#is actually the only one with enough nuance and understanding of both the subject and that the whole thing is more layered then others thin

[paris-geller-was-straightwashed]

holiday gatherings are always an ~interesting~ way to get new perspectives. like yes, please go on about how the 'young people' are refusing to take on responsibility and hardwork and all they do is stand around waiting for the government handouts that you're tired of paying taxes for - yes, this seems totally reasonable coming from people who are retired, don't talk regularly with anyone younger then 40, and spend every waking day watching The Daily News. thank you for that totally necessary perspective on my generation who've grown up in an ENTIRELY different economy and climate then you did, very helpful.

another fun holiday thing you can do is try to talk down a boomer's conservative anti-homeless (as in the people experiencing it, not the structure itself obvs) talking points by trying to say you Don't Quite Think every homeless person is a irresponsible druggie trying to swindle you, by saying that helping via giving food is still a good practice. 'last time I was in timmies an unhoused man asked if I could just get him a coffee and something to eat, didn't even ask for money, so I got him a cup and timbits because, you know, he's hungry and if you're worried about it that's at least a a safe way -" "but was he really hungry?! how do you know??" ??????¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿????? WHY. FOR WHAT OTHER PURPOSE WOULD HE ASK????????? FOR FUN?????? FOR YUKS?????? TO WATCH ME PAY $7 FOR SHITTY COFFEE AND DOUGHNUTS HE CAN'T EVEN RETURN JUST TO LAUGH MANICALLY AND NOT EAT THEM????????? WHO THE HELL DOES THAT????????????????? if you think a disheveled man who was wincing in pain the whole time reduces himself to politely begging for just a bit of food is one of those Evil Homeless Trying To Swindle You, you wouldn't last a fucking minute in a big city.

lastly, you can nearly tear your hair out wondering WHY THE FUCK IT MATTERS if people are using the government supports to help with addiction issues or parenting - and then watch them dig their heels in even harder when you propose the Radical Belief that the government should be a structure that helps us and gives aid to people, because otherwise straight up What Is The Point. 'pEoPle NEed tO tAkE rEsPoNSibiLIty & dO ThE hArDWorK!!!!!!' alright then FINE I guess tim over here will just live a miserable fucking life of working three jobs; doing a 9-5 retail shift, spending his weekends as an uber driver, and then taking nightshifts at a factory only to fucking die of a stress-induced heart-attack at 45 with less money in his account then you have now. but I guess he learned a great lesson of being a Productive Slave of the Capitalist Market!!!

in the end, all this does is remind me of the sentiment that even if I was being swindled for a couple of nickles, or even if someone took the 'easy way' out instead, I know that that's on them - and regardless, I still want to be the person who offers a helping hand up instead of being the one to kick them back down.

[knife-eared-jan]

Ok, as much as I have been hyping and playing 12 hours a day since it got out (still in Act 1 though, bc I'm a slowass player and completionist), I feel like I have to say something that is getting hard to ignore at this point... and I wanna preface this by saying that I am loving a lot of aspects of the game and I adore the writing when it comes to the companions, who I am obsessed with.

And maybe this will get better yet, as I generally heard the writing picks up once the story progresses beyond picking up all companions..

But I'm starting to get quite upset at the way the writing just does NOT care about the established lore and the politics of Thedas like at all, when to me - and many others - that richness, nuance and depth of the world is what makes the games so special.

(Spoilers below)

I looked past the way the elves in Arlathan just seemed to know that their gods are evil and Solas is "kind of a dick" but was right about that. When, you know, that made him basically the Satan of their pantheon up to now.. It was after all the tutorial stage of the game and I understand that you wanna ease newcomers into the lore. I could also handwave it in-universe with Morrigan being there - she could have filled the Veiljumpers in on the discoveries of the Inquisition or even what the Well told her.

It felt a bit weird that our contacts in every other faction just accepted this huge revelation without a blink, but again it was the early stages and I also get that having a discussion about it 6 times with different faction leaders would have been incredibly tedious. So I ignored that. And yeah, at least the First Warden found it hard to swallow.

The fact that they brushed aside the gods finding elven subjects - many of whom after all still worship them - with one sentence from Solas was disappointing though. Instead they chose to ally them with the Venatori and the Antaam who are the pure evil factions with no nuance or motive to side with them besides a comic book level of hunger for power. They didn't even throw in a sentence about the gods maybe speaking to the Venatori through the Archdemons to get them on their side or how it's very ironic that the Venatori, who want to make Tevinter great again, stoop to working with the pantheon of the people they oppress because they see them as lesser and other. No political exploration of the massive lore implications at all.

It really hit me when I picked up Davrin and he commented how Elgar'nan and Ghilan'nain blighting the world would really endear us (elves) to the rest of Thedas - this was the first time anyone actually mentioned the political impact of the elven gods being real, freed, evil and blighted on modern day elves at all, when this should be HUGE. It should be ugly. It should be complex. It should be explored in as many examples as bloodmagic and the oppression of mages was in DA2. It should be a central point of Act 1. (This btw made me love Davrin so much in that moment because this was the first time in the game for me when I actually felt like talking to a Dragon Age elf and even just that one line felt like home.)

And now I just did Taash's first companion quest and it seems Qunari lore is also being ignored (except for the gender aspect of it, which I look forward to). Taash's mum was a scholar and had a baby and the only problem about that was that it could breathe fire and was special but otherwise all would have been dandy? Like she would have just been allowed to keep Taash long enough to find that out about her baby if she was living under the Qun? That directly contradicts everything we know about how the Qunari's culture around reproduction and childcare works.

Sorry to be negative and talking myself into a rage - I know it's not something people want to see rn. But like, I realise you have to brush over some lore intricacies for brevity and to make it digestible for new players. But this is a world initially inspired by Wheel of Time and ASOIAF, both of which are interesting because of the depth of ficitional cultures, lore and politics, and hence it's also what gives Dragon Age its appeal. And now they take us to the most politcally interesting areas on the world map and just get rid of all of political depth?

That's really disappointing. Imagine if Winds of Winter dropped all political themes just because there's several previous books and it's been some a lot of years.

Also, I managed to play DA2 before I ever played Origins and they could introduce me to a vast established background of lore just fine back then.

Sorry. Rant over. But I had to get that out of my system.

[professional-rat-eater]

"Hey anon, these are not equivalent and I think you know that. Yes, I’m sure there more people like Armand who were groomed by a 2000 YEAR OLD VAMPIRE in the 16th century. Maybe there’s enough for them to start a support group for each other."

Genuninely I don't understand why being a fictional vampire only works when it comes to giving nuance to the the way DM is depicted in the story but not Armand Marius

So Marius does deserve nuance. The nuance does not change what he is. That was the entire point I was making. The same is true of Armand and every other character. His actions are his actions. I think the inner workings of Marius’s brain are fascinating, but he did what he did. Once we agree on that, then we can get into the nuance.

Marius being a vampire only exacerbates and adds to his predatory nature. His type of evil is very real. That’s why it gets to me and a lot of other people, compared to other characters whose behaviour tends to feel very heightened. It’s not that the other vamps aren’t also doing things that are real, but hurting children is hurting children and most people tend to be more sensitive towards that topic than 90% of other things. Yes, he’s 2000 years old and a vampire. But he’s still a pedophile, and the way he treats Armand, all the many types of abuse he subjects him to, not just sexual, are incredibly real. I could take apart his dialogue line by line and compare it to the behaviour of real pedophiles. I could also take apart Armand’s behaviour line by line and highlight exactly when he’s continuing the cycle of abuse that was started by Marius (and due to all his other many instances of trauma but that’s a whole separate post.)

It’s not to say it’s not also true that Armand is predatory. He is. All the vampires are, but my post was not a deep dive or character study on him or Marius. It was a point about the way we approach analysis of him and characters in general. Frankly I’d need thousands and thousands of words to do him justice. I’ve made more nuanced posts in the past, and I’ll probably make more in the future because I actually like him as a character. You shouldn’t assume one post completely encompasses every last opinion I have on him or is anything close to a full analysis, especially when that’s not that the post was about. Marius deserves nuance as much as anyone else. If he weren’t a believable, layered character, I don’t think I’d care about him half as much as I do. He moves like a real predator and his vampiric abilities have little to do with it, but they do make it worse.

But your point isn’t disconnected from the point I was actually making. I love talking about Marius and Armand and Daniel and every other vampire, but how on earth can we be expected to have sincere conversations when there are people repeatedly denying key parts of who these characters are? It would be like attempting to downplay Armand’s involvement in Claudia’s death. It doesn’t make sense to do it.

Devil’s Minion, from an objective standpoint, begins with Armand stalking and terrorising Daniel and attempting to recreate key elements of what he endured under Marius’s care, but with himself as the perpetrator. Marius’s relationship with Armand, from an objective standpoint, begins with Marius acquiring a child who had been repeatedly subjected to sexual abuse from a brothel, and beginning a sexual relationship with him.

Both of these things are true. Though I tend to write sympathetically towards Armand, if you went through my posts I think you’d find that I mention how evil he is pretty consistently. If he weren’t evil, he wouldn’t be the character I like so much. If Marius weren’t so well written, I don’t think I’d hate him as much. But ultimately my point is that in order to discuss these characters, we need to begin with an honest foundation. Pretending Marius wasn’t a child predator does the opposite of that. He was one. That’s just a fact. It’s not all he was, but it was still a pretty significant part of him.

[doberbutts]

I know you've said writing is a pretty fraught thing for you so I hope I'm not prodding against something tender without realizing, but I wanted to say that I think you have an absolutely lovely authorial voice, and I find your writing an absolute joy to read. I only discovered your blog a couple of days ago, but I've been reading through some of your post backlog and I've found myself consistently impressed by how you're able to make nuanced, complex ideas understandable for lay-readers while still maintaining a very fluid and compelling style.

Speaking as someone coming from academia, that blend of clarity, readability and depth of thought is both rare and takes a lot of work to develop, and I really admire it.

Oh, I appreciate the kind words actually!

It's not that my relationship with writing is fraught, it's that black people being called eloquent is a, umm, well often it is a microaggression when being said by a nonblack person.

Let me put it this way. Black people have our own dialect- AAVE- which is constantly both appropriated and also derided as unintelligent. This is despite the fact that most people who use AAVE also can speak and understand standard american english- proficiency in two (tbh even more than two bc AAVE is largely regional as well but w/e I guess) dialects is somehow unintelligent if you choose to use the one most common to your demographic for whatever reason. (I know the reason the reason is racism actually).

Black people learned a long time ago that in order to be taken seriously by nonblack and white supremist society, we needed to not only not use AAVE, but also be the most eloquent and well-spoken person in the room at all times or else some white asshole would find a reason to discredit us by saying we were too unintelligent to have a place at the table.

We aren't allowed to not be eloquent. And eloquent is only allowed to mean "speaks in purely academic words and phrases with no slang, using only standard american with no strong accent besides the news broadcaster 'no accent' accent" with absolutely no wiggle room.

Racist white society does not consider it possible to be well-spoken while using AAVE. It doesn't matter how educated or articulate the speaker is if they're using AAVE. They're just not considered intelligent enough to have a firm grasp on the subject. Even if they're the most experienced person there.

So when I say that black people and eloquence is a fraught discussion, I don't mean that I don't like speaking or writing. What I mean is, black people being told we are well spoken when we choose to remove our own dialect from our mouths because that's the only way we can get people to listen to us, often times with people saying this in surprise as though they did not expect us to be well spoken...

That entire mess is a whole tangled web of racism. It's a microaggression.

And it's also actually one of the major reasons why I talk the way I do. I find it to be a nice blend between pure academic lingo and casual street talk- understandable for the layperson but with an obvious enough grasp of the concept that I don't drown when discussing with people more used to using the more theoretical terms. It is intentional, and it's nice to see someone notice that.

[winwin17]

Aragorn vs. Legolas:

Picking apart misconceptions

That may sound like a somewhat academic title, but I'm just going to talk here. However, that doesn't negate the strong views and feelings I hold about this subject. So permit me to share some personal beef I have with a particular issue I've seen among LOTR fans, and hear me out as I share the thoughts I've had about it over time.

Every now and then, whether in fan spaces, comments on a LOTR image, etc., I see this topic come up, and it tends to be kind of divisive. And whether it's presented in question form or statement form, it comes down to the issue of whether one prefers Aragorn or Legolas.

More than once (and by that I mean enough times for it to be a noticeable occurrence) I've seen the sentiment from presumably female fans, saying that when they were younger, Legolas was their big LOTR crush, but as they got older/reached adulthood or middle age, they realized they much preferred Aragorn. In short, the implication is that a crush on Legolas = juvenile while a crush on Aragorn = maturity. Obviously I haven't interviewed these fans to find out exactly why they think this way, but I can draw some theories based on various factors. And this post is about why I think the whole Legolas vs. Aragorn thing is a rather absurd division.

Let me start by saying that I think many aspects of this issue are founded on misconceptions. The first and most fundamental misconception is a lack of nuanced understanding of Legolas' character in particular. And from what I have gathered, this appears to come from the popular film portrayal of him. That's not to say the film portrayal is entirely bad, but evidently it lacks a lot of the nuances of who Legolas really is.

Many people will tell you that movie Legolas is little more than a cool action hero. He's beautiful, he's competent, he's slightly mystical, and ... that's about all. He's there to pull a bunch of cool moves and make everybody go, "Wow, Elves!" And so since the films reduce his roles and his personality to little more than this, it could be easy for fans who have only seen the movies to assume that's all there is to him. And next to Aragorn, who has a more leading role both in the films and in the books, movie Legolas is admittedly a much simpler character.

Here's where I think people mistakenly equate a preference for Legolas with less maturity. First of all, he has that eternally youthful Elven appearance, so that's a fairly reasonable factor for why younger girls would be drawn to him initially. Secondly, there's the lack of character dimension in his film portrayal, as I mentioned. When we're younger, our minds don't pick up on or process nuances as much. We think in simpler terms. Consequently, it's easy for fans to think that becoming mature is what creates a preference for Aragorn, when in reality, it might just be that Aragorn is more nuanced in the films, and more mature minds pick up on that nuance and appreciate it.

Another theory I have is similar to what I said about their appearances. Not only does Aragorn appear older (even though he's actually way younger), but he has a more stereotypically "masculine" look (possibly somewhat due to the facial hair in his film portrayal). And so female LOTR fans who have grown up with the series may find that their physical taste ages with them, and therefore Aragorn appears more attractive - and that's totally fair.

But what bugs me is when I see people say stuff like, "I liked Legolas when I was young, but when I got older I want my men to look like men," or "The difference between Legolas and Aragorn is the difference between a prince and a king" - which, technically yes, but not with the meaning they're implying. Essentially they're saying Legolas = your crush on a boy, while Aragorn = your love for a grown man. And that's just ridiculous.

I mean, let's take a look at things for a minute. Yes, Aragorn became king. That's great, that's honorable, that requires a level of maturity and wisdom. And yes, people think of kings as leaders and leadership as highly masculine. Okay, but Legolas being a prince doesn't mean he wasn't a leader. And after the war of the Ring, Legolas did lead his own settlement of Elven people, didn't he? But even more than that, even though Legolas wasn't a king, that doesn't mean he wasn't a leader. Because being a leader doesn't always require having the most up-front role, but rather leading by one's actions, example, and values. And more still, Legolas demonstrates a quality equally as valuable and noble as leadership - the ability to follow and respect the one who rightly is in charge.

Aragorn represents a portrayal of what is typically considered masculine and mature: leadership, a rugged appearance, fighting, conquering, protecting. Legolas is often just thought of as "pretty," and apparently that's supposed to make a preference for him a less mature thing?? But hang on - what about the other male Elves? What about Haldir, Elrond, Celeborn? They're all pretty, too. And none of them bore the title of "king" either. But for some reason you don't seem to hear people considering them less "manly" or less "mature."

This post honestly isn't meant to be an attempt to convince you that you should like Legolas best. Everybody has their preference, whether that's Aragorn or Boromir or Legolas or Bilbo or Gimli or Éomer or Figwit! But I'm just trying to reiterate here the absurdity I see in this idea that when we were young we liked Legolas, but then we grew up and and liked Aragorn because *clearly* he is the better and more mature option.

Once again, it's *fine* to like Aragorn, and there's nothing wrong with one's taste changing over time. But I think the way fans make this division is a huge disservice to the wonderful, layered, nuanced character Legolas actually is beyond just his film portrayal. He has valuable traits and qualities that are just as worthy of a mature fan's preference and admiration as they are of a young, girlish infatuation. It's this super unfortunate misconception about who he is that helps create this silly rift.

One last thing I'll mention that makes this whole thing ridiculous to me is the way it shows a misconception of masculinity. I've already touched on this idea here and there. It's the thought process of "Aragorn = king, king = leadership, leadership = masculinity, maturity, and higher levels of wisdom." It's the concept that a rugged appearance = more masculinity, but that beauty, lack of facial hair, and a more passive role = not masculine, not a leader, not as "mature" and "noble." (I honestly am still not sure exactly what makes us call Legolas beautiful or pretty and yet use other words for the other guys. Sure, he does have the pretty hair - but let's face it, basically all the guys in LOTR have long/longish hair, so that can't be everything. And like I said, the other male Elves have pretty hair too, and yet somehow they're not de-masculinized(?) as much as Legolas seems to be.) But it pretty much all just goes to show how people's views of masculinity can be so confined to stereotypes that they forget there are many other ways to be noble, honorable, and a leader.

This really isn't meant to be a Legolas propaganda post, although I will openly admit I have a special fondness for him. But the reality is, I admire both Legolas and Aragorn! They both embody traits and qualities that fans all across the age spectrum should value. If we're talking about fictional crushes or who's "hotter," I personally have to say they each have very attractive qualities and appearances, even though they're different - as well as many of the other male characters in the series! I hope people can ditch their misconceptions and realize how being a movies-only fan can limit one's understanding of certain characters.

Justice for book Legolas!!

[penguwastaken]

"DR3 makes the Remnants of Despair blameless"

This is a statement I've heard many times before, and I think it's one that's both technically correct and also technically incorrect.

But overall, I think this is a statement that kind of ignores the nuance of what the "brainwashing" actually did or even the themes of the series. Because of that, I decided to make this post to clear up some confusion about this subject and explain my thoughts on it.

What the "brainwashing" actually is

For starters, no, brainwashing in Danganronpa does not turn them into mindless zombies and get rid of their "free will." I wrote an entire post about brainwashing on its own and the many misconceptions abut it. While there are some things I'd change or update now, I think overall it's pretty solid. The main reason I'm making this post though is to fill in a piece that I should have filled in then. But if you understandably don't want to read that massive post right now, I'll go over it again here.

The way the Despair video works in both Danganronpa Zero and Danganronpa 3 is that it uses subliminal messaging to strengthen the emotions that you are already feeling by watching the video. It does not "create despair," it amplifies it.

"'She just wanted to stir up the pent-up emotions of the Reserve Course. She got the Ultimate Hope involved in the whole thing for that sole reason, and then incited them all… No, it wasn't something simple like incitement… it was brainwashing.' 'Brainwashing…' Pain, along with violent itching, brought up that scene in my mind. The monitor's visuals I had seen beyond the Monokuma Heads in the underground facility. Crushing heads, cut-up faces, agonizing screams, the Mutual Killing's red lumps of flesh." -Referring to the despair video Ryoko watched in Danganronpa Zero

Notice how the phrases "incited" and "pent-up emotions" are used. Once again, this is because the subliminal messaging doesn't make you feel things, it amplifies what the video itself makes you feel.

This doesn't contradict Ryota's description of brainwashing, note how he describes it as "influencing" the viewer's brain, not controlling it.

This is also why I put brainwashing in quotes earlier, because Ryota says it's not just brainwashing, brainwashing techniques are just a part of it.

This is the whole reason why Junko needed to kill Chiaki in the first place, she needed a video that would make them emotional enough for brainwashing to have an actual substantial effect. If she just used the student council killing video, there's a chance they'd be able to resist it like Chisa or Ryoko did.

All the despair video did was overload them with feelings of despair, causing them to crave it as a way of coping with the despair that was just unleashed onto them.

The despair video did not:

Turn them into mindless zombies

Make them love or worship Junko

Remove their free will or ability to make decisions

All the video did was make them crave despair, how they went about it was entirely up to them. Like Nagito, for example, he gave into the despair by hating Junko, but he was never a mindless zombie.

In fact, I think even being able to resist the videos effects at all kind of implies that the video isn't forcing you to give into temptation. It gives you urges, but that's all. The Ultimate Despairs chose to give into their urges of despair. They also chose the methods of which they went about bringing despair. The video wasn't mind control, it doesn't have the technology to turn you into a mindless servant. In that sense, the despair video did not remove their autonomy and they still chose their actions.

Big fat massive however...

While it is true that their ability to choose what to do remained, the fact is that they only made the decisions they made and got their despair urges in the first place was because they were brainwashed. So it is also true that the person at fault isn't them, it's Junko and her video.

And that's the point, it isn't their fault that they made those choices. Some may say this is because Kodaka wanted to make them more redeemable, but I just completely disagree because it was always like this.

Makoto refers to them as victims at multiple points in Danganronpa 2, even saying that they were brainwashed and have the ability to go back to normal. Danganronpa 3 didn't make them more "blameless," it emphasized a theme and point that was there since the start.

Dialing it back

Themes of guilt and blame are things that have always existed in Danganronpa. I already mentioned how Danganronpa 2 refers to the Ultimate Despairs as victims, but there's plenty more examples of this.

Such as Ryota in Danganronpa 3. Ryota is threatened with his classmates' lives and is forced to develop the despair video for Junko. Would you say Ryota's at fault?

Of course not, and I doubt the anime wants you to believe that way either. But that doesn't stop Ryota from feeling this way. He's a victim, just like everyone else. A victim who was forced to make a choice that he now regrets.

Alternatively, we can look at Juzo as well. He was blackmailed with his biggest insecurity used against him, completely unaware of the despair that would soon follow. While you could argue he's more to blame than the others, the point is just like them, he was forced into a situation where he couldn't choose. He wasn't responsible for Junko's actions, but he still feels as if he was. He's a victim too. A victim who was also forced to make a choice that he now regrets.

This isn't a theme exclusive to Danganronpa 3. I already mentioned how it applies to Danganronpa 2, but it's been there since the first game.

When Chihiro feels at fault for judging Leon, Makoto tells them that it isn't their fault. Nor was it Sayaka's or Leon's. Even though they chose to kill, it was only because of the situation. It was the mastermind's fault, not theirs.

The big point

The big point throughout the series is that the many actions we see throughout the series are done so due to the situation these characters are forced in. From the very start, it's been established that the blame should go towards Junko, not her victims.

Guilt is a running theme in Danganronpa, even more so in Danganronpa 3. That's why the anime emphasizes it, showing us Junko's victims and how they were effected but also making it clear that even though they made the wrong choices, they only did so because of Junko.

Danganronpa 3 didn't make Class 77 "blameless." Saying so implies that the series wanted you to blame them in the first place.

What Danganronpa 3 did was emphasize the point and theme the series had been setting up for a long time. This is a story where Junko is the bad guy and these are her victims. This is how it is in the last entry, this is how it's been since the first game.

So yes, Class 77 chose to to give into their despair obsessed urges. Ryota chose to help make Junko's video. Juzo chose to lie about Junko. Chihiro chose to judge their classmates. Sayaka and Leon chose to attack. But they only made these choices because they were put into unavoidable situations by Junko.

It's not about who here is more guilty than the other, the fact is they're all victims of Junko at the end of the day. They were never supposed to be blamed, implying that Danganronpa 3 makes them blameless misses the point entirely.

You can say whatever you want about whether or not brainwashing is more or less interesting than the idea of Junko somehow manipulating 15 individual students that she doesn't care about in less than a year to turn them into despair super terrorists willing to hack off body parts and kill their own family, but at the end of the day I think saying that the brainwashing ruins the themes of Danganronpa 2 is just kind of incorrect.

Those are my two cents anyways.

[transmutationisms]

i am the world's biggest wikipedia defender (especially against people who say that it's unreliable) because, while i know it's not infallible (is anything, though?), it is peer-reviewed. once, my friend edited the othello page to include a joke we had made and she got her account banned. how do you reckon with wikipedia as a source of knowledge? my understanding of it is that it can serve as a good base for things, but learning never stops and one should read as many sources as possible to gain a fuller understanding of whatever they want to know about. this is a very long-winded way of asking your opinions on wikipedia. my apologies, and i hope today is alright for you :~)

wikipedia obviously gets a lot of flak for the fact that anyone can edit it, which means that people certainly can and do check each other's work, but also that anybody with an axe to grind or just a poor understanding of a subject can potentially really distort the presentation of that topic. there have been some high-profile cases of bad and even dangerous editorialising, like the woman who basically single-handedly is trying to correct a whole bunch of pages for former nazis that really whitewashed their legacies and cited various antisemitic and white supremacist sources to do so. i think it would be foolish to claim that crowdsourced knowledge is inherently accurate, fair, nuanced, &c. wikipedia replicates the biases people put into it, and just having more people edit it doesn't instantly 'average them out' because yknow, we're often talking about widely held positions or prejudices that have also caused distortions in many of the cited sources. also, wikipedia has many more gaps than most people realise, partly because an encyclopedia is necessarily a massive undertaking and also because, by design, it excludes eg oral traditions, non-literate people, &c.

however i do find a lot of wikipedia criticism annoying because it will usually involve trying to counterpose wikipedia to approved academic channels of knowledge production, specifically in a way that sets academic institutions and publishing as an intellectual gold standard that crowd knowledge simply can't compete with. academia is not some kind of magical solution to problems of distortion and bias; academics have their own ways of perpetuating and rationalising prejudices, and reinforcing rather than challenging each other's epistemological authority and laziest, most harmful assumptions. not to mention that many shitty wikipedia articles do actually cite approved academic sources published by university presses! because these characteristics do not actually guarantee that a source is good, only that it passed quality control at a reactionary institution lol.

ultimately i approach wikipedia basically the same way i approach any academic text, which is to say i have to read both with attention to how the arguments are being developed, what evidence they rely on, what ideological assumptions are being made or defended, and so forth. i can't really think of a source or genre of source that i would endorse just reading and uncritically believing; in that sense i certainly agree with people who point out the major potential for inaccuracy in wikipedia articles, only i think this line of criticism is totally useless and blatantly elitist if it simply exempts 'respectable' academic sources or presumes institutional channels of knowledge to be epistemologically infallible.

anyway i use wikipedia to check dates of major events and it's sometimes useful or intriguing simply to see what about a topic interested people enough to write an entry about it. but i don't automatically trust any arguments or analyses in wikipedia articles, any more than i would the thesis of any nonfiction book i pick up.

[hayatheauthor]

Everything You Need To Know Before Editing Your Manuscript 

Finishing your manuscript is a big accomplishment, but that’s only the start of your writing journey. Now that you have a manuscript to work with it’s time to start your editing process and perfect your story. Editing might sound easy enough, but it involves a lot more than just correcting your SPAG.

If you’re a new author unsure about how to start editing your manuscript, here’s everything you need to know, from a self-published author. 

Self-Editing: The First Step 

Editing your own work can be both challenging and rewarding. When you take on the role of a self-editor, you gain a deeper understanding of your writing and the opportunity to refine it to its fullest potential. Self-editing helps ensure you cut down on noticeable mistakes before sending it out to an actual editor so that you can receive more productive feedback. 

I would honestly hate having to pay someone just for them to tell me ‘you misspelt xyz’ which is something I could have caught with a quick read-through. Once you’ve finished your manuscript here’s how you can start off with some self-editing: 

1. Take a Break Before You Start

After completing your initial draft, it's crucial to distance yourself from your work. Give it some time to breathe. This break can be a few days or even weeks, depending on your schedule. When you return to your manuscript, you'll approach it with a fresh perspective.

2. Read Your Manuscript Aloud

One of the most effective self-editing techniques is reading your work aloud. This process helps you identify awkward sentences, pacing issues, and grammatical errors that might go unnoticed when reading silently. It also allows you to hear the flow of your writing and the nuances of your character's voices.

3. Focus on SPAG (Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar)

Before delving into more complex edits, address SPAG issues. Look out for common mistakes such as typos, subject-verb agreement errors, and misused punctuation. Utilize grammar and spell-check tools, but don't rely solely on them.

4. Assess Overall Structure and Flow

Consider the broader structure of your manuscript. Does the plot progression make sense? Are there any plot holes or inconsistencies? Verify that your story flows smoothly from beginning to end. Ensure that transitions between scenes and chapters are seamless.

5. Dive into Character Development

Characters are the heart of your story. Analyze each character's arc, motivations, and growth throughout the narrative. Ensure that their actions and dialogue are consistent with their personalities and the story's themes.

6. Refine Your Writing Style

Pay attention to your writing style and voice. Is it consistent throughout the manuscript? Make sure your unique voice shines through, and refine your prose to eliminate unnecessary repetition or verbosity.

7. Trim Excessively Long Sentences

Long, convoluted sentences can confuse readers and disrupt the flow of your narrative. Identify and break down lengthy sentences into more manageable segments.

8. Seek Feedback

Consider sharing your work with beta readers or critique partners at this stage. Fresh perspectives can uncover blind spots and provide valuable insights for improvement.

Remember that self-editing is an iterative process. After completing these initial rounds of edits, repeat the process as necessary until you're satisfied with the manuscript's quality

Types of Editing

When editing their manuscript authors often direct their focus to the way things are written and then call it a day. However, SPAG corrections are only the start of your editing process. Unsure of other ways to better your manuscript? Here are some types of editing I think every author should consider when self-editing: 

SPAG Editing (Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar)

SPAG editing, often considered the foundation of all editing, involves meticulously combing through your manuscript to correct spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. This stage is essential for ensuring the clarity and professionalism of your writing.

Tips for Effective SPAG Editing

Use Spell-Checkers Wisely: While spell-check tools can catch many errors, they're not foolproof. Pay close attention to context; for instance, "their" and "there" are both valid words but have distinct meanings.

Proofread Carefully: Rely on your eyes and proofread your work systematically. Reading backward, from the end to the beginning, can help you catch spelling errors.

Punctuation Matters: Proper punctuation enhances clarity. Study punctuation rules, including the use of commas, semicolons, and quotation marks.

Avoid Homophone Confusion: Homophones, such as "your" and "you're" or "its" and "it's," can trip up even experienced writers. Double-check these tricky pairs.

Consistency is Key: Be consistent in your use of tense, style, and formatting throughout your manuscript.

Consider a Style Guide: Depending on your project, adhere to a specific style guide like AP Style, Chicago Manual of Style, or your publisher's guidelines.

Line Editing

Line editing is where the magic of storytelling truly begins to shine. This stage of editing goes beyond correcting surface-level errors and focuses on enhancing the overall writing style, clarity, and impact of your prose.

Tips for Effective Line Editing

Sentence Structure: Evaluate sentence length and structure. Vary sentence lengths to maintain reader interest. Look for run-on sentences and fragments.

Word Choice: Opt for strong, precise verbs and nouns. Eliminate unnecessary adverbs and adjectives. Avoid clichés and overused expressions.

Consistency in Tone: Ensure the tone of your writing remains consistent throughout the manuscript. Be aware of shifts in tone that may disrupt the reader's experience.

Show, Don't Tell: Replace telling phrases with descriptive scenes and actions to immerse readers in your story. For example, instead of saying "She was nervous," show her trembling hands or racing heart.

Dialogue Polishing: Make sure your characters' dialogue sounds authentic and serves the story. Remove redundancies and refine conversations to convey subtext effectively.

Eliminate Repetition: Identify and eliminate unnecessary repetition, both within sentences and across paragraphs.

Read for Rhythm: Pay attention to the rhythm of your writing. Read your sentences aloud to ensure they flow smoothly and have a pleasing cadence.

Example: Line Editing in Action

Before: "He walked slowly into the dark room, and it was filled with an eerie silence."

After Line Editing: "He tiptoed into the dark room, which echoed with an eerie silence."

Line editing transforms a plain sentence into a more evocative and engaging one.

Plot and Structure Editing

Plot and structure editing is where the big picture of your manuscript comes into focus. It involves assessing the overall narrative flow, character arcs, and thematic coherence of your story. This stage ensures that your readers will be captivated by your tale from beginning to end.

Tips for Effective Plot and Structure Editing

Plot Evaluation: Review your plot to identify any inconsistencies, gaps, or unresolved subplots. Ensure that your story has a clear and engaging trajectory.

Character Arcs: Analyze the development of your characters. Verify that they experience growth, change, or transformation throughout the story. Characters should face challenges and evolve as a result.

Pacing: Assess the pacing of your narrative. Balance action scenes with moments of reflection. Avoid overly slow or rushed sections that may disengage readers.

Transitions: Ensure smooth transitions between scenes and chapters. Use transitional elements like hooks, cliffhangers, or thematic connections to maintain reader interest.

Foreshadowing: Check for effective foreshadowing to create anticipation and intrigue. Ensure that events and revelations are set up in advance to make them more satisfying for readers.

Climax and Resolution: The climax should deliver on the story's promises and conflicts. The resolution should tie up loose ends while leaving room for reader interpretation.

Character Development Editing

Character development editing is the key to creating characters that readers will connect with, empathize with, and remember long after they've finished your book. This type of editing focuses on making your characters three-dimensional and integral to your story.

Tips for Effective Character Development Editing

Character Profiles: Create detailed character profiles that include physical attributes, personality traits, backgrounds, motivations, and flaws. Refer to these profiles as you edit to ensure consistency.

Character Arcs: Analyze each character's journey throughout the story. Ensure that they experience growth, change, or development in response to the plot's events.

Dialogue Authenticity: Pay attention to character dialogue. Each character should have a distinct voice and speaking style that aligns with their personality.

Internal Conflict: Explore each character's internal conflicts, desires, and fears. These internal struggles add depth to their characterization.

External Conflict: Consider how characters interact with one another and their external conflicts. Ensure that their actions and decisions are in line with their personalities.

Consistency: Maintain consistency in character behavior, beliefs, and values throughout the story. Avoid abrupt character shifts unless they are well-motivated and explained. 

Style and Voice Editing

Style and voice editing is the stage where your writing truly becomes distinctive and memorable. It involves refining your unique writing style and ensuring that your narrative voice shines through consistently.

Tips for Effective Style and Voice Editing

Identify Your Writing Style: Reflect on your writing style. Are you descriptive and poetic, or concise and direct? Understand your natural tendencies.

Consistency is Key: Ensure that your writing style remains consistent throughout the manuscript. Abrupt shifts in style can be jarring to readers.

Narrative Voice: Identify your narrative voice. Is it first-person, third-person limited, or omniscient? Make sure your chosen narrative perspective aligns with the story's needs.

Character Voices: Pay attention to the unique voices of your characters. Each character should have a distinct way of speaking and thinking, contributing to the overall narrative texture.

Finding a Professional Editor

Writing a book is a deeply personal journey, but when it comes to the final steps of polishing your manuscript, it's essential to bring in a fresh perspective. This is where a professional editor comes in. They can help transform your work from good to outstanding, ensuring that it's ready to captivate readers. In this section, we'll explore how to find the right editor for your project.

When to Consider Hiring a Professional Editor

While self-editing and feedback from beta readers and critique partners are valuable, there comes a point when seeking professional editing assistance is crucial. Here are some key indicators that it's time to hire a professional editor:

After Self-Editing: Once you've gone through multiple rounds of self-editing and received feedback from beta readers, it's time to consider professional editing. You've taken your manuscript as far as you can on your own.

Before Publishing: Professional editing is essential if you plan to publish your work, whether traditionally or through self-publishing. It ensures your manuscript is in top shape, ready to impress agents, publishers, or readers.

For Complex Projects: If your project is particularly complex or requires specialized knowledge (e.g., technical writing, academic papers, historical accuracy), a professional editor with expertise in that area may be necessary.

Types of Professional Editing Services

Professional editors offer various types of editing services, each addressing different aspects of your manuscript. Here's an overview of the most common types:

Developmental Editing: This type of editing focuses on the big picture. Developmental editors help you shape your story, refine your characters, and ensure your plot flows smoothly.

Line Editing: Line editors dive into the nuances of your writing. They focus on improving sentence structure, style, and narrative flow, making your prose shine.

Copyediting: Copyeditors are meticulous about grammar, spelling, punctuation, and consistency in style and formatting. They ensure your manuscript is error-free and conforms to industry standards.

Proofreading: The final stage of editing, proofreading checks for typos, formatting errors, and minor issues that may have been missed in earlier rounds of editing.

How to Choose the Right Editor

Finding the right professional editor is a crucial step in your publishing journey. Here's how to make the best choice:

Research: Look for editors with experience in your genre. Explore their portfolios and read client testimonials. A track record of successful projects is a good sign.

Sample Edit: Many editors offer a sample edit or consultation. Use this opportunity to assess their compatibility with your manuscript. Check if their editing style aligns with your vision.

Communication: Clear and effective communication with your editor is paramount. They should understand your manuscript's genre, themes, and your specific goals for the project.

Budget: Get quotes from multiple editors and consider your budget. Editing can be an investment, but it's essential to find a balance between quality and cost.

Contracts: Before starting the editing process, sign a clear contract that outlines the scope of work, deadlines, fees, and any additional services. A well-defined agreement protects both you and the editor.

Choosing the right professional editor is a partnership that can significantly impact the quality of your manuscript. Take your time, do your research, and find someone who truly understands your work.

Editing Tools and Software

In the digital age, writers have access to a wealth of editing tools and software that can significantly simplify the editing process. These tools not only help catch grammar and spelling errors but also provide valuable insights into your writing style.

1. Grammarly

Grammarly is a widely recognized and user-friendly tool that checks your writing for spelling, grammar, punctuation, and style errors. It provides real-time suggestions as you write in various platforms, including web browsers, Microsoft Word, and Google Docs. Grammarly's premium version offers more advanced features like style improvements and plagiarism checks.

2. ProWritingAid

ProWritingAid is an all-in-one writing assistant that goes beyond simple grammar checks. It offers in-depth reports on readability, overused words, style issues, and more. The tool integrates with popular word processors and even has a Scrivener plugin for authors who use this writing software.

3. Hemingway Editor

Named after the renowned writer Ernest Hemingway, this tool helps you simplify your writing. Hemingway Editor highlights complex sentences, common writing errors, and suggests alternatives to improve readability. It's particularly useful for authors aiming for clear and concise prose.

4. Scrivener

Scrivener is a comprehensive writing and editing software designed for authors. It provides a flexible workspace to organize your manuscript, research materials, and notes. While Scrivener isn't an editing tool in the traditional sense, its robust features can streamline your editing process.

5. Google Docs

Google Docs is a versatile cloud-based platform for collaborative writing and editing. It offers real-time collaboration, commenting, and revision history tracking. Authors can easily share their work with beta readers, critique partners, or professional editors.

6. AutoCrit

AutoCrit specializes in helping authors improve their fiction writing. It analyzes your manuscript for issues like pacing, dialogue, and repetition. It provides recommendations to enhance your storytelling and writing style.

7. Hemingway App

Similar to Hemingway Editor, the Hemingway App identifies complex sentences, adverbs, and passive voice in your writing. It offers immediate feedback to help you simplify and clarify your prose.

8. Evernote

Evernote is a powerful note-taking and organizational tool. While not an editing tool per se, it's indispensable for keeping track of ideas, research, and notes during the writing and editing process.

9. Reedsy Book Editor

Reedsy Book Editor is an online tool that helps authors format their manuscripts for publishing. It's especially handy for self-publishing authors looking to create professional-looking ebooks.

Common Editing Mistakes to Avoid

Editing is a critical step in the writing process, but it's essential to be aware of common editing mistakes that can hinder your progress. By recognizing and addressing these errors, you can refine your editing process and elevate the quality of your manuscript. Let's explore some of the most prevalent editing pitfalls and how to avoid them.

1. Editing Too Soon

One of the most common mistakes writers make is editing their work too soon after finishing the first draft. While the enthusiasm to refine your manuscript is commendable, it's crucial to give your writing some distance. Take a break before diving into the editing process. This allows you to return to your work with fresh eyes and a more critical perspective.

2. Neglecting the Big Picture

Focusing solely on grammar and spelling (SPAG editing) during your initial editing rounds is a mistake. While these aspects are vital, it's equally important to assess the overall structure, plot, character development, and style of your manuscript. Neglecting the big picture can result in a polished but fundamentally flawed story.

3. Overediting

Yes, you read that right—overediting can be a problem. Constantly revising your manuscript without a clear plan can lead to a never-ending editing cycle. Strive for a balance between thorough editing and knowing when your work is ready to be shared or submitted.

4. Ignoring Feedback

If you've enlisted beta readers or critique partners, their feedback is invaluable. However, it's a mistake to ignore or dismiss their insights. Be open to constructive criticism and use it to refine your work. Remember that not every suggestion needs to be implemented, but each one should be considered thoughtfully.

5. Relying Solely on Editing Software

While editing tools and software are powerful aids, they are not infallible. Relying solely on automated editing tools without human oversight can result in errors going unnoticed. Always use these tools as supplements to your own editing process, not replacements.

6. Rushing the Final Proofread

Proofreading is the last line of defense before publishing. Rushing this step can lead to embarrassing typos and errors slipping through. Take your time to meticulously proofread your work or consider hiring a professional proofreader for the final polish.

7. Neglecting Style Consistency

Consistency in style, tone, and formatting is vital, especially in longer works. Neglecting these aspects can create a disjointed reading experience. Create a style guide or checklist to maintain consistency throughout your manuscript.

8. Dismissing Your Gut Feeling

Sometimes, you might receive feedback or advice that conflicts with your vision for your manuscript. While it's essential to be open to suggestions, don't dismiss your gut feeling entirely. Ultimately, it's your story, and your voice should shine through.

9. Not Celebrating Progress

Finally, don't forget to celebrate your editing milestones. Writing and editing can be long and challenging processes. Take moments to acknowledge your accomplishments and keep the motivation flowing.

Beta Readers and Critique Partners

I want to finally end this blog post by talking about beta readers and critique partners. While some people might argue they shouldn’t be mentioned in an editing blog I think it’s important to also include them. 

As an author, it's easy to become deeply immersed in your work, making it challenging to spot its flaws and areas for improvement. This is where beta readers and critique partners come in—a fresh set of eyes and perspectives to help you refine your manuscript.

Why Beta Readers and Critique Partners Matter

Objective Feedback: Beta readers and critique partners offer an objective viewpoint on your work. They can identify issues you might have missed due to your familiarity with the story.

Diverse Insights: Different readers bring unique experiences and preferences to your manuscript. This diversity of perspectives can highlight both strengths and weaknesses in your writing.

Identifying Weaknesses: Beta readers and critique partners can pinpoint areas that might not be immediately apparent to you. Whether it's character inconsistencies, plot holes, or pacing issues, their feedback is invaluable.

Tips for Working with Beta Readers and Critique Partners

Select the Right Readers: Choose beta readers or critique partners who have an interest in your genre and can provide constructive feedback. A mix of avid readers and writers can offer diverse insights.

Clear Guidelines: Provide clear guidelines or questions for your readers to focus on while reading your manuscript. This can help you receive specific and actionable feedback tailored to your needs.

Consider Diversity: Seek feedback from a diverse group of readers to get a range of perspectives and opinions. Different backgrounds and tastes can lead to well-rounded feedback.

Be Open to Criticism: Be prepared to receive both positive and negative feedback. Constructive criticism is essential for growth, and it's a sign that your beta readers care about helping you improve.

Take Your Time: Don't rush the feedback process. Give your readers ample time to read and provide their insights. Rushing can lead to incomplete or superficial feedback.

Ask for Specifics: Encourage your beta readers or critique partners to provide examples and specifics in their feedback. This makes it easier for you to understand and address their suggestions.

I hope this blog on Everything You Need To Know Before Editing Your Manuscript will help you in your writing journey. Be sure to comment any tips of your own to help your fellow authors prosper, and follow my blog for new blog updates every Monday and Thursday.  

Looking For More Writing Tips And Tricks? 

Are you an author looking for writing tips and tricks to better your manuscript? Or do you want to learn about how to get a literary agent, get published and properly market your book? Consider checking out the rest of Haya’s book blog where I post writing and publishing tips for authors every Monday and Thursday! And don’t forget to head over to my TikTok and Instagram profiles @hayatheauthor to learn more about my WIP and writing journey! 

[hideyseek]

HI! 3, 5, 15, 18 :3

HELLO KI !!!!!!!!!! hehehehehehe thank u for indulging my talking powers :3 🥰 not to brag but these got. long.

from the ao3 wrapped [writer's edition] asks

3. What work are you most proud of (regardless of kudos/hits)?

DAY AFTER DAY | 日复一日 HAHA. MY BELOVED GRIEF FEELINGS TIME LOOP FIC. the coolest thing i've finished to date, to me -- i just love when magical or supernatural elements allow a story to look at a real-world phenomenon (death, in this case) in a different way. it's also quite a personal guy actually ... i started writing it around the 1-year anniversary of a loved one's passing and was working out the idea with a friend who had also recently dealt with the same thing, so it ended up being (for me) this really interesting ... reframing of my own experience with grief through the lens of someone else's grief? which of course was then reflected through shen wei's relationship with mrs liu in the fic itself. man. what a fic. i did almost nothing but write this fic for like six weeks agahaha. what a beautiful time i would like to never repeat. but also like ... i did not expect to write 24k for that. i had set myself the goal of passing 10k for the first time with a fic in 2024 and then. well. and somehow that like ... jolted me out of a stagnation in my life? this sounds so fucking dramatic lol but i did, in the two months after finishing this fic immediately embark on Several large life changes hahaha. so yknow. this one. :3

5. What work of yours got more feedback than you expected?

hmmm i was originally going to say Enough | 足够, which i wrote because i wanted to represent a very specific (to me) Chinese Parenting Dynamic between zhao yunlan and zhao xinci, and i wasn't sure if people would be willing to read about zhao yunlan's terrible father enough to read the fic, and im surprised at the numbers on it. i'm not sure i understand why its so popular (relatively speaking, local maxima in my guardian bonus bingo fics), but well. thats ok.

but i think my actual answer is To the River | 过河, which is my beloved pretty words passively suicidal shen wei fic that also draws heavily from the chinese myth (fable?) the cowherd and the weaver maid. truly, i did not think people would read this fic, mainly bc of subject matter, but then people did! and people liked it! still kind of insane to me, tbh. hopefully this will encourage me to write more of what i really feel drawn to writing (which i guess i do generally do already), but more of what i feel drawn to writing, with more disregard of how it'll be received.

15. What WIP are you taking into next year with you?

ahahaha. "wip". singular. well i am bringing about twelve because i THOUGHT i was gonna buckle down and write weilan xfiles au and then i watched the first shot and ... well. then various things happened. so i guess i'll answer as the two i expected to finish in 2024 and then didn't: weilan xfiles au (which i expected to start drafting in september with the goal of some kind of draft by the end of the year), and then the distance that i run to you | 我朝你奔跑的距离 which i fully thought was going to be like, some kind of oneshot coda fic, and now is. well. not a oneshot haha. hes like 21k now.

18. The character that gave you the most trouble writing this year?

GU YIRAN. FUCK HIM. WHAT THE HELL. CONFUSING GODDAMN MAN. i mean i only really had to get into the heads of four guys last year to any depth: shen wei, zhao yunlan, gu yiran, and zheng bei, so the list of options isn't that long. but for me to be able to write a character well, i feel that i need to be able to distill them down to a 1-2 words or basic driving elements, and to basically be able to derive all their character arcs in relation to that. to me, shen wei is defined by his want and his responsibility. zhao yunlan i don't know but well ... he wasn't the subject of a longfic.

the other piece is, to a certain extent both shen wei and zhao yunlan are written as archetypes with nuance, and inhabit a very tropey story. that makes them a lot simpler to write, compared to zheng bei and gu yiran, who both come from a show that is -- well. a lot more "real", to the extent that when i'm writing them i feel more like i have to write them as "real people" (what does this mean when they are fictional characters and therefore tools of a given story? mostly that i spend so much time going: okay how would a real person with this background do? lol) and i can project onto zheng bei and his reactions a hell of a lot easier than i could with gu yiran, so it took a lot of frustrated nighttime walks until i could figure out the core part of his character (relative to the fic i was writing about him) that i could relate to enough to feel like i could write him properly.

[popironrye]

What's the appropriate standard for shipping discourse?

Pretty much a vent post on the whole pro vs anti shipping discourse. This is gonna be a long one.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this, but please read the whole thing.

So I like and share a lot of shipping prompts, positive self-ship posts, and no shame attitude to fandom ocs and indulgence in general as a frequent oc shipper. I mean, it makes sense right. I create a lot of fan characters of my own and it's a fun time.

What I can't help but notice is how much more frequent it is to see positive shipping posts with an abundance of 'proship dni' stamped somewhere in the post. I tend to ignore them, as I do not call myself proship because I feel like it's an unnecessary label in shipping spaces, but this one post I saw was a very good self-ship positive post with the same 'proship dni' at the bottom, but the only comment on the post was the op talking about adults being sexual with minors and it made me pause.

If you hear the word pro-ship and immediately think of pedophilia, then I think that's more a you problem than anyone else.

The word 'pro' in proship is a prefix meaning 'in favor of'. As in an 'argument in favor of fictional shipping'. It doesn't mean "problematic shipping", at least not to a lot of people.

But that's where the problem lies. The standards of morality, especially in fiction, is actually incredibly subjective when you think about it and even the darkest of subjects have nuances to why the creator chooses to explore it. Where is the line drawn for what is considered 'the bad kind of proship'? Not every dark theme is created with the intended purpose to 'glorify' it.

You will never catch me defending or engaging in works of biological incest OR pedophilia, I don't care if it's fictional or not/meant to be screwed up or not. I have a problem with those types of subjects, but I certainly won't wish harm on people who do.

But beyond that, there's always the issue with the more pearl clutch types to view other types of ships as morally wrong in all sense, even if the creators don't. Like is it still problematic for fictional adults (both of legal age) because of a massive age gap? Is it problematic to ship villainous characters without completely rewriting them as to not have villainous traits? What about fictional monsters and murders? Are they not allowed to have human dynamics because they're monsters and murders?

Morality isn't as black and white as people think and it REALLY isn't black and white in fiction because fiction should be a place to explore the topics for all kinds of reasons.

In my many years of making fancharacters and sonas, not all of them exist for shipping, but some of the ships I do have are not all gonna be this perfect wholesome cotton candy clouded wonderland of niceness. Characters are flawed, it's what makes them more interesting. While I completely understand a lot of people not liking ships that are straight up abusive and a certain level of toxic (myself included) there are ways to write "problematic" ships in an interesting and thought provoking way.

I've come to a realization something about myself through my sonas. My sona ships either involve giant class difference/power dynamics or some exploitation. Basically it's either my sona lets themselves be taken care of by someone else or they take care of someone.

And for some oc ships, while there are plenty of wholesome cute ones, I've also dipped my toe in morally grey and even villainous personalities. Unwholesome things like mutual drug abuse and criminal activity. Codependent incapability. Brutal enemies to lovers. Actually got a few enemies to lovers funny enough. Huge age gaps (between adults). Master and mentor and of course canon villains being shipped at all.

While none of my ships have the obvious gross stuff people associate with proship, I know plenty of anti ship spaces who would have problems with other ships of mine for being too "toxic" or "problematic".

Basically what I wanna say, if you don't like a ship. Just scroll on. Mute the tags or block the poster, but move on to something you'll actually enjoy. And certainly don't attempt to dox, harass, or tell the posters you hope bad things happen to them.

[dammek-time]

Hello there.👋🏼 We've gotten some nasty anons over the last few months so I'd like to clarify something.

In regards to shipping art:

All the ships we post are representations of in-sys relationships. That is to say, our art reflects REAL couples and their interactions with one another. It's shipping art inspired by alters dating alters. I can't express this enough—it is tailored to our system. What we draw here is likely divorced from our opinions on canon.

We have fictional introjects that don't resonate with canon. Alters don't always ID with their source, nor do they always resemble their source. It's why we draw different Dammeks here. They can be any size, age, gender, or presentation entirely. There is no one way. The same goes for whomever they're paired with in the illustration.

Sorry for rambling, it's just incredibly frustrating to have our art weaponized. Someone stole our work and fashioned it into a PSA about the dangers of shipping Xefdam. It's not the only time we've been harassed by anti-Xefdam blogs. They watch the character tags and send graphic messages to artists. It's terrible.

And it puts us in an unwinnable situation. We have to use those tags so people can blacklist Xefdam, but using the tags results in them lashing out.

My feelings on The Canon Xefros and Dammek's relationship are complex ones. Very nuanced. I dare say—it depends. I don't have the full story. I don't have the context or motivation for why Dammek acts that way. Is it a pitch crush? A misunderstanding? Is he training Xefros to prepare him for his position as a tetrarch? Is he an impressionable lad just copying the beefy renegades from his movie posters? Is he JUST an asshole? We don't know yet! But I could theorize about it all year. I won't do that, sorry. He's my special interest so I just um, I could ramble all century if you let me.

We mentioned this in our pinned post but it never hurts to reiterate. We don't engage in shipping discourse. Please. PLEASE do not send any. We struggle with moral OCD and shipping discourse is a big trigger. Especially for me. All the ships are tagged; please just block us if you feel uncomfortable. It's okay to block. We won't take offense, we're survivors too so I completely understand needing the subject gone. It's a lot sometimes.

It's always okay to set boundaries.

But it's not okay to invade someone else's space to force your own boundaries on them. We are strangers on the internet. We do not know one another. It is... bizarre, that you feel entitled to a response. It is otherworldly that you believe we should change our art because you don't like it. This is not content. This is art. We are not in a professional setting. We are on a blogging website. This is our blog.

You don't have to like Xefdam. That's okay. I have my moments too and my husband and I are dating a Xefros introject. Both sentiments can be true. Please don't attack our system for it. We're introjects. We can't control canon. We didn't choose our sources. Please don't treat our existence as a moral failing. These relationships are not the same. This is our life. We can't change it. This is a safe space for Dammek-kind. We really don't have many. Please. Agree to disagree.

-(host) Davey

hey im gonna tack this on cause davey forgot to mention it,, were open to talking,, like if youre curious about our stances on something you can ask were chill,, as long as its civil conversation i can make time,, im not interested in a debate,, if you message me with rage bait im just gonna block you

ill show you what i mean

THIS IS A QUESTION -> "hi, i was curious about one of the xefdam drawings on your blog, its the one where [describe drawing] what inspired that?"

feels genuine,, i have context,, seems like theyre looking for an actual answer,, i can respond asap

THIS IS RAGE BAIT-> "why do you support abuse?"

feels rhetorical,, context is missing,, accusatory for no reason,, pop psychology terms,, how do i respond to this?? you made up a guy to be mad about in my mailbox,, i havent said anything yet and youre already pissed

ok ill end it here sorry to bloat the post,, im just tired you guys,, were both over this,, 2nd spring art page on the way,, alright im out

-host dammek

[astralartefact]

Griff RoD Story Thoughts dae think war is bad maybe?

This write-up contains a whole lot of pseudo-deep complaining about the theme of Death as Salvation.

Content Warning for related Themes!

Okay, now that everything Griff-related is out I can finally say it:

I don't like Griff and a lot of his costumes look the same to me.

And I tried. Different from Rion and Dimos I actually tried and read all of his stories - which is why I'm writing this out today.

Not to say I can't find anything good in them - the End of his RoD story reminds me of one of the characters in the only book I ever read (Crime & Punishment) who commits suicide because without the eponymous Punishment for his eponymous Crime he couldn't find "Salvation" and therefore his only remaining option was Death to escape his guilt.

But there's only so much "Look at this 'normal' guy and what war did to him!" I can take before going numb and not listening anymore. You need to give me at least something else to latch onto. Like Lars has an existential crisis amount of shit going on that gives his story another layer about how exactly war is bad. Meanwhile Griff is just a guy who had a really fucked up thing happen that one time and he really can't get over it.

And sure. Maybe his stories are just about hammering down how PTSD works. Maybe it intentionally repeats Griff's one drop of guilt in the ocean that is war at nauseam. And maybe I'm just not keyed in to this type of historic fiction enough to understand the nuances. Maybe this is actually a very nuanced portrayal of the PTSD of sole survivors and I'm just not interested enough in this subject matter that I would know something like that.

But seeing as it ends in "the only thing that will save us from our guilt is death" I find that hard to believe. Not that there isn't value in showing the reality of veterans commiting suicide because of PTSD - but I don't think that's what's happening here.

I hate Death as Salvation as a trope. There is nothing valuable about it* and it should be wholly abandoned. (*if it isn't in some way followed up by a rebirth. then it's fine bc obv its not supposed to be real death but i digress) Any affirmation that Dying would in any way absolve you of anything you ever did is absolute garbage. It is a thoughtless and above all else lazy way to think about forgiveness - that anybody would just be better off if the person that harmed them just 'got what's coming for them'.

And Crime and Punishment would probably argue at this point that it's because you can't grow from your mistakes then. That Punishment is not (only) for the victim but for the offender to make amends with the past so they can move forward [without killing themselves]. And Griff's story can be read that way - not only is he never punished for his "Crimes", he is actively celebrated despite them.

But outside of that this Eye for an Eye mentality that a victim would and should get anything out of the misery and/or death of their offender is just another cycle of violence that our society is currently just basking in. It's an annoying itch that we just keep scratching because why not, it feels good right now and I promise I will stop before it gets worse! We all have urges that are 'natural' and yet we still all agree we shouldn't indulge in them - and Revenge should absolutely be one of them.

Forgiveness is a complicated process, both to forgive others and to be forgiven. There is no one way to go through it and there can't be only one since that's just the nature of our myriad unique human connections. But that's also what makes it such a fascinating thing to interrogate. Who is forgiveness for? How do you forgive? How are you forgiven? Do you even need forgiveness?

And I hate that thoughtless writers continue to use Death as a quick way out of it all, that we can just redeem a character by sacrifice because oh, isn't that noble, now what they've done isn't so bad anymore because i guess death is a currency now and this time it bought us a good ending.

But in Real Life Dying only becomes an option when something has gone terribly terribly wrong. An event in which somebody chooses Death is always a tragedy - and yet in fiction writing it is - different from reality - always a consciously constructed tragedy. The writer made this happen so the offender could die for their sins - because I guess there is just no other way that somebody could overcome doing a bad thing. Great news for all of us who ever did something bad!

So the way they went from "Griff talks about it to somebody for the first time and feels a little bit better about it" as if they went for a "Griff gets Group Therapy! You're not alone!"-Message only to still end up with both of them killing themselves is just deeply upsetting to me. If this is in any way supposed to be a story about regret, I feel like this could have been a "You will never get over it but at least you can talk to others so it gets easy enough to still live" story - because even if that's not a particularly groundbreaking narrative anymore either at least it's something actively helpful. But this? What is a veteran reading this story supposed to get out of this? Just die, it never gets better?

then again FF16 did this so much worse than Griff. at least reinkane has CrimePun parallels - and of course the overall framing as a whole is still 'this is what war does to a mf and should never happen' so i guess maybe that's the point? that even a winning war leads to people killing themselves?

Now. This is the point where the plot twists and I say: Okay. But maybe this is - deliberately or not - great writing actually. I didn't see this coming, I just gave what I wrote another read and then this occured to me:

There's just something here. Griff is one of the characters with a seemingly good amount of agency in this game - sure, he isn't a king or a ruler, he doesn't get to decide about this war, but he certainly has more agency than a good chunk of the characters in this game - he literally gets to tell Lars what to do - and yet. He just can't even think about trying anything else. His station just doesn't make it possible for some unpronounced reason. It doesn't even occur to the narrative that maybe he could - I don't know - Run away. Lead a Resistance. Even just interrogate his own actions. He did a bad thing and there's just absolutely nothing he can do about it but kill himself. (And there's something else here about why exactly death is an easier choice for him than anything else but this is already long enough)

Lars' story uncovers a truly wild revelation about this war they're fighting and it just. Doesn't affect Griff's story in the slightest. It doesn't come up once. He just doesn't know. Doesn't even notice. How can he not notice? When suddenly the people he cares so much about are gone and show up standing on the other side of the battlefield?

But you have to understand. This is really hard for Griff. He has to continue fighting because one time his actions killed so many. It's not the war's fault. Not the other army's. Not the bullets of the other soldiers. It's his fault. He did this. So he only has to fix himself. He can't possibly be asked to care about anything else, especially not whatever this fcking war is about.

And I don't know, doesn't that sound like... Ugh. I don't know the word, but it always comes up when people talk about white men. It starts with P I think. It's that word that people use! That you should check every once in a while... Ahh, who cares. I can just end this post about PTSD and war and not think about it any further because I do not have PTSD and the closest war will ever get to me is that maybe they're going to re-institute a draft in my country - but probably not and even if they do I won't have to go! And surely nobody on the world alive right now has a different experience from me. See ya!

also they could have made this story so much better if griff and the eyepatch guy fuc---

also also with how 063y and now griff went i'm so excited for argo. whoever is writing these has a lot of thoughts about men.

[lunanoc]

dare i say…..1, 6, 8, and 17 for the ask meme?

ohh please do, i have so many opinions about dmbj. that being said, obligatory disclaimer, all of these are very much my subjective opinions, not fact. fandom discourse ahead, you’ve been warned

for the ‘choose violence ask game’:

1. the character everyone gets wrong

if i had to be completely honest, my hot take would be that technically a distressingly large portion of the vocal dmbj fandom gets pretty much all the characters wrong to the point it’s actually kind of concerning, but if i had to choose one character in particular, it’d have to be xiaoge.

and look. i understand that a number of people have only watched the dramas and aren’t particularly inclined to read the books because of the time commitment that comes with so much material to get through, and that’s fair. but it’s very telling when someone only goes off of the dramas to shape their characterizations (and even then, i could have a hotter take that the dramas, exceptions aside, all have the broad strokes of the characters down with only details that change, so there’s really no excuse) because in the books, xiaoge is repeatedly described as being indifferent and very much disinterested and untouched by what goes on around him. xiaoge choosing to invest himself in something or someone is very much something noteworthy coming from him. and it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have emotions, but it does mean he’s a very nuanced character to explore when it comes to them and how they’re displayed.

it’s incredibly frustrating to see how many people, often times for the sake of a trope or a ship dynamic, make him one dimensional. either he’s a cold, almost brutal s*x predator, or he’s a tortured angsty soul that’s meek and emotionally vulnerable the moment he trusts someone enough, or he’s dramatically waxing poetic in his head about his feelings for X Y or Z, or possibly worst of all, he’s a mindless one-fit-for-all doll that caters to whatever ship he’s been placed in.

it’s not like i’m the authority on characterization, everyone has their biases, myself included, but the key to understanding xiaoge is to remember that he’s an old soul, disconnected from the world and people around him both through his particular circumstances and through the way he’s been consistently dehumanized practically since he was a baby. his sense of self is in shambles, and only begins a slow (re)construction through his slow-growing friendship with wu xie and pangzi. of course he has his doubts and fears—the whole evolution from ‘i have no connection to this world’ to ‘my one connection to this world is you’ doesn’t come out of nowhere—but those doubts aren’t expressed in conventional ways, just like any love or affection he might feel will never be thought of or expressed in grandiose or over the top ways. a lot of the things he feels just are, and it doesn’t make them less true or complex just because xiaoge isn’t one to overanalyze things and accepts and is secure in them so long as he’s been made aware of them. he’s also assertive in his judgment of things in general. i could go on and honestly i’m not sure i’m even touching the tip of the iceberg as far as fandom treatment of xiaoge goes but just. yeah.

6. which ship fans are the most annoying

this. is a very loaded question with a very loaded answer. i keep feeling like i need to make disclaimers before i say things like “if you like this it’s fine” because yes it absolutely is. i’m not telling anyone a ship is bad. but if i have to point fingers, there’s a group of people who happen to be very into particular ships with whom i’ve had. less than great interactions. so this isn’t a judgment of the ships so much as it’s a reflection of my experiences with a lot of people who happen to be vocal about liking them.

and in my time in the dmbj fandom, no group of people has been more aggravating to me than ls shippers and lc character shippers in general. and tbh i can extend that to the people who make shipping every possible character combination under the sun their entire personality. again it’s fine if you like any of these things. but that i’ve personally experienced, too many of these people manage to often offer the unholy combination of being extremely pushy about their preferences even when someone politely expresses they’re not into them, and having the worst takes imaginable on any given character they claim to like. it’s to the point where while i initially had no particularly strong feelings about ls as a character, i genuinely do not like him now and do not want to hear about him in general. and tbh by extension i’m not the biggest fan of lc and his characters just because i unfortunately associate him with these people and their behavior. you can imagine how much i enjoy the fact that these are also the group of people who’ve effectively silently bullied a number of other people out of fandom spaces enough that they’re now the face of the dmbj fandom on a number of platforms.

8. common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

once again this could apply to so many things. but i think the one thing that gets me the most is the very widespread opinion that dmbj as a canon is inconsistent and full of plot holes and makes no sense. i’ve had people tell me that dmbj canon doesn’t exist because the canon is so incoherent and incohesive, and that the fandom likes it that way because it’s more fun. and that’s just a preference for fanon over canon that’s being justified by passing it off as a fact for some reason.

it’s fine to have preferences, but i draw the line at intentional misinformation. and once again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, it’s telling of people having largely engaged with the dramas over the books, because the books, while imperfect and sometimes leaving things unanswered (and even then that’s becoming a moot point seeing as npss is tying up a lot of those loose ends in the more recent arc of the story that predictably over half of the fandom is unaware of because it hasn’t been adapted), very rarely end up having major discrepancies. the books, which sorry to say are very much the definitive canon, are actually very cohesive both for plot and characters, and the loose ends, while frustrating, are never to the detriment of the plot. nothing is openly contradictory, or rarely. and with such an extensive source material that doesn’t hand you answers on a gold platter, it also requires some close reading of seemingly innocuous details that become relevant down the line, which can get complicated given the sheer amount of information.

so while it’s not necessarily easy, no dmbj is not full of ‘pits haha’. people only think that because a) they’ve only watched the dramas which are an absolute mess and b) it makes them feel justified in considering dmbj like some free-for-all chinese tomb raiding themed dnd game they can remix ad infinitum, when i honestly don’t understand why that even needs justification. you can enjoy fanon without dunking on both the canon and the people who enjoy engaging with it idk.

17. there should be more of this type of fic/art

this is honestly a great question and i had to think about it for a bit, so i’m going to offer two (ish) options. the first kind of general one is i wish there were more book-centric fics instead of drama-centric ones, because while i enjoy the shows for different reasons, i love the books and the specific vibe they have, and just overall i prefer them by a fair margin. i’d specifically love fic about anything post restart but that’s a pipe dream tbh.

the second is i wish there were more gen fics about the main characters? i know there are a number of gen fics out there, but a lot of them tend to include or focus on minor characters i don’t particularly care for, and so much of the fic involving the iron triangle specifically tends to either be shippy, or even when it’s gen is still flirting a very close line to shippy that’s gen only in name and hinges on the fact it doesn’t include s*x or kissing or explicit mentions of relationship status. but i want the gen fic where it’s just wu xie and pangzi goofing off over a beer, the gen fic where it’s just pangzi trying to get a rise out of xiaoge by telling him ridiculous dirty jokes as they clean xilaimian’s kitchen while xiaoge stays impassive and eventually wu xie comes back from wherever he was and digs at pangzi for it. i want the gen fic where it’s just wu xie and xiaoge on a walk in the mountains, no talking, just enjoying each other’s presence and the peace the silence brings.

special mention to i would also like for ship fics that include one pair in the iron triangle to not write off the other member for very obvious reasons. like shipping pangxie and conveniently taking xiaoge out of the picture by writing him off as ace (which is a hc i vibe with but not when it’s a poor excuse for excluding him). or like shipping pingxie and just not including pangzi in situations where he very much would be. romance and friendship are different types of relationships but both are as valuable and can and should coexist without invalidating each other.

[ssaalexblake]

Don't you think that it's a bit dodgy how 13 basically kills a TARDIS to kill the Daleks and never gets called out on it?

Oh it's super messed up she did it, it's also a bit messed up she wasn't called on it, either, lbr, but this has been one of those things i'm not sure how i feel about. Because hm, hello, that was a murder. That they didn't face consequences for, or even a call out. But also, it's not the first time the doctor's done a murder and not been called on it or faced any consequences for, it happens occasionally.

I know it's happened more than once, but hilariously the only one i can remember rn is one also written by chibnall. Maybe he just has a ~thing (I am talking about dinosaurs on a space ship, which is an episode i hate and probably only remember Because i can't stand it, but still). I distinctly remember rewatching the episode and thinking to myself that I could add that to my list of episodes where the doctor offs somebody, and now I can't remember the others, which is typical, really. Though, I personally think 12 pushed the guy, because he'd never have jumped on his own, so that moment's on the list.

(this whole list was a Thing to start with bc i find it fascinating that the doctor sometimes casually does genocides and doesn't catch Half the fandom crap for it than they do if they kill one person. Something something about crimes that we are able to comprehend and feel emotionally and those we aren't. Like, I cannot comprehend the total annihilation of a species in a single second at all, but I can comprehend a single death and have an emotional response to that one. I find it fascinating ngl).

But to get back on subject, in the end, I think my real answer to this would be to say that it depends on Why she's not called on it. When it aired, people in fandom immediately clocked what she'd done was bad and messed up, so obviously a telling was not strictly Necessary in that people worked it out for themselves.

But, was she not called out for it in the show bc A) they didn't believe it was Necessary to do so bc it wasn't supposed to be bad, B) they didn't believe it was necessary to do so because they realised the audience members both old enough to understand and familiar enough with the snow to know tardises are alive would realise what had happened Without mentioning it and know what she'd done was bad without a hand hold or C) she was not called on it simply because there was nobody To call her on it.

Or it could be a mix of the three different things above. Like, they thought it was messed up for her to do it, but she simply was not called on it bc it was exactly like a few of her other greatest and very messed up hits. Nobody had the context to call her on it, so she wasn't called on it even though it Was messed up just because nobody knew it was messed up.

I like, work on a case by case basis as to whether media should call out its characters for bad behaviour and if it's wrong for them not to because you can't paint everything with the same brush and have any sense of nuance, so I guess I think it depends on if you think it's acceptable or not for a show to portray a character doing something bad that is obviously bad without mentioning it, and if that not doing so implies any kind of acceptance of it. I don't think in general the lack of call outs in media imply acceptance, personally, but that doesn't mean there aren't times when call outs Are necessary.

But I do genuinely think it depends on their reasoning as to if it's actually dodgy they didn't do it or not. Like, if they didn't call her on it bc she apparently did nothing wrong, that's dodgy as hell. If they didn't because they portrayed something bad and trusted the audience to get that without being told, that's ambiguous to me and i am personally unsure how i feel about this instance, and since i've not worked it out in two years, I don't expect to any time soon.

If they didn't do it for watsonian reasons involving the lack of informed knowledgeable characters actually there to call her on it, then i'm fine with that in a vacuum? The fam don't ever actually work out if they think the tardis is alive or some kind of super argumentative AI and that 13 implodes one would probably suggest the ai thing to them, lets be real (even though they'd be very wrong, she hides her worst from them). Jack has basically been trained by the doctor to not ask too many questions at this point by the doctor treating him awfully when he does, And on top of that, he's more ruthless than the doctor to start with and I doubt he'd care much.

I think, in general, instead of a callout, i'd have personally liked a Consequence instead? I don't think bad actions necessarily require a call out bc audiences aren't thick and neither are kids, especially In context of the lack of people to call her out on it. But I do think that consequences should be more often utilised unless you're deliberately showing a moment where somebody Gets Away With Something.

So I'd have loved a consequence for her. Like, 13 desperately needs another tardis being alive and well to do something vital and Oh No the world is going to burn to a cinder bc she killed the last one in a callous last ditch plan which suddenly makes it very clear exactly What she did by killing one! So she's slapped in the face by it even though she didn't have anybody to call her on it at the time. The audience is reminded that what she did was wrong without compromising characterisation, ~viola.

TLDR, it depends on Why she wasn't called on it as to if i think it's necessarily dodgy she wasn't (personally i'd have called her on it, but I don't think it's an automatic black mark she wasn't considering the circumstances of there being nobody would could effectively do so), but i do think it's dodgy she didn't catch any consequences for it, actually? idk, i would have done it differently but i'm a terrible writer so I don't know how. I also would like to know the plan for this show pre-pandemic so i can see what didn't happen through necessity via episode cuts and what didn't happen bc nobody thought it was necessary. It's so hard trying to pick apart anything post rotd without knowing this.

[dangerous-advantage]

why the kraang in rottmnt: the movie work so well (for me)

(obvious spoilers fir the movie; if you haven’t watched it, go do so)

i’ve been ruminating on the idea of this post for a while, so instead of doing any actual writing, i have decided to spitball my thoughts on this subject

if you would like to read, go ahead. if not, okay? then don’t (/lighthearted)

i’ve seen/heard the argument a couple times from people who i’ve watched the movie with or have watched the movie that they didn’t like the kraang as villains, and/or how they were implemented

to this i say everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and if you don’t like them as villains just off of vibes, that’s fine

it gets dicey when people further elaborate. while i’m sure there are many reasons why you could dislike the kraang, but the idea that they are “bad villains” feels a bit... untrue?

so i want to explore why

to be clear, this isn’t a call-out or anything of the sort. i’m talking about a bunch of pink brain aliens from a franchise called ‘the teenage mutant ninja turtles.’ it’s not that deep (/lighthearted)

from the people i’ve talked to, the usual justification for their feelings is that they feel the kraang are one dimension. evil for the sake of being evil.

and that’s not untrue.

the kraang have one big motivation: to overtake the world. maybe they foster anger for being locked in the prison dimension, but that’s more of a ‘as well as’ type thing

but i don’t necessarily think that this is bad in the context of the story.

quite a few people who say this to me haven’t watched the series, so i can almost understand why they think this. (i’ll maybe explore that more later though.)

but to the rest, i can only assume their thought process revolves around evaluating the kraang (1) by themselves, instead of as part of a larger narrative, and (2) based off of the prevailing idea in modern media that villains must also be entirely dynamic characters with their own set of nuance.

so i’m going to explain why i disagree with both of these.

number one: evaluating the kraang as an individual part of the story instead of within the context they inhabit.

if you were to isolate the kraang as villains, i understand why you would come to the conclusion that they’re lacking. warmongering aliens hellbent on destroying the world, for no reason other than honor. where have we seen that before?

oh yeah— everywhere!

but i take issue with this. one, in defense of this, the kraang aren’t just your general baddie archetype. they do have underlying nuance.

we see in the scenes with raph (and it’s later parallel with leo) that the kraang operate off of a different moral framework than that of our heroes.

it’s not just their perspective. it’s their societal background. the strongest are those on top, the weakest do not last. a very hierarchy-based viewpoint

beyond that, though, is the fact that making the kraang more nuanced wouldn’t work within the context of the movie.

there just isn’t enough time to set something like that up, and it would only complicate and overinflate the narrative, distracting from the main themes and underlying message

the movie isn’t about them, not really. they play an important part. but they’re more of a catalyst, to force our main characters (notably leo) out of their comfort zone.

they are proving that something has to change, by taking away the sense of security (which raph is representative of) that both we and the characters had come to rely on, and in doing so, stripping back the layers to reveal the cracks more glaringly than ever

even if the writers were able to pull of a sympathetic/maybes take on the villains, i think it would be... extraneous?

the reason the kraang work so well (in my opinion) is that they are nothing like we’ve seen before. all the previous villains, including shredder, have been “fun”

you have your typical “villain-of-the-week” types (like warren and hypnotic), your bigger yet still “fun” anti-hero types (big mama abs baron draxum, who are both more nuanced) and shredder, who despite being very scary, is stilll nuanced

he’s the father of karai. his reasons for taking on the suit of armor (given to him by what we can assume are the kraang) were motivated by good. at the end, after he’s defeated, he joins karai in what constitutes their afterlife.

so we’ve had our fair share of nuanced villains. what we haven’t had?

the kraang. villains with no chance of reasoning with or goodness. villains that do not care about fun and entertainment. they are here to take over the world, and if you get in the way, they will kill you.

it’s why the movie hit so hard. why the beginning scene was even allowed to exist. if there were and peaceful option out f this, the boys would have taken it.

that’s why there can’t be.

now, this next part is much more meta, so if you don’t care, feel free to skip.

i don’t want to get too deep into this since i’m just writing my thoughts as they come to me, but it would feel amiss not to mention the bigger picture behind this criticism. why do people think this?

within the writing community, there has been this shift. actually, within the artist communities at large. it comes with post-modernism, which is a whole topic on its own.

basically, post-modernism is a response to modernism. it shows the darker side to the modern world, and the negative side of the ideas presented in the previous movement.

it’s the start of this nihilistic idea that nothing really matters, and things don’t work out like they do “in the movies.”

with it comes a level of nuance. basically, consider perspectives that you wouldn’t have before. like the villains’.

but like all movements, eventually, it has to come to an end.

if you want to know more, there is this really fascinating video essay by thomas flight titled something along the lines of “why do movies feel so different now?”

it’s very good, but basically, it explores the shift between post-modernism and this new “thing” we’re going into: meta-modernism

a name which, given the fact we had to use “modernism” for what is now the past, feels very fitting.

(it does worry me about future naming conventions a little— what’s next? neo-modernism?? lmao)

now, that’s kind of in its own vein, but the point is this: villains don’t have to be over-complicated.

if you have the time and narrative to spare, go for it. explore the villains and anti-hero’s to your hearts intent.

but it’s important to know when something is too much (like the length of this text post analyzing the villains in a movie titled ‘the rise of the teenage mutant ninja turtles.’)

don’t shy away from having a sterotypical big bad. if you’re a good enough writer, you can pull anything off. you just have to handle it in a certain way.

not every bad guy has to have seventy-thousand layers of nuance, and the rise movie is a great example of a narrative that benefits from keeping it simple.

it had a story to tell, and it did it wonderfully, enough to send fandom-altering ripples through (in my opinion) the tmnt franchise as a whole

when a movie can pull people n and make them fall in live, despite their original feelings about the show, while also wowing the fans of said show? you know it’s good.

and you have to admit: the rise kraang are scary as fuck /pos

i could get more into why the kraang work exactly as well as they do, with the surrounding context and how they changed rise, and what i do and don’t like about the movie, but this is long enough, and i’m already not going back to fix my typos, so. i’ll end it here

if you did somehow slog through all of that and would be interested in my thoughts, let me know,m. who knows, maybe i’ll actually end up doing it maybe! (/lh /j)

[pokichusramblings]

Whole ass 6 paragraph essay. TLDR is that sometimes representation in media needs to be simplified to get a point across, and it’s a whole lot more nuanced than the “all or nothing” attitude some people have.

The main issue that a lot of people have with simple representation is when it is the only representation. But this is not the fault of the simple representation, but rather the society that pressures writers into being too afraid to address representation in a complex way. Personally one of my favorite forms of representation is when something is mentioned or shown in background characters like once or twice (for example in Bluey one character in the kids’ class says “my mums” once in one episode, love that shit).

What’s most important is to know when and how to tackle representation differently in different characters. By that I mean when to make things more simple and when to make things more complicated. My rule of thumb is to give a character’s “diverse” traits the same amount of attention that any other trait would in that type of character, and to never make any single trait wholly encompass a character.

Main characters are going to be more complex than side characters, so comparatively they should have more attention given to any given trait, including “diverse” traits like disability or queerness. But that also depends on the character.

A character like Toph from Avatar: The Last Airbender, whose disability defined a significant amount of her life, should have more focus put on her disability than a character like the Amaya from Dragon Prince, whose disability does still affect her life but not as drastically as Toph’s has. I think both shows tackled disability representation (blindness and deafness respectively) really well because the writer wrote their disability as a part of their character like any other trait. These shows are actually also on the simpler side of their rep, which just goes to show that sometimes less is more. (They’re also kids shows too so the simplicity makes sense).

On the subject of kid’s shows, kids have not been alive long enough to comprehend the nuance. Things often need to be explained in a simplified (if incorrect) way for kids to understand. In Elementary School the Earth is represented as a circle. Later on, in Middle School or High School, it is represented as a sphere. Eventually people learn that it is not a perfect sphere, instead it is a round elongated shape that I forgot the name of. Should children not be shown the Earth as a circle because it technically isn’t true? No way! This simplified representation still teaches kids that the Earth is round, which is important, even if that particular representation isn’t entirely accurate.

Teaching children about disability, other races, gay and trans people, and other stuff needs to be treated the same say. Children don’t need to see the ins and outs of how diabetes works. But showing a simplified version of diabetes in a show can help kids understand that disability limits the amount of energy people have, making them more tired and such. Kids don’t need to see the ins and outs of how being trans works, but seeing in a show (a simplified version of) what trans people experience helps kids to sympathize with trans people.

I need to say something and I need y'all to be calm

if it isn't actively bad or harmful, no representation should be called "too simple" or "too surface level"

I have a whole argument for this about the barbie movie but today I wanna talk about a show called "the babysitters club" on Netflix

(obligatory disclaimer that I watched only two episodes of this show so if it's super problematic I'm sorry) (yes. I know it's based on a book, this is about the show)

this is a silly 8+ show that my 9 year old sister is watching and it manages to tackle so many complex topics in such an easy way. basic premise is these 13 year old girls have a babysitting agency.

in one episode, a girl babysits this transfem kid. the approach is super simple, with the kid saying stuff like "oh no, those are my old boy clothes, these are my girl clothes". they have to go to the doctor and everyone is calling the kid by her dead name and using he/him and this 13 year old snaps at like a group of doctors and they all listen to her. it's pure fantasy and any person versed in trans theory would point out a bunch of mistakes.

but after watching this episode, my little sister started switching to my name instead of my dead name and intercalating he/him pronouns when talking about me.

one of the 13 years old is a diabetic and sometimes her whole personality is taken over by that. but she has this episode where she pushes herself to her limit and passes out and talks about being in a coma for a while because of not recognizing the limits of her disability.

and this allowed my 9 year old sister to understand me better when I say "I really want to play with you but right now my body physically can't do that" (I'm disabled). she has even asked me why I'm pushing myself, why I'm not using my crutches when I complain about pain.

my mom is 50 years old and watching this show with my sister. she said the episode about the diabetic girl helped her understand me and my disability better. she grew up disabled as well, but she was taught to shut up and power through.

yes, silly simple representation can annoy you if you've read thousands of pages about queer liberation or disability radical thought, but sometimes things are not for you.