#i think people do this because they are mostly used to seeing trauma being depicted in media as something that makes the victim more mature

[mira0000000-blog]

I hate it when people treat Beta as a child when the game makes it clear that is because of all her trauma she developed while growing up and being stuck in a spaceship for almost 2 decades with a bunch of murderous immortal billionaires that treated her like an object.

[tangents-within-tangents]

Thoughts on Echo as amputee/disability representation

First and foremost, I am not disabled or an amputee and I don’t claim to speak for those communities (and if I was I couldn't speak for everyone). What little I do know mostly comes from this youtube channel (@oakwyrm), this post, and other research I’ve done for my writing (and like one amputee I kinda knew in passing). By all means correct me and add to the conversation, I just have some thoughts I want to share because I haven’t really seen this discussed anywhere

Overview

So Echo is interesting. He is a triple amputee which is pretty rare in media. His disabilities come from extremely traumatic circumstances: injured in a near-death experience, imprisoned and dehumanized as an experiment with no autonomy over what happened to his body.

There are a few moments in the shows where Echo is treated… questionably. Like this bit where Rex uses him as an example of the Separatists' evils to convince the locals to fight back:

To be fair, yeah Echo���s treatment does prove that the Techno Union is not neutral like they claim. The modifications that everyone is gasping in horror at here obviously weren’t made with comfort and accessibility in mind, nor with Echo’s consent. But you still just want to be sure that “They took away his freedom, his humanity, they tried to turn him into a machine” is about using him as a living computer, not the fact that he is missing limbs. 

The Batch is also pretty insensitive toward him and his trauma imo, which is weird considering they've supposedly also faced discrimination for their mutations

Disabled people do have to deal with stuff like this in this day and age so I guess it can speak to those experiences. I think especially him being mistaken as a droid (and Hunter going along with it (bruh)) might resonate with some people. 

Aside from that stuff, Echo isn't really treated any differently as a character/person which is really good (as low of a bar as that is).

We get this moment in CW where Echo contemplates that yeah things are gonna be different now

While also (imo at least) showing that he is still the same person regardless, evidenced by the fact that he just echoed Rex :,) I also think it's significant that he joins the Bad Batch on his own terms and we're given a really emotional scene to specifically show that he's not just like 'lumped in with the other misfits' but that it is his choice to go where he feels his place is.

A lot of people, myself included, are disappointed that TBB didn't have more time to explore Echo's PTSD, but I think the one panic attack scene we did get is really good. Even thought it's minor it at least is an appropriate reaction from a guy who was medically tortured (which is more than I've come to expect from Star Wars shows lol)

And it's really sweet to see Omega showing Echo some empathy and consideration.

It would have been nice to see more of his adjustment period, and other side effects like chronic pain and maintenance, but there’s a lot of daily life stuff the show never had time for (i.e. we don’t know if he removed his prosthetics to sleep, but we also never saw him sleep anyway). His disabilities might take on a background role (much like the character himself sadly) but for the most part they aren’t invisible or erased, nor do they define his character and arc.

Physical Appearance

Okay this one is bit dicey, bc on the one hand, yes complaints that Echo’s paleness (most likely caused by burns from the explosion or chemical burns from the cryo-chamber) is whitewashing are totally valid. But I also think you can draw comparisons to real life conditions that affect pigmentation/complexion (like you know burns). So while I understand why a lot of fanart will depict him with his original skin tone and with hair, consider that there are real people who have to live with temporary or permanent changes to their appearance, and the idea of “fixing" him by making him look more like his old self can be problematic.

It's also interesting to note that Echo could act as a reversal of the 'disabled/disfigured = evil' trope. He's pale and bald and wears black and red, which is so often visually associated with villains, but we all know Echo is the bestest boy™

The Headpiece

Echo’s headpiece is interesting because within the show we don’t actually ever learn much about it (idk if there is more info in books or whatever bc i don’t have them so?). He didn’t have it in CW so we know it didn’t come from the Techno Union and therefore Echo probably had more choice with it. We don’t know its exact purpose but it’s most likely related to his scomping abilities. When he is hacking with his scomp in CW, before he has his headpiece, it’s clearly very mentally straining:

We don’t see him struggling like this in TBB once he does have it (though that could be bc he got more used to it over time). There doesn't seem to be much of an impact when he removes his headpiece in s3 ep14-15, except that he gets stuck in the ports every time he uses his scomp which is not something we’ve seen before: 

There might not be an exact real-world equivalent, but the headpiece is some kind of accessibility aid. It means that someone specifically designed a device to help him adapt to the changes the Techno Union made, as well as a helmet that integrates it. It’s removable and visually very present, much like a cochlear implant would be. (A lot of people actually headcanon it to act partially as a hearing aid, since it makes sense that Echo’s hearing would have been damaged in the explosion, but there isn't really any indication of this in canon.) The headpiece is never really acknowledged in the show, but I think that's a good thing. It's something he needs/wants and it just exists, completely normalized, and that's pretty cool 👍

Legs

Sigh... So from the very first episode of TBB I was really disappointed that the animation team or whoever completely visually erased Echo’s prosthetic legs (I think we all were, honestly, if fanart is anything to go by). It’s one thing when he’s in armor because he would probably want to protect his prosthetics, but we literally see him in his blacks and there is no indication whatsoever that he lost his legs even though it was not left up for debate at all in CW:

Like ??????!?

This is just really strange to me! Idk what went on behind the scenes with this decision but I don’t really see why it would be that much harder to animate or anything since it’s 3D and they've done it before. We do see some pretty sophisticated cybernetic technology in Star Wars canon that mimics real limbs:

But Luke’s fancy hand is technically 20ish years from now, so Anakin and Maul are more of a representation of what level we could expect here

So yeah, for no apparent reason, his leg amputation is effectively, visually and narratively nonexistent. Which is not great 👎

Arm!

The scomp on the other hand (uh lol!) is the complete opposite and I kinda love it!

At first I, like many others, thought it was a bit odd that they didn’t give Echo a prosthetic arm. Losing hands is basically a Star Wars tradition at this point, so robotic arms/hands are well established within the worldbuilding: 

We aren’t necessarily given a canon reason for why Echo doesn't get a cybernetic arm (again unless it's in some lore book I haven’t read, sorry). General fanon explanations I’ve seen are that he either couldn’t because the Techno Union wired the scomp too far into his nervous system, and/or the resources to give him one were deemed too expensive for a clone (what about his legs tho?), or that he chose not to, usually because he thought the scomping was useful. 

Regardless, I actually really love this choice (and it's the whole reason I made this post), because here's the thing: There’s a lot of problematic tropes out there that either erase/cure disabilities or compensate them with perks (like how pretty much any blind character is actually not blind by some sort of magic power). With amputees that is done with robotic arms. The character is still an amputee or course, and there is still value in that representation, if this story from Mark Hamill that makes me tear up is anything to go by:

but for the most part these characters function like anyone else, just with a limb that looks a little different. It’s no more than a video game skin, an able-bodied actor with a green screen glove. It “cures” the disability, or it actually makes the character even stronger than usual: 

It usually makes sense within the world of the story, but the reason it’s not so great in my opinion is that in the real world we just do not have technology anywhere close to that yet. Prosthetics can more or less replace any mobility from lost legs, but not for all the complexities of a hand (and even if they could the average person wouldn’t be able to afford it).

So

I think it's actually really super cool that Echo’s scomp bypasses the canonically-established amputee erasure and functions much like a stump would irl. He integrates it into his movements and everyday life and it’s (as far as I know) a lot closer to an everyday amputee’s experience. 

It doesn’t define his character, it doesn’t hold him back, he lives a full life, the other’s don’t treat him any differently, and he’s still a total karking badass 

The only additional thing is that he sometimes uses it as a weapon (which given his story, I think it’s cool to see him taking back autonomy in a way, and we only see that like twice)

And also the scomping, which could be seen as the 'added/compensating superpower' trope. But narratively it's no different than if he was plugging in with a hacking gadget of some kind (he didn't necessarily "need" to lose his arm for it) and it’s not like Echo is completely defined by this skill. Personally, I think it's well worth the positives of him actually having a visible and realistically impactful amputation. 

I see a lot of posts or comments out there that say stuff like “how come Echo doesn’t get a hand?” or fanworks that do give him one and I just think it’s a bit of a shame. If he did get a robotic hand, it just would have disappeared the same way his legs and Anakin’s arm did (aside from that one time he got yoinked by a magnet). When Echo did “get a hand” in the last two episodes there were comments like “yay he finally got a hand! but it doesn’t even work” but I was actually so relieved that it didn’t! Bc for one thing that wouldn’t make any sense, he grabbed it off a droid, it wasn’t designed to implement with his scomp, that would be really complicated. But more importantly because it again refused to erase/cure his disability! It functioned like a real-world cosmetic prosthetic (useless beyond appearance) which is exactly what he needed it for, so that he could blend in better with his disguise.

And he continually took it off throughout the episode and ditched it at the end. He only used it for the necessity of a stealth mission, he doesn’t feel the need to visually “fit in” in his daily life. 

And, last but very much not least, he made a dad joke and from my intel that is very accurate representation!

TLDR: Echo’s scomp is actually really cool from an amputee representation perspective, especially within Star Wars, and I think that deserves some appreciation 

[aossimusings]

Claire from the Bear, and why she's not badly written, she's just not occupying the character role people expect of her and they don't know what to do with that

Alright. I'm bringing some film student analysis to The Bear, and subsequently, Claire, because I'm tired of people saying crazy things like, "she's a manic pixie dream girl" or that her character is underdeveloped or badly written or that she's pure male fantasy or any other crazy, extremist reaction to her character, when really, I think she's occupying a different character role than we're used to seeing from characters like hers, and in typical The Bear fashion, we as an audience are not being told how to interpret her character with words, but with visual and narrative structure.

Be warned, this is a very, very long post.

Lets take a minute to understand narrative structure in film:

There's an A plot and a B plot. The A plot is what is referred to as "the promise of the premise." It's why you come to watch what you watch. The B plot is all the emotional character development/growth that undergirds the A plot and makes it emotional and impactful. So in the Bear, The A plot is the whole thread of, let's fix the Beef -> let's make a new restaurant -> let's get a star, etc etc, that evolves with each season. The B plot is mostly centered on Carmy (although other characters also have their own smaller B-plots) and on him healing from his grief and family and kitchen trauma and finding himself as a person, etc etc.

Claire as a character is a B-plot character. Her role as a character is to be a part of Carmy's emotional B-plot development, whereas the rest of the characters in the show occupy roles in both the A plot and the B plot. In a show centered

The thing that I think is causing a lot of the discourse around her character is the fact that she's not occupying a typical character role for her sort of character, and then people don't know what to do with her. They're either trying to slot her into a a bad female character role (like a manic pixie dream girl) and are then angry that that type of character would be included in the show, or they think she's a badly written attempt at a more developed character and are then angry because they think her character was fumbled, when in fact, she's neither.

Let's take a minute to examine these two roles:

The Manic Pixie Dream Girl

A manic pixie dream girl as defined by the Oxford language dictionary is:

"(especially in film) a type of female character depicted as vivacious and appealingly quirky, whose main purpose within the narrative is to inspire a greater appreciation for life in a male protagonist."

On paper, I can see why people would say that she's a MPDG. She's a little quirky, and she appears to "inspire a greater appreciation for life" in Carmy. She's a doctor, but she's a bad driver, she loves Mondays, she shoplifted in high school for the adrenaline rush, etc, etc. But I would argue that she's not actually a MPDG because her role in the narrative is fundamentally different than that of a MPDG.

In terms of narrative, MPDGs are a catalyst. They are crucial to the movement of the plot and the development of the main character. Specifically, they're supposed to be a catalyst for main male character growth. This is part of why MPDGs are a sort of problematic character -- the idea that they don't get dimension as a character, yet their entire role is to catalyze the main male character's positive growth and evolution is sexist. They aid the MMC at the cost of their personhood.

However, notably, Claire doesn't actually inspire positive growth in Carmy. He is not made better for knowing her. He doesn't grow as a person, learn from his mistakes. He isn't calmer or nicer in the kitchen, he doesn't resolve any of his trauma, I would argue that he doesn't even have a "greater appreciation for life" as is critical to the relationship between the MMC and the MPDG; he is just as depressed and anxious for knowing her as he was when he didn't know her.

So Claire: not a manic pixie dream girl, despite being quirky and trying to "inspire a greater appreciation for life."

The Badly Written Main Female Character

I think for a lot of viewers, if Claire isn't a MPDG to them, she's viewed as a badly written, badly developed main female character, who isn't afforded a lot of screen time, and as such, is one dimensional because she doesn't get much character development.

Wait, what? She's a badly written main character without a lot of screen time to develop? But part of being a main character is to have significant screen time to develop! But Claire doesn't have a lot of screen time... Tina has more screen time. Sugar has more screen time. Marcus has more screen time. It's almost like...Claire isn't a main character, even though, as a love interest, she occupies a role typically only allowed to main characters.

So then...what is she? To understand her narrative role, we need to take a minute to understand what Carmy's B-plot has established thus far. My apologies for the following, very drawn out explanation of Carmy's mental health. I promise I'll return to Claire, but this is important.

Carmy's B-plot (aka, the emotional stuff)

Seasons 1 through 3 are essentially following Carmy having a slow, drawn out breakdown. Or rather, it's not slow. It's a pretty realistic depiction of someone who is pretty mentally/emotionally unwell continuing to not get the help that he needs, and trying to fix things unsuccessfully on his own. But admitting that he's unwell feels like admitting defeat, so he's trying to fix things while never actually admitting that he needs help, and as such, is in a self-destructive spiral of trying to fix things unsuccessfully, feeling out of control because of it, trying to fix different things unsuccessfully, feeling even more out of control, etc etc.

By S3, we have a better understanding of the Berzatto family structure: an unnamed father who walked out leaving them in debt, Donna who is/was an alcoholic and otherwise emotional black hole, Mikey who died at age 43 (born 1979, died 2022 as seen on his prayer card), Sugar who's 36 a year after his death (born 1988, confirmed by her hospital intake in Ice Chips), and Carmy who is 26 a year after Mikey's death (confirmed by the original script.) So when Carmy was born, Sugar was 10 and Mikey was 18. This is important because in light of Fishes and Ice Chips, Donna was an alcoholic for as long as they were children, was incredibly unpredictable with mood swings, poor emotional regulation and maybe even emotional abuse (see how Carmy and Sugar essentially are trying to regulate their mother's emotions in Fishes), and probably some physical altercations if Donna's behavior in Fishes is anything to go by. Sugar explicitly says that she frightened all of her children. Mikey was probably the de facto parent in a lot of instances, being the only other adult in the household. The fact that he was also an addict, and as seen in Fishes, also violent or unpredictable at times, complicates this. S3E1's scene with Sugar and Carmy at the airport implies that after Mikey started cutting Carmy out (and struggling with addiction) Sugar started to assume that parental role. So that's a whole fucked up childhood right there, with very little room to healthily develop emotions or coping mechanisms or an understanding of healthy relationships. In ice-chips, Sugar demonstrates that she's aware of this. "I ask people if they're okay way too much," and "I'd make myself sick to make you feel better." Everything with Carmy's character demonstrates that he does not have this self awareness.

Carmy explains in his al-anon monologue that the rhythm of the kitchen became soothing to him, because it was so rigid and so predictable (a direct contrast to his home life.) But while it was soothing, he also cut contact with people in his life, because the self-isolation made things "quiet" (and probably gave him a feeling of control, like most self-destructive impulses do) which led to him being incredibly isolated and incredibly dependent on work as a coping mechanism by the time he ends up working with the abusive NYC chef. Important thing to note about that: now his only coping mechanism has been polluted by abuse as well, and the trauma of that will haunt him increasingly throughout the seasons (coupled with the fact that he's probably never learned how to healthily process his own emotions, in part because he ended up having to set them aside to emotionally regulate his own mother.)

Then Mikey kills himself. (which again, is the fucked-up family figure of brother and parent and addict and idol all rolled into one suddenly dying on you after abruptly cutting your out of their life)

I say all this because I want to make very clear that mentally, Carmy is not well. Across his various al-anon monologues, the fridge conversation, his flashbacks, etc. it becomes really clear that he's never really had any sense of safety or security in his life except for maybe when he was 18-24 when he did the French Laundry, Ever, Noma, and Daniel. The amount of anxiety that he experiences in his day to day life is not normal, it's not healthy. It's exhausting and damaging. He's also probably pretty depressed, and probably had been even before Mikey and NYC chef. He talked about in al-anon that when he was a kid, he could never feel happy or excited about anything because he was always waiting for the other shoe to drop (arguably because of his mother, because if she was upset, she made everyone else upset to deal with it, and if she was happy, he was waiting for her mood to shift.) We very rarely actually see him happy or joyful in any of the seasons. So basically, as evidenced by that and what we see in the seasons, he's got this really damaging spiral of anxiety and depression, where he's so anxious he can't feel happy.

Pursuit of happiness is actually what brings us to Claire as a character. He meets her almost right after he talks in al-anon about the fact that he should "provide amusement and enjoyment" for himself. Then he meets her in a grocery store, and promptly, and deliberately, gives her the wrong phone number. Personally, I read this as Carmy knowing that he's not ready for a relationship. He pursues it anyways, for likely 2 reasons:

Pursuit of happiness. Sugar always wanted him to get away from the Beef in S1, now he's trying to get some space and do something to "provide amusement and enjoyment"

Mikey! In Fishes, Mikey was really excited about the prospect of Carmy dating Claire. At the time, Carmy was like WTF, but in the wake of Mikey's death, this is probably a way of connecting with him. See, I can do it! I can date a girl! I can do this thing that you thought would make me happy. I can be normal. I can be what you wanted.

Now a little film student analysis:

One thing that I love about the Bear is that they're really good at the whole concept of "show don't tell". You'll hear about this a lot in writing advice, but it's actually even more relevant in film. Here's a good example from the bear:

The Bear never, ever says that Carmy has anxiety. I'm not even sure if the word "anxiety" is even said onscreen. Instead, The Bear shows:

Carmy drinking bottles of Pepto Bismal and chewing fistfuls of Tums, yet rarely eating anything

Carmy sleep walking and almost setting his apartment on fire

the sheer amount of nervous energy he has (tapping spoons, sharpies, cigarettes, etc. , never standing still, being generally twitchy)

some really great tricks with filming and lens that make the world around him shift focus, shift perspective, blur, and otherwise visually simulate the effects of an anxiety/panic attack.

In film, you have to be incredibly intentional about what you keep in and out. In my first film class, when we were doing film analysis, a lot of people would start "I'm not sure if this was intentional, but..." and the film teachers immediately shut that down with this statement:

"assume everything is intentional. even if it wasn't, someone still chose to leave it in" meaning that, in film, what you see on screen is actually a fraction of the material that filmmakers had to work with; if something makes it through to the final cut, it was important.

I mentioned before that despite Claire occupying a main character role as a love interest, she does not get main character screen time. Like I said above, I think a lot of people perceive this as her character being done a disservice, that she's badly written, that she's meant to be this perfect male fantasy, etc, etc.

Firstly, I present to you the fact that characters such as Sugar, Sydney, Tina, Donna, all have absolutely beautiful storylines and arcs. They're complex, well-written characters. I don't believe that Claire's lack of screen time is because the show-runners secretly idolize manic pixie dream girls and women of "male fantasy" and thus Claire is supposed to be this perfect person who doesn't need any screen time to be developed (which feels like a thread I've seen a lot.). I really don't think the show runners are secret misogynists. Sorry.

What I do believe is that Claire as a character is not meant to be central to the story. The show very intentionally spends more time developing Carmy's relationships with Sydney, Tina, Sugar, Richie than it does with Claire. Why? A host of reasons.

1. Because Claire is a new form of escapism for him, not that the kitchen is no longer is sanctuary.

I talked before about how after the NYC chef, and I would argue, now that he's trying to start his own restaurant, his one safe space of the kitchen has become polluted with the same chaos and/or abuse from the rest of his life which he spent years running away from. But because he's so isolated, he has no where else to go. So he creates somewhere to go, by creating a relationship with Claire. That relationship is his new form of escapism.

The show communicates that to us in one very specific way: 90% of the time, if Carmy is with Claire, we don't see him. This is not 100% true 100% of the time, but there was a clear pattern that developed in S2 that time spent with Claire is time spent off screen. I think a lot of people see this as "not developing Claire's character" and not giving her screen time, when in fact it's more so about Carmy's absence.

When he ditches Sydney to move boxes with Claire, we never see that scene. We just assume that he was doing it.

When Sydney is trying to figure shit out in the restaurant by herself, it's implied that Carmy is with Claire, but we don't cut to them.

When Carmy talks to Sydney about all the menu things he talked about with Claire, we never see those scenes.

Why? Because he is escaping The Bear by being with her. It would be a very different narrative if we actually did see these scenes, because it would demonstrate that they have an emotional weight and importance in the show. Instead, they're defined by their absence.

Carmy and Claire's relationship is defined by its absence in the show.

2. Claire is not the right type of partner for Carmy, and we're not supposed to believe that she is.

I think it's interesting to look at Carmy's relationship with Claire through Sugar's relationship with Pete. I was talking with some people and they observed that in a lot of ways, it makes sense that Sugar would be with Pete because he is completely non-threatening. In many ways, he's the opposite to most of the men in the Berzatto family (note: I'm not saying Berzatto men are threatening.) But Berzatto men are loud, and opinionated. Some of them engage in behaviors such as: screaming in their kitchen, and throwing spoons and sharpies; throwing forks like darts at their relatives and also shouting; telling their nephews that there nothing and worthless and will never be anything; walking out on their families and leaving them in debt; lording their financial success over various family members. You also have Donna as a parental figure who also throws things violently, yells and screams, is an emotional black hole, and has aggressively grabbed Sugar at least once. Pete is about as far away from all of this as you can be.

I think that Claire is Carmy's Pete in a lot of ways. She's quiet, and calm, she's non-threatening, etc. She's not emotionally manipulative, she doesn't ask much of him (so when she does ask things of him, it's a welcome escape), she is a doctor, which is meant to help people. However, and part of why I don't think their relationship would work in the long run, is that Carmy doesn't need a Pete. Sugar has an emotional intelligence that Carmy doesn't, for one thing. For another, as alluded to by Ice Chips with Sugar listening to the podcast about Adult Children of Alcoholics, each of them were affected differently by their traumatic childhood. And quite frankly, I think that Carmy needs someone who can be gentle and empathic and quiet with him, but also someone who won't take his shit and can stand up to him. (because unlike Sugar, who tends to internalize everything, Carmy has a tendency to externalize everything.) He tends to take it out on the people around him, and I think he needs someone who can simultaneously shut that down and hear him out. And I don't think Claire is that.

3. The chemistry just isn't there.

I don't want to get into an argument about shipping. I can't predict if Carmy is going to get back with Claire after some emotional development, or if he's meant to be with Sydney, or whatever. Personally, I think that any discussion of a relationship is premature (and I think that Carmy knew that subconsciously when he gave Claire a wrong number and was very hesitant on the phone when she called him the first time.)

What I have observed is this: the few scenes that we do see of Carmy and Claire feel a lot less emotionally charged than other scenes in the show. Forgetting romantic relationships, there is so much more emotion and connection in the following scene than in the scenes we see with Carmy and Claire:

Richie and Carmy's conversation about purpose in S2.

Carmy and Sydney's conversation under the table in S2.

Carmy and Mikey's conversation in the pantry in Fishes.

The snippet in the fridge when Carmy's talking to Tina.

The scene with Claire that really sticks out to me having emotional weight is the scene in S3 where they talk about the days of the week, Carmy's hand scar, and Claire accidentally almost killing that girl in the ER. It hurt so much you couldn't feel it. Firstly, it's telling that that scene happened in flashback, not during their relationship, and secondly, the main thesis of that scene was more of a commentary on trauma than it was about their chemistry (ie, Carmy is so traumatized atm, he doesn't realize that he is because of how much it hurts.)

This demonstrates to me that a) the show writers can write emotionally powerful scenes, and scenes with chemistry, and b) the lack thereof in scenes with Claire was an intentional choice because it demonstrates that other relationships are more important for Carmy's character than the one with Claire.

For all that Carmy said that he loved Claire, we never see any evidence of it. It's told, not shown. Whereas his affection for other people in his life isn't mentioned, but it is shown: "I have time for this" and sitting down to talk to Richie about purpose. Buying Sydney a monogrammed chef's coat because she liked his.

His relationship with Claire is important for what it helps demonstrate: his desire for escapism, his self-destruction, his emotional immaturity, the fact that he has other very important relationships and that he needs to deepen those bonds, the fact that he needs to get his priorities in order. It's not so much about Claire. And maybe that will read as sexist to some, because it's more about him than it is about her, but I don't think she's really meant to be a main character either.

[clarafyer]

Okay little thing about my writing style I actually just named that could be helpful when writing: The RRR method

Research, reference, and relate.

RESEARCH things you may be depicting. Things like trauma and its responses, disorders, religions, cultures, etc. When you're depicting PTSD like so many OCs end up having because of the things we sick writers do to them, you'll want to know what PTSD entails in everyday life and how it affects people. With culture, you'll of course want to know what the actual culture is in order to depict it! Don't just say "this character is Muslim" and then have them be drinking alcohol with a pork dinner.

REFERENCE your inspirations. It's just like using references when drawing. Look into the structure of your inspirations, how your favorite authors use suspense and subtext. Using references and inspiration is not stealing or copying or any shit like that! But it can easily bleed into that territory. I say this as mostly an artist who keeps tabs on the toxic community who thinks studying an art style is stealing it, etc etc stupid crap. If a character of yours ends up accidentally being similar to one you know from a piece of media, you don't need to pull a 180 on their writing! Overlaps are bound to happen, and that's okay. Reference those character's story arcs, behaviors, etc. and make it your own unique thing along the way!

RELATE details to other parts of the story. When people can see dots connecting in your story, that 'click' feeling is the best! Make sure that major points of character's story relate to other plot points, either in another character's story or the main plot, or both! Of course, you can have irrelevant details about people. But when you're talking about character-defining backstory, you should probably find openings to connect it to other areas of the story, that way it all comes together and becomes cohesive and relevant to each other.

This is just my own opinions and advice! You don't have to do anything I said here. I just managed to put into words how I write my own OC lore and worldbuild. This can work for authors, gamemakers, D&D players! (D&D players specifically because having a backstory that relates to the campaign is a really good idea and the DM WILL use that information against you in angsty sessions) If you found my advice helpful, I'm glad I could be of service :)

[millytherat]

Reading through @badaziraphaletakes inspired me to make a post about reasons:

Why people tend to choose Crowley of Aziraphale, and, consequently, think Aziraphale is bad

This might be a long post, i'll cover some topics and i might get all over the place at some point! But please be patient! Can i get into it?

Inversion of values

When first watching Good Omens, you might expect a strong inversion of values, that Heaven is bad and Hell is good, angels are the oppresors and demons the victims

It is mostly religiously (religious trauma) motivated, aka "christianity is a fucking bullshit" motivated, to expect seeing the ones who calls themselfs good (Heaven, who we interpret as Christian religious figures) be actually bad (wich, in real life, they tend to be) and, the ones they cast out as evil and sinful (Hell, wich we interpret in this case as anyone the church calls sinful, like the queer comunity) to be good and innocent and just different, it makes us feel emphatic for them, even seeing that they are, indeed, bad

I believe some people just dont want to accept it, they want to believe the angels are inherently bad and the demons just questioned their bad ways

But they arent, if anything ALL angels and demons are naturally good and innocent, "oh but Gabriel!" He was naturally good, we saw it, the same with Michael and Uriel too, they're all just tainted by the strong grip Heaven demands for them to have; in episode 1 season 2, we see both Crowley (as starmaker) and Aziraphale being totally innocent and adorable, they're good by nature, no one in the story is actually evil

When this inversion of values we wish for isnt fulfilled, it might cause an annoyance, i know a lot of people who dont accept it, and just make it up because... well is expected!

Queerness

This was originally taken from a post of "Bad Aziraphale Takes"

Crowley is "more queer" than Aziraphale, at least thats how people see it as, in fics too, how many times Crowley gender is explored, with pronouns and labels and identities? While the more i saw for Aziraphale was a vulva or they/them pronouns, and never in a human au! Aziraphale is depicted and seem as a cisgender male

I have seem even people saying Aziraphale have internalized homophobia! I- how??

Found them! @theelastword made an ask on the "bad Aziraphale takes" blog that inspired this bit <3 thank you love

Need for a villain and favorites

As we saw, people that hate Aziraphale choose to see Heaven as evil, as the villain, and that is also followed by many people who dont hate Aziraphale! Well, might i say that... we dont have a real villain in Good Omens? The angels arent evil for wishing to follow what they believe to be God's plan, nor for deminishing humanity- but i'm getting ahead of myself here!

The need to see Heaven as inhetently bad, the big bad villain, makes people see Aziraphale, going back there "freely", hurting Crowley's feelings, saying Hell/demons are the bad guys (wich they ARE?? There is not an inversion of values!) As him being evil, as him going to the side of the villain instesd of choosing Crowley, going back to CROWLEY'S abusers, not his, not theirs, Crowley

I do believe humans have a natural need to have favorites, when you're a kid is always "wich caracther of this cartoon am i?" and later is always "wich do i relate to more? Wich do i like more?", and people choose Crowley for all those reasons above and probally some personal ones too

So! As a small conclusion:

People choose to prefer Crowley, they choose to see Crowley as better because he's a "good demon", he's the victim that fell from Heaven and hates Hell, he's the queer caracther, he's kind and genuine and helps Aziraphale and have a car he loves

Because of the idea that Aziraphale is: A) opposite to Crowley; B) an Angel! (The abusers! The bad guys! The evil!); C) a BAD angel for that matter, he's selfish and mundane and comes across as rude to Crowley (because he acts so fucking autistic too!); people tend to DISLIKE Aziraphale, small simple minded people, but people nonetheless

I know the whole post is a bit over the place, it might sound confusing here and there, but i really wanted to put all this together to try and understand why people hate Aziraphale

I though maybe this can give a small input on why people think like that, it sures helps me to understand how they think that and what they mean by their terrible takes! I guess is mostly them being naive

Oh! You know how in the 2000's the media was demonizing femininity by having blond, pink, feminine villains in their high school romances? How we, to this day, tend to see feminine girls as fake, vulgar, naive, etc? How most teen girls go through a "not like other girls phase" because of that?

Same principle! Is the same reason for why they see Heaven and Aziraphale as evil

I hope someone can appreciate this lil silly thoughs put together <3

[major-wren]

I love the "ARK siblings" concept and I love cute lighthearted fanart of them being siblings but I feel like a lot of people forget that they literally canonically share a soul and that her death is, in my opinion, I think supposed to represent a part of one's self dying and that they're supposed to be, symbolically, a lot more than siblings.

I always saw Shadow's story as a symbolic way to express the way your inner child and innocence is sacrificed in order to survive complex childhood trauma. Maria's color scheme and the way she's written is, I think, clear to all of us how she's meant to represent innocence and youth. I mean, she doesn't really function very well as a stand-alone character or realistic depiction of a child, shes always been more of an.. idea.

I'm not sure if it was purposeful, but the moon's "Maria" are craters that formed from the moon repeatedly taking the hits of asteroids at it's points of gravity. These points of gravity attract asteroids and draws then away from the Earth. The craters are mostly on the side of the moon we see, so the dark side of the moon, or "shadowed" side is better protected because of that. I feel like this is an extension of Shadow and Maria's symbolism. She took the bullet for him, protecting him, the same way Maria takes the comets, and the same way your brain will sacrifice your inner child (or freeze/rush your mental development) in order to survive intense childhood abuse. I know it all sounds extreme lmao but at the end of the day characters and storytelling are used to explore and express hard emotions and I don't think this randomly tragic character sprung out of nowhere for the Sonic games, which, before that point, always had very lighthearted positive characters (except for the echidna extinction in the game right before Shadow's). Having a character that was easy to approach, yet could represent scarier concepts as a child-friendly stand-in, felt like a very important tool to me growing up. I just hope that that writing can be appreciated in his character, with an understanding of how messy production can be and how a character can get pulled between many different people and ideas. I do think this symbolism was intentional to some degree, especially when it gets to the blatant soul-sharing and how characters insist that Shadow can't be a weapon because Maria's soul (his inner child and true morals despite the damage done to him) makes him "good hearted."

There's other things that uphold this symbolism of Maria dying as representing his inner child being killed, like the rushed/suspended mental development in the face of trauma being illustrated by the fact that Shadow was forced into a dormant cyro slumber right after Maria's death, symbolizing the way he had to basically skip childhood or hit pause on development until he could escape the people controlling him. Much like how victims will have to pause everything and go on autopilot with only a goal of survival until they can escape their situation; only after they feel safe can they begin growing as a person and find their identity. In the Japanese language, there are different types of pronouns people can refer to themselves with instead of just "I" or "myself." In the Japanese dub of SA2, Shadow's creator said in an interview that he had been very insistent on Shadow using the pronouns reserved for young boys, despite Shadow's menacing villain role in the game, because he felt it was important to show Shadow's purity and his lack of experience in life so far. That "live and learn" theme.

And then in his self titled game, Shadow is searching for a way to reconnect with his past and to find the truth about this Maria person he keeps seeing in flashbacks, but in the end he throws away her picture and accepts himself as he is now, forever changed and stained by his past, but more than just a product of his situation. He is "all of him," including the negative impact he never asked for, and including the parts of himself he lost, but also the parts of himself he chose to become. Your environment and childhood shapes you even if you didn't want it to, but that doesnt mean you cant have control in your identity and recover your inherent nature once you've escaped the negative influence (nature vs nurture theme). He will never be the person he used to be, or could have been, (represented by Maria as a pure and untouched youth), but he still has a say in what that grows into.

I just feel like a lot of Shadow's identity issues and inner conflict stem from this whole soul sharing situation with Maria and that his character ends up inevitably being misunderstood if you water them down to just siblings. Especially considering that it was never answered if Shadow actually even ever met Maria or if they're just memories planted by Gerald or caused by the shared soul. In Sonic Battle, it's also said in Gerald's diary that not only do Maria and Shadow share identical souls, but that Gerald literally modeled Shadow after Maria out of his love for her. I'm not sure to what degree or in what ways, but Shadow is supposed to share purposeful similarities with Maria, likely through the content of her character and her morals. That's what makes them so much deeper than just psuedo siblings, he's not only made for her, but designed after her too. It can't really be compared to, for example, Sonic and Tails.

I also think its what makes Shadow's character so substantial and meaningful. His self titled game's entire theme was purity, morals, what is good and bad. This question of purity and morality spreads into his appearances in other stories too- This question that, if you were badly hurt in your youth and shaped by evil- does that leave you impure? Stained? Destined to continue that cycle of harm and cruelty? I think these insecurities feel very real and relatable, and that it's even more realistic that despite these insecurities, that hurt and damage is actually what fuels him to protect others. Just as he said in Sonic Battle, "There's no need to repeat past tragedies! Nobody else ever needs to go through the things that I have!"

Statistically (despite media portrayal) abuse victims RARELY become abusers, because they understand the pain on a deeper level and can't bring themselves to force someone else into experiencing that same pain, knowing the permanent damage it causes. However, childhood abuse leaves people socially stunted and conditioned to harshness, which causes them to accidentally hurt others without meaning to. Or they end up hurting people out of desperation if they feel endangered (like Shadow's "means to an end" approach where he'll prioritize violence if it means reducing the end-impact). Also, they are more susceptible to being abused again after escaping the first abuser, because they are so susceptible to manipulation- Just like how whenever Shadow does switch sides, its usually because someone manipulated him into it or literally brainwashed him. I think Shadow conveys all of this so well, and that Maria's true role is an integral part of it all that can't be ignored or misunderstood, or else Shadow ends up reading as unnecessarily violent or overly obsessed with her when you interpret her as just a sister-figure that he knew for... who knows how few years.

I think this symbolism runs deep with his writing. Just like Maria's meant to be that inherent purity and inner child, I think the black arms DNA is that stain that abuse or trauma can leave on you, that causes you to act out or feel like you're always holding back and trying to keep control over some darker part of yourself that was left behind in the damage done. Especially since they literally have a mind link with Shadow. In the Sonic Universe comic, they succeed in brainwashing Shadow and turn him against his friends. These mind-links, soul-sharing, and brain-washing from both Gerald and the black arms... To disregard the fact that he's deeply connected to these people on a metaphysical, identity altering level is to water down his character and leave it feeling as though his motives are too weak to justify his harsh actions. I've seen people poke fun at his amnesia or insecurity in his identity, as though his confusion isn't justified, and I think it's because people don't realize he has these... literal fragments of other people inside of him, that that's pretty much what he's made of, kind of franken-steined together between a little girl's hopes and morals, an alien race's hivemind greed, a weapon-hungry government and a revenge maddened scientist's painful grief, and even the chaos emeralds which we all know are spiritually whacky and potentially connected to another alien race's memories and energies (the ancients from sonic frontiers). With all of that going on, plus some amnesia mixed in and his memories having been altered by Gerald- I mean.. you'd be searching for the "truth" of your identity too, who you really are. And of course, prone to frustration and aggression, or even a "wish-washy inconsistency." I think there's always a constant tug of war inside of him and that his whole development was a game of tug of war between Gerald, G.U.N and the black arms too. "Am I a cure, am I a death-bringer, am I earth's protector, am I it's destroyer," etc etc

Idk I just think a lot of problems people have with Shadow's writing stems from not realizing how deep things go and what they symbolize. Not to say that something like his boom characterization is of good quality or anything, but I think it's unfair to call him inconsistent when a confusion in his own identity and purpose/goals is kind of the point. And I think people not realizing Maria's deeper, physiological connection to him and influence might be part of the problem.

[erriga]

i don't the have the willpower to write essays right now so here's just a simple numbered list of things/details I love about Mouthwashing

(SPOILERS)

The use of mouthwash itself as a multilayered symbol is so genius. Because not only is it a perfect represantation of a product for a manufactured need (calling back to how Listerine "invented" halitosis), which really works in tandem with the overall commentary, but it's also a perfect metaphor for Curly's inability to commit to anything other than his own sense of right and wrong. Too much sugar to be effective, so to speak.

I love how Anya is not particularily special in any way. She is just a person, just like eveyone else on the ship and the game treats it as an obvious thing. That that in itself is more than enough to justify her humanity and make (mostly but not only) Jimmy's treatment of her all the more reprehensible. This shouldn't be a high bar but still. Bonus points for her character model being just as exagerrated as everyone else's.

Speaking of Anya, multiple people have pointed out how her SA plotline fortunately avoids several trappings of how this topic is often depicted in media (objectification, treating the victim's suffering as "deep" and artistic in nature, torture porn-inness, reducing the character to their biological functions and trauma that comes with them, etc). I do wish we could get to see the situation from her perspective, but I also respect the creators' decision to focus on how she as a person is overlooked in the multilayered system of abuse that governs the ship. All in all I think they managed to avoid the issue of portraying a problem (in this case absive treatment of women but more in general, maginalized people) without recreating it, while also highlighting that the issue is deeply systemic and not just the result of one bad actor we have to punish and everything will be ok guys, fr.

The world building - it's specifically not a science fiction narrative (even though there is nothing wrong with sci-fi ofc). This situation could happen anywhere, but the outer space just hightens the sense of hopelessness (it's almost lovecraftian in a way now that I think about it). There's no discussion of space exploration, no shiny gagdets, no talk about some great government cospiracy, just a bunch of average people, working in terrible conditions for a company that is only ever so slightly exaggarated. I think that's one of the reasons why the narrative feels so human - it doesn't allow the player to get distracted by specifics, only ever alluding to them.

I find this one just kinda amusing but god WHY is the captain the only one allowed to do literally anything? The lack of agency it leaves all the other characters is just aaaaa. I mean, it reduces them to children who have to wait for an authority to enact any sort of change. Everything is controlled. Only one person can take responsibility. The hierarchy in this is insane.

if I think of anything more I'll update it but those are my main observations

[radioactive-dazey]

Why I think people should be allowed to “water down” Remus 

Hi. I’d like to preface this by saying, I don’t really care how people write Remus. Typically if there's an interpretation of him I don’t like, I ignore it/don’t engage with it. Additionally, I personally do not like the interpretations in which I’m defending (baby-ifying and toning down his character are very often hard for me to consume due to it hitting a certain mind-numbing extreme, and it Takes Me Out of the story if it’s overdone). 

Also, this may get tangent-y, a lot of it boils down to my personal interpretation, how I like to write him, and the stuff I read/avoid reading.

Pings: @finchandthebard @existential-grackle @micropoet

My major point: Writing intrusive thoughts can be hard or disturbing. 

I have intrusive thoughts that overwhelmingly play heavily into my trauma. Because of that, I have to work into overdrive to portray Remus differently than how I experience intrusive thoughts. I have more fun writing him to be a chaotic entity rather than a disturbing one, it often fits better into the story if, instead of having him create visuals of murdering Thomas’s friends, he instead makes Thomas/others experience body dysmorphia, convince Thomas there's something wrong with his food, making sexual innuendos, etc. This is how I chose to “water him down.” Accurate portrayals of intrusive thoughts, includes examples of things he’s done in canon, but it very rarely goes further than this for me due to my own comfort levels, and what is necessary for my fics. 

Writing extreme depictions of intrusive thoughts can be difficult due to it being detrimental to explore and engage with. It does have an impact on your mental health to only engage in the disturbing. (Side note: Do what you want, I’m not your mom). There’s already so many disturbing and scary parts of the internet and the greater world, and like me, many people use writing as a way to escape those topics. It goes both ways: if someone is inspired by their experiences to write Remus as disturbing or even more disturbing than how he appears in canon, they can and should do that! But if someone rather not, then that's okay too. I think it’s more harmful to expect every version of Remus to be a disturbing, sexual innuendo creating, Jeffery Dahmer idolizing creature than it is for someone to write a version of him that is “oc-ified.” 

Additionally, it can be hard to write in a respectful way, which is why I think some people avoid doing it. Remus is more digestible when he’s heavily censored. And while this could turn into an argument about how people who experience intrusive thoughts regularly may find it offensive to censor/remove that aspect of him, I personally don’t care (refer back to my statement of “If there’s an interpretation I don’t like, I ignore it).

Remus representing intrusive thoughts is not something that's always suitable for a fic or something that is able to be portrayed in fics. Take human Aus, for example. This can be mostly worked around, writing him to have intrusive thoughts instead of creating them, as Virgil is written to have anxiety rather than representing Thomas’s anxiety. However, beyond just finding it uncomfortable, someone may feel hesitant to write a scene indulging/engaging with/portraying intrusive thoughts. Not because they don’t want to, but rather because they can’t or are inexperienced. I think its weird to expect it automatically, especially if its a non-Remus centered fic. 

This all being said… In my experience, It's hard to write for Remus when so much of his character IS tied down to his role as intrusive thoughts and dark creativity. Attempting to separate him from the role is like trying to scrape gum off the sidewalk. I think this is why it's so jarring to see interpretations of this occurring; it’s just not Remus after a certain point. 

Ultimately, I think it boils down to a few ideas: personal interpretation and what the writer is willing to create. So really, I don’t think it's as deep as people are making it. The fandom heavily misinterprets all the characters anyway, and you can make similar arguments about any one of the sides (EX: Virgil is a helpless anxiety case (infantilizing anxiety), Roman is an obnoxious dick (just blatantly wrong, I could sit an analyze his character all day if given a chance), Patton is an emotionally manipulative baby (literally trying his best, makes mistakes, is working on it), and Janus is a glorified alcoholic who will fight a bitch (hmm… unfortunately this misinterpretation is inching ever so closely to canon, but once again, that discussion is for another day.)) 

Frankly, there are bigger issues I think the fandom should care about, such as how the Real Life Thomas keeps sweeping issues under the rug, but sure, let’s talk about Remus. 

Edit: there's a point to be made about the interpretation leading to a complete misinterpretation of how intrusive thoughts work as a whole, i.e., people thinking intrusive thoughts and impulsive thoughts are one and the same. I failed to consider this 😮‍💨 and yeah, that's really annoying but I think it's a separate broader issue that can't fully be tackled in a post about how Remus is written

[brw]

What is it about magneto that puts you off?

Magneto as himself as a character is really interesting. There's something there for sure about grief and trauma effecting you so heavily, and all the things you do to make sure it never happens again really just end up hurting the very people you want to help, because you're so blinded by your own pain and suffering. A lot there about cycles of trauma, of the ways the people we love who hurt us often have had very difficult lives that made them the way they are, but at the same time you at some point have to do what is right for you and stop making excuses, etc.

The problem is that Magneto has attracted a strong fanbase of people who constantly say "Magneto is right", as if Magneto has ever had consistent politics beyond "Mutants come first", and rewrite history to make his relationship with his children more ""wholesome"" or palatable, when in reality he is not any better than Charles is when it comes to traumatising and mistreating his kids. And this would mostly be fine to ignore, if it didn't start seeping into Marvel canon and the way writers now depict him and his children.

Wanda would not call Magneto daddy! She has been very clear in the past that she considers her true father to be Django Maximoff, the man who raised her, and I do not care for Magneto quietly replacing that in Orlando Scarlet Witch. He is a bad person to Pietro especially, which still remains in canon still at least, but it's mostly vague, without the context of why. Magneto literally killed Pietro in a fit of rage. Their relationship is, and always will be, an antagonistic one, and I do not understand why fans want to rewrite this dynamic to a much blander, easily digestible wholesome dynamic. His relationship with Lorna is slightly more stable in my experience (mind you, this is definitely my weakest point of Magneto and kid's dynamic, so I could be wrong) with him being more willing to acknowledge his wrongdoings, but he still often can be controlling and very quick to anger with her the way he is with the twins.

Magneto is not right, and he is more interesting to me when he is wrong. I honestly do not see the value in recontextualising his original LeeKirby actions as "The humans NEEDED a monster to fight", when like, no, he straight up was trying to murder some teenagers! He was a villain and while I don't think he should return to that kind of villainy, it is extremely important to the makeup of who Magneto is, and especially his redemption arc and his relationship with the twins, and the ways they struggled to accept him in their lives when he was on his redemption arc.

I like Magneto. I do not care for his fanbase, and I don't care for the increasing prevalence of those fans maturing into comics and rewriting history to make him less divisive and complex to make him a straight up hero.

[strangestcase]

For the people that are going to do Dracula Daily this year:

One of the subplots that Dracula covers, and arguably the most important subplot, is one centered around a psychiatric patient confined to an asylum- it touches upon the way he sees the world, his relationship with his doctor, and how he relates to and perceives the villain VS the heroes, since for most of the plot he believes the villain to be good and strives to serve him.

Both the patient and the doctor characters (who are part of the main cast and very important to moving the plot foward in their own ways!) are portrayed as sympathetic victims to the main villain and mostly on the side of good, but in different ways, and, of course, the way they are written is informed by the beliefs of the time.

I won't spoil anything too important about it, just warn you that this subplot depicts Victorian Era ableism, which is... pretty extreme, and forms of medical abuse (specifically, psychiatric abuse) that still exist today!

This plotline involves:

-depictions of hallucinations, delusions, and irrational thinking

-medical malpractice: delusions being encouraged, patients being dehumanized, prolonged use of dangerous restraints

-unsanitary behavior (eating live animals)

-ableist attitudes from most of the hero characters

(other Dracula fans pls tell me if I've missed something)

What do I make of this? you ask. Well...

Do not excuse medical abuse, even if it's fictional. The doctor character is, for all his medical malpractice, depicted as a complex person that has some likeable traits and he undergoes a pretty sad arc relating to loss and trauma, like most of the heroes of this novel. This doesn't make him any less of an abuser, nor makes his patient any less of a victim!

Refrain from using ableist language or rethoric. The patient character, being written for a very old horror book, is often depicted as "unsettling" and his strange behavior is sometimes played for horror. This 1) doesn't make his situation any less deplorable 2) doesn't make him any less sympethetic and most importantly 3) doesnt give you a free pass to treat him as a scary horror monster. He's a victim of both the real monster of this story and the system he lives in.

Listen to psychotic fans. Research the history of Victorian asylums. Understand the historical context. Look at this subplot from a holistic perspective instead of treating it as a horror story within a horror story (although, it is a horror story, but not for the reasons some think it is!). Just don't be a dick to disabled people.

If any part of this subplot triggers or squicks you, you are not obligated to read it, just be aware that it exists and that it is important to avoid perpetuating ableist stereotypes, be they present in the original text or not. (Hell, you are not obligated to read any part of the book if you don't want to do so. Dracula Daily is supposed to be fun. Analyzing literature is supposed to be fun. Enjoying literature is supposed to be fun!)

For the love of God, don't get angry if some fans dislike the doctor character for what he's done and take the patients' side. This was an issue during the last Dracula Daily run. He's literally the victim in this relationship. I'm not saying you can't like or dislike either character but I have to reiterate: do not erase either character's contribution to the plot, do not demonize the patient character for being mentally ill in an "ugly" way and beliveing the villain is good, and don't woobiefy the doctor character because he said a funny thing once. Both are complex adult human beings so don't expect them to be caricatures.

Do not be afraid to call out ableist behavior from other fans, but also be careful to not overstep or talk over disabled fans, especially psychotic fans.

During the Dracula Daily run, some blogs will warn about the entries in which this subplot takes place, and what triggers apply for each one of them. If you need those warnings, don't be afraid to reach out for them!

Happy reading!

[bored-trans-orchidsexual]

A Starstruck Odyssey, and Masculinity

I have thoughts and am just gonna unload them on Tumblr. That's what we do here, right? I recently have been re-listening to Starstruck and have had some thoughts on it's depictions of masculinity. This isn't a serious post per se, just some thoughts and observations. Starstruck has a wide spectrum of masculine characters on display, though a lot of it is hostile/toxic. Most men or male-coded characters are either outright villains, or more neutral parties with some toxic and selfish tendencies. Don't get me wrong it's a wild violent galaxy and that's the point, the entire party participates in scamming, kidnapping, exploitations, and unnecessary murder and we love to see it, it's not like it explicitly makes all men out to be inherently more monstrous and evil than others. But I do think the depictions of masculinity can be interesting to observe. Amercadia is a pretty cut and dry critism of the patriarchy and American nationalist culture, which is fantastic worldbuilding to include. Many of the masculine-coded androids are actually pretty nice, friendly and helpful or serious about their jobs, aside from a bitchy one in the beginning who injects our main 'droid with an anxiety spike about being one of a kind. Pretty much all of the Slugs we meet occupy masculine bodies, and they seem to have an abstract gender that picks up pronouns from the body they occupy, though the monarch is objectively a king and uses masculine pronouns even before getting a body, and he's pretty selfish and stupid.

But the main pair I'm thinking of, is Barry and Gunnie. Looking at the two of them, there's a lot you can assume. Big Barry Syx is this massive, bulky dude in power armor and shades with a mullet, while Gunnie is a 4' 11" techie cyborg with a big ol' smile. Listen to them in action and many of your assumptions are reinforced; Barry is a total dude-bro associated with nuts, steroids, working out, and acting much like gym bros in our modern life, while Gunnie is a hyperactive technician just doing his best, despite being mired in sympathetic tragedy. Barry's trauma is fairly fantastical or common to stories, having his family gunned down by one of his own, while Gunnie is mostly weighted down by medical debt after he got in an accident after trusting the wrong person. Based on these apperent details one would assume Barry is this toxicly masculine jackass who's insecure about his flaws, while Gunnie is the smartest man on board and is trying to keep everyone in line, doing the right thing, ect. And of course, you'd be dead wrong. Gunnie, while a sympathetic and likable character, is *mired* in toxic masculine traits. While it was an accident that put him in his situation, it was brash foolishness and ignoring obvious red flags that got him in that position in the first place, not to mention a rebellion against his family driving him to it. Furthermore, as Lou himself admits in Adventuring party, Gunnie's *pride* is the reason his problems are so vast; He comes from a lot of money, his initial debt might have never happened or mostly gone away to begin with if he went back to his dads for help. His toxicity doesn't make him an unlikable character but he does have these traits. He's brash, prideful, and ignores common sense a lot. He is also very nice and friendly with others, listens to people, ect. He doesn't have *every* toxic trait in the book, but has them which I tend to not even notice because he's just a funny little guy. Barry, meanwhile, is just about the most wholesome and giving person in the entire 'verse. Syx *And* Nyne, when not under a slug's control, are these total sweetheart bros. Sure, they shit talk each other with friendly ribbing, and yes they are very good at violence, but this violence is always motivated by helping those in need or fighting for those who can't fight for themselves, the Barry Battalion way. Barrys hate it when people are rude, or hurt the innocent. Barrys fight for their friends, provide endless support and praise, and will throw their very bodies into danger to protect or help, as seen on Rec 97 and in the big finale of the battle of the brands. And while the thing the love most is other Barrys, that does not mean that what they respect is also being heavily macho dudes. Barry one (or was is spelled differently? Barry Won? who knows) was the professor who created the other Barrys, a nerdy and fragile professor type, that the Barrys loved and treated as a fellow Barry *literally* the moment they were created. Even Syd is a Barry now, and that's accepted both by Barry Syx who's known her a long time and bonded with her, as well as Barry Nyne who literally, to his perception, *Just* met her, despite her appearance as like a waitress with an arm canon. Being a Barry, in other words, isn't about being just like them, having the name Barry, or anything like that. It's a vibe, it's a way to be, and the 'verse is better off with these super wholesome boys who, despite embodying many stereotypes of the gym bro, posses *none* of the commonly toxic traits also associated with that. They aren't insecure around smarter people or those with different skillsets, they hold no gendered assumptions, and they never wanna use their might to opress others for their own satisfaction.

Just, some thoughts.

[plague-of-insomnia]

I ship sebaciel but I only like their dynamic, in my head I imagine an adult Ciel and I only read fanfics when Ciel is way over 18 and can decide by himself/not be manipulated. I was raped when I was 15, I could never ship something like that. But anti pro shippers never bother to see the nuance. I'm afraid if I start publicly shipping it, people will call me a pedo lol Also I think that the ones who like the age gap still can't be compared to real pedos who consume lolicon/ realistic drawings who REALLY resemble children and explicitly are in a setting of a child being molested. I see incels doing that, and the kuro fandom is mostly women.

Hi, anon. Sorry I didn’t reply yesterday. I had COVID a couple weeks ago and now have bronchitis and i just ran out of gas to formulate a response I felt this ask merited.

First of all, I’m sorry that happened to you. I hope you’ve been able to get past it enough that it doesn’t affect your daily life too badly 🫂.

Sadly, a lot of antis act as if they’re the only ones who have been victims of (sexual) abuse, and that any survivor who doesn’t behave the way they do either must be lying or “deserved” what they got— which is absolutely awful to do to anyone.

As I’m sure you’re aware, we’re not a monolith. Some survivors find rape play (whether role play or in fictional works) helps them move past their trauma because it helps them to have the control they didn’t have as victims. But others find it triggering and upsetting and not helpful at all— and that’s valid too.

I personally don’t ship sc anymore mostly because I just don’t click with Ciel in the ship the way I do with other pairings. I also personally get very very uncomfortable with some underage depictions. For example, there was a fantastic sc fan fic a few years ago that I had to stop reading. It is one of the best written works in the fandom, but it just made me so uncomfortable (it’s underage) I had to stop.

But what did I do? Did i leave the author an angry message saying I was not gonna read it? No, ofc not. I just clicked away.

So if for you, you need situations in which you feel Ciel can fully consent/is in control to feel comfortable and happy then that’s perfectly valid! There’s no one “right” way to ship anything, and you have to look out for yourself first. Because we come to fandom to have fun and escape, so no need to delve into things you don’t like or that make you uncomfortable.

Antis are incapable of seeing these kinds of nuances, or realizing that purposefully consuming content that upsets you is self harm.

Sadly, if you openly ship sc (or even aren’t absolutely against it) you may get some hate. I know I have gotten my share, and it’s *always* about Ciel, no matter how I’ve depicted other characters or what ages they are in my stories. But I’ve also gotten hate for being a fujoshi (misgendering me at that) more than once, and some of it even before I joined the fandom… for my original work.

My point is that people are gonna attack you if they’re gonna attack you…. if you’re not willing to take that risk by being public about your ship that’s valid too. I definitely get how exhausting antis can be and if you’re just wanting to stare at your blorbos for a bit you don’t wanna be fighting of negativity left and right too.

It’s a shame that antis have started using the word pedo as a word for anyone they dislike, devaluing it, but the real shame imo is that they refuse to see that actual CSEM is bad not because it’s gross or immoral but because it harms actual children, who grow up to be adults with trauma.

I think it’s very important to distinguish actual CSEM (or “fictional works” that were intentionally modeled off real CSEM) from anything that’s purely fictional. Because you can never really know why someone made something or why someone likes something.

I write about child abuse, sexual and not, a lot because I find it very therapeutic, but someone might read my works and may draw other, completely erroneous conclusions about me and my motives.

I honestly think a huge chunk of the kuro fandom is nonbinary, but I don’t really know the demographics. I’m sure they’re slightly different depending on if you’re looking at the western or eastern fandoms…

But women can be toxic just like anyone else. Some of the absolute most vile antis I’ve seen identify as female.

Ultimately, I think that the best thing to do with the fandom (or any fandom, really) is to curate your experience. Block accounts that trigger you or don’t vibe with you. Find like-minded friends to chat with in private, so you don’t have to worry about strangers hopping on what you say. Filter tags and use apps if you need to.

I think it’s a shame that antis are so vocal in the fandom and have divided it so much. As a multishipper not much into sc, I have definitely felt that fracture more than some others, since sadly too many non-sc shippers think they need to scream about how icky that ship is and be jerks when we could just ignore sc entirely and enjoy the other ships we like instead together?

But the no matter what antis claim, sc shippers have always been and will always be the column that holds the fandom up, and you either need to make peace with it or learn to ignore it.

🫶

My ask box is open for anyone who doesn’t feel comfortable being open about their love for kuro but would like to squee over it/the new series with someone who doesn’t mind listening :)

[snootlestheangel]

The brain rot is attacking me so I’m sharing the love

GazRoach but with Asexual Roach

Yay, more brainrot!!

I'm going with the idea that Roach is a burn victim and so he sometimes he has issues feeling comfortable in his skin (cause I just cannot unsee him as such because of all the beautiful art and writings I've seen depicting him as such). This has nothing to do with his asexuality, he was ace before the accident!

(also somehow fucked up the formatting and deleted two whole questions and the answers so like sorry if the first few questions are kinda rushed. I was mad at myself cause I had already written the answers just to immediately delete them)

Who was the one to propose? Gaz. It was the cutest, sweetest, most beautiful thing and Roach refused to stop hugging him.

Who stressed more over wedding planning? Roach probably. He wants Gaz to have the best wedding ever, but Gaz couldn't care less about the circumstances, just the fact he gets to marry his best friend :)

Who decorated the house? Gaz has style and it definitely started out as him, but Roach keeps bringing in little knick-knacks so eventually, there are rooms where guests can tell Roach had a hand in it's decor

Who does the cooking? Both can cook pretty decently, so typically they take turns. However, Roach often cooks more than Gaz. I don't know why, I just feel like Roach, even though he's a menace, can really whip up some gourmet shit.

Who is more organized? Roach, actually. Gaz is plenty organized, as a result of years being in the military and needing to keep his shit tidy, but Roach is the actual organized one. Yeah, he's bug boy, bugs have very complex systems and maintain those with diligence. -Roach's motto

Who suggested kids first? Gaz, probably. They don't think they ever will have kids, but Gaz is the one to ask about it first.

Who's the big cuddler? Gaz, but sometimes he gets banished to the floor when Roach feels constricted.

Who's the big spoon/little spoon? Gaz is little spoon. Whatever you do, don't imagine Roach burying his face in between Gaz's shoulders after a really tough day and just holding onto Gaz like he's his very lifeline (he is), and don't picture Gaz humming a little bit cause he knows the vibrations calm Roach down. Don't imagine them falling asleep like this, don't imagine Gaz staying in bed well past the time he should all because Roach is sleeping so peacefully, still wrapped around him.

Favorite non-sexual activity? Everything. They're such adrenaline junkies, despite their traumas, and like to push each other. They're actually working on Gaz's absolute terror of heights, bit by bit. Gaz wants to be able to ride a roller-coaster again without having flashbacks :')

Who comes home drunk at 3am? I don't see either of them being really heavy drinkers like this, if I'm being honest. Unless Soap is there and offers to drive both back to their place, neither really gets drunk.

Who kills the spiders? Gaz wants to kill them but Roach refuses to let him. Bugs are friends :) *Roach is very much committed to the bit*

Who falls asleep first? Gaz. I feel like he's so normal about things like that. Like he can just easily fall asleep, whereas Roach is laying there thinking about that ant he stepped on earlier.

A head-canon? Roach, being a burn victim, has a pretty tough time every now and then feeling like he fits in his skin. It doesn't help he's definitely got some Sensory Processing Issues, and so sometimes he really wants to claw off his skin. His burns do cover a good portion of his torso and upper legs. Sometimes when people give him a hard time about being ace, cause we all know there's those assholes, he just uses the excuse of his burns to make them uncomfortable. He came out ace well before the incident, but we all know he's not been taken seriously until he started blaming it on the incident. The two are still pretty intimate with each other; Roach loves when Gaz applies the creams/meds to his scarring, mostly cause the whole time Gaz is whispering praise in his ear, saying how proud he is, how pretty Roach is, etc. Not to mention, some of the places are hard for him to reach, and there's scarring up near his crotch (which is incredibly uncomfortable on Roach's bad days when he's reminded a lot of his skin isn't technically his own and he's overtly aware of the sensation of Gaz's hands on him), and so sometimes there's a lot of reassurance on both sides, from Roach saying he's good to keep going, and from Gaz to say "just a bit more, Bug, okay? You're doing good" Roach adores Gaz's physique, and is constantly photographing him; there's so many photos of Gaz in all sorts of different circumstances. The fall/cozy sweater pictures that are scattered around the flat, the ones of Gaz in the snow, or shirtless in the bright summer sun just looking like he's thriving. There's a secret stash of all of the nudes Roach has taken of Gaz. They're all so artistic and beautiful and non-sexualized photos of Gaz just simply ~Existing~ and those photos are Roach's most prized possessions. Roach just loves when Gaz isn't wearing clothes in general, and he's definitely stealing all his shirts so Gaz has 'no choice' but to walk around shirtless. Roach's favorite time of year is gray sweatpant season cause he gets the perfect view of Gaz's hips, the lines leading down and disappearing underneath his pants, the way Roach can still see the very minute dimples on Gaz's lower back, just visible above his pants.

Do they have any "rituals"? Only the process of applying creams/meds to Roach's burn areas. Gaz puts on a whole theatric basically to help put Roach into a good mood, and Gaz has to have the right playlist, the right stuff to cover the rather unpleasant scent of the medication cream, etc. (this is kind of a stressful thing for Roach, he's still pretty sensitive in certain areas/easy to trigger cause the trauma is still relatively fresh)

Who has the most patience? Gaz, most definitely. He's still glaring at you if you're annoying him, but it'll take a while before he ever loses his cool. Roach is just feral :D

Gif that sums up the relationship?

The silliest of sillies :)

[tater-tot-jr]

I think I should put in my two cents considering the Hazbin hotel leaked Angel Dust clip. I’ll say that this post should be one absolutely massive trigger warning. If you’re sensitive please don’t read this, I’m pretty blunt. Also I’m only talking about a small leak but SPOILERS!!!

So before I make any points I’ll start by saying that I’m not an inherent fan of vivziepop, this isn’t meat riding, it’s a genuine attempt at open conversation and discussion. I’ll also say I’m a survivor myself and while I don’t claim to speak for anyone else I have some ground to stand on here. I completely understand that people can be triggered by this type of imagery and will at least skip this particular scene or episode, I promise I’m not talking about you guys.

You wanna know who I am talking about though? The weird ass moral police I’ve been watching mobilize. It’s crazy how people are making a big deal out of this. I’ve seen three arguments and all of them are terrible in themselves and being used to justify terrible behavior.

I’ve only seen people claim three major things, this is a bad depiction of a s/a survivor and situation, this is something that’s too graphic and immoral to put in a TV show, the fact that the singing and dancing lightens the tone in a way people find distasteful. I’m going to be trying to prove why I find these arguments mostly ridiculous and unfounded.

As for argument one, s/a survivors come in all shapes and sizes and hyper sexuality happens to be an incredibly common reaction to sexual trauma. I haven’t watched episode one and two but even if I had I’d still have too small of a sample size to determine the entire tone of an incredibly messed up complex dynamic between too incredibly interesting and layered characters. It’s ridiculous to have so many assumptions and expectations of an *11 second leaked clip.*

Secondly. Creative freedom is possible the most important thing in art. If we didn’t have the freedom to put what we wanted on paper or on screen then we wouldn’t have had so much societal change recently. Just because you might find something distasteful and immoral doesn’t mean it absolutely has to be hated on and removed. It’s okay to not like things because you find them gross, it’s okay to not enjoy graphic depictions of serious subjects, it’s not okay to start internet wars over moral bullshit. It’s okay to be mad in silence sometimes, guys.

Thirdly. I kinda get this one, I don’t agree with it but I do understand the point. The idea you don’t want a serious subject framed with a sexy pop song is not inherently bad, it’s just something that makes me think you wouldn’t have liked Hazbin Hotel anyway. I actually appreciate the fact they are using the creative medium to make bold and shocking decisions but I get some people are sensitive to new things, that’s fine. Where this argument gets ridiculous is when people act like this is very out of line for a show like this. This isn’t a Saturday morning kids cartoon it’s and adult animated show about people in hell. It’s highly likely that this won’t be the worst thing we see, you either need to heed the trigger warnings at the beginning of each episode or get over it.

You’ll notice that I didn’t bring up anything about the merchandise pins or the storyboard artist, I did this because they aren’t arguments but barely related attempts at character assassinations. When you spend five minutes thinking about them critically you come to realize that there is nothing substantial to those arguments.

I’d like to finish up talking about how I think this scene is doing more good than harm. It’s important to make people uncomfortable when you’re talking about things so horrible like s/a and rape. It shouldn’t be meek and palatable for a general audience, it should upset you. I remember hearing something in a video game once that stuck with me. There was a character who said that when you’re sick you need strong medicine and that the strongest medication is very bitter.

I think episode four will be some very bitter medicine.

[silusvesuius]

Your Depiction of Ulfric is literal perfection. I’ve never seen anyone who sees him in a similar way to me, until I found your account last year. I fucking love miserable old man Ulfric who could never catch a break since the day he was born. Every major event in his life (he can’t even decide which one’s the worst) shaped him in the worst yet most interesting way possible. I can’t speak enough about him, his messed up self esteem clashing with his ego, his repressed emotions and sexuality, his shattered image of his own body and mind, the constant loud arguments between the voices in his head (mostly just him arguing with hallucinations) *I’m definitely not projecting here* his unstable mood, his flashbacks and his odd obsessions with random harmful patterns he associates with familiarity. Because to him familiar=safe even if he’s basically only familiar to a constant state of worry and feeling like he’s being targeted or hunted down.

None of this seems to be getting better, at least not in a notable speed. Yet they’re all existing within a strong and powerful man. It’s quite the combination, he’s being weighted down by all of that baggage but his back is too strong to bend. He appears as if he has nerves of steel from the outside, but really if anything is made of steel in his mind, it’s the vessel that he uses to bottle all of that trauma up.

I already had a vague idea of his complicated relationship (obviously) with Elenwen but your version literally felt like it opened my third eye. It is scrumptious and your art is so beautiful it depicts every essence of it all perfectly without even needing to include words. I fell in love with it at first sight.

dis answer is kinda long so i'm (crumpling it up and tossing it under the cut)

Omg wtf Thank you's 🥺🥺🥺💕💕💕💕 this is so well put together into words; i will do 9543 backflips for demented ulfric always. i've grown to like him in canon too cause he really has that, wouldn't even call it deceitful, weirdly-content personality.. but i don't think anyone in the writing room in sk*rim HQ knows how to write a character that has been through Anything, event of any kind, so he seems too 'perfect' for a person that has been through literal physical torture, to me, and his reactions to things that should be greatly upsetting are too mild. even though him being elenwen's victim is a piece of information that's easy to miss it seems like it also completely slipped out of the writing IOFDHDJFUIO LOL.. it all obviously adds up to him seeming more appealing as a fashie character to the audience, cus a visibly mentally unwell man wouldn't do it for most people, especially when you want to sway someone to be on his side of things.

i think it's quite smart for the st*rmcloaks to be presented as the more warm and welcoming types of people but ulfric should be the coldest of them all. Bro shouldn't even have the mental and physical capacity to seem Content with his life especially in that moment. he should be the type to use his civil war motivations as an excuse to stay alive if that makes sense, cause i don't think he really wants to live, but he has things to do to keep his mind and hands busy xchkvcjcvkl//

i also really love how ulfric only has galmar as someone he's really close to, it always seemed beyond genius to me, to write them like that, it's cute... he rly is the only person to suffer thru 4 hours of ulfric Peak psychosis monologue followed by 2 hours of trying to prove to him that th*lmor and imperial soldiers aren't hiding in the chests and under the beds of the palace LMFAOO galmar is the one guy who he can sob in front of and act like a little baby fishing for compliments and reassurance, and, not all that related to ulfric as a whole, but i strongly believe that having him be so vulnerable with galmar would make galmar really excited, it would make him feel good, like no other damsel in distress could deliver that feeling EVER. having such a seemingly-strong political figure rely on you Badly and madly would feel like something else entirely 💗 it's very off-putting and perhaps inappropriate of him to feel that way when ulfric is just searching for stability, but i think that even if ulfric knew galmar felt that way he wouldn't really gaf LOL. he'd turn to elenwen if there was no one else to go to cause he 'knows' her, and he'd torment elisif cause he 'knows' her as well.. but he would be completely closed off from making connections with other people 🏆

+ bonus; elenwen's feelings for him would border on everything at once, like, every type of relationship and connection that ever exists.. she really views him as the food she left over in the fridge and will get to eat when she's back from work as a reward

tl;dr him being scarier and more .. unkempt? from the outside would make him even cooler tbhs. he should become christian and develop religious OCD

[murderofravens]

To be honest, I am starting to see alot of submissive and flustered Yuuji smutfics and it is irritating me because of how it truly misrepresents and mischaracterizes Yuuji's canon personality where he is blunt, honest, straightforward and perverted. It canonly states he "likes all girls with a big ass" with bold nonchalance that he isn't afraid to voice his desires and wants. He is very upbeat and initiates dialogue with people and has a perverted mind but is respectful about it and isn't afraid to call a girl a bitch or is having pms problems (which he did to Nobara in season 1, no offense to princess Nobara though😎❤️)

But Yuuji is down to try new things and experiment. He is a golden retriever with a heart of gold, but he is also a wolf in sheep's clothing and I remember reading Yuuji smut where he is properly characterized but a majority of the writers either deleted tumblr or are no longer active. I can see Yuuji as a pleasure dom/soft dom power top, with some switch tendencies but definitely not a full on sub. I have to most likely write to fill the void. (Ugh this is saddening. But what do you think? Do you see Yuuji as a pleasure dom or soft dom as well? Or alot more of a power dom?)

i agree with everything you said ! 😊 portraying him solely as a sub truly feels like mischaracterization for me. i do believe that in general yuuji is a pleasure dom and a soft dom, but after shibuya, and mostly in shinjuku showdown after being hardened with so much trauma and having changes in his personality (such as he's more motivated, stronger, always locked in, he didn't even blink when yuta/gojo fell to the ground) he gives me major power dom vibes. i feel like after being used as a vessel and having no control over his actions through shibuya, he definitely has more dominant tendencies and perhaps even a hunger for some sort of control. one thing i really think depicts this clearly was during mahito vs yuuji, when mahito was panicking and crawling away from him while he was calmly walking because he knew he had won, and how mahito kept throwing snowballs at him and he didn't even care, or during shinjuku showdown how he has literally not said a single word throughout the entire fight with sukuna except for wanting megumi to wake up— all these little things enforce that power is something he takes very seriously. even in fights you will never see him enjoying them, or smiling or cracking jokes in them like nobara, megumi, gojo or sukuna do. he is simply dedicated to fighting, and i think it would bleed into his sexual life as well.

yuuji has been shown to be blunt, straightforward, he doesn't lie because he sees no reason to, he's gambled, been in pachinko parlours and had girls swoon over him and had posters of girls on his walls all the same. and i dont like how people try to push this agenda of him being some innocent stuttering mess when he is so very clearly confident and smart and learns things so easily. it irks me a lot.