#i'm sure the movies don't claim to be an accurate depiction and i don't see book accuracy as an indicator of quality

[juliamccartney]

once dracula daily & re: dracula are over for the year i'm going to start watching every dracula movie adaptation i can find but as soon as there's a clear & meaningful divergence from the novel i stop watching and go onto the next movie

[freezegirl]

welcome to tessa is gonna say a thing and if you need to unfollow and/or block, by all means, curate your space and protect your peace but if i don't speak on this, i know i'm gonna carry this around and i don't want to do that because i want to have fun on this website first and foremost so here it goes:

on one hand: it's a website and none of these characters are real. at the end of the day, it's not that deep. one day, this website will be out of the air and only accessible through the way-back-machine.

on the other hand: to each their own and far be it from me to tell people how to write their characters, but i can't deny that i've been seeing a couple of (mixed race) indian characters around with similar story beats i.e. they're not really as immersed in the culture / the faith / the heritage. which is fine, there are people irl who aren't, either, i'm sure.

but on the other other hand: the message you're inadvertendly sending with certain character / development choices is real.

to me, it feels like convenience. like we're not worth the research, the energy. to me, it feels like you want the face claim but not the story.

we're worth more than just a cursory glance because we are more than chicken tikka masala and bollywood movies and so we are worth more than the label "is disconnected from and doesn't engage with the culture / heritage / background" and calling it a day.

now i am not saying every indian character on this site needs to be written as pious and going to the temple every sunday and has to be into celebrating diwali, holi phagwa, pongal and/or puthandu.

but i am saying that i did not get bullied, mocked and ridiculed for every aspect of the culture i was born and raised in - i did not spend most, if not all, of my teenage years and even some of my young adulthood years hating myself for being indian and surinamese only to claw my way back to loving myself and being proud of being of indian and surinamese - for people on tumblr to take the easy way out when they write indian characters.

i say this because i am also of mixed race descent and while no one's experience is the same, i would very much like for the experiences - whatever they are - to be written respectfully, at least.

(especially if you switch out a white fc for a fc of color. that automatically adds another layer. a layer that i think ought to be explored.)

because those experiences very much do inform who you are as a person and the way you move through the world; it informs the way you see things and the way other people see you and i think it's a disservice - not just to your character but also to yourself as a writer - if those details are forgotten about.

for instance: when i was a kid, i went to the park and came across a lady with a dog. i was with a friend of mine (who is, coincidentally, white passing). i wanted to pet the dog (despite my allergies) and i distinctly remember that my friend was allowed to, and even encouraged to, but i wasn't. that was my first ever indication of "hey, some people see the color of your skin before they see you".

if you're gonna write an indian character, i beg you: write an indian character instead of a white person in a brown person suit. because that's what it feels like to me.

this is not meant to be a diss or a drag or a subtweet (sub-tumblr post?) or anything of the sort. all i am saying, openly and earnestly, is that i am missing the nuances here. i am missing the care and respect.

it's hurtful and, frankly, disrespectful because i'm out here worrying about whether or not i am accurately depicting my own culture / background while others don't even give a modicum of energy to making sure the story they're telling is one of respect.

it sucked when authors like m/ichelle h/odkin did that shit in 2011-2014 and when m/arissa m/eyer did that shit in 2020.

and, to be really honest, i didn't think i'd still be seeing it in 2024. that sucks, too.

ps: it goes without saying but this is not about any of my friends because i know who they are and i know the values they hold.

[lemoncrushh]

https://www.tumblr.com/lemoncrushh/759719935893241856/ive-been-curious-about-this-for-a-while-and?source=share

hiya! I’m 19 so thought I’d share my view on this as someone who is kinda lower on the age spectrum. Honestly I think social media doesn’t have an age limit, and I think it shouldn’t. I think the younger generation is grouped with social media because we grew up with it, but 30/40 year olds still evolved with social media. Sure we have had it our whole lives, but 30/40 year olds have had it just as long as we had it so there’s no need to take it away from them.

I think fans are perfectly okay aswell! As long as they are not overly obsessive and recognise that fan fiction isn’t an accurate depiction of a person-but that is something that every fanfic reader should realise. It kinda scares me how fandoms work and how boundaries disappear but that’s not necessarily an age thing- that’s more general!

I do however believe that there are certain fan activities that certain age groups should not engage in. Like I’ve seen some older fanfic writers write *things* about young actresses and actors around and LOWER then my age and I feel as though that should be a concern.

Hi hon, thank you so much for your input!

I'm glad you said that about social media because that was one of the concerns I had. I worry that younger people like to claim the internet as their own, and older people are not welcome or should not be a part of it. Which is funny to me, because I've been using it for much longer and like you said, have evolved with it.

As for fandoms and fanfiction, I completely agree. And again, sometimes I worry that younger fans want Harry to themselves, particularly when it comes to fanfiction. And like you're talking about, I fear they may be taking it a bit too seriously and forgetting it's fantasy. Obviously, I know that's not everyone. But I've been writing and reading Harry fic for nearly ten years now, and believe me, I have seen it happen. Even outside of fanfiction, tbh. Case in point - girls being jealous and saying hateful things about any woman Harry is seen with. I think Taylor Russell may have been the first girl I didn't see a lot of hate for, but that may also be because of the people I follow now.

And as an older fan, I do sometimes have to second guess myself when it comes to writing. Like, is this inappropriate coming from me? I hope it's not, but I suppose if it's not your vibe, you can always scroll past or unfollow. I have most definitely written smut about 19 year old Harry (because c'mon), but that's kind of where I draw the line for myself. I have written a cute one shot about teenage Harry (like 16), but it was purely innocent about a teen crush and a sweet kiss at the end. It would be the same as me watching a movie or reading a YA book. Also, I mean...I was a teenager at one point lol. I can still relate.

So I guess my point (and reason for that post) is that I hope I don't come off creepy in any way. I try my best to show my ever-growing love and respect for Harry while also sharing my love for fic.

Anyway, I appreciate your mature attitude, and thank you for sending this :).

[moonstruckme]

Dude I curious about something and wondering if you can help me

In Harry Potter's movie, we saw that remus turned to a werewolf when the fullmoon was clear from the cloud. So is he gonna turn to a werewolf when there is some mist hiding the moon? Like we can see the light from the moon, but only the moon itself is not really clear

I'm sorry if it's such a stupid question

Honestly I'm not sure! I'm far from an expert in these things but I've always interpreted that cloud scene as more of a cinematic choice than an accurate depiction of lycanthropy. Because then, wouldn't he not be a werewolf if he were indoors? Would he turn back and forth between human and werewolf as clouds passed over the moon? I don't think it's a stupid question at all sweetness, I'm personally of the opinion that since werewolves are fiction, we can do whatever we want with their lore so long as we're not claiming it's based in history or whatever! If you want Remus to change when there's a fine mist covering the moon then I think there's nothing to contradict that, but as for like canon I'm really not sure, sorry! <3

[thenightling]

Explaining Binding Spells

Last night I was forced to come to the unpleasant realization that a lot of people don't really do their research. They just assume that what they see in the movies or TV is accurate and then emulate it.

I was in a witch group on Facebook (those places are cesspits of misinformation) and there was someone there completely convinced that binding spells strip a witch of her powers and "sometimes that's necessary."

Okay. There's a lot to unpack here. The very first time I have ever so much as heard of a binding spell taking a witch's ability to use magick was in The Craft movies and later in the TV show Charmed. Charmed borrowed a lot from The Craft right down to using "How Soon is Now?" for the theme song.

At first I tried to calmly explain to that person that binding spells are to bind against "doing harm." There was no binding spell (before those movies and TV show) that ever suggested "I bind you from ever being able to use magick ever again."

"From doing harm" is not a blanket term to mean 'stripped of being able to cast spells." It simply means what it says on the label, "doing harm."

This does not take away benign spells or even defensive magick. If "doing harm" meant stripped of all magick that is the same as insultingly suggesting all magick is harmful by default. And that is not something most practitioners would ever claim.

The person rudely replied by condescendingly asking "Have you ever worked with deities or angels? I have seen Hecate take away a person's magick because they were misusing it. And I know for a fact binding spells work. Do your research!"

Of course they work, but not in the way she thinks. They were never meant to strip someone of all ability to use magick. In witchcraft that is the same as crippling. You might as well ask that the person's eyes be gouged out or their hands be cut off. Magick is an essential aspect of all life.

Outside of Wicca there are few versions of witchcraft that would even believe Hecate would consider any use of magick a "misuse." She's the goddess of ALL witchcraft. Not just "light and love."

Not to mention taking away the ability to cast magick could never be justified. It's like taking away one of someone's senses. That doesn't fall into the rule of three. It's exponential harm. There's nothing that can justify it and you're likely to offend whatever you invoke to try to ask it be done.

I tried to explain to the person that to believe "I bind you from doing harm" means "never use magick again" is very insulting and implies that all magick is harmful by default. And that is not how binding spells even work. There are no real spells for stripping another witch of all her power forever and ever. This was something invented for the plot convenience of The Craft movies and the TV show Charmed.

It's far worse than even the silly phone emoji spells that sometimes turn up on Tumblr.

She replied by saying "You sure were triggered by that movie!"

No, I'm just explaining that it IS fiction. Back in the 90s I knew of a lot of Wiccans and other Neo Pagans who were very bothered by The Craft movie and its depictions but The Craft 2 made it so much worse by explicitly claiming binding spells take away a witch's ability to use any and all magick even to protect herself. And the TV show Charmed is equally as guilty of perpetuating this idea.

That's not how it works.

Think of an actual binding spell as being like having a profanity filter on your phone. The person can still text. They just can't text the F word to you. That's what a binding spell does. It prevents harm.

You won't find any spell from before 1996 that claims a binding spell is the same as "You will never be able to use magick ever again." No witch has that kind of power to take away another's power, and no entity invoked would ever want to do that for you, they are not your hired thugs. That's the magical equivalent of asking that an artist's hands be smashed with a mallet on your behalf.

In fact to even try casting that kind of spell is pretty offensive. And not only not likely to work but also likely to backfire.

But, you can't tell Facebook occultists anything.

The fact that this person suggested I "do my research" was very dismissive and insulting. I'm forty-two-years-old. I've studied the arcane since I was a teenager. I have an honorary doctorate in Divinity and another in Metaphysics. I have a diploma in Parapsychology / Astrology from SCI (Stratford Career Institute).

Please... for the sake of the sanity of elder witches... Stop trusting TV shows and movies to be accurate.

[lucianalight]

While I've have always loved MCU Hiddleston Loki due to his in depth emotional performances of him & how much care in the way he was written in terms of his complexities and nuances before the series come along. It got me looking more into mythology and how Marvel made certain interesting changes with them, like how Loki is a fire jotunn instead of ice or how jotnar are seen as real beautiful also while I love me black hair Loki I think mythos red hair Loki is just as cool.

Yeah myth Loki is also really cool! I knew about him and Norse mythology before I knew anything about Marvel. In fact I had no idea the movie Thor was based on comics and not Norse mythology. And I was thinking to myself that I hope the movie isn't as violent as some of the myths and then the movie started and I was like...this is not Norse mythology :D

Although I have to say that I'm not sure your information on Norse mythology is accurate. I might be wrong but as far as I know myth Loki is a Jotunn, which is usually considered equal to Frost Giant. But Jotunn doesn't exactly means "giant". They're also portrayed sometimes beautiful and sometimes hideous in the myths.

Jotunn is referred to entities who usually contrasted gods. That's why while some consider Loki the god of mischief, others don't believe him to be a god since he wasn't one of them.

The fire giants are the inhabitants of Muspelheim and Loki wasn't one of them. In fact for a long time Loki was wrongly considered to be the god of fire because his name was associated with Logi(meaning flame in old Norse and he is fire personified in Norse mythology). But it turned out this didn't have a linguistic basis. Although one of the main runes associated with Loki -Kenaz which you can also see on Loki's clothes both in comics and MCU - means "torch", so Loki can still be associated with fire somehow.

Another thing is we don't know anything about Loki's appearance except that he was beautiful/handsome. The reason he is usually depicted with red hair is perhaps again because of the wrong association with Logi. In fact Thor is the one who is said to have red hair in Norse mythology. I've also seen some people claim Loki was described as blonde but I'm not sure how reliable their source is.

What I find most interesting about Loki in Norse mythology is that a lot of time you don't have a definite answer about him. One of my favorite lines in myth Loki wiki page is this:

"Anne Holtsmark, writing in 1962, concluded that no conclusion could be made about Loki."