#all the things i've made for school have been non-fandom stuff which is why nobody's seen em lol

[bonetrousledbones]

1 and 10 for the artist ask thingy? 💫

1. Favorite drawing from this year

this one! i’ve been getting further away from the kind of drawings i used to do a lot, meaning “super nonsensical things with super bright colors and very little to no actual story or message,” and I wanted to give it another shot for fun. I just wanted to draw Edge in a cute skirt! The bright colors came later!!!

10. favorite art medium

digital, no doubt. any other traditional mediums make my back hurt bc i hunch over too much </3 nowadays i only ever really try different things for school, where i gotta at least somewhat shoot for a good grade lmao

[tthael]

Hi, english is not my first language so if I don't make any sense you know why. I'm sorry if i gave you the wrong impression with my ask.I've never read the book so "the shape" of these characters for me personally comes from the movie where Richie is gay. I've recently found out that people that read the book consider him bi. That's why when i read a fic where it's not explicitly stated i always wonder. I saw that you have a tumblr so i was like why not ask.

Hi nonny! Thank you for coming back to clarify, I’m sorry for the defensive tone of my response. Thank you very much for reading my stuff. Nothing about the phrasing of your question was what made me respond that way, just the topic, because I know it’s a hot button issue in fandom at the moment. Nobody wants to be responsible for erasing a sexual minority or a canonical sexual identity--and while in the book Richie’s sexuality is only coded, I’ve been told that André Muschietti explicitly stated that the film portrayal of Richie is gay. So of course, I think that film!Richie is portrayed as gay, and if I were to write Richie based on the film alone, I most likely would write him as gay.

The thing is, I don’t really write exclusively film!Richie. I think that there’s a very rich vein of characterization to be found in the book, which is of course door-stoppingly long, and compared to the limited amount of screentime the movies could spend on each of the Losers, not to mention the changes to their backgrounds the films made (looking at you, tween!Ben who suddenly morphs into adult!Mike), I like to pull from the greatest evidence pool available. That’s why I like to include the teenage werewolf, I like to include Stan’s bird book of North America, I like to include Eddie’s fascination with cars and trains and other mechanical transportation, I like to include Bev’s mother as having been alive during Bev’s childhood, I like to include Ben’s outrunning the track team out of spite, I like to include Bill’s uncanny charisma and his compelling nature, and I like to include Mike with a kinder more curious childhood than he’s allowed in the film. Also, I studied literature in college and I’m just more comfortable with analyzing that than I am analyzing film.

I also really liked the film casting for the adult Losers! It’s very shallow of me but I like how they look, I think they’re all very attractive, and I’m more interested in writing with their physicalities in mind than I am in, say, the actors for the 1990s miniseries. This is a personal preference, just because I myself do not enjoy Bill’s ponytail or Richie’s mustache or Bev as a brunette. I’ve also only ever seen clips of the miniseries. And honestly, I like Bill Hader as Richie in glasses, despite book!Richie wanting to wear contacts as an adult; I find without glasses I have difficulty perceiving him as the character. So I can’t claim to be a book purist--I like writing about the 2016 setting and those are mostly the faces of the Losers I see in my head. I tweak them sometimes--I don’t think I’ve written Richie with blue eyes yet, for example.

So I blend the canons when I decide what to draw on for the fic. That means that, for me, unless it’s explicitly stated, I probably don’t have an intention one way or the other when I write Richie’s sexuality. So far I’ve always written him as a man who loves men, and always as involved and in love with Eddie. I know that for some people that won’t be good enough, that for some people it’s very important to them to see their characters explicitly identify as one label or the other, but I’m afraid that just isn’t a priority for me in my portrayals.

This is informed by 2 things: 1) I like to write the Losers as 40-year-old adults in 2016, and we know that Richie produces a host of problematic content in his career. This of course shouldn’t mean that my portrayal of Richie /should/ be problematic and that’s not my intention--instead, I’m suggesting that when I write Richie, I write a lot about self-loathing and internalized homophobia, and so I focus a lot more on his attraction to men, which in my fic he’s usually not comfortable with, than any potential/past attraction to women. Of course I don’t feel that self-loathing is the necessary response to same-sex attraction, but I also think of the Losers as adults of a certain age who might not always be accurate or thoughtful in discussing the changing world of sexual identities (finding words for them specifically, filling the lexical gap).

I wrote a scene in Things That Happen After Eddie Lives where Richie runs across a gender non-conforming person and initially reads them as female, but then during the conversation remembers that isn’t always the case these days and switch to trying to avoid pronouns for them or trying to refer to them with gender neutral pronouns. But Richie and Eddie still call Jordan and Sarah lesbians, without asking whether they’re a romantic pairing of two bisexual people, or without considering that Jordan might be a man. Richie even wonders if “girlfriend” is being used romantically or platonically the way that women of previous generations do. I have a bead on Jordan’s and Sarah’s identity--but only because Jordan’s me! I think that, as a man born in 1976, growing up extremely closeted, and never engaging in the wider discussion around LGBTQ culture in a constructive way, Richie might be prone to simplification. This, of course, doesn’t mean I’m opposed to a Richie who openly identifies as strictly gay or strictly bi!

2) The second thing that informs the ambiguity of my portrayal of Richie’s sexuality is my own experience with my sexuality and gender. I am closeted in real life. In recent years I have tried a number of identities that, at the time, I believed to fit, but the labels were never clear-cut for me. I am coming to accept, slowly, that in the same way the physical body doesn’t grow to exact neat clean specifications, I might never be able to describe myself accurately and totally in one term. That’s all that I’m willing to share about my experience at this time. My personal philosophy is much like the one Eddie professes when he comes out in Indelicate: it doesn’t seem important to me that people know my preferences unless I’m a) sleeping with them or b) actively dating and trying to put myself out there.

Again, some people have completely different experiences! For some people being closeted is intolerable and having an identity--a word for what they are--really helps them self-actualize and live their truth! For some people, they’re very excited about their identity and participate in Pride events and take joy in asserting that this is who they are to the world! For some people, they never have the awareness that this or that idle feeling might mean they actually /don’t/ fit with how the world sees them. And while I’m a great advocate of self-exploration (comes of being vain as I am), some people don’t do that, and that’s fine!

I know that ambiguity is not a neutral answer when it comes to these questions. In the summer of 2019 when the Good Omens miniseries was released, many fans reached out to author Neil Gaiman asking for confirmation that the angel Aziraphale and the demon Crowley were gay. Gaiman said, “Theirs is a love story.” He said, “They’re not human and I can’t ascribe human sexual identity to them.” He said, “My coauthor is deceased and I can’t make such confirmations without him.” (These are not direct quotes and I don’t have sources, I’m sorry, it’s been a year.) This was not satisfactory to all parties. For some people explicit confirmation of that gender identity is important. And why shouldn’t it be? Their own is important to them.

But I’m from a school of literary analysis where I welcome different interpretations of my works, which are in this case of course derivative and dependent on evidence from the canons I draw on. I write Richie in love with Eddie, and that’s enough for me. If it’s not for the reader, either I feel there’s ample room to interpret my Richie the way they prefer--not just limited to gay or bi! After the first sex scene in TTHAEL Richie is stunned by how he enjoyed that far more than any other sexual encounter he’s ever had, and I think that’s welcome to interpretations of Richie with demisexuality /or/ Richie just finally having fulfilling sex with a man because he’s gay or bi /OR/ Richie has had good sex before but this was just WAY better because he likes sex better when he’s in love with his partner. And every portrayal of Richie I write is slightly different, so Richie from Indelicate might have different sexual attraction/orientation than Richie from Automatic - Mechanical - Pneumatic or Richie from TTHAEL. BUT I don’t want to say that my interpretation is the only valid one--just know that when I write Richie, I write him as a man in love with another man. If I were to write a story about Richie involved with someone other than Eddie, I would tag for it up front.

Again, I know this is a very long answer and probably not as concise or clear as you might like it to be. Thank you so much for coming back around to explain your logic, I apologize for my wariness the first time around, thank you for asking these questions in good faith. “Why not ask” is of course the simplest way to settle an issue and I don’t want to discourage anyone from asking me questions about my fic. If there are other things you have questions about, please don’t hesitate to ask, either here or by sending me a private message, I  don’t mind either way.

[bluerosesburnblue]

Bless that post. I love the aro/ace headcanon, but I also love all mc/charlie shippers. Basically, I'm very very Pro-Ship and like... I've seen the people who headcanon aro/ace charlie get really hostile and weirdly aggressive over it. I'm pretty sure one person even deactivated their account because they dared to call out the harrasment and were in turn harrassed themselves. Fandom is supposed to be fun and shipping should never be about activism like some ppl are trying to do and it boggles me

Thank you. Given the extremes people go to on this site, it’s nice to see someone else who agrees with me about keeping these things measured and respectful

Honestly, my breaking point the other night was that I happened to see an anon on one of the really popular blogs in the fandom. All they said was that they were a fan of the ace headcanon, but they saw a lot of the negativity in the tag in regards to the Charlie/MC ship and were worried that if they started posting their stuff regarding it that they’d get backlash or get seen as insensitive. The whole thing looked like someone who was very anxious asking someone they respected if they thought it would be appropriate. They probably trusted that blog to be mature and give them some reassurance

The response they got was basically (I’m paraphrasing here) “The ace ‘headcanon’ is undeniably canon, you can still post your thing but just know that it’s not canon and nobody has to like the fact that you posted it. I don’t know what hate you’re seeing, but I haven’t seen it and I don’t think it exists.” Which is, like… denying that anon’s experience and brushing off their fears is just a shitty thing to do to someone who was obviously nervous and looking for reassurance. And also completely wrong. Just because you can read that interpretation into a canon line doesn’t mean that your interpretation is completely canonical. Dating and romantic or sexual attraction are not the same thing. And it’s bad enough that that response is getting a good amount of notes

But what really pissed me off was a response I saw from someone else on that post. This person immediately accused that anon of intentionally overreacting and fishing for sympathy, crossing the line by asking someone they respected about their opinion of the discourse, and trying to deny asexual people representation. And they had the nerve to go on about how “people you thought were nice are turning out to be shitty people.” And then told that anon to grow up

That is absolutely disgusting behavior. Even if Charlie was canonically aro/ace, it would be going too far. Nobody knows anything about that anon, because they’re a goddamned anon. For all anybody knows, that anon could’ve been a kid or young teen who legitimately wanted to be respectful to the ace/aro community and thought it best to ask someone they respected what their opinion was. This is exactly what I was afraid was going to start up. That the second somebody showed that they didn’t agree with the popular interpretation or, god forbid, admitted that they don’t know enough and wanted another opinion, that they’d get slammed and harassed, with accusations made about their character. A character that we can’t even truly know because this is the internet and it’s easy to read whatever you want into these things. You’re not “educating” anyone, you’re just making them not want to learn

And then that original blog had the gall to tell that anon that they didn’t see any reason why they’d be afraid of harassment. When that aggressive, uncalled for response was a response on their post

The best part? Not only did that anon directly cite a post that had bothered them in a later ask, but they admitted that they were ace and questioning aro and just didn’t see why that line made the interpretation canon

And the person who slammed them? Not aro/ace.

As far as I can tell, that anon never got an apology. The sidequest isn’t even out yet and the fandom has already devolved into people making assumptions and yelling over actual ace people over their own representation and refusing to see a problem with it. In fact, they think they’re in the right because quite a few popular blogs agree with them. That anon could’ve been a kid. Are we really going to scream at people who might be kids over a headcanon?

Not a single, goddamned person made any effort to say that that person was out of line. Not a single person saw a problem with that response. I’d say it was just that one person in the wrong, but I’ve seen equally harsh and aggressive responses by other people out there, too. This isn’t a situation of one person being an asshole (if it was I might’ve just called them out, specifically), they just happened to be the one to tip me over the edge

That’s what’s pissing me off about this situation. If someone is legitimately so scared to post something completely harmless that goes against the popular interpretation, then there is a problem. There is a problem, that shouldn’t be ignored just because you might disagree with that anon’s opinion. People don’t get that scared for no reason. It’s awful and immature to ignore the problem. To pretend it doesn’t exist, or to support the response they got and double down just to make yourself look right

People are really getting this awful over a side character in a mobile game. Just back up and really look at that. A side character. In a mobile game.

Some people need to grow up, and it sure ain’t that anon. And I hope that if that anon ever sees this, they know that they’ve got my support and I’m so sorry that some people think asserting that their headcanon is canon is more important than an actual, living person

As for the “it’s canon do we really have to spell it out for you?” argument, uhhh… YEAH. Not them, specifically, but the source material does. Otherwise it’s not CANON. Canon is reserved for things irrefutably stated in the text not “all possible (or your favorite) ways you could interpret lines in the text.” When it’s widely accepted, that’s fanon. Canon: Charlie states that he doesn’t have time for dating because he’s busy studying dragons. Fanon: Charlie is ace/aro. We also need to destroy this false equivalency that dating and romantic attraction are the same thing. It doesn’t help anybody on either side

And no joke, I read a novel one time and the main character was so obviously ace to me. The whole thing was written from his point of view, and he was always questioning why people found romance to be so important. He wasn’t into any of the girls that flirted with him, he kissed his male best friend and said he didn’t feel any sparks, he avoided romance of all kinds even while questioning his sexuality. Well, come the end of the book, he realizes that he was gay and in denial and VERY in love with his best friend. It was adorable when they got together

But at the same time, there was way more evidence to suggest that that character was ace than there is for Charlie, and yet canonically he was gay despite that. Sexuality is something very complex and personal and the discovery of it no less so, so yes, absolutely, I think it needs to be stated in some way to be canon. Things can’t just be implied to be considered canon. Your assumptions may very easily be wrong, or not what the author intended. And even things that the author intended can be considered non-canon. Death of the Author is a real thing, after all. If it’s not stated in the text, it’s not canonical

If Charlie had said “I’m not interested in romance and don’t know if I ever will be” or something similar, then yes I’d say they had a basis for their argument. But that’s not what he said. Charlie says… basically what I would have if someone had flirted with me in high school. My suspicion is that something in JC’s contract meant that they weren’t allowed to make Bill, Tonks, or Charlie romance options, so they just reworded JK’s old interview when writing his dialogue to be more relevant to the quest material

And people using that interview as “proof” is especially funny to me since she only said that after denying the possibility that he could be gay because Dumbledore already was. You’re all really expecting this woman whose reaction to being asked if a character being homosexual was a possible interpretation was “Uh, no, we already have one of those,” to go around and confirm him to belong to an even less represented group? And do it tastefully? And then have half of these people who take that as canon also state that they don’t generally consider things that JK reveals outside of the source to matter?

Christ, people, learn the difference between canon, fanon, and Word of God. And then stop ignoring or harassing people for rightly calling out that you’re misusing the terms