#like having it explicitly romantic is the goal

[kidspawn]

In regards to this post

One thing to consider, which I was speaking to @feralkwe about, is how Gansey and Adam all but explicitly have romantic/more-than-platonic feelings towards one another. I don’t know if this was intended, and obviously The Raven Cycle dabbles in that blurring of lines between what is considered friendship, romantic, queerplatonic, etc. And we all joke that their divorce arc and their situationship is the real emotional crux of the first two books (when literally Adam’s love for Gansey is the main reason he takes the actions he does.), but... we’re not wrong?

In regards to the late night phone calls, where Gansey mentions Adam as the first choice to call when he can’t sleep, and alludes to this being not only his initial urge, but it being a common occurrence. Correlate with the idea of the reason Gansey is in love with Blue being that when he talks to her, he can sleep. When he grows explicitly romantic feelings for Blue, he begins calling her to speak and voice his thoughts and to make his head quiet. An action he participates in with Adam during the first book. Not just in phone calls, but Adam serves as the person he bounces ideas off of, the person he goes to when his thoughts need an outlet, and the person he calls when he can’t sleep. 

And this was pointed out, and I’m running with it - Gansey and Blue start hanging out after Adam and Gansey’s relationship gets incredibly tense. And I’m not saying that Gansey was coping by almost replacing Adam with Blue in this dynamic, but Blue becomes more of Gansey’s confidant as Adam grows distant. And I love Blue and Gansey and this is not to frame Blue as the second choice, or any such bizarre notion, but the emotional connection is one Gansey desperately craves and associates with a romantic connection. (Though he doesn’t voice this as something he uses to define love until Adam asks him how he knows he’s in love in The Raven King. So. Food for thought.)

I also think, while it’s hard to piece together Adam’s own stance (because getting a straight [heh] answer out of Adam is like going up a stream without a paddle except you’re on a cardboard box and the river is raging and intent on destruction for even trying to navigate it), I think it comes down to: Adam’s faith in Gansey, and Adam’s envy of Gansey. Adam’s “imperfect faith” in magic but his unwavering faith in Gansey, and his inability to say no to him (a sentiment he makes explicit, he does not think he can deny Gansey, and he shows this multiple times), his devotion to Gansey being the main reason he kickstarts the events of the last book. More obvious, and incredibly damning, is Adam’s relationship with envy and wanting to be like someone and how that translates to his attraction. Each explicit attraction Adam has is tied into a sense of envy, a quality of the person he wants to emulate. And his envy of Gansey is a constant in his every interaction. Also, you could say a lot about Adam being useful and seeing usefulness as a trait to express his affection, and his determination to be useful to Gansey and help him accomplish his goals. 

Anyway, this could all mean nothing and I’m just imagining things except I’m not and I stand firm that Adam and Gansey would have kissed if anyone had given Gansey a sip (a sip!) of alcohol in Adam’s presence. And yeah bros being bros, but something something about “hey tiger” and “Gansey was stupid about Adam” and “I can sleep when I talk to her” and not saying no to Gansey and Adam wanting to protect and save Gansey and god was that casual? I’m not saying this all leads me to read the relationship with a romantic undertone, but please know that Gansey wanted to smooth Adam’s forehead with his thumb like his mother did to his father. Okay, have a good night <3

[icharchivist]

Cloud Barrett OTP

That's hilarious though

I can't believe it

HELP

i don't particularly ship them or anything but i find it just, so much fun.

the fact it's stuff that were in the original 1997 game makes it buckwild to me.

Another of the requirement is that you need to accept Aerith's flower when you meet her and then give the flower to Marlene instead of Tifa because it shows you're interested in Barret's life enough to connect with his daughter.

And another other requirement is that when you escape Midgar, it depends if you decide to go to Kalm with Aerith or Tifa, and if you decide to ignore both of them to pick Barret, and he's like "?!" but he agrees.

iirc a lot of those "choices" aren't even accessible in the Remake (pretty sure Cloud gets picked as prettiest girl no matter how you do the Wall Market side mission, you don't get to pick his lines when he's with Corneo, you don't even get to give Marlene a flower smh) so that's tragic. But i also heard they had mentioned before that they wanted to keep it in in the second part so who knows.

but yeah the OG is really something else.

[caifanes]

we’re done. it’s finally over (kinda)

[bookished]

HOW TO GIVE PERSONALITY TO A CHARACTER

Giving personality to a character is an essential part of character development in storytelling, whether you're writing a novel, screenplay, or creating a character for a role-playing game. Here are some steps and considerations to help you give personality to your character:

Understand Their Backstory:

Start by creating a detailed backstory for your character. Where were they born? What were their childhood experiences like? What significant events have shaped their life? Understanding their past can help you determine their motivations, fears, and desires.

2. Define Their Goals and Motivations:

Characters often become more interesting when they have clear goals and motivations. What does your character want? It could be something tangible like a job or a romantic relationship, or it could be an abstract desire like happiness or freedom.

3. Determine Their Strengths and Weaknesses:

No one is perfect, and characters should reflect this. Identify your character's strengths and weaknesses. This can include physical abilities, intellectual skills, and personality traits. Flaws can make characters relatable and three-dimensional.

4. Consider Their Personality Traits:

Think about your character's personality traits. Are they introverted or extroverted? Shy or outgoing? Kind or selfish? Create a list of traits that describe their character. You can use personality frameworks like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or the Big Five Personality Traits as a starting point.

5. Give Them Quirks and Habits:

Quirks and habits can make a character memorable. Do they have a specific way of speaking, a unique fashion style, or an unusual hobby? These details can help bring your character to life.

6. Explore Their Relationships:

Characters don't exist in isolation. Consider how your character interacts with others. What are their relationships like with family, friends, and enemies? These relationships can reveal a lot about their personality.

7. Show, Don't Tell:

Instead of explicitly telling the audience about your character's personality, show it through their actions, dialogue, and decisions. Let the reader or viewer infer their traits based on their behavior.

8. Create Internal Conflict:

Characters with internal conflicts are often more engaging. What inner struggles does your character face? These can be related to their goals, values, or past experiences.

9. Use Character Arcs:

Consider how your character will change or grow throughout the story. Character development is often about how a character evolves in response to the events and challenges they face.

10. Seek Inspiration:

Draw inspiration from real people, other fictional characters, or even historical figures. Study how people with similar traits and backgrounds behave to inform your character's actions and reactions.

11. Write Dialogue and Inner Monologues:

Writing dialogue and inner monologues from your character's perspective can help you get inside their head and understand their thought processes and emotions.

12. Consider the Setting:

The setting of your story can influence your character's personality. For example, a character who grows up in a war-torn environment may have a different personality than one raised in a peaceful, affluent society.

13. Revise and Refine:

Don't be afraid to revise and refine your character as you write and develop your story. Characters can evolve and change as the narrative unfolds.

Remember that well-developed characters are dynamic and multi-faceted. They should feel like real people with strengths, weaknesses, and complexities. As you write and develop your character, put yourself in their shoes and think about how they would react to various situations. This will help you create a compelling and believable personality for your character.

[ultfreakme]

I don't understand why people question if Sasuke likes Naruto, romantically speaking. I think Sasuke is so much more clearer than Naruto about the depth of his emotions. He has stated multiple times that Naruto is the only thing capable of making him lose sight of his goals. If Naruto showed up for long enough, Sasuke absolutely will stop and drop everything. He's admitted to this.

Itachi emphasized that he needs to kill someone precious to him in order to activate his Mangekyou Sharingan, and Sasuke didn't even hesitate before thinking about Naruto. No one else was even in consideration.

His biggest weakness, and the only person who he has made clear has acknowledged him, is Naruto like this is text. He's not chasing Naruto, but that's because he loves him so damn much he needs to run away from it.

With Naruto, there's a lot of duty to the village and perhaps some obligation and guilt associated with the time Sasuke nearly died for him. The story paints it as if Naruto is chasing Sasuke due to his promise to Sakura(he wasn't). But there's more factors obscuring the reasons for Naruto's determination than for Sasuke. Naruto says "for the village, to save my friend, for a promise", etc.

Sasuke explicitly says "I have to kill you because you're the only thing that is precious to me and I can't have that because you weaken me".

[prokopetz]

A selection of promotional art for Violet Core, a forthcoming self-described "Romantic High Speed Sapphic Mecha TTRPG" by artist and writer @sarahcarapace, author of Death Spiral and visual designer for @cavegirlpoems' Dungeon Bitches. Violet Core takes its cues from Heaven Will Be Mine, Zone of the Enders and Knights of Sidonia, and plays like a tabletop dating sim with giant robot fights.

The game is currently entering the final 24 hours of its crowdfunding campaign, fully funded and having knocked down two substantial stretch goals in the last days: one for extra art (i.e., more of the above), and one to add an asymmetric play mode in which some but not all players pilot giant robots, explicitly including provisions for, in the author's own words, "handler and pilot toxic yuri" – a particular interest for many of this blog's followers, I'm given to understand!

With just under a day left to go, there are several additional stretch goals within striking distance; I've seen a lot of noise about the one for rules for combining robots (presumably also for yuri purposes), though the one I'm most keen on – a big stack of random encounter and event tables by the aforementioned @cavegirlpoems – is presently just $1700 AUD away. (Yes, I know I'm predictable; my love for Big Stupid Tables is well established.)

I'd love to see this one go the distance, so whether or not you're interested in supporting its campaign, if you happen to know anyone who might be in the market, please pass the word along!

(Art credit: excerpted pieces by @sarahcarapace, @portentous-offerings and @cryskir)

[linkcharacter]

Oh I have so many thoughts on aroace Curly, I think it brings so much on the table when analyzing the game's story.

Amanormativity ties in with the reoccurring mentions of the nuclear family, from Wrong Organ making 1950s mock advert posters, to Swansea talking about how getting a wife and kids didn't bring him any fulfillment in life.

In the cake cutting nightmare sequence, where Jimmy talks with Dream Curly about the mediocre cake, Dream Curly begins to talk about how sometimes you can only get the subpar stuff in live. Sometimes he'll get promoted, buy a house, fall in love. But other times he'll just have some awful fucking cake with his friend.

I think there is that subtle implication that Jimmy does buy into Amanormativity, with him projecting his beliefs on Dream Curly that a platonic relationship is lesser then a romantic one. But we never see Curly suggesting that he wants such a thing in the pre-crash.

With Jimmy thinking that Curly has everything in life, except for the desire (although I think Jimmy would view it as Curly not having the skills for it) to get a romantic partner, he would heavily lean into getting the one thing that Curly couldn't get in life to one up him.

THATS EXACTLY WHAT IM THINKING!!! AMATONORMATIVITY BE DAMNED!!!!

Looking at Mouthwashing through an aroace lens is interesting

"Jimmy thinking that Curly has everything in life, except for the desire", well said, well said! And references to the nuclear family fit in very cleanly thematically for Mouthwashing.

Jimmy leaning into amatonormativity is a smart observation. Jim internalizes all the social norms and standards on what you have to do to have a normal and desirable life, who sees everything Curly has and what Jimmy wishes he had, and is offended that Curly isn't satisfied, that he has the "audacity" to be unhappy. Curly meanwhile only wishes for his life to be something he doesn't have to run from, because by all means, he has already reached a point where he should feel accomplished, but isn't. Curly doesn't want to be a freighter captain his whole life, he doesn't want to settle with his sustainable position, he just wants to be happy. Like Swansea who has reached the "ideal" outcome of his life, having a wife, kids and a good career, it will never feel as good as embracing all what society deems undesirable yet right for you.

Jimmy does imply to seeing himself as lesser as a friend, "fall in love" being a goal and a "cake with a friend" being something he "has to settle for", it's all in the subtleties with underlying themes of "what you're "supposed to want" by society's expectations" against "what feels right for you". Jimmy is frustrated that Curly is going to "leave the dirt behind him", when in actuality, letting the crew and him go is the last thing Curly wants. Curly wants to be with his friends, he deeply cares about his crew, and about his close friend.

Mouthwashing as a whole reads to me as platonic through and through. Swansea and Daisuke having such a meaningful familial bond, Curly and Anya being sweet, playful and caring without romance, Anya and Daisuke having something of a siblings dynamic are dear to me. Also it's really rare to get to see representations of "toxic friendship" in media. Its always toxic romance this, toxic yaoi that, toxic family there, however in reality, friendships aren't excluded from being as rotten and abusive as the others, yet they're often overlooked. Jim and Curly are especially unique in this way. It's very impressive how they managed to showcase Jimmy's mistreatment of Curly in such a platonic way (at least that how I read it). Jim too, like Curly, in general avoids hints at romance and attraction explicitly related to him during his gameplay, not with Curly, nor with Anya (dear god thanks for that at least). It's all spite, annoyance and parasitizing off of these two. (That man's dry and lowkey hates everyone and everything) No attraction attached, no desires except hoping it hurts.

Curly to me is very much aroace, or at least on the spectrum. Like, the trivia fact that one of Curly's fondest memories is that of his friends putting in effort to make a shitty awful cake, tells us all we need to know on how dear his friends are to him. Platonic relationships mean so much to Curly, even when it's Jimmy fucking Mouthwashing, the worst friend ever imaginable.

[secondhandsorrows]

Some Vital Scenes to Include in a Romantic Subplot, pt. 1

I’ve been in the plotting stages of a novel I’ve been working on for some time now. It’s not a romance novel, per se, but the romantic aspect is very prevalent… dare I say important. Anyway, so as I was working on my scenes and character arcs, I began to realize that I didn’t have enough fleshed-out about romantic arc, nor deepened the protagonist’s love interest or their connection, for that matter. This led me to devise up some scenes that I felt were crucial to the story if I wanted to keep this romantic angle to it, and now that I’ve most of them arranged, I find now that I’m way more excited about my characters’ love story. 

These tips will be unnumbered because, obviously, the sequence of these events and how they will fall into your storyline will probably be different. Also, you don’t have to use only one scene for every suggestion that will be mentioned, as you can have multiple scenes of flirtations or deep conversations, for example. They usually blend all together into the narrative at this point. Just remember that there should be some relevance to the plot at hand in some of these scenes as to not derail completely from the main narrative or other conflicts.

I was going to post this all at once, but decided it was too long and wanted to split it into two parts to go more in-depth and for easy reading. /-\ Enjoy ~

- The meet-cute, or the meet-ugly:

Ah, yes, the first encounter. Or, as we sometimes like to call it: the meet-cute, or the meet-ugly if you’re feeling a little unconventional or perhaps mischievous. Though we may enjoy setting up our star-crossed characters in a whole range of moments from awkward to swoon-worthy, the initial meeting is what’s important (if your characters haven't already met before the beginning of the story, ofc, but this is useful to have in mind). Let us quickly define the two:

Meet-Cute: A charming and serendipitous first encounter between the characters in question that sets a positive, memorable, and oftentimes romantic tone.

Meet-Ugly: An unconventional, awkward, or disastrous initial meeting that adds a unique twist to the start of the romantic connection, often leading to unexpected chemistry and an added intrigue on whether or not they’ll get together.

You don’t have to nail your characters’ first encounter into a label or bubble such as these two examples, but I like bringing these up for a general idea. 

- Bouts of flirting and/or banter:

Just as the title suggests, these are scenes containing the flirtaious communication between the two characters. These kinds of interactions will, of course, develop over time and deepen the bond or relationship. Playful interactions, gazes, and witty exchanges between the characters can create a lighthearted and flirtatious atmosphere that hints at their growing attraction.

The way they might flirt or tease can reveal their personalities. For example, one character might be more sarcastic, while the other responds with quick wit, or quiet bashfulness. There’s an element of subtlety, as flirting lets the characters express their romantic interest without explicitly stating it (unless one of your characters lacks subtlety in general and prefers to shout their undying love from the rooftops, which would make for an interesting dynamic, but I’m only spit-balling). 

Banter, teasing, and romantic tension underscoring heated debates or loathsome gazes suit just as nicely, especially if you’re writing with enemies-to-lovers or rivalry tropes in mind. But be careful! A little goes a long way: too much all at once can repel any growth for the characters or narrative.

- Initial conflict or struggle:

Depending on your story’s big-picture conflict, the introduction of challenges or obstacles can create tension between the characters, adding depth to their relationship and making their eventual connection all the more satisfying. This might include cultural or class differences, opposing goals or values, history of past heartbreak, personality weaknesses such as stubbornness, or external pressures that threaten to keep the characters apart. Even a nosy family or a disapproving mother can be considered. How the characters navigate and resolve these conflicts contributes significantly to the overall emotional impact of the romance subplot, as well as allowing for some exploration of each character's strengths, weaknesses, and resilience. 

- Shared vulnerability:

This kind of scene involves the characters opening up to each other about their innermost fears, insecurities, past trauma, or personal struggles. Shared vulnerability goes beyond surface-level interactions. It involves characters revealing their authentic selves, exposing their emotional vulnerabilities, and allowing the other person to see them in an honest — and sometimes new — light.

This is a symbolic gesture of commitment we’re talking about, here… something that requires trust. As characters share their fears or past traumas, they are entrusting the other person with sensitive information, fostering a sense of trust and emotional intimacy. It might be scary, it could be out from left field, but they will end up learning something new about themselves, their situation, or about the other person, and thus deepen their connection, little by little.

[lovemyromance]

"Why would Gwyn be in the bonus chapter if she wasn't Azriel's endgame??"

I'd like to ask a better question. 🙋🏻‍♀️

Why would Elain be in the bonus chapter if she wasn't Azriel's endgame?

Objectively speaking - SJM has written the interaction with Elain and Azriel to be obviously - explicitly - romantic. They are about to jump each other in a hallway - like... there should be no question that these two want each other romantically.

The interaction with Gwyn - regardless of what people have theorized - is not inherently romantic. Azriel comes across Gwyn while she is training, then indirectly decides to regift a necklace to her (for whatever reason - mates, lightsinger, who cares), then pictures her smile. That interaction I could replace the names with Feyre & Cassian or Mor & Rhysand - and I wouldnt bat an eye. It's a platonic action/scene - regardless of how you interpret the deeper meaning.

Now realistically - if this Azriel POV was hinting at his book next and Gwyn as his endgame ... why would Elain be there???

Like first of all .... why would SJM introduce us to Azriel's endgame ... but start the chapter off with him down bad for ANOTHER WOMAN?

I don't know why SJM would do that... but let's just say that was her plan (for arguments sake). It still doesn't explain why she would use ELAIN.

It's not like them getting hot and heavy in a hallway was buildup for Elain's relationship with Lucien. Lucien didn't even see them - only Rhys did.

So why include Elain, of all people? Why not have it be some random woman at Rita's?

Why go through this elaborate setup of having Elain and Azriel wanting to kiss each other, having Rhysand intervene, order Azriel away -

Like if the end goal was to introduce Gwyn as a LI for Azriel - the first half of that bonus chapter is unnecessary. Nobody was 100% certain Elain & Azriel even wanted each other until that BC. It's not like they were entwined so explicitly on the page before the BC and SJM had to "tie up loose ends".

I'm sorry if this is annoying but one of the things I learned this year from working on my fantasy manuscript and having to cut down my word count - is that every single scene an author writes should have multiple purposes. You can't just add a scene for "drama". That's a telenovela, not a fantasy novel. Every scene has to advance the character arc or set up the plot in some way.

SJM isn't going to waste words writing an elaborate Elriel almost romance situation to end it in a bonus chapter. That's a waste of every single word.

Elain can't be there to just "add angst" for Azriel's arc. Rhysand can't have forbidden them to "add drama".

Like that is not a story.

There is only one way everything about that bonus chapter makes sense and that's to introduce Elain's book, AND cement Azriel as the LI. Gwyn is not there to be a LI for Azriel, she is there to advance the plot of the overall storyline.

[emma-o-yt]

Rick Riordan's problematic age gaps

Apparently reddit hates criticism because this got removed from there after a few minutes, maybe I can get it back up...anyways.

The age of consent in Texas is 17, Texas is where Rick lived (according to wikipedia) up until 2013. And yet...here we are.

Where do I even begin with this bullf*ckery? How about the most egregious of all?

Luke and Annabeth

We have two lines confirming their mutual feelings, one from The Demigod Diaries:

"Overtime, Annabeth developed a crush on Luke. As Annabeth got older, Luke developed feelings for her, too."

Mark of Athena (from her conversation with Venus):

"First there was Luke Castellan, her first crush, who had seen her only as a little sister; then he’d turned evil and decided he liked her—right before he died."

Now let me remind you, Annabeth and Luke have a seven year age difference, they knew each other at 7 and 14. By the time he died, Annabeth was just 16, while he was 23. And it's implied he begun returning her feelings a little before he asked her to run away, perhaps when she was 14. He's paralleled with Percy as Annabeth is his string in the river styx. He asks Annabeth explicitly if she loved him romantically (and she denies because Percy is there).

It's disgustingly inappropriate but at the very least they don't end up together...as for when they do...

Sadie Kane and Anubis

When it comes to immortal romance, I usually go for coded age. Anubis is thousands of years old but is mentally and physically 16, which is fine and dandy except for the fact that Sadie is 12. What do you want me to say except Rick is disgusting for promoting this.

Speaking of extreme age gaps:

Calypso and Leo

When you have a philosophy that every character must end up in a relationship, you run out of sensical options to pair up. Now, I'm a Caleo hater mainly because of how it retconned PJO and also because they are very toxic.

Now hold on, doesn't Caleo fall into coded age? Calypso is 15/16 and Leo is 15, so it's A okay! I suppose, if it wasn't for Calypso's past loves.

Odysseus, he had a wife and a son who was 20 years old in his final year on Ogygia, he is well into adult age. She also mentions the privateer Francis Drake and his wife Elizabeth, he was 45 when he married her.

If your defence is that she's actually thousands of years old, then that must also apply to Caleo. You cannot have it both ways.

Hazel and Frank

It's not that bad but it's necessary to mention for the point I will be making.

The timeline is messed up but I think they're 13 and 16 and meet at 12-15. I mean, come on.

Misogyny and Racism

What do these have in common? Well in 3/4 or 4/4, the younger one is female. In 2/4 or 3/4, the younger one is a person of colour.

Remember Nico? His crush on Percy as revealed in HoH? Well in MoA, there's a cheeky little red herring that happens a bit before Annabeth's talk with Venus (where it is revealed that Luke liked Annnabeth back). She wonders if Nico had a crush on her, but denounces him as too young. Now, Nico's age is inconsistent, I am unsure of his gap with Annabeth but I do know his gap with Percy. It's 3 years 5 months in PJO and 2 years 5 months in HoO (the series we are currently in).

So in RR's messed up mind, a white boy having a relationship with someone 2 to less than 4 years his senior is inappropriate. But a black tween girl dating someone 3 years her senior is just fine, a 12 year old biracial black girl dating a 16 year old is daijoubu, a 15 year old mestizo Latino boy dating an elderly woman is relationship goals, or the reverse a 15 year old girl dating middle aged men is a tragic romance and a 12 year old girl having mutual feelings with a 19 year old man is a "love story for the ages"!

The tv adaptation is so infuriating for this, they made Annabeth black, a lot of the changes they made came off as micro aggressions but especially her relationship with Luke. It's reduced to Luke simping for Annabeth behind her back and it's even worse because you can visibly see how large their age gap is. Heck, Charlie Bushnell and Leah Jeffries have a smaller age gap than book Luke and Annabeth.

Adultification is a huge real life issue. Children of colour and especially female children of colour are seen as less innocent than their white counterparts. Rick, who is dedicated to inclusivity should've known better than to include these illegal relationships. Stans will try and make excuses but it's there, deal with it.

As a black teenage girl who has been a fan of Rick's work for 12 years, I am disappointed.

[opbackgrounds]

The Romanticism of One Piece IV: Revolution

AO3 Part I Part III

“The difference between treason and patriotism is only a matter of dates.” ― Alexandre Dumas

When it comes to the idea of freedom in One Piece, there are two related yet separate tracts the manga takes. Both are worth looking into, and both have parallels within the broader Romantic movement. The first of these is the idea of personal freedom as exemplified by pirates. The other is the pursuit of systematic freedom by Dragon and the Revolutionary Army. Robin explains the difference between the two in the post-Enies Lobby arc. By raising the flag, pirates label themselves criminals as they go out to sea, but unless they’re the Straw Hats they don’t usually go around picking fights with the World Government. The goal of the Revolutionary Army, on the other hand, is to overthrow the Celestial Dragons, which would in essence end the World Government as it currently exists. 

I’ve seen criticisms thrown at the series that One Piece doesn’t go far enough in its revolutionary politics in that it’s not explicitly anti-monarchy. There are good kings and bad, and whether or not an island is a good place to live or not seems based more on the actions of individual people than the system overall. There are even strange cases like Iceburg who as mayor is in an elected position, but who also holds ridiculous power over the entire island’s economy after turning its biggest industry into a monopoly under his control. In the real world that would be a horrific amount of power for one person to hold, but because Iceburg himself is a good man, it doesn’t matter. 

While this train of thought is worth exploring, I think that many of these arguments miss the forest for the trees. One Piece is not a story told from the Revolutionary’s point of view. It’s a pirate manga that elevates any individual brave enough to dream. It’s through this lens that paragons of virtue like Iceburg are allowed to exist without being hashtag problematic. The Revolutionaries themselves sidestep much of the messiness that tends to follow real-world uprisings by having them portrayed as principled and virtuous to a fault. In chapter 1058 Dragon promises harsh disciplinary action against Sabo if it’s found that he killed King Cobra, when as an allied nation of the World Government, the king of Alabasta should technically be their enemy. 

This lionizing of individuals and specific institutions goes back to Mirriam-Webster’s 4a definition of romanticism, and as a children’s manga whose primary themes aren’t centered around systemic revolution, this simplicity is perfectly fine, although I personally think it would be more interesting if the Revolutionary Army was portrayed as more morally gray within the series. Despite this, there are also deliberate links between the Revolutionary Army and the historical Romantic movement. 

It starts at the very foundation of their concept and character design. Many of the highest ranking Revolutionary commanders have a European steampunk look to them, while Mariejois seems based on the Palace of Versailles. Oda would not have paired a shirtless man in a black feathered coat with a cravat had he not wanted to tap in at least a little into the design language of European historical fashion, and by extension, the French Revolution. This is best seen in the design of Belo Betty, who seems to be explicitly based on Eugune Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People, a French Romantic painting depicting a personified Liberty leading Frenchmen from all walks of life as they strive to overthrow the despotic King Charles X in the July Revolution of 1830.

The term French Revolution is itself wonderfully imprecise, as France has endured several revolutions, uprisings, and revolts. One does not go through two empires and four republics without a history of civil unrest, and to this day one of France’s favorite pastimes is protesting against the government about things they don't like. But for many scholars, the first of these Revolutions in 1789 was one of the major sparks of the Romantic movement, drawing sympathy from and giving inspiration to writers and poets throughout Europe. The Revolution itself was brought on by many factors, including writings of late Enlightenment/early Romantic writer Jean Jacques Rousseau, whose work The Social Contract pushed for for a free populous living under elected governments.

It seemed that all of Europe would follow suit. Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Poland, the German Confederation, and Northern Italy all saw liberal uprisings of some sort during the early 1800s. Some were successful, others weren’t, but all were instrumental in destabilizing the political landscape that had existed for centuries. This followed a process that had already started globally, as the United States, Haiti, and much of Latin America had already become independent of their colonial masters. There’s a push and pull that’s often seen between art and history, with one influencing the other in an eternal tug of war. Romantic artists painted the pursuit of freedom in a positive light, which inspired frustrated men and women to take up arms against governments they felt did not adequately represent them. In turn, these revolutionaries inspired the Romantics to write and paint about the heroic deeds they saw all around them. One of the most famous Romantics of all, Lord Byron, even died in 1824 after joining the Greek war for independence. Although Byron himself had no strong political ideology and thought all governments as equally bad, the mere act of revolution inspired his romantic spirit to take up arms and fight. 

While there is no real-world equivalent to the World Government of One Piece, the greatest atrocities committed within the manga have their basis in real life, including many of the cartoonishly evil acts of the Celestial Dragons. The Atlantic slave trade, genocide of indigenous peoples under colonial rule, and the crushing poverty of the underclasses were all everyday realities, and these were all things people fought against during this time of world-wide revolution.

Again, some of these movements were more effective than others, and not all of them required violence to achieve their goals. 1807 marked the end of the slave trade in England while in 1838 slaves were freed in British colonies across the world, something once thought unthinkable. In 1861 the tsar emancipated some 23 million Russian serfs, while the Romantic era in the United States ended with the American Civil war and its bloody quest to end chattel slavery in the States.

In a twist of irony, the very same political instability brought on by decades of war ensured that the Romantic movement in France developed later than it did elsewhere. By that time, the Reign of Terror and Napoleon’s wars split Romantics abroad, and several quietly distanced themselves from France and its Revolutions. It was in this post-Revolutionary world that Victor Hugo looked at the smoking wreckage left all around him and began writing Les Miserables. In the preface of this book, he writes, 

“So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation which, in the midst of civilization, artificially creates a hell on earth…so long as the three problems of the century - the degradation of man by the exploitation of his labour, the ruin of women by starvation and the atrophy of childhood by physical and spiritual night are not solved; so long as, in certain regions, social asphyxia shall be possible…so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, there should be a need for books such as this.”  

The three problems Hugo described exist now as they did then, and One Piece is in many ways a story of ordinary people with extraordinary dreams rising up above this artificially created hell to make a better world for themselves, and the people they care for. 

Other Romantics, disillusioned by a world that did not change as they would have liked, turned their search inward. For these, systematic change wasn’t the goal; personal freedom was. And it’s this inward, more spiritual journey that exemplifies the ideal pirate within the context of One Piece, as best seen by our main protagonist, Monkey D Luffy. 

[acourtofthought]

"Why would Gwyn be in the bonus chapter if she wasn't Azriel's endgame??"

I'd like to ask a better question. 🙋🏻‍♀️

Why would Elain be in the bonus chapter if she wasn't Azriel's endgame?

Objectively speaking - SJM has written the interaction with Elain and Azriel to be obviously - explicitly - romantic. They are about to jump each other in a hallway - like... there should be no question that these two want each other romantically.

The interaction with Gwyn - regardless of what people have theorized - is not inherently romantic. Azriel comes across Gwyn while she is training, then indirectly decides to regift a necklace to her (for whatever reason - mates, lightsinger, who cares), then pictures her smile. That interaction I could replace the names with Feyre & Cassian or Mor & Rhysand - and I wouldnt bat an eye. It's a platonic action/scene - regardless of how you interpret the deeper meaning.

Now realistically - if this Azriel POV was hinting at his book next and Gwyn as his endgame ... why would Elain be there???

Like first of all .... why would SJM introduce us to Azriel's endgame ... but start the chapter off with him down bad for ANOTHER WOMAN?

I don't know why SJM would do that... but let's just say that was her plan (for arguments sake). It still doesn't explain why she would use ELAIN.

It's not like them getting hot and heavy in a hallway was buildup for Elain's relationship with Lucien. Lucien didn't even see them - only Rhys did.

So why include Elain, of all people? Why not have it be some random woman at Rita's?

Why go through this elaborate setup of having Elain and Azriel wanting to kiss each other, having Rhysand intervene, order Azriel away -

Like if the end goal was to introduce Gwyn as a LI for Azriel - the first half of that bonus chapter is unnecessary. Nobody was 100% certain Elain & Azriel even wanted each other until that BC. It's not like they were entwined so explicitly on the page before the BC and SJM had to "tie up loose ends".

I'm sorry if this is annoying but one of the things I learned this year from working on my fantasy manuscript and having to cut down my word count - is that every single scene an author writes should have multiple purposes. You can't just add a scene for "drama". That's a telenovela, not a fantasy novel. Every scene has to advance the character arc or set up the plot in some way.

SJM isn't going to waste words writing an elaborate Elriel almost romance situation to end it in a bonus chapter. That's a waste of every single word.

Elain can't be there to just "add angst" for Azriel's arc. Rhysand can't have forbidden them to "add drama".

Like that is not a story.

There is only one way everything about that bonus chapter makes sense and that's to introduce Elain's book, AND cement Azriel as the LI. Gwyn is not there to be a LI for Azriel, she is there to advance the plot of the overall storyline.

"The end of a matter is better than its beginning"

"Where you start is not nearly as important as where you finish".

Elain's portion began the bonus and served it's purpose. To show Az in an unhealthy state of mind and fixating on the wrong things.

Gwyn's portion ended the bonus and will be the thing to set up Az's future. It is the first glimpse into him feeling the right things for the right reasons.

Gwynriels scenes didn't need to be romantic in order to feel right and that's all we really need to understand.

Both females were in the bonus to demonstrate wrong versus right. Unhealthy versus healthy.

[deception-united]

First, I love your blog!

Second, How do you go about writing about characters' sexualities and gender orientations without making it their defining and only characteristic?

Thank you!

Hi, and thank you so much! ❤

Writing Sexuality & Gender

The main thing to keep in mind here is to make their character just as complex and well-rounded as any other. Here's how I'd approach it:

1. Start with an overall profile.

One method that could work for you is to flesh out things like personality, motivations, backstory, hobbies, goals, fears, weaknesses, flaws, strengths, and their role in the story before deciding on this element of your character. Create a well-rounded profile before deciding on sexuality or gender orientation—and this is not to say that these traits are not just as important to a character's identity, but this approach could help avoid stereotyping or making their entire character built around that.

I've found this works well in other cases, as well; for instance, a comment on a previous post explained how they decided to make their character POC after they had finished developing their personality and backstory in order to avoid stereotyping. If you fully develop who they are as a person, their identity will naturally fit into their story rather than overshadow it. (See my post on character profiles for more tips and elements to include!)

2. Reveal it naturally.

Instead of flatly stating a character’s identity, try revealing it naturally through dialogue, behavior, or relationships. For instance, a character casually referencing a past girlfriend or sharing their pronouns during introductions feels more organic than an expository declaration.

3. Make it part of their experience.

While a character’s sexuality or gender may influence how they navigate the world, it doesn’t need to drive the entire plot unless the story is explicitly about those themes. The character might face societal or internal struggles, but they could also just be solving a mystery, pursuing a dream, going on a quest—give them a good, solid arc, like you would for any other character.

It's important to focus on relationships, too. Show how their orientation or gender plays into their relationships, whether romantic, platonic, or familial. Do they have a supportive best friend? A strained relationship with a family member? A mentor who’s helped them with self-acceptance? These sorts of dynamics will help add depth and make their identity feel woven into the overall fabric of their life.

4. Avoid the "token" trap.

If a character is the only one in the story with a specific identity, their representation can feel forced or spotlighted. Building a diverse cast with layered characters is important so you don't have a single character who's carrying the weight of representation on their shoulders.

5. Do your research.

If you’re writing about an identity outside your own experience, make sure you understand it deeply. Research lived experiences, read books or watch media by creators with that identity, and consult sensitivity readers to ensure your portrayal is respectful and accurate.

Overall, it's about portraying characters as whole, multifaceted people—to make their identities a significant part of them without being everything. Hope this helped!

Previous | Next

[zenkindoflove]

You guys do not want to go down the road of starting to make blanket declarations that specific ships are "problematic" and "triggering". And let me explain why.

ACOTAR fandom, in my experience, is notoriously very far removed from general fandom. It's big and dispersed across many platforms that weren't created around fandoms, and so a lot of people enter it having little to no experience in other fandoms.

This discourse about what is or isn't a problematic ship and what kind of person ships a couple like that is not new. Fandoms of yesterday yore have had long fights about this and a general consensus has emerged which is anytime you start playing the morality policing game around people having fun with fictional characters, everyone loses.

Let's take this situation with Elain Archeron Week which is explicitly banning submissions for Elain with characters who are canonically known to be abusive to a romantic partner. Generally, the spirit of character weeks are to be ship neutral and importantly a concept that has emerged from prior fandom morality policing debate is the term Ship and Let Ship. Which means just because something isn't YOUR ship doesn't mean you need to come up for reasons why it isn't CORRECT to ship.

So, you think it's morally incorrect and triggering for people to see Elain paired with an abuser or a "bad guy"? That is okay for your own personal beliefs but if you start making rules around it for something that is supposed to be inclusive where do you draw the line or what that means? How about pairing Elain with the guy who runs Night Court Abu Ghraib? A role that means he actually tortures people physically and mentally to the brink that they are forced to "confess" to crimes. Is that some how morally superior to another character who emotionally abused their partner and confined them to a house?

See. That didn't feel good. Now did it? Do you actually want to get into a discussion about which wrong is morally worse than the other? Especially when it concerns a character week that is supposed to be about positivity and people having fun because they love Elain and they love the different interactions she could potentially have with characters in fanon?

And that is the entire point. When it comes to fiction, we all will be seduced by characters who have done bad things. Things that will trigger people. But, and I mean this whole heartedly, no one else is responsible for your triggers but you. You are the only one who knows what you can and cannot handle. Your Mileage May Vary. Tumblr's tag filtering system is in part for this very reason because of how fandoms use tumblr.

When you have a fandom wide event space, generally it's a bad idea to start throwing up these judgmental rules around people's character interests and shipping habits. Of course, any event runner is entitled to do what they please. But you also have to expect those who are excluded or know people who will be excluded are going to have something to say about it.

I really think the entire ACOTAR fandom could benefit from getting curious for once and actually digging into the histories of fandom, fandom lore and vocabulary, and start learning from from fandom elders. If so, we'd all be able to navigate these situations with a shared language that recognizes that the primary goal of fandom is to have fun first. And everyone's fun is going to look different and each individual is responsible for deciding what their squicks and triggers are. And the whole point of a squick is to let someone know this thing bothers me personally but I understand if it doesn't bother you. That sort of back and forth empathy across each side is how fandoms don't burn down in flames and people don't feel shame about what they like in fiction.

Now any fandom event can make whatever rules they want. But what I already see is a bunch of people (e/riels) are now actually making posts about why others who ship Elain with Tamlin are morally inferior, disgusting, perverse, and bad people. But hear me out, someone can easily think and say the same thing about you and your ship and if that is the kind of environment you'd like to fuck around in, well, aren't we all the worse off for it.

[trianglesimpfordpines]

the thing is. i'm not really interested in arguing over whether or not "billford is canon," because we know the story of bill & ford and interpreting it as romantic or not romantic doesn't change much at this point. whatever they had, whether or not you personally view it as romantic, was very intense, had a profound effect on both of them, and was horribly abusive on bill's part.

deep friendships can be abusive and cause lifelong trauma, just as much as romantic relationships. so i'm not gonna be out here being like "um, billford is canon, cry about it" because it's not my business how any given individual fan goes about interpreting the semantics of their relationship.

that said, though, it's become very clear that romantic feelings between bill and ford are a valid and canonically plausible interpretation. no, that's not the same as "100% explicitly canon," and no, it doesn't mean you have to ship it. but it does mean that continuing to behave as though people who do interpret it as romantic are doing something morally and/or intellectually wrong by having this interpretaion is unreasonable.

since bill was abusive to ford either way, why is it that interpreting ford's feelings for him pre-betrayal as having been romantic in nature is viewed by some people as being Uniquely Problematic? like being interested in the dynamic of their still extremely toxic friendship is normal, but the second you read anything besides friendship into it suddenly you're crossing some sort of line into Trivializing Abuse?

because...like. romantic relationships get ugly in real life. frequently, in fact. it's a very well-known, extensively-documented phenomenon. and, while "the use of romance-coded language to describe bill and ford's relationship in tbob is just a joke" is also a valid and plausible interpretation, why is that Less Uncomfortable than the idea that ford could have been in love with bill? if the goal is to avoid acknowledging the unfortunate idea that a person can hold positive and affectionate feelings for their abuser, then shouldn't viewing them as ex-close-friends be just as bad as viewing them as ex-lovers? after all, platonic or queerplatonic feelings are not "a step down" from romantic feelings. friendship isn't a "lower" tier of love, just a different type.

and most of all, why is agreeing with the romantic interpretation still treated as if it means you can't possibly be taking the story (or ford's abuse) seriously? because this is a common thread i see in a lot of fandoms, not just gravity falls. the idea that applying a romantic or formerly-romantic lens to the relationship between two characters, especially two male characters, can ONLY be done out of a "zomg hawt yaoi 😍" mentality. again, i am not saying you have to ship them or view this interpretation as "canon," but i kinda wish people would spend a bit of time thinking of why, whenever somebody else does ship it, their immediate conclusion is that that somebody else must be a "brainrotted fujoshi" who can't possibly understand how serious abuse is.

like, why is it that so many people think "shipping" is some kind of uniquely frivolous thing that is fundamentally incompatible with (a) actually understanding the story, (b) engaging with any serious and/or uncomfortable themes in a mature or respectful manner, and (c) knowing when a ship is not realistically healthy?

why is it that saying "ford held very deep feelings of platonic affection and admiration for bill, and viewed him as his closest or only friend" all fine and dandy, even though this interpretation does not change the fact that ford once felt very positively about his abuser, but saying "ford was in love with bill" nosedives straight into Gross Icky Weird Freak behavior?

finally, a lot of billford shippers are people who've had personal experiences with abuse. as are a lot of people who are triggered by billford content and don't want to see it. this isn't because the shippers are problematic abuse-fetishizing fujoshis, nor is it because the non-shippers are coping and seething and refusing to acknowledge canon. it is, in fact, because different people, even different people with similar experiences and similar traumas, are going to have different reactions to seeing things that hit close to home in a fictional story. neither party is necessarily "wrong," nor are they necessarily invalidating the other.

and again. just to be absolutely clear. i view all three interpretations (romantic billford, qpr billford, & platonic billford) as valid. the one i personally go with is that ford was in love with bill romantically, but i do not think this is the One True Canon Interpretation. this post is not arguing about the canonicity of billford as a ship.

[canichangemyblogname]

“The show isn’t going to cater to your fan fiction fantasy 🤣.”

Yeah… no. See, that’s not the issue. 1.) I don’t read fanfiction; can also barely write it, 2.) the issue 100% is that this was very clearly intended to come out of the blue, but because it seems increasingly likely LFJ isn’t returning to the show, there is a lack of resolution. This breakup is result of Tommy’s insecurities in the relationship. He feels he’s gonna get left behind; have his heart broken. The breakup even surprises Tommy. It blindsides Buck, a character who has long been characterized by a listlessness and a lack of defined vision for his future. When his boyfriend breaks up with him because he doesn’t believe that Buck can actually see him in his future, the narratively weighty thing is for the characters to later—after processing this breakup and struggling with competing wants—confront that. But that seems so incredibly unlikely, so it feels more like they kiboshed this for some external reason rather than a narrative one.

Then there’s an issue with the follow through with themes. If this is the end-end— and that seems likely with LFJ’s departure from the show—there’s a lack of follow through on reoccurring themes in the show, like second chances, making one’s own happiness, and how “our people” make life worth it. If the goal is Buck’s return to a 1.0 era, that would be a stark and sharp character regression instead of growth for a character who has come a long way over 8 seasons, which is not narratively satisfying. And when it’s ONLY the bisexual character who ever gets arcs like this, and it’s explicitly because of some “he doesn’t know what he really wants” or “he can’t commit,” then the story isn’t original; it’s a stereotype. There’s also then a very jarring lack of follow through on changes to structure and style they had been planning to explore, like finding ways to integrate a Love Interest into non-romance and non-relationship storylines, being able to expand these characters through professional scenarios together, and that whole thing about Buck getting off the “hamster wheel.” All of these hinted at major structural changes to the way the show writes secondary characters, which would also have major implications for characters like Karen and Josh. This sort of shift, understandably, gets viewers invested in a new era of an EIGHT season show, and disappointed when these structural changes fail (repeatedly, may I add) to manifest.

It’s disappointing because it seems—due to casting changes beyond their control and of no fault of anyone— there won’t be any follow through on this purposefully sudden breakup. Even some upcoming confrontation between the characters could wrap up the tension left in the air. The narrative doesn’t need tropes or some rom-com ending to be narratively satisfying! It can end tragically and still fee resolved.

Most fans’ issue with this is that they did this for the short-term drama, not for the long-term story telling.

—Sincerely, a novelist (a VERY different writing form) who writes tragedies and recently finished a gay romantic tragedy that ends—well—with a break up.