#is it something that affects people? absolutely racism is real and a systemic problem that is built on the race concept

[starswallowingsea]

looking at the notes of that last poll was a mistake

[saintjosie]

apologies if you’ve talked about something this before, but your post on experiencing exclusion in trans fem circles on account of being an east asian woman who speaks up came up on my dash and it reminded me of something that‘a been troublingme.

i’m also asian and trans, and i’m always really sent off-kilter when i see white trans people idealizing japanese aesthetics and asian people in general. so many white trans people use anime tropes and aesthetics while also othering real asian people, esp other asian trans people. does it feel appropriative/fetishistic to you?

i guess it’s just something that echoes general white-centric society but it feels like a lot of white trans people focus more on their transness and forget that their whiteness doesn’t just go away or get excused, if that makes sense

this is a great ask with no easy answer. the short answer is yes, you’re absolutely right, but there is also a lot of nuance that’s very important to address too.

white people in general have an enormous problem with misunderstanding the difference between appropriation and appreciation. and that applies to appropriating the culture of all people of color because appropriation is a symptom of colonization. part of that is because it’s very difficult to have a catch-all definition that clarifies the distinction between the two because each person approaches the things they consume in a different way, with varying levels of excitement. i simply cannot point a finger at all white people who enjoy anime and say, “this is bad”, because it simply is not true. it would be just as harmful if a white person were to say, “i would never watch anime because i think it’s weird”, because while appropriation is objectively a form of colonization, appreciation is a celebration of diversity. and celebration of diversity is good!

but i think you hit the nail on the head when you say that a lot of white queer and trans people forget that even though that they are oppressed by cis heterosexual patriarchy, the intersection of oppression that exists between oppressed identities and race means that as white people, they still have white privilege. full stop. and so we often have this issue, especially with young queer and trans people (young as in newly realized queerness and transness, not age) where there is a pause in deconstructing whiteness because they are too focused on deconstructing the privilege that they have suddenly lost by embracing their marginalized identities.

and the issue goes even deeper when you realize that people of color also struggle to realize that we often also perpetuate and contribute to oppression of other people of color as well. east asian people in particular forget that even though we are people of color, we do not face the same kind of oppression that black and brown people of color do, and often we perpetuate racism through appropriation of black culture and also just straight up racism. i think most asian people can attest to how often asian people can be racist as fuck. and i’ve definitely seen asian people who think it’s acceptable to make aave and using the n-slur a part of their personality. and at the same time there is an enormous problem with black people fetishizing asian people and latching on to anime and k-pop in ways that perpetuate the oppression of asian people, as well as just being racist towards asians in general.

and root of the issue is that white supremacy affects all of us. EVERYONE has whiteness to deconstruct because we all live in a system that was built on white supremecy, even if we do not have white privilege ourselves. the answer is that everyone period must bear the burden of constantly deconstructing whiteness, deconstructing our own privilege, and doing our part to lift each other up. and while it is true that white people often have the most work to do in deconstructing their own privilege, none of us are absolved.

[saintarmand]

gonna post some screenshots from a particular user in the vampterview community and the users liking their garbage posts, just in case some of you haven't heard. should become obvious why i'm highly suspicious of anyone who interacts with any of these users.

please just read the posts. sorry i'm not providing image descriptions, please dm me if you need them and i'll add them when i can!

the first post is just one example one of many on this blog, the second one might seem innocuous if you see it on your own but in combination with the others, not so much. please pay attention to the people liking these.

then we have an anon complimenting the wisdom and maturity of this person, who then replied with several paragraphs:

and got likes from two of the same users and two others.

then they self reblogged one of the posts from earlier and continued:

obviously this last post is the most egregious, and not everyone is bold enough to press like knowing that likes are public and could affect their reputation in the fandom. but i am going to assume that the people liking the other posts, which weren't all in public tags, are this person's followers and have seen all the other posts and believe this kinda shit is acceptable. and that speaks volumes about them as people.

i'm personally not going to assume that everyone who's ever liked or reblogged from any of these users did it knowing what kind of people they are (i didn't always know that either, and have probably reblogged from at least one of them before i did) but i am highly suspicious of anyone reblogging from them or interacting with them in a friendly way, and if i see people i follow doing that, i am going to unfollow unless i have very good reason to believe they genuinely had no idea, in which case i will message first.

i hope none of my followers need me to actually explain why what they're saying is absolute garbage but if you genuinely don't get the problem, dm me and i can find you some links about racism 101 i guess

EDIT/UPDATE:

someone asks nalyra what's going on

she later adds this, linking to a post that links back to this very post you're reading right now

track you UNliking something? GIRL WHY DID YOU LIKE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

i do love how if you read this and don't bother clicking the link she sounds kind of reasonable, and even like she's taking accountability (she's not denying anything! she's linking to a source so people can judge for themselves!) just not SO much accountability that she'll actually say what she did. gotta click those links to find out, and let's face it, the majority of the people who see her post are simply going to assume she's being unfairly targeted again. i mean, she posts about it all the time! why bother even checking, it's not like she would ever link to, say, screenshots of her liking a post that says affirmative action is the only system of oppression based on race and anti-white racism is real

EDIT #2:

another screenshot i forgot to include from the same day of nalyra liking another untagged post from cosmic

[diaphin93]

Racial Allegory: The Quick guide on how to write The Whites as the true victims of racism

Okay, try to keep it quick here, I got this hitpiece shown to me and it dabbles into a topic I wanted to write about for a while: Racial Allegory

To make things super short, racial allegories can make for captivating and engaging narratives concerning bigotry and can often be a good narrative tool to subvert tropes and conventions in genres such as fantasy, sci-fi and horror, to analyze relations and depictions of fictional races under the lense of bigotry and marginalization.

The issue with the whole 'genre' of racial allegory is though, that it does very little to actually adress racial injustice and White Supremacy in real life, especially in the western world, as this would require a closer and more critical look into how our history, culture and social systems are shaped to benefit white people over people of color and how even to this moment, the western quality of life is entire build upon colonialism and the continuous exploitation of the global south.

More importantly and more problematically, racial allegory as a genre is highly centered around removing people of color, or in some cases also queer people, from stories about their own oppression project them on a cast of mostly whites and cisheterosexuals. Even in cases where racial allegory is utilized in a diverse cast, it is often used to defocus stories about oppression away from the people affected by them, by inserting liberal colorblindness onto human ethnicity. The X-Men started off as an allegory for the civil rights movement, yet its original cast was comprised of white mostly middle class teenagers, lead by a an upper class white man who owns his own private school. The very premise of the series takes inspiration from the struggle of the black community for equality and instead makes it a fantastical adventure about white kids. And lets not get started with the messy origins of Magneto as a character.

And don't get me wrong. I love the X-Men. They are my favorite Superhero series ever and I absolutely adored X-Men 97. They are great and they are capable of telling good stories about opression, marginalization and resistance. Magneto is my all time favorite Marvel Character and one of my favorite characters in fiction period. And potentially they can be a good starting point to teach younger people their first lesson in concepts such as bigotry and tolerance, but we are all adults here, and I think at some point there is something wrong with grown up people to whom the X-Men are still their first point of reference when it comes to making a point about bigotry.

Because the problem with the concept of the X-Men is exactly of what the original poster brought up here: They fall apart under any closer critical evaluation, because yeah, they are actual dangerous. We wouldn't want in our real lives people who are capable of copying in every detail, up to the intimate, who can cause rapidly changing climate conditions, mess around with he earths entire magnetic fields or infiltrate and manipulate our very mind at a whim running around without any accountability and oversight. You know with what butwhatifidothis surely would agree? That we don't want people to have the means of commiting mass murder at any public location without any regulations, control and oversight. I'm talking of course about gun control here. What we also don't want surely is people being able to change the climate around us for whatever personal benefit they deem fit, to invade our privacy and gain access to our most personal information, to incorperate our image in any context on very public plattforms or be able to kill any innocent civilian without any means to stop them.

These exist in real life of course. They're giants of industry, tech companies, people who creat deepfakes and any police officer, armed redneck standing his ground or white Karen calling the guy on a black guy in a park. And this is really where such racial allegories fall flat, because minorities in real life are not those who wield this form of unchecked power against their environment, but those who get targeted by it and protest to stop it, to creat checks and balances.

X-Men ultimately is build around never thinking too deeply about the implications and just accept the premise, to engage with the fantasy of superheroes who are the underdogs fighting against oppression and for social acceptance. They live off of ignoring the bad optics of, for example, a white girl lecturing a black man about oppression. Becoming too immersed on them on the other hand, to obsessed with their initial premise, too uncritical of it, leads to some fairly bad understanding of bigotry and marginalization, to the point where one basically becomes obsessed with contextualizing those who hold power as the oppressed against the weak, impotent masses. You start at X-Men and end at The Incredibles, of which the randian subtext has already been well enoug discussed.

Going back to Fire Emblem here, away from X-Men, there is already a fairly objectivist fantasy present in the people who make Nabateans their primary racial allegory. Lets not ignore the problematic aspect, that the game doesn't really do racial allegory. It does racism, targeted at people of color, with the most violent examples being commited by the Holy Kingdom of Faerghus and with Claude, a mixed race man, having already confirmed it to be the result of the churches doctrine of xenophobia. Instead of getting invested in this though, people like OP focus on the Nabateans as their primary racial allegory. A group of immortal dragons with power beyond any human, who are the offspring of an alien dragon goddess and who used to rule humanity as deities. And who are, of course, depicted as whiter than white, their differenciating traits being elvish ears and mostly light green hair which, lets be honest, would be understood analogous to blonde hair if it wasn't explicitely shown to us to be special, considering the presence of colors such as blue and pink as regular hair colors in the setting. Ignatz and Linhardt even have green hair without being ever framed as looking anything out of the ordinary, lol.

And I think it becomes fairly self-explaining here. There is something deeply randian about hyperfocussing on a race of superhuman immortals who frame themselves as superior and with the duty of leading the weaker, dumber, mundane masses as someones primary racial allegory. Because it becomes immediately muddy. Rheas entire outlook on humanity and her role in relation to it is never one of equal co-existance, it is practically her claiming the white dragons burden, as horrible as it sounds. And many of her defenders among the Edelcrit community take exactly this stance as a moral good, which is inheritly problematic. I'm talking about people such as butwhatifidothis, gascon, randomnameless and fantasyinvader, Boofire too if we want to include youtubers.

There edgy "humanity can't be trusted and is inheritly incapable of controlling itself" position is not progressive. Its deeply elitist. It is ultimately a reflection of contempt towards the common masses. It is the act of primarily immersing oneself with those who stand above those supposedly unenlightened masses and taking the position, that they are incapable of governing oneself. And the act of hyperfocussing on constructing a racial allegory around it, it also means to immerse oneself into the idea that those born with powerful are the most victimized and marginalized group in society by the inferior, who want to take away their rightful positions of leadership and power. It is also sadly one I feel like is highly encouraged by the Blue Lions route in general, by its decission to focus mostly on the way those born with crests into nobility are mistreated and envied by those without them, probably by accident encouraging those kinds of randian implications.

And as a disclaimer, I'm not saying here that one can't chose the Nabateans as ones favorite and feel deeply sympathetic and empathetic around their plight, because this is one is real real as well. They were victims of a genocide orchestrated by Agarthans in their attempt of getting vengeance against the Goddess Sothis for their own destruction, they had their blood stolen and their bodies defiled by bandits who wanted to claim their power for themselves and uplift themselves to the status of rulers. They are deeply human and their depth comes from the fact, that they deal with trauma in very flawed, very human ways. The issue comes from viewing the Nabateans as both sympathetic victims but also inheritly superior beings with Rhea being framed as justified in the oppressive systems that are the root cause of the majority of issues inside of Fodlan. Something the games text supports. Their Crimson Flower ending describes Byleth as ending the Tyranny of a Godlike being. In comparison, the Azure Moon Version speaks about crushing the Ambitions of the Empire. Rheas own S-Support has her admit her guild and be remorseful for it, the ending card speaks about her rehabilitating the church.

So in the end, yeah, hyperfocussing on racial allegory over actual depictions of racism centering people of color can be problematic, they often have messed up implications and require just accepting the premise and alot of people are really into imagining themselves to be both the superior elite but also the underdog.

[fantasyfantasygames]

Several Donated Games

I recently had the good fortune to meet Lily Vers at ProseAndCon, a semi-yearly interactive fiction convention in the backwoods of Maine. I mentioned that I write reviews, the next thing I know she hands me a pile of books and offers to buy me a drink if I promise to never give them back. I think she just wanted them out of the house because she's moving. They're not that bad. Well, most of them.

These are short games (well, most of them), so here are some short reviews!

Edge: Blades in the Kill (Hurtful Press, 2021) Long-time followers of the blog will remember HellBlaster and whether I wasn't really sure whether the game was in on its own joke. E:BitK is absolutely in on the joke. The game's aesthetic is part emo, part Hannibal fanfic, part Black Adder. You are a group of serial killer assassins murdering for fun and profit, then getting stiffed on the profit part by your clueless employers who seem not to realize what's going to happen after they stiff a bunch of murderers. Cool stuff: Manages to boil down systems stolen from Blades in the Dark and Kill Edge to their very essence, accomplishing 90% of what they do in 20% of the combined space.

D.E.S.P.O.N.D.E.N.C.Y., A Friendship-Ending Role-Playing Experience (Delta Elf, 2020) Have you ever played Diplomacy? This is Diplomacy in RPG form. One-player RPG form, thankfully. You write the stories of a group of (initially) friends playing a diceless RPG that slowly escalates into a series of alliances and betrayals that eventually leave the entire group and hostile. It reminds me of an Amber game I ran once where people got a little too into the intrigue and backstabbing. Cool stuff: The prompts really get you into the heads of all the characters you make. All your decisions on their part have to come from part of the short backstories you write for them.

Unexamined Fantasy Racism (anonymous, 2018) Hoo boy this one sets you up right from the title and doesn't let up. The book is a 64-page clone of OD&D that provides an absolutely scathing commentary on exactly what the tin says. Anyone who goes on to play a standard D&D (or related) game after playing or reading this one is going to feel real uncomfortable, and for good reasons. I don't think the game is going to get much play, but it's designed more for reading. (See "queerweird" below for another "you might never actually play it" game.) Cool stuff: Never becomes its own target. It's easy to write something like UFR and fall into the "actually doing what you're trying to satirize" trap. UFR instead sets up extremely standard FRPG situations and then slams you right into the exact problem with them.

Hackerface 1999: Don't Roll A Hacker (Crack the Hacker, 2000) I'm not sure who the audience for Hackerface is. It's a parody of Cyberpunk 2020 with references to 1990s floppy game hacking, so you would normally be able to perfectly zero in on the target audience. The game does not treat that audience with any sort of love, affection, or respect, so you come away either not getting a lot of what it's trying to say or feeling uncomfortable. And not a productive UFR-type uncomfortable, just the kind of uncomfortable you get from bullies. Even the hacking rules aren't worth stealing. The book reads like it was written by the kind of person who stuffs nerds into lockers, and how in the hell does that person end up writing RPGs? Cool stuff: The art is pretty great, especially for an indie game in the year 2000. It's done in an extremely stylized approach, with plenty of black ink, chiaroscuro, and anatomy that looks like it belongs on an actual human.

This turned into a longer post than I thought, so I'm going to split it in half. Tune in next time.

[rathologic]

glad I had a little more time to parse this one in text, but the idea I was getting at with being uncomfortable at The Background Racism being completely unchanging in patho2 is that I think it presents an idea that that racism is an unavoidable fact and there's no way for the townsfolk to do better. which is in line with the story P2 wants to tell about the Town and Kin being incompatible, but is such a deeply worrying idea in the world of real social issues... like much like here it's a belief systemically and socially embedded in the Town and one vital to the exploitation of the Kin, but the game doesn't acknowledge potential decolonial or anti-racist actions outside of the character writing of Artemy possibly dealing with his alienation from his heritage, especially b/c its final choice is also fully on the haruspex. nobody else in the game has to or is even asked to put in work (for the millionth time, in the game where side characters don't do anything concrete); the entire social slate gets wiped clean by the Special Guy and suddenly the historical tension of the settlement isn't a problem anymore. while, and because, it's presented as its immodifiable fact in the course of the game. the way that artemy always has the internal option to choose how he feels about the Kin, but not the options to tell someone else that their feelings about the Kin are wrong, is something I think a more cognizant game could have used as a statement (in connection to how racism affects real-world people of color; by all means this shouldn't be artemy's responsibility! the microaggressions do reflect, as others have discussed, life in a racist society. talking about their use as a device of constant emphasis for the "incompatible parts" idea here) but in patho2 unaddressed it becomes the same "side characters don't do anything" that afflicts every area of its writing... and while there are plenty of other things for characters to be worried about during pathologic, it's still an ideological stance to assert that decolonization is unimportant during a crisis situation (where, again, it's a major plot point that the plague hits the Kin hardest due to the Olgimskys' organization of the Termitary and social/economic control over its workers), one that is absolutely used IRL to hinder any movement towards change. basically any character development would have helped avoid this. 😐

[delusion-of-negation]

You don't need to respond if you don't wanna, or if you think this is too personal, since I'm just looking for varied opinions. As another disabled person, I've seen an uptick in people claiming ableist behaviour, and talking points are rooted in racism and white supremacy/anti-Poc mentality. Some claiming ableism is a direct result of other issues. Some mutuals have also claimed disability is NEVER its own issue. I'd like to know if sentiment is more isolated, or has become more common. Thanks.

people have their own bugbears - some people want the system ultimately to boil down to one The Man, be he capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, or something else, maybe not as the one simple sole reason, but as the core, as the worst, as the rot that could free us of other rot if purged. ableism is a spanner in every single one of those theories - right down to "bigotry is hating an individual for how they were born" types of sentiment. however, ableism is a severe systemic issue that isn't just capitalism, and definitely isn't just patriarchy or white supremacy. japan's heavy culture of work is ableist, for example. the people claiming every issue is just rooted in their bugbear don't understand how these things work, they don't understand intersectionality, and they're usually pretty new activists who are throwing themselves into a specific issue and connecting dots that don't connect, because they're hyperfixating on their new calling in life, it's something a person needs to grow past if they want to actually help however. because if you don't, you're simply another manifestation of the blindspot society has to our problems, another person saying at best that we don't know what's best for us and at worst that our problems don't exist. I've seen people claim that activism for the issues faced by disabled people is detracting from real issues, it would be racist/sexist/capitalist to not center their bugbear. the problem is that the whole point of intersectionality is to explain interlocking webs of systems, and no one person is equipped to comprehend and contend with the entire web, we do need to be able to have our own bugbears, one issue we can focus on and a different person can be trusted to focus on another, or else we'll overwork ourselves to the point of uselessness. the problem I'm pointing at isn't someone caring more about poc issues than an increase in the cost of living without disability benefits similarly increasing, the problem is people who say that you can't do that around disability issues, that you're actually wrong and it's all an obvious distraction from them, that you have to say "of course x group would be more affected..." whenever you mention the way you're unable to afford food, and I've even seen people say such things to people they didn't know were of x group. the system is multifaceted but we're individuals, so we need to work together apart, we need to work apart together. so yes, I've seen this shit, however it's not more common, it's more visible - when I was an activist in my teens irl, when I was still well enough to protest, it wasn't uncommon to meet young people like myself with those bugbears, heck sometimes older people who had got so fixated saying "have you considered homophobia isn't just capitalism?" literally set them on a rant, and from what I know from activists older than me who I'd talk to, things were like that forever. what manifestation you see of it online is the vocal people who make contentious or incorrect statements being blasted out by shitty algorithms that prey on outrage. it's not an isolated problem, it's definitely one activists have noticed forever, but the way it goes absolutely viral every time and the confirmation bias and closed subcultures formed by people who reinforce obsession with the bugbear of their choosing, that's definitely new and problematic because it's massively hindering the ability to work side by side. mutuals of yours are likely uncritically reblogging posts because nobody wants to be the person who adds "maybe the black guy saying this is just racism is wrong" if someone says ableism isn't actually real and is just white supremacy, with far more words to obfuscate that and confuse what it's saying, especially when it's going to result in a dogpile, and people saying you just don't get what's really being said, emperor's new clothes style. nobody is comfortable telling the emperor he's simply a naked ableist tbf.

[eye-in-hand]

I'm gonna be real, people from Australia, New Zealand and Canada have a real problem of bitching about a country they've never lived in as if theirs is any better.

No one here cares about an Australian's opinion of our system or who we should vote for. We're all well aware of the problems and how much work there is to do here, and contrary to other child nations of England's opinion we are working on it. We're aware that because of American Imperialism our elections have shock waves around the world, and most Americans aren't dumb shits that don't care how elections turn out. You sitting in Australia worrying about American Jews voting for Harris because everything will be 100% worse if a fascist wins, does nothing for the Jews in Australia who have it just as bad. Worry about the Jews in Australia. American Jews can decide for ourselves what's best for us here.

No one "has to say this". We already know our country is quickly descending into absolute madness. But patronizingly going on about how much better Australia is because at least you're not AmEriCA adds nothing productive, nor is it really your business lmfao like if you don't care why'd you sit there and write this condescending shit.

Something I talk a lot about with an Australian friend of mine: Australia LOOOVES to use America as a scape goat to avoid its own issues. "Well sure we have racism but at least we're not America" is a good example of that. As if America and Australia don't have similar roots in English Imperialism. As if your system is great lmfao.

Worry about Australia. This bullshit arguing about who's country is better and America is just such a shithole - you don't live here. It hardly affects you. And to compare Harris to Trump like she's anything NEAR as racist, fascist, and perverted as he is, IS ignorant.

Tim Walz has no affect on you. American LGBT don't give a shit how an Australian feels about our candidates. There's never going to be a perfect one, and while you might think you're helping, all this adds to the conversation is more excuses not to vote to make sure Trump doesn't turn America into the next wave of Fascism.

You don't know shit about the "American consciousness." You don't know how Americans feel about our government or our history or how it affects us every day. You don't see the hard work people do here every day with no credit online to try and do what's right. Australians can't say shit about American society. Focus on Australian rights and treatment of non-white Australians. Especially aboriginal Australians. Before you go on about how "your system isn't perfect but at least it's not America's." You don't know why things are how they are here, stop pretending you're some foreign righteous savior of American culture who just sees so clearly the issues we have here and if we'd just shut up and listen to Australia we'd be sooo much better lmfao. And your patronizing opinion does nothing but make you feel self righteous for 5 minutes on the internet. No one asked.

You can have opinions all you want on America. But they are all self serving unless you live here. Worry about your shithole country. We can handle ours ourselves.

America

Now, this is a post which will undoubtedly piss so many people off (not that my other posts haven't)

I'm Australian, our democracy isn't perfect, our laws surrounding donations and lobbying are terrible. But we have a system of compulsory voting, and participation in Democracy is always encouraged, if not sometimes forced. This has debatably created an environment based more off of pluralism and tolerance for opposing other peoples views, and also a culture of preventing polarisation. Australia, despite its issues, is at least stable, and a fully functioning Liberal Democracy.

The same cannot be said for America. Put it bluntly, the United States is fucked. Whoever gets in next election, regardless of who does, will have so much work to do. I know I'm an outsider, I'm not American, I don't know that much about American domestic policy apart from all the news I have received from American 'outlets'. But I feel that an outsiders opinion in such a country as the USA could really be beneficial.

Now for the part that will piss many people off (considering Tumblr is a VERY politically biased place). I don't care who anyone in America votes for, Both candidates are awful.

Call me ignorant, call me apathetic (because I kind of am in this case), I don't care. I don't like Trump, he's an idiot, he is a misogynist, he had terrible policies surrounding much of American domestic policy, he was always loud and obnoxious etc. But Harris IS NOT ANY BETTER. The Democratic party is funded by the rich as much as the republicans, Biden's foreign policy has been absolutely awful, the Democrats have done next to nothing to help the country through these times, and Harris has voiced support for protestors who not only want dead Jews, but SYMPATHISE WITH THE TERRORISTS WHO COMMITTED 9/11. Not to mention that the Democratic party has the support of the worlds blandest and most soulless celebrities who brainwash American society.

I understand that the democrats have better domestic policies on abortion, women's rights, the LGBT community, healthcare, some personal liberties etc. I understand Tim Waltz has done great things to his state. But I really don't care. (I say that as a Gay man and someone who strongly believes in women's rights)

Many of you will be pissed off that I just insulted the woman much of Tumblr is kissing the feet of and worshipping, others that I didn't condemn her enough, others that I played the 'both sides are shit' game, but I don't care.

I despise both candidates. None of them should be running. Someone actually worthy of running the worlds superpower should be president.

To the American's reading, if you're offended, good. It just shows how politics has completely blinded the American consciousness, and for that you have no-one to blame but yourselves. You all have some extremely serious work to do, otherwise the rest of the world will continue to laugh at you.

I know it isn't my place to be talking about America in the way I am, I have lost friends because of my comments on America, but someone has to say this.

Politics is the dirtiest game one can play, so play it well, because like war, politics has no winners or losers, only victims and perpetrators.

[anarmorofwords]

Hi! You're probably not going to like this ask, but before getting into it I'd just like to say that this isn't meant as Kamala hate or anything, and I don't really want to offend.

Having said that, wouldn't it make sense that we get to see how Kamala treated Anna after she came out? It's in all likelihood one of the things that's weighing on Anna the most.

Obviously Kamala had her valid reasons: her parents aren't as liberal as the Lightwoods, she believes (knows?) their love is conditional as she's adopted, she's not white and not being heterosexual could further any treatment she's suffered from being different... Her reasons have already been listed multiple times by multiple people. Kamala has the right to stay in the closet and fear coming out. And while that shouldn't be villianised, we can't forget that closeted people can harm those around them.

If Kamala had kept treating Anna like a good friend, rumour would've sparked, and even if it was denied, she'd have been harmed by merely associating with Anna. Especially with the life Anna began leading; she could have been labelled as one of Anna's 'conquests' by the Clave. That, as we've established, is detrimental for her safety.

But at the same time, it would create a breach between Anna and Kamala. And Anna had the right to be hurt by it and weary of it when Kamala said she wanted a relationship.

If we look at it from that perspective, Anna's actions (though inexcusable in how they treated Kamala --who was also at fault for not accepting a negative for four months) make sense. Kamala wasn't only a fling of a week*, but also the girl she lost her virginity with, who asked her to be her secret (until she married Charles, after which Anna's affections would be discarded), who hid her sexuality for two years and sat back while Anna suffered from homophobic commentary, and who now wants a relationship hidden from most of the people that know her.

Kamala shouldn't be forced to come out; but the harm that can do to the women she may engage with is reflective of what happens nowadays. I can mostly think of examples with gay men, so my apologies in advance. But how many women have seen their marriages ruined by their husband having affairs with men?

Creating characters that reflect a toxic part of the 'hidden' LGBT community shouldn't be seen as hating or villinifying. Thomas isn't out and he isn't labelled a villain by the narrative --because his actions don't harm anyone. The hate Alastair gets in-universe is because of his past as a bully, not because he's gay. Matthew's not fully out and he isn't villianised --like Thomas, because the decisions he makes to keep his sexuality hidden don't impact anyone negatively.

I'll even go as far as saying that not even the narrative villianises characters like Kamala and Charles. If it were, they'd be seen more like Grace in Chain of Gold. We'd see how Kamala's actions are affecting Anna's in more ways than anger (that in itself put the fandom against Anna), and the characters would note so. We wouldn't see scenes were Cordelia empathised with Charles, nor Matthew said he loved him.

Be it as it may, Kamala and Charles represent ugly parts of being closeted that can naturally occur when someone is in their position. LGBT people are human. Humans, when put into very difficult situations (and Charles risks his career; Kamala her safety), can make decisions that harm those around them. Consequently, the people they're harming have a right to feel, well, harmed in whatever range of ways --this goes mostly for Alastair, and very partly for Anna, whose treatment of Kamala was horrible.

Readers need to understand what is pushing these 'villianised' characters to harm (again, mostly for Alastair) the more prominent characters and go beyond how they are instantly depicted. Because these are complex characters based on complex real people influenced by very ugly realities we will move on from someday, but sadly not yet.

By the way, Charles and Kamala's situations aren't that similar beyond the closeted thing, but I crammed them together because of a post I saw you reblog.

Please understand I'm not justifying Charles's actions; that I understand the pain he's put Alastair through, and know that he shouldn't ever be near Alastair. Nor am I trying to justify Anna's actions nor hate on Kamala.

I'll just finish my pointless rant by adding that I do think cc has sensitivity readers. I think she asked a gay man to go through tec (I don't know if he still revised her other books, though), and know she asked POC's input when writing someone for their culture. I don't know much beyond that, but I doubt who revises her stuff is up to her. Wouldn't that be something the publisher is responsible for (honest question)?

*I've also noticed people using the argument that they didn't know each other long enough for Anna to harbour such ugly emotions towards Kamala, but Kamala also remembered Anna pretty deeply and is 'in love' with her. I just wanted to say that considering cc writes (fantastical) romance where someone can ask a woman they met two months ago marriage, stressing over time spaces doesn't make much sense. Just my take.

hi!!

alright, where do I start? probably would be best with stating that while I can analyse Kamala's situation with what I know/see/read about racism and discrimination and reasonably apply things I've read/heard from PoC to the discussion, as well as try to be as sensitive about it as possible, I'm still a white woman, so not a person that's best qualified to talk about this.

that being said - if someone wants to add something to this conversation, you're obviously more than welcome to, and if there's something in my answer that you don't agree with or find in some way insensitive or offensive - please don't hesitate to call me out on that.

back to your points though: (this turned into a whole ass essay, so under the cut)

I don't think Anna shouldn't be able to reminiscent on Kamala's behaviour/reaction to her coming out, or be hurt by it. what bothers me is the way CC talks about it - I can't remember the exact phrasing, but the post where she mentioned this suggested something along the lines of "you'll see how Kamala sided with the Clave and didn't defend Anna after her coming out", therefore putting the blame on Kamala and completely disregarding the fact that Kamala wasn't in position to do much at all. It suggest that their situation was "poor Anna being mistreated by Kamala". therefore I'm afraid Kamanna's main problem/conflict will remain to be portrayed as "Anna having to allow themselves to love again and forgive Kamala", while Anna's shortcomings - and Kamala's vulnerable position - are never discussed. I think it would be possible to acknowledge both Kamala's difficult situation and the possible hurt her behaviour caused Anna without being insensitive towards Kamala's character, but it would take a really skilled - and caring - author to do both of the perspectives justice. CC would have to find a balance between being aware of the racism/prejudice Kamala faced/ writing her with lots of awareness and empathy, and still allowing her to make mistakes and acknowledging them. As it is however, I'm under impression that she's just treating it as a plot device, a relationship drama.

I'd say no one expects characters of color to be written as flawless or never making mistakes, it's mostly the way these mistakes are written and what things these characters are judged/shamed/

And that's - at least in my understanding and opinion - where the problem is. it's that the narrative never even addresses Anna's faults, and portrays Kamala as the one that caused all - or most of - the pain, without ever even acknowledging her problems and background.

White characters in TLH make mistakes and fuck up - because they're human and they're absolutely allowed to - but the thing is, non-white characters aren't afforded that privilege. Anna's behaviour is never questioned - none of it, shaming Kamala for not being able to come out, dismissing her desire to be a mother, or any of the questionable things she did in ChoI. Same with Matthew, James, Thomas. Alastair and Kamala however? they're constantly viewed through their past mistakes, and forced to apologize for them over and over, forced to almost beg for forgiveness. Moreover, those past mistakes are used as a justification of all and any shitty behaviour the other characters exhibit towards them now, which is simply unfair and cruel. They're held to a much higher standard.

So I'd like to say that yes, Kamala was in the wrong to keep nagging Anna after numerous rejections, and she was in the wrong to not inform Anna about Charles prior to them having sex - but that doesn't give Anna a free pass to constantly mistreat Kamala. And let's be real, Anna isn't stupid - while at 17 she could be naive and uninformed, I can't imagine how after years of hanging out with the Downworlders and numerous affairs and being out and judged by the Clave she's still so ignorant about Kamala's situation. I definitely think she's allowed to be hurt, but to still not understand why Kamala did what she did? Anna isn't blaming her for not telling her about Charles earlier - which would be fair - but instead for refusing to engage in an outright romance with her. She's being ignorant - and consciously so, I think.

Overall, I think you're definitely right about how coming out - or staying closeted - can be messy and hurt people in the process, especially in unaccepting environments/time periods, and I've seen enough discourse online to know there will never be a verdict/stance on this that will satisfy everyone. I, for one, would really like to refrain from putting all the blame on a single person - but, at least the way I see it, CC is pointing fingers. maybe not directly, but she is. Kamala, Alastair and Charles have no friends or support systems, and the only people in the narrative that defend them are themselves (ok, Cordelia does defend Alastair from Charles, but not from shitty takes about him and his "sins"). Also, sorry, but I don't like how you say "hid her sexuality for two years and sat back while Anna experienced homophobic comments" - it sounds very much judgemental. Kamala had every right to do that? The fact that she slept with Anna doesn't means she owed her something, and certainly not coming out and most probably destroying her life, or even defending her at the - again - expense of her own reputation, or more possibly safety.

As for Charles - it's a different issue here, at least imo - I fear that it'll be implied that his refusing to come out will is his main "sin", and therefore not something he can be judged for, which ironically, will be villainizing, but mostly will mean his actual sins are dismissed. This is where the scene with Cordelia feeling a pang of sympathy for him comes into play, and it worries me. I've never hated Charles for not wanting to come out, but rather for, let's see - grooming Alastair, disregarding Alastair's needs and feelings, disrespecting his mother, being a sexist prick, being low-key far-right coded "make Shadowhunters great again" etc.

As for sensitivity readers - I'm no expert, so I don't think my input is worth much. From what I've gathered from multiple threads/discussions on twitter, tho it is probably consulted/approved by the publisher, many authors push for that - and authors less famous and "powerful" than her. I'm not a hater, but seeing fandoms' opinions on much of her rep, I think she could do better. Because if she does have sensitivity readers, then they don't seem to be doing a great job - maybe they're friends who don't wanna hurt her feelings? Or maybe she thinks a gay guy's feedback will be enough for any queer content - which, judging by the opinions I've seen from the fans, doesn't seem to be true.

Again, these are mostly my thoughts and I'm more than open to reading other opinions, because *sigh* I really don't know how to handle this.

Bottom line - I really really don't want to be hating on the characters in general, playing God in regards to judging the struggles of minorities, or even criticising the characters too harshly for being human, flawed etc. What my main issue is is how CC handles those complex and heavy topics.

I hope I make sense and this answer satisfies you somehow - I also hope someone better equipped to answer might wanna join this conversation.

* I desperately need a reread of TLH before I engage in any more conversations like this, but I didn't wanna leave you hanging. So yeah, I might be remembering things wrong. Again, let me know, I'm very much open to being corrected as well as to further discussion.

* I use she/her pronouns for Anna because that's what she uses in canon

[jeannereames]

Hi, Dr. Reames! I just read your take on Song of Achilles and it got me thinking. Do you think there might be a general issue with the way women are written in mlm stories in general? Because I don't think it's the first time I've seen something like this happen.

And my next question is, could you delve further into this thing you mention about modern female authors writing women? How could we, beginner female writers, avoid falling into this awful representations of women in our writing?

Thank you for your time!

[It took a while to finish this because I wrote, re-wrote, and re-wrote it. Still not sure I like it, but I need to let it go. It could be 3xs as long.]

I’ll begin with the second half of the question, because it’s simpler. How do we, as women authors, avoid writing women in misogynistic ways?

Let me reframe that as how can we, as female authors, write negative (even quite nasty) female characters without falling into misogynistic tropes? Also, how can we write unsympathetic, but not necessarily “bad” female characters, without it turning misogynistic?

Because people are people, not genders, not all women are good, nor all men bad. Most of us are a mix. If we should avoid assuming powerful women are all bitches, by the same token, some women are bitches (powerful or not).

ALL good characterization comes down to MOTIVE. And careful characterization of minority characters involves fair REPRESENTATION. (Yes, women are a minority even if we’re 51% of the population.)

The question ANY author must ask: why am I making this female character a bitch? How does this characterization serve the larger plot and/or characterization? WHY is she acting this way?

Keep characters complex, even the “bad guys.” Should we choose to make a minority character a “bad guy,” we need to have a counter example—a real counter, not just a token who pops in briefly, then disappears. Yeah, maybe in an ideal world we could just let our characters “be,” but this isn’t an ideal world. Authors do have an audience. I’m a lot less inclined to assume stereotyping when we have various minority characters with different characterizations.

By the same token, however, don’t throw a novel against the wall if the first minority character is negative. Read further to decide if it’s a pattern. I’ve encountered reviews that slammed an author for stereotyping without the reader having finished the book. I’m thinking, “Uh…if you’d read fifty more pages….” Novels have a developmental arc. And if you’ve got a series, that, too, has a developmental arc. One can’t reach a conclusion about an author’s ultimate presentation/themes until having finished the book, or series.*

Returning to the first question, the appearance of misogyny depends not only on the author, but also on when she wrote, even why she’s writing. Authors who are concerned with matters such as theme and message are far more likely to think about such things than those who write for their own entertainment and that of others, which is more typical of Romance.

On average, Romance writers are a professionalized bunch. They have national and regional chapters of the Romance Writers of America (RWA), newsletters and workshops that discuss such matters as building plot tension, character dilemmas, show don’t tell, research tactics, etc. Yet until somewhat recently (early/mid 2010s), and a series of crises across several genres (not just Romance), treatment of minority groups hadn’t been in their cross-hairs. Now it is, with Romance publishers (and publishing houses more generally) picking up “sensitivity readers” in addition to the other editors who look at a book before its publication.

Yet sensitivity readers are hired to be sure lines like “chocolate love monkey” do not show up in a published novel. Yes, that really was used as an endearment for a black man in an M/M Romance, which (deservedly) got not just the author but the publishing house in all sorts of hot water. Yet misogyny, especially more subtle misogyny in the way of tropes, is rarely on the radar.

I should add that I wouldn’t categorize The Song of Achilles as an M/M historical Romance. In fact, I’m not sure what to call novels about myths, as myths don’t exist in actual historical periods. When should we set a novel about the Iliad? The Bronze Age, when Homer said it happened, or the Greek Dark Age, which is the culture Homer actually described? They’re pretty damn different. I’d probably call The Song of Achilles an historical fantasy, especially as mythical creatures are presented as real, like centaurs and god/desses.

Back to M/M Romance: I don’t have specific publishing stats, but it should surprise no one that (like most of the Romance genre), the vast bulk of authors of M/M Romance are women, often straight and/or bi- women. The running joke seems to be, If one hot man is good, two hot men together are better. 😉 Yes, there are also trans, non-binary and lesbian authors of M/M Romance, and of course, bi- and gay men who may write under their own name or a female pseudonym, but my understanding is that straight and bi- cis-women authors outnumber all of them.

Just being a woman, or even a person in a female body, does not protect that author from misogyny. And if she’s writing for fun, she may not be thinking a lot about what her story has to “say” in its subtext and motifs, even if she may be thinking quite hard about other aspects of story construction. This can be true of other genres as well (like historical fantasy).

What I have observed for at least some women authors is the unconscious adoption of popular tropes about women. Just as racism is systemic, so is sexism. We swim in it daily, and if one isn’t consciously considering how it affects us, we can buy into it by repeating negative ideas and acting in prescribed ways because that’s what we learned growing up. If writing in a symbol-heavy genre such as mythic-driven fantasy, it can be easy to let things slip by—even if they didn’t appear in the original myth, such as making Thetis hostile to Patroklos, the classic Bitchy Mother-in-Law archetype.

I see this sort of thing as “accidental” misogyny. Women authors repeat unkind tropes without really thinking them through because it fits their romantic vision. They may resent it and get defensive if the trope is pointed out. “Don’t harsh my squee!” We can dissect why these tropes persist, and to what degree they change across generations—but that would end up as a (probably controversial) book, not a blog entry. 😊

Yet there’s also subconscious defensive misogyny, and even conscious/semi-conscious misogyny.

Much debate/discussion has ensued regarding “Queen Bee Syndrome” in the workplace and whether it’s even a thing. I think it is, but not just for bosses. I also would argue that it’s more prevalent among certain age-groups, social demographics, and professions, which complicates recognizing it.

What is Queen Bee Syndrome? Broadly, when women get ahead at the expense of their female colleagues who they perceive as rivals, particularly in male-dominated fields, hinging on the notion that There Can Be Only One (woman). It arises from systemic sexism.

Yes, someone can be a Queen Bee even with one (or two) women buddies, or while claiming to be a feminist, supporting feminist causes, or writing feminist literature. I’ve met a few. What comes out of our mouths doesn’t necessarily jive with how we behave. And ticking all the boxes isn’t necessary if you’re ticking most of them. That said, being ambitious, or just an unpleasant boss/colleague—if its equal opportunity—does not a Queen Bee make. There must be gender unequal behavior involved.

What does any of that have to do with M/M fiction?

The author sees the women characters in her novel as rivals for the male protagonists. It gets worse if the women characters have some “ownership” of the men: mothers, sisters, former girlfriends/wives/lovers. I know that may sound a bit batty. You’re thinking, Um, aren’t these characters gay or at least bi- and involved with another man, plus—they’re fictional? Doesn’t matter. Call it fantasizing, authorial displacement, or gender-flipped authorial insert. We authors (and I include myself in this) can get rather territorial about our characters. We live in their heads and they live in ours for months on end, or in many cases, years. They’re real to us. Those who aren't authors often don’t quite get that aspect of being an author. So yes, sometimes a woman author acts like a Queen Bee to her women characters. This is hardly all, or even most, but it is one cause of creeping misogyny in M/M Romance.

Let’s turn to a related problem: women who want to be honorary men. While I view this as much more pronounced in prior generations, it’s by no means disappeared. Again, it’s a function of systemic sexism, but further along the misogyny line than Queen Bees. Most Queen Bees I’ve known act/react defensively, and many are (imo) emotionally insecure. It’s largely subconscious. More, they want to be THE woman, not an honorary man.

By contrast, women who want to be honorary men seem to be at least semi-conscious of their misogyny, even if they resist calling it that. These are women who, for the most part, dislike other women, regard most of “womankind” as either a problem or worthless, and think of themselves as having risen above their gender.

And NO, this is not necessarily religious—sometimes its specifically a-religious.

“I want to be an honorary man” women absolutely should NOT be conflated with butch lesbians, gender non-conformists, or frustrated FTMs. That plays right into myths the queer community has combated for decades. There’s a big difference between expressing one’s yang or being a trans man, and a desire to escape one’s womanhood or the company of other women. “Honorary men” women aren’t necessarily queer. I want to underscore that because the concrete example I’m about to give does happen to be queer.

I’ve talked before about Mary Renault’s problematic portrayal of women in her Greek novels (albeit her earlier hospital romances don’t show it as much). Her own recorded comments make it clear that she and her partner Julie Mullard didn’t want to be associated with other lesbians, or with women much at all. She was also born in 1905, living at a time when non-conforming women struggled. If extremely active in anti-apartheid movements in South Africa, Renault and Mullard were far less enthused by the Gay Rights Movement. Renault even criticized it, although she wrote back kindly to her gay fans.

The women in Renault’s Greek novels tend to be either bitches or helpless, reflecting popular male perceptions of women: both in ancient Greece and Renault’s own day. If we might argue she’s just being realistic, that ignores the fact one can write powerful women in historical novels and still keep it attitudinally accurate. June Rachuy Brindel, born in 1919, author of Ariadne and Phaedra, didn’t have the same problem, nor did Martha Rofheart, born in 1917, with My Name is Sappho. Brindel’s Ariadne is much more sympathetic than Renault’s (in The King Must Die).

Renault typically elevates (and identifies with) the “rational” male versus the “irrational” female. This isn’t just presenting how the Greeks viewed women; it reflects who she makes the heroes and villains in her books. Overall, “good” women are the compliant ones, and the compliant women are tertiary characters.

Women in earlier eras who were exceptional had to fight multiple layers of systemic misogyny. Some did feel they had to become honorary men in order to be taken seriously. I’d submit Renault bought into that, and it (unfortunately) shows in her fiction, as much as I admire other aspects of her novels.

So I think those are the three chief reasons we see women negatively portrayed in M/M Romance (or fiction more generally), despite being written by women authors.

------------------------------------

*Yeah, yeah, sometimes it’s such 2D, shallow, stereotypical presentation that I, as a reader, can conclude this author isn’t going to get any better. Also, the publication date might give me a clue. If I’m reading something published 50 years ago, casual misogyny or racism is probably not a surprise. If I don’t feel like dealing with that, I close the book and put it away.

But I do try to give the author a chance. I may skim ahead to see if things change, or at least suggest some sort of character development. This is even more the case with a series. Some series take a loooong view, and characters alter across several novels. Our instant-gratification world has made us impatient. Although by the same token, if one has to deal with racism or sexism constantly in the real world, one may not want to have to watch it unfold in a novel—even if it’s “fixed” later. If that’s you, put the book down and walk away. But I’d just suggest not writing a scathing review of a novel (or series) you haven’t finished. 😉

[qqueenofhades]

Do you think the technology/internet/broad access revolution we are in will change things for POC, queer people, racism, etc?

I think it's obvious that it already has? If you're asking whether technology/social media will change things re: marginalised people for the better, the jury is still out, and we're at a critical tipping point (both in America, but also worldwide) as to whether empirical reality, critical nuance, and acceptance of facts that don't fit your preferred worldview are going to have any continuing relevance to our political and social systems whatsoever. The internet has done a lot of good things, but the instant social media became a place where a) competing ideological narratives and outright fake news were all treated as equally valid, as long as it drove traffic and made money, and b) the owners of these platforms absolved their duty to control them with a shrug of "free speech," we were destined to go down this path, where we all inhabit custom-made information universes where we only ever interact with like-minded people, any critique becomes a sign of insufficient loyalty to The Cause, and collective civic responsibility no longer exists, but is instead replaced by downright sociopathic ultra-libertarian selfishness packaged as "individual freedom." (Just witness how some people have behaved during Covid, refusing even the slightest restrictions, even if making sacrifices would help save other, less fortunate people.) Not to sound like a grumpy old woman, but I think the impact on the real world was truly devastating and, in the short term at least, genuinely irreparable.

The internet has done us the service of connecting and empowering marginalised people who would never have met each other otherwise, providing the entirety of human knowledge at the touch of a button, raising visibility, and so forth. However, we are at an absolute crisis point of whether we're going to let people behave, act, legislate (and try to legislate for others) according to their preferred Facebook feed-version of reality, because see again: the monetization of information, no matter what kind of information, was always going to lead to this. We are just now realizing the devastating consequences of large segments of society walking around in their own personal universes and simply rejecting tenets of empirical reality that do not conform to their own ideology. The problem is, when a lot of people (on both the extreme right and the extreme left) live in lulu-land because of what they consume online, it inevitably affects everyone else. Social media makes it incredibly and poisonously easy to enter an entire information ecosystem that reinforces itself, therefore self-justifying itself in an entire universe of total bullshit, and once people get into that echo chamber, it is very hard (albeit not impossible) to get out.

So, you say. This all sounds awfully pessimistic. What would I do about it? Well, this is the part where I have to say that while I have ideas, and they're things I try to do for myself, it's not anything I can pull off alone. I have talked at length about how the humanities (and their attendant critical thinking skills) have been repeatedly, deliberately, and extensively devalued in late capitalism, precisely because they a) don't generate Production For The Machine and b) encourage people to ask awkward questions about power and control. As long as people aren't explicitly taught how to push back on this stuff, or aren't able to reject something -- even if it fits with their Ideology -- because it isn't true, we're going to be stuck in this mess. I'm not optimistic that legislative efforts against Big Tech will have any effect. I'm glad that at least we saw, however completely terrible it was/is, the stark result of alternate-universe grievance politics on January 6, and in the conservative media loudmouths dogpiling on the Covid vaccine as an attempted way to hurt those liberal sissies who believe in science. It's no coincidence that the states with the lowest vaccination rates are deep-red Trump-supporting southern states. It's only now, as the pandemic resurges in those exact places, that (once more out of expediency) the conservative "news" is finally, tepidly endorsing the idea that huh, maybe you should get vaccinated.

Anyway. The relentless monetization of social media at the expense of any kind of moderation for hate speech, the encouragement that you can post anything you want and never face any consequences Because Free Speech, and the way that we have all seen the vast and horrifically ugly prejudices that the social media universe has both exposed and cultivated anew... it's all pretty much a giant shitburger, if you ask me. I don't know how to quickly fix it. It's way too easy to exist in a bubble, to horrifically bully strangers you will never meet, and to have real and terribly detrimental consequences on our offline lives as a result. The internet obviously isn't going away, but if we don't seriously grapple with the kind of anti-citizens it's made us, I'm not sure what's going to happen, or if it's anything we should want.

I would like to think that we will slowly learn to use this awesome power more responsibly, and reverse some of the incredible damage that has been done, but if that does happen, it'll come when we've already hit rock bottom. Again, it has done good things: the worldwide protests after George Floyd's death, for example, would have been completely impossible without modern technology, in any number of ways. But if it's going to be a concrete social good for all of us, let alone the most vulnerable among us, we have so very far to go, and the global systems in place have absolutely no interest in enabling a reversal of the current trends. So. We will see, but I'm not too hopeful.

[nocturna-iv]

001: descendants, 002: Bumarry, 003: Ben for the ask game please ❤️

Hi luv!

About this ask:

And of course!

001: Descendants

Favorite character: Uma

Least Favorite character: Mal

5 Favorite ships (canon or non-canon):

Harry Hook x Uma

Ben x Uma

Harriet Hook x Ginny Gothel 

Jay x Lonnie

Jay x Uma

5 Favorite polyships (canon or non-canon):

Ben x Harry Hook x Uma (Ben x Gil x Harry Hook x Uma)

Audrey x Harry Hook x Gil x Uma (Audrey x Ben x Harry Hook x Gil x Uma)

Carlos de Vil x Jay x Lonnie

Chad x Jay x Gil x Harry Hook 

Gil x Harry Hook x Jay x Uma

Character I find most attractive: Harry Hook

Character I would marry: Ben, Harry, Lonnie & Uma

Character I would be best friends with: Ben, Carlos, Jane & Jay

A random thought: Because it’s Disney, Descendants doesn’t touch on prostitution, human trafficking, and violent sexuality and at a very early age that the VK had to live, as happens in the real world in invasions, guerrillas (child soldiers), street children or centers penitentiaries not properly regulated (such as the Isle of the Lost, a prison without guards and any law). But I don’t touch on the subject because it’s something very real and strong to expose it like that with the fandom but due to my profession and work, it’s something that my brain always remembers. Also, I don't like it when people treat these topics just for shock value.

An unpopular opinion: It's visibly awkward that ships and popular characters are mostly white. And I mean in the content of the fandom. Although we talk about the racism that exists in the canon, very few people seek to balance the numbers with new contributions  (whether with content with canon characters, OCs, or y/n). I don't know if it makes sense. But it seems that it is easy to talk about racism but not do something actively to include BIPOC characters (This is why I get excited when I find people drawing Audrey, Jay, Evie, Uma, and others without lightening their skin tone or writing fics with BIPOC y/n or creating things with the BIPOC canon characters as their main characters)

My canon OTP: Harry Hook x Uma

Non-canon OTP: Jay x Lonnie

Most badass character: Uma

Pairing I am not a fan of: Any ship with Mal. Especially Mal canon. And I HATE Mal x Uma, Audrey x Mal and Ben x Mal. Because of the toxic and abusive environment.

Character I feel the writers screwed up (in one way or another): 

Chad Charming.  From the start, Chad, Cinderella's son was turned into... a terrible character. Well, in the beginning, he is intelligent and manipulative, who knows how to use his charm against others. Brilliant. Cool. I can work with that. He may have an arc about learning about his wrongdoing and using his privileges to help others who don't. But no, the character just went downhill and became everyone's joke. 

Also, Ben, obviously. The movies wouldn't exist without him and he became an accessory to Mal. Disney can only write hero and damsel in distress, it seems. Because they do that to Ben. A tool to move the plot. My poor golden boy.

Favourite friendship: Jay and Lonnie. Give me two best friends who constantly joke around, kick each other's butt, compete in even the most ridiculous things, are affectionate with each other and even if they don't plan on it, they spend time together (I'm seeing you Jay and "I'm not going to invite no one to the ball but I'm going to dance with Lonnie all night ")

Character I want to adopt or be adopted by: I'm going to adopt Celia and no one will be able to stop me!

002: Bumarry,

When of if I started shipping it: Technically I answered this here. Also, from looking for Huma and Buma fics, I ended up finding my first Bumarry and... Oh, I got hooked on the idea.

My thoughts: They are my OTPoly (One True Polyship). I love them. Because they allow me to mix the variables and create new scenarios. After all the damage Ben has gone through, I inevitably want to give him the best and the best is Huma. What else can I say? It’s absolute logic.

What makes me happy about them: The devotion, affection, and strength they would have. Ben and Uma are very different leaders who complement each other very well and I could only trust Harry to take care of the two of them and give them the freedom they deserve. Ben is incredibly loving and that's something both Harry and Uma deserve to feel, Uma is incredibly protective and Ben needs that backing to rule and Harry needs that to stay alive every 5 seconds. Harry's loyalty is unprecedented, he would see to not only that everything is up to Ben and Uma's standards, but he would personally see that their dreams come true.

What makes me sad about them: 

Harry Hook/Uma:

Ben/Harry Hook:

Ben/Uma:

Ben/Harry Hook/Uma:

There isn't much of them... And they're mostly fics of mine. I want more content, you know? I want to read fics, drabbles, see fanarts... Buh.

Things done in fanfic that annoys me: It’s not in Bumarry itself. Actually, it's in Ben/Harry Hook, they usually play dirty with Uma. And it annoys me. They make her mean, jealous, cruel, or things like that to Ben and Harry. And this I came across once: They make Harry gay and that his relationship/dynamic with Uma is pure appearance. I had no problem with Harry being gay, but the justification for his sexual tension with Uma was all... Fake? No, it didn't fit in well with me. I think that's why when you ask me to write Ben/Harry Hook, Uma is there to give support. Don't play dirty with my queen.

Things I look for in fanfic: Uma dom! Uma top! Those are my favorite tags.

My kinks: With this polyship? Okay... BDSM all the way. 

Ben:  Caring dom, cuckolding, cupping, degradee (especially with actions), experimentalists, little one, masochist, pet, hunter (primal), praise kink, prey (primal), rope bunny, submissive, suspension, switch, tentacle fetich, voyeur,  wax play

Harry Hook: Alpha sub, brat, breath play, biting fetich, choking, cupping, dom, degrader, exhibitionist, knife play (hook play?), owner, pet, praise kink, prey (primal), rigger, sadistic, slave, submissive,  switch, tentacle fetich

Uma:  Brat tamer, biting fetich, Dom, electrostimulation (electro-wand, feel like a little sting), exhibitionist, Immobilization, masochist, mistress, owner, hunter (primal),  orgasm control, sensation play, scratching, 

Who I’d be comfortable them ending up with, if not each other: Ben/Uma, Ben/Harry Hook, Harry Hook/Uma, with Gil, Evie or Jay. 

My happily ever after for them: 

Ben and Uma reigning Auradon and the Isle of the Lost together, Harry Hook taking care of them so they don't get exhausted and are protected from any attack. 

Ben on the run with Harry and Uma to live a pirate life and reclaiming Auradon in a rebellion.

003 Ben

How I feel about this character: I love him! He has good intentions. Ben knows that he is in a position of power and struggles to take advantage of his privileges to change things. He is rebellious, the second he is going to take the throne he begins to dismantle the system. Ben has a good heart and wants to help other people. Besides, I love that he has his survival instinct broken.

All the people I ship romantically with this character: Uma, Harry Hook, Evie, Gil, Jay, Audrey and Chad

My non-romantic OTP for this character: Jane, Lonnie, Chad, Audrey, Evie, Uma, Harry Hook, Evie, Gil, Jay hahaha

My unpopular opinion about this character: Because he's a guy, the fandom downplays the horrible things he's been through.

One thing I wish would happen/had happened with this character in canon: He has maintained his friendship with Audrey and Chad. It breaks my heart to know that he is completely alone in that department since D1 and is perpetuated throughout the following films. I also wanted him to end up with Mal.

My het ship: Ben/Uma & Audrey/Ben

My fem/slash ship: Ben/Harry Hook, Ben/Gil, Ben/Chad

My OTP: Ben/Uma

My OT3: Ben/Harry Hook/Uma

My cross over ship: *thinking* Oh... Ben/Leo Valdez (PJO) And! And! Ben/Reggie (JATP)

My kink: Caring dom, cuckolding, cupping, degradee (especially with actions), experimentalists, little one, masochist, pet, hunter (primal), praise kink, prey (primal), rope bunny, submissive, suspension, switch, tentacle fetich, voyeur,  wax play

A HC fact: He likes to constantly question himself. About his sexual orientation, about his gender identity, about his ability to love, about his pleasure, above all. He likes to explore. Ben is queer.

My gender bend: Technically I already have it. In Meanwhile. Bee, she loos like her. I LOVE the idea of Bee shieldmaiden.

I love responding this! Thank you!!!!!!!

[sylver-drawer]

A prompt in class had made me realize something deep within me—my hate for physical books.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate books because they’re physical. I’d actually love it, but rather what I despise…

Is what is contained within those books.

Where I live, physical books you can only get when visiting libraries or book stores unless specially ordered online. Yet I am never satisfied with what is offered to me, simply because, I’m tired of it.

I am so absolutely tired of seeing the same exact things over and over again.

To give an example, my tastes aren’t that condensed nor diverse. I love thriller, I love Mystery, but what I find the most interest in, is Fantasy Romance.

And saying that should already tell you exactly what I’m talking about.

I am so tired of seeing the exact same tropes over and over again. This is a problem in all stories, physical or online, in general—however, it appears to me that published and physical books are almost always having these qualities. When searching online, I can always somehow find at least a handful of stories that is different from the others and gives at least a fraction of what I need. But in libraries? Book stores? I can’t do that, because they all follow the same pattern one way or another because those tropes are what people only ever seem to want, which is why a lot of authors who stray from those tropes aren’t as well known.

Frankly, I’m tired of everything being reused or rebranded.

I wouldn’t mind the wizards and demons, the werewolves and vampires, if ONLY they weren’t just there to be there.

Let me explain. Witches and Wizards tend to follow the same pattern. People who use magic, which is simple enough. But the problem is, is that it ends with just that. In most stories I come across, wizards are included in a very weak magic system in which they can use magic to do basically anything they want. Something fell and broke? Use magic to fix it. There’s a fire? Summon water to put it out.

It’s simple. But that repeated simplicity is what makes me tired.

There is never any depth. There is no expansion or lore that explains the nitty gritty details, nor makes it important. Magic in fantasy stories, is most commonly, cause and effect. Problem, and fix. Something bad, changed to good. Hurt, then to heal.

In fantasy, magic is simply one layer—magic people can use magic to do anything. There’s no limit, there’s no depth, there’s nothing that makes it unique. Magic in fantasy, all falls under the broad topic of just ‘magic’. Shooting fireballs, summoning a river, causing a storm to drive away your enemies, lightning bolts to fend them off—all can fall under just magic. Using this, it might be controversial to say, but Harry Potter is an extremely soft magic system. Wizards can cast magic through words, yes, but it’s exactly that. They can cast ‘magic’, and that magic is an umbrella term that essentially means, “With enough training, they can look up the words in a magic dictionary and use whatever magic they want to do anything they want”.

There is no depth. There is no extra layer, it’s simply ‘magic’.

And I’m not even done rambling. I haven’t even touched magical races in fantasy, which I’ll actually transition right into.

I am tired of race conflict in fantasy. Not because its bad, but because they’re more often than not, poorly written. Let’s take Twilight as an example.

Werewolves hate vampires. Vampires hate werewolves. Why? Because werewolves bad, and vampires bad. That’s literally it. No deeper meaning, no actual societal issues, just “ew, icky vampire/werewolf”. In fact, in twilight it doesn’t even appear they hate eachother. If Bella didn’t even exist, what would Edward and Jacob fight about? If you notice, they only use eachother’s race to appeal to Bella and put down the other rival. “Bella, you can’t love him because he’s a dirty vampire”, or, “Bella, you can’t love him because he’s a mangy wolf pup”. Setting aside the obvious racist undertones that’s never important nor addressed critically within the story, the only time dislike about the others’ race is talked about, is only ever addressed not because they hate that specific race, but as a petty remark to bad talk their love rival.

So, in theory, the two races aren’t even… against eachother. Thinking back, all the times it was vampire vs werewolf in twilight, it was all because of Bella wasn’t it. And not because of general dislike of the others’ race, but over a human girl…

I’ve trailed off from my original point, but basically, race vs race within fantasy plots aren’t actually because of the race. I think the only fantasy series I’ve seen that remotely does racial societal conflict well is Lord of the Rings. Elves hate dwarves because they’re greedy, crude, and brutish. Dwarves hate elves because they view them as selfish and always seemingly on their high horse. They stereotype one another, and when they look beyond those stereotypes is when they start bonding and actually forming friendships. They then realize that those stereotypes didn’t matter and were harmful.

That’s an example I would love to see more in fantasy in general. Make the magical races dislike and judge eachother because of their race, and then overcome it while addressing it. Don’t add in races that hate eachother when they’re all literally just the exact same. And also, make the races different! Even humans practice different cultures, and that’s what makes us diverse. In the LOTR franchise, racial bias and hate isn’t simply because, “they’re x race”. It’s because they stereotype people within that race, a stereotype that’s just an exaggerated version of qualities they all just happened to have. In Twilight, I’d argue that there isn’t anything that sets the werewolves and vampires apart other than their superhuman abilities. In LOTR, taking their races away the qualities the characters had were still eminent. Legolas was a bit proud and calm demeanor ed under pressure because he was naturally like that, as well as how he was raised as an elven prince. Gimley fights violently with an axe, and puts his whole body into his fighting style. His words also come off as rough and unfiltered, while Legolas’ voice is smoother and speech well spoken due to his background. The traits they found in eachother due to racial stereotypes still linger and remain. While yes, werewolves were heavily based off of indigenous people, there wasn’t any clear examples of them practicing it that was essential to the conflict and characters other than reminding the audience every once and a while. If Jacob were the only werewolf shown, the Jacob-Bella-Edward conflict could easily just be seen as two roleplaying white boys fighting over a girl. That’s how important their racial identities of vampire and werewolf mattered.

(And please!!! Remember lore. Generations and generations of racism impacts people who grew up with it. Some people change and break away from that stigma of unadultered hate, some can only partly break away even while educated with unconscious internal bias, and some continue to nurture themselves in it and even spread it. Not every person under one umbrella ends up the same, and that applies to characters too. Taking inspiration from real life, look at the time we live in now. Hundreds of years gone by, and while things are certainly better, the dark stains haven’t even gone away and most likely won’t even in the distant future. The past two years are proof of that.)

There’s no point in writing racial conflict in your story if there’s nothing that sets them apart from one another (I’m not saying people need a reason for real life racism because there are so many people who hate certain races just because they’re that race, but story wise, it’s easier to show what’s commonly hate due to stereotypes and stigma that people make for that race). It’s like the spider man pointing meme. How are you supposed to be antagonistic with someone who’s literally the same as you? “I guess you’re not like other spider men” coming from a spider man???

Prefacing, I’m not saying racism is good. I’m saying including race conflict for the sake of race conflict is very empty and purposeless, which is what I often find in fantasy or romance-fantasy. Racial conflict apparently doesn’t matter until the main character is directly involved, in which only then does it affect them that it’s brought up and only because it affects them. A similar example is including LGBTQ+ characters just for the sake of sexual diversity, in which—

That actually leads into my next topic.

Romance.

How many. How many published books must there be of romance that completely overrides the plot as well as the characters’ other relationships? How many stories must be made in which the fantasy aspect is completely pushed aside and no longer included in the plot because the story wants to entirely focus on the romance drama between the main character, love interest, and best friend? Or not even best friend, miscommunication in general!

How hard, is it to write a story where the couple is healthy, and love and don’t doubt eachother, who trust eachother entirely? Like really.

And! And!

The moment when romance is introduced, everything else doesn’t. seem. to. matter! At that point, it’s not even fantasy even more. It’s just a rom com, because watching the couple fight over nothing is hilarious because they’re in the middle of a war. And the other characters don’t seem to matter anymore either. I am so tired of plots being thrown away to focus on the drama between the two leads, and for once just want a fantasy boom of stories depicting healthy relationships with actually unique magic systems and logical well written conflicts.

And diversity! In Relationships! I am so tired of only ever seeing poorly written drama filled heterosexual relationships in romances. In fantasy romances. Give me my wlw wizards who explore their war torn world and have to defend the people they love with intricate, costly, magic systems.

Can we just have. A literary revolution, in which a rise of stories where characters can have relationships—non romantic relationships—with other characters. Can male and female characters finally love eachother to the ends of the world without romance. It’s so easy to write. Love is so easy to write between any gender or sex. So why does it seem to be there can only be one kind predominantly in media? In published media?

Occasionally I can find diverse stories like this on the internet, but never can I find these in libraries.

Like it’s. It’s so, so easy to write love and companionship between characters of diverse identities and cultures. Even in heterosexual fantasy romance stories, I want to be able to see relationships outside the romance being as strong as the main romance. Between the girls, between the boys, and those in between. Men can be in love with men, women in love with women, and men in love with women without needing to force their loves against eachother. A man and woman can be written to love eachother dearly without any romance ever between them, because that’s how it’s like in real life as well. So often do main characters in fantasy stories have some sort of dark past that rid them of any familial love, which in turn ruins them for the capacity of platonic love, which makes people believe the only way for them to find love is romantically. Even in children’s books, there’s always the princess abandoned or overly protected by her parents who eventually finds solace in the pressence of a dry, brooding knight or charming prince. They fall in love, and that’s the only thing that’s ever positively shown. The love between the main character and the love interest. Because to society, romance is seen as the strongest form of affection.

But, it isn’t.

People are different, and to a lot of people who do and don’t have romance in their lives, it doesn’t mean they can’t love anyone else. In society, the only love that seems to exist is romance. It’s the only thing people tend to promote, and yet, people forget what love is. It’s care, it’s worry. Love is painful and happy. It’s sometimes angry and frustrating, but sometimes its something you need. Love is stubborn, yet so easily broken. Love was never just romance, and it feels like the world forgets that.

It’s frustrating, because it feels like anything published at your local library follows the opposite pattern. Because it’s what people believe the public wants, and what the public will only ever accept. Sometimes, it’s all people only know how to write. Sometimes, its all editors and publishers will ever approve of. And sometimes, its all people ever look for. Because either they’re afraid, stigmatize and despise it, or just don’t care for it.

At some point, this had turned from a ramble about how physical books lack diversity, to how media in general lacks diversity.

I do believe that one day in the future, media will change. Literary media will change. But as of now? The majority of published and physical books haven’t diverted from that pattern, and most likely won’t for a long time. I know so many stories are beginning to change online now that the new generation has informed themselves and become interested in new ideas and topics, but as far as physical publication goes? The world won’t accept these changes, not for a long time.

[normal-thoughts-official]

Fandom racism anon here and yeah absolutely (I didn't realise I had anon on lol)

Because while LOTR has problems within its themes (ie the orcs can be seen as to be coded as people of colour, especially since they ride elephants) the explicit message of the book is evil bad

Because the only people who work for sauron are evil. There are no morally grey people, they aren't misguided or tricked they just are evil and want to take over the world

And yeah I totally agree that this is more of a literal take on like empirical war (is that the word) and that makes total sense considering Tolkiens history

Whereas I would say that the allegories in shaowhunters is way more based on racial conflict within a country itself especially slavery, I can't remember if this is show Canon but is it that they have the warlock tropheys? I remember that in the books magnus talks about shadowhunters hanging warlock marks on their walls? (sorry to bring the books up)

Idk it's very hollow to me, unlike with LOTR though it's a different allegory it's totally irritating to show many of these supremecists as morally misled. LOTR says bad guys are bad guys, shadowhunters says well yeah they did follow a guy which thinks that downworlders are subhuman and should be eradicated but they just made a mistake

I want to compare this to tfatws which while it isn't really fantasy I just feel like it shows how the priorities of the writer can impact the message of the show so powerfully (I know u aren't up to date so I'm gonna be pretty vague)

There's a scene in tfatws where the new white perfect captain America does something bad and doesn't pay for the consequences - done to comment on white privelege and how America condones white supremacy and how Sam is in comparison to that

Mayrse and Robert revealed to be part of the circle! And paid no consequences Shock horror my parents were the bad guys (even rho they were either implicitly or explicitly extremely racist the entire time) also I haven't finished the seires but do the lightwoods ever try to get their parents to face the consequences?)

Only one actual really critiques the situation and the reality behind it whereas the other one is just to centre the white characters once again and present them in a further sympathetic light

AND ANOTHER THING! I was mostly talking about show Canon here and I'm sorry to bring up the books but I literally can't believe I hadn't picked up in this before.

So like downworlders = people of colour, Simon is a vampire so is coded as a person of colour. However in the books in the last one he stops being a vampire and becomes a shadowhunters instead, coincidentally that's also when he starts dating Izzy HOW IS THIS ABLE TO HAPPEN!!????

I mean I know cassandra clare is lazy right? The original seires is by far the worst of all her writings but come ON!!!!! By the allegory has he become the white man!????? These books made no fuckin sense when I read them at 15 and they make no sense now I'm digressing anyways

I don't know man I wrote this ask because I was trying to find some fantasy book recommendations on booktube and SO MANY of them were about slavery or general ly extrême préjudice with à White protagonist to save this 'poor souls'.

Also I was watching guardians of the galexy the other day and realised nearly every movie set in space is just bigger stakes imperialism - planets instead of countries. Literally star wars, star trek, guardians of the galexy 2, avengers infinity war - all are facing genocidal imperialistic villains without actually paying much, if any attention to those effected

Just writing this ask made me exhausted I'm so tired of lazy writing and exploiting other people's struggle. I'm white and I'm trying to be more critical about the movies, shows and books I watch and read but let me know if I said something off here❤️❤️ you gotta get up to date with tfatws man, Sambucky nation is THRIVING!!!!

i'm not sure i agree that the whole "the evil people are evil" thing is a good thing, because i feel like more often than not making the bad characters just like... unidimensionally evil just means that the reader will be like "lol i could NEVER be that guy" and when it comes to racism that is a dangerous road to take because white people already believe that racism is something that Only The Most Evil People, Ergo, Not Me, Can Do, which makes discussions of stuff like subconscious racial bias and active antiracist work become more difficult because people don't believe they CAN be racist unless they're like, Lord Voldemort

which is not to say that racism should be treated as morally ambiguous, just that the workings of racism should be represented as something that is not done only by the Most Hardcore And Evil, but rather as a part of a system of oppression that affects the way everyone sees the world and interacts with it and lives in it

yes the warlock trophies are mentioned in the show, albeit very quickly (there is a circle member who tells magnus that his cat eyes will make "a nice addition to his collection" and then it's never mentioned again because this is sh and we love using racism for shock value but then not actually treating it as a serious plot point or something that affects oppressed ppl). and you are absolutely right, shadowhunters (and hp, and most fantasy books) has genocide as its core conflict and treats it, like you said, in a very hollow way, treating racism as both not a big deal and not something that is part of a system of oppression, but really the actions of a few Very Bad People. it's almost impressive how they manage to do both at the same time tbh

i think you hit the nail right on the head with this comment, actually. for most of these works, racism is SHOCK VALUE. it's just like "lol isn't it bad that this bad guy wants to kill a gazillion people just because they are muggles? now that is fucked up" but it's not actually an issue. in fact, when this guy is defeated, the whole problem is over! racism is not something that is embedded into that world, it's not a systemic issue, it's not even actually part of what drives the plot. the things that led to this person not only existing but rising to power and gathering enough followers to be a real threat to the whole world are never mentioned. it's like racists are born out of thin air, which is dangerously close to implying that racism is just a natural part of life, tbh

anyway my point is, it is never supposed to be questioned, it is never part of a deeper plot or story, its implications are barely addressed except for a few fleeting comments them and there; so, it's not a critique, it's shock value, even though it is frequently disguised as a critique (which is always empty and shallow anyway. like what is the REAL critique in works like hp or sh/tsc other than "genocide is bad"? wow such a groundbreaking take evelyn)

about simon and the book thing: i actually knew about this and the weird thing about this is that, like... simon is jewish, and he's implied to be ashkenazi (calls his grandma bubbe which is yiddish, which is a language spoken by the ashkenazi ppl), and it seems like cc is always toeing the line between him being accepted by shadowhunters and then not accepted by them, which sounds a lot like antisemitic tropes and history of swinging between (ashkenazi) jewish ppl being seen as the model minority myth and thus used as an example by white christians, and being hated and persecuted. i'm not super qualified to talk about this since i'm not jewish and i'm still learning about/unlearning antisemitism and its tropes, and i don't really have a fully formed thought on that, tbh; it just reminds me of the whole "model minority" swinging, where one second simon is part of the majority, the other he's not, but always he is supposed to give up a part of himself and his identity in other to be "assimilated" by shadowhunter culture. this article (link) covers a book on jewish people and assimilationism into USan culture, this article (link) covers british jews' relationship with being considered an ethnic group, and this article (link) talks a bit about the model minority myth from the perspective of an asian jewish woman

it just really calls to my attention that cc chose to make her ashkenazi jewish character start off as a downworlder and then become a shadowhunter. i don't think she made that decision as a conscious nod to this history, because it would require being informed on antisemitism lol but it's incredible how you can always see bigoted stereotypes shining through her narrative choices completely by accident. it just really shows how ingrained it is in our collective minds and culture

and anyway, making a character go from the oppressed group to just suddenly become the oppressor is just. wtf. not how oppression works, but most of all, really disrespectful, especially because she clearly treats it as an "upgrade"/"glowup" that earns him the Love Of His Life

also, out of curiosity, are you french? it seems like your autocorrect changed a few words and i'm pretty sure extrême and préjudice are the french versions of these words, and since u said ur white, that's where my money would be lol

[moved-attre]

Rewriting Cyberpunk 2077 into a bullet point list! LET’S GO!

(Disclaimer: I’m trying to be realistic. So no, “every single detail of the game changes based upon every single choice V makes” but just things I expected in an RPG from an AAA company in 2020. I take a lot of inspiration from the old trailers, and rumors of pre-2018 development.)

And this is really long, too. Sorry. 😜

Okay, so first off: Act 1 generally goes off the same as it does in canon. I’m open to other ideas, but I don’t think it’s a bad starting point. I do think V and Jackie should have had more time together, doing smaller jobs until Dex calls. Like, there should’ve been side jobs that were only available in Act 1. You have to get a minimum of 5 street cred before you get the conversation with Jackie about Dex.

The heist still goes to shit; Yorinobu kills his father, Takemura rebels against him and Arasaka factions split. V inserts the chip into their head, Jackie still dies and Dex shoots V in the head. Takemura rescues V, kills Dex, V wakes up in Vik’s and is told they have 4 months to live. (2 weeks is not enough!)

On to Act 2! The origins actually affect the game, so there’s three versions of it you can play. (Some things happen regardless of the origin, though.) For example: Corpo V has contacts in the Corpo world and pursues leads about the Relic there through their old friends. Street Kid V has contacts in the gangs, like the Valentinos or Maelstrom, who have dirty dealings with corporations and can get V in on Arasaka knowledge, Nomad V has leads out in the badlands about the corporations and gets in that way, hijacking transports to get some info. All origins can work with the corporations (like Hanako’s branch of Arasaka, Militech, Biotechnia, etc.) or against them. Like, the point is to snoop around the corporations and dig up some dirt on the Relic and Yorinobu’s Arasaka branch specifically but each origin goes about it differently?

Maelstrom vs Meredith Stout choice actually matters. It’s one point in a subplot I mentioned above, where V continually makes choices on whether they’re gonna side with the corporations or the gangs/people of NC against Arasaka in order to be rid of the Relic. Also affects V’s relationship with Johnny. You can also have a real, long term relationship with Meredith if you pick her side and get Militech support, or count on Maelstrom to help you in the main plot against Arasaka. Both sides will still attack V if they poke their nose in, meaning random encounters can still happen.

^ The subplot is like, making a deal with the devils (The corpos) or... other devils (The gangs). One person objectively could say one is better than the other, but they’re both awful. Night City is kind of rotten to the core, and V’s problems can’t be fixed by a pursuit of justice. V can still be a good person in either case, and it’s still kept kind of punk by going against the head honchos. I think this more suits the “Wake the fuck up, Samurai. We have a city to burn.” quote because V is churning up a path to the top, even if their methods are purely selfish. V themselves can be uninterested in righting wrongs, but they kind of turn NC on its head by challenging Arasaka so changes come anyway.

Point, is you fuck everything up either way. THEN, V can choose whether to trust the corporations and work with Hanako to “change the system from within” without disrupting people’s day-to-day lives (short term good choice I suppose?) or to let the gangs rise up and cause total anarchy. (long term good? since the downtrodden are rising up and maybe there shouldn’t be absolute power in the hands of a few.)

T-Bug doesn’t die. V thinks she’s dead, but sometime in Act 2 gets an anonymous call and meets up with T-Bug. She went underground after the botched heist, and isn’t eager to work with V again. Maybe you do a few missions with her, and she comes around? Or you fuck up and never hear from her again. I imagine she’d love to poke around at the Relic, if V helps her.

Giving Jackie’s body to Vik has real consequences. If you give his body to his mother, you attend the ofrenda and get his bike, his mom allows you to use his den as a place to stay... It’s basically the ‘good’ choice, if you care about the characters. If you give his body to Vik, you unlock a side mission where Arasaka steals his body to find the relic. You have to go and find it but it was destroyed(?) at some point by Arasaka. You can get his pistols (Which are, aside from Johnny’s pistol, the best weapons in the game. I don’t get why they aren’t in canon...) in this route and whole lotta angst, so his mom basically hates you because she blames you for not being able to bury her son and the bar is off limits. No getting the bike, either.

More content involving Alt Cunningham. V still witnesses the scene with her and Johnny, her kidnapping and death. But, Ghost AI Alt allows V to look into Alt’s memories for information on Mikoshi. V accidentally accesses some more personal memories. We can see Alt as more of a fleshed out actual person, not just a tragic backstory for Johnny. Some of the memories do involve Johnny, and the tone is very different from her perspective. We see that Alt has genuine affection for him, but Johnny is possessive and abusive... It’s far from the relationship Johnny recalls. Of course, Johnny can see all this too since he lives in V’s head. He and V have a heart to heart afterwards, with Johnny realising how badly he treated Alt and yeah. I wasn’t satisfied with how Alt was just used as a sob story for Johnny, but I was sent an ask by an anonymous person about how the memory was from his perspective and thus biased. It really got me thinking! If I was more creative, I’d come up with a way for Alt to live... But Johnny still needs to bomb Arasaka and Alt’s death was the reason why he did that.

You have to return one of your apartments/safe houses every few days to wash and sleep. If not, V will get a penalty that means they are less accurate when aiming and slower when breaking in a vehicle. Also some NPC’s will refuse to talk to you if you don’t bathe, because... stinky.

And you have to eat! Otherwise you get hungry, and get penalties for that too. Can’t concentrate on an empty stomach. I’d say eating once or twice a day would be enough.

Instead of fast travel points (that are supposed to be taxi services, I think...? But we never see a taxi! And why can’t we just call Del? Ugh.), V takes the metro. There are side missions that can sometimes only start once you get on or off of a train. (You meet NPC’s in the train, or waiting for one.)

Takemura and Johnny are romance options, and are available for all genders. They’re the most difficult to romance, with some (kind of obvious) dialogue choices ending the possibility. Like, for example: Takemura’s romance ends badly if you choose to go against the corporations, and Johnny’s ends badly if you go with the corporations. It’s the same with Meredith, essentially, in that going against her won’t allow you to romance her. I know a rival-mance system is possible, but I think that might be too complicated.

Takemura and V’s relationship is much, much deeper. They have more time together, and grow closer. Takemura trains V in combat, and takes over from Coach Fred in the street fights side missions. You go with Takemura to fights, he’s your coach, is very proud when you win. (He’s basically training V in the event that they have to take on Adam Smasher and Oda. Like, why did we have no training montages with Takemura?!) V is able to choose romance or stay friends with him. There’s plenty more missions with Takemura too, mainly espionage stuff against Yorinobu. Finding out his weaknesses, replacing his staff with people that are loyal to Hanako, digging for dirt on him. Lots of stake outs, hehe. 😉 Romance!™️ Also makes it that much more tragic if V doesn’t choose to trust the corporations, since Takemura will end things and leave NC.

There are garages to upgrade your cars but Panam can upgrade it further if you do her missions + befriend her, and you can find super secret parts for your cars that Panam needs all around NC by stealing them from gangs or Corpos! Like, make your car go 200 mph fast or a setting to make it hover. 😎

FOUND FAMILY TROPE... Involving the LI’s + more characters. I wanted Misty, Vik, Judy, Panam, River and Kerry to all know each other and be friends. Also, somewhere for them to hang out. Judy coming down and hanging out with Misty and Vik would’ve been so cool.

Missions involving Vik. I think he deserved his own personal missions. Also, he’s gotta be romanceable! I’ll add more to this later.

I’m still figuring out how Johnny’s romance would go. It’s a tricky one. Lots of tension, jealously if V flirts with anybody... Heart to hearts... Holding hands... Passive aggressive confessions of love...

River is introduced in the main story. Maybe you team up to hunt down somebody who knows stuff about the Relic, like Anders Hellman, or something else to do with it. River’s like “What the fuck is going on?” but V doesn’t really tell him. Then, of course, you meet him later on and recognise him in the BD given to you by Jefferson.

Meeting Kerry earlier in the story, say mid Act 2? Ideally there would have been 5 Acts, and maybe I’ll edit this to include more once I figure out how the story could have gone. AND he’s part of the main story.

Less generic, “get in, get item and get out” side missions from Fixers and more side missions like the Peralez’s and that guy who got crucified. More freaky Cyberpunk subjects like what constitutes a soul, what is “intelligence” (What makes a machine different than a human? Without shitty false racism analogies), human rights abuses (and in that: classism, racism, ableism, transphobia), pollution, more on “Cyberpsychos” and how harmful that term is, etc. Nauced and thought-provoking. Reminding us that this is a dystopia and the issues are different but not all that wildly so from today. I would’ve developed Brendan’s mission more, because it seemed like we were going to see an earnest discussion on Artificial Intelligence but instead it was just confusing and “Haha, tricked you!” 🥱 Like, what if he really was a person capable of free thought and emotion? And that company still owns him and can overwrite him? Isn’t that fucked up?! It didn’t need a happy ending, just something to unnerve me.

Adding to that, Delamain had plenty of opportunities to discuss AI and the rights of individual contructs. His “children” could be freed, but nothing really happens as a result? I wanted consequences! The emails about human staff being made redundant because of Delamain were so interesting, too. I wanted to see something about the consequences of that in a city with no basic universal income. What happened to them? What can be done to help people who are made redundant by machines? So many possibilities for truly emotional and scary side missions!

I’m gonna watch black mirror for more inspiration, but stuff like the IRL blocking feature? Freaky as hell and totally plausible. Would’ve loved if one of the side missions involved V getting involved in some dispute involving something like that. “I can’t see his face!” or the copyright stuff about people’s appearances! Imagine if there was a Johnny lookalike? Engram Johnny would either find it hilarious or get really pissed off.

I’m hoping the DLC will deliver on more Takemura, so I’ll hold my breath for critiquing the Arasaka ending.

More to come! I’ll probably edit this later, if there’s any mistakes and/or I realise I hate an idea hehe.

[carrigerpigeon]

On THE ENFORCER ENIGMA

Okay, y’all.

We need to talk about The Enforcer Enigma because I have many, many problems with it.

I’ve been sitting on my feelings for this book for a month or so, after I got my ARC of it and I read it. It’s been hard to decide what I was going to say, how I was going to approach this. Like I’ve said before, my relationship with Gail exists in a liminal space between fan and friend, and is even more complicated than that.

I’ve decided, as both a fan AND friend, that I can’t ignore the problems in this book.

Which is where this post comes from.

When I first I heard it was dealing with the Selkie mob I was excited, because I loved how ridiculous they were in the short story and I think the concept is gloriously ludicrous. But this book overall felt very contrived, very basic, and very tone deaf in a racist way. The gay boys felt objectified and cookie cutter, and the racist treatment of Judd made me very, very upset.

I’m going to get to my issues with the treatment of Judd, as best as I can as a white person with a lot to learn, but I want to start with something I am able to speak better on, and that’s the gay characters in this book.

So let’s get into it. Spoilers, obviously, and lots of talk about systematic racism and homophobia, antiblackness, stereotypes, etc.

(Also, Gail, since you follow me on this blog and I know you’ll probably see this—READ THE WHOLE THING. Think about it. And then if you’d like to talk about it, you know how to contact me.)

This is going behind a cut, not because of the content but because it’s almost 6 pages long.

The Gay Boys

Okay. Look.

I love a catty, fabulous gay boy as much as the next queer. They have a space and a place in our community. But not EVERY gay man is like this IRL. Meanwhile, in SAS, it feels like every gay male character (or close to) in this series is a waspy, catty, faaaabulous gay. Isaac, Marvin, Max, Trick, even to some extent Alec and Bryan…they’re just all the exhausting waspy, catty, fabulous gay boy that we see exhibited heavily on Drag Race and other mainstream platforms.

And like. I get it. Colin is repressed and gay and wants to be a fabulous twink. That’s fine. But it just felt like he was slipping into the stereotype all the other gay male characters inhabit in these books, and that’s really, really exhausting.

Also, I am from the East Coast, where according to my West Coast friends we apparently grow gay boys differently. I can’t say with any accuracy how much of this is true. BUT MOST OF THESE GAY BOYS ARE FROM THE EAST COAST. They lived in Boston before moving to California. So why are they like this?

It feeds into this larger trend I’ve seen in Gail’s word with fabulous, savage gay boys—from Akeldama and all his drones, to Biffy, and even Lyall. Seen over the spread, it’s harder to sweep it away as just a “modern storyline” thing or a “California storyline” thing. It’s a trend, one which I find very uncomfortable as a queer person.

There is a place and space for Queer people to take back the tropes and stereotypes that have been used against us and write them our own way. But what I’ve seen as a longtime reader isn’t that. What I seem is lazy stereotyping and an overarching stereotype and characterization that feed into the larger the ways I feel gay men are objectified by female authors (no matter how queer the author is).

Many more people have covered this topic better than I, but it explains why I’ve felt so uneasy about this series from the get go. The sex and the relationships in these books don’t feel real—it feels objectifying. There’s lots of talk about big and strong sexy, muscle-y men but very little else. And while there is something to say about having a partner who thinks you’re sexy—that’s important, and I want everyone to have that…. this isn’t that.

These are muscle-y, strong, sassy gay men for cis white women to coo over on Facebook and feel good about. But to me, a real life nonbinary queer person, I feel uneasy and frankly uncomfortable with the objectification of them.

And since we’re talking about queer representation, after having a decent wlw spread in the Parasolverse there are two WLW (specifically lesbians) in SAS (Trickle and Pepper) and they (a) barely get any screen time and (b) feel stereotypical to me. And they are side characters, so I get it, but seriously?

And also while we’re on queer representation, there’s Mana, aka Manifest Destiny. Mana is the drag queen and arguable trans woman* who started off alright BUT was named after the colonization and violent taking of Native and Indigenous people’s lands and wrapped up in patriotism. Gail has said she made a mistake, that she meant her name to be Mana From Heaven, and that this would be addressed in the upcoming book (aka The Enforcer Engima).

It was not.

There is talk, from what I understand, this issue will be addresses in the upcoming short story about Mana and Lovejoy. But there are several throwaway lines about Mana in this book, her work in LA and her becoming a drag queen superstar (I guess akin to RuPaul?). So why wasn’t her name change discussed or even mentioned there?

[*Sidebar: Mana has been quoted as saying, “I suppose I should be transgender, under modern parlance. But I like drag queen. It suits me. I like the fabric roughness of drag, and the royalty of queen. It's a nice change to have the luxury of choosing one's own semantics, if not one's own situation." But whenever she appears, it seems she’s always in face/wearing false eyelashes/wearing women’s clothing.

I’m not going to police Mana’s trans experience because gender is a spectrum, and I as someone under the trans umbrella know that. But it feels…weird and off to me.]

Regardless of my sidebar, the name she was supposed to have, Manna from Heaven is…also sort of problematic? If I understand the reference correctly, it refers to the Biblical story of the food that God miraculously provided to the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. It means as a phrase the coming of unexpected benefit or assistance, especially when that benefit/assistance comes at the time when it is needed most. Which is what Mana is for the pack—she lets them live in her apartment in Book 1, she swoops in to save the day in Book 2. But it feels…very white and more than a little gross to name a character with Chinese and Japanese ancestry after something from the Bible.

And then there’s Judd.

Oh, Judd.

I really wanted to like Judd. The premise of his character was interesting, a Black, Pre-Saturation werewolf shifter, and I liked his cameos in the other books. But then we got a book about him, and it all fell apart.

Judd is a gay Black character, pre-Saturation, meaning he’s old as hell (from the Parasolverse time). He is objectified like the other gay boys, and there’s a lot of talk about how hard and strong his muscles and how sexy he is. He’s depicted on the cover this way.

And that’s…fine I guess, but gay Black men frequently have their bodies objectified as Black and muscley and strong. He’s also a pack Enforcer, so he’s depicted as not very smart and very violent. All of those are racist stereotypes that Black men deal with constantly, and they are racist stereotypes and tropes that are constantly hurled at Black men by the system and by society.

Additionly, Judd, the only Black member of the pack, is the only werewolf in the series to carry a gun.

A Black man. Is the only member. To carry a gun.

Yeah.

It gets worse.

There is mention of Judd’s backstory—very heavy inferences to Phineas/Soap (whose problematic naming convention and descriptors have been talked about especially by jhenne-bean ) being his mentor until he gets kicked out of Sidheag’s pack—but it falls very flat. I understand not wanting to write too much history of a Black character as a white writer, especially after tenuously connecting that history to the traditionally published series you’re Not Connected SAS To Not At All….

But.

Judd is over 150 years old.

He lived through some of America and Canada's worst racial discrimination, discrimination which would have affected him and his habitus and the way he moves through the world. He’s a gay Black man, and his gayness and his Blackness does not appear to affect how he interacts with the world at all. The police are called at the beginning and he’s OKAY ABOUT IT? AS A BLACK MAN? He basically says, “Thank God, the cops are here.”

You had a BLACK MALE CHARACTER SAY THAT when we’ve had a nationwide conversation since 2013, a conversation that has been reignited in the past three months?

Like????

And I was willing—perhaps whitely and naively—to give Gail the benefit of the doubt with Soap/Phineas. E&E was written in 2011, before Black Lives Matter was founded, before we began to have this nationwide reckoning with how Black and brown folks are treated systematically and especially by police violence. These conversations were definitely being had in 2011, but they were seen as fringe discussions and not necessarily part of the mainstream narrative as it is today.

However. It’s not 2011. It’s 2020.

It’s been 7 years since BLM was founded, and there have been countless discussions happening about racism and systematic issues in publishing and with white writers writing Black characters since that point.

Soap/Phineas has been mentioned or has cameo’d in The Custard Protocol and in Meat Cute. There’s been no conversation about his name or the way he has been described  And both he and Judd fall into the Caring-POC-Partner trope which has been discussed very heavily in romance circles and in ways I am not necessarily equipped to discuss in this post. But I will link to this post for everyone to read: https://medium.com/@ashiamonetb/queer-love-interests-of-color-and-the-white-gaze-8928b7b5e6ad

It’s 2020. These conversations have been being had, quite fervently, for many years, so there’s absolutely no excuse with how Judd is approached or treated in this book.

And here’s the CRUX of all this.

This book isn’t even really about Judd.

It’s about Colin.

Even though Judd is on the cover of the book, in all of his objectified Black body goodness, the plot of the story is about Colin. It’s very much entrenched in Colin’s issues with his family and his identity. Judd is there to take care of Colin and ~guide~ him and ~teach~ him things. To protect him. To be sexy to him.

See the medium article above. See the conversation about objectification above.

So if this book is SO MUCH ABOUT COLIN, why is Judd on the cover?

Why is Judd naked and glistening and Black on the cover of the story about the trials and tribulations of a white twink?

…Do I really have to say it? Maybe I do. It’s racist.

It might not be intended that way, but it is.

And look. There were parts of this book that I found enjoyable. I am still a fan of Gail’s wit and the way she writes. I’m a sucker for the found family trope, which all of these books have, and I really like Trick and Marvin. I’ve been where Colin is. I’ve fucked around with my gender presentation and been scared to out and fabulous or be perceived a certain way because I present a certain way.

But I’m really frustrated and frankly ANGRY with the racist stereotypes and gay stereotypes present in this book. It doesn’t feel like this was sensitivity read at all, by anyone. The book feels like a culmination of racist and homophobic trends that make me feel that Gail hasn’t been paying attention or listening to the cultural reckoning happening nationwide or in publishing.

And yes, there is a lot of “don’t idolize authors” talk, but here’s the thing.

Gail isn’t some anonymous author to me, someone I can just cancel and be done with.

Gail is a mentor to me. We’ve hung out at multiple cons, shot the shit about publishing, and talked about queer shit together with. We aren’t close, but she’s a friend (liminal space, etc). She gets a Christmas card from me every year, she asks after my partner when we chat. We’ve been in each other’s orbits for TEN YEARS.

I have this entire sideblog dedicated to her books, for fucks sake.

So when I read shit like this, it makes me upset. This book is a pile of microaggressions that stacked into a macroagression. It’s insensitive, definitely hurtful, and feels exceptionally tone deaf (AT BEST) to have written and released this book.

She has people in her inner circle who could have caught this if we’d been allowed to read it before hand, if we’d been a part of the beta process. But we weren’t. And it shows.

Gail, this is a message directly for you: You talk a lot about supporting people. You reblog lots of #ownvoices work and have been plugging a lot of #ownvoices fiction. I know (or at least hope) you’re a good person.

SO WHAT HAPPENED?

Why is this book such a disaster?

Have you been listening at all?

And I get it, we all have things to learn and things to unlearn. As white ally, and as a member of the queer community, as someone in your inner circle and as a friend (liminal space!), I get it.

I’m also saying this isn’t ok.

This book that you’ve written is not okay. Not even a little bit.

Here’s the thing: you can fix it (or you can try). It’s gonna be hard and require difficult conversations and actions, but you can.

If you want to know more, if you want to talk: you know how to contact me. I’ll give you my number. We can email, Skype, Zoom, text, call, whatever. I know I’m not the only member of the Pigeons that feels this way. You have people here to help.

As for everyone else:

As might be apparent I have…a lot of feelings right now. I’ve loved these books for so long, made a friend (liminal space!) with the author through social media. Genevieve Lefoux, and Sidheag, and Aggie, and lots of other characters mean a lot to me. Gail’s books have helped me through hard times and hard places, and she’s influenced a lot of whom I am as a writer.

But right now having this blog, dedicated to all these books with this massive subthread of racism and stereotypes, feels…not great.

And I don’t know if I can continue to support Gail and continue to be a fan (and a friend) if she keeps up with this.