#its EXPLICITLY about queer longing

[lesbianfakir]

I made a little poster for my fic (link) ehehe. Pose + Duck's costume taken from John Neumeier's Little Mermaid ballet

[ID: digital art of Duck and Fakir dancing. He's lifting her into the air on his back. She is smiling with arms and one leg stretched high into the air. She wears flowing, golden pants that trail past her feet, meant to stylistically resemble a mermaid's fins. Hazy feathers fall to the ground all around her. End ID]

[v0idwraith]

james lance has officially joined the ranks of straight men i trust to portray queer characters

[silverbastardgoldenfool]

Catching up on Doctor Who (1 ep left!!!!) and I don't know how to even remotely convey the extent to which I was screaming crying throwing up and gnawing on electrical cords as things got exponentially more homosexual with every passing second like babygirl I am legitimately unwell so please take these images as an approximation of my emotional journey while watching The Gayification of the Doctor xoxo

[lesboylycan]

man it's just a neverending cycle of reanalyzing my identity. if i had a nickle for every time a random mini comic on a particular identity and experiences with it gave me a sudden crisis, i'd have two nickles yadda yadda

[supermarketcrush]

alright i finally finished a little life

[teaboot]

holy moley the idea of alexander skarsgard as murderbot is irreconcilable in my head lol. when i read the book for my scifi class i pictured murderbot as more feminine in appearance tbh, and i thought it was weird that no one else in that class seemed to. i feel like i mightve missed something in the text bc i find it wild how widespread "murderbot looks like a man" is. or is their physical appearance more fleshed out in other books?

Murderbot (it/its so far as I've read) has so far been definitively described as having:

A Humanoid figure, with two arms and legs

A human face

Explicitly no genitalia, with none desired, and no primary or secondary sex characteristics noted

(In book one) Having hair only on its head, then eyelashes and eyebrows, being smooth everywhere else

Nonhuman features on its arms/legs that can be concealed under pants and long sleeves

Some kind of mechanical port on the back of its neck that is not uncommon on "augmented humans"

No distinct freckles, moles, or markings

An incomplete internal digestive system

By what isn't described I imagine we can safely assume that it has eight fingers and two thumbs in the usual formation, though wearing shoes I'm not sure about toes.

I also haven't heard anything apropos of scarring, except that it heals rapidly, so I imagine any distinguishing marks from injuries likely wouldn't last long.

Nobody as far as I've read has referred to it by any assumed binary or neo-pronouns, and as relatively progressive as the setting is in terms of queer and poly relationships I can easily imagine that agender humans with it/its pronouns wouldn't be too terribly strange in common company either.

So far, no third party characters have called it a "he" or "she", which could either mean that nobody in this universe adheres to our current rigid social view of the gender binary and masc/fem appearances, or that Murderbot is simply incredibly androgynous. As a reader, I like to think the reality is both- a secunit doesn't need to look distinctive or gendered or have any features it doesn't strictly need outside of its function. As it says in the book, it's not a sex-model, so it doesn't need sex-parts, and it wasn't made to be looked at.

I feel like the only reason anyone would read that and ascribe to it a male face and body is because our current western society tends to treat "white male" as the natural default setting, and anything else as "other".

We expect Murderbot to be a conventionally handsome white man because that's the popular view of neutral.

But there's no reason it couldn't be performed by an actor who is female, or Indigenous, or Korean, or anyone else from anywhere else

If our Pretty White Man isn't the default neutral in Murderbot's universe, and if there is no default neutral, then the Default Neutral Murderbot was designed to look like could be anyone

Provided, of course, that they 1. Have a human face 2. Have no freckles or moles (for book 1 at least) 3. Have two arms and legs, of some manner, and 4. Don't flash their junk on screen

Aa far as I'm concerned, that's all we need.

And you know what? I think the prospect of getting to choose any actor at all, point to them, and say "This person? They're the norm! They're unremarkable! They are a version of True Neutral, and they aren't a small-nosed blue-eyed white guy with abs!"... I think that's kind of exciting, and I sort of fear that it may be an overlooked opportunity to say something interesting

[fxoye]

i'm honestly at a loss right now. like... what even is happening on the SNW star trek reddit thread?

i know i shouldn't be surprised at this point, but the level of pushback and dismissal when it comes to even the mere possibility of spock being queer is just... baffling.

like, i get that reddit has its share of toxicity and closed-mindedness, but for some reason i thought the star trek fandom would be a bit more evolved, you know? this is literally a franchise that has always been about inclusivity, diversity, and pushing social boundaries. and yet here we are, in 2024, still having to justify the basic idea that hey, maybe the character with a decades-long history of queer subtext and coding could, in fact, be queer.

it's just wild to me that this is even a debate. like, i'm sorry, but the idea of kirk and spock's relationship having homoerotic undertones is not some fringe tumblr headcanon - it has been acknowledged and explored by literal cast members, writers, and even gene roddenberry himself. the term "slash" in fanfiction comes from kirk/spock stories, for crying out loud. this is not new!

and yet we have people in that reddit thread acting like the mere suggestion of a queer spock is some sort of sacrilegious retcon that would ruin the character forever. as if spock's entire 50+ year history would be erased if he so much as looked at a man with anything other than heterosexual brotherhood.

it's just so frustrating and disheartening to see this level of knee-jerk dismissal and erasure, especially in a fandom that prides itself on being progressive and imaginative. like, we can envision a future with warp drives and aliens and literal magic space gods, but a queer vulcan is a bridge too far? okay then.

and the thing is, no one is even saying that spock is definitively, unquestionably gay, or that every single iteration of his character needs to be explicitly queer. all we're saying is that there is room for that interpretation, and that queer stories have just as much right to be told as any others. but apparently even that is too much for some folks.

it's a reminder that even in supposedly "enlightened" geeky spaces, homophobia and heteronormativity are still alive and well. and it's exhausting, honestly. as a queer trekkie, i'm just so tired of having to constantly justify my existence and fight for scraps of representation.

you know what, i'm gonna say it: the erasure and denial of spock's queer subtext, and specifically the spirk ship, is not just frustrating - it's straight up homophobic.

like, let's look at the facts here. kirk and spock's relationship has been coded as romantic and even erotic since literally the beginning of the franchise. the term "t'hy'la", which has been used to describe their bond, translates to "friend, brother, lover" in vulcan. that's not subtext, that's just... text.

and the evidence just keeps piling up from there. the way spock is the only person who can pull kirk out of his darkest moments, the way they constantly risk their lives and careers for each other, the "this simple feeling" speech in the motion picture... like, come on. even the kelvin timeline movies had scenes of them practically eye-fucking on the bridge.

and don't even get me started on the plethora of literary references that heavily code their relationship as queer. kirk and spock's dynamic has been compared to achilles and patroclus, gilgamesh and enkidu, alexander the great and hephaestion... all classic examples of homoerotic male partnerships. the iconic back-to-back pose from the episode "bread and circuses" is a direct visual reference to the novel "ishmael" by barbara hambly, which depicts a gay romance between two men. (as somebody pointed out; this is not accurate and since i was hazed asf (meds) when i wrote this, can’t remember what literary parallel i was actually trying to draw here. let me dig through my stash of gay literature history and i’ll address this 😭☝️).

these are not coincidences or fan delusions - they are deliberate, well-documented artistic choices layered into the very foundation of kirk and spock's relationship. and the fact that so many people are eager to ignore or downplay them in order to cling to a heteronormative fantasy of male friendship is honestly pretty telling.

and look, i get it. it's easy to claim "they were just best friends" because that's what we've been culturally conditioned to see as the default. but the reality is, intimate male relationships have been historically desexualized and stripped of romantic coding in order to maintain heterosexual norms. the achilles/patroclus model of male love used to be widely understood as having a romantic and even sexual element - it was only in the 19th and 20th centuries that it was aggressively reframed as "platonic friendship" in a textbook example of straightwashing.

so when people insist that kirk and spock's bond could never be anything other than a sexless bromance, they are literally upholding centuries of homophobic revisionism designed to erase queer love from our cultural narratives. and i'm sorry, but that's not something i can get behind as a queer fan.

you cannot look at the overwhelming evidence of kirk and spock's queer subtext, the decades of analysis exploring their relationship through a romantic lens, the undeniable impact and influence of queer interpretations on the very fabric of this fandom... and tell me with a straight face that it's all meaningless or invalid.

kirk/spock walked so that every other slash pairing could run. it is the ur-text of queer shipping in modern fandom. and while it may have started as subtext, it has long since transcended those limitations to become an integral part of star trek's cultural legacy.

but at the end of the day, i know that fandom will always be what we make of it. no amount of downvotes or closed-minded rhetoric can change the fact that queer interpretations of spock have been part of his story since day one, and will continue to be so long as there are lgbtq+ fans who see ourselves in him.

so to my fellow queer trekkies: keep boldly going, keep reading the subtext, keep telling our stories. they can call it illogical all they want - we know the truth. and as a wise vulcan once said: "there's no point in denying the facts of one's nature." 🖖🏳️‍🌈

[aurorabyler]

the significance of heroes by david bowie to stranger things + byler (finn wolfhard interview)

byler nation. i just found an interview clip of finn that i’ve literally been looking for since season 4 dropped. i remembered watching it but i couldn’t find the video afterwards and i also haven’t seen many people talking about it, so here it is:

transcript (finn wolfhard): “this is my life in songs. a song that reminds me of stranger things — heroes by david bowie. there’s a cover in the first season, but i remember when we were first shooting the first season shawn levy (one of our directors and executive producers) cut together a sizzle reel and put it to heroes, and that was kind of the first glimpse we got into the show. and it really just kind of blew me away and also made that song so important as well to me.”

if any of you are familiar with the way heroes is used in stranger things as well as some of the theories surrounding the specific lyrics that are selected and placed over scenes (especially related to byler) this is quite significant. it’s also significant that it was in fact shawn levy who put together the sizzle reel with heroes — he is known in the byler community to kind of be a byler champion, if you will.

he has directed some of the most significant byler scenes in the whole show — finding will’s fake body in the quarry in season one (WHICH HAS HEROES PLAYING IN THE BACKGROUND), the rain fight in season 3, the byler scenes in dear billy (including the legendary “i didn’t say it — you didn’t have to” scene) among others.

furthermore, heroes is established as a theme/musical motif that is very explicitly related to byler in season one of the show, as the first time it plays mike literally breaks down at the sight of will’s fake body and bikes all the way home. the specific lyrics that play when he goes to hug karen in that same scene are (quite notoriously):

and the guns, shot above our heads

and we kissed, as though nothing could fall

and the shame, the shame was on the other side

it’s interesting that finn notes the song as being one that specifically reminds him of stranger things and that seems to (based on not only shawn but the fact that heroes has been used TWICE in the show over NEAR PARALLEL byler scenes) to have a very big role in the show.

anyways. what i'm saying is that leading up to season five, a lot of people are kind of expecting that the pattern of using heroes will be completed -- they used the cover in seasons 1 and 3, and it only really makes sense to kind of complete that in season 5 as the song has been used as a throughline for a very specific storyline for what will have been the almost ten years since season 1 came out.

lastly i just want to say that i am not implying finn speaking about a song that has personal meaning to him is somehow solely connected to byler. my main interest in this is the shawn levy bit and just the general significance of the song to the show, which has been spoken about in lots of theories ever since the show came out in 2016.

i'll link here some posts about byler theories related to heroes that might give you some more context to its significance:

[t4tails]

okay i watched all 43 minutes of the james somerton apology video at 1.5x speed, heres a summary for those who dont want to time sink:

- the video is monetized, he says hes giving it all to hbomb so it can go to the people he stole from but the way he words this implies he did not ask him ahead of time. the same allegedly goes for the other videos up on his channel, which are also up because he wants his editor to have a resume to point to

- apologizes for the plagiarism less than 5 minutes in. thanks the people who were nice to him

- says part of why he plagiarized was because hes aware hes a cis white gay man and wanted to be more inclusive of other queer experiences

- but that he has memory issues so he didnt remember to source them a lot of the time. blames this on a head injury as a child and its resulting epilepsy, as well as his recently diagnosed adhd

- also states there was a lot of stress due to his mom dying because she wanted him to make a movie with his portion of her life insurance

- a comical string of errors occured where he would write a script only to realize half way through they couldnt film it. this went on for years until apparently they finally finished one on the night the hbomb vid dropped. this takes up like 15 minutes

- talks at length about how he tried to kill himself and how scared he is of unhinged people who watched hbombs vid

- james will soon be releasing a new video, which according to him will be entirely by him and properly cited. says its more of a documentary than a video essay

- mentions his past videos misinformation but doesnt say what it was over. says it wasnt malicious and they werent trying to lie

- made a new patreon so people have to explicitly resubscribe after this scandal. says this video is not about him promoting himself despite having done a lot of that for the past 15 minutes

- says theres no excuse for what he did despite making excuses earlier in the video

- wants to make a documentary about the author of the celluloid closet, one of the books he stole from

- says "i know its easier to watch a 20-30 minute long youtube video than read a book" when he is under fire for plagiarizing books in his 20-30 minute long youtube videos

he does not mention:

- his misogyny & his responses to previous allegations of plagiarism from smaller creators

- probably other stuff i dont remember

youre welcome

[yurimother]

'I'm in Love with the Villainess' Anime - Episode 1 Review

An astounding and hilarious first outing for the series with the power to revolutionize Yuri

We are finally here, the long-awaited and much anticipated first episode of Platinum Vision’s I’m in Love with the Villainess anime aired on Tokyo MX and is streaming everywhere outside of Asia with a plethora of dubbing options, including English, on day one on Crunchyroll.

The first outing covers most of the events of the light novel’s first chapter, or the first three chapters of the manga, at a rapid but steady and not overwhelming pace. At this rate, the anime should be able to cover much of the series’ first arc, or the first two out of five books, in a single cour. Perhaps a bit less, depending on which of the story’s various adventures it elects to include. This is an exciting possibility, to be sure, as the story is a character-driven, socially mindful, and expertly written and, despite its fantasy setting, an exceptionally relevant tale of romance, socio-economic inequality, and of course, queerness.

While the first arc of Villainess is a triumph, it would be a shame not to see at least some of the developments from the extra chapters that lead into the second story, like (spoilers for the end of volume 2) Rae and Claire’s wedding and their adopted twin daughters May and Aleah. If we are lucky, perhaps they will appear in the final episode or, dare to dream, a second season (end of spoilers).

Now, onto the show itself. For those who, for whatever reason, have not read Inori’s masterpiece, I’m in Love with the Villainess follows Rae Taylor. A salary worker who dies and is reincarnated as the protagonist of her favorite otome game, Revolution. However, Rae has no interest in any of the game world’s three eligible royal bachelors and has eyes only for the game villainess Claire François. Armed with exceptionally magical ability, Rae sets out determined to secure a happy ending for her beloved Claire against the coming revolution and perhaps win her heart in the process.

Now, the opening of I’m in Love with the Villainess is the series' weakest moment in all mediums, which, considering episode one’s outstanding quality, only highlights just how superb the Yuri masterpiece is as a whole. Even with its need to establish the setting, characters, and premise of the series, the premiere managed to be an excellent introduction and set the bar high with lots of laughs, entertainment, and service between our two leads.

I watched the Japanese audio, and Yu Serizawa and Karin Nanami are fantastic in these roles, with Serizawa playing up Rae’s teasing adoration and borderline masochism at full blast, and Nanami explicitly giving voice to Claire’s arrogance and frustration. She even manages to deliver a perfect Ojou-style laugh to seal the character’s elite status and lean into the show’s use of otome tropes. And having the leads sing the excellent opening and ending themes is just icing on the cake.

Speaking of tropes, while Ironi’s original work is a genre-defying masterpiece that broke the Yuri mold, it is never afraid to play with the genre’s iconography and its otome game setting. Every other scene had another allusion, including to the book’s cover. As always, I am likely overeager to see connections, however intentional they may be, but the academy’s halls harken to otome staples, the bells and strings of the first scene's soundtrack conjured blistering memories of Strawberry Panic (perhaps a sacrilegious comparison to make but I digress), and even an areal shot of the campus was another check mark on my “Scenic Yuri” theory.

Now, as mentioned, I’m in Love with the Villainess has to establish the groundwork here, and narratively, these are the weakest moments, often direct exposition, with a few exceptions like Rae’s conversation with her roommate Mash about maintaining Claire’s attention. The narration is at least accompanied by relevant and creative, if perhaps limited, animation. But to their credit, these moments are succinct, existing only as long as they have to in order to provide the necessary information and get out of the way for what matters most: the characters.

Rae and Claire are front and center from the very get-go, and there is little time wasted in showcasing Rae’s intense bottom energy or establishing Claire’s elitism and bewildered anger towards Rae’s excitement in the face of Claire’s carefully calculated cruelty. It is a montage of silly and fun competitions between the two that had me laughing and smiling all the way through, as the Yuri was present in full force, and gives glimpses at the mutual obsession the women have for each other that will soon blossom into a wonderful romance.

These early story beats have a light tone and focus on the bullying, teasing, and rivalry between Rae and Claire, a dynamic that previously and understandably made a subset of readers somewhat uncomfortable. However, assuming the anime unfolds in a similar manner to the manga and light novels, the narrative will explore meatier, heavier subject matter and a far deeper lesbian romance, all without losing its sense of fun and adventure. The next episode or two will be incredibly telling - as the source material is perhaps the most profound and forthright depictions of LGBTQ identity in Yuri, and that all starts with a pivotal conversation that, if it is included, will be coming up shortly.

Overall, I am incredibly excited for this series. The first episode is everything I had hoped for out of an adaptation of one of my favorite works of all time, save the animation, which is average at best. While there is a lot more to see, and we will have to wait to know if I’m in Love with the Villainess lives up to its incredible potential and source material, I am extremely hopeful. We have one of the funniest, most thoughtful, and queerest works of Yuri transformed into a stunning anime project unlike anything that has come before and offers the chance at not just a new Yuri “gateway” but to continue the work of its source material in revolutionizing the genre.

Ratings: Story – 8 Characters – 10 Art – 5 LGBTQ – We shall see… Sexual Content – 3 Final – 8

I'm in Love with the Villainess is streaming on Crunchyroll with English sub/dub.

Review made possible by Avery Riehl and the rest of the YuriMother Patrons. Support YuriMother on Patreon for early access, exclusive article, and more: patreon.com/yurimother

[ch4liz4rd-jpeg]

i wanna speak to the void abt gwens universe's colour symbolism and how it links to trans identity so here it is, feel free to read

the colours used in gwens universe - primarily in interactions with her dad are pinkish and bluish tones. the animators used pink as a way to show honesty, candidness and openness expressed, whilst the blue served to show isolation and dishonesty. ill discuss why i think so below

in the scene where gwen returns home after quitting the band, gwen is coloured in blue tones.

shes hiding her identity as spiderwoman from her dad and isolating herself in her room.

her dad tries to open up and talk to her about the case, hence the warm/orangey tones. but gwen remains blue, shutting him out. but when they hug, gwen is more purplish, showing a hint of her opening up.

the other scene i think is especially significant with her colour symbolism is the confrontation after the guggenheim sequence.

when gwen comes out as spiderwoman, the colours start to shift.

gwen is now candid, shes come out to her dad and is trying to make him listen and understand her. but just like gwens blues became pinks, george's pinks shift to blue.

the last image in this set is actually so chilling, the fear in his eyes hurt me deeply 💀 anyway

george hides behind his cop persona, avoiding and isolating from gwens confession to him, which is supported by the colour used to portray him.

all of this builds to what i think theyre trying to say about gwen being transgender. the typical gender to colour association is pink girl and blue boy. the choice of colour is deliberate here as much as it usually is with the spiderverse team. why use these two colours in this specific way? a lot of people who dont think gwen is a trans girl will say "well those two colours dont have to represent trans identity" they dont, but the details say that the spiderverse team (once again) is intentionally using them to talk about trans identity and coming out.

i think that by putting the "protect trans kids" poster in gwens room, and the trans flag patch on officer stacy's jacket show that theyre not just randomly picking the colours, but that they made the conscious choice for the boy associated colour - blue - to show hiding and isolation. whilst pink is about honesty and openness whilst being the girl associated colour. i think that the use of these colours in this way is saying that gwen is a trans woman.

and if ur still not convinced well

i havent even talked about the DIALOGUE in this movie and how trans it is. her arc (and miles' arc) across the two movies is such a queer coded story. "can i tell my dad, will he approve of me? will he still love me the same?" like it couldnt be more obvious. someone also mentioned somewhere that the side shave is also significant? like when she has the long hair facing toward the viewers its the same as the pink being used to show honesty and linked to femininity, and the short side almost like a masc haircut and being of the opposite meaning when its facing the audience. idk abt that one but its an interesting thought! that as well as her like having the same shoe size as hobie even tho that man is so fucking tall - yk this cuz her chucks are stated to be his.

anyways if u got that far, thanks???

and if u still deny that gwen is trans then idk what to say, u prob hate trans ppl

gwen is trans, they dont need to explicitly say it inorder for it to be true, just bc they didnt say gwen is trans, or miles is somehow queer, or hobie is gender non conformist, doesnt mean theyre cishet.

[bloomshroomz]

Tumblr is still actively endorsing transphobia on this website. Reblog the fuck out of this.

Tumblr got back to me about a report for once... Just to tell me that the blatant transphobia I reported "does not violate community guidelines."

These are the posts which Tumblr staff decided should be kept on the platform, with screenshots.

Also, I apologize in advance for censoring the usernames of the transphobes in the screenshots. Tumblr does absolutely nothing to protect its trans users, so I wouldn't be surprised if I ended up getting in trouble instead, just for including their usernames. I will mention, however, that every transphobe had transphobic dogwhistles in their usernames and/or bio. Transphobes are not difficult to spot. Staff are just apathetic at best, and actively transphobic at worst.

Exhibit A: A post in which someone repeatedly and explicitly misgenders trans women, fearmongers about "trans ideology," uses transphobic dogwhistles, and denies the existence of transmisogyny. This isn't even the full post; it was an incredibly long transphobic tangent. The comments were full of transphobes as well. None of them were banned. Tumblr staff think this is okay.

Exhibit B: A post in which someone delights in the idea of a trans person hurting themselves by "ripping at their surgery scars," with additional ableist undertones. Not a hypothetical trans person either; a real individual trans person. She was not banned.

Exhibit C: A post in which a self-proclaimed TERF refers to consensual gender affirming surgeries as "forced surgeries" and frames trans people as "Nazis and fascists" just for trying to become comfortable in our own bodies. She did this in direct response to trans people celebrating their own surgeries. She was not banned.

Exhibit D: A post in which someone says "transgenderism is erasing women" and blames the existence of misgendering and degendering on trans people, as if we aren't also hurt by those things frequently. She also said that trans women are "not women" in comments on her own post. She was not banned.

Exhibit E: A post in which someone engages in a blatant form of Holocaust denial, by saying trans transgender and queer people "were not targeted" (while simultaneously casting doubt on the validity of those identities themselves by putting them in scare quotes). Trans persecution and book burnings are a well documented aspect of the Holocaust. This post was also reblogged by other transphobes. None of them were banned.

@staff care to explain why you think these posts are okay? Would you like to tell us how and why these "don't violate community guidelines"? Did you learn nothing from the lawsuit that happened because of transphobia among staff? After everything that has happened, why is there still nothing being done about the rampant transphobia on this website?

Just curious.

Also, in case I get banned or this post gets deleted, here's an archived version of my post. Keep it tucked away somewhere.

[glorified-red]

I'm seeing all the hate The Sun & The Star is getting on this hellsite and its so obvious that people aren't reading this book for what it is.

It's literally a children's novel written for children. The book is supposed to be easily digestible and stupid and explicitly written because kids books are supposed to be completely laid out.

Rick has always written dorky things in his books but he has also prioritized writing about real world issues and struggles. He's written about trauma, abuse, PTSD, depression, anxiety, etc. For years.

So here he is writing about deep rooted insecurities and self-doubt and learning to accept all those dark parts of yourself as well as others, AND tackling internalized homophobia and queer struggles, and we're upset the book is too focused on the relationship?

The entire point of this book is to teach the audience how to navigate a rocky relationship with compassion and understanding. It's showing that relationships aren't perfect, you can be upset with your partner and your partner can be upset with you but the point is that you talk about it and you try to do better.

Is it such a bad thing for young teens to be learning this?

Is it such a bad thing for them to see that love is effort? And can and will be flawed and that's okay??

This is the first time we've seen this topic discussed by Rick and I've never seen a book tackle this topic because we always see the Hollywood depiction of love---yet that's unrealistic.

This is showing that love can be flawed but still be oh so beautiful. That you can be traumatized and still worthy of love.

And I am so proud of Rick and Mark for not only showing a healthy attempt at a relationship but also showing countless times that those lessons apply to any relationship. They put significant stress on platonic and familial relationships and how that love is also effort, compassion, and understanding.

Yes, it focused on Solangelo a lot.

Yes, it had soooo many flaws that even I cringed and got disappointed at times.

But the fact that we got a book that finally lets two characters talk about their feelings is incredible, and the fact that this new generation gets this book??

If I had a book like this when I was young, showing me how to navigate conflict and that relationships CAN be hard?? My god, the healing that lesson could have done.

Perspective is everything for this book. Hell, perspective was everything in HoO. It showed that how characters are perceived is very different from how they perceive themselves.

Leo was literally always shown as comedic relief and nothing more until we saw how incredibly lonely and sad that kid was from his point of view.

Percy was always said to be intimidating and powerful, but in his perspective, he's a kid who has no clue what he's doing.

So yea, in this book, it may seem like these characters have shifted, but once again, Rick is relying so heavily on perspective.

Nico was edgy and depressed for as long as we knew him, even in BoO when we first got his POV. But now that he's accepted, loved, and healing, why are we getting mad that he's a dork again---how he was before all the trauma? Why are we mad that Nico is growing and healing and becoming himself again because he feels safe enough to do so.

Ofc he's gonna feel different than how he was written a canon year ago.

And this is the first time we've had Wills perspective. He's always been seen as this sunshine happy character but we FINALLY get some acknowledgement that he's deeply terrified. He's shown as a leader and camp counselor but he's got anxiety written in his bones.

He felt like a burden this book because he's a healer. He's absolutely terrified to be a fighter and yet we got to see him become one in his own way. He was out of his element but he was trying.

Because he's so goddamn afraid of losing someone else.

Call Will an asshole all you want, but Nico had been to Tartarus and the Underworld more times than he could count.

Will is literally walking into a place he's never been to before and is the complete opposite of anything he's ever known---for Nico. The comments he makes about plants and lack of sunshine? It wasn't him being a dick, he was him being genuinely confused because hes only ever known earth logic.

If I saw flowers blooming in a pitch black room I'd be a little confused too. He says the Underworld is depressing because it's literally draining his energy.

You yell at Will for not being open-minded yet won't comment on the fact that Nico hardly made an attempt either. Nico could have been more understanding about the fact that Will, a guy who's exploring this place that's slowly killing him, might not like the place at first because he doesn't understand it.

Because Will wanted to understand.

And the second Will finally began to understand the beauty of the Underworld, he was nothing but supportive.

You get mad at Will for making mistakes yet refuse to acknowledge that he learned from them.

The Sun & The Star tackled a hard topic that doesn't get talked about often. It portrayed a queer relationship and it emphasized characters who learned and grew. It's different from other Rick books because that was the point. (And it wasn't just Rick writing it)

This book was about accepting change within yourself and "daring to be different."

And the fact that you can't even accept a book that does the same just shows that the lessons this book taught went straight over your head.

I've never been more disappointed in this fandom. We begged for this book. We begged for queer representation. Yet here we are criticizing every little thing about it as if we aren't lucky to be getting this book in the first place---a book about two side characters.

This book had soooo many flaws but it wasn't a bad book.

Isn't that the point of it all? To love something even though it's flawed? That flaws dont necessarily mean it's broken and bad forever?

It's okay to hate a book.

That doesn't mean it's a bad book.

It just wasn't for you.

There are dozens of other books in this fandom to love and cherish, but don't hate this book just because it's different from what we're used to.

[genderkoolaid]

sorry if you've talked about it already, but what is it that makes KOSA's idea of online safety wrong? I don't know much about the bill, what does it intend to do?

What do you think is a good way to protect kids from things like online predators or just seeing things that they shouldn't be seeing? (By which I mean sex and graphic violence, things which you'd need to be 16+ to see in a movie theater so I think it makes sense to not want pre-teens to see it)

From stopkosa.com:

Why is KOSA a bad bill? KOSA uses two methods to “protect” kids, and both of them are awful. First, KOSA would incentivize social media platforms to erase content that could be deemed “inappropriate” for minors. The problem is: there is no consensus on what is inappropriate for minors. All across the country we are seeing how lawmakers are attacking young people’s access to gender affirming healthcare, sex education, birth control, and abortion. Online communities and resources that queer and trans youth depend on as lifelines should not be subject to the whims of the most rightwing extremist powers and we shouldn’t give them another tool to harm marginalized communities.  Second, KOSA would ramp up the online surveillance of all internet users by expanding the use of age verification and parental monitoring tools. Not only are these tools needlessly invasive, they’re a massive safety risk for young people who could be trying to escape domestic violence and abuse.

I’ve heard there’s a new version of KOSA. What’s the deal? The new version of KOSA makes some good changes: narrowing the ability of rightwing attorneys general to weaponize KOSA to target content they don’t like and limiting the problematic “duty of care. However, because the bill is still not content neutral, KOSA still invites the harms that civil rights advocates have warned about. As LGBTQ and reproductive rights groups have said for months, the fundamental problem with KOSA is that its “duty of care” covers content specific aspects of content recommendation systems, and the new changes fail to address that. In fact, personalized recommendation systems are explicitly listed under the definition of a design feature covered by the duty of care in the new version. This means that a future Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could still use KOSA to pressure platforms into automated filtering of important, but controversial topics like LGBTQ issues and abortion, by claiming that algorithmically recommending such content “causes” mental health outcomes that are covered by the duty of care like anxiety and depression. Bans on inclusive books, abortion, and gender affirming healthcare have been passed on exactly that kind of rhetoric in many states recently. And we know that already existing content filtering systems impact content from marginalized creators exponentially more, resulting in discrimination and censorship. It’s also important to remember that algorithmic recommendation includes, for example, showing a user a post from a friend that they follow, since most platforms do not show all users all posts, but curate them in some way. As long as KOSA’s duty of care isn’t content neutral, platforms will be likely to react the same way that they did to the broad liability imposed by SESTA/FOSTA: by engaging in aggressive filtering and suppression of important, and in some cases lifesaving, content.

Why it's bad:

The way it's written (even after being changed, which the website also goes over), it is still possible for this law to be used to restrict things like queer content, discussion of reproductive rights and resources, and sexual education.

It will restrict youth's ability to use the Internet independently, essentially cutting off life support to many vulnerable people who rely on the Internet to learn that they are queer, being abused, disabled, etc.

Better alternatives:

Stop relying on ageist ideas of purity and innocence. When we focus on protecting the "purity" of youth, we dehumanize them and it becomes more about soothing adult anxieties than actually improving the lives of children.

Making sure content (sexual, violent, etc.) is marked/tagged and made avoidable for anyone who doesn't want to engage with it.

Teach children why certain things may be upsetting and how best to avoid those things.

Teach children how to recognize grooming and abuse and empower them to stop it themselves.

Teach children how to recognize fear, discomfort, trauma, and how to cope with those experiences.

The Internet makes a great boogeyman. But the idea that it is uniquely corrupting the Pure Innocent Youth relies on the idea that all children are middle-class suburban White kids from otherwise happy homes. What about the children who see police brutality on their front lawns, against their family members? How are we protecting them from being traumatized? Or children who are seeing and experiencing physical and sexual violence in their own homes, by the parents who prevent them from realizing what's happening by restricting their Internet usage? How does strengthening parent's rights stop those kids from being groomed? Or the kids who grow up in evangelical Christian homes and are given graphic descriptions of the horrors of the Apocalypse and told if they ever question their parents, they'll be left behind?

Children live in the same world we do. There are children who are already intimately aware of violence and "adult" topics because of their lived experiences. Actually protecting children means being concerned about THEIR human rights, it means empowering them to save themselves, it means giving them the tools to understand their own feelings and traumas. KOSA is just another in a long line of attempts to "save the children!" by dehumanizing them and giving more power to the people most likely to abuse them. We need to stop trying to protect children's "innocence" and appreciate that children are already growing, changing people, learning to deal with discomfort and pain and the weight of the world the same as everyone else. What people often think keeps kids safe really just keeps them ignorant and quiet.

Another explanation as to why it's bad:

[tevanbegins]

This is a long rant to shoot down mad BoB theories insisting that Tommy is a villain / secret spy in cahoots with Gerrard / plot device / temporary LI. The show's writers are mature adults who surely wouldn't go so out of the way to villainize a queer character? To the extent that he'd fool all the main characters into thinking he was a good guy and great for Buck for an entire season, and then start revealing his true colors in the next season? To make a beautiful storyline about queer joy blow up into flames with such a major negative plot twist? All so that Eddie can suddenly realise he is gay and he and Buck can get together? I seriously don't think a 60 year old showrunner would allow such childish nonsense to happen on his show.

I'm not saying queer characters can't play dark / negative roles — Eva's character is an example from this very show itself. But the writers always told us that she is a bad influence on Hen's life right from the start, never got us attached to her by depicting her as a great person in the beginning and then revealing later that she is bad. If Tommy was meant to be horrible for Buck, the narrative would clearly tell us that from the start the way they did with Eva and Hen. The writers cannot be so insensitive as to give the LGBTQ+ community such significant mlm representation with Buck and Tommy, first making us fall in love with their romance and then humiliating us (as well as Buck) by completely destroying Tommy's character — all to serve the end purpose of making a fanon ship go canon? That might happen in B*ddie fanfics written by teenagers, but it can't happen on a show being written for a sensible, mature audience by grown-ass career TV writers!!!

B*ddie would have happened a long time ago if the writers wanted to make it canon. They are not going to do it now, definitely not by making Tommy the scapegoat in that awful mess, just so the toxic portion of the fandom can be appeased over the rest of the audiences who appreciate the show for its thoughtful and sensitive storytelling.

Why is maligning Tommy even necessary to make B*ddie canon? Like Eddie and Buck have seen each other dating one woman after another through the seasons but only Tommy being the bad guy will suddenly lead to a feelings realisation arc? Why didn't it happen before, or why couldn't it happen without reintroducing Tommy if B*ddie canon was always the end plan? Probably because the writers aren't interested in going there at all, and Tommy is genuinely being written as a long-term LI for Buck?

Backing this argument is the fact that most of the conversations had by the other characters after Buck's coming out have not been explicitly about him now identifying as bisexual, but more about him being involved with Tommy. If Tommy was being written as a plot device or a short-term LI, I don't think the other characters (including Eddie, mind you) would be hyping him up during these conversations. The writers would have probably framed the conversations on the lines of, "Oh wow Buck you realised you're bisexual? Congratulations!" instead of "OMG you and Tommy? Tell us more / We love him for you and approve of you two together!" They wouldn't take the efforts they've been taking to make Tommy a pivotal subject of these conversations if he was just a plot device as the BoBs believe. And if he was supposed to be a villain, the other characters would have told Buck to find someone better if they thought Tommy's vibes were off. Not all of them can be foolish to not see through Tommy if he was truly as bad as BoBs say he is (especially not Bobby.) Yes, Buck's bisexuality is valid regardless of who he dates or even if he doesn't, but the fact the characters talk so positively about both him + Tommy during these convos clearly implies this is an important love story blended into the coming out arc.

If B*ddie canon was in the works, JLH and Kenny Choi wouldn't have said on their IG lives that it's not going to happen, Ryan Guzman wouldn't be referring to Eddie as heterosexual, etc. So, we cannot let the BoB comments get into our heads because they are not the ones writing the show. I think we can expect a lot better from Tim & Co. than them giving in to the delusional fantasies BoBs want to see being manifested. Wanted to say this piece because I am fed up of seeing the BoB conspiracy theories all over and don't want to give them the power to steal our joy. That's all for now!

___

[zenkindoflove]

Fandom Shipping Terminology 101: ACOTAR edition

Hi! So I decided to put a little resource together for the ACOTAR fandom. Since many people join the SJM/ACOTAR fandom and have never been in fandom before, they encounter a lot of fandom terminology that they are not quite sure what it means or have seen others use it incorrectly so they get a false impression of the meaning of the word. So I put this together, including examples from the fandom, so that people can use it as a reference to learn more about what these terms mean and when they're appropriate to use. This list is focused on words related to shipping.

Tldr definitions (note: these are definitions that I wrote based on my own experiences/research on fanlore. These are always up for interpretation and meaning and nuance change over time and depend on fandom context)

Canon ship - a relationship where the characters have romantic interactions in canon

Fanon ship - a relationship where in canon the characters are platonic but the fandom has accepted as a ship with romantic undertones, canonical potential, or has become so popular within a fandom it's has surpassed the need/desire for canon

Crackship - a pairing of two characters where the idea of them together is strange or funny depending on the circumstances. Often in these ships, the characters have little or even no interactions in canon

Rare pair - agnostic to fanon or canon status. A rare pair simply means the fandom does not make a lot of fan content for it.

End-game - This is a canon ship that is together by the end of a series.

Slash ship - Fanon ships that feature queer relationships. M/M usually takes on the term slash and F/F has the term femslash.

OTP - Stands for One True Pair. This is a ship that a shipper considers to be the most important one that they love in a fandom.

NOTP - anti-OTP, or a ship that a shipper detests/is squicked out by

Multishipping - the act of shipping a character with multiple other characters.

For more context and thorough examples read more under the cut 

First, what the heck is a ship?

The origins of shipping and becoming obsessed with fictional relationships predate our modern understanding of fandom. Modern fandom roots can be traced as early as Star Trek: The Original Series. But the terminology of calling a couple you like a ship or the act of obsessing over fictional (and sometimes non fictional) couples "shipping" has its origins in the X-Files fandom. While ACOTAR is a romance, many fandoms do not have romance as a central element of its plot, and yet, shippers find a way. That's exactly what happened for the fans of Mulder/Scully. Those who wanted them to be in a romantic relationship were called "relationshippers" which then got shortened to "shippers". The verb "to ship" would appear later from this origin.

The way to think about "what is a ship" though is really based on do people think up romantic scenarios with these two characters? If yes, then you have a ship. And in ACOTAR, oh baby, are there MANY, MANY SHIPS.

Canon vs. Fanon ships

Where does a canon ship end and a fanon one begin? Now that, my friends, is not as clear cut as you might think.

I think this discussion is very important for the ACOTAR fandom because of the state of the ship war currently. Often, there is back and forth about which ship is canon or fanon (and *eye twitch* people throwing around crackship as a derogatory term to de-legitimize a ship which makes me wanna punch shit).

I'm gonna burst everyone's bubbles and say, I personally think Elriel, Elucien, and Gwynriel are all CANON ships.

Why? Well, that's the part that is up for interpretations my friends. What is deemed canonical romantic interactions? That is where a lot of lines can become blurry and if you have ever shipped a fanon ship before - you KNOW what I mean by that. Is it a charged glance? A caress of a hand that lingered too long? Is it a shared kiss? Or do the characters have to explicitly declare "I'm yours and you're mine"?

I've shipped a lot of kinds of ships. Canon. Fanon. Canon that had its end-game blown up. You name it, I've shipped it. And to me, a canon ship is anytime the writer of the canon is putting characters in a romantic situation, regardless if they end up together or not by the end of the series. If they wanted you to feel butterflies and think "could they?", and you felt butterflies, well my friends, you're responding to canon romance. And we've seen evidence of all three ships having those moments.

But, what does that mean for fanon ships? I have shipped a fanon couple where I got butterflies from their canonical scenes together. I've read into their moments and thought "wow, that was romantically charged". I think this is where the lines of canon and fanon are blurred. Because what this comes down to is, did the author intend this? Or am I seeing more into an interaction because I like it? Most fanon ships do hinge a lot of their interest in said ship because of what happens in canon. But, often times, the authors of said content are not necessarily wanting you to take away from their writing that these two characters are interested in each other romantically. You just can't help it. You see it. You see the potential, and you want it to go there so you see more of it the more you look.

Sometimes fanon ships are very clear that the canon is not even hinting at these two characters together romantically. And that is perfectly fine. To me, a fanon ship is a ship that has become so ingrained in the fandom community that the fandom thinks of these two together romantically. That it doesn't really matter anymore what the canon says or doesn't. The fandom has created this relationship and it lives and breathes within what the fandom builds for it. Azris is a perfect example of a fanon ship in ACOTAR. The canon interactions between Azriel and Eris are sparse and platonic in nature, yet the fandom itself has created a whole fanon around them with a large enough community that as soon as you enter the ACOTAR fandom, you immediately know this ship exists.

Rare pairs and Crackships

These two terms are often used interchangeably as if they are synonyms. Now, a rare pair can be a crackship but not all rare ships are crackships and vice versa.

Generally, a rare pair is devoid of canon or fanon connotations. A rare pair is a ship that receives little attention from fans and has few associated fanworks. So, a rare pair could be a fanon couple that few people think about romantically. For example, Emerie and Gwyn have a lot of interactions in canon. I would not think shipping them together to be a crackship because I mean, they're friends, they like each other, they read smut together. There are a lot of scenarios one could imagine them falling in love. But they have a whopping 12 fanfics under their tag in AO3. Therefore, they are a rare pair but not necessarily a crackship.

A rare pair can also be a canon ship. For example, Thesan and his unnamed lover are canon. However, when you look up their relationship tag on AO3, there are 23 works and most do not appear to be focused on them.

I also have seen people use rare pair for very popular ships (like Azris) when they mean fanon. Again, rare pair is really an indication of "how much fan content can you find for this" not necessarily are they canon.

Crackships really were birthed from the intention of putting two characters together "4 da lulz" to bring back early 2000s internet lingo. Crack shipping is usually a pairing that the idea of them together is a little absurd but also fun. Beron/Tamlin is a quintessential crackship example, especially why it came to be (but we will avoid getting into all the origins of that). There is no real reason to think Beron or Tamlin would ever have a romantic interaction and thinking about it makes you laugh. Crackships can sometimes turn into fanon ships. This is another example where the lines do get blurry. But really, crackshipping is about intention and the use of absurdism within fan creation.

I also want to say, often what I see in the Elucien v. Elriel and Elriel v. Gwynriel ships wars is the use of crackship in a derogatory way, and thinking that if one of these ships does not become end-game, therefore, it proves the other was a crackship. Simply put - no. That's not how it works.

End-game

Related to the above point, I think often where the ACOTAR ship wars really derail themselves, is conflating fanon/canon/endgame with each other. I don't see people often using the term end-game, when really, it would help so much with the judgmental and strange ship policing that this fandom loves to do. Specifically, this fandom has a hard time talking about the value within shipping fanon, or shipping the blurriness between fanon and canon for any characters that do not have end-game potential. ACOTAR is not a complete series. Therefore, in a strict definition, no couples are end-game. However, given the genre, there are several couples who are clearly going to be end-game. And really, what I think the ship war community needs in their discourse, is to start using the term end-game when they want to discuss the outcome of Elucien, Elriel, or Gwynriel having a canonical Happily Ever After. The reason being is that you can use end-game, and not insult another ship. End-game is simply a fact. There is no hierarchy involved in what ship is best or not. Because ships can be beloved whether they're canon or fanon or canon who did not end up together. And they all can have very valid reasons why people ship them despite not achieving end-game.

I also urge the ACOTAR fandom to realize that end-game is not the end of YOUR experience of your ship. Your ship lives on despite what the canon may or may not give you. Even if you ship a canon ship that does not achieve end-game, you can create those fanon end-games for yourself. Many popular ships end up being popular because of the effect of that ship not achieving end-game. And while I am using the prime-ship war as examples within this post, I've seen other microshipwars popping up within the fandom as well. So, I'm not trying to pick on this specific set of conflicts, it's just the one I see most prominently.

OTP vs NOTP

I think the ACOTAR fandom could also really benefit from adopting this terminology.

The point of declaring OTPs and NOTPs is a way for you to signal to others in your fandom, "This is how much I care about this ship. Whether I love it it or hate it. Tread carefully". These terms are not meant to say one ship is better than the other from a moral standpoint. Instead, it's to indicate to others that you have a strong preference. You're going to love your OTPs regardless of what arguments others throw at you to convince you to not love them. You will probably be very annoyed by your NOTPs regardless of what others try to do to convince you that they're actually cute/sexy/hot/perfect for each other. And what the ACOTAR fandom could benefit from, from readopting OTP/NOTP language, is having a common understanding where different shipping communities boundaries are and how they can better utilize those boundaries to prevent constant fighting. Now, ship wars are inevitable because of how people see their OTPs and NOTPs, but general rule of thumb is - don't engage with your NOTP's content for your own mental sanity.

Multishipping

Multishipping can be used in many ways. Some people use it to say, hey I'm in this fandom, and I ship a lot of couples. But the origins of multishipping as a term, comes from ship war discourse in other fandoms. Multishippers generally are people who ship one character with multiple other characters. For example, if you ship Elain/Lucien, Elain/Azriel, Elain/Gwyn, Elain/Tamlin, etc etc etc, you are a multishipper. I generally would not consider someone a multishipper if all of their ships do not cross streams. It just sort of means that you ship a lot of couples. Which tends to be normal for romance series with a lot of couples. Maybe not a single of those couples is your true OTP, and that's what you mean by saying you're a multishipper. And that's okay. I think though that multishipping generally in other fan spaces is a marker of you telling others that you don't draw harsh lines with who you see characters with. I often see multishippers not declaring NOTPs. It's kind of a state of how you go about shipping often. I, for one, identify as an OTP shipper. I've never really multishipped. But I also have a very strict standard of what I call my "ships". Anyways, this is to say, this term has a lot of uses. And sometimes it can be confusing which of these uses a person means when they say it.

Slash shipping 

I've seen over the years that slash as a terminology has fallen out of favor. In the past, slash shipping was the pinnacle of shipping in fandoms. The term slash comes from the first modern fanon ship, Kirk/Spock, where the / between their names, which we now all know and use to indicate a romantic pairing (note: & is used to indicate a platonic interaction between characters), exists because the Kirk/Spock shipping community really were the originators of shipping communities creating fan content and sharing it in with each other in a massive way. In general slash (and femslash) is an important modifier of shipping because it explicitly tells you that this is a queer ship which often were not mainstream and considered canon until more recently. With the rise of canonical queer ships, I think the subversiveness of shipping queer couples has lost it's edge, therefore slash is not needed as much anymore to directly state the nature of your ship.

I wanted to keep this in the post though, because I think it's incredibly important history for ALL ACOTAR fans to understand. Shipping queer couples, and especially shipping FANON queer couples, has always been the backbone of fandom. Kirk/Spock walked so Destiel could fly. These are all queer ships that have strong fanon roots (and that fanon has had impacts on their canon) and have shaped fandom and your concept of shipping and romance tropes in inextricable ways. You don't have / without Kirk/Spock. You don't have Omegaverse, without gay shipping within the Supernatural fandom. And I wanted to make this point because this fandom has a strong het (heterosexual) ship bias. Which is okay. It's a romance series with a lot of heterosexual canon couples. But, I think because of that, many people are not entering this fandom with an understanding that people shipping queer fanon couples have been the ones who were the originators of many fandom terms that we have come to know and use today.

Conclusion:

I hope you all found this informative and that you can take away something from this post that can help you have better interactions and ability to communicate with others in this fandom. Again, I want to stress, that this is heavily influenced by my own 25 years of experience being in fandoms. And I haven't seen it all. Others will have different interpretations of these terms and experiences using these terms. So, feel free to add on anything that you think would be helpful to those in the ACOTAR community to better understand how to "ship and let ship". I do think that ship war are inevitable and not necessarily a bad thing. But using the right terms can help you engage in a more respectful way within ship war discourse.