#it could be a nuanced character - but when all of the main women in the story all hate femininity

[what-shitfuckery-is-this-ew]

the in-world reason why Piper hates feminine stuff to the point of putting feminine women down is cause an an Indigenous women she has had to internalise a hatred of feminitiy for her own safety, but it's gotten to the point that it detriments her relationship with femininity on others as well

the out-of-world reason is Rick Riordan hates women

[marklikely]

on further reflection maybe it isn't out of character that i liked the kens over the barbies when a lot of the joke is how the barbies are all blandly nice and hypercompetent which as you may know is like my single most uninterested gender dynamic for fictional characters

[geegers22]

I’ve seen lots of conversation on here about Zutara shippers opinions on aang and mai and i thought I’d give my point of view.

I want to start by saying that I think there should be more of a distinction between disliking a character because they are a bad person and disliking a character because they are written badly. With that being said, I can confidently say that, with the material of the main ATLA show, I dislike Aang and Mai because they are badly written characters. Meaning, if their arcs were properly finished, I would have no problems with them. This brings me to another topic of how I don’t really ‘hate’ characters who are bad people if they’re well written but that’s a conversation for another post.

I need to point out that I didn’t start disliking Aang and Mai until they had their arcs undermined when Kataang and Maiko became canon. With the arcs they were going on, they had so much potential to be really interesting and I enjoyed their personalities.

When it comes to Aang, I had no problem with him as a character until season 3 part 2 when I started to realize that his world view (which is flawed based solely on the fact that he is young and there is no way he’s going to have a nuanced pov) was not going to be challenged. Aang should have had to give up katara. Aang should not have just had everything handed to him with the lion turtle and the pointy rock.

Then there’s the southern raiders which I would argue, if Aang’s arc had been completed, would not illicit as many conversations and arguments about it as it currently has. Because his actions in that episode make sense (Sokkas don’t really but again-that’s another story) because he’s a kid. This episode should have been a big decider of his change in worldview. The problem is that the creators decided his flaws didn’t exist and that he was perfect. (At 12 years old?!?!?)

Then there’s Mai. She’s a much smaller character but that doesn’t mean she deserves less of an arc. Mai is a character whose personality I love! (I’m all for gloomy depressed women!) There’s two ways Mai’s character could have developed, and I think both options are great, the problem is that Bryke decided to go in neither direction.

On the one hand, Mai could have been a representation of unlearning the propaganda she was taught in the fire nation throughout her whole life. I think this direction would make Maiko more believable, although I still don’t think they are a good couple because their personalities create a toxic dynamic and Mai’s story with Zuko is meant to represent that toxicity.

The second option would be to have her views not change, like we see in the show, and have her not get back together with Zuko. This is the more interesting path in my opinion because it’s more realistic. I don’t think the problem with Mai’s arc lies with her personal views of the fire nation, more so with her relationship with Zuko. As we have it in the show, Mai’s views don’t change. Therefor, it doesn’t make sense for her character or for Zuko’s for them to get back together like nothing ever happened.

When it comes down to it. Both Aang and Mai had their arcs sabotaged because the creators rejected Zutara. Even without Zuko and Katara getting together these were the wrong decisions. Both characters had potential to be well written, but in the end, the creators chose the path didn’t allow that to happen because they just couldn’t kill their darling. (Kataang)

Sorry for rambling, this is kind of just my take on the whole “Zutara shippers hate Aang and Mai” take.

[lastoneout]

Something I've noticed that is like...concerning but also just really annoying about online discussions about basically any topic these days is something that probably already has a name but that for now I'ma call "death of nuance via strict binary thinking" which leads a lot of people to get very angry over the idea that two things can be true at once, or that bringing up someone else's problems does not overshadow or invalidate your own, or that you can uplift a group of people without tearing down another.

Because like, I've had this happen on several of my posts now, where I say a generally harmless, factual statement, and several people rush in to either outright accuse me of saying a different, more extreme statement or annoyingly "correct" me to fix the supposed ~dangerous implications~ of my words, which I'm not gonna lie is as infuriating as it is confusing.

I can't make a post about how sugar is one of the main things the human body runs on and thus trying to remove it entirely from your diet is dangerous and harmful without people showing up to be like "are you saying it's okay to eat an entire bag of sugar by the spoonful??" and "well if you ate nothing but oreoes and ice cream that would make you sick" even though that doesn't contradict or really have anything?? to do?? with my original statement??

I can't make a post talking about the issues men(trans or cis) face under the patriarchy without people showing up and getting mad at me for "making feminism about men" despite the fact that the majority of my feminist activism DOES center women and taking a moment to explore the ways the patriarchy harms us all in no way harms women. And I can't make a post pointing out that marginalized men, especially black, disabled, and fat men often have malice read into their very existence and maybe that's bad without people showing up to get mad at me for saying marginalized men are incapable of harm which is not what I said at all.

And this one is a bit different but still one I see a lot, which is an over-correction seeped in the idea that we can only uplift one group at a time, or if x group is good y group must be bad. Like I am all for pointing out that there's nothing wrong with not wearing makeup and having body hair and not wearing deodorant, and women who live like that are fine and valid and can still be seen as sexy and desirable, and yes there ARE things to critique about the beauty industry for sure...but then that manifests into thinking women who do shave and wear makeup and deodorant are ugly or weird or brainwashed and should be mocked, which..no? Or when the dialog shifted to talking about fat people being hot suddenly we had a lot of people acting like skinny women were ugly and weird when that actually doesn't help with fat liberation AT ALL.

(Also just to clarify I think the occasional joke about these topics is okay given how much mockery fat, hairy, and non-feminine women get BUT there is a point when you go to far and some groups of people are racing over the line.)

And like yeah you could say the internet has always been this way but there's been a real noticeable uptick in progressive leftists coming at complex issues with this kind of no-nuance thinking, when it used to be something I really only saw from conservatives. I'd see stuff like "well feminism is bad because men also have problems" and "oh black lives matter? are you saying other lives don't??" and "oh you think drug addicts aren't inherently dangerous well what about the ones who DO hurt people" or "we can't talk about trans women's issues that would take away from talking about cis women's problems" and "we can't have a fat character that's glorifying ob*sity" and we used to MOCK them for that shit. This was seen as RIDICULOUS and was generally considered a conversation ender because it's clear the people doing it aren't actually interested in having a conversation they just want to yell at you for something you didn't say or pull a huge "I am uncomfortable when we are not about me" which just...ough please stop.

So seeing like actual progressive people pull this shit is really weird and it happens so often I legit can't ignore it anymore. I don't really have a solution, but I just feel like some of us really need to wrap our heads around the idea that just because someone said one thing doesn't mean they're saying this other thing too. Which, when you put it like that, sounds like the kind of thing you learn in kindergarten but I digress. Someone saying it's okay to eat sugar, your body actually needs it, isn't necessarily saying it's okay to eat so many oreoes you get sick(or excluding diabetics or being a corn lobby apologist or whatever the hell else people on that post are accusing me of). Someone bringing up the ways the patriarchy hurts people who aren't women isn't making feminism about men or saying women don't have problems. Trans men talking about their issues isn't implying anything about trans women just like bisexuals or asexuals talking about their issues isn't taking space away from allo gay people. Someone talking about how assuming marginalized men are threats when they're just existing is bad and gets innocent people killed isn't saying OJ Simpson did nothing wrong.

Two things can be true at the same time. Nuance is important and making space to talk about one thing isn't taking away from someone else. There's no contest, no slippery slope so dangerous we can't even state facts, no pie you have to fight over. Oppression isn't a math problem where whatever you do to one side of the equation must be done to the other or a scale that can't be balanced. This kind of thought process isn't productive and will not lead to a better, more equal world. Just one where someone else is wearing the boot.

Just...idk please just stop coming onto posts assuming the worst, doing bad faith readings and then getting pissed about something the person didn't say, assuming someone else getting a seat at the table means yours is in danger, being so desperate to be a good ally that you start doing lateral violence and calling it punching up, and just full on stealing conservative talking points and argument styles and trying to make them progressive.

We're supposed to be better than this. That's all I've got really, we're just supposed to be better than this. And while I don't always engage with people like this for obvious reasons, I'd like to think they aren't beyond saving and maybe this post can change a few minds. You guys aren't wrong to be angry and want to help and protect people who need it, but this is not the way to go about it and it never will be.

[susiephone]

i’m doing my annual reread of “gone girl” (happy women’s history month!) and as much as i ADORE the movie, both as a movie and an adaptation (seriously i think it’s one of the best adaptations i’ve ever seen), the book just has something to offer that i feel like couldn’t really be translated into film: the narration.

like yes there’s some narration in the movie, but films are a visual medium. for the most part, you don’t have the character tell us what they’re thinking, you show us via their actions. but a book, especially in first person POV as the book is (alternating perspectives between nick and amy), you have the benefit of having the character’s thoughts, and their actions, which can often hint at some stuff the characters don’t realize or don’t want to admit. especially because in the book, nick and amy are both aware they are telling you a story. they are both playing to an audience, they both know you’re there, and they both want you to side with them. and that is fascinating to consider as you read.

and we’ve all seen amy get made into this feminist girlboss heroine, and i know some people are joking (i mean, i joke about it), but some people are not. and that is baffling if you read the book and realize amy is also a complete misogynist. (actually she’s a misanthrope, she hates everybody, but she really has contempt for other women that doesn’t come up as much in the movie.) i’ve said it before and i’ll say it again: it is a tragedy the book cut out hilary handy, because what amy did to her is an EXCELLENT example of amy’s lack of care for other women. 

the book also delves more into how amy, while brilliant and clever, is also not nearly as smart as she thinks she is, and she’s also a complete spoiled brat. the movie definitely mentions that amy was rich, but in the book, it’s clear that she’s never actually had to have job in her life (she does have one, but it doesn’t pay that well and it’s clear she could quit and live off her parents’ money any time she liked), and when she complains about being dragged “penniless” to missouri, she can still afford to not work and never has to think about the cost of gas. like she and nick aren’t RICH anymore, but they’re certainly not poor. amy in the book pays ten dollars for a carton of milk because she doesn’t realize she’s being overcharged. she expects $12,000 to last her nearly a year living in hiding, without actually budgeting (or rather, sticking to her budget) or compromising on comfort. 

furthermore, the book gets more into amy’s childhood and why she is the way she is, and also how her actions affect people who did nothing to her. the book spends a lot more time with her parents, who while not GOOD people in the book, get a lot more depth and really highlight amy’s callousness. the book does more to explore her psyche to make it clear that amy isn’t some super-cool ice queen mastermind who Does What She Wants; she’s on the edge of a breakdown basically 24/7, she’s a total hypocrite, she’s completely oblivious to her weaknesses and other people’s strengths, she’s motivated almost entirely by what others think of her, and her ego is both VERY inflated and incredibly fragile.

and in the book, amy and nick are perfect for each other. seriously. i have personally concluded that neither of them are capable of selfless or healthy love--except nick’s love for his sister, which is his main redeeming quality as a human being--but they do love each other in the most twisted, fucked-up, masochism tango way possible, and they’ll live miserably ever after because neither of them could ever be happy with someone else anyway.

like i get this stuff had to be streamlined or downplayed to make a 432-page book work in a single film. but i wish more discussion of the story was centered around the book instead of the movie, because i feel like when you have to cut down on stuff, some nuance and depth inevitably gets lost. and i wonder if amy would be as widely idolized and praised if the fanbase was centered more on the book than the movie.

tl;dr: if you’ve only seen the movie of gone girl, i implore you to pick up the book. it’s fantastic and makes an already stellar story even better. the audiobook is also excellent, although it did take me a couple chapters to get used to the narrator’s voices. they’re both FANTASTIC but it was jarring to hear nick as Not Ben Affleck and amy as Not Rosamund Pike 

[la-pheacienne]

Ok I've rambled about this before but I want to do it once more.

You may need to sit down for this one but the Wicked Stepmother Trope is a reflection of very real life situations. There were and still are, "wicked" stepmothers. This is not just a stereotype. Irregardless of the societal reasons behind this (patriarchal structure of society), we cannot deny the fact that women, deprived of any real political power in the outside world, often abuse the little power they had inside their own household, at the detriment of other, weaker family members. Women are people, not holograms. Women historically had power however limited, and they too abused that power when they could, and they could do that against children because children are weaker. This is a centuries old societal problem that still exists today, especially in more traditional cultures. It is not mere construction. If you are not familiar with this issue, you have lived a very privileged life and I am happy for you.

However, let's suppose for a moment that the Wicked Stepmother Trope is indeed problematic and has a misogynistic nuance. I believe this is often the case and I will explain why.

If you want to deconstruct the Wicked Stepmother Trope, you have to be sure that there is a proper Wicked Stepmother Trope to begin with in the source material. You also have to make sure that the Wicked Stepmother Trope isn't already deconstructed in the source material. Which is EXACTLY the case in Fire and Blood.

So let's take a typical example of the Wicked Stepmother Trope : Cinderella. Let's compare Cinderella with Fire and Blood for a second.

There is no Wicked Stepmother resembling Cinderella's stepmother in Fire and Blood, for the simple reason that there is no Cinderella héroïne. What is a Cinderella héroïne : a passive, innocent, purely reactive girl, that patiently suffers and awaits for her Prince (a man) that will save her from her evil Stepmother (a woman). All these elements need to exist in order to talk about a proper Wicked Stepmother Trope. This trope gets this misogynistic nuance only when it is paralleled with the poor innocent fairytale heroine. It's the antithesis of the willful and driven woman that is punished in the end (stepmother) Vs the passive perfect feminine figure that is rewarded in the end (stepdaughter), that gives the Wicked Stepmother Trope the misogynistic nuance it has. And this is very important.

Now back to Fire and Blood.

Well, Rhaenyra isn't a Cinderella character at all. She is willful, she's radical, she claims her birthright, she makes mistakes, she dares, she goes against the status quo. She fits the stepdaughter role, and she too has a dashing Prince that tries to save her. Except that he doesn't. He dies, and so does she, horribly. She is not rewarded by patriarchy for her youth, beauty and submissiveness (very important factor if we wanna talk about misogyny in fairytales). Quite the contrary, SHE is punished by patriarchy.

Alicent fits the stepmother role, except that she doesn't fit the misogynistic Wicked Stepmother Trope because her punishment does not constitute an exemplary punishment for NOT being a Cinderella type of female. It's this juxtaposition to Cinderella that makes the trope misogynistic to begin with.

If anything, the Wicked Stepmother Trope is ALREADY deconstructed in the source material. By not respecting that, the writers achieved of course the contrary result : a deeply misogynistic narrative. Rhaenyra is basically a whore. The entire Dance stems from the fact that Rhaenyra had extramarital sex and that's it. That's literally it. The main antagonist was reduced to a rape victim, and had no ambition whatsoever. Since Rhaenyra wasn't a rape victim and had sexual freedom, morally she comes across as more ambiguous than the pure one dimensional victim that show!Alicent is. Rhaenyra had a choice, Alicent doesn't. So the whole BS that both women are equally victims of patriarchy comes at the expense of the actual female protagonist, the willful, daring, non-conforming female character trying to preserve her agency : Rhaenyra. It also comes at the expense of creating characters that feel real and consistent and are not just the product of a power-point on misogyny in uni.

Book!Alicent does not fit a stereotypical misogynistic Wicked Stepmother Trope, a trope whose main goal is to reward submissiveness and punish willfulness. It's already deconstructed in the source material. The author did all the work, all they had to do is copy it. They didn't, which is why we have takes like "oh if Rhaenyra didn't want to be burned alive she shouldn't have had a paramour in Court".

[karniss-bg3]

What's in a name?

For the past week I’ve had one mission; Find the meaning behind Kar’niss’ name.

To me, that is one piece of information that could lend the biggest clue to his origins. I’ve had luck in some places and roadblocks in others, it’s turned out to be slightly more complicated than I thought. I haven’t come up entirely empty handed though and what pieces I’ve dug up have put him in an entirely new light.

Let’s start off by discussing drow naming conventions. Drow can change their names later in life and may do so multiple times. This is usually due to some significant life event or promotion and said name may relate to these incidents. This makes me believe that Kar’niss got his name after his transformation. After all, being turned into a drider would be considered a big life event by many. They also avoid using any names that may be similar to Lolth, some going as far as to avoid the letter L altogether. Mind you during my research I found conflicting reports. Some sources say it’s fine to pay homage to Lolth in a drow name so long as it’s only partial, such as “loth” or “lothine”. Others say it’s forbidden the whole way around and bad form. Take this as you will.

Drow names are also gendered, their prefixes and suffixes are labeled specifically toward male and female. Rarely, women could take on a male name with little push back. However, if a male takes on a feminine name they would be labeled a rogue or a troublemaker. This information is important later.

There are many more nuances to how drow are named, such as numbering their children in the drow language, or naming children in honor of their mothers and ignoring fathers completely. Looking over what resources I could find, Kar’niss’ name didn’t seem to be related to either of those things. With the exception of the suffix “Niss” which we’ll get to.

I’ve managed to find a chart that has all of the common drow prefixes and suffixes listed. Let’s take Minthara and Nere as two examples. The prefix “Min” is feminine and it means “lesser, minor, second” and the suffix “thara” is also feminine with the meaning “glyph, marker, rune”. This could translate to lesser rune, second glyph, and so forth. Min could also suggest her birth order as second however the birth orders are usually a suffix and not a prefix, at least from what I could find.

Nere is a bit trickier. The only thing I could find on the list was “Neer” and it appears to be a gender neutral name, as it doesn’t have two options listed. Neer means “core, root, strong” and it seems to align with his personal viewpoints. Nere fans may have discovered his full name or something a bit more meaty but as of now that is the closest I could find.

Now we come to the main event, Kar’niss. The one piece of solid evidence I found was the meaning for the suffix “Niss”. It’s the feminine equivalent to “Nozz” and it means “chance, gambler, game”. I suppose “Kar’nozz” doesn’t roll off the tongue as fluidly as Kar’niss. So we have one piece of the puzzle, what about the prefix “Kar”?

That, dear reader, is where my biggest roadblock came into play. Nothing on any resource I’ve found lists Kar anywhere. Not in prefixes, suffixes, house names or Dark Seladrine Gods. A big, fat goose egg. It’s easy to think of Karsus when hearing that prefix, the most powerful wizard that ever lived. Maybe there is a link but honestly I feel like I’d be reaching really hard to make that connection. Kar’niss doesn’t really show signs of being interested in wizardry and if he was before his transformation, he says shit all about it now.

I was ready to give up. I don’t think Larian is the sort to do something without purpose. Even though Kar’niss is a side character, the work put into him leads me to believe that name has some significance. So in my stubborn way I kept looking, until a thought dawned on me. All this time I’ve been digging through drow specific information while ignoring the drider in the room. What about...elvish? Yes the two languages are very similar but drow have different dialect than surface elves. Kar’niss is very pale in complexion and we’ve theorized he could be a Szarkai. It would make sense for him to take on an elvish prefix especially if he was trying to fit into surface societies. There could be a small chance he’s half-drow but the game lists him as drow in his character window so I think that theory isn’t viable.

Down a new rabbit hole I went and I found some interesting information. The first piece I found came from Tolkien's elvish dictionary. Kar means “do, make, build” in elvish. Couple that with gambler, chance and game you could translate the full name to “Make your own luck” or even “Take a chance” depending on how you approached it. Other options are “Playing a bad/dangerous game”, “Making a bad decision/bet” or something more in the realms of a negative connotation.

The second piece I found came from forgotten realms. There are several words that have the word Kar listed in them. These three are the most notable:

Hakar: Enemy

Sekkar: Flee

Karask: Demon

Only one out of the three starts with Kar and it seems fitting for what Kar’niss became; A demon. Sekkar also aligns with the notion he was a Szarkai, as they preferred to flee from battle rather than engage. Enemy seems self explanatory, he could feel like he is the enemy of Lolth or the Underdark as a whole.

Out of them all the Tolkien option seems to suit the best. The others are part of a bigger word and while threads can be stretched between them, there is no way to say that they’d hold. So where does that leave us? Naturally with more questions than answers, but this does suggest a few intriguing directions Kar’niss could’ve come from.

It is apparent that Kar’niss is very subservient and afraid, but that doesn’t mean he always was. Taking on the feminine suffix “niss” could suggest he was a troublemaker or a bit of a jet setter while in the Underdark. Maybe he broke rules, said things he shouldn’t have, pushed boundaries. If he was a Szarkai he could’ve been sheltered from some of the more harsh treatment other males were known to endure. This could’ve made him arrogant, egotistical and brazen. He may have over stepped, made a bad gamble as it were, and it cost him everything. The feminine suffix of “niss” could also be a way to emasculate him further. Drider are sexless and Kar’niss’ lower regions no longer exist, something that might have bruised his pride terribly.

Alternatively, his suffix could’ve been given to him by others to suggest his luck at being born a Szarkai although that is more of a stretch. Kar could also align with how spiders make and build webs thus the distinction between the two. Or maybe he took on an elvish lover or friend and gave himself an elvish prefix in honor of them, or they gave him the name, even if such a relationship cost him in the end.

There are so many wild variations and theorycrafting you could do with those pieces of information. While most of it is loose the one thing I can say for sure is that the suffix “Niss” has great importance. I think he made a bad bet or played a dangerous game and lost, and becoming a drider is his punishment. Maybe he took on the trials of Lolth, something a few might consider a game, and lost there as well. Perhaps if I keep digging I can find something more solid to link him with the prefix “Kar” but as of right now this is what I could find.

So ends my journey for answers, for now at least. I hope this wall of text provided folks with some interesting information and ideas. Thanks for reading!

Sources: Tolkien's Elvish, Drow, Prefix/Suffix list for drow, Elven Lexicon, Drow naming practices.

[velvetvexations]

i feel really selfish saying this, but i really wish there were more general trans movies with characters who aren't trans women. like, i'm really glad that they're there and there should be more, but on the other hand, its kinda all thats there? obviously there ARE movies like this, but 9 times out of 10 when there's a recommendation to go see a trans movie, its either a trans women or a character heavily implied to be a trans women there. and i'm really glad those movies are there! but i'd just wish there could be a big discussion about movie and there would be a trans man or a nonbinary person representing the community.

(this also goes for other types of media too)

i sent an ask complaining about how the majority of trans movies that the community talks mainly show trans women and i wanna take that back cause a lot of those media are shitty towards trans women. i dont think its fair to complain about that when those media are awful towards trans women. i apologize

anon of the trans ppl in media asks you can publish them! i retracted it cause im kinda emotional rn and i couldn't really remember if i was being fair or shitty

I think what you're forgetting, anon, is that while trans women are depicted badly in a lot of places - less so over the years, people mainly reference things from the previous century - there's still way more positive transfem rep than there is of anything for transmascs, and that doesn't mean transfems have it better, but as always hyper-visibility and invisibility are two sides of the same coin. It's okay for invisibility to not feel good. There should indeed be more media about transmascs.

Now I'm finally doing that. This year I made my first ever hand sewn cosplay. There are definitely mistakes, but it's pretty sturdy and I can't express the sheer sense of pride I got from wearing something I sewed myself. There are some things I wanna tweak on it, like I must have made a mistake when measuring the waistband because it's WAY too thick. But it's functional, it's accurate, and it even has a zipper! It was expensive because of course for my first ever sewing project I picked a character with a pleated skirt (you need 3x your waist in fabric and im fat which definitely adds up lmao, plus i got the fabric custom printed from a print-on-demand company) and the pleats took forever to do. But I'm so so so proud of it. I'm looking into armor crafting with EVA foam for a future cosplay, and it's intimidating but I'm really excited at the idea of working with it. I've seen so many amazing armor sets and props made with EVA foam and I can't wait to make my own. I'm thinking I'm gonna cosplay Maple from BOFURI: I Don't Want to Get Hurt, So I'll Max Out My Defense.. Then again, that might be jumping off straight into the deep end again like I did for the last cosplay since she has a GIANT shield. At least I'm sticking to her main outfit, not the one with giant angel wings lmao. I may have watched several videos on wing crafting but even I'm not brazen (or stupid) enough to try making those for only my second real cosplay lmao. Anyway this has been your regularly unscheduled cosplay info dump. Thank you for tuning in, we'll see you next time!

Ambitious! I hope it all turns out great, it sounds like a lot of big projects to have on one's plate.

My opinions are a lot more nuanced than most takes on 'shipcourse' that ive seen, but I've gathered that im generally included when people say 'proshippers dni' based on how people define it in said dnis. I'm not gonna purposefully interact with someone who obviously doesn't want me there. But that makes it frustratingly difficult to find people to follow who also believe in things like transandrophobia. It happens all too often that I find someone with great takes and go to follow them, then see that they have a dni that includes me. It especially sucks when all the other things in the dni are things like "racist" and "transphobic". I'm sorry, but I just can't see having a nuanced opinion on fiction as being on the same level as being a bigot towards others. It sucks to be put on the same level as actively hateful people because I have concerns about the normalization of censorship. I believe that when you open the doors to censoring media because of morals, you set the groundwork for things like the Hays Code. Censorship has always been disproportionately used to silence marginalized groups. I just can't get behind that, no matter how 'noble' the intentions behind it might be.

If it helps any, I'm also what one would call a pro-shipper but find the word itself beneath my dignity because I think it's ridiculous it's an argument in the first place.

[alpaca-clouds]

Why I have complicated feelings about the Witcher Games

I started my yearly reread of the Witcher books and it once again reminds me of how complicated I feel about the Witcher games. Because... well, they kinda focus a lot on the power fantasy over the story and characters.

Let me quickly explain: I read the Witcher books when they released in Germany and I loved them, because... it literally was the first time outside of manga that I ever encountered queer characters in media, which meant a lot to my queer little self back then.

However, when the first game came out I did not make the connection between the title and the books I read. Like, the names vaguely rang a bell to me, but I really did not make the connection at first when playing that first game.

Now, back then I was still in my late teenage stage, and so back then the entire "sex minigame" with the sexy card collection was funny to me. It was before my feminism arc, so to speak. I just did not think too much about it.

By the time however that the second game came out I had rediscovered the books. And I found that... It really icked me. The entire sex thing. And also that they made Triss all sexy, completely ignoring that in the book she had this big disfiguring scar over her chest which could not be fixed because of her ALLERGY AGAINST MAGIC REMEDIES! But no, the game ignored that.

It should be said, I have... complicated feelings about Yennefer, which probably has to do a lot with internalized misogyny. But yes, I always liked Triss a lot, while... Ah, I just always got annoyed a lot with Yennefer taking so long to be honest about her feelings in the books. But again, probably internalized misogyny, I am honest.

Now, I had a ton of fun playing both Witcher 2 and Wild Hunt. I did. But when I was there, reading the books again, I could not help but very much just headcanon that those were two very, very different things. Because... well, the Witcher games are a cishet male power fantasy, while the books are anything what.

Geralt in the books is disabled because of his injuries, and marginalized because of his status as a witcher. And while the latter is vaguely hinted at in the game, it never really becomes a main theme. Because it would of course go against the power fantasy of it. And his disability? Yeah, that gets just fully ignored by the games. He is just very fit and very... everything. He is a walking, talking male power fantasy.

And that does do his character dirty in my point of view. It really does him dirty. Because that is not what Geralt is or stands for.

There is also the fact that the game turns the "women wanting to fuck him" into a part of the power fantasy, while in the books this very much is about him being objectified and fetishized.

And again, Triss gets to be conventionally attractive and her feelings for Geralt get turned into this love story, rather than this very awkward and kinda tragic one sided love, that made Geralt feel shitty for leading her on.

And I cannot help but be very frustrated with it. Because... Look, the books are not perfect. They are not. But... Geralt is such a wonderful character in them. A character with a lot of nuance. And I just hate how the games kinda did away with all of that nuance, so that the character could serve a power fantasy for white cishet dudes.

[writingwithcolor]

Representing African-American Woman, Biracial, “fierce and strong” and hair questions

Anonymous asked:

I’m changing a character in a novel I’m editing to be a fierce, strong African American woman living with an anthropologist father and lawyer mother (I picture the mom like Jessica in suites). I also feel like being bi-racial in the south makes her a little conflicted. She sometimes wants to just “be white” to make things easier, but is so very proud to be African-American and bi-racial. She is also lesbian and a future love interest of the other main character However, I am white- so I have questions!! Here are 3 scenes I need help with:

1. Leigh is putting conditioner in her hair and hears the doorbell. She puts her hair in a silk hairwrap (is that ok to call it that?) after the other characters leave, she works on the computer and falls asleep. When she wakes up its 2:30. I was going to have her undo her hairwrap and run her fingers through her hair… but I know African American hair can’t be brushed, would running her fingers through it (even damp) ruin her hair? 

2. her and the other lesbian “anne” are getting ready at a hotel for an important event and Leigh comes out of the bathroom in a beautiful dress and an “afro blow out” (I have the photo of hair names saved from this group- just not looking at it as I type and will use the correct hair name in novel). When she comes out of the bathroom Anne sees her and is taken completely aback by her beauty. Her reaction makes Leigh uncomfortable and she asks if she should {straighten/presss} her hair. Which action is the correct word there? …to which Anne tells her no, she loves her natural hair because it’s who she is.

3. Later in the book, they are going to be heading to an archeological dig in the desert and I thought about giving Leigh “braids” with “coloured extensions/weave” .. is “tightly woven braids with (haven’t chosen colour yet)” appropriate? What should I say instead? This will also prompt a convo between the two main characters where Anne asks Leigh why she changes her hair so much. Leighs response will be “{As an African American} my hair is a large expression of who I am. Much like the clothes we wear for different moods or events, I change my hair to reflect what I am feeling or just as an outward expression of who I am” .. should I put the African American part in? I feel that hair is an expression to most people, but I know it is a huge part of African American culture and I want to get it right

Thanks in advance for advice!! This is a book I have always wanted to write, but it also became a book about “underdogs”. I really wanted to make a book with queer representation. I also realized I wanted to have an African American as there isn’t much representation for them either. I really want to show her as a fierce, smart woman (who of course struggles with the brevity of being “mixed race”) that isn’t a gangster, rapper, or the typical things we see in the media. I really want queer and/or African American young women to read my novel (eventually) and feel like it describes them well. Not in a stereotypical way they usually are portrayed. Anyways.. Sorry for the ramble, but thanks in advance for all the help!!

First of all, I want to address your use of “Strong.” It is not the compliment you may think it is and Black women do not always accept it well, particularly from non-Black people. Being forced to be strong, aka the Strong Black Woman, is not an ideal condition. So portraying Black women as such without nuance is not welcome representation.  

“I also feel like being bi-racial in the south makes her a little conflicted. She sometimes wants to just 'be white' to make things easier, but is so very proud to be African-American and bi-racial.”

Be aware that not every mixed race person has an identity struggle. But in a world where she faces racism, it could be realistic, a desire to "just be white.” As a visibly Black woman, though, she’ll always be seen as Black, and never just white, even if she’s mixed race or even lighter-complexioned. It’s part of the whole “one drop” perspective.

Now, to your specific questions.

Black hair questions - are these the right terms?

Leigh is putting conditioner in her hair and hears the doorbell. She puts her hair in a silk hairwrap (is that ok to call it that?) 

1.)

It’s hard to answer if this sounds realistic without knowing what products Leigh is using in this situation.

Is Leigh using a leave in conditioner or a conditioner hair masque? The former is what you’d use to style and add moisture to hair. It’s fine to leave that in and go about your day. The latter is something you would wash out after use. 

Also, I wonder if you’re referring to a silk hair bonnet or scarf in your description of a silk wrap? She likely wouldn’t put on a bonnet or silk scarf if she had a mask in that she was going to wash out. If she did, she’d need to clean it to get the product off of it. 

For comparison, imagine you put a hat onto your head when you still had shampoo in it. Wouldn’t that be strange and messy? 

Now, there are hair wraps and shower caps used for conditioning hair. The material is made for being washed out or disposed of after use.

“I was going to have her undo her hairwrap and run her fingers through her hair… but I know African American hair can’t be brushed, would running her fingers through it (even damp) ruin her hair?”

Yikes. Who said our hair cannot be brushed? One has to be more careful and curly/coily hair may not use the same brushes as straight-haired folks, but we can and still do brush and comb our hair. Popular brushes are boar brushes (although I find these too “rough” on my fine coils) and detangling brushes.

And there is no one shared “African American hair type.” Please look into the range of hair styles belonging to Black women, mixed or no. From thick and course, fine and soft, straight and/or straightened. 

And, again I’m not sure what kind of conditioner was left in her hair. If this was a wash-out hair conditioner, and her hair was fully covered, it’ll likely still be damp. Some leave those on for hours, although the directions usually say 20-30 minutes is enough.

Long story short, her hair isn’t going to just be destroyed from running her hands through them, even if it’s really curly or coily. Hands don’t ease through certain curls in the same way it does straight, but you can roll over or around curls to avoid tangling and snagging, particularly if you carefully follow the flow of the curl itself. I am idly finger-combing a coil of my hair as I write this!

See also Black Hair Couple Interactions: Boyfriend Playing with his Black Girlfriend’s Hair

2.)

“Leigh comes out of the bathroom in a beautiful dress and an ‘afro blow out’" …her reaction makes Leigh uncomfortable and she asks if she should {straighten/presss} her hair. Which action is the correct word there?”   

You seem to be using the right terms. Blow out (you wouldn’t need to add "Afro”) and straightened are fine to use. I wouldn’t imagine her saying “should I press it?” To a white woman, though. 

I don’t have your photo references, but Google should’ve produced the correct results. Blow outs add volume to afro hair. Depending on how its done, heat level, etc. it can make hair look like a bigger fro, or make it straighter and stretched out. The more heat and time devoted to styling, generally the straighter you can get the hair.

3. 

“Is 'tightly woven braids with (haven’t chosen colour yet)' appropriate? … ;{As an African American} my hair is a large expression of who I am.; should I put the African American part in?”

While I’d leave out referring to the hair as extensions or weave, saying "tightly woven braids” is a fine description! 

And honestly, I'd suggest leaving out the As an African American portion. Coming from a non-Black voice, it may be taken as speaking for Black people. Also, not all Black people may agree with that statement. Hair has important cultural aspects for many, absolutely! So i’m not saying it’s wrong, but its best to Keep her statement individual, her own perspective, not a statement about the whole race. Again, coming from a non-Black voice, especially.

Characterization

“I really want to show her as a fierce, smart woman (who of course struggles with the brevity of being ”“mixed race”“) that isn’t a gangster, rapper, or the typical things we see in the media. I really want queer and/or African American young women to read my novel (eventually) and feel like it describes them well. Not in a stereotypical way they usually are portrayed. Anyways.. Sorry for the ramble, but thanks in advance for all the help!!”

I do think you need to do a lot more research on Black women, stereotypes, hair, and being a mixed race Black woman before writing this story. Our blog is a general resource, though just the start.

I appreciate your efforts to tell a story that isn’t built on stereotypes or the typical portrayals of Black people. Now, mind that some people may fit “stereotypes” but they are not stereotypes - they’re people.

Another thing - her being mixed race. While it’s fine to portray a mixed race character, and your intentions seem good, some writers choose this route because it’s “easier” and anchoring the Black character to whiteness (or even anyone other than Black) makes them more palatable. I only ask, if you had the intentions of representing Black women, why not write a non-Mixed race Black woman?

After evaluating your characters and the language used, you would benefit from a beta-reader, Black + queer or otherwise, reading your story before publication. They’ll be able to help you “get it right” and note any areas that cause pause or need correction.

I hope this was helpful!

~Mod Colette

[grotesquehorse]

Red, White and Royal Blue (2023) is a tragedy, but not for the reasons that people who hate the book on principle are talking about. It's not just a bad adaptation, it's a bad movie. There is nothing redeeming about it except the casting of Sarah Shahi as Zahra.

First of all, I want to say, that the book DOES have depth. Just because a book is a romcom doesn't mean it doesn't have depth. And I'm sick and tired of seeing the criticism from people who didn’t read the book say "people are complaining that the movie doesn't have depth but the book didn't have depth either, so what were you expecting". It fucking has depth. And I have a right to be upset that the movie absolutely fucking butchered it.

The Casting

The casting, although it has been criticized, has not been criticized for the correct aspects. Nick and Taylor have enough chemistry to be passable for a romcom - it's not great, but at least it wasn't Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant in Two Weeks Notice.

The casting for Alex was not good. I have nothing against Taylor, but his thousand-yard stare had nothing behind the eye(lashes) and actively hindered any and all of Alex’s interactions. Nick was better; Henry is a more subtle character (as he has to be), and this was portrayed much more convincingly.

Nora was fucking annoying and her actress was bad. Uma Thurman does not belong in this movie. Stephen Fry, although the funniest possible actor to put in that role, shouldn't have been in this movie either.

Alex, as a character, was butchered. He should have a Type-A, bouncing off the walls, undiagnosed ADHD, horny but anxious confidence about him. Movie Alex was entirely wrong. I would call him suave, but I don't find him charming. The audience is supposed to think he's suave, maybe, but this is the wrong character trait to give him. He is supposed to be confident and charming, but not suave. There is nothing going on in his head, and this is especially detrimental when Book Alex’s main personality trait is that he overthinks everything at every possible angle.

The Alex and Henry Relationship

The first kiss between Alex and Henry and the scene preceding it are all wrong. Movie Alex is kissing multiple different women and Henry is much more isolated than in the book. Alex’s first line in the confrontation is supposed to be "what are you doing out here?" not "did I do something wrong?" when Henry leaves the party; it's supposed to be more nuanced. Henry should be feeling "of course he's straight, he can't want me, I can't want him" not "betrayed because Alex kissed someone who is not me". Alex is not supposed to know that Henry is upset. Alex is not supposed to think that he is the cause of Henry being upset. The movie cuts any of the depth between them. Another core personality trait of Alex, is that he is selfish. He forgets to text June back about dinner, he gets wrapped up in his own head, he doesn’t understand his friendship/relationship with Liam. He doesn’t understand that he may be the cause of Henry’s emotions.

The camping scenes touched on Alex being selfish, but again, in all the wrong ways. He starts talking about how they could be out as a real couple after the reelection, but he fails to consider that Henry is a prince of England. Truly baffling writing choice, considering Alex is supposedly intelligent and political and, while selfish, extremely aware of the politics surrounding his and Henry’s relationship. Book Alex would never have suggested that they come out the way that Movie Alex did. Movie Alex is a fucking idiot, and didn’t do much to even try to convince me otherwise.

Although I hoped that the movie would be more romcom and less political/royal drama, I’m still dissatisfied with how the movie executed this. There was no journey watching Alex and Henry become friends. There was no "I’ve been in love with you for years" from Henry. There was no "you obsessively looked at his picture in a magazine" from Alex. A large part of the animosity between them, for Alex, is that they are constantly compared in the media. They are uniquely perfect for each other because they are both in very specific spotlights. This aspect of their relationship is completely absent from the movie.

My friend wouldn't let me skip the sex scene, but just know that it was fucking uncomfortable.

The Implications

The combination of Liam and Rafael Luna into one journalist character is a twofold character assassination. You can't take a high school hook up and a gay political professional (who Alex looked up to) and combine them into a journalist. It doesn't work. Miguel, the journalist, acts like a villain immediately - sunken eyes with a scorned lover attitude. He's a joke. There's no nuance in taking two crucial pieces of Alex’s sexuality journey and mashing them together to create an evil gay guy with no explanation.

It's implied that Miguel leaked the emails, but this ignores the actual triple agenting that Rafael Luna was doing. This movie is rated R, but we can't talk about a man attempting to sexually abuse another man because we can't talk about sexual assault amongst the LGBT community; that would make the gays look bad. But we can diminish two characters and create an evil gay journalist archetype who just wants to out Alex and Henry for his own professional gain (and maybe get back at Alex for refusing to hook up with him again). So, you tell me, which gay representation is "worse" for the gays?

Miguel had to be created to be the villain so that Richards, the republican candidate running against Alex’s mom, the one who abused men and attempted to sexually assault Rafael Luna, couldn't be the villain that he is in the books. Because that would alienate the republican audience. Because the republican audience is so crucial to the marketing of what is considered the first mainstream gay romcom.

The Technical Aspects

The social media editing was bad. The way the emails were done was bad. There was no version of this movie that would be successful. There's too much reliance in the book on texts and emails, and you can't build a relationship through technology in a movie. It's always unsuccessful.

The cinematography is Hulu-original bland. The directing was incompetent. The script was incoherent at worst, and over written at best. "trouble you no longer" is a bad line. "he grabbed my hair in a way that made me understand the difference between rugby and football." what the fuck are you talking about.

I hate that the movie was bad, but it was bad. I don't know what fucking movie these other people are watching, but Red, White and Royal Blue (2023) is fucking unwatchable.

[sasaranurude]

I'm a loser who both spends too much time playing gacha games and loves to hear myself talk, so here's another game review style post, this time covering my first day playing Break My Case. This time I'm not even being a little hater! I'm a lover! I'm cringe! I'm free! I love you Coly! I love you ikemen gacha games!!!!!!!

Break My Case is a new puzzle-music-adventure mobile game from Coly, the developers behind Mahoutsukai no Yakusoku and On Air. More relevant to BMC/BreMai is their game Stand My Heroes, with which it shares a writer, some gameplay elements, and of course a naming convention. Coly has developed a bit of a cult following for their unique status in the Japanese mobile gaming world: they're a company that was founded by women and hires women to make games for women. They put a lot of soul into their games. From the start, BMC is no different!

"Could you have pulled a clean version of this image from the internet so it didn't have all the game junk" no. it's my tumblr and you get my screenshots.

I (with help from friends) overviewed the initial Break My Case announcement back when it dropped. You can read that here! I said in that post that I thought a "dark rhythm game" would be a really cool direction for the game… and that's more or less what we got! GO ME!!!!!

First: the game's presentation is fantastic. Super slick graphical design and just amazing atmosphere. The sound design of this game is incredible. Genuinely. Really, really, good. All the music is amazing—I'm not knowledgeable enough to say anything other than "IT SLAPS!", but it totally does slap. The illustrations for the cards are all wonderfully atmospheric in and of themselves, and are just a delight to look at on the homescreen with its chill background music. Even just navigating menus is a sleek, seamless experience. The live2d is well-done, although it clashes a tad with the art style for a bit of an uncanny look at times. 

The atmosphere! The atmospheeeeeeere!!!

Of course, the draw to this game is the characters and story, so let's jump into that. I'll admit right now that I read the story through a machine translation—I have aaaalmost enough Japanese knowledge to fill in the gaps, especially since the story is fully voiced, but I'm definitely not getting the full nuance of the story that someone fluent in Japanese is going to get. THAT SAID, after completing the prologue, I was definitely intrigued enough that I want to continue slogging through the MTL just to read more! There's a great setup, centered around the bar Aporia and its three modes—a daytime cafe, a nighttime members-only bar, and, secretly, a "fixer" service who'll help anyone with any problem. Our main character, a woman who was just forced to quit her job at a corrupt company, gets hired to replace Aporia's eccentric owner while he goes on a who-knows-how-long vacation. The owner also has the role of "tail"—as in, the tail a lizard sheds to avoid being eaten. If anything in the fixer service goes wrong, it's the owner who takes the fall and the blame. This hasn't come to mean much in practice yet in the (quite short) prologue, but it's a fascinating setup. The story promises to touch on themes of the threads that weave our lives together, how small meetings can lead to massive life changes, and whether any human being is truly replaceable, even in our modern corporate world where people are treated like cogs in a machine. According to a staff interview, there are a handful of references to Stand My Heroes in BreMai, but the games' settings aren't otherwise closely linked.

Rough translation in alt text. The Aporia manager Ai may be the most mysterious, intimidating character, but he also beefs with a parrot the first time you meet him, so...

All the characters are staff at Aporia with various unique roles and background. The prologue just gives you a little bit of each of them, but everyone does show up, and they all have interesting dynamics with each other already. Ai, the stern manager, has some history with the MC that he refuses to divulge, and goes so far as to force psychologist Riku to agree to not look into it. The range of relationships among the staff run the gamut from the calm and mature friendship between fortune teller Kiho and art teacher Kyoya, to the unfaltering dedication of Yu to his ex-mafioso savior Tomose, to the ridiculous Takeru and Soyogu who spend their first appearance waking up after having gotten black-out drunk together the night before. My favorite dynamic of all so far is that of Kou and Mao—Kou is a playboy who insists he's not a playboy, and is introduced evading a woman by… asking the icy Mao to pretend to be his boyfriend so that she thinks he's taken and gay and leaves him alone. Which Mao exasperatedly agrees to, telling Kou that he's used up his allotment for this month which ohmygod how often does Kou do this. Kou if you're asking this guy to pretend to be your gay lover so often he gives you a monthly limit I think you might just have to admit you want him to actually be your gay lover, Kou, oh my god— 

Rough TL in alt text. Kou is letting the implication do all the heavy lifting here. He technically never said he was dating Mao. Technically. 

On to the gameplay. There's gameplay! Unique gameplay! Good unique gameplay! Oh my god, uncharted joseimuke territory! The main gameplay mode is a match-3 puzzle game with rhythm elements. As in other rhythm games, each song in the game is its own level, more or less. (Each character has two unique songs, and three songs shared with the other members of their unit.) You set up a team with cards you've collected from the gacha, which determine your power level and special skills. The "leader" of the team has to be the character whose level you've selected. The puzzle gameplay is a tile-swapping match 3—think bejeweled or candy crush—but the tiles you've matched are only cleared once a bar sliding across the screen hits them, clearing them in tune with the song. Everything cleared in a single swipe of the bar ups the combo counter. There's also a life system, where if the bar slides across the screen without clearing a single match, you lose a life… But the bar moves pretty slow. You're not likely to game over or even lose a single life any time soon. There are more difficult versions of the levels I've yet to unlock, so I'm sure the life meter becomes relevant then. There's also "auto" and "loop" features if you want to grind a level over and over for exp and items, but, of course, the computer can't score as high as you playing it yourself.

And, really, it's fun to play, so why would you want to!? The sound of matches clearing with the music is so satisfying and really makes you want to combo as high as possible. Once you've matched some tiles, you can't move them again, nor use them in a second match (eg, in a cross shape), so if you want to maximize your combo and make as many matches as possible with what's on the board, you have to think ahead about which matches you're going to make. The bar slowly crossing the screen adds a visual timed element that gives some urgency to putting all the matches together. It definitely feels like a game you can pick up an instinct for over time, which is super fun. 

All in all, a really solid, enjoyable little puzzle game. It would be fun to play even without the promise of anime boys. Stand My Heroes is also a match-3, for the record, which is what really cements the two games as being part of the same series.

Admittedly, the anime boy staring at you while you play musical candy crush is a little disconcerting.

The second gameplay mode is "Snap'n Spin", a… gameplay-lite mode that just puts chibi characters in random strange situations and lets you take pictures of them. The mode is explained to be a video game within the world of BreMai, so it's not even trying to be realistic or relevant to anything else in the game. Once you take your pokemon snaps of the boys, they get a fun little caption. You can save up to 40 pictures in your album. Other than being cute, the main way this mode interfaces with the rest of the game is that it's the primary way to unlock card stories for the cards you pulled in gacha. 

This gameplay mode is... cute? I guess? It being so disconnected from the style and aesthetics of the entire rest of the game felt weird. The chibis are adorable, so it has that going for it. And I do like some of the captions you get on the photos afterwards. My favorite were the scenes you catch of a character drinking, and then the caption reveals their current favorite drink. That's a delightful detail for a game set in a bar. Mostly, though, this mode left me wondering "why?" ...And I imagine the answer is something like "because merchandisable chibi characters are a requirement for joseimuke games." This mode could've been anything so long as these cute, starry little dudes were in it.

Urara here hated the drink and the caption revealed that, lately, his favorite thing is sparkling water. He's the youngest character in the cast, so I guess he hasn't grown into booze yet...

One last feature I want to mention is the jukebox. Like many games, BreMai has a music player that lets you listen to tracks from the game… But its music player is, genuinely, a fully-featured music player app with shuffle, repeat, lyric displays, and even background play that works when you're in another app or your phone is off. What! Wild! When I first learned a few days ago that BreMai had a built-in player for its BGM tracks, my first thought was "Well, what's stopping someone from downloading the game just to use the music player and never spending a cent on it? Wouldn't you rather have the songs on spotify so you at least get a pittance of ad revenue, in that case? It's more than nothing."

But having played the game now, I see what they did to prevent that, lol. You don't unlock the songs in the jukebox until you get an SS score on the song's level. Which, I mean, that's normal rhythm game stuff, of course. Can't fault that decision. But, as in other gacha rhythm games, your score in a level depends on the power of your team of cards, and the cards you get from the initial handful of pulls aren't gonna get you anywhere near an SS score without significant investment. So you're either buying in-game currency to buy upgrade items, more gacha pulls, or both. Of course, you can also put a bunch of time into grinding for upgrade items—they drop from levels. Gacha currency is harder to come by. So you're not getting songs in the player without actually playing the game lmfao. The character solo songs in particular (the ones with vocals rather than just instrumentals) also require you to build up rapport with that character—the game calls it "Nice". You build up Nice with them by playing their other songs and using their cards in levels. It takes 1000 Nice on a character to unlock their song. In my first day of playing, I was able to get one character to about 250 Nice, another to 200, and a handful more with a few points, so it builds at an okay pace. There's ways to pay to speed up the grinding for Nice and for upgrade items with things like level skip tickets. So, basically: you're not getting that music player to a useful state without investing either money or time, lmao. Is paying-or-grinding to get cool music you can listen to while not playing the game more "worth it" than the usual freemium game goals of better units, new in-game outfits, or prettier card illustrations? ...Honestly, maybe it is? It's novel, at least.

All gacha rhythm games have the same card select screen, don't they. These were my cards' levels after my first day of play, and you can see they didn't quite reach a suggested score of "A", much less the maximum "SS".

But I do want to stress, the monetization is, for the most part, pretty easy to ignore. Nothing in-your-face. The button to go to the shop screen is a different color, but it's not flashing with an eternal indicator, it's not popping up at every second, it's just sitting there alongside all the other menu buttons. The game isn't shoving timers in your face at all times—there's a stamina meter, which is mildly annoying, but you get ten plays when it's full, and if you're just playing casually you're probably not going to want to play the puzzle game over and over enough to fully deplete that. I know the bar is on the damn floor here but Tokyo Debunker seriously made me realize how bad it can be with mobile game monetization. BreMai is freemium, yeah, but as far as dark patterns go, it's not egregiously bad.

So, the verdict: if you're a joseimuke game fan and aren't afraid to play a game that probably won't get an English port and doesn't even have a fan translation yet (which I realize is already counting out 99.99% of people), definitely give this one a try. See if you like the gameplay—it really is worth trying—and do check out the story if you've got the ability. Or just look at the pretty anime boys. 

[flower-boi16]

Given how underdeveloped Vaggie (Why was she named that), Charlie, Millie, and the majority of the female characters are, I won’t be suprised if Lilith turns out to be a one dimensional bitch who only exists to make Lucifer more sympathetic (I like Lucifer’s character but still)

....I disagree, Lilith could actually be a good, or even great antagonist for the show, possibly being one of, if not THE best villain in all of Hellaverse...

...if she's not being written by Viv. I've already talked about Velvette and why she's on of Viv's best antagonists before but she's relevant to my main point; Velvette is a character with an actually cunning, entertaining and well-developed personality that stands out from other antagonists in Hellaverse, making her feel like a breath of fresh air compared to all of Viv's one-dimensional assholes, being an actually good villain...she's also a female character whose episode she got a major focus on...wasn't written by Viv.

We all know Viv is incapable of writing antagonists let alone female antagonists, so, the reason why Velvette ended up being so great compared to Viv's other antagonists is BECAUSE she wasn't being written by Viv or Adam. Viv can't write antagonists or women, so when one of her female antagonists ends up being so great, it's because she's not being written by Viv, but rather, someone who knows how to write female characters.

In episode 2, the episode that IS written by Viv, and where Velvette makes her first appearance, she has a more typical fashionista personality compared to episode 3 (though tbf that's still more of a personality than 99% of Viv's other antagonists), and episode 3, the episode not written by Viv, she has a fully fleshed out personality that makes her a fun antagonist. I really don't think that's just a coincidence.

An guess what? This same thing happened AGAIN in episode 6 with Sera. Sera is the head seraphim and leader of Heaven, she greenlit the exterminations in order to protect Heaven but you get the feeling that she doesn't WANT to do this, that she doesn't feel great about letting Adam and his army murder people bellow. But she feels like she HAS TO in order to protect Heaven...and her sister, Emily.

Initially, in my post about Emily, I said she has no purpose or point as a character, and removing her changes nothing. I was wrong. Emily DOES have a purpose within the show; it's to be a main motivator for Sera, and Emily's existence adds depth to her character. Sera lets the exterminations happen because she also wants to protect Emily and deeply cares about her, she holds her sister close to her and wants to keep her safe.

Sera is a character with real nuances to her actions, she's not just a one-dimensional villain, she's not exactly good either, she's...an actually nuanced and morally grey character that can't be put in either good or evil? In a VIVZIEPOP show???? Like, not saying that Sera is a super deep or compelling character or anything, but like, she's an actually nuanced antagonist with real depth to her...

...and that's because the episode she's in was not written by Viv, just like with Velvette. The reason why Sera is an actually nuanced character is because she's not in an episode written by Viv.

The fact that this happened twice does not seem like a coincidence to me. The reason why Velvette and Sera can be actually decent or even good characters is because they are in episodes that aren't written by Viv or Adam, both of which in all of the episodes they write show the many problems with HH and HB's antagonists. And, ultimately, Velvette and Sera ended up being two of the BEST antagonists in all of Hellaverse because they weren't being written by Viv or Adam.

So, there COULD be a possibility that Lilith can be a good or at least decent antagonist if the episodes she gets a significant spotlight in aren't written by Viv or Adam. If they are...then well, ya, Lilith will probably just be Stella 2.0 or something.

But if she's being written by either of the two guys who did episodes 3 & 6, then she could end up being a good or even great character. The bare is very low for antagonists in these shows, but when they aren't being written by Viv or Adam...they can be kinda good.

[androgynealienfemme]

"The main justification for invalidating butch-femme is that its an imitation of heterosexual roles and, therefore, not a genuine lesbian model. One is tempted to react by saying "So what?" but the charge encompasses more than betrayal of an assumed fixed and "true" lesbian culture. Implicit in the accusation is the denial of cultural agency to lesbians, of the ability to shape and reshape symbols into new meanings of identification. Plagiarism, as the adage goes, is basic to all culture.

In the real of cultural identity, that some of the markers of a minority culture's boundaries originate in an oppressing culture is neither unusual nor particularly significant. For instance, in the United States certain kind of bead- and ribbon work are immediately recogniziable as specific to Native American cultures, wherein they serve artistic and ceremonial functions. Yet beads, trinkets, ribbons, and even certain "indian" blanket patterns were brought by Europeans, who traded them as cheap goods for land. No one argues that Indians out to give up beadwork or blanket weaving, thus ridding themselves of the oppressors symbols, because those things took on a radically different cultural meaning in the hands of Native Americans. Or consider Yiddish, one of the jewish languages. Although Yiddish is written in Hebrew characters and has its own idioms and nuances, its vocabulary is predominantly German. Those who speak German can understand Yiddish. Genocidal Germanic anti-Semitism dates back to at least the eleventh century. Yet East European Jews spoke "the oppressors language," developing in it a distinctive literary and theatrical tradition. Why is it so inconceivable that lesbians could take elements of heterosexual sex roles and remake them?

*

It is June 1987, and I am sitting in a workshop on "Lesbians and Gender Roles" at the annual National Women's Studies Conference. It is one of surprisingly few workshops on lesbian issues, particularly since, at a plenary session two mornings later, two thirds of the conference attendees will stand up as lesbians. Meanwhile, in this workshop the first speaker is spending half an hour on what she calls "Feminism 101," a description of heterosexual sex roles. Her point in doing this, she says, is to remind us of the origin of roles, "which are called butch and femme when lesbians engage in them." She tells us the purpose of her talk will be to prove, from her own experience, that "these roles are not fulfilling" for lesbians. She tells us that the second speaker will use lesbian novels from the 1950s to demonstrate the same thesis. And, indeed, the second speaker has a small stack of 1950s "pulp paperbacks" with her, many of them the titles that, when I discovered them in the mind-1970s, resonated for me in a way that the feminist books published by Daughters and Diana Press did not.

I consider for several minutes. I'm well versed in lesbian literature, particularly in the fifties novels, and don't doubt my ability to adequately argue an opposing view with the second presenter. I am curious to see if she will use the publisher-imposed "unhappy ending" to prove that roles make for misery. I also decide I'm willing to offer my own experience to challenge the first presenters conclusions- though I'd much rather sit with her over coffee and talk. She is in her midforties and, although she claims to have renounced it, still looks butch. Even if she speaks of roles negatively, she has been there and I want to hear her story. Then I look around me. Everyone is under thirty. There are a few vaguely butch-looking women present who'd very likely consider themselves to be as androgynous as everyone else, and not a single, even remotely femme-looking women besides myself. I recall Alice Walker's advice to "never be the only one in the room." Quietly, I get up and walk out. I go to no other lesbian presentations at the conference."

“Recollecting History, Renaming Lives: Femme Stigma and the feminist seventies and eighties" by Lyndall MacCowan, The Persistent Desire, (edited by Joan Nestle) (1992)

[coolseabird]

What about you? Tell everything about the evil women you love!

Oooooh baby.

Lady Macbeth:

She's the template. She’s horrible truly. Has no issues with murder (until she does but mostly out of paranoia not moral issues with the act itself) and she drives Macbeth (and herself) to tragedy with her ambition. She sees herself as helping Macbeth to reach his full potential and that's she's doing it for THEM! Very nuanced character. I adore her. Girl boss 😌 I also loveeee this poster from the National Theater of Korea's production of Macbeth, this is her canon appearance to me now. Don't you want to do just a little murder for her? 🥺

Tamora (from Titus Andronicus):

She honestly is entirely justified in her desire for revenge at first. (Her son is brutally murdered and she's kidnapped by the Romans.) However, as she gains power and manipulates people and events more for her goals, her motives shift from vengeance to outright cruelty, and she becomes irredeemable. (Good for her) Also she (unintentionally) becomes a cannibal.

Edelgard von Hresvelg:

She's the villain to everyone else but she sees it as doing what is necessary. She's prepared to betray Dimitri brutally, she's the one who orchestrated an ambush on the others, and she's willing to drag countless others into her war to achieve her goal of dethroning the church. Ultimately though I'm still behind her 100%

Helga Sinclair:

She's a ruthless femme fatale, unapologetically in it for herself. I love her she never changes who she is even when she "helps" the others at the end it's just out of revenge. Also this scene changed my brain chemistry as a kid:

Brigid O'Shaughnessy:

Brigid O'Shaughnessy is the quintessential femme fatale. She lies, manipulates, and uses everyone around her, dragging the detective main guy into her dangerous schemes without remorse. She is so hot. (I love all golden age detective movie femme fatales... and she's the mascot for all of them)

Minthara:

Minthy...... my beloved. I love her more than words can express. She was an inquisitor who murdered unbelievers for TWO DIFFERENT GODS. (though one was a, uh, rather large brain borg cube thing but you know what I'm saying 🌀woooo you want to raid the grove so bad wooo🌀) She has a cut throat philosophy about life and has ZERO QUALMS about subjugating everyone else through brain parasites and conquering the world. At the same time though she loves those she cares about so deeply. She's a woman of extreme kindness and cruelty (when it's needed) and she will make you worse.

Lady Jessica:

I adore her. She raises her son to dominate others and she is totally chill with manipulating a whole people through religion to function as a weapon on her family's behalf. Not much else to say she's iconic.

Kreia:

Kreia's ultimate goal is challenging and hopefully destroying the Force itself (metal) and she will do anything to accomplish that. (murder) Beneath her objectively awful actions though, Kreia’s philosophy is good imo, it's that true freedom comes from relying on your own strength and rejecting breaking things down into black or white, good vs evil. So I wouldn't say she inherently is "evil" and she would probably laugh at anyone characterizing her as such. She's an anti-villain and you should side with her.

Olivier Armstrong:

She is an authoritarian power hungry general. She murders a man and buries him in concrete. (He deserved it though) She would 100% be a dictator if she could. I love her so much though because she has her own code of morality. She sees taking action on behalf of what you believe in as being honorable no matter what your beliefs are. If you want to not genocide people then you better damn well fight against those carrying it our rather than running away. Otherwise you're just a coward. What a queen.

Homura

What if Lucifer became the devil to save God from sacrificing himself for the sins of others? That’s Homura. (and the show isn't subtle about this haha, it's the actual metaphor) Her love for Madoka is so powerful that she’d burn the whole world to achieve her goal. She’s willing to kill, to doom humanity itself, all to protect the one she loves. Homura and Madoka are complete opposed as Homura would sacrifice everyone for Madoka, while Madoka would sacrifice herself for everyone. Selfish love vs Selfless love. Homura will happily become the villain if she has to. I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE MOVIE NEXT YEAR. HOW WILL IT END? I've been waiting a decade to see the conclusion.

Anyways, thank you for letting me yap about my favorite type of character <3

[idkwhoaphextwinis]

I feel like I'm the only person who didn't enjoy The Substance (spoilers ahead).

I want to say that I appreciate the uniqueness of the film, both visually and story wise. Fargeat did a good job of organizing an incredibly complicated concept and got some really sick shots. I think both Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley were great, however I felt that the film often used the very conventions it was was fighting against and was incredibly unclear in the mechanics of the substance itself. I was disappointed when the film used Elisabeth's older body as a horror gag, using the physicalities of an aging person as both a punchline and an object of disgust. The movie did this often, using the main characters' and their bodies as a way to get a laugh or to make a spectacle. The entire point of the movie is the ridiculousness of these youthful standards, but the movie did absolutely no work to fight against the standards themselves, and if anything -- perpetuated the ideals through countless visuals of Sue contrasted with what was supposed to be a gross (old) Elisabeth. I don't know if I'm misreading it, but I was severely disappointed. In addition to misusing visual tools, there was also zero character development for either Elisabeth or Sue. I understand it would be difficult to delve into character if the film was shorter, but it was 2 hours and 20 minutes of one note characters. It felt as if all these women cared about was how they were perceived by men, and rather than putting the blame on the men who made them feel that way, it felt as though we were supposed to think the women were stupid in the choices they made. That being said, Sue evolved into more of a villain as the film went on, but I think that was a mischaracterization and a missed opportunity to write a nuanced character who was thrust into the world purely as an object of desire and fame. Dennis Quaid's character, although meant to be a satirical TV executive, fell incredibly flat due to his repetitive nature. The repetition of his lines in her head were done horribly, making his delivery seem funny rather than hold the weight it clearly had over both Elisabeth and Sue. Elisabeth and Sue both ended up dead for the standards which attacked them, but he was only embarrassed because of the live destruction of the monster. Also, I was confused by the fact that the two selves did not share a consciousness. It might be my own ignorance, so forgive me. Maybe it was commentary in itself to be purposefully vague, but it seemed as though they were living completely separate lives, they just had to rely on one another to share time properly. This may have also been a commentary on how easy it is to lose control, but I was still confused by this choice. The only thing bounding them together was the fact that one was a variant of the other, and that perhaps Elisabeth lived vicariously through Sue. The finale of the New Year's Eve show went too long and fell incredibly flat for me. I think it would have been far more radical to have Elisabeth live the rest of her life as the old woman and seek fulfillment in other areas of her life, in or out of the spotlight. If Elisabeth found a way to regain some sort of autonomy, it would have said a lot more about how we have the power within ourselves to chose to not let our appearance define us. Although maybe I'm partial to happy endings, Monstro-ElisaSue felt like a haphazard ending which asked the question "what is the most shocking way we could end this movie so that we can make one little audience member (me) throw up in the AMC bathroom afterwards?". It didn't fully wrap up the story for me, and felt really stupid. I understood the throwback of the boob growing in the middle of her face, but again that is so stupid and self-involved. I'm glad there are movies out there that are weird and different, but it didn't feel like an apt criticism of the anti-aging industry for me. I may also be biased because it hit a little close to home, but I am also so tired of watching movies in which women are put through such horrible things in the name of horror, art, commentary, and plot without any character development.