#anti fan book

[bluecrocss]

Adult PJO fans: "I can't relate to her if she doesn't look like me" "this is disrespectful to book!Annabeth" "I can't see her as the same character if she's black" "blonde, white women are soooo underrepresented in media. No one else can understand 😫"

Meanwhile, the actual demographic the show and books are for:

(@/walkersriptide_ on TikTok)

-

Caveats in the tags.

[kha0skato]

and you'd think he'd read stuff like Moby Dick or somethin

[daughter-of-lethe]

Nessian 🖤

Art credit: Artonia.hoefs

[imfromthemiddlekingdom]

People who don’t understand how feudalism works and tries to shoehorn in our modern sensibilities into said world with very clear world building and set rules in place are the bane of my existence.

In ASOIAF, bastards cannot inherit anything unless legitimized and have no trueborn relatives to inherit their seats. It doesn’t matter if they are “recognized” as trueborn by their parents if other people doubt and have ‘convincing’ proof that they are bastards. And being recognized as trueborn does not equate to being legitimized because in order for someone to be legitimized, they have to first be acknowledged as baseborn to begin with.

The books are more ambiguous since Rhaenys had Baratheon black hair and purple eyes, but even she had the purple eyes of her father. But no matter how people might interpret the Strong boys’ appearance, it was made pretty damn clear that they were bastards. The parallels between Rhaenyra/Harwin and Cersei/Jamie, cannot be made more clear with how both of them are present when their paramours were birthing their child. Harwin was present during the birth of Lucerys and Jamie was present for the birth of Joffrey. It literally cannot be more of a parallel between the three golden Lannister bastards of the Queen and the three brown haired bastards of a Princess.

‘Oh but Laenor claimed them as his own!’ So did Robert. ‘Corlys had no problem with Luke being heir of Driftmark!’ And Tywin upheld that his grandkids were legitimate until he died. Plus even overlooking Corlys’ ambitions, have you gave any thought to how things would pan out if he came out and said that the kings favorite child cuckholded his heir? Viserys wouldn’t stand for any slander against Rhaenyra as proven by the Driftmark incident and his inaction after Vaemond was fed to his daughters dragon and the silent five so what makes you think that he would over look Corlys ‘slandering’ his daughter?

If Corlys came out after Jace’s birth and denounced him and Rhaenyra, not only would his life be forfeit, his house’s legacy would be completely ruined. There’s no doubt that Viserys would commit terrible injustices to protect Rhaenyra, seeing how he was one of the three candidates for the culprit of the Harrenhal fire. He’s ambitious not dumb and going against the favored child of the king and the favorite niece of the person who wields dark sister and rides one of the largest dragons alive would be like volunteering to put your head and all of your loved ones heads on the chopping block.

If he had doubts about the Strong boys’ legitimate cannot do anything about it. Not when Viserys is so protective of Rhaenyra.

Bastards cannot inherit unless legitimized and to be legitimized is to proclaim to the realm that they were born out of wedlock to begin with. The Strong boys have not been legitimized since they were never declared to be illegitimate but anyone with eyes can tell that they aren’t trueborn.

Within the confines of GRRM’s world building, passing illegitimate offsprings as legitimate is a crime punishable by death or a life of servitude to the faith. Within royalty, it’s tantamount to high treason with the only punishment being the death of the adulterer. The only reason Rhaenyra wasn’t penalized by law was because she held the favor of a king. But that doesn’t mean she wasn’t penalized by the masses because she was shown to be an oath-breaker. Because that’s what adultery is in ASOIAF, it’s oathbreaking. (Literally the whole reason Catelyn and Ned’s marriage was so fraught with tension in the beginning was because she thought Ned broke his oath.)

Sure in modern day society, if you and your husband consent to an open relationship which results in children and he adopts them, then in the eyes of the law the child is his legitimately and he is their father. But once again, in a feudal setting, adoption, especially as a noble, doesn’t exists.

Blood matters a whole lot in ASOIAF, Robert was not only able to take the throne through right of conquest but also right of blood through his grandmother. Legitimacy was tantamount. You can make the argument that Jace would’ve been fine to inherit the Iron Throne through the blood of his mother that was running through his veins but Luke had no Velaryon blood in his veins bar what’s left of Alyssa Velaryon which was four generations ago. It’s like saying Jon can inherit Runestone since his great-great grandmother was a Royce.

Even if Rhaenyra ascended the throne without opposition. She shot Jace in the foot with her remarriage to Daemon and subsequently producing two trueborn sons. If the dance of dragons didn’t occur between the black and greens, somewhere down the line, some grasping lord unsatisfied with a bastard ruling them would push to get Aegon on the throne no matter the cost.

[sapphic-agent]

Some anti Book 3 Aang memes because idk it's just that kind of night. My beef with post DOBS Aang is everlasting

[agentoffangirling]

Just a reminder that if you say anything along the lines of "support the content, not the creator" (there's an actual saying but my 12 am brain can't remembered it) only works if the creator is not making any money off of the content

You can say that about Homer and Greek mythology, bc Homer is dead and all related works are public domain

You can say that about Tolkein and Lewis, bc they're both dead and any products go towards their estate, obviously not the person

You CANNOT say that about JKR, bc she's still very much alive and involved with everything HP related. Even buying a butterbeer at Universal Studios gives her money (I'm not kidding. She gets a cut of anything HP)

You CANNOT say that about Neil Gaiman, bc not only is he alive, but he still makes money on anything he was ever a part of. Yes, he's no longer involved with the production of Good Omens and most companies have cut ties with him, but if you buy a copy of Coraline, or Sandman, or anything he has ever written, he is getting that money

Is that clear?

[endiness]

okay, i have gone through probably 50+ s2 interviews of hc researching this so far and i have to say that at this point i really don't see how he wasn't deliberately trying to manipulate the fanbase and the media against the writers and the show to get them onto his side. (and also, like, a very specific, extremely toxic section of the fandom at that.) (it's the sexist incel gamerbros. i'm talking about them.)

"I wanted to represent as much of a book-accurate Geralt as possible and a lot of the fans did as well, and so I campaigned really hard to make sure that he was more verbose, he sounded more intellectual, his choice of words was more thought out and that his approach to Cirilla and everyone else wasn’t antagonistic. Because it initially came across as he was just grumpy all the time with everyone and everything and I really wanted to show this three-dimensional character […] It’s gonna be tough to do the stuff which is as brilliant as Sapkowski’s writing, but it’s something I’m always gonna campaign for and it’s hopefully fit into the vision of the show."

there are so many interviews (ie virtually every interview out of 50+ with the exception of maybe, like, 3) where hc says the exact same thing about how he just cares so much about book accuracy, specifically where geralt's characterization is concerned, and that he really started to push for a more book accurate geralt in s2 and wanted him to be more verbose and intelligent and show that he isn't just a one dimensional character who just grunts and says hmm all the time like in s1 — and at no point does he ever take any responsibility for how that was due to his acting choices in the first place because he would cut his lines.

he also just straight up lies about the situation because the writers originally wrote geralt as being more verbose and book accurate in s1 but then changed the way they were writing him due to the acting choices he made. and yet he acts like that was never the case and that geralt was never originally written that way and he pushes this idea that a book accurate geralt went against lauren's vision. even though, once again, that was the original vision and it only changed due to him.

and on the extremely rare occasion (i'm talking, like, maybe 2 con panels here) that he ever takes any kind of responsibility for his role in all of that, he still waffles about and tries to present this image that he wasn't really cutting that many lines and they weren't really that important anyway and it didn't really matter:

"I didn't even cut that much. Just little bits when someone says how they feel, I thought if Geralt says nothing, and maybe the well-known grunts or hmms and sometimes the occasional f-word, people can take from that what they will."

even though that can't be true as confirmed by joey:

"Henry likes to cut his lines, 'cause he's lazy. No, he literally just likes to cut them. He likes to do more up here [frames his face with his hands] and just with face and hmms and grunts. There's a lot of hmms, and so I often have to take a lot of his lines and turn it into a lot of my stuff so that the plot happens."

and even hc himself confirms this and what joey said in a s1 interview:

"All the grunts, I either added or I didn't say anything and just grunted instead. It was often up to the other actors to go, 'I think he's not gonna say anything now.'"

i also have to point out that hc directly links his push for a more book accurate geralt to reading comments on reddit as i think that's very relevant to what section of the fandom exactly that he's pandering to and why he's been so vocal about it while lying about the role he played in everything and what actually happened:

"I’m on all the Reddit forums. I’m reading all the reviews. I’m literally trying to get everyone’s information. Some of it is not useful, and other criticisms are incredibly useful. I take it all in, and I look forward to bringing it even closer and closer to Sapkowski’s writing. I think any of those criticisms, they often lie in things like I was saying—we don’t have the advantage of a long involved conversation or dialogue with Geralt, so they are criticisms which I think I was prepared for. So for me, it’s about seeing that, understanding it, and working out how I can do my job better within the framework provided, [how to] appease and make those people feel comfortable that I do actually understand this character—and love this character just as much as they do."

"As a source for information, it's really helpful for me to see what everyone's saying, what everyone's thinking, and to see how much my thinking falls in line with whichever side of that spectrum it is and whether I'm doing the wrong thing, for example, by campaigning hard for the book Geralt to exist or whether I'm doing the right thing."

and just another important thing to point out imo: virtually the only times hc ever takes any responsibility in any capacity whatsoever for his own role in the show not adhering to the books (which even then he barely does and it's still always with a lot of excuses), it's only ever at con panels — which are far less likely to get picked up by news outlets and seen by a broader audience — and not in formal interview settings. (except for, i think, one interview he gave early on when s2 first went on hiatus. but even then, it still has the same problems that the con panels have where he comes up with a lot of excuses that don't match what happened.)

then there's an interview hc gave where he went on about how he added some book dialogue into a scene and he made it out to be like it was some kind of rebellion against the writers and he didn't consult them as he was just going to do what he wanted, consequences be damned:

"I did not feel like having long discussion about whether I could add this bit somewhere. So I just did it, said the words in front of the camera, and was ready to face the consequences."

and meanwhile what actually happened was that lauren eventually let hc have free reign and rewrite a scene that he was unhappy with. which, y'know. kinda fucking weird to present what happened in the way he did.

and then there's him pushing this narrative that the female characters — namely yennefer and ciri — were given more depth and focus than geralt and the male characters as if that came at their expense and all of which is somehow due to lauren's women-centric vision of the show as if that's somehow opposed to how the books themselves are:

"On season two, I wanted to bring as much of 'Book' Geralt into the show that Lauren's vision and that the plot would allow. That's a tricky thing to do, because the plot, as Lauren has said, is very centred around bringing women into the centre of The Witcher."

"In Season 1, there wasn't really much of an opportunity for expansive dialogue which Geralt is known for — in the books, he's often known to monologue — because we had two original origin stories which were the center point of the show."

"Lauren’s vision was more of an ensemble piece than the first Witcher books. It’s driven a lot more by the characters of Yennefer and Cirilla."

"I wanted to make sure we really explored as much as showrunner's vision could allow. She has her own plan, so I’ve got to toe that line between book Geralt and Lauren’s vision."

"I wanted to try and bring as much of the book’s Geralt into Season 2 as possible, and as much as the vision, the plot and storylines would allow. The toughest part for me was finding that balance between the showrunners’ vision and my love for the books, and trying to bring that Geralt to the showrunners’ vision."

"It’s important for me to have the character be three-dimensional and it’s tricky to do, as I was saying earlier, because there’s a certain vision and there’s a certain set, storyline and plot. And so, it was about me trying to find Geralt’s place within that."

"There’s only so much space to provide the same character from the books within the showrunner’s vision. But, I did my best to provide a bit more of a three-dimensional character with a bit more emotionality."

"It's important to me that the men in the story are three dimensional as well."

like, first off — and not to continually reiterate this but — that's not true. in s1, geralt was originally written as being just as verbose and intellectual as he was in the books and that only changed due to hc cutting his lines and we know that joey often had to take his lines, too. so there was, in fact, always plenty of time for geralt to be book accurate and for yennefer and ciri to have their own focus. these things were never mutually exclusive and it's definitely some kinda take to imply otherwise.

secondly, while it is true that geralt is the main character of the short stories, ciri is the main character of the main series starting from blood of elves, the book that s2 adapted. and despite claims otherwise, her pov has always had the most focus — yes, even more than geralt (sans baptism of fire, obvs.) and it's not like ciri is the only female pov, either, or that there aren't other important female characters that make up the series. there's yennefer, triss, milva, philippa, fringilla, nimue, condwiramurs, kenna — and that's just off the top of my head. there are plenty more where that came from. women and their stories have always played a central role in the books. nothing about that goes against them or is unique to lauren's vision.

and just with boe in particular, like. triss's pov is either focused on more than geralt's or at least about as much as his depending on how you want to break things down. and with dandelion following very close behind them, too! like, ciri may be the main character of the main series and geralt may be the main character of the short stories and their povs are the most focused on overall, but the books are still very much an ensemble piece made up of a collage of many, many povs to paint a full picture of the universe. and, yeah, the women make up a huge part of that. so the show focusing on ciri and yennefer and the women — and, yes, the men as well because it does actually do that! — is um, still book accurate. so y'know, why the fuck is he presenting this idea that's somehow not the case.

in general, hc emphasizes in a lot of interviews how much he fought for "male characters to be three dimensional." which yeah, given the context of everything else, is some suspicious kinda phrasing because it gives this undertone that the show wasn't writing three dimensional male characters in the first place as opposed to the women and that it's only due to his efforts that anything changed.

also, i have to highlight this quote of him talking about the three dimensionality of men because ~curious that he omits women from the list of people real menTM can be loving and caring toward:

"I believe that real men are very sensitive. They are very capable of doing things which can be violent, if possible, or necessary. But at the same time, they are incredibly capable of love and caring amongst men and towards children and family and all sorts."

and then there's the way hc talks about changing things which comes across as so suspicious, too, imo. especially when there is every other cast member to compare him to. because the way the rest of the cast has talked about this is that they all very consistently say that the whole process is very collaborative and that lauren is very much willing to hear them out about their thoughts and concerns and that it really feels like a team effort and that everyone is working together. and meanwhile the vibes that hc gives off is either "me vs the world (ie the writers)" or "but there's nothing that i can really do to change anything and it's all on the writers~" either way, his attitude very much comes off like all bad decisions are the writers' fault but meanwhile any good decision was due to him and him alone (or maybe the rest of the cast, but definitely not the writers.) like, weird af to play it off that way especially since every other cast member didn't seem to have any problems and they all gave credit where credit was due ie to lauren and the writers.

in conclusion, it'd be one thing if hc had just taken the l and admitted that he is the one who fucked up geralt's characterization in s1 and so he sought to rectify that in s2. but yeah, he doesn't really do that. instead he lies over, like, 50 times to create this narrative of him pushing for book accuracy as if that's somehow in opposition to lauren and the writers and as if they didn't originally write geralt book accurately in the first place and as if he played no role in the lack of book accuracy at all. and then that there's also him pushing this subtle (or not so subtle) narrative about how the women were taking a more central role as opposed to the men and that's somehow unlike the books and something purely due to lauren's vision, too? even though women have always played a central role in the books to the point where ciri is the main character of the main series? and that he's directly linked this narrative he's pushing to reading comments on reddit? (and that he also has a history, since s1, of trying to cater to game stans?) yeah, i just don't see how this doesn't add up to him trying to manipulate the media and audience — especially the worst parts of the fanbase — against the writers and the show and onto his side.

(also just one last thing i'd like to note as i find it super weird that when hc was asked about giving freya any advice, he immediately shut down the notion that he would ever do anything like that and he would never offer her any unsolicited advice and he would only ever give her any if she came to him first. like, there are literally s1 and s2 interviews where freya talks about hc giving her advice. i mean, maybe she did come to him in the first place, idk. but the immediacy in which he shut down the idea that he would ever do anything like that as if offering someone younger than you advice and being a mentor to them is wrong… weird. sus, even. like, why are you scrambling to cover your ass for something that's not even bad and, also, why are you lying about it by omission in the very least.)

[lainalit]

Rhysand stans:"nobody wants to talk about how Rhysand is a SA Victim"

Girl, I see constantly posts/tiktoks/content about how Rhysand is a SA Victim and 99% of the comments are always super supportive, but every time a Nesta post is made about how she was SA'd by the Kelpie and/or Thomas there are always some Nesta antis in the comments being like "her trauma, doesn't absolve her of being a horrible sister!!!!" even though the post has nothing to do with feyre

or than god forbid people point out that feyre is a Victim of SA in the hands of Rhysand all hell breaks loose, and instead of acknowledging what rhysand did was SA , most of the fandom is out here trying to justify it with the same old tired phrase of "he did it to protect her" or even worse out right denying it by being like "rhysand touching feyre's waist, arms, making her sit on his lap and kissing her against her will isn't SA because only certain circumstances need to occur for it to be classified as SA"

Don't even get me started on the people who believe that gwyn faked her SA and is secretly an evil lightsinger

And the one who rarely gets any recognition of being a SA Victim (besides from his fans) is Lucien. I saw a handful of posts/tiktoks from lucien fans that bring this topic up but those are not nearly as popular as Rhysand's posts and where are almost always some people in the comments of lucien's posts who are asking "when did he get SA'd?"

The majority of the fandom always talks about Rhysand being a SA Victim

[aria-greenhoodie]

The Joker card, The Fool, The cast aside and forgotten: Tinsley O'Pimm

Click for Quality!

[enemywasp]

"____'s creator wouldn't want you posting this ship/hc!!"

Well to be honest if the creator of a piece of fiction doesn't understand that once their work is out there it can be interpreted in a million ways I don't really care for their opinion.

[vivianthepigeon]

My older sister gave me the most judgmental side eye IN THE WORLD when I mentioned I was trying to find good Snape fics. She literally looked at me and was like “Snape? Really? That’s a choice 😒”

I’m in enemy territory IN MY OWN HOME

Turns out she’s a marauders fan and snater

[nenehyuuchiha]

Tim Drake is DC Taylor Swift

[burst-of-iridescent]

what's your opinion on whether or not canon zutara could have made sense to happen by the finale?? i can't decide if i would have preferred them getting together or just hints at it and then it's revealed in tlok that they got married (and ig the comics would include the story of them getting together then)

my stance has always been that the show should have ended with no canonical romantic relationships, or a hint of future zutara at best. we didn't need anything more than a quick, intimate scene where zuko and katara discuss their futures and promise to keep in touch, with maybe a lingering glance or two to foreshadow romantic feelings. no kiss or grand declarations necessary.

that being said, if a romantic relationship had to happen, zutara was both built up more and made more sense narratively than kat.aang and mai.ko. i wouldn't have liked a zutara kiss in the finale for many of the same reasons i didn't like the kat.aang one, but it would've at least been thematically fitting and consistent with the characterizations of everyone involved - unlike zuko ending up with someone who never underwent any of the growth he did, and katara entering a lifelong romantic relationship without even so much as a word to give us insight into her sudden change of heart.

the only way to really do justice to zutara would've been with book 4, allowing plenty of time for a proper slowburn friends-to-lovers arc, but the reason so many people ship them today is because their relationship at the end of the show is the perfect jumping-off point for a romance. canon didn't actually have to give us anything more - the seeds were all planted already, and the imagination of the fandom would've done the rest.

[whimsylueur]

I’ve never drawn so mutherfuckin quick

[hussyknee]

I want to say that being a Swiftie is its own punishment, but a whole horde of them have caught COVID from her concerts and are calling it the "Eras Tour hangover". Literal plague rats.

And yes this goes for every fucking celebrity putting their fans lives in danger to line their pockets. None of them have spoken up for any of the genocides going on or shown donations to them. Y'all are laying your lives on the line for people who can't even tunnel underneath the bar of basic human decency when it's already in hell.

Edit: when I tell you none of you motherfuckers should spawn

This child is going to die because her mother cares more about that greedy climate criminal's superspreader event than helping her recover.

[valewritessss]

I hate it when people want the actual books to have some non-middle grade appropriate things in them.

Like, yes, I get wanting some dark Percy or whatever but realistically, Rick would never make Percy do some vile shit because it’s a middle grade book. And I’m talking about the really vile things people have written in fanfics that would make the book 10x darker.

I understand that most of us are past middle-grade ages but that age category is still the main target.

“Rick’s a coward for not doing this” or maybe he’s writing age appropriate stuff for the age range he specializes in. Don’t get me wrong some things would actually be cool if they happened but others, are actually too much.

This especially goes to people who want Rick to actually write ~things~ happening with percabeth and other popular ships. THEY ARE MINORS. RICK IS AN ADULT. THE BOOKS ARE FOR MIDDLE-GRADE.

Rick didn’t write “they had sex to have babies” when he was writing a book about how Greek gods came to be, what makes you think he would write something even more descriptive for his usual stories.

Yes, there are some mature topics in different stories, but they are topics that are addressed in a way that doesn’t surpass the middle-grade line.

Write fanfics about it all you want but complaining because Percy murdering his whole family in a fit of rage(I’ve seen this before okay) is not actually canon is crazy.