#listing the characters i used to get the ratios here. you can make arguments about who is and isn’t a main character so:

[leonardalphachurch]

everything you’re saying is completely correct but i do think there’s more nuance in the problems with the way women are written in the show vs just season before season 11 good after season 11 bad. which i’m not saying that’s what you’re saying i just also want an excuse to talk about the way female characters are treated.

there’s a definite difference between the way women are written in the different eras of the show. looking at bgc, there is a LOT of misogynistic humor levied at the women; the women in bgc face more overt misogyny than at any other point in the show. there are also only 3 women over the 5 seasons, compared to the 14 men (the disparity in numbers will continue through all eras of the show, though). however, they’re also WAY more fleshed out than the freelancer women are— and even the post 11 women at times. kai was reduced down to “party girl” in the original post but i don’t think that’s fair at all. for a character who was really only in a little over half a season of the show (pre 16) she has a really dynamic characterization. she’s not immune to the misogyny of blood gulch but she IS a fleshed out character. she’s colorblind; she speaks fluent spanish and knows morse code, implying a proficiency in languages; she has an actual backstory of how and why she joined the army, something that even most of the reds and blues don’t get; she’s bisexual; she’s terrible at picking up social cues; and, most importantly, she’s on the same level as the rest of the reds and blues in terms of power and narrative. kai and jensen are the ONLY female characters who are allowed to be as much of a fuckup as the rest of the cast. and we’ll get to jensen later. (ohio is also a fuckup but she’s barely a character and even then, within the triplets she’s often the most competent!). all of the reds and blues are messy assholes and kai is really the only female character that is actually equal to them (tho even then, her status as a little sister character does give her an element of being below the other characters— not to even mention the fact that she literally was not named besides her title of how she related to a male character). as for kai in 16-17. we already wrote about this in a much better way than we’re doing here so. go read those posts.

sheila is a really interesting character because like. she is literally a tool for men to ride around in and use. but she is also, imo, maybe the best written female character? besides maybe kimball? but sheila and kimball’s problems are very similar, actually. looking at sheila in a vacuum, she’s unbelievably dynamic and imo compelling. she’s a military tank who’s purpose is to kill, and she does take pleasure in violence! but she’s also. motherly? and a romantic. and vindictive and jealous. and caring and kind. she has multiple arcs, which is a trait she shares only with carolina (and kind of tex? tex’s arcs are. complicated.) she’s like. a really interesting character. there’s such a deep well there. but her problem is not a problem with her, it’s a problem with the rest of the show. her motherly behavior and general competence puts her on a higher pedestal than the reds and blues have. and like. there isn’t a problem with writing a woman who’s motherly. especially since she’s so fleshed out besides that. like, toriel isn’t a misogynistic character just bc she’s a mom. but the difference between toriel and sheila is that undertale has countless female characters with contrasting traits while rvb. does not. if rvb had tons of other female characters all at different levels of competence and personality types than sheila would be perfect. but it does not. and as it is two out of the three female characters in blood gulch are at least in part defined by how they take care of the male characters around them.

which i guess i should talk about kimball bc she has the same problem. kimballs actual writing is FANTASTIC. but again, chorus has numbers issue. out of the 10 new main characters introduced during chorus, only three of them are women. better numbers than bgc, but still not great. and if we consider ALL characters, not just new ones, then out of the 22 main characters, only four are women. and three of those four women are, again, hypercompetent and taking care of the men around them. there is more of a nuance to this dynamic in chorus bc i do think chorus has overall the best treatment of female characters but there’s still a lot of issues there.

especially with jensen. i do like jensen a lot, and i do really appreciate getting another cringefail woman to the cast. unfortunately her entire plot line is about the fact that she’s a woman. obviously, being a woman is an important part of. being a woman. but nearly everything about jensen’s arc is about how she’s the girl. simmons’ whole thing in 12 is his “nerdy” misogyny of seeing women as some untouchable separate species. which, funny enough, is kind of a microcosm of the entire issue with the shows treatment of women. make no mistake: the fear of women is rooted in misogyny. simmons behavior towards “volleyball” (refusing to give her a promotion because she intimidated him) is just as misogynistic as tucker’s (wanting to give her a promotion because she’s attractive to him). and this is never dealt with. (the misogyny is, in fact, doubled down in psas, but if i want to start complaining about the psas i’ll be here all week). even like, her trait of being bad at driving is a misogynistic stereotype? and like. i don’t think that was the intention there but you can see the problem when whole reason for existing in the first place was for a man (her boss) to be misogynistic at her. and then giving her a romance plot with palomo is like. we get it. she’s the girl. men attracted to women. can she please at least get an apology for how simmons treated her please.

you’ve explained a lot of the issues with the pfl ladies but again, the only characterization that women are allowed to have during the pfl era is “hypercompetent bitch”. obviously, all of the freelancers are hypercompetent, given their status as elite soldiers, but even within their ranks all the women are presented as being cutthroat, extremely capable, cold-hearted bitches, while the men are allowed to be soft, caring, lovable goofballs. york and north are allowed to wax poetic about the morality of pfl while CT yells at wash to “wake the fuck up”. wash and york are allowed to have major fuckups on their missions with little consequence shown to the audience while when north and south fuck up their mission, only south is blamed for it, and when she points out how unfair that is it’s treated as a tantrum and it’s never acknowledged that she’s right. there IS a double standard. wyoming, the one male character who was presented as being as cutthroat and cold blooded as the rest of the pfl women are, is just. written out. looking at numbers again, pfl has the best ratio but it’s still off. out of the 14 main characters, 5 are women. i didn’t even include wyoming or any of the innies in that count. out of the 5 women, ALL of them are hypercompetent and four of them are consistently characterized as “bitches”. and you could make an argument for 9er having that trait too. out of the nine male characters, NONE of the freelancer men have really. any negative traits. the only men who are presented in a negative light are the villains.

last but not least is shizno. i don’t have a lot to say here but. starting with kalirama— do you remember how excited people were when she first showed up. why was she just dropped. the fact that she was dropped was so egregious that the writer for 17 literally made chrovos a women to make up for the fact that he thought kalirama wasn’t utilized enough. i’m not joking that’s literally the reason. and about chrovos. look i think the god of all time not having a set gender is good and makes sense but. i kinda wish she was like. actually fluid in her gender and changed formed a few times. bc as it is she’s just kind of. a trans woman. and there’s nothing wrong with making your time god villain a trans woman (it’s actually awesome and everyone should do this) but when that’s. the only trans character you have. and it’s introduced with a joke about a sex change (in character comment for donut to make but. it still sucks) it’s like. it’s like. don’t do that.

and then dylan. she’s fine. i think she should’ve been way more unhinged. the thing is she is kind of unhinged in the first few episodes? like she shoots jax without remorse. she breaks into active military investigations. she negotiates a man’s suicide. but it feels like the second she gets with the reds and blues all the interesting parts of her character vanish and she just turns into. nice lady who takes care of the men around her. again. AGAIN.

it’s tiring. no more women who have the only brain cell. no more hypercompetent women who take care of men. from now on we only write cringefail lesbians.

(also i want to be clear here that when i call a woman’s characterization “bitch” i am not calling her a bitch, i am saying that that is how the writers are characterizing her. “bitch” is a character trait to misogynistic men, which is essentially “woman who has too much power and doesn’t respect men and you should hate her for it”. “bitch” isn’t just “woman who’s mean” it’s specifically about how the woman interacts with men (though sometimes that man is just the male author). as an example: despite being possibly the most cruel woman of the cast, grey isn’t characterized as a “bitch” because she’s never presented as being cruel for how she undermines a man’s character. contrast that with CT, who is literally in the right, but still gets the “bitch” characterization because of treatment of wash.)

In general up until like season 11 most of the women in the show are very one dimensional and they're often ignored until they can move along the guys plotlines. They’re also focused on a lot less. Aside from like. Carolina. The girls are all shelved over and over. Kai just got straight up removed for like 7 seasons. Comparing the girls to Redteam. Both are part of the plot but aren’t the main focus of the story, but red team gets fleshed out dynamics, diverse characters, multi faceted personalities, even Donut the guy whose personality is “gay jokes” gets hobbies and friends and interesting interactions. And the girls get. The angry one. Died to further the plot. Party girl. Hell Tex gets killed over and over to give motivation to the Churches. A lot of the depth and complexities of the girls has to be made up by the viewer. And while there are good women leaders in the show, there are like no girls who are allowed to have character development sans Carolina. They’re not allowed to make mistakes or grow from them. Their shows of emotions aren’t taken seriously by anyone around them. The girls are for the most part not allowed to be anything but perfect. When they make any mistakes they're immediately made out to be the bad guys. South is literally designed to be hated for traits that she shares with people like Sarge and Church. Ct is killed to give Wash trust issues and as a way to push her bf guys existence into the story and explain desert!ct. In general I absolutely love the girls and think they deserve better than what they got. For the person (tried to @ them but tumblr wont let me?) in the comments of one of my posts who asked me to explain why i think the way rvb women are written isn't good, thanks btw /gen. I love excuses to write out my thoughts <3

[aftergloom]

20 Questions for Fic Writers

Thank you for the tag @thegreatwicked! This is my main — @thenightmarketofdathomir is my sideblog (and I usually do these tag games over here.)

1. How many works do you have on AO3?  Twenty one. Have deleted as many in as many years, probably. 

2. What's your total A03 word count?  740,975. I had this horrified moment as I was tallying… what if my current WIP (not live) has a bigger total than everything else that’s up as of today? (It’s not. I’m not sure if I’m relieved because this thing is shaping up to be a trilogy.)

3. What fandoms do you write for?  Stah Wahs

4. What are your top five fics by kudos? Kudos in ratio to chapter, orrrr just the volume? Some of them are shit and I pretend they don’t exist anymore so I’m not going to list them. They’re like bad dreams. That shit never happened I don’t care if it took 38 chapters. And I’m not counting the Nightmarket because it’s a hundred and eighty one-shots lumped together. 

Somebody's gonna have a bad time by nxctuary (Opress Bros x Reader)

Drown Me in You by nxctuary (Mermaid!Maul x Reader)

The myriad applications and multiple uses for a Corellian HWY-280 class fresher. Article 342: One locking door. by nxctuary (Feral x Reader)

The Collector by nxctuary (Maul x Reader)

The Ritual by nxctuary (Maul x Reader)

5. Do you respond to comments? Why or why not?  Depends on a couple of things that aren’t always consistent, and often if I don’t reply it’s because the comment broke me. (I often will reply, but I’m like a cryptid — expect me to pop-up without warning six months after you’ve left a note.) It’s often someone saying something nice, my inner self-hatred seeing it and going, “LIAR!” And then taking six months to convince myself that I just can’t take a compliment when negotiating my own imposter syndrome.

6. What's the fic you wrote with the angstiest ending?  Ah that’s… hm. I don’t think I’ve killed anyone lately.

7. What's the fic you wrote with the happiest ending?  Everyone gets a happy ending. Even if it’s a little twisted. I like horror endings, you know? The kind that, on the surface, appear as if everything’s actually going to work out for the better but there’s a single drop of darkness left on the page that implies everything can be lost at a moment’s notice.

8. Do you get hate on fics? Narp.

9. Do you write smut?  Yarp.

10. Do you write crossovers?  Just once. Let’s not talk about it.

11. Have you ever had a fic stolen?  Better not have. I’ve had multiple pieces plagiarized partially, though. In really hilarious ways (to me, at least) because there’s nothing like borrowing a turn of phrase said to you IRL (while you were sleeping with the person who said it), giving those words to Maul as he speaks them to the Reader character, then finding someone else pulled out several lines of the same dialogue to use in their fic without permission. Maybe don’t do that. You don’t know where this stuff comes from, and you definitely don’t know what I was working through when I wrote it. Awkward. 

12. Have you ever had a fic translated?  Not that I remember. (Maybe once in X-Men? I've had work turned into podfic, though.)

13. Have you ever co-written a fic before?  Nope. 

14. What's your all-time favourite ship?  Feral and Kai? Do OCs count? 

15. What's the WIP you want to finish but doubt you ever will?  Nothing is ever finished even if it’s finished. I don’t understand the question. /j

16. What are your writing strengths?  I show up every day and I do the work. Even when it sucks and when I hate it. I do the work. 

17. What are your writing weaknesses?  If I don’t have a clear overview of how a scene is going to play out (or especially the layers of an argument between the characters — what they’re saying VS what they really mean, what they’re withholding, what the reader knows but they don’t, etc) I will spin my wheels and fill up a page with setting description to avoid making a bulleted list of what’s actually happening so I can get to the point. Then edit it twelve times later like hacking away at a hunk of marble trying to get to the good bits. 

18. Thoughts on writing dialogue in another language for a fic?  Doesn’t bother me. There are circumstances where the jist of the conversation carries regardless, and if not, I’m assuming the writer’s offering a translation either in-text or as a citation. I mean, if you want to get granular about it, then start asking does doing that serve the story and what does it add, or does it detract, but that’s a situational thing and I think you need to experiment a bit to learn what works in context.

19. First fandom you wrote for?  Harry Potter. Draco/Harry. I was baby.

20. Favourite fic you've ever written?  Archangel (unreleased). Heartsong (unreleased). Crown of Motherfucking Horns (current WIP). CoH my heart. CoH beloved. CoH my baby.

Tagging (no pressure): @herbalinz-of-yesteryear @grinningnexu @sinisterexaggerator @inquisitorius-sin-bin @umber-cinders @graaaaceeliz @not0a0mundane and anyone else who wants to play :)

[hellsbellschime]

Ok, so I’ve always noticed some of the racism on TVD , most notably the treatment of Marcel and Emily, and the founders day parade episode (which, as a Virginian I have to say that the episode made me low-key ashamed when I re-watched it years later). But it took me a while to catch onto the racism on Bonnie‘s character. I was wondering if you have done a meta about it and could link me to it, or if you could do one?

Well it only took me like a year but here ya go!

Despite the fact that The Vampire Diaries is a show that was ostensibly created for girls and young women, the show undeniably seems to lack a certain level of respect or basic interest in its female characters. And while every single significant female character demonstrates that misogynistic point of view in one way or another, one of the most unique, distinct, and apparent instances of The Vampire Diaries' sexism is on peak display with one of it's leading female characters, Bonnie Bennett.

Bonnie obviously occupies a particularly interesting role in the series because she's the only black leading character, and it's also hard to miss that The Vampire Diaries universe has a pretty apparent issue with it's non-white characters as well.

The race problem on TVD expresses itself in a few different, extremely blatant ways. The most obvious issue with people of color on The Vampire Diaries is that those who are actually PoC within the narrative itself are typically pushed to the sidelines and relegated to supporting players at best, but there is also an issue with presenting PoC performers who are white-passing as white characters.

None of the PoC characters in The Vampire Diaries get very good treatment, but the series seems to be exceptionally problematic when it comes to its presentation of black characters. While black people arguably get more representation than any other non-white characters in this fictional world, they are almost all outrageously attractive, extremely light-skinned, and conveniently lacking in any emotional needs or inner life that needs to be addressed within the narrative, seemingly designed to show up, perform whatever service is necessary, and once again fade into the background if not just be killed off entirely.

This is an issue with every black character in the series, but given that Bonnie is the most significant and prominent in the series, it comes as no surprise that she was affected the most intensely by these biases. It's one thing to be a black character, it's one thing to be a female character, but being a black female character in the TVD universe is exceptionally crippling. But how exactly did the misogynoir of The Vampire Diaries completely neutralize Bonnie Bennett as a character?

Bonnie was mistreated, dismissed, and outright ignored in many big and small ways throughout the course of the show. But, a lot of that treatment can be pretty easily sorted into a few categorizations. The Vampire Diaries went through a pretty seismic shift from the start of the show to the end, but it has always been a series that falls primarily into two genres, the supernatural thriller genre and the romance genre.

The show pretty clearly transformed from a show that was firstly a supernatural story with a romantic subgenre into an almost entirely romantic story with a supernatural backdrop, but it's safe to say that the vast majority of the plotlines were either focused on magic or love. And, it's not particularly difficult to see how Bonnie was forcibly excluded from a predominant storyline in each genre, even when it made absolutely no sense.

Bonnie was a completely inexperienced witch at the start of TVD, so her cluelessness and powerlessness made a certain amount of sense at that point. But by the end of season 2 at the very latest, it seems fully established that she is one of the most powerful living witches in the world, and for the bulk of the series it is plainly acknowledged that she is one of the most powerful witches who ever lived. Which is exactly why Bonnie's position in the narrative is baffling.

In quite a few instances, Bonnie's magical abilities seem to be somewhat inconsistent, at least in the sense that, if she can solve some of the biggest problems that the Mystic Falls gang is confronted with, then it's very odd that she can't solve the others. And while plenty of characters in TVD are occasionally used as plot devices rather than characters, Bonnie seems to be the one who is specifically designed to show up, fix what needs fixing, and then become set dressing once she's no longer necessary as the mystical solution to every unsolvable issue.

And this is actually a significant problem with the witches at large, but of course is most recognizable with Bonnie because she is the most prominent witch. While not all witches are women of color, it seems like they are far more represented in that faction of the magical world than in any other. So then, it's interesting that the witches are presented as servants of nature who are meant to selflessly restore order to the world without actually using their abilities for their own personal gain.

Of course there are plenty of witches who appear to use their powers for themselves, but still, it's incredibly meaningful that the lone black main character in the series is constantly sacrificing herself for the sake of the otherwise entirely white cast of characters. It's even more meaningful that she seems to willingly put herself in the line of fire every time, and it's also extremely telling that she suffers and even dies without complaint for the sake of other people.

And while TVD has never been the kind of show to linger on emotional moments for too long, Bonnie seems to stick out like a sore thumb in this circumstance as well. Most of the main and even supporting characters have moments where their pain is acknowledged and at least has a second to breathe, but there are quite a few situations where Bonnie should be upset but isn't, or where her emotional journey as a character literally takes place off screen.

This lack of acknowledgment and nearly complete omission of an internal emotional life that doesn't involve sacrificing herself for her friends only further makes Bonnie feel like a plot device instead of a character. And, while no character needs a romantic relationship to make their character complete, it is incredibly relevant that, on a series that was built largely on a foundation of romance and arguably became a completely romantically driven show by its end, only one of the female leads was pretty much never presented as a viable love interest.

Nearly every character is either threatened or charmed into doing what someone else wants them to at some point during The Vampire Diaries, however, Bonnie's charm-to-threaten ratio seems to lean very heavily in favor of threatening. That in itself wouldn't necessarily be a huge issue, but it seems to punish Bonnie in a way that is so severe that it's completely illogical.

Trying to intimidate Elena or Caroline, people who at best have the strength of a baby vampire and at worst are as powerful as a normal human, makes sense. But trying to strongarm the most powerful witch in the world instead of just convincing her to do what you ask seems like an incredibly dangerous and completely baffling decision.

And yet, that is how Bonnie is forced to do nearly everything that she doesn't want to do in eight seasons of the series. By the end of season 2, TVD has canonically confirmed that Bonnie is powerful enough to destroy Klaus Mikaelson, and yet people like Klaus, Katherine, and even vampires as young as Damon get Bonnie to do things by simply bullying or even assaulting her into doing it. And what does Bonnie typically do in response? Absolutely nothing.

At a certain point, the consistent contrast between Bonnie's mystical strength and the way that people treat her in order to use that strength becomes a pretty gaping plot hole. And while it's not unheard of for someone to try to sweet talk Bonnie into joining their team, it is almost always done by a character who is far less powerful than she is and who is completely irrelevant to the narrative at large.

In contrast to characters like Elena and Caroline, the distinction between them becomes even more obvious. Perhaps a thin argument could be made that because Elena is a doppelganger that makes her a tad more unique, but when one of the most powerful creatures on the planet was wrapped around Caroline's finger, it really begs the question, why wasn't anyone ever as invested or even obsessed with Bonnie as they were with the other two female leads on the series?

After all, Elena's love was consistently treated as if it was the greatest prize that anyone could possibly win, and the two male leads were completely obsessed with her and willing to do anything they could to try to win her over. And despite the fact that Elena was at the center of the love triangle that was a significant driving force behind the story for the entire series, she still managed to score a few love interests that weren't Salvatores throughout the show's eight seasons as well.

And, while Caroline was actually treated as more of the reject love interest in comparison to the unattainable Elena, her record with romance is also incredibly varied. Even though she was portrayed at best as the consolation prize and at worst the abuse victim, she did have some sort of romantic relationship with the two male leads in the show. Or at least, that is how The Vampire Diaries chose to portray it.

In addition to her horrorshow with Damon and her incredibly brief marriage with Stefan, Caroline is also a love interest for Klaus, Matt, Tyler, and disgustingly, Alaric. Arguably the only main male character who doesn't serve as Caroline's love interest or potential love interest at any point is Jeremy.

Although this laundry list of love interests can be partially excused by the fact that Caroline is characterized as someone who wants to date a lot, the contrast bet0ween characters like Caroline and Elena and characters like Bonnie is astonishing.

Over a nearly decade-long run, Bonnie's only legitimate leading men are Jeremy, Elena's kid brother who Bonnie will willingly die for but who also prefers a literal dead person over her at one point, and Enzo, her epic love romance that comes about at the very end of the series in a relationship that almost entirely develops off-screen.

Of course, female characters do not need love interests to validate their characterization or very existence, however in an environment where every single barely significant supporting character seems to get at least two love interests, it's incredibly telling that Bonnie Bennett gets two important love stories in eight seasons of storytelling.

It seems even more relevant that the show seemingly went out of its way to sidestep almost any and all opportunities for romance in Bonnie's character arc. Whether it was Kol, Kai, or Damon Salvatore, there were quite a few instances where there was a clear and easy route to develop a love interest for Bonnie in a way that made sense and had a pretty solid amount of audience support, and yet the series always went out of its way to avoid it.

In stark contrast, Caroline is still seen as a viable option for a burgeoning love story when she's pregnant, and Elena is an acceptable love interest when she's literally unconscious. And yet, in a series that began with romance as its secondary genre and that evolved into a romance series with a supernatural backdrop, Bonnie is supposedly not as appealing of a love interest as Elena and Caroline regardless of any circumstances, no matter how insane.

If these issues existed in a vacuum then they might be excusable, but considering how poorly The Vampire Diaries treated its female characters and black characters, it's pretty much impossible to avoid the reality that Bonnie Bennett's entire character arc was likely hamstrung by the fact that she was a black girl.

In any reasonable circumstances, Bonnie would have arguably been at the center of every single supernatural storyline, and she logically would have been a far more appealing love interest to any powerful characters in the series. But instead she spent the vast majority of her screentime with her inner characterization ignored, her personal development unexplored, and serving as little more than a glorified deus ex machina who didn't even want her friends to bother mourning her when she literally sacrificed her life for them.

Representation was always an issue in The Vampire Diaries universe, and unfortunately it seems like Bonnie was the definition of their token black character. Although the series had eight entire years to course correct and had many seasons where they were desperate for new ideas and decent character development, the racism and misogyny of the series seemingly prevented them from ever tapping into the enormous untapped potential of someone who should have been one of their flagship lead characters.

[mallowstep]

What are your opinions on forbidden relationships in Warriors? I've seen people label it as a "trope" because of how common this is. Some find the forbidden romance aspect intriguing, though others find it extremely repetitive and old

I'd like to know your thoughts!

hm. well, it is a trope. i mean, there's an average of one major one a series, right? greysilver, leafcrow (and others, but that's the big one), heatherlion (and implied others), tigerdove, idk i don't remember anything from avos but violetshine luv her but there's probably something, bristleroot. dotc doesn't count bc well it's dotc.

anyway.

definitely a trope.

but that's not a bad thing.

what i think people don't give warriors enough credit for is that these are not all the same forbidden romance. most of them are handled in different ways and bring up different conflicts. i understand why people are tired of them, but let's not discredit one of the only good things in warriors romance: that they make forbidden relationships different.

like, with grey and silver, it's about loyalty and responsibility. leafcrow is just bad idea central, both heatherlion and tigerdove are about responsibilities and young cats, and they have two different answers, and bristleroot is challenging the whole idea from the start.

so like. give credit where credit is due: we're not doing the same (forbidden) relationships again and again. i don't see enough people talk about that.

okay so it turns out i have um. a lot of thoughts about this. idk i just kept writing and now it's over 2k words. so you know. under the cut: matthew does half-baked media analysis to talk about why the code and cats' relationships to it are misunderstood. while actually staying on topic.

anyway from here on i'm just going to say relationship/romance, and understand that i'm generally talking about the forbidden kind. also i'm talking exclusively within the realm of warriors romance, which is, on average, bad. so when i say "X is good," i don't mean "X is good in general," i mean "given what we have, X is good." just to be clear.

right! basically, this is a tool. it creates tension and drama, and that's fine. warriors is a soap opera, remember. soap operas use secrets and relationships and all sorts of plot devices over and over again. warriors is not Serious. it can be dark. it has serious moments. but it is not a Serious Book Series for Serious Kids. it is a soap opera for Future Theatre Kids. yeah?

from that perspective, i'm a-ok with forbidden romance. (also, as a mini-aside, it creates some much-needed genetic diversity when kits are involved.) and again: all of the major relationships are different, so i think that's better than a lot of people give it credit for.

yeah, heatherlion and greysilver and tigerdove are all about the same general idea (loyalty and responsibility), but they all have different circumstances and different resolutions.

so like? yeah. sure. why not?

plus, like, who's reading warriors for the romance? i separate the concept of "romance" from a "relationship" here: i like the relationships in warriors (ivy and dove tension my beloved), but i'm not here to read about tigerheart wooing dovewing. (yes, i do love the tigerdove scenes in oots. no, that's not because i think they're very good at being romantic.)

but i digress.

if warriors was a Serious Book Series for Serious Kids, i'd have a different take here. having been in an IRL forbidden relationship, i have the Personal Insight and Experience to say they're this weird mash of "very much how it feels" and "not at all how it feels."

tigerdove is probably my favourite bc it's the closest to my circumstances, and i think dovewing is a good pov. i like how she breaks up with him because it's a bad idea, but that's not the same thing as not feeling for him.

(heh. twelve-year-old me reading oots like "this will never apply to my life" what did you know)

but to the point, if warriors was serious, i'd point out that the consequences always seem to be internal. we haven't seen characters be punished for their actions. and so on.

but warriors is a soap opera.

and here's my actual thesis: we haven't seen characters be punished for their actions, because "forbidden relationships" are a normal and expected part of clan society.

like no, fandom-at-large, you're kind of missing the point. okay, you know how like. people complain about. idk. ivypool and fernsong being distantly related?

(third aside/very long ivyfern rant, i put a nice big "rant over" after it if you want to skip past it: they're third cousins. they share, max, 2.2% of their genetics. they are fine. do you know your third cousins? do you? yeah. and like. they live in a closed society. there is no one new.

i've never seen someone complain about forbidden romance and ivyfern at the same time, and i do generally agree we should have more mystery fathers, altho for a different reason, but like. idk. this bothers me.

their last shared relative was nutmeg. that's so far back. god. i get it, there was a prophecy saying they're related, but if you remember my rant about how dovewing shouldn't be a part of the prophecy because of how distantly related to firestar is, you know how i feel about that already.

complaining they're related and that's a problem is. deep breath here. it requires demonstrating that warriors has kept track of kinship all the way back to firestar's mother. and even if you wave that requirement, you still have to convince me they would care about that. this isn't a "they're cats, harold" situation, this is a "you would not know your third cousin even if you lived in the same town" situation.

i mean maybe you would. some people do. but my hometown has generations of people who married within its borders. you get as far as "cousin," maybe "second cousin" if you're feeling fancy. i'm not trying to make an always true statement, i just. every time i see someone complain about ivyfern being related, it strikes me as not understanding how extended families work?

i know third cousins isn't technically classified as a distant relative, but you have, on average, 190 third cousins. i feel so strongly about this i looked it up.

like i'm not. okay if you say, "I don't ship ivyfern because they are third cousins and that makes me uncomfortable" you are Valid. in general, you are all valid. i do not think you have to, on a personal level, be okay with ivyfern. you are free to do as you wish.

but. if you want to argue "ivyfern is a Bad Ship because they are third cousins" you have a hell of a burden of proof. simply saying "they share a great-great-grandmother" does not meet that, because like. yeah. we're all pretty damn related.)

(ivyfern rant over)

IVYFERN RANT OVER

right so. anyway. if you remove forbidden romance? you're forcing a lot more of those situations.

i've been messing around with modelling some small-scale fan clan-adjacent stuff to double-check the ratios for wbcd, and it's. it quickly becomes a necessity, is what i'm saying.

but i got distracted like. researching how related third cousins are. my point is not about that, that's like. a different topic. that i crammed into here because i have no self-control.

no, no, what i was trying to get to is: oakheart straight up tells us that cats have half-clan kits all the time, it's not a problem, no one talks about it. and that? that is exactly what we see modelled by warriors.

the only reason greystripe and silverstream have a problem is that silverstream dies and greystripe claims the kits. i feel very strongly that if she had lived, the kits would have been born and raised riverclan kits, that might, maybe, one day, guess who their father is.

we haven't had any half clan kits in a while, which yes! i think is a problem, but like. the fact that the three are medicine cat kits seems to be a bigger issue. which feels right.

and i'm not trying to argue what i think should be, i legitimately believe the text of warriors defends this, even in newer books which throw out a lot of the older world building in favour of more human-like conflict.

as readers, we are naturally following protagonists. we are following the interesting story. but imagine you're just a background riverclan cat. minnowtail, if you will. do you think, do you honestly think, anyone cares about minnowtail?

not in a bad way, just. if she's meeting up with mousewhisker at night, do you think anyone cares? of course not! no one cares. she's not a Protagonist. her kits aren't going to be prophesized about.

heck, finleap switches clans! and it's barely a big deal. it feels like one, but when's the last time anyone bothered dealing with it? that's what i thought.

(also i forgot like all of avos so that very last point might be a bad one if it is my argument stands i just literally do not remember anything in avos but violetshine. none. zero.)

but it's easy to get caught up with characters like hollyleaf and bristlefrost and forget that like. not everyone cares about the code. most of our protagonists do, because it's become mostly equivalent with being moral. and i have an essay draft titled "the code as religion vs the code as law" where i want to expand on this more, but i think like. that idea, that we as readers should use the code as a way of evaluating cats' behaviour, is flawed.

like, i'm not talking about being inconsistent with how that is applied. if you want to say, "the trial leafpool goes through for having half-clan kits is legitimate because of the code," i still think your approach is flawed.

because the cats themselves don't seem to think that way.

the code doesn't, to me, feel like the ten commandments. it does not feel like "you must do this to be a good cat."

rather, it feels like aesop's parables. "here are mistakes cats made and what we do instead of that."

i don't think the cats know the code the way we do. i do not think they memorize a list of rules as kits. i think they know what is and is not part of it, but i imagine they know the stories far more than the rules.

(i'm working on my lore stories to replace code of the clans.)

and even if that's my thoughts, i do think this is supported by the text. no one ever teaches the warrior code, cats just learn it in pieces. "don't waste food because we don't have enough to spare" is taught, not "there's a rule about food and starclan on the code."

that's why the whole arc of the broken code even works: the reason the imposter is able to manipulate things is because cats don't treat the code as a rigid set of rules and commandments, but guiding principles.

the parts of the code that we tend to focus on the most are relationships, apprentices, and battle. or that's my perception. i didn't do a poll to obtain that. there's also the leader's word, but readers don't usually think of that as a good rule, so i'm not including it.

but the parts the cats focus on most are food, territory, and the leader's word. which makes sense: those are basic needs: food, security, and...i don't want to say authority so much as some kind of social system. explaining it would be a whole thing. just trust with me, if you don't mind.

i don't think we have any real reason to believe cats care about half-clan relationships half as much as we do. yes, apprentices are chastized about it, but that's not really the same thing as being punished.

and it's hard to tell, because apprentices being punished has really fallen off, and that's kind of the problem with any argument i try to make about warriors, but.

wow.

i'm actually still on topic? i'm 2k words in and i'm still on topic? a day i never thought would come.

let's wrap this up. cats seem to care about half clan relationships in that: a) they lead to conflicted loyalties, b) they mess with borders and prey, and c) they are in the code as bad. in that order.

and again, if the code was some high and holy religious doctrine, we couldn't have the broken code as an arc. it does not work if the cats are already following it to a t, and know it word for word, because it's signfiicantly harder to manipulate people if they do.

not to the level the imposter does, at the speed he does.

and yes, you could argue that it's more bad writing, but. i think that discredits warriors. yeah, it sure has its fair share of bad writing, but i don't think that's in the way the imposter works. instead, he seizes on a big important doctrine that's nebulous, and uses that to control people.

and that? that feels much more interesting.

so with that in mind, i don't think the cats would care about your typical, non-protagonist forbidden relationship, and i don't think we should, either.

as far as a plot device, i think we're okay with what we have. don't get me wrong, i understand why people are tired of it, but i think we also should remember that warriors is not repeating itself. having multiple forbidden relationships is not repetitive. now, if medicine cats were having half-clan kits every series, i'd make a different argument.

but all of the major forbidden relationships have different outcomes, lessons, and circumstances, and for me, i think that's signficantly interesting.

i didn't really check sources and quotes for this, so like, if you spotted something wrong, feel free to correct me. my overall point stands, but there's a lot of warriors and i have a bad memory, so i could have missed somthing major.

[comingoutofthecauldron]

let’s talk about lesbophobia in fandom

i don’t like to use the word “lesbophobia” unironically because of all the gross radfem terfy connotations, so i will clarify right off the bat that i am neither a terf nor an aphobe and that if you are i want you off my blog like, right now. unfortunately, the meaning of lesbophobia has been so warped by alt right lesbians that seeing it in an unironic context makes me, a lesbian, uncomfortable, which speaks volumes in itself. so to clarify, lesbophobia is essentially homophobia with a pinch of sexism thrown into the mix, and it’s running rampant in supposed safe spaces and, more relevantly, fandom. 

/i’d also like to clarify that i’m not only speaking on lesbophobia, but also the general disgust and disdain for all wlw in fandom, and am using it as a sort of umbrella term/

lesbophobia and disdain for wlw has been around forever, but whilst gay positivity, mlm and mlm ships have been steadily increasing in popularity within fandom over time, wlw and wlw ships have remained perpetual underdogs. why? because lesbophobia has become a fandom within itself. both in and outside of fandom, we see instances of casual lesbophobia every single day—from aggression towards wlw to something as simple and prevalent as the complete and utter lack of sapphic ships and characters in media. hatred of lesbians and wlw is practically a trend, and it’s seeping in through the cracks of fandoms who are already facing issues with minorities and marginalized groups (i.e. racism, ableism). if you honestly think that lesbophobia isn’t prevalent as hell in fandom right now, you’re either not a wlw, you’re not all that involved in fandom, or you’re dumb as shit. 

just look at ships. in almost every single fandom, the ratio of mlm ships to sapphic ships is ridiculously unbalanced. people are quick to ship male characters who so much as smile at each other (and i don’t condemn that) but would never do the same for two women—even on the rare occasion that the ship is actually canon. i once wrote a wlw fanfic for a [predominantly straight] fandom, and received messages like this gem:

on the flip side of that, if there is a sapphic ship in canon or fanon, it is often fetishized and sexualised to a disturbing degree. there will be double the amount of nsfw art and fics, and ninety percent of it will be derogatory and fetishized as hell. having been actively involved in several fandoms over the past few years (and currently a content creator in one), i’ve seen instances of all this hundreds of times. people go crazy for mlm ships, but the second you say you ship/prefer a wlw ship, there’s always someone at the ready with, “i think all ships are great!” or “it’s not a contest” or “i prefer [insert m/m or m/f ship] actually” or “they’re my brotp!/why can’t you just let them be friends?”. not only do lesbians and wlw not get to have any rep in media, any rep that they try to create for themselves in fandom just gets attacked or ruined. this is so detrimental not only to all wlw, but especially to younger wlw who will end up being indoctrinated into this belief that their sexuality is something dirty, something that can never be tender and sweet but rather something that deserves to be preyed upon. 

building on that, let’s talk about engagement. i run an instagram account (where i have a significantly bigger following) as well as this blog for my fandom, where i post the content i create (mainly text posts). when i first started creating content, i made a lot for a relatively unpopular wlw ship, in which both girls are canonically romantically involved with a dude—though one of them is canonically pan. their canonical m/f ships are both very popular, and i noticed that my engagement was dropping every time i posted them, so i eventually just stopped. it wasn’t even a conscious decision; i merely resigned myself to the fact that the fandom didn’t want to see sapphic ships, and some people would even go as far as to condemn them. for reference, my instagram posts get an average of about 500 likes per post (popular ones usually exceeding 1k), but when i post this ship, my engagement drops to about 250 likes. similarly, my tumblr text posts have an average of about 140 notes per post (popular ones usually reaching up to 750), but my wlw content rarely surpasses 100. this just feeds the cycle of wlw never getting rep: if, like me, content creators become disincentivised by the lack of engagement with their sapphic content, they’re more likely to stop making/posting it, leading to further lack of rep—and when new content creators try to rectify that, they face the same problems. 

and then, of course, there’s the treatment of actual wlw in fandom. my best example of this is when my friend and i made an anti account on instagram (the first instagram anti account in that fandom), our bio saying something like “salty and bitter lesbians being salty and bitter”, and received an onslaught of lesbophobic insults and threats from angry stans within hours. (tw: r*pe) one commenter even went as far as to tell us that they wanted us to get r*ped. as well as this, i’ve seen so many instances of people using slurs against lesbians in arguments/in anons, often for no apparent reason other than they feel that they have the right. when i first mentioned i was a lesbian on instagram, my account only had about 200 followers, and within a day i lost 20. i also lose followers whenever i post f/f ships, not quite to that extent but enough for it to be noticeable, on top of the aforementioned engagement dips. in the face of all this adversity, i think a lot of wlw turn to mlm ships because they’re the closest thing we have to actual rep, but when we do we get accused of fetishizing them by the same people who fetishize us. there’s an endless list of double standards that non-wlw have been upholding for years, and i can firmly say that i’m really fucking sick of it. because of our sexuality, we will never be allowed to enjoy something without someone labelling it or us as dirty or otherwise problematic, when to them, the only problematic thing about us is that we aren’t pleasing men. 

as i mentioned before, the lack of rep for wlw in media is appallingly consistent, and part of that stems from tokenism. in a lot of modern mainstream media, you’ll have one, maybe two lgbt characters, and nine times out of ten those characters are white cis male gays. of course, there are exceptions to this, but generally, that’s it. script writers and authors (especially cishets) seem to have this mentality of, “oh, well, we gave them one, that’s sure to be enough!”, which means that on the off chance you do get your gay rep, the likelihood of also receiving wlw or any other kind of rep becomes practically non-existant. this belief that all marginalized groups are the same and that one represents all is what leads to misrepresentation on top of lack of rep, which is what makes tokenism so dangerous. if you treat your only gay character badly, you are essentially treating every single gay person badly in that universe. so not only is lesbophobia and disdain for wlw harmful to sapphic women via their exclusion in media, it’s also harming those minorities who do get rep. when people try to defend lesbophobic source material, that’s when fandom starts to get toxic. the need for critical thinking has never been more apparent and it has also never been less appeased—and wlw are getting hit hard by it, as always.

finally, a pretty big driving factor of lesbophobia is, ironically, lesbians. my lesbian friends and i often joke that though everyone seems to hate us, no one hates lesbians more than lesbians do. though i’d say it’s most prevalent on tumblr, i see traces of it all over the internet. the growth of alt right lesbian movements is not only reinforcing hatred for lesbians, but also reinforcing hatred for bi and pan women. here you have these terrible lesbians using their platforms to express their disgust for bi/pan women, for aces and aros, for trans women/nb lesbians, and people see them and say, “gosh, lesbians are just awful.” and just like that, all of us are evil. occasionally, lesbian blogs that i follow get put on terf blocklists for no other reason than the fact that they have “lesbian” in their bio. and the lesbians that actually deserve to be on those blocklists? they’re too busy spewing misinformation about trans women and bi women to care, boosted up by their alt right friends in an ever-expanding movement. i’ve found that this heavily influences fandom on tumblr, lesbians often getting branded as “biphobic” when they hc a female character as a lesbian rather than bi or pan. this criticism of both lesbians and wlw by lesbians and non-wlw alike only ever allows lesbophobia to grow, both in and out of fandom. that said, lesbians aren’t to blame for their own discrimination; rather, many of us have been conditioned into subconsciously endorsing it after spending our entire lives hearing heterosexual platitudes about lesbians and sapphic relationships. homophobic cishets are and always have been the nexus of this oppression—the only difference is that now they can hide behind alt right lesbians.

one thing has been made apparent to me throughout my time in fandom, and that thing is that no one likes to see men “underrepresented”. people hate sapphic ships and lesbians so much because there is no room for men, and men Do Not Like That. so, like the worms that they are, they slither their way in, be it through fetishization or condemnation of wlw characters and ships, and they ruin whatever good things we have going for us. the thing about worms, though, is that they’re easy enough to crush if you’re wearing the right shoes.

so to all my bi/pan gals and lesbian pals: put on your doc martens, because we’ve got ourselves some lesbophobes to stomp on. 

[broken-clover]

AU-gust Day 12- Modern

Here comes a joker! I really did like the idea of a crime au, but I just couldn’t come up with anything. So here’s something I’ve been wanting to make for a while, kinda inspired by an ask I got from Rex way back when. I just liked the idea of Axl being Bedman’s adopted dad, I thought it was neat!

Also apologies in advance for me using my name headcanons again, it’s just so difficult to work with a character whose name is ‘Bedman.’ Seriously, does he have a less bizarre name in canon? Who the fuck would name their kids ‘Delilah’ and ‘Bedman?’ Guess we know who the favorite was...

“I don’t like you.”

Axl wasn’t sure what he’d expected when he first signed up for the local foster program. Well, he sorta did. Ideally, he’d expected to be tasked with taking care of a child, with whatever bizarreness it would entail. He knew he wasn’t exactly what a lot of people would consider ‘prime material’ for a foster parent- he was an unmarried twentysomething with no clear direction on where he wanted to go with his life, but he was financially stable, passed all the agency’s legal checks and drug screenings, and attended every mandatory pre-service class alongside a small crew of other aspiring parents. Despite his best efforts, he always got the impression that the agency took issue with him being there. Still, Axl did everything he was told, waited patiently, and chatted with his assigned caseworker until they had found a match for him to try out.

Matthew had come with a ratty purple backpack, a seemingly-permanent scowl, and a laundry list of behavior problems tacked onto his case file. Axl wasn’t his first foster parent, he’d already gone through nearly a dozen, all of which had sent him back. The reasons varied, from destroyed appliances to constant verbal fighting. And he made it clear right from the get-go that he despised his new foster home just as much from the first words he uttered.

“I don’t like you. Send me back.”

It seemed nobody really knew where the origin of his ire was. Being pushed back and forth through the foster system again and again for years seemed like a perfectly good reason to be cross, at least in Axl’s opinion, but the way the orphanage and his agent had spoken about it made it sound like Matthew was born with a scowl on his face and just didn’t know how to take it off. They seemed surprised by the concept that he was even being placed in another foster home. The repeated failures and inability to get along with anyone seemed to indicate that he was doomed to take the slow path, waiting a few more years until he turned 18 and aged out of the system on his own.

In spite of their initial rough meeting, Axl did his best to welcome him warmly. He’d set up and painted a room ahead of time for his new family member to live in, acquired all the legal documents he needed for everything from school enrollment to medical files, and stored up a plethora of dad jokes that he could use as he needed. Matthew was unimpressed with all of them.

“I hate this place. When are you sending me back?”

For all the snarky comments and indifference he could manage, Axl didn’t budge. He was patient. He would keep trying.

Though he only knew so much about him from his case file (Matthew despised small talk, and Axl didn’t drag him into it), he’d done his best to support the interests he saw. He bought the science books he noticed the boy staring at in the shop windows, and trying to pick out new cartridges for the game system he barely let out of his sight. He seemed like the intellectual type, reading college-level books on social sciences and linguistics, and he preferred strategy games over any other kind. Axl wasn’t much of a bookworm himself, maybe that’s what made it so difficult for them to connect. But even if he couldn’t match him on an intellectual level, maybe he could still do so on a more personal one.

So he stayed patient.

“Why are you being so stubborn…?”

Axl could tell he was at least getting somewhere. They didn’t exactly have casual time together, not really, but he wasn’t immediately shooed away. Matthew could play his games, or read a book, and Axl could sit on the other side of the room. Every time, he inched closer and closer, until the only option left was for them to sit on the same couch.

“Heya, Mattie, mind if I sit down for a sec?"

It had been a quiet evening, not especially remarkable in any way. Just another day of work and school for the both of them, and free time afterward to unwind.

His son glanced up at him, but only for the briefest of moments. “You have more than one chair.”

“Yeah, but I just wanted to sit with you today. Is that okay?”

“...Fine. But don’t touch me.”

Axl sat himself down on the other side of the sofa. “So...how was school?”

“Don’t want to talk about it.”

The sheer speed of his response threw him off-guard. “Well, okay. Um, did I already tell you that I like the neat thing you’ve got going on with your hair?” He pointed towards the boy’s messily-dyed purple locks.

“Eight times. Nine now.”

“You do it yourself?”

“In my last house’s bathtub.”

“Must’ve been a right mess! But it looks like it turned out good?”

“It was. My foster mom was mad about the mess I made. So she wound up screaming at me over it. And I screamed back. And before I knew it, she sent me back. It’s on my case file, I thought you said you read it.”

Axl felt his tongue stick to the roof of his mouth. Well, open mouth, insert foot. He had read it, multiple times, but all it had listed was ‘confrontational issues and repeated arguments.’ He’d wondered exactly what that had meant, but actually figuring it out made him feel the exact opposite of satisfied.

“...Oh. Sounds like a right bitch.”

“She was. Can you stop asking questions now? I’m bored of them.”

He complied, though the ensuing silence only made everything feel more uncomfortable. He just didn’t get why some people screamed at their kids, mistakes just happened sometimes. Children were still learning how things worked, it seemed natural sometimes it would end in a mess.

“Hey.”

“I don’t wanna talk.”

“And I’m not gonna make you.” Axl stayed where he was. “Is it okay if I talk, though? You don’t have to say anything back.”

No response. But he didn’t get up and leave, like he had done in the past, so Axl took it as a cue to keep going. “I know you’re probably not gonna like me right away. And that’s ok. I’m still a total stranger, and you’re just expected to trust me to look after you. And I’ve seen all your paperwork, but that doesn’t mean I know anything about you as a person. We’re still strangers, the two of us.”

He paused. Matthew looked unfazed. “So I get it. I really do. I’m…” Axl tried to think of what he wanted to say. “I...

I’m not sending you back.”

Still no response. But Axl noticed the way his hands locked, and the little startled double-blink that came with it.

“If we’ve got issues, we can work ‘em out. I know you’ve been through a lot, so it’s ok if you have a rough time at first. And I’m not gonna throw you out as soon as you have a hard time. I totally get it. You’re not a bloody dog, I’m not gonna pretend like I can tame you with treats until you do whatever I tell you. There’s just some stuff we aren’t ever going to see eye-to-eye on. But no matter what, you’re my kid now, and you’re not going anywhere unless that’s what you really want.”

Slowly, uncertainly, he watched Matthew close his game and let it rest in his lap. He didn’t look up. “I want to be a good parent. I know I’m new at this, too, so I might fuck up a couple of times. I just want you to know that I’m ready to be your dad, and that means loving you no matter what.”

After another quiet, uncomfortable moment, a small voice piped up. “I’m not good at jokes, but yours aren’t funny.”

“It’s not a joke.” Axl replied. “I mean it.”

“It’s not funny!” It sounded more forceful the second time. His voice grew brittle. “You should send me back. Why won’t you send me back?”

“Why would I do that? You’re all set up in your room, and moving is a pain.” Axl tried to throw in a little friendly chuckle, but it didn't hide the unease in his voice. "Why would you think I would want to get rid of you?"

“I- I’m not-” His tone finally snapped, and his shoulders began to tremble. “I’m no good.”

He found himself hesitating for a moment, but Axl scooted closer, wrapping arms around his shoulders and giving his son a tight squeeze. “Nobody’s perfect. And I wouldn’t want you to be, anyway. I just want you to be you. Whatever that means.”

The two of them simply sat there for a while. This certainly hadn’t been in any of the advice books he’d read, but this was something Axl didn’t mind doing on his own. He just hoped he had expressed what he needed to.

He didn’t even think of letting go until he felt squirming against him. Matthew immediately picked up his game again and flipped it open. No acknowledgement at all. But...no, that was fine. He said he would accept him no matter what he was. If he didn’t like to talk about his feelings, then he didn’t need to force it.

“...help me with this turn.”

“Huh?” Curious, Axl shuffled closer to get a better look at his screen. “Wait, is this the one I got you?”

The boy nodded. “The mechanics are simplistic and the strategy elements are child’s play, but...I’ve had a lot of fun with it.” He tapped at something on his screen. “Alright. So right now my troops are stationed outside the dragon king’s fortress. How should they be organized when we open our assault?”

Well, he wasn’t much of a strategist, but he had no trouble giving it a go, anyway. “Uhh, definitely want to have some long-range stuff, right? So you can hit from a distance. Got anything for that?”

Another nod. “There’s a whole subclass for that, let me show you. There’s archers, a trebuchet, long-distance casters, and demolitionists. Each of them have a different set of stats and energy cost.”

“Why don’t you explain them to me a little more?”

“Sure. Archers have the best cost-to-efficiency ratio, but their projectiles are still on the weaker side. But if you take the trebuchet…”

It was a starting step, he realized, only a small one. But it was still something.

[ailuronymy]

Hello, Grey. Hope you’re doing well.

First off, a note for your information. I’m autistic, and tend to come off as incredibly direct without meaning to. Do read straightforward bluntness in this ask as genuine, matter-of-fact forthrightness, please. No aggression or derision is intended by anything I write hereafter.

Recently you made a post responding to an Anonymous ask referring to a question about non-binary cats in Ailuronymy’s character generator that was asked by the same Ruddles five years ago. I couldn’t follow your argumentation in either post, nor understood what you found wrong about the original question of that Ruddles.

Grey’s notes: hello there. I’m putting all of this under a read-more since there’s already a lot of words here. I would like to settle this matter and so I hope this might give you some answers–but if not, I’m sorry but I’m not really looking to continue the conversation any further. I didn’t really volunteer to have to deal with this kind of thing when I started writing a blog about pretend cats, and while I am very happy to try to educate and do what I can with the knowledge and little platform I have, this particular kind of education not what I’m here for and I’d prefer not to spend my time on it more than is necessary.

I have absolutely nothing against nonbinary people. I also consider real-life commonality a possible valid argument for commonality in a character generator for a fictional world that is integrated into a version of real Earth.

This is where we disagree. In real life, non-binary people are (allegedly) less common than binary people. I’m willing to agree with you on that. However, that is also not actually the issue I have and to explain what I mean by that I want to raise two points:

1. why should a for-fun name or character generator be expected to reflect real-world statistics?

2. why is the non-binary entry the sticking point, and not the the statistical over-presence of albinistic cats, for example, or white cats with blue eyes that aren’t deaf, or tortoiseshell toms? 

If I made a character generator for a pseudo-medieval fantasy, would you expect me to carefully ensure that the ratio of kings to peasants was correct? Would I be expected to put several thousand peasant entries in, and only one monarch, so that it would “accurately” reflect the “real world” (note: pseudo-medieval fantasy is not a real place or time, just like the world of Warriors is not)–or would people recognise that a character generator is merely a prompt and not something that needs to be taken literally? A character generator is simply holding up an option to you, which you are free to take or leave or change as you desire. 

The fact that the non-binary entry is the issue and none of the others I’ve listed–all of which are “statistical errors” within the context of the generator–reveals that this is not actually a concern about accuracy. If it was simply a concern about accuracy, then the person would be considering all of the ways in which my generator does not deliver an accurate reflection of “the real world.” But it’s not about accuracy, it’s specifically about the non-binary entry. And that is why I have an issue with this stance. 

If you can look at an otherwise error-filled generator and express concern only about the fact you have to see the word “non-binary” more frequently than you think is correct, that is a bigoted mindset. The non-binary entry in the generator is exactly as common as “tom” and “molly”: a one-in-three chance. You have two-out-of-three chances to see a binary gender, which is still a majority. 

I understand if you don’t want to spend your time on this, and respect your decision to do so if you so choose. However, I would like to understand why the above argument I mentioned isn’t valid in your eyes, and what makes inquiring about the generator ratio’s incongruence with real life ratios in humans instantly bigoted, since I wasn’t able to follow the reasoning there. How can asking a mere question that, to my eyes, seemed innocent, qualify as being bigoted? Isn’t the definition of bigotry more in the direction of an actively damaging, enduring prejudice?

It is not a good faith question, even if the person asking isn’t intentionally trying to be prejudiced or is asking the question in genuine curiosity. The question itself is not innocent. I think it is a mistake to refer to any question as “mere” because many questions can in fact be insidious, hurtful, inappropriate, malicious, or intentionally derailing. 

I would also like to point out that “sealioning” is a technique that certain people use to exhaust people by asking questions. That’s not what the anon who asked me was doing (I believe this was entirely an isolated incident and not actively malicious), but it’s not uncommon for marginalised people to be asked seemingly innocuous questions with the intent to exhaust, derail, infuriate, or belittle them. I can recommend watching carefully for this kind of behaviour, because it often takes the form of “polite” or “innocent” questioning--and then getting performatively upset when the person eventually refuses to engage anymore. 

Answering questions takes time and effort and energy, especially when the question is “explain why you should have rights” or “I don’t see why [thing that hurts you is bad], please explain in detail,” so sometimes people get fed up and lash out after being needled at length with similar. (This is kind of a detour, but I felt it’s worth acknowledging the way in which question-asking can actually be weaponised against marginalised people).

Anyway, as I said above, to isolate the frequency of the non-binary as an issue in a context where statistical accuracy is not assumed or required and would not be expected of other traits reveals that the person asking has an issue with non-binary being as present as it is. What does the person asking this question seek to achieve? If the non-binary entry in the generator is reduced in frequency to a “normal” or “accurate” level, what does that actually accomplish? 

One could certainly make the argument that it’s fallacious to relate real-life commonality to generator commonality, bringing forth whichever reasons one might choose; but instead in your response back then you chose to instead personally criticize the commenter while skipping over their actual question. How come? What made it invalid to address?

Sometimes I am tired and people make me cross with the things they say, so I be short with them and say exactly what I think of their behaviour, rather than hold their hand like a kindergarten teacher. If I was asked the same thing today, I would probably have been gentler and attempted to be more informative, because I have become gentler as a person in the five years since I answered that ask. I’m sure you can understand. Sometimes I’m not playing 4d chess and don’t have the wisdom and forethought of the sages. Sometimes I���m just a cranky old guy writing about cats who gets interrupted and has to tell someone to get over their nonsense. 

The Ruddles from back then didn’t imply viewing non-binary people negatively in any way, did they? (Genuine question; due to being autistic I’m not good at reading peoples’ intentions, and even worse at it over text.)

The implication is the question. Perhaps this person really did believe they “don’t have a problem with non-binary people”–but they clearly had enough of a problem with the word showing up 1/3 times on a generator to come and request for me, the creator, to make the word less common so they did not have to see it as much. That is not something a person does when they legitimately don’t have a problem with non-binary existence. 

How did what they asked have the potential to hurt anyone?

The question is hurtful implicitly because it calls into question the validity of the non-binary entry taking up space in the generator, and I suspect that could possibly hurt people’s feelings to read. 

But the big issue is actually what that person might also do. The question itself can do very little, but the unchallenged prejudice that caused the question to be asked at all can be very hurtful if left unchecked. That’s why I go to the effort to answer questions here. 

Why did you consider their train of thought about relating commonality in the generator to commonality IRL unkind or self-centred? It seems an obvious and innocuous connection to make, to me. Where does kindness or the lack of it come into the matter? How I understood, the argument appears focused only on factual observations of our reality, rather than making any statement disliking the inclusion of non-binary as an option in the generator, or equivalent.

There’s a phrase some people like to use that says “facts don’t care about your feelings.” But we are not facts and we can choose how we interpret and deliver facts to one another. Unkindness features in this question in the absence of considering how non-binary people might feel seeing themselves represented in the generator, and how it might feel to have someone quibbling over “commonality,” like they are a hypothetical to be debated, instead of real people who will read the question on my blog.  

Many people have thanked me over the years for including the entry and I care about how they feel. I felt that the person asking that question cared only about comforting their own worldview, instead of ceding some space in it for others–at no personal cost.

As far as I can tell, there ought to be some layer of personal prejudice that seems invisible to me in the original Ruddles’ question, else your response wouldn’t make sense - and I doubt that’s the case, based on what I’ve read from you the last few years.

I understand that you may not want to respond to this for whatever reason. Maybe it would take too long, maybe you don’t want to open this can of beans, or consider me a lost cause for my confusion.

That is fine. I accept your choice.

But if you do want to help me understand, I’d be thankful for a short explanation about your reasoning, so I can gain the contextual information to evaluate whether my own viewpoints, that wouldn’t have considered the initial Anonymous question from 2015 to be anything but an innocuous inquiry phrased a bit unfortunately, have the potential to cause hurt in the future.

I’m afraid I can’t really give a short explanation, given how much you’ve asked for me to clarify in this message, but I hope this reply clarifies what you’re struggling with. 

For what it’s worth, I think caring about the impact you have on others is the best possible place to come from as a person, so I don’t think you’re a lost cause. Best of luck to you in the future. 

I don’t want to unintentionally (or intentionally, for that matter) make anyone’s life worse, especially not that of people belonging to a group that already faces so many undeserved struggles in this world. That’s why I chose to write this, even if it may seem overly lengthy or not worth the effort to some.

Take care, and thanks for reading

Anony Mouse

[subdee]

Sometimes I come across these takes where people think Killua "replaced" Gon with Alluka and that since he has her now he won't want to reunite with Gon. Or just won't feel the need to. I don't understand this take but it seems pretty popular on reddit.

Thanks for the ask anon!   I’m excited to see another redditor on here, even if I stopped reading the HxH subreddit regularly when I moved over to tumblr haha. I’m also subdee on reddit, so you can read my comments over there if you want.  What I enjoy about reddit is that it’s text-based and discussion-based, and there’s a culture of not taking criticism personally or at least just downvoting and moving on (also probably because the hxh subreddit is actively moderated).   

Also, there’s lot of old school fans on the subreddit who are always re-reading and picking up on details, making charts and lists, etc.  

^^For example… I dunno about you guys but as a nerd I actually appreciate all these charts and graphs, haha.  

Also, though, it seems to be the case that the HxH subreddit has an ongoing problem with Alluka as a character?   If you follow the HxH subreddit then you know, she gets bashed pretty regularly.  Some of this is, I think, garden-variety transmisogyny (AKA the Alluka’s not a girl bc the data book said so folks).  I wouldn’t say that’s the majority of users though, most are allies.  

Most of it is the power system argument, that Alluka’s power is “broken” and she is “OP” (overpowered) and therefore a badly written character who destroys the narrative.  Because the only reason one would ever read Hunter x Hunter, a character-driven story that deconstructs shounen tropes, is morally complex, and includes canon trans and nonbinary characters is wanting to see the protags battling against stronger opponents am I rite?

^^Yup, totally no other reason to read HxH besides the power/battle system :P 

Ahem.  Anyway, redditors aren’t alone in thinking that Alluka / Nanika comes out of nowhere and replaces Gon in the narrative, actually.  This was actually a pretty common reaction among Japanese fans too back when Alluka was first introduced in the manga.   Here’s some examples: 

https://hunterxhell.tumblr.com/post/136586453797/still-why-did-killua-switch-to-prioritizing-alluka

In a way, it’s a natural thing to wonder why Killua is so quick to ditch Gon for Alluka.�� Like the Japanese commenters point out, we’ve been with Gon for MUCH longer, and before Killua goes back to rescue Alluka we didn’t even know she existed, let alone that she was the MOST important person to Killua.

Alluka’s introduction feels like a retcon, something Togashi pulled out of his ass (another phrase redditors like to use) to magically heal Gon.  And I think Redditors are more sensitive to retcons in general, probably due to the different gender ratios on the two sites. For example, the whole detail about the needle is something I think you see (mostly female) fans on tumblr embracing as a metaphor for Killua overcoming his family’s conditioning, and (mostly male) fans on reddit arguing about endlessly because it feels like a massive retcon and asspull.  

(Probably because… it is a retcon and asspull XD.  But it’s a great moment for character development also!  It can be both!)  

^^It’s a narrative convenience to let Killua overcome his trauma by just removing a needle, but it’s also really cathartic to see trauma overcome in this way. Also, fanwork-producing fans can make it work by writing fic, inventing backstory, etc.  As a matter of fact, the more gaps and inconsistencies (and gay subtext, vs gay text), the *better* according to queer theory, because it inspires folks to create their own works and interpretations.  

As for my personal thoughts… from the perspective of the story structure, Alluka does come out of nowhere and she does replace Gon.  Literally, Killua tells Gon “you’re now second place” (and Alluka tells Gon not to worry, because she’ll “give brother back” after they’ve hung out for a while.)

From the perspective of character development though, and especially of developing Killua’s character outside of his relationship to Gon, Alluka does *not* come out of nowhere…. Aside from the fact that Alluka is an adorable, likeable, strong character in her own right, and a canon trans girl, I really enjoy Alluka for what she says about Killua.  

Like, even though we didn’t know she existed before the Election arc, her existence makes sense?   It explains the “older brother” vibe Killua gives off, where he loves to explain things to Gon and is a good teacher.  It explains where Killua, raised as an assassin from birth, learned to be empathetic and loving.  It explains how he escaped his family’s conditioning - because Alluka escaped their family’s conditioning - because unlike the rest of them she wasn’t put through the family’s traditional torture training. 

It probably wasn’t Togashi’s plan all along to include Alluka but honestly, it makes sense that Killua would have a relationship like this in his past.  It’s how he knows how to be such a great friend for Gon right from the beginning.  

Also, it shows the relationship with Gon in a new light, because of this: 

I mean, how rich is this as a theme to explore in fiction?  I dunno about you, anon, but I *love* narratives about codependence… I eat this shit up in all forms of fiction and also in some IRL hobbies (like bandom).  And I think a lot of lonely people will relate to this honestly… when you’re a lonely kid, that desire to find the ONE person who will be everything for you (friend, supporter, team mate, asskicker when you need it, maybe romantic partner…) is pretty common I think.  

So here’s the thing about Alluka.  Killua and Gon had, in retrospect, a codependent thing going on, because Killua prioritized Gon’s goals above his own and didn’t mind getting hurt just so he could be ‘useful’ to Gon.  And Gon, not having had any other friends before Killua, saw this as a normal and natural part of friendship and accepted all of it; and indeed, came to expect and rely on this level of devotion from Killua.  

And I think @hamliet​ said it best when she said that part of the attraction of being with Alluka instead of Gon - for Killua - is that his devotion to her *is mutual* to maybe even a higher degree than it was with Gon… because Gon, at the end of the day, is a very independent and stubborn kid who wants to do things his own way and by himself, as we saw with Kite.  But Alluka, by contrast, has no problem being wholly dependent on Killua: 

As someone who loves the codependence (in fiction, and a bit IRL too)…. yes yes yes yes more please I love it :D.  

But yes.  If the goal is to “be useful” then you really couldn’t ask for a better setup than this?  Alluka’s family is literally trying to kill her, she ONLY has Killua to rely on.  In @hamliet’s words: 

“Gon never had to earn Killua’s friendship by physical feats or trying harder. He earned it by treating Killua with kindness because Gon saw Killua as enough as he is. But Killua doesn’t know how to help Gon, because he can’t be for Gon what Gon is for him: light that shows him a path outside of his family.”

https://hamliet.tumblr.com/post/190394838359/what-do-you-think-hurt-killua-more-the-its-none

Killua can’t be Gon’s light, but he can be Alluka’s.    

This isn’t to say that the relationship is unhealthy, even though it has the potential to be insular.  I think hamliet, again, points out that even though Killua tries to put Alluka first in everything (”she’s my number one now”; “I’m ready to protect her for the rest of my life”), Alluka doesn’t let him: 

I mean, I know we obsess a lot about Gon and Killua’s splitting up around here,  especially because it comes after the trauma of the CA arc, and TBH there’s no really satisfying on-screen resolution to the issues between Gon and Killua that came to light in that arc.  But it’s literally right in the text… Killua is willing to devote the rest of his life to Alluka, but also says “Next time” to Gon, and Alluka literally says “I’ll let him go after I’ve had him to myself a little. You can play with him later.” 

So, even though they *are* a codependent relationship like Killugon was, and in a sense Alluka is the “replacement” for Gon because she’s Killua’s new purpose in life™ - at least for the time being - there’s some recognition that this will not be a permanent thing. 

^^As a reminder, Gon and Killua weren’t supposed to be a permanent thing either….  Killua just gets attached to people I guess XD.

One final note.  Even though Alluka is “replacing” Gon as Killua’s Purpose in Life ™ - at least for the time being - I think her character arc is actually distinct from Gon and Killua’s.  That is, maybe when Killua first went back to the mansion to fetch her, he was just thinking about her power and healing his friend.  But Alluka / Nanika get their own entire arc, that develops their relationship with Killua and Killua’s relationship with his family (at a certain point he says they are “bullies - every last one of them”).  By the *end* of the Election arc, I think we can see Alluka / Nanika as their own characters, outside of Killua, and see his relationship with them as its own thing, separate from his relationship with Gon.  

Like, I argued in my last answer that Killua probably needs space from Gon, which is one reason they split up.  But I believe him when he says he wants to spend time with his sister, to reconnect with her and protect her.  And since I actually like Alluka / Nanika, I see it as a good thing XD. 

But yes… Gon and Killua are still friends, and still important to each other.  I believe they’ll meet up again, if Togashi’s health holds up long enough that we get that far in the narrative.  (And if we don’t: that’s why fanfiction exists :P) 

Like Killua says, “Sorry, It’s family time.  Next time.” 

[xb-squaredx]

Sword Characters in Smash: Unraveling the Hate

The Super Smash Bros. franchise has a plethora of fighters, especially in the latest release, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. With the announcement of more DLC fighters at E3 2019, most fans seem quite happy with the announcement of Banjo and Kazooie though many are quite split on the Hero from Dragon Quest joining the roster. Paired with all of the overjoyed and hyped reactions, there are plenty of people that are displeased, and I hear a common refrain from the mouths of those people: “Ugh, not another sword character.” For years now, I hear this repeated again and again, and the complaints only seem to get louder as time goes on. So I’d like to take the time to weigh both side of this argument here. Are sword-based fighters in Smash worth of all this hate, or are people over-reacting? The answer might surprise you.

From what I gather, there are about three common arguments against sword-based fighters. There are too many of them as-it-is, they all play the same, and they’re annoying to fight, dominating the tier lists. That last one is really the only one that I think has much merit, so let’s talk about that one first.

TOP TIER SWORDS

Throughout most of the Smash games, sword-based characters tend to be pretty good in the grand scheme of things. If not the best character, they’re still pretty high up there. Keep in mind, character viability is always going to be a subjective thing. That said, I can see why people would say sword characters are pretty good. They tend to be fast, they have great range, and because of that range, it can be hard for opponents to get in on them. Sword attacks have what you would call a “disjointed hitbox.” That is to say, their attacks have no hurtbox connected to them. So if, say, Donkey Kong throws out a punch and it collides with Lucina’s sword…DK will end up getting hurt while Lucina won’t feel a thing. This means sword attacks have a greater priority when attacks clash, sword characters largely avoid trading blows (on average anyway), and there are indeed a good amount of characters that can struggle when faced with a sword character.

Of course, that goes both ways. Sword characters have range on their side, but get past that range and they’re in trouble. Look at some of the better characters across the games and we see plenty of other characters facing off against sword characters. Fox, Inkling, Snake, Bayonetta, and so on, they all can take on the swordies, so it’s not like they’re an almighty match-up. And again, just because you have a hill to climb against a sword character, that doesn’t mean victory is impossible. I can totally understand not liking fighting against sword characters or not enjoying how they play, and at that point it’s just a preference. But I often don’t see people frame their dislike of sword characters like this, and instead they latch on to the two other narratives I illustrated above.

TOO MANY SWORDS

“We already have like fifty sword characters!” “Oh great, another Fire Emblem rep, cuz we needed twenty of them!” Hyperbole it may be, there seems to be a common argument that we already have “too many” sword characters in Smash and we don’t need any more. The way some people talk, the vast majority of the roster wields a sword. I was curious on the exact ratio, so I did some math.

Starting from the very first Smash game, Smash 64, we have a grand total of ONE sword character, Link, in a roster of 12. You get to Melee, and we gain Young Link, Marth and Roy, for a ratio of 4 to 26. Brawl, assuming we count Zero Suit Samus and Sheik as separate characters, has 37 characters, and only 6 sword-based fighters. We lost Roy and Young Link, though we gained Ike and Toon Link, alongside Pit and Meta Knight. Perhaps coincidentally, Meta Knight’s also considered to be so good as to be broken and low-and-behold, he has a sword. I hear murmurings of sword hate around this point, but it really doesn’t get into high gear until we get to Smash 4.

Alongside the returning six swordies, we gained eight more sword-based characters, with a grand total of 14 sword characters out of the game’s 58 character roster. So that’s Mii Swordfighter, Robin and Shulk in the base game, Roy returning as DLC, as well as Corrin and Cloud as DLC, alongside the “Echo Fighters” Lucina and Dark Pit. Those last two got quite a bit of hate, as they were seen as “wasted slots,” slightly altered versions of Marth and Pit, respectively. That nearly half of the DLC were sword characters wasn’t a fact lost on many. This is where the narrative really got into high gear and complaints started to flood in about there being too many sword-based characters. For all the complaints though, said characters are still just shy of being a fourth of the roster overall. Also keep in mind, Smash 4 introduced us to a LOT of newcomers that were quite unique. Wii Fit Trainer used Yoga, Villager used…anything it could get its hands on, the likes of Mega Man, Pac-Man, Ryu and Bayonetta got in with extremely faithful movesets, and yet people focus on the small handful of characters added in with a bladed weapon. It seems especially weird to hone in on Dark Pit and Lucina, as they were made full-fledged characters late into development, long after the roster was already decided, so it’s not like they were actively taking slots from some other requested character. Concerning the DLC fighters too, Roy was a fan-favorite that many wanted back, while Cloud was a popular fan request that many felt would never happen, and yet many people were hyped when he was revealed. But the hate persisted, and then we get to Smash Ultimate…

Since Ultimate has EVERY character that’s ever been in the series, we see all of the previous swordies back, even in cases where they’re kinda redundant like Young Link. Ganondorf finally gets to use a sword now, so I begrudgingly count him as a sword character, and I’m counting Joker as a swordy as well, even if it is a dagger. While we still don’t know the final two DLC fighters for the Fighters Pass, assuming they’re BOTH sword characters, and counting all the various Echoes as their own fighters, at most we’ll have a ratio of 21 sword characters to a staggering 80 total fighters. At this point I really have to question why people complain about a glut of sword characters, when you have nearly 60 other choices! Most fighting games don’t even have rosters half this large! Looking at all the newcomers for Ultimate too, there’s not a sword in sight until you get to the DLC. Incineroar is our first wrestling-themed fighter, Simon and Richter Belmont give us our first whip-users, while Ridley and King K. Rool are interesting twists on the heavy character archetype, and Inkling can be a kid OR a squid! Super unique overall…with the exception of Isabelle I suppose, but even then, she’s only the second fighter that uses and abuses hammer space, so she’s still contributing to a niche. Now, there IS Chrom as an Echo fighter of Roy, but again…it’s not like adding him in took substantial time and resources away from making sure we got some long-requested fighters that were made more-or-less from scratch.

(An image I’ve seen floating around on this topic gives a pretty good picture of the ratio, circa Smash 4 at least. Can’t seem to find it’s creator though!)

Overall I’d think that with the numbers all laid out, we can see that sword fighters only make up roughly a fourth of the roster on the whole, hardly a majority and plenty of other completely unique fighters available for people tired of clanging swords. So that leaves us with one other issue.

“THEY ALL GOT A COUNTER”

Behind the argument of there being too many swordies, the next most frequent argument I see is that they all “play the same,” and as such, people find them boring. To be fair, there ARE a fair amount of characters that are virtually identical. All the Links, and roughly half the Fire Emblem cast. At least in those cases, it does make sense. Every Link in all of his games uses a sword, and usually has bows and arrows, a boomerang and bombs, so I see no reason to get rid of those moves. Would I like them to be more distinct? Sure, but it makes sense why they play similarly.

When it comes to the Fire Emblem characters, there’s also at least some basis for similarities, from a development standpoint. Roy, and thus Chrom, as well as Lucina, were “bonus” characters added in due to either popularity or to promote a game, and made with Marth as a base to cut costs and make development deadlines. While, again, I’d rather all of them were completely distinct, they’re lucky to be in at all. For what it’s worth too, all of these examples DO have some differences between them, certainly more differences than, say, Peach vs. Daisy or Simon vs. Richter. Young Link’s speed gives him a totally different combo game than the other two Links, for one, whereas with Marth and Roy, they favor hitting from range, or from close-up respectively, with Lucina and Chrom serving as “easier” versions of each. It’s also not as if they can just give them different weapons either, as then their portrayals wouldn’t be faithful. Like it or not, the main characters of Fire Emblem games use swords, so you can’t fault the Smash games when they only have so much to work with. Overall, yes, there are a number of sword characters that are quite similar to each other, but there’s usually a reason behind it, and even then, that’s not to say there aren’t plenty of exceptions.

(via Smash Wiki)

From Brawl onward, it feels as if Sakurai and the developers tried to make any and all sword fighters as distinct as possible, almost like they saw this kind of complaint coming. Ike hits like an absolute truck, Robin and Hero are proficient mages alongside using swords (and have resource management systems to boot), while Corrin has their whole dragon shapeshifting thing going on. The list goes on when it comes to uniqueness to the swordies: Shulk’s Monado Arts, Cloud’s Limit Breaks, and Joker’s Persona...need I say more here? If people are calling all the sword characters clones of each other, then they’re just not paying attention.

Really, it seems more so that people have problems with all of the Fire Emblem reps than anything else. Smash 4 got some flak for giving us four characters from that series, while older franchises like Metroid or Donkey Kong gained no new representation. There’s honestly a weird blind-spot when it comes to people complaining about only certain swordies. Link gets a free pass for the most part (outside of people being annoyed that there’s a Toon Link AND a Young Link in Ultimate), and few complained when Cloud was added but with Shulk or Hero, everyone loses their minds. At times I’ve heard people say “Not another anime sword man,” in which there seems to be emphasis on the anime part of the equation. That tells me that perhaps it’s just a bias against anime, or overly Japanese characters than their weapon of choice. On top of this, the complaints mainly seem to come from Western fans, and with that in mind, the blind hate makes a bit more sense.

(via Reddit)

Up until Awakening, Fire Emblem was fairly niche outside of Japan, while it was rather popular in its native country. Then there’s the inclusion of Dragon Quest’s Hero, a series that is ridiculously popular in Japan, but never really got much play outside of it. It stands to reason that people would be more dismissive of characters from series they don’t have a long history with then, and would help explain why Cloud somehow escapes this unscathed. Final Fantasy VII is essentially THE JRPG that broke into the mainstream in the West, and the Persona series isn’t too far behind in popularity abroad, explaining Joker’s own hype reveal. But let’s go deeper here: the Zelda series is more popular in the West than in Japan, so Link being held in high regard makes sense. Now, am I generalizing a bit here, acting as if all Westerners think alike? Sure. There’s going to definitely be people that don’t subscribe to that notion, and there are certainly people happy to see Hero in Smash or Shulk or Chrom from the West. But this goes a long way towards explaining the somewhat inconsistent hate directed at these characters, and at this point, it feels less like hate and more like indifference or ignorance than anything else.

The Super Smash Bros. games are huge, filled with all kinds of fans, young and old, hardcore or casual. When you get that big, you’re not going to be able to please everyone, and I’m in no way suggesting with this post that people CAN’T dislike a certain character in the game. Everyone has their own tastes and reasons for thinking what they do, but I began writing this post as a way to try to figure out where this somewhat venomous reaction came from. Smash is a series I absolutely adore, and it saddens me to see negativity surrounding it in cases where it doesn’t seem just. It’s really more a case of ignorance than outright malice in most cases I think, and I think the majority of fans are really appreciative, with a small (if vocal) minority giving off the impression that we’re all ungrateful, when it’s simply not true. There will always be some bad apples that try to sour the bunch, but hopefully anyone that reads this comes away with a greater appreciation for what goes into these games, and maybe, just maybe, if the next big Smash reveal involves a sword, there’ll be just a bit less dismissal directed towards it.

-B

[thetexasurbanite-blog]

Was IT actually scary? - IT (2017) Review

As humans with differing personalities, our perception of what is terrifying and what is merely creepy is on a spectrum. Our level of fear bases itself on our subjective nature, on what we as individuals classify as scary. Some people have very particular fears known as phobias (and anyone with coulrophobia should definitely avoid this film). While others, such as myself, tend to look at the big picture to determine the true terror of a situation. Not to say I do not possess particular fears of my own, but for the sake of this argument, I definitely lean more towards this perception of fear.

I believe the new IT (2017) remake appeals to many points on the perception of fear spectrum, but did I find it truly scary? No, I did not. However, I do think this was a good “horror” film with great characters and storylines, definitely worth watching again. I use quotes around “horror” because I identify this film more as a thriller genre rather than a horror.

Horror vs. Thriller

The horror genre has become a staple of the film industry. Nowadays, it seems difficult to find the diamonds in the rough among the enormous cloud of subpar “horror” films. For example, Netflix’s ratio of decent horror films to bad films is truly astounding. Except for The Babadook. Go watch The Babadook.

From my perspective, The Babadook is everything that makes a horror film, a horror film. However, it is not your typical “b-movie” horror title repeatedly creating the same scenario. To me, this film recreates what true terror is. The audience gets the perspective of a woman who has a questionable mental integrity at best with a child who displays violent anti-social behavior. You honestly could make an entire film out of that. Pair that situation with a demon from a children’s book and you have created a completely new big picture of horror that makes me terrified. The terror builds on circumstance with help given from the supernatural realm.

“This is a movie that I can say I had genuine nightmares about.”

In comparison to this example of horror, we have IT (2017). At this point, some people will disagree with my analysis claiming IT (2017) had elements of what I have previously stated. I will admit there are parts of this movie that made me jump. Especially the scene with the projector. Although, I wouldn’t classify “jump scares” as being the basis for a horror film. I look at the story and the presentation of characters as a whole to determine how I feel about a movie. This movie presents itself as a thriller through several factors.

The breaks between scary events are short.

Thus, there is not as much build up to a scare as you would see in a horror film. The action keeps coming at you. I found myself on the edge of my seat, waiting for the next scare. This made my experience an exciting one, rather than a terrified one.

They introduce the demonic antagonist from the very beginning.

Within the first ten minutes of the film, we have already seen the face of Pennywise. Because of this, the absence of mystery does not let that specific level of fear build up.

The kids of the Losers Club could actually fight back.

In many horror films, especially b-movie horror, characters are helpless victims of the forces they must overcome. The kids in IT are actually able to figure out how to defeat Pennywise, and it is a great example of how to execute an exciting, well-told story.

Why IT works

No factors I have listed here mean to criticize the film. Rather, I believe these things support why this film is so successful and why I genuinely enjoyed it. Sure, it may not be the scariest thing I have ever seen, but that does not make it a bad feature. The points I make enforce why this film fits more into the thriller genre for me. Remember, I base this on what my perception of fear is.

I was excited to learn how the kids were going to defeat the demon clown. I kept anticipating the next event. Seeing Pennywise so soon in the movie did not disappoint me. Instead, I was interested to see the way IT presented itself as a manifestation of fear for each kid. Moreover, as I stated earlier, I loved that there were few breaks between scares. It gave me little to no time to relax in the theater, which made me even more invested into the experience.

Pennywise 

I don’t want to spend time talking about the nuances of the performances of the actors. Mainly because that is not the point of this review. However, I will say this about Bill Skarsgård’s portrayal of Pennywise.

Stephen King’s IT was already adapted to screen with the popular Tim Curry performance of Pennywise of the 90s. It was made clear early on that this remake would have high expectations for this character, particularly from its cult following. I think Skarsgård created a new spin on the Pennywise character, while still remaining faithful to the source material. I found him delightfully creepy.

I add this because the Pennywise character is something that make sense for kids to fight. A clown is an entertainer for children. I appreciate the juxtaposition of this entertainer being a sinister entity meant to feast on children. IT is the perfect foe for a group children. I think this reinforces the thriller perspective because it is a character the children are meant to overcome the fear of.

Conclusion

Overall, this movie deserves praise for being a faithful adaptation of a beloved horror classic. IT (2017) delivered for me because it was an intense thriller with intriguing story and developed characters. Although I did not feel a genuine sense of fear while watching, the experience was definitely worth it. The movie accomplished what the source material sought out to do. IT creates a narrative about overcoming fear through friendship. I saw the action and drive to defeat Pennywise as a goal I could root for. The horror elements are sprinkled in through the things the kids fear. However, the thrill comes from seeing how they over come those fears and band together to defeat their enemy.

“You’ll float too.”

[lilbreck]

Title: Chapter 5: Whelmed Characters: Angel, Charles Gunn, Cordelia Chase, David Nabbit, Faith Lehane, Fred Burkle, Rupert Giles, Spike, Wesley Wyndam-Pryce, Willow Rosenberg Rating/Warning: FRT Word Count: 4,029 A/N: Though I list a lot of characters, and some of them actually do get dialog, some of them just pass through.

Spike had never been very good at just sitting around and waiting out the day. It's what drove him to risk being turned all nice and crispy to spend time with people who may or may not prefer him less undead and more dead. It's also what had him waiting in a darkened alley as Angel's human, Fred, ran back after buying an almost terrifying number of tacos. She had been unwilling to venture out into LA alone –and who could blame her even if they didn't take into account her time spent in another dimension—and Spike had been bored enough with Willow off visiting Faith in jail to volunteer himself to accompany her.

Of course, it's not like there was anyone else around to go instead. The humans had all be shooed off and their boss vamp was snoring away in his hotel suite. He didn't even mind that she had chattered and prattled on the whole way to the street where her favorite taco place was – "I've done some in-depth studying and this place so far has the best meat to lettuce ratio." – and on the way back. Of course, it helped that she was willing to stop her Ode to Angel when he asked. Didn't even get worked up over the fact that he may have snapped at her over it.

They had just entered the basement of the Hyperion when he heard arguing upstairs. Holding up the hand that wasn't carrying her food to halt Fred's talking, he listened carefully. Rolling his eyes and dropping his hand, he sent her a rueful look.

"Apparently, they've noticed we flown the coop."

He couldn't help but smile back at her conspiratorial grin. He turned back toward the stairs and made his way to them, listening to the argument and trusting Fred would follow behind in near silence. He didn't bother to fight down the small smirk that came at the thought of what she would be like if some lucky vamp turned her. He made sure that they made as little noise as possible coming through the door to the basement, but Angel was still starting directly at them when they entered the lobby.

Failed Watcher, Jr. and the cheerleader had moved from yelling at Angel to yelling at each other as Gunn looked on. The three didn't notice his and Fred's entrance or even that Angel's attention wasn't on them. Spike took special pleasure in the guilt that flashed across his sire's face when his eyes dropped to the bag in his hand. Before he could give the bastard a proper smug look, his attention was caught by Gunn.

"Don't be dragging me into this nonsense. I'm just here for the tacos."

Finally, having had enough of the pointless bickering –seemed to happen a lot among white hats, if you asked him—he held up the take-out bag and gave it a shake and interrupted, "Then you're just in time, mate."

Gunn wasted no time in making his way over to them while Angel made what was, in Spike's opinion, a huge production out of apologizing for being asleep and unable to take Fred himself. She told him that Spike had taken good care of her and he got a kick out of the confused and slightly jealous look on Angel's face as he watched her make her way to the round sofa in the middle of the lobby.

Fred and Gunn dug into the tacos as Wes and Cordelia both took up positions behind the front desk and glared at him. In between bites, Fred began telling Angel about her day so far. Spike remembered it being a big boring but, to hear the girl talk, you'd think he'd been the most fascinating thing to walk through the door since she'd arrived. Although Angel was very obviously uncomfortable, he made his way over and sat beside her looking a lot like a kicked puppy. When Spike happened to glance over at Gunn, the other man looked to be fighting down a smile.

The two at the desk looked on in undisguised disapproval for the most part. Spike would almost believe that Angel was oblivious to the tension if it weren't the small glances he would shoot at them whenever Fred would say something particularly complimentary about Spike. When Wesley interrupted Fred in a pretentious tone, Angel had apparently reached his limit.

"Enough. You two, head home. If we get any clients, I have your numbers."

They were smart enough to clear out with very little grumbling. When Angel noticed Gunn staring at him, taco halfway to his mouth, he shook his head.

"Not you, you're fine where you are."

Looking around he gave a deep sigh. Spike was expecting some toned down and pathetic rant about team work or whatever it was souled vampires got huffy about, so he was notably surprised when all that Angel said was, "We should really look at setting up an eating area."

Later that evening Spike was holed up in the room Willow had slept in. As much as he detested the boredom that came with being cooped up alone in a room, he couldn't spend any more time with Angel without it ending up in an argument. Part of him definitely was itching to get in a knock-down, drag-out fight, but he had promised Willow he wouldn't. He was nearly to the point where he was willing to risk Willow throwing a hopefully temporary spell at him, though, when he heard the doors to courtyard open and then Willow's soft greeting to Fred and Angel.

In the blink of an eye he was standing beside her at the bottom of the steps, just within touching range. She looked tired but somehow far more relaxed than he'd seen her since Glory had got her nasty little hands on her girl.

"I take it Faith is on board with her early release?"

Part of Spike had to wonder if Willow had used magic on the slayer. When his girl was determined, he wouldn't put that kind of thing past her. However, he was smart enough to not voice that particular fear. He'd seen her verbally lash out at Tara once when she'd made that mistake. The way her face lit up at his question, however, told him she wasn't expecting any kind of judgment, so it was doubtful she'd used magic.

"Oh yeah, she's totally on board! Well, I mean, I kinda had to go all 'tough love' with her and say that she was being a big ol' scaredy-cat. That, of course, may have been followed up with big teary eyes and telling her we needed her, but I'll never admit to it, no matter how much you torture or bribe me."

Her grin was too wide not to return. Soon enough, her smile lost a bit of its brightness as she continued, "Of course, now I have to figure out what to switch her charges to or else the memory spell is going to cause a lot of problems."

At this, Angel spoke up from his place behind the front desk.

"Actually, Fred has that covered for you."

Spike was glad they had actually put in some time to offer up real assistance but a selfish part of him wished they had done so with him around so he could have been the one to take that burden from Willow. Still, it was good that it had gotten done.

From behind Angel, at the computer, Fred gently corrected him, "Actually, I don't really have that covered for you. I mean, I've done all the research and figured out the charges and what files need to be changed. Assault, third degree, causing physical injury with deadly weapon, dangerous instrument, or electronic defense weapon. I've got a whole story put together if you wanna hear it. I'm just really rusty with computers on account of my being gone for five years, and I've never really done much in the way of hacking into prison records."

Looking completely pleased in a very dopey and ridiculous way, if you asked Spike, Angel said, "See, Fred has that covered."

While the girl in question looked at Angel with a very confused expression, Willow was busy making her way toward the computer, babbling the whole way.

"I am totally hacker girl, I can get you into the prison records. And, when you're done, I can get us out without anyone being the wiser, no problem. Then I'll just head upstairs and work on the spell."

As the two scarily intelligent young women worked away at the computer, Angel came around the desk. He walked out toward the courtyard and motioned with his head for Spike to follow as he passed. Spike knew there was a good chance that he wouldn't be happy with whatever Angel wanted to talk about, but he couldn't really see a way out of it without upsetting Willow. By the time he made it outside, Angel was sitting on the edge of the silly and pointless water-feature… pool… thing. He'd been on his best behavior all day, so he couldn't really resist poking at Angel a bit.

"I know what you're going to say, Angelus, but you've hurt me too much. It's possible that you may have changed, but I've made a good life for myself and I'm just not willing to come back to you anymore."

Angel didn't look amused, but he didn't look upset either. After a pause he asked, "Are you done?"

With a huff, Spike collapsed down beside where Angel was sitting and vented in a way that, if pressed, even he would admit was a bit overly dramatic.

"I'm just out of practice. I can't really push buttons back in Sunnyhell. Everyone there is too raw and touchy. One button and they'd blow up and Willow would be stressed out even more. Next thing you know, Xander and I are two slimy toads and you know she's not gonna come close enough to turn us back!"

After a weighted silence, Angel asked, "But that should be all over now, right? With Faith going back with you, Willow shouldn't be under so much pressure."

Spike let out a less than amused snort, practically jumped to his feet, and then walked over to lean against the pillar and stare into the lobby where he knew Willow still was, even without being able to see her. Taking out his smokes, he lit one up before he responded in a much calmer voice than he had been using. To be honest, he was almost grateful to share his concern.

"That's just it, innit? It's not all over. When we get back, Red's gotta find a place for the slayer to live. Unless she takes to sleeping in crypts or squatting in an abandoned building, that's gonna take money." Spike took a drag off his cigarette and shot Angel a look from the corner of his eye before focusing his gaze forward again. "I've got some things lined up that could bring in a few quid here and there, but Willow would want to know where it's coming from. She probably be none too pleased with the answer."

Angel seemed to be thinking hard as he stared down at the ground between his shoes. Or maybe the old man had fallen asleep, sometimes it was hard to tell. Before Spike could throw and insult at him to see if he was paying attention, Angel stood up. He walked by where Spike was standing and paused to rest a hand on his shoulder.

"I don't really have the money to help out myself, but I have a friend that might be able to do something. I'll give him a call and talk to him."

Spike was spared the awkwardness of having to find a way to thank Angel without having to actually say the words by Willow's sudden appearance at the doors.

"Hey, Spike, if you two are done with whatever bonding you're doing, you think you can give me a hand with this spell?"

Knowing that Willow might be uncomfortable with his discussing her financial worries with Angel, Spike decided not to tell her that there was a possible solution just yet.

"Nah, pet, we're good. I just had to break it to Angelkins that I wasn't going to be getting back with him no matter how much he begged."

He counted Willow's small laugh as a victory and quickly made to follow her as she went back inside and started up the stairs. He had just made it to the door when Angel's voice stopped him.

"We both know you'd come crawling back to me if I said the word."

Make no mistake, he was happy Angel was going to try and help Willow out. However, he still wouldn't let him have the last word. He turned to fully face Angel and gave him a slow once over, tongue curled up behind his teeth. With a shake of his head, he said, "Not even in a dream, mate."

In the early hours of the morning —three in the morning to be exact— Gunn drove Willow back to the prison. Spike had attempted to convince her to get a few hours' sleep first, but there was no reasoning with her. She was far too energized by the idea of having a slayer back with them. And so, after receiving a promise from Gunn that he would keep Willow safe, Spike crawled into the bed that she had barely slept in. And, if he took the time to breathe in her scent before falling asleep, no one could prove it happened.

It felt like it had only been a few minutes when he woke up to the feeling of someone staring at him. He quickly recognized Fred's scent, though he could swear her heartbeat was quieter than most. She was practically tailor made to be a vampire. Without opening his eyes, he said, "You know pet, a man wakes up to a pretty girl in his room staring at him, he's bound to get ideas."

Instead of being startled or embarrassed, Fred seemed to take his comment as an invitation to invade his personal space. His eyes shot open when he felt the bed dip beneath her weight. She was perched on her knees, waving a wad of cash at him with a huge grin on her face.

"I went ahead and asked Angel for some money and I was thinkin', since you're up and all, you could go with me so I could pick up some more tacos. Different place this time. The meat to lettuce ratio isn't nearly as good, but they have some things there I haven't tried before. I'd wake up Angel, but he gets cranky if you get him up too early."

Spike really couldn't find it in him to be angry she was interrupting his sleep. After all, she was a sweet little thing and still getting over being in a hell dimension. Besides, he really did love the sour look on his sire's face every time she went on and on about how nice he was to her.

"Since I'm up, might as well take a pretty girl out. Though, you might want to step out of the room for just a tick." At her questioning expression, he sent a meaningful glance over the bed spread covering him. "Didn't exactly bring my jammies with me."

Her eyes got huge and she quickly hopped off the bed and rushed to the door. Turning around, giggling and blushing, she said, "I'll be right outside when you're all done getting dressed!"

True to her word, Fred stood on the other side of the door when he opened it again. Her chattering began almost as soon as he got the door closed and didn't stop as they made their way down to the lobby. What did stop her was the sudden presence of Angel. Spike was sure that, if she knew about it, Willow would have something to say about the glee he took in the way Angel's face fell a bit when Fred told him that she was heading out with him. Fred, however, didn't seem to feel that particular joy along with him.

"Oh, but you can come with us. Right, Spike?"

No, it was not right. In fact, it was the very opposite of right. However, looking at Fred's hopeful face, he felt himself crumble.

"Sure, pet. Ol' Angelus can tag along with us."

Spike wasn't sure if she didn't notice the fact that he and Angel refused to talk to each other, or if she just chose to ignore it. Either way, she seemed content to fill the silence herself. When she left them both standing in the shadows of an alley, Spike decided to take over the talking.

"Eventually you're going to have to find something for her to do besides hide away in that death trap of a hotel."

Angel didn't bother to look at him when he bit out, "I'm aware of that."

Spike wasn't about to let it go, though, and continued on in a patronizing tone, "And if you're planning on keeping her, you're going to have to feed her better."

At this Angel did turn and look at him. Spike could tell he was on the edge of striking out and it felt comforting to be on familiar ground with him again.

"She's not a pet, Spike."

When Spike replied, his voice was calm and, though he would deny it, even understanding.

"She's not exactly a fully functioning adult right now, either. She's hiding away in her room and, from what I can tell, living off fast food. Until she's ready to take care of herself, you're going to have to do a better job looking out for her. Lord knows your other humans are doing an absolute rubbish job of it."

Whatever Angel was going to say was interrupted by the sound of Fred running across the street, bag of food in hand. When she caught sight of Angel and Spike, she stopped short.

"Y'all aren't fighting, are you?"

Angel quickly gave a smile and shook his head. "No, we're just catching up. Are we ready to head back?"

Once again, Fred was left to do all the talking as they made their way back. Spike did hear Angel on the phone later with Gunn arranging for the man to stop by for some money to go food shopping.

"Wait, you mean they have grocery stores that are open at night? Huh. So, uh, what exactly would you say the basics would be for someone like Fred?"

Of course, a few minutes later when Angel brought up going out and picking up food with her, he didn't bother to say where he'd gotten the idea. Wanker. At least the poor girl would get some decent food, so Spike supposed it didn't matter. He was turning into a right bleedin' heart. Thankfully Angel didn't seem to notice it. Mostly because he seemed to be enraptured by Fred's rhapsodizing over different foods she could pick up at the store after dark.

She had just wound down when a slightly frumpy man who looked to be in his late twenties or early thirties came in through the front door. By the way Angel jumped up to greet him, he was apparently not a stranger.

"David! I didn't expect you to show up tonight. Is there something wrong?"

Although David didn't look uneasy, he did fumble a bit as he answered, "No, uh, nothing, there's nothing wrong. I just… Is she still here?"

Spike had just begun to wonder if he had a thing for the cheerleader when Willow walked in the through the back door with Faith not far behind her. Spike's eyebrows raised when Angel said, "Here she is now, actually."

Spike could only sit back in confusion as the new guy seemed to fawn over Willow's brain and gush about how someone he knew had talked on and on about how they had tried to recruit her in high school or some such nonsense. What it seemed to amount to was an apparent job offer that they closed themselves off in the office to talk about. When he looked at Angel, he seemed just as lost. Apparently, whatever David had been called to do, it wasn't to make a job offer.

He may not have been able to barge in on the spontaneous meeting, but that didn't stop him from listening in. He didn't notice he was tensed up until he felt himself relax when he realized that, even with this job she seemed ready to accept, she would still be living in Sunnydale. When she came out of the office and said her goodbyes to David she seemed a bit dazed. After a few minutes of silence, her eyes got wide and her gaze excitedly bounced between him and Faith.

"We're going to have to look for a house as soon as we get back to Sunnydale! We don't have to wait to save up money or anything."

She quickly went from joy to horror and continued, "I'm gonna have to quit college now. How am I gonna tell Tara?"

For the next few hours, until it was dark out, Willow paced back and forth in the lobby going over the pros and cons of her new job and having random bouts of panic over having to tell both Tara and her parents. At some point Gunn had arrived, though she paid him no mind. She only stopped her monologue disguised as a conversation when Fred said it was time to go grocery shopping. Apparently, even company starved geniuses recently escaped from a hell dimension had their limits.

The next morning found Willow with her newly signed contract in her bag, Faith in the passenger's seat beside her, and Spike tucked away in the backseat under a blanket —he had absolutely refused Angel's suggestion of riding in the trunk. She was still half convinced that David Nabbit hiring her had all been a very strange shared hallucination. The relief she got from no longer having to worry about how they were going to keep Faith housed and fed helped fuel her through the two-hour drive home. While Faith seemed to not really be paying attention to what she was saying, she did ask questions whenever there was a lull in Willow's babbling.

Faith managed to put on a good enough front to almost have Willow believing that she was unconcerned about her reception. However, it was hard to miss the look of relief on her face when they pulled into Willow's house and she found out she wouldn't be seeing anyone else until the next day. Willow had just shown Faith around the house and was just about to head out to check on Tara when there was a knock at the front door. She caught herself sharing a worried glance with Faith and Spike who had quickly joined her in the hallway.

"If they were going to attack, they wouldn't knock first. Right?"

When they both shrugged, she took a deep breath and stepped close to the door to look through the peephole. She gave a relieved huff of laughter when she saw Giles on the other side. She quickly opened the door and invited him in. He gave a nod of greeting to both her and Spike, but then turned a serious look on Faith.

"I'm so sorry I couldn't give you more time to settle in, Faith. However, we seem to have a bank robbing demon on our hands."

Looking a bit relieved —Willow couldn't help but think she would rather face demons than any emotional confrontations— Faith headed back into the living room and picked up the jacket she'd just recently laid across the back of the couch. She quickly shrugged it on, pulled her hair out from the collar and shot Willow a quick smirk.

"No rest for the wicked, Red."

[synergygolfsolutions]

Matt Kuchar, social media, and stories that take on lives of their own

Matt Kuchar leaves Hawaii a winner, but not entirely unscathed.

That’s the prevailing sentiment from a sect of golf observers, the byproduct of an accusation by a former PGA Tour player on Saturday afternoon. The match was lit at 5:08 p.m. ET; by 10, Kuchar, a beloved and venerated personality by American crowds, had come on the business end of a Twitter roasting . . . over how much he paid a fill-in caddie.

Five hours is all it took. Five hours in which Kuchar was on the golf course, oblivious to the drubbing.

“It’s not a story,” Kuchar would eventually say. This statement was aimed at the rumors; time will tell if he’s proven right. Through another prism, Kuchar is already wrong. Because stories like this are a reckoning more and more athletes are forced to confront.

The past decade has shown that realities can come to life through social media. There are arguments for the virtues and vices of digital platforms, but there’s no debate over their capability. Facebook and Twitter have helped overthrow tyrannical regimes, brought improper behavior to light, given the oppressed a voice. Tangible paragons of speaking truth to power.

There’s an upshot, however. The mob mentality often found on Twitter and Facebook can go unchecked, taking on lives of their own. The forums are so emotionally driven that narratives can reach a fever pitch without consideration of context or facts, and the appetite for "owning" someone overtakes the crusade that's supposed to be fought.

For Kuchar, this materialized at the hands of Tom Gillis of the PGA Tour Champions. In a series of tweets, the 50-year-old Gillis claimed that Kuchar had stiffed David “El Tucan” Ortiz—the local caddie Kuchar had on the bag for his victory in Mayakoba—something fierce.

Now, while the list of athletes indiscretions is long, being tightfisted spurs a special kind of fury. Ours is a culture that implores the rich to spread the love; those failing are branded. Michael Jordan, Scottie (“No Tippin”) Pippen, Pete Sampras and, yes, Tiger Woods are some of the alleged stars with alligator arms.

Kuchar's case, however, felt different, for it wasn’t a tip as it was wages owed. The optics alone—a veteran with $46 million in career earnings low-balling a man who makes less than $46,000 a year—were damning. That Gillis’ previous blast of Ben Crane over an unpaid bet to Daniel Berger proved accurate wasn’t helping, nor was Australian pro Cameron Percy’s reply of, “It’s not out of character if true.” Several popular media personalities stoked the fervor with their Kuchar stories. The only notable name to defend Kuch was Golf Channel analyst Brandel Chamblee, and he was promptly “ratioed"—the phantasm to describe the overwhelming amount of negative reaction to a tweet—in kind.

This outcry is predictable, and if Gillis is right, understandable. Save for one problem: neither Kuchar nor Ortiz had publicly spoken on the issue.

Golf Digest’s Brian Wacker was among a handful of journalists to approach Kuchar after the Sony Open’s third round about the Twitter rumors. This occurred around 11 p.m. ET, six hours after Gillis posted his claim. Kuchar was emphatic in denying the allegations (also worth noting when Gillis was asked how he got his information, he was light on specifics).

“That’s not a story. It wasn’t 10 percent, it wasn’t $3,000. It’s not a story,” Kuchar told reporters. Kuchar later approached Wacker in the media center saying, "We had an agreement to start the week. He was excited to go to work that week.” His remarks did nothing to stop the drama.

For what it’s worth, Ortiz told Golf.com after the Mayakoba win he had not received or discussed his pay with Kuchar, only that he was aware of the standard 10 percent. (At the time of writing, Golf Digest's attempts to reach Ortiz through the Mayakoba Resort were unsuccessful). What’s not as clear is Kuchar’s first point: does this constitute a story?

To be clear, scuttlebutt on athletes’ lives on and off the field is nothing new. Drug use, gambling, affairs, sexual orientation; the biggest sports figures have been subjected to it all. What has shifted, though, is where those questions are coming from.

The problem with narratives that emerge on social media is athletes have two options: response or silence. Neither is particularly desired. As Kuchar showed, a response never quiets the whispers, and silence only makes them grow louder.

Kuchar is not alone. Last June, Jimmy Walker self-professed to backstopping, the practice of purposely not marking a golf ball in order to give an opponent a potential advantage. It served as an archetype of the pluses and perils of mob mentality. Good in that it raised a dialogue, receiving the attention and engagement of a marquee name, providing an opportunity for discourse. Bad in that the conversation was less than civil, as Walker—who was forthright and level-headed about the manner—was roasted for admitting to doing something almost everyone does.

“I was just trying to shed some light on how it actually happens out here,” Walker said at the U.S. Open. He was guilty before charges were brought.

Fans aren't the only ones starting a fire. Tour pro Joel Dahmen took to Twitter after the Quicken Loans National to accuse Sung Kang of cheating. In 2017 then-rookie Grayson Murray called out Bryson DeChambeau for an injury withdraw at Riviera. Former major champ Steve Elkington aired some less-than-flattering remarks toward Rory McIlroy, and the Ulsterman did not take the shot lying down. Danny Willett's 2016 Ryder Cup was ruined by online remarks from his brother.

There are nuances to each, but those nuances are often lost in the commotion. A shame, as they contain truths. In defense of Kuchar, Chamblee made a handful of valid points. Alas, judging by the responses, they were points that fell on deaf ears. Chamblee wasn't so much scolded for the contention, but for the sheer audacity to go against the predominant sentiment. To counter, at least on social media, is to quarrel.

The fallout is real. Despite the tour releasing a statement that backed him up, Kang is forever marked as a cheat. The attention sparked by his bout with Elkington caused McIlroy, one of the more cerebral, candid voices in golf, to quit Twitter. "I don't need to read it. It's stuff that shouldn't get to you and sometimes it does," he said.

At least the above examples were related to competition. In the fall, an Instagram user noticed Dustin Johnson’s fiancee Paulina Gretzky had deleted Johnson’s photos from her social media accounts. Conjecture quickly spread about the status of their relationship, the gossip manifesting in the worst kind of tabloid speculation. The noise became so loud Johnson had to issue a statement. “Every relationship goes through its ups and downs, but most importantly, we love each other very much and are committed to being a family," Johnson said. "Thank you for your love and support."

Johnson and Gretzky have not been shy about their relationship. They are also not foreign to controversy, which fueled the gossip. But even the most public of figures warrant privacy, and more than a few observers asked, "What does this have to do with golf?"

Of course, all public figures are subjected to a heightened level of scrutiny, and sometimes it serves a real purpose. Good can come of a herd mentality, as witnessed by the movements against harassment and assault. And if Ortiz really was shorted, he likely has a better chance at getting what's his thanks to Gillis.

But the pack can be so consumed by righting a wrong that, at times, it fails to ask where the wrong really lies...or if a wrong has even been had.

On Sunday the Golf Channel made a brief mention of Kuchar's Twitter drama. On social media, some saw it as rubbish, the tour and its partner putting their heads in the sand to a story that had become bigger than the tournament. Conversely, as bad as Kuchar looks at the moment, we still don't have definitive proof that the story is legitimate. A mere one-off by the broadcast would have given Gillis' accusation more merit and steam. Once that train leaves the station, there's no turning around.

So you give Kuchar the benefit of the doubt. Even if that doubt is raised.

These are awkward times, where suspicion and truth are blurred. But it's the new reality.

[lowvillegolfclub]

Matt Kuchar, social media, and stories that take on lives of their own

Matt Kuchar leaves Hawaii a winner, but not entirely unscathed.

That’s the prevailing sentiment from a sect of golf observers, the byproduct of an accusation by a former PGA Tour player on Saturday afternoon. The match was lit at 5:08 p.m. ET; by 10, Kuchar, a beloved and venerated personality by American crowds, had come on the business end of a Twitter roasting . . . over how much he paid a fill-in caddie.

Five hours is all it took. Five hours in which Kuchar was on the golf course, oblivious to the drubbing.

“It’s not a story,” Kuchar would eventually say. This statement was aimed at the rumors; time will tell if he’s proven right. Through another prism, Kuchar is already wrong. Because stories like this are a reckoning more and more athletes are forced to confront.

The past decade has shown that realities can come to life through social media. There are arguments for the virtues and vices of digital platforms, but there’s no debate over their capability. Facebook and Twitter have helped overthrow tyrannical regimes, brought improper behavior to light, given the oppressed a voice. Tangible paragons of speaking truth to power.

There’s an upshot, however. The mob mentality often found on Twitter and Facebook can go unchecked, taking on lives of their own. The forums are so emotionally driven that narratives can reach a fever pitch without consideration of context or facts, and the appetite for "owning" someone overtakes the crusade that's supposed to be fought.

For Kuchar, this materialized at the hands of Tom Gillis of the PGA Tour Champions. In a series of tweets, the 50-year-old Gillis claimed that Kuchar had stiffed David “El Tucan” Ortiz—the local caddie Kuchar had on the bag for his victory in Mayakoba—something fierce.

Now, while the list of athletes indiscretions is long, being tightfisted spurs a special kind of fury. Ours is a culture that implores the rich to spread the love; those failing are branded. Michael Jordan, Scottie (“No Tippin”) Pippen, Pete Sampras and, yes, Tiger Woods are some of the alleged stars with alligator arms.

Kuchar's case, however, felt different, for it wasn’t a tip as it was wages owed. The optics alone—a veteran with $46 million in career earnings low-balling a man who makes less than $46,000 a year—were damning. That Gillis’ previous blast of Ben Crane over an unpaid bet to Daniel Berger proved accurate wasn’t helping, nor was Australian pro Cameron Percy’s reply of, “It’s not out of character if true.” Several popular media personalities stoked the fervor with their Kuchar stories. The only notable name to defend Kuch was Golf Channel analyst Brandel Chamblee, and he was promptly “ratioed"—the phantasm to describe the overwhelming amount of negative reaction to a tweet—in kind.

This outcry is predictable, and if Gillis is right, understandable. Save for one problem: neither Kuchar nor Ortiz had publicly spoken on the issue.

Golf Digest’s Brian Wacker was among a handful of journalists to approach Kuchar after the Sony Open’s third round about the Twitter rumors. This occurred around 11 p.m. ET, six hours after Gillis posted his claim. Kuchar was emphatic in denying the allegations (also worth noting when Gillis was asked how he got his information, he was light on specifics).

“That’s not a story. It wasn’t 10 percent, it wasn’t $3,000. It’s not a story,” Kuchar told reporters. Kuchar later approached Wacker in the media center saying, "We had an agreement to start the week. He was excited to go to work that week.” His remarks did nothing to stop the drama.

For what it’s worth, Ortiz told Golf.com after the Mayakoba win he had not received or discussed his pay with Kuchar, only that he was aware of the standard 10 percent. (At the time of writing, Golf Digest's attempts to reach Ortiz through the Mayakoba Resort were unsuccessful). What’s not as clear is Kuchar’s first point: does this constitute a story?

To be clear, scuttlebutt on athletes’ lives on and off the field is nothing new. Drug use, gambling, affairs, sexual orientation; the biggest sports figures have been subjected to it all. What has shifted, though, is where those questions are coming from.

The problem with narratives that emerge on social media is athletes have two options: response or silence. Neither is particularly desired. As Kuchar showed, a response never quiets the whispers, and silence only makes them grow louder.

Kuchar is not alone. Last June, Jimmy Walker self-professed to backstopping, the practice of purposely not marking a golf ball in order to give an opponent a potential advantage. It served as an archetype of the pluses and perils of mob mentality. Good in that it raised a dialogue, receiving the attention and engagement of a marquee name, providing an opportunity for discourse. Bad in that the conversation was less than civil, as Walker—who was forthright and level-headed about the manner—was roasted for admitting to doing something almost everyone does.

“I was just trying to shed some light on how it actually happens out here,” Walker said at the U.S. Open. He was guilty before charges were brought.

Fans aren't the only ones starting a fire. Tour pro Joel Dahmen took to Twitter after the Quicken Loans National to accuse Sung Kang of cheating. In 2017 then-rookie Grayson Murray called out Bryson DeChambeau for an injury withdraw at Riviera. Former major champ Steve Elkington aired some less-than-flattering remarks toward Rory McIlroy, and the Ulsterman did not take the shot lying down. Danny Willett's 2016 Ryder Cup was ruined by online remarks from his brother.

There are nuances to each, but those nuances are often lost in the commotion. A shame, as they contain truths. In defense of Kuchar, Chamblee made a handful of valid points. Alas, judging by the responses, they were points that fell on deaf ears. Chamblee wasn't so much scolded for the contention, but for the sheer audacity to go against the predominant sentiment. To counter, at least on social media, is to quarrel.

The fallout is real. Despite the tour releasing a statement that backed him up, Kang is forever marked as a cheat. The attention sparked by his bout with Elkington caused McIlroy, one of the more cerebral, candid voices in golf, to quit Twitter. "I don't need to read it. It's stuff that shouldn't get to you and sometimes it does," he said.

At least the above examples were related to competition. In the fall, an Instagram user noticed Dustin Johnson’s fiancee Paulina Gretzky had deleted Johnson’s photos from her social media accounts. Conjecture quickly spread about the status of their relationship, the gossip manifesting in the worst kind of tabloid speculation. The noise became so loud Johnson had to issue a statement. “Every relationship goes through its ups and downs, but most importantly, we love each other very much and are committed to being a family," Johnson said. "Thank you for your love and support."

Johnson and Gretzky have not been shy about their relationship. They are also not foreign to controversy, which fueled the gossip. But even the most public of figures warrant privacy, and more than a few observers asked, "What does this have to do with golf?"

Of course, all public figures are subjected to a heightened level of scrutiny, and sometimes it serves a real purpose. Good can come of a herd mentality, as witnessed by the movements against harassment and assault. And if Ortiz really was shorted, he likely has a better chance at getting what's his thanks to Gillis.

But the pack can be so consumed by righting a wrong that, at times, it fails to ask where the wrong really lies...or if a wrong has even been had.

On Sunday the Golf Channel made a brief mention of Kuchar's Twitter drama. On social media, some saw it as rubbish, the tour and its partner putting their heads in the sand to a story that had become bigger than the tournament. Conversely, as bad as Kuchar looks at the moment, we still don't have definitive proof that the story is legitimate. A mere one-off by the broadcast would have given Gillis' accusation more merit and steam. Once that train leaves the station, there's no turning around.

So you give Kuchar the benefit of the doubt. Even if that doubt is raised.

These are awkward times, where suspicion and truth are blurred. But it's the new reality.

[4seasonscountryclub]

Matt Kuchar, social media, and stories that take on lives of their own

Matt Kuchar leaves Hawaii a winner, but not entirely unscathed.

That’s the prevailing sentiment from a sect of golf observers, the byproduct of an accusation by a former PGA Tour player on Saturday afternoon. The match was lit at 5:08 p.m. ET; by 10, Kuchar, a beloved and venerated personality by American crowds, had come on the business end of a Twitter roasting . . . over how much he paid a fill-in caddie.

Five hours is all it took. Five hours in which Kuchar was on the golf course, oblivious to the drubbing.

“It’s not a story,” Kuchar would eventually say. This statement was aimed at the rumors; time will tell if he’s proven right. Through another prism, Kuchar is already wrong. Because stories like this are a reckoning more and more athletes are forced to confront.

The past decade has shown that realities can come to life through social media. There are arguments for the virtues and vices of digital platforms, but there’s no debate over their capability. Facebook and Twitter have helped overthrow tyrannical regimes, brought improper behavior to light, given the oppressed a voice. Tangible paragons of speaking truth to power.

There’s an upshot, however. The mob mentality often found on Twitter and Facebook can go unchecked, taking on lives of their own. The forums are so emotionally driven that narratives can reach a fever pitch without consideration of context or facts, and the appetite for "owning" someone overtakes the crusade that's supposed to be fought.

For Kuchar, this materialized at the hands of Tom Gillis of the PGA Tour Champions. In a series of tweets, the 50-year-old Gillis claimed that Kuchar had stiffed David “El Tucan” Ortiz—the local caddie Kuchar had on the bag for his victory in Mayakoba—something fierce.

Now, while the list of athletes indiscretions is long, being tightfisted spurs a special kind of fury. Ours is a culture that implores the rich to spread the love; those failing are branded. Michael Jordan, Scottie (“No Tippin”) Pippen, Pete Sampras and, yes, Tiger Woods are some of the alleged stars with alligator arms.

Kuchar's case, however, felt different, for it wasn’t a tip as it was wages owed. The optics alone—a veteran with $46 million in career earnings low-balling a man who makes less than $46,000 a year—were damning. That Gillis’ previous blast of Ben Crane over an unpaid bet to Daniel Berger proved accurate wasn’t helping, nor was Australian pro Cameron Percy’s reply of, “It’s not out of character if true.” Several popular media personalities stoked the fervor with their Kuchar stories. The only notable name to defend Kuch was Golf Channel analyst Brandel Chamblee, and he was promptly “ratioed"—the phantasm to describe the overwhelming amount of negative reaction to a tweet—in kind.

This outcry is predictable, and if Gillis is right, understandable. Save for one problem: neither Kuchar nor Ortiz had publicly spoken on the issue.

Golf Digest’s Brian Wacker was among a handful of journalists to approach Kuchar after the Sony Open’s third round about the Twitter rumors. This occurred around 11 p.m. ET, six hours after Gillis posted his claim. Kuchar was emphatic in denying the allegations (also worth noting when Gillis was asked how he got his information, he was light on specifics).

“That’s not a story. It wasn’t 10 percent, it wasn’t $3,000. It’s not a story,” Kuchar told reporters. Kuchar later approached Wacker in the media center saying, "We had an agreement to start the week. He was excited to go to work that week.” His remarks did nothing to stop the drama.

For what it’s worth, Ortiz told Golf.com after the Mayakoba win he had not received or discussed his pay with Kuchar, only that he was aware of the standard 10 percent. (At the time of writing, Golf Digest's attempts to reach Ortiz through the Mayakoba Resort were unsuccessful). What’s not as clear is Kuchar’s first point: does this constitute a story?

To be clear, scuttlebutt on athletes’ lives on and off the field is nothing new. Drug use, gambling, affairs, sexual orientation; the biggest sports figures have been subjected to it all. What has shifted, though, is where those questions are coming from.

The problem with narratives that emerge on social media is athletes have two options: response or silence. Neither is particularly desired. As Kuchar showed, a response never quiets the whispers, and silence only makes them grow louder.

Kuchar is not alone. Last June, Jimmy Walker self-professed to backstopping, the practice of purposely not marking a golf ball in order to give an opponent a potential advantage. It served as an archetype of the pluses and perils of mob mentality. Good in that it raised a dialogue, receiving the attention and engagement of a marquee name, providing an opportunity for discourse. Bad in that the conversation was less than civil, as Walker—who was forthright and level-headed about the manner—was roasted for admitting to doing something almost everyone does.

“I was just trying to shed some light on how it actually happens out here,” Walker said at the U.S. Open. He was guilty before charges were brought.

Fans aren't the only ones starting a fire. Tour pro Joel Dahmen took to Twitter after the Quicken Loans National to accuse Sung Kang of cheating. In 2017 then-rookie Grayson Murray called out Bryson DeChambeau for an injury withdraw at Riviera. Former major champ Steve Elkington aired some less-than-flattering remarks toward Rory McIlroy, and the Ulsterman did not take the shot lying down. Danny Willett's 2016 Ryder Cup was ruined by online remarks from his brother.

There are nuances to each, but those nuances are often lost in the commotion. A shame, as they contain truths. In defense of Kuchar, Chamblee made a handful of valid points. Alas, judging by the responses, they were points that fell on deaf ears. Chamblee wasn't so much scolded for the contention, but for the sheer audacity to go against the predominant sentiment. To counter, at least on social media, is to quarrel.

The fallout is real. Despite the tour releasing a statement that backed him up, Kang is forever marked as a cheat. The attention sparked by his bout with Elkington caused McIlroy, one of the more cerebral, candid voices in golf, to quit Twitter. "I don't need to read it. It's stuff that shouldn't get to you and sometimes it does," he said.

At least the above examples were related to competition. In the fall, an Instagram user noticed Dustin Johnson’s fiancee Paulina Gretzky had deleted Johnson’s photos from her social media accounts. Conjecture quickly spread about the status of their relationship, the gossip manifesting in the worst kind of tabloid speculation. The noise became so loud Johnson had to issue a statement. “Every relationship goes through its ups and downs, but most importantly, we love each other very much and are committed to being a family," Johnson said. "Thank you for your love and support."

Johnson and Gretzky have not been shy about their relationship. They are also not foreign to controversy, which fueled the gossip. But even the most public of figures warrant privacy, and more than a few observers asked, "What does this have to do with golf?"

Of course, all public figures are subjected to a heightened level of scrutiny, and sometimes it serves a real purpose. Good can come of a herd mentality, as witnessed by the movements against harassment and assault. And if Ortiz really was shorted, he likely has a better chance at getting what's his thanks to Gillis.

But the pack can be so consumed by righting a wrong that, at times, it fails to ask where the wrong really lies...or if a wrong has even been had.

On Sunday the Golf Channel made a brief mention of Kuchar's Twitter drama. On social media, some saw it as rubbish, the tour and its partner putting their heads in the sand to a story that had become bigger than the tournament. Conversely, as bad as Kuchar looks at the moment, we still don't have definitive proof that the story is legitimate. A mere one-off by the broadcast would have given Gillis' accusation more merit and steam. Once that train leaves the station, there's no turning around.

So you give Kuchar the benefit of the doubt. Even if that doubt is raised.

These are awkward times, where suspicion and truth are blurred. But it's the new reality.

[elmiragc]

Matt Kuchar, social media, and stories that take on lives of their own

Matt Kuchar leaves Hawaii a winner, but not entirely unscathed.

That’s the prevailing sentiment from a sect of golf observers, the byproduct of an accusation by a former PGA Tour player on Saturday afternoon. The match was lit at 5:08 p.m. ET; by 10, Kuchar, a beloved and venerated personality by American crowds, had come on the business end of a Twitter roasting . . . over how much he paid a fill-in caddie.

Five hours is all it took. Five hours in which Kuchar was on the golf course, oblivious to the drubbing.

“It’s not a story,” Kuchar would eventually say. This statement was aimed at the rumors; time will tell if he’s proven right. Through another prism, Kuchar is already wrong. Because stories like this are a reckoning more and more athletes are forced to confront.

The past decade has shown that realities can come to life through social media. There are arguments for the virtues and vices of digital platforms, but there’s no debate over their capability. Facebook and Twitter have helped overthrow tyrannical regimes, brought improper behavior to light, given the oppressed a voice. Tangible paragons of speaking truth to power.

There’s an upshot, however. The mob mentality often found on Twitter and Facebook can go unchecked, taking on lives of their own. The forums are so emotionally driven that narratives can reach a fever pitch without consideration of context or facts, and the appetite for "owning" someone overtakes the crusade that's supposed to be fought.

For Kuchar, this materialized at the hands of Tom Gillis of the PGA Tour Champions. In a series of tweets, the 50-year-old Gillis claimed that Kuchar had stiffed David “El Tucan” Ortiz—the local caddie Kuchar had on the bag for his victory in Mayakoba—something fierce.

Now, while the list of athletes indiscretions is long, being tightfisted spurs a special kind of fury. Ours is a culture that implores the rich to spread the love; those failing are branded. Michael Jordan, Scottie (“No Tippin”) Pippen, Pete Sampras and, yes, Tiger Woods are some of the alleged stars with alligator arms.

Kuchar's case, however, felt different, for it wasn’t a tip as it was wages owed. The optics alone—a veteran with $46 million in career earnings low-balling a man who makes less than $46,000 a year—were damning. That Gillis’ previous blast of Ben Crane over an unpaid bet to Daniel Berger proved accurate wasn’t helping, nor was Australian pro Cameron Percy’s reply of, “It’s not out of character if true.” Several popular media personalities stoked the fervor with their Kuchar stories. The only notable name to defend Kuch was Golf Channel analyst Brandel Chamblee, and he was promptly “ratioed"—the phantasm to describe the overwhelming amount of negative reaction to a tweet—in kind.

This outcry is predictable, and if Gillis is right, understandable. Save for one problem: neither Kuchar nor Ortiz had publicly spoken on the issue.

Golf Digest’s Brian Wacker was among a handful of journalists to approach Kuchar after the Sony Open’s third round about the Twitter rumors. This occurred around 11 p.m. ET, six hours after Gillis posted his claim. Kuchar was emphatic in denying the allegations (also worth noting when Gillis was asked how he got his information, he was light on specifics).

“That’s not a story. It wasn’t 10 percent, it wasn’t $3,000. It’s not a story,” Kuchar told reporters. Kuchar later approached Wacker in the media center saying, "We had an agreement to start the week. He was excited to go to work that week.” His remarks did nothing to stop the drama.

For what it’s worth, Ortiz told Golf.com after the Mayakoba win he had not received or discussed his pay with Kuchar, only that he was aware of the standard 10 percent. (At the time of writing, Golf Digest's attempts to reach Ortiz through the Mayakoba Resort were unsuccessful). What’s not as clear is Kuchar’s first point: does this constitute a story?

To be clear, scuttlebutt on athletes’ lives on and off the field is nothing new. Drug use, gambling, affairs, sexual orientation; the biggest sports figures have been subjected to it all. What has shifted, though, is where those questions are coming from.

The problem with narratives that emerge on social media is athletes have two options: response or silence. Neither is particularly desired. As Kuchar showed, a response never quiets the whispers, and silence only makes them grow louder.

Kuchar is not alone. Last June, Jimmy Walker self-professed to backstopping, the practice of purposely not marking a golf ball in order to give an opponent a potential advantage. It served as an archetype of the pluses and perils of mob mentality. Good in that it raised a dialogue, receiving the attention and engagement of a marquee name, providing an opportunity for discourse. Bad in that the conversation was less than civil, as Walker—who was forthright and level-headed about the manner—was roasted for admitting to doing something almost everyone does.

“I was just trying to shed some light on how it actually happens out here,” Walker said at the U.S. Open. He was guilty before charges were brought.

Fans aren't the only ones starting a fire. Tour pro Joel Dahmen took to Twitter after the Quicken Loans National to accuse Sung Kang of cheating. In 2017 then-rookie Grayson Murray called out Bryson DeChambeau for an injury withdraw at Riviera. Former major champ Steve Elkington aired some less-than-flattering remarks toward Rory McIlroy, and the Ulsterman did not take the shot lying down. Danny Willett's 2016 Ryder Cup was ruined by online remarks from his brother.

There are nuances to each, but those nuances are often lost in the commotion. A shame, as they contain truths. In defense of Kuchar, Chamblee made a handful of valid points. Alas, judging by the responses, they were points that fell on deaf ears. Chamblee wasn't so much scolded for the contention, but for the sheer audacity to go against the predominant sentiment. To counter, at least on social media, is to quarrel.

The fallout is real. Despite the tour releasing a statement that backed him up, Kang is forever marked as a cheat. The attention sparked by his bout with Elkington caused McIlroy, one of the more cerebral, candid voices in golf, to quit Twitter. "I don't need to read it. It's stuff that shouldn't get to you and sometimes it does," he said.

At least the above examples were related to competition. In the fall, an Instagram user noticed Dustin Johnson’s fiancee Paulina Gretzky had deleted Johnson’s photos from her social media accounts. Conjecture quickly spread about the status of their relationship, the gossip manifesting in the worst kind of tabloid speculation. The noise became so loud Johnson had to issue a statement. “Every relationship goes through its ups and downs, but most importantly, we love each other very much and are committed to being a family," Johnson said. "Thank you for your love and support."

Johnson and Gretzky have not been shy about their relationship. They are also not foreign to controversy, which fueled the gossip. But even the most public of figures warrant privacy, and more than a few observers asked, "What does this have to do with golf?"

Of course, all public figures are subjected to a heightened level of scrutiny, and sometimes it serves a real purpose. Good can come of a herd mentality, as witnessed by the movements against harassment and assault. And if Ortiz really was shorted, he likely has a better chance at getting what's his thanks to Gillis.

But the pack can be so consumed by righting a wrong that, at times, it fails to ask where the wrong really lies...or if a wrong has even been had.

On Sunday the Golf Channel made a brief mention of Kuchar's Twitter drama. On social media, some saw it as rubbish, the tour and its partner putting their heads in the sand to a story that had become bigger than the tournament. Conversely, as bad as Kuchar looks at the moment, we still don't have definitive proof that the story is legitimate. A mere one-off by the broadcast would have given Gillis' accusation more merit and steam. Once that train leaves the station, there's no turning around.

So you give Kuchar the benefit of the doubt. Even if that doubt is raised.

These are awkward times, where suspicion and truth are blurred. But it's the new reality.

[hamiltongolfcourses]

Matt Kuchar, social media, and stories that take on lives of their own

Matt Kuchar leaves Hawaii a winner, but not entirely unscathed.

That’s the prevailing sentiment from a sect of golf observers, the byproduct of an accusation by a former PGA Tour player on Saturday afternoon. The match was lit at 5:08 p.m. ET; by 10, Kuchar, a beloved and venerated personality by American crowds, had come on the business end of a Twitter roasting . . . over how much he paid a fill-in caddie.

Five hours is all it took. Five hours in which Kuchar was on the golf course, oblivious to the drubbing.

“It’s not a story,” Kuchar would eventually say. This statement was aimed at the rumors; time will tell if he’s proven right. Through another prism, Kuchar is already wrong. Because stories like this are a reckoning more and more athletes are forced to confront.

The past decade has shown that realities can come to life through social media. There are arguments for the virtues and vices of digital platforms, but there’s no debate over their capability. Facebook and Twitter have helped overthrow tyrannical regimes, brought improper behavior to light, given the oppressed a voice. Tangible paragons of speaking truth to power.

There’s an upshot, however. The mob mentality often found on Twitter and Facebook can go unchecked, taking on lives of their own. The forums are so emotionally driven that narratives can reach a fever pitch without consideration of context or facts, and the appetite for "owning" someone overtakes the crusade that's supposed to be fought.

For Kuchar, this materialized at the hands of Tom Gillis of the PGA Tour Champions. In a series of tweets, the 50-year-old Gillis claimed that Kuchar had stiffed David “El Tucan” Ortiz—the local caddie Kuchar had on the bag for his victory in Mayakoba—something fierce.

Now, while the list of athletes indiscretions is long, being tightfisted spurs a special kind of fury. Ours is a culture that implores the rich to spread the love; those failing are branded. Michael Jordan, Scottie (“No Tippin”) Pippen, Pete Sampras and, yes, Tiger Woods are some of the alleged stars with alligator arms.

Kuchar's case, however, felt different, for it wasn’t a tip as it was wages owed. The optics alone—a veteran with $46 million in career earnings low-balling a man who makes less than $46,000 a year—were damning. That Gillis’ previous blast of Ben Crane over an unpaid bet to Daniel Berger proved accurate wasn’t helping, nor was Australian pro Cameron Percy’s reply of, “It’s not out of character if true.” Several popular media personalities stoked the fervor with their Kuchar stories. The only notable name to defend Kuch was Golf Channel analyst Brandel Chamblee, and he was promptly “ratioed"—the phantasm to describe the overwhelming amount of negative reaction to a tweet—in kind.

This outcry is predictable, and if Gillis is right, understandable. Save for one problem: neither Kuchar nor Ortiz had publicly spoken on the issue.

Golf Digest’s Brian Wacker was among a handful of journalists to approach Kuchar after the Sony Open’s third round about the Twitter rumors. This occurred around 11 p.m. ET, six hours after Gillis posted his claim. Kuchar was emphatic in denying the allegations (also worth noting when Gillis was asked how he got his information, he was light on specifics).

“That’s not a story. It wasn’t 10 percent, it wasn’t $3,000. It’s not a story,” Kuchar told reporters. Kuchar later approached Wacker in the media center saying, "We had an agreement to start the week. He was excited to go to work that week.” His remarks did nothing to stop the drama.

For what it’s worth, Ortiz told Golf.com after the Mayakoba win he had not received or discussed his pay with Kuchar, only that he was aware of the standard 10 percent. (At the time of writing, Golf Digest's attempts to reach Ortiz through the Mayakoba Resort were unsuccessful). What’s not as clear is Kuchar’s first point: does this constitute a story?

To be clear, scuttlebutt on athletes’ lives on and off the field is nothing new. Drug use, gambling, affairs, sexual orientation; the biggest sports figures have been subjected to it all. What has shifted, though, is where those questions are coming from.

The problem with narratives that emerge on social media is athletes have two options: response or silence. Neither is particularly desired. As Kuchar showed, a response never quiets the whispers, and silence only makes them grow louder.

Kuchar is not alone. Last June, Jimmy Walker self-professed to backstopping, the practice of purposely not marking a golf ball in order to give an opponent a potential advantage. It served as an archetype of the pluses and perils of mob mentality. Good in that it raised a dialogue, receiving the attention and engagement of a marquee name, providing an opportunity for discourse. Bad in that the conversation was less than civil, as Walker—who was forthright and level-headed about the manner—was roasted for admitting to doing something almost everyone does.

“I was just trying to shed some light on how it actually happens out here,” Walker said at the U.S. Open. He was guilty before charges were brought.

Fans aren't the only ones starting a fire. Tour pro Joel Dahmen took to Twitter after the Quicken Loans National to accuse Sung Kang of cheating. In 2017 then-rookie Grayson Murray called out Bryson DeChambeau for an injury withdraw at Riviera. Former major champ Steve Elkington aired some less-than-flattering remarks toward Rory McIlroy, and the Ulsterman did not take the shot lying down. Danny Willett's 2016 Ryder Cup was ruined by online remarks from his brother.

There are nuances to each, but those nuances are often lost in the commotion. A shame, as they contain truths. In defense of Kuchar, Chamblee made a handful of valid points. Alas, judging by the responses, they were points that fell on deaf ears. Chamblee wasn't so much scolded for the contention, but for the sheer audacity to go against the predominant sentiment. To counter, at least on social media, is to quarrel.

The fallout is real. Despite the tour releasing a statement that backed him up, Kang is forever marked as a cheat. The attention sparked by his bout with Elkington caused McIlroy, one of the more cerebral, candid voices in golf, to quit Twitter. "I don't need to read it. It's stuff that shouldn't get to you and sometimes it does," he said.

At least the above examples were related to competition. In the fall, an Instagram user noticed Dustin Johnson’s fiancee Paulina Gretzky had deleted Johnson’s photos from her social media accounts. Conjecture quickly spread about the status of their relationship, the gossip manifesting in the worst kind of tabloid speculation. The noise became so loud Johnson had to issue a statement. “Every relationship goes through its ups and downs, but most importantly, we love each other very much and are committed to being a family," Johnson said. "Thank you for your love and support."

Johnson and Gretzky have not been shy about their relationship. They are also not foreign to controversy, which fueled the gossip. But even the most public of figures warrant privacy, and more than a few observers asked, "What does this have to do with golf?"

Of course, all public figures are subjected to a heightened level of scrutiny, and sometimes it serves a real purpose. Good can come of a herd mentality, as witnessed by the movements against harassment and assault. And if Ortiz really was shorted, he likely has a better chance at getting what's his thanks to Gillis.

But the pack can be so consumed by righting a wrong that, at times, it fails to ask where the wrong really lies...or if a wrong has even been had.

On Sunday the Golf Channel made a brief mention of Kuchar's Twitter drama. On social media, some saw it as rubbish, the tour and its partner putting their heads in the sand to a story that had become bigger than the tournament. Conversely, as bad as Kuchar looks at the moment, we still don't have definitive proof that the story is legitimate. A mere one-off by the broadcast would have given Gillis' accusation more merit and steam. Once that train leaves the station, there's no turning around.

So you give Kuchar the benefit of the doubt. Even if that doubt is raised.

These are awkward times, where suspicion and truth are blurred. But it's the new reality.