#doesn't negate the fact that I can criticize them lol

[melonchanverse]

how it feels when your only expectation of media mostly is "i want it to be fun" with complete indifference to their objective quality

[obsessivelollipoplalala]

I'll never understand why Freddie stans hate Brian. As someone who's been ever so slightly insane about FM for years, Brian is my second favorite out of the four bc he's basically the founder of the Freddie Mercury fan club. (It's actually an in joke amongst my friends that he's the only one who talks about Freddie more than I do- but that's not really important). Like how dense do you have to beto actually think that Brian doesn't care about him and never did. I'm convinced the only people who buy into that narrative are either very new to the fandom or just Really want Mary's version of Freddie to be real.

Yeah, it was a big point of contention among me and the other Freddie fans/jimercury fans on insta back like 3 years ago when I had a fan account on there. They hated him and thought he hated and disrespected Freddie no matter how much I tried to point them to reality. I've talked about this from time to time, but there are three main reasons why Freddie stans tend to hate Brian, in my view: Brian says things about Freddie that they don't want to hear, specifically things which contradict their headcanons of him, they think Brian's love for Adam means he doesn't care about Freddie anymore, and it's because of Brian's defense of the movie. With the first one, it's usually people who are angry that Brian says Freddie was gay, vulnerable to being used by fake friends, and got fucked up on the club scene. Those three things apparently trigger people lmao. With the second thing, people are just idiots and can't fathom that Brian can love and respect more than one singer at the same time.

With the last one, people think that Brian can't actually care about Freddie if he so vehemently defended the film which portrayed him in such a shitty way. I get where those people are coming from initially, I used to think the same thing in my very early days of the fandom tbh, but then I actually heard Brian talk about Freddie and quickly saw how genuine his love for him was. It was Brian's clear fondness for Freddie that made me pause and listen to the things he actually had to say, and prevented me from becoming a Brian hater tbh. I read more and realized that Brian became very protective of the movie because he sees it as part of Queen and as a net positive for the band and Freddie, and Brian becomes very defensive of anything related to the band and Freddie. I guess I still wish he understood the criticism of the film more, but ultimately, I just decided it wasn't worth being mad at him over tbh when there was this tidal wave of quotes from him which proved that he did, in fact, care about Freddie, so I let it go. But there are people online who won't do that, they stop at his defense of the movie and don't listen to anything else he has to say because they hate the movie so much. I loathe that film, but it doesn't negate everything Brian has said about Freddie, and you really do have to be incredibly uninformed or straight-up deny reality at this point to think Brian doesn't care about him. Like you said, Brian was basically the founder of the Freddie Mercury Fan Club lol and has said some stan-like things about him

[marley-manson]

Saying Mulcahy does no good at all in Korea isn't quite true. His work at the orphanage is extensive, never mind the acts of heroism he partakes in throughout the series. Of all the very valid criticisms, that is about the only one that doesnt hold, because on a purely personal level he simply does do good. You can argue he isn't doing good in the right ways even, and ofc talk about how he is willingly a part of a harmful societal and other broader harmful structures, but on an individual level he does significant good. This is one of the reasons he is both a more problematic and more interesting character and is at the heart of a lot of the issues with MASH as a social critique.

I don't exactly disagree but I think this is a semantics thing wrt how we understand the concept of doing good. Feeding hungry children is good, but in my opinion that good is obliterated because it's a Catholic orphanage doing it. The harm caused by missionary work and cultural imperialism in general is much greater than the good caused by saving some lives. I'm speaking purely from my own point of view ofc, not the narrative's, which does consider Catholic missionary work largely and uncomplicatedly good.

Add the military volunteer thing and the harm Mulcahy cosigns, represents, and actively supports vastly vastly outweighs the good, even just speaking in terms of civilian lives saved vs lost. Heck, even just in the context of the show, rather than real life, where the U.S. army was still responsible for at least one destroyed village.

Like yeah on an individual level he does some good, but I don't consider that worth anything myself. The post you're responding to was a little off the cuff and written hurriedly, if I'd sat on it a little longer my point might've been a little more nuanced. But I do stand by the fact that by my standards it's accurate to say he does no good in his capacity as a military priest. It doesn't make him a bad person, he clearly wants to do good, he attempts to do good, he, like you said, technically does good on an individual level, but he doesn't have a net positive impact. He does more harm than good by a wildly vast margin, which to me = no good.

The funny thing to me is that the show does almost understand this - but only when it comes to Hawkeye's character lol. He wrestles with the fact that even if he's saving lives, he's not doing good because he's only saving lives as part of the war machine. Even the conclusion of Letters, where saving an innocent life rather than a soldier is what keeps him from succumbing to despair, is negated by GFA and ultimately (if maybe unintentionally?) shown to be naive.

Meanwhile Mulcahy's out feeding children in exchange for being able to indoctrinate them, telling soldiers that wanting to desert is wrong, and hankering for a promotion within the same army that drives Hawkeye insane because of the harm it forces him to do as an involuntary draftee, but the narrative has no interest in exploring Mulcahy's complicity in the war machine, almost solely painting him as a great guy who's in Korea to do good and successfully achieves that.

Idk if it's exactly a double standard since Hawkeye's narrative reflects Hawkeye's perspective which is clearly closer to my own, and it does make sense that he's the only character in the cast who thinks about this, but it sure feels hypocritical lol.

Anyway yeah tl;dr ia that he does some good on an individual level, and ia that there's a potentially interesting tension between that and the way he cheerfully represents like two of the most harmful structures in the world (and boy I wish the show had explored that at all), but it's not much of a factor in terms of my own moral assessment.

[brotherhoodoftheblade]

Yep, ALL OF THIS. ☝️☝️☝️😐

Problematic or not the complexities of DG's characters is what's always made them feel so human, and therefore, interesting. But that also doesn't negate the lack of awareness created by the imbalanced way she's framed the narrative as a whole.

I mean, generally it shouldn't even be necessary for an author writing books for adults to have to insert moral disclaimers that, "by the way, these morally dubious characters I'm writing aren't always wholly righteous in their actions and attitudes just because they happen to believe they are!"

Just because a character has justified their actions to themselves doesn't necessarily make them objectively 100% morally sound. That just makes them somewhat unreliable narrators because their perspective is overshadowed by their personal biases. Even villains don't believe themselves to be villainous -- they believe their actions to be perfectly justified, and so, RIGHT.

But the onus to think for ourselves ultimately always rests on the reader - regardless of whether an a character is an unreliable narrator or not, or whether the author has provided an authentically balanced portrayal of all the issues present in their narrative. Reading critically still obliges us to think deeply about the ethics and morality of the story provided to us beyond the confines the characters perspectives, and the way author's own prejudices may colour the narrative.

Especially with historical fiction. We can still sympathize with a character, care about them and find them interesting, while simultaneously recognizing that their actions and beliefs are deeply wrong from a 21st century perspective. But when the author themselves leans into the character's historically biased perspectives so heavily that it largely obscures the undiscerning reader's sensibilities of the whole picture...that IS a problem.

As @cookie-de-baunilha said, DG writes lots of problematic stuff in the books in a way that shows little to no awareness that there's even anything wrong with it in the first place. I mean, it's kind of bewildering at times. Reading the OL books is like living with someone who regularly gaslights you in the most nonchalantly confident manner possible. An uncritical reader might easily just take her words at face value and end up buying into a bunch of dubious crap as a result.

And just from the dubious comments DG's made over the years, at this point I kind of have to presume that at least some of the toxicity existing in OL is a projection of her own personal biases. Though also, perhaps a part of the mental divide is her age as well? Certainly I think a younger author would have much greater awareness of our shifting cultural mores than she seems to. Not to mention that most of her fanbase is comprised of women over 50, so it's probably not much of an issue for them either. If, indeed, they notice at all. Younger people do tend to find things a lot more "problematic" nowadays than older generations do. lol

(Hell, maybe half the reason Jamie & Claire don't interest me anymore is because they've gotten too old. :P Though mainly I think that the series has just dragged on for far too long, and I'm just not emotionally invested enough in the majority of the characters to make the length of the books feel like anything other than a slog most of the time. What I wouldn't give for another LJG novel though! The last novella DG wrote was back in 2011! T_T)

(Oddly enough the thing that illustrates to me most clearly the prevalence of the problematic in OL is the fact that I've found myself saying so much about it over the years. I'm generally a silent lurker in fandoms, I rarely say much of anything unless it's about something I really liked, so interacting with the OL fandom at all is actually quite out-of-character for me. lol But why does it feel so necessary? That's the real point of concern.

DG's gaslighting is SO prevalent that barely anyone seems to see it. In other fandoms dubious stuff like she writes gets widely called out so there's never been a need for me to stick my oar in and repeat what's already been said and circulated throughout. But in OL?? Next to nothing. Maybe it's because most OL fans are so fixated on their ships that they're simply not giving anything outside of them much attention? Whereas I don't especially ship much of anyone in OL outside of John/Percy (and they only interact a few times per book) or even particularly lust after any individual character in the show, so the vision-distorting goggles of lust and romance are pretty much off 98% of the time. lol And I'm history nerd in general so I tend to find the cultural and political aspects of the story at least as interesting as most of the average soap opera-esque interactions (or frequently more so).)

But yeah, the Richardson turning out to be an abolitionist thing...potentially interesting in the hands of a more self-aware writer, but DG? She no longer has the credibility with me to be trusted with something like that, especially given what a myopically half-assed job she's done of handling the topic of slavery over the course of such a lengthy narrative in the first place.

And if her idea of finally drawing real emphasis to the existence of the slave trade (accompanied by actual affirmative action) is to do it via the rightfully contentious "white saviour" trope...and on behalf of a major villain no less, rather than, say, your own main characters who are supposed to be the good guys and who could've been doing something all these years (or at the very least decide not to settle in the American colonies in the first place) but just...didn't?? WOW. The irony is actual pretty funny, in a horrible sort of way. 😂💀

DG, you're not supposed to be making me root for the villain because his cause is the only one that benefits the greater good! 🤣

(And yeah, sure, John says in Bees that he personally abhors the practice of slavery but does he ever DO anything about it?? Especially given that his social status makes him the person with the most influence to advocate for change aside from Hal. The Grey family is by far the most guilty for their complacency if you ask me, because they have the most wealth and power at their disposal to affect societal betterment but how much good are they doing with it?)

Hah, and yet...John and Percy are the only characters I still care about, and if Percy is gone and John is being JOHN, then what's left to concern myself with?? *shrug* DG can make as much of a train wreck of the last book as she likes and I'll either not give a fig, or sit here laughing about it. 😐

Go Tell the Bees That I Am Gone spoilers? - Richardson

So far I’ve only read some random scenes from Bees so let me get this straight…

Richardson is an abolitionist??

Is Diana Gabaldon for real? Writing the current big bad guy as an abolitionist??? How tf did she think this was a good idea??

Someone please tell me I’ve got it wrong. I haven’t read the whole book so I might be missing important things here.

[stormblessed95]

Storm this is truly not a hate ask

Just my doubt.

I absolutely don't have a problem in jk doing piercing.

But today I saw a comment saying lots of tattoo and pricing addiction equals drug addiction. And it's coming soon.

Is it right.

I really care for their health. So will this cause that addiction also ?

They were a v stan and a taekooker so I don't know how it can he authentic

Oh sweetie. The only reason I am answering this is because you sound very young and a little naive and just confused. And I don't want you to worry and I want you to be more wary of believing just anything you read online. Especially when it comes from a taekooker, when they made lying and manipulation a critical part of their cult. Anyone can say literally anything online. Anything they want. And if they are good with their words, they can make it believable too. I could sit and write you an essay on why grass organically grows purple and we just paint it green. I could be convincing and even create my own Wikipedia pages to give you sources (they would be fake, but they would be there). That doesn't change the fact that I would be completely wrong. Lol this is why it is important to not blindly believe anything you read. Not even me with all my posts. This is why when I create my posts, I always try to link original sources and tell you all to go form your own opinions too. This is how things work for research as well. Don't take any random person from Twitter and buy into what they are saying, especially when it is something toxic. Check their sources. Check for FACTS. And it's important to also remember that correlation does not equal causation either.

No. Piercing and tattoos do not cause drug addictions nor do they cause the need or want to do drugs. When people say tattoos and piercing can become addictive, it's not in the literal sense like when we talk about a heroin addiction for example. The tattoo addiction is just that once you get the first one, you keep wanting more. You fall in love with decorating your body the way you want it to be. The process of getting tattoos/piercings can be initially painful. But what happens when something causes minor amounts of pain is that the body releases endorphins to try and help mask it and make you feel better. That feeling and rush of endorphins can become "addicting" in the way that it makes you feel good. Which negates the small bursts of pain and you latch onto the happiness it gives you instead. And the happiness of turning your body into art in a way. It's joyful and it's fun. Which is why once people tend to start, they want to keep going. So the endorphin release can feel often very relaxing to some people, or it can create what is similar to an adrenaline rush in others. These are the same endorphins that are released when you go for a long run and push through the pain and stress of a workout by the way too. It's why people say working out can help make you happier or what runner's call a "runners high" after a long tough run. And honestly, we all know JK can be an adrenaline junkie, our extreme sports bungee jumping lover that he is. Anything overdone can be bad for you, but this isn't a drug, nor is it a drug gateway. Endorphins our body naturally produces and releases and chasing those endorphins is very very different then endorphins and distortion produced chemically through drugs which can cause a multitude of health issues when you manipulate your bodies natural chemical composition for an extended period time like long term drug use. And while the endorphin rush can make piercing "addictive" in the loosest since of the word, it's not really why people get them. They get them because they want them. And JK has been vocal about wanting body mods since 2014. He is finally just now getting them. Which means he has been thinking about this for years now.

Not to mention that the affects drug addiction has on your body is NOT pretty. It would be noticeable and JK would then have trouble keeping up with their intense difficult schedule, training, singing, dancing, recording, etc. He would lag behind. Which is not what is happening, man is in practically the best shape of his life and is popping off every second of the day. JK has always been very serious about his health too, he works out and he eats a lot. Drug use would mess with both of those things that are not only good for him, but he enjoys. There are a million articles out there that highlight all the affects drugs can have on your body, I highly suggest you look them up and realize how incredibly obvious it would be if one of the guys started having a drug problem and how much it would impact their daily lives.

Let's also not forget that Jimin did it first. Jimin had multiple piercings along his ear before JK did, he has since let his helix rings close up I believe though. Jimin wore a fake lip ring before JK got his done. Jimin decorated his body in fake tattoos for an album promotion before getting the one done for real. Then he got another on his wrist. Then 2 more on the back of his elbows. He got his tattoos FIRST. The reason people don't harp on Jimin as much about the body mods is because his are more subtle. But it doesn't change that he did them, and probably encouraged JK to do his own and that it was okay to live his life authentically to him. The reason people are getting so worked up is because JK got facial piercings, which has a lot of stereotypes and stigmas attached to it. All of which are unfounded. It's very much so an "I don't like it so it's morally wrong" type of attitude. It's more in their face with him, literally. They can't brush it aside and pretend he doesn't have them. It's also not fake, so it's harder to just enjoy the pretend fantasy of a "bad boy" image for them because it's actually there. He isn't taking it off at the end of the day. And he isn't a bad boy, he isn't a hoodlum, which is what they relate these things to. He is a hardworking and professional individual who is breaking down those stigmas that say people who are tatted and pierced cannot be in the limelight or do important things or have a professional job that requires working with all kinds of people. Jungkook is an ambassador for his country and is one of the most professional people in the world, and is rocking his body mods however he wants. Body mods do not change who you are.

People who say piercings lead to drugs because I guess of the needles (?) are showing their prejudice and bias. It's the exact same type of people who say things like people with colored hair are dumb or will be bad parents. I have purple hair and my parenting style hasn't changed at all since before when I had my natural hair color. And I graduated top of my class. Or again, I also have piercings, none on my face yet, but I have never done nor wanted to do drugs. Or it's the same type of people who try to say men can't paint their nails or have long hair or wear feminine clothing because it might make them "gay" which is something they try and paint as an insult when it isn't, but it's also just not true. My husband is a cishet man, has shoulder length hair and paints his nails often. Style choice does not change your sexuality or affect your personality. Body mods do not change who you are on the inside and as a person nor do they automatically make someone a drug user. It is not a gateway addiction. And I think Jungkook is forcing a lot of people to confront these uncomfortable thoughts about themselves. Because that is what it is. The people who have a problem with his body mods, that problem is within themselves, no one else. It has nothing to do with JK even a little bit. Jungkook is the same person he was 6 months ago before he got these piercings, now he just looks like a super cool badass even more then he already did.

Hope this helped a little bit. No, JK is not at risk of becoming a drug user, anymore than he was previously, which was very little. I hope you blocked whoever said that BS. And please, please, do not ever take anything a taekooker says seriously, look into anything they say yourself because half of everything they spew is complete lies. They are constantly disrespecting the ones they claim to stan and this is just the latest example of it. This is going to be the last post I make over the piercings. It all simply comes down to trusting JK and respecting him and the choices he makes. He wants the piercings, everyone should be happy that he got them. If he is happy, everyone who loves him should be happy for him. There is not study and there are no facts that prove piercings cause drug addictions. Next time someone says, ask them to show you proof. Ask them for legit articles proving their statements. Following correct procedure, not just well xyz shows stats that correlate piercings with higher risks of drug use. Because again correlation does not equal causation. The math doesn't add up and they probably don't understand how to properly conduct research or how science works either.

And to the naysayers, Can everyone leave Jungkook alone now? Can we let the man live life the way he wants to live it? Can we all be happy for him? Can we appreciate that even if YOU don't like piercings he does and him getting them has no reflection or basis on your personal life? Can we all accept that it doesn't matter if you like them or not because JK got them for himself and not you? Can we accept that JK is only piercing is own skin and no one is holding you down and forcing a needle through your personal lip? Can we all collectively move on? And if you take it so personally that you need to mention everywhere that you dont like it and you think it's a problem, unstan. No one will miss you. Hope this helped to ease your worries anon. Thank you for the ask, sorry it took me a day to reply. 💜

[serpentinerose]

hi! this isn't supposed to be ship or character hate, I'm just genuinely having a conflictual time reading 2ha. i'm on chapter 60 (so obviously I'm already pretty invested lol), but how do people get past the fact that cw is in love with a 15yr old disciple? maybe I'm just not at the part in the novel where that is somehow justified (i know he doesn't DO anything to moran, really its vice versa, but it's still kind of the thought that counts). does this q make sense? rly not supposed 2b hate!!

Hello anon! Thank you for your question. I think this is a morally gray point and surely will be one of the most common criticisms levied at 2ha, especially once it gets big when Hao Yi Xing is released. Some people would definitely classify Chu Wanning’s love for 15-year-old Mo Ran as very clearly immoral. I don’t love the minor thing due to my own ethnic Asian but Western-raised perspective, but I can kind of see why Meatbun made this decision. Keeping in mind how Chu Wanning was written as a character in the context of fantasy ancient China, I have a few thoughts on this. I tend to ramble a lot, so here is my word vomit:

1. Modern Western age of consent vs. classical norms. I think it is worth examining our own understanding of various constructs of the modern age, including the age of consent. It is no surprise that there was pretty much no such thing as an age of consent in the past; for women, it was whenever they started their period, and then they were eligible to marry. I think it is great that we now care a lot about age of consent; there is an enormous differential of power between a relatively young person and a more established, mature person, and knowing what we now know about prefrontal cortex formation (continuing until roughly the age of 25), it is good that we establish some boundaries. However, there does seem to be a mismatch between the biological point at which we are counted as fully mature and what we consider to be an appropriate age a person can be eligible for guilt-free sex. The age of consent is arbitrary to the point that it still varies in many parts of the world. What is considered immoral varies depending on context. Meatbun wrote 2ha following an established tradition in wuxia novels following the norms of that world. In the world of ancient China and especially fantasy ancient China, the fact that Mo Ran is a minor will not make anyone blink an eye. What is very scandalous, however, is that Chu Wanning is his teacher. One of China’s most famous wuxia stories, the Return of the Condor Heroes, features the love story between the protagonist and his female martial artist master. It has been some years since I returned to this story, but I am 99% sure that the disciple Yang Guo was a minor when their relationship began. Even removed from the Eastern world, Western classical traditions also extol the virtue of the erastes/eromenos sexual relationship. This does not mean I am saying it’s ok for someone to be attracted to whom we consider minors if we just move everyone to a historical setting, but we also have to be critical about how future generations will look back at our current norms and how we, too, will become abhorrent to them in some respect.

2. Chu Wanning as a person and the concept of love. The xianxia world of cultivation seems to de-emphasize the concept of sexual love even as sex itself is widely acknowledged as a method of cultivation. However, dual cultivation is also thought of in-universe as an inferior technique of cultivation, with self-cultivation held to the highest standard, meaning abstinence (I cannot find the reference for this, sorry, but probably somewhere in Book 1). I do not read Chu Wanning’s attraction to Mo Ran as sexual at all in book 1. [minor spoilers] Chu Wanning was raised by monks in a removed temple at the top of a mountain [/minor spoilers], and sexual desire is considered taboo and suppressed. Chu Wanning was so successful at this suppression that he quite simply does not even think about sex or sexual matters until [minor spoilers] book 2, when Mo Ran is much older and way hotter [/minor spoilers]. I think for Chu Wanning, the love he feels for young Mo Ran is romantic and protective, in that he would do anything to keep Mo Ran safe, puts Mo Ran’s interests above his own, and is quite divorced from sexual interests. One may note that every romantic touch between Chu Wanning and Mo Ran at that age was initiated by Mo Ran himself, and Chu Wanning just kind of sat there in shock, and if he did take comfort in those moments, I can’t really blame him with the heavy amount of seemingly unrequited love going on. Chu Wanning saw a spark of something pure and good in 14-year-old Mo Ran when Mo Ran first became his disciple, and through their time together, the spark only grew stronger and fueled Chu Wanning’s love. I don’t think Chu Wanning considered Mo Ran as a sexual being, nor did Chu Wanning consider himself a sexual being. Until book 2. Also, a re-emphasis that it is just so arbitrary that an adult having feelings for a 17-year-old is not ok, but it’s fine when that person turns 18, which leads me to...

3. Thoughts vs. actions. This goes into a philosophical slash kind of religious point about at what point does sin begin, at the thoughts level or at the actions level. Chu Wanning quite clearly believed it is the former. He suffered tremendous guilt over his love for Mo Ran because Mo Ran is his disciple, even if everything I said about the age thing did not count. The master-disciple relationship in ancient China is as sacred as the father-child relationship. There is a famous idiom, which goes “One day as a teacher, a lifetime as a father,” signifying how well this relationship is valued under a Confucian system. Flash forward to 1984 and the thought police, and then taking into account how Meatbun is writing this novel in censorship-happy Communist China, I think it is a pretty deliberate choice on Meatbun’s part to make Mo Ran’s starting age in the novel below the 18-year-old threshold of acceptability. Do we condemn Chu Wanning for what is in his heart, unvoiced, or for what he does? For all that Chu Wanning pines for Mo Ran, what he ends up doing can only be seen as virtuous. Even if someone reads his love for Mo Ran as sexual, does it negate what he chose to do instead? Contrast this with Nabokov’s treatment of the narrator in Lolita, which is a clear example of abuse. Chu Wanning loved Mo Ran at all ages, through all stages of both of their lives; it is not a fetish for him to seek out youth. It just so happened that Chu Wanning met Mo Ran at that point in both their lives. Overall, I think the moral judgment of Chu Wanning’s feeling is up for each reader to answer for themselves.

With all that said, my own context is that I’m a woman in my late 20s with relatively little trauma history raised within both the Sinosphere and “the West,” and so my experiences reading this novel and my own understanding of the characters and their motivations are colored through my own lenses. I am of the opinion that literature (I don’t think I’m being too generous in saying that 2ha counts as a piece of literature) should challenge your perception, expand your horizon, and get you to think critically about what you are consuming. Of course, I would prioritize your own mental health and safety if reading this novel is traumatizing to a more serious degree than feeling conflictual about the subject matter. Thank you for the very thoughtful question. It really helped me work through my own feelings about this pairing and Chu Wanning as a character.

[bigskydreaming]

How do you counter a Bruce hater? Not the 'never read comics so Bruce Wayne is a useless rich guy who should redistribute his wealth' hater, an actual hater who'd root for some villains like Ivy or Harley, want him gone so the Robins & Selina don't have to listen to him or care about him, thinks he should be obsolete because he's Idk.. old and has too many comics maybe? Genuine hater who somehow really loves his kids but not him. Doesn't hate the older version tho, acknowledges some parts..

I think it just comes down to why you want to counter them, tbh? Don’t get me wrong, I TOTALLY get being defensive of a fave, and respect how these fictional characters still nevertheless mean a great deal to us for various reasons.....but we hate various characters for a ton of different reasons as well. Bruce is....an especially complicated subject, because he’s such a CHARGED subject. He’s one of the oldest comic book characters out there, and he’s EXTREMELY polarizing....because people see radically different things when they look at him. Both canon writers and the fans. 

And thus we so often get these different takes on him that are literally AT ODDS with each other....the loving, caring father who is ideal for his kids because he wants to be for them what he never really had for himself vs the absent, neglectful father due to being a brooding, emotionally stunted lone wolf who believes he’s no good for anyone else and is best on his own.

And so the thing is, as much as it sucks, Bruce is one of those figures in comics where because BOTH takes (and everything else in between them) are real, just at different times, and are at such extreme opposite ends of the spectrum......there are reasons for loving his character that are absolutely valid....but there are reasons for hating his character that are absolutely valid as well. It kinda just depends on where your point of entry into the characters and their narratives are, and what your area of focus is.

For instance, its not really that weird that there are people who genuinely hate his character but somehow really love his kids....because I mean, using myself as an example....Dick has always been my character of focus, the one I personally relate to the most and invest in the most, and well, there have been a lot of times when Bruce has been written being extremely shitty to him. And that’s specifically WHAT I hold against Bruce’s character a lot of the time, and its not a contradiction to like Bruce’s kids and not like him.....the way DC has so massively fucked him up in regards to his kids a lot of the times IS the reason people who like his kids don’t like him. And even though its totally the writing that’s to blame, there sometimes comes a point when the problems are so everpresent in the writing of a character that its just too hard for a fan to separate the writing from the character, and it gets all tangled up together and thus you end up with someone hating Bruce, even though its really only certain ways he’s written that originated that.

So I mean, for myself, I don’t hate Bruce, but I DEFINITELY hate the way he’s written a lot of the time....I’m just very much used to centering my writer brain even when I’m reading, and thus its...easier? For me to keep an awareness of when I have a problem with a character inherently vs when I just have a problem with a certain take on a character? So I don’t hate Bruce because I recognize the times he is written well in regards to his kids and I see the potential for that always being there, but that doesn’t stop me from hating on the times he ISN’T written well in regards to them and is basically outright abusive because I mean....that’s part of why I invest in Dick’s narratives so much....I come from an abusive household and as much as I WANT Bruce to be good for Dick, I recognize and see myself and my own story in a lot of Dick’s narratives with Bruce.....which is why I dislike Bruce on a lot of occasions....BUT I also recognize and see in the OVERALL CHARACTERS the potential for Bruce to do what DIDN’T happen in my own life and like....get his act together. Be better. FIX himself and his relationships with his kids so that he can give them the family they deserve.

And so that’s why and where its ideal for me to keep the fact that the flaws are in the writing, not the characters, front and center.

But that’s not necessarily ideal for everyone, is the thing you gotta remember to respect. And other people who might be drawn to Dick and Jason and the other kids’ narratives BECAUSE they relate specifically to them as characters who have dysfunctional or even unhealthy relationships with an abusive or neglectful parent.....they might be less inclined to not hate Bruce because a family resolution isn’t ultimately what they’re looking for when relating to these characters....maybe what’s best for them at this point in their life is to see or imagine stories where these characters break away from a family member who only seems to hurt them lately, to not wait and hope for things to get better or him to improve but to just...move on on their own. *Shrugs* I don’t know, I can’t speak for everyone but none of us can is the thing.

And so its messy as hell, and its not a lot of fun sometimes, but the fact is, we just all gotta try and remember that what we look for in these characters and what we see in them is not the only thing that’s there. There are SO many facets to these characters and their stories and SO many reasons people are drawn to them and SO many things that fans are looking for and hoping for from them.

So my only advice is don’t worry about countering so much as just....holding front and center your own motivations for loving Bruce’s character and the WHYS of it. And its not....it doesn’t have to be one or the other, you know? Its not a zero sum game. As much as it makes it complicated to navigate fandom a lot of times, there’s room for multiple interpretations to exist, and the reasons you love Bruce’s character don’t HAVE to counter or negate the reasons other people hate his character, and vice versa. The reasons other people hate and criticize Bruce don’t HAVE to impact or harm the things you love about him......just focus on speaking to and putting out there your own view of things, and by all means, be as forceful and passionate about that as you want or need to be! 

But just....know the reality is that even if you’re trying to persuade someone else to see Bruce the way you do, that doesn’t guarantee they will, or that they have to, because unlike in a lot of instances where people just smear other characters for entirely baseless reasons, a lot of people DO have anti-Bruce sentiments that are rooted in entirely real justifications.....but that’s not an indictment of your pro-Bruce sentiments, and it doesn’t have to be, and you don’t need to take it as one. Which means you don’t have to defend him....there’s nothing to defend, maybe. Your reasons for liking him have nothing to do with someone else’s reasons for hating him and they don’t need to go head to head and duel it out, necessarily.

Honestly, just whenever possible, just try to keep front and center in your mind and your reading of posts that like.....a lot of times “I hate Bruce” is actually more likely “I hate Bruce’s writing in x and y and z situations and stories” and that can make it a LOT easier to digest. 

I mean, going back to using myself as an example, obviously I’m hugely vocal in defensive of Dick Grayson, lol, but a lot of people question why I so often attack fanon characterizations of him specifically....and its specifically BECAUSE I’m attacking the tendency of so many fans to say “I hate Dick” when its actually in my eyes more “I hate Dick’s characterization - as depicted in these various fanon myths that only exist in fandom and have no basis outside it.” So THAT’S what I ‘defend’ Dick against more often than not, versus just....defending him against people who hate him - there’s no real counter for that, at the end of the day. You can’t MAKE someone like a character if they have actual real justifications for why.

But you CAN be clear about where it is you do and don’t agree with their view of a character.....is it because you have fundamentally different views of the character that are both rooted in canon basis, or is it because you feel they’re not accurately characterizing a character based on your knowledge of him, or is it because you both simply prioritize and focus on different areas of a character’s past writing? Etc. etc.

That won’t necessarily help you ‘win’ any arguments against an opposing viewpoint in fandom, but it will help you....deal with the existence of opposing viewpoints that have every bit as much validity as yours, I think. Just being able to recognize when someone isn’t criticizing or condemning the Bruce you know and love....its just that the Bruce they know and hate is kinda almost a different version of the character entirely.....but both versions can and do exist and its ultimately just a matter of finding some way to balance that.

I don’t know if that’s of any help at all, but hopefully there’s something in there that’ll be of use to you!

[aizenat]

You're doing a lot of projecting so I'm just going to be nice about this. I'm Black. I've been on tumblr for ten fucking years (idk why I'm still here too lol leave me alone). I used to be a mod on a pretty popular site that called out white washing in fanart and fandom spaces. I was calling Jo out on her racism before it was cool, and being called an uppity nigger for it.

At no point did I ask you to cry over some rich white woman. Like, idk why yall think someone pointing out that a bitch still is part of an oppressed class despite her wealth is the same as defending all that other shit. Like stay on task. Yall really need to do better with these convos cos that projection of shit I didn't say is the stuff that gets me heated. Be mad at what I said: don't create strawmen arguments I literally never said and argue over them lol.

I'm aware of the native thing but never saw that being used in her books. She talked about it on pottermore, so idk if maybe you're conflating stuff. If she did in fact use it in a book, direct examples would be smart when arguing a point. I asked knowing you wouldn't have a specific answer to it lol. But again, I'm open to being proven wrong with direct examples of that in the BOOKS and not supplemental material.

I'll admit I didn't hear about that doc, but the generality jump in logic was odd. She was in a doc saying she went to Africa and so that means she profited off African spirituality? I don't remember seeing any of that in Harry Potter. That's a logical fallacy. That statement that she profited off of it is really vague. It leaves a different impression of what she actually did and that's intellectually dishonest.

And, like, just because other white fantasy writers often appropriate spiritual practices that dont belong to them, that doesn't mean Jo is guilty simply for writing fantasy lol. That's another fallacy. Like, I get what you're trying to say, but you gotta specify. This is way too vague and lazy. And you made the op; you cant want to be on these convos but then be too lazy to properly articulate your point. These the type of vague arguments alt right folk take and "disprove" wrong in their "pwned" vids or whatever.

Also, side note, Blair White is the dumbest intellectually vapid and dishonest dipshit on the internet and I have more respect for a cockroach than I do her lol. Stop.

But like kinda the tldr version: none of this tackles the statement Akilah made that implies women are only part of an oppressed class if they're poor. That implies womanhood is a class one can opt in and out of. If one can opt in and out of an oppressed class, is it real oppression? If as Black folk, we can understand no amount of wealth or power can remove us from the class of Black people (ie, Obama being the most powerful man in the country and still called a nigger by whites), that implies other facets of our lives do not negate our blackness. Meaning whites will always have systemic power over us.

If womanhood, however, and how it is oppressed is something that wealth (aka, another axis of oppression: class) can negate, then its not really an oppressed class. Meaning you're (general you. Calm down) claiming sexism as an institution doesn't exist. If that is what Akilah is implying, that is what I take issue with. All this other shit with Jo, idc. She ain't my favorite author and I have no desire to die on a hill defending her dumbass.

But yall claiming to be feminists all while making statements that heavily imply womanhood is not an oppressed class is a problem imo. It shows a fundamental lack or understanding and knowledge of real feminist theory. That's what I've criticized and that's what you've failed to address.

Gotta love Joke Karen Rowling. And before anyone gets all offended I just got one question. Why do t/rfs always talk about how trans people are predators and fetishists when they're the main ones sexualizing them and being creepy? Also, I've met t/rfs that always say something creepy about women's vaginas. It's like they contradict themselves. They don't want people to sexualize them yet they do the same thing. You shouldn't sexualized anyone. It's creepy.

And don't even get me started on how racist as fuck JK Rowling is. It seems to me that people forget about that. Black people, black trans people years ago have constantly called out JK's racism but people ignored it. Now it's all getting attention and we're supposed to be surprised about this?

Also, why was I today years old when I found out Jk wrote a book about a trans character?