#I think she’s one of the most misogynistically adapted characters on the show

[melrosing]

What do you think of show Cersei?

I try not to

#ask #I think she’s one of the most misogynistically adapted characters on the show #which makes the enduring love that many in Cersei fandom still hold for her really perplexing to me #like I think the only purpose she serves them is that when confronted with the nuances of the actual Cers #they can go uwaAaahhh but I meant the show version of Cersei!!! #like if that’s the version you’re preoccupied with then why are you even interested in her she’s utterly incoherent

[hamliet]

Hazbin Hotel Has Better Theology Than Most Modern "Christian" Stories

As a Christian who was raised in a fundie cult and escaped to now have a far healthier and vital faith, I genuinely really like this show. The songs are bops. The characters are well crafted and interesting, and likable too. The art design is bizarre but appealing.

And, as a theology nerd who studied theology as part leaving said cult and also has since gotten papers published in theology, I'm actually fairly impressed by the show's handling of theology.

No, I'm not expecting the story to preach or even like, be explicitly Christian in a lot of ways. But it's taking a lot of the really beautiful aspects of Christian theology and re-contextualizing them in a way designed to provoke thought: by juxtaposing them with the antithesis of what you would think, by making demons heroes. In my opinion, this makes the beauty shine brighter.

Yeah, yeah, it's designed to be offensive and obscene in a lot of ways. Yet, it's never (thus far) mean-spirited. On the contrary, it seems to have a big, beating heart at its core that is perhaps best embodied by Charlie Morningstar, its protagonist and the daughter of Lucifer and Lilith.

Critique of the Church, with Caveats

The story works best with an interpretation that heaven isn't actually heaven or God (who has been conspicuously absent), but instead as a critique of the church. Specifically, the evangelical American church, and specifically, white evangelicals. (Same as She-Ra's premise, actually).

God's absence therefore makes sense, because while Christians do believe God is present as a living reality among us, we also can't like, see him physically now. So, God being not even mentioned in HH makes it seem more like a mortal reality rather than an immortal one. Honestly I kinda hope God doesn't appear in the story, not only because I think it could cross some lines (which is admittedly personal), but also because I don't see that the story really needs it.

Adam in particular reminds me of every "theobro" on Twitter (I'm not calling it what you want me to, El*n). Basically a dudebro coopting his supposed salvation to flex in an often misogynistic way, who doesn't realize that he has absolutely no love in him and therefore is actually a worse human being than everyone he condemns on the regular.

(Which is kind of why I'm expecting Adam to wake up in hell next season...)

Think red hats. And Mark Driscoll. And, I have a list of pastors. Sigh. They advocate for how "simple" Christianity is, except they themselves make it ridiculously complicated and don't even examine what they suppose is "simple" if it requires them to take the planks out of their own eyes. "Shallow" is a better description of what they actually preach.

But what sends people to hell or heaven anyways?

Eschatology and Atonement Theory

Hazbin Hotel combines a lot of theories, throwing not only the idea of a physical hell (albeit mixed with Dante's idea of what hell is the Inferno, but to be fair a lot of the church has adopted that idea too) but the idea of annihilation, which HH calls "extermination."

See, in Christianity, there's a lot of debate about hell. Like, since 2000 years ago. The reason is because a lot of Bible verses seem to indicate hell, but others indicate the eventual redemption and salvation of absolutely everything in the universe, so you have Christian universalism tracing itself back just as long. But, setting aside universalism, people who do believe in hell tend to fall into one of two camps:

Physical hell, aka suffering for eternity, or annihilation: the idea that souls that aren't saved end up annihilated, or snuffed from existence. HH combines both of them, wherein everyone lives in hell but then every so often heaven "exterminates" a certain number of sinners.

And then you also have Catholic purgatory, which is also adapted in HH in that... for most Christians, physical hell doesn't offer the ability to redeem yourself. Chance over, you're dead. But, Catholic Christianity, which draws on ideas of praying for the dead, has the idea that people can improve themselves or be prayed out of it and into heaven. This seems to be somewhat similar to the idea of Charlie's hotel, in that sinners can improve, redeem themselves, and rise to heaven.

And, I mean, it's already kinda worked. Sir Pentious acted out Jesus' words: Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13).

But anyways, the branch of theology that deals with the afterlife is eschatology. And Hazbin Hotel takes on a related form of theology as well, a type of theology I've only seen covered in stories once before (The House in Fata Morgana): atonement theory.

Atonement theory is something I remember well from my theology 101 class, as in I remember sitting with a friend and her turning to me and being like, "okay, so we know Jesus' death and resurrection give us eternal life, but we have no idea how or why?" To which the answer was "basically, yeah."

Most of the white, American evangelical church is very "penal substitutionary atonement," but the reality is that this theory has only been popular for the past few hundred years. It's also, imo, somewhat scripturally unsound. But there are a lot of other theories, and sometimes the theories overlap. Here's a fairly decent summary. (I'm in general a believer in Christus Victor.)

So how does atonement theory tie into Hazbin Hotel? Well, essentially the scene where Charlie and Vaggie are debating with Emily, Sera, Adam, Lute, and others in heaven is them going over various atonement theories and realizing that they actually know nothing at all. How does one get to heaven? How is one saved? They don't know.

Sera criticizing Emily for asking questions was also very relatable, and I feel for Sera. She's genuinely scared but the truth will set you free, Sera. John 8:32. Anyways, the point is like... the angels are an organized religion, an evangelical church, that preaches about simplicity but mistakes shallowness for simplicity and discourages depth and discovery.

Anyways, the whole crux of theological study and atonement theories is that they should promote humility. We don't know for certain on this side of the curtain. That's okay. So what do we have to guide us?

Love. After all, God is love (1 John 4:8).

Charlie is Jesus

"Why would you endanger your immortal life for these sinners?" 

Adam, the absolute worst, says the above to Charlie in the finale.

I mean... look. That's literally the premise of Christianity. That the immortal son of God comes down to earth, lives with sinners, loves us, and dies to save us. However that happens. Charlie even responds:

"They're my family!"

In other words, she loves them. Yeah, sure, they're destined for extermination, but they are going to be exterminated over her dead body.

In a lot of branches of Christianity, and even in some creeds--though I'm going to give into my pet peeves here and state that it is NOT Scriptural and relies on the faulty assumption that God is bound by time, when I think God exists outside of it--state that Jesus descended into hell after his death and took all the souls of people who were saved prior to his coming to earth to heaven. Again, I think that's small-minded at best. But, the idea that Charlie is working among them to bring them to heaven is pretty reminiscent of this idea. And I don't hate it lol.

Charlie sees worth inherent in everyone, and no matter what they've done, thinks there's a future for them. Honestly we need people like her on this earth.

Angel Dust

Angel Dust is clearly my favorite character. Bite back your shock, I know (I have a type). But his name is also a fascinating multi-layered pun.

Angel is clearly foreshadowing his endgame. Let's be real, we all know Angel is ending up as an angel. And "angeldust" is of course a name for PCP, and considering Angel's drug habits, yeah.

But, dust also has another meaning to it. See, when Adam was created in Genesis 2:7, the words in Hebrew are "apar min ha'adamah," which is translated literally as "dust of the ground." So the dust is what creates Adam, literally "ground."

In other words, I very much expect Angel Dust to end up being foiled with Adam even more so. Adam might be the first man, but Angel is the first sinner working towards redemption. And let's be real, for all Angel's flaws, he's already a better person than Adam. And if there's any hope for Adam (not that I particularly care if there is but) it'd be through realizing that he and Angel aren't actually different after all. Conversely (and not necessarily mutually exclusively), Angel might serve as a more symbolic "adam" in that he becomes the person all sinners look to for hope. Which, y'know, since "the last Adam" is also a Scriptural term for Jesus...

And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45).

I fully expect Angel's arc, alongside Charlie's, to bring life and redemption for everyone around them. Maybe, maybe even the dramatic "all" of Colossians 1:20 (which means, literally, all, everything, everywhere, in the entire universe).

Closing Thoughts

But honestly, regardless of how the story ends--besides that it will presumably end happily because HH is at its core feel-good despite being profane--season one at least has got good theology. Why? Because it's digging into the questions that theology is concerned with. It's digging into the ideas of human nature, of what it means to be a good person, of what it means to redeem oneself, of affirming how precious each individual human soul is.

It doesn't offer cheap answers, and it specifically calls out the white American evangelical church for how it purports to be simple but actually just confuses people and punishes them for things they can't help, that creates more stumbling blocks than it does shine a light. And it does it in a way that is scandalous. Offensive to many religious people.

But, y'know, Jesus was pretty scandalous too.

So I really love the story so far because it emphasizes what I find so beautiful about my religion, and criticizes the parts that have also hurt me. I don't think it's remotely aiming to be a Christian allegory or anything like that, and I don't at all think anyone has to be religious to enjoy it or gain the core message of it, but I do think that it's doing a hell of a lot more good in the world message-wise than most evangelical movies of the past 30 years.

#hazbin hotel #hamliet reviews #theology #christianity #charlie morningstar #jesus #angel dust #angel hazbin hotel

[artbyblastweave]

Okay, Time for that belated Shrinking Rae post-

In the comics, Shrinking Ray's "arc" (bearing in mind an extremely liberal definition of that term, they had exactly one scene showcasing this) was that he was implied to be developing an inferiority complex; he's not necessarily incompetent, but he's out of his niche, his clever shrinking-based plans kept getting upstaged by brute-force solutions from the more conventionally powerful heroes like Invincible. He's the scrawny, nerdy little guy with the joke powers, he never gets a win, and in most fights he literally isn't visible. In the fight with the Lizard League his death is framed as pathetic and ineffectual- there's one or two panels between "I'll make you pay!" and getting eaten alive by Komodo. All of this is doing a couple of things- it's emphasizing that again, this is in fact a story and setting where superheroes sometimes just die really badly with limited fanfare- a thing that IIRC hadn't happened since the original Guardians team wipe in issue 7. Second, it's an indicator that the new Guardians are structurally kind of on the ropes. They're heavily staffed by second stringers, they exact second they have to split their forces they suffer a 66 percent casualty rate, and that's with backing from two capes who aren't actually part of the team. Grim! Anyway, when they do the adaptation Shrinking Ray becomes Shrinking Rae, because they want to tweak the gender balance of the cast and the pun is too good to pass up. But I think that there was a reasonable reluctance to transfer the "arc" from the comics one-to-one, because to be blunt, "Ineffectual Nebbish Glasses-wearer who whines a lot and dies pathetically," paired with absolutely nothing else, is gonna read as misogynistic if the character is a woman now. So in the adaptation Rae is markedly more competent. We're introduced to her taking down a much larger opponent by fucking around inside his ear canal, which becomes a favored trick of hers. There are traces of the self-esteem thing- the visual gag where she physically shrinks about a foot when getting chewed out in the briefing- but the overall throughline isn't "look at this loser who somehow ended up on the guardians." In the Lizard League fight, she doesn't get eaten- she's deliberately trying to execute a Thanus maneuver and just fucks it up, seconds after successfully killing a different villain the same way. And there's a second where it looks like it might work, too, before hope is cruelly yanked away. Which makes for a markedly cooler death scene- but who died? What was actually going on with her? Anything? In some sense she's cooler, but it's kind of an undifferentiated cool. She had what, Six lines? Seven? On balance I think Rae is still doing her fundamental job in the story, which is to pad the Guardians roster for a while and have someone who actually dies and stays dead as a result of the Lizard League fight- but I think they definitely missed an opportunity to give her some more texture than her comic counterpart had. Part of me thinks that the show would have been a good place to go even harder on Shrinking Rae being in over her head, but in a considered way, to emphasize that the Guardians aren't well managed- maybe tie it into the tensions between Robot and Immortal regarding sustainable team management practices. Part of me thinks you should go the other way, that if you're gonna do away with the idea she's underwhelming you should blow up her role, have her actually say and do some things that affect the story or the team dynamic in any noticeable way, because as it stands she's kind of visibly siloed as the designated mauve shirt. I'm definitely of one mind that this showcases something I suspected was gonna bite the show in the ass, which is that they're (laudably) diversifying a secondary and tertiary cast whose main role in the source material is often to die badly or fade out of focus.

#invincible #shrinking rae #invincible spoilers #thoughts #meta #invincible comic #invincible season 2 episode 5 #800 words of meta on a character with six lines and a brooklyn accent jumpscare

[susiephone]

i’m doing my annual reread of “gone girl” (happy women’s history month!) and as much as i ADORE the movie, both as a movie and an adaptation (seriously i think it’s one of the best adaptations i’ve ever seen), the book just has something to offer that i feel like couldn’t really be translated into film: the narration.

like yes there’s some narration in the movie, but films are a visual medium. for the most part, you don’t have the character tell us what they’re thinking, you show us via their actions. but a book, especially in first person POV as the book is (alternating perspectives between nick and amy), you have the benefit of having the character’s thoughts, and their actions, which can often hint at some stuff the characters don’t realize or don’t want to admit. especially because in the book, nick and amy are both aware they are telling you a story. they are both playing to an audience, they both know you’re there, and they both want you to side with them. and that is fascinating to consider as you read.

and we’ve all seen amy get made into this feminist girlboss heroine, and i know some people are joking (i mean, i joke about it), but some people are not. and that is baffling if you read the book and realize amy is also a complete misogynist. (actually she’s a misanthrope, she hates everybody, but she really has contempt for other women that doesn’t come up as much in the movie.) i’ve said it before and i’ll say it again: it is a tragedy the book cut out hilary handy, because what amy did to her is an EXCELLENT example of amy’s lack of care for other women. 

the book also delves more into how amy, while brilliant and clever, is also not nearly as smart as she thinks she is, and she’s also a complete spoiled brat. the movie definitely mentions that amy was rich, but in the book, it’s clear that she’s never actually had to have job in her life (she does have one, but it doesn’t pay that well and it’s clear she could quit and live off her parents’ money any time she liked), and when she complains about being dragged “penniless” to missouri, she can still afford to not work and never has to think about the cost of gas. like she and nick aren’t RICH anymore, but they’re certainly not poor. amy in the book pays ten dollars for a carton of milk because she doesn’t realize she’s being overcharged. she expects $12,000 to last her nearly a year living in hiding, without actually budgeting (or rather, sticking to her budget) or compromising on comfort. 

furthermore, the book gets more into amy’s childhood and why she is the way she is, and also how her actions affect people who did nothing to her. the book spends a lot more time with her parents, who while not GOOD people in the book, get a lot more depth and really highlight amy’s callousness. the book does more to explore her psyche to make it clear that amy isn’t some super-cool ice queen mastermind who Does What She Wants; she’s on the edge of a breakdown basically 24/7, she’s a total hypocrite, she’s completely oblivious to her weaknesses and other people’s strengths, she’s motivated almost entirely by what others think of her, and her ego is both VERY inflated and incredibly fragile.

and in the book, amy and nick are perfect for each other. seriously. i have personally concluded that neither of them are capable of selfless or healthy love--except nick’s love for his sister, which is his main redeeming quality as a human being--but they do love each other in the most twisted, fucked-up, masochism tango way possible, and they’ll live miserably ever after because neither of them could ever be happy with someone else anyway.

like i get this stuff had to be streamlined or downplayed to make a 432-page book work in a single film. but i wish more discussion of the story was centered around the book instead of the movie, because i feel like when you have to cut down on stuff, some nuance and depth inevitably gets lost. and i wonder if amy would be as widely idolized and praised if the fanbase was centered more on the book than the movie.

tl;dr: if you’ve only seen the movie of gone girl, i implore you to pick up the book. it’s fantastic and makes an already stellar story even better. the audiobook is also excellent, although it did take me a couple chapters to get used to the narrator’s voices. they’re both FANTASTIC but it was jarring to hear nick as Not Ben Affleck and amy as Not Rosamund Pike 

#gone girl #gillian flynn #nick dunne #amy dunne #amy elliott dunne #literature #booklr #long post cw

[londonclubofsherwood]

One thing I keep thinking about is because superhero comics are simultaneously niche and cultural icons, the general public understanding of characters can be starkly different to the actual medium. Often this is harmless fun but it can be a problem considering arcs about female and minority characters often suffer in the realm of reprints and adaptations, and therefore never have the same impact on the public consciousness. And I think this explains the erasure of Oracle.

Yes, Killing Joke was misogynistic as hell and as a massive Barbara fan I have serious issues with it. But then what Kim Yale and John Ostrander did with Oracle in year one was moving, beautiful and undeniably feminist. I'm not disabled but I got serious chills reading the story and it is honestly one of my favourite comics. From there she grew to become a staple in the DC universe and helped launch the wildly successful Birds of Prey superhero team.

And she was a disabled hero who was psychologically complex and kickass in a fight. She also was seen as an attractive woman who had love interests like Dick Grayson. She got to train the next generation of Batgirls. As Oracle Babs thrived.

Not to mention according to Scott Peterson's article on DC women kicking ass, the creative team at the time were seeing an overwhelming positive response to Oracle from people who saw themselves on the pages of a superhero comic for the first time thanks to Babs:

"we were the ones getting the mail from disabled fans. We were the ones reading letters about how much Oracle meant to them, how much it meant to see someone in a situation so much like their own, someone who by then had been come such an important part of the DCU, treated with respect and admiration by not only Superman and Black Canary, but by the Batman, a guy who treated pretty much no one with respect." (Scott Peterson, 2011)

But if you look at the mainstream perception, her success is less obvious.

Batgirl has always struggled in adaptations, and Oracle even more so. The versions of Oracle that have been translated onto film and TV haven't caught in public imagination in the same way, to the point she was straight up cut out of the recent Birds of Prey film.

Not to mention Killing Joke is one of the most iconic Batman stories of all time that not only has been reprinted countless times but was one of the select few comic arcs to be adapted into animation. Contrarily, Oracle Year One was reprinted in English once after the original date: the Batgirl 50 years celebration. This collection is expensive and not something you would buy without considerable investment in the Batgirls. It certainly isn't one that would show up if you google 'best batman comics'.

If you see this you understand why people marginally invested in DC mythos considered her return to batgirl was seen by some as a feminist move, rather than an ableist one. Gone were her years of development, one of the most powerful information brokers in DC, and two other beloved Batgirls. And the real insult: killing joke was still canon. Yes, they kept the misogynistic violence and ditched the disability rep and the character growth. And that is despite the fact Killing Joke was made to be part of an else world, not main continuity.

#dc musings #Barbara gordon #batgirl #oracle #dc #dc comics #batman #batfamily #ramblings/meta #hopefully this is something

[mahoutoons]

no, the sailor moon 90s anime is not more feminst than the manga

i've seen people herald the 90s anime as this beacon of feminism just because it focuses on the relationship between the inner senshi instead of usagi and mamoru's relationship. there's this idea that the manga being more about romance makes it inherently less feminist than the anime. but i want to shut that idea down.

people keep circulating these three screenshots to prove the 90s anime is this feminist masterpiece

but just a scene prior in the SAME EPISODE, rei calls usagi ugly COMPLETELY UNPROVOKED

yes there's teasing between friends but come on. usagi didn't even do anything to warrant being compared to a monkey.

and speaking of rei... she's so heavily lesbian coded in the manga. literally her nightmare in the dream arc is getting married and settling down in the trad family sense. which she destroys with her akuryo taisan like the lesbian queen she is. also her distrust of men is a big part of her character in every adaptation... except the 90s anime which made her boy crazy and have that plotline where she gets with mamoru for a while for the sake of a rivalry with usagi!

there's the whole jealousy thing with chibiusa which is honestly weird no matter the adaptation and idk why ANYONE thought that was a good idea. but its somehow WORSE in the 90s anime. at least, at the very LEAST in the manga she actually communicates with mamoru about her insecurities and the whole jealousy thing only lasts in the black moon arc (which continues staying the worst arc regardless of the adaptation). in the anime... it lasts well into the end of supers... TWO SEASONS after usagi found out chibiusa was her and mamoru's daughter!

and lets talk about how they made usagi jealous over small things in supers! look i get it, she's a teenage girl and she gets jealous easily. but when you get jealous of a child who is also your future daughter and an old woman your boyfriend tried to help, that's when you have issues. there's an entire fucking episode where she stalks rei just because mamoru is staying at her house for a day!

and the most egregious thing which makes me laugh at any claim of the 90s anime being much more feminist than the manga.. is how they handled prince demande. you know, the guy who kidnapped and sexually assaulted usagi? in the manga and crystal, he's killed off unceremoniously.

but guess what ikuhara, the feminist king who knows to write SO MUCH BETTER than naoko, did. he tried to make demande sympathetic. he made usagi sympathise with him.

yasssss ikuhara you go make the pedophile sexual assaulter sympathetic, you feminist king! you definitely know SO MUCH BETTER than naoko!

and people thought crystal was antifeminist? get outta my face with that at least crystal didn't try to make the fucking borderline rapist sympathetic, he disintegrated in a pile of dust like he deserves.

you might be thinking "get outta here no one says the 90s anime is more feminist than the manga". well yes people do. you'd be surprised. i went to an old anime confession blog and found these posts back when crystal was still new and still had a MASSIVE hatedom

and these are just some of the posts. there's so much more. people who dared to enjoy crystal were called misogynistic for... liking a show. even today i see people bash naoko for the smallest things while praising ikuhara as a feminist king and lgbt ally who did more for the community than naoko (which is funny because the 90s anime has an episode where makoto has a crush on haruka and the girls are like "nuuuuuu mako you can't date haruka you're a girl" which wasn't in the manga). when he wouldn't even have been able to make the anime without naoko's manga.

there's an interview with naoko takeuchi where she says that the difference between the manga and 90s anime was that the 90s anime had a male perspective as it was directed by men while the manga mostly had a female perspective as it was written by a woman.

and it honestly really shows when you watch the anime again.

was the 90s anime progressive for its time? yes. is the manga peak feminist literature? no. you can prefer the 90s anime over the manga but don't go acting like its inherently more feminist than the manga just because it doesn't focus as much on the romance aspect. the manga focusing more on usagi and mamoru's romance doesn't make it inherently less feminist.

#sailor moon #sailor moon crystal #rebecca talks #i made this same post on twitter and got hated on #hopefully sailor moon tumblr will take this better

[becomingpart2]

It really bothers me how people inadvertently end up shitting on Skyler when the praise they send Kim's direction seems to rely on how good of a female character she is and by extension how relieved they are that we finally have a good one on the same level of the male characters. There's always this underlying tone that this universe finally has a complex female character worth talking about and getting invested into. And yes I agree that she is an interesting character but the underlying tone that seems to accompany that praise is a sense of putting down Skyler for being just "the wife" or, mostly, the battered housewife. It seems people are only ever interested in talking about her when they want to (rightfully) defend her from the misogynistic attacks she's suffered over the years or to talk about how much she suffered in universe. Not much about her as a character on her own, not much about how she's complex and interesting on her own.

I understand the need to highlight her suffering and how she was victim in all of Walt's bullshit (and unfortunately that is still needed) but I also think it's hypocritical and condescending (and a touch misogynistic on its own) to only ever see her as a victim and thus less of a character than someone like kim, that gets to be maker of her own ruin.

Skyler is not just the good loving mother that wants to protect her children from their father and the criminal world he inserted them into. She's also smart and funny and quick on her feet. She's able navigate and adapt to different environments and she does it well. She's proactive, she comes up with plans on her own; sometimes against Walt (ted, the pool incident), sometimes to help him and them (the carwash) and sometimes to help herself (the IRS thing or when she evades police by pretending to be in labor). She's also flawed like all good characters are.

There's a lof of the talk about how Kim has more agency, and while I think that's true and good on its own, it can often fall prey to the point of view that the only way for a female character to be a good character is if she dominates predominantly male spaces and make those her own. As if the only way to be interesting is if you do it in the same way men do. It's a little diminishing towards women that don't do that or aren't interested in doing that (I'd also call into question how effective is that agency when It's conveniently one that doesn't go against what the male partner wants).

It's interesting how I have seen people say that the reason some might not like Kim is because she's a woman that exhibits traits usually associated with men and how she's the one who "wears the pants" in her relationship with Jimmy. That's true but I think it's important to remember that misogyny doesn't make those kind of distinctions and while she might be hated because of that, more "traditional" female characters are hated just the same, if not more.

In fact, I'd argue that Kim is hated significantly less than Skyler ever was. A lot of the male viewers like her and most of the analysis you see of the show regards her as one of the best characters in television history.

It's also funny because that comment seems to imply that Skyler is the "traditional female character" archetype, the housewife that's only there to take the abuse and that's not true at all to Skyler or how she was received by audiences. A lot of the reason she was hated as much as she was (is?) is precisely because she didn't fit into the expectations of what a "good wife" should be like. Because she didn't bow down and take Walter's side, because she was too independent and didn't support "her man" when he needed, because she couldn't see where he was coming from (which, strangely enough, it's something Kim always does, regardless of why you think she does it, the fact is that she's always by Jimmy's side).

This is not an attempt to shit on Kim but rather to highlight how often the conversation surrounding her character seems to veer in the direction of inadvertantly putting down Skyler as "less" of a good female character when I would say both have strengths and weaknesses from a feminist standpoint.

#breaking bad #skyler white #better call saul #bcs #kim wexler

[clearancecreedwatersurvival]

Saw someone say that the wheel of time show has nothing in common with the books and this is. So not correct.

If you want to see what a show looks like when it has nothing to do with the source material, watch Netflix’s take on the witcher. That’s what happens when not only do the people adapting it not care about the source material but the showrunner actually has stated on record that she dislikes the source material. The witcher on Netflix fucked it up so bad that the lead actor, a huge fan of the source material, walked after three seasons. (I have been informed he actually left due to onset conflicts and instances of being misogynistic to his coworkers. Still a bad adaptation but I rescind this point) Pretty sure the entire country of Poland has disavowed this adaptation and the author wants Nothing to do with it.

The wheel of time is the total opposite. It is Extremely clear that the people working on it and the showrunner love the source material.

This production is running off a shoestring budget. Amazon put most of their high fantasy money into the rings of power (and the effects for the volcano eruption). And rather than being given enough seasons to adapt the entire book series, they’ve been given 8. To adapt 14 Extremely long and complicated books. How many named characters are there in the wheel of time?? Over 3000.

They are being given a very short time frame to accomplish a LOT of plot. Of course they’re going to cut stuff. Of course they’re going to combine characters. Season 2 is covering both books II and III! But they are focusing on the arcs of all the major characters and making sure they are set up for all their major character beats, and setting up the power players and institutions that matter in the larger geopolitical conflicts of randland. Sometimes that means making one character have later parts of their own plots sooner than it takes in the books (Moiraine and Mat in particular so far).

There are a lot of people saying it’s a bad adaptation mostly because a. They’ve made any changes from the books at all and b. Too many characters are gay now. Admittedly most of the people complaining about the adaptation having too many gay characters and nonwhite actors are on Reddit, but still. Both of these are of course nonsense. Of course you have to make changes in making Any adaptation of any book but trying to do the wheel of time in 8 seasons is a Herculean task. That’s why RJ made it 14 books, he tried to do it in less and failed cause he was an adhd king.

Rafe and the other writers have their own particular interpretations of characters but they Are interpreting the original work in a way that holds all the core themes. This season in particular is doing a great job so far of establishing the threat of the seanchan and the trauma of when channelers are cut off from the one power, both of which will of course be central focuses of the rest of the narrative for all of our main characters. I’m Really looking forward to the introduction of the Aiel this season as well.

Also if you’re mad there’s so many queer characters Come The Fuck On. Siuaraine is book canon, go reread New Spring. And I think making the polycule an actual polycule instead of a Mormon sisterwife situation is a fucking Brilliant choice. Making polyamory overtly present in the world already with Alanna and her warders is so good! And given they’re already coding Min as bi I have high hopes for Aviendha and Elayne as well (and also Mat, Mat should join the polycule I am crossing my fingers and toes like I know he’s probably gonna marry Tuon still but Come On he deserves to be in the polycule). If there is one thing I trust Rafe and co. to do well with this adaptation it’s the queer stuff.

Like I get it I’m also sad Uno had to die to make the Seanchan look more badass (r.i.p. my favorite foul mouthed bastard). But they have to make changes in the course of adaptation and if your criticism is just ‘they changed something,’ then please look at the holistic context of the changes, and accept that every adaptation of every book will make changes in order to translate the story to film.

#wot #wot show #wot show spoilers #wot on prime #wheel of time #siuaraine #rafe judkins #wot book spoilers #Caitie speaks

[horizon-verizon]

Daemyra stans on Twitter are so misogynistic, illiterate, and racists. They missed the entire point of Rhaenyra’s story. It’s scary how they refuse to admit that people have several loves in their lives. I hope they never met a remarried widow/widower irl.

*EDITED POST* (10/8/23)

Please refer to this post to get a more in-depth answer.

A)

It's pretty clear that in both the show and the original story these two would have preferred to marry each other from the beginning. I am not totally sure if book!Daemon would have actually pursued, developed a relationship, or "looked" at Laena while married to Rhaenyra like I suspect he did "when developed a romance/had sex with/pursued/"looked" at Rhaenyra when she arrived at Driftmark and visited during the duration of her friendship with Laena.

Repeating myself, which is most likely? IF Rhaenyra was not okay with an open marriage nor in love with/attracted to Laena herself: Book!Daemyra marry from the jump and Daemon has a relationship with Laena or acting on the attraction I think he'd still have & pursuing a relationship with her? Or Daemon and Laena being married & later Rhaenyra shows up and he pursues/looks/develops a relationship with her while married to Laena?

I do not think he stopped loving or caring for Rhaenyra in their unique way after he married Laena. However, in the original story it is more than obvious he loved & cared for Laena.

B)

Here's the thing, I was/am a Daemyra Stan before and after HotD existed and I love their story. I read them as intentionally the OTP of the narrative. But I also don't really get how book!Daemon was seen as uncaring didn't love or wasn't at least emotionally as well as physically attracted to Laena in the beginning and came to lover her more beyond that.

I as a reader/audience/consumer of stories do prefer soulmate and one-true-love stories over many other types of love stories, but it's not enough for me to measure a person or character's worthiness based on how many people they've been with. And in real life, it's just a fact that people fall in love (and I still don't know what that's supposed to mean myself, what "love" is) more than once in their lives. Doesn't seem fair to be so repressive and deny the possibility for DaemonxLaena to have more respect, affection, or care in a TV adaptation, which is what some do. The show we do have barely delivered and made it seem that Daemon cares but is much more distant than even what the original text shows.

So I don't begrudge people for saying show!Daemon should have been genuinely in love with or loved and cared for Laena, even while also in love with Rhaenyra. One, the text supports that possibility, and two, love could be different without being less or "more" or "less" as in quantity, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Outside of narrative, yes I do think it's possible for a person to want to be with one person more than another person, and the original story gives enough for us to believe that there was real love and caring between Laena & Daemon. In canon, they marry they married in 115. In 116 A.C., he took it upon himself to write a letter to Viserys un-flashingly (as is his way) to get him and his family to stay at Driftmark so their daughters could grow up in one of their ancestral homes. Before that, they lived together touring several Essosi cities before settling in Pentos so Laena could birth the dragon twins 116. Only a few months pass before they move to Driftmark so the girls can grow up there. So they had been married for a year or so, alone, for a year. At some point in 117, Rhaenyra becomes friends with Laena. Laena died in 120 A.C., so Laena-Daemon-Rhaenyra was a unit of some kind longer than Daemon and Laena were but Daemon was obviously still sleeping with Laena for her to be pregnant and die of her labors in 120 A.C. The man also grieved heavily after she died.

Meanwhile, he spent a few months with Rhaenyra after he came back from the Stepstones in 111 A.C. and before his next exile. Still, Rhaenyra admired him familially/platonically before Mysaria's exit and for years. I do not think he ignored her or did not spend some time with her before he went to the Stepstones, and he was not responsive to that, even if not to the same degree. There was a bond made there that facilitated/informed their later bonding after he returned and began to court/"court" her.

This is what I think DaemonxLaena's pre-marriage relationship was like and why he chose her/she chose him in the first place.

I don't think he loved her exactly like how he loved Rhaenyra nor that they immediately built a relationship like the one he does with Rhaenyra, but these women are two different people and the circumstances of their getting together are very different. And I am not sure if Laena thought of him as her great love so much as her partner because it likely wasn't that type of relationship, as: the text centers Daemyra more; we do not get a clue as to Laena's feelings for Daemon as much as we have considerations for how he felt for her besides her wanting to marry him (and not likely not wanting to marry a freeloading poor Braavosi boy-man); and the text emphasizes how much Laena loved dragon-riding and her bonding with Vhagar at 12 over any romantic feelings for Daemon while they were married. Her relationship & feelings of love (of any kind) for Rhaenyra also seem evidently stronger than her feelings for Daemon to me during the actual marriage. (But IDK, bc we don't have actual details!)

Is this because Laena had a smaller role to play in the story and did not do any political act besides marry Daemon have his kids and betroth her kids to Rhaenyra's and therefore there was less attention paid to her and her feelings for Daemon? Is this because those who could have brought more insight for us were at the Essosi cities the couple spent more time in than in Driftmark? Or is this because she just actually didn't express affection with Daemon in their time at Driftmark? IDK.

Conclusion(?)

It's also safe to say that he really did love/care about Laena when we know how he treated Rhea Royce. But, I can see how Daemon would love Rhaenyra more...intensely, I guess? There's a je-nais-se-quois to it.

Because it is without a doubt true that he spent with Rhaenyra not very long after Laena's death if he hadn't already been doing so before she died. Pretty sure that post-death sex was for intimacy and to "consummate" something interrupted and thus longed for.

Like I said in an earlier post, it's better to say that book!Rhaenyra was Daemon's first, enduring, and most intense(?) love. It's hard to impossible to quantify the unquantifiable.

NOTE

IN THE COMMENT SECTION OF THIS POST, PLEASE SET IT "Newest first" TO SEE A VERY IMPORTANT REVELATION!!!!

#asoiaf asks to me #laena velaryon #laena and Daemon #daemon targaryen #asoiaf shipping #canon shipping #shipping #fire and blood characters #fire and blood comment #asoiaf #a song of ice and fire #fire and blood

[bohemian-nights]

I’d like to in advance apologize for ranting it just seems to me that you may be one of the few people who actually like Nettles 😊. So I’m not gonna lie I was expecting more from the trailer(s). I mean I knew I wasn’t gonna get to see Nettles (I genuinely am obsessed with the idea of her being the only non-Valyrian dragonrider, I’m equally obsessed with stories in general when people (especially women) live in a society that usually counts them out or that they’re very low in the food chain in to becoming powerful + gaining agency and respect, and it heals my inner black girl when I see black women in fantasy) (anything to be honest because it seems as though we’re always done wrong either by narrative or fandom) (I’m also not opposed to her being a “witch” because if done properly it could be done in an interesting thing and tie into the magic that was used in the beginning to tie dragons to people) (though knowing this fandom they’d probably start coming up with their special “takes” about how she tricked/ r/ped Daemon into being with her 🙄 and will block you if you point out that’s the same thing they praise Alys Rivers for allegedly doing (I say allegedly because that’s awful and truly horrific and I hope neither Nettles or Alys are shown doing this) (speaking of Nettles and Daemon….🫠 lol I don’t really like Daemon (I’m 50/50 on book!Daemon mostly because I don’t get to know what he’s thinking which created a disconnect and I don’t like show!Daemon at all. He did a lot for a little in my opinion, and because I don’t know his thought process he just kinda comes off as a bit of a c*nt just to be one because it makes him “edgy” and a “bad boy” and while I don’t find Matt Smith unattractive he’s not exactly what I consider to be such a panty dropper that I can like Daemon) the age gap and power dynamic also raised both my eye brows but at the end of the day it’s fantasy, so different rules apply, and most importantly despite the discourse over certain (platonic, romantic, or sexual) aspects of their relationship it’s very clear that the two cared/loved one another) (anyway 🤞🏾 we’ll get her next season) but it seemed as though for the Team Green and Team Black trailers they just showed the same scenes in different order. And while there’s a lot more dragon action going on, it doesn’t feel like dialogue from different scenes forming a compelling trailer it feels as though multiple characters are just narrating I don’t know maybe I’m reaching. And personally I’m neither Team Green or Team Black but I still liked Team Green’s trailer more especially when Aegon (looking completely unhinged) said “to war then.” I don’t know I just remember thinking “he looks crazy as shit” lol. In general I’m kinda 50/50 with HOTD. I watched the first season because I like fantasy shows and at that point I had just finished up GOT and was getting started on the books. So having no prior knowledge to how it was gonna go it was entertaining enough. Then I read Fire and Blood (which interestingly enough I didn’t know was a history book….🫠) and was really invested in how they were going to adapt the actual Dance and I feel like I’m just getting into the ASOIAF fandom (steered clear of it back in the day because it seemed too unhinged) but it seems completely unhinged, misogynistic, racist, and really odd when it comes to the subject of blood purity.

Aww thank you and I don’t mind the ranting.

The Nettles fandom is extremely small, and I'm off in my little corner of said fandom because I think I’m the only Nettles fan who genuinely loves Daemon(which is fun).

He is a lot though and their relationship is somewhat problematic, but yeah you have to keep in mind that this is all just fantasy. And you can’t forget that Daemon does care for her and he is the one who saves her. The good ultimately outweighs the bad in their relationship.

That being said, Nettles is a fantastic character in her own right and deserves all of her props. And yeah it’s nice to see a Black girl in the medieval fantasy genre, but irregardless of race, she falls into my favorite category of characters for women.

Been through a lot, people doubt them, and yet they still overcome and get their happily ever after, sign me up 🙌🏽

As far as the witch thing goes, it could be interesting, but I find it cliché and ultimately demeaning and limiting. Not only because of the situation with Daemon(turning her into some Jezebel is a no-go), but it also takes away from her claiming of Sheepstealer. Instead of her wit she has to have used magic because there is no way someone like her could claim a dragon.

That would ruin the essence of a character that is supposed to show that it’s not our blood or some supernatural superpower that makes us, it’s us.

Honestly, I don’t think that the show will go this way with her character since they’ve already faced backlash for what they did with Laena, Rhaena, and Baela back in season 1. Playing into another trope with a Black-ish woman(voodoo mama Jezebel) will only make them look all the more like the racist jackasses they are.

Now for the trailer and upcoming season, It doesn’t spark any excitement within me. The show as a whole is just kinda meh(and the lack of Nettles isn’t helping).

HOTD is a far cry from the early days of GOT(which followed much more closely to the books). There is the issue that the show is based on historical text, but not everything in that was a lie like the show is trying to claim.

I don’t like the blatant whitewashing being done and then claiming they’re championing diversity and female empowerment while treating all their Black, particularly the Black-ish female characters, like shit.

Lastly there is the fandom. While racism and misogynoir are not limited to the HOTD fandom these fans really do act batshit insane.

I can’t take anybody who claims that a Black character should be cut because there are already enough Black people on the show then starts crying when they get called out for their racism and claiming they are being wrongly accused seriously.

And of course, we can’t forget the ones trying to save Nettles from the evil white man—while completely ignoring the one who tries to turn her into a hate crime statistic for the sake of the sisterhood…

(That is all I can say without being metaphorically stoned for not pushing Nettles under the bus for a racist white woman who tried to kill her so I'll leave it there, feminism am I right).

As I have said before, if I wasn’t already here I’d take one look at this hellhole, and a running I’d go, but alas. I am unfortunately invested in this circus so here I am 🤷🏽‍♀️

#bnasks #bnask #nettles #house of the dragon #anti hotd #yes I’m still bitching about this but until Nettles is on my screen I will continue to bitch about things🤷🏽‍♀️ #dettles #daemon targaryen x nettles

[nrilliree]

"Thanks to grrm we had a good faithful adaptation of Fire and Blood with House of the Dragon ! So he is right to preach about crappy adaptations and those who think they can do better than the author and the original story !"

I'm not kidding... I actually saw someone say that. HOTD a FAITHFUL adaptation ?! In addition, this person insinuated that GRRM is in fact subtly criticizing the adaptation of The Rings of Power... I'm hallucinating. Man, it's not all about this crap show. Plus who tells you he doesn't also talk about HOTD in a subtle way ? Who tells you he completely agrees with all the changes ?! Doesn't anyone remember GOT or something ?!

And then even talking about the screenwriters who think they are doing better than the author...

I remind you that the original story deals with misogyny, and that they preferred a discourse on everyone being equally bad. They totally tried to change the entire message of the story !

They modified Alicent thinking that their version would be much more feminist and less misogynistic ! Because apparently the trope of the bad mother-in-law is misogynistic now...

They're adding gratuitous violence that didn't exist in the source material towards female characters who were already experiencing horrible things in Fire and Blood, but apparently that wasn't enough girlboss for them.

They make people commit crimes that are literally impossible compared to Fire and Blood, like Daemon killing his first wife or Rhaenys in episode 9 !?

They also think it's feminism to say that they have female dragons that they voluntarily make smaller than the males when the dragons are basically hermaphroditic ?!

The ages of the characters ?!

The HOTD writers literally butchered their adaptation with ridiculous changes trying to be more feminist. Literally what most people complain about TOO much. I'm sick of people saying this kind of shit. And obviously, generally it's always guys who have this type of speech.

Remove most of the female characters' agency and true personality ? Literally, Rhaenyra is very basic feminine, and now she's the prototype tomboy, which she never was. They wanted to do that ? Well they had Baela !

But strangely, people don't have a problem with Rhaenyra becoming a tomboy, but Galadriel in armor ? Shitty feminist ! Not like this character was called woman man by Tolkien and she was actually a warrior in his texts...

Now Rhaenys doesn't want to be the one to use the dragons in war as quickly as possible, but Daemon is, to make him appear hungry for war and blood. Because women cannot actually want war ! They are naturally soft !

In short, HOTD's bullshit was a good faithful adaptation that made me unblocked. I have the impression that these people live in a parallel reality.

Wait… GRRM's words can be interpreted differently than that he is trying to suggest that HBO sucks at adapting his books and making too many changes, but he can't say it directly because he has contracts and it's about money? Here (in my country) even pop culture websites write about it, lol. That GRRM criticizes changes made to GoT and HotD, and potentially spin-off scenarios. I have to tell the editors that they are completely wrong and an anon on the internet just figured it out…

#house of the dragon #anti hotd #anti house of the dragon

[lagosbratzdoll]

In regard to your post about Daemyra fans dismissing the importance of Laena, @rhaenin-time made a really good point about the show:

they didn't feel the need to frame Harwin as Rhaenyra's second choice

Rhaewin wasn’t developed on, I think this is simply because Harwin is a massive character flaw on Rhaenyra’s end and ruins the writer’s narrative of her being the perfect princess who can do no wrong. That being said the few minutes we did have of them they told us they’re in love, they had children together out of want not necessity, Daemon is never mentioned etc. Emma D’arcy has even made comparisons with Rhaenyra’s grief of losing Harwin when explaining her trauma from losing Luke.

Daemon/Laena is 100x more developed and talked about in George’s book but the writers refused to give Laena an ounce of respect. From the very beginning Laena is told she’s second best, she’s an unlovable black woman, her husband thinks so little of her he fucks his white niece at her funeral! Rhaenyra tells Daemon she loved Harwin, Daemon tells Rhaenyra he was merely “happy” with Laena.

We also see this glaring racism in the blatant contrast of how Rhaenyra interacts with her sons compared to Daemon with his daughters. Rhaenyra is constantly showing affection to her boys whilst Daemon’s relationship with the Dragon Twins is non existent, there’s a 1 minute scene between him and young!Baela but after that he never has an onscreen interaction with either of them.

It’s written as though to remind the audience Rhaewin’s sons matter because Harwin mattered, Daemon/Laena’s daughters don’t because Laena didn’t.

This is so good and I agree with most of it. Except this.

Rhaewin wasn’t developed on, I think this is simply because Harwin is a massive character flaw on Rhaenyra’s end and ruins the writer’s narrative of her being the perfect princess who can do no wrong.

I do not think that loving Harwin and choosing to have children with him was a character flaw. Rhaenyra has flaws, but that wasn't one of them. 

Harwin and Rhaewin weren't developed because the writers were lazy, and they fell for the lie that the only parts of the dance worth adapting were the parts with the dragons.

A lie that contributed to the incoherent, racist and misogynistic mess that is the show. If we're speaking real, the bits with the dragons and all the battles were some of George's most boring writing (TO ME). Some deaths are heart-wrenching, but the rest all sort of blend together (TO ME). The most intriguing part of the dance (TO ME) was the political manoeuvring. 

Lastly, I am unsure where people get the idea that the writers are pushing a narrative where Rhaenyra is a perfect princess with no flaws. That was not my interpretation as I watched, but maybe I missed something. 

#asks to me #house of the dragon

[lilisouless]

Hey moot, I didn’t deleted the post cause I was mad at what you said,all your arguments were valid l in case you didn’t read the answers, i deleted it actually because i realized (partly because of what you said) that i was being too harsh on show!Nina when her worse sin is honestly just terrible writing

I still think she is an awful character,what you can’t do is convince me that netflix didn’t screw over Nina because unlike some characters, such as Wylan, they didn’t took Nina and said “what would make sense for her character” , what they did was “this is not a character,this is half of a ship” they saw the fans that always say that Nina is nothing without Matthias and decided that those were the people they wanted to appeal.

I admit, i was too harsh,Zoya was a jerk to her, but show!Nina is only written to convenience , her convictions and goals are not adjusted to her,are adjusted to make her personality end up in wanting to be with Matthias. Which is frustrating because book!nina had both a really good romance AND individuality, she could do both.

Additionally, conveniently no character on the show seems to get a shit about her, when in canon Nina is probably in-universe the most likeable crow,considering that she was liked by the orphanage staff, only bullied by the other kids because of jealousy and fat phobia, was the only crow to have at least one friend outside of the dregs (despite Big B being supposedly pals with Jesper, Jesper didn’t seem to care when he was left to bleed,so not so much of a friendship l comparing to Nina fondly remembering Nestor and being sad he died) compare Nina’s friendship with Jesper and Inej in the books, sure they have been together for less time but they clear like her enough to consider her being very important . On the show only Kaz seems to care about her, and that’s only because there’s no tent in the world that can conceal the writer’s massive boner for Kaz, he gets the ultimate preference, he is THE show’s pet.

It’s a clear problem in the show, to write with shipping as a priority, David for Genya in season two , Mal for Alina in season two, Kaz for Inej on season one, Inej for Kaz in season two (way more insulting since they killed HER villain to favor Kaz) you may have a case for Wylan for Jesper,but honestly I can get pass that one because season two didn’t need yet another white man to take screentime from Alina. Nina had it for Matthias’s sake,but her case is particularly frustrating because Matthias not only has absolutely no plot relevance, he has less screentime than her!

I can’t say I hate show!Nina completely,because she has good scenes when they are letting her be , her scenes with Matthias are mostly good, her scenes oth talking about are painful to look. And i just hate the concept that not only is she a very shallow adaptation, that her existence was made to please misogynistic fans and that the show writers can’t make more clear they don’t care about her beyond her romance with Matthias.

#netflix shadow and bone #six of crows #leigh bardugo #grishaverse

[tired-fandom-ndn]

how do you feel each of the main characters from danny phantom (danny, sam, tucker, jazz) hold up as characters in modern times?

Danny: I've already said what I think about him; he's a jerk. Like it's not subtle, Danny is a selfish, entitled, and petty asshole who thinks he's justified in that because he sees his bullies and enemies as worse. As a character, I think that's really interesting ro explore, but the show always depicts him as in the right. Timmy in the Fairly Odd Parents is the same way so I'm assuming it's some weird power fantasy on Hartman's part. I think we're just past that as a society tbh.

Sam: Goddd I have a lot of feelings about Sam and very few of them are good. She's simultaneously supposed to be desirable because she's "real" next to the "plastic bitches" like Paulina and Star, but everything that makes her "real" is also ruthlessly mocked. She's a nag whose passions are all taken to the extreme as a caricature of activism; she cares about things but the audience is meant to laugh at her for that. Also making her canonly Jewish just so she can talk about how her favorite holiday is Christmas was 😬

Tucker: I think he's pretty okay but he's absolutely reduced down to the comic relief and it feels like a lot of his characterization was chosen just to contrast after character, like making him only eat meat with no explanation, just to create conflict with Sam. Overall, I think he'd probably be the easiest to adapt for a modern audience.

Jazz: Another misogynistic preachy nag character archetype. She has to be the most mature, despite being only one or two years older than the others, and she ends up taking on a weird motherly role that really isn't appropriate for a teenage girl. I don't dislike her, but the audience is very clearly supposed to find her annoying and inconvenient and any modern adaptions would have an uphill battle to make her characterization a bit less cringy and overly dependent on Danny.

#anonymous #danny phantom

[susandsnell]

🔥 Batman comics in general

Send me a “ 🔥 “ for an unpopular opinion.

Oooh! I do think a lot of my saltier Batman comics opinions aren't exactly unpopular in nature (too much grimdark and never in the right direction, the misogyny, Killing Joke was a mistake, BruceBabs was a mistake, stop misusing Rogues), so I'll try to bring up some less-discussed ones! (Or at least ones I see discussed less, lol.)

Batfam is conceptually good, but nobody is handling it well. As I've previously expressed, Batfam content constantly oscillates between "Bruce is an abusive kidnapper of traumatized children he trains into child soldiers despite having the means to have them live in luxury, does not provide with love or positive reinforcement, and regularly pits against each other" and some of the most facile, cringey, early 2010s Tumblr conception of found-family to be seen, when I think it's more dramatically effective to find a happy medium between the two. A loving superhero found family with its share of dysfunction, hurts, and mistakes and appropriate nuance being brought to these conflicts is apparently too much to ask for (as is writers remembering Robin(s) and Batgirl literally exist as kid appeal characters).

Likewise, canon Harlivy is seldom handled well. As I said on Twitter the other day, "corporate Pride ate Harlivy". Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy's relationship, both back when it was subtextual and later on as it became Harley's main ship in iterations where she's able to get out of her abusive relationship with the Joker was groundbreaking and important. It was absolutely crucial to middle school me. But somewhere along the way, people lost the plot that they are indeed villainesses (whose queerness was meant to make them more endearing/sympathetic/relatable, but not change this status), and it fell prey to the respectability politics traps that plague just too many sapphic ships once they go canon. In order to be 'good representation', their villainy extends to 'haha RANDOM' irreverent chaos, and their personality gets boiled down to the shallow archetypes of 'chaotic and perky' Harley and 'snarky and sexy' Ivy. Their relationship to one another is 100% fluff, because God knows any nuance, tension, flaws, or friction between two master criminal characters with canonically tragic histories can't possibly be allowed. Because of the misogynistic expectations of Women Being Soft And Good coupled with the homophobic respectability politics of being as toothless, soft, and desexualized as possible to appear nonthreatening, sapphic ships are held to such unfair standards wherein the slightest conflict will be termed abusive and bad representation, and as such, they're written cardboard-flat, and unfortunately, this has befallen Harlivy in most canons where they're together. Even if it's realistically exploring things like recovery for either lady, because that's messy, and complicated, and nonlinear, and who wants that when you can have a memeable 'be gay do crimes'? Oh, but don't worry. Sometimes they will be sexually active - for the titillation of straight men. In-universe. (Don't get me started on the Harley Quinn show...) And poor Selina gets roped into third-wheeling/cheerleading the most boring possible version of them too often...

A lot of the most popular/famous titles are not the better ones. (Not you, Long Halloween, you're a delight and everyone loves you.) Everything that's there to say about The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns has been said better by people smarter and better-versed in comics than me, but Batman: Hush is just contrivance upon contrivance, everyone and their mother is tired of the shit-billion stories about Joker fridging yet another person, and perhaps my most unpopular opinion is that Batman: Year One is entirely overrated. I like the noir atmosphere, the truly corrupted Gotham it gives us, and the sweet triumvirate between Gordon, Harvey, and Bruce, but seeing adaptations like The Batman (2022) and even The Dark Knight (yes, I'm saying something nice about Nolanverse for once lolol) take these elements and do so much more with them really highlights the weaknesses in this story. There's some really good origin/character work for Bruce becoming Batman and the psychology behind it, but past that, not a whole lot happens beyond a very thin and confusing police corruption plot, and everyone is just too damn mean for the sake of the grimdark setting. Bruce injures an already exploited child in the red-light district and sexually harasses the Gordons to throw them off his trail for being Batman, and the latter is played for laughs. Jim cheats on his pregnant wife with a coworker half his age and both women are portrayed as stereotypically in these roles as humanly possible. Selina Kyle is...there, to be angry and sexualized and not much else. It just feels like a lot of buildup without much payoff.

Lastly, and jumping off the above, I'm taking away the Gordon family from writers until they've learned to play nicely with them. I don't know what it is about Jim Gordon that makes writers - men in particular - work through justifying their weird issues about women, but my God, the poor man has been character assassinated to hell and back. (Everyone has in comics, but it's always in the same way with Gordon that properly grosses me out.) If he's not cheating on his housewife with a much younger coworker he's presented as oh-so-noble for not outright workplace harassing, he's neglectful, abusive, or otherwise aggressive to his loved ones in ways that are almost always justified or excused narratively because he's 'dealing with a lot' or xyz past trauma. He's frequently made into a mouthpiece for misogyny, calling women "bitches" in the Arkham series and making other such delightful comments, fetishizing Harlivy (in the Harley Quinn show!), or putting down Barbara's capabilities. If he's written to be struggling with addiction, it's always played as a joke. And for Barbara's part, since The Killing Joke, she's always such a favoured writers' punching bag/doll to put in uncomfortable relationships, often having her talents, skills and intelligence undermined in favour of portraying her as a sex-crazed, overemotional disaster who's in it for the thrills until she is narratively punished in some gendered way. I don't get it! I'm all for what makes characters tick or challenging them or giving them flaws or new horrific situations to work through, but why is it always the same tired, offensive hows and wherefores for the Gordon family? Let them rest!

#abuse mention cw #batman #jim gordon #bat-tag

[thelesbianpoirot]

There are a lot of people who mock Taylor Swift because they don't like her music and she's a rich apolitical white woman so she's fair game to them and that is whatever. I don't like her music myself. Her fandom base is largely female, but she does not have the huge gay male backing big a female star usually has. That intrigued me because gay men love massive female pop stars.

However, there is a vocal section of men, straight and gay, that mock Taylor Swift. I learned it was because she isn't sexy to them. A lot of people who find her sexy are lesbians. She doesn't make sexually explicit degrading music which is usually what you need to be an uber popular woman in today's music market. So the female icons gay men of today flock to are all hot women showing their tits and ass.

once a post that got popular that said people need to leave lesbian women who are apart of the slash shipping industrial complex alone, because it doesn't mean attraction to these characters, it is just a dumb male centered hobby, and It compared it to how gay men love sexy starlets. It's why homophobic Nicki Minaj will always have a more loyal young gay following than Taylor Swift. Everyone on the post kept saying all lesbian shippers are actually bisexual. They couldn't fathom why women would be doing the woman hobby, identifying and engaging with male characters if they weren't sexually attracted to them.

Yet no one questioned the sexuality of gay men obsessed with the sexual appeal of female popstars. They can't just be talented, they have to be sexy. And so many gay dudes commented some version of "of course we wouldn't like her, she's flat, sexy as cardboard, etc misogynistic insults." So many gay men are mad when Billie Eilish wears baggy clothes and doesn't have her tits out. Why are you as a man invested a sexy woman if you're not attracted to her? Can it be you identified with these women growing up and still as a man you benefit on some level from the sexual exploitation of women in media. It can be a completely neutral and (or a negative thing) devoid of sexual attraction for you. The same thing with straight men, they idolize big strong masculine men in media or athletes, to the point of hero worship, collecting merch excessively, demanding that every male character be a muscular beast in the live action adaptations, posters on their walls, obsessive curating their online life about them. Get mad when even hot female characters take the limelight away from their male favorites. Are all these men bi or gay? You wouldn't think that.

So how about we apply this to lesbians? While tumblr is filled with openly faux lesbians (bi and straight up straight women dating men) there is a concerted effort to always question a woman's word, and believe everything a man says. Do we think lesbians raised in male dominated society are born inoculated against male worship/centeredness, even if it's not sexual. Straight men aren't. Do you believe lesbians are inherently born with a feminist mindset, and there aren't male worshiping lesbians out there. That there are certain hobbies that make a woman a lesbian, and some that disqualify her? There are some lesbians getting surgery to have a faux dick attached to her person, without ever wanting to ever be sexual with a real deal dick. it's clear that we are just as vulnerable to male hero worship as anyone born in this patriarchal society, and sometimes it manifests in the most womanly of ways, slash shipping.

Slayerlez was right. I miss her.

#thelesbianpoirot