#both and in and out of a context of fiction

[cripplecharacters]

Hey folks, fully abled writer here! I've got a question about nicknames/descriptive names related to physical differences and abilities. I write a lot of fantasy fiction with differing name and language systems than the real world. I'm also fond of using compound names, such as "Dawnbringer, Hardcutter, Bluemark, Bearhunter, etc." So in a fantasy world where much of this society has given names and clan surnames following a specific theme of strength and durability, I have a character that has both his given name but also a nickname many people call him. This nickname is "Firebrand," and I invented him many years ago when I wasn't very critical of my writing or biases and just wanted a cool-sounding fantasy name. He is is a city guard in a city that is regularly attacked by fantasy animals for plot and environment-related reasons, and as I developed this character more I decided that rather than his original dark edgy backstory where he was called Firebrand because he was tortured, he now gains the name Firebrand because he survived a dragon's fire breath and came out of it with burn scars up his chest neck and arms, particularly on his hands that limits some of his movement and dexterity. I intend to make it clear in the story that it isn't a derogatory name, it's part of their society's theme of having names that signify how people survive things.

He likes the nickname and the meaning it has in his culture, because to him it means he's good at his job and he has survived hard times. Right now, the story is told through third-person P.O.V, and he is primarily referred to in non-dialogue narration as his nickname. In dialogue, he usually introduces himself with his given name and surname, but many people including the rest of the city guards refer to him with the nickname . His family and boyfriend will use either name for him depending on the context and company. At a later point in the story, when he and some others end up in a situation where they are dealing with fairies and the magical rules about giving them your name, his nickname gives him an advantage against the fairy rules.

Is this a reasonable concept at all, or is it all very weird to use an injury and acquired physical difference to identify someone with? Or, if the concept is alright but the name itself is bad, do you have any suggestions for how I might want to come up with a different nickname? I'm thinking if the use of the word "brand" in the nickname has too much of a negative connotation, I could try to replace it with something like "Firehand" or "Firebrave" that might have a clearer positive connotation to readers as well as his in-story society.

And although it's not the purpose of this question, I have been doing research about burn scars and treatment; this blog has been helpful! Since the burns were deep and he has limb tremors and cramps as well as scars, he has exercises and ointments to keep his scarred skin flexible, and he takes care not to take long tasks that will strain his hands with fine motor skills or whatnot. When on duty, his uniform includes gloves and a high collar for protection, but in casual clothing his hands are bare and his clothing doesn't hide his scars unless it's for weather protection. I may come back in the future with more questions about that, but I've determined what I need to start with about the physical effects his injuries have on him.

Thank you, and I hope you're all having a good day!!

Hello!

This sounds fine and pretty cool to me. The most important part is that the name isn't intended to be derogatory and that he actually likes it.

As a different disability-related example, "Wheels" and all its variants is a surprisingly common nickname that wheelchair users use (mostly younger guys). Sometimes you have a few of these dudes in one group and three people look at you when you try to call for one of them, it's just a fun nickname. Could it also be a cartoon-bully level derogatory insult if it was used for a character that hates it? 100%. It's very context dependent.

That's the same sentiment that's crucial here I think. Your character likes it and is proud of it? Go ahead. It makes sense in his cultural background and his nickname falls under a similar naming convention so it fits. I like the mention of how it reminds him that "he has survived hard times", since it's something that I've heard from burn survivors who explain why they choose "survivor" over "victim" to refer to themselves.

To answer your actual question: yes, I think it's a reasonable concept that makes sense in the character's setting. In another context yeah, it could be weird to identify with an acquired physical difference like that, but other people will do it anyway, you could as well make it "yours" and be proud of it, wear it as a positive. I don't think it's something that is an automatic "no" even if kinda weird. I'd go case-by-case and in your character's case it seems great.

As for the actual name, I agree that "brand" does have a negative connotation in English, all the criminal/cattle/label associations are less than ideal. I don't think it's detrimental to the concept like some other potential nicknames could be (looking at all the No-Faces and Half-Faces, which I do think are strictly derogatory) but if changing it to something less loaded wouldn't be an issue I'd probably do that. Both -hand and -brave are pretty awesome (the latter kinda reminds me of a warrior cat name but that's definitely a me problem), since they're either neutral or very positive in their connections.

Personally I care more about the fact that you're researching your character thoroughly, don't think that him being a burn survivor comes with some intrinsic negative traits, nor seem to put him in one of the Four Boxes. That's more important than terminology and vice versa - one could use the most up-to-date correct terms to refer to their OC and still make them into an offensive nightmare with bad execution. It doesn't mean that specific words aren't important but they (generally) aren't what breaks or makes representation that people want to see.

You seem to be doing good: my advice is to rethink the -brand part due to its connotations, and just keep researching as you write him.

Hope this helps,

mod Sasza

[kittymizuki]

something i like about mizuki and rui's interactions is that the first time he addresses her with the suffix "-kun" when he's asking about her name? but in every instance after this, he drops it even though he uses it to address /literally everyone/ (including the cis girls, he calls nene "nene-kun" for instance). makes me wonder if mizuki herself voiced her discomfort with it after explaining that she's trans to him or if he picked up on this on his own? either way, i like that he's considerate towards her even if he doesn't fully Get her...

i also love that mizuki here immediately assumes (perhaps a little unfairly towards rui even if it's understandable) that there's some narrativization on rui's end towards her which is rooted in a voyeuristic fascination in her as a person with a unique gendered experience that ties into how she's often treated as an object or an exhibit by everyone? it also makes sense in the context of her genre awareness and performativity bc mizuki is /very/ hypercognizant of tropes and the archetypes she's often forced to occupy?

it's this the expectation of herself as a source of entertainment to others. trans girls often exist in media to be ogled at and othered. she doesn't see reflections of herself in the world. she sees caricatures. so of course she'd assume tht this is what rui wants of her. of course that isn't the case, but trust is so difficult. commodification of transfemininity and transfemininity as performance being widely seen as a source of entertainment and comedy are things that are very normalized in pop culture and media… even when trans girls aren't treated as jokes, they merely exist to reinforce the femininity of cis girls as innately more authentic. this is something mizuki absolutely knows considering her genre awareness and how much she loves to engage with fiction, but i think it's also interesting that in the context of her relationship with the other girls in niigo there's this conflict taking place in terms of being the manic pixie dream girl who purposefully elevates the cis girls by setting the stage for them and helping them address their problems (she does this in carnation recollection, mirage of light, our escape for survival and many other instances) versus using them to affirm her own femininity … we see this the most with ena, but i think this is present with mafuyu too especially in the way she represents mizuki's hope.

mizuki's introduction to the other girls in person also establishes that she's very openly genre savvy and goes out of her way to point out narrative conventions of 'isekai stories' and other media tropes relating to her social situations in a way that feels very deliberate as a parallel to being cognizant of societal prejudices and gender constructs and the way they're sustained through pop culture so she has to co-opt them for her own benefit bc so much of mizu1 is about mizuki using fiction and horror stories as a medium through which she can engage with herself and the other girl but i think this is meaningful insofar as it tells us that mizuki always understood how abuse and misogyny work bc it's been her experience for her entire life… it's interesting that she's one of the few characters in the cast that's an active Anime Fan (ie, going out to try and get merch, tickets, the soundtracks, etc), but the expression around it is /very much/ like trans culture, like how a girl is engaged with things. it isn't about figures or being the ultimate oshi, she enjoys the characters, she enjoys what goes into the creation, she's engaged with how she relates to characters over them being "attractive." there's so much… about her and her genre awareness and also her social awareness… it feels very special bc very few stories go out of their way to acknowledge the fact that trans girls are usually the demographic with so much perspective on women's issues, both bc of their own lived experience and bc they feel like they /have/ to be knowledgeable to prove their own abuse and make up for the taking up so much space in women's spaces? it's motivated by internalized guilt but it's also out of a genuine desire to connect with women and womanhood … so many anime fandoms are often sustained by trans girls and that's something i always notice whenever i'm on twitter or tumblr? magical girl and idol series fan spaces are always occupied by trans girls and the same can be said for things like gundam? mizuki is the type of trans girl who's more into the former than latter but it's still important to note, and it makes me wonder how much of an overlap there is between how that works in english speaking fandoms and japanese ones? i imagine there's a big overlap, but it's still something i'm interested in seeing something more concrete about.

but yeah, the way mizuki is so invested in the process of creation and connecting with the characters very much parallels how she's the MV animator/editor for niigo and how her entire work process is predicated around having an intimate connection with ena's art, kanade's music and mafuyu's lyrics to display them in the best way possible? we know that she was creating edits for her favorite magical girls anime before she joined niigo (and she probably still does in her own time). trans girls often connecting and finding worth in things that cgirls have cast off as childish as well - "i don't need this" versus "this makes me feel like i can have the girlhood i was denied." the lesbian contingent in these spaces is also very strong. i feel that a lot of cgirls get disillusioned and have to come back and address the internalized misogyny around it. magical girls being co-opted by misogynistic otaku also makes it difficult, but it feels broadly meaningful to actually engage with magical girls and how they are genuinely made for young women and even more than that. also the editing … the AMVs and stuff and how it's about fixating on a piece and going through all the clips, closely editing … she's probably rewatched her favorite shows and episodes so often that it's easy for her to think about what she wants to go where. i imagine she would feel self conscious actually sharing her thoughts but also … we know how mizuki is so active in the nightcord chat and how much she fills the space with ena so i wouldn't be surprised. there's a side story where mizuki invites the others out to see a movie bc she doesn't want to watch it alone, she wants someone to exchange thoughts with … it feels so personally driven, this rare chance of hers to … try to show herself to others? she never wants to tell others directly, but through fiction and other things…

mizuki is also a fan of minori but not once does she identify as Anything More than that and of course idols are relevant to mizuki, bc her being Genre Aware extends to anime/manga (specifically magical girls and idols) and films (mainly horror). in the broad context of 'oshi' as a term this is important bc mizuki likes her and thinks she's cool and admires her, but she sees idols as ppl ... she sees girls as ppl.

i also think about mizuki and "loneliness" here in the context of transmisogyny as a system to isolate transfems, to deny them safety and community and solidarity in order to enable everyone else treating them like disposable sex dolls. many ppl will pretend that the idea of transfems being uniquely threatening or predatory is something that came from genuine concerns about sexual safety (especially terfs with their "concerns" about "males in women's spaces") when the truth is that it's a deliberate campaign to convince ppl that transfems don't deserve to be treated as human beings, never mind women, they're degendered objects (aka second class women). ppl aren't /born/ believing that transfems are more dangerous than cis men; nobody independently arrives at this train of thought as much as they're conditioned into it by the patriarchy in order to do their part in maintaining the exploitation of transfems as scapegoats for the sins of cis men even if they're not conscious of it. this just makes them gullible agents of the system.

a huge difference between how 'average' misogyny & transmisogyny operate is isolation. if you're a cis woman who's the subject of constant misogyny, it's still possible to find community within cis women. transmisogynistic oppression goes unnamed, isn't shared by any peers bc transfems rarely know other transfems growing up, and is never called out by anyone even adults. it's true that all systemic violence masquarades as personal violence, but i think this goes doubly so for transmisogyny especially bc the 'mainstream' understanding of transmisogyny even in queer spaces is that it doesn't exist as long as you use a trans woman's correct pronouns or recognize them as women (and even then ppl will always make excuses when they're called out for using they/them and it's not even called transmisogyny; it's just transphobia).

when trans women exist around others they're either reduced to sex objects/freaks or mothers/manic pixie dream girls who take on the brunt of emotional labor in social dynamics, and i think all of this informs mizuki's idea of loneliness here? rui may be well intentioned, but there's an inherent power imbalance between them as a cis guy and a trans girl (even though she's pretransition, it doesn't change this) that contextualizes their isolation and this is something mizuki is obviously bitter about… it's true that her family is supportive and gives her refuge in the form of her own room to retreat back to when the world is too cruel to her, but this is simply not enough when the goal of transmisogyny as an oppressive systemic force is to erase transfems like her from public spaces, which in some part also explains why mizuki feels so insecure about her coping mechanism being avoidance and running away bc it probably feels like she's letting transmisogyny 'win', so to speak? despite how much we see her being treated like an object and an exhibit in incredibly dehumanizing ways as well as all the microaggressions from so many ppl (even the ones who care about her like an and rui) we never see any teachers standing up for her? all they care about is getting her to attend enough so she doesn't have to repeat a year and such, which reads more like they're doing bc it's inconvenient for /themselves/ otherwise to have to deal with her more if she's held back a year. the fact that she tells rui that she hopes he can find friends that he has more in common with than just solitude in response to him trying to tell her that being lonely isn't all that bad is so loaded bc rui is a cis boy, so there's no way he understands the kind of isolation she's had to endure and the fact that he's able to speak positively about isolation understandably makes her bitter for these reasons.

mizuki joking about 'losing' to rui at making friends even though she has "better communication skills" when by that she means that due to her lived experience as a transfem she's had to become very hypercognizant of social norms and conventions in order to mold herself into a very palatable expression of femininity to be accepted by others but her hypersensitivity towards these things still isn't enough and rui can surpass her simply due to the fact that he's a cis guy...

[apoloadonisandnarcissus]

Concerning the "Laws and Customs among the Eldar” chapter in "Morgoth's Ring"

This particular chapter is always brought up when Sauron x Galadriel is being discussed, or even as an argument against “Rings of Power” legitimacy as a Tolkien adaptation, and to “prove” how it’s impossible for Galadriel to have romantic feelings for Halbrand as confirmed by Director and executive producer Charlotte Brändström, because she’s already married to another.

This essay paints a very idillic and romanticized view of Elven marriage, and the Catholic inspiration is very visible here. Everything that’s written is the perfect Catholic marriage and conduct: no premarital sex, no casual sex, monogamy for live, divorce is forbidden, sex is marriage, sex = children, marriage is always out of love and free-will, sex is a sacred bound between two elves, an unique and eternal bound. And so on.

All of this seems very straightforward, except for the part the Tolkien fandom seems to collectively ignore Christopher Tolkien notes on this chapter, where he provides context and explanation for what’s actually written.

The Context

The “Laws and Customs among the Eldar” essay, Christopher tell us, were two manuscripts (one which Tolkien left unfinished), that he arranged as he saw fit and he goes to great lengths in “Morgoth’s Ring” to explain his decision. To him, this essay wasn’t a part of “The Silmarillion”: “There is no indication that it was intended to stand in the text of the Quenta Silmarillion, but there can scarcely be any question that my father did so intend it.” He recognizes, however: “it’s not easy to say from what fictional perspective Laws and Customs among the Eldar was composed”.

As I have explained (p. 199), I have found that the best method of presenting the material is to give at this point the long essay concerning the nature and customs of the Eldar, although of course it cannot be said to be a part of the Quenta Silmarillion.

What’s the problem? Tolkien was on longer alive to either confirm or deny this. If this essay was, indeed, a part of “Quenta Silmarillion”, it means it was written by the Eldar loremasters (like everything that’s written in the mentioned work), and what we have here is a biased account of events.

However, Christopher Tolkien believes this essay is written from the POV of mortal loremasters (Men):

There is a reference to the Elves who linger in Middle-earth 'in these after-days' (p. 223); on the other hand the writer speaks as if the customs of the Noldor were present and observable ('Among the Noldor it may be seen that the making of bread is done mostly by women', p. 214) - though this cannot be pressed. It is clear in any case that it is presented as the work, not of one of the Eldar, but of a Man: the observation about the variety of the names borne by the Eldar, 'which … may to us seem bewildering' (p. 216; found in both texts, in different words) is decisive.

What does this mean? This account is the product of second-hand observation, and probably not the most reliable source of information about Eldar lifestyle (sort of speak). Either way, this essay is either a biased account (Eldar POV) or one born of observation and second-hand information (Men POV).

Christopher does write: “in this account the lives and customs of the Eldar have been considered mainly in their natural courses in days untroubled, and in accordance with their true nature unmarred. But, as has been said, the Eldar did not escape the Shadow upon Arda, that caused both misfortunes and misdeeds to afflict them.”

It must be understood that what has yet been said concerning Eldarin marriage refers to its right course and nature in a world unmarred, or to the manners of those uncorrupted by the Shadow and to days of peace and order. But nothing, as has been said, utterly avoids the Shadow upon Arda or is wholly unmarred, so as to proceed unhindered upon its right courses. In the Elder Days, and in the ages before the Dominion of Men, there were times of great trouble and many griefs and evil chances; and Death afflicted all the Eldar, as it did all other living things in Arda save the Valar only.

Now, this seems to imply that this essay is meant to be interpreted as how the Elves would conduct themselves if they had remained in Valinor (natural course in days of untroubled), and if Morgoth has not corrupted Arda (unmarred). Not how they actually behave in the legendarium.

For Christopher Tolkien, the marriage and the children bits weren’t even the core message of this essay, immortality is, because death (mortality vs. immortality) is one of the major themes of Tolkien work:

[...] all these questions are very secondary to the import of the work itself: a comprehensive (if sometimes obscure, and tantalising in its obscurity) declaration of his thought at that time on fundamental aspects of the nature of the Quendi, distinguishing them from Men: the power of the incarnate fea (spirit) in relation to the body; the 'consuming' of the body by the fea; the destiny of Elvish spirits, ordained by Eru, 'to dwell in Arda for all the life of Arda'; the meaning of death for such beings, and of existence after death; the nature of Elvish re-birth; and the consequences of the Marring of Arda by Melkor.”

And this is why folks need to read Tolkien letters and Christopher Tolkien’s notes and introductions. Otherwise, you won't understand what's actually being said, and what the message is.

And with this context, all the “exceptions” and “contradictions” to this essay in the legendarium became clear and make sense. They aren’t paradoxal, at all. It’s this particular essay that shouldn’t be taken a such face value.

The so-called “Contradictions”

For the sake of the argument, let’s see some examples on the legendarium that contradict this essay.

"Permanent marriage was in accordance with elvish nature, and they never had need of any law to teach this or to enforce it." and "the Eldar wedded once only in life".

We have the exceptional case of Finwë. Interestingly enough, Christopher Tolkien mentions Finwë and Míriel (Feänor parents) in his introduction note to this essay, however it’s not the “re-marrying” bit that strikes him as odd and contradictory to his father writing, but Míriel wanting to die (for real), which is “unnatural” to an Elf. Elves were gifted with immortality by Eru Ilúvatar, and only Him can give or take immortality (not the Valar).

In short, Míriel spent so much for her spirit (fëa) being pregnant and giving birth to Fëanor, she wanted to die. Her spirit left her body (hröa) and went to the Hall of Mandos and she refused to be re-embodied. Afterwards, Finwë was allowed, by the Valar, to marry Indis, and had four children with her (among them was Galadriel’s father, Finarfin). This is only exception of re-marrying and sort of explains why divorce is forbidden among the Eldar because all the Noldor problems are blamed on it.

"Marriage is chiefly of the body, for it is achieved by bodily union, and its first operation is the begetting of the bodies of children".

This implies that the only purpose for Elven sex is to have children. However, Tolkien himself contradicts this view in another work:

"the act of procreation, being of a will and desire shared and indeed controlled by the fëa [soul], was achieved at the speed of other conscious and willful acts of delight or of making. It was one of the acts of chief delight, in process and in memory, in an Elvish life, but its intensity alone provided its importance, not its time or length: it could not have been endured for a great length of time, without disastrous “expense”. But the act of procreation not being one of growth until the union of the seed and being under control off the will does not take long - though it is longer and of more intense delight in Elves than in Men: too intense to be long endured.” "The Nature of Middle-earth"

The “act of procreation not being one of growth until the union of the seed” is a clear reference to “childless sex”; sex where children are not the purpose nor end result of. This seems to indicative that Elves can control whenever they want to reproduce or not. After all, a Elven child is a combination of the will and soul of the two parents, and this is the true “union of souls”.

This might seem a bit bizarre, but maybe the explanation is that Elven-women biology is alike that of mortal women, where reproductive circles exist, and women have a “fertile window”.

[...] her Sindarin name was Galadriel, "for it was the most beautiful of her names, and had been given to her by her lover, Teleporno of the Teleri, whom she wedded later in Beleriand. Unfinished Tales

In his Letter 43, Tolkien somewhat explains what he means by "lover": a man's dealings with women can be purely physical (they cannot really, of course: but I mean he can refuse to take other things into account, to the great damage of his soul (and body) and theirs); or 'friendly'; or can be a 'lover' (engaging and blending all his affections and powers of mind and body in a complex emotion powerfully coloured and energized by 'sex'). So much for the “no premarital sex”…

"seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them [Eldar]."

"But among all these evils there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force; for this was wholly against their nature, and one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos"

Contradicting this, we have the cases of the brothers Celegorm and Curufin (Sons of Fëanor) with Lúthien. Of course, neither of these characters took Lúthien as wife by force, but this episode alone contradicts the “against their nature” bit and how there are no tales of deeds of lust among the Eldar.

In “Lay of Leithian”, Lúthien gets captured by the brothers Celegorm and Curufin. They hold her captive; they seize her and even strip her of her (magical) cloak. By removing Lúthien’s cloak, the brothers are, also, striping her of some of her power, making her vulnerable to them. Celegorm becomes enamored by Lúthien’s beauty and wants to take her as wife by force, by coercing her father, Thingol, into an alliance. She escapes thanks to Huan, the Hound of Valinor, but the brothers would go on to try to seize her, again, but this time she’s already with Beren.

**Trigger warning: mentions of sexual assault**

“The Eldar wedded once only in life, and for love"

"Their families, or houses, were held together by love and a deep feeling for kinship in mind and body."

"But these ceremonies were not rites necessary to marriage […] It was the act of bodily union that achieved marriage, and after which the indissoluble bond was complete."

There’s a tale that contradicts all of this, in the Tolkien legendarium. And that’s the story of Aredhel and Eöl the Dark Elf (“The Silmarillion”, “The Nature of Middle-earth” and “Morgoth’s Ring”).

Aredhel, the “White Lady of Gondolin”, was Fingolfin's daughter, and she lived in Gondolin with her brother Turgon. Gondolin was a isolated kingdom, and Aredhel was an adventurous spirit who felt trapped. One day, she’s granted permission to leave, and she intents to meet with the Sons of Fëanor. Anyway, she eventually gets separated from her escort and finds herself in the dark forest of Nan Elmoth.

In “History of Middle-Earth”, Tolkien writes: “Eöl found Irith, the sister of King Turgon, astray in the wild near his dwelling, and he took her to wife by force: a very wicked deed in the eyes of the Eldar.”

The account in “The Silmarillion” paints a somewhat different picture, even though it recognizes that Eöl used spells to trap Aredhel and force her deeper into the forest, until she arrived at his doorstep: “And when Aredhel, weary with wandering, came at last to his doors, he revealed himself; and he welcomed her, and led her into his house. And there she remained; for Eol took her to wife, and it was long ere any of her kin heard of her again. It is not said that Aredhel was wholly unwilling, nor that her life in Nan Elmoth was hateful to her for many years.”

Some say Tolkien changed his version but this comes from a misunderstanding of what “The Silmarillion” is and how it’s pretty much a case of unreliable narrators. When Tolkien writes that Eöl took Aredhel “to wife by force” is a very clear indication that he raped her (precisely because sex = marriage to the Eldar).

In both cases, Aredhel stays with Eöl (alive), bears him a child (Maeglin), but she escapes back to Gondolin when she gets the chance. The tale ends in tragedy, because Aredhel is impaled by Eöl poisoned javelin.

This tale alone contradicts everything that’s written in the “Laws and Customs among the Eldar” essay, because not only Eöl takes Aredhel as wife by force, but he also isolates her from the world and this entire marriage screams abuse and physiological and physical violence. So much for the idillic Elven married life…

In this story we have even more evidence against the “Eldar customs” essay. After Aredhel escapes, Eöl chases after her, and runs into Curufin, her cousin. Eöl invokes Aredhel’s status as his wife, as means to “get her back”. And Curufin answers this: "Those who steal the daughters of the Noldor and wed them without gift or leave do not gain kinship with their kin.”

Apparently, sex alone is not enough to consider a couple married at the eyes of the Noldor, nor is it a "indissoluble bond". What Curufin is saying is that the Noldor didn't consent to the marriage nor were given any "tribute" (gift), and that Eöl has wronged the Noldor as a whole, not only Aredhel, and he has no "right" to her (even, thought, they have a child together). And this is a very pagan way of thinking (probably from the germanic inspiration Tolkien used for his lore), and contradicts the Catholic views of the "Eldar customs" essay.

The “love eternal” and “Elves are emotionally monogamous for life" is a fandom headcanon. There’s no textual evidence of this, not even in the “Laws and Customs among the Eldar” essay. When Tolkien writes “indissoluble” it means there is no divorce, the couple is stuck together forever, never mind how they’ll eventually feel about each other in the future.  In “The Nature of Middle-earth", Tolkien does write Elven couples outgrow their “sexual needs” after children are born and devote themselves to other intellectual pursuits, and usually lead separate lives.

[starcloud-nova]

i actually think i’m a little obsessed with time loops

[wonder-worker]

Wild how we know that Elizabeth Woodville was officially appointed to royal councils in her own right during her husband’s reign and fortified the Tower of London in preparation of a siege while 8-months pregnant and had forces gathering at Westminster “in the queen’s name” in 1483 – only for NONE of these things to be even included, let alone explored, in the vast majority of scholarship and historical novels involving her.

[kyliafanfiction]

I sometimes feel like characters who do truly monstrous things while also having been victims of some pretty insane shit themselves are sort of an exercise in empathy. Or at least, should be seen as such.

Like, in real life, if a person who has been horribly broken by their experiences and failed by society than proceeds to rape someone - it's hard to feel the justifiable sympathy/empathy for that person (without excusing their rape, never do that) because well, you can look at this actual human person they hurt, or worse, and it feels gross and disrespectful to the rape victim.

And this is understandable. (And applies to more than just rapists/rape victims of course, that's just the most visceral one and thus picked for that reason)

But a fictional rape victim is... fictional. You can't 'disrespect' their trauma, and while obviously rape/whatever else is real, and people may related to the rape victim and thus see your comments about the rapist also being a victim as somehow being about their experience...

Well, it's not.

Because the rapist here, didn't actually hurt a real person. Fictional characters are objects. They're objects that often grab us by the throat and refuse to leave our fucking heads, yes, but they're objects. They are tools used by writers to tell a story, and readers to tell a story.

And one of the things fictional characters are good for is allowing us to consider experiences we never had, and imagine ourselves in other circumstances and lives. (Also just fun and fascinating and interesting to watch their stories).

It's very easy to feel for the rape victim in fiction, and rightly so. That's Level 1 Empathy there. Granted, some people IRL fail that, but that's not really what we're talking about here.

Advanced Empathy, hard Empathy is feeling for the rapist. Not for the rape, of course, even if they feel guilt about it, but if someone really was failed on multiple levels and was broken and damaged and went through the sort of psychological wringer that would leave most of us here on tumblr catatonic - they do deserve the same Empathy any human (any person) who went through all that.

Even after they also do the bad thing, critically they still deserve Empathy. And that is fucking hard. I very often have a hard time feeling bad for truly awful people who also deserve empathy and sympathy, real and even fictional (despite all this, yeah, I'm not perfect on this) for what they (separately) went through.

It also becomes even harder when what they went through is utterly bound up with what they did. How what they went through and experiences is in part responsible for what they did - because they still made a choice. The circumstances may have left them not in their right mind, may have left them feeling without choice, may have driven them to things they normally might not think of or do, but they still chose to do that bad thing. And that's not okay. They still hurt someone.

And yet - one cannot remove the action from the circumstances. So you can still feel empathy, and elucidate all the factors and circumstances as to what led up to their choices and why, and it doesn't change that they did the horrible thing. The rape, or the murders, or whatever.

But circling back - with a fictional character... they didn't hurt a real person. There's no one who is real that suffered. The things the character did IRL are bad because they hurt real people.

So you're not being disrespectful to the victim by feeling that empathy, or sympathy. By exploring the things that they were a victim for. Even by wanting to focus on those things - fictional characters should be compelling in all their aspects, if they're written well.

And yet, of course, if you do that empathy and do talk about what the bad person went through and all that context, people come at you. They call you evil, just as bad as the (again, fictional) character, or they say that you're treading dangerously close to the arguments people use to defend the real people who do these things in real life. Or you're disrespecting all the victims of these crimes IRL. Especially of course, if the person coming at you has a reason this comes close to home.

But again - fictional.

In an ideal world, we'd all feel sympathy and empathy when it's called for, regardless of what the person did. Even the worst most monstrous people deserve human treatment in prison. And if you don't have empathy, that's hard. Even if you do have empathy, that's hard.

So if you look at a fictional character (who doesn't hurt a real person by virtue of being fictional) that does horrible, vile things, but went through so much, and you still can't empathize or sympathize with them... I mean, it doesn't make you a bad person, not even close, this is still fiction, and there's people I should empathize with in fiction that I don't, but...

It's still a failure of your ability to be empathetic. And we're all humans. We're all failing at that, among other things, all the time. But... it's good to be aware of that. at least?

At the very least, bear that in mind when other people are talking about that context, and that victimization. And please, for the love of god, don't fucking pretend that the victimization didn't happen, that this person who did do terrible things (in fiction) suddenly didn't also (in fiction) experience awful shit, as if doing a bad thing erases all the bad things done to you.

Again - it doesn't necessarily make you a bad person, but like... the horrible state of prisons in our society is a real, actual problem. The way we as a society dehumanize people who do bad things is a real actual problem for a lot of reasons (not least because it creates an incentive for authority that wants to dehumanize a person or a group to expand the definition of 'did bad things' to make their dehumanization now acceptable, among other things).

So yeah. Fictional character who suffers but than also makes others suffer - that's a useful exercise in Empathy. And doing that doesn't make you or anyone else a bad person, or actually defending the sorts of crimes, IRL or Fictional, that this character did. Contextualizing is not whitewashing, empathy is not erasing, and humanizing is not disrespecting the victim(s).

So yeah, they fictional character did bad things. But there's more to them than that. And you can say but and talk about what comes after but without disrespecting the fictional victim. Because the fictional victim... is just as fictional. Just as not real.

Is it possible for this to end up being taken too far? Yes. But that's a reason to be mindful of yourself when it comes to real people, not to never do it. And when it comes to fictional people - again, fictional. Nobody was actually, really hurt.

(I really do want to make clear, before people read the tags, that this applies to all crimes these sorts of characters do, rape was just picked as the one to use as the example.)

[kasumingo]

"Science showed that there is not much difference with how we react to fictional stories and characters compared to real life and real people" is a take I've seen more than once now and it's something that sounds so objectively untrue

So does anyone has any sources on that?

[fisforfreakyme]

Am I getting old or the constant need from certain groups to make every morally questionable/utter piece of shit character some uwu soft boi with issues is getting really fucking annoying

[sevenangrybees]

Sometimes things bother me

[wpffw]

[clueless1995]

i’m trying to treat chibnall’s era with the same grace i’d give to rtd’s era but some of the Moral Lessons are so beaten over your head it’s insane i feel like i’m watching Play School sometimes

[fastepp]

i need YA to be better written and I need full grown adults to stop recommending me YA. these two things are related.

[chisatowo]

I love nuzlocks you get forced to use pokemon you would never use otherwise (especially in randomizers) and then you can chose out fun naming themes and have a fun little lineup of guys that you may or may not get to use and then there's the horrors

[captainshyguy]

i’ve been watching the great british bake of 2019 with my mum and it cracked my brain open like an egg so i will be insane for like a week probably heads up lol

[the-reblogger-of-headcanons]

Me watching the discourse unfolding by the FE Engage leaks on my hill of absolutely zero fucks

[synonymsforstupidity]

'Kris being an outcast who likes freaking people out means they must be a Bad Person™️ and thus taking their free will and piloting them like a puppet is actually Good™️ morally speaking'

How about I eat your skin how bout that