#if a writer makes the villain do something problematic then they obviously think the action is bad

[diyvampyrism]

I don't know what's happened to media literacy lately but sometimes villains are just bad sometimes they do irredeemable things but that does not mean the creator of said character condones those irredeemable actions

they are the villain you're not always supposed to agree with them or their actions

[cherrybomb107]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: forgiveness, or the way it’s often presented, is harmful. That’s one more gripe I have with season two. The way it frames “forgiveness”(the idea that you are obligated to forgive someone lest you be “just as bad as they are�� is problematic.)

Because for one, having Jinx apologize for killing Caitlyn’s mom and vow to stop the “cycle of violence” doesn’t make any sense. One, that’s just not something Jinx would ever say. Two, the idea that Jinx killing some Councilors is anywhere near the same thing as Caitlyn becoming a dictator is laughable at best, and insulting to my intelligence at worst. Three, Caitlyn never apologizes or faces any meaningful consequences for her actions! Losing an eye was nothing! She should’ve lost a hand at least and we should’ve seen her reflect on her actions and pledge to do better for Zaun!!! Not just fuck off and ride off into the sunset after everything she did! And lastly, the “cycle of violence” literally isn’t a cycle, it’s just one city oppressing the other for centuries and the other city deciding to fight back! This “cycle” doesn’t begin and end with Jinx and her attack on the Council, so framing it like Jinx is the one who has to take sole responsibility for fixing everything is nonsense.

“But Arcane was never about heroes and villains, everything is morally gray!” You sound dumb. This is obviously a story with overt themes of oppression and revolution. I’m not here to critique morality, I’m here to critique its framing. Why are certain characters “justified” in their heinous actions but others don’t get that luxury? That’s what I’m talking about. Moving on, the problem with “forgiveness” implies that it’s necessary, and the way people conflate forgiveness with letting someone have access to you after everything they did is the problem. You don’t have to forgive someone if you don’t want to. That doesn’t make you “bitter” nor does it mean you’re “holding a grudge”. There is a difference between forgiving someone and just removing yourself from the situation and becoming detached, imo. That’s what should’ve been done with Caitlyn and Jinx. No one in Zaun should’ve been shown dying for their oppressors because “teamwork” nor should Sevika have been shoved on the Council to push this idea of “unity”. Why would Sevika, a Zaunite who has never had and never will have any love for Piltover, be forced to cozy up with the Council? Why is the onus on her, as an oppressed person, to make nice with her oppressors? Why does the institution of Piltover, and people like Caitlyn who uphold that institution and wreak havoc on the underclass of Zaun, never have to answer for their crimes?

Answer: Because they(the writers) want to convince us that Jinx and Caitlyn, and by extension, Piltover and Zaun are “just as bad” as each other, and that both sides need to work together to heal. Only problem with that is, the Piltover/Zaun conflict was not presented that way in season one. I’m sure the writers want us to think it’s one city vs another, when that’s not the case at all. In reality, it’s one city OVER the other, and now they’re trying to convince us “both sides are bad”. While it’s true that there ARE problems on both sides, the problems in Zaun literally wouldn’t be problems if Piltover wasn’t an oppressive institution. Why were the chem barons able to amass power? Because the systems Piltover set up left Zaun behind and allowed power hungry people like Finn, Margo, Chross, and Smeech seize their opportunities for control. Why is there so much crime in Zaun? Again, because of Piltover. The class disparity that Piltover set up means the economic divide between the two cities is a chasm that grows wider and wider every day. People are forced to steal to eat. They join gangs out of necessity, not because they have to. Why did Jinx kill all those enforcers?

That shouldn’t be the question. The real question is: Why does “Jinx”(as in, the persona Powder adopted to feel strong) even exist? Answer, once again, because of Piltover! Jinx is an oppressed person with severe mental health and self esteem issues that have been exacerbated as a result of the crooked system of Piltover. She saw her parents get killed by enforcers(militarized police force that carries out the will of the powers that be and is responsible for harassing, brutalizing, and over policing Zaun) right in front of her before she was even in the double digits. She was then adopted by Vander, but she had to struggle her whole life. Zaun doesn’t even have air to BREATHE unless Piltover decides they deserve it. And thanks to Caitlyn, we get to see how even THAT gets weaponized when Zaun steps out of line. So if they don’t have access to clean air, it’s safe to say that they also don’t have access to the same quality food, water, shelter, clothing, economic, educational, or medical services that Piltovans do, just by virtue of living in Zaun. So you take a severely mentally ill little girl, systematically oppress her, and then clutch your pearls when she becomes violent and lashes out? Label her a “psycho” and a “monster” for killing cops, gang members, and politicians while Caitlyn gets a happily ever after after everything she did? I thought “both sides” were “just as bad”. So why is Jinx the only one who meaningfully suffers? Why does Zaun as a whole always have to pay the price?

Lack of commitment. “Terrorist” is a loaded word that’s been weaponized against marginalized people for ages now. It’s another one to add to the list: angry, crazy, mad, belligerent, monster, savage, animal, etc. All these dehumanizing words are leveled at folks who get tired of taking shit lying down. I’ve never thought that Jinx was a “monster” for killing cops, Councilors, or politicians. Never will. But the show clearly WANTS me to, as well as simultaneously wanting to see Caitlyn’s actions a certain way. I’ve already made a post about why comparing or trying to equalize Caitlyn’s actions and Jinx’s actions is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest imo. Think of it like a bully vs bullied type of thing. There’s this kid and his asshole friends who gets to bully you for weeks, months, or even years and face no repercussions. Then, one day you get fed up, and start fighting back. Whether that be with words, feet, fists, or what have you. If you go down, you go down swinging. When the dust settles, BOTH of y’all are getting disciplined(detention, suspended, expelled, not allowed to go on trips, etc) for “fighting”. And there’s a very good chance one of you will be punished much more harshly than the other. Even though you started fighting back. BACK being the operative word. Every single time this kid pushed, hit, kicked, punched, started rumors about, and isolated you, nothing was done. The one time you start fighting BACK, both of y’all get in trouble because the school has a “zero tolerance policy”.

But you know that’s not true. It can’t be. You’ve been telling the teachers, guidance counselors, and vice principal about what’s been going on. But nothing was done about it. Or if it was, you were the one who was told to move seats. Or switch to a different classroom. Or just ignore them. Or “maybe they’re lashing out cause they have problems going on at home.” It was nothing but excuses when you were getting pushed around. Now when you fight back it’s a problem. Now take that metaphor and apply it to Caitlyn and Jinx. Caitlyn is like that fat rich asshole with parents on the PTA who make hefty donations to the school. Jinx is like the scrawny little nobody who has no one to stick up for them. Piltover is the school system. Caitlyn’s privilege isolated her from any meaningful consequences, while Jinx’s lack of privilege guaranteed she’d face hefty consequences, much more than Caitlyn ever would.

Jinx has lost: her birth parents as a result of state sanctioned violence, her adoptive brothers, her sister, her best friend, her adoptive father, Silco, her sister again, her adoptive father again, her new friend, her sense of self, her life(possibly) and she has to deal with being an oppressed person who struggles with mental health issues on top of all that. Caitlyn has lost: her mother, and her eye. That’s it. She’s never forced to give anything up. She never had to reckon with the reality of what it means to be not just a Piltie, but a Kiramman, and a dictator on top of that. We never see her be genuinely remorseful about her horrible actions in Zaun. Nor does she try to apologize to the people in Zaun or meaningfully make amends. No, Caitlyn gets to live in that big shiny house of hers with her father and girlfriend and the months she spent co-signing martial law will never be addressed. To bring it back to the bully vs bullied comparison, this means that Jinx would have been expelled for fighting back, while Caitlyn gets ISS(in school suspension). “Both sides are bad” yeah well you clearly believe one side is worse! And it’s not the correct one!

Piltover is an oppressive, classist, ableist, and brutal institution. Caitlyn was the head of this institution for months after she experienced a fraction of what Zaunites have experienced for centuries. At the end of the day, Caitlyn’s actions were brushed aside and she got her happy ending, though it wasn’t deserved whatsoever. Meanwhile Jinx, Sevika, Ekko, Isha, countless other Zaunites, and Zaun as a whole did nothing but suffer their whole lives and now they have nothing to show for it. “Both sides are bad” but the bad that the institution is responsible for is never called out, while the bad that the oppressed people did is blown out of proportion and they are severely punished for it.

And yes, I know I’m talking about a mainstream television show with white/non black people in the writers room. I knew I was never gonna get the pro revolution story I wanted to see, and I’ve made peace with that. But, if they wanted to have a “both sides” narrative so bad, then they should’ve stuck with it. BOTH SIDES should have equally suffered and had to reckon with their wrongdoings. The responsibility for doing so shouldn’t have solely been on the shoulders of the minority group. THAT’S the crux of the issue. I was always gonna think “forgiveness” was the coward’s way out. But they never show Piltover apologizing. Only Zaun does, and that’s not right.

[transmascwillbyers]

This could be a bit of an unpopular opinion, but do you know what I actually love about Mike's character? He's a queer character who's just... allowed to be an absolute f**king jerk sometimes. And I know that probably sounds like a weird take when you boil it down like that, but let me explain.

So often when we get queer representation, the characters are very black and white morality-wise- either they're these perfect angels who can do nothing wrong, or they're literally the queer-coded villains of the story. While the former is definitely better than the latter here, it has the unfortunate effect of minimizing some characters' impact and complexity, since they have to be 100% perfect people all the time or else it's "bad rep". To be clear, I do think that having queer characters on screen being good, functional people is still great representation, and it shouldn't be taken for granted, but I also feel like the experiences of queer characters can often get sanitized onscreen for the sake of straight audiences "understanding" us, or not having cisallohet people take a look at a queer person doing bad things and think "oh this queer person is doing bad so I'll go use that as an excuse to be homophobic now yay!"

Plus, while bad rep does exist and absolutely should be criticized, I think that sometimes we can be so nervous about something being queerbaiting or bad representation that even minor flaws or problematic things in a story feel like they're attacks on us, creating this very binary and unuanced idea of what good representation is (rep exists on a spectrum of good and bad! there's good and bad aspects of most rep!) Of course, I don't fault anyone for feeling disappointed with some stories, and I know that different people can feel represented in different things more than others. If you really like a work, shout it from the rooftops, and if you want to criticize it, you are fully within your right to do that as a queer person! We just need more nuance in the way we think about queer rep, and we need audiences to be MUCH less homophobic, because otherwise there's this effect where queer characters can't really do bad things and behave badly without backlash from both sides (but mostly homophobes). Remember everyone calling Will a homewrecker after s4 for... having an unrequited crush on his friend? Yeah. That happened.

Well, enter Mike Wheeler. As much as we all love Mike, you have to admit, he makes a lot of bad decisions on a fairly regular basis. He blows up at his friends because of his own internalized homophobia (iT'S nOt My fAUlT yoU DoN'T lIkE gIRlS), he has his parents constantly nagging him about how he's acting out and doing badly in school, and his entire season four plotline basically consists of him... treating his girlfriend badly and then going off and having an emotional affair with someone else once she gets arrested. Okay, obviously that's kind of an unfavorable look at it, but this is what I mean! He makes bad decisions, he does bad things sometimes, but the narrative actually manages to strike a balance between making us feel sympathy for him without completely justifying all his actions. If Mike does something bad, he (usually) faces consequences and does something good about it later, to furthur his arc. He's a queer character who's allowed to screw up and be somewhat morally grey sometimes, and you know what? I love that. I love that because it feels real, and authentic, and because the Duffers aren't sugarcoating the struggles of being queer and how internalized homophobia can make you act out and be a jerk sometimes.

More importantly, Mike's actions do get called out in the narrative, but we as an audience aren't supposed to find him irredeemable or morally bankrupt just because he makes bad decisions. He's a classic anti-hero (it's me, hi, i'm the problem, it's me) in the sense that the characters in the text make him face consequences, but the writers themselves don't treat Mike like he's a bad person in the greater context of the story. It's a complicated nuance, mainly about how the characters view another character vs. how that character is treated within the story, tonally and archetypally. We as an audience can make our own decisions about Mike- is he a good person? A bad person? Likeable? Unlikeable? No one f**king knows! And the fact that we get to have a queer character who people don't unanimously like is actually really cool when you think about it!

Ugh. This was so rambly, and I'm so sorry, but istg I have so many creative writer thoughts about Mike it's not even funny. TL;DR, I personally really love Mike as a queer character, because in ST it doesn't feel like his experience is sanitized or sugarcoated for the sake of making him seem "likeable" to an audience that doesn't understand the experience of being queer. He's allowed to make mistakes, he's allowed to be somewhat morally grey sometimes, and the fact that we can have a queer character who isn't perfect for the sake of seeming appealing is just... ugh. I don't know why but I just find it so f**king cool as an english nerd. His character is so interesting, and asdfghklj- I'll stop now.

I'll finish off with this- Equality for queer people and queer representation in media WILL NOT be achieved once we have a character who's perfect, unproblematic representation. However, it will be achieved when we can have a character who makes mistakes, does bad things, even royally screws up sometimes, and no one bats an eye- because people won't be homophobic enough to use them as an example of "why queer people are bad", and queer people will be secure enough in the world so that they won't have to worry whether representation is good, bad, or somewhere in between.

[devilsskettle]

oh man i have a Lot of thoughts about the autopsy of jane doe, both positive and critical For Sure, i'd be SO excited to see your analysis of it! definitely keeping an eye out for that 👀

thanks! i'm working on something article-like to talk about the film and i don't know what i want to do with it yet lol but if i don't post it on here i'll definitely link it. it's mainly a discussion of gender in possession/occult films in the same way that carol clover describes in men, women, and chainsaws - that there are dual plot lines in occult films, usually gendered masculine and feminine respectively, where the "main" feminine plot (the actual possession) is actually a way to explore the "real" masculine plot (the emotional conflict of the "man in crisis" protagonist). typically the man in crisis is too masculine, or "closed" emotionally, where the woman is too "open," which is why she acts as the vehicle for the supernatural occurrence as well as the core emotions of the film. the man has to learn how to become more open (though if he becomes too open, like father karras in the exorcist, he has to die by the end - he has to find a happy medium, where he doesn't actually transgress gender expectations too much. clover calls this state the "new masculine," and we might apply the term "toxic masculinity" to the "closed" emotional state). part of the "opening up" feature of the story is that it allows men to be highly emotionally expressive in situations where they otherwise might not be allowed to, which is cathartic for the assumed primary audience of these films (young men). another feature of the genre is white science vs black magic (once you exhaust the scientific "rational" explanations, you have to accept that something magic is happening). the autopsy of jane doe does this even more than the films she discusses when she published the book in 1992 (the exorcist, poltergeist, christine, etc) because the supernaturally influenced young woman who becomes this kind of vehicle is more of an object than a character. she doesn't have a single line of dialogue or even blink for the entire runtime of the movie. the camerawork often pans to her as if to show her reactions to the events of the movie, which seems kind of pointless because it's the same reaction the whole time (none) but it allows the viewer to project anything they want onto her - from personal suffering to cunning and spite. 

compare again to the exorcist: is the story actually about regan mcneil? no. but do we care about her? sure (clover says no, but i think we at least feel for her situation lol). and do we get an idea of what she's like as a person? yes. even though her pain and her body are used narratively as a framework for karras' emotional/religious crisis, we at least see her as a person. both she and her mother are expendable to the "real" plot but they're very active in their roles in the "main" plot - our "jane doe" isn't afforded even that level of agency or identity. so. is that inherently sexist? well, no - if there were other women in the film who were part of the "real" plot, i would say that the presence of women with agency and identity demonstrate enough regard for the personhood of women to make the gender of the subject of the autopsy irrelevant. but there are none. of the three important women in the film, we have 1) an almost corpse, 2) an absent (dead) mother, and 3) a one dimensional girlfriend who is killed off for a man's character development/cathartic expression of emotions. all three are just platforms for the men in crisis of this narrative. 

and, to my surprise, much of the reception to the film is to embrace it as a feminist story because the witch is misconstrued as a badass, powerful, Strong Female Character girl boss type for getting revenge on the men who wronged her, with absolutely no consideration given to what the movie actually ends up saying about women. and the director has said that he embraces this interpretation, but never intended it. so like. of course you're going to embrace the interpretation that gives you critical acclaim and the moral high ground. but it's so fucking clear that it was never his intention to say anything about feminism, or women in general, or gender at all. so i find it very frustrating that people read the film that way because it's just. objectively wrong.

there's also things i want to say about this idea that clover talks about in a different chapter of the book when she discusses the country/city divide in a lot of horror (especially rape-revenge films) in which the writer intends the audience to identify with the city characters and be against the country characters (think of, like, house of 1000 corpses - there's pretty explicit socioeconomic regional tension between the evil country residents and the travelers from the city) but first, they have to address the real harm that the City (as a whole) has inflicted upon the Country (usually in the forms of environmental and economic destruction) so in order to justify the antagonization the country people are characterized by, their "retaliation" for these wrongs has to be so extreme and misdirected that we identify with the city people by default (if country men feel victimized by the City and react by attacking a city woman who isn't complicit in the crimes of the City in any of the violent, heinous ways horror movies employ, of course we won't sympathize with them). why am i bringing this up? well, clover says this idea is actually borrowed from the western genre, where native americans are the Villains even as white settlers commit genocide - so they characterize them as extremely savage and violent in order to justify violence against them (in fiction and in real life). the idea is to address the suffering of the Other and delegitimize it through extreme negative characterization (often, with both the people from the country and native americans, through negative stereotyping as well as their actions). so i think that shows how this idea is transferred between different genres and whatever group of people the writers want the viewers to be against, and in this movie it’s happening on the axis of gender instead of race, region, or class. obviously the victims of the salem witch trials suffered extreme injustice and physical violence (especially in the film as victim of the ritual the body clearly underwent) BUT by retaliating for the wrongs done to her, apparently (according to the main characters) at random, she's characterized as monstrous and dangerous and spiteful. her revenge is unjustified because it’s not targeted at the people who actually committed violence against her. they say that the ritual created the very thing it was trying to destroy - i.e. an evil witch. she becomes the thing we're supposed to be afraid of, not someone we’re supposed to sympathize with. she’s othered by this framework, not supported by it, so even if she’s afforded some power through her posthumous magical abilities, we the viewer are not supposed to root for her. if the viewer does sympathize with her, it’s in spite of the writing, not because of it. the main characters who we are intended to identify with feel only shallow sympathy for her, if any - even when they realize they’ve been cutting open a living person, they express shock and revulsion, but not regret. in fact, they go back and scalp her and take out her brain. after realizing that she’s alive! we’re intended to see this as an acceptable retaliation against the witch, not an act of extreme cruelty or at the very least a stupid idea lol. 

(also - i hate how much of a buzzword salem is in movies like this lol, nothing about her injuries or the story they “read” on her is even remotely similar to what happened in salem, except for the time period. i know they don’t explicitly say oh yeah, she was definitely from salem, but her injuries really aren’t characteristic of american executions of witches at all so i wish they hadn’t muddied the water by trying to point to an actual historical event. especially since i think the connotation of “witch” and the victims of witch trials has taken on a modern projection of feminism that doesn’t really make sense under any scrutiny. anyway)

not to mention the ending: what was the writer intending the audience to get from the ending? that the cycle of violence continues, and the witch’s revenge will move on and repeat the same violence in the next place, wherever she ends up. we’re supposed to feel bad for whoever her next victims will be. but what about her? i think the movie figures her maybe as triumphant, but she’s going to keep being passed around from morgue to morgue, and she’s going to be vivisected again and again, with no way to communicate her pain or her story. the framework of the story doesn’t allow for this ending to be tragic for her, though - clearly the tragedy lies with the father and son, finally having opened up to one another, unfortunately too late, and dying early, unjust deaths at the hands of this unknowable malignant entity. it doesn’t do justice to her (or the girlfriend, who seems to be nothing but collateral damage in all of this - in the ending sequence, when the police finds the carnage, it only shows them finding the bodies of the men. the girlfriend is as irrelevant to the conclusion as she is to the rest of the plot). 

but does this mean the autopsy of jane doe is a “bad” movie? i guess it depends on your perspective. ultimately, it’s one of those questions that i find myself asking when faced with certain kinds of stories that inevitably crop up often in our media: how much can we excuse a story for upholding regressive social norms (even unintentionally) before we have to discount the whole work? i don’t think the autopsy of jane doe warrants complete rejection for being “problematic” but i think the critical acclaim based on the idea that it’s a feminist film should be rejected. i still consider it a very interesting concept with strong acting and a lot of visual appeal, and it’s a very good piece of atmospheric horror. it’s does get a bit boring at certain points, but the core of the film is solid. it’s also not trying to be sexist, arguably it’s not overtly sexist at all, it’s just very very androcentric at the expense of its female characters, and i’m genuinely shocked that anyone would call it feminist. so sure, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water, but let’s also be critical about how it’s using women as the stage for men’s emotional conflict 

also re: my description of this little project as “a film isn’t feminist just because there’s a woman’s name in the title” - i actually don’t want to skim over the fact that “jane doe” isn’t a real name. of the three women in the film, only one has a real name; the other two are referred to by names given to them by men. i’ll conclude on this note because i want to emphasize the lack of even very basic ways of recognizing individual identity afforded to women in this film. so yeah! the end! thanks for your consideration if you read this far! 

[lumosandnoxwriting]

Everyone of you is given the right to express your opinion freely and thats okay. But I don’t think it’s fair that you are bashing an author’s work in a platform where she can defend herself or give her input in the situation. I do agree w some point that were made. But then again, If you dont like it, dont read it. She has her own style of writing and if you or anybody thinks that its not great, than again, dont read it. You guys are not being the bigger person by doing this.😕

TW: mentions of non consensual sexual acts, mentions of blood, mentions of abuse. 

thank you for this message I’ve spent the past several minutes thinking about my response and I am now ready to share it with you.

First of all I just want to address that I am in no way shape or form criticizing her  style of writing. Obviously everyone has their own style, and I think that Samine is a fantastic writer and I really did enjoy Golden Boy in its early stages. I liked the characters, I liked the storyline and I think she wrote it beautifully. 

It’s the content of her writing that I’m scrutinizing. Golden Boy has over 10 million reads. 10 Million.  And I am sure that a large portion of those readers are minors. When you post explicit material on the internet for all to consume (regardless of their age) you have a responsibility to portray that material in the correct and appropriate manner. The characters of the story quite literally engaged in extremely unsafe sexual practices. There are several descriptions of sexual encounters going so far that a person either bleeds, ends up internally bruised or quite literally cannot walk for a period of several days. This is not a normal depiction of a healthy sexual relationship and not something that should be romanticized or viewed as something someone should want in a sexual relationship. 

There are several depictions of characters being involved in sexual acts in which they do not consent to. As I mention Fred is forced into a sexual encounter where someone watches him have sex without his knowledge. George quite literally is being manipulated by a character and has no control over his actions, making any sexual encounters he has non consensual. And while it has sense been removed, there was a scene where Fred and George tied up their significant others and forced them to take their clothes off until they were in nothing but their underwear and then left them sitting outside while in full view of many other characters. There is also a whole chapter where Fred has sex with one of the characters while thinking about the fact he doesn’t want to do it and quite frankly that entire scene (in my opinion) romanticizes non-con sexual acts because for a large portion his girlfriend is present and trying to “coax” him away from this other person and it seems like a power play between  the main character and the villain. 

Then there is the fact that there is kink play and exploration that is not done properly. The main character quite literally puts a sex toy up Fred’s ass without any discussion of it before hand and without the proper prep. When the main character and Fred have sex at one point she talks about how much it hurts, and yet Fred keeps going. There is no discussion of a safe word at all, something that is imperative when engaging in any kind of sexual act.

There is a complete lack of trigger warnings on the chapters, including the ones where there could be non-con themes. There is some pretty blatant queer baiting (in my opinion) and direct statement of homophobia. Not to mention the very blatant racism. Fred and George are the victims of abuse and manipulation, and they are blamed for their actions while under this, and it is generally pushed under the rug as if it does not exist. 

I got involved in the conversation about Golden Boy because I had thoughts I wanted to share about my experience and musings while reading it. It was not my intention to have it come off as me “bashing” anyone. But if problematic behavior is not pointed out then it just continues on. Fanfiction is meant for everyone to enjoy, and it is up to the authors to ensure that things are properly depicted and properly warned that way readers who are sensitive to topics or who can be triggered by discussions of certain things are able to properly enjoy those fanfictions and know what to stay away from.

Samine is free to write whatever she wants and I am not saying she can’t. I’m just saying that she has a responsibility to write those things properly and safely. And if talking about these things openly prevents someone who may have been triggered by Golden Boy’s content from reading it then I consider that a win. 

[immaturityofthomasastruc]

(Accidental 150 Follower Special) IOTA's Top 10 Worst Episodes of Miraculous Ladybug (Part 1)

If you saw one of my earlier posts, an anon asked what my favorite and least favorite episodes of Miraculous Ladybug were. So, I decided to make a little list explaining the best and worst this show has to offer.

A few quick ground rules here. I'm not going to list any episodes I had previously talked about in some of my other posts. This includes “Kung Food”, “Animaestro”, “Syren”, “Reflekdoll”, “Chameleon”, and most of the episodes relating to Chloe's “damnation arc” that Astruc planned since he first created the character (“Despair Bear”, “Queen Wasp”, “Malediktator” and “Battle of the Miraculous”). Also, I'm not counting the specials, mainly because aren't listed as episodes, and because I don't want to talk about them.

Other than that, anything goes, so let's get things started with the worst list.

These are the Top 10 Worst Episodes of Miraculous Ladybug (in my personal opinion because your opinion is also valid)

#10: Stormy Weather 2

“Stormy Weather” was the very first episode of the show, and it really made a good impression on new viewers. So naturally, when it was announced that Stormy Weather would return, fans were excited. Then when the episode aired, Hawkmoth gave her even more powers, including the power to create a volcano big enough to potentially knock the planet out of orbit when it erupts. So Ladybug and Cat Noir have no choice but to stop the villain once again.

What does this plot lead to?

Yep, this episode is nothing more than a clip show. I understand that clip shows and bottle episodes are a necessary evil, but why would you set up something this awesome with a fan-favorite Akuma like Stormy Weather, and then not even bother to show it?

This episode is yet another attempt at showing that the show totally has character development. The whole reason Aurore is Akumatized into Stormy Weather again is because Chloe says that people can't change because Astruc (who was one of the four people writing this episode) is determined to make you hate this teenage girl more than the main villain of the show.

So of course, everyone spends most of the episode talking about how much they've changed, which is represented through clips of past episodes that do a horrible job at actually conveying any development.

According to Marinette, Adrien has “become a friend she can talk to about anything, except when it comes to her feelings for him”. Ah yes, you can tell they're friends by the fact that they barely hang out together, much less share a conversation because the writers are going to drag out the whole “Marinette stammering in front of Adrien” until they get tired of it. So basically, never.

All Alya and Nino talk about is how Ladybug helped them become a couple, and become superheroes, even though neither of those are actually related to character development. Though that is a fitting metaphor for the way both of their personalities have basically devolved to “the couple”.

Chloe talks about how nicer she's gotten, while footage of her doing awful things is played. I wonder who wrote that part in...

Even Ladybug and Cat Noir talk about how much they've grown and how stronger they've gotten, as opposed to focusing on STOPPING ANOTHER ICE AGE FROM HAPPENING. How can Hawkmoth even think this will get him the Miraculous? Yeah, sure I guess he can get them from the frozen corpses of our heroes, but what then? He still doomed humanity, and I don't think he can reverse the damage like Ladybug.

Towards the end, the clip show becomes slightly interesting, as Adrien mentions an unsigned card he got for Valentine's Day in “Dark Cupid”, and how similar the handwriting looks to Marinette's.

Does this lead to Adrien figuring out Marinette has feelings for him? Is the sky bright red? Both of these questions have the same answer.

Yeah, out of nowhere, Adrien just mentions Luka, who wasn't mentioned at all in this episode, and immediately thinks Marinette is in love with him. And that's how the episode ends.

I put this at the bottom of the list because I don't think it's completely fair to judge clip shows, but even some clip shows at least try to put in some effort and justify the clips, like what The Legend of Korra and some seasons of Power Rangers did. And the fact that the whole point of the episode is a poor excuse to claim that there's character development in the show only makes it even more infuriating.

Oh my God, this is only Number 10...

#9: Oblivio

While I already talked about “Cat Blanc”, this episode shares a similar theme as that episode: Giving viewers what they've wanted for three seasons, Marinette and Adrien finally learning each other's identity and starting a romantic relationship... only for the reset button to be once again slammed, making the entire episode pointless.

The only difference is that unlike in “Cat Blanc”, where there was an actual love confession that made sense, here, Marinette and Adrien find out the other's identity when they get their memories wiped by the Akuma of the week, Oblivio.

From then on, it's just fanservice. Instead of actually developing the relationship between Marinette and Adrien, the writers just decide to cram an entire episode worth of Adrienette content into a single episode just to tide fans over. Marinette and Adrien seriously fall in love despite only knowing each other for like, an hour at most. And the fact that the writers undo all the romantic progress of the episode makes it come across as pointless.

But the ending is what really cements this episode's spot on the list. As soon as Oblivio is defeated, Alya takes a picture of Ladybug and Cat Noir kissing without their consent and then rubs it in Ladybug's face.

Even though Ladybug doesn't know the circumstances (she has no memory of the events of the episode), this was still an invasion of her privacy, and she looks horrified by the picture that Alya is obviously going to post on her blog.

And of course, Cat Noir is more than happy to see it, ignoring how Ladybug feels and claims that they'd make a great couple. Because everyone knows good couples are formed by someone gaslighting the other into going out with them.

But wait, it gets better! In the next scene, we learn that Alya and Nino were akumatized into Oblivio... because they were caught in an embarrassing situation by their peers.

Alya: Remember when we visited Montparnasse Tower? Well, we went and hid to play Super Penguino, but Ms. Bustier caught us, and...

Nino: And you guys made fun of us for playing that game, saying it wasn't our age and all.

Alya: We were totally embarrassed at getting caught.

This was my thought process when I first heard Alya and Nino's explanation.

How can Alya claim to take a compromising picture of Ladybug, ignore how she feels, and not realize the similarity from when she and Nino were akumatized? This is what completely killed Alya for me in canon. This was the point where I couldn't care less if Marinette was friends with her or not. Sure, there are still fanfics, but those actually portray her with some kind of conscious. So to summarize, Fanon Alya is awesome, but I hope Canon Alya's 4G plan runs out.

This episode is just forgettable, but the ending made things worse. Apart from, I guess the action scenes and some funny jokes, this episode has no redeeming qualities. Like, literally the best thing to come from this episode was @miraculouscontent​‘s LadyBugOut AU, as it actually addressed the hypocrisy of Alya's character, among other problematic aspects of the show.

#8: Oni-Chan

Just a heads up, most of the episodes on this list are from Season 3. Just want to give you an idea of what to expect.

This episode is about Lila tricking Adrien into helping with her homework, when she is only doing it to get closer to Adrien. Marinette tries to spy on the two and stop Lila from hurting Adrien... even though she knows Adrien is aware that Lila is a liar, and is visibly uncomfortable around her.

And because the episode spends so much time on Marinette following Adrien and Lila, the buildup to Kagami getting akumatized is incredibly rushed. Seriously, she gets a single line of dialogue before she gets akumatized, and the motive is ridiculous too. Lila sends a picture of her forcing a kiss on Adrien, and Kagami immediately bursts into tears at the sight of it.

But wait, it gets better! When Kagami is akumatized into Oni-Chan (the writers know that's a term used for males in Japan, right?), she turns into a psycho hellbent on killing Lila because “Adrien doesn't deserve her”. Most of her dialogue is her saying how much she loves Adrien, making her come across as, for lack of a better word, a yandere.

This episode just destroys Kagami's character, making her as unlikable as Katie Killjoy in the process. If it wasn't for “Ikari Gozen” actually treating her like a human being (obviously Astruc's planned character development from the beginning), I'd completely hate her.

It also shows how much of an evil genius Lila is, as she has the brilliant idea to convince Oni-Chan to kill the only person capable of saving her from the Akuma's wrath. And this somehow gives Hawkmoth the idea to forge an alliance with Lila. It's also another reason why I believe in Darwinism.

This episode is low on the list because it does have a few redeeming qualities, like Lila facing consequences for lying, however brief they may be, and it has a great character moment with Adrien realizing on his own how terrible Lila really is, a far cry from what he was like in “Chameleon”.

Other than that, it's pretty bad, and still deserves a spot on this list.

#7: Antibug

HA! I said MOST of the episodes involving Chloe's “Damnation Arc” wouldn't be on this list, but not ALL OF THEM, so this one counts! Take that, convoluted rules I made up for some reason!

What was I talking about again? Oh right, “Antibug”. Oh crap, “Antibug”...

This is one of of several episodes in Miraculous Ladybug that really should have been a two-parter. It tries to be daring and includes two Akumas in one episode, but both of them are poorly executed.

An invisibly entity starts harassing Chloe, so Ladybug and Cat Noir start an investigation. It turns out to be Chloe's lackey Sabrina, who was akumatized after a falling out between the two. Well, I say “falling out” lightly, because what actually happened was that Chloe and Sabrina were cosplaying as Ladybug and Cat Noir, Chloe pretended to be the real deal while crashing an interview with Jagged Stone before Sabrina accidentally blew her cover, causing Chloe to be humiliated on TV and end her “friendship” with Sabrina.

Ladybug learns this from Chloe's butler, while Chloe never mentions the incident. So when Ladybug and Cat Noir engage the Akuma, Ladybug ignores Chloe's advice on where the corrupted object, naturally not trusting her judgment. And this is portrayed as a bad thing.

This episode is the start of a long-running trend in Miraculous Ladybug: Marinette needing to learn a lesson, while Adrien/Cat Noir is the one to help teach that lesson.

Chloe did nothing to help, only made things worse, and lied about why Sabrina got akumatized. It's kind of obvious why Ladybug wouldn't trust her word. The whole point of The Boy Who Cried Wolf wasn't to trust the liar after all.

But if that was all the episode did, it wouldn't be on the list, because now, the narrative wants to make the audience feel bad for Chloe before she gets akumatized into Antibug... who is just a lazy palette swap because new character models are expensive.

This part of the episode isn't nearly as bad as the first half, but like “Oni-Chan”, Chloe's akumatization is incredibly rushed, and we don't really get a chance to sympathize with her before she goes full Antibug.

Even Antibug herself isn't that interesting of a villain. The whole idea of an evil doppelganger is that they're a perfect match for the hero, but we only see Ladybug and Antibug fight for a few seconds, while Cat Noir does most of the fighting with her while Marinette's Kwami recharges. I like that Ladybug and Cat Noir show their teamwork to defeat Antibug, but I feel it would have been more interesting to see Ladybug and Antibug duke it out before Cat Noir helps turn the tide.

Again, this episode really needed to be a two-parter to better expand on the story presented here, because it had a really interesting premise. I'd personally read the version of “Antibug” in @justanotherpersonsuniverse​‘s “The Adventures of Panthera Noire” (an AU fanfic where shy girl Juleka gets the Cat Miraculous instead of Adrien). Not only does it have two separate chapters for Vanisher and Antibug, it also does a good job of setting Chloe on an actual redemption arc, unlike Astruc's “damnation arc”.

#6: The Puppeteer 2

As much as I've ragged on Adrien/Cat Noir in some of my other posts (and will continue to do so in this list), that doesn't mean I think Marinette has problems too, and this episode is a prime example.

Marinette and Adrien go to a wax statue museum with their friends (and Manon), but because of a poor choice of words by Nino, Adrien thinks that Marinette hates him. So he does something that everyone loves, practical jokes.

Adrien seriously thinks that pranking Marinette will improve her opinion of him. Even the prank is ridiculous, pretending to be a wax statue to make her laugh. And it leads to... Oh God... This is easily the contender for one of the worst moments in the entire show. Marinette goes up to the statue and... gets close to it. Yes, we, the audience know that this isn't a statue, but putting that aside, just look at what Marinette does to the “statue” (AUTHOR’S NOTE: I made a gif from the episode, but it wouldn’t go through, so I recommend you check out the episode and watch the statue scene for yourself if you don’t value your sanity). Even Adrien, as dense as he can be, is a little unsettled by what Marinette does.

If the scene was about Marinette talking about her feelings for Adrien, I'd be more lenient on it, but this? This is just uncomfortable to watch.

Even the dialogue makes Marinette sound incredibly creepy.

Marinette: Wow... it looks so... real. The wax is nearly as hot as skin. It even smells exactly like him...! Oh, beautiful statue of Adrien, your wax is so soft! Your yak hair is silky. Your eyes are so green. Oh, shall I be a statue, too! Everything would be so much easier. Why haven't we been molded together in the plaster of destiny? Marble to marble, wax lips against wax lips, entwined for eternity...

I think Gilbert Gottfried said it best.

This scene alone put this episode on the list, and the Akuma doesn't make it better. I really liked “The Puppeteer”, and I thought her ability to control past Akuma victims was incredibly fun to watch. And when she returns to take control of the wax statues of past Akumas they... don't use their powers (with the exception), and serve as cannon fodder for Ladybug and Cat Noir to plow through, making the return of the villain very underwhelming.

Even the end where Adrien tells Marinette that he is in love with someone and only sees her as a friend. This should devastate Marinette, but in the next scene, thanks to some fortune cookie nonsense from Tikki, she's still unsure about her relationship with Adrien, and that's how the episode ends. Seriously. Because just need to keep the status quo consistent, right? It's not like Marinette doubting her crush on Adrien and worrying that she's just wasted her time would have been interesting to see, right? Play that happy ending theme already!

Of all the episodes on this list, this is the one I was dreading talking about the most because of some of the moments here. And yet, there are still episodes that are worse than this one...

Here’s Part 2

[sirinaruth]

do you think blitzo does not deserve all the hate in ozzie's?

I think there's more to it than a simple matter of "who's in the wrong" and/or "who deserves hate".

I think that the team working on Helluva Boss are all extremely talented and that is exemplified in the Ozzie's episode. The intent behind the episode, be it the character progressions, the romance plot or the world building, can be seen at every stage of production. From the writing and acting all the way through the scene design and animation. There isn't a single scene that isn't doing at least two things at any given time. The depth of story being told can only really be experienced if a viewer is paying attention to all points of the episode. If you only look at the writing and ignore the visuals, or only count the dialogue and pay no heed to the expressions and subtlies of the quiet moments, you end up missing part of the story.

I think this, plus the fact that the characters live in and are from literal Hell, tends to get lost in the discussion when it comes to the characters. These are all really, incredibly flawed and dammaged characters, Blitzo most of all. And the show isn't interested in glossing over these flaws or absolving the main characters of their flaws to make them more likable to the audience. Obviously his behavior in the episode is bad, but that's kind of the point. The writers know it, the voice actor knows it, the audience knows it and (i'd argue) Blitzo knows it too.

Like... that is INSTANT regret right there if I've ever seen it. He knows he fucked up. He knows this wasn't okay. He knows he's being an ass and that this affected Stolas more than he thought it might. Even if Blitzo doesn't understand everything, he knows he fucked up.

I think that the show has a main focus on comedy first, but that these characters all have depth and meaning to everyone on the production. At every stage, the creator, writers, artists and actors understand these characters and know when to bring in humor and when to tone things down. The scene of Blitzo walking through his home, passing by photos where he has scratched out his own face, tells the audience just as much as him saying "Don't act like what we have is anything but you wanting me to fuck you. You make that really clear all the time."

At no point does Stolas refute this claim. At no point does he, through actions or words, insinuate that Blitzo's worrds here are untrue or not the full story. In fact, quite the opposite. A picture is worth a thousand words, and I'd argue Stolas' reaction after this line holds more than one emotion. But I think at least one of those is guilt. We know that there's more to it, but Stolas has done nothing to actively correct Blitzo. He's been flirty and dropped hints, but when cornered and accused, he doesn't correct or defend himself. He just waits until Blitzo leaves, holds back tears, takes a seat and thinks.

I think fans going "Oh... no. No bby no. damnit!" that Blitzo did another self-destructive thing that ended up hurting another beloved character is understandable. But when some fans get genuinely mad and angry that a fictional character, who has been flawed and destructive to himself and others since day one, is continuing a trend and the audience is finally clued in as to how far back this behavior goes, and all the fans have to say is, "That's problematic. I don't like it." then I think those folks have missed the point.

There's a lot more to Helluva Boss than a lot of people give it credit for. Certainly more to it than I ever would have expected (I was originally very against the show based on the pilot alone). But by the time episode two came out and the show proved that it actually did care about these characters and their personal stories and how their actions and growth affected the other characters, I knew this was something different. Personally I am so tired of heroic main characters, who's big flaw is having a crush on the villain, or being clumsy. I'm hungry for characters and stories and relationships that put a spotlight on the messiness of real life and really dig into just how broken and damaged some people are and how that doesn't just go away because you get a romantic partner or have a heart to heart with a friend. I love the humor, but there's a hundred adult cartoons that are funny. I want something that uses its adult rating to actually dig into adult topics AND toss in a sex joke here or there. And having an adult cartoon that doesn't look like another stale, puppet style mess is a HUGE bonus.

(wow I got a bit off topic)

TLDR: If you think Blitzo's behavior in the Ozzie's episode is bad, congrats, you have eyes and ears. But if you see that and you think that makes the show/writing bad, congratulations, an indie cartoon on youtube has more depth than you will probably ever be capable of understanding.

[ultrahpfan5blog]

Reflecting on Superman and Lois season 1

Now that the season is over, its interesting to look back at a very stop start season. Its very difficult for a show to hold your interest with the type of scheduling problems this show had, and in its very first season. When the show was announced, I wasn't terribly surprised but I was also not overly excited. There has been a lot of Superman and Superman adjacent material that has come out before and after the announcement so I did wonder about what they could do new. In addition, while I certainly liked Tyler in his guest appearances in Supergirl, in Elseworlds, and in Crisis, he did feel like the inferior Superman in Crisis when he was opposite Brandon Routh's Superman who really looked and felt like Superman, even better than he did in Superman Returns. However, once the trailer dropped, I was sold. It was clear that the show was going for something a lot more cinematic and a lot more grounded than the previous Arrowverse shows. I did have some apprehensiveness over the teenage boys angle because teenagers can become very stereotypically irritating in shows and given that a good chunk of time was going to be dedicated to them, it was going to be vital for them not be so.

Having finished the season, I have to say that the execs and the writers have pulled off an excellent first season. I don't think I would call it the best season 1 in the Arrowverse. I still love The Flash season 1 over any other Arrowverse season and while I haven't seen it in a while, I love Arrow season 1 as well. This may come at 2nd or 3rd place based on further reflection. I do think its has some issues when it comes to the villain storyline and with the big action set pieces, but the film's heart is set at the right place and the characters are all very likable and you want to see conversations between the characters. That's when you know that the writers are doing a good job when you almost feel that the show should go back to the character moments.

Firstly, the idea of a matured Superman is what works wonderfully well. There is something wonderful about seeing Clark and Lois as a couple who have known and loved each other for over a decade. Closer to two decades I guess. Characters don't quite look their age tbh. Lois would have to be in her early 40's at least. But I can honestly overlook that. Bitsie and Tyler were already a very likable couple in Elseworlds and the show has just used that natural chemistry to brilliant effect. But the big relief was that Jordan Elsass and Alex Garfin are excellent as Jonathan and Jordan. I was initially a little worried that Jordan could be a little much, but both of them were excellent and one of the highlights of the season was the bond between the two brothers. Jordan and Jonathan have conflicts but they are brothers and they love and support each other unconditionally.

Jonathan could have so easily been the douchey, jealous brother but Elsass is honestly one of the mvp's of the season. You really care for Jonathan, even though he arguably has a slightly less meaty role in the story. I think Bitsie Tulloch is outstanding all season. She has shot up very high among all my favorite Lois Lanes. She's very different from the other versions and that makes her stand out. One of my favorite episodes was episode 8, which deals with Lois dealing with memories of her miscarriage along with almost losing Jonathan. She is excellent in that episode as is Elsass. Tyler is wonderful throughout. He's a strong Superman but his Clark is even more endearing. Little things like him being so psyched for the Harvest Festival, how he plays young Clark in flashbacks as someone distinctly different, him meeting Lois and working with her for the first time, the adorable "my mom made it" moment when Superman first saves a kid etc... He just embodies everything you know and love from the character. Wole Parks is another terrific addition. Initially you think he's an alternate version of Lex Luthor but it was genius idea to have him actually be John Henry Irons. There was something innately likable about him even when he was fighting Superman and we thought he was Lex. I loved how they handled the dynamic of being Lois' husband in another world and having a daughter. It makes for an interesting dynamic but it never gets into problematic territory because he is mature enough to know that this Lois isn't his Lois, but they also show his difficulty in dealing with that. I liked the bond he seemed to be forming with Jonathan. And I liked how he came along to be an ally with Superman.

The Cushings are ok. They play an important part in the season with Sarah Cushing being Jordan's love interest and Kyle being a big part of the how the villain story begins, with Lana also being a major character in the story. All three actors are excellent but Kyle does have the stereotypical doucheyness which was a little annoying for the first 10 episodes, however he does redeem himself in the final arc. I hope Lana gets to be a bit more active in the show because she does feel like a bit passive as a character. However, I did find that Sarah and Jordan romance actually pretty cute. Both actors did a nice job making them feel like awkward teenagers, dancing around their feelings for each other. Sam Lane is another character who starts out pretty unlikable but I warmed up to him by the end.

Where I think the show doesn't really work at full strength is the superheroic aspect of the show. The character drama in the show is great. I think it works gangbusters. The superhero plot of it all is a little meh. While Adam Rayner is perfectly fine as Edge/Tal-Rho, as a character he's just not that interesting. There is an interesting perspective there that he's sort of a mirror image to Clark where he got mistreated by people when he landed on Earth and that is how his worldview shaped that way, and he longed for family, but there isn't enough done on a character level with him. As a result, the last third of the season was a little iffy. The whole, build Krypton on Earth felt like a variation of Zod's plot in Man of Steel. The method is different but the eventual outcome is the same. I also don't know why all Kryptonians, apart from Lara, are homicidal maniacs, when they are said to be a peaceful race. The arc also becomes repetitive because there are like three climaxes. And I feel the finale was the weakest climax of the lot. Episode 10 or 12 would have served as better finales with a little tweaking. If I remember correctly, the original order was for 13 episodes and it got extended to 15, so this might be an explanation to why it feels this way. The action is fairly by the numbers. While it looks like there is clearly more money on display here than say for Supergirl or The Flash, the action scenes aren't particularly exciting or inventive.

While I am not super high on the finale, I am mostly happy with how things wrapped up. I think they should have had Tal-Rho die tragically because I really don't think he's interesting enough to be brought back again. The arrival of Natalie Irons will surely be a source of some emotionally charged scenes. i hope there is some character bonding between the her and the brothers. Jonathan seemed pretty interested in meeting her when he saw videos of her. I do wonder how the show will continue to incorporate Smallville as a setting. Season 1 obviously had a very specific plot based reason to be in Smallville, given Edge's plot was based in Smallville. But I can't imagine every big bad will have Smallville based plot. But the characters are all settled in Smallville, with the Cushings and Lois buy half the Gazette and running it with Christy. So that's going to be an interesting balancing act that they have to do. I hope they can bring in some traditional superheroics as well because Superman rogues gallery is rich enough. Out of the episodes, I think 6-8 were my favorites, and the flashbacks in episode 11 were incredibly charming. While the season is not flawless I don't think it completely nailed the superheroic heights that it was aiming for, it was a really entertaining season of tv. An 8/10 for me.

[gtgrandom]

Where Young Justice: Outsiders went wrong

(And before you tell me to just stop watching if I don’t like it - I’ve been supporting the show since 2011 by creating a significant amount of content and giving back monetarily. I have every right to critique the writing, thank you).

Honestly, I think they pulled their act together in the finale, and this season left me much more satisfied than I anticipated. That being said, there are some issues I want to address.

Major flaws:

Overabundance of characters

Undeveloped Relationships

Lack of Continuity

Problematic Representation (getting better)

Weak Dialogue 

Lower Quality Animation

The Message

Overabundance of characters

I think we can all agree on this one. There were far too many characters in season 2, but season 3 is laughable. It’s hardly a story anymore. Instead it’s an episodic series featuring new heroes each episode to appease niche comic fans.

There’s a formula for a superhero show (and any group-oriented tale in general), and that’s having a central team of five or less. Then you can introduce one or two new characters max per episode as side characters or villains. But you always circle back to your main team. YJ did a nice job of this in season one. So did most CW superhero shows before they made the same mistake of expanding their cast to make their writing task easier. (Yes, easier - new characters means you can stop developing old ones, especially with time jumps).  YJ started to narrow down the team by the end of the season, but it still left many mains as side characters / aesthetics. 

It’s great seeing these characters brought to life - I won’t deny it. But you can’t delve deep if you have this many. You can’t focus on character development or meaningful relationship development (hence why nearly every ship was established off screen). Furthermore, you frustrate fans when you focus on one group more than another. With a smaller cast you can always count on appealing to your audience because their "fave” is always present in some way. In many ways, fans feel like they’re being dragged along simply waiting for their character to pop up because of a one time cameo. It’s not fair to the audience.

The relationships

I think the only romantic relationships we’ve seen develop on screen are:

Violet/Brion

Spitfire

SuperMartian

Robin/Zatanna

sort of Roy/Jade

- and all but one were introduced in season 1. 

The others were simply introduced as a couple with little to no previous interaction. Like:

Tim/Cassie

Dick/Babs

Jaime/Traci

Bart/Ed

Kaldur/Wyynde

Gardita

M’gann/La’gaan

Mal/Karen

That is not how you write romance. You don’t stick it in there for the sake of it. You have to show us why they work, how they got there, and why we should care.  I’m not saying there HAS to be romance, but if there is, it still has to be written well. 

Continuity

This begins to overlap into the next issue, which is continuity.  I understand that Outsiders is not necessarily a new chapter to Young Justice, but if you are going to call it Young Justice Season 3, then I expect story lines to bleed over beyond just villainous deeds.  

Let’s look at Dick Grayson, for instance.  He’s one of the only mains who has had a very consistent, though shallow, character arc throughout the series.  First he wants to lead, then fears it because of the sacrifices he would have to make - because he didn’t want to be Batman.  In season 2 though, he becomes his worst nightmare.  He risks the lives of his friends, lies to his team, and ends up losing his best friend anyway.  And in season 3, we actually get a little bit of continuity here with Dick mourning Wally and being afraid to take on another team after season 2.  It could have been expanded upon, but it was still present, and I applaud the writers for that.  Especially for driving home his leadership qualities at the end there.

Now, what about the other characters, specifically those introduced in season 2?  This season is called “Outsiders,” and yet, it seems to only focus on the original team and Violet’s new group.   

What about Bart’s entire arc of coming back, stopping the apocalypse, and then losing Wally, his mentor?  What about Jaime’s home life and the lasting effects of being turned into a villain who nearly killed all his friends?  What about TIM and his role as the new leader??  Where did that plotline go?? Why is the unfamiliar Beast Boy now the leader of this Outsiders group?  How did Ed overcome his anger issues and repair his relationship with his dad?  How did Jade go from being a supportive wife and mother into the opposite?   

The writers tried to avoid all these problems by giving us a time jump.  But that’s just lazy writing if you don’t take the time to answer how things have changed!    

Also, I’ve said this before, but continuity isn’t simply having characters mourn a dead character.  You can’t keep using that plot device to give heart to the narrative.  If that’s your only source of true pathos...and that character is dead...then you’ve got a problem. 

The representation

Okay, I’ll admit they saved their asses with Kaldur. I love my wholesome pansexual rep. Would I have preferred to see his relationship occur with a character we’d already been introduced to outside the comics? Yes. But I’ll take it.

Disappointed with Ed/Bart and Bluepulse. They could have shown us more, but they didn’t. They could have given us a story, but they didn’t.  And don’t hit me with “this is a children’s show - we’re lucky to get what we get” BS.  Because it’s not anymore.  This show is literally written by adults for adults.

I really don’t want to talk about the whole Halo/Harper kiss because it was just so wrong in so many ways, but it needs to be addressed. So, first of all, if you excuse cheating in any capacity, shame on you. I don’t care what the characters are going through or how old they are. You don’t both recognize that you have significant others and then proceed to make out!! Second, what the hell?? You’re going to have the first lgbt content be a bisexual stereotype of two girls cheating on their boyfriends (and two characters who have only interacted in one episode before??) Not to mention, underage drinking and gun use? That sends the wrong message to the audience, even if the teens were reprimanded.  

Also, Halo is supposedly non-binary, and yet they explained it away by technology, so idk, I’m hesitant to count it as legitimate rep. I still think it was a good discussion to have. But yeah...

Finally, Halo is not Muslim rep after all.  She’s a hijab wearing character, but she does not identify with her faith or her culture. She outright rejects it in her scene with Harper. So...what? Is she diversity points that you can continue to violently kill off over and over?  Not a fantastic way to treat POC. I don’t think the creators meant any harm by it, but it’s something they need to consider going forward.

(I do appreciate the number of POC characters that have been introduced however. Especially the Latinx and black characters. This show has improved its diversity. But without proper characterization, they’re sort of just...there).

Dialogue

I can’t be the only one who cringed through entire episodes this season?  Some episodes had stellar writing. But the bad ones were very, very bad.   Obviously, not every joke is going to stick the landing, but if you’re going to kill off your beloved comic relief character, you have to have a better backup plan.   

Like, do you guys remember how witty some of the lines from the pilot were?  The whole “Speedy” vs. “Kid Flash” debate in the opening sequence?  You can tell how much effort went into those scenes.  How much love was given to those characters. Because they knew that was their only chance to hook the audience, to get a green light for a full season.  So they put everything into character development and plot - and now they’ve lost so much of what made the show precious in the first place.  (It’s still precious, but it’s tainted in many ways for me now).

Animation

It’s gone downhill. That’s really all I can say without being mean.  Some episodes seem slightly better than others, but if you compare the animation from 3x01 to an episode like Failsafe...there’s just no comparison.  I could hardly watch Wally’s scene without frowning at the frame rate.

Message

I don’t understand what the show is telling us anymore (or I didn’t, before Black Lightning gave a very “on the nose” speech about what it is that we were supposed to take away from this season).

I mean this has always been an issue with the show, but at least it was a little clearer in season 1.  Then, we had several themes:

Found family (+ Actions speak louder than heritage)

Don’t call us sidekicks (AKA the kids can make a difference)

Secrets are poison (They can tear a team apart. Trust in friends)

Season 2 was a little convoluted...and sort of just recycled material. 

Secrets are poison (dammit, Dick)

You are in charge of your own destiny (Jaime/Connor)

Sacrifice (Kaldur, Artemis, Wally, Bart...they all gave something up for the greater good).

But what is the message of season 3?

Secrets are still poison (Tara, Violet, Batman v. Wonder Woman team)

I suppose it’s about healing and letting others in?  Like how  Brion and Victor have both worked through their anger?  Artemis and Jefferson and Dick and Gar sorting through their grief...somehow...off-screen...(except for the episode devoted to Artemis saying goodbye to Wally.)

Perhaps...accepting yourself?  (Victor, Violet, Brion, Connor?)

Do you see my issue here?  How much harder it is to see what I’m supposed to take away from the show now?  I’m not saying there aren’t any good messages being told, but they’re difficult to interpret.  Sometimes that can be good.  But this time I’m on the fence.

Conclusion

I love many of the characters from this show, but the fandom acts as if the writing is impeccable, and that’s just not true.  Not everything is bad.  Some of it is still miles beyond other animated television (looking at you vld).  And I genuinely enjoyed about half of the episodes this season. But I think it’s important to recognize the flaws in media, as a writer myself, and as a consumer of these shows.  

Plz be civil in the comments, and understand that this is only my opinion. 

[qqueenofhades]

Re: your last post on anti-Garcy sentiment, as a non-shipper can I say that the reason I don't hate this ship is precisely because of the stuff you mentioned? Unlike certain other ships that shall remain nameless you don't try to ignore the awful things he's done or romanticize them, you aren't actively ignoring a much better alternative because s2 Wyatt = jerk, and Flynn really has changed a lot for the better. I prefer them staying friends, personally, but mostly you're good shippers. 👍

See, that's totally cool and I have zero problem with anyone who prefers their relationship to be a deep friendship, as long as they don't come up with zany ways to discredit it. I obviously ship the living daylights out of it romantically and think they're soulmates and so on, but I respect the way people enjoy fiction differently, like different ships, and get different things out of their experience. For example, plenty of people LOVE friends to lovers as a trope, but it just has never really interested me, because apparently I am an angsty binch who needs pain and suffering and conflict and complication and character clash slowly developing into a truce and then into friendship and partnership and then love. But some people want their ships more escapism and with less conflict. People can only want to read fluff or only want to read angst or anything in between. That is why there is something out there for everyone (and we could all stand to be better about respecting people's choices, whether in fandom or in life).As has been commented on, though, Tumblr has a culture where if you don't like something, you have to find ways to prove it's bad from a very narrow and frankly speaking, immature perspective on social justice. That is what it is and happens across fandoms and ships, it's certainly not specific to one thing alone. But when there is so much effort going into proving that a ship is Unhealthy or Abusive (that one always seems to pop up...) or Promotes Violence Toward Women... Well, sometimes this is the case. More often it just means "I prefer another ship and feel like it might be threatened by this one." Which, okay. We all get attached to characters and ships. But as I always try to remind people, still fiction. Still fake relationships. Don't go hurting or bullying real people over it, or feeling like you have to be super holier than thou. It's a big world. People disagree. It'll be something that happens to you as an adult.Likewise with Garcy and other enemies to lovers ships, there will always be one partner who has done, objectively speaking, morally bad or problematic or flawed or outright wrong things. If the character is able to reflect on that (Flynn himself has always been very self aware, this isn't some teen drama with a bad boy insisting it's all for the woman's good and being a controlling jerk and that behaviour passed off as romantic) and undergo well-written and meaningful development, that is my catnip. I like flawed and complicated and messy characters, and I like seeing how many stages the relationship can play out in and the changes that the "villain" half of a villain/hero ship has to undergo (as well as for that matter, the hero). Flynn was always written as an anti-hero rather than a villain, and some ships don't really pull this off/expect the hero to just excuse a lot of the villain's behaviour rather than urging the villain to change. But as a thread I saw recently mentioned, you can't redefine the enemies to lovers trope just because you might prefer something else in your shipping tastes. It has to be what it is and that includes fuckups and mistakes and dark places. If the writers know what they are doing, these will get worked over and brought through and dealt with, and that is the seed of good drama and good storytelling. Stories where no one ever makes mistakes and there is no conflict, including high stakes or genuinely dark actions, aren't very interesting. Even light comedies rely often on their characters being lovable screwups. Anyway, the Garcy fandom has always been aware of Flynn's failings and shortcomings, but we have also seen him develop and grow and be really good for Lucy this season, and I like to think we can keep a happy medium on both. So anyway, respect to you, and hopefully we Garcy devotees can maintain an even keel on a realistic and respectful appraisal of the ship and why we like it so much. We can also hope for that same courtesy to be extended to us.

[eddycurrents]

Border Town #1 & 2 “Número Uno: Bienvenidos a Hell” & “Número Dos: Máscaras”

Writer: Eric M. Esquivel | Artist: Ramon Villalobos | Colourist: Tamra Bonvillain | Letterer: Deron Bennett

Published by DC Comics / DC Vertigo | 5.9.2018 & 3.10.2018 | $3.99

The Sandman Universe titles notwithstanding, Border Town was heralded as the flagship of the new DC Vertigo relaunch and refocus. When you look at the content, it’s easy to see why, even outside of the obvious quality of the story being told. 

Border Town encapsulates a lot of the verve and substance of the early Vertigo breakout projects, incorporating bits of the supernatural, mythology, humour, and the human experience in a mature and thought-provoking way.

Thematically, it’s also a series about that lurker at the threshold, the unknown just behind that liminal boundary, so it makes sense that it would serve as the doorway into the new DC Vertigo.

The first issue introduces us to one of our main point of view characters, Frank, as he and his family move to the town of Devil’s Fork, Arizona. He’s a fairly typical teenager, looking to more or less fit in, rebel against his parents, and punch white supremacists in the face. Complicating this is a bizarre little chupacabra, who is appearing as things that people fear, and eating people around town.

The second issue expands more or the mythological and folklore-based creatures residing in Mictlan, as we find out that the chupacabra from the first issue is a bit of a misfit of its own. It also gives a hint as to what’s happening to Blake since getting bit, and reforming a bit of a new Scooby Gang of Frank, Julietta, Aimi, and Quinteh even after they claimed to have gone their separate ways.

Frank is an interesting protagonist, if flawed. 

Through his point of view, we get a fresh look at Devil’s Fork, a quick run down of the numerous flaws of Arizona as a state, and that fish out of water quality of moving to a new town. You get a sense from him that he is fairly progressive, but there’s a violent streak in there. Kind of conflicting natures between someone looking to conform and someone looking to rebel. In essence, a teenager trying to find his place in the world.

I find how Eric M. Esquivel is developing Quinteh more interesting. In the first issue he’s somewhat the silent, misunderstood brute archetype, with it even being pointed out, but not necessarily confirmed, that he may be developmentally disabled. The second issue makes you wonder more if it’s just anxiety, as there’s a very nice story from his mom to help him overcome stress in social situations, and no particular irregularities in his speech patterns. I also quite like the parallel between his luchador mask and the ritual headdresses from Aztec culture.

Blake, a straight edge Nazi skinhead--which seems like a bizarre combination--, is set up as the early antagonist. He’s about what you’d expect from a racist playing at being a tough guy. That when it comes down to it, he’s a coward. He is changing, though, as hinted at in the second issue and it should be interesting to see what kind of monster he becomes.

The other characters are interesting, but still need some fleshing out. They feel like real people with interesting quirks. I particularly like Frank’s mom’s boyfriend, Nick. He’s obviously set up as a foil for Frank, and someone to rebel against, to blame for Frank’s current predicament, but he’s not particularly a “bad guy” for what little he appears so far. He’s kind of obnoxious, and holds some questionable views, but he comes across as someone at least trying to support his family.

I wonder about those creatures of myth and legend in Mictlan, though. We’ve only got the main characters interacting with the chupacabra so far, it’ll be interesting to see what develops further. With Frank and the kids ducking into La Curandera’s shop, and her hinting at something bigger, I wonder if this is going to take on more of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer approach in the future. I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing further issues and arcs centring around these other beasties. La Llorona and La Lechuza have some fairly well-known transitions into English storytelling, but I’d love to see all of them developed.

The art in Border Town is incredible. Ramon Villalobos and Tamra Bonvillain are creating a unique and impressive visual array with this series, ranging from the ordinary kids to the weird supernatural creatures.

I really like Villalobos’ artwork. His style is in roughly the same school as Frank Quitely, Chris Burnham, and Martín Morazzo; highly stylized, but with an impressive range of character expression and design. The human characters are appealing and unique, especially when it comes to Quinteh and his luchador mask, but where he really shines is the supernatural aspect. The designs for the chupacabra, Mictlāntēcutli, and the other residents of Mictlan are very impressive. The variety and detail that go into the reflections of fears embodied by the chupacabra’s appearance is both humorous and interesting. I especially got a kick out of the “urban teenager” and Bane panels in the first issue.

Though using fairly normal, grounded hues for the human characters, there’s also a somewhat otherworldly glow that Bonvillain is applying to the world. The skies are often purple for night scenes and there are some very interesting choices for pinks, greens, and blues in backgrounds and in the characters that make it feel just slightly unnatural. It manages to enhance the overall feel of the story, making you feel something’s just a little bit off. This effect becomes even more pronounced in Mictlan when even stranger colours come to the fore.

Deron Bennett’s lettering is also quite nice. Particularly what I’d call the “Halloween font” for Mictlāntēcutli’s dialogue. It’s hilariously over the top and perfectly fits the grandstanding for the character.

There are a couple of problems, however, that arise in the book.

The first is the use of language. In the first issue, Quinteh is referred to with a slur used against the developmentally disabled. On Twitter, Esquivel has responded that it’s uttered by the “bad guy”, and that it is meant to portray Quinteh’s regular experience, which in itself is valid, but it still normalizes the ablest insult. It doesn’t matter if it’s being uttered by an antagonist or villain, it still uses the term in a negative and derogatory fashion.

Similarly, in both first and second issues, “pussy” is used to mean coward. In both cases, they’re spoken by a protagonist, so it can’t even be relegated to a bad act by a “bad guy”. This one is a bit more nebulous than the first since etymologically “pussy” in this regard isn’t problematic, however, most people don’t know the diminution of pusillanimous. Instead, they conflate it with a euphemism for female genitalia. Despite not logically making any sense to call a coward a vagina, it’s still perpetuates that meaning to many.

Which ties into the second potential problem of an undercurrent of toxic masculinity bleeding into the work. It’s very clear that some of the worst of it is an exhibited trait from the various antagonists in the series, like Blake, Frank’s mom’s boyfriend (though I don’t necessarily think of him as a “bad guy”, just not necessarily the brightest bulb and in the beginning a foil for Frank’s social unrest), the MAGA idiots at the beginning of the first issue, but it’s also exhibited by Frank himself.

Like with the use of “pussy” as an insult, Frank glorifies violence, and follows through with an assault on Blake. While this could certainly be considered justifiable given Blake’s attitude, and could be interpreted as a pleasing thing to the audience seeing it as a racist’s comeuppance, it’s undermined a bit by Frank’s further insult of Blake’s group being “White Powerpuff Girls”. While it is a clever pun, it further reinforces that idea of women or girls being an insult.

Given the care that Esquivel takes in the first issue to delineate how one should take pride in all of their ethnic heritage in their speech, not breaking it down by percentages like a “Half-Mexican”, it seems weird that this kind of machismo would be present. Maybe it’s intentional. Maybe it’s as is alluded to in the second issue another “mask”, another tough guy act that will be addressed, but all of this can be off-putting to some. I’d give Esquivel the benefit of the doubt for this being something to be addressed further in to the story.

Overall, I quite like this. 

The story so far is a nice mix of relevant social issues and supernatural adventures that reminds me a bit of an updated Buffy, but with a more irreverent sense of humour and pulling some of the kids’ problems to the forefront. It’s less about the supernatural right now, more about the coming-of-age aspect, though I feel like that’s going to slightly change. I do wonder how I’d feel about Frank being a “chosen one”.

And the art is fantastic. The storytelling from Villalobos and Bonvillain just makes the book come together. The characters, designs, and action elevate the book incredibly.

I’d recommend this to people who like a bit of humour with their horror, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Wynonna Earp, or even something like Jim Butcher’s The Dresden Files. Lapsed early Vertigo readers should also find something to like in Esquivel and Villalobos’ use of mythology and folklore to help explore the human condition.

Extra: There is a nice panel with a number of Easter eggs that ties together some Vertigo and DC mainstays. The most obvious being Dream’s mask, Doctor Occult’s talisman, a variation on Doctor Fate’s helmet, a poster of Constantine and Zatanna, Wonder Woman as a Virgin Mary stature, a Black Mercy plant, and more if you want to point out some of the other things on display. It’s a nice homage to what’s come before and places Border Town in the wider context of the DC/Vertigo history.

d. emerson eddy has a copy of the Lurker at the Threshold. It doesn’t have anything to do with this, but just wanted to mention HP Lovecraft. Who, despite being problematic in his racism and misogyny, still wrote some pretty great horror. Even if that one apparently is mostly August Derleth.

[thoughtfulfangirling]

Stories we Choose to Tell: A Shape of Water Edition

I talk on this blog from time to time about how everything we see in a story was decided upon by writers. When talking about problematic elements in media, I often see these elements defended with arguments which take the characters of the story into account, but not the writers behind them.

The Shape of Water gave us a beautiful example of how it's not enough to say that 'it just made sense with the plot' or 'it would be out of character for this character to have reacted differently,' ignoring the circumstances which led these characters to that moment and those actions.

It comes back to looking at media through a Watsonian versus Doylist lens (Watsonian being from the point of view of the characters and what Doylist lens being from the perspective of the writers/creators).

In The Shape of Water, our antagonist, Richard Strickland, is on a rampage to retrieve "The Asset" but doesn't know where he is. He become unhinged in his pursuit. He is spiraling out of control. He is obsessed with power and his ability to assert it. The movie gives us many examples of this, focusing on how he pleasures greatly in controlling the people around him and how unforgiving he is of any shows of disregard to his authority.

So when he follows Dimitri and discovers that he surely played a part in removing our Amphibian Man from captivity, he glories in his position of power over him, torturing him for the desired information. It's the first thing that truly seems to calm him out of the spiral he's been going down. But then Dimitri reveals that it wasn't a strike team of highly skilled Russians who swept the rug out from under Strickland, it was 'the cleaners.' In the next scene, we see how unhinged this new information makes him. His power wasn't undermined by something just as powerful as him but rather by those he who never should have had the power to do him such harm in the first place.

The writers could have written Strickland making the mental jump to Elisa. She, afterall, was the one who stood before him, a look of defiance on her face after questioning, and signed something he could not understand at him. It would make sense. The writers chose that, for whatever reason—be it his desire not to believe it was his crush or his inability to lay such agency at the feet of a disabled, petite little white girl and/or consequently his likely inclination to see a black woman as more the villain—Zelda would come to his mind first as the likely culprit. He arrives at her home more unhinged than ever.

As I watched this scene in the theater, I got really tense. I didn't want to see another black woman killed on screen. Another black man. For surely he was unhinged enough that he would rain his wrath down upon Zelda's whole family, especially after his story about Delilah and the destruction of all those people during Samson's last act of strength. At this point, I imagined the creators had written themselves into a corner. It seemed wholly inconceivable that this clearly racist, obviously sexist, power hungry, despicable man would be utterly incapable of walking away from a black woman who had known about the "theft" of all of his control without killing her.

If it had happened, people would say 'it's the only thing that made sense' and that this is where the plot was inevitably going to go. But don't forget, he could have just as easily been written to go directly to Elisa's. Elisa could have headed out—as she was determined (though admittedly reluctant) to do—before he arrived. She could have seen him pull up and Giles could have distracted him. There are a dozen different ways that scenario could have been handled. But writers wrote Strickland going to Zelda's.

However, the writers of this movie are not to be trifled with. Zelda's husband, Brewster, interjects through Strickland’s intimidation. Despite Zelda's efforts to protect Elisa and our beloved fishman, he reveals that he'd overheard Zelda's affairs and knew Elisa had 'The Asset’. Brewster, who upon Strickland's entrance, was (understandably) cowed by our unhinged antagonist and did nothing to stop him threatening his wife, speaks over his wife’s wishes and cedes to Strickland's authority and domination. Given the set of prejudices and ways of thinking of our antagonist, this was the perfect—perhaps the only—conceivable way that Strickland was to be gratified into 'bestowing mercy,' as I can't help but imagine he feels in that moment.

With Brewster's obeisance, Strickland's world falls back into place. A man, in deference to him, put his wife 'in her place' and for that pleasing (to Strickland) behavior, so will he ‘reward’ them. He didn't have to. What Zelda and Elisa did was against the law, almost certainly traitorous. He'd already linked them with a Russian spy (Dimitri), and he was willing to shoot Elisa when it came down to it. It would have been evil for him to kill them, but he would not have been punished. Zelda and Brewster were not safe from him until that moment, until Brewster gratified his ego and thus assured him that the world was, in fact, as it should be (according to The Book of Strickland ( •́ ⍨ •̀)) . And the writers did not have to do it that way. If they hadn't, many would have defended the decision of the killing as having made sense from the Watsonian (Strickland's) point of view. But the writers (Doylist) decided that's not how they wanted their film to play out. Theirs was a story of romance and triumph/hope for those society deemed unworthy (lower class, disabled, black, gay, etc).

As I watched this scene though, I was simply struck at how this is such a clear cut example of how you cannot give a story a pass for something horrible happening just because it 'made sense' for that story/character or the world that story was set in. Creators still choose the world they set their stories in, still write the characters into these scenarios. It is a choice, and whether that choice is good or bad does not remove the responsibility of telling that story from the creators' shoulders.

And likewise, we can enjoy a story for it's consistency of character (Watsonian perspective) and world and the ways the protagonists overcome or engage in those narratives while simultaneously being critical of the choice by the writers (Doylist) to put these characters into these settings and these scenarios where they continue a harmful trend of killing off their black and/or queer characters.

So The Shape of Water gets a hearty standing ovation from me. I'd be more than happy to go back to the theater for another viewing or another movie in this world with these characters. Thank you Guillermo Del Toro for maintaining my faith in you. ♥♥

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

I am genuinely concerned that comic book youtubers are going to create a GamerGate situation where there are extremists who poison the mass perception of people who criticise comic books or certain decisions in general.

 Like I have genuine problems with Amadeus Cho and Jane Foster being Hulk and Thor and I think Riri Williams and Miles Morales are bad characters (the latter being especially saddening because, unlike Riri, he had a strong initial concept powering him). I think Sam as Captain America was creatively problematic and that Marvel have been pulling the replacement hero thing for social/political reasons (and probably not sincere ones at that) as opposed to genuine creative ones. Similarly I think the America book is a lame super hero comic book and Gabby Rivera isn’t a strong super hero comic book writer. Similarly I think Marvel’s modern editors and assistant editors really do tend to suck at their jobs right now.

 But my rationales for all of those things honestly don’t have much crossover with certain Youtube comic book commentators (I’m sure you’ve all seen the kind) and I actually disagree and believe in a lot of other types of characters and directions cut from the same kinds of cloths as those above examples.

 I think Ice Man being gay made a certain amount of sense with his history and if you did have to pick a classical character to reveal as in the closet he was one of the best choices for it. We are in a position where Bobby could legitimately be given a strong romantic storyline and an iconic (for him, not necessarily within Marvel as a whole) love interest. I mean before Bendis had Jean out Bobby who honestly knew or cared who Bobby’s (comic book, not movie) love interests were? Hardly anybody aside from hardcore X-Men fans and most of them would argue Polaris was really the big one for Bobby. But at the same time most of them shipped Polaris with Havok anyway so what did that matter?

  I’ve said numerous times before Kamala Khan is the best new superhero character to come out of Marvel in the last 20 years. My problems with her series stem from the decompression alongside the fact that I don’t think her villain pool has been managed as well as it needs to be to enable her to last long term.

 Carol becoming Captain Marvel is something I find profoundly organic and logical, a brilliant stroke of character development that makes use of an iconic title by giving it to an iconic character who truly has claim to it. Look to me Carol’s outfit is always going to be the Ms Marvel outfit she wore for decades but at the same time to me Carol’s codename will always be Warbird, not Ms Marvel or Captain Marvel. I’m just from that generation.

 I think the general idea of temporarily having a black person become Captain America is interesting and understand the logic of making it Sam but at the same time I think the book never fulfilled it’s potential and ultimately Issiah Bradely or even Patriot would’ve been a much more interesting choice. But at the end of the day I cannot accept the creative bankruptcy of replacing Steve for the THIRD time and doing it the SECOND time in less than 10 years.

 I like Jane Foster’s Thor outfit, there are moments and aspects to her stories I find interesting but the way the series went about it overly denigrated the real Thor (and yes I will call him the real Thor, it is literally his name and he is supposed to be the actual figure from Norse mythology). I mean he was literally called out as ‘unworthy’ and the reason for his unworthiness made no sense at all. He realizes the Gods are assholes so he loses his worthiness. That isn’t how the hammer works, it’s just a binary ‘you are worthy or you are not’. Conviction in your personal beliefs doesn’t matter or else countless bad guys would be able to lift the hammer too. Additionally there were times where he narrative divulged into cheap, shallow in-universe attempts to ‘comment’ on the backlash against the concept. The Absorbing Man was at least somewhat exaggerating the complaints over a female Thor and at least dabbling in strawman arguments whilst Titania’s solidarity with Foster because she was stepping into the role of a man was utter out of character nonsense considering Titania’s arch nemesis is SHE Hulk. Jane consequently knocking out someone who’d surrendered was also ill considered. And I also cannot get over how we’ve been here before. Beta Ray Bill and Thunderstrike are testament to that. Once again creative bankruptcy.

 I’ve spoken countless times before how I think Miles had a good concept and still has potential but he’s been mismanaged and currently sucks shit as a character and how Marvel and certain fans and certain media outlets building him up as the best thing since sliced bread (or at least as great as Peter Parker) is profoundly unearned.

 I think the quality of editing at Marvel has clearly gone down hill but unless there really is some weird ass super Secret Empire conspiracy wherein Marvel went hardcore into hiring people because of their gender regardless of their qualifications, I don’t think the reason for that decline in quality is due to some (but far from all) of the editors and assistant editors being women. Frankly Steve Wacker is/was a major editorial player for awhile and his only legitimate qualification for being a Spider-Man editor was he could get the product on the shelves on time. The editing present in that product and their overall quality was shit 99% of the time. The guy lacked sufficient knowledge, passion or understanding of the character to really edit Spider-Man properly. This is a guy who was an amateur stand up comedian before entering comic books and has to my knowledge zero writing experience so why the fuck he was qualified to edit anything is beyond me. Maybe the new slew of editors and assistant editors are the same bunch of unqualified morons but I don’t think that’s got much to do with their sex or gender. After all Ann Nocenti was a solid X-Men editor and Molly Lazer edited Spider-Girl which was obviously a brilliant book. And shit Jeanette Kahn was President and EIC of DC comics for over 20 years and MOST of the stuff under her tenure was baller as shit. John Byrne Superman. Frank Miller Batman. Perez Wonder Woman. Wolfman Titans. DeMatteis/Giffin JLI. Kyle Rayner Green Lantern. Vertigo. Milestone. Watchmen. Frankly she oversaw what was maybe the single best EIC tenure for DC EVER in terms of quality.

  I gave up reading Coates’ BP run because I found it dull but I think T’Challa SHOULD have a book along with Blade, Luke Cage, Shang Chi and Jessica Jones.

I think the America Chaves series was problematic as a superhero story but the times where it does focus on the normal life stuff are generally good.

I was very impressed by Spider-Gwen when she debuted and looked forward to her ongoing, even defended her debut issue until I realized the critics were ont he money and it sucked and continues to suck to this day. It’s a profoundly shallow book but it could have been great and I supported it initially hoping it would be great.

I felt the Chelsea Cain Mockingbird series had moments of poor research, mischaracterisation and disingenuousness. I am specifically talking about how in issue #3 (I think) Cain uses Bobbi as a mouthpiece to criticise the lack of female representation within superhero comics. Okay cool. But she did it by essentially pretending that there never were any in the Marvel universe, that they got no respect in-universe and that Bobbi herself was at most a teenager growing up inspired by those male heroes whom she could never be like because she was male. Except there were female heroes, they did get in-universe respect (maybe not as much as was deserved but it wasn’t like people forgot they existed) and Bobbi is clearly too old to have grown up with any of the heroes other than the WWII guys like the Invaders. 

Similarly her retconning of the Phantom Rider thing in her final issue fixed one problem but did so utterly illogically whilst opening up multiple other problems. Look I’d also retcon the Hell out of Phantom Rider gaslighting and raping Mockingbird if given the chance I hate that plotline. But Cain retconned it by just having Mockingbird say that the stuff we have clear on the page evidence of didn’t actually happen. She was saying the colour blue is the colour red and always had been but it wasn’t. And Cain’s new spin on that Phantom Rider thing essentially threw Hawkeye under the bus by making him profoundly insecure and an asshole, because he’d rather believe his wife was raped rather than she cheated on him. Not to mention if Cain’s story is to be believed Mockingbird let the man she was sleeping with die for exactly no reason. There were other times during Cain’s run where I felt she was mischaracterizing some people or else was being too on the nose about stuff. 

But there were other times I thought the series was really funny, really action packed, i generally loved the pacing and I felt when it did cut more realistic (like the first issue when Bobbi is having a health check up) or in issue #3 when it was discussing the psychology of a sixth grade girl (even though said girl’s story had insufficient resolution, like did she go to jail or what?) it was incredibly refreshing. Truth be told a lot of the stuff in that series writing wise becomes easier to understand when you realize it’s partially a zany comedy and not really taking itself too seriously nor is it asking you to do the same, which is starkly different to say Spider-Gwen’s approach wherein it is playing stuff seriously but there is arbitrarily zany shit thrown in for the sake of it.

 I think Laura becoming Logan’s successor makes sense but it doesn’t mean it’s okay to just axe off Logan because he’s broken. FIX him and then down the line replace him. Laura’s book as is frankly just...an okay X-23 book with a new costume. I never cared for Laura outside of X-Men Evolution or the Logan movie (where she was more endearing) anyway.

 I didn’t agree with the female exclusive screenings of the Wonder Woman film but I also felt Zeus’s involvement in her origin was an unacceptable compromising of the specific feminist ideas and messages Wonder Woman was supposed to represent. I felt the same way about Azzarello’s run on the character which is where the Zeus origin came from and was happy Greg Rucka tried to fix that in his 2016 run.

 I’ve said before a poc actor playing Peter Parker is fine and dandy in my book and I was very open to Zendaya possibly playing Mary Jane (until I saw the movie...ugh...). My only concerns were in a significant way having the characters change to reflect the realities of them now being poc.

 I’ve suggested some basic ideas on how to maybe get more representation in Marvel and DC, including for queer, Trans and mentally ill characters and as I’ve seen it I’ve called shit out I found to be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, e.g. I was disgusted by Civil War II killing off Rhodey and called out the way Cindy Moon was initially handled by Slott. And my frequent lambasting of MJ’s depiction under Slott (especially in Superior #2) should I hope by this point go without saying.

 So yeah my views don’t line up with those of Diversity and Comics but nor do they line up with those of ComicsAlliance and their hordes either. But because of people like the former people like the latter are going to broadbrush label and demonize people like me. People who might SEEM like we agree with guys like D&C but actually we’re coming at it from a very different angle and we don’t actually agree with their rationales 99% of the time.

 But in the times we live in right now nuance is apparently as dead as Batman’s parents.

 Frankly as I get older I guess I see myself socially/politically speaking being more of a moderate when it comes to comic books...and right now that feels like a profoundly lonely place to be.

[texture-of-jabba]

What is our moral duty to fictional characters?

I’ve been thinking a lot about the Reylo discourseTM, and, okay, hear me out, but maybe both sides are wrong?

First of all, fans who try to explain away Kylo Ren’s crimes are tremendously morally misguided.

But I also don’t like the antis’ criticism of, “find yourself a nice boy!” as if anyone has a real chance of dating a Star Wars character.

Maybe I’m misreading the situation, but the impression I get is that Reylos feel like they need to justify liking the bad guy. Except people are allowed to enjoy and even crush on villains—they’re fictional. Villains make the story interesting.

Anybody seen Red Eye? Cillian Murphy is sexy af in that movie, and I watched it on repeat in college. Did I then go off to book flights hoping I’d get seated next to an assassin/terrorist? I mean, only if he/she was hot (kidding, kidding).

My point here is it’s disingenuous to suggest that what people want in their fiction is what they want in real life. What is the point of policing which fictional characters people should like and dislike? I tend to think most people have the brain power to be able to enjoy a villain on screen while also rooted in reality enough to know they would not enjoy the villain’s actions in real life.

If Rey and Kylo were real people, I really hope no one would encourage any kind of romance between them.

But what is simultaneously true is that romantic tension (or even just compassion) between a fictional hero and villain makes an interesting story. It develops internal conflict. Where it gets problematic is if the resolution involves the two ending up together—that’s where you have a messaging problem (and in this case it would be even more problematic since Rey would be choosing a white asshole over a kind, supportive black hero. Unfortunately, we’ve seen this a lot in shipping lately, Jessica Jones being another example. Part of the problem is definitely the prevalence of “racial preference” aka racism, but the other part is that our casting still isn’t diverse enough to put actors of color in the sexy bad boy/villain role.)

Anyway, my point is that sexual tension between hero & villain = interesting. Having the hero live happily ever after with the villain = problematic.

By the way, Rachel McAdams stabs Cillian Murphy in the throat with a pen, and it’s freaking awesome.

So, yeah, the Reylos need to realize that they don’t need to woobify a character to make it okay for them to like him/her, but it’s also odd to me that the antis are so quick to make judgments about moral character based on how people feel about fictional characters.

I mean, I’ve hoped for perfectly good-hearted fictional characters to die before because it would make the story better. What does that say about me? And what does that say about the actual writers like J.K. Rowling and George R.R. Martin? Are we supposed to approach fiction wanting to see only good things happen to the hero?

I wish Reylos were more secure in themselves to just say something like: “Kylo Ren is horrible for Rey, but I don’t care because THAT THIGH GRAB THO” or “This relationship is a terrible idea and I want to see every second of it.” You know?

So what is our moral obligation to fictional characters? Is it okay to want to see the hero in an unhealthy relationship (that they overcome, obviously, or else you run into the same messaging problem discussed earlier) because it makes for an interesting or dynamic conflict?

I definitely think tropes and patterns need to be examined. Why is it always the woman’s job to redeem the man? That’s way more worth discussing than who people should and shouldn’t ship.

I mean, for fuck’s sake, if you’re going to write Reylo, have Rey catch feelings* (not necessarily even sexual or romantic, maybe just compassion) and then murder His Supreme Wideness because it’s the right thing to do. I’d watch the fuck out of that.

*She’s probably Ace, though.

[those70scomics]

i hate people keeps saying hyde only loved jackie when he was in love with donna for good part of season 1. he clearly loved her deeply and probably still does until season 5 (he even casually offered to sleep with her in season 4). in season 1 he fell for his girlfriend chrissy, in season 4 he had feelings for the cute black girl and he had feelings for his wife (they were married!). it's selfish of JH shippers to say the only woman hyde ever loved is jackie.

i hate people keeps saying hyde only loved jackie when hewas in love with donna for good part of season 1.

I’m going to analyze this assertion from a fact-basedstandpoint, using evidence from the show.

Hyde has held onto a picture of her from middle school foryears where her bra strap is visible. He explicitly tells Donna in “First Date”(1x16) that he has “feelings” for her. He asks Donna why she has “a thing” forEric in “That Disco Episode (1x07), and he pursues her relentlessly throughoutmuch of the season.

It’s the nature of that pursuit, however, that makes Hyde atroubling character in season 1 and reveals his original purpose on the show:to be Eric’s villainous foil and illustrate how much better a person Eric is –in general and for Donna – in comparison to him. While Hyde is definitelyshown to have romantic feelings for and sexual attraction toward Donna inseason 1, labeling it love or as him being in love isproblematic. What he experiences is a sense of possession over and/orentitlement to Donna. As will become evident in the discussion below. The Eric/Donna/Hyde triangle isn’t actually a triangle. From “That ‘70s Pilot”(1x01) and all the subsequent episodes of season 1, Donna’s romantic feelingsfor Eric are explicitly stated and demonstrated. “You could’ve had me when wewere four,” she tells Eric early in the pilot and kisses him on the lips by theend of it. She also implicitly (subtextually) demonstrates her romanticfeelings for Eric.

She never, however, demonstrates – explicitly or implicitly– that she has romantic feelings for Hyde. In fact, the opposite is true. In“Eric’s Buddy,” Hyde puts his hand on Donna’s thigh. She tells him to “Moveyour hand.” She means, “Remove your hand,” but her imprecision inspireshim to rub her leg up and down instead. She grasps his hand and shoves it offher, clearly not welcoming or enjoying the physical contact. After Hyde hits on her in “Ski Trip” (1x13), she tells him, “I’m up here with Eric, alright Eric, get it?Not you!”

A true romantic triangle requires the person in the middle have romanticfeelings for both suitors. Donna does not. She has romantic feelings for onlyEric. And this is where the problem lies. Hyde ignores what she wants. She tells andshows him repeatedly that she doesn’t share his romantic interest. He continuesto pursue her. He forces a kiss on her in “Ski Trip” after she tells him tostop hitting on her. She shoves him off her during the kiss and slaps him.

But he still doesn’t get the message or care about her desires. Heessentially stalks her in “First Date” and attempts to stop Eric from givingher his class ring and making their relationship official. Once Eric does give Donna his class ring, however, that is finally enough to get Hyde to stop pursuing her and invading her boundaries, but thedamage has been done.

What Hyde demonstrates in season 1 is not love for Donna butselfishness. His own feelings are the only ones that matter, not hers. Love isacceptance and compromise. It’s giving to another for that purpose only: togive. Love often entails making sacrifices. It can also mean letting the personone loves go if it means s/he’ll be happy.Hyde begins demonstrates these qualities of (romantic) love only withJackie.

With Donna, Hyde’s “love” is ignoring what she wants to get what hewants. Invading her boundaries. Trying to disrupt her happiness with Eric.

[Hyde] clearly loved [Donna] deeply and probably still does untilseason 5 (he even casually offered to sleep with her in season 4).

What Hyde demonstrates during seasons 1-8 is platonic love for Donna.Not romantic love. He supports her relationship with Eric unconditionally. Hehelps them out when they have problems (may episodes throughout seasons 2-7).

Saying “he even casually offered to sleep with [Donna]” is an imprecisedescription of what actually happens in “The Relapse” (4x106). His comment mustbe taken within the context of Donna’s story arc, the episode, and the scene inwhich that line takes place.

Donna is grieving the end of her parents’ marriage and the absence ofher mother. She’s so desperate for distraction from her pain that she has sexwith her ex-boyfriend, Eric. She’s in the midst of trying to eat away herfeelings (literally eat; she gobbles down all the food she can), but it’s obviously not working. That’s when she initiates sexualcontact with Eric.

Eric, meanwhile, is heartbroken over his breakup with her. Because ofhow much trust Donna needs in Eric to have sex with him during theirrelationship, he falsely believes having sex with her in this episode meansthey’re back together. He doesn’t take into account the fact that she’s inmourning. He’s thinking of only his own grief.

Later in the episode, Hyde informs Donna that Eric believes he and Donnaare “back together”. Hyde tells her this as a friend to both of them, to makesure they clear this up before either of them gets even more hurt.

Donna, though, admits that, “I would have done it [had sex] withanybody.”

Hyde recognizes her pain, and hisgo-to-place in tense moments is to try to lighten the mood. We see him do thiswith Eric’s parents a lot, with Eric in “Eric’s False Alarm” (4x25), and he doesthe same with Jackie in “Black Dog” (5x09). So he says to Donna, “Anybody?Damn, and I was just over there watching stupid Donahue. Hey, let’s doit right now.” He’s teasing her, trying to get a laugh out of her. When it doesn’t work, heshifts out of his normal make-jokes mode and gives her the sympathy she needs.He says, “Yeah, I’m just kidding about the do it stuff. I’m sorry aboutyour mom.” He puts his arm around her, giving her platonic, physical (not sexual)comfort, too. Like siblings would do.

He silently holds her for a very long time. It’s not something we’ve seenhim do before, and considering his childhood, it’s probably not something he’sexperienced himself. He can tolerate only so much of it before his discomfortbecomes unbearable, and he falls back into his defense mechanism of makingjokes.

“Seriously, let’s do it right now,” he says. That’s his way of makinghimself feel comfortable and, perhaps, of ending this very (platonically)intimate moment between him and another person. Hyde is someone who doesn’tdeal with emotion well, largely because he’s been through what Donna’s goingthrough during season 4. After season 1, he often tries to hide his feelingsfrom himself and the world, and empathizing with Donna’s grief takes an emotionaltoll.

in season 1 he fell for his girlfriend chrissy

Chrissy is not Hyde’sgirlfriend in “Punk Chick” (1x22). He knows her for twenty-four hours at most. They meet each other for the first time in the early evening. He sleeps with her twice,and she asks him to go to New York with her. The next day, he tells her hecan’t go with her. By the end of the episode, he and his friends spot herdriving off on her Vespa with another guy on the back of it.

The episode shows no evidence that Hyde falls in love with Chrissy. He fallsin love with the idea of leaving his awful childhood (and mother) behind andgoing to New York and maybe meeting one of his rock idols, Lou Reed.

in season 4 he had feelings for the cute black girl

Yes, Melissa is verycute (and smart) and had a lot of potential as a character. But Hyde knows herfor all of an hour. They don’t have a relationship. They have an awkward,uncomfortable time together at the get-Hyde-a-girlfriend party. He’s clearly physically attracted to her from the start, butlove? That would take a lot longer than an hour of awkwardness to develop.

and he had feelings for his wife (they were married!).

Hyde marrying Samin season 8 is entirely out of character, and it’s not something he wouldactually do. The new showrunners hired for season 8 stated in an interview (TVGuide, I believe) that they hated Jackie and Hyde together and neverunderstood their romantic relationship. So they were putting an end to it. How?By marrying Hyde off to a new character.

In order to view Hyde’s marriage to Sam as legitimate, one must ignoreHyde’s long-established characterization and storylines from “Prom Night” (1x19) to the season7 finale. None of what happens in season 8, however, is legitimate. Even DavidTrainer, That ‘70s Show’s director for the whole series, save the pilot,called season 8 an “alternate universe” and “one of many possible futures” forthe characters.

it’s selfish of JH shippers to say the only woman hyde everloved is jackie.

J/H shippers don’t say that Jackie is the only woman Hydeever loved. Perhaps many of us say that she’s the only woman he is ever properly inlove with.

I can speak only for myself, but selfishness has nothing todo with my views about Jackie and Hyde. I analyze and interpret Hyde and Jackiebased on their actions on the show, within the context of the whole series,and I take into account the writing. What were the writers’ intentions with aparticular story arc? Does conflict arise organically from who the characters are,or are the characters manipulated against their natures to manufactureconflict?

You clearly don’t like Jackie’s character and/or don’t likeJackie and Hyde together. That’s your right. But calling or viewing other people as selfish for not sharing your opinion isnot beneficial to you or anyone else.

[anneapocalypse]

[tone of genuine curiosity, as clarified in an elcor-esque fashion because the internet renders all emotion an uncertain factor] You're welcome to skip this ask if you ain't up for it, but re: the perpetual debate over Problematic Subjects In Media, I've seen you in the past write many a critique on how fandom writes/treats women / BDSM / etc. Does this not fall under the idea that the writer has a responsibility in how they handle / frame certain issues in their writing?

Hi Silt! I’m up for it, but buckle in, because this is gonna get long. :)

Okay so the thing is, this is a broad topic and these days I try to resist treating it as a zero-sum game with “No Critique Allowed” on one side and “Relentlessly Harass People Who Make Bad Content According to Our Arbitrary But Obviously Correct Standard” on the other. 

Let me state clearly for the record: both of those options are terrible. Fortunately, it’s not all or nothing, and those aren’t the only horses in the race.

The way that female characters, characters of color, disabled characters, and other representations of marginalized groups are treated in media remains very much of interest to me. That hasn’t changed. My approach has changed somewhat over the years (as I’d hope it would, if I’m continuing to grow as a person), largely due to understanding that some rhetorical styles are more effective than others when you actually want to reach people or change something.

If I gave the impression that I want to absolve creators of all responsibility, that was never my intent. In fact, I mentioned critique and growth as part of the process in one of my recent posts. I do critique the media I regularly consume, and in fact the more heavily I am immersed in something, the more in-depth my criticism, because we’re best able to examine the things we know best.

What I do feel is that creators need room to grow, and fandom can be a great test bed for exploration, where creators work with elements of established media to explore different ideas and techniques. I’m not saying fandom is only a test bed, or like, a trial run for original work, because I don’t think that; I think fanworks are worthwhile in their own right, written for enjoyment and personal indulgence. But the fact is that many of us do or will create original work, and for many of us, creating fanworks helps us build a skillset we’ll use for original work too. 

That said, the cultural impact of fandom is more limited than that of popular media. I’m not saying it has no impact–and indeed, in a time when we have multiple known works of popular published fiction that are retooled from fanfics, when TV writers are on twitter regularly interacting with their fanbases, it’s probably safe to say fandom has more impact on popular media than it ever has before, but neverthelesss, its impact is still limited. The average piece of fanfiction does not reach an audience on the scale of a piece of popular media, that’s just a fact.

Does that mean we shouldn’t bother looking at patterns in fandom and fanworks? Hell no! Fandom is a microcosm–the patterns we see in fandom do absolutely reflect wider social patterns and in fact for very immersed fans it can make those patterns more apparent. And I think it’s good for us to discuss them, address them, become more aware of how we play into them–especially if we’re creating or planning to create original work.

Because these kind of discussions, when they are actually discussions, do work. I talk about the season 10 climate in the RvB fandom a lot, but even back then, I saw people change their minds about Carolina, not because they were accused of internalized misogyny or told to feel guilty for not liking her (shockingly, shaming people for their taste doesn’t have a high success rate in changing their minds), but because someone presented them with a compelling case for a more nuanced reading of her character. My experiences in past years led to me almost checking my watch to see fans turn on RvB’s newest female character this season, and you know what? It hasn’t happened. Things do change, and I don’t think fandom turnover is the sole reason. I would love to see some shifts in other patterns as well. For example, I would love to see trauma in female characters given as much weight as it is given in male characters. I would love to see more artists willing to draw Tucker with brown eyes. Those will be discussions, and we’ll continue to have them.

What I’ve seen happening in recent years, though, is a turn toward a certain ideal of purity in fanworks. It’s not an ideal of working toward more complex and thoughtful portrayals of characters; rather, it’s an all or nothing attitude that says some characters and ships and topics are Good and worthy to be explored in fanworks, while other characters, ships, and topics are Bad and anyone who touches them or likes them is Bad, and also fair game for targeted harassment.

I keep drawing comparisons between fanworks and original work for a reason–the attitudes that I find most unsupportable in fandom are the same ones I find untenable when it comes to original work, and when you apply them to the latter, their limitations are far more obvious. 

One example: the idea that it’s wrong to find any reasons to sympathize with an antagonist, or to look for an interesting and complex backstory, one that might make sense of (not even to say justify) their actions. That’s all well and good when you’re engaging purely from a fan perspective I guess, but what happens when you want to write a novel? If it’s morally wrong to find complexity and interest in villains, are you morally obligated to make your antagonist as bland and cartoonish as possible, to be sure no one could possibly relate to them? Is that good writing? Is that what we want?

Or take the idea that it’s morally wrong to ship unhealthy ships–and this attitude in fandom goes that shipping certain ships is wrong regardless of how or why, to the point that people will proudly identify themselves as “anti-[ship],” thus building a kind of identity around not shipping a Bad Ship (and giving rise to the umbrella term “antis” to refer to this attitude). Carry this into original work and… you’re not allowed to write unhealthy relationships? You’re not allowed to write any conflict into a relationship between two “good” characters lest it be perceived as “abusive” or “toxic?” 

Then there’s the idea that it’s morally wrong to write fic with dark subject matter, which is what my most recent posts were about. I’m never going to argue these things can’t be done badly but I’m absolutely going to push back against the idea that they can’t be done at all. And I could write paragraphs more about how incredibly reductive I find the whole idea that certain topics are just off-limits for fiction, that art isn’t allowed to be catharsis (especially in a tiny niche setting like fandom, for corn’s sake) but this post is long enough, so I think I’ll put a lid on it here. ;) But frankly, if someone’s going to write dark fiction insensitively, in bad taste, or just plain poorly, there are worse places for it to exist than on AO3 tagged with content warnings, where nobody’s paid a hot cent for it and the way out is just clicking the back button.