#you can dislike an adaptation choice and not be racist

[thatrandomblogsays]

Funniest thing Rick riordan did was write a book series that that made two of the main character’s physical features such a hallmark of their godly lineage that multiple monsters throw hand on site & created a fandom that collectively lost their minds over character art that wasn’t considered accurate and when the movie didn’t have a blond Annabeth… only to decide to completely disregard it for a new adaptation and not even put the characters in wigs for the new series

[aleksanderscult]

I don't understand how Leigh Bardugo could write something as bad as King of Scars and a trilogy as average and problematic in its messages as Grisha ?!

Knowing that she also wrote Six of Crows which was very good for me, limits most people to only knowing that about the Grishaverse (even if, if you take it in the context of the original trilogy, that makes the fate of the Grisha and of the Darkling even worse)... The Language of Thorns with some really cool stories, the Demon in The Wood (which makes you wonder even more why the Darkling is supposed to be the fucking bad guy in the original trilogy and die at the end ?!). Not forgetting recently The Ninth House which has 2 very good volumes and the beginning of The Familiar.

I have a hard time understanding how she can produce good things and such bad things.

I hear that not everyone is perfect, but for me the gap is still huge.

And the most paradoxical thing is that while she seems to gradually improve her way of writing, at no time does she acknowledge having made questionable choices in the writing of Grisha ?

Just see her attempt at moralizing backpedaling with the King of Scars duology...

TW!: Genocide

I don't think she knows or even cares about how genocide and prejudice in real life are not how she portrays them. And they definitely don't vanish by magical means. Clearly she put them in her story as a dramatic effect but she handled it with such unrealism and carelessness that makes you wonder what was the point of putting such issues in her book in the first place. She places such importance to the romance part (Mal × Alina, Kaz × Inej, Nina × Matthias) that the problems of her world take a third place in her books.

Six of Crows and Crooked Kingdom weren't such flawed because the heroes there did some personal jobs and didn't have a humanitarian goal. Kaz, in particular, has made it clear that he doesn't give a fuck about the world, only about his pocket. So they were some pretty straightforward books and well-written enough that you cannot see the issues.

But in the trilogy we have this huge war going on while the protagonist wails about her love interest, kills her enemy at his weakest (so no flex of her powers against him) and other people vanish the Fold for her.

In the duology Bardugo wanted to get back to her own readers:

- "People dislike Zoya. Hmm... Let's make her Suli with a very sad background. Also let's make her the most important character among the heroes just for these haters to shut up. Because if they don't, they'll be racists and misogynists"

- "People love the Darkling. Hmm.... Let's remind those readers of mine what he has done by having Zoya conjure up every delulu thought about him. Also let's have Mal, Alina, Zoya, Nikolai and freaking Misha make him shut up and look stupid"

- "Ah shit they love Aleksander too much. Ok how about this. I'm gonna make the Starless Cult out of them to prove how blind they look"

- "People didn't like the R&R ending. Hmm.... Let's bring Alina back and have her say how happy and peaceful she feels with her current state"

- "People hate Mal. Hmm... Let's have him be likable and funny while thwarting Aleksander's comments like a pro. It's not like he isn't a hot-tempered guy or smth"

(and about bringing the Darkling back, this was lazy writing. Instead of making the heroes face new foes from the north and south, she recycled villains)

By the way, when the TV adaptation of S&B came out she said that she wanted to fix the diversity. Can you imagine that? Not book!Alina as a character, not the trilogy's ending (not protesting on that cruel scene on the show where the Crows gleefully kill the Grisha that stood with the Darkling) but the diversity. Season two's ending was the showrunner's idea as well as Mal's change of personality, not Bardugo's.

Anyway, she should stay on writing short stories. I really love the Language of Thorns and Demon in the Wood so why ruin your fictional world further?

[silmarillisms]

Criticizing the Critics: ROP, Sexism, and Racism

This is a bit of an anti-anti-anti post, if that makes sense. Before I get into it, please understand that I am absolutely not saying that there are no sexist or racist criticisms of The Rings of Power. I am also not saying that none of the people viciously critiquing or review-bombing The Rings of Power are sexist or racist. I am certain that there are those among them who are.

My argument is that the majority of individuals criticizing the show are not doing it for those reasons and that painting them all with the same broad brush of "you're just racist or a misogynist" is making the divide in the fandom worse.

Anyway, I argue with a lot of people on both Reddit and Tumblr about The Rings of Power and I'd like to bring to the table some trends that I've noticed among them.

The Peter Jackson trilogy was the introduction to LOTR for most modern fans. Most of them have never seen the Bakshi film or listened to the BBC audio drama.

Fewer still have read the whole trilogy, especially recently. Even fewer have read the other adjacent works like The Silmarillion, History of Middle-Earth, Nature of Middle-Earth, et cetera.

A lot of these people are wrapped up in the nostalgia of Peter Jackson's films. There are huge parts of Tolkien's mythos (there isn't any hard canon for a vast majority of his world, which was a purposeful choice that he made as an author) that have no hard canon at all but rather several competing explanations or interpretations. These are portrayed largely inaccurately or entirely ignored in PJ's films - and I understand why. There's only so much you can do in a limited amount of run time.

The Rings of Power is actively digging into a lot of that ignored or broadly brushed over mythos - mythos that people are not familiar with and do not associate with the franchise, on a large scale. Many people have put up blockers in their mind and have no interest in learning about the actual mythos we are presented with in the main and extended works on Arda.

As an example, someone on Reddit called me pedantic for explaining the difference between Sauron shapeshifting and Sauron's fea being disembodied from his fana, which is what we see in episode one of season two, and for explaining that the black slime that comprises his form is probably a nod to Gandalf saying that Durin's Bane, also a fallen and corrupted maia, took on a similar form when he slew it.

These are simple concepts from the mythos that Tolkien wrote but PJ excluded and they are often the most hotly criticized by people who dislike the show.

I think these objections, for the most part, stem from the fact that PJ's trilogy is what a lot of people know and where their nostalgia is rooted. A different adaptation can feel threatening to something they know and love. Imagine you got into some series as a kid not knowing there was a book series behind it and never reading it. You grow up on it. As an adult, it's remade and it's not like the series you remember. Do you care if it adheres more closely to the original source material that you're not even that familiar with? If the pacing and themes and character choices are different from the series you loved?

Look, I'm not excusing these people from being assholes. I just don't think that most of them are actually upset about strong female or POC characters. Some of them definitely are, but in my experience those aren't the arguments that I'm actually coming across in true droves. Reducing their arguments to racism and sexism does nothing to combat their actual complaints, which in bulk seem to stem from ignorance rather than malice.

It's possible to argue in good faith, but we all have to participate. A bigger fandom is better for everyone. Unless someone is obviously being a bigot, try to extend them a little grace if you reach out to them. You might be surprised by the people who come around.

[anghraine]

petty ranting about the LOTR movies

I've been in various fandoms where an ostensibly "faithful" adaptation was frequently held up as the One True Version of the text, the author's vision brought to life, the one nothing could ever compare to and the reason no others should ever be made, how is it possible to envision the characters or interpretations of them differently blah blah blah. (1995 P&P fandom is very frequently like this, sometimes Faith and Fear fans are, esp wrt The Borgias, etc.)

But I'm not sure I've ever seen an adaptation so uncritically adored by so many as the Jackson LOTR movies. I don't think any fandom is so insistent on an adaptation as people are insistent on the movies as the one true version of Middle-earth, even where they're radically different. Even when people agree with criticisms, it's been really noticeable that people often also add disclaimers about how they love the movies, they're perfect in almost every way, they're super faithful apart from this thing, of course the reason for [choice that was made] was understandable it's just that... etc.

And the thing is, I may hate some of the interpretations in other allegedly faithful adaptations. Like, speaking of the 1995 P&P, I dislike a lot about it and its influence on popular perception of what P&P is, of what adaptation should look like, of the brooding version of my fave hero Darcy, and so on. But I do understand why it's often held up as a faithful adaptation.

It uses a lot of the original text (though it can be subtly or glaringly different in execution), it's able to blur the lines between its own inventions and material from the text in a way that's often convinced audiences that things from the adaptation are actually in the novel, and it's more successful at doing this than any other Davies version of Austen IMO, it has a very convincing cast, blahblah. Like, I disagree that it is as faithful as it's reputed to be (by a long ways), but I get why it has that reputation, at least.

But I genuinely find Jackson's LOTR so different from the book! The movies certainly draw from it in significant ways, but dialogue is heavily altered or manufactured, motivations and characterization are simplified, altered, or just outright transformed into something entirely different, themes are shifted around, the structure is seriously changed (something Tolkien specifically did not want to happen), the relatively compact battles in the book are turned into big action set pieces taking up major swaths of screen time, a lot of the lore is heavily contracted, changed, or simply absent where it casts heavy shadows over the dynamics in the book, and oh yeah, they manage to be even more racist.

Some of this (not the racism) is defensible even if I don't personally agree w/ those defenses in a lot of cases. But there are a ton of differences between them! And you can talk about the films as their own thing cinematically and that's its own discussion. But the conflation of the movies with the actual things Tolkien actually wrote is even more widespread and absolute and annoying than with things like the 1995 P&P, with not half as much reason for it.

[fancylala4]

Hi! I see where U reblogged my tangled crit posts 👀

I dont hate it, it just doesnt hit as well as it should. I prefer the barbie version. And I prefer Disney Rapunzel with ROTG Jack because not only they the same age but i find the parallels a bit more fascinating.

I remember seeing a arrow toy Rapunzel themed at Target, just recently I found out she was going to use a bow and arrow beforehand XD much much cooler than a frying pan!

Which begs to question! Why is the franchise so off with its girl characters? Gothel's entire motivation is staying young, Cass ended up a mess, Ariana is underwritten. And Rapunzel barely has another girl her age to hang out with. It's just Cass.

I get it. I disliked the movie at first because of the movie itself and how badly it was written but I started to hate the movie because of the rabid, racist fans and how badly they treated patf just to prop this movie up back in the day. The fandom is still pretty bad from what I seen.

The Barbie version is one of the best adaptations of rapunzel I have ever seen. It’s so good and it holds up perfectly well today except for the animation of course. If you get a chance, you should check out rapunzel’s revenge. It’s a great rapunzel comic and Disney took elements from that version as well.

I definitely agreed that Jack Frost and rapunzel would make a good couple. I liked them way better than him and Elsa and definitely would be way better than creepy dream.

Oh I saw that now in stores and I wonder why they made it when Merida is right there. I did hear that the series writers wanted her to have the bow and arrow but Disney didn’t like that idea. Probably because they wanted her to be helpless and didn’t want her to be taken seriously with a weapon. I remember looking at some Lego sets and I saw that rapunzel had a bow in a set for the series. So I think that rumor was true. Yeah, I would like the bow and arrow way better than that dumb frying pan. I guess it doesn’t matter since rapunzel wasn’t shown as a threat with the frying pan and it was more Flynn’s weapon in the movie.

Yeah, it’s so weird how this franchise is targeted towards little girls and all the female characters in it is just off and can be really offensive. Gothel is a walking outdated stereotype of many, rapunzel has no flaws, gets overshadowed in her OWN movie and couldn’t even drive the plot of the movie! It’s hard to believe this movie was made in 2010, it belongs in the 50s.

I have limited knowledge of the series characters but is cass the one who they made a villain and has blue hair like she’s some anime character? If so, It’s bad because I think I seen people say that she’s a villain because of how she looks and they turned a friendship into a bitter one just in a sake of something dumb. Do the writers think that girls have to be catty to each other or else it’s unrealistic? It’s a weird choice for a franchise targeted towards little girls. Ariana is the queen, right? I think I reblog a post about cultural appropriation in the movie and they mentioned her name. But really? They could have had a good plot point about rapunzel and her getting used to a good mother after what she’s been through. But they thought it was better just to focus on the king, have him be even more abusive to rapunzel than gothel was (reading her diary, following her everywhere and locking her up in a fucking tower after she just got out of one!!) and say that it’s ok because he’s doing it because he loves her.. I also “love” how the queen basically did nothing about this and just say supportive things rapunzel behind the king’s back like that means anything. Disney really needs to hire women for this franchise because this is just embarrassing and sad in this day and age.

[myinterestsvary-writes]

i have read all the comics and eve doesn’t get worse in behavior with mark. she is actually always there for him and supporting and breaks up with him one for honesty a very justified reason. but other than that these two have a very healthy relationship

That’s great to hear, I’m also happy to confirm in some cases that people are just preemptively defensive about show!Amber because for some reason they want to hold onto the belief that people who dislike her are just racist and misogynistic and aren’t trying to reconcile a writing choice that confused the audience. The thing is, from what I’ve seen online with the comics before the show aired, people were really harsh towards Eve and readily criticized her character. Often times over minor things or easily explainable decisions, so I do expect more misogyny to be fair because it is a huge problem within the superhero genre and fandom, and I can see how people can expect racism too it’s just that, it wasn’t completely the case in my opinion with Invincible.

I personally have trouble separating my experiences with other adaptions from my witnessing of the original work when getting into fandom. I was comparing show!Eve to comic!Eve and found myself liking the former much better, which is actually unfair of me under the individual analysis component of comprehension. Sure, comic writers aren’t the best at writing women and I do see some dissatisfying choices with some women characters in the older version of Invincible, but it’s certainly not egregious. The show was meant to be an improvement on the original anyway but even back then you can feel the respect I believe the writers had for their women characters.

I’m on issue #78 right now and knowing Eve’s decision regarding a particular topic, I’m inclined to agree with her and have compassion for her always.

[middle-earth-mythopoeia]

Hey so I hope you don't mind me sending you an ask and I hope you can be understanding if I at any point say things awkwardly, and PLEASE hear me out, but I feel like it's... not always the best plan to call somebody racist for disliking some of the casting choices in rop.

The best example I can give to explain what I mean is that I have been angry for the past 20 years that Faramir and Boromir didn't have black hair in the movies and instead had light hair (what are they? From Rohan?) and that Theoden had blonde hair instead of white hair (even though he most certainly would have had blonde hair in his youth. And it's not because I have anything against people with light brown hair, it's because that's not what Tolkien wrote.

And I think a lot of the people upset at the diversity aren't upset because they are racist or because they hate diversity. Certainly there are some people who hate it for those reasons, but to put everybody under that umbrella feels a bit disingenuous and is giving Amazon a win because as their marketing is proving they only hired a diverse cast so that they could hide behind it and make accusations whenever anybody criticizes anything about the show.

And the think is, I know several people, both white people and poc, who are all for diversity in all sorts of things and often go out of their way to try to make room for diversity (note: I work in theater and have worked as a casting director as well, and it's always a very conscious effort to bring in diversity, so that's the context of "making room for diversity"). But these same people, both the white people and the poc, hate the rop cast solely because that goes against what Tolkien described. Just like giving Boromir and Faramir light colored hair upsets them because that is also not what Tolkien wrote.And just like people are upset that Elrond in rop has light brown hair when he's supposed to resemble Luthien with her shadow-dark hair. (although I will admit I think I'm alone in disliking Theoden's blonde hair as opposed to him getting white hair).

I am positive that nobody (or very few people) would have any problem if ROP had featured rhun or harad characters as major players and went out of its way to explore that character and those cultures. The problem for a lot of people isn't that there are poc in a lotr adaptation. The problem is that, particularly because amazon and the showrunners have been proven to be trying to do nothing more than to spit on the memory of JRR and Christopher while shitting all over their legacy, tokenizing characters solely so that they (the showrunners) can hide behind their diversity so that nobody can criticize the show just seems like yet another slap in the face because it's not what Tolkien described.

And I do understand that it's a lot more complicated than "I hate that Faramir and Boromir don't have black hair", but for a lot of people that's legitimately all it is. And to fall for Amazon's marketing scheme of "let's cast a diverse cast so that we can call anybody who dislikes our show racists" just... doesn't feel right to me, certainly in the context that I have presented.

Anyway thank you for your time, and I hope you can understand where I am coming from.

Hi! Thanks for the ask. I think I understand where you're coming from, at least I'm fairly sure I do.

I certainly hope you haven't misunderstood my posts—I definitely don't consider everybody racist who is critical of the casting choices in The Rings of Power. I mean, I'm critical of the casting choices in it too!

A lot of people, myself included, have criticized the casting for tokenism, just like you described, so that's definitely not an anti-diversity standpoint, it's a frustration that Amazon is trying to use diversity as a selling-point so they can pat themselves on the back for it.

And yeah, I'm with you, I'm very frustrated by the lack of adherence to basic details like hair color, especially when it doesn't seem like it should be that hard for Amazon to get good wigs for their actors given their gigantic budget.

[on-a-lucky-tide]

So, I've been wanting to send you this message for a while but ya know, anxiety (even if I am on anonymous) but anyways, I just wanted to say, thank you so much. I was 100% ready to leave the Witcher fandom because of the Netflix fans. Frankly, the second season of the series made me feel physically sick with how much I disliked it. The only other piece of media that made me feel that way was Nightmare of the Wolf so I mean, at least they were consistent. But I felt really alone for a long time because TWN fans kept raving about the season, saying how it was so so good! [As a side note; I haven't even read the books yet because I haven't had the time but they are in my TBR pile. The first season got me interested in the original material so I bought the books but I digress]. But you (and some of your mutuals) made me realise I wasn't alone in my thinking and feelings and to not give up on the books. You posted such beautiful and articulate breakdowns of the book, and compared the original works to whatever the fuck they were trying to create with the show. It felt wonderful to see actual posts like that breaking things down instead of, "If you don't like this character, you're racist!" or "If you didn't like this season, then you're just a sad dudebro from the game fandom!" or attacking anyone who thinks differently than them. I've been on this hellsite long enough to know that usually when those fans come out, that's the beginning of the downfall of a fandom...anyways, again, I just wanted to say thank you so, so much. You don't have to reply to this or post it or anything like that, I just wanted to say, from a fan who's just starting to get into The Witcher, I appreciate all that you do.

Hey Non. You're not alone! There are quite a few of us who were on a scale from 'eh' to 'this is just bad/boring' and 'yikes, they really made that narrative/design choice', but not all of them are as gobby as I am. I do have the filterable tags though, so it can be blacklisted if you're just here for the canon stuff.

As for leaving, don't go! There's still a place for you in fandom, be it for loving the games, books, ttrpg, comics. Hell, even if you're just here for the fan content, there's a place for you too. Don't leave something you love because of a few boorish idiots. The fandom that loves the games, books, comics, Gwent, is full of amazing people with unique experiences/perspectives. And the canon is so much richer (imo).

Myself and a friend are going to do an in depth comparison between Netflix Coen and Book Coën to really examine the differences based on our "watching" of the adaptation and "reading" of the text. It'll be ready in a week or so, and I hope you enjoy it.

[margoshansons]

i wish from the start bridgerton was like "this is a place vaguely based on regency england" and cast poc as aristocrats and left it at that without trying to explain why racism (and colonialism i guess?) is over. ofc there would still be real world implications but they could have the costumes and aesthetics and setting with having to address an important issue thats way too big for a show like this to handle sensitively

See that doesn’t really work because Quinn’s books take place in Regency era England, although I understand where you’re coming from.

Really what they should’ve done is just committed to the color-blind part of color-blind casting. My favorite example of this is the 1997 version of Cinderella. The King is White, the Queen is Black and the Prince is fucking Filipino. How did it happen? No one knows but no one’s gonna question it because they fit the roles they were cast in and it’s Cinderella.

It’s the same with adaptations like The Lizzie Bennet Diaries or Emma Approved. There’s no mention of why Charlotte Lucas is now Asian or Jane Fairfax is black (granted those are more modern adaptations but the point still stands).

Color-Blind casting is a creative choice and one that can either help or hinder your project depending on how you use it. The issue is that Bridgerton decided to give themselves an origin story as to why BIPOC people suddenly have rights like Britain and America aren’t still enslaving people at this point instead of embracing that creative choice.

And there are ways to incorporate some of those heavier issues too! I saw a version of Much Ado About Nothing that took place during the British Colonization of India and it added such a layer of nuance to the characters of Hero and Claudio as well as Benedick’s decision to believe Hero because she was a woman of color whose character had been called into question by her oppressors and the upholders of a very specific ideology regarding societal conduct.

Bride and Prejudice managed to do this beautifully as well! It makes Lalita’s (Lizzie’s) dislike of Darcy more nuanced because he’s kinda racist the first time they meet and it adds more to the characterization of Darcy because his social awkwardness is a result of culture shock and his arc is about not becoming racist (we can talk about the effectiveness of that arc later). And they do it again with Kholi, having him come back to India because he wants a “traditional” wife, which gives Lalita another legitimate reason to hate him and refuse him aside from “eh he’s embarrassing and misogynistic” (I’m oversimplifying but you get it).

The point is, there are ways to incorporate these big issues without making the entire show about them. Simon could’ve confided in Daphne the pressures his father placed on him as a black man in English society to prove his worth as the Duke of Hastings. Anthony could’ve said something insensitive about the British army taking over India which causes Kate to blow up at him further and explain the real consequences she had to face growing up (thereby also giving her more character development and taking down Anthony a peg or two). Even something as simple as Queen Charlotte trying to push her husband to abandon the idea of slavery before he has a breakdown and we see her feeling guilty for bringing it up.

But then again that wouldn’t be Color-Blind casting because you’re directly incorporating that actor’s ethnicity into your story instead of letting the material speak for itself. And Historical Romance has never been about that anyway, but at this point Bridgerton is no longer classified as a Historical Romance imo, it’s more Historical Fantasy.

The point being, Bridgerton is trying to have its cake and eat it too by saying “yes this is color blind casting” while also trying to create their own lore around their version of Regency Era England, which makes for some very very weird implications when you think about it.

[curmemini]

a different anon, but I wanted to make a few notes on that topic you brought up:

Art and writing in general has always been treated differently. Its one of the reasons why its unlikely one could get a good tv series based on Warrior Cats or Animorphs. The books feature a lot of gore, death, and in the case of Animorphs some good ol' psychological body horror, while at the same time being aimed at children.

Its also easier to catch racist creations in artwork, then it is with writing. (Harry potter always had some PRETTY terrible things, such as the Goblin bankers. But the age of people who first read that novel, and the fact that they were in a book, helped obfuscate it for a while.)

Exactly! I think it's fair to say that while writing is the story and the imagery comes secondary, art is the reverse - art is imagery and story comes secondary. The secondary here isn't denoting importance, it is denoting if the reader/watcher? looker? person looking at a piece of art ... has to make the active choice to engage with a work. What is interesting is that both of those series have graphic novel / manga adaptions. It's been far too long since I read the Warriors manga, but I distinctly remember the Animorphs transformation being watered down both from how it was described in the books and the fun cover art of the original series. Which makes sense, because that would be horrifying. I think the old Animorphs show sucked too but I was very young when I had any feasible way of watching that on nickelodeon

But I also think it's fair to say that in order to make fan-spaces more inclusive, fans should really take a look at what they are willing to accept in writing versus in artwork. Not in a "squick" or distaste way, but in a - can this be used to harm others, and how way. OR alternatively, there should be better features to prevent harmful works from being the first thing in front of someone's eyes. Some will say that it already is inclusive, but there is not an end point to that ideal, I don't think. And I have seen plenty of testimony from BIPOC about how spaces are still encouraging racism. After all, much of the backlash against the person running for AO3 board turned into racially charged insults and conspiracy. And I think that while the filter system we have on AO3 is leagues above what we have on fanfic.net - it still has light years to go before it is a perfect system. I believe that at the very least, if we are going to run with the argument that AO3 is an archive or is a library (both options I dislike, btw, I think its a terrible comparison) and that makes it a sacred thing which can't be moderated or have works removed from and must allow ALL work on it so long as it could be considered fan-ish, then we should work on systems that should've been in place from the start. Permanent blacklists, cross-fandom filtering, hiding dead-dove content behind being logged in I think would be a very fair change. Like, look. AO3 is not the first fanfic site I have regularly used. When a my little pony fanfiction site has better content filtering than you (opt-in, rather than opt-out for nsfw, dark/grim dark and something else I believe) then I think there is an issue and a large discussion to be had that isn't just blown away by "oh nooooo censorship!! our lives are ruined and the sky is falling and now they're coming for underage fics but next itll be you queers!" This doesn't solve the problem of -ism content, and I don't think that is a problem that can be solved quite so easily. But at the very least, it'd hide it so those who don't want to read content that is usually tagged for and would really rather think it's not being posted could live their lives. ... Now that I'm thinking about it, there's a few other sites I use that hide certain content from users who are not logged in. They already have the framework to stop guests from commenting... surely that would not be too much of a stretch? (which btw, libaries DO prune books, we DO have policies for the removal of books even before they are challenged. Most archives have policies on what content they allow to be publicly displayed, etc. Most of the people arguing against this have either never worked in a library or are taking an extremely literal take on ao3s name)

[richincolor]

SomeThoughts about Netflix's Shadow & Bone

This past Friday, the highly anticipated Shadow and Bone series premiered on Netflix and fans of the Grishaverse all over the world logged in to watch their favs come to life. There was much discussion of the inclusion of numerous characters from throughout the Grishaverse and that diversity was a focus in the casting of the show, especially Jessie Mei Li who is biracial, therefore changing the main character’s ethnicity to biracial Shu Han. Unfortunately, that decision didn’t pay off to well due to the showrunner’s handling of Alina’s ethnicity. Twitter blew up as people shared their hurt and warned others about what to expect.

I had planned to watch the show and happened to see one such warning before I watched the series so I was prepared. I watched a couple of episodes, then called it a night. The next morning I was unsettled and reached out to my fellow contributors here on Rich in Color. No one had seen it yet, but Jessica said she was planning to as well. As we chatted, I felt that our conversation should be shared with our readers, so Jessica and I decided to write our thoughts down and have a conversation after she watched a few episodes herself.

Oh, and spoilers abound!

First off, before we dive into this conversation: Have you read the Grishaverse series? How much did you know about the story going in?

K. Imani: As everyone knows I love fantasy so I’m open to reading all sorts of fantasy books. I read the Shadow & Bone series a few years ago and enjoyed it. When the Six of Crows duology came out I read those too and actually enjoyed those better than the original series. Why - more diversity? It also expanded the world and the different perspectives of “Grisha” like folk from other cultures. It was very clear from the writing that Bardugo realized her first series was very lacking in diversity and worked hard to change it. I actually re-read both series during quarantine, so I had a fair idea of what the Netflix series would be about.

Jessica: I’ve actually never read a single Grishaverse book! I know, shocking. I only knew two things about the series going into the show: 1) Six of Crows is a heist book? 2) Ben Barnes is a person who exists.

The cast announcement for any show is always so exciting, and Shadow and Bone was no different. How did you feel about the casting -- before and after you watched the show? What did you think was done well, and what did you think could be improved?

K. Imani: Before watching the show I was actually a bit confused about some of the casting choices. I didn’t understand why 3 of the main Six of Crows characters were in the show and I honestly did not make the connection to Alina and Mal being biracial. Knowing that the Grishaverse is “Russian-based” and knowing that some ethnic Mongolians are considered Russian I just found it cool that the show cast a person who didn’t fit a Russian stereotype. Oh boy was I way off! Overall I was pleased with the casting and think all the actors did a great job. I liked the few changes they did make with casting actors of colors for other roles to round out the diversity of the world.

Bringing it back to Mal, I was confused as to if he was supposed to be coded as biracial. I missed the reference in the show, but I did read somewhere that he was supposed to be as well and that is what bonded him to Alina. If that’s the case, then how come Alina was the only person to experience racism? That thought continues to sit on my heart because it shows that the writers did not really think through how they wanted to express racism and included it for the wrong reasons.

Jessica: My reaction was basically, “I’m happy that other people seem happy!” since again, I had no context for the show. Casting on Netflix shows often seems to be a case of “cool, this is some exciting casting… but definitely could be better and even more intentional.”

K. Imani: “More intentional” That is the word right there! Making a story more diverse is wonderful and fully reflects the world we live in, however if you just randomly do it without thinking it through it comes off as insensitive. I know Leigh Bardugo used this show as an opportunity to make her story better (and I do not begrudge her of that fact) but when one doesn’t think it through, the criticism that is being expressed is a direct result.

Jessica: Sidenote -- I ended up watching a booktube video titled “Darker Jesper, Fat Nina, Shadow and Bone Casting Thoughts” on booktube channel Chronicles of Noria about the casting. Highly recommend checking it out. I also recommend this profile on Jessie Mei Li, who talks about being gender nonconforming.

Did any changes in the Netflix adaptation stick out to you? Were there changes you liked or disliked?

K. Imani: My favorite part of the adaptation is how well the show runners included the Six of Crows characters into the narrative. The storyline completely worked for me and connected the two stories together. I really enjoyed the Arken storyline (and the character tbh) as it was used to flesh out the world of the Grishaverse, which made the series much more interesting. I also liked the change of making Ivan and Fedyor a couple instead of just Darkling’s henchmen as it humanized them and actually made me like Ivan because they were so cute together. Though how that will come into play after the events of Episode 8 will be interesting. I’m a sucker for the Enemies to Lover trope so I loved that Nina’s & Matthia’s story of how they came together was included here. In either Six of Crows or Crooked Kingdom (I don’t remember), it was told as a flashback, but I loved that it was moved here as their “origin story”, so to speak, and how it connects to the events of the Alina timeline.

What I didn’t like...the casual racism. It really bothered me and left me sad the next morning. For example, a certain poster shown in the first episode had me physically cringe and I was upset that 1)  the production designers even created it and 2) no one, at no point, said that was a bad idea? Come on! It was horrible to see and I can imagine the hurt an AAPI would experience seeing that. And then, it got worse. Racial slurs thrown around a couple of times in the first couple of episodes to show that Alina is an outsider. They were jarring and took me out of the narrative. Having read the books I knew there was tension between the Ravkans and Shu Han, so I could understand what the show runners were trying to do, but it was actually never explained in show, hence making the racism feel random and just there for shock value.

Jessica: I saw tweets going around alluding to the racism Alina (and other characters to a less frequent extent) faced, so I braced myself for it. I’m only a few episodes in, and the instances so far were brief… but it just didn’t feel right. The foundation for this portrayal of racism wasn’t laid properly. And if the work of laying the foundation and really digging into what it means for the overall worldbuilding doesn’t happen… then why include it at all? Especially if it might be painful for certain viewers? I’m sure harm wasn’t the intent, but that’s the impact. Why not leave it out and let the show be escapism?

K. Imani: Jessica, the eyes comment took me out, not gonna lie. I audibly screamed. Anyone who has experienced a racist comment based on their looks felt that in their gut which is horrible when watching a show for escapism.

Jessica: Yeah, the eyes and rice-eater comments were especially frustrating. On top of it being a reminder of the racism Asians experience daily… it doesn’t make much sense. Like, canonically, do people in Ravka not eat rice? An American’s conception of racism isn’t necessarily going to make sense in a (Imperial Russia-inspired) fantasy world. But maybe I’m missing something since I didn’t read the original books.

And the eyes comment… whoof. When I was a kid, other kids would make fun of my eyes and ask me to, like, count seagulls because surely, I couldn’t see out of my eyes… And the other kids were also Asian! Internalized racism is so real. It’s disappointing that Shadow and Bone would include this experience as, I don’t know, discrimination flavor text. Surely there were better ways to portray discrimination that made sense within the Grishaverse…

Ellen Oh really said it so well: “If a writer is going to show racism against Asians, it's important to balance it with the beauty of all that makes us Asian also.” Where is the balance? Where is the nuance? Even if Alina’s Shu Han mother isn’t alive, couldn’t Alina have had a treasured Shu Han pendant? Just spitballing here. There were so many possibilities.

K. Imani: Exactly. I agree with Ellen and unfortunately there is no balance. That’s what makes it so hurtful. The focus is on how bad it is that she’s biracial and how bad the Shu Hans are for no specific reason. Because Alina is an orphan and grew up in Ravka, she unfortunately has no connection to Shu Han culture (or at least what is shown on screen) so all that she identifies as is Ravkan who just happens to look like a Shu Han person, but she doesn’t exhibit any pride in being Shu Han. Her ethnicity is just another obstacle to overcome which is all the more cringeworthy and why having Alina be biracial just to be biracial without thinking it through ended up being so problematic. Having her be biracial and using casual racism as an “obstacle” that she has to overcome is such a shallow interpretation of racism and shows the writers didn’t do the work to really think about the why the racism exists.

In addition to talking about what was done well and what went wrong or felt off about certain representation, it’s important to look at the “how.” How did this happen?

Jessica: I read on Twitter that one of the show writers is Korean and biracial -- which is awesome! I was really heartened to hear that. But at the same time, this highlights how important it is to have multiple marginalized voices in the room who can speak with some level of expertise. I don’t know the decision-making process that went into including this sort of surface-level, simplistic version of real world racism, but I wonder if anyone, at any point, said “is there a more nuanced and original way to portray this?” or “how will this affect Asian viewers?” Did someone bring it up, and they were overruled? What happened?

This absolutely isn’t a judgment on the Asian writers or staff on the show. When I’ve done collaborative writing, there were times I caught an issue and said “we need to be more sensitive about this” -- and there were other times when my teammates pointed out something I didn’t notice. It happens! That’s why it’s so important to have multiple marginalized perspectives when creating something -- especially when it’s a work as impactful and far-reaching as a Netflix show. Placing the burden of complex, nuanced representation on one, or a scant handful, of marginalized creators is just not going to work… and it’s not fair to the creators, either.

Frankly, this is a problem in so many industries -- film, publishing, games... there are so many “diverse” shows, games, etc with all-white or majority white teams. Good, nuanced representation can only happen when BIPOC / marginalized creators are the majority and have power behind-the-scenes. (This is why I’m really excited to watch the show Rutherford Falls -- half the writers room are Indigenous writers, as is the co-creator!)

K. Imani: Exactly! It’s great that one of the writers is biracial and Korean, but if she’s the only one how much input did she really have? I’m by no means knocking her experience but, say for example, that particular poster in the first episode. No one else behind the scenes found it problematic? There are many steps to a production process and that poster, if there had been more diverse voices present on the production staff instead of just 1 writer, would have been flagged as a huge problem and redone. The poster was supposed to be a “short cut” to show Ravkan/Shu Han tension but instead it came off as so profoundly racist and unnecessary. There are many other non-racist ways to explore the tensions between the two countries that could have been explored instead of just jumping to racism. And...as someone on Twitter pointed out, we never see the tension between the Ravkans and the Shu Han, but we openly see fighting between the Ravkans and the Fjierdans, so why were they not vilified to the same extent?

Jessica: Right. I’m definitely not saying racism can’t be portrayed in fantasy ever. But if you’re going to do it, make it make sense within the world. Don’t just use it as shorthand for “this character is Other.” I mean, experiencing racism isn’t what makes me Asian…

K. Imani: Boom! I’m going to repeat that for the people in the back...experiencing racism is not what makes a person Asian or Black, and if you are going to have racism in a work of art, be sure to provide balance to show all the other aspects of a person of color’s life.

Since we’re talking creators behind-the-scenes… which YA fantasy books by Asian authors do you think would make great Netflix shows or movies?

Jessica: I’ve got a list about a mile long, but I’ve cut it down to my top four:

These Violent Delights by Chloe Gong

Forest of a Thousand Lanterns by Julie C. Dao

The Tiger at Midnight by Swati Teerdhala

The Epic Crush of Genie Lo by F.C. Yee

You’re welcome, Netflix execs who are totally reading this blog. Hop to it!

K. Imani: I second the Tiger at Midnight series! I loved the first two books and can’t wait for the conclusion in June. While not YA, the City of Brass series would make an excellent Netflix series. Anything Maurene Goo writes would be fun rom-coms (because we need those too!).

Jessica: I mean, with To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before complete… Netflix clearly needs to start adapting Maurene Goo’s books.

K. Imani: Yes, the people demand it! I don’t care which book, just grab one of them and get the production started.

On a final note, I do want to say that despite the criticism the show rightly deserves, there was much about the show that was enjoyable. The storytelling was strong and moved at a good pace, the costuming was on point, special effects worked seamlessly into the narrative, and even small touches such as how the Grishas used their small science was visually interesting. Book adaptations are always hard to pull off well and the Shadow and Bone production team did a good job overall. Their intention towards adding more diversity is a step in the right direction, but just didn’t do enough. Let’s hope they learn from their mistakes and improve for season 2.

[gayregis]

Do you have any thoughts on TWN using non polish actors to portray characters from polish fantasy book with dense polish culture and roots? And on how most of the cast apperereance are drastically different than in the books? Like Foltest, Renfri, Fringilla or Calanthe? (Sorry this is the correct one, i forgot to add Fringilla on my previous question.)

i feel like the witcher should not be handled by a large american company like netflix. it is clear that a lot of decisions were made to “dumb the series down” in a manner that would make it more of a pop culture phenomenon that could be used to profit off of from viewership, subscriptions, social buzz, and merchandise, instead of an opportunity to demonstrate actual artistry, storytelling, character depth, and poignant messages. the company that handles it CAN be american or another nationality besides polish, but it shouldn’t be a huge one focused on making as much money and social sharability as possible, that will ruin things. (i also feel like the witcher should not be a live-action adaptation, but this is kind of besides the point... to better gauge how i think the feel of a visual-audial witcher adaptation should look, my dream adaptation would be that of a more “adult version” (”adult” meaning in themes like war and despair) studio ghibli or laika).

in regards to casting, i feel like it’s fine to not use an all polish cast as long as they fit the character description in a way that is actually relevant to the plot. so many people in response to people of color being cast in the witcher were volalitely racist and demanded a “polish cast” - as if polish MUST = white. even though poland is not as ethically diverse as some other european countries, people of color do exist in poland, as they/we exist everywhere. if you want an “all-polish cast and production,” that’s fine to me, i don’t think it’s inherently necessary, but i think if one is doing so, that doesn’t mean that it would be wrong to cast actors of color in roles. 

i think the issue lies more with storytellng, for two reasons. one is that eastern european people involved on set seem to actually understand the witcher and what it’s about way better than any of the british cast, and by that i mean sakharov and baginski, who have demonstrated more understanding of like, the style of storytelling (not every scene needs to be jammed with action, drama, sex, gore), what the characters actually mean to each other, and the lore in general. this makes sense because i have read some articles and such before about how the witcher was and is important to its fans in poland and eastern europe because very little “slavic fantasy” ever gets exported and represented internationally, and of course sapkowski involved many cultural references in the series, so it’s recognizable to people from those regions (or are diaspora from those regions) who grew up hearing these fairytales, etc. it’s more of a meaningful callback and less of a “foreign curiosity,” if that makes sense. so for those reasons, i think it’s important to have a majority polish and/or slavic writing room/directors/etc, people behind the story and how the story is told - but that doesn’t mean the writer’s room should be all white men, though. diversity in gender, race, etc should be considered.

the other reason is that the casting for the netflix is inaccurate, but not for reasons of race. the issue with anya chalotra as yennefer isn’t that she is indian, it’s that her hair is incredibly straight and flat and not like yennefer’s curly stormy hair at all, and that her face is so soft and childlike, she doesn’t look stern and cold like yennefer at all. there are many casting issues amongst the white members of cast, such as henry cavill, who doesn’t fit the description of geralt at all because geralt looks like he’s starved constantly, and joey batey, who ... well, dandelion is supposed to be blonde and curly long-haired... but of course, these are the appearances which don’t really “matter” in regards to the story. except i think geralt’s build, as well as yennefer and ciri’s proximity in age, which makes me nauseous to think about how they only have a 6 year age difference

one physical description which does actually matter to the plot/lore is that of calanthe, pavetta, and ciri, as they are a matrelineal line, but in netflix, they don’t look related at all. i saw so many people complaining that they should have chosen a white actress for calanthe, but why is she the problem? why not cast people of color for calanthe, pavetta, and ciri altogether? they should look related and have the ashen grey hair/green eyes, but that doesn’t mean they have to be white. it’s a similar issue with yennefer and fringilla. they are supposed to look similar, and i saw many people complaining that they chose mimi who is black to be fringilla, they are just using “they need to look similar” as an excuse to hide their racism and anti-blackness, because anya is more white-passing than mimi is. from my perspective, why not then cast a black actress who looks similar to mimi as yennefer, then? “they need to look similar” again does not mean “they need to all be white or white-passing.”

we should have cast actors that both fit the descriptions of the characters in the books AND are diverse, without it being “random diversity to appeal to a diverse audience.” lauren thought she was so clever by throwing the actors of color in the roles of background characters, stereotypes, forgettable and disposable aides to the white leads, or super evil villains... i see what you did... why not center actors of color in an actually proud and leading light, with lead roles, where the casting makes sense and isn’t there for tokenization that does nothing to empower people of color? actually incorporate people of color into your artistic projects in a way that respects them and makes sense and not just so you can get more views to make more money

other divergences from canon like foltest were just piss-poor and demonstrated the lack of understanding about the messages of the story. foltest was supposed to be handsome, elegant, and as a refined a king as any, to show how those in power are actually corrupt and as prone to disgusting acts as any other human being, that foltest is not a better man than geralt because he is beautiful and sits on a throne. by making him disgusting on the outside, they totally missed the point that he is supposed to mask his disgustingness on the inside with beauty on the outside. also i feel like (maybe related) twn really made a whole joke out of foltest and his relationship to his sister because in one of the flashbacks (in the sorcerer? gala? party?) foltest is shown as a kid with his sister and his mom grabs his arm or whatever and is like “foltest stop bothering your sister” as like some kind of fucking joke... literally they made a “funny ahaha incest joke” like seriously wtf. the story of the striga in particular should be taken seriously imo because of how rawly the tragedy is depicted... this is probably why it’s one of my least favorite short stories... its so sad and also incest disgusts me horribly

for renfri i feel like she was just sooooo ... more “likable” as a character, a lot like how yennefer’s character was changed. you feel feelings of pity and curiosity towards her rather than actually being intimidated by her. renfri in the books actually made me so mad because i think she represents something like what ciri goes through across the saga, just how when you have the choice on how to respond to your abuse, you can easily become consumed with revenge, and i think renfri made me think of myself in that way so i really disliked it when they changed this terrifying raw aspect of her anguish and hunger for retrubution that made her lose her humanity into like, more of a palatable manner of killing... it really was just “girl with sword” and it was so boring. the lesser evil literally makes my stomach turn and that’s why i only read the story like once as well...

also to return to fringilla, i liked mimi and i thought she should have been cast for yennefer instead maybe.... i just was really upset at how much they changed fringilla’s character in the writing to be a “generic evil villain” when in the series she actually is kind of unique in my opinion. she is like, not allied at all with the main characters, but ends up saving both yennefer and geralt’s lives. she’s not good or bad, she’s not super loyal to the empire but she is still nilfgaardian/beauclairoise, and she just exists as a character and that’s why i actually like her in the books (asides from all of the unnecessary library nonsense). i thought mimi could have handled that complex role really well but they totally took that away from her and just made her a flat boring forgettable “evil” character that does “forbidden black magic” and is super loyal to an empire that brought her purpose because yennefer was mean to her once or smth ig... yeah ok. also i fucking hate how they had cahir of all fucking people order her around. idk how old cahir is supposed to be in netflix because he’s obviously not like 16-20 as he would be in canon during this time period, but to have him be the boss of fringilla... that is dumb as hell. i just try and think about that ever occuring with books verse cahir and fringilla and i think she would smack him off of his horse and into the mud. she’d tell assire and assire would get mawr to drag him off by his ear as he tries not to cry.  also of course i hate cahir’s casting and the fact that they showed his face. why. it ruins like every message that his character had...

oh also because i HAVE to talk about it. i hate how they tried to make jaskier more masculine/boyish with not giving joey a wig or flamboyant setting-appropriate garb, i think they are allergic to men with long hair that’s not a grime, dirt-covered mess... literally just give half of the production wigs or better wigs i swear to god ... also like this is totally for another post but i don’t think making jaskier a flirt is inherently misogynistic like he acts in the books at times. like just write the misogynistic bits out and it’s fine... flirtatiousness is not evil when it’s consensual and appreciated ... i think they just really wanted geralt to be the one that gets large amounts of p*ssy because he’s muscular or w/e and jaskier became this sort of helpless annoying barnacle on his side instead of a real character and friend to him. and to bring this point back to the main point , i think character appearance really affects their characterization: jaskier in twn has short, boyish hair with no facial hair, which makes him look kind of juvenile, jaskier in the books has curly long hair with some light facial hair, which kind of brings up ehhh what would you call it... 70s casanova energies maybe, a man that puts oils in his hair and such, male thottery...

[jadelotusflower]

August 2020 roundup

The end of another month - this year is truly going by at the speed of light. I hope everyone is coping okay - the state borders are still closed here and (for now) covid is under control, so I am grateful for that and feel for those who are not so lucky. 

Writing wise, I’ve not been as productive as I would like, but I did update Against the Dying of the Light, and it was an absolutely mammoth chapter with action/battle scenes which I always find difficult, so was fairly proud of the result.

I haven’t read much fanfic lately, my to-read list is a mile long, but I’ll get to it.

I have been reading more actual books, and finished The History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey Monmouth, which I found interesting as an faux-historical and early Arthurian reference, if not particularly enthralling.

I’m about two-thirds of the way through The Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman which has long been on my to-read list. I am not as well versed in  the Wars of the Roses period as I am with the Tudor period, but knew this book was rather well regarded (particularly compared to the Gregory novels, which I find frustrating). Of course it’s unapologetically pro-Richard III, but I don’t mind the perspective and at least so far it doesn’t veer to far into canonising the character - the treatment of Elizabeth Woodville is slightly harsh but then I don’t think his dislike is ever painted as anything but classist, and therefore flawed.

I tend not to take a “side” in this period of history - I can understand the argument of both the Lancaster and York factions, and am generally sympathetic to most characters (except Warwick and Clarence). I do find it interesting that very little of the book is from Richard’s pov - instead his characterisation is mostly how he is seen through the (mostly friendly) eyes of others - Anne, Francis Lovell, Edward, etc. But I’m really enjoying this choice and the variance of pov to give a fuller picture of the time and events.

While not writing, I’ve have watched a lot of film/tv - theatres have reopened here and I saw The Personal History of David Copperfield (dir. Armando Iannucci) which I just loved. I’ve not read the book (although it’s on the list) so don’t know how it fares as an adaptation, but found it so enjoyable and highly recommend. It’s undoubtedly a light hearted take on the source material, but there’s still an emotional depth despite (I imagine) a great deal being cut from the novel - particularly the way in which we write (and re-write) our own stories. There’s a particularly good scene near the end (spoilers I guess) between Copperfield and his fiancé Dora, where he writes her into a scene for which she was not present, and she’s the one who tells him to write her out because she “doesn’t fit” and it’s so succinct and restrained yet so cleverly written. I gather this is a significant change from the novel, yet gives Dora more agency in the story than her original role (which was, as I’ve looked up, to get sick and die).

Dev Patel is of course wonderful (and gorgeous) in the title role, backed by a stellar cast - Hugh Laurie, Tilda Swinton, Nikki Amuka-Bird (she is fantastic - I finally got around to watching Avenue 5 and I love her so much), Peter Capaldi - even Gwendoline Christie in a tiny role. Rosalind Eleazar as Agnes is also one to watch.    

I also highly recommend Little Fires Everywhere -  I heard Reese Witherspoon on Jameela Jamil’s podcast a while ago and it was so interesting to hear her discuss the challenges she’s faced as a woman in Hollywood (while acknowledging that others, particularly women of colour, are up against greater prejudice) - taking her career into her own hands, obtaining and producing female-driven content that might otherwise be overlooked. Little Fires Everywhere (adapted from the novel by Celeste Ng) is one such project - produced in equal partnership with Kerry Washington, and both sharing top billing as the show’s leads. What could be yet another story of Rich White Women Problems actually becomes a nuanced take on motherhood, race, class, family, art - with no conciliation that any of the characters have to be “nice”. In fact both Elena (Witherspoon) and Mia (Washington) can be at times downright unlikeable, and you can see both sides of the main conflict - on the primetimer forums there were commentators frustrated that they weren’t sure who they were meant to be “rooting for” but that’s the point - even if the ending is slightly unsatisfying, this is a messy story about messy people and there are no right answers.

Both women are incredible but Witherspoon has the flashier role, and is really a tour de force of white female privilege - the microaggressions, the slow unravelling, the obsession with perfection. I don’t want to spoil anything because it’s worth watching without expectations - I will also just give a shout out to Joshua Jackson who is sort of wasted in the husband role, but turnabout’s fair play I guess!

Hollywood. I...find Ryan Murphy projects very hit and miss. I enjoyed this for the most part, it’s obvious Murphy loves old Hollywood, both the glamour and the seedy underbelly, and both are on display here. I will also give him credit for good intentions in diversity, both in race and gender as well as age (both Patti Lupone and Holland Taylor have great roles), but I found the ending somewhat soured the entire thing for me. 

(Spoilers) While I understand that this was an alternate history wish fulfilment, it just felt rather cheap to have this movie sweep the Oscars and then suddenly bam, Hollywood is no longer racist or homophobic. The idea that if only someone had had the guts and taken the chance to make a movie like Meg with a black leading actress, written by a black gay screenwriter who holds hands with his boyfriend at the Oscars, it would break box office records, be almost universally embraced, and sweep the awards (except for the white guy), felt a bit...disingenuous? Of course, yes it would have been great if someone had taken those chances, I just feel it would have been almost more uplifting for the film to be a modest success, prove that such films/talent could be embraced, maybe win an Oscar or two, and set Hollywood down a more inclusive path, rather than immediate fairyland fantasy. For me, there just still needs to be internal consistency in your alternate history, otherwise it doesn’t resonate.

That said, there was a lot to like about the show, the actors were excellent across the board, the costumes were incredible, and there was a lot of interesting/heartbreaking real Hollywood stories (I never knew about Anna May Wong for example). 

[hereisisa]

I've been in several fandoms too, and I think like I learn something new everytime. Do you agree?

Yes, to some extent.

There’s a moment when you realize there always the same dynamics at play, repeating themselves over and over.

You see something happening, you know what will happen after, and you just don’t care anymore. Cause you’ve been there before, and the second or third time you’re not affected by it anymore.

I made an exemple with a post about fanarts yesterday....It reminded me of something happened before in the OUAT fandom, and I can make another exemple now. 

In the last season of OUAT they had the idea of giving Regina a last-minute boyfriend, to not leave her alone. They changed their mind later, realizing not every woman needs a love interest, and that her happy ending was FAMILY, AND BEING ACCEPTED BY EVERYONE.

Does it ring a bell??

You can make your own parallel with Frozen and Elsa if you want. Follow me.

Before that, they decided a POC would have been her love interest (it was Facilier in the story). It tracked horribly and they killed the idea.

Now....Nobody cared if he was black, cause it’s obviously not important and he was very sexy btw ;) BUT we had many reasons to dislike the idea of Regina with a new love interest.

1) we simply wanted to enjoy our fanon swan queen in peace, without having dicks thrown at our ladies 2) one of the ladies (Emma) was already almost married, “saving one from heteronormativity” seemed important. 3) Regina’s story wasn’t really about romantic love. Her “true love” was her son. Her family. It made way more sense for her to be single. 4) There was no time to explore the relationship (in Frozen case it would be “the network would never explore that relationship”), so why even go there?

See, the other part of the fandom, the one who shipped Emma with Hook, supported this relationship for 2 reasons:

1) to piss SQ fans off 2) to keep Regina even more “away” from Emma.

Really...........does it ring a bell??????????????

So they obviously accused the SQ fans of being racist.

We had a very long list of reasons why this story didn’t make any sense (and I’ve posted a few before), the race...wasn’t really a problem.

But of course this was the ONLY thing they could throw at us, and they did it.

In the end Regina was single. He was sent away, I don’t even remember what’s happened to him. He had a ridiculous screentime anyway.

Now, I see a parallel and a difference with Frozen.

The parallel is people accusing who doesn’t like elsamaren of being racist. The difference is that Disney will never go there (while OUAT actually thought of creating a love story between Regina and Facilier).

I realize tho that there is another factor at play. While race wasn’t absolutely addressed in OUAT, being a native is quite the point of this part of the F2 story (btw I do believe F3 story will focus on different themes because they did the colonizers/natives already). So when we criticize the choice of leaving Elsa behind, away from her castle, and we say she doesn’t belong there, (cause for what we know of her character until OFA she would never live there and she would never abandon Anna).....EM fans point their fingers at the derogatory tone we have against that lifestyle.

While it’s actually not a derogatory tone against that lifestyle, but the simple concept that we don’t believe Elsa (for how she was written for years) would ever adapt to that lifestyle.

To make it short: I see no problems with that kind of life, I just don’t think it’s the right choice for Elsa’s character.

Let’s add to the mix that since we’re talking about fake characters, drawings, something not-existent, exactly as I have no problem shipping elsanna cause they’re not real people, I had few little problems criticizing somebody else’s favorite character.

It’s obvious they’ll never stop accusing us of being racist. Not because they don’t understand this post, but because it’s not convenient to them, it’s the only weapon they have ;) But I’ve seen it happening.......mmmmmm..........4 times in fandoms now. OUAT was my third time, Frozen is the 4th. (2 times the accuse was ageism, not racism, but same dynamic can be applied) I cared a bit the first time.

I didn’t care the second time.

By the third time, I’ve learned that I really don’t give a damn about what strangers on the internet think of me.

Now? I just recognize the dynamic at play, I shrug, and move on.

So to answer your question: I don’t learn new things anymore, but being in fandoms for years is certanly useful.

[isolationstreet]

I would like to hear your thoughts about it after watching it four times in a day

wellllllll, i do like the movie which is not something that normally happens with movie adaptions of stage shows but also its an incredibly mixed bag and my feelings are all over the place once you start looking at individual elements. since i cant really come up with a really structured well thought out format im just going to just make some bullet points of a few disjointed thoughts that are at the forefront of my mind under a read more bc i have a feeling its going to get pretty long pretty quick

Jellicle songs and Skimbleshanks were absolutely perfect! the both are gorgeous and fit the tone of cats beautify. in some ways i think the might have actually improved upon the stage version. ie Steven McRae’s tap dancing and in the case of Jellicle songs i love them actually breaking up how they listing of different types of cats to better show off each cats personality like demeter being pragmatical, cass being skeptical, pedantical and political l, jerrie and teazer being parisitical, mistoffelees being romantical and magical etc etc

immediately on the flipside i hate how the jellicle ball is so much more in unison so you lose all of the character developing lines  

i dont understand at all why they cut so much of naming of cats it really messes with the flow of the poem and i really miss the listing of the second names

naming of cats is shot beautifully though and i dont actually mind that they changed victoria’s solo to a pas de deux with munkstrap 

i hate the way laurie stumbles his way through invitation to the jellicle ball with every fiber of my being  

rebelanydots is awful and i hate that i get ticked eveytime into thinking it wont be that bad since robbie starts it off so wonderfully but its always terrible. i dont actually mind the mice and roaches with human faces i just hate rebel wilson through out the entirety of this movie 

i really like jason derulo as tugger and anything i dislike about tugger in the movie isnt his fault bc i just feel like you miss out on a huge chunk of tugger actually being a really loving not self absorbed character  by cutting his part in old deuteronomy and him singing mr mistoffelees

i hate james corden as bustopher jones so much 

im one of the few people who actually enjoy the fact that they went with the original london version of mungojerrie and rumpleteazer it fits the darker tone of their characters in the movie and the jazz sound links them musically much more with macavity than the upbeat broadway version of the song  

i dont understand why the included growltiger in the movie bc no ones happy with it bc for people who enjoy the growltiger is be its a meta play thats a grand travesty of opera that requires both a tremendous amount of perfect comedic timing and singing ability and when it works it really works which the movie had neither and like obviously you cant do all of growltiger in the movie bc its an incredibly racist relic so like why even include any of it at all (tho i did kind of like the orchestration of it and how into it the actress playing griddlebone was tbh) 

 andy’s choreography just feels kinda bland throughout most of this movie. i cant really place my finger on why and i really miss his 2016 revival choreography

the jellicle ball feels so claustrophobic and the colors are desaturated which i dont really think is the right choice for how grand how climactic a moment the ball is for the story   

the pacing of the ball also feels really weird with the increased tempo, no orgy, tugger jumping in and dancing to a jazzy hiphop ish rendition of grizabella’s rejection  is quite off putting 

i love victoria’s dance solo at the ball though and i swear robbie might as well play mistoffelees over laurie bc he has some damn fine conjuring turns 

beautiful ghosts is boring like i already didnt like memory we dont need more songs that arent about cats being cats 

ian is a great gus!!! and the bits with him and mistoffelees are the only part of the movie that i actually really like laurie in the role 

demeter and bombalurina both got so screwed over and no mater how strong a singer they could have gotten i think macaity can only ever work as a duet since it you really pay attention its so mocking of him demeter sets him up so bombalurina can knock him down with each line in the original show and its the two wonderful women taking the power back from him where as in the movie we just get taylor swift being all evil is hot like its the toxic avenger musical or something which i dont mind but its still a major downgrade

speaking of missed opportunities mr mistoffelees. of all of the characters in cats mistoffelees is by far the role most centered on the performers ability to dance to the point where its often a silent role just to get the absolute best dancer possible for the part, mistoffelees should be this big show stopping dance number performed with the utmost confidence his three describing words are neat, competitive, and electric hes magical the scene should feel magical instead we just have laurie standing there on stage stammering through each line its pathetic. i dont hate laurie the same way i hate rebel and james i think he cares about cats and is trying his best but hes not a dancer and never should have been cast in this movie 

memory and beautiful ghosts are still boring

 robbies face journeys are delightful and him as munkustrap really was the glue that held the movie together for me everytime i got upset with the movie hes always right there to pull me back on board and i thank him for it

[fvckyouimaprophet]

Salty Asks! 1, 2, 5, 11, 19, and 22! Am I supposed to send you a fandom with these? Idk. Pick whichever one you feel like talking about!

1. What OTPs in your fandom(s) do you just not get?

Harry Potter: Dramione. I’m aware they basically Drarry but heterosexual, but they nonetheless rub me the wrong way, and I feel like so many of the fics involving them have Draco using literal slurs! Also, Harmony because they work really well as friends. They moment when they dance to O Children by Nick Cave is such a pure friendship moment.

Glee: Brittana. Brittany was the equivalent of a child, so it just always felt very weird to me. I feel like they wanted her to be quirky, but she just came across as stuck at six years old, and yikes.

Riverdale: Barchie. I’m sorry. I just find them really boring. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Star Wars: Reylo. TROS just didn't need to happen like that. We didn’t need to redeem him, and they didn’t need to be a thing!!

Marvel: Stony. This is mostly because I can't see past Stucky. But I also I just feel like I cannot picture Tony Stark as bisexual or queer or anything other than straight. I know this is controversial, but I just can’t.  🙈

The L Word: Shane and Carmen. Listen, I know this is queer woman blasphemy. But the writers wrote Shane so that she’s just a chronic cheater, and it feels impossible to get past that. She treated Carmen awfully. Plus, Sarah Shahi is great, but it was painful to watch her try to be Mexican.

2. Are there any popular fandom OTPs you only BroTP?

Nuna (Luna/Neville): Listen, I love them so much as friends, but they just don’t vibe as a couple. They’re the perfect examples of outcasts finding each other and bonding.

5. Has fandom ever ruined a pairing for you?

You probably were wondering why Klaine wasn’t up above. Well, it’s here. The show ruined them too, of course, starting in season three. But I used to love Klaine in season two! The first three Glee fics I wrote were Klaine, and I think to date my longest Glee fic is an abandoned Klaine fic (~70K).

But I have never seen any other fandom fight over ships the way that Glee did. It was just stressful, and it made me turned off to the ship and the show.

11. Is there an unpopular character you like that the fandom doesn’t? Why?

Harry Potter: Lavender Brown and Cho Chang. Of course, the writing with Cho is racist—of course. I want to acknowledge that and not minimize it as a valid reason to be frustrated with her character. However, I feel like both of them (and Ginny to a lesser extent) are hated because they’re women and love interests.

Buffy: Dawn Summers. I actually really related to her growing up, and I felt like she’s a good portrayal of a younger girl who goes through a lot of trauma and needs to adapt. She’s funny, and she just gets slammed for getting herself into trouble and needing attention, but frankly with her life, she turned out remarkably okay. I also have a million problems with Xander, and I refuse to acknowledge that they get together in the comics, but I really appreciated (in an older brother sort of way!) the moment in the last season when he bonds with her over feeling helpless.

Buffy (again): Riley Finn. This may be my most controversial take. Listen, I don’t love him. And I think he wasn’t the right match for Buffy, and he definitely has issues he needs to work through. But considering that one of her boyfriends was a horrifying stalker and the other big ship was ruined by a really bad writing choice involving attempted rape, Riley gets more shit than he deserves. He also was super manipulated by his professor, and that clearly messed him up. When you see him with his wife later on, he seems to have gotten the therapy he needed and be much healthier. 

Mad Men: Pete and Betty. Neither are good people, but you know what, they're really fucking fun as characters. Also, Betty deserved so much better than she got.

Friday Night Lights: Julie Taylor. Okay, she definitely had her moments where I got frustrated with her. But much like Dawn, she's just a teenage girl, and a lot of the hate definitely stems from that.

19. What is the one thing you hate most about your fandom?

Broadly, I feel like there’s a push toward sanitized art that frustrates me. I don’t think that a piece of art needs to let you know that something is “bad” when they depict it. I think art can show something that’s morally reprehensible and not have it be explicitly condemned without condoning it.

There certainly is art that shows bad things and condones it, but I don’t think that it’s a given with every piece of art.

I’m especially seeing a weird wave of artists getting cancelled for dealing with AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL topics in complicated ways. There was a whole wave of comics people who wrote autobiographical graphic novels dealing with CSA, incest, and other topics, and they were told they were basically evil for depicting it and that by drawing the art, it made... them... pedophiles?

Listen, it’s just... let people deal with their traumas in complicated ways. Understand that just because a show or a book or a comic doesn’t explicitly have another character say, “Why, this is evil!” that the creator doesn’t necessarily agree with it.

There’s plenty of good art that gives you a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach without telling you that you should feel that way. Trust that it’s intentional. Approach art in good faith.

22. Popular character you hate?

Glee: Blaine Anderson. In my rewatch two or three years ago, I will say that I didn’t hate him, just disliked him. I think fandom amplified my feelings while I was watching, but I certainly still found him annoying. Sorry to all my followers who like him!

Angel: Fred Burkle. She was a nerdy boy's wet dream, and she never felt like a character to me. It felt like a weird wish fulfillment fantasy on Whedon's part to have her end up with Wesley (before dying of course). I love Amy Acker and think she did what she could with the role, but I think there was no salvaging the character. Everything from her voice to the way she held herself felt like the vague outline of a shy, nerdy girl who every incel nerd jerks off to.

Breaking Bad: Jesse Pinkman. I want to clarify that I'm not in the fandom. I actually didn't like Breaking Bad and thought it's a pretty empty show barring a few episodes and scenes. Everyone found him to be a softie who Walt manipulates, but frankly, I think he's just as shitty of a person as Walt, and I found him so annoying. I think without fail the worst episodes of the show are centered around him (thinking about the episodes where Jesse’s a cartoon version of a depressed person and has a giant party at his house), and it's where it's most clear that their biggest problem with writing was giving any actual soul or depth to their main characters.