why can’t byler and steddie shippers just coexist peacefully. it doesn’t have to be one or the other (except eddie is dead… but idk maybe they’ll have a come back to life storyline for him or something).
i’ve seen so many steddie and byler shippers attack each other and it’s honestly ruining the show for me. stop arguing over fictional characters when it doesn’t even matter. yes, queer representation is important, but hopefully the writers aren’t gonna be like “oh yes well we have one queer character, that’s enough, everyone else is straight”
tldr; chill the fuck out y’all. it’s a show.
92 notes
·
View notes
Did they get a postive response from adding those Gortash lines? I thought a bunch of people hateing on it instead? Also what if they removed the lines to change them a go a diffrent direction. I'm sorry. I have a lot of worry they wont do something I agee with.
The overwhelming reaction was positive. Durgetash artists went on Twitter to celebrate, and the small but passionate fans of the ship went nuclear here and on Twitter, and helped BG3 trend, yada yada, tale as old as time.
Most people don't care about Durgetash or Gortash. The majority of people you hear from would be the people who like both of those things. It's also a small ship.
The haters of that ship are even smaller in comparison, because the hand that reaches out will always touch more than the hand clenched into a fist.
And the only "legitimate" complainers, who don't just dislike the ship on principle, are the whiners who keep insisting their durges are lesbians, and how dare Larian "force" them into a relationship with a man - which is literally not what Larian did.
No one bitches about how Gale's ORIGIN completely precludes him from being gay.
I see no reason why you can't similarly have Durge's ORIGIN make them attracted to men. Or, you know. Enver is special.
Oh. And also. It's so fucking platonic, if you want it to be. Stop being stupid and just say you don't like Durgetash. It's as easy as that.
Stop using "lesbophobic" as a handy label for your self righteous soapbox. You just don't like the ship, and that's fine. It's FINE. But acting like Durgetash is lesbophobic - oh, go play a Tav.
And also, Astarion and Gale and Wyll better not flirt with you in game, even though you can tell them to fuck off, or else they're lesbophobic too.
That's the only discourse that gained traction on Twitter. As far as I know.
If Larian had made Gale wear blackface or something, and people got pissed, then yeah. They'd back up on that, and get rid of it pronto.
But Durgetash???
Aside from the general evil antics, they're not that fucking controversial of a ship.
Most people don't even PLAY the Dark Urge.
I don't know how to stress this any other way...
People act like Durgetashers are loud - we're honestly not that loud.
Astarion fans are far louder, and yet, the most romanced companion is SHADOWHEART and then Laezel and KARLACH.
He's not even in the top 3. And yet, he dominates the content on Twitter and Tumblr... he's definitely more popular than Gortash or the Dark Urge or Durgetash together...but his fans are still technically the damn minority.
So Durgetash in comparison to Starries???
Infinitesimal.
And Durgetash haters?
Would be even smaller.
So what I'm saying is...
I'm kind of tired of answering asks about this.
I don't KNOW for certain whether or not this is Larian backing up or walking forward, and while I don't believe they'd walk back on this, and especially not for a handful of people, it kind of annoys me to even think about things outside of my control.
now if Larian makes a big grand statement and says actually we totally rescind something WE WROTE AND ADDED TO THE GAME because some people got mad...then I'll call them cucks, and complain.
But as of right now?
As far as I know personally, and assume in my heart... it's neutral.
The lines are probably just bugged. Also, not ALL of them are bugged either, so.
Please stop freaking out, guys.
I am the world's biggest resident durgetash freak, and I'm shrugging at this, and just saying it's a bug.
Don't let it bother you. It's out of your control, regardless.
(And I stress again - if we find out they're legitimately backing away from something they did...they have the spine of a ham sandwich. But until we know that for sure, I won't condemn them for this, because as far as we know, it is legitimately an accident.)
25 notes
·
View notes
btw this might be me swinging a bat at a hornets nest but like. absolutely none of my disappointment from the tl finale comes from ship baiting or any relationships that didn’t happen (though to be clear, i think the tedbecca fake outs were meanspirited and served no narrative purpose - in noted contrast to the season's earlier jamiekeeley fakeouts, for example, which were explicitly there to demonstrate jamie's growth + maturity)
tedpendant is a really fun concept for me, and i LOVE the characterisation + thematic potential there!
but as someone who personally resonated with a lot of ted’s struggles, the idea that ted could leave richmond so… seamlessly, for lack of a better word, really doesn’t sit right with me. the thesis of the shows entire first season - assuming it can be said to have only one - was about how everyone needs the love and support of a community, whether that comes in the flavour of someone who hypes u tf up or someone who will relentlessly call u on ur shit (or, as happened quite frequently, both!).
rebecca, roy, jamie are the clearest examples as the characters with the most screentime: they were all deeply isolated and disconnected from the people around them, and that was making them miserable. the connections they made with the team, the vulnerability they finally allowed themselves to express (the ghost banishing ceremony comes to mind!), and them going on to want *more* out of their life are what made their arcs about *progression* rather than *regression*. without that clear theme of compassion + community inspiring positive growth in everyone who encounters it, there is, frankly, no season one.
my personal favourite scene from season one comes right after michelle walks away from ted, when they’ve agreed to get divorced. ted sits down on the bench looking gutted, and a little shell shocked - and beard sits down with him. hands him the drink, and they sit there together. silent, but together. to me, that scene is an implicit promise from the episode, to the audience: ‘it’ll be okay. it’s going to be hard, but ted isn’t alone, and his friends won’t leave him behind.’
it also makes it clear to the audience that ted isn’t the saintly-giver-of-grace who needs nothing in return, as one might assume on first brush, but rather that he’s Also struggling with his own shit (as is everyone, always, in real life!) and he has something he needs from the people around him too.
and looking at the text of s3, and the conclusion to his arc in the finale, i just don’t believe that he got it. he wasn’t just sad that he was leaving (which would be understandable!), he was completely closed off. unresponsive to the people around him reaching out, borderline confused as to why they were trying so hard!
(side note, while i completely respect the read of ted and trents last interaction being rather rude + ooc on ted’s part, i personally read a different motive into it. for me, it was more like… he didn’t understand where trents enthusiasm was coming from? like, he read that as trent being too invested in what other people think of him, and responded in a way that he hoped would emphasise that ted doesn’t *need* to laugh at everything trent wrote, bc trent Already Knows that he’s done something really cool and kickass, and he shouldn’t value anyone else’s reactions above that. basically, based on his demeanour in the episode, i genuinely don’t think it would’ve even occurred to him that trent was more invested in HIS reaction than he would’ve been with anyone else.)
again, looking purely at the text, the show had already established that ted has really strong depressive + avoidant tendencies, as well as panic attacks (largely triggered by his fear of not being ‘good enough’ in various roles, ie: a father). we saw one area he was able to calm HIMSELF abt these fears (worry for henry, which is a Hell of a choice considering the ending…), but in literally every other heightened moment, he had to rely on his support system to help him make the choices that he WANTED to make, rather than ones inspired by avoidance and fear (ie: confronting michelle abt jake, talking to his mum abt why she was visiting + his dads death).
and to be clear, this is a GOOD THING! we’re not supposed to go through life alone, no matter how bad OR well we’re doing. rebecca and keeleys friendship isn’t worth less for all the scenes where they’re both in good places. if anything, the opposite is true - it’s lovely that they both have someone who want to celebrate the achievements in their life!
and fuck it, we’re sure as hell not supposed to go through life with exactly one (1) person whom we expect to fulfill ALL of our emotional needs at all times either! like, im sure i don’t need to labour my point here, but tying everything to one (1) person in ur life doesn’t make u any less isolated than if u were going it completely alone, whether it’s a family member, a friend, or a partner. i won’t pretend to know the first thing abt what it’s like to be a parent, but i don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that no parent would be at their best if they had absolutely no support/camaraderie/general love provided to them from Anyone other than their child.
so when ted is SPECIFICALLY shown to be in a bad place, over and over again (did he come to terms w his fear to be close to henry overnight???????), and then removed from his community? of COURSE the audience is left feeling unsettled, and like the rug has been pulled out from under them. there was no time in this finale dedicated to how ted would still be in contact with anyone from richmond. no promises of visits, or phone calls - fuck, nothing about emails!! according to the text, we might as well assume this is a clean break (and the maybe-dream-sequence does Fuck All to assure us otherwise. if ted doesn’t go to beards wedding, what WOULD he go to????). and since the show has ALSO completely failed to give us even an IMPLICATION of who/what ted’s support system would be in kansas, there’s… a reasonable argument to be made that this is It for ted. that, after two seasons doing NOTHING but attesting otherwise, the audience is supposed to suddenly believe that ted can (and SHOULD!) pull himself up by his bootstraps, and cope entirely on his own.
that, to me, is a betrayal of the show’s premise. we were promised a show about how, no matter how dark things may get, none of the characters would be left to struggle alone. and then they ended the show with ted alone.
i don’t know. i guess if i had to give this post a tldr; if anyone has any gen fic/meta/Literally Anything in the pipeline, i would absolutely love to be tagged/directed towards it. i’ll be endeavouring to write something myself, as well, but it might take a while before i can return to my WIP, lol.
80 notes
·
View notes
i’m sure someone on here has said this before, but i think cis tiktok really took “feminine in a masculine way” and ran with it without realizing that the appeal of being feminine in a masculine way to genderqueer people, especially afab genderqueer people, isn’t just looking hot or whatever. it’s specifically the discordance of being perceived as masculine and performing femininity.
Like, you see cis women on tiktok with the caption “trying to be feminine in a masculine way!” and then they’ll wear these super femmey suits with their hair back and like. that’s cool i guess? i’m glad you feel confident. but the angst that genderqueer people feel over wanting to be feminine in a masculine way is derived from how this feeling almost seems like an impossible goal. like, femininity is standard for women, so when people perceive you as a woman and you dress feminine there’s no perceived deviance at all. you’re just dressing and acting like how a woman should, according to the audience of people who see you on the street. The part you feel that you lack when you say ‘in a masculine way’ is the part where your femininity gets to be nonstandard.
there’s almost a kind of grossness to when cis men in particular do femininity. it ranges at times from “haha ironic comedy, isn’t it so WEIRD and WACKY when men wear skirts???” gross to something almost demonic (like how men wearing makeup were treated at the height of the satanic panic). there’s like, falseness. like the femininity is separate from you somehow, as a facade, and that there’s some kind of clash between the femininity and the person underneath. and i’m not saying those are good things- the opposite, it’s really, really bad that we treat gender deviance this way. but the longing for this experience as an afab genderqueer person is the longing to exist in a role that is non-normative without sacrificing the things we love about femininity, and to be able to be feminine without having that related back to some quintessential nature of your gender as determined by broader society. I honestly feel like Natalie Wynn described this really well when she said that for her, as a woman, there’s no “de-dragging” where the womanhood falls away from her and she ceases to be feminine in a way that a drag queen might after a performance is over. I think what genderqueer people want when they want to be feminine in a masculine way is to have that ability, to have their femininity be a costume that they can take off at will.
anyways all this to say that i don’t think cosplaying as modcloth-workwear girlboss is going to help me achieve my gender euphoria goal of old church ladies sneering at me in derision every time i wear a dress. although honestly that is a great idea for a drag queen character
7 notes
·
View notes