#but those complications (in my opinion) are what make the story queer

[ferronickel]

Thinking bout the time someone yelled at me because they didn't understand butches.

[pinkrosealice]

I really like crossover fanfics and fan art, I really do. However I sometimes feel like some of the most popular fandom crossovers are also ones that perpetually fall into boring and predictable patterns while simultaneously and consistently ignoring/forgetting the most obvious and easy ways two or more fictional properties could be combined or crossed over.

And I think this is nowhere more apparent than the absolute proliferation of Danny Phantom and DC comics content here on this site.

Because you know what, I think there are some really cool and interesting things you could do with placing Danny and company in the world of DC or vice versa. The problem is that overwhelmingly I don't see any of those interesting ideas being done.

It's all the same variation of like three different plot points, all of which are exacerbated in their boring unoriginality and fandom cringiness by the fact that they also almost entirely revolve around the same flanderizations of DC characters that originate from people whose understanding of these comic book characters is entirely based off of watching the Teen Titans and Young Justice cartoons.

I am so so so so tired of seeing the same premise of Danny getting involved with Batman because he's a dark-haired light colored eyed superhero "twink" just like the rest of the male Robins. I'm tired of him getting adopted by Bruce, I'm tired of him being secretly Dick Grayson's long lost relative.

What's even worse is this crossovers frequent demonstration of what I think is the inexcusable sin of unoriginally using John Constantine, a character that I by and large think the vast majority of this website and it's user base just doesn't understand and probably never will. (this is a whole separate rant but the website that at one point had the majority of its user-base obsessed with an imaginary queer interpretation of one of the most aggressively mediocre and dude bro heterosexual paranormal TV shows to have ever existed is one that I think is fundamentally incapable of actually understanding or appreciating a legitimately compelling queer paranormal/urban fantasy character. The website that thinks Cas and & Dean were anything, whether that be a compelling romance, compelling characters or even in a good or enjoyable show, I think are forever incapable of actually understanding John.)

Do I think you could write an interesting story with John Constantine interacting with Danny? Yeah sure but I think that that would be entirely predicated on one's ability to actually write John compellingly, which is a dubious ask in the first place AND regardless it's still the most uninspired and boring interpretation of what you could do with "Danny interacting with one of the supernatural characters of DC"

Here are some actual recommendations for interesting crossovers and universe fusions :

*The fact that people want to have Danny Fenton interact with DC characters and Deadman and Secret are not the characters that immediately come to mind for fic ideas shows I think either the fundamental lack of creativity on the part of people who like this crossover, or just that they really don't know shit about DC comics....... Danny and Boston Brand would play off each other so well both comedically and as potential mentor and mentee. Greta and Danny would be ADORABLE together whether it is just friends or in a shippy dynamic.

* We need stories where Danny is interacting with The Spector, and the lack of them is just plain criminal in my opinion. I really could see a bunch of really cool stories where GhostKing Danny is put into conflict with the Vengeance of God. Or make him team up with The Specter have and have him fight Eclipso.

*we know the DC afterlife is incredibly complicated and interconnected with other mystical realms such as The Dreaming and Hell, maybe explore how that would relate to DP's conception of the Ghost Zone. Danny, Zachary Zatara and Kid Devil's bizarre interdimensional odyssey would be a great fic!

* if one has to put Danny in Gotham for some reason or another have him fight against the Gentleman Ghost, play around with the relationship with the glowing green ectoplasm and the green glowing liquid of the Lazarus Pits, and if you do that you have an excuse to make him interact with Jason Todd if you absolutely can't resist bringing in a member of the Bat family. Remember, Jason has the ability to summon forth magical blades under certain circumstances and as a character who has repeatedly died and come back to life he's the only bat that I think would actually have interesting interactions with Danny.

* but above all if you have to have Danny Phantom and company goes to Gotham as your story premise, I cannot emphasize this enough, HAVE HIM TEAM UP WITH RAGMAN!!!!!! I swear to God, have the snarky Ghost Boy interact with the character whose costume is literally filled with ghosts!!!!!!

*going back to the ectoplasm and Lazarus Pit idea, make Danny an avatar of The Black/ Rot. I would absolutely love to see him have to contend with the likes of Anton Arcane or come into conflict with Swamp Thing and Animal Man. Also having Swamp Thing present in the story would give a far more organic reason as to why John Constantine would be interested in this teenager with ghost powers.

So yeah I would kindly ask the people who are so insistent on producing crossover content of these two fandoms to actually do some interesting ideas.

And incidentally while we're on the subject matter, the fact that so much of Danny Phantom is directly inspired by Spider-Man and yet there's not really a lot of crossover between DP and Marvel properties is really really bizarre to me, especially because this website's user base purports to be such huge appreciators of the Spider-Verse films........

[saphira-approves]

Alright buckle up y’all, I’ve got a book series recommendation and propaganda under the cut for any fans of the Inheritance Cycle.

If you read our beloved farmboy-turned-dragon-rider books and had a particular fondness for: the idea of an order of individuals chosen to be both partner and rider to powerful and beautiful magical creatures; Snowfire; an immortal evil that resurfaces in disguised and unexpected forms (specifically referencing the Draumar cult which we now know had influence in Galbatorix’s rise to power); and/or the juicy juicy drama of complicated parent-child relationships, then oh boy do I have a recommendation for you.

Mercedes Lackey’s Valdemar series, comprising of many, MANY individuals novels, trilogies, and short story anthologies. I don’t currently have a count for the exact total of published books, as I’ve been getting most of these from my local secondhand bookstore, but she’s been publishing these books since 1987 and is still writing them today in 2024.

Since this is such a huge collection, it can be hard to know where to start, so first of all I’d like to assure you that you can start pretty much anywhere, with any of the individual novels or series, so long as you make sure to find the first installment of that series. Personally I started with The Black Gryphon, which seems to be one of the chronologically earliest books; Arrows of the Queen of the Heralds of Valdemar trilogy would also be a good place to start, being the first published Valdemar book, though I haven’t actually read it yet—I only just got my copy today, actually!

At any rate, wherever you start, there’s a lot to look forward to. Lackey has a knack for writing characters with depth and complexity, giving them flaws that are so well balanced by endearments that even at their worst, you can still understand and empathize with them; she absolutely refuses to write idiot-plots, allowing her characters not only to remain consistent with their established characterizations, but also to communicate with each other and allow their relationships to evolve as the characters do. Characters are allowed to make mistakes, be vain and stubborn and prideful, get angry, get jealous, get scared, and yet afterward still be received with love and forgiveness when they apologize. The magic is beautifully described and, at least for me, easy to understand; the schemes are clever, diabolical, and exciting to watch unfold. There is true, pure evil in the villains, and satisfaction in their endings.

There’s also a decent amount of diversity, which may or may not be surprising, depending on what you’ve read of 80s/90s SFF. Of the handful of books I’ve read so far, here are my observations: Lackey writes fantastic and complex women full of depth, emotion, and ingenuity, each as different from each other as their backgrounds would demand. There are several canonically queer characters across the timeline, including a main protagonist. Lackey’s worldbuilding establishes several unique and disparate cultures, drawing clear influence from many non-European real life sources, with featured characters of those cultures given, in my opinion, respectful and appreciative spotlights. There are characters with disabilities, respected both by the narrative and the characters around them. There are also non-human cultures, characters, and protagonists!

As fantastic as I have been finding these books, it would be remiss of me not to add that these books will not be for everyone. They are firmly adult fantasy, and Lackey does not pull her punches when she wants her characters to suffer. There is torture, sexual assault, suicide. Not all of this is graphically described, but some certainly is; most of the graphic stuff I have so far read is of about the same intensity as the torture scenes of Inheritance, but some of the abstractions are much more intense, and I get the sense that some of what I haven’t yet read may be both graphic and visceral. That being said, if you could handle Game of Thrones’ graphic violence and assault but disliked the persistent pessimism of that series, this one might be right up your alley!

Anyway. That’s all from me for now. I’m off to go read about characters bonding with magical creatures somewhat beyond mortal ken and going on fantastic and harrowing magical adventures. :)

[mazzystar24]

how would having buck/eddie be more powerful?? yeah i get that having a queer latino man would be awesome (and i support whatever direction they want to go in w eddie’s sexuality bc i think there’s a lot of options there) but it’s kind of embarrassing that people are making buck’s entire coming out about a ship. a bisexual man coming out in later life has his queer realisation with someone who also came out in later life, they’re both in a line of work that’s pretty “boys club”-esque (as shown by hen and chimney begins episodes, and it’s a shame that hen’s queer identity isn’t recognised enough in the fandom). Buck’s storyline is just as meaningful with or without an endgame of buddie. Tbh I hope they make eddie queer as well but don’t put buddie together because the only way they get together without violating workplace relationship rules is if one of them leaves, which is arguably less meaningful because we lose a main character. Sorry if this comes off as rude but y’all have had your shipping brains on for too long because you can’t recognise how much this means to bisexual fans and it’s honestly exhausting.

Okay gonna address that bottom part first just to clarify real quick that I am in fact a bisexual fan 🫡 so that assumption was 😐

As for the rest:

If you look on my page or my previous asks or anything you’d see that I’m over the moon ecstatic over finally getting bi buck

At no point did I make buck being bi just about his ships, in almost every ask about bucktommy or buddie me and most of the anons are constantly reiterating how much we value canon bi buck even if it wasn’t EXACTLY how we wanted it

At no point in any of my previous posts nor in the ask response that I’m assuming you sent this ask about did I imply that bucks coming out arc is of more value when connected to buddie

The post/ask was about bucktommy as endgame or buddie as endgame and my opinion on it and my opinion is that it would be more powerful and meaningful to have buddie

To answer your question on why- buddie yes have a lot of in common with bucktommy but the thing that makes it for me is that

1. Queer slowburns done right are practically unheard of in the media

2. As you’ve touched on yeah Eddie is a Latino man but also we got to see Eddie grow as a person get into therapy, deal with his issues with his father and being a man of the house, be a widow and raise a son

Can you name a single character who we see on screen go from this all American soldier perfect boy to seeing him breakdown, get therapy understand comp het, fall in love with his best friend and navigate how he balances coming out in his 30s while having very mixed and complicated feelings about his dead wife who I genuinely believe he loved in some way but also having to come out to his son who is bound to have his own complicated feelings about it?

3. We’ve had so much history and so many powerful scenes between these two that to me and many of the fandom nothing can measure up to, like if they do become canon like it would mean a lot because their story and scenes over the years have been so amazing and powerful

4. Theyd be listening to what the fans want/have wanted for years!! That’s huge because so many shows never make characters queer because the fans saw them as it or shipped them and when on those rare occasions they do they take the easy way out and make one half of them queer to get fans to shut up (cough cough a certain cw show)

Also I never trashed on bucktommy because I don’t ick someones yum all I said is i agree and I don’t get those who want them to be endgame and I do make jokes about my own shipping goggles but seriously I am self aware and I do keep being VERY conscious that some may misunderstand me as not valuing bi buck just because we didn’t get buddie when that couldn’t be further from the truth

[talenlee]

What Disgusts Jod?

Hey, you know, in the Locked Tomb, is Jod an ally?

SPOILER WARNING: If you’ve read the books you know this question is deliberately stupid and if you don’t see that sentence and know why it’s funny I asked it, you probably will learn something about the books you didn’t already know. I figure if you’re say, halfway through Harrow the Ninth, you may want to hold off on this question.

CONTENT WARNING: We’re talking about queerness in the universe of the Locked Tomb, which means talking about some of the genocide stuff there.

Okay, so straight up, Jod has sex with two people in the series who have different genders to one another. At the same time. Like, dude makes out with a dude and a girl and then a threesome ensues and it’s just part of the story, because this is a normal book series. Asking if he’s queer is a non-starter, he absolutely is. That’s a given fact.

The thing is, there are plenty of people who aren’t allies. Ally is a term we throw around a lot these days like it’s a category of Near Queer But Not Actually, which I guess it needs because there needed to be a term for people who didn’t want to put on some colours while still flying the flag. You know, a straight person who wants to make it clear they’re not an asshole so they dedicate themselves to the task of Being An Ally or declaring themselves an Ally. It’s a complicated term to relate to because in my opinion, Allyship is not about things you know and do but a position you’re willing to take. ‘Cos like, if you’re an Ally, if you’re in the alliance, then you need to be part of that alliance, and that allliance?

There are a lot of gay guys who aren’t allies. There are a lot of bi guys who aren’t allies, ‘cos allyship is about more than being included in the list of acronyms. Famously, there have been a lot of guys in positions of power in the history of the world who have in fact worked against the alliance because they prefer the power and hate their peer group. Check out Roy Cohn’s story sometime.

The origin point for all this was that I got thinking about models of morality that care about matters of principle versus matters of disgust. Most people make moral judgments off disgust, not because they’re bad people but because it’s a powerful default and our society does a lot to code things it considers unethical as disgusting, and things that aren’t disgusting as not unethical. Employers stealing money from their workers is just a mistake or a misfiling or an oopsie, but workers stealing from their employees are slimy or sneaky or greasy or dirty. They’re probably going to use it to make drug pregnancies or something. From there I thought about the things in the universe of The Locked Tomb that might reflect on what we could deduce that Jod thinks of as disgusting, and it turns out it’s a short list. Jod thinks defying Jod is disgusting and everything else is… y’know, tolerable. We’ll get around to it.

I think it’s interesting to consider then the morality of this necromantic universe is a man shaped by our society, given freedom to operate how he wants, and yet still a creature shaped by his experiences in our world. I think it’s very reasonable to imagine that, originally, Jod wasn’t particularly queer, and that his queerness transpired over time as he faced down an eternal reality stretching out in front of him.

It’s a kind of question about what you think human minds do when confronted with infinity. It’s not uncommon for religious perspectives I’m familiar with to think that there’s a sort of perfected, absolute mind in the core of how your mind functions, and that version of who you are is kind of fundamentally capable of existing timelessly. That’s a vision of the mind that also sees it as disconnected from the material considerations of the meat that makes up our bodies: the idea that in heaven, for example, people aren’t autistic or disabled any more, which is one of those ideas that betrays a concept at the heart of faith where there are certain people and ways people exist that are wrong, and disordered, and need to be cleaned up.

In some cases, this is a thing that works out okay because, y’know, I don’t imagine people who lose legs wouldn’t like to have a leg back, but the idea of a perfectly ordered person that we’re all paperjam prints of is both very Modern Christian, and also, kinda deeply messed up. It’s something that The Locked Tomb even interrogates, with the conception of the soul (a thing that carries a sort of fundamental you-ness that doesn’t even necessarily care about your body), and yet the way that the soul is influenced by the the physical and material elements of the brain (such as the distortions in Harrow’s brain that speak to her schizophrenia, which is connected to the body and not necessarily the soul). I’ve talked about this before, in the way that The Locked Tomb considers dualism. It’s this idea of the soul as a non-bodied version of the person that comes to bear in the conception of how Jod handles being eternal.

How much of Jod is the way he was brought up?

Jod is ten thousand years old, he is ancient beyond human conception, but he is still recognisably and familiarly Just A Dude. Jod is a dude who is endowed by nature with immense importance but by social expectation the role of Guy Who Sucks. By watching Jod in the story, especially how he tries to explain himself and justify the way he did, you know, genocides, it’s clear that there is an attempt to at least project a vision of being An Actual Person, that the eternity of him was still marked in places that may result in being, oh, say, pretty reasonably a 40 year old in the 2020s who maybe at some point was really heavily into Homestuck.

If we assume Jod’s a person and Jod’s able to maintain some sense of continuity of being a person like we’re familiar with them over that lengthy a period of time, then, if there’s an eternity to him, then it’s reasonable to expect that whatever we see of Jod’s sexuality, it’s something that he was always at least a little bit built on there, built on what he was and always thought. Not saying he was always all over the place like that, indeed the only vision we get of his prior life is a bit low on the hot sexy times. Then again, counterpoint, most people who run sex cults don’t describe them as sex cults, because they want to play down the sex cult angle.

Does Jod feel shame like that?

The world Jod runs is pretty creepy and horrifying. It has, functionally, feudalism and lorded monarchy. It’s a place where a replication of the Catholic church stands by to safeguard a monument to his sins, where the greatest force in the universe is all turned on the task of killing the descendents of people he’s mad at, and in the context of the society he shapes and rules, the idea that the Blood of Eden don’t deserve genocide because they’re descended from people, some of whom definitely deserved some murders. The moral framework of Jod’s world is a great example of a fascist state, or what Plato considered as an ideal society overseen by a philosopher-king. The whole of power is filtered up to one person, who considers their job to be the task of being the ruler, and therefore, the whole of the society’s best behaviour is a reflection of that Philosopher King.

And of course, as with anyone else who contemplates this model outside of Plato’s ideal of hey, just always get a good Philosopher king, the whole of The Locked Tomb is about what if you get an eternal Philosopher King who’s a guy who sucks?

This is a world built out of this man’s disgusts. Its hatred of beaurocracy, its distrust of failsafes, its demand of rituals – you know, if people would just do things the way they’re supposed to be done and all of it through an impenetrable fog of what satisfies his emotional perspective. And he wants to fuck people of all sorts of genders, so the world shaped by his wants, his personal reactions to right and wrong, and what power permits him to do and demand. He is allowed to do the things he can do because he has the power to do it and in his society, that attitude of power flows downhill. It’s fascism, even though he’s queer.

Which, you know, this all works out like oh, hey, diversity win, this tyrannical Catholic abomination against all life is a pansexual man of colour! We love, as it were, to see it.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[dearweirdme]

https://www.tumblr.com/dearweirdme/760616416635387904/httpswwwtumblrcomdearweirdme7606129838104903?source=share

I must have been overthinking it a bit... but hear me out.

So for a while I've thought about how some shippers in the kpop fandom( as ironic as this can sound), are really homophobic. They ship two people together but the moment you mention the word "gay" then it's vacuum everywhere. It is clear to me that most of them are just there for fun, aesthetic and fandom buzz or whatever.

But then the Holland situation happened whrn he talked about Taekook...

And this is where I may be yelled at or agreed with but I don't care I wanna voice out my opinion.

The queer people in South Korea fight for their rights there. It is no secret that they are mostly not seen as "humans" nor "free". So I started thinking about them witnessing all those kpop idols being shipped with each other and getting almost crowned for their homosexual behaviors. But then they do the same thing because that's exactly how they live. This is their daily life, they are not doing it for mediaplay or whatever and they get shame for it.

Holland is one of the famous queer people in South Korea. He is kinda known and people support him overseas. It has been reported that he was beat for being himself. And personally my heart broke. I felt like we were going 100 years back into our generations.

So apart from all that I suspected that Holland must have felt a little jealous...? Sorry if it sound hurtful for some of the queer people reading this but this is not my intention.

I've seen only a few clips of his live and honestly he didn't seem well. His eyes were kind of red, he was sitting there eyes half closed. I'm probably overanalizing this but he seemed really off.

We all know idols receive bunch of questions on their lives about other ships. According to him he is been receiving the same questions about Taekook and other ship or even other idols sexuality.

But then look what happened next. This man started saying how we shouldn't ask him ever again about other idols sexuality and that he doesn't know. Amd i agree hig time but then he proceeds to name OUTLOUD taekook. Saying that they are not real and stuffs. I get it if you're fed up but how are you gonna talk about everyone anonymously and then name a ship that you damn well know has a real impact on all this kpop thingy??

Anyway I think he was looking a little too much for fame. He started posting everywhere. And I meant everywhere😂. Tiktok, Twitter and Instagram story. Thats why I couldn't take him seriously. As if he has been waiting to talk about the matter.

You addressed it, cool. We are all gonna do something to change it... but then you complain about it everywhere?? Namedropping stuff and talking about professionalism. Don't make me laugh.

Hi anon! This took me a while, sorry!

I think the way queerness is regarded in SK is just a really tough and complicated situation. To be an out idol and to have to navigate through the entertainment business while constantly being reminded that your sexuality is something that is held against you.. that on one side holds you back from becoming huge, but on the other side gets you attention just for being queer, I think it's really hard and unfair. Holland knows there's idols in the closet. Realistically speaking, there's a lot of idols in the closet even. It doesn't even matter if he knows who those idols are, just knowing they exist and get all the opportunities he doesn't, I think Holland probably feels some sort of way about that.

His situation is different from Tae and Jk though. If I'm not mistaken, Holland was already out when he started to do music (or at least when he started seriously). He basically just didn't get signed with a company and had to therefore work really hard to be able to debut on his own. I suspect Tae and Jk only realized they were queer when they already got signed. They are most likely contractually unable to come out. Had they wanted to come out, they would have had to break their contracts, which would have resulted in millions of debt. On top of that, Hybe would have destroyed any chance of them being able to work in the music industry. Do they have a choice to come out? They can just say the words ofcourse, but they cannot say the words and live happily ever after. We know what scandals can do to people in SK. On top of that, Tae and Jk would have carried the weight of knowing that the other members, as well as their families would all be heavily dammaged because of them coming out. It's unfair, but I don't consider it a fair choice at all.

I don't think Holland said what he said for clout. Seriously, everyone knows you do not mess with army. I think he had a bad reaction, he overstepped, he did not think things through at all. It looked like he tried to do damage control by making that post and saying he should not have said what he said.. but it was truly just a messed up situation.

[user-needs-new-hyperfixation]

Hello, can I ask what do you mean "in canon it's impossible for Sherlock to settle down with a woman"? Like, as a fan of Holmes and always read the books since middle school, I'm kinda confuse here, I don't mean anything negative. Sorry, do you think Poirot (from Agatha Christie) is also queer?

Maybe because I grew up with very religious mother and lived in anti-LGBTQ country, I'm kinda slow in picking up subtext. Like until now I'm still kinda confuse with my friend who have ships from any fandoms (but I still love to hear and read her headcanons or fics about those characters)....

I really agree with you, I've seen many Holmes' adaptations (cartoon, tv series, manga) but Yuumori is clearly the closest to Doyle's works. Do you think the mangaka also love to read Holmes' books?

Story time! (Welcome to "Hyper answers asks like an old lady going on an hour long barely-on-topic tangent at the slightest prompting.)

I totally get where you're coming from, I was raised in like...knockoff Southern Baptist churches. Growing up, homosexuality was presented to me as a sexual perversion incapable of involving real love. It's kind of silly, but it's true: a ship was a big part of changing that for me. I read Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicle as a teenager, and Kurogane and Fai had something that was inescapably romantic and beautiful but never strictly sexual (tho the potential is certainly there). Between that and an online community of LGBTQ+ adults who were incredibly patient and kind towards me even when I was suuuuper ignorant, I started to open up towards queer relationships as...well, just relationships. Relationships that can encompass sex and also encompass love and friendship and communication and partnership and all those other things I'd been taught were exclusive to monogamous straight people. And then, even as terrified as I was, I was eventually able to face the fact that I'd always had crushes on girls just as often as crushes on guys. So yeah, there's a reason Kurofai is my ship of all ships, the actual One True Pairing for me. Because it cracked open a door just enough that I could slowly lever it open the rest of the way. There seem to be quite a lot of anecdotes like this: women enjoying BL/mlm ships is often seen as fetishy (which can certainly be part of it) but for some reason I can't fully articulate it also seems to sometimes be a means for girls and women to explore their own not-straightness.

ANYWAY. SHERLOCK HOLMES. Tbh I'm not gonna go too in-depth because I would bet good money that there are a bunch of scholarly articles on Holmes' queerness. People have probably done their doctorate theses on this! Much smarter and more well-read folks than I have already covered the topic. For me, it really boils down to: he never outright expresses sexual or romantic interest in anyone (we must resist the urge to assume his respect for Irene Adler is romantic just because he is a man and she is a woman). He's almost certainly on the asexual spectrum. But when he does exhibit symptoms one might associate with romantic and/or sexual interest (particularly romantic, imo), it's always towards men (usually Watson, of course). For example, notable flirt John Watson saying that Holmes blushes at his compliments the way a girl does is...suggestive.

The whole thing is complicated by Watson being (in my opinion at least) an unreliable and sometimes downright petty narrator. He keeps going on spiels about Holmes being cold and heartless, only to turn around and describe him greeting his friends warmly and being emotionally moved by music and baby-talking puppies and charming old ladies. It makes Watson sometimes come across as one of those allo people who are so unable to conceive of a life without romantic and/or sexual desire that they start dehumanizing those who don't experience it. Alternatively and maybe more charitably, he just has a big ol' crush on Holmes, is understandably alarmed by it given the time period, and gets bitchy and defensive when he feels it might not be reciprocated.

But ultimately...do I think Arthur Conan Doyle sat down at a desk in the late 19th century/early 20th century and was like "I am going to write some ace queer representation for the tumblr girlies (gn)"? Obviously not. 😅 I do think he might have set out to create a character who very deliberately did not need to have the otherwise almost obligatory straight romantic side-plot. Holmes is never in any way set up as having a life headed towards marriage and children, in spite of how typical that was for the time. The companionship he does express a need and desire for comes in the form of another man. He's "lost without [his] Boswell." He sneakily buys Watson's practice out from under him so he'll be free to move back in and go on more adventures with him. He threatens violence when Watson is hurt. Etc etc. I think it's very fair to interpret it all through a queer lens, the quibble would be more in whether that queerness ever manifests sexually.

I definitely think the Yuumori creators have not only read ACD but also other fiction based on the stories, possibly even including some very old pastiches like this one. I love how seemingly nerdy they are about it haha! The series is full of easter eggs and callouts to other Holmesian works.

As for Poirot, I know very little about the character beyond a few episodes of the show I watched as a young'un, but that is not the mustache of a straight man (I'm joking I'm joking I have absolutely no opinion on that one! 🤣)

Thanks for the ask, and for actually reading this ramble if you got this far! 😅

[alpaca-clouds]

(The concept of) Canon is like an Onion

It has layers.

Okay, I just gotta be the fandom elder here, because there is a thing that is kinda bugging me. And that is the tendency of especially younger fans of stuff to point at all sorts of suplementary material (artbooks, interviews with creators/actors, articles in magazines and what not) and go: "See, my interpretation of this and that is totally canon!"

And the thing is that... it is a bit more complicated than that. Because what is and isn't canon... Well, it is something people argue about a lot. But the general thing is, basically this. Canonicity can have multiple levels - and the top level of it is basically just the text itself.

Like, older fans of the Star Wars Fandom might still remember Lucas' five (or was it even six?) levels of canon. And those were just based on actual stories. It had become a necessity back then just based on the fact that a lot of the extended universe stuff was at times contradictory - even with the stuff that Lucas himself had done. So according to Lucas, the main canon was just the stuff he had been a part of creating. And then there were levels of things going from "most canon" to "least canon" basically.

But yeah, generally speaking: Canon is the information given within a story itself. You can argue about additional story material maybe being canon (like tie in novels to a movie, for example), but generally even those are not... necessarily canon to the main-thing itself.

I know that these days there is this big thing happening of creators just being very, very accessible to fans. So, the temptation is big to tweet or mail or comment on a twitch of your favorite media's creator/your favorite character's actor/whatever and be like: "I have this theory/analysis. Am I right?" Which is... fine. But you also have to keep in mind that stuff that people privately say is not necessarily authoritatively.

As some of the followers of this blog might know: My OG fandom is Digimon. And boy howdy, can I tell you stories about Digimon's "Word of God". Because... look people, if it is not a book, there is not a singular creator. And the people who were in charge of Digimon, had at times very, very differing ideas from each other.

With Digimon Adventure/02 I interviewed several of the writers. And guess what: I at times got opposing opinions from them. And those opinions were also differing from what the producer and the director said in official interviews and sublementary materials (like artbooks or the novelization).

Two examples are Sora's age and Hikari's crest. Sora is shown to have her birthday in movie 2, which is set in March. Given how Japanese school law works, this would make her 10 during the events of Digimon Adventure and 13 during DIgimon Adventure 02 (because the cut-off date is April 1st). According to Reiko Yoshida, who wrote that movie, this is true. According to the producer, however, no actually the movie is set in April, she is 11 during the events of the first season. And the other fun one: What does Hikari's crest of "light" actually mean. We asked five different people involved and got five different answers.

And the big thing is, that you cannot assume that someone, who is engaging with media, does also engage with ALL THE INTERVIEWS and FOLLOW EVERYONE INVOLVED ON SOCIAL MEDIA. Because most people don't.

I see this happening a lot especially in regards to people interpreting the canonicity of ships - and character sexuality.

Let me use an example where I totally agree with the person in question: Isaac from Castlevania. According to his voice actor Isaac is queer. I totally absolutely read the character this way, no question. But... technically it is never confirmed in the text. So if you come away from it not reading him this way, yeah, that is totally understandable. You do not need to know everything every voice actor said.

And if stuff within the actually story itself is kept vague, you cannot just go and say: "Person XY who also was involved in creating media X said this, so this is the only correct opinion." Because if the text does not confirm it, it is not necessarily "canon" and either interpretation is valid.

And if there is multiple entries as source material, also try to think of what people will usually think of, when you say "Fandom X".

Like, to get back at my own fandoms: Yeah, no, most people will not know about the novelization of Digimon Adventure. Most people will also not have played the Wonderswan games (that also at times outright contradict the primary text in form of the anime). Or with Pirates of the Caribbean: Most fans have never read any of the tie-in novels. Heck, most people do not even know they exist. Meanwhile, also a ton of people do not consider movies 4 and 5 canonical to the Gore Verbinski trilogy, given that again those movies outright contradict some of the stuff stated in the trilogy.

What I am trying to say: Canonicity is, if anything, a spectrum, not a binary. So for the love of all the gods, please stop the entire: "Well, the guy who did the storyboards for three of the scenes in this show agrees with me, so I am right," stuff. I know it is tempting (believe me, I KNOW). But... If it is not in the text, other interpretations are valid.

Also, headcanons are always valid. Always.

[aliasrocket]

Re: your Rocket x fox/fox hybrid reader post

I've never written that specifically, so I can't speak for anyone who has, but as someone in the process of writing a fic where Rocket is paired up with an alien that has a mixture of animal characteristics, I personally gave the character those to make them a little more exciting and alien. I still love reading about people's gotg stories and characters/readers portrayed as human or human adjacent, no hate to them, but my personal thought process was, there's a whole galaxy to explore, why not give the character readers are inserting themselves into some inhuman ability or characteristic while keeping their personality as something you could still find in an everyday person.

I mean, as much as I love our collective angsty babygirl, Rocket, a talking cybernetically enhanced raccoon is pretty fantastical. And myself as a Rocket angst enjoyer and having read and loved your therapy fic, I agree that lots of people are probably drawn to the relatability of his mental issues. So, in my opinion, it seems fun to play with a reader character in a similar vein of fantastical yet relatable.

Thanks for sending this ask in and to everyone who responded to that small post asking about the whole fox reader ideal. I got new perspectives that genuinely helped me understand why people enjoy it.

Actually this is something I’ve kinda wanted to talk about fro a while but never really had the means to. And hey, this blog has expressed a wide range of opinions regarding Rocket, so why not?

DISCLAIMER : I will still remind everyone that this is me just sharing MY opinion because I love talking to you guys and sharing our different perspectives. This is not a means to change people’s minds but more so to give a (probably) new perspective to this topic.

I have thought about that for a long time, how complicated reader inserts actually are. They seem like a very simple concept at first but when you’re in fanfic and you have to write a reader insert with a fixed story with a canon character, there important things to consider.

I’m creating headings as I go because I realized my points get rather elaborate and I want you guys to be able to read this post easier.

One. It’s not actually the reader.

The reason they’re called the reader is because you, you reading this, are reading the fic. Nevermind that there are others reading it too. It was made for you, because you came here to imagine being with this character you adore.

And it as much as it may suck, especially for Rocket enjoyers, we aren’t any other species but human. We don’t have wings, we aren’t born with powers or enhanced strength.

But that’s exactly what I love about reader inserts. Even if you are vastly different from the world you’re inserting yourself to, you find a way to insert yourself without having to change what you are. You don’t have to change yourself to be loved by your favorite cast of characters. That, in my opinion, is what fanfic is for.

(But character x nb/trans/male/female/queer/genderqueer/readers or anything of the sort are NOT included in this topic because some of us are actually one of the above, where as none of us are alien/foxes/animals. Probably.)

So, I can’t imagine myself making fox reader fics or even making reader insert fics where the reader is from some other planet because that is no longer me. (I understand that even if the reader is human it technically still isn’t me but we’ll get to that in point two.)

I believe my mindset on this is also influenced by the fact that I want to be a published author later on in my life and I think that if you want to explore other galaxies and other powers and abilities that other lifeforms can have, you can more comfortably do it by making an original character altogether.

my personal alternative : original characters.

Yes, there is stigma around it, but a lot of people have pulled this off well and surprisingly enough, I’m not gonna lie, a lot of the OCs people ship with Rocket are fairly well written. Even the designs are so well put together and blend it perfectly with the gotg universe!

Speaking from experience, it is much easier expanding on those explorations on a character you make rather than an insert because you can make the character your own. Self inserts have to be more general to be able to relate other readers. Yes, you are your own audience. But most of us publish fanfic. To some degree, we do cater to other people as well.

Two. Even then, it is distant.

Even when the reader is human, no amount of generalizing is going to take away the fact that this person probably isn’t like you, even when they are meant to be you.

What I mean by this is that majority of the time, the way the reader acts or thinks or speaks in the fic is probably not the way you would specifically. Some readers in fics are shy, but you could be someone who openly flirts with people you’re interested in. Some readers are sarcastic and blunt but you might prefer to spare people the trouble. You get my point.

This related back to point one in the sense that, writing a reader insert is already in itself distant enough and I think making them a different species is just going to make the reader in the fic even more distant from the actual person reading your fic. The same goes for giving the reader specific abilities or talents and what not.

Conclusion.

In any case, as mentioned previously I still see the appeal in writing readers in a fantastical way because that is also what fiction is for—exploration of the things we cannot normally explore in real life.

And anyway just because I think this way doesn’t mean I don’t read reader inserts like the ones you mentioned because there are a lot of those going around both on ao3 and on tumblr. It’s just a personal preference that I stick to when I write.

[battyaboutbooksreviews]

[ Insta ]

🦇 When the World Tips Over Book Review 🦇

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

❓ #QOTD What's your favorite book about siblings (if you don't have one, you NEED to pick up a book by Jandy Nelson)? 🦇 Years ago, the Fall kids’ father mysteriously disappeared, cracking the family into pieces. Dizzy sees spirits, Miles hides the truth of himself behind the guise of perfectionism, and Wynton is on the brink of fame or self-destruction. When an enigmatic rainbow-haired girl shows up, she tips the Falls’ world over. She might be an angel. Or a saint. Or an ordinary girl. Somehow, she is vital to each of them. But before anyone can figure out who she is, catastrophe strikes, leaving the Falls more broken than ever. And more desperate to be whole. With road trips, rivalries, family curses, love stories within love stories within love stories, and sorrows and joys passed from generation to generation, this is the intricate, luminous tale of a family’s complicated past and present. And only in telling their stories can they hope to rewrite their futures.

💜 Jandy Nelson has done it again, weaving magic into every word while creating an intricate, profound, heart-claiming story of family and love. Each of the Falls siblings is so well-developed, so vivid that the heart-aching loss for their father cries off the page, their passions bleeding color into every chapter. And yet, you can't fully know Dizzy, Miles, or Wynton without seeing them from their siblings' point of view--proving that sometimes, those we love know us better than we know ourselves. This story is told in a seamless blend of present and past, family histories & different perspectives overlapping. I fell in love with each character perhaps in the way they loved one another--Cassidy most of all, whose storytelling is captivating, enthralling, dizzying all at once. The word choice is flawlessly executed, giving each character a heartbeat, every heartbreak leaving fissures in their wake. It was beyond worth waiting a decade for another Jandy Nelson book; a story that has bled so much color into my world as a reminder of what well-written prose and character development can be when a passionate writer is at the helm. Despite this story's generational trauma, the love and joy found between the characters, the LOVE built between moments of pain, transcends all else. It tips over.

💙 There are a few trigger warnings you should be aware of before diving into this tender tale: abandonment, addiction/alcoholism, car accident, death, grief, homophobia, infidelity, mental illness, physical abuse, rape/sexual assault.

🦇 If you read one book I've recommended this year, let it be this one. Let Dizzy, Miles, Wynton, and their angel into your heart. This is not a YA book; it's a would-be classic that transcends time and genre. Recommended for fans of Rainbow Rowell, Casey McQuiston, and Becky Albertalli.

✨ The Vibes ✨ 🎻 Siblings/Family Secrets 🌈 Multiple POVs / Timelines 🍇 Rivalries 🥧 Magical Realism 🪽 Family Curse 🍇 Queer MMC 🌈 Poetic Prose 🎻 Mental Health Rep

🦇 Major thanks to the author @jandy.nelson and publisher @randomhouse @penguinteen for providing an ARC of this book via Netgalley. 🥰 This does not affect my opinion regarding the book. #WhentheWorldTipsOver

💬 Quotes ❝ Their eternity was only each other. ❞ ❝ Her mother...once told Dizzy that it used to be believed a white truffle was made when lightning hit and entered an ordinary mushroom. That’s how Dizzy thought of Wynton— unlike the rest of the ordinary mushrooms like her, he had lightning inside him. ❞ ❝ Deep garnet color, hints of cherries, roses, has you talking to the moon and the moon talking right back, pairs well with heartbreak, makes you feel so in love you might ask strangers to marry. ❞ ❝ He decided this would have to be the one slow dance in the history of humankind that never ended. No matter if asteroids careened down, wars broke out, earthquakes toppled cities, the two of them would still, in a thousand years, be here by this river, in starlight, under the redwood trees, swaying together, more one than two, because he suddenly somehow knew deep in his heart that this girl was the kingdom, and for once in his stupid screwed-up life, he was the one who had the keys. ❞ ❝ And now she’s saying someone named Felix, who drove with her down to Paradise Springs, had called her Scheherazade, the Persian queen in A Thousand and One Nights who saved her own life by telling stories. She says she plans on keeping you alive in the same way— by telling you her story. You hope that means her story is a long one and she’ll stay by your side forever. ❞ ❝ She also writes in a journal. When I ask her what she’s writing, she says she’s trying to crash into infinity with words. ❞ ❝ I never want her to know that a life is an abandoned unfinished story. ❞ ❝ There’s an invisible artery joining the hearts of mothers and daughters through which pain is transferred from one generation to the next. ❞ ❝ She didn’t know what people were supposed to do with the leftover love that no one wanted anymore. ❞ ❝ A real love story is not falling in love once, but again and again through all sorts of incarnations. Theirs was a real love story. ❞ ❝ He was the guy full of voltage and fury, who blew the lids off jars, who walked into a room and electrocuted all present. ❞ ❝ Who knew one kiss could turn someone into a brand-new person? ❞ ❝ I do believe now that when the world tips over, joy spills out with all the sorrow. But you have to look for it. ❞

[noblehouseofgay]

Long fuckig ramble about morals and jkr and all that

It's so complicated like- seeing people with the opinion on hp I used to have vs my current opinion

Bc I used to get annoyed when I'd see any hp stuff. Bc to me it equals unsafe. It meant to me that you don't respect me or my life, as well as a lot of other people's.

But like seeing marauders fans, ik it's the opposite. Obviously this doesn't count for all fans, I steer clear of millennial white women fans, shit scares me.

But I saw someone talking about how it's a red flag to like any of it, and from someone who's been on both sides- i disagree

If you are actively speaking up against jkr and what she stands for, I think you're allowed to enjoy what you want. Especially if it's a fan made thing? Dude she gets no money from that go wild

I just think the internet as a whole needs to remember what nuance is. The internet feels likr a black hole so often and it sucks. I'd much rather have a civil discussion on shit rather than get called a slur and blocked

Anyway I'm rambling. Obviously I still feel some guilt for being a fan of hp. It literally freaks me out sometimes bc its so conflicting with who I am. But I think the fans (queer marauders fans especially) make it what it is. We took what that trash bag of a human made, and turned it into something more accepting

We saw the racism and stereotypes and all the bs, and we gave those characters real traits instead. We gave them real personalities and stories. And I think that's beautiful. Taking something gross and making it better

Tho I do absolutely understand that some people don't agree. Like I said, I had that opinion for- probably 10 ish years of my life? Idk time isn't real

Tho the mental battle I have is exhausting sometimes. Bc I'm trans. I'm literally the thing she targets the most now. I've grown up seeing the antisemitism and the racism and the homophobia from her. And it's fucked up. But I think- the whole "Harry potter fans need to grow up" shit needs to stop. Bc we could say that about any fucking fandom. A fuck ton of movies/stories/etc are considered childish. A lot of those things also have villains that people love. I think we need to acknowledge that while it's fictional, it can do harm, but we can enjoy the fiction if we still stand against the harm

God I have so many thoughts and I just needed to get it out ig

Fr tho "those fans need to grow up" yeah ok go tell it to star wars fans. Or disney fans. Or Marvel fans. Or doctor who fans. Or fucking any other fan. Bc you can have your criticisms, but get a better argument

[rainbowsky]

I just wanted to ask how can one recognise queerbaiting. Is "the Untamed" considered as queerbaiting? Is it more complicated because of China's stance towards anything lgbtq+? Could someone from the lgbtq community, someone who DOES NOT ship ggdd, call them out for queerbaiting? (I myself do not thing they are doing it). Regarding MDZS, danmei books are mostly made for the consumption of hetero girls. I myself identify as a straight girl. Is danmei considered damaging for the lgbtq+ community? How can one celebrate this community "correctly"? What are some books, movies and tv series that you would recommend? I mean no offence! 谢谢你！

Queerbaiting is a complicated topic, especially these days...

(Loooooong post ahead!)

Disclaimer: this is my own perspective on these issues. There are people who disagree with me. Ultimately it's up to everybody to form their own opinions on subjects like this, but these are my thoughts.

Let's start out by talking about what queerbaiting is and isn't.

What is queerbaiting?

Queerbaiting is when someone hints at queer themes or queer representation but never follows through on what's being implied.

It's most frequently understood as being about sexual or romantic relationships (two same-sex characters appearing to flirt or be attracted/in love and never getting together), but it can also apply to other forms of queer representation. For example, a story about bullying in schools that leads audiences to think LGBTQ issues will be a focus, but which never actually addresses those issues at all.

Most people narrow the definition to only include intentional queerbaiting aimed at reeling in LGBTQ audiences - aka a marketing ploy - but I see it in slightly broader terms.

Queerbaiting is heteronormativity in action

To me queerbaiting is the inevitable outcome of heteronormativity. When creators are so steeped in the heterosexual world and in homophobic socialization that they're completely oblivious and indifferent to the thoughts, feelings, experiences, needs and culture of queer audiences, they're going to create works that reflect that disregard. That can happen intentionally or unintentionally, but regardless of intent, the impact is the same.

I see it as a spectrum, where at one end you have creators who are heteronormative and clueless and unintentionally string queer audiences along, and at the other end you have the creators who cynically - sometimes even maliciously - bait queer audiences, with no intention of ever developing the queer subtext into an openly queer story or theme.

Someone at the 'intentional' end of the spectrum has a motive for wanting to bait queer audiences (usually marketing), so they intentionally write ambiguity into certain 'friendships' as a means of creating the perception of a queer story that they know all along isn't queer and will never be fulfilled as queer.

Someone at the 'unintentional' end of the spectrum might be so heteronormative and utterly out of touch with queerness as an aspect of life that they unconsciously block out any consideration for queer audiences or queer storytelling. They assume their audience is straight, and/or that their characters are going to be read as straight because they believe they are presenting them as straight.

Their lack of perspective on or sensitivity toward queer audiences means that they never consider their story from any other angle than the straight one they think they're creating, and that can lead to really unfortunate situations for queer audiences.

For example, a story where the narrative choices create a lot of tension between two same-sex characters in order to make the story more interesting, suspenseful, salacious or even humorous, but then in the end they find opposite-sex partners.

The queer audience gets drawn into that tension and excited about that relationship. It lands on them as an entirely queer storyline - not based on anything they're 'projecting onto the characters' or 'injecting into the story', but solely based on how what they've been presented with resonates with their own life experience. Only to find in the end that, astonishingly, the characters betray their apparent deep love for each other in order to turn to heteronormative lives.

Even though in such a scenario queerness might have been the farthest thing from the creator's mind, for all practical purposes they've strung queer audiences along and toyed with their feelings, only to slap them in the face with a cold dose of heteronormativity in the end.

I also feel that intentional inclusion of openly queer characters and relationships (that are fulfilled as openly queer) can become a weird form of queerbaiting in certain situations.

Sometimes a homophobic or oblivious creator will include overtly queer relationships or characters (because they want the attention and/or respect such inclusion provides them), only to make horrible things happen to those characters and relationships, either because the creator is homophobic, because they have an incredibly shallow understanding of queer relationships and issues, or because they want to sensationalize the suffering of queer people.

This type of 'representation' baits queer audiences into watching and even supporting something that ultimately is cringey and painful at best - brutal, misleading and outright hostile at worst. It is negative representation that has negative impacts on the queer community.

In such cases, there doesn't appear to be any sincere intention to include powerful queer representation, rather there's just a desire to reel in queer audiences or appeal to contemporary audiences with the laziest, most poorly handled stereotypical BS. The creator gets applauded as inclusive when really they don't GAF about queer issues and don't have a clue about queer people or relationships.

Queerbaiting leads to hostile experiences for queer people

Queer/friendly audiences are often bullied, maligned and ridiculed because of their experience of a work

Even when the queerbaiting is unintentional, it can be really destructive to queer audiences.

When a creator doesn't consider how their narrative choices might land on queer audiences, sometimes they are going to land on queer audiences as queer stories. However, those interpretations are almost never seen as legitimate by heteronormative audiences, particularly if the creator comes forward to state their work was never intended to be queer.

This is more serious than just a bit of disappointment or teasing. There are some pretty harsh social/cultural/interpersonal impacts on queer audiences when their interpretation of a relationship is believed to have been 'proved wrong'.

When queer audiences (and I keep saying 'queer audiences', but this also extends to straight LGBTQ-friendly audiences who take interest in the queer story) discuss what they believe to be sexual and/or romantic tension between two same-sex characters, they will often be mocked and attacked by heteronormative audiences.

This can get pretty nasty, to where the queer/friendly audience members are treated as disgusting perverts who are trying to inject something sexual into the story. They're often called out for being twisted or creepy, or for having a 'toxic attitude toward intimacy' (because they supposedly 'can't see two people being close without wanting to see them fuck').

This is because straight relationships are treated as inherently sweet and romantic, while queer relationships are treated as inherently sexual and perverse. The very act of saying, "I think that those two men are into each other" immediately marks the speaker as a creepy perv in the eyes of heteronormative people. (Which is so hateful I feel like my head is going to explode whenever I think about it).

The idea that queer/friendly audiences who are naturally, organically experiencing stories that they encounter as 'queer-coded' are somehow perverse, creepy or cringey is extremely homophobic. I can't possibly say this loudly enough.

This should be obvious to anyone who has ever watched a film or TV series with any straight person, and seen them wax poetic about how they hope certain characters get together. It's a totally normalized, socially acceptable pastime among entertainment fans. Almost never does that person get the side-eye for wanting love to bloom between a man and a woman.

Yet almost every single time a queer/friendly audience does the same exact thing, they're treated as pervy, creepy and cringey, or injecting something sexual into a sweet story.

Why? Because queer relationships are viewed as inherently wrong, creepy, sexual or perverse. More on that here (I'll link this post, like, 50 times here because it's so relevant to this discussion).

Representation is undermined

And I think it's important to consider what queerbaiting - intentional or otherwise - does to queer representation. It's not just a problem of 'not making space for queer stories', it's a problem of reinforcing heteronormativity so that queer stories seem fringe, perverse, unnatural, creepy and/or unrealistic. And this is an inevitable consequence of queerbaiting.

When stories seem to hint at queer relationships but instead the characters 'prove to be straight', that's not just a failure to provide queer representation, it's actually undermining queer representation by showing audiences that these types of relationships are undesirable, unrealistic or imagined. It reinforces the idea that straightness is the 'natural order' of things, and queerness is fringe, obscene and cringey.

When queer/friendly audiences get excited about a relationship or story they feel is queer-coded but then it's 'proved' not to be queer at all, it gives heteronormative people a socially acceptable way to target queer/friendly audiences with heteronormative, homophobic ideas and critiques, and to spread those same critiques to the broader straight world. Rejection of queer interpretations of a story often cross over into functioning as a rejection of queer relationships in general.

So queerbaiting isn't just a harmless prank played on queer audiences, it actually serves to 'confirm' and reinforce bigoted attitudes toward queerness - attitudes that are already deeply embedded in public perception. This can lead to less charitable perceptions of queer people and more hatred and suspicion toward queer people and relationships - the widespread serious negative impacts of which should already be well known.

Ultimately queerbaiting betrays the trust of devoted audiences, and turns the story against them in the end. It also frequently helps to turn heteronormative audiences against those queer/friendly audiences and gives them 'evidence', ammunition and cover to attack queer perspectives.

And it doesn't have to be intentional to have that impact.

What is NOT queerbaiting?

Queerbaiting isn't about individual people or their sexuality. This is one of the most outrageous, toxic things I've ever seen in my life, this notion lately that someone must reveal their sexuality in order to prove that they are worthy of participating in queer themes.

Fiction is fiction, a story that is invented in somebody's mind. Acting is acting, the portrayal of a character that is not oneself. By their very definition, these things can be created by and performed by literally anyone on the planet. Their sexuality doesn't matter, their race or religion doesn't matter, their gender identity doesn't matter.

The idea that somebody is somehow disqualified from performing in a work or creating a work simply because they're not from the same category as those described in the work or role is outrageous and offensive. We are talking about art. Acting is an art, fiction is an art, illustration is an art.

Representation matters, but representation isn't about outing people or about gatekeeping. Representation is about putting queer stories out there, not about shutting many of them down just because they don't tick off every box of 'ideal representation'.

A story should be critiqued and discussed on the merits and impact of that story, not based on the personal characteristics of the individuals creating it or bringing it to life.

Unless a story or cast is shown to be doing actual harm - say, someone playing a gay man who turns out to be deeply homophobic and actively campaigning against gay rights - then I don't think it's something we should be getting twisted up about.

Creative work is about self-discovery. It's a way for people to explore their thoughts and feelings and come to terms with who they are inside. Therefore participating in queer themes is frequently how people figure out that they're queer. Saying, "You aren't allowed to create queer works unless you are a consciously out queer person" would be unjust for that reason alone.

Everyone has the right to explore their creativity. Our evaluations should focus on the work and not on the individual.

Nothing About Us Without Us

However, it's also worthwhile to consider the maxim, "Nothing about us without us." It's a concept that highlights the importance of ensuring that a particular category of people is directly involved in the development of policies that impact them. For example, the development of laws or programs dealing with drug addiction should directly involve drug addicts in that process.

I think it's valuable to apply this concept more broadly in our lives. We could all stand to form our thoughts, feelings and ideas about others based on direct experience with those people, rather than hot takes we form online or via social osmosis.

If we want to create a work of fiction about a character or group from a particular category that we have no direct experience with, we have the option and ability to seek out those people and involve them in the process so that the story we create doesn't stigmatize, offend or marginalize the people we're writing about.

However, I feel strongly that art is art, and that type of approach is a best practice that no one is obligated to undertake. I feel strongly that creativity is a very personal process, and people have the right to explore whatever they want, however they want.

And yes that means running the risk that the work will suffer from major gaps in understanding, might offend or might even unintentionally cause harm, but it's the creator's risk to take and we shouldn't try to curb their process and force it into our value system, approach or guidelines.

There are best practices for handling representation for any marginalized or targeted group, and creators who live by those best practices are to be commended and supported, but there's no obligation for any creator to make representation a focus of their work (just as there is no obligation for marginalized groups to support creators who don't do so).

There are some exceptions, of course. Anything involving public policy, government or official communications, education, official documentation, business and employment situations, etc. etc. should always embody best practices in this regard.

I know there are people who vehemently disagree on all of this, and that's fine. These are complicated, emotionally and politically charged issues and there's a lot of nuance. Ideally we should be evaluating every work based on its own merits and impacts.

Was The Untamed queerbaiting?

I don't believe The Untamed was queerbaiting, not even unintentionally. They actually took great risks to tell as much of a queer story as they possibly could given the restrictions they were working within. And those restrictions have only gotten tighter and tighter. There's no way they could get away with telling the same story in today's climate in China.

The story was based on a BL novel, so it had queerness at its root. It's also clear based on discussions that take place in the BTS between cast and crew that the production was intentionally queer. The director and crew refer to the couple as a couple, refer to 'their love' etc., so it was never meant to be a 'friendship'.

There were many clever devices used to highlight the romance between LWJ and WWX.

One of the smartest was the downplaying of romance between straight characters. We never see a straight couple doing something that we don't also see LWJ and WWX doing. The wedding happens off camera, yet we see LWJ and WWX do their bows on camera. There's never a kiss or any kind of PDA between straight characters, yet we see LWJ and WWX in each other's arms throughout the series.

We also see a gay kiss in the show.

Also straight-up GAY SEX.

Straight characters have a child? No problem, so do LWJ and WWX, and we get to see them together as a family a lot more than we get to see the straight families.

Anyway, I'm not here to outline everything that was done to queer-code the relationship. That would be a whole other post. The main point is, The Untamed is anything but queerbaiting. The intent was there to tell a queer story, and that queer story was told. Exceptionally, beautifully. The fact that they did so under such extreme limitations is to be commended.

Of course it would have been wonderful if we would have been able to see them married and have their relationship be more open than it was, but I have no complaints.

Now, that doesn't mean there isn't potential for some of the problems I outlined earlier to impact some audiences/individuals.

For example, there are people who completely miss the queer subtext and come away thinking it was a friendship story.

That's just part of life. Some people are so steeped in heteronormativity that queerness isn't one of their available interpretations no matter what is shown to them on the screen. Surely you know what I mean. The sort of people who genuinely believe their 60 year old uncle has had the same male 'roommate' for 25 years, who goes everywhere with him and appears in an annual holiday photo-card with him and the dog. 😅

So it's likely that there are queer/friendly viewers out there who do see the queer relationship and end up having those kinds of frustrating, often painful 'you're imagining things' 'you're a pervert' conversations about The Untamed with the heteronormative people around them.

There are also some Western audiences who might feel ripped off that we never actually see their relationship acknowledged openly.

However, that's not something that can be helped. If The Untamed had been even a fraction more overt about things, it would never have passed censorship or seen the light of day (or else it would have been eventually removed from streaming platforms when restrictions were tightened).

We got a beautiful queer love story told as openly as was possible under the circumstances.

But was it unintentional queerbaiting? No. They set out to tell a queer story, and every aspect of the narrative was shaped to tell it as openly as they could.

What are the ethics around BL content and LGBTQ issues?

This couldn't possibly be simpler: Don't be queerphobic.

If you want to consume BL content, if you want to read about men fucking each other, if you enjoy creative works focused around men falling in love and getting married, if your heart swells at the thought of two men being soft for each other, even if you enjoy them doing perverse sexual things to each other, impregnating each other, etc. etc. etc. there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

However, while you're enjoying all that hot guy on guy action, it would behoove you to learn about and support LGBTQ rights, history, issues, etc.

Those are actually two entirely separate things: 1] enjoying gay smut/romance and 2] supporting queer identities. The only reason they ever get mixed up is because of ignorance - either on the part of the audience or on the part of the queer community, or both.

Where queer people fail on this

Queer people are frequently misinformed about the nature of BL, and taught to fear it or view it as exploitative by people who have one or more goals in mind:

Weaponizing the queer community toward shutting down, marginalizing and eliminating BL content. Perversely these people are often motivated by homophobia, yet they're all too happy to mobilize the queer community in trying to eliminate or demonize what they view as deviant queer content.

Spreading and reinforcing misogynistic ideas about BL creators and audiences in an attempt to disempower the (usually female) creators and undermine the often subversive, anti-patriarchal points of view represented in these works. Heck, just the existence of self-published creative works by women for women, just the existence of sexually explicit material by women for women is subversive in pretty much every part of the world. It's not an accident that an entire genre of fiction/literature/art that started out as primarily by women, for women, is treated with such intense hatred, suspicion and moral outrage. As long as BL is treated as fringe and cringe, this massive culture, this massive genre can continue to be marginalized, and these women will be forced to go through male-dominated industries to bring their work to a wider publishing or TV/film audience, and all the profits, power and editorial decisions can be quietly skimmed away from them in the process.

Because most people will accept ideas - especially inflammatory ones - without doing even the most basic analysis, these agendas are easily spread through queer communities, arts and entertainment communities, business and publishing, government, etc. etc. etc.

But I want to make this clear:

There is absolutely nothing queer-friendly or LGBTQ-supportive about attacking or demonizing BL creators and audiences.

Quite the contrary. These attacks actually harm the queer community in the long run, because the popularity of BL has ultimately had an overall positive effect on queer rights. The popularization of these stories has helped normalize queer relationships in the public eye, has brought queer issues into greater focus and discussion, has led to popular BL actors pushing for queer rights, etc. etc. etc.

And let's not forget that - contrary to popular misconception - queer audiences enjoy these works as well. Especially in regions where there's not as much access to queer culture/art/content.

And let's not ignore the fact that many of the creators are queer. Just go back to my point about "What is NOT Queerbaiting?" above for all the reasons why it would be utter BS to try to prevent someone from creating/exploring these works.

So yes, the queer community can be woefully misinformed about the nature of BL.

Where BL audiences fail on this

And as I stated earlier, BL audiences and creators are often also badly misinformed. Many of them labor under their own misconceptions about queerness and about queer relationships. It's not particularly uncommon for someone to be deeply into BL and yet vehemently against queer rights IRL.

However, that doesn't automatically make the work or the genre homophobic or immoral.

Heteronormativity/queerphobia is part of the air we breathe in this world. Every one of us is infected with some incorrect or bad ideas around these issues, it's just inevitable that we will be. BL creators and audiences aren't immune.

But that's not an issue with the genre, it's a societal issue. The only antidote to that is good old-fashioned personal development. Everyone needs to do the work to become more aware, more compassionate and more sensitive to LGBTQ rights and issues. Pulitzer prize winners and everyone who writes for the Wall Street Journal just as much as the authors of BL.

Being better than all that

If you want to 'consume BL ethically', all you need to do is just enjoy it. There's nothing unethical about it.

If you want to 'celebrate the community correctly' then the best thing you can do is become actively informed on queer history, queer issues and queer rights. It's not enough to 'decide' you want to support the community. You have to put your money where your mouth is and learn, and connect with queer people and causes IRL, in your community and around the world.

In the immortal words of David Wong, "What you are inside only matters because of what it makes you do."

It's not enough to feel empathy or concern. You have to put those feelings into action. The starving feral cat population doesn't GAF that you shed a tear for them over your tea this morning. It doesn't give them a meal or rid them of fleas. You have to get out there and put your feelings into real, tangible action or else your feelings aren't much more than a form of self-gratification. They do nothing for anyone except you.

So if you genuinely care about queer people and causes, get out there and do the work. We can always use another pair of hands.

The Death of the Author

Alongside all of this, I'd like to remind everyone to think for themselves and form their own ideas.

I encourage everyone to enjoy art on their own terms and in their own way. Don't get hung up on 'what was intended'. Often intent is not explicit, or explicitly understood even by the creator. People frequently create works that have unexpected or unintended meanings and interpretations. Once a work is out there in the world, it becomes part of the cultural zeitgeist of that era, and will be viewed through that lens.

I think it's also important to remember - because this isn't talked about nearly enough and people are misled on this stuff -

Everyone has their own personal internal experience of creative works, and that experience is always valid.

We each bring our own background of knowledge, life experience, sociocultural conditioning, biases, drives, needs, expectations, thoughts and feelings to every piece of creative work we consume. We see everything through our eyes. It can never be any other way. Even things that are representations of other people's perspectives will be filtered through our own perspectives, and our understanding will be heavily influenced by that.

Therefore, we really shouldn't take other people's perspectives as the yardstick we try to measure our own interpretations by. Rather than pick one perspective (who would choose, and how would they decide which one?) and force everyone into that same box, it's far better and far more enriching to enjoy a broad variety of perspectives, and share and exchange ideas openly with others.

Ultimately a creator's intentions are just another interpretation of the work. They come through the same biases and expectations and influences as everyone else.

Creative works show a lot about the time and place and heart and mind they were created in. This is part of why creative work is emotionally/psychologically challenging and risky, because creators end up showing a lot more of who they are than they intended. Whether they are aware of it or not. Whether they were aware of what was inside of them or not.

Often the audience's interpretation vastly improves on a creative work and makes it into something much more sophisticated than what the creator had in mind. People frequently read much more depth and complexity into a work than the creator ever consciously attempted/intended to put there, or they bring out of it what they feel inspired by and leave the rest to the side.

Interpretation is itself a creative act.

All of this to say - a work isn't defined by what the creator intended. The audience plays an active role - consciously or unconsciously - in defining what it is.

A work created with the intent to erase or avoid any aspect of queerness can be transformed through interpretation into something deeply meaningful and inspiring to queer people. A work intended to be a murder mystery about coal miners can end up becoming a religious text. Etc. etc. That's the beauty of art.

So if The Untamed was a queer story to you, then it's a queer story regardless of what production intended it to be, and if someone views it as a brotherhood story then that's what it is to them - despite the fact that production intentionally created a queer story.

For more on this, I recommend reading about the death of the author and applicability, and overall just digging more into literary criticism because these are things that have been discussed a lot by people more experienced and knowledgeable on the subject than me.

Never let someone else try to tell you who you are or what you are about

I just want to wrap this up by stating something I've said before, but I feel is incredibly important for every human on the planet to understand, both for their own well-being and for the well-being of their relationships: Never let someone else try to tell you who you are or what you are about.

Borrowing from my past post:

I have said this before a few times, but it always bears repeating; we should always be very careful about whose perspectives we take to heart. Not everybody is acting in good faith, and not everybody is acting out of self-awareness and kindness. There are people who are trying to cut you down.

Some of them feel small, and cutting other people down makes them feel bigger. Some people are just full of rage and want to 'burn it all down’. Some people have simply learned toxic things, and that is their belief system and they will try to teach it to you as well. Especially in fandom, there are also quite a few people who easily feel rejected, and who can sometimes respond in a feral way that can be extremely vicious and hurtful.

It’s extremely important to always 'consider the source’, and to think about what people are saying and what it tends to make you feel, and think about what those feelings inspire you to do or not do. Does any of it actually align with your values? Are these things that enrich your life and make you feel empowered and enlightened, or are they things that diminish you and make you feel ashamed, powerless and humiliated?

Even when there is some truth to what people say, it’s not ever the whole truth. Especially if you’ve never met them before. They have no special insight into who you are and how you operate.

As I often say, "Everything we do, say and think can only ever be a reflection of ourselves. It can never be about anyone else."

People will have feedback for us in our lives, and if we value inclusivity, kindness and personal accountability then constructive feedback is something to be grateful for - something to self-reflect on and use as a stepping stone toward becoming a better person.

At the same time, we need to be able to discern honest, good-faith feedback or critique from personal attacks, bullying and slander.

Even when we get good-faith feedback, it's up to us to decide where we are at in our lives and how capable we are of taking on new burdens or digging into our guts to find darkness to work through.

We are never obligated to navel-gaze or grow or change just because it's convenient for others that we do so on their schedule and in their way. This is something we should do on our own terms and at our own pace, when we are ready and have the resources to do so.

I feel like these days everyone is pointing fingers at each other and trying to peer pressure each other into participating in some sort of 'wokeness Olympics', and condemning anyone who doesn't represent their external idea of ideological purity. This isn't how personal development and self-actualization works.

Only we can know what is in our hearts, and it is up to us to ensure that we are behaving and expressing ourselves in ways that reflect our core values. That takes personal development work, self-reflection and personal accountability. No one else can dictate the terms, scope or timing of any of that.

As I said earlier, it's not enough to believe you're not homophobic, it's not enough to want to be inclusive. You don't become so just by wanting to be. That process involves a lot of conscious effort to deprogram oneself from social conditioning, cultural biases, etc. etc. and takes time and conscious, dedicated effort. The same goes for racism, sexism, classism and all the other bigotries we live with.

Take that work on your own terms and at your own pace. Don't ever let someone try to force you into their sociocultural work camp. There are no shortcuts, and there is no wrong or right way to grow. Do what's best for you and your needs, and what aligns with your values and the kind of person you want to be.

Avoid deflection

Most of us have privilege* in some form or another. One of the most frustrating things about privilege is that it renders the struggles of others entirely invisible to us. So when we get valid, good-faith feedback about something we said or did, often that will land on us as an unfair insult rather than the valid critique it is.

I'm sure all of us have witnessed situations where someone pointed out racism, sexism or homophobia and everyone around the speaker has attacked them for "calling that person a racist, sexist or homophobe" rather than actually address the racism, sexism or homophobia being pointed out. It also sometimes takes the form of, "I'm sure they didn't mean to be (racist, sexist, homophobic)."

This is total crazy-making behavior, but it's incredibly common. If you haven't noticed this, watch for it. You will be amazed at how this comes up almost every single time an issue is pointed out.

What is happening here?

Well, when someone in a position of privilege is critiqued, it's their natural inclination and the natural inclination of everyone around them, to move to maintain the status quo. Saying, "A person in power here has done something wrong" is a socially subversive act, and those interested in maintaining conformity and social norms will jump in to try to regain the upper hand.

They (we) do this totally unconsciously.

So if someone says, "That joke was homophobic." the immediate reaction of those around will be, "He didn't mean anything by it!" or "You're calling him a homophobe!" (as though calling someone a homophobe is somehow worse than behaving in a homophobic way).

I get this all the time on my blog, when I point out homophobic ideas and people write in to assure me they are queer (even though queer people can be just as homophobic as everyone else), or to bitch me out for the horrible sin of 'calling them homophobic'.

Everyone could stand to learn the distinction between pointing out a behavior or idea, and calling a person a name. If I say a joke is homophobic, I am calling the joke homophobic, not the joke-teller. That might seem like hair-splitting but it's actually a really important distinction to make, because that misconception often becomes a deflection tactic among people who don't want to take accountability for their mistakes.

Even when someone DOES call us the thing, it's important to not get wrapped up in what we were just called, and instead look at what the person is trying to tell us about the social power dynamics currently in play, and our role in perpetuating oppression.

Not everyone is eloquent and articulate and fully capable of explaining why they are hurt by something. They might even be hurt enough to say something in a nasty way. If we take the focus off their pain and make ourselves into the victim it might make us feel better, but it doesn't make us a better person.

In fact, the only reason we're able to do that is because we are in a position of power or privilege, and are shamelessly flexing that power and privilege to escape accountability.

All this to say: we should always try to examine our impact on others, and work to try to identify and correct any power imbalances we are unknowingly (or knowingly) benefiting from.

*Privilege is when we don't see something as a problem, because it's not a problem for us. For example, not thinking there's a problem with the design of a restaurant because we aren't able to see it through the eyes of someone in a wheelchair.

Becoming an ally takes time

It's important to have realistic expectations going into this type of work. This work takes time, learning takes time, becoming a better person takes time. It takes conscious effort and a lot of trial and error. Mistakes will happen. Be patient and don't overreact when something goes wrong. Apologize, correct and move on.

Understand that if you are oblivious, queer people will respond accordingly. That is a matter of survival. Queer people are very often 'life-and-death' serious about who they trust. Don't take it personally. Trust has to be earned.

Resources

At this point in history, you have to be actively avoiding useful resources in order to not trip over them everywhere you go. They are all over the place. It's impossible to miss them. So no one really needs my advice on where to look. Just look.

But my best advice is to always connect with the people you are trying to repair things with. If you want to overcome racism, connect with racialized people. If you want to decolonize, connect with indigenous people. If you want to become a better queer ally, then connect with queer people.

And part of 'doing the work' is doing the work of finding resources that resonate with the areas you most need to work on. For example, if your ideas about queer people came from a religious group, you might have a particular need to find resources that specifically address the ideas or harms presented by that group.

Joining legitimate, queer-led LGBTQ ally groups is an excellent place to start. PFLAG is a group I highly recommend. There is a chapter in almost every corner of the globe.

And don't just stick to one resource or group. You will learn more by exploring multiple perspectives and multiple groups.

Other organizations that have excellent resources:

PFLAG

GLAAD

Human Rights Campaign

The Trevor Project

National Center for Transgender Equality

These are just a few to get you started. Every major queer rights organization has their own info on these topics. Some are better than others, and all give a fuller picture.

I'm not suggesting that you have to become an activist to be an ally. There are plenty of queer people who do not have time or space in their lives to do that, let alone straight people. However, it's pretty difficult to have a healthy viewpoint on or relationship to a particular group of people, if you have no exposure to or connection with them in your life. It's pretty difficult to unravel our biases when we don't have support and feedback from those impacted by them.

If you or anyone else has a specific question or needs help finding a particular type of resource feel free to contact me.

I know I've covered a lot of ground here, and touched on a lot of different topics. Hopefully this gives you some food for thought when reflecting on this issue and all the ways it might come up in your life.

[castlebyersafterdark]

am i dumb or is being GNC a big part of the overall show itself, what with the theme of outsiders? does this include behaviour and how you are as a human rather than things like fashion and makeup? for example is nancy gnc with her subverted trope re: the gun etc?

I think it's a pretty complicated issue and I'm maybe not the best person to talk about it! I don't want to speak over or invalidate other's reads of other characters. But in my opinion, it's not that Nancy really specifically fits the bill here like Will might. I think the whole gnc topic and trait is a bit different than her story - which still is ingrained in gender roles and breaking away from the assumptions imposed upon her as a woman of that era. So, maybe a little bit, but I don't personally see as many queer themes with Nancy - but I can see the argument for her if you wish to make it. She'd probably be the closest other maybe for an analytical standpoint. Others might be into that reading! So I'm not invalidating that! Just my opinion!

I'm just not sure if I'd personally ascribe the topic to her just because she doesn't want to be a housewife and can handle weaponry. Her appearance, for once, isn't very outside the expected, and that's totally fine, where as with a character like Will it's impossible for him to truly be invisible or hide who he is just from watching him in the show and people's reactions to him. And I think his gnc traits are subtle in the show, there for those who recognize, but in fandom it is explored more blatantly, yes we can admit that. It's hard to explain, some others who dedicated time into really articulately breaking it all down have said it better than I maybe can at the moment.

But you're right in saying that the show overall has a specific theme to it - propping up and celebrating being different, in many ways. The misfits, the outcasts, queer people, those who break society's rules, those who can't fit into society's boxes. Surviving the monsters of conformity and normalcy and expectation and society - what is normal anyway? Being different can mean many things for many different characters.

[soleminisanction]

I'm currently reading through tim's history chronologically and haven't gotten super far yet, but there's a question knocking around inside my head, so: how do you think tim views his own masculinity? from previous unorganized readings, I got a bit of a impression that both jack and tim can somewhat old fashioned and conservative in some of the ways they think and yet, tim is both pretty boyish but doesn't always appreciate what jack values as masculine interests and view points... so, how do you think tim views himself in that regard? how do you view him in that regard? does him being queer now change some of those interpretations?

Just to put my cards on the table here, my take on this is very much colored by the fact that I read Jack Drake as a direct parallel for Chuck Dixon.

Chuck is, notoriously at this point, a reactionary conservative, specifically of the racist, sexist and homophobic variety who thinks "I was fired for being a homophobe" is a relatable sob story and who's spent the last ten years of his professional career writing literal Q-anon propaganda and self-published Turner Diaries fan fiction. And his politics often got involved in his stories, especially in the form of throwing female love interests at young men like Tim and Connor Hawke to discourage the reading that they might be gay.

So while Jack is never (to my knowledge) shown to be openly homophobic in the comics, his tendency for conservative opinions and a heavy-handed, sometimes borderline abusive or neglectful parenting style makes me think that it makes sense for him to be a source of similar influence in-universe. I like this reading because it partially recontextualizes the conflict between Tim and his father into a metaphorical conflict between Dixon as a writer and the character he only thinks he has total control over.

As for how that affects Tim's views on masculinity... I guess the simplest way to put it is, it's complicated? A part of me is always tempted to filter out the moments when he's clearly being used as a mouthpiece for Dixon's Opinions; which, TBF, I do with other characters as well, even Steph. So I mostly tend to skim over his more Conservative moments as just Dixon Being Dixon.

My general perception is that Tim's natural personality gravitates towards the center of the sliding scale of gender, in that space where queerness intermingles with the punk, nerd and goth subcultures. Like he's fully a man (cis in the comics, trans in my heart) but he's also comfortable painting his nails and isn't really bothered by people considering him pretty rather than handsome. But, while his father was alive, Tim felt pressured to live up to Jack's expectations of masculinity, so he'd somewhat overcompensate by posturing with the positive aspects of masculinity he approved of: being a protector and a provider, especially of women, being brave in the face of opposition, being disciplined enough to choose celibacy until he's older, that sort of thing.

And then after Jack died, he was more free to just... let that go and be himself, because for as much as Bruce (and Jason, and many other adult male superheroes) is a Towering Symbol of Masculinity, none of them expect Tim to be that way if he doesn't want to be, and he's got plenty of other role models like Dick, Alfred and Ted Kord who clearly show that there are other ways of being a man that are just fine.

That this roughly corresponds with Dixon leaving the company and Tim fully changing hands to various writers, many of whom -- as we now know according to various testimonies since he came out -- always thought of him as some variety of queer, is simply narrative synergy.

Him coming out hasn't really changed my perception in that regard. I always read him as queer. That DC let him actually come out was just a pleasant surprise.

[epicsandwich301]

So... Hotel Hazbin, huh?

I'd rate it like 7/10. Nice casual watch.

Now, WARNING!!! My opinion:

Chapter 1. story

It's alright. I'm glad it doesn't take itself seriously most of the time. With that said, I don't really understand why writers thought bringing up certain themes would be a good idea, but it's not my place to criticize it on this decision. What I can mention is that sometimes it's hard to understand whenever something important is happening or not, so I mayhaps missed something. But I like the main idea, characters, plot points, lore, ect.

Chapter 2: artstyle

When I was just starting watching this show I heard a lot of people saying "character designs are too complicated" or "the artstyle sucks" But you know how many characters were too complicated for me? ONE. Those were Husk's wings that dazzled in my eyes, in a bad way.

What people should be talking about more is how LOCATIONS are designed. Because, I feel hell is too bright. And I don't mean it's too red. I mean it's like... Too clean. I'd imagine place full of sinners to use less saturated colours. In my opinion, it would help characters stand out more and make the atmosphere a bit darker, and if I recall correctly, a lot of more serious/important moments happened outside. So yeah, I'd prefer more mud and dirt around the place.

Also I feel like I'd be lying if I didn't mention Vox's(?) design. I don't like his face, I'll be honest. I feel like it's a missed opportunity of adding interesting visuals to him, but hey. Maybe we'll have more stuff later? Who knows.

Chapter 3: representation

Now the big stuff. I've heard the main person behind the project doesn't like t-spectrum that much. I don't know if this statement is 100% truth or not, but if it is, it shows.

It's great this series has gay/pan/ace/lesbian/bi/ect characters, but lack of they/thems or trans folks is noticeable... And it saddens me a little, personally. I'm not going to hate on the creator for that, but I will say I wish this show had at least one nb/trans person in it. And I'm more than confident that there would be a way to implement such character with the correct time period in mind.

With that said, I feel like queer relationships were shown in a good way. I especially like Vaggie/Charlie's dynamic.

Chapter 4: dialogue

Sometimes I felt like people just said stuff a bit out of character. Like, I wouldn't expect Charlie to swear. Also I feel like Adam was acting unacceptable in court and should've been criticised by Sera(?) but that's just nitpicky. Lots of people said the dialogues are too vulgar but... We're in hell?..

Chapter 5: overall opinion

Honestly, this show is criticised a bit too heavily. It doesn't take itself seriously, y'all can relax. As far as I'm aware creator of this show isn't liked by the public but some people take it to extreme levels. Yeah, it's far from perfect and I feel like it could've done a lot of stuff differently, but it isn't that bad. Animation is nice, voice acting is nice too. (Vaggie's VA made me like their character, same with Adam. Didn't save Charlie tho, she's annoying lol) Would I recommend watching it? Eh, if you have free time and don't wanna think too much.

[ihopesocomic]

I don't know if you answered this in your analysis, but do you think Pride Law having homophobia and stuff like that is entirely a bad thing? I like when stories parallel real life, even the bad things. Pride law is literally a religion, which some prides might follow while others might not, or could be interpreted in different ways. And even with Nothing discovering that the truth was different, villains wanted to remain "conservative". Idk, I wanted to see a story like that lol

In my opinion, homophobia has no place in a story that claims to be LGBT-friendly. "LGBT-friendly" means it's a promise of escapism for queer consumers. It should not equate to "contains LGBT content". For the longest time, and still to this day, people who include LGBT content feel like it's "unrealistic" to portray queer characters without them being discriminated against for being queer. And that is stupid. It is. Especially when it has nothing to do with the plot. Same can be said about other kinds of discrimination as well, it's not limited to queer content. This isn't debatable, this isn't mock trial lol There's a multitude of ways to include discrimination without trying to bring real life issues into it. You just have to be a little bit creative.

Stories containing homophobia, especially religiously-motivated homophobia are not inherently bad. Stories like that have their uses in society. This is true of transphobia/queerphobia, no one's gonna deny anyone the right to tell their experiences with oppression. I personally have my own religion-based trauma that's going to be in another story.

Where the problem with MP lies is, with it having no explanation on what Pride Law is, how it's enforced, or how other prides treat it differently, it ended up having the message of "religion is why homophobia exists" when that is such a black and white statement.

Homophobia is not something that exists from religion. It's ignoring the fact that it's not only untrue of religions as a whole, it ignores that it's specific religious sub-groups within those religious groups that miconstrued or changed texts to suit an agenda, and even then that only happened because of influential people of a higher status. MP ALMOST had that message, only to promptly throw it out the window when the next pride Nothing encountered had a trans character, who only upheld Pride Law despite everything we know. So is Pride Law ONLY somehow homophobic and not transphobic? I have questions.

Because if you're going to advertise yourself as "realistic" then why would lions be homophobic? Lions don't care. And if you're going for a "mature" approach, why do you have such an oversimplified message about religion when its more complicated than how you're depicting it?

Intentionally or unintentionally, it paints such a broad stroke, and makes the message read as "all religion bad". And that's bad. - Cat