#as in it's only good representation if it represents Me

[amberinn]

something between

yess she's so insane and fucked up (having specific one of my friends in mind for this too, tysm for supporting me and accepting me lowkey it's good to have ground you believe to be semi-stable) (attachment issues are real and a bitch)

deemed problematic

ignoring me, because I get in the way of a ship

minor coded (which i will at some point grow out of. I mean I swear a lot, that must mean people would find me at least somewhat scary and mature---- wait, fuck, tommyinnit. oh im doomed.)

get hc'd as something and reduced to the hc

?? people in media usually strive for positive autism representation, right

knowing that I'm on my own journey of actually growing out of being albeist (which I only ever was in the first place, because I was scared of myself)

and somewhere in between where I accept who I am, and sometimes still flaunt stereotypes around trying to half heartedly con (lie/convince) people into believing I deserve some sort of .... I don't know? things? benefits?

and sometimes I double lie, because I actually DO need to (get out of the meeting, because it's getting to me, but I don't want other people to think I'm this weak, so if lie about pretending to lie)

and there will be sides to me, but people WILL at some point think I represent something with me being me

and they'll be displeased it's most likely bad.

I have flaws, like.

lots of them.

I'm like the least kinneable character in existance tbh ;

it's so crazy how that was my first thought when people can p much also reduce me to

pathetic wet cat

angry bitch

child

or something worse, yikes.

"shes so pathetic and bbg i want to torture them" (pls dont im already tortured enough.... ok finneeeeee.... for enrichment)

[twig-tea]

Thank you for the tag in your post, @doublel27! This is a great example of why tagging is polite and vagueposting is rude (I'm going to use this as a teachable moment so bear with me): You've made reference to several stances that I don't hold and linked back to my post as evidence I do, but because you've tagged me, I can now clear the record. I might choose to ignore a tag sometimes, and tumblr can't be relied on to actually alert the person who was tagged reliably, but the point is the tag generally gives me the visibility and the choice; and the link lets people see for themselves what I said, so they can make the determination themselves even if I didn't bother to clarify. If you'd made this post without linking or tagging me, your readers would have to take your word for what my point was and I'd have no way to know you were misrepresenting my position. Whether or not I'd said on main to tag me, using my (or anyone's) words in a post critiquing them without attributing them or tagging the source is rude, and it feels awful to experience. I appreciate you taking the feedback in the original thread and tagging me directly so that I could see this.

You invoked my We Are post specifically as an example of criticism of We Are and Perfect 10 Liners (which, for the record, I haven't written anything about the latter, but I'm glad my post has you thinking about them both in conversation with each other and hopefully trends at large) that informed the perspectives of @lurkingshan and @waitmyturtles which you've represented as being: shows which don't meet their metric of good should not be engaged with or are ruining the genre. In fact, in my own post (which you've stated has informed their opinion), I started that post with the opposite statement:

I don’t begrudge anyone who enjoyed this show and I’m genuinely glad it brought comfort to people.

I went on to say:

...Shows are fully allowed to not be for me, I usually can differentiate between when a show is doing something I don’t like well, or when it’s failing at its own goals. And I don’t begrudge people with different taste getting catered to sometimes; my refrain is that most problems of representation are not solved by calling for less of something, and rather than wanting something not to be made, I’d rather champion for more and a greater variety of content.

I also am certain that both Shan and Jay know New Siwaj is a queer creator because I laid out in full New Siwaj's history creating shows as a gay creator (which you mentioned as a kind of 'gotcha' in your post) to get to the crux of my concern, which was this explicitly:

I wanted to lay out how I've watched New Siwaj’s career go from finding a way to tell incredibly poignant and healing queer narratives (by creating his own company, and fitting these moments into the GMMTV series he did work on) to stripping out queerness from the shows he’s creating in the last year or so.

I then brought in other examples. The point I make in this post is that there has been a pattern of shows from ~the last year adapting novels but not including specific aspects around queer conflict from the source material in the adaptation. I am judging these adaptations against the Thai novels they are based on, and looking at the active choices the adapters are making in the context of the markets in which they operate--which, for the record, is the opposite of ignoring their agency. I would say the same statement for Shan's and Turtles' posts (linked for convenience). And to assume Shan and Turtles only took away the critical aspect of my post or that they aren't making their own judgments of the BL scene at large seems like a disingenuous interpretation.

The part of your response and the original post by @maybe-boys-do-love that bothers me is that it implies that I think (I'm now assuming MBDL was responding to me among apparently several others, since you've invoked me in this response and suggested you've been speaking to him about it, but without having been referenced in the original post I have no way of knowing--just to again underscore my frustrations with vagueposting) that only my way of seeing shows is correct or valuable; that I conflate sex scenes with queerness; that I think BL romcoms are less valuable, less queer, or less good than more serious toned takes; or that these shows should not exist or be made in future. I would hope it's clear from my own writing that I don't think any of that, and that anyone reading @lurkingshan and @waitmyturtles's posts would understand they also do not think any of this. I'm not sure who either of you are actually mad at, but the ideas you're fighting are not written in any of the things I've said or anything I've reblogged from Shan or Turtles. And the insinuation that the criticism of the writing of these shows holds some kind of power to prevent others from enjoying or making series like this is frankly giving any of us too much credit.

Looks like while I was writing @wen-kexing-apologist wrote a great summary of the points made in the original posts by Shan and Turtles in the comments section of their post, so anyone reading can feel free to go there to read a 2-comment summary if you don't want to go back and read the full set of threads for yourselves.

It's not a good use of energy to argue about how someone chose to interpret my words or the words of others, so I'll stop there. I'm happy to discuss the points that I've made in my writing, but defending against bad faith interpretations of my or other people's posts is not what I want to spend any more time doing.

[ramshacklefey]

For the love of all that is good, can more people please understand the following about media representation?

No single story can represent the full diversity of humanity. Yes, we need more stories about more kinds of people. But a single story can only make so many points at once. There are, in fact, a finite number of characters that can be in a single story. And narrowing it down further,

No single story can fully represent the diversity within a single group. See again: finite numbers of characters and limited number of points a single story can be making. Yes, creators should be careful not to treat a single character as a mouthpiece for an entire demographic. Yes, the more characters from a particular demographic there are in a story, the less likely this is to happen. But also,

You as a reader/viewer need to try to avoid treating individual characters as mouthpieces for entire demographics. This is a problem for everyone, because we are all very used to the idea that there is such a thing as a "default human." If a character is "default human," then we (paradoxically) assume that a) they are a unique individual who doesn't represent the entire category of "default humans" AND b) whatever the story is saying about them, it is saying about all humans everywhere. When a character isn't a "default human," we all tend to assume that they are a representation of only people who are not default in the same way as them. While we need and want more characters who don't fit the "default human" category, we as readers and viewers also need to fight the tendency in ourselves to treat those characters as "default [insert category here]."

Looking at wider trends is more about publishers and distributors than individual storytellers/readers/viewers. If you start a sentence with, "No one wants to tell stories about ..." or "No one from Group A ever wants to hear stories about..." I am going to slap you with a raw fish. Because yes. They do. Yes they fucking do. Not everyone, no. But plenty of them. But individual creators are hamstrung by what publishers and studios are gonna put their money behind. And publishers and studios are generally gonna put their money behind whatever they think the most popular stories will be. Which, because of the previous point, they assume is going to be stories about "default humans."

America especially is in a shitty fucking place when it comes to how many people get to make decisions about which stories get funding. C'mon. We know this. The number of mainstream publishing houses can be counted on one hand. The number of mainstream film studios can (maybe) be counted on two. Despite the wailing of certain groups, these studios and publishers are not, in fact, particularly "woke." And the bigger the budget for a project, the less likely they are to take a risk on a story that doesn't fit their image of what a popular story will be. (Which is why you'll find a lot more diversity of characters in novels than in film. Publishing a novel costs a fraction of the budget of even relatively low-budget films.)

Representation is only a zero-sum game if you only care about stories that become massively popular/are put out by the biggest studios and publishers. Yeah, the Big Guys are only gonna put out a handful of stories every year. So maybe it's true in that corner that every character from Group A means one less character from Group B. But in spite of the absolutely shitty situation we're in with production companies, there is a fuckton of stuff out there that has nothing to do with them. Webnovels, indie comics, small publishing houses, self-publishers, local theater, podcasts, ttrpgs put out by small groups, fan fic! It's out there! You can find it if you want it! It fucking sucks that it's harder to find, it really does. But you can go outside the mainstream and find it. Which brings me to my next point:

The effects of an individual publishing their work online are radically different from those of a major studio or internationally famous author. Look. No matter how popular Online Cool Person is, their audience is fucking tiny. Take two steps outside of whatever circle they're popular in and no one's even heard of them. They may be telling the most beautiful and heart-wrenching story you've ever heard, but in the grand scheme of society? They aren't much different from you and your buddies at the table playing an rpg. For better or for worse. If they fail to tell stories about anyone but "default humans," or they try to include more people and utterly fail... just. Stop reading their work. They aren't affecting public opinion. Which is why:

Not everyone has the same level of obligation when it comes to providing good representation. Everyone does have an obligation to not be a fucking bigot with the way they write characters, but y'know, they have the obligation to not be a fucking bigot in general. But when it comes to the potential harms/benefits of particular stories, there are multiple orders of magnitude between Online Cool Person or even Officially Published Person, and Neil Popular or Jo Ann Megabitch. And lastly:

It's good to find stories about people different from you but people don't have a moral obligation to do so and trying to guilt them into doing so isn't going to get you anywhere.

[luvo27]

just so we're clear: the reason i used so many words to describe the steph &/ cass relationship in the fic that does not exist is because the theme of that nonexistent fic is about the wonderfully complex nature of aspec relationships and how language serves and also fails to accurately describe them and the way that the world can try to impose a type of relationship in an attempt to either understand or make more palatable what is not something that can be easily understood, and so boiling it down to steph/cass or queerplatonic steph/cass or steph&cass would go against what i'm trying to do, even if the fic in question literally does not even exist. so why am i still talking about this nonexistent fic?

this is an excuse to talk about my feelings regarding aromantic and asexual representation on ao3. (note that i say on ao3, and not in fandom in general because this is me talking about my specific personal experiences, which mostly take place through ao3)

BIG DISCLAIMER THAT I WENT BACK AND ADDED IN BECUASE THIS WENT OFF THE RAILS: this is based on PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and FILLED WITH MY BIASES and was written IN A HAZE. (that being said this is something i've thought a lot about over months if not years.)

that tiny disclaimer aside, it goes without saying that fandom as a whole is primarily motivated by shipping, and so fanfiction on ao3 is primarily focused on shipping as well. shout out to this one time i was in high school and reading fic and someone asked (with good intentions) what ship i was reading for, and when i answered none, they asked (again, with good intentions,) what the point of doing that was. this, as you might imagine, made me feel weird to say the least! anyways, go on ao3 and the majority of fandoms will have an m/m pairing in the top most written. go into a small number of fandoms, and an f/m or f/f ship will hold the top spot. (femslash in fandom is a completely different topic) how many fandoms have platonic relationships at the top?

anyways i got curious so working off the knowledge that i have i did some quick looks at a handful of different fandom tags. fandoms which had platonic relationships at the most popular that i expected: dream smp and teenage mutant ninja turtles (all media types). honestly i was a little surprised to see that platonic relationships were at the top for both batman (all media types) and batman (comics), and I was expecting umbrella academy to have a platonic relationship at the top, but it was actually Dave/Klaus! in dr who and related fandoms, there aren't any platonic tags that break the top 10. and ohoho, here's where we get into it: dimension 20's top written relationship was fig/ayda, followed by riz/fabian in second place.

luvo, why did you say here's where we get into it? well, i just talked about the way that fandom focuses on shipping over platonic relationships, but i'm here to talk about aro/ace characters! in ao3's advanced search, if you look for fics with 'asexual' in any category, there are as of 1/7/2025 a total of 67,515 works. looking up 'aromantic' in any category whittles it down to 26,845 works. out of the over 14 million works posted on ao3? (number pulled from wikipedia) these are small numbers, but IT GETS BETTER. if you click on the AROMANTIC TAG, the top written relationship in the AROMANTIC TAG is a SLASH SHIP. (Alastor/Vox, Hazbin Hotel at 533 works.) sort fics under the aromantic tag by kudos, and the first fic under the gen category instead of m/m or multi is the 6th work down, and overall, gen works account for 6,950 out of 18,413 works under the aromantic tag.

my point being, only a small number of fics written with platonic relationships add to aro/ace rep in fic, and following that, when aro/ace characters ARE represented, it seems to be...how do i put this...typically with a shipping lens?

let's take a step back. I want to ask the question of how many canonically aromantic and/or characters exist. just. exist. wikipedia has a decently respectable list of asexual characters in fiction, as well as a much shorter list of aromantic characters in fiction. quick disclaimer that some medias are not represented such as podcasts (jon magnus archives?) or ttrpg shows (riz gukgak?)

what i will point your attention to is: how many of these characters are made explicitly aromantic or asexual within the text of their media? answer: not a lot of them. the majority of these characters have their sexualities confirmed in behind the scenes type things, such as Victor's (Arcane) voice actor saying he's asexual in an interview, Lilith (Owl House) confirmed asexual? or aromantic? over a charity livestream and twitter, Max (Miraculous Ladybug) confirmed asexual in a tweet, etc etc. kudos to Todd and Yolanda (Bojack Horseman) for being confirmed asexual in the media they're portrayed in! these all taken from the asexual characters page, the trend follows in the page about aromantic characters: namely, that if characters are aro/ace, typically explicit confirmation of these identities takes place outside of the media they're portrayed in.

why is that important? because without an explicit confirmation, it makes it a lot easier for denial of these identities to occur. yes, maybe it was the intention of the creators, but look. once a story leaves the author's hands, it belongs to the audience and intentions often have little to no bearing. additionally, if you're reading this then you probably understand that people will also deny coding characters as being gay or bisexual without an explicit onscreen kiss or declaration or some such. and why is this important?

putting the pieces together: characters can be confirmed as allo lgbtq+ through physical acts portrayed explicitly in their stories. characters who are aro/ace, well. more often than not, they can't. they're relegated to being coded as such, and confirmation, no matter how strong the coding, can often be easily ignored or possibly never even heard of.

do not get me wrong, I GET IT. Characters exist in settings where they don't have the word aromantic, or maybe it wouldn't be in character for them to say it as such. I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY. one of my most popular fics i've posted is about Riz Gukgak and his struggle with internalized aphobia. the words aromantic or asexual do not appear ONCE in the fic. In the sequel, A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CHARACTER has to say the words, and RIZ NEVER ACTUALLY CONFIRMS HIS IDENTITY. I UNDERSTAND THE STRUGGLE.

let's continue down the riz gukgak train. here are the facts: a sizable number of fans of dimension 20's fantasy high would say that riz gukgak is heavily aro/ace coded, with scenes such as:

making up a fake partner ("Clearly you haven't been kissed yet." ... "Actually, I'm dating somebody in the Baronies." Fantasy High Sophomore Year, Sophomore Start, 1:26:55)

being told that he is afraid of his friends leaving him for romantic relationships, (“The years will go by, and everyone will find someone that matters more to them than you do.” - Fantasy High Sophomore Year: Fearful Symmetry, 46:24)

telling his dad that he doesn't want to have sex ("yeah, I don't know... it just isn't happening yet? Like, not even just the act is not happening yet, like me wanting to do it." "It's not happening?" "It's not happening yet. And my friends are all like, [whispered] super horny." - Fantasy High Sophomore year, My Green Heaven, taken from a conversation around the 33 minute arc)

additionally, in an adventuring party episode of a spinoff series, the seven, Brennan Lee Mulligan says that Riz is asexual. ("...in a scene, Murph's character lies about having a partner, like a romantic partner, because Riz is ace, is asexual." - Adventuring party, season six episode eleven at 31:22 )

with all the love to my friends over in the d20 fic server for hunting these quotes down for me. truly my life is made all the better by the d20 fic community in a way that i will never know how to describe

here are some more facts! late march of 2024, with the release of the episode Baron's Game, I was lurking around the fhjy tag on tumblr. given the nature of the internet, there was discourse about riz and his identity, or his lack thereof. apologies to my d20 friends reading this who i love a lot, my rendition of a summary of said discourse follows below:

"if he's only coded to be aro/ace, that doesn't make him actually so. Brennan Lee Mulligan isn't the person who plays Riz, and him saying that he's ace is in behind the scenes content for a different show. Additionally, he only says that Riz is asexual, not aromantic. And even if Riz is aroace, aroace people can still be in romantic and sexual relationships, or a queerplatonic one!"

"why does it seem like everyone is ignoring the fact that riz is aroace? Kristen Applebee's sexuality (lesbian) would never be erased to ship her with a guy, so why are so many people doing it to Riz? Writing Riz in queerplatonic relationships is inaccurate because he's shown to be uninterested in relationships resembling anything like romantic ones, it seems like people are only interested in writing queerplatonic relationships as an excuse to write aromantic characters in the ship dynamic they want to," etc, etc. you get the gist.

let's get something straight about my stance on what people can and can't do with fictional characters: you can do literally whatever you want forever. ship riz in a romantic and sexual relationship. don't. whatever. i do not care. i do not care. he's not real. he's a fake character. he is a character. he exists for the audience to do literally whatever they want with him forever. i'll argue for someone's right to ship this character in whatever way they want. if they go down i go down with them-

ahem. sorry. my overall stance on fan creation crept into this thing that's supposed to be about how aro/ace characters are represented in fandom. whoops.

no, but let's talk about that. so, my personal interpretation of riz gukgak is that he's aroace and both romantically and sexually repulsed. i'm fairly confident in saying that my interpretation is supported by canon. some of my friends interpret riz and fabian seacaster's relationship as a queerplatonic one and they write fic about it, and i've read some it it, and i enjoyed it a lot!! and their interpretation is also supported by canon!! some people will interpret riz as simply being a late bloomer! or demi! or whatever! and guess what!!!! this will also have basis in canon!!!! gasp. shock. it's almost like stories exist for a wide variety of people to interpret them however they want to and i'm back to my philosophy on how we interpret stories in general stay on task luvo this is already too long.

so. recap. there aren't a lot of aro/ace characters who exist. often, their sexualities are reliant on coding due to the nature of the identity, and confirmation if it exists is often found behind the scenes instead of in the media. relatively, there isn't a lot of aro/ace fic on ao3. within that aro/ace fic, there's often relationships tagged with the typically romantic and/or sexual slash.

let's talk about aro/ace characters written in relationships of the romantic, sexual, and queerplatonic variety. mostly the queerplatonic variety. look, the thing is that sometimes it's easier to write a good story explicitly about being aro/ace if it's also a story about finding a queerplatonic relationship. sometimes it's easier to write a good story about being aro/ace if it's a story about finding a romantic and/or sexual relationship. writing the story comes down to the same reason so many aro/ace people struggle to find their identities in the first place: how do you find something that isn't there? sometimes, you do that by focusing on what is there.

let's keep going down this train. there aren't a lot of aro/ace characters. there are a hundred million different unique and complicated ways to have a romantic, sexual, queerplatonic, or straight up platonic relationship. Every single story written about aro/ace characters in relationships of any kind will resonate with someone, whether that's the person who wrote it, or someone who will read it. people write fic about characters in queerplatonic relationships that are exactly like what would generally be considered a conventional romantic relationship, and the only difference is that the characters refer to it as a queerplatonic relationship. thinking ungenerously, maybe this fic was written by an allo writer who just wanted to write a ship. The thing about fanfiction and its growing popularity, is that i would put money on the fact that this has happened, and at least one aspec reader stumbled upon it and their mind was blown and they felt seen.

the first fic i ever wrote with an aroace character tag was 1.8k words, posted over a year ago, and quite honestly i don't think it's very good. i wrote a second fic with the same character tagged as aroace again almost half a year ago, and again, not one of my personal favorites. but I got comments on those fics where someone felt seen, and were happy that they got to see this character be aroace, and were happy to see that this character got a happy ending, if a nontraditional one.

and remember when i brought up the slash fic under the aromantic tag? if you look under the tag Queerplatonic relationships, at the time i'm writing this there are 14,400 works. 5,941 of those are gen, the rest fall into m/m, f/f, m/f, multi, and other. the thing is, there isn't a signifier for queerplatonic relationships. a lot of the time to indicate one, authors on ao3 will use &, /, or a combination, or whatever. the fact of the matter is that the words romantic, platonic, and queerplatonic are doing so much work to carry such a wide variety of how a relationship is expressed, and even if there was a symbol to indicate queerplatonic relationships, (which there are in some places. the comic fan fiction author archive uses ~ to indicate qprs,) there are a hundred thousand different ways for qprs to look like.

um so. i started writing this like maybe 2 or 3 or more hours ago and i don't even know if i have or have ever had a point and this is extremely rambly and not organized in the slightest, but if i do have a point, it's something like:

there aren't a lot of aromantic characters. there aren't a lot of asexual characters. there aren't a lot of aro/ace coded characters. there definitely aren't enough to encompass the incomprehensible number of ways that people can experience or express their identities, and there are never going to be. the human experience is too wonderfully diverse for that, and it's too difficult to distill into the pitifully small vocabulary we have. my point might be to touch grass. by which i mean, don't like don't read, and remember that people are just that: people, with lives and worlds and perspectives of their own, and some of them you will never be able to understand, and sometimes you're not meant to understand them, and they are deserving of love regardless.

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

your “sentimonsters vs tropes” post made me realize how sentimonsters don’t work as a metaphor for marginalized people despite what other people say, because even if it was intentional, the show doesn’t acknowledge the fact that the majority of them get killed by the heroes, including Adrien and Felix (who are part of their race). Honestly, it makes me wonder if Miraculous ever did some sort of allegory right at all

(Post in question)

Before we get into it, I wanted to quickly define allegory in case that's a new or forgotten term for anyone as it's hardly common parlance:

An allegory is a narrative or visual representation in which a character, place, or event can be interpreted to represent a meaning with moral or political significance. Authors have used allegory throughout history in all forms of art to illustrate or convey complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible or striking to its viewers, readers, or listeners.

In the linked post, I chastised canon for not using the sentikids to say anything about personhood or self worth. While I stand by that, I will also give canon credit for the fact that sentimonsters as a race are not presented as a clear allegory for anything. The sentimonsters that weren't meant to be equal to humans are just worthless akuma knockoffs created to act as canon fodder. The human-equivalent sentimonsters are basically perfect humans who happen to have remote controls. You are never supposed to think about the implications of that frankly bizarre difference. There is not meant to be a deeper message and that's the right call because, when you look at the setup we just went over, you quickly realize canon didn't set itself up to make the sentimonster race an allegory for anything but eugenics.

While you can argue that canon is eugenics apologia, that is very clearly not intentional. I don't worry about kids walking away thinking eugenics are good because you only get that as a takeaway if you're actively searching for a message in canon's writing. There is no on-screen discussion of which sentimonsters are okay to kill or any other type of blatant allegory for eugenics. If eugenics = good is the intended message, then it's incredibly subtle.

While plot-level* allegory can be subtle, that tends to be rare in family-oriented media as the point of allegory is to convey a message. If no one is picking up on the message, then you've failed to make your point. That's why no one is watching Zootopia or Elemental and walking away asking, "Huh, I wonder what that film was trying to teach kids?"

Miraculous doesn't have anything that stands out as a clear allegory like I'd expect if the intent was to use allegory to teach kids something. I'd normally say that means there was no intentional allegory in the show, but we have straight up insane statements from the writers like this one about the season five final:

In the next scene, we can see Marinette taking the miraculous that have been standardized and industrialized by Gabriel and putting them back in shape. The writers specify that this is a parable about craftsmanship vs industrial production. The miraculous will now be adapted to every person, but we can’t see what they look like just yet! In this new world, the powers are all shared, among people who they trust and know will work for the common good.

Did anyone get this from the show? I certainly didn't. With the writers making statements like this, who even knows what messages they're trying to send. Between this and the reveal that Lila learned about Gabriel by reading Nathalie's lips in the season four final, I've given up trying to figure out what these loons are doing with their wacky storytelling. It's always fascinating to hear them talk about the story they think they've told versus what the average viewer came away thinking. I have never once seen a fan get the Lila thing. Everyone I've seen thought she was just evilly enjoying Nathalie's suffering, but it's pretty clear that the writers are quite proud of this and think it was a great choice! You know what would have been an even better choice? Letting Lila read lips at any point before or even after that scene to establish this is a skill she has. That's basic setup and payoff! Storytelling 101!

*As a quick clarification, when I said "plot-level allegory" that was me trying to find a term to convey the sort of high-level, in-your-face allegory writers use when actively trying to clearly convey a message to the audience. There are lots of works that have no obvious allegory, but actually contain subtle allegory for those who enjoy analysis or a select group that's in the know. Something the author had fun playing with, but doesn't expect the audience to get.

An example of more subtle allegory that comes to mind is The Little Mermaid. There are many valid queer readings of both the original story and the popular Disney film, especially since the book was written by an openly bisexual man after a man he loved got engaged to a woman and one of the movie's producers/major creative influences was an openly gay man. These fact have lead many to argue that the stories were always meant to be about queer acceptance on some level as opposed to the stories simply being ones that can be used to discuss that topic in spite of the author never intending that. (Which doesn't invalidate the value of a reading, btw. As far as I'm concerned, author intentionality only matters in very specific types of discussion. Most of the time, I'm a death-of-the-author girl.)

However, even if the two works are meant to be an allegory for acceptance of "alternate" sexuality, you'd be hard pressed to argue that the allegory is presented in a way that the average viewer is going to get. Everyone gets that Zootopia is all about prejudice being bad. I generally hear Disney's The Little Mermaid described as a silly fairy tale about "a girl giving up everything for a man" even though that's only true for the original story.

[northern-passage]

i've been thinking a lot about the word "representation" and what it means and how it's changed over the last few years, particularly when it comes to the writing/publishing landscape but also in movies and tv shows… and i really don't like it anymore. to be clear, of course i think it's important to have diversity in your work, i'm not saying i hate the concept of representation. but i do really dislike the way it's used now, and i really just hate the word itself

in a broader sense it's just become a marketing tool. i'm not impressed by any publisher or author who just describes their book by listing all of the minorities/identities the characters represent as if that should be enough. it feels very gross, very exploitative and disingenuous. it also really bothers me because it's always marginalized identities- which i understand Why, but it feels very othering to me (and again. Very exploitative as an advertisement). you would never list out "cishet able-bodied white man" as a character description to pat yourself on the back over. so why do it to everyone else? why insinuate that one is the "default" and the other one is "special"? (and when i say this i'm mainly talking about advertisements/marketing. i understand why people would specify about characters in descriptions with the plot, but i don't like to see an ad that's just "this book has gay people!" with nothing else)

which then leads me to my other point, which is that a lot of people treat "representation" as if it's "too hard." like "oh i don't know enough to write about that, i don't have that experience, etc" which is a fair way to feel! however… it's weird that people only say this about writing trans characters or characters of color. i'm writing a story right now with a character who is really into motorcycles. i personally do not know that much about motorcycles, so i researched what parts are what & what different kinds of models there are & what basic bike care looks like. i guarantee Most people will have to google something at some point in their writing process. so what's the problem? it also, again, feels very othering when authors treat certain groups of people as "impossible" to write, "too hard" to understand. they are just.. people. you write them as a person. and then you figure out the rest later.

and i think part of the refusal or fear to write something outside of your experience is because of the way representation is treated as So Special. these characters are So Special that they aren't allowed to be anything other than "representation." they're Not allowed to be characters with complex emotions and interesting motivations, they have to just be Trans or Gay or Disabled or whatever. they're not allowed to be people. which means, at the end of the day, we loop right back around to where we were at the start….

there is bad representation. there are depictions of certain marginalized people that are harmful and that are damaging, i'm not trying to minimize that or argue against it at all, in fact we should all be mindful of that while writing and reading. but i also think it's possible to swing too far in the opposite direction as well and put certain groups of people on a pedestal and not allow them to do anything at all but be Perfect Representation, if that makes sense.

[walker-lister]

I just have to remind myself sometimes that no matter what anyone else says, the way a piece of media makes me feel and the positive impact it has had on my queer identity is valid, and that tearing myself apart thinking I have to defend it or questioning my own place within queer communities is not at all important when compared to the almost tangible sense of 'rightness' that piece of media helped me to feel about myself.

[skrunksthatwunk]

im exploding into a million pieces i found a reddit thread about butches in video games (specifically looking for them) in hopes that there was some kind of lesser known dream daddy-esque butch dating sim or SOMETHING cute like that and guys the fucking crumbs we have to live on you're actually killing me. im withering away why are there no kissable butches in video games im going to throw up and kill everyone. nobody wants a butch dating sim apparently. im gonna go weep in the fetal position

[mishkakagehishka]

And i can't be the only one who thinks 99% of the representation we get is entirely soulless btw. I can't speak on POC since i'm white, but every time someone tells me "watch this, it has gay people" it's like. Okay. So did they add the gay people because it's marketable now? Did they give the gay people a personality beyond the yass queen stereotype that is suddenly seen as not offensive? Do they have a personality? A character? Or are they just the "gay people" meant to be used as a marketing slogan, a line meant to hook and draw people to stream and give their money to it?

[unityrain24]

WHY AM I CURSED WITH SUCH CREATIVITY BUT THE INABILITY TO CREATE!!

[the-acid-pear]

Something that always pissed me off about DSaF is how it acts like your physical exterior is a moral failing, which is echoed by the characters but only ever reinforced instead of subverted. Biggest L from the writing imo.

[ohsweetflips]

lrb i think something very. interesting. that has cropped up from the push for “good pure moral media” is that it has simultaneously brought the “push for representation” movement—something that is good and should be promoted bc all different types of people should be represented in media, not just the white/cis/het/able-bodied—to this idea that media should at all times be Representative. like maybe it’s just a slight difference but i think a lot abt that post that occasionally goes around that’s like “if ur writing just to check of a series of boxes in representation, ur gonna end up with very flat characters.” like, yes, A Lot of the conversation abt representation also began with a lot of media falling into the trope that the only Black/queer/disabled character was also the villain, which then in turn causes negative associations while also feeding into stereotypes one way or another, so i won’t discredit that. but Now it’s like. how much media upholds itself on “finally being pure representation.” finally showing “good people.” like yes at all times u should be cognizant of Who ur representing and in What way (who is the villain, who is the antagonist, who is being upheld as the good heroic one, etc), but sometimes it just feels like. “everyone in this media has to be good and pure to prove it’s not like degenerative ~other~ media” (op’s note: heavy sarcasm there) or it feels like “if we don’t represent everyone here in a way that is relatable to every viewer and if they are not all good and pure then we will be torn apart.” which then feeds into the concept of “relatability” which, again, i feel like used to be about how like. you can relate to a character even if they are not like you (which tbh i believe that you shouldn’t have to relate to a character at all to enjoy and understand a story but i digress bc the main point and this one are not mutually exclusive), and now has become a bit. hm. like things are upheld as universally relatable Because of how good and pure it is? and that it Should be relatable and if it isn’t that’s Your problem.” or the even more fun “why are you consuming this media if you don’t relate to it/the characters aren’t like you” because apparently fiction is made solely so you can relate to it and not because it’s art that can be, yes, related to, but also appreciated and understood without needing to point at it and be like “that guy is like me.”

which is all to say i think more people need to read more books where the characters you love do stuff that makes you say “hey that’s fucked up.” and then you realize you still love the character and it does not change your Real Person Morals because you have come to the realization that the books you are reading as an adult are meant to entertain and are not the same as the books you read when you were five years old (you know, the ones that were meant to teach you that lying is bad and hitting people is wrong).

which is all to say (part two) that we should also not go completely opposite end of the spectrum bc that is how we cycle back to “””coincidentally””” making the only minority character the villain and perpetuating stereotypes left and right. so maybe there’s a nice middle ground.

[raazberry]

my relationship with my own art changed drastically once i recognised the inherent awesomeness of "bad" art.... like wow. there is meaning in every little thing, whether it's aesthetically pleasing or not, whether it strives to have meaning or not. that's insane

[cleoselene]

here I am, trying to get people to care about a Senate race that is only 4 points apart at the moment but the national media refuses to act like it's competitive

look, I am under NO illusions about what Florida is. I am not here to tell you it's full of the best most well-meaning people who by-golly-goshdarn-shucks have the misfortune of living under Republicans, because that picture of the South is pretty rosy for reals. It's gotten more deeply Southern culturally in the last two decades especially. The Florida of my teen years when Lawton Chiles was governor feels like a very distant memory.

But look: Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is a GREAT candidate. You know how Tim Walz is being praised for representing a quintessential midwesterner? Mucarsel-Powell is a quintessential Floridian, in that she's an immigrant and a Latina and she's very smart and accomplished. That is the best of Florida that so rarely gets represented, or gets twisted in representation to ghouls like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz whose families are Cuban conservative. Rick Scott is one of the most unpopular members of the Senate.

Ron Desantis has gone too far in this state, warping our education, our human rights, our very freedom of speech, and he's done NOTHING to fix runaway housing and home insurance costs in a state that is acutely aware of climate change.

Abortion is on the ballot. So is legal weed. I am by no means saying I think Harris will carry the state, but there's SO MUCH that is really important on the ballot for me beyond that AND including it. But it's one of those funky years where turnout for the good guys will probably be higher because of the ballot initiatives and there's a lot of angry moderates in this state pissed about what Desantis did to education. So. Please consider sharing and spreading the word that there's a really important and more to the point: COMPETITIVE senate race in Florida. But if we ignore it, neglect it, don't spread the buzz and don't donate, then Florida just becomes another self-fulfilling prophecy.

[juchily]

its a stupid show about cannibalism and women where the women don't have visible body hair and their hair roots and makeup (looking at Nat...) aren't doing how reality realities.

I like the girls and everyone more than anything but they are such horrible people, every last one of them past and present may we please not treat them as pookies who arent responsible it haven't done bad things (doing bad things inst necessarily bad, at anytime a person is going to do a bad thing, that's life, it matters if they own up to it and learn from it and the girls have not...) and I get it, the memes are funny, misty is a poodle sweety cutie pie who's done nothing wrong and totally hasn't drugged a bunch of people, lottie is a sweet deer eyed baby who totally doesn't have self worth issues and problems with self sacrifice, self harm, and totally didn't start the hunting thing as well as saed travis and almost had him murdered

This is still and adult show and no matter who may watch it (I'm in highschool, not even necessarily what some people may consider a young adult), we must treat it with nuance and care as well

PSA to everyone in this fandom before YJ goes on Netflix, season 3 comes out, and we inevitably gain some new people: LET PEOPLE ENJOY THIS SHOW. Let people be shippers, deer Lottie and raccoon Nat people, shitposters, Travis or Misty haters or lovers, deep scholarly analyzers, fanfic and smut writers, gif makers, ETC. People are allowed to have any opinion they want about this show as long as it’s not harmful to other people. If you don’t like it literally all you have to do is ignore it. We don’t all have to agree on everything, that’s what makes it fun. It’s good to have different perspectives, just be nice to each other.

And it’s not that serious, IT’S👏A👏FUCKING👏TV👏SHOW👏

[renthony]

In Defense of Shitty Queer Art

Queer art has a long history of being censored and sidelined. In 1895, Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray was used as evidence in the author’s sodomy trials. From the 1930s to the 1960s, the American Hays Code prohibited depictions of queerness in film, defining it as “sex perversion.” In 2020, the book Steven Universe: End of an Era by Chris McDonnell confirmed that Rebecca Sugar’s insistence on including a sapphic wedding in the show is what triggered its cancellation by Cartoon Network. According to the American Library Association, of the top ten most challenged books in 2023, seven were targeted for their queer content. Across time, place, and medium, queer art has been ruthlessly targeted by censors and protesters, and at times it seems there might be no end in sight.

So why, then, are queer spaces so viciously critical of queer art?

Name any piece of moderately-well-known queer media, and you can find immense, vitriolic discourse surrounding it. Audiences debate whether queer media is good representation, bad representation, or whether it’s otherwise too problematic to engage with. Artists are picked apart under a microscope to make sure their morals are pure enough and their identities queer enough. Every minor fault—real or perceived—is compiled in discourse dossiers and spread around online. Lines are drawn, and callout posts are made against those who get too close to “problematic art.”

Modern examples abound, such as the TV show Steven Universe, the video game Dream Daddy, or the webcomic Boyfriends, but it’s far from a new phenomenon. In his book Hi Honey, I’m Homo!, queer pop culture analyst Matt Baume writes about an example from the 1970s, where the ABC sitcom titled Soap was protested by homophobes and queer audiences alike—before a single episode of the show ever aired. Audiences didn’t wait to actually watch the show before passing judgment and writing protest letters.

After so many years starved for positive representation, it’s understandable for queer audiences to crave depictions where we’re treated well. It’s exhausting to only ever see the same tired gay tropes and subtext, and queer audiences deserve more. Yet the way to more, better, varied representation is not to insist on perfection. The pursuit of perfection is poison in art, and it’s no different when that art happens to be queer.

When the pool of queer art is so limited, it feels horrible when a piece of queer art doesn’t live up to expectations. Even if the representation is technically good, it’s disappointing to get excited for a queer story only for that story to underwhelm and frustrate you.

But the world needs that disappointing art. It needs mediocre art. It even needs the bad art. The world needs to reach a point where queer artists can fearlessly make a mess, because if queer artists can only strive for perfection, the less art they can make. They may eventually produce a masterpiece, but a single masterpiece is still a drop in the bucket compared to the oceans of censorship. The only way to drown out bigotry and offensive stereotypes created by bigots is to allow queer artists the ability to experiment, learn through making mistakes, and represent their queer truth even if it clashes with someone else’s.

If queer artists aren’t allowed to make garbage, we can never make those masterpieces everyone craves. If queer artists are terrified at all times that their art will be targeted both by bigots and their own queer communities, queer art cannot thrive.

Let queer artists make shitty art. Let allies to queer people try their hand at representation, even if they miss the mark. Let queer art be messy, and let the artists screw up without fear of overblown retribution.

It’s the only way we’ll ever get more queer art.

_

Like this essay? Tip me on Ko-Fi, pledge to my Patreon, or commission an essay on the topic of your choice!