#<- tagging that so you know exactly why my interpretation is correct

[richie-shitlips]

you guys should ask me about my in trousers analysis so i have reason to talk about it and also cause i'm the only one who's correct about it trust me i am marvin

[qiu-yan]

canon jiang cheng

making my own post instead of reblogging someone else's with my hater commentary. praise my three atoms of emotional maturity.

salt below the cut. the post is long so i can concentrate all my salt into one location.

i just saw a post complaining about jc stans trying to take over the "canon jiang cheng" tag. personally, i do think us stans should just let the haters have that one, since picking fights is just going to cause more trouble for everyone. but also.

there is exactly one reason why this is happening, and it isn't just that jc stans are annoying.

in all honesty, the jiang cheng frequently discussed in the "canon jiang cheng" tag is as much of a fandom invention as the jiang cheng conjured by the most ardent of jc stannies. i have seen the level of analysis typical of the "canon jiang cheng tag," and - to speak frankly - the frequenters of this tag are every bit as prone to wild invention and free flights of fancy as the rest of the fandom. when posts claiming that jiang cheng sold an unwilling jiang yanli to the jins, or that jiang cheng regularly whips jin ling, or that jiang cheng directly killed wei wuxian, are all tagged with "canon jiang cheng," it is safe for anyone with a brain to say that we have in fact moved quite a distance away from canon.

so when these people casually declare their equally fanonical interpretation of a character to be the one and only "canon," from the perspective of the rest of us, all we see is condescension and an entirely undeserved arrogance.

is it any wonder the jc stans are annoyed?

actually, let's take a closer look at what's going on here. even if the "canon jiang cheng" tag was intended at any point in its conception to actually be used for discussion of jiang cheng's canon traits - this is no longer the case. in practice, the "canon jiang cheng" tag is used for jiang cheng bashing. if i went into the "canon jiang cheng" tag today, do you think i'd find posts about jiang cheng's canon height or canon love of dogs, or even screenshots of the mdzs text wherein jiang cheng is mentioned? no. every post i found would be about how jiang cheng sucks - and with wildly varying levels of fidelity to canon, to boot.

if every post in your tag is about how a character sucks, and adherence to canon in said posts is optional, then what you have is not a canon analysis tag. what you have is a character bashing tag.

and yet. if you ask these people why they're tagging their character-bashing as "canon," all you get is wide-eyed innocence. this isn't character bashing, they insist, this is just analysis of his canon traits. this is even when the post in question contradicts canon directly. and when posts that are canonically accurate but not jiang-cheng-negative appear in the "canon jiang cheng" tag? these users so kindly move to correct this behavior: don't you know, they politely inform the offender, that this tag is for canon behavior only? your post about how jiang cheng might have had a shred of love in his heart at one point in his life is not canon.

they want at once the exclusivity and full-agreement nature of a character-bashing tag, and also the veneer of superiority lent by the label "canon." and by claiming the label of "canon" for themselves only, they aim not just to lend credibility to their own opinions, but also to automatically discredit everyone that disagrees with them. they want sole ownership over "canon" - and to declare every other jiang cheng analysis out there, so long as it isn't sufficiently jiang-cheng-negative, as mere fandom invention.

guys. come on. what is this? you do realize that if you tell someone that they can't tag their analysis with "canon," then you're basically telling them that you think they're wrong, don't you? every time you say "oh this post is about canon jiang cheng," you do realize that what you're actually saying is "my analysis is based in canon, while yours is fandom invention" - that what you're actually saying is "i'm right and you're wrong," don't you? if so, own up to it! if you're going to disagree with someone, disagree with them openly! none of this simpering "uwu canon jiang cheng actually" bullshit - say with your full chest that you think that everyone else's takes are shit, and why!

if you're going to be a hater, just own up to it and call yourself a hater! don't be a coward. don't be so condescending and disingenuous with your cowardice, either. why are you emulating the cardboard bullshit version of jin guangyao peddled only by the most deluded of jiggy antis? 

and - for once - recognize that if it is acceptable for you behave in a certain way towards others, then it is also acceptable for others to behave in the same way towards you. if you're going to tag your blatantly canon-violating bullshit with "canon jiang cheng," then you do not have the right to get mad when jc stannies tag their equally canon-violating bullshit with "canon jiang cheng" as well.

[actual-changeling]

Do you think Crowley would be more emotionally open without Aziraphale? I’ve never thought about it, but I’ve just read the tags of your last ask and now I’m really interested

Short answer? Yes, absolutely.

Long answer? Also yes, but it's complicated. <- past me was correct, this got very long, my apologies.

What-if scenarios are always part canonical evidence/part subjective interpretation, because the only Crowley we know is the one who spent six thousand years orbiting Aziraphale.

Still, there was a pre-Aziraphale him, up until Job I presume, which is when they started being lonely together, and we do see what they were like!

The Starmaker is his 'before', the being he was before the doubt, the war, the fall. Before hell and the garden and Aziraphale. She is the blueprint the Crowley we know is built on. In the short time we have with her, she's incredibly emotive—with both positive and negative emotions—and her body language is soft, almost fluid.

Showing emotions is simply a natural part of being a person, and what exactly that looks like obviously varies; but this angel has never been punished for doing so. There are no consequences, it's safe to exist however she wants (though not much longer).

After this, we get Crawley what I assume is more or less a short amount of time after the fall. Everyone got settled in hell, and once the institution was functional, they now needed to actually have humans running around on earth. Otherwise there are no souls to torture.

Even here, Crawley is still open, still smiling, still soft, although a bit more covert in their body language. She laughs and—this is the important part—questions God right on there on the walls of Eden.

Even after falling for asking question, she does not stop, not for one moment. Despite the trauma they undoubtedly must have gone through, Crawley sees an angel, slithers up to him, and strikes up a conversation, trusting that he will not hurt them.

Now, this is where subjective interpretation comes in, because we have no information of what the fall was actually like. They got punished for asking question, for rebelling, for trying to change the system—but in my opinion, they never got punished for having emotions.

In the modern day, angels are terrified of making mistakes or asking question, but they are still emotive, they physically express their feelings. Some are more intense in their expressions, others subdued, but from Muriel all the way to Gabriel, they talk about emotions, they show emotions, and that in of itself is not a crime.

Hell is just as—if not more—emotional than heaven. Just remember Hastur when Ligur was melting and then later during the trial, or Beelzebub when ze summons Crowley in the first episode.

Yes, they communicate in code a lot, but only when it comes to very specific kinds of information and interactions, not when someone is going insane over the blaring alarm.

Why does all of this matter?

Because it proves that the level of emotional suppression Crowley and particularly Aziraphale have reached is not taught by either heaven or hell.

Instead, just like Aziraphale's claims that 'heaven is watching', it is a rule system instated by himself for himself, and by extension for Crowley; he set the requirements for interaction and forced Crowley to meet them if he wanted to be around him.

We don't see Crowley laugh the way he did as Bildad or the Starmaker anymore, we never see him carefree or joyous or sad. I mean for fuck's sake, he HIDES behind his glasses, a physical manifestation of the repression he's caught in.

Humans wouldn't notice his eyes in the same way the police doesn't notice them at the convent in Tadfield. The glasses show up during Job, and we know Crowley already had a plan to go against orders, so glasses it is. However, he doesn't wear them during the crucifixion, which comes after Job. Crowley tells us she spent a lot of time with Jesus, so you'd expect her to be wearing them, but she isn't—whatever her relationship with Jesus was, she seemed to trust him a lot, and Aziraphale wasn't around.

Aziraphale is the one who demands silence, who never wants to talk about anything he himself hasn't approved as a 'safe' topic, he and his fucking forgiveness whenever Crowley questions God, calling him a demon and pushing him away whenever he openly shows affection towards Aziraphale.

So yeah, of course Crowley cannot regulate his emotions and has no idea how to express himself now, Aziraphale has shoved a gag down his throat for six thousand bloody years and still wants it to stay in place. Our closed-off Crowley would not exist without Aziraphale's continuous presence in his life, and that is a hill I am more than willing to die on.

Crowley is getting his heart broken in the worst, most violent way imaginable both times. But now? His face is stone and steel, one third of it hidden away behind black-out glasses. No tears, no words, no desperation, no flying hands or fluidly moving body.

This is the kind of person you become when someone else forces you to make yourself small, when emotions are punished and affection withheld until you act the way they want. It's horrible, it's unhealthy, and it destroys parts of yourself that you will never get back, no matter how hard you try.

So, in conclusion, yes, without Aziraphale's influence, Crowley would be softer, more open, and we would still see remnants of the Starmaker in him—but we don't.

[ingravinoveritas]

cloud-based-and-rainpilled replied to your post: 

Someone mentioned in a comment that Michael got ‘downgraded’ to boyfriend, so my tinfoil (again, could be wrong/insane) is that AL & GT referring to each other as wifey is to downplay the previous MS ‘wife’ jokes, since people keep commenting about a poly thing going on, moreso than the past. Also since MS is in London rn, he’s with DT more, so I think there’s a bit of insecurity going on. a lot of (doomed) poly couples have an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ rule, or think the swinging being gay 'doesn't count/isn't a threat,' which could be why the posts feel forced. (parasocial, creepy, bad person, etc., whatever, I calls it as I sees it and have seen it before 🤷‍♀️ )

lepqueen replied to your post: 

My biggest question on this was actually about the song choice, given that I am reasonably sure Sting said at some point Every Breath You Take is a stalker song.

@cloud-based-and-rainpilled I had a similar thought about the insecurity. I think Georgia and AL trying so hard to give the appearance of everything being "fine" and everyone getting along only makes it feel more like things in reality are not exactly what's being presented on social media. I personally did not see "boyfriend" as a downgrade (because from my perspective, "other wife" reads as more jokey/unserious, but boyfriend is...softer, somehow), but I can see why some folks could interpret it as a downgrade when it's actually a readjusting of whatever the dynamic is between all of them.

Going back to the insecurity, I had also wondered how things would play out while Michael was in London for such a long time during the run of Nye, and it makes all the sense in the world that things would change with Michael and David being able to see each other in person frequently. And you make a salient point about the gay swinging being seen as less threatening (which I think is why it's been easy for Georgia and AL to start up with that, and why we have never seen even one reference to David/Anna or Michael/Georgia and swinging). It could be that shipping Michael and David was also seen as less threatening and easier to play along with a few years ago, when it was all still new and Michael and David hadn't gotten as close as they have now. So yes, I do think something has changed, and though we may never be privy to what specifically, we can still see its aftereffects and reverberations in a variety of ways.

(I also wish the antis/people making vitriolic posts in the tags would understand your final point, which is that some of us have seen these things before and are speaking from a place of experience--unlike their assertions (and I have actually seen someone say this) that we have never had any close friendships or relationships like these, and therefore know nothing.)

To your comment, @lepqueen, I also found myself raising an eyebrow at the song choice. You are correct that Sting has described the song as being creepy, and I found one quote from him in particular attesting to this:

I'm not really sure how this fits into the context of AL's post, though, or what made her choose it. Is the David pillow watching her every move? Is she watching the pillow? I have no idea. But that was certainly a choice, so there you go...

[oocca]

1 and 16

VIOLENCE!!!

going to answer 16 first because 1 is going to go into a long rant

16. you can't understand why so many people like this thing (characterization, trope, headcanon, etc)

i don't understand why Linked Universe is so popular. i'm sorry LU fans. all the love but you guys are tumblr tag terrorists for those of us into loz who don't care about it. also i hate that fuckass bob one of the links in it has

1. the character everyone gets wrong

ganondorf. buckle up

i feel like seldom anyone really gets ganondorf truly right, from the bland merciless villain angle and the more sympathetic takes, coming from someone who does have a very soft-hearted view and interpretation of ganondorf. but the latter — i feel like nobody really understands why exactly ganondorf is portrayed the way he is in canon, the implications certain canon AND fanon has, etc. and that's not to say that my interpretation alone is the correct one or anything

ganondorf interpretations tend to come from two angles: one that presents him as an evil-for-evil's sake villain, and one that essentially defangs him, both of which are problematic in their own right. analyzing both those angles first requires acknowledging that the legend of zelda is very orientalist and imperialist in its themes.

these themes start with the decision to take the antagonist, originally portrayed as a monster, as a man from the desert, with every caricaturized trait one would expect. and, the storytelling of loz is influenced heavily by japanese myth and medieval europe, particularly the idea of a "divine right" to rule — which, of course, belongs to zelda, or rather the hylian monarchy as a whole. and ganondorf is the evil who is not divinely ordained to rule and thus would dismantle good society as we know it

and then there's wind waker, where a popular interpretation of ganondorf's monologue is that he desired better for his people... well, not quite! him and daphnes are essentially parallels of each other. nor is it ever really said by the gan man himself, as he never really says anything about his people in that monologue. it could be determined from subtext, but as far as authorial intent goes —

see. loz is my favorite franchise, but in it's current state since the introduction of ganondorf, functions more as propaganda at times in it's narrative setup, rather than any sort of fairy tale. not saying it IS propaganda, though — there is a distinction

so, that is to say, looking at JUST the origin material itself, you can't really "know" him as a character, or understand any coherent moral statement. any sort of analysis that tries to determine ganondorf's goals, what he has or has not done, and why, will eventually hit a dead end. because that isn't the purpose of propaganda. ganondorf as portrayed in canon is whatever he needs to be in order to justify the fantasy of killing him

which, as he is portrayed in canon, is a merciless villain with no coherent moral backing to his actions. he is greedy and desires power. but, of course, it's perfectly reasonable to want more from his character than just "evil desert guy wants our grass"

(although one thing i find super funny with the way ganondorf is portrayed in particularly oot and totk with nintendo doing that is the duality of him being called manipulative, but also very obviously and openly evil at the same time. so you get the rather funny canonical reality that everyone who meets him becomes incapable of doing anything about their gut instincts and just lets themselves get fucked despite being spitefully demeaning about it the entire time)

and this is where my issue comes in with most interpretations that try to "fix" ganondorf

most attempts at "fixing" ganondorf will

1. focus on him trying to break demise's curse

which, aside from being a misinterpretation of demise's curse, i feel robs ganondorf of any actual agency and boils all his actions down to "he has a demon in his head."

as for the misinterpretation of canon, it somehow got into the minds of many that ganondorf is a reincarnation of demise. this is not the case. reincarnation gets talked about a lot in loz fandom for some reason, but there's only one canon instance of it — being hylia's reincarnation into sksw zelda. and, essentially implying that the guy from the desert is basically the antichrist is.......lol. the actual manifestation of demise's curse is basically every villain ever

and 2. will have him ally with link and/or zelda and eventually hyrule as a whole

my biggest issue with especially that part, is this idea that ganondorf would recognize hyrule as rightful if not for the above mentioned demon in his head. he is bad, or at the very least morally gray, because he rejects hyrule's authority. and in this angle of interpretation and fanon, hyrule stays static. throughout the series, we get bits and pieces of hyrule's wrongdoings through subtext, but rarely is this actually ever presented as something wrong. only as the reason certain circumstances are present in the current hyrule. and this approach woefully ignores link and zelda as agents of hyrule who uphold the status quo. and i think maybe a lot of people are even hesitant to acknowledge that, because they're the main characters that everyone loves

and tbh. sometimes it feels the two popular interpretations of ganondorf end up being over-corrections of each other. the ones who prefer him mercilessly evil for the sake of it feel like they're trying to over-correct the sympathetic "woobifying" interpretations, but then end up playing right into the orientalist tropes that nintendo set up. and the more sympathetic interpretations try to over-correct that but then end up robbing him of all agency and making him only a victim to a higher force

[transgaledekarios]

I would be so curious to hear some of your thoughts on why you hc gale as trans. Because like, I also instinctually had that thought? But I had previously just attributed it to me projecting ^^’’

Oooo of course! Yay thank you for the ask! So there are a few things. There will be spoilers for the game, and I will tag that, but just a heads up.

The first is small, easy to miss/ignore. If you look at his underwear description, it says it’s enchanted. With what? Who knows. My thought is they have some basic cleanliness/freshness spells, but also, magical packer. Obviously. Enchantment refers to the school of magic in 5e, and this is about charms and illusions. What exactly needs an illusion in his underwear? Magical packer makes perfect sense to me

Another sign for me is the way he is very…. Shy? About his body. He makes a comment about how he even waited for Tara to leave the room before undressing for bed. Which…fair. Tara is very smart, but she still is an owlcat. And I thought to myself hmm. What could make a grown adult so uncomfortable with showing their body, in any state of undress not just fully nude, even in non sexual situations?

My next one is connection to the previous. In a possibly orgy situation in act 3 (one that he actually seems into, because he likes the idea of watching you). He does his switcharoo thingy with the magical projection of him and he said a very specific line that had me go hmmm. He comments that uhuh, yes this is me. Nude. Definitely “anatomically correct”. He says those exact two words. And while this could be interpreted as a small dick joke (oh haha hilarious. Cis man with a small dick how funny 😐.) if this is the case, I’d actually be really disappointed in Larian. But I think it becomes more interesting in the case that like. He has no dick, and he’s not about to out himself to strangers.

My other thought is the romance and sex scenes with him themselves. The “normal” sex scene has him and Tav completely clothed. And fades to black. Which, to me, supports the idea that he’s a bit nervous and shy about his body. Uncomfortable with showing even the audience he’s not aware of. There’s some kind of discomfort there he needs to overcome before he can share his body, even partially nude, with someone. The astral sex scene (which is very fun btw) has a lot more happening, but you never see any genitals. Just bright light. Which I also thought was interesting. With an astral projection, he can do wtvr he wants, (even have three of him) to please you. And he’s confident and sure of himself. Practiced. Why? Because wtvr insecurity he has in his body, he can smooth over and ignore in the astral plane.

I like to imagine that he and my tav, Cordelia, have a long, heartfelt talk about it. And she’s eventually able to soothe his insecurities (at least in how it relates to her seeing him, idk that he’ll ever be comfortable with strangers or near-strangers seeing his body).

These are all that I can think of at the moment, there may be more that I just forgot. (I’ll need to replay his romance eventually).

Thanks again for the ask! 🧡🧡🧡

[zoobus]

Alec Baldwin, huh.

(in reference to my tags on this post)

I don't agree with the sentiment, I'm just SAYING if you write media analysis like this, you're a moron:

For those of you who can't watch videos, it's the famous speech Alec Baldwin gives in the cinematic masterpiece Glengarry Glenn Ross. Baldwin's character -- whom you assume is the villain -- addresses a room full of dudes and tears them a new asshole As smarter people have pointed out, the genius of that speech is that half of the people who watch it think that the point of the scene is "Wow, what must it be like to have such an asshole boss?" and the other half think, "Fuck yes, let's go out and sell some goddamned real estate!"

Or, as the Last Psychiatrist blog put it: "If you were in that room, some of you would understand this as a work, but feed off the energy of the message anyway, 'this guy is awesome!'; while some of you would take it personally, this guy is a jerk, you have no right to talk to me like that, or -- the standard maneuver when narcissism is confronted with a greater power -- quietly seethe and fantasize about finding information that will out him as a hypocrite.

Here are some quick indicators you can disregard someone's media opinions, whether you've seen whatever they're describing or not

They tell YOU what you'll assume about a character

They tell YOU what the "correct" read of a character is

They think there's two primary reads of the story and they flatten down to "my interpretation is smart and says something good about myself, all other interpretations are superficial and evidence of a pathetic lack of self-awareness"

They talk about award-winning, complex media like a storybook for small children. This guy is actually the villain! This guy is actually the hero!

They're so so so certain that they know exactly how everyone else interpreted the movie

Take American Psycho - when I finally watched it, I *did* find takes I disagreed with, and I *did* find takes that I felt misunderstood certain characters. But very few, if any, disagreements were due to the other person's perception of characters as purely heroic or otherwise. I found takes that I didn't object to exactly, but came from viewpoints I felt too ignorant to fully grasp or comment on. I found gaps in my own understanding, gaps I don't think I'm capable of filling (I don't get music, sorry).

It wasn't 50% dudebros who wished they were/wanted to suck off Patrick Bateman and 50% wise women smartly explaining why the racist misogynist is in fact a bad person. The most annoying, shallowest takes I've found I'm most hostile to are those "you aren't patrick bateman, you don't even wash your face/teen girls with a skincare routine understand American psycho more than any dudebro could" memes. The take with actual effort that I bristled at the most was an essay that seemed oblivious to how severe homophobia was in the 80s.

I haven't watched Glen Glennie Ross, I'm just saying this guy's read of it lends me to believe he's not a reliable source.

[will80sbyers]

I am a multi shipper so don't take this as an attack on Byler, I like Byler's dynamic too but I like and think Mileven is endgame. My problem with Byler is actually how some of the shippers act, like saying Mike has never loved El and was just with her to his sexuality does not sound great. Now, I am queer myself and I understand that this type of experience can happen irl. But in terms of it happening in a limited time frame in a tv show where we just watch these characters for a couple of seasons and how Mileven has been marketed for 4 seasons straight, are we really supposed to just accept that Mike and El never ever felt romantic feelings for each other? And the monologue, which happened in the show's climax moment, it being disregarded as a lie would feel really jarring, especially when we know El got strength from it. Why include it at all if it was a lie? I think there is a difference between preferring Byler as an outcome and a ship, versus trying to erase Mileven's romantic existence completely. Just thinking about the show's narrative, we have gone past the notion of Mike and El never loving each other romantically IMHO.

It all depends on the interpretation you have, I agree with you in thinking they have a real romantic relationship but the people in the byler tag that say they don't, genuinely think Mike has been lying to everyone and himself for years and that that's what the writers are writing, it's not exactly "wanting" to eliminate the relationship as much as thinking that something is happening because of certain details that they think matter

I don't agree that that's the correct interpretation of the show but I genuinely believe byler is going to be the endgame relationship for Mike and Will at the same time

I think that the Duffers will not disregard the relationship Mike had with El in the show, but they are moving the story towards byler endgame because I don't think Mike and El are compatible anymore, their love and relationship was a puppy love/young love type of situation and El and Mike changed as people, I think they were too dependent on each other and are not in love really but have mostly an attachment to the other, they do like each other but the relationship is not working for them as they would like, Mike placed El on a pedestal too high and she's not able to make him see that she likes him as he is on her own, probably because she's not in love with him really and the writing needed to show that El doesn't make Mike feel like Will does this season- her love for Mike is not as deep as Will's love has been shown to be on screen, that doesn't mean she doesn't care about him, it's just something different!

The fact that they used the painting and made Will lie about it and even be the one that reminds Mike to make the monologue instead of making El and Mike resolve their problems is really a death sentence on Mike and El's relationship because imagine if that was happening in any other hetero couple in movies like it often does, that's a sign that the relationship is not working out if they need a 3rd person that is in love with one of them to use his own feelings to fix the problems the other is having in his relationship... That's the death of romance not a climax love confession!

I don't think Mike was lying but I think he was tricked by the feelings behind the painting in the sense that he didn't feel secure and safe enough with El to say that he loved her before Will got involved with his own feelings for Mike

That means that Mike doesn't trust El completely with his own heart to me and that there is something wrong that's stopping Mike from being completely himself with her, he's been trying to be cooler for her since they started the relationship and she started doing the same in s4 because of her own insecurities until she confronted her trauma with Brenner

I think El likes Mike but I don't think she's in love with him, I think she (not consciously) latched onto this relationship because it was a safe space for her after Hop's death and that they are both going to realize the romantic part of their relationship has to end for them to stay as close as they are now on El's side especially... I think she needs something different now and I think Mike is going to realize what he feels for Will is something deep and that's what was stopping him from committing his whole heart to El, because Mike's heart was already Will's before that without him even realizing it

So yeah even if I don't think Mike was lying about anything I think the narrative is going to end with byler endgame at this point otherwise the duffers wrote awful stuff for Mike and El without any reason

[birdantlers]

You know, it wouldn't even occur to me that certain ships might even exist... if authors of fanart like yours (even before your dragonball phase) didn't insist on bringing that fact to my attention by screaming murder at anyone who might dare interpret their stuff in a certain way. And it's exactly that disclaimer that causes me to look closer at the art in question and realize that... oh wow, right, Gohan is really acting like a jealous lover here, huh? Assuming he must be the One Person (1/3)

My condolences about your daddy issues or whatever, but you're the one that's reading weirdly deep into this, dude. I genuinely don't know what kind of 'gotcha' you think you wrote but... damn.

Is this your first day on the internet? People tag and draw blatantly-platonic seeming art that's actually ship art upon closer investigation constantly. Now idc what people do as long as its properly tagged, but it's a different story when my art is involved. Of course my DNIs are to prevent "misunderstandings." I'm not a moron; anyone can pick out supporting evidence for their bias if they look for it, which is exactly the point of saying I don't condone it. It's me going "Hey, these are my boundaries! If you don't respect them, that's shitty of you!"

I can't control how people interpret my art. I know this—but I can sure as hell clear the air about my intent and opinions. So I'll make myself very clear: I don't like my content being seen in a romantic context. Unless I confirm otherwise, it's platonic. Why? Because I fucking say so. If word of god isn't reason enough, that's on you. Your inability to see emotional intimacy between two adults as anything but romantic is not my fault—nor is it my responsibility to overcorrect.

It may shock you that, yes, this is how many families do interact. Not everyone's idea of a "convincingly portrayed" family dynamic is going to be the same. I'm a very sappy person irl and so is my family. It's honestly kind of pathetic that you obviously think my content is too much for a paternal relationship.

Even aside from that though, your arguments are just bad. I mean did you even reread this before you sent it? Sure. "Gohan acts like a jealous lover..." of his preschool-age daughter. Yeah, that's a totally normal take. Really makes you seem like a well-adjusted individual. I don't even know where you got the jealousy thing from since he spends the whole comic actively trying to leave and stop Pan from sticking up for him. Your other points are just conspiratorial; I see no point addressing them.

So yeah, take your final proposition and shove it. Maybe focus on how to "effectively and convincingly portray" whatever content measures up to your standards instead of preaching to me like I shouldn't do the same. I don't owe you jack—especially when you're too much of a coward to talk down to me while hiding behind anon.

And if this is who I think it is (given the timeframe you let slip), get off of that damn high horse already. You're not the patron saint of correct characterization, and your unwarranted criticism doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look like an entitled tool who can't resist hearing your own voice. Quit tearing people's hobby work down because you can't find enough fan content to satisfy your own standards.

I love found family. I love sickeningly sweet """unconvincing""" found family, and if you think that's trite, ooc, or—I guess, romantic—keep it to yourself. You're not going to 'con'crit me out of creating exactly what makes me happy, and this weird victim-blamey diatribe sure as hell isn't either. If anything, you've only convinced me to keep using DNIs.

[self-spaghettification]

Hey I think you are cool and pretty knowledgeable in this area so I'd like to share a theory(?) I have with you. Do correct me if I get anything obviously wrong I have only been in the Fandom since February or May and there may be context I am missing 😅.

What if the Star described in Ripples was not Aaravos but Leola. The calamity is said to have happened after humans were given primal magic, not dark magic. Also:

"The sky opened its maw and spat from its black jaws a tiny star. Small as it was, it gleamed with all the searing brilliance of a diamond—brighter and more beautiful than anything the humans had ever beheld."

Aaravos is not "tiny" or "small". It would be odd for him to describe himself that way. The only Startouch elf that we know of that could be described as small would be Leola.

Idk if I am making any sense sorry lmao. Anyway. Have a good day!!

Hi there! Thank you :)) I’m honored that you think that!

Anyway, about the theory. It’s intriguing! Especially the tiny star connection to Leola, the smallest startouch elf we know of at the moment:

However— “The calamity is said to have happened after humans were given primal magic, not dark magic.” This, my dear anon, is —in my speculative view—exactly why it can’t be Leola. Leola the unicorn gave humanity primal magic. Leola the startouch elf was pictured with a star, her last wish, and last wish being pretty grim, I interpret it as the death of her, or her form as a startouch elf at least. So if primal magic had already been gifted to humanity by the time of this fallen star, Leola had likely already fallen, ruling her out.

However! This is all my view. There are a lot of different takes on Leola, the falling star, and Leola’s relationship/connection with Aaravos, and I would encourage checking those out! I’d link them but it’s been a second. They’re probably under the tdp Leola tag or with their friends

There is the possibility Leola was 1. Unicorn then 2. Startouch elf then 3. Star or some other combo, but it’s all wishy washy lore enough atm that nothing can really be ruled out, so I’m all for more theories!

So yeah, that’s my take! Thanks for asking!

[rumble-aint-a-rumble-without-me]

I AM INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY!!!

@insanityexistsalone you asked to be tagged baby!! @the-kneesbees you said you were interested-

Lemme tell you something-

Tim. Dallas. Sylvia. The cheating scandal. I’ve got a ton of thoughts but I’ve gotta clarify some stuff first.

I’m gonna be talking about True Canon, Sophie Canon, and Dillo Canon and I intend to make it very clear which is which, but y’know, don’t hate on me if I say something you don’t agree with. I’m just a dude running a blog, okay? If you don’t like it, you don’t gotta stick around, this is all just for fun and all interpretations.

I’ve got a lot to say so it’s going under a cut- sorry about that folks-

So! Let’s start with True Canon!

As far as I remember, cause I don’t have my book in hand at the moment, Dallas says that Sylvia’s been two-timing him while he’s in jail and that’s why they called things off. True Canon!Sylvia has a history of running around on Dallas and flirting with other people, for example Johnny. At the same time, True Canon!Tim is True Canon!Dally’s fre-enemy. Dal slashed his tires, Tim still visited him in the hospital.

As far as True Canon goes, as far as I remember True Canon to go, it never explicitly says who Sylvia was doing the two-timing with. Just that Sylvia was messing around while Dally was locked up. And that’s True Canon. Simple enough.

(Again this is all from memory but if I’m wrong, someone please correct me, please, I’m not joking-)

Now! Let me introduce you to Sophie Canon.

Written by my wonderful friend @sophie-i-guess13, Sophie has an extensive take on the inner workings between Sylvia, Dallas, and Tim. I’ve spent countless hours talking with her about how the three of them work, their history, their future. We’ve talked. A lot. And that’s not to say that I impacted Sophie Canon, she came up with almost everything and I cheered her on and fooled around with her ideas like they were my personal dolls

(I highly recommend reading everything she’s ever written I love all her pieces and she’s got a lovely writing style that I would kill for, check her out here and on her AO3, I’m not even joking, her works changed my whole outlook on the fandom)

But in Sophie Canon, Sylvia and Dallas have one of those on-again, off-again relationships where they break up every other week. Sylvia and Tim are also childhood friends. There’s break offs and AUs that she’s made too so that sorta changes thing, but at the baseline, Dallas and Sylvia are a problematic relationship and Tim and Sylvia always end up as an endgame relationship, no matter if it’s platonic or romantic.

In Sophie Canon, as far as I can remember, Sylvia never really cheats. Dallas’ is just very jealous and Sylvia knows that she gets attention from him if she flirts a little with other guys.

Sophie canon has greatly impacted and formed my opinion on this matter and is a big contributor to Dillo Canon.

Dillo Canon is exactly what it sounds like. My canon.

In Dillo Canon, Sylvia never cheated. Sylvia never cheated. Sylvia Never Cheated. SYLVIA NEVER CHEATED. And she definitely never did it with Tim.

In Dillo Canon, Sylvia and Tim and Dallas grew up together. They were buddies and Sylv and Dal did their off and on dating thing as they grew up and Sylv and Tim were friends long before Dal rolled into town and stayed friends long after he died.

Dal was jealous of the close bond Tim and Sylvia had and often accused them of having feelings for each other, even when Dal and Sylv were dating. He’s an insecure hood who’s had a rough life and a tough time with relationships, alright? No one said he was perfect.

So honestly? Here’s how it went down in Dillo Canon.

Dal came home from his stay in the pen, found Sylvia staying at Tim’s because she’s got shitty parents, just like everyone else, and Dal thought something was going on between them. So they broke up, Dal took his ring back, and that was that. They would’ve gotten back together within the next week or two because they always end up together again, no matter what either of them say <3

So….yeah!

That’s what I have to say about that!

If anyone wants an elaboration on anything, feel free to ask, I can talk lore all day long-

[sana-yan]

the secret history of sanada and taichi

Taichi: I like Sana, I do. We weren’t there at the same time, but we both came through the same All Japan dojo system. He’s like a cute kid brother. 

–SANADA came into All Japan after you had already left. But he agrees with your ‘kid brother’ remark and talks about you in a similar way.

Taichi: Aww, bless his heart. But I’ve known him for a long time, since he was a newcomer to AJPW... (source)

the following are the kayfabe diaries of taichi and sanada, in its original japanese text, as well as english translations by me. i'm not a fan of the translations on njpw's english content (as they sometimes censor bits out or omit them entirely), so i tried my hand at translation/interpretation to capture what i feel is more authentic to the original text, as well as provide background information for readers. of course, since i am not a native speaker, please feel free to correct me on the nuances!

!! since this is paywalled content, please do not share outside of tumblr. thank you

TAICHI's DIARY (6.12.2021)

岡本「今回も私が担当します、改めましてニュージャパンワールド解説でもお馴染みの東京スポーツの岡本です」 Okamoto: I'll start us off; I'm Okamoto from Tokyo Sports, a commentator for New Japan World.　 タイチ「今更いいよ。もうレギュラー化してんな」 Taichi: You're a regular now. You don't have to do that. 　 岡「田口さんの日記の巨乳ちゃんポジションですよね完全に」 O: That's Big-Breast's position in Taguchi-san's diary, isn't it?

(T/N: Ryusuke Taguchi's diary has a character named "Big Breast" who starts off the entries. Okamoto suggests he is equivalent to that in Taichi's diary.) 　 タ「それを言っちゃおしめぇよ！ T: Don't say stuff like that! で、今回はなんだよ？」 So, what is it this time? 　 岡「はい、ようやくGODから奪還したタッグベルトに早速、内藤SANADA組が挑戦に名乗りを上げて来ましたが、その辺のお話を聞かせてください」 O: Naito and SANADA have come forward to challenge you for the tag team belts after you finally regained them from G.O.D. 　 タ「まぁもうその辺は試合後のコメントやTwitterで散々言ってきたからなぁ。 T: Well, I've said enough about that in my post-match comments and on Twitter. 珍しくsanaやんも喋ったしな。 And Sana-yan spoke, which is rare. ナイトーに無理やり付き合わされてるんじゃないのはわかったよ。 I can see he's not just being dragged along by Naito. だけどな、アレじゃダメだな！ But that's not good enough! 足りない！」 it's not enough! 　 岡「伝わりませんか？」 O: Would you like to tell us why? 　 タ「昨日のsanaやんの日記よ！ T: It's Sana-yan's diary from yesterday! 最後のたったの一行よ！ It's just one sentence at the end [saying he wants to go for the belts]! ナイトーの長さに比べて、たったの一行だぞ！ It's a single line compared to Naito's [diary entry]!

岡「でもSANADAさんが気持ちを喋る事自体、珍しい事なので、十分かと思います」 O: But it's rare for SANADA-san to express himself, so I thought it was fine. 　 タ「いやっ、もっと言うならな、毎回の日記の短さよ！ T: No, if I had to say more, I'd talk about how short each entry is! コメントも出さないなら日記も喋らないのかよっ！ If you don't do comments, shouldn't you do your diary! 俺とsanaやんの日記の内容の違いよ！ Look at the difference in content between my diary and Sana-yan's! これでどーせみんな一律同じギャラなんだろ！？ Everyone gets paid the same rate, right? ふざけんなよ！ You've got to be kidding me! やってらんねぇよ！ I won't do this! だったら俺も次回から10行くらいで終わらせてやるよ！」 If it's going to be like this, I'll only write up to ten lines the next time! 　 岡「いやいやまぁまぁ… O: Ah, well, you know... それも含めてSANADAさんなんで… That's just who SANADA-san is... ところでお2人は全日本プロレス出身同士という意外な繋がりがあるわけですが。 Anyway, the two of you have an unexpected connection from All Japan Pro Wrestling. 接点はあったのですか？」 Did you two ever come in contact? 　 タ「それな、よく言われるんだが、俺が辞めてから入門してんだよな、sanaやんもbushiやんも。 T: It's often said that SANA-yan and Bushi-yan joined AJPW right after I left. だから入れ替わりで全く接点なかった」 So we didn't come into contact at AJPW. 岡「そうなんですねー。 O: I see. お会いした事もなかったんですか？」 So you've never met him before? タ「いや、初めてsanaやんに会ったのは… T: Nah, I first met Sana-yan... 彼がまだデビューして間もないくらいか？？ ...around the time he had just made his debut? 意外なところで初対面を果たしたよ」 We met for the first time at a totally unexpected place. 岡「どちらでどのように！？」 O: Where and how!? 　 タ「もう本当にな、何年も前だから正確には覚えていないが… T: It's been such a long time, I don't exactly remember... 多分10年以上前だろうか… Perhaps more than 10 years ago... ある日今も全日本プロレスにいるリングアナの木原とな、全日本プロレスの道場の近くにある、スーパー銭湯に行ったんだよな。 One day, Kihara, a ring announcer at AJPW, and I went to the super public bathhouse closest to the AJPW dojo.

(T/N: Tiger "Old Man" Kihara is a ring announcer for AJPW and was the manager of the Great Muta during his stint in the United States.) その時な、何故か木原のオヤジがダイエットをしててな、無駄なダイエット。 At that time, for some reason, Old Man Kihara was on a diet, a useless diet. 食事とかやたら節制してて、練習もガンガンしてて、その日もその後の事で、サウナに何回も入ったんだよな。 He restricted his meals while practicing hard at the dojo, and on that day, he went into the sauna several times. そしたら節制のし過ぎで脱水症状起こしてサウナ出たら倒れちまってよ！」 Then he got dehydrated from overdoing his diet and collapsed right after getting out of the sauna!

岡「え！ O: Eh?! それはタイチさんも一緒だったんですよね！？」 While he was in there with you!? タ「そうよ、2人で行ったんだからな。 T: Yeah, we went together. 木原のオヤジの野郎、ガタガタ痙攣し始めてな… Old Bastard Kihara started convulsing... さすがに救急車呼んだよな」 So I went to call an ambulance. 岡「そんな事あったんですか！」 O: Did they come? 　 タ「そうだよ。 T: That's right. 救急隊員が風呂ん中入って来てな。 The paramedics came into the baths. 体が硬直して担架にも乗せらんないから、股間にタオル一枚で裸のまま救急隊員2人に、両肩両膝抱えられて救急車まで運ばれて行ったよ。

He was so stiff he couldn't be carried on a stretcher. Two paramedics had to carry him naked with a towel between his legs, lifting him by his shoulders and knees and taking him to the ambulance. 椅子に座ってた状態のそのままの姿な。 Just like he was sitting on a chair. 結果大丈夫だったから言えるけど、不謹慎にも俺はその姿を見てさすがに、つい笑っちまったよ…」 Once I saw it would turn out okay, I couldn't help but laugh at that sight... 　 岡「今だから笑い話ですね… O: What a funny story... って、全然SANADAさん関係ないじゃないすか！」 But that has nothing to do with SANADA-san at all! 　 タ「いやまぁ焦るなって！ T: Don't be so impatient! ここからだよ。 Here it is.

ほんでなそのまま木原のオヤジは近くの病院運ばれてな、点滴の処置を受けてたんだよ。 Old Man Kihara was taken to a local hospital and administered an IV drip. 付き添いで行ったけど、俺は次の日早くて帰らなきゃいけなかったんだよ。 I came as a chaperone but had to leave as it was getting too late. それを木原オヤジに伝えたら、全日本プロレスの道場から若手を呼んでくれと… When I told Kihara-san about it, he asked me to call a young man from the AJPW dojo... 俺も早く帰りたかったから、すぐに道場に電話して、出たのは誰かわからんけど、木原オヤジがこんな状態だから迎えに来てと伝えて。

I wanted to leave early, so I called the dojo right away. I have no clue who answered, but I told them about Old Man Kihara's condition and to pick him up. そしたらすぐに2人の若手が病院に来たよ」 And immediately, two young guys came to the hospital. 　 岡「それがSANADAさんだったと！」 O: And that was SANADA-san! タ「その通りだ。 T: That's right. sanaやんともう1人、誰だったか… Sana-yan and another guy, who was he... ど忘れしたが。 I forgot who it was. そこで初対面だよsanaやんとは」 That's where I met Sana-yan for the first time. 　 岡「そんな時にそんなとこで！ O: At such a place and such a time! どうでした？初のSANADAさんの印象は？」 How was it? What was your first impression of SANADA-san? タ「もう本当ただの若いお兄ちゃんて感じだったよ。 T: He really felt like a younger brother. かわいい感じの男の子。 A cute-looking boy. 挨拶もちゃんとしてきてな。 I should say hello properly. と、思ってたら急に驚きの行動に出たんだよ！」 Was what I thought when he suddenly surprised me! 　 岡「なんですか！？」 O: What was it? タ「じゃ俺はもう行くよ、と伝えたらsanaやんが持参してきてたビニール袋の中身をガッサーーーーと待ち合い室の椅子に広げてな！ T: When I told him, "I'm heading out now," Sana-yan spilled all the contents of the plastic bag he had on the waiting room chair! 中身は大量のお菓子だったよ！ There were a ton of sweets inside! ゲーセンでも行ってきたんか！レベルのよ！」 I thought he had come from an arcade! It was that much!

(T/N: At some arcades in Japan, you can trade your winning tickets to get candy prizes.) 　 岡「えぇ？ O: Huh? 夜の病院の待ち合い室の椅子で！？」 In the chair of a hospital waiting room at night!? タ「そうだよ！ T: Yes, that's right! さすがに俺もビックリしてな… I was surprised too...

なにそれ？と聞いたらsanaやんがな What's that, I asked him, and Sana-yan said, 　 sana「長くなりそうなんで暇つぶしに持って来たんです！

"It looked like it would be a long wait, so I brought it to kill time! あとは自分らでやっておくんで大丈夫す！」 We'll take care of the rest from here." て言いながらお菓子ボリボリ食べ出してな！」 He said that, all the while munching on sweets! 岡「なんですかそれ！ O: What's this! 木原さんの事全く心配してないじゃないですか！」 They weren't worried about Kihara-san at all! 　 タ「そうなんだよ！ T: Yes, right! 俺もそれ言ったら I told him that too! 　 sana「木原さんの事なんで、どーせ大丈夫っすよ！ SANADA: "It's Kihara-san, so it should be fine. うまい棒食べます？」 Would you like a Umaibo?"

(T/N: Literally called "delicious stick.")　 ってこんな感じだったからな！」 T: And that was that! 　 岡「なんか全然印象違いますね… O: What a totally different impression... 若い頃はそんなんだったんですねえ…」 So that's what it was like when he was younger... 　 タ「ある意味、大物になりそうな予感はあったよな… T: In a way, I had a hunch that he'd become something big... まぁそんな初対面だったよ」 And yeah, that was the first time we met. 　 岡「SANADAさんとの初対面の話で凄い長くなりましたね」 O: The story about meeting SANADA-san for the first time turned out to be quite long. 　 タ「そのsanaやんの日記はクソ短いけどな。 T: Sana-yan's diary is fucking short, though. タイトルマッチをもしやったら、またあの時、差し出してくれたうまい棒、くれるかな…」 If we have a title match again, I wonder if he'll offer me a Umaibo like back then... 　 岡「SANADAさんならきっとくれますよ、あの時のうまい棒… O: I'm sure SANADA-san will give you a Umaibo from that time... だから挑戦受けましょうよ。 So take the challenge.

一緒にうまい棒食べたらいいんですよ！」 Let's all eat Umaibo together!

(T/N: This following part is totally false. Taichi's diary always ends with a wacky imaginary scenario, mostly ending with Okamoto or Taichi or both dying.) sana「タイチはん、岡本はん、そんなの待つ必要ありまへん。 "SANADA": Taichi-han, Okamoto-han, you don't have to wait. 今食べましょう、あの時のうまい棒… Let's eat it now, the Umaibo from the past... はい、どうぞ」 Here you go. 岡「わっ！ O: Wow! 急にご本人登場！」 He suddenly appeared! タ「さ、sanaやん… T: Sa-Sana-yan... あの時は一緒に食べれずごめんな… I'm sorry I couldn't eat with you then... ありがとう！」 Thanks! タイチとsanaやんと岡本は仲良く3人でうまい棒を食べた Taichi, Sana-yan, and Okamoto got along well and had Umaibo together. いつの間にかキツネ目の男に毒を盛られていたうまい棒を食べた3人は死んだ Before they knew it, the fox-eyed man had poisoned them, and they all died.

(T/N: This is a reference to the Glico Morinaga case. Okamoto and Taichi have a dark sense of humor.)

SANADA's DIARY (6.25.2021)

兄やんとの1番最初の出会いは、どこかのラーメン屋さんでした。 The first time I met Ni-yan was at some ramen restaurant.

当時デビューしたてだった頃、木原のオヤジから電話があり「今から来い」的なことを言われ向かいました。 I had just debuted, and Old Man Kihara called me up and said, "Come over now," so I went.

兄やんの第一印象は、ヤカラでした。 My first impression of Ni-yan was that he felt like a yakara. (T/N: EDITED to add in context that Sanada could potentially mean that Taichi is either a) a kindred spirit, having the same background/lineage as Sanada as an AJPW trainee, or b) a delinquent thug.)

（今もですが） (Even now.)

そしてその後は、スーパー銭湯（先週の兄やん日記の中に書いてあったやつ）でお会いしました。

And after that, we met at the super public bath (the same one mentioned in Ni-yan's diary last week).

そう、先週の兄やん日記の中にも書いてありましたが、木原のオヤジが無理なダイエットをし何度もサウナに入り麻痺して倒れたのですが、救急隊が木原のオヤジを風呂から外に運んでる時、タイチ兄やんは全く気にせずドライヤーで髪の毛を乾かしてて、カッケーと思いました。

Yes, as mentioned in Ni-yan's diary last week, Old Man Kihara went on an impossible diet and visited the sauna many times and collapsed, paralyzed [from dehydration]. While the emergency personnel carried Old Man Kihara out of the bath, Taichi-niyan looked unfazed and started drying his hair with a dryer. I thought he was cool.

そしてその後お会いしたのはメキシコだったような。（この時にデスペラードにも会ったような）

And then I think we met in Mexico afterward. (I think I also met Desperado at this time.)

そして兄やんのタッグパートナー、ザックは同い年なんですよね。

Also, Ni-yan's tag partner, Zack, is the same age as me.

（だから何やねん）

(What's the point you're trying to make)

(T/N: me too, Sana-yan. Why did you bring up Zack's age out of nowhere? Lmao)

see u next time

[evyisaks]

I hate whenever the tag has a resurgence of people trying to defend M*leven shippers. They will absolutely never do the same thing for Bylers. Obviously every single M*leven isn't a raging homophobe. But crying over how unfair it is to say negative things about them when a lot of their fanbase is very vocally homophobic just screams pick me behavior.

Also, I'm sorry. But if M*levens don't see a problem with the gay kid's feelings being used to fix a straight couple's problems, that is really sh*tty of them. Wanting people to get queerbaited and the plotline of the show to be homophobic just because "my ship is cute and I Iike them 🥺 " is not a stance that many Bylers will get behind.

Hii! :)

Yes exactly! And I honestly have no issues getting started on how annoying and problematic parts of the Byler fandom can be. There are people in the fandom that are so hateful, and not for not finding Mcflurry cute or for thinking that Mcflurry's aren't watching the show right, but they are downright hateful.

However, this isn't what's being discussed when talking about the issues in the fandom. And I'm sorry but there's a difference in saying that someone isn't watching a certain piece of media correctly, and then being called slurs. There's a difference in saying that you don't ship Mcflurry and think that they were never in love, and then people calling Bylers homophobic slurs and wishing Will's death so that he doesn't come between McFlurry.

And most of the posts about Will from Mcflurry's is almost never positive- even if it's outside of Byler. Will is a loser. He's annoying. He's a cry baby. He's a crybaby. He's a bad friend and brother. He's creepy for liking Mike. You are creepy if you ship Byler. You hate El if you ship them. You are ableist against El if you want her brother to steal her boyfriend. But gay people having unrequited love stories and ending alone is realistic. It makes sense for Will's character to end up alone. Will realising that he's not a kid anymore and ending up alone makes sense. You need to read these bible verses because shipping Byler is a sin. The social media didn't queerbait with Byler, Bylers are just throwing up that word for nothing. Will dying would make sense in S5. Will dead and Mcflurry as endgame in S5 is the perfect ending.

I get it that people have friends who ship Mcflurry and they are nice, I'm mutuals with people who share different ships and fave characters than I do, and that's okay.

Do I agree that Bylers need to be nice to each other? Yes. Because at the end of the day we only know what the writers tell us and what is confirmed. Ones theory about Henry isn't the correct one and it doesn't make your theory any less valid than the one posted by a popular blog. People speculating about Mike's sexuality need to stop and think why bisexual Mike offends them so much, and some goes to people having bi-Mike as canon. Why does Mike being gay offend you?

Calling out people from your own fandom is so important to do because hey, Bylers aren't perfect shippers. People go too far. People don't always separate real life from fiction. Some Bylers are hateful. That's facts.

I think what bothers me is that we aren't telling some Bylers to back off because they are being hateful and disgusting. No we are telling Bylers to take all the hate and slurs from Mcflurry's, because saying that they are interpreting the show incorrectly is bad. And how can you say that Mcflurry aren't cute??? So sit back and watch the homophobic replies to a post that was "Mcflurry aren't cute. They were never in love and they bring out the worst in each other" because how dare Bylers not like Mcflurry?

[actual-changeling]

hello :) first of all you really don't have to answer or acknowledge this since it'll maybe stir this whole thing up even more, but i guess i just wanted to talk about this with someone who feels as passionate about it as i do. there's this very famous writer in the TLOU fandom and the way they portray ellie's character and especially her trauma just IRKS me so bad. it's so obvious they have no idea how PSTD works. at first i was like, ok, don't like don't read, i truly get it and agree, but when you write about such a sensitive topic i feel like you have to take responsability? the don't like it don't read it rule doesn't apply here since A LOT of people are reading your works and there's a possibility that their knowledge of PSTD will be flawed bc of the way YOU wrote it. and ellie's character... like, how much can you change a character's personality before it's another whole person? i just don't understand the point. again, no need to reply! just wanted to talk about this w/ someone (a writer, no less) who gets it

Hi anon!

I'm glad you felt safe enough to send this ask, and I 100% understand where you are coming from. I won't go into the drama because Ellis made his post and I was only watching it from the sidelines because he is my friend; this is done for him so it's done for me.

I do wanna say something on the matter of "don't like don't read" and author responsibility because as everyone who follows me probably knows at this point, I care about accurately writing PTSD and trauma (and any other conditions for that matter), and I have made several posts about it before. This is not about one person, this is about a trend I have see both in this fandom and in other ones, so once again, as always, if you start feeling defensive ask yourself why and have a good look at that.

I want to make something very very clear: people critizing a person's portrayal of a character's trauma and PTSD is NOT about headcanons. It is not about creative freedom. It is not about character interpretation. It never has been and it never will be. It is about accurately portraying actual medical conditions in a way that is both respectful and does not contribute to ableism and stigma.

If your portrayal misses the mark, people critizicing it are not criticzing your headcanons. They are telling you that something you wrote is legitimately offensive and harms actual, real people with that condition. There is exactly one correct response to that and it's apologizing, correcting your mistakes and/or taking the work down if you cannot do so for some reason (too deeply enmeshed with the story, you cannot write it properly, etc.). Saying "don't like don't read" and ignoring it doesn't suddenly make your work not offensive, it just makes YOU a bigot who does not care that they are hurting people.

"Don't like don't read" is about fics that do not meet your personal taste or deal with topics you cannot handle. It does not apply to offensive, harmful content. Would you say the same if someone published an outright transphobic or racist fanfic? Would you say "don't like don't read" and allow them to continue to post outright bigotry without repercussions? And if your answer to this is no, as I hope it is, why is it different when it comes to ableism? Why do you think mental disorders and conditions are somehow less worthy of being portrayed correctly? Why is ableism "less bad" to you?

And anon, you bring up a great point, as an author you not only have a responsibility to make sure that your portrayal isn't hurting people who have it but that it also doesn't contribute to negative stereotypes and furthers the stigma. If a person who does not have PTSD reads it and comes out the other side with an even more flawed view of it, you failed. You failed as an author and as an ally to disabled people.

Write Ellie however you want, but once you get to a certain point at least tag it as "out of character" so people can avoid it. It's not a bad thing to write ooc characters, if you are having fun - go for it! Just tag it as such so people can avoid it. Wrongly portrayed PTSD does not fall under headcanons though, it's a problem and you need to fix it. You need to do more research than one google search. Having a friend with PTSD is also not enough, you need the full picture, you need to understand how PTSD works and why people's symptoms are the way they are.

I have CPTSD, I have enough trauma for several lifetimes, I have several other diagnosed conditions and I'm on heavy psych medications and I still do my research. I draw from my own experienced a lot but I also have years of research under my belt and I still do more. Because I care. I care about my writing and my stories, I care about the characters and the people who see themselves in them, I care about my readers and everyone else who will be (hopefully positively) affected by the education I can provide via my writing. I care and that means putting in the work isn't a chore, I do it willingly and with enthusiasm.

If someone tells me I fucked something up - thank you, I will change it, apologize, and learn from it. That is the only correct response and I hope people will start doing so instead of twisting words and hiding behind "don't like don't read" because it has never been about interpretation and never will be.

This got quite long, but once again anon, thank you for sending in the ask, I'm glad you felt comfortable sending it. Have a great day <3

[finitevariety]

can we hear your argument about the correct way to understand bronte’s ‘the professor’?

warning that there's an EXTREMELY long post below. Don't click 'Keep reading' unless you're sure you can face it.

The correct way to read the novel is as a satire. I say this not because it's necessarily the accurate interpretation, but because it's the most interesting.

I'm excited to get into this, but first let's tie it back to the post I tagged earlier by seeing what reviews for The Professor indicate about the state of critical thought today (the prognosis is grim).

Typically, reviews fall into two camps:

One: Charlotte Brontë is a stupid fucking woman who betrayed feminism and therefore doesn't deserve rights anyway. Why did she write about a main character who's so RUDE?!

Two: Charlotte, you've done it again! Truly this is a romance for the ages! Can't wait to call my husband 'monsieur' for the rest of my natural life! This truly is a marriage of equals! Go feminism!

There is also a secret third type of terrible review that's basically 'this is your brain on mid-10s ~feminist~ internet', in which feminism was less about gaining power for cis and trans women of all races, but more of a vehicle to advance the nebulous idea of empowerment.

'Not like other girls but make it a poorly-drawn webcomic' vibes, you know?

Bluntly, nothing here admits to the possibility that Brontë might have been aware she was writing about an unrelatable, flawed asshole, and that that might have been exactly what she wanted to do.

I don't pretend to be an expert about Victorian literature or criticism of such, but the dominant opinion over the years seems to have been that The Professor is first-draft back-of-a-drawer stuff that was deservedly rejected by 9 publishers and languished correctly in said drawer before being posthumously released. For some, it's the Go Set a Watchman of her canon.

Many lean into the idea that The Professor is a wish-fulfilment fantasy concerning the married headmaster under whom she studied in Belgium, and with whom she was certainly infatuated. I do think this interpretation can be convincing—and it's been covered elsewhere by smarter people than me, so I won't bother.

What I'm going to do is look at why I think satire is a far more satisfying interpretation that does have justification in both the text and its context. I'll look at:

The Professor as a parody of the Victorian self-help genre; and

The unreliable narrator, more broadly

I was also going to examine the novel in relation to Brontë's other work, and particularly Villette, but the post was fucking long enough already. I really do apologise for its length: please know that this is me attempting to be concise.

The Professor as a parody of the Victorian self-help genre

There is a plague of whiny nerds who call themselves bookworms yet get scared and call the lit-police when the moral of a story isn't laid out at the end like an after school special. For years now, these #amwriting fucks have considered 'not-chris-evans.jpg' the ultimate gotcha on interminable twitter threads.

This shitty mic-drop fails to consider that there are some people for whom purpose and target will always be unclear. If Twitter had existed in the 1700s, there would be people incandescent with rage that Jonathan Swift wanted to buy and eat impoverished babies. One only has to look at what this supposedly literate group did to Isabel Fall to know that to make satire intelligble to these people you'd have to break out the crayons.

Another important consideration is that satire which was clear within its time can, bereft of context, seem earnest. It's my argument that this has happened to The Professor.

Heather Glen, in her 2004 book Charlotte Brontë: The Imagination in History, makes the compelling case that The Professor is written as a fictional example of a self-help genre which was popular at the time:

It is not a clumsy fictionalization of autobiographical concerns; or a draft for its author's later, more popular works, but a novel of a very different kind (p34)

She identifies Brontë's Preface as a key signpost, linking its explicit references to themes of self-reliance and discipline to the maxims so popular in the genre.

These references continue throughout the novel, with Crimsworth making much of his industry, effort, and self-restraint. But there are clear and telling differences between these self-help narratives and the life led by Crimsworth.

This might as well be him, right down to the decision to broadcast to the world.

Self-help was, as the name suggested, focused on the individual—authors such as Craik and Smiles argued that poverty was caused by personal irresponsibility and conversely could be alleviated by discipline. (As a side note, the self-help trend did coincide with 'mutual improvement societies', a more radical movement created by and for working class men to educate themselves and participate in political life.)

The bootstrap-bios of the self-help genre are exactly what you'd expect. In the conclusion to Volume 1, Craik highlights the promised reward, if one only puts one's mind to it: joy.

Crimsworth is set apart from these heroes of self-help because he is so bereft of positive emotion. In fact, his entire worldview is poisoned: to him, existence is impersonal, violent, and hostile. I'll swing back to Glen for this, because she lays out in significant detail just how paranoid and brutal his mental landscape is:

Crimsworth is the empty, sad shell which houses all hustle culture rise and grind don't-deserve-a-bedframe fundamentally pathetic fucking idiots of the Victorian Era, and Brontë is, I argue, lampooning this sigma male grindset nearly 200 years before the rest of us. His self-strictness curdles the supposed happy ending, and it's so fucking good if you interpret that as deliberate:

again, Glen:

the scene in which he proposes to her is charged with half-suppressed violence: he holds his beloved in 'a somewhat ruthless grasp' and insists that she speak his language, not her own. She, for her part, is 'as stirless in her happiness, as a mouse in its terror'

He professes contentment, when they marry, but there is never any peace to be found. Yet, for the story to end, and for him to consider it a story worth telling—one where self-discipline and hard work won the day—he must pretend at it. He might even believe it—but are we supposed to do so also? I don't think so.

2. The unreliable narrator, more broadly

Crimsworth tells us that:

The other day, in looking over my papers, I found in my desk the following copy of a letter, sent by me a year since to an old school acquaintance...

To this letter I never got an answer...what has become of him since, I know not. The leisure time I have at command, and which I intended to employ for his private benefit, I shall now dedicate to that of the public at large. My narrative is not exciting, and above all, not marvellous; but it may interest some individuals, who, having toiled in the same vocation as myself, will find in my experience frequent reflections of their own. The above letter will serve as an introduction. I now proceed.

Crimsworth refers to this person (Charles) in distant terms. He's an 'old school acquaintaince'. His fate is unknown, but this does not keep him up at night. Crimsworth implies that there's less affection there than utility: he'd intended to bestow on Charles the dubious gift of this tale, and now it's our turn instead. In the letter, too, he's at pains to point out that he would never lift a finger for him, especially for rotten work:

you were a sarcastic, observant, shrewd, cold-blooded creature; my own portrait I will not attempt to draw, but I cannot recollect that it was a strikingly attractive one—can you? What animal magnetism drew thee and me together I know not; certainly I never experienced anything of the Pylades and Orestes sentiment for you, and I have reason to believe that you, on your part, were equally free from all romantic regard to me.  Still, out of school hours we walked and talked continually together; when the theme of conversation was our companions or our masters we understood each other, and when I recurred to some sentiment of affection, some vague love of an excellent or beautiful object, whether in animate or inanimate nature, your sardonic coldness did not move me. I felt myself superior to that check then as I do now.

but he writes, anyway, not for Charles's benefit, but because he wants to be heard and understood as he was then. The companions have changed, but if there is anyone who will agree with him about their character and motivations, he believes it will be sardonic, cold-blooded Charles.

Yet Charles did not reply, and so he turns to us for vindication.

Am I reading too much into this? I don't think so. Here's a fragment from a reworked Preface which would have replaced this first section and given us an alternate explanation for the existence of the text:

I had the pleasure of knowing Mr Crimsworth very well—and can vouch for his having been a respectable man—though perhaps not altogether the character he seems to have thought he was.

Here, the signposting is even clearer: we are not to take Crimsworth's tale entirely at its word.

Catherine Malone highlights this fragment when she examines Crimsworth's perception of his relationship to sex.

while at the beginning of the novel he declares an interest only in women with 'the clear, cheering gleam of intellect' (p. 13), asserting that for a professor, feminine 'mental qualities; application, love of knowledge, natural capacity, docility, truthfulness, gratefulness are the charms that attract his notice and win his regard' (p. 120) ...

the puritanical image he presents is continually undermined by his regard for physical beauty, manifest in his obsession with the boarded window in his bedroom at M. Pelet's, and his observations on his female pupils and the women with whom he has already come into contact. During the party at brother's house, Crimsworth is not introduced to the 'group of pretty girls' surrounding Edward and feels that he can take no part in the dancing: 'Many smiling faces and graceful figures glided me-but the smiles were lavished on other eyes-the figures sustained by other hands than mine-I turned away tantalized' (p. 24). Similarly, it is Mlle Reuter's outer rather than inner charms wh chiefly attract Crimsworth. It is he who nearly falls in love Zoraide and she, confident in her relationship with Pelet, who with his affections. Although any relationship between the two had been largely of Crimsworth's imagining, on discovering the engagement, he considers Zoraide and Pelet's deceit an act of 'treachery' (p. 112)—one which does not just cause him momentary bitterness, shame, or embarrassment but temporarily extinguishes his entire 'faith in love and friendship' (p. 111)

What Crimsworth tells himself about his desires is at odds with his reactions.

One final aspect to discuss (because I really need to finish this post up and go to bed) is gaze. In The Professor, being seen is understood as an assault; The Professor exists, we are told, because Crimsworth wished to present his tale to 'the public at large'. When Crimsworth has a narrative he thinks he controls, he'll share it—but even in the bounds of that text it's clear that he bristles under scrutiny.

Glen compiles near-endless examples of references to sight and seeing in The Professor, but I'm most interested in the way that plays out in interactions with his brother.

His first meeting with his brother is described like so:

my mind busied itself in conjectures concerning the meeting about to take place. Amidst much that was doubtful in the subject of these conjectures, there was one thing tolerably certain—I was in no danger of encountering severe disappointment; from this, the moderation of my expectations guaranteed me. I anticipated no overflowings of fraternal tenderness; Edward’s letters had always been such as to prevent the engendering or harbouring of delusions of this sort. Still, as I sat awaiting his arrival, I felt eager—very eager—I cannot tell you why; my hand, so utterly a stranger to the grasp of a kindred hand, clenched itself to repress the tremor with which impatience would fain have shaken it.

He will concede to feeling eager, but he cannot—will not—tell you why. After all, he has moderated his expectations! He does not hope! Fuck off!

He hardens himself still further, and in so doing insulates himself from disappointment—or, indeed, connection:

I can't help but feel like it is deliberate on Brontë's part that we see his professed successes as defeats. This is a man who despite all his hardness and his flaws has found himself a wife—but is that worth anything? Has he allowed himself to be understood even as much as he was back in his schooldays with maybe-dead 'acquaintance' Charles? Does he feel even a fraction of the contentment he thought he would, if only he followed the rules? Does his wife?

Towards the end of the novel is a terrifying passage that demonstrates, imo, that Frances, his wife, knows his deal far, far better than he does. Their pal, Hunsden, shares a miniature of a woman he was once into, Lucia, admitting that 'I should certainly have liked to marry her, and that I have not done so is a proof that I could not.'

In Crimsworth's list of desirable attributes from above, it is docility that ranks highest, and Frances knows it. She loves him, as other passages show, but she also sobbed as they were married, and in the scene before the wedding criticised Hunsden for an attitude that Crimsworth demonstrates throughout the text: being a facts don't care about your feelings dipshit.

so: it is very fun to interpret The Professor as a surprisingly relevant satire of the self-made man. I think there's ample justification for this in the text, which repeatedly and deliberately sets up and exposes the contradictions in character that Crimsworth himself cannot see.

I can't decide whether it's worse to assume Brontë didn't know what she was doing when she wrote about this dickhead, or that she did and he's wonderful actually. Perhaps one of those interpretations is even correct—but I am a huge fan of unreliable narrators, and I think it's 100% defensible, and far more interesting, to see Crimsworth as one.

[gerandor]

alexander accepted nandor's invite out of pity though so i don't know where this idea that he would want to see nandor again when their first outing was a disaster is coming from here. nandor can be pretty off putting to people who aren't used to him. so can all the other vampires, they're not exactly the most sensitive bunch or even the most up to date with social conventions as shown by nandor talking through the movie (that shit's annoying when you're watching tv at home but at the theatre that's just a full stop no for me). and i know we all collectively breathed a sigh of relief that the show didn't go down some antisemitic road but talking about wanting to meet a jewish person so badly like you'd talk about collecting pokemons and calling a jewish person a slur (yeah i know jewish people use it to refer to ourselves but goys really really shouldn't) is the kind of shit that flies around the vamps because they don't care and guillermo because he knows nandor doesn't mean any harm. but if nandor said any of that weird shit around alexander... yeah i don't think he would call again.

Hi! Sorry this answer got a bit too long!

Ok so for context, this ask is most likely in response to this post i made about one possible interpretation (actually two. I added another reading immediately after the first one) of the scene with Guillermo on the phone.

I think it's fair to assume that you know about interpretations and different readings of text as this is exactly the same practice you used to read Alexander's words “he seemed harmless and kinda lonely” as meaning “I pitied him and was so annoyed at him at the movies that I didn't want to be around him anymore.”

And well. That's also the same method i used. I had a text and I tried to use cues from the text to read it in my own way. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. In fact that's what we all do with text. We try to read it in our own way and it's our different readings that enrich the actual text. But yes when the readings aren't supported by facts from text it gets annoying and unbelievable. But i thought i gave enough reasons in that post, so I won't repeat them here.

But i will expand on it.

In that scene when nandor asks if it's Alexander on the phone, Guillermo presses the phone to his chest and he actually cowers and he sounds so guilty for some reason. I'm not saying it definitely means it was Alexander on the phone but it shows Guillermo is hiding something. So the question is, what? I tried to come up with one possibility.

Also i thought most of us agreed that Guillermo looked jealous when nandor was talking about acquiring a new friend? He definitely didn't look pleased that nandor was spending his time with someone new.

And you used your own personal feeling about people talking in the movies to support your view that Alexander didn't want to be around nandor after watching a movie with him. But that's just a reading. As long as we don't get Alexander actually saying in words that he didn't want to be around nandor bc he found him so annoying at the movies, we can all have our own interpretations why he didn't want to be friends with nandor anymore. (And the scene with nandor showing him his...ehem penis, i think that was just the last straw, bc before that he was trying to completely ignore nandor.)

And in fact, the show seems to be encouraging our various readings by not actually telling us who it was Guillermo was talking to on the phone. Isn't it interesting that the scene immediately cuts off to nandor smashing the phone and saying ‘it's not fair’? What isn't fair? Who was Guillermo talking to? The show doesn't tell us bc it wants us to speculate.

I also wrote in the tags that i actually hope that my reading wasn't correct bc if Guillermo is being petty and jealous (like how he was about gail and jenna, so it's not too ooc for him) and wants to sabotage Nandor's friendship with others, then i want the show to actually be upfront about it. I don't want it to be sth people speculate about when every time nandor messes up, it's there for everyone to see (and hate nandor for it.)

As to the whole jewish discourse which i don't know how it's relevant to my post…i’m not jewish and i’m not the right person to talk about it and tbh i have no idea about the slur you talked about. But i have seen some posts by Jewish people who said they actually loved the representation. The episode was directed by yana Gorskaya who is of jewish descent and ive heard that she said she had taught kayvan the jewish slangs. I personally didn't think it was offensive that nandor always wanted to have a jewish friend. He even described them as brave and fierce warriors which are the kind of qualities nandor appreciates in others and prides himself on.

But you're welcome to your own interpretation.