#I know there's PLENTY to say about the bigotry in the actual books and I think there's a lot of merit to those criticisms | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

fangirleaconmigo · 2 years

Note

Sorry if you've already discussed about this but I'd love to read your thoughts about Jaskier's song burn.

Hi Nonny! I have not. But y’all are gonna have me out here being honest on tumblr dot com today. 😅

I have very strong and very complicated feelings about Burn Butcher Burn. (Not surprisingly)

So do not read below that line if you think critique (not hate, but critique) will bum you out or inhibit your ability to enjoy something you enjoy. I'm beggin you, I'm Boys II Men I'm I'm down on bended knee. Just don't do it. I don't want the pissy anons.

Ok, now that we're all here, I am going to tell you something funny. I first heard of Burn Butcher Burn via the Hot Topic t-shirt that was released ahead of S2. I thought Burn Butcher Burn was a Hot Topic invention. I didn’t know it actually appeared in the show. lmao

I’m sure the song list must have been released by then, but I hadn’t read it. (Spoiler alert: Sometimes I’m dumb) Now, I am a fan of The Witcher as a story and I’m a fan of the fandom. I am not a fan of massive corporation Hot Topic. (Of any corporation really) So I had no problem being critical and loud on Twitter.

I was like WHAT THE FUCK? JASKIER WOULD NEVER DO THAT!! (I know, I know.) HOT TOPIC IS CATERING TO SHIPPERS BUT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE CHARACTER OR THE RELATIONSHIP. I’m laughing at that now. Because in retrospect, it obviously came from the show. But anyway.

That day on Twitter, there were many very reasonable people who disagreed with me. They felt that of course Jaskier would do that. They felt that I was overlooking Jaskier’s petty and dramatic side. (He wished for Valdo’s death when he had a djinn! Etc etc) That I was reducing him to sunshine and rainbows. And that I was forgetting that sometimes people say mean things when they are very very hurt.

That was not the case. I am fully aware that Jaskier has a petty vindictive side. I also know that people say things in anger. But I stuck by that opinion (and still do) that Jaskier would not do that.

And now with some thought, I believe it comes down to our differing associations with the name Butcher.

I associate the word “Butcher” with bigotry. Yes, butcher refers to Geralt killing people. Hence butcher. So maybe it is not literally in the word.

But the episode in Blaviken, all the talk about him being a monster, and the way the crowd turns on him for fucking defending himself, for me, it has everything to do with his otherness. It is inseparable in my mind from bigotry against witchers. It goes hand in hand with the dehumanization of Geralt.

I think that is the difference. I don't see it as an unfair characterization of Geralt's ethics. I see it as bigotry against him. That's what it feels like to me. I can't separate that word from it at all. And that is where I get stopped up.

Because Jaskier never. Ever. Not once. Has seen Geralt as an “other.” He isn’t capable. It wouldn’t even occur to him. The thought is totally absurd and laughable. Geralt is just his buddy. His fave. As far as the books (of which there are eight long books that cover years and years) they have arguments and bicker plenty, but not during their worst arguments does he ever. Ever. Throw Geralt’s otherness in his face. (Meanwhile many other people do)

It is truly my favorite characteristic of Jaskier. In fact, when they are in a fight, he says the opposite to Geralt! He’s like (paraphrased) “and you think you’re an other when you aren’t, ya big dumbass. I’ve got news for you, you aren’t special. You’re just some guy.”

Wait ok, I'm grabbing the quote, because it is literally my favorite thing that Dandelion ever says to Geralt. (well top three things). This is in Sword of Destiny in the short story A Little Sacrifice. Dandelion is irritated at Geralt for being kind of a cad with Essi. Essi gives him attention and he assumes she is just morbidly curious and he tries to kiss her but it seems like he's trying to put her off or prove something to her. Basically, he's rude.

Do you know what your problem is, Geralt? You think you're different. You flaunt your otherness, what you consider abnormal. You aggressively impose that abnormality on others, not understanding that for people who think clear-headedly you're the most normal man under the sun, and they all wish that everybody was so normal.

What of it that you have quicker reflexes than most and vertical pupils in the sunlight? That you can see in the dark like a cat?

Big deal. I, my dear, once knew an innkeeper who could fart for ten minutes without stopping, playing the tune to the psalm Greet us, greet us, O, Morning Star. Heedless of his---let's face it--unusual talent, that innkeeper was the most normal among the normal; heh ad a wife, children, and a grandmother afflicted by the palsy..."

Ok, so I love that it's canon that Dandelion calls Geralt my dear. And I laugh my fuckin ass off at the implication that his witcher attributes are correlated with a man who can fart a tune. Amazing. Also, this passage speaks to my absolute favorite things about Jaskier. It is the entire reason I fell in love with him. In in a fictional world saturated in bigotry and racism (much like the real world) he just doesn't have that in him. He just doesn't.

He sees someone different and he just goes YES! FUCKING AMAZING PERFECT NO NOTES!

It has to do with his empathy but also his natural curiosity and wonder.

That is 100% why I fell in love with him in TWN in the first place. He sees the pissed off looking mutant who everyone else mistrusts, and he just walks up to him like YOU! YES, YOU! YOU ARE FRIEND SHAPED.

That is it! The core of why I love him.

So, back to Burn Butcher Burn. I know lots of people see it differently. They say, but Geralt was terrible to him and left him! He’s just hurt! But that isn’t my point at all. My point is, I believe that no matter WHAT Geralt did to him, it just would never occur to him to be bigoted towards Geralt because it simply is not in him.

Would he call Geralt an Asshole? Yes. Motherfucker? Sure. Clod. Clown. Petulant moaning whoreson? Absolutely. Butcher? I’m sorry. No. Not for me. And for me it sabotages the entire reason I love that character.

And it made me fear what the show would bring.

And then the season came out.

And. Well? Not only did they not make him a bigot, but they have him actively helping elves escape. He is actively anti-racist. So they clearly understand that about him.

So idk man all I can think is that, just like the other fans who disagree with me on Burn Butcher Burn, the writers just do not associate Butcher with Geralt’s otherness or with bigotry the way I do.

So, having Jaskier be The Sandpiper took some of the sting out of my disappointment, by actively saying…we know Jaskier has compassion for elves and other non humans, and we are explicitly showing that.

The second thing that took some of the sting out of it was Joey’s performance. He is so grief stricken he kind of collapses while he’s singing. He looks like he’s dissociating! My god. Joey really put his all into his performance. Just wow. I was completely blown away by his vulnerability and authenticity. You could not watch his performance and say the song was a result of anything but a shattered heart. It didn't come across as someone being mean.

All that calmed me down a lot.

The song gave us an absolutely fantastic performance from Joey. It showed how incredibly important Geralt is to him. How deeply he feels. The honesty and vulnerability of it also created a bonding point with Yen, and their scenes were my favorites. My beloveds. If I could frame that entire goodbye good luck and good riddance scene I would. I am currently clutching it to my chest.

So, it’s complicated. Burn Butcher Burn giveth and it taketh away. They used it to such good effect. And they clearly know that Jaskier isn’t a bigot.

But. I still wish they would have used almost any other word. And I don’t acknowledge its existence in any of my fanwork because it still doesn’t line up with how I feel about that character or that relationship. I just can’t. My association with that word is my association with it. I feel how I feel. If others feel differently, I respect it. But I can't. In my little dream land of headcanons it never happened.

Ok, those are my feels. Thanks for the ask! <3

#jaskier #twn critical #not entirely #it’s complicated #but just in case #asks #burn butcher burn

81 notes · View notes

vergess · 1 year

Note

i'm sorry that you're having such a bad time wrt another tumblr book club :(

I was going to put on a tough face, but actually I'm really not handling it well at all. I keep having violent panics in between dissociative fits.

But more than anything, I'm so fucking mad at myself for having allowed myself the foolishness of vulnerability. For the audacious imbecility of hope.

Because I knew this was coming.

Sherlock Holmes attracts only the worst kind of Literary Intellectual (TM). But I still hoped.

And when I saw that post this morning, do you know what I thought actually? "Oh, finally! I've been waiting for someone to bring it up. It seemed overdue. I'm glad we're going to talk about it now!"

That's why I dared to bare my dumb stupid fucking soul like that, like a moron. Like an idiot. To fucking show my weak spot and say, "go ahead, goyim, here's the target!"

Because I really thought the fandom was going to talk about it.

I trusted us.

Them.

I thought about them as an us that could be trusted to talk to as peers about a difficult subject.

You know. The way the Dracula Daily fandom talked about the anti-Romani bigotry, phrenology, xenophobia.

The way the 80 days fandom talked about the various forms of racist and colonialist messaging pervasive throughout.

The way the Whale Weekly fandom continues to talk about. Ooof. Allll of that.

I thought we were going to talk.

In the way that had been established as the norm for these books.

But instead, just. Just an avalanche of some of the most obscene shit. A lot of it gleefully posted in public, masks fully off.

People calling jews too stupid too read. Calling us censors. Saying we're attacking and harassing gentiles by acknowledging that the fucking source material is antisemitic, a fact the goddamned gentiles themselves also openly acknowledge.

But we're hurt by it. And we're expressing that pain. So I guess that makes us the villains.

You know, Shakespeare wrote plenty of antisemitic stereotypes himself, but uh. He had this tendency to, see, also make his characters very fully realized and give them elegantly spoken motivations. So elegant, in fact, that many people forget the first lines are ours.

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

Oh, but I forget my place in the hierarchy of this noble English Literary Canon.

#little baby birds expecting already digested literature to be vomited in their mouths

Jews are just dumb animals.

My bad, y'all. My bad.

#answered asks #myfriendskickass #Letters from Watson #Anti Semitism #Antisemitism #A sstudy in semiticss #anti semitism #antisemitism #letters from watson blacklist/#holmes

28 notes · View notes

zukkacore · 1 year

Text

Idek who in my audience would still be on the h*p bandwagon but tbh I say this as a pitch both for ppl who still have nostalgia for the property and ppl who enjoy being haters (I mean, if you can withstand the salt without also getting just so so so burned out hearing about JKR’s bigotry, I know it hits me sometimes too), the Shrieking Shack Podcast is excellent in terms of critical analysis of the wizard books while also just being extremely funny. I swear the hosts xeecee and Liz have a wire tap into my brain, in terms of sense of humor and just voicing the problems I have with this stupid franchise.

I understand the stance of people who are avoidant of the franchise completely, but I do think having a better understanding of how and why the books ultimately failed and veered off in quality definitely helped me demystify the franchise as this like, untouchable thing of quality I was too attached to to ever give up but instead as a flawed work that I had grown out of and was far more at peace with letting go. I also think it helps me articulate to other people why the artist is not separate from the art. Her worldview is imbedded into her books, and especially later on, that’s why they were so mean-spirited and awful. No matter how much I liked the series as a kid, I think the distaste for the pernicious aspects of the franchise has been an… effective deterrent for me going back. And while I don’t have the energy to get into terminally online arguments, I think critical analysis is useful as a skill to give people who also have a skewed and nostalgia colored view of the franchise.

I will addendum that their perspective on the first few books is a lot more charitable and while I do agree w their thoughts, hearing nice things abt the franchise might feel distasteful in this climate, (I know it is for me) so if that’s the case and you have no problem starting in the middle I recommend starting around book 4! That’s when you start to get much more of a mixed bag.

And if you wanna hear basically nothing but wall to wall dunking, start with Deathly Hallows. Jumping in cold to a seventh season is rough but I promise it’s so worth it. I re-listen to the podcast All The Time when I’m between interests, and I tend to skip the early seasons and just go straight for the bad stuff. I’ve probably gone back to the DH season so many times. It’s brutal yet somehow completely earned. I’ve never seen anyone so thoroughly articulate my long held feelings that DH is a failure of a capstone on that franchise on all levels structural, thematic, and moral. This is not me pretending I had clairvoyance into the future bc there was plenty of shit that snuck past me as a kid (hello, book 4 was my favorite for forever) but when I read that book in like 5th grade I could just feel something was deeply wrong.

Also they just wrapped up the season where they were reading midnight sun and twilight at the same time and it’s been great. It’s way more lighthearted which has been a nice palate cleanser & I do think they’re a bit charitable toward twilight but the thing I appreciate is that their critique is more substantive than just the common reactionary low hanging fruit talking points & they have actually brought up the neglected topic of racism within the books

Also if you’re just starting and the news topics + freebies / goofs segment they do at the beginning and ends of the episodes throws you off , I get it. I love shriekcast & I do find the segments funny but they’re not everyone’s thing, and I do scrub through that stuff sometimes bc it can be long winded. For reference It usually lasts abt 30-40 min sometimes shorter and occasionally way longer.

#shut up janelle #sorry for the sermon. if any of my mutuals also listen to this #podcast PLEASE tell me bc I need to complain abt DH so bad it’s such a catastrophically bad book it actually makes me sick in the head

14 notes · View notes

alostlittleriverlotus · 2 years

Text

Learning Not To Drown

Basically it's the title of one of the books I've been reading lately and it's pretty heavy. I'll be honest, it honestly does trigger my trauma.

Anyway, I have a lot of thoughts swirling around in my head due to it. I got to, I suppose, what can be considered the climax. It's intense and pretty hard to take it which is fitting considering it's difficult for the main character, Clare, to take in.

All I know is I hate her mother, oh my god, I hate parents that act like that SO much. Also partly like my own, haha.

Either way, Learning Not To Drown by Anna Shinoda is so damn good. It's an emotional read and can definitely be triggering, but I certainly, thoroughly enjoy it.

I was searching through a local second hand shop, their special cash from trade-ins in my purse. I was looking for the perfect books that would interest me, ones that I knew would be good for my trauma. I found The Dangerous Art of Blending In and was looking for the second one. Then I found this one, for a very cheap price (considering the other stuff I had, I ended up only having to pay a few cents for all of it!) It was the first book I read, my dyslexic ass thought it said "Learning To Drown" lolol. I was already drawn in and read through a good few chapters on the first day.

I mostly look for fantasy or YA books that'll trigger my trauma to read. I've found a lot of different books and I'm reading plenty of them. Learning Not To Drown was definitely an easier read due to the shorter chapters so that probably contributed to why it's much farther along than my other books. The other one I'm really addicted to reading because it's easy is Symptoms of Being Human by Jeff Garvin which genuinely feels like the author just fucking wrote me. That's actually the book that inspired me to make this blog. Their therapist had recommended it so they sign up for Bloglr in the book and start posting. That is the exact reason I made this blog myself lol. But it's about Riley, a genderfluid teen that is not out, as they hope for a new chance at this school they transferred to.

What I like the most is that, a reviewer of the book had pointed this out, their assigned gender is NEVER mentioned or revealed. I really like that because it's very true it doesn't matter. I envision they're afab because I'm afab (more relatable for me :p and my experiences), but that's such a nice thing to see their assigned gender never ever mentioned. Sometimes it genuinely feels like this character is just reading out my thoughts and feelings. I really love it so far.

Back to the original topic, I'm nearly done with the book and I just had to get my love for it out there because oh my god I am in love with this book. It feels so raw and real especially with the abuse shown within the book,

If it had trigger/content warnings, I would say: Abuse especially emotional/verbal, physical assault, sexual assault, trauma/PTSD flashbacks, in depth descriptions for things like nightmares and such (I can find them relatable due to my own experiences so thought I'd throw this one in), and discussions around a family member that has been to prison (a lot of issues around the rumours and reputation in a smaller town that comes from it.) Oh and there are slight self harm/suicide mentions in the book.

Trigger warnings/Content warnings for Symptoms of Being Human (with what I have read), I would say: Some dysfunction/abuse mentions, transphobia and homophobia, use of slurs, racism, general bigotry, descriptions of anxiety attacks (I'm hyperempathetic and just reading or seeing what people feel can trigger it in me, that's why I mention it), dysphoria experiences/descriptions, small mentions of suicide.

Again, I'm not super far into Symptoms of Being Human. Checking my book, I'm on chapter 16 which is about between 1/3 and 1/2 of the way done so there still could be more triggering content in later chapters.

I do recommend both these books and they're good reads. I dunno who might enjoy them, but I know that I did :)

Anyway, I got my thoughts out and I'm gonna go back to reading and being emotional lol :p see ya later, dudes!

2 notes · View notes

rayshippouuchiha · 3 years

Note

As far as I am concerned Dumbledore was completely and utterly the worst character in Harry Potter.

There is enough context given in the book canon, to outline that Voldemort is a product of his upbringing, and also being born of a Love Potioned birth. The Death Eaters while despicable blood supremacists are also a product of their society, and I am not one who generally accepts “but actually” when it comes to bigotry… we don’t see an honestly varied perspective of values? Like it’s a children’s book series written by a wolf in sheep’s clothing who pretended that she was a great person, so it’s naturally not going to go into things

But plenty of fanfic goes into how Muggleborn individuals attempt to alter Wizarding society without consideration to the current societies customs. I mean, take Halloween. What sort of Wizard/Goblin/Vampire would celebrate a festival portraying them as evil ghouls?!

Dumbledore KNOWINGLY takes questionable actions that he regards as the “greater good” and that his actions don’t need to even gain consent from those around him. He takes no responsibility for the lives that are ruined by his choices, and refuses to take into consideration that his actions aren’t the right ones.

He facilitated the burgeoning hostility in Slytherin house, by perpetuating the ongoing house divide, and enabling them to be isolated at a time where a Dark Lord is waiting for them to walk into his ranks.

Also he basically floats around making people believe he knows everything, and then does nothing about the bullying in his own school: ie Harry in 1,2 and 4, Luna, Blood superiority, Snape,

Also also… I take exception to a child being alone in the presence of an authority figure. I don’t give a shit if there was no “untoward” intentions. Having Harry alone in a space that Dumbledore is on home turf created an even worse power disparity. Harry his little chance to reject anything Dumbles says.

(he knew Sirius wasn’t the Secret Keeper. I will die angry about this)

I loathe the story behind Tom Riddle's birth but yeah you can directly trace how and why he went "wrong".

And yeah Dumbledore did very little over all to really heal the rift in the wizarding world which is one of the reasons why the ending of the series is so hollow for me.

Because at the end we get Harry who gets married and has kids right out of high school and becomes a cop and there's just no real proof that anything has actually changed beyond Voldemort being dead.

The issues that caused his rise are all still there.

#RayRambles #Harry Potter

105 notes · View notes

ganymedesclock · 3 years

Note

Clowns are great, tell us what you like about clowns!! Everyone seems scared of them to the point that a nice clown is an inverted trope...

I think that people initially get unsettled about clowns for a lot of the same reasons people get unsettled about dolls- the presumption of innocence that can be subverted, the 'that's not quite a normal face' affected by the makeup, and to a degree that circuses have become a little less common and a little more something regarded as fantastical or strange. (I attended a Cirque do Soliel performance- Cavalia- once in my life! It was extremely impressive)

I think on top of that, as you say, the trope of the monster clown, popularized by figures such as the Joker, has become so widespread that people tend to think of clowns as scary by default, a kind of monster category. Which is just kind of a shame and many people are taking that back. For me personally, I'm a bit more of a fond of old-school aesthetics/ court jester image than I am on the classic clown but I still think circus aesthetics are pretty fun.

For me, a lot of the appeal of this is twofold: I think "a performer" is an interesting psychological state to present a character in, especially someone like a clown who generally has a persona on and off and who drastically changes their face (with paint, wigs, costuming) between. The clown is designed to be funny- to affect a foolishness or otherwise harmlessness- and it is a performance taken on deliberately by others. At their core, clowns are actors, and their performance is to entertain one way or another.

This is an interesting thing to think about for me personally because I'm someone who tends to reflexively fear being not taken seriously, being found funny, harmless, ineffectual by others- but the key thing about a performance is that it is at the discretion of the performer. They are putting themselves, their art, and their control into it. At the same time, they're skillfully palming elements of themselves so the audience doesn't see who they are fully or clearly.

That can be used for horror, to be fair- the idea that someone is behaving harmless or benevolent when the actual person they are underneath is not necessarily. But at this point, the clown facade is so often associated with evil that it'll lose a bit of effectiveness before your audience unless you play it really well.

It can also be used for something interesting! I don't call myself a profound or storied batman aficionado, but I think it actually is interesting that the Joker has a "clown aesthetic" in some ways but that one of his most commonly depicted fatal flaws is pride- he dresses as he does to laugh at everybody around him but cannot stand the idea of being mocked or derided- he's not the one to take the pratfall, and any time he does, he hits the roof about it. Not someone who actually values the clown as an entertainer, but someone who wants to insinuate everybody around him belongs in the circus and he won't respect them.

But I think there's a plentiful amount of room for characters associated with clowns who are depicted as more of a clever hero; someone who performs and deflects, disarms and pleases, from the shrewd perspective of a person who knows they aren't being taken seriously. The core viewpoint character in one of my personal projects- Avery from Bevyverse- is raised by a circus and while he doesn't exactly keep up the clown makeup after leaving it behind, it still strongly affects his ideology about role, identity, performance and entertainment; to the point where, as an abandoned child with no known history, he takes the surname of the setting's equivalent of Robin Goodfellow- a role he came to thrive in at a key point in his upbringing.

I think there's not necessarily anything wrong with a scary clown, but I think that there's a trick and artifice to horror, in that fear is a very reflexive, instinctual response. There's a reason that the jump scare is the cheapest trick in the book and half the time we see it coming, but it rarely fails to get your heart rate up. As living creatures, on an instinctual level we want to keep going. We get startled by things not by any moral failing but by an assessment of risk that goes by so vanishingly fast in the depths of our brain we are left only with a sense of lingering unease- or a moment of direct terror, cued by our entire body shifting into high gear so we have the energy and resources to- hopefully- fight, fly, freeze, or fawn our way out of it.

But because this is so reflexive, and because many primal fears are intuitive- a fear of disease, a fear of injury, (and from those, a false-positive unease at anything that seems "like us, but not quite" or "us, but not moving right") a fear of predators, a fear of parasites, a fear of fire and shifting stone, asphyxiation and other natural hazards that could kill or profoundly injure us- in writing and designing horror we don't actually need to think about this stuff. So someone can think, hey, that horror movie I saw with a scary clown was really gnarly, right? I think I can capture that feeling in my own work!

I think that, if I have to cite one thing as the most important part of writing- for myself, which I'm sure many people can and ought to disagree with because there's never just one way to do art- it's interrogating the elements of your story, even to yourself. Not all of it needs to go into a story, but for me, someone who is very fond of conceptual horror, I feel like it's a good idea to not take things for granted, but challenge them to yourselves- why a clown? what's scary about a clown? If we unspool these reflexes and instincts, what do they lead us back to?

And I don't mean this as a reason you shouldn't have an evil clown! If you really want to have an evil clown, asking these questions will help you make the thing a lot scarier- it'll give you a clearer thesis of what, exactly, is the horror element here, what about this is scary- and hopefully help you avoid bigotry in horror, which can be a real problem in the genre when prejudice is to a degree rooted in fear, and fear is not objective- we can train our feelings to lead us astray, and while that isn't a mark of how we're a bad person- we often aren't given a choice in it- it's important to return to the source and ask yourself what's scary and if that is inherently so.

#writing ruminations #readmore

24 notes · View notes

sometimesrosy · 3 years

Note

Hey. It's been a long time since I had a question. Maybe the 100's demise was the reason.

Now coming to my actual query. This past year I have binged numerous shows ranging from American to korean dramas or Turkish dizis. There is certain thing that I have felt and noticed throughout i.e., the woman characters aren't given even a slight leeway by the audience. If the even make a slight mistake, the audience remembers it always to stand against that character. Whereas if there is a male villain, people gets cheerful seeing even a slight bit of humanity in him. They even wait for its redemption.

Let me take an example of a Turkish show "kara sevda(black love)". A one line synopsis can be put like- two leads who love each other endlessly but can never be together. So, the villain in that show is beyond redemption. That character has fallen so far off that there is no coming back. But still when he is playing with a baby, people's comments are like 'best moment of the show.' 'see he is such a good person'. 'the female lead should accept his love'. Am like what?

And if I tell you about the female lead. She is a good person at heart who is sacrificing love for family. And she is labelled "selfish" by audience. 'She doesn't deserve the male lead' etc. And you know I too felt like that for the majority of the show until I reached the point of self reflect.

Even Clarke from the 100 faced so much hate that there wasn't any visible backlash when in the end the makers made her a villain. The backlash was for Bellamy death and stupid end instead.

Looking through tv series, it's so easy to see why tv or films doesn't have female anti heroes. Male anti heroes are so easy to find and also widely successful like Damon from tvd or Klaus.

What is your take?

Yup!

Yes.

Definitely.

You are absolutely correct. The leeway for female characters to show human imperfection is very, very thin. Meanwhile, a guy can literally blow up a planet, kill his beloved father, have temper tantrums with kicking and screaming and torture the female main characters and fandom-- and the creators-- think that makes him a hero. And the requirements for his redemption, if there are any at all amounts to:

WOOPSIE! I'M SOWWY.

I simply do NOT understand that phenomenon.

I mean, I get the need to relate to darker characters, morally gray characters, to explore our own negative impulses...but the whole tendency is, for me anyway, given a more sinister light when you compare how the audience tends to treat these outright villainous male characters compared to even SLIGHTLY morally gray female characters. Maybe just flawed.

It also interferes with satisfying redemption arcs. Because YES watching someone face their dark past and attempt to become better and be redeemed is a great story... but if male characters only have to wear a cape and be hot to be redeemed.... then that's not a satisfying redemption arc. And if women can't do ANYTHING to be redeemed because they are considered irredeemably selfish or whatever for the same flaws someone's Hot Dark Badboy smirks about and isn't even sorry for? Then we barely even get redemption stories for women.

And that's part of the problem, isn't it? Women aren't allowed the same representation as men... even as flawed characters.

The point of good representation is not to represent only the best, most perfect, most desirable, most successful type of people. The point is to allow everyone of any sex, race, gender, sexuality, religion, class, ability, etc to take part in the full spectrum of humanity in our stories, good and bad and mediocre. A female Mary Sue is just the female version your general male hero. One is considered bad storytelling the other is taken as The Way It Should Be.

Women are not allowed to have flaws in most of our pop culture, or women are ghettoized into only women's fic or romance or YA, or women take backseat to male villains, or whatever.

I'm writing a book where the woman abandoned her child, and she sleeps around and cons people and avoids commitment. I purposely wrote her to be unlikable.... or rather, she's not unlikable, she's clever and funny and weird, but she has characteristics that women aren't supposed to have. She essentially acts like a male anti-hero, until her call to action and she is forced to face her past mistakes. But I know that these are things that audiences say are irredeemable for women. Abandon her own child?? No. Not allowed. Even though plenty of male characters go off on adventures leaving wife and child behind and it isn't even considered a character flaw, just... a male adventurer. Or honestly, just a guy. Sure one who's imperfect, but that old ball and chain was probably the worst, right? He had to move on and now he has a tragic backstory and complexity and oh the audience will probably either want to be him or want to be with him, because, that's how these things work.

Not saying that characters shouldn't be dark, do bad things, have flaws, be anti-heroes, have redemption arcs, or have a deep, multilayered villainy.

But I am saying we might want to be a little more critical about what we consider irredeemable for certain people and what war crimes and abuse we let some characters get away with in the name of bold (white) masculinity.

IS the nature of being a (white) man we look up to someone who destroys other people?

I think that toxic masculinity IS seen as sexy. Unfortunately, that's one of the reasons it's seeped into our culture. Manly (white) men who abandon kids and kill without remorse, but with muscles. Manly (white) men who murder whole regions because bad things happened to them, and smolder while doing it. Manly (white) men who commit genocide regularly, but fall for the heroine and save her once. Manly (white) men who are serial killers but with an intriguing depth.

tbh there's lots more to say on the topic, some of it very controversial. These are the stories we like to hear and the characters we love. And it might be rooted in the toxic masculinity that our society has been selling to us as propaganda for decades, if not centuries-- but we don't like to be told to examine our biases, our tastes, our preferences, or our beliefs. It's threatening to our sense of self.

However, that is how you unravel all sorts of toxic belief systems, from misogyny to racism to homophobia to bigotry of all kinds. I added the (white) to this post after I read through it, because I realized non white male characters are not allowed this leeway, either. So this phenomenon is generally (not always) limited to white men. Why?????

my theory? we're still making the colonialists the heroes of the story, friends.

#misogyny #toxic masculinity #media #anti heroes and villains #colonialism #pop culture #fandom #redemption arcs

34 notes · View notes

carewyncromwell · 3 years

Note

Maybe part of the reason JC shies away from utilizing Duncan more is, not only does he know too much WHICH HE DOES, but any development into his character would just be too dark for the game. Anything past his "im dead lol" jokes just gets... depressing. This is a kid who was murdered in a very painful way with no hope for the future. Everyone he loves will die and leave him alone forever. Is this level dark stuff allowed in a kids game? Part 1

Whew! Okay, so first off, wow! Very interesting sidequest idea for Duncan. Thank you so much for sharing it with me!

But to your first point, at the very top...this is kind of one of my biggest problems with Jam City and its writing. “Is this level dark stuff allowed in a kids game?” And my counterpoint would be it should be.

Look -- I work at a Disney theme park. I work with kids every single day. And from my experience, I can say with certainty that kids are a helluva lot more intelligent and reasonable than a lot of adults give them credit for. They know that terrible things happen in the world, and they know that the world isn’t always fair. And there would be ways to use Duncan’s character where he doesn’t have to be doomed to watch everyone he grows to care about fade away forever -- who says he couldn’t find some measure of peace through his friendship with MC and Jacob and be able to finally pass on into the next life knowing he really did make an impact? That’s what I plan to do in my headcanon version of events.

And for that matter, this game is not played by very young children -- it’s geared for 12+, as in the audience that Harry Potter as a franchise was always geared toward. And I’m sorry, but for all of J.K.’s faults as a writer, she never doubted that young people could handle dark subject matter like murder, bigotry, etc. without being coddled. We’ve already watched MC’s friends get Imperiused and tortured. We’ve already watched a character we got emotionally invested in at the very beginning of the game get brutally murdered before our very eyes. Yes, maybe it was upsetting, but that’s the POINT. Stories shouldn’t just be fluffy and inconsequential all the time. I can’t help but feel like the vast majority of the sidequests as of late have suffered because they have so little of substance or stakes behind them, even compared to what came previously -- and honestly, even the main storyline since mid-year 6 has petered out to nothing because R is busy doing things like dropping off random magical creatures from around the globe in Britain and apparently putting memory potions in haircare products rather than doing things a real Cabal would do. It doesn’t feel like some grand plan or conspiracy, or even like some well-planned distractions while R does more evil things on the side, since we don’t get any evidence R is actually USING those things to do anything more serious, like getting access to classified Ministry intelligence or killing people. (Instead they steal one Portkey, and the Ministry doesn’t even bother to find out where it’s Charmed to go, since that might be a pretty big hint about their true intentions. I mean, there’s a bloody CHARM to turn things into Portkeys, you don’t need to steal specific objects to turn them into a Portkey.) It feels like some rabble-rousers causing trouble for the government, a la Carmen Sandiego stealing random pieces of world history for the thrill of it, not a group trying to destroy or overthrow anything or terrorize people to get their way. Young Harry Potter fans could digest the Death Eaters back in the day -- they could handle R being more of a real threat, just as they could accept other types of dark subject matter. They could handle discussion of PTSD post-Redacted -- Harry goes through some of that in Order of the Phoenix. They could handle a discussion about bigotry and prejudice -- that’s one of the central themes of the original Potter books. They could handle both Duncan and Jacob being sort of stuck out of time after dying prematurely and coming back as a ghost and being stuck in a portrait for so many years -- that same sort of thing happens to Bucky Barnes and Steve Rogers in the MCU, and plenty of young adults watch the MCU.

I understand doing anything with Duncan could be “depressing” if not properly balanced out, but you know, being sad isn’t a crime. It’s part of being human. I frankly think getting a real emotional reaction for a character you created should be a welcome thing, rather than a half-hearted shrug like the vast majority of these recent sidequests have prompted out of me. It means that people actually care about the characters you’ve created -- go figure.

As well -- I don’t think Duncan “knows too much,” personally. I know this game is called Hogwarts Mystery, but it can’t be a real mystery if we don’t have tools that could allow us to start putting the big picture together ourselves. Again, for all of her faults, Rowling understood this as a writer. We could put together, with all the info we got about Snape throughout the books, that him killing Dumbledore wasn’t because he was truly evil all along. We could put together that Rita Skeeter was an illegal Animagus, like we learned the Marauders were a book prior. We could put together that Harry was a Horcrux, based on what we learned about Horcruxes and Harry’s connection with Voldemort. And maybe having someone who could help us get a better picture of what R wants would help us better define these antagonists we’re facing and develop them into a real threat, instead of this vague red-robed shadow that honestly just seems to do random things for the hell of it rather than as part of some grand plan. I understand not understanding someone in small doses can make them intimidating, but it also makes them less fleshed-out and developed as characters and makes it harder for us to care about whether they get what they want or not. As they say, a hero is only as good as one’s villain.

#ask me #lol recycled art #duncan ashe #opinion #hphm #hogwarts mystery #jam city #goddamn it jam city #opinon #now you see why i have the tag 'oh boy here i go' on my home blog

17 notes · View notes

nerdygaymormon · 3 years

Note

Do you have a link to your thoughts on the CES letter? Because I'm sure plenty of folk have asked you about it. I'm, struggling.

The CES letter has been mentioned to me a few times in asks, but I don’t recall being asked to respond directly to it.

Before getting into it, I want to make you aware of this post about Faith Transitions, I think it may be useful to you.

I read the CES letter many years ago, probably the original version, it’s changed a lot since then. I think the CES letter is sloppy, and twists quotes, uses some questionable sources, and frames things in the worst possible way. It’s basically an amalgamation of all the anti-Mormon literature. But many of the main points of the CES letter are important and correct, even if the supporting details aren’t.

In a way, the CES letter has done the Church a favor. For a long time, Elder Packer insisted that anything which isn’t faith-promoting shouldn’t be taught. As a result, most members of the Church were taught a simplified version of Church history, leaving out anything that is messy or difficult. Although those things could be found if someone was looking for them, I found many of them simply by reading Brigham Young Discourses or other works of the early church.

With the internet, Elder Packer’s approach to history turns out to be a bad one. This information is out there and now most members learn about it from sources seeking to destroy their faith. One response to this has been a series of essays where the Church talks about some difficult subjects.

————————————————————

I’m not going to go through all the claims & challenges of the CES letter, but let me address some of the main ones.

1) There are errors in the Book of Mormon that are also contained in the 1769 edition of the Bible.

From the more faithful point-of-view, Joseph recognizes these passages, such as those from Isaiah, and knows they've already been translated into English and copies them from his family’s Bible. The non-faithful point-of-view is that Joseph copied these verses from his family Bible and tried to pass it off as his own translation.

2) DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East or from Israelites but from Asia.

This is correct. The Church has an essay which admits this and then spends a lot of time explaining how genetics works and one day we might find some Middle East connection. I find the Church essay convoluted as it goes through many possible (and unlikely) reasons for why no DNA of the Jaredites, Nephites or Lamanites has yet been found in the Americas.

3) There are things in the Book of Mormon that didn’t exist during Book of Mormon times, or in Central America (assuming this is where the Book of Mormon takes place), such as horses, chariots, goats, elephants, wheat, and steel.

This is also correct. Maybe the translation process was using a common word in English for a common item in the Book of Mormon. Maybe these are errors. Maybe it’s made up.

4) No archeological evidence has been found for the Nephite/Lamanite civilizations.

Correct. When it comes to archeological evidence, it's true that we haven't found any. For one thing, we don't know where the Nephite & Lamanite civilizations are supposed to have taken place. If you don't know where to look, it's easy to have no evidence. Perhaps Nephites & Lamanites didn’t actually exist and that’s why there’s no archeological evidence. The Book of Mormon does seem to do a decent job of describing geography of the Middle East before Lehi & his family boarded the boat for the Promised Land.

5) Book of Mormon names and places are strikingly similar (or identical) to many local names and places of the region Joseph Smith lived in.

This seems like a funny thing to get hung up on. First of all, it’s not very many names that are similar. Secondly, many places in the US are named for Biblical places & people. If the Book of Mormon people came from Israel, it makes sense they did something similar. For example, the word Jordan is in the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and in many places in America.

6) He points to obscure books or dime-novels that Joseph Smith might have read and the similarities between them and the Book of Mormon.

Those similarities are mostly at the surface level. To me it doesn't seem like Joseph plagiarized any particular book, and these specific books seem to not been very popular so difficult to say Joseph, who lived on the frontier, actually read them. Funny how no one from that time period thought the Book of Mormon resembled those books, probably because they hadn’t heard of them. But Joseph did hear and read a number of stories and some of that phrasing or whatever of the time influenced him. Think of songwriters, they create a new song then get accused of plagiarizing because it's similar to another popular song. Even without intending to, they were influenced by things they heard.

7) The Book of Mormon has had 100,000 changes.

Most of the "100,000" changes to the Book of Mormon were to break it into chapters & verses, to add chapter headings, or to add grammar such as commas and whatnot. There are some changes to fix errors that got printed but differed from the original manuscript. And there's been some clarifications made, but these are few in number. By claiming "100,000" he's trying to make it seem like there's a scam being done. It's easy to get a replication of the first Book of Mormon from the Community of Christ and read it side-by-side with today's version. I’ve done that and occasionally there’s a word or two here or there which differ, but overall it's mostly the same.

8) There were over 4 different First Vision accounts

True. Over the years, the way Joseph described the First Vision changed. I think different versions emphasize different aspects of the experience. I don’t find them to be contradictory. Oh, and the Church has an essay about this.

9) The papyri that Joseph translated into the Book of Abraham has been found and translated and it’s nothing like the Book of Abraham.

This is true. The Church has an essay about it. The Church now says that the papyri inspired Joseph to get the Book of Abraham via revelation, much like his translations of the Bible weren’t from studying the ancient Greek & Hebrew. It is a big change from what the Church used to teach, that this was a translation of the papyrus. The papyri has nothing to do with the Book of Abraham, and the explanations of the facsimiles in the Pearl of Great Price don’t match what the scholars say those pictures are about.

10) Joseph married 34+ women, many without Emma’s consent, some who had husbands, and even a teenager.

This all appears to be true. Emma knew about some of them, but not all. As for the married women, they were still married to their husbands but sealed to Joseph (I know this is strange to us, but this sort of thing was common until Wilford Woodruff standardized how sealings are done).

Polygamy was illegal in the United States. Most people who participated were told to keep it secret. So of course there’s carefully-worded statements by Joseph and others denying they participate in polygamy.

The salacious question everyone wants to know is if Joseph slept with all these women. We don’t know, but a DNA search for descendants of Joseph has taken place among the descendants of the women he was ‘married’ to and none have been found. But still, if he wasn’t doing anything wrong, why is he hiding this from Emma?

11) The Church used to teach that polygamy was required for exaltation, even though the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy.

This is accurate. The Church says polygamy was part of ancient Israel and so as part of the restoration of all things, polygamy had to be restored, see D&C 132:34. Now we no longer say polygamy is required to get to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.

12) Brigham Young taught Adam-God theory, which is now disavowed by the Church.

True. Joseph Smith didn’t teach this and John Taylor & Wilford Woodruff don’t seem to have any time for this teaching. It’s a thing Brigham Young was hot about and taught, but seems a lot of the church didn’t buy it as it was discarded after his death.

13) Black people weren’t allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978, despite Joseph having conferred it to a few Black people during his life.

Very true and very sad. This and the Mountain Meadows Massacre are the two biggest stains on the Church’s past. There is a Church essay on Race & the Priesthood. The ban appears to have begun with Brigham Young and he developed several theories to justify it, and these explanations expanded over the decades and bigotry was taught as doctrine. The Church now disavows all explanations that were taught in the past.

No reason for the priesthood ban is put forward in the Church essay other than racism. The past leaders were racists and that blinded them to what God wanted for Black people. There’s a big lesson in that for LGBTQ teachings of the Church.

14) The Church misrepresents how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

The accounts of Joseph Smith putting a seer stone in a hat and reading words from it, that's part of the historic record. Quotes about it don’t make it to our Sunday School lessons, but if you go back to the Joseph Smith papers and other accounts, it’s there to read. Joseph also used the Urim & Thummim, and wrote out characters and studied them, but he seems to have most favored the stone-in-hat method. I think the main problem here is the Church in its artwork and movies does not depict this, and therefore most members are unaware until they see anti-Mormon literature. Why does the Church not show Joseph looking into a hat? Because it seems magical and weird to modern people. But how much weirder is it than he put on the Urim & Thummim like glasses and could translate that way, or he wrote out these characters from some extinct language and was able to figure out what they mean?

————————————————————

A number of the main points in the CES letter are true (even if explanations/supporting details in the CES are problematic). Some of the main points have simple explanations and don’t seem like a big deal. Others challenge what the Church has taught. To its credit, the Church put out essays by historians & scholars, with sources listed in the footnotes, addressing several of these controversial topics.

————————————————————

Religion is meant to help humans make sense of their world and our place in it. Most religious stories are metaphorical but end up getting taught as literal history and, in my opinion, the same is true of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And that’s why the CES letter has power, it points out things aren’t literally true but were taught by the Church as factual, and the CES letter shows us part of our messy history that the Church tried to hide.

————————————————————

The story of Adam and Eve can’t literally be true. It doesn’t fit our evolutionary past, but it’s meant to make our lives important, God created us and we have to account to Him for our choices, and it’s important to find someone to go through life with. We can say the same of Job and the Book of Ruth, fiction with a purpose.

While there are some real events included in the Bible, much of what’s written is there to teach lessons, culture, and give meaning to life. Jesus taught in parables so at least he was upfront that they were stories that contained morals.

Can I believe the same about the Book of Mormon, that it’s inspired fiction with meaning I can apply to my life, or must it be literally history to have value?

————————————————��———

I went through a massive faith crisis while attending BYU. I had access to materials that told a different story of this religion than I’d been taught (the sorts of things in the CES Letter) and it threw me for a loop.

It felt like the floor of faith I had stood on shattered and I fell with no way to stop myself. After I had a chance to process through the things I was feeling, I looked at my shattered faith and picked up the parts that were meaningful to me.

I had lined up my faith similar to a line of dominoes. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph was a prophet. If Joseph was a prophet, then this is the true church. If this is the true church, then...

This works until it doesn’t. Once a domino topples over, it starts a chain event.

Now I look at principles and concepts and decide if they’re meaningful to me.

I love the idea that we can spend eternity with the people we love most.

I believe we should be charitable and loving to others.

People on the margins need to be looked after and helped and lifted.

Poor people deserve dignity and the rich to be challenged.

We have a commitment to our community and we all serve to make it better.

All are alike to God, we’re all loved and God has a grand plan for us.

Those who passed away can still be saved through the atonement of Christ.

Those are all principles I find in the Bible and Book of Mormon or at church and I find Love flows through all of those.

This new approach works for me. I don’t have to believe or hold onto problematic teachings. I can drop them and still hold the parts that I find valuable. I can reject the teachings and statements which are bigoted, homophobic, transphobic, racist, ableist, misogynistic. Prophets can make mistakes and still have taught some useful things.

That little voice of the spirit and what it teaches and guides me to do, I trust it over what Church leaders say. Overarching principles are more important to me than specific details for how this gets applied in the 1800′s or 1950′s or Biblical times.

————————————————————

I truly hope some of what I’ve written is helpful.

There’s no use pretending that the CES letter doesn’t get some things correct. It’s also helpful to understand it’s not just trying to share truth, but has an agenda to make the Church look as bad as possible.

What about the things the CES letter is correct about?

Has this church helped you learn to connect with the Divine?

The Church has some very big flaws, but also has some big things in its favor. Some of its unique teachings are very appealing and feel hopeful and right.

Can you leave the Church and be a good person and have a relationship with God? Absolutely.

I also know this church is a community and it’s hard to walk away cold-turkey with nothing to replace it, without another network to belong to. It’s as much a religion as it is a lifestyle and circle of friends.

Are there parts you can hold onto? Parts you can let go of?

You have a lot to think about and work through.

#long post #ces letter #this is a much longer answer than I thought I would write

45 notes · View notes

sharktoothjack · 2 years

Text

I'm far too young to have known any of the actual satanic panic proper. I was a kid when Harry Potter was THE popular children's adventure series, though, and some others my age will remember that it accrued a small reputation for supposedly turning good Christian kids into devil worshipping witches. My siblings and I got turned loose on the library at least weekly, and we read everything - especially fantasy. All kinds of adventures with dragons and heroes and magic and monsters, based on everything from Welsh folklore to Star Wars. But our parents said, no Harry Potter. Why? Not because of the actual content, clearly. My parents were never fundamentalist crazies. But a lot of people they trusted believed that the Harry Potter books, specifically, were bad for kids. And that was enough.

Looking back as an adult, I don't actually know if they were motivated by a simple better-safe- than-sorry approach, or if they were trying to fit in and avoid conflicts with the other parents (some of whom, I've realized since, were on the path to becoming dogmatic fundamentalists.) I now know that my parents were dealing with anxieties and imposter syndrome that I never recognized when I was young. And people don't (generally) raise kids in isolation. As parents, they leaned on their community for a lot of things, and my childhood was better and healthier and more resource-rich for it, while at the same time it was picking up the internalized bigotries of that community like lint that I'm still trying to rid myself of to this day.

I'm not saying my parents were right to arbitrarily forbid Harry Potter, but I'm not saying they were bad and evil either. I'm saying that, like plenty of other parents, they were doing the best they could at the time for their kids and for themselves. Shared community norms are a powerful social technology that, overall, add to the flourishing of those in the community. Sometimes they overreach. Please, when you hear about people like my parents, be generous in your assumptions and humble in your assessment.

#also this has nothing to do with the author and her shithead terf advocacy. trans rights are human rights #I'm not putting her name or any of the book series tags #if there's conservatives out there advocating for the books now because they're anti-trans im laughing crying at their complete 180 U-turn #me #long

2 notes · View notes

bottlecaprabbitgames · 3 years

Note

Finally someone who shares my hate towards the COG forums, I have never been able to forget the time that some dude was only interested in the kid from SOH and not only did the mods did nothing about the clear pedophilic behavior that kid route was later confirmed that it was indeed going to be added in later books or that time when cis straight men quite literally were boycotting the drag star tread because they weren't the target audience anymore, like I love their games but my god do I hate the mods, they just seem to tolerate a lot of homophobia, transphobia and misogyny when LGBTQ+ people and women are their main demography.

BIG RANT INCOMING (Also, y’all if we disappear from the forums it’s absolutely bc we were banned given uhhhh they watch our blog LMAO)

BRO THE WHOLE PPL WANTING TO FUCK THE KID IN SOH AND THE 17 YR OLD IN THE ZOMBIE GAME... AND YET??? DO THE MODS DO A THING? NO. I’m FR I’m glad I haven’t fully introduced Lori in WCA fully aside from a small snippet because she’s like 10 and I swear to god if one person so much as makes a slight indication that they want her as an RO later... Oh, also, it’s not just men! I’ve seen plenty of women wanting it too,especially one very common user who’s name I can’t really list here. But it’s not just men :)))

Also, I didn’t fully hear about that, just that cis men were whining about the drag star game. You probably weren’t here to see it, but when Faye first dropped Dragon Pact, cis men were TOXIC on our thread to the point the first DP thread was locked and a second was put up that’s heavily moderated it was so bad. Also... we then had cis men telling us we were overreacting here and that it wasn’t ‘toxic’ it was just “harsh criticism”. Like, OK I GUESS LMAO.

Also, yes, the fact that they tolerate so much bigotry towards the community they supposedly try to “include” when they can is just absolutely unbelievable. Also, the misogyny, the sexism, just EVERYTHING they allow on there that dehumanizes and harms their major demographics, INCLUDING MINORS. Like, yes, lets let these gross ass people sexualize children!!! Because that’s okay and fine and everything. ALSO, WHY IS THERE TWO WOMEN WRITING MLM HEARTS CHOICE STORIES??? RED FLAGS, RED FLAGS, COG YOU HAVE RED FLAGS EVERYWHERE!!! Like, it isn’t gonna be lack of pay for non-COG writers, it’s not gonna be the decline in popularity of IFs that’ll kill COG, it’s gonna be that they breed such a toxic community that eventually it’s going to drive out any decent people lingering around!!! And the only ones to blame is themselves for it!!!

Plus, the business dealings are so bad, not just talking about the forum goers now, the business setup is straight fucked. I was told directly that the reason HG writers get the same royalties as COG writers (minus y’know, the like $7500 or $10,000 COG writers get in advance while writing :’) ), which is 25% of each sale after the place of sale takes its tax and COG takes 75% of what’s left, is because... of... advertising. But uh, I don’t know if any of y’all have noticed, HG games don’t get advertised like, at all... that’s a strictly COG game thing. Even in the rules, that’s what it says, COG games get actual advertising??? But HG games I think literally get mentioned on the “Upcoming Games” and in a newsletter and that’s it... two free advertisements while COG games get actually paid ones. Really not sure what that’s all about.

But, overall, the site and everything there is just... god. I dread publishing a game, because I know what’ll be waiting for me after both on the COG forum and in my inbox.

#big fucking rant #messages #block tag #discourse #cy is having a Time atm #Anonymous

28 notes · View notes

serpentstole · 3 years

Text

Luciferian Challenge: Day 9

How do you feel about God?

This might be an unexpected take from a Lutheran-raised Luciferian, but I don’t really have strong opinions about God. I have strong opinions about harmful actions taken in God’s name, the misrepresentation of history, and an abuse of social and political power enacted by any religious group, but not really on God Himself.

I’m a big fan of some of His people, both living and dead. I have many Christian friends who are just the nicest people, and magically speaking, I work with one Christian saint so far in the form of St Expedite, and I’ve sometimes considered trying to add St Cyprian to the mix. I am comfortable approaching Saints and other Christian entities in the way that’s appropriate to them, and this hasn’t negatively impacted me in any way so far, though I don’t know if that’ll change after I undergo a more spiritually impactful apostasy.

This feels brief and anticlimactic, so I’m grabbing another prompt from the bonus list! Another thematically appropriate one, this time in the form of…

How do you feel about the religious texts of the Abrahamic faiths? Do you use it as part of your path?

This answer is going to be longer and thus under the cut, but if people read anything I write during this entire challenge, I genuinely hope it’s this one. I will say now for any Christian, Jewish, or Muslim readers or followers I have, it will not be an answer that is hostile towards you, as I don’t want anyone to worry that they might have to either skip this answer completely or else brace themselves against an incredibly shitty take.

To get the “do you use it” part of the question out of the way, I own the Charmer’s Psalter and have used Biblical verse in magic before, but I don’t know how long that’ll continue as my magic develops and changes. I might end up just using the parts that reference the spirits and deities I work with when writing rituals, the ever popular Lord’s Prayer In Reverse, etc.

Now, onto the important stuff.

By Abrahamic faiths I assume they mean Christinity, Judaism, and Islam, since those are the three people tend to lump together during these sorts of discussions. To get two of those out of the way, I don’t think I should really feel any particular way about the religious texts used in Judaism and Islam, as I’m not Jewish nor Muslim.

I know it’s a sadly common thing for Luciferians or Satanists (or many neo-pagans and wiccans, for that matter) to be “anti-Abrahamic” and claim that while they don’t have an issue with the people that belong to those religious, they don’t like the religions themselves or the dogmatic rules those religions might encourage. But that’s sort of… missing the point, isn’t it?

The idea that anyone is a victim of their own religious belief is only half formed if you don’t look at the people or groups that will use the twisting of religious texts, ideas, or communities to victimize others. Lawmakers will often use Christian ideas to try and control women’s bodies, for example, which is something groups like TST vocally push back against. But the expectations they are willing to make on those laws reveal the hypocrisy of their stance, and that belief is being used as a smokescreen to obscure the true intentions of control over women’s bodies for the sake of it. Someone cherry picking or outright misrepresenting the words and ideals of their holy texts or religion to suit their selfish or political needs is not the fact of that holy text or religion.

We claim to reject dogma, but the assumption and blanket statement that these three religions are inherently harmful and oppressive is (in my opinion) dogmatic, and often we Luciferians or Satanists or even Pagans sometimes fall into the trap of regurgitating right wing talking points when it comes to how Judaism or Islam in particular are perceived. The issue is the people who would encourage dogmatic thinking or worse, lawmaking, while using faith as an excuse and to add legitimacy to their bigotry. To demonize the religion is to abandon great swaths of its victims, such as the women and LGBT people of that faith who are being abused by bad actors in the name of a religion they share.

If the idea of why someone would remain a member of their religion when there are so many bad actors, religious texts, or even just passages they might disagree with is a hard thing to wrap one’s head around, I ask this: would you expect rejection of their faith by a Norse pagan for the historic sexism and homophobia of old Norse societies? For the modern associations it has with neo-nazis and bigotry towards women and queer people?

If you say yes, if you would stubbornly and genuinely say yes… then what does it say about you, when we share a label with Anton LaVey’s books that were so influenced by Social Darwinism and Might Makes Right? With groups like the Order of Nine Angels, the Joy of Satan, and others who would claim to be Luciferians or Satanists while advocating for hate speech, bigotry, or literal actual murder? If a few bad actors or communities or specific books can ruin religions as old and as complex and as culturally varied as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, how the hell are there any Satanists and Luciferians left that aren’t transparently proud bigots?

If we can accept for ourselves that not all Satanists and Luciferians will use the religious label with good intentions, and that not all Pagans hold ideals that are befitting the gods they claim to serve or the communities they want to be a part of, why can so few of us extend that basic courtesy to other religions?

And all this is to say nothing of how separated from its original historic and linguistic context the bible has become, and how our view of sin is very different to how those that penned Leviticus likely saw it.

While I can understand and empathize with those who have a negative view of a religion that’s done them personal harm and caused lasting trauma, that’s the shape that their abuse took. It was the fault of the people that enacted that abuse and any churches or organizations that stood by it, not the religion they used as an excuse.* I will genuinely never blame any who shy away from a religious upbringing or culture that tried to condemn their sexuality, or gender identity, or one which tried to control their bodies. That kind of negative association lingers, and there’s no doubt that people have done terrible things in the name of their faith, like I’ve said. But to treat those religions like the root of all societal ills when there are so many who would or are be cruel regardless of their beliefs, or to be hostile towards those that follow such religions without trying to impose any restrictions or beliefs on others, is missing the broader issue and (in my opinion) far more likely to do harm than good.

Also like. Dual faith practices exist and are also fair and valid and doubtless rewarding for those people.

*Please note that I am not including small, cult-like sects in my statements about these religions as a whole. There are plenty of Christian communities who are outright hate groups or otherwise dangerous to their members. Hopefully no one tries to point to some pack of weirdos as their justification to me on why all Christians are either bad or misled, or worse, tries to apply that to other religions as well because they have some historic point of connection.

#luciferianism #theistic luciferianism #witchblr #30 Day Luciferian Challenge #30dayluciferianchallenge #illumine

6 notes · View notes

itsclydebitches · 4 years

Text

Hello, everyone! I come bearing a new recap series to fill the void until Volume 8. This came about because a bunch of friends went, “Hey, this book is really bad” and I responded with, “Really? I should check it out!” Now here we are.

Thrilling tale, I know.

The rules for this project are simple:

Each recap will cover a single chapter

Each chapter will be read as time and energy permit

Each chapter will contain typos because such is life

Recaps are a general response to anything and everything I notice about the text. This includes positives, negatives, and the wishy-washy stuff in between. Despite the summarized conversation above, I’m not going into this with the intention of ripping BtD to shreds, nor am I looking to absolve it simply because it’s ~RWBY~. I’m attempting to be as objective as one human individual can be

However, given that there will be criticisms (a lot of them so far)... any rude messages taking issue with that will unceremoniously be deleted :)

Onward!

We open with Sun’s point of view as he wanders the streets of Vacuo in the very late night/early morning. We learn that he’s been back for a month, but it’s “only now that he felt like he was truly home.” Why that is isn’t made clear. There are two actions connected to this thought: getting into a dangerous battle and helping out a stranger. It’s up to the reader to decide which (or both) is what makes Vacuo feel like home to Sun, but either is going to say a lot about his characterization. Is he a Yang, only feeling like things are normal when there’s something exciting going on? Or a Ruby, attaching feelings of self-worth and belonging to his ability to help others? As said, it’s arguably both.

To clarify this situation: Sun is following a group of three who in turn are following a woman. He says that they were “three goons who were up to no good. At least he’d assumed they were up to no good when he spotted them stalking a woman out of some new nightclub downtown.” Which begs the question, which is it? Do you actually know the three are “stalking” her or is this another “assumption”? Are they up to no good or not? Retroactively, their fight with Sun and the narrative connections to the rest of the plot seem to prove that they are indeed baddies... but Sun didn’t know this at the time. By his own admission he’s drawing very firm conclusions (they’re “goons”) based on circumstantial evidence. I’m torn between praising him for taking action - that woman is presumably safe now thanks to him - and acknowledging that this is a problem with our whole cast. All our heroes jump to conclusions like this and have very confident ideas about who is “good” and who is “bad” based on little to no evidence. Really, I take far less issue with this particular situation and its context (Huntsmen in training sees a woman potentially in danger and takes non-disruptive action to try and prevent a tragedy. That’s good) than I do this trend of characters “assuming” things about others across the series.

But enough on that. Sun’s plan to keep an eye on the situation fails as they “somehow noticed him” despite taking extra precautions to keep out of sight. From this he deduces that at least one member, Brown, is a faunus because the faunus are much more attuned to their environment. Both due to biology and growing up trying to keep safe from humans. I find the bigotry part of that explanation to be odd. I’ll admit that I might be reading way too much into this. So far there’s a lot in this novel that’s not obviously bad but did make me pause and go, “Ehhh...” Just because this moment draws a line between the racism allegory and (literal) animal traits. Take a second to swap out the fantasy term of “faunus”: Character, as a black man, is more attuned to his environment because he’s learned to protect himself from white people.” There is something to be said for minority groups being more cautious in specific situations, or being wary of how they present themselves to new people, etc. But in this case faunus are supposed to just be more attuned to things 24/7 because of fantasy-racism, which sounds a lot like an evolutionary, animalistic trait that they... already have? Saying that the character with animal eyes and ears can more easily pick up on someone tracking him is one thing. Saying that the discriminated against character can more easily pick up on someone tracking him because he’s just hyper-aware at all times very much like an animal...that’s “Ehhh.” It’s one of those things I doubt I’d be paying any attention to if RWBY had given us better representation overall. It’s reached a point where the way the faunus are handled is so messy that any statement like this invites at least a dollop of suspicion. But I’ll leave that to others to cry “Yea” or “Nay.”

So Sun is forced to confront these three. They wear masks and “matching silver armbands around their right biceps.” Sun thinks that they’re “just average gas masks” and thus way less scary than the grimm masks the White Fang prefers. All I could think was:

Gas masks are plenty scary, Sun, you’re just watching the wrong TV shows.

These four start the obligatory pre-fight chit-chat which includes Pink calling Sun “kid.” Every time this happens I feel a tiny bit of my soul wither and die. The protagonists’ ages and the implications attached to them have been a thorn in my side since Volume 5. I mean, heaven forbid we acknowledge that these are teenagers often making immature decisions when the text itself keeps reminding us of how young they are.

But I digress.

As the fight begins Sun concentrates to activate his semblance and we’re given a rather strange flashback. Sun, along with his older cousin Starr Sanzang, are moving with their clan after their “previous settlement had become too attractive to Grimm.” Which is its own, massive can of worms labeled with the question “What suddenly makes a home ‘too attractive’?” But we have nothing else to work with there so I’m leaving it alone. The primary takeaway is Sun’s reaction to the move itself. He wants to know why they don’t fight and despite being told that a) not everyone in the clan is as strong as him and b) he has a tendency to be hotheaded (even though that’s presented as familial teasing), he’s not happy with those answers. It’s amazing how much of this characterization makes it feel like Meyers barely read the RWBY wiki, yet he’s simultaneously managing to hit on a lot of the series’ major themes - including the idea that heroes must never, ever retreat. We could easily take Sun’s thoughts and chuck them into any of Team RWBY’s heads during Volume 7 and you’d be good to go. Not standing and fighting when that would likely mean your death? The horror!

This perspective also (for me) says a lot about his semblance itself. This is the moment where he starts working towards it, so given what we know about semblances, souls, and the circumstances in which they’re developed, I’d say his emotional state is pretty important. Sun wants to stay and fight. He’s told that not everyone is powerful like him. He’d need more people in order to defend his home. Then he literally creates more of himself to help him in battle. Problem solved.

The strange part is what kick-starts this development. Sun sees a magical (???) tree that appears to him and him alone. It’s “a desert willow, green and flourishing with white, rose, and violet flowers” and it’s what he focuses on whenever he needs to draw on his semblance. It’s unclear what, if anything, this tree is meant to represent. There’s obvious symbolism regarding a “flourishing” plant in an otherwise desolate wasteland, but we are not (as of yet) privy to whether this tree is a real thing with a real, tangible connection to Sun. It would be easy to conclude that Sun just imagined it despite his own insistence otherwise, but in a story where semblances, magic, and gods do exist? Who knows. I hope this is going somewhere because it’s frustrating to drop something ~symbolic~ into a universe that’s supposed to be governed by concrete, magical rules and leave the reader floundering over how to categorize that.

We come back to the fight where Sun decides that Brown was “both the leader of the group and the most dangerous. Why? Because he was hiding the most.”

Hold up.

How do you know he’s “hiding the most” when they’re all wearing identical masks and doing the same, shady stuff?

Why in the world is the concept of hiding things connected to leadership?

Not going to lie, it feels like a dig at Ozpin. “Oh yes, the most secretive one must be the leader because we all know leaders do nothing but hide things. The two are so intimately linked that I can look at three people who are all acting suspicious, single out the guy who I’m assuming is a faunus based on no evidence, and thus further conclude - since he’s totally hiding that part of his identity - that he’s the leader here. Simple deduction.”

Sherlock Holmes would be ashamed.

More importantly, you know who’s also a dangerous leader who hides things?

Oh, also this guy.

But instead of acknowledging this we’re offered the simplistic explanation that this is the leader of the bad guys because only bad guys hide stuff. Right.

I’m already getting the sense that Sun’s characterization - like Ruby’s - is going to suffer in this book. They should absolutely be written better given who they were when we first met them, but both end up being mouth pieces for the weird themes the story keeps insisting on including. To be clear, I’ve got a lot of issues with Sun in this story so far, but they’re issues that I don’t think should exist. It’s not “I dislike this character” but much more “I dislike this character but that’s only because you’re making them do and say really OOC things. Give me back the version of this character we had before.” There are characters I don’t vibe with and then there are characters who should be on my wavelength but the creators went and changed course somewhere. That’s always disappointing.

(Aside #1: Can we just take a moment to acknowledge how awkward posing and answering your own question is when we’re supposed to be the PoV? That “Why? Because...” is incredibly jarring. I’m focusing on content over prose here, but the prose needs a whole lot of work in places.)

So Brown is apparently a faunus, and the leader, and hiding extra stuff because Sun says so. The two begin fighting in earnest (with Sun’s clones taking on the other two), but don’t worry, Sun has enough confidence to spare:

“Brown had some kind of martial arts training similar to Sun’s – but he wasn’t nearly as good.”

Brown proceeds to knock Sun down and disarm him. Easily.

The fact that Sun can’t land a hit on this guy then causes him legitimate shock. “‘Oh crap’, Sun thought. ‘I’m losing. How am I actually losing?’” I don’t know, maybe because you’re a second year student going up against an adversary of unknown age, origin, and skill? The confidence of all our characters is astounding to me. Doesn’t anyone ever question whether they can win a fight? Or acknowledge that losing one is expected? Both Sun and RWBYJNR seem to have come out of the Battle of Beacon thinking, “We have survived one (1) battle and therefore we are the best ever. Losing? Never heard of her.” There’s a difference between writing a confident character and writing a deluded one. Sun should not be blindsided by the fact that someone else in the world is more powerful than him.

(For the record, the eternal exception to this is Toph Beifong. They really let a tiny blind girl say, “I’m the goddamn best” and made it fact. I am, and will always, be here for that.)

Amidst this shock Sun thinks about Beacon and immediately shies away from those memories. I quite liked that. I wish the web-series did more to acknowledge how traumatizing that battle was (akin to what we got with Yang’s PTSD and Ruby’s nightmares before both were dropped), so I’m pleased to see nods to it here.

Sun is just acknowledging how he probably should have brought some friends along when a copy of Tri-Hard lands nearby. Huzzah! Velvet is here! Sun should be pleased right, especially since he was just thinking about how much he needs help?

“Great. Team CFVY (coffee) was here.”

Ugh. Well this is frustrating to read. What precisely is going on here? Sun is the guy defined by “You should always get friends involved!” Then he ditches said friends to chase after Blake. While working through this decision he finds himself in a situation where he’s alone again largely because his team is mad at him. So he’s coming to terms with how much he misses and needs those friends... only to think a sarcastic “great” when someone actually show up to help him?

He’s written as an asshole here. Velvet and Yatsuhashi save him - the three baddies use a smoke semblance to run off - but “Sun bristled at the implication that Velvet and Yatsuhashi had rescued him.” Can’t we have one character with a bit of humility? The writing attributes Sun’s attitude to a competitive school where prestige is everything. Team CFVY’s unexpected arrival and their subsequent fame seems to rankle... but we’re really going to ignore that they’re here because, you know, their school was destroyed and their headmaster murdered? I know that people think stupid, selfish things all the time (god knows I do), but it’s a bit much to have Sun be so over confident that he gets himself into serious trouble, get annoyed when he’s offered help, and then insist that he never needed that help in the first place. That kind of behavior rankles and for good reason. It’s fine as a flaw for one or two characters, but we’re seeing this across most of the main cast. Is no one able to look at someone outside their team and just go, “Thanks for the assist”?

The one redeeming part of this scene is Velvet practicing her quips. I support her attempts to sound like a cheesy action hero.

(Aside #2: There had to be a better way to deal with the team names other than writing “CFVY (coffee)”...)

As the three chat we learn that the rogue huntsmen Carmine and Bertilak may be involved with these shady characters, the missing people with powerful semblances, and I, who has not read the first book, learns about Gus, someone capable of amplifying negative emotions. There’s... a lot attached to that reveal, but I’ll leave it alone for now. It’s not fair to drag it when I’ve only gotten a passing mention.

Alongside discussing Very Important Plot Points, the group dives into Sun’s difficulties with his team:

“Besides, the guys are still a little annoyed with me for ditching them.”

“To chase a girl,” Yatsuhashi added.

“It wasn’t like that.” Not entirely. “Blake needed a friend.”

“And your team needed you,” Velvet said firmly. “After everything we saw at Beacon, with everything going on in Mistral—”

“They were fine.”

“But you’re their leader,” Yatsuhashi said.

“They’ll come around.”

“Maybe you would be able to regain their trust if you didn’t keep running off without them,” Yatsuhashi added, sheathing his great sword.

Sun narrowed his eyes. “I liked you better when you didn’t say much.”

Sun is, again, written as an asshole! It might be understandable that he wants to ignore all his mistakes, but that doesn’t make it any less frustrating for those around him - or the reader. Like admitting that he needs help and then getting annoyed when he gets it, here Sun refuses to engage with the actual problems in his behavior. He won’t admit those mistakes. You ditched your team to chase after a girl. No, no, it wasn’t just about chasing her... Your team needed you. No they didn’t! You’re their leader. Pff what does that have to do with anything? It’s deny, deny, deny. On top of a mean quip at Yatsuhashi. I’m just reading this train-wreck like

I want to re-emphasize here (because I keep getting asks with the accusation) that yes, I do understand that stories need conflict and yes, I do want characters to have flaws. It’s just that lately RWBY feels like all flaws all the time, most of which are never even acknowledged as flaws. Which mean the characters aren’t improving. There are very few moments lately where I feel like our heroes are legitimately kind, or wise, or intelligent, or compassionate, and that’s making it hard to connect with them. Knowing what I do of the fountain scene with Yatsuhashi, Fox, and Neptune makes things even worse. Would it be so horrible for Sun to be happy that his friends came to help? Or not sneer at Team CFVY so much? Or admit that he messed up? It’s the amount we’re getting across the whole cast that’s a problem, alongside rejecting other conflicts that would be much more logical for the story and much more emotionally fulfilling (such as Team RWBYJNR disagreeing about anything). I find it exhausting to watch. And now read.

I did, however, like Sun calling Yatsuhashi out on his own insults:

“Besides, people have attempted [invading] before,” Sun said.

“Back when Vacuo had something valuable, like Dust,” Yatsuhashi said.

Sun whistled low. “Spoken like a true outsider. If you don’t want to turn Vacuans against you, you’ll stop making comments like that.”

Yatsuhashi looked away.

It’s a legit thing to call out. Please don’t imply that our city has no value now that we’re not producing this specific commodity. Sun expressed those feelings in a way that didn’t crucify Yatsuhashi, but let him know he’d spoken out of turn and helped him understand why he, as an individual, should care about changing his perspective (“If you don’t want to turn Vacuans against you...”). I’d say this is one of the better exchanges in the prologue, showing us unexpected sides to each character (Sun isn’t just a laughing goof, Yatsuhashi isn’t the wise Asian stereotype) without them feeling OOC.

We then end the prologue with Sun promising to help CFVY with these investigations. Offering on behalf of his team without asking, that is. I’m sure that will go over splendidly.

As a final note before I sign off, I apologize if these recaps are... bad? Lol. Yeah, we’ll be blunt and straightforward in that description. While working through this I found myself reiterating so much of what I say in the regular recaps + asks, just because these problems seem to be creeping their way into RWBY’s supplemental material too. Doesn’t mean it makes for engaging reading though. In addition, I found myself struggling to articulate thoughts on this prologue simply because I didn’t know what to make of these writing choices. What’s up with that tree? Why are Sun’s thoughts going around in a contradictory circle? What am I supposed to do with all these lines that grind the story to a halt because my brain goes, “Wait what?” The easy answer to all this is, “It’s not a well written book, Clyde” and yeah. From what I’ve read for myself and heard from others, fair enough. But I feel like there’s just enough here - that potential RWBY is known for - that I want to try and clearly lay out as much as I can... even if it still comes out a bit muddled.

It’s summer. I just finished another massive project. There’s a pandemic on. My brain is as fried as my eggs this morning. If you’re okay with the outcome of all that, stick around :D

#rwby #rwde #mymetas #Before the Dawn #BTD Recaps

38 notes · View notes

mvnvgedmischief · 4 years

Text

you’re so obtuse but i love you anyway: au where sirius doesn’t go to azkaban, and james and lily don’t die, and sirius and remus work at hogwarts, in conjunction with the wolfstar nerds discord server.

sirius is chaperoning a hogsmeade weekend. he wears his leather jacket, emblazoned with padfoot across the back, and his favorite sex pistols jumper to the outing.

1.7k words of fluff

the sunshine streaming in to the room is a lie if you ask sirius. the warm glow of the morning dapples in through the windows, and casts the most glorious light on remus’s dirty blonde waves, and illuminates the splattering of caramel freckles on remus’s nose. it truly is a sight to behond, and if sirius didn’t feel so utterly cynical about the sun right now, he’d probably thanking merlin that he gets to see remus looking this beautiful and peaceful. but the sun is a liar. april in scotland has no business pretending to be warm the way it does. the sun beaming down on the grass looks so fucking lovely that he shouldn’t need a coat, and yet the temperature is still a cool 45 degrees.

he’s lucky that he isn’t expected to dress with the formality does to teach, he’s lucky, because it means he can pull on the acid washed sex pistols jumper remus has been wearing around their quarters recently, that smells like him, to chaperone his third years at hogsmeade. he’s so grateful that he and remus are here, together, teaching. in their youth, they had never really grasped what life would be like beyond the war. he and james had discussed it once, but they never got further into the conversation then maybe we’ll be quidditch players. and puddlemere united didn’t want someone like him on the team. james didn’t want to go out for the trial when he had a new baby at home. so instead, sirius and remus had settled for a bit. they had a spell of muggle london, and they had loved every minute of it. they had relaxed into routines of going to clubs, going on dates, perfecting recipes, and living in domestic bliss. but eventually, that had come to an end, and they needed something to occupy their days. sirius was thankful that the war had ended, and that dumbledore had offered him a job at his alma mater, teaching defense against the dark arts, no less. it had always been a class he deemed useful, despite how close to home it hit for him. he and remus were back in the castle they had forged their relationship in, walking the same walls they walked in their youth. and now, he was off to watch a new generation of students do the same thing, taking their friends to hogsmeade and courting each other over a chocolate bar.

he thin fingers wrap around the soft fabric of the jumper, and the feeling of warmth, of a closeness to his lover, radiates through him from the contact. it makes his chest ache in the best way to have access to remus’s clothes like this, and to be able to wear them without fear. there had been so much to be afraid of, so many hurdles to overcome in this castle the first time. but the world was a different place, four short years ago when he graduated. he pulls the jumper over his head, and the smell of parchment, oak, and earth overwhelms him. it could make him cry tears of joy, if he thought too hard about it. he slips on his drainpipe jeans, and his chuck taylor trainers. remus had always been fond of them, and who was sirius to deny his boyfriend the simple pleasures in life. he puts on the kettle, as usual for his morning routine, and heads toward a mirror to style his hair. he’s finally gotten his inky strands to lay just right when he hears remus stirring in bed. the part of his mind that he thinks accounts for his wit forces a smug smile on his face, because he can’t help the way he immediately feels pride knowing when remus will wake up, given his routine. just on time.

when remus finally sits up in bed, the kettle is ready. so instead of returning empty handed, sirius waltzes back towards the four poster bed with to mugs in toe, one tea black with a heaping scoop of sugar, one with milk and honey in the perfect balance for his snobbish, tea drinker boyfriend. there’s a light smile on his face, and he hands off the beverage before he even has the time to greet remus with a sweet good morning moonbeam.

“cariad bore da” remus smiles, his eyes still hazy in his early morning sleepiness.

“morning, love.” sirius smiles, although he’d be a liar if he said he’d actually been told what those words meant. through context clues, he’d figured it out long ago. it’s the same way remus greets him every morning, with the same pet name he’d been given all those years ago in sixth year.

“you’re chaperone today, right?” “yeah, ‘m right chuffed about it honestly.” “oh, i’m sure you are.” remus grins, because he knows that sirius “i’m super punk” black loves chaperoning the kids on hogsmeade weekends. he loves to impart any wisdom he has at zonko’s. he loves to come back with little surprises, like a new book or some chocolates for remus.

“so you’ll be back around dinner, then, yeah?”

“should be. i’ve got to shove off, if i don’t want minnie to have my arse for being late.”

sirius pulls remus into a kiss, and it’s so full of the love and peace they’ve made for themselves, right here, in this home. if sirius was being honest, he’s probably never been more at ease, even with the snivelling greasy git of snape roaming the halls with him. he pulls on his leather jacket and makes a move for the door.

“oi, sirius black! you’re really gonna walk out of here in that jacket, and my jumper, right now. that’s fucking unfair.”

“moony, i’ll be walking back in here in your jumper and this jacket in a couple of hours.” he laughs. he tosses his hair over his shoulder to make eye contact with remus as he reaches for the door, and he definitely doesn’t pretend not to notice the way remus gives him a once over with a love sick smile adorning his face.

–––––––––––

when sirius arrives in hogsmeade, he does as he’s supposed to. he keeps an eye on the kids, seating himself on a bench to keep track of who’s going in and out of zonkos. he’s already taken care of his errands in the small town for the day, a tiny package secured in the zipped pocket of his jacket, and a bar of chocolate for remus in his other pocket, patiently waiting for when he returns to their chambers in the evening. he doesn’t expect to see liz tuttle and penny haywood walking up to him, eyes wide and giggling over something. neither seemed like the pranking type, and most of the students knew that that was truly his specialty on these trips.

“professor black!” penny calls, and he looks up from his book to acknowledge them.

“alright girls?”

“we just had a question for you.” liz begins, her eyes fixed intently on his jacket. he isn’t exactly shocked, really, neither penny nor liz had ever asked him about it, but that didn’t mean plenty of other students hadn’t had inquiries about his proclivity for muggle fashion, or the fact that he never wore robes. both he and remus dressed much more like muggles than the majority of the hogwarts staff, and students were bound to have questions about muggle casual clothes.

“what’s a padfoot?” liz asks. she was clearly the bolder of the two, but penny was also a joy in his class.

“sorry– what?”

“padfoot? you’re always wearing that jacket, and it says padfoot across the back. what’s it mean?”

sirius can feel his lips curling into a smile, but he simply shakes his head. he couldn’t tell them it was his nickname. not when the map, which was still in the castle, clearly stated messr. padfoot on it. he could deny any connection to the map, should it come up, if no one knew it was his nickname.

“it’s a muggle joke, girls. don’t worry about it.”

“is that–” penny starts, but liz shoots her some kind of look that sirius has neither the time nor the energy to decode. “is that the jumper professor lupin wears all the time?”

that however, does get a reaction out of him. the young man can feel his cheeks going read at the question, because he really didn’t think these kids took so much stock of his and remus’s closet, and it was his jumper anyways, why shouldn’t he wear it?

“‘s a matter of fact, yeah, it is.”

“oh– you two must have been very good friends while you were at hogwarts if you share clothes.”

“yeah, friends.” sirius agrees, resigned to the fact that he knew remus didn’t want everyone talking about their relationship. sure, it had been four years since they attended hogwarts, but that didn’t mean the bigotry they had experienced no longer existed. and they were so happy here, it would be ridiculous to jeapordize it, if students’ parents found out about them.

––––––––––

when sirius returns for the evening, he’s in just as breezy of a mood as when he left. he’s got a shit eating grin on his face, because he’s overwhelmed with joy every time he spends a moment alone with remus. as soon as he’s back, he’s finding his place with his arms wrapped around remus, and his lips pressing gentle, loving kisses into his boyfriend’s hair.

“i got you something today.”

“you always get me something when you’re chaperoning.”

“if i want to spoil you moonshine, i’m going to.”

sirius pulls the small package out of one pocket, and the bar of chocolate out of the other. when remus’s hands pull the wrapper off of the smaller of the two boxes, and open what’s inside, the joy on his face is something that sirius is sure could rival any magic, or any god.

“just wanted to say i love you.” sirius whispers, watching as remus slips the modest silver band on his finger.

“i love you too.”

#springsteen/madonna au #wolfstar #sirius black #remus lupin #sirius x remus #r/s #domestic bliss #fluffy af #wolfstar-nerds #my writing

89 notes · View notes