#I think that is a piece of media that exemplifies this

[hereforthepotions]

The queer-coding and homoeroticism of fictional murder and the use of bloody violence in media as a metaphor for queer sexuality.

[crash-bang-boom-corp]

If you wanna write a story with a plural character or protagonist(s), litearally just WRITE IT. WRITE IT!!!!!

I mean, the idea of writing a completely perfect, wholly representative piece of plural media when there's practically nothing like that out there yet for which you can base your references on is a standard you should not hold yourself to. Just write it. Put it on tumblr, put it on wattpad, put it anywhere. please. i beg of you. i desperately want something to read that isn't JUST fnaf daycare attendant fanfic (though it is great highly encourage)

like- asking for advice is great, and I wholly encourage it, but what matters is that it gets written, even if its mediocre rep or mediocre writing or both. Don't think you need to fully understand every plural experience out there before you even try. Like, be educated, be open minded, be flexible, but also be WRITING. (or drawing, or coding, or scripting.)

it is damn near impossible to find media that doesn't exemplify the evil alter stereotype (or at least put a twist on it). i. i just. uuuuugh

please just go, write, code, script, be free, write that plural story, make that plural OC, add that plurality into that fanfic. make that character have a plural game mechanic.

Run wild.

The bar is, and I cannot stress this enough, currently in hell.

I promise you can't fail that hard if youre at least trying your best.

Also, if you need an editor or a peer reviewer, I'm here for it. I don't have a massive writing portfolio, but I at least kind of know what I'm doing and if all you need is a second pair of eyes I can probably do that for ya.

Hell, even if its just for yourself, add a little plurality into it. Every story i write has some plural character in it, and most have a plural protagonist plus plural side characters. Not that they're *good* stories, no, they're terrible, but what I'm trying to say is just write it oh my god WRITE IT.

------------

Look, i'm not saying that NO ONE is writing these stories. they exist. they're out there. I honestly don't know why I even went on this tangent. just, if you're nervous, if you think you won't do a good enough job, just DO IT.

this is your SIGN

[autisticandroids]

i've been seeing ai takes that i actually agree with and have been saying for months get notes so i want to throw my hat into the ring.

so i think there are two main distinct problems with "ai," which exist kind of in opposition to each other. the first happens when ai is good at what it's supposed to do, and the second happens when it's bad at it.

the first is well-exemplified by ai visual art. now, there are a lot of arguments about the quality of ai visual art, about how it's soulless, or cliche, or whatever, and to those i say: do you think ai art is going to be replacing monet and picasso? do you think those pieces are going in museums? no. they are going to be replacing soulless dreck like corporate logos, the sprites for low-rent edugames, and book covers with that stupid cartoon art style made in canva. the kind of art that everyone thinks of as soulless and worthless anyway. the kind of art that keeps people with art degrees actually employed.

this is a problem of automation. while ai art certainly has its flaws and failings, the main issue with it is that it's good enough to replace crap art that no one does by choice. which is a problem of capitalism. in a society where people don't have to sell their labor to survive, machines performing labor more efficiently so humans don't have to is a boon! this is i think more obviously true for, like, manufacturing than for art - nobody wants to be the guy putting eyelets in shoes all day, and everybody needs shoes, whereas a lot of people want to draw their whole lives, and nobody needs visual art (not the way they need shoes) - but i think that it's still true that in a perfect world, ai art would be a net boon, because giving people without the skill to actually draw the ability to visualize the things they see inside their head is... good? wider access to beauty and the ability to create it is good? it's not necessary, it's not vital, but it is cool. the issue is that we live in a society where that also takes food out of people's mouths.

but the second problem is the much scarier one, imo, and it's what happens when ai is bad. in the current discourse, that's exemplified by chatgpt and other large language models. as much hand-wringing as there has been about chatgpt replacing writers, it's much worse at imitating human-written text than, say, midjourney is at imitating human-made art. it can imitate style well, which means that it can successfully replace text that has no meaningful semantic content - cover letters, online ads, clickbait articles, the kind of stuff that says nothing and exists to exist. but because it can't evaluate what's true, or even keep straight what it said thirty seconds ago, it can't meaningfully replace a human writer. it will honestly probably never be able to unless they change how they train it, because the way LLMs work is so antithetical to how language and writing actually works.

the issue is that people think it can. which means they use it to do stuff it's not equipped for. at best, what you end up with is a lot of very poorly written children's books selling on amazon for $3. this is a shitty scam, but is mostly harmless. the behind the bastards episode on this has a pretty solid description of what that looks like right now, although they also do a lot of pretty pointless fearmongering about the death of art and the death of media literacy and saving the children. (incidentally, the "comics" described demonstrate the ways in which ai art has the same weaknesses as ai text - both are incapable of consistency or narrative. it's just that visual art doesn't necessarily need those things to be useful as art, and text (often) does). like, overall, the existence of these kids book scams are bad? but they're a gnat bite.

to find the worst case scenario of LLM misuse, you don't even have to leave the amazon kindle section. you don't even have to stop looking at scam books. all you have to do is change from looking at kids books to foraging guides. i'm not exaggerating when i say that in terms of texts whose factuality has direct consequences, foraging guides are up there with building safety regulations. if a foraging guide has incorrect information in it, people who use that foraging guide will die. that's all there is to it. there is no antidote to amanita phalloides poisoning, only supportive care, and even if you survive, you will need a liver transplant.

the problem here is that sometimes it's important for text to be factually accurate. openart isn't marketed as photographic software, and even though people do use it to lie, they have also been using photoshop to do that for decades, and before that it was scissors and paintbrushes. chatgpt and its ilk are sometimes marketed as fact-finding software, search engine assistants and writing assistants. and this is dangerous. because while people have been lying intentionally for decades, the level of misinformation potentially provided by chatgpt is unprecedented. and then there are people like the foraging book scammers who aren't lying on purpose, but rather not caring about the truth content of their output. obviously this happens in real life - the kids book scam i mentioned earlier is just an update of a non-ai scam involving ghostwriters - but it's much easier to pull off, and unlike lying for personal gain, which will always happen no matter how difficult it is, lying out of laziness is motivated by, well, the ease of the lie.* if it takes fifteen minutes and a chatgpt account to pump out fake foraging books for a quick buck, people will do it.

*also part of this is how easy it is to make things look like high effort professional content - people who are lying out of laziness often do it in ways that are obviously identifiable, and LLMs might make it easier to pass basic professionalism scans.

and honestly i don't think LLMs are the biggest problem that machine learning/ai creates here. while the ai foraging books are, well, really, really bad, most of the problem content generated by chatgpt is more on the level of scam children's books. the entire time that the internet has been shitting itself about ai art and LLM's i've been pulling my hair out about the kinds of priorities people have, because corporations have been using ai to sort the resumes of job applicants for years, and it turns out the ai is racist. there are all sorts of ways machine learning algorithms have been integrated into daily life over the past decade: predictive policing, self-driving cars, and even the youtube algorithm. and all of these are much more dangerous (in most cases) than chatgpt. it makes me insane that just because ai art and LLMs happen to touch on things that most internet users are familiar with the working of, people are freaking out about it because it's the death of art or whatever, when they should have been freaking out about the robot telling the cops to kick people's faces in.

(not to mention the environmental impact of all this crap.)

[seriousfic]

I was watching a Youtube video recently of a nerd convention or a podcast filming where the panelists were discussing which movie they would erase from history if they had the chance. And obviously they all said they would never erase a movie, but if they DID... Elijah Wood gave this thoughtful answer about how Tim Burton's remake of Charlie And The Chocolate Factory brought nothing new to the table and it almost retroactively ruined the original by making Wonka a creep instead of a lovable, magical figure. Very credible argument; he's engaging with the question.

Then the microphone goes to Kevin Smith. And he's a big nerd, you'd think he'd have a good nerdy answer. Maybe a Star Wars movie that took the franchise in the wrong direction or a Batman movie that ruined the series' momentum. Instead, he says Triumph of the Will, and you can just feel an UGH go through an audience that he's not going to answer the question in good faith, he's just going to pivot to Nazi shit and virtue-signal.

And that kinda exemplified for me how the modern world and modern politics have ruined being a hater. Because a generation ago, we had these real nerdy figures who were also in the world of acting and Hollywood. Kevin Smith, Simon Pegg, a few others. Tom Welling might play Superman, but c'mon--you know he didn't read comics for fun.

And part of being a nerd wasn't just being self-referential or making nerdy stuff like sci-fi or horror--it was hating on the excesses of the genre. Pegg famously called out The Phantom Menace, saying

And that's not something that happens now. Part of it I think is that they're simply sell-outs. Pegg starred in The Force Awakens, he's a friend of J.J. Abrams--Kevin Smith writes DC comics, he directed episodes of The Flash and Supergirl... they're not going to piss off their bosses and lose potential work by complaining about Man of Steel, or at least complaining too loudly.

And the other part of it is that being a hater at all has become verboten. How many times have you seen a reviewer give a lousy review to something like Captain America: Brave New World, but preface it by saying something like "I'm no chud grifter Trump voter incel, but this movie really is bad"? Or qualify every negative criticism of Doctor Who by saying that Jodie Whittaker is a good actress and her Doctor sucking is the fault of the nearest straight white man (Chris Chibnail).

You can say old-school sci-fi fandom was overly negative--if that can possibly be applied to people who, for fun, watched Space: 1999--but it was also apolitical. There wasn't this boosterism we see today where liking a movie is synonymous with being a good person and not being a fan is suspicious, borderline treasonous behavior.

It's like the only thing you can criticize a show for is not being black enough or not being gay enough, and any discussion of the craft or execution of a piece of media is secondary to how effectively it propagandizes some vague pro-girl anti-Nazi political platform.

"Who cares if Captain Marvel was good or not, it pissed off some people I'm going to think of as Nazis and this is a tangible good for the world in some way."

And it didn't use to be like this! We used to make fun of this shit! We didn't obsess over Nazis all day like one Nazi in Missouri enjoying a movie about a white man was going to restart the Holocaust.

But now everything is Not So Bad or an Unappreciated Classic and it's just so defensive, isn't it? We can't admit that movies are worse, we can't admit that TV shows are worse, so we just keep pretending that everything's better than ever or else the Putins win.

[medievalandfantasymelee]

Oft Asked Questions

“Who is this ‘Master of Revels’?”: T’would be I, your servant. Humble host and facilitator of this fair contest.

“Isn’t this a medieval tournament? Why are there Tudors/Borgias here?”: The Medieval Period is generally agreed by historians to span the years AD. 500 to AD 1500. However, the Renaissance period is a little fuzzier. The Renaissance was not only a period of history, but a cultural movement that kicked in earlier in some places than in others. One looks at Cesare Borgia and can immediately identify him as belonging to the Italian Renaissance. However, you look at the span of his life and it does fall within the late 1400’s—so still what is commonly considered the Medieval period. The Renaissance was a period of transition, so clean cutoffs aren’t always easy to reconcile. Vestiges of Medieval sentiment persisted in England up to the reign of Henry VIII, and it’s for this reason I chose to stretch the definition of “Medieval” for the purposes of the tournament to include the period of Henry VIII’s reign (because English history is what I’m most familiar with.)

“Wait! My Medieval Hot Man isn’t here! Can I still submit him?”: First we advise you to check to make sure that your man isn’t here. It's linked above too, but here is a complete list of our 296 contenders. If he’s not there, then sadly he was not submitted and, as the Tourney is underway, he cannot be submitted now.

"I see Orcs and Centaurs here: what qualifies as a 'man'?": A "Man" for the purposes of our tournament is defined as any humanoid male character in a live-action film or television property set in the medieval period (see our definition of "Medieval" below.) Non-human characters are considered "humanoid" if the meet two of the following three requirements:

1) binocular vision (have 2 eyes)

2) have opposable thumbs

3) bipedal (walk upright on two feet)

“Why is Blank here, he’s not medieval!/Why isn’t Blank here he is medieval!”: The definition of a “Medieval Man” for the purposes of our tournament is “Any male character in a piece of live action visual media in which the Primary Action takes place between the years of AD 500 and AD 1550 (or a Fantasy property that emulates that period).” We define Primary Action as “at least one half-hour of a film, or three episodes (or the equivalent time) of a TV series. (Unless it is an adventure-of-the-week style show in which one episode’s story is set in the medieval period, as in the case of Doctor Who: “The Robot of Sherwood”).

“I have propaganda I would like to submit – how should I do that?”: If you are submitting text propaganda or pictures, send us an Ask. If you have a YouTube video link, you can send that in Ask form also and we will embed the video in the answer. If you have gifsets, meta or other posts here on Tumblr that you think are good propaganda, tag us (@medievalandfantasymelee) and we will reblog it. If you send us links to the post in an ask, we will reblog the post you’ve linked and tag you (unless submitted anonymously), but the ask will be deleted, largely to keep the feed streamlined.

“What makes for good text propaganda?”: Simply tell us why you think your character is hot. You may praise his physical attributes, his chivalry (or villainy), personal qualities such as valour or intellect – anything that you feel exemplifies his hotness. Please do not submit fanfiction as text propaganda.

An addendum to the above: Please remember that we are voting for the characters not the actors, so propaganda about personality and personal qualities should be centred on the character, not on the actor (but you can praise the actor’s physical hotness in the role all you like). Accolades won by the actor for the role are welcome. Anecdotes about the actor’s portrayal are also welcome, but anecdotes about the actors’ lives that do not relate to their portrayal of the characters or work on the properties are not admissible propaganda. 

“What makes for good visual propaganda?”: Any picture/gif/video of the character that you think he looks especially hot in is good visual propaganda. Please do not copy and paste gifs off of tumblr unless you have the express permission of the original poster to do so. If there’s a gif or gifset here on tumblr that you want to send as propaganda, tag us in it (@medievalandfantasymelee) and we will reblog it. Please do not submit fan-art as propaganda (official paintings such as those done for vintage movie posters are acceptable, though).

“Can I submit counter-propaganda?”: We will not accept any propaganda that openly trashes a contestant or the actor that plays him. However, we do not discourage Comparative Propaganda – that is to say, propaganda weighing the qualities of a contender and his opponent against each other in a respectful manner.

“Why is HE here, he’s committed atrocities?!”: We are not here to judge the morality of a character, only his hotness. Whatever atrocities (and we mean “whatever” – side-glance at Ramsay Bolton) the character has committed do not prevent him from competing in the Tournament. If his crimes impact his hotness to you, then feel free to vote for his opponent (and if his opponent has committed atrocities as well, then, I guess feel free to skip that poll entirely.) If you think a contestant has committed atrocities but aren't absolutely certain, please don't talk about it in reblogs or in the comments on a poll, lest a hazy memory unfairly sway the voting public. (But atrocities you know for certain he's committed may be discussed freely - that's just an aspect of the character.)

“What is the Near Misses Pile/Tourney?”: The Near Misses Pile is what I’ve christened a small heap of characters who were submitted but who failed to qualify. The Near Misses Tourney was a mini-bracket held in the week leading up to the main tournament in which all 21 non-qualifiers were pitted against each other to determine who was the hottest reject. Kala Bhairava [Ram Charan] from Magadheera (2009) won that worthless honor.

“I have Hot Romans and Musketeers I’d like to see compete!”: Hold that thought. After the Hot Medieval and Fantasy Men Melee concludes, a new tournament will be held for another time period. Either we will host a Hot Men of Antiquity Tournament (which will accept male characters from any movie or TV show property set before AD 500), or a Hot Renaissance Men Tournament (which will accept men from any property set between AD 1480 and AD 1640. Which will be held first will be determined by popular vote. (In the meantime all ye Musketeer enthusiasts can get your fix over at @hotmusketeerspoll )

"Will there be a Hot Medieval Ladies Tournament?": It's unlikely in the foreseeable future, because we already have two full Men's tournaments planned following the conclusion of the Medieval Men Melee. (See above)

“My question isn’t here/I’m confused about something.”: Send me an ask!

[maximumqueer]

One Piece and Media Literacy

So this entire post was born out of me trying to understand why there are certain readings and interpretations of one piece that get under my skin so much. I like to think that I am normally pretty open to different readings of a text. I’m an English major, literally 90% of my degree is discussing different interpretations of fictional media, and that often involves encountering people with different readings than my own. That is good, and I think that as long as a reading can be backed up with good faith textual evidence it’s a valid reading. And that was the sticking point for me,  that the takes that I kept seeing had logic behind them. I could see how and why the person sharing them came to the conclusion they did. But, what I realized is that even though these conclusions did make sense, it also relied on an incredibly literal, surface level take on the scene that also oftentimes ignored the context of how and why the moment was taking place. In other words, a lack of media literacy. 

I’m going to use two scenes that I personally view as getting misconstrued as a result of this as examples. The first one is Shanks' conversation with Whitebeard, particularly this sentence Shanks says in response to Whitebeard questioning Shanks on the loss of his arm. 

I have seen this moment be interpreted as Shanks intentionally losing his arm to teach Luffy a lesson in leadership, that what makes a good captain is one who is willing to put themselves and their life on the line for the people they care about. I do think that is a lesson Luffy took away from this moment, but I don’t think that this scene is framing it as intentional. The meeting between  these two characters is grandiose, and the dialogue they use exemplifies that. Just before this, Whitebeard asked Shanks “What enemy did you give that left arm to?” (One Piece, Ch. 434, pg. 11).  Whitebeard isn’t asking Shanks if he literally gave his arm to an enemy, but rather asking who he lost his arm to, but in a verbose way. As such, Shanks doesn’t mean that he intentionally gave up his arm. And while he could have said that a sea monster took it, he instead switched focus from the thing that took it to the person who he lost it for. It shows Shanks' mindset towards losing his arm, and how he does not actually view it as a loss, as it was lost saving a kid Shanks saw potential in, a kid who would be a part of the new era. 

I will also say that the implication of Shanks intentionally losing his arm makes him a worse person, and cheapens his and Luffy’s relationship. The implication being that the emotional distress we saw him in when Luffy was kidnapped and in peril was at least to a point faked. A person in distress is not worrying about what lesson they can impart onto the person they’re saving, and as such saying that Shanks could have in that moment decided to intentionally give up his arm paints him as a much colder, more calculating character, which I would argue would be to the detriment of his character.

And I know that this reading is in part trying to explain why Shanks, a very powerful character, would lose his arm to a sea monster in the East Blue. But this was Shanks from 12 years ago, I don’t think it takes a massive leap in logic to assume that he simply wasn’t as strong of a character back then. Add to that his attention mainly being focused on making sure he got to Luffy in time, and I think him losing his arm in that moment makes perfect sense. 

The second scene is when Rob Lucci suggests that Luffy’s use of gear 2 is causing him to shave years off his life. 

What Lucci says here is often taken at face value, and then applied to every other gear we have seen Luffy use. This is also information that is stated as fact, more often than not. That every time Luffy uses gear 2 or 3 (pre - ts) or gear 4 or 5 (post - ts) that he is taking a couple years off his life. And as this all stems from Rob Lucci, we have to ask 1: Is Rob Lucci knowledgeable enough to actually make this claim? And 2: Is he a trustworthy source of information? 

The first question is up for debate. Lucci could very well make an educated guess about the strain Luffy is putting on his body. But at the end of the day he is only going off of very limited knowledge about both Luffy and his devil fruit. The second question, I would argue, is a resounding no. Lucci is a member of CP9 (now CP0) an intelligence agency that focuses on infiltration. Part of Lucci’s job is to lie and coerce people. This is also the man that killed his fellow soldiers that had been taken as POWs to prevent the county they were fighting from having the upper hand. That is not the kind of person whose word you can take at face value.

It is also worth noting that the broader scene that this line of dialogue belongs to involves Lucci trying to psyche Luffy out by telling him that there is no hope of him or his friends winning, using the claim that he is shortening his life, as well as information that his crew is in a tunnel that will soon flood, killing them. And while some of this info is true, that is not the reasoning behind Lucci telling him it. He wants Luffy to be discouraged and to feel like there is no possible way for him to win. The information he tells to Luffy does not have to be true for this tactic to work. 

What I’m trying to get at here is that analysis that does not take in the broader context of the story, or the established characterization of the people in the specific scene being analyzed leads to a reading based in ignorance, as not all of the information is being considered. It can also lead to misunderstandings within the fandom, like how I’ve seen it stated that Luffy using gear 5 shortens his life span. There is no canon backing for this, other than the literal interpretation of what a villain said about an entirely different gear nearly 20 years ago in real time. Or it can unintentionally paint a character that has previously been characterized as deeply caring for the protagonist as being cold and distant instead, more focused on making the next generation is strong - both physically and as leaders - than about saving the protagonist's (who at the time was a child) life.

[pinkeoni]

Arguing for realism in Stranger Things

So whenever the take "Mike and Will can't be together because it's not realistic" comes up, usually from twitter or reddit, I often find it met with the argument on here of "Well, this is a supernatural show about monsters so who cares about realism!" or something similar along those lines.

While I understand the the sentiment behind it, and yes advocating for realism in a sci-fi fantasy show may seem silly, but I find this argument to be kind of flawed.

The initial take isn't coming a genuine advocacy for realism, but instead using "realism" as a flimsy cover for their homophobia. The more appropriate response should be to question why they believe a happy resolve for homosexuality is unrealistic in the first place. You countering their argument by claiming that the show is unrealistic is only backing up their belief that a happy ending for gay people is also unrealistic.

Stranger Things is a realistic show.

And, okay, ST does not fall into the same category of cinéma-vérité-dogme-95-esque-hyper-realism that a show like Succession may fall under, but it does try to capture real emotions and real experiences using supernatural elements as a vehicle to explore such things. Sure, alternate dimensions and tentacle monsters are not realistic, but the American government trying to coverup and undermine the suffering of queer people, as well as the constant fear of an encroaching foreign power, is incredibly realistic to that time period.

It's not often caught on from the casual viewer because it's carefully placed under layers of subtext, although in the show's defense for some of these viewers the Reagan/Bush signs from season 2 are purely just set pieces and don't have any further meaning. But the supernatural elements are not arbitrarily placed and the show doesn't take place in the 80's simply for the nostalgia factor, these facets all work together to speak to real experiences.

And sure, sometimes even the non-supernatural elements can come off as exaggerated, such as the Russian storyline, but one could argue that this is a dramatization of very real Cold War anxieties that did exist at this time.

So, when it comes to displaying realistic emotions, why should the way the show handles queer identity and relationships be any different?

And the show does handle queerness in an almost tragically realistic way. The show’s queer characters must adhere to the precedents of the 1980’s, and the supernatural element is one way to exemplify some of those fears. Will lives in fear of something slowly taking over and killing his body, while the Reagan Administration government scientists treat his possible death as a non-issue.

If then, the show is realistic and aiming to portray queer experiences as such, does this mean that byler can’t happen because that would be unrealistic?

Well, I think that people might he conflating “realism” with “pessimism.” I think if the show wanted to have an ending with a pessimistic outlook, then I could see byler not happening. Yes, there are plenty of gay people who died during the 80’s. But there also plenty of gay people who got in relationships and lived too. What people consider realistic may also be influenced by the type of media they have consumed in the past as well. “Well, gay people usually die/end up alone, so that must be what the realistic outcome is.”

So, with all that being said, when considering the ending of the show, it now just comes down to everything else. What is the show trying to say thematically? How has the show handled other character’s storylines in the past? How is the show being written? What kind of ending is being foreshadowed? What type of ending would best serve to fulfill the needs of the themes and storybeats, while still maintaining relatability?

[besttropeveershowdown]

The Most Annoying Trope Showdown: Round 2, Poll 8

Offscreen Breakup

Characters in a relationship break up offscreen.

Propaganda:

Why build up a relationship only for it to end offscreen? I know things can happen to actors between seasons and even episodes, but the one offscreen breakup I'm thinking about right now happened in a book series. At the end of book 1 character A and B weren't in a relationship yet but it was obvious they would be. Then book 2 came along and it turned out they not only had a relationship between the two books they also broke up and in book 2 we the readers found ourselves in the aftermath of their relationship and it wasn't pretty. WHY.

Who Writes This Crap?

A piece of media points out bad writing in-universe.

Propaganda:

Breaking the 4th wall jokes are already hard to pull off and this trope exemplifies why they’re usually not funny. “Oh this script is soooo stupid!!!! Who wrote this LMAO!!” YOU DID! You wrote this script! Pointing out something isn’t funny doesn’t make YOU funny.

[songoftrillium]

2, 4, 12 and 30 for the WtA questions?

2. How and when did you get into WtA?

I kinda touch on this a bit in question 15 here! To expand on it a bit, I was 14 when I played my first full and proper Werewolf game in the fall of 1998, using the first edition module Rite of Passage. I used the prefab character Janet Crowley. When it came down to the showdown with the cliath Icedagger, Janet lost to him BADLY and nearly died. She eventually learned how to fight properly, and came back to best him she second time he tried to kill her and her pack. She won, and earned the name Broken Ice.

4. What's your favorite tribe? Why?

Red Talons. I think they get a really bad reputation and stereotype that starts and stops at 'kill all humans' when really there's no better tribe that exemplifies and explores:

The destruction of wild places

The minimization and debasement of animal life

Unmitigated grief

Pack and familial bonds

I feel like the strongest and most playable aspects of the Tribe are completely lost on most who sees them as just an enemy faction, or even ecofascists, are missing out on some of the most powerful storytelling tools one can bring to a Werewolf table. I think a big problem others have with the tribe is strongly rooted in people considering the above to be juvenile things to care about, but the reality is, those are the core themes of the game itself, and those who are saying they should be a fallen or eliminated tribe flat out don't get the game at all. To me, it's not WtA without the Red Talons.

12. What's your favorite piece of WtA Media? eg. Games, books- pick your fancy!

I don't think I ever fully appreciate just how absolutely fucked up The Wyrm is as an enemy until I read Chronicles of the Black Labyrinth. I feel like that stripped away any notions of it being romanticised or pretty and showed just how deep the rabbit hole on triatic corruption goes. It is a specimen written in the same manner of the Book of Nod, and is written entirely from an In-World perspective; a living artifact or relic of the World of Darkness. It is a snapshot of what a human/fomor-based Wyrm Cult looks like from the perspective of those on the inside. It includes historical documents and testimonials, journal entries, liner notes, and even details on different rituals of using pretanic keys to tap into different Urge Wyrms. It's the kind of thing that when I want to add a drop of black ink into the world that bleeds into every layer, I start dropping names and elements from this book into a story and people will know that some absolutely dire shit is about to go down. 10/10 book a must for any Storyteller with religious trauma.

Question 30 is answered here~!

I'm answering questions about Werewolf: the Apocalypse! Askbox is open!

[empenvs3000f24]

Unit 4 Blog Post

Hi Everyone :)

With one of my minors being Art History, I have learned to be more of a critical thinker when it comes to interpreting art and nature’s involvement in many of the pieces we view today. How many of these artworks are ethical, original, and ephemeral? I try my best to see the beauty in nature through art, while also giving myself the grace to understand the backstory to the piece/landscape. With today being the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation (Orange Shirt Day), I’ll touch on Indigenous art and how we’ve done a disservice to Indigenous talent in Canada’s art world.

In terms of the Group of Seven who really put Canada on the map via showcases in predominantly Canada, The United States, and Europe. Their art expanded worldwide and pretty much dominated galleries in Canada for decades, pushing out other artists and Indigenous works. In hindsight we can understand that their more popular pieces did not exactly depict Canada for what it was at the time. Many of their landscapes were painted in Algonquin, Algoma, and out West; where major logging and pollution was occurring. Some of the artists painted scenes of Indigenous communities, but failed to represent the cultural genocide and residential schools tearing those families apart. Canada was depicted as this abandoned land, solely made up of landscapes and tranquility. Moving forward we can look into Indigenous artists to learn about how they interpret nature through art and the concept of ‘the gift of beauty’ through their lens. 

Interpreting art in nature is a great way to hit more than one of the learning styles. Even in a gallery setting, a painting can target visual learners, the plaque can offer a description for the readers/writers, and there are auditory options available in most galleries. We can also achieve this in nature interpretation; using multiple learning styles can enhance the ‘art’ aspect of nature and allow us to encompass some additional information to a picturesque landscape. This notion ties into the ‘gift of beauty’ and how there is more than meets the eye when it comes to understanding nature through art. 

The importance of immersing ourselves in nature is exemplified in Hahn’s Social Declines of Modern Youth. I feel like the use of social media and abundant technology is the culprit of these ‘social diseases’. We are all so accustomed to being able to see whatever we want, whenever we want it. We can google any image of nature and get a million different vantage points of it. I think this allows us to sometimes take for granted the fact that we could go outside and see the beauty of nature with our own two eyes. A big factor in experiencing nature in person is the stimulation of the senses; as opposed to only sight and maybe sound when we view something online. By stimulating all 5 senses in person, the experience becomes more holistic and memorable. 

Got off my phone and walked around the Arboretum this summer!

We can only learn from our mistakes as people and as a country. Understanding equality in art, risk in nature, and beauty in our daily lives, is built through the experiences of others; we simply have to listen. 

[shuunnico]

Criticism

I try my best to keep a positive outlook on things.

That doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize the things I see and watch because I genuinely believe that we need to be honest and critical of art and media for it to improve.

I think it's especially important to critique the writing for a piece of art because I think the writing is the bedrock of all storytelling.

So you're going to come across me criticizing video games or movies or television when I think their writing is substandard.

Arcane has been my bar for a few years now. It is exceptionally well written on a technical level and that enhances the emotional and thematic elements of the story. Arcane's stupendous writing elevates it to a level where it stands out in today's media landscape.

Unfortunately, so much media today falls exceptionally short of that standard.

Nothing better exemplifies this than Star Wars, a franchise who has been churning out substandard stories for a while now. And along comes Andor, a show that (largely) keeps a high standard of writing and eschews much of the failings of the other Star Wars stories.

Andor stands head and shoulders above any other modern Star Wars media in terms of quality and depth. I wish all of Star Wars was made like Andor, but it isn't.

So yeah, this blog isn't just a place for praise and my own artwork. It's also for me to do, in what small way I can, to push for better artwork and media overall.

[birdhousemp3]

youre so right about p&p vs persuasion and controversial opinion perhaps but i've reread p&p multiple times and i seriously don't get how it's considered romantic at all, it's so clearly dripping in satire/sarcasm and even darcy/elizabeth is so practical and dispassionate a pairing that the shippers come across as like... people who would watch it's always sunny and start waxing poetic about how it's peak romance somehow. also i know elizabeth rejecting darcy's first proposal and mr collins is considered peak feminism by the internet but i actually find p&p deeply conservative compared to persuasion, which makes since considering the latter was written toward the very end of austen's life when she had become even more conscious of women's rights, class, and empire. like persuasion is straight up saying "there's nothing admirable about the gentry as a class, the only things that measure your worth are your actions and character, also i hate slavery and napoleon sucks because empires are all bad" like it makes me wish she had lived longer so i could read her inevitable criticism of future british imperialism.

and of course anne is the only one with a straight up wollstonecraft-like viewpoint, she's the embodiment of women's unseen uncompensated labor and it's so touching that her love interest is the man who NOT ONLY sees and appreciates what she's doing ("no one so proper, so capable as anne!") but also directly shares the labor himself - like doing childcare through taking care of the toddler for anne? noticing when she's exhausted and getting her help without asking? even performing emotional labor by consoling mrs musgrove over the death of her worthless son despite having literally no reason to? peak.

also i think it's not a coincidence that austen described wentworth as a "brilliant," competent sea captain in the midst of the napoleonic wars (epitome of masculinity in those times, and honestly fair like just watch master and commander to see the shit those sailors had to deal with) and yet still emphasized these altruistic "feminine" traits of his, bc navy men were extremely self-sufficient compared to men of the gentry class so they all knew how to cook and sew their own clothes etc with no traditional division of men vs women's labor - when youre at sea you have to do your own laundry! - so together anne and wentworth also kind of transcend gender because they're such perfect equals on every level, whether it be in intellectual ability or their character or even their likes/dislikes (the fact that they even share the same music taste is so crazy to me. "no two hearts so open, no tastes so similar, no feelings so in unison, no countenances so beloved...") so to me persuasion is definitely austen's most radical, compelling, rich, AND romantic novel with an incredible cast of characters that exemplify all those themes (the crofts are literary couple goals). this has been a PSA

omg thank u for this…. ur much more articulate and thoughtful than i could ever be abt persuasion

i feel like the p&p obsession comes mostly from the 2005 film which.. honestly i don’t think is a true or faithful adaptation of the novel. paired also with the new desire to define every piece of media in terms of tropes (ie enemies to lovers that p&p gets reductively described as) that just serve to generalize complex stories especially with austen’s which work so much with subtlety and subtext

anyway ur right and i love you 👍

[maybe-not-a-robot]

Media Log 2025 Entry 1X - BURN·E - man, i feel for you.

Just a really funny short to go with WALL-E. It's a good companion piece! It builds off the mostly physical humor that the movie has and extends it into its own little short! It also really exemplifies how cute some of these robot designs are, BURN-E and SUPPLY-R are very cute.

Overall, I think there's something between BURN-E and SUPPLY-R. Sexual tension, maybe. Yaoi. Bot's love.

[thegodcyclecomic]

Hello again! Thank you for your post that covered my question on what sources of inspiration you used for Athena. It was super enlightening!

I know this is a tall order because the myths are broad, but could you discuss what aspects of characterization and dimensions you feel are often ignored about Athena? This is me practically begging for a meta post, but I genuinely love hearing your thoughts on her because I agree with your assessment that roughly most media tend to lean to simplistic aspects of Athena. I like hearing from your inspiration notes that you thought of Athena’s childhood with Pallas and how she is more of a pragmatic character that has agency.

I have a lot of thoughts on this so this post won't be as comprehensive as I originally intended, I will be briefly covering the points I want to list out. I try my best to base my writing of Athena on the canon source material, but there will be aspects that veer into my own interpretation/headcanon territory. All Iliad passages here are from the Robert Fitzgerald translation.

Anyway, here are the aspects of characterization I think are normally ignored when authors write Athena.

Her calculating nature / intelligence

This one sounds weird because it's paradoxically the first thing that comes to mind when writing Athena. The issue with this is the same issue when amateur authors try to write characters who are smarter than them: They resort to cheap shortcuts and stereotypes to show a character is "smart".

Examples of this would be the overusage of chess imagery. It's a game that wouldn't exist in Ancient Greece anyway, and it's a measure of spatial memorization rather than strategy. In real warfare, everything is variable to change. Chess pieces don't have motivations or biases that could influence their actions. Opening moves in chess have their counters, but real-life tactics allow you more freedom on how to engage with it.

The next writing shortcut people resort to re: Athena's intelligence is how they use her reading books to show she is "smart" but don't really elaborate on what kind of books she reads of what topics she specializes in which is already in the mythos that can give you lots of ideas.

I mentioned this before but when I started TGC I had a hard time characterizing Athena at first because I didn't understand her domains too well. So you know what I did? I picked up books about military history, Ancient Greek laws, political theory, philosophy, and similar. Learning about these things gave me a perspective of "how would the personification of the state act if they were a person?". Ancient Greece was big on the Social Contract, as exemplified in Socrates's speech in Plato's Apology.

There's a lot more to it, I'm not doing it justice at all in this post. But that's the idea. In the Oresteia, Athena created the practice of cross-examination for murder trials, and then immediately proceeded to undermine the entire justice process by attempting to bribe the prosecution (the Furies). In the Iliad Book 4, she disguises herself as a Trojan soldier to trick Laodokos to shoot Menelaus to break the ceasefire-- essentially enacting what we in modern day would call a False Flag Operation. It's so quintessentially Politician(tm) of her to do.

Athena's intelligence comes from how she seeks to improve and make efficient current systems, like her strategy to Ares's warfare. Or her various inventions in mythos. Another one would be her ability to manipulate people and situations to push for the outcomes she wants. You can see this in her various dialogues in the Epic Cycle:

Athena grifting in the Odyssey in a speech she makes to Zeus about why she should be allowed to assist Odysseus.

520: Athena kept the pace behind them, bearing her shield of storm, immortal and august, whose hundred golden-plaited tassles, worth a hekatomb each one, floated in air. So down the ranks that dazzling goddess went to stir the attack, and each man in his heart grew strong to fight and never quit the melee, for at her passage war itself became lovelier than return, lovelier than sailing in the decked ships to their own native land -Iliad Book 4

and this

100: “Son of Lykaon, I have in mind an exploit that may tempt you, tempt a fighting heart. Have you the gall to send an arrow like a fork of lightning home against Menelaus? Every Trojan heart would rise, and every man would praise you, especially Paris, the prince— you would be sure to come by glittering gifts if he could see the warrior, Menelaus, the son of Atreus, brought down by your bow, then bedded on a dolorous pyre! Come now, brace yourself for a shot at Menelaus. engage to pay Apollo, the bright archer, a perfect hekatomb of firstling lambs when you go home to your old town, Zeleia.” That was Athena’s way, leading him on, the foolish man, to folly. -Iliad Book 4

from what I can understand, Athena's domain of wisdom is not just limited to giving insight to people-- but also in obscuring the truth and leading others to their ruin. Which is in line with one of Athena's epithets which is Απατουρια (Apaturia) "Deciever".

Often times in other adaptations, they relegate Athena's intelligence to spouting random facts or a "nerdy" personality. Or they nerf it so that she doesn't solve these braindead plots in 2 seconds. Take Athena from Lore Olympus for example, the Athena of canon would've never allowed any of this shit with Persephone and Apollo undermining Zeus to happen TT_TT if you have to make your characters stupid for the story to work, then it is a bad story hands down.

2. Interpretations regarding Athena's relationship with heroes

This is something I see a lot where Athena is written to have a personal investment in her heroes like they are "her blorbos" (actual words I've seen people on this hellsite use for this). I'd like to direct your attention to this passage from of Athena speaking in Iliad book 8.

My father, now, is full of a black madness, evil and perverse. All that I strive for he brings to nothing: He will not remember how many times I intervened to save his son, worn out in trials set by Eurystheus. How Heracles would cry to heaven! And Zeus Would send me out of heaven to be his shield. Had I forseen this day that time he went down, bidden by Eurystheus, between Death’s narrow gates to bring from Erebos the watchdog of the Lord of Undergloom, he never would have left the gorge of Styx!

The way I understand this passage is that Athena does a lot of "NPC questgiver" tasks for Zeus in an attempt to curry favor from him. It's a calculated choice on her part and not something she does out of the kindness of her heart. A similar situation occurs when Orestes asks Athena for aid, she helps him on the insistence of Apollo.

Regarding Odysseus, I'm sure there is some fondness she has for him-- but that doesn't stop her from allowing him to be struck by storm (as collateral damage for the crimes of Ajax the lesser for raping Cassandra in Athena's temple). Or from her setting up the suitor problem so she could convince him to murder them all.

If you've noticed, all of Athena's champions are some kind of high-ranking warriors. A king or general or prince. You would think that the goddess of wisdom would favor the philosophers more, or would choose more often to avoid violence. But Athena is very quick to choose violence, it's who she is. And she needs a tool that she can use as a blade.

(these are my interpretations, if you disagree thats fine) 3. Athena as a "peaceful" goddess

This one makes me laugh and also drives me insane.

There are two Homeric hymns that directly and clearly contradict this idea.

(HOMERIC HYMNS 5 - 33, TRANSLATED BY H. G. EVELYN-WHITE) a. The Homeric Hymn to Athena

Of Pallas Athene, guardian of the city, I begin to sing. Dread is she, and with Ares she loves deeds of war, the sack of cities and the shouting and the battle. It is she who saves the people as they go out to war and come back. Hail, goddess, and give us good fortune with happiness!

b. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite

...Yet there are three hearts that she cannot bend nor yet ensnare. First is the daughter of Zeus who holds the aegis, bright-eyed Athene; for she has no pleasure in the deeds of golden Aphrodite, but delights in wars and in the work of Ares, in strifes and battles and in preparing famous crafts. 

What I find insightful about the second one is that it gives a specific reason for why Athena cannot be moved by romantic love. It's because war occupies the space in her heart that love would normally be. Both hymns specifically name drop Ares, so the idea that Athena finds Ares's violence to be repulsive is just blatantly untrue. If anything, she adores it. The time it would become an issue for her is when his rampages act against her greater interests, which is the source of all their duels in canon.

Other proof for Athena being generally violent can be inferred from her characterization in the Iliad, the instances of which are too numerous to list here.

4. Athena's personality defined by her lack of childhood.

I mentioned this in another post, but Athena was born from Zeus as an adult (though in TGC I changed this to being born as a pre-teen. This is intentional and serves a purpose). What we know about psychology today is that for normal social and emotional development, young children need to form an attachment with at least one primary caregiver. Athena being born as an adult means that she would've missed out on important development milestones that other gods would've gone through.

I will preemptively say that before you bring up the "theyre Gods they're not like humans" that as far as mythos is concerned, the way that gods behave and think is almost exactly identical to that of humans. They experience the same range of emotions humans do, as well as grief and trauma. So I will consider that their psychology is also the same with the difference being that they might experience mental degradation not typically seen in humans because of cumulative negative experiences over a long period.

Back to Athena, the only framework she would have to start from literally being born yesterday would be the fragments of memories she gleaned from being inside of Zeus's head. I think this would be confusing for her, as these are from the first-person perspective of Zeus, so using his memories but lacking context for those experiences might lead to an early identity crisis. Athena would then have to play catchup in learning extremely fast everything to fill those blanks.

This is why I think Athena has a hard time forming personal connections. She doesn't have a true equal. Athena's relationships are defined by power imbalances and transactions, and that is how she understands relationships in general to work.

5. Athena's humanity.

I think what bothers me the most about Athena in adaptations is the lack of humanity given to her character. I know I just went over why she's a manipulative machiavellian character, but what I see is that Athena often gets relegated to the Unfun Stick in the Mud character. She exists to ruin the fun of the Fun Chaotic Dudes Dionysus, Hermes, and Apollo. She doesn't have anything going to her except being a snitch and a daddy's girl, or worse, she exists to be "put in her place" by other male gods. This is why I really dislike Fedini's and "incorrect greek gods" take on Athena. I think there's this underlying biases that an ace-coded goddess can't have anything interesting about her, because all media on tumblr and fandom these days are broken down to fucking shipping instead of seriously engaging with the source material. I've seen people call her a Mary Sue or act like she is an annoying bitch for exhibiting personality traits that would be praised in a male character (the traits of a Byronic Hero).

Portrayals of Athena go one extreme or another, either she is a wholly Good goddess or she is a Villain/mere annoyance. It's a real shame to see, because I hope I can show you now that she is a wonderfully complex and morally grey character. I want to see Athena's curiosity and how she tries to understand the world from her own perspective. I want to explore her relationships with Zeus and her siblings like Ares and Apollo outside of the Meme'fication of Greek mythology.

Anyway, that's all I can think of for now, I hope this answers your question. If you have any point you'd like me to explain more, I'd be glad to make another post in greater detail.

[msetra]

the master has myriad backstories across all available dr. who media & while divine predestination by way of gallifrey's figures of worship, time & death, playing a game of cosmic chess with the doctor & the master as central pieces fits with the irony of the seventh doctor's EU tenure as a trickster figure playing with the lives & timelines of his travelling companions as his god-given right to the detriment of everybody. outside the bounds of that specific incarnation, i'm really not compelled by the master having an origin story or a sudden turn from a neutral force to a mustache-twirler. the only sources i will be referencing for this portrayal are the flashback comic, which is a backstory dealing with the beginnings of animosity between former friends & this paragraph from the novel time & relative, which to me perfectly explains why the master in terror of the autons is the way that he is

succeeding in gallifreyan society necessitates the exact kind of characteristics which would later push the master from becoming a powerful figure on gallifrey to thinking they deserve dominion over the universe. it's not a jump nor a leap but a leisurely stroll from playing by the rules of a decaying, post-colonial fascist society to making your own, not rebelling against but exemplifying the failures of your homeworld so superbly they will always offer you a way back in no matter your crimes, & why this incarnation has embroiled herself within the celestial intervention agency despite having someone to answer to now. it is a time lord's right to play god

[lying00]

Friendships in Shōjo

Let’s Make a Mug Too (yakunara mug cup mo) is a 2021 shōjo anime that follows Himeno Toyokawa, a high school-aged girl who moves with her father back to her deceased mother’s hometown of Tajimi City in Gifu prefecture. She quickly becomes involved with the school pottery club after discovering that her mother was a pottery legend. Himeno develops her artistic method of stylized utilitarian forms throughout the anime and season one ends with her entering a project in an art show. The viewers learn basic things about pottery and ceramics along with Himeno as well as a healthy dose of Japanese culture like the historical importance of traditional Japanese Mino ceramic ware for the region, and the significance of ceramic kappa statues littered around the town. The first season has ten episodes but 20 videos in total because each episode of the show is interspersed with the four main voice actors traveling around Tajimi City in Gifu prefecture and experiencing how the town influenced the show. 

Kappa statue from the anime: (much cuter than the usual depictions) 

The anime utilizes many common tropes for non-fantasy, slice-of-life stories such as relationship conflicts between friends, learning emotional vulnerability in young characters, self-discovery, and familial strain. Himeno mourns her mother but is able to connect with her by learning the art of ceramics and developing friendships through the ceramics club. While in many ways the story follows traditional shōjo characterizations and storylines to a tee, one thing stood out to me: there is no romance. There is no male best friend, no annoying male classmate who may have a crush on one of the main female characters, truly nothing. The only important male character is Himeno’s father. While researching common themes in shōjo, it became apparent to me how prominent romance is in popular shōjo. I suppose this makes sense considering that the demographic for shōjo is teenage girls and romance sells well but is this anime missing something without romance? I would argue absolutely not. 

So if romance is such a keystone in the shōjo genre and our discussions in class, why did I choose this particular anime to analyze? It makes it very difficult to consider similarities between our discussions in class and this piece of media. Honestly, I wanted to exemplify a less popular aspect of the shōjo genre: purely platonic love. Moreover, it forced me to ask why romance in shōjo is connected in a seemingly inexplicable way. If cross-culturally we think of romance being a main appeal to young girls and we direct media of innocent romance towards young girls, are we not in a way narrowing our expectations of young girls’ interests (and consequently excluding what young boys may be interested in)? I think we may all agree that young girls are not only interested in romance! Let’s Make a Mug Too is a perfect example, then, of a piece of media that is cute, funny, not too serious, and does not focus on romantic relationships. 

Most importantly, there is no detriment to the plotline (I feel) because there is no romance. Not all young people like to watch an angsty or awkward or sweet crush that pushes a character further in the story. Sometimes it’s not about romantic love and I think that is beautiful.