#a lot of the criticism for this drama is based on not considering the context of every situation individually

[scarefox]

btw. a while ago someone wrote that it was weird, creepy, wack (whatever) that Aob made such a big deal out of the fact that Puen lied to him about his virginity. And that it plays into this creepy virginity obsession of society.

As someone who hates this obsession as well, I still disagree on that reading of that conflict.

The thing is, Puen told Aob that one of the main reasons why he is into him, is because Aob took his virginity. Aob basically is Mr. "trust issues, no feelings due to past betrayal and hurt", slowly agreed to emotionally open up to Puen and their mutual feelings for each other. It's the fact that Puen lied to him, that makes him that upset, not the virginity part. That Puen betrayed his trust just shortly after they got closer. Which, if it had been true, was basically Peun lying to him to manipulate him. But in the end it wasn't really a lie but a misunderstanding of what went down with Keen.

[teyvats-worst-hero]

We Need to Talk About Morality in Media:

a serious discussion with teyvats-worst-hero Moon Spice

Sometimes it feels like nuance is systematically ignored in these large fandoms like the Hoyoverse games.

I definitely have thoughts about a lot of things. Very complicated, often critical thoughts. But I don’t think it’s enough to just…. Write everything off as completely acceptable or completely unacceptable. It all feels very reactionary.

And this isn’t me chickening out and going with the most moderate opinions as though lack of extremity makes the correct option. There are elements of Hoyoverse games that I greatly like or dislike, and I want to be able to express those takes freely without the assumption that I’m “one of them,” the malicious opposing side as determined by whatever camp the reader has decided is fundamentally good and correct.

It’s a thought I have again and again, any time there’s controversy over the games’ merits and failings. Some might say that there’s nothing actually stopping me from posting about these regular controversies. There isn’t. That’s true. But if I’m going to roll the dice for that random chance of disproportionate, overwhelming negativity, it’s not going to be just in reference to Twitter drama over the anime gacha games. It’s going to be a far-reaching critique of current fandom/media culture.

So I’ll just preface this lecture with the following messages— if you believe I’m provoking you specifically, then that’s your feeling to bear. I don’t have anyone specific in mind and don’t intend to be directly inflammatory. I care a lot about having real discussions about these issues and don’t appreciate bad faith.

Feel free to scroll here if this kind of thing stresses you out. This will be very long.

Correlation is not Causation

Do you, reader, genuinely have an understanding of the way fiction does and does not affect reality, or do you function off of assumptions of how people react to it? It’s a correlative relationship. Not causal, not independent. Correlative.

Fiction can affect how we view things in real life, but cannot forcibly change our opinions or our actions. It’s a form of cultural influence. The effect is more pronounced the less experience you have in that topic and the more prevalent that particular trope/message/philosophy is. This is a big reason why children’s media is held to a higher standard of clearly identifiable messaging— they have very little experience in a lot of areas and are still learning what “normal” entails.

It’s also why, for example, mainstream media constantly showing fictional relationships with power imbalances while never acknowledging their potential for abuse is considered a toxic standard, but depicting a relationship containing power-imbalance without acknowledgement of immorality is not in itself a dangerous trope that should be banned. Context is everything, including both the rest of the work and the outside world (which includes past, present, and future alongside cultural considerations).

One creator or a fraction of any fandom enjoying disturbing/morally objectionable content does not carry the weight to constitute a moral panic. It isn’t enough volume of content to “normalize” anything unless it’s supporting a movement that is both popular and leading to real-life harm.

I am absolutely going to get side-eye for this from what I’ve seen, but from the limited interaction I’ve had with fandom spaces in my adulthood, this whole pro-ship anti-ship thing seems to be based on this fundamental misunderstanding. It likely started as a distaste for disturbing ship content (Eg: incest, pedophilic), then evolved into the belief that engaging with this content meant you were similarly predatory, then started including less and less serious dynamics (Eg: a problem with weird age gaps becoming a problem with all age gaps), finally reaching a state in which personal discomfort with a fictional idea is tantamount to real life harm.

As I said, I’m not deeply involved with fandom. But based on the timeline of fandom history, conservative political trends in my country, and my own personal experience, I’d hazard a guess that this way of thinking is based on many young people (20’s and under) holding onto a very… victimized worldview. It’s hard to describe, but there’s a pervasive theme of scary sexual deviants and moral corruption. An overt fixation on protecting innocent eyes that don’t really exist.

When to Be Worried

A more nuanced test of moral concern that I’d offer is whether or not the anticipated audience would assume that the idea behind a part of fiction is:

1. This idea is a reasonable message or authorial intention to interpret from that work

(eg: it’s reasonable to interpret that in a horror movie where promiscuous characters die as a result of sexual activities but virginal characters survive, promiscuity is considered a negative trait. This interpretation is not reasonable if their killer is framed as a dangerous religious extremist.)

2. The idea is true (or partially true) in reality

(eg: you may not assume all women are unfathomably attracted to you because you’re like the stereotypical “losers” that always get the girl, but you may assume that they owe you a chance if you’re nice to them)

3. Acceptable and normal to have within their own social groups, not necessarily in the mainstream

(eg: it’s completely fine for Romani* people to be portrayed as criminals because no one you know has ever batted an eye about it)

*more commonly called “gypsies” in my experience, but this is considered a slur by the members of the community I’ve seen. I’m clarifying here because I’m legitimately not sure if many people would recognize their actual name, but I’m not opposed to censoring it if it’s preferable.

4. Something that they should actively participate in or facilitate

(eg: making or allowing racist remarks, attempting BDSM techniques without proper communication or research)

Pick Your Battles

There’s also a spectrum of how seriously these trends need to be taken on their own. Here’s a little chart I’ve created for the occasion.

(Note: Do not take every pixel of color on this chart as my infallible, fully-formed belief. I literally made this on my phone with my finger.)

The blue section (the intersection of mainstream belief and zero harm) is of least concern. These are the non-issues. Think of the most unoffensive show you can, and this is that.

The red section (the intersection of immediate real-life harm and mainstream belief) is of highest concern, because these ideas are both dangerous enough to directly cause harm and popular enough to actually incite people to act on them.

Notice that both these colors curve up and around to also include the maximum heights of “unanimous immorality.” This is because some things that harm no one are vehemently despised by the culture they appear in, and some things that everyone theoretically hates can, due to cultural complications or lack of control by the general public, still happen.

The center of the chart is yellow. This is where things get… Complicated. There’s the capacity for harm, but it isn’t necessarily immediate or tangible. There’s variable or split opinions on the morality of the idea. This zone is, in my eyes anyway, the origin of “problematic.”

It Both Is and Is Not That Serious

Oftentimes the things that fall into this category aren’t inherently bad, but their unanimity makes them so. Maybe there’s competing representation or access needs at play, or maybe there’s a complicated web of good and bad elements that are hard to separate from one another. Either way, it’s hard to decide how to handle the situation.

So we just… don’t.

By throwing out the baby with the bath water, we avoid the uncomfortable experience of examining the borders of our social justice while reframing our hasty dismissals as being unarguably good— “unarguably” being the key term. But to actually rectify the problems in our media, we have to ask what the complete dismissal of a work will achieve.

Will total refusal to engage with it in good faith contribute to solving a certain problem? Sometimes it can, particularly if it’s a work made in bad faith that would benefit from your attention. But many times what it actually does is contribute to a very Puritan view of fiction that only allows us to consume “moral” stories, for fear that any slight sign of immorality is infectious and corrupting beyond our control. Recall my point about fiction being unable to directly control our actions, only influence our ideas of “normal.”

Now, that’s not the only reason people can be overly reactionary. There’s a second part that often goes with it.

It feels good to hate something.

This is something that has always been very prevalent in Hoyoverse fandoms. It’s very socially acceptable to hate on games like these since there’s already a lot to rag on genuinely. But when the more actively destructive elements are done to death, this lingering desire for justice manifests in treating yellow-level issues, ones that are multifaceted and/or mostly informed by context, as orange or red level problems. Then the game is trashed for being irredeemable. It’s very convenient for the content cycle and social media algorithms.

I’m now seeing these tendencies replicated by fandoms and individuals on their own time. It isn’t in vogue to have nuanced takes on our media, especially not when it does have distasteful elements. This can be seen when the creator of a work is outed as being an objectively awful person in some way. It’s not just that this person is bad, it’s that their creations are bad, their creative choices somehow communicated their evil nature, and everyone was stupid for not seeing it or supporting the creator’s actions by not publicly declaring that the work was always bad.

There’s a point to be made in cutting financial support to the creator, but it clearly isn’t about that. It just isn’t possible to identify a bad person simply by how disturbing their work is, even less so by its quality. This way of thinking allows many abusive people to skate by on the grounds that “bad people can’t make good art,” as well as making the worrying assertion that ��good people can’t make uncomfortable art.”

And if they do make uncomfortable art, the audience will demand to be spoon fed confirmation that no, the creator doesn’t actually support the actions of the antagonist.

Don’t Think, Just Feel: Ending Remarks

Anti-intellectualism has been on the rise for a while. In the USA at least.

It started with jokes about the curtains being blue. About how English teachers are just making things up and art doesn’t really mean anything.

And now we’re here, unable to figure out for ourselves whether or not an author means this thing or the other, and won’t they just confirm it on social media? If they don’t, simply assume the worst. Simply take the text at face value or make arbitrary connections with little textual evidence.

If you got this far, thank you for humoring me. This topic means a lot. You can probably tell that I’m an English major, and I’ve watched as online discourse has taken a nosedive directly into reactionary Puritanism over the course of my life.

I will never forget that day on the Amino (yes, Amino) of my favorite book series when the moderators (likely preteens or teens) banned any discussion of an important canon couple for one reason:

Via a fanon conversion method, it had been determined that the guy was technically an adult and the girl was technically a teenager when they met…

In dragon years.

Dragon years.

Notoriously one-to-one with human years.

There may have been an interview with the author where she went “oh whoops sorry I didn’t mean for it to come out that way,” but I don’t entirely remember. All I know was that they’d declared it immoral and any talk or art of it would be deleted.

And no one said anything about how ridiculous it was!

It’s a pretty stupid story, but that was really the moment in which I saw with full clarity that such a level of moral panic was not based in real problems. It was some amorphous obsession with virtue and control headed by people trapped in an echo chamber they couldn’t see. And now it’s worse.

A bad feeling does not determine morality. Personal distaste does not determine morality. Your own ignorance does not determine morality.

It’s been hard for me in the past few years. Sometimes I feel a little like I’m going crazy when I see people saying blatantly wrong things and refusing to think about what they’re saying. My own education, I will never ever take it for granted I swear on the very concept of God, seems like forbidden knowledge at this point, and it’s… Terrifying. Deeply terrifying. People are so happy for censorship, and I just….

I couldn’t just watch anymore. I couldn’t.

Thank you for reading. I’d love to discuss this with you all since I’m by no means the final authority on fandom things.

[anghraine]

dontstandmedown replied to this post:

re:tags could you share the playwright you're talking about? :0

No problem! For others, the tags in question are this:

#thinking about this partly because the softer & gentler versions of fanfic discourse keep crossing my dash #and partly because i've written like 30 pages about a playwright i adore who was just not very good at 'original fiction' as we'd define it #both his major works are ... glorified rpf in our context but splendid tragedies in his #and the idea of categorizing /anything/ in that era by originality of conception rather than comedy/tragedy/etc would be buckwild

I am always delighted to share the good news of John Webster! If you're not familiar with him, he was an early seventeenth-century English playwright known for being a slow, painstaking, but reliable writer. He did various collaborations with other playwrights (and acknowledges a bunch of his peers in an author's note to The White Devil, including Jonson and Shakespeare) and wrote some middling plays in various genres that could be more or less termed "original fiction," but he's remembered for two brilliant, bloody tragedies.

The basic premises/plots of both of these were essentially ripped from the headlines of the previous century, and Webster makes zero attempt to conceal that fact.

I couldn't shut up about my guy so more under a cut!

The White Devil is based on the actual murder of Vittoria Accoramboni in the late sixteenth century and the characters in the play are generally given the same or similar names as the real life people in the story as known at the time, so there's no attempt to conceal the play's origins (the anti-heroine/villain???[debatable] is named Vittoria Corombona in the play, for instance).

The original production of The White Devil largely failed, which Webster blamed mainly on bad weather and an audience who just didn't get his ~vision and what he was trying to do. It would not be unsurprising for a contemporary audience to struggle with it given that it's a complicated play in which, among other things, Vittoria is put on trial and rhetorically shreds the underlying misogyny of the entire legal process.

The Duchess of Malfi, generally considered a still greater achievement, is based directly on the murder of Giovanna d'Aragona, Duchess of Amalfi by her brothers (it was presumed, likely correctly). Lope de Vega also wrote a play about this tragedy not long before Webster did, though the plays are very different and it's unlikely that Webster would have had the time or linguistic knowledge necessary to read Lope's version. Probably part of the reason for the differences between Lope's and Webster's takes is that Lope had to be careful about the reception by the Catholic Church given that one of the murderers was a cardinal, while obviously an English Protestant like Webster could say whatever he wanted about eeeeevil cardinals.

Webster takes a lot of artistic license, a normal approach at the time to adapting previously-established narratives, but the source material is very recognizable. One of the commendatory verses at the beginning of the play (blurbs in poetic form from other playwrights) is like "I'm sure the real duchess was cool but she couldn't be as cool as Webster's heroine, wow <3". (One of the other commendations is by another fave of mine, John Ford.)

Bosola, the historically mysterious minion of the Duchess's murderous brothers (=Bozolo in the historical narrative) gets an elaborate quasi-redemption arc in the play. And the play is extremely critical of various characters' obsession with and attempts to control the Duchess's sexual behavior (a fixation that is often extremely normalized in early modern British drama, but which comes off really badly here).

Ultimately this obsessiveness leads to her brothers, the Cardinal (=the historical Cardinal Luigi d'Aragona) and Ferdinand (=Carlo d'Aragona) orchestrating her torment and murder in which she emerges with her sanity and integrity intact and dies with dignity. Meanwhile, the Cardinal is exposed as a remorseless villain (he proceeds to murder his mistress with a Bible) and Ferdinand's already-shaky sanity snaps under the realization of what he's done.

Webster's Duchess is often considered the first real female tragic hero in British drama—the tragic is especially significant because tragedy was typically considered a higher art form than comedy and the truly great female characters from that era of drama are often restricted to comedies or secondary roles in tragedy (a marked trend in Shakespeare, for instance). The Duchess in the play is virtuous, strong-willed, witty, and fairly unabashedly sexual in the context of the time, a concept that several hundred years of critics have struggled with. (My favorite OTT complaint is from Martin Sampson, an early 20th century critic who lamented the conspicuous absence of a "strong active man, following righteous things" in Webster's work, to which I say l m a o.)

Anyway, among scholars of early modern British drama, Webster is often considered second only to Shakespeare as a tragedian, on the basis of those two plays. And the modern obsession w/ originality and novelty makes this kind of fascinating, given that his "original" work (in our sense—again, the original vs fanfic dichotomy was not a thing in that cultural context) is sort of meh but his work with pre-existing sources turns them into these staggering dramatic achievements.

[utilitycaster]

Hi I’m a new critter and I love your account and both your meta and your takes on “drama” I genuinely want to know (if you don’t mind saying of course) what you consider to be the most egregious, bad faith cr take that you’ve ever seen. I just like reading your criticism because it’s both incredibly articulate and smart but also very satisfying

Hi anon,

Thank you! I do have to say this is a difficult question with a boring answer but I'll give you a tangential one as well to make up for it.

Obviously, the misogyny and death threats in C1 are the worst! Anything that rises to the combination of structural oppression and literal death threats is going to be the worst, even before you factor in how utterly tiny the stakes were here (and, frankly, you shouldn't factor that in; doesn't matter what the cause is, big or small! Do not send death threats!)

The reason I tend not to talk about that is because there's very little to say. It's misogynistic death threats. That's awful, inexcusable, and dangerous in any context. But if someone doesn't understand how terrible this is, I don't think I can say anything to add to that.

Anyway because that was true, but obvious and not terribly revealing, I have been thinking a lot about mean-spiritedness in the fandom and I'll talk about that here. It's something I try to be cognizant of, because here's the thing: I talk a lot of shit. I'm aware I talk a lot of shit. There's many reasons why I talk a lot of shit. But I do try very hard not to be mean-spirited. I think there is a very clear distinction between criticism, even harsh criticism, of things you don't like, whether it's in execution, concept, or they just aren't to your taste; and mean-spiritedness, which is much more based in a desire to do harm to others.

I think again the example I've mentioned recently of people harassing Liam until he took a song off a Caleb character playlist is the pinnacle. This doesn't have any real goal re: criticism - it doesn't address an issue with the character nor the narrative and the only personal preference it reveals is "I, a random fan, don't like that this song was used in this context" which is not really relevant and you can skip it. Harassment is never justified, and even behavior that skirted harassment really served only to be a dick to Liam. It didn't have a single result other than "Liam takes the song off and feels kind of bad for a while," which I suspect was in fact the goal for most people, and that's pretty abhorrent.

Harsh criticism is not necessarily constructive, but it is with the intent to reveal - either a personal preference, or what you believe to be a flaw (structural, thematic, etc) within the story. It might not have a goal - personal preference really is just "I don't like this guy" and that's fine. Mean-spiritedness, however, exists just to spew bile and do harm.

So the following (most of which are paraphrased, but all are things I've personally seen on Tumblr alone, and nearly all are from the last year or so) aren't per se the most egregious or bad-faith takes, but they are absolutely mean-spirited. They have all destroyed my estimation of the people saying them for the most part beyond repair, and in many cases, if they have not hurt my estimation of the ship or character they were intending to support, they have certainly increased my estimation of the things they were intending to oppose. (And it goes without saying: any harassment - any - is automatically mean-spirited).

"I hope Fjord and Jester have divorced [author's note: they were not married] and I hope it hurt."

"I hope Caleb and that floaty fuck have broken up by the solstice."

"I hate Ashton, and Campaign 3 wouldn't be any different if they weren't there."

"My wishlist for this episode is that Chetney hits on Fearne and Ashton cockblocks him"

"I hope Fearne makes that robot eat his stupid coin"

"I'm not surprised that Yasha missed, because Yasha is bad at everything."

"Funny how Vex goes against her husband but does everything that Keyleth says" [Author's note: later proved to be hilariously untrue]

"No one cares about Travis's characters."

"Oh, Liam meant that Essek's own guilt would still exist by 'It won't help the inside?' I thought he was just being a fucking twat."

I think some people go into fandom not because they want to talk about characters, but because they see it as an opportunity to hit someone. I think some people believe they are entitled to a "win" (not normal to want nor possible to achieve and often less about the story and more about the fandom agreeing with them) and will engage in any tactic no matter how underhanded if they don't think they're getting it. That's what mean-spiritedness is in the end. It's not a single opinion, and often it goes under the radar compared to more stupid but less clearly unpleasant takes - a lot of the above didn't result in a ton of discourse because most people see these and rightfully go "oh that person is a tar pit" and block them - but it's certainly, outside of bigotry (which is also frequently also mean-spirited) - the most bad-faith approach to fandom on the whole.

[rabbiitte]

Sand betraying Nick hurt me more than any other betrayal 😭😭

Oh, Anon... You shouldn't have sent this, now it's your fault if I can't stop. Deal with me, please 😂.

A lot of people are talking about how Sand possibly manipulated Ray but few people are talking about this. I personally believe that Sand knew which buttons to press to elicit a response in Ray but it's debatable whether Sand expected to see Ray explode or not. However, what's not debatable is how Sand betrayed Nick.

Nick and Sand have known each other for a long time, in EP2 it's suggested that they used to spend time together. They even trusted each other enough to get to live together.

In the present, Nick trusted Sand enough to confess that he recorded two people having sex without their consent, only asking him not to disclose it. At the same time, Nick also confessed that he was in love with Boston and Sand was able to see the slow progress in BostonNick's relationship (even though he knows Boston never compromises with anyone) and how much it affected Nick.

These two were the only ones who could really be considered "friends" (without any other feelings involved) and yet Sand betrayed Nick's trust and showed that he doesn't care about what happens to Nick. Sand even revealed to Ray who had recorded the audio, something completely unnecessary if you ask me.

I really don't know if Sand didn't think about the consequences of his actions because his hatred for Top blinded him or if he did think about the consequences but decided to ignore them. I think it's important to think about the level of obsession that Sand has with Top, because he didn't care about the way his actions might affect his relationships or the relationships of his relationships. This is certainly something to ponder. Either way, Sand not only hurt Nick (because Nick knows what Sand did), but he put Ton and Nick's relationship at risk (which is also going to hurt Nick) and Nick could have to face legal consequences.

Now, many may say “deserved" to Nick because Nick also went through Ton's phone, Nick was the one who made the decision to record TopBoston and, of course, Nick is also questionable and manipulative. However, both Nick and Sand have acted problematically in certain situations and it's important to evaluate their actions individually rather than comparing them directly. Each action must be considered in its own context and with respect to its consequences. Same with those people who complain about putting Sand and Ton on the same level saying that Sand is not as bad as Ton. There is no such thing as who acted better or worse, both acted badly and to say that a character isn't problematic just because he isn't as problematic as certain character is to minimize and justify based on comparison. We're allowed to criticize the actions of each character without having to compare them with other characters' actions. Each character deserves an independent evaluation based on their own development in the series.

With all that said, I love the drama Sand is bringing to the series! I hope we can continue to enjoy his questionable attitudes, even if they make us suffer.

[ghostjelliess]

Hey, so the reason the nerdy girl becomes beautiful when removing her glasses is actually because her prescription is so bad that her glasses warp her face, making her eyes appear much smaller and her face much narrower. I know this because I got contacts senior year of high school because they finally found a material that could support my stupid high prescription, and the number of people who gave me the teen rom-com double take was frankly insulting. I got a lot of comments like "oh wow, you're actually really pretty" and "why did you wear glasses?"

So anyway, even though tropes become cliches, they're usually based in something that society has outgrown. You can get contacts with really high prescriptions and the lenses of glasses can be molded in a way that makes them more lightweight and compact.

My mom took her glasses off for her wedding ceremony and she always talks about how those pictures were her favorite even though she couldn't see anything. Honestly, a shy girl hack, but now we have contacts and the nerdy girl removing her glasses just isn't that big of a deal, so the audience watching She's All That without the context of the 90s doesn't project their understanding onto the prop glasses, they just go "oh my god... she took of her glasses... whattttt?" because it seems ironic, or sarcastic, or shallow.

I've been thinking about that a lot lately, how different cultures (including generational differences) have different expectations of their audiences in terms of believability and acceptance of a performance. Like in Chinese Xianxia, the production and performance are much closer to the experience of watching a broadway stage production on dvd, you know there are wires, you know its makeup, you know the over-the-top pouting, whining, and gestures are made for a stage, and if you don't watch it with that understanding, then it seems non-aware or even cringy. But in the internet age, when a lot of global and generational culture is exchanged at ridiculous paces, we are so often exposed to media without that context, and I guess what I want is for more people to consume their entertainment without the assumption that it was meant for them or that they will inherently understand it. I don't know how many reviews I've read under dramas that are like "this was confusing" when the artistry of a scene was illustrating some traumatic violence that I was really grateful not to have played out in front of me, but to relate to and confront nonetheless. Some of that, I'm sure, is desensitization and plain old ignorance, but in the writer sphere of things, I find that a lot of readers and writers criticize what a trope has become with no real sympathy or understanding of where it came from.

I just finished a series published in the early 2010s where a main character was struggling with the equivalent of ADHD meds, and while the books were far from the pinnacle of literature (and the meds were somewhat exaggerated, but honestly, not by much), I saw many angry reviews saying the representation of mental health and meds was so unrealistic, and I just wanted to yell "but it was experimental. We didn't all have those words then about therapy and mental health. What do you mean?" Because it was really hard working with my now-fiance and his meds back in those early 2010s when we were in college. He did go through withdrawal, he did work really hard to get to a stable place (and still does), they did just prescribe things and hope for the best, and it did regularly mess him up and change his entire personality. Like, a lot. But then I realized the people with those criticisms of that book were all babies and I just laughed it off like "shut up, baby," and let them live in this better world where their friends don't get pressured into microdosed methamphetamines because someone on a board somewhere was sure that if they smiled they must be happy.

I was gonna dig out my anth degree and make a list of modern tropes that are considered cliche or bad, even when used true to their origin (like people saying the Breakfast Club cliques are unrealistic or cliche, or the Cinderella entrance is overdone in Cinderella remakes lol) and trace back where they came from and why they might have resonated with their original audience, but I've had one foot in the bronze age lately and even in frickin' Gilgamesh we get old tropes that probably weren't true used to quickly convey character and jump into the story: Zaddy G is sleeping with all the virgin women before they wed and Enki-don't is a wildman tamed by a Pretty Woman, har-har (and I'm sure even then there were people in the audience with heart eyes watching two bros fight each other into becoming better people thinking now kiss lol).

Anyway, tropes get old, I agree, sometimes they're used out of laziness and that makes them bad, I agree, and sometimes they're just bad, like morally, I agree. I just get annoyed when people want to complain about a topic without conversing or analyzing it in any way, honestly. It's because I get excited about talking about these things and then they're like "no, it's just weird, no talk, only whine—now let me see your glasses, you look really blind, oh my gosh you're so pretty without them!" and I'm left standing there scratching my head like, no, you can't try my glasses, I need them to see, let's talk about the elephant in the room now, which is our collective social dichotomy of expectations between quality and quantity.

[romana-after-dark]

ok tysm !! and ofc, again + always feel free to simply delete or respond later if u don’t have the mental capacity to respond now or ever <3

tw for mentions of rape, cnc, noncon + grooming

so, if u want context: there’s been some drama on my dash lately abt a certain fic writer (no one in the ppcu) writing a fic abt a real life person (not his character but literally just him). the person intended for it to be a cnc fic but, and im only going off what ive read from others abt it bc rpf isn’t always my thing personally, it came off as just rape/noncon apparently as it was their first time trying to write cnc

tl;dr/my question to u is, i think ik ur stance on ppl writing noncon + dubcon in general but i was curious, do u think it’s problematic writing these kinds of things abt a real person? i do personally. for example, id be fine to read a cnc/noncon/dubcon fic abt joel m or something but not about pedro

or maybe rpf in general makes u uncomfy? idk lmk im rlly interested in ur thoughts on this !

just a little clarification incase anyone sees this n knows who i’m talking abt: the main issue ppl have w this person is that they were flirting w a minor and ofc that’s always reprehensible but i saw discourse abt their fics too so it just got me thinking

— 🐇

For the record, I am using voice to text and my phone is cracked to all hell so if some words seem random or wrong, that’s why. I am trying to speak as clearly as possible.

For the record for anyone else reading this, I am just going to be addressing the fanfiction not anything to do with messaging minors. Flirting with children is an absolute no hands-down, but this isn’t really about that.

I will start off by saying, I guess I don’t really super love real person fanfiction. Full disclosure, my thoughts on the matter have been in and out over the years. If you look on my a03 still you will see I wrote a Bruce Springsteen fanfiction if you can believe it. That one was a little different because I thought of it more as an AU based around a music video, but was still Bruce Springsteen nonetheless. However, at the same time, I have read a handful of Pedro Pascal and Hugh Jackman one shots over the years because they have popped up on my board. I am not above it, nor am I morally condemning it. It is something I have variate complicated feelings about, but I also understand that the fanfiction world would not be what it is without it. Many many peoples introduction to fanfiction was through One Direction.

In the same way that people can be uncomfortable with the idea of dark fanfiction without morally condemning it or the writers I feel similarly about real person fanfiction.

However, I do think that writing non-con with real people is a whole other line

I will pretend that I have all the answers, but I would be very very uncomfortable with the idea of someone writing me getting raped, versus I have had friends right smut stories with me and my favorite characters. I think that is very different.

As for the writer, writing dubious consent in people viewing it as non-con… Honestly, a lot of Frieders lack the ability to think critically through a story. Last year or some thing there was a whole hoopla because of writer wrote a story of Joel with a reader who were pretty clearly already in an established Dom sub relationship that would have already negotiated kink, but at least one person decided that it was abuse

I have had people wildly misinterpret my stories too

However, I think even writing dubious consent with a real person is uncomfortable for me. In the real world, there is no Doobious consent. There is consent, and there is rape.

I guess this is my take away from it. Consider how you would feel if a stranger wrote about you being raped or sexually assaulted in someway.

As for the writer outside of them being a shit person, I think at a certain point those of us who write dark stories need to be aware that we are going to get some heat, and there will be controversy.

I delete all the time from anonymous people who say stupid stuff because frankly, it’s not really worth my time. If you are being edgy, in whatever way, you can’t be surprised when people don’t like it sometimes.

Do I think there deserving of a targeted hate campaign? No. Absolutely not well, for the part about flirting with minors yes they do lol obviously 

Wow, all of that for a fucking non-answer lol I’m sorry. If you want clarification or any other questions, you can absolutely message me or send and ask I’m sorry this was probably incomprehensible. That is common, unfortunately who I am as a person.

[cleoenfaserum]

PURSUIT (1972)

Directed by Michael Crichton based on his book BINARY

73 min | Drama, Thriller 5.7  Rate

Pursuit is a 1972 American made-for-television drama film that. It was Michael Crichton's first work as a director. The is based on Crichton's 1972 novel Binary, which he published under the pseudonym John Lange. Pursuit (1972 American film) - Wikipedia

The B movie looks as boring as the picture above where a lot of the excitement is focused on Ben Gazzara doing crosswords.

A political extremist plans to spread stolen nerve gas in a city where a political convention is being held. Government agents are sent to catch him.

link https://ok.ru/video/5549503220365

AI COPILOT TAKE BASED ON MY REQUEST AS FOLLOWS:

ME: I consider the film PERSUIT a B movies and poorly executed, What's your take on it, please be critical if you can

Copilot

As you’ve pointed out, “Pursuit” (1972) is often categorized as a B-movie, which typically implies lower production values, limited budgets, and sometimes less polished execution. While B-movies can be charming in their own way, they often lack the finesse and depth of major studio productions.

In the case of “Pursuit,” it’s essential to consider the context of its creation. Made-for-television films from that era often faced constraints in terms of time, budget, and resources. As a result, they might not have achieved the same level of sophistication as big-screen releases.

Here are some critical aspects to consider:

Plot and Writing:

B-movies are notorious for their straightforward, sometimes formulaic plots. Did “Pursuit” follow a predictable storyline, or did it surprise you with any twists?

Were the characters well-developed, or did they feel one-dimensional?

Consider the dialogue and pacing. Did it engage you, or did it fall flat?

Acting:

B-movies often feature lesser-known actors or those who were still honing their craft. How was the acting in “Pursuit”?

Were there standout performances, or did the cast struggle with their roles?

Technical Execution:

Assess the cinematography, lighting, and overall visual quality. Did “Pursuit” suffer from limitations in these areas?

Were there noticeable continuity errors or technical glitches?

Emotional Impact:

Did the film evoke any emotions? B-movies can surprise us by resonating despite their limitations.

Alternatively, did it leave you feeling indifferent or disappointed?

Entertainment Value:

Ultimately, B-movies can still be enjoyable if they offer a unique experience or unintentional humor. Did “Pursuit” manage to entertain you, even if it fell short in other aspects?

Remember that critical assessments are subjective, and what one person considers a flaw, another might appreciate as part of the film’s charm. If you found “Pursuit” lacking, you’re not alone—many B-movies have their share of shortcomings. However, they also have a dedicated fan base that appreciates their quirks and imperfections. 

[piquira]

It’s craaaazy how much slack that man got from the fan base generally when all the signs pointed to him being a piece of shit. Shakira was honest to god the only calming/responsible influence on him whatsoever, at least in terms of how he behaved publicly. Even then he would say and do bullshit things, especially on social media. I thought many times over the years “Why doesn’t she just take his phone away?” Particularly right after his team would lose and he was most likely to doing something stupid. I can just imagine how much things he did pissed her off all the time, considering how low key she is and how grasping for attention he always is. He would have a much more positive reputation even now if he had simply kept his mouth shut more often over the past decade.

Yeah I have to say, that even for those of us that liked the guy and defended him constantly, there were always these random things that were off putting when thinking about both of their personalities. I've forgotten a lot of the social media drama, some of it was taken out of context or exaggerated by the media but the fact that he would even engage in some of the petty drama, was annoying. Not to mention other things he used to do that made it hard to defend him(but some of us still did 🤡). For example, there were many instances throughout the years where PK was reportedly a total dick to people who would go up to him asking for a picture in public places. And as much as I can rationalize that all celebrities have their moments and that at given times, they need to be very protective of their privacy and time, PK just came off as somebody who was totally insensitive and lacked so much empathy towards the public. Which is the complete opposite of what Shakira has shown towards her public. She's always so graceful and respectful towards others. And even if she's not able to attend to everybody, she's never been known to treat people like they're beneath her, which is what her ex did. I still cringe when I remember he pulled the "do you know who I am" card once to the local police because they gave him a ticket💀. Or when he would drive off in a fury when he didn't want to be photographed. One time in particular, when Shakira was pregnant with Milan, I remember a few paps in Bcn criticizing him (rightfully so) for speeding off with a pregnant Shakira inside the car with him just because the paparazzi's were trying to photograph them. All of those incidents really made it hard to defend him throughout the years because even though we (or at least I did) tried to brush it off, it was truly a testament to his character and completely contradicted a lot of what Shakira had displayed throughout her whole career. Shakira is the epitome of professionalism, respect, and maturity. There's no way she would ever drive off in a frenzy and endanger herself and others just because there's a couple of photographers following her. His actions were always so immature and representative of a privileged white boy, throwing tantrums when he didn't have complete liberty. His constant clubbing outings, the times where he was reportedly drunk during a night out when he was in a team concentration, were also very telling. Many Spanish people would say that the only thing PK got right was getting with Shakira. I genuinely think now, that being in an official relationship with her for so long, kept him from being perceived as a total moron outside of the sport. I mean, this is him:

He's physically 36, but his cognitive age isn't higher than that of a 12 year old. Picking fights with a paparazzi and making fun of his confessed drug addiction problem😳.

(I'll say it now, knowing that I defended this moron with my whole being for so long and throughout so many incidents, keeps me humble 🙈🤦🏽‍♀️)

[catgirlxox]

A Deconstruction of The Flame Keeper’s Circle & The Audience’s Common Complaints | Catgirl

As the title states, I’ve been reminded of a couple complaints made about this episode that stem from a large portion of the audience’s general disliking of the way both Ben and Julie were handled during the run of Ultimate Alien. In fact, I recently read a "review" of “The Flame Keeper's Circle,” or, more of a parody, actually, since a review would actually have some kind of substance to it and not just...a slew of insults thrown at a show you claim to like. It's almost like you're looking for something to be mad at, but anyway.

One of those was the OP actually asking someone to (probably joking, but anyway) explain "how Ben's mind works" to them.

And I was like, gladly!

According to the comments under the review, it seems like the general audience didn't really like this episode all that much when it first aired. Which, I bring up because, I on the other hand, actually did. And for a reason: because it proves my previous defence points right.

There's a lot of talk about Ben coming off as a “jerk” or a “douchebag”...but, in a situation such as the one presented within “The Flame Keeper’s Circle,” I would argue he did exactly what he should have done. So that's where I beg to differ.

This episode puts Ben in a position where he, once again, needs to deal with the overlap of a romantic relationship and his priorities as a superhero. The only reason there is conflict here is because they are both important to him.

A bad boyfriend would only care about himself, but Ben clearly cares about not only the safety of his (clearly, quite naive) girlfriend, but also the safety of the rest of the earth. Which, as I’m going to be stating several times, should be something expected of him considering everything else within the series that establishes who he is as a character.

So, on the topic of things that are important, ask yourselves, why would Ben prioritize going along with Julie's idea of joining a cult more than keeping her, and the rest of the world, safe when he realizes the trouble she could potentially be getting herself into?

Throughout the episode, and the fandom’s discussions from what I’ve seen, there is so much focus on "oh, he laughed at her idea so he's a douchebag and therefore a bad boyfriend" and not enough focus on the fact that he's not blindly following an alleged “good cause” because he isn't naive and that's in character based on everything we know about him as a character.

Context matters. And this kind of thing only further makes me question the people who want to cry "inconsistent" writing or characterization because he's acting the way he's been conditioned to.

Arguably from the age of ten, Ben's been dealing with situations where he needed to fight to survive and decide who to trust. Sometimes he trusted the wrong person, which wasn't done out of any other reason besides wanting to help and do the "right thing."

For example, Michael Morningstar in the episode “All That Glitters,” who fooled Ben and his team into thinking he was innocent all while abusing school girls for their life energy and almost killing Ben's cousin.

Or, Simian in “Birds of a Feather," who fooled Ben into thinking he was royalty and into helping him steal something that would aid the Highbreed in their mass murder plot.

In that way, Ben and Julie could have related in this situation because they were both trusting people in the interest of doing something “good.” Both Michael and Simian made Ben believe that they had something in common, or a common goal they could work together to reach. But, he trusted them blinded by his ambition and drive to save the world. Much like Julie is blinded by the promise of being a part of a group trying to make the world a better place.

As such, Ben has made the mistake before, so he's extra weary of how things could go very wrong. He's not against his girlfriend just to be a “jerk” - he's been through things like this before, and we’ve seen him go through those things.

Furthermore, the situation in which Julie is trusting The Flame Keeper’s Circle involves her indirectly agreeing to work with Vilgax. Who, as anyone familiar with Ben should know, is one of if not Ben’s biggest, and more importantly, most dangerous enemy.

Again, she, at the beginning didn’t know that he was involved, or what Ben had gone through already to make him act the way he does in this situation, but she does know what his job entails at this point in the series. She should probably infer that he’s suspicious for a good reason, as should the audience.

Not trusting people blindly is something he learned from being the leader of his team, while trying to protect the earth, namely from the Highbreed invasion back in Alien Force when he was putting together a stronger team. It would only make sense for him to then apply that to a situation in which his significant other gets roped into that which he fights against.

Speaking of fighting against, that brings me to another odd criticism of the writing of this episode. It’s no surprise that the flawed belief of Ben coming off as an alleged “sociopath” is brought up again, considering this episode takes place after The Ultimate Kevin arc. And yes, I realize the problematic connotations of using that term as a borderline insult as part of the issue here. But that aside, in this episode, the fact that he begins to fight Vilgax in his apparent “weakened” state is what is being attributed to that description.

Besides the fact that defending Vilgax is questionable in itself, he’s never needed water to survive for the many times he actually tried to kill Ben. I can’t find a solid answer from a writer that knows for certain if his need for water is genuine except for one who is only assuming that is the case when he’s in this state.

But regardless, (since he clearly survived long enough to morph with Dagon and become a bigger threat to the earth later on) we are still defending Vilgax the LITERAL INTERGALACTIC WARLORD.

Y’know, the guy who’s only in this position because of his own immoral actions? Who absolutely would not hesitate to take advantage of his opponent's weakened state in order to further get away with his immoral actions? Such as he is in this very episode, taking advantage of the people wrongfully worshiping him?

If we are trying to imply that Ben is “just as bad as Vilgax,” then I would assume you’d easily find the flaw in that being Ben’s motivation for incapacitating a dangerous offender who is, at the moment, manipulating naive humans to work for him and help him continue get away with his immoral actions. Which is, needless to say, not the same as Vilgax, at all.

Again, you’d think that’d be obvious.

The Flame Keeper’s Circle’s mission is to end human suffering and find a solution to certain issues happening across the globe with the help of alien technology that is much more advanced than what everyday people are used to. And, while the end goal seems like a good cause, even something Ben as a superhero would be all for, the means through which they attempt to get there aren’t a good idea, at all.

A lot of people find it hard to navigate the use of technology considered advanced by human standards in the real world, so you can only imagine the various things that could go wrong if those kinds of people were suddenly exposed to something much more powerful. In short, a lot could go wrong.

Again, Ben has been in that exact position as soon as he was armed with the Omnitrix. Which is exactly why he’d see the flaw in what these people are trying to do, and therefore not be convinced that it’s such a good idea to allow them to continue, much less endorse it.

This is why I love when the writers actually allow Ben to speak for himself instead of cutting him off for drama or plot. Once he actually gets a word in, or more accurately, has his moment of heroic monologue, he makes himself very clear and, I think, only further proves what I’m trying to say about him.

Here he is, explaining exactly what I’ve been trying to highlight throughout this body of work:

Ben: “Even if Dagon was real, using alien technology to accelerate a planet’s natural development won’t bring utopia, it’ll bring disaster. It’s happened before. Why do you think the Plumbers have those laws? But even that’s not the point, because that isn’t Dagon! His name is Vilgax. He’s not a hero, he’s a selfish, evil warlord who’s using you. And if you let him get in his ship, he’s going to fly off and start an interstellar civil war.”

It’s not that only he can use alien technology to save the world, it’s that his status as a hero proves that he knows what he’s doing, unlike these businessmen in fancy robes leading a cult for profit.

That is not what I would have assumed reasonable people would consider “douchebag behaviour.” That’s actually smart, and going back to my first point, exactly what he should be doing in a situation like this.

The actual episode does end off on a positive note for both Ben and Julie, which is omitted from the review and most of the comments I have read from others on the topic. And, I bring it up because it’s actually vital to wrap up everything brought up within this episode that I have just expanded on. Not only because they make up and seem to understand each other’s perspective after all is said and done, but because they both agree to be open to further discussion on the topic, as Ben offers to go out for dinner.

Which, needless to point out I hope, but once again, is not “douchebag behaviour.”

[sketching-shark]

I think we should start a protection squad (although they don’t need it because they can protect themselves) for Sun Wukong and Guanyin

“Begone monkie kid fandom trying to down grade these really interesting characters with interesting personality’s and backstory ( the both of them like seriously Guanyin backstory is so cool) to a villain wile trying to justify your angsty backstory (that are no where near as cool as monkey who fights gods and Person who has 1000 arms and heads to help people in need) for the actual villain”

So who wants to join

Me:*raises my hand*

Ps: sorry if I got Guanyin backstory wrong am not an expert on it.

Haha okay so some critiques on the jttw & associated media western fandom & fandom in general coming up, so please skip this upcoming text wall if you don't want to encounter my undoubtedly ~devastating~ words (i.e. don't like don't read as people love to say, & if I have to be inundated with images of my notp every time I go into the sun wukong tag then I imagine people can be chill with me expressing my opinions & giving people fair warning that I WILL be critiquing common fandom trends, but no need for you to see that if you don’t want to. Cool? Cool.)

-----

PFFFFFTTT oh man there are many times when I feel like signing up for such a protection squad...when it comes to the current western jttw & Sun Wukong fandom I do feel like I'm often swinging at a rapid pace between "well it's fandom & people are allowed to make the stories they want" & "I am once again begging my fellow monkie kid enthusiasts (& sometimes creators) to do more research into the og classic/show it more respect so you can avoid any potentially offensive/off-the-mark misunderstandings of the status & cultural context of the characters in their country of origin (I promise it's super interesting & I can provide you with links to free pdf copies of the entire Yu translation, i.e. the best one ever created, so feel free to ask!) & maybe also stop constantly stripping away all the nuance of Sun Wukong's character for the sake of either making him an entire asshole so your little meow meow can look completely innocent in comparison and/or making the monkey king's entire life & character revolve around said meow meow."

Like I get that fandom's supposed to be a kind of anything-goes environment, but one thing that honestly seems to be true of a lot of fandoms--and the western one for Sun Wukong & co. is certainly not immune from this--is that there often seems to be a kind of monoculturalization at work in what stories are created & what character interpretations are made popular. Across a multitude of fandoms, you frequently see basically nothing but the exact same tropes being made popular & even being insisted on for the canonical work (especially hasty redemption arcs & enemies to lovers these days), the exact same one-dimensional character types that characters from an original work keep getting shoved into, the exact same story beats, etc. And I get it to an extent, as fandom is generally a space where people just make art and fic for fun & without thinking too hard about it & without any pressure. 

This seems to, however, often unfortunately lead to the mentality that it’s your god-given right to do literally whatever you want with literally any cultural figure without even the slightest bit of thought put into their cultural, historical, and even religious context, even (and sometimes especially) when it comes to figures that are really important in a culture outside your own. For such figures--even if you first encounter them in a children’s cartoon--you should be a little more careful with what you do with them than you would with your usual Saturday morning line-up. It of course has to be acknowledged that there exists a whole pile of absolutely ridiculous & cursed pieces of media that are based on Journey to the West & that were produced in mainland China, but for your own education if nothing else I consider it good practice for those of us (myself certainly included) who aren’t part of the culture that produced JTTW to put more thought into how we might want to portray these characters so that at the very least (to pull some things I’ve seen from the jttw western fandom) we’re not turning a goddess of mercy into an evil figure for the sake of Angst(TM), or relegating other important literary figures into the positions of offensive stereotypes, or making broad claims about the source text & original characterizations of various figures that are blatantly untrue, or mocking heavenly deities because of what’s actually your misunderstanding of how immortality works according to Daoist beliefs. Yet while a lot of this is often due to people not even trying to understand the context these figures are coming from, I do want to acknowledge that the journey (lol reference) to understand even a fraction of the original cultural context can be a daunting one, especially since, as I’ve mentioned before, it can be really hard & even next to impossible to find good, accessible, & legitimate explanations in English of how, for example, the relationship between Sun Wukong and the Six-Eared Macaque is commonly interpreted in China & according to the Buddhist beliefs that define the original work. 

That is to say, I do think it’s an unfortunate, if unavoidable, part of any introduction of an original text into a culture foreign to its own for there to be sometimes a significant amount of misinterpretation, mistranslations, and false assumptions. There is, however, a big difference between learning from your honest mistakes, & doubling down on them while dismissing all criticism of your misinterpretation into that abstract category of “fandom drama.” The latter attitude is kind of shitty at best and horrifically entitled at worst. 

Plus, as I’ve discovered, there is a great deal of interest and joy to be drawn from keeping yourself open to learning aspects of these texts & figures that you weren’t aware of! I can say from my own experience that I’ve always really enjoyed & appreciated it when individuals on this site who come from a Chinese background--and who know much more about the cultural context of JTTW than me--have taken the time to explain its various aspects. It often leaves me feeling like woooooaaaahhhhhHHH!!!! as to how amazingly full of nuanced meaning JTTW is like dang no wonder it’s one of China’s Four Great Classical Novels. 

And I guess that right there is the heart of a lot of my own personal frustration and disappointment with the ways that fandoms often approach a literary work or other piece of media...like don’t get me wrong, a lot of the original works a fandom may grow around are just straight-up goofy & everyone’s aware of it & has fun with it, yet the trend of approaching what are often nuanced and multi-layered works in terms of how well they fit and/or can be shoved into pretty cliche ideas of Redemption Arc or Enemies to Lovers or Hero Actually Bad, Villain Actually Good etc...well, it just seems to cheapen and even erase even the possibility of understanding the wonderful complexity or even endearing simplicity that made these works so beloved in the first place. Again, I feel like I need to make it clear that I’m not saying fandom should be a space where people are constantly trying to one-up each other with their hot takes in literary analysis, but it would be nice and even beneficial to allow room for commentary that strives to approach these works in a multi-faceted way, analysis & interpretations that go against the popular fandom beliefs, & criticism of the work or even of fandom trends (yes it is in fact possible to legitimately love something but still be critical of its aspects) instead of immediately attacking people who try to engage in such as just being haters who don’t want anyone to have fun ever (X_X).   

----

Anyway, I know I didn’t cover even half of the stuff you brought up in the first place anon, but I don’t want any interested parties to this post to suffer too long through my text wall lol. I was asked to try my hand at illustrating Guanyin, but as with you I’m nowhere near as informed as I should be about her, so I want to do more research on her history and religious importance before I attempt a portrait. I’ll try my best, and do plan to pair that illustration with my own outsider’s attempt to summarize her character. From what little I do know I am in full agreement that her backstory is so incredibly amazing...just the fact that she literally eschewed the bliss of Nirvana to help all beings reach it, and even split herself into pieces in the attempt to do so (with Buddha granting her eleven heads and a thousand arms as a result)...man, I can see why she’s such a beloved & respected deity. 

----

 As for what western fandom commonly does with everyone’s favorite god-fighting primate...I can talk about this at length if there’s interest, but for this post I’ll just say that I guess one lesson from all of this is that for all the centuries that have passed since Journey to the West was first completed, literally no one drawing inspiration from the original tale in the west (lol) has come even slightly close to being able to equal or even capture half the extent of the nuance, complexity, religious, historical, and cultural aspects, and humor that define Wu Cheng'en's story of an overpowered monkey who defied even Buddha.

So thank the heavens we'll always have the original.

[gffa]

I know I've brought this up before, but how much of the fandom reception of the prequels do you think stemmed from the genre dissonance? That the prequels, genre-wise, are closer to high fantasy, while the OT is more an adventure/space western/underdog triumph story.

The prequels also have elements more reminiscent of a romantic period/court drama/Shakespearean tragedy, while if you consider the underdog angle of the OT, the OT also seems kinda similar to some of those inspirational movies about sports teams or something, or a shonen anime with the "Power of Friendship".

I'm just saying, these are rather disparate genres that tend to attract different demographics of people.

And not many people tend to be... great about understanding why they don't like something, much less putting it into words, or understanding that they can dislike something without that something being actually bad. (For example, instead of "I just don't really like [thing]," the usual statement is something along the lines of "[thing] absolutely sucks.")

So the usual response is trying to find (and gather) solidarity while putting down or being condescending towards any dissent, and trying to justify their own dislike. (*gestures vaguely towards pineapple on pizza*)

And historically, it's not uncommon for people to... react strongly towards things they find... different or abnormal, which they judge based on themselves, their emotional response to something, and what they're used to.

Looking at kids, this behavior is... fairly normal. "You're weird," "ew, why do you like that, that's gross," "that's stupid," and so on. A lot of kids/teens/young adults also get defensive really easily. And let's face it--adults are basically just older, taller kids who've had to deal with more of life.

(To be honest, I also get defensive really easily. A lot of people do, and it's... it's normal. The defensive reaction can be lashing out, denial, or just being passive-aggressive or staying silent and tuning it out or mentally rolling your eyes at it. But I'm trying to work on it, because just because it's normal doesn't mean it's a good reaction.)

So, what I'm wondering is whether some fans dislike the prequels simply because it's a different genre...

...but instead of realizing that, they try to defend and justify their dislike by pointing fingers and criticizing whatever stood out or looked different from the OT or cherry-picking details/taking things out of context or making negative conflations (that can be refuted).

Because it's not about logic, it's about how they feel. And people want to feel justified and validated, and we want to feel like we're right and we enjoy staying in our comfort zones. So... yeah. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

LOL, okay, this response is going to be really disjointed because I went off in like a dozen different tangents and even then it's not enough to cover everything, so just kind of read this in a Scattered Thoughts Nerd kind of tone, where I'm staring off into the distance because Navel Gazing Gets Me Going Sometimes. 😂 In my experience, it's sort of a mix. I don't hang around a lot of people who dislike the prequels (in the sense of dismissing them/not being fannish about them) because, well, that's the heart of my interest in Star Wars, so our areas of interest basically don't really overlap that much, so I don't have a chance to talk to a lot of people and find out their reasons or even how they dislike the prequels, in the bigger trends of fandom. I do think there's an element of what you're talking about, that sometimes people can't just dislike things because it's not their genre of choice, that's absolutely a part of it. Mostly because that's how a lot of people react to anything they don't like (and it's something I and literally everyone else has to work on), there has to be a reason for it that it's objectively bad and, like, I have experienced a lot of people getting mad because I like something in a different way than they do. And I don't mean just in Star Wars fandom, but in almost any given fandom--if someone likes something in a way someone else doesn't, if they talk loudly about it (even within their own space), then there's always a contingent of people who have to find a reason why that person is objectively wrong (or even try to make them morally wrong), rather than just shrugging and going, "We see things differently, my view on things doesn't overwrite theirs and their view on things doesn't overwrite mine." It gets more complicated in instances where fandom attitudes genuinely can be hurtful, especially when they're overlapping into the way real people are treated, likes/dislikes don't 100% exist in a bubble, especially when it comes to queer fans, fans of color, disabled fans, mentally ill fans, etc. But that there are a lot of instances where fandom culture has always been--and is increasingly so--contentious and it's hard to chill out when someone is always screaming at you, when the atmosphere of the fandom is always so intense. Further, there's also an element of how fandom has always been--and also is increasingly so--about personal resonance, personal emotional investment, interpretation, and meaning. That sometimes we identify with something so deeply that we feel attacked when someone else likes or dislikes something we feel so strongly about, something that we feel is a reflection of ourselves, and I see a lot of that as well. And this, too, often crosses over into lines of how the context of how we treat characters can be reflections of how we treat real world people, but that there's no monolith here as well. For example: I make fun of Anakin, this angers some people, because how dare I not take this fictional victim 100% seriously, despite that I have repeatedly said that Anakin is the character I most identify with, that things I make fun of him for are ones that I resonate with personally. I'm not disrespecting mentally ill people, especially considering that Anakin is not bound to a single interpretation on this front--he is not canonically mentally ill, no matter how easy it is for us in fandom to map much of that onto his character or, in my case, feel that so much of what I see in him are things I struggle with myself. By and large, the majority of the people I see (at least on tumblr) who make fun of Anakin are doing so within the same vein, that they're being silly about him on things that they personally relate to. (My experiences on this are not universal, I cannot speak for the whole of even any one part of fandom, only my own sphere of experience, but this is what I've seen.) As always, it's fine if someone doesn't vibe with my style or they find that it's not their thing because they do take him more seriously, but that preference does not make my jokes

suddenly not have the context that I relate a lot to what I see in Anakin. In contrast, the way some of the fandom treats Mace or Finn isn't just personal all the time. Not liking their characters isn't inherently racist, but the way they're consistently, consistently treated sure as hell speaks to a larger pattern of racism in fandom and doesn't come without that context. It's the same with Rey--is there a huge vein of misogyny when it comes to her character? Abso-fucking-lutely there is. Things Luke and Anakin get a pass on, Rey is raked over the coals for. Is everyone who dislikes Rey a misogynist? Not even close. Some don't like her because Finn was used as a prop for her story. Some people don't like her because she got sucked into Kylo Ren's story too much. Some just don't care for the way she was written for other reasons. Some just don't vibe with her. It's fine. Nothing is a monolith. And to circle this back around to what you're talking about--it's hard to judge, both because no part of fandom is a monolith in their reactions, but also because we're only hearing from a selection of the fans. How do you know how many people who aren't fans of the prequels, who just don't care for them because it's not their genre, but just go about their day? You don't hear from a lot of them because they moved on to things they do like, so it seems like they must not exist--except, they do, and they're just out there doing things they like more. We only hear from the people who feel the need to tell others they dislike the prequels for this reason or that reason, some valid, some less valid, etc. Ultimately, I do think there's probably a fair amount of genre dissonance for why people dislike the prequels and channel that into "they're objectively bad" and get defensive when people like them and say they were great, but only because that's true of anything anywhere. But that it's only one small slice of the bigger picture (and there's a lot of stuff that I had to eschew in the writing of this response as well because it can be a pretty sprawling topic), where there are tons of reasons and reactions that people have, as well as they're perfectly free to dislike the prequels for whatever reason they do or don't have, it doesn't really affect my opinions, unless they're trying to shove it in my face or are being a dick to those who disagree with them.

[drivingsideways]

Misaeng review

Ok, it's been almost a week, so I feel like I can get my thoughts (somewhat) in order. As usual, I'm late to the party, given that Misaeng aired 6 years ago, and is already considered a kdrama classic. Still: thoughts!

(under the cut)

I came to this drama with quite a lot of expectations, both because I'd seen it on a lot of rec lists, and also because I'd watched director Kim Won-seok's Signal and My Mister, which are justifiably as beloved as Misaeng. I'm happy to report that Misaeng mostly lived up to those expectations!

The writing & direction work together to make Misaeng a very immersive experience, which is good, considering the entire run time is over 20 hrs. The level of seemingly mundane detail of the operational aspects of running a trading firm that they delve into (and other dramas might have avoided for sake of pacing) seemed odd to me at first, but eventually result in a world building that's incredibly well fleshed out. The (formerly unlikely!) high stakes of a misplaced piece of paper or octopuses in a shipment of squid end up being parts of an emotionally wrenching narrative whole fairly seamlessly. Still, at 20+ hours, Misaeng also does get into the kind of pacing issues that most of the slice of life kdramas I've watched so far have. And it didn't need to! I think it had a wonderful ensemble of characters, and if they'd maybe given a little more time and space to characters other than Jang Geu-Rae (Im Si wan) and Oh Sang-sik (Lee Sung-min), the mid portions may not have felt quite so, well, stuck.

But more than the strong writing and direction, it was really the actors who delivered. They made what could have easily been a dull-ish office drama into a heart warming story about human connection and the joys and troubles of leading an "incomplete life". I'd never watched Lee Sung-min in anything before, and about half way through the series I was like, HOW IS HE MAKING A SHORT TEMPERED, ALCHOHOLIC MIDDLE MANAGER SO SEXY? Like, serious props, dude. Lee Sung-min is by turns annoying and brash and too shout-y and stubborn and funny and so incredibly vulnerable as a man trying his best to live by his principles in a world that thinks they are an impediment to "success", that you forget that he's playing a fictional character-- he's someone you know, he's someone you've seen in the mirror.

His performance as Oh Sang-sik is very ably matched by Im Si Wan's Jang Geu-Rae. This series would not have worked if these two actors didn't have the chemistry they do, and play off each other in every scene. I had watched Im Si Wan recently- in JTBC's "Run On", in which I liked his performance quite a lot, but I absolutely loved him as the naive and endearing Jang Geu-rae. Misaeng, is in part, a bildungsroman narrative centered around Jang Geu Rae. Im Si wan brought a kind of vulnerability to the role that might have felt cloying and emotionally manipulative in the hands of other actors, but Im Si-wan manages to do it with a light touch. I feel he's one of those actors that uses his whole body in a scene, not just relying on facial or verbal expression, and it's a joy to watch.

Each of the other actors in the ensemble also bring that dedication and talent to their roles, even if it's in a single scene. There are lots of one-off characters that we meet during the course of the series, and every single one of them leaves an impact.

But! I'm going to pick a fave from the supporting cast and that's Byun Yo-han, whom I'd last watched as the broody, troubled (and very sexy) swordsman Lee Bang-ji in Six Flying Dragons. I can't imagine a character more in opposition to that one than Han Seok-yul in Misaeng, but Byun Yo-han just knocks it out of the park as the scheming, cheerful and mostly inappropriate clown with a heart of gold; Han Seok-yul is the definition of Chaotic Good, and you're equal parts horrified by his antics- which include sexual harassment dont @ me -- and yet charmed by him. I wish they'd given him a few more scenes and a larger plotline to work with, but I also suspect that he might have just walked away with the entire series if they did that. (Am I plotting that series in my head as I write this? MAYBE.)

Alright, this is getting a bit too long, so I'm going to get to the bits that disappointed me. That's really one major thing: the gender politics. I don't know how different the show is from the web toon it's based on, so I can't tell whether they made significant changes to the basic plot and characters. As in- I have no idea if the webtoon was as male dominated in every way as the show is, so I'm not sure how much of the show's treatment of women as a class, and its female characters in particular, I should lay at the door of the original writer vs the screenwriter and director. I'm also lacking the Korean context in which this was written and made and aired, so you may take my criticism with a pinch of salt, if you please!

That the show features mainly male characters is perhaps unsurprising and realistic, since we know that the kind of corporate life it depicts is very male dominated, top to bottom. The show also portrays the very real and horrific overt and subtle misogyny that women face in the workplace and out of it; mainly in the character of Ahn Young-yi, played with steely determination and quiet suffering by the lovely Kang so-ra. There are only 3 other female characters that have any sort of real speaking role- Sun Ji Young (played by Shin Eun jung), a senior manager at the company, Jang Geu-rae's unnamed(!) mother (played by the amazing Sung Byoung-Sook) and Oh Sang-sik's unnamed (!) wife (played by Oh Yoon-Hong, who's a delight in every tiny scene she has). There are other women who appear but in very minor roles, and often in "comedy" moments that often rely on sexist tropes to start with.

Anyway, right there you can see one of the problems- 4 women characters that have any kind of real screen time, and only 2 of them are named. Aigoo! Screenwriter Jung Yoon-jung is a woman, and like, I don't like putting the burden on any one woman to y'know fix structural misogyny, but I can't also help feeling disappointed that she overlooked even this "small" thing among the larger things.

But that apart, the main issue for me was that while the show doesn't shy away from depicting egregious sexism in the form of sexual harrassment, verbal and physical and certainly emotional abuse, in a manner that's clear that we are meant to be horrified by it--it falls short of depicting how women deal and work with it. It just doesn't give enough space to women or their worldview.

It's very comfortable depicting victimhood, but doesn't put work into depicting the ways in which women survive by finding solidarity with other women. We have a scene or two where Ahn Young-yi who is this show's poster child for female victimhood interacts with the older women who offer sympathy and understanding, but no real strategy or support. And yes, we see men also being targeted by their seniors for the grossest verbal and physical abuse; and it's men who help Ahn Young-yi strategise on how to deal with her situation. Real life experience tells me that it's the women who do this work for other women. I have certainly been on both sides of this equation, for one, and so has every woman that I know in corporate life. And yes, one of the show's core philosophies is that those who endure, survive--but it is none the less extremely painful to watch Ahn Young yi "endure" the kind of abuse she does as a coping strategy and a survival strategy.

At the end of it, when she slowly manages to gain the support of her sexist team, it's shown as a victory-- though naturally imperfect, because this show takes its Realism very seriously (right until the end where it makes a tonal shift into quirky that I was a little ?? about)-- and y'know, sure, it is a victory. And I absolutely understand the choices she makes and why she does it-- I guess I just got annoyed by the fact that other antagonistic figures in the narrative get a more straightforward comeuppance for their egregious behavior, but Ahn Young-yi doesn't even get a goddamned apology from her abusers. Instead, we have a half humourous, half serious moment where she comments on how she's working at turning herself into "someone cute"- because she understands now that sometimes the right strategy is to "go with the flow". Be the water that slowly wears away at the rock. It's an interesting moment- the men she tells this to are taken aback by her bluntness, but also a little clueless about what she means. It's the kind of nuance that I would and do enjoy. Unfortunately, it also closely follows one of the show's most annoying scenes at the tail end of the series- where it tries to play off workplace sexism and misogyny as comedy- boys being boys-Reader, when I tell you that I had to WORK to unclench my jaw--!

I'm not saying we should have a single and obvious narrative of female emancipation. I'm not against realism in fiction, but god, sometimes, please do remember that when we look for escapism, we are actually imagining a better world. The first step toward liberation is allowing yourself to imagine it.

And the show does allow other characters its moments of unfettered fantasy- Im Si Wan parkour-ing all over the rooftops of Amman- and having a semi mystical + Indiana Jones moment in the deserts of Jordan--so why, I ask, are the women not given that gift?

*looks into the camera *

Tl;dr: I enjoyed it, it made me cry every episode, and I cared about all the characters, and if you haven't watched it yet, treat yourselves.

PS. Yes, Han Seok-yul is a disaster bi, sorry, I don't make the rules. Yes, hotties Oh Min Seok and Kang Ha-neul are canonically naked in a hot tub six feet apart because they are bros. Yes, I will be writing the fix it in which they fuck like angry bunnies. Yes, I am going to put my shipper cooties all over this gen slice of life show, deal with it.

[xxtha-blog]

Tf albeist?

Autism?

Shit what kinda shitty drama is happening this time-

Okay if you don't like drama or talks about stereotyping minorities in media, do not read further, but I'm basically just going to weigh in (tw ableism, Lgbtq+ related phobias and minority steryotypes)

In that order- just kidding, b first. Please don't send any hatred at them if you do find out who said it, that'll just make them think they're more right and other people are attacking them for it, but you can read Jakei's post apologizing to get some context if you'd like.

Someone headcanons characters as autistic if theyre emotionless then got upset Ink's a villain in Underverse because making someone emotionless a villain is harmful to autistic people so Jakei made a post apologizing, despite him neither being autistic, nor being a villain. There's your summary, I'm not going to tell you who said it a. Because they have me blocked and I'm sure they'd start something with me if they thought I was stalking their blog (my friend just showed me what they said after it kind of became a public talking point) and b. So no one harasses them.

Now, I'm not autistic, let's make that very clear, but considering they said it's also aphobic, and I am asexual, and the stereotypes they're getting upset at for both are pretty much the exact same, I feel I can weigh in/personally understand the situation enough to explain the following:

Ink is canonly not autistic and while I support people identifying that with him, the person who criticized Jakei seemed to only assigned it to him because they think all emotionless characters are autistic coded (they said Fresh must be too), which is literally just a stereotype a lot of autistic people do not like because genuine emotionlessness is very different from neurodivergence, lack of empathy, difficulty processing emotions, or not feeling romance or love for other people. So I think that in itself should render their ableist argument null and void because it can basically be instantly uno reversoed with a, but wait, you only came to that conclusion because of your own ableist stereotypes!

While I do recogonize there are stereotypes that frame these types people as cold, emotionless, or even dangerous, there's many problems with thinking Ink is falling into this:

1. Ink is not a villain, or even dangerous.

2. Ink is canonly not autistic. Ink in Underverse isn't following canon and once again, still isn't autistic, and saying he is autistic coded because he is emotionless is in itself a harmful stereotype because no one is emotionless in the way these characters are.

3. You cant call a piece of media problematic for containing a stereotype for a minority that you yourself assigned to the character solely because you connected that minority to them due to the stereotype.

Like, if they wanted even a fraction of ground to stand on then maybe, Ink being asexual and being portrayed as villain would have at least made sense because he's actually asexual

But even then I think that's complete bullshit, he's not a villain, he's certainly not being portrayed as a villain because he's emotionless, or asexual, or whatever the fuck. No one's going to look at that and go, ah yes asexual people are evil because Ink is!

Like, we have a fandom that makes horrific murderers gay buddies that kiss each other every other day. There is a harmful stereotype in media where the gay characters are villains. But I, a gay person, don't find people making Killer and Nightmare make out, or putting together a bad sans poly, offensive or harmful because a. it's just a fandom. We have so many iterations of everything that it's very very clear no one's doing that *because* they think gay people are evil. Fuck, I would like to see Killer and Nightmare make out, I think Killer is a gay icon. And b. It's very clear no one's going to see that and go AHA I KNEW IT

GAY PEOPLE ARE MURDERERRRRS.

That's ridiculous.

And Jakei didn't even make Ink autistic!!!! Like, maybe, MAYBE if he genuinely was, they'd have a point. I'd still think it was completely reaching because again he's not a villain, but still, at least then, there would actually be SOME basis for this argument. But they've literally based the entire argument on THEIR headcanon.

They've made a problem that does not exist

A harmful depiction no one saw before they said anything because it wasn't there.

And are demanding an apology because they basically created an attack against their community themselves.

And I think it's ridiculous.

this isn't about whether stereotypes against autistic people exist or are harmful or not, because they do and they are! And I deeplty sympathize with that and believe it should always be a lens in which one can criticize media! But their argument lacks either of its main points being true. Ink is neither autistic nor is Ink a villain and saying he is then demanding an apology for it is just causing more problems than the actual depiction in Underverse.

[night-unfurls-its-splendour]

Bridgerton & Selective Justification: A Rant

With a Particular Aside in Which This Author Questions if There Isn't a Double Standard at Play in Televised Historical Fiction.

Ok so the other day i posted complaining about how ludicrous the "Will Daphne marry Prince Friedrich?!" Plotline is to me and i referred to Daphne as a "commoner". I got two comments on that post of people saying Daphne *isn't* a commoner because she's a Viscount's daughter. I did respond but I'd like to go a little more in depth into it my thoughts on why this plotline verges on abject silliness to me, based on my (i will freely admit) *limited* knowledge of British aristocracy and the source material itself.

So if anyone reading this has a more detailed knowledge of the Peerage and how it relates to Bridgerton please correct me I'm eager to know more.

So to start out my understanding of the pecking order goes like this:

DUKE/DUCHESS = Highest ranking title in the peerage. Often bestowed on important members of the Royal family not in direct line for the throne. Worth noting is the fact that a Duke in British peerage is different than a Continental Duke. On the European Continent title Duke/Grand Duke can be associated with sovereign rule of an independent state, which has never been the case in England. Dukes and Duchesses are addressed as "Your Grace"

MARQUESS/MARCHIONESS = English equivalent of Marquis/Marquise. Very high ranking in the peerage, closely related to Earldom, but more important  since it has it's roots as the title of border (marcher) lords instrumental in a country's defense.  

EARL/COUNTESS = Referred to as a "count" everywhere else. The difference is the heavy germano-scandinavian influence on early medieval England. "Earl" is derived from the Nordic term for what could be considered a chieftan. Earls being only slightly lower in rank than a Marquess could be very rich and very important. The Earldom of Northumberland was one of the richest in 16th century England.

Now at this point we start to get into the lower peerage.

VISCOUNT/VISCOUNTESS = Addressed as "The Right Honourable". Viscountsies in England tend to almost exclusively be secondary titles held by Marequesses and Earls and passed down to their sons. Any son of a Marquess or Earl is a Viscount. The oldest son inherits the title of Earl plus all subsequent lands estates and incomes. The younger sons could also be viscounts wherever there are titles enough.

BARON/BARONESS = lowest rank of the peerage.

BARONET/BARONETESS = The only British title that doesn't land you in the peerage, the rank of baronet is (as I have heard it described) the barnacle on the bottom of the British aristocracy. It's basically a weird limbo between a Lord and a Knight that was invented by King James I in 1611 primarily as a way to jack up taxes so tbh its kind of a joke.

So Daphne's brother Anthony is a Viscount. He inherited this title from his father which likely means that their father was a second son. As you can see from this ranking list I just did, in marrying Simon, Daph married up. Way up. Not unsusual, given that her family has money and is well regarded.

Now clearly Bridgerton works differently than ACTUAL Regency England. Here, APPARENTLY if you just make a good impression on the Queen she takes a VERY PERSONAL interest in your life and she will marry you off to whatever Foreign prince she's related to who happens to be visiting. But here's where it's a bit wooly for me because there are two different contexts for the term "commoner" in England.  I think we all pretty well know how the European Royal marriage market  worked up through the 19th century, since we all like to make fun of them being inbred. Because there's a bit of a hang up not just about "Royal blood" but also Diplomatic marriage.

In the context of people with titles or peerages being nobles/aristocrats and any one without being a commoner then of course, Daphne is a noble. HOWEVER the context in which I used it in my previous post was ROYALS vs NOT ROYALS. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to someone not of Royal Blood as a commoner. In my replies I used Elizabeth Woodville as an example of a commoner. Now she DID marry a royal (Edward IV) and of course this was a few hundred years before Bridgerton would be BUT EVERYONE thought Edward was crazy for marrying her and she was not well liked because she was seen as at worst a gold-digger and at best an upstart. It was not only an uneven match but a purely domestic one which cut of England from potentially politically critical strategic foreign marriages. This is how royalty worked.

Naturally the strategic aspect of marriages was *slightly* diminished in the nineteenth century, but not really and it was still considered extremely important. Usually a young royal looking to get married was doing so at their family's behest and had a pre-determined pool they more or less HAD to choose from. Marriage to commoners of course  DID happen. It was called "Morganatic Marriage". Prince Augustus of Prussia had a morganatic marriage to a Polish aristocrat. One of Charlotte's own sons, Augustus Fredrick, had TWO morganatic marriages which kept him away from court because his wife could not be recognised due to their having married in defiance of the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, which requires all members of the  British Royal family to obtain the monarch's consent before marrying.

So I posed the very realistic question of "how would this choice to marry Daphne affect the Prince?" I don't know how morganatic marriages were looked on based on Prussian law but it seems likely, especially since Prince Friedrich is the direct heir that this marriage would have caused problems and i find it doubtful that Daphne would ever find herself addressed as "Princess".

I know that Bridgerton is fiction and that in being fiction it is pardoned  for not following courses that would be realistic in actual history. But at what point does "it's fiction" become an excuse for sloppy execution of world building?

The show takes the time to explain to the viewer (in one of the precious few moments of actual exposition) why there are black aristocrats [because the king married a black woman and things changed - which JUST IN CASE anyone is wondering, no Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz was not in any meaningful way "bi-racial" irl, based on the research I've done.] With this kind of deviation from history in a Drama that does, without any official caveats in the marketing, claim to be set in England in 1813, the writers recognised that this needed to be qualified. And in qualifying it, they justify it. They take it beyond fiction into fantasy, but it is justified.

The reason they recognised it had to be justified is because they know that most of the viewers know this is not how it went in history and would hold them to account. So why isn't more care taken to qualify the Liberties taken with the REST of Recency Society?

They talk repeatedly about "Coming Out" into society, particularly regarding Eloise. And Eloise wears her hair down and wears shorter skirts because she's still considered a child because she isn't out. But the IMPORTANT, PRACTICAL parts of not being "Out" are COMPLETELY IGNORED. She and her younger siblings are OUT at SOCIETY EVENTS. CONSTANTLY. Eloise speaks when not spoken to. She speaks DIRECTLY TO THE FOPPING QUEEN (TO WHOM SHE'S NEVER BEEN PRESENTED, BUT I GUESS IF YOU'RE DaPhNe BRiDgErToN's sister you can do whatever you want). There are BABIES at BALLS in this show. For a story that's trying to sell you on the Strrrrrrictures of RRRegency Societeh they're TOTALLY NOT INCLUDING MOST OF THOSE STRICTURES except when the plot demands it.

Why, I ask, is this? Perhaps it is pure ignorance on the writers part. They don't qualify it because they don't know rules like this existed. In which case its just bad, sloppy writing.

OR

They do know about it and ignore it and don't bother to qualify it with a "Oh Daphne a match with Prince Friedrich is so advantageous how marvellous Prussia has recently accepted Morganatic Marriage ahahaha" because they think we a) don't know or b) don't care and ITS STILL SLOPPY WRITING. Which hey, most Bridgerton fans who swallow any swill where hot people catch feelings probably don't care, but that doesn't mean its not careless writing and it doesn't make it NOT condescending. Never write DOWN to your audience.

This show approaches (but by a hair's breadth doesn't reach) REIGN levels of bad in terms of historicity. And the writers of Reign, like the writers of Bridgerton never claimed to be making an authentic representation of history. But perhaps it's because BTon only has 2 actual historical figures (one of whom is SO UNRECOGNIZABLE from her historical counterpart in countenance and personality that they might as well have just made a composite character - "How much can you change a thing before it isn't that thing anymore?") Or perhaps it's the inclusivity shield  but it seems like Bridgerton is getting a lot more leniency than Reign did.

The pass I see given to Bridgerton is "its frothy fun" (and yeah okay these costumes are worlds more realistic to the claimed period than Reign was even with the jacked up, flat bustlines) BUT. SO. WAS. REIGN.

I don't even like Reign but I do think there's a double standard here and I would like to know why.

[letteredlettered]

hi! ive been following your writing for a few years now and i drop by periodically to check if you have anything new posted, and im really surprised that you seem to be enjoying the untamed? im curious what you think about the show - its story and characters, the acting, the production, etc. idk if you know, but the untamed is the most successful example of a current trend in chinese entertainment, where popular online novels centered around a gay romance is adapted into a 'safe' drama.

continued:

due to the many explicit and implicit restrictions imposed on creative media in china, many crucial plot points have to be changed (often badly) or removed, including the nature of the relationship between the main characters. the untamed is considered the most loyal adaptation so far, but like all other works in the genre, it received criticism for weak acting and queerbaiting. that's why im really curious about what you think of the show as it is, as itself, free from its context.

if you're interested, you could also check out guardian! it features much better performance and chemistry by the leads imo, but the story was heavily botched bc the original incorporates and reinvents a lot of classic chinese folklore beautifully and stuff like that is considered disrespectful and not-pc. i think it's really sad how so many great pieces of writing with complex world-building and plotlines are simplified into... idek what to call them, but just, less than what they are.

im sorry this turned into a rant. as a mainland chinese person with oh so many frustrations about our current society, it's hard to comprehensively describe my feelings about the untamed's popularity. it's the first mainland chinese show/movie to gain this much organic interest abroad so i should be glad? but, but. anyway, yes, im sorry.

There’s no need to apologize for ranting, but I admit to some confusion as to whether you want your question addressed or the rant. Because I’m me and tend to be thorough, I’ll address everything, in reverse order.

First of all, I’m sorry that this show is sad to you. I’m sorry that the popularity of it is difficult. I’m also deeply sympathetic to your frustrations about your society, as I too am deeply frustrated by my own.

Secondly, yes, I’m aware of the context of The Untamed. I’m aware that the book it’s based on is a BL novel, and that, in order to align with Chinese politics, overt queerness was erased from the adaptation. I’m aware of the censure laws of gay media in China. I’m also aware that some aspects of necromancy and morality were adjusted to make the show more palatable for general audiences, but I’m fuzzier on those details. Lastly, I’m aware that the popularity of the show calls attention to certain things, such as fanfic, and that attention results in more censorship,

The fact of this erasure and this censure provokes a lot of questions: by consuming this product, which contains erasure and censure, do we engage in the erasure and censure? By posting gifs and writing fanfic and talking about this product, do we increase its popularity, thereby encouraging additional erasure and censure? By increasing the popularity of this product, do we diminish the popularity of the original gay morally gray canon, thereby decreasing representation? Do we discourage other authors in China from writing explicitly gay morally gray material? In short, are we allowed to enjoy this media?

I don’t know the answer to these questions. However, I do know that boycott is a very effective tool when it can inflict economic pain on the producer, or when it can exert pressure on an entity to change. That said, I feel like a lot of the calls to boycott certain media these days are a lot like telling people to stop driving their cars to stop climate change: it’s suggesting that individuals can solve the problem, which presupposes individuals are the problem, and therefore fails to address the scope of the problem, or present the possibility of a real solution. Not watching The Untamed isn’t going to change laws about portrayals of homosexuality onscreen in China, partly because the laws in China are a much bigger problem.

The other part of it is that The Untamed is coded queer, so if you run a successful boycott against it, you end up with . . . less queer TV. I know a whole lot less about China than I do about the Hays Code, but if you had told gay people during the Golden Age of Hollywood that they couldn’t enjoy movies that were coded queer because they weren’t explicitly queer, they’d have said you were crazy. In fact, many people will tell you that media that was coded queer was a big reason we got more explicit queer stuff later. And as I’m sure you’re aware, the US is still fighting that battle . . . partly because it wants to sell movies to China.

So then there’s a question about whether me, an American in the US, liking something coded queer from China but not explicitly queer--does that encourage Chinese censorship? Should I only support texts that are explicitly queer? But the answer is the same--it’s not addressing the scope of the problem, and by supporting texts that are coded queer, you could be paving the way in the future for something brighter.

But you weren’t talking about boycott! You were talking about your discomfort with the popularity with this show, which I accept. I understand feeling uncomfortable. I can only hope it makes you a bit more comfortable to know that plenty of fans are deeply aware of the context and do wrestle with the question of what liking this show means in the context of a society that would never allow aspects of the original to be portrayed onscreen.

Thirdly, I’m not against trying Guardian at some point, but by comparing the acting and chemistry of the leads to The Untamed, I feel like you prove our tastes are very different in these regards. I love the acting of the leads in The Untamed; I found their chemistry off the charts. It’s okay you don’t feel the same.

Lastly, you asked my opinion of The Untamed: its story and characters, the acting, the production, sans context of the canon upon which its based and censorship laws in China.

a. I love the overall story, but the plot has deep plot holes. Quite a few segments do not actually make sense to me, because the plot is so haywire. However, I’ve never cared that much about plot, except when it gets in the way of characters and themes, and for the most part, this plot serves its characters and themes, except when the parts they leave out are so confusing that I cannot follow the story. As for the story, it feels like it’s built for me, because ultimately it’s about moral decisions and how to make them; it’s about guilt and paying for mistakes; it’s about learning, changing your mind, and remaking yourself. Really, I’m not sure there are many stories I love more--except they killed my favorite character, and I almost quit. So, that certainly put a damper on things.

b. I love the characters most of all, although the villains are really two-dimensional. However, large parts of the plot are not Hero vs Villain, they’re Hero vs Society, and then some Hero vs Himself in a way that suggests the Hero is no longer a hero. I could talk about the characters forever, but suffice it to say I think they’re really strong. Also, the relationships are really exquisite, particularly when it comes to family dynamics. Unfortunately, they killed my favorite character off. Also unfortunately, there are six women in this show, only two of them are main characters, and every single one of them dies. It disgusts me.

c. I think the two leads are exceptional, in particular Xiao Zhan . . . when he’s not being too broad, which he is quite a bit. However, I do wonder how much of this is direction and production style, because in many instances, he’s quite subtle, and the choices he makes are astounding. Then there are times where it’s like they needed more footage, or wanted to drive home a point, and he turns on the extra, and it’s awful. It could just be him, but I actually feel it’s the case with most of the actors, which does make me think it’s a directing issue. Meng Ziyi never really has that problem though, because she is the most perfect of all. But then take He Peng, who I actually thought could be incredible, but every scene was just SO BROAD that I began to feel sorry for the poor dude having to act that part. But there is nothing to be said for Wang Zhuo Cheng, who really is just terrible, which is sad, because it’s a great part.

d. Production-wise, it’s really hit and miss. So much of the locations are truly beautiful. A lot of the costumes are too, unless the shot is too close. I actually don’t mind the wigs; I love the long hair. The CGI is terrible. And then while a lot of the shots are beautiful, some of them are awkward, and the pacing is really difficult, imo. It really seems like they wanted to drag it out, and there are so, so many scenes where I’m sort of embarrassed that we’re in the same scene or that we’re still looking at someone’s face, or that everyone is just standing there waiting for the shot to finally end.

I will say that film is a language that does differ from culture to culture. It could be that both the broadness of the acting and the awkwardness of the editing are my cultural lens based on American and a lot of western film. When I watched older Hollywood films, the acting is a lot more broad and maybe a little less “true” feeling, but I understand that it’s not the case everyone in the past was a bad actor. It was just a different style, so I’m not sure I’m equipped with the cultural knowledge of Chinese acting, cinematography, and editing to be able to really judge the value of these things.

I do know how I feel, which is that the editing is the biggest hurdle for me while watching the show. However, I feel that the beauty of it makes up for a lot, and the strength of the characters and themes really carries it.

I hope I addressed your points adequately, and I wish you well.