#former protagonists

[nemesis-is-my-middle-name]

...related to that “former protagonists ingo and emmet” thing from a while ago, and also discussion of litwick being Feral: what if chandelure was the one to fuck up ghetsis’ arm and face, way back when

[dykealloy]

the catholic rejection of it all

[raaorqtpbpdy]

I would like to remind the Phandom that Freakshow was a ringmaster and not a clown. I would like to remind specifically the DP/DC crowd that Danny doesn’t have any canonical reason to hate clowns, nor was there any indication at any point in the show that he disliked clowns.

[setaflow]

Started We Hunt the Flame this morning and I just want to say that I see you, Hafsah Faizal. I see you and I thank you for your service.

[cctinsleybaxter]

Few things more mortifying than someone 'complimenting' you on a physical feature of your human body they 'know most people don't find attractive'; either they're a self-absorbed weirdo who takes all their social cues from YA fantasy protagonists (bad) or it's deliberate negging in order to get close to you (worse)

[graceful-not]

ok but like WHAT DID APOLLO MEAN BY THIS???? SAVED HIS NECK WHEN?!?????

The only time I can think of is Pheonix interjecting in the first trial of aa4 bc Apollo hadn't put it together yet/didn't have the confidence to accept the truth yet, but other than that??????? When tf has Pheonix ever saved him??????

[mayhem-ensues]

I wish everyone sincerely arguing ‘Guel would be a better protagonist’ a very shut the fuck up.

Female characters can’t have shit in fandom for real.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Obligatory Disclaimer #1: Yes, there is a lot of misogyny in the way people talk about the "likability" of female characters. Women in stories can and should be complex, flawed, nuanced, and human, not (just) "likable" (or "sexy" or "mother" or whatever other one-dimensional trope).

Obligatory Disclaimer #2: Yes, I know that an opinion expressed by a character in a story is not necessarily being supported by the narrative itself, or the author, and that people with piss-on-the-poor reading comprehension get this wrong. Good reading comprehension means being able to tell the difference.

Now that we've got that out of the way.

Doesn't it seem like "Female characters don't have to be LIKABLE, you illiterate misogynist!" is often a Privileged Feminist way to silence criticism of... very mainstream bigoted attitudes being presented uncritically in the narrative by being put in the voices of designated "unlikable female characters"?

I love a complex, nuanced, flawed female character. I love an outright villainous female character. I love a character whose flaws and prejudices are slowly picked apart by the narrative. I do not love having the classism, sizeism, and ableism I deal with every day served back to me in Feminist Fiction.

I do not love trying to point out "Hey, this award-winning book you all love, I don't actually like the way the protagonist talks about the working-class fat man. Or the younger woman with anxiety. Or the acquaintance with a disabled child and, like, linoleum floors or something." (Why do I just have all those examples at the ready?)

And being met with "Female characters don't have to be LIKABLE, you illiterate misogynist. Try reading some Serious Literature instead of your fanfic romance YA smut beach reads!"

"Uh, okay, well, it's not so much about the character being likeable as about the way the narrative doesn't seem to challenge the character's, I must reiterate, very widely held prejudices, that makes it seem less like a depiction of a flawed character and more like an uncritical replication of those very widely held prejudices --"

"It's a LITERARY PERSPECTIVE, GOD, didn't you go to SCHOOL? Do you think Lolita is a love story? Do you think Fight Club is about how awesome fighting is?"

"Well, no, but, for example, the way the character was so emotionally abusive to her fat daughter and her neurodivergent son --"

"Uggggh, you don't understand ANYTHING, women don't have to be PERFECT MOTHERS, she's supposed to represent HOW REAL WOMEN FEEL in the face of UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS OF PERFECT MOTHERHOOD!"

"So... the unquestioned-by-the-narrative elitism, classism, sizeism, ableism, and ageism are supposed to be... going against societal expectations?"

"OBVIOUSLY! That's how REAL WOMEN REALLY FEEL!"

"I'm a real woman, and I don't feel that way."

"UGGGGGH, YOU ILLITERATE MISOGYNIST, FEMALE CHARACTERS DON'T HAVE TO BE RELATABLE!"

[miodiodavinci]

have you ever... Zola magical girls/people?

(grabs your shoulders)

did you mean one of my many oneshots / AUs from 2015-2019

[fritzistoodrunktobeattheworkshop]

I want a Mascot Horror where the player is the terror.

The mascot is the nicest person on Earth just trying to help you, the player, because this place is in such disrepair! Oh the scandals? That criminal left a long time ago just before this place shit down! I’m certain we can fix this together! I got your back best buddy!

But in reality we’re the monster coming back to our hunting grounds.

THIS IS THE DYNAMIC I WANT IN A MASCOT HORROR!!!

[desertparallel]

the original au is based on this song, but I didn't finish the end of it

[nemesis-is-my-middle-name]

one thing i'm really really fascinated by is the fact that everyone in the modern pokemon world seems to consider the deities a power source, nothing more. the games generally imply that knowledge of the legendaries has been lost to time and legend and only preserved by a select few who keep to the Ancient Ways but i don't really think that sounds likely. i think they might be common knowledge people just don't seem to. conceptualize them as greater than in the way that we generally think of them. "this is a divine force that underpins reality and has been worshipped since antiquity" is not a thing that seems to have any problem coexisting with "i'm going to put this thing in an engine and make it my tool." and it's very frequently the baddies doing this which maybe weakens the point a little but very rarely is the point of contention with the bad guys "hey you shouldn't do that to god" that's kind of like, never the part of their thing that people object to. it's always their motives, never their methods. when the Good Guy (local ten year old) catches god and makes it their new partner, nobody has a problem with it! and people joke about this but i'm saying it might imply a way deeper facet of society than people give it credit for.

and is this maybe trying to force the round peg of pokemon legendaries into the square hole of actual religion. very possibly! the games aside from pla certainly seem only very occasionally interested in treating these creatures as gods or godlike or worshipped in any way, and far more often just want to treat them as regular pokemon But Stronger. so it's maybe not reasonable to try and say these entities are deities. but the problem is they are! it's not like this isn't supported textually, it's just... not a part of canon that canon is actually interested in. dialga, palkia, the lake trio, kyogre, groudon—these things are gods. canon can mince words and call them legendaries and "worshipped as deities maybe sometimes" but when you get to the point where you're discussing something that represents a fundamental force governing reality and/or can end the world on a whim then idc what you call it. that's a god.

but the problem is that they are gods and also pokemon, they're both simultaneously. and people in the pokemon world seem to have worked this out, and have had the collective realization that the gods are truly not exempt from their own rules. they can be captured, they can be subjugated, they can be used. this also ties back in with the whole anarchism discussion obviously but it's just the fact that like. it goes way deeper than everyone being fine with the ten year old putting the lord of time in a ball. the entire world operates on the premise of "eat your gods."

does that like... contradict worship? can you be faithful to something knowing it's been used as a tool?

[gammija]

i love s4, and im enjoying listening to it with the magaday, but i forgot it would also lead to the worst thing: seeing people interpret media differently than me on the internet OTL

[cringelordofchaos]

plum peach is literally just sashanne. fight me on this

[muffinlance]

In ftakb is Aaron being ace ever going to be brought up in canon (not necessarily the word but just showing he's not into relationships that way)? I know he has that one line where he mentions Rose's virtue being safe with him and that you enjoy mentioning things in a small way early on and come back and flesh it out later so this is just idle curiosity. Also (and don't worry about answering if you don't want to I understand you've been very busy lol) where's the book in terms of being published? Like what's the current timetable if you don't mind me asking. Sorry for all the questions and hope you've been having a good day <3

Trivia! In the first book it's not explicit because I didn't know what an ace was then.

Second book gets some much more explicit lines, especially as Aaron looks at the family tree and goes "how hard was it for people to just... not have sex with each other's spouses? Was that not an option they considered?"

Re publishing timeline: waiting on audiobook to publish all versions at once! ...I should poke my publisher about that, see if there's a more concrete date now that we've got the reader lined up...

[reestallized]

Good princess pick-me-up