#fanwanking

[fantastic-nonsense]

reylos crying on twitter because Adam Driver explicitly confirmed that Bendemption was never originally in the plans for Kylo....this is justice for the last 8 years, actually

[anghraine]

It's always been intriguing to me that, even when Elizabeth hates Darcy and thinks he's genuinely a monstrous, predatory human being, she does not ever perceive him as sexually predatory. In fact, literally no one in the novel suggests or believes he is sexually dangerous at any point. There's not the slightest hint of that as a factor in the rumors surrounding him, even though eighteenth-century fiction writers very often linked masculine villainy to a possibility of sexual predation in the subtext or just text*. Austen herself does this over and over when it comes to the true villains of her novels.

Even as a supposed villain, though, Darcy is broadly understood to be predatory and callous towards men who are weaker than him in status, power, and personality—with no real hint of sexual threat about it at all (certainly none towards women). Darcy's "villainy" is overwhelmingly about abusing his socioeconomic power over other men, like Wickham and Bingley. This can have secondhand effects on women's lives, but as collateral damage. Nobody thinks he's targeting women.

In addition, Elizabeth's interpretations of Darcy in the first half of the book tend to involve associating him with relatively prestigious women by contrast to the men in his life (he's seen as extremely dissimilar from his male friends and, as a villain, from his father). So Elizabeth understands Darcy-as-villain not in terms of the popular, often very sexualized images of masculine villainy at the time, but in terms of rich women she personally despises like Caroline Bingley and Lady Catherine de Bourgh (and even Georgiana Darcy; Elizabeth assumes a lot about Georgiana in service of her hatred of Darcy before ever meeting her).

The only people in Elizabeth's own community who side with Darcy at this time are, interestingly, both women, and likely the highest-status unmarried women in her community: Charlotte Lucas and Jane Bennet. Both have some temperamental affinities with Darcy, and while it's not clear if he recognizes this, he quietly approves of them without even knowing they've been sticking up for him behind the scenes.

This concept of Darcy-as-villain is not just Elizabeth's, either. Darcy is never seen by anyone as a sexual threat no matter how "bad" he's supposed to be. No one is concerned about any danger he might pose to their daughters or sisters. Kitty is afraid of him, but because she's easily intimidated rather than any sense of actual peril. Even another man, Mr Bennet, seems genuinely surprised to discover late in the novel that Darcy experiences attraction to anything other than his own ego.

I was thinking about this because of how often the concept of Darcy as an anti-hero before Elizabeth "fixes him" seems caught up in a hypermasculine, sexually dangerous, bad boy image of him that even people who actively hate him in the novel never subscribe to or remotely imply. Wickham doesn't suggest anything of the kind, Elizabeth doesn't, the various gossips of Meryton don't, Mr Bennet and the Gardiners don't, nobody does. If anything, he's perceived as cold and sexless.

Wickham in particular defines Darcy's villainy in opposition to the patriarchal ideal his father represented. Wickham's version of their history works to link Darcy to Lady Anne, Lady Catherine (primarily), and Georgiana rather than any kind of masculine sexuality. This version of Darcy is a villain who colludes with unsympathetic high-status women to harm men of less power than themselves, but villain!Darcy poses no direct threat to women of any kind.

It's always seemed to me that there's a very strong tendency among fans and academics to frame Darcy as this ultra-gendered figure with some kind of sexual menace going on, textually or subtextually. He's so often understood entirely in terms of masculinity and sexual desire, with his flaws closely tied to both (whether those flaws are his real ones, exaggerated, or entirely manufactured). Yet that doesn't seem to be his vibe to other characters in the story. There's a level at which he does not register to other characters as highly masculine in his affiliations, highly sexual, or in general as at all unsafe** to be around, even when they think he's a monster. And I kind of feel like this makes the revelations of his actual decency all along and his full-on heroism later easier to accept in the end.

------------

*The incompetently awful villain(?) in Sanditon, for instance, imagines himself another Lovelace (a reference to the famous rapist-villain of Samuel Richardson's Clarissa). Evelina's sheltered education and lack of protectors makes her vulnerable to sexual exploitation in Frances Burney's Evelina, though she ultimately manages to avoid it. There's frequently an element of sexual predation in Gothic novels even of very different kinds (e.g. Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho and Matthew Lewis's The Monk both lean into this, in their wildly dissimilar styles). William Godwin's novel Caleb Williams, a book mostly about the destructive evils of class hierarchies and landowning classes specifically, depicts the mutual obsession of the genteel villain Falkland and working class hero Caleb in notoriously homoerotic terms (Godwin himself added a preface in 1832 saying, "Falkland was my Bluebeard, who had perpetrated atrocious crimes ... Caleb Williams was the wife"). This list could go on for a very long time.

**Darcy is also not usually perceived by other characters as a particularly sexual, highly masculine person in a safe way, either, even once his true character is known. Elizabeth emphasizes the resilience of Darcy's love for her more than the passionate intensity they both evidently feel; in the later book, she does sometimes makes assumptions about his true feelings or intentions based on his gender, but these assumptions are pretty much invariably shown to be wrong. In general the cast is completely oblivious to the attraction he does feel; even Charlotte, who wonders about something in that quarter, ends up doubting her own suspicions and wonders if he's just very absent-minded.

The novel emphasizes that he is physically attractive, but it goes to pains to distinguish this from Wickham's sex appeal or the charisma of a Bingley or Fitzwilliam. Mr Bennet (as mentioned above) seems to have assumed Darcy is functionally asexual, insofar as he has a concept of that. Most of the fandom-beloved moments in which Darcy is framed as highly sexual, or where he himself is sexualized for the audience, are very significantly changed in adaptation or just invented altogether for the adaptations they appear in. Darcy watching Elizabeth after his bath in the 1995 is invented for that version, him snapping at Elizabeth in their debates out of UST is a persistent change from his smiling banter with her in the book, the fencing to purge his feelings is invented, the pond swim/wet shirt is invented. In the 2005 P&P, the instant reaction to Elizabeth is invented, the hand flex of repressed passion is invented, the Netherfield Ball dance as anything but an exercise in mutual frustration is invented, the near-kiss after the proposal in invented, etc. And in those as well, he's never presented as sexually predatory, not even as a "villain."

[thereallovebug]

It makes me sad that it’s been a month since Michael Sheen has interacted with fans on Twitter (I don’t count the tweets for causes or charities). Except for the time some ten years ago when he got off twitter all together, I think this is the longest “hiatus” he’s taken. I’ve heard, “maybe he’s just too busy” and I’m sure that’s partly true but he’s been busy before and generally doesn’t stay away more than a few days at a time.

I think we all know the real reason he’s currently gone is because he was dogpiled over his statements not being pure enough about the current situation in Palestine according to the Twitter Foreign Policy Experts who thought they’d take it upon themselves to school a 54-year-old activist who’s been watching the shifting struggles of the world for decades. Anyone who’s been following him for the past few years should have noticed by now that he doesn’t take kindly to condescention or insults and he’ll readily block those who try. In their parasocial fantasies they forget that friendliness ≠ friendship and shit you can get away with saying to RL friends may not go down well with someone they don’t really know outside of their public persona.

I hope if he finally decides to start interacting with fans again they remember to show some goddam respect. He’s NOT your buddy. He’s a friendly stranger on the internet.

Addendum: if anyone tries to make this political I will block you, no exceptions. I don’t take kindly to condescension or insults, either.

[fae-morrigan]

It has officially happened enough times that like. I feel the need to make a formal post about it because good fucking god.

Jay Nakamura is an Asian man. His last name is one of the most common Japanese last names... ever. His first name is extremely common in Asian communities and is likely a romanization or shortening of the many many asian names that start with the syllable 'jay'. From a (fictional, but created BY ASIAN MEN specifically as a commentary on japan/korea) Asian country that is historically exploited by the United States. His entire story focuses on the fact that he does not have white privilege and is often exploited by white people. He LOOKS LIKE THIS.

The fact that Jay is nonwhite and is marginalized for being nonwhite is something that has been acknowledged multiple times by multiple authors. Namely Nicole Maines, his current main writer, who has retweeted analysis threads and made comments about how his development and radicalization is informed by this lack of privilege.

Yet numerous people have approached me, specifically when I am actively talking about how important it is that Jay is a man of color, and gone, well, isn't he white?

I cannot even BEGIN to FATHOM why this happens. You have to be a certain kind of dumb to look at JUST HIS NAME and go, ah, a white man. Do people think Nakamura is a French name or something?

But I can guess it comes down to a few things:

People just don't see Asian folk as people of color, I guess, outside of when they can be fetishized. This actually has been a problem in DC fandom specifically for a long time; I've noticed it particularly with Cass Cain and Damian Wayne, where their heritage will either be erased in favor of their white halves, or they'll be sexualized in the context of their cultures being orientalized.

In this same vein, race is often treated by fandom as purely cosmetic, and not something that could impact how a character is meant to be read or thought about in the story. This is part of how you get headcanons that end up leaning into racial stereotypes.

Jay is very obviously visibly queer. White people tend to assume we are the arbiters of queerness. Therefore, whenever a character has queer signifiers (dyed hair, piercings, etc), is queer, they are presumed to be white. It's the goddamn pink hair again, people can never be normal about it!

People who don't want to look racist online, but who also don't like Jay (and haven't read his stuff), are trying to convince themselves and others that they aren't actually putting down a character of color.

jay hasn't had a writer to whitewash him yet, so the fans gotta pick up the slack

[firedragon1321]

Hey Digimon (Fans)

Guys.

Guys.

GUYS.

GUYS!

THE DIGITAL WORLD RUNS ON LINUX!

[deancasforcutie]

still chasing the high of that halcyon age where Supernatural was my healthy safe escape from the horrors of US politics, and then

[fecklesheckleshacklesschmeckles]

this happened in my brain, so now it has to happen on your dash

[yesterdayiwrote]

I think this is supposed to be an insult but it just sounds like the greatest motorsports villain to never exist…

[dying-suffering-french-stalkers]

trying to decide how much cartoon discourse i want to subject my beloved followers to on this, the cartoon discourse website

[kuroshipsujidiscord]

Notice: Server Inactive

This server is now inactive. If there is another space that ends up being made I'm happy to share it here. As promised in the announcement, here is a copy of the post I made in the discord with the explainer for those who may have missed it:

I'm truly sorry to all of you who enjoyed being a part of this space </3

[brilliantfantasticgeronimo]

the worst part of doctor who fandom is how easy it latches onto a "consensus" opinion that then everyone assumes this is "obviously" the only way to interpret an episode, and also they also latch onto painting with a negative brush literally everything about an episode, questioning things that "don't make sense!!!" when like, they do actually. just because 1 part of the plot may be flimsy doesn't mean automatically all 300 creative decisions are too, by osmosis. this is not how stories work, karen.

[fantastic-nonsense]

the deliberate erasure of Padme Amidala and Satine Kryze from every piece of Star Wars media where it would be narratively and thematically relevant to mention them is absolutely insane

because how did we get to a place where we can have two separate shows that collectively co-star three of Padme's best friends and her child and only get one (1) oblique mention? How did we get two whole shows focused on Mandalorians and post-Imperial Mandalore, one of which co-stars Satine's sister, and not mention the Last Free Ruler of Mandalore? How did we get a show focused on Obi-Wan Kenobi and not mention one of his best friends or the love of his life? How did we get a show focused entirely on politics and spying and the true birth of the Rebellion and not mention the fact that Padme helped build that? How did we visit Sundari and not mention Satine? How did we get an episode where Ahsoka literally attends Padme's funeral and never once says her name?

The fact that Satine is essentially confined to The Clone Wars despite her sister being the current co-protagonist of Disney's flagship Star Wars show while Padme has been basically erased from every single piece of Star Wars media that isn't the Darth Vader comics is baffling. It would be like Leia being completely non-existent and never mentioned in the sequel trilogy despite it co-starring her son, brother, and husband. It makes no sense, it's clearly deliberate, and it's extremely irritating.

[anghraine]

It's interesting (if often frustrating) to see the renewed Orc Discourse after the last few episodes of ROP. I've seen arguments that orcs have to be personifications of evil rather than people as such or else the ethics of our heroes' approach to them becomes much more fraught. Tolkien's work, as written, seems an odd choice to me for not wrangling with difficult questions, and of course, more diehard fans are going to immediately bring up Shagrat and Gorbag.

If you haven't read LOTR recently, Shagrat and Gorbag are two orcs who briefly have a conversation about how they're being screwed over by Sauron but have no other real options, about their opinions of mistakes that have been made, that they think Sauron himself has made one, but it's not safe to discuss because Sauron has spies in their own ranks. They reminisce about better times when they had more freedom and fantasize about a future when they can go elsewhere and set up a small-scale banditry operation rather than being involved in this huge-scale war. Eventually, however, they end up turning on each other.

Basically any time that someone brings up the "humanity" of this conversation, someone else will point out that they're still bad people. They're not at all guilty about what they're part of. They just resent the dangers to themselves, the pressure from above, failures of competence, the surveillance they're under, and their lack of realistic alternative options. The dream of another life mentioned in the conversation is still one of preying on innocent people, just on a much smaller and more immediate scale, etc.

I think this misses the reason it keeps getting brought up, though. The point is not that Shagrat and Gorbag are good people. The point is that they are people.

There's something very normal and recognizable about their resentment of their superiors, their fears of reprisal and betrayal that ultimately are realized, their dislike of this kind of industrial war machine that erases their individual work and contributions, the tinge of wistfulness in their hope of escape into a different kind of life. Their dialect is deliberately "common"—and there's a lot more to say about that and the fact that it's another commoner, Sam, who outwits them—but one of the main effects is to make them sound familiar and ordinary. And it's interesting that one of the points they specifically raise is that they're not going to get better treatment from "the good guys" so they can't defect, either.

This is self-interested, yes, but it's not the self-interest of some mystical being or spirit or whatnot, but of people.

Tolkien's later remarks tend to back this up. He said that female orcs do exist, but are rarely seen in the story because the characters only interact with the all-male warrior class of orcs. Whatever female orcs "do," it isn't going to war. Maybe they do a lot of the agricultural work that is apparently happening in distant parts of Mordor, maybe they are chiefly responsible for young orcs, maybe both and/or something else, we don't know. But we know they're out there and we know that they reproduce sexually and we know that they're not part of the orcish warrior class.

Regardless of all the problems with this, the idea that orcs have a gender-restricted warrior class at all and we're just not seeing any of their other classes because of where the story is set doesn't sound like automatons of evil. It sounds like an actual culture of people that we only see along the fringes.

And this whole matter of "but if they're people, we have to think about ethics, so they can't be people" is a weird circular argument that cannot account for what's in LOTR or for much of what Tolkien said afterwards. Yes, he struggled with The Problem of Orcs and how to reconcile it with his world building and his ethical system, but "maybe they're not people" is ultimately not a workable solution as far as LOTR goes and can't even account for much of the later evolution of his ideas, including explicit statements in his letters.

And in the end, the real response that comes to mind to that circular argument is "maybe you should think about ethics more."

[matt0044]

Thomas Astruc did not have a "vendetta" against Chloe. Period.

Here are the facts from those I have asked and official sources: https://old.reddit.com/r/miraculousladybug/comments/1e8vsit/could_i_just_have_the_facts/

She isn't based on his former bully or girlfriend who dumped him. That sort of accusation is petty at best.

2. He wrote and directed most episodes of each season, alongside ten other writers and directors. No specific staff member (creative or executive, including Zag) had specific involvement in specific episodes which portray Chloé positively or negatively. At least as far as what has been official stated.

3. The scripts were written years before the episodes were aired (i.e. things weren't changed due to the viewers' reaction). For example, The Battle of the Miraculous was locked before Season 2 had even premiered, and Sole Crusher and Queen Banana around the time Season 2 was ending.

That last part is essential because animation takes TIME people. There are few opportunities for "fan service" or taking pot shots at the fandom.

Also... who writes a character that they hate, seemingly redeem them and then have them backslide. It feels more like Thomas loves the sh*t out of Chloe as a villain and wanted to explore the idea of not all mean girls getting over themselves before it's too late.

You can criticize the execution but can we just... take a step back and not make it all about us?

[redjennies]

I made this while fully aware that I have probably caused this exact same feeling in countless others.

[benbamboozled]

Something something—meta character analysis of Jason Todd as a child of addicts.

Mumble mumble—his total lack of self-worth stemming from the deep, intrinsic knowledge that his parents will choose their own demons over him every time.

Something something.