#because they use the word interchangeably with blorbo

[torchlitinthedesert]

It’s weird how narratives stick around, even after they’ve been debunked. Philip Norman’s Shout!, hugely influential as the first “serious” Beatles bio, is now seen as biased. Norman himself has climbed down, admitting that as a John stan he was unfair to both Paul and George. (I don’t think he’s apologised to Ringo yet, but no doubt that will come when he needs the money and decides to do a Ringo biography.)

So when Norman writes Paul joining the Quarrymen, he’s bitchy about it: carefully deploying quotes to say that Paul was big-headed, he was catty, he bitched about how the others played, he was a Machiavellian plotter. When you compare it to interviews or memoirs from the surviving Quarrymen, it becomes clear that Norman was cherrypicking; they’ve got good and bad things to say about John, Paul, George, and each other, including plenty of positive memories of Paul. I’ve certainly seen posts debunking Norman by comparing sources (or just by giggling over his image of Paul as bossy baby diva.)

But that still frames the early days in Norman’s terms: it’s still asking Precisely How Annoying Was Teenaged Paul McCartney? The story you don’t get, and which is surprisingly rare in Beatle narratives, is this one: Paul joined the Quarrymen, and transformed its musical standards (not least by bringing in George). He joined a ramshackle skiffle group whose lead singer couldn’t tune his guitar and whose two guitarists could only play in banjo chords. Next thing you know, they’re the kind of band whose members will go on multi-bus odysseys across Liverpool in search of a new chord.

Acknowledging that isn’t belittling John. Just the opposite: it shows just how exciting and inspiring he must have been. Paul and George were music nerds, and Liverpool was full of baby skiffle and rock’n’roll groups. They had plenty of other options. But no, John’s was the band they wanted to join. John’s charisma was enough to make Paul rebel against family expectations, and George accept a leader who was quick and slapdash about things that George would devote long, hard hours to getting exactly right. Paul and George’s talent and dedication were enough to make John buckle down and rehearse. And they all thought it was worth it.

It also set up a pattern for how they would work together. Just as they’d sought out that B7 chord, George and Paul went right on exploring new sounds - Indian music for George, electronic music for Paul. And having found them, they offered them to John. So George’s sitar first appears in Norwegian Wood, Paul’s tape loops in Tomorrow Never Knows.

Later still, when John’s insecurities kicked in, he was uncomfortable with that. He insisted to interviewers that he’d written the Norwegian Wood riff, or complained that he should have stuck with his original idea of chanting monks for Tomorrow Never Knows. But again, it doesn’t devalue John to recognise the others’ contributions. It shows how he inspired them, how the Beatles worked as a unit, how they made each other better. (Can you imagine George offering the sitar to Paul first, or Paul suggesting the tape loops made their first appearance on a George song? I can’t.) Ignoring what Paul and George gave John is to ignore a big chunk of what made John special.

Anyway, I’m almost tempted to read Shout!, just to see how often Norman’s spite is a distraction tactic to stop you noticing Paul, George, or Ringo doing something important.

[gleefulpoppet]

I'm a person who rarely speaks up because I have too much social anxiety to do so, however, because this is something I'm very passionate about, I'd like to share a few thoughts. Being submissive does NOT mean someone is weak. Allowing someone to make you feel safe/cared for does not mean you can't take care of yourself or that you are some sort of pushover. True submissiveness is a gift, a willing surrender for a time to find something—whatever that might be for the submissive—and there are a million reasons why they would (safety, peace, mediation, cravings, kink fulfillment, healing, learning, exhaustion from self-berating, recharging, curiosity, stress relief, letting go of overwhelming responsibilities or self-imposed goals of perfectionism). There is so much strength and self-awareness in that. It's stunning to have that much trust.

We shouldn't mistake dominant personalities as 'strong' and able to 'take care of themselves,' sometimes the strongest among us are silently pleading for help. Just as the funniest among us are often the saddest and need our love. It's also time (way past time) to stop using the terms top/bottom interchangeably with dom/sub (personality wise or lifestyle wise). That goes for assigning "those roles" in terms of someone being masculine or feminine as if one of those is tied to either top/bottom or dom/sub exclusively—they aren't! Life is a nuanced dance in a full spectrum of experiences. There is no such thing as a person who is only one thing or the other—especially based on such clunky labels. It exercises our empathy muscles to try to imagine how each blorbo (or someone real in our life) could fit on that vast spectrum in different situations or times in their life.

There are so many misconceptions around this topic, and fanfic is full of horrific examples that perpetuate these stigmatisms and write submissiveness or submissives in cycles of abuse which is NOT what submissiveness is at all. (Insert dissertation) And along those lines, a dom/sub relationship doesn't have to involve "kink" stuff—ever. True, healthy dom/sub relationships are symbiotic and beautiful beyond words. We are all, each of us, a sum of infinite experiences, and will bring our own perspective to viewing our favorite characters, there's no one box on the spectrum we could ever all possibly agree on. And that's amazing, isn't it? It's wonderful, to allow space for all of us to see these blorbos as the rich, complex, miraculous characters they are.

[sideprince]

This ask annoyed me so much I actually googled casting for the series so far and it looks like nothing is confirmed (and floating actors' names may be a tactic on the part of the studio/casting agents/even the actors' agents to put pressure on each other to hire specific people). So far Paapa Essiedu is the only non-white person in the mix - oh, and pro tip: with a quick google search you too can refer to the actor by his name like he's an actual person worthy of basic respect, instead of calling him "this new snape [sic] actor"! However, none of the Marauders have been cast, and likely won't be until they're relevant several seasons in, so this idea of a black Snape being bullied by a group of white kids is hypothetical (and the concern should be about whether that would be handled well or end up being trauma porn, not how it affects the story because the dynamics aren't as different between race and class in that situation as you seem to think). Aside from how bad anon's point is about race and class and their total lack of understanding of British racism, the issues they raise aren't the ones that are concerning.

HBO has a history of white centric shows and tone deafness when it comes to casting and stories. Right now having only one non-white actor in the casting rumor mill has vibes of potential tokenization, but so few cast members have been floated, and none confirmed, that it's too early to tell whether HBO is pulling, well, an HBO. There's nothing wrong with a black man playing Snape, not even in the context of British racism and culture. As an American expat with a degree in cultural studies and media (focus: race and gender studies) who lives in the UK, I can confirm that British classism is absolutely racist, to the point where upper class Brits even looked down on Barack Obama while he was president of the United States because he was black. "Race isnt the same in the uk as it is in the us, its not as big of a deal" is a sentence so unhinged that I couldn't tell you if this was written by an American who doesn't know what they're talking about or a white Brit who is, well, a white Brit. Race isn't the same in the UK as it is in the US, because there's a different history of racism and different manifestations of it, but that doesn't mean it's "not as big of a deal." The Windrush Scandal was literally only 6 years ago. Where black people in the U.S. have to be twice as good and work twice as hard to get half as much credit, black people in the U.K. (nevermind Desi people) have to do the same times three.

Also, if you want to make a point about how class and race aren't interchangeable in the culture that Rowling (boo, hiss) established in the HP books then at least make a well-reasoned argument. Comparing UK and US experiences of racism is not only arbitrary (see: every post ever about the pointlessness of Oppression Olympics), it also requires a lot more thought, informed perspectives, and sources to back up your points than a single paragraph anon ask. Black, brown, and working class Brits experience systemic racism too, and ignoring their struggles so you can throw a fit about your blorbo not being cast according to your particular liking is incredibly disrespectful and ignorant.

The issue of Snape's class wouldn't become racial, because it already is – a thing can't turn into something if it already is that thing. Casting Snape with a black actor wouldn't fundamentally change his story. Not just because race and class are already closely tied in Britain (and would have been in the 60s when Snape was born), but because Snape's race isn't what's potentially problematic here. And potential is really the key word, because we don't enough about what the casting looks like on the whole, or how the story is going to be handled. This conversation depends on diversity of casting and above line crew, like the writers, directors, and producers whose own experiences and perspectives - or lack thereof - will ultimately inform how the story is told.

The real problem is that HBO has a very bad track record with representation. While it's also been a platform for shows like Insecure, it was essentially fortunate for Issa Rae - and the rest of us who are fans of her work - that Awkward Black Girl was doing numbers on YouTube while HBO was getting flack for 'Girls' and its blindingly white cast despite being set in Brooklyn. In short, HBO developed Issa Rae's project into a TV series to save face after being dragged for the white-centric show that broke the camel's back, the camel having had to stand by and watch shows like Sex and the City and Entourage (and Game of Thrones and Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Comeback and Extras and The Sopranos etc. etc. etc. etc. you get it, shows with all white casts) be renewed season after season while black and brown creators got sidelined and overlooked. It's down to Issa Rae's talent and brilliance that she got the control she had over her own show, and good for her. Even so, there's an argument to be made for how the HBO execs' decision to counter accusations of racist programming with a "black show" was basically a way of ghettoizing their programming - they haven't invested nearly enough in developing shows with more balanced representation even when it was called for, and instead created a show they intended for a black audience to stand against a bunch of shows created by and for a white audience. Which was necessary, and Insecure is a brilliant show that, like all great shows, transcends race and tells universally accessible stories through the lens of a specific culture, but nevertheless there's reasonable skepticism of HBO's approach to programming.

The point here is that the network has a questionable approach to diversity at best. The one fair point anon makes is that there's a risk HBO is going to try to cater to an American sensibility with a British show, and that can end up being problematic, tone deaf, and otherwise missing the mark in a number of ways that tokenize racism or, in the case of SWM, can end up being trauma porn. So the execs and producers of this Harry Potter show are very possibly tokenizing Essiedu by offering him the role of Snape, and that approach to telling stories can absolutely be problematic, but the issue is with the approach, not with the actual casting. The problem isn't that there might be a black Snape, because there's nothing inherently problematic about that (and thinking there is makes me question anon's understanding of racism and want to sit them in a corner with some Bell Hooks until they do better). The problem is that the production itself can't be trusted to treat non-white characters in an informed and respectful way, and that the network's track record on tokenization is questionable. Snape doesn't need greasy hair and a hooked nose. Those traits are designed to communicate information about the character in ways that rely on the reader's, or in this case audience's, internalized biases in order to set him up as a foil. They were Rowling's allusions to both the man the character was based on, and the gothic tropes of the dark foreigner who threatens Christian normativity, though she may not have put as much thought into it as projected her own biases. A black actor with kinky, or even nappy hair would communicate the same things to a contemporary audience as Rowling's tropes aim to, along with a characterization that retains Snape purpose as a foil and makes him a strict, imposing figure to a child.

But changing the characters' race doesn't affect the integrity of the story. If the wizarding world has a class-based society, then non-white casting shouldn't affect the tone if it's handled well in the writing, directing, producing, and acting. So again, the real concern is whether the show is able to keep its focus on the story, and not try to pander to what they think the audience wants - but even then the issue isn't that they're trying to be "woke" but rather that we've seen through countless examples that taking a story that isn't about race and trying to insert lessons about racism into it don't tend to work, because they're usually clumsy, uninformed, tone deaf attempts. But that's not because there's anything wrong with the values - the problem is that poor execution can do more harm than good (see, again, trauma porn).

Oh, and anon - please learn correct terminology. A showrunner is the head writer of a show who also has executive producer status. It's inherently a singular role on a given show, so there's no such thing as a show having "showrunners" plural. What your'e thinking of is a team of producers, directors, and writers, ie. people working above the line. The position of showrunner is common in American TV, but not so much in British - and as this show is being filmed in the UK, it likely isn't going to have an American production structure.

All in all, it's clear you don't understand most of what you're talking about anon and are just trying to justify your discomfort with a black actor playing Snape instead of confronting your internalized biases. Interesting, though, isn't it, that in the fandom that loves mixed race Harry and Desi James and black Hermione, black Snape is somehow unacceptable?

i have nothing against black people, the problem with this new snape actor is that casting him would fundamentally change snapes story. the issues of his class would become racial and the bullying and neglect he goes through will also take a racial tone. four white privileged boys tormenting a poor black boy is not a good look. i know your not seeing this as a problem but thats because you dont have the context, race isnt the same in the uk as it is in the us, its not as big of a deal, but CLASS is. the showrunners are probably changing this to help american audiences understand these problems better but why is that even necessary? they could just explain class issues in the show, even if its heavy handed, its better than changing everything which is just lazy writing. also lets not forget that snapes appearance is an important part of how his character is treated by others. he needs greasy hair and a hooked nose, this actor doesnt have that at all, so many scenes wouldnt make sense. i dont understand why everything needs to be so woke, it ruins the characters and the story, just cast the way they were written its not that hard. this isnt a race issue its about the integrity of the story. 

Anon I’m so sorry but I just don’t care enough about this to have this conversation. I can’t justify spending my time arguing about black Snape, I just can’t do it

[1merfairy]

I posted 38,819 times in 2022

19 posts created (0%)

38,800 posts reblogged (100%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@lizluvscupcakes

@galahadwilder

@megamindsupremacy

@yharnamsnewslug

@theriverstyxx

I tagged 1,977 of my posts in 2022

#partial nudity - 225 posts

#mushed rooms my beloved <3 &lt;3 <3 - 200 posts

#toh spoilers - 137 posts

#bugs - 120 posts

#insects - 118 posts

#unreality - 118 posts

#religion - 79 posts

#religion mention - 57 posts

#body horror - 56 posts

#sims 4 cc - 49 posts

Longest Tag: 137 characters

#he tried so hard to be the guy with the gadgets that swoops in and helps villains but he got beat up by batgirl and never lived that down

My Top Posts in 2022:

#5

🦀 time for crab 🦀

today i summoned 170 crabs! look at them!

🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀 🦀

7 notes - Posted April 1, 2022

#4

Me in the morning: Uuuuuhgggggg I'm so borrrrred!!! Nothing is interesting smh

Me at 2:00 am: LOOK AT BLORBO FROM MY SHOWS!!! MY BRAIN IS LIKE SODA IN A PAINT SHAKER THINKING ABOUT MY BLORBOS!!!!!

7 notes - Posted March 21, 2022

#3

Fandom Writing Prompt

You know what would be an interesting crossover au? Wifeswap but with your favorite blorbos. Doesn’t necessarily have to be a housewife-type character, but it would probably make the concept more translatable into a prompt. Maybe it would work best with some kind of mentor/authority figure?

Same general rules as the show. The first week the character that crosses over has to follow the ‘rules’ of the media they’ve been transplanted into. Then, once that week is over, the person that crosses over changes the ‘rules’ and does activities they’d normally do in their source material with the other characters

Bonus points if the physics/other laws of how the world function changes with the rule change. Like jumping off a bridge results in a broken arm, and not a character comically turning into a puddle

Feel free to tag various fandoms in the tags

10 notes - Posted April 28, 2022

#2

17 notes - Posted April 1, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

Anti-Shipper’s way of arguing has a lot of similarities to the alt-right’s “Never Play Defense” style of argument

I was re-watching this video again for the sake of refreshing my memory, and noticed quite a few patterns in the ways I’ve seen antis interact with proshippers.

For one thing, antis have a tendency to place proshippers in the same box as pedophiles and MAPs. You can see this in how they often put these groups in the same bullet points in their DNIs, and use the words interchangeably in their callout posts.

These create mental shortcuts for deciding whether or not to listen to someone. And antis feel justified in making these kinds of shortcuts, because nobody wants to listen to a pedophile, lest they be drawn in by their arguments become some kind of apologist.

Very few left leaning people (at least, in my experience) want to betray survivors by listening to the enemy, and those who have experienced abuse themselves don’t want to become their abusers either.

There is this underlying fear of becoming what they hate most that drives antis to do the things they do. They will do every thing they can to fight against this fear, no matter the cost.

Some of the most passionate and vitriolic antis I’ve seen are survivors of abuse themselves. That doesn’t excuse all the suicide baiting, harassment, and doxxing, of course. Though, it does explain why they are like this.

I know a lot of proshippers on here like to characterize antis as people who can’t tell fiction from reality, and when you get to the more extreme ends of radicalization, that can be true to a certain extent.

At the very end of radicalization, it’s not that they feel like they’re saving the character from whatever ‘problematic’ piece of fiction that was made of that character.

It’s that they believe that the venn diagram between people who enjoy problematic fiction and irl abusers is a circle. Anyone who claims that they’re not irl abusers are either apologists, future abusers, or abusers that haven’t been caught yet.

It doesn’t matter whether they have proof or not. The fact that they like problematic things in fiction is a big enough red flag to (in their minds) justify any kind of harassment, suicide baiting, reports to the police, and doxxing.

This whole mindset plays into the “Never Play Defense” style of argument because antis don’t care how well thought out your argument is. It doesn’t matter how you’ve never hurt anyone irl, becuase in their eyes, you’re already guilty.

They already decided that they’re not going to listen, because they already have this idea in their heads that you’re just trying to manipulate them into falling into a slippery slope that ends with them thinking abuse is okay.

Their harassment has two purposes.

One is catharsis. That feeling of actually doing something to fight against the ‘evil’ in this world, and making the world a safer place for survivors. Of course, that’s not actually what they’re doing, but that’s what it feels like to them.

The other is to indicate to anyone who see the argument that they should put the person being accused into a box as well. They should not take anything the accused says as fact, because they are a pedophile/abuser/other bad thing, and if you give them the benefit of the doubt, then you are an apologist.

When accusations come out, antis take questions about the evidence and any attempts to get the other side of the story as an attack, and in response launch one of their own.

While some may see their screaming and ranting as a sign that they are being suspicious, others may think that the person asking the question was actually asking in bad faith in order to upset the accuser. 

I’m not saying bad faith questions don’t exist, of course. I’m saying that you cannot decide who is right and who is wrong based on emotions alone. To do that, you need a much deeper understanding of logical fallacies than buzzwords you’ve seen floating around on the internet, but that is an essay for another day.

20 notes - Posted February 18, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

[clueingforbeggs]

Anon, add blorbo to your filters and then take your own advice to shut up.

People have said 'talk like an adult' about people saying 'squick' instead of 'trigger'. People use different words because they have different meanings. Sometimes the difference is slight. 'comfort character', 'blorbo' and 'fave' may have similar meanings, and a person may use them all interchangeably, but another person may want the distinction ('Character X is my fave from this show, but I really like character Y too, so they're a blorbo, and something about character Z just comforts me, which I don't get with Y' kind of distinctions).

I'm pretty sure the 'more adult' thing to do is not to find words that are used for distinctions 'childish' because of the way they sound, or to at least just deal with it if you do.

My own, very personal pet peeve: I loathe the word "blorbo" and how so many people absorbed it into their online vocabularies.

No.

Shut up.

Talk like a fucking adult, for god's sake. You're not Charlize Theron in Arrested Development, referring to the doctor as "bubaman." Shut the fuck up.

--