#and i think this is a thing that should be also analyzed through the lense of race

[klingersgender]

thinking about. klinger

[thatshadowcomic]

Year of shadow is almost over and I never drew my year of the dragon x fearless year of shadow art :(

He should ride a dragon. 🐉🦔

Also he's a metal rabbit. That's sick.

Sonic is an earth dragon. Even sicker.

Hahahahha it's the wood dragon year hahaha I can make a peepee wood joke

Some more yapping for those with Sonadow brainrot, under the cut 👇

Shadow, 1951 metal rabbit:

"The Metal Rabbit is a very talented and determined person who has very explicit views on what they want to get out of life and how they want to achieve them. They can occasionally seem quite reserved but this is mainly because they like to keep their thoughts to themselves and would benefit from expressing their feelings more to their friends and family from time to time."

But Sonic is (possibly) an earth dragon, 1988

According to the Earth Dragon Chinese zodiac, they have a very high value with always something interesting to say. They are always energetic and prepared to work long. Sometimes they are quite impulsive which leads them to do things whose consequences they did not think of. So, the 1988 Chinese zodiac element advises them to keep their decisions in check, and before taking any decision, consult with others.

The Dragon can be quite mocking of other people’s advice and will always rely on their own judgment, says the Earth Dragon Chinese zodiac. They love to feel self-sufficient and cherish their independence. Sometimes they cherish it so much that they prefer to remain single throughout their lives.

Tbh, I feel like Sonic doesn't actually talk and party like his reputation would suggest. I always saw him as someone that prefers his alone time in nature. He gets social in small bursts, or ramped up or excited, but he's not as absentminded as he lets on...in fact, he's always thinking and analyzing the world around him.

In all honesty,

I don't believe in any star stuff or fates, but I think it's fun when things line up. If you're more knowledgeable, feel free to correct me ig.

Idk, it makes me wanna explore the characters through another lense and ask stuff like "what does being 'quiet' actually mean? Is it talking, or voicing an option? Or maybe it's internal thoughts and feelings? Could feelings deep inside count as talking? Is thinking talking??"

I'm basing Sonic's birth year on Sonic heroes (2003) the first time I became aware of their ages, with sonic being 15 at the time. Shadow was created 50 years before sonic adventure 2 (2001) so 1951.

[thursdayinspace]

we should have had more profiler mulder!!!!!! 💔 i would love to hear your take on his skills

I needed to think about this for a little bit because yeah, at first glance, we don't seem to get a ton of profiler-Mulder. The obvious episode is "Grotesque," where we also see the dangers that job holds for him (even though that episode imo greatly exaggerates them due to the nature of the case). But what does a profiler really do? They analyze and interpret. And I think Mulder does that a lot. When you break it right down to its component parts, I think that's the essence of Mulder. This is going to be very oversimplified, but these are my thoughts:

Scully approaches problems by asking for the empirical facts and variables and makes sense of them through the lense of science. Mulder's approach to knowledge, on other hand, is a completely different one. Scully draws an inference based on hard evidence in front of her. Mulder, in some way, asks: "What is this evidence doing here in the first place?" (Which is why they need each other. Together, they create a whole picture.)

Mulder's approach is very much based on looking at a thing and putting it in a context, while Scully looks at smallest elements and pieces together a picture from there. She works from the inside out and he works from the outside in, and that's also why they're so good together.

Mulder is very interested in finding the cause for an action. Scully is very interested in finding the cause for an effect. Or in other words, you drop a vase and it breaks. Scully would ask: "Why did this vase break when it hit the floor?" Mulder would ask: "Why did you drop this vase?" And both are questions that need answering.

Now, I think that's what Mulder does with a lot of their cases. Let's look at Firewalker: Scully needs to figure out what's killing them all. She studies the spores and looks at the science, and that's vital, and what she finds out saves her in the end. Meanwhile Mulder has to ask the question: "How did this happen and what does it mean going forward?" That's what allows him, in the end, to connect with Trepkos enough to keep him from killing them, and that's what convinces him to let Trepkos go. Or look at The Rain King. There isn't one bit of hard scientific evidence that points towards Holman Hardt. Mulder analyzes and interprets events the way a profiler does.

So I think being a profiler is a part of who Mulder is. And I think maybe he had to teach himself from a young age to interpret and predict people's behavior based on what they weren't saying, because nobody would talk to him (which is my interpretation of his childhood). Maybe it's just a natural skill plus a psychology degree and work experience. Who knows. But I think even if it's never called by that name, Mulder does a lot of profiling.

[strawberryraviegutz]

I feel like this needs to be said but..Am I the only one getting annoyed with the “Ame Chan is a bad person/problematic” discourse?? I’m not just talking about the ppl who’ve been complaining about her character saying they “didn’t realize how awful she was”. I’m also talking about ppl being like “lmao yall clearly didn’t play the game of course she’s a horrible person you’re just now realizing that??”

You don’t necessarily have to play a game to be a fan of it. It’s pretty common for ppl to watch gameplay videos or videos covering the story of/analyzing games and characters if they can’t or don’t wanna play it. Second I dont think we should just look at Ame through a black and white lense. Ame’s not a horrible person but she’s not necessarily good either. She’s a very VERY flawed person who struggles with mental health issues and addiction and makes rlly bad decisions and says rlly mean/bad things.

But that’s like…literally everyone on earth. Everyone has flaws especially mentally ill ppl, nobody’s perfect. It’s implied that Ame was literally abandoned/disowned by her parents so of course she’s not going to make the best decision with a “stable” mind especially if you’re desperate.

Ame Chan does terrible things/decisions like taking drugs on stream and self harming on stream and I think she even killed herself on stream too in one ending(tho feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) which is obviously irresponsible and dangerous. And she says things that aren’t necessarily nice or the best(some of it is warranted since some of the ppl in her chat were saying rlly awful, gross and even misogynistic things and calling her “old”).

And while she only wanted to be kangel for attention online, it’s kinda possible that she’s been able to have positive impacts on her fans/audience. We’ve seen how she is with the younger side of her fanbase as Kangel. She’s very kind and compassionate and overall very sweet towards them. Kangel’s entire persona is revolved around reaching out to lonley ppl online who’re struggling and to make them happy.

She may be doing it only for money snd attention, but like most ppl who struggle with mental health issues, they sometimes don’t realize the positive impacts they’ve had on the ppl around them. Hell maybe deep down Ame made Kangel to also help reach out to ppl like her online and make them happy too.

And as for the whole shotacon accusations, Ame Chan is NOT a shotacon. It was a very bad translation error and we all know that most translators aren’t always reliable(especially Google Translate) so please stop spreading that around. It’s been debunked already.

Maybe I’m biased because while I don’t have BPD(at least I don’t think so), have never taken drugs, nor have I ever cut myself in like a very VERY long time(tho I never left any scars cuz i didn’t like pain)and have an anxiety disorder and am autistic, I still sorta relate to/kin Ame Chan.

I’ve had my moments where I’ve had emotional and or violent outbursts(not where I’ve beat someone up or broke anything)due to a rush of emotion and or getting real worked up/frustrated online and irl.

And it’s always rubbed me the wrong way when I’ve been seeing ppl trying to put Ame into the box of “bad/problematic person” whether you’re trying to defend her character or not. It’s a lot more complex and morally grey than that and I think characters like her being in media are important to lessen the stigma of mental health whether it be in Japan or worldwide.

Feel free to correct me and fill me in on stuff if I missed anything or left anything out but in conclusion, Ame Chan is a not a good person, but she’s not necessarily a monster and or all bad either and I think ppl on both sides should realize that.

[teen-heart-throb-mr-hyde]

evil is arbitrary, or, i’m begging you all to be normal about hyde (and queerness)

so like. does anyone else think it’s weird when people conflate hyde’s actual evil with hypotheticals about his gender identity/presentation? here’s a post about that.

cw for discussion of general queerophobia and specifically transmisogny

to contextualize this post going forward, i'm going to lay down this principle: that what we consider evil is totally arbitrary.

"evil" is a concept, and like all concepts, we made it up, both as a society and as individuals. there are some things that basically everyone (individuals and society) can agree and have agreed, across time and culture, are objectively evil, like straight up murder. there are other things, however, that are morally neutral, or even good that have been deemed as "evil/morally wrong" within certain societies (which shape individuals), like queerness.

following so far? excellent.

there are two aspects to what i am reluctant to call hyde's "evil" considering the above, but keep in mind this idea of evil is filtered through two lenses: the individual (jekyll) and the society (victorian england). the two aspects are the canon/textual and the subtextual.

the canon is what we directly see on the page, and what we see on the page amounts mostly to two things: hyde's violence and cruelty towards others. when it comes down to explicit, textual evidence of hyde's evil, those are the examples we can pull from. these are also things that can, pretty objectively by many individuals and society, be considered evil. murder is bad. not really inventing the wheel here.

the subtextual is, obviously, very different. technically, it doesn't exist. the subtextual nature of hyde's "evil" is going to be different for everyone because it's what we think exists underneath the actual canon. based on textual evidence, we build a subtext that explains or expands on themes, characterization, messaging, etc. based on canon evidence in the novella, many people read in a degree of queer subtext, regarding both jekyll/hyde's gender and sexuality. jekyll is some kind of queer and has repressed that due to the heavy stigma and bigotry present during the time, and this emerges in hyde along with his other "base urges." but that doesn't actually exist in the text, it's just one reading that you can have.

hyde does some things in canon that are objectively evil (violence and cruelty) and could have done some things if you read the subtext a certain way that were arbitrarily evil, based on jekyll and the society that molded him (queerness).

so why do modern readers, modern queer readers treat these things as equally evil?

honestly? fucked if i know. but i have some theories.

this problem may be the opposite of the "sir danvers problem," which i've talked about before. while that comes from people woobifying hyde and wanting to remove any ill intent from his canon, objective evil, i think this problem comes from people wanting to put ill intent into his subtextual, arbitrary evil. with this, people lump in hyde's subtextual, arbitrary evil, specifically this reading of queerness, with his canon, objective evil and judge them as equally bad. which is just fucking not true!!!! i don't care how tired you are of people calling hyde a poor little little meow, it's a weird, poorly analyzed take.

if we take that reading of queer subtext, we can understand why jekyll and victorian society would conflate these things as equally evil, but as modern readers we don't have to. and we shouldn't! we should understand the nuance between which of jekyll/hyde's behaviours are actually evil, and which are only treated as evil. to imply that these, (again, because they're based on subtext) hypotheticals of hyde getting it on with other guys, or not adhering to binary standards of masculinity is just as bad as him killing a man in cold blood is gross, plain and simple.

it's especially sinister since i see this most often paired with the idea that hyde is in some way gnc. he's a drag queen, or a cross-dresser, or just more effeminate than jekyll, and that is supposed to make him more evil or just generally more "unpleasant." that's some straight up alfred hitchcock's psycho level transmisogny. if you want to make hyde any of those things, it should to be to question what "evil" means, who or what decides what evil is, and whether or not that is a correct judgement to make. (hint: it's not. gnc men/transfem ppl are not inherently evil. jesus.)

tldr; there's a lot going on. evil is arbitrary. some things are pretty objectively evil and hyde does those in canon, and some things are not and hyde could have done those in subtext. treating them as equally bad is weird. have all the queer readings of the text you want, just maybe interrogate why you're making those readings and how you pair them with the actual text.

[ca-suffit]

I really enjoy your blog and thought you were the best person to come to for two questions I have that stem from a genuine desire to learn. I don't intend this to be inciting, I just honestly don't know the answers (or if there even are answers).

In the fandom, racism is discussed through a verity of lenses (as any important, impactful topic should be), but one lens I don't quite understand is comparing different experiences with more empathy (not sympathy) for one than the other. You've likely figured out I'm referring to Louis and Armand. The conversations and analysis around their respective experiences as minorities in every space they inhabit seem to often lead to what I see is akin to a "trauma competition." Please bear with me as I am truly trying to understand.

Question 1: Both Claudia and Louis have experienced early 20th century American racism and mid-20th century European racism and Armand has not. Armand has experienced 16th-20th century European racism, not 20th century American racism. Do those experiences have to be "pitted" against one another? Could viewers not learn just as much by comparing them and respecting each as their own?

Question 2: Do you think that the tendency of some viewers to lean into "Louis had it worse, Claudia had it worse, Armand had it worse" analysis is because the show runners did not not account for some of the resulting complexities of changing characters' race for their adaptation? No one can account for every eventuality, but I have read posts that rightly criticize some aspects of the narrative/plot points which were not changed from the books (and those scenes involved two privileged white men). So the ramifications of not adapting some aspects of the story itself makes the series problematic in ways that could have been avoided? In your opinion, is that just carelessness on the part of the show runners or is it intentional so that the show has more nuance for us to analyze?

Thank you for taking the time to read this insanely long ask even if you don't answer publicly. I appreciate that your inbox is open. I love reading your and your anon's takes on this fandom and the AMC adaptation as well.

hi and thank u!

Q1: if u haven't seen this post yet, I think this will help explain a lot of what ur asking here.

racial tensions are always going to exist and u will never get a single answer on the "best" approach. listen to as many perspectives as u can and absorb it all. for what ur asking here too, about louis and armand, it's a combination of their personal histories as well as who they are in the stories, what they're doing, *and* how the fandom is treating them.

antiblackness is so normalized worldwide and that's a lot of the struggle here with louis and claudia when compared to anyone else. black ppl never get to be seen as victims. so u have louis and claudia being abused nonstop but ppl are quick to remind u how they're "not innocent either." ppl also come down harder on claudia bcuz she's a black girl/woman and misogynoir is its own whole thing.

armand has his own history and is a brown man, but he's a man who does have privilege in ways over louis and is shown abusing him with it too. it doesn't mean his history is erased. but the fandom will defend (white) lestat first, then (brown) armand second, and....never really defend louis (or claudia).....despite them being the only ones we've seen abused on screen so far. so it's not rly about pitting anyone against each other as it is acknowledging who has the privilege across all these spaces and knowing why that is too.

ppl mainly need to realize that power dynamics exist in everything and will shift according to whatever players are present. acknowledging privilege and understanding what that word rly means goes a long way. I think that word confuses ppl a lot bcuz it makes them think of a v wealthy person with all needs met who never suffers. it doesn't mean that tho. it just means how much do u have to worry about in ur daily life vs the person next to u. white ppl don't have to think about being white bcuz whiteness is acceptable everywhere. straight ppl don't have to think about sexuality bc heteronormativity is accepted everywhere. the more privilege u have, the less u will be able to see it bcuz u never have to think about it. that's what makes white privilege so hard to talk about in the first place, nevermind anything after that.

(anyone else can elaborate on this too, idk if I explained this the best)

Q2: if u have examples of the plot points or scenes ur meaning here, that would help. idk how to answer this as broadly as ur asking bcuz it's p dependent on what's being depicted. I overall think they considered a lot about the race changes tho and have incorporated that rly well into nearly everything about the show.

[jrwihasmysoul]

This is not JRWI related, but. I played Soda Drinker Pro! last night and have some thoughts I'd love to share.

For one, that game is a fever dream.

Each level, you walk. Drink soda. Collect bonus soda. And listen to the thoughts of who I will be calling The Subject. He talks feverishly and repeats himself throughout the game, declaring his love and obsession with soda while also leaving tidbits of information in his dialogue.

Each level also has very distinct music, some being very jarring, others upbeat, and others with a more sinister or off tone. There are 102 main levels, all quite short, and two segments of bonus levels.

The game has an extremely low quality style to it's textures, but gives enough for your mind to fill in the blanks. It's liminal in a sense, and feels like you're stuck in an unbreakable loop as the Subject goes through what I will call Soda Cycles (inspired by one of the level names)

Now. What makes this game stand out? On the surface it's a weird walking sim with not much else to do, but, if you have an interest in liminal or weirdcore games, or have a desire to analyze the fuck out of a game that might not even have a true meaning, it's right for you.

Now that I've established the game, I want to dive into my theories.

》 The Subject

He is clearly a skaterboy, with many themes having skating or cool kid vibes. He wants to be seen as cool or rad, and has the interests of a highschool boy. He never mentions any family, and the world he sees is through a lense of disreality. He is brainwashed completely from start to finish, and a fun little detail i found in the school was a desk with "Bound to Devotion" written on it, which I could assume is his desk, as it was near the back and had what I think was a skateboard drawn on it with cool written nearby?

》 The K&G

This pops up a few times in the game, at the factory and on an advertisement billboard, and is seemingly the name of the Soda Company. The Subject praises this company, and even talks about wanting to work there, and his tone is everything in this game. To put it simply, he sounds utterly brainwashed, and I believe K&G has something to do with it.

I am calling him the Subject because to me, he has always been an experiment to this company. Its learned later in the game that he has been drinking soda since infancy, and each level reflects a life event (some are nonsense and I have ruled as fever dreams/delusions)

There's in particular a school dance that he copes with by obsessing with Soda, yet the next level he is atop a skyscraper and has not exactly a darker tone, but I felt like something was off. I started to form the theory that he experienced cycles around here.

These Cycles go as follows;

》 He loves soda and everything is amazing! He's on his own, with his own thoughts, and just loves life (and soda) He's more repetitive in these stages, mostly lines about loving soda or loving the flavor or mentioning how great it is to drink soda while doing whatever the level is themes for

》 Things start happening in his life, whether it be school or a county faire or something else. He'll mention the moment in relevance to drinking soda, and I thought I should mention, but a few times he also mentions drinking soda with his Best Friend

》 Things start to feel off. I noticed a theme of either falling or sinking in water, but these levels aren't exactly surface level dark, but he talks with a tone more wishing certain things were made of soda (ex. The water he goes to or sinks in) or has a tone that reminds me of somehow clinging to something they know is harmful to them deep down

》 Then we get the weird levels. The ones like dreams. Most have a theme of floating or clouds, and he seems more drifty or even further away from reality. I have a theory this means he is closer to death

》 Then we have the interventions. Like the jail, or the hospital. These ones show him in a more aggressive or firm tone, the hospital in particular being where he insists to an imaginary doctor that the soda keeps him alive and is nutrition (something mentioned many times offhandedly in other levels)

Then, snap right back to the everything is good levels! And that, is the cycle.

Outside of the cycle, there are a few other levels that seem like standalone events in the Subjects life, like a murder scene he came across, or learning from the old man, or being at a wedding.

Now, near the end of the game, you do finally meet the Best Friend. This entity is definitely not human in the slightest, but dances in a skatepark area with soda around. The Subject is in the everything is amazing mindset here. I will note that any other characters have absolutely no dialogue, and any info I know is gathered from the Subject's rambles.

Another theme I just want to point out is hunger. He has a repeating and quiet voiceline throughout pretty much all levels that says "I wish I could eat soda" but often the soda part can be misheard as "something" and that along with other themes adds to the theme of his health. How he neglects it, constantly on the verge of starvation or death, but so infatuated with soda that it consumes his every thought.

All in all, this game was fucking wild to play while high and I think I will devote my entire life and being to soda now

[iswearbyalltheflowers]

So how do we deal with anti zionist jews?

genuine question since you have analyzed anti zionist jews pretty well.

not only have i encountered people irl who I KNOW AREN'T JEWISH pretending to be jewish but i have also encountered all sorts of "only jewish because parents" type of anti zionists.

How can we address this without coming off as an asshole 😓

ime there are anti-zionist jews who would like to see themselves as part of the jewish people and there are anti-zionist jews who don't.

For the former: like you say, anti-zionist jews generally aren't connected to substantive judaism and jewish community and don't know very much about either, so all they have are these cartoonish appropriations of it. They see jews and judaism through much the same distorting lenses that non-jews do, that turn us into abstract symbols of the things that matter to them rather than a real people and culture that matter in our own right. So whenever possible, we have to present an opportunity for them to learn more about and to become more a part of these things. If you see anti-zionist jews as part of us, if you address them as a jew helping another jew become closer to what rightly belongs to them - to our people, our Torah, our G-d, our land, our language - I don't think you will come off as an asshole.

For the latter: they do not see being jewish as their deepest identity nor think it should be, they think they are and should be something else before they are jewish (human, american, etc). You can't answer a question someone doesn't have, you can't give someone a desire that they don't feel, that's something they will come around to themselves or they won't. What we can do is, when they try and shore up their membership in whatever they see as their real core identity by throwing jews under the bus, tell them that this won't work. They may have indeed decided that they are a human being first, an american first, a member of the working class first, a leftist first- but the non-jewish holders of these identities do not and will never agree. Ultimately there was no place, no special exception, for anti-zionist jews under those regimes. So if they know that at the end of the day they will be made to share in our fate regardless, this will give them pause before joining together with those seeking to marginalize us.

[weirdcat1213]

Hi....If you don't mind me asking, can I ask, what are your top 7 favorite media (can be books/ manga/ anime/movies/tv series/etc) and your top 7 favorite (fictional) characters from any media? Why do you love them all? Sorry if you've answered this questions before......

Hello :D

omg i get to yell about things I like, exciting!

first im going to go with my top 7 in no special order cuz I would never be able to decide

Trigun (98, manga and stampede): I've talked WAY to much about this one but holy shit has impacted my life. The story, the characters, the pain THE SWEET SWEET PAIN MY GOD. It just mixes a lot of tropes/themes I really like. And we have 3 versions of it! How cool is that?

Steven Universe: again another classic. Discovered the show when I was young and it just grabbed my soul. Very formative and influential while I was growing up. So soft and p a i n f u l l as all thins should be :3. Plus the music is a banger. Like to this day ik songs from it. Favorite one is change btw.

Legend series (book series): no one paid attention to this series because it came out the same time as divergent and hunger games and other big titles. But I was! And it's still one of the best book series I've ever read. It totally has the 2013-2015 vibes (except for the latest one in the series, rebel) but it's....honest. not only because all the struggles in the book are real but also because the author really believes in her characters. She created them but also let them become people. Plus the writing is amazing and her description of specific moments and emotions UGH I have a huge post about it because of how cool it is. I still remember opening the first book and getting SLAPPED by the first line. Yes it's that good.

Signalis: newish game :D saw lesbians, saw violence and I was on board but I never thought the game would make me think and stare at the wall that much. So far I've played it 5 times and going for a 6th. It's so abstract and no one can decide on what's true or not but that's part of its beauty. Really clever and interesting game. Nothing is real, only lesbians with guns.

Our Flag Means Death: cool show that was about queer NOT IN THEIR TEENAGE YEARS??? IN THIS ECONOMY??? AND NOT ABOUT AIDS (sorry pose I still love you). Of course it won me over because of the queerness but also the characters themselves. It was nice to see myself in a lot of them, personality and racially wise. The fun gay pirates came to my house, destroyed my life and also gave me life. Easy as that.

Pose fx: don't like the main writer of the show too much but the rest of them ATE WITH THIS. A story about black queer woman PORTRAYED BY BLACK QUEER WOMEN. It deals with the aids crisis through the lenses of trans women and gay men but the thing in that show that blew me away was the love for femininity and the community they created around it. They actually took their abandoned and traumatized selves and became someone. They formed families that actual give support and I'm a sucker for found family. I've cried many times because I wanted Blanca to adopt me. 10/10 show about overcoming shit circumstances and the importance of community. What if I cried again.

Houseki no Kuni (manga and anime): weird manga that I've been following for YEARS because its so fucking good. The anime is beautiful and captivating af and honestly the whole thing needs to be analyzed by a Buddhist. it makes me want to learn about that religion so i can understand more. but yeah its sad, its hype, and once again its about gay rock MMM my favorite. you dont know the hours i spent looking for videos/animatic about it. hard to explain but i like to describe it as "human growth: the manga/anime"

Maybe it seems like I don't watch many movies and it's kinda true! I'm more of a shows person. but there are movies i like. maybe another day

Now onto my favorite characters but again I can't decide so this is in no special order. Also because I can't decide I'm giving the spotlight to characters that are not from the media mentioned above (for example if you dont see vash in here is because i yell about him enough like. 3 times minimum per month). Because I can. Because I'm normal about media and stories i like.

1.Steven (su): MY BOY MY MOON AND STARS. ok a lot of this list is about characters i relate to, but this one is the og. this mf is one of the kindest, awesome yet misunderstood characters of all time. theres so much rage and trauma in this little guy but there are many other feelings that get lowkey explored in the main show until BOOM the emotions explode in su future. its amazing how complex my son is. im so lucky that i got to grow up along side him in a way. and in another way it was nice to see myself kinda represented in him? fun times.

2.Tifa (ffvii): PRETTY RECENT BUT SHES THE COOLEST. ejem sorry. i love cloud, zach and the others from the game but tifa doesnt get the recognition she deserves. she survived so many tragedies and became stronger because of it. not only in body but also in mind. however she also became cautious and tries to not explode in front of others. she tries to be a safe place for people, even when shes scared. i think thats pretty admirable of her. i would say more but i dont want to risk spoiling the game but there are little moments and scenes where she just tries to be there for people because she has no one in her life anymore and fuck it makes me sad. also shes pretty hot-

3.Elektra (pose): MY QUEEN. shes just. evil sometimes. shes really a bitch to most of the characters but DAMN SHES COOL WHEN SHE IS. elektra knows she was born with a huge disadvantage in life so she grabs power like a mf and bites it. i kinda aspire to be that, to not let anyone get in my way. she just really speaks to the part of me that has bigger ambitions. but shes also smart and caring (when shes not being a bitch) and every time the world puts her down she stands up and kicks the world again. she's the power of femininity itself and yes i also think shes hot (i mean look at those cheeks of thunder) but shes like a fucking storm in a person and how i can not love that? We love poc people in power.

4.Phos (houseki no kuni): This fucking child (they're a child in my eyes) is so important to me for weird reasons. I got deep into hnk when I was in my sabbatical year. It was a time where I didn't know where I would go and phos seemed to be in a similar place. To this day it surprises me how ichikawa managed to create a "simple" character and then by all definitions made them human. I like their journey, the transformations they went through, the stages they went to cope or to confront their situation. Plus the design is pretty affff

5.Edward Teach (ofmd): I just.....really connected with this guy ok? The feeling of always being at the bottom so if you are going to rise your only option is to make people fear you but that's not true BOY HE LEFT NO CRUMBS WITH THAT WHOLE THING. he was just really cool when he entered the show and then it was "oh this guy is really fucked up actually" and he's so funny and MORE OLD POC QUEERS? FUCK YEAH. but i guess what puts him on top for me is how he explored himself and his needs. All that while being funny and tragic and gay. Really cool.

6.Anthy (revolutionary girl utena): MY DAUGHTER RRRRAAAAHHH. Anthy is a really tragic and complex character. to this day i cannot put together every reason why shes my favorite from utena. Shes tragic and my god the things she goes through break my heart every time I think about it but...shes also incredibly strong and funny and a weird keeping animals in her room. The creators did an excellent job showing her lack of agency and how she already had given up, but also showed her humanity and wish to retain things in her life that gave her joy. And movie anthy? That girl is a no nonsense girl. She will get her girlfriend no matter what from the people who abused her. She left that fucking school as a mature, smart and kind adult. We fucking stan.

7. Richard (requiem of the rose king): another recent acquired son. Idk why this one hit so much and honestly for how short the manga is (79 chapters) they did such a good job with him???? Banger themes and metaphors, banger character moments, banger GENDER moments. I've seen a few people not being able to take him seriously but idk, ir sounded honest and serious to me. A kid who has been told since birth they were a demon became one to survive but not really. Because no one with his wish can fully be a demon. Idk maybe it's cheesy but his quest for love and acceptance was a banger in my eyes (please read the manga. We can leave the anime behind). Also I like him cuz he's cool and is a character I CAN ACTUALLY COSPLAY THANK GOD-

AND THOSE ARE SOME CHARACTERS AND SOME PIECES OF MEDIA I LIKE :D IF ANYONE WANTS MORE PLS ASK.

[yoonyia]

my friends referred to me as dark academia but a person and I don't know how to feel about it.

Anyways here's my thoughts on enders shadow so far and by that I mean basically nothing about the book and more about how Orson Scott Card can be what he is and still write stories of such compassion.

Orson Scott Card, for being the horrible person he is, is remarkably good at looking at a story from a different perspective, from a different lense and voice, to completely recontextualize a scene in a way that I really can't see a lot of other authors doing.

It really perplexes me that a person of this type of nature can be so judgemental and stubborn in their beliefs.

Now im no psychology major, nor have a lived long enough to consider my experience a proper case study but from what I saw from the people I met people of this nature are

1. incredibly rare, especially when it comes to subtlety and going against their own beliefs (or even just critiquing a slight part of their own beliefs)

2. incredibly kind and understanding, usually a bit aloof due to their way of always looking at an idea from the eyes of a million people. You can't really make a joke with them because they will take it as fact or see the sourness behind it, and they might be too understanding of horrible deeds and people, but at the end of the day they're kind.

Now of course exceptions to these kinda 'rules' always exists, if humans were black and white we wouldn't need to entire fields of study about it. But I find it so intriguing that osc wrote Ender as the exact person I mentioned before while seemingly not being like ender at all.

But the way he talks about his work and how he write about his loves makes me ponder at his nature for hours on end. When you read his introductions and how he came to write what he wrote he really seems to be absorbed by it. He said it gave him jealousy to not have him be the person writing enders shadow and the way he talks about his own work and ender really just seems like he's talking about himself, a constant reflection that's common among people of this nature.

Now im not saying he should be forgiven for his actions or that he didn't mean any of the horrible things he said, he meant every single word of it I'm sure. But I do also believe that he is a person of deep kindness, somewhere behind that twisted outlook of life I believe he thinks of himself as just and believes his words to be of compassion.

Or I'm assuming incorrectly, like I said I'm not qualified to psycho-analyze a person I've never met. He might have put nothing of his aiua into his writing, it might have been idea given to him by random chemical patterns in his body and he has no emotional connection to it beyond that. Who knows.

the answer is no one, or at least definitely not the writer himself.

And now that I look at what I wrote it really isn't that big of an assumption, of course he believes himself as being kind everyone tries to do that about something in their life (unless you're like me and assume everything you do is out of malice and if so I am so sorry) no the bigger mystery is how a person who can look at things from such distinct perspectives come to that conclusion.

I often wonder if the price to be a good artist is to be insane. Or inherently broken in some core human way, a giant contradiction.

I would pay the price to be a good artist, perhaps I maybe already have just without seeing the results of work. But it does make me afraid that I find myself so similar to a person like OSC, or similar to people who drove themselves mad or people who were killed or judged or punished for their ideas.

Maybe I only try and see the justification of the writers actions through his own mind because in some part of my heart I love the work to much to even mildly dislike the author. Because this world that was made inside this persons head is so beautiful it took away a piece of me and I feel unclean knowing that it was taken by someone who said some absolutely horrible, foul things.

Maybe I feel guilty of enjoying a story made by such a person

and maybe the person feels as guilty by writing it

[mechalink]

reading through the amphibia tag and watching people analyze things through the very specific lens of their own belief of what things look like being the only way they can be

point the first: grief is weird and messy and complicated. people you have known your entire life can not hit you for months, you could be crying over a coworker you've known for 4 months. you can cry over your abuser and father of two of your children dying to old age, you can have no reaction to a soldier dying side by side with you, but write books about the nature of war later.

to say someone in denial that doesn't cry it out onscreen, but does overwork herself to near death and become hyperprotective means the writers aren't respecting grief or their feelings is simply a 'does not logically follow'. reasoning about what is 'realistic' requires knowing what happens for real around a phenomenon, otherwise it's just 'that's not how I would have done it'

homework: read this and consider how it doesn't match, or does, your concept of grief. look at people's responses to it. consider how you would show that in a show for 13 year Olds, and how it wouldn't look wholly dissimilar to Sasha in S2 and S3, or Anne in S3, with different focuses to distract them:

point the second: just because some characters obviously deserve better, and others have to be shown to deserve better, does not mean the first characters don't matter. do teenagers with bad coping mechanisms deserve love and friendship and freedom? obviously, what kind of person world say differently? anyone who would needs to think real hard about how they treat teens.

but does a 1000 year old executor of their kingdom's colonist history and literal hivemind's subject deserve a chance to reject it, and perhaps become a better person? that's an argument you have to make onscreen because the answer is not an obvious yes! maybe you still don't think they should! but it would be ridiculous for them to not argue it.

also people should consider not minimizing or ignoring the parts of the show that do what they wish the show did. having anne hide her search history in the quarantine song is prelude to her obsession, again and again she pushes to progress the quest home, ignoring her health, her community, her family, and the law, and so many people go 'well, she can't possibly care about her friends stuck in amphibia'.

your bad analysis, and requirement for a show to specifically match your own model of what a thing looks like or else it did nothing is a failure of critical analysis. you need to compare it to a broad scope of reasonable models, and the 'denial while working yourself to death and higher danger' model is perhaps one of the most common ones in media. to ignore it in a media analysis of grief is a fatal flaw

to demand a show spend time on each character and their threads in proportion not to the show's needs, and general normal moral positions, but instead to how much you personally would have enjoyed them, is not crit analysis, it's your preference. go write fanfic about it. don't treat it as absolute and obvious failure of a specific media. sashannarcy is fucking popular. ignore andrias all you want. or don't.

like teenagers and many people, you can be better. consider the concept of a critical lens, and what your 'default' lens looks like. consider learning and using different lenses, especially Doyle-ist ones, when judging whether a show did the 'right' or 'wrong' thing

[sophfandoms53]

I agree I wish people could view things with more neutrality because it would greatly improve the type of gameplay that we see but It feels sometimes like the fandom has these unrealistic borderline double standard expectations for how houseguests should act. There is so much negativity and hate around things like players getting frustrated if someone is making a move that will negatively impact them, or crying when someone they like gets voted out, or venting and shit talking other houseguests who are getting on their nerves. There is anger if players make up lies about their faves but also anger if people in the house get mad about people lying because lying is part of the game. I could go on but I won’t bore you any further lol. but the fandom who isn’t even competing couldn’t stop doing any of those things if their life depended on it so it’s like why then do those same people insist that the ones actually playing the high stress game for a life changing amount of money should are bad and wrong and silly for being emotional when things aren’t going their way.

Omg im so sorry for responding late to this 😭

I am answering this now bc i still think its kinda relevant especially when it comes to how people talk about Cirie or Cory’s game recently.

You can’t appreciate or criticize how either of them play without someone trying to bash them or misinterpreting how they’re playing for the sake of wanting to feel valid for disliking them.

I really like Cirie and Cory as players and people but I’m not gonna act like they’re flawless in every way or that their strategies don’t have issues. They for sure do, Cory’s been cracking a lot recently especially with Jared treating him the way he has. And Cirie and Izzy spiral every hour and change plans constantly, its a disaster in there LMAO

But they’re also just trying to play the game and their moves don’t need to be over analyzed with some deeper motivation behind it bc they’re going after someone or they aren’t working with someone you personally favor.

Full disclosure though, you’re allowed to dislike any houseguest for any reason. It doesn’t have to be this essay of reasons or you searching for evidence so you feel valid about it. That’s kinda the problem with ppl here and on twitter, they wanna feel validated for not vibing with a houseguest so they constantly misinterpret things that arent that big a deal and want ppl to agree with them. And its kinda not necessary imo.

I think we’re just so used to disliking a majority of the hgs that people don’t know what to do with a cast that’s messy all around as people and players but are overall decent (cameron, red, and jared suck tho lemme be clear they are not part of what im talking about), so some people wanna just hate so they reach to the most extremes because that’s what we’ve come to expect. But humans don’t work in such a good or bad way, and i think this season is a reminder that people are messy and complex but aren’t bad.

It’s hard for players to truly play BB and it’s hard as a viewer to talk about gameplay bc of this “this or that” lense ppl watch the game through.

[filliteapot]

What are your thoughts about age-gap romances? I myself I am mostly okay with them (it's all about the execution and how the relationship is potrayed, what it is like etc.) and some of my favorite couples and ships have age-gap, for example Tom and Polly from Fire and Hemlock, Firuka and Hagas from Genbu Kaiden. But due to fandom spaces... I have started to feel quilty and bad for liking some age-gap couples and romances and I wonder if I should stop liking them and if I should age-up my own character from 20 to 28 since the love interest is 32-33 in a fantasy romance I am writing.

Oh my, you know , I saw your ask right after complaining to a friend about fandoms. The timing made me yell. So expect a long answer with my honest thoughts under the cut.

I may have an opinion unpopular in fandom spaces and nowadays overall, but I think that your taste in fiction doesn't necessary reflect your preferences and opinions irl. More than that, I don't think that fiction equals reality and I consider viewing reality through fandom/fiction lenses (and otherwise, evaluating fiction from the point of view of our reality, this time and age) a dangerous simplification. Fiction doesn't have to work by our reality's laws and morals. Reality is much more complicated than any fiction ever written. This is that I think.

As for stories with age gap romances - I don't see it as something necessarily problematic and accusable. I may like them, I may dislike them, or stay neutral - as you said, it depends on how it's written. But I'm gonna say smth that kinda makes me worst person for fandoms: in all honesty, shoujos about teenage girls falling for their teachers, fantasy about 20 y.o. in relationships with immortal creatures, even stories about straight out creepy relationships with age gap don't hurt me and don't make me righteously mad and screaming it gives young people the wrong idea. What doesn't, nowadays? Learning to use your brains and analyze information is still my preferable option. I also don't understand how writing about some not-safe-for-all-audiences themes equals romantization of said themes. I really don't see such stories as a problem or harmful influence, just like any other thing claimed problematic by fandoms tbh. In my experience, most of them are not even close to "excusing age gaps between young ppl and old perverts". This is something totally different.

I think you should write your story as you want, without trying to please everyone and make it safe for everyone, without a mere possibility to trigger smth unpleasant for someone - it's impossible to do that after all. If for some reason your characters must be 20 and 32 years old, so be it. In fantasy I sometimes see examples of bigger age gaps, like "twenty y.o. and a 3000 y.o. magician" which fandom sometimes condemns as problematic bc of said "age gap", and I see that this one potential 3000 y.o. magician is written like a teenage girl and doesn't feel old or not human in the slightest, and it's not about problematicness or age gap at all, even when your mage is not 3000 y.o. but 30-something. It's about your exploring yourself, people and the world through your writing. Maybe, it's about learning to love the world a bit more (true in my case, this is why i'm making my own story I guess), maybe it's about putting yourself in other person's shoes, trying to understand how someone different from you (in age, or status) feels and thinks. Maybe it's about going against fandom morals and hollow accusations you are unhappy with, some kind of protest, I don't know. It may be sublimation, a stupid wish that never came true, a way to get through some traumatic experience, a way to understand your own feelings about this subject and form your opinion, or desire to take this theme and make a good story you can enjoy, finally! None of these makes you a criminal, btw. You may even never understand why exactly you take something for your story or the purpose of writing it at all - and that's okay. You have a personal relationship with your story and not a single person has the right to interfere.

In short, I'm standing firmly on this ground: stories are not our reality, but a way to get to know it and maybe love it. Your preferences in fiction don't necessarily mean it expands to real life. Feeling something good from a story that someone says you are supposed to hate doesn't make you trash. Also, I beg you: don't use fandom categories to deal with reality and don't apply their standards and logic to your opinion about yourself. Fandoms surely make our life funnier sometimes, but they are limited spaces with their own rules and working mechanisms, and they simplify things a lot. I can understand the desire to always have the right and simple answer to everything, and a clear opinion about everything, but life has the habit of walking up to you and smashing your face into situations that can't be defined by simple notions, or even don't let you decide what to accuse and what to excuse (sometimes it's not our place to decide). I don't think you must feel guilty for liking smth in fiction. I stopped caring about it some time ago, when I got that me liking murder ballads by the Decemberists didn't make me a killer, and that I actually don't see the period novels in which women suffer as romantization of women's suffering. And I'm fine with my unpopular perception of fiction and reality.

I wish all the best on your writing.

[runthepockets]

Last night Liz was talking to me about how they like smelling dudes' armpits after a long day, and because they more or less navigate the heterosexual world in the same way I do (and I've met a couple straight trans girls who've said the same), it got me thinking about how people would clown on people back in the day for getting excited at M/F ships where like, the girl would ask the guy out instead of the other way around. I know a lot of people are jaded after years of seeing nothing but unfulfilling and hamfisted depictions of heterosexual media their whole life, especially on the gay website. People are justified in feeling like they've seen it all. But this is so far from true. Like it'd be kinda huge if a straight woman in media were depicted is being into her boyfriend's armpits, or a straight guy into the scent of his girlfriend's balls, or if a girl went to make the first move in the bedroom and a guy went for an "I'm actually not in the mood, can we just cuddle?" and it wasn't seen as a dig at his masculinity or the tipping point for a weird, prolonged rape joke, or for a guy to fall in love with a fat chick and have it portrayed as something beautiful and earnest rather than a weird, prolonged misogynist / fatphobic joke at her expense. Maybe not as big as an onscreen kiss between two guys, but still!

Heterosexuality in media really is just that dire, a lot of the time. The majority of it exists for (cis) straight guys to either live vicarously through or to get their jollies off to, and very little inbetween. There's a reason Hollywood keeps pushing for all knowing and all powerful strongmen with dehydrated 6 packs and one dimensional women with flat tummies and big tits. And I'm saying all this as a guy who actually likes action movies and romcoms and stupid goofy college guy sex romps.

Part of the reason Worst Person In The World was one of my favorite movies of 2021 is because there were a lot of little moments where a straight woman got to talk about her sexuality and express intimacy for her male partners in a way I'd never really seen before. She tells a guy at a party she likes soft dicks more than hard ones, because she being the one to make it hard feels empowering for her. She kinda has a thing for groping and biting the butts of her male partners. The film opens with her doing photography and asking the male models to get into savory poses before making out with them. And it was really enlightening and affirming for me. The music video for When You Were Young by The Killers is one of my favorites in the world because it follows a working class Mexican couple in their religious hometown; it's a tribute to romantic passion and betrayal as well as a love letter to a non eurocentric depiction of heterosexuality. People were crazy about shows like Roseanne (before the weird reboot and the creator going Mask Off) and Malcolm in the Middle because they depicted divisive social topics through the lenses of zany, disheveled, gritty, and realistic working class heterosexual couples (the former also being overweight without their weight being the target of any jokes) and their offspring that weren't usually portrayed onscreen. This is the kinda stuff I'm starving for and I didn't realize until I was shown it. Heterosexuality has been the pop culture zeitgeist for at least a century now and it's still barely scraping the surface of potential.

This isn't me complaining about people voicing greviences with their oppressors, or anything. No one should be forced to put a ton of thought into things they don't really care about, but damn. Imagine how much more fun people would have engaging with and analyzing straight media if everything wasn't Skinny White People Being Dicks To Each Other For 2 Hours.

[tumblasha]

barbie girl (english vs portuguese)

a comparison between the two songs and why i think it's important for the brazilian version to Also have a remix. below is the chorus of each song

BARBIE GIRL - AQUA

I'm a Barbie girl, in the Barbie world Life in plastic, it's fantastic You can brush my hair, undress me everywhere Imagination, life is your creation

SOU A BARBIE GIRL - KELLY KEY

Sou a Barbie Girl Se você quer ser meu namorado Fica ligado Presta atenção na minha condição É diferente, sou muito exigente

---

the main thesis is that the brazilian version is simply more For The Girls. let's analyze this through three lenses

the chorus

as you can see above, the american version really emphasizes the point that barbie is a doll you can play around with. it lists off everything that you can do To her.

the brazilian version is all about barbie being the center of attention and having ken (plus all of the men in the world?) fight for her attention. she KNOWS that she's the It Girl and she'll make you fight for her attention

the ken

both of these songs happen as barbie is preparing for a party. ken is already ready, and he's patiently waiting for barbie to be done too. he constantly urges barbie to get ready, "come on, barbie! let's go party!" / "anda barbie! vamos barbie!"

what interests me here is two things:

ken's wording across the two languages: in english, he emphasizes the party. in portuguese, he wants to make sure he can spend time with barbie (it just happens to be a barbie).

barbie's response: in english she just makes cheering noises "ooh woa, ooh woa!" while in portuguese she yells out "já vou! já vou!", just as excited to spend time with ken as ken himself. at some point, barbie also says "você pode me esperar, um pouco Ken?" and ken responds simply "claro, por você eu faço tudo!". a simp!!! as he should be!!!

the end

ken: well barbie, we're just gettin' started barbie: oh, i love you ken!

in the english version, we have ken once again talk about the party and how much the event will be. barbie, once she's ready, thanks ken for waiting by telling him she loves him

ken: claro, por você eu faço tudo! barbie: ah, melhor assim!

in the portuguese version, ken Knows His Place and says he'd wait for barbie as long she needed / wanted. barbie isn't even done getting ready, and they're both okay with it <3

---

i really think that the brazilian version of the song is more fun and girly! it establishes barbie as adam and ken as the eve born from her ribs. expanding on a girl-friendly song does more for me than reclaiming a misogynistic song lol

e tudo isso é só pra dizer ANDA BARBIE VAMOS BARBIE, eu preciso um remix com ludmilla e / ou pabllo vittar

[fangirlsaywhaat]

When I was a kid I went to a Shakespeare camp. It was for a week during the summer and we put on a abridged Shakespeare play but beyond that we also had Shakespeare classes. About the language, the setting, the authors life, etc. At the same time I was in middle and high school, reading Shakespeare in class and having them teach Shakespeare in class. I learned more in the 60 minutes with the actor than the entire 6 weeks we spent learning it in english class. Because they were analyzing it in a "how would you play this" way, not the way you would analyze a book. I think Shakespeare should be taught in schools, but I think it needs to be taught by the drama teachers, not the English teachers. Because reading a play is not the same thing as reading a novel. We talked about literary lenses through which you can view works (feminist lense, historical lense, death of the author) but for plays you really need an actor's lense.

the fact that so often ppl are told to read shakespeare rather than watch it is so weird. like yeah sure reading it can help u get the language and stuff. but it’s meant to be watched. imagine your favorite movie or tv show episode. and then imagine how much less fun and interesting it would be if u just read the script instead of watching it. Shakespeare meant for his works to be watched and performed not read. not saying u can’t get something out of reading them obviously. just saying the way it’s taught and presented to ppl is often fundamentally flawed.