#and like. i'm not an authority on racism i'm a white person at the end of the day

[creatingblackcharacters]

Writing Polls Notes #3

This is a long one!

So there were a couple moments where I saw commentary and this meme was my first concern 😅. I say this because I realized that what I thought I was communicating, and what people were understanding, as the question were different.

The original question I asked was "Is [Black Character] well written?" And I provided a rubric of examples to consider, figuring that respecting their narrative and depiction while Black was a given. It seemed like people were struggling with the idea that "well-written" included respecting the character's Blackness (and thus, their Black audience) without having to center that Blackness. I'm like okay, that's on me for assuming, and so the question itself needed to be changed.

And so, the question then became "Did the writers treat [Black character]'s narrative with respect?" Interestingly, I never changed the screenshot of the rubric!

Since her poll was poppin, I decided to use Vivienne's character to see what happened, and-

Now. And this is for everyone! Imma ask you this:

If the character wasn't written with care, how is the character still being written well? What are we defining as "well"?

I'm sure there are happy accidents of characters written well despite their author not giving a shit. This is not me saying that you can write with care and never write poorly. This is also not me saying that you cannot like the character or their potential anyway! I certainly don't think these two ramshackle Tumblr polls are the end all be all determination on this character. But I am asking you to think about it, regardless.

If a Black character's Blackness is unironically used as a joke or bludgeon, or out-of-game important social context is completely dismissed or has to be projected onto the character's narrative by fanon, then I personally take that into consideration when determining the author-ial intent in how a character was written (e.g. was a character's story meant to be a 'freedom fighting' narrative or did you have to say 'well if we take it from the authors-').

Idk guys, I just think this matters a lot lmao, and seeing this difference spooked me. The concept of a character might be great, but if the delivery is only great if you have to allow yourself to be antiblack about it (or ignore that factor altogether), maybe it wasn't created with the experience of a Black audience in mind 😅 We can like anything we want, but we ain't gotta lie about it!

Moving on!

Repeating another point from earlier: "It seemed like people were struggling with the idea that "well-written" included respecting the character's Blackness (and their Black audience) without having to center that Blackness."

There were a decent amount of "well the story doesn't mention their Blackness so I guess not/this question is hard". This is a big one to think about, period. When designing and writing your Black characters, and when trying to dodge stereotypes. When we say "be normal about Black people", that's kind of what we mean. You don't have to go "Black, Black, it's a Black!" for us to know the creator gave a damn, given how we are treated in media and life. You can write a downright horrid person of a Black villain and it still be written with care!

But yeah, I don't have to write a narrative where the Blackness is centered to consider the way Blackness itself is treated with my character. For example, as low hanging fruit, Wyll and Mizora.

Blackness- as we know it- doesn't exist in BG3, and yet the visual of a predatory white woman owning a Black man is a very real thing. Doesn't matter that racism- as we know it- doesn't exist in game and is therefore irrelevant, it exists to the real Black people playing it.

So to treat it crassly (as it seems to have been done) suggests a level of unconcern, and thus the effect it will have on those Black viewers who can see how everyone else's narrative is being treated with care. I'm always telling y'all, it's not the prompt, it's the writer- that could have been one hell of a concept, if the people who wrote it knew (or cared about) what they had and followed through!

Now, if your mindset is "well then this game isn't for those viewers" that's true, but keep in mind that's overtly saying that Black players aren't welcome to consume your content with a character that looks like them without settling for racism (which is part of "did they think about their Black audience").

Lastly, as a reminder, we gotta rise above "see there's a Black character!" as a judgment of a piece of media's inclusiveness. Okay, but did they play a role that had interiority or did they just serve as a device for the nonblack main characters and their stories? I don't believe in giving credit for the bare minimum of "being present" anymore lol. It's okay to have standards, it's okay that everything you like won't reach them, but you don't have to lower your standards for good Black characters to "just having them"!

[bluecrocss]

Yes. You are racist. (Buckle up, this is gonna be a long one)

So approximately half a year since the premier of the Disney+ Percy Jackson show, and almost two years since the announcement of the Trio's casting, I would like to take this moment to look back at the insane, racist and anti-black backlash that was launched at Leah Sava Jeffries and a few other cast members from the PJO fandom.

I'm not concerned with the trolls who are openly racist, who resorted to racist slurs and outright threats, everyone agrees that they "took it too far". I want to talk about the rest of you, the "I'm not racist, but.." people, the "What's wrong with wanting book accuracy?" people. Just to let you know, for the unasked question... yes, yes you are.

I've noticed the Percy Jackson fandom has been lording some weird superiority complex over a certain *unnamed* fandom that has fallen out of grace due to their recently outed bigot of an author. But honestly, y'all are not much different. The amount of vitriol and anti-blackness I have seen from this fandom (beyond just bullying a 12 year old girl), y'all don't have a leg to stand on.

Below is a breakdown of the most common arguments I have seen used to justify y'alls absolutely insane bigotry. I am going to explain why none of these justify the amount of anger and vitriol y'all have sent towards Leah, Rick or any of the cast.

I am not here to argue, and this is not a democracy. I am giving you a chance for some self-reflection and to understand that this pattern of violence directed towards POC actors (mostly black women) has never been justified in the name of "book accuracy"/"comic book accuracy"/"ending forced diversity" or whatever other excuses y'all try to make up.

If you still try to justify or argue further for any of these points, I will just block you. I am not coddling you through your racism. If anyone has seen any other dumb arguments floating around that I might've missed, feel free to sound off in the comments.

She's not book accurate:

Neither is Percy, Luke, Grover, Dionysus, Poseidon, and just about every other named character.

Rick already made it clear that physical features were not the priority with casting, rather it was actors that embodied the role. So why are the biggest complaints about Annabeth and Zeus? 🤔

What? You're gonna say everyone else got backlash too? I see you trying to obscure the main issue by playing dumb 😉

See my friend, yes, there were one or two comments about how Percy's hair should be black or how Luke is supposed to be blonde, but as soon as Leah was cast, none of those actors got any significant backlash. In fact, Walker and Charlie literally have an army of fan girls at their beck and call, calling them the perfect Percy and Luke, despite neither being "Book accurate". But then again, have we not observed the pattern of White boy of the month vs WOC to hate for the year? (Yes, I know Charlie isn't white. Further adds to the irony, doesn't it).

Why include character descriptions if you won't stay true to them, you cry? Well, my dear sweet moron, see, books and TV are two different mediums. Because in literature, you can't *Literally* SEE the characters, the author has to add descriptions to paint a picture in your mind, in TV... that's not an issue. So unless the character's appearance is necessary to the plot (like Luke's scar, or Nico being Italian) the show runners can actually focus on more important things.. Like ACTING and PERSONALITY.

2. It's just not how I imagined her:

News flash, babe! ANNABETH ISN'T REAL. None of these character are. They are concepts that originated from the brain of Mr. Rick Riordan. It doesn't matter how YOU imagined her. There are millions of people who read these books that imagined her several different ways. When the creator of the character watched Leah's audition and said, 'Yes! She embodies the character I created!", your imagined version of Annabeth ceased to matter. And guess what? The books still exist... they have not been burned. Your version of Annabeth has not disappeared. Go read the books.

3. Zeus can't be black/Gods have to be Greek/*Insert Character* can't be black:

Y'all did not read the books, I swear. You have to be fake fans looking to troll atp.

The gods move based off the center of western civilization. They change their forms/environment to reflect the culture they are occupying (they did it with Rome, now they're doing it with America). The gods change forms all the time. How we see them is not their true form as a mortal would disintegrate if they were to see their true form.

America is a cultural melting pot (specifically NY where Mount Olympus is now based). If the god's choose forms that reflect the current society they inhabit, they could literally be any race (keep in mind NYC is only 33% white).

All of this is literally SPELLED OUT in the Lightning Thief.

Furthermore, if you're going to push the ethnically Greek thing... Poseidon is British with a British accent and Hermes is Latino. The only ethnically Greek actor is Dionysus (who still doesn't look book accurate). Y'all are sounding like some white supremacists because do you forget that race is a social construct?

Before the advent of the transatlantic slave trade, I can promise you that the Greeks and the Anglo-Saxons did NOT view themselves as the same people. Why are y'all not taking issue with Poseidon's actor then?

Also, Percy Jackson has canonically had a slew of explicitly black demigods since the second book (including Harriet Tubman, which I have mixed feelings about 😭), so I genuinely have no idea where some of y'all are going with this point.

4. She was our smart blonde representation:

Don't pmo. I swear to God!

White, blonde women have NEVER been excluded from Hollywood. Representation is not something you lacked. The dumb blonde stereotype was a simple branch off of a larger misogynistic "dumb woman" stereotype. It has not truly been relevant since the mid 2000s outside of childish jokes.

This iteration of Percy Jackson will probably not go beyond the first 5 books, based off pacing and the age of the actors. So here's a fun game: 5 bucks to the first person who can find me a quote in the first 5 Percy Jackson books, where Annabeth laments her insecurities about being blonde (hint: there aren't any).

Also, her blonde hair does not hold her back at Camp because she is head of the Athena Cabin who are highly respected (and guess what?), ARE ALL BLONDE!

Her insecurities about her hair color are two or three lines at most in the later books, not this fundamental, core part of her character y'all all of a sudden wanna pretend it was. And guess what, as a non-blonde black girl, I was able to read those scenes of Annabeth feeling undervalued because of her looks and relate to her even if she didn't look like me at the time.

Why all of a sudden can y'all not do that with a black Annabeth? By every metric black girls are undervalued for their intelligence in academia more than white girls are, regardless of hair color. So your little representation of a woman undervalued by her looks would still hold. Do y'all dehumanize black women so much, that you are incapable of empathizing with show!Annabeth's plight in the way I could with Book!Annabeth simply because she doesn't look exactly like you?

Your issue isn't that she isn't blonde, it's that she is NOT WHITE.

Furthermore, Becky Riordan had tweeted previously (before the show was even cast) that Annabeth never needed to be blonde (probably recalling the BS y'all put Alexandra Daddario through), so even if they cast a white Annabeth, the blonde hair was never a guarantee. the author and producers all agree that it was not a significant part of her character. It's been a non-issue since day one.

Also, stop acting like smart blondes are rare in media... If you don't go watch some Legally blonde, Iron Man (Pepper Potts), Zack and Cody (Maddie), Liv and Maddie, FMAB (Winry), Captain Marvel, She-Ra, Buffy, The boys (starlight) etc. etc., and go sit down somewhere 🙄🙄🙄 (those were literally all things I've watched recently, off the top of my head, btw 💀)

5. It's not about race, but...:

Yes it is. It was always bout race. No other actors got as much hate as Leah. Her grandmother and other family members on IG had to mute their comments because they were getting so many threats.

Alexandra Daddario had to come to her defense on Twitter. Rick had to put out an official statement on his website. This girl has endured years of psychological torment for simply having the best audition. No one else is book accurate, no one else is ethnically Greek (except Jason Mantzoukas). Walker literally has British and German ancestry.

Why was she being called racial slurs on reddit and in youtube comments?

I know what you're gonna say, "I actually had problems with the entire cast", "I actually had a bigger issue with Walker's hair color", blah blah blah. Then why aren't you in Walker's comment sections? Why are you only making your displeasure known on posts defending/advocating for Leah? Why is she always your first example of 'wrong casting"?

Well, she "looks the most different"... Look up the term "scapegoating".

"Oh, I don't agree with the harassment. I just don't like the casting." Guess what? She's already been cast. They are not going to uncast her. What do you get out of still complaining about it.

All the vitriol you're stirring about her when you complain about her on Social media, it is directing people to send her hate, even if you're not writing it directly. It's is not enough to "not agree" with the racism, it is your duty to actively prevent it. And btw, these are young gen z actors, they are active on social media. They see the edits of themselves (even comment on it) and they most likely see these little "harmless" complaints you're posting. Are your upset feelings really worth contributing to the racist dogpile on this poor girl?

6. Why couldn't they atleast give her blonde braids?:

Why should they? Y'all wanted blonde because of the "dumb blonde" trope... that doesn't apply to POC.

A blonde black girl is gonna be viewed the same as a non-blonde black girl (or at worst, someone might decide she's "ratchet" or some shit for wearing colored hair). What difference would it make?

Why shouldn't Walker dye his hair, then?

7. Annabeth has Gray eyes:

Less than 3% of the global population has "gray eyes". Even if they cast a white actor, they would've needed contacts. Her being black is not the reason Annabeth's eyes aren't gray. Simply put, it is a plot element they removed, like the whole "names have power" element, or Ares having flames for eyes, or Dionysus using his powers to grow strawberries at Camp.

That's how adaptations work. Unnecessary plot elements are cut to save time and budget. This has nothing to do with her casting. They probably also didn't want to make child actors wear contacts (not a new practice).

8. Even if Rick chose her, he was wrong/Disney is forcing him to be okay with it:

Where do I start? Rick created the character. He can't be wrong. Do y'all have no self-awareness? Death of the author has no place here, because y'all are hung up on an aspect of the character that is not relevant to her arc or development.

Y'all's justification for wanting a "book accurate" Annabeth is that she was such an inspirational and important character growing up, and yet your behavior is so in conflict with the character you claim means so much to you. You're narrow minded, dismissive of bigotry and injustice, and disrespectful to the wishes of the creator of your favorite character; everything that Annabeth would never be. Y'all were never genuine fans of the books. You're bigots that needed an outlet for your rage.

Keep in mind, Rick has said countless times that PercaBeth directly mirrors his relationship with his wife. Y'all think he would have allowed them to cast someone who doesn't live up to the woman who has been by his side for decades? The mother of his children?

Regarding Disney forcing him, show me one piece of direct evidence that proves Disney in anyway pressured Rick to cast her. Cuz if you can't, that's baseless speculation. And if you have to resort to baseless speculation, maybe try to examine why it's so important to you to hold on to this belief.

9. So, I'm racist because I hate "race swapping"?:

To start, there is a difference between "race swapping" and "color blind casting". Often times, when y'all complain about the former, you're actually mad about the latter.

It would be "race swapping" if Rick and the team decided ahead of time that they wanted a black Annabeth and ONLY allowed black actors to audition. But the actual reality was that they accepted auditions from everyone (there were white actors and non-black poc that also auditioned for the role) and chose the best person who embodied the role. They didn't "make Annabeth black" and they didn't "make Zeus black", they cast black actors for those roles.

Y'all think you're being slick with your wording. Dismissing that is implying that they did not earn their roles fair and square. Which is racist. It's the equivalent of going up to a black college student and telling them they only got in because of affirmative action. You're dismissing the achievements of a person solely because of their racial background.

For all you people complaining about "unfairness" and "forced diversity", I would think hiring based on merit would appeal to you 🤔

71% of theatrical Hollywood leads were white in 2024 in comparison to 29% POC and you still think "black washing" is a thing? You still get this angry over a black person fairly earning a role because you think in a time where Hollywood only knows to do remakes and adaptations, that the majority of lead roles still *have* to be reserved for white actors?

Once again, white people have never been excluded from Hollywood for being white. Representation has never been something you lacked nor is it something you can lose. Your anger comes from seeing a black face where you think they don't belong. Because you feel you are owed a disproportion of representation in Hollywood.

10. Woke agenda/DEI/Forced Diversity:

If you are unironically using any of these terms in a negative light, it's already too late for me to reason with you. Look up the term "dog whistle". If you are sharing the same terminology with Elon Musk and his fanboys, maybe reevaluate some things.

POC are objectively underrepresented and have been historically excluded through actual laws and policies in Hollywood. There is no such thing as "forced diversity", you have bought in to a right wing conspiracy theory.

"Woke" is a term that was intentionally appropriated from the black community. It originally meant being aware of injustice and systematic threats to the community and is now being weaponized by bigots. Good job.

Diversity and inclusion is a good thing.

11. But POC deserve to have their own stories told:

We do. And we have been fighting for it for over a century now, and we've made great strides, no thanks to y'all.

No thanks to y'all gaslighting us about how little representation we get or that representation matters at all. No thanks to y'all pushing the idea that POC can't sell globally and obscuring POC actors in international promos. No thanks to y'all continuing to whitewash even to this day (Bullet train, the beguiled, gods of Egypt, atla, every portrayal of Jesus ever, etc.). No thanks to y'all calling every piece of media that has more than one black lead and more than one queer couple "woke". No thanks to y'all throwing a fit every time a black person in a fantasy setting isn't a slave.

Fact of the matter is, y'all never cared about POC "getting their own stories", you're only parroting our own words back to us now as a politically correct way of saying, "leave white roles alone" lmao

Well fun fact, actors of color getting opportunities to play lead roles and allowing poc to "tell their own stories" are not mutually exclusive. If y'all cared that much, instead of bullying a 12 year old actress, you could actually support up and coming independent POC writers, directors, and studios 😱

12. Studios need to stop "setting up" actors of color:

Do me a favor and google the term DARVO.

Your racism is not the fault of the studios for giving a POC actor a role that they earned. It is not up to the rest of society to tiptoe around racists to avoid their vitriol. It is our responsibility to hold them accountable and protect minorities from unwarranted hate. At most, you can say it's the responsibility of the studios to provide adequate support to POC actors who face this backlash.

At the end of the day, Hollywood only allows very few spots for POC actors (especially WOC), while simultaneously pushing a new white boy every month to put in everything. Putting minorities in these roles that are usually closed to them, usually opens the door to more actors of color than before.

Brandy being cast as Cinderella did a lot to push her into the mainstream (yes, she was already extremely famous in the black community atp), Halle Berry being the first, black, bond girl literally shot her to icon status, and even going as far back to what Anna Mae Wong did for Asian American actresses with her "femme fatale" roles.

At the end of the day, even with the backlash, *some* rep does more good for POC actors than *no* rep. The solution to racist backlash isn't to take away those opportunities, but rather to not be racist??? 🙄

Also, for everyone that claims that "POC race-swapping" is just as bad as "white-washing", despite white washing having a longer history and objectively causing more harm, note how the backlash to white washing never lasts as long as the harassment that POC get.

Like, no one brings up Scarlett Johansson's ghost in the shell role anymore, but you can best believe Candace Patton is still fending off racist trolls. As much as people hated the atla movie, people moved on quick from Nicola Peltz playing Katara since she was just a kid that accepted the role (re: daddy bought her the role), but y'all would not have any of that consideration for Leah Sava Jeffries.

But I digress...

13. What if we made Tiana white? Wakanda white? Hazel white...:

Ah, my favorite inane point. I was so excited to get here :)

See, I could start out by pointing out how "White washing" and casting a POC actor as a traditionally white character are not equivalent.

I could point out the history of hollywood ACTIVELY excluding POC actors and POC stories. I could point out how grossly over represented white people are in hollywood. I could point out that POC characters are so few in comparison that whitewashing them causes actual harm, where white people have never lacked rep.

I could point out how, because poc characters and stories are so often tokenized that their racial/cultural background is often directly tied to their character's identity, in opposition to a lot of white characters, since hollywood treats white as the "Default".

See, I could make all those points, but the thing is, the people who make this argument already know all that. They are trying to waste time by drawing me into a pointless circular argument that will sum up to "fair is fair", while ignoring all the context and nuance I previously provided.

So you know what? Forget it. Let me play your game.

I am actually fine with a white Tiana. Would it make sense, for her and her family to experience Jim Crow era racism, in the south while white? No. But we can look past it. Disney was never known for historical accuracy anyway 🤷🏿‍♀️

However, in exchange, the live action frozen will have a black Elsa and Anna, live action Rapunzel will be black, live action Merida will be black, we're re-filming Cinderella and Beauty and the beast to cast a black belle and Cindy, snow white will need to be recast as black, and we also get aurora whenever the live action sleeping beauty is announced. But then y'all can keep Tiana, deal?

You want a white T'Challa? Fine! (I'm partial to Ryan gosling), in the meantime, we'll be recasting Iron man, Captain America (Steve version), Bruce banner, Thor, Loki, hawk eye, black widow, ant man, captain marvel, Bucky, Peter Parker etc. All the avengers and their side characters, then y'all can have Sam Wilson, war machine and the whole of Wakanda (will it make sense that a sole, hidden, African nation is randomly made up of white people? Who cares? We get the avengers!).

You want white Hazel? You got her! I hope you have no problem with us taking Percy, Nico, Will, Poseidon, Jason, calypso, Rachel, Tyson, Silena, the stoll brothers, Sally Jackson, Hades, Hepheastus, ares, etc. But y'all can have Hazel and Beckendorf.

If we're gonna do this, let's commit all the way. Fair is fair, after all.

14. Leah isn't as "pretty" as Book Annabeth/Movie Annabeth:

I wish I could say this wasn't a genuine point I had read, but when all else fails, they will always go for a woman's appearance.

Now first of all, as a rule, I will never hold black women to white beauty standards. Our hair will never be long and silky enough, our nose will never be narrow enough, our skin will never be fair enough and our eyes will never be light enough (Might I recommend Toni Morrison, when you get the chance?). But Leah is unfairly gorgeous idc what any of you say, and you're not gonna have me use my defense of Leah as an opportunity to bash Alexandra either because she is also beautiful. These two queens slayed to the best of their abilities within this toxic ass fandom.

I find it funny, however, that so many of you harped on the "blonde" issue because you thought it was important that Annabeth be seen beyond just her looks, but quickly devolve to bashing an actress's looks when it comes to why she's not right for this role 🤔

I would also like to sincerely apologize that the 13 year old girl they cast in the show, wasn't as sexually attractive to you as the 24 year old woman they cast in the movie and sexualized through like 25% of her screen time (I'm actually not sorry. You're very weird if this is an actual point for you).

15. I don't agree with sending hate to the actor, but she's just not right for the role:

Once again, what are you doing by complaining about her casting on no other basis than her race?

The creator of the character said she embodied the role. She has already been cast, and Disney would be in a legal/production hell to recast her atp. Just because you're not directly leaving comments on her social media doesn't mean you're not part of the hate mob.

No matter how you look at it, your issues with her casting come from a very entitled and narrow-minded place. When you join in on these dialogues you are bolstering a sentiment that pushes more people to harass this teenage girl. When you leave these "harmless" complaints, on show content, fan posts or posts defending her, she's liable to read them because the cast regularly interact with fans online.

What do you have to say that is so important that it trumps protecting a young girl from the long-staying trauma of racism, of being told she doesn't deserve something she worked for because of how she was born?

16. I can't even criticize the show without being called racist:

Get. Over. Yourself.

Y'all are not the victim. Have fans of the show gotten protective of Leah and the young cast? Yes.

With good reason. This fandom is unbearably toxic.

Racism outweighs your need for a "perfect adaptation", sorry.

If you explain yourself properly and keep your critiques fair (like, even I don't think this was a perfect season, and will be sharing my thoughts shortly), no one is gonna call you racist.

You're preempting with that because in all honesty, you're probably planning to use your "critiques" of the show to pivot to one of the many points that I just outlined, and you want to pre-empt the criticism.

If a black Annabeth is the end all be all for you, just don't watch the show, no one's holding a gun to your head. Geez.

17. I'm Black/POC and I don't agree...:

Hey, Candace Owens... No one gives a shit.

First of all, for all the "I'm POC and I don't agree" people, you don't speak for us. Anti-blackness is rampant in just about every culture globally. You being not-white doesn't somehow make you less prone to hating black people.

But for the "I'm black and I don't agree" leftovers (assuming you're not just a 👩🏼‍💻 behind a keyboard). Black people are not a monolith. You're not obligated to think a certain way because you're black.

But consider why you're putting yourself up as a barrier to protect this hate mob. It's one thing to just state why you don't like Leah's casting, but to start off your spiel with "I'm actually black" as a way to weaponize the very identity politics you're critiquing... very strange. Not to mention, what are you defending?

The black community is coming together to defend one of our own, a kid who has been receiving death threats since she was 12, and this is when you feel the need to back the opposition?

I mean whatever... sometimes the house slaves would snitch to the master. There will always be some of y'all in the woodwork. It is what it is.

But when the exact ideology you defend is turned against you, when a Baltimore elected official is being accused of getting his job through "DEI", when conservatives are claiming that they wouldn't "trust a black pilot", don't decide that's where you'll finally draw your line in the sand.

All that being said, This is my Annabeth:

May every tongue that rose against Leah Sava Jeffries Shrivel and die in 2025 🙏🏿 My girl will keep winning ❤️

(video by @/waleahhasmyheart on TikTok)

[hiwelcometothemonstersancturary]

Poppy Worldwide/Save Everyone AU masterpost

Hi, this is the second masterpost I make for the AU. You can find the first one here, which does not include the characters introduced for Chapter 4 of the game. This masterpost is for the "updated" version of the au, which includes everyone up to chapter 4.

The AU's premise: A rewrite of the canon game, but with a twist: Instead of being responsible for the toy's deaths, the Angel/the Player rescues every single one of them instead, with no exceptions. This includes characters like Mommy Long Legs, Catnap and Doey. After confronting the Prototype and sparing his life, Angel leaves the factory with everyone, calls the authorities, and now the toys must adapt to the strange world outside the factory while healing from their traumas.

For more info on the AU, including trigger and content warnings, please see the read more!

----------------

REFERENCES:

Original Masterpost

Angel reference sheet (TO BE REDONE)

Main Toys reference sheet (COMING SOON)

Smiling Critters reference sheet, part 1

Smiling Critters reference sheet, part 2

Nightmare Critters reference sheet (COMING SOON)

The Prototype / Experiment 1006 reference sheet (TO BE REDONE)

AU WRITING:

Game Arc:

Poppy Worldwide: TRUE SALVATION ROUTE (coming soon) - the updated fanfic, with the events of Chapter 4 added alongside some corrections and minor alterations in the previous chapters. Consider this the up

dated (and maybe better?) version of the AU!

Poppy Worldwide: SALVATION ROUTE! - the first fanfic of the AU where my madness started, written before Chapter 4 came out. Does not feature Doey, Safe Haven, or Sawyer. Will be completed soon.

Post-Game Arc:

Doey NOT coping with his trauma (Tumblr Post)

AU ART:

Silly Angel x Prototype sketches

HEADCANONS & SCENARIOS:

About Thomas Clarke;

Small stuff about their prosthetics;

How the Smiling Critters were assumed to be dead/why aren't they on Safe Haven during the game events;

Favorite music genres

Scenarios:

Valentine's Day

----------------

THIS AU WAS MADE AND WRITTEN BY ME, AKA GARÇA VISCONDE MIRIGIS, AKA A (white) BRAZILIAN QUEER INDIVIDUAL WITH AUDHD, AND I DO NOT LIKE TONING DOWN DISABILITIES OR MENTAL HEALTH TOPICS. If you don't like the way I'm handling certain disabilities or topics and you believe you know more, please consider sending an ask or message explaining your POV so I may improve the AU.

Trigger and Content Warnings (TW and CW):

Canon-typical violence, which yes, does include gore, blood, guts, and tons of medical inadequacies;

Child physical, emotional and mental abuse (thanks, PlayCo.);

Mentions of starvation (both in the factory and with Angel);

Overall discussions of mental health, including conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and multiple personalities. If you think people with these conditions are somehow """scary""", or think narcissism is an insult, please get away from my blog;

Suicide, suicidal thoughts and discussions of previous suicide attempts;

Overall discussions of medical trauma;

Overall discussions of grief and death;

Ableism;

LGBTQIA+phobia (not a focus, but Angel is an intersex nonbinary individual who moves to the USA in the 80s and this did give them trauma)

Angel also suffered xenophobia and racism thanks to being a white latine in 80s USA. This is mentioned a few times, but is not a focus.

Some important info: This AU has a heavy emphasis on trauma recovery, mental health, and the relationships between Angel and the toys and the toys with each other. Please check the TW and CW for more info.

The Smiling and Nightmare Critters are all alive as well. Safe Heaven's toys are also all alive. Neither the Prototype nor Harley Sawyer die by the end of the game's events, but the doctor is paying for his crimes while the Prototype is helping Angel as much as he can.

I tried my best to follow as much canon as possible, but I opted to alter some tidbits about the timeline in order for things to not be as confusing, and added a LOT more to the characters we know of. Since the game doesn't give us much personality to them, I decided to use my own interpretation of them. Everything I altered was in an attempt to better fit the themes of both the AU and the canon game.

The Prototype in this AU is not an one-dimensional villain; he is a deeply traumatized individual who did LOTS of bad stuff pre and post-Hour of Joy in an attempt to protect all the toys. He failed being a good guardian and parent to the toys and he is paying the consequences of allowing Catnap to make a cult, isolating Poppy, and having the brilliant (sarcasm) idea of making the Hour of Joy.

Canon Ships for the AU include:

Everyone x Therapy;

Mommy Long Legs x Miss Delight;

Catnap x Dogday;

Hoppy Hopscotch x Bobby Bearhug;

KickinChicken x Bubba Bubbaphant;

Picky Piggy x Maggie Mako;

Leith Pierre x Harley Sawyer (pre-HoJ);

The Angel x The Prototype (QPR).

[ineffectualdemon]

Separating Art from the Artist doesn't mean "I'm going to ignore everything this person has ever done in their life and pretend they are a pure good person"

It means when evaluating the work on its technical and artistic merits, you need to separate from your opinion of the artist as a person (good or bad) from the actual work

It's an exercise in looking past your bias both negative "this person kicked a puppy!" And positive "this person saved a puppy!"

It's about not rating art down just because the artist is someone you dislike but also not rating up art just because you like the artist

It's also one part in the process in dealing with art critically

Let's say an artist painted flowers

He also is a serial cheater

His cheating has nothing to do with how well he painted those flowers on a technical level

You can call the painting well done with good use of colour and light and it's not endorsing his cheating

Similarly if someone who is well known as the nicest guy in the world creates a dog shit painting to be judged, then judging it on artistic merits and finding it lacking is not attacking their character

Because the truth is bad people can make good art and it's fine to find the work objectively good and appreciate it for what it is separate from the artist on a technical and artistic level

Now there is a point when you're going to have to take into account the person who made it but that's a different step in critical analysis. That also doesn't mean you have to throw out their work and never touch it again

It means engaging with it critically

I have said it before but a series of books that was important to me as a child I read again after finding out some really horrible stuff the author (David Endings) did to his adopted children (who luckily were taken off him and he and his wife were banned from having children)

And I read it critically. I could see why I enjoyed it. The dialogue was witty and fun. The political intrigue was intriguing. The battle scenes were exciting and descriptive .

It was well written. That is separating the art from the artist. The books were well written and entertaining. I can say that honestly

HOWEVER I hadn't read these books in a very long time and I was reading them critically. And yeah how he wrote children was... uncomfortable. It wasn't full on but there are parts that I brushed off as being set in fantasy medieval time period as "what parents might have done" when I was a kid. But as an adult with more education it was...not great.

But that's not what I noticed the most. What I noticed more was the racism, particularly against Asians, and rampant antisemitism in the books. It was so in your face I was surprised I didn't really notice it as a kid. And to be honest I couldn't even get to the end of the series I was reading because it was so intensely racist.

I probably won't read them again because it was so full on racist.

Saying that I have also read Sherlock Holmes critically. They are again well written. They also have racist storylines and characters pop up. I still can, and do, read them. What makes it different? Well the time period when it was written makes a difference. I expect a book written in in the late 1800s by a well off white man to be racist. Also it is considerably less racist then Eddings. With Sherlock Holmes stories a racist bit will pop up occasionally and I will go "ah. Racism. Duly noted"

With Eddings it was racism stacked on racism with added racism and a sprinkling of child abuse for added flavour

Bad people make good art

Sometimes the shit they did that means they aren't a great person has nothing to do with their art.

Like a guy who cheats but also draws sick ass dragons

Those aren't related. You don't have to be faithful to draw a sick ass dragon.

And sometimes it does.

Like a guy who cheats who built his entire career about how much he loves monogamy and being faithful and has that as major themes in his work. His actions will have a major affect on how his work is seen

But also if you own idk a painting by that person that you got for your wedding to symbolise you and your spouses devotion to each other. You can still see it that way if you want to. Because it has meaning to you separate from the artist who made it.

I think you have to accept that sometimes things you love are made by people you don't like. Don't put creators and artists on pedestals and don't tie the emotions that their creations gave you to them being "good"

[jesncin]

Coddling Colonizer Guilt

"Performative diversity is when MAWS features a Native American variant of Lois Lane in the multiverse episode only to end the season on a Thanksgiving episode."

...is something I like to joke with my friends as a shorthand for referencing MAWS' squeamish approach to politics while still trying to reap the clout of "diverse representation". I want to get my thoughts out there and perhaps start a discussion over why this feels off.

Some disclaimers: Firstly, I'm not Native American. Understand this is an observation I'm making from an outsider perspective with no personal authority. I'm just a disappointed Asian Lois Lane fan. Secondly, I know the MAWS crew/creators had no malicious intent in any of these (what I consider) poor writing decisions. I'm simply here to challenge and analyze these narrative and visual choices.

MAWS takes a fairly controversial take on Superman mythos so far. Unlike Superman's historic roots as an allegory for Jewish immigrants with Clark coming from a Kryptonian socialist utopia (leading the imperfect people of Earth to a better tomorrow), MAWS chooses instead to reimagine Superman as a descendant from a planet of "alien invaders". If the leaked(?) concept art (warning potential spoilers for s2) is to be believed, Clark is the direct descendent of the leaders of the "Kryptonian Empire". Supposedly gone are the parents of Superman being scientists that warn of the destruction of their home planet- instead we have the "proud, loving, brilliant" "leaders of the Kryptonian Empire".

While we don't know if this is the direction the show is going in, there are already cryptic hints of it being planted and thematic elements set up that point to it being a possibility. Clark had spent a majority of the season wondering what/who he is (being incapable of talking to Jor-El's hologram because of a language barrier) only to find out his supposed origins in episode 9. He's devastated learning that he's an alien invader and, once he regroups with his friends, angsts about believing he's a weapon sent from Krypton to invade Earth. Asian-Lois Lane and Black-Jimmy Olsen assure White-passing-alien-man Clark Kent that he's different and not like other colonizers. Clark ultimately saves the day, proving he's an exception. It's curious then that the season ends on Thanksgiving.

As I've mentioned before, MAWS is exhaustively squeamish with getting political. Whatever happens in the show that resembles "themes" is quickly contradicted with very little consistent internal logic. One minute Superman is supposedly a threat that "wipes out good American jobs", should "go back to where he came from" and Lois makes a hope speech about how we shouldn't treat people who "are different" and "don't look like us" (??) with cruelty (so Clark's an immigrant going through xenophobia?) and the next he's a redeemed colonizer (a more prominent thematic arc). One minute Clark is "different" and scared of being othered- likened to a gay couple and allegorically closeted, and the next his friends call him out for being a lying liar for not disclosing his marginalized identity within a week (the narrative frames Lois and Jimmy as being in the right). This show's writing is non-committal with what it wants to say, and largely goes on vibes. That is to say I don't think the writers intended for the themes of colonizer guilt to accidentally tie into Thanksgiving as a set piece for their final episode.

I'm sure the reason the writers chose Thanksgiving as their final episode is because it's "relateable". Half the episode is dedicated to slice of life family reunion shenanigans and the dang turkey still not being cooked through. But in choosing Thanksgiving, the writers told on themselves here with their biases. The existence of Thanksgiving implies the existence of genocide (of Native American people) by colonists in the MAWS universe. And yet Black Jimmy Olsen doesn't know what racism is (Mallah and the Brain give him a judgmental stare as Jimmy admits he can't relate to being violently marginalized) and Asian American Lois Lane doesn't understand immigration and xenophobia (constantly being entitled to Clark's immigrant identity, being incapable of comprehending why he would keep it a secret, because secrets are lies). The MAWS crew wanted a "relateable" set piece but in doing so ended up reinforcing the historical revisionism the holiday entails. A foreign colonizer sharing a meal with his friends of color on Earth, whose culture, history, and identity are all white washed.

I would like to challenge this idea that Thanksgiving is somehow the "relateable" choice. Why pick this holiday? Why not celebrate Thanksgiving as a National Day of Mourning (as some Native Americans do)? Why not pick any Jewish holiday as a nod to Superman's creators (ignoring this version's colonizer interpretation for a second)? Why not pick Lunar New Year, a holiday celebrated by many people including Koreans (Seollal in South Korea)? It could've been another fun opportunity to showcase Lois' heritage, and create a fusion of cultures from Jimmy and Clark's families. At its most non-political and secular, why couldn't they pick any weekend? This is what happens when a show doesn't consider its world building and setting in a holistic way. MAWS will nod to xenophobic rhetoric, portray allegorical queer marginalization, and make the vaguest nods to systemic bigotry (Prof Ivo displaced a whole neighborhood! Yet we never hear from those figurative displaced people). But it does nothing to discuss any of that on a deeper level. Its characters of color don't know what racism is and Thanksgiving is just a fun family reunion, guys.

All this and they had the audacity to sneak in a Native American Lois Lane in the multiverse episode?? Why is she, out of all the Lois Lanes in this screencap, the only one in full traditional wear? Why isn't she in a smart casual business fit like Black Lois and STAS white Lois? Would she not have been recognizably Native American to the non-Native audience otherwise? Isn't this tokenizing? Do you think she has a xenophobic dad in the military like Korean American Lois does?

But that fits MAWS' approach to diversity, doesn't it? Surface level cultural nods, maybe make Lois wear a hanbok one time, and let the audience eat it up. Never mind that both Korean American Lois and Native American Lois have been stripped of their culture and history in every other aspect.

I use the word "relateable" a lot here, but I think the important question to ask is "relateable for who?". 'Immigrant' is too charged a word, so MAWS universalizes Clark's marginalization to "being different". Superman isn't even an immigrant in this version, that was all a smokescreen for the twist that he's actually a descendent of colonizers! Being wracked with colonizer guilt is way more relateable to the white audience than being an immigrant, surely. Thanksgiving is more relateable than celebrating any culturally specific holiday our "diverse reimagining" could have represented. Characters of color being functionally white (in a way that doesn't threaten middle America) is way more relateable. MAWS is a show that doesn't want to delve into Native American history. It would rather put a Native American Lois hologram on a pedestal and call it a day.

[cenvast]

heyo! i read your analysis on laios and racism and it's an interesting read, and i'm wondering if you ever wrote about marcille relation to it? when she had that argument with chief zon, she seems to see the orcs as a group prone to violence that killed a lot of people and that's why they cannot live outside of the dungeon and doesn't acknowledge how elves and tall-men colonised the orcs land so the orcs are forced to fight them and to live in the dungeon, and the reveal that marcille herself is an elf and tall-man is definitely an added layer to that. i'm interested to see your analysis on this!

You did a great job pointing out and explaining the implications of Marcille's racism in the text in your ask! And thank you for reading my Laios meta, and I'm glad you found it interesting. Marcille's racism is much more textually blatant, so I ended up writing about the text's less straightforward racial commentary first, but I'm very glad you asked about Marcille because I really enjoy her character <3 Here's the Marcille meta with a bit of Kabru sprinkled in:

What Does Being a Gay Half-Elf Have To Do With Imperialism?: On Marcille, Kabru, and Blind Spots

Marcille's relationship to in-universe racial issues is complex. She holds a more privileged position than demi-humans like orcs and the accompanying racist biases against them. Simultaneously, she experiences racial discrimination for being half-tallman from other elves, and this is further complicated by the elves' imperialism negatively impacting tallmen. Unfortunately, Marcille's position as both someone who experiences and enacts racialized harm rings true to real life; people of color can still be racist to other people of color and uphold systems of harm. To clarify, I don't see Marcille as coded as anything other than white in text, but her experiences can, of course, be analogized to real-life racial issues.

Notably, Marcille's mixed-race identity fuels her primary motivation: achieving lifespan equality between the races. Her experiences with her father dying when she was young and feeling othered as a half-elf from other elves motivates her to erase the most glaring difference between the races (in her eyes, at least). We see the races being divided into short- and long-lived categories multiple times, and we can glean that the elves' extended lifespan allows them to more effectively enact colonialism and imperialism. Though it's unclear if Marcille aims to erase inequality on a sociopolitical scale like, say, Kabru, achieving racial lifespan equality would likely weaken the current elven imperialistic structures and promote a higher level of social equality. However, I don't believe her solution would "solve" in-world racism; neither would I say that that's her main goal.

Marcille's motivations are very personal. She wants lifespan equality because of a personally traumatic experience she doesn't want to repeat. Her father died before her, so she doesn't want her other loved ones to die before her. Once again, her main aim is not really stopping elven imperialism. Still, her relationship with elven power remains fraught. She obviously doesn't want to be taken into custody by the Canaries, and her family seems to have had negative experiences with elven authority in the past.

We can draw interesting parallels between Marcille and Kabru. Like Marcille, Kabru has had a personally traumatic experience (being a victim of elven colonialism), which motivates him to rid the world of dungeons. He understands that the elves use the threat of dungeons as an excuse to invade other nations and incorporate them into their empire. In service of maintaining their hold on power, the elves withhold information about dungeons and ancient magic, which would make peoples' lives safer. Kabru perceives his trauma as one instance in a larger tapestry of imperialistic violence. His goal is to strategically target a nexus of elven power by destroying dungeons and thereby, minimize the possibility of others experiencing the harm he experienced. Significantly, Kabru is a Brown man and Marcille is a white woman, which does seem to influence how clearly they perceive their trauma as a result of racialized systems of power or not.

I said that Marcille is gay in the title, so let's talk about Marcille straddling the line between upholding and transgressing expectations of conformity and respectability. She attended the Magic Academy and excelled at her craft, which aligns with being a good citizen, etc. But she also studies ancient magic, obsesses over dungeons, and performs ancient magic to save her loved ones. Interestingly, Marcille has a stigmatized view of dungeoneering as a dead-end job at first and doesn't seem to want to permanently be a dungeoneer. Still, for her research's sake, she joins a dungeon party and ultimately practices ancient magic because of her relationship with Falin.

Throughout her life, Marcille has been strange. Her half-elf identity informs her goal of equalizing racial lifespans which expands into an interest in dungeons and ancient magic. She develops these transgressive interests and enters a research field which is both frowned upon and illegal. This further codes her as queer, forcing her away from the respectable path, so she can pursue her true interests and goals. Her queerness is additionally underscored by her deep love and care for Falin driving her to illegally revive Falin with ancient magic. Her revival of Falin snowballs into her confrontation with and near arrest by the Canaries. Marcille has always been queer in the sense that she pushes back against societal norms in her interests and behaviors; it's an added bonus that her queer interests manifest most intensely in her queer relationship with Falin.

Even within her queerness, Marcille maintains this tension between both upholding and transgressing societal norms. She places expectations of normative femininity onto Falin by discouraging her from wearing her hair short and encouraging her to dress feminine at the cost of Falin's comfort. Once again, if we read Marcille as a lesbian woman (or generally queer woman), she is also actively harmed by reductive, cisheteronormative gender expectations, but like when she voices her racist beliefs against the orcs, she has failed to unpack her own biases, even when they personally harm her.

Overall, Marcille is an example of how a person can hold multiple marginalizations, consistently clash with systems of power, and still hold blind spots and not be fully cognizant of the systems of power at play in their own life.

Another important parallel between her and Kabru is that they're both racist against demi-humans. Once again, Marcille and Kabru holding racist biases underscores how someone can be deeply empathetic and work towards remedying inequality in one area while still failing to recognize how they're complicit in replicating other systems of harm against others. I'd like to think that Marcille will mature over time and come to a fuller understanding of how she can both be injured by and benefit from unjust systems of power.

Thank you for reading! :D

[multi-fandom-lunatic]

booktok is odd because white women so badly want books where white people lead revolutions/save the world/make society more progressive and yet they only see this as an escapist fantasy. Like, they don't seem to actually want to change things in real life. It's really strange. Trying to change the world for the better doesn't have to be a fantasy! You can read up about things, listen to marginalised groups and put in the work!

It's because when POC lead revolutions it hits too close to home for them and forces them to confront the reality that they are benefitting from a system they should be against.

They understand that the Capitol from Hunger Games are the villains; greedy people who use the system to keep up their lifestyle while stepping on a lot of people to get there. They want to be like Katniss who's not had that privilege but had the courage to lead a revolution. But they realise that they benefit from the system like the Capitol do, and it draws uncomfortable parallels.

(Side note - I haven't read the Hunger Games, just done a little bit of Google search, and I also know that the Capitol benefit from the system by being wealthy, not nessesarily white. But. I think the comparisons are easiest to draw from HG, because they make it so absolutely clear that the Capitol is in the wrong and Katniss is right. , Also. I'm not hugely a reader of the dystopian genre, so I haven't read enough books to find a better one to use for parallels.)

They (white women) tend to find that mentioning race at all, especially to have a nuanced discussion on where racism is present and how it affects even the smallest part of their lives, is uncomfortable. It's often rooted in the (incorrect) understanding of racism being equality despite differences, instead of while embracing differences. Bringing up race brings up those differences, and that reminds them of the differences they (usually subconciously) would like to bury. It upsets their balance. And that's why bringing up race at all (even in the BookTok and similar) rocks this teetering tower of equality. But it's foundations are shaky. And it will fall.

Anyways, got a little tangent-y at the end there. And I'm writing this while quite sleep so my points might not be super coherent, and I apologise for that. I also haven't really touched on the facet of white feminism that benefits upper middle class white women, but you know. There's always next time. Still, this was very refreshing to talk about. I just find this whole concept very interesting to discuss. Thank you so much for the ask!

(Side side note: Yes! Absolutely, supporting POC should be the next course of action after this. I'm not from the US, but I hear that there's a lot of Black owned bookstores being shut down. The best way we can support POC authors is to buy their books and hear their voices.

Books with POC protags, Books by Black, Brown and Women of Colour and Queer POC books are some good places to start (these are books by POC with POC protags). I'd personally like to spotlight the Momo Arashima series by Misa Sugiura, a middle grade fantasy series with Shinto gods, much like Percy Jackson, and is also very queer. Check it out!

[bunchacrunchcake]

Hot take: Call them a colonizer.

Some people are that, 3rd 4th 5th generation colonists. They say "Speak English." "This is a Christian nation." "We are just following the law." "You have to earn what you work for." "Stop being angry. It's making me uncomfortable."

People on all sides of the spectrum can act like colonizers. It's not just "the other side" that's doing it.

Here's why it's okay. This country wasn't empty when Europeans landed here. It was full, coast to coast, of Native people. Algonquin, Navajo, Cree, Comanche, Kiowa.

Natives aren't perfect magical people that do no wrong. But they were here first. The rules and laws, the money, the highways, the religion was all forced on people that already lived here after a genocide. Over 200+ years, it's estimated that colonizers "reduced" the Native population from 10,000,000 to 300,000. 9.7m people "reduced." Is how it is described today. In minutes the US nuked ~200,000 civilians in cities that were non-military targets and agreed on by officials were unnecessary to bomb to end the war. The Holocaust is estimated between 6 - 11 million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Death_toll I'm not making the point that these are equivalent. Or that they are not. Arguing which was worse, erasing two cities or erasing entire populations is idiotic. They are both reprehensible. And it takes a certain kind of person, a certain kind of system, a certain kind of outlook on human life in order to do something like that. European culture, oddly, wipes people off of the map, plants a flag, and says "We were here first." The people that came before are erased. And the people that come after are second class. The history of how we built the first railroads by using Chinese immigrants as dynamite fodder is horrifying.

The European culture has whiteness hidden in a lot of it, and deeper underneath the skin tone is a large set of values that are ultimately predatory, and absolutely awful for most people that don't own businesses. Europe was a country of Kings. A lot of the values from that culture are about justifying the existence of a king:

Top down authority, rules set by leaders, asking leaders to increase pay or change governing laws, people are entitled to what they earn therefore someone who has billions must have worked for it and must be entitled to it, everything is for sale even the land you are currently living on, you have to pay tax or you will lose your home, you have to pay for everything you want because it is a way of showing you earned it, causing loud head on conflict is worse than causing quiet conflict that undermines people, if you agreed to it you agreed to it forever.

Its a system that convinces people their rulers are better than them, makes it hard for them to resist, and entraps them within the system.

In the US, most peoples history goes back 100-200 years, however humans have been around for 10-30,000 years. Native people are in almost every country, Japan, China, Russia, the Americas, the list goes on and on. In almost every country there was a process of erasing them so another culture could dominate.

And the end result of those cultures globally are taxes that only the middle class and the poor pay, payday loans, overpriced foods, homes that you do not truly own.

When you see someone defending the legitimacy of this system, through racism, or just through moralizing and logic justifying it, they are participating in hundreds of years of colonialism.

[ultfreakme]

and on our agenda is JonJay. How many times have I told myself not to go under comments on Tumblr, but this time misfortune took me by surprise. It was about Bernard, I decided to go into the comments, which was my main mistake. The author of the post wrote that Jay is worse than Bernard, since he can control the minds of other people (I don’t remember this at all, I know about his ability to pass through walls and any solid objects) and how Jon can meet with him. God, there was no explanation, but if this person meant that Jay forced Jon to fall in love with him by penetrating his mind, then I'm leaving this planet. How blind do you have to be when you read a comic book so as not to read that Jon agreed to help Jay himself, since people needed help. And he didn’t fall in love with him right away either, rather after Jay met the superfamily, like, yes. I’m still It's still killing me that people think Jay is the worst option for Jon, although if you ask my opinion, they couldn't find each other better. Jay literally exposed himself for the sake of Jon, what else do they need for them to believe in his sincerity. By the way, they don’t have any thoughts about the setup from Nicky to Damian. Sorry, but it still really annoys me, like ,how so. I'm still wondering why people love Bernad and Nika more than Jay. Maybe you have an answer, I don't know. (I love them too, but this injustice is killing me)

Anon, I get you so much. I answered something like this before but I love ranting and the Jon Kent tag is filled with Jay hate so I'll do it again. The reason why people hate Jay is:

Racism and Orientalism

People think Jon should've ended up with Damian

He's associated with Jon's age-up

Potential covert biphobia

None of the Jay haters have actually read SOKE. The 'mind control' rumors started spreading and becaus basically 70% of tumblr DC fans haven't actually touched more than 3 issues of the comic books and out of context panels in their lives, they don't know that Jay's NEVER 'seduced' Jon. Which is, by the way, a classic offensive stereotype assigned to Asian characters; that Asian characters, especially ones who are into men are all seducers. This is primarily applied to women but now its being applied with Jay.

It's funny because Jon WAS affected to be attracted by an actual telepathic character; Imra, aka Saturn Girl.

And this is where the biphobia comes in because Saturn Girl dated Jon, it was a disaster fire relationship in a book that mischaracterized both of them.It's implied that Imra accidentally used her powers to make Jon be into her, but NO ONE talks about it because it's a seemingly heterosexual relationship. Also she's a white blond girl. It's far easier to target the sparse Asian rep we get.

Nika and Bernard also don't get as much hate because of this reason. People can talk around it all they want, but they are more loved and accepted because they are white. If either of them were POC, they'd be getting the same treatment.

The DamiJon shippers for some reason got it into their heads that Damian x Jon is going to be a thing and now they're mad that they're headcanons aren't real. Like I can't even be kind about this because these assholes have been nothing but racist, clogging up Jon's tag by not tagging anything right, and have also attacked actual content creators to the point they've had to respond to them to tell them to STOP.

Nothing will get these people to like Jay, because they don't actually care about comics, storytelling, the messages these stories bring, the characters, or anything really. They just care that their headcanon vision of Jon's gone and it isn;t easy to project their "sunshine baby" tropes on Jon anymore since now he's actually got adventures of his own outside of Damian. And those adventures happen to be with his boyfriend Jay.

[edwardsvirtue]

Hi!

I'm writing a Twilight fanfic, any suggestions about how best to be sensitive and respectful of the Quileute? I've done some preliminary research, but I suspect I'm doing a terrible job.

Thank you.

I'll start by saying that I am by no means an authority when it comes to matters of the Quileute people (which I'm sure you understand, I get that you're probably just looking for advice from another writer!). I am an enrolled member of a totally different tribe in a different part of the country, and I've been very fortunate to reconnect with that part of my heritage, but at the end of the day, I am a white-passing person who has mostly lived a white experience. so take that for what it's worth.

my first piece of advice is to be patient with yourself. the fact that you care enough to ask this question at all means you're doing better than stephenie meyer ever did. but by the same token, understand that the connection to twilight means we unfortunately can't really achieve a result that's 100% unproblematic. undoing all that racism is WAY too big of a task for any one fanfic writer to expect of themselves.

other than the obvious (e.g., avoid depicting flagrant stereotypes, don't just "make up" your own aspects of quileute history and culture on a whim, etc.) I would focus first on treating your poc characters like complete, well-rounded beings. well written representation will have characters who are messy and complicated and riddled with flaws IN ADDITION TO all their positive qualities. as long as you're not reducing anybody to just one or two aspects of their identity, then you're on the right track.

I know you said you've started some research already, but I'll still share these links because every twilight fan needs to see them :) good luck & have fun writing!

truth vs twilight

mthg.org

[irrepressible-domovoy]

My banned book list has grown! (But I'm still taking recommendations!) X is the books I or someone in my household has.

[X] 1984 - George Orwell - Dark, dystopian, relatable

[X] All Quiet on the Western Front - Erich Maria Remarque - Very sad, not a happy ending, semi-autobiography based on author's experiences in WWI

[X] Animal Farm - George Orwell - heavily influenced by politics at the time which mirror our own

[ ] Handmaid's Tale - Margaret Atwood - Triggering dystopia, clear depictions of violence of all kinds towards women, primarily discussing women's rights and how we're essentially seen as breeders and cattle

[X] Lord of the Flies - William Golding - Commentary on society and herd-mindsets, discussions as to what makes us "civilized" and how easy it is for people to become uncivilized in times of distress.

[X] I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings - Maya Angelou - Poetry, written by a black woman who survived way more than most

[X] A Farewell to Arms - Ernest Hemingway - Similar in vibe to All Quiet on the Western front but it's Hemingway

[ ] Uncle Tom's Cabin - Harriet Beecher Stowe - Banned for racism, but an excellent book nonetheless as it shows reality

[ ] The Outsiders - S. E. Hinton - Class conflict following Oklahoma greasers. (there is also a Broadway musical with excellent music now)

[ ] A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess - a future dystopia and portrays the younger generation deciding to rebel against the "way the world just is."

[ ] The Call of the Wild/White Fang/Anything by the same author - Jack London - Good stories in general, some outdated terms and phrases but overall a good author (you can get collections of his stories)

[X] Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury - An accidental commentary on how bad censorship is

[X] A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens - obviously good, much shorter than I had expected

[X] The Scarlet Letter - Nathaniel Hawthorne - Commentary on women's treatment, religious zealotry

[ ] Holes - Louis Sachar - Commentary on the American prison system, generational curses

[X] The Lord of the Rings (series) - J. R. R. Tolkien - Accidentally mirrored a lot of his experiences in WWI

[X] The Chronicles of Narnia (series) - C. S. Lewis - Just a good series, ngl

[ ] Gulliver's Travels - Jonathan Swift - Has been described as a good example of what it's like to be autistic

[X] The Book Thief - Markus Zusak - A little girl in Nazi Germany and her adopted parents help hide a Jewish man in their basement, she steals books to read

[ ] To Kill A Mockingbird - Harper Lee - A commentary showing kids seeing the justice system they will one day inherit and how they can affect it now

[ ] Little Women - Louis Alcott (often dead-named as Louisa May Alcott) - Kinda sad and funny story following a group of sisters

[X] The Count of Monte Cristo - Alexander Dumas - Commentary on the justice system, the prison system, and the consequences of revenge

[ ] One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - Ken Kensey - Life in an asylum and commentary on the concept of sanity vs. insanity

[ ] Don Quixote - Miguel de Cervantes - Honestly worth the read just for the side stories

[X] The Day the Crayons Quit - Drew Daywalt - Basically baby's introduction to strikes and unions

[X] The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas - John Boyne - The son of a Nazi officer befriends a boy in the concentration camp his father runs

[ ] The Metamorphosis - Franz Kafka - A commentary inspired by Kafka's experiences as a disabled/chronically ill person, sad ending

[ ] The Odyssey - Homer - It's excellent, but heartbreaking. (Has depictions of SA on Odysseus and threats against Penelope and Telemachus)

[X] The Crucible - Arthur Miller - The dangers of panic and of religious zealotry, especially without asking questions

[X] Maus (series) - Art Spiegelman - Comic depiction of a man's father's recollections of being in a concentration camp.

[X] Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet - Jamie Ford - Follows two students from Seattle during WWII

[X] The Diary of Anne Frank - Anne Frank - Saved diary of a Jewish girl in Nazi Germany, published after her death in a concentration camp by her father and only surviving member of the family

[X] The Giver (series) - Lois Lowery - Dystopian story. Just read it.

[ ] Where the Wild Things Are - Maurice Sendak - Kids book banned for various nonsensical reasons

[ ] The Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck - Oklahoma sharecroppers during the Dust Bowl and Great Depression.

[ ] The Hunger Games Series - Suzanne Collins - dystopian story of children fighting a war against the ruling class (1984 without the bread and circuses)

[ ] The Story of Ferdinand - Munro Leaf - A children's book of a peace-loving bull who just wants to smell flowers

[ ] Make Room! Make Room! - Harry Harrison - book that inspired the film "Soylent Green"

[ ] The Velveteen Rabbit - Margery Williams Bianco - The children's story of a stuffed rabbit who wishes to become "real" after being thrown out

[ ] Paradise Lost - John Milton - satirical religious fanfiction with Satan as the protagonist

[ ] They Called Us Enemy - George Takei - Autobiographical description of experiences in the American concentration camps for the Japanese

[ ] My Lost Freedom - George Takei - Children's book about his experiences as a Japanese-American in WWII

Maybe I'll do book reviews about the ones I've read...

[tittytania]

🚨PLEASE HELP SAVE LUCKY THE CAT FROM HEARTBREAKING ABUSE AND NEGLECT, AND STOP A MAJOR PUBLICATION FROM PROFITING OFF OF ANIMAL ABUSE🚨

Back in August, The Cut (@thecut), an online division of New York Mag (@nymag), published a story by an anonymous woman who, after giving birth to her baby, started to despise her cat Lucky and chose to abuse her, including starving her and leaving her to live in filth.

Some selections about Lucky from the article:

Obviously, openly admitting to chilling animal abuse did not go over well with The Cut's readers. People were rightfully outraged at both the anonymous writer and the magazine for publishing the article and profiting off of animal abuse. After the predictable backlash, The Cut put the article behind a paywall and added an editor's note to the beginning, claiming that they confirmed the welfare of the cat prior to publication. (Here is an archived version without the paywall. Look at a more recent capture to see the note that was added.) The magazine also made a post to their Instagram about the situation, reiterating their claim of confirming Lucky's safety and health. They are limiting comments on their socials to remove comments that relate to the backlash about Lucky's abuse, and they are blocking accounts that comment on it. A screenshot of the Instagram post is below.

(note: I cannot confirm or deny the claims of racism and misogyny. I have not seen anything like that myself, but someone on reddit claimed they saw a person call the anonymous woman's behavior "white woman bullshit." That is the extent of what I have heard on that. I also cannot comment on the claims of abuse and threats towards the staff).

Clearly, The Cut's claims about Lucky's welfare are bullshit. The resolution of the article ends with the author saying simply "I haven't fallen back in love with Lucky, but it could still happen. I'll shut the windows til then." According to the article itself, Lucky is still in the home with an owner who is abusing her, an owner who has, and I quote, "an unwillingness... to change anything about (the abuse)." By definition, this means Lucky's welfare is not being probably cared for. You cannot claim that Lucky is ok when her owner already said that she is abusing her and is unwilling to stop the abuse. New York Mag is hiding behind activism buzzwords to protect an animal abuser and shelter themselves from the justified backlash to their publication's choices so they can continue to profit off of animal abuse.

Please please please help to get a real update about Lucky's condition.

What can I do?

There is a change.org petition requesting a real update about her, which as of writing has over 17,000 signatures. You can also reach out to the magazines' staff and demand a real update from them. Their emails are listed below:

swati.sharma@voxmedia.com | bill.carey@voxmedia.com | lauren.starke@voxmedia.com | priyanka.mantha@voxmedia.com | amani.orr@voxmedia.com | lindsay.peoples@nymag.com | rachel.bashein@nymag.com | jen.ortiz@nymag.com | marisa.carroll@nymag.com | evan.murray@voxmedia.com

The email of Jim Bankoff, the Chairman and CEO of vox media (which owns New York Mag) is bankoff@gmail.com

Here is an email template that you can follow.

You can also report online animal abuse to the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) here.

If you are in New York, you can contact the 311 website or call 1-800-577-TIPS (1-800-577-8477) to report ongoing online animal abuse or neglect.

The Instagram account @lucilletherescuecat has a story highlight where she has posted several resources in addition to the ones mentioned here.

My heart deeply aches for poor Lucky, who cannot understand why the human she loves has changed so drastically. Why her life changed from daily brushies and pillow snuggles to being ignored and starved. She used to have her own space heater, and now she doesn't even have water. I'm devastated at the thought of how heartbroken and miserable she must be. Her owner even admitted that she would be in jail if she did this to a person. While I doubt this will result in a jail sentence, we can at least make sure that Lucky is rehomed to place where she is properly cared for.

Please share and encourage others to do the same, using the #SAVELUCKYTHECAT hashtag. Thank you so much for reading.

[jesncin]

Hi! Thanks for answering my other ask! I also haven't seen a lot of criticism for Lonely City aside from a few tumblr posts that saw the same issues with it that I did, so I made sure to read the comic again just to ensure that my criticism is accurate (that's why this reply took a few days). I'm sorry for how long this ask is, but I hope it makes sense 😅

Basically my main issue with it is the ableism present in the comic as well as certain racist or colorist writing choices. There are other issues regarding queer rep that don't fit into these categories, too, but those might be more of a personal interpretation so I'll summarize them at the end.

I'll try not to focus too much on complaints about characterisation in this ask, since that can be a matter of personal taste, unless the differences in characterisation play into the other problems I see in the comic. Also just in advance: this is my personal opinion, which may ofc be off, but that's why I wanted to ask for a second opinion in the first place.

These first two problems are unfortunately pretty common in DC comics in general, so it's not like Lonely City is unique in doing this, but since the comic spends a lot of time promoting itself as progressive they left a particular sour taste in my mouth. It felt disappointing to me to see a comic claim progressiveness and add OCs of color while still running into the same bigoted writing choices as other DC comics.

The first writing choice I has issues with in this regard is the depiction of Catwoman herself. Catwoman's mother Maria Kyle has been depicted as afro-cuban since the 90s, but despite that fact comics almost exclusively portray Selina as a pale blue eyed woman who gets treated as white by the narrative and other characters in the universe, completely ignoring her mother's race. Lonely City goes out of its way to show that Selina is half cuban - which is great! - however, since the artist still decided to draw her as a pale blue eyed woman and the comic doesn't make any reference to her mother being black whatsoever this just rubs me wrong. It's not like the author simply wasn't aware of Selina being canonically half afro-cuban, since her cuban heritage keeps getting referenced, so it can be assumed that the author must be aware of her mother being a black woman as well. To me this makes it stand out even more that she is drawn and treated as a white(-passing) cuban woman, instead of a black one. It's unclear if this was the author's decision or a requirement by DC editors (though Selina is drawn as black in Absolute Batman and iirc in one of DC's highschool AU comics so it doesn't seem to be a publisher mandate), but either way it means that despite being fully aware of Selina being half afro-cuban, the comic completely ignores her mother's (and by association Selina's) canonical blackness.

The second issue to me is the depiction of Waylon Jones/ Killer Croc. Waylon has been coded as a black man fairly often throughout his appearances in DC comics, with at least one comic directly drawing him with brown skin instead of the usual crocodile green and the new Absolute Batman directly depicting him as a black man without the crocodilian traits the character usually has. Now, presumably in part due to this DC has been changing their approach to the character from writing him as an animalistic cannibal monster to more sympathetic characterisations as a regular human man with a skin condition who got ostracized, treated as a monster or assumed to be a violent and aggressive perpetrator due to the way his skin looks even before having to get into crime because it was the only career path available to him (which ofc also plays into an interpretation of him as a poc or at least as an allegory for racism). All of this is presumably something the author of Lonely City would be aware of, so the choice to depict Waylon not as a regular human with a skin condition but as someone more visually animalistic (given that Waylon is drawn with a snout and animal eyes), as well as having other characters directly refer to him as an animal, insinuate that he would just urinate on the floor and generally writing him as 'unhygienic' (stating that he doesn't care to flush after defecating etc) feels ...not great. Of course it is debatable wether the author wants Waylon to be read as black in Lonely City (his outfit design does seem to potentially point to him being coded as an older black man though), but even if that isn't the case the writer still would likely be aware of the character being coded as black or as a racism allegory in other works, which makes the choice to depict him as gross and animalistic a problem.

Now these next two cases include one of the most glaring problems I saw with the comic's writing. The writing, at least to me, seems pretty ableist. Of course ableism in regards to mental health is a problem with DC and especially Batman comics in general, but before reading Lonely City for the first time I genuinely thought it wouldn't be an issue here, since the comic markets itself as progressive and even goes back to depicting Barbara Gordon as a wheelchair user, which current comics have unfortunately moved away from.

The ableism in Lonely City imo particularly shows in the writing of Riddler and TwoFace, so they're going to be the characters I'll talk about here. Their cases basically represent opposite problems with the way DC tends to portray mental illness: in Riddler's case Lonely City decides to completely erase his mental health problems, while in TwoFace's case they use his mental illness to portray him as more evil.

I'll talk about Riddler's portrayal first, since TwoFace's is the arguably more offensive one. The Riddler as a character has pretty consistently been portrayed as struggling with his mental health, mainly with ocd and some variant of bpd. He's also usually portrayed to have low empathy, either due to npd or general neurodivergence. These are core character traits that usually still persist even when the character gets 'reformed' in canon and aids the 'good guys' (like in his arc as a P.I. in comics in the late 2000s or in Batman Unburied/Secrets in the Dark), which, if handled well enough, helps balance out the portrayal of mental illness in the character's appearances by essentially stating that it's not his mental health issues that made him a villain and that they aren't an inherently bad or evil trait.

Now Lonely City essentially does the inverse of this: not only does the comic write its version of Riddler as a mentally stable, fairly well adjusted and empathetic man that seems to lack pretty much every single one of his usual mental health issues, they also ascribe his mental illness (as well as his usual flamboyance and queer-coding) to him having been a cocaine addict that has been 'cured' by the time the comic's plot takes place. There's no issue with giving the character an addiction ofc, if handled well enough, and Lonely City isn't the first comic doing that either; the problem, to me, lies in the comic specifically pointing out that Riddler's usual characterisation - and everything that comes with it regarding his mental health - was not something inherent to him as a person but instead was caused by drug abuse. By doing this, as well as by portraying him as well adjusted and neurotypical after his rehab, the comic essentially posits that the ocd/bpd/npd/general neurodivergence associated with his usual characterisation were 'weird' negative traits exclusively caused by him doing cocaine and that he needed to be 'cured' of them in order to be able to reform and become a better person. It essentially states that he used to be weird, ridiculous, villainous and "crazy" because of drugs, but now that he went to rehab and got "cured" he is normal, well adjusted and a good man that is fit to be a romantic option for Catwoman. And while the comic states that even as a villain he never seriously hurt anyone, it still makes the suggestion that he got cured of mental illness along with his drug problem, and that he had to be cured of both of it in order to reform.

Now, it could be argued that this negative portrayal of mental illness as something caused by addiction or something to be cured of wasn't the intention of the comic - and maybe it really wasn't - but that's where the second problem comes in: Throughout the entire comic there are only two direct portrayals of mental illness we get to see: the first is Riddler's short flashback to his "embarassing" pre-rehab self, the second, more direct, portrayal of mental illness is TwoFace. There are further mentions of characters with mental health problems, but those are only short and offhand, though not without their own problems, which I'll get to during this argument.

I've already discussed the problem I see with the way Riddler's mental health is handled, but the portrayal of TwoFace is ...worse, imo, to say the least. In Lonely City TwoFace is characterised as a far-right fascist politician, trying to force his bigoted and classist policies onto Gotham via police brutality and propaganda. He is also the only character in the entire comic that is consistently shown to struggle with his mental health: Every other character (including post-rehab Riddler) is shown to be well-adjusted and mentally healthy, their problems mainly stemming from grief or circumstance, not mental illness. Meanwhile only TwoFace exhibits behavior linked to his mental health on panel: in closeups he is shown to have ocd tics, like having to rhythmically tap on his desk when agitated or struggling with the thought of needing to use his coin, his behavior is often erratic, other characters treat him as off-kilter and ultimately when he is defeated it is said he will be interred at Arkham again. Arkham, specifically, where at the point of the story only the "truly evil" and mentally ill villains like Scarecrow are still being held, as the comic makes sure to point out. By doing this, by showing only TwoFace to struggle with his mental health, by mentioning that only the irredeemable villains are still at the mental health hospital, by showing all the reformed rogues to be mentally healthy and stable - the comic directly associates mental illness with being a bad person.

More than that, by not only making TwoFace a bigoted fascist but by specifically revealing that his bigotry and fascism was caused by his "evil alter" after all at the end, the comic directly links being far-right with being mentally ill. Seeing the comic handle things like that and especially the "evil alter" reveal at the end was a genuine shock and huge disappointment for me, especially after how much Lonely City seems to flaunt its supposed progressiveness throughout the story. Writing TwoFace as an evil racist bigot and Trump-allegory not (just) because he is a privileged white man in power, but specifically as someone that is a far-right populist because he is "crazy" and mentally ill is just so...hurtful. Add to this that throughout the story TwoFace's fascist policies are consistently portrayed as the actions of one single mentally ill "maniac" that others only go along with out of fear or sense of duty instead of being a systemic issue (the police commissioner keeps telling TwoFace off about his fascist policies, his financial backers stop supporting him once his right wing ideology becomes too overt, whenever TwoFace issues commands for police brutality police officers voice their concerns with those actions and only go along because they are scared of Harvey and then ultimately abandon him as well). And in the end, fascism in Lonely City is defeated not by thorough systemic reform but by simply throwing the Trump-analogue into a jail for mentally ill people "where he belongs". It's extremely frustrating to me, as you probably can tell, and it just feels so disappointing to see a comic presenting itself as progressive and anti-fascist while falling into the exact same ableist tropes as every single other comic that portrays mental illness as something evil that needs curing to even have a chance at becoming a good person, and fascism and bigotry as something caused by mental illness instead of a sytemic issue (and specifically having the police 'only following orders' while actually disagreeing with fascism, when far right ideologies infamously thrive in the police system irl).

Like I said at the beginning of my ask, there are other issues I have with the comic as well, but those might be more based on personal opinion, so I'll summarize them here: Another thing that irks me about the comic is that despite showing pride flags in the background multiple times the queer rep in it is, imo, flimsy at best. Harley and Ivy are mentioned to have been a couple, but Harley has been fridged before the events of the story while Ivy gets killed during it, making the comic essentially commit a double "bury your gays" with the only two explicitly queer characters in it. Yes there is the implication that Barbara Gordon might be in a queer relationship with her campaign manager, but as far as I could tell during my second read through it's never actually made explicit that they are a couple or that either of them are actually queer, it's only ever implied. And while Catwoman has been canonically bisexual for over two decades, there hasn't been a single mention of her queerness (that I noticed) throughout this entire comic either. Of course her ending up in a relationship with a man wouldn't erase her bisexuality (nor Riddler's for that matter, who had been confirmed as canonically bi prior to Lonely City's release), however since there aren't even any allusions to Catwoman being romantically interested in women whatsover in the entire comic (as far as I could tell, maybe I missed something if so feel free to correct me), personally speaking I can't really count this as bi representation, since for all it matters if a reader that isn't aware of Selina (and Eddie) being canonically bi in other comics reads Lonely City they would most likely read her and Riddler as a heterosexual couple (particularly since as previously mentioned the comic imo does erase Riddler's usual queercoding as well by ascribing his flamboyance to his cocaine addiction and by having the 'clean' version dress and behave in a very heteronormative way, for example by dressing mainly in beige and muted colors instead of his usual bright greens and pinks and by otherwise acting like the stereotypical "dad" character in a sitcom). Having Catwoman end up in a relationship with a man wouldn't be an issue otherwise, but in combination with other queer rep being either only alluded to (Barbara) or being killed off (Harley and Ivy) the fact that Selina's bisexuality is never even hinted at and her "happy end" in a comic that set out to write a story about Catwoman being her own character separate from her relationship with a man (Batman), that she so often gets defined by, being that Selina ends up in a by all accounts "heterosexual" relationship as the (step) mom of a teenager just leaves a bad taste, imo. It really wouldn't have been hard to make her (or Barbaras) queerness explicit, but the comic didn't do that.

Either way though, I'm sorry that this ask has gotten so incredibly long and seems so negative, but like I said I only saw a handful of people make the points I did here about Lonely City with everyone else treating it as perfectly progressive and it really made me doubt if my criticism and disappointment in the comic (I really wanted to like it!) has any ground at all. And since you seemed to have the same issue with the MAWS fandom and generally always have thoughtful commentary about representation I thought I might as well ask you for a second opinion.

Please don't stress about answering btw., and if you disagree with any (or all) of my points here I'd also love to hear why you think I'm wrong, after all that's why I'm sending this in the first place. Either way though, I hope you have a nice day and thanks again for letting me talk to you about this!

Hwoof! Okay this is a lot! I'm gonna put this under a read more so that it won't be a super long scroll. But my takeaway is that this kind of fixation on continuity and details is detrimental for engaging with larger themes and an elseworld interpretation of these characters. Media crit thoughts below! Spoilers for Catwoman: Lonely City.

I know it might seem redundant, but being aware of the premise and parameters for this story can help us better understand the decisions that went into it so:

Catwoman Lonely City is an Elseworlds miniseries (4 long issues) under Black Label; an imprint publisher of DC. It follows a much older Selina Kyle, recently released from jail following the death of Batman from a massacre orchestrated by the Joker (known as Fool's Night) 10 years ago. During the time she was in prison, Gotham had changed. Costumed heroism and villainy is heavily outlawed, resulting in what seems like a safer albeit less free Gotham under the rule of Mayor (reformed) Harvey Dent. Catwoman has one final score in mind; to break into the Batcave and find out what "Orpheus" is. The last message Batman gave her before he died.

The entirety of Lonely City is written, drawn, colored and even LETTERED by Cliff Chiang. Which is nuts.

This story is tightly written with an expansive cast system. The main themes are about grief and aging. There's so much emphasis placed on how a lot of these characters feel like they're past their prime. We see Selina struggle doing the acrobatics she was once used to. The theme of needing to "let go" of the past is paralleled with the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice "Don't look back". Ultimately it asks what the point of all that costumed heroism was for and why it's worth chasing those glory days.

So keep all this in mind as I respond to each of the points you brought up!

Catwoman

So talking about a character's race like that of Selina's is tricky. I try to avoid using words like whitewashing in cases like this since she's not a character that started out that way like say- Sunspot from X Men. Instead when I'm criticizing things like Caped Crusader I'm looking at it from an angle of narrative opportunity. If Selina's going to be white again (and rich) what story does it tell? And my conclusion for Caped Crusader is that its commentary on classicism would've been stronger if Selina was portrayed like she was in Reeve's The Batman. To me, she doesn't offer much the way she was re-imagined in Caped Crusader.

I don't personally feel that's the case for Lonely City. Despite being an elseworld, Lonely City is very holistic in its application of Selina's history. The writer recognizes she's a white passing Hispanic woman in this story. In a flashback to her youth, Selina is portrayed as looking exactly like Julie Newmar (as opposed to Eartha Kitt) did as Catwoman in the 60's Batman show.

In terms of how her whiteness is integrated into her character, there's a flashback sequence that goes back to Selina's time in jail. She meets an Asian woman named Yoona who's dealing with racist harassment from the other inmates. Selina tries to train her to stand up for herself, but it backfires. Yoona's not as good at fighting, ultimately saying "guess we can't all be Catwoman". Selina tries to stand up to Yoona's bullies herself-but the big criminals of the place decide to fight back by killing Yoona and placing her corpse in Selina's cell. This causes Selina to close up, feeling guilt for putting someone vulnerable in danger.

Narratively we see this as one of Selina's arcs in this story. She can't break into the Batcave alone, so she recruits a handful of new friends and former rogues to help her. But the whole time she's worried she's putting them all in danger for her own goals. She's hesitant about training the Riddler's daughter Edie to help out on the heist, she later loses Killer Croc, and then Selina gets so paranoid she cuts Edie and the Riddler off the team. Part of Selina's growth in this story is to accept help and support. She can't do any of this alone.

The whole point is that the story ends with exactly what you're asking for in your criticism. Selina lets go of her past in some way and lets someone new take on the Catwoman mantle; Edie, The Riddler's afro latina daughter. It's a story about Selina letting go of her pride and guilt so that she can trust the newer generation to take the role. Yes things will be harder for this girl, but Selina's got to have hope; because some other girls can be Catwoman after all. Meta-textually this combines the differing histories of Catwoman into a conversation about legacy. Selina's whiteness plays a role in this elseworld story, so it justifies itself in my eyes instead of being an uncreative default.

Killer Croc Waylon Jones

I'm not an expert on Killer Croc history but from my brief brushes with him throughout being a Batman fan, I say there's 2 Waylons; 1. a guy with a skin condition 2. a guy who is a crocodile man. There's merits for either take, each with varying levels of sympathetic portrayals. He's also been white, coded as Black or straight up re-imagined as a Black man.

While I think there's a conversation to be had about dehumanization and treating a Black character as animalistic- I know at the end of the day the reason some writers pick the Crocodile variant of Waylon Jones is just because they want Batman to fight a gator guy. So he literally is just that, a gator. Not much malicious intent behind that, he's just an animorph gator. I think it's unfair to treat the "skin condition" variant of Killer Croc as the more progressive version of his character. Sometimes I'm playing Arkham Asylum and I wanna see a big croc instead of a guy with a skin condition running at me in the sewers. Either version is fine, I say with respect to furries and monster-boinkers.

At most, we see Waylon being a part of that arc where Selina's worried about putting vulnerable people in danger. Waylon dies in one of their heists and it causes Selina to close up again. I think it's fair that jokes made about him peeing on plants from Ivy/Eddie can be read in bad taste considering his history, but this take really is just the Animal Guy version of the character. I think going in too deep about the allegory of his marginalization would've lost the focus of this story in the short time frame that it had.

The Riddler Eddie Nygma

I think interpreting the way Eddie Nygma talks about his past and recovery as a broad "mental illness is evil" is reductive to the story. When he says "Hey, I was doing a lot of coke then." during his flirty catch-up date with Selina, I don't think he's saying "the substance abuse made me evil, Selina." The point of change/redemption for Eddie isn't necessarily "rehab". Eddie explicitly states that when his wife/partner Lorena died, it made him question what he was doing and put his life together. That included getting into recovery. He mentions he wasn't always there for his daughter Edie, but that he is now-he's no longer just thinking about himself. That's a conscious decision on his part.

I personally try not to get caught up in concepts like "the core of a character" because that can be subjective and people can choose to shift the pieces of a character and focus on something else. Reeves' Batman for example is a very untraditional Riddler take, he's a serial killer, and not a dapper guy at all. I'm more concerned with the concept of "through-lines" in characters, because it reveals what's resonant about them to be worth revisiting.

I get that Eddie's perceptive + genius mind and egomaniac tendencies is a huge part of his character. But I don't really know what (in your words) a "balanced out" take on Redeemed Riddler's mental health/neurodivergence in a story like this should look like. He joins Catwoman's heist team, he offers his expertise and says some quips. Is there something else he should be doing to demonstrate mental illness isn't evil or what? I know there's other redeemed Riddler takes where he still has his ego, but I don't think that fits for what story Lonely City wants to tell with him. He's narratively a humbled character in this. Lonely City wants to explore that kind of Riddler.

I'm gonna group your later queer criticisms here since I want to keep this categorized by character. But your argument about Riddler's queer coding erasure and acting like a heteronormative dad is missing the bigger cultural picture. The Gotham Rogues are heavily queer coded because- they're villains. It didn't start out as earnest representation because these were the un-questioned historical short-hands to how villains where characterized and designed. Sure as time goes on, some of that characterization will be reclaimed and canonized as queerness, but to read representation solely on historical coding is a misleading approach to analysis. Because it relies on signifiers over narrative.

Again, one of the main themes of Lonely City is about how these characters have aged passed their primes. They're tired and nostalgic for their colorful pasts, but are trying to move on in their own ways. The Riddler now looks unflamboyant and toned down to reinforce that theme. Eddie's tired now, he's wants to be a better dad, he has experienced the long prophesized twink death that comes for us all and has to embrace his new silver fox status. To hyper-focus on the details where he must perform a certain type of queerness is greatly limiting to queer representation.

John Constantine is one of DC's most prominent queer characters. He was coded and then canonized as queer early in his original Hellblazer run. In his backstory he used to be this over-the-top non-conforming punk young man, but then he was sent to a mental facility after accidentally banishing a little girl to Hell. He came out of that traumatizing experience looking,,, like how you describe Eddie Nygma looking like in Lonely City. Gone is John's colorful non-conformity, and all that's left if this beige coat wearing homeless guy. But that's the point and tragedy of his story. He's still queer even when he's not performing what people stereotypically associate as being visibly queer. So if you want to read Riddler as queer in Lonely City, nothing is really stopping you. I don't know how else to end this point other than saying there's nothing homophobic about mellowing out into your silver fox era.

Two Face Harvey Dent

To fully understand the portrayal of Two Face in Lonely City, we need to talk about what role he plays in the narrative. Because it's broader than you think.

Two Face exists as an allegory for Gotham itself in this story. After Batman died and costumed heroism/villainy is strictly outlawed, Gotham seems like a better, safer city. But in reality, it's a heavily policed city, where only the richest are doing better off. It's got the appearance of progress, but really it has same systemic problems still bubbling within. That's Harvey Dent's character in Lonely City. He promises people he's reformed, but really we just see his classic standard downfall happen again when challenged.

Much like with what I talked about queer coding villains, Two Face never started out as earnest representation of DID. The horror surrounding his premise is often really reliant on the vilification of DID. And once again, much like Waylon, sometimes we get sympathetic treatments of that part of him.

But I think the trouble with Two Face as DID rep is that as long as that "darkness bubbling within him" is represented through an alter, he's going to struggle with how his premise is tied to the vilification of DID. There are some takes of Harvey where this part of him is removed completely like in The Dark Knight, where his descent is a straightforward story about a good guy getting corrupted rather than an alter showing up. On one hand you can see that as erasure, and on another hand maybe it's refreshing to have a take that doesn't rely on an evil alter. Your mileage will vary. Tons of people with DID love Harvey, it's complicated!

Calling Harvey a Trump-like bigoted fascist is reductive of the narrative allegory he represents. I notice there's a tendency in media analysis to label any remotely bigoted or rich villain character as being a stand in for Trump or Elon Musk and that's a superficial reading. I've seen many fictionalized stand ins for Trump in media, and Lonely City's Harvey Dent doesn't feel specific enough to be a commentary on the guy.

Trump is a blatant bigot, spouting explicitly racist rhetoric and mocking disabled people. Harvey in Lonely City is performative about his justice. When talking about Barbara Gordon, he says "she's not the only one with a disability" as he touches his disfigured face. He's shown saving a brown boy from a fire. Things Donald Trump would never do. We don't see the usual fictional Trump-isms like allusions to building a wall or tweeting about celebrities.

Harvey's not evil because he's mentally ill, his alter isn't what motivates his actions. That reading ignores how Harvey genuinely believes what he's doing is good for Gotham. You say that the police in this story only go along with what they do because they're scared of Harvey, "and specifically having the police 'only following orders' while actually disagreeing with fascism, when far right ideologies infamously thrive in the police system irl" but that ignores scenes like this:

Where the police have no problem enacting prejudice and threatening violence without Harvey's supervision. When the police commissioner is frustrated with Harvey, it's not because he's some good guy being forced to be bad by the Mayor. Whenever something goes wrong, Harvey uses the commissioner as a scapegoat so that he can keep his own reputation intact. When the commissioner advises Harvey that it's bad to attack protesters, it's not because he disagrees with bigotry- it's because it looks bad on Harvey as a candidate. When one of the bat cops abandons Harvey in the climax (only to get shot by him), that's not him disavowing bigotry, it's him being fed up with being bossed around.

You say that "in the end, fascism in Lonely City is defeated not by thorough systemic reform but by simply throwing the Trump-analogue into a jail for mentally ill people "where he belongs". But that reading ignores scenes like this one:

Where after Barbara Gordon gets elected as Mayor, she's still criticized even after the protesters had her back earlier. Despite Barbara starting out the story begging Catwoman to leave vigilantism behind to become a respectable member of society, she ultimately learns that doing things from within the system isn't enough. That corruption still exists in Gotham and she's going to have to play dirty to fight it. That's an awareness of systemic problems, not a story where all the problems are solved when the antagonist gets punished.

Then there's your reading of mental illness in this story. Much like how your queer analysis relies on signifiers like performance of queerness in order to be read as queer at all, you do the same thing with mental illness. If you're willing to read Harvey tapping his fingers during his debate with Barbara as OCD tics, -even though it's a classic visual short hand for portraying nervousness or impatience- or his attachment to the coin as OCD -even though Harvey's obsession with duality and chance being a theme to his character- and confidently claim that "only Two Face exhibits behavior linked to his mental health" then you're willfully ignoring another strong candidate for a mental illness reading: Selina Kyle herself.

We see her taking meds after she's released from jail. We see her immediately remembering Bruce's death when meeting the Bat-police. We see her obsess over Bruce's final words to her, unable to let the past go. We see her struggling to open up and accept help after Yoona and Waylon die, she even acts out in paranoia. We see her thinking she's protecting others by pushing them away. We see her getting so focused on Bruce's final message for her, it seems like there's nothing else she has planned after the finding out what it is.

When asked about this, she continues to justify that she's protecting others "No one else is going to get hurt." She's self-destructive, not looking out for herself anymore. When she finally makes it to the batcave and watches it self destruct, she's willing to just sit there and go down with it. "Life after Batman is a dream, he said. I should have believed him. And life after Catwoman? Maybe I could've figured it out...with enough time."

I don't know about you, but that's not reflective of what you described "Every other character (including post-rehab Riddler) is shown to be well-adjusted and mentally healthy, their problems mainly stemming from grief or circumstance, not mental illness." Sometimes grief can result in self destructive mental illness, it's not any less because it's stemmed from a tragic circumstance. Our main hero character, is struggling with how her grief and love is consuming her. It may not look like classic vilification of mentally ill villains, but it's still explicitly there.

To bring this back to Harvey, no, I don't think the end is supposed to be some kind of twist that everything bad was his evil alter's doing. Harvey wasn't lying when he said he embraced his alter and made a compromise with him instead of running away from that part of himself. This is the classic Two Face descent, everything seems fine on the surface but then his inner darkness resurfaces. Harvey explicitly says "we had a deal, do things my way-" before being interrupted by his alter who says "-Fuck the deal, Harvey!" They both agreed to be doing things Harvey's way for a while, but his alter's tired of all the pushback and finally decides to take control in this moment.

There's a lot to critique at the core of Batman's mythos, the inherit copaganda in a rich man's goals to eliminate crime, the vilification of mental illness for its horror elements among many things. It would take a much bigger shake up of the status quo to see these things challenged outside of a "there's a lot we still gotta fix" ending. I think criticisms where people say "Batman beats up mentally ill poor people" is pretty disingenuous. It ignores that many of his rogues are well off and powerful, but it also infantilizes them as villains. Batman's rogues aren't clueless mentally ill people, they choose to do bad things. Some of them are mentally ill as they commit crimes, but they make a choice. Harvey Dent isn't bad because he's mentally ill, he's bad because of his flawed beliefs.

I don't think Harvey being sent away to Arkham in Lonely City is supposed to send the message that he'll only be good if he's a cured, neurotypical guy. We see how the jail system treated Selina during her 10 years behind bars, the whole system's broken and the comic is aware of that.

Queerness: Barbara Gordon, Harley Quinn + Poison Ivy and Catwoman (+ Riddler)

"Bury your gays" does not refer to when queer characters die, it is to talk about how they're treated as more disposable/expendable than their non-queer counterparts. A character being "fridged" is not about them dying, it's about how they're treated as disposable for the development of another character.

Harley Quinn is just as much a "fridged" character in Lonely City as Batman is. Both Selina and Pamela are grieving over the loss of their loved ones, but they react in opposite ways. Pamela's moved on to the point of leaving Gotham, while Selina's fixated on Bruce's final message to her. I don't know how we're supposed to have a story about grief without someone dying? So I don't really know what this kind of criticism is asking for.

Sure, Ivy dies in the story. But she goes out in a defiant stance against Harvey's vision for the city. She's comes full circle in recognizing that Gotham wasn't all awful; it nurtured her and taught her to accept herself. She dies because the story has stakes and consequences to its actions. Again, I don't think being queer means the characters should be invulnerable and immortal. Ivy has the same narrative weight to her death as Waylon did.

I agree that Barbara's queerness is subtle in Lonely City. But I don't think that's a bad thing. My impression is that she recognizes she's in a very dangerous position in Gotham, hence she keeps her relationship with her campaign manager Josie very private. But when you look into it, there's really no denying it or reading it any other way. In these finale panels, what business does Barbara have to be in Josie's son's room? Even more so, why is he named Wayne?

The comic even bothers making Selina pause upon hearing that name. Barbara named him after Bruce, so wait- how come she has a say in naming Josie's son? When Wayne tells Selina "Are you here for mama? She's in the back." Selina goes to the office to see only Barbara in there. Josie shows up in the room way later. Hence, Barbara is also Wayne's mom. If we genderbent Josie, the nature of their relationship wouldn't be up for debate.

I get that it would be cool to have a queer Barbara story, but this is a detail in Catwoman: Lonely City. It implies something interesting about Barbara still hiding a part of her identity even though she's not a costumed vigilante anymore, but that's it. Normally I'd like for these things to be expanded, but I'm aware this is Selina's story's first and foremost. And it's a miniseries. At most, this relationship is an interesting characterization detail.

Ignoring the fact that Selina's silver fox futch game is on fire in this series, I think the queer Catwoman criticism falls into the same problem with relying on queer signifiers and performance for representation. I get that an elseworld needs to re-establish its take on these characters since I don't know if they're queer in this iteration or not. But for a tight story like Lonely City, what exactly do I stand to gain from Catwoman turning to the camera and telling me she's bi again this time?

Lonely City is about Selina's grief over Batman turning into an obsession. When Bruce was alive, Selina would ask him if he ever considered retiring from his mission and settling down with her. Bruce would lead her on, saying that a life like that is just a dream for him "but when I do let myself dream Selina...in that life? I'm with you". So she clings on to that, hoping that the final message he left her, "Orpheus" could maybe be some kind of recognition of their love. But in the end, she discovers "Orpheus" is a lazarus pit meant to temporarily revive someone from dying. Bruce was asking Selina to revive him. "The cape came first [...] nothing else mattered, nobody else mattered...not even me."

Her relationship with Eddie is meant to show that a part of her does want to move on from Bruce and find love elsewhere. But she's caught between her self destructive quest and having to think about what life after Catwoman looks like. Ultimately she learns she can move on without sacrificing who she is as Catwoman by passing that mantle on to someone new. For a tightly written 4-issue miniseries, I don't see how having Selina hitting on a woman or saying she finds a woman hot, or Eddie doing that for men really adds anything to that story. Maybe if it was a longer series we could've gotten something about queer solidarity? But I'm content with Lonely City the way it is right now.

I've written in my comic essays before about how I don't want "show not tell" to dictate how queer characters have to have very specific relationships (bi person must always be with man and woman) or display specific attractions (bi woman must show interest in woman at some point) or express themselves in a specific way (queer man has to be flamboyant) to be considered queer. But I also don't want the verbal confirmation of queerness to be mandated in every story with queer characters. Taking either points to an extreme would result in really formulaic queer stories.

Maybe Selina and Eddie at the end of Lonely City are a bi couple who are happily mellowing out into their old age, judged by on-lookers as a straight couple because they're not performing bombastic queerness hard enough or something, I hear that's a very bi thing.

Also "Selina ends up in a by all accounts "heterosexual" relationship as the (step) mom of a teenager just leaves a bad taste, imo." Man, what you got against step moms? :((((((((( The teenager is robbing rich people too, it's not that domestic.

haha but I hope this doesn't come off as mean spirited in any way! I think Catwoman Lonely City is a rich text to discuss so I'm interested in people's interpretations of it.

When I talk about performatively progressive things like My Adventures with Superman, it's that media like that wants the clout of looking like it deals with serious topics (like Superman's immigrant allegory), but it'll be squeamish about tackling that in any serious manner. It's a show that has surface level diversity but is unwilling to discuss how that diversity informs its world. MAWS shows us an endearingly girlfailure Lois Lane who needs the help of men to get hired as a journalist because it believes that's far more relatable than being a jaded successful career woman. The show loves rebutting Superman discourse about red undies and being a nice guy who saves cats from trees, but it can never show us what its version of Superman's ideals are. It's a show that fails to say anything of substance.

Meanwhile Catwoman Lonely City is a story about loss and what a Gotham trying to move on from its costumed past looks like. It's wrapped up in issues of class disparity and racism, but in the end of the day it's a really personal story about grief and aging. Its characters' identities inform the way they navigate its political world. Lonely City takes advantage of the Batman mythos' history to tell its remixed story.

At times, that means working within its limitations. Two Face is a character that would require a really big re-imagining to separate his premise from the vilification of DID (which I was hoping Caped Crusader would do, but alas), and this elseworld version plays him pretty straight and standard to tell a story about repeating cycles and facades. It has the bad guy sent to Arkham, as is the usual for Batman stories.

My main concern when reading Lonely City was that the characters telling Selina to "let go" of her costumed vigilante past was going to lead to an ending where Selina has to settle down and be a respectable member of society. But that didn't happen! Barbara recognizes that working within the system isn't enough. Instead of Selina getting assimilated into the government like an honorary cop, she's still a vigilante robbing the rich.

Catwoman Lonely City ends with the recognition and hope that things could be better, that its problems don't end in the final page. And that's way more substance than anything MAWS could pretend to have.

[olderthannetfic]

https://olderthannetfic.tumblr.com/post/736464662612344832/httpswwwtumblrcomolderthannetfic735990124795#notes

I based the language used in (both) asks on how the author had written on her social medias before during and after her books became available, and her stances to the things she herself believes in. As in, the author herself has called herself a diaspora, she herself calls herself 1st/2nd gen diaspora. From what I remember she was born as diaspora but mentioned that she spent most times in her home country so she herself used the 1st/2nd gen label. The author is an American diaspora though, if that means anything.

All my arguments about her book come from how the author put herself and her writing on a pedestal, mentioning herself how she'd use her status to write, with a standard she herself decided should be the goal. I can definitely understand how some people got the idea that I held "higher expectations of a POC authors writing when it comes to racism" or something because I didn't make it clear where my criticism came from, but no I did not do so because of her background.

It's a case of "I'll criticize people who claim they're a better writer while punching down on everyone else for doing it wrong, and then claiming they'll write a book that's going to tackle the issues of racism/sexism/queerphobia/ableism much better than any other books out there, with an incredibly progressive main character and hold them to the standard they themselves set up but within the book. But then ends up not only failing, but unironically making the lead have an unquestioned racist view. " ... Just read the other follow-up submission, I explained with more detailed what the issue in the writing and framing was. https://olderthannetfic.tumblr.com/post/736443105288519680/httpsolderthannetfictumblrcompost73599012479#notes

It was a very "I'm not racist but..." part of the story. Like I said, it could have been a really good exploration that even people who're progressive can still hold prejudicial views and then realizing they hold them, especially with how hard it sticks out amongst the rest of the story. But it just wasn't and it felt like the authors own views were reflected in how she wrote. And with how casually it's just left unquestioned in the book it really leaves a bad taste. I will even admit that at first I was intrigued and thought this was going to be a part of the leads journey. It wasn't.

This was a case of the author basically saying "Everything I believe is reflected in this book" all throughout, and then really messing up distancing the artist from the art by her own design.

On the American accusations: I'm not American and I don't live in America, but I also am a diaspora in the current country I live in. Only thing I would give you is that we don't use "diaspora" but that's more because I don't live in an Anglophone country, and the word used here is a synonym for "foreigner". I thought it was fairly obvious I have ESL syndrome lol. English isn't even my second language more like E3<L

In fact, if you hadn't been raised by this US-centric mentality of "there's whites and then there's POC and these are the only two kinds of categories in the world," you'd know that EVERYBODY hates EVERYBODY.

Not American. Still not under any illusion that that's the case. I've read history books. Really not understanding where you got the idea from that I had from my one description of specifically ONE person's writing. "Racial and ethnic hate is not something that only people born with blonde hair, lily-white skin, and light blue eyes can make others suffer through." Yay, we agree on something. As in, I 100% agree with you on this. I know I could probably just drop the name of the author and the books. But honestly I did some contemplation and there are two things that make me not do it. I'm just an anon, I have no reputation or name to keep clean or uphold, and I've been on the internet long enough and experienced enough of the absolute senseless dogpilling creatives get especially these days with how popular review bombings are, direct attacks and other harassment, and the not good environment social media has created for creatives misstepping, which includes twitter/x, tiktok, and youtube. Even if I believe that out of 100 people on here none would go and do that, the 101th person might decide to be an ass about it. The second reason, and the main reason I didn't just mention the book from the start is that the author herself has removed most mentions of her books on all her social media, they're still available but since it seems she's removed herself from her own writing I'll just respect it.

Tbh I gave enough info in my opinion that someone could probably find the books if they made a real attempt. The issue I mentioned has been handled by some of the people who reviewed the book.

--

As always, saying the name of the book will get people arguing about whether they agree with this interpretation of this book.

Not sharing the name will get people remembering either the last time some sanctimonious author was annoying or the last time some clueless reviewer missed the point, depending on which has annoyed them more recently.

[djinnandtea]

so I got some interest on this post where I tossed out that I wanted to talk more about monster romance and race and gender. it's been really nice to see a few folks are also wanting to hear/talk about it! I'm not prepared to say anything at length [eta: this turned out to be kind of a lie] with any certainty or research to back me up, but I thought I could post a rough outline of sorts of what I'd want to research and explore further, just as a starting point for myself but also a jumping off point if anyone else has any thoughts or resources.

I guess I'll start with gender first. I'm new to the romance genre generally, but I don't think it's a surprise that the genre has always been dominated by discourse around who reads romance and the kind of gender dynamics presented in a lot of conventional romance books (which are generally heterosexual/heteronormative in a lot of problematic ways). I'm thinking of the harlequin romances my mom and grandma used to read, but also of the discussions around colleen hoover's work and then the dark romance sub-genre too.

this means that there's the obvi discussion to be had about content vs. context. who is writing the romance, what informs their writing, what messaging comes through via choices made by the author, as well as by the context the author is writing in. I'm sure if you've been reading romance--even fanfic--for a while, you're well versed in some of these conversations, even if just in a casual way.

after considering romance on a macro level, I think you'd then have to look at some of those more micro sub-genres. where are gender norms accentuated and exaggerated, and to what end? why is dark romance a thing, why do (usually) straight white women want to fantasize about being in that kind of relationship? what's the purpose being met? (this is all asked non-judgmentally, btw, as I also enjoy dark romance.)

and maybe there are folks who would dislike my comparing of monster romance to dark romance, but I do think the two are related, especially based on a lot of posts I've seen since joining this corner of tumblr. I think there's a lot of interest in exploring ideas around control and dominance that dark romance and monster romance provide contained space for. if you watched my YouTube video, I touch on this a little bit more at the end as well.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot re: gender (like all the stories being told about lgbtq+ MCs), but this is just some initial thoughts at the fore of my brain.

as for race...........well. lol.

there's the very surface level question around what percentage of monster romance FMCs are white. I genuinely don't have this answer, and I know there are a lot of nonwhite FMCs too! but I'd be really curious to know the actual numbers here. why? well, bc diversity matters. but also because of the decades long narratives around white women as victims of men of color, and how that narrative has been used to weaponize whiteness and demonize blackness specifically, and non-whiteness more generally.

I am def not saying that all monster MMCs = depictions of non-whiteness, I'm just thinking about the connections between equating non-white people/bodies with monstrosity. I'm thinking of the historical framing of non-white people and communities as sub-human, as savages, as beastly. inhumane. monsters have kinda always been a metaphor for the other, including the non-white other, and I think it'd be naive of us to assume that vestiges of that brand of racism (which is still alive and well) never inform the ways creators engage with monster romance and monsterfucking, consciously AND unconsciously.

I'm also thinking about orientalism. I'm thinking of the exotification and classification of the east. the way westerners invaded the eastern world and began treating the people there like specimens. I'm thinking about how othering and abjecting and exotifying a culture or community or person can create a power-informed version of sexualizing that culture or community or person. like, othering/abjecting/exotifying can lead to creating a perverted sort of desiring. I have a special interest here because I'm arab, so this stuff feels particularly personal, but yeah. it makes my wheels turn.

there's also a dehumanizing element of turning an othered body into a piece of sexual meat. I'm thinking about the way monsters in these books are always excessive, the way their penises are always massive. we can't pretend that doesn't seem a little familiar to the degrading ways white people have also discussed black bodies, too. like. I'm not saying wanting our monsters to have big dicks is racist, I'm just saying there are some aspects of the genre that I think deserve to be ~unpacked~ and considered in a wider context that takes this kind of stuff into account. not as a confirmed given, but as an avenue worth approaching with curiosity, if only to point out the ways in which it's NOT a product of racism/anti-blackness.

obvi this post is not backed up at present with a single source because I'm just thinking out loud based on stuff I've read previously over the years that I definitely would need to revisit, so I totally get if you read this and think I'm being ridiculous. but if you saw my first post and were kinda wondering what I had in mind when making it, this is it.

[nerdby]

My Year Of Rest & Relaxation by Ottessa Moshfegh

4/5⭐

Earlier today I finished reading My Year Of Rest & Relaxation by Ottessa Moshfegh, and I have to say that while I loved it this is definitely a book that is going to rub some people the wrong way. The story focuses on an unnamed, twenty-something female narrator who lives in New York City in the year 2000 and seems to have everything she could possibly dream of: A massive inheritance fund, a closet full of high end clothes, and a career in a prestigious art gallery courtesy of her degree from Columbia University. Despite all of that, though, the narrator is tormented by memories of childhood trauma and unresolved grief. To power through it, she turns to a very sketchy psychiatrist named Dr. Tuttle to prescribe her with pharmaceutical drugs that will allow her to sleep her days away.

For a year.

Before I go any further I have to emphasize the fact that the narrator in this book is NOT someone anyone should be emulating. Not only that but, please for the love of God, do not try any of the medical cocktails in this book without the supervision of a doctor because I'm pretty sure some of these would kill a person. And if you ever encounter a psychiatrist like Dr. Tuttle in real life RUN cause I have and 90% they aren't even doctors. They are nurse practitioners or whatever who are acting as pharmaceutical sales reps. They get fancy perks for every patient prescribed a new drug and will ply you with samples without a second thought if your symptoms don't clear up IMMEDIATELY.

Anyway, back to the review....

So this book was very triggering for me, but I am glad I finished reading it because it ended up being incredible. Good things do happen when you face your fears, see? The main character was one of the most deplorable, unlikeable characters I have ever encountered for like 97% of the book. But I still couldn't stop reading??? I felt like I was watching Bridezillas or Teen Mom or some other awful trainwreck of a reality TV show, and I just could not put this book down.

It wasn't until after I finished the book that I realized the plot is all just one big metaphor, mocking people who only consume escapist media. Escapist media is stuff like Twilight or Dragon Ball Z or Family Guy or Bridgerton or Superman. Escapist media tends to have low stake plots with problems that get resolved quickly and effortlessly. In the case of things like Bridgerton it can even be dangerous if taken figuratively because Bridgerton falls into the alternative history genre. I know, I know what you're thinking -- Bridgerton is just The Crown without all the colonizing and racism. I'm taking this WAY too seriously, right?

Well, imagine if someone took Bridgerton completely out of context and framed it as HISTORICAL FACT instead of as HISTORICAL FICTION like in a home school setting, perhaps? Yeah, sounds unlikely but go look up the Nazi home school scandal and then we'll talk.

And, no, I have nothing against escapist media. I like escapist media myself, and Bridgerton is a fun little fantasy, but it's important to remember that that's exactly what it is: A fantasy. It's not real and, yeah, that's probably ironic coming from someone who blogs about Marvel in their time but my life doesn't revolve around Marvel. I have other interests like books, video games, horror, psychology, my cat, and history.

My point and the point of this book is that you shouldn't consume ONLY escapist media. You should face your fears, explore new genres, go to the museum and the park and the library. Don't be a white person who only reads books about white people by white authors. Consume media in other languages from other cultures and talk about it afterwards.

Broaden your horizons. Otherwise you might as well be sleeping through life.

This is a book that everyone should read, but it's definitely intended for more mature readers. So people sixteen and up are probably the most suitable audience. Keep all of this in mind, and happy reading.