#character. which can be fair !! bad writing like that is subjective and nuanced etc

[pinkfey]

Why do so many people vote yes on the Dorian and Wyll poll? Dorian is pro slavery? Wyll has better morals than that, lol.

real and true real and true !! nearly every dragon age character has at least ONE eyebrow raising moment (because shitty writing lmao not because the writers want to actually dissect and deconstruct any of the complexities of their characters biases) so it probably never stuck out to people

[zabiume]

Hello! I just wanted to ask if you think Orihime might have been a little too complex for the audience that bleach was aimed at? (teenage boys that is). I mainly interact with the bleach fandom on tiktok (the bleach tiktok fandom is horrendous but moving on) the opinion of Orihime is kind of mixed on tiktok, there's a big portion of people who love her, but there's also a big portion of people who hate her. Whenever I get into an argument about her and ask why people think her writing is bad, they always say stuff like; ''she's too emotional/she has too many emotions'' and I'm just like ??? How does that make her a bad character?? To be fair the bleach tiktok fandom has A LOT of internalized misogyny so it's not that suprising that they hate Orihime, but again I wanna hear your opinion because I do feel like people on tiktok trow around the good/bad writing a lot without even really knowing what it means.

this is an interesting question! my joke answer is that it should be illegal to hate orihime😂, but my serious answer is that i feel like there's a difference between enjoying something as an audience member vs enjoying something as a critical reader, so if we're talking about pure enjoyment, it's perfectly okay for people to have preferences and like/hate certain characters based on those preferences. enjoying something as an audience is subjective. for instance, i really can't stand the kuroko no basket movie as a critical reader but i do enjoy it a lot as someone who was there to have a good time! i liked seeing my favorite characters again, i liked seeing them bicker and interact. sometimes stories fulfill simple needs, like "woah! that was a cool fight!" or "some dude had an incredible entrance backed with an incredible OST" and your knee jerk response is to just enjoy it. i have lots of characters that i don't really care about, so it's not surprising to me that orihime is a character lots of people don't care about. it's not a big deal.

but i think critical reading is a little more nuanced than that, especially if we're talking about what "counts" as good writing/bad writing. i don't think there's one particular way to write a Good Female Character, and i think trying to make good female characters a monolith is very bad for writing in general. trying to make any identity a monolith while writing them is obviously bad, and having different kinds of characters is a better indicator of good writing to me, which i would argue that bleach does, to a certain extent. there are lots of female characters in bleach and they're all very different from each other, and we do get to see some interiority, however rich or poor. BUT, i also think it's important to note that kubo does draw women like a freak, and a lot of the fanservice leaves a bad taste in my mouth. it's good to view a series in its totality — what it does well, what's kind of shitty, etc etc. you can acknowledge some of the great character beats for a lot of these female characters but also acknowledge that the story is not free from the author's perception of the world, and of women in particular. yes, a lot of them are interesting and have engaging storylines, but sometimes they are here to be Sexy keeping a specific kind of reader in mind (male) and orihime is not free from that kind of depiction, though she is nowhere near the only bleach character to be a "victim" of that! even ignoring the fanservice aspects of it, we could always make an argument about certain storylines and have those criticisms be valid, but it's important to do that in good-faith, which is what i mean by seeing a story in its totality!

and this is where the point you bring up comes in, because i think a lot of fans don't account for their own internalized misogyny, and how much accountability they have as an audience in writing certain characters off, especially if they're pushing goal posts that they wouldn't for male characters. yes, it's important to be critical, but you have to be critical of the series in a way that suits the genre. bleach is a shonen, which is historically a genre that appeals to the lowest common denominator of people — which means it's not going to be a transcendent, transgressive indie work of art that has radical things to say about gender and society and capitalism or whatever. if you want that, you have to pick up a manga that does that and assess how effectively or ineffectively it achieves those goals. as it stands, i think it's cruel to expect things from a story that it never even set out to do.

i know this is getting long, but my point is that when i look at orihime, i'm not holding her to the same standards that i would a character from a shoujousei or a seinen. i'm looking at her in relation to other characters in bleach, and seeing how effectively or ineffectively she fulfills her role in the story. and, if i'm allowed to be controversial: i think she's an amazing character for what her role is supposed to be! she's a love interest in a shonen, which should have doomed her from the start, but nope! she's got great relationships with characters other than ichigo, she has flaws, she has a complex belief system that is taken seriously + sometimes challenged/sometimes validated by the narrative, some of the biggest themes in bleach like the rain or the heart are explained through her, she has at least one pivotal scene in every arc (even when the plot of that arc isn't centered around her), and we get such a rich view of her inner life in every chapter centered around her. we know so much about her — from silly things like what she likes to watch and eat, to major things, like who she want to be, what she believes in, what her fears are. we get to spend so much time with her. she gets to have an antagonistic relationship with a character without actually being a full-fledged fighter. even the most bitter of orihime haters i've seen have at least acknowledged how iconic her moral clash with ulquiorra was, and the scene where he accepts defeat in front of her (he WAS accepting defeat and telling her he was wrong btw; you can't take a non-romance moment, convert it into a romantic moment, and then cry about how orihime's plotlines are only ever centered on romance. YOU are doing that, not her!), is routinely seen as one of the most iconic bleach scenes of all time. speaking of iconic scenes, orihime is in some of the most memorable bleach fights even when she's not an active participant, and a lot of times, her presence leads to a major change in how the battle is going

[literally 3/4 of those fights have a major moment with her in it, and they're voted 1st, 3rd and 4th place. yes, those were ichigo's fights but his relationship with orihime is at least hinted at or mentioned in of THREE OF THEM]

it's also worth noting just how seriously the narrative takes her feelings. we see orihime happy, angry, sad, jealous and she's allowed to be it so openly and sincerely, even at the risk of ridicule. she's allowed to cheer people up, but she doesn't exist just to do that! there are so many scenes where she's in need of comforting, where she needs reassurance, and she gets to be a scared, insecure teenager just as much as ichigo does. she's bright and vivacious, she's defiant, she's loud, she's a dreamer and a yearner, she's lonely, she's emotional, and she's so, so warm and kind and human. like, i'll be honest, so many shonen fans seem to think girls can either be tomboys or shy/submissive, but they're the ones boxing characters into those stereotypes when they don't even fit (orihime ESPECIALLY doesn't fit into either category but i've seen so many people do that)

and like, yeah, kubo can be a weirdo, but he defended her, and he considered her important enough to acknowledge her growth, even when he was running short of time. and he could have so easily made orihime's envy of rukia this catty thing of like. oooh girls are falling over themselves for ichigo, they're FIGHTING for him, but he doesn't...do that. he allows orihime to be insecure without making her the butt of a joke, and he allows her the complexity her feelings deserve. and he gave rukia enough respect to have orihime want to be her friend, even as she navigated her complicated feelings about her.

and these are all OUTSIDE of her role as a love interest. as a love interest, she's basically perfect. she has meaningful and thematic parallels with ichigo, she has so many heartfelt moments with him, her confession is almost universally loved by normal people, and ichigo is so kind to her that you never feel like she picked someone who doesn't value her or respect her. these are definitely bare minimum things, but again, i'm judging it by shonen standards, and by shonen standards, she is very, very lucky. i can work with this much material, this is good enough for me, but if people's standards are higher then maybe it's not hitting for them idk! maybe their expectations for good writing were different! at the end of the day, i think it's a good thing for characters to be widely discussed because it just means there's a lot to talk about, and that's always a good thing, but let me just plug my favorite tweet to summarize my thoughts on the matter

[the-ghost-king]

About the cupid scene, Nico was forced to come out, but its also made very clear that Cupid is the bad guy. So is Aphrodite to an extent. They have a twisted and fundamental misunderstanding of love and how it works for mortals. I get that people could be mad about how Nico was forced to come out and putting him through more emotional trauma, but I also think its very realistic in showing how callous and cruel the gods understanding of love is.

I am reminded of the quote by Madeline Miller, "There is no law that gods must be fair..."

I also understand why the scene might be traumatic for other young LGBTQ+ readers, I've seen a lot of people talk about the fear of being outed in regards to them reading that scene as a kid. I completely respect their feelings on that, and I understand that as well. However, as someone who had been forcibly outed once before reading that scene, that scene really helped heal me. I don't think the Cupid scene is inherently homophobic, and I'm often bothered by the lack of nuance regarding around how it's handled.

I recognize it's a very emotional scene, and that people may have a hard time fully separating their emotions from that scene, but at the same time if there's a group of people saying "hey I understand why you disliked this scene but it was really helpful to me as a child because of the different experiences I had" maybe slow the breaks and hear what others also in the community have to say before determining if the scene is homophobic. You don't have to like the scene, and yeah maybe the scene did hurt you but that doesn't make it homophobic.

I want to specify on my word choice there a little closer, because of course outing someone is an act of homophobia, and the scene is homophobic in that sense. However often times the conversation about homophobia in this scene goes to "Rick was homophobic for writing this" where personally I would say this scene toes the line at being too far without ever crossing it. Some people may think this depiction crosses the line into "Rick was homophobic for writing this" which is fine, but just because something depicted homophobia and hurt you doesn't mean it was homophobic. Something doesn't have to out rightly be stated to be bad, in order to be read as bad*, and the Cupid scene does a wonderful job of depicting this.

I talk here about how Nico is shown what love is, and how love is treated by Nico, and how it affects his character. I think it's important to note that Nico's entire storyline can essentially be encompassed in an Orpheus-like or Odyssey-like tale. Nico's undergone this huge emotional and physical labor all in the name of having some form of unconditional love. I think that post is a really important read in the context of this one because I very carefully outline how love shapes Nico and how Nico shape and chooses his own definition of love, but I want to specifically dig into the Cupid scene on this post.

The big criticism often seen is "it's homophobic" which I covered above, and I want to clarify I'm not upset with or mad at or trying to tell anyone they can't dislike it or even say you can't say it's homophobic (my words on my one post are a bit off I'll admit) but the problem I have is when people believe they hold a moral high ground for thinking it's homophobic, or they remove all nuance from the discussion with "it's homophobic". Which is frustrating and annoying because it's a very complex scene, and it really changes Nico's arc and personality and it does help characterize him.

The big reason it shapes him so much is because of the other largest reason the scene is criticized, Cupid's behavior. What often fails to be recognized in those scenes is that Cupid is intentionally painted as the villain, this is very important to the scene.

In the context of this scene Nico makes an unspoken choice, a choice of "what is love to me?". I talk about how Nico claims his narrative in BoTL when he overcomes Minos, and he partially peaks that arc by convincing Gods to join the final battle of TLO. Following that arc however, Nico falls into his second arc, his crush on Percy was important in PJO, but not as important as it is in HoO.

By HoO Nico's entire character revolves around Percy, how to help Percy, how to aid Percy, etc. All of this has to do with Nico's crush on Percy, but also as an act of repayment because Nico hurt Percy- Nico lied to him about knowing him at New Rome in SoN, and he goes to Tartarus shortly after... This mirrors what Percy did after Hades tricked Nico... Percy choked Nico because he was upset with him, so Nico tried to win back Percy's affection by bathing him in the river.

The Cupid Scene is the resolution of Nico's arc, he is essentially given a choice- Cupid or Jason?

For this reason, we do see Nico recognize love for what it has been vs how it could be.

Cupid is there to represent what love is, to Nico love is brutal, and painful, and a lot of hard work... Nico has made himself utilitarian in love simply because it is the only way he can find any affection. Love to Nico is about flaying yourself for the benefit of others, to trample any and all parts of yourself simply to appease those you care for, because you want them to love you so much as you love them. The parallels I could draw between Nico and Orpheus, or Nico and Odysseus... I'd be here a long while...

In that scene Jason represents the alternative form of love which Nico chooses after his interaction with Cupid.

Jason says during the scene that he "preferred Piper's idea of love" which has to do with kindness and caring, etc, and then Jason becomes the embodiment of that idea during the scene- which showcases the alternative of what love can be, thus making Jason a personification of love in the context of that scene.

Jason looks to Nico, he doesn't ask for more, he simply looks to Nico with understanding and acknowledges him for who he is, and he does the exact opposite of what Nico expects:

Jason loves Nico where he is, without conditions, without forcing Nico to become something more. Jason didn’t force Nico to say more than what was necessary for him to understand, Jason looked at Nico and he called Nico brave.

Cupid is a more volatile form of love than Aphrodite, Cupid shoots arrows that makes people animals, that can make a god grow insane, but Aphrodite's form of love is about acceptance and humanity (think to how she picked Ares over Hephaestus even if it was perhaps "wrong")- both are about truth but one is about force and the other about acceptance.

When Nico walks out of there, he makes his choice- he is forced to come out yes, Cupid is wrong for doing this, but Jason again stays a figure of love in Nico's life. Jason basically says, "Good job, I know that was hard, thank you for sharing and let me know if you need anything, people will care about you and understand you," again and again and again to Nico, he doesn't tell Nico he has to come out, and he agrees to keep it between them for now. Jason is love as acceptance, Jason is the first person who unconditionally loves Nico, and that's the choice.

Will Nico accept unconditional love? If the answer is no, then Cupid wins and Nico is denying himself. If the answer is yes, then Jason and Nico win, and Nico no longer needs to make himself utilitarian in love in order to be loved.

The choice is made with Reyna and Hedge, most specifically Reyna.

When he accidentally comes out to them, and they accept him without making a big deal of it, without show, just that acknowledgement and "thank you for sharing" and Nico accepts their words and friendship still- Nico made his choice then to accept the love he was being freely given.

“He carried so much sadness and loneliness, so much heartache. Yet he put his mission first. He persevered. Reyna respected that. She understood that. She'd never been a touchy-feely person, but she had the strangest desire to drape her cloak over Nico's shoulders and tuck him in. She mentally chided herself. He was a comrade, not her little brother. He wouldn't appreciate the gesture.”

This is where we see the slow and steady, and healthy, end to Nico's arc in regards to love really grow into itself, and he begins to heal. He no longer sees such an intense need to make himself utilitarian for love, and he begins to heal from his internalized homophobia too.

(Internalized homophobia discussions with Nico also bother me too often times, people too often assume you can't date while struggling with internalized homophobia or at least very heavy handedly imply that which is just not true... You may have some issues in your relationship, but you can work through the internalized homophobia while building a new relationship and be just fine. Also to assume someone has an unhealthy relationship because of internalized homophobia is weird and lowkey reinforces the idea that "broken" people don't need love, but also does a huge disservice to so many LGBTQ+ people who are happily married/themselves but still struggle with these feelings, and to see a healthy relationship depiction despite someone in that relationship struggling with internalized homophobia is fine and good actually. As long as the individual can recognize what they're dealing with, and work through it in a healthy and constructive manner, then there's nothing wrong there...)

When I started this post to be honest I thought I would have a lot more to say, it's a scene that touched and changed me so deeply as a person, and beyond that in a more objective experience it completely changes Nico's character, by turning his arc around and beginning his healing process. To be honest, there probably is more to be said on it, I just haven't found the words yet... I know parts of this post are clunky and in a year I'm going to read this and see all the places it could be better but for now I'm content with it.

Whether or not someone considers the scene homophobic is a subjective experience, but I think this is a very well written scene purely for the characterization and symbolism, intentional or otherwise. I don't really care that much to debate if it's truly a homophobic scene or not, I can see both why people say it is and why people say it isn't and that can be culminated into "people have different needs" and "minorities aren't a monolith". Personally my much larger complaint is the complete lack of nuance and insight scenes like this are handled with, not the matter of personal opinion an individual reaches on the scene.

*the post uses the word "adult audience" and yes, fair point, children should not be able to decipher symbolism to the extent adults can. But older children and young teens, which the RRverse series are sold for, is when critical thinking skills and media analysis do begin to become parts of classroom curriculum. The scene does an excellent job of not outright stating Cupid is evil, but of depicting that in a very clear cut way.

[hamliet]

Analysis tag game

Tagged by @save-tenko-and-akito :) 

Answer as few or many of these as you like. Enjoy! 1. How do you begin writing your analysis: do you start writing about the first thing that strikes you; or do you step back and look at the narrative structure first; or something else?

I usually start from a question I have about the narrative; my metas usually start with me wanting to learn something rather than me having something I want to prove. I always have to be interested in the subject!  2. What do you like to keep in mind while writing your analysis/meta?

Er... nuance and empathy. ;) It’s hard to balance that in some ways because like... in literary criticism you literally cannot be too blunt. You do not say “seems.” You do not say “likely.” You say “is.” You declare. That... does not always get received well in fandom, though :P So there’s a balance between sticking to an argument and acknowledging that not every statement applies to every situation in the world, or even to every interpretation of the work. 

3. Do you try to keep your value judgments separate from your analysis?

Is value akin to like or to morality in this question?

For the former, I think that there is a line between “I don’t like this” and “this is objectively bad,” but either case is okay to make--as long as you have evidence to back it up. If you can explain why X twist doesn’t make sense with the previous parts of the work, it’s not just “I don’t like this.” Also, you can think things are objectively good and dislike them, or think they are objectively bad and love them anyways (2ha’s last arc for me). You can even be a hypocrite (I disliked the end of TG and of 2ha for the same exact reason--protagonist halo--yet still enjoyed 2ha and ended up with a much harsher opinion of TGre for no other reason beyond just personal taste + life circumstances + expectations etc.) There’s a lot of shades of gray (nuance!) in there as well. 

For the latter... I know based on spoilers, for example, that Qiang Jin Jiu’s ending might be objectively well done, but it doesn’t necessarily seem to jive with my particular values. We’ll see how it’s executed/framed. But that doesn’t inherently affect my view of the story’s quality. 

4. Do you prefer analyzing characters, or arcs, or both?

Both, but characters are the main substance of a story for me. I have been more nerdily interested in structure lately though. I’d like to think Professor B is proud of me for how often I think back to his class...  5. Do you think receiving feedbacks/responses on your analysis/meta help improve your critical skills?

Yes! When it’s constructive and when there’s discussion backed up with evidence (whether in support or disagreement). I’ve learned a lot from other meta writers, and made some great friends! Literary analysis is always a discussion (even historically speaking!) so it’s 100% a valuable part of the experience. 

The problem, of course, is that people can be rude and social media encourages less-than-stellar engagement and out-of-context understandings, which means it’s often just safer to be like “I’m not discussing this.” :/  6. Do you consciously decide which media you want to write analysis on or does it naturally come to you?

Kind of goes back to question 1 for me; if I like a work and have questions about it, I’ll often write about it.  7. Do you prefer writing long or short metas? Which ones do you prefer to read?

Long for both, I guess, but honestly it depends on the topic and what it requires! Some short blurbs are great, and concise. I am in general not concise.  8. Which are your favourite analysis/criticism/meta blogs?

@linkspooky @aspoonofsugar @redphlox @haleigh-sloth I know I’m forgetting many great people.  9. Which shows/movies/media do you think deserve to have more analysis done on them?

Hmmmm. 

Qiang Jin Jiu--it’s a novel fans are really sleeping on (at the same time, that ,means there is no Shen Zechuan discourse which is inevitable if it gets popular, so I get to love my stabby son in peace). It’s also quite rich in themes. 

RWBY. There actually is a fair amount of content for RWBY, but less analysis, which I’d love to see more of! I think the story is really well done so far (not perfect, but good) yet a lot of the hot takes about RWBY are... they kinda misrepresent the show, which is a shame. 

Scum Villain. It often gets overshadowed by MXTX’s other works and while it definitely does have more obvious flaws (it’s a first novel and that’s clear), it’s no less thematically rich than MDZS or TGCF, and also just as clever. I also think its being a different genre plays a role in it being overlooked; a lot of critiques I see are exactly the point (like Binghe’s over-the-top behavior being designed to make you question tropes, the cringe sex scene is cringe for a reason, etc).. 

10. According to you, what are some prerequisites for good quality analysis?

Simply put, you’ve gotta be deferential to evidence. Support your claims, and also answer the “so what” question (ie why does x point you’re making matter?) Also, be willing to change your mind based on evidence, and also stick to the work. Which doesn’t mean you can’t empathize or theorize about why x people like y or how culture/authors impact work/the perceptions of a work, but that you should do so with self-awareness and humility. Fiction and reality have a nuanced relationship.

Oh, and don’t be afraid to be wrong or to change your mind. I’m wrong all the damn time. You learn through doing, right or wrong! 

[rainingpouringetc]

So up until a few days ago, the number of blogs I followed was 176. This figure hadn’t changed for some time, and I always kept tabs on this - for no particular reason - I just liked to be organised with the running of my blog. Now the day came when I noticed the number being reduced to 175, which is strange because I hadn’t unfollowed anyone recently. I didn’t think too much on it, assuming the person (whoever it was), deactivated.

But just today, I was searching for CC’s blog, to access an ask she had regarding the Jordelia whispering room scene. There was this one particular ask where she revealed she might write it from James’s perspective. And I wanted to go through the reblogs to understanding nd who was for/against it, to determine where majority of the tumblr fandom stood on the subject - given a few of my mutuals/ people I follow, already expressed their displeasure after it was released last Thursday. But I suddenly realised that she blocked me.

It was then I put the pieces together. Yes, I enjoyed some books from TSC in the past. But I’d been critical about TLH (in terms of poc rep), within the past few months - even being vocal about my inability to finish CHOI because the storyline might’ve been interesting - but I hadn’t been able to connect with TLH gang (in terms of their characterisation and arcs - this is mostly in relation to Alastair, Anna and Kamala btw).

Bare in mind that in all my criticisms, I’ve been careful not to tag her, her book titles or her characters. Most of the time, I hadn’t tagged anything at all. The only people who would’ve accessed my commentary were my mutuals and followers. And I made it pretty clear from the get-go last year, that my opinions on CC and her books were nuanced. So unless you followed me, or followed someone who reblogged my posts, you’d have to actively seek out my blog to see these critiques. I didn’t think a lot of people had time to pay attention to mine, that is. But I guess that’s how CC’s rolling these days.

Not once had I said anything derogatory about her - just that her rep (or the lack of accuracy in it), was poor. Believe me, the last thing I EVER want to do is vilianise one of the few Jewish writers in YA lit. But those who hold a large audience and platform, hold huge responsibilities as well. I wasn’t shouting into the void or anything, because a lot of my fellow poc, agreed with me. Nor was I making open-ended statements because, not only did I say that her rep was bad, I suggested ways it could’ve improved. But if blocking is CC’s only strategy to avoid critiques (a VERY clear distinction from ‘hate’), it seems like a cowardice move on her part.

wowowow

that is a LOT to unpack wow ok

that’s... very messed up. i keep coming back to all the times cc has claimed to try to represent people w her books that don’t normally get representation. but it seems like every time we try to tell her ‘hey here’s a better way u could represent us’ or ‘actually this representation isn’t actually good for us like u think’ she turns around and tells us that it’s HER books and she can decide what she writes

it just seems very hypocritical of her

and don’t get me wrong, i fully believe that for most people blocking ppl you don’t want to interact with or see on your dash is healthy and creates the best possible tumblr experience, but i also think it’s different when you’re a fandom blog spending lots and lots of time on tumblr every day and creating friendships and making content etc vs if you’re an author just using the site to promote your books. there’s a different level of responsibility that you’re held to, whether it’s fair or not to her.

there’s a quote that comes to mind: “you can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”. there are ALWAYS going to be ppl who don’t agree with the books or downright dislike them. blocking ppl who disagree w those books tho is definitely from my view just what you said above: a cowardice move. and yeah. that sounds kinda harsh. but how long have we been screaming about our representation? how long will we have to continue screaming about it? it’s getting really old, trying to hold authors accountable for their works. it’d be nice if just one of them would listen.

ty for bringing this to my attention babe

[bthump]

What do you think separates a simple relationship between enemies/heroes and villains/etc. from a straight-up abusive relationship? And do you consider Guts and Griffith's relationship abusive?

Hmm, interesting question. It’s something I’ve always considered on a case-by-case basis rather than trying to come up with a categorical distinction. I’ll throw some thoughts on this under a cut, because it’s a fairly discourse-adjacent topic, and also it got pretty long.

First I want to make clear that I don’t think it matters if a relationship is straightforwardly abusive in canon, there’s still nothing wrong with shipping it. I could probably be more nuanced there, but honestly for me the bottom line is that I don’t gaf about the influence of fanfiction compared to mainstream media, the most problematic, abuse-romanticizing fic ever doesn’t matter at all next to a million hollywood movies where the hero is entitled to the hot love interest, even moreso when it’s a hero/villain ship which comes bundled with the expectation that it’s not meant to be #relationship goals lol.

But to answer your question, imo most hero/villain relationships have virtually nothing to do with abusive relationships. Here’s a quick defintion I got from the first google result to refer to:

Relationship abuse is a pattern of abusive and coercive behaviors used to maintain power and control over a former or current intimate partner. Abuse can be emotional, financial, sexual or physical and can include threats, isolation, and intimidation.

So first off, the characters have to have a relationship of some kind (maybe not romantic, but something other than “enemies”), secondly, a pattern of behaviour must be exhibited from one in a position of power (not necessarily overt power, it could just be the other’s emotional attachment to them) to control the other in that relationship.

So two people punching each other because one wants to destroy the world and the other wants to save the world, or because they’re on opposite sides of some other conflict, just doesn’t cut it, even if they fuck afterwards, or have a strong emotional attachment to each other, or whatever.

Even a villain imprisoning and torturing the hero over a period of time doesn’t make it an abusive relationship because their goal usually isn’t to control the hero’s behaviour in the context of a relationship, it’s to slowly kill them/hurt them for funsies/get information/prove a philosophical point/whatever. Intent matters here. Like eg, killing your bff’s other friend to isolate them and gain greater control over them bc you’re possessive? Abuse. Killing your bff’s other friend because it’s a necessary part of your Evil Plan or because they discovered that you’re evil and you don’t want to go to jail or die or whatever? Plain old villainy.

All that said there are plenty of grey areas and places where people can disagree and draw their own conclusions both about whether a relationship is abusive in canon and to what extent that even matters to them, and I think that’s perfectly fine and people should generally live and let live when it comes to others’ interpretations of and ways of engaging with fiction.

Some things to keep in mind along those lines are

authorial intent/whether something is narratively treated as abuse rather than basic hero/villian stuff

expectations within the setting and tone of the story (eg Michael Scott would be an abusive boss in real life but in a wacky comedy it’s not something we’re meant to care about)

realism and relatability (which is pretty subjective, but like eg someone might consider the protag discovering their bff tricked them into murdering their other bff to be personally upsetting bc it reminds them of a more mundane form of manipulation within irl abusive relationships while someone else might see it as too far removed from actual irl abuse for them to care about it as anything other than exaggerated villainy, and imo both reactions are perfectly fair)

power dynamic - I know this one can be a major point of contention within the discourse but in fiction if there’s no clear power dynamic and both parties actively hurt each other, as is often the case in hero/villain relationships, I’d call that toxic rather than abusive (assuming the hurts are along the lines of relationship abuse moreso than punching each other to save/destroy the world).

plain old quality of writing where something might be depicted as abuse, purposefully or not, but it sucks so you ignore it (eg technically xena is canonically a rapist but the scene where she fucks a recurring villain while he’s her prisoner was depicted as sexy so v few people in fandom give it a second thought)

As for your second question, no I don’t think griffguts is an abusive relationship. I suppose if you transpose modern mundane standards onto Berserk’s tone and setting it could have been if they’d been fucking during the Golden Age, since Griffith is technically Guts’ boss and adding sex is an abuse of a boss/employee relationship, but they weren’t, and I don’t think it’s something fic set during the Golden Age necessarily needs to be concerned with either.

The second duel contained a violently possessive internal monologue on Griffith’s part, but a) the action of fighting a second potentially fatal duel was explicitly, as Judeau directly tells us, a perfectly acceptable thing to do in the context of their lives in the setting (ie dumb mercenaries), and b) abuse is a pattern of behaviour anyway, not one bad breakup.

The Eclipse sacrifice parallels an abusive relationship (Guts and Gambino), but it’s distinct from it and extremely heightened and fantastical, and Griffith and Gambino are contrasted in terms of their relationships to Guts much more than they’re paralleled. The point of the Eclipse mirroring Gambino selling Guts to Donovan isn’t to say “this is the same kind of relationship,” it’s to say, “this is the darkness of humanity and anyone can succumb to it in the right circumstances.” Also it’s Guts’ ironic tragic consequence for abandoning the Hawks. It’s a satisfying full circle narrative and thematic thing, is what I’m saying, rather than a reflection of Guts and Griffith’s relationship as a whole, which is explicitly positioned as a positive contrast to Guts’ abusive childhood at other points in the story.

And Guts and Femto, or Guts and NeoGriffith, just don’t interact enough to have a relationship, let alone an abusive relationship.

That said, I think there’s a reasonable argument you could make that Griffith’s “if I can’t have him, I don’t care [if he dies]” attitude is a reason he makes the Eclipse sacrifice too (I think it is), and if someone wanted to take that and explore it further in fic as a potential aspect of their relationship that risks becoming, or does become, abusive that could def be IC. But conversely you could also take several aspects of Guts’ character and explore them further in a griffguts fic where Guts is abusive if you wanted.

Like Berserk deals with a lot of dark subject matter and both characters have very big personality flaws that could make either of them believably abusive in fic, but their relationship in canon, while flawed and ultimately tragic, does not constitute abuse in and of itself imo, and a fanfic where they get together and have a happy relatively healthy relationship where they deal with their issues constructively is just as in character and imo actually more thematically appropriate lol.

[bigskydreaming]

Why do You dislike Scott Snyder? I mean I have my reasons.. like a lot of the Court of Owls stuff, his convoluted plots, making Dick a punching bag for the broody bats, horrible at writing the family as a family he literally wrote Death of the Family I mean....*kill bill sirens* ... Also the ''son of a Damian'' line from Black Mirror etc. But I'm curious if you have more reasons since I'm pretty new and I'm told that he likes Dick and wanted to write Dick focused books and I don't.. buy it.

LOL yeah, all of that for sure, and I mean.....tbh, I don’t pay enough attention to his interviews and stuff to even be aware that he’s said that about liking Dick and wanting to write Dick-centric books, but I’m with you on that....not necessarily meaning anything.

God knows I’ve lost track of how many fic writers in this fandom swear up and down they love Dick Grayson and yet I avoid their stories with extreme energy, lmao, because I’ve read enough of their takes on DG that I’m like hmmm, yeah, we are not the same, lol. I mean, there’s a certain couple fic writers who just are like....DETERMINED to mention Danny Chase every single time I make a post about why I’m annoyed by the focus on Dick’s allegedly infamous temper. And its always the exact same song on repeat, they’re like “OH-HO, so apparently you don’t remember the time Dick choked Danny, a literal CHILD, just because Danny had the nerve to tell him Jason died, cuz like, I do, and it was AWFUL and Danny could have died TOO y’know, that’s how mad Dick was.” 

And then I just kinda stare at these words that apparently mean things, and enter a fugue state where an unknown amount of time passes and by the end of it I feel 80 million epochs older, and its like....no, I absolutely do remember that time when Dick grabbed Danny by the shirt and yelled in his face because he just found out his brother died and Danny said “what’s the big deal, its not like it doesn’t happen all the time” and this was absolutely not an awesome and fun scene for anyone, no matter how understandable Dick’s upset was at the time. BUT, I also happen to remember, since y’know, it was in that literal exact same issue, how then Dick went to see Bruce, and due to BRUCE’S upset about Jason’s death, Bruce literally punched his remaining son to the ground, screams about how it was all Dick’s fault, and kicks him out of the house Dick grew up in and tells him to leave his keys with Alfred. 

And its like......the very same people who LOVE to throw around references to Danny Chase in order to puff up the claims about Dick Grayson being volatile and extreme and having a Dangerous Temper like, flat out REFUSE to ever even ACKNOWLEDGE that scene with Dick and Bruce, from the literal exact same issue, because they at the same time claim that THIS was bad writing and OOC and Bruce would never.....but apparently, the writing from ten pages before it was just fine and completely accurate and Dick absolutely would not only ever, he would always, and thus Dick’s Legendary Dangerous Temper is canon and its why Dick can’t have nice things or people being nice to him in these writers’ stories, its too Dangerous, he might get mad I guess.

And each time this comes up on this site, I’m always like....hey, science side of tumblr, is it possible that insisting on vilifying Dick for his reaction to someone in the wake of Jason’s death whilst simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the scene of Bruce’s reaction to Dick is canon or in-character despite existing in the exact same issue and written by the exact same writer.....like....could this be one of those double standards I’m always going on about? And isn’t it in fact reasonable to question just how much or how little someone actually means it when they say they love a character but want that character flogged in the middle of the town square for a Bad Reaction to something that also prompted a Bad Reaction from another character but this character, they’ll like, throw themselves in front of a moving train if it keeps someone from daring to even suggest that THEIR reaction was canon and in-character and might potentially say something damning about their temper or behavior with friends or family?

*heaves endless sigh of endlessness*

Sorry, that example was right there on the tip of my brain today because like....I literally just saw another post around this oft-deceased and resurrected and killed to death again dead horse like, five minutes ago and then came to dip into my ask box for the first time today and it was like.....destiny. Assuming destiny has some free time to kill and nothing better to do, which, I mean, hey, everyone’s allowed a hobby is all I’m saying.

LOL sooooooooooo, ANYWHO, its just like.....ugh, I’m so over being expected to take at face value any writers, whether professional or fan, saying “oh but I love this character or that character, and due to that being my preface to everything else I say or do in regards to this character, you have zero basis for claiming that you do not like or trust my depiction of this character because ummm, read much? I literally JUST said, I love them though? Wow. Insert scoffs of incredulity here, I don’t even know how to talk to someone who thinks I don’t like a character I claimed I like just because literally everything else I say or do about them paints an opposing picture to the contrary.”

LMAO. Sorry. Had to get that off my chest. But yeah, like, I think EVERY canon Batfam writer has made a similar claim in recent years about pretty much every Batfam character, and at a certain point it starts to be like....okay, if all of you are telling the truth here, shouldn’t we see more canon evidence of like....these characters that you’re writing, like....actually even LIKING each other? At what point are we allowed to question the legitimacy of you saying oh I totes love this character, that’s why I write their family as abusing them, that’s just love, baby, that’s what it looks like.

Personally, I’d like to see more of us at least using qualifiers? I mean, I do say I don’t hate Tim, or Bruce, or any of these characters, but I get how people could be dubious about that and be all, umm, you rant about them a lot, because like...yeah. Fair. That’s a valid critique. SO its a lot more accurate for me to be like, I love 90s Tim and I just have become increasingly less enchanted with the character over the past twenty years since then, enough so that my knee-jerk reactionism to people bashing Dick’s character BECAUSE of what Dick did or didn’t do to Tim in their eyes, is like.....disinclined to view the situation or his character these days through 90s-Tim rose-colored glasses. 

Similarly, I truly don’t hate Bruce, at least not when he’s not being written as physically and emotionally abusive and/or just plain neglectful, BUT I absolutely despise the abuse apologism rampant in most fandoms, but particularly in this one, where people will make like Cirque-de-Soilei contortionists in order to prove that Bruce beating this kid or that kid isn’t actually abuse, its cuz they made him do it....rather than people just being like, no, that’s abuse right there on the page and I don’t stand for it or stan that Batman, so I have zero desire to defend that scene or his actions there from his perspective, and am totally fine with taking a seat when someone speaks up about how much they hate what Bruce did to his kid there in that scene and how it affects their read of the characters as a whole.

Its like....that too, is a thing you can do, instead of just.....trying to explain why Bruce isn’t abusive see, because what happened there wasn’t actually abuse, since it couldn’t have been, because Bruce isn’t abusive, see, he would Never.

And yet so rarely do people actually do that, and we have people literally championing themselves as members of the Good Dad Bruce Protection Squad when the frank reality is there CAN BE NO GUARANTEE of him ever and always being a Good Dad, when like....his characterization, ultimately, is dependent on how he’s written by canon writers who ARE NOT US. Which makes that desire to see him as just a good dad and nothing but a good dad always, like....not quite as understandable as it otherwise might be, and instead just kinda....willful, an admission that a lot of fans in this fandom will just flat out ignore all evidence to the contrary of this stated claim about what Bruce inherently IS, when inherently all he is happens to be a character who manifests whatever those in creative control of him choose to manifest via him. Like.....there are ways to go about that kinda thing, its just....that isn’t it. Something like “Proud member of the Keep Bruce Wayne a Good Dad Squad’ or something along those lines? I’d have ZERO issue with, because that’s ACTIONABLE, not WILLFUL. It posits not that Bruce simply IS this way and there’s no ifs, ands or buts about it, but rather that just because he isn’t this way in some instances, that doesn’t mean we have to agree with it or condone that interpretation of him, y’know?

But people are like....unwilling to make that distinction or hold that nuance a lot of the times, so my dislike of Bruce as he’s written in certain ways or by certain writers like....grows and evolves and mutates into Godzilla rampaging through downtown New York, until its understandable that people reading my blog intermittently and who don’t follow everything I say on the subject are like.....”Bold of you to claim you like lizards in this one post when I have here nine other posts where you’re just like, FEAR the murderous monster-lizard destroying New York for it is Dangerous and Fearsome. Cuz one of these things is not like the others, bud.”  

*Shrugs* Anyway, all of that’s just my allergy to Staying on Topic, so make of it what you will, hopefully you get what I mean though even if you don’t have like, the requisite Kalen-Garbled-Nonsense Secret Decoder Ring. Back to Snyder though....yeah, he can claim he likes Dick all he wants, because y’know what, Tynion says the same thing and its been well established by moi that my fondest wish for Tynion is that he be kept far, far away from Dick’s character whenever possible. And I’m pretty sure Tom King claims he loves all these characters and we’re all like HAHAHHAHA and we know Lobdell insists he loves Jason Todd and its like wow how curious then that hardly any other Jason Todd stans love you.

The ironic thing about my random bouts of ugh Snyder in a lot of posts however, is that......tbh, its not even his depiction of Dick that makes me dislike him as much as I do? LMAO. I mean, I’m not a fan of it personally, for a lot of the reasons you mentioned, but I don’t like a lot most canon writers’ depiction of Dick these days and haven’t for years. The thing I really dislike Snyder for, personally, is his depiction of Damian.

Its just.....its very Not Good, a lot of the time. Oh, there are moments here and there, but you could claim that for any writer, really, but for the most part, like.....ooof, I haven’t read Snyder’s work on Damian recently enough to really cite specific moments off the top of my head, because I’ve been avoiding anywhere he’s writing Damian for awhile now BECAUSE of it, but....a LOT of the ‘demon brat’ shit in regards to Damian comes from Snyder’s work, and like, I’m always kinda like “hey is making Demon anything the go-to nickname for a kid of Arab descent who is already compared to a terrorist enough as it is like....really the best we can do” to begin with, and Snyder absolutely 100% does not help with that.

To be fair, its not remotely like its all just on him, the stuff that has had a lot of us complaining for years about the blood son crap and the insistence on acting like there’s this stark divide between Bruce and Damian and the rest of the Bat siblings, I mean, see: Tom King again, its just. Ugh, okay, Im gonna have to get back to this in the near future with actually sourced gripes about why I think Snyder’s Damian in particular is absolute crap and could he just not, though. Because it really is my chief complaint with him, like I was never gonna be a fan of his in general just because he’s someone who's like DARK MULTIVERSE BATMAN FUCK YEAH and I’m someone who’s like DARK MULTIVERSE BATMAN UGH FUCK WHY.....lol....BUT like I mention in other posts.....its not like he’s incapable of doing decent stuff or that he’s never written anything I like, because ironically, he IS the biggest canon backer of Duke Thomas and pretty much single-handedly responsible for Duke retaining as much of a presence as he has in recent years instead of just appearing and blipping out of existence like a one-hit wonder, and that can’t be overlooked or considered inconsequential.

That just also kinda makes it all the more annoying that his Damian is so very.....objectionable to me, but yeah. Anyway, that’s the curious case of my very mixed feelings on Scott Snyder, with a side dish of generalized “lol oh, so you do in fact love this character? Well magically all my criticisms of your take on them have now disappeared!”

[pass-the-bechdel]

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Doctor Strange (2016)

Does it pass the Bechdel Test?

No.

How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?

Two (16.66% of cast).

How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?

Ten.

Positive Content Rating:

Three.

General Film Quality:

A mediocre story that mostly relies on its special effects in order to appear interesting.

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) UNDER THE CUT:

Passing the Bechdel:

The only time that Christine and The Ancient One share the screen is when the latter is unconscious and dying, so the failure here is particularly unsurprising. For that matter, you could even argue that ‘The Ancient One’ isn’t much of a name for a named character to have...

Female characters:

The Ancient One.

Christine Palmer.

Male characters:

Kaecilius.

Stephen Strange.

Billy.

Nicodemus West.

Etienne.

Jonathan Pangborn.

Mordo.

Wong.

Daniel Drumm.

Dormammu.

OTHER NOTES:

Kaecilius produces two blades simultaneously for the beheading of the librarian, but the head is removed in a single slice, which means that one of those blades was being waved around purely for the Cool Points of dual-wielding. All about that aesthetic.

Someone sure did enjoy Inception, huh?

Remember that thing about how Iron Man balanced Tony Stark’s initial self-absorbed asshole behaviour really well with his journey to heroism in order to make him palatable enough to watch in the first place? Strange categorically does not get that treatment. He’s just an egotistical jerk who is tedious to watch, and while his arrogance is variously addressed by other characters, him going through an emotionally redemptive process is presumed by the script rather than actually being included.

If they really, really wanted Benedict Cumberbatch for this role, I feel like they should have just allowed him to be a British doctor living and working in the States. The guy cannot do accents.

My sister saw them filming the scenes in the streets of Kathmandu. Small world.

I understand that The Ancient One was an Asian man in the comics, and while I applaud the decision to make the character female in this film (especially considering that the only other significant female character is the awkwardly-included personality-lite love interest Christine), they shoulda done it without the white-washing. Tilda Swinton is great, though.

...Mister Doctor.

in an altogether lacklustre film, The Ancient One’s final moments are a highlight.

Also a highlight: the reverse destruction in Hong Kong, a much better use of the bountiful reliance on special effects in this movie, where so much of it previously had been empty spectacle.

So, let’s talk a bit about that well-known writing rule: Show, Don’t Tell. 

While this movie certainly does a lot of showing in the showy sense of the word - the frequently-empty spectacle of special effects as mentioned above - that’s not the type of show from whence story comes, and it leaves the thin plot to be almost exclusively told, without active support in the content of the film. Having characters charge around in the mirror universe doing weird spatial warping shit may be visually entertaining enough to hold the audience’s interest (at least the first time around), but it doesn’t help us to comprehend any aspect of the plot, its rules, what drives it, what matters, etc. It’s just...empty spectacle. Doctor Strange doesn’t pretend to be complex or deep storytelling outside of that anyway, and that’s ok insofar as there’s no reason it has to be or even should be, but what it is, when you set that spectacle aside, is...kinda nothing?

The game of ‘recount the plot as simplistically as possible’ goes like so: arrogant doctor suffers a seemingly incurable injury, searches for a cure anyway, finds a temple of the mystical arts, learns some mystical arts, fights some rival magicians, thwarts their evil plot, the end. As I’ve noted before, the ability to distill a plot to its simplest form is not in itself proof that the plot is somehow bad or lacking; the question is what does the actual film do to make that simplistic plot work for it? When the answer is ‘...kinda nothing?’, that’s a bad sign, and particularly unfortunate here because the whole mystical arts and magicians and the freakin’ multiverse thing has no excuse for being this boring. As a simplified plot, Doctor Strange still sounds like it could be intriguing, it’s brimming with potential, and yet the only thing it exploits that potential for is an excuse to over-indulge in special effects. It’s a waste of story ideas, to start with, and considering the cast, a waste of actors, too. If you’re not gonna make the most of their skills, you might as well cast a horde of unknowns and save the casting portion of the budget for, I dunno, another gravity-defying skyscraper battle?

It should come as no shock at this point that I’m about to make this about the greatest resource of any story: the characters, both because that’s what I always do, and because damn, did they forget about characterisation being, y’know, a thing you actually have to write into the script? You can cast the greatest actors in the world if you want, and they’ll do their best to make a symphony out of the single note you give them to work with, but even then all they can do is make thin material look its best; they can’t magically generate story action and development in the places where their characterisation should have been. Let’s talk about Kaecilius as an example, because as the plot’s antagonist, he’s the most egregious of the lot: why is Kaecilius the villain? The part where he’s positioned opposite the protagonist characters and their ethos is an indicator, yeah, but why is he there, doing what he’s doing, what are his motivations? The basic answer is that he wants to bring Dormammu and the power of the dark dimension to Earth because he thinks it will bring peace and life everlasting. How do we know he wants that? We’re told so in the dialogue. Why does Kaecilius think this is a good idea? Don’t know. Turns out Dormammu’s bad news, but we don’t know how or why Kaecilius was misled on the subject. Power from the dark dimension is apparently bad news too - we know because we are told so in the dialogue - but why exactly this is and what the consequences are is unclear. We don’t have the information we need in order to understand why Kaecilius turned so severely, why certain rules exist or why they are being broken; everything we know, we know because it’s delivered to us in plain speech, not because we see it demonstrated in the events of the film, and considering that the core of the conflict seems to have come from distrust in The Ancient One’s teachings, it’s pretty ironic that the narrative then expects the audience to know or believe the truth in anything that she or her acolytes utters. If we were shown the truth of it, or at least shown the reasons to doubt or contemplate alternatives, we might be able to build a story out of this, but instead, we get ‘fuck you, it’s like this coz we said so. He has metallic purple eyeliner, isn’t that enough?’

This lack of character building spills out to impact the rest of the characters too, naturally; the criminally-underused Mordo suffers especially as a result, since everything from his reason for coming to Kamar Taj, to his supposed rigid outlook on life, to his disillusionment with the cause, all relies on the audience simply shrugging off the idea of being shown the evidence in behaviour, the influence of the past, how it shapes his perspective in the present, etc, just forgoing anything that could be considered characterisation (and therefore, fodder for character development), and settle for ‘he’s like this: we know because another character said so’. Functionally, Mordo is hardly a character at all, he’s just The Other Guy that Strange sometimes interacts with, and big revelatory moments for him - Strange outing The Ancient One’s use of dark dimension power, Mordo grappling with his shaken faith - fall flat because we haven’t seen why this should matter, why Mordo can’t bring himself to see shades of grey in a situation, why The Ancient One has kept these secrets in the first place etc. The Ancient One herself fairs only marginally better as a character because the only thing we know about her (mostly because we’re told) is that she’s secretive; that said, ‘she’s secretive’ doesn’t work all that well as a sneaky way to avoid actually fleshing out a character, and the fact that instead of having any more meaningful secret revealed other than her power usage (which, again, isn’t that meaningful really because we aren’t shown a genuine reason to attribute it meaning, we just know that the characters are saying upset words about it), The Ancient One simply dies without ever becoming less enigmatic, means that we’re still left with more of a shell of a character than a real one, just the concept of a person, not an actual person with motivations and decisions we are privy to or could understand (and therefore, could judge or attribute meaning).

Strange, at least, is shown to be an arrogant jackass, but, as noted, that personality template is presented in a very cliche manner that - in the context of the MCU - reads much like a Tony Stark knock-off, only without any of the character nuance or developmental arc to pull it off in a palatable or entertaining fashion, and part of that problem is the fact that while Strange’s initial personality is shown, his process of change is...not. Like anything else in the film that should have been dynamic, it’s told to us in words more that it is demonstrated in actions. The earlier portion of the film is somewhat slow and low on intrigue or tension due to the fact that Strange doesn’t know the extent of the world he has become involved with, and he’s wholly occupied with his quest for a cure (though, frustration with his progress or with the fact that none of his training seems relevant to it is pretty light-on, as are any moments of struggle with his own self-interest vs the greater good - Strange’s hands are just a means to an end so that he has a reason to find Kamar Taj, rather than a sustained part of his struggles on a physical, mental, or emotional level). As soon as Strange learns that there’s a bigger battle out there, Kaecilius attacks (very convenient timing), and the story changes gears to launch headlong into its final act, with only time for The Ancient One to tell Strange that this is not about him (though, again, his self-interest has not remained centralised enough nor created continued strife necessary to make this declaration seem revelatory) before Strange is faced with either playing the game, or letting Kaecilius bring Dormammu and end the world. As such, Strange deciding that endless dark dimension torment is a bad thing isn’t really a big forward step (or even a selfless one - he could still be 100% focused on returning to his old life and leaving the multiverse to the pros, he just obviously can’t achieve his own self-interest with Dormammu around). Technically, we never see proof that Strange has given up his old ways, bettered himself as a person, or made any kind of decision that isn’t about his own ego (sticking around to become a universe-saving time-lord sorcerer is, um, a distinct step up the power trip ladder, after all). The idea that this character has actually gone through anything more than a career shift is just kinda assumed, rather than being demonstrated, and consequently, the idea that this is a character worth rooting for now is also, just assumed.

Ultimately, the moral of the story is pretty obvious - ‘show, don’t tell’ doesn’t have to mean ‘never provide exposition to explain anything’, but it does mean that you should try to demonstrate essential things like worldbuilding and characterisation as often as possible, if for no other reason than because letting your audience see that something is so is much more engaging and powerful than just telling them how it is. If all you’re gonna do is tell, you might as well just stick with reciting the plot aloud, it’d be cheaper and less time-consuming, and while it wouldn’t really take advantage of the fact that film is a visual medium, just churning out a bunch of special effects shenanigans without a plot to underpin them doesn’t take as much advantage of that as you might think, either. Imagine what an interesting, dark, twisty film we could have made out of this story if, say, questioning The Ancient One’s teachings (or cleaving to them unflinchingly) had been made a prominent concept, so that rifts in trust and the shaking of core beliefs about the universe were more meaningful developments? Imagine if Dormammu was a more significant idea about which we heard conflicting information from unreliable sources, imagine if we could see how tantalising Kaecilius’ perspective was, if Strange struggled at all with who to believe and how to reconcile his ego with the smallness of his existence in the vast multiverse, etc, etc. Imagine if the plot had some sort of core concept instead of just empty spectacle and placeholder characters. Imagine. What a waste.

[thesaltminers]

The Curious Case of Megan Derr

Megan Derr is the co-owner of Less Than Three Press, an indie LGBTQ publishing house--and she’s also their most prolific author. Before LT3’s founding, Megan posted her slash fiction on LiveJournal and Fictionpress, epicenters of older wank that unfortunately went unrecorded.

Over the years, Megan has been embroiled in several dramas, none of which impeded LT3’s growth. When juxtaposed with similar controversies, this lack of fallout becomes curious.

Was she just Not That Bad, comparatively? Did people not care? Or had Megan's navigation of the drama de-escalate any chance at a larger blow up? We investigate.

Why does Megan matter?

As visible co-owner of a successful and award-winning LGBTQ press, Megan is officially a gatekeeper. Her personal opinions matter and her voice reflects on her business… theoretically. Of course, in the past Megan has implied she was a martyr for the community, working so hard for them, whilst neatly minimising that her profit also comes from that same community

Nonetheless, she has a direct hand in what gets published, which is her right as co-owner. LT3 proactively publishes trans, bi, ace, and other less-exposed areas of the queer spectrum.

While this is obviously wonderful in a lot of ways, LT3's prominence in this particular publishing sphere becomes concerning when you realize that Megan Derr's personal beliefs and ethics drive the majority of the publishing decisions, and thus, what representation is produced. Given her avowed dislike of #OwnVoices (which will be expanded upon further in this report) and her insistence that the subject of a genre is not the audience for that genre, the implications are troubling.

We posit that Megan skirts the line of actionable offences, but works to "poison the well" or create a toxic environment. This is more ephemeral than other infamous instances of wank, but it is a long-running pattern of behavior with real consequences for both individuals and the community as a whole.

Social Media Climate

Recently, we compiled reports on Santino Hassell and Riptide Press, the latter of whom is still attracting attention for bad decisions.

Social media is primed for another explosion. The match was lit when the Bi Book Award finalists were announced and several Twitter users took umbrage with the two competing publishers of the year: Riptide Publishing and Less Than Three Press.  

The current call out

Twitter user BrookieRayWrite reacted to the Bi Award announcement with a threaded post, which included screenshots of Megan's past behaviour. They referenced two incidents: Megan’s dislike of #OwnVoices—a movement in publishing to uplift authentic minority experiences so that people could find content they felt connected to—and her blog post declaring M/M is for women.

However, this was not the first time someone tried to call out Megan. Heidi Belleau, an author LGBTQ romance, posted a comprehensive thread in 2016.

The rest of which, can be found here.

Nothing came from this Twitter call out. But now Heidi has resurfaced with her complaints about Megan, and with her comes an old wank standby to defend Megan--Aleksandr Voinov.

Yep. He called her crazy. In case you missed it, Heidi Belleau takes on this moniker to analyze its silencing and delegitimizing function. In short, Voinov is not only being ableist, he is actively working to create a hostile landscape to voices critical of Megan Derr.

Moments of Note

“No Gay Aces”

In an incident that went unrecorded, but that we witnessed at the time, an author published a book with a character who identified as “gay ace.” Incensed, Megan declared that there was no such thing. This conflict is worthy of note because its exemplifies Megan’s confidence in her own rightness and her refusal to ever back down from a position, a character trait that shines through in following events.

However, perhaps it also showcases Megan’s reaction when she knows she’s incorrect—as of now, the conflict seems to have been scrubbed from GoodReads. We hesitate to include unsupported facts, but feel it is important in Megan Derr's case to establish her pattern of behavior, in order to examine her tactics and strategy.

“Rose Lemberg”

At the height of #OwnVoices, Megan was becoming increasingly irritated over what she interpreted as a movement to outlaw people writing outside of their identity. She replied to a Tweet by Rose Lemberg—

Apparently Megan needed a reaction, because she Tweeted at Rose twice.

Megan's interpretation of “you are not doing us a favor,” as “don’t do this,” has the unfortunate implication that she believes writing outside of her identity is doing someone a favor.

When Rose removed themself from the conversation, Megan reacted thusly:

She steamrolls over Rose's "no spoons" comment, a clear signal in the disabled community that further engagement would be literally damaging to the respondent. The fact that she ignores that signal is incredibly ableist—and if she's ignorant about that, it just shows how unprepared she is to write disabled characters, thus proving Rose's point.

After confronting Rose, and not getting the response she wanted, Megan unfollowed.

Megan apologized for misgendering Rose, and we do not believe she would intentionally misgender someone. However, it does illustrate her "shoot first" nature.

“M/M Is for Women”

Turnabout is fair play, in a sense, because Megan had her own opportunity to open a discussion and then immediately block responses to it.

Megan lobbed quite the cannonball across the community’s bow with this fascinating retort against white cis gay men, prompted by a gay man who had called out the M/M genre for its fetishism of its subjects. Out of all her altercations, this one may be the most ill-advised (in a PR sense). It is also one where she found her audience not only unreceptive, but actively accusatory.

Whatever her point may have been, Megan said M/M wasn’t for gay men. Yes, Yaoi, BL, and slash fic was, on the surface level, fueled initially by a female audience. Yes, they fall under different genre conventions than the works of EM Forster and other literary authors. But there’s something undeniably and offensively entitled about declaring ownership of a genre over the actual subject of that genre.

When Megan felt that people were ignoring her reasoning unfairly, she shut down comments.

Friend/Colleague Exodus

If one were to casually take note of the comings and goings of Megan’s friends and colleagues, they may notice a gradual change in the cast of characters. The common denominator of this situation, of course, is Megan. There is a track record of Megan and her sister, Sam, saying oddly misguided and downright offensive comments to their authors, usually trans authors, at which point the relationship is ended and the author quietly moves on.

Water off a duck’s back

People in Megan’s sphere have probably noted that, controversy after controversy, nothing sticks. Even after years of wanky drama all throughout M/M’s history, with the inevitable apologies and flounces from the authors and readers at the center of each crisis, Megan keeps on trucking. The question is, what makes her different?

Leaving the realm of screenshots and facts, there’s only theory to go on. For instance, maybe the conflicts Megan faces are small enough, and far enough apart, that no one can exactly put into words why they think she should be called out. Or perhaps the people who dislike her realize some hypocrisy would come with accusing her of something. (Those in glass houses, etc.)

From a more practical angle, she almost never apologizes. Typically, the subjects of wank quibble, apologize several times, and release statements. Megan usually just posts a few accusatory tweets and then moves on after blocking anyone who could possibly question her worldview.

As evidenced by the more recent wanks, there is generally tangible evidence of harm with multiple victims stepping forward to detail their abuse. However, this takes years and momentum for this to occur. We know that Megan has her share of victims as well, and we know that they have experienced mental and emotional harm that has had real impact on their ability to work. Yet if people were to inspect why they don’t like her, would they only find several blog posts and Tweets that are abrasive and tone-deaf?

Her Modus Operandi has always been to aggressively confront someone she disagrees with (ex. Rose Lemberg) and then flounce/block when she’s challenged. Mirroring that, when someone confronts or disagrees with her, she immediately shuts down discussion (ex. M/M is for Women blog post).

As the co-owner of LT3, she also partly controls the narrative of indie LGBTQ publishing. Her choices and attitude influence the community tone and acceptable in-group culture, and, arguably, add toxicity. However, to pin down specific instances (and therefore confront and address them), is incredibly difficult—which is possibly why every call out thus far has dwindled without fanfare.  

In Summation

The overarching, and fascinating, truth about Megan is sometimes she makes sense. Unfortunately, she also says a lot of bullshit. This may come from a lack of ability to grasp nuance.

Does #OwnVoices put pressure on people to out their life circumstances for the sake of credibility? Probably, yes. But others feel confident in self-reporting, wanting their voices out there for others to hear them. Do people mispronounce white people’s names? Yes. But that doesn’t negate the racist undertones and microaggressions minorities face when people mock their names. These, among other situations, are odd hills Megan chooses to die on seemingly because she doesn’t want to understand them.

The current call out is in reaction to the Bi Awards. Certain authors have stepped forward to Tweet their protest of LT3's nomination. They argue that Megan, as the owner of LT3, has promoted an environment that does harm to bi voices, and they feel it is inappropriate for her to be celebrated in this specific context.

The situation is still developing. From here, we can see only two branching paths. Either those running the Bi Awards rescind LT3's nomination, or they do not.

But this event is dredging up old salt. As with any wank, one is left wondering what the conclusion should be; Exile? Apology? Loss of sales? What does a successful call out look like? Megan is a real person with a wife and a business that she has worked hard to develop. She publishes minority representation because she believes in that effort.

But her belief does not exculpate her.

She has managed to repeatedly dodge accountability. Whether this is through calculated tactics or a magical formula she managed to stumble upon doesn't change the fact that she has actively contributed to making the community hostile to marginalized people. It doesn't change the fact that her status as a major publisher among LGBTQIA online presses shields her, especially as those who would ordinarily call her out for bad behavior must hesitate and consider the economic ramifications of doing so.

Now, to guess what Megan might pull from this to deflect responding to the salient points? Probably that we mentioned her mom voted for Trump.

Interesting links: 

Heidi

http://archive.is/Aio1f

http://archive.li/1IknD

http://archive.li/SsQ41

Maria_Reads

http://archive.li/zPqGa

http://archive.li/kCInK

[anneapocalypse]

[tone of genuine curiosity, as clarified in an elcor-esque fashion because the internet renders all emotion an uncertain factor] You're welcome to skip this ask if you ain't up for it, but re: the perpetual debate over Problematic Subjects In Media, I've seen you in the past write many a critique on how fandom writes/treats women / BDSM / etc. Does this not fall under the idea that the writer has a responsibility in how they handle / frame certain issues in their writing?

Hi Silt! I’m up for it, but buckle in, because this is gonna get long. :)

Okay so the thing is, this is a broad topic and these days I try to resist treating it as a zero-sum game with “No Critique Allowed” on one side and “Relentlessly Harass People Who Make Bad Content According to Our Arbitrary But Obviously Correct Standard” on the other. 

Let me state clearly for the record: both of those options are terrible. Fortunately, it’s not all or nothing, and those aren’t the only horses in the race.

The way that female characters, characters of color, disabled characters, and other representations of marginalized groups are treated in media remains very much of interest to me. That hasn’t changed. My approach has changed somewhat over the years (as I’d hope it would, if I’m continuing to grow as a person), largely due to understanding that some rhetorical styles are more effective than others when you actually want to reach people or change something.

If I gave the impression that I want to absolve creators of all responsibility, that was never my intent. In fact, I mentioned critique and growth as part of the process in one of my recent posts. I do critique the media I regularly consume, and in fact the more heavily I am immersed in something, the more in-depth my criticism, because we’re best able to examine the things we know best.

What I do feel is that creators need room to grow, and fandom can be a great test bed for exploration, where creators work with elements of established media to explore different ideas and techniques. I’m not saying fandom is only a test bed, or like, a trial run for original work, because I don’t think that; I think fanworks are worthwhile in their own right, written for enjoyment and personal indulgence. But the fact is that many of us do or will create original work, and for many of us, creating fanworks helps us build a skillset we’ll use for original work too. 

That said, the cultural impact of fandom is more limited than that of popular media. I’m not saying it has no impact–and indeed, in a time when we have multiple known works of popular published fiction that are retooled from fanfics, when TV writers are on twitter regularly interacting with their fanbases, it’s probably safe to say fandom has more impact on popular media than it ever has before, but neverthelesss, its impact is still limited. The average piece of fanfiction does not reach an audience on the scale of a piece of popular media, that’s just a fact.

Does that mean we shouldn’t bother looking at patterns in fandom and fanworks? Hell no! Fandom is a microcosm–the patterns we see in fandom do absolutely reflect wider social patterns and in fact for very immersed fans it can make those patterns more apparent. And I think it’s good for us to discuss them, address them, become more aware of how we play into them–especially if we’re creating or planning to create original work.

Because these kind of discussions, when they are actually discussions, do work. I talk about the season 10 climate in the RvB fandom a lot, but even back then, I saw people change their minds about Carolina, not because they were accused of internalized misogyny or told to feel guilty for not liking her (shockingly, shaming people for their taste doesn’t have a high success rate in changing their minds), but because someone presented them with a compelling case for a more nuanced reading of her character. My experiences in past years led to me almost checking my watch to see fans turn on RvB’s newest female character this season, and you know what? It hasn’t happened. Things do change, and I don’t think fandom turnover is the sole reason. I would love to see some shifts in other patterns as well. For example, I would love to see trauma in female characters given as much weight as it is given in male characters. I would love to see more artists willing to draw Tucker with brown eyes. Those will be discussions, and we’ll continue to have them.

What I’ve seen happening in recent years, though, is a turn toward a certain ideal of purity in fanworks. It’s not an ideal of working toward more complex and thoughtful portrayals of characters; rather, it’s an all or nothing attitude that says some characters and ships and topics are Good and worthy to be explored in fanworks, while other characters, ships, and topics are Bad and anyone who touches them or likes them is Bad, and also fair game for targeted harassment.

I keep drawing comparisons between fanworks and original work for a reason–the attitudes that I find most unsupportable in fandom are the same ones I find untenable when it comes to original work, and when you apply them to the latter, their limitations are far more obvious. 

One example: the idea that it’s wrong to find any reasons to sympathize with an antagonist, or to look for an interesting and complex backstory, one that might make sense of (not even to say justify) their actions. That’s all well and good when you’re engaging purely from a fan perspective I guess, but what happens when you want to write a novel? If it’s morally wrong to find complexity and interest in villains, are you morally obligated to make your antagonist as bland and cartoonish as possible, to be sure no one could possibly relate to them? Is that good writing? Is that what we want?

Or take the idea that it’s morally wrong to ship unhealthy ships–and this attitude in fandom goes that shipping certain ships is wrong regardless of how or why, to the point that people will proudly identify themselves as “anti-[ship],” thus building a kind of identity around not shipping a Bad Ship (and giving rise to the umbrella term “antis” to refer to this attitude). Carry this into original work and… you’re not allowed to write unhealthy relationships? You’re not allowed to write any conflict into a relationship between two “good” characters lest it be perceived as “abusive” or “toxic?” 

Then there’s the idea that it’s morally wrong to write fic with dark subject matter, which is what my most recent posts were about. I’m never going to argue these things can’t be done badly but I’m absolutely going to push back against the idea that they can’t be done at all. And I could write paragraphs more about how incredibly reductive I find the whole idea that certain topics are just off-limits for fiction, that art isn’t allowed to be catharsis (especially in a tiny niche setting like fandom, for corn’s sake) but this post is long enough, so I think I’ll put a lid on it here. ;) But frankly, if someone’s going to write dark fiction insensitively, in bad taste, or just plain poorly, there are worse places for it to exist than on AO3 tagged with content warnings, where nobody’s paid a hot cent for it and the way out is just clicking the back button.

[aion-rsa]

Writing in the Negative Spaces: An Interview with Author S. L. Huang

https://ift.tt/2NJCgSk

We talked to debut author S.L. Huang about her speculative fiction thriller Zero Sum Game.

facebook

twitter

google+

tumblr

Interview Bridget LaMonica

Tor Books

Oct 3, 2018

Warning: This inteview contains spoilers for Zero Sum Game.

Zero Sum Game by S. L. Huang follows mercenary Cas Russell who has incredible math and combative skills. She can calculate how and where to punch someone for maximum efficacy, or she can do a sweet 360 slide into parallel parking with a stolen car. The possibilities are just about endless... Until, of course, she faces up against a terrifyingly effective psychic and a secret organization.

Read our full review of Zero Sum Game here.

Den of Geek had the chance to chat with real-life mathematician and badass S.L. Huang about crafting the world for Zero Sum Game.

Den of Geek: I was checking out your bio and I saw that you’re basically a badass in real life. I just think it’s really amazing that you’re a weapons expert, a professional stuntwoman and you have a math degree. I think it’s safe to assume these experiences inspired the whole story and the fact that your action hero character is just really, really good at math?

S.L. Huang: I definitely could not have written the book without all of these experiences in aggregate. I sort of had the seeds for this story since I was probably in middle school or high school. I always loved math and I’ve always been a writer, was always writing stories, and I just kept having this recurring thought... I’d be out there playing softball or something and I’d be like “Oh man, why can’t I calculate how I can swing the bat and how to hit the ball so I can get a home run? I can do all the equations but I can’t actually do it!” It always fascinated me, this idea of somebody who could do the calculations and then translate that to real life. What type of superpower that would be.

I was kicking around this idea and then I went to L.A. and did stunts and guns for like ten years. L.A.’s sort of this Wild West -- it’s really a crazy place to live and work. All of that together I think helped formed the texture of the other half of it and I was finally able to write the story.

Oh that’s fantastic. And I’m secretly happy that you didn’t write this in middle school because I’m sure some counselors would have been involved. I mean, you do have a fair amount of murder and mayhem, which I highly enjoy.

Good point! Some people have asked me if Cas is based on me or if I’m like Cas and I say “I certainly hope not. I hope I kill far fewer people than she has.”

Would you say your math-based anti-hero is a challenge for people who are not really into math to perhaps find some love for the subject?

I’m such a math geek and I love math so much. I totally get that math is not for everyone. That’s totally fine. I want this book to be accessible to non-math people, for non-math people to love it too. I’ve worked very hard to make sure that’s true. I think I would say for non-math people, I don’t necessarily hope they come out of it with a love for math, it’s fine if they don’t, but that they can vicariously enjoy that adoration for numbers that I have and the unbridled fun of mathematics.

One character I have to mention is Rio -- the Christian psychopath. I thought maybe it had to be intentional to have these two very diametrically opposed ways of life in this one person and it can’t just be because he can’t be mind controlled. Is there another reason you have this character in there?

I’ve always been fascinated by the character archetype that has some sort of difficulty with emotion. For example, in Star Trek we have Spock and Data, who are my absolutely favorite characters. I’ve written a lot of novels and stories where … I keep returning to this character archetype. I knew I needed somebody like that in these books. This is the first time I’ve done it in a non-sci-fi way. He’s actually a human person. He has a complete lack of empathy. He is what he is. He is fine with that. I really like where it ended up going.

It’s not meant to be like a bad commentary on religion at all. I grew up Catholic. I’m not anymore but that’s still very much a part of me. Many of the people close to me are very religious. Since that has been such a big part of my life, I wanted to explore aspects of that as well and explore how that can interact with these other elements. That was personal for me but in a way that I feel religion is personal to me, I respect religion and find value in it. [I was] sort of working that out through writing this character.

Literally everybody who’s interviewed me or read the book says, “He’s my favorite character.” (laughs) Which makes me a little concerned to be honest.

A recurring theme in your book is a balance between right and wrong, moral quandaries and what constitutes acceptable losses on both our protagonist's side and on Pithica’s side. What would you like readers to walk away with on this matter? I feel like you have something to say here and I don’t want to put words in your mouth.

I had one reader tell me -- and I love this, this is one of my favorite things -- one reader told me they disagreed with what the protagonist did at the climax and that they think she was wrong. I love that there are going to be readers who will come away with that. I hope they can understand why [the characters] made that choice but I love that they can disagree and see all sides of the situation.

There’s so much nuance in the world. There’s so many things that aren’t black and white and have these really messy, gnarly areas in between. I like to put my characters in those situations where they have to consider them. By proxy, then my readers have to look at that and be like “What would I do in this situation...what is the right choice here?”

It feels almost too easy to me when things are very black and white “Okay I’m gonna be the hero and make this choice and be completely shining and ethical and unreproachable.” I love watching those stories but it feels a little like a cheat to me. Some of it’s escapism. But our world isn’t like that. Personally I like digging into those messy areas and asking those questions. I think I would like readers to enjoy that nuance with me and dig into those uncomfortable places with me. Maybe that’s a journey we could take together.

It felt like that was a recurring theme. The protagonist is obviously our protagonist -- we want to root for her -- but she also does some shady stuff! And I’m like, “It’s just her job. Whatever -- she knocked this guy out again, it’s fine. Oh she killed someone, it’s fine.” You find yourself making excuses.

I would definitely call her an anti-heroine. She’s definitely criminal. She’s not a great person in so many respects but for me that’s what makes her so fun and one of the reasons I really love writing her.

It was very unsettling for the reader, reading everything coming from [the antagonist]. The logic she put forth, the reason they do what they do, it kinda made sense.

I hope it would! I just kinda wanted to live in that place between a little. Let’s ask these questions, we won’t necessarily know the answers but let’s ask those questions.

At the end, the antagonist has Cas completely under their influence and Cas has these flashback scenes. We see flashes of different characters and places, doctors, etc. It looks like a hint at Cas’s origin story -- why she has the mental capacity she has. Can we expect to get more of her backstory in a further novel?

Yes. Those are all pieces of an arc that exists already in my head and on my harddrive, so there’s pieces and hints of that.

What has influenced you in your writing?

I grew up nerd as I like to say, consuming all the geek media. My first stunt job was on Battlestar Galactica which was so trippy because I walked onto the set, and this was a job I’d been following every week all through college, and there’s Edward James Olmos.

Definitely I feel like...all of that, it influences me in a lot of ways. There’s also pushing back. Writing this violent anti-hero -- but making her a woman. It’s a little pushback against say, the Doctor Who archetype, a character who has been male up until this point.

Those negative places are places I definitely wanted to fill in. I always like subverting tropes, for instance the idea of playing with people’s minds. There’s a lot of sci-fi/fantasy that treats mind control really cavalierly. Harry Potter does this. They have a spell that’s considered a very minor spell that they use against Muggles all the time that wipes their memory. To me, that’s so horrible.

I think there were a lot of things that I sort of not necessarily saw in media growing up but that I didn’t see or I saw in ways that bothered me a little. I wanted to dig into those through my own writing -- through writing into those negative spaces -- what I really wanted to see and wanted to read.

Would you like to do any shameless self promotions?

As you know, Zero Sum Game releases October 2. I’m very excited and also very anxious. Tor is billing it as the “geek’s Jack Reacher.” It is an action sci-fi thriller about a heroine who can do math really really fast and uses it to kill a lot of people.

I’m also involved in a production for Serial Box that’s coming out in 2019. I’m really excited about this. It’s with fellow authors Yoon Ha Lee, Rivers Solomon and Becky Chambers. So that will be in 2019. I’m so excited about what we’re doing together.

You can follow author S. L. Huang and all her Twitter doings @sl_huang. Read S.L. Huang's Den of Geek guest post about the mathematicians who have inspired her.

Bridget LaMonica is a contributor at Den of Geek. Read more of her work here or follow her on Twitter @BridgetLaMonica.

from Books https://ift.tt/2IyYCQJ

[aboutthemponies]

About clop and the sexualizing of ponies

This is not something easy to write about. The subject I’ll be discussing is controversial, and it hits hard on an emotional level. Any attempt to discuss it usually is barred down by every kind of bias and logical fallacy in the book. Yet every time the subject is brought up, my mind screams with unspoken arguments and dialogue, and they haunt me, to the point that I’ve written and scrapped this essay many times. What follows is my best attempt to discuss this, and while it might not be perfect, I will finally be at ease sharing these words, knowing that I tried my best.

The subject is clopping, so if you’re not willing to have a mature, adult conversation at the moment, it’s best to stop reading now. Most of you are probably well familiar with the C word, though there will always be some who aren’t, so to be brief, a long time ago on the forums of 4chan, there was a set of “rules” declared that the internet must follow. While most of these rules are forgotten (you can look them up if you want), one stands out infamously. “Rule 34: There is porn of it; no exceptions.” R34 (as it is frequently abbreviated) is very much more like the law of gravity than a rule; there is no denying it nor its implications. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is not the exception of this rule, but rather the most prominent example of it. Tens of thousands of pornographic images of MLP characters exist, and there’s so much of it that MLP probably has more porn than any other fandom in existence.

Most people’s reaction to this fact is polar. In one camp we have the audience of this porn, which takes delight in its existence, and in the other camp, we have those who don’t view it and think it’s pretty messed up. This isn’t to say there is no middle ground in between; like all dichotomies, the reality is more of a spectrum, but for the most part, people’s opinions lie on the ends of this spectrum. Either you’re glad it exists, or you’re horrified by its existence. The point of discussing clop is not to change your opinion it; after all, the response to this material is an emotional one, and people can’t ignore what their emotions tell them. Instead, we must apply logic and reason to understand the issue, and what it means for the MLP fandom.

If you’re interested in why people seek out this pornography, ShellyD provides an excellent, objective commentary on the subject. While ShellyD does a great job addressing the “why” question, his presentation doesn’t delve deeper into what this means for to the fandom. It does, however, shed light on the complicated nature of human sexuality, which is something that our species has pondered for forever yet surprisingly isn’t openly talked about in nations like the US.

While sexuality is a very large and nuanced topic, in this day and age there are two ‘rules’ that are pretty much universally upheld. Sexual behavior must be consensual among all involved parties, and it also must be safe. In most cases, as long as those two criteria are met, the sexual practice in question is considered to be okay, regardless of how other people view it. It is from this angle that most people in favor of clop justify it. As clopping only involves one individual, it is consensual, and it’s obviously just as safe as normal masturbation, so many cloppers will ask, “What’s the problem? When did clop ever harm anyone else?”

I’d like to point out here that by the above logic, consensual and safe sexual behavior at any time, at anyplace, in front of anyone, is okay, and that’s just too large of a stretch to make. In the real world, there’s a lot more rules at play: laws, morals, social norms, etc. Why such rules exist is an interesting conversation in it of itself, but there’s no denying that here context is king; having sex with your partner in your own home is very different than having sex at work, in a school, or in public. The same applies for masturbation and all other sexual activities.

So when we talk about clop, we’re talking about a very specific context, the MLP universe. As well all know, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is a show dedicated to ideas like kindness, generosity, honesty, loyalty, and laughter, all bundled up into an idyllic package. While this show means different things to different people, there’s two obvious things that we can say are true about FiM:

Its primary theme is the idea that “Friendship is Magic”

Its target audience is young girls

These two facts alone ensure that the show never is going to dive into sexuality at all, as it is not age appropriate but also not relevant to its platonic themes. This makes the show itself a bad place for porn, and I don’t think there’s anyone actually hoping for the show to include sex scenes any time soon.

What’s more controversial is whether the MLP universe is an acceptable place for porn and sexual activity. To be more definitive, the MLP universe consists not just what we see in the show, but also what we don’t see, and this is why it’s much harder to judge whether the universe is the right context. We simply don’t know everything. However, one can take context clues from the show to discern whether sexuality does exist within the universe.

The base assumption is that the show is representative of the universe like any smaller sample of a larger data set. So if sexual behavior (arousal, intercourse, etc) exists in the universe, we’d expect to see hints of it in the show. However (and perhaps strangely), there aren’t any hints of this in the show: the characters are never horny, they are never suggestive, and most don’t even experience romantic attraction with the exception of a few crushes. Even among pairings like Shining Armor and Cadence, and Mr. and Ms. Cake, their relationships aren’t different than that of close friends. The only hint towards any sexual experience like what humans have is that the opposite gendered couples have offspring. In other words, reproduction is possible, but its mechanism is unknown. We do, however, know of one canon mechanism of reproduction: parasprites reproduce asexually by vomiting their children.

Any further explanation starts making assumptions, but from what we’ve seen, it’s fair to conclude that the characters are asexual and only act in platonic ways (with an occasional burst of romance). This also aligns with Lauren Faust’s intention “to give girls a respectful interpretation of the thing they like.” Because young girls aren’t sexually aware, any world they would imagine would be platonic (perhaps with some romance) like Equestria. This all leads to the conclusion that the MLP universe isn’t the appropriate place for porn, due to the show’s design.

Rule 34 of course, states that there’s going to be porn, no matter what, so what happens when you take a platonic universe and make porn of it? The result is an act of transformation; in the original work all the characters were strictly platonic, and in the derivative work the characters all turned sexual (or hyper sexual, as pornographic works try to be as arousing as possible). As this transformation is from one extreme to the other, it’s not surprising that some fans dislike it. After all, if an individual likes a work because of its specific characteristics, removing those characteristics is a sure way to get them to dislike it.

But to look beyond the individual and their preference, what does this transformation, from platonic to sexual, mean to the fandom at large? The fandom (by definition I’d say) is a place to celebrate the show with others online and in real life, so the fandom’s goal should always be to do just that: celebrate MLP:FiM. This includes the creation of fanworks like art, music, and stories because these works typically reflect the same things we love about the show, whatever it may be. But because clop is transformative, it does not reflect the established characters and their platonic relationships.

This puts clop into a category I call non-appreciative fan works, and in it falls anything that celebrates ideas opposite to ones in the show, like blood and gore as another example. This doesn’t mean that these works are bad, evil, or shouldn’t exist, it’s just that they don’t celebrate the show like other fan works, and by using the same franchise to push the opposite message, these works can disrespect the show. How much they disrespect the show depends on the fan work itself; a long fanfiction with a well explained sexual relationship wouldn’t be disrespectful at all (it also wouldn’t be pornography), but an image showing the entire Mane6 being raped would be incredibly so. Typically, the more sexually explicit a work, and the less context provided, the more depreciative the work is, though this scale is different for every person.

The best way to handle non-appreciative fan works is the tried and true method of tagging. Works that are particularly sexual or particularly bloody probably aren’t what fans of the show are looking for because FiM isn’t either of those things. It’s also better if the tagging systems are nuanced; there’s a big difference between a work that’s sexual, and a work that’s pornographic (in case I haven’t made the distinction clear, pornographic works are sexually explicit works with the intention or effect of being as arousing as possible). The same nuance holds true for the “saucy” works; is the pony’s butt there to be arousing, or is it there because that’s just where butts anatomically go? If done properly, this ensures that no one accidentally views works that contrast what’s explored in FiM.

Part of this is also not pushing the clop agenda in the rest of the fandom. As stated earlier, the fandom’s goals should be to celebrate the show for what it is, and clop deviates from that, so promoting it beyond acknowledging that it exists is unfair to people who wish to avoid it. The same holds true for people who intentionally attack cloppers; cloppers are also allowed to celebrate MLP:FiM, and seeking them out to yell at them is worse. Discussion with the intention to understand one another is always fine, but sadly it often turns toxic (for the brave souls who wish to understand, I applaud you and hope that you don’t receive nasty comments like I have).

The other issue that should be resolved is the misunderstanding between the two most opposite sides. It’s always okay if someone judges MLP:FiM as a bad place for sex because of the context, and it’s always okay if someone likes the porn. But when a member of the fandom discovers the clop (or a clopper), and they find the sexual transformation disrespectful, how do they know the artist/person isn’t trying to be disrespectful? Short answer is that they cannot know, unless cloppers/artists try to make that clear. For example, when someone states, “I love clop,” what do they mean? Is it the image of consensual sex between two of their favorite characters that they like, or is it the image of all the show’s cast being raped that they enjoy? These are two very different things, so if cloppers don’t want people to assume the worst, they should be more specific. The statement “I love clop because I like sexual fantasies between my favorite ships” is much more descriptive of what the person actually enjoys, and it also explains their motivation. Really, any short explanation should be enough to rid people of doubt that one is trying to be disrespectful.

Now to quickly summarize everything I’ve stated above: Clop is a hard thing to discuss. The subject tends to polarize people, which likely due to how complicated sexuality is. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with clop, though the judgement is ultimately based on whether one thinks it’s appropriate given the context of My Little Pony: Freindship is magic. Because it’s a show about friendship, and because it depicts its characters platonically, many will reach the conclusion that porn of the show is not appropriate. Anyhow, clop is a transformative work, which means that it should be tagged and available, but not promoted and not hated. Misunderstanding can hopefully be cleared up by having cloppers explain to non-cloppers that they mean no offense when the two worlds do collide.

At the end of the day we still can all celebrate pony together, and diversity within the fandom can help make it a great place.