#against representation

[the-everqueen]

sorry i'm gonna be insufferable about the final casting for s2 but just. yt ppl you seriously don't know what it's like to never see yourselves in media. or to only see yourselves in side characters who might be killed off or dropped or stereotyped or denied any sort of narrative power. you don't know what it's like to believe that you're inherently undesirable because no one who looks like you ever gets a thoughtful arc. you don't know what it's like to feel as though your own life/death is foreclosed because no one who looks like you or who comes from your culture survives in mainstream media. and yeah, sure, representation is NOT liberation, but you don't know how it fucking wears on you to NEVER be visible, to be told no matter what you are NEVER legible, unless you slot into a very specific trope that serves whiteness. not YOU. never YOU.

[olreid]

So I want to preface this with the fact that I’m being completely genuine here, there’s no gotcha, and that I’ve been an artist of some flavor basically my whole life but mostly I’m a writer of fiction. And. You have your against representation tag. And I’m coming around on the idea that Representation Doesn’t matter all that much, Actually, but jaws and birth of a nation and other works like them are still extant and have/had a measurable effect on our culture. So, that said, combined with that Kurt Vonnegut quote about the Vietnam War and the pie, is there any conclusion I can come to other than “art can’t help, it can only harm”? Is art at best irrelevant to societal struggles, and at worst, can only set us back?

help not birth of a nation AND kurt vonnegut!!

hashtag against representation is definitely not arguing that art is inherently either irrelevant or antithetical to social change; it is not even primarily making a claim about art so much as it is posting against a particular mode of critical reception which posits that art is only successful or acceptable insofar as it portrays a world which is either a mirror to ours and/or aspirational in some way. within this framework, art is pretty strictly utilitarian, and that only insofar as it manages to either reveal something already extant about our world or, more saliently, to set a moral example for how we ought to behave. i really disagree with the idea that art needs to accomplish either of those goals in order to adequately justify its existence, and i think that idea ends up retroactively making some claims about the relationship between art and life that i also disagree with.

namely, i would push back on the implicit claim that audiences can't be trusted with work that is dark or complex or portrays people behaving in ways that are unpalatable, that such work if left to proliferate unchecked would somehow exert nefarious influence over viewers or readers to the point of causing people to confuse depiction or exploration or critical inquiry for straightforward endorsement which of course they would be powerless to resist. idk it goes back to earlier posts about the idea that consuming #problematic media corrupts your soul and rubs off its problematicness on you whereas consuming moral media that has #positive representation conversely purifies you and serves as concrete evidence of your fundamentally good character. which in and of itself is just the latest iteration of the ever-recurring moral panic about the power of art to exert undue influence over us and bypass our ability to reason; see my pinned post for an example from an earlier historical period lol.

i think the vonnegut point you reference is helpful here insofar as he reminds us that while politically charged art can and does influence hearts and minds, it is also not a substitute for taking political action in other forms; representation paradigms and politics would have us conflate the two, such that just watching the right kinds of shows comes to stand in for being politically engaged. and while it may be meaningful or moving for people to see fictional worlds that are diverse along a variety of axes, i don't buy the idea that that automatically translates into structural change in the world we live in, where people can't afford rent or access healthcare or etc.

the point, at least as i see it, is that like. pushing for fictional diversity in and of itself is not going to save us; it blurs the lines between fiction and reality such that people begin to needlessly try and police or purify others' fiction consumption and production habits because they think it tells them something about those same people's political commitments, and imo is also often a drain on collective energy that could be more effectively deployed elsewhere. it's less that Representation Doesn't Matter and more that representation is literally just representation, no more and no less, and certainly not the lever by which we can most effectively bring about social change.

again that's not to say that art has no place in politics or political movements, but i think the relationship is much more complicated than make art where people are good to each other -> people will be good to each other in real life. and even if that WERE the case, it still wouldn’t obligate people to exclusively produce positive or progressive art.

[hypokeimena]

it's literally not even a leak it's a trailer like it's an official release. from the network. the only reason to get this mad about a trailer is that you wanted to control when people saw and praised you for the kissing. which is crazy because i'm like almost sure the kissing will be more homophobic in context bc neilman doesn't seem to understand that gay people exist unless we are the punchline to a joke AND doesn't seem to understand why we're not jumping for joy at this

[pociondeodio]

hi sorry to jump on your post and i promise i'm saying this with good intentions and not trying to start beef or anything, but i think this is a very reductive way of thinking

good representation =/= good quality. talking about how we shouldn't criticize the rwrb movie bc it's "representation like we've never had before! let queer people have this!" is a very narrow-minded argument, and it only goes to show that people have been brainwashed into thinking representation is the end-all be-all of any piece of media.

the fact that fans are complaining about something very real (it's not a very good book adaptation) does not take away from other things (it's a fun, high-budget movie with queer love at its center). we should all enjoy media critically!

ok, i have to say this before i say anything else about the rwrb movie:

when the book came out, it was groundbreaking. it was one of the first true queer rom coms. this movie is now even more groundbreaking.

yes, some depth and detail was lost from the book, but that’s bound to happen in any adaptation. but before we complain about that, let’s ask ourselves:

exactly how many fluffy, fairy tale, sexy, funny, sugary, queer romance movies are there? you could probably count them all on one hand, and most of them probably aren’t major studio releases.

queer people deserve silly romcom movies too. queer people deserve to see themselves in tender, uncensored intimate moments on screen too. and, correct me if i’m wrong, but i’m pretty sure this is the first time a major motion picture has explicitly mentioned truvada/PrEP and included a conversation between a parent and child about safe queer sex. like…queer people don’t get shit like this, and now we do. and that’s a big deal.

[glitched-starlight]

As Gravity Falls reenters the void, and the inevitably of fanfiction begins to recirculate, there is a comment I fear I must send out to the general public.

As a trans man who gets, like, -1 representation in shows that aren’t explicitly about queer people, I often will latch onto characters that inexplicably have The Trans (TM) written into their bones, which includes Dipper Pines. And, as one might expect, I turn to my silly little A03 account to get my fix of representation and enjoyment of many a trans dilemma. Unfortunately, this is where my qualms get given the spotlight.

This is a generalization, but it seems as though every single godforsaken fic about trans!Dipper (I see this in the Spider-Man fandom a lot too, but that’s a conversation for a different day) he loses all his unhingedness, all his insanity, and is boiled down to a weak and sad little uwu trans boy who can’t handle his own dysphoria and falls apart at every slight inconvenience?

You’re telling me DIPPER, the same man who got called weak one (1) time and then disappeared into the woods for a solid 12 hours and came back half naked and rambling about positive vs toxic masculinity and manotaurs, is going to get misgendered and fall completely and utterly apart? You seriously think he’s going to have a run in with somebody who tries to bully him for being trans and he isn’t going to read them to filth? Are we forgetting that this is the same man who spent a whole episode learning about how to live and let live and then STILL told Pacifica her family was a sham with the mic-drop line of “deal with it”?????

Like good lord, please give this man some credit. I’m not saying he can’t have panic attacks, or trauma, or be treated differently by certain people, but it is the year of our lord and savior 2024 and we are STILL infantilizing trans men in fanon versions of media???

All I’m saying is if Mabel gets to keep her unhinged characteristics, you gotta let Dipper keep his too. Let Dipper punch a transphobe, as a treat.

[annabelle--cane]

there's a take I see come up maybe once every fiscal quarter that jon is Bad asexual representation because we learn about his asexuality second hand via other characters discussing something he did rather than using any labels, and then the topic never comes up again. I can see what this take is getting at, but I don't think tma is a show that aims to do capital-R Representation, it's a show with characters that incidentally have marginalized identities.

compare that scene to how we find out about tim's bisexuality: we learn about it second hand via another character discussing something he did rather than using any labels, and then the topic never comes up again. none of these characters talk very much about their romantic or personal lives outside of what is directly relevant to the plot, and both of these scenes are in keeping with established tone and characterization. while I can see how these might not be satisfying choices if one is looking for capital-R Representation, I also wouldn't call either of them bad representation, they're more just queer characters casually existing in a piece of media that isn't aiming to win a glaad award.

[nellasbookplanet]

The fandom god discussion is interesting, but I feel it’s sometimes hindered by an unwillingness to separate gods from mortal society, or even a sort of over-eagerness to project our own reality onto them, which simply doesn’t work. I've seen the gods referred to as rulers or tyrants demanding worship (which I kinda understand because it’s something Ludinus says in-game, though it’s funny to see fandom corners confidently repeat the inaccurate talking points of the antagonist) but more interestingly I've also seen them referred to as a higher/the highest social class, as colonizers imposing themselves on mortals, the raven queen specifically as new money. Overall these comparisons tend to talk about the gods and their actions regarding Aeor in the past and predathos/the Vanguard in the present less as if they're about saving their own lives and more as if they want to preserve their powerful position.

The gods, by their very nature, are above mortals. They cannot be compared to any mortal ruling class because they didn’t choose or strive for that power and cannot feasibly get rid of it/step down/redistribute it (nor do they actually in any sense rule; killing the raven queen, unlike killing an actual queen, will not end the 'tyranny' of death), they simply have it by virtue of being gods. Saying that’s unfair or unequal and that the gods should be killed because of it is akin to saying it’s unfair a mountain is bigger than you and demanding it be levelled, except the gods, unlike mountains, are living, feeling beings who shouldn’t have to die because some people can’t stand the idea of not always being top dog. Thing is, the gods themselves ultimately understood this power imballance and that they can't help but hurt Exandria the way humans can't help but step on bugs, and thus removed themselves from the equation by creating the divine gate. Saying this isn’t enough and that they're clinging to power is just demanding they line themselves up to be killed.

[eliounora]

while it is important to raise awareness about intersex people I think it's irresponsible to speculate about one person possibly being intersex especially when the issue at hand is about whether or not the said person who identifies as a woman is a woman. surely there must be an easier way to accept masculine women

[maerhiya]

in regards to the constant dismissal of his aroace identity, i hate it when alastor 'fans' say and use the excuse: "he's fictional, he won't get offended."

like, you're right, but it can and will offend us.

when you see yourself being represented on screen, of course you'd feel enthusiastic about it — representation allows individuals to see themselves reflected in the media they consume, validating their identities and experiences. but when so many people take that representation and decide to disregard and discard it, it is so fucking frustrating. we finally have another character to be part of the tiny amount of representation we have, but then people don't even care about how much it means to us? like yeah, alastor won't get offended because he's not real, but it frustrates and annoys us. do you realize that it's also technically invalidating the aroace community? that you're invalidating our feelings? imagine feeling like you're finally being seen because your orientation is finally being represented in media, and people just decide to blatantly ignore, discard, and invalidate it.

media has such a powerful influence on real life, representation being a prevalent factor of it. there are numerous posts that dictate how people went to watch a movie/show or read a book just because a character depicts their identity in it — obviously, being represented is an incredibly uplifting and validating experience.

which is why seeing an aroace character in a popular show is so meaningful to us because we live in a world where romance and sex are literally everywhere and prioritized above all else. (and it's pretty obvious that alastor's on the repulsed end of the spectrum, but even if he wasn't, at least make an effort to acknowledge his sexuality instead of continuing to portray him as allo; aroace folks can be in relationships but it's not going to be the same thing with allos' experiences.)

any and every representation matters, but why does that seem to stop at people under the aroace spectrum? like y'all can't even let us appreciate the scraps of representation we have. we barely have any, so are we really that dramatic for being upset at how people easily disregard and dismiss our identities that are being depicted on screen just like that? is it truly wrong of us to want to defend and maintain the little representation we have?

[explodingstarlight]

spent a month mashing two of my long term hyperfixations together into an AU, bone apple teeth

I wouldn't consider this a crossover as much as an inspired AU because autism brain drew parallels between the two narratives and I think it would be fun to explore the earlier years of the apocalypse, before the world is absolutely decimated (alongside many of the resources), before the fam loses Donnie and Raph, et cetera. I have Plans™

Paying homage to this iconic panel from The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys: National Anthem:

Still finalizing each of the bro's code names, but here are the initial drafts and close-ups of their designs:

Riff-Raph

Donamite

Antimatter Master-Plan

Magic Mic

[cheerpuppy14]

Camping

[hypokeimena]

i cant find the post on my dash again but i liked this article

[fromtheseventhhell]

Arya being masculinized, adultified, and having her trauma ignored because people think she's "too strong" to be a victim is such a core experience for young girls of color

[gloomyballerina]

being an aroace!regulus truther in a jegulus world is exhausting

[sqtorux]

so which one of y'all is getting me panda's and which one is getting me gojo's

[olreid]

[ID 1: The landscape is acting on us. We only consider kinetic action, not passive action, the elimination of all other possibilities. "Or," Ida said, "action done over such long periods of time that it's hard for us to see.

ID 2: I lean back on the sun-warmed rock, close my eyes, and listen. The glacier moves forward at a rate of less than one inch every hour. If I could train myself to listen at the same rate, one sound every hour, I would hear the glacier wash up against this rock island, crash like waves, and become water. end ID]

from the actual star by monica byrne and icefields by thomas wharton, respectively

[ID: Yet in order for representability to be achieved, the social or historical moment must somehow offer itself as a situation, allow itself to be read in terms of effects and causes, or problems and solutions, questions and answers. It must have reached a level of shaped complexity that seems to foreground some fundamental ill, and that tempts the social theorist into producing an overview organized around a specific theme. The social totality is always unrepresentable, even for the most numerically limited groups of people; but it can sometimes be mapped and allow a small-scale model to be constructed on which the fundamental tendencies and the lines of flight can more clearly be read. At other times, this representational process is impossible, and people face history and the social totality as a bewildering chaos, whose forces are indiscernible. end ID]

on unrepresentability.. from jameson's archaeologies of the future