#like yes OBVIOUSLY we can and should talk about the way writers view women and how often they let them do things and how some

[musical-chick-13]

"This fictional woman has no personality or features outside of her relationship to this male character!"

How she speaks is a feature. How expressive she is is a personality trait. How outwardly emotional she is or which emotions she displays to what intensity, and whether she moves around a lot and how tactile of a person she is are all personal traits and qualities. These will still be apparent even if all she is ever allowed to do within a story is talk about a man. Skill issue.

[qqueenofhades]

"The Middle Ages are seen as a bloodthirsty time of Vikings, saints and kings; a patriarchal society that oppressed and excluded women. But when we dig a little deeper into the truth, we can see that the "Dark" Ages were anything but. Oxford and BBC historian Janina Ramirez has uncovered countless influential women's names struck out of historical records, with the word FEMINA annotated beside them. As gatekeepers of the past ordered books to be burned, artworks to be destroyed, and new versions of myths, legends and historical documents to be produced, our view of history has been manipulated."

Okay this is from the book blurb and I'M MAD THAT THIS IS A POTENTIAL AWARD WINNER. LIKE. HAVE YOU LITERALLY READ NOTHING ELSE ON THE MIDDLE AGES? EVER?? "THE [DARK] MIDDLE AGES ARE SEEN AS A BLOODTHIRSTY OPPRESSION OF WOMEN" AGAIN, ACCORDING TO WHO? THE GAME OF THRONES WRITERS? HAVE YOU TALKED TO ANY MEDIEVAL HISTORIANS?

Also, I just discovered that I answered an ask about this book a while ago. It is here. At the time, I was to say the least, skeptical. I am even more skeptical now. I did have this excellent line, which sums it up:

She’s published a few other books and lectured at top UK universities, so she does have actual credentials. However, and this may be just me, I always get a little bit twitchy when historians with other primary specialties decide to parachute into the “medieval women were oppressed and I should write a book about it” arena [...] Yet again, though, I’m getting a little tired of historians announcing that we don’t know much about medieval women, while standing in front of all the evidence about medieval women that they’re using to sell a book.

(Also, there's a discussion in there about the level of power that a woman has to have in the first place in order to be "written out," and how that doesn't prove what the author thinks it proves. So yes, I would advise also reading that ask for more context.)

As noted: Janina Ramirez does have a terminal degree; however. Her PhD is in the medieval artistic and literary symbolism of birds. She is primarily an art historian. I have nothing against art historians! But it also makes me think that premodern social and gender studies is not her primary field of research and that wading into this complex and delicate subject of interpreting and dealing with medieval texts just to make a simplistic argument about "the Dark Ages erased women hurr hurrr" is.... ill-advised. I have not read this book; frankly, I will not read this book. But why is it that after all the excellent work done by actual specialists in this subject, which have pushed the study and debate on medieval women to fascinating and useful new heights, the book that gets widespread attention/acclaim is the one that regurgitates the most basic stereotypes???

No, this is not entirely the author's fault (if nothing else, it makes you wonder if there is a single actual medievalist on the Cundill History Prize's panel of judges.) She wrote a book that people want to read, covers a timely topic and which has achieved considerable popular success. But this "all of history has always been maliciously revised to take all the women out of it and I am the only person who has ever noticed this" approach is... not my favorite. To say the least. It doesn't contribute to our actual understanding of the past or our own relation to it, and it totally undoes the work of said other gender and social historians, who then have to roll the "see? This award-winning book says the Dark Ages totally erased women and good thing we never do that today in Enlightened Modernity!!!" boulder all the way up the hill from the start. UGH! Maybe this is the fault of the blurb writer, because this is a terrible fucking description for anything aspiring to be a piece of serious history. Maybe it's not. I REPEAT, UGH!

Obviously and as is my standard disclaimer every time this topic arises: yes, there was misogyny, patriarchy, and discrimination in the past. Yes, it systematically and seriously impacted women's lives. But the actual state of the field is doing so much more interesting and useful work here! What about, say, Gendering the Master Narrative: Women and Power in the Middle Ages (revised 2018), which explores this same subject in a much more nuanced way, examining how medieval women interacted with the mechanisms of social power both successfully and unsuccessfully, rather than just arguing that they were sometimes written out of texts (which itself doesn't actually prove how this was received, because there's a huge gap between the mere existence of texts and their actual application in real life etc etc. /captainholtvoice APPARENTLY THAT'S A TRIGGER FOR ME.) How about Medieval Elite Women and the Exercise of Power, 1100-1400: Moving Beyond the Exceptionalism Debate, which explores how women could and did use power and it wasn't something that rested only on their "extraordinary" personal volition but was customarily and regularly available??? Or Relations of Power: Women's Networks in the Middle Ages???

Basically: "hurr hurr the Dark Ages deliberately wrote all Evil Women out of narratives and that therefore means they were forgotten and actually had no agency and all our myths got rewritten until the modern day" is a supremely Bad Take on every level, everyone involved should feel Bad, who the hell picked this book to longlist for a prestigious prize, etc etc., my suffering is eternal. Alas.

.... Femina (one of those popular-history The Past Totally Involved Women Being Erased All The Time!!! books by a lite-history BBC presenter) being longlisted for the Cundill History Prize (a prestigious history-writing prize, obviously) MAKES MY EYE TWITCH REAL BAD.

[olderthannetfic]

One anti talking point that I don't often see addressed specifically is that many antis are coming from the perspective of, "racism and homophobia are bad and should not exist in media, and therefor these other things I think are bad also shouldn't exist in media." Idk if this is common all over but it's really common in my corner of fandom, especially since many of the fans are POC and/or queer and have experienced the effects of negative stereotypes and misinformation spread by mainstream media.

Obviously fandom and mainstream media are two totally different arenas and can't really be compared on that level, and also racism and incest aren't really comparable either, but I was wondering if other people have seen this specific argument and have any other takes on it.

--

Yes, those takes are very common.

Most people are well-meaning, but this kind of thing often gets weaponized by assholes. The biggest problem with such arguments, in my experience, is that the "bigotry" a lot of people point to is badwrong porn with a person of that demographic or else a story that deals with bigotry.

--

For big publishers, I think it can be quite fair to say "Hey, the author tried to write about this serious topic, but they did a piss poor job of it, and the editors should have done something about that!"

Admittedly, some of the times people say this, I think they're wrong that this particular work is poorly done, but the theory is sound. Because this is a commercial work, because it's big time, and because it had not just an author giving it the okay but multiple levels of agent, editor, etc., I think it's fair to say "Look, if you can't do it better than this, don't do it."

For fic, "You have to be at least this talented/skilled to ride this ride" is a much more contentious statement. Should we be telling some 16-year-old black girl that she can't write about tough subjects because she's kind of a crappy writer still? If she gets called out for racism, should we demand that she reveal her identity? Yikes, yikes, yikes.

Many complaints about fic that handles things poorly are really complaints about lack of skill, and that opens a huge can of worms in this amateur context.

--

Many other complaints are like "You wrote rape fantasy about this character, so that must mean you're a racist who believes this stereotype". This is moronic and clearly not valid.

Quite a few people arguing this genre of argument seem to also spout a lot of radfem talking points without realizing it. They claim to be sex-positive because that's a buzzword we think is good, but they don't understand anything about common sexual fantasies and how untidy and messed up they tend to be.

--

Some complaints are like "Racist porn contributes to societal racism". This one's more complicated.

I think that Big Black Cock type live action mainstream porn does contribute to societal racism. I don't just say that because it's playing with racist tropes but because we have a certain amount of evidence that 1. the target audience is white racists who hold these exact views and who are looking for confirmation of them and 2. the black performers get treated poorly on set. 2 is especially objectively clear and a big problem. We've seen black porn stars speak out about this issue.

Does the small amount of fanfic that actually plays with tropes of this type contribute in the same way? I doubt it, but it's reasonable to have questions.

Just given how humans are, there are going to be ethnic minorities with bigotry kinks the same way there are plenty of women horny for misogynist denigration in their porn. Any reasonable approach to this kind of thing needs to balance these perfectly normal fantasies with the need to not promote shitty ideology or mistreat performers.

That said, the majority of fic accused of being this is... well...

Full offense, it's clear that many people bitching about AO3 do not actually know what standard porn tropes look like in any non-AO3 context. A character having a size kink for feeling full or a character having a big or small penis without the other markers of racist kink is not the same thing. Anti-African American stereotypes are not identical to other racist stereotypes. In some cases, there's a lot of overlap. In others, there's very little.

Many fandom complaints about bad content sound like they come from dumb teenagers who've just heard of these tropes for the first time and who are reeeeeeaching to prove that they apply to their NOTP so they can win a ship war.

I am a lot more open to listening to theorizing on these topics from people who actually know what they're talking about, and that means a broad knowledge of porn and erotica and fic outside of AO3.

[incomingalbatross]

I chose to half-watch 1.04 Emancipation, write up notes, and post them all at once, this time. Partly because I am Not Really Invested in this ep and didn’t think I’d have as much to say... But there are early team dynamics!

Daniel starts to introduce Jack but stops dead as he visibly realizes he doesn't know whether he should use his name or his title. I like that.

Kssh, Daniel is still referring to Sam as "Doctor Carter." He also addresses her as “Doctor” later... I’m going to be pondering Daniel and Names at some point, I think.

Daniel called Jack "COLONEL" in direct address  in a Tense Situation that's SO WEIRD, BUDDY. THAT’S WEIRD. It’s not like he DOESN’T call him Jack normally... but I think he’s Deferring To His Authority here?? Again, WEIRD to hear on multiple levels.

Ooh, no, not the Scary Culture That Thinks Women Can't Exist Outside The House!! Mongolians deserve better.

Jack's so pleased with himself for having a Gun.

Today in "Daniel does NOT know everything": him nerding out about this tribe showing "a way of life that's been extinct for 900 years" when there are still nomadic Mongolian peoples out there TODAY who've retained a lot of traditional continuity. Buddyyyy. I know it’s the writers who didn’t know this, but I’m still holding you partly responsible here.

…Not sure where I stand on the "Sam dressing like the other women" thing. On the one hand obviously it IS a good idea to not give offense to your new diplomatic/trading contacts, and there's nothing morally WRONG in adhering to their standards of dress. On the other hand, it's sending the message that the Tau'ri agree with this tribe's view of women, and do we want to compromise ourselves like that?

Anyway. They dressed Sam up to the NINES. I refuse to believe that's normal attire for the tribe.

I DO like the guys being apparently Stunned Into Silence By Her Makeover because A) they’re not going to actually change the dynamic because of it and B) it means they’re arguably more off-balance than Sam, who’s really just grumpy about the whole thing.

I would like Jack and Daniel's teasing better (mild though it is) if this were a later episode, though, where they had stronger team camaraderie. Here it comes off as potentially more rude because I don't know that they're FRIENDS as opposed to colleagues. In a later season it would be absolutely fine.

SIDE NOTE. The team: *talking about this tribe and how they treat women while, themselves, ignoring the OTHER NATIVE WOMAN IN THE TENT as if she's furniture* ???????? Guys???? SAM????

Aw, Jack hangs back to make sure Carter IS okay. And to clarify that her "looking great" wasn't just teasing, it was genuine. Good CO. (This is not a ship comment, it is a “Jack making sure his team’s okay” comment.)

DANIEL, stop arguing and GO FIND SAM. (Or "Captain Doctor Carter.")

Jack is in "MY OFFICER is ABDUCTED" mode and I like that, among other things, he's insisting on respect for her a lot more now. No one gets to even unintentionally or indirectly insult her if she’s actually vulnerable somewhere.

Annnd the "Sam is a magnet for questionable aliens" trend begins, sadly. I mean, she IS lovely, obviously, but why is it a given that this guy will think so? (Especially when he hasn't seen her SMILE.)

Hrgh. This isn't a Space Whale Aesop but it isn't much of a NORMAL Aesop either. What's the message? "Women aren't property?" GROUNDBREAKING.

Aw, Daniel. Dropping the cultural relativity when put on the spot AND trying to sneakily promote other, better Mongolian traditions re: women. ("We don't own our women." "Truly?" "YES. --Um… and we heard…stories, about the Shavadai women, that once they were free. Some might even have been warriors, that fought alongside their men.") THERE'S my guy.

Okay, I can get behind their culture being negatively affected by trying to survive and protect their people from the Goa'uld. Even things that had a reason can get twisted into abuses very very easily, and surviving the Goa'uld SHOULD leave marks on these cultures!

…Not sure I buy this particular justification was ever fully honest, but that's a different point.

Daniel, finding Common Ground with the relatively-decent chief: "Wait, you love your wife? :D I love MY wife! We're friends now" (he didn’t SAY that but I can tell he was THINKING it. Buddy)

Sam can't cook or spin or weave (though I bet she’d like some fiber crafts, they have math!!), but she CAN ride a horse! Nice.

Oh, sure, Evil Chieftain, just rip someone's clothing when you're going to beat them. Clothing is VALUABLE and that's one of your tribe that will have to keep wearing it later, are you cruel AND wasteful??

Oh boy, Sam's first sexual assault!! *glares* It was ""only"" a forced kiss, but it was still unnecessary.

TEAL'C is the first one to say "If we wait until morning to rescue her, what will happen to Captain Carter tonight?" Given this is Teal'c still at his most stoic-and-silent stage, I'm proud he was so quick to speak up here.

Raising my eyebrow at the fact that Sam called herself a "scholar" and Daniel described her as a "shaman"... Again, I think, we see the difference between Sam's desire to just express HERSELF and Daniel's desire to meet strangers where they're at. As general approaches, they both have their points. (Of course, since you don't KNOW where a stranger's at, you risk making a fool of yourself by talking down. I think Daniel's word choice here is unnecessarily… exoticized? And his assumption that they believe in "spirits" could have gotten him lauged at in a different ep. But whatever.)

Negotiations: *go poorly* Jack: time to bring out my Gun again. (He’s fired his handgun for effect THREE TIMES this ep and he’s Smug about it. Can’t blame him, though.)

Wait, they're saying they've had other missions offscreen? Interesting? I’m not sure I can reconcile that in my head, but... it’s superior, I think, to shows that insist for no reason that NOTHING worth seeing has EVER happened to the characters offscreen, eliminating time jumps completely.

...Idk, I think literally calling romantic love "the madness" is a little… on the nose. A little YA Dystopia Worldbuilding. Yanno??

We see a little more Daniel Mediation. Good stuff. I appreciate it. Didn’t get a chance for that in the Children or Enemy. 

Pfft, Sam challenges the guy to a fight and we get the Moving Stargate Theme.

Sam, internally: I get to fight I get to fight I get to FIGHT THIS GUY HECK YEAH LET'S GO

A) of course it's a fight to the death, Jack, did you think these people were likely to go with anything less?? B) ASK THE RULES FIRST. YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. HAVE YOU EVER WATCHED STAR TREK OR NOT.

Except apparently it’s NOT, really, because Sam’s not urged or expected to kill her opponent once SHE’S defeated HIM. Hmph. Some hyperbole there.

Yay, we brought about lasting cultural change in an apparently-stable system in just a few days! How lucky we just HAPPENED to meet up with a local leader who already secretly really wanted those same changes! This isn't contrived!

...Anyway. Worldbuilding was heavy-handed, Sam could have been a Strong Female Character a lot more easily if she’d just been allowed to, you know, be herself and do her job without all this fuss (which the show largely lets her do after this, so great!), and I’m not terribly pleased with Daniel here even if he got his head on straight when it mattered. Also Teal’c wasn’t nearly enough of a presence, but. Again. Early days for him, he’d mostly rather just loom.

(Oh! And this is the source of Teal’c’s classic line, “What is an ‘Oprah’?” So I can’t complain too much.)

Sam worked through the plot okay, though, and escaped feeling like a mouthpiece or like somebody’s idea of someone else’s mouthpiece. It felt like she was just genuinely trying to do her job and responded to these stupid situation like a human being—even better, she didn’t feel like any human being other than Sam to me, even though this is Early Days. Also, the costumes were pretty, and we established that the SGC is establishing trade relations with extraterrestrial cultures! Which is good worldbuilding I’m happy to have.

In conclusion: not great, not horrible. Kinda just there.

Next ep is Caveman Time! Also not quite top-tier Stargate, but I’m looking forward to some elements of it a lot more, and it is good old-fashioned corny sci-fi.

[your-brilliant-lady-m]

Part 4 - Basic Concepts of Miraculous Ladybug: Glamour

You can call it however you want: kid's show logic, superhero disguise logic, magical girl show logic, cartoon laws, suspension of disbelief, etc. But the fact that nobody recognises Marinette, Adrien and others when they are suited up IS NOT BAD WRITING. It's one of the main laws of this genre. That's not because characters are stupid, okay? So, being frustrated that everyone in the show acts stupid about this "wearing a mask that covers only eyes" trope is strange. This criticism is not valid or fair.

But, this trope has to make sense in-universe as a worldbuilding and narrative element.

Miraculous doesn't give us much direct information on how glamour works. And in this case, I think we need both SHOW and TELL. Because if you don't establish the glamour rules clearly, you are going to run into problems and create unfortunate implications with your storytelling choices.

Appearance

Miraculous obviously gives our heroes magical glamour. In "Lady WiFi" we find out that masks can't be taken off. It's magic. No other explanation is needed.

Miraculous can slightly change the appearance of users (eyes, face shape, height and hairstyles). People can identify and notice the hairstyles of heroes (numerous Ladybug wigs, statue in Copycat). Jagged Stone points out the change of hair when he mistakes Chloe for Ladybug ("Antibug"). But it's just a costume. There is no magic that prevents Jagged from understanding that Chloe isn't Ladybug. So, how does it work? But it's forgivable because it's cartoon logic. Suspension of disbelief works here, I suppose. I won't judge this too harshly.

Glamour also obviously prevents people from making a connection that Marinette and Ladybug have identical hairstyles. So people know that Ladybug wears her hair in pigtails, but magic does not allow them to notice similarities.

Another important question. Does glamour work on Kwamis? Can they see who is behind the mask?

New York Special makes it clear that magic does not affect robots and they can see through glamour. Does that mean that Markov, AI built by Max, knows the identities of Ladybug and Chat Noir? And it's never addressed.

Plagg in "Frightningale" says that holders can subconsciously choose their superhero appearance. This is actually pretty interesting and I like this idea a lot. Except the show is not consistent with this. The transformation of Master Fu looks identical to Nathalie's. And we have seen how different from each other Ladybug and Black Cat holders looked in the past. At the same time, Master Fu and Nino have different takes on Turtle superhero suit.

Age Glamour

Does age glamour exist? Do people see Ladybug, Chat Noir and other heroes as adults even when they look like teenagers to the audience (their height and build are smaller even when they are transformed)? Is that why no one ever questions the fact that children nearly die on a daily basis?

I mentioned unfortunate implications earlier. Well, this is where they come into play. Let's talk about "Copycat". A lot of people discussed it before me, so I won't bore you with details.

When I watched "Copycat" for the first time Theo's crush on Ladybug didn't bother me, because I thought that he sees Ladybug as his peer, a girl who is about 20-23 years old. Theo is an artist, his character design is that of an adult. He has his own studio, its appearance indicates that he did serious commissions in the past. The guy has no idea that Ladybug is like 13.

But then we get "Heroes' Day" and "Ladybug". And Hawkmoth calls them "kids", which means that there is no age glamour. Others see Ladybug and Chat Noir as teenagers. Perhaps, other Miraculous users aren't affected by age glamour. Therefore regular people see all heroes as adults but other heroes are able to guess their age more or less correctly. But you must spell this thing out because the audience can interpret "Copycat" differently. If there is no age glamour, then Theo is crushing on a teenage girl and he is fully aware of this fact. And this doesn't look good for your show.

The "No Age Glamour" theory is further confirmed in "Sapotis" where Alya just straight up analyses voice recordings and says that Ladybug is a girl their age. If glamour exists then it should also cover technology. Kwami can't be photographed. Face and voice recognition software shouldn't be able to analyse transformed superheroes and detect their identities in any way.

Besides, after "Sapotis" Alya should definitely be sure that Ladybug is not 5000 years old (also not an adult), especially after she wore Miraculous herself and was one door away from detransformed Ladybug.

SEASON 4 UPDATE! There's no age glamour after all.

In "Furious Fu" Su Han calls Chat Noir a child without knowing his identity. It means that everyone knows their superheroes are teenagers. "Copycat" can't be saved from that, uh, subtext anymore. No one questions the danger of their job or the balance of their lives outside of the mask. No one doubts their competence after "Origins" ever again. No one becomes annoyed after being bossed around by two teenagers in spandex. You had many opportunities to drop these details into the narrative. Someone could have been akumatized over this (I will not be ordered around by some magical kids!).

I don't know why writers decided not to use at least this idea and slightly adjust "Copycat" if they got rid of the age glamour completely. It can be explained as kid's show logic, but unfortunately, I'm reluctant to do it. If many characters sympathise with akuma victims on-screen, why not with the teenage superheroes who must fight them?

New York Special had this weird focus on collateral damage out of nowhere (the damage done by sentimonster Robostus) and yet it has 0 effect on the main story. No one in Paris is pissed that their 2 teenage protectors weren't there.

Ironically, "Furious Fu" and that one remark made by Su Han also created unfortunate implications for other moments in the show. Just hear me out. Apparently, Jagged Stone wrote a "thank you" song for Ladybug knowing that she is 13-15 year old child back in "Pixelator". Fandom is more than happy to roast Lila for lying about saving Jagged Stone's cat and him writing her a "thank you" song. Fandom claims that Lila's tale could harm Jagged's reputation, when he wrote a song for teenage Ladybug several weeks prior. Meanwhile, in-universe this lie is 100% believable.

If we put on "realism glasses", then both this whole song situation and Theo's crush in "Copycat" have uncomfortable implications. However, the show's canon can't be viewed and criticised through "realism glasses". I admit that bits and pieces of my criticisms are affected by these "glasses", but, ultimately, I'm trying to be fair and concentrate only on things that can't be justified by "cartoon logic and worldbuilding".

Could the existence of age glamour solve this problem of unfortunate implications and other concerns mentioned above? YES. Is it better for the narrative? YES. Is essential for the story? NOT QUITE. Could the absence of age glamour be called an irredeemable storytelling flaw? NO.

Disclaimer: On a side note, only older audience can notice these implications. Children, the target audience, most likely won't understand this subtext simply because they don't have enough experience. So, perhaps, this criticism is unfair, because these moments only look weird to me as an adult. It's like an adult joke in a cartoon that you don't get until you reach a certain age.

There's nothing technically wrong with adult writing a "thank you" song for a teenager. It's just an expression of gratitude. However, unfortunately, we live in a world, where adults normally wouldn't write songs for teens to express gratitude only. In real life similar actions would imply pedophilia and would be actively scorned by the public. No one would risk their reputation like that even if their intentions were genuinely pure and sincere. But this show can't be viewed through "realism glasses", because it's a cartoon and in certain cases we as the audience must use suspension of disbelief and pretend that certain things are possible for plot to happen.

Su Han also wants to give Ladybug and Black Cat to adults. Why didn't Master Fu do this then? Writers don't give us any explanation. Throughout the show we never question this up until the moment it's revealed that adults don't have time-limited powers. Then comes "Furious Fu". Story suddenly becomes self-aware here. Because apparently nothing prevented Fu from giving the most powerful Miraculous to adults who won't have time limit and will be more effective against Hawkmoth (see part 3 for more details).

I have a very good example of Age Glamour done right. It works in the story. There is no confusion or unfortunate implications. There is like one plothole connected to the glamour (it's been years and I still can't forgive them for Cornelia and Caleb) but otherwise, it's a pretty solid example of both show and tell. Clearly, writers wanted to avoid uncomfortable implications which are present in "Copycat". I am talking about W.I.T.C.H. comic books and animated series.

If you are not familiar with it, I'll give you a brief explanation. The story follows 5 girls, the Guardians of Kandrakar who are chosen to protect their world and parallel ones from evil. They receive magical powers from the amulet known as the Heart of Kandrakar. Their powers are based on elements: fire, water, earth, air and energy. Our main characters are about 13-15 years old. In the animated series they are younger and they attend middle school, making them 12-14 years old. But the transformation makes them look 18-20. They look like young women to each other and to other people. At the same time, people can recognise them, their looks and voice don't change. Most people don't know that they are really teenagers when they are not transformed and these people don't know that magic can make them look older. That's why everyone treats Guardians like adults when they are transformed. Comics establish this fact in the very beginning. In first issues characters state that they look older, we are also shown this multiple times.

In fact, one of the first side plots revolves around the fact that Irma uses her powers to sneak into the disco club to meet up with her crush. Irma is 13 at the beginning of the series, she is a high school freshman. Her crush, Andrew Hornby is a senior guy 17-18 years old. Irma has liked him for a long time and wants to impress him, so she decides to be clever about this. She transforms into her Guardian form of the 18-year-old girl, hides her wings, sneaks out to the club after her parents are asleep without any problem, and meets Andrew, who obviously doesn't recognise Irma in this girl who looks about his age. Smitten Andrew offers her a ride and 13-year-old Irma doesn't understand the implication of that offer, so she accepts. And, obviously, he decides that she is interested in more than just a ride home, since she agreed, and the comic implies that he fully intended for them to have sex in the backseat of his car. But Irma understands the implication only when Andrew tries to kiss her. She panics and turns him into a frog. And she actually pulls this "I need to look mature" trick more than once over the course of the series.

It's not the only situation where this age difference is handled well and makes sense. People who know the main characters in everyday life remark on their older appearance during transformation. Sometimes people flirt with Guardians when they are transformed. In one of the side-novels centred around Cornelia, she is worried that the prince of the realm they helped to save from famine would try to marry her. That never happens, but Cornelia actually brainstorms with her friends about how to tell the prince that she is really 15.

There are many other plot points where this happens, but I think that you got the idea. I really like how "Age Glamour" was handled in W.I.T.C.H.

How do we fix this? Create the situations where people offhandedly mention "Age Glamour" in the presence of Marinette or Adrien, use Kwami for this.

"Don't worry, dear. Chat Noir and Ladybug are adults, who know what they are doing. I am sure that they will handle this. "

Theo could say: "Oh, I wonder which university Ladybug goes to?"

"So, does that mean that other people see us as grown-ups, Tikki?"

A few words and boom, problem solved. Then allow the "show don't tell" rule do the rest.

[jebazzled]

They can’t ALL be serial killers: keeping your villains funky fresh

Ah, villains. Spicy assholes. Tricky buggers.

Villains can be very intimidating to write: writing requires you to put yourself in the shoes of another person, which is one thing to do with a decent person. But when you are putting yourselves in the shoes of a bad one - whether it be someone who is simply not very likeable or someone who functions in an antagonistic capacity to a story or rp universe’s hero - well, it can be uncomfortable. 

I didn’t start writing villains until well into my rp career, and I can’t think of a single character I wrote in my undergraduate creative writing degree who was an asshole. I now write a small handful of them - and like most things, I don’t think writing a villain is quite as scary as we sometimes build it up to be in our minds!

That said, writing a villain is an exercise in nuance, and this is something that is often missing from antagonistic characters. In this tutorial, we’ll talk about what makes a villain, and what makes a villain a well-rounded character. 

Triggers, mentioned largely in passing as examples: criminal activity, murder, assault, child abuse, car accident, drunk driving, animal abuse

What makes a villain?

Generally, when we talk about villains, it’s in the context of a narrative, some sort of overall plot theme where there is Good and there is Evil. Think: Death Eaters, the Dark Side, the Horde, the Daleks, the Orcs, etc, etc etc. For the purposes of this tutorial, I’m talking about characters who serve in that antagonistic role, but everything can also be applied to characters who are just shitty people without a part to play in any larger scheme. 

In a plot context, per Oxford Languages, a villain is “a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot.” To be important to the plot, you do have to post, and if that’s something you’re struggling with, you might want to check out my Writer’s Block TED Talk ;)

A villain can have any number of reasons for being Like That: perhaps they were raised with a particular worldview, or were targeted by a negative influence at an impressionable and vulnerable stage, or genuinely believe they are doing the right and good thing. Maybe they’re just an asshole. In-character, your character likely doesn’t identify as a villain (because everyone is the hero of their own story) and in-character, your character might have friends, allies, and others with varying knowledge of your character’s misdeeds. 

However, out-of-character, you and other writers should recognize that your character is a shitty person. Writing one-dimensional, universally terrible assholes isn’t much fun, though. Which is where nuance comes in. 

Give your character other traits than “evil.” 

Unless your character is THE Big Bad - the Voldemort, the Sauron, the Hordak Prime - there is no reason for them to be Ultimate Evil, and writing them as an endless wash of evil will be boring for you to write and boring for other people to read. Your character should be something other than naughty. 

Using my own handful of villains/bad guys as examples, since obviously I take my own advice, and with apologies that 99% of my rp writing is in the HP verse:

Claude is a Death Eater as well as second-in-command of the magical mafia. He’s an expert blackmailer, has no qualms with murder, and can get pretty gruesome about it if he’s pressed to make a point. He also doesn’t drink, is a devoted father (has framed finger paintings in his study! drinks the pink lemonade his daughters love in crystal rocks glasses!), uses weird slang (”beat it, bozo!”) and takes the family spaniel on daily walks through Kensington Gardens. 

Cleo is a Death Eater and a lifelong bully, prone to theft, physical abuse, and with a knack for the Cruciatus Curse. She’s also deeply insecure, with an unshakeable need to be seen as useful; she’s competitive, and she’s horny enough to drop her purist pretense if a Muggle girl is what’s easiest to get her rocks off. 

Sadie is a squib spying on Order-organized safehouses for the Death Eaters. She’s also intensely curious and ambitious, determined and self-directed, and if she doesn’t understand emotions, it certainly doesn’t stop her from understanding how to manipulate them to maintain the illusion that she is not a threat. 

All three of these character concepts are more compelling than:

Veronica is rude, hates people, is outwardly mean to everyone she meets, uses cultural slurs on the regular.

We get it! Veronica is a shitty person! What else is she? In real life, shitty people typically do find camaraderie somewhere, somehow. Maybe Richie is a total asshole but has made a lot of money from his hedge fund, and he is generous enough with his yacht, ski condo, and jet that he has an entourage he thinks are genuinely his friends. Maybe Kaiytlynn is selfish and entitled, but her access to the entire royal family of Spain keeps her gainfully employed, and she’s genuinely good with her bedazzled bra business. Maybe Claudia is a giant racist, and she’s also YouTube’s most popular craft video creator. 

In real life, maybe there are some shitty people who exhibit fully antisocial behaviors and are rewarded for it. But this is fiction writing, and moreover, it is collaborative fiction writing, and Veronica is not a character who is fun or enjoyable to plot with. Antagonistic plots can have more trouble finding their footing than strictly romantic ones - but they can be fun and rewarding, provided that the antagonist is a compelling one. 

Let your character be something other than “evil.”

Give your character a cover.

More specifically than a trait other than “evil,” give your character a cover. By this I mean: give your character an angle that obscures their true colors, something that lures people - good people and bad people - into a sense of safety. 

Give your character something that keeps other characters from taking one quick look at yours and immediately clocking them as a bad guy. 

In real life, it often takes time to realize toxic people are toxic. In real life, people enjoy circumstances that make people less likely to view them as toxic - just look at the number of people who think Jeff Bezos’s obscene wealth is a marker of his merit as a human being. 

If your character commits a murder a week, is actively abusive to everyone they meet, and has no relationships with any other characters who might vouch for them - idk, man, I think your character is going to get caught! If your character is a quiet and unobtrusive owner of a vintage boutique, however? Well, they certainly don’t scream “IT’S ME! I’M BAD TO THE MOTHERFUCKING BONE!”

In the case of my bad guys:

Claude is a doting husband and father, notably not ascribing to purist tendencies that discourage women from work outside the home. He does legitimate work in real estate and investments, in addition to his shady dealings, to have a legally-sound paper trail should he ever be investigated. His family money funds an entire wing at St. Mungo’s Hospital, and he contributes to political campaigns for centrist politicians. He presents as a harmless goofball. He killed a man well before he turned seventeen. He almost went to Azkaban before graduating from Hogwarts. (”Oh, but he’s on the straight and narrow now!”)

Claude’s cover is that he masquerades as a genuinely good person, and a nice person. When people think about his old-money Sacred 28 family and what that might mean for Claude’s political activity, they also think about how he is a Gryffindor - not known for churning out Death Eaters - and they think about how he doesn’t seem intense enough to be a Death Eater. They don’t suspect enough to have much to go on. 

Cleo works as an Auror, and she’s genuinely good at her job - if only because she manipulates cases away from incriminating Death Eaters and their allies and occasionally Imperiuses a contact or two from her days as a Knockturn Alley bouncer to frame them for a crime. She doesn’t use slurs like “mudblood” at the office and doesn’t talk about blood status there, either. She doesn’t pretend to be nice, and her honesty there makes it easier to believe she’s not pretending when she does her job. It helps, too, that she is not Marked. 

Cleo’s cover is that while she seems like an asshole and is an asshole, she works in the agency tasked with eliminating Dark wizards and she’s good at her job, as far as anyone can tell. She is an asshole, but there isn’t reason to suspect she is an asshole who is part of the Death Eaters, and it is not illegal to be a dick.

Sadie goes out of her way to be friendly to every new safehouse occupant, acting as a guide to newbies about how to live in the shadows. She performs the role of caretaker, therapist, and confidant, carefully doling out the reveal that she is a squib for sympathetic effect. 

Sadie’s cover is that she manipulates other people into viewing her as too weak to be any kind of threat, and she intentionally manipulates people into relying on her for support and guidance. 

If your character is not experiencing social repercussions for being an asshole, they need to have a cover. If they are being an outright asshole, this should negatively impact them somehow. 

An outright asshole might be stuck in a dead-end job because no one wants to promote someone who’s not a team player. An outright asshole might be super lonely without the self-awareness to realize that their garbage personality is the reason for their romantic troubles. An outright asshole might not be able to talk their way out of a problem. 

If your character is an outright asshole and experience no repercussions whatsoever, they’re probably a bit OP. 

Give your character a motive. 

Now the big question: why is your character Like That? Like, for real. It’s so easy not to be a dick. Why are they a dick? What’s in it for them?

Yes, some characters might be an asshole because they think it’s fun and they like to watch other people suffer. But if all your characters are like that - isn’t that kind of boring?

If all your characters are like that - are you actually writing distinct, well-developed characters, or are you just spitting out the same edgelord with different faces?

Some of your character’s reason for being a dick can be because they think it’s fun. It can’t be the entire reason. It especially can’t be the entire reason all the time. 

Of course you can come up with a big tragic reason why a character is an asshole - but it truly doesn’t have to be that deep. (Tips on tragic backstories here.)

Of my baddies:

Claude is a purist because someone has to be a lesser class, and it’s sure as shit not going to be him! Claude is a Death Eater because his father saw a business opportunity - both direct work (e.g. the DE contracting Claude and his goons out for a hit, trafficking dark goods, doing deals with purist groups in other magical organized crime outfits across Europe) and indirect work (e.g. having stronger appeal to some of the most influential wizarding families.) He doesn’t love being branded with the Dark Mark (HE is the master of his fate, goddammit!) but hey, it’s a living.

This is a motive centered around financial gain and expediency. Claude is shitty to value money over human life, and he has no qualms about violence - but the motive is not “fun.”

Cleo is a Death Eater because, as a girl from a pureblood family of no importance, she recognizes that many of the people in the Death Eaters are important and influential, and she wants that kind of power. Additionally, she does get a kick out of violence, but she’s a weapon more than she is a fighter: she’s a tool who needs someone to wield her, to give instructions, to give her purpose. The Death Eaters offer both.

This is a motive centered around status and around order - Cleo being a person who needs order externally forced upon her. 

Sadie is working for the Death Eaters because she believes they will win the First Wizarding War, and she wants to secure a place in their new order - ideally something more than she had previously as a squib. She figures if the good guys are really good they’ll forgive her for keeping herself alive - but that the bad guys won’t forgive disloyalty. Also, her boss in the Death Eaters indulges her research in the Dark Arts, which is fun. 

This is a motive centered around security and self-satisfaction. It’s very selfish and cold, but it’s not, like, Sid from Toy Story. 

Why is your character Like That? What do they get out of Being Bad? What do they like about it? What purpose does it serve for them? 

If you can’t think of a reason your character would be a Bad Guy beyond that you want to write a Bad Guy, you should probably rework the character. It’s tricky to write someone who really should just be a Good Guy as a Bad Guy because, depending on your site’s setting, you might end up being a Bad Guy Apologist, leaning into the positive qualities of your character without writing them as an actual villain/antagonist/baddie - and remember, Death Eaters are shitty people! Antagonists antagonize! They should be complex, but you should never lose sight of an abusive class being abusive! 

And finally,

They can’t all be serial killers.

It’s tempting, since we’re writing fiction here and we all love drama, to reach straight for a Big Evil when we’re writing a baddie. They murdered ___! Egads!

If all of your baddies murdered their spouse/parent/sibling, again I ask you: are you actually writing distinct, well-developed characters, or are you just spitting out the same edgelord with different faces?

(If all your baddies specifically murdered a woman, might I ask you to examine this choice? Misogynistic violence is not a shortcut to character development.)

Cast of characters aside - what is it your character does that makes them evil? It is worth noting that bad behavior exists on a spectrum, and to jump to the far end of that spectrum without building the character up to it is often jarring and confusing. There are many, many things your character can do that might contribute to their Bad IdentityTM without killing anyone!

Baby Bads: No one gets hurt in a serious way, but the character is unpleasant. Think: a schoolteacher might not let you go to recess. You might get detention. Examples:

petty theft

general assholery

bullying

lying, small & large scale

general unkindness

minor manipulation for personal gain

Middling Misdeeds: These might cause some harm - physically, emotionally, or otherwise - but there’s some room for smart-talking or otherwise evading major consequences. Think: suspension. Examples:

larger theft and other money-related naughties: money laundering, ponzi schemes, etc

physical assault/battery

blackmail

bribery

large-scale manipulation for personal gain or for fun

hate speech (to be clear, I, JB, think this is way more than middling, but in art as in life, a lot of characters are going to do it and get away with it.)

Terrible Transgressions: The far end of the spectrum of antagonistic behavior. If your character is doing this shit, it shouldn’t be coming out of the blue. If your character is doing this shit, there’s got to be a character-driven reason beyond “flavor.” These are things that would get you expelled and moved into criminal court. A lot of things that are viewed as standard topics requiring a trigger warning fit into this category. 

murder

sexual assault

torture

child abuse

It’s easy in rp, where there are often way more criminal types in a character population than we hope exist IRL, to forget that murder is.... like.... it’s a BIG DEAL. It’s not something everyone has done. And thank dog, right?

If you’re attached to your character being someone’s cause of death, for specific character-driven reasons, you might think about alternatives. For example, if you hope to convey that Brandon Baddie is a callous asshole, instead of having him kill his roommate over a household chores dispute, you might have him drive drunk, hit a pedestrian, get out of the car, see the body, and drive away. If you hope to convey that Sandy Sadist is cruel, you might have her threaten her sister’s dog, but not actually hurt it, enjoying the fear of the sister and of the dog more than she would enjoy actually hurting either. If you hope to communicate that Ruthie Reckless is thoughtless, you might have her driving 100 mph speeding to the edge of a cliff while her father sobs in the passenger seat, stopping just inches from the edge. 

There are so many ways to make a point. If you’re going to kill someone to make a point, do it sparingly, and with very deliberate purpose.

Whether you’re starting your first villain or hoping to hone your villainous sword, I hope you found this tut helpful! Best of luck, and happy writing!

[tangent101]

Unpopular Opinion Time

I’m going to say something that I know some folk are going to disagree on... but I honestly feel that Max Caulfield is a closeted lesbian instead of being bisexual. And I think there is sufficient information in the game and with Max’s journals to verify this viewpoint.

First, it’s important to explain something: you can be lesbian and still have had sex with men. There are lesbians who were married to men for years before finally accepting the truth about themselves... just as there are gay men who were suppressing the truth about themselves and then after a decade or more and having had kids, divorcing their wives because they were gay all along. You can be lesbian and not know it... all you know is that something is wrong. You know that you should be happy with a guy and can even have the most decent boyfriend or husband in the world... and yet it doesn’t work because you are not wired that way. It happens.

These women (and men) were raised to believe they were straight. They were raised to believe they should be dating someone of the opposite gender. They can end up having families and yet have that niggling sense of something being wrong in the back of their heads. This is because of a concept called heteronormativity or the view that heterosexuality is the default sexual orientation. You can be raised believing you’re straight (or cisgender for that matter) and never quite understand why things feel off. 

Now let’s look at Max Caulfield. Folk like to claim she’s bisexual because of the pseudo-romance angle with Warren Graham and with Max’s claims of being attracted to “skater dudes” but that the attraction isn’t mutual. Yet when you see Max interacting with the skaters of Blackwell, she knows pretty much nothing about them and outside of the whole “I’m into them” never seems to show any actual attraction toward them. It’s a line that falls flat. It’s like the writers decided to check the box “likes guys who ride on skateboards” and never went anywhere with it... or at least it might seem that way until you find out that Chloe Price was into skateboarding... Max’s best friend who she is increasingly crushing on as the game continues. It’s reasonable to ask how much of Max’s attraction to “skater dudes” is because she is into Chloe skating but doesn’t realize for a while that she could be into Chloe. 

Max’s relationship with Warren is more complicated. There has been claims that Warren’s romance angle (which never was that strong a path in the game, especially when compared to that of Chloe) was added in because of a strong positive fan reaction to Warren. Even then, there are enough actions that Warren takes that honestly are disturbing that honestly, Warren is not a good match for Max. The boy photoshops a picture of Max with him and keeps it in his gym locker - a place that Max is unlikely to ever see it, but also a place where other guys will see it and thus give Warren “bragging rights” about Max. He also has a date lined up with Brooke but asks out Max and then if the player has Max accept Warren’s date invite will call Brooke while Max is still around and cancel the date with Brooke and state he’s going with Max instead. He even instigates fights with Nathan Prescott, likely in an attempt to “show off” to Max and to be her “knight in shining armor.” 

A much larger factor as to why I just don’t get a sense of Max being into Warren is her journal. I half-suspect some fans don’t bother reading it which is a shame as it gives a lot of important details about Max and her thoughts and views. Most important to this is her early comments about Warren in which outside of considering him “dark and witty” she shows no attraction to him. In fact, on the first day of the game, her journal has this specifically to say:

We talked about Warren and Dana implied he likes me. Ew.

Damning words. Seriously, she went “ew” over a “dark and witty” guy “liking” her. Another torpedo in the water has this comment in Max’s journal if she accepted the date with Warren: 

Hope he doesn't make a lame move on me... (Not that he would, egomaniac.) Warren and I do have a lot in common, but he's like a supercool geek brother...

First, she doesn’t think Warren is into her. In fact, even entertaining that thought has Max calling herself an egomaniac. But what’s especially damning is the fact she considers Warren a “supercool geek brother.” I’m sorry, but Max went beyond Friendzoning Warren. She brotherzoned him.

The closest her journal has to suggesting Max is at all attracted to Warren is her journal entry if you didn’t kiss Chloe and do kiss Warren: 

Considering how insane my life has been this week, kissing Warren in the middle of a deadly storm didn't seem to be that strange. It felt like we were flipping off the cruel universe... and if I was going to die, I wanted one kiss from a boy I cared about.

Honestly it’s not much different if you also have Max kiss Chloe (though the line changes to “I wanted one kiss from two people I truly cared about”), and honestly if she thinks about Warren as a brother then obviously she’d still care for him. So the whole bit of Max being into Warren really starts to fall apart when you take a long look at the facts and Max’s journal.

Another interesting bit can be found in Max’s journal if the player has Max not kiss Chloe... and it’s this line: 

I would have, but I didn't like being dared like it was some big deal. Maybe I am scared. Of what? I think I'm too young for marriage.

Later, again if Max hadn’t kissed Chloe, when she returns from her first timeline alteration trip she writes this in her journal: 

I've never been so glad to see Chloe in my life. The second I saw her blue hair and that beautiful pissed off face, I kind of regretted not kissing her when she double dared me. Maybe if she had double dog dared me...

And Max’s final entry in the “didn’t kiss Chloe” setting is thus:

Maybe that's why I hated watching Chloe being so cruel in the nightmare, calling me names and trying to hurt me... I was surprised that it was like a physical pain in my heart. Is that the power of love... or friendship?

Is that the power of love... or friendship? Max asks that in both settings, in which she kissed Chloe and where she didn’t. It’s much more obvious when Max is busy kissing Chloe on that third day (and seriously, Dontnod should have included an option for Max to say “then don’t back away this time!” if you have Max Rewind for another kiss three or more times).

The argument for Max being into guys is at its heart as flimsy as that of Chloe being into guys because she has condoms in her wallet. Yet the condoms can be explained away as used to keep sex toys sanitary (yes, women can get STDs from other women if they’re not careful!), and Max’s “interest” in guys can easily be seen as “expected” of her. Given that Max can literally step out of Chloe’s closet to protect Chloe... Life is Strange can easily be seen as Max’s coming to terms with her own lesbianism and stepping away from an easy and expected life to embrace the unknown with the woman she loves by her side.

[coffeeandcalligraphy]

Hello! I just found your yt channel (it's amazing) and watched your video on writing diversely. What an awesome video, I learnt and took away a lot from you and your thoughts, especially as a white writer. I am still however a little conflicted on one thing. Not just writing the characters as another race or gender or identity of any kind from the writer, but the actual main character. Would it automatically be offensive and destined for failure for a white author to write a black main protag?

Hi there! I’m happy you found the video helpful, thank you for watching! This is a link to the video if anyone reading this has not watched it.

To be honest, I think I explained this as concisely and accurately as I could in the video as it’s truly the thesis of the video itself. I don’t want to fully reiterate what I said in the video because I feel like I won’t be as accurate/coherent, so I urge you to rewatch the video and take care to look at the timestamps as that may clarify your particular question, first and foremost! Taking a look at some of the comments too might also be helpful.

Stay in your lane as a detrimental, albeit well-intentioned, mantra

As I say in the video, it’s not as easy as saying “white people can’t write XYZ main character” or “we can write whatever we want”, nor is it as easy as and saying “stay in your line” , which may inadvertently enforce the majority as publishing is majorly white (stats are in the video). I believe I did address main characters too in that video, but whatever I said about characters in general 100% applies to POV/main characters as I was rebutting the well-intentioned, but perhaps detrimental idea that it’s only appropriate for a marginalized POV character to be written by someone marginalized in the same way (IMO, long-term, this will cause an influx of white POV stories which is the opposite of the intention [people say “stay in your lane” will allow marginalized folks to represent themselves rather than have white people represent us] as the publishing industry a) is mostly white and b) only seems to care to actively publish white people. “Stay in your lane” may also inadvertently define the role a marginalized person should play in the writing industry [responsible for writing stories about their marginalization]).

Writing POC main characters = automatically offensive/destined to fail?

If you’re viewing or questioning if writing a POC MC is “automatically offensive” or “destined for failure” I really urge you to rewatch the video because this is covered quite extensively but particularly take a look at the “trade fear for empathy” section as this question in itself is laden in a black and white binary of right versus wrong. If you’re asking this question, it might be that you are lacking the empathy to understand what I’m saying in the video (which is okay! there are many others who I’ve further discussed with in the comments). Writing POC isn’t something that’s destined to fail just because you’re a white author IF you do your research, be respectful, write empathetically and craft well-rounded, complex people. If you’re thinking you might automatically fail in this department because you are a white person, I did mention in the video that you may not be ready to write diverse characters in the respectful, robust ways necessary because you may be viewing POC as a “pass or fail” system which is obviously not what we are. If you want to write a diverse POV character and you do your research, write empathetically, speak to those people from that community (with their consent) and be willing to adjust your representation with that feedback without getting defensive, I don’t see how this would be automatically offensive or destined for failure, just like anything else that requires research.

Disproportionate amounts of white versus POC writers being published

In terms of publication failure, white people are actually the ones being majorly represented to write marginalized stories (when they don’t share that marginalization), so you probably wouldn’t have a problem getting a POC-lead story published (not saying I think this is right) because publishers treat diversity as a quota/marketing tactic and IMO, don’t seem to actually care about representation on a structural level, but rather on a topical, superficial level (which is why my main point in that video is that publishers, not individual writers, need to be held accountable).

White writers accidentally “dehumanize” POC in a misguided attempt at being empathetic

I think some white people, (and I don’t exactly want to use this word because it is quite severe but illustrates what I mean) may accidentally “dehumanize” people of colour in worrying that whatever move they’re going to make is automatically going to offend us, when in reality, if you take the time, and put in the effort to research and get to know people of colour (from my comments, these worries often stem from white people who don’t know many people of colour IRL), you will see that yes, we are different from you and difference is good, but no, this difference does not make us an untouchable, unknowable species. I don’t mean to make this seem like an “I don’t see colour” or “the only race is the human race” argument, which would be harmful, but rather a reminder that people of colour are also human beings and as you would write a white character with empathy, integrity, and vigour, you should also do the same when writing characters of colour (I address this in more detail in the video).

Doing personal research in times of confusion

I understand that as a white person, thinking about and understanding these issues may not be particularly easy, and even after a nearly hour long video of me expressing these thoughts, I genuinely do understand why someone who is not affected by these issues daily may still struggle with grasping these concepts. That’s because anti-racism is not something you can accomplish by watching one video, or reading a few articles--it’s a lifelong commitment, and so that’s when you would take your privilege as a white person to do more digging before you ask questions to those who have to expel emotional labour to answer them for you (not saying I have any problem answering your question at all, but putting this out there because there are many well meaning white people who I’ve encountered in my comments that do ask me or other BIPOC questions before turning to other resources that wouldn’t require free labour). Take some time to ruminate with this info, and then do some digging of your own. If you haven’t checked out these, these are my favourite anti-racism resources, all of which are free to access (noted otherwise):

Jane Coaston - The Intersectionality wars

A pretty comprehensive place to start with Kimberle Crenshaw’s theory of Intersectionality

Peggy McIntosh - White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

Wonderful place to start in understanding white privilege for those who don’t understand the differences/nuances between race VS class VS gender privilege etc

Article that explores white privilege beyond McIntosh’s ideas

It’s really important that white people also learn the systemic ways in which they benefit from white privilege and not just the “bandaids are made in my skintone” examples (though those examples are often used first because they’re the easiest to understand for a white person who is affected by other intersections, i.e. class, sexuality, gender, who does not feel they are privileged in other ways i.e. race).

Documentary on white privilege (Jane Elliott’s Brown Eyes VS Blue Eyes experiment)

Angela Davis - How Does Change Happen?

bell hooks - Ending Domination: The Struggle Continues

Abena Busia - In Search of Chains Without Iron: On Sisterhood, History, and the Politics of Location

I was able to access this reading through my university but IMO it is a must-read, especially for non-POC who may not fully understand the privilege of whiteness.

Claire Heuchan - Your Silence Will Not Protect You: Racism in the Feminist Movement 

**Absolute must-read: “The theory did not emerge in order to aid white women in their search for cookies – it was developed predominantly by Black feminists with a view to giving women of colour voice (Heuchan).”

Tamela J. Gordon - Why I’m giving up on intersectional feminism 

Powerful perspective on Intersectionality and how it’s been used in white feminism

Jennifer L. Pozner - How to Talk About Racism, Sexism and Bigotry With Your Friends and Family

Really good place to start if you have loved ones in need of education.

Maria Lugones - Playfulness, “World”-Travelling, and Loving Perception

This is the absolute crux of my points in writing empathetically.

"The paper describes the experience of 'outsiders' to the mainstream of, for example, White/Anglo organization of life in the U.S. and stresses a particular feature of the outsider's existence: the outsider has necessarily acquired flexibility in shifting from the mainstream construction of life where she is constructed as an outsider to other constructions of life where she is more or less 'at home.' This flexibility is necessary for the outsider but it can also be willfully exercised by the outsider or by those who are at ease in the mainstream. I recommend this willful exercise which I call "world"-travelling and I also recommend that the willful exercise be animated by an attitude that I describe as playful" (Lugones 3). 

^^^ For writers struggling with the prospect of diversity and trying to find a place to start in what I call in my video "letting go of fear and voraciously welcoming empathy" I highly recommend this article as it is a powerful account of travelling across each other's "worlds". Read it for free with a free JStor account or through your institution, like your public library.

How to BLACK: An Analysis of Black Cartoon Characters

A FANTASTIC video that is an absolute must-watch (covers writing empathetically, writing with care)

If you have not already, read through the sources I used to formulate and argue my thesis in my video (much more detailed than I could do in an hour!):

Corinne Duyvis (ownvoices creator) on # ownvoices

CCBC - "Publishing Statistics on Children's/YA Books about People of Color and First/Native Nations and by People of Color and First/Native Nations Authors and Illustrators"

Hannah Heath - "5 Problems Within the Own Voices Campaign (And How to Fix Them)"

Saadia Faruqi - "The Struggle Between Diversity and Own Voices"

Kat Rosenfield (Refinery29) - "What is # ownvoices doing to our books?"

Lee and Low - "Diversity Baseline Survey 2019 Results"

Vulture - "Who Gave You the Right To Tell That Story"

School Library Journal - "An Updated Look at Diversity in Children's Books"

TL;DR: if you’re more overcome with the fear of offending people (often grounded in white fragility) instead of making the active, albeit sometimes uncomfortable, decision to do the hard work necessary to empathetically represent someone outside of your marginalization in fiction, I don’t think you’re ready to write POC in the nuanced, complex, empathetic ways necessary for good representation, and I would encourage you do more independent anti-racist work. (Note that “you” is not individualistically aimed at the asker!!)

Questions like this don’t necessarily have a clear-cut answer, and that is essentially the point of my video (I know, not super helpful, but I hope that makes sense!).

Hope this helps!

--Rachel

[mrs-nate-humphrey]

What do you feel about amandamaryanna’s video on gossip girl and cosplaying poor? It reminds me of those tik tok videos that are about the most insane rich person behavior you’ve experienced. I feel like it’s subjective because the characters Dan Vanessa and Zoya are basing their poor ness around THEIR environment. So yes, there are MANY people who are actually poor but compared to their UES counterparts they would be considered “poor” due to the fact that they do not have the insane amount of disposable wealth that the other characters have and I do not really see that as them trying to cosplay as poor.

Also what are your thoughts on her argument on GG not really talking about class consciousness and POC issues. Even though the characters Ursula, Jane and Raina had short appearances on the show, as a Black person I think that is was great that they added the few POC characters on GG because their identity was not the main focus of their characters. Usually with Black or POC characters they have to go through some racial turmoil as part of the plot and in GG they got to be rich UES-ers simply because they are. Even though GG is very verryy flawed Penelope, Nelly, Kati, Isabelle and Zoe were shown how POC characters can be rich like the white characters in the show as well GG is obviously a fictional show that’s not based on anything so I don’t think that racial income statistics/racial implications need to be talked about 24/7.

so i started watching this video & just ended up reading the transcript instead. anyway. under a read more:

like, yes. i agree with her on one hand - i think gossip girl 2007 messed up by making dan's grievances be connected to financial status, because the humphreys certainly weren't "poor". like i think this point she says makes sense to an extent:

The comparison between outsiders and insiders and gossip girl is all about relativity. To the average viewer it seems absurd that a character like Dan is supposed to represent the outsider when he is so farther in than any of us could get.

But honestly, something i hate is how people who talk about this show act as if everyone who's watching is expected to know the prices of rent in new york city, etc. like i did NOT realise how expensive that loft is until someone else mentioned it to me and i would not have guessed! who is your "average viewer" - is it an American? someone who lives in New York? someone who lives in Brooklyn? you can't just define an average viewer in that way, i feel! like you are making a BIG Assumption there and it's not necessarily accurate. people who aren't american watch american tv! such is the world we are living in.

but keeping that aside, yeah: dan and jenny had stable and secure housing, the guarantee of meals, and were attending expensive private schools, so i think the show's messaging regarding class was a little strange. they definitely weren't in a financially unstable situation.

but also, you're right. like, dan and jenny weren't super duper broke, and at no point do they actually act like they are, tbh. dan is very 'oh my parents sacrificed so much to send me to st jude's' and jenny is very 'damn i wish i was richer' but there isn't really an instance where the humphreys seem to view themselves as being extremely poor, that i remember at least. in s1, jenny says something along the lines of, "we're humphreys; we're not exactly royalty." and like. she is not wrong! they're financially stable kids, but they're ordinary kids living in an environment where everyone else has the safety net of millionnaire parents to fall back on, and however much money rufus has, he isn't that.

so i think it's a grey area, like, YES, the humphreys have wealth related privilege (i don't know if this can be said for v, because honestly we don't know much about her living situation, but we do know that she works as a waitress for a bit in s1, and also that she's homeschooled, so she isn't shelling out big $$ for school fees.) but also dan and jenny are treated as 'less than' because they are considered nobodies.

and i feel like THAT is the angle the show should have taken. not "i am oppressed because i am not rich" but rather, "everyone at school alienates me and treats me different and it's making things so difficult for me." whenever people say that dan and jenny acted like they were more oppressed than they actually were i'm like. they were both, in different ways, made to feel small and insecure and hopeless, at school? like of COURSE they're gonna feel victimised. dan is treated like he doesn't exist, and jenny is treated so horribly that i don't even have an adjective. like. i think the writing of the show would've been much stronger if it had focused on THAT and not made it a class thing.

i haven't watched the reboot beyond ep02, so i'm not gonna comment on that.

so yeah, i don't think it was 'cosplaying poor' as much as it was 'showing wealth related stuff extremely inaccurately.' like an anon told me, portraying nyu as community college is super inaccurate, as well. and it makes no sense? like i don't know why they had to do this and why they couldn't just... shoot at a regular community college. gossip girl 2007 did not care for representing poor people at all, like, if you watch the show you can tell that it just luxuriates in this aesthetic of like: more food than anybody can eat at every meal. so many luxuries. unnecessarily expensive things everywhere. like the show was very much luxury porn. to me it felt like it wasn't cosplaying poor as much as it was offering people a chance to wank off to the rich. & maybe because of that, the humphreys weren't allowed to be poorer. gg 2007 wasn't supposed to represent all of NY, it was supposed to represent the uber rich elite. and then you have dan and jenny humphrey, and vanessa abrams. they weren't allowed to be rich, because we needed a class conflict. but they weren't allowed to be poor, either, because this show was all about rich people aesthetics. so we got something weird & in the middle instead.

people forget that chuck was canonically a billionnaire - like, that is a LOT of money. and he is dan & jenny's peer! sadly, i think solely because of THAT, a lot of the oppression the humphreys face... checks out. like chuck being shitty to both dan and jenny - he' has an unethical, absurd, uncomparable-to-whatever-the-humphreys-have amount of money. he can do whatever he wants & buy his way out of there. rufus humphrey's ten thousand dollars or whatever amount he mentions are like pocket change to that guy. if jenny is gonna be treated like a commodity by everyone around her, do her upper middle class roots and expensive loft really matter? well, not do they matter as much as like. can they protect her? (we've watched the show. we know the answer is no.)

re: the characters of colour... i think it's subjective. i ADORE raina, and honestly, if we'd had a NJBC that was nate, serena, blair & raina, the show would've actually been AMAZING. like raina was such a cool character to me - i liked that she was driven, passionate, intelligent, sensitive, caring, fun-loving, thoughtful.... she wasn't on the show for long, but her character felt really solid and fleshed out. i remember a review (idk who wrote this one) in which someone felt that raina's character was "lazy" because a lot of her traits and her backstory paralleled chuck, but i strongly disagree. on raina, those traits were interesting. on chuck, any backstory and larger motive felt like a carpet to cover the dust that was his predatory nature, and to me, felt forced and off. like. this dude assaulted people, i don't care about his daddy issues. but raina seemed SO amazing. her backstory actually fit her personality and gave her depth, and to me, didn't feel forced.

i liked ursula, too! she was a really minor character, but she had a whole arc, and i liked that a LOT. her friendship with serena was very cute! i sadly do not remember jane. i think she was... someone's assistant? but i don't remember who. but i agree with you about raina and ursula, their arcs were very interesting and did not end up being about racial trauma & all that, which, like you said, is refreshing when done right.

that said, i think blair's minions were, uh, an example of blair's racism, and i think it would've been cool if the show unpacked that. blair uses her minions as a status symbol - her 17th birthday at kati's place which is anime themed (?) leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it feels very tokenising of a culture that blair isn't a part of? it would be different if blair treated her minions with respect and dignity and like they were her equals and peers, but she doesn't. the word "minions" itself makes me flinch because it's such a "oh you're inferior" kind of word. it felt to me very much like - they never got to be characters in their own right. they solely existed to prop up blair. and i think that is racist. there was a sense of "Oh, I can't be racist! I have a Black friend and an Asian friend" from Blair - like that's what kati & is were to her. and i think that is a big problem, especially glossed over like that.

i also do think that racial stuff doesn't always need to be the focus! but i don't think it can ever be completely ignored, either. an example of something that is maybe unintentionally racist, but racist nonetheless, is how dan cuts vanessa out of his life entirely but forgives his white friends for treating him farrrr worse. it's an inherent double standard, because dan kind of went "oh yeah. my threshold for white people fucking me over is really high, but if my Black best friend who's so close we're practically family does something even slightly wrong i'm going to cut her out of my life 4ever." did the writers realise this? i don't know. maybe they just didn't think about it. but this is exactly the sort of double standards and racist bullshit that woc, especially Black women, have to face irl (though of course i don't need to tell you that at all), except here, the narrative doesn't even address that, hey, maybe dan's being a dick by reacting this way. and i think that's a problem, too.

[hope-grace-serenity]

The Missing Women of Far Cry-PART TWO

Previously, I wrote a post that was intended to talk a bit about Selena and Lana, and the  history of the Faith position as a whole. Because the notes that discuss these women (“Grieving Note,” “Dirty Crumpled Letter,” A Confession”) tend to be overlooked, the purpose of this new post is to analyze the content of the notes and develop a greater understanding of the experiences and perspectives of the Faiths, as well as how they are viewed and treated. This is just my personal analysis, and of course you are more than welcome to disagree with any ideas expressed here. Unlike my previous post, this one will not bring in real-world connections, but will instead stick firmly within the context of what is presented in FC5. That being said, I’m going to keep the same TW’s as last time in the tags, because I realize that this topic overall can be really uncomfortable to think about. If anyone is particularly sensitive to discussing the Seeds brothers’ involvement in the disappearances (particularly Joseph, since he’s the one mentioned in all the notes), I recommend skipping this post.  

So with that out of the way, let’s look at what these notes reveal to us...

First, the notes show us how these different women were hooked into becoming Faith and giving up their identities in the first place: by being convinced by Joseph that each one of them is special, despite him actually viewing them as interchangeable. This is told to us by Faith in-game during her first cutscene when she talks about how special the Father made her feel, but we also see the same story play out in the previous Faiths. The writer of the “Grieving Note” says Joseph told Lana she was special, and the author of “A Confession” expresses that all she wanted was to be special, and she finally got a chance to feel that way with Joseph. The writer of the “Dirty Crumpled Letter” brings attention to how despite what Joseph says, he *doesn’t* actually view Selena (or any of these women) as special, saying that there is a pattern of him “using up and throwing away” women. 

Although they are told that they are unique, their individuality is significantly downplayed, which no doubt psychologically plays a role in the ease in which these women are disposed of  and replaced. We see this in the callous way Joseph treats Lana’s body after her death, tossing it in to “disintegrate into the boiling muck” with the corpses of the mindless angels, despite her literally giving up her identity in order to become a part of the “family.” Also, the simple fact that he can “swap them out like they don’t have a brain of their own” (according to the writer of the “Dirty Crumpled Letter”) is quite telling of how he views them. He’s interested in how they fit this need for what a “Faith” should be, but not necessarily who they are as actual human beings. This focus on the idealized image of “Faith” is also something that’s corroborated in-game where his whole eulogy for Faith focuses on how devoted she was to him and how he changed her from being “lost and broken” to being ”angelic” and “perfect”--two words that suggest inhumanity and an unattainable ideal. This acts as a stark contrast to the more personal, humanized stories of John and Jacob.  To bridge off that idea, the level of disinterest in the actual person behind the name shows that the Seeds do not view or treat the Faiths like sisters or daughters or any kind of actual family member, despite the title. John disappoints Joseph in-game, but John does not have to worry about mysteriously vanishing and having a random guy show up the next day who Joseph calls “Brother John.” Faith does not have the same luxury.

These notes also give us more insight into how Eden’s Gate operated before the arrest. The fact that there was a specific spot set aside to “disintegrate” bodies--plus the fate of the Faiths as a whole--shows us that violence was most definitely happening before the reaping began, even if it was something that was happening behind the scenes. This should be apparent based on other things we see within the game (the cause of the arrest warrant, the video of Joseph removing the man’s eyes, the fact that the Cook was allowed to be a cult member in the first place, existence of angels and judges, etc.), but I know there are a couple NPCs that make it seem like Eden’s Gate were just kooky, peaceful neighbors before the arrest. While that might have been the image they presented to the public, it’s clear that the reality is that there was a dark undercurrent even before the reaping--Eden’s Gate was just able to hide it well.  

These notes also bring up some interesting questions regarding the attitudes of the Faiths. Finding the identity of the author of “A Confession” was something I was really curious about, since that could either provide us with a new dimension for Rachel, or give us valuable insight into the characterization of one of the previous Faiths, allowing one to have her own words and story expressed instead of just being relegated to the role of a “victim.” Based on the limited information presented in-game, I believe that the most likely writer of “A Confession” is Selena. The “Dirty Crumpled Letter,” where the writer tells Selena  about the history of the Faith position, could easily have been what triggers her doubts, especially since that letter indicates that Selena is very new to the role and hasn’t fully “lost herself” to the Faith position yet. The fact that the letter is “crumpled” implies that Selena was either upset or angry when reading it, which further connects to the idea that she’s experiencing emotional strife which may trigger her doubts. In the “Dirty Crumpled Letter,” the writer says, “God knows who you are, and so do you,” suggesting that Selena is religious. In “A Confession,” the writer is clearly religious as well, as the note is written out to God. 

The author of “A Confession” expresses genuine fear of Joseph due to having personal doubts about the project when she says, “What do I do? I know you will forgive me, dear Lord. I don’t know if Joseph will.” This is also supported by Faith’s eulogy, in which he mentions the previous Faiths weren’t as devoted as she was. This implies to me that the reason at least some of the Faiths may have been killed was because they weren’t faithful enough to him and/or the Project. The fear expressed by the writer of “A Confession,” as well as how the individual women acting in the Faith role are viewed as disposable and replaceable in general, personally makes me fully believe Faith in-game when she expresses fear of Joseph and says she was threatened in the past.  Given how her predecessors were treated, why wouldn’t she have some level of fear? 

Still, the role itself is obviously very important to Joseph, hence why he keeps filling the slot with different women. So, why is that? What’s he hoping to achieve? Why is it so important that there’s a Faith? This paragraph is going to veer a bit into speculative territory (and like I mentioned earlier, this is all just my opinion), but I think the answer for that ties into the previous few points: he’s looking for someone who embodies the concept of faith. And as for why that's so important to him, all we need to do is think about his conversation with us in Jacob’s region. Joseph had a really shitty and painful life, but there was one bright spot after he and his brothers were split up: his wife and daughter. As far as we’re aware, the mysterious Mrs. Seed was the first female presence in his life to genuinely love and care for him. What personal characteristic does he keep emphasizing about his wife? Her faith. When he experienced personal doubts, her faith was there to ground him. She provided him with a feminine, stable, unconditional devotion that he never experienced before, one I feel he tries to replicate in creating these Faiths, and this becomes their main source of value to him. She provides that accepting essence to both him and the Project as a whole. This is why he constantly emphasizes the importance of Faith, both the concept and the person. And yes, this is an incredibly unhealthy viewpoint to have. 

I spent a lot of time talking about Joseph because he’s the one mentioned in these notes, but there are some implications here for John and Jacob as well.Given their personal connection to Joseph and high rank in the group, they are most certainly aware of what’s going on, which makes them complicit to some degree  in what is happening to the Faiths. If they have any personal qualms, we don’t know about it. While there is NPC dialogue that indicates Jacob is upset when John dies, and that Faith is upset when John dies, we have no indication that either of the brothers is personally upset about Faith. One of the NPCs says, “Jacob would happily sacrifice everyone and everything in Hope County to feed Joseph's Collapse. He doesn't care about Faith.” The only time John mentions her is when he says he treats his followers better than she treats her angels. While I wish there was someone that Faith could genuinely have a close, honest friendship with, that unfortunately does not seem to be the case here.

And...I think that’s it! Wow, that was a lot longer than I thought it would be. Faith’s perspective is so interesting and unique, and really fascinating to analyze. I realize this post doesn’t exactly paint the Seeds or Eden’s Gate in the most flattering light, but it’s fully possible to love all these characters while acknowledging the bad things they did. Believe it or not, Joseph’s my second or third favorite character, lol. 

[forevercloudnine]

new 52 scarebat ship meme

(I had @heroes-etc​ give me more questions, but for scarebat this time, since we talk about it 24/7 but I never post about it. These are from this ship meme.)

4. Their favorite physical feature on each other?

There’s only one feature of Bruce’s appearance that’s scarier when he’s not wearing the batsuit, and that’s his creepy blue eyes. Especially the way Greg Capullo draws them where they’re sickly pale and have ridiculously constricted pupils.

So his eyes would definitely be in the running for Jonathan’s favorite feature, even if seeing them would require Bruce’s mask to be off, which is something New 52 Scarecrow explicitly avoids. Yes, that character trait only exists to justify why Batman’s identity is still secret after Scarecrow mind controls and subsequently institutionalizes him in “Gothtopia,” but I think it’s interesting so I’m going to pretend it’s not shoe-horned in there for meta reasons.

Actually having to see Bruce without the cowl on would definitely permanently break the illusion of Batman as a nightmarish inhuman bat demon, which I’m sure is a large part of the appeal for anyone as obsessed with fear as Jonathan Crane. But Bruce’s creepy eyes would be a serious consolation prize. 

Bruce’s favorite of Jonathan’s physical features is rough, because Jonathan is famously not great re: physical features. I’m going to say his mouth, because a) that’s where the snark comes from, and b) the New 52 establishes that in one of their earlier encounters, Jonathan had sewn his own mouth shut, so it’s one of those things where a bad first impression turned positive later on leads to more fondness than if you’d made a good impression in the first place.

I just looked up the panel where he does it and I DID forget how incredibly gross his lips look here, which makes the fact that I have chosen it as Bruce’s feature seem really funny in retrospect. But I do think that seeing Jonathan’s mouth healed and unmutilated would be a reassuring reminder of how he’s stabilized since their first encounter, at least to the point that he isn’t hurting himself anymore. Also, Bruce buys him a lot of chapstick.

Bonus alternate answer that did not make it into the Google Doc:

9. How open are they with their feelings?

Bruce and Jonathan are both pretty competent deceivers in the New 52; Bruce always, Jonathan depending on how the writer is feeling (though you could argue that Bruce just has a stronger grip on reality, while Jonathan’s skill at obfuscation varies with how lucid he is).

...I was going to use Detective Comics #23.3 as an example of Jonathan being a good liar, but actually upon re-reading I’m realizing that only 1/4 rogues buy his attempt at manipulation. So maybe he’s considerably worse at hiding his intentions than he thinks he is. Regardless, he doesn’t ever attempt to disguise his obsession with Batman.

Whether or not he’d express romantic feelings or try to hide them is debatable. There’s no Masters of Fear equivalent in the New 52 establishing that he was ever mocked or punished for expressing romantic feelings for someone, though there is a flashback panel in his origin emphasizing that he was always lonely in this regard (and coincidentally doesn’t specify that his interest is in women, which is fun).

In Green Lanterns #17 he has some internal monologue about how fear is his romance and he needs Batman to feel it, but it is an INTERNAL monologue, so it’s not clear if this is something he would express to Bruce or keep to himself. Or if he’s even fully processed it himself, given how incredibly out of it he is in this comic. Most of his spoken lines are just kind of screaming incoherently. Bruce gets pretty snippy with a Green Lantern at the end of the issue for suggesting that Jonathan should be punished for his crimes as if he were in control of his actions. 

Bruce is a similarly complicated answer, since for all his deceptions and shadowy mystery he pretty much wears his heart on his sleeve when it comes to romance. It’s just that his heart doesn’t express or process emotions the same way as anyone around him, which can create conflict. His (seriously underrated) love interest during Scarecrow’s origin arc, Natalya, spent most of her time dating him thinking that he didn’t care about her for this reason. He was trying to express that he loved her, but he mostly did so through complimenting her skills, which she never took as serious declarations of affection because he wasn’t being straightforward and she was insecure.

Jonathan does not himself seem like someone who would be especially secure in the idea of another person having romantic feelings towards him, so I assume that while Bruce might THINK he’s being open with any romantic feelings he develops, he would in reality just be really confusing.

13. How do they react to being away from each other?

I actually think that in general, Jonathan is one of the few people who would have no issue dealing with Bruce’s tendency to unexpectedly go AWOL for long periods of time, given that he himself has a tendency to fixate on his work to the exclusion of everything else.

But New 52 Jonathan specifically probably has pretty serious abandonment issues due to his father putting him in “the pit” and dying before he could take him out, meaning that Jonathan was waiting for his dad to come back for him for God knows how long, until Jonathan Sr.’s employers finally sent the police to investigate. 

So while in general I think he wouldn’t be very clingy, any impression that Bruce had died or otherwise wasn’t coming back for him would probably be incredibly triggering. If Bruce could assuage this reaction by occasionally sending updates that at least indicated he was still alive, then I doubt Jonathan would have any problems with his absence.

(@heroes-etc​: bruce sending like a checkmark emoji once a day. jonathan hears his phone ping, looks at the screen, and goes hm. good. and doesnt respond.)

Bruce meanwhile has no problem ditching literally any love interest at any time if something crime-related comes up, unless he’s considering quitting the cowl for them (as Joker probably accurately fears will happen with Catwoman in Prelude to the Wedding). But I don’t think he’d stop being Batman for Scarecrow, nor would Jonathan ever want him to — he’s interested in Batman, not necessarily Bruce Wayne.

But even though Bruce wouldn’t have an emotional problem with distance, I think he would get similarly paranoid if they went too long without contact, though for different reasons than Jonathan. Unlike some other villains (*cough* Joker and Riddler), Scarecrow has machinations that don’t require getting Batman’s attention, so if he decided to continue with his less legal experiments, he would not feel compelled to get Bruce involved. While the “World’s Greatest Detective” would probably not have an issue keeping an eye on Jonathan while he’s in Gotham, he’s considerably less capable of that in space. And Jonathan is definitely a rogue he would be obsessed with keeping an eye on, even if he reformed. 

Batman & Robin Eternal established that Dick’s first supervillain conflict AND first mission leaving the country was chasing Scarecrow across the world for an entire summer, which is kind of insane considering how early it was in Batman’s career. Like, he did not have an army of children to watch Gotham for him while he was gone. He had one child, and he took that child WITH him. He left Gotham undefended for months, JUST to catch Scarecrow. Sooo that in of itself implies he wouldn’t be great at keeping his distance.

15. Does their view of themselves differ from their partner’s view?

Well, Jonathan occasionally sees Bruce as a giant bat demon, so yes.

Outside of that very obvious differing view, Jonathan in general sees himself and the rest of the rogue gallery as more vital to Batman’s identity than Bruce considers them; the extent to which he’s right varies depending on your interpretation of Bruce’s character, but it’s definitely not something Bruce would ever consciously think or say. 

This is related to something that’s definitely a misconception of his, though, which is that the majority of Batman’s job revolves around supervillains like him. In Kings of Fear, when Jonathan blackmails Bruce into letting him come on patrol with him (which is a whole thing in of itself), he’s shocked at how boring most of Batman’s work is. Which probably goes along hand in hand with sometimes seeing Bruce as an almost mythologically inhuman figure. 

In his defense, it’s not like he has a lot of context for what the minutiae of Batman’s job is like. He’s either fighting Batman, hiding from Batman, or imprisoned by Batman in Arkham, a place where everyone else also spends all their time fighting or hiding from Batman. Which would really skew your perspective.

Interestingly, Bruce and Jonathan are both people who pride themselves on being extremely self-aware. Both of them probably inaccurately. You can rant about how you have a perfect understanding of your troubled mental state all day long, but if you’re still dressing up like a monster at night to indulge the power fantasies you created as a traumatized child by scaring the hell out of people, there’s probably a level of self-realization you haven’t gotten to yet.

Bruce however is at least self-aware enough to regularly be able to analyze his way out of fear toxin induced hallucinations, which Jonathan is unable to do — when he’s not depicted as having become immune to his fear toxin due to overexposure (as he is in Green Lanterns #17), he can be defeated with the same formulas that Batman regularly manages to resist (like his honestly embarrassing breakdown in Nightwing #50). 

Which ties into the difference between how he sees himself and how Bruce sees him: Jonathan obviously visualizes himself as a “master” of fear. He actually has the same internal monologue about fear and trauma that Bruce does in Batman: The Dark Knight #13: “Make it your own... run to what you fear... stare it in the eye... until it whimpers and backs down.” But Bruce doesn’t see Scarecrow as conquering his fear; he sees him as addicted to it, to the point of his own detriment.

Which is interesting, because Jonathan clearly sees his Scarecrow persona as a way to regain control after being victimized by his father’s fear experiments throughout his childhood. I guess Bruce’s perspective would be that Jonathan’s father instead got him addicted to fear as a child, so his attempts at agency as Scarecrow are just a) reliving his trauma over and over and b) compulsively inflicting his own trauma on others. There’s probably some truth to that, even if overall it’s probably an oversimplification (and coincidentally pretty much EXACTLY what Riddler argues Bruce is doing by “funding” Batman in Batman Annual #4, so there’s that).

20. Did either person change at all, to be with their partner?

The obvious answer here is yes, because Jonathan is a supervillain with no regard for human life while Bruce is a superhero who has dedicated his life to protecting people. So presumably one or both of them would have to make serious compromises to be together. HOWEVER. Scarecrow’s primary motivation is to research, understand and inflict fear, while Batman’s modus operandi is making his enemies afraid of him. So despite their contradiction in morals, they’re uniquely positioned to advance each other’s goals, were they to ever join forces.

Bruce never has a problem using fear toxin on Scarecrow, presumably partially out of an “eye for an eye” sense of poetic justice, but also because Batman is practical and it’s a nonlethal weapon that’s always available to him while fighting Scarecrow. If he could have fear toxin customized for his own use, it’s hard to imagine him being unwilling to use it. In Gothtopia he actually advocates for using what’s leftover from Crane’s new formula on all the inmates at Arkham, which seems about as insanely morally ambiguous as it gets. Arguably, putting fear toxin in his smoke bombs would be considerably less wrong than drugging mental patients out of their mind when they’re supposed to be receiving therapy (this is also the issue where he illegally releases Poison Ivy because she did him a favor, which is both morally questionable and relevant to the current topic).

Jonathan obviously already thinks Batman is the most interesting possible case study in fear; it’s why he keeps coming back to Bruce and Gotham despite being one of the more independent villains in Batman’s rogue gallery in the New 52. So though he would have to give up actively kidnapping people (which would be a huge sacrifice, I’m sure), teaming up with Bruce would give him unrestricted access to his favorite test subject. Unfortunately, it seems very possible that he would fall back to old tricks if he ever felt that he’d gotten everything he could out of a partnership with Bruce. Fortunately, that would probably take a VERY long time.

[thechildofstark]

Fuck John Walker (and also some other stuff): A Response To Episode Four

WARNING: some bad language, death mentions, violence mentions, blood mentions, racism, spoilers for for ep 4 of tfatws 

DISCLAMER: I have some Opinions about various characters. These do not extend to the actors, who I’m sure are lovely and should be treated with the dignity, privacy and respect that they deserve. 

“Fuck John Walker” was originally meant to be the subtitle. I decided on it when he screwed up the op for Sam. It got ungraded during the final scene, because nothing else could possibly compare as a necessary title to this post. 

Essentially, some (out of order) thoughts on episode 4:

~*Sam and Bucky, working together*~ (pretend this is a musical jingle)

The contrasting ways that they interacted with the displaced

While the incredibly valid argument can be made that Sam is the least privileged of the group (I’ve made it) it is obvious that he has had the most structured civilian life: approaching the people he comes across openly. Yes, he is polite and calm, but the closest thing to this he has personally come across in the past (that we know of) would be the war vets he worked with and the critical difference is that they wanted to be there. From what I remember of Sam’s groups they didn’t seem to be a sort of mandatory requirement: you came because you chose to. Or at least, you came prepared for the situation. Here, Sam is an outsider and an unwelcome threat. These people are not going to open up to him. 

Bucky is quieter, but still quite straight forward in the way he presents himself. I think he may show a little more care for the environment he is in than Sam but that isn’t saying much. Yes, he has experienced much worse things than Sam but we still see his unfamiliarity with this sort of situation paired with some less than stellar social skills really not working in his favor. 

Look, I love both these 2 to death. But this is not what they know. 

Zemo on the other hand quite likely lived in a place similar to this after his family was murdered. He shows an understanding of how this sort of situation would work, going to children who:

a) wont necessarily peg him as an outsider

b) are bribable

also I think he was genuinely super glad to give those kids that candy and money. He would have been such a good dad. now I have Zemo feels. somebody help me.

The inclusion of the Dora Milaje was incredibly awesome, and not just because I simp for powerful women. Narratively, this was the perfect place for them to join the party and assert their right to apprehend Zemo. 

Bucky speaking Xhosa (i think it was?) is very cool

 I would like to take this moment to formally state that Caption John Walker is a motherfucking asshole. 

It was also really nice to see Sam’s therapist skills, that worked against him earlier really help him here. 

I liked seeing that more human side of Karli, and having her interact with the “enemy” and have serious conversation about what everyone is doing.

Until Captain Insecurity has to destroy the op because he doesn’t trust the people he chose to work with, no one has comms or anything I guess?

Also Walker deferring to Bucky for team decisions over Sam, talking over Sam and acting like he knows better than Sam?

I smell racism in this Chili’s tonight

It was also really interesting to get a more in-depth look at how Zemo views supersoldiers. Nearly all the ones that he has either heard of or interacted with (destroyed) had either volunteered for the serum or were so brainwashed that it didn’t make a difference. These people are a dangerous enemy to be eliminated, alongside people like Dr. Nagel. His entire worldview is focused on their destruction that the idea that one of them could be a normal person is impossible to him. The only exceptions acknowledged are Steve (paragon of saintly virtue) and Bucky. 

And the fact that after his family died and his country devastated he would most likely have fixated on both the Avengers and the “concept” of a superhuman being as something to blame for his loss. His refusal to concede his position to Sam isn’t just arrogance, although that seems to be a part of it, but the fact that he has spent so much time and energy in destroying both the Winter Soldier program and most likely other similar operations, along with the Avengers that this hatred and belief in the danger has most likely become one of his core beliefs. To change this would be to question his vendetta against the Avengers, to question his actions against the Winter Soldier program which he knows was a horrible thing, and to question why he has spent the past seven years in maximum security prison. This isn’t something he is ready to do yet.  

The fact that Bucky is a noted exception is something that stands out to me. Zemo knows that Bucky is a good person, regardless of the serum. 

Bucky is also the only main character (that I can think of) that was injected with the serum against his will. The fact that he didn’t seek it out could quite likely be part of the reason that Zemo doesn’t look down on him for it - it is framed that the sort of person that seeks out that sort of strength/power would be a “supremacist”, someone who would use their abilities to harm and subjugate others.

And while we are at the apartment may I say how funny it is to see Zemo just. Literally being Sam and Bucky’s sugar daddy. He transports them and houses them and makes them fancy tea. It’s possible he’s providing them with clothes. Either way, love it. Cannot wait for the boys to work it out.

Sam and Lemar’s responses to being offered the serum are an interesting juxtaposition to how they view the concept of supersoldiers. They have both experienced hardship and survived war but Sam is the one that has gone up against Gods and monsters and he wants none of that, thank you. 

And Lemar is so comfortable with saying yes because it isn’t actually being offered to him. Walker expresses some hesitation in their discussion because for him, it isn’t hypothetical. This is something real that can and will effect him for the rest of his life and he wants to make the “right decision”.

The return of Erskine’s belief that the serum not only effect the physical but the mental, emotional and (possibly?) spiritual. This isn’t something that’s really been touched on outside of The First Avenger and I liked that it turned up here. But the fact that it was the reason Walker felt comfortable taking the serum? Eww

The Dora Milaje kicking names and taking ass is super awesome. They are so incredibly skilled and have such amazing teamwork and are also super beautiful I love them 

Sam and Bucky just. Watching. Enjoying the show. Absolute kings. 

Zemo being the sneaky little sneak that he is :)

One one hand, Bucky losing his arm in the fight was very awesome. One the other hand, he has a long history of complicated bodily autonomy in relation to that arm so........  Neutral opinion it is then 

Karli, honey, I really want to like you but can you please keep the mans family out of it. Okay?

And another thing that this show made me think about: kids left to fend for themselves after the Blip (uuuurrrggh it hate calling it that. stupid canonical name). I think it’s good that at least some people took it on themselves to take these children in, to give them good lives and families.

The way that Sam has incorporated his wings into his combat style is very cool

Okie dokie can’t avoid it forever lets get this over with. 

LEMAR MY BEAUTIFUL SON NOOOO

those fuckers (the writers i mean)

Side note: did they really have to make the first main character death of the series a Black “sidekick” character? No. No they did not. 

Side side note: I understand that this is a perfectly valid way (ew) to “advance the plot” but I can and will be annoyed about it

And now we really get into the shit. But...........................

As much as I absolutely unequivocally hate John Walker I actually like the thematic parallels of how they did this. All throughout The First Avenger Steve is adamant on how he doesn’t want to hurt anyone, he just wants to stand up to the bullies. It’s only after Bucky dies that he says he wants to kill all the Nazis and really get into the horror of it all. The fact that John, who has absolutely been on the edge for the entire episode if not longer, only loses it after Lemar dies?

Because Lemar is arguably meant to be that stand-in for Bucky in the eyes of the public, and they are obviously close friends..........

Just - 

I feel I may have accidentally been slightly nicer than I planned to Walker in this post. I’m not sure how I feel about that. 

But C****** J*** W****** is NOT Captain America. Up until now I’ve been calling him “Fake Cap” in my head and to my family, but he doesn’t even deserve that honor. 

And the blood on the Shield. Dear god that was horrible. 

And the fact that, as it was pointed out in this very episode, this man fully represents everything that is Captain America, to the world. He isn’t only tarnishing his own legacy, he is also destroying Steve’s. And to some extent, Bucky’s. The whole reason that Bucky Barnes is considered a “Superhero” is because, at least in America he is known as “Cap’s Best Friend”. He was marketed that way for over half a century, and after the whole “Winter Solder” thing, goodwill or no, brainwashing or no, this could end very ugly for him. Not to mention that Steve Rogers is most likely to be forgotten to history in favor of this freak. 

And on that note, where the fuck is Steve? This is set only 6 months after Endgame, if he had died we would know. So what the hell is he doing? Because I know he got perpetual brainrot going back in time to be str8 and boring but dear god if the show tries to tell me that he’s just chilling in some senior’s center in Alaska I will actually call bullshit. Steve Rogers would never. Okay this is a whole separate post on my thought on Steve. Watch this space I guess. 

And while we’re all here, Bucky Barnes needs a goddamn boyfriend. I’ve done some thinking, and here is a compiled shortlist: 

Sam

Zemo

De-aged Steve (he would be higher but I’m still mad at him for the whole “vanishing without a word to relive Jim Crow and the Lavender Scare. :/ )

IN THAT ORDER. 

That’s all folks. 

Feel free to send me asks if you want clarification or extra details on anything. 

And finally - 

the thing we all came to see:

FUCK

JOHN 

WALKER

fin

[lillupon]

thoughts on kmg situation

Hi everyone, your friendly neighbourhood minwon writer here! I apologise to those of you who were hoping for an update this weekend. In light of recent events, I found it very difficult to get excited about Achieving Escape Velocity. Before I can resume posting, I feel it is necessary for me to work through my own thoughts. 

I am not trying to persuade people into believing a particular side. I share this with the hope that it will help others who are struggling to reconcile feelings similar to my own. I also see this as an opportunity to—with your guidance—become more passionate, and to learn how to be a decent human being, if that’s what I need to do. I recognise that I come barreling in here with my own cultural and environmental biases. Thus, anyone who understands the nuances of this situation better should feel free to educate me on the matter. If this is of no interest to you, kindly scroll on; I hope to see you when I next update. Otherwise, please join me for a few minutes. 

TL;DR

I support both Mingyu and the victim/OP

I believe that people change as they grow older and become more educated and informed

I am conflicted and have my misgivings about the additional allegations (group chat screenshots + bullying a student with special needs—which has now been resolved, yay!)

I will not unstan Mingyu

I will continue to write and update Achieving Escape Velocity

I want to start by saying that I am an older fan in my twenties, and that I have been a fan of Seventeen since 2015. I have found great joy and comfort in them for many years. As much as I have tried to remain impartial, I have likely fallen short of that ideal. The truth is, I adore this boy! I admire his talents as an artist. I am charmed by the persona of him that we get to see in the media; I see parts of myself reflected in this curated persona. That being said, I tried to remain critical of the stance I am taking. I asked myself, “If this situation was not about Mingyu, and was about my local weatherman instead, would I still feel the same way?” And the answer to that was: hell fucking yeah! Don’t worry, Local Weatherman, I got your back… 

Lastly, I want to say that I am approaching this from a Western point of view. I grew up in Canada, albeit with the traditions and beliefs inherited from fairly strict and conservative Asian parents. As an international fan, there will inevitably be some cultural disconnects in this thought piece. 

There are three main parts to my admittedly rough and disjointed thoughts. The first part addresses the original accusations. The second part addresses additional accusations that were made against Mingyu. The final part is about the future of my minwon stories.

You may agree with all of this, part of this, or none of this. These are simply the thoughts I am trying to work through. 

Thoughts on original allegations (therapy records OP)

How do I describe opening up Twitter on Thursday morning? One moment, I was reading about Mingyu drawing pubes on the classroom whiteboard. The next moment, I was reading about how serious allegations against Mingyu were. People were unstanning him and Seventeen, calling Mingyu a rapist, sending him death threats, etc. I truly did not understand how the situation escalated so quickly, and I nearly gave myself whiplash trying to follow jumps in logic. 

One side of Twitter was convinced that the Original Poster (OP) was lying and doing all of this for attention; they said victims could not be believed 100%. The other side of Twitter declared that Mingyu should be cancelled, and bashed anyone who supported Mingyu or remained neutral. People were sending Mingyu death threats despite the history of k-pop artists committing suicide. All of this reminded me why I avoided Twitter for so many years: Purity and cancel culture run rampant; the mobs want blood penance for every wrongdoing without first considering the nuances of the situation. People blindly defend their ults and set aside their morals to do so.

Here is what I got out of my initial reading of the translated (version 1, version 2) accusations:

OP was shy, timid, and isolated from her classmates. When she tried to speak up in class, Mingyu would tell her to shut up. This happened enough times that, eventually, OP stopped talking in class at all.

Mingyu and his friends told sexual jokes while OP was in the vicinity. These comments made OP uncomfortable and triggered her. However, they were not directed at OP.

The sexual jokes and comments did not escalate to sexual assault or violence. OP explicitly states there was no violence or physical contact.

Mingyu and his friends drew and laughed at inappropriate pictures of body parts/hair on the board. OP is not actually sure if it was Mingyu who drew the pictures, only that he was up there laughing with the others.

OP struggles with anxiety and depression; Mingyu was not the sole reason why she attended therapy. OP mentioned that she brought Mingyu up only briefly with her therapist.

Could I believe all of this being true? Yes, because I personally adhere to two Me Too philosophies: 

The first is that women almost never lie about sexual harassment, abuse, or assault. I absolutely believe that Mingyu is capable of making sexual jokes and comments. Teenage boys and girls alike are notoriously emotional and hormonal between the ages of 12 and 14. I can also imagine Mingyu drawing penises on whiteboards, complete with elaborate pubic hair. These are the antics of a typical middle school boy. For some reason, teenage boys—at least in North America—are very fascinated by their own genitalia and like to announce they have one by drawing pictures of dicks on any available surface. 

The second philosophy I abide by is that men and boys in power are likely to abuse it. All men—even k-pop idols—benefit from patriarchy. They are in a position to abuse, degrade, and humiliate women (obviously, I hope none of these things happen, but I also have to acknowledge the possibility that they do). This is especially true in patriarchal Asian societies. Someone as popular and attractive as Mingyu holds great influence and power in his peer groups. Can I see a young Mingyu being a dick to a girl who is quiet and timid and isolated from her peers? Yes.

But also… Who wasn’t a dick in middle school? I feel like my classmates and I were colossal idiots back then. Was it just my school where classmates told each other to shut up all the time? Was it just my school where kids put their thumb and forefinger in an “L” shape to their foreheads and called each other losers? Everyone has a different threshold for what they consider bullying, but for me, these gestures and comments were so commonplace that I merely accepted them as part of the elementary and middle school experience. These things are mean and insensitive, yes, but it’s possible to grow out of these antics.

It is difficult for me to form an opinion about these sexual jokes Mingyu made for two reasons: (1) cultural differences, and thus my own internal biases, and (2) we don’t know about the nature of these jokes. It’s hard to determine whether these comments constitute as sexual harassment without this context. Even then, people have different thresholds of what they are comfortable with, and what they are not comfortable with.

We don’t know whether these comments were along the lines of “That’s what she said” or “You know what else is big?” or “I grow hair down there...on my toes!” ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Or if they were jokes about sexual experience/performance, speculation about what someone looks like naked, the colour of their underwear, or raping a person (I’ve often seen these “jokes” directed at female streamers and influencers). In my opinion, there’s a big difference between the two. 

The former, while crude and immature, is not generally said with ill-intent, nor is it generally directed at a specific person. These are jokes that teens, both male and female, commonly make in North America. (Perhaps this is part of the problem: the fact that I consider this to be standard teenage behaviour...) I would hesitate to call it harassment unless the victim made it known that she was uncomfortable, and the boys continued anyway. I also understand that the victim may not have felt able to speak out against Mingyu and his friends. In this case, the boys might not have been aware of her discomfort. Teenage boys are not particularly well-known for being sensitive. 

The latter, however, objectifies and diminishes a person, and is disgusting and reprehensible. The latter is, without contest, sexual harassment. Absolutely no one should have to tolerate comments of this nature. Anyone who makes such jokes should be educated on why these so-called jokes are damaging, and how they perpetuate rape culture, as well as the sexualisation and dehumanisation of women, as well as men. Anyone who makes comments of this nature should be called out (and here I emphasise called out as opposed to cancelled) for their behaviour. It is imperative that they are educated, given the opportunity to reflect, apologise, and make amends. This is with the hope they know better in the future and do not make the same mistake again. 

Now, based on what OP said, the jokes Mingyu made seem more like the first case: he made a pun about body hair. I am pretty sure if Mingyu made “jokes” of the second nature, OP would have chosen to highlight that instead of a pun. However, this is something that needs to be clarified. The content of these jokes drastically changes the severity of the allegations.

Currently, I interpret this through the lens of my uncouth Western sensibilities: what OP described sounds like typical Western teen behaviour. There are many actions, events, and experiences that take place during our formative and adolescent years that come to define who we are as adults. Personally, I don’t think that drawing hairy penises on the whiteboard—inappropriate as it is—or being an asshole in middle school are these things.

But who am I to say, “Yeah, what OP went through was not that bad”? I can’t be the judge of that, and that’s absolutely not what I’m trying to do here. I don’t know the whole story, and even then, it doesn’t matter. I am an outsider in all of this. I’m not trying to diminish the years of suffering and torment the victim went through, and I apologise if that’s how I came off. Nothing I said previously changes the fact that these jokes negatively affected the victim. Nothing I said changes the fact that this girl’s voice was silenced because of some thoughtless middle school boy’s comments. These are wounds that people carry from childhood through to adulthood.

Impact matters just as much as intent. I might argue that in cases such as these, impact matters even more than intent. Mingyu might have done all these things without ill-intent, but OP’s trauma is very much real. (As a side note: This is one of the reasons why I am very happy with Pledis’ official statement. Their focus on healing and reparation—without absolving Mingyu or throwing him under the bus (yet)—is the right move.)

I’ve just been seeing so many death threats and demands for Mingyu to leave the group that I cannot help but wish people would extend him the empathy that they themselves would appreciate.

People are condemning a 12-14 year old Mingyu for making sexual puns and being an asshole. People are measuring a middle school aged-Mingyu against the ethical and moral standards they hold as adults, and they are finding that this young Mingyu fell short. This should not be surprising. I know if I judged younger-me by the standards I have today, I would be left wanting. 

I remember the kind of person I was as a teenager. I was hormonal. I made “That’s what she said” jokes, among others. While I never intentionally set out to hurt anyone, I know I have said crude and unkind things. As a teenager, I didn’t possess the tact I do now; I didn’t know how to self-regulate. I could be a mean and horny kid (not necessarily at the same time, haha!), but I also had parts of me that were deeply sensitive and caring and thoughtful of others. Teenagers and adults are multi-faceted. I would not want anyone to dig up these past receipts and use it as the basis to judge the person I am now. I would not want people to pick out the worst of my past actions and words, and use it to invalidate my success today. 

It varies case by case, but for the most part, I don’t think people should be punished for what they did or said as children; I would have been cancelled long ago if this were the case, as would many others. People change as they grow older and become more educated and informed. It is different if these behaviours and actions persist into adulthood. Then, yes: there should absolutely be consequences. I am not saying we can just sweep all our childhood wrongdoings under the rug. It is still important for us to acknowledge and reflect upon the wrongs of past words and actions, and to offer apologies and reparations where they are due.  

Should these allegations prove true, can I support both OP and Mingyu, or is that cheating? I do believe OP and my heart goes out to her. I understand why she chose to speak out. I know it must have been difficult to do so against someone who is a man, famous, well-loved, wealthy, and successful. I know it must hurt to see the whole world adore a man who has caused you pain. South Korea has a culture of enduring silently; this results in great mental strain and suffering. In speaking out, she relived past and present power imbalances. This is not easy for a victim to do, especially when you are a woman in a patriarchal society and your bully is a male celebrity.

I hope I am not invalidating her feelings when I reiterate that Mingyu was a young teenager, and teenagers can be mean and crude—intentionally or not. Mingyu is a public figure, so naturally, he is held to higher moral standards. But he is also human. He can and will make mistakes. He can and will continue to grow. I feel a lot of empathy for Mingyu, both now as he is forced to confront his past immaturities, and as he moves forward in his career. 

Thoughts on additional allegations (KakaoTalk group chat + ableism)

I will not be addressing allegations of Mingyu bullying a classmate with autism now that the issue has been resolved. (Again, I commend Pledis for their response, and for recognising that the ableism needed to be addressed first. Of the three l accusations, this was the one that Mingyu would not be able to recover from. Even now, he will not emerge from this unscathed). I will only be sharing my initial misgivings about these additional allegations.

First off, this is a very nuanced and precarious topic. I don’t want to diminish a potential victim’s experience, yet I hope people understand why I am so skeptical about accepting screenshots of chat rooms as hard proof. Here are a few reasons why:

(1) Bullying scandals have been erupting left and right, especially as of late. Some of these accusations have been proved true. Others have been proved false. Regardless, there seems to be a trend of digging up past receipts—fabricated or not—of celebrities with the aim of cancelling them or undermining their success. 

(2) Screenshots and chat rooms are easily manipulated and fabricated. This is different from a victim with a face speaking out against past incidents of bullying. They could be someone with malicious intent, or they could be a genuine victim. We just don’t know. And in the case of the chat rooms, it wasn’t even the victims who were speaking out.

(3) I wondered if these were antis who jumped on the coattails of the initial OP to stir the pot. These allegations (particularly the case of ableism, which has thankfully been cleared up now) are far more serious than original claims—why wait until now to bring them up?

(4) I find it difficult to trust even yearbook proof because people can and will sell yearbooks if they went to school with idols. In addition, yearbooks cannot prove interaction, and therefore, cannot prove bullying. At the same time, how do you prove bullying incidents from ten years ago? How do you disprove it? Cases of bullying aren’t often well-documented. It essentially becomes a game of my-word-against-yours. 

(5) There is a pretty well-known article from 2016 where Mingyu defended a classmate with a disability. It doesn’t necessarily disprove the current claim, but the timing is important here. The classmate shared their account back in 2016; it did not just surface after recent allegations. However, if I want to believe that the KKT screenshots are false, then I must also be willing to believe that this 2016 article may have been fabricated as well.

(6) As someone in their 20s, the thought of being in a group chat with a bunch of my middle school classmates is baffling to me. Personally, I don’t want anything to do with my middle school classmates.

There is not much more to say on this; I will patiently wait for Pledis’ statement on the remaining allegations.

Achieving Escape Velocity and other MinWon stories

In a previous blog post, I stated that when I write and talk about AEV-Mingyu and Wonwoo—or other variations of Mingyu and Wonwoo—they are strictly characters that I have made up in my head, and they are separate from the real Mingyu and Wonwoo. At the same time, I do absolutely draw inspiration from the real Mingyu and Wonwoo in the creation of these story characters. It is their faces, bodies, and voices that I imagine. Thus, my current anxieties surrounding this situation make it difficult for me to write and enjoy AEV.

However, I still love this story a lot, and I love sharing it with everyone! There’s so much more to this fic that I want to show. As I mentioned in the initial author’s note, this is the first time I’m posting something of this length and I worked really hard on it. For these reasons, I have every intention of continuing to write and update Achieving Escape Velocity. Regular weekly updates will resume this coming weekend.

[hahahalifelol]

my thoughts about folklore so far <3

i solemnly believe that taylor swifts new album could redefine writing in the music industry. the storylines .. the passion ... the “fictionalised” scenarios that speak with the audience and let them resonate with each song depending on who they are as a person , wether they identify as straight or gay or bisexual. She did not write her 8th album for financial gain or worldwide recognition and although she had sold 1.3 million copies already since the release, it’s clear that it wasn’t about that, and instead to show a true reflection of her soul without the media getting a say before the release , much like Lover, reputation.

it was about finding herself during this period of reflection, being her most genuine and raw self, the explicitly of her lyrics, despite being vague so the audience can see themselves through what she is saying speaks volumes.

along with this, she has proved in this album that she isn’t just some pop writer of heartbreak anthems, she has inner battles, and her songwriting should not be defined by her relationships, past or present.

her album to me personally, speaks about heartbreak, from a young age, along with finding yourself along the way, that all the relationships and scenarios in her life have made her the way she is, that she understands that her heartbreak has created the mindset towards relationships , sexuality etc.

ALSO ITS JUST SO SAD AND NOSTALGIC AND THERES BON IVER AND ITS 2:20 AM AND ITS JUST A LOt SO MOST OF THIS WONT MAKE SENSE

does this album feel like climbing a mountain and seeing the view at the top , and just reflecting on everything that’s happened, the climb and the people who helped you get to the top, wether it was a negative or positive relationship, i genuinely can’t explain the vibe other than damn taylor this seems kinda sapphic, and also WAYYYYY more swearing which i love, taylor swift saying “ mouth fuck you forever” is probably the most satisfying thing ever i don’t know what it is.

alternatively the album could be seen as taylor looking back at her experiences as a younger woman , when she was 17/18 and the things she experienced which helped her get to this point , wether that was discovering parts of herself, which is again exploring now in solitude as shes had lots of time for reflection and self growth.

The woods in her album promotional shots, and the white cardigan, dress and rawer photography style, specifically the vintage black and white film look could also explain the nostalgia she feels now shes had time to look back, and as a 17 year old girl myself , her lyrics speak to me in a way in which her other album have never done before , the uncertainty and certainty of what she wants and what she doesn’t want, the desire to be with someone ( listen to cardigan, illicit affairs, betty august, seven) regardless of what others think about them.

whilst it’s important to notice the queer undertones of her entire album, we cannot forget that the albums nostalgia and sad tone creates the themes of heartbreak, and perhaps looking back at mistakes made.

lyrics that speak to me:

“ i think i’ve seen this film before, and i didn’t like the ending” - talking about her failed relationships / and or , the relationships which she felt she could’ve done better in, and looking back onto them, showing she disliked the way which she/ or the person acted to make the “film” end and for her to snap back into reality, out of the safe bubble which was the relationship.

“wishing i could write my name on it”

“ i had the shiniest wheels, now their rusting”

“ i was so ahead of the curve, the curve became a sphere”

“ and we can be pirates, then you won’t have to cry”

“ now i breathe flames each time i talk// and women like hunting witches too”

“ all these people think loves for show but i would die for you in secret” - this lyric simply states taylor’s love and adoration for the person, whilst she might want to be loud and pubic, she is willing to “die” for the person in secret, meaning she’s happy just to be with that person, in love and happy just to show it to that person, and not having to be forced to do or say anything for the media’s consumption.

ialso think everyone should stop placing labels onto her , yes i’d absolutely love it if she was bisexual/ into women and that kaylor had been real, and that all the men she had been with she was just bearding for, however we need to keep respectful as it’s not fair to insinuate anything about a women that we only know through her songs and some fan interactions with her. whilst betty, august, illicit affairs etc seem to be sapphic ( HELL YEAH, Go taylor) we need to remind ourselves as fans it’s not our place to say that a certain song means something, especially what it means to the artist, we will never know the true meanings behind many of her songs, so let’s keep the vibes positive and not place labels onto people who obviously support the LGBTQ+ community regardless of how they feel about the same sex

thankyou for coming to my ted talk and stream Folklore !!!

[darkshrimpemotions]

I think the thing that really frustrates me re: Destiel is that...well, there has never been any significant speculation/argument about whether or not Castiel had feelings for Dean.

At least, not any that was consistent or loud enough to be a big or dominant part of fandom discourse.

(Putting in a read more here because there are just a lot of Feelings I have about this nonsense that are nowhere near coherent)

The argument has always been about whether Dean could possibly have a romantic and/or sexual attraction toward Castiel. Whether it “makes sense” that Dean, a man who likes beer and classic cars and 70s-80s rock music and weapons and sex with women can also be a man who has romantic and/or sexual feelings about his best friend, who is (or appears to be) a man.

This disparity between how Dean’s feelings are viewed versus how Cas’s feelings are viewed has just become stronger in recent years, not only because the writers have given strong textual support for Cas’s feelings since season six, but also because Cas’s actor has been very vocally supportive of the ship, whereas Dean’s actor has been mostly very negative towards it, when he spoke about it at all.

And I’m not here to debate how actors’ feelings do or should affect fanon or canon. But the fact that one actor says “we know what’s going on” while the other says “it’s not real” absolutely has had an affect on how fandom talks about the ship, and absolutely affects what is needed for the ship to be acknowledged by the show as canon.

These arguments and this disparity have always been frustrating for me, primarily because the idea that this needs to be argued at all is 100% a product of heteronormativity and biphobia. Dean’s interests and appearance scream “Red-Blooded American Male,” and the idea that the red-blooded American male could ever be in love with another man upsets some people. Yes, even some people who would not consider themselves homophobic, biphobic, or heteronormative.

Castiel, as a genderless being merely inhabiting a male body--and who we have seen inhabit a female body twice throughout the show’s run--doesn’t grate against a binary understanding of gender and sexuality as much, partly because he’s already visibly transgressing the gender binary from the moment we meet him. As counterintuitive as that seems, I’ve constantly seen it in fandom and in real life as well: the person who is obviously flouting the “rules” of heteronormativity being queer surprises no one. The person who appears to follow those rules only to buck them later incites a specific kind of anger: the anger of people who feel lied to.

Dean, who exists firmly on one side of the gender binary from the word go, makes audiences more uncomfortable when he is queered by fandom because when you look at the show with heteronormativity goggles, there are no “signs” to clue you in. And sadly, many fans still, in the year 2020, want to believe they can “tell” if someone is queer just by looking at them.

For those of us who are bisexual who see ourselves in Dean, and have seen ourselves in Dean since the beginning, this is endlessly frustrating. I want to both scream to the rooftops that there is no one way that bisexual people look, and at the same time scream “what are you talking about? It’s right there, how can you not see it?” It’s certainly an...interesting dimension of erasure, to have someone look at a character so much like you and say they can’t possibly see you there, because X thing (that also applies to you) is fundamentally at odds with the possibility of you being there.

Did that sentence hurt your brain? Welcome to my life.

There’s also been a not-insignificant camp of people in the fandom who separate Destiel from bi!Dean headcanon, insisting Destiel wouldn’t matter if they just made Dean canonically bisexual. This argument is something I might have been able to get behind. In seasons four and five, or maybe seasons nine and ten.

But not in season fifteen. Not when the only significant relationship Dean has had, consistently, with someone other than his brother, throughout most of the show’s history, has been with Castiel. Not when 95% of the textual and subtextual evidence for Dean’s bisexuality is in relation to Cas, and not when there’s no time left in the story to explore Dean’s attraction further than simply pointing backward at what came before.

Not when the in-show queerbaiting is all in relation to Dean’s relationship with Cas.

Not when the question since season 9 at least has not been “will they/won’t they” but “when will Dean get a clue and make it clear to his life partner that he matters and their bond is reciprocal?”

The only way the writers have left to textually avoid solidifying the show as the longest case of queerbaiting in television history is to have Dean acknowledge and return Cas’s feelings before the final episode ends. That’s it. That’s all. Castiel’s confession on its own is not enough, and is arguably just a slap in the face to fans who have known for years that Castiel was in love with Dean, who have only been waiting for Dean to acknowledge that he is also in love with Castiel. That he is capable of loving Castiel back.

So if that love confession is all there is? That’s low. That’s worse, in my opinion, than if they had never acknowledged anything at all. That’s the kind of slap-in-the-face bullshit writers pull when they want to punish the audience for wanting something.

And yes, it is queerbaiting. It is wildly queerphobic writing. And it’s just a shitty, shitty thing to do to fans after all this time.

[arotaro]

Hi! I've been thinking about this blog and allo-aro and aro representation a lot lately because a writing community I'm in has been having a huge problem with this, and I was wondering if you had any tips I could pass on regarding properly writing and portraying allo-aro characters? Thank you so much in advance!

Well, what kind of allo aro characters? Are you writing fantasy novels? Historical? Realistic fiction? Sci-fi with a cast of aliens? Romance novels? Bodice rippers? I really can’t give especially good advice if I don’t know the specifics. If you’ve got anything you want specific advice on, let me know.

In general, I’m going to say what I would hope would be extremely obvious things, but apparently people still need them to be spelled out for them! Love the lack of compassion for y’all’s fellow human beings I see from writers sometimes. Anyway.

Say the word out loud. Don’t ever just leave it at “ohhhh they had sex but they do not get married in the end! Wow!!! Alright gang it’s been a good run but that’s enough representation for the day, let’s pack it up.” If at all possible, never just imply representation; Say it out loud. In the actual text, not on Twitter. And I’m not saying you have to open up your novel with “Sheila was allosexual aromantic”- There’s a lot of different ways you can “say” it without just filling out a profile. You could do something like:“Hey, Sheila, you’re a lesbian, right?” John asked. “Nah, actually, I’m bisexual aromantic,” Sheila replied.Or:Sheila glanced up at the aromantic flag that hung on her wall, trying to mix the right shade of green for the painting.Etc.

I cannot emphasize this enough: Don’t, don’t, DON’T apply “predator” or “player” stereotypes to your allo aro characters. Yes, there is room for nuance, but you should never be like “Yeah here’s Fuckboy Steve, he hates women and likes to go out to bars and get women super drunk before having sex with them and then leave them without a word in the morning because he doesn’t care about them and is incapable of forming real human connections, but he’s aromantic! Yay I’m winning representation!”

In general, if you’re writing an allo aro character, ask yourself: Why? Why am I writing them in the way that I am? Have I talked to actual allo aros? What are they like? Am I writing this character the way I am just because, or am I writing them this way based on assumptions about what I think allo aros must be like?

Write your allo aro characters as characters first, allo aros second. This obviously is something that should be followed any time someone sets out to write a character of x identity.

Make them main characters! It’s always disappointing to hear about representation that turns out to be like, a minor character in a novel with a big romantic plot. We want to see ourselves, not catch a brief glimpse of a sliver of hair before some couple blocks the view by making out right in front of the mirror.

Allo aros should not exist soley in tangent with romance and sex. A lot of us are uncomfortable with romance, and frankly, like... We have lives outside of hookups. 

By all means write diverse allo aros, but also be careful of intersectionality and how negative stereotypes about different identities come into play. Is your Hispanic allo aro falling into the “spicy Latina lover” stereotype? Is your pansexual aro falling into the “fucks anything that moves” stereotype? Allo aros are diverse and everyone deserves to have our identities represented, but please do so carefully.