#i think that's why i reread/look at my old pieces a lot. because they're completely structured around feeling

[rosekasa]

my friend just asked me if i have to think about what i see in my head when im reading or if it comes naturally and i just realised i. literally do not visualise things in my head as physical things. like ever. even when im drawing

[automaticdata]

I started rereading on of my favorite HTTYD fics from back when I was in the fandom, and while reading it's been fun, it's also just. Reminded me of how frustrating the HTTYD fandom was. And since I'm sick and thus my brain is foggy, what better time to rant about it?

Seriously, at one point the rampant Heather hate had me like. Analyzing fan reaction to female characters just to figure out wtf was going on. Like, the spinoff shows sucked in a lot of ways (RTTE especially), but I would argue that Heather was one of the good things that came from them. But no, according to the fandom, she's evil and/or a Mary Sue and/or [insert other criticism here].

Which ... can I just say, those attempts to analyze fan-behavior toward female characters made me very cynical towards most depictions of female characters in media. One of the conclusions I came to, iirc, was that media underrepresents female characters so often that in certain circumstances, an additional female character is seen as a threat to other female characters' screentime. It also made me accutely aware of how more often than not, a piece of media will only have two female characters, and those two female characters will be polar opposites, even if they're best friends. Animorphs did it with Rachel and Cassie, who are best friends despite having nothing in common. ASoIaF did it with Arya and Sansa. (I actually tried to explain to a friend of mine who was an ASoIaF fan why the relationship between Arya and Sansa annoyed me and kind of failed, and I think this is part of it - I have seen this "two completely opposite female character" trope so many times that it's gotten annoying af.) Harry Potter sort of did it, with the three most major female characters each having a kind of trope associated with them which would put them in different social circles: the bookworm/nerd (Hermione), the jock/cool kid (Ginny), the weirdo/outcast (Luna). Like, female characters just .... aren't allowed to be similar, They aren't allowed to be in the same social circles, or have the same interests. And that's weird as fuck.

I seem to recall some serious negativity toward Valka, too, because how dare she abandon her family - never mind that she was only twenty at the time, the same age Hiccup was when he's running off because he finds the possibility of being chief. And her husband was ten years older, iirc, which never seemed to come up as a "wait what" point in the discussion.

As I've gotten further away from the fandom, I've started liking the storyline of HTTYD2 less, and think Valka's role in it is kind of weird, but that's from the perspective of it in terms of storytelling/theme/etc. If we're operating from inside the story and looking at Valka's actions, while they aren't great, they're not horrible either. She was just as isolated as Hiccup was, possibly even moreso, and despite being a pacifist she got married to the best dragon-fighter in the entire village, who was ten years older than her. She had a baby before she was old enough to legally drink in modern America.

If we accept that Hiccup, at fifteen, felt so out of place that he wanted to run away, why don't we accept that when Valka was carried off, it was reasonable for her to assume she shouldn't go back? Just because she had a child? A child that had an older, arguably more responsible, more respected adult still available as his other parent? The impression that I had with Valka is that she stayed away because she literally thought that was best for everyone, including Hiccup. She'd finally found a place where she felt like she could be herself, and it wasn't in Berk. I don't fault her for that (nor would I fault Hiccup and Stoick if they were mad that she left, which they weren't).

You also had people being saying things like "when you're young, you sympathize with Hiccup, when you become an adult you sympathize more with Stoick." Which, um. No. I'm in my mid-thirties now, I just rewatched the first movie because the fic got me feeling nostalgic, and I still don't think Stoick was in the right. Sympathetic? Sure. But the dude crosses some serious lines, and for all he says Hiccup never listens, the worst non-listener in the entire franchise is him.

I mean, let's just take a moment to review, shall we? Your son, who last night was talking about how he's a born dragon-killer, comes home from who knows where and you tell him, "You get your wish. Dragon training. You start in the morning." Your son then tries to say that no, he doesn't want to fight dragons. He says he won't, he says he can't. Instead of thinking this is weird, you ... I guess assume he's joking? And you press on. Your son says stuff like "Can you not hear me?" and "this conversation is feeling very one-sided," but you press on. And all this when you know from the beginning of the conversation that there's something he wants to tell you.

Stoick also just. Flat out ignores warning signs when it comes to Hiccup, and more specifically how isolated Hiccup is in the village. He literally uses "looking after Hiccup" as a threat. When he gets back from a journey and everyone is telling him "everyone is so relieved" "the village is thinking about having a party to celebrate" etc., he's like, "wait, Hiccup's gone?" without making the connection that if that's people's reaction to Hiccup being gone, something is deeply fucked up.

Then, when Hiccup is in the ring with the Nightmare, it's Stoick banging on the bars of the arena which startles the Nightmare into attacking. He knows dragons are sensitive to noise, but in that moment he was too angry to care, and Hiccup nearly dies because of it. Afterwards he says Hiccup was the one who put everyone in danger, which is patently false. Hiccup didn't antagonize the Nightmare, and Hiccup didn't summon the Night Fury. Stoick antagonized Hookfang and Toothless came to the arena because he heard Hiccup scream. Toothless saved Hiccup's life.

During the discussion that follows, Stoick engages in some of the worst listening of the entire franchise. Hiccup is literally telling Stoick a ton of useful information, but Stoick only processes the information which allows him to find the nest. When Hiccup tries to tell him it's more dangerous than he knows, he ignores him, and when Hiccup grabs his arm and begs him, "for once in your life, would you just listen to me!" he literally pushes him away and disowns him.

So yeah, no. The older I get the more I see how Stoick failed in his responsibilities as a parent, even if I can see why it happened and can sympathize with him. Between Hiccup and Stoick, Stoick is the adult and the parent, and I expect him to act as such.

Don't get me wrong. I think the relationship between Hiccup and Stoick is one of the most compelling in the series. They illustrate the disconnect between them very well, and actually find a way to bring it to a satisfying conclusion. That said, that conclusion does not actually involve them meeting in the middle; it involves Stoick admitting he was wrong, and even getting a taste of what could have happened to Hiccup because of his actions.

There's also this like. Weird relationship the fandom had to the books, which. To be fair, the movies/show also had a weird relationship to the books. I read the books after seeing .... I think the first two movies? Definitely the first, at least. And while the books are cool in their own way, they very much are a different thing than the movies. The first movie is kind of a homage to the books more than an adaptation, and the second movie goes completely off the rails from anything remotely resembling the books. Yet, aspects of the books show up in the fanfic, and also in the early parts of the RoB show. The movie creators were determined to leave the movies where the books left off, even though they didn't start where the books started. (This btw was my first reason for not watching the third movie - the promotional materials making it look extremely silly only strengthened that conviction).

One of the things that I remember people complaining about was that they added Heather but not Camicazi, for example. And I just ... guys. Cami is already in the series. She's Astrid. The kick-ass girl with all the skills of a "proper" Viking, given a less anachronistic/appropriative name, and put in a context that worked with the movies only focusing on one Viking tribe. The differences Cami and Astrid have are because the differences in the books' Viking culture and the movies' Viking culture - the books put stuff like piracy and being sneaky among "proper" Viking skills, while the movies make "proper" Vikings more of the traditional straightforward warrior.

Like, if you're going to argue Cami and Astrid are different characters, I'm going to argue that book!Fishlegs and movie!Fishlegs are different characters. The movies do weird stuff moving certain aspects around and naming some things after book stuff which has nothing to do with the book counterpart. Book!Fishlegs and book!Hiccup merge together to create movie!Hiccup, movie!Fishlegs has literally nothing in common with book!Fishlegs besides his name, movie!Hookfang belongs to Snotlout instead of Stoick, movie!Toothless is a Night Fury instead of a Seadragonus Giganticus Maximus, the Green Death is now the Red Death, Alvin the Treacherous is basically completely different from book to show, etc. Like I said, the books and the movies have a very weird relationship.

aaaand I have run out of steam. :thumbsup: TLDR version, HTTYD fandom is weird, or at least it was when I was in it.