#correlation not causation disclaimer etc etc

[reallunargift]

*thinks about D. Teresa and the political upheaval when she took a Galician lover*

*thinks about D. Pedro and the political upheaval when he took a Galician lover*

*thinks about D. Leonor Teles and the political upheaval when she took a Galician lover*

*thinks abou

[onesidedradiostatic]

Prev. https://www.tumblr.com/onesidedradiostatic/768663529880436736/re

Oh I see what you’re saying now! There’s been no “positive integer” of ace Mammon in the show! And you’re right!

I personally don’t hold out any hope that the show will ever cover or explicitly bring it up, outside occasional secondary/metatext, like the pride piece or social media. (I feel similarly about Alastor.) Can’t feel let down by the absence of something you hoped for if you never let yourself hope for anything! <— I tell myself, curled up on the floor. The old and factually incorrect “can’t miss what you never had” fallacy. /sarcasm

I’ve got aroace goggles but they’re not rose-tinted…. Likewise,

“(also having the "good" characters tell the ace character he's unfuckable and that he should keep fucking himself kindaaaaa doesn't sit right with me, I really don't want to read bad faith into mammon being made ace rep but it gets kinda hard like this)”

I feel this too, and nihilistically I feel like it’s just another one of those commonplace things that Hellaverse-style writing tends to use for comedic effect that inadvertently (or via unexamined bias, ie “this came so quickly and naturally to you that you didn’t pause to think about how this could come across to other people in your target audience or if there was a more effective way to do this before giving the go-ahead and locking it in? Ok.” Disclaimer: this is common in lots of media! I don’t intend to say it’s something unique to the H.verse writing. It can happen to anyone, like catching a cold, but it’s the hope that the writing and editing process will catch these instances and make them better, but stuff can slip through, it happens. No offence intended) implies something Less Than Ideal like a harmful stereotype or perpetuating casual bias and then assigning them Morality etc. We don’t need an aspec rendition of the Hays Code/Disney/dudebro film “queer-coded villain who you can tell is bad because they’re queer and that’s bad because it’s not good like the good guy!”

The “You like/don’t like sex/romance? What’s wrong with you? I’m the normal one!” can be toxic/dehumanising in both directions when one side thinks it’s superior to the other. But the common M.O is

- the old “If sex/romance = value/virtue/humanity, Then less/no sex/romance = less/no value/virtue/humanity”

- (Bonus points when it equates sex/romance with the capacity to love and be loved!)

- which when used as an insult is basically just a rehashed cousin of those nice-guy “fuck you you’re ugly anyway” and manosphere “I don’t want to fuck you therefore you have no/negative value”

- weirdly but not that surprisingly, it shares a few vibes with ablism, probably because certain people see aspec as something “missing or defective”. Which has historically been thrown at all lgbtqia+ so it’s sad that it persists from within the queer umbrella

- But, loosely speaking of theoretical connections to ablism… I’m not claiming that fidget toys are exclusively for one type of neurodivergence/or ASD. But there is enough fodder for a potential bad-faith reading “show implies aspec symptom of neurodivergence/ASD, says they’re unfuckable and less valued than neurotypical amatonormatives! correlation does not equal causation!” type thing. I’m too sleepy to go there.

- Saying “you’re unfuckable” to someone who doesn’t want to Do The Fucks isn’t an insult in of itself, (it’s like saying “You’ll never get a girlfriend!” to a gay dude, they’d be like “that’s exactly what I want!”) but the connotation that fuckable= worth as a person, therefore they have no worth, is. Like, you could just say “you’re a worthless piece of shit” and not bring sex into it at all, but it’s Hellaverse and sex is everywhere, including the language. It’s the lingua franca… the lingua fucka?

I could assume a goodish faith usage of insulting an ace character as unfuckable/‘the only person who’ll fuck you is you die mad’* in the “I know this bothers you, so I’m using it to bother you” way. Like how in the pilot Angel used -isms to bother Vaggie. :/

*’the only person who’ll fuck you is you’ is also a bonus trope of ‘aspec people are autosexual/autoromantic or self obsessed’ 😂

But yeah otherwise it sits weird.

There’s so much one could write and explore just on the general topic of “Aspec and Othering in the Hellaverse”, it’s actually fascinating. Whether it’s a good fascinating or bad fascinating is irrelevant though. Gender and Sexuality in horror and horror-inspired media is always a blast to look into. (You can’t tell me Alastor isn’t a little horror inspired. How his aspec-ialty can play a part in his portrayed uncanny-valley not-humanness to other sinners, being part device, performance and contradictory animal, etc etc. There’s heaps to go on if anyone felt inclined. Goodnight tumblr)

(prev)

this is a lot so I don't think I can cover everything here but yeah

I personally don’t hold out any hope that the show will ever cover or explicitly bring it up, outside occasional secondary/metatext, like the pride piece or social media.

alastor was at the very least allowed a verbal confirmation in hazbin itself so I don't think it's impossible for mammon (or octavia) to have allusions to their asexuality in their show, really I accept even subtext. for mammon it's still not even subtext yet, just word of god. but again, I won't fully judge him as bad rep here because obviously the show isn't over yet so reference to his asexuality could still come up in the future, I just had some hope it would happen sooner than later y'know and also ASMODEUS got to show up in full pan wear but we don't get any reference to mammon being asexual?

but yeah sorry this one is kinda nitpicking at this point, moving on, all you said after that yeah exactly what I meant about bee saying no one wants to fuck mammon as an insult, I know it's probably not intentionally shaming an ace character for it but it still can have bad implications even with good intention as just a lighthearted canon-typical joke

and this actually

- But, loosely speaking of theoretical connections to ablism… I’m not claiming that fidget toys are exclusively for one type of neurodivergence/or ASD. But there is enough fodder for a potential bad-faith reading “show implies aspec symptom of neurodivergence/ASD, says they’re unfuckable and less valued than neurotypical amatonormatives! correlation does not equal causation!” type thing. I’m too sleepy to go there.

I'm a bit worried about the infantilisation too, I've already seen people compare mammon talking about sex as an asexual to being like a child talking about sex

and mammon's constant use of toys in the trial doesn't really help with it, I worry that the logic behind mammon as ace rep comes down to "he's too childish and immature to understand sex and just pretends to understand it when he talks about it like a child" and that's on top of the whole "I can't see him caring about anyone legitimately therefore he's ace" logic which I have ALSO seen people say in response to him being ace

I don't want to assume that these were the actual intentions behind making him ace, of course these qualities can co-exist on top of being ace but the problem starts when you start correlating them and I think it's already bad that these are takeaways some parts of the fandom have

maybe I'm judging too early, maybe I just need to wait for mammon to be referenced as ace in the show itself and see how it's treated. but just. idk. there's just a lot of factors at play that makes me skeptical of him as ace rep, I was already skeptical when he was revealed as ace rep in the helluva pride art but this episode's showing of him has made me even moreso. genuinely, I do think having a canon sex-favourable ace is good! great in fact! but I can't praise it just for that when there's no indication of him being ace that you can see from watching the episode, if there is ever an episode that indicates him being asexual while being sex-favourable then I will praise it

anyways sorry for having topics surrounding ace mammon be so negative, I feel like it could overshadow the fact that I still really enjoyed the episode!!

[lansizhuis]

I’m seeing so many posts lately on how problematic and fetishising danmei is and I feel very discouraged...danmei has helped me feel more confident in my own sexuality and I never thought it was a bad thing. Can you elaborate on what some people think is wrong about danmei? Thank you

disclaimer: my response is specific to my own experiences so it’s def not a universal thing but perhaps can hopefully be considered as another perspective. and whelp im on mobile so i cant add the read more function, imma edit this when i wake up

I think this is almost the same “issue” with JP yaoi genre and how much the West have vilified the term “fujoshi”. This issue has a long af history so let me just redirect you to this short collection of threads about it. Anyhow, connecting it to danmei which now deals with CN culture on the take of BL, I think it’s a lot about outsiders to said culture demanding they be put in the spotlight aka if it’s not THEIR standard then it’s “wrong” and is therefore ~problematique~. This kind of baby activism which is performative at best mainly takes root in the Western ideology/society. I’m not saying all Westerners are like this but that a large chunk of the really loud ones are most often than not — them. I’m not even going to touch the whole fiction vs reality mentality yet (again, the relationship between the two is CORRELATION and NOT CAUSATION) but would focus mainly on nuances.

An example on why they call danmei ~problematique~ is calling the “shixiong/shidi/etc” relationships as “incest” bc they “practically grew up together”. Martial siblings in CN cultural context are NOT the same as regular siblings. A very specific example I can think of is MDZS’ Jiang Cheng and Wei Wuxian (disclaimer: i don’t personally ship them romantically) who have the dashixiong-shidi relationship and are “martial siblings” but NOT (blood) siblings. Wei Wuxian is technically still an outsider to the Jiang family bc he isn’t theirs by blood. And trust me on this — relationship by blood is a BIG DEAL for this cultural context.

One of the examples on why they call danmei ~fetishizing~ is when the couple goes beyond the fluff aka having sexual intercourse of any kind. At the top of mind, the most recent discourse I saw was how antis were trying to cancel STARember (tgcf manhua artist) for making Hua Cheng sucking out the poison from Xie Lian “too sexualized” (whatever their standard is) even if it actually happened in the novel but you don’t see the same comments when they read the novel. This reminded me of when fans in EN fandom who are fluent in CN mentioned that Xie Lian gave Hua Cheng a blowjob in the temple when the ghosts were lowkey losing their shit and even gave “evidences” of it and a lot in the fandom got mad because of the same reason. These are cases of people demanding that LGBT+ content should only be “palatable” when it’s not always sunshine and daisies otherwise they’re going to brand it “fetishizing”.

Another example is the anger for when one half of the couple calls the other “wife” because it’s “forced heteronormativity” plus “fetishization”. For one, I personally know gay people who call their partners “wife” bc it’s their term of endearment and yknow most of the time it’s as simple as that. In addition to danmei context, we don’t really use or have a rule that the one being called “wife” (from those what I’ve read – 老婆) as something equal to “bottoming” but more on a ‘personality trait’ for the lack of a better word. A very specific example in mind is how Zhenhun’s Zhao Yunlan calls Shen Wei his “wife” bc Shen Wei is the one who can cook, actually cleans, etc. Note that Zhao Yunlan IS the shou/bottom which is even more contrary to the argument that wife = bottom. Of course there’s context to each story so this is not a blanket rule but just goes to show a sound point against those making a universal statement of anger against the term “wife”.

There’s a whole lot more and I definitely did not cover deeper cultural nuances but the answer got too long already haha

OKAY SO MAIN POINTS:

1. Danmei is a genre with thousands of titles under its belt — some may be considered “bad” or “good”, etc much like how in English Literature, we have “good” and “bad” ones. I bet you that those who make universal blanket statements against it hasn’t even read more than 10 novels.

2. A lot don’t understand that it’s more than okay to not like certain tropes or certain novels without having to justify it with “woke” issues. My friends have some novels I’m not very into and I have some novels they themselves are not very into. It’s normal. Human beings are, after all, different from each other in a lot of ways. What’s not okay is propagating hate over fictional preferences. Trust me, literally everything can be ~problematique~ if we try to reach hard enough.

3. MOST IMPORTANTLY — your experience with danmei is not going to be the same with the rest of the world AND YOU ARE VALID. It’s not totally about the content we consume but majorly on how we process it that matters the most. If you’re able to be more accepting of yourself with it, then that’s amazing! If others don’t feel the same then they should drop it and leave others alone who had better processing.

[just-another-hhazbin]

Alright it is time to risk getting myself cancelled. Today we’re going to be talking about aspd, aka anti-social personality disorder.  I’m making this post because I haven’t seen one that discusses everything I wanna talk about so here we are.

What is anti-social personality disorder?  In the barest essentials, it is an emotional disorder where it is very difficult to empathize with other people and understand their emotions, have high levels of apathy, etc. Sometimes it also correlates with very low impulse control.

In other words, it’s what some of y’all like to call sociopathy and psychopathy.

Let’s get one thing clear first - sociopathy and psychopathy are not actual pscyhology-approved words. ASPD is. However, the media and culture (or at least American culture, which is what I have first-hand experience with) has villianized and exaggerated it into this common trend where every criminal or horror figure HAS to be a sociopath or psychopath. 

Yeah, as one does with mental illnesses. Thanks, Hollywood + Government.

So right off the bat - please I beg of you to stop using psychopath and sociopath to describe someone “crazy” or “evil.” Stop that. (I’m not saying never ever use the word. Some characters are gonna say slurs cause they be like that. But you, personally, should know better. And also stop putting it in your story summaries and character descriptions, goddamn.) 

You are perpetuating a false narrative. It is estimated that 1 in 100 people in America have ASPD. Someone you know probably has it, even if they haven’t been officially diagnosed or even know they have it. If they do know, they’re probably really damn sick of hearing that comparison. 

ASPD is also not an aesthetic, and you know exactly who you are. If you want the edgy serial killer aesthetic I am certainly not going to judge you, but for the love of everything leave aspd out of it.

Someone with ASPD is not emotionless.  That’s another false narrative we can chuck out the window. It is true that they might be quicker to temper or seem somewhat cold or analytical, but those are hardly traits limited to those with ASPD. Some people do have higher levels of apathy and/or narcissis than others, but none of us are robots so cut that generalizing shit out.

As with most things, ASPD is a spectrum with different levels of effect and functionality. Someone who is more affected by ASPD but has been to therapy may have a higher functionality than someone with a milder situation. 

Personal experiences shape individuals, shocking, I know.

Also, just because someone has ASPD does not mean that they cannot form relationships or friendships. It may be difficult to understand empathy but sympathy can often be managed, and it is possible to feel affection and friendship in some form for even the most severe cases. 

It also doesn’t mean that they can or will ever develop empathy. We are viewing the same world but with different lenses, and that is okay. 

We might not see friendships or relationships the same but that doesn’t mean we can’t form attachments or feel a sort of acknowledged possessiveness that is the equivalent for some of us.

That there is a lack of empathy doesn’t make someone a bad person. It is still possible for someone without empathy to look at a bad thing and know it exists and not do it because they have A) their own moral code that may not make sense to the normative lense or B) they have self-preservation and/or a basic understanding of social norms and fucking decency.

“But I know someone who did [x bad thing] and THEY were diagnosed with sociopathy/psychopathy!”

First off, I’d like to see who made that diagnossis, since again, those aren’t considered valid terminology by the majority of the modern psychology world. Secondly, I bet I can fiind at least a hundred to a thousand to a million people who did [x bad thing] and don’t have aspd. Correlation does not equal causation, people.

You don’t have to understand something to still choose to do it. We might not understand why someone would be affected by x action, but we can choose what impact we make. There is no little sociopath/psychopath demon running around in our head laughing maniacally and pressing “evil” buttons. (This is a thing that therapy can help with though, especially for some people. For others it’s more a matter of socialization and exposure and it’s a learning process for everyone, aspd or not.)

I would also like to take a moment here to say that if someone tries to excuse their abusive behavior with “I have aspd/[x mental illness here]” it is just that - an excuse. If they are in a situation where they really cannot control themselves, then it is time to go to therapy or call counseling services and in any case you yourself are in no way indebted to helping them or staying in a dangerous relationship.

Anyway, disclaimer over, moving on.

A lot of this has been discussed around, so here’s onto something I’ve been seeing a lot of recently, especially in fandom and certain LGBTQ+ spaces, and am getting really sick of.

ASEXUALITY, AROMANTICISM, AND ASPD DO NOT HAVE TO BE LINKED

The ace =/= aro argument has already been said a thousand times, but I’ll say it again. Both asexuality and aromanticism are spectrums and they do not go hand in hand. People who want sex might not want love and people who want love might not want sex and, once again, that is OKAY. 

Now, onto the aspd factor - lately I’ve been seeing a lot of people saying “oh, such and such character is ace/aro/acearo, they MUST have aspd [or other terms]” or “such and such is a psychopath/sociopath and SO, they’re aro.”

Stop that.

Seriously.

Someone may very well have aspd and be ace, or aro, or acearo. But once again, correlation does not equal causation. I do get that on some level it’s understandable to play someone with aspd as aromantic in particular, but the lense is far too narrow, especially when it turns into a “must” situation.

Maybe what you would consider “romantic love” isn’t the same as someone with aspd would consider “romantic love,” but that doesn’t mean that they don’t experience it. Individuals have their own individual identities and definitions. 

There aren’t unbreakable chains attaching aspd, asexuality, and aromanticism together. It is perfectly okay to be all of those things at once or have a character that is all of those things, but please remember that they are all independent traits and are spectrums that show themselves in a variety of ways.

Also, don’t call being aromantic or asexuality a mental illness. Seen that one making the rounds again too and it’s fucking stupid. Stop it and just admit to being ace/arophobic so I can block you and move on.

~Disclaimer that I am NOT a psychologist, just a tired bastard.~

[voxofthevoid]

Taking It Up The Ass Isn’t Character Growth - A Rant

So, in response to an ask a while back, I said I had a rant brewing on fandom and sex positions, and well, a lot of you wanted to see it, so here you go. You literally asked for it.

Disclaimer: This is going to talk a lot about top/bottom roles in slash fic and fandom attitude towards them and is heavily filtered through the lens of my own tastes and experiences with fandom. I’d also like to be upfront that I am 100% in favor of people writing whatever fictional content they want, and it’s not what fandom does with characters that bothers me but rather how that translates into attitudes towards real, live people. Also, this is the essay version of a slow burn AU because I regurgitate my entire fandom history before getting to the point. Beware.

I discovered fan-fiction around a decade ago, had no clue what the hell it was, got hooked and dived deeper. I started participating in fandom circa 2013, and I was fairly young and also completely inexperienced both sexually and romantically. The fandom in question was Hannibal and my ship of choice was Hannibal/Will. It was/is a very chill fandom in general, but we had our drama. And chief among the contentious topics was—you guessed it—the top/bottom debate. I can’t actually remember any other topic that was discussed and argued for so ardently in that fandom, at least in those days. Even after I drifted away, I came across a few posts on the matter.

Generally, you had two camps—people who supported strict roles and those who were in favor of switching*. And because we’re a society plagued by illogical assumptions, the strict role camp mostly had people who thought Mr. Big Bad Cannibal in the Fancy Suits wouldn’t take it up the ass because he’s older, more experienced, more mentally stable, and of course, more ‘dominant’ in personality. Yes, that sentence is chock full of problematic shit. I am aware. Lots of people were aware and argued strongly against attributing top/bottom roles to personality. I don’t remember anyone arguing as enthusiastically for Top Will, but those voices were also there. But the general idea was that assigning strict top/bottom roles to a male/male couple was casting them in a heterosexual mold and thus, the progressive option was to make them switch. Strict roles also garnered comparisons to “yaoi” and uke/seme stereotypes, which was of course bad and fetishizing and we, the Western media fans, of course had to do better. Stealth racism is fun to untangle.

Anyway, I lapped up the woke juice. Partly because I was a baby queer from Buttfuck Nowhere, Asia, who had zero exposure to LGBT+ communities and what queer folks did with each other. Partly because it was the stance taken by most of my favorite writers so it seemed like a good position to emulate.

Emulate it I did. Most discussions I had about this happened in private with the handful of close friends I had in fandom. Where it really showed was in my writing. I made sure to write switching—maybe not in every fic, but then I alternated between fics. Thing is though, I did have a preference. I liked Top Will. I created and consumed a ton of Top Hannibal, and sometimes it was okay, sometimes it was not, but I couldn’t pinpoint why it made me uncomfortable. Back then, I thought I was a cis questioning/bi girl and once again, the impression I got was that not being MLM, having a preference was automatic fetishization. So I tried my best to justify my preferences, to my friends at least. I think what I said was that fandom was skewed towards Top Hannibal, and I liked the opposite because I’m a contrary fuck. Which I am, to be fair, but this was just me desperately trying to figure shit out without being offensive.

That’s the line I touted all the way until 2018, which was when I fucked off to grad school in A City, finally freed of Buttfuck Nowhere and able to actually date. At this point, I was settled in my sexuality (girls only) and questioning my gender (non-binary or trans guy). I had also tentatively figured out during undergrad that I’m an exclusive top and a Dom. Actual attempts at dating cemented that, yes, those are my preferences, about as flexible as a steel rod. Cue motherfucking epiphany over my fanfic tastes.

And see, over these years, I was engaging intermittently with fandom. I dutifully wrote switch couples. I also continued to have rigid tastes and continued to explain it away as being a contrary fuck—to be fair, until Steve/Bucky, my preference did seem to be the opposite of the larger fandom preference. But correlation, as we know, isn’t causation. Until Steve/Bucky, I continued to write versatile couples because I honestly didn’t have the guts to just say I liked it just one way. I do now but even then, I feel compelled to add that it’s because I want to see my own taste reflected in fic, so I write/read the character I relate to as a top, it's not that deep etc. Would I be as forthright if I didn’t have that reason? Would I have such strict preferences in fic if I didn’t have strict preferences IRL? The latter’s a mystery, but the former isn’t—I wouldn’t be because fandom is still entrenched in the same ideas that got me to this point to begin with.

In every fandom I’ve been in, I’ve seen some version of this debate go around. Sometimes, it’s one party saying “why would you write Character X as a bottom, he’s so Reason A” and a reblog chain that insults the OP and/or extols the virtues of switching. Sometimes, it’s a general-ish message that says they don’t understand why people have strict preferences when we all know real gay couples switch. Sometimes, it’s blanket statements that accuse anyone with preferences of fetishizing. Sometimes, it’s the same reasoning that gets you “Character Y is a top because of Reason B” transposed on versatile couples except this takes the form of “they switch because they’re equals.”

Ya’ll, I’m fucking tired.

I have long since lost count of the number of stories I’ve seen where an exclusive top learning bottom and liking it is character growth. Where a character who prefers to bottom taking a turn on top is empowering.

Isolated, these are fine. But I’ve seen enough of such stories that it’s distinctly discomfiting and a major squick. Sometimes a trigger, if I'm too immersed in the story. I’m not going to try and burn an author at the stake because they pissed me off. I am just going to close that window and quietly handle my shit. People can write whatever they want. But this one theme hits too close to home, as you can see from this 1.6k rant.

My friend (also my ex-girlfriend) and I had an all-out bitching session about this the other day. Both of us are kinky fuckers who have rigid, complementary roles we prefer and we have both had our grueling days of struggling to reconcile our sexual tastes with our ideologies precisely because of how these things are frowned upon in conservative and progressive circles. Seeing that in fandom, of all places, is both insulting and exhausting. Topping and bottoming aren’t personality traits. Neither is D/s. It’s sexual preference and power play. It really does not have to be that deep. I am not exorcising childhood trauma using the bodies of women. My partners, former and current, have not been brainwashed by the patriarchy. We will not become better, more complete individuals once I magically stop being a stone top and my partners embrace the joys of a strap-on.

I have, with my own two eyes, seen someone say that in a really committed relationship, of course the couple will switch.

Bullshit.

It’s transparent bullshit. This does not get attributed to cisgender M/F couples. Even when the automatic assumptions of woman = bottom and man = top get addressed, switching isn't presented as the default. No one’s saying “oh, if you really love your husband, you’ll peg him”. I do know butch/femme sapphic couples get their own share of shit. Because it’s all heteronormativity, right? Can’t have any other reason for top/bottom roles.

You have two extremes with “so who’s the woman” on one end and “it’s woke only if they switch” on the other, and as far as I’m concerned, they’re equally damaging. There shouldn’t be a pressure, however subtle, to conform your taste in fiction to some arbitrary idea of progressiveness. People are going to like whatever they want anyway; all this does is create an atmosphere where those likes can’t always be freely expressed without a lot of mental gymnastics. We’re seeing so many versions of this in the pushback against so-called problematic content, but smaller, subtler versions exist too.

Fictional characters aren’t real. They can be whatever you want them to be. And yes, other people will often want them to be the exact opposite of your ideas, but that’s just how things work. Meanwhile, the people behind these usernames? They’re real. No one should be throwing real people under the bus to ‘protect’ characters that don’t exist. Hannibal Lecter doesn’t care whether he gets fucked or dismembered in Author B’s fanfiction, but the discourse that surrounds the dick up his ass? That does affect flesh and blood people.

I am not claiming that this is the only attitude in fandom. Middlegrounds do exist. Plenty of people abide by fic and let fic and there are folks who pipe up to say not every RL queer couple switches. But it’s often the extremes that reach most people. That was certainly my experience, and I’m not the only one.

I don’t really know how to end this post. It is 100% a rant and one that’s been building up for a while. Bottom line is that people’s sexual behavior varies wildly and whenever you attack sexual tastes in fanfic by saying it’s unrealistic - or worse because let’s be real, that’s a very tame word choice - please remember that there’s likely someone out there who practices it.

* I’m using switch and versatile synonymously in this post. It’s mostly concerned with top/bottom debates. A lot of what I’m saying is also echoed in portrayals of and discussions surrounding D/s dynamics, but I’m not addressing that as much for now.  

[everwalker]

If you’re writing the kind of story where spacecraft are a central feature then you probably want to put some thought into their design. But even if they’re just serving as a location or backdrop, you can jar your readers’ immersion with a spaceship that contradicts their expectations too badly.

Space travel in science fiction often draws parallels with the sea; fictional spacecraft often feel a lot like ships; to the point where that’s entered the popular consciousness. We’ll talk about some of the aspects naval architects consider when designing oceangoing ships, and how you can use them to invent spaceships that feel like they match the feel of your setting. Speaker: Dr. Nick Bradbeer

This talk was given by my dear friend Dr. Nick, who was a little concerned that there wouldn’t be much of an audience as it was the first session on Sunday morning after the late-night disco. There was, of course, standing room only. Silly Dr. Nick. 🙂

Is Space An Ocean?

The developing design of spaceships in fiction can be directly linked to our changing perspective of space. We originally thought of space as being basically a bit like air, and all the spaceships looked a little like planes or rockets. That changed in the 80s with the advent of Star Trek (correlation, probably not causation), when we started to think of space as more equivalent to water. (Disclaimer: this is purely in literary terms. The scientists continued to be factual about it.) That shift in thinking fundamentally changed the way we talk about spaceships in our stories. For a start, they became ships. They gained large crews, decks, command centres on the bridge, and cannons. Laser cannons, sure, but still.

From this…

… to this

This was, I think, the underlying point of the talk. Spaceships of the kind we write about in SFF aren’t possible – at least, not yet – so you as the writer get to decide the medium you’re designing them for. You build your own rules, however close to actual physics they end up being, and follow them. 

Designing Your Rules

Technology has four distinct phases, and you need to decide which phase your spaceships are in:

Experimental: ridiculously expensive. The world can afford to build one of these. (e.g. International Space Station)

Governmental: very expensive, affordable only by governments and mega-corporations. (e.g. space programmes)

Commercial: expensive, but within the price range of most corporations. (e.g. planes)

Personal: affordable by the average individual. (e.g. cars)

Your setting should have some form of technology at every phase of development, otherwise the setting won’t feel developed or developing.

You also need to consider the Mohs Scale of SciFi Hardness. How far do you want to bend physics? If you’re ignoring real physics, it’s still good to have consistent rules of fake-physics within which your technology operates. (Otherwise, just call it magic and be done with it.) Dr. Nick is a fan of the One Big Lie approach, wherein most physics is normal but one law is breakable or one piece of technology is impossible, such as the FTL (Faster Than Light) drive which makes it actually possible to travel between star systems.

Physics, schmysics

Form & Function

Generally speaking, the more mature your technology, the more aesthetic freedom you have in design. When the tech is experimental, the aesthetic tends to be quite function-driven and practical. As it moves towards the personal, freedom of design creeps in. There’s also a correlation in Sci Fi between aesthetic freedom and soft science: the less applicable real-world physics is to the setting, the more freeform the spaceship design tends to be.

There are, however, several aspects of function which will impact design:

Role: what is the payload and performance of the ship? Does it need to be fast, durable, stealthy, carry cargo, carry crew, etc? Is it offensive or defensive? Does it carry smaller fighters? (More on that below.)

Sizing: this is the balance of weight, space and power. Again, more on this below.

Layout: does it take off vertically or laterally? Are there lots of internal subdivisions (the ability to compartmentalize air is often useful)? Does it need to be cramped into as little space as possible, or is this completely irrelevant (like Star Wars Star Destroyers)? Do you want to separate your living areas from your engine areas, or not? What is the traffic flow of people like?

A note on fighter carriers: these only work if the fighters are actually useful, otherwise you’re putting a lot of resources into something unnecessary. Fighters are useful if they carry out a function the carrier can’t, like operating in a different element such as a carrier ship with fighter planes. In space that isn’t applicable, so the fighters need to have a different difference to the real world. For example, as long-range scouts if the technology for scanners is only short-range, or for torpedo delivery if weapon tech is at a level where torpedoes are a sensible battle option.

Magic tech: where form and function completely ignore each other

Size Does Matter

When working out the balance between weight, space and power, there are certain weight groups that need to be considered. These include structure, drives, personnel, power and heat, and payload.

Structure refers to both the external hull and the internal integrity. Is it shaped like a ship or a rocket? Does it need reinforcing ribs internally? Ribs make things look solid – they’re often used in spaceship design where they aren’t strictly needed because it’s such a strong aesthetic.

Drives refers to the method and speed of propulsion. Does your ship have a small thrust and build up speed slowly (microthrust), or lots of thrust which builds up speed very quickly but is far more fuel-intensive and potentially painful for your crew (torch ship)? The speed of travel is really important for your wider setting – it impacts politics, interplanetary communications, warfare, cultural spread, and a host of other things. In the RPG Traveller, for example, radio waves can’t travel any faster than ships, so everything works in the same way as it did in Earth’s Age of Sail. Ships are relied on to carry messages, and no communication can outrun the fastest ship.

Personnel refers to the number of crew on a ship and therefore the amount of space they take up. Technology miniaturizes but people don’t. They need places to eat, sleep, wash, exercise and breathe (yay, life support). They also need to be shielded from the radiation typically found in space.

Power and heat refers to the amount of heat given off by the engines and various other systems, which will vary depending on the ship’s function. Venting heat into space is super-important if you don’t want your ship to explode, so external radiators are an important and often-overlooked feature.

Payload refers to the weaponry. Does it need fuel of some kind? Does it need ammunition? Does it need recoil space? How big is it, how many people are required to operate it, what is the range capability?

Defying Gravity

How are you creating artificial gravity? It isn’t something you can just turn on with the flick of a switch – it depends on your ship’s drives and style of propulsion. If you have low-thrust drives, they will only create a weak gravity. If you have really high-thrust drives, they run the risk of flattening your crew.

Most sci fi ships create gravity by spinning in some way. Either the whole ship spins on it’s lateral axis (or, more excitingly, the vertical one, known as the Tumbling Pigeon), or the habitation part of it does in a ring or compartments around the ship’s core. If none of your ship spins at all, the creation of artificial gravity might be the One Big Lie in your setting.

And Finally, Air Ships

Ships are dense. Air is not. It requires a LOT of air to lift a very very small, very very light ship. Get the proportions right. The airships in the 2011 Three Musketeers movie need not apply.

Dr. Nick has kindly shared his slides here, and is on Twitter here.

Next week: how to horrify your audience.

Nine Worlds: Space is an Ocean If you’re writing the kind of story where spacecraft are a central feature then you probably want to put some thought into their design.