siriuslyobsessedwithfiction

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

Since I want to see something:

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

This is so cuuute!

I was tagged to do this Love Pawsona quiz and share my result. Thanks for the tag, @chaoticfandomgirly !❤️

Awww, a cute little capybara! I’m happy with that! 😊

I tag @littleblackraincloudofcourse @dontcallpanic @starry-mist @smowkie @all-or-nothing-baby @katries @dear-massacre @tkandbuck @firstdegreefangirl @foreverthemomfriend @kinkykinard @tulipfromtheinternet and anyone else who wants to play. No pressure on anyone who doesn’t!😘

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

Thx for tagging me! <3

I've never had peppermint mocha, now I want to try one.

Tagging: whoever is feeling the cozy winter vibes.

❄️ WHAT'S YOUR COZY CABIN DRINK? ❄️

i was tagged by @olismabel and @queerbuck - thanks, loves! :)

no pressure tags: @nadja-antipaxos @danielsarmand @evan-buck @clara-maybe @jackharkness @rainbowcrowley @blakbonnet @mobius-m-mobius <3

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

Reblog for a miracle to happen tonight

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

Me when YA fandoms refuse to acknowledge faults in a narrative that champions the return to the status quo, supports an oppressive absolute monarchy which is outdated even in the frictional world and defend the monarch in question because they have pretty privilege or fit into whatever trope is trendy. Me when fans dismiss the canonical ways the oppressed minority and lower classes suffered and how the author's half-baked explanation on how suddenly every problem is solved was even more harmful for it’s shallow dismissal of how bigotry and persecution actually works within a system and the very real harm that has done to people for thousands of years:

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

Fans now: Jason Todd is my fav Robin! I won't hear a word against him!

Fans in 1988: I want Jason Todd dead. Destroyed. Sleeping with the fishes, capiche? I want to see his corpse on the next cover. Oh, it's decided by popular vote? *Smacks the phone* Wanna bet your measly soul we're going to win by majority?

Fans in 1988 after Jason Todd was brutally murdered by the Joker:

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

The height of romanticizing The Secret History is when Henry tells Richard he knew it was him who made coffee because it was burnt. Henry was stating a fact at best and making a dig at worst but Richard was like "Omg, he remembered uwu 😊🥺💗 ".

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

I find it hilarious when people are like "They're just a morally grey character, antis write negative analyses because they can't handle it and need to have the moral high ground. I bet if you read classics like Dostoevsky it'd blow your mind because everyone is flawed there." Honey, I've read Dostoevsky in original and let me tell you, the character you're defending is still ✨️a piece of shit✨️.

Firstly, I don't understand why everyone and their dog is jumping to Dostoevsky when they decide to start reading classics and gain a superiority complex after reading a couple of his books 💀. I'd start with Pushkin and Chekhov and then move onto him, Tolstoy, Gogol, etc. Secondly, almost all my favourite fictional characters are morally grey and even if I don't like some, I find their arc fascinating. But when someone writes long, detailed analyses and supports their claims with facts, it means they have a point and that "negative light" they write that character in, is just casting light on them and their shitty actions. 😀

All the detailed anti analyses I've read clearly state that the author appreciates the well-rounded, flawed character but criticizes their person, or that the author feels like the character should be held accountable by the fandom for what they truly are. Also, we're allowed to hate a character if they're a bully, sexist, racist, etc. Because those are real-world problems that resonate with us, even if the character is well-written and is actually morally grey. No one is saying we can't handle their moral greyness and duality. Sometimes the piece of shit is likable, sometimes not. And even then, there's a huge difference between "this character screws up a lot and is selfish" and "this character was a nazi who enjoys bullying children". If you truly accepted the character as they are with their "moral greyness", you wouldn't be pulling out your hair every time someone writes what they actually did.

I've also noticed that these character defenders pull the "moral greyness" card out to justify their favs, but will nitpick other characters' actions and exaggerate their every past screw-up. What happened to accepting the flaws? 🧐

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

I’ve never seen the show but the idea that Kaz and Nina would not both put their all into pretending to be couple is ridiculous. Like they’d have everyone in their vicinity gagging, probably competing to see who can come up with the most disgustingly sweet cringy things to say to each other, either trying to break each other or break everyone around them and have Matthias and Inej wondering if they should be worried. They’re actors ladies and gentlemen and they take their craft very seriously.

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

I weep and cry as I handle this W to Zizek.

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

Since fantasy shows get unfairly canceled left and right but superhero shows stay winning, they should make Shadow and Bone show and Six of Crows show in a modern setting. Kinda like the Young Justice and the Boys.

The crows' backstories can stay the same because unfortunately scams, trafficking and brainwashing still happens. Aleksander Morozova would work in the goverment and be the founder of Grisha aid programs while having to send some Grisha to train as special agents for the goverment. G.R.I.S.H.A would be like F.B.I. Monarchy would be purely performative so Nikolai would still feel trapped and would take on the identity of Sturmhond to take action, Alina's story could focuse more on the pressures from the church and her cult.

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

Ah, if it isn't Kaz Brekker drawn with a straight nose instead of a thousand times over broken one, looking like a tiktok model, the bane of my existence. We meet once again on my dashboard.

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make the violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy.

For hundreds of years Grisha were refused basic human rights, the Darkling had to commit a necessary controlled military act (destroying the area near the docks) after centuries of diplomacy and servitude showed that people still didn't want the Grisha in their society. The bastard prince swoops in, convinces the village idiot girl he's great, gladly slaughters the oppressed minority in civil war and starves his people, gets the throne and continues the outdated absolute monarchy tradition. Everybody clap!

Nikolai was content to kiss the noblemen's asses but didn't negotiate with the Darkling because he knew a centuries old general wouldn't hand the throne to a boy who hadn't even done anything to make his country better. Nikolai wanted the throne and made the Second Army pay for it. He hid behind his Sturmhond persona and dangled Alina in front of Aleksander as a distraction. As if Alina had any agency, she was just glad to get away from the boogeyman Darkling.

Why Nikolai is more of a villain than Aleksander

This post is an inspiration from one of anon asks.

Time and time again antis have accused Aleksander of several hideous crimes without understanding the monarchy of 19th century Feudal Russia and what serfdom entails. Due to this lack of understanding(or willful ignorance), Aleksander is studied under a harsher light than Nikolai and other characters. I blame the author entirely for this, as she never gave Aleksander a voice until much later. In books 1-3, he is only projected to us through Alina who had nothing but disdain for him.

On the other hand, we see Nikolai, who was a prince and then a king, who did not do much for the country or Grisha. However, his actions are softened by LB and antis. He is considered a 'flawed' human who did his best. His manipulative actions are treated as an act of strategic brilliance while his mistakes are treated as an act of desperation/helplessness.

So, let me first start by explaining some of the vile accusations thrown at Aleksander and then contrast it with some of Nikolai's actions.

He sex-trafficked Genya.

In Book 1, the author herself says two key points 1) Grisha are no better than serfs and 2) After their training, Grisha are either posted in the borders or sent to serve in affluent households. So Genya was not a unique case. This, again, is the price Aleksander had to pay for the Grisha to live. Genya had to be sent as a child because an adult Genya could not get as close to the Queen as a child would and it worked for a while until the Queen turned on her. This were an understanding of serfdom is needed. A serf can be released only by the master not by anyone else. Aleksander cannot take her away and relocate her somewhere else. And if the antis had read the 'The Tailor' they would know that in spite of the challenges, Aleksander did give her a choice- to disappear forever or exact her revenge and it was Genya who chose to stay.

He committed genocide in Novokribirsk.

Even if we ignore Alina's unreliable POV, Zoya's POV tells us that only a part of the city, near the docks was destroyed. So what Aleksander did was just a warning and not a 'genocide'. Antis keep forgetting that Grisha's enemies were not just Fjerda and Shu Han but Ravka itself. Had the coup had succeeded, he not just wanted Fjerda and Shu Han to back off but the First Army soldiers as well. Book 2 shows how his paranoia were not unwarranted. Through Fedyor's story we learn how they were attacked in their sleep and how First Army conducted sham trials and slaughtered them. This alone shows how Ravka's sentiments about Grisha was not much different from Fjerda or Shu Han. So in the event of the coup, Aleksander had no choice but to issue a warning all of his enemies.

He is a predator/abuser.

This is the one that makes me laugh the most. Girl, he is an immortal. He has no choice. All his age-appropriate past lovers are long dead and buried. What is he supposed to do? Remain celibate? They often bring up the kiss near Baghra's hut as an example of his predatory nature. But what manipulation happened? That dummy fell for Alina and high-tailed from there.

Let me draw a comparison to show what actual manipulation and predatory behaviour looks like. (1) Nikolai who is about 7-8 years older than Alina, forcibly kissing her, against her will, in front of hundreds of people just to better his chances for the throne. (2) Mal who punishes Alina for flinching at his advances by getting it on with Zoya. (3) Baghra, who preys on Alina's fears/insecurities and turns her son's one true immortal companion, against him. These are actual manipulations, not the one Aleksander did.

A predator/abuser needs to have constant access to his victims. In LB, own words, Aleksander rarely stayed at the Little Palace. Compared to him, Nikolai, Mal and Baghra had more access to Alina and they did actually succeed isolating her.

The Stag amplifier

Then the stag incident is treated as a sign of his manipulation and perversion. This where we need to apply our critical thinking and ask the important question who benefits from this act? It certainly was not Aleksander.

Let's rewind the clock a bit, Alina who was the Sun Summoner and a key political figure ran away from the Little Palace. Aleksander did not know if it was an enemy attack or something more sinister. He lies to King, who would have his head for this mishap and, searches for her only to learn that she run away on her own violation. So the girl, he hoped to be his ally became a threat. He was forced to reveal his hand sooner and speed up the coup. People need to understand that Aleksander is not an ordinary, lovesick boy, he is a war general and Alina has proved herself to be unworthy of his trust. So he put a leash on her. This not a question of morality but a question of ethics, much like the trolley problem.

He turned on his own Grisha.

They were deserters for god's sake! and was fighting opposite him. They forfeited his protection the moment they joined hands with the enemy. So he was treating them as a normal enemy.

He stole Grisha children.

He did what Charles Xavier did in X-Men. Grisha powers were tied to emotions and are instinctive. Without proper training they are bound to hurt normal people. Not to mention, if the Grisha were born outside they were either killed or sold to pleasure houses. And considering Ravka's anti-Grisha sentiments, he did what he had to do to keep them safe from actual predators.

Now let's talk about some of Nikolai's actions and let's not forget that he was the King/Prince of Ravka.

Sent his father on a luxury retirement instead of punishing him for his crimes.

Used Genya's trauma to make himself the king instead of offering her justice.

Did not care or investigate the genocide of the Second Army soldiers even if the said soldiers were serving the crown. He punished none of the First Army soldiers and was happily brown-nosing them.

Was happy to start a Civil war even after knowing the kind of king his father was. For a 'peace-loving' person (we have seen him in KoS and RoW ass-kissing useless feudal lords instead of using his authority), he did not attempt to negotiate with Aleksander.

Starved his people so Aleksander would have no choice but to use his Grisha to cross the Fold to get supplies. Again for the antis crowing about Novokribirsk, what do you call this?

Stole Grisha inventions like corecloth etc in the name of unification and supplied it to First Army. Read point 2 once more to understand the cruel nature of this act. He felt Grisha were hoarding better supplies but did not question why the First Army were having subpar things because if he did then the blame would rest on his father and his corrupt noble supporters. So he chooses to steal using the unification propaganda. How noble!

Sent Grisha who were not of age to war fronts and missions. Why not send the First Army? Are there no highly skilled people in the First Army for such things?

Manipulated and used Alina to establish himself. Atleast Aleksander 'manipulated' her for the betterment of Grisha, Nikolai did it for himself.

Destroyed everything Aleksander did for Grisha in the name of unification. Or should we call it erasure? He erased centuries of progress and left them without protection.

He claimed Aleksander used his Grisha selfishly for 'his' wars and then shamelessly sends his minions to recruit them from other countries.

If Nikolai was indeed a just and kind king as the antis claim him to be, why didn't he announce Grisha as a protected class? Why didn't he offer them equal rights as a Ravkan citizen? Through his own spies he knows what is happening to them in Fjerda, Shu-Han and Kerch and yet knowingly he lets Zoya abolish the rule of finding and securing the Grisha children (which mind you, saved Zoya from child marriage).

Aleksander was not just a person, he carried the history of the Grisha that was rapidly being erased. He built a place to pass down that knowledge, their culture and practices. If Grisha were not tested and found, who would save them if they died from wasting sickness, who would offer them protection from slavers and Fjerdans? Once again in the name of 'liberation' Nikolai had truly pushed them into hiding. Without these laws what happens when anti-grisha sentiments raise again after a few centuries? He removed every true protection and erased a targeted group's shared history in the name of liberation.

In the end, Nikolai did not protect his country nor the Grisha. He is in no way the hero of this story nor is his echo chambers whom he calls friends. I could go on and on. Truth is, it is not my intention to minimize things like SA or genocide. These are heavy topics and should be treated as such. Readers or antis who throw around such words should know the weight of such words. I hope this sheds some light on the hypocrisy that resides in this fandom.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk!

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

My bestie and I are having a Richard Papen moment (temperature is below zero and a third-party accident has left over 150 000 people without heating. We're freezing in winter).

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

"Grishaverse fandom turned into SJM fandom" Sadly, the moral puritanism movement can be traced back the grishaverse before SJM. It's literally a holy crusade for the antis. They seek out "heretics" and "impure" fans to chastise, yell at, harass, etc to either excommunicate them from the fandom or "convert" them to their narrow-minded hateful ways Grishaverse used to be a pro-ship place. Even leigh bardugo repeatedly used to say "all ships are welcome in this harbor"

But something changed in early 2018s...the first waves of the puriteen moral panic. And instead of holding the ground for the goth, weird kid (which lb keeps saying she was one) she turned around and became the head bully. The one who attacks the goths that love dark characters. That was the time she was writing KoS...the time she stopped posting fun darkling/darklina content on her tumblr. And it's been downhill from 2018 onwards. The 2020 pandemic with everyone inside/online only made the moral modern day "satanic panic" grow. Just, this time it came from the kids not the parents. And the ones who lived though the satanic panic, like leigh, flipped and became purity police. Gone was the amazing goth Leigh Bardugo. All we get from her are sermons, finger wagging, shaming, and preaching. She knows the goth kids are being bullied. She doesn't care

Authors aren't role models. How many more times must we learn the same lesson? In YA, in order to sell, you have to stay relevant. She made money in the 2010's from emo, skinny, frail, average joe MC, dark vs light aesthetic and now she's making money from bitchy girlboss MC and her golden retriever boyfriend aesthetic. I joined the Grishaverse fandom around 2019 when the witch trials had already started. Back then, I naively thought that since the author had said to be Jewish with Slavic ancestry on one side, her research and understanding of what she wrote would be impeccable. I didn't analyze the books as I read them and parroted what the fans and LB were saying. Fans need to stop putting authors on a pedestal and claim they know what they wrote better than anybody. If that were true, Grishaverse books wouldn't be such a hot mess with millions of plot holes and inconsistencies. Moreover, when some fans get backed into a corner on that, they resort to claiming that it's YA, it's not supposed to be that deep anyway 🙄. But then, why are you shaming pro-shippers and people who love discussing the said books in detail? 🧐 It's all in good fun, if we actually hated Grishaverse, we'd leave the damn fandom. "You can love something and still see it's flaws" - LB wrote that in CK, not me.

Sadly, she has become too afraid to speak out in defense of her fans and ships in fear of being labeled problematic, so best she could do is make Mal not be abusive in the show and ignore the books, while fanning flames on demonizing the Darkling. She used to love Darklina (she never said she based him on an abusive ex, see the link below), and continues to echo them in her works outside of Grishaverse but won't spare a word to remind the fans that he didn't actually do things he's being accused of in the text. But it's okay for her to pretend Mal isn't textbook abusive, that she did not flatten Nikolai's and Genya's character and removed moral greyness from them, and that she did not make Zoya a girlboss who can do no wrong?

Don't get me started on how the civil war in SoB trilogy was brushed aside as an inconvenience caused by the Darkling when in reality he was the one trying to take over power with minimal bloodshed while Nikolai was content on using Grisha, an oppressed minority, as canon meat. While Alina was too busy trying to commit suicide because Mal kissed Zoya in front of everybody to worry about sending unprepared Grisha to war and her cult dying for her, whose members were brainwashed children, some only 12 years old.

And don't get me started on the harmful depiction of persecution, faults in a narrative that champions the return to the status quo and the support of an oppressive absolute monarchy. That actually gave me war flashbacks. LB claims that Russia was always depicted as a "glorious oppressor" in her family because of her ancestry, but has she truly done proper research? Idk what stories her family told her, but she was born in Jerusalem, moved in LA, and went to Yale university. Maybe she should've lived in a country constantly in fear of getting bombed by the said "glorious oppressor" for a year and gone to the middle school where it is taught how to analyze a text which correctly depicts fighting for freedom written under an oppressive Russian rule.

"Zoya’s depiction as queen was even more harmful for it’s shallow dismissal of how bigotry and persecution actually works within a system and the very real harm that was done to her people for thousands of years."

You see the real problems with the books? Some fans at least bother to critically examine the text, while Darkling antis love to take quotes out of context and demand that everyone should hate him, otherwise you're a terrible person.

Links to support my claims:

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

So I finished reading six of crows. Goooood book good book

Accept my offering dear SoC tumblr fandom

Based on this meme!!

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

This one account keeps criticizing...

them:

meanwhile me: