#is to write about women like you do any other character

[darkestmetamorphosis]

THIS THIS THIS. It's just the perfect woman/incompetent man sitcom couple that's been the standard for literal decades, now with ukefication yay :|

Like can people just... write female characters as people it's not that hard! If you're trying to write a woman - whether that's an oc, or a canon character who probably already has a personality beyond what you're flattening her to - and all you can think of is either "girlboss" or "cringefail" with no middle ground; if you really cannot comprehend a woman being a normal three dimensional person, do some fucking introspection PLEASE. Stop taking inspiration from media and tropes and look at real live people

And the obsession with "queering" relationships is... ugh where do I even start. First of all that does not make it any more or less "pure" or whatever. Second of all if you have a straight man and a straight woman, they're still both straight no matter who's doing what in the bedroom

If one or both of the characters is queer though that's its own set of nasty stereotypes. If one or both of them are bi it's the "all bi men are feminine so they must also be (insert laundry list of infantilizing stereotype)"/"all bi women are badass girlbosses because they're Not Like Other Girls". If they're trans it's "penis=dom/vagina=sub" reducing them to their agab and parts they may not even want. Like it's misgendering with extra steps, in complete denial of things like bottom dysphoria, surgery, or the fact that maybe trans people might have more reason than most to be averse to the whole gender role reversal thing because having that expectation imposed on you your whole life really fucking sucks and it sucks even worse to be pushed back into the same box. Except the box now has a thin veneer of fake wokeness, repackaging the same old shit

And for all the people in the notes going "where are you seeing this" it's not even just on this webbed site, it happens irl too. ime it comes from the girls who say things like "all men are trash" and people who make nasty jokes/assumptions about me because they think I look like a ~smol uwu soft boi~

All the stereotyping aside, the vibe I get from these sort of dynamics is like... neither of the characters is even really into it? Like it's not about love, not even lust, it's just about power and dominance with no aftercare (because surprise surprise, they don't know how bdsm - including actual femdom - works) Like it's just there because the writer thinks it's the only way you can have a straight relationship without being sexist

can't vibe with the pathetic sopping wet generic sub boy man/pristine feminine perfect goddess woman dynamic people try to put onto every m/f pairing in existence. don't you want something more interesting? characters don't need to have perfect psychologist approved relationships in fiction obvs but it's just so boring. don't you want something in character? don't you want something more interesting?? oh she pegs him? and you write this in a way that implies penetration is about domination and power? wowee. never seen that one before.

[angellwingss]

Wasn’t going to go on a big rant but you know what since that other post is gaining traction yeah I think I will. So big long rant under the cut. Lolll

I feel like. A lot of people might tell me ‘it’s not that deep’ but to me it is that deep.

I don’t have a problem with JayVik or it’s shippers like. At all. I just think some of them are à really good demonstration of like. Every bad thing when it comes to fandom ever LMAO.

Once again I am (supposed to be) writing a whole big long essay about this already so I will try and keep this kind of short and sweet and it might be a bit lacking but wtvr.

I think a lot of JayVik fans tend to be white queer people. Someone left a tag on my OG post that said basically ‘my take is I’m a faggot and I don’t have to care about a character if I don’t want to’ and no hate to that person cuz you’re right, but this is exactly the kind of stuff that made me make that first post.

I feel like a lot of white queer people have an issue with seeing outside their own identity? If that makes sense? This is seen time and time again with the way some of them behave when big movements happen online, some have a tendency to centre themselves and whatnot so i think it’s kind of the same thing.

It makes total sense that a queer person would prefer queer ships and would prefer JayVik over MelJay, that is not a crime. But I do think part of that is because they can’t relate/identify with Mel or see themselves in her like they can with Jayce or Viktor.

I hate to also make it about feminism but i think a lot of you guys are super like. Male centred, like just in your attraction which once again, not the issue not a crime. But i think it’s also why CaitVi, which is a canon queer ship, although popular is still not quite as popular as JayVik despite being canon. Women fetishizing gay men in fandom is not something new, which I think might play a small part in it- I’ve seen a lot of people especially back in s1 infantilizing Viktor and acting like he had no agency or independence and that he NEEDS Jayce to take care of him (that’s another thing. Ableism(looks at you with my eyes)) and they also do the same thing with Jayce where they act like he had 0 agency with any decisions he makes and that he’s like a big dumb baby who doesn’t know anything politics. Hey, guys. That’s a grown man.

My main issue isn’t that people prefer JayVik over MelJay it’s just that some shippers demonize Mel to an insane degree, blame her for getting in the way of their ship (this is also happening right now with Maddie- there’s a leak going around saying that she gets with Caitlyn and people are so upset that this character is getting some INSANE hate and I feel like that’s the same thing going on.)

they blame her for ‘stealing’ Jayce etc etc like. Idk. You don’t have to ship MelJay but I wish more people would appreciate Mel just as a character- imo she is super interesting and has a great story but she’s only ever seen and ‘the other woman’. I’ve seen people say she isn’t like, well characterized and that her story entirely revolves around Jayce which. Yeah she’s definitely heavily involved with him in s1 but she’s clearly got a lot more going on than just that and you would know that if you GAF 🗣️🗣️

for just being. Who she is. I think Mel deserves more attention just in the fandom and it’s just frustrating. People making memes about Jayce going insane over Viktor leaving but like. Mel also just got fucking kidnapped guys. His lover has just vanished without a trace why is nobody also talking about that !!!! Why can’t he care about both these people at the same time !!!!!!!

Anyway I’m not nearly well equipped enough to talk more in-depth about like. Any of this but I do think the demonization of Mel and refusal to see her relationship with Jayce as it is can often times be boiled down to racism like straight up. And also things like the fetishization of gay men in fandom and just things like that are sometimes what can lead to female characters- even the well written ones to be shelved and pushed aside in favour of their male counterparts.

Obligatory ‘not all JayVik fans’ obviously a lot of you are awesome, shouldn’t have to say this. If I’m not aiming for you, you shouldn’t be getting shot.

[gemsofgreece]

Folklore ask! Any stories on how the Greek mermaids got to be named after gorgons instead of any other countless sea or water spirits in myth? Does it have to do with princess Thessalonike?

I think this is actually a very complex story involving literature, oral tradition, the perception of creatures, women, historical figures and the meaning we apply to symbols according to our circumstances. This is a long story so there is going to be a Read More cut below.

First of all, Modern Greek has two words for the mermaid; γοργόνα (ghorghóna) and σειρήνα (sirína), so as you see both gorgons and sirens were conflated with the image of the mermaids at some point. In fact, the sirens did that first. I write "ghorghóna" in Latin characters to stress the change of the pronunciation of γ to a voiced velar fricative ever since late antiquity but otherwise the word is the exact same.)

Ancient Greek Mythology did not have a mermaid creature in the way we imagine it since the Middle Ages but the Ancient Greeks were aware of an ancient Assyrian deity who was imagined like that. This was goddess Atargatis who was known in Greek as Derceto. Greeks identified Atargatis / Derceto as the same with a mermaid goddess worshipped in Askhelon, somewhere in the north of modern-day Syria, according to Diodorus (1st century BC) but also Ctesias (5th century BC). The Roman Lucian confirmed this perception in the 2nd century AD. It is believed that to some degree this worship was known to Greece, especially during and after the Hellenistic period. For example, there has been a scripture found in Pella, Macedonia (<- coincidence?) dating to 206 AD in which the veneration of an Assyrian water deity is described.

The early Sirens of the Greek mythology (since 7th century BC) were depicted as creatures with the bodies of birds and the faces of women, who would seduce sailors with their beautiful music and singing. However, from the Classic period onwards there is scarce art depicting them with a fish body instead, maybe due to an Assyrian influence or maybe because the Sirens were creatures associated with the water mostly. They lived at the shore waiting for ships to pass and they were children either of River God Achelous or the Titan Oceanus or of Phorcys, son of Pontus (Sea).

A critical moment for the establishment of the siren as a mermaid in European minds might have been the book Physiologicus, written in Greek around the 2nd century in Alexandria. The book was a predecessor of bestiaries and was connecting various beasts (mostly actual animals but also a few mythological creatures) with the Christian doctrine by associating them with some trademark moral qualities they supposedly had. Physiologicus became very impactful and was translated to Latin, Armenian, Ethiopic, Syriac and later to Slavic, Old German and other European languages. I wasn't able to find what exactly was said about the Siren in the original Physiologicus, however the 10th century German copy Bern Physiologicus described the siren as half-woman, half-fish. Also, from the 7th century onwards western European books assert that the sirens are "sea girls" and are described as "having scaly fish tails". I did find a tiny image of a Greek manuscript of the Physiologicus and it has this drawing of the sirens, who indeed look a lot more like merpeople than half-birds:

Again, Physiologicus was very influential and the rest of the Early Christian tradition also explored the theme of the sirens extensively through the lens of morality. Early Christian documents discourage people to believe in the literal existence of sirens (fair enough) but they also shape their meaning into an allegory for prostitutes or any vile lustful women who are a danger for the moral male. In this context, the fish form gains more and more ground as well as alternative imaginings of the sirens as half-snakes or half-dragons. It should be noted that there are even imaginings in which the Siren has simultaneously fish and bird traits. The scaly look though, the picture of the siren ascending from the dark abyss instead of a feathery flying singer was more effective for the description of a destructive, dangerous feminine being. It is in the Byzantine period and respectively in the Middle Ages in West Europe when mermaids really become popular. In spite of all that, the bird version was not obsolete. The 10th century Byzantine encyclopedia Suda describes the sirens as half-birds.

Pages from Suda.

Let's go to the Gorgons now. The Gorgons were daughters of Phorcys, son of Pontus (Sea), much like the Sirens according to one version of their myth. They are too part of the general sea mythological sphere. They lived either beyond the edges or in Oceanus, in a hardly accessible rocky island. Their bodies were imagined as centaurs or wasps as early as in the 8th - 7th centuries BC but after that point they were imagined as humanoid, however sometimes they have snakes in their waist too or a scaly appearance or even wings, like we see happening with Sirens. All original accounts agree to a terrible old-looking repuslive face crowned with snakes. So does their name; Γοργώ (Gorgó) means "terrible looking, fearsome, terrifying". Despite that and before Ovid's popularisation of the Roman version of a victimized Medusa, the Greek Pindar already described Medusa as an incredibly beautiful woman in the 5th century BC. Pindar's take was influential and after this point ancient Greek art depicts a fairer Medusa. One can argue that Medusa typically looks scary but beautiful in pop culture ever since. In other words, as time passed there was some convergence in the way Gorgons and Sirens were imagined; the duality of being beautiful yet terrible and vile, sea creatures, feminine attributes, eventually a scaly look.

Let's make a pause now to talk a bit about Thessalonike and her tragic story. Thessalonike was Alexander the Great's half-sister, so named by her father Philip after an (undefined) victory against the Thessalians. Her mother Nicesipolis died when she was a baby and Philip died when she was a child so she was raised by Olympias. I would like to stress that there was a signficant age gap between Thessalonike and Alexander and there should not have been a lot of interaction between them. After Alexander's death, Olympias had still not married Thessalonike to anyone, favouring her own daughter first. Cassander, one of the diadochi, killed Olympias and Alexander's son and successor and married Thessalonike probably forcefully in order to get a better claim for becoming the King of Macedon. Cassander then named a new city he founded on the site of Ancient Therma after his wife. Thessalonike seemed to have influence over her three sons, especially after Cassander died, however when the first born Philip died, the second son Antipater murdered his mother, most likely because she favoured her third son Alexander to at least share the throne with Antipater while she was also serving as regent. I mostly wrote all this to make a point that the last person who was impactful in Thessalonike's life was Alexander the Great.

Around 338 AD there was an Alexander Romance attributed to Pseudo-Callisthenes. This book was supposedly recounting the life and adventures of Alexander the Great, however it was highly fantastical and inaccurate and became what you would call a liberal historical novel of sorts. This is where the origins of the legend of Thessalonike were. (What if there is some connection to the surviving veneration of the Assyrian mermaid goddess in Macedonia, just a century earlier?) Alexander Romance was a huge success getting translating into 25 languages in pre-modern times and reaching as far as Malaysia and Mali. This is certainly what greatly assisted Alexander to become a legend and hero even amongst foreign nations, gaining even their own local national traits. The original Greek version was so loved amongst the Byzantine Greeks that it got multiple revised editions, including some in which it was recasted in poetic Medieval Greek vernacular. It was one of these copies that the Latin diplomat Leo the Archpriest found in Constantinople in the 10th century and translated it into Latin, which made the Romance very popular in the west too.

Okay, we talked about the duality that the sirens and the gorgons had attained at this point as well as the survival of the interest around them due to the Christian theology. In Byzantine Greek the meaning of the word gorgo (terrible, fearsome) was still fully understood. In fact, in Byzantine Greek there was the word γοργόνη (ghorghóni) which addressed a horrible woman. It is also reported in the local dialect of Amorgos island. It is thus most likely that the shift of Thessalonike as "a gorgon therefore a mermaid" happened at that time and perhaps especially in the copies in the Medieval Greek vernacular and it was due to all this mix of influences.

You see, Thessalonike is not described as just any mermaid or even just like a plain man-eating siren. She appears to have two forms or two personalities in her. She swims in the seas waiting to find a ship and ask the sailors whether Alexander is still alive. In this state she is beautiful and calm and pleasant in her manners, which resembles the romantic view of a mermaid or the initial seductive state of a siren. If the sailors confirm that Alexander lives and rules and conquers the world, she remains this way and sends good winds to help the ship travel to its destination quickly and safely. But when the unsuspecting sailors say "But, Lady, Alexander died long ago!" then she changes and becomes what the Byzantine Greeks would call "ghorghóni". Her power is way more immense than to just grab a dude and eat him. She becomes huge and terrible and with the power of her tail she causes enormous storm waves which break and sink the ship and kill all the sailors. For this reason she was probably engraved in people's perception as a terrible Gorgon.

Here's the thing though: γοργώ (ghorghó) sounds an awful lot like another Greek word, γρήγορος (ghríghoros) which means "quick, fast". Those two are both ancient but etymologically unrelated. The fall of the Byzantine Empire and the annexation of the Greek lands by the Ottomans led to significant changes for the worse in the number of Greek people who had easy access to education and particularly education in relation to their heritage beyond this of the religion. Only select few that kept their riches or Greeks who then fled to the west had easy access to these things. In short, with more limited access to older forms of Greek or old Greek literature eventually γοργός (ghorghós) changed into a variant of γρήγορος (ghríghoros) = fast and its actual meaning of fearsome, terrible was forgotten. In these circumstances, the word γοργόνα (ghorghóna) which was used to address Thessalonike was now perhaps perceived as meaning something in the likes of "swift, agile and lithe" and it became associated with the positive mermaid form of hers. Eventually, the word γοργόνα was established as a generic term for the mermaid just like σειρήνα.

This happened because the legend of Thessalonike as a mermaid as well as the entirety of the Alexander Romance remained popular in the Ottoman period. The Byzantine copies were still circulating in the Greek population and in 1680 a Modern Greek version was printed with the name Φυλλάδα του Μεγαλέξανδρου (loosely translated to "Papers about Alexander the Great"). The book was written in the colloquial Demotic vernacular and it could be read by everyone (who knew how to read). This is how these stories spread and became oral tradition and folk tales. The romantisation of Alexander's character and by extension Alexander himself became a point of reference for their historical origins for both the Byzantine and the Modern Greeks.

The modern book from 1680 (yeah that's modern)

The true reason Thessalonike's legend remained so popular was not due to Thessalonike herself. Thessalonike was a minor historical figure for the most part and her interaction with Alexander was minimal. Some historians believe it was her son Alexander she was grieving for in the original legend but then he was confused with his much more famous uncle. I downright disagree. I believe the reason Pseudo-Callisthenes or the unknown authors and / or all these revisions imagined Thessalonike as the one grieving and wreaking havoc for Alexander was because of her being the name-giver to the city of Thessaloniki which by the ending of the Roman period and the beginning of the Byzantine period became very prosperous and gained a lot of power. Thessaloniki was so loved by Byzantine Greeks that it was considered as the Συμβασιλεύουσα (symvasilévusa) = co-ruler city of Constantinople. Thessaloniki remains the most loved city for the Modern Greeks too. After the unification of Macedonia and its largest city Thessaloniki to the already independent from the Ottomans south and central Greece, Thessaloniki became the "Συμπρωτεύουσα" (symprotévusa), the co-capital to Athens. It is also called Capital or Nymph / Bride of the North. Greeks damn sure love that city. This was a folk legend which connected the ever loved Greek city to a distant past.

Furthermore, the legend explores a theme that resonates deeply in the hearts of the Greeks across millenias. The allure and the danger of being a sailor, of travelling in the seas. The Greeks have always been seafarers. Losing loved ones to seas far away is a very common theme of Greek folk songs. The folk felt represented in this legend with the ghorghona representing the unpredictability of the sea. But this is also how Greeks developed an understanding for this dual creature, beautiful yet ruthless, yet also melancholic and temperamental. The ghorghona became a familiar concept, representing their loved sea and their loved city and their loved symbol of old glories (Alexander). Inevitably, she was "forgiven" of her fearsome qualities and the ghorghona became the beautiful mermaid of the Greek seas that you have to know how to talk to and earn her favor.

The ghorghona became a loved symbol of Greek folklore and she is featured in numerous modern Greek poems, artworks, short stories etc

Modern art by the prolific cartoonist and painter Bost (Chrysanthos Mentis Bostantzoglou, 1918 - 1995). All the national symbols are here: the Ghorghona as the beautiful mermaid, the sea, Alexander, the White Tower of Thessaloniki and the flags.

"The ghorghóna as the captains of old told her story." Modern Greek folk artwork. Look how she eventually becomes a postive emblem of Greece.

Due to the tight connection of the sense of ethnic identity with the Greek Orthodox Christianity for Byzantine and Modern - frequently occupied - Greeks, the popularisation of the ghorghona the mermaid was reflected in the Greek Orthodoxy as well .

Detail from a wooden templum in the Church of Saint Dionysius in Zakynthos (Zante) island.

Detail from the Chruch of the Great Archangels, Tsagarada, Mount Pelion. This templum was probably completed in 1749.

And because this was not enough of a "how to make an Evangelical mad" I guess, you know how saints in Orthodoxy are venerated and they are often imagined as patrons of certain groups of people or certain qualities??? Well...

may I introduce you to Virgin Mary the Ghorghona?

...who also became a novel?

Clearly, this is Mary imagined as Patron Saint of the sailors and those who travel in the seas.

In conclusion, there is not an exact moment in history that suddenly turned the gorgons into mermaids, however I tried to explain how in the long course of time there were many linguistic, cultural and religious points which ever so slowly contributed into changing the perception of the gorgon from an ancient, murderous, fearsome creature to a positive, beautiful (yet at times very dangerous) symbol of ethnic identity.

Sources:

Mermaid - Wikipedia

Atargatis - Wikipedia

Siren (mythology) - Wikipedia

The siren: a medieval identity crisis – Mittelalter

Physiologus - Wikipedia

Gorgons - Wikipedia

Thessalonike of Macedon - Wikipedia

Alexander Romance - Wikipedia

Η Γοργόνα Θεσσαλονίκη | Parallaxi Magazine

Φυλλάδα του Μεγαλέξανδρου - Βικιπαίδεια

Ο συμβολισμός της γοργόνας στη λαϊκή παράδοση της Ελλάδας μέσα από τη ποίηση και το τραγούδι

«Ζει ο βασιλιάς Αλέξανδρος;» Η γοργόνα και ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος – ΧΩΡΑ ΤΟΥ ΑΧΩΡΗΤΟΥ

Ζει ο βασιλιάς Αλέξανδρος;

[elainsgirl]

HELP, because im literally dead laughing.

Why did an anti say in the bonus chapter that azriel is only upset because of his brothers having mates and not him. they also mentioned he wanted elain to be his mate because his brothers got two sisters... so thats why he gets the third sister?? then they kept saying over and over he just wants a mate? but, the part that really made me laugh was "if he and elain got together and he found his mate, hE wOuLd lEaVe eLaIn, nO hEsiTaTioN. elAin wOuLd giVe uP hEr mAtE, bUt aZriEl wOulDnT. " do they hear themselves right now? WHAT ARE THEY EVEN READING, for real? they lack reading comprehension so bad!!

Hey anon 🫶

GA stans will never beat the allegations they don’t actually understand Azriel’s character outside of whatever they can twist for their ship.

If Azriel’s whole sadness simply stemmed from the fact he solely wanted a mate - his whole character arc surrounding the fact he believes he deserves and should have a mate, there was no need for Sjm to bring Elain into it. Elain wouldn’t have needed to even be mentioned in the bonus. Rhys theorised that Azriel was waiting for the bond to snap between him and Mor - THAT would have been the focus.

According to GA logic you’d get the same result. Azriel could have gone to Rhys and whined about how it wasn’t fair his brothers had mates & he didn’t, him wondering why the bond hasn’t snapped between him & Mor -> You get the same “Az only wants a mate!” Rhetoric that GA stans love to push. Gwynriel’s clearly must then believe Az is stupid and dumb. Why else would he complain over not having Elain as his mate when he knows you can only have one mating bond? Its useless. He knows elain cannot be his mate so why is he being counterproductive and wanting her to be his mate? He should still be pining and obsessing over Mor being his fated mate. It potrays Az as being illogical and childish - which ig is how GA stans show him as.

There was no need to mention Elain, the cauldron or pointing out the oddity it is to have 2/3 brothers mated to 2/3 sisters. There was no need to make Elriel attracted to each other. These are not complex romances. There is no multiple Lis or relationships. If Gwynriel is endgame- Elriel will not happen in any capacity. Yet Mass chose to include Elain. Chose to confirm that Elriel are attracted to each other, brought up the cauldron being wrong once again in the context of elucien.

“"if he and elain got together and he found his mate, hE wOuLd lEaVe eLaIn, nO hEsiTaTioN. elAin wOuLd giVe uP hEr mAtE, bUt aZriEl wOulDnT. "

What kind of Li would he be? That destroys Azriels character completely to the point of no redemption. Elain and him finally being together only for him to leave her bcs “Oh look! I have my mate now!” - Basically using Elain, discarding her the first chance he gets when his mate shows up ? The fact gwynriels genuinely believe this tells me they don’t understand Sjm’s way of writing her male Lis nor do they understand Azriel’s character- it literally makes him look superficial and fickle. Why would you want Azriel to be potrayed like that!? Its not giving romance. Its not giving sjm. This is what I expect your sterotypical misogynistic man to come up with. Men who do not care about women’s feelings. Men who see women as objects that they can use to fill the void before discarding them as if they meant nothing. Its so sad to see women coming up with these takes, Why would you want Elain to go through such heart break? Do they think Gwyn will find it romantic? Their twisted fanon Gwyn might but I’ll tell you now, If canon Gwyn ever found out Azriel broke another womans’ heart to be with her, she’d clock him in the face twice. Do they think Nesta/Feyre will Support or understand Azriel dumping their darling sister bcs “oh well he’s found his mate now so its all good” basically according to gwynriels, If Gwyn wasn’t his mate - she’d too be thrown away. The only reason Az would go after Gwyn is because she’s his mate - is this what they find romantic? Bcs it just gives me the ick. Thank God Mass would never do such a thing. Say what you want about Sjm; she values Love & choice, female empowerment & friendship above all else even a mating bond.

Gwynriels do not understand these characters and a good romance story, if this take is anything to go by. Everyone deserves better from the way GA/EL stans treat them.

This just makes me glad im on the right side of this ship war because most elriels will never ruin these characters for our ship. It also reaffirms my belief in elriel.

[yallemagne]

#fully agree #and to add #it makes me mad when people are like #i don’t get the issue she can still have sex just get creative #and like. wow the point flew way over your head #yeah im sure she could. do you know how agonizing that would be though?

Hope you don't mind me nabbing these tags! Yeah, that response is just... kinda gross. Like if they're saying it just as a joke, it can be kinda silly I guess, but it's missing the point entirely. Yes, contactless/clothed sex exists. Yes, power-inhibiting collars exist. We know. It's not just about sex, you dolts.

#and also! #sorry i dont even think it’s JUST about romance even! #that’s a HUGE part dont get me wrong #but god like. just imagine not being able to touch any living thing. with your own hands. #that’s hard! #that’s agonizing #and that’s her number one source of trauma #and i feel like people boil it down to ohhh woman want romance want sex but cant boo hoo #when that is so. not the issue and the surface level

I don't mention the other conflicts that arise in the original post because I felt like saying "noo you're wrong that's not the only thing about Rogue!!" would be kinda pointless. These people are already ignoring all the non-romantic conflicts Rogue's powers cause so they can write her off as a one-note character. The point of my post was to illustrate how the intimacy conflict is worthwhile, not cliché or overdramatic like these people like to say. Not to weakly justify it by pointing out other stuff.

I'll use X-Men: TAS as an example. I believe the first instance of exploring the pitfalls of Rogue's powers is when she has to resuscitate Cyclops and gains his powers as a result, temporarily losing her ability to see in a dangerous situation. Most other times she uses her powers, she is trying to depower overpowered people, and she gains the powers and the mentality of those characters and it is often very overwhelming. Poor woman has to absorb so much damage from villains to do her job. And the other powers she has belong entirely to someone else! She was forced by Mystique to absorb Ms. Marvel's life force, taking her life in the process. The only thing that can relieve her of the guilt (and prevent Ms. Marvel from taking over) is to completely suppress those memories.

But since people don't take women seriously it's all just "she's being overdramatic about not getting to fuck her boyfriend it's sooo annoying, she needs to get creative or get her priorities straight".

I keep seeing posts criticizing Rogue for her most explored conflict being how her powers affect her romantic relationships, and I don't wanna be like "those people don't get it" because, of course, it's not that simple. It's a matter of opinion to go "I don't hate Rogue I just wish she'd stop having intimacy-related conflicts because I feel she's defined by the men in her life". But I don't agree...

I've seen posts that are like "I'm sick of the romance, do something else, what if her powers did something in this scenario? in this scenario?" and you can have that and still have the romance because, like it or not, it's just a part of Rogue's character. The conflict has the potential to be poorly written, but it also can be amazingly written and I feel these people would still dismiss it because it has to do with romance and romance is frilly and frou-frou and has no substance to them when coming from a woman's perspective. Maybe I'm assuming too much, but it comes off that way.

I think it's fine for a female character to be preoccupied with romance and to place physical intimacy on a pedestal because its something she can't have/can't normally have. That's just human. People fixate on things, and it can get exhausting watching this character beat herself down, but that's how you're supposed to feel. I mean, if you get to the point where you're just sick of the story, yeah it's just not for you. But it is exhausting to have this insecurity eating at you constantly, making you feel less-than, making you feel unworthy of affection because you can't give or receive it in the way you imagine is the most important.

Of course, it's a conflict that needs resolving. It's just that it's not a conflict you can resolve in one interaction. Rogue will need to actively tackle her insecurity every day of her life. She'll have to power through seeing others share bare touches without beating herself up about it and shamefully cutting herself off from those who love her. And you know, maybe, every day it gets easier to accept that this isn't the life she wished for, but it's the life she has, and she's blessed to have that life and to have a partner who loves her just as fervently as he would if he could touch her. She doesn't need touch to prove her love is real because it just is.

[tachiguin]

Adventures in de-girlbossifying female BSD characters, pt. Gin Akutagawa. I've already talked a bit about how I think people tend to write Gin fairly simplistically: as the supportive and sometimes protective younger sister of Ryuunosuke, who is also a badass assassin who rarely speaks.

I think what people tend to gloss over is the implication of Gin being situationally nonverbal. Please correct me if I'm wrong (I've done what research I can as someone who doesn't experience this), but selective mutism tends to correlate with social anxiety, which generally is a trait that I rarely see Gin portrayed with, despite the high likelihood that she has some degree of anxiety surrounding social situations. It even makes sense why she couldn't speak in the beginning of the series, but was able to hold a conversation with Tachihara later on. Gin is the younger sister of one of the Port Mafia's elite, and it can be inferred that Gin only joined the organization because Ryuunosuke was recruited by Dazai. Even someone without a pre-existing disability would probably feel nervous about how they're perceived by their coworkers (accusations of nepotism, general misogyny, etc).

This is just my oc-ification of Gin based on limited canon portrayals of her, but I think Gin would struggle with a fear of receiving criticism or contempt a lot. She's comfortable with speaking within the Black Lizards, and maybe a little bit with the ADA, because she's grown to understand and expect what their responses to her will be. It's not that she doesn't speak because she's shy or reticent (though she can be these things as well), but that she can't speak, because there's the sense that whatever she has to say won't be received well.

Personally, I also agree that Gin isn't innately timid or meek by any means, but I also think that people, once again, oversimplify her because she's a female character into a girlboss caricature that is infinitely capable and strong, when she's portrayed in the series as someone with multiple layers, personas even, in a literal sense.

[wellijustfinnihedoneofthebooks]

Its honestly so funny to me when people talk about ryan condal's "team black bias" and its like yall... i dont think condal cares about the fictional waring factions of incest kingdom... i think he just thinks rhaenyra is his main character and thus warps the world to suit rhaenyra

[volfoss]

it is beyond infuriating how anne rice seems to insist on marius being a positive force in anyone's life ever. like she can't fully commit to exploring the fact he groomed armand and has repeatedly taken away his consent for what marius thinks is best (take the end of TVA as an example) and just kind of flatly puts it in the narrative. there's not really much interest in how these horrific events make marius come across as the worst because EVERYONE loves him. for gods sake, lestat learns from armand exactly what marius did to him in TVL and then proceeds to go find marius and be super friendly to him in the same fucking book. even armand and pandora, two of the people who have MORE than enough right to hate him, do not. it doesnt feel like shes trying to explore the toxicity of the abusive dynamic he traps them in, it just is there. and like yeah ofc the toxic vampire romance series but i think that this should be handled with more care. and it is not ever really framed in a way that she is interested in exploring how marius should easily be one of the most horrific characters in this series because it kind of feels like sa/rape/grooming/other things of that sort are just put there to further plot and not to really get the respect that they deserve in a medium.

[gwensy]

gonna be annoying in the tags

[lloydfrontera]

i think it fucks immensely that bk moon went out of his way to 1) establish rakiel wished to live a long life and eventually pass away of old age, 2) have him very briefly envy an immortal being only to be told very clearly to be careful what he wishes for by that very same person because living forever isn't all it's cracked up to be, 3) make the main antagonist be another immortal being who is so desperate to die he's willing to destroy the universe just to finally rest and 4) have said antagonist psychologically torture rakiel with the threat of making him live for a thousand years as everyone he loves and knows eventually grows old and dies and becomes nothing but forgotten memories.

only to then end the novel by making rakiel also immortal

like. god. it's so fucking good i love it. i'm not being sarcastic i genuinely think it fucks and it's one of the best ways bk moon could've wrapped up the plot.

it's a happy ending by all means but it has consequences and through the entire novel we've been shown and told over and over again just how heavy the consequences are and/or will be on rakiel.

he got his happy ending but it was at a price and by the last time we see him he's only just starting to pay for it.

it's great i love it

[o-uncle-newt]

I read Possession by AS Byatt after people told me "if you liked Gaudy Night you'll like this" and WELL.

Warning- spoilers for both books abound below!

So it sounded great- as a lapsed academic (though not in the field of literature by any means) there's a part of me that loves reading about academia because it's full of such obsessive people, and this book seemed to be exactly that and so I was excited.

Then I read it, and on the one hand, my first thought was "all these people are dull as heck, the only sane modern-day one is Val, and at the end of the day the historical stuff is just two people having an affair, who cares." My second thought was "there's just enough stuff here that makes me think that maybe the author knows that all of this is stupid, like the fact that Val is obviously one of the few sane ones here." But the ending made me doubt even that. Essentially, and I say this even as that lapsed academic, the author could not convince me to care about the important things at stake here, and as a result couldn't get me to care about the people who only seemed to care about those things.

I didn't care about Ash and LaMotte- they came across as two people high on their own supply who had a tawdry affair. (And each of them is the less interesting person, as a person, than their official partner!) As a result of not caring about them, I couldn't POSSIBLY care about Roland, Maud, and the rest of their crew, because their only functions were to be possessed by, and weirdly possessive of, these two entirely unworthy individuals, whose in-universe historical and literary significance Byatt couldn't convince me of, and to use that possession as a mirror for their own very lame romance. Beyond that they're utterly uninteresting, and there isn't even meant to BE much beyond that so it's not that surprising.

Anyway, I didn't like this book much, but it still made me think a lot. And there's a way in which a certain kind of person might say "well if it made you think then that's surely a sign of some positive quality" and... maybe? I don't know. I didn't hate all of it, and some parts were interesting, and I do have a whole separate list of things about the book that bug me including a breakdown of some of the book's (perceived by me) themes that I particularly disliked lol. Perhaps I'll post it another time. So I guess you can say it spurred me to thought, but loads of things that I don't like do that, and the only positive thing that that draws from me is that they're not downright dull.

The thing is, after finishing the book I was immediately struck by that "if you like Gaudy Night..." element, because it has a situation that felt weirdly similar (if for totally different reasons)- a young scholar stealing a letter from a library/archive. The circumstances are different- in Gaudy Night, the scholar does it to hide its existence so as not to contradict his thesis, and in Possession, the scholar does it so as to explore the document further, though still secretly- but there are still some interesting parallels vis a vis class. Possession goes into the class thing more than Gaudy Night does, but neither book goes much into it- the scholar is lower-class and someone who has scraped their way to their position, and is encumbered by a female partner of lower social and academic standing, and in the end they are juxtaposed against scholars who come from an elevated class and who have more money and opportunity. In Gaudy Night, Arthur Robinson is judged by the likes of Lord Peter Wimsey and a college full of women who don't have to do anything but think, teach, write, and grade papers; in Possession, Roland has to convince a bunch of academics of standing and resources to take a chance on him (and while this is more about money than class, he's the main one who's like "maybe it's good if Lady Bailey gets her wheelchair"). Byatt elides over this at the end by having him magically become in demand and on his way to achieving his academic goals, but I think in both books, the class element really could have taken on more significance in the text.

(I'd add as well that Byatt pits the upper-class and moneyed Maud, who of course is doing things for "the right reasons," vs the evil American businessman who clearly... doesn't care about Ash enough? Despite how much he clearly and obviously cares about Ash? The book was way more interesting when he seemed like a valid rival to the British team, who only thought that they deserved the letters more because of their obsession, rather than how it turned out at the end where the American dude is an actual cartoon villain. What made him genuinely less worthy besides having money without class, and of course having the bad taste to be American? What makes one scholar's possession more justified? Sayers was never this unsubtle.)

So that made me think more about Possession vs Gaudy Night, and the thing is, there are actual living people in Gaudy Night! Say what you will about the unworldliness of the academics at Shrewsbury, but you get a very keen view of their personalities by the end, even as they are (by necessity given the rules of their world) subsumed by academia, or subsume themselves in it. And the people who do fall in love are REALLY in love, and you understand why...

And somehow a book from 1935 feels far more interrogative of the possession (or lack thereof) found in love and romance, and just about the place of women in academia and relationships overall, than one from the late 80s. In Gaudy Night, Harriet accepts Peter once she has determined that despite their power differential (brought on by class, money, history, and to a degree gender) he will not threaten her personhood, because he has proven himself to her. In Possession, Maud accepts Roland because she has the power (money, class, position, even height) and so Roland actually cannot threaten her- and yet still that final scene is about her being taken by him, basically to prove some kind of a point. In contrast, in Busman's Honeymoon, the euphemistic sex scenes are about Peter trying to please Harriet.

When I say it's to prove a point, I'm paraphrasing Byatt, incidentally- who said: "And in the case of Maud I had made it very inhibiting. She was a woman inhibited both by beauty (which actually isn't very good for very beautiful women because they feel it isn't really them people love) and she was also inhibited by Feminism, because she had all sorts of theories that perhaps she would be a more noble kind of woman if she was a lesbian. And so she was a bit stuck. And Roland was timid because I am naturally good at timid men. It's the kind of men I happen to like. He's a timid thinking man, so of course it took him the whole book." I mean... yikes, but also that explains a lot. Maud can only bring herself to be with a man who is weak/effeminate (?) enough to justify whatever weird psyche Byatt has imagined up for her, but still she needs to get over her inhibitions and under him because... reasons. I don't know.

(Height is also interesting here as a point of contrast- Byatt makes Maud taller than Roland to make a point about how on the one hand she retains the power but on the other hand there is now even more of her that has to surrender. Peter and Harriet are the same medium height and wear the same size gown.)

I think the thing that most stuns me is how regressive Possession feels when it comes to gender politics on relationships than Gaudy Night does. I'd need a whole other post to talk about this, but the theme of Possession seems to me to be "relationships that produce things (whether art or children) are worth more than ones that don't." Roland is better with Maud than with Val because Val is a second rate scholar who drags him down (while supporting him financially) and Ash is better with LaMotte than with Ellen because LaMotte didn't only inspire his writing (Ellen's contributions are described only in the negative "didn't impede"), she gave him the child that Ellen refused to. Incidentally, in both cases it's the man pursuing a relationship that will give HIM something... But, to paraphrase Peter in Busman's Honeymoon, one wouldn't want to regard relationships in that agricultural light. Gaudy Night is about how two people can produce great things without each other but choose to be with each other for their own, and each other's, happiness. They aren't each less apart, and as I noted in a prior post, they don't need to solve cases together or conjoin their work in order for their relationship to be worth something. It is worth it for them to be together because it encourages some kind of inner balance within them and between them, as people. They enjoy collaborating but that is by no means the basis of their love (and, incidentally, I think that a lot of, if not most, detective series romances fail this basic test of "would they have fallen in love if they were accountants who met on a dating app." Peter and Harriet definitely would have- would, say, Albert Campion and Amanda Fitton have? I do NOT think so).

And here's the thing- another reason why Byatt's quote above is so off-putting is that it makes it clear that not only in the text but on a meta level, the purpose of the relationships is to prove a Point. I found Roland and Maud to have zero chemistry, and honestly I was expecting them to get together 3/4 of the way through and split up at the end when it turned out they had nothing in common- it seemed like that kind of book. I was kind of stunned when they only got together at the end in an "it's meant to be" way because nothing about it seemed meant to be. They were stuck together by that one thing and they each apparently needed the relationship for some kind of self-actualization or historical rhyming or other. (Whatever I say about Ash and LaMotte... at least they seemed to like each other!)

Peter and Harriet... they get together because they love each other. Do they change over the course of Gaudy Night, and over the course of the other books they share together? Of course they do. But if it makes sense, I'll put it this way- Harriet doesn't accept Peter's proposal as proof that she got over her hangups, Harriet gets over her hangups so that she can accept Peter's proposal. Her hangups only matter because they were keeping her from this particular kind of happiness- she was a fully actualized person even with them. She is a person who does things for human reasons so that she can build a mutually happy life with the person she loves, not a little plot mannequin being moved around in order to tell the author's desired Message. People can say what they want about Gaudy Night and its flaws, but despite the intricacies of its construction, nobody can call the characters' actions and motivations anything but brutally human.

Whether within their universes or on a meta level, the books have SUCH different things to say about the value and nature of love, the place of and purpose of sex, the place of art and intellectual accomplishment in relationships, all of the above in the context of femininity… and I can't help but feel that each time, Gaudy Night wins the contest. It's possible I'm missing something major about Possession, and maybe sometime I'll post the rest of my notes about the things I disliked and people can tell me what I'm wrong about- but if nothing else it made me appreciate Gaudy Night even more, so for that I'm grateful.

[gammija]

.

[bmpmp3]

lemme tell you im starting to get a little sick of when im complaining about when a show or movie is writing a major female character with not as much depth as her male cohorts or she's written oddly plot device-like for a main character and people always tell me "oh but it's intentional, we're seeing her through the eyes of the male main character and he has a crush on her so he doesnt see her flaws" because like

FIRST of all yeah i get it but its hard to write that trope interestingly to me at this point without a lot of work put into subversion so intentionality doesnt make it any less boring

SECONDLY half the time people say this about ensemble cast stuff and like why is the random dude suddenly designated as the most perspective of all perspective characters when it comes to this specific woman. why dont we get to see the other characters perspectives on her too?

AND THIRDLY do people view women they have crushes on as bland plot devices without lives of their own enough irl that this is so universal in writing? isnt the point of having a crush wanting to hang out and know more about your crush, know about their likes and dislikes and all that. am i missing something here

[henry-fox-biggest-stan]

“Omg Edward and Bella are so Odysseus and Penelope coded” that’s how it sounds to me each time anyone compares a mlm ship to achilles and patroklos

[rustystars]

s1 of true detective has its own share of misogyny but at the very least, there’s a thread throughout it that not treating the women in your life with respect leads to those women not wanting to be around you. marty consistently views women & girls as either in need of protection or in want of sex rather than as complex people, & the story punishes him for this. maggie leaves him & his daughters barely talk to him & his girlfriends are few & far between. & this doesn’t make him a bad person! he’s the hero of the story & he cares incredibly deeply about them, but until he sees them as people, it’s hard for them to want to be around him. it’s a baseline understanding that misogyny, both systematically & on personal levels, leads to women being miserable.

compare that with s2, which somewhat builds itself around conversations of sexual agency & exploitation, but cannot define a single woman outside of her relationship to men. women are abused by men & must be saved by them; when women help themselves they do so ineffectively; they scream & cry & fuck & even then men know how to do it better. even ani, the main character & the Strong Badass Woman detective, is punished for having sex. she cannot protect herself or process her own sexual trauma (only men can help her do that), & she cannot make good decisions in terms of partners (& it's only fair that men degrade & shame her in response.) the only way she, & any other woman in s2, can be happy is through marriage or motherhood. she expresses nowhere in the show that she wants to be a mother, but the viewer is meant to accept her ending as happy, because she has a baby, so she MUST be. the only women who matter, or who can find any sort of contentment, are the mothers of sons. every child in s2 is a boy because women exist only to raise or fuck them, & have no experience of girlhood at all. you can be happy only if you find a good man, & if you can't, only if you commit yourself to being a good mother to your sons. women can only be happy with men to guide them. & also the mystery is boring to watch because fuck you

[white-weasel]

Seeing everyone praise an author in the comments of a TikTok and I’m wondering if I just read one of her duds or if I just didn’t “get it”