#i just wanted to let people know i've changed my stance on meta

[essenceofarda]

for forever i hated on the idea of fandom Meta (and Academia-esque works on fandom topics) bc I felt too dumb to understand any of it. Now I kinda wish I could get into making or writing Tolkien Meta (?) but I'm still, unsurprisingly, too dumb for that 😂

I'll just leave it to the smart fandom folk lol

[araneitela]

Deception and manipulation. And quite frankly, why I disagree with fanon's vehement inclusion of both for Kafka's character. I've been sitting on this for quite a while now, and I one day want to write a much longer meta on it, but I wanted to "briefly" touch on it for the ones following me, so that you know what to expect, and well, what not to expect.

Nothing within canon inherently thus far to me, has shown Kafka to be dishonest, and it's actually one of the things that further drew me to her character as I continued into HSR, the fact that she isn't. But, I've been re-watching all of her scenes yet again today to see if I can budge myself on this, but I'm still firmly rooted in my belief that Kafka is not deceptive as people make her out to be, and if anything, I feel even stronger about this today than I did yesterday, despite actively trying to find things that would prove the opposite. All I can see, honestly, is that she actively tells the truth when on screen. This entire belief that she's anything akin to deceptive, manipulative, or dishonest is genuinely just an audience's perception that stems from the general, go-to assumption that someone who has been brandished a 'villain' bears every bad trait in existence. And the audience comes to hold that perception because it's what numerous characters on our screen seem to think (one of the earliest examples of this would be Himeko and March 7th, but primarily the latter). She has a bounty of 10.899 billion credits on her head, yes, so far that's the highest that we've seen, but we also know that the Stellaron Hunters have been closely involved with a lot of chaos that's occurred throughout the cosmos (and the other hunters do not possess the ability that she does). But we need to not interlace bad traits where they, in my opinion, don't belong.

Let me elaborate a little bit on my stance here so I don't go haywire in my tags. Also, please note that this touches on her character/dialogue and what we see within the story, her "games" such as the Jepella Rebellion touch on a different element of her character: boredom. That's for another day. Anyway, yes, I will also touch on her spirit whisper, because I know that's also a huge contender into this 'deception' theory.

The first scene that holds proper and deeper nuance that we're witness to, is when she speaks to the Trailblazer in the very beginning after awakening them. We see 'Listen:' at the very beginning, which we know is something she uses to signify the effects of her spirit whisper. Now if one were to simply take her spirit whisper, at its essence, as manipulative and that's that without taking intent and practice into account, then there's nothing I can say, but I will assume that's not the case here. Not anywhere in the lines that follow (and here are the choices), does Kafka insinuate any specific action for the Trailblazer to take, if anything, she insists on the existence of their own choice and will to 'reach the end of their story'. 'Listen' in this entire sequence is a call to attention, in the way that a person can wave their hand in front of your eyes or snap their fingers near you. The Trailblazer in this context is confused, they've just woken up and are unsure where they are, what's happening and perhaps, even who they are exactly. So the call to attention makes total and utter sense. Her spirit whisper isn't merely hypnosis, if you look at its capabilities, it can be used in various ways. Now outside of her SW, you hear the softer and more authentic tone of her voice (for those unaware of what I mean: here) when she speaks to them, and you actively see a change of expression depending on your answer to her that, quite frankly, is too genuine to me alongside the change of voice to take them in any other way than at direct face value. And lastly, she answers every question posed to her by the TB within the time constraints that they are under. Does she answer them elaborately? Not exactly, but there is quite literally, no need for it. She's not being dishonest, she's not being deceptive, she's actually being quite caring, if one dare use the word (and I do).

Second, the Astral Express visit. For starters, not once does she actively use her SW here in any capacity. She reacts to what Himeko says to her, and even entertains the 'accusations' and even gives away a bit of information that by all accounts is true, the Astral Express and Stellaron Hunters both pursue, in their own ways, the most dangerous objects of the universe. They are in some capacity, two sides of the same coin. From thereon out, she doesn't dwindle or waste any time (hers or theirs), she gets to the point of the Xianzhou Luofu, she says where it is, explains what happened, and what she knows will happen if the crew doesn't go there. She also discloses that she wants to retrieve Blade. Does she disclose the entire 'idea' of how they will end up clearing the Stellaron Hunters' reputation? No, but she has no idea on the reliability of any of them, and two (Himeko, and March 7th) seem 'hostile' towards her, and one (Welt) is hesitant at best; there is absolutely zero grounds for her to entrust them with the steps of their plan. Aside from that, the entire plan that we see unfold after that quite literally never endangers any of them, if anything, it only makes them look good, and guess who the Stellaron Hunters would owe a favor to after all of this? The Astral Express. Who would the Xianzhou owe a favor to? The Astral damned Express. The ones going on a limb here, despite having a 'script', is Kafka and the Stellaron Hunters as a whole. Point me at the genuine dishonesty or manipulation in this, and if you want to add a scoop to it, any ill-intent.

And then we get to the actual Luofu. Honestly, I need someone to tell me where she lies. Even before she ever gets captured, and they're chasing after her; right at the beginning, she literally says why the chase continues, and why she's not stopping yet: 'What a hassle, this place is too far for the diviner. See you up ahead.' Take her at face value, it's what she wants from you. Granted, she can profit if you don't (but at this point, I would beg to differ), but she's not trying to get you to believe any lie, if she was, she'd be telling one.

"Best future? Best for who? As if you'd consider anyone but yourself." — March 7th "If I said 'best for the universe', would you believe me? Best for me, naturally." — Kafka

And as much as one might want to try and rub my nose in "it" at this point, I'd like to ask what anyone is trying to rub my nose into. Again, is she not being pretty forthcoming? She's not saying more than she needs to, but that's not being deceptive. If someone doesn't ask for more information, then why should you give them... more information than necessary?

"I have no interest in the words of wanted criminals - especially those skilled in the art of manipulation." — Fu Xuan.

/shakes the bars of my cage. Yes, she uses spirit whisper, we know that she does. But again, this is an audience's perception of a 'villain' at its definition, rather than a judgement call made for one in specific. I understand Fu Xuan, of course, I do, but I'm not taking an 'in-game' stance, I'm sitting in the audience's seat and dissecting what I see.

I just, where is she dishonest? She proceeds to talk to the Trailblazer at length, and goes as far as to admit that the Stellaron Hunters are not entirely innocent. Not once is it claimed that the SH are void of any blame, she takes it, here and during the Jepella Rebellion trailer (even if, yes, it is a mock trial and she's hypnotizing them, yes, I know, "the proof is in the pudding THERE, Sae!", I'm arguing nuance, not a case of 'Kafka is always honest). Guys, she comes clean entirely. I'm starting to go feral, I know, but I just don't understand. I don't get it. /semi-tugs at hair. We're almost at the end of her scenes, and I still don't see it.

I don't understand. I don't understand. And then in 1.2, Waterscale Gorge, she stops them all from fighting, has them stand down. And when Dan Heng asks her what she did, she answers it well enough. And guess who doesn't question it upon his arrival, witnessing it? The 'hotshot General' in question: Jing Yuan.

I understand 'interpretations', but I fail to see how the massive overwhelming part (if not bordering the entirety) of fanon has such a severe attachment to this concept of Kafka being inherently deceptive, or have her whole existence shrouded therein. I don't see where this is the case. We can even look at her trailer, a Dramatic Irony, and look when she speaks at the end to the last guard in question. Some could argue that she lies to him when she offers the flip of the coin, but she doesn't. She never once actually offers him a chance to live, she never once insinuates that if he guesses correctly, that he could live, that is an assumption that the audience makes, rather than it being a choice that she actively presents. 'As for the ending, want to take a guess?' One might try to argue deception with me here, but I'd like to simply fire back: where is her deception? It only exists if you hear something that she never says, that is not something that she puts in your head; that's a choice that you make. A choice, a choice, a choice. The entire thing that she preaches about since the dawn of time when we awoke as the Trailblazer. Where is she lying? It's easy to call someone else out on something that you, yourself, create in your mind. Now do I think an argument can be made, there? Sure, for I absolutely don't make the case for her to be exceptionally and thoroughly 'transparent', but it's all about nuance. It's about, quite honestly, looking at the imagery of a spider. Where is that little quote I came across a while back— ah yes, here:

“The spider's web: She finds an innocuous corner in which to spin her web. The longer the web takes, the more fabulous its construction. She has no need to chase. She sits quietly, her patience a consummate force; she waits for her prey to come to her on their own, and then she ensnares them, injects them with venom, rendering them unable to escape. Spiders – so needed and yet so misunderstood.” — Donna Lynn Hope

An innocuous corner that can be avoided, she doesn't scheme and try to lure you into a web that would mean your destruction; more often than not, you could see it rather well ahead of you, and the intrigue is that you would walk into it almost willingly. It's alluring, it's tempting to those of curious nature that seek to unravel and explain, it's intricate, it's beautiful, why wouldn't you want to draw yourself into it? But the spider at the center is not the one that coaxes you, even if she's the creator of that ever intricate web. And yet, when you get wrapped up into it, she is all encompassing, and most don't come out alive as we see. And your fate is cruel, just like— well, fate is cruel. But is she, like Kafka, manipulative? Or is she, while you may so strongly want to believe the opposite, much more honest than you wish she was? And is that why she is cruel? Is that not the cruelest?

[nalyra-dreaming]

@ the nonny with the two-part ask (which I'm not adding here bc of the references):

The thing is, that the perception of the show characters clashes for some with the more than established (as in 50 years established) version.

The show added an astonishing meta level and social commentary, and if fanfiction does not add that - or does not add it to the satisfaction of some - then that is sometimes seen as an affront.

Now, I do not know the fic you were talking about, and I did not go to check. I am mostly staying in canon myself, because as said before, I waited over 3 decades for my vampires, and I have no need to go AU on them, not when THIS canon exists^^.

However, that is just me.

Given the fact Anne herself wrote a lot of fanfiction (let's be real, the Jesus books? For example? Also I'd invite you to read what Neil Gaiman says about his own writing there, for example....) - it's only logical that people would go and write whatever they wanted with her characters now as well.

There is no "one" lens through which this show and the books can be seen. There's millions. Because every one of us sees it all differently, shaped by life, circumstance and experience.

And if you want to write something that changes stuff in an AU setting - then that should obviously be fine. It's fanfiction.

The ultimate fix-it. The ultimate "I-want-this-to-be-different-so-I-add-to-it-or-change-it".

In the last years the "don't like don't read" has taken a serious dip though, there is a lot of people engaging with media because they hate it, and they feel welcome in groups that share this stance. There is also an uptick of puritanical need to censor.

And that reflects on Ao3 (or other fanfiction sites as well), as well as fandom spaces.

The absolutely correct need to point out fandom racism is conflated with missing knowledge of the source material and what the 50 year old canon actually provides (and maybe especially the newer books). I've been called things, because people just do not know what happens in "Merrick", for example. Or in the last trilogy. They don't know, and they jump to the one explanation that makes sense... to them.

So that is something that one needs to be aware of, I think.

There is a big mix of knowledge right now - and it clashes in a definitely not comfortable way.

And, last but maybe not least - a fanfic is no meta.

It's a fic. A story. A tale. Its own thing. A different thing, too.

It should be treated as such. Imho.

[lostinlands]

My brain isn't done marinating on the last few words of Tomura and the meaning behind his actions and words and how being a Sudaca influences my opinion on Tomura, (but that's a post for another day) but I was thinking about how theres is this kind of divide? Between people who like Tomura and those that like Tenko.

"But dude, those are the same!"

Yeah, no.

Most moments where the divide is made or is very clear that they mean one over the other instead of just jumping from name to name is on the debate of salvation, The Crying Child VS The Symbol Of Fear type of situation.

The thing that bugs me about that is the simple fact that I've been a fan of Shigaraki Tomura since he was first introduced to us in the manga, and that might have something to do with the fact that I am a Sudaca, 27, and also have always been in support of the villains when it comes to mangas because I feel like the heroes/protagonists are 9/10 times blinded by survivor bias.

I've been fan of Shigaraki Tomura since he was first introduced, and then we saw him change his final goals, his ambitions, and even his stance on his group/his friends. And still during all of that Tomura was unashamedly a villain. He didn't give a fuck, he was going to kill as many as necessary and force society to change because society needed (and at the current moment of the manga STILL NEEDS) to stop being so complacent to the status quo.

He showed us how fucked society was due to their own passivity, and that was all Shigaraki Tomura. There was not a hint of Shimura Tenko in the person fighting against the Shie Hassaikai, it wasn't Tenko the one who promised Himiko to let everything she liked untouched, it wasn't Tenko the one who internalized the fact that Mr.Compress wanted Sushi and the first thing he did when he got money was GIVE HIM SAID SUSHI (And also unsure his allies were in positions of power in the new military-like structure of the meta liberation army)

You could argue that "it was Tenko" the one that cared enough to pass on a last message to Spinner (However that point is immediately Decayed to the fact that the last phrase is "Tell Spinner that SHIGARAKI TOMURA fought till the end to destroy."), or the one that cared enough to try to advise Midoriya ("Oh yeah? That depends... on what you people decide to do tomorrow. Make sure... you do your damn best.") on making sure there are no consequences that might create a new League.

However, we go back to the fact that things are argued to be separated. Its not Shigaraki Tomura the one that deserves to be saved because: He's a villain and a murderer! But it IS Shimura Tenko, the perfect victim, the one who deserves a chance at salvation.

And in the fucking end Izuku saved nothing. He didn't save the crying child because the Crying Child had already become Tomura, and he didn't save Tomura because BNHA showed us time and again that the villains didn't deserve salvation.

"But what about Himiko? She got a redemption arc!" By sacrificing herself for Ochako. Her redemption arc was her death (Allegedly, who the fuck knows, maybe we'll tune in after Hori's break and Himiko is gonna be a new member of 2B since Hitoshi is the new member of 2A) in the name of saving someone she loved and who, if she had not been actively fighting a war, would've been saved in Tomura's worlds because she was one of Himiko's beloveds and as such one of the people Tomura promised not to hurt.

"Well, What about Dabi?!" The Todoroki's don't give a fuck about DABI, they are trying to save TOUYA (oh hey, ANOTHER CASE OF DUALITY!) and also being thrown into what looks like a giant cooler isn't exactly salvation and by how his wounds ended up at the end of his fight it might just be more merciful to kill him.

"Well, what about Spinner!" In jail, probably, and also his brain overloaded with Quirks so there is a big chance he's just straight-up brain-dead.

"Kurogiri was saved before by Mic and Eraser!" Kurogiri is a corpse. Even if he wasn't, we go back to the theme of how the heroes are trying to save one part of a duality by Mic and Zawa trying to save OBORO and not KUROGIRI.

"Mr. Compress then!" In jail! which BTW has been shown to not be a "rehabilitation" center to help villains stop being villains but just.... just jail. Also Compress lost all his friends, and all the people he had grown to care about. It's the same for all the villains that are still alive, they are in Jail and if I remember correctly Tartarus wasn't exactly... up to the Geneva Convention. What the fuck is that solitary confinement-looking shit.

Anyways this post was about the duality and how most people who expect Tomura to be alive are either hoping or expecting it to be Tenko instead of Tomura, and it's understandable, I'm not judging.

I'm also not in agreement.

I read either here or on Twitter that Tomura's death felt hollow and basically pointless, and how it would've been more enjoyable to see how a redemption arc could've been tackled with an unapologetic villain like Tomura. And while I agree that it would've been an incredibly challenging redemption arc I am actually happy with the fact that they didn't suddenly pull a "Yeah no now Tomura is good and agrees with Heores and saw the error in his way" out of their ass.

Tomura Shigaraki exists as a character to force the hero students and THE CIVILIANS to see the fact that society is currently fucked up and they can't depend fully on "Dogs of the state" without them doing anything. Sure yeah, people can depend and hope on cops (which is what heroes basically are), but that doesn't mean you are blind and deaf to the person being murdered next to you.

It's like this image from Club Penguin!

In the middle of the fight Tomura tells Midoriya and AFO "Everything I witness in this world of ours... led to the existence of that house." because Tomura only saw compliment people who's only solution to the abuse that Tenko was experiencing was "don't cry, it makes us sad".

When Midoriya wins, he insisted that the things that caused Tenko's house to exist have already been destroyed by Tomura himself, and that's when Tomura tells him "Oh yeah? That depends... on what you people decide to do tomorrow." but the next fucking chapter is them returning to school and telling us how Nedzu is basically president and helping with the rebuilding.

At the end of the day, the death of Tomura serves to show US the AUDIENCE that nothing has really changed, and the new character that we see basically crawling out of a destroyed house in a place that is NOT undergoing reconstruction efforts is the perfect visual representation of that.

Here is another Perfect Victim.

Now where are his heroes?

[actuallylorelaigilmore]

2023 Movie Journey #13: Barbie

barbie. i had been so excited about this movie for such a long time! as i'm rapidly heading towards forty, i tend to have a pretty good gauge of what i like and what i don't--so good by now that i usually don't need much to know in advance what i'll love. this was one of those things.

it wasn't even related to the massive ad campaign or the giant fandom joy in response to it before i saw it myself--they announced that margot robbie was producing a barbie movie where she would play barbie and greta gerwig would write it, and that was kenough. i knew it was gonna be My Kind Of Movie.

and so i was excited, because there aren't that many of those. i try hard to go into movies with an open mind, because i really like liking things, and i'm happy to be surprised. but i also kind of feel like that's the stance i have to take, because very few movies are the sort i predictably love. musicals are rare, i'm a horror wimp even if i've gotten a little better at finding good horror comedies, and the majority of the other movies my local theater releases are action, superhero, or christian-centered.

so giving me a truly amazing cast crammed into a surprisingly tight story overflowing with feminism and feelings was a true gift, even better than i hoped for. and the length of my review probably won't indicate that, because i feel like barbie is a hard movie for me to review the way i do others--i don't have a ton of things i want to break down and criticize, but i also don't want to just list off why it's awesome. that would literally just be me making a long bullet-point list until i ran out of things i could remember.

and i feel like if you've seen the movie, you know why it's amazing and fun and deep and beautifully shallow, all at the same time. and if you haven't seen it, i really don't think i could explain the whole of it to you in a doing-it-justice way. so i'm just going to mention a few things, but don't let that make you think i only found a few things notable. this movie is art.

when it comes to some things i loved about this movie, let's start with the fact that it is my exact sense of humor. i couldn't get over that, the whole time, as ken is serenading barbie with a matchbox twenty song i definitely didn't used to think was a misogynist anthem and then the shot pulls back and it's ALL the kens doing the same thing. or the multiple group dance numbers. or simu liu as ken's archenemy, ken. or the movie's opening song that narrates AT barbie and changes as her experience does. seeing the movie a second time didn't make any of it less funny for me--it's a perfect blend of snark and meta jokes and queer tones.

another important and great thing! AMERICA FERRERA. i knew she was in the cast, but honestly, the cast list that was released before the movie even came out was soooo long, she was just one of many actors i like that i looked forward to. i didn't expect her to play such a central role, and despite this being The Barbie Movie, they really made her the heart of the story--or at least, a heart of the story. she grounds it in such a great way and adds a different kind of depth from what margot robbie could bring to actually playing (and looking like) a barbie doll.

i just love what america ferrara got to do with this role, and getting to see the kind of work she takes on over time. this movie was a nice reminder of how artificially limited the opportunities are, for marginalized talent--even a woman of color who's worked a lot, like she has, had to be sort of snuck into this movie and then made important once people were already watching. i'm grateful to greta gerwig and margot robbie and all the other people in charge for wanting to do that, but it still sucks to know that it wasn't ever going to happen otherwise. she wouldn't be given this kind of project to lead on her own, when she's just as talented and worth watching. she made me cry.

major shoutout also to the character in this movie who i originally named something like 'woman on a bench,' played by ann roth. i absolutely adored her and her scene; it was small but so meaningful. it really grabbed hold of me. and then i found out that she's a 91-year old friend of greta gerwig's in real life, and also happens to be a super-famous costume designer who worked on (among piles of other things) mamma mia! i love that.

another great casting note: i was really excited in advance about the fact that emma mackey was included, because i've very slowly been watching sex education with @actuallylukedanes--but even before i saw any of that show, i had seen gifs of her as maeve on tumblr for years and i couldn't get over how much she looked like margot robbie. then they put her in this movie with margot robbie, so of course i highly supported that.

what i didn't expect and wasn't really prepared for was the fact that they didn't just give us emma mackey. they gave us a sex education trifecta! leander and i spent the movie trying to figure out how we knew the mattel employee who seemed super familiar, only to eventually learn he was the actor who plays adam. and i still haven't been able to get past the facial hair and other barbie aesthetics that made him totally unrecognizable for me, but the fact that they also took the actor who plays eric and made him a ken? perfection.

literally the only problem i had with this movie was at the end. unlike my best friend, i completely agreed with barbie's choice to become human. my bipolar heart always lands on the side of 'why wouldn't you want all the feelings, even when they're so much they drown you and you don't think you can take it? more feelings please.'

but the very final scene, when she's getting supported by her new little found family (which i also loved, yay them) and heads into a building for what i definitely assumed was a job interview...has her going to the gynecologist. and this scene gave me possibly my first moment ever of being the person with an Unpopular Opinion. i used to play an ask game about that, and it was really fun, but i was always like, how do i know what's unpopular or popular?

in this case, my reaction really does seem to have been unpopular. or uncommon, anyway. we find out she's going to see her gynecologist. and barbie is lit up with joy, it's clearly meant to be a triumphant moment. finally, she's fully human. she's not perfect but she's a real woman.

and all i could think was, wait. wtf. does this movie think you need a vagina to be a real woman?!?? i literally sat in silence for a minute while the credits played before asking my best friend something like, if i was totally crazy for finding that moment transphobic.

because it's not like i don't know that there are people who claim to be feminists who hate trans women. i just didn't expect to end a movie i absolutely adored by feeling as if i'd just been slapped in the face by one.

and as far as i can tell since seeing it, almost nobody else interpreted the scene that way. a lot of trans folks seem to have appreciated the movie specifically because they felt seen by barbie's journey, not the opposite. and of course, the cast even has a trans woman in it! (she was great.) so i highly doubt the people making the movie are secretly trying to send a message about how much they hate trans people. on my second watch in theaters, when i already knew it was coming, it wasn't so rough.

but it still upset me in that first moment, and led to a whole personal epiphany that wasn't actually about barbie but that i guess i will forever have to thank the barbie movie for? so that's weird, though not bad. i just had to note all of that, because it was surprising and important and it's rare for me to realize that my reaction/opinion on something isn't one i can find tons of other people already shared if i look into it.

beyond that, though, this movie is just the best. it's everything. it gives us the nine-women supreme court that ruth bader ginsburg recommended, while also pointing out that too much power corrupts even the blankest of slates. it's here to teach kids about misogyny and to show everybody the wide range of outfits and accessories barbie has collected in her lifetime. it lets barbie have independence and leaves ken behind where i hope he one day realizes his rivalry with ken masks a totally different kind of tension, so he can have love after all. i don't think i'll ever get sick of it.

[frogmentarii]

QUESTIONS FOR OC CREATORS

Haaaa ok so I am doing this cause i saw @fallout-lou-begas steal it from @tarberrymentats and they both looked like they were havin hella fun so i am commandeering this for my own purposes. So lucky for yall its Emi time (art by the dearest @yesjejunus because yall need to see more of her work)

A) Why are you excited about this character?

Because she's an older woman (57) that breaks a lot of moulds and I love to see it. Aside from just enjoying older characters, Emi isn't a sweet old lady and she isn't here to try and mother anyone. Her drives are entirely her own and while she prioratizes herself and her sister before anyone else, its not always due to complete selfishness and just due to growing up in the wastes (I try to keep her character true to a fend for yourself setting as possible). I think Ill go into detail in another question with this, but I went through a lot of concepts and personalities for Emi before settling on someone who was seasoned and very much a product of the wastes. I think after seeing a lot of other couriers I finally figured out what I wanted to do differently, and that sort of helped guide her to become what she is today.

B) What inspired you to create them?

I think my last line there sort of short answers this. I wanted someone different from the other couriers I saw, and wanted to make one that was distinct or even juxtaposed against some tropes. She's a woman in her late 50s that doesnt try and play mom/granny to the companions, she very much has no stake in what happens to the Mojave, she doesnt care about Benny or that he shot her in the head (such is life in the Mojave, but she did have a job to complete so ripperoni him), and a lot of her motivations are selfish or exist to benefit her sister. She doesnt act 'old' in the fact that she isn't a wise caring soul or a grumpy old man, but rather her age is shown through her experience, and this also shapes her personality. She's never had to formally 'grow up' so she can come off as immature and irritating for her own entertainment, but she doesn't have youthful ignorance for how the world works. She knows how to be responsible but she doesnt have to act like it outwardly, even with her Tragic Caregiver Backstory.

C) Did you have trouble figuring out where they fit in their own story?

To a large degree in the beginning, yes, and to specific degrees now, also yes. Writing in general isnt my strong point though I did know what I wanted for her. The main image is there but the details are funky, and Ive been slowly hammering those out as I work along with her and Camila's stories. There's been some huge changes along the way that help push both of them towards an ending I like and that fits them, and even if it takes forever and I never actually write a fic, I'll be happy when she finally feels completed in New Vegas.

Aside from that, she kind of fits in anywhere in regards to AUs. My friend @yesjejunus and I have probably like 40000 fucking aus for our OCs and all of them feel just as organic and their canon stories.

D) Have they always had the same physical appearance, or have you had to edit how they look?

So I know I have an 'original concept Emilia' art on here where she looked like Laura Croft and had aviators but that wasnt even her first concept. I had originally wanted to make a petite southern belle type from Louisiana who used a shot gun and had a mean streak, but as I kept playing with concepts Emi really started to lean other places. Another huge change was her personality. Even when her concept got settled as a sniper from Mexico, she was suppose to be an early 30s caravan guard who was way too sure of herself. While there are reminents of that concept still in her, she has a lot more experience in the wastes and in think-on-your-feet situations to back up her attitude. Another thing she required was dropping her "take me seriously" personality with more goofy "i do what i want cause why not" traits.

E) Are they someone you would get along with? Would they get along with you?

Emi can get along with anyone at a surface level, for a small while, if it will benefit her or she wants to pass time. She really doesn't have interest in folks who arent interesting or beneficial in some way. Since I don't really offer her much, and am a bit of a wet bag, she might yank my chain for her own funsies or she'd have no interest.

And while I did indeed give Emi my go with the flow attitude, I think I wouldn't be able to keep up with her. Emi is very fast paced and doesnt necessarily have regard for those she decides to pick up as drinking buddies for the night. Def dont trust her with my life, and knowing the shit she gets into I'd def want to steer clear of it....like a trainwreck its much better to watch her from a safe distance, lol.

F) What do you feel when you think of your OC (pride, excitement, frustration, etc)?

A lot of affection from a meta standpoint? I've worked with Emi and Cam a lot since creating them, and they've def come a long way since their original concepts. I wouldn't say their story is quite where I want it yet, but I am quite happy with it overall.

That, and Ive met so many awesome writers along the way with Emi. Not all of my friends have posted fic but the amount of world building and having our characters interact and talking OCs ive done with them has placed both Emi and their OCs in a special place for me. Sure her having her own story is fun but I much more prefer the bonds Ive created with people over OCs and I think thats a bit more of a cherished component to character creation for me.

G) What trait of theirs bothers you the most?

Literally? That she likes to be irritating if she feels she can get away with it (or even if she cant). Actually? That she has a very "I shelter you and feed you therefore I make the rules, period." stance on how she takes care of her charge. She lets a lot of shit slide with Camila but things get very Rapunzel-esque at times.

H) What trait do you admire most?

How sure of herself she is. Even if its to a fault, she trusts herself and her judgements. That sort of confidence is something I strive to have haha.

To a lesser degree, and more of a meta point I wanted to make with her, just...her appearance I suppose? To me she's attractive, but she also has a lot of traits that aren't conventionally attractive and that's played a lot into how Ive wanted her to be. Again she's 57 years old. She has age to her body, her skin wrinkles and droops, her tits sag, she has the body of someone who uses chems, and yet despite her age and breaking of beauty standards ive made it a point to show that she is desired or thought of as attractive in non fetish specific circumstances. She herself, while aro, also still has an active sex drive and I really wanted this to be a backseat part of her character, as I feel like fandom in general shafts older women in this department (this also goes for a lot of her non 'old lady' traits I give her too). She still has sexual needs and is still very much sexually active, and she is still found to be a regular sort of attractive and is desired by those she gets involved with.

J) Did you have to manipulate or exclude canon factors to allow them to create their character?

Yes? Ish, to a degree. I didnt have to but I wanted to. I also did a lot of headcanoning with post Mexico for her early life which, afaik is free real estate for lore/nothing super detailed has been given in canon.

Given that she and Camila both shape their stories as individuals, I did have to split up some canon elements to follow two seperate characters, but other than that I really just had to make sure Emilia's story wasnt "boring" in the fact that she again, has no real stake in what happens to Vegas/the Mojave.

I) Do you prefer to keep them in their canon universe?

Cackles in 'which au will I obsess with today'

For the most part yes, however I love placing her in new things or different stories. She may be 'my courier' but really shes just the frog granny that goes into whatever au I am feeling at the time.

[kiragecko]

I don’t think there’s a ‘should’ here. (Not sure I'm disagreeing with anything other than word choice, but I apologize if I am.)

There are a lot of benefits to engaging with canon, both to yourself and your fellow fans, but there are also very valid reasons not to.

And the reasons to engage/not engage with canon change as your relationship with the fandom changes.

-

If you're just reading fanfic/engaging with fan-material, it does NOT matter whether you know anything about canon. Have fun!

-

Writing fanfic, writing meta, making art, etc. is slightly more nuanced. Like, I strongly believe that fandoms should be open to everyone, and that the energy new fans bring in is hugely beneficial. I started engaging with fandom by writing head canons about something I knew almost nothing about. (I was an X-Men fan writing about Bats.)

But it also SUCKS when other fans start inserting my favourite characters into cookie-cutter tropes. I find the watered down versions of characters that develop, when too many generations of fans learn through fanfic, to be pretty annoying. Especially when these fanon versions start being the most common version I see, and I lose aspects I loved.

I know that I’ve benefited from at least seeking out authours that obviously know their material when I’m new to a fandom.

So, my personal preference is that people learn a bit about canon. Fandoms are healthier when they have a relationship with the actually media their based on. But my Moral Stance is that you can write whatever you want, whenever you want, and I can just not read it. It isn't your, personal, responsibility to keep fandom accurate.

-

I’ve also enjoyed fanfic that got lots of stuff wrong, or used ‘‘wrong’‘ continuities.

(The Marvel movies created great fanfic, even if I like comics continuity better in almost every way. I’ve even managed to enjoy X-Men movie fanfic, even though the characters are often unrecognizable!)

And I’ve engaged with fandoms that I could only enjoy when characters were completely OOC¹, or the characters only showed up in settings completely divorced from canon.

With the Batfam, I get mildly annoyed when people's perceptions of the kids' age gaps don't line up with mine. I've written lists of every canon name each kid has used for the others, and sulk every time I read the word 'Babybird.'

But 90% of my engagement to Harry Potter was through 'Snape realizes he's being awful and starts mentoring Harry while they both work through their trauma' fic. And I spent a year in the Les Mis fandom, only reading modern AUs where nobody died.

-

Everyone engages differently with their fandoms. Some ways are more uncomfortable for other fans, but my belief is that only harassment counts as being a 'bad fan.'

Enjoy other fans and what they create. You don't need to read or watch canon. If you don't know a lot, try not to tell people they're interpreting characters wrong, but otherwise, engage however you want!

-

PS. Comics fandom, in particular, is really fond of insulting canon. Only a subset of comics are as worthless as fans act like they are! There's actually some really, really good stuff there. Don't let our whining scare you off. You don't NEED to engage with canon, but you also don't need to avoid it.

PPS. Reading wikis is also a perfectly valid way to fill in knowledge gaps. You don't need to read every comic in existence OR rely entirely on other fans. You can read summaries.

-

¹OOC: 'out of character,' acting in ways the canon version never would, acting like they have a different personality.

Is it possible to become a fan of fandoms? 'Cause I think that's what's happening to me. I see all this lit DC (the superheroes not The Cone™) stuff & the closest I've read to a DC comic is watching Comicstorian on Youtube. Honestly whatever the fans come up with seems way more interesting that whatever's going on in canon.

A lot of fans are fans of fandoms and not the canon itself. The best example I think is Danny Phantom in which at least 25% has seen little to none of the actual series. The problem with fanon is it sometimes can get out of control and pretty soon the fanon character is so divorced from all the things that made their canon counterparts loveable that they're just a separate person.

I personally believe in a canon/fanon balance. That in order to enjoy fanon, you should at least understand canon and from there, cherry pick your favorite parts. Its especially true for Batman which has gone on for 80 years and has many interpretations. My versions are all usually canon just with different aspects and background taken from various stories.

[feathersandblue]

Hi!I love your meta about black sails characters and I've read your last one about flint's real motivations and how much more human silver is.One of the biggest critic moved to silver is about madi, and the fact that he betrayed her stopping the war without her consent. That he has taken away from her a possibility to free the world from slavery. A cause for which she was ready to die for and to see him dying too. And for this betrayal he doesn't deserve and won't obtain her forgiveness...

Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, and canon does not really answer the question what their future relationship will look like - or rather, it indicates that while reconciliation is possible and Madi might be willing to forgive him, their relationship will never be the same.

I don’t think canon really backs the idea that she won’t be able to forgive him. The fact that Madi comes to him in their last scene is pretty telling - it’s meant to indicate that Madi is changing her stance, rather than Silver. If the creators hadn’t meant to imply that they would still be together in some form, they could easily have their last scene be a shot of Silver looking at her longingly from a distance, and she turning her back on him and walking away. 

Of course, we also have a very concise statement from the show’s creators: 

“The way you see them at the end, they’re in the same frame but they’re yards away from each other. Emotionally, that’s as close as they’ll ever get again.”(x)

So I think it’s made pretty clear that Madi does forgive him, but that it’s not really the same after. And how could it be? Silver has betrayed her. There are fundamental differences between them that have now become obvious, which at least Madi hasn’t really been aware of before. He’s not the person she thought he was.

Concerning the fact that Silver stops the war without her consent, and that this makes him a bad person … well, I have a couple of problems with that. 

1. One of them is a distinct one-sidedness in the way people look at their relationship, where Madi is treated basically as a saint, and Silver as an illoyal boyfriend who doesn’t support her and her cause as is his duty. But in a romantic relationship, both parties have obligations toward each other, it can’t be just a one-sided thing, no matter how much we relate to one partner and their goals and ambitions.

It’s also important to point out that if Silver had acted the way she wanted him to, Madi would be dead. Madi only survived the entire ordeal because Silver chose a wife over a war. If he hadn’t brought the cache, even though Flint and the maroon queen opted against it, the governor would have shot her. 

It’s also only fair to  mention that the choice between a noble cause and the life of a partner is not one that you can dictate to anyone. It’s a deeply personal decision. The fact that Madi’s life was more important to Silver than vice versa is not something you can really blame Silver for. 

“You may think what you want of me. I will draw comfort in the knowledge that you’re alive to think it.”

I imagine it’s pretty difficult to remain perpetually pissed at a person for saving your life, going forward. 

When Madi was imprisoned by Rogers, she wasn’t willing to bargain for Silver’s life. It was her choice. I don’t see anyone pointing out that it would have been her moral duty as a romantic partner to think of Silver and what they had together, that she is a horrible girldfriend for putting her beliefs first. 

And yet I see people say that Silver’s failure to act in a way that reflects her beliefs rather than his makes him a bad person. 

In a relationship between two equals, there is no such thing as an obligation to defer to your partner in such a profound way. There is no way to justify why Silver should have to defer to Madi. And yet parts of fandom consider him a horrible human being for failing to do just that.

So really, that one-sidedness, where people look at things only from Madi’s point of view - one that emphasizes her marginalization as a black woman and comes with the premise that Madi’s wants and needs clearly exceed Silver’s - that he’s a horrible boyfriend for disregarding her priorities, which are so much nobler and more important - is something I can’t share or support. People often judge their relationship from a position of real life activism, where the fact that Madi is fighting slavery is a killer argument. In my personal opinion, regarding their personal relationship as well as their historical situation solely from that perspective is somewhat reductive and simplistic.

2. The second problem that I have is the assumption that Madi was entitled to that war, as if war was some sort of possession or property. It was “her war”, and then Silver “took it away from her”. You might recall what I said about Flint personifying that war in my previous meta post. So according to Flint, Silver is a ruthless murderer; according to fandom, he is a thief. 

But no matter how you twist it, war is not something that people have a right to, because war always requires the partcipation of other people. It requires soldiers to do your dirty work. If you are a war leader, you have to have the support of your troups, you have to lead them into battle, you have to order them to fight and kill on your behalf.

I’ve already written extensively about how Flint acts as a leader, but there’s one thing that can’t be denied, and that’s that he’s willing to put his own life on he line, fighting side by side with his men. He’s doing more than his own share of dirty work, he’s usually part of the boarding crew or the vanguard. It’s rare that we see him stand back while others do the killing. 

When it comes to Madi, on the other hand, we have an entirely different situation. Madi is the heir of what is framed as a hereditary monarchy, she wasn’t elected into a position of power, she’s awarded that position - stepping into the footsteps of a leader who is “priestess, governess, warlord.” Her authority is absolute, she even takes pride in making it obvious to Silver in 3.08. that her men obey her without question. But Madi doesn’t do the dirty work. She doesn’t spill blood. In an era where war still means a lof of close combat, Madi steps back and lets other peope fight her battles. 

What right does she have to this war, morally speaking, when that war demands the obedience and the sacrifice of other people? A position of authority where you can order people to die is not something that any human being, no mater how much we like them, should be entitled to.

Imagine there’s a war, and no one shows up. (*)

Basically, what Silver and Julius do in the finale, is to make that war so singularly unattractive to people that they are no longer inclined to show up. They are no longer willing to kill and die on Madi’s behalf because, guess what, they, too, value their own lives and those of their loved ones more than they value the prospect of a long, bloody war that puts their own freedom at risk and has very little chances at success.

Tough shit. It almost looks like it’s been Madi’s war rather than “their war”, as she so succinctly phrases it in her conversation with Rogers. Madi felt so confident speaking on behalf of her people, but then it turns out that she never actually had their vote. It should be mentioned that Madi herself has not experienced slavery first hand - not the way that Julius, Max, Ruth, or her mother and her father have experienced it, who are all far less enthusisastic at the prospect of a war because they know how much they stand to lose when England retaliates. 

I am going to copy & paste a couple of praragraphs from one of my earlier posts here. 

Fandom often treats Silver as if he were taking away Madi’s agency, but that’s not really what he’s doing.

By removing Flint and the treasure from the picture, Silver basically dissembles the nukes and cuts the finances of a war that he considers a fucking nightmare, which, and I don’t think anyone can deny it, is a valid concern. Flint, as a war leader and a brilliant tactiction, second to none, is more of a force of nature than a man. His reputation, his tactical genius, his ability to overcome the greatest odds, and his ability to get people to follow him are nothing short of amazing. So really, the analogy of Flint being the nuke - the devastating weapon of mass destruction - is not far off. And of course, the treasure is both a media-effective means of propaganda and a valuable resource. 

Both Flint and the treasure, however, are also not something Madi had a right to, or at least, her right to them did not surpass Silver’s.

Silver has bled, and spilled blood, for each of these things.

Silver was a key player in securing the Urca gold in the first place. He bled for the cause (lost his leg in Charles Town), he was part of the Walrus crew which made Flint’s name what it became in the aftermath of Charles Town. He was the one who served as Flint’s quartermaster, he was the one who sailed with him into that storm, he is the one who went with him through the doldrums. When Flint made the bargain with the maroons, he made it under coercion - because the maroon queen threatened the lives of him and his crew. But it was Silver whose intervention forged that alliance. Without Silver, Flint would have given up in that cages, and all of our pretty pirates would have ended up dead either from torture or slave labor, or slain during their escape. 

Madi, on the other hand, got that war handed on a silver plate (pun intended). She was living on that island, and, like most young people, struggling to forge her own identity by establishing herself in opposition to the more protectionsist rule of her mother. Along came a bunch of pirates who offered her a shiny war, as well as the war leader to fight it for her, a man with the persuasive power to convince her mother to support it.

Madi’s war relied on Flint - his tactical skills, his willingness to sacrifice anything and everything for the cause. It also relied on Silver, who put his life on the line again and again, torturing, killing, and descending into darkness. Silver was reluctant to step into that role, and we can see, during season three and four, how he struggles not to let that darkness consume him. Long John Silver is also not something that Madi has a right to. Nor, and that is where we get back to 1, is his unwavering support and loyalty even when it goes against his beliefs, especially since she doesn’t seem willing to offer the same.

When I say that Madi’s war relied on Flint, there is also another aspect to it, wich ties back to the previous meta about Flint and his reasons for fighting. Madi’s war relies on Flint being fucking miserable. 

The thing that Madi seems most upset about in 4.10 is the fact that Silver sent Morgan to Savannah to look for Thomas Hamilton. 

But why would Madi be upset about the fact that Silver sent someone to find out whether his best friend’s lover might still be alive? I mean, let’s assume that the Spanish invasion hadn’t happened, that Morgan had returned with the good news that Thomas was alive, imagine Silver had told Flint, there would have raided the plantation to free Thomas, and there would be a tearful reuion of two lovers. How on earth could Madi possibly see this as a form of betrayal? 

Maybe because Silver, and Madi herself, knew that Thomas being alive would be a game changer for Flint. Looking for Thomas - which is all Silver did in that moment, it’s not as if he’d really been planning to imprison Flint there at that point - can only be considered a form of betrayal if they both knew exactly that Flint was only willing to fight that war because he was so lost to his grief and rage that it drove him to such extremes, if they both knew that Flint was born “out of great tragedy”. But it’s Flint that Madi’s war relies on. Not James McGraw. 

All these things - the treasure, Flint, Long John Silver - they do not belong to Madi. There is a certain irony in the fact that Madi used Silver’s considerable skillset - his cunning, his inventiveness, his power of persuasion, the legend of Long John Silver - to fight her war, but that is is this exact skillset that is then used against her to end it. 

Of course, Madi is free to do as she pleases. If she wants that war so desperately, she can go and try to find some likeminded people who help her fight it. She can find the outsiders, the rebels, the other “scattered objections” and form her own army, wage her own war, if that’s what she thinks is right. Build her own resistance. Do it the hard way. She can send someone to Savannah to find Flint and free him. She can do a lot of things to make that war happen.

But she won’t do that, because she isn’t stupid, and she’s not like Flint, who was so consumed by his war that he simply could not let go of it. Madi has other things to live for, thankfully. For sane people, a war immdiately gets a lot less attractive the moment their chances of winning decline. Madi is a good leader to her people, and she’s a good person. She would not waste lives and resources in a war that no one wants.Silver did betray her, and I’m not saying she has to forgive him. But I think it’s important to acknowledge that Silver’s motives and reasons are no less valid than hers, and that taking out Flint and the cache did not mean denying her agency, because if her agency relied on these two things, then it was never real to begin with.

3. Third, what bothers me is to look at Silver’s betrayal of Flint and make it about Madi when it was never about her in the first place. I know we all look at the show from different pespectives, but I think it’s fair to say that Silver and Flint, their individual arcs and their complex and fraught relationship, are central to Black Sails. In Silver’s story, Flint is the antagonist, and the conflict between Flint and Silver and its resolution has very little to do with Madi - if anything, she’s a catalyst that contributes to brings things to a head. Accordingly, the idea that Madi’s wants and needs should be the determining factor in Silver’s decision-making seems quite absurd. Flint may be Madi’s nuke, but first and foremost, he’s Silver’s … friend, alter ego, antagonist, partner, captain, whatever you want to call it - this overwhelming influence in Silver’s life.

The relationship between Silver and Flint is complex, fraught, full of landmines. There’s a co-depenency that’s not quite healthy, a power imbalance that only changes in Silver’s favor in season four - and there’s a tentative, hard-won friendship between them. And in that situation - with their shared history and everything they’ve been through together - should Madi’s wants and needs really be the deteminigg factor in Silver’s decision-making? Or should it be his own moral compass? 

Of course, the situation in Black Sails is more complex than that, there are other factors to keep in mind - first and foremost, the issue of slavery, which, as I’ve said before, is a killer argument all on its own. How can Silver possibly turn aganst Flint and Silver when they fight for a better world without slavery, for a revolution? If he doesn’t want to fight, he can just walk away, can he not? 

But the thing is, people who tend to say that rarely look at the whole thing from Silver’s point of view. There is a distinct lack of willingness to put themselves in his shoes. 

Silver is in a position of an individual having to make a choice. Jack has arrived with a clear agenda, one that gives Nassau a chance at peace. From Silver’s point of view, Flint is entirely driven by rage, the intent “to see the world burn” - as someone who is decidedly not an idealist, Silver simply cannot focus on these far-away visions of a better future the same way. And in that situation, confined by his own experiences and worldview, Silver is left with two options: side with Jack, secure the peace and the freedom of Madi’s people, stop Flint, and keep Madi safe. Or turn against Jack, enable the war and let Flint set the New World on fire, then lose both him and Madi either trough a violent death or by leaving them behind. War or peace? The decision, in this moment, is not an easy one, but I think it displays a lack of understanding to suggest that with Silver’s and Flint’s relationship right at the core of it, with everything that stands between them - the things Silver has seen Flint do, the murder and the insanity and the gambling with lives, and the things Silver himself has done on behalf of the war - that Silver acting according to his personal beliefs makes him a villain, or that it is his moral duty to support his girfriend’s ambitions - the very girlfriend who, at this point, is only still alive because he’s already “betrayed” her once by prioritizing her life over the cause.

So, after all of that, we are still left with a couple of things that cannot be denied.

1. Silver acted behind Madi’s back, and he betrayed both her and Flint on a personal level. They had no reason to suscpect he would turn against them (though I would argue that there were signs, they just didn’t pick up on them), which further contributes to the sense of betrayal.  

2. Silver put a stop to a war that was meant to abolish slavery. We cannot conclusively say that it was the right choice (but neither can we say it wasn’t, as we have no means to determine what the outcome would have been).

It’s of course perfectly okay to have personal opinions about all of these things, or to think that Madi should not forgive Silver. But I can’t help but think that a lot of the criticism levelled at Silver is a consequence of a very limited viewpoint that is rooted in activism, not in empathy - to an extent where the entire thing becomes a black and white thing, where Madi gets awarded all the oppression points that forever put her on a pedestal of moral high ground, because SLAVERY! 

Perdonally, I don’t think that this viewpoint acknowledges the complexity of the issue at hand, something that the show itself is actually very good at. 

—————————————-

* The original phrasing, of course, is “Sometime they’ll give a war and no one will come.”  The variant used here is a re-translation of the German version, “Stell dir vor, es ist Krieg, und keiner geht hin.”