storylines. And a realistic coming-into-identity narrative about a Black trans demiboy. And a nuanced discussion of college plans and what one might do after college. And some big beautiful romcom moments. I wish I had it in high school. I’m so glad I have it now! (trigger warning for transphobia & outing, but the people responsible are held accountable by the end, always treated as not okay by the narrative, and the MC’s friends, and like... this is ownvoices and it’s GOOD.)

The Starless Sea by Erin Morgenstern. My Goodreads review says, “I have no idea what happened, and I loved it.” That’s not wrong, but to delve deeper, this book has an ethereal feeling that you get wrapped up in while reading. Nothing makes sense but that’s just as it should be. You’re hooked. It is so atmospheric, so meta, so fascinating. I’ve seen so many people say they interpreted this character or that part or the ending in all different ways and it all makes sense. And it’s all of this with a gay main character and romance and the central theme, the central pillar being a love of and devotion to stories. Of course I was going to love it.

Fierce Femmes and Notorious Liars: A Dangerous Trans Girl’s Confabulous Memoir by Kai Cheng Thom. “Because maybe what really matters isn’t whether something is true, or false. Maybe what matters is the story itself; what kinds of doors it opens, what kinds of dreams it brings.” This book was so good and paradigm shifting. It reminded me of #1 on this list in the way it turns real life experience and hard, tragic ones at that (in this case, of being a trans girl of color who leaves home and tries to make a life for herself in the city, with its violence), into a beautiful, haunting fable. Once upon a time.

I Wish You All the Best by Mason Deaver. I need to reread this book, as I read it during my most tranceful time of 2020 and didn’t write a review, so I forgot a lot. What I do remember is beautiful and important nonbinary representation, a really cute romance, an interesting parental and familial/sibling dynamic that was both heartbreaking and hopeful, and an on-page therapy storyline. Also Mason Deaver just left twitter but was an absolutely hilarious troll on it before leaving and I appreciate that (and they just published a Christmas novella that I have but haven’t read yet!)

The Truth Is by NoNieqa Ramos. It took a long time to trust this book but I’m so glad I did. It’s raw and real and full of grief and trauma (trigger warnings, that I remember, for grief, death (before beginning of book), and gun violence). The protagonist is flawed and gets to grow over the course of the book, and find her own place, and learn from the people around her, while they also learn to understand her and where she’s coming from. It’s got a gritty, harsh, and important portrayal of found family, messy queerness, and some breathtaking quotes. When I was 82% through this book I posted this update: “This book has addressed almost all of my initial hesitations, and managed to complicate itself beautifully.”

Anger is a Gift by Mark Oshiro. I wasn’t actually in the best mental health place to read this book when I did (didn’t quite understand what it was) but it definitely reminded me of what there is to fight against and to fight for, and broke my heart, and nudged me a bit closer to hope. The naturally diverse cast of characters was one of the best parts of this book. The romance is so sweet and tender and then so painful. This book is important and well-written but read it with caution and trigger warnings - it’s about grief and trauma and racism and police brutality, but also about love and community.

The Prey of Gods by Nicky Drayden. This is a sci-fi/fantasy/specfic mashup that takes place in near-future South Africa and has world-building myths with gods and demigoddesses and a trip to the world of the dead but also a genetically altered hallucinogenic drug that turns people into giant animals and a robot uprising and a political campaign and a transgender pop star and a m/m couple and all of them are connected. It’s bonkers. Like, so, so absolutely mind-breaking weird. And I loved it.

Crier’s War and Iron Heart by Nina Varela. I absolutely LOVE LOVE LOVED the amount of folktales they told each other with queer romances as integral to those stories, especially in Iron Heart. A conversation between the two leads where Crier says she wants to read Ayla like a book, and Ayla says she’s not a book, and Crier explains all the different ways she wants to know Ayla, like a person, and wants to deserve to know her like a person, made me weak. It lives in my head rent-free.

Queen’s Shadow by E.K. Johnston @ekjohnston . I listened to this book on Libby and then immediately listened to it at least one more time, maybe twice, before my borrow time ran out. I love Padmé, and just always wish that female Star Wars characters got more focus and attention and this book gave me that!! And queer handmaidens! And the implication that Sabé is in love with Padmé and that’s just something that will always be true and she will always be devoted and also will make her own life anyway. And the Star Wars audiobooks being recorded the way they are with background sounds and music means it feels like watching a really long detailed beautiful Star Wars movie just about Padmé and her handmaidens.

Sissy: A Coming of Gender Story by Jacob Tobia. I needed to read this. The way Tobia talks about their experience of gender within the contexts of college, college leadership, and career, hit home. I kept trying to highlight several pages in a row on my kindle so I could go back and read them after it got returned to the library (sadly it didn’t work - it cuts off highlights after a certain number of characters). The way they talk about TOKENISM they way they talk about the responsibilities of the interviewer when an interviewee holds marginalized identities especially when no one else in the room does!!! Ahhhh!!!

Bonds of Brass by Emily Skrutskie. Disclaimer for this one that the author was rightfully criticized for writing a Black main character as a white author (and how the story ended up playing into some fucked up stuff that I can’t really unpack without spoiling). But also, the author has been working to move forward knowing she can’t change the past, has donated her proceeds, and this book is really good? It has all the fanfic tropes, so much delicious tension, a totally unexpected plot twist that had me immediately rereading the book. This book was super fun and also kind of just really really good Star Wars fanfiction.

How To Be a Normal Person by T.J. Klune. This book was so sweet, and cute, and hopeful, and both ridiculous and so real. I had some trouble getting used to Gus’ voice and internal monologue, but I got into it and then loved every bit after. The ace rep is something I’ve never seen like this before (and have barely read any ace books but still this was so fleshed out and well rounded and not just like, ‘they’re obsessed with swords not sex’ - looking at you, Once & Future - and leaving it there.) This all felt like a slice of life and I feel like I learned about people while reading it. Some of the moments are so, so funny, some are vaguely devastating. I have been personally victimized by TJ Klune for how he ends this book (a joke, you will know once you read it) but it also reminds me of the end of the “You Are There” episode of Xena and we all know what the answer to that question was.... and I choose to believe the answer here was similar.

You Should See Me in a Crown by Leah Johnson. I wish I had this book when I was in high school. I honestly have complicated feelings about prom and haven’t really been seeking out contemporary YA so I was hesitant to read this but it was so good and so well-written, and had a lot of depth to it. The movie (and Broadway show) “The Prom” wants what this book has.

Plain Bad Heroines by Emily M. Danforth. I never read horror books, so this was a new thing for me. I loved the feeling of this book, the way I felt fully immersed. I loved how entirely queer it was. I was interested in the characters and the relationships, even though we didn’t have a full chance to go super deep into any one person but rather saw the connections between everyone and the way the stories matched up with each other. I just wanted a bit of a more satisfying ending.

Honorable Mention: reread in 2020 but read for the first time pre-2020

Red White & Royal Blue by Casey McQuiston. I couldn’t make this post without mentioning this book. It got me through this year. I love this book so much; I think of this book all the time. This book made me want to find love for myself. You’ve all heard about it enough but if you haven’t read this book what are you DOING.

In Other Lands by Sarah Rees Brennan @sarahreesbrennan . I reread this one over and over too, both as text and as an audiobook. I went for walks when I had lost my earbuds and had Elliott screaming about an elf brothel loudly playing and got weird looks from someone walking their dog. I love this book so much. It’s just so fun, and so healing to read a book reminiscent of all the fantasies I read as a kid, but with a bi main character and a deconstruction of patriarchy and making fun of the genre a bit. Also, idiots to lovers is a great trope and it’s definitely in this book.

Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe by Benjamin Alire Sáenz. This book is forever so important to me. I am always drawn in by how tenderly Sáenz portrays his characters. These boys. These boys and their parents. I love them. I love them so much. This is another one where I don’t even know what to say. I have more than 30 pages in my tag for this book. I have “arda” set as a keyboard shortcut on my phone and laptop to turn into the full title. This book saved my life.

Last Night I Sang to the Monster by Benjamin Alire Sáenz. This book hurts to read - it’s a story about trauma, about working through that trauma, healing enough to be ready to hold the worst memories, healing enough to move through the pain and start to make a life. It’s about found family and love and pain and I love it. It’s cathartic. And it’s a little bit quietly queer in a beautiful way, but that’s not the focus. Look up trigger warnings (they kind of are spoilery so I won’t say them here but if you have the potential to be triggered please look them up or ask me before reading)

Ella Enchanted by Gail Carson Levine. When asked what my all time favorite book is, it’s usually this one. Gail Carson Levine has been doing live readings at 11am since the beginning of the pandemic shut down in the US, and the first book she read was Ella Enchanted. I’ve been slowly reading it to @mssarahpearl and am just so glad still that it has the ability to draw me in and calm me down and feels like home after all this time. This book is about agency. I love it.

Radio Silence by Alice Oseman @chronicintrovert . I’ve had this on my all-time-faves list since I read it a few years ago and ended up rereading it this year before sending a gift copy to a friend, so I could write little notes in it. It felt a little different reading it this time - as I get further away from being a teenager myself, the character voice this book is written in takes a little longer to get used to, but it’s so authentic and earnest and I love it. I absolutely adore this book about platonic love and found family and fandom and mental illness and abuse and ace identity and queerness and self-determination, especially around college and career choices. Ahhh. Thank you Alice Oseman!!!

Leia: Princess of Alderaan by Claudia Gray @claudiagray . I have this one on audible and reread it several times this year. I love the fleshing out of Leia’s story before the original trilogy, I love her having had a relationship before Han, and the way it would have affected her perspective. I also am intrigued by the way it analyses the choices the early rebellion had to make... I just, I love all the female focused new Star Wars content and the complexity being brought to the rebellion.

#red white and royal blue #aristotle and dante discover the secrets of the universe #osemanverse #star wars #queer books #lgbtq books #books #alice oseman #miri personal #wow this took so long but was so worth it!#long post #book recs #PS: if you've read any of these or have questions about any of these books #this is your formal invitation to talk to me about them!!!! even if i don't know you at all!#even if i don't follow you and even if you don't follow me!#my ask box is open anon is on!#original content

71 notes · View notes