#it's just more interesting to me when that nuance is discussed and explored

[stephaniebrownthespoiler]

I honestly do understand the urge to insist that Babs doesn't consider Bruce her dad at all in any way shape or form but I also find it to be a huge disservice to the complexity of their relationship and dynamic

[sminny-wew]

I had a long discussion with friends earlier about the gender bias in how YA books are marketed and it somehow evolved into me saying "We need more fiction that questions the concept of attraction itself"

We got into how easily romance can be latched onto other genres (romantic comedy, romantic drama, fantasy romance, historical romance, etc.) and I started asking myself what an arocom (aromantic comedy) would look like. I decided, based on an old Tumblr post I can't find that joked about some comedy movie being aro representation b/c it had no romance, that it can't just be "a comedy with no romance at all", because then that's just a regular old comedy. By that logic, SpongeBob would be an arocom, which doesn't make sense b/c it largely focuses on non-romantic plots (SpongeBob working at his job, failing to get his license, the general shenanigans he and his friends get into) and only addresses romance sparingly, depending on the plot of an episode.

It sucks to admit but at least from my perspective, in order for a piece of media to qualify as "aromantic/asexual media" in the heavily sex- and romance-catered media landscape, it kinda needs to address sex and romance in the first place. As wonderful as it would be to escape for a few hours to a book or show or game where romance isn't addressed at all and think of that as aro rep, you can't really call attention to a character's lack of romantic or sexual attraction without acknowledging, even indirectly, that those exact things exist within the text.

I'm not saying sex and romance are inherently bad either. There are aces who engage in sexual activities, aros who date, folks on both spectrums who engage in kink because kink is not inherently sexual and just approach relationships in so many incredibly nuanced ways. It's not just about aspecs also having parents and siblings and pets either, we have friends and coworkers and neighbors. We have interests and skills and hobbies. But it's not just the cishets who place sex and romance on such a high pedestal as "fundamental aspects of what makes people human", I see it within the LGBT community too. There are more than a few openly queer folks out there who don't know or have forgotten that because asexuality and aromanticism are a lack or absence of attraction (and thus a lack/absence of conformist heterosexuality), that we are, to varying degrees, queer as well. And thus media with aroace subtext (or just text for that matter) tends to get excluded from discussions of queer subtext.

I feel like I got a little off-topic and rambly but Idk I just think we need more aspec fiction where people are free to explore all spectrums of attraction as much as they want, ask questions about what defines a relationship, and just generally bear in mind relationship anarchy when they create. I'd like to see it in mainstream media but I'd also like to see it in fanfic too

(Btw everything I just said also extends to people who are poly)

[thewriteadviceforwriters]

Hii,

I am writing a story with a female lead. She is going to go through a self discovery arc in which she explores her sexuality. I want to jump back and forth in timeline to when she’s a teenager and doesn’t realize she is queer (and in love with her best friend) but i am having a hard time figuring out how to show she is queer without telling (bc it’s from her pov). Any advice or thoughts?

Showing Queer Identity: Tips for Writing Self-Discovery Arcs

Hey there, fellow writer! 💖✨

First off, I want to say how awesome it is that you're tackling such an important and nuanced topic in your story. Self-discovery arcs, especially those involving sexuality, can be incredibly powerful and relatable for so many readers. It's fantastic that you're putting thought into how to present this journey authentically!

Now, let me dive into the meat of your question: how to show your character's queerness without explicitly telling, especially when she doesn't yet realize it herself. This is a challenge many writers face, and I'm excited to share some thoughts and techniques that might help you navigate this delicate balance.

Showing vs. Telling in Sexuality Representation

The age-old writing advice of "show, don't tell" becomes particularly crucial when dealing with a character's sexuality, especially in a coming-of-age or self-discovery narrative. It's about creating a tapestry of moments, feelings, and interactions that hint at the character's true nature without spelling it out for the reader (or the character herself).

(I have an entire post on Prose Tips with Show, Don't Tell. And another one where Telling Is Better Used Instead of Showing)

Here are some ways you can subtly show your character's queerness:

Physical Reactions: Pay attention to how your character's body responds to her best friend or other girls. Does her heart race? Do her palms get sweaty? Does she blush or feel a flutter in her stomach? These physical reactions can be powerful indicators of attraction, even if the character doesn't recognize them as such.

Lingering Gazes: Describe how your character looks at her best friend or other girls. Does she notice small details about them? Does her gaze linger on lips, hands, or other features? This can be a subtle way to show attraction.

Comparisons and Contrasts: Have your character compare her feelings for her best friend to her feelings for boys. She might notice that she feels more comfortable, excited, or "herself" around her friend than with male love interests.

Dreams and Daydreams: Use your character's subconscious to hint at her true feelings. She might have dreams about her best friend that leave her feeling confused or flustered upon waking.

Jealousy: Show your character feeling inexplicably upset when her best friend spends time with others, especially potential romantic interests.

Admiration vs. Attraction: Your character might think she's just admiring other girls' appearances or personalities, not realizing it's actually attraction.

Discomfort with Heteronormative Expectations: Show her feeling uncomfortable or out of place in typical heterosexual dating scenarios or discussions about boys.

Intense Emotional Connections: Highlight the depth of her emotional bond with her best friend, showing how it goes beyond typical friendship.

Personal Thoughts and Advice

As someone who's written queer characters and explored sexuality in my own work, I can't stress enough how important it is to approach this topic with sensitivity and authenticity. It's not just about representing sexuality; it's about capturing the complex emotions, confusion, and eventual self-realization that come with discovering one's identity.

One technique I've found particularly effective is to focus on the emotional journey rather than the physical aspects of sexuality. Especially for a young character who hasn't yet realized she's queer, the emphasis should be on her feelings, her confusions, and her gradual understanding of herself.

Remember, sexuality is a spectrum, and coming out to oneself is often a process, not a sudden realization. Your character might go through phases of denial, curiosity, experimentation, and finally acceptance. Each of these stages provides rich opportunities for character development and storytelling.

Unique Tips for Showing Sexuality in Writing

Use Metaphors and Symbolism: Incorporate imagery that subtly reflects your character's emerging sexuality. For example, use blooming flowers or changing seasons to mirror her personal growth.

Contrast with Heterosexual Experiences: If your character dates boys, show how these experiences feel different (and perhaps less fulfilling) compared to her interactions with girls.

Pop Culture References: Have your character relate strongly to queer characters in movies or books without fully understanding why.

Physical Proximity: Describe how your character seeks out physical closeness with her best friend - sitting close together, finding excuses to touch, etc.

Internal Monologue: Use your character's thoughts to show her confusion. She might question why she feels so strongly about her friend or why she's not interested in boys like her other friends are.

Microexpressions: Describe tiny facial expressions or body language cues that betray your character's true feelings, even if she's not aware of them.

Avoidance Behavior: Show your character avoiding situations that might force her to confront her sexuality, like setting up her friend with boys or talking about crushes.

Mirror Scenes: Create parallel scenes in different timelines to show how your character's understanding of herself has evolved.

Navigating the Timeline Jumps

Your idea of jumping back and forth in the timeline is brilliant for this kind of story. It allows you to contrast your character's oblivious teenage self with her more self-aware adult version. Here are some tips for making the most of this structure:

Echoes and Parallels: Create situations in the past that echo or parallel events in the present, highlighting how your character's understanding has changed.

Dramatic Irony: Use the reader's knowledge of the character's future to create tension and poignancy in the past scenes.

Evolving Language: Show how the language your character uses to describe her feelings changes over time, reflecting her growing self-awareness.

Physical Changes: Use descriptions of physical changes (hairstyles, fashion choices, etc.) to quickly orientate the reader in different time periods.

Pivotal Moments: Identify key moments in your character's journey and use these as anchors for your timeline jumps.

The Importance of Authenticity

When writing about sexuality, especially from a perspective different from your own, research and sensitivity are crucial. Consider reaching out to LGBTQ+ organizations or individuals who are willing to share their experiences. Reading coming out stories and queer literature can also provide valuable insights.

Remember, every person's journey with their sexuality is unique. While there are common experiences, avoid falling into stereotypes or oversimplification. Your character's story should feel genuine and personal.

Balancing Subtlety and Clarity

One of the biggest challenges in showing rather than telling sexuality is finding the right balance between subtlety and clarity. You want to drop enough hints for the reader to pick up on, but not so many that it becomes obvious to everyone except your character.

A good rule of thumb is to make the signs clear enough that a queer reader or someone familiar with the coming out experience would pick up on them, but subtle enough that someone without that perspective might miss them – much like how your character is missing them herself.

The Power of Supporting Characters

Don't forget the role that supporting characters can play in showing your main character's sexuality. Friends, family members, or even strangers might notice things about your character that she doesn't see in herself. Their reactions, comments, or questions can be powerful tools for indicating to the reader what's going on, even if the main character remains oblivious.

Addressing Internalized Homophobia

Depending on your character's background and the setting of your story, you might want to explore themes of internalized homophobia. This can manifest as your character actively pushing away thoughts or feelings that don't align with heteronormative expectations. Showing this internal struggle can add depth to your character's journey and make her eventual self-discovery even more powerful.

The Journey of Self-Discovery

Remember that realizing one's sexuality is often a gradual process. Your character might have moments of almost-realization followed by retreat into denial. These back-and-forth moments can create tension and keep the reader engaged in your character's journey.

As your character grows and changes, you can show her becoming more comfortable with herself in subtle ways – perhaps she becomes more confident, more authentic in her interactions, or more willing to stand up for herself and others.

——————————————————————————————————

Writing about sexuality, especially from the perspective of a character who hasn't yet realized their own identity, is a delicate but rewarding challenge.

Remember, the key is to weave these elements naturally into your narrative. Don't force it – let your character's experiences and emotions guide the story. Trust your readers to pick up on the subtle cues you're laying down.

I hope these ideas and tips help you in crafting your story. Remember, every writer's approach is different, and what works for one story might not work for another. Trust your instincts, stay true to your character, and don't be afraid to revise and refine as you go.

Writing about sexuality and self-discovery is not just about representation �� it's about creating stories that can help readers understand themselves and others better. Your story has the potential to be a light for someone struggling with their own identity, or a window for others to understand experiences different from their own.

As you write, keep in mind the impact your words might have. Approach the topic with sensitivity, respect, and an open heart. Your character's journey of self-discovery is a beautiful and important story to tell.

Final Thoughts and Encouragement

Writing about sexuality, especially in a coming-of-age context, can be challenging but incredibly rewarding. Here are some final thoughts to keep in mind as you work on your story:

Authenticity is Key: Stay true to your character's voice and experiences. Even if you're writing from a perspective different from your own, strive for authenticity in emotions and reactions.

Embrace Complexity: Sexuality is complex and often fluid. Don't be afraid to show the messy, confusing aspects of your character's journey.

Avoid Stereotypes: While some common experiences exist in the queer community, try to avoid relying on stereotypes. Make your character unique and three-dimensional.

Consider Intersectionality: Your character's sexuality doesn't exist in a vacuum. Consider how it intersects with other aspects of her identity, such as race, class, or religion.

Show Growth: As your character becomes more aware of her sexuality, show how this knowledge impacts other areas of her life and relationships.

Be Patient: Writing about such personal topics can be emotionally demanding. Be patient with yourself and take breaks when needed.

Seek Feedback: If possible, get feedback from sensitivity readers or members of the LGBTQ+ community to ensure your portrayal is respectful and accurate.

Remember, your story has the power to touch lives, open minds, and maybe even help someone on their own journey of self-discovery. It's a beautiful responsibility, and I'm excited for you to embark on this writing adventure!

Keep writing, keep exploring, and most importantly, keep being true to your characters and your story. You've got this! 💖🌈✨

If you have any more questions or need further advice as you write, don't hesitate to reach out.

Happy writing!📝🎉- Rin T.

Before you go, why not join us at The Write Right Society? We're a supportive Tumblr community where writers lift each other up. Whether you're a newbie or a pro, we'd love to have you! Share your work, get feedback, and connect with fellow wordsmiths, writers and aspiring authors. 

[stop-breaking-my-heart-telltale]

Y'know, it's unfortunate more people don't compare Louis and Violet in good faith.

Like, when I do see people compare them, it's usually through the lens of one is good, and the other bad. One is more canon than the other, and here's why. One is objectively better for Clementine, and the other is less impactful, worse written, didn't have chemistry with her, insert several insults here, etc.

I don't think it's inherently bad to express why you might not like one of them, or why you prefer one over the other. That's fine, that's a matter of opinion. It only gets to me when it becomes hostile, or passive aggressive... but even then, I've learned to just roll my eyes and move on. Some people make it very clear that they're not worth having a discussion with.

However, I wish I could read more nuanced comparisons of the two that didn't default to the "and that's why this one is better." At least some are kind enough to tack on a "for my Clementine" at the end.

You know how it goes: Louis is cute and he makes Clementine laugh, whereas Violet's boring, her love is shallow, she's still not over Minerva and she's using Clementine as a rebound. Violentine's a bad ship because Violet's actually a traitor, and they're practically the same person and that's bad.

Violet's loyal and reliable, whereas Louis is annoying, he never takes anything serious, he's a traitor for his vote, and he's nothing but a distraction. Clouis is a bad ship because how could any Clementine possibly like him after he voted her and AJ out? That's bad!

That's always the conclusion, right? One good, one bad.

This is incredibly limiting and it drives me nuts.

They're foils. They contrast one another, highlight each other's strengths and flaws, in such an interesting way that it makes Clementine's choice between them all the more meaningful.

One is not good and the other bad, they're different, and I think that's worth exploring.

Let's start with a common argument: Violet is the more impactful option due to her connection to Minerva.

Now, to be fair, I can understand why someone on Team Violet would believe this. Yes, it's true that the confrontation with Minerva is more impactful for a violentine shipper who has more investment in Violet as a character. Louis doesn't have as strong of a connection to her.

However, what they're failing to recognize is that Minerva isn't the only ghost to haunt this narrative. Violet may have Minerva, yes, but Louis has Marlon... and that doesn't just go away once Marlon's dead.

Violet's route has Minerva as her ex-girlfriend, and her bond with Tenn that all comes to a head on the bridge. Louis' route has Marlon's death and how that specifically impacts his relationship with AJ and Clementine, and the slow burn of forgiveness on all sides.

Marlon and Minerva are also reflective of Clementine's worst outcomes.

Clementine and Marlon were tied together through Brody's blood splattered on their hands and faces. They both killed a part of Brody, but only one of them lies about who killed her first.

After Marlon dies, Clementine gradually replaces him throughout the game; Rosie is her dog now, she uses his bow [which Louis gave her], she becomes the leader. Clementine gets them to fight back, and when three of her people are captured, she doesn't cut her losses. She does what Marlon couldn't; "we're getting them back."

When she chooses Louis, he does for her what he never did for Marlon: he steps up.

Clementine proves she won't become Marlon just as she proves she won't become Minerva.

After getting James to agree to help them, Clementine and AJ talk about what to do if she ever gets bit. AJ says he'd want her to bite him, too. He repeats this sentiment after she's actually bitten, telling her he wants to stay and they could turn together, peacefully.

When Minerva confronts them on the bridge, she's dying... and she wants Tenn to die with her. She doesn't care who she has to kill in the process. She's more monster than human at this point, and most times, she succeeds.

They're both bitten. Clementine could've become a monster like Minerva in the end. She could've killed AJ, and they could've become walkers together. But she didn't. Minerva wanted Tenn to die for her, and Clementine wanted AJ to live for her.

Also, I should mention she has Minerva's axe. She carries the key weapons associated with Marlon and Minerva throughout different points in the game, further solidifying these connections. She uses Marlon's bow to save her friends, and she uses Minerva's axe to save AJ, who in turn uses it to save her.

What's also so interesting about this is how Marlon's alive in episode one, and Minerva is thought to be dead. Louis has his best friend, and Violet's lost hers. But, at the end of the episode, Marlon's dead and Minerva's revealed to be alive.

Marlon becomes the ghost, and Minerva becomes the monster. Clementine becomes to Louis and Violet what Marlon and Minerva never could... how does that not drive anyone else insane?

So, no. One is not objectively better, or more impactful, because of a connection to Marlon or Minerva. They're different. It just depends on which storyline you personally find more compelling.

Actually, let's talk about that a little more.

In my opinion, the most intriguing point of comparison between Louis and Violet stems from their perceptions of survival, and how that impacts Clementine.

An argument I see made against violentine is that Violet's boring because she and Clementine are too similar. This usually comes from clouis shippers who prefer the "opposites attract" dynamic Clementine and Louis have.

On the flip side, there's the counter argument that Louis is reckless, that he doesn't take survival as seriously as he should and Clementine wouldn't want him because of that.

These are interesting to me because I get where they're coming from... but they ultimately miss the point.

The other day, I replayed TFS. Except this time, I did something a little bit differently. I played my usual clouis route, but then I had the violentine route pulled up on my laptop so that I could watch these scenes, comparing them side by side… and something occurred to me. 

Louis is about challenging Clementine's perception of survival, and Violet is about validating it.

Louis challenges Clementine from the very moment we meet him—he’s playing music. His initial philosophy on survival butts heads with Clementine’s. The fact that hunting with him and Aasim challenges your perception of “your choices have consequences.” These games have conditioned the player to think along the lines of, “Yeah, Louis is more fun… but if I don’t hunt with Aasim, we won’t have any food.”

Except that’s just it. I hate to say it, Aasim, but in the grand scheme of things… hunting with you doesn’t matter. It's actually less rewarding. You know why? Because in the next section, we get food from the train station. It would’ve been more beneficial to spend time with Louis over hunting, hence how he challenges you.  

This then primes you for the choice between choosing to follow Louis or follow Violet. I know people complain about how this is presented with Violet doing something productive [checking the walls] and Louis playing piano… but that’s the point. If you’re going through with Louis’ full route, you need to meet him at his level, and in turn, he will meet you at yours. You need to accept the challenge, the idea that Clementine isn’t entirely right about the way she’s gone about survival.

Oh, and do I even need to mention the vote? The debate over Louis’ vote is exhausting. Often times, people tell on themselves in how they talk about it. It’s not actually about the fact that he voted against them. If it was, these people would have a bigger bone with pick with Mitch, Willy, Ruby, and Omar… and yet Louis is the one who takes all the blame as if he’s the only one personally kicking them out. 

Louis is reacting to the death of his best friend, and the complicated feelings that come with it being caused by AJ. He wants accountability, even if he knows something's wrong. You can either agree with him that it was murder, and set AJ on the path of atonement… or, you can double down and tell him to fuck off, AJ was justified. 

But here’s the thing… the vote adds to the appeal of Louis’ route. To someone who hates him, or at the very least is critical of his vote, that sounds mad or delusional.

Except it’s really not.

Ever heard of a thing called tension? Because there’s a lot of it in ep2 between clouis + AJ and it’s fantastic.

Yes, Louis voting them out is problematic because we need a problem to solve. We need something to feed the tension between him and Clementine. He stepped in front of a gun held by his best friend in order to protect her, forever changing their relationship… only for that to seemingly be taken away from us the moment AJ shoots Marlon. 

Yes, Louis’ route is about being challenged, but it’s also about challenging him. That he’s able to forgive them, that he’s able to question his own survival philosophy and understand theirs, that he’s able to apologize and actually change for the better… that right there is what makes clouis so damn good. 

He becomes hardened whereas Clementine softens. By the end of the game, they’re on a similar level now without neglecting their differences, and they can move forward together. 

That’s what makes Louis’ route appealing… and it’s also what makes it unappealing to people who prefer Violet. 

By contrast, Violet’s already on Clementine’s level when it comes to this perception of survival. She validates that Clementine’s on the right path.

They have other similarities in the way that they’re both female, queer, they both have a kid they look after, they’re not always great with other people, etc. 

People who prefer Louis might consider this boring, but I think to Team Violet, it’s comforting. It’s comforting to have a partner who takes this as seriously as you do, who wants to get shit done. They’re playing Clementine with a similar attitude, and don’t believe it needs to be challenged. It’s comforting to feel validated on something you already firmly believe in. 

We also see this if we compare the hunting and fishing scenes. You have to make an effort to choose Louis by choosing to neglect hunting, but the game makes you fish with Violet no matter what.

Violet’s prioritizing fishing because they need food. That’s what they’ve set out to do, so let’s do it. The game is letting you know that’s the case, and if you value that, continue pursuing her. 

While fishing, they discuss why things are weird with her and Brody. Violet doesn’t take well to Clementine’s blunt, “Because you make it weird. Brody tries and you just make fun of her."

That’s understandable because I think she already kind of knows why and is looking to have her feelings validated. She prefers it when Clementine suggests that it’s because Brody never said sorry for what happened to the twins. 

There’s also comfort and validation in the way Violet sides with Clementine and AJ after Marlon’s death. She votes for them to stay, vocalizing how much she disapproves of the results. There’s this feeling that I recognize from a lot of the sapphic romance I read; “it’s you and me against the world, I’ll always have your back, even if you’re in the wrong, I’ll fight for you.”

In our case, it’s violentine + AJ against the rest of Ericson, save Tenn and Aasim. Violet validates that AJ was justified because Marlon was a liar and murderer, claiming that AJ and Clementine did nothing wrong. Violet fights to keep them. 

The tension between violentine in ep2 is different because instead of one pushing the other away, they’re being forced apart by the vote and there’s nothing they can do about it. That tension is somewhat released when Clementine comes back and they’re reunited, working out a plan to best defend the school. 

It’s also why Violet’s presented as doing something productive when you follow her instead of Louis, and why she asks if you want to hang out after checking the defenses. 

All that being said, allow me to reiterate that one is not good and the other bad, they're different. These concepts of challenge and change/validation and comfort exist on a neutral road as diverging paths. It’s up to the player to pick what path they prefer, but that doesn’t mean the other path isn’t worth acknowledging or analyzing. 

I should also mention that they’re not exclusive; there is overlap with validation being present in Louis’ route and challenges in Violet’s. They’re just more present in episodes 3 and 4 after we’ve made our decision. 

There are several more examples of how this all fits together, buuuuut–

Ya’ll wanna compare some allegories?

Those familiar with my content might already know where I’m going with this as I’ve made a post about Louis and the piano in the past. 

You see, I believe that there are allegories for Louis and Violet’s hearts present in their routes: Louis’ piano, and Violet’s pin. 

I already have a thorough, in-depth analysis of Louis and the piano that you can read, so all I’ll say about it is that on the night of the raid, he asked Clementine to carve a piece of herself into his heart so that no matter what, their initials will be immortalized together in its wood…

And that makes me fucking feral. 

But I'm also so normal about it.

As for Violet, her heart is the star gazing pin she gives to Clementine. She gives it to her so she’ll always remember that night… but she doesn’t give it to her until after Clementine’s saved her, and that fascinates me in the context of it being allegory. 

Louis asks Clementine to carve herself into his heart right before the raid, cementing that from that moment on, he is utterly devoted to her. I believe this is part of the reason why Louis is still happy to see her if he’s the one who’s captured. Yes, yes, he’s also incredibly traumatized from having his tongue cut out and he’d be happy to see anyone, yada yada… but listen, if you romance Louis and he’s captured, his heart remains with her—that piano with their intitals is on full display. When he sees her, he’s still so devoted to her that he refuses to accept that it’s at all her fault. Even when she says it is, he shakes his head... and he so easily accepts her when they’re together in the end. From the moment Clementine puts knife to wood, he’s hers. 

Now, look… you might think I’m going somewhere not great with this but hear me out. 

I think after Clementine’s gone star gazing with her, Violet is fully ready to give her heart to her. Y’know, give her the pin. But, think about what Violet said about how people have left, but Clementine came back. Plus, with the impending raid to think about, maybe Violet should keep the pin until the right moment. 

I believe a key difference between her and Louis is that Violet needs one last thing to solidify that Clementine’s the one. 

Louis gives her his heart prior to the raid because of everything that’s already gone down between them following Marlon’s death. Violet needs to know that Clementine’s willing to fight for her the way she fought before. When Clementine saves her from the raiders, it’s solidified. Even after she sees Minerva again, it changes nothing.

It’s also worth noting that the pin is something Clementine wears. Like the piano carving, it’s a piece on display for everyone to see, to let them know whose heart Clementine has.

Violet literally handed Clementine her heart as a means of saying, “I’m yours. I’m devoted to you.” 

This is why romanced/captured Violet is devastating, and is why she behaves the way she does in the cells. She was so ready to give her heart away and then nope, sorry, Vi! You get knocked unconscious by raiders instead! 

If anything, you kind of deserve to be told to fuck off if you romanced her and then let her get captured. Just sayin’. 

Look, I have a lot of complicated feelings about the captured violentine route, mostly with Violet being as forgiving as she is after her eyes are burned—yes, yes, I know, her eyes are burned and Minerva messed with her head so of course now she’s not hostile, yada, yada. 

But I think it’s rather telling that you don’t get the pin in this route. Sure, Violet’s willing to forgive and possibly pursue this romance in the future… but she’s not ready to hand over her heart, not truly. Not after everything that’s happened. 

And if you want to get extra angsty about it, imagine that Violet made the pin right after they parted ways, but before the raiders came. Meaning that if she’s captured, it’s possibly still sitting somewhere, abandoned. 

Mmhmmm, very normal about this. I feel normal. My normalness about this continues... normally. I'm not losing my shit thinking about that. Nope. Why would I? I wouldn't! So normal.

Okay just let me talk about their reactions to Tenn's death and then I'll shut up.

This makes me want to gnaw my own foot off, I can barely handle it.

AJ shoots Tenn on the bridge because Clementine trusted him to make the hard calls. This saves Louis or Violet's life.

When Louis jumps across, he's completely silent as he watches Tenn die... and then he's pissed; "What the fuck?! How could you just shoot him like that?!"

AJ explains himself, that he did it for him, and Louis is so upset that he forces AJ to look at what he's done, to watch the walkers eat Tenn; "Tenn's dead. He's dead! Do you realize that?! Look! [...] He's... he's gone, because of you. Just fucking gone."

If Clementine says AJ saved his life, Louis says, "So what, we just cut him loose? Gun him down like he was nothing?"

If Clementine says nothing, Louis says, "Tenn was just a little boy!"

The reason Louis responds this way is because in this moment, he just relived Marlon's death all over again, but worse. So, SO much worse!

When Violet jumps across, she breaks down, begging, "Oh, my God! Oh, my God! No, no! No, no, no..." as she watches Tenn die... and then says to AJ, "No! What the fuck?! How could you do that?!"

AJ explains himself, that he did it for her, and Violet is faaaar from okay; "For me? I can't... Tenn is gone! That soft little boy who liked to draw, he's gone, because of you!"

If Clementine says AJ saved her life, Violet says, "You think that's okay?! Just gunning down one of our own?!"

And there it is.

Louis is hardened in this situation because he already went through this... Violet hasn't, not with AJ. She softened up throughout her route due to her relationships to him and Clementine... but this is the moment where she realizes that maybe AJ wasn't as justified as she believed, and this is the consequence.

This leads us to the ending where AJ asks if they're still mad about him killing Tenn, and I just... I'm biting my foot right now because the script has flipped.

Louis is forgiving and understanding. He's soft, he's sympathetic, he shakes AJ's hand to let him know that all is forgiven and they're okay; "I... AJ, I guess it's like... You saw something I didn't. About the situation, I mean. Minnie and the walkers and Tenn, it's just all this chaos in my head when I think back on it. [...] Clem says you saved my life? Well, then, that's exactly what you did. And how can I stay mad at anyone for doing that?"

Or, alternatively, "He was your friend, AJ. I know you are hurting just as much as I am."

As for Violet? She's understanding, too... but she's not quite ready to forgive yet; "The thing you said on the bridge...that he was messing up all the time. It wasn't something new, you know. Tenn got himself or other people into trouble all the time, long before you guys got here. He was always so lost. He lived in a world that just...isn't there, you know? And that's why I tried to look after him. But when I was pulling him away from the walkers, and Minnie, I could also see...he just wasn't there anymore."

"So you're mad, but sad."

"Can I be that for a while?"

And it's completely understandable that she's hurting and struggling with how she feels about AJ moving forward! She wants to be okay, she wants to forgive him, she just needs time.

Now, because I'm forever bitter, but I'm gonna mention this as well: whenever I see someone point at Violet's scene and say, "See!? This is how LOUIS should've acted in ep2!" like... they're telling on themselves again. Not just that they don't understand Louis as a character or his route, but that they don't fully grasp Violet's part in this either. Or time frames, for that matter.

Let me put it to you in simple terms... they react the same.

After Marlon and Tenn die, they're upset. They're pissed. They blame AJ and yell at him. After they've had time to process what happened [Louis after the two week time skip, Violet after time passes between the bridge and the ending] they share the same, "I'm still upset about Marlon/Tenn. Can I be that for a while and still be your friend?" sentiment.

The difference is that Louis is treated poorly for it because of the vote, and because we feel it first hand for longer... Violet got to grieve off screen and come back after she's sorted herself out.

It's a disservice to both of their characters because it's rooted in that same mentality that I criticized at the beginning: "This is why one is better than the other."

Do I need to say it again? I'm gonna say it again.

One is not good and the other bad. They're different.

There are so many fun discussions that could come from putting Louis and Violet side by side, and examining them. I haven't even covered the different ways they're introduced, or compared their ep3 dates to see what it says about them and the overall narratives! What about the cell scenes!? How they react when Dorian's about the cut off their fingers! The way they approach James upon meeting him!

That last one in particular is especially funny! They're all under stress about blending in with a herd of walkers to infiltrate a boat to save their friends, and yet Louis easily saunters up to the guy wearing walker skins with a smile, and makes him laugh by saying, "Functional and fashionable. I'll take two."

Violet approaches James like he's an injured wild animal that's going to bite her, and bless her heart, she tries with, "I, uh… hey. Hey there, James. Sorry about Willy." Then James gives her this judgmental side-eye, like buddy? She's not the weirdo here.

There is so much potential to dissect here, and I want to see people do it... but I want them to do it fairly, in good faith.

I want to get away from the idea of comparing them to "prove" which is better because there is no objective better. There isn't! That's a waste of time!

I'm so done with The Debate™; it's unhelpful, it's annoying, and it's boring as shit. I've heard it all before, and you probably have, too.

I want to put Louis and Violet under a microscope and study them with the thought process of, "one does this and the other does that... what does it mean!? what does it say about the narrative!? Oh my god, they have the same opinion on this thing, WRITE THAT DOWN!"

So yeah, that's my ramble for the night.

I'm gonna go replay TFS for further research.

[blindbeta]

I've noticed that you are interested in stories with multiple blind characters and often propose adding more blind characters to a story as a solution. I really struggle with this because it's not as simple as that -- stories don't have infinite narrative space. The idea that every story has a large cast is influenced by the prevalence of long serialized media in fandom: webcomics, TV shows, etc. But many writers (myself included) write a lot of novellas and short stories which often only have a few characters -- maybe even only 1 or 2! Even novels don't usually have huge expansive casts -- maybe 5 main characters with some additional side characters.

Considering this, I don't understand how it's realistic for every story (or even, say, 50% of stories) to have multiple blind characters (without it feeling forced). This is compounded by the fact that most blogs that talk about other forms of representation say the same! So if I write a 2-character short story and the protagonist is a blind Latino man, does the second character also have to be a blind Latino man? It just doesn't make sense! This is just a general problem I've noticed in discussions around representation -- there's an assumption that every cast will have 10+ characters and narrative space to develop those characters, even though that's not realistic for most narrative forms.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

Writing Multiple Blind Characters in Short Stories

Hi Anon! Surprise. I write short stories as well. I have experience with this. I have never felt like my blind characters were forced or unrealistic, even with having several of them in the same story. I’ll try to explain what might help you.

First, the idea that multiple blind characters is forced or unrealistic comes from ableism. Think about why you feel there is a limit on disabled characters. If you can create stories, I would hope you are creative enough to consider the possibility that multiple blind characters could exist in the same place and time. Challenging this barrier opens up more possibilities, allowing you to explore different types of blindness, different reactions to it, different upbringings, and multiple ways of living, adapting, and navigating being blind.

Second, blind characters need access to their own community. This is where they learn how to be blind. This where they get support. This is where they might find understanding and belonging. You can find more information about community here in an excellent reblog. Also, here.

As you mentioned, I often suggest adding more blind characters when writers insist upon using stereotyped portrayals. Having multiple characters with different experiences helps to make your story more realistic and nuanced, contrary to what people might implicitly believe. Having more than one blind character is something I highly recommend because it helps with not having all your representation rest on the shoulders of one character.

For example, if you are worried a main character who has cloudy eyes might reinforce the idea that all blind people have cloudy eyes, having another blind character with a different experience may help. If one of your blind characters is naive and innocent, you might have another blind character who is brash, displays a lack of trust in others, and has a lot of shocking stories. Maybe they’re in a rock band together. They met while playing blind football (aka soccer) on a middle school team. They bonded over their pet cats and sour patch kids.

Or something.

Another important thing to remember when writing is that you have control over the story. Too many writers come to me feeling stuck because they feel they cannot change their story while also wanting to incorporate my suggestions. This makes it challenging to address implicit bias or stereotypes, much less guide writers in going in different directions.

Additionally, I feel uncomfortable with the complaints about other blogs in this ask. I feel like this isn’t really about me, nor is it something I can comment on. I will say that it sounds as if a bunch of blogs dedicated to helping people write marginalized characters are mentioning some of the same things. They are probably doing so for a reason.

However, while it helps, writing multiple blind characters won’t improve every story, which I explained in my review of the book Blind. I was not impressed with this book. I did not feel that the four blind characters were very good, nor did having them help with offsetting the portrayal of blindness as a miserable experience.

Conversely, one of my favorite blind characters is Toph Beifong from Avatar: The Last Airbender. Despite being the only blind character in the show, the writers did a good job with her. Would I have liked her to meet more of her community as she travels with the Gang? Absolutely. Even though I like her, she still never had access to her community after being isolated by her parents for so long.

So, no, you don’t need to have multiple blind characters if the suggestion bothers you this much. I even provided good examples of what to do, what not to do, and times where my typical advice was not as helpful for the resulting story.

However, please consider where these feelings stem from. Consider the origins of the idea that having multiple blind characters is unrealistic. Using the example you provided in your question, I wonder, would you say the same if both your characters were white and abled? Is there any way you can challenge the fear of seeming unrealistic? What about being considered unrealistic bothers you so much?

You don’t necessarily need to have characters in the story for them to exist. Even background characters can help. I will try to give some ideas for this:

Does your blind character have family they can talk about or remember? Are any of their family members blind?

Do they have any friends? Just because the friends aren’t in the story doesn’t mean they don’t exist at all.

Does the blind character have any formative memories or flashbacks?

Does the character who isn’t blind know any blind folks?

Your characters should have lives outside of the story. They should have memories and experiences that made them who they are. This is where you can have other blind characters. Perhaps this is how your blind character can have a community.

However, I would still like to see more blind characters interacting with each other. This is what I want as a blind person. If you don’t want to go that direction, that’s fine.

I hope this helps.

[the-invisible-foe]

trying not to have my shipping goggles on all the time when it comes to pathologic because i believe that analyzing every single interaction with the intent of discovering evidence of romantic feelings removes a lot of nuance...

however as much as i want to i just can't get behind the idea of burahkovsky hating each other in the changeling route honestly. i wish i could because i think it would be an interesting dynamic to explore however when a lot of the dialogue with either of them from day 6 onwards is "oh yeah he told me this when we met yesterday. of course we didn't kill each other what's wrong with you. also i'm not letting you in all the details whoopsie" i just can't seriously get behind it because it seriously seems like something else is going on entirely (i hope this is clarified in the new changeling route)

also someone proposed the idea that dankovsky is lowkey highkey manipulating artemy in his route from the arrival of the inquisitor and onwards. which is also another dynamic i think would be more interesting to explore instead of interpreting everything in the haruspex route as romantic. but still i can't get behind it because i just don't see it as manipulation i don't know. like he's pretty open with the fact that he expects things of you (like letting him go through your father's notes or meeting the foreman and then filling him in). he even tells you 'i'm going to play a bit unfair now hehe' like he openly acknowledges when he is asking something of you. they also mentioned how he's trying to forge intimacy by calling artemy by his first name and stuff but like... i would argue that having an emotional breakdown in front of someone and having them convince you out of suicide does indeed create some genuine intimacy. i'm not starting an argument with the person that proposed this because as a russian speaker i respect their authority on the matter (in fact you guys should check out all their posts where they compare russian vs english dialogue because they offer some interesting perspective) but yeah. this is an open invite for people to convince me i guess. or just discuss their own opinions.

[and-her-saints]

american who grew up protestant: all religion is bad because of [feature unique to christianity] and [feature unique to abrahamic religions]! i can’t believe all of us christians grew up being taught that [teaching unique to protestantism]! this specific religious issue affects everyone [by "everyone" they mean "americans"]!

like obviously there’s massive nuance to this but it’s sooo tiring hearing some american WASP or whatever discussing religion without knowing anything about religion in other countries, different cultures, Indigenous religions and spirituality, ethnoreligions, religious persecution, or religions other than christianity (or religions other than christianity, islam & judaism at *best*).

you cannot “destroy religion” your way into collective liberation.

you cannot argue for “a religionless world” without inherently and inadvertently calling for cultural genocide.

most of these exvangelicals don’t even care to explore the ways they’re still part of the cultural hegemonic majority. they don’t care to realize they’re still *culturally* christian, and that just because they now don’t believe in a god, it doesn’t mean their values, their perspective, their ethics, their cosmology, their politics *are no longer* influenced by their experience of their specific brand of protestantism/christianity. they are, most of the times and by all means, Christian Atheists™️

they have no interest in unpacking how their critique and disdain for “the Old Testament God” has historically affected and continues to affect Jewish people to this day. they have no interest in unpacking how their open mockery of Jesus also offends Muslims, not just their hometown church.

Christianity hurt you. but that does not give you a free-pass to be weird about all religious people and their beliefs. especially when their background, experience, level of privilege, geographical location, and religion practiced looks nothing like what you used to do. because, believe it or not, not “all religion” is the same. it’s soooo not that simple.

“end all religion” sounds like a liberatory chant when your ex-religion belongs to the cultural-religious hegemony of your region and has a strong political and social power (which IS to be criticised and dismantled, don’t get me wrong.) however, “end all religion” sounds a LOT less liberatory when you’re a persecuted religious minority. because “when” we do “end all religion,” who do you fucking think is going to be ended first?

TLDR: good for you for deconstructing. 👍 now, deconstruct some more. 👍 atheism is fine, anti-theism is a harmful pipeline.

[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.

[anam-mana]

I’m gonna be honest guys, I don’t think Leander is or will develop into a Yandere.

Do I think he is a monster and there’s something very dark and disturbing about him as a person. Yes. All the clues point in that direction. But I don’t think he has any interest in limiting the freedom of the MC in the ways yandere’s usually do.

For one, the first thing Leander does after learning about our curse is send us out into the city by ourselves literally encouraging us to “explore” in his words. And if you say that went badly for you later his response is not to suggest you should have stayed, but rather to suggest he go with you next time.

He hates and is disgusted by what is being done to Vere. And is equally disgusted by the idea of people being bound to a group mind instead of being allowed to live individually by their own singular will, in the case of discussing the Seaspring. Which, along with the fact that Leander is described as “rebellious” by Red Spring Studio, suggests that he values individuality and freedom for others, as well as for himself.

And to top it all off, Leander in his last seen with the MC, when asked if he’s recruiting them into the Bloodhounds, answers “not yet.” Because, he want’s the MC to find and choose their own path first. Which indicates that clearly the high value he puts on free will extends to the MC.

The only thing that really indicates towards him being a yandere would be that he has a jealous streak, as indicated by both his quiz results and his insisting HE be the one to get you a drink instead of Ais. But there are plenty of jealous character in the world that aren’t yanderes. There are even characters who are EXTREMELY jealous but don’t ever hit yandere territory. So I don’t find his jealousy to be red flag to a yandere nature as much as I find it to be a red flag about his personality.

I think what makes Leander a monster is probably much more nuanced, because thus far, the hints that he may not be who he presents himself as to us are themselves very nuanced.

Or, it could be worse than that, as my theory is that he is both a monster AND exactly who he presents himself as. He is a man who would crush a skull, AND the man who would hold your hand to soothe you because he knows you’re starved for touch. He is a man capable of unspeakable cruelty, AND untold amounts of kindness. He is a monster, AND he is just human. And sometimes humans are monstrous.

To me, that’s what Leander appears to be, and I find that both deeply compelling and horrifying.

Anyways, he’s my fav and I love him.

[dyaz-stories]

Hey there! Just wanna know, what the heck happened in the JJK manga? Is it already over? Did the characters FINALLY mourn Gojo?! I gave up trying to read the manga after 236, so I just decided to randomly hear from others. But anyways, what happened??

Hey there! BOY AM I HAPPY TO DISCUSS THAT.

(I'm sorry I have so many thoughts and you've given me an excuse to ramble so this is going to be long)

There are two chapters left in the manga, it will end on September 30th. The chapter that just came out, chapter 269, was, however, really bad imo and a terrible use of time considering how little time Gege has left. I get that he had to wrap up quick, but in my personal opinion, it's inexplicable that he'd dedicate a whole chapter to what we just saw.

(More under the cut with spoilers for chapter 269)

Okay, so, the characters spend half the chapter arguing about how they could have done a better job fighting Sukuna, even though at this point, the losses are minimal. Most of the characters who were possibly dead are fine and dandy actually (Yuta, Higuruma, Todo, Kusakabe). Choso is still dead, but he gets a little line about how that's sad (and his death scene was really good and effective, so I'm not that mad about it, even if he's a character I really loved).

It kinda feels like Gege is justifying the way the fight went, which is a bit weird. In story, I think this could make sense if it was fueled by grief and loss and more of a "this person could have been saved! and this person didn't have to die!", but it feels kind of matter of fact tbh, with Maki being pretty much the only one displaying emotions. Even she seems to be arguing about efficiency, not really about saving human lives? Other characters' responses aren't much better. Yuuji in particular looks like he's super numb to everything, which again, yes, that's a trauma response, but it doesn't make for interesting storytelling and it's not going to be explored further, so... what's the point.

Also think that Yuta desecrating Gojo's corpse isn't explored enough. He did something horrifying that turned to not be that useful — going with the manga's message that the end doesn't justify the means — and he seems fine. I guess Maki yelling at him could be explained by the fact that she was strongly against this action, but it's never made explicit, which is a shame. (think it's more implied it's because he endangered himself and she has feelings for him)

The other half of the chapter is spent on a plot point that I don't think had been developed before that, about the new shadow style. This feels like the last arc Gege wanted to have and Sukuna's fight went on for too long so he had to scrap it. The point is essentially that the head of the new shadow style school is trying to become the head of Jujutsu Society as a whole now that the clans have collapsed. There was a binding vow that made it so the head of the school could steal years from people who had learned the style and add it to their lifespan. Anyway, Mei Mei steps in and makes it so the style can become more widely used.

(If you're bored reading that, yeah, so was I)

It's not useless exactly — it definitely goes towards the manga's message of ending the cycle and starting off with a clean slate, so that's a win — but it feels super rushed. It didn't have to be rushed, could have been a decent arc, it just isn't, and again, I don't think that's a great use of pages this late in the story.

Last but not least, Gojo. Gojo gets two mentions in this chapter.

The second one is in passing, when Hakari defends Yuta's usefulness.

And the first one, oooh boy the first one,

is about how this was all Gojo's fault from the get-go anyway 😃

And again, some nuance here. Kusakabe specifically says that the kids have nothing to apologize for — which I agree with. His point is that it was Gojo's responsibility to kill Yuuji. Essentially, the idea is that he was the adult, and in not doing that, he's responsible for the kids having to live with all the consequences of his actions.

Which aaaaah I'm losing it here! Yuuji was a victim of Kenjaku's machinations from the get-go, so would it have been right to kill him? Isn't this just a trolley problem — kill Yuuji and save innocent people's lives? But then, Yuuji, Sukuna and Kenjaku's actions led to the end of jujutsu society as we know it, more or less directly, which could lead to a better future, so was he actually right, in a purely consequentialist approach?

I don't think any of that is particularly interesting to discuss at this point tbh. I feel like that had already been dealt with. I'm just deeply confused as to why we're dealing with this when there were three chapters left before this one instead of focusing on closing the curtain on beloved characters, Gojo in particular.

Anyway! Bad chapter imo. Boring. Bad use of the characters and their relationships with one another. Really questionable use of time. Gojo was not mourned and in fact it's almost like he's never existed or never mattered to anyone. No Shoko here, not a hint of sadness from Yuta either, which I had hoped for.

I'm still looking forward to the last two chapters, and I hope they'll leave more room for the characters to, you know, have feelings.

[voxofthevoid]

relate to being turned off from satosugu bc of the fandom. especially being on twitter makes me feel crazy omg bc i'll see posts where people are straight up acting like gojo was completely fine with what geto did bc gojo is just oh so down bad for him and loves him more than anyone else in the world and he doesnt care about anything he just wants geto back. and that is just. so untrue and also so boring, imo.

Because to me, gojo truly *is* a good person in his actions. he says crass things and maybe his mentality can be detached at times, but he always helps people where it counts. Even when he was taking Riko's body away and he asked geto if he should just kill the cult members and geto said no- I have a hard time picturing gojo actually going through with it even if geto *had* said yes. Because for all that gojo postures, I don't think he truly has that kind of bloodlust and rage in him, imo. Not even saying that I think killing those cult members would've been bad, or that Gojo would never ever kill anybody (simply not true), I just simply don't think gojo wouldve stopped walking, turned around, and killed allll those people in that instance (or if he did, I think he wouldve felt,,, off about it afterwards, despite what he said).

But I see so many stsg shippers who act like the only reason gojo was heartbroken about the situation was just because geto left him, and not bc, yaknow, geto committed reprehensible atrocities and became a supremacist. and i'm like,,, are we watching the same show? it's truly such a BAFFLING perspective of the relationship to me. like why erase their moral differences ? doesn't that make the ship more interesting? Sometimes I feel like the reason they do that is bc they can't handle the fact that Geto post-defection is seriously NOT a good person. at all.

stsg as a ship could be sooo much more interesting, imo, if people didn't erase the fact that geto BETRAYED gojo with what he did. not just the leaving. the village massacre, the parricide, the fact that he had no shame about it and stuck by his actions. all of those things betrayed gojo. bc i think gojo truly does want to help people, and he thought that, no matter how hard it was, he would always have geto along with him to do it, and that would make the pressure easier. instead geto chose to become one of the people that makes gojos job harder, lmao.

i think if shippers actually acknowledged that fact the ship wouldn't feel so fucking boring to me.

I’d save you from Twitter if I could, friend. Not saying other sites are free of harebrained idiots. I have Getou and satosugu blocked here for a reason, and I’ve seen screenshots of rancid fucking takes from TikTok and Instagram. Even Reddit—and I’m talking about canon discussion subreddits that generally ban ship talk—didn’t spare me from having to see people’s most reductive takes on this ship. But Twitter in particular seems to be where brain cells go to die.

Nothing in the world can make satosugu compelling to me, but objectively, it’s a ship with rich potential—for angst, for drama, for fluff, for toxicity, for love, for hate, for all of it combined. Like you’ve said, one of the most interesting facets of their relationship is how their bond culminates in betrayal. I’m personally quite interested in the fact that Gojou killed Getou despite loving him, after sparing him for eleven years because of the very same love. It’s not like Getou was ever harmless—he was a special-grade curse user, not the kind of threat you want running around. His cult activities and killings weren’t exactly subtle either. That angle—the fact that love makes Gojou turn a blind eye to Getou’s actions until he crosses a line even Gojou can’t abide—is very, very interesting to me as someone quite obsessed with Gojou’s characterization. People who have an equivalent interest in Getou would find plenty there to peel apart, probably. The two of them together would also offer rich, nuanced grounds for exploration, and I’m sure there are people doing just that.

But fandom spaces as a whole have become exceptionally sanitized recently. I’m not talking about people who generally simply prefer fluff and write that regardless of canon dynamics; there’s nothing wrong with that. We’re all allowed our self-indulgent tastes. But what you’ve described—a tendency to erase characters’ dark or grey morality, to think along black-and-white lines that put people into neat little boxes, to remove unsavory or unhealthy elements from relationships—has been plaguing fandoms more and more, especially fandoms with a large number of young(er) fans. JJK is definitely one of those.

I’ve seen similar takes on a lot of JJK ships as well as platonic relationships, like goyuu shippers asking why fic authors write Gojou as predatory toward Yuuji in canon settings with their canon ages (yeah, a real mystery why a 28 y/o romancing/fucking a 15 y/o would be written as predatory) and dad!Gojou truthers earnestly arguing that Gojou has paternal feelings toward Megumi (or Yuuji or his students in general) and is also such a good dad. I’ve seen it with even sukugo and tojigo, in the brief days before both wound up on my blacklist.

Basically, it’s a fandom-wide issue in the English-speaking JJK sphere (I’m sure the Eastern side and other language/region-specific sides have their own debates and issues, but I’m unfamiliar with those), and because satosugu is the biggest ship in this sphere, it has a significantly larger number of voices making themselves heard—as well as a significantly larger number of nuance-allergic dumbasses making themselves heard. The latter tends to be so fucking loud, often drowning out the other voices. It can feel inescapable, even with filters and shit.

[jemmo]

i was at work until half 8 today but it will still not stop me from quickly ranting about i hear the sunspot ep 9 bc again i this show never misses and never fails to make me cry. off the top of my head, i can’t think of any other bl that’s handled a subject matter so well, and not just that, but taken the time to devote a whole ep to that subject matter and used it to show individual character growth. with other bl’s, i would be getting so mad right around now that we’re not getting a lot of scenes of the main couple together and not focusing on the romantic plot, but here i’m not, and that’s bc not only is what they’re doing with the show instead still interesting in its own right, but it also still contributes to the romantic narrative of the story. i just think this show is so freakin well constructed bc it feels like a show that values its characters and stories more so than it values the bl-ness of it all. and that’s not to say it’s not a bl, it most certainly is, but it’s a bl that lets us care about its characters as people and not just half of a ship, and it makes us care about the subject matter it contains instead of just using it as a way to get a couple together. there is just so much value in taking time showing kohei bringing maya to the sign language club and including her and seeing her enjoy it and feel part of something where before she wanted to isolate her and kohei, and there’s so much value in seeing taichi speaking up for those that are hearing impaired and actually having an interesting and nuanced discussion about how the world deals with disability and seeing him want to work to make things better for these people.

and it’s interesting bc of what maya said, that a bull will turn when it finds its next target. bc it’s meant to be directed at taichi, but the same sentiment can be said for kohei, it could be said that both of them are turning, meaning both of them are lessening their focus on each other and expanding their own worlds, kohei with maya and the rest of the hearing compared community at the university, and now taichi, wanting to help the community at large instead of just a single person. and i really like that they are taking this turn bc it brings up a really interesting way through which to explore their relationship and exactly what they are to each other. bc they are the people that opened up the world to each other, and now that that world is open, they are exploring it… so what does that person mean to you exactly, what is the feeling you have, is it just gratefulness that they introduced you to something more than you had known before, or is that feeling actually more? both taichi and kohei have done amazing things for each other, they have helped each other to find happiness and purpose, it makes you wonder is it the world you now know that is special, or is it the person? and i know for them it is the person, i just really hope that the show is gonna go down the road of showing taichi and kohei realising that- that they don’t just value what they’ve done for each other, but they want each other as people. there are people that do wonderful things for you and there are wonderful people, and i think for taichi and kohei, what remains now is for them to see that even in this big wide world they now know, it’s still each other that are the most special people in it, and that they don’t want to explore that world without each other by their sides.

so yeah… something tells me there might be some heartbreak and sadness on the road to that realization, but it’s so gonna be worth it in the end.

[anthurak]

So I recently saw some discussion on Luz being a ‘Chosen One’-type character. And it really got me thinking about how Luz is, if not an outright subversion, certainly a very interesting exploration and twist on the ‘Chosen One’ trope.

See, Luz technically fits most of the criteria for being a Chosen One, namely being ‘chosen’ by a greater/higher power (the Titan) and gifted great power (glyphs) which she winds up using to defeat the big bad (Belos). However, when we look at the context, execution and subtle nuances of Luz’s relationship with the Titan, we see a lot of differences from what we would expect from a more ‘typical’ Chosen One.

Consider for a moment when most Chosen-Ones are actually ‘chosen’. Usually it’s from the moment they’re born, or in some cases even long BEFORE even that. Alternatively it’s at the very start of the story as part of whatever inciting incident kicks off the protagonist’s role in the plot. Basically, a protagonist being a ‘Chosen One’ is almost always closely tied up in whatever is bringing them into the story in the first place.

But that’s NOT what happened with Luz. She’s not some ‘destined savior’ who was singled out by the Titan when she was born, or even when she first entered the Boiling Isles. No, the first time Luz became known to the Titan (barring time-travel chicanery*) was almost certainly when she began to befriend their son.

I mean, think about this: it’s not until episode FOUR that Luz actually becomes ‘chosen’ by the Titan when they show her the first glyph.

On top of that, there is nothing ‘destined’ about the Titan showing Luz the glyphs. I mean I think it’s pretty clear that the first time they showed Luz the light glyph they were simply trying to help Luz and King to pacify Eda. And after that, they kept showing Luz more glyphs… simply because they wanted to.

The Titan didn’t show Luz the glyphs as part of some grand, thought-out plan for her to defeat Belos and bring peace to the Boiling Isles. Luz didn’t pass some ‘secret test of character’ to become ‘chosen’ by the Titan. She was simply kind and befriended King, and so the Titan decided to just… help her out. First by showing her the first couple glyphs and then showing her more because, well… they LIKE Luz.

The Titan may fill the role of some greater, higher power of the series, but when we finally meet them, they aren’t really presented as one. The Titan is characterized as being quite grounded and down to earth. For all of the incredible power and influence they have over the series, the Titan isn’t presented as some ‘godly’ figure, but simply as ‘King’s Dad’. And not even in some ‘all-knowing, omnipotent entity taking on a form the protagonist can comprehend’ way either (see Amphibia’s finale), but instead simply as a person who wanted to do the right thing, made some major mistakes, and now in large part just wants their son and his new family to be safe and happy.

Again, it all frames the Titan reaching out to Luz to show her the glyphs not as part of some grand plan to defeat Belos or some other ‘destined purpose’, but as the Titan simply wanting to help Luz.

Contrary to what I think a lot of people think, I would call Luz’s story fundamentally distinct from the typical ‘Chosen One’ narrative. Despite the surface-level similarities her story might have, there is nothing ‘destined’, ‘predetermined’ or ‘chosen’ about Luz’s story. She really did stumble through Eda’s portal door chasing Owlbert by pure chance. And it wasn’t some hidden, secret, inborn ‘quality’ about Luz that led to her receiving knowledge from the Titan, or even pure, random happenstance either. Luz simply befriended the Titan’s son and slowly grew into his adoptive older sister.

Just as Luz’s friendliness, kind heart and love for the Boiling Isles and its people endeared her to Eda, King, Amity and so many others, it also endeared her to the very Titan themself.

*If anyone is going to bring up the time-travel point, I would like to remind everyone that is the ‘Stable Time Loop’ trope. NOT ‘The Chosen One’ trope.

[mystreet-liveblog]

Its not even the voices Aphmau needed to do in early seasons. I just have troubles where I take shows really seriously, so the no warning / no consent kissing or the people trying to find out everything about Aphmau's love life is just frustrating for me.

Autistic people taking things too seriously, what else is new?

I hear that, I too have the “tism”

But on the rewatch I kind of read it differently. It makes sense that Aph’s friends would be concerned about her love life since she hasn’t been interested in anyone since high school, her mom is notorious for hating boys, and half her male friends have crushes on her and she doesn’t reciprocate any of them. It’s an interesting situation and I know I’d be concerned, especially if I was Katelyn or KC

Katelyn sees Aph as a sister and knows that she’s had bad experiences with boys in the past (Gene and Ein, though I haven’t gotten to Ein in the rewatch yet so I may be misremembering some details) so of course she’d be suspicious of Laurance and the others across the street, Aaron who’s super suspicious and used to be a bully, and Zane who is literally Zane hahah

Meanwhile, KC is obsessed with shipping and she stands as an outlier who actively analyzes relationships and pairs them together in her mind as possible relationships, with her favorites being expressed more openly and verbally like a hyperfixation. It’s problematic but also not unheard of, and I can relate to analyzing your friends and deducing their compatibility (though not so much pressuring them into pursuing that compatibility :/). In the end she just wants to see all her friends happy, and she projects her own love of romantic love onto them

(KC actually reminds me a bit of Nepeta from Homestuck but that’s a conversation for a different day)

I do think the lack of consent coming from Laurance and his roommates is very weird and disturbing, but the conscious narrative seems aware that it’s problematic while the subconscious narrative plays it off as a joke. It’s not really that funny, but I guess that’s just part of the anime tropiness of the season.

The entire show, or at least the first seasons of MyStreet and PDH, was made to feel anime tropey and unfortunately that kind of nonconsensual humor is very anime. It’s a little nuanced tho that the rest of the show explores the “after they get together” situations rarely seen in romance anime, though, as well as abandoning the nonconsensual humor in favor of villainizing it and using it to characterize antagonists (sorry Laurance fans your fav is problematic <3)

I actually kind of realized through my rewatch that Laurance was the main instigator of these inappropriate actions and it’s really his own problem to work through. The rest follow him with the frat boy mindset and only come to their senses when actually thinking on their own lol

Like, I remember as a kid there being so many jokes about Travis touching peoples butts, but as far as I remember from my rewatch they were all accidents! That’s kind of funny actually! But the normalization of predatory behavior is very weird in S1 and I’m glad it’s gone in S2

In PDH S1, it’s only slightly justified by the students all being literal children who are working through their hormones and poor coping mechanisms. Both Laurance and Garroth kiss Aphmau without her consent and then swear her to secrecy, which is toxic as hell and its protrayed as such. Gene even threatens to kiss her in front of Aaron which is a whole other thing we don’t need to discuss at length cause I’m sure you get the point by now

But PDH-Aaron notably asks permission every time he does anything romantic with Aph and it’s sweet. In S1 of MyStreet, he does kiss her after the play without verbal consent, but it’s implied she did at least nonverbally consent in later episodes when discussing what happened. Regardless, that sort of content in S1 isn’t touched upon as the story goes on which makes it a lot better to me, and it shows the growth of the author alongside her characters

WOAH— SORRY FOR THE LONG RESPONSE!!!! I just found this topic interesting!!!! Hope you have fun reading this MOUNTAIN wow—

[i-am-the-oyster]

Hi there, I also have a quick question about this post (Paul's guilt about hurting John, possibly evidenced in song notes during the making of RAM, and its source—that he left John, despite having promised not to).

Are you saying Paul felt guilty towards John, and knew why, during the making of RAM? And, if so, how would you square this with Paul's notorious 'grief rant' phonecall with Hunter Davies shortly after John's death, where Paul appears not only upset by the idea that he hurt John, but also unaware of what he could have done to cause this hurt?

"But what had really got Paul upset that day was an interview with Yoko in which Yoko was quoted as saying that Paul had hurt John more than any other person. Paul thought they were amongst the cruelest words he ever read." (Hunter Davies grief rant fun)

Was Paul bullshitting Hunter? (Go, Paul)

Was Paul being defensive and angry b/c Yoko blamed him for hurting John in public?

Was Paul not surprised to hear he'd hurt John (after all, they hurt each other often), but struck by the 'more than any other person' part?

I don't mean to say you're right or wrong. I'm just curious to hear you elaborate on this. Meaning, your take on Paul's guilt, and how accessible it was to him consciously. I've long been thinking about him hearing this claim, 'you hurt him more than anyone else', and how different that would have landed, depending on how aware/guilty he felt.

(Whether Paul was right to feel guilty or not is a completely different matter, and doesn't play a role on my question.)

Thank you for the wonderful meaty (sorry Paul!) ask!

I think Paul *did* feel guilty at the time, but I wouldn't exactly say Paul was bullshitting Hunter. The thing that always jumps out at me from that transcript is where Paul says:

There's only one incident I can think of that John has mentioned publicly.

(emphasis mine)

Isn't that an interesting distinction in the context? It makes me think that there were deeply private things that they each did to the other but Paul feels certain that those things would never end up the subject of public discussion.

I don't buy the image of Paul as lacking self-awareness or self-reflection. BUT he is extremely good at re-framing things in a positive way "so many times I had to change the pain to laughter" AND he is a very contrary person. He seems to often instinctively push against whatever narrative the person opposite him is proposing, especially where the topic needs some nuance. (eg the one time he approaches the topic of Jim's violence is in response to Stern pushing Paul's own "idyllic childhood" bit).

So back to the version of their story that had in mind when I made my original post. (Which I'm not married to, but seems like a plausible scenario worth exploring). Paul and John are in a codependent relationship, John has clearly expressed his terror that Paul might leave (as he did with Cyn). John's behaviour has become erratic and (at least borderline) abusive. Paul knows that if he lets go John will "take a tumble", but he's exhausted and Linda is teaching him to take his own desires and needs into account in a much healthier way. (Not to suggest Paul was never selfish in the 60s lol, but he wasn't practicing actual self-care).

John is spiraling, and pushing Paul away in that heartbreaking pattern I call "see I knew you were going to leave". (I'm sure there must be a name for it in psychology). Linda doesn't yet realise the depth of feeling she's dealing with. Paul knows how terrified John is, he's promised he won't be like the others, he won't leave. But he can't do it any more. John finally convinces him that he actually wants him to leave, he bawls his eyes out in front of Mal, and he disappears to Scotland.

I think he would be absolutely wracked with guilt.

And then I think as part of his recovery from that depression he would reassure himself that he did need to leave, that it was the right choice, that he and John could continue to care about one another deeply and move on.

I think Yoko's statement was unnecessarily cruel hurt him, and triggered that contrary response. What's she even talking about? What did I do? The worst ever?!

Thanks again!

[theoneprecioustome]

Old Interviews

A couple of years ago, I came across a compilation of interviews, including some that shared some very interesting info about Aigis' role in the game and the reasons why she didn't have a S-Link in the original Persona 3. I didn't trust my Japanese enough to capture all the nuance though, so the screenshots have been sitting in my folders collecting dust.

Well, no more! We now luckily have a professional Japanese translator in the Aikoto Server, and she has kindly gone ahead and translated the interviews in question. Thank you so much, kitaroai!

Interviews below the cut!

Dengeki PlayStation September 8, 2006 issue Vol.364 "Persona 3" Development Staff Interview

Dengeki PlayStation: I got the impression that Aigis was the main heroine of this work. What made you decide on having a robot girl as the game’s main heroine?

Tanaka (Writer): While I didn’t particularly set out to write her as one would a “main heroine”, we felt that a character who is unaffected by death was essential to a story with “Death” as its theme. In order to explore that theme, it was crucial to depict the process of an existence that starts-off not understanding the meaning of “death”, only to eventually come to face it and acknowledge it.

Soejima (Character Designer): When it comes “heroines”, the game has a system that allows you to date various girls… But personally, I feel that Yukari is a girl that is nearby, while Aigis is the heroine of the main story, or to be more exact, a character that is at the very core of it.

Dengeki PlayStation: So rather than a “heroine”, she could be considered another protagonist?

Hashino (Director): Yes… Aigis is special. She was necessary to depict the story we wanted to tell.

Dengeki PlayStation: I imagine that she is the only female character without a Social Link precisely because she is the one at the heart of the story.

Tanaka: Indeed. It wouldn’t be realistic to say that you can experience love with a robot partner in the exact same way you would with a human, but above all, we feared that giving her a Social Link would make her special role in the story seem less important.

Hashino: She was going to have a Social Link at first and we prepared the scenario for it, but we ultimately decided not to include it.

Dengeki PlayStation: And what about an ending that's influenced by the relationships built in the Social Links? For example, did you ever consider having character-exclusive endings?

Hashino: The staff discussed having character-exclusive endings depending on which Social Links the player did. However, we ultimately decided not to do so because it would take us away from the main story and from what we truly wanted to depict. The relationships with the girls reach their own conclusions in the daily school life section, which is separate from the main story.

Translation by: kitaroai

Material/Dengeki PlayStation July 28, 2006 issue Vol.359 "Persona 3" Interview with Katsura Hashino and Shigenori Soejima

Hashino: Aigis, on the other hand, is a character we added from the very beginning. Since she is a robot, she lacks “feelings”, so we wanted to contrast that with the Protagonist’s emotional side. She was also an indispensable character because she has no fear of “Death”, the main theme of this work.

Soejima: The setting of the story came before the concept, I believe. I remember I started drawing without knowing the story nor its stakes, which was a struggle.

Hashino: […] At first, Soejima seemed to be against the idea of a robot girl, but after convincing him that it was necessary precisely because Aigis is the heroine, it somehow worked out. Was that why you designed her with her machinery exposed?

Soejima: No, it’s not as if I drew her like that as a form of revenge (laughs). I just wanted her design to have more of a nostalgic vibe rather than a high-tech one. My tastes also played a part in it, though (laughs).

Translation by: kitaroai

Plus! One cute extra, this time translated by me:

Materials/Dengeki Maou September 2008 issue supplement “Persona 4” Katsura Hashino, Shigenori Soejima, Kazuhisa Wada Interview

[...]

Soejima (Character Designer): By the way, when it comes to Persona 3, I only worked directly on the one scene where we see Aigis for the first time during the trip to Yakushima.

Dengeki Maou: Do you mean that was the scene you were most particular about?

Soejima: Since that is the scene where we see Aigis for the first time, the Director, Hashino, asked me to make it as cute as possible (Laughs).

Translation by: @theoneprecioustome