Honestly i also think that a lot of the romanticization of Ianthe vs infantilization/fear mongering of harrowhark is also that like... We don't really get to see Ianthe suffer the nastier parts of shit mental health. Like, we know she cries to sleep, for like a line or two, but we're not pressed against her intimacies and the inside of her head (hehehe pun intended) like we are with harrow.
It's easy to infantilize Harrowhark because we get to see her struggling, we get to see the thought processes that lead to her lashing out, we get to see her suffering through. Well, basically everything, more than we see her putting on the dignity, and even when we do, we generally get to see the lead up, or we are with someone who responds in kind (thanks gideon).
With Ianthe we basically *only* get the facade, even when the Issues Are Blatant, and even if when she lashes out she does her utmost best to seem in control, much like harrow. The other characters do Not Give A Shit, so neither do we, as readers, feel naturally inclined to it.
Plus like. I might be reaching, but sometimes i feel like tlt fandom needs a character to be "pathetic", or to suffer, in order to... Idk how to word this bc englishs not my first language, but essentially pay penance? In the fandom I see a lot of people who feel Uncomfortable recalling their fave did bad shit, and like, needing to either justify it for themselves or others by going "oh look how she suffers", essentially infantilizing their characters so they don't have to acknowledge the worst edges, which is a choice, I guess. They not only do this with Harrowhark, but also with Gideon, Pyrrha, Mercymorn, etc.
They also do the opposite, by rejecting the possibility of suffering for characters they consider evil, most notably with John. It's not possible for them to be over their heads, or for them to have made a mistake. Either they were deliberately planning it, or they deserved it somehow, or their actions *later* meant they retroactively deserved it, and may be pointed as the cause for it happening.
Which is... Uncomfortable, to say the least, even if I'm only latine.
anyways. TDLR: People should just say they look really fucking cool dripping with blood and determined. At this point ill even take an I support women's wrongs/woman's right to murder or whatever
Sorry for going in a tangent on your askbox or of this doesnt make sense its like nearly two am and i cant sleep
this is very real and leans into what ive observed in fandom as well! tlt is a house party full of morally gray characters but i feel like when we are panicked to discuss someone being "evil" or otherwise the two closest avenues are infantilization/reduction (i can fix him, theyre pathetic they cant do anything right im protecting them) or full villainy (i like them Because theyre evil, irredeemable, they deserved it so i dont care)
hope you sleep soon
46 notes
·
View notes
As a certified Springtrap simp, which backstory for William do you prefer: one where he was a good dad driven mad maybe by jealousy or the loss of his youngest child, or one where he was always an abusive narcisist that cared for nobody but himself?
i feel like the, "im evil so i must also abuse my creations and/or children" has been really overdone. like idk im just tired of seeing it personally. and the whole "haha!!! im craaaazy!!" thing we get in the comics also rubs me the wrong way b/c. thats not. how he's portrayed in the games at all. esp hearing him in sister location he feels like he would be a calm sort of madness. he seems like a rational guy. he doesnt talk like that. he doesnt act like that. it seems really contradictory
i feel like him being a good dad (or at the least caring deeply for his children) gives him more urgency and like,,,,makes sense w/what we're given. it aligns the most w/the theories we have asta why he started killing etc. i also just enjoy the tragedy of it. he started out as a good guy w/good intentions and then was twisted inta something unrecognizable b/c he was so focused on tryin ta reach his goal. personally my hc is that he was jelly of henry and then the death of crying child tipped him over the edge and started his whole killing thing. imo its better than, "hee hoo i was evil FOREVER!! im PURE evil and have always been EVIL!!!" like. okay. wheres the subsistence?? give him depth dammit
why would he build a robot for his daughter if he didnt love her. why would he tell crying child he would put him back together if he didnt love him (not really cemented as something he said, but i mean who else would say it?? certainly not michael he was a boy. i think as a fandom we assume its heavily implied). it makes the afton kid's deaths so much more impactful. the prospect of this man losing pieces of his life bit by bit and being driven insane by it is enthralling
i love a good chaotic descent. i love thinking abt him being consumed w/a need ta revive his own son becoming obsessed w/life and death as a result. oh the irony of loving your own kid so much you would take others children away from them, knowing how losing your own felt. and the twisting of emotions as he sees his son michael someone who he would've died for, try ta stop him. b/c hes not understanding, they need ta b together again. thats all hes tryin ta do. get his family back tagether. and all these fucking obstacles are in the way of his only goal. and the manifestation of hatred of his own son b/c of this. b/c hes getting in his way. like, talk abt juicy. i want that man ruined. it just adds a layer of psychological torture that i just adore. william fucking ruined everything. he ruined his own happy family, he ruined his own life, and if he actually mourns that? chefs kiss.
my thought is, why even have him have a family in the first place if they're just there ta demonstrate he's evil? seeing the afton family purely as a plot device, we already know afton killed kids. one can assume a person who kills kids is a bad person (maybe? see this is where the juiciness comes in w/him caring for his children. is it really bad from his perspective if hes trying ta save his kid? or is it noble?) so we dont need ta b demonstrated ta that hes a bad person again. if hes just pure evil from the get go it doesnt make sense ta me ta have the afton kids be prominent in the story (besides michael, but even then he could probably be replaced by one of the victims family members) when you could illustrate the same point by focusing on the kids hes killed and their families. why do the afton kids matter if he treats all children the same. why are we focusing so much on the afton family and what appear ta b major story beats in their story, especially since the children he has killed do not get as fleshed out as the aftons do. i feel like if his family wasnt important ta him we wouldnt hear abt it at all. you could achieve the same message by making him single and childless.
do u kno how many stories there are of "Righteous Child Of A Horrible Guy Who Hates Everything, Even Their Own Family, Goes Out Ta Stop Their Parent And Save The Day" there are? its b/c its too easy!!! its too easy for u ta assume that a character is the worst and has been the worst forever!!! its too easy ta assume that an evil character would abuse their family!!! its too easy ta assume an evil character wouldn't have traits besides jealousy, hatred and narcissism!!!!
174 notes
·
View notes
WAIT WHERES MIM?!?! PLEASE TELL ME YOU’LL RELEASE THAT ONE AGAIN PLEASE
I need you guys to understand that the reason I took down my stuff was for my own peace of mind because they're my stories and i started feeling unsafe having them out because of how they - and I - were being treated.
absolutely nothing is wrong with mim and I love that fic and I care so much about it which is why - for my peace of mind - i want it to belong to only me rn. I know the fic was only out a month after i finished it and that really upsets me about taking it down. i want to reupload it because i know people like the fic and i love sharing my stuff but also there's that level of how much the fic matters to me and how much more devastating it makes it when people are cruel. and how much it hurts when I, as the creator of something, am treated like I don't matter at all and that my stuff can so easily be stolen or copied. like, it's an extension of me, yknow? You can't separate content and creator in such a small and intimate sphere as fandom. like, you guys all use my first name when referring to me, yknow?? there's that sense of connection. and since it's such an intimate space, having that trust be betrayed or disrespected is so much more potent than if we were in a large fandom with a lot of creators.
the fear of having MiM copied is really immense and real for me rn and i know that's potentially me being overly paranoid but considering the Amount of times this has started to happen - and how blatantly rude and nasty and entitled readers have been getting with me and other creators over the last year - it's definitely not out of the realm of possibility.
MiM wasn't written for readers, it was written for me. and i shared it because i wanted to and that was wonderful. but to have any of my stuff stepped on so much just doesn't make me feel very safe in this fandom space rn and makes it hard to let people have access to something that matters so much to me.
I'm not saying MiM has been deleted forever, I'm just saying i want some more time for it to be mine.
9 notes
·
View notes
it is interesting to me that ive seen lately (n yknow this is subjective and likely not any real social force just what ive seen) many queer people simultaneously talking about taking back and embodying unpalatable and ‘unmarketable’ queerness (the recent return to the terms faggot and transsexual come to mind) which i think is pretty evidently shaped by the conservative moment were in of demonizing queer ppl and especially gnc and trans people as predators--it reads as a return to queer isolationism in the face of external hostility, imo--while at the same time ive seen a lot of rallying around the “original” 6 stripe rainbow flag as opposed to any of the purportedly ‘factional’ flags of different queer identities, with the assumption being different identity flags divide us while the rainbow flag encompasses everyone and its kinda fascinating to me bc the rainbow flag is probably the single most marketable and palatable and uncontroversial symbols of queerness which has been seamlessly uptaken by those who wish to sell it back to us as gets pointed out every pride month with all the cringey pride merch....
i dunno you could maybe take that as a point of hypocrisy and claim the queer community is itself in a conservative moment rn where its returning to a sense of history and historical continuity (perhaps even out of that sense of external threat) or even that the queer community has for some time been in a conservative moment given the like, decade of identity discourse and lashing out at any people deemed to not have a sufficiently established history or however we should categorize the bihets/ace discourse/transtrender-tucute discourse/pan discourse/bi lesbians discourse (because lets be frank its essentially all the same discourse just keeping up its momentum by leapfroging from one target to the next) which i think is, like, SOMEWHAT true but not entirely?
its more interesting to me, in any case, as an expression of a conflict the queer community is facing given that current state of affairs RE antitransness and that very recent history. like, the simultaneous need to retreat to a safe sense of community which is welcoming to the very things the outer world is demonizing ie mutable gender, complex or contradictory experiences of gender, gender expression which is hostile to the cis binary, but also the ways in which it has to grapple with those discourses which have largely defined the community infighting for again the past decade. its queer people begging the question ‘how can we make the queer community welcoming to the girlfags and genderfucks and tboys who are being threatened when we have spent so much time making the queer community a hostile place for anyone with a non-conventional or not easily (or even just palatably) sortable sense of queer identity’. and the answer it seems to be grappling with at the moment is like, welcoming all that diversity of experience but being absolutely averse to naming it. yes we love all the fuckery with gender and sexuality never be marketable but like, ew, why are you calling yourself [insert microlabel here]. you can be genderweird but you cant call yourself genderweird. you can only exist as queer in the broadest possible way (the all-inclusive gay pride flag!) but if you try to name the specifics or use those identity labels weve been fighting over for years youre doing it wrong (the progress pride flag is now ugly and cringey and ‘too much’). i think theres something also to the way (at least on this site) transmisogynistic discourses have really taken hold as legitimate (though yknow i wont downplay how much a problem transmisogyny has like. always been in queer spaces no matter what) in the name of protecting n defending trans people. like its just regurgitated transmisogyny but its being mobilized supposedly in the service of helping trans people. idk its definitely getting a little late for me to string this together fully coherently but theres a throughline there, in the ways certain ideas are being consolidated and reified as ‘yes were more progressive now!’ when i think theres definitely something to question there in terms of like...are we? are we actually? are we doing better by the people were trying to help or are we setting strict standards and forcing ppl to adhere to them again?
21 notes
·
View notes