#fanworks inherently change the canon and plot

[beewritesstuff]

Crucifiable Fandom opinion- You can and should make art/fanfiction of characters that is different from a carbon copy of their in-media appearance without necessarily having to tag it or consider it an 'AU'. You can if you want to, of course. But like...people don't stay static. They change, pick up new habits and hobbies, and *gasp* usually own more than one outfit. It's not necessarily an 'AU' to imagine a story completely different from the canonical ending or plot, that's...that's literally just fanart. That's what we've all always done- change the canon to explore new angles and themes.

Fandom's obsession with the 'AU' phenomenon is a weird thing that seems to have gotten more common in the past ten years, but ESPECIALLY in the Undertale Fandom. Do I understand their place? Sure. But not everything is an AU either. You're allowed to like the original characters, and give them new ideas and characterizations. You don't have to call it an 'authors universe' because you want to write about them in a different setting or situation than the canonical in-media one.

Alright, take me away, boys.

[wc-confessions]

God okay, this might be controversial, but I hate when you bring up a ship concept, and somebody comes into the comments or replies just to be like, "They're second cousins, actually :((("

...Near every character in warriors is related in some way, unless they're direct siblings or parent/child, or it's relevent to the plot, can we please just start assuming people changed some things around in the hypothetical? Warriors is one of the few series where we should alwaya take things with a grain of salt, because we all know the Erins didn't actually think through the family tree. (Aka how we got Ashfur being Squirrel's uncle and Graystripe's parents being siblings for a bit there)

Unless it has other problems like a creepy age gap or other major issues that make it clearly bad, can we just let people explore their interesting little ships in peace? Shipping characters who are shown as being family in text is inherently weird and you shouldn't do it, but I think we should start giving a pass to pairings where you literally have to dig into the warriors wiki to figure out they're somehow cousins or one of them is the other's uncle. We're making fanworks, let people adjust canon and have fun from time to time.

.

[ganondoodle]

so, i have thought more about what we now know about botw2 and honestly, setting aside the smaller things i am not a fan of (like the building aspect) my biggest gripes about it are the plot looking like its gonna be very generic, especially regarding ganondorf, while i hoped it would perhaps finally give us a little more interesting take instead good vs evil; and the oh so mysterious figure you see in in the trailer very likely to be hylia, since shes mentioned constantly in the first game (among other things like her design being pretty much a carbon copy of zelda for the most boring reasons imaginable)

and no its not just bc of my stupid little fanworks (that i do bc i love the franchise, as much as i am critical of it, it comes from being very passionate about it, hence me working my fan lore around the canon so it doesnt disturb it much, its more meant to expand it on parts i think are a little lacking without me trying to sound superior, literally just as an act of love (and a little spite ill admit that) to add something to it)- BUT bc i have little hope they would do anything more than just going full blown "this monstrous beast is pure inherently evil, and this is the pure inherently good white little girl goddess whos just protecting her god given perfect and unshakable good tm monarchy" with no little to no nuance (theres also alot more to be critical of the general structure and implications like racism, orientalism, nationalism, that while i can see alot of wrong or questionable things in the games i lack the eloquence to talk about in its full range) yes i am personally biased bc i just .. hate that kind of story/worldbuilding structure, but i dont think im the only one who would think of it as boring and .. disappointing?

i dont need ganondorf to be redeemed, i dont need him to be the good himbo bf that some people think all ganondorf stans want, i just want him to be more than to shout "i will conquor this kingdom bc i am evil and want it" and send a horde of monsters after you, at the very least id want the game to just aknowledge that there must be a reason for it, why it turned out like this

the zelda series and its world has so much potential, which is probably a reason for its popularity in fanworks, but also keeps not using it, no i dont expect a company like nintendo to deliver on all my hopes, of course not, im not that delusional, but the further i think and learn about this universe and concepts they created i find myself asking "why" more and more where the games never elaborate, never question

i like a clear structure, i like when your choices dont have a big or any impact on the story bc i want to live the story, not worry about every decision like i already do every second of my life IRL, i want to partake in a movie, in a theater piece i can influence the pace of but not change the outcome, yet i feel kind of ... ignored? let down? asking why and how, how do they know this is right and this is wrong, how do they keep enacting this seeing it never works out, keep saying defeat this evil, but evil yet returns stronger than before over and over, how do they never ask "is this the right way?", they say "we need to kill it more next time"

i know they are fictional little characters made up to sell a game, with a convevient plot point to ever repeat the same structure, but it cant be wrong to say "i love this world, i want to see and know more, i want to see it grow and change, break the cycle and be better, show me characters not puppets"

theres very surely nuances and ideas i am sorely missing bc i lack the knowledge of japanese as a language, culture, and mythology, but i dont think it invalidates all that i feel for it ..

.. right?

[niobiumao3]

Man there is a lot of attachment/commitment disk horse running around wrt the Jedi Order.

Lucas straight up said:

- People not raised from birth to be selfless and detached cannot possibly learn it later (x) from (x)

- Spouses and children must have all of your devotion so you cannot possibly devote yourself to something else like the Order (x) from (x)

He did! He said those things, and Anakin's entire plot is meant to reflect that. I get it, the movies and animated shows don't explicitly spell the part about families and kids out, but Lucas himself stated these things, and Anakin and Obi-wan's romantic arcs with Padme and Satine directly reflect that in the text. (I have SO FUCKING MANY issues with Lucas characterizing a marriage as inherently greedy and possessive, just, what the fucking hell. But anyways.)

The detachment/selflessness thing has problems as presented and narrated in the text. It really does, and it's not Jedi hating to say so. It comes from a good place, but it fails to take into account a lot of factors like people being able to make good decisions despite conflicting needs, people being able to be compassionate and selfless in the face of their own loss, people being able to change and grow and learn. (This begs the question, why *didn't* Anakin learn the detachment? Did he really need to be indoctrinated into that? That says a lot of not-great things.) It makes a lot of assumptions that are quite frankly based in the white Christian American thinking of its writer and I do feel presenting it as only in-canon and therefor separated from that isn't actually useful.

People aren't hating on Jedi when they point this out in metas or have characters take issue with it in their fanworks. They're really, actually not. There's nuance to examine and ways to look at it without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in both directions.

[itsclydebitches]

Are there any RWBY rewrite projects you are following? Do you have any strong opinion about them one way or another? What do you think of their attempt to trying to revamp the setting to either make it make more sense or at the very least more interesting for world building opportunities?

There aren't any projects I'm following atm – currently reading fic in other fandoms – but I definitely have strong opinions along the lines of, "People are ridiculous for being so offended over a passion project." Well, that assumes that the offense is real and not a thinly veiled excuse to hurl more vitriol around, but the point still stands. I literally watched RWBY rewrites go from a staple like in any other fandom, something not worth particular note, to, supposedly, a heinous act whose mere existence is an insult to RT. Every fic out there grapples with revamping things, whether that's coming from a satisfied, "I love the canon as is, but want a bit of variety alongside it" (fantasy canon becomes pirate AU), a "I'm happy with most of the canon, but would prefer these specific changes" (keeping to the plot, but now this romance is at the forefront), or a "I'm really dissatisfied with the canon, so let's reconceptualize things from the ground up" (a rewrite). If fans are mad at RWBY rewrites for daring to make changes, you should be equally mad at every other fic for daring to avoid the fall of Beacon, or writing a non-canon pairing, or giving the Maiden powers to Ruby. The only difference here is scale. That, and the fact that rewrites, given their large scope, often do come about due to dissatisfaction, prompting author's notes that fans are eager to read as offensively arrogant because the writer dared to say their idea is better than RT's. But given that no work is infallible, "good" is subjective, and PLENTY of other fans think fanworks are indeed better, or at least on par with what we originally got (you fixed that plot-hole, added depth to the worldbuilding, gave the girls a more cohesive look, came up with an awesome twist, etc.) it's more than a little ridiculous that rewrites are getting so much heat.

I think it's great the rewrites are trying to clarify aspects of the world or make it more interesting (whether individual fans think they succeed or not). Just like I think it's great that smaller fics are doing the same, that RWBY: Ice Queendom might do the same too. If fans think it's truly impossible to improve on the original and that making an attempt is inherently offensive... why are you here? To see pictures where the girls never stray from their canonical looks, setting, and interactions; to read fic that rehashes exactly what we've already seen in literary form? I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one think that sounds terribly boring. Just let people have fun with their fandom projects, whether big or small. They wouldn't be putting that amount of effort in if they weren't passionate about RWBY, but the fans lambasting rewrites alsobelieve that everyone engaging with them despises the show without reservations... which is a contradiction that should highlight how ridiculous this all is. 

[olderthannetfic]

i don't ever look for genderbending in fanworks, but when i come across them i like cis m>f/cis f>m genderbends in fanart more than in fanfic, and cis>trans/nb genderbends in fanfic more than in fanart, don't know why, and in both cases i vastly prefer 'already this gender' over 'becoming this gender (realistically or magically)' (trans or not), still don't know why.

of all the genderbend fics i read, 2 stood out to me:

a few years ago i read a porn-with-emotional-plot one-shot (advertized as such) with a surprise trans character - one half of the (canonically seperated) m/m pairing had a vagina and chest scars. it was a surprise visit that leads into an emotionally-difficult conversation that leads into emotionally-difficult sex that ends with further seperation that examines the unhealthy dynamic portrayed in canon and how it could go post-canon.

i still would've read it, and not tagging or mentioning 'trans [name]' in the para-text was the author's prerogative, but while the fic was overall good it totally took me out of the scene both emotionally and erotically when the sex happened and involved a vagina and it took me a few minutes to get back in.

i'm currently reading an in-progress (non-canon) m/m psychoemotional thriller (subtle for over 14 chapters) masked as a (veeeeeery porny) slow burn that stretches the '(mis)communication' & 'contrasting perspectives' & 'personal baggage' throulines in the canon to the extreme: it took every worldbuilding mechanic needed for the premise (+ an original that fits the overall themes of memory and experience of the canon ones), and combined and interwined with some delicious gender shenanigans (played for comedy, romance, drama, and horror as the scenes demand) for some delicious off the walls dream sex, emotional plot and character and relationship development.

also no indications of genderbening in the tags or para-text, but this time it just drew me further into the mood of every scene that included it, including the one dream sex scene (so far) that involved it - it was both a surprise and the logical result of everything that came before; an essential ingredient to the turning point of the story, relationship and character development.

--

I guess I can see why someone might not tag trans fic with anything ("A man's a man, right?"), though considering there's an audience that preferentially looks for that, I think people should. I can definitely see why they might not use the various genderswap/genderbender type terms if they think of "trans fic" as its own thing.

I think it makes sense to like one type way more than another, tbh. It's not that one is inherently better, but different gender-involving tropes are playing with totally different sets of subtropes.

I like sudden, magic, temporary sex changes because it leads to hilarious "Oh no, they're hot now! Oh no, were they always hot?" realizations and cheesy "Wah, what if they don't like me when I go back?" angst, at least in the fluffy, happy ending type.

That's a completely different itch than making a character trans scratches. (Not that there's only one kind of trans fic either.)

I'd no more expect a given reader to like all of them exactly the same than I'd expect people to like them all the same as a/b/o. After all, that too involves giving characters new genders/sexes!

[roppiepop]

Fandom discourses are inherently messy bcs it concerns how ppl interpret text and media, but i feel like when it concerns mainstream cape comics character accuracy, at the base of it, you can’t really win.

Theres a conversation to be had about mcu adaptations and the motives of streamlining characters to fit ur multibillion dollar franchise under the evil mouse corporation, fucking over the aspects of representation they try to sell to you then having these mangled versions end up being the defining incarnation to the general public.

But for my purposes this is mainly concerning dc.

The nature of the serialization for these comics being a collaborative effort of ever-changing writers in an ever-expanding universe mean that for the most part, every decision made would disservice at least one character, and consequently piss someone off.

Having books where most of its supporting characters are fully developed with their own runs seem to be a double-edged sword where there should be plenty of material to draw from and build plots around, but only under the assumption that the writers read the comics of the characters they write about.

And then in the events that a character long neglected gets brought back and remolded to be a tag-a-long in someone else’s series, or a reboot nerfs a character real bad, with whatever trickle-down effect it causes, if said characterization ends up being adopted in canon longer than their original incarnation,

At what point does that first personality become the one actually considered ooc? How much consistent appearance of what you consider ‘bad writing’ has to be there before u have to accept that making them not be like that is the deviation?

Current decisions in dc of soft reboots and having all their characters remember what happened pre-new52, but not erasing the aspects readers hated from said reboot, and not at all exploring how that knowledge would affect the characters, coupled with how they dont seem to keep track of character developments in other books, make trying to keep up with continuity itself feel like an exercise in futility.

You might get runs with the intention of repairing damages that might fix characterization issues to a point, but also feels like a regression of all the development they should’ve had.

Depending on your comic entry point, your blorbo, and what aspects of said blorbo you connect with, how you interact and which canons you adopt would be wildy varied, and like, you probably wont be wrong for it.

Its also very understandable when regarding characters that have so much history and adaptations people end up going off more accessible and streamlined incarnations, like say, a free webtoon on a big platform or other fanworks.

Is it annoying when larger fanon doesnt fit how you perceive those characters and dynamics? Sure. Are they wrong? Well??? Again, thats free game.

Fandom has always been drawn to exploration and extrapolation, and the way mainstream superhero comics are written dont tend to linger on big character/plot beats. Theres plenty of play room and its easy to headcanon someone one way or another.

Sometimes it can end up creating a more in-depth and nuanced version of a character you’d probably never see in the hand of canon writers, other times they get flattened in all the wrong angles.

But being a fan of mainstream cape comics is so rarely rewarding, the nature of it really is to just pick and choose whatever parts of it brings you the most joy. No one wins in this dnsnsnsns.

That tweet that said ‘the best way to enjoy fandom is to keep it between you and 3 or 4 likeminded friends’ really is the best way to keep u sane in these things.

[worstloki]

please read the article 'How White Fandom is Colonizing "Character-Coding"' by Shafira Jordan and quit while you're ahead

Okay, so I read it and see the problem, and I’ll try to address all their points in order because I don’t wholly agree with the article. I know it’s a lot to read so I’ve put tldr; sections at the end of each :)

Misusing the Term Reinforces Negative Stereotypes for Marginalized People 

The article essentially argues that labeling characters which are villainous as POC-coded is bad because they’re not morally pure and doing so "reinforces the idea that people of color are naturally dangerous and not to be trusted.”

Which is fair as you don’t want all the representation to be of ‘bad’ characters, but I also don’t believe all representative characters have to be ‘good’ either as it would be equally racist to divide good/bad in such a way. Not that I would place Loki under ‘bad’ to begin with, but arguing that characters shouldn’t be labelled as POC-coded for reasons unrelated to what’s presented in the narrative or because they did bad things is :/ even if lack of good representation is a prevalent issue in current Western and influenced media. 

Ideally there should be a range of representative characters that fall into ‘good’, ‘bad’, and ‘anywhere in-between’ because variety and complexity in character types should, in theory, be treated as common practice (which can only happen with a multitude of representation!).

And a bit unrelated but... within the fictional context of Thor 1, all the Jotnar (sans Loki) are presented to the audience as ‘bad’ by default. They desperately want to get their Casket back to the point of attempting stealing it (from the ‘good’ characters), they fight the heroes and even when the gang and Thor (’good’ characters) are enjoying or going overboard with taking lives it’s inconsequential, Laufey wants to kill the opposing king (who just happens to be a ‘good’ character) and will resort to low-handed methods to do so, etc. The narrative itself is from the frame of reference of the ‘good’ and we only see warriors of Jotunheim though so we understand why it’s like this, because regardless of their race/experiences the narrative carries, even if it most definitely would be seen as racist from our real-life perspectives if the ‘monstrous’ race were presented by actual people of colour, even if it would make sense for the people on on different realms living in different environments to be different from each other, and realistic even for that to be the root of some conflict. 

tldr; not using a specific label to prevent negative presentations of the characters seems a bit strange to do when the coding would be based off the text, but with limited representation available I see why it would be done, even if I still believe minority-coding is free game to expand/interpret.

Improperly Labeling a Character as “POC-coded” Suggests the Experiences of All People of Color are the Same 

The article argues that labeling Loki as POC-coded “suggests that all people of color have the same experiences, when in reality, people of color come from different places, have different cultures, and have different traditions.” And while it’s true that the term doesn’t go into detail about which particular experiences (and these experiences can vary vastly due to diversity!) the appropriate measure would be to remove the umbrella term POC altogether as people of colour tend to also vary. But that’s also exactly why it’s an all-encompassing general term? It’s a way to denote anyone who isn’t “white” and has the associated cultural privilege that comes with the concept of white supremacy.  

And, obviously, in the fictional setting presented, the concept of white supremacy is not prodded at, but cultural supremacy is definitely one that makes recurring appearances, right next to the parts about Asgard being a realm built on imperialism with ongoing colonial practice. 

My take on this is that Loki’s narrative features a struggle with identity after finding out he’s of a different race and was being treated differently his entire life and being Jotun was presumably a part of the reasoning even if he didn’t know it. He’s basically treated as of less worth for inherently existing differently. I do believe that racism is a common-enough POC experience, but that while Loki was born with blue skin he passes/appears white which is why I don’t say that Loki is a POC, just that he has been coded/can be interpreted this way. 

There’s also the entire thing with Loki trying to fit in and prove he belongs by trying to fit the theory and be The Most Asgardian by committing genocide (which ultimately makes no difference as he’s still not the ‘acceptable’ version of Asgardian), and the denial/rejection of his birth culture in destructively lashing out towards them (which even Thor is confused by because Loki isn’t typically violent), and the fact his self worth plummets and he is passively suicidal upon finding out he’s Jotun (internalized racism? general drop in self-worth after finding out he’s adopted and has been lied to? Bit of both?), but what do I know, I’m sure none of those are, at their base, common experiences or relatable feelings for anyone or decent rep because we see such themes on-screen presented wonderfully in different lights all the time. 

tldr; every set of experiences could be different, some types of discrimination could overlap, if you limit an umbrella term to only very specific circumstances then it’s no longer an umbrella term.

Suggesting that White Characters are Meant to be Seen as People of Color Ignores the Actual Characters of Color that are Present in these Stories

I don’t agree with most of this section, but that may just be the way the arguments are put together, which I don’t blame the author for.

“ Implying that Loki is a person of color completely ignores Heimdall and Hogun, the only Black and Asian Asgardians who appear in the movie. ”

Characters such as Hogun and Heimdall which are played by actual people of colour have smaller roles in the films and any prejudice they could face for being POC in-universe isn’t made apparent, while Loki at the very least comes to the realization that something he couldn’t change (race, parentage,) was having him treated differently his whole life and had to come to terms with it. The Vanir/Aesir are also both treated similarly on-screen, and Heimdall having dark skin isn’t plot relevant, whereas Jotnar are treated as lesser consistently and are relevant through the movie (breaking into the vault, Thor and co. attack Jotunheim, Loki’s deal with Laufey, the attempted regicide (and the successful one XD), destroying jotunheim, Loki saying he’s not Thor’s brother,). 

I also see including characters as POC-coded as... more representation? In all canon-compliant interpretations of the characters Hogun being Vanir is always explicitly mentioned because it’s a fact that just is, up to the appearance and even the world-building of Vanaheim in some fanworks use particularly East Asian culture as inspiration. I have never come across a Marvel fandom Heimdall interpretation where he’s not Black... but because these characters are more minor/side-characters of course they get less attention! 

“ In Loki’s fandom, Heimdall’s name sometimes gets thrown in to suggest that it was he all along who was the real villain due to his “racism” against Loki and the rest of the Jotun. It is, of course, ironic to suggest that somehow the only Black Asgardian to appear in the movie can oppress the privileged white prince. “

I... don’t know where to start with this. But the example of theorizing given in the article wasn’t suggesting Heimdall was bad or trying to explain his actions in Thor 1 by saying he is Black... and just looking at a character’s actions shouldn’t be done less or more critically because of skin tone in my opinion. Heimdall may have been trying to do what was best and protect the realm but if the audience didn’t know that Loki was up to dodgy things then the coding would be switched around because he was trying to spy and committed treason and then tried to kill Loki. People... can hold feelings towards others... regardless of skin... and suspect them... for reasons other than skin... although I do still have questions about whether Heimdall knew Loki was Jotun or not. (Even if I personally don’t think it’d make a difference to how he’d treat Loki?)

Some Loki fans have also suggested that because Jotuns have blue skin that this alone makes him a person of color (even if the audience is only allowed to see Loki in his true Jotun form for mere seconds of screentime). This, again, shows a lack of understanding when it comes to race. It doesn’t matter what skin color the Jotuns have. 

Race can differentiate between physical and/or behavioural characteristics!! Not being blue all the time doesn’t make him any less Jotun!! He’s got internalized stuff to work through and is used to being Aesir!! At least 1 parent is Jotun so even if Loki was passing as Aesir he’s probably Jotun!! (I don’t know how magic space genetics work for sure but Loki being Jotun was an entire very important jump-starting point in Thor 1!!). It’s a fantasy text and typically things like having different coloured skin indicates a different race or is sometimes if a species has multiple then is just considered a skin colour. That’s how coding works!! The Jotnar are very specifically the only race we see in the movie with a skin-tone not within the ‘normal’ human range, which alienates them to the audience from the get-go!! They’re an “other” and on the opposite side to the ‘good’ characters.

Both Loki and his birth father, Laufey (Colm Feore), are played by white men, and it is impossible for a white man to successfully play a character of color. 

The specification of men here bothers me, but yes, you don’t get ‘white’ people to play characters of colour if it can be avoided. (And it can be avoided.)

This also connects with the previous point made that people of color come from various places. There is nothing specifically about the Jotun that could be traced to any specific person of color, and even if there were, there would be no way for white men to portray them without being disrespectful.

This is where arguments about the definition of coding and how specificity/generalizations and do/don’t come in. I know I’m subjective and lean towards the more rep the better, but while I agree ‘white’ people wouldn’t be able to respectfully play a POC I don’t think that rule should have to carry over into fantasy-based fiction. I know texts reflect on reality and reality can reflect within texts, but if contextually there is racial discrimination and there are similar ideas which resonate with the audience’s own experiences I’d say it’s coded well enough to allow that.

tldr; Thor 1′s narrative revolves mainly around Thor and Loki, of which race is kinda kinda a significant theme in Loki’s part of the story. Not so much explored with less-developed side characters such as Heimdall and Hogun, even though their actors are actual people of colour. 

How Much of this is Really Well-Intentioned?

In the fantasy space viking world Heimdall and Hogun don’t face any on-screen prejudice and their appearance is not mentioned (which is nice, for sure! good to have casual rep!) but adding on to the roles they play in the narrative the explicit fantasy-racism in the movie isn't aimed at Asian/Black characters, but towards the Humans -to a lesser extent- and the Jotnar, including Loki, who only just found out he comes under that bracket.

The article mentions how fandom space toxicity often “reaches the actors who portray the characters,“ which is true, and it’s shameful that people have to justify their roles or presences are harassed for the pettiest things like skin tone/cultural background, but I don’t see coding characters as removing the spotlight from interesting characters such as those which are actually POC, rather expressing a demand for more rep, since well-written complex characters which are diverse are often absent/minor enough in the media, and therefore can get easily brushed aside in both canon and fandom spaces.

tldr; It’s obviously not a replacement for actual representation, but, if a character is marginalized and can be interpreted as coded, even if they would only be considered so within the context of the textual landscape, I don’t see why spreading awareness through exploring the coding as a possibility for the character shouldn’t be done, even if the media is being presented by people who are ‘white’ or privileged or may not fall into the categories themselves, as long as it’s done respectfully to those it could explicitly represent.

[henshengs]

About Rule 63 fanworks

I was asked yesterday to elaborate on my genderbend opinions, as a trans person, which I’m happy to do, and I’ve thought about it a bit today to make sure I’m not saying something off the cuff and not thought through. Still, this is a sensitive, complicated topic, and I’m open to discussion on it.

This also got long, so I’m putting it under a cut.

So, obviously I can’t speak for all trans people. No minority group is a monolith in our opinions and this is particularly the case for the transgender community because our experiences are so very diverse and individual.

I am very rarely hurt or offended by genderbends/genderswaps/rule 63 fanworks. I know people for whom this is not the case, and I believe the pain involved is very real. The thing is... living in this world is inherently kinda painful when you’re trans. This world’s not built for us. All kinds of random things can cause me pain throughout my day. Store mannequins. My own reflection. Lesbian poetry. Pictures of other trans people. When something triggers my dysphoria or feelings of alienation, I have to stop, acknowledge the feeling, and then consider whether the thing is, outside of hurting me, contributing to the ignorance of and hatred of people like me by its very existence.

I don’t think the basic act of asking, “What if this character who is a cis man, was a cis woman instead?” does that. I think if anything, it opens the door to then ask “what if he was a trans man? Or a trans woman? Or nonbinary?”

Asking “what if this story was about a cis woman” lets cis women talk about their experiences and see themselves in stories, something I think is valuable! and also can lead to stories exploring sexism and misogyny, things which affect all trans people too!

In the rest of this post I’m going to use the terms “rule 63″ and “genderswap” to refer to the act of creating a fanwork changing a cis/presumed cis man to a cis or not-specified-to-be-trans woman, because this is the vast majority of the work under that label, because most fictional heroes and iconic characters are cis men, and because people who create cis man->trans woman or cis woman->trans man content, in my experience, usually use terms like “trans headcanon” instead.

(A lot of rule 63 fanworks don’t explicitly specify that the now-female character is cis. We can presume that most artists aren’t even thinking about the possibility of the character being trans, but we can presume that for 99.99% of all art, anywhere. It’s not a unique evil of rule 63.)

The claims that rule 63 is inherently transphobic, rather than just something where it’s good to be extra careful to avoid transphobia, as far as I’ve seen, use two arguments: A) that making the character a cis woman is wasting an opportunity to make them a trans person, and this is transphobic, and B) that rule 63 fan art is gender essentialist and cissexist, because it ties gender to physical characteristics.

Argument A doesn’t hold up for me, 

because couldn’t one then say that reimagining an abled white cis character as an abled white trans woman is racist and ableist? that reimagining them as an abled trans woman of color is ableist? No transformative reimagining can cover every identity. We say “write what you know” and talk about Own Voices, and that includes cis women who want to write about the experience they know. 

It’s also not fair to tell trans people that we must always think about trans experiences, even in our fiction. A lot of the time we don’t want to have to write or think about dysphoria and discrimination and we want to live in the heads of cis characters or even just characters whose AGAB is not mentioned! 

And it is also, imo, not a great idea to pressure people who may not be educated about trans experiences to write about trans characters just because they want to explore sexism or write about lesbians. 

many, many trans people first begin exploring their gender identity through creating cis rule 63 content, because it’s ‘safer’ than directly engaging with trans content.

With argument B, I agree that a lot of rule 63 art looks like this

and this sucks. To me, though, it’s important that it’s not the genderswap aspect that makes it suck. Artists who do this are also designing original characters with sexist, gender essentialist designs. Artists who don’t draw sexist art in general, also don’t draw sexist rule 63.

(yes, I know She-Hulk is not a rule 63 of regular Hulk. But you guys know the kind of art I’m talking about.)

I’ve also noticed a genre of fanfic that’s like, “if these characters were girls, they’d be sensible and conflict avoidant and none of the plot would happen!” or “what if these violent, tragic male characters were Soft Lesbians who braided each others’ hair” and again, I assume these authors write canonical women the same way. The genderswap part isn’t the bad part, the sexism is. 

Non-sexist rule 63 actually, in my opinion, fights gender essentialism and cissexism. When a character is exactly the same except for the ways a gender essentialist world has shaped and pressured them based on their AGAB, that’s a strong statement on the constructed nature of gender! 

But the argument that making /any/ change is gender essentialist, is... I understand where it’s coming from. I am a trans person who presents androgynously and I am a hypervisible freak because of it. I would love to live in a society where visible gender markers weren’t a thing! Unfortunately, we don’t live in that society. We live in one where we are constantly under pressure to conform to one of two profiles. There are almost no gender non conforming male characters in popular media. And changing a gender conforming cis man into a gender conforming cis woman seems to me to be a neutral action at worst. Not to mention characters from historical canons, who would be under a ton of pressure to conform. 

For physical body type characteristics... 65% of all speaking roles in Hollywood are cis and male. It’s harder to get statistics on other forms of media, but it’s undeniable that overall, most stories are told about cis men who do not have breasts or wide hips. Changing the story to be about a cis woman who has those features is introducing more diversity! 

I typed “rule 63″ and “genderswap” into the tumblr search bar today, and I saw a lot of art of women with a variety of aesthetics and body shapes and characteristics, who looked like people I’d see out at the mall.

Again, I sure do wish we lived in a post gender society. But we don’t, and in our society, everyone, myself included, looks at a picture of a person and gender categorizes them based on appearance. It is not wrong for someone to draw “Geralt the Witcher as a hot butch woman” and give her some physical markers generally agreed upon to denote ‘butch woman’ rather than ‘gender conforming man’ to tell the viewer that that is what they have drawn. Just as it is not wrong to draw “my OC who is a hot butch woman who fights monsters” and give her those markers. 

Finally, both arguments against genderswaps are, in my opinion, flawed because they implicitly posit the act of creating fanworks of the original, cis male gender conforming character design, as neutral. I think this is incorrect. I think that if you’re going to argue that drawing a cis male character as a cis woman is transphobic, you have to also argue that drawing the character as a cis man is transphobic. But I’ve only seen people do this when a trans headcanon becomes extremely popular in a fandom.

Again, I’m just one person. I’m also biased, because firstly, as I mentioned, rule 63 doesn’t usually trigger my dysphoria; secondly, I almost always come down on the side of “don’t limit what people can explore in fiction; ask them to explore it more sensitively or with more content warnings instead.” 

I definitely encourage creators to seek out and listen to a variety of trans opinions. But this is mine: I love rule 63, I make a lot of it myself, and I think if no one created it we’d lose something awesome. 

At the end of the day, what I really want is more trans content*, but I’d rather have cis rule 63 than just stories about cis men. 

Also: I personally have nothing against the terms genderswap or genderbend. I don’t think it reinforces the gender binary to acknowledge its existence by saying you’re ‘swapping’ the character from being cis with one AGAB to being cis with the other. But I can definitely see the argument against it, so I don’t blame anyone for going with rule 63 instead.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading; I hope you have a nice day, and have fun creating and consuming the fanworks your heart desires. I’ll end by linking this comic, which is just eternally relevant.

(*by which I mean: trans content created by other trans people, that matches my hyperspecific headcanons, likes and dislikes, and doesn’t set off any of my often changing dysphoria triggers. See what I said at the start, about transgender existence being constantly mildly painful. There are many awesome aspects to being trans! This is one of the less awesome.)

[gekimayu]

some (mostly kakashi) headcanons i like

-kakashi’s mom was an inuzuka. would explain his heightened sense of smell and his affinity to dogs. also why kiba came to him for help in that one filler ep (this headcanon has been making the rounds some years ago and i found content here and here and i actually ended up real disappointed when he didnt end up having either fangs or facemarkings tbh)

-kakashi being trans isnt that much of a hc to me anymore tbh, because i consider it canon due to overwhelming evidence so the headcanon is: the only people who know kakashi is trans are sakumo (bc hes his dad and was also NOTHING BUT supportive), gai (bc hes his husband), sakura, tsunade and probably shizune, rin and other healers (bc they have used healing jutsu on him before), minato and tenzo. 

-tenzo knows because he is trans himself (long hair as a child, changed his name a few times, wears a mask a lot,...) and came out to kakashi who then came out in return and helped tenzo and thats why tenzo adores him so much

-gai is faceblind (thats a hc that has been established before and ive seen posts about it here here and lots of other times i cant find rn) and thats why he recognised kakashi as sukea, bc he didnt concentrate on the face, but his body and the way he moved. also why he has no problem fighting a sharingan user, bc he has no reason to look at their faces anyway.

-gai however DOES act up his faceblindness occasionally to piss off his opponents. (fight with young obito or his 2nd and 3rd encounter with kisame)

-kakashi isnt necessarily ace, but is sex repulsed/has a low sex drive due to trauma (and possibly dysphoria or simply not wanting people to know he’s trans), but there is this very persistent rumour among civilians and people who dont know him well and that kakashi is either not aware of or manages to ignore very well. people think he’s a sex god who gets laid all the time and is probably all dommy and suave and really good at dirty talk and shit, but everyone who has spent a little time with him (which is, admittedly, not that huge a number of people) knows he is a recluse and also a weird nerd who probably reads his trashy porn books for the PLOT and almost combusts when he is forced to read lines from it out loud, who loses a fight because hes afraid of spoilers, who has a seriously weird sense of humour and who gets roasted by his genin team all the time. seriously, the only person close to kakashi who thinks he is even remotely cool is gai and thats only because hes dumb in love with him and probably thinks he barfs rainbows. (heres another post along those lines)

-the only time kakashi is ever anything close to ~charming~ is when hes sweet talking tenzo. and even then its half hero worship and the other half is probably pity or reluctant fondness or something.

-i feel like the uzumaki’s affinity towards seals and sealing jutsu is a tragically underused trope in both canon and fanworks, so i like imagining naruto pick up sealing and having a almost inherent understanding of seals bc of his heritage

-after the war sai finally comes up with a nickname for lee and its ‘kemushi’ (caterpillar bc of his eyebrows) and lee thinks its the absolute best thing ever

-after retiring from active duty kakashi exclusively wears either yukatas or the ninja equivalent of an adidas tracksuit

-kakashi had a onesided crush on his straight friend obito and because he was emotionally stunted and had no idea what to do about it his crush translated into condescending behaviour. his death added to his intimacy issues and was also the reason why he wasnt comfortable with or didnt feel worthy of starting a relationship with gai even though he absolutely did return his feelings. seeing that obito had been alive that entire time messed him up pretty badly bc he ofc started to blame himself for EVERYTHING that had happened including minato and kushina’s deaths, the uchiha massacre and the entire 4th shinobi war. so after that is over and done with he is not well™, but he and gai work through their stuff together, have a few breakdowns, heal and start a serious relationship soon after.

so far so good. will probably add more eventually.

[tokowh]

Spyro Fanworks drinking game

DISCLAIMER: Just because a particular trope/cliche is listed here does not make it inherently 'bad'. As TV Tropes puts it, Tropes are tools. Even a cliche can be used in a new and interesting way. PLEASE DO NO HARASS ANYONE for using one of these cliches in their fic/comic/whatever. This is also written by someone who does NOT drink. As such, be aware that these ratios are not great since I have no frame of reference to work with. * Take a drink if the fic is set in the 'Legend of Spyro' canon ** Take two if the fic title has 'the Legend of Spyro' anywhere in it ** Take three if it's abbreviated to 'TLOS' ** Take three if it's 'the Legend of' with some OC or other character replacing Spyro in the title *** Add on another drink if its basically a rewrite of the game, but with other characters/OCs included * Take a drink if the words 'dark', 'darkness', 'blood', 'destiny', 'legacy', or 'prophecy' is written in the fic title ** Take two if it uses two of those words in the title ** Take three if there's more than three of those words in the title * Take a drink if the fic is about Spyro and Cynder facing a new evil ** Take two if its a 'new ancient evil' *** Add on a drink if one of the antagonist main motivations is 'getting revenge on Cynder' *** Alternatively, add on a drink if they claim they were behind Malefor the entire time *** Alternatively, take another one if Malefor ends up pulling a Dr. Wily and hijacks the plot. If it's used in conjunction with 'man behind the man' above, take another one * Take a drink if it's part 'whatever' in a massive fic series ** Take two drinks if it's referred to as books instead of parts * Take a drink if it's set exactly after 'Dawn of the Dragon' ** Take two if the prologue has 'You cannot defeat me, I am eternal!' anywhere in it ** Take three if it's either in all caps, bolded, underlined, or italicized ** Down the can/bottle if its any combination of the four *** Add on a drink if, after all that, it basically becomes a glorified highschool AU * Take a drink if Spyro has his purple dragon powers hijacked by someone ** Take two if it's by the main antagonist. * Take a drink if the fic focuses more on Cynder rather than Spyro ** Take three if people hating Cynder is a major theme of the fic * Take two drinks if the fic completely ignores the fact that Cynder said 'I love you' to Spyro at the end of DotD ** Take a drink if it does acknowledge it, but brushes it off as 'Spyro didn't hear her' * Take a drink if 'This Broken Soul' is copy and pasted word for word into the fic at some point ** Take three if Cynder's the one singing it * Take a drink if Ignitus reveals himself to be the Chronicler early on in the fic, thus negating any impact his supposed death had * Take a drink if another purple dragon besides Spyro or Malefor appears in the story, despite the whole 'only one purple dragon every ten generations' thing ** Take two if s/he's the major antagonist ** Take two if she's female ** Take three if s/he's Spyros brother/sister * Take a drink whenever an OC comes in that's in some way related to either Spyro or Cynder (mother, father, brother, sister, ect, ect...) * Take a drink if there's a human turned dragon in the fic ** Take two if they're happy about it and/or have always wished/dreamed/hoped this would happen ** Take three if its because they were unloved/abused in their old life * Take a drink every time Cynder angst about her past * Take a drink if Flame and Ember appear in the story, despite the whole 'Year of the Dragon genocide' thing ** Take two if the reason for them surviving is that their eggs were laid late, or they were saved in a similar manner as Spyro * Take a drink if an OC dragon around their age shows up in a similar manner ** Take a drink if they have a 'dark and trouble' and/or 'mysterious past' ** Take two if finding out about said past is a major part of the fic ** Take three if she's female *** Add on a drink if they're a blatant recolor of a canon character *** Add on another if it's a blatant recolor of Cynder *** Add on another drink if they get paired with a canon character *** Make it two if it's either Spyro or Cynder *** Add another one if (in-universe) people hate him/her for some irrational reason *** Make it another one if said reason is never explained *** Make it another one if said reason is explained, but it's something like 'too beautiful, everyone else is jealous' or those likes *** Add another drink if they're eyes change color based on their emotions *** Add on another drink if they're somehow more powerful than Spyro or Cynder *** Again, add on a drink if they're a purple dragon *** Make it two if they're some kind of special dragon that's somehow more powerful than a purple dragon ** Take two drinks if they possess some element that is not one of the canon four (fire, ice, electric, or earth) ** Take three if its something ridiculous like blood, spirit, or pure energy *** Add on another drink if they possess more than one element *** Down the can/bottle if the second element is equally ridiculous * Take three drinks if Ember's derailed into a complete bitch who tries to sabotage Spyro and Cynder's relationship * Take a drink if Spyro and Cynder break up during the fic ** Take three if it was caused by Ember *** Take another drink if they end up getting back together again three or so chapters later * Take a drink every time Spyro/Cynders superpowered evil sides are brought up ** Take two if they actually appear in the fic * Take a drink if the fic is set in the far future and focuses on a new purple dragon ** Again, take two if she's female ** Take a drink if any character in it is a descendant of Spyro and/or Cynder ** Take two if its the purple dragon * Take a drink if its revealed Ignitus is Spyros biological father ** Take two if it's revealed he's Cynders biological father * Take a drink if another war starts up over the course of the fic ** Take three if it's because of Malefor * Take a drink if the fic ends on a sequel hook ** Take three if it's already part of a massive series * Take a drink every time Flame gets jealous of Spyro (be it over his own fame or Ember fawning over him) ** Take two if he eventually attacks Spyro because of this. *** Take three if he eventually goes evil because of this. * Take a drink if Flame is completely head over heels for Ember, despite the fact that they never met in canon. * Take a drink if Flame is already in a relationship with Ember with no relevance to the plot what-so-ever just because the author doesn't want Ember getting in the way of SpyroXCynder. * Take a drink if Flame somehow becomes the new fire guardian. ** Take two if he beats Ember for the title. * Take a drink if the story has Flame acting like a hot-head, despite being rather cheerful and looking up to Spyro in the games proper. * If by some stroke of luck you're reading a classic verse fic focusing on Spyro X Ember, take a drink if the main reason Spyro's considering getting together with Ember is that he's going through puberty * Similarly, outside of characters like Ember, Flame, and possibly Elder Tomas, take a drink if said Classicverse fic ignores anything that happened between the Classic Trilogy and TLoS * Take a drink if you're reading a Classicverse fic that does acknowledge stuff that happened between the Classic and Legendverse trilogies, and is set after Shadow Legacy, but for whatever reason still has Ember fangirling and trying to hook up with Spyro, despite hooking up with Bandit over the course of that game. * Take a drink whenever a Classic Spyro X Elora fic fails to acknowledge the fact that Elora is far older than Spyro, and how massive the species gap between them is. * Take a drink if a Classic Spyro fic has it to where the only moves Classic knows are how to charge and flame things, despite knowing actually combat techniques and magic in Shadow Legacy. * Take a drink if the fic only ever has Classic Spyro use fire, despite the fact that he, too, also has more breaths than fire. * Take a drink if anyone swears using human swear words even though it's never been said before in either universe. * Take a drink if anyone has a name that fits into Classic series but not TLOS series. ** Take two drinks if the name is obviously human. * Take a drink if most adult dragons are useless in battle. * Take a drink when a fic has pointlessly gory or violent scenes for the sake of it. * Take a drink whenever a killed off in a glorified fashion that makes it clear the author personally hated the character. * Take a drink if dragons kiss each other on the lips despite having the wrong mouth shape.

[captainclickycat]

Clicky’s Ultimate GO Disk Horse Post

Hello, everybody!

Since we’ve seen something of a resurgence of “is Good Omens proper queer rep or what” disk horse, and I know from experience that it is not good or healthy or fun for me to engage with this sort of disk horse for extensive periods, but I still have a borderline-pathological need to continually Make My Stance Clear on topics I’m interested in, behold! A definitive post of my personal Thoughts on the topic. 

It is a bulletpoint list of stuff I agree with and stuff I don’t agree with, and it gets long and distinctly navel-gazey. Nobody is obligated to read or engage with it (and honestly some of it feels weirdly dated now anyway), I mainly just wanted to get it out of my head and have a handy go-to source for my Official Stance. I can’t see myself changing my mind in any significant way any time soon, but who knows what time and further content will bring. 

Stuff I agree with:

Nobody is owed textual confirmation of their specific headcanon or interpretation

Good Omens the TV show was made as a tribute to Terry Pratchett and certain aspects along with the plot in a broad sense are constrained by the narrative it was based on

The ultimately-ambiguous nature of Crowley and Aziraphale’s relationship gives people license to apply a broad range of headcanons and interpretations and allows more people to relate to the characters than if they had been defined in clearer terms. This is nice.

However, the ambiguous nature also means that calling it “representation” is something we should be cautious about at best, and intentionally or not contributes to a much broader historical phenomenon in which cishet relationships are unambiguously confirmed but potential queer characters and relationships are relegated to subtext, and people are well within their right to view with skepticism, or nope right out of, media that does this regardless of the reasoning behind it. In the immortal words of Babybird, it can be a good thing as well as a bad thing.

Ultimately I’m glad that the show went in the direction of lending weight to the romantic interpretations of their relationship rather than flat-out denying or avoiding them. When it comes down to it I prefer that they did this instead of going “nope, this is 100% unambiguously platonic”

There’s nothing in canon to specifically deny that they’re queer or that their relationship is romantic in nature

Word of god is not canon.

An author going on Twitter and saying “I intended the characters as X, and let’s not rule out the possibility that they could be Y, Z or A” is not representation

A fair bit of Neil Gaiman’s input on this topic has been tone deaf, kinda disingenuous or otherwise not great

The idea that C & A are queer owes a lot of itself to subtext, word of god and/or good-faith audience interpretation

And there’s nothing inherently wrong with those things, they have value, but also:

It’s a good idea to be very cautious in general about patting creators on the back for “representation” that ultimately owes itself more to subtext, word of god and/or good-faith audience interpretation than actual effort or intention on the creator’s part.

“They’re gay men and only gay men, and NG is a bastard for saying they’re not” isn’t entirely a strawman, but it’s also not what a lot of people are saying.

Personal taste and personal desires play a large part in the ways people engage with and consume media, and sometimes these find their way into critical debate, consciously or not. (Mine have!)

People’s headcanons and interpretations of a text are often deeply personal, very precious and meaningful to them, and it’s understandable to feel worried that more canon content might put some of those interpretations to bed.

There will probably be things to like in the next series

There will probably be things to dislike in the next series

Going up to someone who’s genuinely excited and happy to moan about how not-excited and unhappy you are is rude and inconsiderate and people shouldn’t do it

Just kicking back and enjoying something without engaging with critical disk horse left and right is a fair and reasonable thing to do and to want. (If this describes you, I’m flattered that you’ve made it this far)

Good Omens is really good, overall. Like, I don’t just like it, I think it’s genuinely good. It’s charming and funny and (the show is) visually gorgeous and it features compelling, likeable characters and handles its themes well. It’s important not to lose sight of that. Also Pratchett and Gaiman’s work in general is something I have a lot of history with and has a special place in my heart.

But also it has some flaws

I’ve seen much worse media fly under the critical radar and be subjected to much less nitpicking.

Ultimately it’s better to enjoy the media we love for what it is, add headcanons and fanworks to taste, and also seek out other diverse media with positive and sophisticated representation, than to sit around moping over the fact that the media we love isn’t perfect or doesn’t do things precisely the way we’d like it to

That said, it’s alright to feel strongly about all this. 

Stuff I don’t agree with:

Good Omens is queerbaiting trash

Good Omens is totally-canon perfect queer rep and deserves no criticism

Subtext and ambiguity are better than clear, unambiguous textual representation

Same-gender (or same-gender presenting) relationships can be ruined, cheapened or rendered less meaningful by kissing, being sexual or outright confirming that they are in fact romantic

Neil Gaiman is the devil (or Steven Moffat 2.0, if you prefer)

Neil Gaiman is Perfect Woke Jesus and deserves nothing but praise

“Word of god isn’t canon” means that nobody can engage with, agree with, take comfort from or factor word of god into their opinions or interpretations

“Dumbledoring” your characters is fine if it’s Neil Gaiman doing it

Characters can’t be queer unless they’re openly textually stated to be queer, otherwise they’re cishet by default

“Crowley and Aziraphale are asexual” is the only acceptable interpretation

“Crowley and Aziraphale have a sexual relationship” is the only acceptable interpretation

Crowley and Aziraphale are gay men, or that “gay men” is the wokest, most appropriate interpretation of them

People who didn’t think it was queer enough just hate asexual and nonbinary representation (the nonbinary thing is especially weird but never mind that for now), hate platonic friendship, lack critical thinking skills, weren’t reading/watching properly or “just want to see them fuck”

People who did think it was queer enough are just homophobic, bootlickers or think that all queer media ought to be ambiguous

Saying “fuck you” to a stranger is a reasonable and appropriate prelude to a debate about a nuanced topic

This is the most important, most high-stakes debate of all time