#It's the point in the story where there is an idea so complex and multifaceted that it needs to be explored through a concept.

[bonefall]

This AU is basically the Dungeon Meshi of Warrior Cats. This is a high compliment.

It's so funny, I get that a lot and I totally see it + appreciate it, but BB actually predates me being a fan of Dungeon Meshi! I've been getting that compliment since even before the anime dropped.

It makes perfect sense though. Dungeon Meshi uses food as a metaphor for communication across individuals, class, and most relevantly culture. It's something that brings people together, even when that's being addressed as a sinister thing when.......

Ah. No spoilers. You should go and read the manga to find out what I'm teasing ;)

I do something with a lot of overlap in BB. Food is an extension of the culture of the five Clans. I use it to characterize individuals too and as a metaphor for things at times (like Darkstripe's growth or cultural friction in Heartstar's Rise), but most of all, I try to emphasize the food as the product of the society that makes it. The biome, the diet, the behaviors of its chefs... so Dungeon Meshi and BB are naturally going to draw some interesting similarities.

Plus, Dungeon Meshi's a good ass series man, it's downright awe-inspiring. I hope I can make a narrative as satisfying as Ryoko Kui can, lmao. I love how much that girlie loves food

[asgardian--angels]

Izzy Discourse Masterpost

Hey all, given the amount of awful splintering and wank happening in ofmd fandom rn regarding Izzy's death, including the flat-out immature and unacceptable harassment of David Jenkins and Co, I wanted to just make this one all-encompassing post to address the various grievances and complaints I've seen (almost entirely on Twitter). If I've missed anything, please feel free to add on. I'm putting most of this under a read-more for length.

Please be aware, I say all of this as an Izzy fan. I've loved his character since season 1, and while I was sad to see him go, I completely understand and support David & Co's reasons for concluding his arc, and I think it was done respectfully in a way fitting to his character. So let's break down some of the takes I've seen. I am not referencing specific posts or people here, I just want to address the general themes that I keep seeing about why some people are upset.

Izzy's death served no narrative purpose.

Look, this is one that I'm sure fans will debate for the rest of the hiatus. It's completely within your right to disagree with this writing choice, but Izzy's death did serve a narrative purpose in the story that David Jenkins is telling - and he has spoken to this end in several interviews already. I can only summarize here, and fans may find other perspectives in time as well. What we need to remember is that Our Flag Means Death is, at the end of the day, Ed and Stede's love story. That has been made abundantly, explicitly clear. The show has been fantastic at fleshing out the other supporting characters, but that's what they are - supporting characters. They often have their own subplots but ultimately the narrative seeks to move Ed and Stede's story forward and they are tools to spur Ed and Stede's growth or mirror their struggles. Izzy has been a wonderfully complex, multifaceted character but we must remember that all characters are vessels through which stories are told, lessons are imparted, and metaphors are established. He's not a real person who 'deserves' any particular fate. David said he's always intended for Izzy to die at the end of his arc.

Firstly, Izzy (now canonically, through his own dying words) represents part of Blackbeard. He enabled and encouraged Ed's darker side, they were mutually toxic forces to each other. Ed is attempting to cope with and move on from this phase of his life, and like Stede in season 1, set out a free man, unshackled by expectations and loose ends of those he's hurt and been hurt by (though we realize this is an ongoing process that takes time). This lovely gifset sums it up nicely, with Izzy being the Mary parallel, and making s2 mirror s1. Blackbeard is both Ed and Izzy; Ed cannot be free of Blackbeard while Izzy is in his life, and when Izzy is gone he will never truly be Blackbeard again. They are each other's rotting leg!! Yet, they love each other - and David has said that for Ed, this has developed into a mentor and father relationship, and where Ed has previously despised his father figures (his actual father, Hornigold) he does not want to lose Izzy. This time, Izzy brings out Ed, not Blackbeard - and that's where we get the callback to 'there he is', bringing their impact on each other full circle, freeing Ed, getting approval of sorts that he never had, to be soft, to be loved (and there are parallels to Zheng and Auntie here as well that others have made) from that force that drove him to stay in line all this time. David has said in multiple interviews now that he was going for the idea of the mentor/father figure dying and the hero living on and trying to do justice to them.

From Izzy's side, Izzy cannot be free while Edward remains either (Mary cannot find peace while Stede remains). The scar never truly healed, the leg will always be a reminder. At this point the argument becomes 'yes, but why did he have to die? Why not just sail off with the crew of the Revenge?' David has stated that he feels they've done everything they can with, and for, Izzy; he's come leagues from season 1, he's found community, he's found hope, he's found new parts of himself, and he's made good memories. He's found worth outside of what he can be to others. That's more than most pirates could hope for. Where would his character go from there, when the Golden Age of Piracy he belongs to has burned to the ground? Would he stay around and whittle on the Revenge? If he were a real person, yes, that would be lovely, and he'd deserve all the quiet peaceful happiness in the world. But as I explain several points below, he's not interested in being a captain. He's not up for the hard physical labor of regular crew, and he's extremely overqualified for that besides. He has served his narrative purpose, and symbolically, to enter a new age, everything must go. He's connected to the old age of piracy, to the Republic of Pirates, that is now demolished. To him, fighting for what he believes in, for the family he's found, bringing down an army of British twats in the process, is how he should go. It's a pirate's death, and as Izzy's said, he's a pirate - unlike Blackbeard who's succeeding in breaking away from piracy, Izzy never wanted to stop being a pirate, throughout his arc. To me, that's why Izzy remains trapped in the narrative, trapped in history, whereas Ed and Stede will escape history. They leave piracy, and canon, behind, while Izzy was content to remain a pirate and face a pirate's fate.

Burying him on land, right next to Ed and Stede's beach house, shows that his sacrifice was not in vain - they start this new life together, thanks to Izzy's mentorship, his role in their lives that sometimes for worse, sometimes for better, made their love what it was and made their breakaway possible. The new age is built on the foundations of the old age, and is stronger for it.

As we're well aware by now, David tweeted that there's no version of ofmd without Izzy. Whether that's literal or not, symbolically it's true. Izzy's arc of growth affected everyone on the Revenge. Jim fondly remembered fighting for a time when life meant something on that ship; the crew helped give Izzy new meaning in life, and he helped them in return. When he dies, they mourn and have a funeral; that wouldn't have happened under Blackbeard's watch in episode 2. His life meant something to them. He influenced Ed and Stede immensely, and they will take that with them. As David's said, they're all a family, and Izzy was a part of that family, and his loss unites them and brings them closer to continue to fight for that family they've built. It's a tragic, sudden death of someone they've all grown to care for, and that steels their reserve to keep the torch lit. They literally sail off into the sunset to hunt down Ricky to avenge Izzy; he will always be a part of this show. And, of course, with the brief appearance of seagull Buttons, the door is left open for anything.

If this was The Izzy Show, then sure, we'd be content to see him simply engaged in shenanigans every episode. But the plot, and therefore the characters, need to keep moving forward, and Izzy got his growth and development. He got what he needed for his character to have closure, and he served his symbolic narrative purpose in Ed's (and Stede's) story. You may have your own ideas and perspectives, and that's great - that's what fandom is for. But we cannot say his death was pointless when David Jenkins and the writers clearly had a well-defined motive for pushing the narrative in this direction. I actually think the narrative around Ed and Izzy is the most well-developed in the entire show. I for one am so happy we got such an interesting and complex character, and had the brilliant Con O'Neill to portray him.

Izzy's growth & healing arc was rendered pointless by his death.

As this post so eloquently puts it, it's pretty bleak to have the outlook that taking steps to heal and find meaning in life is worthless if it's later lost. Seeking happiness and self-actualization is worthwhile for its own sake; no one knows what's down the road, and we all die eventually. Find meaning in life now. Would you rather have had Izzy not miss with his bullet in ep2? He was given the chance to experience joy, freedom, and hope for the first time in potentially a long time, and when he died he did so with those happy memories. As mentioned, Izzy's death was decided long beforehand given the narrative, and the point of storytelling is to make you feel emotions. We were given impetus to connect and relate to Izzy's character through his process of healing, so when he did die, we felt it keenly. That's how stories work actually! We felt what Ed felt. It moved us. It's not a bad thing that Izzy's arc made him more likeable to fans before his death. It's not a bad thing to lose a beloved character - guess what, it happens constantly in stories - and it's not bad to grieve over it either, but to say that it made his journey pointless is just not true. People saying that Con must be upset that they snatched his character away from him after getting to develop him so much - again I say, would you rather him have died in ep 2 before he had the chance to grow? Or how about in s1, when the crew tried to mutiny? How'd you feel when Stede killed him in his dream, in the very first scene of the season? I think Con's probably glad for the opportunity to have explored this character so much in season 2. Ask him if he thinks it was pointless.

Killing off Izzy was bad for queer rep/burying your gays/"Izzy was the queer heart of the show"

I'm putting 'bury your gays' on the top shelf so people can't use it when it doesn't actually apply. Most of the main cast of characters in this show are queer, and it's a show about pirates with a good amount of violence. Ergo, chances are a queer character will die in the course of Things Happening In Stories. Izzy didn't die because he was queer, and he wasn't the token queer rep. Please turn your attention to the boatloads (literally) of queer characters that are happy and thriving (how about the LuPete wedding immediately afterwards??). As for Izzy being the "queer heart of the show," this is literally the Ed and Stede show. You know, the two queer leads whose queer love the show revolves around, per David Jenkins himself. I'm glad folks connected with and derived joy from Izzy's growth and especially his performance in Calypso's birthday, but he is not the main character of the show. The queer heart of the show is in fact, the entire show, all of their characters and the community & found family they create aboard the Revenge. Not to mention the fan community as well. Izzy was never carrying the show's representation on his back, and frankly that's an absurdly wild take to have (esp when he spent most of s1 actively working against the main queer relationships in the show, attempting to maintain the oppressive status quo of pirate society).

It was bad and irresponsible to have a suicidal character die

Are we forgetting the entire first half of the season where Ed, who was suicidal, kept trying to passively kill himself because he felt he was an unlovable monster, only to be shown that he is in fact loved unconditionally and it gives him the strength to fight for life and triumph against his own self-doubt? The show has spent quite a lot of effort telling viewers that despite feeling damaged or broken you are worthy of love and that you are loved even if it may be hard to see it when you're in a bad place. That you don't need to be fully healed to deserve love and care, and that love and support will help you along your journey. It's incredibly wild to disregard this major plot point and fundamental message of s2 to try and spin this the opposite way for Izzy's character.

Secondly, where are people getting 'Izzy is suicidal' from? Are we going back all the way to episode 2, when he's at his lowest point and fails at his suicide attempt, only to be figuratively reborn after removing the metaphorical rotten leg? By the time of the finale he's shown to be in a good place, thanks to the arc of healing and growth he's gotten, through the support of the Revenge crew and his 'breakup' with Blackbeard allowing him to find his own way in life, realizing he doesn't need a purpose to have value and enjoying his time on the Revenge and the bonds he's made with Stede and the crew. He is, in the words of Ivan, "the most open and available I've ever seen him" by the finale. To take episode 2 as evidence he's suicidal is to erase his whole season of growth, which is an ironic thing to do in the context of these arguments. There's no canon evidence Izzy Hands was suicidal post-'Fun and Games'.

As for 'irresponsible,' once again I say, David Jenkins is not your therapist, he's not 'Dad,' and has no responsibility to tell his story any other way than he intended to tell it. Please find media that gives you what you want or need, and if the death of a fictional character causes you this much distress please seek help. I mean this kindly but seriously.

Killing off Izzy was ableist/bad for disability rep.

I point once again to the rest of the characters, several of which are disabled in varied ways. There are literally multiple other amputee characters specifically. It's not good storytelling to wholly avoid killing off any character that is disabled/queer/poc/female or [insert marginalized group here], especially when a) it makes sense narratively, and b) there's plenty of representation of these groups in the media in question. The answer isn't making such characters invincible and immortal, it's increasing the number of these characters in shows so it's not devastating when some do die in the course of natural storytelling.

OFMD was my comfort show/safe space show, now it's ruined for me

I am not trying to be insensitive here when I say that's a problem that is yours and nobody else's. David Jenkins created this show with a three-season vision and a story in mind, and he is telling that story to the best of his ability the way he wants to. It's already been said that he and the crew did not anticipate the fandom becoming as large and passionate as it has. The plot of the show was never intended to be 'fan service,' and it's ironic that there were people complaining this season that there's been too many fanservice tropes, up until David and the rest of the writers room made a narrative decision they did not like, then the complaints changed to not coddling the fans enough.

We as viewers can derive joy from this show, it can be a comfort to us, it can be important to us. But it was not designed specifically for that purpose, therefore it cannot fail in that respect. We do not have the right to harass writers for not steering the ship in the direction we want - it's their work of art, and we can choose to either come along for the ride or not. It's rare to see creators actually given the chance to tell their story the way they intend (budget cuts aside), so let him do that. He should not cater to fans, or cave and change the story to appease us. Respect his right to create his art, and remember you have the right to create your own. That's what fanfiction is for - write fix-its to your heart's content, but keep these realms separate. David Jenkins and Co hold zero, and I mean zero, responsibility to you. He could not please everyone no matter what he did, it would be fruitless to try, and it would certainly compromise the quality of the story he set out to tell.

You are absolutely allowed to dislike choices made in any show. Curate your media experience. If this show no longer brings you joy, stop watching. But it was never David's purpose nor responsibility to juggle the mental health of millions of fans. Trying to put that on him will only make him less enthusiastic about interacting with fans or continuing to make this show. This isn't rocket science. You're responsible for yourself, not this guy you call 'Dad' that you've developed a parasocial-therapist relationship with.

Izzy should have become captain of the Revenge.

Really?? Firstly, we did actually get that already in s1. He was tyrannical and the crew mutinied. But even if you think 'well after his character arc he'd be better suited to it,' it goes against the point of this arc. He's found value in not having a distinct role or purpose on the ship, decoupling his worth from the job he's expected to perform. He's found his place amongst the crew, not commanding it. There's no narrative reason to put him in charge when he's expressed no further interest in slotting himself back into a role full of pressure and expectations.

Con O'Neill was only told halfway through filming, it's cruel to just kill off the character he loves so much.

Guys, he's an actor. More than that, an actor with a theater background. I think he's used to characters dying. You don't need to look out for him. Con and David spoke one on one about it at length so they were on the same page, and David even said that Con took it well. I'm sure Con had input, just as other members of the cast have influenced their characters' stories, costumes, backstories, etc. Do you really think David Jenkins hurt Con's feelings or something? The writers (remember, it's not just David, it's a whole team of hard-working people coming up with these ideas) gave Con such a chance to shine this season, really developing Izzy beyond what he was given in s1 and letting Con show off his full acting range. Why are you only focusing on the destination rather than the journey? Sure, Con's probably sad to see Izzy go, but please do not project your distress onto him or try and accuse David & Co of being 'cruel' to their cast. That's really ridiculous. It's constantly evident how close they all are.

More importantly, do you actually, seriously think that Con O'Neill would want fans to harass each other or the writers over his character? The man who preaches being kind above all? There is no better way to make an actor uncomfortable about a show and its fanbase than to start treating fictional characters like they're more important than real people. He would not want you to bully people over Izzy Hands, and it's mind-boggling that some of you have convinced yourself otherwise.

Lastly, I just want to talk about the fact that some people are holding OFMD to absurdly high expectations.

Our Flag Means Death has been a pioneer series for its diverse representation, earnest storytelling, and themes of hope, community, and love. It's fine to discuss aspects of the show with a critical eye, but so much of the discourse has truly felt like folks are trying to find fault in a show that is leagues ahead of the average tv series that we still enjoy. How many fan favorites are killed off all the time? How many plotlines are scrapped, or drawn out without closure, or contradicted the very next season? How many shows are indifferent or actively hostile towards their fanbase? How many have any queer characters, or actually do bury them? The bar's so low, and OFMD has risen above to give us so much. Some are holding the show to astronomical expectations, waiting for it to fall from the pedestal it's been placed on. If something you don't like happens in the show, it's not suddenly ruined or demoted to being ~just as bad as those other shows~. Give them some breathing room, have some perspective on how progressive the show is, and that perfection is impossible, especially meeting every single viewer's idea of it. This is basically a repeat of the recent Good Omens drama, with an absurd number of people harassing Neil Gaiman for breaking up Aziraphale and Crowley and leaving the second of three acts on a very predictable cliffhanger. Let stories be told, let them unfold as they may, and you are free to leave anytime. It's so wonderful that more queer love stories are becoming popular and even mainstream, but let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by tearing them down when they don't go exactly the way you want it, which often seems to mean no drama, no character deaths, and therefore no conflict or even plot!

Just, please be civil human beings, and while this seems to be a difficult thing for so many fandoms to do, just keep your fan opinions in the fan space. Never bring your grievances to the writers, never bully them and persecute them for telling a story that you opted into viewing. That's something that goes entirely against everything this show, and this cast and crew, have imparted onto us - the importance of kindness, support, community, and love. I'll say it again because it bears repeating: the fate of a fictional character is never more important than how you treat real people. Just be kind in real life, which includes the internet. Thanks.

Now please, let's work together to ensure we get a season 3. There's so much more story to be told, and if you want to see Izzy back, whether that's as flashbacks, as a ghost haunting the inn, or in the gravy basket, we'll need more episodes! #RenewAsACrew

[kaelio]

A few points for YA Authors:

1. People can have sex that they later wish they hadn't had, in the complete absence of any kind of abuse. I've ordered meals that I ended up not liking (or where I'd have preferred something else) and the restaurant did not wrong me or treat me inappropriately. Sometimes it just didn't work out with someone and sex was something you did in that relationship.

2. Things like colonialism and imperialism are complex and multifaceted, with many stakeholders with many different values. If you have an idea that will "solve" them, I recommend writing an academic paper so you can be showered in Nobel prizes instead of a story about a witch who works at the candy store.

3. If you are going to take a real stand, that means real consequences. You can't be like "But because Bopper's values were so good, it was actually fine to cede all agricultural land in the world of Frigno back to the singing butterflies. Grain fell from the sky now!" If you mean it, if you REALLY mean the stuff you're saying, your point is stronger for your willingness to show real consequences of that decision. Take your position seriously, or the readership should not be expected to take it seriously.

4. If you insist writers can only write "what they know" and anything else is problematic, you imply people should only really write autobiographies (dumb). However even a lesser version would make books whiter and more upper-middle-class because that's the commonest writer demo. This is true for a few largely unfair structural reasons, but it is true. If YA Writers were to only really write themselves for fear of overstepping, the genre gets less representative of the world because writers, as a group, are not representative of the world. Learn more and research more, talk to more people, and encourage other authors to do the same.

5. If you claim that it's super important that you research other cultures before writing about them (and I agree!), you must concede it is equally important to research business and economics and other things that affect the validity of the claims you are making.

6. Your characters' uniqueness should come from their personality and character not from demographic checkboxes. Tokenism is not just limp but indefensible when you control the entire narrative.

7. Let your characters make actual mistakes that are the result of their actual decisions which logically flow from their actual values. A character who is never really making decisions is basically just that art project robot that got its ass kicked in Philadelphia.

8. You don't have to always do a "twist on" a recognized thing. You can write werewolves that do not in any way challenge the normal perception of werewolfdom. Whatever you've landed on needs to serve the story first, not prove how clever and special you personally are.

9. If someone hates you personally, they will find a way to use your book as a conduit for that hatred and as an excuse for that hatred. You can't write a book where this isn't the case, so don't write your book with that expectation or as if you have any way to prevent this. Focus on writing a good book.

10. Whether you can use a fantasy/sci-fi element as a stand-in for a real world issue relies entirely on the competent execution of that idea. I know this sounds obvious, but yes, something might be outside your capacity to pull off (or in that story), but that is not inherent. In some cases it might be much harder, or too challenging to justify the attempt, but symbolism works to the extent that you make it work based on your capabilities as an author.

11. If half your book is basically just a thinly-disguised rant at how much you hate your parents... rip off that disguise! Don't be coy about it! If that's what you're writing about, just write about that. Why play games? If you think your parents could now read your book and not realize it's about them, you've also obscured your feelings for your audience. Do it or don't do it, but for the love of all things, don't half-ass it.

12. You do not solve any of the problems in your story by making your lead characters so pathetic that you can claim it's mean or unfair for the readership to "judge" them.

13. The only perfect metaphor for a thing is the thing itself, so test your metaphors and make sure they work, but do not hold them to the standard of translating perfectly, because they can't. That they are not 1:1 the thing is because they are metaphors for the thing.

14. Similarly, no fictional relationship can be held up to the standard of representing all relationships. You have to let this expectation go. People also need to be able to have relationships that are not framed as "lessons".

15. If you include warfare, research warfare enough that the conflicts are credible. If you don't want to do that, then the simple answer is don't put warfare in your books. It's YOUR book, YOU made that choice.

16. Overall, remember: your book exists to be a book first and foremost. It is not a treatise on you communicated via your book; if you want your book to be about yourself, write an autobiography. Otherwise, focus on telling a good story.

[torchship-rpg]

Dev Diary 1 - What is Torchship?

Hello everyone! I’m Erika Chappell, @open-sketchbook​ on tumblr, and I’m the game designer for Torchship, the space exploration tabletop roleplaying game. I’ve been working on this game, in some form or another, since 2016, and it’s incredibly exciting to be approaching a form with it that we can show off to other people.

Showing off is the point of these dev diaries; we’ve done an enormous amount of work behind the scenes over the past year, and while not all of it is ready for primetime and not everything fits together properly yet, there’s a huge amount of game and world and I’m tired of waiting to show it off. These dev diaries will be a way of showing off what we’ve done, share what we’re working on, and get excited about what’s to come.

What is Torchship? 

As this is the first diary, I should probably talk about what the game actually is, right?

Torchship is a tabletop roleplaying game about exploring a vast and complex future galaxy of mysteries and danger. It is a traditional structured game with a GM and multiple players, who take the role of the foremost crew members of a rocket ship in uncharted space. It runs on a custom d6 system, designed around a set of solid core mechanics which expand into in-depth subsystems for whatever part of the game interests you.

It is, in many ways, a very retro sort of RPG. It’s deliberately aiming to be maximalist, not minimalist, with extensive and interlinking systems available for whatever possibilities your stories run into and mechanics everywhere you look to sink your teeth into. Each individual mechanic is simple and the game is designed so that you only deal with small subsets at a time in places where it’s appropriate, metering out the complexity similar to how the Routine in Flying Circus cut down on the number of moves in play at any one time.

You play as members of Star Patrol, a multifaceted agency of the Interstellar Union of Republics, or Star Union for short. The IUR is a very new and relatively small alliance thrust to the status of a superpower by the collapse of the local empire. It is ringed on all sides by potentially or actively hostile states, not to mention the looming threat of godlike powers and ancient civilizations that truly rule local space. 

Star Patrol are equal parts explorers, diplomats, prospectors, spies, and watchmen, tasked with the impossible task of charting millions of unexplored or long-lost stars for resources, allies, and advantages as the borders close in and the power vacuum closes. Funding is tight and resources scarce; you’ll be the only ship for dozens of light years, but if you’re successful, if you can light the way, the future might be bright after all.

FTL Drives & Radiators

While Torchship’s inspiration is obvious, it might be more accurate to say that it is informed by Star Trek. It is not an attempt to make A Trek Game that directly emulates the feel of an episode; it instead aims to explore, reimagine, critique, and deconstruct its inspiration while injecting new ideas from outside. 

One of the main ways it differs is by lingering on logistical concerns which are usually handwaved away and emphasising that you are space explorers, people out in the vast expanse, clinging to fragile bubbles of oxygen and water. Our mission statement for tone is Star Trek with Radiators; shiny space ships with all the retro trappings combined with the enormous glowing heat management systems.

This is deeper than just an aesthetic. Torchship is not hard science fiction, but there is nothing stopping you from putting realistic reaction engines and impossible teleporters side by side, nor from treating that teleporter as a complex machine that still obeys some kind of laws.

Or, in other words, the ship can go faster than the speed of light, but it still needs to do something with the waste heat it generates.

This principle manifests in dangers: Decompression, high-g forces, and radiation are huge threats, heat builds up, vacuum sucks. Instead of the consoles exploding, projectiles zip through the hull and lasers chew through vital parts. But… it’s going to be okay, because you still have impossible energy shields and amazing medicine and tools to repair any damage.

It is also present in the politics and logistics focus of the game. Torchship is a game about scarcity; you have to carry all the resources you need with you, and there are no magic replicators. Somebody, somewhere, labours for everything you use. This system connects to the political aspect; all your choices will be reflected onto the Star Union as a whole, and will shape who they become over time.

Development

Right now, Torchship is in an alpha state. It is still actively being written and rewritten with an eye toward playtesting and public betas. We are filling out the website (which will act as a big setting encyclopedia) and assembling 3d assets for creating artwork.

Torchship is an independent production and it’s being developed by a very small team. Despite that, we’re going to make the best damn space game there ever was.

[thegodcomplcx]

Literally so true about the “fun little limbo” of 11/amy! the way there is this weird cognitive dissonance in fandom where on the one hand people moan about the love triangle and how unlikeable Amy was by cheating on Rory etc. yet simultaneously it’s sacrilege to think 11/amy is valid on account of the adultery. people are driven by purity politics rather than engaging with the text ergo we must go with the party line that Amy only ever loves Rory because it “redeems” her (boo hiss) whereas the alternative is immoral. (I’d be willing to bet this was a real note from the network/execs once Amy got married - “no more infidelity because it makes your female lead unlikeable”. the subtext is still there but they almost certainly had to tone it down).

On this point, you’re right we never see Amy *getting over* the doctor — on her wedding day she STILL wants to make out with him and interrupts the party to remember him back into existence. this was portrayed as more significant than her actual wedding! (in both the Big Bang and TWORS she can’t remember Rory when he’s in front of her, but she remembers the doctor when he’s not even there.) Yet 2 episodes later when Rory thinks her love declaration is for the doctor she’s like “what, him??!!” As though this is a ridiculous idea when it’s literally based on *all her previous behaviour*!

I think the fandom denial of 11amy is also based on the fact that the writers were too subtle about 11’s feelings apparently. we are supposed to think he plausibly reciprocates river’s love when he is nonsensically cruel towards her and straight up says he doesn’t want to marry her, yet it’s somehow ridiculous to think he may have feelings for Amy based on his behaviour of trusting her completely, placing her opinion of him above all else, acting generally insane/fixated, etc. also, from a storytelling perspective the triangle holds no weight if the doctor is indifferent! it’s established from the beginning that Amy must choose between him and Rory, and at the end 11 begs her to choose him but by then it’s too late. The entire tragedy of this and 11’s behaviour makes no sense if he doesn’t reciprocate; it is SUPPOSED to be a doomed love story!! Anyway thank you for indulging my asks, i am insane about them.

this is why this rewatch has been so fun for me, because i wasn't sure if my hazy memories from a decade ago were an accurate depiction of what happened in the show or if i was clouded by 11/amy nostalgia and like. they're actually just like that. 11/amy had so much more of a complicated and multifaceted relationship than people usually talk about. they want the whole 11amyrory dynamic to be so simple and easy to digest but it's just not!

in my eyes the infidelity makes amy MORE of a likeable character and they should have leaned HARDER into it

the amyrory wedding was so not about rory at all. we don't see the ceremony, we literally only see amy crying and bringing the doctor back into existence. the amyrory wedding is literally an 11amy reaffirmation. amy made a public declaration of love on that day and it was not for rory lmao.

and the whole s6e2 "it's not him, it's you" speech is so fucking about the doctor its insane. they literally made an episode about how the doctor thinks it ought to be rory (s7e1). and the reason why they even had to do a divorce plot between them is that the only thing interesting about amyrory is amy's conflicting desire. the love triangle is literally all they have. they are at their best with "the core of our relationship is i love you more than you love me" (and amy's whole i can't give you children i gave you up is sickening btw)

and i literally cant speak on 11river anymore. literally my madonna-whore complex post that's all i have to say about the matter for the rest of time.

[karouvas]

Decladam

•Whether I ship it or not: I ship it a little but primarily my interest in it comes from from an obsessed-with-Adam’s-psyche pov, I read and interact with it purely from a standpoint of how it could provide interesting character work for Adam rather than an emotional attachment to the idea of it as a *romance* yk? So, would answer yes over no but it’s a more clinical interest rather than something that gives me feeeelings ( my favorite pairings are the ones that make me experience both a thirst to analyze and potently strong feelings simultaneously). It’s my second favorite Declan ship after Jordeclan though.

•Why I ship it or not: I like thinking about Adam going through it and making bad horny choices and Decladam lends itself to this nicely. I also enjoy stories about mirroring and identity work so their foilisms and similar tendencies as social maskers, while also there’s some distortion and projection at play, are interesting to explore through having them interact. But I would need more canon material and emotional content to get to a higher level of shipping than just *intriguing* like I said.

My opinion on their canon potential (chemistry, canon interactions, etc): well Adam being at least a little attracted to Declan in early trc is basically canon, as is his multifaceted complex and *thing* for men *cut from the same cloth* as Declan. So definitely basis for physical attraction within canon / I think Adam’s thoughts about Declan have historically been So much hornier than he’d ever be willing to admit, although I think when it comes to romantic attraction on Adam’s side you need to diverge / spin off from canon to a certain degree for me to see it. I don’t think within the sequence of canon events he would develop much in the way of romantic feelings for Declan but I could see him getting there in the right story that either diverges from canon (@decladams fic is a really excellent take on a decladam relationship that I can buy) or is an au. Really I think the most compelling way for that to unfold that I could buy the most is a situation where Adam is at rock bottom which sounds mean to Declan but like.. yeah that’s the headspace I think Adam would need to be in. I like a good trainwreck relationship though so that’s not a deterrent for me. My interpretation of Declan’s side is less fixed, but I definitely think Declan finds Adam to be compelling to a greater degree than he would like to admit to himself, and I don’t think it’s difficult to extrapolate that response into repressed attraction if you want to. I also do think Adam and Jordan have some interesting parallels / are similar in some ways personality wise, so I think you could use that as basis for Declan being inclined to fall for someone like Adam. But I only feel strongly about teenage Adam having some type of physical attraction/psychosexual thing for Declan / that’s the only part really set in stone in my head as Sana’s-trc-canon, in terms of them. With anything else I think there’s potential if you want to see it but I wouldn’t die on the hill of reading the rest of the dynamic as subtextually queer.

My opinion on fanon interpretations/fandom around it (Favorite widespread hcs, pet-peeves, etc): hmmm. I don’t have a lot of thoughts on fanon about them I guess the only thing I’ve seen that I specifically disagreed with was takes on Declan’s perception of Adam in MI that position it as entirely a correct read, I think he has a better read on the Adam and the crying club situation than Ronan does at that point because he doesn’t have Ronan’s specific emotions/insecurities there but I also think Declan projects onto Adam in a weird way and so I don’t take his interpretation of Adam in those chapters as wholly reliable or correct. But I haven’t interacted with fanon about them a ton tbh

(send me a ship and I’ll answer these questions about it)

[golvio]

Revisiting the early quests hyping up the Yiga Clan reminded me of one of the really noticeable problems I had with BotW’s writing: the inconsistent and wildly fluctuating tone for the “serious” parts.

The introduction to the Clan most people get is from the guards outside of Impa’s house describing them as “sad souls” who went off the path Hylia laid out for them with pity. Then, Paya’s heirloom quest has them built up as remorseless killers in an organized crime ring, murdering Dorian’s wife in cold blood and being perfectly happy to orphan his daughters now that Dorian himself is no longer a useful informant. If you take on that quest early, odds are the Yiga Blademaster who shows up is going to kick your ass.

And then you actually enter the Yiga hideout and the same Blademasters that beat your ass when you were a lower level now have animations like this:

This isn’t an “uuuuuuuu y aren’t villains cool n edgy anymore like my beloved ‘90s comic books 😭” post. I’m okay with Kohga being silly. I love the concept of a character who’s at once funny and entertaining but also a really dangerous and skilled combatant who uses his clownish first impression to get people to let their guard down. The main problem I have with it is just that the tone is not consistent at all. The clan feels less like the complex, multifaceted organization that arose from a complicated and traumatic historical situation it deserves to be and more like all the scenario writers had great ideas but somehow forgot to get together and talk to each other about how to weave them into a coherent whole. It swings wildly back and forth between them being this scary force of assassins capable of infiltrating even the Sheikah secret service undetected to “Haha, look at these dork-ass losers! They were dumb enough to serve Ganon! Only a total dweeb would be scared of these banana-obsessed clowns!” Which is, y’know, kind of insulting to the Sheikah who actually did have legitimate reasons to be scared of these people based on what we saw with Dorian.

It’s like what bugged me about the main conflict within the Zora. It wanted to tell a story about generational trauma and bigotry, but was so terrified of presenting anything unflattering to the player and the lost kingdom of Hyrule that it turned everyone into goofy, exaggerated caricatures performing for our amusement. The Zora elders weren’t a bunch of extremely traumatized people who needed to heal, they were just a bunch of curmudgeonly old fuddy duddies who were out of touch and needed to get over themselves (Which they instantly did, because of how cool and awesome the player is for putting up with their stubborn old people nonsense. You’re so cool that the hot Zora princess everyone’s mourning was throwing herself at your avatar! Isn’t that awesome?). And Sidon wasn’t allowed to be a character in his own right, doing what he thought could help heal his people while risking a revolt or a forced abdication for breaking the ban against outsiders behind the elders’ backs! He’s just Your Funny Friend Who Encourages You, because he exists solely to get you to your objective at Vah Ruta, and the game never lets you forget it. And the younger generation of Zora, some of whom remember Link before his death, aren’t symbols of the younger generation trying to move forward at the risk of starting a major generational conflict with their parents/grandparents who’re still traumatized from the Calamity because it was practically yesterday in Zoran terms. They’re just funny clowns who put on a show for you and point you towards the bridge where Sidon’s waiting.

It’s like…they wanted the royal advisor seeing the armor Mipha made for Link to be this big, emotional moment, but the writers spent so much time assuring us that we didn’t need to respect the Zora that it felt…like something was missing, emotionally. Like, “Oh, you don’t need to take those old coots seriously! Sure, they’re all mad at Link for something he had no control over, but they’re just stubborn and old! You don’t need to take their cold silence so personally! Just keep your chin up and eventually they’ll realize how stupid they were being for ever doubting you, the great hero who’s come to save them!” And when Muzu’s looking up at the statue of Mipha, there’s not a sense of this broken community coming back together to heal, or a man in deep denial of his own grief coming out of the dark place his heart had been lost in to the point where he treated the little boy he once knew as a scapegoat, and more just him being, “Oh, right! How could I have been so stupid?”

It’s like…these people are traumatized. The Zora are grieving because the apocalypse practically happened yesterday. The Yiga were traumatized by the royal family, who their religion told them they were born to serve, attempted a genocide against them. Both of them are understandably lashing out against a world that they think forgot them, that blithely moves on, unburdened by the grief they caused them, not a care in the world. The game doesn’t want to sit with these emotions because it might make the player uncomfortable, interrupt the hero fantasy, spoil their fun. But in exchange for trying to maintain a lighthearted tone throughout, it just feels like the writers aren’t really respecting their NPCs as much as they should, and deliver a somewhat jarring experience where the emotional pendulum wildly swings back and forth depending on the whims of whichever writer was at the helm when they wrote that quest/sidequest that day.

The whole game is a story about trauma, or at least, it wants to be. The main character himself lost his identity after a near-death experience, either because of brain damage he suffered after the physical trauma he endured, or as traumatic amnesia caused by his mind desperately trying to protect him from the memory of something no one should have to endure. But the game just can’t sit with trauma. It doesn’t want to tie the concepts it introduces into a coherent, consistent theme that spans every inch of the world, every character. It just wants to introduce its cool new UI and have fun. Which…there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that, but can you at least make up your minds about what kind of overall story you want to tell as opposed to spitballing interesting pieces of story ad infinitum?

I’m a little worried about dropping this take, particularly because we all now know that BotW was designed to be the first part of a series, and so suffered a case of what I like to call “To Be Continued Syndrome.” It was built to introduce the world of Hyrule and its new mechanics & concepts to its audience first and foremost, with far less time being spent on the story. For all I know, TotK could resolve a lot of my complaints with what appears to be a stronger focus on story than BotW with more actively present characters, as opposed to Ganon and Zelda kinda hanging out at the castle and not really affecting anything until it’s time to beat the game.

But, it’s like…I’ve seen games at least try to treat their NPCs with more respect and put more thought into their storytelling without having to sacrifice gameplay or exploration, both in big budget and smaller indie titles. I’d like the Zelda series to finally catch up, too. I love the series, and I know they’ve got the potential to tell really compelling stories that don’t treat the characters who aren’t destined to be great heroes like nobodies you can just breeze past. I saw that in Majora’s Mask. I know they can do it again. I hope that’s what they meant when they said they wanted TotK to feel more like Majora in tone.

[rwby-redux]

Do you think it's true that every Semblance is tied to personality? If so, what does this say about the characters whose Semblances we've seen? Maria always looked ahead? May always needed to be unseen? Jaune is willing to help others to the point of destroying himself? James is ultimately stubborn? If so, what do the personalities of currently Semblance-less characters show that their Semblances could be? Is Cardin's related to confidence? Is Ilia's tied to her lack of knowing what to do?

Any sort of correlation is contingent on whether or not the actual canon can be trusted. Because according to the show:

Ren: A common philosophy is that a warrior’s Semblance is a part of who they are. Some say your personality and character can define your Semblance while some claim that it is the other way around. Of course, there are still many who don’t see a connection at all. [1]

Wow. That’s helpful. Thanks for clearing that up, Ren.

Literally, RWBY’s answer can be summed up like this:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And that’s bad.

So, no, I’m inclined to think they’re not related, solely on the basis of ambiguity. (Or rather, they’re not always related.)

Maddeningly, though, the show keeps toying with this idea—as do the writers, in both official media and in behind-the-scenes content, like AMAs and DVD commentaries. Outside of the problem of you-don’t-know-how-to-tell-a-believable-story (or at the very least, a consistent story), associating Semblances with personalities can have some rather damning, real-world implications.

First and foremost, people are complex, multifaceted individuals, whose beliefs and behaviors are informed by both life experiences and innate attributes. Attempting to define someone by a singular trait is both futile and reductive.

Secondly, even if Semblances were representative of a personality trait, how would RWBY qualify them? Does a speed Semblance always mean that a person is hasty? Can it be interpreted as someone who’s limitlessly kind, and constantly feels a need to rush to others’ aid? Or perhaps speed can signify a person that’s energetic and enthusiastic. Can identical Semblances represent multiple personality traits? In RWBY’s universe, how would people go about making connections between Semblances and people? Is it more of a science, or more of a philosophy?

Thirdly, people have the capacity to change. There’s a growing body of evidence that while personality traits tend to be stable, they can absolutely change over the course of one’s life. Therefore, the very thing that a person’s Semblance is based on (ambition, steadfastness, belligerence, etc) could theoretically disappear. Hypothetically, if someone with a confrontational personality had a Semblance tied to their temper (like Fenix Nemean’s), but then they went to therapy for anger management—what then? Would their Semblance just go away? Would it change to better reflect their personality? Do Semblances even have the ability to adapt, or are they locked in once they first take form?

Fourthly, there’s no consensus on whether a Semblance reflects a person’s general, overall disposition; or if they place narrow emphasis on a single, immutable trait.

And this is the point where Semblance = personality becomes really, really uncomfortable.

Let’s use Qrow as an example. His Semblance, Misfortune, has the ability to negatively alter probability in such a way that it causes inconvenience or harm to those within the effect radius—including himself. As we’re told, his Semblance doesn’t discriminate between targets.

Qrow: My Semblance isn't like most—it's not exactly something I do. It's always there, whether I like it or not. I bring misfortune. […] Comes in real handy when I'm fighting an enemy, but it makes it a little hard on friends...and family. [2]

It’s also beyond his ability to reign in (to some extent, anyway).

Qrow: I wouldn't thank me. My Semblance brings misfortune. Sometimes I can't keep it under control. [3]

Even if we ignore that his Semblance forces him to self-isolate (which undoubtedly has negative effects on his psychological health), there’s no denying the tacit implication being presented here: according to the show’s logic, who Qrow is, on a fundamental level, is an inherent threat to those around him. He even describes himself to RNJR as a “bad luck charm.” I mean, how else is he supposed to interpret his Semblance when it passively causes tables to break, and wooden beams to nearly fall on people’s heads? If Semblances are in fact some sort of mirror that people can use to peer into the inner workings of their soul, then that means Qrow is, by nature, indiscriminately harmful. And no matter what he does—no matter how hard he tries otherwise—he will always be destined to bring ruin to those around him.

The man who rejected the reaving, survival-of-the-fittest bandit culture he grew up immersed in; the man who took on a career as a Huntsman in order to protect others from Grimm; the man who “gave [his] life” [4] to help Ozpin defeat Salem—

—is, according to his Semblance, a bad person.

No wonder he drinks to cope.

But if Semblances are tied to your personality, then this can’t be true, because all evidence to the contrary shows that Qrow is selfless and altruistic.

And Qrow is just the tip of the iceberg. That’s not even getting into all of the other questionable design choices in the show.

Take James’ Semblance, Mettle. According to the writers, it allows a user to strengthen their resolve to carry through decisions, helping them hyper-focus.

For anyone familiar with the #rwde tag, you’ve doubtless seen the arguments made by critics like @itsclydebitches, @rwbyconversations, and @darkchocolatekitkat on James’ character. I’m not going to reiterate the points they’ve already made (all of which I agree with), but there is one thing I want to draw attention to:

James is a canonically disabled character, and by giving him a Semblance that lets him hyperfixate, what the writers have done is code him as neurodivergent. And then they used his tunnel vision to justify vilifying his character in V8, all because the Tin Man—his inspiration—doesn’t have a fucking heart.

This right here is where we springboard off of bad writing and enter the territory of ableism.

Here, let’s pick another example: Hazel and his Semblance, Numbing Agent, which nullifies physical pain. (Or magical congenital analgesia, if you want to be pedantic.)

If we roll with the idea that Semblances can be literally interpreted as representations of personality, then this seems to imply that Hazel can’t feel emotional pain, either. Something which appears to be reinforced by Hazel’s stoic attitude in most scenes. The very first time we see Hazel on-screen, he passively watches Watts and Cinder argue (which Tyrian seems to be low-key goading them into), and appears relatively indifferent.

If we connect the dots based on what we know of Hazel's backstory, then it seems like he's not emotive because of his repressed trauma over Gretchen's death. Outside moments of berserker rage, he doesn't really express himself. Cue his Semblance, which literally makes him numb.

Ozpin: Please, let me fight. I know Hazel. He's wounded in a way that cannot be healed. [5]

What is RWBY trying to say about Hazel, exactly? That his trauma (from which his rage stems) made him unable to feel? That his Semblance makes him forever beholden to his damaged emotional state, and that it’s impossible for him to change or grow past it?

I mean, obviously he’s dead, so it’s not like Hazel’s capable of doing anything besides being a decorative urn on someone’s mantel. (Or Mantle, if you will.)

All three of these examples—and I’m sure there are others, if I could be bothered to go hunt them down right this second—are the result of what happens when RWBY leaves its worldbuilding open-ended. The ambiguity of Semblances being conflated with personality means that these are all potentially valid interpretations of the characters, as defined by the lore.

Never mind the darker, more racist examples of Semblances (like Marrow being a canine Faunus, and his Semblance being a trick taught to dogs that he activates by using the command “stay”).

If RWBY really wanted to undertake this approach to Semblances, then the writers needed to not only clarify the rules, but seriously consider all the ways they could be interpreted—for better and worse.

...Oh, dear. This post has gotten rather depressing, hasn't it? Hang on, here's some levity to balance things out.

-

[1] Volume 5, Episode 4: “Lighting the Fire.”

[2] Volume 4, Episode 8: “A Much Needed Talk.”

[3] Volume 7, Episode 3: “Ace Operatives.”

[4] Volume 6, Episode 4: "So That's How It Is."

[5] Volume 5, Episode 12: “Vault of the Spring Maiden.”

[attemptsonherlifepdf]

modern gothic, sci-fi, and the moral binary: why the matrix is one of the most relevant gothic pieces of the last twenty five years

the gothic is a genre that is designed to explore transgressive behaviours and private desires, and often does so by having these explicit acts committed by a supernatural character. this serves to not only characterise the behaviour as monstrous but ‘Other’ people who behave that way. while this is typical of traditional gothic literature, modern gothic tends to present sympathetic villains, who suggest to audiences that transgressive behaviours are not inherently threatening or deserving of punishment, but simply different. as put by kelley hurley, ‘through depicting the abhuman, the gothic reaffirms and reconstructs human identity.’ in order to understand the progression from traditional gothic to modern genres that stem from it, namely science fiction, psychological thrillers and murder mysteries, we must first understand it’s basic timeline.

gothic literature began as a genre with very little positive reception, originally seen as a frivolous, and unserious style of writing. often called ‘dark romanticism’, the genre used the ‘purple prose’ and decadent architecture of romantic literature, but associated it with more sinister narratives concerning religion, murder and both sexual and identitiy-oriented transgression. originating from horace walpole’s ‘castle of otranto’, the genre was used to reflect the cultural anxieties of the time period, and thus gained traction by being temporally relevant. modern gothic’s deconstruction of the ‘good vs evil’ binary is a reflection of contemporary understandings of the aforementioned topics, which address the complexities of transgression. notable examples of later gothic literature include susan hill’s 1983 novel, ‘the woman in black’, a pastiche of traditional victorian ghost stories that utilises sympathetic villains to add complexity to the idea of villainy. additionally, the work of angela carter, particularly that of her 1979 collection ‘the bloody chamber’ which uses gothic conventions to subvert more conservative fairytales and fables, another instance of this ‘dark romanticism’ technique.

by presenting transgression as complex, rather than fulfilling one side of a binary, modern gothic allows us to consider if transgression is even that dangerous; it serves to dismantle the idea that ‘different = threatening.’ a brilliant example of this is the previously mentioned work of carter, and her short stories ‘the tiger’s bride’ and ‘the courtship of mr lyon.’ these stories are subverted retellings of the traditional ‘beauty and the beast’ fairytale. While maintaining the general events of the original ending, where beauty stays with the beast of her own volition, carter offers up two dynamics between the human and abhuman that serve to recharacterise ‘Othered’ creatures as less threatening and more sympathetic and innocent. ‘the courtship of mr lyon’ mimics the original story’s ending, with beauty’s understanding of the beast resulting in his transformation back to human. ‘the tiger’s bride’ offers the reverse: in beauty’s acceptance of the beast, she transforms to be animal-like like him as well. this appears almost as an act of solidarity. perhaps an incredibly modern reading of carter’s metamorphosed characters is as an allegory for transgenderism. discussions around gender identity during the 1970s in britain, even in second-wave feminist circles, were more concerned with rejecting and redefining traditional gender roles than they were with the personal identity of individuals, so we can assume this was not carter’s intention when writing these stories. however, ideas of physical transformation, and how proximity to the ‘Other’ can ‘radicalise’ one’s own identity are very fitting with treatment of transgender people both historically and presently. genres that stem from the late gothic, namely sci-fi, have been known for using metamorphosis as an allegory for marginalised identities, using physical transformation as an allegory for ideological or emotional transformation. a prime example of this is lana and lilly wachowski’s series ‘the matrix.’ written as a trans allegory, the movie series criticises the social pressure for conformity the way carter does and attempts to explicitly recharacterise trans people as an innocent non-conforming identity rather than a threat. carter’s exploration and reproval of established values similarly tends to centre around ideas of gender, making this reading not entirely unreasonable. she suggests that societal fears surrounding gender identity and liberation are unfounded.

ultimately, carter paints various traits and identities that are widely considered ‘threatening’ to be multifaceted and liberating instead, as she views the established values that they ‘threaten’ to be restrictive and in need of changing. the matrix represents these established values with ‘agents’ who attempt to hide the true nature of the world from the population. in the preface to the bloody chamber collection, helen simpson writes that 'human nature is not immutable, human beings are capable of change', arguing this point as the core of carter’s gothic subversions. she suggests through her writing that what is perceived as a social threat is often based upon what is uncomfortable rather than what is actually dangerous. her work is partially ambivalent in that it does not instruct what is right or wrong, but instead depicts societal relationships and allows the audience to interpret it.

the matrix achieves a similar result, with gothic elements and subversions supporting it’s messages.sci-fi takes gothic settings, ideas of liminality, decay, transgression and the Other, and recontextualises them with in the hypothetical far future. traditional gothic settings such as the ruins of decadent mansions become abandoned high-tech buildings. the binary between conventional and transgressive shifts from being a contrast between catholic ideals and more modern behaviours to being a contrast between those profiting off capitalism and those suffering from it.

implicit in the matrix’s notion of discovering a newer world more true to reality is the idea that ‘different’ or ‘unconventional’ experiences and identities are not threatening, but liberating. the matrix suggests we can unlearn our villainisation of trans people, and does so through the use of various gothic conventions. to begin with, gothic texts are often written to reflect the cultural anxieties of the moment. lilly wachowski has stated that the movie was ‘born out of anger at capitalism and the corporate structure and forms of oppression.’ the late nineties in america was certainly a time of tension for lgbt people. frank rich sites ‘the homophobic epidemic of '98...spiked with the october murder of matthew shepard’ as an era of extreme difficulty for the lgbt community in the usa. this hostile environment is reflected in the nature of the matrix’s ‘agents’ and their insistence on maintaining the illusion of free will that comes with the false reality they push. they are in no way open to ideas that differ from their own and actively come down on those who suggest them. this anxiety for the lgbt community is reflected in the movie; the anxiety itself is expressed through a combination of subverted and traditional gothic tropes. gender itself is a topic highly relevant to the gothic. the wachowskis utilise binary oppositions, the most obvious example being the red pill vs blue pill’ scenario. the movie poses a stark contrast between two approaches to life: ‘the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth, by taking the red pill, or remaining in contented ignorance with the blue pill.’ its interesting for a piece that is intentioned to deconstruct binaries to construct this binary, but it does serve a purpose. this binary serves as a device to show, allegorically, the experience of trans people in western cultures. belinda mcclory’s character, switch, is a specific representation of the gender transition process. in the matrix she appears as a woman, and in the real world as a man. while the wachowskis may not have had the creative freedom to include an explicitly transgender character, this was the closest and most specific hint they could have given the audience, right down to the character’s cratylic naming. switch’s experience presenting as both man and woman, and only one of her presentations occurs in the ‘true reality’ that is representative of people’s true natures and personalities. this use of metamorphosis mimics the way many trans people must present as their assigned gender at birth in public, and their true identity in private, that their physical body and their perception of themselves when they have control of their appearance are not necessarily aligned. this parallel relies upon the binary consisting of a false reality and a true one to illustrate its point.

it has also been suggested that the red pill is representative of a hormone pill, and many viewers have likened neo’s mental restlessness to gender dysphoria: ‘what you know you can't explain, but you feel it. you've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. you don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.’ these small parallels coalesce to form the movie’s representation of the trans experience in a way that is arguaby subtle to the cisgender viewer. neo openly rejects being called ‘mr anderson’ or ‘thomas anderson’ from our first introduction to him. he replaces his given male-coded name with something seemingly androgenous for his own comfort, and ‘mr anderson’ almost serves as a deadname, which only the agents who enforce a false reality use to refer to him. agent smith uses neo’s two names to frame his two separate lives very distinctly; ‘one of these lives has a future, and one of them does not.’ with an understanding of the trans subtext of the movie, this appears as a thinly veiled reference to the difficulties openly trans people face. coming out, in most places in the world, can result in loss of employment, loss of contact with family, and so on. as put by lili wachowski, ‘transgender people without support, means and privilege do not have this luxury. and many do not survive.’ agent smith appears to be warning neo of the dangerous of living as his true self, insistently referring to him with his given name rather than his chosen one, even if just for bureaucratic reasons. neo’s name is a vital to his defiance against both agent smith and the false reality he seeks to maintain:

agent smith:

you hear that mr. anderson?... that is the sound of inevitability... it is the sound of your death... goodbye, mr. anderson...

neo:

my name... is neo.

in defiantly maintaining his chosen name, neo pushes for the true reality to be accepted and understood. this is motivated by the fact that ‘i don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.’ this is an instance of neo taking control, by asserting his identity. the high stakes of this scene mimic the high stakes that trans people face in asserting their identities in an unaccepting social climate. the movie also acknowledges the public perception of trans people as a threat: ‘i know that you're afraid... you're afraid of us. you're afraid of change...the matrix is a system, neo, that system is our enemy.’ appearance vs reality is yet another key aspect of the gothic that is utilised in the matrix, and the narrative forces the viewer to consider whether they would accept a harsh reality or prefer total ignorance and accept what appears in front of them.

the movie’s treatment of violence against its protagonist is particularly relevant to the gothic. typically, queer-coded men or people of colour in fiction experience physical violence allegorical to the way female characters are written into sexualised danger: for trauma-based character development. violence against minorities in media, specifically gothic media, is often symbolic rather than just plain horrific. female, queer or bodies of colour are seen solely as political identities, so the violence they face is violence against an idea, not a person. queer or queer-coded men like neo are often feminised to a certain extent, even if its simply rejecting the title ‘mr’, to allow the violence against them to be symbolic or political rather than personal. often with cisgender, heterosexual, white or male characters, any cruelty they face is considered to be senseless and is characterised as brutal, pure violence, as their bodies are simply allowed to exist as bodies without a political statement attached to their existence. they are not making a statement or defying standards simply by having bodies. the gothic specifically uses symbolic violence in its later stages, and it is often faced by characters who are ‘Othered’ such as frankenstein’s monster being faced with angry hordes of people, or the suicide of jennet humfrye, the titular character of the woman in black who had a child out of wedlock. this symbolic violence in the matrix is particularly relevant to the above scene between agent smith and neo, where neo’s retaliation involves not just physical fighting but defiance over his own identity.

setting in the matrix is quintessentially modern gothic, and is an integral part of characterising the differences between appearance and reality. the real world and the matrix are characterised both by their physical appearance and the characters associated with them. the whole movie is shot with relatively bleak green, grey and blue tones; the unnamed cities in the matrix were filmed in sydney, australia, but are supposed to appear as a city that could be located anywhere. this makes viewers somewhat comforted as the cities appear familiar, but their association with the antagonistic agents makes it difficult to truly identify with them. in contrast, the real world appears cold, crude and difficult to survive in, but is home to a crew of sympathetic rebels that the audience is supposed to root for. the city of zion is all harsh metal and can feel like a very temporary, unsafe residence but scenes such as the party in matrix reloaded characterise it as a place of community. the duality of each setting is typical of the gothic, and allows the viewer to explore the complexity of the movie’s conundrum. no option is the easy, immediate or obvious choice. the viewer must consult their own morals and values. ideas and anxieties surrounding moral decay are vital to the narrative of gothic tales; the genre explores and seeks to define humanity, and doing so often involves ethnocentric set of morals associated with good and bad. concepts like metamorphosis, identity, and the rejection of religion or christian/western ideals all play into this, but this is where modern gothic’s acknowledgement of complexity reframes things. most developments described as ‘modern gothic’ apply to sci-fi as it is an extension of, or evolved from,1960s-1990s gothic.

in presenting the aforementioned topics as multifaceted, the genre is able to imply or sometimes directly suggest that the ways in which presentations of them differ from established values is not immediately threatening, but simply different or even sympathetic. the matrix almost reverses traditional expressions of transgression by suggesting that those seeking to maintain the status quo are enforcing restrictive and immoral ideals, and that those whose agendas differ from the status quo are seeking liberation. this appears very similarly in angela carter’s previously mentioned work, exemplifying the parallels between sci-fi and the gothic. ‘the matrix stuff was all about the desire for transformation but it was all coming from a closeted point of view.’ lilly wachowski states. transformation and metamorphosis are topics so in line with the content of the gothic, allowing authors to explore and compare different states of being in order to eventually, sometimes implicitly, condemn one and promote the other. in reference to how she was drawn to use sci-fi as the medium for this story, she says that ‘we were existing in a space where the words didn't exist, so we were always living in a world of imagination.’ things that cannot work in our social climate can be allowed to work in an imagined scenario, with imagined consequences separate from the real world, similarly to the gothic’s use of the supernatural as a vehicle for taboo actions and values.

the wachowskis select science fiction tropes that are core to the gothic as a medium for the matrix’s allegorical meaning: taboo subjects, metamorphosis, binary oppositions, moral questions and stark settings. the matrix arguably serves as a bridge between the two genres, while also being unmistakably modern in its support of trans people and its open criticism of capitalism and social systems. this is not to say that earlier texts do not argue similarly points, but that the popularity of the matrix means that these points and messages are widespread and consumed by a massive audience. the movie was released in early june of 1999, and by august 2000, the matrix dvd had sold over three million copies in usa, making it the best-selling of all time. its unlikely that those three million dvd owners had all interpreted the movie the way the wachowskis had intended, as is the case with all media, but their anti-capitalist and pro-lgbt rhetoric was still present in the movie and has become glaringly obvious to more viewers over 20 years beyond its release date. using binaries as a tool to deconstruct other binaries is a device used more and more within sci-fi and the exploration of morals, systemic structures and the role of lgbt people are both vital to both genres. trans people are originally characterised as ‘Other’, but are rightfully humanised and encouraged to pursue their true identities: ‘to deny our impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human.’

i.k.b

[itsclydebitches]

Yang forgetting Ironwood helped her so she willingly made the decision to rat him out to Robyn (which she then “forgot” to blame Ruby for the whole mess, and then “forgot” that to argue with Ren when he wanted them ALL to take responsibility) is one of the reasons you are most definitely right about the show just forgetting those civilians who got blasted off the rainbow road.

You know, RWBY's tendency to "forget" lots of different things aside, this list really emphasizes why canon!Yang (not fanon!Yang, still love her) has steadily become one of the least likable characters in the series for me. A summary of her major character beats would include:

Adores her "Super Mom" and is supposedly defined by both this loss and the need to help raise her little sister, but doesn't mention her again until Volume 8

Admits she has no reason to be a huntress other than liking adventure, but is never forced to confront this and figure out what she actually wants out of life, not even when the fate of the world is suddenly attached to her choices

Loses her arm and goes through a long arc to accept this new part of her, only to announce later that it's just "extra" and doesn't matter. This indifference includes ignoring the community she's now a part of/the disabled man who greatly assisted her, as well as the sudden disappearance of PTSD

Supposedly spends her entire life, since she was a toddler getting lost in the woods, searching for her biological mother only to decide that she only cares about her sister now

Listens to her biological mother anyway. She has no reason to trust her, claims to hate her, is outright told to question the information she's given... yet takes her perspective at face value, to the extent that she comes into Haven raring to accuse Ozpin

Demands "no more lies or secrets" from him even though, at this point, Ozpin has not lied or kept secrets from her. The transformation was Qrow's secret to divulge, along with his semblance

Appears to be grappling with Blake leaving at the end of Volume 3, but everything is fine once they're back together. Is mad that Blake expresses a desire to keep her save, but everything is (again) fine once they kill Adam. It's a dual issue of the story not acknowledging when Yang is being unfair (why does she get to go home to recover, but Blake doesn't?) while also just... not resolving these things

Is indifferently cruel to Oscar for a whole volume, from screaming in his face to only caring about Jaune after he attacked the kid

Is one of the most furious at Ozpin for keeping Salem's immortality a secret, but turns around and immediately helps keep that secret from Ironwood

Her justification for this is that they can't just trust people blindly anymore, but is the one to suggest that they blindly trust Robyn instead

Puts the blame for all this solely on Ruby's shoulders, ignoring her part in this mess and her continued promises to follow Ruby's lead, but then gets furious at Ren for expressing the same concerns

Tops off this question of trust by laughing along with everyone else at Emerald's speech despite being pretty much the only one to raise concerns an hour ago

Is told by her father that she relies too much on her semblance and puts both herself and others in danger by rushing headlong into situations. Volume 8 she revs up her semblance, rushes in, and "dies"

Is at the center of RWBY's one, presumed queer couple within the main cast, leading to numerous issues which complicate all of the above

Yang is... a mess, frankly. And not in a "She's a complex, multifaceted character" way, but a "The writers don't know what they're doing and it has severely hurt Yang's character" way. She comes across as a massive hypocrite, callous towards most everyone not in her small circle, yet is simultaneously trusting to the point of foolishness. We're supposed to believe that Yang is mistrustful of the established ally who gave her her arm, but is buddy-buddy with the woman who framed her and orchestrated the killing of the friend sitting beside her. We're supposed to believe that Yang has little knowledge, no emotional connection, and a healthy distrust of Raven, but believes all her lies anyway. We're supposed to believe that Yang is beginning to question whether it's a good idea to follow her little sister without question, but that she'll tell Ren he's just pushing everyone away when he agrees that things are indeed bad right now. A better written show might, for example, explore how Yang's instinctual desire to defend her sister is bumping up against her own concerns, but with what we've got, Yang is just a different character every couple scenes. She's constantly contradicting herself, changing for no reason, or staying static to the point where the audience is wondering what the point of previous arcs were, all of which makes her so frustrating to watch. I'll agree with Yang one episode, only for her to have done a complete 180 the next, with no acknowledgement of this change. Or she's spouting views that blatantly ignore everything else that's going on, making her appear to be in denial at best, but the story won't acknowledge that either, instead framing her as 100% correct. Far from being the emotionally rich character she once was, a young woman on the cusp of growing up - deciding what she wants in life, learning to reign in her temper, finding some independence from her sister, recovering from a trauma - Yang now is just... angry and hypocritical, at least when she's not with Blake. And that relationship continues to be marred by both the lack of a queer confirmation and the inconsistent way that the rest of Yang's character is handled. Yang just isn't a person I like anymore, even though it's obvious I'm supposed to. But I look at her actions and attitude across Volumes 6-8 and see someone who is impossible to get to know because she's changing her mind every ten minutes of screen time, leaving a string of confusing, hypocritical, and at times downright cruel decisions in her wake.

[sybilmarlowe]

Since I joined the One Piece fandom, I was asked different times which character I ship with Doffy the most. Given I'm usually into self insert things, I'd firstly go with "my OC, of course 😛"... But let's talk about what I think of Doffy's most famous ships 😁

DISCLAIMER: all of what follows is TOTALLY my own opinion, don't want to judge anyone who thinks differently than me. OP is a fictional world made of fictional characters and anyone can ship whoever they likes!

So, here's the ships:

Doffy x Viola

Ok, let's start with what many people's don't want to hear: this ship is canon. Yeah. Like it or not, it's a matter of fact.

I honestly like them together, they're a weird couple but somehow they work. I like to imagine how could have been the dynamic between the two of them, and I'm more than sure there was nothing abusive from Doffy's side. I mean, sexually at least. I agree with the fact destroying one's whole life and Country is pretty abusive, but I'm quite sure the feelings between Doffy and Viola have been real for a while. Maybe the concept could sound trivial, but no one chooses who to love and Doffy has many characteristics which may definitely make a person fall for him. Not totally sure HE has ever truly loved her, but I like to think so. After all he does have a weak side and Viola might have been one of the few (even thanks to her powers) who managed to see it and knowing him deeply. This surely strenghtened their bond and it might have finally resulted in love...

My vote is a 8/10

Doffy x Cora

This is incest. I know. And it's indeed problematic and controversial. Irl a thing like this isn't exactly acceptable.

BUT as I told before, OP is pure fiction, so... I have to say quite like them tbh. In my opinion, as long as a relationship is adult and consensual there's nothing deeply wrong in it IN FICTIONAL WORLDS. (I know, there are fanfictions in which their relationship is abusive, but since we’re talking about headcanons here I like to think it’s not). Have you watcher GoT? Cersei and Jamie were one of the best written pairings in the whole series, the same goes for this situation imo, we have all the conditions to make this ship a sensible one.

They’re a realistic couple cause they went through a lot of difficulties together and, even if they chose different paths of life, their bond is very very deep. Their love is a desperate one, like “you’re the only one in this world I can REALLY trust”. This from both sides. The difference is that Cora is a pure person who just want to love and being loved while Doffy... well, he’s not exactly mentally healthy and he’s like “all or nothing”.

A lot of angst and stuff, of course, for this reason my vote is 7/10

Doffy x Crocodile

I’m sure someone out there is going to want my head for what I’m about to write, the DoffyxCroco fandom is huge after all... but... 

I don’t like this ship at all. 

Given one can ship two people with no reason or just because they wear matching colours and look good in fanarts (?) imo DoffyxCrocodile has no sense. They interact, yeah, but nothing about their dialogues or shared scenes makes me thing they could be a good couple. Even that most famous encounter at Marineford which made fanpeople scream... They looked just like contenders who quite disliked eachother, nothing less and nothing more :/ and Doffy saying “I’m jelous!” just gave me the same vibes of a childish sacrastic way to piss off a person, pretty much like the stupid classic “you fight like a girl!”. 

They’re aesthetically beautiful, nothing to say, they’re both among the most handsome characters in OP  and have a similar story, so I’m not saying I don’t understand the reasons of those who ship them... Just... I want ships to be stronger and more credible than this :/

6/10 just because they look good in fanarts XD

Doffy x Luffy 

This is pretty diffused, but..... why. 

I mean... what happened between the two of them which could have made them fall for eachother?? D: Have you ever tried to date a person after trying GearFourthPunch them out of the troposphere? °A° (Also, Luffy could LITERALLY be Doffy’s son. This is weird. Not the weirdest thing, but still.)

Srsly... If you like them together I ask you to tell me which dynamics are there behind this ship. Cause I really can’t see WHERE do you see even a little trace of feelings between the two of them D: 

Sorry D:

3/10 

Doffy x Law

Gods, yes. YES.

This ship HELLA works from every single point of view. Doffy and Law are two of the most (if not THE MOST) well written characters in the whole series. They have a complete and complex background, a deep and multifaceted personality and, above all, an extremely strong bond. 

Ship them or not, they’re literally OBSESSED by eachother for different reasons.

 Law is the ONLY man Doffy considers almost his equal, he thinks he’s like the only person worth being his right hand man and I’m quite sure he’s galvanized by the idea Law is the one who’s gonna sacrifice his life to make him immortal. Like... a great life to complete an even greater one? This is insane. And yet beautiful. 

On the other hand, Law’s thoughts have been completely centred on taking revenge on Doffy for 10 years. Like, he was literally obsessed by that man, consumed by the hate he felt for him which obscured anything else, even his maniacal good sense in the end. 

Turning this all into a tragic and tormented love story is as easy as drinking water. A long-term reciprocal hate mixed with a deep admiration for eachother (even from Law’s side, after all Doffy was the one who thaught him almost... everything?) which slowly turns into something terribly different. Imagine the tension between two arch enemies who have to admit their hate melted into passion... and yet still have this latent feeling of wanting the other’s death.......

Don’t know what’s your opinion about this kind of stories, but for me, the self proclaimed Queen of Angst, in love with the most tragical Theatre and Literature... THIS IS GOOD STUFF. 

10/10 HANDS DOWN.

Doffy x Trebol 

What tHE ACTUAL F***K. 

-10/10 

Doffy x Bellamy

Please, no. 

Alright, I hate Bellamy. He’s exactly the kind of character I find terribly pathetic and incomplete. He barely has a personality of his own, he’s a wild fanboy with nothing original (not like Barto. Barto is the best fanboy ever. All my love goes to Barto.). 

Now, he spent all his 34 years of life trying to... imitate Doffy? And yet he doesn’t even manage to truly understand him. So he’s worse than a fanboy, he’s attracted to the idealization of a man who’s not even half of the things he expects him to be. This is sad. Really sad. And call me a sadist, he deserved being humiliated imo. Maybe this helped him open his eyes and getting a life. Seriously. 

It goes without saying I totally can’t see how a relationship between him and Doffy could work. Doffy despises him, the only kind of plot this thing could have is a quite abusive one :/ and since I deeply dislike abuse.... no. This ship is totally out of question.

0/10

Doffy x Monet

This is another ship which barely touches the canon. I sincerely think the "love" between the two of them is pretty much unilateral. Doffy respects Monet, he deeply appreciates her abilities, intelligence and loyalty, she's clearly among his closest subordinates, but... He doesn't love her in a romantic way. As for Monet, she's totally in love with him, she'd kill and die for him. And in fact that's what she does in the end.

Monet is not among my fav characters, but I still feel quite sorry for how things went for her. She gave her everything away for a helpless, almost obsessive, love.

If something between the two of them really happened for real, I think it was merely physical.

For this reason, tough I have to admit they'd actually look beautiful together, I can't ship them :/

5/10

Doffy x Vergo

Ok, I dislike Vergo. He's quite a flat character imo, don't even like his design 😅 I don't ship him with Doffy for this simple reason, but being honest they could perfectly work as a couple.

Vergo was among Doffy's very first "real friends", he was among those who were considered a family by him and, most importantly, he was the only one around his same age. They literally grew up together, likely supporting each other, and I wouldn't be honest if I said this has no chance to be a good assumptipn for a love story. A quite simple and basic one, if you want, but it's the most realistic kind of bond two people can make.

Still not shipping them, my vote is a honest 7/10.

Guess that's all?

Let me know what do you think about this 😆 do you agree with my votes? Or there are some points you totally disagree with?

Well, anyways. I had fun 😂

[abysscronica]

2/2 By “choosing” this relationship with her kidnapper (haha get it? Kid-napper?) she is able to freely make that decision and effect the situation she’s in and gain a feeling of security in that she is in control of what she wants. By falling for Kid and accepting that he’s fallen for her back she is effectively creating a situation where she knows she holds some sort of power of him. (Again it may not actually be Stockholm syndrome and all of her feelings may be 100% genuine but I just like to look at possibilities from both sides especially in stories where there’s so much up to interpretation)

Oh dear, 😅 I was also going to talk about her relationship with killer and the crew and about how you used the flashbacks to tell the story of her and Aokiji’s relationship, but even though these are just thoughts and ideas spurred on by a rereading of only the first chapter I feel like I’ve rambled on for long enough haha.

(I’m sorry if I’m looking too much into this story and sounding crazy trying to analyze it like this and try and connect dots and make conclusions where there are none, but when I love a piece of media I love to look as deep into it as I can and make theories of why I think things are the way they are even if I know it’s not that deep and I’m just sounding nuts. Over analyzing is how I show love basically haha. This is actually the first fanfic I’ve ever have such layered views about and that I felt like looking into how certain things could be interpreted adds to it as an experience. And it’s also what made me love the kid pirates so thank you for that! So yeah, I’m sorry this went from “hey this is what I liked about your story” to “the way in which you write makes me want to delve into the mindsets of these characters and makes me think of them as very complex multifaceted individuals who’s situation can be viewed by a million different angles and still be amazing” I know you didn’t ask for an essay about a fan fiction of an attractive angry pirate, but I hope you can find some kind of enjoyment or amusement from reading the ramblings of a fan of your work!)

(Also on a final note I’m sorry the text from my last ask was so large I have no idea how that happened 😅 so I hope this is better!)

Here we go!

First of all let me say that there can be more than one interpretation to birdie's behavior and personality, this is the whole reason why I don't always draw clear-cut lines: I love to see what you guys feel about it.

If I may add something to what you've said about birdie and her own perception of control/freedom on the Victoria Punk, let me say that the environment she grew up in plays a role as well.

Being in the Marines for around a decades constricted her actions and way of thinking into the tight ranks of a military organization, so she never had much liberty to begin with. The ways around a Pirate ship are actually much looser.

Then there's the fact that birdie was always ill-suited to follow the strict rules from the Marines and respect her superiors, to the point she was infamous for not always following orders. BUT, because she felt she had chosen that life herself, and because she didn't want to disappoint Aokiji, she always forced herself to wedge in. She limited her own freedom.

On the contrary, as a prisoner of the Kid Pirates, she didn't feel any obligation to them. Sure, she was much more vulnerable and in a very dangerous position. And yet, ironically, she is mentally much freer than she ever was in the Marines. She doesn't feel she owns any respect to the pirates until they earn it, and she doesn't feel she has to follow any rule until they force her.

It's true that, as you said, at times she seems to "forget" her position as a prisoner, but in the back of her mind, she's always acutely aware of it: she uses the very concept against Heat, during the crisis caused by Drake, when he urges her to have food and she asks if he's "forcing her" to eat. And later she almost embraces being a prisoner when Kid puts the bracelet on her to re-establish their roles and put her at ease (that she is not a pirate).

So the thing is, is she really choosing a relationship with her kidnapper, or is she just looking for an excuse not to be the one to choose?

This opens up a Pandora box on how messed up she is, so I better stop here. 🥲

Just one word on the power balance between Kid and birdie. Even here, the lines are blurred, and I'll leave to the readers to decide who holds the most power and when (obviously it's Kid most of the time, the interesting part is guessing if/when it shifts). One thing I can say though: I don't think birdie ever cared for "fixing" the bad guy. She never tries to make Kid a better person, not even with herself (or hardly so). It's just that she occasionally thinks to be immune to the monster, just because she got to experience some more hidden, softer parts of him. And then she's violently reminded that she's not, you already exposed this very well in your own words.

I hope this is interesting for you and I touched all the points you wanted! :D

I'd love to know what you think about the relationship between birdie and Killer, please don't ever limit yourself if you wanna talk to be about stuff!

Thank you again for this exchange, it's fun!

[esther-dot]

The Warrior and Maiden could also be interpreted as Jaime Brienne . Cersei isn't a maid .

(in response to this ask)

Absolutely! Jaime (warrior) did rescue Brienne (maiden). My point was, these characters revolve through different roles depending on where we are in the story or even who is perceiving them. So, Brienne is a maid (literal), she is certainly a version of the maiden for Jaime (the role), but she is also a warrior. One doesn’t detract from the other, she’s multifaceted. I was going to talk about duality in another ask, but I’ll mention it here. One explanation of it is this:

Martin really likes this. The series title has one “A Song of Ice and Fire,” but he writes duality into the story over and over. Cersei and Dany are mothers (life) and also the stranger (death). I truly think Martin looked at these contrasts (that are standard in fiction) and decided to take a much more complex view of them. I didn’t mean Cersei isn’t who she is, just that Jaime’s “I know who she is and I am a victim” view isn’t something we’re meant to totally adopt, and I don’t think it’s the final verdict on how Jaime sees Cersei either.

IMO, Jaime is the warrior, but he’s also the stranger just as Cersei is. His big moments were attempting to kill Bran and pre-canon killing Aerys. Think about that. The Bran attempted murder was evil. But then we learn that killing Aerys saved the lives of the people in KL, so murder, being death, is another means to preserve life.

And of course, we have Dany "give birth" or bring dragons to life, and we know, actually what she did was bring death into the world and we see that in a much more explicit way with Melisandre. Martin just likes to complicate things and prevent seemingly opposite ideas from being distinct, so taking an absolutist interpretation of a character as this one thing and only that doesn't quite feel right to me. I think he is consciously moving his characters through these roles/evolving them, and wants our perspective to change or at least...develop along with his revelations.

So, for Cersei and Jaime, I didn't mean Cersei is his "maiden" as in virgin, I meant, I think she may once again occupy that role in relation to him. He rejects her/refuses to, but my previous anon was talking about the end of GoT, and I didn't think it was wrong to see that warrior/maiden idea play out there because it did. None of us know exactly how their ending will go in the books, but I think their relationship needs a resolution because he wasn't able to protect her from Robert, didn't go back to her when she asked, so it wouldn't surprise me if the end of their relationship involves him assuming the role he thought he had before but actually never truly occupied in relation to her.

I'm not a Jaime/Cersei shipper, and I do think Jaime/Brienne is romantic, but that's where I'm at right now. Thanks for the message, anon!

[televised-dreams]

im making this post because i just want to rant how genuinely good tma is?? ok before this i have been in the worst fandoms for horrible shows that queerbait and kill off any sort of representation and literally just have horrible plotlines and horrible ideas and any time i would get invested in something my interest would die out bc of just. another queer character getting killed. the show is all white people. the show was canceled because it was actually pretty good at its diversity content and that’s not okay,,, why give lgbtq ppl nice things??

but the magnus archives?

it’s a full length, VERY, VERY WELL WRITTEN, story, with a vast variety of characters that can be imagined in so many different ways. 

it has queer romance, but not shittily handled queer romance, an actual slow-burn sort-of-enemies-to-lovers queer romance that is so well written that it makes me just cry because of how happy it makes me. this is what i’ve been wanting for YEARS. it’s not just a “oh let’s make the fans happy” sort of thing! that’s a big thing too! it’s actually built up over years and years of character development where it’s not just a random fanservice thing, it’s an essential piece to the plot and storyline!

 the characters are so well developed, so complex, multifaceted. the horror is so well done. idc if anyone disagrees with that point, bc imo, the horror is so, so, so, well done. i have been legitimately terrified by so many of those episodes. i have developed Trypophobia (not joking i literally cant stand small holes now). season 5 especially. episode 177 i think is the scariest for me i stg that one was SO INCREDIBLY WELL WRITTEN i just had to sit down afterwards and be like HOLY SHIT. 

the representation isn’t shoved in your face like *character stares directly into camera* “yes i am Gay”, no, it’s inserted into the media as it would be done in real life. that’s so huge, because it’s representation, but GOOD REPRESENTATION. THESE CHARACTERS ARE HERE, IN THE STORY BECAUSE THEY ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE PLOT, AND THEY ALSO HAPPEN TO BE LGBTQ!!!! that’s so so so BIG. I love that. Its so important to have characters like that because like lgbtq ppl exist irl,, they shouldn’t just be used as plot devices!!

martin being continually described as fat, or at least not as “averagely skinny” and jon having ridiculous amounts of scars also makes me happy too!! although the scars are a part of his trauma and therefore are sad, stillllll as someone with scars myself, it makes me feel better about it knowing there are characters like me out there!! i can’t talk as much abt how martin’s weight representation impacts me, as i am “average sized”, it’s not really my place, but i can say that i just love seeing the representation of different sized bodies out there. 

personally, I can’t talk on the race aspect of things, and how jon is characterized by the fandom as a poc as i am white as hell and it is not my place. i know there are varying opinions about that, so anyone that is POC that wishes to make their rant in a reblog, feel free :D!!

[kinsey3furry300]

Three awesome post-GoT series I would commission if I owned any of the Big three Streaming platforms.

Yo! Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+, you have a problem: there are nerds like me who want to give you even more of our time and money, but you’re not making the stuff you should be.  Following the hugely disappointing end of “Game of Thrones”  there are a huge number of sci-f and fantasy nerds who are currently not getting our fix of epic adventure, and rather than commission a whole bunch of cool series that are just begging to be made to cash in on this, you’re all just sort of doing your own things. And that’s Cool, I’m loving the Netflix Witcher series and Disney’s Loki, and looking forward to the Amazon Middle Earth series with a mix of hope and trepidation (please be good), there are, however, a whole mass of cool book series that are just begging for release in an episodic fashion, and what’s more, I can think of which series plays to which streaming platforms strengths. And unlike Game of Thrones, there are series where running out of source material to adapt shouldn’t be a problem.

So, three sci-fi or fantasy series that play to the strengths of the big three Streaming services, as suggested by me, a big ol’ nerd. One: Amazon Prime. Strengths: successfully adapting darker comic-book or Urban fantasy works Like Preacher, the Boys, Good Omens and American Gods and making a profit. Weakness: has never successfully pulled of a big Grimdark fantasy series, despite having all the talent to do so because they’re working on the Middle earth series, which doesn’t seem a good fit for their brand image as the place you come for for comically dark works, and all their adaptations are too much of a slow burn, which necessitates padding the source material (look at how little happens in any episode of Preacher or the Boy vs the insanely fast pace of the comics). Solution: Malazan, book of the fallen. A deep, insanely dark, insanely Epic story that would actually lend itself to a slow burn and the grim-dark over the top violence of other Amazon shows, and fill the “Tit’s and monsters” gap left by GoT in many of our hearts. And unlike Tolkien, I have faith that the studio that cast Sweary Karl Urban as Billy Butcher could actually pull this off with the correct tone and feel. This would have the Witcher fans from Netflix defecting in droves, and could also pull in some new viewers who might enjoy the anthropology and political intrigue of this complex, multifaceted world.

 Two: Disney+. Strengths: near infinite money and ambition, the production team behind The Mandalorian and the MCU, great Hollywood clout to draw in big name stars, but willing to cast talented unknowns, the best mix of live action and CG in the business. Weaknesses: It’s Disney, so they can never go full grim-dark: they can imply or infer dark acts, but need to keep what’s shown on screen PG13 to fit their brand, which rules out a lot of modern fantasy. And they have no true fantasy serries in their stable.

Solution: Brandon Sanderson’s Mistborn, and other Cosmere works.  A rare example of an excellent current fantasy and sci-fi writer who isn’t grimdark as heck, and manages to convey dark and adult themes by implication and hints rather than outright showing them, this is pretty much the only big fantasy series out there that is aimed at and enjoyed by adults but remains consistently PG13. It’s also so epic and super-hero-ish in this various magic systems, that I can’t see anyone other than the team behind the MCU pulling off a live-action version of this that doesn’t suck. In addition to this, the logical starting point for this, Mistborn, is by far the safest and most marketable, coming the closest of any of his works to a standard young-adult plot with Vin as an easily sell-able character to studio brass, being to all intents and purposes Katniss Everdeen with super-powers, which could get a big studio invested  and convinced this is a good idea before we get to all the “lets kill and replace god” stuff. If Mistborn was successful, other Cosmere works could follow, and I could see something like the Stormlight Archives working really well with the MCU effects team behind it, so long as they don’t white-wash it: No one on Roshar is white other than in Shinovar, and half of the cultures are based on either Polynesian or far eastern traditions, so cast Hawaiian, Māori, native American and east-Asian actors, and it could be both a great series, and also the most diverse Disney has ever done. You want a new, easily marketable but epic scale franchise, Disney? It’s right here.

Also for the love of god, do Wax and Wayne. I just need this, okay?

 Three: Netflix. Strengths: good at tapping into the prevailing nostalgia of Millennials and producing works that speak to them on a relatively small budget (see Stanger Things) and good at grabbing the rights to adapt good but slightly obscure works cheaply. Good working relationship with a ton of Japanese Anime rightsholders. Weaknesses: By far the smallest budget of any of the big three. Tends to produce awful live-action adaptations of beloved works (to the point that the Witcher was a pleasant surprise), but has good relationships with lots of animation studios.

Solution: Animorphs, but do what they always should have done and animate it. It boggles my mind that anyone would every try to pull this off in live action, as the transformations, which are the heart of the series, would be so hard to pull off well (look at the 90’s series). And yet, I’m aware they’re making a film, but dear god, why, when K A Applegate said form the get go that this series of books were written specifically as if they were a 90’s Saturday morning cartoon. This was always meant to be adapted as a series, not a long form film. So, don’t try to modernise it, or relate to “The kids” don’t whitewash the cast, don’t edit out the gore and body-horror, but lean into the 90’s and early 2000’s angst of it, and go balls to the walls insane with the concept. What music do you have playing for this scene? Is it Every day is exactly the same by Nine Inch Nails, and if not, why not? Do the transformation sequence genuinely scare you? No?  Then you’re doing it wrong.  Is that a happy ending? Get that the hell out of there. Go for the original time period and concept, and go hard, and if you do it now, you’ll just hit that sweet spot as the rolling 30 year nostalgia cycle moves out of the 80’s and into the 90’s. And as an apology to all the bad live-action Anime you produced, Netflix, get a Japanese studio to animate this: the Animorphs books were popular in Japan, with wonderful hand drawn illustrations throughout. Get Studio Orange on this: Beastars proved they can do flowing, fast-moving combat well, and make animal and other non-human characters look good, and what’s more they’d probably be up for it: Animorphs is basically a western Shōnen,  so the market for an Anime of it would exist in Japan.

 So there we go, the three series I would commission if I ruled the world of streaming sites. As ever, tell me why I’m wrong below, and have a great day!

[p-and-p-admin]

Interview given to The Severus Snape and Hermione Granger Shipping Fan Group.  (sharing here Admin approved)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/199718373383293/

Hello Oracle Obscured and welcome to Behind the Quill, thank-you for letting us get to know you a little better.

Many readers will know you already and if they don’t I encourage them to look your works up including Teaching Miss Granger and How I learned to love teachers’ meetings

Okay, let’s jump right in.

What's the story behind your pen name?

Hmmm ... that’s kind of a weird answer for me. I wanted to choose a name that didn’t immediately indicate whether I was male or female. I’d noticed a certain freedom afforded to authors of indistinguishable gender. With no societal construct about the “nature” of the creator, the story stood on its own, without prejudice or conditioned expectations.

I brainstormed about six or seven names and then picked the one that appealed to me most. I’ve always felt drawn to the idea of oracles (those who see beyond). And I definitely felt obscured in that department. (Hell, at the time, my whole life felt obscured.)

Which Harry Potter character do you identify with the most?

I don’t know if I do. I guess if I had to pick, I’d say Hermione, as I have a tendency to be an obsessive perfectionist when it comes to work/studying. I like to be organized and plan things out. And I can be quite demanding and harsh with myself when I feel like I’m not measuring up to my own insane ideals.

But I took that openpsychometrics.org statistical quiz a while back, where you answer like a bazillion comparison questions (I did the longer version), and my highest HP match was Remus Lupin (83%). Yeah, I can see that.

Luna is my favorite character, but I don’t know if I identify with her more than anyone else.

Do you have a favourite genre to read? (not in fic, just in general)

It used to be horror/suspense, but ... I don’t know ... I’m just not as into it anymore. Maybe it’s because the real world is horrifying enough without adding fictional monsters to the mix.

Now I mostly read classics.

Do you have a favourite "classic" novel?

To Kill a Mockingbird.

At what age did you start writing?

Just writing stories in general? Maybe second grade. It wasn’t a passion or anything, just something I was pretty good at. I only really did it at school, though, not so much at home. I read A LOT growing up, so I naturally imagined that I might be an author one day. I tried to write a book when I was about 13 or 14, but less than one chapter in, I decided it was too hard. (I was NOT a Hermione growing up. Planning and perseverance were not my style.)

I took a massive break from thinking after high school (the smorgasbord of medications I was on didn’t like me using my brain too much, and my plans for college went out the window when my depression become unmanageable). I didn’t really start writing again until I was about twenty-seven. That was when I found fanfiction. I consider that when I really started writing.

How did you get into writing fanfiction?

I found fanfiction while looking for erotica. Needless to say I discovered the motherlode, and I was hooked. Over the years, I’d written bits and pieces of my own sexy scenarios (which is what you do when you grow up without the internet and you have to depend on your imagination for all your kink requirements), but I’d never really thought about taking someone else’s “story world” and using it as my setting. For a little over a year I read/devoured all the HP fanfiction I could, and then I realized I could take all the fantasies in my head and play them out with my favorite characters.

The first story I wrote was a funny/smutty Ginny/Draco thing, and it was HORRIBLE. The story and the sex were fine, but the writing was a nightmare. I submitted it to The Restricted Section, which was the only site I knew at the time, and they vetted their stories, so I had to get approved. They wrote me back saying it needed work and I should get a beta. So I went on the forum and found one (which was rather brave of me now that I think back). The person who helped me must’ve had the patience of a saint, because he/she(?) never said a damn thing about all the mistakes and shitty-ness. Suggestions and corrections were made, and I changed some of the pronouns to names so it wouldn’t sound so repetitive. The next time I submitted it, they accepted, and I got a decent response for a first-time writer (like three or four nice reviews). No one seemed to hate it, and the reviewers said the sex was hot, so I tried again, hoping to do better.

That’s when I wrote the first chapter of Teaching Miss Granger. It started out as just a oneshot. And it got a much better response. I wanted to write more, but I became extremely depressed and lethargic, and I didn’t really do anything for the next six or seven years. (I mean nothing. Unless you consider watching every episode of Law & Order CI and SVU ten times over to be an accomplishment.)

I came back to it years later, intending to add a few chapters to TMG where they have sex, but ... it just sort of evolved into the monster that it is. I worked on it pretty much every day for about a year. I’d never stuck with ANYTHING that long in my entire life.

What's the best theme you've ever come across in a fic? Is it a theme represented in your own works?

I would say love or “the power of love” is probably my favorite theme. But that includes synonyms for love as well. (Like wholeness, which is the theme of Quartet.)

What fandoms are you involved in other than Harry Potter?

None. I like other fandoms, but I don’t write for them, and I don’t usually read their fanfiction.

If you could make one change to canon, what would it be? Do you have a favourite piece of fanon?

I’ve never really thought about changing cannon. I mean, I change it to suit my fictional purposes (like Snape lives etc.), but I wouldn’t want to change canon for real. The deaths in HP serve a purpose, and while I find many of those deaths heartbreaking, that’s kind of the point. Hatred is bleak and destructive, and good people don’t survive wars simply because they’re good; bad things happen to good people all the time. As for changing something about the individual characters, I can’t get behind that either. The reasons people do things are multifaceted and complex and they’re colored by a lifetime of experiences I will never know or understand, so I don’t feel I can really judge. I can’t say I understand all the choices I’ve made in my own life, and there’ve been plenty of times where I had no choice at all. I can’t hold others to more rigorous standards than I myself can meet. We all have our shortcomings. (And that’s cool. Without them, there would be no growth or diversity.)

Do I have a favorite piece of fanon? Hmmm ... probably Head Boy and Head girl rooming together or having private rooms.

Oh! And uniforms.

Do you listen to music when you write or do you prefer quiet?

I used to listen to really quiet classical music while wearing headphones. Every little sound in the house distracts me, and I have to block it out. But lately I’ve just been running this old box fan that drowns out the noise.

What are your favourite fanfictions of all time?

Crap, I don’t know if I can choose. (Plus I feel like I’ve forgotten a lot of what I’ve read.)

My friend Desert Sea is my fav Hermione/Severus writer. Out of her stories, the ones I like best are In Their Hands and At the Headmaster’s Discretion.

After a brief search of my accounts, I’ll go with:

Do Not Go Gentle by senlinyu

Another Dream by dragoon811

The Last Twenty-Four Hours of Severus Snape by CryingCinderella

Pretty much everything by Aurette

Pet Project by Caeria

Post Tenebras, Lux by Loten

All the SS/HG stuff from snapeslittleblackbuttons

There’s a Teddy Radiator story that I like a lot, but I can’t remember the name of it. (Or what it’s about.) (Yes, very helpful, I know.)

And in a category all it’s own is Farmer Granger and the Most Glorious Cock by MyWitch. (Seriously, I read this like once a month and it makes me laugh every time.)

I read a lot of Drarry too. Drarry stories I love:

Everything by bixgrl1, but especially Balance Imperfect and In Evidence of Magical Theory

Everything by lq_traintracks (even the non-Drarry stuff). The writing is amazing.

I love all the advent stories by Saras_girl.

I like all the Drarry stories I’ve read by Faithwood.

I really like RZZMG’s writing. (No particular story or pairing.)

And I just rediscovered a story I found in 2007 (the first m/m fic I ever read). It’s a Snarry, which I know isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but it was excellent. Snape: the Home Fries Nazi by pir8fancier

Are you a plotter or a pantser? How does that affect your writing process?

I enjoy a bit of both. My oneshots are all pantsed. TMG was totally pantsed. But Getting Personal and Quartet were both plotted and planned. For GP I did sort of a chapter by chapter synopsis before starting my rough draft, and for Q I went into even more detail—EVERYTHING was planned out ahead of time. The only thing that changed during the first draft was I ended up combining some of the chapters.

How does plotting affect my writing process compared to pantsing? It streamlines it. In a oneshot there’s not much to streamline; the basic story (or general idea) is all you really need. There’s not enough story to get muddled. But when I’m writing something longer, with multiple chapters, I find it’s better to know where the story is going. How deeply I go into that planning can vary. Sometimes there’s just a basic outline of the major plot points and then I fly by the seat of my pants from there. Sometimes I write out a very rough synopsis (sort of like a short and loose first draft) and then start writing as if it’s my second draft. Things inevitably get changed once I really start writing, so the planning isn’t set in stone by any means, but when I plan, the story goes in the general direction I intend without veering too far off course and there aren’t any plot holes. After I wrote TMG (with no planning) I saw that there was A LOT I could have cut or combined without affecting anything important. I learned a little more with each story I wrote, and when I got to Q, there was a lot of complicated ideas that I wanted to incorporate, and there were so many characters (and character arcs) going on that I had to plan extensively to make sure everything fit together. If I hadn’t worked it out ahead of time, it would’ve been like throwing a heap of puzzle pieces on the table but not being given a reference picture to know what it was I was working toward.

What is your writing genre of choice?

I have no idea. Plotty sex? Erotic dramady? Some of it is just straight up PWP, but I usually like to have something meaningful in there too.

Which of your stories are you most proud of? Why?

Usually the answer is whatever I’ve most recently written, as it’s the most likely to represent my current “best.” In terms of writing, I’ll go with A Brush with Magic, but Quartet is probably my best storytelling. A lot went into that (symbolism, planning, obsessive re-writes) and it holds a good deal of personal meaning to me. So, I guess I’ll go with Q due to the time and effort involved.

Did it unfold as you imagined it or did you find the unexpected cropped up as you wrote? What did you learn from writing it?

The unexpected always crops up (even with all my planning), and it’s the unexpected that makes the magic.

While I had many insights into my own nature while writing Quartet, in the end I think it taught me to trust/listen to myself more.

Later, however, it brought me a very different message. While writing it, I felt a lot of tension and anxiety; I wanted to “do it right” and present my story in the best light. But after some time away, I realized I’d been so worried because I felt as if that story represented me, as if it defined me. And the pressure of being judged worthy or unworthy had been eating me alive.

But I don’t feel that way anymore. Now it’s like I wrote all my stories in another lifetime. While they all might be a snapshot of a fraction of my mind, nothing I create ever says a damn thing about who or what I truly am. Since letting go of that, I’ve found a sense of freedom around writing. I still like to express things as clearly and beautifully as I can, but it’s more a celebration of words than a search for acceptance.

How personal is the story to you, and do you think that made it harder or easier to write?

Quartet was extremely personal to me when I wrote it, and in a lot of ways I think that made it easier to write. When I have to go strictly by imagination, I feel as if I’m missing some depth of understanding (like I’m getting the surface-level stuff, but missing the nuance). When I write from experience, it has an entirely different quality. Richer. More intimate. It’s work to write what I don’t know, but it’s easy to write the truth.

Posting, however, is an entirely different story. Other people don’t always want the truth, and if you feel like your story is an extension of you, it can hurt to have any part of it rejected.

What books or authors have influenced you? How do you think that shows in your writing?

I think everything I’ve ever read or seen has influenced me. In terms of writing, I guess I’d say I’m inspired by beauty in all its forms. When I first started reading fanfiction, I just searched for the kinks I liked; it was all about the sex (with bonus points for having a decent plot). Then one day I read an extremely well-written PWP (I don’t remember what), and the way the author described the sex was so unlike anything I had ever read, it totally blew my mind. It was art. Exquisite art. And before that, I didn’t know sex could be art. That author didn’t just recount the characters’ actions, they painted a word masterpiece—they turned porn into poetry. THAT was what I wanted in my life. And I didn’t know it until that moment.

Books/authors that stick with me:

The Harry Potter series (obviously).

Shel Silverstein (Love the poetry, but The Giving Tree is one of my favorite books of all time.)

Dr. Seuss (Always.)

Judy Blume (I still have my copy of Are You There God it’s Me Margaret from when I was, like, 10. Tiger Eyes is my favorite of hers.)

R.L. Stine (I got hooked prior to the creation of the Goosebumps series, but I had EVERY Fear Street Book he wrote when I was in middle school.)

Weekend by Christopher Pike (This was the first YA thriller I ever read. *Sigh* memories. I still have my original copy, and I still read it every once in a while. The characters and plot are great.)

Stephen King (Carrie is my fav.)

Anne Rice (I’ve read all the vampire and witch books, but The Witching Hour is the only one I’ve read multiple times. Blackwood Farm is my next favorite.)

To Kill a Mockingbird

Charles Dickens (David Copperfield is my fav.)

Jane Austen (I can’t pick between Pride & Prejudice and Sense & Sensibility.)

Thomas Harris (Brilliant writing, and Hannibal might be one of the most intriguing anti-heros ever.)

Stieg Larsson (Another brilliant writer with a brilliant character.)

The Giver by Lois Lowry (I haven’t read the rest of the trilogy. And I haven’t seen the movie. I refuse to besmirch my childhood love with Hollywood’s interpretation.)

Bridge to Terabithia (This book devastated me as a child.)

Gillian Flynn (Sharp Objects is my fav.)

Liane Moriarty (I like all of her books, especially Big Little Lies. The way she plays with the timeline is masterful.)

Frank Herbert’s Dune. (I grew up on this. It’s my dad’s all-time favorite book. And, yes, we’re looking forward to the new movie.)

Margaret Atwood (The Handmaid’s Tale is horrifyingly wonderful. And Atwood herself is fascinating. Watch her Masterclass if you get the chance.)

Steinbeck’s East of Eden (This might be my second favorite book.)

The Lucifer Effect by Phillip Zimbardo (This isn’t fiction, but it was the first book that really affected the way I see the world.)

Eisler’s The Chalice and the Blade (Also not fiction. If you’re interested in the divine feminine and a more egalitarian society, this is the book for you.)

Loving What Is by Byron Katie (The only self-help book that’s ever actually helped me.)

Daphne Du Maurier (I love Rebecca, but she also has a story called “The Blue Lenses” that isn’t really intended to be scary, but it freaked me the fuck out.)

The Secret History by Donna Tartt (Gorgeous writing, and the plot left me seriously disturbed.)

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey (Gah! I love this. The writing and the story and the characters and EVERYTHING!)

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury (I Bradbury’s writing style, but the plot of F451 is pure horror for any book hoarder lover.)

The Lord of the Flies by William Golding (This might be my third favorite book ever. No, wait, I might like it better than East of Eden. I can’t choose!)

The Diary of Anne Frank (How in the hell could anyone read this and not be affected by it?)

Do people in your everyday life know you write fanfiction?

No. This is my own private world, and I like it that way.

How true for you is the notion of "writing for yourself"?

Very. I write what I want to read. There are certain adjustments I make when I write for other people as opposed to what I do when writing strictly for myself, but nothing major. I refuse to write things I have no interest in, and I don’t write to make people happy. I write to please myself. (But it’s nice when what pleases me pleases others. It’s wonderful to share that connection.)

How important is it for you to interact with your audience? How do you engage with them? Just at the point of publishing? Through social media?

I like hearing from my readers. I don’t have a lot of time to interact, but I like talking to my audience and listening to their insights. I try to reply to all the comments I get on AO3 (it’s just too hard on FFN). And when I have free time (which isn’t often) I check my FB groups to see what’s going on. To me, the interaction kind of completes the creative cycle; it helps me set the story free and allow it to be. It really belongs to the reader once I’ve published, and it’s nice to see the ripples creativity creates.

What is the best advice you've received about writing?

Unless it’s absolutely necessary, stop using the word “was.” Completely changed my writing.

What do you do when you hit writer's block?

It doesn’t really happen that much, as I usually know where I’m going with my story, but there can be glitches between scenes or times when I can’t find the words for something (like ending a chapter). When that happens, I usually just leave it and come back later—I can’t force it if it won’t come.

If I really need to get it done for some reason, I read what I have over and over, adding a little bit more each time, trying out words that “sound right” and building what I need bit by bit. What I come up with isn’t always right or what I want, but at least I have something to work with. Sometimes seeing what’s wrong makes what you want more obvious.

Has anything in real life trickled down into your writing?

Yeah, just about everything Sex, depression, anxiety, personal growth, likes/dislikes, insights, interests, philosophy, all my little neuroses. Every once in a while I’ll even include some dialogue from real life.

Do you have any stories in the works? Can you give us a teaser?

I’m juggling about five long stories right now (plus a couple oneshots). And I haven’t worked on any of them in ages. I don’t know what’s going on with me; I’m just not in the mood. I don’t want to say what they are, as I might never finish them. (Two are Drarry and three are Sevmione. One is a compilation of oneshots. Four of them are completely planned out and just need to be written. The unplanned Drarry was always just meant to be for myself and I doubt I’ll ever release it.)

Any words of encouragement to other writers?

Yes. Enjoy the whole writing/creative process as much as possible. Try not to beat yourself up, and don’t try to force yourself to be better. You will naturally get better the more you write. Change is inevitable; allow it to happen. Read books about writing, and read good writers. Notice what brings you the most pleasure when you read and tap into that same pleasure when you write. Play with words and ideas just for fun. Watch and see what appears. There is no perfect.

If you’re writing about sex (because I get asked about that a lot), write what turns YOU on. Don’t try to be sexy. Don’t try to write what you think other people want to hear. Don’t worry about what other people think (at least in the first draft). If they don’t like it they can go read something else. But if YOU like it, it will shine through in your writing, and that will have a bigger impact on your reader than any activity you describe. Also, the physicality is only a fraction of the sexual experience. Don’t turn your sex scenes into a play-by-play. You’re not really writing about what the characters are doing so much as how what they’re doing affects them. It’s a personal experience, and the more personal you make it (the more honest and vulnerable you are as a writer) the more satisfying the story will be for your reader. Wise words! Thank-you so much for speaking with us today Oracle Obscured.