#'I don't agree therefore canon cannot possibly be saying this' is not

[firegirl888101]

i don’t remember if i ever sent something like this but i got an idea (kind of a self indulgent request…)

(set in the insatiable madness series) reader with younger siblings? that y’know… survive? i don’t think i could handle them dying. having to be their main caretakers now that the parents are gone. whew, poor meow meow reader, having to take care of their siblings AND 11 harbingers. esp if said siblings are really young…

maybe they stayed at home during the massacre at the mc donalds and that’s why they haven’t died, and then reader told them to hide in their room before letting the harbingers in so they wouldn’t find out (eventually they are mentioned by reader and are somewhat pestered by childe to meet them…)

I think I'll also answer a frequent question I get along with this so thanks for requesting it!

I've been frequently asked what happened to the children at the fast food chain when the harbingers were killing everyone who wasn't Y/N. (I purposefully didn't write/mention children being at the scene for this very reason 😭)

But, thinking about it after so many people questioning it, I'll address it with some extra information that didn't make it into the chapter/view.

(maybe it did, I can't remember. Either way - the information I'm about to spill is canon to the story...)

It was a Friday afternoon, children were only just coming out of school meaning not many children/teens were at the scene. But, for the children that were in there, let's just say a certain 'Father' familiar with children convinced the other Harbingers to let them run away.

As for 'The Father' letting them run away, there's a point they brought forward to save the children's lives.

"Let us not shed unnecessary blood in the company of innocent children. They will have close to no information regarding the one we are looking for, therefore, we should spare their lives."

So, yeah. To the question!:

'Reader with siblings in the Insatiable Madness series'

Originally I was going to make Y/N have a sibling or two. But, as I was planning I realised a couple problems with that.

Most readers will most likely not have siblings. (I don't for an example). When it comes to Y/N's, I like to have them as blank as possible for readers to fill in either themselves or their OC's.

The whole point of the series is to emphasise how alone Y/N is. They are pressured to not say anything, yet somehow introduce and care for their kidnapper's. If Y/N were to have siblings, yes, they would have more pressure, but they would be able to talk to someone about their situation and not worry about them being killed.

That's way too many characters for me to remember and attempt to write. Whilst I'm up to the challenge, there's still some characters the reader's haven't met yet. 😉

-

In a hypothetical sense though, I can see the siblings being a strength and also a weakness for Y/N.

On one hand, they are a source of comfort and a genuine sign of normality for the reader. The siblings actually care for their sibling and respect them for taking care of them whilst their mum and dad are 'away'. I think that younger siblings would still be at school so they wouldn't know what happened, if Y/N had older siblings... I guess they'd have to give the reigns to Y/N as they're the only one who knows who the Harbingers are.

I can see the siblings as an option for distraction in case Y/N needs to do something that cannot be seen, such as an attempt to escape to call for help. I can also see them as a venting mechanism, and a second opinion towards their plans if they're old enough. They also most likely keep the reader sane during this whole experience and becomes a symbol of hope to them. The siblings also a reason to be defensive against the harbingers, a reason to not give in to them due to being powerless...

One the other hand, the harbingers can use Y/N's siblings to... make them agree and do things they wouldn't normally want to do. They would be in a lot of danger - and could actually be killed if the reader doesn't obey. If the siblings are young, they most likely won't be harmed. But they will definitely be if Y/N hesitates or acts too cocky towards them in any conversation or act... I feel the harbingers would also threaten the siblings behind Y/N's back, causing them to behave strangely and not talk to Y/N, maybe try to convince them not to do something that the harbingers will get angry at.

Buuuuut, if the siblings are young, perhaps some of the more paternal/maternal harbingers whom are affectionate and used to children can gain their trust. Gaining the trust of Y/N's siblings could get them in good favours with them soooo, if they're yandere or looking to emotionally manipulate them - that's their best way to their heart.

-

Oh yeah, and I think I've mentioned this throughout all of the paragraphs... If Y/N had siblings, they'd be their biggest and most obvious weakness.

There's definitely more to write here, but I've had this ask in my drafts for a couple weeks unfinished now and I want to focus on new asks which include some story involved <3

[xerith-42]

vylad headcanonssss?

You guys are really pushing me to make more of these (this is not a problem)

If it wasn't obvious I've been letting some ideas for my new rewrite to leak out into some of my posts here, but this is where I switch things up and make this distinctly mcd Vylad headcanons for one simple reason:

Vylad Ro'maeve of Ru'aun is Aromantic Asexual. You cannot change my mind on this.

Also Vylad uses he/they pronouns (I feel like we as a fandom can agree on this)

Vylad's favorite animal is a hawk or a mouse

While he doesn't know for sure, Vylad is fairly confident he knows who killed them. He learns to come to terms with the fact that vengeance simply isn't possible and therefore not worth going after. And by the time it is possible, he's spent so long not thinking of it that it really just isn't an interest anymore.

Canonically Vylad can play the ocarina and I will never not be upset that we weren't given more of this. Aaron forces everyone to take a day off from building the settlement, and yet we don't see Vylad sitting in a tree playing his ocarina.

He got it and theoretically learned to play it from his mother, so why don't we ever see the two of them playing it together, or just Vylad playing a song for their mother? (this is a whole thing I could go into abt mcd characters and instruments)

Needless to say Vylad isn't particularly fond of verbal forms of expression, but I can totally see him playing different songs or melodies based on different moods or feelings. Aph asks him what song he's playing and Vylad will very honestly answer her or anyone who asks. "It was a lullaby my mother taught me. I worry about her sometimes, but this song always reminds me of when she looked happiest."

Vylad is a mama's boy.

Vylad doesn't really like talking much, he tends to prefer lingering in the background and not really saying much when he's in the foreground. The only exception to this is Garroth after he comes back from the Irene Dimension. Vylad has missed his brother so much, they have spent so much time worrying about him and trying to find a way to bring him back, that once he actually has Garroth around, it's honestly like he's been brought back to life a bit.

It's slow and steady, but Garroth manages to get his brother out of their shell. Vylad doesn't talk to many people, but he talks to Garroth a LOT, like constantly. People don't believe it until they hear/see it because Vylad can literally go back and forth with Garroth about literally whatever until the end of time. Like if you asked Vylad what his ideal life would be, it would just be to grab like five people and get to spend the rest of his life having long conversations with them.

Vylad really likes talking to the right people. He's just gotten so good at closing people off it's hard to show the kind of vulnerability he's capable of in said talks. I said five people but it would probably just be Garroth, Aph, and Laurance. Probably his mother, maybe Hyria, but that's it. Vylad keeps most people at arms length or further, but he's willing to open up to them because they understand him on some level most people can't.

Irene help me I just want to write scenes of Vylad talking to people now. Vylad has been around for so long, seen so much, and has some very fascinating perspective on life and the fratility of the human spirit. I know he's not one of Vylad's people, but I would love to just listen to him and Vincent talk. Throw Laurance in there and you have a podcast I will literally not stop listening to.

[letmetellyouaboutmyfeels]

That's so weird because my reaction to S4 finale is it was the moment that convinced me Buddie was going to be endgame. Now two seasons later and we could be heading back to that same ending for the season depending on the events of the finale leaves me doubting things ngl. The only things I'm clinging on to are the couch theory, Eddie saying that relationships with people you meet at a rescue never works, and the fact that we're being introduced to these women so late in the season. It just seems like the writers even know they're giving this the most superficial things so that they can fix what they did in early S7.

To put it bluntly it just sucks that you know if this was gonna be the final 2 episodes that instead of going towards a story they've been telling since S2 they decide to put Buck and Eddie with women we don't even know their last name or anything about them. But they got renewed and will be moving to ABC so they can do the story they wanted to tell and I imagine these women will be kicked to the curb early in S7.

Okay, I'm gonna be real honest with you. I've seen that you've sent asks to a few of my friends, all generally saying the same thing. So to see you send me this ask makes me feel like you don't really want to have a discussion and aren't looking for actual support or positivity, you just want to keep being upset and tell people until someone agrees with you and tells you that your opinion that the writers made a shitty choice etc is valid.

So, to repeat a few things my friends have said:

They have not been doing Buddie since season two. I don't know why people persist on claiming this. Buddie was never the original plan. They did not decide to have Eddie get with Buck in season two. In fact in season two they seemed kinda unsure what to do with Eddie since he wouldn't be with Maddie any longer, but they still wanted the character, and Ryan, on the show. For my money, they started exploring the possibility of Buddie and discussing it seriously in season three, and season four was when they locked that in.

Now, I don't know about you, since you're a stranger on the internet, but to me, as a writer, it is a much, much better choice for them to have taken the risk rather than cram Buddie together, for a few reasons.

One: They cannot walk it back once Buddie is together. You're telling me you wanted them to sacrifice their story's integrity to give us a rushed unsatisfying get-together? Get out of my house. Watching television is, inherently, a gamble because it means you might get your stories unfulfilled. If you can't take that risk, then leave the casino. I am willing to risk it because I want a truly satisfying get-together, not something that was rushed and therefore isn't worthy of the delicious slow burn they're building.

Two: How many times do I have to scream at everyone to consider the behind the scenes issues before people start actually listening to me? Oh, forever? Because everyone is operating in bad faith and nobody wants to actually listen? Good to know. This will be the last I say on the matter.

We do not know what behind the scenes was going on in addition to the cancellation. What if certain Fox executives weren't supportive of Buddie? You're telling me that the writers and cast and crew should have, right when they'll need new jobs, guaranteed that their last employers will talk shit about them for disobeying orders and putting two characters together that they were told not to put together?

This is purely conjecture on my part, but I have seen time after time in fandom certain cast members and certain crew members and certain writers want a ship to become canon, and others not, and I have seen the way that back and forth played out, and guess fucking what? NOBODY WANTS TO LOSE THEIR FUCKING JOB. NOBODY WANTS TO BE PREVENTED FROM HAVING ANOTHER JOB.

Now, again, that's pure conjecture, but Fox really hasn't treated OG well for a while in terms of renewal, marketing, etc. And I have never, EVER, seen a show snapped up by another network so quickly. It's always "we got cancelled!" and then a few days or weeks later it's "we were saved by another network!" ABC was ON it. This gives me hope for a lot of things, like perhaps a 22 episode season. But given Fox's lack of promotion and appreciation for OG, it wouldn't surprise me if the cast and crew wanted Buddie and some people in the network didn't, and that is why we've been delayed on Buddie going canon. And while YOU may cry viva la revolution, it's much easier to have your principles when you've got a belly full, and while it may suck creatively there is no reason to piss off your bosses right when you need them to write you a recommendation for a new job because your show got cancelled - and while I'm sure they were hopeful, given the cast's social media I do not think anyone knew until it was publicly announced that they had, indeed, been saved and gotten another season.

My point is, this is just one theory I'm pulling out of a hat like a rabbit. We do not know what other BTS stuff is going on that made them choose to delay Buddie until season seven.

Three: To go back to point one, I do not think you've seen the reactions when a ship goes canon poorly. I was there, Gandalf. I was there the day that Booth and Bones got together. I was in the trenches. It soured SO many people, including me, on the show. To quote MBMBAM: YOU DIDN'T STICK THE LANDING! YOU JUST FLIPPED IN THE AIR FOR TWENTY MINUTES!!!

Sticking the landing when getting a ship together is possibly the most important moment in the couple's story. You cannot fuck up that landing. The writers chose to take the chance on it never happening in order to stick the landing the way they wanted. If that pisses you off, FINE. But stop coming into our inboxes to say the same thing over and over again about it, because we do not agree and we are never going to agree. We are at an impasse.

Now, to move onto some other points, WHY IS EVERYONE CONVINCED THAT EDDIE WILL STILL BE WITH SOMEONE WHEN THE SEASON ENDS!? WHEN DID WE DECIDE THIS!? He could be! But holy shit he could just go on one date with her that fizzles out! We have no clue! If someone in this fandom can see into the future and knows for sure this is going to happen then give me the winning lotto numbers right this second!!! Give them to me!!!! I need to fund my world domination campaign!!!

And finally, I feel like you've answered your own concerns, here. Given that you have sent similar asks to my friends, I don't think you're actually interested in allaying those concerns, because you keep answering your own questions and repeating yourself ad naseum. I could be wrong. Again, I don't know you. But this sure seems to be the case given that you're saying to me similar stuff you've said to my friends in asks they've already answered.

But to look at your own ask, you just said why we shouldn't be worried. "It seems like the writers even know..." YES. YES, THEY DO KNOW. I would love to know who the hell decided that television shows are made by the Television Fairy who creeps into the studio at night and waves her magic wand to create all the good stuff we see on our screens while the writers sit around with their thumbs up their asses.

Let's imagine you are a showrunner and you are going into the second half of your season, and you learn that it is extremely likely this season is actually your last. You guys start negotiating quietly with other networks to move the show, while hoping against hope this is not, indeed, the end. But this means you now have, what, nine episodes? To put all your characters in a place that is, if not ideal, at least somewhat positive for your audience?

You can't start any too-major arcs. You can't end on too bad of an emotional cliffhanger. This means some things will wrap up faster. Other things will get pushed forward. And some things have to be delayed, because they might never happen, and you can't give people a third or a half of an arc. Which means that you're going to be throwing in some filler for those characters instead, and doing things differently than how you might have wanted.

I do not know how many times I have to explain this, but television is not fanfiction. When I sit down to write a fic, there's not a damn person in the world who can tell me what to do. I write the story that I want, and if someone doesn't like it, they can hit the bricks.

Television is not like that. Television is one of the biggest group projects there is. Picture the worst group project you had to do in school and then times it by ten. Welcome to the television and film industry. The fact that any film or show, even the truly awful ones, gets made is nothing short of a miracle given all the people involved and all the ways the ball can be dropped. As a show runner, you are answering to multiple executives, to the creators, to the executive producers, to your own writers' room, and to the fans. You are trying to balance what everyone tells you to do, what the fans want you to do, and what you and your (hopefully trusted) writing team want and plan to do. I could never be a show runner and while there are quite a few with whom I've got bones to pick, I cannot deny that they all do a job I would never, ever be capable of pulling off. I'd quit on day three.

So, yeah, they gave Buck a temporary girlfriend as filler, to kinda cap off his current arc if this was the end, or to provide more layers to his full arc if they got another season. If you don't like that, then that's okay. Nobody is telling you to like it. When you come into someone's inbox like this, the assumption is that you're looking to be reassured, and so that's why you're getting the responses that you are. The previous people who've answered you have been trying to reassure you and allay the concerns you seem to have.

But it seems to me like you want a more full conversation, and possibly, that you just want to rant and vent. That's fine, but find a friend for that. Join a discord server. Because when you send the same stuff over and over again to different people, all of whom give you basically the same reply, it just makes you look like a very obstinate stick in the mud who wants everyone else to join them in being upset, and people don't much like having the same conversation multiple times, or being pushed into being upset when they're not.

You might just have to agree to disagree, and move on. Find other ways to get this out of your system, because my inbox, and the inboxes of others, is not the place for your venting in circles.

Now, in spite of my firm tone, I hope you will believe me when I say that I hope you're taking care of yourself, and that you are staying safe in this scary world, and that you have a good rest of your day.

[jyndor]

As much as I like cassian/rue as a concept and I really love the friendly exes idea, looking at the comparisons between the RO and Andor beach hugs like... desperately clinging to each other as close as bodies can possibly get vs that half-handshake pat-on-the-back? And like I know part of that is likely the disney toxic-masculinity-no-homo brand, but it just makes me so sad, like is this really the level of affection Cassian gets from this point on in his life? Obligatory, unthinking gestures? (until he meets Jyn and they survive and have lots of time to cuddle, obviously, but some folks don't know about that part lol)

in all seriousness I don't actually think rue and cass were ever ever ever considered by the writers to be anything more than friends, they can prove me wrong I'd be down with that but I think we should be clear when talking about this sort of thing that there are like shoulds and ares. should the writers queer up cass? fuck yes. are they going to? lol no.

is that just disney censorship? honestly I doubt it. I think society at large has a much harder time dealing with bisexuality/queerness that isn't binary than it does sexuality that is binary. it comes out differently for women and femmes than it does for men and mascs (let alone people who don't subscribe to any of those genders).

for women and femmes bisexuality and frankly same-gender attraction isn't seen as threatening patriarchy tbh. it's why we get literal gal pal shit from people when it's like, these are two wlw who have been together for decades and have gotten married and are literally fucking in their bed that they own together in their home. it's also why I think society finds it somewhat easier to believe in~~ bisexuality/pansexuality/mspec queer wlw than mlm, although lbr it's still about how the white supremacist patriarchal hegemonic ideal man can access bi wlw and therefore devaluing the wlw-ness of our wlwocity.

whereas mlm are seen as a threat to that patriarchal hegemony, the ideal man or some bullshit, because shock of shocks patriarchy impacts men and mascs negatively as fuck too. men are expected to be hyper ~masculine or whatever the fuck, access women without difficulty while also maintaining stoicism and defeating the (i cannot believe i am saying this mostly unironically) feminine urge to feel thing, to seem gay because that's feminine or whatever lol.

and so bi and mlm who are attracted to more than one gender challenge the very ideal that white supremacist patriarchy is all about. it's why so many women think bi men are automatically gay and just lying about it (well that and individual histories people have with being with men who have been closeted and cheated on them, but that's like not bisexuality that's infidelity).

so the idea that you've got a character who has an extremely important romantic relationship at the end of his life in something written years ago, I'd be shocked if the writers even considered giving cassian a boyfriend just because cassian is attracted to jyn in the film. I'm also sure cassian being a man and the lead means disney might be less cool with him being explicitly queer than say with the wlw side characters, but if we take tony gilroy's word for it, there was never any pushback on them.

as far as cassian not having any real connection until jyn, I'm not sure I agree. his connection with rue (lets make the nickname happen, ive been trying so im happy to see you using it anon) might be platonic but it's canonically important as hell - they are able to read each other well, cassian hears rue in ways melshi isn't used to, and frankly rue picks up on cassian's change in mood even if he doesn't push cass to share with him because cassian isn't ready to share.

it isn't unthinking to me. but like melshi says, they have to spread the message. the rebellion comes first.

I wouldn't be so sure that cassian doesn't have connections with characters, fuck lol kaytoo is coming next season and thats his best friend. but undoubtedly he will become more isolated as he builds a network of recruits and informants who don't know him intimately. and I don't mean sex, I mean deep knowledge of who he is.

but his relationship with jyn has always been fundamental to cassian realizing he doesn't want to go with business as usual, that he doesn't want to assassinate galen (a hope that the rebellion needs to strike against the empire) and that he can fight in the daylight instead of just in the shadows.

but it is tragic that he is so known by so few, and that when he finds someone who he understands and who understands him so well, he fucking gets vaporized lol.

lmao the death star is biphobic for killing him and jyn and making me cry every time I watch rogue one

[light-wayland]

RE: Robert and Michael

"the circle probably sided with robert because michael was known to not be much in tune with valentine..." I am not saying they didn't. Michael didn't fully agree with Valentine and therefore they wouldn't care for him as much. Robert, on the other hand, was perfectly loyal and consequently, the others chose his side by default. All of that said, they also know both of them so you cannot tell me they didn't realize Michael's perceived disloyalty cannot possibly be the only thing at fault. It's a completely different thing that they chose not to care.

"parabatai in love is not only a taboo among shadowhunters but also a criminal offense..." I have somehow failed to fully consider the implications of this so thank you for reminding me. I still think that some of the Circle members (coughStephencough) would think Robert could've handled the situation better but you are correct that more shock would come from Michael falling in love with him. At the time.

I do believe that after ~20 years of exile/punishment/character growth, their immediate reaction of "Michael was what??" would soon give way to "Hold on, you told him what???" Shock, however, may have exaggerated that on my part. They'd probably just be exasperated at the pair of them, especially if Robert and Michael didn't make them choose who they thought was "in the wrong." Because you are right, with the whole thing being a crime, there isn't a wrong side. There are better ways to deal with it, certainly, but Robert wasn't wrong in what he tried to do. Just in how he did it and why. (And this statement of mine can be terribly misconstrued because I'm assuming everyone reading this knows the full context of what happened so if someone doesn't please move on and just don't. Michael being gay/bi is not the problem here.) In that way, I agree that young Maryse would see absolutely nothing wrong with what Robert has done while older Maryse who has a gay son would recognize that Robert could've dealt with it better.

The whole situation is made much worse by there being two different taboos in play:

1) Michael being in love with his parabatai. As in, the actual crime. The actually valid reason for Robert to panic about Michael's feelings and also the thing where people (probably all shadowhunters honestly) would side with Robert because "What the fuck, Wayland??"

2) Michael being gay. Still a bad look before the Clave but at least it's not illegal. This is the one that makes Robert an asshole because he very much framed this as the main problem when that should have been the least of his worries. This is what Robert is ashamed of, what the more liberal (ha, liberal Nephilim in Idris lmao) would judge him for and what I think some of the Circle would eventually come to disagree with him on.

It occurs to me that canon never... address the fact that Michael's feelings were illegal?? At least I don't remember it.

Also Michael and Maryse not really liking each other very much but somehow having the exact same terrible taste is peak comedy and I desperately need someone to point it out to them.

In conclusion: I'm sorry this is so long and a mess despite having spent half an hour trying to make myself coherent.

All of that said, they also know both of them so you cannot tell me they didn't realize Michael's perceived disloyalty cannot possibly be the only thing at fault. It's a completely different thing that they chose not to care.

that's complicated, it wasn't like they had much room for guessing. i have the headcanon/personal interpretation that michael's relationship and eventual marriage with eliza was convenient to the picture robert would have wanted to paint, as neither valentine or anyone else from the circle would approve that relationship.

I do believe that after ~20 years of exile/punishment/character growth, their immediate reaction of "Michael was what??" would soon give way to "Hold on, you told him what???"

i don't think i can really see this. most people around robert didn't have high expectations for him morally wise at this point. this guy is known as a former criminal that managed to catch second highest clave rank and everyone seem to be either frightened or displeased by his presence. using alec and magnus as reference, their surprise didn't seem to involve shock at robert's attitude - they wouldn't have expected any better from robert

In that way, I agree that young Maryse would see absolutely nothing wrong with what Robert has done while older Maryse who has a gay son would recognize that Robert could've dealt with it better.

maryse's part in this is interesting, the way i see, she would right away understand how this secret was something that changed robert a lot and affected their marriage, and present day maryse would resent robert more than michael for it, because she would see that every mistake was his choice in the end

This is the one that makes Robert an asshole because he very much framed this as the main problem when that should have been the least of his worries. This is what Robert is ashamed of, what the more liberal (ha, liberal Nephilim in Idris lmao) would judge him for and what I think some of the Circle would eventually come to disagree with him on. It occurs to me that canon never... address the fact that Michael's feelings were illegal?? At least I don't remember it.

HOLD ON. this is my point of interest hehe. so, there's a trap that robert falls there: the law is not a problem, because what michael does is not illegal. someone feeling unrequited love for their parabatai is not illegal. parabatai in love is only illegal if they both pursue it.

robert's problem there is not that something would have happened to michael if the secret was exposed, because it wouldn't (except for homophobic responses, obviously), the problem was that from that moment robert would have somehow to prove to everyone that michael's feelings were absolutely unrequited and that he wouldn't/couldn't ever reciprocate them, and how would he ever prove that? i think he'd die before asking to go under a public trial by the mortal sword to swear that he never wanted michael carnally etc. getting to the point where he would have to prove it would be compromising enough. regardless of any other implications, the context was that robert was just getting over how people treated him because of his issue with the marks, and he couldn't deal with the risk of having to prove himself again for something he was very disturbed about (the possibility of reciprocating michael's feelings, because what then - nothing could ever happen between them!)

this is robert's train of thought during the scene that mention the parabatai aspect:

People would talk, they would gossip, they would suspect things. Parabatai couldn’t date each other, of course. And couldn’t . . . anything else. But Michael and Robert were so close; Michael and Robert were so in sync; surely people would want to know if Michael and Robert were the same. Surely people would wonder. He couldn’t take it. He’d worked too hard to become the man he was, the Shadowhunter he was. He couldn’t stand to have people looking at him like that again, like he was different.

And he couldn’t stand to have Michael looking at him like this. Because what if he started wondering, too?

(none of this is supposed to sound like a defense lol robert you piece of trash, you don't treat someone like that unprovoked like he did), i'm just explaining what happened and how the parabatai issue plays at it, a "of course they can't be together because that would be illegal, but it's kinda sus you know..." situation

Editing to add: we can compare it to alec and jace. it's never a problem, jace doesn’t care at all because he's sure he is straight and he doesn’t care if someone thinks he isn't. robert didn’t share this attitude because he had no faith on his own beliefs and craved validation.

Also Michael and Maryse not really liking each other very much but somehow having the exact same terrible taste is peak comedy and I desperately need someone to point it out to them.

lmao it's hilarious and i know they'd hate that

[recreationaldivorce]

well. ai art is stolen art. it gets its material online, that is fics that were made by other people, and it just mixes it together to make a new fic. its machine art. as contrary to a real person spending their time writing something their passionate about. i agree that people can be passionate about strange and problematic things but i do think ao3 should ban or not accept ai fics as that is stolen content basically. and i think REAL PEOPLE should continue writing what they want. that's my take on it

all fanfic is "stolen art" unless what it's writing fanfic about was in the public domain. most fanfic is about intellectual property which the author has no legal right to use, therefore it is also stolen.

ai does not have to train on other people's material. you could train an ai fic generator on your own manually written fanfiction, or train it on your own original fiction which is literally legally your intellectual property.

but suppose you did train ai on other people's fics without their consent. firstly fanfiction is not copyrighted; if it were, that would be illegal/infringement of the ip rights of the source media. you, legally, have no right to say what other people do with your fanfic. but let's suppose we can deem using some other non-legalist framework that the training material was "stolen"; okay, so why do we take more seriously the stealing done by ai generated fanfic, more so than the stealing done by manually written fanfic? if you write fanfic then you are stealing another author's characters and possibly their worldbuilding and plot too depending on whether it's canon-compliant, canon-divergent, or complete au. some fanfics have complete scenes lifted from the original media, and simply rewrite the prose—but all the dialogue and actions are copied exactly. is that not stealing? did you get permission from the author?

i also don't think that the amount of "effort" put into art makes it more or less genuine. i mean, firstly, suppose there was an ai generated fic that took someone an equal amount of "effort" (assume that "effort" can be objectively quantified; it cannot, but your argument hinges upon that assumption too so we will work on the same assumption) as a manually written fic. maybe you spent a long time setting up the ai and finding appropriate training material for it. or maybe you whipped together a fic super quickly on a whim. or both. either way the author spent the same amount of effort on both the ai generated fic and the manually written fic and put the same amount of "passion" [also cannot be objectively quantified but assume it can, again based on your own argument] into them. do you see these two fics as equally valid works of art? if not, why not? because then that means you think that something other than quantified "effort" or "passion" determines the validity of the art.

finally—what ideological implications does conflating "good art" with "effort" have? what movements and politics are associated with this sort of thinking? what sort of movements and politics have been opposed to "low-effort" or "easy" art? why do you think that is? if you see yourself as ideologically opposed to these movements and politics—how is your opposition to "low-effort"/"easy" art different?

[frumfrumfroo]

I enjoy your posts so much, they’ve given me a lot of hope and a new perspective towards SW, and I’d hate to think this hellish fandom ever made you sad or angry. Please don’t mind the antis trying to bait or stoke fear, the wank has been at a near-peak lately.

I find the kind of anti nonsense I get in my inbox more funny than anything else, but it does get pretty depressing seeing the grim philosophies and wilful incomprehension coming from all sides. Sometimes I have to go outdoors for a while and stare into the middle distance. The genuine refusal (or inability) to meet the text on its own terms is the one that frustrates me most. I’ve gotten the same basic question quite a few times, where someone asks ‘how can so many neutral people have takes that are so bad if it’s all that simple?’ and I’ve answered it in a couple different ways with regards to the specifics.

But the real answer, imo, is that we have to accept loads of people are terrible readers and haven’t ever engaged enough to decipher even the basic language of cinema or storytelling. Loads of people (especially in fandom) have entirely the wrong priorities as a viewer to actually pick up on what a story is saying until the ending makes it undeniable and explicit. There’s just always going to be weird-ass takes of everything and it’s always going to seem more widespread than it is because a)the internet amplifies platforms based on trendiness not coherence and b)your brain notices novelty. For example, if you watch this narrative music video and then scroll down to the comments, you can check out the seemingly staggering number of people who have no clue what the story was, the relationships between any of the characters, or what happened. This is always the case, there are always people who don’t get it or somehow get the exact opposite message of what a work intended. You can never reach everyone no matter how clear or simple your theme- and that is amplified a billion times when Literally Everyone has an opinion about your story because it’s one of the biggest franchises of all time. And it has a tonne of baggage from the entrenched fanbase, much of which has priorities incompatible with the original text and has been doing transformative work of their own for decades without the check of canon.

But internet comments are not a representative sample. Fandom is really not a representative sample. People who post comments are, statistically speaking, freaks. People in fandom usually have esoteric priorities very different than those of a casual, passive viewer and it sometimes creates strange bias which gets in the way of seeing what the story was actually about. The vast majority of the audience (who mostly don’t comment) understood just fine, enjoyed the thing, and went on with their life.

[lunyzare]

How do I think, what major differences would follow if Madara did become second hokage? He's such a difficult character for me to understand to be honest, and I can't even imagine what his time as Hokage would look like. Many say he would be very agressive/militaristic and insist on attacking other villages, but they also say that Uchihas are genetically evil so... Any thoughts?

Hello there, anon, thank you for your question!

First of all, don't feel bad about having a hard time understanding Madara, it's completely okay that you find some characters harder to "relate to" or hard to understand. We all have our own way of thinking, and some characters just don't have to be our cup of tea!

Second of all, dear anon, I’m not sure I will be able to give a good answer. This is also why this answer took a while, because no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t come up with good headcanons for this. Perhaps someone else on this website has a better imagination than me (which is very much possible, there are wonderful people on this website), but I personally cannot imagine a scenario where Madara becomes the second Hokage. I just...I cannot imagine how it would be possible. Please, allow me to explain why I think so:

Madara, at the point Hashirama became the first Hokage, already overheard the conversation between Hashirama and Tobirama and therefore knew about Tobirama’s distrust and dislike of Uchihas. He also knew Hashirama didn’t stop Tobirama at all, he let him talk...and this probably broke Madara’s trust in the village and also in Hashirama.

Then we of course have the stone tablet that Madara read. To make Madara second Hokage, we would have to somehow make him not read the stone tablet or make Hashirama (because who else would Madara even listen to at this point?) somehow convince him. But how would Hashirama convince him, when he didn’t even fight to make him the first Hokage? How would Hashirama convince Madara when he knew what Tobirama is saying and doing, and did nothing to actually stop him? Hashirama failed Madara’s trust, he wouldn’t be able to do anything.

We saw Hashirama tell Madara he’ll make him the first Hokage, but then, when Tobirama talked to him, Hashirama didn’t defend Madara, plus when Tobirama asked him, Hashirama said he has no objections to becoming Hokage and doing things the way Tobirama wanted. Then, when Madara and Hashirama talked in front of the stone tablet, Hashirama clearly knew Madara heard them, yet from his reaction, it seems he never talked to Madara about it. Why would Madara believe him, when Hashirama didn’t even talk to him?

As for Tobirama, he would have to become a lot more open-minded, he would also have to face his own hatred towards the Uchiha clan. And at no point in the story, do we see him do that. He didn’t seem to regret that he put Uchihas on the outskirts of Konoha, he also didn’t seem to be bothered by the fact he deprived them of power in the village.

I am by no means saying the Uchihas are perfect (because who or what is?), but I certainly don’t believe they are “genetically evil”. This, if I’m not mistaken, was mainly Tobirama’s hypothesis. I don’t agree with the idea of the “curse of hatred” (COH) at all, even though some people claim it’s canon and that we (pro-Uchiha part of the fandom or anyone who simply disagrees with the premise of COH) should just accept COH and “stop overreacting when it’s just a fiction”. And while yes, COH is part of the canon, I can still choose whether or not I agree with it, and whether or not I like it. And I most certainly don’t agree with it or like it, and I simply cannot and will not accept the idea that the members of the Uchiha clan are born “genetically evil”. And while the story is fictional, it is still based on our real world, as probably any piece of media is, so I certainly can and will criticize COH.

Like I said above, I truly don’t see a chance for Madara to become the second Hokage. I do realize that there probably are fanfictions that explore this scenario, but realistically, I don’t see it happening. 

Many say he would be very agressive/militaristic and insist on attacking other villages

I want to address this part you mentioned, anon. I haven’t really seen anyone saying that, granted I don’t read any anti-Uchiha or anti-Madara posts, but I understand where this idea comes from, as Madara certainly showed that he can be very dominant and even arrogant when dealing with other villages (his encounter with Ohnoki is a good example of that). If you want to know more about the fight between Madara and Ohnoki, I highly recommend reading this post by @persephones-darkness. Wonderful post that will certainly give you a lot of insight!

My guess? I’d say Madara would be militaristic, had he become Hokage, he might even be aggressive, yes. Why do I think so? Because both Hashirama and Tobirama (and later on also Hiruzen, Minato, Tsunade, Kakashi, and Naruto) were militaristic (and aggressive). Because they are all soldiers and Konoha is a militaristic village.

At the times Madara lived in, war was everywhere, Madara lived in war, it’s what he knew the most probably, so there is a chance he would be militaristic and aggressive, but why do we treat this as something unusual? Every shinobi in Warring States Period was like that because that was the best way to survive, so why should we look down on Madara for being a product of the times he lived in? Both Hahsirama and Tobirama were militaristic and aggressive, perhaps even more than Madara, and yet I have to wonder, how many of the “many” you mentioned, anon, would glorify their actions as heroism. All of them were products of the times they lived in and all of them were militaristic and aggressive.

About attacking other villages: I have to disagree on this one. I don’t think Madara would mindlessly attack other villages if he didn’t have a reason to do so (for example if the other village threatened Konoha). I also have to point out that Madara desired peace so much, he was even willing to put everyone into a fake dream world. Do I agree with the way he wanted to achieve peace? No. Was he cruel in his actions? Yes. Were Hashirama and Tobirama any better though? No. What I’m trying to say with this, is that Madara wasn’t some crazy monster that had to be tamed or caged for the peace to exist, no, he wanted peace, a true peace, and he tried to achieve it.

I probably could go into more headcanons, but I’m very unsure how to go about them, as if I’m not mistaken, we don’t even really know what Madara was like as a clan head and clan leader, so it’s hard for me to headcanon what he would be like as a Hokage.

KONEC aka THE END

Thank you again for sending me this ask, I had a great time writing this. I hope you liked my answer and that I didn’t sound too harsh. Please believe me that none of this was meant as an attack on you, dear anon!

[iamanartichoke]

People argue about what even is canon in the first place anyway. Even the starting point can't be agreed upon.

Including the 2nd ask bc I'm assuming they're from the same nonny? (pfft like more than one person would send me asks in one day lmao)

Anyway ... I mean, I'm mostly ambivalent on the first point re: people disagreeing over canon, bc ... like, idek where to start on all the shit that I could say about fans' relationship to and interaction with canon or even what canon technically is, like, by definition (and therefore what even qualifies as canon).

But I did want to address the second point bc I think it's a good opportunity to just sort of toss this hot take into the void: "Stating that fiction is subjective will ruffle some people's feathers at the minute" - so what? So. What. Fiction is subjective, all art is subjective, and that's something that is true, has been true, and will be true regardless of some fans' decision to just decide that things don't work that way.

They can get their feathers ruffled as much as they like, but people need to learn that their personal emotions and feelings about A Thing don't mean that they can just decide that That Thing is suddenly something else (or decide something else is suddenly That Thing). It's just like how words like gaslighting and narcissistic and abusive and torture and trigger have become so diluted bc people a) don't actually understand what gaslighting, for example, is, and therefore cannot possibly call it out with any real degree of accuracy, so they just end up throwing a really weighted term at something as basic, human, and everyday as telling a lie. Or an emotional argument becomes abuse, or being squicked by something makes it a trigger.

OR, on the opposite side of the coin, b) maybe they actually do know what gaslighting or abuse is, but then they will categorize anything that remotely falls within the realm of the same definition as being gaslighting or abuse. I, personally, for example, really hate the way that some people claim Mobius tortures and enslaves Loki. It drives me up the wall when I see those takes because - okay, are these terms technically correct? Yeah, technically, which is what they use to justify it - "Well, this source defines "torture" as xyz, and Mobius is clearly doing z, so Mobius is a torturer." But words mean shit, so are you really asking me to accept that Mobius tortured Loki just as Thanos tortured Loki? Yes? Okay, how? No? Okay, why not?

Here's the thing - Mobius never laid a hand on Loki, nor did he sadistically, literally play with Loki's mind. Remember, Loki was being influenced by the mind stone in Avengers and the Other had a constant connection to Loki's consciousness. Thanos (and the Other) tortured Loki. Mobius ... was mean to him during an interrogation and also lied about Loki being responsible for Frigga's death (and I've said it before, Mobius was being an unreliable narrator in this scene and anyone who believes - because of Mobius - that Loki actually killed Frigga is both factually wrong and also an idiot). Like, Mobius is shitty to Loki but Thanos is torturous to Loki. The two are not the same, regardless of how they may technically be defined. By calling the former torture, consistently, bc his behavior meets some arbitrary technical definition, you're actively diluting the word bc you feel like its weight lends credibility to your argument that Mobius sucks.

... I got off-topic for a second there, I'm sorry. But back to my point: fiction is subjective and I don't care whose feathers I ruffle by saying that. It's true, and acting like it's not so that you can feel like you have the "right" interpretation of the character (thus giving you personal validation which, I'm sorry to say, the Emperor thought that he was wearing fabulous new clothes but that didn't change the reality that he was butt ass naked) is just ... *gesticulates wildly bc words fail me* shitty.

[starymintss]

Please enjoy an essay on why mitsukou has so much fucking potential and why they’re great together

by Elena~

I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a connection like the one that mitsukou shares. This ship literally has true canon potential. I have hope and believe that we may be victorious in mitsukou becoming canon- I mean god dammit guys they are “SEMI CANON”-

kounene obviously won’t be endgame. In Houkago Shounen Hanako Kun (the spin-off series) they played a game in which the person who pulled a king card was able to get to command a person that was playing the game to do something no matter what. When Kou pulled his card- he literally decided he wanted his brother Teru who was there and Nene to have a romantic connection (hence- him saying and I fucking quote, “This will make senpai happy!”) He could’ve done it to his own benefit- to maybe earn a kiss or do something of his own benefit. But he didn’t, instead choosing to make his senpai happy.

Besides Hananene is basically canon already like what the fuck

As for Mitsuba he’s a gay coded character and hasn’t denied the guys aren’t his type. Some people who deem Mitsuba straight might use the scene where he tells Kou “Is this a love confession? Sorry but lame earrings aren’t really my style.” That still does not confirm that Mitsuba doesn’t swing that way. A really great piece of evidence is the bonus comics at the start and end of a manga- one titled, “Tell Me, Mitsuba Kun,” in which Kou asks if he ever had a crush on other girls- Mitsuba responding that there are simply no other girls cuter than him. In another bonus comic he says the same thing again when he tells Yokoo and Satou he wants to fall in love. When asked to name some girls he thinks are cute, he asks if it's possible that he was the cutest one of all. On the other hand, Kou has stated that he likes someone with a pretty smile (do I have to explain that) which is a pretty open explanation of his type (not denying or confirming he doesn’t like guys). Obviously as a Mitsukou shipper I can point out different actions that I’ll admit looks pretty gay.

It’s not the fact that it’s very common in manga like this that there’s the straight couple and then the other two people in the group are automatically paired together- they are so much more than that. They have a deep connection, and both Kou and Mitsuba are somewhat aware of that themselves. Mitsuba is willing to protect Kou from harm- he’s willing to stop him from getting himself hurt for others because Mitsuba cares, and he knows that he’s too reckless and caring and fearless for others in a way that isn’t healthy?

Kou likes to be everything for everyone and the reader can see in chapter 64 that Mitsuba really did try to talk to him about the behavior. Yes it’s weird to see Mitsuba actually show true concern to people--because it’s his character to be a jerk and an asshole, but that doesn’t mean Mitsuba is incapable of not having true genuine feelings for people he seems as his friends.

Obviously, Mitsuba trying to talk to Kou didn’t happen due to other events that occurred. But I think a lot of people agree that the moment would’ve been so beautifully written and truly played an extremely important part in Kou’s character development.

As for Mitsuba, Kou is generally a sweet guy. It’s stated he will give up his life for anyone, it was what he was taught growing up as an exorcist and a fighter. Those words do not fail his actions, and anyone can see Kou will die for literally anything which is really messed up. He’s 14 for fucks sake.

Someone against Mitsukou could use that as an argument but we see here in the manga that there’s simply something different about this said connection. Kou is first introduced to Mitsuba in chapter 30 something, and he remembers who he is after Yokoo tells him--what happened to Mitsuba that was ultimately the end of his life. Mitsuba does again by his rumor being changed, and being stabbed by Hanako- but it’s the fact he cries and loses sleep and just cannot let him go for anything that moves me. May I point out that he actually decided to process the photos even after Mitsubas death? He didn’t have to do that. Not at all. But he did anyways. It’s seen that Kou wants to find a way to help Mitsuba get away from Tsukasa and help him fit in more- he wants to be a friend. (Note: after he’s reintroduced to Mitsuba; this Mitsuba being a pure apparition with no memories.)

Mitsuba is deeply insecure about himself, and feels he doesn’t fit in. He’s lonely, and doesn’t have friends even as a ghost. But Kou is there. He’s there to be by Mitsubas side.

The deep connection the two of them have is strong and that’s especially shown in the picture perfect arc. At the beginning Kou first sees Mitsuba as a human and obviously it’s freaking him out because-he’s a ghost you know. But once him and Nene meet Shijima Mei, and are told they must kill Hanako (Amane) and Mitsuba, it’s disturbing to them. At this point in the series literally everyone know Hanako and Yashiro share a connection as lovers. I mean- its the couple that the series revolves around. But Kou is deeply disturbed because he doesn’t want to kill Mitsuba. Yet- Mei also reassured them that things will be alright since after all this is a fake world and there’s no need for hesitation. But it’s still affecting Kou and he’s carrying this information on his back as he learns beside Mitsuba in school and has fun with him while cleaning the pool. At night, when the two of them are walking on the school building and watching the stars from the window, Kou confronts Mitsuba about this (note: by now Kou knows that Mitsuba knows). Mitsuba goes on to reveal his true form, and uses his powers to show Kou the past. He tells him about how he learns about his past self. And he states to just feel so… “envious”

Mitsuba grows angry with Kou- because he can see how he’s looking at the true Mitsuba with such a gaze the fake Mitsuba knows he won’t ever get.

Things lead to one another and he smashes the window in fury. (“It’s that Mitsuba you want, right?!” And I dare you to tell me that doesn’t sound like a fucking quote from a bittersweet romance novel.)

Kou insists on getting Mitsuba out of there. And can I please just point out that Mitsuba says: “What are you doing?!” He asks Kou if this isn’t what he wanted- if this isnt the life they want to live from here on out where they can be happy together along with their friends. This reminds me of a direct parallel to Hananene, in which Hanako is confused as to why Nene wouldn’t want to stay here, and Nene tells him that this isn’t what she wants. Kou says the same thing to Mitsuba.

Kou drags out embedded feelings Mitsuba has as they fight, and he says quotes that are really important to their development. Things such as:

“But… who else is there?! Who else could grant my wish?! Even you, Minamoto- Kun!”

“You see… even you don’t care about me. It’s that “Mitsuba,” isn’t it?! I don't even MATTER!!”

“I’m Mitsuba’s fake, but let’s just call it real! This is a world where the “Mitsuba” you were unable to save can live happily! That’s good, isn’t it?”

“Even if it’s only in this world, be my friend, and stay by my side… I’m just thinking scary things. Over there, I’ll be jealous.”

I think the Picture Perfect arc really shows how desperate Mitsuba is to have friends- to fit in with everyone else and to just feel like he belongs and matters. Kou tries to tell him that isn’t true... he’s willing to do everything to let him know that he is so much more than what he deems himself as. He’s so much more than a “fake” of what used to be his original friend, there's so much more to do than wish wishes and hope things will just go the way you want things to go. There’s a better way than to look to evil to bend and defy the laws of existing.

There’s the famous quote Kou says- the “How about I die too. So that we can be together forever.” And how he decided right there this this fake Mitsuba- this apparition who very much will never become human- is worthy. He’s worthy of his life; this is more than the whole “I will die for every life” because Mitsuba is dead- he’s immortal as a ghost. But a human like him... in Mitsubas words someone who will never understand something as ugly and as horrifying as a apparition born from a real persons soul and lesser about to disappear spirits- Kou will give his life up just to know the hell he goes through. Even if it’s just a glimpse- even if it’s just for a second Kou will do anything to just fulfill Mitsubas wish for him to stay by his side. He will do anything for Mitsuba.

I think writing this out also makes me realize they both have their walls up. Kou has his walls up to try and hide his true feelings- his deepest fears and insecurities- feeling as if he isn’t good enough. Mitsuba has his walls up to do the same. He portrays himself as a guy that he deems will get him friends. He hides the ugliness in himself- hides the fact he’s a total fake; doesn’t belong anywhere and his deepest insecurities.

But the two of them together help each other in such a way that it’s unable to truly analyze every single moment they share together.

They help each other but teach the other to bring their walls down. That it’s okay to talk about your feelings and that you don’t have to be everything for everyone. That you don’t have to give up everything you have living- your health and your literal life- for someone. That it’s okay to feel like you don’t fit in. It’s okay to feel like there’s just no other choice of getting what you want and therefore doing the wrong things. That people will love you just for you; what happened in the past put aside.

Mitsuba and Kou are in love.

The end. 💖

[rpbetter]

"writes dubcon therefore is a freak who should be bullied off the site" ho boy i'm fed up with people acting as if consenting adults writing [insert "problematic" fictional thing here] is the worst thing in the world. seen way too many people justifying harrassment of REAL PEOPLE by "they write thing that triggers me". ok, and? mute the tags or don't follow! "it triggers someone" is not a valid reason to ban a topic. piano music triggers me yet i don't go around demanding everyone stop playing the piano.

Anon, not only is everything you said absolutely valid, but also, thank you for demonstrating that triggers are incredibly varied and as such, we cannot predict everyone's triggers. Making the entire "point" of banning for possible triggers invalidated as hell.

We should be aware of things like the most commonly occurring phobias (things like arachnophobia and coulrophobia that are, additionally, easily triggered by imagery) and tag them. We should be aware of very obvious triggers, that are, again, easily set off by imagery, like blood, eye trauma, and depictions of domestic violence. And we should always read and be aware of our writing partners' stated triggers so that we can tag them appropriately or even decide that it isn't going to work because our muse, canon story, or interests are going to present an unfair situation in this partnership.

But triggers can be highly unusual, as well as activated differently (even at different times) for everyone. I'm not triggered by seeing hotel rooms in pictures or movies, I'm not triggered by writing scenes that take place in them, but I'm triggered to some degree by being in one. It's outrageous oversimplification to act like all triggers are the same, they all display the same way, they're all going to trigger someone on the same basis, everyone's going to react the same to their triggers. There is absolutely no way to prevent 100% of possible triggers for 100% of the population, 100% of the time.

Add to this that way too many people trivialize triggers by throwing around that term to justify the banning of something that makes them uncomfortable or that they take a personal, moral issue with. "I don't like this" and "I'm grossed out by this" and "this makes me feel uncomfortable" is not being triggered. It's just a good way to weaponize the better nature of other people so that they comply.

Most people legitimately do not want to trigger someone, especially if they have triggers and know what it's like. Just like no one wants to be accused of cruelty towards trauma survivors in general, or be designated a pedo, rape apologist, or fascist. They're all things to weaponize in order to isolate, shame, and control. And that's really fucking gross. These are serious, real things that have no business being trivialized to police content, win internet arguments, or garner popularity.

The potential for someone to be triggered isn't a reason to ban anything; we have tags, we have blacklist.

While I'll be the first to say that tumblr's blacklisting can be as shitty as everything else on the site, the primary issue with running into content you don't want to see comes down to two factors: no one tagging/tagging correctly and actively exposing yourself to that content. Going through people's properly done tags and blog warnings about their content in order to "call it out" is actively exposing yourself by choice. You actual walnuts.

Calling people on on their "problematic" content is bringing those topics to the attention of other people. That's the whole point of this gross behavior: look at the freak pedo abuse apologist I found, they write dubcon!! Don't look if you'll be triggered uwu

Buddy, pal, my guy...you just put that on blast for anyone to run across. Maybe their blacklist catches those words in your callout post, maybe it doesn't. Maybe they think you're a safe space because you promote yourself that way, so they click it anyway. Point is, you just willfully and irresponsibly exposed people because it's more important to you to demonize a rando on tumblr RPing something you take issue with. Good job!

Furthermore, dubcon itself is such a hilarious issue to take. Do they realize that isn't always sexual, or? Not? I'm thinking not. Funnily enough, one of the oldest posts I've been working on for this blog is about exactly this topic, the myriad situations that are dubious consent. That doesn't have to be sexual, and neither does it have to be intentionally predatory. You can come up with some amazing character development with a lot of muses in the RPC with dubcon because almost everyone's muse has some manner of trauma that might negate their perception of their own consent...and what do you do then? Is it removing more agency from that muse to shut them down, or is that always the better option? Can you separate your opinion as the mun from your muse's natural reactions? How does this impact the muses involved not just that moment but the next year?

Point is, dubcon isn't always some rapey situation. Even if it was, even if someone is writing it that way, it's literally not your business or your problem.

There's one mutual-in-law on my RP blog that really bothers me. They write things that I find fetishizing, incredibly rapey, all around shit that bothers me. I don't want to see it, some of the things they write makes my damn skin crawl. This person doesn't know it, we certainly don't speak and I don't think they like me very much, but I've repeatedly defended their right, specifically their right as a person with some long-term callouts on them, to write what they want to. I have them blocked and their urls blacklisted so I never have to see my mutual reblogging their threads. It's not a problem because I don't click "show anyway." Why would I, if it genuinely bothers me so much?

That's how you handle things that bother you; you use the tools available to not interact even by accident. Not by launching a morality crusade.

If any of us want to write what we enjoy, we have to allow others that same freedom. It's always a matter of time before this policing grows to include more and more topics, it's been used multiple times to get well-meaning people who don't fall into the general demographics to police queer, BIPOC, and other marginalized groups off of platforms. We've been fortunate in most of the RPC that it implodes on itself before it gets all the way there, but even so, you can see it.

It starts with things that produce a visceral reaction in the great majority of people, positions this with a repeatedly condemned idea presented as solid fact that fiction is reality, and you've got the start of something awful. Today it's something you don't like, maybe even something that triggers you, so you either support it or you quietly allow it to happen. Who needs to write that "freak shit" anyway, can't they just be gross privately? Six months from now, it's something "problematic" that you enjoy like violence that's canon-typical for your muse, or your OTP because they're gay and that's fetishizing, they're cis male and female but one or both is bi and that's bad representation, or they canonically have a rocky relationship so that's romanticizing toxic/abusive relationships.

If you can't care for any other reason, you really should care about how it is going to impact you sooner or later. In an environment like this, you can stay in your space, put warnings on your blog, and tag properly and you're still going to get a callout if the wrong person finds your blog. Just takes a single person with more time, energy, and skewed ideas of justice than they have reading comprehension or common sense.

Again, I cannot encourage people enough to give warnings, but it's difficult to ignore why those warnings are slipping; they're a way to be found, designated as a Problem, and called out. Look, it's another reason why callouts actually make things worse, not better! People put that shit in their rules so you can avoid content, they're being responsible and interested in promoting a safe RPC. Let them do it, damn.

You can't tag everything, and if you've never experienced what a giant series of repetitive tags is like on a screenreader you probably should before you tag seven paragraphs of possible issues. You can tag for visuals, you can tag for the obvious things, and you can tag for what's in the rules you agreed to when you followed/followed back. But you should also warn people that you write "dark topics" on the tin, and expand on that in your rules for specific things like graphic violence, toxic relationships, dubon, and addiction.

That's how responsible adults, not over-aged children, make better decisions about their mental health and general comfort. Not by appointing themselves the watchdogs of the damn RPC, here to protect you whether you want to be or not, find that incredibly insulting or not when you're in one of their categories of people who must be protected, by forcibly banning Problematic Everything. Problematic, of course, being entirely in the eye of the content police.

It's fiction. No one and nothing real was harmed. It's great that you are so invested in the fictional world and people that make you happy, but take a fucking big step back into reality. The real people you're harming with your bullshit had every right to peaceably exist. If what they're writing is triggering to you, stay. away. from. it.

Without any coincidence whatsoever, that's how you get from the base-point of Problematic Material to Problematic Mun. Yeah, it's just fiction, it's just RP, but I also took something out of context OOC or was upset by their tone on their own blog or couldn't exercise the minimal adult logic to remove myself from their presence OOC as well. So, now, you've got OOC behavior being added to the callout, if it wasn't already. Everyone is now ableist, transphobic, racist, and a misogynist because it lends that visceral reaction to the callout and ups the game from just being "y'all so gross you aged up a cartoon character to ship" to "this is REAL and it won't be tolerated! OP is actually a pedophile, they told a sexual joke in a discord server with a minor present and I have the receipts!"

What are the most storied callouts in the entire RPC? I'm absolutely certain the same names came to mind no matter what fandoms you're in, and one of them was "Matt." Another was probably "Ares/Snow". They're all successful and keep being brought up out of the closet anytime people are bored enough because their primary punch is the mun themselves being a predatory threat to the community. The mun is verified to be a bad person. Well, of course, that's got to be repeated, it worked. (Even if it did not, at all, work and only made it harder for people to avoid any of these muns.)

Are there people in the RPC who are legitimately a problem? Absolutely, yes. We're all supposed to be adults, however. Part of being an adult is having and acting upon one's agency. If someone is coercing you into things you are not comfortable with, shut it down. If you have difficulties being certain of those situations, run it by a trusted, honest friend or available, impartial source in the RPC for a second opinion. If you can't handle any manner of confrontation, there really are situations in which it's perfectly alright to block someone without any discussion. It's just the internet, you're in control of your space. Own it.

Minors are a whole other can of fucked up worms I'm not even getting into right now except to say that because a minor exists in a space they were told to stay out of does not mean we ban all topics inappropriate for their consumption.

tl;dr: banning shit doesn't work anyway, the whole idea is predicated upon some incredibly problematic takes IRL, and no, there's no justification for it outside of intense personal problems with one's own importance. That energy would be infinitely better spent volunteering one's time to help real people in crisis or after surviving one, or even oneself in developing some healthier approaches and thought patterns.

[faroreswinds]

Man, Zelda fans are weird about the series.

I can't fully blame them. The series has changed hands over the years, to people with different abilities and different ideas for what they want out of the games. It would be unfair for me, as a consumer of the product, to think that Koizumi and Aonuma imagined/image Zelda the same way Fujibayashi does now.

But man, do they pick apart everything.

You would think I would be used to people taking speculation as hard core canon fact with thr FE discourse I have gone through, but I rarely engage in Zelda discourse because it is just a mess. Books that don't agree with each other. Non canon manga sources that people consider canon. Retcons, reimaginings, translation errors... people take everything they can find without thinking about it critically.

Anyways, that was a long winded way to say that reincarnation in the Zelda series is so convoluted and messy and no one knows what the hell they are talking about.

Apparently, some people really believe that TP Link and OoT Link are blood relatives AND yet the same soul.

I cannot believe people can look me in the eye and claim this. I do NOT think the devs intended that in any way.

Or, they believe AoL Zelda and LoZ Zelda have a split soul because they are both alive and I'm just

This is a headcanon! Where is your proof in the text?

I showed someone a lot of evidence regarding this topic, showing that TP Link is treated as a separate soul from OoT Link in the very game they exist in and the answer I got back was "well, they don't say that is ISN'T soul fragments so therefore you are wrong."

That's not how it... ok, fine.

I don't think I'm cut out for Zelda discourse.

I guess reoccurring characters must also be reincarnated because they have the same names and look the same. Nothing to do with devs making throw backs to older characters, nope nope nope! Everything in a game must have a deep lore intended purpose!

So there is no text evidence that minor characters like Malon are reincarnation what's so ever, but what about the other three?

I'm too tired to make a deep dive, so I'm just going to do a summary:

Zelda -> Hylia reborn, then descendants afterwords ONLY

Link -> Sometimes a bloodline, sometimes a random kid with a strong heart, connected by the "Spirit of the Hero".

Ganon -> Incarnation of the hatred of the Demon Tribe, same dude across all the games except FSA, the only time we have where he is reincarnated, assuming they haven't retconned this in other materials.

Misc. Characters I can think of

Lord of the Mountain -> Stated in-game to be a possible reincarnation of a sage. There is plausible deniability in the language though.

Great Deku Tree -> Unclear. The Great Deku Sprout seems to contain the memories of his predecessor but regards himself as a separate entity. Other Deku Trees do not seem to possess the same memories, however, and devs have even said the tree in BotW is a new tree, the implementation being a different tree that doesn't have the same soul.

[alatismeni-theitsa]

I mean I want to respect people's religions but tbh as a greek I don't think I can ever take hellenic polytheists on tumblr seriously. I'm sorry but it just feels so foreign to me, like they have just read a bunch of books of the subject. They might be "fans" of ancient greece but what they supposedly worship lacks the soul of what our ancestors religion has. There is just nothing "greek" about it. (I hope I don't sound too much like an nationalist there, I hate nationalism)

No, look, I understand. Obviously you and I are for freedom of religion and expression. But not all religions have to make sense to you in order to support them or the people in them. Also, this particular religion is part of our heritage so I believe we can speak on it a little bit. It’s understandable to see a part of your heritage being used by foreigners in ways you don’t recognize. And it’s a strange feeling indeed because the religion originated and sculpted by the Greeks (with influences of course!). 

I suppose that you, as I, agree that anyone can have any religion. Nothing stops me from becoming a Buddhist and nothing stops a person from the US to become a Hellenic Polytheist. However, I cannot just declare I am a Buddhist and have a prayers and a statue and be done with it. It goes deeper than that. It’s a new philosophy and a way of life I must accept, a way of recognizing the divine differently than before. I have to study and I have to study how Buddhism came to be and what cultures shaped it and follow on their footsteps. Maybe I should also learn a little bit of their language to understand the deeper meaning of hymns and worship. 

I see of the worshipers studying a lot to immitate that sense of Greek culture but also keep their own culture (which is good!). Many of the modern worshipers call themselves reconstructionists because they don’t practise the ancient religion (because we don’t have enough info and because it’s the 21st century) but they try to get close to it by studying. 

I can say it’s a personal pet peeve of mine as a Greek that they focus only on the ancient Greece and therefore they “miss” the last 1.500-2.000 years of our cultural development. I understand they cannot study everything about Greece. A person cannot know everything. However, personally, I am a little bothered that there are Hellenic Polytheists who can recite classic texts and analyze them for hours but if you ask them ANYTHING about Greek culture after 100 AD they won’t know a single thing about it. There are worshipers who know every single minor Greek deity yet they have never seen a picture of Greek people and they have no idea about our cultural identity, how we view life and how we have evolved the language and the customs of our ancestors. 

No wonder you feel the modern practices foreign, even when you are a Greek. It’s because even the most well-read Hellenic Polytheists base their religion solely on a veeeery distant part of our culture. And, in the meantime, the Greek spirit of the ancient faith is kinda lost.

Even Greek Hellenic Polytheists will never fully worship the way their ancestors did. It’s because we are in a different point in history and our society raises us with certain values, which differ from those of our ancients.

But I can get behind Hellenic Polytheists who put in the work to actually study a foreign religion and try to bring it back to life as accuratelly as possible. I may have pet peeves but  that doesn’t mean I condemn the way they worship. Plus even in the Hellenic Polytheism community different worshipers have different opinions on the matter of worship. I understand that those people do the best for their faith.

On the other hand, on Tumblr many people are not in a good cultural level yet. They take the religion very superficially. I have seen some Hellenic Polytheist blogs where the owners call some gods EVIL and bash Zeus, the FATHER of the gods!! There is probably lots of reading that needs to be done on their part to understand the basic concepts. Some even try to shape the religion (!!!) after 1.500 years after its “death” (aka its super dramatic decline) by making posts about “secret” myths that predate the Greek ones and try to pass them as canon. Can we forget the time Tumblr created a Greek goddess (Mesperyan)?? Of course you won’t find the smallest mention of Greek customs in these blogs. 

Thankfully, I have seen a few blogs that at least talk about the customs of our antiquity and help Hellenic Polytheists learn new customs. I hope the community on this site takes examples from them and continues to mature.

____________________________________________________________ 

It’s a huge answer because I felt the subject needed analysis. Let me repeat, we don’t gatekeep anyone from the faith and we don’t accuse the Hellenic Polytheist community of anything! We just discuss how an important part of our ancient culture is revived and what it means to us. How we feel connected and not connected to it. I am sorry if that was hurtful to anyone but, as Greeks, we need to talk about these issues. If we don’t discuss them who will?

Feel free to discuss and add opinions. Please read the whole post before commenting!

[oranges8hands]

I agree with everything except the last sentence. I know it's trendy lately, but we really don't need to mix racism with everything. For me, a POC girl, this is as ridiculous as saying that liking top! Joe is racist. I am glad that people have become more aware of certain things, but you cannot exaggerate it and see racism EVERYWHERE. Even where it is not the case.

re: this post

Well, thanks for sending in an ask. There's kind of a lot of parts to this I want to address, but first let me ask - do you disagree with my assessment that Joe gets more blame for the exile and exile length, or do you disagree with my assessment that Joe getting that blame comes from a pattern of fandom racism? Because the first is a fandom interpretation and as always, interpretations will vary and be heavily based on the fandom circles you are in; it's based on a pattern I noticed in my engagement with fandom, the same way I noticed fandom's treatment around Booker's exile, and I find the two intricately linked. Some people (like possibly you) may not connect fandom's prioritization of Booker's pain/trauma to be implicitly (or explicitly) against Joe specifically, rather than against the group of Andy, Nicky, and Joe. [Regarding not naming Nile, the fact that she is a) new and b) voted for the apology-only means she seems to rarely get conflated into the blame game.] Like, ymmv, etc etc.

However, if you do think Joe gets specifically and repeatedly put on a different level from the other two in terms of being the one to heavily push for a long exile (against group opinion), being the one who wanted the strictest "punishment" possible because he's the angry/resentful/unforgiving one, being the only one who wanted the "punishment", being emotional (irrational) in his hurt while the other two are calm and collected (and therefore rational/objective in their decision), that his reaction is going to be a continued vocalization of his anger only and/or that his vocalization is a problem but Andy's immediate reaction or Nicky's silent treatment isn't, that his reaction is only anger while Nicky and Andy are disappointed/hurt/guilty/etc (aka a spectrum of emotions and not just one note), that his main motivation is retribution (esp that the other two don't feel that), that his anger is based on and only on selfish hurt (for hurting Nicky) while the others are looking at the larger picture of Booker's actions or able to see Booker's side of it, that he is quick to temper (unlike the others) and can't control his response, and/or that in general his anger about the betrayal isn't justified, I don't quite get why you wouldn't assume racial bias has a role in it.

Like, Joe is a different character from them! He's considered the emotional one, the expressive one, the vocal and loud one (to varying degrees of fairness.) The genesis of those traits exists in canon, and fandom as always has the weird ability to both flatten a character to specific traits and layer on complexity to the shown facets of character's canon. I even get why he gets tagged as the most mad in comparison to the others (though I don't actually agree with it) - the way Andy had her angry moment with Booker but doesn't continue with that anger in the lab and she's caring with Booker in her goodbye, Nicky basically tells Joe now is not the time to yell at Booker and then you never see him interact (look at?) Booker again, and again Nile wanted to let him off with an apology. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense or comes completely out of left field to view it that way.  

But again, it's not that he reacts differently; they're all different people and obviously their reactions will reflect their personalities and their relationship to Booker. It's that his reaction to betrayal is held to a different standard, the way he's subtly and consistently painted as wrong for his reaction in a way the other two aren't. And to be clear, I am specifically and only talking about the dynamic around Booker's exile and Joe, and not how Joe in general is written, but there's some touches of it in that too. My comment is also very much not about one specific fic or one individual's opinion about either Joe or the exile, but about the pattern I noticed that Joe's reaction is often treated with a different (lesser) level of acceptance than Nicky's/Andy's, that his reaction is often assigned more/only negative motivations (esp in comparison), and that (which ties to the main point of my first post) his reaction (even if - though it’s not - just anger) should be de-prioritized in comparison to Booker (or the others.) 

And obviously, this isn't all fic. Maybe not the majority of fic. But it's definitely more than one; it's something I started to pick up on as a potential thing to look for, and I know I'm not the only one. This is a large fandom and it is growing. This fandom on A03 alone has almost 6k works, and that's been in six months. (And that's just one platform!) It is frankly preposterous to me to say this one (large) fandom is somehow the only fandom where racial bias isn't a factor, or that it doesn't affect how all the characters get written.

(also I think it's worth bringing up while my original post, this ask, and this response have been heavily leaning on words about fandom's racism, I don't think that's divorced from its Islamophobia and the western (US/Hollywood) racialization of Muslims.)

As for the general fandom and racism discussion - look, I'm not going to speak over you a poc and say you should or have to notice racism in everything. It is 100% not my place to tell you how to experience/react to racism, how to interact with fandom and racism, or to say you are doing it wrong.

I'm personally coming from a different mindset - that racism does affect everything, and that fandom is absolutely not different in that regard, and that reactions to racism (either for people of color in general or the specific identity being talked about) are not monolithic.  

I also think - while I get why you use it - the word 'trendy' does a disservice to fandom racism discussions and how those got co-opted and conflated in the larger cancel/call out culture.  Cause

racism being used as an excuse/reason to cancel something ("I hate this, and here's racism as a reason no one should like it/why you are a bad person for liking it")

racism being discussed as an important issue canon failed at ("I'm criticizing the canon and depending on what it is, I may think canon's racism should hold the highest priority in terms of canon's worth")

racism being looked at through the lens of fandom ("racism permeates every facet of this world and that includes canon/fandom, here's how")

are all different things, and while the first one is used a lot more, and all of them are a lot more visible now, I don't think the other two are that much more accepted than they were before.

I only caught the periphery bones of the top/bottom joe/nicky controversy, but my understanding is these two sides collided very badly: side a) early into fandom people pointed out the trend, related it to how that trend works in every other fandom, discussed specifically how bias in interracial and interfaith relationships are likely to show up in this fandom and that dynamic, called for more nuance/thought into this dynamic, and all of that got flattened into "top!Joe is and only is racist, and you're a racist for liking it." and side b) because call out/cancel/purity culture, fans (specifically including fans of color) were being called racist for either engaging in the characters the "wrong way" or not engaging at all, pushing them to create content they didn't want to create, left the fandom due to harassment/bullying, and got treated like even the hint of top!Joe was the Worst Thing They Could Ever Do, so that even suggesting racial bias may play a part on shipping dynamics for joe/nicky is completely unreasonable/without merit. That, again, is how my (limited) view followed the issue, and like everyone else where I fall on the spectrum of that discussion is very much dependent on the circles of fandom I float in.

[seyaryminamoto]

Do you think they could make Azula gay in the netflix live-action? Many people in the fandom seem to think she had a thing for Ty Lee. I don't see it, but do you think they could retcon the show just to pander to shippers?

Somehow I knew this sort of question would pop up in my inbox one day. I just did. Such foresight powers I have (?)

Anyways, the answer got pretty long, but I hope it’s comprehensive enough in regards of why I don’t think it’s likely, why, even if it happens, we shouldn’t freak out about it regardless of if it negates our headcanons, and why, on top of it all any characterization the ATLA cast gets in the liveaction should be judged as part of a second timeline, removed from the first, and analyzed as such.

Alright, first of all... despite what popular opinion these days would have everyone believe, a character’s sexuality and sexual identity are not the only relevant and important factors in them; in fact, I wouldn’t even call them the most important factors unless you’re outright telling a story with very specific socially critical purposes in mind. Yes, you can deal with these subjects in stories that aren’t exclusively about sexuality, and yes, it offers important representation to communities that were largely unseen for the bulk of human history. But making a character’s entire story arc revolve around nothing but sexuality and their struggles because of it is actually a failure at offering good representation? The point in having media featuring representation in the form of diverse fictional characters is based on allowing minorities to see themselves in this kind of content and for majorities to understand these minorities and their stories are just as valid as theirs are. If minorities are reduced to a single aspect of their multifacetic lives, the only thing the story in question would achieve is turning a character with the potential to be dynamic and complex into some flat minority stereotype, throwing away the countless human complexities through which media can tell rich and important stories that do provide genuine, quality representation to these communities.

Ergo, if Azula were written as a gay character in this Netflix adaptation, this aspect of the reworked character should not, and frankly, CANNOT, be the only thing that matters about her. Azula has a large role to play in this story, a role related to the war, her family, her friends and her nation, and a lot of her complexities stem from how she deals with all these subjects, none of which have anything to do with romance or sexuality. Therefore, I’m pretty sure a lot of us loved her character for reasons that had nothing to do with her interactions with potential love interests, whether they’re of her same or opposite sex: Azula has always been SO MUCH MORE than whatever we’ve headcanoned her sexuality to be, and this is something I hope everyone keeps in mind for this liveaction show.

We need to stick to our priorities, to a fault, as Azula’s fans: whatever sexuality or love interests she’s given, if she’s given either thing to begin with, her story isn’t exclusively about that. So, if Bryke decide to alter this aspect of her original characterization by dialing up Azula’s love life, it’s not the driving aspect of the character and it’s not the only thing we should be concerned with when it comes to her new portrayal in the future liveaction show, regardless of whether said sexuality agrees with our headcanons or disagrees with them.

Alright, then. After that particular clarification had been made... I’m of the opinion that Bryke have indeed pandered to shippers and fans in the past, namely in their sequel show and certain later announcements related to it, announcements that were basically the LOK version of “Dumbledore was gay all along but I thought it’d hurt the book sales and that’s why I only said so in a press conference after the final book was a bestseller and my bank accounts were overflowing” (by which I mean, the last-minute sudden “Aiwei (the dead guy) and Kya (Aang’s daughter) are also gay” comments Bryke made post-Book 4 to convince people they were aboslutely pro-LGBT and their world was very diverse despite said diversity only became known in the final scene of the show and was never portrayed positively or properly through these side-and-background characters...?).

So, would I say, categorically, that Bryke would NEVER write Azula as a gay character if they thought it’d make their show more popular? Nope, I can’t. I really don’t trust them enough to think they’ll prioritize top-of-the-line storytelling over pandering to the crowd that will cheer them on most loudly.

THAT BEING SAID...!

The story they told with Azula in ATLA, despite what certain people are convinced of, had a very straight-forward message, one that I didn’t like very much, especially since that message seemed to render irrelevant the character’s incredible storytelling potential and remarkable complexities. Where Azula could have been so many things, in the show’s finale she became some sort of flat, sad warning stating: “don’t try to control people through fear or they’ll turn against you and you’ll end up all alone.”

As much as I have no doubts Bryke will want to incorporate new themes and somewhat “update” ATLA into more progressive times, I really doubt they’ll sacrifice the story they’re apparently so proud of having told through Azula only to pander to a specific part of ATLA’s audience. For that matter, there’s been a growing movement promoting many same-sex ships and trans interpretations of virtually ALL ATLA characters, so if they were to pander to the fanbase through Azula, why her? And if they do pick her, why stop there? If they do stop there, then they’re not being inclusive enough with their fandom. Why satisfy one portion of the fandom and not satisfy the other ones too? :’D

Worse yet, accusations of foul play will absolutely be guaranteed to rise when a potentially gay Azula isn’t given a redemption (because, considering the latest Azula-related comments by the creators and comic writers, they’re not likely to do it this time either), because “irredemably evil lesbian trope, that’s so sexist and homophobic!” And with that, the long, glorious time ATLA has spent as the golden, poster child of western animation will suddenly be overrun with the very same hysterical purity police that has overtaken all newer fandoms and filled them with antis who attack creators, writers, actors and other fans for creating or supporting “toxic” content.

Point and case being... if they don’t stray from the story they already told, they have a slam dunk since a lot of people will love the show if it’s virtually the same as the one they watched when growing up. All they have to do is alter a few events, maybe expand on a few things, stall the story for a few more years so the actors can age realistically and not be overworked... and tadaaaah! You have a blockbuster! Change fundamental aspects of characters by adding new factors to pander to certain fan demographics? You’d basically be poking a wasp’s nest and hoping they will turn out to be honeybees instead, ESPECIALLY if the character being coded as LGBT is either evil or fated to die, as both those tropes are what seem to incense that side of fandoms more than anything else.

If they want to write Azula as openly gay, they’d have to alter her general character message and whole arc to avoid the guaranteed problems I’ve pointed out up here. Paired with this? They’d have to retcon their recently established “the Fire Nation became homophobic in Sozin’s time!” canon imposed by LOK’s comics, so, if they stick with this tidbit of recent LGBT info, a gay Azula would most likely have to be a highly repressed lesbian who can’t even accept herself? It’s not impossible to tell that story... but it kind of feels counterproductive, and absolutely discouraging too for people who are struggling to come to terms with their own sexuality to see themselves reflected in a repressed character who most likely will meet the same depressing end she does in ATLA.

Now, my final point: again, I can’t say it’s impossible that this might happen. But EVEN IF Bryke decide that this is how their new story will work, and the new Azula will be gay, and they change everything so it’s non-problematic and they successfully avoid being chased with pitchforks by the purity police...

A new characterization doesn’t negate the one from the original show in the least. The first ATLA is what it is, a finished product that can be judged and interpreted in a thousand ways, and has been, for the past 10+ years. A new canon does NOT overrule an old one, a thought that I’m sure the very same purity and nostalgia police I’ve mentioned will absolutely adhere to once the new story changes ANYTHING and they don’t like it. Whatever new possibilities they test out with a new story don’t have to be taken as facts that apply to every iteration of the characters. For reference, imagine judging every Marvel comics character for the actions and behavior of their MCU counterparts. Imagine people raging at Peter Quill in the comic books because he’s in love with Kitty Pryde and how DARES he cheat on Gamora with her?!

... Just how would that make any sense? :’) Likewise, it would make no sense to behave this way with ATLA and its future liveaction adaptation. What happens in the liveaction concerns the liveaction. What happened in the original show can serve as a guideline for the liveaction, if anything, a frame of reference, but they can (and will) change elements in the story as they please in the new adaptation. However similar as they might be, they’re TWO stories, and they should work perfectly well as standalone shows.

Let’s look at it from the opposite POV, to further illustrate my point: if the new show SOMEHOW made Sokkla canon, unlikely and damn near impossible as it is: that doesn’t make it canon in the original ATLA. Hence, if I were to run out in the streets screaming Sokkla is real and endgame in EVERY POSSIBLE VERSION OF ATLA, the entire world would have every right to throw rotten eggs at me and tell me to shut the fuck up because it’s not true, it’s only real in the liveaction, and that doesn’t have any bearing on the original show.

Same principle applies with a potential gay Azula :’) Even if it happens, it’s liveaction only. The original show remains what it is, and her characterization there can be interpreted and derived from as we see fit.

To close this answer, I confess that I, personally, have next to no interest in this liveaction remake. I can’t even say I’ll watch any of it. For one thing, I’m really annoyed by the trend there is these days to turn animation into liveaction, because it seriously feels like an underlying way to say that liveaction is somehow the superior choice for audiovisual storytelling and that really grinds my gears. Animation has been fascinating media for me for years, I’ve always felt it’s more versatile than liveaction, and if I ever happened to write something that gets an onscreen adaptation, I’d probably choose animation over liveaction even if I’m not given a choice on the matter :’) So, for starters, I’m not happy with the notion of a liveaction remake for this show. If they wanted to remake ATLA and had chosen to do so with animation, I’d definitely be much more interested. But this way? Uh... not my cup of tea.

So, whatever Bryke want to do with this new product is absolutely their business (same as it was their business with ATLA, frankly). People will criticize it, that’s a guaranteed thing, and people will love it, and people will be angry, and people will be happy. But I’m probably not going to be one of any of these people this time around. The only way I would likely enjoy that show would be if it’s a genuine, critical overhaul of everything they did in the original show, reworking many key aspects of MANY characters, no matter if the main anecdote remains intact. And considering how highly self-critical the recent ATLA-related content has been, I doubt I’ll get my wish. So... good luck to everyone who wants to watch this liveaction, have fun, I won’t spoil it for you by dumping on it this time as I did with the comics, but I certainly won’t be joining any of your parades much either :’D

[killthebxy]

I apologize in this seems abrasive, I just noticed how vehemently you're against the show canon. I don't blame you one bit. But wouldn't Dany being Nissa Nissa just be another way of making her a plot device for a man? Just in a more socially acceptable way than D&D did? It has the same outcome and it's still her dying by the hands of the man she loves.

          thank you for your question, friend! before i answer, let me make a disclaimer: 1) i am writing this as someone who loves Jon Snow, and therefore someone who’s biased in his favor, and 2) i am writing this as a man talking about a man. so, while i like to believe i was raised well and i can do a rational and mostly objective analysis, i am still grounded in my own experiences and my own perspectives. and nothing of what i’ll say is “the truth” or “what’s right” — simply, my own personal opinion.

          with this said… i have to start by saying that we can look at this, as we can look at most things in life, from two perspectives: we look only at the outcome, or we look at the process and at everything that led to a certain outcome. and i think this is a case where this distinction is essencial. because if you look at the outcome only — yes, the end result is exactly the same; Dany dies at the hand of Jon, a woman dies at the hand of a man. but this would be like me looking at the season finale and thinking: well, Jon got exactly the endgame i always wanted for him, so i have nothing to complain about — i can’t do this. i can’t ignore everything that brought him to this outcome, i.e., the process. i can’t ignore that his essence as George’s character was completely destroyed to lead to this apparently perfect outcome.

          so, if we look at Dany dying in the show, what do we see? i, at least, see a narrative written for the sole purpose of stating: this woman is mad, she needs to be removed and we’ll make her be removed by the hand of the man she loves for bonus shock points. this is literally all i see. i know some people defend there was already signs of Dany going mad, how for example the throne room covered in ash like it happened in her vision in the House of the Undying in s02. and to this i ask two questions: 1) as someone who knows what D&D have been doing to this series, do you guys seriously believe they, back in like 2012 or whenever s02 happened, had the capacity to plan this far ahead for the sake of a plot that has continuity?; 2) as someone who is a researcher and a science nerd — if we look at data in retrospective, we can make this data give us literally any outcome we want, provided we apply the suitable statistical analysis. in this case, if we look back through the seasons, yes, we can definitely find arguments that Dany was going mad, if we want. BUT. we can also look back through the seasons and find arguments that Dany was someone with a good heart, who made mistakes and bad decisions but who wanted to be a kind and just ruler for her people. so, whatever we extract from this series in retrospective is whatever we want to find. this much is on us, not on D&D’s capacity to build a continuous and coherent plot because this much we all agree is non-existent.

          now, if we look at the idea of Jon being Azor Ahai reborn, and Dany being Nissa Nissa reborn… first of all, this is as much based on personal headcanons as the previous point is built on what the show gives us. i cannot judge this idea based on facts, because this never happened in the show neither in the books — everything i put together for this idea is based on my own creativity, like for example in the background i wrote for my mad king verse, or on everything i have discussed with @zcldrizes. in the first case, my verse, it is actually interesting you brought up this question because i have wondered about it myself. am i doing this in a sensible way? am i not using Dany (and everyone else included in that background) just for my own purpose? and, in a way, i am — i admit that i am, because my outcome was that Jon is crowned and slowly loses himself, and to reach this outcome i needed to build a background that supports it in a logical way. i dislike the idea that being Targaryen = inexorably being mad, therefore i tried to put together a storyline where trauma and grief bring him to this — for which i needed vital characters to die, as they are the ones he loves the most. this is why i tried to give them a purpose in that verse, and not just state that they died because they had to, so to speak. this is also why that verse is very flexible and can accommodate many different possibilities, because i wanted everyone who’s possibly interested in writing that idea with me to be able to fit their muse in, and not just be excluded because “sorry but your muse needs to die so that Jon can go mad”. which, in turn, this is why this verse in particular only works with extensive plotting with my roleplay partners.

          and now let me quickly apologize, because i know i am digressing a lot! but i need all this foundation to ultimately answer your question with the depth it requires, so please bear with me. because this is bringing me close to the core of the question — if Dany is Nissa Nissa, doesn’t this make her a plot device for Jon? for this, i have to state my perspective on what a plot device is: a character whose only (or limited) purpose in a narrative is to provoke something else of note for another character. three blatant examples when it comes to Jon: Rickon Stark, whose only purpose to be brought back was to be killed in front of Jon, for the sake of triggering Jon into that mad rage that would have resulted in losing the battle against Ramsay if it wasn’t for Sansa’s intervention; Benjen Stark, whose only purpose to be brought back was to provide a semi-rational justification for Jon to be able to return to Eastwatch; Grey Worm, who was made to attack the unarmed Golden Company after they yielded just for the sake of making Agony Targaryen look like this honorable man who’d never put up with this. and now a blatant example when it comes to Daenerys: Missandei, who had to be beheaded whilst back in chains for the sake of being the ultimate trigger for Dany going mad. arguably, Missandei and Grey Worm had a much broader purpose than Benjen and Rickon, but the logic is the same. all of them, in the end, became plot devices that had their own story and identity erased for the sake of fueling another “superior” character.

          and this is why i personally don’t see Dany = Nissa Nissa as being at the same level, or as a plot device. a plot turning point? yes, definitely. a plot device, no, because i personally don’t think this erases her story and identity and purpose. again, let me reiterate that this is based on what Artie and i have plotted — i cannot talk for what might have happened in the show, or what may happen in the books — because it will depend on the process they follow to lead to this potential outcome. Artie and i have a very long, very complex plot when it comes to shipping Jon and Dany. we consider every single detail, and we’re always mindful of not erasing anything from the other’s muse. and, in our case, Dany would be a sacrifice, yes, but never a plot device. she would give her life for the purpose of forging the only weapon able to destroy the Night King and ending the Long Night — NEVER for the purpose of glorifying Jon and make him emerge from this tale as the hero who saved us all. if anything, i think no one will disagree if i say that staying alive after killing your lover by your own hand is far from being a happier ending when compared to said lover who died. it is a sacrifice for Dany, who loses her life, and it is a sacrifice for Jon, who stays alive but loses literally everything else that gave meaning to his life. and this is why i love the prophecy/legend of Lightbringer, actually, because it is based on a meaningful tragedy. it’s mutual sacrifice, it’s having a bond so strong that it is the catalyst to save this world.

          just to conclude now, if you ask me: are more female characters, compared to male characters, used as plot devices? i have no doubt of this. are more female characters used with the single purpose of fueling male characters’ pain? i have no doubt of this. are more female characters erased and belittled for the sake of glorifying male characters and put them under a positive light? i have no doubt of this. trust me, nonnie, no one in this world hates Agony Targaryen more than i do. no one in this world hates more the way in which my favorite character was portrayed as someone who’s only good and honorable when a character like Daenerys has to be ruined and removed. and i will say this to my dying breath: this thing is NOT Jon Snow and it makes me genuinely sad that people may for even a second believe this thing is anything resembling Jon Snow. i am the first one being here to vehemently (to use your word) criticize all of this, which is exactly why i have gone majorly show divergent — even during s07 i was already stating i would never acknowledge the annulment, exactly because i would never want Elia Martell to be a plot device in this regard. and please note: i’m not saying any of this to make myself look good — look at me i’m such a great guy i respect women! — i respect women, and female characters, because they DESERVE to be respected. and everything i have ditched from show!canon, i did because these amazing characters deserve so much better, and my amazing roleplay buddies who write these amazing characters deserve so much better, AND Jon Snow, my favorite character whom i love dearly, deserves so much better than to be turned into D&D’s sad puppet.

          i really hope i answered your question, friend? tl;dr — i am vehemently against Agony killing Dany in the show the way it was done, because it reduces Daenerys to a plot device and reduces Jon to someone who can only have merit if other characters become plot devices in his favor. on the other hand, in the scenario where Jon is Azor Ahai reborn and Dany is Nissa Nissa reborn, i personally see it at a completely different level, even if the outcome is technically the same — because it is a scenario highly plotted and developed by myself and Artie, and because exactly we are always very mindful to never do this to these characters whom we both love. obviously she loves Dany more and understands her better, and i love Jon more and i understand him better, but this is why we team up to salvage this ship we love and that was utterly ruined by the show. and this is why the only context where we accept Jon killing Daenerys is for the ultimate purpose of tempering Lightbringer — where Dany chooses her fate, and Jon endures the consequences of his actions.

BONUS POINTS:

          so, because we are a partnership, i shared this ask and my own response with Artie — to get her opinion as someone who writes Daenerys and understands her better than i do, as i mentioned above, and also to have her perspective as a woman. the next points, therefore, are credited to @zcldrizes to complement my own:

          Firstly, on being a plot device. I think the important thing about this is that we as the viewers are wired to look through the lense of Dany to see her as a hero, with an ultimate purpose. We have the entirety of her journey, with a backstory about her struggle for home, the fact she has suffered hardship after hardship. In my opinion, she was born “meant for something more” - and the very existence of her dragons, the fact she’s somewhat fire insensitive, all proves that she is not quite normal, compared to everyone around her. Her own journey and arc have been not just about finding home, but restoring and living up to her family’s name, and making a difference in the world through whatever ways she chooses, whether that be liberation, or saving innocent people. Her death in Season 8 served no purpose for her arc, other than to neatly line up what they needed for Jon’s storyline. Her madness in Season 8 served no purpose, other than allowing a mostly male council to choose their new male overlord, after condemning her as mad when overrun with grief. But if she was Nissa Nissa, and sacrificed her life not for Jon’s manpain, but to save the entire world, and in a way that leaves her the true hero of the story, then I think that means she’s not just a plot device. She’s a hero. And no, I don’t think she’s just driving that plot; I think the point is she made a difference to the world.

          Secondly, and the more important part of this - show canon removes her female autonomy, assuming she’s not in a rational state of mind, and then villainises her for emotion and grief. For it then to have her killed in a moment where she so very clearly places her trust in the man kissing her, a man she clearly loves, removes all autonomy because she didn’t consent to what was coming, and didn’t know it would happen. All of her ability to predict that behaviour is gone, which means she had no knowledge of her death, and thus, the scene occurs in a way that leaves those rules particularly unbalanced. A Nissa Nissa scenario is something she consents to; something she wants because it’s right, and it’ll save the world, and this is the most important thing. Daenerys gets to choose to die saving the world she wanted to build. 

          Finally, on the outcome and whether or not this is just to be more feminist friendly and socially acceptable. The first thing to note is that the outcome isn’t the same. In one, she dies after going mad because her male counterpart has deemed her unsafe to live with how insane she is. In the other, she dies to save the world - and importantly, consents to doing so. And depending on the way the rest of the thread runs, I suspect it would be very well known what she gave up in order to keep the people of the Seven Kingdoms safe. So rather than this being to get the traction of anyone saying this isn’t a sexist ending, consider: yes, it’s a socially acceptable ending, but only because it acknowledges the strength of women in whatever they do to contribute to the world. Daenerys deserved better than to die as a rabid dog for the slaughter; but in saying that, an extraordinary woman deserved an extraordinary death, and what better way than dying saving the world?

          Finally, feminism celebrates choice in all forms - Dany would have chosen to die as Nissa Nissa, and if that empowered her, we shouldn’t condemn that.