princeescaluswords

[princeescaluswords]

I love how on Tumblr, "media literacy" has become "Um, just because someone writes about this doesn't mean they're endorsing this. I hate all these media puritans ruining everything."

I'm sad to inform you that knowing when and whether an author is endorsing something, implying something, saying something, is also part of media literacy. Knowing when they are doing this and when they're not is part of media literacy. Assuming that no author has ever endorsed a bad thing is how you fall for proper gander. It's not media literacy to always assume that nobody ever has agreed with the morally reprehensible ideas in their work.

Sometimes, authors are endorsing something, and you need to be aware when that happens, and you also need to be aware when you're doing it as an author. All media isn't horny dubcon fanfic where you and the author know it's problematic IRL but you get off to it in the privacy of your brain. Sometimes very smart people can convince you of something that'll hurt others in the real world. Sometimes very dumb people will romanticize something without realizing they're doing it and you'll be caught up in it without realizing that you are.

Being aware of this is also media literacy. Being aware of the narrative tools used to affect your thinking is media literacy. Deciding on your own whether you agree with an author or not is media literacy. Enjoying characters doing bad things and allowing authors to create flawed or cruel characters for the sake of a story is perfectly fine, but it is not the same as being media literate. Being smug about how you never think an author has bad intentions tells me you're edgy, not that you're media literate. You can't use one rule to apply to all media. That's not how media literacy works. Sorry! Sorry! Sorry! Aheem heem. Anyway.

[princeescaluswords]

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

🎬 Peter Jackson

+ IMDb trivia

[princeescaluswords]

I just can't take them seriously. They complain that Scott didn't come out and explicitly ask Stiles if he has suffered any injuries during his kidnapping and that makes Scott a bad friend, but Derek who not only did not mention Stiles *at all* for the last two episodes of Season 2 but never mentioned Erica or Boyd at all in Master Plan, either, would take care of Stiles in a way that Scott wouldn't.

Naur, because there's really people who act like Derek Hale was just an uwu smol bean who ALSO swear he is the best leader and everyone should fall in line with him. Which is it?

Also, calling Scott naive and foolish for his compassion and nurturing personality and deeming him unfit as a werewolf.... yet swearing that ~pack nights~ with Derek would be a thing, lol 😆

#teen wolf fandom racism #scott mccall #derek hale #stiles stilinski

[princeescaluswords]

It is absolutely true that there is no rule about what people should or shouldn't write. However, it's not about rules. It's about results.

When I compare the number of tagged Bad Friend Scott stories to the number of stories tagged with Scott and Kira's relationship, I'm not saying there is a specific ratio that should have been maintained. I'm saying that these results show that the fandom is far more interested in making a Hero of Color into a bad person than exploring one of the primary relationships in the story, which happens to be the relationship between two characters of color. What I am saying is that there being almost the same amount of stories in the 141,605 total stories underlines a significant problem.

Your own statistics confirm it. There are nearly 74,000 Sterek stories -- more than half -- for a relationship that did not exist in the show. Their canon relationship is a minor one that barely attained friendship. Again, there's no mandated ratio, but the idea that parts of the fandom could find that much to write about a relationship between two white male characters who never even expressed interest in each other but very little at all to write about a relationship that went on for 42 episodes between two of the main characters is not indicative of bias seems to be on shaky ground. While, simultaneously, they could find just as much to write about turning the Hero of Color into an antagonist or a downright villain (contrary to canon)?

That's not hate?

There's no rule that people have to write about Scott and Kira's relationship, a fundamental and extensive part of the story they profess to be fans off. Of course not! But the truth is that they don't. It's just not interesting to them. But what is interesting to them is a manufactured relationship about Derek and Stiles, two white male characters whose relationship is at the most only minorly relevant to the plot and themes of the show?

That's not hate?

You made a point about the Bad Friend Scott stories is that I am neglecting to take into account the ones where he is redeemed. I am doing nothing of the sort. Even if we set aside the fact that most of these are based on readings of canon designed to delegitimize Scott in his role as lead protagonist and that a lot of them use racist Latino stereotypes (sexually obsessive, stubborn and angry, lazy and uneducated), it would still be concerning. There are 2800 Bad Friend Scott stories -- all of them are uniformly popular and you know it -- and yet only 18 Bad Friend Stiles stories. I know, I know, fanfiction is transformational! But then where are all the Bad Friend Stiles stories? Or the Bad Friend Isaac stories for that matter?

Why is Scott McCall singled out as the Bad Friend? If fanfiction was only about exploration and transformation, wouldn't there be just as many Bad Friend stories about white male characters, too? Why, in so many Sterek stories, tagged and untagged, is Scott the sole character seen in opposition to Sterek? If it was just 'someone has to be the obstacle' wouldn't there be equal numbers where Isaac is the obstacle? Or Jackson? Especially since Scott was one of the few characters to love both Derek and Stiles canonically, why is he so often chosen to be the one who is the problem?

That's not hate?

As for Derek Hale's Father? Here are some more stats.

Noshiko Yukimura (16 episodes) -- 503 works

Ken Yukimura (20 episodes) -- 288 works

Satomi Ito (4 episodes) -- 324 works

These characters, who are important to the story, who have interesting backgrounds -- and if you try to tell me that a 900 year old celestial kitsune, the human husband who tracked her down after divining her existence, and the world's oldest living werewolf are not interesting, I won't believe you! -- are less interesting to the fandom than a man who was never seen, was never referred to, and can only be seen as implied to exist because someone had to be Derek's father. Somehow, the fact that Talia and Satomi were close enough friends that Talia kept one of Satomi's gifts in her secret vault escapes their imaginations.

That's not hate?

And what has to do with Sterek? Your very statistics answer that question. It dominates the fandom to an inordinate degree. It dominated the fandom so much that conventions had to ban questions about it and the stars of the show had to beg off answering questions about it. Sterek shippers have not only made the entire fandom experience about a romantic relationship that never happened while sidelining or denigrating the actual character of color which the show was about (the absolute preponderance of post-3A Alpha Derek Hale stories should make that clear) but they have also felt entitled never to be questioned about whether that's a legitimate pursuit.

It doesn't have to be announced hostility. Sterek shippers looked at this show and said "the only thing that we find interesting about this show is something that didn't happen on the screen, and we will remain interested in that and only that seven years after the show has concluded."

As for fans disliking Scott McCall. They certainly could dislike him for reasons, reasons that every single time they explore them in meta posts, reaction posts, or fanfiction come down to things that other characters -- including the white male characters they do like -- indulged in just as much. How can they like Derek and Stiles and not like Scott? The show literally said that Derek and Scott were a lot alike (through Peter's mouth) and Stiles and Scott have almost too many parallel scenes but there is just something, some ineffable quality, that makes people dislike Scott that they don't have to explain and don't need to think about.

BUT IT'S NOT RACISM!

#scott mccall #scott mccall defense squad #stiles stilinski #derek hale #fandom racism #teen wolf fandom racism

[princeescaluswords]

is it "bad writing" or have you just deluded yourself and been watching with fanfic goggles so tight that you've ignored everything in canon and are mad that it isn't living up to your made up expectations

[princeescaluswords]

the rat king

Theo Raeken & The Dread Doctors Mature, Gen, Body Horror, Angst, Dark, Theo Raeken-centric, POV Second Person, Pre-Canon

Theo Raeken, age fourteen.

#theo raeken

[princeescaluswords]

#liam dunbar #mason hewitt

[princeescaluswords]

I like Stiles as a character, but I often get frustrated by fanon diverging from canon, and the worst of it to me is the ways that Lydia treated by Stiles - as something he deserves, most notably when she kisses Scott and he's angry, which the fandom holds against Scott because apparently Lydia making choices means Scott is a bad friend - or in the scene when Lydia is high after the werewolf attack at the movie rental place, and the only thing that keeps Stiles from doing [something] is that Lydia calls out for Jackson rather than him.

I think Stiles is kind of a jerk, and I like him because of it, but the fanon Stiles used as a weapon to bludgeon canon Scott is... the dumbest thing in the fandom

Have you ever seen the frequent criticism on this site that certain people should have paid more attention in English class? This criticism arises from posts like the one I saw today, where a person was confessing that "people think Stiles is evil because he almost made out with Lydia while she was drugged up." I don't think Stiles is evil for doing that; it sounds like you don't think Stiles is evil. I've never actually heard anyone call him evil for almost giving into temptation. (The closest I've ever come to calling Stiles's evil is his behavior in Lies of Omission (5x09) and Status Asthmaticus (5x10) and I don't even go that far). What we do recognize that what he did in Lydia's bedroom in The Tell (1x05) wasn't the right way to behave.

Stiles's desire for Lydia is real and natural; it was his inability to recognize and respect proper boundaries that almost created a very bad situation. He did pull away when Lydia said Jackson's name; the realization that she was confused about who he was and not secretly attracted to him reminded him that his behavior wouldn't be the fulfillment of his desire but him taking advantage of her. It's a good scene that tells us about Stiles's weaknesses but also about his strengths: beyond the insecurity that leads him to fixate on the most unattainable girl in school and his constant disregard for proper boundaries, Stiles is a fundamentally decent human being.

So why do I, personally, bring up this scene when talking about Teen Wolf a lot? Stiles-stans (who are not really fans of Stiles but fans of Fanon Stiles or, more accurately, Self-Insert with a Stiles Name Tag) like to go on and on about how deficient a person Scott McCall, the lead protagonist, is because he was "obsessed" with Allison and lacrosse. They argue this to say why they 'dislike' him, but what they actually mean is that he shouldn't be the lead protagonist. But they never seem to remember Stiles's behavior when it comes to Lydia (or Derek's behavior when it comes to Paige or Liam's behavior when it comes to Hayden for that matter).

My position -- and I think the production shared this position -- is that Scott's desire to have a girlfriend and make first line on the lacrosse team is real and natural. However, his attempts to avoid recognizing and coping with the consequences of Peter's vicious assault could lead to very bad situations unless he took responsibility. Scott had to learn how to anchor himself -- which he did! He had to make sure he put what was truly important ahead of his relationship with Allison -- which he did!

I have always maintained that Teen Wolf is a bildungsroman, which is a story about children becoming adults. Throughout the series, Scott's growth is primary; he evolves from an asthmatic loser who feels like he sits on the sidelines of life into a True Alpha werewolf leading a war against those who would murder supernatural creatures out of self-interest. But he's not the only one to grow. Allison had her own story; Lydia had her own story; Derek had his own story (one of the best redemption arcs ever); and Stiles had his version of that story!

The problem is that there are a lot of people who didn't watch Teen Wolf as a story, but rather as raw material. They swooped in and picked up the parts that they wanted, like vultures devouring a carcass. They wanted Stiles and <insert white male love interest here> to be the focus of the show, as they were the focus of their interests, but they could do without the part where Stiles struggles to grow up. In response, they selected only the parts that fit their agenda. Thus, Scott becomes dull, obsessive, stupid, with a foolish no-kill rule, and an unearned hostility toward the Hale Family whom he shamelessly usurps, even though none of that description is remotely true. On the other hand, Stiles becomes the should-be valedictorian of his class, a master archmage, and a ruthless anti-hero ready to kill anyone to protect which ever white male character he loves this week, even though none of that description is remotely true.

Fandom, in the name of their own enjoyment, has boiled their understanding of the story down to "I don't like Scott" and "Stiles is not evil!" Nuanced takes like "Stiles had the courage to cross boundaries to protect others but that tendency also led him into some problematic actions" and "Scott didn't start out a heroic protagonist; he only embraced the mantle when he realized that the threats he had to face didn't care that he and his friends were teenagers." become difficult for them to understand and unpleasant for them to process, because they only really want Power Fantasy Stiles and Bad Friend Scott. Those bits and pieces fit into the pre-existing tropes that bring them pleasure. It's the limitations that frustrate them, not Teen Wolf's.

#stiles stilinski #scott mccall #scott mccall defense squad #teen wolf fandom problems #fandom racism

[princeescaluswords]

love and war by Fleurie

[princeescaluswords]

Just a quick update, as I wanted to point something out.

There 2825 "Bad Friend Scott McCall" stories on AO3.

There are 2936 "Scott McCall/Kira Yukimura" tagged stories on on AO3.

SO WHO'S SPREADING HATE?

Just to remind everyone, this is the longest lasting relationship on the television show, hands down, at 42 episodes. This relationship had "whump", "enemies to lovers", "hostile parents," "hostile friends," "torn apart by fate," and more romantic tropes, and yet it receives the bare minimum of attention.

That's not even taking into account how many times it's a background relationship that gets two or three lines at most or is used to attack Scott's character. Think about how many times Scott has been accused of "chasing girls" by pursuing a relationship with Kira rather than, I don't know, following Stiles around like a service dog.

When you single out stories that include just this relationship (which does not mean it is the focus of the story but just the only tagged relationship) there are only 224 which is ONE FOURTH the number of stories featuring Derek Hale's Father, a character who was never named or discussed in 100 episodes and a movie.

But we're supposed to believe that there is a very good reason that peaceful and not at all hostile Sterek fandom is so fundamentally uninterested in this relationship as compared to exploring the story of Derek Hale's sperm donor or explaining how Scott was such a terrible, terrible friend for trying to save lives.

BUT IT'S NOT RACISM.

#scott mccall #kira yukimura #derek hale #stiles stilninski #scott mccall defense squad #fandom racism #teen wolf fandom racism

[princeescaluswords]

There are 2825 "Bad Friend Scott McCall (Teen Wolf)" stories on AO3 as of this morning. There are 161 "Scott McCall bashing" stories.

There are 18 "Bad Friend Stiles Stilinksi" stories on AO3 as of this morning. There are 5 "Stiles Stilniski Bashing"

Or maybe you can look at the lovely series "101 Ways to Kill Scott McCall."

Who's spreading hate?

#teen wolf confessions #scott mccall #stiles stilinski #derek hale #fandom racism #fandom problems

[princeescaluswords]

just been seeing some posts today

[princeescaluswords]

Perfect.

[princeescaluswords]

what's your favorite picture of posey?

obviously it's everyone's favorite pic of Posey

[princeescaluswords]

Yeah, I’d watch Muppets Lord of the Rings

[princeescaluswords]

#anything that makes me laugh out loud #gets reblogged

[princeescaluswords]

This is a persuasive and powerful argument, and I think it is undeniably true. I want everyone to read it. But, with many apologies to @antianakin, I also want to steal it in its entirety for my primary fandom.

Because their premise is incredibly resonant to me. People who argue that it is only proper to recognize the Jedi's flaws -- or, more often, people who argue if you defend the Jedi from any accusation you think that the Jedi don't have any flaws -- are not being sincere. In the end they simply do not give a damn about the level of realism in Star Wars. As observed above, this is a strategy: to employ whataboutism and black-and-white thinking to protect the genocidal dark wizard and space fascist with which they come to identify, only to find themselves at odds with the themes and conclusion of the entire Star Wars cinematic universe.

My fandom, Teen Wolf, has a very similar problem. It is evident to the casual observer that the themes of this television program are that violence, while sometimes necessary, is not an effective solution to problems; that revenge leads to an endless recursion of pain and destruction; and that every life has value in and of itself. Scott McCall, as the lead protagonist, embodies these principles and carries the day through virtue, strength of character, and force of will. He is capable of great violence but he avoids it unless he has no other choice. He rejects revenge, even on the people who manipulate him, betray him, and violate him both physical and mentally. He fights for the right of everyone -- even the people who hurt him, even people who in other properties would be nameless extra -- to live.

The fandom despises this. Attuned to a world of urban fantastic horror, they cannot stand a hero who won't murder their enemies (except, of course, the hot white men whom they love), a lead protagonist who doesn't seek to punish the wicked (by which they mean the enemies of the hot white men whom they love), and someone who undergoes great distress to save people who they don't think are worth it.

Many in the fandom use Scott's mistakes -- part of his learning arc -- as evidence of his unsuitability. He once hung up on someone in trouble by accident, so he's a terribly selfish character. He once got tricked by a villain into believing his best friend had murdered someone, so he's irredeemably stupid and oblivious. He doesn't recognize that the trauma of hot white men gives them permission to act as they please, so he's an arrogant tyrant. And so on. When I or other fans of the show defend Scott McCall's heroism, we are with great regularity accused of "thinking that Scott doesn't have any flaws!"

This post made it clear to me that Scott McCall's flaws weren't the point of the show any more than they were the point of the criticism he receives about them. For the show, those flaws weren't meant to be dwelt upon or offered as a counterargument to his philosophy; they were meant to show that he was human and that even a flawed human being can stand against the forces that make the world a darker place. He made mistakes, he got up and he fixed them, while never giving up on what was important to the show's themes: breaking the cycle of violence.

I just have to remind myself to look closely when people about the flaws of the heroes in an intellectual property. Are they really wanting to think critically about the narrative? Or is this a way of protecting a hot white male character from the consequences of his actions?

I never, ever say the Jedi were flawed, and here's why.

It's not because I don't think people can BE flawed, or that I don't think GOOD people can be flawed, of course they can. Even people who are genuinely doing good things and making good choices and trying their best to be selfless and kind and compassionate can make mistakes and have a bad day.

But there's really only two reasons I see anybody bring up "the Jedi were flawed."

The first is from Jedi fans who are trying to stave off the Stanakins and the anti Jedi crowd by adding that in as a disclaimer. "OF COURSE the Jedi are flawed, but it doesn't mean they aren't good people!" It's a meaningless statement because the side saying it doesn't even really believe it to be true and the side they're saying it TO thinks the Jedi being flawed means they all deserved to die. This is the kind of statement that leads to people deciding that individual Jedi are okay but their culture needs to be completely reformed in order to allow people like Anakin to just do whatever they want whenever they want and then they can all live.

The second is from people who DON'T really like the Jedi much and will insist that "the Jedi are flawed" is part of the whole point of the narrative of Star Wars, especially the prequels. This is the kind of statement that leads to people like Leslye Headland INSISTING that George Lucas intended for the story of the Jedi to be one of failure and criticism and casting the Jedi as "the evil institution" in her interpretation of Star Wars. This is what leads to stories like the Ahsoka show insisting that the Jedi were elitist bastards whose arrogance led to their own genocide. These people usually try to claim they like the Jedi, but they'll still cast the Jedi as the bad guys in the story instead of, say, Anakin. These are the people who genuinely have no idea what attachment is and don't care to learn. These people believe that, at best, the Jedi THOUGHT they were doing good, but that they had completely lost their way and were truly not that much better than the Sith anymore and their destruction was necessary to create balance in the galaxy.

I have no desire to appease people who don't like my interpretation of Star Wars, and I don't think that "the Jedi were flawed" was ever the point of Lucas's story and I genuinely think it takes a lot AWAY from his story to say that it does. So while I am perfectly happy to admit that people in general, even overall GOOD and kind and selfless people, are always flawed and can make mistakes, I will never, ever say that the Jedi were flawed. The Jedi lost, yes, but not due to their own flaws. They lost because of EVERYONE ELSE'S flaws, so what does it MATTER if the Jedi were flawed or not? If you truly believe the Jedi were good people who did everything right and simply lost due to other people's selfish choices, then what does it add to the story to insist the Jedi were flawed? How does it change anything, for the better or otherwise? The Jedi were right IS the point of the story, so insisting they were flawed actually takes away from that by distracting from how the Jedi were RIGHT, and it's people choosing not to listen to them or trust them or act like them that brings about the downfall of an entire galaxy.

The Jedi weren't flawed. The Jedi were RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING and that is the hill I will die on.

#scott mccall #scott mccall defense squad #star wars #fandom problems #teen wolf fandom problems #fandom racism