#Then it's not accurate.(Not to say that good things CAN'T come from inaccurate writing)

[mechazushi]

Okay, but.... Any Kafka Hibino ship tho.

I need my monster lover to come from behind me and hold me. I need to feel his every bone and muscle around myself. I need to smell his breath and aroma of his flesh. I need to feel the purring reverberating through my body as he squeezes me. I need him to lean over my shoulder and whisper into my ear: "I got you."

[sexyleon]

I felt that post of yours about the Dracula fandom and the way it talks about adaptations tbh, like, I'm someone who was very involved in DD last year and I've written critique myself about Dracula adaptations bc I love comparative analysis and really thinking about the choices adaptations make, for good or for ill, but from my personal experience, a lot of fandom commentary on adaptations isn't really thoughtful analysis, and don't get me wrong, I'm a hater sometimes too and enjoying venting, but I noticed that this year, there were so many posts that started out as thoughtful commentary on the book, then launched into bitching about the evils of adaptations out of nowhere, and people can write what they want, but it got tiring after awhile to be in a fandom with so much angry energy, not to mention the divergence in canon vs fanon that was much starker this year that made me feel like I had read a different book.

Also, every time I see people point at re: Dracula to be like, see, it's so easy to do a perfect 1:1 adaptation of the novel, why can't other adaptations do it?, it's like, it's an audiobook, a movie can't be that long, even a television mini-series would have to make cuts. And I might dislike a lot of choices adaptations make, but creatives absolutely have the right to take a public domain work and put their own spin on things beyond book accuracy as the number one goal - and like, do we truly want a 100% accurate adaptation when the novel is still ultimately a xenophobic reverse invasion story? Like, I would hope modern directors would seriously grapple with those aspects of the original story instead of reproducing Victorian bigotry unquestioned.

Hi, thank you for your response! I'm glad that my post resonated with a few people!

I definitely also felt a shift in energy with this season of Dracula Daily, and I'm pretty sure it is a direct result of the phenomena that is Re: Dracula. Don't get me wrong, I am a HUGE supporter of RE: Dracula, and I found it to be absolutely delightful specifically because it was a 1:1 adaptation of the book, but I also think that it has skewed the way people engage with all the other adaptations of Dracula. You are so right when you say that Re: Dracula's media as audiobook is what allowed it to be so authentic. Even if it was a long-form series, there would have to be creative liberties taken to account for visualising certain aspects of the text. I am 100% sure someone would be able to do it, but it would undoubtedly be a labour of love and expense.

I think the biggest thing that got lost in translation in my post is that I was speaking specifically on the rhetoric of "bad adaptation = bad media." I don't even like to use the term "bad adaptation" because it feels inaccurate and gives the connotation of being holistically terrible; "failed adaptation" or "inauthentic adaptation" seems more apt when discussing how close an adaptation relates to the source material. I think it is unfair for any adaptation to be written off solely on the fact that it does not strictly adhere to the original text. This can be in way of narrative, characterization, theme, etc. I don't think it's fair to say "x adaptation is bad because it ignores x from the text" because that fundamentally dismisses all the other attributes that contribute to whether or not a piece of media is subjectively good (because honestly that's all it is-- subjectivity). Media, especially film and stage, has so many dynamic and moving parts. There are so many attributes that contribute to the success of any one given thing, especially adaptations (which can claim the title with even the loosest references to the source material). I feel like the black and white thinking when it comes to this doesn't really allow for a dialogue to exist between people who enjoy Dracula adaptations for what they are and, forgive me for saying this, book purists.

Understandably, there is criticism against some adaptations that have claimed to follow the source text closely, but very distinctly did not (Ahum, Cappola). However, I think it does everyone a disservice to deny the impact of a lot of these (mostly) films. Someone in the reblogs of my original post did a good breakdown of the origins of the Dracula genre itself, and I think it goes to show that the story of Dracula has a life of its own outside of the pages of Bram Stoker's book.

The most annoying thing about the responses to my initial post was the refusal to believe that anyone was making these comparisons. I really would not have gone out on a limb to rant about this if I hadn't been consistently seeing vent posts in the main tag with mostly negative responses to a lot of different adaptations of Dracula based on the authenticity of them to the text. I admit I was frustrated when I wrote it, but it really was meant to just address the black and white thinking re: failed adaptations making bad media. This is not to say that criticism of adaptations isn't valid, but I think there should be more nuance to this conversation and that's what I wasn't seeing. It's not fun to dive into the broad Dracula tag and find post after post shitting on your favourite media because it isn't like the book.

Sorry this was a bit long! I am just really passionate about Dracula okay!! And I really really really like all the shitty little shows and movies and plays and comics and all other media that comes out of his name (because YES, a lot of adaptations really make vampire synonymous with Dracula and ROLL WITH IT). Vampires are really neat and the Dracula genre of film has been a huge influence on horror media. I think there is a lot to be said when analysing adaptations, but none of it can come from blanket statements against them.

@spider-xan

[n7punk]

i have this problem. it's an AU. (it's always an AU)

so I've had this AU idea for *checks notes* dear god one year and four months. okay i'll be honest i thought it was more recent than that. ANYWAY

i have this AU idea but it's essentially a first chapter/prologue to what could be a longer AU. and over one year+ i never wanted to write any more than that.

now this... is not that unusual of a thing for an AU to be? like yes, my AUs average 60k*, but there are many, many AUs on ao3 that are snapshots of what could be a larger AU, this vampire fic from my bookmarks for example. and, well, i love that fic, it's funny, so obviously there's nothing wrong with an AU being that short and not actually featuring them getting together or anything (in fact I need to do more AUs like this if I ever want to finish another novel but anyway-).

so Sapphic September prompts lead me to "give myself permission" to do a bunch of "shorter" fics because obviously i can't write even 10k for every day in september. so i decided to finally write this AU because i think it is interesting and good at the level of "depth" i go into the AU as is, and i don't want to write more than this. so i wrote exactly what i wanted.

except now i have brainrot, and i still don't want to write more, because what i have brainrot for is the angst of the beginning, which i already wrote, and i don't care about all the more actiony stuff that comes later. tbqh this AU is something that is very difficult to convey well in a non-visual medium and that would only multiply as the story progressed. so i don't want to write more, and i don't even want to read more than i already wrote! but somehow i have brainrot for this specific 6k and i want there to be more of this 6k only which doesn't even make sense because there's nothing to add that wouldn't drag it out and be unneccessary! but this is a first for me so i guess i'm just going to "edit" the fic for an excuse to reread it and look forward to sharing this with yall in *checks calendar* 41 days

*this number is not actually that accurate because when an AU is very short it never gets its own project entry in my tracking sheet and goes into the "catch all" bin instead, so things like Love in Retrograde and caffe misto aren't included in that - however the number of AUs missing from this is less than 10 and when I have so many Catradora fics, i'd say 50k at least is still accurate for an average AU length for me, but the exact number from my inaccurate calculation was 61747

[viriborne]

Hey I saw you do a character ask thing, and I was wondering if you would do lucifer

I COMPLETELY FORGOT TO ANSWER THIS EVEN THO I HAVE SO MUCH TO SAY!!!!!

Okay, just to start off with, quick warning to Lucifer fans...I am VERY UNFORGIVING when it comes to my opinion and interpretation of him. He's too real of a character to me for me to like him. I appreciate his complexity... but I hate him lol.

If you've ever been in a family with generational trauma, you likely know someone like Lucifer. Someone who, while recognizing the abuse they've endured, still perpetuates it over and over again. Someone who controls his brothers just like how his Father did. And this is why he's mom-codedBEFORE PEOPLE GET ON ME FOR THIS, just listen. While we can't determine what Father's motivation is for keeping angels on short leashes, I feel as if we can infer that it's meant to "keep them in line," by force, if needed. We can see this mirrored in Lucifer's treatment of his brothers. Yes, the brothers are Very unruly but, as we can see with Mc's influence, they react MUCH better to when treated with kindness than humiliation and corporal punishment, something that mirrors real life. While Lucifer isn't as Bad as Father is when doling out punishments, it still yields the same effects of the brothers being terrified of the one in charge, something they reiterate over and over again. And Lucifer acknowledges this! He KNOWS his brothers are terrified of him but feels that it's "for the greater good" as he's scared of being thrown out of their home once again.

Okay, now let's get into Lucifer's treatment of Mc (is about to be nailed to a cross by Luci fans)

Sorry, I gotta mention Lucifer beating Mc until they passed out as "punishment" during the early lessons for the heinous crime of...protecting Beel and Luke. Like uhh wtf was that lol?? How am I supposed to like him after this? Even Belphegor had a better motive literally Killing us than he did for beating Mc unconcious lol. Not to mention the god forsaken pact scene where, despite attempting to be forced into a pact by Solomon multiple times, forces Mc into a pact (and a fade-to-black sex scene) and undermines their consent. Yippee!!! Overall, he's really just written to be the stereotypical Christian Grey archetype when it comes to Mc. I'd say he's like Beast from Beauty and the Beast but at least the beast grew as a person instead of being a man baby who can't express his emotions for the rest of his life. Instead, I feel as if he's the husband from The Taming of the Shrew. Okay that might be a bit harsh, even for him, but it still feels like an accurate comparison in some aspects lol.

Onto fandom interpretations: I've already gone at length as to why "daddy dom" Lucifer is inaccurate and makes me wanna deglove my entire body so I won't go into it. There is an issue where I feel like he's reduced only to a sexual object by many fans and that's Weird and Not Good and often aids in how he's so bastardized in writing and interpretation of his actions. It really feels like his bad parts Really get glossed over or completely excused even by fans who Recognize his flaws and I really feel like that's a damn shame. He's a shitty bastard with tons of baggage and u gotta accept that or else you're liking a completely different character.

Anyways take this meme I quickly made while writing this.

[crychan]

Serizawa’s own wiki page contains a lot of un-cited information, specifically in the history section. I'm hoping to write an accurate character analysis on Serizawa, and I'm finding it difficult to when his own wiki page seems so different from the canon I read. So let’s go through his wiki, line by line, and then compare it to the actual events of Chapter 89 and Episode 12 of MP100 II, where his history can be found.

The history section of the wiki used to say:

“At age 12, Serizawa became so overwhelmed by fear of his own psychic powers that he refused to leave his bedroom for fear of hurting others.”

A nice sentiment, but it's just straight up not true. While Serizawa is a kind and empathetic person who could reasonably choose to lock himself up to protect others, his decision ultimately stemmed from being extensively bullied, outcast, and punished for the problems that his powers caused. 

It’s pretty well insinuated that he did it out of shame.

It’s only briefly mentioned that he cares about not hurting people. 

Him being bullied and ashamed is the main topic that Suzuki talks about in his backstory. While it is Suzuki saying this and not Serizawa, I don’t believe ONE intended for Suzuki to be wrong in his assessment, so I consider it true, even if it didn’t come from Serizawa himself. Furthermore, while Serizawa does argue with Suzuki in these scenes, we know that Serizawa says these kinds of things when he’s confronted with harsh truths about himself. It’s the same reaction he gives Mob when confronted with the truth of his relationship with Claw and Suzuki:

This is because he can't continue to delude himself or ignore the obvious issues in his life that he has been unable to solve.

“Lacking guidance and companionship, and not helped by the counselors his mother had hired, Serizawa remained in his bedroom for 15 years.” 

Kind of true. Doesn’t mention that the counselors often thought he was delusional, which I think was a major problem that reinforced his seclusion. He was constantly told that there was something wrong with him. What's worse, the doctors even disagree with him on what is wrong. No, the problem is not that you have powers, it's that you think you have powers, you're delusional. Nobody listens to him, nobody understands him.

What’s key here is that he desperately wanted to be understood and accepted. Specifically, he seeks companionship without judgement or shame, which he accepts in the form of other espers, i.e. people who can understand him, his powers, and his problems, at least better than normal people can. He has grown up being misunderstood and rejected by normal people.

“His self-imposed confinement lasted until he met Toichiro, who coaxed him to leave by offering him an umbrella and encouraging him to view it as an extension of his room.” 

This omits important information. [Toichiro] Suzuki initially offered to teach Serizawa how to use his powers. Serizawa, however, was still scared to leave his room, so Suzuki tried to help him further by offering the umbrella.

“Serizawa followed him, hoping to learn to control his powers and rejoin society.”

Pretty much true given what I previously said. Bad wording and the wrong order of sentences leaves this inaccurate.

“Instead, Suzuki exploited Serizawa's power to further the aims of Claw, leaving him and his well-being utterly dependent on both himself and the umbrella.”

Again, bad wording that omits/obfuscates vital info.

Serizawa has no self confidence due to his past, and Suzuki exploits that by giving him an environment free of judgement or rejection in exchange for compliance. Suzuki nurtures and encourages Serizawa and his abilities like good people should have done, for an evil goal. Serizawa is desperate to leave his room and rejoin society, and Suzuki convinces him that it's possible through him and Claw.

Serizawa might feel conflicted about serving Claw, but his desperation for love, acceptance, and companionship are what motivate him suppress his morality and join Suzuki. Serizawa becomes dependent on Suzuki because he gives him everything that he wants, as long as he follows his orders. He works for Claw and follows Suzuki's orders (despite any guilt he may feel) because he is convinced he can’t rejoin society, control his powers, or be happy without what Claw and Suzuki provide him.

“Serizawa convinced himself that Claw was a company, that Suzuki was its president, and that he himself was an employee.” 

Weird wording, because Claw is an organization/company, Suzuki is the president/boss, and he does work for him as an employee, so there is no convincing needed. It’s not a delusion to see it this way. Serizawa simply refers to this structure for his own sake and understanding. It feels more normal for him than considering himself a terrorist.

He is aware of his actions and crimes, as well as Claw’s true purpose, but is able to delude himself of guilt with Suzuki’s encouragement and his own desperation for normalcy/companionship. He tells himself "the President trusts me," and always falls back on the President's words when he feels conflicted:

All in all, Serizawa exists in an environment where love is contingent on following others, even to the betrayal of his own morals. Despite providing him the love and acceptance he desired, it required suppressing his true feelings and agency. It gave him something new to be insecure about.

Okay, this essay is great and all, but why don’t you just… edit the wiki?

As of jan 17th: I DID!!! :D

As well, I also wanted to write this for a long time, because he is my favourite character and I wanted to understand him better, so doing this was fun for me and hopefully shares a better understanding of his character with others.

Final Comments on Serizawa’s Character:

Being raised from a young age feeling like something is wrong with you, and doing things that go against your wishes, these are the two powerful forces in Serizawa’s life. They have a large impact on his character.

As a result of his upbringing and life, Serizawa is incredibly insecure about himself. This can manifest in numerous ways, like feelings of self-doubt, a fear of rejection or failure, or a need for external validation. In my opinion, Serizawa likely feels all of these things. The idea of speaking up for himself, or even being himself, are likely both frightening to him. Insecurity can result in people pleasing and social withdrawal, both of which Serizawa does, to mitigate chances of rejection.

Reigen’s support for Serizawa’s independence/agency is the entire point of the OVA, and I could write a whole second essay on it. But essentially, Reigen has become a good force in helping Serizawa overcome these difficult aspects of himself as he enters a safe, accepting environment where it is no longer necessary to be obedient to survive. Furthermore, he is now in an environment that encourages his independence in whatever capacity he is comfortable with, such as night school, making new friends, and taking initiative on the job. Serizawa is noted to deeply admire Reigen for being a person who does not judge him or make him feel ashamed of himself, and constantly encourages him to chase what he wants. This is how he differs from Suzuki. With Reigen, love and acceptance are now unconditional, and he will always be welcome at Spirits and Such. In turn, Serizawa wants to stay at Spirits and Such for as long as Reigen will have him, because it provides him with love and acceptance without betraying his freedom.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk! :)

[theres-no-protocol-for-this]

Fandom and Interpretation

There was a discussion in one of my Discord servers that gave me lots of thoughts. And I want to share them here before they're not fandom-specific. I wanted to preface it with this is about fandom holistically and not any particular space. And also that this is neither good nor bad, and I'm not assigning judgment here. It just is. Sometimes.

I think all fandom is ultimately interpretive in nature.

You can't read and ingest content without filtering it through your own experiences, culture, and perceptions. Written work relies on the rather flimsy medium that is words; inaccurate and easily misinterpreted, even on the best of days. When people read Murderbot books, for example, they are inherently imagining a future somewhere out in space that doesn't exist through the lens of perhaps the modern world or the science-fiction tropes they're familiar with or whatever else the books might conjure for them. And once the words are ingested, so to speak, anything the fandom creates only adds to the interpretation.

In my mind, there's no such thing as "accurate canon" or "correctness" in the context of a work. We might all agree that Murderbot is a SecUnit, but what that means to each of us is likely going to be slightly different. We might say that a SecUnit has machine parts, and again, we all define machine parts a little bit differently. It feels good to be right, but I think right is overrated when it comes to almost everything.

In a fandom, it can sometimes feel like there's a particular interpretation that's "correct" (and I use the word in quotes for a reason here). Especially in established fandoms where people have had time to collaborate, some interpretations will naturally emerge as the most likely ones or the ones most people like.

And, as that happens, other, less-common interpretations either fade or become no longer canon compliant. Dividing lines can also form around particular interpretations and concepts. I think it's easy to join a fandom and take these as truth, and it's important to question them and the assumptions that underlie them.

In established fandoms, you also see echoes of their beginnings. Like static from the Big Bang. Before some particular established reading emerges, people often feel freer to interpret the works, and those original musings often find their way into established fandom in a weird game of broken telephone. No longer what the original fan intended but still sort of there. For me, CSU handlers are a great example of this.

I feel like it's important to remember that fandom is ultimately people who are working both together and individually to create a vision of a work that was, in and of itself, an interpretation. Pull apart the illusion of cohesion and underneath you'll find splinters and fractured bits. As should be -- we're all too different to suddenly adopt the exact same trains of thought.

The Borg will not take us this night!

And, once there's a particular interpretation (a ship that people like), some fans will make an effort to make it canonically true. In some way, it's a tug of war about whose interpretation is the most correct by making it extra correct somehow. Voltron had this with Keith and either Lance or Shiro. People would stare at a single line of context and argue its validity (or not) to the point of harassing the voice actors.

And finally, people enjoy media for different reasons. Escapists wanting to read a romance novel probably don't much care that some people read Twilight and wanted Edward jailed as a creepy stalker. The point of reading Twilight, for many, was not to enjoy a realistic depiction of a healthy relationship. So while the interpretation that Edward is an a*hole is valid, most people aren't starting petitions to get him barred from all schools across the fictional US where he resides.

All of these are just my ramblings, thoughts I've had for a while but didn't bother to write. And if I have a point at all, it's that fandom is complex and, like any other human space, should be regarded with minimal reverence. Dance even when you're wrong because "wrong" is relative and dancing is beautiful.

[warcats-cat]

Fanfic writer asks! Answer as many or as few as you'd like, friend!

🥺🛒💖

🎯✅💔

Hello! New Friend!!

Emoji asks are from here!

And I answered 💖 here!

-----

🥺 Is there a certain type of moment or common interaction between your characters that never fails to put you in your feels?

Snuggles, kisses on the forehead, holding hands, gently tending the other's wounds...

🛒 What are some common things you incorporate in your fics? Themes, feels, scenes, imagery, etc.

Snuggles, kisses on the forehead, holding hands, gently tending the other's wounds... 😅😅😅

FR tho, my beloved @thecrowslullaby has mentioned in passing I have a very particular way of wording things? So I guess I'd have to say I use a lot of flowery imagery to get my point across. I want my reader to (at least somewhat) feel like they're there with the character, or are the character if they prefer. I like to put a lot of emotion into my writing. And I also very often write about just being in the home; safe places for snuggles and people taking care of one another.

🎯 Have any of your readers accurately guessed major plot points? Care to share which?

Hold on I gotta check Uh the only one I can think of is my Loceit series which is written for Crow as well; it was less they guessed what was coming and more they pointed out connections and details I had thrown in without thinking about and I was like "oh, that's a good idea actually!" 😅😅

✅ What’s something that appears in your fics over and over and over again, even if you don’t mean to?

Snuggles, kisses on the forehead, holding hands, gently tending the other's wounds...

I mean, I have a lot of fantasy stuff and a lot of extremely inaccurate medical talk 😅 Lots of stabbing as a way to move the plot along.

💔 Is there a fic of yours that broke your heart?

🥲 Desperation for the Good Omens fandom comes to mind immediately, because I wrote that when I was in a very very bad place. Extra special thanks to HopeCoppice on Ao3 for writing a follow-up from Crowley's point of view that gave me hope for living...

Come Home for Sanders Sides fandom didn't necessarily break my heart but it did make me *cry* while writing it. Like,,, ugly cry. And *I* knew it was gonna turn out ok 🤣

I can't decide if I should count Crumbling or not because like,,, I'll literally never be able to read that fic again. I wrote it over like six or eight months and poured every ounce of hate and anger and pain and sadness and a little bit of blood into it trying to make myself heal from a very very bad breakup with my very *very* good friend at the time, and then the aftermath of it all. My heart was already broken when I started writing it.

Anyway...

Thanks for the ask new friend!! I love answering questions! I'm going to get a good grade in being social, which is a totally normal desire to have! :D

[loststarcelestial]

Movie rant

let me start off by saying, i am in no way trying to insult someone's taste in movies, nor am i trying to attack anyone Secondly, i am not someone who works in movies i am just someone who loves to create and write and doesn't really get the chance to really express my feelings about social media Thirdly: if you are just going to respond by attacking me or by trying to start arguments, i do not care, this isn't a super serious thing i am just ranting just scroll away if you want to argue Now onto the rant? essay? idk anymore I think in trying to push for better quality movies we've started to ignore what made movies fun for us. I think that we've become so entitled for movies to be better than before, to be even bigger, to be even more profound and while i do agree we need better movies, we can't get those from just forcing people to make better movies, improvement comes with time and our consumerist way of looking at movies is worsening the problems within movies We want movies with better jokes yet we also want movies to be topical, we want movies to have serious discussions yet we don't really want them to inherently endorse one side or the other, we want movies to have better writing yet we as a society don't let companies, and the people who create movies take risks. A lot of people have also become elitists, they believe movies that are inherently "better" quality are the only movies that should be in people's most favorites for that year and discount when someone says something otherwise, and i am not just making a jump, that has happened to me from people who were "respected" in their community. I had talked about what my favorite movies were for the first half of 2023 and i had mentioned that the Super Mario movie was in that list, and someone had literally said "oh well you'll change your mind once you see ATSV and the Last Wish so this isn't really accurate" Discounting what i said because i haven't seen certain movies so what i must be saying is inaccurate, and here's the thing, i hate the shrek franchise, i don't like it so while the puss in boots movie might be better i am not going to force myself to watch something in a franchise i don't like. The way we consume media right now is one where we don't let people have differing opinions even if we don't try to be that way, if someone enjoyed a game or a show that wasn't a generally accepted "good" game or show they don't get much of a say outside of the small audience who also liked it, we hold certain media on pedastels and yet when someone tries to critique them, specifically out of good faith, we dig in our heels. If someone liked a certain movie because they didn't have to think that hard about it we discount it because did they truly enjoy it? Yet that mentality discounts people that might not have good social cues, or a good focus, maybe not even a good understanding of things in general and we discount those opinions because to truly enjoy something we HAVE to understand the message, or understand the complexities of the movie. I for one hate that idea, i hate the fact that we have created a community that says we accept all kinds of people that enjoy movies and yet we discount people for enjoying movies in a differing way, i hate that we discount some movies because they don't make the person think, or that it doesn't have a profound message or critique, We've become the group who we grew up hating, we've become those people that looked at us and told us we wouldn't be able to enjoy something because we were too young, or not the gender it was designed for, or it was too complicated for us. Sometimes all we need is a movie that we enjoy just because it was fun, sometimes we need a movie that makes us think, but there is room enough for both of them, and for every type of movie inbetween, yes lazy cash grabs exist but if someone found enjoyment out of a movie we couldn't isn't that a good thing? if someone can find an actual positive in something we couldn't shouldn't that be good?

let people enjoy movies the way they enjoy them

[handwriting-headcanons]

My dumbass deleted my request thing so mamma mia, here we go again

DNI

Transphobes

Homophobes

Ablests

Racists

Toxic shippers

Those who support things like pedophilia or incest (if it's fictional I'm not going to attack you, it just makes me uncomfy so you may be blocked)

Pro e/d / s/h

blank blogs! I will assume you're a bot and report you!

As a general rule, you'll probably be fine as long as you're respectful and a decent human being

Request Info!

I will write a handwritten note from a character either to the reader or to another character. I will try my best to come up with a unique handwriting style for them, but I'm a beginner at changing my handwriting so be patient, please!

Requests are currently open!! (more info below cut because it's long af lol)

I will try my best to write for any character, but I can't promise it'll be super in character for anyone from the media not listed below:

Genshin Impact

The band Ghost

BNHA/MHA

HxH (I'm not finished, so also may not be totally accurate)

Demon Slayer (same as listed above, not finished lol)

Nijisanji EN (not writing about the people behind the characters, writing about the characters themselves! also may be a bit inaccurate if it's someone I don't watch a ton!)

I will try my best to write for most other fandoms/media, but again, I can't promise accuracy if I don't know the source well!!

Things I will NOT write

The Harry Potter books/world. There's a shit ton of discriminatory ideas in those books, if you want something about that ask someone else to write it.

NSFW (I am a minor and would be very uncomfortable with that. Slightly suggestive content is fine though, but I have the right to refuse your request if it's too suggestive.)

Certain character x character ships at my discretion.

If the source material is problematic, there's a good chance I won't write about it. Feel free to dm me or send me an ask regarding this though!

Super long letters. Try to keep it like 200-ish words MAX. Writing in a different handwriting is stressful on my joints and I can't do it for long!

Super dark content. While I read some dark content sometimes, I feel that writing it would impact my mental health too much. Some slight dark content is fine, just don't go overboard

Pedophilia or incest

Abusive relationships

Things I WILL write

Some ships. See above. I am fine with poly ships! (romantic or platonic)

Character x reader notes (romantic or platonic)

The fandoms in that list above

romantic or platonic notes (nothing too suggestive though, as stated above. If you're unsure if it's too suggestive feel free to send an ask or dm me so I can evaluate it.)

Fluff

Hurt/comfort (to the best of my ability with a single letter/note lol)

Letters and notes about 200-ish words or less. Preferably less, as writing puts a lot of stress on my joints

Scripted notes (you tell me exactly what you want it to say)

"Freestyle" notes (you just give me some details and I go crazy lol)

Things to note!

Requests can take anywhere from a few days to like 2-ish weeks to complete! Please be patient, I'm both neurodivergent and physically disabled, so it can be hard for me to complete things quickly. It also takes a while for me to formulate a handwriting style for a character if I haven't written for them before."Freestyle" notes will generally take longer than scripted notes, as I have to actually do a bit of research on the characters if I don't know them well, and I also have to come up with the actual letter content!

If you're not sure if I'll take a request, just ask! Always feel free to send an ask or dm me! If you take the time to ask if you're unsure, I'm more likely to accept the request because it shows you respect me and my boundaries :)

If you want a request longer than 200 words, please dm me before sending the request! Please confirm that you understand it will likely take much longer than a regular request since there's so much writing to do!

I use a mixture of graphology and just ~vibes~ to come up with the handwriting. If you want it to look a certain way, please include that in your ask!

How to request (format basically)

Please provide me with the character's name(s), the relationship to the reader/other character(s), and what they would call the reader/other character(s) (pet names, nicknames, etc). It would be great to provide me with a small description of the character, even if they're from the media listed above! I want to know how you view the character and how they act, think, etc! This is not necessary, however. I also would appreciate it if you told me any headcanons or details you want me to include (like if you want an AU or something). If there's anything else you want me to know or include, also put that in the ask!

[xxtha-blog]

Is it wrong for me to call Underverse a gateway series for Undertale AUs, even if many of the information concerning said Out!codes and their locations were largely inaccurate. Like how it portrays the DoodleSphere as the Multiverse's true form, yet it's officially just a place where Ink come to refill his vial; or that Dream and Nightmare can't enter the OT without going through a door first. I'm concern that of its potential of spreading misinformation regarding the canon of the AUs used there

one of your examples isn’t even correct. Dream and Nightmare both enter OT without a door in the series (technically you could say it’s just not shown with Dream, but Nightmare definitely does).

This aligns with Dream and Nightmare’s canon- they can go wherever their respective emotion exists in the multiverse no matter what

This does not align with OT canon - all that enter Ot can only do so by going through a door

I’d argue Dream and Nightmare’s canon override the Ot one, because emotions are already there, thus Dream and Nightmare are also technically already there, even if not present physically. Emotions are their door, in the same way Core Frisk is already everywhere. OT people may disagree, however and say because they’re not physically there, they can’t manifest in, and thus, need a door.

But no matter what Jakei did, somebody wouldn’t be happy. In these situations you have to just pick one or the other. Usually the one that works best for the story, which she did.

As for Ink’s thing, sure, it’s not canon, (though you are wrong, the doodlesphere also has a gateway to all aus, now updated to the form of paintbuckets, once floating islands) but Myebi has stated they are fine with any interpretation of the Doodle Sphere so I don’t see the problem

If there was literally one series that dedicates the most effort to respecting canon, it’s Underverse. ‘Largely inaccurate’, that’s ridiculous, you can’t even give me one good example. Jakei clarifies things that she may have modified for the story and works with the canon as accurately as possible. Underverse is one of the only stories I’ve ever seen depict Nightmare and Dream well, meaning you could basically point at any other creation or project and say they’re spreading more misinfo about canon to a greater degree. That being said, no one can write a story that can be 100% accurate to all of the canons it draws from and people need to recognize that. I don’t like it when creators directly spread misinfo or do not clarify they are purposefully deviating from canon especially if they don’t link canon material, but Underverse is probably the last series I’d ever go after for that.

[autisticchangeling]

I'm probably not the best person to talk about this but I'm feeling things so I wanted to say them anyway.

I often feel like I'm just not smart enough or academic enough to be a good person, because a lot of social justice posts are complicated and abstract and require a lot of focus and energy to read and understand. And if I feel this way as someone who got good grades in school and has a college degree, I know I can't be the only one.

And I know there's a competing access needs thing here because sometimes it takes a lot of effort and focus to write things that are simple and easy to understand but still accurate.

But I still hate feeling like this. I try to read and understand things but sometimes it's hard and I'm tired and what I take away from a post is inaccurate and mostly more useful for self-harm than for anything else.

I feel like there's the expectation that if you're really a good person you'll read and understand all of these things. And if you can't read and understand them or if you maybe could but don't have the energy and time and focus to do so, or if academic stuff hurts you, then you're not really a good person and you're doomed to be ignorant and hurt other people.

And maybe we do have an obligation and maybe it is bad of me to not do that.

But when it comes down to it I'm going to prioritize my own well-being, even if that means I'm not as good a person as I'm supposed to be in the eyes of social justice. Even though I do support the goals and ideas that we all try to strive for.

I don't really have a conclusion here, just wanted to say that I think it's okay if you can't follow all the complicated discussions.

Maybe what matters more is how you treat people when you're directly talking to them and interacting with them, not how much theory and abstract discussion you can understand.

Tl:dr: sometimes the complicated and abstract discussions about social justice topics make me feel bad and like I'm not smart enough to be a good person. But I don't think that's true and I think it's how you treat people in person that matters more

[koalas-koalas-everywhere]

this ask is probably annoying, i’m really sorry, but i never really read superhero comics and i’m just getting into superheroes from the.. em cee you, i guess? over the past month (actually watching h*mec*ming as i type this) and i was wondering if you’d explain some of the differences between em cee you peter and comics peter — only if you want to, of course, but it kinda seems to me like you probably have a lot to say on why you don’t like that version and you’re waiting for someone to ask?? if so, i’m curious to hear it (& i’d also love any comic recommendations, if you’ve got them to give :))

Hi, anon! Not annoying at all!

I'm not... eager to talk, I only mention it to... shall we say, clear the air? The m/cu is the most popular version of every marvel character, so, when someone wanted to talk to me about marvel, I had to assume that the conversation would go there eventually, and the last thing I wanted was for someone to approach me with love for it and to meet it with less than lukewarm enthusiasm. So, I thought, if I just pepper the fact that I don’t like it into the conversation, no one will make that mistake. Although I love you for giving me the chance, and I WILL NOW. NO TAKE BACKS.

First of all, I wouldn't give you recs off the cuff, because I don't know what you like. If you end up liking Homecoming, I might go with Untold Stories of Spider-Man. It's a flashback series, written in the 90's but set in Peter's high-school years, to expand them. I think it's a very good example of a text that modernizes the material (getting rid of all that 60's whackiness) while staying as true as possible to the source. Darker and more serious than the original, but that’s because writing had changed since then.  Maybe it had to do with the Hayes Code, too. I can think of one thing that wouldn’t have flown back then. It's still pretty different from th!Peter, but much closer than the original high-school years. Peter's also more likeable. Or, more easily likeable, I love that 60′s teenage rat bastard who can't get a grip. 

Zdarsky’s run of Spectacular Spider-Man has that hopeless-but-well-meaning vibe, too, although he’s an adult there. (It’s okay, he hasn’t acted like an actual adult since One More Day. I do think you might find USoSM!Peter more mature than Zdarsky’s Peter.) 

Hmu with more specific requests and I'll oh-so-gladly comply, you have no idea. As you’re about to find out, I’m talkative. I tried to include panels to make it a bit more bearable. I would like to apologize for any typos or mistakes, English isn’t my first language.

I guess the next order of business is to say that, unless you said it like that to avoid tagging/searching problems, there's no reason to be apologetic to me about watching/liking that Peter. I don't like him, and I think it's human nature to think your taste is better than everyone else's taste lmao, but, while I did find it... not to my taste (Peter seemed like a pushover to me, and the only thing I found actually funny, which seemed to be the point of the whole movie, was the porn joke - there's a lot of deeper issues that have to do with the em cee you as a whole, but this post isn't about that and there's plenty of people who could and have explained it better), my... anger comes from the fact that, for being a really inaccurate version of the story, it's put a lot of effort into seeming like the most accurate one to date, and that has consequences outside of any individual decisions to watch the movies or not.

The point of the movies is to bring in new readers from the audience, and the audience will want to see what they saw on the movies, so things get changed to create synergy. Dumb examples, born from the fact that I don't read those comics or haven't gotten to that part yet: last year or so, Valkyrie was killed so that she could be brought back as a Tessa Thompson look alike. Jessica Jones is a brunette, when she’s always been a redhead. Matt Murdock had a crisis or something (I think it was because he committed manslaughter, accidentally, of course, but it might be unrelated) changed his costume to one that looked like the one in the netflix show. Hell, they made a new team of the Defenders with the netflix crew! They used to have a completely different roster! Doctor Strange was there! They didn’t replace the other team, and I’m not sure either of them are still active, but still. These were just small, aesthetic examples (well, at least their consequences were - Brunhilde did die and all that, I have no idea whether she acts more like m/cu Valkyrie now, or if she did before) to get you used to the idea that there's a clear pecking order at Marvel and the movies have some big teeth.

So, people buy that that's how Peter is, so not only is all the fan content I get about that version, it also becomes more and more likely that things will get changed in the comics to make them more similar. Not just that, but people will also go into the comics with that lense and things will get twisted around. An example from a post I saw recently: there's a story in  the comics about Peter wanting to get his story out there and so he makes a deal with the Bugle that, in exchange for publishing it, he'll unmask himself publicly. As he reaches the agreed place and time to do it, a lot of people step forward in Spider-Man costume and claim to be him, letting him go through with his deal and unmask himself without exposing his real id. Now, if that somehow happened to Captain America, you'd have no doubt that it was a sign of gratitude, appreciating his heroism, you'd maybe even say it was NY giving back. And that's what it was. A show of respect to a hero. Because of the view of Peter as a smol bean, though, the op of the post talking about it immediately took it to mean protectiveness, like that of a parent to a child. Because he's so pure. 

Well-meaning, of course. Kinda condescending, when the guy was supposed to be around 30, though. It's, plainly put, a misreading. But it's all the Spider-Man fanon content you get these days.

After writing most of comes now, I went through my “peter parker” tag and found a post about the (amazing) essay “The First Thirty Years” by Peter Sanderson, published in Amazing Spider-Man #365 (if you go to that one comic reading site, it starts on page 64) that explains and touches on most of what I go into now. I’m not gonna delete all that, though. 

Now, there has been a... de-clawing of Peter since as early as the 2000's, although Straczynski held the fort well (almost too well, but if I start on that now it will sound like I just like to complain lol), but they just made him a... cleaner, more sanitized version of him, they didn't outright woobify him the way fandom does. I'm reminded of a recent comic event*, I talked about it here, where, at one point, Steve Rogers, Logan, Luke Cage and Peter are discussing berserk rages and everyone sort of agrees that it's happened to them, maybe even share some backstory... until we get to Peter. The idea being that Peter's just too pure to have those kinds of urges when... Peter's the crown prince of berserk rages (he's Logan's heir). But Marvel has seen the writing on the wall! It's the cinnamon rolls who sell these days, so we can't go around reminding people of the fact that Peter once lost it so badly he beat the Sin Eater half to death until Daredevil stopped him (and then he tried to take his anger out on Daredevil), so he, oh, only left him disabled, with a severe limp and a lisp, nothing much! It's like they want you to forget that he's a character better suited to the current Defenders than to the Avengers (although he is pretty hybrid about that).

I don’t mean to make the differences all about his anger, but that’s arguably 616!Peter’s greatest flaw and it informs his whole character, and its removal informs m/cu’s Peter’s. He just lacks... edge.

Going back to that post I mentioned earlier, about NY protecting him, there’s something the op mentioned when they talked about Peter’s pure pureness and such. They mentioned how he directs tourists to the best hot dog stands, and helps old ladies cross the street and making kids smile at their birthday parties (I looked up that post just for you) and... I don’t remember him doing any of that. Getting cats out of trees, yes, although the only example that comes to mind is that one time he gave up being Spider-Man, moved to Portland and lost his powers, so, go figure (taking into account that I was so offended by the mischaracterization post OMD in 2008~ that I just skipped most of it until Nick Spencer took over in 2018, so there’s like ten years of comics I didn’t read). The rest, though? No. And there’s something I find interesting about that list. See, there’s something nice Peter has done plenty of times that should’ve been in that list for sure, yet wasn’t: using his webs to make shelters for homeless people caught out in the rain.

Oh! Oh! Hang on! Let me show you one of my absolute favorite Peter moments:

Looking at those pages... what time of day do you think it is? Granted, the 80′s-90′s saw some very dark coloring, but it’s probably night, right? 

Funny story, around the late 70′s or so, Peter was once accused of like 3 different murders (or two murders and a crime, don’t quite recall). They renew their investigations and find him not guilty and officially recall the order for his arrest when he got a reputation boost after saving a building full of people from a fire, during the day, which he had never done before, allowing people to see him as something more than a shadowy figure the Bugle talked shit about. Now, this is bogus, of course he’d saved the day when it wasn’t night before, but it gives you an idea of the image Spider-Man had, and his MO. Muggings in back-alleys in the dark. Is... night the time you’d imagine for helping old ladies cross the street, or giving tourists directions to good carts, or children’s bday parties? Like, first impression, first image that came to your mind when you thought about Peter doing those things. No, right? Unlike helping homeless people stay out of the rain, that summons up a dreary image, best suited for the shadows, and the night, and the darkest parts of the city, where most would fear to tread... like Peter is. 

(Is that from when he had a severe mental breakdown after a year of trauma and tragedy and a bit of an exaggeration of his usual menace? Yes, what of it.)

Instances where he was doing low stake good deeds like the ones are just mentioned were just filling, he was always stopping muggings and robberies and assaults and powerful and dangerous supervillains. That is, Peter was always fighting. Not being “pure”. He is good! He’s even naïve compared to some of the Defenders. But even while standing out, he’d fit right in.

Like, there’s comics fans who will tell you Peter wasn’t nice at all, just kind, and I disagree! The only reason I don’t include examples of that is because you already assume Peter’s nice and I don’t need to prove that. But he definitely had an edge. Even his niceness could be problematic (as in, it could cause problems) because he was just too intense and/or assertive. As in, he was sweet, and nice, and caring... in his way. He’s less of a child and more of a caretaker himself.

That’s an example of him walking all over someone and things going well. 

Looking at those previous pages, though, you can see why it’s so important that Peter have his rage. So that he can rise above it. He’s fucking Achilles, is what he is. Everyone else can be as perfect and pure as they like, but Peter can rise to such heights that are only comparable (and maybe due) to his lows.

There’s also something best illustrated by what follows that interaction.

See that anger? It’s because he cares. He gives his life up at the altar of Spider-Man because he just cares so much about people, and we all like to talk about that part (I know I do). It follows that an equal anger/hate would be directed at those that would hurt people. (“I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe.”)

There’s another difference: 616!Peter, as I mentioned, is intense. He’s emotional. It’s not always pretty. It’s not always good. It’s essential to him, though. I don’t know what to do with a Peter who apologizes for punching a man who’d pulled out and tried to use an alien-powered weapon in the middle of a ship full of people. Don’t you care at all????? Of course, violence is far from the only way to express care, but it’s one of Peter’s main ways. Or just being mean.

Guy’s car: gets crushed

Peter: “You took a handicapped spot? Serves you right!”

Compared to that, m/cu!Peter’s... bland. He’s driven, I guess. It might be harder to tell because, unlike 616!Aunt May, m/cu isn’t old or disabled in a way that prevents her from keeping as close an eye on Peter as she’d like when he’s a teen, and with Tony (and all the freaking universe) knowing his id, too, he’s kept on a tighter leash.  But they went too hard with the “Spider-Man, the hero who could be you!” angle and he’s “Spider-Man, the hero who could be anyone, because he’s no one at all”. He’s Standard Hero #24.

616!Peter’s extreme independence, as a lone hero, one of the first, and the sole breadwinner of his family, consisting solely of him and his ailing, elderly aunt, after Ben’s death, is another difference between them and something else that’s essential to his character. Simply put, I don’t think he’d have made it in the circumstances he was in if he wasn’t the kind of lone wolf who’d take on the whole world on his own, if he had to, even if he might resent the loneliness (and he was so lonely), because, well... he often had to. Those sharp edges served him, even though it also tends to cut him.

(I do want to mention that 1- the test thing is bogus, the only Avenger that got tested was Hawkeye, at his insistence and the rest’s protest and 2- they gave him a time limit to show up and when he got there they told him they weren’t ready and to wait outside the room. Most importantly, though, look at Peter’s own reaction to his anger.)

A very common attempt to shield em cee you against criticisms of inaccuracy is to say that Peter's just a kid there, of course he didn't have such an edge. Peter was worse at that age. Not as violent, granted, not by far, but much more likely to get his temper stoked. I mean... I think I gave you the worst example of Peter's rage with the Sin Eater story, so few things can compare. Oh, sure, Back in Black, where he goes on a hunt for the people who shot Aunt May and then the man who hired them, the Kingpin, but the violence isn’t worse so much as just sustained for longer. If anything, it's more controlled and colder.

But, yeah, he was hot-headed and combative. Like, maybe you can call m/cu Peter stubborn, but it's that... heroic stubbornness to do the right thing despite the odds against him (again, SH#24). Peter's angry at those odds, and the people who stack them against him. He got into two fistfights with Flash Thompson because he just couldn’t control his temper. 

It’s not always the righteous rage of a hero. Sometimes he’s just a little bitch. A little, petty, hot-headed bitch.

There’s also the very interesting case of the “teenage superhero”. We have an idea of what that means, one that fits very well with m/cu Peter: inexperienced, sweet and naïve and not yet tainted by the cruelty of the world, “got an F bc I was out fighting Electro!”, “I will one day make it to the ranks of the grown-ups!” It’s interesting because Peter’s often called the original teenage superhero and... he wasn’t like that. He wasn’t any more naïve than he’d be when he grew up. If his youth (and take into account he was supposed to be a major) had any relevance, it’s because they made him even more emotional and a wild card.

As you can see, he wasn’t a sweet anything. Except for his Aunt.

(Ok, seriously, though, refer to my other comments. He can be sweet and nice and soft, it just takes a different quality than “sweet smol bean”.)

He wasn’t inexperienced. In The Amazing Spider-Man #1, he holds his own pretty well against the Fantastic Four. Want some badass teenage Peter content? Look no further than his very first Annual, where he fights the Sinister Six! Strong, fast, resourceful, a skilled fighter, that’s Peter!

“With every nerve tangling... every sense honed to a razor sharp edge... the most amazing human fighting machine the world has ever known goes into action with dazzling speed and surging power!” Spider-Man fighting two leopards and Kraven the Hunter. Who spoils you like I do? Seriously, though, outside of the fact that your average comic book storyline followed a structure of “hero gets defeated by the villain at first, maybe suffers a bit of a crisis because of it, then comes back stronger from getting through that crisis and/or having gathered information on his foe during that first fight”... there's no example I can think of of teenage Peter being out-and-out inept, like m/cu Peter is. 

I’m not even sure that he spent more time at school than at the Bugle, at least on panel. We see him lie about studying and going to the library more often than we see him actually studying. His grades didn’t seem to suffer. The closest he got to getting in trouble was when he got into a fight with like 10 of his classmates, but then Flash confessed that he’d started it and the Principal was glad to let Peter off the hook. He got a full ride to what looked like a very good college (I mean, the son of renowned scientist and industrialist Norman Osborn went there) on scientific merit. In college, he struggled, yes, but he definitely wasn’t a kid by then.

He also predates the Avengers, so there was no hero-worship there, even if he were to agree that fighting bigger threats out in space made you a better or higher-ranked hero (as the m/cu does). I think it’s partly why he was so meh about joining them when they recruited them and only went for the money and because Thor convinced him he was under performing and being “irresponsible” by limiting himself to street thugs. He understood that they were just a bunch of guys, like him, only they’d gone for strength in numbers. (There’s a lot to say about Peter’s ability to work in a team and about that particular invitation to the Avengers, but that’s for another time.) There was no promotion. Heck, for a time, outside of the F4 and Pym (and Hulk, who wasn’t even reaaaaaaaally a hero), there was no one. No one but him. 

I mean, seriously. Fourth strongest hero. The Marvel Universe was tiny. 

And it isn’t now! I get the difficulties this causes in the m/cu (I mentioned that Peter might have needed that edge under his circumstances, and the truth is, those circumstances don’t apply to the m/cu, which is just a long-winded way to say that the internal inaccuracies, that is, his personality, might have been caused by external inaccuracies), but none of the Defenders were belittled like Peter was just because they got late to the party, partly (I assume) because they got netflix shows instead of movies and they didn’t really interact with the Avengers as much, while Peter did and had to be adapted to fit, but what I said before stays true. Peter’s more of a (netflix roster) Defender than an Avenger. He belongs at street level. Also, while this was a bit of a retcon from 2001 and didn’t influence Peter’s teenage years, Jessica went to school with him. She’s supposed to be his age. Why does she get to be an adult? (The push to make him all about youth, and an actual teenager whenever possible, came from Marvel Comics first, of course, but it’s the movies that have made that version the most popular one. Also, my bitterness for modern comics just doesn’t come up as much because comics don’t come up as much as movies.)

Even while making him a teenager, they could’ve respected him enough to let him be his own hero, instead of constantly panting after Iron Man and the Avengers. Think Ant-Man... but, you know, a teen. The rest of the universe exists, but their casts don’t have a near to equal presence as that of Ant-Man’s. I’m reading the essay I mentioned before as I write this and I don’t think I could explain it better than Sanderson does when he talks about him being called Spider-Man and not Spider-Boy. It’s condescending. I just remembered that Tony literally does that in Civil War. It’s nuts, how the more I think about it, the worse it gets.

I’m outright following the Sanderson essay now, because it’s so good and it mentions things I thought of mentioning here but forgot about lol. The humor. A problem that’s much older than the m/cu, much less m/cu!Peter, but I’m talking abut this now. Spider-Man isn’t the chatter-box superhero, he’s the quipping superhero. The only writer I can remember making Peter a rambler is Straczynski, and he gets a pass, because he’s Straczynski, and part of being Straczynski means having some of the best Peter Parker repartee. It’s just... I’ll put it plainly. Peter’s actually funny. Like, on purpose and in a very self-aware, sometimes even strategic, way. He’s not funny because he’s gushing over the Winter Soldier’s arm. That’s like verbal slapstick! It’s only funny because it’s ridiculous

“Are you trying to defeat me by talking me to death?!” Well, are you???????

Listen. Everyone has their preferences. I personally don’t like m/cu Peter because, even outside of his inaccuracies, I think he’s bland in personality and lacks a spine. The fanon version of him is even worse in that department, so it goes double. I’d be fine with that, except for the fact that stuff about him is ubiquitous and spreading over to the stuff I do like. I just wanna enjoy my Peter “you’re the only accident around here” Parker in peace... but with other people to share with. You see my struggle.

I’m not saying my version’s better (although I do like him better), it’s just... the accurate version. I get the appeal, I get that thye were trying to tell a particular story with Peter that they  couldn’t have told if  they’d stuck to his original skills, powers and personality, but maybe... just maybe... if the shoe doesn’t fit... don’t cut off your toes and heels to make it.

(If you got to the end, are disappointed by the lack of recs and are curious about the stories the panels I used are from, hmu! Or if you have more specific requests!)

[prydon]

hi. quick question but is there a particular reason why u prefer to use femme descriptors for Juno more often than the masc ones? i understand he is non-binary and thats one of my favourite things abt him. but canonically tho he seems to go by both with leaning towards masc a bit more. like, he calls himself a guy just as often he calls himself a lady, uses terms like brother son son-in-law etc. and hasn't used a femme one yet. i really hope im not coming off confrontational or offensive. but it is a sour spot for me due to my own gender and stuff, so apologies if im being inappropriate, or if im blending u together with for some other fic writers. it's a pretty common thing in the fandom im noticing and i would like for there to be a conversation abt this

i mean, i do use both?? and i always try to use masc descriptors in cases where he has done so explicitly in the text (aka, he's ben's brother and sarah's son, and uses "mister" instead of "miss").

i don't think it's accurate to say he hasn't used a femme descriptor yet, either--he used "madame" as dauphin, is referred to as small fry's "mom" in script notes, and has only ever been called "wife" when undercover married with nureyev. we have no idea what he refers to himself as re: his relationship with nureyev (aka girlfriend/boyfriend/partner etc) because it hasn't been stated yet, but i use "girlfriend" for now because as i mentioned we've only heard him use the femme descriptor for relationships. diamond's two terms of endearment for him were also both femme ("doll" and "dame").

intentionally or not i do tend to use "lady" more than "man", it's true--as does the vast majority of the fandom. there definitely is a criticism to be made there about juno's masculinity not being recognized often enough, and i will always speak against the idea that you can't call juno a man (he is one, and it's not inaccurate to call him that) but on a base level i think it just comes from people (including myself) liking the contrast of a character using he/him but also femme terms like lady, dame, wife or madame. we live in a society where very very few popular nonbinary characters exist, and especially not ones who use he/him pronouns while also calling themselves a lady, so it makes sense that people want to represent that in their works.

(and at least for me, it also comes from the fact that most juno fics are jupeter fic, so if you want to refer to juno without his name it's easier to say "the lady" than "the man" to distinguish him from nureyev.)

idk. i do think it's a good conversation to have, but personally i think the problem is less "fandom tends to lean more towards using feminine terms for juno rather than replicating the exact ratio used in the podcast" and more "fandom has a tendency to 'correct' people who call juno a man/boyfriend/brother etc at all and claim that's misgendering him when it is demonstrably not". that's something i've seen too often and think should definitely be remedied, and has probably also subconsciously affected my own writing because i don't want people to (incorrectly) assume i'm ignoring juno's nonbinary identity by calling him a man.

[a-little-slice-of-fandom]

I get so embarrassed when I see history fans talking about different Boleyns. Like, talking about her characterization on The Tudor, on The Six Wives of Henry, on Henry and His Six Wives etc. And then they get into Six and are like "... this Boleyn is a little bit different than the others, she isn't so strategic... actually she's not very smart". Like, we the fandom can say "If you pay attention and look at the script and watch the full bootleg, she's actually quite smart". But we can't ignore the fact that people that are not Six fans, and just Tudor times fans in general won't do all of those things. Boleyn is the most famous wife, so DLYH will be the song people will know the musical for, and we can't expect them to think "No, she's actually lying and dumbing herself down to win the audience's sympathy"

Firstly I’m not blaming anyone for their initial reaction to or their opinions or Don’t Lose Ur Head. If someone dislikes Boleyn’s portrayal in Six the musical then that’s completely fine, I’m not going to say that their opinion isn’t valid. My posts about Boleyn in Six aren’t for people who don’t like the musical, they’re for people who are already in the fandom. I wouldn’t expect non-fans to analyse the script of Six or the album because its not something their interested in. Six, like every other piece of media that has ever existed, is entirely subjective and I can totally understand why people would dislike Six and the characterisations of the queens. All I ask in return is that non fans respect that many people do like Six and enjoy the show as a whole and listen to us when we point out that maybe it isn’t as clear cut or things aren’t as immediately obvious as they first thought.

Here’s the thing about The Tudors though: yes, they had a fantastic version of Anne Boleyn and I adore Natalie Dormer in that role...but then I personally feel that same show completely butchered Katherine Howard. On the other hand, a lot of people agree that Six’s strongest asset is All You Wanna Do and it’s portrayal of Katherine as a victim rather than a villain. I will admit that I really disliked the portrayal of Howard in the Tudors when I first came across clips on YouTube. However, until I had seen the entire show, I refrained from forming a full opinion on her character and on series four of the Tudors as a whole because I knew it was unfair to judge an entire series by only a few clips. I still personally believe that they did Howard a massive disservice, but there are one or two good elements here and there that I wouldn’t have discovered unless I watched the whole show. I waited until I had access to all the content available and then formed my overall opinion, and when if someone tells me that they actually really like series 4 of the Tudors then I’m not going to try and take that away from them! In fact, I’m actively glad that they’re enjoying and having a good time with something I personally didn’t get a lot out of.

(Also isn’t Anne of a thousand days supposed to be inaccurate in places as well? Or am I thinking of a different play?)

Plus I think people need to look at how Six is presented. The Tudors is a serious, historical drama and as such you would want the characters in the show to reflect that tone and the premise. Six is a 75 minute musical, nearly always listed as a comedy, where the entire premise revolves around the fact that the six wives have somehow been brought back from the dead after 500 years and their first instinct was to form a girl band. Like...the idea of six alone is absolutely insane! The tone and therefore the characterisations are obviously going to be very different to what would be present in something that is more serious. It’s kind of like trying to compare an incredibly serious documentary to a horrible histories episode. Both are very different but that doesn’t mean one is bad and one is good. (Sidenote I adore horrible histories and it was what made me want to learn about and study history in the first place. I’m not knocking it or anything, I’m just using it as a comparison.)

Now I’m not saying that Toby and Lucy have a get out of jail free card when it comes to historical accuracy, in fact I’ve often talked about the things they could have done better or added in, but from the presentation of Six alone you should be able to tell that Six isn’t going to be like the Tudors or Anne of a thousand days or anything like that. It isn’t being presented in the same way. I knew from the moment I watched the Olivier’s performance with all the sparkly outfits and modern slang that I should take everything with a grain of salt and just enjoy Six for what it is: a fun and catchy musical with lots of female empowerment.

As a sidenote, I’ve always personally believed that historical accuracy and good are not synonyms. Something can be super historically accurate but then fall flat on its face from a dramatic perspective. But that’s not what happened with Six. Six isn’t historically accurate 100 percent of the time. It doesn’t hide this fact either, explicitly saying in the show “it’s not what went down in history” and the two writers admitting that they have regrets with some of the queens. But that doesn’t mean six isn’t good a show, because from a purely dramatic perspective...six does work. You can’t deny that Six is a good musical. It wouldn’t have 7 ongoing productions with two more in the works if it wasn’t working as a musical. It wouldn’t be nominated for and then win awards if it wasn’t working as a musical. It wouldn’t be worth millions of pounds if it wasn’t working as a musical. Again, not everyone has to like six the musical and I respect those who don’t but it’s success implies that it’s working on some basic level.

Basically what I’m trying to say is that I understand why people might write off Anne Boleyn from Six very quickly. I think it’s slightly unfair to write her off (especially if you’ve only listened to DLUH and not seen the whole show), but I do understand it and respect people’s personal opinions. All I ask is that they respect mine and the fact that I do like six and I do like the characterisation of Boleyn. I don’t think anyone should be embarrassed for saying they like something just because others dislike it.

(Also if any historical blogs want to vague post about this post...refer back to the sentences were I talked about respecting personal opinions. I’m not saying people should watch six to revise for their exams or anything, I’m just saying that people can still enjoy things that aren’t historically accurate and they shouldn’t feel bad about it)

[mysticalmusicwhispers]

HELLO... i am back

yes aditya gets a treat because otherwise indus is going to murder him and then transfer him far far away and never unground him ever and we can't do that to a baby. also i hope no actual murder of chickens occur in their plot thing but it could also be something Worse so Yikes!

i wish yao didn't know what a hickey is but. welp he would. actually this makes me propose a situation (nsfw-ish? implied nsfw?): nyo china buys encyclopedias for yao to read and one very old one has a section with a full diagram of sexual intercourse. it isn't porn, it's those diagrams where the skin is missing and serves as a view into the organs of the human body but just in a... position. so 8 year old yao reads all about sex and goes to nyo china being like "hey so sex is for making babies right? so if i want children i have to have sex right? there's no opting out of it?" and nyo china is like fuck it the kid might as well get his sex ed + introduction to adoption stuff now since he knows about it already. then the next day a teacher has a badly hidden hickey and yao is trying to figure out how the fuck that happened before he remembers that certain animals bite each other during sex and asks nyo china about it.. and then boom. (the encyclopedia part was unfortunately inspired by irl events 😔)

but anyway imagine yao mistranslating the code.. and being like "wtf why do you want to BITE people" and india + iran being like ??? and then they get an unfortunate sex ed that night (baby! yao's mildly inaccurate version: "sometimes weirdos like biting each other during sex many animals do this as well and this is called a hickey. sex is this thing that adults do for fun and sometimes to reproduce. but you should only bite other people and have sex with them if all of you are interested and not just because you want a baby, because there are other ways of getting one. if they try to have sex with you or bite you or touch you in Bad Touch areas you should -" "kill them? and get an adult later?" "yeah exactly" "how do you know this tho??") then yao probably tries to find the sex encyclopedia to bring to school to show india and iran but nyo china threw it out because it was 20 years out of date and said that pluto was a planet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

also YES MISS VIETNAM DESTROY THE PROPERTY OF THE RICH... CUT HIM DOWN TO SIZE imagine getting 2 entire ass houses at 18 lol and there was actually a person who was going to get a mercedes in my class. apparently his parents were buying 2 and wanted him to pick the one with the colour he liked more as a gift at 18 and keep the other for themselves. he asked us which colour Mercedes was better, someone accused him of being a braggart, and then there was so much drama... i am glad i am no longer in that class. rich people.

also yeah miss vietnam is definitely one of those nice but strict teachers!! she'll definitely be kind to everyone but she won't tolerate bullshit and god knows yao is full of it. but also imagine vietnam teaching india's class and then yao pouting to india about the assignment he got a b on (a slight improvement from the c) only to be met with "what? she's so nice and smart lol you're just an asshole i kind of want to make friends with her tbh" and yao's like How Dare You Backstab Me Like This? but yes she really forces him to Think instead of just letting him be and that's very good for him!! and she gets an intellectual outlet too :D

also yeah like linh is going to struggle.. how do you write "he's a complete asshole but tolerable and intellectually fun after a while" in a GOOD manner?? this rec letter will probably be full of phrases like "a spirited personality given to debate" or something

This is also a late reply :’)

I wasn’t really thinking about anything specific for the plot; I was really just trying to find a word that was slightly similar to hickey and decided on a dead chicken lmao. But honestly, it would probably be something like “I’m going to bring a (dead) chicken to class for show and tell and you two need to act horrified and cause a ruckus because it would be fun and it would scare the other kids :)”. (this is probably bullying, so in an effort to make them slightly better kids, an alternative plot is that a stray cat has been coming to their school and in order to make friends with it, they feed it a whole-ass dead chicken Nyo China got from the butchers and was planning to cook for dinner. The teachers are horrified and confiscate Yao’s backpack for fear of germs and salmonella.)

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OH MY GOD nyo China, miss, please, he’s young. But the encyclopedia reading is so accurate o-o small and independent Yao + voracious reader + lots and lots of books about Everything + nyo China’s hands-off “it’s never too early to know” caretaking/parenting strategy = what other things has he been exposed to... (let’s face it he’s probably said the F-word or insulted someone in Mandarin without meaning to, but came off as a disrespectful little chaos ball) BUT THE BADLY HIDDEN HICKEY and the ANIMALS BITING EACH OTHER salk;fsdl;ksdjl way to unconsciously roast your teacher lmao. I love nyo China’s no-nonsense way of approaching Strange Questions Asked by Eight Year Olds but I do not know how to feel about her very direct answers 😭 Also, I am very sorry for your personal loss 😔.

Scene 3 is 100/10 canon now. “weirdos who bite each other during sex” Yao thinks hickeys are weird, and good for him. Also the little summary!! Of course Yao pass on everything he knows to India and Iran... at least it’s not a fucked up version of sex-ed, even if it may have some small inaccuracies. rip outdated encyclopedia. Also “ ‘kill them? And get an adult later?’ ‘yeah exactly’” GOOD nyo china thank you for doing at least one thing correctly

also your class is crazy??? A MERCEDES oh my god... how do his parents love him so much? My parents probably wouldn’t even trust me with a second hand from 2005 lmao. Also, wtf rich kid, why would you be crowdsourcing opinions for YOUR car? (ngl I kinda think he was bragging too 😂, but drama? Do all these people have nothing else to do besides gossip smh)

Vietnam has a blacklist of Confirmed Assholes she needs to keep an eye on and Yao got on the list in the first few days after being very tryhard and simultaneously arrogant, so he just assumes she’s naturally mean because he never saw the other side of her. But then he starts hearing reviews from his friends who all say she’s their favorite teacher so far and he’s all like “????? Excuse you???” Also yes go get her friendship Aditya hopefully it will mellow you out a little as well “A spirited personality given to debate” YES YES YES! That sounds like such a nice phrase but it’s just code for “loves to argue with me and that’s cool I guess”. The recommendation makes Yao glow (to admissions) despite how much Vietnam thinks it’s bad and also how much bs-ing she thought she did. Admissions officers think Yao’s amazing and contributes greatly to the classroom environment and Vietnam is like “yeah, in a way, as long as you don’t mind someone who thinks every word you say is somehow wrong and will fight you to prove it lol. just take him, I’m trying to get rid of him”

Since there’s essays involved I’m assuming she teaches either history or literature? Kinda on the fence because I feel like she’d be good at giving a no-nonsense version of history filled with interesting details and prompts that make you think (and also hosts monthly debates on controversial issues), but I also want Yao to be as un-confident as possible in his abilities in her class, and I feel like he would be less comfortable/sure of his answers and thoughts in a lit class than a history one. I’m not sure though

[autumn-foxfire]

I used to be in a villain stan discord b/c I honestly do love the villains so much. But after observing the server, I had a theory on why some stans are thoroughly convinced the League are the good guys and bend over backwards to paint them as victims in every situation. A lot of people relate to the League b/c its members are social outcasts due to the smth they can't control. But while the League provides an inkling of representation for marginalized people (1/3)

(mentally ill—Twice, disabled & abused—Dabi, discriminated on appearance—Spinner, etc.), the representation is very inaccurate and the villainization of marginalized people is a long used problematic trope. Instead of just dropping the manga over this, some stans kept reading and coped by slowly twisting the villains into better representation fodder. They headcanon things that make say Twice a more accurate representation of a mentally ill person, moving him further (2/3)

and further away from his actual character. Then they convince themselves the villains (who now are more headcanon than canon) have noble intentions, which removes that hated "villainization of marginalized people" trope. Basically, they so badly want the villains to be ideal representations of marginalized people and when Horikoshi didn't deliver, they took matters into their own hands. When I realized the only characters they actually stan are their fix-it versions, I dipped lol (3/3)

Maybe I’m dense but I don’t know why it’s such an issue to have people who come from marginalized backgrounds be villains when the show also has people with these same backgrounds be heroes too. So while Twice was mentally ill, we have Amajiki who too has a mental illness (while not exactly the same though), Dabi is implied to be abused and so was Shouto, Natsuo and Fuyumi, all who have gone on to have careers that are about helping people and then you have Spinner and Gang Orca and Magne and Tiger (though I’ve seen quiet a few people have an issue with their representation) and so on. It’s not like BNHA paints people who are marginalized as criminals, it just so happens that these people are criminals and fall into marginalized groups.

I also believe that BNHA is, admittedly clumsily, trying to adress the issues in society that caused these groups to become criminals. At least I hope it does because then it kinda does become the ‘villainization of marginalized people’ trope.

I like the villains the way they are in canon. I might not be completely impressed by all of them and some of them aren’t my favourite, but I genuinely enjoy watching them be villains. They’re interesting characters as they are and while headcanons can enhance them to a next level, sometimes headcanons that twist a character’s personality too much makes me lose enjoyment over them (especially when it becomes a popular fanon headcanon and you see it everywhere). I sound like a bitter old person writing this, obvious headcanons are for fun and anyone can headcanon what they want but personally I prefer the canon flavors of the characters a bit more.