#idk i........ they don't really appeal to me as concepts?

[paimonial-rage]

What trope you will NEVER write ?

While there are tropes that I really don't care for (Enemies to Lovers, Childhood Friends to Lovers), I don't really think there is a trope that I wouldn't write? I think the only thing that would come close is Fake Dating. Not because I have anything against it, I just don't see how it would ever take a part in any of the fics I would want to write. And there also may be a bit of a skill issue with that one too. LOL

But as a whole, I don't really write according to tropes. I don't really care for tropes as a whole. Some of my fics may contain tropes, but it's not purposeful. I just want to tell a story in the way I see fit. If it contains a trope, that's because it fit in with the story I wanted to tell. I always have goals when I write things? I want the fic to achieve certain things. But like fulfilling a trope is never one of them. Idk. I don't read for the trope. I read to read a good story. And that's how I write.

[crownedwille]

.

[necrotic-nephilim]

i love your fics and the ideas you describe for the ask games. i'm especially fond of your takes on the rarer pairings and i always smile when i see your posts in the ship tags <3

and don't stress too much about not posting anything, real life is important and participating in fandom should be fun, not something you have to force yourself to do. god knows fandom burnout is real, especially if you feel like people are expecting something from you. just keep doing what makes you happy :)

ghgfhgjhkjhjhg this was so sweet, thank you so much! i *love* talking about rarer rarepairs, especially if it gets other people to ship them too. the popular ships are fun and all, but i truly love spreading rarepair propaganda.

that's very reassuring, thank you <3 i've loved everything i posted here so far and have not felt pushed to post anything i haven't enjoyed, but sometimes i forget i can like. use this blog for whatever i want and not *just* headcanons/fics/mets/etc lol. and i also forget i don't have to rush myself. it's annoying to want to write and either not have time or not have the words work. i used to run a fandom blog in my teens that got very large and felt like a chore and i was so stressed about the need to perform and the numbers and all of that. like if a fic didn't do well i saw it as a personal failing and forced myself to write popular headcanons just for the numbers game. was not fun or sustainable in the long run and i think it contributed to me no longer having any taste for the ship i primarily wrote for. so for too long i treated existing in fandom like a job lol. i've mostly gotten it through to myself that this is a space for me, but i occasionally forget when i'm so caught up in all the things i want to get to for this blog. my to-write list is a mile long and i need to be bonked with a paper towel roll, i think. so it's very kind of you to say this bc the reminder is nice <3

[death-rebirth-senshi]

Crazy to me that people want to cast sorceries in Elden Ring without the staff. You simply do not have a wizard's temperament.

[panspaming]

Don't mind me I'm giving myself therapy in the tags

[quitedisastrous]

neopronouns are starting to look mad appealing. i get it now

[erinwantstowrite]

bear with me here because i'm gonna ramble about something i've been thinking about for a while... and i'm not complaining, i'm just noticing

sometimes i think we've leaned so far into the vigilante side of the batfam that we miss out on what really makes their characters: detective work. we need more mysteries in their lives that don't lead up to some big bad "we already know who's doing it" or an "end of the world" or "yet again: this fucking guy." we need more stuff where spy movie music plays in the background and dumb adventures that don't lead up to some huge grand event with a big name villain. the shock factor stops being shocking or interesting in any capacity if we're like "Gah! the Joker! ... Again!" or whatever

does that even make sense? like "yeah sure they're blowing up a building again and there's hostages. oh look they're gonna poison the water supply." these aren't bad and that's not what i'm getting at because obviously this is a classic for comics. you need to have characters/antagonists that show up more than once and who can make a story better by being in it. and i did say to bear with me- that's because im tired. so like i hope im getting this across the right way? it's just that sometimes i don't wanna see a huge explosion, i want these motherfuckers solving a regular murder or a disappearance or regular corruption in a local office without it being tied to a grand reveal like "actually this person knows you as a long lost relative" or "they were at that circus can you guess which night they went?" that kind of thing? if you get me? like... more of the small time stuff makes the big stuff important, it makes it stand out more. at some point, the format gets repetitive even if you're switching up the villains. you can make these situations/mysteries still fun to solve for the characters and fun to read for the audience if you do it right

the concept of a detective dressed as a bat and having a sidekick in traffic light colors is inherently goofy as hell??? but that is what is so charming about it??? i think we have lost the balance between them being silly while also being intelligent with important conversations that criticize the world as we see it and teach lessons and can go over dark topics. nowadays it's always end of the world problems or just straight up the most gruesome true crime you can think of?? or they can ONLY do the dark stuff and the criticism without offering a balance of the good in the world. or we keep coming back to the FUCKING JOKER-

like yes they are vigilantes and with that comes a different level of their work, but their brand should be a mix between a black and white detective film that can get very nitty gritty and a classic spy movie, that kind of thing. at the end of the day, it's what makes them so different from the superheroes. that's what appeals to me.

seeing them in the big superhero groups is fun, don't get me wrong. it's always funny to see them standing next to people who are so powerful they never really fit in with anyone but each other, who chose to step up and use their powers for good. the Bats' specialty is Gotham and yet here they are stopping a god or whatever. and they do stop the god or whatever, all the while being an important leader and strategist to their teammates. they're important to have in these cases. but if there's a world ending event every time i pick something up, it's not as fun

the fact that they are so very human and not fantastical is why i like reading them. it's what makes the joke of people, even Gotham citizens, theorizing about them being cryptids, funny. they're fucking weird but that's because they're detectives. people who love to solve mysteries usually have a fatal flaw of curiosity. they forget the bounds between social interactions sometimes because they're used to working through problems or being intertwined with partners that understand them. but they're very much human. so human that it hurts them in many ways. and idk i've just been thinking about it lately and idk what point i'm trying to get across actually

it's just that in my eyes that's how it really is for Batman- a black and white movie narrated by a very serious man who took up a job to help people, one that has a deeper commentary on the world and viewed outwardly as pessimistic but actually has a deep hope for his city and who tries to help even the people who have wronged others. He's a stationary man in the belief that him being a constant can serve to soothe others and help them move forward. He stays in the middle of the path so he can tell everyone what is up ahead. he blends into the Gotham rainy night to serve justice but in a way that saves both the victim and the perpetrator. (the way he tucks a Robin into his cape is the same he does for Gotham with his mere presence.) and his background is actually so important to his story and yet people still somehow gloss over the lesson from it? he lost his parents because of a man who was on the opposite end of the spectrum to where he was in life. and yet he chose to help the people like the man that killed his parents. he could have done anything else with his power and money, but he instead is choosing to bring as many people up with him as he can. He's Mr. Serious that no one else can get a read on. and yet he walks into a room and he's already piecing together your life and what you're going through because he thinks it matters. he comforts people who have lost something or someone or themselves. I picture Batman and I don't picture a man trying to save the world, I picture a detective walking around a crime scene and trying to save at least one person every time he puts on the cape. and he put on the cape and became a vigilante because then he could go out of the bounds of what laws have been set up- and specifically, Gotham has other people in power who are corrupt, keeping the system that way. that's why Batman being a billionare and throwing himself into helping people at the risk of his own life is so important. he knows that if you are alive, you have something or someone to lose, no matter who you are. the dude is a bleeding heart but he doesn't know how to express it, in fear that if he gets too close, if he moves down the path with them, he'll be lost again

and then he's met with someone who should be a complete opposite, but isn't at all, because they're two sides of the same coin. his partner in crime, his son, a boy that is nothing like the black and white world that he sees. and that's the point in his life where he first sees that potentially getting lost is worth the risk. Robin is color and passion that needs guidance to move forward, but can not do so unless the stationary man learns to move with him. the kid is loud and reckless and you'd think he's from a different genre from the detective but they aren't so different, really. not when you look close enough. Dick grew up moving from place to place and seeing the world, knowing so many different people from different cultures. He's been learning to fly and jump and embrace the free fall his entire life. He's clever and he's sharp, and he thrives in the action and adventure. it's that perspective that compliments the stationary man. one is steady and the other pushes. he's the same genre but a different generation. and Batman introducing him to the way of life he chose for himself was another way he could save someone. because let's be real for a second? Dick would have gone down a very dark path had he not had Bruce, who understood, who saw not just himself in the kid but also saw who the kid has been his entire life until now. he saw Dick's parents, he saw the family he had in the circus, he saw the joy he had in what his family was doing. he saw the grief and the fire and the color that Dick's world was made of. because to Bruce, it always matters. Dick had to come to terms with Bruce's perspective to help anyone who they come across, to always give more chances, and it kept Dick from losing his color

what gets me is that the man who lives in the black and white world can actually see many different shades of gray (because black and white always needs the medium), whereas the boy in a world of color and light can get so focused on the bright that he can become single minded. and yet the boy sees a world of color and delves deeper into the lives of the peolle they come across and can be much more open minded, and the man in the black and white world sometimes forgets the shades of grey are right there. they are just like each other. they can exist without the other, but do they want to? because the black and white can be built up into the colored image, like the inking and shadows drawn on a comic book page before the colors are added in. they meet in the middle to complete each other. Bruce has been passing the story over to the next generation for a long, long time, even before his story was complete. and just like with the first Robin, it was so for every Robin afterwards. they each color in the lines differently, but that's what makes Robin so special, so unique. they are an art style that branches into their own life, but can not forget where they started: tucked into Batman's cape and the inky black of his world

and so detective work really frames their hunanity to me. the mysteries they get their hands on, the glimpses into the lives of Gotham citizens that they swore to protect, it's fascinating. it's what makes their story stand out compared to the people who can lift trucks or cast spells or run around the world in seconds. so yeah ig that's what i'm trying to say? that i want to read more of that? in both canon and fanon. cause even the small time villains we see can be like. AWFUL people and it takes out the fun of their gimmicks. and if it were any other day this would be a more coherent post but alas, it is not any other day

[deservedgrace]

I've been thinking about resurrection eggs today, those plastic eggs with items related to the crucifixion they give to kids around Easter, and thinking about how disturbing the whole thing is

Like, I think the whole concept of essentially celebrating human sacrifice is disturbing enough, but imo it's even more disturbing that we're told about the crucifixion as kids, that we're told about the torture and violence in detail, that we're told his suffering is our fault because we specifically are so evil and horrible and sinful that someone had to be tortured to death to make up for it, that we're told it should have been us up there, that we deserve suffering and violence and abuse and torture simply for existing... and probably other things I'm not thinking of right now, it's all just so sickening

But to do all that while trying to wrap it in a ‧˚₊*̥∗*‧˚₊*̥ uwu cute and innocent little interactive activity for kids uwu ‧˚₊*̥∗*‧˚₊*̥ where they physically have items like a mini spear that represents the one that pierced his side, a crown of thorns to represent the one he was forced to wear, nails to represent the ones that were used to hold him on the cross, leather cords to represent the whip he was beaten with, dice to represent casting lots for his clothes, cloth to represent the linen he was wrapped in after... i don't really have proper words for how disgusting it feels to me now. It's such a "look at what you've done, look at how you did it, look at what you personally contributed to by existing being sinful" while actively trying to make it more appealing to kids in the hopes that they'll internalize it better

Idk. The whole thing is just extremely repulsive to me. It's one thing to talk about the resurrection specifically, but I don't understand how so many people believe graphic depictions of torture and violence are totally fine for kids on its own even without all the other shit that comes with it

[utilitycaster]

I am curious if you think the campaign wrap up will perhaps address some of the campaign shortcomings or challenges the cast faced in trying to land this campaign narratively, especially in comparison to previous campaigns? Not that they would disparage the whole campaign - but like a little “yeah this didn’t work as well as we wanted at times?” 

It’s odd because I find myself weirdly optimistic about CR as a whole despite this campaign’s possible lackluster ending, so I guess I’m hoping the campaign wrap up acknowledges that this campaign didn’t always play to their strengths in hopes that their next long form venture does more, idk.

I don't know if it will but. that's precisely the tenor any question I send will have: I don't think the fundamental concept is the issue - hell, I don't even think killing the gods is actually a problem if you appropriately set up a scenario where killing the gods has a motivation other than "mortals were mean to me in their name" [thing that happens irl all the time in a world with zero proof of divinity, in my religiously observant ideologically agnostic and skeptical opinion] or "I have issues with my parents I never worked towards so I've projected this onto The Ultimate Parents instead of like. being fucking normal." But it needed a lot more scaffolding at the VERY least in the prep for this campaign, and actually, to be blunt, if you want to make this a balanced issue you needed to seed this concept through prior campaigns in a meaningful way. There's a reason pretty much everyone who defends this campaign as Extremely Good, Actually is either doing some form of wildly revisionist history of the fandom and the past campaigns that's demonstrably false if you were like. there; or else they started with C3 and decided they were an expert despite being of below-average literacy and deeply below average personality and have to resort to such miserable efforts as "arguing that canon isn't real" and "posting an out of context Le Guin quote over and over in the hopes we won't notice they're actually 511 mice in a trenchcoat who can't actually read". So yeah I hope Matt is like this was an ambitious project and I'd have done many things differently.

I do wonder what's next for CR, because as I mentioned, it feels like the cast is stronger in shorter form; that even the other longform shows are moving to shorter form right now; and that WBN and C3 kind of show the limits/failings of longform. I hope they do another longform campaign at some point in the future, but it might make sense to take an extended break and play in the space for a while. They only took about 4 months between campaigns for the past two and maybe it would be good to take longer and focus on Daggerheart, Candela, and EXU for much of the year and if they do longform wait 8-10 months, especially with the comparatively extensive touring schedule this year.

I also hasten to add, and I mentioned this briefly in talking about CRPGs, but I think there's a Third Campaign Dip that's not inevitable (NADDPod didn't really have it; TAZ switches systems enough that it's not an issue) but definitely hit here, that doesn't apply to a fourth one. Like, for CRPGs (girl who's played Veilguard twice and gotten through the first day of Disco Elysium voice) it feels like the first run is following what seems most fun to you and then the second is playing around with other choices that maybe aren't as appealing just to see what happens, and then for the third and future runs you kind of know the full lay of the land and what you'll like while still allowing for a range of choices. For class-based TTRPGs, the first is the self-insert/thing that's fairly comfortable and easy/character you've dreamed of; the second is what you do now that you know how this works; and then the third can be...an overextension, shall we say. I think after that you figure out, again, the bounds of your comfort zone, how much you can stretch it, and what you don't like, you're in a much more consistent footing.

[panlight]

Never cared for her, But i kinda feel sorry for Renesmee because her life kinda a mess! Her parents are teenagers who spend most of their time obsessing over eachother, her father can hear everything she thinks, her boyfriend used to be in love with her mother, she lives with her "aunts and uncles" and "grandparents" who are barely older than her but still interfere in her life. She is a different from everybody else: Vampire or human. Do you think Renesmee will be happy with her life?

I do feel bad for Renesmee growing up with literally no privacy because her dad can read her mind (and her 'uncle' knows what she's feeling) and everyone else has heightened senses so there's really no sneaking around either. But -- it's all she's ever known so maybe it will seem 'normal' to her? IDK.

My best guess for how Renesmee's story will play out will be her feeling like she's "caught between two worlds" as a half-vampire, half-human hybrid, and she'll have a complex about being weaker and slower than her full vampire family even though every single one of them lavish attention and love and praise on her all the time. It's going to be "no one understands me!" Charlie and Jacob (still don't like the imprint) help her connect with her human side because even though Bella's not been a vampire that long, she never really valued humanity as a concept. Charlie and Jacob take her to do normal human things like, get ice cream, go to the movies, play mini-golf.

As she reaches maturity her feelings for "my Jacob" start to shift, and it freaks her out, and it makes her wonder if she has any choices in life at all, and one way or another she meets Nahuel again and they bond. It's love triangle 2.0. But she comes back to the same question: if he's literally the only male of her species, is she really making a "choice" in picking him? Eventually she realizes it's Jacob, it's always been Jacob, and stops trying to separate the two parts of herself or see herself as separate from her loving if too-close-for-comfort vampire family and blah de blah blah blah.

They eventually get married and have twins. Twins run in Jacob's family and I'm guessing SM did that for a reason. The twins in Jacob's family are girl twins, perhaps identical, but I feel like Renesmee will have boy-girl twins and they will have Cool Powers and will be important in taking down the Volturi in Renesmee Saga Book 2 or 3.

I can just tell you right now that this kind of character is not for me; I would find her sighing and complaining about no one understanding her and feeling left out really annoying when she's surrounded by love and support and every material luxury. But I'm not the target demo anymore and this might appeal to teenagers who are experiencing similar feelings minus the supernatural context.

[hollowed-theory-hall]

What are your thoughts on drarry?

spireasalix asked:

Hi! I just found your blog and find your theories really interesting. I don't know if anyone has asked you before, but what do you think of Draco Malfoy? Do you think he would have a chance with Harry? Could they fall in love or there is too much history between them? Let's make Harry/Draco canon! Hahahaha

Hi, thank you so much! 😊

Since it's a ship/character ask I want to preface that everyone can ship what they want and like whatever characters they want and this is my personal highly subjective opinion.

I'll start with my thoughts on Drarry, as I had an arc there, like, back when I just got into the fandom I really liked the concept of Drarry, so I read some Drarry and didn't like most of what I found back then. That dislike kinda colored Drarry and Draco's character as a whole for me, so it was kinda like: "I can see the appeal on paper, but I don't like it". More recently though I read a lot about canon Drarry from @iamnmbr3 and she honestly got me rethinking my opinion on Draco and Drarry.

As I stand on it now, I'm not invested in Drarry, but I see them occasionally on my dash and sometimes I like what I see. It's the: yeah, I can see it happen, but it's not a pairing I'm passionate about.

Now, to @spireasalix more specific questions.

Draco Malfoy is an interesting character in theory but I don't think it comes across in the books as much as it could. Like, in books 1-5, I find him an annoying spoilt little brat. It can be entertaining when he comes on the page, and I know he'd be whining and dramatic and make a scene. And it makes sense Draco is this way, he's an only child of very rich parents who love him, he looks up to his father like Lucius could do no wrong, but he is lonely and attention-seeking. This need for attention is interesting and is part of why he is so obsessed with Harry. It shows he wants approval and is actually quite insecure under all his pride and mean attitude. He was raised to be a blood-supremacist spoilt jerk, and he does a decent job at being a schoolyard bully without crossing any super major lines.

Younger Draco can be a fun character, he's a problem Harry feels comfortable with because he knows how to deal with him, unlike his other problems (of which he has a lot). I think part of why Harry focuses on Draco as much as he does is because Draco is a predictable problem, one Harry feels he has control over how he wants to deal with him. Which is comforting considering how little control he has over literally every other area of his life.

Then in books 6 and 7, that's when Draco starts actually having his character development, and there are interesting things there, or the potential for them. I love what he goes through, becoming a Death eater only to realize, that: no, he can't really do violence. The constant fear for himself and his family, the torture he most likely goes through, being a prisoner in his own home, like, there is so much potential good angst there but I don't feel like the books really take it as far as it can go.

I recently finished my reread of HBP, and Draco in it was having a crap time, truly. He partially brought it on himself, but he really was thrown into the deep end and he is flailing around to keep his head above water regretting ever asking to leave the kiddie pool (because make no mistake, he asked to be in the grown-ups' pool). And you see how he matures there, going from a spoilt brat to a terrified teen. In one summer he went from the top of his own little world to seeing how powerless he actually is. And, like, out of everyone, the person he apparently confides in is Moaning Myrtle, like, idk, I love that, I think this friendship should be mentioned more. Like, Draco is having a crisis over his family, his worldview, his own worth, being a Death Eater and what it means, and his confidant is the ghost of a muggleborn girl who Tom Riddle, his new master, killed. Like, there are some implications.

I find it fascinating Myrtle says this about Draco:

“No,” said Myrtle defiantly, her voice echoing loudly around the old tiled bathroom. “I mean he’s sensitive, people bully him too, and he feels lonely and hasn’t got anybody to talk to, and he’s not afraid to show his feelings and cry!”

(HBP, 462)

That combined with the fact that Draco doesn't ever really try to harm Harry too badly (@iamnmbr3 wrote many great posts about this). Like, at the beginning of HBP, he has Harry petrified and he just breaks his nose. And this is already after he becomes a Death Eater. He also helps Harry multiple times throughout Deathly Hollows, something that places him and his family at risk.

And, yes, he makes some attempts to kill Dumbledore that harm others (the cursed necklace that hurt Katie Bell and the poison Ron drank) but I think the methods he uses are telling. Draco attempts to kill Dumbledore with methods where he himself is far away from the action. You can say it's due to a Slytherin sense of self-preservation, and that's part of it, I'm sure, but I think the main part of it is that Draco is averse to violence. At the end when he was face to face with Dumbledore he couldn't bring himself to cast the curse. Dumbledore was disarmed and surrounded, there was nothing he could've (or would've) done to hurt Draco, but Draco still hesitated. He couldn't kill him even when his own life and his family's were on the line. Harry also talks about how much Draco is likely hurt from having to torture others on Voldemort's orders in Deathly Hollows, and I think Harry is spot on about it.

If we look at the bullying of younger Draco, he doesn't act out violently. He is the cruel words and insults type, and I remember being honestly surprised he physically hit Harry in HBP because it's not the sort of thing Draco does. So, while Draco as schoolyard bully is mean, he practically is never shown to be physically violent, at least not that I remember. He only starts being more of a physical threat in HBP, and in the cases of Ron and Katie, he does so from a distance in a way he isn't directly involved in the violence.

That being said, while what he goes through is interesting and has plenty of potential and I do like his character, I find him kinda annoying. Like, in my very subjective opinion, I find his whining in the early books incredibly annoying and I find him, even in the later books, kinda underwhelming. Like, I want more out of his character, idk. Like, really, all power to you for liking Draco, he just, unfortunately, doesn't make it into my top Harry Potter characters purely because of personal subjective bias.

Like, for all of Draco being a Slytherin from a long line of Slytherins, he doesn't showcase many Slytherin characteristics (yes, that's something I dislike about his character, go figure 🤷‍♀️). Like, Draco isn't cunning, like, at all. He's smart, I'm not saying he isn't, he gets good and even outstanding grades in various school subjects, and he fixes the vanishing cabinet he knows nothing about on his own. He is skilled and talented magically and he can figure out complex magic on his own, but when it comes to long-term planning or general cunning... yeah, I don't think that's part of Draco's arsenal.

He acts out on useful information on the first opportunity he has, with very little thought about timing or how to best use it and very little forethought in general. In 1st year he gets Harry and Co caught outside after curfew but doesn't think his plan through so he too, is caught out after curfew. And sure, he's 11, but 11-year-old Harry wouldn't have made that mistake, I think (neither would Ron or Hermione). In 3rd year, his plan against Buckbeak and Hagrid was laughable and only worked because Lucius could pull it off. I mean, Draco wasn't even doing a good job at faking an injury compared to Harry who could believably pretend to be the Bloody Baron to scare off Peeves at 11, not to mention lying reliably to McGonagall at 12. In GoF he makes these Potter stinks badges, which are magically impressive (considering they still work 3 years later) but are again, an example of Draco acting on something immediately because that's how he tends to operate. Like how he goes straight to Harry every time he finds something in the Daily Prophet to make fun of.

Even if we look at Draco's later plans, like in HBP, he was mostly trying to buy plans rather than think about how to solve his problem. Because Draco knows how to buy his way out of problems, not think his way out. And while all this does make for an interesting trait for him to have in his rule in the story and he has an invisible arc to break away from this thinking pattern and that does lead him to the vanishing cabinet eventually, it does make me like him less. I'm biased, I can't help it.

His ambition is another thing, I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't think Draco is particularly ambitious. Like, he wants to make his parents (especially Lucius) proud, he wants people to like him, and he wants to be popular, sure, but he doesn't have any long-term plans or specific goals in mind. He grew up already having everything, so he doesn't really have any ambitions bigger than that. I'm not saying there needs to be, Harry isn't particularly ambitious either, it's just interesting to me that our poster Slytherin in Harry's year isn't that much of a Slytherin at all.

As I mentioned earlier, Draco also seems to be averse to violence and doesn't have as much of a ruthless streak as his house is usually associated with. Draco, at the end of the day, seems to me like a very sheltered kid who idolized war when he heard about it in stories up until he had to actually take part in it. He is one of the softer characters in the books actually, in my opinion.

While I think he definitely values the traits of house Slytherin as he grew up learning to appreciate them, he doesn't actually possess them, at least, not in abundance. Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but honestly, I think Draco is more of a Gryffindor than a Slytherin considering he is brave (in the last book especially. I want to note he isn't the same brave as Harry. Draco fears a lot more than Harry does, but when push comes to shove, he keeps going despite his fear. He's more similar to Neville in that regard), bold, and definitely has his personal code of honor and chivalry he acts according to, but I digress.

My personal issue with Draco is the main issue I have with Drarry as a ship, because, like, I can't be actively invested in a ship when I find one of the characters annoying. I have a similar stance on Romione as I have on Drarry. I like Romione well enough, I enjoy the fanart of them I see, but I wouldn't actively search for fics of them. Neither would I write fics where they are the main pairing. In Romione's case, I love Ron but find Hermione kinda annoying, I don't hate her, I don't even dislike her, I actually like her, but she annoys me. Draco is the same way, I like him, but he just gets on my nerves sometimes.

To summarise, I see the appeal of Drarry, and I can see how it could work on paper. I don't think Harry and Draco ever truly hated each other in the books, so, yeah, I think they could get together. They could definitely forgive each other everything, hell, the books practically outright say they forgive each other everything in canon. I think you can build a very compelling love story for them, it's just not a story I'm invested in reading/writing mostly because Draco isn't a character that I'm overly invested in.

[bisupergirl]

Can I ask why you don't like Jon Kent? Not that I disagree or anything. It's just that, as someone who really hated Jon's kid years for a lot of reasons (the writing in general, clois having a bio kid at all, etc.), I'm more interested in the opinions of people who hated him from the beginning as opposed to those who are only mad because of the age-up.

i don't like jon because i find the entire concept and execution of his character to be so, so dreadfully boring.

part of what makes him so boring to me is how fully centered around clark he is. he's named after clark's dad, he grows up in a small farm town just like clark, he looks exactly like clark did when he was his age, he's superboy just like clark used to be, he picked up clark's mantle when he came of age and he's carrying the legacy of the house of el on his shoulders—where does lois fit into any of this? there's nothing about jon's character that tells me he's lois lane's son. he's undeniably the son of superman, but what qualities did he gain from his mother? and even when trying to define him as his own character the narrative still centers on clark—what would superman do in this situation? how can jon act in a way differently than clark? it's still all centered around his dad.

and this leads into another reason why jon just sucks to me: i really feel like he doesn't benefit lois's character at all. in the early rebirth era she was relegated to being jon's doting mother and clark's loving wife. sure she got to anonymously write those books tackling corruption or whatever but that never got as much focus as whatever clark and jon were doing as superman and superboy. it's superman and his superson who looks and acts just like him, and then lois also gets to be there sometimes. idk! i think her treatment got better when she was allowed to return to the daily planet, but then obviously her work there doesn't involve jon. so it's either she gets to be an active reporter with interesting stories OR she has to be jon's apple pie baking mother who sits at home waiting for her husband to come back from whatever dangerous mission he's on. not a fan!

additionally—and i've mentioned this before when someone asked me about jon—i feel like most of the appeal of his character (at least for kid!jon) has to do with the supersons friendship with damian and i just don't care. i've lost SO much interest in the batfam over the years and i just can't bring myself to care about superbat jr. don't take this as damian hate btw because i don't hate him at all, the batman & robin series with him and dick is like. one of the first comics i've ever read. and i still have a lot of affection for him, but there's just nothing about his friendship with jon that i find appealing. sorry to damian.

as for aged up jon... i just don't care about him. i actually find kid!jon to be more annoying to look at than teen!jon, but either way i just don't find him super interesting. this is more of an editorial problem than anything else, but i find the way that he's focused on and favored over other more established superfam members to be so, so stupid and annoying.

tl;dr he's boring as fuck and i don't care about any relationship that he has with literally any character. sorry to jon.

[bioethicists]

responding to this with my shitty redaction because i'm not comfortable posting obvious bait with people's names in them (particularly dead names) but i just wanted to point out the ways in which this ask is prototypical bait written to purposefully generate drama or controversy (idk if this is in a kiwifarms trolling with right wing motives sense or an 'i love drama' person) by trying to appeal to online leftist culture/the fear of being 'problematic'. i see ppl fall for this constantly + i need people to start learning to recognize the signs instead of either engaging or using this as evidence that leftists are stupid/petty/hypocritical (which many of us are, but in much less amusing ways, unfortunately)

the implication that there is a single founder of the "neurodiversity movement" + that evoking this movement at all (which i don't do + i think it's actually pretty evident that my politics are distinct from the much more bioessentialist politics of those who prefer that term, which is part of what led me to conclude that this is a copypasta) is supporting the founder. tracing a broad social concept to a single individual, then disparaging that individual as morally unsound (by evoking other explosive, petty pieces of discourse, like baeddalism + transandrophobia) in order to provoke doubt, fear or anger. demonstrates a hope that leftists will flinch away from anything associated with anyone 'problematic' without applying any critical thinking.

misrepresenting complex events (or fabricating them entirely- idk if these things happened + i simply couldn't care enough to find out) in a way that hits the pressure points of performative activism (she's being mean to an autistic person! other people of color agree with me! this other person is anti physically disabled people!) while also betraying reactionary opinions through language use/implications (claiming to care about 'transandrophobia' yet deadnaming someone? claiming to care about specific events at specific autism conferences but using terms like "severely autistic"? saying you have spoken to "Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, American Indians" lmao did you type this out based on census checkboxes from the 70s?). the author of this ask is clearly not a member of the activist communities they claim to be from because they accidentally slip into the speech conventions + opinions of a kiwifarms/4chan loser who does a lot of hatereading. this one did a good job of hitting the bingo card of divisive intracommunity issues rn- great research skills, bud! put them to better use <3

reframing reactionary beliefs using leftist concepts. this works because many of us do not have a foundational politic outside of "well, i want to be good, so I'm going to support the things that other people i trust say are good". which doesn't make you bad (there is no good or bad! learn this now + quick, if you really want to play a part in building a better world) but it makes you easy to manipulate + unlikely to be capable of meaningful change. notice that the claims this ask is asserting are, at their core, "people make up microaggressions to cause problems when really they could easily suck it up" + "people fake disabilities and being trans for attention". these are reactionary concerns, no matter how artfully they are dressed in social justice language. kiwifarms in particular was very, very good at this- they loved finding the people they stalked to be racist, homophobic, ableist, etc, not because they thought those things were wrong (it was their hobby to be these things!) but because they delighted in identifying hypocrisy, stirring up drama, + destroying people's reputations.

this is hard to explain bcuz i blacked out the names, but if you have a passing familiarity with fascist/reactionary online spaces, particularly the history of kiwifarms, you will know that reactionaries have their own 'pet leftists', just like we have our 'pet fascists' (shapiro, alex jones, tucker carlson, etc). that is, ppl they obsessively follow, harass, + scrutinize + come to believe are representative of everything that we believe. these ppl are rarely ppl who are actually prominent in our online spaces but online reactionaries often believe we are just as obsessed with these people as they are, but as unquestioned paragons of virtue + brilliance. namedropping these ppl is often an accidental tip of the hat, particularly when the ppl aren't on tumblr, haven't been a topic of community discussion for quite some time, or run in a different circle than us (reactionaries don't understand that there are actually thousands of leftist social groups which have very little overlap with some others- pronouns in bio does not mean someone knows or cares about contrapoints, for instance)

tl;dr this ask is a fantastic example of the rhetorical features bait that someone might actually take seriously.

[h0bg0blin-meat]

I think I need to make it clear for many Vaishnav (looking especially at you, ISKON) Hindu extremists (and even many Shaivites) that ya'll can have your sects and your beliefs as Vishnu or Shiva as your supreme lords. I don't have an issue with that.

But when you try to say that this is the ONLY truth about the Vedic religion (I'm not using Hinduism here because it doesn't sum up the pantheon as much as the ''Vedic" word does, despite the term being associated with the Vedas, and yes we need to come up with a better word that comprises this entire pantheon as a whole), that's when I have a problem, because that is definitely NOT the entire pantheon.

Do not spread the beliefs of your sect as the ONLY canon belief and don't speak for the people who don't fall under this category. I have seen this in all of social media and it pains me how much of a linear pantheon this once oh-so flexible culture has become.

Yes the concept of Prajapati and the Supreme being has existed since the Vedas. But when you say that Vishnu and Shiva are somehow superior to other gods as the ONLY CANONICAL BELIEF, that just flips me off, and I'm gonna call it out.

How dare you forget the four Vedas, that had no mention of such an idea? This might tick some people off but Indra, Agni, Rudra (which later became synonymous with Shiva, but is a whole different deity), Mitra, Varuna, Vayu and a few other Gods were just as much powerful as Vishnu or Shiva, if not more. This is ANOTHER canonical truth that these extremists (again, somehow mostly Vaishnav) are denying.

Ancient pantheons weren't some linear path with just one canon event. These were their own multiverses of a plethora of VARIOUS canon events, myths and legends. So stop making the Vedic religion a linear, rigid pantheon. Remember? It's not an organized religion. There can be SEVERAL canonical truths. Like I definitely understand that a religion/culture changes overtime. It evolves. Fine. Vishnu is the supreme God now, fine. But you can't deny the history. The Vedas that didn't canonize this. Are you gonna say that these Vedas, that came BEFORE this Vishnu/Shiva being the considered the supreme lord(s), were wrong? I hope not lol.

Besides, I'm not even gonna get into ISKON. They have regarded anyone that's not Vishnu as a demigod, which is ABSOLUTELY VILE AND DISRESPECTFUL. Do they even KNOW what a demigod is??? FUCK NO. They don't. They just like to use that word to inferiorize other deities, due to their unhealthy and toxic obsession with Vishnu, who doesn't deserve it. On top of that they have claimed that worshipping such gods will not lead you to eternal peace, or that it's somehow wrong. Ah yes. Gotta love gatekeeping and toxic cult fan behavior. Call me rude but if you disrespect a GOD (yes, Indra, Mitra, Varuna and others are ALSO GODS, FYI) is WILD, and they should be called out for it. (Some Shaivites have done the same in case of Shiva, and they need to be similarly called out.)

In conclusion, worship whoever tf you want, but remember that theologically, and even historically, there can be more than one canonical story. It really depends on which sect/region you belong to. You CAN be a polytheist. Idk why Hindus these days are inadvertently trying to appeal to the monotheistic pantheons so much, to the point that they have an internal dislike for polytheism, which they're not aware of, but it shows when they speak up.

This pantheon (like every other pagan pantheon back in the day) is very broad. Remember that. And it's very flexible. So let it be like that, and stop gatekeeping it and having a war between who supreme Lord is. I'll stop my yapping here. But I hope people understand this. Cuz damn.

[lets-try-some-writing]

Ohhh, salty asks? I'll dabble with 9, 14, and 19.

Most disliked character(s)? Why?

Sari, Russel & his Dad, and Elita-One.

I haaaaaaate Sari so much. I don't even like TFA that much, but I would have enjoyed it more if this little girl weren't present. She annoys me on a spiritual level. She does have a few moments where I vibe with her, but the annoyance overrides the comradery. I know some people will die on her hill, but I am not one of them and even her fascinating lore can't drag me from my hole in the ground.

Russel and his Dad are just annoying and it's not even their fault. They were part of a garbage show that disregarded and danced on the grave of TFP before spitting on it for good measure. It isn't THEM that bothers me necessarily, it's their characterization that murders me. I just can't enjoy them or their presence when they are treated as jokes or just get in the way.

As for Elita-One? I am genuinly sad I don't like her. I generally enjoy her in fandom and I LOVE G1 Elita with every fiber of my being. I can even appreciate Skybound Elita a great deal. But other canon versions of Elita? It's just painful. She's NEVER written well. Generally being too arrogant and stuck up for her own good (TFOne), not particularly notable (TFE), lowkey evil and not in a way I find appealing (IDW comics), or not even Elita (TFA). I just can't vibe with her even though I really really really want to.

Unpopular opinions about your fandom(s)?

This fandom is unreasonably sexual. Look, I totally get it. You love your blorbo. I love my blorbos too and I know that sexual themes/art/ideas have their place. Heck, I use the concept for comedic and angst purposes all the bloody time. But for heavens sake yall, we've got SO MUCH LORE and half the fandom is sitting over here drooling. When I use such themes, I tie it in with either a good story or unique lore. But the fandom just kinda... throws it around for funsies? Idk it just bothers me as a person who cares very deeply about things having meaning and design. Feels a lot like chugging a pixie stick when there's a ton of such themes getting thrown around. I would much prefer a more delicately devised art piece, personally.

The robots are hot, I KNOW. But goodness we've got so much else to play with here people. (Not saying this to rain on anyone's parade. Just my thoughts).

What is the one thing you hate most about your fandom?

Well, I suppose what I hate most would be the strange unspoken division in the fandom. Transformers, thank the stars, is a very unified fandom on almost every front. You might never run into the people I'm about to talk about. But there is a noticeable divide between two rather undefined factions. For the sake of this, I shall dub them the lore purists and the rabid fans. The lore purists get SO mad at everyone who doesn't agree with their takes, those who mess with the lore, or otherwise have views that don't match with canon content. On the opposite side of things, the rabid fans can be kind of unhinged and not in a good way at times. They can become quite vicious when it comes to other people's headcanons and preferences. Both sides fight each other and amongst themselves.

It's not particularly noticeable to newcomers, but I've seen more than a few people trying to fight each other over the net for being sympathetic toward a certain character or for having ideas and aus with 'problematic' content. Even I've been on the receiving end of the unhinged a few times for having sympathy for my fav war criminal. With that said, honestly its easy to avoid getting involved in these two sides to the fandom. Just do your thing and be polite and huzzah, everyone is really really nice.

[bandsandwristbands]

itsa me, shukaku of the moodboards, nosying about Dont Ask Smug Nart Face thank u

I am Actually Embarrassed about this one just a little bit 😭

SOOOOO it's basically a longwinded psuedo-swinger smut with Naruhina and Gaalee o/////o 👉👈

Okay so it's a bit more complicated than that but idk if I'll ever be brave enough to Commit but I like complicated relationship dynamics that blur platonic boundaries a lil bit

Overly Analytical Horny Rambling Abound

First! I think Naruto is the type to low key have a crush on all his friends and openly hit on them in a jokey jokey "Unless?..👀" kinda way.

And I know Nart is a bit naive but I think he def picked up a lot of info from hanging around Jiraiya so I think his conceptions of casual sex and monogamy would be pretty chill. So he's pervy but much more consensual and healthy about it, mans loves to communicate even if he can be a shithead about it. Also, he canonically gets a lot of opportunities to get around, (and there's that one movie where he straight up agrees to a proposition to give a priestess an heir???)

I also think Hinata is big voyeuristic like I think she's got a sense of curiosity about it, in general she likes observing people's differences and idiosyncrasies so when it comes to horny behavior I think it's an easy slippery slope and it goes with her kinda shy nature idk freak rights for hinata (i love her dearly)

Then there's Gaara and Lee who are always all over each other and sneaking off to fool around, esp at like party/club settings which is not A Lot but enough for Naruto to see sometimes and give them shit about it, but mostly he's "hmm hot lol if you guys are ever lookin for a third or somethin" *winkwink*

I only really have one part solidified in my brain. Basically Nart walks in on a partially obscured Gaalee and he's like "oop well don't stop on my account."

Oh but gaalee are super possessive of each other no way, except that's kind of the appealing part for them! Lee kinda likes the idea of showing off what's his and the affect he has on Gaara and Gaara is not easily embrassed but for some reason the idea of being seen indisposed with Lee makes him feel very embarrassed (humiliation kink activated)

Anyway it'd cover a couple different once in awhile encounters with lots of trust building and healthy dom/sub dynamics etc etc

I unfortunately do not have a snippet for this because I get too embarrassed whenever I take an actual crack at it my smut game is intermediate at best these days 🫣🫣