#judged harshly a lot of female characters

[sezja]

I'm astonished I ever even went through a Girl Hate phase, given that my current approach to media is basically If There Aren't Any Women Here Literally Why Bother

[allpiesforourown]

Okay, I have some comments (agreement) on three of your posts, so I'll just put them in one ask, lol.

First of all, you are SO RIGHT about toxic yuri. Oh my God. I'm a bi woman and I'm usually more attracted to mlm works like danmei, and a lot of yuri just doesn't do it for me, so I'm just constantly wondering if I've got, like, internalized misogyny? What's the deal here? But then there's the occasional yuri like Madoka and I go absolutely fucking feral and make it my whole personality for months. Like, yes, give me all of the toxic yuri, all of the doomed yuri, all of the girls and women being obsessive and flawed. That's what I like about danmei, really, the obsession and the character flaws and the angsty yearning. But women are never allowed to go crazy or even be a little flawed like that, not even in fiction. Often, it's because creators and audiences alike judge female characters harsher (a reflection of real life, obviously) and so they have to make the female characters "perfect" or they won't be liked. But their being perfect is exactly what I dislike, because it's not realistic, and it's not interesting! So, yeah, absolutely, that's why toxic yuri is so much more appealing, especially compared to a lot of others.

Second of all, you're also so right about Yue Qingyuan. When I first started SVSSS, I thought, "Oh, so he kinda sucks," 'cause he clearly knew about Binghe's abuse but only gave mild advice to SQQ to maybe treat him a little less harshly. But then, he kinda does seem like a really good guy later, and especially with the realization of his tragic background, it's easy to forgive him. But so often the fandom reduces him to lovable idiot who's never done anything wrong and like. He was totally fine with Shen Jiu abusing a child. It's not like he was unaware of it, and while he's not malicious, he was willing to turn a blind eye to it. We obviously know the reason why later, but even so. I do love him, though, but I feel like sometimes the fandom whitewashes some of the characters too much. Like, Shen Jiu had a tragic backstory, but that only explains his actions, it doesn't excuse them. Of course you can love him anyway, but I think if you're whitewashing his character into something he's not, then you don't really love the character, or else you'd love him the way he actually is. And Shen Jiu's abuse of Binghe is very important to, like, everything, because the cycle of abuse is such a central theme. Shen Jiu and his own victim, Bingge, demonstrate how abuse can turn victims into abusers and continue the cycle. Shizun and Binghe (Bingmei) demonstrate how the cycle can be stopped.

Finally, that post you reblogged about social media, and your tags about how you open TikTok, block 50 people, and then leave is sooo true. The danmei fandom, especially artists, are, at least to my knowledge, a lot more active on Twitter than Tumblr, so I go on Twitter to check when I'm bored, and. I open it, I block 50 people while getting mad just the way they want me to, and then I close it. Then I open it again later! I guess I'm a glutton for punishment because seriously. I need to stop.

Anyway, thanks! Keep on fighting the good fight (shizunfucking)!

1. YEAH. Like so many yuri stories are just "they're cutely blushing before mustering up the courage to hold hands" and its just boring. Are they allowed to show any emotion other than uwu puppy love I'm a grown ass woman

2. Yue Qingyuan's cycle of abuse being ignored is so sad like yes he started out as a slave. But he is now the leader of one of the most powerful sects in the cultivation world, and he uses his authority to enable and protect abusers. Why erase such a big part of his story

3. TWITTER IS DEADDD its all blue checkmark engagement baiting with racism and even within the danmei community the people on Twitter will jump anyone who has an opinion they don't like it's so evil there

[olderthannetfic]

I feel like such a hypocrite reblogging all these posts about how people like male characters more than female ones even if they have similar personalities/roles/wtv, but I read about this stuff precisely because I relate to it. "People think everything men do is cool and everything women do is either weak or Mary Sue" -- yes, it's me, I'm people. It's not like I do it deliberately or I'm proud of it, but I can observe and acknowledge the empirical fact that female characters just produce a very different emotional reaction in me than male ones.

I guess I like the safe distance of projecting onto characters who 1. are more obviously not me and 2. are judged less harshly than me (bc everything men do is cool) and that's not my fault, it's the patriarchy's, but then I can't challenge it. I can't say "women can be just as cool and we shouldn't be judged more harshly", I can only say "yea women suck let me forget I am one" like I'm still in my 9gag nlog tween phase -- or well, I can *say* the former, but I keep *acting and feeling* like the latter. And btw I'm not just talking about consuming media, where all you can choose from is what's on offer; I'm also talking about creating my own fanfics, which are all about men.

--

The reason a lot of those posts are so obnoxious is that they're just people wallowing in guilt and projecting.

The fact is, lots of people do like female characters. There's plenty of fiction about women. There's plenty of fic about women. There is not, in fact, some grand, existential problem where nobody cares about the ladies. If you aren't seeing this fic or original media, that's different from it not existing.

Two, your own fanfics? FFS. If you consume media that is a sausagefest, then of fucking course, your fic will be about dudes.

Just the other day, I spotted a story I hadn't read by a fantastic fantasy novelist. I hadn't looked her up much beyond buying her trilogy, and what do you know: she actually says who she is in fandom openly!

I was entertained to find out that her big thing is kylux. You really wouldn't guess based on her pro work, which is about a harried female doctor taking care of supernatural patients. I remember those books being a refreshing change from my usual diet of nothing but slash fic. It's not just that there's a female lead but that they take a nuanced look at female characters.

Personally, as a writer, I wasn't ready to write much about women until I was better at writing overall, and my more self inserty characters aren't usually going to be women anyway unless they're like Julia from the Hilary Tamar series.

--

If you're uncomfortable with yourself, you can try to change, sure.

But fandom is full of this obnoxious plague where people think that it's the job of each person to make there be more female characters. This isn't necessary. Even if we want media or fic to be more balanced overall, it doesn't follow that each person needs to produce a balanced body of work.

Why should you in particular care about female characters?

--

But beyond all that, oh my fucking lord, I am so tired of that species of post that's like "Gosh, why is slash fandom, where people go to be horny over dudes and/or have self inserty feelings about them, not more full of stuff about ladies? It's so tragic how we all want to get rid of our boobs and wear men's clothing and be addressed as sir, just like all the other girls. What's up with that? It must be misogyny."

With a totally straight face.

Every god damn time.

[kyouka-supremacy]

re: what you reblogged about gin & akutagawa

i feel like in general bsd does the “complex relationship” really poorly it wants to flatten it with either “it was secretly beneficial the whole time” or “this guy SUCKS and is EVIL!” but idk

I don't know... I mean, I do believe bsd can write complex relationships when it wants to (ie: sskk). I think sometimes it just doesn't have space or doesn't want to, in my honest opinion especially when concerning female characters, and that would be the case of Gin and Ryuunosuke– but God knows how I wish it would explore their dynamic.

I don't think bsd ever does the “villain who is flattened to pure evil” thing. I think all characters are pretty nuanced and neither exclusively good or bad. I personally would have a hard time coming up with examples of characters who are plain and unredeemably evil, but maybe I'm wrong.

Regarding abusive relationships being portrayed as beneficial, I'm not sure... I used to judge very very harshly chapter 39 because the message *really* seemed to be that abuse helps one grow (I mean. It's literally stated “hell raised you right.” But it's whatever). Some statements of the author and how Atsushi interacted with the orphanage director in the latest chapters helped me change my mind a little. But then again, bsd seems to slip a lot in a kind of “abuse did you good” with Akutagawa's story as well. I suppose it's just intrinsically hard to carry on themes of “abusers are humans too” and “abuse hurts the victims” simultaneously.

[comikas-fandom-dump]

Hi there! I apologize for bothering you. Idk if you've been asked this before, but I'd really like to hear your opinion. If you had to rank the Naruto girls (only the Konoha girls + Temari) from whom you think is the best written to who's the worst written one in your opinion, how would you rank them? It's just that we can all agree they're given the short end of the stick more often than not, and the fandom generally agrees on Sakura and Hinata being the worst, with Temari being the best written of these characters. So, I wanted to know your opinion. Do you agree with the fandom, or do you have any unpopular opinions in regards to them?

Well, what is bad writing anyway? Because, depending on the person, you will end up with entirely different answers. It can be poor planning or research, shallow or inconsistent characterization, lack of plot or development, or tropes and clichés. Sometimes even, marks of "bad writing" are excused or called "smart" in minor characters, as you cannot flesh out every singular character that appears in your story.

As for Sakura and Hinata, I'd argue it's the sexism we all notice in their writing. It's not just frustrating, but it signifies a lack of effort and/or self-awareness in the writer's craft. But are the other Naruto girls really unaffected?

For some strange reason, the most promoted (and beloved) female characters in Naruto (Sakura and Hinata) allegedly also have the worst writing among its cast of all genders. With those two always being the target of criticism and controversy, it appears that most of Naruto's female characters fall into either of these two camps:

Lots of screentime and/or promo but poorly written

Well-written but barely any screentime and/or sidelined

It's almost like screen time was actively harming the female Naruto cast... and maybe it is.

For one, both Sakura and Hinata are not tied into the plot of Naruto because of their merit as independent characters, but for their value as love interests. This is also how they managed to maintain relevance, for Kishimoto didn't bother to give them unique, personal goals that mattered to the story or highlighted their independence from male characters. This means that they are playing into a sexist cliché in which women and girls are only relevant as lovers and mothers to men and boys.

And two, for lack of genuine characterization, Sakura and Hinata are reflections of Kishimoto's fantasies and stereotypes about the female gender. Sakura is boys-crazy and gets unreasonably angry all the time. Hinata is adorably shy and needs a guy to save and lead her. Once again, sexist clichés.

But then, when you look at Ino, Ten-Ten, and Temari, they don't leave as bad a taste in people's mouths as Sakura and Hinata - But is it really because they are "better written"? I'd argue not. So here's my hot take for the day: Ino, Ten-Ten, and Temari are not well-written. They simply have less poor writing.

First of all, let's loop back to the beginning of this post. A main character will always be judged more harshly than a background character. The more time we spend with a character, the more aware we become of their flaws and the more important it is to minimize them (at least the frustrating kind). But then, when a background character ends up shallow or stagnant, those "mistakes" will be considered "shortcuts" instead. Sakura easily has a richer story than Temari, but we simply had higher expectations for our main heroine. Sakura's lack of plot is a mistake and Temari's a supposed necessity.

Second, the fact that Ino, Ten-Ten, and Temari are mostly irrelevant to the story is a sexist cliché in and of itself. If women and girls only matter as mothers and lovers to men and boys, those who are not mothers and lovers (to main characters) serve no plot relevance and will therefore be written out of the story. But, as per my previous point, this cliché is less obvious due to its inherent reduced exposure. Paradoxically, the presence of the cliché causes you not to notice the cliché.

Third, as a consequence of my second point, had Ino, Ten-Ten, and Temari instead been written as the "main girls" of the story, they likely would've achieved that role under the same sexist conditions that Sakura and Hinata did. In fact, it is happening already, for Ino, Ten-Ten, and Temari largely exist as support characters to more prominent male characters. As per my first point, screentime might only add more exposure to the problem, not any quality writing.

So... I'm not entirely sure what to rate. In my opinion, all Naruto girls are great in concept but lacking in execution, either because they were not elaborated upon or elaborated on poorly. Am I supposed to give plus points to Temari because at least she didn't spend enough time on screen to disappoint or frustrate me? Or give them to Sakura because, while her plotline is disappointing and frustrating, at least she has a plotline? What's worse? Bad writing or no writing at all? Visible sexism or invisible sexism?

Based on gut feeling, I could rank the girls from best to worst as "Temari, Sakura, Ino/Hinata, and Ten-Ten", but that list neither truly reflects the effort that went into either character, nor the amount of clichés that influenced their writing. It's a tough one.

Two sidenotes, just so that my words won't get misinterpreted.

There are also male characters getting sidelined for their lack of relevance to the main characters (Shino, Kiba, Choji, and Kankuro), but that's not what I'm criticizing. My point is that some male characters still get plotlines of their own that do not revolve around a more important character of the opposite gender or romance as a whole (Neji, Lee, Shikamaru, and Gaara). Female characters generally don't, with the exception of Tsunade, maybe.

While Temari's and Ten-Ten's presence is clearly tied to more prominent male characters (Gaara, Lee, and Neji), Ino's is, arguably, more intensely tied to her rivalry with Sakura... which revolves around a boy.

[maxdibert]

"if snape was a girl people would hate him even more than they hate umbridge and voldemort.

you guys KNOW it’s true."

Just saw this from someone I know has you blocked

My first thought was "If Snape was a girl people would take SWM siriously finally"

Well, that depends. If Severus were a woman and the Marauders were women as well, I think the narrative would remain more or less the same. If the Marauders were still men, I believe a lot more people would recognize how deeply problematic their actions during the SWM incident were. That being said, it's true that female characters are often judged much more harshly than male ones, so I wouldn’t be surprised if she were hated with the same intensity—because we’d be talking about a woman in her 30s, not conventionally attractive, bad-tempered, and not particularly kind to children. And well, that challenges all the stereotypes of female compliance in a universe where only women who ultimately accept and conform to traditional gender roles are rewarded, so…

[chaifootsteps]

need the fandom to understand that 'character who is the soft one who cries is not equal to the character who is in the right'

it makes sense for a show that's primed it's audience to think abuse is just limited to obvious cruelty and insults (but only when the show says it counts, HB cared about Blitzo being a jerk to Moxxie for all of one conversation) but it's frustrating to see this show touted as 'sooo deep' when it could have done a lot more to show the different types of manipulation and abuse with the material it already has

like, a character that's soft and weepy and constantly rewrites reality to favor himself? that's A grade PSA material for how abusers don't always look like Stella or Crimson and make their targets feel like they're the ones who are crazy or in the wrong

Oh yeah, and for the contingent who says Stolas would be treated way more sympathetically if he was a woman - I kind of doubt it, personally. I think a character like Stolas if he was genderswapped would be judged far more harshly for what he does in the Stol/tz storyline, not less

like the audience would probably jump to 'he reminds me of my mom/girlfriend/other female friend who also uses crying and looking pathetic to get people to take her side despite treating me like dirt', 'this or that trait is such a narcissistic thing to do'.

the show already expects its audience to treat the female characters with way more scrutiny and suspicion after all, but I feel like people are more inclined to recognize the figure of the 'narcissistic woman who's only emotional reality is her own' or the image of 'mom who neglects kid for new beau' than they are when it's a male character

and that's not a bad thing, to be clear! it's good the fandom can recognize abusive behaviors in women, probably most often their mothers (though it is disturbing how little they can acknowledge the emotional landscape of the female characters - there's any number of reasons for Stella to feel disenchanted with her life and the fandom cares about none of them)

the problem is they can't extend that logic to Stolas. they can't see how Sad Owl Twink is distorting reality around his relationship with Blitzo and refusing to treat him like a person, or how he's a subpar dad to Via. it feels like the bar for male characters is being set way lower as long as there's a convenient excuse. and it seems part of the reason is more than just Stolas being male, since logically Blitzo wouldn't be getting it in the neck from Stolas fans so much

it seems like it's also because they seem him as soft and harmless that on top of the extra credit male characters get for doing nothing, they've decided he can do no harm. men already deserve a medal for being connected to their emotions, so if Stolas appears soft and sensitive it means he can't possible be abusive or neglectful at the same time. which is just not true

sorry if this is rambling, kinda thinking out loud

Thank you for sharing these thoughts aloud. It's absolutely true...Viv and her fandom seem to have it in their heads that abuse looks like screaming and insults, that sexual abuse looks like being held down (also that it doesn't count if you "get away,") and that is so, so unbelievably dangerous it genuinely chills the blood. It's going to get someone hurt.

[obsidianpen]

Your opinion on f/m ship is sadly very common even among readers themselves. I got out this mentality after reading a lot of Hermione fanfics. In B&G Hermione comes off as an individual with independent and often conflicting beliefs and personality so it was really easy to detached myself from her and see her more as a character than a projection of myself. I’m just really surprised that it made you anxious writing her.

I grew up reading Bl in an environment where queer books are being published publicly/officially and from what I’m seeing people are more accepting nowadays. This isn’t really the kind of opinion you’re asking for but I think female writers writing mlm actually help the lgbt community. I’ve seen so many gay men and women write books and enjoy it openly now. Less censorship now too.

oh yeah. I do wonder why that is the case so much, and there’s probably a lot of reasons for it. In my case personally I know it had a lot to do with always comparing myself to other girls, caring almost solely about what made me ‘desirable’ and both doing anything to achieve that and feeling like I was competing with everyone around me… that constantly comparing and judging bled into books, too. I tend to judge FMCs much more harshly than MMCs, though I’ve grown aware of that and try to do better. (Didnt stop me from DNFing fourth wing though. I hated how violet was written 😂).

but yeah I see this in the fanfiction community a lot. If hermione is emotional and cries or whatever, people complain and think it’s annoying. If it’s Harry, he’s a sweet baby angel with valid feelings too good for this world. If Hermione is a bit too plain she’s ’basically a self-insert’ or a Mary Sue. But lord knows I’ve clicked on far too many stories where Harry is bland AF and no one seems to care. I’m speaking hugely vaguely ofc but I do think Hermione stories get hit a lot harder when she’s not written super in character; feels like readers will not only forgive but applaud an OOC extra sensitive/smoll/cutesy or, alternatively, crazy overpowered OOC Harry. Can’t help but think gender plays a massive role here.

and to your last point, I agree. I think any writer creating a thoughtful and well crafted story helps, regardless of whether or not they’re a man or woman or whatever. The ‘well crafted’ part being critical, of course. I once read a story that featured a f/f pairing and it was written by a man but I only found that out after I was halfway through the book because I kept stopping and thinking, this is so bad???? This has to have been written by a straight man who has no idea how women who were friends for years speak to each other???? Aaaaan I was right lol.

[my-mt-heart]

TBOC 201 Review

Two and a half years ago, Carol fans were terrified that they'd never see her again, that her story would end with so many things left unsaid and unresolved, and now she's finally back. That's a victory I do not take lightly. Carol is a vital part of the show and Melissa McBride deserves to tell her story, but after watching the premiere and having an inkling of what’s ahead, it’s still very clear to me that she deserves a hell of a lot more than what she’s getting.

I never had any expectations for the external plot and in that way I was not disappointed. There really isn’t much of one first of all. The action sequences are hokey and nothing we haven’t seen before—Daryl waiting to shoot Genet a few feet away from him while she monologues and then escapes gives me All Out War flashbacks—and the walkers continue to be a minor nuisance with zero stakes. The editing is really strange, making the movement from one beat to another feel inorganic. There’s also some pretty cringey dialogue and I’m sorry to say that it’s mostly coming from Ash. If they’re only allowed to drop one f-bomb per episode or whatever it is, why don’t they use them more meaningfully? I do like his character and his dynamic with Carol though. I'm not sure how I feel about her lying to him. On one hand, I know she's doing it because she's desperate to get to Daryl and I would never fault her for that. I guess I worry about audience reception because female characters tend to be judged far more harshly for their decisions than male characters.

What I really wanted to get out of this season was a strong emotional arc. That’s what matters to me—honoring the characters’ history and allowing them to grow from it. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that the effort I see on Carol’s side is thanks to Melissa’s wonderful story instincts and devotion to her character. Carol’s line to Ash, “I couldn’t keep waiting, feeling stuck. I had to move forward,” tells us what Melissa has also echoed in interviews. Her quiet life at the Commonwealth is giving her time to reflect on her past, particularly Sophia’s death, and it’s terrifying for her in itself, but also because the only person to share that trauma with her, the only person who makes her feel safe isn’t there. She needs Daryl. It’s such an exciting arc because it puts her on the path to healing from her survivor’s guilt as well as confronting what Daryl means to her.

The problem is that Zabel keeps falling back on the TV book of tricks he swears he doesn’t use and he acts as if he’s allergic to connective tissue. I already talked about some of these issues in my review of the opening minutes available here, so I won’t repeat myself. I’m just frustrated because gimmicks like the cassette tapes take away from Melissa’s performance. She has perfect comedic timing, but I want to see her sit with her feelings every now and again because Melissa knows how to communicate that all on her own. She doesn’t need bells and whistles. To be clear, I despise ambiguity with a burning passion, but I also don’t like gimmicks that treat me like I’m an idiot. The Cherokee rose scene is sweet and I absolutely love seeing Carol recall the speech that started her relationship with the most important person in her life and I love the reminder of why this mission is so important to her. But then it occurs to me that Cherokee roses don’t grow in Maine. The only reason it’s on Ash’s table at all is to make me notice it and I think to myself, there had to be a more organic way to make this callback, right? It takes me out of the story. I'm also still angry that the scene where Carol finds a walker that looks like Daryl got cut, angrier actually, since we’re stuck with a forced and wildly OOC kiss between Daryl and a fucking nun. Carol/Caryl fans always seem to draw the short straw.

When Ash asks Carol if she thinks she'll even recognize Sophia, it's a warning that the person Carol is really searching for might not be the same when she finds him, which is by far the most infuriating part of the story and the most difficult to believe. Nevermind the fact that it's only been a few months according to Zabel and Daryl doesn't build connections that quickly. He's loyal. He wouldn't trade in his family for another, at least not the Daryl that I know and love. Not the Daryl that Carol would take her first flight and cross an entire ocean for.

The point of parallel stories is that they should, well, parallel each other. The point of soulmates is that they stay spiritually connected to each other. If Carol is determined to get to Daryl, Daryl should be determined to get to Carol. If Carol is manipulating someone to do that, then maybe we should see Daryl do the same, which would also reduce the harsh criticism that lands on Carol simply for being a woman. Instead though, Carol seems to embody both hers and Daryl's history, while on Daryl's side, he isn't shown to have any except for the quick mention of "people" back home. Other fans said they see Daryl trying to get back, but I don't. I just see him hovering in between and it makes me so sad. I feel like I'm saying goodbye to this character I thought I knew, who helped me overcome some very dark experiences in my childhood, because I know he's about to change in ways that I can't get past.

It makes me wish the entire episode had been given to Melissa. Maybe the entire season should've been given to her and left just enough space for the reunion at the end, picking up close to where Daryl left off in S1. Maybe that would've saved many of us, Carol especially, a lot of pain. Regardless, Melissa demonstrates over and over that she can carry a show, so the fact that she's not equally billed with Norman is just a crime. The fact that Carol's name isn't right next to Daryl's in the title is so offensive, I have no words left. I've been saying it for a year now and I'll keep bringing it up until it changes. This is Melissa's fucking show too. Act like it, AMC.

I know that the rest of the season has already leaked, so I will take a look at what I can. I still have no intention of watching the two episodes that destroy Daryl's integrity and I'm terrified of how it'll impact Caryl's story going forward. This is not how fans should be made to feel about a show they waited years for...

[deke-rivers-1957]

Charro! Review

Before Elvis could start filming, numerous changes were made to the script. Everyone who has heard of this movie knows about a cut opening scene featuring female nudity as well as the director having other violent scenes cut. Elvis himself was disappointed that the script he accepted ended up changing by the time he got on set.

Fans however were disappointed for other reasons. They supposedly didn't like that Charro! only had one song. A soundtrack album couldn't even be made due to only 2 songs being recorded with one of them not even being used in the movie. Critics were also unhappy as they considered it to be a cheap attempt at a western and panned Elvis for his dull acting. But were those the real reasons why this movie is considered to be his least viewed? Did this movie genuinely fail to live up to the standards Western moves established before them, or was it judged too harshly for not living up to expectations of both Western fans and Elvis fans? Let's find out.

"Charro" is a quintessential Western intro song. The score as a whole is a hit and it wasn't a surprise at all to see Hugo Montenegro was the composer. He is after all famous for his "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" theme cover that reached the #2 spot in US charts June of 1968. I personally don't even mind that this is the only song in the movie that plays as Elvis rides a horse into town. It would've made the movie too hokey if it was stylized as a typical Elvis vehicle.

I love the town's aesthetic. The scenery throughout the whole movie is amazing and I'm so glad they filmed on location throughout Arizona and not simply use rear screen projection. Jess speaking in Spanish so the other patrons don't get hurt is a nice touch. Even though the situation was obvious, it was great to see a character moment where he didn't want to assume anything.

Billy Roy getting slapped adds a level of corny that's sprinkled throughout what's an otherwise serious film. It's very odd to have his line delivery sound the way it does then not even a minute later, Jess is being held at gunpoint to mount his horse. While it's true that even serious movies can have some comedic moments, the nature of this comedy here only feels out of place.

Jess' relationship with Vince is very odd. Vince claims that he's upset that Jess left because of Tracy but I personally don't think that's the only reason. Jess claims that he left because he felt that there was no future with Vince. I don't believe that either. There's a certain amount of complexity would give us a greater insight to their character motivations.

Vince reveals that he stole Emperor Maximilian's cannon. Now his reasoning for getting Jess Wade involved makes absolutely no sense. Vince says that one of their buddies got shot in the neck. So Jess would be framed, they put out his name and branded him so he'd have the matching scar. There are a lot of factors that would have to work in Vince's favor for this plan to work. You are more likely to die from a gunshot wound to the neck given the amount of blood vessels in that area and the lack of fat covering the area. To avoid death by blood loss, let alone infection since this is the late 1800s, you would need an act of God to help you.

Vince's plan only works because the writers says it does which leads to a lot of problems down the line. The biggest issue being that he expects everyone who sees the poster to immediately associate Jess' new scar with a gunshot wound. I know the scar is makeup and might not fully reflect the injury Jess is supposed to have, but if we're assuming what we see is what the characters see, I don't think they would see a branding scar and realistically think it's a gunshot wound. Again based on the setting, people should know what a gunshot wound would look like and how it would damage the surrounding skin. Even if they're not a doctor, they at least would have functional enough eyes to know the difference.

I love the scene of Jess taming the horse but man is it obvious at times that Elvis isn't actually riding it. However, him getting water from a muddy river is the scariest thing I've ever seen. Knowing that in real life, water like that would cause so many problems like cholera or dysentery, Jess probably is God for somehow not coming down with either of those illnesses. It's even worse when you notice that he wiped that same water on his wound. Granted a burn wound from a branding iron isn't exactly an open wound, but it still doesn't mean there's no chance of an infection. Unless the writers specifically wanted Jess to use dirty water to wipe his wounds, I would've changed how it was shot so the water didn't look obviously undrinkable.

Now what is absolutely amazing was the weather effects. Seeing Jess having to ride his horse while a dust storm is forming is incredible. I have no idea if they purposely created a dust storm or if the camera crew manage to capture the perfect moment. Either way it's nice to see that this was the real life middle of the desert as opposed to using a soundstage. Having that atmosphere really draws you into the movie. I almost wish it was filmed in that classic black in white film to really capture that old, gritty Western aesthetic.

I love Jess' relationship with Sheriff Ramsey. Even though we don't know the full details, you can tell there's some type of mentorship role involved. It's especially clear that the sheriff is meant to be a grounding figure in Jess' life given how they emphasize the numerous lectures he had to listen to. Even when the sheriff chews out Jess for getting involved with Vince again, he at least believes him when Jess said it wasn't his choice.

Now Jess' relationship with Tracy really falls flat for me. I don't even care that her nude scene is cut, they just have no chemistry. Tracy in general not trusting Jess despite kissing him makes no sense. Especially when she's going on about how Jess is worse than Vince when she doesn't even give him a chance to tell his side of things. It only makes her look flakey to have her chew Jess out and not trust him, only to give him a gun as a means of helping him. I know she's conflicted on what to believe, but it would be best to frame it as a conflict and not something she's so adamant about.

Billy Roy shows up at the saloon and I have no idea what to make of it. He acts all sinister with Marcie yet also acts like a complete ham with Jess. Everyone knows he's part of Vince's gang yet none of the men do anything about it. Tracy is the only one who outright confronts him about his presence being unwanted and Jess only gets involved when he's called out.

Sheriff Ramsey getting shot should've never happened. You mean to tell me there wasn't a single person in that saloon with a gun that could've done something? No one knows about Vince having the cannon so they should have no reason to be afraid. This is an example of an idiot plot where the plot only works because the writers purposely make everyone dumb or inactive. The men dragging Billy Roy to the jail shows just how easy it should be to deal with one person.

I have no idea why we're supposed to think Sheriff Ramsey's wounds are considered fatal. Perhaps it's because the visuals don't fully reflect the extent of his injuries since it's only makeup, but I don't think it was that bad. The "bullet wounds" to me doesn't indicate that he'll die from blood loss. If anything, he's more likely to die from the infections brought on by Opie trying to dig the bullets out.

Sheriff Ramsey swears Jess in as his deputy. The fact that there's multiple witnesses shows that this is official. Since Jess is now in charge what does he do? Actively passes out rifles to the business owners so they can protect their property. And to think most of the town doesn't trust him because he was part of Vince's gang. I can understand being wary of Jess, but once he's actively taking the time to ensure the town's safety, tensions should've gone down. Especially since literally anyone could verify with Sheriff Ramsey that he sworn Jess in himself.

It's now daybreak and we get an idea of how small Vince's gang really is. Unless there's a whole bunch of people offscreen, I can only count a total of less than 10 men including Vince and Billy Roy. Vince freaking out about his brother being gone and one of his guys saying "I didn't wanna wake youuuuu" is one of the funniest line deliveries in this movie. I can't take anything he does seriously because there's just a lot of mood whiplash between him slapping someone then immediately apologizing like nothing happened. Then again it's possible that Vince was purposely supposed to be this way as a way to showcase how scary he really is. That unlike Billy Roy, Vince is capable of having normal human emotions so showing that he's still willing to commit a significant amount of atrocities for money makes him even more dangerous.

Tracy sees Jess at the barber's shop and immediately scolds him for leaving Billy Roy unguarded and not having armed men on the roofs. I have no idea why Tracy genuinely thinks Jess is that stupid to leave Billy Roy alone and leave the rest of the town unarmed. I actually chuckled when she realized that she was wrong because it's hilarious how for someone who's supposed to love Jess, she has absolutely no faith in him.

Because this issue happens throughout the movie, I'm only going to mention it here to avoid repetition. Vince being allowed to ride freely in town is the most nonsensical thing I've ever seen. The townsfolk know that he's dangerous. There's a bunch of them and only one of him. Jess gave them guns for a reason so why aren't they using them? Unless Jess specifically gave them orders to not shoot unless fired at first, there shouldn't be anything stopping them.

The fact that he's even allowed to be in the jail shows just how unclear his status is in this town. His plan to turn that cannon onto the town if Billy Roy isn't set free only showcases that he shouldn't just be allowed to roam freely. So Jess makes the active decision to do absolutely nothing. Even if we're supposed to infer that he needs Vince alive, why couldn't he use his power as Deputy Sheriff to arrest him? He literally admitted in plain English that he's going to commit an act of terrorism against the town. I would think that is a big enough of a crime to put him in jail so he can't carry out that plan.

The Mexican Army arrives and Vince threatens to rat Jess out. Jess meanwhile, continues to do nothing but threaten him back into convincing them to leave. So Vince decides to lead the Mexican Army away from Jess by leading them right to a pass that results in them all getting blasted by a cannon fire. What's lost on me is that this whole scene was kept in despite being the most violent scene in the movie. I know that we needed to know why the Mexican Army just disappears but how can you claim to want a film that isn't very violent yet keep a scene that features a mass murder?

Meanwhile, absolutely nothing is being done to prepare for an evacuation. Sheriff Ramsey's the only one with sense by telling Jess to not be a coward and give into Vince's demands. It's funny how immediately after his wife is like "don't let my husband convince you to let him die because he can't be moved. Set Billy Roy free" as if that would solve everything. Vince turning the cannon onto the town already proved that he's someone who can't be reasoned with. There's absolutely no proof that simply letting his brother go would make him not attack the town. Evacuating the town is the easiest solution to have Jess not give in and let a potential terrorist get what he wants.

It's honestly incredible how Jess is the one who's blamed when Sheriff Ramsey is killed by falling debris, when Vince is right there in front of them. Vince is the one who can tell his men to not fire. Vince is the one who gave them the ultimatum to let Billy Roy go when his actions got the sheriff injured in the first place. But no it's all Jess' fault. If you're going to blame Jess for anything, blame him for not doing anything to stop Vince when he was well within his power as the Deputy Sheriff to do something.

Mrs. Ramsey bringing out the posters as if he's a liar the whole time is pointless. No one in the town except Sheriff Ramsey ever fully trusted him, so bringing out the poster doesn't change anything. If anything it should show how irrational she is from grief because she actually believes it to be true without questioning anything. Tracy even buys into this idea despite supposedly loving him that it makes me not care that she apologized. I feel nothing for their relationship because even though she kisses him, at the end of the day, she didn't have his back when he needed it.

Despite Jess being gone, Mrs. Ramsey still thinks he's a rat when the cannon still fires on the town. What makes it even worse is that, she herself says that Billy Roy being let go might result in the cannon fire ending. Meaning despite being so adamant that Jess should rot for not letting him go, even she isn't sure about it ending. And yet after all this cannon fire, no one leaves town. The amount inaction when there doesn't need to be is so baffling. Unless Vince somehow has invisible guards keeping everyone but Jess and Billy Roy in the town, there's no reason for them to still be there.

It's now night time and Jess has Billy Roy handcuffed around some tree branches. I love the amount of tension in this showdown. The look in Jess' eyes when he sees the cannon rolling down into Billy Roy is amazing acting. Even though the whole series of events that resulted in Billy Roy's death could've been executed better, it doesn't take away from the genuine look of helplessness on Jess' face. As soon as he took in what was happening, he knew there was nothing he can do to stop it. And he felt absolutely guilty about. It once again shows that just because Jess is this stoic character, he's not a man who is completely unable of expressing emotion.

As much as I understand people thinking it's weak for Vince to still be alive at the end of the movie, this was the best way to go. When you look at his relationship with his brother, you know that the worst thing you can do to him is to let him live. Forcing Vince to live with the guilt that his actions caused Billy Roy to die, would be an even better comeuppance than simply killing him. Plus Jess realistically still needs Vince alive so he can have his name cleared of all charges. Killing him wouldn't have helped him accomplish that. On the opposite side, I love how Vince curses out Jess Wade but when he sees the man right in front of him, he does nothing. It shows that Vince is so broken by this death, that killing Jess wouldn't have changed anything. It wouldn't have brought his brother back. So he gives up knowing he has nothing left to live for.

I don't like how the townsfolk all apologize because it feels forced. Mrs. Ramsey especially going as far as to kiss Jess leaves a bad taste in my mouth since she was the reason why everyone ganged up on Jess in the first place. Even Tracy's part feels forced because of how she didn't show a level of loyalty that would make a happy ending feel earned. At least Jess got to ride off into the proverbial sunset knowing his name will be cleared.

The sad thing about this movie is that it had a lot of chances to be good. The concept of a man having to clear his name over a crime he didn't commit is a classic story for a reason. The problem is that the path the writers chose to get there had more holes than the town Vince attacked. It's incredible how one little detail can result in so much chaos. I'm well aware that a novelization exists, but since it was released separately from the movie, I'm not including that in my opinion. To me, a novelization of a movie shouldn't have to make up for details that weren't included in the movie.

Despite all of my criticisms, I still give this movie an 8/10. Even though some of the acting is corny, Elvis' portrayal of Jess Wade is amazing. I know it's a common criticism that Elvis' acting was flat. That. Was. The. Point. Jess is meant to contrast the chaotic nature that is Vince and Billy Roy because he's a man that has done wrong in the past but now wants to better himself. So why do I think this movie failed compared to Elvis' more musical ones? It's because it's a victim of circumstances. Westerns have been done to death and Clint Eastwood was the biggest contemporary name in that genre since John Wayne. Even though Elvis did a great job, he just didn't stand a chance because the heart of what makes a good Western story was lost.

An: Thank you @xanatenshi for requesting this. I understand why he has a following since Elvis did a great job portraying him. If I didn't tag you and you left a note on my previous reviews, please let me know and I'll be sure to tag you for Jess Wade's rank and my next review announcement.

Tagging: @whositmcwhatsit, @hooked-on-elvis, @smokeymountainboy, @atleastpleasetelephone, @stitchlover0112,

@tupelomiss, @vintagepresley, @eapep, @almightybigbrain, @coltswael,

@cieloestrelladoluna, @huhhhhsthings, @arrolyn1114, @peaceloveelvis, @peskybedtime,

@mercsandmonsters, @tacozebra051, @valloos, @ilovequeen978, @elvisvideos,

@presleyhearted, @depressedfairie, @kawaiiwitchy, @swingdownsweetchariot, @ruggednessworld,

@southcarolinawoman, @atrophyingaphrodite, @jrbrandi13, @summer56, @elvismylove04,

@eptodaytommorowforever, @lookingforrainbows, @araiarts, @fharysa, @lett-them-eatt-cake,

@fryb0rg, @wanderlustingtomboy, @slayingjd, @wildhorseinkansas, @somethingaboutelvis,

@jhoneybees, @elvisbooty76, @iloveelvisss, @presleyheart, @anakinsvault,

@illtakeyouhomeagain, @callieselvisobsessed, @50sexyshadesfashionista, @memphisflash, @arianatheangel-girl,

@madslovesmaws, @lucy114505, @presleygarden, @earthbaby-angelboy and @nicferg068.

[scaly-freaks]

how did you create amara? she's so compelling. i'm itching to create an hotd oc (mostly for aemond tho) but i'm absolutely unable to. i grew up on the era where every female oc was called a mary sue and every time i think someone could think that of my oc i become unbearably sad. enlighten me senpai

Aaahhh the Mary Sues. Such a silly way to diss what were usually teenage writers simply trying to explore the foundational stages of creating a character. There are so many popular Gary Stus in popular media (James Bond is definitely one) but men don't get called out for it the same.

I will say it took time for me to lean into writing a character who isn't just better than me in every sense of the word, and is allowed to make her own mistakes. I have to empathise with her a lot when she does some stupid shit and I'm sitting there like girl...

The key is probably to mix the stupid shit we all do on a daily basis (and judge more harshly when done by a fictional character) with real emotions and inner thoughts that would connect to most readers. Insecurities, anxiety, etc etc. But it's important to show her wanting to get out of these pitfalls of human nature, striving to do better even when she fails. She can't be perfect and smart and sassy out the gate or there's no fun watching her become a more well-rounded person.

The most important thing about an OC isn't how she's created at the start, but how she ends up at the finish line of the journey you're taking the reader along on. Don't flesh her out too much. Give her a few key traits - habits, emotional instabilities, insecurities - and then let them expand as she interacts with Aemond. Let her be human. Rolling the eyes, smirking, and sassy comebacks are all well and good, but real people don't behave like that. Sometimes, I like to put myself in the situation and realise I would never have such a put-together response because a fic writer isn't actually writing me (unless God has something to tell me about the sham of a plotline my life currently is). Once you've figured out what you'd do in a scene where you're stuck on what to write next, then bring back all you already know about your OC and modify your own response to become hers.

I didn't plan Amara at all when I put her into Burning Jasmine. My aim was to give Aegon someone that he could call his own in a way no one else in his family was. But I also knew Aegon is a dipshit. So, their first meeting is him basically yelling at her to get him more wine and stop telling him he needs a doctor, and her immediate reaction is girl fuck you, ew. Then, he softens, because the urge to be loved always comes out in the end (see here's where canon existing does help), and then I created Amara's background with the kidnapping from Lys, and how her parents raised her with love, and understood that she would see his anger as a facet of his isolation and vulnerability, not as something independent to him that he wields like a weapon.

Also my last pointer is always going to be the same but read, read, read. I would suggest contemporary books as unlike with fantasy, they're not worldbuilding, all they have are their characters. Learn from them. Get comfortable with inner monologuing for your OC that doesn't constantly revolve around Aemond, and how she is an accessory to him. She's the main character in her head, with a whole inner world of her own, and that'll be the best way to approach it.

If none of this made sense, disclaimer - I'm not the best with advice *-*

[avatar-legends-confessionblog]

Whereas the fandom would suddenly see Zuko as whiny, selfish, or too emotional, too much of a “drama queen”

You are so right about his and you should say this. if you changed nothing about zuko's character except for the fact that he was now female his redemption arc simply would not have worked cause by the end of season 1 the fandom would just hate her/him to much. God forbid if it was a female character that did zuko's betryal in season 2 people would want her burned at the stake. every Zuko's redption was a work of art" take would turn into " Zuko's actions were unforgivable and she should have never been forgiven"

Zuko mentions honor in season one far more than Katara brings up her mother in the entire show and look which of the two gets clowned on. Katara has one line of "well you didn't love her like I did" which people take out of context all the time to demonize her to hell and back. Hell look at Korra female zuko would probably get a similar reaction to her and the word arrogant would be thrown around alot.

never mind that zutara (with all the exact same scenes) wouldn't even exist as a concept.

people judge female characters more harshly thats just the truth. they have to be undoubtedly and unequivocally good and have never made a mistake in their entire lives. if toph was just a little bit more traditionally feminine and girly she probably would get a lot of the vitriol katara gets too

X

[pixie-mage]

I’ve thought about telling you. I’ve thought about bringing it up. You’ve asked me about my purple striped pendant enough times, and I’ve always brushed it off, and you still give it a sidelong look as if you know, so I’ve thought about saying something–

(Or leaving my laptop open on the wiki page, or doodling the flag on a sticky note and leaving it where you can see, or buying a book about it on your Amazon account, or–)

–but I never have.

Maybe it would finally convince you to leave my dating life alone. Or at least, maybe it would convince you that a dating app won’t work the same for someone like me.

Because when you’re asexual, most men on a dating app are expecting a future hookup, whether that’s now or a few weeks down the line…so you’re not what they’re looking for.

Anyway, I’ve thought about it. But I’ve also seen how you talked to me behind my sister’s back when she came out as bisexual, how you were outwardly unbothered and generally supportive but would turn to me with “If this phase lasts” and “She's still young” and “When she settles down with a guy” on your lips. It’s been a while since I’ve heard it, but even now, when she’s college age and openly dating a woman, I get the feeling you still don’t take her relationship as seriously as our brother’s relationship with his girlfriend. I get the feeling you still judge.

(You love us dearly. I know you do. The good and great family memories far far outweigh the bad. And you care about us so much. You’ve fought the world for us in the past and you’d do it again and you’ll always always love and support us in everything we do. But. But.)

And maybe you wouldn’t judge me so harshly for simply saying I’m ace, because it’s not like I’m gay, right? It’s not like I’ll end up with another girl, right? It’s not as big of a deal…right?

But I’ve also seen how judgemental you were when I started crossplaying, when I started choosing male characters to cosplay alongside the female. I was just dressing up for fun and that’s all it ever will be, but still…the judgement. The unspoken judgement of different.

And when I brought up the idea of adoption instead of having my own kids - the one time I opened up enough to mention it - you gave me the most indecipherable look that made me feel like I’d said something horribly, horribly wrong. And I said “What?” and you said “Nothing.” But it was “nothing” in the “I won’t say it, but you should know” way. It was “nothing” in the “I won’t say it, but I’ll let you feel my dissatisfaction from where you’re sitting” way.

And just this year, I got so close. I almost said something. We were having a conversation - god knows I can’t even remember how it started now - but I got brave enough to ask if it would be so wrong to never want to be physically intimate with someone. And I got an exaggeration eyeroll, and a “You have GOT to get over your fear of sex” as if you knew me sooo well that you obviously could see what I really meant. But you didn’t. You don’t. And when I said - rather impulsively - that “I’m not afraid, I just don’t want to do it. It’s gross and uncomfortable” - well.

“That’s a childish response.”

Because god forbid I feel differently than you do about something that would only affect my life. God forbid I dislike something even when the rest of the world expects me to want to love it. God forbid.

So I haven’t told you. With a response like that, why the hell would I?

You always say “you have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince”…and sure, I understand the meaning. But why does finding a prince require kissing? Why can’t I hug him instead? Why can’t a peck on the cheek suffice? I’d offer him a Lego minifigure if that would do the trick. I’d much prefer it.

But no, I’m childish for wanting to keep my body to myself.

You signed me up for a dating app when I was in early college. At the time I thought it was funny, and I still kind of do. I know that you want to see me happy and you assume finding a partner is what will do that. And maybe I would be happy with a partner in my life…but not the kind you’re thinking of.

See, the problem with dating apps - the problem with dating - is I know eventually the guy will get bored. He’ll get bored before we hit five months because the whole time he’ll have been waiting for the chance to take me to bed, and unfortunately for him, the thought will have never crossed my mind. Hell, the last time we tried to make out I was probably thinking about pizza rolls and wondering how long people are supposed to keep kissing like that. When is it acceptable to stop? When is it polite to get back to watching the movie? How much kissing is enough to satisfy someone else? Because it sure as hell does next to nothing for me.

I used to think I was broken, you know.

I used to think there was something wrong with me if everyone was explaining kissing and sex as this fantastic thing, and I was sitting there going “What’s there to like?”

I used to think - hell - maybe mom was right. Maybe I just have to keep kissing frogs.

But at some point, you kiss enough frogs that never turn into princes, and you start to realise that maybe the problem isn’t the frogs you’re picking. Maybe the problem is you. Maybe you don’t have the magic in your lips to turn ‘em back into royalty.

And then you date an amazing, amazing guy, and you think “Wow, I could picture a life with him” and you think “This could be something” and you think “This is a prince…right?” …but you still feel nothing. The romance is there, and the joy of shared interests, and the matching sense of humor, and the laughter and the fun and you fit and it’s amazing - but physically? Sexually? Nothing. You feel nothing. You’re still daydreaming about pizza rolls when you’re kissing on the couch, and nothing has changed.

So you think…another frog?

And you end things.

And you think it’s better that way.

And you think maybe you were just excited over a solid friendship and misinterpreted what you were feeling.

But then you find an internet post that is far too relatable. You find an artist that has put into words the exact way you’ve been feeling for years. You find a comic that sends a shockwave of a revelation through your head and you feel - you feel whole. You feel unbroken. You feel like this is what you were missing all along.

One word that makes you feel a little less alone, knowing there are others out there just like you.

Asexual.

A person who feels no physical attraction toward others.

Sometimes they want to be physically intimate with their partner even though they feel nothing, but sometimes? Sometimes they really really don’t.

And it’s okay.

And it has a name.

And it’s not broken.

…and I would tell you all of this if I felt like I could. But.

But.

It’s just a phase and you’d be happier with a partner and that’s a childish response.

Is it any wonder I have never explained what my purple striped pendant really means?

[reacquaintedwith-air]

You can't 'enjoy female characters' your way out of sexist writers' rooms treating those female characters like shit, fridging them and removing their personalities when it get in the way of the plot and using them to get back at the fan bases. Blaming fandoms for disengaging with a lot of mainstream female characters, distrusting writers' rooms and saving themselves the stress and energy output in their hobby time isn't fair because a lot of the time, women in fandom have been burned repeatedly before the got to that point. Yeah, women in fandom judge female characters more harshly than they do male characters, that's because a lot of women in fandom are a lot more likely to identify more with female characters to start with, or even more to the point, we're more likely to feel personally disappointed or accused in all the flaws and bad writing of the female characters.

i happen to prefer woman character heavy fandoms, and narrative POV, and i happen to prefer M/F pairings over M/M (or F/F for that matter), but it's also exhausting. Not because 'meanie man-character-liking' fans, or whatever but 9 out of 10 the writing of the woman you're invested in will let you down in the most unsettling way possible. Sometimes even vindictively, because they noticed to many women and queer people were watching and having opinions about their TV show. This is also often the case with male characters in a queer bait, subtextually queer or textually queer canon situation, tbh.

So it's like, yeah, I can see why people gravitate to shipping the straight white men, they're the least likely to get sacrificed for the plot or destroyed in effigy to take a swing at the portion of the audience that the networks and advertisers Don't Want (women and queer people). It's not really my thing, but i understand why you would want to use your limited hobby time energy on the 'never gonna be canon, least likely to be torpedoed or fridged' option to invest in emotionally. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[bthump]

I’m not coming from a place of hate at all, I enjoy your takes on Berserk homoeroticism and appreciate your refreshing ability to make well informed, intellectual analysis so accessible for other fans. It is an important resource to have when dudebros try to make their homophobic bias sound like good arguments. However, when it comes to your analysis of Casca, I find myself disagreeing with almost everything you say. I’m usually only reading your blog quietly because I enjoy the discourse, but I feel like I need to add my two cents. I agree that Cascas writing falls flat to a degree, but I can’t help but think that you’re downplaying her character and arc because you don’t enjoy the parts of Berserk that aren’t about homoerotic tension between Guts and Griffith. Their homoerotic tension is also what is most interesting to me, but it’s not what Berserk is inherently about. We could dismiss Casca by saying ˋMiura can’t write women´, but then again characters like Farnese exist who have an entire complex thematic arc tied to religious extremism, authoritarian character and freeing herself from dogmatism and Berserk as a story is not punishing her or asking for redemption and is instead inherently ridding itself from moralizing judgements of characters. She’s allowed to evolve by herself. As a queer person, I see myself in her. Theres so much queerness and comphet in her story, I’m sad that there’s not many meta posts about her on here. Does Berserk have ideological streaks of conservatism and misunderstands women because Miura has a misogynistic bias? Yeah, unfortunately. But the story and many of the main characters are too complex and ambiguous for me to write them all off based on how some of their arcs are not feminist enough and could need improving. Imagine writing such a complicated and long story with so many characters as just one simple Japanese dude who never leaves his house and who was born in the 70s or whatever. Like, I get separating the story from the author and impact versus intent, but dismissing Casca because of her flaws in writing is dismissing all of Berserk because of some thematic flaws. It sounds like you’re expecting the perfect story for her to be a valid female character and that’s just not possible. I for once made peace with her flaws and am not rejecting her. I think Cascas story works for what it is and I empathize with her as someone who has experienced misogyny and SA. Farny and Schierke working through her trauma magically was a nice metaphor for solidarity between women and it’s rare to see that coming from a male author, I don’t think it’s less valid just because Miura has some gender bias. Casca still experiencing PTSD afterwards is also realistic and shows that Miura is willing to give Casca enough agency to work through that by herself without magic some time in the future of the story. Her story is uncomfortable and her character arc is long and flawed, but that’s what makes it impossible for me to dismiss her. I’m a bit disappointed that so many fans on the tumblr side are willing to basically rid Griffith from all his wrongdoings but then empathize the flaws in Casca and don’t understand that maybe they also have some internalized misogyny that doesn’t make them understand that bias. Especially with the argument that I often see with She Should Have Died. Why? Because she’s uncomfortable? Maybe explore that within yourself. Other than that I am happy to have this queer part of the fandom where we don’t judge each other for liking Griffith and enjoying GriffGuts as a ship. And I hope that you don’t think too harshly of my criticism, for it is only to improve our fandom discourse culture and not to throw stones. Thank you for existing!

Okay look, while I do appreciate the appreciation for my non-casca blog content, I can't look past this coming hand in hand with a lot of pretty insulting, and frankly baseless assumptions about my motives. I'm glad you're not coming from a place of hate, but from the sounds of it you're coming from a place of presumptive judgement, and I want to address that.

I've always been very direct and clear about how I don't think someone's tastes or opinions about a story reflect on them personally. I don't judge someone's character by their fictional interests, I judge it by their words and actions.

If you're going to be interacting with my blog, I'd appreciate being extended the same benefit of the doubt.

You seem to see someone who doesn't enjoy Casca's storyline and make assumptions about why, rather than taking the reasons I provide at face value. I have explained why, very thoroughly, quite often, and quite recently, while constantly referring back to the text and to Miura's comments to justify my conclusions. I literally don't know how I can possibly be more direct about how I am discussing the narrative of a story on its own terms without going full dry academic language lol, come on.

I like to think I'm also very clear about when I'm expressing my subjective opinion (eg i dislike het romance; I'm super into romantic betrayal as a trope, etc) vs when I'm analysing the story based on direct textual evidence (eg casca has no active involvement in the narrative post-eclipse; casca's sexual abuse is eroticized; etc). I certainly try to be. And frankly it is genuinely pretty insulting that you think I'm incapable of judging Casca's story on its own merits or lackthereof, and must be over-emphasizing the flaws of her narrative because I only care about griffguts.

The truth is I genuinely believe that Griffith and Guts' relationship is the thematic core of Berserk, based on the text of the story, and I also genuinely believe Casca's storyline sucks ass in most ways. And it's okay to disagree with one or both of those takes, but yeah I'm gonna take a little bit of offense at the insinuation that I'm too biased by shipping or misogyny or both to analyse the story.

If you love Casca's story despite its flaws, good for you. I'm happy for you. I have no desire to argue with you to make you change your mind. And I don't think it makes you misogynist or ableist or racist, even though I think Casca's storyline contains all of the above to some degree - but if I was going to respond to you in the same vein that you've responded to me, that would be fair game as an assumption. It would also be fair game to assume that you only like Casca and are dismissive of or blind to many of the story's faults because you're projecting or you ship gtsca or you think good feminism is all about stanning certain designated fictional characters regardless of their actual depiction. And I think that is something wrong with fandom culture. I think those are all shitty assumptions to make about someone based on which fictional characters they enjoy reading about most. So like, straight up, you're the only one throwing stones here.

So I want to ask you: why is it that someone discussing offensive fictional tropes makes you assume they are the real misogynist? Why are you equating criticism of writing with criticism of real women, as though media trends and narrative framing don't exist? Why do you think it even matters if I "reject" a fictional character because I don't like how she's written lol?

This strikes me as the same line of thinking that leads to shutting down all criticism of misogyny in media - how dare you say this outfit is unrealistic for a martial artist, some women like to wear high heels! How dare you criticize the average husband/model-esque wife trope, some beautiful women love their average husbands! How dare you criticize comics for fridging the girlfriends of superheroes, women sometimes suffer horrible fates in real life! How dare you criticize the born sexy yesterday trope, some women are naive! etc etc etc.

And this is why it's important to have at least some understanding of narrative framing and greater media trends when discussing media on any level beyond headcanon and projection. Casca isn't real, and as a construct she is not a sensitive or realistic depiction of a traumatized woman, regardless of whether someone identifies with her. She's not a sensitive or realistic depiction of a disabled women either. There are literally "funny" cartoonish background gags involving her shoving random things into her mouth. She gets sexy fanservice while regressed to the mentality of a toddler. She is sexually assaulted by and then shipteased with the protagonist. I could go on all day lol, lbr here. I should not be obligated to brush all that aside and pretend it doesn't irritate me and sometimes offend me in order to valorize a woman who doesn't like, yk, exist.

You and anyone else are free to project on her and relate to her and sympathize with her and love her, and I think that's great and what fandom is all about, but that still doesn't make her writing strong. And I think it's worth discussing how and why her writing fails, the same way it's worth discussing any other flaw of Berserk, like Guts' character flattening with the Eclipse, or Farnese's sudden personality 180, or the awkward pacing, or the prominent scary black man trope, etc, all of which I've also discussed plenty. If you feel like I've disproportionately focused on Casca criticism, then there are 2 reasons for that: 1. I respond to asks 99% of the time, so it's what the people are asking about. 2. Casca's storyline is the most prominent bad and offensive writing in the story, like it's the number one thing that's likely to drive new potential fans away, so of course people are going to want to talk about it.

Also I've written like, a lot of meta and speculation and headcanons etc about Casca beyond criticism of her narrative lol, so if you're sad about the lack of discussion and meta about her it's ironic that you're coming to me with that complaint. Be the change you want to see in the world, start your own Casca centric blog if you want more meta about her to exist, or read more of what already exists. I'd say I'm doing my part as far as I'm concerned lol, but I don't like the way that phrasing implies that anyone has an obligation to focus their interest on any particular fictional character.

I'm glad you enjoy other aspects of my blog, and if you stick around after this admittedly irritable response I hope you continue enjoying them. But if you feel the need to engage with me to defend a fictional character from my criticism again in the future, I'd appreciate it if you engaged with that criticism directly and analytically, rather than speculating about my character and motives.

[adarkrainbow]

Do you think the way people talk and discuss Walt's "Classic Three" (Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora) is accurate or close to what happens in the movies? I mean, they are always referred as excessively passive, weak, only interested on their looks (vain? superficial?), useless, beauty being their only good quality... And I ask myself, when was the last time these people watched the movies? Snow White negotiated her stay in the house, Cinderella survived a life of pure abuse & orchestrated her own escape from the tower, and, while not very much is shown about Aurora, she was about to sacrifice her personal happiness for the kingdom's sake (something Philip didn't have in mind)that takes courage! They don't wield swords but they are much stronger that they appear, and while I get some of the critique, I hate the "strong only means kicking butt" idea, like, it's incomplete, and superficial, and it can be reductive & dangerous (for the girls, and for the boys too!)

I have talked about this before in many posts, and others have talked about this way better than me, so I'll try to break down my opinion in a quite short and concise way. And as usual, you probably won't be surprised to find me again, neutral on those topic.

On one side: people are unfairly criticizing and judging too harshly the "original trio" of Disney movies. This has been explained by many people on this website, so I won't expand on this too much, but indeed, there is a mixture of superficial viewing of these movies, of not-contextualizing them, of projecting modern-day values and expectations over nearly century old pieces, and of a general need to criticize and rant about everything (especially big corporations and the "classics" of culture - whenever something becomes a classic, a backlash awaits). Cinderella is a much more surprising and strong character than you'd expect. These movies do teach the idea that being strong doesn't mean simply kicking everybody and proving yourself to be a lone wolf (especially since there's a strong focus on friendship in those stories). The whole "the prince kissing Sleeping Beauty in her sleep is rape culture" is ridiculous ; especially since in the Disney version it was made to be a true love kiss, between people who were in love, and the whole context was the breaking of a curse ; AND the actual rapist-origins of the story are from a 16th century Italian fairytale nobody knew about until the Internet dug it up in the 2010s. Even today many people who invoke the rapist-story are unable to tell you who wrote it or where it comes from, because they just latch onto the idea "Oh yes there's a rape story." and that's it, no more research for them.

Heck, Sleeping Beauty is even surprising for its time AND for the Disney criteria by having elderly, non-attractive female leads who do more than the actual male hero and ultimately are the true focus of the tale - the fairy godmothers. Same things with Snow-White - to make the dwarfs the equal of the titular Snow-White, even more to focus more character development and screen time on them rather than the princess, and to give them unique characterisation and treat them as people rather than plot-props... This was BIG, this was not something usual, and this was a game-changer. Overall - I say the same thing for fantasy literature - a lot of the "new" or "modern" twists people expect from today's fictions are awaiting you in the past. Everybody complains about traditional fantasy not having POC main characters or not having strong female lead that is not sexualized - Earthsea had all those by the 60s and 70s, and it was just as influential on fantasy as Lord of the Rings or Elric.

However... Recognizing that a lot of the criticism is unfair and overblown, and that the backlash is ignorant and caricatural does NOT mean we should just blindly worship and naively accept those movies as untouchable, sacred relics that cannot be criticize. If there is a backlash, it means there is a reason for such criticism to arise in the first place, and we must identify why - to give back the problem in its proper proportions, and not in the exaggerated state we are offered today.

So... The other side - why is this Disney trio not fitting our modern world?

And the answer is very simple. They are heroines of 17th and 19th centuries tales, that were adapted for an early 20th century American mindset. They are bound to age or be unfit for the 21st century. Placing them back into context allows us to understand how great, good or groundbreaking they were in their time - but it does not mean they hold up to modern-day characters. Some elements of the Disney movies aged better than ever, some are still resonating today, and this is what gives them an "out-of-time" feeling. Yet... yet there is a reason why the "Disney princess" had to evolve and had to change herself to fit a new audience. Why did the characters of Rapunzel and Elsa of Disney had such huge success and were beloved by the masses? Because they were answering early 21st century needs, society and expectations, the same way the original trio did for their time.

A character like Aurora of Sleeping Beauty couldn't work today because she literaly is a paper-thin character that does nothing throughout the story and is truly more of a MacGuffin than anything. Oh yes she speaks, has a song, has feelings and emotions - and there is this very progressive idea of having Aurora be unhappy and traumatized by discovering her princess heritage, which aged very well! But the rest? She is a baby ; then she sings about being in love ; then she cries about not wanting to be a princess ; then she sleeps ; then she is married. The story is done and moved by the interesting characters about her, but not by her - Maleficent wants to destroy Aurora, Philip wants to save Aurora, the fairy godmothers wants to protect Aurora... I do not recall which feminist created this theory, but there is the test of the lamp. If you can replace a female character by a beautiful lamp, this is bad for you. And unfortunately Disney's Sleeping Beauty "succeeeds" at the test of the lamp, since Aurora's massively passive involvment in the story makes her a perfect fit. The king and queen create the most beautiful lamp you ever saw ; Maleficent angry curses the lamp to be destroyed ; the fairy godmothers are tasked with keeping the lamp safe ; later the prince discovers the lamp in the woods and wants to have it for his living room, so he plans to return later ; meanwhile the fairy godmothers return the lamp to their rightful owners the king and queen, while Maleficent captures the prince who returned in hope of taking the lamp ; etc etc... It does not change the story one bit.

Another, even more obvious example, of the "age" of those characters - Snow-White. Disney's Snow-White is the very embodiment of the "50s housewife" cliche, and thus was a perfect fit for this first-half-of-the-20th-century American society. In the Grimm story, the little girl enters the house, takes the food, goes to sleep, and upon meeting the dwarfs they make a bargain of chores in exchange of protection. In the Disney movie? She cleans the house all by herself, without asking anybody, just in hope it will please people. Which is a very "fairytale" move... But still is perceived badly as just the typical idea that "A good girl cleans up the house, that we ask her or not". The fact Snow-White also acts as a mother figure for the dwarfs despite being a teenage girl is... yeah it is questionable and there's a whole baggage of the girl existing as solely a future mother and a housekeeper-in-training. Let's not even talk of the infantilization of the dwarfs just because of their small size despite being clearly much older than her...

So yeah, I always take a neutral stance on things (except for a few stuff), and this is no exception. There is an unfair treatment of the original Disney princesses, definitively, and people are misreading the original movies... But when we take a critical look we also have to recognize that these characters were designed for a given society and a given time, and that now they made their time, we do not need them anymore and we can move on to other characters while fondly remembering them or taking inspiration from them. Erasing these characters would be stupid and absurd - but it is just as stupid and absurd to try to cling onto them constantly and to try to make them fit everywhere and anywhere (yes I am taking a jab at Disney and their perpetual recycling and their favoritism of remakes over new movies...).

.