#but seriously people say they want complex and nuanced media but then don't support the complex and nuanced media.

[slightlycomicobsessed]

"we need more complex and irredemable female characters!" yall couldn't even handle Natasha Romanoff

[blitzwhore]

I just saw Blitzø get called Stolas stockholm victim I can't with this fandom anymore😭

😂 As outrageously incorrect and stupid as that take is, I'm going to go on a tangent here. I hope you don't mind.

I think every fandom has annoying people with awfully terrible takes in it. People with zero media literacy. People who hatewatch. People who think they're entitled to the exact show they would've wanted, which has nothing to do with the actual, existing show.

This is especially true for queer media, and especially true for queer cartoons. (Hi, yes. I was active in the Adventure Time, Steven Universe, Voltron, and She-Ra fandoms when those shows were airing, respectively. I've seen some stuff). Some people just can't handle queer cartoons, period. If the queer characters/ships are soft and wholesome, they're infantilising and boring, and if they're complex and nuanced and actually have conflict, they're abusive and problematic. You'll hear the same recycled arguments over and over again. Like, the shit some people are saying about Blitz and Stolas after The Full Moon? Is literally almost word-for-word what they said about Catra and Adora post-season 3 of She-Ra (and even at the end of the show).

Here's the thing, though! Those people and their bad takes are not what I want to think about what I think about a fandom. Those aren't the people I want to call the fans. They don't deserve that title. Not when so many other people are out there dedicating their time to making gifs and art and meta posts, and writing fic, and commenting/reblogging to show support, and sliding into people's DMs to scream and squee together about a thing they love.

At the end of the day, "fandom" is just a lot of people each doing their own thing. Which people you engage with and allow to stay within your line of sight will determine your fandom experience. Fandom can be a huge, convoluted, online space full of people who are constantly arguing with one another and whose takes make you unfathomably angry... Or it can be you and your 5 friends and mutuals who scream gleefully at one another in 2-note posts. You can't control what others post online, but you can control your engagement with it.

How? Well, here's what I personally do to avoid getting upset by people's stupid opinions online:

Filter 'critical' and 'anti' tags (eg. #anti stolitz #anti vivziepop #Helluva Boss critical #HB critical #vivziepop critical). Many people actually do tag their critical posts because they know it's the respectful thing to do!

If I come across a post that has one or more of those tags, obviously, I don't click through to see it under any circumstances.

If I stumble across a stranger's untagged post with hate/criticism that upsets me: I stop reading and BLOCK. Immediately. I don't look back. I don't finish reading. I don't engage. I just block block block. I <3 the block button, seriously.

If I feel my mind reeling from a bad take I just came across: I take a step back, close my phone, breathe, remember life is beautiful sometimes. Go back and watch an episode I really like. Clean my living space a little. Vent about it to a friend (but only if I really need to, because if not, I'd rather not dwell on it).

If I'm starting to feel the need to reply to someone's bad take (directly or via my own post), I instead make the decision to channel that energy into making fandom posts out of love. (I don't do this just with fandom. If I see something transphobic online, I usually react by reblogging a bunch of trans art or trans positivity posts on my main, for example). I like to think of it as putting some positivity out into the world to compensate for the negativity I just saw. So, for example, if I see someone shitting on my blorbo, I may make a silly post just saying how much I love blorbo. Or I'll make (or draft) a post about how interesting I find some of blorbo's actions. Or reblog another person's positive/interesting post about blorbo.

And finally, I stay the hell away from Twitter. Or at least, if I go on Twitter, I try my best to avoid any tweet that has text in it instead of just art. Even the people who have good opinions spend too much time arguing with the people who have bad opinions on there. I don't want to see people's bad takes! No, not even while reading founded and perfectly articulated criticism of those bad takes! So I just limit my time on Twitter. And again, if someone is putting bad takes on my TL (even if it is to counter them), I unfollow and block as needed.

All this to say, yes, it really fucking sucks to read the opinions of people who don't understand and who hate the characters and ships and worlds you love. Gosh it's the worst. But you can curate your fandom experience. You can focus on the things you can control. You have the power to decide if your fandom experience is draining or fun!

And because I don't know how to finish this, here, have a Stolitz kiss to heal you:

We will keep winning and there's nothing the haters can do about it. 😌

[haaawaiianshirt]

A lot of my favorite characters in fiction are bad people. In fact, I'd say absolute shitheels are much more likely to be interesting and developed than the good guys most of the time. I've seen a lot of people, both online and IRL, who act like liking certain characters is a "red flag" or that characters are bad for doing bad things. I see this a lot in anime fanbases as well, where people just have absolutely rabid takes like thinking it's "toxic" to like certain characters, especially ones that display traits that (understandably) really personally hurt and upset people IRL. I feel like some people have a genuine problem with separating fiction from reality. While it's true that fiction almost always has themes that comment on reality in some way, a person's enjoyment of certain aspects of fiction usually doesn't mean an endorsement of said things.

Another thing, you don't have to constantly justify it by saying how much of a bad person they are. You don't have to preface everything you say with some sort of statement of acknowledgement.

hi, I didn’t really know.. how to reply to this? I couldn’t figure out how on earth this related to my original post. I never claimed that anyone was bad or toxic

I’d like to point out again that my argument was just if someone is gonna excuse Billy’s actions in their media analysis they need to be considering why they can’t do the same for Nancy even though a lot of the principles they use to excuse Billy’s much more heinous actions can also be applied to Nancy’s mistakes

is liking or finding a bad character complex’s or interesting a “red flag”? no. is fighting tooth and fucking nail to excuse, ignore, or find noble ulterior motives for canonically horrible actions a “red flag”? personally, yes. (and by red flag I mean like I probably just won’t want to be friends with them lmfao I’m not gonna like claim they’re a horrible person WHICH I have seen Billy stans do)

i don’t really think you are trying to accuse me of not being able to separate fiction from reality in this ask, and I do appreciate your insight. morally gray characters are interesting and good to talk about, but i personally don’t think Billy is one of these characters

and I understand your last point, I know people don’t have to put disclaimers on every post, but I have yet to see someone gracefully accept that their special little guy is, as you said an absolute shitheel, soo..

but anyways, seriously, literally all I’m saying is that if you can excuse the things Billy did because he was 18, or he was dealing with an abusive father, or he didn’t have a support system or whatever, then you can excuse Nancy did (that were, again in my opinion, much more reasonable), for being 16, for literally mourning her best friend, for struggling with misogyny, you know? I’m not calling any real life person bad, I’m just asking for some equal nuance

[mooncrvmbs]

I don't think people really understand the nuance of a situation like this in the light of the current hate agenda against women on social media, partly due to modern pseudofeminism and so called 'humor' disguised as misogyny.

When you put the entirety of this this under an umbrella term and name it 'girl math' it naturally implies that every girl does this. I'm not speaking for all women and I don't know the conditions you were raised in but some of us had to work multiple jobs to support our families and ourselves. The things that you're calling "small things that women enjoy" are a luxury to many. You cannot put those under an umbrella term and name it 'girl math'.

You might have had the privilege of buying whatever you wanted in small portions or big, whichever suited you but some of us didnt. Some of us spent our weekends cooped up in our rooms going through our monthly budget and trying to make ends meet. Just because you had the privilege of doing so, doesn't mean everyone had the same privilege as you.

It's incredibly ignorant of how hard women work to support their families and dreams by saying "Oh women just think making small purchases discretely doesn't feel as expensive as making big purchases at once".

You were privileged enough to grow up in an environment that didn't judge you for making slip ups. But some of us didn't ever get the space to make mistakes and learn from them. We had to get it right the first time. It's extremely misogynistic to put all women under an umbrella term like 'girl math' and make others think women are not capable of understanding basic mathematics and hence make regretful financial decisions for themselves.

Being a woman is not being a kid. You can enjoy whatever you want without making yourself put to be a dumbass. You earned the money. You spend it. No one fucking cares. But blaming it on this phenomenon called 'girl math' as if it's some sort of a mental thing that's already wired into women's heads that make them act like kids when they make financial decisions is just misogyny disguised as feminism.

You're not proving yourself dumb to women. You're proving yourself dumb to the world. When there are women who work in complex STEM fields every single day.

As a math major it's incredibly hurtful when you imply that women tend to make regretful financial decisions for themselves because they don't understand basic math. NOT. ALL. WOMEN.

Stop supporting women in bringing down other women who are working hard day and night to be taken seriously in their respective male dominated STEM fields. We have it hard as it is. Don't make this even harder for us.

No one understands the struggles of being a woman in STEM and being questioned at every single step of your career about your credibility until they face it themselves. Stop generalizing women into an umbrella term that makes them look stupid.

I don't understand why people seem to dislike "Girl Dinner" and "Girl Math" so much.

Like, it's not about girls being unable to take care of themselves or make smart financial decisions. Girl Math is literally just about how under the capitalism small purchases that add up to a large number don't feel as expensive as one large purchase. It's the same phenomenon as being willing to pay $10 for a product but not $8 + $2 shipping. Or spending cash feeling different from spending on a credit card.

Or like why a bunch of people just started talking about how being a bimbo is just quirky sexism.

Yes, women can achieve great things, and they can be smart. We all support women's rights. But we gotta support women's wrongs as well.

After being told that you have to be smart and strong and do everything a man can do or you're a bad feminist and you're setting the movement back fifty years, the ability to just be dumb and carefree feels like taking off a bra.

Yes, women can be smart. But they can be dumb too. We can be weak and dumb and that doesn't make us "bad feminists" or "quirky sexists". It makes us human. And shaming women for their freedom to enjoy their life however they want is counterproductive. Men get to be as dumb as they want without shame, so why is it that when women are the ones who are dumb, you get offended and try to shame them into acting the way you want them to?

We can't have equality until you guys stop shaming women for every little thing they do. We can't have equality if we don't support women's wrongs.

[unnursvanablog]

Vincenzo / kdrama review

This is just my opinions on the kdrama Vincenzo. Thoughts below are pretty much spoiler free, but if there are spoilers, I will put up a spoiler warning first.

It is always fun when any form of media completely surprises you and sweeps you of your feet, and just exceeds all your expectations. With Vincenzo I was expecting something very melodramatic, boring and quite typical legal drama that I would stop watching for a few episodes because I was dying of boredom but what I got was the exact opposite of that. It was so off-kilter.

The drama actually sounds as crazy as it sounds on paper and yet I don't think the description does it justice. Usually, I do not like such makjang type dramas or over the top soap opera style shows, but here it is done with so much humor and skill so instead of getting on my nerves I got this weird mix of soap opera, thriller, and comedy and then a group of weird, flawed and morally gray characters. It is a weird mix, but it works surprisingly well together. There is a good balance between all these different factors, and it makes quite a cohesive story.

Despite all the laughs and the absurdity that the drama throws at us, it never seems as if it is mocking the story or this soap opera world that is had crafted around it. It's more playing with it and really take advantage of it. smart. Because it takes itself quite seriously with it tone, and yet it does not because it's main goal seems to be making the most entertaining story, and achieving that is not easy. It's shows a certain strength within the story and the vision the people behind it had. And that shines quite clearly within the story and makes Vincenzo quite stylish.

The story goes in circles a bit. Sometimes things just seem to happen just because the story needs them to happen just for it to move forward. Some things feel too convenient but the show seems to be very aware of it that you kinda don’t question it too much. It feels wonderfully self-aware of it's genre, which also helps you suspend your disbelief and keeps you thoroughly  entertained while even the most convenient plot points are happening. The story sort of manages to be logical within this small world it has created.

It plays with the soap opera formula and the clichés that comes with those stories and tales of the mafia, to take the story and comedy to another level, making things more exciting, crazier, without making fun of it. It has all done to entertain us or to provoke sort of reaction out of the audience.

But I think it is the characters that really make this show what it is. They are just so fun or interesting! Every single character, whether they are supporting characters or not, have their own quirks and darker sides, although to varying degrees. They are all quite ridiculous and complex in their own way.  

Our hero Vincenzo is more of an anti-hero and even the antagonist gets some nuances and quirks that even if you sort of hated them you also enjoyed watching them. I have personally not enjoyed a villain in a kdrama this much for quite some time. They brought so much tension, drama, and comedy into the show that I was almost more excited to see what they would do more than our protagonist.

The same goes with the supporting cast. I enjoyed every scene, every little side-plot that they had going on, which does not always happen. Sometimes they feel like fillers to extend the story for no good reason, but here the supporting characters get to control both the humor of the episodes but also the heart of the show. They all felt important, flawed, and interesting in their own way. They are not just comic-relief,

The romance in Vincenzo is slow and never takes over much of the story itself, although it is very often lingering in the background and the drama is always alluding to it. However, it is never the center of the drama. It is not the main story or focus, and I have to say for my part I am usually fonder of a slow-burning romance and that really worked well here with everything else going on. I love some good pining and longing because the character does not want to admit that they are in love or have not realized it. And there was more than enough of that in Vincenzo. Both are learning to trust others and become good people. Although no one is really a good person in this show.

Do I feel like the drama could gave allowed Chae Young to save herself a little more instead of always having Vincenzo come and save the day and the drama itself had a tendency to rely a little too much on the charm and the visuals of Song Joongki for my taste. It became a bit too repetitive after a while.

Vincenzo is a style of kdrama that I rarely see. And although it contains many basics of soap opera storytelling and other types of kdramas out there, I feel it does stand out because I have never quite seen this mixture before. No matter what the drama did it was always exciting to see what happened next and it always kept me surprised even though I thought the story went in some circles and brushed over certain things along the way. I never felt like they truly ran out of ideas to entertain me and entertain me it certainly did. It never really dealt all its cards.

Vincenzo is not flawless, but it is a hell of a good time. There is always this tension within it, you kept on wondering what would happen next, what these characters would do. You have no know what is going to happen. There is always a lot going on and so much high drama, such high stakes, yet still always so filled with humor. It was a real roller coaster ride from start to finish. 

Vincenzo grabbed me completely and did not want to let me go until the very end. I have not enjoyed a kdrama and the discussions that took place around this much it for some time now. And that is what I will take from it; it was just pure fun. It was pure entertainment for me.

[writingwithcolor]

I'm a POC who writes mainly white characters but after seeing all the "diversity" posts on this site I'm wondering if I may be subconsciously prejudiced and now I don't know what to do. I feel like I've been doing everything wrong and yet I don't want to change my stories/characters to suit everyone else while not liking them myself.

To Write (or not write) with Diversity

No one can force you to write inclusive stories. Inclusive meaning media that consists of marginalized people, because that is what diversity really is - including people who have always been right there, but have been purposefully left out and erased from the pages of books and scripts. Those who are, when finally represented, are overwhelmingly assigned small, unflattering, and / or stereotypical roles.

Pages like Writing With Color are an offering. Our presence here is for those who choose to write with diversity. We aim to make being inclusive easier because we all believe in the importance of it. But as much as we know how enriching diversity can be, we cannot convince you to do something you don’t necessarily believe in.

Don’t do it because you feel forced

As you mentioned, you’ve read the posts. You know the facts. The decision cannot be forced upon you.  If anything, including diversity out of obligation alone could lead to bad representation. Forcing people to do things without motivation usually means it’ll lack effort, or be done with spite. Trust me when I say marginalized people don’t usually want to see themselves represented by someone who does not want them there. That unwelcome feeling shows. In short: Lack of representation hurts. Bad representation hurts worse.

I only ask that you have accountability.  

Now that you’re aware that your works default to white, you have a choice to make. I think a lot of us grew up reading and writing very white stories - both as PoC and white people - but once you possess the knowledge that things can be different, your next step is a conscious one. You’re not on auto-pilot anymore when you make everyone white (and/or straight, able-bodied, etc). You know better now. Own up to your choices.

So ask yourself: why have I chosen to write without diversity?

I’m afraid to write People of Color. 

Being uncomfortable writing People of Color is a big reason why people stick to writing white people, and only garnish their stories with PoC, if that. White people have long been the default, the everyman. White perspectives are “neutral” to approach. It’s daunting to go from feeling you can portray characters in whatever way you wish to suddenly having the weight of good versus harmful representation on your shoulders.

You don’t want backlash from getting it wrong. You also don’t want to be insensitive to groups. It’s easy to avoid writing them altogether, right? Sure. 

Be aware, though:

You’re making a choice to exclude people out of fear.

Of course, new things are scary. But that’s okay! Courage is the ability to do things that frighten you. Face your fears. Will you shrink away from the challenge, or use it to your advantage?

Let the fear fuel you to do better and to know better. Your concerns about writing PoC can drive you to get the research right in order to best represent people. If your fear is leading to more effort into thoughtful creation, you’re putting it to good use.

Let me tell you right now - you will mess up.

Maybe in small ways, perhaps in a big way. But mistakes will not kick start the apocalypse. Ideally:

Do your research to avoid the most obvious and devastating mistakes from the jump.

Equip yourself with the right beta-reader and sensitivity readers to catch those things. 

Even with errors, your story can be quite enjoyable for people who hardly see themselves represented. Yes, mistakes and all.

As a Black woman bookworm, if you write an exciting story about a Black girl on adventures and falling in love but mention a few questionable things about how she takes care of her hair…I will wince, but it won’t ruin the book for me. I’m willing to overlook some things, for the sake of my enjoyment, and let the author know how I felt about those parts in hopes they can improve.

Say you get something real important wrong. People call you out for it. I suggest you apologize, listen to their critiques, and do better. If possible, pull back the story and re-release when you’ve improved the piece. If that’s not an option, fix it in future works. Getting a finger wagged at you doesn’t mean lock up in fear and never write with diversity again. It means you improve.

Research PoC like you would on any topic:

For comparison’s sake, consider writing People of Color (or any group different from you) like writing other topics you’re unfamiliar with in-depth. 

For example: You may know the basics on Medieval England. The knights, royalty, and so on. But i’m sure there’s a lot of misconceptions mixed in there from television or unreliable sources. 

To write people from this perspective, you would do lots of additional research… right?  

If someone mentioned how you messed up on some of the facts, you would take note and dig into it more for the future…right? 

You might even have more experienced persons check your facts for accuracy beforehand to do the best job possible.

Approach researching PoC in the same way as other topics. There may not be hard facts on how to write an X character, but there are portrayals to avoid with explanations why, and roles people want to see themselves in.

I don’t like to be told what to write.

There’s this misconception that writing with diversity restricts creativity. I get it - there are things you’re being told not to do when writing certain groups. The lists of No’s can get dense. This reflects how poor representation has been for People of Color as there are a number of stereotypical portrayals folks are tired of seeing and has been detrimental to them.

Fiction simply reflects real life: People of Color being viewed through the lens of preconceived notions means being written on with those stereotypes in mind. It is a vicious cycle. Stereotypes are more than an annoyance - they can and do lead to real life consequences.

Being treated like a stereotype lowers our quality of life. Experiencing racism and daily microaggressions has a psychological effect - from insecurity, depression and PTSD - it is serious. (X)

Viewing People of Color by their stereotypes is what makes, say, a Black person who speaks with passion no matter what it’s about (and even if they’ve been wronged) too hostile and “Angry” to take seriously. If anything, they’re now a serious threat. And that’s dangerous for them.

Put yourself in the shoes of the overly typecast.

Think of a time someone misunderstood you. You had a bad day and acted grumpy. Well, being a grump defines who you are now. When asked, people describe you as crabby and humorless. Every new person you meet sees your every action through that lens.

Strangers tiptoe around you, as they can just tell you’re ill-tempered. Peers choose their words carefully, afraid of what might spark your wrath. Your children even inherit the title; teachers discipline them more and take other students’ word over theirs- your kids are snappy, difficult, and known to not play well with others, after all.

Wouldn’t that get old? Wouldn’t you feel it was unfair to be reduced to a label, and that you’re sick of being defined by it? Wouldn’t you have the desire to be seen for who you truly are, and can be? Perhaps you do get grumpy sometimes, which is just being human. You’re so much more than a grouch.

Stereotypes are not creative.

Writing outside of stereotypes open up so many more possibilities. How many times have we seen the Black Best Friend play out in media? You’re not being silenced when readers criticize your sassy sidekick. Your message has been heard, loud and clear - again and again and again. People are upset because it’s not anything new - in fact, it is quite old.  We want multiple portrayals. Why not create something new before you decide to write so closely to how we are always written?

OP said: I don’t want to change my stories/characters to suit everyone else while not liking them myself.

This should not be the case. Avoiding stereotypes has nothing to do with making unlikeable or even perfect characters. Simply make Characters of Color who go beyond stereotypes! Characters who are best friends without being arc-less doormats. Characters who are fierce and emotional and stand for something without being simplified to irrational, hostile, and angry. 

Knowing the difference between stereotype and culture is important, too. Don’t let anyone tell you you’re doing something wrong when their bias means they perceive your character as being stereotypical, or problematic, when they’re not. (See: Stereotyped vs Nuanced Characters and Audience Perception.)  

If anything, writing beyond hard labels leads to complex characters. Writing about new cultures is interesting and can be exciting. 

If you only like your East Asian characters when they’re geniuses or your Black girls when they’re angry without a cause…do some self-reflection. Why do your Characters of Color only seem “right” to you when they are flat, or confined to stereotypes? Why not allow them to be complex humans?

I’m not convinced that representation matters.

Well, representation does matter. A lot. While it has been written on so much, and there being countless studies, statistics, and personal accounts to support this, I would like to mention…

Representation (or lack thereof) lowers self-worth.

Studies show TV boosts the self-esteem of white boys. The confidence of People of Color and girls of all races, on the other hand, decreases when watching TV (X X). 

“If you want to make a human being into a monster, deny them, at the cultural level, any reflection of themselves.” -Junot Diaz

The Racial Empathy Gap.

I want to be brief (too late, right?) so let me just mention another point of research for you: the racial empathy gap. Stereotyped depictions and the limited roles for People of Color are internalized by society, leading to lack of empathy towards People of Color and the enforcement of stereotypes in real time. Lack of empathy actively affects how PoC are treated, such as the belief that Black people experience less pain than others and therefore are misdiagnosed (their illnesses and pain are downplayed) and under treated (X X X). 

Fiction Increases Empathy.

In addition to the racial empathy gap, look into the studies on how fiction improves empathy. For example: reading about vampires increases empathy towards vampires. Imagine what non-stereotyped, marginalized depictions in fiction can do for empathy.  (X, X)

The strength in which people are against representation speaks volumes. 

If representation does not matter, then why are some people so angry when it’s there? Let’s take book to movie depictions: 

A Character of Color depicted as white simply means they were the best actor for the job, according to a vocal presence in social media. 

However, even a verified Character of Color being depicted as such leads to boycotting, accusations of being “Politically-correct”, and wide complaints that they can’t relate to the characters and they are poor actors. Never mind that so many Actors of Color attend prestigious schools only to get so far.

The hypocrisy speaks to a need for more representation, and a prevalent lack of empathy. 

The People Want Diversity!

On a positive note: shows that reflect the real world, aka include diversity, continue to get high ratings despite many obstacles: those who don’t want them there, lack of advertising or inconvenient airtime for shows with diverse leads, the ole bait-and-switch method, and hasty cancellations. Not to mention media simply refusing to be inclusive even when they know “diversity sells” (X X). Gee, I wonder why….

Audiences are more drawn to projects that feature a diverse cast, a new study finds, though mirroring the population in the United States remains a problem.

“Less-diverse product underperforms in the marketplace, and yet it still dominates,” said Ana-Christina Ramón, the report’s co-author and assistant director of the Bunche Center. “This makes no financial sense.” 

-Diversity in Hollywood Pays Off in Ratings and Box Office, New Study Finds

Diversity simply reflects the real world accurately. 

There is nothing forced about diversity. People of Color exist in the real world, go out and about, and have lives. Creators including marginalized people only seems strange because media actively scratches them out as much as possible, pulling the marginalized out of focus to zoom in on white characters. That is what’s unrealistic. 

Ultimately, you, the writer, will write what you want. Just ask yourself why you have decided this is what you want to write. Are you okay with that reason? Despite all the progress that is being made, you’ll blend in just fine with all of the other mostly white books and movies out there. And as people become more conscious and bored with the same stories, we can and will choose to ignore whitewashed media.

The good thing is that there’s so much awareness and activism going on with representation; the path has been paved for you and it is not lonely! 

There are resources out there, and WWC continues to be one of them.

More Reading - Diversity:

Braving Diversity: How to Write Yourself (and others) out of your Story  (An early WWC post quite relevant to you, OP)

Diversity exists in the real world 

The Key to Moving Beyond checklisting is not LESS diversity 

Bad Representation vs Tokenism vs Diversity: just existing without justification like in the real world

How to research your racially/ethnically diverse characters 

–Colette