#i can talk about the characters' portrayal or the double standard of abuse

[beevean]

That nice feeling when you're stuck between a show that wants to be progressive and its fans that are ready to call you racist or homophobe for any criticism to it and its vocal detractors who only really care about making a scene about "wokeness" being the bane of civilization, couldn't really give any less of a shit about Castlevania, and are often ACTUALLY racist and homophobic

bro i just wanted to play the funny games about kicking a vampire's ass i never asked for this :(

[galemalio]

3 Examples of Racial Bias in Animation Storytelling

It’s not hard to grasp that a white person, while not explicitly or consciously racist in the sense we might usually imagine, is still inherently racially biased because they benefit from and grow up used to white supremacy.” - Scottishwobbly, Tumblr

This is nothing new. This is something POC (People of Color) have been talking about in separate fandoms. Nevertheless, it needs to be acknowledged by those unaware.

This article is not made to say that some of the animations that I will use as examples are bad. But in the hopes that we, as consumers and creators, will do better in the future in handling characters that are POC. 

Most often, racial bias in storytelling is when the narrative treats white or light skin toned characters better than darker skin toned characters. The darker skin toned characters are often POC-coded or actual POC.

White creators often do not notice their racial bias in their storytelling as they benefit from and grow up with white privileges and white supremacy. This can also apply to light-skinned POC who have light skin priviliges. 

Some of us don’t often see it but real people who relate to the characters of color do. Especially when it reflects from their experiences with racial bias, microaggressions, colorism and flat out racism.

So when they speak up, it’s important to listen to them to unlearn the racial bias we may have in ourselves. 

I will be emphasizing “the narrative” for I am criticizing how the story treats its dark-skinned characters and not because I am criticizing the characters themselves.

This article is critiqued by @visibilityofcolor​ as a sensitivity reader once and then additions were made before publishing. If you’re looking for a Black sensitivity reader, you can contact her. 

This article is a 14-minute read at average speed so buckle up. Unless you want to skip to your show mentioned below. External Tumblr Resources will be put in the reblog.

Here are three examples that I was made aware of. 

Example #1: The Narrative Treats the Light-Skinned Character at the Expense of the Dark-Skinned Character

Steven Universe was one of the animations that pushed lgbt+ representation in cartoon media. However, there are narratives here and there that showed racial bias. 

SU creator Rebecca Sugar was raised with "Jewish sensibilities" and both siblings observe the lighting of Hanukkah candles with their parents through Skype.[1] Rebecca Sugar also talked about being non-binary.[2] 

But as a white person, she (and the rest of the SU crew) is not aware of the inherently biased values from growing up and benefiting from white privilege. 

One example is the human zoo. There are people that have spoken up about this such as @jellyfax​​ of Tumblr who pointed out that the Crewniverse mishandled a loaded topic and reinforced a white colonist propaganda where the captive humans of mostly black/brown people are naive, docile and childlike in order to subjugate the people that they colonized. .

What I’m here is how a character of color from the main cast is more obligated to the lighter-skinned character. 

In the episode, Friend Ship, one fan had spoken out about how Garnet, who had been validly angry at Pearl, was compelled by a dangerous situation to forgive Pearl. Garnet is a Black-coded character. While Pearl is a light-skinned character.  

Garnet was mad at Pearl for tricking her into always fusing with her. Then they were trapped in a chamber that was going to crush them. In this situation, they have to fuse in order to save themselves but Garnet refuses to because she was still angry at her. 

In the end, they were forced to talk it out, for Garnet to understand Pearl’s reason for wanting to fuse with her and everything worked out well.

The narrative focused so much on Pearl’s self-worth issues at the expense of Garnet’s right to be angry. 

Yes, it showed that Pearl is trying her best to make up for it but Garnet should have been allowed to work at her own anger at her own pace instead of being obligated to consider Pearl’s feelings over her own. 

I wouldn’t have noticed it until someone had mentioned it. Because it was never my experience. 

But it’s there, continuing the message that it’s okay to put the emotional labor on Black people and disregard their own feelings for the sake of the non-Black people who have hurt them -particularly light-skinned women. 

White Fragility and Being Silenced White Woman Tears

Again, racial bias in animation storytelling is often not intentional because white creators do not experience it due to white privilege. 

Without meaning to, that scene alone shows Garnet as the Angry Black woman trope that is ungrateful and rude to Pearl who then ends up in tears. Without meaning to, Pearl with her light skin, became the tearful white girl trope that had to be sympathized over.

The Angry Black Woman trope is a combination of the worst negative stereotypes of a Black woman: overly aggressive, domineering, emasculating, loud, disagreeable and uppity.[13] 

The Tearful white girl trope comes from the combination of the stereotypes of white women being morally upstanding and delicate and therefore should be protected.[13] 

Which, unfortunately, many white women have taken advantage of.

These two tropes are harmful to WOC (Women of Color) because they experience the "weary weaponizing of white women's tears". This tactic employed by many white women incites sympathy and avoids accountability for their actions, turning the tables to their accuser and forcing their accuser to understand them instead.

(Image by Виктория Бородинова from Pixabay)

In "Weapon of lass destruction: The tears of a white woman", Author Shay described that white tears turns a white woman into the priority of whatever space she's in. "It doesn't matter if you're right, once her tears are activated, you cease to exist." [11] 

White woman tears have gotten Black people beaten and lynched such as Emmett Till. Carolyn Bryant who had accused 14 year old Emmett Till of sexually harassing her in 1955, admitted she lied about those claims years later in 2007.[15]

In Awesomely Luvvie's "About the Weary Weaponizing of White Women Tears", she states that the innocent white woman is a caricature many subconsciously embrace because it hides them from consequences. [10]

In The Guardian’s article, "How White Women Use Strategic Tears to Silence Women of Colour", Ruby Hamad shares her experience:

"Often, when I have attempted to speak to or confront a white woman about something she has said or done that has impacted me adversely, I am met with tearful denials and indignant accusations that I am hurting her. My confidence diminished and second-guessing myself, I either flare up in frustration at not being heard (which only seems to prove her point) or I back down immediately, apologising and consoling the very person causing me harm."[4]

This is not to say that all crying white women are insincere. But as activist Rachel Cargle said:

“I refuse to listen to white women cry about something. When women have come up to me crying, I say, ‘Let me know when you feel a little better, then maybe we can talk.’”[3]

One of the most quoted words in “White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism.” is this:

“It is white people’s responsibility to be less fragile; people of color don’t need to twist themselves into knots trying to navigate us as painlessly as possible.”[3]  

When white women cry in defense, instead of taking accountability, People of Color are then gaslighted into thinking they’re the bad guy. This is emotional abuse and a manipulation tactic. 

People of Color shouldn’t have to bend backwards to accommodate discomfited white or light-skinned people who have hurt them. 

How She-Ra and the Princesses of Power (SPOP) Did It Right

Despite SPOP having good lgbtq+ representations, there are other biases in the show. Such as Mara, a WOC whose only purpose was to sacrifice herself for the white protagonist. There was also the insensitive joke in their stream regarding Bow’s sibling that perpetuated an Anti-Black stereotype which Noelle Stevenson has apologized for.[14]

But the scene I have encountered where the Black character was validly angry and his feelings were treated well by the narrative, came from SPOP.

Bow, a black character, was validly angry at Glimmer, a lighter skinned character. Glimmer made a lot of bad decisions, one of them was using Adora and their friends as bait, without their knowledge, to lure out and capture Catra.  

Glimmer tearfully apologized in Season 5, Episode 4. Adora readily forgave her. But Bow didn't. 

They faced dangers along the way but the story didn't put them in a dangerous situation where Bow has to forgive Glimmer in order to get out of it. 

This was Glimmer's words of apology:

"Look, I know you're still mad at me. Maybe you'll be mad at me for a really long time. I deserved it. And maybe... maybe we'll never be friends like we used to be. But I'm not going to stop trying to make it better. I made a mistake with the heart of Etheria. I should've listened to you and I'm sorry. You get to be mad. For as long as you need to be. But I'm not going anywhere. And when you're ready, I'll be here."

In short, Bow was allowed to take the time to be mad and not just get over it for someone else’s sake. The story validates his feelings and he was allowed to take his own pace. That is emotional respect the story gave to him.

Example #2: The Narrative Gives Better Endings or Portrayals to Colonizers than Their Victims

Avatar: The Last Airbender has handled dark themes well such as genocide, war, PTSD, disability and redemption with great worldbuilding.

However, I never noticed the racial bias in ATLA until people spoke up of the double standards in ATLA’s treatment of light-skinned colonizers compared to their dark-skinned victims-turned-villains.

The characters in question -Iroh, Azula, Jet and Hama- are all flawed and well-rounded in a believable way. But how the narrative treats them is unequal.

General Iroh is an ex-colonizer who gets to redeem himself and not answer for his past war crimes, living a peaceful life as a tea shop owner. The only reason Iroh changed was when he was personally affected by the negativity of their military subjugation -his son’s death. It wasn’t the harm of the Fire nation ravaging Earth kingdom villages or cities and affecting millions of people that opened his eyes.

Azula, the tyrannical daughter, had closure of her mother's rejection when she was a child and was able to escape imprisonment.

Jet and Hama, victims of colonization who have done bad things, did not get similar conclusions to their stories OR compensation for what they have gone through from the Fire Nation's colonization. 

Jet was given a second chance but was arrested for trying to expose Zuko and Iroh being firebenders -firebenders who were their enemies for conquering their villages. Then he died from the injuries of the person who had brainwashed and mind-controlled him. 

Hama was imprisoned for life. 

Compared to the sins of the light-skinned colonizers, the narrative didn’t give Jet and Hama the development where they could heal from their trauma, receive compensation for what happened to them and really have a chance in life. 

The dark-skinned victims of colonization just became a lesson to the viewers how they shouldn’t hold grudges for being colonized. The end. They have received consequences for their actions but there is no continuation to their stories after that. 

It almost seems like the narrative is saying that because they have harmed colonizers who have no part in their trauma (and in Jet’s case, some Earth kingdom villagers), they are therefore unworthy to be given an actual chance in life. 

While Azula and Iroh, who have actively participated in conquering, colonizing and attacking the Earth Kingdom itself, were.   

Someone once said that if indigenous people have control over Hama’s story, it would have been done differently. But the ATLA crew are white, non-indigenous people who prioritized redeeming colonizers instead.

The narrative has also affected how the ATLA fandom thinks. If most fans are asked who they would want to be redeemed, the popular option would be Azula over Jet or Hama.

Once again, I don’t think the ATLA crew noticed it due to their racial bias. But still, the harm is done and the racially biased message is continued: 

The colonizers and their descendants don’t have to make amends for the colonizers’ crimes. Or if they do, only lightly since it’s in the past (no matter how recent that past is). 

The colonized who rebel will tend to hurt innocent people and then get a grisly end for getting in way over their heads.  

I would venture as far as to say that the narrative may have the  added subconscious desire to quiet their white anxiety on the vengeance of the colonized. As I have learned when writing about Vodou stereotypes and how they have stemmed from the history of white anxiety of Black vengeance, of Black fetishization and of dissolution of the white race through intermarriages.

In @visibilityofcolor’s blog, someone asked:

 “So I saw some of the really heated debates on here and on twitter about how if Iroh and Azula can be portrayed sympathetically despite their actions then characters like Jet and Hama should've been given a chance too. Do you think that the writers understood the implications of only redeeming characters from the colonizer/fascist nation but not giving the characters who suffered because of their fascism a second chance too?”

To which VisibilityOfColor replied:

“No, because at the end of the day, the writers are white. When it comes to stuff like this, it’s no surprise when we see white writers redeem problematic characters before they actually redeem victims of those racist problematic characters. For instance, Dave Filioni, who worked on both avatar and star wars rebels, did the same thing when redeeming agent kallus who was an soldiers in the imperial army and took credit for a genocide. where as victims of the empire were still painted in negative lights. i really don’t think they understand.

They have this ‘be the better person’ view on things, which is what a lot of white people tend to emulate when it comes to people of color standing up to their oppressors. and unfortunately, these are ideas passed on to children, esp minorities. that they should forgive people and communities who hurt them and ‘be the better person’. this is why white ppl don’t need to write narratives for people of color.”

Example #3: The Narrative Favors the Light Skinned Character Than Dark Skinned Character in Similar Situations

I would like to reiterate that racial bias in storytelling is often not intentional. I am not saying the creators and the people who support them are bad people. No.

However, I encourage that once a racial bias is made known in our work, it is our responsibility to change them to stop the perpetuation of its harmful message.

Hazbin Hotel is a popular cartoon with whimsical designs and its concept opens the conversation about redemption. The creator, Vivziepop may not have noticed the racial bias in her cartoon as a white Latina [5] that grew up with and benefits from white privileges, along with the Hazbin crew. 

In the Youtbe video, "Hazbin Hotel - How Art took over Writing", Staxlotl states:

“I understand that there was a lot of time and effort put into this pilot, almost three years worth of effort. But I think most of that time was spent into the art and visuals when it should’ve gone into polishing the writing in the characters.”[6]

Once again, I’m not here to critique the characters but how the narrative treats its dark-skinned characters.

The story treats Charlie, the white-skinned, “Disney-esque” protagonist princess differently from how it treats Vaggie, the dark-skinned, more outspoken and protective Latina girlfriend of Charlie who supports the princess’ cause. 

In its pilot episode, both girls experience humiliation. While Charlie is portrayed by the story as someone the viewers have to feel sorry for...

...Vaggie is portrayed in her humiliation as the butt of the joke for the viewers.

While they both didn’t like what Angel Dust did, Charlie was sympathized over in the narrative as a moment... 

...while Vaggie’s angry but valid callouts were dismissed and ignored as part of the comedy.

While Charlie was someone that needs to be protected in the narrative... 

...Vaggie is left to fend for herself. 

Again, I don’t think the creators noticed the racial bias of their cartoon. However, this racial bias is reflected in the harmful perceptions that dark-skinned women, particularly Black women and Black girls, are more mature, tougher and need less protection at a young age.[7] 

This adultification bias perceives them as challenging authority when they express strong or contrary views and are then given harsher discipline than white girls who misbehave.[8] And this continues when they grow up.

In a 2017 study, Black women and girls aged 12-60 years old confirmed they are treated harsher by their white peers and are accused of being aggressive when they would defend themselves or explain their point of view to authority figures.[8] 

This bias also coincides with the Spicy Latina trope of a brown-skinned, hot-blooded, quick-tempered and passionate woman.

Everyday Feminism described this trope as "Although objects of desire for many, the spicy Latina may have too much personality to handle. So much so that she is often viewed as domineering or emasculating." [16]

Sounds familiar? (Look at Angry Black Woman trope above.)

Why is it that a light-skinned character, Charlie, is allowed to be vulnerable and be sympathized while the dark-skinned Latina character, Vaggie, is mocked, dismissed and expected to tough it out?

Severina Ware had to remind the world in her article that relates to the bias against dark skinned characters:

“Black women are not offered the protection and gentleness of our white counterparts. We are not given permission to be soft and delicate. We are required to exhibit strength and fortitude not only because our lives depend on it, but because so many others depend on us. Black women should not be charged with the responsibility of saving everyone when nobody is here to save us.”[12] 

As @cullenvhenan​ of Tumblr has said in her post:

“if you're a white creator and your brown/black characters are always sassy, reckless, aggressive or cold and your white characters are always soft, demure, shy and introverted you should think about maybe why you did that”

(Image above from Iowa Law Reviews’ “Aggressive Encounters & White Fragility: Deconstructing the Trope of the Angry Black Woman”)

Detecting Your Own Racial Bias

It would be hard. No matter how much you edit and create, you may miss it because it was never your experience. 

So how do we prevent our racial bias from creeping into our creations?

Listen to POC and their feedback.

As @charishjb from Instagram has shared, here is one of the things that we can do (tumblr link here) [9]:

Consider POC voices. Listen to their experiences. Hire sensitivity POC readers. Put multiple POC voices in positions of leadership in creative projects.

Then we can stop the racial bias that perpetuates again and again in the media. I hope for that future.

[ariel-seagull-wings]

TOP 12 WICKED QUEEN PORTRAYALS

@sunlit-music​ @mademoiselle-princesse​ @princesssarisa​ @superkingofpriderock​ @metropolitan-mutant-of-ark​ @amalthea9​ @theancientvaleofsoulmaking​ @astrangechoiceoffavourites​ @giuliettaluce​ 

Alongside the Big Bad Wolf, Cinderella’s Stepmother, The Giant from Jack and The Beanstalk, The Witch from Hansel and Gretel and Bluebeard, The Wicked Queen from Snow White is one of the most iconic fairy tale villains of all time. A lot of people come to consider her the real protagonist of the fairy tale, since is her desire to be considered the Fairest of All and her actions to keep that title what puts the narrative in motion. And today, i will rank my favorite portrayals of this fascinatingly nasty foe.

12º Miranda Richardson as Queen Elspeth in Snow White: The Fairest of Them All (2001)

Talk about being typecast: before that turn as Snow White’s Evil Queen, Richardson had portrayed an Evil Sorceress Queen and Stepmother in Jim Henson’s The Storyteller (’The Three Ravens’ episode) and she was a wicked Sorceress Stepmother in Tim Burton’s Sleep Hollow. So it was neat for her to be called for the role of the most famous Evil Sorceress Queen and Stepmother in this Hallmark TV Movie. Elspeth is the sister of a strange, mysteryous creature known as the Granter of Wishes. Having been recently released from his freezing prison, the Granter of Wishes makes a spell to make her look beautifull for human standards, and marries her to the newly crowned and widowed King John. At first she looks content with the prospect, but as time passes, she grows more and more unsatisfied. Her source of joy is the Magic Mirror that praises her beauty, and casting spells to turn gnomes into garden statues. But when the Magic Mirror says that Snow White’s beauty surpasses hers, the unsatisfaction gets mixed with paranoia, and Elspeth slowly abuses her power in constantly harming other people, until there is no magic enough...

11º Herta Kravina in Schneewitchen (1971)

This german TV Movie is the most faithfull adaptation of the Grimm’s tale original edition, not only keeping the three murder attempts by ribbon/lace/corset, hair comb and apple, but also being the only one to show the Queen dancing to death with hot iron shoes in Snow White’s wedding. This is enough to make it worth a checkout. The other reason i find this version interesting is how the Queen comunicates with the Magic Mirror: they sing to each other. And Kravina has a really good voice (no wonder she was a voice actress for Peggy Lee in the first german/dutch dub of Disney’s Lady and The Tramp). Sometimes that is enough to get a spot in a ranking.

10º Mari Yokoo/Caterina Rochiara/Regina Reagan/Carol Jacobanis as Queen Crystal in The Legend of Snow White (1994)

From the outside, Queen Chrystal appears to be calm, regal, and sophisticated, but in reality, this collected and stately facade hides an extremely sadistic, hateful, cold and sinister person. She is ruthless, jealous and obsessive and wants nothing more than to be the fairest in the land. She also has an extreme vanity that made her utterly intolerant of rivals. Being solely focused on the idea of becoming the fairest of all, Queen Chrystal does not appear to be significantly involved in governing her husband's kingdom, though the skeletal remains of prisoners in her dungeon point to her being a villainous ruler. In the end, her mad vanity and jealousy of her stepdaughter Snow White drove her to murderous insanity. Later is revealed that Queen Chrystal is not unredeamably evil as everyone thins, but an actually kind and gentle person who is possessed by an Evil Spirit. 

09º Diana Rigg as the Queen in Canon Movie Tales: Snow White (1987)

This lady is the personification of paranoia multiplied by the double. Why? Because the Magic Mirror didn’t needed to say that the little child Snow White was the fairest, this queen just feared so much that the princess’s beauty would outgrow hers that she ordered the huntsman to kill her. Basically: run, she is bad news.

08º Jeri Arredondo as Sly Fox in Happily Ever After: Fairy Tales For Every Child (1995)

Sly Fox... What a cunning diva. People try to counsel to not use alone a Magic Mirror that is a portal to the spirit world, but who says she listens? She is just there to hear the singing of her praises, and will try to eliminate anyone who gets on her way. She even goes so far as taking the appearance of the kind hearted nurse Sage Flower to lure her stepdaughter White Snow to eat the poisoned appled. What is not to love about that bastard?

07º Kazue Komiya/Arlene Banas as the Queen in Grimm’s Fairy Tale Classics (1989)

Interestingly this encarnation starts naturally cold, calm and collected, ocasionally at the princess Snow White to see if she can ever grow more beautifull than her, and dismissing the girl with contempt. It is years later that she lets go of acting calm and collected, because after hearing some gossips in the palace, she asks Snow White if she thinks of herself as more beautifull than the Queen, and her stepdaughter reacts by exclaiming that the Queen is vain and cruel, and to her eyes that makes her ugly. So besides the desire of being considered the most beautifull, you get the feeling that this Queen pursues Snow White as a way to shut a person that dares to rebell against her, wich ads new interesting dimentions to their antagonism.

06º Dorothy Cumming as Queen Brangomar in Snow White (1916)

Brangomar was once a lady in waiting of the palace. But one day, she met the powerfull Witch Rex, who offered to give Brangomar anything she wanted. And what Brangomar wanted was to become a beautifull Queen. Wich was achieved by a faustian deal where Witch Rex would cast a spell that killed Imogene, the previous Queen, while in return Brangomar would have to find a way of getting Snow White’s heart for the Witch. Years have passed, and now Brangomar  must kill the princess to pay her debt, or else everything she got will be lost. Hey, here is a way of making a villain tragic, almost simpathetic and complex while keeping clear that she is still a villain!

05º Vanessa Redgrave as the Queen in Faerie Tale Theatre (1984)

The most loud and bombastic portrayal of the Wicked Queen ever put on screen. Bringing to television her sperience from stage, that allows some more over the top emotional reactions, Redgrave had the time of her life in that role, indulging in twirling, preening and screening as much as she could, and his Queen is all the most fun for it.

04º Gudrun Landgrebe as the Queen in Schneewittchen (1992)

What i live about Landgrebe’s Queen is her range: at first she acts all humble, discreet, cold and mysteryous. Then her husband leaves to fight in a Crusade, and she trows the white veil and gray clothing of humility to show a diva red hair and orange dress, as to say “Hey, the King leaved, i have all the power here now and you must do as i say”. Later, a knight comes, offering a magical crystal ball that connected to a mirror says all the truth, and the Queen takes posession of it to ask about her beauty. When Mirror says that the most beautifull woman in the kingdom is Snow White, she gets infuriated, than goes to carefully plan ways to eliminate the princess once and for all. The highlight is when she takes the disguise of a russian male doctor to offer the apple (where she injects poison into with her ring) to Snow White.

03º Maria Antonieta de Las Nieves in El Chapulin Colorado: Blancanieves y los Siete Churín Churín Fun Flais (1978)

This three part episode of the mexican comedy superheroe show is a loving parody of the Disney version, that stands out as an enjoyable retelling of the classic fairy tale in its own right. Interestingly, while most of the comedy in the episode is delivered in the form of over the top slapistick, de Las Nieves’s delivers a straight faced, contained performance. Wich makes her answers to the absurd situations in the story all the more funny.

02º Patricia Medina as the Queen in Snow White And The Three Stooges (1961)

This lady was a hell of a foe: she not only antagonizes Snow White for the title of the Most Beautifull, going so far as to lock the princess in a dungeon for no crime at all, but also, alongside her partner in crime Count Oga, ordered a murder attempt aggainst Prince Charming when he was a child, to prevent him from marrying Snow White, and this way she could become ruller of the kingdoms of Fortunia and Bravuria. Troughout the film, you think that she could win, since she has powerfull magic, spy and a mighty army at her comand, wich makes the viewer get all the more excited on the seat, that is how enjoyable Medina’s Queen is.

And my Number One Portrayal of the Wicked Queen is...

01º Lucille La Verne as the Queen in Disney’s Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs (1937)

The first encarnation of the character that i ever saw in my childhood, and the one that still sends chills/shivers to my spine. As a young Queen, she rarely smiles, acting cold and calculating, intidimidating who is subordinate to her with the expression of her eyes and highbrows. And as a Crone, she lowdly indulges in her cruelty, offering the poisoned apple to her pet raven to scare him, and mocking the dead skeleton of a prisoner inside the castle’s dungeons. That balance between cold calculism and loud cruelty, where both are equally unsetling and scary, is something very hard to achieve, but i think this encarnation did a very good job in achieving that balance, that every other  portrayal that camed tried to draw influence from it ever since. And that’s why Disney’s Wicked Queen is my Number One portrayal.

HONORABLE MENTIONS: Addi Adamets in Schneewittchen (1955), Marianne Christina Schiling in Schneewittchen (1961) and Sonja Kirchberger in Sechs Auf Einen Streich (2009)

[bellatrixobsessed1]

Zuko's personality fits the stereotype of a bully. He is an asshole, aggressive, possessive, mean.

Azula is a mean-bitch. uses manipulation and fear to control others.

If Zuko hadn't been influenced by Ursa and Iroh,Zuko would be the same or worse than Azula.

anti-azula can suck a d*ck, your precious Zuko is not a saint. Zuko improved as a person thanks to his uncle and the gaang. Azula had no one to help her to be a better person

(I like Azula because she's a bitch, I like Zuko because he's an asshole, neither of them is a saint)

This ask is a little harder for me to answer. I hope that this doesn’t sound rude but I’m trying not to let my ask box be an outlet for anger. Though I do 100% understand wanting a place to let it all out without having to fear backlash for more unpopular and controversial takes. So I’ll try to answer this in a way that’s fair to everyone. 

Basically I agree with the sentiment here; I’m not fond of the double standards that the fandom tends to have for Zuko and Azula. And I do see it coming from both Azula & Zuko fans. 

Honestly, despite some of the wording I think that this is pretty close to my own take; Azula and Zuko have both done some shit. They both came from a really hostile and unstable environment and this upbringing led to them both doing bad things. 

I’ve mentioned before but Zuko is definitely really loud. Even redeemed he can get very loud and aggressive. Because he also relapses sometimes. And I do agree that he can be dangerously possessive--I have the scene where he throws Roun Jian into a vase just for talking to Mai. Like he literally did the classic ‘my girl can’t talk to other men’ thing. And that’s not healthy behavior. It’s a sign of insecurity. 

Zuko has burned Kyoshi Island. He tried to capture and kill Aang. The whole thing with Katara and her necklace was really shady. He’s done some bad shit too and just like a redeemed Azula wouldn’t get a pass for killing Aang or taking over Ba Sing Se, Zuko shouldn’t get a free pass either. 

And even redeemed Zuko gets loud and impulsive at times. 90% sure that in The Promise he was wrestling with a side of him that was like Ozai and the the promise that the comic was named for was literally Aang’s promise to take him down if he ever got as bad as Ozai. Because even he acknowledged that that side was there. And I think he’s afraid of it. Which is the sad nature of some abuse cases. 

Does it make him an evil or bad person? No. But he’s also not his soft uwu boi either. 

And as you said; Azula has definitely done some shit. I’ve talked about this several times but Azula wasn’t a good friend. I feel bad for her because she never had the social skills or tools to know how to be a good friend. I do think that she did genuinely care about TyLee & Mai. But it doesn’t change that she did manipulate and toy with them. 

Likewise with Zuko. I do think that she really cared about him and I do think that it hurt her when he left. But also she wasn’t good to him. She used him at times and she manipulated him too. 

She literally imitated Ozai. She is pretty much an embodiment of Fire Nation propaganda and how it corrupts people. Azula definitely has done some fucked up shit. I just don’t think that it makes her irredeemable or a complete monster. Imo she’s way too young to get written off as unsalvageable. 

I think that the huge difference between he and Azula is that he did have proper guidance and the intervention that Azula didn’t. The scrip could have easily been flipped and that’s why it’s really hard for me to understand how some Zuko fans condemn Azula while excusing Zuko and how some Azula fans condemn Zuko while excusing Azula.

Like you said; Zuko had people to point him in the right direction. Azula had Ozai and strong wartime propaganda and indoctrination. Azula was groomed for war in a way that Zuko wasn’t. And because of that she didn’t get a chance to heal in canon. And that very well could have been Zuko. As the oldest son he could have been the golden child that got groomed while Azula got tossed aside as ‘the useless second born’. 

I think that there’s bias on both sides to a degree and that it has just created a double standard. Which is a damn shame imo because that massively takes away from the complexities of both Azula & Zuko and the very deep and realistic portrayal of what an abusive home could look like. As well as how war, propaganda, and travel/learning all comes into play. 

Sometimes people seem to reduce it to ‘I like x character better so they can do no wrong and I don’t like y character so they can only do wrong’. And I don’t think it’s that simple. 

Azula and Zuko are both fantastically written so it sucks to see both of them get torn apart. It also kinda sucks to see both of them get reduced to ‘soft cinnamon roll uwu’

The very thing that makes both of them so compelling is that they are multi-faceted. That they both have good and evil in them. Basically, they are realistic. They feel authentic, like they could be real people. 

I might be starting to ramble lol. But yeah, I think that I agree with this ask on principal even if the wording of it is harsh. xD Like, ya got the spirit anon! I feel like it’s more galaxy brain to like Azula because or despite that she’s a bitch  (or to like Zuko because or desptie that he’s an asshole). It’s like you like the character for exactly who they are. If that makes sense. 

Of course I don’t think that it hurts to have soft/fluff headcanons to lighten the mood and stuff like that. 

Anyhow I’m about to head to bed so I’m gonna end my rambles here. 

[ravenhilarious]

sometimes I fear that Logan is becoming the Hermione of this fandom

elaboration under the cut. this will discuss the Harry Potter fandom, the sanders sides fandom, and some comparisons of my personal issues within them. there are some mentions of violence, abuse, bigotry, and death, and it is very long.

that’s what they said

disclaimer: I love Harry Potter even if jk is a bigot, I love Hermione, I love sanders sides which fortunately is not created by a bigot, I love Logan, so there’s no intended negativity about any of these

now, back to the point. I repeat: I fear that Logan is becoming the Hermione of this fandom

which should be a good thing, because I love Logan and I love Hermione. being “the Hermione” shouldn’t be seen as something negative, but the reason I'm referring to it as that is:

there was a time where Fanon Hermione basically became, for a lack of a better term, a Mary Sue (I know this term can have problematic and misogynistic elements but I couldn’t find a better way to describe it)

lots of it was based on the movie adaption’s version of her. lots of her flaws were either stripped away or justified – she became more fearless and confident, her condescending attitude towards mainly Harry and (especially) Ron was exaggerated, and, again, seemed more justified here. and of course, it didn’t help that she was played by the gorgeous Emma Watson. 

then came the fandom portrayal of her. while her movie counterpart was definitely more “perfectilized” (is that a word? now it is) than her book counterpart, she still had elements of being a teenager, and, well, a human. but on the internet, there were so many claims of her being the sole reason that Harry was alive, and that she was way out of Ron’s league, and lots of other stuff. if you’re in any way familiar with the Harry Potter fandom around... well, anywhere before like 2016, really, you probably know what I'm talking about. she was basically this “perfect does everything right keeps saying everyone the best at everything” kind of character. that was kinda annoying, both to people who didn’t care that much for Hermione as a character in the first place, and for the people who enjoyed her (more flawed and realistic) book counterpart

and don’t even get me started on the dr4m10ne shippers who claimed that “she deserves better than Ron (or Harry, or Neville, [heteronormativity was still a big thing back then] or really anyone who treated her with respect) and dr4c0 would be so much better for her!” 

and oof, the “Hermione joins the dark side” au’s where her actions were still justified by the narratives (why would a muggleborn join the people that discriminate against her lol)

during the last few years, she’s gotten some backlash because of this. more potter heads started realizing her flaws, or stopped justifying them. the shocking realization that the fan favorite was not perfect made a large part of the fandom go in the opposite direction. which I understand.

now, I am still able to enjoy the (canon) character Hermione Granger, despite the sue-ification she went through (maybe it’s the autism that helps me not to get so affected by public opinion, idk), but not everyone is that lucky. so many potter heads had gotten a very good character ruined for them, which is sad.

I don’t want the same thing to happen to Logan Sanders. 

Now, he wasn’t always one of the faves – in an early episode, he literally gets told that he’s the least popular character in the series (which does get played off as a joke, but I assume – I wasn’t in the fandom back then, so please correct me if I'm wrong – that for many fanders back then, that was very much the case) and I wouldn’t say he’s a “fan favorite” the same way that Hermione used to be. 

however, he has by now gained quite a large fanbase here on Tumblr. which is great! I, myself, really enjoy Logan, and most of his fans are really cool.

but there are some stans who, in my opinion, have started to give him The Hermione Treatment. who claim that he is the one constantly helping Thomas. who feel the need to bash some of the other sides in order to prove that Logan is the best. the main complaint being that “they ignore/silence him too much”. and yes, they definitely don’t listen to him nearly as much as they could and should. I agree with that.

what I don’t agree with is when fanders start wishing for him to “snap” at the others. I'm putting “snap” in quotation marks, because what they usually mean is just him straight up verbally abusing them, sometimes being physically violent toward them. all because they... didn’t pay enough attention to him? 

it gives me the same vibes as when Hermione’s acts of violence (I'm talking about, like, the bird attack toward Ron or the acne scars she forced on Marietta Edgecombe [another thing that got removed in the movie adaption], not the “fighting death eaters” parts) were considered “girl power” or something by the internet. 

now, I'm not saying that Logan in canon is super aggressive and violent, but he definitely has his moments – and that’s fine. a character does not have to be nice 24/7. but the fandom seems to, idk, romanticize (for lack of a better word) these moments, his outbursts of anger and violence, both the canon and Fanon ones. 

furthermore, there seems to be a double standard, in that lots of the things he’s praised for or that gets ignored about him, are the exact same things that would (or do) get criticized when other sides do it.

Patton gets flack for being controlling and guilt-tripping the others, which, yes, that is true, but Logan can also be controlling (Growing Up, Why Do We Get Out Of Bed In The Morning, arguably in Moving On too) and guilt-tripping (”not that any of you care, but I am unharmed” in Putting Others First)

Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that fanders have started seeing the less perfect aspects of morality. Even cinnamon rolls can do not so nice things at times.

Roman is considered to be too proud and condescending, and yeah, he is, he is literally Thomas’ ego. But Logan? “I know I'm smarter than everyone else”? nuff said.

Virgil gets criticized for being too aggressive, and boy is that true, but again, you can not bash one character for a trait that you praise (or even wish more of) in another character.

now, I know that there are fanders who also give Virgil a free pass for violence etc. (he was the ultimate Fan Favorite for a very long time), but they seem to be fewer today than they used to be – which is great! it’s just sad that instead of disappearing completely, this character treatment has now moved towards Logan.

(funnily enough, these certain Logan Stans tend to be less critical of Janus’ and Remus’ flaws too, which I will cover later on)

no, I do not want Logan to be flawless, just like I don’t want Hermione to be. I just wish this double standard wasn’t so common in the fandom.

unlike with Hermione, however, the narrative (and the writers) doesn’t seem to favor him over the others – the sides get a relatively equal treatment in that way. but the biggest problem with Hermione was not the writing, or even the movie adaption (though that definitely played a factor too), but rather the fandom. the fandom was the one who claimed Hermione to be some perfect goddess, talented in every way, too good for this world, etc. And I really don’t want this to happen with Logan!

another parallel I'll bring up is the “going dark” thing, more specifically, “going dark because the light is not good enough for me”. I mentioned dr4m10ne earlier, and Hermione joining the death eaters because Harry and Ron and the rest of the “good guys” weren’t good enough. not smart or talented enough. didn’t appreciate her enough. because Ron would at times make fun of her nerdiness, because they sometimes bickered. 

but for some reason, these dr4m10ne shippers and dark!Hermione Stans would gloss over the fact that Dr4c0 made fun of her heritage and that the death eaters literally fought for genocide of people like her (which, imo, is a bit more serious than “haha ur a nerd”)

similarly, it’s become common to head canon Logan “becoming a dark side”. now, I am in no way trying to imply that “the dark sides” are in any way similar to death eaters, or that Janus and Remus are anything like Dr4c0.

but there seems to be, yet again, a double standard. Patton, Roman, and Virgil ignore or silence or under appreciate Logan? oh yes, they definitely do. 

but so do Janus and Remus. I see so many au’s of Logan joining the “dark sides” because they are more likely to listen to and appreciate him, which, if we go by canon... is not true? Janus literally excluded Logan from the courtroom, and Remus has repeatedly threatened and physically harmed Logan because he didn’t like what he was saying. but people gloss over that because ????? 

I don’t really have a conclusion or anything, I just wanted to get this out

[amethystiridescence]

I debated a lot about whether to post this as I'm worried about it being misconstrued but I feel there's a lot of points that merit discussion. I'd definitely be open for people's thoughts on it.

tl;dr: society has an unhealthy deeply interwoven obsession with sex/romance as a be all and end all, and I think it's a large contributor to sexual violence against women.

Regarding the discussions that Sarah Everad’s case has reawoken, there are few voices trying to invalidate the most common argument by saying “there’s no point telling men not to rape/murder because the messed up men will do it anyway”. But this is an extreme simplification of the matter at hand. The issue lies with the perpetrators of course and NEVER the victims. But we need to explore what breeds the mentality of the perpetrators as SO many women have recounted their experiences, so it’s obvious that the problem is widespread at varying levels. The levels range from the simplest catcaller to cases like Elliot Rodger and Sarah Everad’s killer.

My belief is that a lot of the mentality surrounding the violence and aggression towards women stems from male entitlement. That phrase alone is a buzzword, and again its often used with a simple-cut phrase with “women don’t owe men anything” which is entirely true, but whilst unlearning entitlement is a step further than telling men “don’t rape”, its still not tackling the problem at its roots.

Men in our society have been exposed to lifelong conditioning through mass media and social-engineering. We are more than familiar with movies/tv series where romantic/sexual attention from a woman is often a reward/end goal for the male protagonists. Sometimes there are men pitted against each other vying for the affections of a woman like it’s a coveted prize, and it’s normalised with humorous portrayal. Or sometimes sexual/romantic interest is not a reward, it’s a given, no matter what kind of person the male character is; see any series where a conventionally unattractive/unpleasant man always keeps his devoted, conventionally attractive wife despite his obvious flaws (Peter Griffin, Homer Simpson, Fred Flintstone). Then of course there’s the normalising of not taking no for an answer and constantly persisting and being rewarded eventually for it; for example The Notebook is considered a very romantic film but the male character literally threatens to kill himself to make her agree to date him. And of course there’s very damaging concepts presented by films like the 40 Year Old Virgin, but we’ll come to the negative sex-shaming in a tick.

Luckily thanks in huge part to movements like #MeToo, the idea of consent and ‘no means no’ is being more consistently normalised in modern mass media. Netflix’s Sex Education explores this but it’s still guilty of making the female love interest the end prize goal for the male protagonist.

Now it’s not just in media that this environment of coveting sexual/romantic affection as the ultimate goal is encouraged. Its a socially-engineered thing. A lot of us are aware of the double standard in which men are revered/congratulated by their peers for being sexually/romantically popular with women whereas women are shamed, but we often don’t talk about the poisonous culture in which men who aren’t sexually/romantically active or “successful” are shamed and humiliated. How many times have we witnessed people shaming or embarrassing their mates for not having a romantic partner or ‘not getting some’ or even worse, for being a virgin? The culture surrounding virginity is disgusting, it’s both shamed and coveted. This also ties into insults surrounding size/functionality of genitalia and how men are taught that’s one of the worst kind of insult they can receive. Same goes for insults surrounding “haha you can’t get laid/get any”. Plus some men deliberately pass down this mentality and on top they encourage younger male peers/family members to “keep at it” and “don’t take no for an answer” as if teaching younger men how to ‘get women’ is an important lesson that must be passed on.

One thing that’s also alarming is that this taught drive for sexual/romantic attraction is so inbuilt that men are taught to bypass a lot of principles for the chance of it, such as lying about their interests or faking a personality to keep a woman interested. I’ve also seen men forgiven for tardiness because they ‘got lucky the night before’ (that expression itself feeds into this ‘covet/reward’ culture). Only last week I was watching a video about how women were sexually harassed with deeply unpleasant/objectifying comments online whilst doing Twitch streams and I saw a man reply “Women complain all the time about getting attention, they have no idea how lucky they are, I’d kill for a woman to desire me like that”. Men are inherently taught by both peers and media that their entire self-worth is largely determined by whether they receive romantic/sexual attention, no matter how insincere/damaging it is. Hell, even when discussions about men who’ve committed atrocities against women come up, instead of sympathising with the women who have been hurt and those whose are more scared as a result, men instead tend to lament “men like this guy ruin it for other men, they spoil my chances with other women because women assume I’m like him”. A lot of this is a large part of why incel culture is more dangerously rife than it should ever be. The mere words ‘involuntarily celibate’ are all that’s wrong with what I’m discussing.

Lets be clear, society’s inbuilt social hierarchy around sexual/romantic frequency is poisonous to everyone, especially women and the way so many shape their lives around how ‘attractive’ they’re perceived as, and of course the damage it does to the barely-fledged self esteems and images of teenage girls.

Plus both genders suffer in nearly equal ways under some lenses. People who choose to live without a romantic partner are assumed to be “unable to find love” or “unfortunately lonely” (although its worth noting the semantic sexism of bachelor vs spinster). People who are virgins beyond their teens, hell even just beyond legal age, are pitied/shamed. And people stay in abusive relationships because society's taught us that being unhappy is better than being alone. It’s impossible for people to pass through life without being subject to the social perception of how ‘successful they are in love/sex’.

But in particular with men, it’s incredibly dangerous as it destroys how men perceive themselves, teaching them that women are a given or a prize and if they don’t receive, they’re shamed. Combine that with social engineering of which in general, men are taught to express their anger/frustration with physical exertion or violence. This lays groundwork for male entitlement at its most damaging and dangerous, because not only does it wreck the mental health of men who constantly wonder why they’re not getting what the world taught them they should receive, it also sows the seeds of violent thinking in some. How many times have we as women (as is our basic right) refused the advances of men in public and they’ve responded angrily, and sometimes they’ve been laughed at by their peers as it happens. Humiliation is a degrading and powerful thing and for those who’ve been taught to react aggressively to situations, those with weaker self-esteems (thanks to a myriad of sexist reasons eg 'man up') and those with lack of proper mental health help (again, a huge male-centric problem eg;'boys don't cry'), it can lead to breeding resentment, self-loathing, sometimes suicidal tendencies but more crucially, the anger/vengeance/entitlement that resides in would-be stalkers, rapists and murderers. Elliot Rodger called his murderous rampage a “Day of Retribution” as he lamented “having been at college and still being a virgin” and said he had “no choice to exact revenge on the society that had “denied” him sex and love. He targeted a sorority whose members he had deemed the “hottest” at his college, “the kind of girls I’ve always desired but was never able to have”.

You can see I’ve been carefully trying to toe a line between not excusing the behaviour of men who treat women horribly as a result of all this and more, but also understanding the damaging conditioning in which society has woven. Teaching men “don’t rape” and “women don’t owe you anything” are basic steps, but we need to tackle issues deeper than that. We need to stop teaching everyone that being sexually/romantically desired is NOT the be all and end all of life, that being sexually/romantically desirable is not the sum of someone’s self-worth, and that there is NO shame in being without a partner or not being sexually active.

I understand that society’s obsession with sex/romance/attraction is deeply interwoven and its not going to be unlearned in a day, but can you imagine a world where teenagers are raised being told that their attractiveness/desire popularity doesn’t define their worth to others. Can you imagine a world where women don’t constantly make the majority of their concerns about how attractive people perceive them as before how kind/intelligent they’re perceived as? Can you imagine a world where people don’t feel pressured into sex as virgins, or pressured into relationships where they’re unhappy because it’s better than being alone? Where someone can be without a partner and be their own person without people assuming that its chosen solitude and not liberated independence.

I know romantic/sexual companionship is very central to how the majority of people operate. But consider this, a world where sex/romance isn’t a heavily pressurised must-do, but an opt-in and opt-out path where people can explore at their own pace and with their own limitations and boundaries without people constantly passing judgement on it. Its an idealistic idea, and seeing the way that asexuals are mistreated is another factor in just how society shames those who opt-out of sexual activity. But I believe a lot of this discussion can lead to more practical steps than saying “don’t rape”

How about;

Don’t shame anyone for being a virgin at any age.

Don’t shame anyone for not having a partner.

Don’t shame anyone for not being sexually active.

Unlearn phrases like “get lucky” and “winning the girl/heart”.

Don’t use insults aimed at size/functionality of genitalia.

Don’t insult people based on their appearance.

Just a few ideas to start undoing the entitlement culture that puts so many women in danger.

And of course, wearily I’ll state the disclaimers.

None of this behaviour discussed excuses even the most ‘harmless’ of catcalls, let alone the reprehensible behaviour of the worst offenders. I just think it’s important to understand the finer points of what breeds this consistent societally inbuilt violence and hatred against women. I really really cannot state this too much, this is not a victim-blame, women do not deserve a single infinitesimal part of anything they've gone through just because they insulted some dude's penis.

Being sexually/romantically active is never ever a bad thing of course provided it’s legal, safe and fully consensual. It just shouldn’t be the only path that people feel forced to take.

Briefly, someone might argue that its okay for me to promote that being sexually inactive is all peachy keen is hypocritical when I'm in a happy relationship, but if I was single, you could just as easily argue that I'd be trying to validate being without a partner for my own gratification.

And yes. We know. Not all men. I know plenty of people, not just men who see past a lot of the shaming and conditioning, and continue to liberate themselves from society’s warped expectations of what they should be doing with their lives. But try this, YES ALL MEN are subject to this sexual/romantic obsession that the world forces on them. When a director chooses to have a man portrayed as the butt of a joke because he’s rebuffed by a woman, he’s sending out a message to all men that some of their worth is determined on whether a woman accepts their affections. Whenever a man snidely jokes to his friends that someone he knows can’t get a woman, he teaches his friends that their lives are only validated on whether they can attain partners. Not all men may not be predatory. But all men are targeted by this conditioning. And as a result of all this, all women are afraid.

Followup: Men receiving non romantic affection is largely shamed as well and as a result its not nearly as common as it should be. Men receiving platonic affection doesn't happen nearly as much as it should, because men are taught that platonic affection is never platonic because if it comes from men it must be gay, and if it comes from women, it must come from a place of attraction. This can tie into the larger discussions already at hand regarding men's mental health and the lack of support it recieves.

[coldgoldlazarus]

As a Latina from Mexico it isn’t the people who paint Catra a Latin coded character as abusive, it was the show who did that and I don’t know which part of the fandom you are in but I have seen more people complains about Glimmer than Catra and even then if it’s true that people hated more on Catra, I can understand why though, Glimmer made many mistakes but none of them were as bad as Catra’s, after all Catra killed a person, abused, victim blamed and tried to kill Adora for several seasons

...Look, I'm not here to invalidate your experience or claim that Catra was ideal representation or anything. If you felt that her portrayal was a bridge too far, then that's valid, and it's certainly worth criticism.

The problem in my eyes, is that a lot of the criticism I have seen has not been of Catra's portrayal in relation to her racial coding, but just of her as a person, and with very clear double standards compared to other characters. (Glimmer's behavior toward her friends and attempted genocide in Season 4 in particular are the most directly comparable to Catra's treatment of Scorpia and attempt to open the Portal in Season 3, with far less justification to boot.) There has certainly been some criticism of Glimmer that I've seen, but often not to the same extent and mostly not by the same people as the anti-Catra crowd. Between that and how elements of Catra's own portrayal as an abuse victim have been distorted (for example, her reluctance to leave the horde despite knowing they're evil, due to Shadow Weaver's conditioning) to make her out to be even worse than she actually was, it appears to me that, if not all, then at least the majority of the anti-Catra sentiment/criticism is made in bad faith because of a specific dislike of the character, rather than an actual problem with the racial element of her portrayal. If people genuinely feel that she went too far and was irredeemable, then fair enough, but they should apply those same metrics to the rest of the cast's more problematic members.

Also, there seems to be a strong overlap between anti-Catradora and pro-Glimmerdora fans too, which like, at that point it's just about ships; I won't begrudge people for preferring a different pairing to the canon one, but trying to mask that behind some moral justification and attacking the unwanted character is incredibly disingenuous. And admittedly my initial posts about Adora's flaws were maybe not the most well-thought-out, but I made them because I was attempting to give the antis the benefit of the doubt and contribute to the discussion. All the pushback I got has convinced me that no, most of those people aren't actually interested in having that discussion, they just want to bash Catra and Catra only for reasons I can only speculate.

Which brings me back to the start. If you have a problem with how Catra was portrayed and feel that it suggests some of Noelle's unconscious biases, that's valid, and definitely something worth talking about. Just, I think it's important to separate that from just plain hating on Catra, because in the grand scheme of things she's far from the most morally questionable character on the show, and any criticism of her as a sympathetic protagonist can and should also be levied against those like Glimmer and Hordak.

[daeneryswhitehorse]

Dany hate throughout the years.

( This is base on a reply I made in post create by @yendany . I also want to precise that it is only my perspective of the fandom as a dany stan, other people probably have a different opinion of what was going on. )

I came in the asoiaf/got fandom in 2011, when the show first came out. I fell in love with dany on my first watch and still like her after reading the books. I started to get involved in the fandom because I wanted to learn more about her.

I didn't know tumblr at the time so I was on westeros.org. The mad queen dany theory was already a thing, mostly for the persons who didn't like that dany could be azor ahai and not one of the male character. But the forum still liked her for her baddass moments in asos or her portrayal in the first season of got.

Everything changed when adwd came out. The incels in this site really didn't liked dany having sex with daario after rejecting jorah/quentyn. They also didn't understood her plot, were tired of her staying in Essos or not interacting with main pov character. It was enough for them to think she was boring.

From then on, there were a lot of bad take of her character. Grrm wanting to talk about the consequences of her mistakes and her decision of staying in meereen was understood as dany being dumb and incompetent as a queen. People made fun of her long list of titles and thought it make her look arrogant. They claimed she was nothing without her dragon, in contrast to male character like stannis. Or not a true warrior because she spend her battle hiding in her tent, unlike stannis or jon who fight with swords. Or that she didn't car about the common people, because she try to negociate with the meereeness nobles. Most of those claimed exist to prove why character like Jon or Stannis would be azor ahai or the true king of Westeros.

After season 3 of the show came out, a lot of people were rightfully offended by the final scene with daenerys where she surf on a sea of brown people. A lot of fans start seeing Dany as a white savior in both books and show, and a lot of essay were about how how her storyline was rooted in racist orientalist ideas. If you were a person of color and still stan her, it was probably because of internalized racism.

Before this season, feminist critized the butchering of most of dany storyline, like they did with other female characters. But none was as talk about then Sansa's, because the most popular female character like Dany, Arya and Brienne were seen as the cash grab of the show. It was considered more important to defend her in particular, and liking Sansa over them was seen as resistance act against D&D misogyny.

The intellectual part of the fandom really went out of their way in defending her. They liked her because she was a gateway to the political part of the story in King's Landing and the Vale. They didn't like how some fans victim-blamed her for the abuse she suffered with the Lannister, and praised the fact she didn't end up with stockolm syndrome like Dany or Theon. "Not everyone can be an Arya" did they said, as they wanted people to acknowledged she was the more relatable point of view and how her traditional feminity shouldn't be put down. They emphasis a lot on her kindness, her emphatie, or her observational skills but and said those qualities were unique to her and are what separate her of the rest of the cast. She was the representation of humanity in this crapsack world. And after outsmarting Littlefinger would probably be rewarded with an important political position and would be one of the builder of the new world after the apocalypse.

All of this probably wasn't meant to be interprete as hate toward other female and some of the male characters, but it sure did for the Sansa stan! Who would then create their entire defense meta around putting down any character they found and upliftting her above them. Their favorite target was Arya, but you could found from time to time one on Dany. I remember someone defending Sansa innocence in trusting Cersei in the first book, by emphasing on her age and naivety, and putting down dany for not knowing mirri maz durr would get revenge on her khalassar.

Talking about Dany, the intellectual part of the fandom didn't really like her. I mean they didn't hate her, and didn't diminish her importance in the story, but she clearly wasn't a fan favorite.

There was two angle in their analysis of daenerys: the political leader and the messiah.

For the first part, they were trying to define daenerys position in the story, and came to the conclusion she was the destroyer of the old world. In their point of view, dany didn't free the slaves in asos for pure reason but because she couldn't pay for an army, and then didn't know how to build a new economy, leading to the horrors in astapor in adwd and her failure in maintaining peace in meereen. For them, Dany is unable to control her emotion and confuse revenge with justice. They also think she is an incompetent queen who make decision on a whim and never listen to her adviser. Her relationship with Daario represent her want for easy solution through war, wich she embrace at the end of adwd. When she can't remember Hazzea name, it meant innocent would die in her violent path in twow. Because of this, the expression "the path of hell is paved with good intention" became popular to define her arc from asos to beyond.

For the second part, they were clearly interressed by the mystical part of her story. Dany has a lot of prophecy around her that can be used to determined the next plotlines post adwd. For some reason, they pushed their own obssession with it on Daenerys, who they now believed is blinded by her own destiny. They claimed she think she is the hero of story and is unable to see when she does something wrong. This until she will blow up King's Landing in ados. This would push her toward her true destiny in the fight against the others where she will sacrifice herself for the greater good.

And lets not talk about the weird part of the fandom who are obssessed with deconstruction and who would only acknowledge dany as azor ahai reborn if it meant the hero is actually the true villain of the story, and the Others misunderstood victims.

2015 arrive as well as season 5 of got. This season was so controversial it manage to divided the fandom in three.

The first one were book purist who were disguted by the total butchering of affc/adwd plotline to replace them with offensive mess, and decided to stop watching the show and focus on the books. While some of them were dany friendly, they all seem to favor character like Sansa, Stannis, Brienne, the Lannisters, or the Martells. A lot of effort were put into their metas to uplift their book plotline and personality above their show counterpart.

The second part is similar to the first one, exept they didn't stop watching the show but decided to view each season through critical lense to try to understand the sexism and racism of D&D. They were mostly Sansa and Martell stan.

Both of those point of view were seen as too radical and annoying by the dudebro show apologist. Being a Martell and Sansa stan also become a sign of being a woke feminist, a book purist and a show anti.

The third part of the fandom decided that the failure of season 5 was the responsability of Grrm for not finishing his books in time, and that the show writer had run out of material and were forced to improvised. Plus the book plots were too complex and boring to be adapted, they had to simplify them. And they were also given futur plot point by Grrm that could explain some of the controversial decision this season. Like Sansa wedding with Ramsay, it was probably made because the character would end up in the North in one of the next books.

Thoses three point of view are important to understand why when the theory saying dany is a villain not a hero became more popular, dany stan were pretty isolated.

And why did this theory became more popular? Well it's a mix of all thoses perception of daenerys that I mention above but mostly because of the peoples who decided that dany in season 5 was Joffrey.02. Like I say there were people who thought that D&D were now working with futur plot point given by Grrm. And since dany storyline was read as one of a white savior, and the fandom believed Grrm can't do no wrong, and dany did some stuff this season they disapproved of, they decided it meant dany should be seen as a villain. And in a way, it manage to reconciliate the feminist anti racist and the pro D&D point of view , now united in hating daenerys. It allowed them to still trust the show, because it meant it was not D&D and grrm who were racist but dany, and it made them feel smart for having figured out this big plot point. Plus a chunk of the show!jon stan decide the parallel between them this season meant he would become the true hero of the story. Because they thought janos execution was more honorable than mossador's, and jon fight against the wight walker to defend his brothers and the free folks was contrast with dany running away on drogon.

But there were people who didn't like dany and didn't think she would become a villain. Thoses people were feminist who thought daenerys, as the face of the show, was the embodiement of D&D fake feminism responsible of the ruined of character like Sansa or the Martells. Sansa in particular because they felt the show hated traditional feminity which is something Dany was not, which was what allegedly gave her more priviledge and love by the writer and fandom. When season 6 came out, they criticized the double standard between Cersei and Dany, where the former was demonized for burning a Church and the later was celebrate for burning the khals in their holy place. Obviously, the criticism of orientalism and racism within her story didn't make her very popular with feminist.

Season 6 end, and the sansa fandom decide to ship their fav with Jon Snow. But unfortunalty for them, it was obvious that jonerys would become a thing in later season.

Now Sansa was pretty well beloved by the fandom. Like I said earlier, the intellectual part of the fandom and the sansa defense squad really went out of their way to give a better image of the character, wich was fairly popular now that show sansa had a more active role. Plus the feminist adore her!

On the other hand, daenerys was seen as either a villain in the making, or the representation of the show fake feminism and racism. At this point dany stan were considered the dumbass of the fandom.

So, what happen when the jonerys vs jonsa shipping war happen? Well the jonerys shipper were seen as the big bully who victimized the poor sansa stan. Since in their point of view, dany stan were racist people who can't read, and the sansa stan were the woke book purist. Since Sansa was the underdog unfairly hated by the dudebro of the fandom, but beloved by the intellectuals. And Dany was the popular girl who got dumb stan and is only loved by pop feminism. People were naturally more incline into believing jonsa shippers as the victime of this war.

Even when the sansa stan were saying the most heinous things about dany and other female character to prop her up. Even when they were using the villain dany theory, the dark!dany theory, the white savior theory that had now become about dany being a colonizer and imperialist, or the ableist mad queen dany theory wich they backed up by diagnosis her with all the real life disorder they hated. It was seen as normal and dany stan just can't handle criticism. Even when multiple blog were created on tumblr to hate on daenerys which had almost no equivalent for the sansa/jonsa fandom, the jonerys shippers were the bad guys.

Jonerys was made canon in season 7. The intellectual part of the fandom either accept it but thought it was a cliche uninspiring ship, or they defend it for the themes but didn't see it as a complex relationship like jaime with cersei or brienne. The feminist, particulary the one who hated house targaryen, were shocked that grrm could romantize incest. And obviously, the jonsa hated it, and there ugliness started to be notice more with the weird theory they builted, like political!jon. The Jonerys fandom were finally getting some justice.

Plus more big name essayists in the fandom started debunking of the baseless incel hate dany receive post adwd. Dany had now the right to sleep with Daario, Jorah was a creep, Dany rejected Quentyn for peace, and Drogo being Dany rapist was getting more believed by the fandom.

During the hiatus before season season 8, @rainhadaenerys wrote down a lot of meta as a defense against the worst claimed that the fandom made about Dany. It gave hoped to dany stan, but it was crushed by season 8 with D&D deciding to make the mad queen theory canon the worst way possible.

Now the feminist and the intellectual part of the fandom are both defending daenerys. But there is the dominant idea that certain event of the last season could happen in the books, like dany burning King's Landing. And the possibility of her going insane should be accepted by the dany stan, and if not, it mean we are not real asoiaf fans.

[ladyxanatos]

It matters why Daenerys is “crazy”

My thoughts about last night’s episode of Game of Thrones are many and a jumble, so I’m going to do my best to sort through them with the limited spoons I have on hand.

Firstly, I’m not going to talk about whether or not Mad Queen Dany is OOC. I feel like that’s kind of beyond the point. It’s not about whether this turn for her character makes sense or has been supported by the narrative so far; it’s about the very different way this narrative has been treating Daenerys Targaryen as opposed to her male counterparts.

Jon Snow losing his sh*t at having his baby brother murdered in front of him and charging recklessly into the Bolton forces, throwing his army into disarray, and resulting in the deaths of thousands is framed by the narrative as justified. He even gets bailed out of his unsound tactical decision by the last minute arrival of his sister’s cavalry.

They storm the castle of Winterfell, their ancestral home, and Jon in a wild-eyed rage pummels Ramsay Bolton senseless. He stops just short of killing Ramsay...so that later Sansa can feed Ramsay (alive and fully conscious) to his own hounds.

This is framed as a victory for the Good Guys. We, the audience, are not meant to condemn Jon in the slightest. Ramsay is a tyrant after all, he’s done terrible things, and the North needs to be saved from his tyranny at all costs. (And those costs are HIGH, even though the narrative completely glosses over them.)

But something funny happens when Daenerys Targaryen is on a quest to free the land of a tyrant and take back her ancestral home at all costs. The narrative turns on her so fast it gets whiplash.

Dany reaching her rage breaking point after watching the brutal deaths of two of her children, her most trusted advisor dying in her arms, and her best friend being murdered in front of her is framed as insanity. Dany is not justified in her rage; she is condemned for it. (I’m not arguing over moral authority here, or whether or not she should be condemned. I’m pointing out the double standard in how the narrative handles male and female rage.)

Dany storming King’s Landing and plowing through thousands of extras to reach Cersei in order to kill this tyrant at whatever cost is framed as horrific (which it is, but again I’m not concerning myself with moral arguments; I’m focusing exclusively on uneven narrative framing). Suddenly we’re very concerned with the nameless extras on the ground getting crushed and burned alive. Where was this concern when it was guys doing this, though?

And sure, Dany deciding to destroy the city before destroying the Red Keep, instead of just flying straight to the Red Keep, is horrific.

But so was the sack of King’s Landing during Robert’s Rebellion and yet Robert, who was a terrible king, bankrupt the realm, abused his wife, was complicit in the murder of the Targaryen children (or at least did nothing about it), and started a rebellion that got thousands killed ‘cause he was too much of a manbaby to accept that the girl he wanted didn’t want him back, does not receive the kind of villain framing that Dany is getting. In fact, Robert is framed as tragically sympathetic.

What worries me is that GoT is showing male rage and violence as justified, whereas it frames female rage and violence as insanity. This is just another in a long line of narratives opining that women having emotional responses to things, and especially if they also wield more power than men (that distinction is important for understanding why the narrative isn’t currently doing this to Yara and Sansa, whose powers are comparatively small), are hysterical, unfit to rule, and must be put down. Because make no mistake, we are building toward Jon “mercy killing” Dany, which is gross on more levels than I have time for.

(I would also point out that the sack of King’s Landing during Robert’s Rebellion, the murder of the Targ children, and all the other horror from that conflict was not used as a moral imperative to compel Ned to murder his best friend. And yet that is exactly what we’re seeing with Jon and Dany. Gosh, what could be the difference here?)

I’ve maintained for years now that whether or not Dany is framed as a villain by the narrative is beyond the point. What concerns me is why the narrative is framing her this way. And would that framing remain if, say, the story had been about Viserys Targaryen being abused by his sister and sold to a warlord, struggling to gain power for himself, and finally returning home to take back his kingdom at whatever the cost? Food for thought.

Why is Dany framed as innately susceptible to the “crazy” in her Targ blood, like she just can’t help but go batsh*t insane, whereas Jon is strangely immune? Even though they’re both Targs? I am reminded strongly of the Dune Chronicles framing Alia, and women specifically, as more susceptible to abomination than men because...vaginas??

The thing is, Dune was originally published in 1965. Game of Thrones S8x05 “The Bells” was released in 2019. In 54 years the portrayal of women in storytelling has progressed by 0% apparently.

Well, if Daenerys Targaryen must join the ranks of Alia Atreides and all the other fictional women condemned as crazy for having power and the wrong genitalia, then at least she is keeping good company.

EDIT: An additional note, since apparently this is needed:

Yes, I know Dany is “100% Targ” and Jon is “only 50%,” and this is somehow why Jon isn’t being treated as crazy by the narrative even though he’s behaved similarly to Dany before (as I pointed out in my post).

I would point out, however, that Rhaegar was just as much a Targ as Dany, and yet wasn’t crazy. HUH.

Also I am not talking about why Dany is crazy and Jon is not. I’m talking about why the narrative frames Dany as crazy, but doesn’t frame Jon and other men that way even when they behave similarly.

[aegor-bamfsteel]

Why do people say that Aegor raped Calla when she was a child? Daemon betrothing his oldest daughter to Aegor does not mean the marriage was consummated when she was a child. Sadly, Daemon himself was betrothed as a child. His grandmother Daenaera was married when she was 6 and his grandfather Viserys II was 12 when he wed and 13 when he had his first child, only a year younger than Daemon when he had his. Usually, it is custom to wait to consummate if the bride is a child.

Furthermore, the people who hate the Blackfyres try to frame it as Daemon selling his daughter to be raped, but I doubt that is why he betrothed her to Aegor since he already has Aegor’s unconditional support. Calla and Aegor never had children, per GRRM, so Aegor championed his nephews and nieces, essentially dedicating his life to his brother and his family. Daemon didn’t need to sell his daughter to Aegor for support, so that was not the reason for the betrothal. (2/3)

My point is that GRRM is wildly inconsistent with his child brides (and grooms). He uses Unwin Peake’s nameless daughter dying in childbirth at the age of 12 as a reason for why he is so despicable (and that is despicable). But then has Aemma Arryn consummate her marriage at age 13 and paints her father, grandparents, uncle, and husband as decent people. Daenaera is then married at age 6 but doesn’t consummate until age 15 or 16. It’s due to Aegon’s depression instead of custom. (3/3)

Thank you for the very thorough ask, tiger. I hope that I have successfully responded to all of your questions. Calla, as with all Blackfyres (and many non-Targaryen women), has certainly gotten a raw deal when it comes to page time/character depth; her only mention is in twoiaf: “Whatever the case may be (for Aegor’s anger at the Targaryens and Bl00draven), Aegor Rivers soon began to press Daemon Blackfyre to proclaim for the throne, and all the more so after Daemon agreed to wed his eldest daughter, Calla, to Aegor.” As Yandel doesn’t make any further comments, I assume the people who believe Calla was raped as a child exist in fandom rather than on page. Rape is a very sensitive subject, and I’m trying to keep the fanwank a bit quieter, so my response will be under the cut.

Why do people say Aegor raped Calla as a child? This actually involves several leaps in logic I don’t find convincing, so I’ll try to break it down:

We are first introduced to Aegor in the Dunk and Egg novellas via mention by some Blackfyre supporters, who are the natural antagonists of the Targaryens; the protagonist, Dunk, is best friends with the Targaryen prince Egg. Many of the Blackfyre supporters are minor antagonists to Dunk, especially in The Mystery Knight when they attempt to kill him (Alyn Cockshaw) or kidnap Egg (Tommard Heddle). Meanwhile, Bittersteel is a legendary hero to Blackfyre admirers (such as Osgrey), at least an important hoped-for ally to the Whitewalls conspirators (Gormon Peake needed some quick victories so Aegor would have faith in his and Daemon II’s rebellion), and a threat Bl00draven takes as seriously as the Blackfyre sons themselves. As an important member of a faction which has members that tried to harm the protagonist Dunk, people see Aegor as a villain. 

The problem with seeing him as a villain (as opposed to simply an antagonist, which he undoubtedly is if you consider the Targaryens protagonists of the story) is that, due to lack of page-time and because he’s not that bad, he never actually does anything too villainous. Urging someone to rebel is at the end of the day just words. He took Bl00draven eye out in battle, but that appears to be an accident and doesn’t seem to have slowed him down. Leading the Golden Company to sack Qohor for failing to honor a contract is severe, but its only mention is in a non-canonical app that few people read. When his chief rival Bl00draven is a canonical child-murderer, child-crippler, kinslayer, deserter, head of a secret police organization, tyrannical overlord, etc...Aegor’s “evil deeds” don’t appear to add up to much. He might even seem more sympathetic than Bl00draven! But that cannot be, so fandom has to headcanon villainous behavior for him, because he must be a villain antagonist.

But what sort of villainous behavior should he do? In order to root for Bl00draven against him, it must be something terrible. GRRM often uses rape to signal how terrible a male character is (and how awful Westeros can be). The most evil villains in the main series are serial rapists: Gregor Clegane, Ramsay Bolton, Euron Greyjoy, Craster; even Tywin Lannister, Roose Bolton, and Petyr Baelish have raped or enabled the rape of young women and girls. When the age of the victim is specified, she is often a preteen/young teenager to make her rape even more evil. The lone exception is Joffrey Baratheon, and that is only because he is 12 (he still molests Sansa repeatedly). Fandom rightly criticizes GRRM using sexualized violence against women as shorthand for “irredeemably evil” or window dressing for a dark fantasy. Yet when Aegor, a character who shows no sign of being a sexual predator (look at Shiera’s SSM, the Dunk and Egg books, and Yandel’s commentary on Aegor’s anger at Bl00draven: one-sided Aegor/Shiera has even less evidence of being real than Daemon/Daenerys), needs to commit villainous actions, some in fandom fall into the same trap as GRRM and imagine him raping women.

Then Yandel tells us that Daemon “agreed to wed his eldest daughter Calla” to Aegor shortly before the Rebellion. As Calla was not a triplet of his eldest sons Aegon and Aemon, the oldest she could possibly be was 11, still a child even by later GRRM standards. The phrase “agreed to wed” is at most a promise; it’s not an official betrothal, it’s certainly not an actual wedding, and it’s absolutely not a consummation. If it had been a consummation, that certainly would have been mentioned, as Yandel has repeatedly recorded rumors just for the purpose of making Daemon look bad (the 14 year old newly acknowledged landless natural son petitioned the king for a polygamous marriage with a princess and an Essosi noblewoman? sure...) Considering Daemon died at the end of the Rebellion and Aegor was now a landless, penniless rebel dependent on his goodsister Rohanne’s mercy, and how the Blackfyres needed to find more allies, I think any talks of marrying Calla was silenced. She married someone else, whereas he remained a bachelor for life and championed the cause of Haegon and his son Daemon III (not necessarily the others, as seen with Daemon II and Aenys, and he did not crown any of Daemon III’s brothers). 

Whatever I headcanon, 2018 GRRM’s comment that he doesn’t think Aegor had any offspring pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of Aegor having consummated any wedded relationship, let alone with Calla. If a male character is promiscuous, GRRM raises the possibility of them having sired natural children; with Aerion Brightflame in Lys, and Brandon Stark in the North, and even Tywin Lannister, he says, “I suppose they could’ve sired bastards” (or in Tywin’s case, gives a non-answer). That he gave a straightforward NO regarding Aegor’s potential children indicates that he feels it would be out of character for Aegor to have a sexual relationship, whether in marriage or outside of it. I hope that when people headcanon Aegor as a serial rapist, they take GRRM’s comments and fandom criticism of sexual violence to heart.

My point is that GRRM is wildly inconsistent with the ages of his child brides (and grooms): I would disagree to the point that in his earlier works, underaged girls forced to wed old men was universally portrayed as terrible and a feature of a corrupt character. Hoster regretted his actions toward Lysa on his deathbed, but it led to their estrangement and her susceptibility to Littlefinger’s manipulation; Sansa Stark’s marriage to Tyrion showed the breakdown of societal norms under Lannister rule; Jeyne’s forced marriage and immediate consummation to Ramsay moves Theon to try to rescue her. Although the marriage wasn’t consummated, GRRM found it difficult to write the Tyrion/Sansa scene because of her horrific abuse. But then The World of Ice and Fire and Fire and Blood are published and older man/younger woman marriages and relationships are outright romanticized by the authors themselves (Elio Garcia said 37 year old Daemon Targaryen’s relationship with the 16 year old Nettles was a true romance; GRRM said that 56-year-old Alyn Velaryon was the great love of 21-year-old Elaena Targaryen’s life) Perhaps the lack of PoV in these works distanced the male writers from the female characters’ emotions and allowed them to envision Rhaenys (16)/Corlys (37), Corlys (61)/Marilda (17), Thaddeus (56)/Floris (14), and Aemma (11-13)/Viserys (16-18) as mutually romantic couples with sympathetic men; but then in the same works the authors use forced relationships with young girls to villainize other men Unwin Peake (daughter died in childbirth at age 12) and Aegon II (was receiving a blowjob from a 12 year old when his father died). The double standard seems to imply that a teenage girl can consent to a relationship with a man old enough to be her father/grandfather if she is genuinely in love with him, which is disturbingly close to real-life defenses of statutory rape. I hate the way that the supplemental material has suddenly decided to defend these couples with “the girls wanted it”, and I can only hope this doesn’t start appearing in the main series that people actually care about.

One type of underaged pairing seems to have a consistent portrayal: child grooms don’t seem to be granted the same mutually happy relationship as child brides. Both Viserys (12) and Larra’s (19) and Androw (17) and Rhaena’s (25) marriages ended in tragedy (and death, in the case of the latter). This makes me...unsettled when thinking about how the authors will write Daemon (14)/Rohanne (older). But to stay within the bounds of your question, I don’t think they will depict an Aegor/Calla marriage due to it making little political or characterization-based sense; so fortunately it will neither villainize nor romanticize Aegor. Although an antagonist to the Targaryens, he has consistently took the higher road over Bl00draven and has the potential to be a tragic and multifaceted character.

[ephemeral-afterlight]

n and t!

i already answered t, but:

N - Name three things you wish you saw more or in your main fandom (or a fandom of choice)

for people to properly tag u!"dark" sides and just characters in general?? it's literally the biggest problem right now. i am constantly stumbling upon abusive deceit, for example, and it's never tagged because those people think that abusive deceit is "canon". which obviously isn't true. it's okay to put out u!"dark" sides content, but it's absolutely not okay to let abusive/toxic interpretations of characters go untagged because you consider it to be canon. whether it's canon or not, you HAVE to ALWAYS tag for abusive or toxic characters. on that note, the double standards and hypocrisy in this fandom is wild, because some people will constantly be posting untagged u!"dark" sides, but if god forbid anyone DARES to post u!"light" sides content and forget to tag it (because we are ADAMANT on tagging, even though we are rarely extended the same courtesy), we get immediately crucified for it. it's awful and it seriously needs to stop

i really want to see different interpretations of the characters that aren't just the fanon versions of them. with fanon right now, people regard the characters as: patton - perfect and pure 100% flawless never makes mistakes ever / virgil - soft uwu poor nervous shy boy who should never have repercussions for his actions because he's ✨anxious✨ / roman - so mean to poor virgil! should be demonized for light banter!! but then he falls in ~love~ with virgil and all of their problems are solved by romance!!! roman's entire existence revolves around virgil uwu!!!! / logan - emotionless robot, is abrasive and cold, doesn't have any social awareness or conduct, constantly rude, doesn't know how to speak normally because his whole interaction with everyone else is through him being clueless about flashcards and being made fun of/the butt of the joke for it / remus - absolute wildcard, extremely bad with no exceptions, constantly vicious and violent towards the other sides, constantly trying to find ways to hurt people, his only presence and substance as a character is through dirty jokes / deceit - abusive, evil, toxic villain, definitely abused ~poor uwu boy virgil~ and hurt him and THAT'S why virgil is constantly hostile towards him. dark, mysterious, smooth, suave, manipulative, always has an ulterior motive, is trying to have "complete control" over thomas. ||| anyway that physically hurt to write and i took psychic damage from even saying that but it's like. that's how i ALWAYS see the characters portrayed as and it's not only gross but so boring. patton and virgil are extremely woobified, to the point where they are never called out for anything they do or say that isn't okay. virgil is treated like a poor precious baby who can never do wrong because he's anxiety, and apparently MI means you have no repercussions for your actions, right? /s. roman's existence constantly revolves around the others (usually virgil) and he rarely has personal autonomy apart from them, and he's always an asshole for no reason. logan is treated like he doesn't know how to communicate with other people AT ALL and he solely exists to be the butt of the joke for everyone else, the person who gets made fun of and teased for being a robot, a nerd, or for talking too much/never having any kind of social skills whatsoever (which feels like it's low-key ableist and like it's making fun of/romanticizing an unrealistic portrayal of autism, but y'all aren't ready for that conversation). remus has so much depth and potential, but then y'all reduce him down to just dirty jokes and violence, despite that not even being close to what "dark" creativity truly represents and could be (no, his purpose is not "intrusive thoughts", get with the program). and lastly, deceit is usually portrayed as this smooth-talking manipulator, despite 1. him being literally the biggest dork in existence and 2. him being INCREDIBLY transparent with his motives literally always. it's SO easy to see what he wants and is trying to do, but he's still always portrayed as this mysterious, dark, shadowy figure and it's honestly so boring. ESPECIALLY when people use deceit as the abusive villain for more "poor hurt virgil" content simply because deceit.... idk exists????? and don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with virgil angst, but having deceit be the villain EVERY SINGLE TIME just because virgil doesn't like him for some reason (that has NEVER BEEN EXPLAINED IN CANON) is so overdone and annoying. anyway yeah fanon versions of the characters are Literally Awful™ and very stereotyped and are so one-dimensional and boring that i literally have never liked them in a single piece of fan content. think outside the stereotype box for once?? and if you're not (which if you like those versions of the characters then okay), at least PROPERLY TAG IT???????

and after those long rants, i'll end this god-awful post by saying i would like to see more space!logan and ocean!logan because they're so valid

[secretlyatargaryen]

I saw a comment about Sansa "refusing to turn into a tomboy" in a thread about choice feminism and the discourse surrounding the agency of fictional characters and...here's the thing. Not only is "it's her choice to be feminine" not a valid argument when we are talking about fictional characters who are the way they are because of the choices made by (male) creators (it can be a valid argument within the story but it does not deflect criticism of media from a Doylist perspective), but if we wanna talk about the choices Sansa, the character, had, becoming a tomboy was never one of them.

I think the argument being made was that Sansa is a great character because the abuse she experiences because of her femininity doesn't lead her to a misogynistic conclusion that femininity is stupid, which is a message I, on principal, agree with. I don't agree with the additional corallary that I often see, which is the idea that women who DO eschew traditional or compulsory femininity are somehow bad or sexist, because they aren't. And not wanting or being able to fit a patriarchal definition of femininity is not, by itself, misogyny. But I think what people are trying to get at is that we see a lot of portrayals in media of women who eschew femininity in a way that blames other women for being feminine, and yes, I am also tired of those narratives.

But the idea that Sansa Stark is actively making a choice not to be a tomboy or that she's going against expectations by not wearing pants or picking up a sword is wrong because she was never given that choice in the first place. She does not exist in a world where women are encouraged to pick up swords. Women in her world are derided and abused for being feminine, but absolutely still expected to perform it.

In fact, I think that's a big part of the conflict she has with Arya. Sansa's performance of femininity is extremely anxious and insecure at the beginning of the novel. The Stark girls live in a world where NOT performing femininity gets you punished, and Sansa grew up watching her sister be punished for failing to live up to that expectation. That's reflected in the way she distances herself from and reacts negatively to Arya, and the way she criticizes herself and compares herself negatively to Arya in times when she is being "wicked" or failing to live up to the expectations of the adults around her.

I do think that behind Sansa's resentment of Arya for failing to live up to expectations is a resentment that she has to be the good sister, the one who has to live up to the strict expectations imposed on a girl, even more so because of her sister's failure. Her parents encourage this when they praise Sansa for being a lady and criticize Arya. It's clear that Sansa also feels this as an additional burden on her because she remarks about how she expects Arya to be punished for picking wildflowers and resents that her parents don't punish her. Sansa clearly sees herself as the one who has to take on the role of being a "lady" especially because her sister won't.

I actually think that on some level Sansa resents that Arya is able to break free from and reject the standards she herself feels an anxious need to abide by. Which of course does not mean that Arya is more free from patriarchy or had more freedom to choose to reject it, because her choices absolutely come with consequences. This also does not mean that Sansa should be criticized for not trying to break out of those expecations. What it means is that neither girl is free to choose and both end up punished, regardless of their ability to perform femininity. Patriarchy is always a double-edged sword, and people need to remember that when they talk about choice in regards to these characters.

[kekeslider]

so whats your take on the catra/adora situation

I have a lot of thoughts about this and I’m gonna just unload them all below the cut bc this is gonna get kind of meta-y and pretty discourse-y, and I know a lot of people are trying to avoid that right now. The long n short of it is that I still like the ship.

I’m actually a little baffled by how much people don’t like this pairing now. It all basically comes down to the belief that Catra is abusive towards Adora, but people seem to be conveniently leaving out that Catra has been abused by the Horde as much as Adora. I’d actually argue that Catra’s abuse was harsher, while Adora was the favored child. That’s not to say that Adora wasn’t abused, because she obviously was, but there are different kinds of abusive situations, and in homes with multiple children, there’s often one that the parent/guardian clearly favors and manipulates and the other that gets the brunt of the abuse. Adora was manipulated and lied to and who knows what else, while Catra was physically threatened and harmed, emotionally abused, and pitted against Adora, her own best friend. They have different experiences, and Catra’s experiences have clearly led to the survival instincts she has now. I’ll also point out that members of the crew have stated that Catra’s portrayal is influenced by their own experiences with abuse (source). So flatout saying Catra is abusive and Adora needs to cut ties and leave her rubs me the wrong way. I think Catra is on course for a big redemption arc, because I think people who have been in abusive situations themselves want to tell stories of abuse victims overcoming it.

So that’s sort of the basics of Catra and Adora’s abuse by the Horde, and people have ended up saying, well Adora got out, why can’t Catra? First I’d like to point out the irony of the fandom pitting Catra and Adora against each other in the same way Shadow Weaver did, holding Catra to Adora’s standard. But what makes Adora and Catra different here? There could be a lot of things, you could get into discussions about nature vs nurture, you could argue that Adora has an inherent goodness because she was destined to be She-ra or whatever. But in the end I think it comes down to the different ways they experienced abuse in the Horde. Adora got to switch to the side of good because she thought she was on the good side all along, that’s what the Horde convinced her of, and she didn’t know anything outside of what the Horde told her. Then she also had Shadow Weaver favoring her, and the respect of her superiors and peers, so her life in the Horde was, comparatively, not that bad. But Catra knew it was bad. I’ve seen people calling Catra evil based on her duh, you just figured that out? line. But doesn’t it make sense that Catra knew she was being abused, because she was being treated so much harsher than Adora was? It was in her face all the time, but like Adora, she didn’t know anything beyond the Horde. Abuse was her norm, and she developed certain survival instincts because of that.

But Adora offered Catra a way out right? And Catra knowingly refused, so Catra is evil, right?? This is where I think Catra’s character gets extra complex, because it starts delving into the psychology of abuse victims, and one of the things that’s pretty well known is that abuse victims will often refuse to leave their situation, even when given the chance. That’s what abusers do, they make their victims afraid to leave the stability of their situation, no matter how awful it is. The devil you know, yanno? Adora wasn’t exactly offering Catra safety, she was offering her the chance to join a weak rebellion against the group that was conquering the world, a rebellion which massively failed the last time it was attempted. And leaving the Horde, and then losing? That would make Catra’s situation so much worse.

There’s a lot you can get into with Catra’s motivations throughout the season, but I’ll leave the deep details to Catra-specific character metas. I sussed out 3 big motivations for her from my 1 viewing at the asscrack of dawn.

1. She’s being forced to act against Adora by Shadow Weaver, the woman who has directly abused her her whole life

2. She wants to take down Shadow Weaver as a form of revenge and surpass her in the process

3. She want to prove to everyone in the Horde that she’s powerful and capable without Adora around (reminder that Adora said displays of weakness were a no-no at the Horde, so it stands to reason that being the best and most powerful is a goal ingrained into them as cadets) because Catra has been pitted against and compared to Adora her whole life (this ties in to Catra’s sidekick remark).

None of this excuses her actions, but it does explain her backstory and allows the viewer to get inside Catra’s head and understand why she does the things she does. It deliberately paints her as a sympathetic villain, because you understand her, and it makes you want to root for her.

Catra being sympathetic is a big thing to me, because it’s done on purpose. They’ve planted the seeds for a big redemption arc, one that may run the course of the show, and that’s something I want to see happen. A well done redemption arc is incredible to watch play out. And I’ll remind everyone that the crew has pretty openly loved Catra as a character, and they’re very invested in her as a character, and I personally don’t see how a crew with abuse victims on their staff would create an abusive character and then care about her so much. That goes double for catradora, they’re all interested in them as a duo and post art and content that toes very closely to the line of ship art, and I can’t see abuse victims creating a show just to ship a character with her abuser.

When it comes to Catra and catradora, there’s a few big important things I think people are ignoring.

- Catra has all the groundwork for a bigass redemption arc. It’s something fans have been expecting and hoping for since the first info about the show was released

- In order to get a redemption arc, she needs to do something that needs redeeming. Think of season 1 as Catra’s villain origin story. A redemption arc has no payoff if we don’t see their misdeeds. But Catra’s misdeeds aren’t a case of Cool motive, still murder, because nothing she’s done so far has such long lasting effects. She attacked some people with the Horde, of course, but also keep in mind that this is a kids show, where things like that have to be exaggerated so kids can see that they’re doing Bad Things (remember that time Zuko burned down a whole village, kidnapped Aang, attacked them all multiple times? And he has THE redemption arc every other one is compared to)

- This is only the first season! There’s so much story left to tell, maybe more backstory for Catra, more flashbacks detailing her experiences, etc etc. There’s something like 39 episodes still guaranteed to come, and I’m not expecting season 4 Catra to be the same as season 1 Catra. She’s going to change, her relationship to Adora is going to change, and I want that change to be positive. That’s a big draw for catradora: positive character development

- The crew has stated multiple times that Catra and Adora’s friendship/relationship is very central to the story, and that definitely shows in s1. Telling people not to like this ship is telling them to not fully engage with one of the show’s main foci (and there are definitely positive moments within all the hurt we see. They love each other, in an environment that doesn’t want them to)

- I haven’t seen a single person say that Catra and Adora’s relationship as is would be healthy and perfect. Everyone knows they have stuff to work through. What I have seen is people caring about both of them as characters and friends, people who love each other and deserve to be happy. People WANT a redemption arc for Catra, and they’re shipping Redeemed!Catra/Adora. They’re looking ahead down the path of character development and hoping it leads to romance, because it very well could. One of the big reasons people latch on to ships like this is that it has so so much room for growth and development, for them as individuals, and them as a pair. I know it’s illegal to talk about vo/tron, but you can compare it to people who shipped k/ance and a//urance after season 1. Neither had healthy romantic dynamics in the first season, but people were looking forward to growth and development, and shipping that. The whole point is that you want to see characters grow together. Development is half the point of storytelling. Romantic ships where they basically start out all happy and good are dull because they don’t have the same space for character growth and development. They’re static, they’re boring.

- The crew of the show likes catradora! They care so much about these two characters and their bond, and I don’t see a crew of LGBT people making a romantically coded dynamic between 2 female characters, hyping it up, creating content of the two of them, just to have one be an evil abuser

This is also where I’ll point out that many other antagonistic characters have been much beloved by the fandom and part of majorly popular ships

- Zuko: Zutara & Zukka

- Bakugo: Kiribaku

- Sasuke: Sasunaru or w/e it is

And you’ll notice these are moooostly m/m ships, and people still stan them to this day. But catradora of course is f/f, and we know f/f ships are subjected to much higher criticism than m/m pairings. In fact, the defense for Zuko and Bakugo is their traumatic abuse backstory, so the same should apply for Catra.

I’m also going to say, at great risk to myself, that I think the discourse around this ship is mostly happening because the current She-ra fandom is largely made of of (ex) v/d fans, where discourse was basically a hobby. And for good reason, there was a lot of dumpster fires in that fandom and show, but I think it’s resulted in people coming into this fandom just chomping at the bit to jump on some discourse and be the most Unproblematic and Self-Righteous. Am I basically vaguing myself by saying that? Yeah, kinda, but I’ll have to stand by it. We’ve seen so little of this show and people are already making major decisions about what’s ok and what’s not because they’re coming off of a fandom with a pretty shitty crew, and they’re expected to be hurt again. But the She-ra crew isn’t the v/d crew, and they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

This got really rambly and stuff but the point is, I like catradora. I want to see them grow and heal and love each other, because I care about both characters. It isn’t about shipping an angsty abusive ship, it’s about wanting them to find each other again without the toxic influence of the Horde.

[redspiderling]

Ok so im a trans myself. I didn't think it was bad when scarjo wanted to play a trans. Dont get me wrong I had problems get jobs and had a lot of people talk bad to me. But like she said, she is a actor and its her job. Also with her in the main role it would gain way more attention and its a good way to get people to talk about this. Now when I talk about that with other people they just say that the lgbt-community should chill.

Hi anon!

It’s really lovely to see people respond on tumblr with messages and I honestly appreciate it, even if it means I end up writing essay long replies xD

It’s undeniable that there is bias in the film industry. And outside of it. And I believe this is a complicated issue. There are 2 things to consider. First, what is an actor’s job, and then, what is the process of casting actors for roles.

Actors can be anyone, it’s in their job description, and thanks to modern technology, now they can be anything as well. Whether they should be anyone is up for debate. But there’s no right or wrong here. Some people believe that specific roles are meant for specific people, and some don’t. 

Those arguments are not between people who want equality and people who don’t, but between people who don’t share the same ideas as to how we will achieve equality as a society.

If you ask me, I think people should be allowed to be cast in any role. I don’t think casting trans people in trans roles would help the trans community any more than if you would cast trans people in any roles. 

The assumption that “if they’re not cast as trans they won’t be cast as anything” shows a lack of understanding over the craft of performance arts and over the process of casting. Not to mention that, as far as I’m concerned, equality doesn’t come in steps, it’s not like you can “start them easy” through type casting people for their identity, and then easing in to their humanity beyond that. Either you accept someone the way they are as your equal, or you don’t. There’s no middle ground. 

Another reason on why people should be cast in roles regardless of their race, gender identity, or sexuality, is the fact that stepping into another person’s shoes is the very core of what acting is about. Because through immersion and empathy, comes understanding. And by seeing someone as you would see yourself, as a performer and as a viewer, comes equality.

By the way, political correctness in arts is a double edge sword. Yes, it means you get a more proper portrayal of minorities, but it also means you restrict these minorities to “appropriate” roles once again. It’s just this time, instead of typecasting as the Evil Secondary Character, you typecast them as the Good Man Bystander. Gina Torres talked about this at an interview, from the perspective of someone who comes from a minority group, and she described it much more eloquently than I ever could.

Also, corporations seem to have taken this to heart and are abusing the cause to make money. For example, it has become popular to remake famous titles with female cast members. What that means for companies is that they can re-brand an existing product and make money. It also means they are making shitty movies because they don’t care about the content, since what they are selling is the female presence. Does that educate the masses on equality? No, what it does is getting them to “blame women for ruining our movies”. Completely stupid and ridiculous btw but it’s a negative byproduct of this latest fashion, a fashion that I don’t personally see as entirely right or wrong.

And since we reached corporations, lets talk money.

There are different types of film making. There’s corporate, and there’s indie. In indie productions, all bets are off. We’re doing this for the art, so we care about the message, the content, what we give out to the world. Corporate means money.

The Hollywood Star ticket is dying. What I mean is, at this day and age, the idea that an actor or an actress can carry a movie to the theatres with their name on the title alone is no longer an option for the most part. 

Once upon a time people would flock to the movie theatres for Bogart, for Hepburn, etc. That’s not happening anymore. Having said that, there are still a few names that grab people’s attention. Scarlett’s is one of them.

It has been said many times before, that when a production company decides to produce something outside its safe zone, they need to know they’ll get their money back somehow. One surefire way to get an edgy (for corporate productions’ standards) script to production is by bringing in the big guns. People were saying “well, trans actors need to start from somewhere, if they want to be cast in this way themselves”. Yes, they do need to start from somewhere, but that somewhere is not, and never has been, risky productions. It’s indie films. 

Also, I don’t see why a future trans actor superstar should be instantly assumed as the go-to for trans roles. I don’t think they would appreciate being called in whenever Hollywood needs a trans representative.

Anyway, to close this endless reply, at this time in the world, Rub and Tug would never be produced without ScarJo. And it didn’t. Is that fair? For me as a potential viewer, no, I’d like to see that film regardless of the actor as long as they were good for the job. For the people putting the money in? Perhaps. If I were investing millions of dollars I would want some assurance as to whether or not that investment will be proven fruitful. 

And make no mistake, this has nothing to do with equality. It has to do with a studio taking a risk and producing a script that would have never seen the light of day if not for the cast that would carry it into the theatres.

[beyondthedreamline]

You reblogged a post from my side blog about Thor! It made me happy because I’ve been following you for 2 years and I really respect your opinions. I was starting to doubt my righteous anger because I saw people say that those who didn’t like EG!Thor were fake fatphobic Ragnarok!Thor fans, no matter their reasons. I am glad to see we share the feeling of disappointment, even though I’m satisfied with Thor’s final development as a big bearded warrior and looking forward to the rest of his story.

Thankyou for that! I appreciated your post very much because itarticulated a couple of points that had bothered me a lot. ApparentlyI still have feelings on this subject, so be warned, you’re in fora bit of an essay now.

Firstoff, I care a lot about Thor as a character. I love Norse mythology,I love Douglas Adams’ The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul, Ilove nearly every iteration of Thor as a character that I have everencountered and I love him as a superhero. I enjoyed all of thestandalone Thor movies very much. I have more mixed feelings aboutthe Avengers ensemble movies, but there was no member of the team Iactively did not like and I kept up with most of their solo moviestoo, because I enjoy superhero films as a genre and because theMarvel universe is a very rich playing ground for a whole range ofstories.

Therewas a lot of emotional investment in these last two films –Infinity War and Endgame are the conclusion to years ofworld-building and character development, weaving in dozens ofbackstories and in jokes, all the hellos and goodbyes and moments ofcatharsis that we have been waiting on for years. That is a massive askof any storyteller and there were always going to be disappointments,because with the best will in the world there is no chance ofpleasing every viewer. And this is fandom; perfection is unachievable and disagreement isinevitable. The best we can do is handle disagreements with grace and respect one another’s perspectives.

All.That. Said.

Forme, Infinity War andEndgame failed pretty much everycharacter, one way or another. Other people have written eloquent posts on theway these storylines failed the female characters of the franchise,whose motivations are mostly subsumed by the wants and needs of themen around them. Gamora ismurdered by the man who abducted and abused her, but her death isframed as hissacrifice, a way to advance hisjourney. ClintBarton becomes a grief-driven vigilante serial killer in otherpeople’s countries, but he gets absolution and Natasha ‘red in myledger’ Romanoff dies the martyr’s death in his place. PeggyCarter, furious brave Peggy Carter, becomes a literal trophywife in a goddamn Gordion knot of time-travel nonsense. SteveRogers brought war onto thesoil of a peaceful and well-defended African nation and a whole armywas sent out to fight because he couldn’t face losing a friend, butat the very end he ditches every single friend he’s got in the 21stcentury in order to experience a white picket fence of a happy endingthat erases all of his character development since TheFirst Avenger.

Andthen there’s Thor. Over the course of his three solo movies, he’slost his mother, his father, his brother (multipletimes), his girlfriend (thankgoodness she’s still alive, but it looks like she got Darcy andEric in the break-up), his planet,most of his peopleand all peace of mind.Throughout that litany of suffering, he is kind. He is patient. Hegrows as a man and as a leader, listening to the knowledge of thepeople around him in order to make decisions that benefit everyone,not just himself. He isintelligent, though often underestimated even by those closest tohim. He is capableand resourceful and a friendto anyone who needs him, the very definition of what a superheroought to be.

I’mgoing to talk about schema here for a second. A schema is a cognitiveframework. It’s a psychology term referring to how we organiseinformation based on preconceived ideas. Stories shape perception,telling us what is good and what is bad, what can happen and whatcannot. There is a very narrow pre-existing framework defining what asuperhero can look likeand it’s a shock to the system when that gets challenged. I wasshocked by seeing a fat Thor, and I’m glad of it – it means I hadto think more criticallyabout my personal preconceptions. Thiscould have been a wonderful storyline,dealing with PTSD, bodyimage and negotiating self-perception in the wake of grief andregret. It could have been apositive portrayal of a fat superhero, which outside of maybe comics– which I don’t read and can’t speak for – is absolutely anew and needed thing. It could have offered a vital reminder that howa person’s worth and strength and skill is not bound to theirphysical appearance.

Itdid not do that.

Asyou pointed out in your post, Thor was turned into a sidekick. Morethan that, he was turned into ajoke that revolved around his weight and his trauma, like he was notentitled be anything other than brawn.While Tony Stark gotan emotionally charged reunion with his long-dead father, Thor’sdialogue with Frigga soundedlike a badfirst draft, a scene rushed through with no respect for eithercharacter. He calls her ‘mom’; she tells him to ‘eat a salad’.He walks straight past Loki, the brother he wept over time and again,who died under absurd narrative contrivance about five minutes ago byAsgardian standards. Steve Rogers wasallowed the time to starewistfully at a woman he once lovedbut Thor wasrushed through his own reunion like he waswasting everyone’s time by being sad.

Thoris not permitted to contribute to the narrative in any meaningfulway; where every other lead Avenger hits a beat, however dubious orminor, that establishes theirpurpose in the story, Thoraccomplishes nothing of significance in strategy, battleor reconstruction. The powerdisplayed in Ragnarok and,in a more hit-and-miss style, in Infinity War, isabsent in Endgame. Hissignature weapon is actually handed off to another Avenger. He’snot even allowed to remain a leader of his people. And, look, I loveValkyrie as a character, but she spent centuries as a boozed-upmercenary enslaving gladiators for a glam-rock despot and it took theactual apocalypse to get her to give a damn about the fate of Asgardagain, so the idea that Thor taking a few years off to grieve in away that only harmed himself somehow makes him unfit to rule is atruly staggering double standard. Instead of continuing his growth as a king, he gets shoehorned intosomeone else’s franchise to bicker pointlessly over who gets tomake any decisions at all. I don’t know if Chris Hemsworth is upfor making more movies with Marvel, but I do not trust them to give Thor ameaningful arc any more. Where can he go from here?

Thiswas not an ensemble movie – this was the last Iron Man movie, withCaptain America taking second billing and every other characterscrambling for scraps of narrative significance. Endgamemademe resent characters I usedto like. Italienated me from a series that used to be a source of comfort.It hurts. Not as muchas it did, because I’ve emotionally checked out of the MCU for now,but apart from any other consideration, that level of storytellingfailure offends me.

Iwill acknowledge that Thor’s hair was very good in the big battlesequence. That’s one of the few positive things I have to say aboutEndgame. Great braids.

Youknow what I’d have loved? I’d have loved Wakanda to offer asylumto Asgardian refugees and for a miniseries to revolve around theircross-cultural community building. Two advanced civilisations reelingin the wake of recent upheaval but working together to build a sharedfuture, and Wakanda actually getting something out of it for onceinstead of taking a hit on behalf of the Earth. Shuri would adoreAsgardian tech and she might get to ride a flying horse, whichshe deserves; T’challa andThor would have a lot of common ground what with the disappointingfather figures and modern warrior king lifestyle. Thorwould get heavily involved in agriculture and have fun playing crashdummy for Shuri’s wilder experiments. He’d arrange a travel visaso that Jane Foster could come and play with all that beautiful shinytechnology and they wouldn’t get back together but they would befriends, like they always were underneath the first glow ofattraction. Loki would be there, because to pretend he’ll stay deadat this point is just an insult to our collective intelligence, and he wouldimmediately imprint on Queen Ramonda like an extremely defensive,resentful and heavily-armed duckling.Valkyriemight get to talk through her complicated feelings about duty andbetrayal with the Dora Milaje, particularly Okoye, who couldempathiseafter the Wakandan royal family’s disastrous power struggle.Wakanda could send outintergalactic ambassadors, headed by Nakia, to start playing a rolein the wider universe. The other Avengers could visit sometimes, ifthey behaved themselves.

Soif you’re wondering where Thor goes next for me personally, that’sthe answer.

[bookaddict24-7]

MUSIC MONDAYS:

A series where I recommend a book, review it, and create a short playlist to give a sense of what the book is about.

This review may contain spoilers.

Disclaimer: I received a copy via Edelweiss in exchange for an honest review.

This week’s feature is a book that had me on all kinds of emotional roller coasters. On one hand, I was a naive reader and I thought I knew what was best for the characters, but on the other hand, I was also a frustrated reader because of the protagonist’s at times naive behaviour. But I learned quickly that this book wasn’t just about the awful events that Mafi’s character’s suffer, it’s about finding and believing the hope that not everyone you meet is going to be a jerk; it’s about finding a reason to hope that perhaps certain people deserve more credit than we initially give them. 

A Very Large Expanse of Sea by Tahereh Mafi is a powerful story set in 2002, one year after the events of 9/11. While there have been many novels about the after-effects of that tragic day, Mafi manages to write a memorable novel about a teenage American Muslim girl trying to find her path in a brand new high school. Shirin is pretty sure that the best way to protect herself is to expect the worst from the strangers around her. After all, they judge her when they first meet her, right? Until one boy seemingly doesn’t and his interest could offer Shirin a new perspective. What could happen if she allows herself to fall for someone the rest of the world doesn’t see fit for her? What could happen if her protective walls start to come down? 

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I really enjoyed this. Hell, I will be recommending this to the readers coming into the bookstore until I go blue. But, with that being said, this wasn’t a perfect read. I’ll get my big negative point out of the way so I can fangirl about the things I did love about this book. 

My biggest concern is the portrayal of Ocean. While I can see the way his imperfect character learns some vital lessons due to the way he is portrayed, I am also slightly disappointed that he was shown as such a “perfect” white male character. He was a very good™ character, despite his troubled past. It’s literally one of his characteristics. While I can understand the importance of having someone who sees the world that way Ocean does in a book like this one, it was done in a very unrealistic way. No one is that naive, especially in 2002. Even those who hope for the best from humanity have to have seen the tension growing in the States between the different citizens. I am privileged because I did not experience the wave of hate that came on the heels of 9/11. However, my mother dated an asshole before she met my stepdad and he was from NYC. When he was visiting us here in Canada, he yelled some pretty racist stuff to people who were minding their own business. 

I personally didn’t experience the hate so many lived with in the early 2000′s and the hate that so many still live with now, but in that brief moment I saw how someone that I once thought was cool could hide such a darker side. It was a lesson I never forgot and I can still remember where we were and how he looked yelling that disgusting crap out of our car window. 

My point with this digression is that while I can understand Ocean’s purpose in this book--because Shirin is understandably jaded and careful and we need a character to show her that hope still exists--but his over-the-top naïveté and wishful ignorance made it hard for me to completely fall into the story whenever his “goodness” was mentioned. 

For all of his annoyingly chipper behaviour, Ocean does grow in this novel. He learns to hope, but it comes at a price. While I wasn’t a fan of how he is presented in this novel, I did feel for him and his experiences. Having your positivity thrown in your face isn’t a great experience. 

With all of that being said, however, the rest of the book was just incredible. At first, I didn’t know how to feel about Shirin. I will admit that I became a victim of my own opinions and tried to place my expectations on her. She was a very careful character who knew her own world much better than I did. I fell into the trap of expecting certain things from her, but was happy to experience Shirin’s growth into a character far beyond what I expected her to be. Don’t get me wrong, Shirin was at times naive not unlike Ocean. However, he expected the best and she expected the worst. This at times also grated on my nerves because I wanted her to at least try. 

One of the great things I loved about this book was how Shirin grew to have hope. In a story where so many bad things happen to her because of who she loves, what her beliefs are, and how she looks, it’s incredible to see her grow into a person who is ready to take on the future. Also, I admired how important it was to her to remain true to her identity. She didn’t let the bullying, or the anger thrown at her dissuade her from her beliefs. 

Another interesting point was the comment on how fickle young minds can be. It’s interesting because of how true it is to see how some teenagers follow the pack mind, but most move on until their actions become a regrettable memory. There’s a point where Shirin even comments on how weird her classmates are when their opinions waver and change in certain situations. Even this message gives the reader a sense of hope because it shows that swaying public opinion isn’t as impossible as we might think it is. 

Also, I’m just throwing this in here because it’s still a point of interest in 2018: the double-standard on how boys are raised compared to how girls are raised. The leniency that Shirin’s brother is shown in regards to dating, going out, and the rules is staggering in comparison to Shirin’s own rules. Thankfully, it wasn’t an impossible hurdle for Shirin’s story, but it was something mentioned and I wasn’t entirely surprised to see that we’re still struggling with this today. 

One other topic I want to mention before I finish is that of Shirin’s parents. The differences between immigrant parents who’ve strived for a better life for their families and the children who grew up in the new country was not lost on me. Shirin’s allusions to her parents’ dark pasts made me incredibly sad for Shirin and her brother. I personally believe that everyone has their own struggles. It doesn’t matter how large my struggle is compared to the next person--everyone has a struggle. To tell your children that their struggles aren’t important or as impossible to overcome because they didn’t grow up in a war-torn country is deeply disheartening. Especially when those struggles include racism and physical abuse at the hands of people full of hate. Like many other things in this book, this broke my heart. 

Putting aside all of the sadness, this was a beautifully written book. I fell in love with Mafi’s writing through her middle grade series and I was a tiny bit hesitant going into this one. I was very happy to see that I still enjoy her writing!

 But like other important Young Adult novels coming out recently, I think this is an important book to read. It may not be set in our present time, but it is set in one of the most recent dark times in our history. Racism is always a dark subject to read about, but it’s also something that needs to be talked about. Mafi’s book is something that everyone should aspire to read, if not for the incredible messages of hope and growth and understanding, then for the jarring realities of what it was like to be a young Muslim woman in 2002. 

My Rating: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️.5

Age Recommendation: 13+

Genres: Contemporary, Romance, Racism 

Add it to your Goodreads here.

See the playlist on Spotify here.

The Playlist & Why I Chose this Music:

1. What A Wonderful World by Louis Armstrong

This is the kind of song that is played when we want to remember that though the world may look like crap, there are still things and people who are worth the fight to make the world a better place. Also, this song goes back to the theme of hope. 

2. Don’t Phunk With My Heart by The Black Eyed Peas

So, because this is set a year before I started high school (it’s...been a while), I went ahead and reconnected with a bunch of songs from my teenage years. Anyway, the lyrics to this song remind me of Ocean’s struggle in trying to get Shirin to admit she’s into him. That boy’s heart took a beating in this book. 

3. Lose Control (FT. Ciara & Fat Man Scoop) by Missy Elliott

Shirin and her brother are badass breakdancers. If you’ve ever heard this song, then you know that the lyrics and the beat will immediately make you want to dance. This song connects us to Shirin’s surprisingly fun and cool side. 

4. What You Waiting For? by Gwen Stefani

While one of the songs chosen was for Ocean’s poor heart, this song is for Shirin’s scared heart. She wants something that she’s afraid will destroy her world, but she has to be prepared to take a chance first. 

5. White America by Eminem

This song is pretty self-explanatory. I know this is a controversial choice, but I honestly thought of this song first when it came time to choosing a playlist. Eminem’s lyrics and uncensored observations touch on some of the issues explored in Mafi’s novel. 

6. No Surprises by Radiohead

There’s a moment in the book where we get to see some of Shirin’s music. This song was on the playlist she had created and I thought it was fitting to include it in my fan playlist. I always like including songs that the characters themselves reference. 

7. Mr. Brightside by The Killers

This is all of Ocean’s sunny disposition and his unrealistic expectations of the world around him. While the lyrics themselves don’t correlate with Ocean and Shirin’s relationship, the ironic title of the song and the darker undertones of the seemingly chipper beat shows that things aren’t always what they seem. Ocean learns a lot from his experiences and this song shows a man who is learning to not be Mr. Brightside.

Have you read this book yet? Would you recommend it?

Happy reading!