#at least in my perception of it! (now whether fandom acknowledges them in accurate ways. well no bc nobody knows kara past the basics. but. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

iamanartichoke · 3 years

Text

I am posting this mostly to get it off my chest, and I'll probably regret it, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think the biggest problem I have with Fandom Wank(tm) in regards to positivity or negativity, is what bothers me has literally nothing to do with whether one's positivity/negativity will turn out to be right.

last night I followed a couple of posts and went down a rabbit hole of "series negativity" bashers' posts, bc apparently I hate myself and do not wish to be in a good mental space right now, and the common thread I noticed is that those who are overwhelmingly positive and take issue with criticism seem to be doing so bc they see their own versions of Loki being portrayed on-screen, either as how they've interpreted him as a character in generral or as how they've written him in fics. And not only are they fiercely protective of those versions but they also get validation from the confirmation that their Loki is The Right Loki(tm). Criticism takes the on-screen portrayal (and, subsequently, their own personal versions of The Right Loki(tm)) and says, uh, I can't actually see Loki doing this? I think this is ooc? I think Loki as portrayed here is not consistent with previous portrayals? -

- and suddenly you've got this rabid backlash on your hands where it becomes 'omg stop being toxic,' 'your headcanon is not canon' (look in the mirror), 'this is tom's loki so it's accurate,' 'i see no difference whatsoever in characterization y'all're just deluded and have invented a loki that never existed' (tf????), etc.

And I can't help but conclude that the backlash against criticism/negativity has nothing to do with the criticism itself; it's more to do with the undermining of someone else's validation in how they view this character.

This is purely speculation. There's some mental gymnastics here, admittedly. I could be way off base and I realize that I risk my post being shared and misconstrued and mocked by even posting it publicly. But the only reason I'm writing this - and thus getting it off my chest after my spiral down the rabbit hole - is bc from my point of view, I didn't feel like my experience in enjoying this tv show was being threatened until the discourse backlash over the negativity started spilling onto my dash. Not the negativity itself; the actual discourse. (And, look, there's a lot of negativity that's been posted that I don't agree with whatsoever, and there's other negativity that I may agree with but don't agree that it's an issue, or - my point is, this isn't bc I don't have conflict with the actual arguments themselves.)

Full disclosure: for the first three weeks, I was more positive than not regarding the show. (I think I still am.) I posted about what I liked but I also posted about what I felt was ooc and about the elements I liked less. A lot of my mutuals are not thrilled (to say the least) with the show, so there was already a ton of negativity on my dash and I personally went through a few minor meltdowns on whether or not I was on the right page with my enjoyment when so many others (whose opinions I trust and whose versions of Loki [that I've read] in fic ring true to me) were not sharing that enjoyment.

I did/have been talking it out with friends who feel similarly and I've more or less come to terms with being in the middle. And in the meantime, when I felt like the negativity was not something I wanted to be cognizant of, I skipped those posts entirely. Doing these things allowed me to come to terms with where I was standing regarding my overall feelings on the series, and overall enjoyment with my fandom experience.

And then, mostly after episode 3 (which seems to be the most divisive so far), discourse started popping up on my dash more and more. I'm defining discourse, in this context, as 'wank regarding whether or not Loki is actually ooc, wank over people who enjoy the show not wanting to see the negativity, wanky posts asking people who are critical to reserve judgement until the show has finished airing (but praise is fine)' -

- and suddenly, I feel much more self-conscious about posting my takes. Suddenly I feel much more anxiety about hitting the "post" button when said post is more critical than not. Suddenly I am worried about who, exactly and actually, is reading my posts? Who is going to decide to paraphrase my takes and include them in a 'guess what they're complaining about NOW' post? Who is going to decide to pass around a post I've made only to mock it, as has happened to some of my friends already?

Over the past three days, I have gotten 30+ new followers, and instead of feeling good about it - hey, some of these may be porn bots but still, people are interested in my blog?! - I feel just increasing anxiety about it bc, I mean, I don't know who anyone is or what they're here for.

I do not feel secure in the current fandom environment, is what I'm saying, and the reason I do not feel secure is not because of the negativity; it's because of the wank coming from the people who post about the negativity and mock the negativity and call other fans deluded stans who have a shitty grasp on characterization, story telling, and Loki in general. It's Ragnarok bullshit all over again, only worse.

And this circles me back to my original point, which is that the anxiety and the wank/discourse and whatever else really has nothing to do with the on-screen portrayal of Loki.

For me, personally? It took me awhile to realize it, admittedly, but I did realize that I do not care if what I perceive as ooc actually isn't. I do not care if the final product of Loki - once the entire series has aired - is a different Loki than what I've written and perceived as "my" Loki all this time. It's not going to make me feel like less of a fan or less valid; it's just going to make me feel like I have a perception of Loki that may differ in some ways with "canon Loki" but is still similar enough that I will continue to enjoy engaging with him and writing meta about him and writing fic about him and sharing those things with people who view Loki similarly. Likewise, I am not going to feel less valid as a writer and a critical thinker; it doesn't make me feel like I have anything to prove.

So if the root of the wank is coming down to the negativity making you feel less valid or less vindicated bc "your" Loki matches the show but is being called ooc by a lot of other fans, like, maybe take a step back and consider not taking it personally? Maybe really think about why the fact that negativity exists bothers you so much? Bc I mean, at the end of the day, it's not like Tom Hiddleston himself is going to descend from the clouds with a choir of angels singing and acknowledge any one of us as The One True Fan Who Has The Best Interpretation Ever of Loki. So what actual difference does it make if (we agree or disagree that) he's ooc or not?

Ultimately I'm just saying, there is definitely wank that is ruining the fandom atmosphere and the show in general, and it's not coming from those who are posting their negativity and criticism of the source material.

*Disclaimer that this is how I am perceiving and interpreting things today and possibly in general, but I'm not necessarily saying that my perception is factual to what is actually happening. I don't know what is happening. This is the guess that I've come up with in order to reconcile the fandom discomfort I feel, discomfort which is ruining the show for me, and where it's all coming from.

** Second disclaimer that I have unfollowed those who were participating in the wank, if I was following them in the first place, to the point that it made me uncomfortable, and obviously this post doesn't apply to everyone bc there is a certain amount of just being tired of it that I understand, so if we're mutuals, this doesn't apply to you regardless of where you stand on the wank.

*** Third disclaimer that said fandom environment is what makes me feel like I have to add disclaimers on every fucking thing I say, partly bc people read what they want to read and partly bc I have very debilitating anxiety regarding being misunderstood.

#fandom wank #i am going to regret posting this i already know it #but i'm posting it anyway not only to get it off my chest but #on the off chance someone else feels similarly and needs to see it #don't @ me #- or @ me if you really want to i suppose #loki tv series spoilers #kinda?#not really?#not sure how to tag this to avoid potential spoilers but #not tryna have this end up in any main tags either #which btw if you're gonna come at me don't come at me regarding negativity being posted in main tags and you wouldn't be commenting #on it if it wasn't there to begin with bc it doesn't negate that there's an issue at root here that is concerning but also #tumblr fucking sucks their tagging system sucks and their blocking system sucks so it's very likely that stuff that ends up #in the main tags got there accidentally or wasn't intended to be there so just use the nifty little scroll button #to scroll on by kthnx #well this post is an adventure isn't it #smh #tag rambles

101 notes · View notes

fandomshatelgbtqpeople · 3 years

Text

On Loki (or I take too long to get to the point but I promise it’s a good one)

So, I saw someone on my dash claiming that people shipping Loki/Sylvie were invalidating genderfluid people and that anyone who disagreed with them or continued to ship it was “ignoring the voices of genderfluid people.”

Let me get this out of the way, I really don’t give a shit whether you’re okay with Loki/Sylvie. Literally could not care less. And while some of the points I’m going to go over while dismantling this person’s argument overlap with the reasons I personally don’t have a problem with it, that is not what this post is about. We will not be having an argument about whether “selfcest” is okay on this blog. I do not care whether or not you’re into that.

But, as another genderfluid person, their argument made no sense and the fact that they were lambasting anyone who pointed that out as being fluidphobic pissed me off, so I’m going to use it as an example of something I’ve been wanting to talk about for a while. And to be clear, people can feel how they feel personally and I’m not saying anyone should go tell this person that how they personally feel is wrong, but feelings are often irrational and if they’re going to claim that something is invalidating to genderfluid people as a whole, there needs to be some logic there.

On Loki and genderfluidity

Making the point I want to make requires me to explain the thought processes a non-genderfluid person could use to dissect this argument.

This person’s argument was that shipping Loki and Sylvie invalidated genderfluid people because it reinforces the stereotype that a genderfluid people become a different person when their gender changes. Here’s why that doesn’t make sense to me:

There’s actually no evidence right now that Loki and Sylvie even are different versions of the same person.

Even if they are different versions of the same person, they’re two distinct characters as opposed to “our” Loki as a man and “our” Loki as a woman.

As far as I’m aware, that is not actually even a widespread stereotype about genderfluid people. This was literally the first time I’d ever heard of that idea.

Starting with #1, we don’t know enough about Sylvie or any of the other Lokis’ origins to know whether they have any kind of genetic relationship. For all we know, the Odinsons adopted a completely different kid in each of these universes. The different ages and races of the variants suggest something like this (unless they all turn out to be a shapeshifted Tom Hiddleston, in which case we’ll have other, more important things to talk about). My point here is that we just don’t have enough information to know whether they’re different spins on the same person or completely different people altogether. Sylvie also might not even end up being a Loki. There’s all kind of people in Marvel pretending to be other people. All I’m saying is that you have to make a lot of assumptions to get to “they are different versions of the same person” in the first place. A non-genderfluid person is just as capable of recognizing that as a genderfluid person is.

To address #2, we’ll accept for a moment that all the different Lokis are different versions of the same person. Even if that’s true, the characters are not one person who’s gender fluctuates or changes like a gender fluid person’s does. They’re two separate characters with different genders, one of whom has been confirmed as genderfluid. If we accept that treating these characters like two different people invalidates genderfluid people--which again, I strongly disagree with--then it’s not shipping them together that’s invalidating. It’s the fact that they interact at all. Romantic relationships are not the only kind of relationships that require multiple participants. This would also imply that any story where parents from one universe adopt a son and the same parents from a different universe adopt a daughter would invalidate genderfluid people if the narrative acknowledges them as different people.

Finally, a character being two versions of the same person has never stopped fandom from shipping them regardless of gender (see: the Onceler, the Doctor, mirror-verse Star Trek characters), so trying to make this into something that’s only happening because they’re different genders is kind of ridiculous, and once you lose that, you lose the connection to genderfluidity. Again, you don’t have to be genderfluid to recognize that there’s a difference between two characters with different genders and one genderfluid person.

#3 is the only point that I’ll acknowledge is easier to understand if you’re genderfluid. Genderfluid people are just more likely to know what the stereotypes are. That said, if you’ve been involved in conversations about queerness in media for years and someone is telling you a character reinforces a stereotype you’ve never heard of before, run a google search! See if you can find anyone other than this one person discussing it! To double-check myself, I ran a search on genderfluid stereotypes and didn’t find any mention of the idea that a genderfluid person becomes a different person when their gender changes.

Now, it’s entirely possible that someone in the OP’s life does have that misconception. That doesn’t mean it’s a widespread negative stereotype that media or fandom have a responsibility to avoid. The Half of It probably reinforces somebody’s mom’s idea that lesbians can only be friends with boys, but that doesn’t actually mean there’s anything wrong with it. It’s impossible to avoid every potential misconception, especially since we have no way of knowing what all of them are. The OP may very well legitimately feel invalidated by the whole thing, but that doesn’t make it invalidating to the group at large (and it also doesn’t make it objectively wrong).

So what’s my actual point?

You know all those posts starting to go around about how “listening to marginalized voices” doesn’t actually mean “take everything every marginalized person you come across says as the gospel truth,” how that’s actually dehumanizing and forces marginalized people to do all the work for you, and at some point you actually have to use your own critical thinking skills to decide what you believe in? Every time I look through the notes of those posts, there’s tons of people going “I don’t know how tho” or “I’m afraid to be wrong.”

This is a simple example of why it’s important (another example is all the people who were mislead into attacking artists over various lesbian flag designs in 2018-19), and hopefully this post is an okay explanation of how to get started.

Start with what you know. These are the points we started with here. You may recognize some of them from other common bad arguments floating around:

This argument is premised on an issue I’ve never heard of despite being in a position to know about it. -> “I’ve been in and out of nonbinary spaces and helping run a blog about queer representation in media for years and I’ve never heard of anyone thinking genderfluid people become a different person when their gender changes. I did some research and it doesn’t look like anyone else has heard of it either.”

This concept doesn’t mean what this person is saying it means. -> “The OP is saying a ship between two different characters is fluidphobic because they have different genders. That doesn’t make sense.”

This person is relying on assumptions without evidence that they’re accurate. -> “This argument relies on Sylvie being (1) a Loki, and (2) a different version of ‘our’ Loki. Either of these things could easily not be true.”

This position is internally inconsistent. -> “How does shipping two characters imply that you think of them as different people in a way that, for example, referring to them as brother and sister doesn’t?”

This position conflicts with information you know to be true independently. -> “The OP is claiming that shipping two characters means you think of them as different people but I’ve personally witnessed multiple popular fandoms spring up around shipping a character with themselves,” and “This argument relies on a widespread willingness to accept that a person can have multiple personalities, but people with DID (at least in the US) actually struggle with a widespread perception among both laypeople and psychologists that multiple personalities don’t exist.”

Following this logic to its natural conclusion leads you to a position that’s ridiculous -> “If treating Loki and Sylvie like two distinct people is fluidphobic, that means any story where a family adopts a son in one universe and a daughter in the other is fluidphobic unless they’re treated by the narrative and fandom like the same person” and “If treating genetically identical people of different genders as distinct people is fluidphobic, wouldn’t that also make Orphan Black fluidphobic for treating the clone who was a trans man like a distinct character, since he’s not the same gender as the others?”

This person is making proclamations about how other people think and feel without evidence. -> “The OP is assuming everyone who ships Loki/Sylvie must be taking the position that they’re distinct people because OP personally would never ship anyone with themselves.”

This person is generalizing how they feel about something to how everyone feels. -> “OP leapt to the conclusion that shipping Loki/Sylvie invalidates genderfluid people in general because it hits on their own insecurities as a genderfluid person.”

This person is throwing accusations and ad hominem attacks instead of engaging with legitimate counterpoints. -> “Multiple people pointed out that the OP was relying on several assumptions that might be wrong. Instead of responding to this point, the OP called them ‘weirdos’ and accused them of ‘speaking over genderfluid people.’” (This is not the same thing as making a post and then not engaging with the notes at all. That’s a legitimate choice.)

There is a motive to mislead the reader. -> “The point OP is making isn’t actually about genderfluid people and is in fact, ‘You’re a bad person for shipping Loki/Sylvie.’ Not liking the ship seems like a clear ulterior motive to make this argument, and I’ve definitely seen fandoms weaponize representation issues during ship wars before.”

That’s a lot of flags! All of these are reasons you should be skeptical of an argument and seek out other points of view or other people with the same point of view who are willing to address these concerns, but the last two are major red flags that, combined with any yellow flags, signal the person you’re listening to is not speaking in good faith and is not a good source of information.

Listening to marginalized voices means making an effort to seek out the perspectives of marginalized people on issues that affect them and taking those perspectives into account in shaping your own opinion. It does not mean taking every post made by anyone who is (or says they are--people lie on the internet) x identity as the gospel truth and never doing any thinking of your own. Hopefully these tips will help all of you prevent yourselves from getting dragged into and used as a mouthpiece for positions that make no sense after a few minutes of thought.

Edit: Apparently Loki is canonically genderfluid now?? Anyway, I think I got all the references to him not being genderfluid removed. Sylvie may or may not be but we’re not getting into that here.

#ableism mention #critical thinking #long post #mod k #loki

13 notes · View notes

arcane-aspirations · 3 years

Text

The Frustration of the Experienced or, When Nothing is New* Anymore

I’ve recently picked back up attempting an active practice of daemianism. This form of daemianism is inspired by the animal-formed, corporeal representation of human souls in Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials series (best known book is The Golden Compass). I first read the series in 2005 or 2006 or so, and I am very sure I imagined what it would be like to have my soul beside me as an animal then. That’s the sort of person I was then - to imagine and bring forth what I experienced in stories that inspired me to my daily life - and indeed, hope to regain a powerful sense of being again.

I first encountered others who were daemians on the internet a few years later. I didn’t remain an active member, but I found The Daemon Page Forum and was fascinated with this community that developed detailed profiles for what sort of person would have what species as their daemons. It was like personality typing, with varying levels of commitment to an imaginary friend or what I would now recognize as a thoughtform.

Let me come back to that. “What I would now recognize.”

Over the years, although I didn’t post on TDF, I would check back every few months as I remembered daemianism and read over various species’ profiles that interested me. I have always been fairly obsessed with representing myself; I never felt like I had to explore or understand myself though - that felt intrinsic and obvious.

Though I always found it deeply frustrating that often the most common “default” characters and teams were the ones I related to the most, genuinely. I considered myself for a wolf-formed daemian for a very long time. That was also an issue for me being Gryffindor, an Autobot, Thunderclan... My archetype gravitated towards that that was popular, which often was annoying in that many who claimed the popular affiliation with something were frequently the ones just claiming an affiliation with the fandom or the popularity, rather than the soul behind it.

I digress. Mostly. That context of something being popular affecting my relationship with the thing itself isn’t completely irrelevant.

I would say the most important and active time in my beinng a daemian was a rough patch in my life around 2015 into 2016. I was lonely and had became my own worst enemy too, given that a precious friend turned enemy makes for the worst sort. The comfort of my daemon, this entity which was supposed to represent the real, true self, was incredibly valuable. Setting aside the slight reprieve it gave from ‘being alone’ - although of course, it was still unforgettable to me that, my daemon being me and all interactions coming from and only being perceptible by me, I was still alone - the sense that I valued, saw, and still was myself at a time where I had very much lost all of that elsewhere was invaluable for getting through that.

My daemon had a name, mostly, and a gender, mostly, and a few forms that were right, mostly. He didn’t do much but provide imagined cuddles from an animal companion friend - I really remember something I did regularly where I’d imagine leaning our foreheads together - but I remember feeling at least sometimes happy and content as a result of the whole thing. But he wasn’t quite what people on TDF would’ve called a daemon.

Firstly, as much as I liked the idea of having an animal to identify my persona, my self, by, I didn’t like the idea of “settling” in one form. “Settling” indicated being an adult in Phillip Pullman’s series, which I have always reviled becoming and now being. That is, perhaps, a story for another time. Beyond that, it felt limiting - let’s put a pin in that one, too, though only for later in this post.

Secondly, my daemon occasionally wasn’t an animalic shape. In one vivid memory, I danced in my aunt’s kitchen when I was home alone one evening with my daemon in the form of N Harmonia from Pokemon. Is N Harmonia even someone I think is close in personality to myself, and thereby a fitting depiction of myself? Not at all, although I do think we’d be excellent friends.

Thirdly - here’s the woo warning for folks who’ve missed that my blog is witchy - I started having the sense that my daemon wasn’t “just” this thoughtform expression of my soul. I remember feeling like having this thoughtform that was me projected was sort of this... shell of my own self, that then this entity from very far away - in space, in time, from another life, who knows, it’s complicated, I never even felt comfortable saying whether it was real or not - I felt very connected to because we were of similar soul energy could inhabit. That was very much not related to daemianism. A pin here for later in post, too.

I don’t totally remember why my focus on daemianism waned for a bit after that. Things didn’t really get better for me, but my fixations do tend to move around. It may well just be that I got better enough to start playing video games again, and was checked out from my surroundings where a daemon would be projected to remind me where he was. Or it might have just started bothering me too much that he wasn’t “real” in so far as he couldn’t/didn’t exist outside what I projected.

It bothers me that I have to create and maintain so much of the things that bring value to my life myself. It’s exhausting. And those things don’t feel as real as things that exist independent of me and my influence. There’s power in “I invented that” and there’s a kind of resignation about one’s world in “I had to invent that, because it wasn’t there but I wanted so very much for it to be”.

And while there’s others out there, obviously, doing this whole daemianism thing, was that what I was doing anyway? Clearly I was taking it my own direction... or at least, combining it with other non-daemianism things that made it distinctly not quite exactly daemianism.

So while I’ve off and on projected my daemon back into the space around me - that’s the term for imagining and “seeing in your mind’s eye” your daemon existing in and interacting with your environment around you - since then, I haven’t done nearly as much.

I’m picking it back up recently and finding it rather difficult.

Some of the things I established as fitting and suitable back then, while still suitable and true in some lights, are hidden under a complicated tangle of things that don’t make them untrue but certainly obscure or make the way to the situations and perspectives where that truth is apparent difficult. There are roads I don’t walk anymore, even though those roads and how I’d walk them are still important to me. There are many roads I walk now that ...could? should? be acknowledged now that mean nothing to me but resentment that they’re where I walk. I still feel I am the same person I was; I just feel like I never get the same sorts of opportunities to be myself.

So the forms’ fittingness to my personality feel a bit tangled in the context of my life I can’t control, where embracing that tangle feels like a near final step of losing myself. The name is roughly the same; I want a name that feels right and conveys something, and anyone who’s ever named anything to convey a meaning probably has experienced that problem.

And I can’t focus on forms suiting myself entirely, because I’m still bothered by knowledge of how a form is perceived popularly - or because of an animal’s popularity. That in and of itself feels like misrepresentation or miscommunication; I’m not able to communicate why I really feel that is right because there’s an assumption it’s what I chose consciously or unconsciously because it was popular; I’m not able to communicate through that sense of the popular thing that I feel incredibly different and disconnected from others; I’m not able to communicate what I’m saying because the most accurate denotative and personal connotative vocabulary I can find to communicate is full of connotations I don’t mean to others.

Let’s not even start with pronouns, alright?

But I think something in particular that’s frustrating is that daemianism is not the only thing on my mind when I think:

1. representation of the self

2. a form to indicate the self on an entity with malleable form

3. thoughtforms

4. animal representations of the self

I neither want to compartmentalize nor combine daemianism & daemons with witchcraft/paganism familiars/fetches, my polymorphic shapeshifter Otherkinity, souls, thoughtforms, and entities I may or may not share some kind of special soul-energy-woo bond with.

I don’t want to separate what has a resonance - except that resonance, frustratingly, sometimes shifts.

I don’t want to combine what could be varied and interesting, because now any community or representation of that thing is no longer what I am doing or can speak about and find any sense of connection through - or worse, what I am now taken to be misrepresenting or ill-informed about.

And this is the frustration of the experienced, visible here but far from exclusive to daemianism, spirit work, et al in my life: what I know I cannot but help connect to what else I know.

Connecting what I know to what I know alters forever what I do and feel about what I know and what I learn next. I have opinions and feelings about so many things, and everything I encounter is layered upon my opinions and feelings about it all.

And I feel like that connection isolates me from ever being able to appreciate and participate in something new and fresh.

It isolates me from being able to connect to the experiences of someone else who doesn’t have the connections and syncretic perceptions that I do.

I never wish to be someone I’m not, but I frequently wish to be less experienced than I am.

*I don’t think ‘new’ is the word I wanted here, but I couldn’t find it. After the post, I feel fine recording that what I wanted to reflect was not just that something was new and exciting, but also that something was able to be fresh and untainted; able to be its own thing viewed on its own terms without being conflated, connected, or tied to anything else.

#daemianism #experiences recounted

11 notes · View notes

itsclydebitches · 3 years

Text

Welcome back, everyone! Starting here in Chapter Six these recaps are doing double duty with my latest attempt at completing National Novel Writing Month. Granted, this isn’t a novel and yes, I technically started this project well before November, but there’s no way I’d manage 50,000 words of fiction in 2020, so I’m hoping to hit that with these recaps instead. You all get semi-frequent updates and I may get to finally say I completed this challenge! That’s a win-win as far as I’m concerned.

Quick reminder: new teams, CFVY was separated, everything is awful. There, done. Seventy-five pages in we’ve come back to Velvet’s point of view as she and the other students are carted off in airbuses. She’s experiencing the “same shock and dismay” that she saw on Yatsuhashi’s face before they were separated, thus I’d like to re-emphasize last chapter’s argument that though shaking up the teams isn’t inherently a bad idea, doing it in this way while your students are recovering from/still involved in a war is… not so great for their mental health. Yeah, yeah, Remnant is a hard place and these kids experience traumatic events on the weekly, but still. There’s a fine line between preparing students for that kind of life and simply traumatizing them further, because this is a kind of trauma when the teams so heavily rely on one another - fill every aspect of one another’s lives: friend, colleague, family, teacher, student, leader, follower, romantic partner - and you’re now uprooting them with no warning. Whether or not new teams actually happen, the students think they are and that’s messing with their heads. Basically they’re just:

This problem is highlighted when we get confirmation of what I stated last time: the teams aren’t merely colleagues turned friends, but family. These fighters have got all their emotional eggs in one basket. Velvet goes so far as to imply that she loves her team more than her parents, with the logic being that they (her parents) “never talked to each other anymore.” So… if Coco and Yatsuhashi stopped talking would that undermine your love for each of them as individuals? I get what the overall takeaway is - divorce is a nasty business and can leave lasting scars on kids caught in the middle, to say nothing of the fact that, as a young adult, Velvet is poised to start creating a family by choice, not blood - but it’s still an odd way to phrase the issue. Here we have another instance of me picking up on implications due to RWBY, the franchise’s, overall themes. When you’ve got a story so thoroughly touting a teens vs. adults mentality, having Velvet mentally reject her parents for her team reads differently than it otherwise would. Chock that onto the pile that already includes things like, ‘Ruby denies that Qrow ever helped her’ and ‘Yang is no longer a part of grieving for Summer’ and ‘Weiss seems to have forgotten all that Klein did for her.’ There’s a lot of uncomfortable details attached to our heroes and how they see the adults in their lives, parents included.

Velvet doesn’t get to worry for long though. A much happier voice sounds across the airbus and she spots Sun, classically hanging from his tail. Instead of hearing more about her fears we segue into - you guessed it - Sun bashing. The first thought to pop into her head is that Sun “wasn’t with the rest of his team, but knowing Sun, that might have been his decision.”

...Velvet, you just tried desperately to stay with your own team and were (somehow) swept away by the apparently overwhelming crowed (still ridiculous imo). But if you didn’t manage this, what makes you think Sun had a chance? Why is his separation suddenly a potential choice when yours was presented as nothing of the sort? That is some real insistence on thinking the worst of him. I dragged Sun for abandoning his team in Volume 4 because that was abandonment. It was a choice worthy of criticism. This? This was outside of his control and Velvet knows it.

Sun saw her, smiled, and waved. Velvet looked away.

Nice, Velvet.

He comes over anyway and (kindly!) asks if she’s okay. Velvet says no, specifically because “Yatsu and I were separated.” Here we have another example of how close the partners get even within each team. Blake and Yang are inseparable. Ruby talks to Weiss more than her sister (and the concept of her talking to Blake in any meaningfully way is hilarious at this point). Now, despite being separated from her entire team - everyone is in the same awful boat - Velvet frames the situation as just being separated from Yatsuhashi. Later she repeats, “Well, I still want to try to find Yatsu.” So would it be a disappointment to find Fox or Coco instead? It’s especially weird because in the main show we see Velvet and Coco interacting the most. I actually had to look up who Velvet’s partner was because I just assumed our two girls were a duo. Apparently not. I’m not really into the CFVY side of the fandom, but I imagine there’s a substantial ship community for these two based solely on how Velvet embraces RWBY partnerships in this book, outside of the always popular Velvet/Coco, of course.

That’s admittedly a ship I can get behind.

After Velvet unloads all her worries “Sun stared ahead, like he couldn’t quite manage to feel bad.” Attention, readers, this is an important lesson coming up! In fandom spaces I often see people analyzing novels (and other print media/visual media with narration) without taking into consideration the perspective. Unless we’ve got an omniscient perspective we need to take into account that our narrator might, simply put, be wrong (and even then, omniscient unreliable narrators are a popular choice). Often I see readers taking a characters’ thoughts - and words - at face value, which is understandable given that we’re meant to emotionally connect with them, but we have to keep in mind that this is their interpretation of events. We see the story through their eyes, how they perceive the world, but their perception of the world may not be accurate or, at the very least, is open to further interpretation. Sometimes this is used in an obvious, plot-driven manner - there’s a surprise twist for the reader, made possible because our protagonist was likewise kept in the dark - but it applies to our reading of more casual interactions too. This is a good example. Just because Velvet says Sun looks “like he couldn’t quite manage to feel bad” doesn’t mean that’s actually how Sun feels. As we’ve just re-established, Velvet is inclined to think the worst of Sun, or at least consider the worst as a distinct possibility. So if we’re asking the question, “Is Velvet’s perspective accurate to reality here?” weighing her previous assumptions against actions like Sun smiling, waving, and asking how she’s doing, AKA caring about her situation… I’d say no, it’s likely not.

At least she doesn’t outright accuse him of anything. Given that he’s not privy to these insulting thoughts, Sun chatters on about the test. He thinks it “isn’t a bad idea” because, as established, a lot of students lost teammates and are having trouble settling into Shade while still trying to live the life they had at Beacon. Changing the teams could be a “chance to really commit to our new school and our training, and learn from one another in a new way.” That’s what I think!

“Right… Or maybe some of us burned bridges with our team and might be looking for an easy way to avoid fixing those relationships.”

Velvet what the actual fuck. Can our cast NOT be assholes for five minutes??

Sun goes red at the accusation and calls her out on being harsh. “Tough love” Velvet calls it. Okay, no. Tough love is reserved for people you’re actually friends with and is meant to have them face a harsh reality they might be avoiding. Sun is avoiding an overt apology with his team, but we (and Velvet) have been given no indication that his thoughts on the test are a smokescreen to hide ulterior motives, which is what she’s talking about here. Sun clearly wants to make up with his team, he’s just struggling to accept what needs to be done to do that. Tough love would have been Velvet encouraging Sun to use this separation to reflect on what his team means to him and then, regardless of whether they end up back together, apologizing for how he unintentionally hurt them. Not… this. Plus, again, Velvet hasn’t exactly been friendly lately. She has little ground for dishing out “tough love.” You need established “love” before the “tough” part.

In addition, she’s not listening to what Sun’s saying. “If they want us prepared for an attack, breaking up teams sounds counterproductive.” When did Sun mention anything about an attack? That’s your assumption of what’s going down based on the illegal investigation you’ve been assisting with. Sun just said that changing the teams would provide some of them with a much needed clean slate, which is true. Just because that’s not what Velvet needs doesn’t mean it’s not useful for others. As she eventually acknowledges, they can get too comfortable in the roles they’ve been playing.

We get her line about wanting to find Yatsuhashi followed by, “Sun, you do whatever you want. That’s what you’re good at.” Velvet seriously? Then minutes later she’s hoping Sun sticks close to her if he can. Real talk: everyone deserves better than this. ‘Friends’ who constantly act like your presence is a burden, insult you whenever they get the chance, insist such insults are for your benefit (it’s just tough love), but then turn around and play nice when you have something they want... those aren’t friends. Note that Velvet is - both privately and overtly - mean to Sun while he’s just existing in the airbus, going through the same horrible test as her, trying to be nice, and holding an otherwise civil conversation. While trapped on the bus with nowhere to go, Sun is a nuisance despite his best efforts. When the floor suddenly opens up and Velvet is terrified of falling and surviving on her own though, then his presence is desirable. That’s not friendship and in another story I’d praise the author(s) for writing a compelling move from shaky acquaintances to a strong bond… but I’m honestly not sure that the relationship (any of them, really) will improve. Far as I can gather, Myers thinks this is friendship.

So Velvet accuses Sun of always and forever hurting others in his pursuit of doing what pleases him (after checking in on Velvet… literally minutes ago…) which is right around when Scarlet decides to make himself known. He agrees with Sun’s belief that this test will be harder than they assume: “I think you’re right… For a change.” Everything comes with a caveat. Apparently Scarlet has been listening in the whole time, but somehow manages to turn that into an insult as well with “I’ve been standing five feet away. Maybe I’m ready for a new team, too.” Wait, is the implication that Scarlet is further annoyed because Sun didn’t notice him? Do you all have ANY idea how many times a friend has stood right next to me and I didn’t notice them because I was caught up in something like work, a show… a conversation? I’m oblivious af. I get that Sun has things to make up for but at the very least these characters could keep their criticisms to what he’s actually done wrong, not crazy reaches like, ‘Sun probably abandoned his team when everyone was separated’ or ‘Sun was busy talking to Velvet and didn’t notice me eavesdropping, so I guess I don’t mean much to him, huh.’ I’m constantly torn between the presumed realism of this writing - people are unfair in their criticisms, teens do hold unsubstantiated grudges - and acknowledging that Myers seems to have felt confident writing (1) personality and just gave it to everyone. Velvet privately becomes as critical as Coco, who is as vocal as Fox, who agrees with Yatsuhashi, who echoes Sun’s team, and Sun himself often throws that attitude right back. Round and round we go.

As one might imagine, the three begin theorizing about what the test itself will be like. Usually Shade sets up initiation just like this. Students are transported in windowless airbuses, dumped in the desert, and told to find their way home. I’m interested in the bit about how teams are made up not only based on arrival, but also “the manner in which [the students] survived.” It definitely lends support to the assumption I’ve always had that the teams can really be random. At least not entirely. There’s strategy on the part of the instructors, thinking through aspects like, ‘Well, these two students used their wits in this manner so they’d pair together nicely.’ Or the reverse, ‘Put together the strategist with the student in love with blunt force, let them balance each other out.’ I certainly don’t think that Ozpin formed teams based solely on who ran into each other first. Not only do we have agency on the part of the students (Weiss leaves Ruby, then Jaune, then goes back to Ruby), as well as the fact that two sets of partners had to be paired together someway, but Ozpin was also carefully watching their whole performance. If the only thing that mattered was getting back to Beacon with a chess piece, why bother examining their choices? Shade appears to employ a similar setup of careful decisions portrayed as randomness, which would make sense given that Ozpin set up these schools. Though all the headmasters may not realize it (is Theodore a part of the inner circle?), or perhaps don’t agree with his methods overall, Ozpin’s influence is undeniably evident in each institution we’ve seen.

The only difference between normal initiation and this test seems to be that the students have to find a gold figurine this time around. Though as our trio points out, there’s likely to be other differences as well, otherwise the original Shade students would have a pretty significant advantage.

During all this Velvet remanences about Beacon’s initiation and we learn that Ozpin does, apparently, use the whole ‘Throw you into the woods where you’ll find some relic’ setup each year, as Velvet remembers being “thrown into the air” during hers. She also hits on another concern that hadn’t crossed my mind until now: what if a team includes a new student alongside the “more vocal in harassing recruits from Beacon and Haven?” It might do the Shade students some good to get to know the newcomers, but it’s not the newcomers’ responsibility to teach them some basic respect and kindness.

During all this Rumpole, via a screen, has been explaining how the test will go down. Her little info session concludes with her telling them to “Prepare for drop-off… See you back home soon.” I really like that she used the term “home” here. It says something about how she views the school and her students’ place in it, despite the tough attitude and tougher culture of Vacuo.

Turns out, when Rumpole said drop-off she meant that literally. The floor opens up and we get a mix of some students panicking while others just happily jump out.

Yeet.

Like I said, Ozpin’s influence.

I didn’t understand the panic initially - aren’t landing strategies a basic part of huntsmen training, something everyone (except Jaune) is expected to know coming into a school? Isn’t it at least partway through the year when everyone, even firsties, has had practice at this? - until I remembered Rumpole’s comment about how she hoped everyone remembered to bring their weapons this morning.

…that’s one hell of a lesson. Let’s break this down for a second. Yes, everyone at Shade is expected to carry their weapons at all times, but the meeting that started all this was early in the morning and, far as I can tell, entirely unexpected. ‘Supposed to’ is not the same thing as ‘will,’ especially when one is dealing with college-equivalent students who are still figuring expectations out. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that someone did leave their weapon behind. So now what? These buses are thousands of feet in the air, dropping students randomly as they jump/fall. If a student did need help how in the world would a professor assist them? Do they just expect other students to help like Pyrrha did for Jaune? It’s possible given that in a moment Octavia will help Velvet despite seeming to dislike her... but that’s not something I’d want to bank on. Whether a student forgot their weapon or has a weapon unsuited to a landing strategy, they’re going to die from this fall. Yeah, yeah, the test is supposed to be deadly, but what’s there to learn then? You’re dead! The lesson ‘Don’t forget your weapon’ or ‘Find a weapon more suited to landing strategies’ will never stick unless there are contingency plans in place to ensure that students survive their first mistakes.

It just all seems kind of flimsy, like everything works out because the plot says it must, not because I believe this in-world setup is geared towards keeping students alive and teaching them how to survive this world. (The reverse of the story conveniently not killing civilians off during a major grimm attack.) If landing strategies are so crucial to a huntsmen’s work - and we see them a lot - why are students allowed to have weapons like Yatsuhashi’s Fulcrum that, far as I can see, provide you with no way of slowing your descent? What if you don’t have a suitable semblance? Or it hasn’t been unlocked yet? What if your weapon would work, theoretically, but you haven’t taken any pictures of other suitable weapons lately (Velvet)? What if you never figure out that there are parachutes on the ship? Unless the instructors have a secret way of saving someone from getting splattered, this seems like a test rife with deadly mistakes, not just encounters. Why not teach your students to carry mini high-tech parachutes on their belts, with weapons and semblances as backups? Incorporate Atlas tech into standard schooling, then give us huntsmen who suddenly have it taken away with the embargo, resulting in a lot of problems. I mean, the students are legit scared in this scene, Velvet included. Having them face deadly grimm is one thing, but why test the odds with a thousand foot plunge when there’s absolutely no reason to? Far as I can see, the schooling isn’t built around ensuring they survive a fall like this - nothing like weapon requirements, or carrying additional gear if you semblance is something like Ren’s - which means making the fall a part of the test itself is... not great.

Which, to be clear, is the fault of the author(s) and how much thought (or not) they’ve put into their fictional school, not the fictional school’s fault because it’s, you know, fictional. Basically, the world building in this series kind of drives me nuts, in case you haven’t noticed lol.

Velvet does find the parachutes, oh so conveniently, and at least has the decency to give one to Sun. Also yeah, kudos for thinking to search for them in the first place. I do like the ‘survival is the only thing that counts’ theme. Cheating, lying, and the like is great when it’s used because the odds are already stacked against you. We get her agreement to try and stick close because remember, there’s nothing like a dangerous situation to remind you to be decent towards someone else. As Velvet magnanimously thinks, “Being with Sun would be better than being alone.”

Okay. Low bar, but okay.

So they fall and we get to hear a fair bit about Vacuo’s history based on what Velvet remembers about each landmark from history class. Honestly, I’m impressed at her recall. I wouldn’t be able to dredge up class notes while falling through the air. We get an abandoned city previously hidden by sand and the somewhat confusing sentence, “These were all that was left of the underground mines, the Drylands, the site of the old Paradise Oasis, long since dried up following Dust mining and the Great War.” Are these three separate places among the rock-less area pockmarked with holes? Or is this a single area of underground mines, called the Drylands (for some reason?), that includes the contrasting place called Paradise Oasis? I’m not sure. The takeaway though is that Velvet hopes Coco isn’t heading to that ambiguously named place because she’s incredibly claustrophobic.

What I find the most informative in all this is the description of the quarries as “physical manifestations of the wounds that still ran deep in the people of Vacuo.” The overall issue of outsiders coming into Vacuo, draining it of its resources, and then taking it back to their own kingdoms (while leaving their trash behind) is the sort of theme significant to our own lives and worthy of examination in fiction… Not saying that RWBY necessarily handles this theme well - especially given the messy conflation of that generational trauma and the awful treatment of any ‘outsider’ who wanders into the kingdom - but I do appreciate when I can see the series trying. Even if it fails, effort is (to an extent) still worth acknowledgement.

What I’m less inclined to praise is the strange follow up of “maybe that was why Rumpole was sending students there.” …what does this mean? Velvet just told us the quarries are the “wounds” of Vacuo, so are they being sent there because they’re dangerous? Because huntsmen will somehow fix this?? Neither of these make sense but I literally don’t know what point Myers is trying to make… which happens a lot. Again, there’s a whole lot of wise-sounding statements in this novel that, at the end of the day, mean very little - if anything at all.

Velvet eventually lands, nearly getting pulled into one of the openings when she can’t get out of her parachute. She’s saved at the last moment by Octavia Ember, a member of Team NDGO. You know, “One of the people she least wanted to run into.” We all knew the moment Velvet worried about running into one of the crueler members of Shade that it would happen.

Their conversation is filled with heartfelt gratitude and riveting greetings:

“Thanks?” Velvet said.

“Whatever.” Octavia sheathed her blade and started walking away. That was more like it.

What is wrong with all of these people? My kingdom for a kind, enthusiastic, non-team exchange!

You know the ‘enemies forced to work together’ conflict couldn’t end there though (a trope I normally love and would likely love here except having Octavia be another stereotypical mean girl was the least innovative choice possible). She and Velvet end up heading towards the same quarry, simply because there’s nothing else for miles around. Velvet displays some quick thinking when she explains that the instructors likely hid the relics in there to ensure they weren’t forever hidden under the sand. Velvet, unlike Yatsuhashi, has also realized that there’s more to the test than just their fighting skills. They’ll be graded on everything, “Including how we treat each other.” I’m always appreciative of characters who use their brains as much as their brawns.

Perhaps that not-so-subtle nudge resonated with Octavia because she opens up a bit. By this I mean she moves from “Whatever” to telling Velvet the traumatizing story of how she lost a third of her clan to Blind Worms in one of these quarries. Okay. That’s a complete 180, but I’ll take it. Velvet continues to have supposed insights about the Vacuans like, ‘Maybe they don’t cry because that’s a waste of water?’ and ‘Maybe they hate everyone on principal because of the past?’ and ‘I guess bullying is just something you’re supposed to survive out here’ (um… no.) In Velvet - and Myers’ - defense she acknowledges that none of these explanations excuse their actions… but I’m not so sure it explains them either. A few chapters ago we were hammering home how teens don’t have an emotional connection to their past, despite it not actually being that long ago (recall Coco’s conversation with Rumpole in class), but now we’re supposed to believe that all of these teens reject newcomers because of stuff that happened during a war they weren’t alive for? Also, I’m neither a doctor nor an anthropologist, but the concept of a desert people refusing to cry because it’s a waste of water - especially in an otherwise advanced civilization - seems suspect. I can buy someone being unable to cry because they’re currently dehydrated, but a whole culture denying themselves this outlet when most of them don’t actually lack water anymore is odd.

Granted, culture isn’t always logical. Case in point: memes. So let’s give that a pass.

However, we’ve still got the issue of continuity across paragraphs. First Velvet is smug because she’s a better climber than Octavia. Then Octavia is ahead and supposedly annoyed that Velvet was slowing her down. It’s unclear when, or if, they’ve finished climbing at this point and a second later Octavia is climbing a tree - why didn’t Velvet do that? Really, I lay little blips like this at the feet of the editors, not the author(s), simply because as an author I know precisely how easy it is to lose track of every detail you’ve introduced. It becomes obvious to the reader when things don’t quite align, but it will often go unnoticed by the writer - like typos. (RIP my own work.) Which is why you need that second perspective to not just catch the big mistakes, but tweak all the smaller ones too. RWBY is now a part of WarnerMedia and Before the Dawn was published by Scholastic. There’s a standard here I don’t think either is meeting.

As said previously though, Octavia climbs a tree because Velvet - with faunus eyes - spotted a trinket the others had missed. Octavia falls, Velvet catches her, and a whole swarm of Ravagers show up, which seem to be a bat-like grimm. Nice. My gothic, vampire, Stellaluna loving ass can get behind that.

Behold: my childhood.

They make a run for it and we - finally - get some solidarity as Octavia admits that the relic is technically Velvet’s and Velvet wonders in turn if they can share it. I offered my kingdom for a kind exchange and I got it! Hurray! More importantly, apparently that is an option because the airbus coordinates have shown up on both their scrolls. I’m not going to pretend that I understand how that tech works, but that’s a level of world building we don’t actually need. Not unless the hypothetical of students piggybacking on another’s relic is a part of the evaluation.

I love that Velvet used her camera flash to scare off the Ravager in their way. That’s a fantastic twist on the ‘Velvet will use her semblance and impress Octavia’ expectation as well as a great way to demonstrate that she is a formidable fighter, capable of paying attention to her situation/surroundings and responding accordingly.

There are more Ravagers though, incoming Blind Worms, an avalanche… and the airbus. A narrow escape indeed. Octavia drops that attention-catching, “Thank the Brothers” as they reach safety.

Going back to my earlier point about Shade seeming happy to kill its kids, apparently Velvet and Octavia were the last to reach the bus and Sun told the pilot to wait. That says good things about Sun, but horrible things about the test. If Sun hadn’t insisted on staying would Octavia and Velvet have had a way out? Why in the world wasn’t the pilot told to wait longer?? The whole timeline is confusing, with Sun and Velvet leaving the airship only a short time after everyone else, but it looks like the whole group was way ahead of them (the quarry is empty of both relics and people by the time they arrive), except Sun managed to get super far ahead of Velvet somehow, and their pilot was apparently working under an unspoken deadline… I’m just taking information at face value because if you try to piece it all together, good luck.

Also sorry, but I straight up laughed at Sun’s “You woke up the Ravagers. And you lived to tell the tale.” That is so unnecessarily dramatic. Oh no. Not the Ravagers. Literally the first thing I thought of was some B horror movie like

Coming only to a streaming service near your couch because we’re still living through a pandemic. Wear your masks, friends!

Back to this very entertaining reaction. Sun, you and Velvet have both taken out Atlesian knights, you fought a gigantic sea monster with Blake, and Velvet just bypassed a nest of Ravagers with a simple bright light. If RWBY is going to randomly try and make the grimm threatening again, do it with stuff that actually reads as a significant threat to these fighters. After you’ve got your first years blasting through (Yang) and riding (Nora) bear grimm at initiation, a couple of bat grimm just doesn’t cut it.

Moving on, Velvet’s iffy perspective rears its head once more as she thinks, “What if Sun had passed by the trinket in the tree, knowing it would be too dangerous to retrieve it? She and Octavia had not had that luxury.”

There’s a lot wrong with this theory:

How do you know Sun has better vision, even as a fellow faunus? As Volume 7’s Tyrian attack brought to the surface, supposedly not every faunus has that advantage.

Velvet straight up says that she wasn’t able to see the Ravagers, otherwise she would have warned Octavia about them. The whole point is that they startled her and she fell. So what, Sun not only has faunus vision but better than Velvet’s? (Do monkeys have better vision than rabbits? I have no idea, but this is the kind of stuff I would google if I wanted to potentially draw attention to it in my book).

If that trinket was too dangerous to retrieve, why did the instructors put it there in the first place? Fox mentioned things being unfair with his lack of sight, but that’s a pretty big difference: easy grabs in a supposedly abandoned quarry vs. a grab that wakes up the whole nest of grimm.

“She and Octavia had not had that luxury” why does this sound like another dig at Sun? Like it’s worth criticizing that he… got there first? Got lucky with the relics closer to the floor? Probably because everything is a dig at Sun in this book, including Velvet’s surprise that he might have “respect in his eyes.” Velvet! He was just asking about you, made the bus wait, and has always worn his heart on his sleeve! Sun’s respect/care is not in question, only how he chooses (at times) to display it.

Not that the story seems to get that. We can’t work through Sun’s questionable choices if we’re stuck in this never ending loop of ‘He’s so annoying/incompetent/willfully cruel’ into ‘Hark! is that a positive trait I see?’ and then back to ‘Never mind he’s awful.’ Maybe Velvet’s pride at his reaction to the Ravagers will finally move things forward.

Which is where we leave off. The airbus scares off the other Ravagers with its guns, the group heads back towards Shade (or a second part of the test? That did feel too much like a normal initiation to be fair), and Velvet ends with the equally dramatic line, “The initiation ritual had been hard and almost deadly, and even worse was yet to come: the assignment of the new teams.”

I have to say though, that is the most teen-accurate thought I’ve seen so far. An 18 year old would be more scared of their team social life than getting eaten by a monster lol.

On that note, drop a comment or an ask if you feel like being social yourself and I’ll see you during the next burst of NaNoWriMo energy! 💜

[ Ko-Fi ]

#rwby #BTD Recaps #Before the Dawn #mymetas

48 notes · View notes

basketballandtextbooks · 4 years

Text

disaster take

i saw this discourse on other blogs and come to the realization that most people probably won’t agree with me but... here’s my two cents:

wendy and kyle are very similar characters, not identical, but the character writing in south park is usually quite shallow (for any character in the cast) and normally any depth that can actually be found in any one character is entirely coincidental or accidental on the part of the observer. For example, in a previous post I mentioned that Kyle probably learned to dance after the events of the rain forest episode, and we know he must have because of highschool musical. This creates and interesting nugget of character depth that fits with his overall character but the connection is most likely entirely accidental. Did the writers think that deeply about Kyle’s character, or did they just forget the throwaway joke they kin-assigned Kyle for one episodes purposes?

for me these gaps between writers intent and interpretation are entertaining and it’s very fun for me to play detective, putting together the whole characters through the lens of ‘death of the author’ and figuring out how the characters behave based on not only their behavior in any one individual episode, but how the inconsistent and shallow character writing makes an overall character-arc (no character is more fascinating in this fashion than Eric Cartman, who has the most cohesive and entirely accidental character arc that spans from episode one and showcases a fascinating and horribly flawed individual)

All of this stated, the similarities in how Kyle and Wendy are written may not be intentional, but the fact is that given the same exact situation they respond similarly and to varying degrees. A good example of this is when they are jealous or their ego is bruised, they both have a tendency to have excessive if not murderous reactions (teacher into the sun, nuke canada, burn down the school, bully your friends)

I don’t think anyone can really make a good faith argument denying that they have strong similarities. There are of course differences, during the smurfs Wendy showed a much cooler head than Kyle would in the same circumstance. They do not need to be identical to share strong similar characteristics

Now for how fandom has perceived Wendy.

There is good reason that some individuals feel that the fan-reaction towards her isn’t entirely based on her writing being inherently ‘worse’ than Kyle’s. It also isn’t true that everyone who loves Kyle and hates Wendy is sexist or suffering from a case of internal misogyny.

That said, Wendy is held to a higher standard than Kyle is. Or more accurately, she is held to account for her actions in canon and Kyle is not. A primary example that I’ve heard multiple times in explaining why she’s a ‘bad’ character or a ‘bad’ person is that she broke Stan’s heart by dumping him. Some accuse her of cheating on him (with either Gregory or Token, pick your poison).

We can dismiss the cheating accusations immediately, there isn’t even a sliver of evidence she ever cheated. The times where she pursued other love interests they were either broken up or not together.

But the underlying message that hurting Stan makes her a bad character and not holding Kyle to that same account when Kyle, as early as the super best friends episode and as terribly as the assburgers episode, has a pattern of hurting Stan and in worse ways.

Wendy dumped him, that’s awful, but she’s allowed to have different feelings for other people and she’s allowed to end a relationship with a boy who constantly vomited on her. But the fan perception of this is “what a bitch” while the reaction to the style friend breakups is “oooh the angst”

This is only one of the ways we can see her being held to a different standard than Kyle. Not every fan is guilty of this, but enough people share this sentiment that is entirely justified for people to point out what appears to be underlying misogyny in how the characters are treated.

There are arguments based more on her writing than her actions, I have heard the ‘she’s always right and that’s not realistic’ on at least four different occasions now. But not only is this factually untrue if you’ve actually watched the show, it ignores the many times Kyle has also been right for seemingly no other reason than the writers convenience. Making him the moral center of the episode or a center of a joke. I find the ‘she’s too perfect’ to be a bad faith argument because the research behind it is shoddy and even when the person behind it acknowledges cases where she was wrong (killing her teacher, bullying, petty grudges to name a few) it’s always hand-waved away as ‘oh, okay, that once, but other than anything that disagrees with me, she’s too perfect. This is a very clear case of confirmation bias. Any evidence that backs the argument that she’s too perfect is guarded and anything that refutes it is discarded.

There will be some fans that hate her and love Kyle for completely unrelated reasons to holding her to a different standard, sexism, or internalized misogyny. But it is a fact that a significant amount of the fandom holds her to a completely different standard and a very possible reason for that is either her gender or how she disrupts their precious ships.

I would make the argument that she has a far stronger and more engaging characterization than Clyde using the same standards I set above where I judge characters based on the totality of their appearances rather than on individual episode. A even removing that framework and basing solely on episodes that focus on them individually, she has a stronger character. And yet I have never once heard or seen anyone making the argument that they dislike Clyde because his character is too flat. This is another case where she, and the majority of the female cast, is held to a different standard. I’ve never seen anyone say ‘it’s hard to write Gregory because he has very little character and the writers only created a flat stereotype’. But I see that sort of perspective all the time for female characters that have more screen-time and development than Gregory ever had.

I love all the characters above and I find their characterizations and lack thereof to be a fascinating puzzle that I spend my free-time putting together.

But female characters in South Park do suffer from what I would consider a form of internalized misogyny. Most fans don’t do this on purpose (thus internalized) but the society we’ve been raised in has a tendency to put men and women on different scales.

This isn’t a scale that’s fair to either sex. The unconscious mentality that “its okay if he has no personality because he’s a guy” does men a disservice too. If you do fall under the category of someone who judges the female characters more than the male ones, I’m not trying to say you’re a bad person or even that you’ve done a bad thing. I want you to reconsider your opinion. Take a moment to actually think about it. I know I’ve been guilty of holding men and women to different standards. In both real life and fiction, I expect less from men. I look down on them in an unhealthy fashion that if I don’t address, could lead to ending up in harmful situations or harming someone else.

fiction is a lens that we can use to better understand reality. I am an advocate that you can treat fictional characters in any way you like and it doesn’t fucking matter. You want to kill Wendy because you think she’s an annoying bitch? Go for it. It doesn’t matter. Wendy is not real.

I don’t want you to change your fandom behaviors, I want you to reexamine them and ask yourself how deeply the disparity in how you view men and women goes. If you use fiction as an outlet for misogynistic or even misandrist feelings, I think that’s valid, but I want you to know that you’re doing it.

If you hold men and women to different standards, whether in fiction, real life, or both, I want you to be aware of it.

Now the elephant in the room.

Damien is one of the most popular characters in South Park and he has one episode focusing on his character. His personality is frequently discarded because in canon, he’s an uppity little git who is both petty and weak. He wants to be liked, is affected by bullying, and cries to his daddy about it.

In fandom he is frequently portrayed as a cool and collected impervious person who, yes, has a temper but instead of how petulant and bratty he appeared in canon, fandom portrays this as ‘badass’.

To put it simply, fandom has a tendency to ignore canon entirely in the name of what’s ‘hot’. They want the prince of hell to be sexy and dangerous, so he is just that.

The majority of popular fanon characterizations fit these same molds. They want Butters to be cute and sweet, so every character flaw he’s ever had is hand-waved away.

How does this relate to my topic?

Fans of the female characters are not impervious to this. Heidi Turner is an extremely flawed and vicious individual who would stoop to any low to protect her damaged pride. She is also a victim in a toxic relationship that put her through a horrible experience. And so the fandom either acknowledges one half, how cruel she can be, or the other, how pure a victim she was someone protect her. And neither combine her to a whole character. A person who was in a bad situation, had a lot of positive traits, bad things happened to her, and she didn’t bad things in return. Her penitent for cruelty in some earlier episodes when she was still a bg character is completely hand-waved away by both camps.

She’s an interesting character and she’s dumbed down for the pleasure of the audience, isn’t this the same treatment the men receive and thus invalidates my entire thesis that they’re held to a different standard?

For starters, the idea that an argument is entirely invalid because of one exception is in itself a fallacy, but to avoid acknowledging her existence would be confirmation bias. She is an anomaly, a female character given the same treatment as the male characters. Is it because she’s deeper or better written than the other female characters? I would argue no, critically watching her episodes she has tons of the same troped behavior that the fans love to despise in the rest of the female cast. Although unlike the other characters (both male and female), where I must do an in-depth watch of the series over the course of 20+ seasons in order to create a whole understanding of them, the majority of her arc happens over the course of two seasons.

An easily digestible amount of content. No one needs to put together the puzzle pieces to understand her like you do with the majority of the cast, it’s all there.

Except it isn’t, and this is why I mentioned her behavior in earlier seasons is discarded. The way people frame her is solely from the seasons where she’s a primary character, ignoring the clear characterization we got from her in earlier seasons that do help to create a more whole understanding of her personality and character.

That all said, there are still portions of the fandom who hate her purely because she blocks their kyman or style or insert-gay-ship-here. There are fans who hate her not because of her flawed personality or even that they find her character flat, but purely because they want to see ‘two hot boys kiss get the gross girl out’. Which is a pretty common mistreatment of Wendy as well.

Now, male characters are on occasion given this treatment but nowhere near as often. While creek shippers and crenny shippers might fight until their last breath, neither group seems to actually hate Kenny or Tweek. But in the ship wars of a ‘het ship’ vs a ‘gay ship’, the female character is frequently trashed by the gay side.

I could go into an aside about the troubling fetishization of gay men that borders on outright homophobia at times, but this has been surprisingly alot.

I guess my point is that any which way you fandom, try to at least understand that sexism is real and be aware when you might be perpetuating messages that can appear unbalanced. And maybe, ask yourself why you do that.

#meta #and this is when everyone unfollows #sometimes when you're being perceived as problematic #it's because there's a problem

9 notes · View notes

ticknart · 7 years

Text

Preemptive Apology

As stated by the title, this is a preemptive apology to fans and fandoms and those who may find their way here. This promises to be rambling and possibly pointless. I expect some personal things will be tossed out there that may make some uncomfortable, but nothing personal that makes me uncomfortable will be posted, maybe just written and erased.

Maybe this whole preemptive apology thing, too.

I apologize for disappointing the expectations of those who decided to follow me. My self-esteem is low enough to wonder why you would do follow, but I appreciate the follow. I've always wanted to tell stories for a living. This is the closest that I've come. Probably the closest that I'll ever come. I don't know what kind a storyteller I am. I have some idea about what kind I'd like to be, but I'm unclear on the future. I can't know what you expect except for maybe more of what I've already written and I hope I won't be, though. So, I'm sorry about not meeting any expectations that may be out there.

I apologize for all the time between one story and the next, whether they are or are not related stories. In no way am I a perfectionist, just see the errors that riddle this and anything else I've written and been willing to post. Some people can write a few hours every day and be happy tossing it out for our reading pleasure right away. I am not one of these people. I don't write stories every day. If I'm lucky I'll do something every week. And when I do write, it's in hard to stop chunks of time. My fingers pound across the keyboard trying to finish, like they're afraid that I'll forget or lose my ability or something, which I have done before. Also, I'm unable to serialize. I don't like posting something that's unfinished. Serialize is a promise to finish. A promise not always met. A promise I'm afraid to make. I don't need to live with that guilt. So, I'm sorry for waiting instead of starting and stopping and starting and stopping again.

I apologize for shipping your ship and then turning around and shipping your ship characters with others. I've never had a "one true pair" as a fan. I don't really understand the OTP mentality. Part of the reason why is because I like to write post-canon stories and I don't believe that the pairings of youth carry through as time goes on. Yes, two of the best people I've ever know began dating in high school, married in college, and now have two school age children. I know it happens, but it's the exception, not the rule. I believe that it's much easier for friendship and feelings to span childhood to senility than it is for romance. Besides, in the end the best romances become the best friendships. So, I'm sorry for not backing your ship, or any ship, 100% of the time.

I apologize for rarely creating for things that are currently being produced. I prefer not to contradict canon. I like to answer a question not answered or imagine a future that can't be undone with a single word or come up with something outlandish that doesn't interfere with what happened. Yes, ripple (or butterfly, if that's your thing) effects are cool and fun and can alter favorite stories in interesting ways, but that's not my thing. (At least for right now.) Things in production change so quickly and in such unexpected ways and I like for the stuff I make to "count," even though it doesn't "count." So, I'm sorry for often waiting for the end to begin.

I apologize for not sticking to one fandom. I did that for years in the beginning and I'm slowly re-posting the stories I wrote back then that I still like. Anyway, I'm not feeling that way anymore. It was finding this other fandom, and one drawing in particular, that gave me the bump I needed, the bump meds couldn't supply, to start writing again. Suddenly there was an itch again that wouldn't go away by ignoring it. When that itch was satisfied, another came along. And now I'm itchy to convert notes I've carried around for a while into the stories they were meant to be. These are shows that I enjoy and, ultimately, I write for two reasons: 1. practice, and 2. because I'd like these characters to be remembered. So, I'm sorry for not always writing for the fandom that encouraged you to visit but hopefully, other stories will keep you coming back.

I apologize for being a terrible part of fandom. I'm not great at cuddling and sharing and communicating. Years ago, when I first ventured from a passive member to an active member of fandom I did join in. I found a message board that was mostly devoted to my show of choice. I worked up the courage to share my thoughts along with my stories. I'd post a thought and a thread would die. No answer to my question. No acknowledgement of the joke. It simply died. I don't know if my perception was objectively right, but I got tired feeling like a conversation killer and I hardly ever commented anymore until the point I stopped commenting until the point where I stopped posting. Reason why, see the self-esteem issue mentioned at the top of this ramble, also the darkness became overwhelming. So, I'm sorry for not jumping in with gusto; I've not had good experiences trying.

I apologize for writing too much or not enough "not safe for work" content. I've marked this tumblr as adult content because occasionally I expect to write about naked bodies pressing against one another. However, I try hard not to keep my work from being smut, even though I quite enjoy smut. It's a fine line that I've just started trying to walk in my writing. Originally, this tumblr wasn't marked adult content because I think stories that include naked bodies pressing against each other are fine for teens, the fappable and non-fappable stories. Then I wrote about how panels are used in a comic and got called a lot of terrible things. It wasn't for my content, but I'd rather not deal with those people. So, I'm sorry for trying to write some NSFW stuff without making it too explicit.

I apologize for the times I'm not sensitive enough and the times I'm too sensitive. See: self-esteem issues. There's this one word that I've thrown around about myself usually after the modifier "socially" or "emotionally." Under its original meaning the word is fine, but the (recent) historical use makes that call much harder and I shy away from using it in conversation and writing to keep from alienating people over a word. Too sensitive, right? However, if I were to write a certain kind of character, say a scientist with a hard on for Szechuan sauce, then using the word could be very appropriate because the character has said the word before and there are plenty of character situations where I would write him saying it again. Not sensitive enough, right? This is one of the few places where I can't see a line to walk. You step on one side or the other, upsetting one side or the other. Where's the middle ground? Thank goodness I don't write Huck Finn fanfic because to be historically (and canonically) accurate would upset lots of people, but so would disregarding an important aspect of one of the themes that really can't be explored without. So, I'm sorry for over-thinking the meanings that individuals may or may not ascribe onto words due to popular usage.

I apologize for criticism that veers into the insulting and for the generalities. I have plans notes to write a bit about the writing quirks out there that drive me nuts. My notes aren't near me, but I think it's mostly word usage stuff that makes things unnecessarily hard to read or confuse. This isn't grammar-Nazi stuff, but phrases and choices that are grammatically correct and accepted that interrupt my flow when reading and take me out of the story. Not just in fanfic, but everywhere. The plan is to keep these things very general because I don't want to single out an individual. Just because it's writing that bothers me, doesn't mean that it's bad writing. (I also have a list of my own writing quirks that I can recognize. I plan to use those to explain myself and better understand why I constantly fall back on them.) There's also the possibility that if I write one of these, or any type of criticism, on the wrong day I could be perceived as insulting or actually be insulting. I recognize this about myself. So, I'm sorry for the generalities that I will be writing and the possible cruel things I could write about actions and individuals.

I'm a person who wakes up most morning and has to be reminded that the best reason for waking up, bathing, and going to work most days is because I get to do it all over again the next day. Without the reminder, I can't promise that I'll be able to do it again the next day. I want to find something more positive for the reasons and I think writing may be that reason. However, I don't want to get bogged down and overloaded with the petty, vitriolic minutia that fills so much of the unterblerbs and crushes the morale of some good writers and artists and critics. I'm afraid of being one of those and by getting my apologies out there now I hope I won't feel like I always have to explain myself.

Some may ask, why post the writings? To which I will reply that arts aren't complete without someone (who isn't the creator) reading/hearing/seeing/experiencing the artwork. While I can't prove that people actually do read what I've written, I can track numbers and see that someone landed here and I can tell myself that at least one person read it. (Bots may mean I'm lying to myself, but I'll live with that.) And if I believe that one person did read it, then I believe it's complete. Completing art, it seems to me, is very difficult for many artists to do. Maybe because they look at feedback instead of simple numbers. It's harder to lie to yourself when you have no comments or cuddles or whatever the site give you, isn't it?

Thinking of comments, this isn't about me looking for praise and guilting a reader into saying nice about my work. I'm not perfect and neither will my writings be. I know that. True critique is the best way to explain to me, though, not name calling. (This is one of the reasons I don't often write comments. I want to go into the hows and whys of the creation, not just the created. Also, I truly believe, deep down inside, that, the hypothetical, you are not interested in my opinion because self-esteem.) I have to assume that any praise I get isn't simply mindless or rote (again, see: self-esteem issues, it's a terrible theme!), and I have to work hard to assume that. My favorite comments, the ones I remember most clearly, are the ones that let me know that the person finished the story because that means I really succeeded. I kept interest for however long I needed to. That's success.

These are my preemptive apologies. I reserve the right to add a retroactive apologies list which has the potential to grow forever and ever until the day I die. Amen.

#I'll try not to do this sort of thing again #I'm awful though #I'm just sorry for this whole damn thing #Had to get it out of my system

4 notes · View notes