i'm aware that due to luffy's more cheerful personality and looks, a lot of people might find it weird to picture him in sexual situations. especially since most of us see him as aroace (as if aroace people couldn't have sex or be in love but, y'know, that's for another time) and it's completely understandable to not feel comfortable around sexual stuff if you don't like it with this specific character. however, being uncomfortable around that type of content and infantilizing luffy's character to the point that you consider it problematic or wrong to put him in romantic/sexual situations is too much and you should let people enjoy characters however the fuck they want. if you don't like something just scroll and ignore it, but don't try to make everyone follow your own moral compass and likes because we're all different and luffy is just a fictional character.
people often forget he's the captain of a pirate crew. he's mature and has critical thinking and if seeing a cheerful/cute character instantly makes you assume he deserves to be "protected" from sex/romance, you are: infantilizing his personality (that may or may not be neurodivergent coded, but that's another story), villainizing sex and romance instead of just seeing those as something you don't personally enjoy but should let other people consume, and using being aroace as a shield from the real world and a stereotype instead of actually being inclusive and truly seeing him as aroaspec. friendly reminder that aroaspec people can have sex and be in romantic relationships because it's a spectrum. that's the whole thing about it. it's understandable to not be comfortable around sexual situations with a character you don't perceive as sexually active, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to write him that way. let people do whatever they want with their idea of luffy and have fun!
582 notes
·
View notes
my attempts to avoid thoughts of geralt's hanza continue to fail, as sapkowski talks about them in front of my face.
(from manuscript, on the subject of the hero and the quest):
On this expedition, the Hero (Simple or King) is accompanied by others who are stereotypical-canonical fantasy characters, in other words - clichés:
Wizard-Mentor (the aforementioned MERLIN, Obi-wan Kenobi, Gandalf, Allanon, Belgarath, Sephrenia or Moiraine, who supports the hero with advice and help);
Faithful Servant (in the case of the King, literally, in the case of the Simple, rather a childhood friend, Sam Gamgee. He serves the plot to recite wise folk maxims and prove that the simple people are the most morally healthy; or to save the ass of his master/friend where magic and a sharp sword will not help, and common sense and a strong, faithful arm will suffice).
Good Knight (charismatic LANCELOT, always loyal and ready to fight, sometimes with some dark secret in his life);
Worse Knight (always with some dark secret in his life, ambitious like Boromir, in the clutches of Evil, secretly collaborates with Evil, regrets betrayal, undergoes catharsis, perishes);
Trickster - Conniver (see LOKI in "Materia Magiczna"**), cheerful, but can cause trouble, which attracts like a magnet;
Damsel in Distress, who is saved from danger on the way and included in the team. Usually a princess in disguise. For several volumes of the cycle she does not like the Hero, in the last she becomes his wife.
* Type A = Percival, a hero who does not have power and is searching it, and Type B = King Arthur, a hero who has lost his power and wants to regain it. in other words, Type A = Reynevan and Type B = Geralt :)
** another chapter of the book, "Materia magica, or the Little Magical Alphabetical Lexicon," it's a glossary of various myth and legend. in loki's entry, he recounts some myths of loki and equivalates him with other figures across various traditions: Odysseus, Pryderi, Bricriu, Mordred, Alyosha Popovich, Coyote, Anansi, Maui). then he lists a few fantasy/spec fic characters he categorizes as trickers: Cugel (Dying Earth), Kickaha (World of Tiers), Coyote (Coyote Blue), Peter Lake (Winter's Tale), Moonglum (Elric of Melniboné), Nifft and Haldar (Nifft the Lean), Random (Chronicles of Amber), Saruman (Lord of the Rings), Shimrod (Lyonesse), Silk (The Belgariad and The Malloreon), Gray Mouser (Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser), Talen (The Elenium).
my thoughts:
pretty obvious assignments here, for the most part.
regis is the Wizard-Mentor, but, as he soon loses his mystique, his intellectual, philosophizing manner becomes mundane and irritating than providing magical provenance. he advises incessantly, answering questions before they're asked, giving guidance when no one asked. he only appears to be omniscient, and the others may think he's so smart because he's hundreds of years older than them, but is really just a guy, a middle aged man with a troubled youth which he learned from. his advice is not magically guided and for this reason is fallable, mortal, human. maybe the cliché is also played with in that he's a vampire, not a wizard, sorcerer, or priest, "‘I see.��� The poet sighed. ‘Is Regis a sorcerer?’ ‘No. No, not a sorcerer.’" ... as vampires are typically evil and regis is decidedly a force of good. (on this topic, @wampirzielarz once compared-contrasted gandalf and regis and it was super interesting :))
dandelion is a combination of the Faithful Servant and the Trickster. he's geralt's best friend, and doesn't fight alongside him with sword but his presence is necessary to our hero for moral support, that all makes the first part an obvious assignment... and... sapkowski lists a wide variety of tricksters of various moral alignments, but amongst them are some heroes and some best friends of heroes (and anti-heroes). and asides from being geralt's closest friend, dandelion is, after all, a rascal, who uses words and good looks to get what he wants from people. "a cynic, a lecher, a womanizer and a liar." (also, because i think szarlej also fits this double-definition as well, i won't hesitate to give them to dandelion, as they serve pretty similar functions alongside their respective heroes).
milva is the Good Knight, "always loyal and ready to fight" describes her perfectly, and her 'dark secret' was her pregnancy and plans for abortion. (though, the attribution of lancelot... well, maybe this is why some keen eyes saw a potential in yenva). anyhow, the playfulness with the cliché comes from the fact that she's a woman, which is supposed to be surprising that the hero's strongest ally is a woman. i think the "charismatic" attribute is also supposed to be played with here, as milva is simple and not too well-spoken, only so in her cursing. in other words, she's a peasant woman, and not a born-and-bred nobleman. also, for her gender, she is a play on another trope sapkowski mentions a couple of pages later, but i can't go into it now because it's too funny.
cahir is the Worse Knight, though perhaps in reverse, for all of his associations with Evil was in the past and shed like sports colors when he changed teams. he has no betrayal, "I will never betray you, witcher," all of his ‘betrayal’ was before he was even allied with the hero. but of course, for these sins, he "undergoes catharsis, perishes".
the Damsel in Distress is evidentially angouleme, being "saved from danger on the way and included in the team." the rebuking of the cliché, of course, is that geralt is "genuinely angry, genuinely confused, genuinely embarrassed" when she offers her "gratitude" to him. also, that she is no princess in disguise, just an ordinary girl, though she is confused for the princess they're after (who also happens to be another play on the damsel in distress cliché). and again, like milva, i think angouleme is related to another specifically female character cliché sapkowski calls out; but i'll save it for another post.
20 notes
·
View notes