#media illiteracy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

samasmith23 · 1 year

Text

Why do some people think that stories portraying darker subject matter is always an inherently bad thing?

I’ve recently encountered this weird mindset in regards to certain online fandom spaces, wherein people will argue that fictional characters experiencing intense trauma and pain is somehow inherently problematic and negatively reflects on the creator’s skills or ethics. This feels like such a narrow-minded and shallow understanding of a piece of media, since characters undergoing hardships is often a necessary element for them to grow and develop as the narrative progresses. Plus, while some stories can indeed be more intense and graphic in what types of trauma is depicted, it’s mere inclusion doesn’t automatically make the story or it’s author inherently bad. For instance, even though I personally haven’t read the manga series Berserk by the late Kentaro Miura (May he Rest In Peace…), based on what I’ve heard from others while the series does include graphic depictions of sexual assault which the main protagonist Guts suffered from in his past, said-assaults are NOT framed in a gross or exploitative way, but are instead utilized to analyze and discuss the character’s feelings of physical and psychological trauma derived from said-horrible events, and heavily factors into Guts' overall backstory and development as a character as he tries to heal from the violent trauma of his past and discover some sense of happiness in a bleak world.

And yet despite this I’ve encountered a few people accuse Berserk of being “pro-rape” or even outright stating that Miura “deserved to die” (which is an absolutely disrespectful and disgusting thing to say!) simply because he included these darker elements in his manga. Like... that's as stupid as someone claiming that Quentin Tarantino is automatically "pro-murder" simply because his movies include lots of scenes of characters killing each other.

I’ve also encountered far less overtly toxic examples of this kind bad faith media criticism in comic circles. Awhile I was incredibly confused when I saw some people on Twitter arguing that Saladin Ahmed was “ill-suited to writing teenage characters” simply because of two scenes in his Miles Morales: Spider-Man & Magnificent Ms. Marvel runs respectively, which involved Miles being tortured by the new supervillain, The Assessor (who would later make clones of Miles as a result), as well as the final battle between Ms. Marvel and her evil robot-duplicate Stormranger getting quite brutal at times (you could see blood from the impact Stormranger’s punch).

In regards to the Miles’ torture scene, I've seen a small number of people argue that the scene's existence was inherently inappropriate due to Miles' status as a Black minor, going as far as to label it as "dehumanizing" and "really insensitive to the real trauma of black boys." I'm not sure how I feel about this as those labels feel a tad extreme due to the fantastical nature of Miles' stories. Like, as brutal as the scene with the Assessor is, it’s at least given a more ficitional sci-fi vibe due to the high-tech laboratory, the Frankenstein operating table, and the fact that this whole ordeal leads directly into Miles' own version of Spider-Man: Clone Saga after The Assessor acquires Miles’ DNA in the process. So it feels less grounded and not as reflective of those real-life traumatic experiences Black men and boys unfortunately go through in the U.S. like I saw a few critics of Ahmed’s run claiming. Plus, Ahmed had Miles be rescued by both his father Jefferson Morales and Uncle Aaron Davis teaming-up together. So the narrative frames the Assessor’s torture of Miles as a bad thing whilst depicting two older Black men actively putting aside their personal differences in order to save their son/nephew as a major narrative focus as well. How exactly is it "dehumanizing" or "inappropriate" then?

And it seems like this bizarre criticism isn’t just limited to Twitter comic fandoms, since a certain Lily Orchard recently made an AWFUL video which outright accused animation fandoms and creators of “fetishizing the torture and abuse of POC women” in cartoons like The Legend of Korra, The Owl House, and She-Ra and the Princesses of Power. As soon as I saw the thumbnail for that video I knew it was going to be an absolute dumpster fire.

In it, not only does Lily engage in those similar types of arguments like the ones I mentioned earlier about Saladin Ahmed’s portrayal of Miles & Kamala, but Lily went multiple steps further by outright accusing various scenes from The Legend of Korra, The Owl House & She-Ra of being “literal torture p*rn” and “fetishized abuse against POC women.” With Korra, Lily accused the scenes of Korra brutally poisoned with the Red Lotus’ liquid metalic venom, Korra still being significantly weakened by the poison during her final battle with Zaheer (causing her to fall and tumble down cliff-sides) and Zaheer trying to use his air-bending to suck the oxygen right out of Korra’s lungs (the same technique he previously used to assassinate the Earth Queen), plus the Unalaq fight from the Season 2 finale where extracts the Avatar spirit from Korra and kills all her past lives one by one with a water-whip as “white centrist writers being turned on by the trauma and torture of a woman of color.”

And in regards to She-Ra, Lily accused Catradora shippers of being an example of fandom going “full mask-off” simply because she found 2 or 3 random comments defending Catra’s abusive behavior prior to her gradual redemption arc in the final season simply because they found the Adora & Catra fights “hot” (which I know for a fact does NOT represent the entirety or even majority of the She-Ra fandom & Catradora shippers).

It’s just… I honestly don’t understand why Lily is describing these scenes as “torture p*rn” or “abuse fetishizing.” Like, it’s not unexpected for characters to undergo traumatic crap during their story arcs, and most often it’s for the purposes of raising the dramatic stakes of the conflict or to have said-characters eventually undergo some sort of positive change arc (which is what happens in both Korra and She-Ra btw). While the abuse Korra suffers at Zander’s hands is indeed violent, it’s intentionally disturbing and off-putting in order to increase the viewer’s suspense and fear over whether or not the main character will get out of this alive. Personally, when I first watched the Season finale of “Book 3,” I was on the edge of my seat and constantly worried for Korra’s survival, and while she is left physically and psychologically scarred by the whole ordeal I’ve heard that the entirety of “Book 4” (which I still haven’t seen BTW) focuses on Korra healing from her trauma and becoming more spiritually enlightened in the process. YouTuber and MarySue author, Princess Weekes, though had some interesting analyses about Korra’s portrayal of overcoming trauma and how its heavily rooted in East Asian philosophy, despite Weekes' overall mixed feelings about the series in general:

And while I can’t comment on The Owl House (again, haven’t watched any of it), I can say that Lily’s characterization of Catradora as “torture p*rn/abuse fetishization” is 100% wrong since the show frames Catra’s behavior towards Adora and others throughout Seasons 1-4 as toxic and unhealthy, and Season 5 is all about her fixing herself on her own volition after realizing the harm she’s caused, and it’s only AFTER all of that when Adora & Catra become lovers. But the way Lily describes the scenes in Korra & She-Ra (which are honestly pretty PG in their levels of brutality despite being fairly dark for family-friendly animation) you’d think she was talking about some over-the-top violently explicit tentacle hentai or something, as she even goes as far as to compare the Korra & Zaheer fight to FREAKING The Passion of the Christ (seriously… Lily actually compared Korra to Mel Gibson's antisemitic guilt-tripping exploitation film which unnecessarily stretches out Jesus' torture and crucifixion; which in the Bible occurred in just a few brief passages instead of 2-and-a-half hours like in the movie).

Geez… given how Lily so inaccurately mischaracterizes these scenes from Korra and She-Ra, I’d honestly hate to see she’d react to Neon Genesis Evangelion, which is heavily centered around the characters suffering from intense depressive episodes and experiencing emotional breakdowns, whilst also including lots of psychoanalytical and disturbing imagery. Knowing Lily, she’d probably ignore the fact that NGE’s director Hideaki Anno was suffering from severe depression while creating the series (which heavily influenced the show’s overall production and themes), and instead accuse all the depictions of depression and trauma in EVA of being “unrealistic” and “inaccurate” since according to her all fictional depictions of trauma are inherently inaccurate since there’s no one universal depiction of trauma (Lily actually said that in her terrible video), and accuse all of the series’ violent and sexual imagery of being “torture p*rn” whilst calling Anno a “perverted abuse-fetishizing creep who is turned on by torture” (which feels incredibly SWERFy on Lily’s part, as well as needlessly hostile towards people who are into BDSM or sado-masachism and practice it safely and consensually) just like she did to the creators of Korra, Owl House, and She-Ra (even though NGE and especially the movie The End of Evangelion is highly critical of exactly that kind of gross and toxic behavior within Japanese Otaku subcultures).

So my overall question is this: why do Lily and some other people think that including intense trauma or brutal torture scenes in comics or animation, even when said-scenes they're framed in the story as bad things are inherently “problematic,” “dehumanizing,” “fetishistic,” or “torture/trauma p*rn”? It's like... I can understand not wanting to stomach intensely violent or depressing scenes if they can't handle them, or being critical if they feel unnecessarily mean-spirited or exploitative, but often times having darker elements is an unavoidable aspect of giving a story a sense of conflict. Conflict is necessary in order to have a plot or to develop characters, except it feels like a lot of people on social media believe that the mere inclusion of any type of darker conflict or subject matter is inherently ethically dubious regardless of how its framed within the overall narrative.

I just don't get this kind of mentality and why it's become so prevalent online these days... I really don't...

382 notes · View notes

emmellas · 2 months

Text

people launching discourse on this scene being "overdone," "problematic," and misperceiving it as the film trying to state injustice existing as a wild, deep concept have just lost the whole plot. the film is told through bella's eyes as it is BELLA'S story and she had lived a sheltered life that, while no fault of her own, was in part due to being white and wealthy and in part because god confined her to his house. the point? it is meant to be an immensely dramatic scene because that is BELLA'S poignant, indignant reaction to the realization that injustice exists. her heart is destroyed. this is a GOOD thing in the sense that she ... you know ... truly cares about systemic oppression. it would be disheartening to see her act indifferently as those around her do.

indeed, she has what we'd call "rich white lady" guilt and her naïveté leads her to initially believe that throwing money at the problem will solve it, which, while good-intentioned, obviously will not solve things. this clownish behavior, again not an insult to bella as she doesn't know better, is intentionally presented that way to comment on the ridiculousness of that typical white saviour mentality from people who are in fact aware of injustice and simply do not choose to educate themselves on how they can meaningfully contend it because they do not care. bella, however, upon finding that it's not that simple, is committed to finding ways that actually do help. the witnessing of the slum was her moment not just of "growing up" from a sheltered life but of radicalization, which ultimately leads her to socialism and the finding that deconstructing oppressive systems is a collective effort. read: the scene isn't "poverty porn" but rather a wake up call and one of action for bella given she is a good-intentioned being. her impetus to effecting actual social change. she couldn't do this if she didn't even know it existed.

i am perpetually shocked at people's proclivity (perhaps propensity but it seems to be a common phenomenon to hop on a hate train) to misperceive this film, in so doing acting in a petulant, unhelpful way that the film critiques, but i digress.

#emma stone #film #poor things #yorgos lanthimos #bella baxter #film theory #feminist film #white saviorism #media illiteracy #holly waddington #social commentary #alasdair gray

45 notes · View notes

chaifootsteps · 3 months

Note

Media Illiteracy anon here.

Onto the dreaded episode 4... Warning for SA and all that, of course.

I would like to start by saying that by Definition I am a CSA survivor (I was sexually exploited from age 10 to 16, made to produce CP). But I don't really consider myself to be one since I am not... traumatized by it? I just don't care that it happened. So I don't think I can say much in the way the episode handles SA or even how it might trigger someone who was also exploited for the making of pornography.

That being said. Yikes. I think this episode is the best one so far, as much as it pains me to say that. It's the best paced and it sticks to one plot and the plot... has Some good moments. I really liked the scene where Valentino yells at Angel that he should get rid of Charlie and how he physically abuses him. I think that scene is The best scene in the entire show because of how terrifying it is and how well it shows the damage he causes to Angel as well as his relationships with other people.

I think that scene should've literally been it. It shows physical abuse, it shows Angel's fear, how Valentino owns him (literally) and even implies the SA to come when he says he's going to make him work all day. Overworking is already a horrible thing to put someone through, but as a sex worker there'd be a point where it's no longer enjoyable and you want to stop, which is where it then also becomes rape. That line was Terrifying and made you feel dread with just the Implications of what was gonna happen to Angel, as if This wasn't already bad enough.

Then they ruined it with that stupid song.

Now Poison is not a bad song, in my opinion. I think it sounds nice, and even looking at the lyrics (which is not something I usually focus on, due to the Illiteracy I mentioned), I don't think it's awful. But putting That over a scene where Angel Dust is getting raped On Screen is a bit Very tasteless. That whole scene was Awful, you could easily tell that whoever made it clearly had a thing for it. I'd seen the leaked clip before and that was enough for me to realize how fetishized it was, but seeing there was more was just. Augh. Do they have no shame? It's so blatantly obvious I felt like I was looking at a NSFW Twitter animation.

I kind of hated the aftermath, too. Angel going back to the hotel and drinking was good, but I hated him coming onto Husk like that and then pulling a "a nice guy like me is too good for you anyway". I feel like I had never fully realized before that the Angel and Husk thing was sexual harassment, cause you grow up with movies and shows where like. A female character coming onto a male one is just. Normal, and the result would be them getting into a relationship Anyway, so it was harder for me to recognize that it qualified as Harassment. I think Angel saying that shit made me realize it was and then it was just. Weird. Also the way the line is worded and delivered, it sounds less like that's something Angel is parroting back from what Valentino usually tells him, and more like he wholeheartedly believes it, which certainly didn't help.

Following scene I also kind of like. The bar scene. I liked that even if Husk was reluctant in going, since he doesn't like Angel, and was stalling for time so he wouldn't have to talk to him, he Still stepped in when he saw someone putting something in his drink. I think if this show was written better that could've been a way to show that even those who think they've hit rock bottom are still humans with morals at the core of their beings, and that they still have the ability to care and do good even with years worth of bad decisions and an environment that encourages depravity.

I also liked him getting him out of there and trying to care for him, in his own grumpy old man way. I liked the dark revelation that Angel knows when he's being drugged, and that he just let's it happen because he thinks it gives him some control and that if he's broken enough by this random men, Valentino will finally let him go. That was really messed up.

Then Loser Baby comes on and fucking.

Okay so, I Really like Loser Baby. It's the best show in the show so far. The instrumentals are nice, it's catchy, the lyrics are a little silly and fun, and Keith David carries it, though Blake Roman is not half bad. It's the context in which is used that makes this song just flop HARD.

I think everyone understands what the song was meant to be, and I think it doesn't do Too horribly at connecting both of their situations and how they're not alone because they have each other. It fails at everything else though, because beyond "both are owned by Overlords", Angel's and Husk's situations have Nothing to do with each other, they are Not comparable.

Also calling Angel, a rape victim, a loser is not. Good, even as lighthearted as it is. The song is "suck it up, slut", and while kind of in character for someone in Hell or as grumpy/harsh as Husk, it's still. Yikes? It minimizes the situation way too much, this is not an "Oopsie, made the wrong choices in life" moment. He's getting actually abused and that's not his fault.

Also Alastor fucked off for 7 years and all he makes Husk do now is man a bar where he does nothing all day except drink alcohol. Angel is going through the worst Alastor could've done to Husk, on a Daily Basis, and even if Alastor could be cruel, it would be extremely out of character for him to straight up Rape Husk too. Or torture him without killing him, even torture doesn't seem like something he would do, at least not to Husk specifically.

Husk's lines are tone deaf and kind of offensive, but I think they're passable since it's at least Trying to say something positive, even if they're doing it poorly. Angel's though... Again, you can just Tell someone with a fetish is writing him. I hate how he says "I've got an appetite for samplin'" and "I've got no holes left to deflower". That's super insensitive, it doesn't even feel as an Hypersexuality thing, especially that second line. It doesn't feel like it's "i love being a slut because it's reclaiming my stolen sexuality", it feels like. Shock? Value? like "i'm a big whore", and that's it. It's hard to put into words, because the message comes across in every bad possible way, I have Nothing positive to say about it.

The only good thing about Loser Baby that I like, aside from the sound of the song itself, is the little dancing bits between Husk and Angel. They're kind of cute, I like how he's trying to cheer him up by pulling him up and making him dance with him a little bit.

Augh. After that there's this bit where Husk says Angel needs to learn to respect his boundaries. I Like this scene but the context diminishes the impact it could've had by a lot. It's trying to acknowledge that Angel's sexual harassment is Bad, whether it's a trauma response or not, and that he needs to Stop. And Husk is willing to start from zero with him and become friends if they start like that.

I kind of Like that they're acknowledging that it's bad, and i Would've liked Husk telling him they can be friends if he learns to respect his boundaries but like. Do we Really want to be like that about someone who sexually harassed someone else? That they can be friends? I feel like that is a bit insensitive and offensive to victims. I myself would Not like to be friends with my abuser even if he begged on his knees to be my friend.

It's also implied that Husk and Angel end up romantically involved. If you could excuse the befriending thing, saying that maybe it's not the same since Angel never Touched Husk sexually, i still think that going and making them Lovers is harmful. A "he yanks on your ponytails because he likes you" kind of situation. I like them as friends, hate them as lovers.

Another big problem I have is Charlie. She's a cardboard cut out in her own show. She's a background character in the episode where she causes the main conflict.

She's a bit of a pushover, cause she's nice. Even with pilot Charlie I don't think she's too OOC since calling the news reporter a bitch and defending yourself against her is not really comparable to being face to face with a rapist who is actively harming your friend. She can't just kill him, sinners reform eventually, and then be would be even angrier. Not at her but at Angel, because it's his fault Charlie even got to lay a hand on him in the first place. I think it's a more complex situation than "why didn't she just kill him".

But for as complex as the situation could be, Charlie is extremely. Simple. She barely appears and it's just "I'm sorry" and it's all fixed. I feel like there could've been a bigger emphasis on Charlie's and Angel's relationship (even while still keeping Husk's involvement in it all). I also kind of hate the treatment of her? Like how when Angel says he forgives her, she Cries and is carried away by Vaggie. Idk, that scene made me a bit uncomfortable. They treated her as if she was a child and it was Weird.

I think this episode had a lot of potential to be good and fumbled the bag catastrophically. Husk and Charlie are Worse characters because of it.

That's all. I can only hope the plot twist leaks aren't true, because this story is barely salvageable and that "Rosie is actually Lilith" bullshit will just ruin my experience from how stupid it is. You can be as painfully oblivious as me and this show will still find a way to make itself as dreadful as possible. I really don't understand why so many fans are so aggressive about criticism, I think they also see the disappointing bits but are far too committed to back down and admit they were wrong, so they just double down. I liked Most of the show, even though it's mostly because i already had Some attachment, curiosity and knowledge from before. But it's not as good as it had the potential to be, nor is it the single best show to have ever existed. It's honestly sad that many people, such as myself, have to go on anon on a poor person's blog to lightly criticize the show, because they're too afraid to be harassed or sent their literal house address on a direct message.

Thank you and goodnight, Chai!

You see, this is what I get out of running this blog. You guys write up these fabulous essays taking all the words out of my mouth, and it's deeply cathartic.

Try to hang in there. Vivzie's fandom will probably never go away completely, but I really do think their reign of terror is coming to an end.

#Anonymous #media illiteracy #viv stuff #actual blog post

30 notes · View notes

positively--speculative · 23 days

Text

It will never cease to frustrate me that I actually went to school and studied these things. I stayed up late into many nights completing analytical essays surrounding these topics. And I know going to school isn't for everyone and not everyone has access to that option. I also know there are other ways to learn about this stuff outside of sitting in the classroom.

But the audacity of people who have no actual interest in doing the work, whether that be in a formal educational setting or on their own, feel so smug throwing terms like "unreliable narrator" around without actually knowing what they mean while insulting people who actually know what they're talking about is maddening. The way they're so proud of being casually racist toward BLACK people who actually know what they're talking about. There is just no better example of how the privilege keeps these people dumb and happy to reward one another for their stupidity.

#Fandom racism #media illiteracy #Iwtv fandom racism #Iwtv #Iwtv s2 #Loustat

23 notes · View notes

sjbattleangel · 4 months

Text

"I'm not (media illiterate)."

youtube

Lily, you are one of THE MOST media illiterate people on the face of the earth! You decided Moon Girl And Devil Dinosaur was "automatically garbage" because you heard it was going to be serialized; You dismissed Amphibia as "irredeemable trash, sight unseen" because you heard it had a story and fell for some stupid nontroversy regarding a crew member's fanart; You sided with Disney suits when they cancelled The Owl House for being "too dark and scary for kids" to appease some moral guardians and watchdogs (who may've not even existed)! You want to control what kids watch, you want all of animation to be nothing but toothless, slice-of-life romantic comedies with no action, stakes or soul. Just like your crappy coffee shop AUs.

Not to mention whenever any piece of media contains disturbing and/or problematic moments, you automatically believe it equals "endorsement" and to you, we're all impressionable babies who can't tell fact from fiction and need to be "protected for our good." You just want censor and police fiction to satisfy your own holier-than-thou self-indulgence. Helen Lovejoy much?

"I didn't (accuse Rebecca Sugar of being a sex fiend)."

youtube

Hermana, WE HAVE RECEIPTS!

You and your simps decided that a sweet, wholesome picture of Steven wearing his mother's hand-me-downs is somehow Rebecca Sugar's way of "sexualizing him." Even more, in your awful Rebecca Sugar Must Die video, you accused Sugar of sexualizing the character of Stevonnie and that through fusion, Sugar made Seven and Connie "have sex". For this you constantly attacked Sugar as a "creep", "pervert", "disease", "fascist sympathizer", trying your hardest to convince everyone that Sugar is some Neo-Nazi pedophile.

No, Lily! Rebecca sugar is not-and never has been-a Neo-Nazi pedophile! She didn't sexualize Steven! She didn't sexualize Stevonnie! But most of all, fusion was never a metaphor for sex!

The only ones sexualizing Steven, Connie and Stevonnie are YOU and your simps!

34 notes · View notes

justice-flonne · 2 months

Text

Twitter and the death of Media Literacy

As the original post now has reblogs turned off before this post came out of the queue, looks like I have to make my own

Lemme tackle picture number 2 first. Number one, what the HELL do you mean "normal mentally ill [woman]"?? There's no such thing. There's not even such a thing as normal non-mentally ill. Everyone is different and has different reactions and symptoms. and number two: where the fuck do you get off calling the author a sex pest for the "crime" of exploring her options in brothels (well, i guess maybe it is a crime, i forget how japan's laws are, but still. i better not hear you demanding more rights for sex workers while indirectly demeaning their jobs, ya nitwit)? Being gay (or even just non-conforming, and that's not even just about gender) in Japan, while not as bad as say, the Middle East, is not exactly a walk in the park. She probably at the time of writing didn't have many options, and everybody explores their sexuality in different ways. It's really messed up that you're calling the author a sex pest for describing her life, especially since she did nothing wrong (as in, her encounters were all consensual. again, don't fully know the laws regarding brothels there. i think it's a "we'll pretend we didn't see that" scenario)

This also kinda ties into the downright dangerous idea that an lgbt+ person, lesbians especially, can only be an innocent pure being. that kind of thinking can and HAS gotten people into horrible abuse scenarios

As for the "incest"... whoo boy, this is gonna be long:

Now, I have actually read this manga, and I can cite the pages with the supposed "incest" mentioned in the first pic. I'd elaborate, but I'm admittedly quite bad at that, so I'll let the comic speak for itself:

(forgive me if there's any errors in the alt text. it's late 😭)

As you can see, the author does not LITERALLY want to fuck her mother. She has childhood issues from not enough affection (elaborated elsewhere in the book, but I'm tired. read it yourself. i got these pages from a definitely legal website, so can you), and wants to be held and coddled. She even straight up says what she feels is abnormal and yearns for a woman NOT RELATED TO HER to do things with. She KNOWS what she feels is strange and wants to (and eventually DOES) grow from this. I could post more images, but i'm probably pushing my luck as is

Point is, you "adults" really, REALLY need to learn that depiction is not the same as endorsement. Not everything is as cut and dry as the Marquis de Sade. This is, as the damn title says, the author's experience with loneliness as a result of growing up with an emotionally distant mother in a society that is markedly different than America

please, PLEASE, learn to think critically, and i mean "critical" in a "english class analysis" kind of way (for lack of a better term), not a "this thing you like is bad and it offends me" "critical." It's alright to be uncomfortable with things and even to not like things, hell I myself am a HUGE hater, but please, don't throw a tantrum because a real person wasn't a smol bean like you hoped

holy shit i need to go to bed

#my lesbian experience with loneliness #nagata kabi #media illiteracy #mental illness #abuse #we're all living in amerika #good grief #lgbt #twitter #this is at least partly due to the tumblr exodus so it's not fair to pin it all on twitter #but i'm gonna anyway

19 notes · View notes

laf-outloud · 7 months

Note

AAs and hellers are so ridiculous with their screaming, crying and throwing up because Dean died in the finale during a hunt and Sam went on to have kids and die old. This is literally what Dean has said, in one way or another a few times, was his perfect ending. Dean actually went out doing something he loves, get to say goodbye to the person he loved most, cooled his heels in heaven for the duration of one car ride (in the car which he loves more than anything except Sam, and maybe his parents), before being reunited with the person he loves most. Yes, it’s still a tragedy that he died young, but this is supernatural, it’s the happiest ending fans were ever going to get.

AAs are big mad that Dean wasn't the final boy, and didn’t get his apple pie life. But, he didn’t even want a traditional family anymore by the end of the series. He hasn’t wanted that since Lisa and Ben. It was never going to happen. And if Sam had died before Dean, he’d rot away in the back of a pool hall, probably overweight and bloated from too much booze and burgers. That’s what (realistically) we would have seen if Sam died first. Or Dean would have just gotten more reckless until he committed suicide by monster. Then both brothers would have died young, which is a bigger tragedy. However, Dean dying unattractive would have been the worst thing to ever happen to the shallow little AAs, so that might have been amusing to see.

It’s like genuine brothers fans and Sam girls are the only fandom people who even understood the characters. I think the GA got it for the most part but were just disappointed in how Dean died.

Yep! Jensen even said Dean would die wasting away at the back of a bar. People like AAs and Hellers who expect fiction to be written precisely how they want lose out on the opportunity to stretch their imaginations and consider other viewpoints.

Supernatural was a horror show, first and foremost, therefore, it stands to reason the finale was never going to have rainbows and honeybees. SPN started with death and two brothers and it ended with death and two brothers. That's all there is to it.

#ask box #anti aas #anti hellers #media illiteracy #spn was about sam and dean #beginning to end

23 notes · View notes