#Seeing one aspect of a relationship as more compelling than others isn’t bigotry.

[cipher99]

@catdownthestreet I am most definitely *not* aphobic nor am I devaluing platonic bonds between characters. I am merely stating that these two don’t fit either bill, or at least not in a way that would be effective representation for either by themselves.

I also understand queer representation in any positive context is important, especially these days, but a romantic relationship between these two doesn’t exclude any of that.

Indeed, there are many, many LGBTQ+ people who do see this pair in a romantic context and thus related representation. Mariner is confirmed pan and many believe Boimler is queer coded. These people might even comprise the majority of shippers, here. Doesn’t their perspective matter?

Nobody has indicated this duo have to be viewed solely in a romantic context. We’re just saying it’s the latter that is the most compelling to us.

I further believe I’ve cited enough examples of the interactions between these two to preclude any notion of a distinctly “sibling” or “parent/child” dynamic here as you alluded to. I also don’t believe I’ve been insulting to anyone who actually does have such a relationship. Again, I have zero issue with those. I just simply don’t see either, here. If you do, that’s your prerogative.

It’s clear you don’t see Marinler in the same context as us, and that’s okay. To each their own. But to insist that we can’t be insulted by a few members of the former production team trying to invalidate what we saw, what they created, after it’s all said and done is frankly absurd. It’s not up to you to decide what is or isn’t insulting to us just as it’s not up to us to decide what is or isn’t insulting to you.

I’m sorry if my words have made you uncomfortable, but this isn’t about you, it’s about us.

After DS9 concluded there were also folks who said what Garashir shippers feel isn’t valid, that the representation they saw wasn’t real. But they persevered, as will we.

I understand you probably don’t mean to come off as condescending, but you do. Whatever we feel is just as valid as what you feel.

I’ve recently seen some interviews where a few of the now-former production team are insisting Marinler is strictly platonic. In one, the shippers are even acknowledged and it’s claimed the pairing has the potential to be canonized in an “alternate universe.”

While it’s certainly nice to at least be acknowledged, I still have to insist the narrative they’re trying to manufacture off-screen and after the fact is completely counter to what was conveyed in the show itself.

Long stares, fond looks, a heavy co-dependency, very, very frequent physical contact and a strong need for physical closeness, interest in each other’s dating lives, mutual admission of physical attraction, flirtatious dialogue and teasing banters, insight and knowledge into each other not matched with anyone else, etc.

It’s even been established they have a bond that transcends universes and timelines.

Little of the aforementioned apart can be read as “platonic.” All together just as we got in this show, not at all.

Not sorry, McMahan and crew; the show’s over. You can’t rewrite the entire dynamic of two characters after the fact.

[segasister]

Simple Romance Writing Tips:

(Adapted from my twitter, but better organized)

You have two protagonists, not one. Both need focus and development. Both are agents of desire, not objects of it.

When it comes to perspective, both protagonists’ points of view are important. Remember: both are agents of desire, not just objects of desire. You can go with dual First Person POV or Omniscient Third Person POV. You decide what’s easier for you.

One character shouldn’t change for the other. Both should grow with each other. For example, while a rebellious character learns to become more sweet, their uptight partner needs to learn to become more relaxed. The best partners help you grow as a person.

Don’t end the story when your protagonists get together. It’s not only overdone, but it ends before the bigger story can begin.

You can build tension in a relationship without involving abuse (physical/emotional/etc.) or forcing a break-up (either temporary or permanent) between the couple.

That in mind, couples do have their struggles, from the mundane to the more more dramatic.

You don’t need high stakes to create a compelling story. You just need some conflict present.

Don’t forget to add in sweet moments as well (PDAs need not be overly mushy). Remind the audience why they’re together in the first place.

Grand gestures are, well, grand. However, the little things (like helping each other with tasks) can be just as romantic.

You know love languages? Use some combination of all five of them in your story. Every person expresses love differently, and you should reflect that. What are the five love languages? Words of Affirmation (“I love you.”), Acts of Service (Helping your partner put groceries away), Gifts (A stuffed bear won at a fair), Physical Intimacy (Cuddling on the couch), Quality Time (Playing video games together while a long distance apart).

Opposites attract, yeah. However, there’s no shame in having characters be alike in many ways as well. Hell, have your couple be different in some ways but alike in others. Just about every relationship, from romantic to platonic to familial, is like this.

There is concern with having your characters, “being defined by their relationships,” ie. having their only trait be, “X’s partner.” However, that shouldn’t happen if you write your character similarly to how they were when they were single. However, don’t forget that growth.

Don't have one character in your relationship revolve around the other (what, "only letting them be defined by their relationship actually means.") In real life, that could be a sign of one partner isolating the other from friends, family, et cetera, an abusive tactic. (More on that below.)

The above also applies to same-sex/polyamorous relationships. Just because it’s not straight, doesn’t mean you treat them different.

Just because you’re writing a story about abuse/bigotry/incest/etc. doesn’t necessarily mean you’re endorsing said things. It’s only endorsing if it’s not shown as a bad thing.

Want to avoid accidentally writing a toxic relationship? You can start by not writing the following power dynamics: Large age gap (adhere to Age / 2 + 7), Huge difference in life experience, Master/Boss + subservient, Celebrity + fan, Literal powers + little/none. Almost all of those can work if the one with less influence/experience/power has the opportunity to match that and eventually take care of themselves should things go south. If they’re not, they’re in an abusive relationship. Physical/Sexual violence need not apply.

One partner shouldn’t be a caretaker for the other. Sure, both must care for one another, but one partner shouldn’t do all of the caring. On the one hand, the one not doing the work is lazy. On the other hand, the carer could be doing this to make the other dependent on them.

If you do intend to write a toxic relationship, make sure it ends either with both partners maturing, either by seeking counseling or ending the relationship. This is especially true if you’re writing an abusive one. However, as in reality, it is a process. Take your time.

People heal from such relationships in different ways. Some choose to seek a new partner, some don’t. Some choose to devote their passion elsewhere (like career or family). What’s important is that they come out better than they were in the relationship. Some… don’t heal, and end up continuing the cycle, by being a victim again or by becoming an abuser. This could work if you intend on writing a tragedy. An abuse victim becoming an abuser themselves or ending in another abusive relationship isn’t a happy ending.

On that note, you can write sad endings. However, tragedy doesn’t necessarily have to end with death. Characters should leave the story changed, no matter what, but a tragedy has to end with them going through a negative change; any, not just them dying or losing a loved one.

Opposing that, writing comedy is hard. There’s a fine line between humor feeling natural and forced. Try to stay on the former side of that line if possible. I find it’s best to write humor by not trying to. You do you, but remember that humor is in the ear of the beholder.

On the subject of love triangles: Make sure both rivals have their own good qualities so it’s not one-sided/between two awful people.

Make sure it ends in a way that satisfies all parties. How you do so is up to you. (Don’t pair your leftover with the protagonist’s baby.)

Romance can be affixed to other genres as well. Slice of Life, fantasy, sci-fi, historical, etc.

The difference between Fantasy and Sci-Fi? Magic vs. Science. Both require the creativity to pull the genre off, but both can take place in a variety of settings. You can write a Pirate Fantasy or a Sci-Fi Western. Maybe you wanna to combine both Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Try it!

Do your research! If you’re basing your story on a time period in a specific place, do your research on what it was like then. Scientific accuracy also helps when it comes to research (for Sci-Fi). Even fantasy requires research, if you wish to include real world elements.

On that note, lore and continuity are not interchangeable. Continuity is making sure plot points remain consistent. Lore is making sure world building stays consistent.

Age is just a number. However, don’t pair teens with adults, or barely-adults with grown adults. The rule of Age / 2 + 7? That also applies here to ensure audiences don’t feel too queasy.

That being said, you are allowed to start the story with your protagonists as kids.

On writing minorities: don’t rely on stereotypes, and don’t write minority characters just to have them. They deserve proper development as well.

Don’t be afraid to have people of two different races together; just be careful that neither protagonist comes off as racist.

On that note, research the people and cultures you wish to write about. Be careful so as to not come across as using said people/culture as a token.

Don’t just focus on the physical/sexual aspect. Sure, physical attraction plays a part, but the personality of both protagonists are more important. How well they get along.

On the topic of sex: it’s entirely optional. There’s plenty of ways to show intimacy without having your characters engage in sex. Just have them enjoy each other’s company. You’re still open to if your audience is more mature; just don’t forget sex isn’t the only option.

Speaking from experience: you can have love without sex. But you cannot have sex without love. (That’s rape!) It’s a, “not every rhombus is a square but every square is a rhombus,” scenario. However, if you just wanna indulge yourself with your work, go for it.

There's a fine line between objectification and expressing sexual agency. It's okay for characters to show pride in that. It's okay for characters to take pride in their modesty.

Promiscuity isn't inherently a bad thing. Abstinence isn't inherently a good thing.

Play around with relationship dynamics (childhood sweethearts, enemies to lovers, etc.)

You want to write a particular romance dynamic? Go right ahead: just make sure it makes sense with the characters you're writing first. Also, some are harder to pull off than others.

When writing Enemies to Lovers, keep in mind it's not an instantaneous progress. Give the enemies time to stop being enemies before you can move on to the, "Lovers" stage. Otherwise, you'll be asking yourself the same question you ask when you see sitcom couples who clearly hate each other and are only still in it for sex/their kids: "Why are you together?"

Another popular dynamic: childhood sweethearts. Just be careful not to write them like siblings (have one see the other “like a sibling” so to speak) and you should be good.

Whatever dynamic you choose, however, don’t be afraid to experiment, bring something fresh to it.

There’s nothing wrong with having a niche, nor is there anything wrong with expanding your horizons and trying something new and taking a risk.

You don’t want to write romance? You just want your protagonists to be platonic? That’s fine.

It’s okay if you don’t have everything planned out ahead of time. It’s okay if the story strays from that initial plan. Go with it. Improvise. Adapt. Outlines help you keep on track, but your story should feel alive to the audience. Changes to the original plan are natural.

Write for YOU. Yes, it’s satisfying to hear feedback, especially positive feedback, but it’s important to write for yourself.

On criticism, be open to it, but there’s a difference between constructive criticism and just vitriol from the reader. Only the former is important.

On writer’s block: if you need to walk away for a bit, go ahead. Maybe an idea will pop in the meantime. 

It’s okay to be ashamed of what you wrote in the past. That shows you’ve grown as a writer. It’s also okay to have unfinished drafts. They can be repurposed.

Most important when it comes to writing in general, not just romance: be happy in your work. You’re gonna have off days, but only you’ll know if it’ll be worth it in the end. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to move on to another creative field, or any other altogether.

Any other authors have any tips to share? Doesn’t have to be about romance; they can be about any part of the writing process! I will reblog this post with that advice and will tag you! Or you can reblog yourself.

[panharmonium]

I would like to add Gwaine to the list of friends Merlin had. Especially in the 3/4 seasons he really was ride or die for Merlin, they shared intimate details with each other, they truly trusted each other. There were instances where the show alluded that Gwaine knows about Merlin's magic and is fine with it.

hi there!  i’m assuming this is in response to the post i reblogged about will and lancelot being merlin’s only “real” friends?  

i’m actually happy to write about this, now that the question has been posed - it’s been a while since i wrote anything long about gwaine!

fair warning in advance: i don’t personally classify gwaine the same way i do will and lancelot, and that’s what this piece will cover in more detail, but these are just my own thoughts, and it is totally cool for everybody else to have different opinions.  my take is my take, but it does not have to be everyone’s take - if people wanna scroll past because this isn’t their vibe, i don’t mind in the slightest. :)

so, without further ado - i LOVE gwaine, and i have written extensively about how amazing his relationship with merlin is (some examples here, here, here, and here, if anybody’s looking).  he is the most likely of all merlin’s living friends to ditch arthur in the name of addressing merlin’s needs, which is super important, and he also has a much healthier friendship with merlin than arthur does (in my own personal opinion, of course, which nobody is obligated to share).  he definitely does go ride or die for merlin in S3/S4, i agree.

but my own thoughts on this particular point are still the same as they were in that original post.  i tend to hide my clarifications/explanations in the tags, so they might have flown by, but i’ll just copy/paste the relevant bit here for ease of access, as some background for the rest of this post.

re: will and lancelot were merlin’s only ‘real’ friends:

#what this does not mean: merlin has no other friends!  merlin doesn't have meaningful and important relationships with other people!   #what it does mean:  #every single one of merlin's other relationships is undergirded by the sickening knowledge that those friendships are conditional   #every single one of his other relationships is accompanied by the constant undercurrent of 'they would hate me if they knew'   #merlin knows his friends 'care' about him   #except they don't really; because it's not truly him they're caring about   #they care deeply - about someone merlin made up   #about a facade.   #in the most basic sense   #those relationships aren't Real   #the love merlin feels for the people in them is real   #but you cannot truly be 'friends' with somebody who doesn't even know who you are   #you cannot be loved without being known   #you certainly cannot be loved without being safe

obviously i suppose a person’s thoughts on this would be different if they headcanoned that gwaine knew about merlin’s magic, and that’s fine.  i personally do not believe canon indicates or supports that, but i’m not out to convince people to abandon their own fanon interpretations of things; i’m happy just hanging out in my own space talking about my thoughts.  me writing meta is the virtual equivalent of me talking to myself in my room - if other people have different conversations with themselves, that’s fine :)  i don’t mind if other folks organize their thoughts about things differently.  

in accordance with that - everybody please feel free to continue on with your own interpretations, and ignore mine if mine do not appeal to you!  if people are interested about how i organize my ideas on this, though, they are essentially as follows:

1) a cage fighter, a class traitor, and a fake sorcerer walk into a tavern

ok, to start with - here’s a graph.

(...who tf starts a meta post with ‘here’s a graph’ lol i just drew a venn diagram for the first time since like...middle school...i LOVE fandom, man, this is RIDICULOUS)

anyway

this is a very rough interpretation of how i think about gwaine, lancelot, and will:

to address some of these elements individually:

lancelot and will give merlin something that gwaine can’t - safety, authenticity, the comfort of being known and seen for real, a respite from constantly qualifying every friendship with ‘they would hate me if they knew’

lancelot and gwaine, likewise, give merlin something merlin wouldn’t be as likely to get from will (if will were still alive, i mean) - an understanding of merlin’s devotion to the Crown, a supportive ally in the fight to promote arthur’s reign and keep arthur/camelot safe

will and gwaine, for their part, are more likely to tell arthur to go fuck himself, if it’s important for helping merlin, and that’s a different kind of support that merlin also really needs.

and will, on his own, gives merlin something that neither lancelot NOR gwaine can provide, which is a friend who isn’t connected to or even particularly interested in arthur pendragon (merlin has nobody in his life like this, not after will dies) - somebody who knew and cared about merlin before merlin had any proximity to arthur, before this whole ’destiny’ issue reared its merciless head.

everybody in merlin’s life matters to him and gives him something important.  gwaine is STUPIDLY important to merlin.  the love there is real.  but in canon, because gwaine is not in the know, gwaine is still one of the people from whom merlin feels compelled to hide himself.  gwaine is right up there alongside gwen, arthur, elyan, percival, etc - every other person who merlin loves, who merlin nonetheless constantly, back-of-his-mind fears, ‘they would reject me if they knew.’

the above is part of why i personally have never been too interested in ‘so-and-so knows about merlin’s magic’ canon-imaginings.  there’s absolutely nothing wrong with them, and i’m sure people must have tons of fun with them - and in an AU context maybe i would have fun with them too - but as hopeful interpretations of actual canon, they don’t appeal to me.  merlin’s near-total isolation and desperate, constantly-frustrated desire for real, honest love is an inalienable aspect of his character for me, one i can’t separate from who he is and why he does the things he does and why he eventually ends up in the place where we find him towards the end of the show.  

2) i just want someone to see me for who i am

i have seen a bit of sentiment out there along the lines of ‘merlin should have told (x person) about their magic’ or ‘(x person) obviously doesn’t have a problem with sorcerers,’ but i guess i personally don’t think it’s as clear as all that, and i think me saying it is would be doing merlin a disservice.

merlin’s desire to be seen/known/accepted is literally the most base urge he has.  if he truly thought he could tell somebody safely, he would.

i think merlin knows the people in his orbit well enough to know how they feel about sorcery, at least in a general sense.  and even if they aren’t bloodthirsty bigots like uther, they aren’t exactly welcoming magic with open arms, either.  at the most basic, elementary level, merlin understands something that we don’t like to think about: none of his friends ever challenge arthur on the sorcery ban or express any dissatisfaction with the political status quo, and, even absent outright bigotry, this fact speaks loudly enough in and of itself.  merlin’s friends might not be out clamoring for sorcerers’ blood, but they aren’t criticizing a society that criminalizes sorcery, either, and they are never shown to have a problem with the way things are, even though the way things are is wrong.

The Way Things Are is, in fact, unjust.  it’s oppressive.  and allowing that state of affairs to continue, unquestioned and unchallenged, when you have access to the king’s ear and aren’t personally in danger of being persecuted, indicates that you’re okay with the injustice.  that you’re comfortable with the oppression.  that you don’t see a problem with the status quo, and that you're unbothered enough by it to let it be.

it doesn’t matter that merlin’s friends have never straight-up said ‘boy, magic sure is evil’ onscreen.  they never say that camelot’s policies are wrong, and that delivers a clear enough message on its own.

3) it is not a crime to fight for your freedom

to bring this back to gwaine specifically, since that was originally the focus of this ask -

for me, for all that i adore gwaine, and for all that i think he was, for the most part, an INCREDIBLY sound, healthy relationship for merlin, the truth is that gwaine is as much a part of this problem as everyone else.  does that mean i personally think gwaine would have summarily dumped merlin if he’d found out merlin had magic?  no.  but i don’t think it’s as uncomplicated as maybe we wish it might be, and i think merlin has every right to be as uncertain of gwaine on this issue as he does of everyone else.

for one thing, like i said before, even gwaine, who used to have fewer qualms than any of the knights about pushing back on arthur’s BS, has never said a word about camelot’s injustices, or ever acknowledged that the laws of the land are unjust to begin with.  

for another, there are specific moments that kind of make you wonder.

5.05 (’the disir’) is a good example of this - when gwaine finds osgar in the woods, the two of them have this exchange:

you are a sorcerer, a heretic, and a murderer.  

the rhetoric of this sentence frames all three of these things as equivalent entities - criminal ones.  

to pick this apart more carefully:

a) sorcerer

it’s worth noting here that we’re never told osgar has done anything worse than evading arrest for the crime of being a known sorcerer.  when leon mentions him in the council meeting, the conversation consists solely of the following:

“as you know, a few days ago our garrison in the forest of breckfire intercepted the man who goes by the name of osgar.”

“the sorcerer.”

“the same.  they were trying to apprehend him when he used his powers to escape.”

and…that’s it.  osgar’s crime, as far as we know, was simply being a sorcerer (and then, after that, attempting to escape an unjust arrest, thereby killing a knight in the process).  there’s no mention of any other activities that would have warranted his arrest in the first place, other than the possession of magic.

but magic, even on its own, IS a crime in camelot - and gwaine levels the accusation at osgar as such.

b) heretic

that’s a hell of a word to throw around, if you think sorcery is chill.

“heretic” isn’t a mild accusation.  "heretic” has vitriolic severity behind it.  people are accused of heresy when they’re perceived to be in brazen defiance of what is (in the eyes of the accuser) unquestionably right and correct.  “heretic” is like…it’s like blasphemer.  the connotation is not just that something is bad, but that it’s sinful.

for gwaine, either osgar’s association with sorcery and/or his defiance of camelot’s army makes him a heretic.  and that’s not something a person who is down with sorcery or supportive of a magic-user’s struggle for freedom would say.

c) murderer

if gwaine were cool with sorcery, we would expect him to understand that a sorcerer who resisted arrest for the crime of being a sorcerer isn’t a murderer.  

it’s like kara said in 5.11 - it is not a crime to fight for the right to be who you are.

camelot has been killing sorcerers for decades.  osgar mortally wounded a soldier (not an innocent civilian, i might note) who was trying to imprison him.  he was resisting the armed forces of an oppressive state.  that’s not murder.

somebody who understands that camelot is an oppressive regime wouldn’t think of this as murder.  they would understand that it is not a crime to protect your own life when the state has literally been trying to exterminate your people for years.  and even if osgar had been engaged in rebellious activities against the state (which as far as we know is not the case - nothing like this is ever referenced!), they would understand that people with magic have long been overdue for a righteous uprising.  

but gwaine is a little more like arthur, in this moment - he sees the “wrong” that osgar has done (in the form of sir ranulf’s death) without seeing the thousands upon thousands of wrongs that camelot visited upon the magical community first.

4) you can’t go armed into a sacred place

the rest of this episode is similar.  gwaine pays just as little heed to merlin’s warnings as the rest of the knights, when merlin admonishes them that the disir’s cave is sacred.  gwaine doesn’t relinquish his sword or take special care upon entering the cave.  in fact, he is the one who outright interrupts the disir while they’re speaking - as they’re telling arthur a series of hard truths, that he’s persecuted magic-users, “even unto slaughter;” that he’s desecrated their space: “you come here, to the most sacred of the sacred, to the very heart of the Old Religion, with weapons drawn - trampling hallowed relics - treating our sacred space like you do your kingdom - with arrogance - with conceit - with insolence - ”

and gwaine cuts them off, pushing to the front of the group and shouting at them “enough!  you speak of the king!”  and that’s when the fight starts, when mordred gets stabbed.

someone who was fully accepting of magic, or who knew anything about it at all, would not have behaved this way.  they would not have bristled at hearing how arthur’s regime unfairly persecutes the magical community.  they would have known that it was true.

5) i just want to be myself

the above is just one example, but it’s a clear enough one to illustrate what i mean.  gwaine IS an amazing friend to merlin.  he does treat merlin well.  and merlin loves him to death.  but gwaine is NOT totally chill with magic.  i’m not saying he actively hates it, but he is not, from what merlin has witnessed, entirely safe.  merlin loves him, but he can’t be himself around him.

and i do think that pains merlin terribly.  all these people who he loves so much, and every time he’s with them there’s always that whisper: ‘this is a charade.  all the love in my life is a lie.  they only like me because they don’t know me.  if they knew who i really was, this would be over.’  

and we wonder why he never tells anyone.  we tell him he ‘should’ have told gwaine, gwen, morgana, arthur, like it would have been easy, or even possible, for him to ever consider putting himself in a position where he could lose what precarious, partially make-believe connections he has.

merlin, in the later seasons, when he worries about his magic being exposed, isn’t afraid of being executed.  he’s afraid of becoming even more alone than he is now.  and he has good reason to feel that way - even people who appear to put him first aren’t fully on board with the thing that makes him who he is.  and merlin knows this.  he’s seen it.  none of his friends are out fighting for people like him at court.  some of his friends shake their heads and assure arthur “you are a good and just king” when arthur expresses concern that maybe the disir are right, maybe he has indeed transgressed.  some of merlin’s friends used to buck the system in defense of the powerless, but now they defend the regime even when the accusations levelled against it by an oppressed population are true.

merlin knows that revealing himself is a kind of risk that could very plausibly end with him utterly disowned.  every single friendship he has is subject to this justified fear, this bitter knowledge.  merlin has every reason to doubt the soundness of his relationships.

and, circling back to the thing that started all these musings - the only friends who never made him feel that way were will and lancelot.

that’s all i mean when i say that will and lancelot were merlin’s only “real” friends.  i wish there were a better word to use than that, because i really don’t mean it like…as if merlin’s relationships with other people weren’t…valid, or important, or based on true love and care.  they were.  but there’s just not a better way to express that will and lancelot were the only people who ever even knew who they were friends with, who saw merlin for exactly who he was and said “i love you still.”  they were the only ones whose friendship was something merlin didn’t have to be afraid of losing solely for existing.

i always think of morgana’s line in 2.11 - ‘i don’t want to be brave.  i just want to be myself. i don’t want to be alone anymore.’

around everyone else, merlin has to be brave.  he has to keep up the pretense, which means even when he’s surrounded by friends, he’s completely isolated.

with will and lancelot, though, he could be himself.  with will and lancelot, he wasn’t alone.

6) post-script

i really appreciate being given the opportunity to muse to myself about this in more detail - i actually needed to think through some things regarding gwaine anyway, for writing purposes, and this was actually really helpful in organizing my brain.  so thanks, anon, for the prompt!  

i know my answer probably runs counter to your own interpretation of things, but as i said, this is just my own personal outlook.  i typed it up because the message got me thinking, and because i know i have a couple of friends who might find it interesting, but my thoughts apply only to me, and i do not mind at all if folks think about these things differently!  nobody is obligated to agree with anything i write, or give it any further thought, or even read it at all - we’re all going to engage with this story in different ways, so if anybody finds that this isn’t their cup of tea, please feel free to scroll on by, and keep having fun with this show in whatever way makes you happiest! :)

[moriganstrongheart]

On Firefly, Mediocrity and Problematic Media

When I first set to writing this, I intended to write a review of Firefly. I had recently rewatched Firefly and its tie-in, semi-sequel movie Serenity with my fiancée, and I wanted to express my thoughts on it. But I put the original first draft aside after writing two sentences and did not revisit it until months later. By then, I found I was no longer interested in reviewing Firefly, opting to explore issues of underlying misogyny and mediocrity in media instead. I think that Joss Whedon’s work is a good case study for these problems, as he exists simultaneously as a folk hero of sorts when it comes to speculative fiction, and as the harbinger of the now divisive Marvel Cinematic Universe. And Firefly being so beloved by its fans, I think it's worth diving deep into its problems to illustrate my points.

Perhaps the best way to demonstrate Firefly’s problems is in how it appeals to its fans. While I find the character interactions the best aspect of the show, I’m sure that quite a few fans—primarily young, white males—are attracted to the space western setting of the show and all the trappings that come with it. The Verse is filled with guns, alcohol, rape, savages and prostitutes—everything a new frontier needs, or so I expect is the intent. I don’t think these are ever the focus of the show, nor are they something Whedon ever places on a pedestal as ideals to strive for. But they are a part of the worldbuilding, and so were included with intent. There has been a debate for several years among fans of speculative fiction on whether worlds inspired by historical periods or specific cultures should include these so-called “less favourable” aspects of that period or culture, or if the speculative nature of the fiction should allow for their exclusion. I want to make it clear that I am in the second camp; I don’t believe that just because a fantasy world is set in a medieval time period that women shouldn’t be allowed to be knights, or that aliens or people of colour have to necessarily be slaves in a colonial space opera. It is speculative fiction after all, and we are under no obligation to hold ourselves to any supposed cultural or historical accuracy.

This is, of course, ignoring the fact that the cultural and historical accuracies being strived for have flawed origins, having been decided by academics with their own bias, or even maybe their own agenda. I would make further arguments that historical fiction and literature are themselves often coloured by the author’s intent, and so certain aspects are accentuated while others are ignored or downplayed in order to tell a specific story—often to the detriment of minority groups. It’s impossible to divorce bias from one’s work, no matter how objective the work claims to be. This has been proven time and again, evidenced by the revision of textbooks throughout the years.

Regardless, counter arguments to the exclusion of “less favourable” elements are normally that doing so waters down the source material, diminishing its authenticity and, more interestingly, it represents a disagreeable emotional sensitivity on the part of the opposition. This point of view assumes that the opposition is averse to certain perceived realities in the world, and that the narrative they want to ascribe themselves to would be unrealistic and, as such, not entertaining. In reality, all parties are involved in some form of escapism. The outcry for realism is a smokescreen for the desire to keep a specific form of escapism, one which can only be described as a violent, misogynistic power fantasy. The source of this outcry—again, predominantly young white males—sees the inclusion of bigotry and sexual violence as essential to their viewing experience, as they take enjoyment out of them. That isn’t to say that having violence, sexual themes or social inequality don’t have a place in fiction; they just need to have a purpose. Without purpose, they are only there to service the twisted fantasies of the target audience.

For an example that brings us back to Firefly, it never really feels like Irana’s career as a courtesan serves any other purposes than as an excuse for partial nudity, sex scenes and for Malcolm to call her “whore” on the regular. There are times where her position as a high-ranking courtesan opens doors for the Firefly crew, but this is a contrivance of how courtesans work within the Verse, and not a part of the skillset she has accrued to become a courtesan. The only true exception to this—that I can remember—is her role in grooming the magistrate’s son in the episode Jaynestown, which directly affects the primary conflict. Apart from this instance, none of her meaningful contributions to the plot necessitate her being a courtesan. She could have just as easily been someone with social or political clout. However, this wouldn’t have allowed for her to be the ship’s prostitute, there only to drive Malcolm up the wall and have someone he could call “whore” without guilt. As such, it became necessary for Whedon to not only make her a sex worker, but to create an entire system around her which would give her importance to the plot. In essence, he wanted his cake and eat it too. It’s disappointing, as the idea of having a sex worker being an important member of the main cast is interesting enough as a concept to explore. Ideally, this person would be treated with respect by others for their work, and their value should come from them as a person, not from a fabricated social status.

As a side note, I acknowledge that most people in the show respect Inara, but it is because of her fabricated social status and not because of who she is as a person. The only people who respect her for who she is and what she does are women and the one person of colour on the crew.

There are a lot of other small decisions within Firefly that show Whedon’s intent, such as the characterizations of River’s mental illness and Jayne as a character. I can’t help but wonder if Firefly were produced today on HBO or Netflix, if the showrunners would have allowed the inclusion of far more sexual violence and bigotry in hopes of attracting a larger audience. Because while we have collectively become much more cognizant of issues like diversity and the portrayal of women in media, shows with portrayals of sexual violence and bigotry tend to perform better overall. Unfortunately, the vocal minority shouting their preferences on social media only helps to reinforce this trend.

However, I don’t want to make the wrong impression. Sexism, racism, violence and bigotry are not the focus during Firefly’s runtime. In fact, Whedon generally does a good job of representing healthy relationships, strong female characters and positive representation of people of colour. For example, Zoe and Wash’s relationship is very admirable, and Kaylee is perhaps the best character on the show. The problems exist beneath the surface, informing everything from story conflicts to character motivations. Whedon comes off as a guy just wanting to have some fun, someone who is cool and trendy, just rude enough to be interesting, but knowing where to draw the line. Really though, he’s just the best of a bad lot within the entertainment industry. A lot who are, unsurprisingly, white men catering to their younger selves.

As a white man myself, I am constantly checking myself and the works I create to ensure I am providing a compelling story while avoiding trappings indicative of a male power fantasy. Because of the environment I grew up in, it can be easy to rely on tired old tropes instead of thinking of meaningful and interesting things to write. Does that mean that catering to the needs of a diverse audience is too difficult, and as such, is detrimental to the creative process? I don’t believe so, despite what many may believe. If anything, it forces writers to think of novel, more captivating stories that don’t rely on tropes and power fantasies to work. I believe that the reason people have become so weary of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and similar works is because they all rely on a power fantasy to function. I myself have grown tired of seeing the same story over and over, and it is only in the last decade that I realized the reason for this is that most people behind the works I consume are—again—white males catering to their younger selves.

This has led me to question if it’s right for me to have my voice heard at all. Would I not just be another straight, white male entering a space already filled with the same? Perhaps, but I don’t think the intent of fostering diversity in media is to exclude white people. In fact, if people like Whedon were the worst in terms of what white males have to offer the entertainment industry, I think we’d be in a better place. The problem is that the majority of the media we consume today is problematic and doesn’t allow for any variance from what’s trending among a young white male audience. All I can do is hope that shows like Firefly can be used as a learning experience for creating more compelling and varied stories. Stories should rely on interesting characters, worlds and the interactions in between them to be entertaining, and not on fulfilling the twisted power fantasy of the audience under the guise of realism.

[alliluyevas]

Opinion on Vasily Stalin and also! Do you know much more about how Yakov treated Svetlana and how Vasily treated her?

Oh, man, anon, I’ve been thinking about this ask all day nowand marshalling my thoughts. I actually have a lot of really intense feelingsabout Vasili, and they’re all kind of tangled up together in a conflictingmess. I have a huge amount of sympathy for Vasili as a child, and quite a bitfor him in certain aspects of his adult life as well, but ultimately I alsohave huge issues with who he grew up to be and the choices he made with hislife.

This got EXTREMELY long so the rest is under the cut. CW discussion of abuse, suicide, and alcoholism

I’ll start with Vasili as a child, and what I do find verysympathetic and compelling about him. First of all, I think there’s substantialevidence that Vasili had ADHD—he was extremely hyperactive as a child, whichwas remarked on by various observers and apparently a matter of some concern tohis mother, who was concerned about his development. He also really struggledacademically, from the time he started school, having trouble focusing, completinghomework, and procrastinating on assignments. He consistently got failing tomediocre grades, and eventually transferred from a high school for children ofthe party elite that had a more typical curriculum to military school, and thento air force training when WWII broke out. I don’t think he ever technicallycompleted high school. Kids with ADHD or other learning issues still struggletoday, obviously (I should know, I was one of them, which also makes meidentify a little bit with Vasili’s experiences), but for someone like Vasiliwho was born in the 1920s, there was very little support or even knowledgeavailable.

I think this situation really ties into the other two thingsthat made Vasili’s childhood really difficult and traumatic—his mother’s lossand his father’s abuse of him—because it did affect his relationship with hisparents quite a bit.

Stalin clearly viewed Vasili as a disappointment—he oftencalled him lazy or stupid, both to his face and when complaining about him toothers, including to his teachers. (In a couple very sad instances, he reactedto teachers praising something Vasili had done or expressing concern about himbeing bullied by dismissing their view of Vasili and just putting him downagain). He was also physically violent with his son, including breaking hisnose when he was about fourteen. He also often unfavorably compared Vasili tohis younger sister, who was much more academically gifted and “better behaved”.He was very physically affectionate and cuddly with Svetlana when she waslittle, but almost never with Vasili, who was desperate for his father’sattention and approval and probably deeply hurt by this.

Vasili, on the other hand, seems to have been very close tohis mother. Nadya voiced some concerns to her friends about his academic strugglesand hyperactivity, but she was also very supportive and seems to have tried towork with him on his level rather than view him as deliberately misbehaving oruseless as his father did. She also framed it more as trying to make sure hewas able to succeed and be happy rather than viewing him as shameful ordefective. Nadya was also very affectionate with and protective of her son,often as a response to the way her husband treated him. She seems to haveviewed Vasili as being vulnerable and in need of special attention. I think herdeath was even harder and more traumatic for Vasili than it was for Svetlana,which is saying something. Because Svetlana was still very little, she stillneeded a lot of care on a day-to-day level, so her nanny was there to be asource of comfort and emotional support for her after the loss of her mother,and this continued throughout her childhood. Vasili, who at age eleven didn’tneed as much childcare, was still very vulnerable, but he didn’t have a supportsystem to the extent his sister did. In the first couple years after Nadya’sdeath, he went from a sweet, rambunctious little boy to an awkward, ganglyteenager who had panic attacks, frequently talked about suicide, and starteddrinking heavily at thirteen. A couple of Stalin’s bodyguards were concernedabout him, but it was more emotionally distant—they tried to distract him orwatch him to make sure he didn’t hurt himself, but he certainly wasn’t gettingcuddles or a chance to talk about his emotions. I think after Nadya died Vasilipretty much lost his only consistent source of nurturing, and the only persontreating him as a lovable little child—which at eleven he still very much was.After that, he was expected to start “acting like a man”, and he did clearly tryto emulate the behavior of the adult men in his life, and was very concernedabout their approval. This had disastrous consequences for both him and thepeople around him, because he was exposed to and adopted a lot of reallyharmful behaviors.

So, this leads me to mydiscussion of Vasili as an adult, who was frankly kind of a huge asshole. Thefirst and foremost thing, which I do think is absolutely inexcusable, is thathe was physically violent with several of the women he was in relationshipswith. I don’t think this is entirely surprising, given the environment he grewup in and the messages he was getting from his father about what adult menbehave like with women/people who are weaker than them—but that doesn’t makethat any better. And these are also choices that he made, because Yakov wasnever like that with women, and he was not doomed to be like that. He was also,according to his sister, prone to misogynistic comments in general, as well asanti-Semitism. Also he embezzled money from the Soviet Air Force and wasgenerally kind of an entitled brat who pulled rank and threatened to rat peopleout to his father—which I don’t think is quite as repugnant as the domesticabuse and bigotry but isn’t exactly appealing. Basically, I think the onlything he had going for him was that he was Stalin’s son, even if Stalin didn’tlike him much, and he was willing to take that for all it was worth in order tosucceed in the Stalinist system, even though his life was pretty much constantlyon the verge of falling apart because of his drinking and reckless behavior.And then his father died and it DID fall apart, because the new governmentdropped him like a hot potato and then his health completely shattered and inthe last couple years of his life he had multiple chronic health conditionsrelated to alcoholism and then finally died of liver cirrhosis at the age offorty.

So yeah, I have extremely complicated feelings about Vasili.I do sympathize a lot with his struggles—not just what he went through as achild, which is very sad in of itself, but also he was clearly really sufferingas an adult as a result of that. But I also really despise a lot of what he didand who he was as an adult. Ultimately, I think I feel anger towards him, and quitea bit of disappointment, I’d say? But ultimately primarily sadness. Especiallybecause I have so much respect and love for his mother, and SHE had so muchlove for him, and I think she would have been very, very unhappy to see whatbecame of her sweet little boy—both in terms of what he did to other people andwhat he did to himself.

I’ve exhausted myself and am now in my feelings so you all will get the second half of this post (about Svetlana and her brothers) later.

[redrobin-detective]

im watching elementary rn and i rly think its better than bbc sherlock but im also rly bad w words and phrasing arguments for the question why can u help? bc a friend is like rly die hard bbc sherlock fan and i wanna make her understand why im not

I hate that’s there’s such antagonism between the two shows. They’re both good and they both have their merits but for me, looking over them as a whole, I find Elementary much better. I am still excitedly preparing to watch Sherlock this evening but it is not my favorite. To your friend, I’d first make clear to your friend that there’s no competition, just 2 radically different interpretations of the same characters.

So the main thing that keeps the two shows apart, in my opinion, is the willingness to take things slow and build up. The BBC Sherlock format is very different from most shows: it’s quick, comes and goes in the blink of an eye, puts a tremendous amount of subtext and characterizations and brilliant mysteries and twists into such a small frame. But this format has limitations which most people overlook for it’s snazzy effects, quick paced dialogue and trendy topics. The thing that makes Elementary stand out, not just from Sherlock but from other crime procedurals in general, is it’s very relaxed and realistic storytelling pace that contributes to a bigger whole.

Not every episode is a wild explosion of craziness, not every significant moment is obvious. There are small, intricate mysteries that fascinate, small bits of dialogue here and there that lay down bigger ideas, there are small changes in the relationship you don’t notice until suddenly you do. There were so many times, wonderful times, when a particular scene would come along and I’d realize how drastically things had changed. But when I’d stop and think, it really hadn’t been drastic at all, it had been slowly and lovingly planted and given the time and the room to grow. Anyone who has watched Season One knows how Sherlock goes from detesting his Watson’s interference in his life to being so proud and so honored to work with her. But the growth happens naturally, it feels good and real and to watch it come to be is honestly one of the greatest joys of the series. Their relationship continues to have those little moments laid out which lead to bigger moments and watching it be built brick by brick is something Sherlock, with it’s “flash in the frying pan” format, cannot do.

Secondly, I will admit I do not watch much cable TV, but it is still one of the most progressive, diverse shows I have ever seen and it does it so brilliantly. Just like it lovingly adds details and slow builds of relationships, it does the same with it’s rich diverse cast. It has people of all sorts of creeds and colors and beliefs all throughout the show. It acknowledges the differences between the people, acknowledges the stereotypes, true and untrue against them but never stops treating them as people. There are no “token X characters” in Elementary. Our Watson is a Asian WOC, Detective Bell and Alfredo are Black men, we see cops and criminals, sinners and saints of a wide variety. It often addresses the wrongs done to people, it never shies away from pointing out the way people are treated and how they ought to be. Even the beloved Mrs. Hudson is a transwoman played by a transwoman and it’s not a huge deal. It’s one aspect of her character but she’s also a Greek expert and has problems with her love life. It treats it’s characters well and with care. Kitty, a new protégé of Sherlock’s in S3, was a victim of rape, this post here does an excellent job of showing how Elementary handled a rape storyline so well. It’s so respectful to her, allows her grow and express herself but still addresses the issue but doesn’t let her get away with shitty behavior. It’s so good guys, it’s not gross at all. This is getting long but Sherlock’s drug use is a central theme in the show and it’s not glorified at all like it is a bit in BBC Sherlock. In fact, it shows the struggle, the temptation to fall back, how it’s battled one day at a time and shows the use of things like support meetings and finding connections with other people and recovering addicts.

Thirdly, The stories are as rich as the characters and let me tell you those characters are rich as chocolate. I am a mystery nerd, have been since middle school when I first read a Sherlock Holmes story and I find myself enjoying the mysteries so much. I won’t degrade you or the show by claiming every one is a gem, but even the dullest episodes have it’s little moments that make me smile and enjoy the overall plot. Because within the show we get lovely little moments: we get Sherlock/Watson banter, we get a plethora of obscure facts and figures, we get intriguing side characters doing their thing, possible hints of larger arcs and occasionally really touching, emotional moments between the characters. It interweaves it’s characters and it’s plots so well, using both the characters to further the plot and vice versa. So many times I think I know where something is going only to realize I’ve missed a piece and I slap my knee at how I was once again outwitted, but I’m enjoying the story and it’s twist too much to be truly angry. Like I said, not every episode is a winner, but I can say that each episode has moments or lines or elements that make it thoroughly enjoyable. It could be a unique twist, it could be plot progression, it could be a poignant moment between characters that you realize has been built upon all the past episodes.

So why is Elementary better than Sherlock? There’s no hard and fast answer because I know a lot of people enjoy Sherlock and there’s nothing wrong with that. Sherlock has many thing Elementary doesn’t. But what it doesn’t have is relatable characters with many rich layers who are given the time and opportunity to change and grow and not always for the better. It has some of the best diversity I have ever seen in a TV show because it doesn’t feel forced or unnatural in anyway, it is open and accepting of it’s characters and our Sherlock can be savage when he spots signs of bigotry and hypocrisy. Because it has really good plots, just as Sherlock does, but it doesn’t feel like a rapid, race across London more like a slow paced, meaningful walk talking the time to lay out a compelling story. So my recommendation to your friend, to anyone interested in Elementary is to give it a shot in the way it’s intended to be, over time. This is not a show you binge in one go and move on. It’s one intended to be watched over a period, meant for the audience to watch and connect and be slowly, piece by piece drawn into the characters and the story. Elementary isn’t “quirky” or “electric” like Sherlock but, if you give it the time, I believe it can come to be so much more.

[soyosauce]

Suppressing Society In The Fortunate Fall

“In print news your job is to know things about others, you peer out at the world through an arrow slit. In telepresence you are known. If I'd still been writing for a newspaper—if there still were newspapers—I could have forgotten...”

In 1996 Raphael Carter wrote The Fortunate Fall. For perspective, Neuromancer came out only 12 years previous and this book is already placed squarely in post-cyberpunk. Normally I'd scoff a little at that..but I have to say that is more of an acknowledgment of this work than the post-modern call to kill the genre from the onset of its birth (by the very people who wrote in the field no less). For reference, Trouble and her Friends came out only 2 years previous and I would not call that post-cyberpunk. It's also very hard to review because of the structure and the end of the book.

Maya tells her story as though the reader is an audience consuming a story by her with prior knowledge of an important historical event, or at least an extremely newsworthy one; to the point that it seems assumed the general populace or consumer of this knows of it, at least. And they are getting the "real" truth by reading it rather than getting it in another, futuristic format like moistdisk, opticube, dryROM, where the whole truth was not disclosed to the consumer.

“...you can't just break through a person's defenses like that; the defenses are a part of the person, they are the person. It's our nature to have hidden depths. It's like...skinning a frog and saying, 'Now I understand this frog, because I've seen what's inside it.' But when you skin it, it dies. You haven't understood a frog, you've understood a corpse.”  In the 24th-century Maya is what is called a "telepresence." She is cyberized to not only report the news but to almost become the news. All of her is broadcasted; her thoughts, memories, feelings—all of it goes out and is consumed by the audience. Because of this massive sensory output, all telepresence have a screener; post-production happens on the fly as it goes out over the net. Only the memories and thoughts that play well with the story actually ever make it to the audience. The screener, however, consumes all of it.

When Maya's screener falls in love with her after imbibing essentially everything (emotions, both past and present memories, etc.) about her while broadcasting a story to the world, things start to really get interesting. 

“You think we have a connection because of all the things you've sucked out of my mind by screening, but that isn't real. Trust comes when you've worked with someone for years; it doesn't speed up just because you can think fast, and it doesn't materialize when you stick a cable in someone's head. What you get from screening me isn't friendship, it's data. We're strangers.”

Through her perspective we learn of the world, we learn she's a criminal and has a suppressor chip in her head that stops her from feeling any strong emotions for other people, and that she's got a criminal record for this. Ostensibly, she doesn't feel the same as everyone else around her but always seems more human (or humanized by the narrative); often reading as very endearing to me because she's got this disconnect with herself and others that are all too relatable in this day and age. Also of note, cognitive dissonance is exceptionally well executed throughout this fiction.

Maya's recounting is largely of her big break, the scoop of a lifetime, the last whale to ever exist, if it's real; and whether it's true or not, because of the nature of how the narrative is structured, makes a compelling read that ends up being largely subjective to the reader.

Dissidents like Maya, as we learn, are literally suppressed with chips and the state is cold, fascist, and mechanical; evocative of late 80's fearfulness of technology but also clearly evocative of Nazi Germany and fascism, in general.  This future has the cyberpunk action you'd expect sure, but the technical aspects are really well done compared to most first wave cyberpunk; Raphael seems to have had a better understanding of technology, took the first wave template, and used it to great effect here. This world is very rich. Personality and technology aside, the plausibility of it is scary because of the bigotry so rampant these days. This nihilistic future the genre often depicts also has, this time, a laser focus. An unabashed, condemnation brought with an intensity and precision I've rarely read. The cultural psyche in which the major population has in their minds regarding their view of individual citizens gender identity and proclivity toward tribalism is still reflective of where we are today.

“The mind has doors...even as the body does. And when you drill new holes, you tap old hungers.” The prose are beautiful from the very first page to the end of the book. There are multiple themes reminiscent of 1st wave that is done so much better. Technology keeping us further apart yet connecting us, what that would do to our relationships is eerily on point for a book that predates my own ability to get Internet access.  It's a short read, it's compelling and relevant. It's also worth noting this was the first and only debut of the author who refused to be associated with any gender at the time of writing. Part of what makes Maya's story so riveting is, perhaps, this earnest expression of self in the text. There is no clear villain in the story. Maya herself is never untarnished and sometimes exemplifies the biases that a population internalizes, made even more complicated because of by her own omission, she is the one recanting her story, without the benefits of future technology where people may know the truth of things because they would also have the context of her emotions, feeling them as they consumed the story.

“...it changes the central fact of the human condition: that each of us lives behind one set of eyes, and not another; that our own pain is an agony, and another's pain only an abstraction we believe in by an act of faith. It makes impossible all the sins of locality, all the errors that arise from being prisoned in one body and no other--as racism, sexism, classism, and of course and especially nationalism.”

The intersectional characters explore and bring out different aspects of Maya and the technology too, is a vehicle for her exploration, limiting her and governing her. Effecting her years later from its inception. Her own will is literally stifled when she is a camera and therefore the lens from which people perceive the entirety of the story though, so much so that at one point, the audience will not even allow her to blink because they are captivated by what she sees.

“I'd caught what cameras call an updraft: just as the viewers got over the first rush of interest, others smelled the excitement and tuned in. The surprise of the newcomers strengthened the scent, attracting still more people, in a spiral that could make the feedback escalate out of control. Wave upon wave of astonishment crashed through me. I tried to look down, but the curiosity of millions forced my head back up. I stood there staring at the whale like someone forced to look into the sun, unable to turn away, though my mind cringed from the sight and my eyes were burning. It was not just an updraft, but riptide: feedback so strong that it flooded out my own emotions and derailed my thoughts. The audience grew so large and so greedy that it wouldn't even let me blink.” The actual historical truth and alteration of media coverage and news is on trial via the actual job of being a telepresence and what it entails and is demanded by the population. Hint: it's not to be a well-educated population so that they can make proper decisions voting anymore (nor is it now, any longer). Its fascinating and the relationship to our media is very well articulated in a very nuanced and deft commentary on a lot of broad sociological issues.  This book came across to me as very thoughtful, often insightful; always beautiful, filled with prose. The Summer Prince was a similar read for me, I know I will reread this quite a few times. Check out some of the lifts from the book I took to see if it's your style, for me it was well beyond what I was hoping for. 

“Feel no regret for roses, autumn too has its delights...How could she say that? Didn't she see that for us there could never be autumn, that we could never sit, as anyone else could sit, beside the fire all day on Sundays in November; that September's leaves, that fall for man and beast alike, were not our leaves to walk in; that October storms would never find us sharing an umbrella? The love of spring had thrived on wine and candles; now in the August of our lives, we needed newspapers and comfortable chairs. But it was impossible. No autumn--only a cold wind that blew through our summer, freezing the leaves in their places before they could motley and fall.”