#i am much more comfortable discussing the nuances and complexities of a character most people recognize as bad

[matan4il]

Hi ! Have you watched the 2nd season of Hunters (Amazon) ? If so, have you any thoughts about the final episode ? I’m scratching my head wondering what I think of it aha

Hi Nonnie! Thank you for the ask!

I have watched it and I am TBH still processing. We're talking about some very heavy, complex and important stuff, so I don't wanna fall into the pit of rush judgment. Much like with my thoughts on s1, IMO s2 has some stuff that's good and some that I have issues with. So I need the processing to come to some more cohesive conclusions.

If I have to give a bottom line, putting aside a more in depth, nuanced discussion, I guess I would point to the fact that my fave thing about s1 is to a great degree missing in s2, and that some of the pitfalls they managed to avoid at the end of the day in s1... they didn't in s2. I'll give you one example. In case it's not obvious: spoilers!

Take the whole issue of judging the hunters. I mentioned that since there were actual real life Holocaust survivors who turned Nazi hunters, I don't feel comfortable judging them. By extension, that means I can't judge ANY of the Nazi hunters. The kid or grandchild of survivors either. And that's what Jonah is, right? Yet, that's exactly what the viewers are invited to do with the very last shot of s2 and the show overall. We just heard his wife telling him that when she looks at him, she sees his grandmother and great aunt (both Nazi hunters) and that she loves what she sees. She doesn't know, but we do, that he's lying to her at that very minute, and that their romantic getaway doubles as a cover for him spying on another Nazi criminal. The way this plays out paints him to be similar to a junky, who wants to quit but can't, and therefore ends up lying to his loved ones and destroying his own life. Is this a fair portrayal of most Nazi hunters? No. Most of the real ones actually took up Nazi hunting (in the non-legal sense) for only a few years at the end of the war, and most abandoned it in favor of re-building their own lives or helping others to do so. Yet with the last shot lingering on Jonah's face, knowing he's probably about to destroy his own marital bliss, we're being asked to look at him as his wife does and decide whether we love what we see. And while the shot itself is stunning, I personally just do not like the invitation to judge a Jewish person/character, who has lived through the horrors of the worst genocide in human history perpetrated against their own people, when there was no real justice served at the end of the war (or even within the fictional universe of Hunters s2 IMO) and judge what they decided to do about it.

So this isn't a full answers with all of the details, but I hope this helps until I can write a complete meta post? Thank you so much for writing to me about it. I am so happy for any ask regarding any and all things Jewish. Have a great day! As always, my ask tag. xoxox

#jewish rep #jewish stuff #jews #jew #jewish #ask #anon ask #hunters season 1 #hunters season 2 #hunters amazon prime #hunters amazon #hunters #logan lerman #jonah heidelbaum #jr #jewish representation #jewish characters #holocaust #jumblr #frumblr

[bluesadansey]

mona and aria for the character thing im curious about them especially

Mona Vanderwaal

First impression: well I knew she was the first A before watching the show. In the pilot she seemed fun

Impression now: I adore her, she’s such an amazingly complex character and Janel is so good at playing every layer of her. She can genuinely terrify me or do something actually despicable (making Hanna eat the cupcakes for instance) and then make me feel so much sympathy towards her, and make me root for her in the oddest ways. No matter what she keeps things interesting, I can’t think of a scene or dynamic or story she was a part of that she didn’t elevate. She’s my second favorite character on the show and one of my favorite antagonists in general now.

Favorite moment: adore the s4 finale Monison at the lost woods flashback for many reasons but for fav moment am picking Mona’s careful suggestion that Alison vanish and never return so whoever is after her can not kill her, how expertly she manipulates her and then when Alison is asleep Mona moving over to her A layer next door and putting the Alison doll into the dollhouse. (That episode is terrible but I live for two things in it: the Mona/Monison content and Ezra getting shot)

Idea for a story: post time jump love triangle but instead of the Caleb nonsense Spencer and Mona are together. Build up to a Hanna Spencer Mona polyamerous relationship I don’t have the skills to write it but somebody should

Unpopular opinion: have seen a few different posts about Emison and Vandermarin and discussing whether or not supporting one and not the other is hypocritical + have seen takes from Vandermarin stans who really dislike Emison and some of them support this, personally I ship both of them and think they are both clearly toxic dynamics so I do agree that some of those takes aren’t the most nuanced but at the same time I don’t think there’s any problem with being more comfortable shipping Vandermarin who are noncanon compared to Emison being a canon romance and that makes the troubling aspects more troubling for people, so the unpopular aspect of my opinion since no shipping pro or anti relationship related to either of them is popular/unopopular, is that there are understandable reasons to like Vandermarin more but acting morally superior for liking them but not Emison is annoying/hypocritical, if it’s based on morality and not just what’s more interesting/appealing to you.

Favorite relationship: Hanna and Spencer, Vandermarin is like the love story of the show imo like it just is and then Spona is just so fascinating to me (if we were speaking book wise Spona would definitely be my fav relationship for her but show wise Vandermarin is just so significant but also anything involving Spencer is automatically what catches my interest in a more intense way especially them being my two favorites and my a little bit above everyone else tbh). I do love her dynamics with all the liars and ship her with all of them as she would want. The Hanna x Mona x Alison stuff is also sososo fascinating see this edit: https://at.tumblr.com/minyarddiangelo/alisonhastings-im-sorry-we-know-how-it-works/mggsf19ljdvi

Favorite headcanon: So I have not watched the perfectionists, I would like to say I’ll never watch it but as discussed I am a fan of Mona x Alison as a ship so I can’t say I might not get bored one day and attempt to watch solely for crumbs, but it’s definitely not on my list soon. I do actually like the idea of Mona working at a school and think she would really enjoy it I’d actually love to see her in a Dr. Sullivan like role as a counselor like would she be a great counselor for girls to look to maybe not but it would be wacky and fun and I’d love it for her, I think it would fit a lot better than her residing over a dollhouse of two living people in the s7 finale. I don’t like that as an ending for her after what Charlotte did to her and I dislike the loneliness of it for her since a huge part of her character is wanting connection but reaching for it in ways that can be harmful to herself and others, and her arc should have been about continuing to connect with people in more evolved ways not self-imposed isolation.

Aria Montgomery 

First impression: I thought her pink hair streaks were cute and they reminded me of mine my senior year of high school lol.

Impression now: I love her as a character, as a person she’s a hot mess a sympathetic one at least for me, like literally such a tragic character if you really think about it and tbh I find her very fascinating and entertaining for her messiness. Also while in the show I love her but she isn’t my favorite liar (my #3-5 rankings are kind of flexible rn she’s 4-5 in my feelings since I’m in more of an Emily mood rn / upon reflection on the show overall, the different times I’ve thought about rankings the highest she’s been is 3 lowest is 5 out of 6) in the books that I’ve read so far she’s consistently the char I like most (I love book Spencer but she’s a bit less captivating to me than show Spencer tbh, Troian is just so integral to the way I love her in the show and giving her a lot of layers and while she’s a good char in the books it isn’t the same. Meanwhile book Aria gets to develop outside of her showtp in a way that grabs my interest more, generally I’d say Aria and Hanna’s book-wise characterization is more interesting to me while Spencer and Emily’s are more appealing in the show. But like I’ve only read 6.5 books of 18 so that could change.)

Favorite moment: first one that comes to mind is 7x19 when she’s monologueing to the dead body in the trunk of her car lmao. Also really love her wrecking Ezra’s apartment in s4

Idea for a story: if I had written a follow up to the Arison fic I wrote I was considering writing Aria and Alison being A together it’s my favorite solution for any of the liars being A and I like it better and think it tracks more than only one girl doing it. I also find Aria and Jenna’s relationship really interesting and it’s really under appreciated in the fandom so I would love a story about them. I also briefly considered trying to write Sparia adopting Imogen’s baby after 1x10 aired I didn’t because I didn’t have the time and also I kind of don’t buy that Spencer would want kids idk if I even think Aria would want them if it weren’t for Ezra… but nonetheless I do think someone should write a fix it like that, on principle.

Unpopular opinion: other than me really liking her which is already unpopular, I actually really like her wardrobe design yes the misses in it are really terrible looking and it’s a very extreme game of hit or miss in general but I love it as a wardrobe for her character / how it fits her characterization, like there are so many tv characters who fit that archetype of the weird eccentric girl but where the blandest things ever so I liked that there was creativity here (tie skirt, forks for earrings etc.) and that she actually wore things no one else would, whether they were amazing or terrible. She’s also a very passionate person who oscillates between extremes based on her emotions so I like her style as a reflection of that too.

Favorite relationship: I’ll be really predictable and say Spencer I love Sparia also anything involving Spencer is automatically most interesting to me. Honorable mention to Aria x Alison which is such a fascinating concept to me to the point where I wrote one of like five existing fics about them

Favorite headcanon: obviously her divorce era is the dream, preferably after she gone girls Ezra.

thank you!

(Send me a character and I’ll answer these questions)

#asks #mutuals #pll #Mona Vanderwaal #Aria Montgomery #kaguraverity

[tothedarkdarkseas]

There’s this post that makes the rounds now and again about Stu’s characterization by the fandom, criticizing those who would be critical of him in a way that I think is perhaps overstated when compared to what these disparate parts of the fandom actually look like and the tone of those jabs-- and more pressingly, IMO, overgeneralizing and implying some serious real-world ill intent in simply recognizing addiction as something that affects people, and is not an insignificant part of his (or Murdoc’s) character. You may know the post I’m referring to, haha. Well, I’m... kind of mulling on it as I’ve just seen it again, and it always gives me that guilty, scared-but-selfish sort of twist in my stomach as I can’t help but think it’s maybe partially aimed at me (given the time it came out and being centralized to Tumblr and, er, my whole Stu Deal here.) I want to offer a respectful counterargument, in some ways, but I don’t think it would ultimately make anyone feel better. I guess tonight I’m just feeling compelled to air out some feelings, I suppose. I don’t want to make it “drama” but I do kind of... care? About this subject?

I guess I’d just say: I don’t believe in good faith that people authentically dislike or demonize Stuart by regarding him as a truly “bad person” in the way a subsection of the fandom authentically dislikes Murdoc and condemns his presence in the band, wishing only ill on his character during a more hostile era of the fandom, and therefore there is not an identical (or even especially similar) tone in these areas of critique. I do understand the argument that the “dirtier” portrayal of Stu is largely reactionary to the “pure” one, whether or not I agree that is the sole basis for it. That disillusion with infantilizing him is an undeniable influencing factor, and it is a fundamental one, that much is fair to say. The post looks down on the edginess of portraying Stu unkindly and asserts that there is nuance to the character, and it’s not necessarily that this statement is outrageous in itself-- rather, I think it’s a case of ships missing each other in the night, as I believe that the nuance being sought is, in action (as in, via substantive content) being portrayed most intentionally and most lovingly by those with a considerate critical eye. Stu is, I really feel, given a more rounded humanity by those who do not wish to shy away from emphasizing his flaws for the purpose of truly examining them-- something which I simply don’t think is done adequately by handwaving them, downplaying them, or denying them because they are inconvenient. This may simply be a point we see differently: one person may find indulging in the excess and fixating on the edgier humor style over his modern “sweet-and-simple foil to Murdoc’s seed-and-greed” archetype to be inherently out of character, while I find a noncommittal agreement that Stu, or any character, is flawed and complex without ever “sullying” his name by showing anything less than a fantasy version to be unsatisfying. We’re allowed to want different things from fiction, and a desire for “warts” in fiction versus a desire for comfort does not, in the post’s wording, make it a matter of black & white. I’d fully agree the potential/possibilities that I find interesting in Stuart and have portrayed in the past are not strictly “in character.” I’d wager that I don’t actually think most fan content is, and that’s a hard thing to objectively judge-- even moreso when some form of shipping (with canon or fan characters) is involved.

I also recognize that I’m probably taking someone’s annoyance with grubby Stu content personally and it’s not that serious, and I apologize for that. I agree I am Posting Cringe/Will Lose Subscriber. I can’t speak for every single person who has ever made a nasty joke about Stu in this fandom, but... I love Stuart. I care quite a lot about the time spent discussing and writing this fictional character. And that is actually what stings a bit when I see this passed around. I love Stuart more than I’ve loved another character since I was a young teenager, and I continue to love him as I highlight his shortcomings. Every word I’ve spoken about him in my time with the fandom is born of wanting more for the character. Stuart is also, factually and canonically, an addict. I have loved addicts, and continue to love addicts; not merely fictional but real figures in my life, some with extremely similar habits to Stuart. There are addicts in my immediate family. An addict gave me my wedding ring. Addiction as I have experienced it by loving an addict informs the heavier writing I’ve done on the topic. I have never written about addiction with the intent of demonizing addicts, nor insinuating addiction is a character flaw reflecting some moral deficiency. A refusal to discuss the reality of addiction and portray the broader picture, both the attractive and unattractive colors and lines that make the painting more than a waiting canvas, is not doing any real addict a favor. I think if you're painting a portrait of addiction, the artist should paint with compassion but the brush should be blunter-edged. I know addicts can be and are gentle, loving people, people of extraordinary humanity; I don't think soft watercolors and sparkle highlights will often look like an honest portrayal of addiction. The painting is not slander for being anything other than beautiful.

#thinking about a post and then explaining my opinion and it got out of hand #so... this isn't ''drama'' per se but it is me just kinda having a Reaction to an old stu-related post that comes back up sometimes #no names or callouts or anything like that. just talking about my opinion on character writing mostly. #this does discuss addiction #maybe tbd? depending on how embarrassing it seems tomorrow aha

[insanelydeadlybookcollector]

What is your opinion on if Chandler is bisexual? Personally I don’t think he is although I accept that there’s enough evidence that he could be, and I really like These Words We Dare Not Say by Drizzy on AO3. If you ever fancied it, I think you could do a really good fic of Mondler having that conversation (not a request or prompt, just praise for how much I enjoy your stories).

I'm going to say a thank you first off for asking this, I love having discussions about characters. Characterisation, in my opinion, is the most important, and nuanced, aspect of storytelling. It's subtle and wonderful and that's why, out of all my other interests, I have decided to follow narratology in my own academic endeavours.

Also, a huge thank you for the accolades. I'm glad you enjoy my work.

What I say next I hope is read as one person's humble opinion. I have gay friends, I have bi friends and I have ace friends. And I did run this response by them just to make sure I wasn't offending anybody. To anyone who is about to disagree with me, that's fine. I'll happily have an educated, calm discussion about it. As I say later, I have a couple of friends (who don't read Chandler as bi either) but really, the only education I have on the matter is their opinion and the bits and bobs I have read (most of which come from twitter). I will not respond to harsh words or tones.

I do not think Chandler Bing is bisexual. I do not think he is homosexual or pansexual. As far as I am concerned, and in accordance with the canon, Chandler Bing is heterosexual.

Firstly, and this is more to do with me than Chandler. I'm a firm believer in canon compliance. Chandler is straight according to canon. (That being said, I'm totally on board with Buddie from 9-1-1. I love them as brothers-in-arm-and-in-fathering-Christopher but I can see totally them as a homosexual couple even though canon hasn't made it official. But the dialogue and character dynamics suggest a more than platonic trust and affection between those two blokes that goes beyond the brotherhood of the fire-fam. But those boys are totally different to Chandler).

To date, I have not had anyone successfully explain to me how Chandler could be perceived as bi. That being said, I have not looked into it more than a cursory glance where it is suggested. To me, it seems that the examples used to suggest bisexuality are rooted in his sarcastic comments where he is very clearly trying to alleviate tension ("I wish I were a lesbian/woman" about distracting from degrading Monica and laughing at Joey), or trying to be part of the group (All of the three times Chandler comments on a man's appearance is grounded in the fact he's trying to match Rachel and Phoebe and Monica's energy, not a comment of his own). Moreover, that "evidence" tends to be taking comments or moments in isolation without a more thorough look at behaviour and behaviour trends. For true characterisation to occur, moments cannot be observed in isolation, characters have to be considered as a complex and multifaceted whole.

Personally, and as far as I can see, the suggestion that Chandler is anything other than straight is a step backwards for men's rights. Given the context of the show, to suggest a man was anything but big, burly and sex-crazed was thoroughly progressive and even today, men who exhibit the slightest bit of emotion still have their sexuality questioned. And to me, calling Chandler bisexual, while not insulting in itself, undoes the breaking down of masculine barriers that the show and this character painstakingly helped topple. This is a man who is very comfortable in his masculinity, comfortable enough that he is neither offended (or frightened that he's been outed) when people suggest he is gay. He is sensitive and paternal and loves his friends (and this at a time when male friendship was frowned upon) to a point where he will do nearly anything to protect Joey and Rachel and mostly Monica from heartbreak. He likes musicals. He likes to dress professionally. He likes hockey and 90210 and wearing a towel in his hair because the conditioner is a leave-in. These things can be proudly masculine and be the traits of a straight man and the show did brilliantly in showing that.

Moreover, given Chandler's traumatic upbringing, I don't think men would interest him at all. As far as he'd be concerned, the last man he trusted enough to love was his father who abandoned him and his mother. But looking more closely, witnessing his father with the houseboy, his mother with her men, (whoever the parent was having the orgies) and helping out backstage during the summers with his father's troupe would all be factors that influenced Chandler, likely influencing him away from an interest in men, given how traumatic it is for a seven-year-old to walk in on a naked body.

Furthermore, he's had his mind opened by these experiences and is therefore more likely to recognise his sexuality better than most people who have to muddle along through. He sees that his parents are accepting, that these are the crowds he's been allowed to interact with and exposed to. Spending time with the burlesque troupe is why he likes musicals, after all, and his parents and their lifestyle that has shown him that being a man does not mean being emotionless. Therefore, he'd be less likely to be closeted. He knows his mind best, and canonically Chandler has decided he's straight.

I think he has an interesting opinion of masculinity. And I think, somehow, despite the role models he has, he is one of the most well-rounded and grounded men in fiction. And that his wild upbringing also enabled him to have such a wonderful expression of masculinity. But I don't think that bleeds across into bisexuality or homosexuality.

#chandler bing #character study #masculinity

[asteroiideae]

Hi Saphir anon again, loved your well-thought answer but speaking of the dynamic between him and Demande how do you feel about them as a “ship” perse? I know you said in your response that you always wanted Saphir and Petz to have their happy ending but I always got the vibe that Demande/Saphir were meant to be shipped, and various supplemental Japan only materials well as certain choice DIC edits leads me to believe more and more that this is the case.

I’m not sure where you stand on the whole problematic shipping discourse so I apologize if this offends if you happen to be an “anti,” but did you personally ever get that vibe? As far as I’m aware they’re considered the most popular shipping option for Demande back in the Eastern fandom, second only to Usagi.

Hey Nonny! Welcome back!

I see we've opened up The Discourse[tm] here lmao so I should probably start with talking about that. I don't discuss it much or often on my blog, because I think there's a significant lack of nuance and genuine conversation going on, and as one youtuber put it "I'm a tax-paying adult woman". I don't really have time or interest in the drama.

So what I will say is this: I think there are some valid points on both sides, and it's a worthwhile conversation to have with nuance and good-faith. I personally preferred the squick-and-trigger days of old, honestly. Fiction often covers ground that is fraught, complex, difficult, and upsetting; the most responsible thing to do is be upfront with potentially triggering or squicking content, and let readers make informed decisions.

(We're going to table the conversation about minors/underage internet users for the time being, because that's not what this ask is about. I'm just legally obligated to note here that I'm aware that's a hot talking point, before I get dog-piled over it.)

(Also Nonny I'm gonna drop my full answer under a read more, to protect people who might be triggered by this content. So, here's the official trigger warning for ships that involve themes of incest.)

All of that to say, I never perceived Saphir and Demande with any kind of shipping lens! I have very strongly delineated lines between people who perceive one another as siblings, and people who might eventually develop romance. In the 90s anime (which is my strongest Sailor Moon touchstone,) they are presented as brothers; and so to me they are. I think a lot of the kinds of indicators we look for in ships are things that often happen in other dynamics, and certainly if you started with the manga (which I don't remember clearly how this arc played out in it,) or if you had a translation that didn't present these characters strongly as brothers, there's probably content there that reads as a ship.

Personally, shipping characters who view each other as siblings (regardless of shared DNA,) is squick territory for me. I'm not triggered by people shipping fictional siblings, though I understand why many are; but I am not comfortable with it and don't really get the appeal myself.

Saphir's actions with regard to Demande do read as incredibly fraternal to me. I have a brother, whom I've begged to not make blatantly poor decisions. If the lives of my brother and I were fictionalized, and I could reasonably have pulled off some kind of grand and exaggerated means to save him from himself, I absolutely would have! He's my brother, and I love him. Similarly, particularly when we were kids, my little brother could get through to me when others could not.

Additionally, I've never felt a desire to ship Demande with anyone. I don't take issue with toxic relationships (I dislike the term "problematic" because it's entirely too vague,) but Demande is a character I am happy to see dead and off-screened frankly. As someone who grew up presenting and socialized as a woman, I've met too many men like Demande irl to want to assign any kind of romance to him.

So TL;DR is that I don't really have any meaningful thoughts on this as a ship? I'm not offended to be asked, and I can loosely and intellectually understand how that ship developed? But I'm incapable of personally understanding any readings of siblings as ships. (This includes step-siblings, adopted siblings, half-siblings, and people who choose to assign sibling relationships between themselves and other people.)

#asks #I'm not going to fandom tag this one #lol really not looking to get dragged into shipping discourse #this was a good faith question and I wanted to answer it as such

[itmeansapricot]

So, this morning I was pretty annoyed to find myself subtweeted by someone rb'ing a long post about how the "Not Like Other Girls" label is used to bully neurodivergent, queer, GNC women, either explicitly or implicitly through the discussion of fiction.

Look, I can't say what people do or don't do with this concept to others IRL, but frankly it's not primarily applied to fictional characters who are significantly GNC/butch, queer, or neurodivergent. The issue, which I feel like I've written about before but who knows where that post is, is that it's typically characters who are conventional in most/many ways but explicitly look down on other female characters who are written specifically to be silly, mindless foils - or aren't even written, they're just mentioned as inferiors to the important character. At the same time, the NLOG main character is carefully crafted to not actually challenge convention. Other girls spend too much time on their appearances, but she's effortlessly attractive in a "natural" way. Other girls are so boy crazy, but she's the center of a love triangle or loved by the brooding male lead. I've yet to see people apply the label to female characters who can't make eye contact, have manic and depressive cycles, don't connect with other people emotionally, are genuinely uninterested in romance/in men, actually have men's haircuts or wear men's clothing - hell, are overweight. The entire POINT is the superficiality of their not being like the other girls/women. Do people say this about Anne Lister, Gideon the Ninth, Temperance Brennan? I don't think so. Are we really arguing that Bella Swan is acktually queer-coded or something?

I suppose I just find it particularly insulting to have that criticism leveled at me when I'm autistic and bi and definitely grew up feeling out of place among my peers, unable to fit in aesthetically or in manner or interests. Even now I'm the same, it's just that when I hit 29/30 I kind of went, "oh wait, I can do what I like and am comfortable with." None of the characters I've described this way or seen described this way have been at all relatable to me in this, they're just your Average High School Student. (There's pretty much always some "weird kid" who is more neurodivergent-seeming in the background, too.)

But to add on to that, the Abby Cox video is very, very specifically about historical fiction that plays out the trope by having a character or characters who wholesale reject corsets and skirts, and specifically on the angle of "this is not what gender nonconformity or feminism looked like in the period". If you identify with these anachronistic characters, that's fine. Nobody is saying you're a bad person for it. But the point of discussions like that is to teach people who are interested in what period gender nonconformity and rebellion in dress did actually look like, and how it can be shown in fiction. It's not that this is morally superior, but it's more nuanced and complex ... and for people who want to learn about fashion history (Abby Cox's audience), it's more interesting. You can dismiss it as uninteresting to you if it is, but it's just weird to me that, based on the resurgence of corset discourse, people apparently think that their modern ideas of what feminist and/or GNC women did or wanted are somehow more true than what we actually know about actual feminist and/or GNC women in history.

#history #okay now I'm done #until the next time I have a Thought

[tundrainafrica]

[Part 1] Hi Sav! What are ur thoughts on Kamiya's (Levi's VA) words regarding Levi? Here are two translations I found on twitter. Since you know Japanese I think you're the perfect person to ask this from ^^ " Today at Anime Japan Kamiya Hiroshi said, “Levi hasn’t changed. The loss of Erwin is so huge that afterwards his life in a sense is like ‘yosei’.” Yosei (余生) means like, the rest of one’s life (after raising kids or retiring) where you have nothing left to do"++

Disclaimer: Please I have no intention of starting a ship war with this, I just wanna drop my own interpretation for my own Levihan stanning heart. 

Note: I had no plans of watching the Japanese Seiyu panel for the last episode of Attack on Titan for many reasons and 90% of it is because Romi Paku didn’t show up and I’m still salty overall about how AOT and the narrative is treating Hange altogether and literally the only comfort I get about Hange this whole AOT season is that she looks great in all her scenes but anyway, enough about the rant. I’m still low key salty about not getting our Levihan reunion yet… But whatever. 

I got all of these asks in succession and soon after I did some research on twitter to see what all the fuss was about and apparently, a lot of Eruri fans are likening Levi to a widow--- A WIDOW of all things. 

And I dunno, I feel like this conclusion for one kinda cheapens Levi’s character altogether and just cheapens the bond of Levihan so I kinda realized I just cannot stand and watch some obviously Eruri-biased Japanese translations of that statement run rampant on twitter without my own take. 

So anyway, I’m gonna drop my own take on this, my own interpretation as a Levihan stan.

Disclaimer: I am in no way trying to push any Levihan agenda on anyone. If you like Eruri and you wanna stick to your widow interpretation feel free too. I just feel like a pro Levihan take, and a more ‘non Eruri’ take on that statement should exist as well so I’ll just drop this here for Levihan fans to seek comfort and possibly for any casual reader or Eruri fan to get some other perspectives on this statement I guess?

This is the original Text

声の方「団長、エルヴィンを失ったことはとても大きかったと思うんですよ」

「だからそこから先ってある意味余生みたいな感じになってる気がする」

Isym先生「エルヴィンの最期を看取って役割を全うし、現在宙ぶらりんな状態」

リヴァイ本人「…俺達の役目は」「あそこで終わりだったのかもしれない…」

And if I were going to translate it word for word. 

“For Levi, losing Erwin was a big thing. And everything after that became some sort of ‘retirement’ (Yosei) for him. Since he took it upon himself then to follow Erwin, right now it feels just dangling in space.”

Okay these are obviously Eruri crumbs at first glance and I recognize why exactly Eruris would celebrate over something like this because if we had a Levihan thing like this too, I’ll probably be celebrating too

But Let me offer my own interpretation of this as a Levihan stan

Yes, I recognize that for Levi losing Erwin was a big thing, but I’d like to paint some of the terms in a positive light for Levi. And the main key terms above were ‘Yosei’ and “Levi dangling in space’

So I’ll be focusing on those two: 

余生 (Yosei)

余生 (Yosei) isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Yosei literally translates to ‘the remaining years of someone’s life” So it doesn't necessarily mean Levi’s a widow or Levi is lonely because Erwin’s not there anymore In fact, Yosei is used a lot from what I see, to mean, retirement years. So after you’re done with your job and you retire, your last few years playing golf, playing with grandchildren, those are your ‘yoseis’ 

And there are lots of takes I saw online to this Yosei thing 

There was a meta in Japanese I found  where they discussed the fact that Levi was approaching his twilight years. and the main reason he was facing ‘retirement’ wasn’t necessarily because Erwin was gone but because soon after Erwin died, the basement happened and it turned out there were enemies much stronger than titans out there. 

The ‘Yosei’ meant, Levi retired from his role as ‘humanity’s strongest soldier’ because Levi was the ‘strongest soldier’ against titans, not against humans, the rapidly changing world and technology. I mean if we actually are objective about this, we could see the most capable survey corps member for handling the new enemy which is Marley and the Hizuru and just all the other countries and the impending war, was Hange since she is the best at navigating politics and she would be the quickest to adapt to technology.  

So yes, if it’s obvious, I do not like the ‘Levi is a widow take’ AT ALL.

「エルヴィンの最期を看取って役割を全うし、現在宙ぶらりんな状態」

 Since he took it upon himself then to follow Erwin, right now it feels just dangling in space.

But I’m not gonna discount the role of Erwin in Levi’s life. I think it is actually very important to understand why Levi feels like ‘he’s dangling in space.’ 

We all remember that last scene from ACWNR after Isabel and Farlan died and I’m sure we can all connect those last words from Erwin all the way until Levid decides to follow him to the role implied above. 

Erwin was Levi’s compass. Erwin gave direction to Levi’s life and suddenly Erwin dies and at the same time the world opens up and Levi starts to realize he’s not as needed anymore and his role as humanity’s strongest is gone.

So obviously all those events at once would leave Levi in some sort of limbo right. And that’s why he gets this feeling that he has reached his ‘yosei’ years and he’s also dangling in some limbo

I can think of two more specific reasons he ends up ‘dangling.’ 

First reason is: Killing the beast titan, the last order Erwin gave Levi wasn’t so easy to do anymore given the political nuances, the environment and of course the fact that the world was already more complicated than killing titans. And to think that Levi makes a promise to do that right before Erwin died? 

So I’m thinking the ‘dangling’ refers to Levi grappling with such complexities and nuances while trying to fulfill a goal which would have been so much easier if the basement thing didn’t happen and the world didn’t open up. 

And my second reason is: 

Warning: Before I go to this, I wanna warn you that this is my Levihan stan self reaching for pro-Levihan interpretations so feel free to ignore this if you don’t want crazy Levihan delusional interpretations. 

Anyway, my second explanation which I like to play with and I like to keep close to me, being a Levihan fan is that Hange of all people, was the last veteran stuck to Levi and as we all know, according to Yams old interviews about Hange’s gender...

Hange’s a free soul. She’s like the balloon, the kite that just floats in space and just continues hanging, dangling and flying. And she’s the person who Levi ended up sticking to after Erwin’s death. And since he ended up with such a free sould, he didn’t necessarily find much direction again, the same way he found direction with Erwin. 

Hange didn’t give a straightforward direction for Levi. But Hange provided comfort. 

And I’d just like to introduce a pro-Levihan interpretation this. 

So maybe ‘dangling in space’ and leaving the remaining years of his life like that isn’t such a bad thing? I mean I like to interpret this ‘retirement’ and ‘dangling’ as Levi finally being free of whatever ‘Ackerbond’ or whatever compass or order Erwin has set for him. 

Because Hange went about her position as commander more as a parent to the cadets and more as a comrade to Levi than anything else. And with title of ‘humanity’s strongest soldier’ not so relevant anymore post season 3 with titans becoming a not so big threat compared to the impending war, I think the ‘yosei’ and the ‘dangling’ could be interpreted as freedom for Levi from his role as Erwin’s right hand man and freedom from the burden of being ‘humanity’s strongest.’

And the transition from having to report to Erwin to having to report to Hange, I think this can be interpreted as a breath of fresh air for Levi.

Yosei after all can be interpreted as freedom. When people retire, people are free right? They’re free to try out different things, they’re free to focus on other things. Even if people have to experience the pain of ‘loss’ when losing one position, the remnants of it, the ‘yosei’ isn’t inherently bad although it can be interpreted as that. 

And the crumbs for this? I always believed that Levi generally acted freer under Hange than under Erwin. And I feel like I have created metas about this before about Hange’s leadership style: here and here

Anyway if you got this far, thanks for reading! 

#levihan

[enbee-ai]

gender, sexuality, and Bokuto's queerness

This was meant to be the first part of my post about Bokuto’s feelings towards Akaashi, but I think it deserves its own post after all.

Akaashi’s homosexuality has been discussed over and over again, mostly because it is quite easy to prove: he has never shown any kind of interest towards girls... or anyone other than Bokuto, so that is the natural conclusion to draw.

Now, we don’t have the actual confirmation for this, huh, theory, which is the whole point: no character is given a precise label in canon. We know Yachi has been attracted to Kyoko, much like Nishinoya and Tanaka; Kyoko is attracted to guys (referencing what we know from chapter 401), we see some couples in the background, Oikawa has a girlfriend; we have seen most of the Nekoma VBC talking about girls. Even so, there's no reason why these characters couldn’t be read as queer, since attraction to one gender doesn’t exclude attraction to more genders.

With that in mind, Akaashi was written to be interpreted as gay (and in love with his best friend, wink wonk). Actually, if we draw our conclusion only based on canon, I'm pretty certain that no other interpretation is possible.

As for Bokuto's relationship with gender and sexuality, I consider it the most complex we have seen.

We need to consider the nuances and the hints that are purposefully written so queer people can read the characters as they were meant to be read in the first place.

Bokuto has expressed multiple times an interest in girls—except, he has quite a different approach than other characters in the manga. We see his teammates and managers trying to cheer him up from his slumps by telling him he has been given compliments by a girl; he behaves similarly to Tanaka towards Kyoko; he says he “likes plump girls, too” in hq bu. Still, his interest remains abstract throughout: he never talks about his type like Nekoma does, or about girls he might be interested in, he never hints at a possible (ex) girlfriend as it happens with Oikawa or Daishou. That, of course, doesn’t dismiss his attraction to girls, which is very real. On the other hand, the implications are that there might be something more to it, something that suggests his attraction to men, as well.

(all of the panels I am taking into account are from haikyuu!! bu)

Evidence 1:

Here we have a fun scene of this boy, whose name I do not remember, sorry, being anxious about his date with his girlfriend (“Isn’t this a little too much?! A date at the beach with my girlfriend?”), while Mika and Daishou are being lovey-dovey in the background. We are presented this situation as different couples being on dates. Then we have Bokuto and Akaashi, on what cannot be defined as anything other than a date of their own. Their purpose is, along with Mika and Daishou, to create contrast: they are comfortable and used to each other’s company, while the first couple seems quite nervous (that's important for the plot lol).

They take part in a volleyball match, so there is no reason why it would be just Bokuto and Akaashi participating, out of the whole Fukurodani VBC (It is a 2v2, it could’ve been good and fun practice for everyone). Instead, bokuaka is presented exactly like the other two couples.

(note that Bokuto openly says he was distracted by the girl they were playing against, while Akaashi couldn't even phantom something like that... I live for openly bi/pan Bokuto and dense Akaashi)

Evidence 2:

Here, Bokuto and Kiryuu are being interviewed as two of the top aces. I don’t think there’s any need for me to explain this panel, but I’ll do it anyway. I find it very telling that Bokuto is thinking about guys in the same way Akaashi thinks of Bokuto (a greek god). “swinging around an axe shirtless... truly a king of the mountain bandits!” makes me go feral, personally.

Evidence 3:

This scene was actually what prompted me to make this post in the first place. Here, we see Bokuto and Kiryuu posing for a picture; the latter is perplexed, “Bokuto--that’s a pose for a guy and a girl to do together.” But Bokuto doesn’t seem to mind one bit, even when it is quite clear that he is posing like a girl would (at least according to Kiryuu, and instead makes a point to convince him to pose in a different way than usual.

This ultimately proves that Bokuto doesn’t see gender and gender roles in a conventional way. He doesn’t seem to care if people don’t see him as a cool masculine guy. He is one of the most, if not the most, emotional character in Haikyuu, despite it being often considered a, huh, “feminine” trait. He isn’t afraid to openly show his feelings, is extremely emotionally aware, and has also said “choudai” which is very amusing (it is mostly used by women or children).

(in this sense, haikyuu continuously breaks this kind of stereotypes throughout the series)

All of this can honestly be interpreted however you want—enby Bokuto? Bi Bokuto? Pan Bokuto? Trans Bokuto? Ace Bokuto??? Everything's valid and amazing. But I think, ultimately, it is safe to say that there’s no way Bokuto wasn’t written to be interpreted as queer, at least by the non-cishet part of the fandom.

TL;DR: Bokuto is hinted to feel similar attraction both towards men and women and to have an unconventional view of gender; he has gone on a date with Akaashi in hq bu, and was written as a queer character.

#bokuaka #bokuaka canon #akaashi keiji #haikyuu!! #akaashi #hq #haikyuu bokuaka #bokuaka meta #hq!! #haikyuu bu #bokuto koutarou #bokuto kotarou #bokuto kotaro #i hc bokuto as pan and also demisexual maybe 👀

[thedreadvampy]

Hey Ruth! I noticed you've talked in the past about asexuality in quite a negative manner. As an ace-person (who has received backlash for it) I was wondering: do you still uphold these opinions?

Hey! I have in the past said I don’t really...like people popping up in my ask box asking me My Opinion On Asexuality, but I do appreciate you asking me as someone I kinda know and with your face turned on, so I’m gonna aim to answer in the macro. Though I mean it depends on what the opinions...are? I have had a lot of opinions over the time I’ve had this blog and I don’t necessarily know what all of them were or which ones have concerned you. I can give you a top-level view of how I see my views, though (however, since I have been largely holding off on answering this kind of ask for Literally A Year Now this is less an answer to your specific question and more an answer to the last year of asks)

(also if I get dogpiled in my inbox for Having Bad Asexuality Opinions which I do every time I talk about asexuality regardless of what I actually say then. my phone is broken I won’t know about it :) so I feel untouchable)

I don’t think I hold a negative opinion of asexuality as an identity (I say I don’t think bc we all have blind spots)? I have a lot of very important people in my life who are asexual, aromantic or aroace and. I mean it feels pretty condescending to say ~uwu it’s valid~ bc like. ace and aro people don’t really need my input to validate their identity. but a) it seems like a pretty accurate way to describe their experience and b) I know a lot of them have had a really huge boost from finding a name and community to fit their experience and have found that really helpful, and I’ve seen that make a huge difference in people’s lives and I’m really happy to watch my friends come to understand themselves and feel comfortable and accepted in a part of themselves they had felt really alienated or stigmatised by. In a broader sense, I think there’s huge value in decentralising romance and sex in our assumptions of What Human Happiness Means and for some people that’s not the most important thing, and for some it’s just not interesting. 

So like. I find it difficult to really express these opinions in any meaningful way because my opinion on asexuals and aromantics is much like my opinion on trans people or idk like people of colour. like very obviously those people exist and very obviously those people don’t deserve to be marginalised or stigmatised but it would feel. weird and performative to just make a post saying like “Asexuality Is Good And Valid, I Am Pro It” bc again like. who needs my permission or cares about my opinion. it’s not a Good Thing To Do it’s just. a thing you are that shouldn’t be treated as a bad thing.

however. and I suspect that this is what you’re referring to. while I love and appreciate ace and aro people, I think building communities and active support for ace and aro people is valuable and needed and, as above, I think Asexuality Is Good And Valid I Am Pro It, I do take some issue with elements of how discussions around asexuality are framed online (pretty much only online, I really haven’t run into the kind of black-and-white thinking in in-person queer spaces) 

and I also. think there are some issues with people extrapolating their experience of their own sexuality onto the world in a way which. I’m just going to say a lot of the time when I talk about The Ace Discourse in a negative way it’s around people assuming that the world is split into a binary between ace and allo people, or assuming that only aspec people experience a nuanced or complex or fluid relationship to their sexuality while pigeonholing allosexuality into a pretty flat image of sex and romance focus. and I have always felt like this does a massive disservice not just to people who don’t identify with aspec labels, but also to the general hope that we could work against the expectation that there’s a Standard Amount To Value Sex/Romance - I think that the assumption that there are aspec people and then Everyone Else Has The Normal Type and Level of Attraction just. reinforces the idea that there’s a “Normal” type and level of attraction. which is ultimately pretty self-defeating and also just. observably untrue. 

and this division of the world into Aspec People and Allo People also has some other weird knockon effects - I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with identities like gray ace or demi or other aspec labels beyond asexual and aromantic, but I do think that the way those labels are used is often. unhelpful. and they’re defined in such personal, subjective ways that you get weirdnesses sometimes like people Diagnosing Each Other With Demisexual or people saying ‘you can’t talk about this experience you share because it’s an Aspec Experience’ and again. there isn’t a concrete material experience there because the whole experience of romantic and sexual attraction, what that feels like and how sharply divisible it is is very, very personal and subjective. and everyone has different experiences of those and will name those experiences differently.

there’s also. historically a minority of Big Ace Blogs that kind of sneer at allosexuality or who would hijack posts about other issues to derail them to asexuality. but I don’t think they were ever representative of the community as a whole and I certainly think that inasmuch as those blogs remain around they’re a legacy of the Long-Ago (and a lot of them are trolls imo)

but there is. an issue I take that does seem to be more currently live which is the question of allo privilege. I think personally that framing all allosexuals/alloromantics as privileged over all aspec people on the basis of feeling sexual/romantic attraction is provably untrue in a world where people, particularly queer people, are actively oppressed and marginalised for expressing non-normative sexuality. it isn’t that I don’t think asexuality and aromanticism isn’t marginalised and stigmatised, because it visibly is, but it seems pretty reductive to boil it down to a binary yes/no privilege when both sexualisation and desexualisation are so actively tied into other forms of marginalisation (this is what I was trying to express in the argument about Martin a while ago - sex and sexuality are so often disincentivised for fat, queer, disabled and neuroatypical people that it doesn’t...feel like a reclamation that those tend to be the characters that get fanonised as ace where slim, straight, able-bodied and neurotypical characters aren’t. like it’s more complex than a binary privilege equation; sex and romance are incentivised and stigmatised differently at the intersection of oppressions and. for example. in a world where gay conversion therapy and religious oppression of gay and SGA people is so often focused specifically on celibacy and on punishing the act of sexual attraction, I don’t think it’s a reasonable framing to say that a gay allosexual man has privilege over an aroace man on the basis of his attraction) 

so those are like. things I would consider myself to feel actively negative about in online discourse (and again. in online discourse. not in how I relate to asexuality or aromanticism or aspec identities in general but in the framing and approaches people take towards discussing it in a very specific bubble).

but also. um. the main criticism I have of the online discourse culture of asexuality is that there are things I don’t have experience of that I have mentioned, when asked, that I don’t personally understand the meaning of but I don’t need to understand them to appreciate that they’re useful/meaningful to others. things like 

the difference between QPRs, asexual romantic relationships and close friendships

how you know the difference between romantic attraction and friendship

the distinction between sexual attraction and a desire to have sex with someone for another reason

and I hope I’ve generally been clear that this is. honest lack of understanding and not condemnation. I personally have a very muddled sense of attraction and often have difficulty identifying the specifics of any of my own emotional needs so like. it’s a closed book for me at the moment, how you would identify the fine distinctions between types of want when I’m still at step 1: identify That You Want Something Of Some Sort, Eventually, Through Trial And Error. but I think I’ve always been explicit that this isn’t a value judgement it’s just a gap in my own knowledge and yet. every single time I’ve said anything other than enthusiastic “yes I understand this and I love it and it’s good and valid” (and again. I have not gone out of my way to talk about it I have mostly only mentioned it because people keep asking me to talk about it) I have got a massive rush of anger and accusations of aphobia and “just shut up if you don’t know what you’re talking about but also answer my 30 questions to prove you think Correct Things about asexuality” and. I understand that this comes from a place of really unpleasant and aggressive backlash towards the ace community so it’s a sensitivity with a lot of people but like. it doesn’t seem proportional.

also I feel like ever since I hit like 700 followers my Tumblr life has been a constant cycle of people asking me Are You An Ace Inclusionist Are You An Exclus Are You An Aphobe Justify Your Opinion On Asexuality which. eventually yeah I’ve got pretty snippy about the whole thing. but you know. fuck it I’m just gonna lay it out and if you or anyone else is uncomfortable following me based on those opinions then I’m sorry to hear that and I will be sad to see you not want to engage with me any more but I also think that’s absolutely your prerogative. however I will not be taking questions at this time (and not just bc my phone’s broken) - demands for an argument about this Are Going To Be Ignored so if you want to go then go.

so like the big question I reckon is Do You Think Asexuality Is Queer and

yes. no. maybe. I don’t understand the question what does it mean for an identity to be queer? 

there are spaces and conversations where any form of aromanticism or asexuality makes sense as a relevant identity. talking about hegemonic expectations of normative romance. building community. combatting the idea that heterosexual missionary married sex between a man and a woman is the only rewarding or valuable form of relationship or intimacy.

there are spaces where I think heterosexual aros/heteromantic cis aces don’t. have a more meaningful or direct experience of the issues than allo cishets. because while being aro or ace or aspec has a direct impact on those people on a personal and relational level, disclosure is largely a choice, and the world at large sees them as straight. they don’t have the lived experience of being visibly nonconforming that SGA people and aroace people do. they may still be queer but there’s a lot of conversations where they bring a lot of the baggage of being Straight People (because. even if you’re ace or aro you can still be straight in your romantic or sexual attraction and if your relationships are all outwardly straight then you don’t necessarily have an intimate personal understanding of being marginalised from mainstream society by dint of your sexuality). this doesn’t make you Not Queer in the same way that being a bi person who’s only ever been in m/f relationships is still queer, but in both cases a) you don’t magically have a personal experience of societal oppression through the transitive properties of Being Queer and b) it’s really obnoxious to talk as if you’re The Most Oppressed when other people are trying to have a conversation about their lived experience of societal oppression. and they’re within their rights to say ‘we’re talking about the experience of being marginalised for same gender/non-heterosexual attraction and you’re straight, could you butt out?’)

(I very much object to the assumption coming from a lot of exclus that “cishet ace” is a term that can reasonably be applied to non-orientated aroace people though. het is not a default it really extremely doesn’t make sense to treat people who feel no attraction as Straight By Default. when I were a lad I feel like we mostly understood “asexual” to mean that identity - non-orientated aroace - and while I think it’s obvious that a lot of people do find value in using a more split-model because. well. some people are both gay/straight/bi and aro/ace, and it’s good that language reflects that. but I do think it’s left a gap in the language to simply refer to non-attracted people. this isn’t a criticism of anything in particular - there’s a constant balancing act in language between specificity and adaptability and sometimes a gain for one is a loss for the other)

some queer conversations and spaces just. aren’t built with aces in mind. and that isn’t a flaw. some spaces aren’t built with men in mind, but that doesn’t mean men can’t be queer. some conversations are about Black experiences of queerness but that doesn’t mean non-Black people can’t be queer. not all queer spaces will focus on ace needs but that doesn’t mean asexuality isn’t queer, or that queerness is opposed to aceness - sex, sexuality, romance and dating are all really important things to a lot of queer people, especially those whose sexuality and romantic relationships are often stigmatised or violently suppressed in wider society. there should be gay bars, hookup apps, gay and trans friendly sex education, making out at Pride, leather parades and topless dyke marches and porn made by and for queer people, romantic representation in media of young and old gay, bi and trans couples kissing and snuggling and getting married and saying sloppy romantic things. and there should be non-sexual queer spaces, there should be discussions around queerness that don’t suppose that a monogamous romantic relationship is what everyone’s fighting for, sex ed should be ace inclusive, etc. 

I think the whole question of inclusionism vs exclusionism is based on a weird underlying assumption that If An Identity Is Queer All Queer Spaces Should Directly Cater To That. like. aspec identities can be queer and it can be totally reasonable for there to be queer spaces that revolve around being sexual and romantic and there can be conversations it’s not appropriate or productive to centre asexuality and aspec experiences in and we can recognise that not all queer people do prioritise or have any interest in sex or romance. in the same way that there’s value in centring binary trans experiences sometimes and nonbinary experiences at other times but both of those conversations should recognise that neither binary or nonbinary gender identity is a Universal Queer Experience.

anyway that one probably isn’t one of the opinions you were asking about but I have been wanting to find a way to express it for a while so you’re getting it: the Ruth Thedreadvampy Inclusionism Take.

uh. it’s 1:30 on a work night so I have been typing too long. if there was an opinion you were specifically thinking of that I haven’t mentioned, chuck me another ask specifically pointing to what you want me to clarify my thinking on. sometimes I gotta be honest I’ve just been kind of careless in my framing (thinking of the Martin Fucks debacle where I spent ages insisting I didn’t say Martin couldn’t be aroace then read back like two days later and realised that I had said “he’s not aroace” bc I had written the post at 2am without proofreading and had meant to say “unless you think he’s aroace”) so I May Well Not Stand By Some Posts or might Stand By Them With Clarification

[cavehags]

i realize this will probably bring up old drama so you might not want to answer it. but do you ever regret, however on purpose or on accident, bringing all that unnecesary hate towards Katara? i'm really sad and dissapointed tbh. i'm a woman of color and katara was so important to me growing up. my favorite animated woman ever. and then this resurgence comes and theres so, so much unnecesary hatred for her and everyone ignoring everything that makes her a good character.

(2/3) 2- and you know, i expected this from the male side of the fandom. they were misogynistic to her and the others even back then so i would expect it to be even worse with how internet culture is more mysogistic now that ever. and i wasnt wrong. male atla fans had some truly horrible takes and views that just came across as racism and misogyny. but, i expected these circles to be better. to be a safe space for us woc who love this character. but i found the same weird hatred for her.

(3/3) 3-i just, i cant believe i feel less welcome now that i did even back then. and back then i didnt even paricipate really. but at least i could enjoy fandom content without stumbling into misogyny and racism every other post. also sorry for sending this to your personal blog b i just wanted to let you know you controbuted to that too even if it wasnt your intention. at least you realized that and arent contributing to it anymore right? cause honestly the hate has only gotten worse not less.

hey anon. thanks for asking this question, because i hadn’t addressed this topic previously and this gave me an opportunity to do so. 

no, i don’t regret publicly interpreting a character whom i love through a nuanced and human lens. and i don’t regret combating the one-dimensional interpretation of this character, which posits that she’s merely an vaguely defined object of attraction for some boy or another, and a singularly gentle, mature, maternal figure whose sole purpose in life is to nurture others. those interpretations suck. they rob her of the humanity and complexity that make her character unique and they stem from misogynistic tropes that reduce women to the services they can provide to men. the thing in the world that matters most to me is fighting misogyny, and this trend to diminish a proud and powerful and angry teenage girl by exaggerating only her most socially acceptable traits is misogyny. 

unlike you, i did not grow up watching avatar: the last airbender. the shows i watched growing up did not have a lot of girls who felt real to me. the girls i saw on tv growing up were simple. they were the main characters’ crushes. they were simple, desirable, usually sweet and loving, and not much else. if they had a flaw, it was that they were, at best, “awkward.” whatever that means. or if they were the protagonists, which was rare, they were nice enough and tried to do the right thing, but they never had strong feelings like resentment and anger. they weren’t allowed to be unfeminine which meant they weren’t allowed to be bitter, angry or in any way flawed. they didn’t look like the version of girlhood i knew to be true for me personally, which included a lot of anger and frustration and powerlessness. 

that crappy representation left me with internalized misogyny that chased me for longer than i’d like to admit. i did not learn to think of girls as humans who could be as interesting and flawed and messy as the boys were. i did not value myself as a girl, and later a woman, because i thought the best thing a girl could be was... bland. boring. pretty, but empty. passionless.

it would have meant the world to me to see a character like katara. 

because katara is angry. she has every right to be: she’s had so much stolen from her, including her mother, her people, and her childhood. katara has a short fuse. she yells. she snaps. she fucks up. sometimes she makes mean jokes! i never saw a single one of those dreamily perfect cartoon love interests make mean jokes when i was a kid. she is extremely idealistic--it’s her defining character trait--but we see the bad side of that as well as the good. we see that her need to help others  leads her to act rashly, to get herself into danger, to put others in danger too. 

and she has her very own arc. it’s not about her love for another person, either (what a snooze of a storyline); it’s about growing up and learning to break down some of that stubborn black-and-white thinking that we all indulge in as children. it’s a true coming-of-age arc and it belongs to a fourteen-year-old girl. 

when i, to use a phrase i find crass, “entered the fandom,” i quickly realized that other fans’ perceptions of katara did not line up with the things i valued most about her. other fans seemed to valorize her most socially acceptable feminine qualities: her generosity, her kindness, her dedication to helping others. and of course i love those parts of her--i love everything about her--but what is really remarkable about avatar: the last airbender is that katara’s many important virtues are also counterbalanced by equally significant flaws. a good character has flaws. katara is a good character, and a deviation from the characters who made up my formative media landscape, because she has flaws. her temper, her idealism, her stubbornness--these are flaws. flaws make her seem real and human and challenge the mainstream sentiment that girls are not real or human.

it simply did not occur to me that celebrating these aspects of katara that make her a realistic and well-written teenage girl would spark ire from other adult fans. it absolutely did not occur to me that i would then be blamed for somehow causing misogynistic interpretations of this character, particularly given that misogynistic interpretations of this character are the very thing i sought to correct when i began to blog about this television show.

i’m told there are “fans” on instagram and tiktok who think katara is whiny, annoying, and overly preoccupied with her trauma. i do not use instagram or tiktok, so i wouldn’t know, but i’ll take your word for it. respectfully, however, they didn’t get that from me. misogynistic takes on katara have existed since before i came along. i have never, ever called katara whiny. and seeing as i have been treating my own PTSD in therapy for nine years, you can safely conclude that i don’t think anyone, katara included, is overly preoccupied with their trauma. that’s not a thing. do i think she’s annoying? of course not! as a character, she’s a delight. does she sometimes find real joy in aggravating her brother and her friends? yes, because she’s 14. i, an adult, am not annoyed by her. sokka and toph often are, because that is katara’s goal and katara always succeeds in her goals. she’s not “annoying.” 

if there are “fans” who are indeed following lesbians4sokka and somehow misreading every single post and interpreting them to mean that we hate katara and they should too, i don’t really know what you want me to do about that. l4s has over ten thousand followers and we have already posted so many essays disavowing katara hate. our feminist and antiracist objectives in running the blog are literally pinned with the headline “please read.”

furthermore, you cannot reasonably expect my co-blogger and me to control the way our words will be received. we should not have to, and are not going to, add a disclaimer to every post saying that when we critique or make jokes about a teenage girl we are doing so through a feminist lens. our url is lesbians4sokka, and we are clearly women. if that alone doesn’t make it obvious, then refer back to that pinned post. 

it is indescribably frustrating, and really goddamn depressing as well, that people are so comfortable with the misogynistic binary of Perfect Good Women and Flawed Wicked Bitches that they perceive any discussion of a woman’s flaws to be necessarily relegating her to the latter camp. if that is how you (a generic you) perceive women, then i’m sorry, but you’ve internalized sexism that i cannot cure you of. and it’s unjust to expect my friend and me to write for the lowest common denominator of readers who have not yet had their own feminist awakenings. we do not write picture books for babies. we write for ourselves, and with the expectation that our readers can think critically. reading media through a feminist lens is my primary interest; i have no intention of excising that angle from my writing.

as i go through my life, i am going to embrace the flaws of girls and women because not enough people do. as long as the dominant narratives surrounding women are “good and perfect” and “unlovable wh*re,” you’ll find me highlighting flawed, realistic, righteously angry women in the margins. and for what it’s worth, it’s not just katara. i champion depictions of angry girls in all sorts of media. that’s sort of my whole thing. my favorite movies are part of the angry girl cinematic universe: thoroughbreds, jennifer’s body, hard candy, jojo rabbit, et cetera. on tv, in addition to katara, you’ll find me celebrating tuca and bertie, poppy from mythic quest, tulip and lake from infinity train, korra, and more. i adore all these women and see myself in them. i hope you find this suitably persuasive to establish that i have sufficient Feminist Cred, according to your standards, to observe and write about these very flawed and human fictional women. 

what i’m saying is this: i decline to take responsibility for the misogynistic discourse orbiting a children’s cartoon. as someone who writes about that series from a perspective that seeks to add humanity and nuance to the reductive, one-dimensional, overwhelmingly sexist writing that already exists, i am pretty taken aback that i am the one being blamed for the very problem i sought to address. except not that taken aback because i am a woman online, haha! and this is always how it goes for us. 

finally, i think it sucks that you’ve chosen to blame me for a problem that begins and ends with the patriarchy. i can’t control the way this response will be perceived, just like how i can’t control the way anything will be perceived because i am just one human woman, but i do hope you choose to be reflective, and consider why you’ve chosen this avenue to assign blame. 

#anyway! this answer is too long and it's undignified to answer ''fandom drama'' queries on le blog #but here we are in 2020

[slowlyreadinghouseofmirth]

Page 7

In truth, he had never liked her as well as at that moment -> Selden's affections here are plain to see, made so especially by subordinate clause 'in truth' which conveys an honesty and freshness about his feelings. Most importantly, he likes her when she is being her true self, unconventional, and willing to take risk. It's likely informed by his disillusion with high society and finding commonality in someone willing to disregard its etiquette. This is where Lily is unique.

There's also this sense that Selden likes Lily because she is impulsive and this sparks his curiosity to try and understand why she does the things she does-- understand Lily as a person.

He knew she had accepted without afterthought: -> This reaffirms Lily's lack of hesitancy, which alludes to how willing she is to be in Selden's company. It also shows how comfortable she is with him as she is aware of the rumours that could occur but never merits them with being a possibility, showing great trust.

Alternatively, being aware of the risks and having not afterthoughts could suggest that she doesn't fully understand the risks' depth and nuance as in future the situation at Monte Carlo would suggest, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

he could never be a factor in her calculations -> there's a colon that separates this clause from the previous one which suggests this is an explanation for Lily's certainty. To me this would point more towards Lily not really associating the risk of rumours with Selden because she trusts him so much. i.e she does not think of him when she thinks of the risks. But given that they are going up to his apartment it seems strange that Selden would not think himself a factor in her decision. It's therefore possible that he thinks that Lily does not think of him worthy of great consideration.

Also the noun 'calculations' would suggest a lot of thought had gone into the decision where it was previously implied it was one of impulse. This seems like Selden thinks that Lily is playing an intricate game, which further demonstrates his curiosity about her and need to understand her.

there was a surprise, a refreshment almost, in the spontenaity of her consent -> This further contrasts Selden's perception of Lily's 'calculations' and I think the narration is a fine weave between objective reality--where Lily is impulsive-- and Selden's subjective perceptions-- where Lily appears impulsive but there is something more complex informing her decisions. I think this is meant to show that Selden is blinded somewhat by his affections for Lily, seeing things deeper than what are there or what everybody else sees. Alternatively, we as the reader lack Selden's sight into the complexities of Lily and so she is introduced to us as other people see her, which isn't well at all, and we have to learn how Selden sees her. It's a challenge to care for Lily as he does.

The spontaneity invokes a light hearted and refreshing feeling of being in love which mirrors the honest of truth mentioned earlier.

So there's Selden's surprise at Lily being so spontaneous which draws back to a previous point about she is unique for being impulsive almost reckless. It's like we get a sense of her character and her environment from how the two are at odds with each other. Lily is impulsive; noone else of her class should be like that. In a way that makes her free from the system and yet shows her struggle against it but ultimately her struggle will be more defining.

She noticed the letters and notes heaped on the table -> I assume that this is a reference to future letters although I don't know if they would be the same ones. If they were, I don't even have the mental capacity to unpack that. Just the thought that Lily's fall is inevitable, that even when she is happy, having a nice time, an unknown omen lurks within the same room that will bring her sorrow... oh its symbolic, for sure. But I don't want to think about it.

Lily sank into one of the shabby leather chairs -> the verb 'sank' shows how at home Lily really is with this kind of surroundings, how the shabby whilst not fashionable or expensive, is comfortable. From this we and the the pile of letters we get an image of a a slightly disorderly but well-lived in home. This is one of the tragedies where we see the possibility of what her future with Selden could look like where it is unconventional but Lily is comfortable at home even with it.

"How delicious to have a place like this all to oneself! What a miserable thing it is to be a woman," -> I love Lily's exaggerated turns of phrases like 'delicious' and the exclamations; I think Wharton's emphasis on these exaggerations is to capture Lily's innocence through her speech by making it similar to that of a child who is easily excitable.

Again with the exaggeration but this time with 'miserable', we get the sense that Lily has found the world difficult as a woman to live in but miserable seems too strong of a word, certainly at this stage in the book and is sort of hidden within her other hyperbolised expressions. Maybe this creates a kind of cry-wolf situation where, when Lily properly starts to struggle, people don't take notice not only because it wasn't the done thing to do to talk about struggles but also because of her melodramatic personality, everyone thought the same stuff was happening as it had before and Lily was making a big fuss over nothing.

There is repetition of 'miserable' in association to being of female sex further down the page which is another example of Lily's melodrama. But at this point we as a modern audience start to question if she is actually alright (or at least I did). I'm not sure if a contempary audience if the time would have given the strict taboo over discussing any kind of struggle financial/physical health etc. let alone the discussion of mental health. From the impression I get of the time, the only real source of outlet for people struggling with mental health beyond self medication was art, which makes me wonder as to the position Wharton is writing this from.

she leaned back in a luxury of discontent -> The juxtaposition of 'luxury' and 'discontent' raises an important theme that wealth does not equate happiness and that Lily is not happy as a socialite but happy in the company of Selden, and that actually money is the source of Lily's unhappiness. In this specific context, she is lamenting her lack of freedom to live the lifestyle that Selden does.

"Even women," he said "Have been know to enjoy the privaledges of a flat." -> Putting the discourse marker directly after the subject of 'women' breaks it apart from the rest of the sentence and emphasises the extraordinariness of women being able to live independently. But it also raises the possibility of it and suggests that Selden thinks Lily is extraordinary and unconventional enough to achieve the possibility if she chose to.

"Oh governesses– or widows. But not girls– not poor, miserable, marriageable girls!" -> Again we have the breakdown of womanhood into distinct classes like governess, widows, and girls,which creates the idea that there's no intersections between any of them and is a reflection of of societies fixation for categorisation which loses sight the complexity of situations and problems. And it also makes it easier to place social stigmas like those on governesses and widows. Those stigmas are made apparent here but in contrast to how Lily describes girls, being a governess or a widow seems desirable.

In the list of adjectives 'poor, miserable, marriageable', marriageable is equated to these other adjectives and we see that Lily associates marriage with a poverty of kind, of the heart.

It's also interesting that Lily talks about herself as a girl where Selden speaks of her as a woman. Lily plays up her innocence as she has probably been taught to to make desirable marital match, but with that Lily carries around an air of immaturity and naïvity; she's still very child-like. Perhaps that's a part of her that's trying to cling to her youth so she doesn't have to face her future where she will need to marry to survive. Lily sees her adulthood as a constraint on her and her desires whereas Selden sees her potential.

"you mean Gerty Farish," she smiled a little unkindly. "But I said marriageable–" -> Okay so definitely a little tone deaf on Lily's part buts she's honest to a fault and her honesty is refreshing and entertaining.

I'm no expect on autism and don't claim to be but there's something about Lily's mannerisms here that reminds me of people who I know and am very close with who are autistic. And it makes me wonder if Lily was autistic and neurodivergence was recognised in her time if her fate would have been any different.

"Her cook does the washing and her food tastes if soup. I should hate that you know." -> I just love the imagery of the first sentence, it strikes my funnybone. I guess it also illustrates that Lily's privileged upbringing if she thinks this is a bad situation to live in.

Okay I'm going to bring in a bit of a technical term to describe the verb 'should'. So it's a modal verb (expressing possibility based on context) but specifically a deontic modal verbal, meaning that Lily's hate depends on social rules. When she says she should hate it it implies that society wants her to hate it but she wouldn't necessarily hate it. That's what that verb phrase implies in today's english, but language has changed since the time it was written so it may not have been written with this meaning, especially as a signifier of an older text is the use of modal verbs in places we wouldn't today and a lot more of them.

The shift from Selden's reflections to the quick dialogue and short simple sentences of action creates a lively and charged atmosphere that feels almost flirtatious in its rhythm but by the nature of the content is more domestic (preparing afternoon tea). The balanced turn taking feels comfortable in that they both have equal power in the conversation, being allowed to say what they want to and being listened to. It goes towards simulating what a possible future could be and also shows how happy they are in this moment.

#House of mirth #hom blogging #hom meta #Page 7 #Okay so I'm writing out these explanations ant half two in the morning off an emotional high/low of finishing sex ed s3 so apologies #I also did an English exam today so I may be more formal than usual sorry

[buckttommy]

in response to ur great analyzing of tk in this episode: tbh i feel like i almost understand tk falling in with owen MORE if he was primarily taken care of by his mom. because let's face it, owen seems like the guy who doesn't want to be the bad guy and wants to be liked, and probably left gwyn to do the dirty side of parenting. so you have lil baby tk who has a FIREFIGHTER DAD, a dream for most young boys, and when he is present and there, is probably 'the fun parent' and i think it created a situation where at least in his youth tk definitely idolized owen. i think that's also shown in the season 1 finale when he's questioning why he became a firefighter and he realized it's because of owen. anyways just here to say that your blurb questioning why tk reacted that way gave so much nuance to the show where it's lacking and tbh makes me think you understand the characters way more than the writers and they should hire you okay thanks bye

@maurawrites​ (tagging you since you didn’t mean to send this on anon!)

There's a lot here lol. This is going to be long. Discussion stems from this post about 02 x 12.

First thing's first, I think if we are to understand TK and his character, we have to first understand who Owen Strand is and what kind of parent he is.

To begin: Owen Strand is a very selfish parent. This is not hate, just simple analysis. His whole life is focused on himself, his job, and his comfort. He loves his kid and would take a bullet for TK any day, but TK is not a priority to him. We see repeated examples of this in canon.

You said "Owen seems like the kind of guy who doesn't want to be the bad guy;" this is true. Owen cares what people think of him. He is brilliant, charismatic, charming, and always has to be the best and the smartest in the room, and he uses every one of his "favorable" qualities to his advantage. I love Paul/Marj/Mateo (obviously), and maybe this isn't entirely fair to say since it was the 911LS writers' decisions to go this route in an effort to make Rob Lowe's character look spectacular, but when I consider Owen Strand and the kind of person he is, it seems to me like he hired those three to make a statement (“I’m inclusive, these people are welcome here because I see their worth.”) Not necessarily tokenizing them, but, in a way, putting himself above all the backwater ideas one would expect of Texans. He hired Judd for the same reason, though it took a little more convincing. (”I have empathy for your plight. I am reaching out a hand to show you I am good and I am not your enemy”). That's not to say he's wrong, exactly, only to say that Owen is always consciously aware of who and what he's dealing with, and how to come out looking the best in any given situation. Simply: Owen's actions are statements to other people, and while not exactly a manipulation, it's definitely calculated.

So, of course he'd use that calculation with his son. Of course, given the fact that he was hardly around, Owen would want his son to adore him. Of course, he’d let the brunt of parental responsibility fall on his wife, regardless of the strain it must have put on their marriage with her always being the bad guy. TK definitely idolized Owen, but not because his dad was a firefighter, it goes deeper than that. He idolized his dad because those were the kind of feelings Owen cultivated. Note, I'm not saying Owen did this maliciously, by the way, I'm saying that this is simply the way Owen interacts with people. He preens under attention, even and especially from his son, and he knows how to get that attention. This worked for years, but as TK grew up and his maturity deepened, his perception of his dad would have changed. Owen's absences probably felt more pronounced, became more difficult to deal with, and it’s at this point that TK's worship of his dad morphs from blind adoration to "my dad is a firefighter,  his job has his attention, therefore I want to be a firefighter because I want my dad's attention." I'm willing to bet that a lot, if not most of their conversations when he was a boy, were about firefighting. Not even really because TK cared about firefighting to the extent that his dad did (though he would come to love/appreciate it), but because it was common ground and a tool he could use to get closer to his dad. TK questioning his desire to be a firefighter and his subsequent transition from firefighter to paramedic is one of the first major life choices we ever see TK ever make. Even his sobriety was on Owen's conditions (though I believe TK would have gone back to being sober in his own time).

All of this to say that TK's actions in 02 x 12 can be interpreted in multiple ways and neither of them are wrong. Human beings are deeply complex creatures with deeply complex thoughts and motivations. I agree with this post that it's possible (and likely) TK was trying to incite a physical reaction from Carlos when he shoved him (as seen in the barfight scene, which I rewatched last night and whoo boy, that’s a meta for another day), but I also think it's possible that having to defend Owen against his boyfriend (a person who is supposed to love and trust him, and have his back) also triggered old feelings of childlike worship.

And while we're on the topic of TK's childhood and his relationship with his parents, I'd love to sink my teeth into TK's relationship with his mom real quick because I think, in some ways, TK believes he is the only one capable of truly evaluating and criticizing his dad (failed intervention notwithstanding). This goes back to the "us vs. them" mentality I made reference to in my original post. No one knows his dad better than he does, therefore no one is allowed to judge him so harshly (which he perceived Carlos as doing in 02 x 12). Considering that POV and the fact that TK’s relationship with his dad was built on common interest rather than natural father/son connectedness and cultivated in such a way that Owen shaped his affections, I think TK's relationship with his mom was rather strained. He probably sided with his dad in most arguments, didn't listen to his mom when she gave him a command/looked to his dad to see if he *really* had to do follow through, and things like that. Again, Owen did not cause this strain out of inherent or intentional malice, but it was an unintentional side effect of his actions. Side note: I imagine that was a very lonely household for Gwyn. But anyway, getting back to the topic at hand, I think as TK became older and started to see his dad for the complicated person he is, though unable to fully relinquish that childlike hero-worship (especially since at this point, the dynamic has already been established), he did allow himself to recognize his dad is kind of an asshole in some ways (which is why TK is even able to challenge him now). His mom, at one point on the outside of that “us vs them” dynamic, now rests somewhere in the middle as TK now fully understands that the issues in their relationship are not solely her fault. We see (minor) evidence of this in 02 x 07/08 (idk which) where he asks his mom if Owen said anything nasty to her upon learning that the baby wasn't his, I believe it was, with a tone full of disapproval. He’d still probably take his dad’s side more often than not, but he’d definitely approach the situation with a lot more nuance than he would have as a child.

Geeze, this was long. I wonder if I can get graded on this.

#tv: 911 lone star #type: meta #tyler strand #One day I'm going to talk about the inherent hypermasculinity of TK using the words man/dude when he's fighting #and how Owen is literally two steps away from profiling as a narcissit/sociopath/naricissitc sociopath #but today is most certainly not that day #anonymous #jack answers mail #answered #everyone please ignore the way i spelled narcissistic wrong TWICE lmao. i wrote this at midnight

[scimitar-and-longsword]

I just read your long post about Booker and Nile and it gave me all the emotions but i wanted to add on one of my favorite moments, which is that Booker tries to convince the team not to find Nile after they dream about her. And it could be because he doesn’t want her to mess up his plans or that she doesn’t deserve this nonsense but like he does try. Long story short I just really love booker and think he’s such an interesting character

Me too nony!! [icymi: Original Post] (Which kinda touched on your point of weather or not Booker tried to to keep Nile away out of care or inconvenience)

Booker disclaimer: He fucked up. Not excusing it, but I just really love his character. He's written/acted in a way that I find so fascinating. Booker apologist is mostly a joke

I've been thinking about the father/daughter dynamic for a while and trying to decide if I'm just seeing things because I have a very close relationship with my own dad and tend to really gravitate towards those relationships in media.

But the more I watch it the more I am convinced that Greg wrote it that way on purpose.

Booker doesn't talk about his wife dying, even though we know he had a wife. What he talks about is losing his son.

Nile and Andy discuss her family and all that time leaves behind. Andy laments not remembering what her mother and sister’s looked like just after Booker has done the same about his sons. Really driving home Nile’s loss of them.

I think a lot of people take this line to mean Booker was jealous of Nicky and Joe's romantic relationship. Which is valid, I just don't see any real evidence for it.

We don't have scenes of Booker sleeping with people or staring longingly at other couples showing affection. Or even if him looking jealous of Nicky and Joe.

In fact, when we DO see Booker react to Joe and Nicky's dynamic he appears to be extremely fond of them.

So I just don’t feel like he needs or even wants a romantic partner, he just wants to feel like he has SOMETHING. 

The other thing I find interesting is that at this point in time there are 6 immortals, with 2 sets of romantic partners. Of course up until recently Quynh was stuck at the bottom of the ocean, breaking up that support structure.

And the order in which they appear is very interesting.  Andy > Quynh > Lykon > Lykon > Joe & Nicky > Booker > Nile

They touch a few times in the movie on weather or not they think there’s a purpose to their immortality. Weather it’s destiny or random or God. Personally, I categorically reject it being random. And anything more than random means that there HAS to be some design to it all.

So Andy was alone for thousands of years then whatever force creates them brought her a companion in Quynh.

Lykon is interesting cause he’s there for a fucking blip! 331 bce - ??? but i would guess not later than 500 ce, though it seems to be implied as much earlier. He is brought into their lives and then taken fairly quickly. Now IF there some kind of force making decisions behind the scenes it seems like something went WRONG here. Weather that was Lykon losing faith like Andy eventually does, or it was on the back end I’m not sure. (a meta for another time lol. Something I think/hope they’ll explore in the sequel or at least in the 3rd comic run)

Joe & Nicky come together (da dum tss)  After Lykon dies alone without a partner (and I’m using that to mean NOT just romantic partner), I 100% believe Joe and Nicky showing up together is by design.

Then we get to Booker. If Quynh had still been there he would have come into a family of pretty content immortals imo. All 4 of them happy to spout things about destiny, and probably even assuring him that someone will come along to fill the hole left by the death of his family.

But as it is Andy is missing her partner and depressed af. Joe and Nicky lost a close friend too, and I’m sure, that even with them seeming more well adjusted than Andy that they would still have their moments.

So that leaves Andy to be depressed with Booker. and they kinda spiral together, both shown to rely heavily on alcohol.

ONLY 208 YEARS LATER Nile comes along. That is a very short amount of time for them. Maybe not yet to Booker, but how long his life will (probably) be, 200 year is nothing.

It appears to be speeding up, or the *entity* that makes them is getting better at it? idk

- Tangent over lol-

Nile is already shown to still be dealing with the loss of her dad at the start of the movie. She keeps his picture by her bunk, and on her phone. And him (and the rest of her family) are obviously the most important thing to her, and the hardest thing for her to lose with this new gift of immortality. Sound familiar? (cough*booker*cough)

I think it’s pretty brilliant to have this concept of found family and exploring that in it’s different forms. And from a representation standpoint it’s great to have two queer romantic couples and then a child/parent dynamic that places the only two straight characters in a decidedly NOT romantic relationship. (presumably straight, based on Booker’s past with his wife and Nile’s mortal love interest in the comics) 

Further more putting both of them in a position to buck stereotypes. The straight white brooding action hero guy who would probably have been the main character in a less nuanced movie get’s to have someone who he cares about and gets to show real vulnerability with. We don’t see him show this emotion with ANYONE else. And Nile who could have been boxed into the trope of “Black women only being stoic and strong,” gets to have someone who cares for her and that she can lean on.

Now this COULD create a weird power (not to mention racial) dynamic if done poorly. BUT I think Gina/Greg have proven that they can handle complex relationships well that had the potential have been big on the yikes scale (Joe & Nicky)

And even in this movie we see that in action: Nile saves them after Booker gets them captured. And she is the only one really who calls him on dragging his feet while looking for Copley (this is less obvious in the movie than in the comics) 

Andy does this KINDA, but it doesn’t seem like she’s questioning Booker’s methods and more just that she’s frustrated (and distracted obviously). Nile actually pushes back and it throws Booker off his game. 

Bringing this ALL THE WAY back to your original point Nony: The fact that the Nile & Booker sub-arc starts with him being like “We should leave her” and ends with him comforting her and telling her she’s a good kid. And with Nile advocating for him not leaving at all is just *chefs kiss*

It starts with Booker, who is shown to have real issues with watching his Son die and not being able to help him, feel Nile die. This time? He can help, he rejects that at first, but I think he starts to see could help Nile, and how Nile could help him by the end. And their last moments have them displaying peak parent/child vibes:

idk I just find their dynamic really interesting and I hope it get’s expanded on in the sequel!

-fin-

#ask #meta #the old guard #booker #andy #nile #Joe #Nicky #long post #oh my god this is so long #how are my metas getting LONGER???? #my stuff #my gifs #Booker & Nile #lykon

[hidetothink]

Do you feel ok about lesbian fujoshis, slashers and gay porn enthusiasts vs the bi or het ones or the nuisance and discomfort hits you the same way? Are there subtle key differences that you find meaningful enough?

To try and boil a complex issue down to simple bullet points:

1. I'll freely admit that the het-attraction of bisexual and heterosexual women who obsess over gay sex, gay and bi male characters, etc. is a major part of my distaste. I've beaten myself till I bled because I'm a homosexual, it feels wildly apathetic to the reality of historic, present, and future homophobia to treat our love the way these women do

Miss me with your "allowing women to explore their sexuality" bullshit. Fetishizing me is not exploring your sexuality free of men. Where is the obsession with lesbians among these same women? To deny that the het-attraction involved doesn't matter is delusional and apathetic. There are layers of homophobia involved, from dehumanizing our same-sex love into nothing but "comfort fics" for privileged consumers, to disgust with lesbian romance from the SAME WOMEN

I have to be fucking nuanced on every damn thing when I write. This is my treat where I say fuck off, it's homophobic and fetishizing, go jump in a lake

2. Where does that leave lesbians? First, I dont think there are many lesbians who interact with this media the way you describe. Most are looking for representation of same-sex love without the fetishization that plagues so much of media involving two women together. This is very understandable, I often feel more comfortable with lesbian and bisexual women in my media because I can actually relax instead of analyzing

Inherently, the sexual attraction element is gone for these women. So...what now?

Well, I still take issue because a massive majority of popular gay and bi male media (books in particular) are not created BY and FOR homosexual or bisexual men. It's very often women writing these stories for one another. And frankly, even if every one of these women researched their entire lives to write authentic, respectful novels about same-sex love, I would have a problem

The reality today is that women write same-sex love stories, consume them, and create a market where their tropes (not those derived from actual gay and bi men) are required for success. They strengthen that market by repeating the above steps, and then gay/bi men CANNOT break into our OWN representations

When anyone reads and engages with this industry of same-sex comfort stories (written outside the actual world and lives of gay and bi men), it still harms us. It still contributes to a broken system. It's still helping to keep women as our storytellers and not US

Yes, there are plenty of other issues to care about. I write about them often! But I still see this as an issue worth discussing. And again, I'm required to show nuance 99% of the time when I discuss these things and I refuse to here BECAUSE it's fairly minimal on my list of things to change for gay and bi men

So yes, I am going to personally find your fanfic collection, half-written male slave-to-lover slash fic, and Yuri On Ice box set and burn it in front of you (not @ you anon, just the people I know are already seething. Die mad in my inbox)

[fencesandfrogs]

an abridged history/explanation of warrior cats if you didn’t read them as a kid and have questions (a primer)

welcome. i’m going to keep things to the point, this is not a plot summary, just, well, its a pandemic and people are seeking items of childhood comfort and its come to my attention that a lot of people didn’t read these books as kids and then they come up in conversation and they act shocked so! i felt compelled to write this.

[2.5k words, 10min read. section headers, no pictures. not a ton of helpful formatting. i don’t want to say don’t read this because obviously i wrote it and think it’s worth reading, but i’ll be honest, this is a lot.]

section one: about me

i was an avid reader as a child, most of which fits solidly into “stories for another time,” and some of which would necessitate me adding tags onto this post that are, well, not necessary. so i will skip over that backstory but for those aware of lexile scores, i had one that was too high for literally any book that was appropriate to give me. so reading in school was torture and reading for fun was excellent.

now because i was a first-ish grader and my mom was trying to keep the fifth harry potter out of my hands, she looked desperately for something else to pass to me. her friend, who had a daughter a year or two older than me, was into these cat books, and my mom was like “here honey you like cats” without thinking too much about it.

which is good, because as i’ll get into, it was a really good fit for me. but like a dozen books later she asked me about the plot and well. i think at that moment she realized that it might have been better to just let me read harry potter.

but yeah i continued to read them long past the recommended reading ages and still as a Young Adult will return to them for nostalgia, and also as i will get into, some really good books. (see a list of books for “morbidly curious but i don’t want to spend 56 to 168 hours reading this”)

i’m not fully caught up on the series but this is not a plot summary so that should not impact my ability to discuss this

section two: content warnings

these books (not this post) includes the following:

discussion of castration (1.1 series 1, book 1, i’m not including this on every item/discussion because this is a complicated series but i want to demo how up front some of this is)

teenage romance/sex/pregnancy (1.1ish-1.3 or 4, continues throughout the series quite a lot, comes up again in 3.4/5, 4.4-5, and a bit in 5)

death from childbirth (1.can’t remember which book, many others)

unwanted pregnancy (se super edition, or a longer one off novel, discussed in 4&5)

sex/implied, discussed, and very very very heavily hinted but never directly said/shown (1.1-3ish, se, other)

murder (constantly, 1.1, 1.4, literally every book, 3.5, i’m just listing the ones i remember off the top of my head that were particularly graphic)

disability/illness, esp. the debilitating and/or deadly nature of it (1.3-5ish, 3.1, but all of 3, 3.4ish)

dementia (1.3-5, i’ve heard in some of the later series?)

abuse (7/8 this is reported i haven’t read these books but based on what i know it’s def there)

child abandonment (1.4-5, 3.4/5, it’s also all over the place but i think those are the only major character incidents of it)

treason (1.3-5, all over the place)

the horror/tragedy of war (background, but pretty constant)

disagreeing with an integral religion/tradition (3, based on the series title, 8, and generally scattered)

the corrupting influence of power (1.4/5, possibly 7/8, others)

racism (1, 3-5, possibly others)

sexism (se, background)

patriarchal societies (se, seems to be somewhat softened based on what i’ve heard but i’m not entirely sure about this)

and more! but it starts to get stranger and this is enough to prove my point

basically everything that could go wrong does

oh yeah! child abuse also child abuse that’s a very major theme in the first series as well as during other points. and elder abuse in the first series.

okay i’ve made my point.

section three: the appeal

look. so. i think we’re kind of pastel-ify children’s literature based on movies. see, parents have to watch children’s movies with their kids, so they can’t be gritty and intense because a lot of parents will say “not for my nine year old! they can’t deal with treason!” and that seems to be bleeding into children’s literature.

but warriors is not that. it’s intense, it borders on “too gruesome for children,” and it’s from a time where kids books got to be serious and heavy and dark because they were about animals. which was great because i couldn’t find books at my reading level that weren’t too thematically difficult, so i got to read something below my reading level, but thematically too hard, so it kind of balanced out.

and then well. so. the series grows with the audience, but the books don’t grow in terms of like difficulty so new readers start deep into it and it’s a complicated thing, the fandom history is complex, but.

the appeal is that parents don’t usually read the books their kids read and so they see a book about cats and assume it’s fluff, and kids who are starved of complex content get to read hamlet-for-kids.

section four: worldbuilding/lore

oh yeah also there’s some really deep lore to explore. so there’s two bits of appeal.

i’m not doing a full world/plot summary, but i’ll explain some common elements here.

thunder/shadow/wind/riverclan: harry potter houses for cats (gryffindor, slytherin, hufflepuff, ravenclaw, except this doesn’t work for the last two but that’s fine because no one cares about them despite riverclan being pretty important in most of the books)

-kit/-paw/-star: naming conventions. everyone has a two part name. (we’ll use cinder as an example because i like the two cinders we know, even tho neither of them get to be cinderstar.) babies are -kit (cinderkit), then when they’re apprentices, which is like being a student, you know, elementary through high school, you’re paw, so cinderpaw. then you get an Official Name from ur clan leader (cinderheart). if you become clan leader, you get to be -star (cinderstar). i know i haven’t explained clan leaders bear with me. this is kind of important because i have the names burned into my memory so i cannot simply always call firestar firestar if he was firepaw at the time of the events i’m describing. it won’t be ambiguous, cinderheart/cinderpelt are a special case. if this is tricky for you it’s fine just only read the first part of the name.

clan (leader, deputy, medicine cat, elder): roles with in the clan. leaders literally have nine lives. deputies are next in line and chosen by the leader. leaders usually go through several deputies, because deputies don’t have nine lives. medicine cats are doctors. they also have an apprentice. those are all one per clan. elders are just retired cats. they’re not a special category per say, but i wanted to mention them.

warrior: adult.

warrior code: laws.

star clan: dead cats. this ties into the religion which is pretty important to the books but for the most part if you understand that dead cats get to give guidance and send their approval, you have the gist of it.

section five: so um, what the fuck

so we start with a cat named rusty who runs into the woods to join thunderclan and then his name is firepaw and we all forget that he’s named rusty except for like that one time it comes up again. bluestar is a great leader with some corrupt deputies but fireheart eventually takes care of it and becomes clan leader which is a big deal.

then a bunch of other shit happens and suddenly ashfur is possessing brackenstar and being (more) abusive to squirrelflight (who is on the outs with brackenstar anyway for lying about their kits jayfeather, hollyleaf, and lionheart because they’re actually the children of firestar’s other daughter leafpool who had them with crowfeather after she fell in love with him but he’s from windclan and she’s a medicine cat so that’s double illegal and apparently hollyleaf is alive even though she yeeted herself into a pit and died because she killed ashfur when he threatened to reveal this but couldn’t live with being the product of an illegal meeting and then it was all pointless because leafpool stopped being a medicine cat out of guilt anyway and jayfeather is just an ornery bitch about everything but especially all of this)

i’m not explaining any of that.

section six: i repeat: so um, what the fuck

so the thing about these books is they’re soap operas and dramas about cats and that means they get just as strange and chaotic as anything else in the genre. i think a lot of people like me, who read them as children, regard the series we knew as a child (usually either the first three or the first five, plus super editions) as something good and warm and comforting (despite being dark and gruesome) because they made us feel good.

they were also a breeding ground for young fandom because of all the the drama that exists and the nature of the books providing that.

section seven: super editions

the simple answer to what a super edition is has already been given (it’s a novel length one-off about a single character, and its usually either a side character - bluestar, crowfeather - or a event/perspective we don’t get to see - firestar, skyclan, greystripe - and they’re generally more mature)

my favorite super edition is bluestar’s prophecy. i read it at like 16, slinking into the children’s library with a stack of other ya fiction and a “children’s book” which dealt with unwanted pregnancy, grief, forbidden love, and more. still not sure why that’s in the children’s section.

section eight: about the drama

so there’s been a lot of fandom drama about these books. i can’t tell you about the nuances, because i am an old fan, so i watched but didn’t partake. the highlights reel that i can recall goes as follows (please note i will refer to characters by name without explanation. it’s fine. the point of this section is to convey the pettiness of this drama):

tigerstar: did he do anything wrong? (the answer is holy shit yes, this isn’t discourse, it’s okay to like a villain)

scourge: did he do anything wrong, also what color is his collar? (also yes, doesn’t matter)

was the new prophecy (2)/omen of the stars (3)/etc good? (yes, eh, no, yes, no comment, no comment)

should jaypaw or hollypaw be medicine cat apprentice (neither of them, but jaypaw’s employment opportunities are limited because he’s blind, so its gotta b him)

uhh a massive tangle around this parentage drama between squirrelflight, leafpool, brackenfur, and crowfeather, which i used as the crux of humor for how batshit the plots can get, so i’m not even going to pretend i can make it funny, but just know that it’s batshit and the correct opinion is as follows: no one is right, but squirrelflight has done the least wrong, brackenfur is an asshole to her where it’s unwarrented, and hollyleaf is an idiot

and the current drama centers around brackenstar and ashfur and is tied directly to the point above, which is why i’ve kind of given up trying to make jokes about this because this is the culmination of like 35 novels.

section nine: i feel like i need to have some conclusive point to justify writing all of this

but i don’t have one, because this was really an excuse to ramble about an old passion for like half an hour. i mean i guess i can say, like, i think younger fans are sort of embroiled in this drama they don’t really have context for, because i’m not kidding, the current drama centers around the grandchildren of our original cast.

it’s kind of hard to know why, say, mistystar matters if you don’t know that she’s the child of bluefur and oakheart and if you don’t remember the drama that surrounded that when bluestar was dying and tigerstar and leopardstar were ruling a combined shadow/riverclan.

(i really hope that’s intelligible i tried to lay the groundwork for it. basically, there’s a biracial kid in a very segregated society who becomes the leader of one of the clans. which is obviously drama, especially considering that that clan was part of a weird supremacy movement a while back.)

& you know? i really hope one of the new series gets to be like, a soft reboot. just. end the current drama and pick up again with the latest generation. a) we’re starting to run out of names, and b) i think that it’s kind of tipped over the edge of sane.

the series also used to be very low fantasy. the cat societies are reasonably close to feral cat colonies (the biggest detail is that toms don’t all have their own territory, but there’s honestly in-universe discussion of this and it’s basically a culture thing), and while star clan/religion is a real and legitimate thing, there’s also a discussion of its abuse and most of the early books don’t really use star clan/related ideas as a physical force so much as a plot device, barring, like, when a new leader gets their nine lives.

honestly, i’ll always adore these books for serving the role they did, and a lot of the series is fantastically well written. but the fandom surrounding it can be, uh, not great because 9-14 year olds don’t really have good brains to understand this.

also, i’m very sad that i can’t find the flash game that was for the great prophecy. it was not very fun, but i enjoyed playing it, so if anyone knows the url so i can search the internet archive for it, please let me know.

section ten: i’m morbidly curious but there are 56 hours of books to read, assuming a very fast reading pace, so is there something i can start with to experience this without dedicating 4 days to it?

yes, there is.

it’s called bluestar’s prophecy. it’s standalone, and i should have given you enough of a background on the lore that you don’t need to know anything else. i’ve already given away the twist in series 1 that it would spoil, so you’re all good on that front.

if you want more, or want the original experience, the first series is self contained and quite good. i’ve given the broad outlines of the plot, but trust me, there’s a lot of surprises and all sorts of things i skipped over because while i like it, it’s not exactly fandom primer material

i also enjoy firestar’s quest and skyclan’s destiny for super editions, but you’ll need to read the first series to understand FQ and FQ to understand SD, so it’s not exactly a starting point. also, SD especially deals with a very different set of themes as the other books.

also, if you were to, say, search “readwarriorcats” (no spaces) on duckduckgo, and then click on one of the first links, you know, not the official site, the one hosted on one of those free website things, you know, not wix, not wordpress, the other one, you would only find lists of the books with hyperlinks.

;3

#warrior cats #fandom #txt #mine #1st #February #2021 #February 1st 2021 #essay #personal #long #q

[fortheloveofsnorkacks]

I’ve been thinking a little about how fandom is so often split into pro-marauders+anti-Snape or pro-Snape+anti-marauders. I admit, I know much more about the Snape side of things, so I can’t claim a nuanced discussion of how marauders fans interact, since I ducked out of browsing the tags once I saw the abundance of headcanon, so I’ve only seen the most vitriolic anti-Snape people pop into the wrong tags.

I’m honestly interested in analyzing both. The ones that live are perhaps the most interesting adults in the series apart from Dumbledore. They’re far more fascinating than Voldemort or Umbridge, or even Professor McGonagall. They’re three-dimensional adults with complicated histories and loyalties.

What I’m not for is lionizing the Marauders’ years at Hogwarts as some sort of golden years, where everything is either hurt-comfort or “hilarious” pranks  that are apparently only un-funny to sticks in the mud. I am definitely interested to know more about Sirius’ split with his family, as well as how involved he was in Regulus’ life. I am definitely interested to know how and why Lupin got involved with the James-Sirius duo, as well as Pettigrew. At the same time, I can’t really like them the same way I can like Harry because of their attitude towards Snape and consequences. I am very interested in Snape, and the black box of pre-Death Eater Slytherin--what pressures exist there? What hierarchy? How did he slip? 

However, I find as a fan that I really can’t dip into the marauders side of things as much as I’d like because of my Snape loyalty. I can’t un-read my sympathy for Snape, which pretty much bars me from most marauders spaces, since I’m really critical of the golden school years narrative and the headcanon that defines it. Yet I find I can easily retain my feelings for Sirius and Lupin and still hang out in the Snapedom.  Sirius and Lupin are pretty complex characters who have definitely done their share of bad, yet I do like them for their relationship with Harry, and while posting meta about them in a positive light may not get as much attention as the negative stuff, I can do it and not receive vitriol. 

#the snapedom is a pretty cool place #thanks folks #snapedom #snape #severus snape #pro severus snape #pro snape