#i don't know you and so this response is not a criticism of You it is merely my view about singshong's handling of LGBT characters

[thecommunityoftrustworthysinks]

near the start of the essay ooooough this hits hard

(edit) a few more things i wanted to pull out:

(alt text in image description)

basically, supporting trans people means supporting trans men and that means you have to shift your paradigm to fit men into feminism. there's not an alternative

Is there a term for that phenomenon that happens when people tell transmen/transmascs not to go on testosterone/not to try to look more masculine because it'll make them ugly/fat/hairy/bald/whatever negative thing?

I know it's not transmisandry, but does it have a name or is it just general transphobia?

I mean surely that's not NOT transphobia? but I'm also not, like, in charge of how transmasculine people talk about stuff so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[3hks]

How to Write a Truly Terrifying Villain

Have you ever wanted to create a villain that's actually evil? One that can scare your readers yet also leave them with an everlasting impression? An antagonist is so much more than just a "bad guy", and in this guide, we'll explore how to write an evil character effectively!

*GOALS/MOTIVATIONS*

No matter what kind of character someone is, their objectives alone speak volumes about who they are as a person. Therefore, with this villain, I suggest forming a goal that stems from their selfishness.

Although, what does that really look like? Selfishness is actually quite subjective. From what I have seen, a self-serving goal tends to be quite specific since it's a personalized aim. Don't give them a target that's too broad or too generic because chances are, it won't really benefit them. (Ex: World domination)

Am I saying that you absolutely need a greedy antagonist to highlight their malice? No, but it truly is a great place to begin at.

*EMPATHY*

Next, let's talk about empathy. How well do they understand those around them? Do they care?

Many villains we see lack empathy; they aren't concerned about their victims, and sometimes, even their own followers.

However, there's also the opposite case, where the antagonist does have empathy and fully understands what others may feel, but still doesn't care. This dark empathy is truly a testament of their malevolence because they're aware of the physical and mental consequences of their actions, yet they do it anyway. That, in itself, is rather terrifying.

*NEUTRALITY*

If your villain isn't the main antagonist, this might be something you want to consider.

As I mentioned before, this type of character prioritizes themselves over anything and everything. If helping the hero will benefit them, then why not? If assisting another antagonist will be rewarding, then it's worth it. While your character is a villain, their alignment itself might be a bit blurred.

Although it could seem counterproductive to have an "evil character" who occasionally aids the protagonist, the switching of sides actually maintains a sense of unpredictability for your character.

*INTELLIGENCE*

If anything, I highly suggest not making your villain stupid. While I'm sure there are intimidating dim-witted antagonists out there, the truth is, if your character understands themselves, their limits, their abilities, and the events taking place, your readers will automatically see them as competent and intelligent, which is critical to their credibility.

Have them think things through, plan carefully, and act responsibly. They know what they're doing, you just have to prove it.

*ISOLATION*

Another thing that helps is to keep your villain isolated. You don't need to physically keep them away from everyone, but they might be figuratively, emotionally distanced from others. Sometimes this is on purpose, and sometimes it's not.

*LASTING IMPACT*

This may seem obvious to some people, but there's got to be some key event regarding your villain that has lasting impact on the plot, characters, setting, and/or protagonist. It doesn't need to occur during your story, it could have occurred beforehand, but it still must affect the current time period.

Show why they're the villain.

*REASON, DON'T JUSTIFY*

A lot of people (primarily readers) nowadays are obsessed with the idea of justifying a character's poor actions. But the truth is, you can't justify everything, not to mention that it's just unnecessary. It's unrealistic. Instead, provide a reason as to why they chose to do something. What instigated their actions? What goes through their heads? Did their past influence their current motives and character?

Don't try to balance everything out! In the end, a wrong is still a wrong, and it's okay to let it remain as such.

*CONCLUSION*

With all of these ideas taken into consideration, you have to remember that an evil character doesn't exactly correlate to a hateable character. Are there hated villains? Yes! But don't go out of your way to make them loathsome in order to establish their "evil-ness".

At the end of the day, they're still people too, so give them dimension, complexities, and weaknesses to prove it.

Happy writing (and New Year)~

3hks <3

[crownedwithstars]

Anyone who has followed me for some time knows that I like to complain about the treatment of women in fiction, and particularly in headcanons and fanon that treats a female character in a more venomous - and dare I say it, misogynistic - way than canon ever did. There are multiple instances of this in the Silm, but I think Indis is one of the female characters who gets done dirty most often.

The funny thing is, you see it often disguised as "giving her nuance", or as criticism. But when you look at what is presented as said nuance or criticism, and then consider what Tolkien actually wrote about Indis, too often these things have little to nothing to do with one another. In fact, "nuance" appears to mean making the female character more responsible for a male character's bad actions than she actually is.

I don't mean to say that you can't dislike Indis or that it's inherently misogynistic to do so. But it's good to realise the existence of internalised misogyny and how that impacts the way you expect a woman to behave - and if you're criticising her chiefly because her interests and actions are in conflict with those of a male character, it may be useful to examine that criticism more closely.

Some of the things I've seen Indis accused of are: she is creepily obsessed with Finwë (as if unrequited feelings for someone unavailable aren't a common enough phenomenon), her motive is (improper) sexual interest in him which may in fact be predatory, she bears more responsibility for Finwë's actions than he himself does, she actively schemes to make sure Míriel will stay dead so that she can have her man (even though she doesn't get involved with Finwë until after Míriel has declared her desire to remain dead and the Valar have given permission to Finwë to remarry), she may have used some magical means to enchant Finwë, she hates her step-son and is an abusive step-mother to him, and actually she's so terrible that Fëanor's downspiral is more her fault than the literal Satan figure's (who is in text explicitly stated to be responsible for the fact). Fëanor is also presented in the terms of modern understanding of mental health as if these could possibly apply (and as if we had enough information to diagnose him), and his issues are in large part designated to Indis and her actions.

Tolkien didn't really write that much about Indis - certainly not enough for most of the said criticism of her to be more than conjecture. What little he does say about her paints a picture of a person of sweet and joyous temperament who's not embittered in a situation that could have made her deeply unhappy. You can argue that she's selfish or at least inconsiderate of Fëanor - nevermind the fact that Finwë is bent on remarrying and would probably have done it with or without her - but the other way to see the situation is that she thinks she's doing a good thing for them both, helping a man move on and giving a motherless child a new caregiver. Obviously, Fëanor does not want that (although it would explain a lot about their relationship in a way that does align with canon without making one or both of them a bad person: Indis hopes to be a mother to him in a genuinely well-intentioned way, but he feels she's trying to replace his birth mother, and resents her because she's not Míriel). But nothing in the situation indicates that Indis herself has bad intentions, and it's not her or his fault that it doesn't work out. Sometimes it's just not anybody's fault. We don't even know what Fëanor's first reaction is upon learning that Finwë means to remarry: we only know that he does not love Indis or her children and that he moves out of his father's household while still young. It doesn't imply the degree of resentment applied to this situation by fandom.

The idea of Indis wanting to comfort both father and son is also conjecture of course, but it's no less so than any of the ideas listed above where she's presented as an unsympathetic, wanton schemer, and it certainly is no less plausible. Indis is a rather blatant example of how in too much media, women are allowed only two roles: either she's Madonna, or she's a whore, and this is determined by a male perspective. Indis clearly falls into the latter category as a woman whose chastity, obedience and willingness to self-sacrifice do not bend for the male favourite.

If you judge Indis, at least judge her fairly.

[dolphin1812]

M Myriel pretty directly states it, but it was interesting to read this:

"“In case of epidemics,—we have had the typhus fever this year; we had the sweating sickness two years ago, and a hundred patients at times,—we know not what to do.”

“That is the thought which occurred to me.”

“What would you have, Monseigneur?” said the director. “One must resign one’s self.”

This conversation took place in the gallery dining-room on the ground floor."

The distribution of space, as M Myriel points out, defies logic, but it's socially expected because of class differences: the bishop has a mansion for himself and two others while the hospital is overcrowded. It's true that the director couldn't ask Myriel for this space and that Myriel's offer mainly showcases his charitable nature and true commitment to helping his community, even at a personal cost. At the same time, I found the mention of "resignation" fascinating. Myriel isn't only noticing that keeping this much space for himself that he doesn't need when others do and he's responsible for serving them is unjust; he's refusing to accept a problem as unsolvable and to resign himself to the existing system. Myriel, then, is not only distinguished by his charity. He's also hopeful and persistent.

Of course, he can't solve every problem individually (Hugo himself points that out in this chapter). He also isn't calling for systemic change, exactly. For instance, while he indirectly critiques the luxury in which some churchmen live while supposedly serving the poor when switching out his mansion for the hospital, we don't see him directly criticize anyone else here. He's only focusing on his immediate community and his own actions. His charity is also in line with the expected role of a bishop, even if he's especially zealous in fulfilling his duties. Despite that, it's interesting to note that Myriel's hopefulness and persistence in the face of these social issues -- his mindset -- set him apart as much as his values. Although the title of the book leaves a certain impression (as do many of its sadder sections), it's ultimately a hopeful work (we saw this in the preface as well! The novel is needed "so long as" these social problems exist, implying that they could disappear one day). Myriel starts us off by showing the difference that a real commitment to improving the lives of others can have when paired with that hope and willingness to question social norms.

[rawliverandgoronspice]

Always a bit puzzled by people saying that anyone who wanted long-term consequences for TotK Zelda's sacrifice are "edgy".

I'm not even particularly in the camp that she should have remained a dragon forever (I think this should have been Ganondorf's fate, it would have been sooo much more impactful than to explode him and move on but anyway). To be honest, I wish the rules for turning back would have been 1) clear 2) active gameplay on the player so that it feels like it's something we have earned, and 3) not make her have amnesia about it and/or at least having her gain some crucial insight because of the experience.

(also: doesn't she crave knowledge? isn't that insanely mean to have her watch over every civilization and every bit of history ever and then take it away from her? kind of dislike how totk privileges the comfort of the player's feelings over what the characters would actually want or need tbh)

To be perfectly honest, I fully expected us needing to turn her back before engaging Ganondorf so we would fight him together, especially since Zelda as a compagnon exists in the game code already (though in a very subdued state). It feels very very strange to me that all of this mechanic of Sages following us existing and yet we never have the very climactic cool Zelda-staple moment of facing Ganondorf or Ganon together (OoT, WW, TP, ST and probably more that I'm forgetting all did this in some way --even BotW had Zelda more involved than in TotK). I'm not sure Mineru was a compagnon that was needed over Zelda honestly, especially given the kind of non-insight she gives us on the zonai (even if the idea of the mecha is cool, it really could have been Zelda using her zonai + sheikah knowledge to pilot one for us or something).

But anyway: yeah, even if this isn't what I would have wanted personally, I think wanting Zelda to remain a dragon is kind of arguably more respectful of her relationship to Link, in a way, that what the game ended up doing. When she enacted this sacrifice, Zelda decided to trust him to such a extent that she lost herself, reciprocated his trust in her and his devotion to her, and now the future of Hyrule exists beyond her and beyond what Hyrule once was, but she trusts them to follow through and be happy and she will watch over them from the stars moving on. It's fine if we manage to save her from that fate, but even if we don't, honestly this sounds like a beautiful story/tragic romance to me, if you want to read it that way. Tragedy doesn't necesserily involve edginess. Fictional pain isn't always mean, or out to get you.

[possamble]

What are your headcanons about Marcille's mom if you have any? It's interesting that what drew Donato to her was cause she lived the history he studied, or that was said somewhere at least. She must've had an interesting life.

so this was going to be just a normal answer but then I realized I have a Lot of Things To Say. so here goes, a compilation of what we know for a fact from the canon, what I've extrapolated from the visual cues and details, and my theories based on all of that.

Things we know for a fact about Marcille's mother because they were explicitly stated in the manga and supplemental materials:

She was a court mage for a Tall-man kingdom at the southern part of the Northern Continent

Donato, a court historian, fell in love with her because she had lived through the history he was studying, and he courted her for 17 years (age 15 to 32) before getting married

She was a cheerful person who rarely showed extreme emotion and took things as they came

She always cooked a huge meal for Marcille on her birthdays

She remarried a gnome after Donato's death and a short distance away from Marcille's childhood home

Pipi, Marcille's pet bird, was actually older than Marcille and originally belonged to her mother (bird died at 62)

She was extremely heartbroken when Donato died and ultimately ended up instilling a deep fear of mortality in Marcille with her words

the only time she showed extreme emotion in front of her family was when Donato could no longer eat his favourite dish near the end of his life.

She scolded Marcille for being cruel to ants (implying she can have a stern side when needed)

Things that are explicitly shown but mostly through visual cues

She has a very distinctive style of dress always involving a ribbon choker (mirroring Marcille's habit of always wearing a matching choker with any of her outfits that don't cover her neck)

She was almost stereotypically good at housekeeping and traditionally "wifely" things (very frequently depicted wearing an apron or doing some domestic chore when not at work, seems to have been an avid cook).

She knits? (also, note the affectionate smile as she's looking at Donato and Marcille reading a book together in the full panel)

She was as excited for Marcille's milestones as Donato was.

She didn't tell Marcille much about elven food

(there are a couple things that this panel in particular implies:

She lived a good deal of her life (if not being born and raised) in a mainly elven country in the West, implied by her knowing enough of an elven region's cuisine to prefer Tall-man food over it

seems to have a pretty carefree and casual demeanour overall, if this is how she replied to Marcille asking her about it (sounds like she never gave her culinary preferences that much thought to begin with)

slightly related to number 2, it seems like she and Marcille had a fairly casual parent-child dynamic (especially in comparison to the Toudens' memory of their father)

(local elf tastes Italian food once and never goes back))

However, she seems a lot more... serious in most of the other times we see her? Almost like the very stereotypical archetype of a graceful elf.

Subsequent conclusions about her personality:

Usually pretty carefree and cheerful at home, has been a loving and attentive parent throughout Marcille's childhood (while not being so doting that she didn't discipline Marcille).

Slightly more conjectural theories on her personality:

Had a much more graceful and professional personality at work, which would explain the more serious portraits we see of her.

Given that both she and Donato had positions at the royal court, it seems a little odd that she'd go out of her way to do all the housework herself, so maybe she just enjoyed doing it?

Now taping all the evidence together and toeing the line between analysis and fanfiction:

It's clear that she loved Donato very much and was utterly devastated by losing him. But there's one thing that really stuck out to me in what little we see of her:

Doesn't she seem... angry? The way she's gritting her teeth, clutching the tablecloth, and how this is the first and only time we see her eyes opened that wide. In the following panel, you see her being quiet and dejected after her initial outburst. She's still crying very intensely, but her brows are furrowed, and she's not really responding to Donato's affection in her body language.

We're not told the details of how she felt about losing Donato other than that it upset her. But this, to me, implies that she was angry and resented that he was aging, that the end of his life was approaching. An "it's not fair" type of preemptive grief. And if this was the first and last time she cried like this in front of her family, she was either very good at coping in private... or very bad at letting herself feel unpleasant emotions until they become unavoidable and end up overwhelming her.

It's not too remarkable a detail on the surface. It's even reminiscent of what the audience has seen of Marcille. But... when it comes to the big picture, you'd think an elf who voluntarily chose to marry a tall-man and have a half-elf child would have been better prepared for this.

It kind of recontextualizes her cheerfulness to me.

"I'm sure everything's gonna be okay!" (or some variation thereof, depending on what translation you have).

And this is stated to contrast her extreme grief when finally confronting Donato's failing body and eventual death. But I'm wondering if... maybe this optimism was why she was so upset. What if she went into all of it thinking "everything's gonna be okay"? What if she was a little young by elven standards, and just followed her heart thinking that her own resilience would get her through anything?

Of course, only to get completely overwhelmed when she actually loses Donato. She turns into a completely different person. And that's heartbreaking on its own-- but what the audience sees is the effect it had on Marcille. Can you imagine being her, watching your invincible and upbeat mother suddenly lose all the light in her eyes in one go?

I've already made a huge post about how I think Marcille models her "work persona" off her mother, but another thing that stuck with me as I was looking for more details in the manga was this:

copy pasting from the other post i made about it lmao it's like... the second she resigns herself to lifelong pain and terror, there's another portrait of her mother facing her like this. with their heads bowed, in mirrored body language of resignation and despair and sorrow. Except it's posed like Marcille is still looking at her mother but her mother is looking away.

It took me a second to realize, but I think that it's a visual metaphor for the fact that Marcille's mother was the only long-lived role model she had-- and she failed to model healthy grief for her daughter. I don't say this as an accusation or to disparage her as a character, but just as a matter of fact. In her, Marcille was seeing herself older and losing a short-lived spouse or loved one of her own, and all she saw was hopelessness.

But her mother didn't mean to instill hopelessness and terror in her. She wasn't really thinking of how it would truly affect Marcille at all (at least, that's how I'm interpreting her looking down and away from Marcille in the metaphor), she was just sad. And she, in her own way, was trying to protect her daughter and help her prepare for future losses.

What she meant was "loss is inevitable, and you have to learn how to be in pain but live on anyway." What Marcille heard was "loss is inevitable, and you will be scared and hurt for the rest of your life."

Again. Marcille's mother doesn't feature explicitly in the story the way her father does -- but in so many ways, her shadow, her silhouette, her reflection is always hanging over Marcille.

All that to say... headcanon-wise (everything from here on is 100% without evidence lmao), I'd like to think that she matured and realized that she failed Marcille. I imagine her being regretful about it, wanting a chance to fix it but never finding a way to insert herself back into Marcille's life when Marcille is so so so busy becoming the most accomplished mage possible. I imagine her being herself again, now, so many years after her loss and after remarrying -- but with her cheerfulness tempered with a lot more wisdom and the pain of having gone through loss like that. I think the second Marcille actually tells her what happened in the dungeon, she'd want to go running to her daughter again -- if Marcille tells her the full truth instead of just being embarrassed she let things get that far. (oh, the tragedy of her wanting to be more like her mother and an accomplished adult who doesn't need to be babied... being embarrassed to actually tell her mother how much she fucked up...)

There's also the tension of her having remarried -- I know that there's at least a little bit of resentment that Marcille harbours about that, because she's childish like that at heart even if she makes an effort not to externalize it. I think that her mother would be aware of that, potentially adding to her sense of guilt and apprehension at trying to reappear/intrude on Marcille's life. I honestly don't think Marcille has met her stepfather -- or even considers him a stepfather rather than "mama's new husband" and kind of a total stranger. I think she and her mother actively don't talk about it in their correspondence, like an elephant in the room.

but, ultimately, I think her mother is on her side no matter what. Ancient magic? Dark necromancy? Sure, she'll feel guilty and like she was partially responsible for setting Marcille down such a painful path, but she wouldn't care. that's her daughter!! she would've moved back west and been petitioning for her at the court, buying a house right next to the Canaries barracks and visiting her every day that she wasn't on a mission. And if her husband had opinions on Marcille becoming a "dark arts user," he either gets over it or it's divorce with him. Yes, she might have had her optimism completely humbled by losing Donato like that -- but she's still headstrong and self-assured and she doesn't care what people think of her. It's her way or the highway and she's always going to be in Marcille's corner.

(She also needs a name lol. I went with Juno, just to be cute about "Marcille"s closest real life equivalent being Marcella, which is the female version of Marcellus, which in turn is a diminutive of Marcus, which was derived from Mars. Absolutely in love with Marcille potentially being named after Ares/Mars the fucking god of war btw)

[seventeendeer]

adventure time, baby, I'm going to keep it real with you: you had the perfect meta setup (a spinoff of a children's cartoon made for adults who grew up with said cartoon) for a story about two characters desperate to return to simpler times (fionna longing for the subconscious memory of a fantasy land where nothing is complex and she won't have to face the trials of young adulthood in her now-mundane world, simon longing to lose his mind again so he won't have to remember his grief) coming to realize that the "simpler times" they remember were never as straightforward as their idealized memories (fionna realizing that her black-and-white worldview was actually just deeply biased and ultimately harmful, simon realizing that ice king was just as miserable as simon himself and simply lacked the tools to parse his own emotions), the idealized past they want to return to was never real, and in order to move forward, they have to face the painful realities they've been trying to avoid, mature as people, and learn to see beauty and value in their own respective lives, even if they're not the lives they'd hoped for

and then that didn't happen. there was a perfect metaphor for the false allure of nostalgia using THE "whimsical at first glance/shockingly grim under the surface" children's cartoon RIGHT THERE. How Did You Fuck That Up

[demigodseameg16]

..So not only are they bashing one of the few characters of color and saying a lot about themselves by how people are defending one of the few disabled characters, they also decided that being like Alya, when written by the RIGHT PEOPLE, a girl who is journalistic, loyal to her family and friends, clever, knows what is being put down and how to spin it to her advantage and to get to the actual truth, not just the pretty picture, is a bad thing.

*cracks knuckles*

Let's begin shall we?

Number one - The defense of Alya: Aren't we tired of this same old routine? I may not agree with some of Alya's actions (less on Alya's side, more on why they occured) but reading through those Instagram comments it seems like the only negative thing that's uniting them against Alya is because she's a dark skinned French-Martinique girl who made one mistake in believing Lila. To which I say, SHE IS A CHILD. She is obviously going to make mistakes on the path of her career, and in the end, she still came to Marinette's defense! She knew Marinette would never cheat and argued against her expulsion along with Adrien! She tried getting Marinette outside when she was depressed because she was picking up how her best friend was feeling long before her actual friend could put those feelings into words! She got akumatized for Marinette because she just wanted to understand her feelings and she was scared she was failing her first friend! Or did we forget that Alya is the new kid too, who probably moved from French-Martinique to a whole continent, in a place that speaks a different form of French, to which she may be criticized for her body shape and skin color because of beauty standards laid deep in society! And also because unlike other girls her age she's already so career driven and proud of being a nerd/geek! Alya is a middle child who shoulders a ton of responsibility, she takes care of her little sisters all while running her blog, which is the most used blog in Paris, while ALSO making sure her older sibling isn't pushing herself too hard. Her mom is a full time chef at one of the fanciest hotels in Paris, so that means she's going to be working overtime, and her dad is in charge of a whole zoo, so he's working weird hours too. And we are still bashing her because of an animation error? For her asking her friend for evidence of Lila's lies, a valid question for a reporter because she just can't take the words of a best friend because that would be bias? Just because Marinette was right that one time, doesn't mean she'll be right ALL the time. So if acting like Alya is a bad thing, I'll gladly be putting on my glasses more often and start wearing a fox miraculous.

Number two - The defense of Sublime: Ladies and gentlemen, enbies of the jury, what the actual fuck. Unless Lila, a girl from a Mediterranean region in Europe, who is a naturally tan skinned girl, decided to fully commit to the "disabled" bit and chop her legs off while bleaching her skin, all while switching her DNA from most likely Southern Italy to Belgium, a French speaking country with Germanic roots, I ask of you, what the actual fuck. That's too far, even for Astruc. We know Lila is capable of what Miraculous calls "masterful disguises", and apparently in the London special her hair was blonde and her eyes were violet, but she still had her natural skin and oh I don't know, HER LEGS? WE SAW HER LEGS, YES? We may not know what Lila's "true appearance" is, but I'm going to assume it's a girl with a healthy tan, and two working legs. Sublime is pale, and doesn't have those last two. That doesn't make her Lila, BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE HER A VILLAIN. And also, it rules her out of being Lila's accomplice, because she's been training for the Paralympics her whole life. Do you know how much training that requires? And she's doing TRACK for goodness sake. I once tried cross country only for the interest of throwing the javelin (I never got to throw the javelin). They had to sign me up for track first. My social schedule? Gone with the wind. My art time? Vanished like my dad. My rehearsal time? On life support. (Ironically, I was really good at all the stretches, and pretty fast for my condition of having, ya know, leg problems. I wouldn't be able to run with the team, but I did practices with them and I came to every meet and cheered them on and helped them stretch and got them water (and for that, I was not bullied because Track had my back. You never mess with the person who can perfectly get out a cramp in your leg, while also gives you water at the perfect temperature.)) Realistically girlie has no free time outside of that besides school, and people think she can be an ally to a supervillain SHE JUST MET? Because let me remind everyone, Sublime just moved to Paris, from Belgium. All while Hawkmoth was going down, she was in Belgium. She doesn't even know who these heroes ARE, let alone the villains.

Look, you are allowed to like who you like, and you are allowed to dislike who you dislike. But I draw the line at liking a character who basically supports a system that allows ableism, racism, harassment to run free, all in the name of her "vision". Because if Marinette is happy, then that's all that matters, right? It doesn't matter that there can be real life consequences to these type of things, for kids watching this show and seeing bad behavior being rewarded and that influencing their developmental skills, and for all those kids of color and disabled kids or combination of the both who see that they are the bad guys simply by existing in your standards, letting their feelings not be validated or be acknowledged all for some other person's happiness to be achieved. A person who is supposed to be a hero, an "inspiration for little girls everywhere". Except dark skinned girls. Oh, and disabled girls. And girls questioning their identity, whether it be heritage, gender or sexuality (because it's not just little kids who watch this show, tweens and teens watch it too). And girls that might have a bit more money than other people in your class, or girls who don't have as much money as others in your class. And for girls who aren't the standard beauty. And for boys who want a girl role model too? Sorry, you aren't important unless you are the sacrifice or love interest, preferably both. Yes, an inspiration to children everywhere indeed.

Bro as someone who uses a walking aid (a cane) and is disabled seeing the new trailer for Miraculous Ladybug makes me absolutely furious. I have never felt so much hatred for a fictional character before and yet here we are. I didn't like Marinette before but like, this just. This hits way too close to home and I know Astruc is going to frame it in a way that makes Marinette the good guy. But NOTHING excuses touching a disability aid without permission, especially fooling around with it and sabotaging it. And the fact that a younger generation is going to see this, I absolutely can't. I feel so bad for disabled children who will see this scene on TV and have their feelings be in the wrong, shown that they are the bad guys for getting upset, or heavens forbid being disabled. Screw you Astruc.

[giantkillerjack]

ur post about queerbaiting and the dismissal of people in fandom to critical analysis is so incredibly true thank you. i feel like marcille's writing in the anime has been super misogynistic a lot of the time and every time i bring this up all anyone wants to say is "well maybe this isn't for you! and you shouldn't watch the show!" like. i don't think this is about taste lmao, i am analyzing the text in front of me and coming to conclusions about the craft of it.

[This is in reference to this post]

YES!!! THANK YOU!!!!!

It is so so frustrating!!!!

It's like being at a restaurant and being served a bunch of delicious appetizers, but then one of the bread appetizers is literally just a plate of crumbs; and then when you're like, "Hey, uhh, why are we being served literal crumbs?", a bunch of the other folks eating at the restaurant are like,

"WELL HOW ABOUT YOU JUST DON'T EAT HERE THEN??!? YOU MUST NOT BE THAT HUNGRY, SO JUST FIND ANOTHER RESTAURANT AND DON'T EAT WITH US!!"

And maybe they say it politely, but "Aw, sorry, maybe this restaurant just isn't for you 💖" is just trading out an aggressive dismissive tone for a patronizing dismissive tone. It's the same message.

And it's like! I was honestly happy to move on from the crumbs once my complaint was acknowledged because the meal overall is still delicious, but then all these folks got SUPER WEIRD AND DEFENSIVE ABOUT IT, so now I find myself double-checking all the other dishes -- and, actually, you know what those eggs DO look a Iittle misogynistic undercooked!!!!

[sillyfudgemonkeys]

About a month ago my new coworker told me he didn't like LoK (that's fine). When I asked why he said it reminded him too much of The Last of Us 2. And I was like ??????? HuH???? So I asked him to elaborate, and due to time constraints (and maybe him just....refusing to really elaborate????) the most I could get out of him was "Korra/Ellie choosing not to kill Kuvira/Abby at the end" and that was "bad."

AND THAT'S IT! Nothing else, no expansion. So I have to tell y'all, my ass hasn't been ok since. It's keeping me up at night. I'm trying to figure out what he means. Cause the math ain't mathing lemme tell you. I think it's all bullshit TT0TT Like this man had a vision, but god does he need some fucking glasses.

I haven't been this inside my own head since I was debating with air about P5. TT0TT

[weed-cat]

sincerely and genuinely you guys are just Saying Stuff 😭😭

[toomuchsky]

just saw one of those long posts of resources but it was trying to provide resources for like. so many different world issues. and anyway what i’m trying to say is that the only news article it had for kashmir was about how kashmiri hindus are being targeted or whatever and it truly makes me scream and also like? maybe we shouldn’t be creating long ass posts like this for every single issue in the world. maybe we should recognize that there might be nuance and history that’s hard to parse out if you’re not familiar with that area.

[ilikekidsshows]

The writers have done everything to minimize Marinette's fault in this besides just, not doing this plot.

This thing just really drove it home for me how this isn't even the first time the writers have done this: including an obviously bad story idea with no way of it actually being good and trying and failing to put duct tape on all the holes in it instead of just, you know, not writing a story that needs to be this convoluted in a vain attempt to make their heroine still look like the good guy.

Like, I've said this repeatedly and no Sentidefender will ever convince me otherwise: the SentiAdrien plot was never going to leave the characters looking good. The writers knew this, which is why it's not an actual plot, it's just a twist that's never said word-for-word, merely implied by the characters in a way that makes the fans of the theory feel vindicated while hoping anyone who'd look deeper into it just ignores it. The writers knew it was a bad idea and this shows in the way they wrote it, but they wrote it anyway.

It's the exact same thing here. They obviously knew this story is bad, that's why they have all this stuff shoved into the episode to make Marinette look like she's less responsible. But, if they knew this was bad, why did they write it? Why did they go with such an obviously bad story idea that they had to twist things around to make it look less bad while writing it? Nothing about this episode so far seems so valuable that it absolutely had to be preserved as a story, especially with how much work needed to be put into justifying it.

These aren't cases of the writers not realizing how bad something looked until fans started tweeting about it angrily so they then wrote an episode addressing the criticisms. These are cases where, during the process of telling their story, they're already trying to pre-emptively deflect criticisms. It just seems like a lot of effort when we consider Astruc's tweet about how costly script rewrites are.

Or, are they so cheap in the script-writing process that don't even rework or abandon ideas that obviously won't work? Because the Wisemen of the Groupchat have been taking a look at some of the things in this show that would make more sense if they were plots originating from the pitch concept era of Miraculous. Like, if Cat Noir wasn't actually Adrien but Félix, Marinette's self-serving anti-hero sometimes-ally, him giving up his powers to make her stronger for the finale could have been the culmination of a redemption-arc, instead of a shot into the heart of the emotional core of the main superhero plot.

I once called Marinette a Frankenstein's Monster of a protagonist because of how her different archetypes being so shoddily combined, but I'm starting to think all the writing in this show is a Frankenstein's Monster of new writing and Astruc's old ideas from over ten years and several reimaginings ago.

did you see the spoilers for ml season 6 where there’s a new girl with a prosthetic leg and that leg ends up broken and marinette’s involved somehow? honestly i’m gonna give marinette the benefit of the doubt for now and just assume this is either a huge misunderstanding/accident or extremely misleading spoiler just because this is a serious thing, like I was super disappointed with how her character’s written in season 4 and 5 but I just don’t want to believe the writers would come up with something like this when this would easily be one of the worst things she’s ever done (if she’s actually responsible). I saw the spoiler on TikTok and there’s several explanations I’ve seen in the comments:

the new girl (idr her name) is lila/cerise in disguise and she wants to ruin marinette’s reputation (iirc the writers said she’s nice and not a villain but maybe they just don’t want to spoil the plot for obvious reasons)

marinette didn’t have bad intentions/it was an accident/misunderstanding/spoilers are too misleading/not enough information yet

and my least favorite explanation…the new girl was trying to get with adrien (some fans are saying this to say this is all part of her scheme to get adrien to break up with marinette and date her instead but some are saying this to justify marinette if she was actually at fault for this)

I think my main concern is how the writers are going to address this. What if they try to justify it if marinette really was at fault? Or what if it’s all a misunderstanding but then they put the new girl to the side to focus on how sad this is for marinette? Are they going to be able to address this in a way that doesn’t come across as ableist while also not making their protagonist look like a bad person? What do you think?

---

I just saw the leak, but at first I couldn't find it, so I’d already written a response before that, so here's me describing the possible nightmare scenarios before the writers proved me right about their priorities:

Like, hot take, but it doesn’t matter what the new girl is doing, messing with her mobility aid would still be absolutely unforgivable. Even if it’s Lila in disguise, Marinette has already exhibited so much ableism in trying to prove her disabilities aren’t real that I would just say that the writers shouldn’t be allowed to as much as mention any disability ever again. “A person claiming they’re disabled could be lying to get special considerations, so make sure to check any claims of disability, no matter how awful you come across for doing it,” is not a lesson that has any place in a children’s cartoon, even accidentally. And that’s exactly what any scenario with a girl faking a disability / using their disability to get closer to Adrien would entail as well, the idea that we should be suspicious of disabled people trying to “cheat” their way to things that “belong” to us.

But, like, even if it actually is going to be aiming to be an actual lesson in disabilities where it’s all a misunderstanding/mistake, the thing is that, lately, I’ve been looking back at the “lessons” in this show, even in the earlier seasons, and I just don’t have faith in these writers’ ability to deliver any kind of moral to kids in a consistent way, unless they’re going to have a character directly talk to the screen to explain what the moral is.

Let’s use ‘The Mime’ as an example. The scenario in this episode is that Marinette, through her clumsiness, deletes the most important video Alya had filmed so far, and then spends the rest of the episode trying to recreate the video in order to cover up for her mistake. In the end, it turns out there was no problem because Alya had already saved a copy of the video because she expected something like Marinette deleting it to happen, so she was never even mad or disappointed, but Marinette still sets up Alya to get a one-on-one interview with Ladybug. What did Marinette learn in this episode exactly?

The most good faith interpretation of the episode is that the point is that you own up and make up for your mistakes, hence Marinette setting Alya up to get an interview with Ladybug. But this message is muddled up by the fact that, even before the retool, the writers didn’t want Marinette suffering any real consequences for messing up, or to show her messing up in a way that couldn’t be “fixed”, so the video was actually safe and no irreparable damage was done. Alya had foreseen that Marinette would mess up and planned accordingly. This takes the wind out of the sails of the lesson because of course Marinette would do something nice for Alya, who’s such a considerate friend who never gets mad at her and plans around Marinette’s flaws. It’s a pretty different thing to go out of your way to apologise or make things up to someone who is actually mad at you for a good reason, and it requires a lot more courage. The situation in ‘The Mime’ is the easiest version of this situation imaginable for Marinette, but completely unrealistic for anyone facing this kind of situation in real life.

So, with this kind of previous showing back when I still had faith in this show, how would I expect them to deal with Marinette accidentally messing with someone’s mobility aid post-retool? I’d expect a lot of focus on how upsette Marinette is, because that’s the show’s number one priority outside of the love quest, with the show going out of it’s way to make it very clear that Marinette didn’t mean to, she feels really bad about it and she’s scared of how the new girl will react. At the end of the episode she would gather her courage and face the music, and it turns out the new girl was actually getting a new mobility aid that very same day and she wouldn’t have needed the old one any longer anyway. And then Marinette will maybe make some gesture of friendship that the new girl gladly accepts, no hard feelings. Any normal person would still be pissed about their expensive mobility aid being messed with, but the writers of this show never have characters react normally when the normal thing to do is not instantly forgive Marinette. So this scenario would be making things easy for Marinette, but completely unrealistic for the viewing audience.

Simply put, I really, really really hope the sneak preview is purposefully misleading, as they tend to be, and the crew doesn’t try to tackle the topic of physical disabilities with their tendency to favor the perspective of their coddled, able-bodied protagonist.

—

After seeing the leak:

So, like, fucking hell, way to further sully the idea that Marinette ever took her job as Ladybug seriously. Just to make herself look like the victim when she’s caught stalking someone (something she insisted last season she’d stopped doing), she goes so far as faking being Akumatized, transforming into Ladybug and jumping right in the middle of the field, of this girl's path, to scream about an Akuma attack. Like, the reveal that Sublime knew there was actually no Akuma and that Tomoe apparently made the leg less sturdy on purpose doesn’t make it better when Marinette got Sublime slippery and then startled her enough to make her slip. People break perfectly fine legs from slipping, it's why anti-skid devices sell so well in winter. All of this being an accident doesn’t make it okay, and Marinette sure as hell didn’t have anything close to those “good intentions” her stans love to attribute to her.

But, of course, her victim is going to be a perfect flawless angel who wasn't even upset about the stalking, instead defending Marinette to Ladybug, just in case saying: “this girl I know pretended to be Akumatized because she was caught stalking me” might make Marinette look bad to the audience. She also instantly reassures Ladybug, the one who actually caused her to slip, who hasn't done anything more than stare at her slack-jawed, because god forbid anyone ever say anything about Marinette that isn't validation or praise while she's too busy freaking out about herself.

Like, Marinette causes Sublime to break her leg, and we instantly see the victim in this situation go: “I’m okay, I’m not hurt”, while Marinette just stands there having her personal little panic attack. Like, a girl lost her leg, and the writers still try to sell Marinette as the injured party by having the victim insist she's okay while Marinette is having another one of her manipulative, please-feel-sorry-for-me-audience emotional breakdowns. The writers seriously made Marinette’s victim prioritize reassuring her over anything else.

I knew the writers were going to have Marinette be instantly forgiven, but I wasn’t expecting it to be so instant that she didn’t even get to finish processing her fuck-up. Or to go so out of their way to make Marinette seem less at fault because, like, Tomoe messing with the leg on purpose isn't a villain scheme, it was just to make Marinette look better in comparison.

The writers have this ability where, when I write down what I think would be a very likely way for one of their stories to go very badly, they do just that while still managing to make it worse.

[bookwyrminspiration]

dira bookwyrminspiration mcquillington i'm so sorry in advance the way i'm writing this fic feels so mid but i don't know how to fix it. spiritually banging my head against the wall. rocking back and forth. staring at this google doc and going How The Fuck Do I Resolve This Conflict. praying the qpr keefex fluff at the end makes up for how mid this is probably gonna turn out on the hurt/comfort-esque end-

Izzy i am shaking you shaking you shaking you. please! stop! undervaluing your work and apologizing for it!

You are a talented, capable writer, and I know I'm going to greatly enjoy whatever you create regardless because you've created it. Even if it's mid, I'm still going to. To be more serious for a moment (I'm not upset or mad, I promise): what situation have you put me in here?

It may seem innocuous, as you're criticizing yourself and expressing frustration with your own writing, but you're doing so publicly in a self-deprecating way about a fic you've shared you're writing as a gift for me. There's nothing wrong with being critical of your work, acknowledging its flaws and admitting when it's not satisfying to you, working to improve and change it. But this isn't quite that; you're being mean to yourself! And because of how you've reached out to me to say it, I'm now also affected by it. What response options do I have? To let it slide and in that way reaffirm your perspective? To once again remind you that I'm going to be happy no matter what you make or its quality? To tell you I'm sure it's not mid and dismiss legitimate critique? It's not the best position to be put in, though I know it wasn't intentional.

This is my polite, humble request for you to be nicer to yourself in critiquing your work and being frustrated with it, both for your sake and that of those around you, because it affects more than just you. I've found that when I notice a flaw in something I've done and want to point it out first so I don't feel as bad if someone else notices (as opposed to neutral, legitimate critique), just say nothing. You don't need to say something positive in it's place, just don't point it out, and odds are no one else is even going to notice or say anything. We're here to enjoy what everyone creates, not pick it apart, and pointing out that flaw gives it a foothold it wouldn't have had otherwise, and others may now have to contend with it too. That works for me, but that doesn't mean it's the best option for everyone; just sharing as an example of an alternative

Anyway, I saw you started a new draft and am very curious and excited to see it whenever you finish! I'm sure I'm going to love it :)

[scarletfasinera]

All of the responses I keep reading on the antitheist post (because I hate myself I guess) about hell being abusive to teach children all going "actually you're just talking about CHRISTIANITY because JUDAISM doesn't believe in hell" as if Christianity and Judaism are the only religions ever. as if there aren't literally thousands upon THOUSANDS of religions out there in the world that have some kind of concept of hell that is used as a form of power and control to scare children and threaten people into submission within it. But sure, your one or two religions you can mention off-hand that don't have a hell-like concept are the reason the "antitheist" part of the post should be written off and the reason you can try to reduce the post to "just being about christianity". ok.

[wreckedhoney]

^^ "coming to the conclusion that positioning the "can people enjoy things that would be immoral IRL in their fiction" debate as a proship v anti fandom debate is akin to pretending that "should we have the death penalty" is a discussion that only matters in Death Note discourse"

not proshipper not anti but a secret third thing (person who has a career in the media and, through covering legislative politics, has watched "associating with problematic fiction or entertainment is an indicator of moral degeneracy" rapidly become a mainstream GOP position that they are encoding in legislation to target the queer community under the guise of protecting children, thus coming to the conclusion that positioning the "can people enjoy things that would be immoral IRL in their fiction" debate as a proship v anti fandom debate is akin to pretending that "should we have the death penalty" is a discussion that only matters in Death Note discourse — the extent and manner to which fiction affects reality is an issue that is immediately relevant to today's US politics, and to summarize my opinions on the matter in fandom terms would be to diminish the ways this debate is affecting america Right The Fuck Now. and i have stopped taking "this person is bad for shipping the wrong anime thing and being horny about it" in any sort of good faith ever since I saw it literally used as part of a GOP smear campaign against a transgender state legislator in an attempt to defend the right from backlash after they used their supermajority in the Montana house to prevent her from speaking on the floor. Anyway I think everyone on this site, especially Americans, could benefit from ceasing to think in proship v anti vocabulary and instead developing coherent political positions on the nature of fiction that do not directly align with current fascist political tactics)