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

[klingersgender]

thinking about. klinger

[gamorahww]

Analyzing Glinda Upland Through MBTI - Why She Doesn't Go With Elphaba, Why Ableism is Just Part of Her Worldview and Why She’s Upset, Fiyero Started “Thinking” -

Hello, this is a Glinda analysis no one asked for. It doesn’t contain any spoilers for Wicked: Part 2.

Glinda is one of the most interesting characters with one of the most interesting story arcs I have ever seen in any media. I love the deconstructed “good” of her character and all the layers that the music, the actresses playing her, even the choreography, and in the movie, the editing gave her. Which is why I am slightly annoyed that a portion of the fandom refuses to see her as anything but Pink Fairy Princess With a Girl Crush™. This analysis is meant to look at how Glinda functions, and why she clashes with the two other important characters of the story, Elphaba and Fiyero, based on their personality types.

Yes, I am biased. I ship Fiyeraba, and I even wrote a similar essay on why they work so well, also through the MBTI lense. This is one of the reasons why I will not look at Gelphie only, I would like this to be as broad as possible. I don’t mean to attack anyone’s shipping preferences, this is just a character study. If you are here for that, welcome! Grab a snack, this won’t be short.

Disclaimer Regarding MBTI

I know many people think MBTI is bullshit and even a bit limiting, when we talk about real life, and the people inhabiting it, but in the case of well-written, consistent fictional characters (which applies to Glinda, Elphaba and Fiyero) I think MBTI can be used without worrying about negative effects.

I.) Context, If You Are Not Familiar with MBTI

When it comes to MBTI, there are two angles of looking at the types. One you are probably familiar with is the four-letter abbreviation (ENFP, INTJ, ESTJ, etc), but there is a deeper layer, where looking at those cognitive functions that each type uses. There are 16 variations of the four-letter types, but only 8 functions, that vary in order, and preference in each type. 

We identify four main cognitive functions in each type. Introverted types (their four-letter type stars with an I) are most comfortable using their introverted functions, and extroverted types (their four letters start with an E) are most comfortable with their extroverted functions. However as a person grows up, goes through life and evolves, they learn to harness their initially weaker functions better, and this gives them a more well-rounded personality, and a more healthier way of living in the world and be their authentic selves.

The order of the functions is also important, so whatever is in first place is their strongest function, and whatever is their last is their weakest.

You may be looking at this thinking “I didn’t ask for this”. And you are right, you didn’t, but bear with me.

So, lets sum it up: Each four-letter type has four main functions, and the extroverts are good at extrovert stuff, while introverts are good at introvert stuff. Got it!

II.) Glinda and her MBTI Type and Cognitive Functions

Glinda is an ESFJ personality type. ESFJs are also known as “caregivers”, because they are deeply social people, and they use their skills of being able to read people to influence the lives of those around them. Usually they thrive on giving to others, and they genuinely don’t want anything in return. ESFJ is the most common personality type among women, with their introverted counterpart (the ISFJ) they are considered the “mother” stereotype. They enjoy hosting parties, making sure everyone around them has a great time. They hate conflict, and in an ideal world for them, everyone would just get along, while upholding their own ideal of the world.

ESFJs have a deep sense of community, but they are also deeply traditionalists. They have a hard time letting go of the idea of “how things should be” according to them. Their ideals however don’t come from personal beliefs, they come from learned and social input that they interacted with throughout their lives. "How it should be" for them, always stems from what they are used to, and they usually struggle with thinking out of that box.

Glinda - ESFJ - Cognitive Functions: Fe-Si-Ne-Ti

(Fe) Extraverted Feeling: Focuses on creating harmony and meeting others’ emotional needs, making decisions based on group values and relationships. Glinda goes with the flow of the groups she inhabits. Whatever environment she is in, she wants to ensure the people around her are in harmony. When people around her have differing emotional needs, then she hits a wall, because she has to decide which one she prioritizes over the other.

(Si) Introverted Sensing: Draws on past experiences and traditions to create stability and provide a reliable sense of order. She relies on what she knows, and what she has experienced before. If she has to chose between what is new and what is familiar and therefore reliable, she will always chose the latter.

(Ne) Extraverted Intuition: Explores possibilities and connections, generating new ideas and perspectives for problem-solving. This function is used by ESFJs to explore creative ideas on how to improve the lives of the people around her. "Popular" is a great example of her trying a bunch of versions out to see how she can improve Elphaba’s life - mainly in ways that Galinda herself finds useful.

(Ti) Introverted Thinking: Analyzes information internally to find logical consistency, supporting nuanced and precise understanding. Glinda has this internal sense of logic, where she sees how in her mind, things hang together. This is an internal system, that is rather rigid, and to change one aspect of it would mean to change everything else around it as well. She uses this to decide what is actually possible, and what’s not - according to her.

III.) Clashing Values and Peronalities

Elphaba and Fiyero are obviously the two main characters Glinda interacts with the most throughout the story, but her relationship with either of them mostly works on a superficial level only, and the main reason for that lies in the cognitive functions each character uses. Let’s take a look below. To see how two characters are similar in their personalities, what we are looking for is the same functions in their function stack.

Fe-Si-Ne-Ti > Glinda

vs

Ni-Te-Fi-Se > Elphaba

Se-Fi-Te-Ni > Fiyero

As you can see, Glinda doesn’t share a single one of the functions of the other two. On the surface this would not be a huge issue. Different people find beauty in their differences all the time, and can greatly benefit from those differences. If this was a story, where personal values are of no significance, if there wasn’t you know, an authoritarian regime on the horizon, they all could be friends, as they are. But that is not the case, and in the context of the story, this situation first makes, but then also breaks both of these two relationships she has. And the main culprit in their personality for that is…

Elphaba and Fiyero's Introverted Feeling clashing with Glinda's Extroverted Feeling and Introverted Sensing.

You see, Introverted Feeling (Fi) is what Fiyero and Elphaba bond over. (Fi) is the part of a person that holds their values and integrity. It’s what they hold dear, it’s their sense of what is right, and how things should be. People with introverted feeling are more driven by what they perceive as just, vs what people around them see as just acceptable and normal. You can read more about my exploration of (Fi) in Elphaba and Fiyero here.

Glinda doesn’t have (Fi). This is very obvious in how she reacts to injustice around her, and how she doesn’t really care about Dr. Dillamond’s fate, even when she saw him getting dragged out of the classroom with her own eyes. 

In the deleted scenes, Glinda tells Elphaba that she would have helped, if Elphaba asked her to do that. Glinda is telling the truth. She would have helped, but not because she thought it was the right thing to do, but because Elphaba asked. Her motivations stem from what the outside world wants her to do, and if she loves the person asking her to do the thing, and it doesn't clash with her how others view her or what she thinks others expect from her, then she will do the thing. But had Elphaba put a spell on everyone, except for herself and Glinda, Glinda wouldn’t have done what Fiyero did. She wouldn’t have jumped out of her seat immediately to pick up the cub, on her own accord, and if it was the two girls in that situation, they probably would have stood there for a while, not really knowing what to do.

Neither of them are the taking action type of people, that's Fiyero.

See, Glinda's love for Elphaba can take her as far as helping her save one lion cub when everyone else is asleep, and there are little to no consequences for doing this. She is absolutely right, she would have helped. But this is the limitation of her helpfulness, and essentially, her love for Elphaba as well.

Glinda can’t help who and what she is. “Popular” is not her “I want” song in the musical, but it is a declaration of her values, and how she thinks the world works. I feel many people write "Popular" off as a comic relief moment, but it actually spells out exactly what she is, and what is important for her. She sees social standing as the most important thing in the world, so far that she even would teach Elphaba whom she cares for at that point, how to get a more appropriate status, so she can get by. She truly believes that “networking” with anyone, and maintaining good relationship and a beneficial personal brand is the best way to get what you want. She is not wrong, in many cases, her way of diplomacy are useful, impactful, and may also lead to some level of change.

Glinda is very manipulative, in bigger and smaller ways, but she is usually able to manipulate people in a way that they don't get angry with her for it. (see her directing Boq's attention towards Nessa, something that Glinda thinks kind, but it actually also a self serving act.)

However... Elphaba’s integrity does not let her to compromise in the face of what she percieves as injustice. Her morals don't allow her to network with people, who are so willing to do… well, fascism.

IV.) Satisfying the System

I won’t go into details of how far Glinda goes to be the part of the established system, as that is spoilers territory for part 2, and maybe not everyone is here for that. Nor do we know, how this will play out in the movies. But…

Glinda has no interest in questioning the system and how it works. She understands how it functions, and she uses it to her advantage whenever she can. She uses her social standing and the image she cultivated to get what she wants, and this takes her as far as she can go, like she said in "Popular", without “brains or knowledge”, but she hits a wall with Madame Morrible, and the sorcery class. Magic is so rare in Oz, and Glinda wants to be able to do magic so bad. There is an almost throwaway joke that, when we examine it closer, I think explains why she wants to be a sorceress.

In her conversation with Morrible, Glinda mentions she submited and essay titled “Magic Wands: Need They Have a Point?” which is a pun on the shape of wands (and Glinda eventually not having a wand that has a point at the end of her transformation into Glinda, the Good, but one with a sphere and crystals at the end) but also, if we break it down a bit, she is saying “does magic need to have a point?”. I believe this means she wants to do magic for the sake of it. Not to change the system, or improve it, no. Of course, she also wants to help others with her magic, but, importantly, to help them in a way she sees fit, and to help others meet the standards of the system and the society they live in, so they fit in nicely into Glinda's world.

Not everyone is able to fit in like that however. I would like to briefly touch on the ableism she exhibits by manipulating societal perceptions of Nessa as “tragically beautiful” and giving her a suitor Glinda herself doesn’t want. Glinda exploits the pity she knows people feel for Nessa to manipulate Boq, using the ableist system to her benefit while perpetuating it. She views herself as superior to both Boq and Nessa, which is why she feels justified in orchestrating this situation.

Another example of her ableism is when she criticizes Dr. Dillamond for his inability to pronounce her name. The professor explains that his lack of upper front teeth, a physical difference that impacts his ability to articulate certain sounds in human language, prevents him from doing so. However, Glinda dismisses this explanation, insisting that “every other professor” can manage. She fails to recognize that a skill she considers basic might not be universally achievable, and she unfairly holds him to a standard he cannot meet.

Glinda’s actions perpetuate an ableist system by upholding and exploiting societal biases against those with disabilities or physical differences. By manipulating perceptions of Nessa and disregarding Dr. Dillamond’s explanation, she reinforces the idea that people must conform to arbitrary standards of “normalcy” to be valued. This behavior not only marginalizes individuals with unique challenges but also normalizes the expectation that their worth is contingent upon overcoming or compensating for those differences.

V.) It’s Safer inside the Bubble

To ignore the fact that Glinda comes from great privilege in a story that has this much politics in it would be a silly thing to do, but I will kinda do that anyway. The only level of privilege I would like to touch on is the fact that her and Fiyero come from similar backgrounds, royalty and power. They both had a presumably an easy and sheltered life before meeting Elphaba. Elphaba also comes from wealth, but society and her family made life a lot more difficult for her.

Glinda sees this similarity with her and Fiyero, and feels like she found her match. In the state Fiyero is in, when they initially meet, he seems like the perfect fit for her. But the thing about Fiyero is that he is in a very-very emotionally unhealthy state when they meet. (You can read about his looping in my Fiyero and Elphaba analysis) 

Isn’t it interesting, that Glinda sings about popularity not needing “brains or knowledge” and Fiyero claims to dance through life “painless” and “brainless”?

Fiyero lives superficially and carelessly, literally shutting his brain off, and not engaging his inner world. This inner world is where his Introverted Feeling lives, so him not using that keeps him from clashing with Glinda on the points mentioned in III.) above.

But that is not Fiyero’s natural state, and he shouldn’t behave like that. However the fact that they can only connect when one of them is not entirely themselves is something Glinda clocks, when she says he is being “distant” and that he “has been thinking”. After his encounter with Elphaba, Fiyero starts engaging his (Fi) - again, more about that in the other analysis - and Glinda has no idea, what to do with that. He presumably even told him that it had to do with the day Dr. Dillamond was taken, but Glinda cannot connect to this on an emotional level, and she calls him “an old goat”, which is pretty insensitive of her. She can’t really cope with the fact that Elphaba and Fiyero were both affected by this thing that seems almost trivial to her, just another day at school, and she didn’t like Dillamond anyway.

She is very pereptive, and she can see the change in both of them. And change for a traditionalist like Glinda is devastatingly scary.

Little does she know that Fiyero from that point onward is no longer inside the same bubble as she is, and he is a lot less afraid of seeing it all in the rearview mirror, and never to return to it again. Well, if he could help it, that is.

So, taking Fiyero and the lion cub, and school, and all that away, Elphaba and Glinda go to see the Wizard. Once they realized (well, Elphaba does) that the Wizard has no magic, and he is also behind all the things happening to the animals, Glinda's bubble doesn't... pop. She aligns herself with the crowd, preserving the status quo.

She has to chose between what is right, and what feels right for her, and well... she stays behind. And she doesn't do the right thing. This time.

[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.

[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.