#and that i'm not into very popular fandoms a lot of the time

[somerandompun]

I was going to put this in the tags but realized I have a lot to say on this.

Anywho, to begin, I am a modern-day Homestuck fan and My Little Pony FIM fan (yes, yes, I hear you, to be cringe is to be free or whatever) but my heaviest special interests rn are Bottoms, Ginger Snaps, and Wednesday, all of which either barely have fandoms due to low popularity at release (Ginger Snaps) or due to the fandom dying off (Wednesday, Bottoms).

I fuel my own fandom, essentially, writing pages upon pages of self-serving fanfic, making headcanons, etc, but I miss the type of fandoms I used to be in. Carmilla was popular when I was in middle school (lol, I'm 22 shush), and that was an insane time to be in that fandom space as it was so new, so full of life. There are still people who write for Carmilla today, though the fandom was never really "at large" due to the fact Carmilla was not very mainstream (YouTube series L).

Similarly, I do not see much of the Orphan Black or Orange Is the New Black fandoms today, both of which I also was a part of during their primes. Sure, people still write for them, but they similarly lack people who held on.

And then there's Bottoms and Wednesday, two fandoms I thought would hold on for a loooooong time given the content and all (everyone's fav nihilist and lesbian fight club), but they didn't. I still regularly read fics from both fandoms, make moodboards, the likes, but it feels hollow, no new content being generated like it used to.

I have a theory about this, mostly that most people stopped sustaining fandoms with the rise in disdain for fans in 2020, especially those viewed as "cringe," think about all the "cringe" tiktok compilations on YouTube, mostly involving kids just cosplaying as their favs. This rise in online bullying to in-person bullying sorta ostracized anyone who liked something "too much." To be quite honest, I was one of those kids in middle school, odd, strange, and "too much," and, at times, I feel like I cannot discuss my interests or share them due to feeling like I will be shoved aside and ostracized yet again.

Similarly, I think we lack heavy fandom spaces simply because people do not wish to or cannot focus that much energy on media anymore. For fucks sake, Yellow Jackets should be much more popular than it is, much like how OITNB was. Bottoms should have been a phenomenon. We MOST LITERALLY used to pray for days like these, days where shows and movies consisted of so much queer content, esp queer women! Do y'all remember how bad it was for a while? What, we had trauma porn show where everyone gets shit on or dies all the time (OITNB), lesbian killer shows (The 100), shows with toxic lesbian situationships/relationships (OB), web series (Carmilla), and fucking kid's shows (Steven Universe). Now, that's not saying those shows are bad (except for the 100, which I have a grudge against bc my Anya, MY SHAYLLAAAA), but God, I would've killed to have Bottoms or Wednesday around when I was still in school.

Anywho, all of this is just a long-winded way to say: please create content, be the change you wanna see in fandom spaces. Make that Pinterest board, be a fandom blog, post shitty fanfic, argue in the tags, make headcanons, watch and rewatch more things you enjoy, engage with things even if they feel cringy, please, fandom space depends on all of us and our passions! Do not bow to people who view creation and passion as cringe!

TO BE CRINGE IS TO BE FREE

personally I think it’s a shame how fandoms “died” too soon these days. I’m not talking in literal sense and I know there are people who stay passionate about their fandoms long after the hype is gone. I’m talking about the “popularity” and how people in general engage with a piece of media they like and how fast they let the hype die down? I don’t know if I’m making any sense, but what I’m trying to say is a fanfic or a fan art of a show that is recently released will get tons of likes, comments, reblogs which is great. but the engagement for fan made content about that same show usually drops drastically — and I mean drastically — once the show is no longer “recent”. and I’m not even talking about when the show is several years old. because you can see the significant drop of engagement a fanfic or fan art about that show receives once the show is like a month old or two. it’s discouraging how most people tend to lose interest and stop engaging with fanfic / fan art once its source material is no longer “new and shiny”.

especially when writing fanfics and creating fan art take time. writers and artists often receive less engagement / appreciation for their works if they take “too long” to create and the source material is no longer “new and shiny” and so people move on to something else that’s new and shiny. it’s heartbreaking to see.

obviously this is in no way to manipulate or guilt trip people into engaging with anything. because yeah you can do whatever you want. this isn’t to force, manipulate or guilt trip anyone into liking or reblogging a fan work or anything. this is just me hoping people will one day take things slower and enjoy things they’re passionate about longer like how we used to in the past.

[metronn]

i'm choosing to believe that my character playlists aren't that popular because y'all can't handle the groove... it's not true but that's what i'm choosing to believe

[makiswirl]

can i just say. and this is probably a niche hill to die on. that i am so gobsmacked every time someone vaguely hints at the idea that jotaro doesn't care meaningfully for the other crusaders, usually particularly kakyoin and joseph, when those two actually tend to be the ones he reacts to being hurt the hardest

like he cares for his loved ones!!!! that literally plays into his character motives in every single part he shows up in!!! stop lying to me!!!!!!!

[cuddlytogas]

an incomplete list of terrible but extremely popular Our Flag Means Death takes that I would like to never see again please

(and I do mean popular, as in, lots of people seem to think they're canon, to the point where I feel slightly insane and like I was watching a different show to everyone else)

1. Ed's mum was loving and nice and supportive, if hampered by her bad situation

this comes up more in fic than analysis, to be fair, but good god, what show were some of you watching? this isn't to vilify her, because yeah, she's clearly a product of colonialism, white christian supremacy, and domestic abuse, but like. that doesn't make how she raised Ed good. clearly she was trying to keep him safe, but "we don't deserve nice things", and especially "it's not up to us, it's up to god", speaks to me of someone who squashes down any ambition on her son's part, has fully bought into the lies of christian colonialism, and tries to pass them down to her son.

as does happen in colonised communities, particularly among older generations. I know us white people like to think that every indigenous person is a perfect left-wing anti-imperial activist, but that's simply not the case, and Ed's mum is so clearly an example of an older conservative christian indigenous parent who had to believe the lies told by their coloniser in order to survive, but is now passing on that trauma to their children. and I just...

if I read one more fic where Ed's mum is a perfect loving supportive angel who always believed in her kid and always supported and protected him, I'm gonna scream. yes, it's sweet, and it's fun to sometimes veer from canon and give your blorbo nice things, but it's still veering from canon. and yet, I see very few people acknowledge that, or actually talk about the nuances of Ed's mother, and how she definitely tried to protect him, but was far from sweet, doting, and unconditionally supportive.

2. Ed's loving look when Stede is picking food from his beard in 1x07

like most of these things, I enjoyed it as a joke or exaggeration at first, until I realised that people were actually being serious. but every time I watch that scene, I see Ed looking absently-mindedly over Stede's shoulder, because a) that's what you do when someone leans in to pick something off you, and b) surely the point of the scene is that they're so comfortable and easy together that they don't notice the intimacy of what they're doing, but Lucius, an outside observer, thinks it's obvious. right?? I can't be the only one seeing it???

[sigh]

anyway. finally, the really really big one:

3. Ed is a soft uwu babygirl princess femme bottom sub who loves her cat collar and is teaching Stede how to dom him in the "say you're the captain" scene

I mean, there's not much to say except to link to duke's absolutely phenomenal twitter thread about "how the 'babygirlfication' and infantilization of ofmd ed teach is an extension of racist perceptions of indigenous men being inherently violent and thus needing to be emasculated to be considered sympathetic"

but especially That One Fucking Scene, good lord. talk about taking shit out of context. everyone looked at a slowed-down gif of one shot in the trailer and cried "babygirl!! he's such a simp, he just wants to be dommed!!", when actually that scene is about how a) Stede is cringefail and terrible at being a typical harsh, commanding pirate, and b) Ed is lovingly embarrassed by this. he encourages Stede to assert himself (and give Ed something to do during his probation/help him make amends with the crew), but like. normally. he's acting perfectly normal in that scene, and mostly annoyed by the outfit and embarrassed by how badly Stede fails. but just because he's sitting down while Stede is standing, and he happens to take a breath in that one shot (because, you know, people breathe sometimes), everyone's doubled down on their "submissive babygirl" bullshit, and I can't get the fuck away from it.

which - listen, it's fun for me, too! it's fun to explore exaggerated aspects of a character, it's fun to read/write/draw that angle in smut, I get it! but I keep seeing people keep claim it's literally canon, and I cannot stress enough that that is Straight Up False. for the love of god, please just watch the show without your (potentially kinda racist) bias glasses on, and remember to treat the characters with respect instead of projecting onto their every interaction a shallow dom/sub binary just because you find it hot.

Our Flag is a show very specifically about masculinity, and what it means to be a man; how assumptions about that can harm and restrict men; and how men can grow beyond them. it's a nuanced and sympathetic examination of this. the whole point is that Ed is allowed to like nice fabrics and be tired of violent piracy and still be a man. the point is that two men fall in love - equal, honest, sincere love - and are still men, still exactly who they are.

(on that note, insisting that Ed is canonically trans or femme because of these things often ends up just leaning into gendered stereotypes: men are harsh and active and dominant, and women are soft and passive and submissive, and if Ed's not the former, he must be the latter, right? it also tends to hetero-ify the central relationship, casting Stede as "the boy" and Ed as "the girl", needing one to be masc and one femme. not always, and again, I understand and have enjoyed transformative works that take those elements and run with them, and explore what the story could be like if Ed were trans/nb/etc - but it's still a transformative interpretation. it's not canon.)

relatedly: those fucking wedding toppers! it seemed blatantly obvious to me that half the point of those scenes was that Ed is distraught and blaming himself for Stede leaving because he wasn't the ideal partner. it's his entire arc for the first half of season 2! Ed hates himself and believes there's something wrong about him that makes him unlovable. so he keeps and then discards the wedding toppers, painting himself onto one of them, because he's projecting himself onto an image of ideal/successful romantic love that he thinks Stede wants, and in which he doesn't fit. he's trying to mould himself into someone else to make himself lovable, not realising that Stede already loves him for himself.

so it's important to the whole narrative that Ed's yearning for/projection onto the wedding toppers is false, and born from his insecurity. he gets drunk, and play-acts a stereotypical image of romantic happiness into which he doesn't fit, but real love looks nothing like that, because real love isn't found in stifling hegemonic cultural structures, but honest, emotional connections between people allowed to be their whole, vulnerable selves. Stede is not like the groom, and Ed is not like the bride, because they shouldn't have to be. Ed should not (and does not) have to warp himself into a demure bride in order to be worthy of love: he's already lovable and loved exactly as he is! that's the point!! of the scene!!!!!!

like, it's important that the groom figure isn't actually like Stede, either. yes, it's blond and has a nice, peach-coloured suit, but a) Stede was very specifically unhappy in the posh, heterosexual, married state the figures represent, and b) Stede by this point looks nothing like that figurine. it's directly contrasted with the image of him in the rowboat, scruffy and plain and earnestly in love, rather than fancy, cold ceramic.

[EDIT 29/12/24: I ended up writing a whole Twitter essay about the wedding cake toppers that I then gussied up for Tumblr; so if you want a clearer, more substantial, and better supported argument about those, check that out!]

but no, I have to wade through swathes of art and fic and meta about how badly Ed wants to be a sweet little demure kitty princess, how he wants a wedding night and a ring to prove he's Stede's property, and acting as if this is somehow canon, because people on the internet have zero reading comprehension and are scared of brown men.

the whole point of Our Flag is that you don't need to compress yourself into prescribed social roles, and in fact, doing so will only make you miserable; and that racist, patriarchal, colonial institutions should be resisted and dismantled at every opportunity.

so tell me again why the ultimate message is that Ed and Stede should get married under an arch in front of an altar and their lined-up friends, with flowers and rice falling around them, all dressed in white, one in a suit and one in a dress, with rings and a kiss and a honeymoon after, before they move into a detached house with a yard and a fence and re-adopt the kids that Stede abandoned? and this isn't about promises, fidelity, or even monogamy - I'm specifically talking about everyone in this fandom who seems to think that the ultimate goal is the most stereotypical 20th century cisheteropatriarchal christian wedding, but with the name "matelotage" slapped on top, as if that takes away all of the underlying baggage.

just - I know we're all meant to hate men and masculinity and yadda yadda yadda, but actually, to be earnest for a second, men deserve respect too, because all people and all genders do. and two men are allowed to be in a relationship and still both be men - complex men, with their own, layered relationships to their gender - without having to fall into neatly-arranged dom/sub masc/femme roles, or seal the deal with a hegemonically-approved ceremony.

so please, stop reducing an indigenous lead character to a caricature of a femme uwu princess bottom just because he has long hair, wore a robe once, and you're too scared of brown men to imagine him with proper agency. and then please, for the love of god, stop claiming that that interpretation is canon.

[sabraeal]

Hey! I’m a reader who really loves one of your works! Man of Progress but that isn’t relevant, what is is I want to make you feel good with your readership and make you (and others) rare pair writing much more rewarding! Please advise on your favorite types of comments and other things we as nonreaders can do to make the writer/reader relationship more reciprocal!

Thank you for asking! Honestly, most comments are completely okay so long as they are not like a one line, "when is this going to update" or like "is this abandoned." I think the dream is people who really get into their comments and give you quotes and essays and all that, but most of us are just happy to know people are enjoying it.

Other things you can do is reblog (or retweet, share, etc)! Each social media platform has their own way of feeding their algorithm, so reblogging is a big deal on tumblr and likes & retweets are equally important on twitter, etc. It's helpful in getting our fics in front of more people who would be interested in them, and it's not something people do often anymore, since fics often don't fit the aesthetic of blogs, or people get very in their own head about showing what fics they like. I always like to scream in the tags of my reblogs because it's fun, but that's also entirely optional.

[aro-culture-is]

Aro culture is watching a show/reading a book/whatever, going to enjoy the fandom and finding out it is 95% shipping content. Look, shipping is alright most of the time, but if it’s just all shipping, you get a bit annoyed!

.

[aparticularbandit]

Still turning Wicked around in my head.

Rotating it in the tumbler.

Debating writing something with it but like. Not quite there.

There's a couple of moments that scream to me.

Not sure my grasp of the characters is strong enough and like it....

It's Wicked, with its huge fandom, and it's....

I want to make sure I have the grasp on the characters I want before getting into it.

[rotisseries]

i have wincesties exchanging fic recs in my comments lol

[rimouskis]

I'm going to preface this story by saying: I don't necessarily believe in karma, but

I may have been walking through today with a vague sense of disbelief tainted with unkind smugness after my tiktok fyp was flooded with poor fans who tried to get presale ticket to one mr n. kahan's new tour only to find that demand was through the roof and GA pit tickets were seriously going for $300, in presale, and even the "worst" tickets in the lawn were going for $70

and while I undoubtedly think it's deeply unethical for both platforms (thanks ticketmaster) and artists to allow such dramatic ticket cost inflation, I also generally don't relate...

I (VERY LUCKILY) gravitate towards smaller acts, and the most I've paid for a ticket all year has been, like... $90 for a ticket to beyonce, which got cancelled and I was refunded lol. if I look back at all my receipts from shows this year, most have been around $50/ticket after fees, and several have been closer to $20. my favorite show I've seen all year was a $15 ticket.

it's mostly luck—I tend to like smaller acts, and I've been seeing mainly rock acts this year, and those tickets simply don't run as high as pop acts. and part of me is honestly very grateful that I haven't been swept into any of the really recent huge acts.

I think of all the people scrabbling for boygenius or taylor swift tickets and how much money they've had to shell out... how a lot of them don't even GET to see the acts they want to see because they've been priced out or tickets sold out. I can't remember the last time a show I wanted to go to sold out lol. maybe bastille in london?

and again, it's just a matter of luck that I'm not really into any of these megastars and therefore don't have to compete in the gladiator arena to try to see shows I want to see, but sometimes luck manifests as a feeling of self-satisfaction, you know? who among us hasn't experienced a little self-superiority from time to time.

look, if YOUR tiktok was flooded with people saying concerts have been awful since 2021 (including rock and metal shows), but every concert YOU'VE been to since 2021 was amazing and the crowds were really good and you always got tickets and it never broke the bank, you'd feel pretty validated in your choice of musicians and the crowds they attract too, alright?? sue me! I felt frugal AND undeservedly clever!

anyways back to karma. guess who got invited and subsequently agreed to shell out $70 to sit in a lawn and listen to mr. n. kahan sing. I'll give you a hint, her tumblr username starts with an r and ends with an s

[musical-chick-13]

Who do I feel as though genderbent mello would get girboss treatment

See, I go back and forth on this, because my instinctive reaction is that you are absolutely right. There's the whole implied Catholicism thing (people love to use that as an aesthetic, which, fair, I used to be Catholic we have some banger art and designs), there's the leather and Fashion Choices™, there's the "is a criminal who kills people but isn't The Worst One Here" and there's the "main target of their ire is an unpopular character" all of which are prime traits for fandom girlboss-ification.

The conflict I find myself having, though, is that this character is. Angry. That's kind of his Thing™. And if he were a woman........people really don't like angry women. Especially if they act out about it. If they're lucky, all that happens is they get called "crazy" or "hysterical." But most of the time they get called [insert gendered insult or death threat here]. (Remember when I got harassed multiple times irl for simply dressing up as a fictional character at a con, good times.) A female version of this character would have "conventionally attractive thin young person" to her advantage, and people are kinder to female characters if they fit into that category than if they don't. And, again, a major source of this character's anger involves their misplaced disdain for a character the fandom at large (sadly, incorrectly) does not have a ton of love for. And those things might be enough to override the general fandom distaste for destructive anger in female characters.

I'm going to go into this further in my "almost-genderbent DN" post (which is. it's coming. I just. chronic illness. words.), but I guess it would depend on how unhinged (and, specifically in what ways she is unhinged) the story makes this genderbent version of her. Some types of "unhinged" are seen as delightful or even narratively palatable, and some aren't. Because there is a general-fandom threshold between, "The crimes make her cool™" and "The crimes make her the devil incarnate" and I'm trying to fully parse out where exactly that threshold is. And once I have a more concrete idea of it, all of you will be the first to know. :)

(Another factor in whether or not she gets Girlbossed™ is probably to what extent (if any) genderbending her changes her relationship with Matt. Because they're a pretty popular ship, and if a character choice makes a ship more or less appealing in the eyes of the fandom...historically, that's going to change the general perception of that character.)

[grassbreads]

the fundamental problem with me as a person is that I think I would be really good at running one of those big multifandom character poll tournaments in almost every way, but I simply cannot be assed to care about characters from media I'm not invested in

[foxxsong]

Some people... really should not be running these poll competitions.

[miharuhebinata]

can i just say, the byl3r fandom is genuinely one of the worst fandoms i've ever been in lol

[charminglygrouped]

For the past several years (and perhaps longer) in the P&P fandom I've seen a lot of people who want to rehabilitate Mrs. Bennet: like, sure, she's uncouth and seems greedy, but it's because she cares so much about her daughters' futures; her situation is actually really stressful and uncertain and she's powerless to change it and her husband makes fun of her, and so it's natural that it would cause her to be anxious all the time; maybe she doesn't have the intelligence or social awareness to understand that her behaviour is actually harming her daughters' prospects, but at least her heart is in the right place.

I'm usually not the type of person who argues that fandom is actually being too nice to a female character, but in this case I don't buy the counter-narrative (which I think is popular enough at this point to be fanon / a narrative in itself) about Mrs. Bennet.

For one thing, she was never really powerless in this situation. These people are rich even for gentry. Mr. Bennet's income was always good, at 2,000 pounds per annum (even though I can't believe he isn't neglecting some practices that could raise it higher). Mrs. Bennet had 4,000 pounds from her parents and a further 1,000 from Mr. Bennet. Invested in the 4 per cents (for example), this is 200 pounds per year in pin money that Mrs. Bennet could spend without touching the principle of her dowry, and without affecting Mr. Bennet's income. This is more than some people's entire yearly incomes.

The picture of Mr. and Mrs. Bennet that we get in P&P is not of people who are helpless against their circumstances, but of people who are extraordinarily neglectful. We're told that:

Mr. Bennet had very often wished, before this period of his life, that, instead of spending his whole income, he had laid by an annual sum, for the better provision of his children, and of his wife, if she survived him. [...] When first Mr. Bennet had married, economy was held to be perfectly useless; for, of course, they were to have a son. This son was to join in cutting off the entail, as soon as he should be of age, and the widow and younger children would by that means be provided for. Five daughters successively entered the world, but yet the son was to come; and Mrs. Bennet, for many years after Lydia’s birth, had been certain that he would. This event had at last been despaired of, but it was then too late to be saving. Mrs. Bennet had no turn for economy; and her husband’s love of independence had alone prevented their exceeding their income.

We also know that the "continual presents in money which passed to [Lydia] through her mother’s hands," plus her allowance and food, amount to about 90 pounds per year. Rather than saving up from the beginning in case the entail is not broken, rather than beginning to save once it's clear a son will not arrive, rather than making Jane's dowry the full 5,000 from her mother (which would be something) and saving up for the younger girls' dowries thereafter—which is what would be typical, and that's why Lady Catherine was so shocked that all the girls were out at once—Mrs. Bennet's housekeeping, dress, the girls' allowance, presents of money over and above their allowance, plus whatever Mr. Bennet is spending money on (and other expenses relating to servants, carriages, maintenance &c. which are unavoidable), add up to their entire income. The only reason why Mrs. Bennet doesn't overspend even that is that that's where Mr. Bennet puts his foot down.

Mrs. Bennet is actively harming her daughters' prospects, not even of marriage, but of living respectably if they don't marry, because she doesn't have the temperance not to spend all of the income that is allotted to her. It is the role of the woman in a marriage to take charge of the housekeeping, servants, cooking, furniture, and all expenses relating thereto (plus certain attentions to her tenants and any living in genteel poverty in the area, though presumably this will depend on her income and whether there's a parish church with a parson's wife who's doing some of these things). She's an adult who should be competent to manage these things in a reasoned way without needing to be dictated to.

It is supposed to be the role of the woman in a marriage to take charge of her daughters' education—and yet Mrs. Bennet did not hire a governess, and Elizabeth says that she didn't spend much time teaching her daughters anything (it's not clear to what degree she's educated herself). Granted, the girls did have masters—but, from the sounds of things, that was only if they requested them. No one was required to learn much of anything, which will probably further harm the marriage prospects of the girls who "chose to be idle."

I think the "point" of Mrs. Bennet is that she is one half of one type of bad marriage which the novel illustrates, in contrast with the Gardiners' marriage. These marriages are two possible models for the Bennet daughters to look to. At one point, Elizabeth's prospective marriage is explicitly compared to her parents', with her in the role of her father: Mr. Bennet says "My child, let me not have the grief of seeing you unable to respect your partner in life" (emphasis original).

We might wonder whether Elizabeth saw herself potentially in the role of her father, in a marriage that was very intellectually unequal, when she rejected Mr. Collins; or whether she also saw herself in the role of her mother, married to a man who insults and doesn't respect her, when she rejected Mr. Darcy. Ultimately, she accepts Mr. Darcy after she realises that he is nothing like her father; that he is diligent in attending to his responsibilities, and that he does evidently respect her mind.

This isn't me defending Mr. Bennet, who is also a bad parent and a bad spouse. I do, however, find it a little disturbing when people suggest that Mr. Bennet is at fault for not controlling or curtailing his wife. His wife is a grown woman. Surely we don't actually believe that a situation where a man is legally in complete control over his wife, merely because he is a man and she is a woman, is in any way natural, moral, or just? (This also goes for people who suggest that Mr. Bingley needs to get his sister 'in line' 😬😬😬.)

Mrs. Bennet should be competent to manage her household and her daughters. Given that she's not, yes, Mr. Bennet, according to Georgian and Victorian ideas of the role of a man in a marriage, "should" have stepped in and started dictating to her. But I don't really think that's what Austen is suggesting went wrong here. The models of good marriages we have—the Gardiners, the Bingleys and Darcys after their weddings—are all ones in which the women were basically sensible people to begin with. In the latter two cases, we are told of particular ways in which the men stand to benefit from some mental quality of their future spouse (Elizabeth's good humour and ease in company; Jane's steadiness and determination).

The ideal which some Georgians had of a husband's role being to shape his wife's intellect doesn't seem to be what's being advocated here. If Mr. Bennet made a mistake, it was in marrying a silly, selfish, ill-tempered woman to begin with, not in failing to browbeat her into submission once he found out that she was silly, selfish, and ill-tempered. The idea is that you should choose your spouse carefully. But that message doesn't work if Mrs. Bennet is just a woman in a difficult situation who has her heart in the right place.

[telltaletypist]

i think there is something to be said about the way a lot of popular western media (both within fiction and outside of it, now that i think about it) uses the pretense of nuance to obfuscate existing power dynamics.

the example i'm mulling over at the moment is netflix's Arcane, which depicts a pretty straightforward conflict between a brutally oppressive ruling class and an underclass that is out gunned, out manned, and lacks even the means to support its own population. despite this, the show takes a very even-handed "everybody's flawed" approach to how it portrays this conflict, one that seems to be increasingly popular in popular western media. this makes for a compelling story, the show takes the time to make sure we understand all the characters involved, their motivations, their flaws, their hopes, their dreams etc, but i think when people engage with that kind of narrative uncritically, they tend to miss the forest for the trees and get lost in pointless debates over which characters were more in the right or who's actions were more justified by their trauma etc. this kind of weightless, individualist approach seems to always lead to the same conclusion: that changing society is scary and traumatic and everybody is too flawed to be trusted with leading such a shift. how convenient that this always seems to benefit those already in power.

i'm thinking about this in regards to the reactions to the latest developments in the story of Arcane, which sees caitlyn supporting a military dictatorship, in part as a response to the trauma of losing her mother in jinx's terror attack. the reactions are pretty typical fandom discourse about whether or not her actions are understandable given what she's going through as a character, but what no one seems to be considering is that she's only able to undergo this change in the first place because of her class position, not just as a member of the wealthy elite of the overcity, but also as a respected member of the overcity's law enforcement. see, while the individual characters involved might be complex, the moral dimensions of the overall conflict really are not. one side has all the power and resources, as well as a vested interest in keeping the other side subjugated to maintain its dominant status quo. just because the dominant side is populated primarily with skinny attractive people a who're shown to be doing their best with the situation and the other are mostly grotesque caricatures of poverty stricken degenerates doesn't mean this is a difficult choice.

it remains to be seen how the actual show will play out, but i can't help but see it as continuing a trend of what i can only describe as a kind of smug liberal nihilism, crafting a brutal class conflict only to revel in the horrific spectacle of it all, basking in the complex moral greyness of its protagonists, uninterested in taking an actual stance. there's a point when nuance becomes a form of cowardice, imo

[diamondcitydarlin]

Just fair warning- I said on my personal post about this that I wasn't going to talk about Neil Gaiman anymore, but as it's becoming clear that him and his publishers and anyone else who makes money off of him is circling the wagons and trying to bury these allegations, as well as some fans still defending and trying to 'rationalize' this information, I feel like, actually, we need to keep talking about him (as much as I cannot stand him and feel physically disgusted now when I so much as see his face somewhere). Specifically, the fact that he's a liar, master manipulator and should not, under any circumstances, be given access to his fans like he has in the past. At the very least. (And if you need to blacklist his name or even unfollow me so as to not be triggered, I completely understand, but I will always try to tag these posts accordingly and I think it's crucial right now that the truth be put where people can see)

This post specifically is in response to those 'rationalizations' I've seen, some that have gone as far as to blame the young fans/groupies that hooked up with him for being 'golddiggers' or just making a mountain out of a molehill for something they now regret. It's not that simple, yall. (And, again, this requires some amount of completely ignoring the story about him extorting his tenant for sex under threat of eviction of her and her three young children, I'm not sure how you 'rationalize' that under the best of circumstances)

So let's be clear here. What we know is that NG has routinely, for possibly an upwards of 30 years, pulled sexual 'partners' from his fan groups, most of whom are 18-22 year old young women (though possibly younger, accounts are coming forward of 16 year olds having allegedly been inappropriately touched/flirted/propositioned by him, which ig is the age of consent in the UK but still?? 16 year olds!!). This wasn't one or two times in the course of three decades, this was a constant pattern of behavior for him and for a very insidious reason.

This isn't to try to infantilize those fans or young women/young people in general or try to suggest that they couldn't have consented to sex with an older person or famous person. In fact, the onus isn't on them at all. This is about an older guy with a lot of fame, power and wealth choosing to sleep with people that he had already conditioned to idolize him and using that power imbalance to coerce them into doing things they didn't want to.

Regardless of one's age or gender identity, it can be difficult to impossible to say 'no' to someone like that. After all, you've been 'chosen' by the chosen one, you're special and not like everyone else, and if you don't do what the popular person everyone trusts is telling you to do you could end up ostracized. Alienated. Or worse. And you know what? Gaiman knew that! He knew it when he was crafting his 'approachable dad' persona on tumblr. He knew it when he was cultivating a fandom of personality. He knew it when he was having huge meetups to try to ensnare more victims. I hate to even think it, but I'm starting to believe he knew it when he was writing children's books too.

It's been talked about again and again in separate issues, but needless to say something not being strictly illegal does not make it inherently, morally okay. It does not erase the fact that this man has been essentially grooming his fandom to feel safe meeting/speaking with him so he can coerce those he can snare into sexual acts they're not comfortable with. That is predator behavior, whether strictly 'illegal' in the eyes of a court or not (but ofc I think he should be criminally punished even if I'm not naive enough to think he actually will be, because this IS rape and rape should be criminally punished)

I'm not personally advocating for anyone to give up being in his related fandoms, but what I am personally advocating for is that people don't forget who he is and what he's capable of, especially when he tries to crawl back to where he was (I'm almost certain he will eventually, as I've said).

Again, at the very least, we need to use what little influence we do have to keep him from infiltrating fan spaces again. He should not be on tumblr yukking it up with young people, he should not be at public appearances hitting on teenagers, he should not be given the unrestricted access to fans that he's 'enjoyed' for the past 30+ years because he is not a safe person. While I wish there was more in the way of restorative justice that could be done, I think at very, very least we should do what we can to limit his proximity to people he could hurt in the future. Make sure no one forgets, because sweeping this under the rug means Gaiman gets to hurt more people.

Lastly, no one is the wrong for having been manipulated by him. Let's make that very clear. What we're NOT gonna do is blame ourselves, each other, the victims, etc, for evil acts that Gaiman chose to do himself, time and time and time again. It doesn't help the situation and it certainly doesn't protect future potential victims. We were all duped because we're human and we attach and a lot of us want to believe there are good people out there, particularly those who make art that means so much to us.

And there are. But let's also use this a teaching/learning tool about how much faith we place in famous people in the future, regardless of how 'approachable' and 'safe' they might seem. Let's remember to have a healthy suspicion of creators/famous people that are oddly immersed in fandom spaces- yes, even the ones you still currently like that seem fine, as difficult as that may seem.

At the end of the day, we don't know them or what they're capable of doing or what they might be plotting to do to us. Support victims. Amplify their voices. Don't forget.