#no you are not exempt from criticism from the fandom at large

[gizdathemxel]

don’t get me wrong i agree with dont like don’t read, but saying that phrase over and over again kinda ignores the larger nuances of fanfic on the internet. my main point is that a lot of people are not really aware of the spaces and fandoms that they’re occupying, and then forget fandom etiquette. my biggest examples would probably have to be the mha fandom and especially the brony fandom.

bronies, i’ll admit are a completely different ballpark, since adult men (who were totally allowed to enjoy and be in mlp fandom) entered the space and completely ignored that they were not the target audience. idgaf that they made porn/gore/wtv tf of mlp but i care that they were in every single mlp space. you could not google mlp in its heyday and avoid it (though that also goes on the fault of the way that the internet was structured [which is a very important thing that “don’t like, don’t read” doesn’t take into account] since the internet mashes everything together). it was really fucking bad if you were the target audience, a little kid!

the mha fandom is deffo much tamer, but that doesn’t mean that it’s without problems either. again, i cannot stop you from making whatever you want to make but keep in mind what fandom you’re in and what space you are. i do not think i have to explain why yagami yato having “spicy” audios of mha characters easily accessible on youtube of all platforms is a bad thing actually.

it’s not anyone’s particular fault for the way the internet is structured, but like, be aware that you may actually be in the niche in a fandom, and that you may not be target audience, which is fine!!! but just be aware of that. you might remember that an nsfw sophia the first page on twitter reposted (they didn’t actually make it) the infamous ‘i do not like minors coming up to me in my adult space to call me a pedo for making adult content” comic. can you see the irony? you are in a fandom where the media is for actual toddlers, making nsfw content of that media, and fucking gobsmacked that a kid saw it and didn’t like it. this is what im talking about.

idc that that person got their rocks off on sofia the first, or what anyone gets their rocks off on (as long as you are not breaking the law or knowingly harming another person), but again, self-awareness please!!

im a huge spiderverse fan and i would jump miguel’s bones faster than a lockheed sr-71 blackbird, but i am also aware of the fact that spiderverse is a kids movie, so i wouldn’t put that wtv nsfw content i made of it in places where kids could easily access it (like youtube!! or even tiktok). it’s not going to prevent all kids from seeing it, since that’s the way that the internet is sadly made, but at the very least do what you need to do??

tldr; there are a lot of nuances to online fanfic but “don’t like, don’t read” doesn’t account for. the internet is designed to mash everything similar together, and please be conscientious about the fandom spaces you’re in and what you do in those spaces (esp if the media for that fandom is for minors)

[pikahlua]

Genuinely I don’t have a problem with criticism of MHA. What keeps getting me is the lack of self-reflection and good faith.

Maybe it’s just the framing, but so much criticism is framed as “Horikoshi tried to do this familiar (western) theme but failed” or “he didn’t properly criticize society in a way that matches my personal beliefs” and “I don’t like the morals” without first demonstrating the critic actually understands the morals in the story or that their personal perspective may be heavily colored by their views of their own society. Like, Japanese society is not exempt from criticism, but depictions of society as imperfect and difficult to change aren’t the same thing as saying the current system is good. Does Japan have systemic issues in its justice system and such? Yes, but if you’re using shorthand about western culture’s systemic issues to describe Japan’s issues, I don’t yet believe you actually know what those systemic issues are. There are plenty of Japanese stories with morals I personally find distasteful as a person with a more individualistic worldview, but I also understand how they can read as good morals from a collectivist perspective. And I don’t recall reading all that many novels in school where the reason they were considered good and classic was because they had such good morals. They were stories written from the perspectives of various cultures and eras, and there was a lot more to them than “do I agree with what the author is depicting here, assuming they’re depicting something they even fully agree with at all?”

In the end I guess I was never into 100% of what was going on in MHA anyway. I’ve been pretty open about why I’m here. But that’s part of why it feels like I’ve been able to adjust my expectations of the series as it gave me new information rather than what sadly appears to me like a lot of people clinging to their own personal interpretations far past the point of viability. I predicted years ago there would be a large contingent of disappointed readers at the end because the interpretations across the fandom were so varied and in many cases so rigid. They couldn’t all be right in the end. But I just hope some people take the time to try to understand MHA in good faith. Of course some points were interesting world-building details the story didn’t want to linger on, but that means those topics aren’t the story MHA is trying to tell. I want to read criticism of the actual story MHA is trying to tell, not what could have been two or three years ago.

[naranjapetrificada]

Because I don't want it to get lost in the tags of that post I just reblogged:

It's incredibly cool that fans of the same works come together to share the fruits of our creativity with each other, completely for free and solely motivated by our passion for a certain source material! By and large people will like and appreciate the things we make for each other! It's neat and allows us to enjoy our favorite characters, stories, and worlds for so much longer than we otherwise could! Fandom can be such a gift!

Also some people will not like some or all of what we do, and that can be sad. Those people, however, do have a right to feel that way and they also have the right to express that if they want, although there are of course polite and impolite* ways to do that. There tactful ways and private ways and ways that don't require being cruel. Because sometimes you just don't vibe with something, or sometimes something is racist, or you don't understand something about it, and maybe you want to run it by someone else or work through your thoughts about it.

And one of the places people should be allowed to do that is on their own blogs. Especially if they're not going out of their way to identify the work/author in question. If AO3 users are responsible for managing their own experience using filters and the back button, then tumblr users can exercise the same responsibility with the block, unfollow, and filtered tags systems.

Doing something "for free" or "out of the goodness of your heart" does not exempt it from critique, especially if the person with those critiques isn't directly or commenting, messaging, or tagging you about it (although some creators are perfectly fine with being critiqued and may even thank you for it). Nor are people obligated to keep their critiques in DMs to their friends only, not when they have a blog that can be unfollowed/blocked. Maybe it will bum you out if you happen to see that criticism in passing, but "don't like don't read" is a policy creators can exercise themselves too.

*politeness as a concept is a Whole Other Question I don't have room for here

[aeternallis]

I have an honest, genuine question here, if only for the sake of the fact that I would like to hopefully inspire some polite conversation about this very sensitive topic: what genuinely makes people in this fandom believe that by "watching the live-action drama only," it enables them to think they're free of any responsibility in contributing to these authors' platform and pockets?

(Lindsay Ellis talked about this with JK Rowling and how the HP fandom are struggling with this same exact issue, and a lot of her talking points can apply to the KP fandom too, if you'd like to watch her video on Youtube.)

And before I go any further, I know I may come off obnoxious and mean af, but I'm really really trying not to be. :'D This is honestly just a question I'd like to present to the KP fandom at large.

This question is not meant to be a jab at any of you nonnie(s) or to be provoking in any way, but I'm really just wondering if it somehow got lost in the sauce that DAEMI's involvement with this production was quite extensive (namely, with casting and the script). While I don't know the terms of how royalties are distributed from this show towards the original authors, what they may or may not gain financially, they do gain undoubtedly in platform and notoriety.

Because the way I see it, no matter how much we hate it, the fact still remains that DAEMI are still the original authors of the KinnPorsche franchise. Not reading the novel and/or pretending it doesn't exist won't erase that. If anything, pretending this novel series doesn't exist, or that DAEMI are not the original authors, only whitewashes this IP and the way I see it, not exactly the most conductive way in actually trying to have a meaningful conversation around this series.

Let's not even delve into the fact that by trying to erase DAEMI's name from this IP, people are essentially trying to steal an original creation of POC(s), give full credit to the production company of the show (who based their script on DAEMI's novel), all in an effort to make themselves feel better about engaging with it.

And don't get me wrong; DAEMI being POC does not exempt them from criticism and outright boycott.

Having said this, I may not like DAEMI as much as the next person and do not condone any of their harmful actions, but it also doesn't mean I condone stealing what's rightfully their written work and their monumental contribution to the show.

That, to date, KinnPorsche the Series is still arguably the biggest BL show to come out of Thailand, that this novel was undoubtedly the roadmap for which the drama was based off of.

That to sabotage the success of this novel license series also means to disregard the hard work of both the translators and the artist, to take away credibility from the original cast members who made the live-action drama such a large success that this novel license is even possible today?

That to sabotage the success of this novel may also mean to potentially close an avenue for other SE Asian queer media to succeed down the line?

Because I assure you, when it comes to this sort of thing, money talks. When the execs of SevenSeas looks at the performance of KinnPorsche the novel series and how the pre-order numbers are doing, the numbers tell them whether it's viable to invest in SE Asian queer media or not.

Because believe you me, considering SevenSeas most likely has a social media team, the vitriol being thrown around right now only tells them the VERY unflattering picture that the KP fandom (or any Thai BL community that has a fairly successful IP behind it) is volatile af and also incredibly BIASED, considering at least half of the people outright condemning this license and want it gone are also Build stans.

That at the end of the day, the only real, truest way to fully take away DAEMI's platform for good is to just flat out drop KP-both the novel series and the show-and let it disappear into the annals of entertainment history?

Now, am I pressuring you nonnie(s) or anyone to spend money on the authors? HELL NO. Do whatever you want with your money, I won't judge you.

But is it really not possible for the mindset of, "I do not condone these authors' horrendous actions in the past, but I would like to support the novel series in honor of the artist and the translators, as well as help contribute in bringing in more SE Asian queer content to a wider audience in the near future. My support of this novel series is not a full reflection of my own character, and I refuse to let online randos dictate it otherwise" to exist?

And honestly, nonnie(s)? That's something you all have to figure out for yourselves.

[transformatives]

Blogging BookTok

Do you know what I mean when I say “Forbidden romance, Enemies-To-Lovers, Golden Retriever Boy x Black Cat Girl, Mafia Husband, Touch-Her-You-Die, 5 Chili Peppers Book”? If you do, then you’ve probably spent some time on the bookish side of TikTok, known synonymously as “BookTok”. But if you don’t, then you’re probably wondering what these phrases have in common, and after knowing that it has something to do with reading, then you’re probably also wondering what the actual plot of this book is. 

This way of talking about a book is one of the most popular ways of advertising on BookTok, when a fan of a book will describe a story through its use of tropes, cliches, and sexual content. In this context, “5 Chili Peppers” equals high sexual content, which represents another form of self censorship on TikTok where users replace words like “sexual content” with “chili peppers” in order to supposedly bypass shadow banning. There is not yet strong evidence that this actually works, which results in an interesting soup of synonyms for adult terminology. If users are actually shadow banned for directly speaking about adult content, then BookTok is right for using the spice scale, as it is chock-full of adult content. 

One of the main criticisms of BookTok is their prioritization of sexual content in their favorite books. If you scroll on the hashtag, you’ll find that a large percentage of the videos made include spice ratings or readers raving about who’s the hottest “book boyfriend”. Like any other online fandom, BookTok has a variety of perspectives, but time and time again it seems that only the sexual aspects are focused on by external viewers. I’d like to make the argument that this is both another example of society’s distaste for women expressing their sexualities. 

People will often describe BookTok as if women reading erotica and discussing it with their peers is a new phenomenon, rather than a practice going back to ancient times. Think of all the jokes in media about middle-aged women writing erotica in their free time (shout out to Ms. Perky from 10 Things I Hate About You!) or your aunt’s collection of trashy paperbacks with titles like “The Devil’s Gift”. Cultural studies scholar Janice Radway writes about this in her book “Reading the Romance”, in which she interviews romance book readers in a 1980s Midwestern town and provides her own social theories for why women read romance novels and why they prefer certain tropes. Radway writes that, “Romance reading…constitutes a temporary ‘declaration of independence’ from the social roles of wife and mother. By placing the barrier of the book between themselves and their families, these women reserve a special space and time for themselves alone.” In a world where women are expected to be the passive object of sexual attention but incapable of their own desires, having a safe place to explore sexuality and discuss with other women is a necessity. Open discussion, especially in online platforms such as TikTok, normalizes such things. In addition to that, the simplistic writing style of many romance novels makes it easily accessible, especially to people seeking escape from their regular lives as simply wives and mothers. 

However, this does not exempt BookTok from criticism. Although BookTok can be a good place for women to discuss their favorite novels and express themselves, there is something to be said about the homogeneity of BookTok novels. These books often prioritize sexual context. This is not a bad thing, but some critics have raised concerns about younger audiences being exposed to a large amount of adult content packaged in bright pastel covers. The trend of erotica leans to more unrealistic scenarios, with a particular penchant for tropes that blur the lines of consent and safety. Some books even forgo consent overall. One that you’ll find on a lot of Barnes and Noble “BookTok” tables is “Haunting Adeline”, a book where a man stalks and repeatedly sexually assaults a woman (despite the fact that he apparently runs an underground organization that aims to end human trafficking). This, according to book fans, could be forgiven if only the writing wasn’t terrible. A top Goodreads review reads, “I've always defended writing in the contemporary romance genre….But I've probably never read a book with worse writing than this.” In this we can see the main issue, which is not that popular BookTok books address mature content, but rather that they often handle it poorly and fans don’t want to engage with the content constructively. 

There is nothing wrong with escapism, but too often it goes hand in hand with a defensive stance that separates more than it unites. Minorities have spoken out about the lack of diversity in what BookTok promotes, where every new hot novel is about a quirky white woman with spunk falling in love with a stoic, tall, black-haired white man (shout out Ali Hazelwood). Cliqueness is another issue plaguing BookTok, one that is unfortunately racially charged at times. There’s a stubbornness within BookTok fans. Some people will even take the stance that any criticism against the romance genre is anti feminist, without realizing the irony in such a statement. 

Such discourse (or lack thereof) is indicative of a wider movement of anti intellectualism in recent media consumption. It seems that there are only two ways to interact with pieces of media. One way is to point to any problematic element within it and deem it irredeemable, regardless of if it is included to serve a narrative purpose. The other way is to decide that you love it and will defend it to the end of the earth without budging ever. Both approaches are a detriment to facilitating actual, in depth, critical discussion about media. Online spaces such as BookTok can be a tool to engage in these conversations about sexuality and gender, but only if people are willing to discuss, rather than just scream their opinions into the void. 

[bookshelfdreams]

#im very neutral on hamilton and enver engaged with the fandom but fwiw i think its also worth to acknowledge what the play is#on a real life level as well#which is a story told by a brown man of color that specifically#tries to tell americas very white history with POC actors and musical elements at the forefront#is it a good idea? is it well executed? idk - tho i lean toward it being more flawed than not#BUT - even setting aside metatextual flaws. hamilton was a POC written play that stars a largely POC cast on broadway which is INFAMOUSLY#racially imbalanced. so its a flawed story that actively elevates the voices of REAL LIFE brown and black actors in a setting that theyve#historically been shut out from#this does NOT exempt it from criticism BUTTT white people shitting on a POC written play that materially benefits real life POC people.....#that shit reeks of performative activism.#the discussion of the extent to which hamilton is flawed and whether the good outweighs the bad is a very real and reasonable debate.#and its entirely possible to draw the conclusion that hamilton was ultimately harmful even if the intent behind it was probably good.#just like its possible to argue that the metatextual flaws in the narrative are outweighed by the way the show has#helped bring marginalized voices into a space theyve historically been excluded from.#But as far as hamilton goes-its an important conversation to have but i do encourage white people engaging in the convo to prioritize#listen to and elevate the voices of nonwhite (esp black and indigenous) individuals

via @e-vasong - I hope you don't mind me pulling up your tags, but you make very good points. It's important to keep in mind that marginalized voices are always going to be criticized much more harshly than those who belong to the majority - I'm not gonna be the judge of how well Hamilton itself is done but I also feel a lot of the vitriol towards it is unwarranted, or at least exaggerated

Hey I like a lot of the takes you have regarding the pirate show so I wanted to ask for your opinion on smth that's been bothering me for a while:

I have a deep seated dislike for Hamilton. Twinkifying the fucking founding fathers, romanticizing slave abusers and overall villainizing the wrong people while others (Hamilton at the front naturally) gets sung at. Speaking of singing - I really hate it. Shipping (i want to repeat) the founding fathers, the blatant white washing bla bla bla. Anyway those are all known problems and better people have said it smarter before and that isn't really my point

It's the fact that a friend of mine recently brought up that Ofmd pretty much is the same and I shouldn't scream so loud in my glass house. Inaccurate historically speaking, the blatant ignoring of the slave owning that the real Stede and Edward did and so on and so forth. Minus the singing perhaps if we ignore Frenchies and Izzys

So. Does it make me a hypocrite to like ofmd so much but despise the mere mention of Hamilton? It's a thing I'm really stressed about lately and that kind of ruined my joy about finally getting season 2. I would love to hear your opinion. or that of your followers for that matter.

Thank you 😊

oh thank YOU because I do feel that this is an interesting thing to examine and we do not talk about it enough.

I have never seen Hamilton, or listened to the songs (except some snippets). I have never been involved in the fandom. I really, really can't speak to what the musical itself did wrong and right. But I will say this: There was a reason it got as popular and received the critical acclaim that it did. I can't speak to how it addresses the systemic injustice baked into the USA from the very beginning, and I do have a suspicion that it glosses over a lot of uncomfortable truths. But I also feel it is important that we divorce the source material from the fandom it spawns because ultimately, Miranda isn't responsible for Hatsune Miku Binder Jefferson, or the whole hivliving debacle.

Just as David Jenkins isn't responsible for the handwaving of slavery in fanworks, or the great Izzy Hands Debate, or whitewashing in fanart, or shitty, racist headcanons of the characters of colour, or whatever deranged scandal is yet to come to light. This is true for all fandoms; criticizing fandom dynamics is a very different conversation from criticizing the canon.

Let's focus on the canon here, though, because defending the fandom is pointless, and not something I want to do. Curate your experience.

The first thing to say is: If you like ofmd but don't like Hamilton, that's not hypocritical at all, that's first and foremost a matter of taste. Things are good when we like them and bad when we don't. We don't have to find objective reasons for it.

If the fact that the historical Stede Bonnet was a slaveowner, and the historical Blackbeard also participated in the slave trade, are dealbreakers for someone, that's valid. People have every right to be uncomfortable with that. The conversation could end at this point, if we want it to (I don't because I love to hear myself talk).

If we look at the historical figures a little closer the first stark difference is the cultural context in which they exist. The founding fathers seem to be extremely mythologized in the american consciousness but also, are understood to be real historical people. The founding myth is fundamental to the way in which the USA perceives itself (that is, as a beacon of freedom and democracy), and it's pretty hard to reconcile that with the bloodshed and human misery it was founded on. It's uncomfortable; and it's not just an American problem. Every western nation/former colonial power has quite literal corpses in their closets they'd rather not talk about (just so you don't think I'm getting on a high horse about the famed Erinnerungskultur here; go ask a german person about Lothar von Trotha and what he did to the Nama and Herero to receive a blank stare). The difference is, that the founding fathers are too prominent and too important to just not talk about, so instead, they are sanitized to a degree that can be straight up historical revisionism.

That's not Miranda's fault. Nor is it the fault of any one particular piece of historical fiction, biography, documentary, or what have you. But it is the context in which Hamilton exists and, from what I understand, a culture to which it contributes. Especially since it's based on a biography of the real Alexander Hamilton, and (again, to my understanding) claims to tell a more or less accurate story.

Pirates, on the other hand, are perceived completely differently. They are mythologized, but not for ideological reasons, not as state-building propaganda. Pirates are more like folk heroes; cultural icons (near) completely divorced from whatever historical figure once lived. They are "real" in the sense that they are based on real people, but engaging with them, from the start, has a layer of removal from reality that engaging with figures like the founding fathers hasn't. Blackbeard is from a saga. George Washington is from history.

ofmd, specifically, makes clear at every turn that what we are told is a fictional story that has very little to do with any real events. It's openly anachronistic, it has absurd internal logic. Life-threatening injuries are walked off. There's actual magic. Dinghies are treated like spawn points in a video game. Everything, from the costumes to the vernacular to the story beats, tells the audience that none of this is real.

You wouldn't accuse, idk, A Knight's Tale, or Mel Brooks's Men In Tights of whitewashing history. I feel like ofmd plays in a similar league; it's a comedy very vaguely based on history, and it makes sure the audience knows we are not about to be told anything true. If you watch ofmd, you know this isn't about the real, historical Stede Bonnet or Edward Teach.

So. Let's examine the actual story, yes? The story that is told here is anticolonialist, antiracist, and challenges oppressive power structures as much as is possible for a production like this. It addresses these things and condemns them, both explicitly and in its underlying message. (I'm not gonna explain all of this, enough ink has been spilled about it by people smarter than me)

I do not know what Hamilton is about at its core. I know Our Flag Means Death is about authenticity in the face of the whole world telling you there's something wrong with you. It's about resisting dehumanization and reclaiming your personhood. It's about love, in a radical, system-destroying way, about breaking the cycle of abuse, about healing, and finding joy.

Yes, the real historical figures it's based on were all horrible people. Again, if that's a dealbreaker, that's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone who is deeply uncomfortable with that fact; it's perfectly understandable.

However, for me, personally, the story as a whole is so far removed from reality, and so firm in its message, that I feel this is forgivable.

(Oh, and a lat aside, I also feel like likening ofmd to Hamilton seldom seems to come from a place of genuine criticism. Often it seems to be more along the lines of "Hamilton is cringe, and if I say ofmd=Hamilton ppl will be too embarrassed to defend it" which yk. feels kinda disingenuous to me.)

[gothhabiba]

Can you talk about your opinions/understanding of Northanger Abbey? I've read it in class (and outside of it) and I do think the satire of the Gothic is a part of the novel, it's not necessarily critical of the Gothic imo but rather a re-imagining of how it appears in reality. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts if you're willing to share! :)

Northanger Abbey does undoubtedly reference the Gothic—in ways which are probably too well-known for me to need to chronicle them here—in fact a lot of my annoyance with this take is just how widespread and entry-level it is. So part of this is probably just weariness with hearing the same thing over and over again, lol. But mostly, my problem is that this is an (at best) partially-informed take that has very misogynistic implications if its logic is followed through.

To say (as some people in the fandom do) that NA was written with the sole intention of parodying the Gothic is a reduction of a commonly-made scholarly argument that was itself already reductive, and I’m irritated with how it’s become a truism on here. In order for NA to be nothing but a parody of the Gothic, the Gothic must therefore itself be unilateral, simple, ridiculous, consummately parodiable—and Jane Austen’s attitude towards it must be unilaterally hostile. And I don't believe that either of these things is true.

Firstly--the Gothic (insofar as you'll allow me to make such an abstraction) often does not itself participate in the modality that the incidents in NA (Catherine finding a shopping list instead of some kind of ancient incriminating document, for example) could be held to satirise. I doubt that a lot of the people parroting this talking point have actually read a Gothic novel! Sure, ancient documents and diaries are found and made use of in Gothic literature. But it is not true that Gothic literature always teaches that suspicion of dark deeds will bear fruit, that a paranoid and credulous modality is justified or unproblematic or will be rewarded with an object. The pattern of "heroine (or someone else) suspects something terrible, the reader is dragged along through spine-chilling suspense, both ultimately discover that there is a plausible non-horrible and non-supernatural explanation for the suspicious thing" already occurs in Gothic literature.

Large chunks of The Mysteries of Udolpho [spoilers maybe] are given over to providing reasonable explanations for things that were thought to be ghosts or corpses or extramarital affairs. At one point Emily falsely believes that her uncle-in-law Montoni (in whose power she remains for most of the narrative) is guilty of murdering a woman whom he did not murder. In fact Gothic novels often contain a lot of text that reads like writing in a conduct novel! There are mysteries and suspense and violence and the threat of violence and talk of ghosts and ancient diaries and murder and imprisonment--in between writing about the virtues of temperance and patience and the folly of being superstitious and paranoid, of believing anything too soon and with too little evidence. Superstitious characters (often servants) in Gothic novels are treated with amused contempt. And this tension within the Gothic has been frequently written about, with a common argument holding that all the conduct literature stuff provides plausible deniability about or ties a bow of respectability around what is nevertheless the proffered pleasure and titillation of fear, suspense, and violence. But, insofar as this tension does exist, it is too simple to say that a criticism of credulousness in NA makes it a satire of the Gothic, as though the Gothic were an unrestrained celebration of the pleasures of suspense and suspicion.

Secondly--NA's attitude towards this kind of credulousness is not wholly hostile, nor is Catherine wholly wrong, nor is the "picturesque" modality that is held up as an alternative to the Gothic exempt from the novel's parody. William Galperin writes about how the "picturesque" creates "theories" that are "at once aesthetic and political," and which influence the strictures of realist narrative as much as they influence landscape painting. In the picturesque mode, the supposedly unusual must be carefully removed from view and from narration (or, if it cannot be removed, must be included in a circumscribed way that denies it power to actually influence the narrative--the picturesque aestheticises the "roughness" of racial and economic "others" as part of a strategy of "containment"). And what a community accepts as 'realistic' versus what it rejects as 'improbable' does not necessarily line up with things as they 'really' are, but may represent a political determination to see or not to see certain things, to place certain things within or without a society's potential to imagine or admit. I get the sense that Henry's overreliance on--his credulous faith in--the picturesque is mocked throughout the novel: for instance, when he gives Catherine "a lecture on the picturesque" followed by a "short disquisition on the state of the nation" (ch. 14), or when he insists that it is completely impossible for a man to murder his wife in modern England (ch. 25).

Catherine's suspicions about General Tilney, on the contrary, follow a Gothic modality that does not automatically foreclose anything (except perhaps the supernatural) from the realm of possibility. General Tilney proves to be violent in a completely different way than Catherine had suspected, true--but again, this also occurs in The Mysteries of Udolpho, in which a man is suspected of murder but is in fact 'only' guilty of assuming patriarchal control of a young woman and dictating her movements. Insofar as the Gothic is a tool for working out feminine feelings and realities of powerlessness in the face of patriarchal control and violence, it is present in NA. I suppose we could call this a parody of the Gothic, but it is subtler, gentler, and more complex than many people understand. It incorporates and partially vindicates some Gothic modalities in an implicit but accessible counter-strain against that satire.

Claudia Johnson and Clara Tuite, in 30 Great Myths About Jane Austen, take on the "myth" that "Northanger Abbey is a spoof on Gothic fiction". They write:

[...] [T]he problem with believing Northanger Abbey to be a “spoof” is that it assumes the novel has only this single gag: to set Catherine up and watch her fall for one ridiculous Gothic exaggeration after another. But, if Northanger Abbey were an anti‐Gothic novel, establishing its norms of sanity, moderation, and good sense by invoking, ridiculing, and reversing the excesses of books such as Radcliffe’s, then the novel would end here, and it does not. Within three chapters, the General throws Catherine out of his house, because (we later learn) she is discovered not to be as rich as he had imagined. This act falls short of the grandeur of murder, to be sure, but it is actually quite an homage to Radcliffe, in whose novels the quest for wealth and status is the general mainspring of the drama. To underrate the seriousness of the General’s behavior toward Catherine is to imply that gentlemen are not to be judged on the basis of their callous violence to vulnerable girls, which Gothic novels emphatically insist on doing. General Tilney’s expulsion of Catherine is grossly uncivil in the deepest sense, exhibiting insolence toward inferiors, indifference to the good opinion of neighbors, and contempt for the rules of hospitality and gentlemanliness, all the decencies Henry Tilney had associated with the safeguards of English authority at its most benign. By the novel’s end, Catherine concludes that Gothic novels actually taught her what no one and nothing else could: “in suspecting General Tilney of either murdering or shutting up his wife, she had scarcely sinned against his character, or magnified his cruelty” (NA, 256). The terms of Catherine’s conclusion deserve our attention, for Austen has turned the table on us: having found herself, like all good Gothic heroines, obliged to endure a villain’s wrath alone, Catherine vindicates Gothic hyperbole, and it is Henry rather than Catherine who looks like the naive, credulous one. (pp. 45-6)

All in all, to pick up on, repeat, and exaggerate the ways in which the narrative (gently) mocks its heroine for her credulity while missing, ignoring, and burying the ways in which the narrative (gently) mocks its hero for his ignorance and unearned sense of intellectual superiority--to take Henry's dialogue as the voice of the narrator, to read into Henry's dialogue the 'moral' of the narrative itself--is a shallow reading, and it hints at a lot of misogynist bias in the people peddling it imo. It is always a mistake in Austen to take any character's dialogue as the voice of the narrator or author, but somehow it's mostly Henry and Mr. Knightley (characters who scold their female love interests) who are valorised this way. This whole take is very much "dude professor writing in 1967 who loves scolding female characters for being stupid and wants Henry Tilney to fuck him." I would really, really, love to move beyond this take!!

Galperin, William. “The Picturesque, the Real, and the Consumption of Jane Austen.” The Wordsworth Circle 28.1 (Winter 1997), pp. 19–27.

Johnson, Claudia, and Clara Tuite. 30 Great Myths About Jane Austen. John Wiley & Sons, 2020.

[utilitycaster]

I feel between the posts I've made about Fearne and FCG this weekend and the (growing and valid) frustration a segment of the fandom has towards people who won't engage with Chetney at all, I at least have been dancing around this and anyway I'm just going to say it:

There's a handful of opinions about the cast members and their characters that seem to have originated largely from cherrypicked out of context moments of Campaign 1, are accepted as Absolute Truths by a lot of people, and are all complete bullshit and I wish they'd stop. They are:

The idea that Travis and his characters are stupid or simple or not to be taken seriously; may I remind you that people said "Can you imagine Travis playing a druid? his head would explode" with apparently no sense of shame not six months ago.

The idea that Sam is the only cast member who can legitimately do comedy or is uniquely good at mechanics or plot twists (I really do not mean this to be harsh here, and I do in fact like Sam - and Scanlan, Tary, and Veth - a lot, but like...in terms of mechanics and dealing with major narrative curveballs that he isn't controlling, ie, not Tary, he's one of the weaker cast members.)

The idea that Liam's characters are all Sad Boys and either the main character (people who inexplicably think Liam invented acting) or attention hogs who think they're the main character (people who inexplicably hate Liam).

A general flattening of Marisha's characters into Mary Sues by the very people who claim they're their favorites; I understand some of this could be a reaction to how much hate Keyleth got but like...Keyleth isn't Keyleth without those flaws (and the same goes for Beau and Laudna) and I'm of the belief that holding someone above all valid criticism is not going to do anything to counteract the invalid.

The uwu smol-bean-ification of Laura's characters (other than Vex, who really does resist that) and more broadly this idea that Laura has zero agency in her character depictions or class choices and that her characters are similarly deprived of agency (from which Vex isn't exempt); someone else once said people tend to treat her characters as self-inserts and they were right.

An over-nitpicking of Ashley's mechanics specifically; I get that she's had a bit less experience but in thinking about the Fearne stuff I remembered how people were also super weird about Yasha's stats and feat choices.

(Taliesin mostly escapes this, which isn't to say his characters don't get wildly misinterpreted at times, but I think because Percy's arc came so clearly and early in C1 this kind of reductive bullshit couldn't set in the way it did for others)

[lightofraye]

All right.

I've largely kept quiet on this, aside from, I think, reblogging at seeing JDM speak up for Jared. Oh and I believe mentioning how stupid that TikTok was.

Celebrities are not exempt from being gossiped about. Even in other countries where there may be stricter laws to protect celebrities from invasive paparazzi (there's a reason why Shania Twain raised her son in Switzerland!), celebrities are gossiped about. It's part and parcel of the fame.

It sucks. It happens.

Even royal families, politicians, and other famous folk will be gossiped about. (And the tragedy of Princess Diana...)

What many a blogger and I do is just talk. Speculate. Maybe make fun of some sections of the fandom, point out the toxicity of the fandom, and overall talk about our favorites. Or whatever. We'll also try to debunk a ton of nonsense (hi Misha, you born liar).

Not one celebrity is above criticism. Not one.

Not the princes, sons of Princess Diana. Not Jensen. Not Jared. Not Misha. Not... hell, Dwayne The Rock Johnson. Not Glen Powell. Nobody is above gossip!

Hell, I'm pretty sure my neighbors probably gossip about my family. I certainly talk about others when it comes up. Gossip about friends. Life. It's how we connect and find like-minded people.

But keep in mind... there's a difference between speculating with decent evidence to make said speculation seem probable (like what I do) and then there's outright fucking lies, as those girls did with the TikTok video against Jared. (And Misha about his bullshit regarding the plane.)

It turned out those girls completely lied about the whole story. It went viral enough that Hellers went nuts and tried to use it as proof of what a "bad person Jared is". It caught the attention of no less than three well-known names in Hollywood--Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Billy Burke, and Jim Michaels.

No one went chasing after these well-known names to get them to comment. They saw it all over Twitter and were annoyed enough to speak up! Jared didn't ask them to speak. He didn't have to.

They spoke up for Jared because he's well-known and well-liked in the industry. There has been endless praise for his achievement of work-life balance in Hollywood. Most sets would be working 16+ hour days. Jared succeeded in bringing that down to, what, 11, 12 hours? It meant people had a fucking life. Of course he impressed Hollywood enough to get a holding deal with a major broadcaster (CBS). And folks, it's way better with CBS than it would be with any of the streaming services right now. CBS is booming and leading in scripted shows.

Has Jared made missteps in the past? Yes. His fans actually acknowledge, actually have said they wished he hadn't done XYZ. (Doxxing in particular, they agreed, it was bad.) Yes, Jared was drunk and got into some kind of fight. He made his amends, kept to the agreement that the courts imposed upon him. And apparently attended the wedding of the person he got into a fight with! It's been years since he's done anything bad!

Meanwhile... Misha... christ. Orgasm sounds at CCS. Using the r word and his defenders trying to say "He's from a different time where that was acceptable (no it fucking wasn't no it never was)". Or the f word--he isn't queer, he cannot touch that goddamned word, back the fuck off Misha Collins. And the lies about the plane incident. (Again, repeatedly debunked by no less than three different bloggers with links to the original stories!)

Even Jensen has said some things in the past that have made me facepalm. Antis are right to call him out on it.

The difference though? I haven't seen any anti-Jensens deliberately tag him in, tell him to go kill himself, that they hope he commits suicide, or other vile things. Meanwhile I see Hellers and anti-Jareds do that to the extreme. When they were making comments in hoping that the cancellation of Walker would lead to Jared committing suicide.

It's not the same. Period.

We write gossip and speculation. We don't go to other blogs or twitters or other social medias and harass them, throw death threats at their faves. We don't incite violence. (I'm looking at you, Misha.)

None of us condone Jared's past bad behavior. The difference is, he's grown. He's owned up to it. He hasn't done anything in several years. His reaction to Prequelgate was absolutely understandable, as one story cites from Jensen that he saw Jared tried to call and text him before he gave up and tweeted. Jensen knew he fucked up. So spare me the defense of that.

Basically this is a very long essay to tl;dr: Jared learned and is doing better as a person. He didn't deserve that TikTok video trying to paint him as a bad person.

Period.

Not to defend Jensen or the rest of the SPN cast, but if they’re going to be called out why isn’t Gen also expected to come to Jared’s defense from all the constant slandering and hate online? Is she afraid of being harassed and bullied by Hellers too?

Honestly, why would she do that? The moment she would post that message, she would be slaughtered because it's her husband! She would be considered biased. If it was my husband, id tread carefully before acting and exposing my family any further. Also, Im glad Jared got defended (mostly because it was an evil lie to cast on the internet) but how stupid it is that celebrities need to go on Twitter and say he is a good tipper? I dont blame the ones that didnt vouch for him, I get it, the situation by itself is ridiculous and it shouldnt even have started in the first place. This is the scum of the fandom, right there, trying to harm a man's image for the sake of what, anyway?

[sweetestpopcorn]

Do you think Alysanne was a good mother? Or had favorite children

Hi there and sorry for the delay (again)!

I think that for the most part Alysanne was a good mother, even if yes I do think she had favourites amongst her children. 

She did try to be involved in her children’s education, and I do really appreciate that she didn’t try to make them be things they were not. We see this for instance with Daenerys and Alyssa who didn’t really conform to the social norms of being a lady, and liked to play with swords. At no point did Alysanne tried to detain them from doing so, or tried to get them into dresses or into sowing for instance. Daella was also quite shy and again Alysanne seemed to respect her personality instead of trying to change her. Even with Vaegon she quickly sees he isn’t like his brothers, and does try to show it to Jaehaerys, and to find something in which he can be happy.

Alysanne respects their individuality for the most part, which is more than can be said about many parents of the XXI century so I especially value it in a character of the asoiaf universe.

That being said, she did make some serious mistakes in how she raised some of her children, the most serious I can think of related to her daughters Saera and Viserra who she definitely were not given enough attention/supervision.

In part I don’t blame her too much though. It’s fairly common in very large families for parents to reach a point in which they become unable to provide each child with an adequate amount of attention. Usually the older ones are the ones who got more of mom and dad’s love, just because they were born at a time in which there wasn’t a lot of competition - especially in their early years - while the younger/middle ones get a bit throw to the side. Worth mentioning though that the youngest will usually have some privileges from being the baby and not having anyone else after them.

Added to this, Alysanne was queen and played an active role as ruler, giving her even less time than other highborn women might have for their children.

All of that being say and I will admit I was left a little speechless at how she treated Viserra. Like Saera she was not getting enough attention from Alysanne, yet Alysanne seemed to almost... dislike Viserra to a point (?) which I did not feel regarding Saera. Alysanne seemed to have some lack of empathy for Viserra which almost contradicts how she was to her other children.

She saw her as sly and ambitious and... that was pretty much it. I mean if someone were to ask me why the hell wasn’t Viserra allowed to choose her own suitor - unlike every single one of her sisters - I would have nothing to give the person honestly. Alysanne seemed almost cold and detached at how she regarded Viserra.

I think it’s inevitable for parents to have children they might like just a tiny bit more, be that because they relate to them more, because they have an easier time with them, because they were the first/last, because they had them in a more auspicious time in their lives, etc, etc... All that said and a parent does choose how they treat their children and it’s inexcusable to treat some better than others. This was something Alysanne did and in this instance I don’t think her behavior was that of a good mother.

Was she a terrible mother? No, I think there was more good than bad to be honest, still we can’t overlook the bad and she can’t be exempt from criticism even if she is the “Good Queen”.

In sum, good for the most part, tried her best given her circumstances, no excuses to how she treated Viserra, Alysanne really failed her. Her favourites? I would say Baelon, Maegelle, Daella, and Gael.

Needless to say but this is the asoiaf fandom, I don’t mean this to be me throwing shade to Alysanne much less hate. I love Alysanne as a character and I think for the most part she is to be commended. I am simply sharing my views on the matter that can differ from other people’s views.

Thank you for your question ;)

[gerrydelano]

i think i’m finally snapping

some of you guys seriously listened to this entire podcast and made it to episode One Hundred And Ninety-Three and are still missing the point this badly, huh. you really made it This Far and have never questioned what the actual story is trying to say? to the point where you’ve somehow managed to dismiss a core component of it by almost completely negating the writer’s clear intentions?

this reveal was part of the completion to an ongoing allegory; it was representing the cyclical nature of capitalism and how heavily nepotism plays into that. the fact that og!elias was always just another facet of the main problem in the show was showing yet another root of the system. he was predisposed to this. it’s on purpose.

if you listened to that episode and were like “is for me? 🥺 👉👈” then, yeah, it clearly was. but not in the way you seem to think! this wasn’t meant to comfort you. if you Relate to this, it was meant to make you uncomfortable. and if it didn’t, well. leave it to the pissed off working class to fix that for you. allow me.

check out this post by @thedreadvampy for a more nuanced explanation of specifically what elias and jonah represent in terms of british class politics. i’m going to be a little broader about the implications of how hurtful the fandom’s interpretations of it i’m seeing are even from an american perspective.

by intentionally go out of your way to woobify this type of backstory and behavior, you are not only showing your entire ass but you’re missing. the. point. he represents nepotism and hereditary wealth. he represents rich white guys getting into higher positions due to their preexisting status and not their work ethic and qualifications. he represents things being handed to people who didn’t even consider wanting it beyond wanting to be at the top of some kind of food chain, and that is it.

“gifted kid burnout” is NOT applicable here — unless you are feeding into the way that phrase has been twisted from “an examination of overwhelming academic stress put on unprepared adolescent minds” and turned into “a flimsy, transparent, and largely white excuse for any situation that requires you to apply critical thinking when you don’t feel like putting forth the effort & a desperate attempt at clinging to a wrongly applied idea of superiority.” 

if that’s what you mean by it, then yeah, sounds about right. but i’m not seeing anybody say it like that. i’m seeing people operating under that warped definition because they see themselves in him, but don’t seem to get what it is they’re actually seeing.

this reading of these characters is indicative of a basic ignorance to privilege and the fact that many of you have it, and have never had to examine it in a serious setting. yeah, this is a fandom for a piece of media that “isn’t real” except that it IS real. it’s direct commentary about a real thing and by actively dodging the Point you are effectively alienating everybody else here who is now exposed to your garbage.

you are outing your allyship as performative. you are advertising just how out of touch with reality you are, and you can’t throw a tantrum when people bring that to your attention. if someone brings it to your attention, it’s usually because they trust you Just enough to hope that you’ll put down your pride for a second and try to listen to them.

so if you take “you’re doing x harmful thing” as a personal attack on an intrinsic part of your character that you can’t do anything about, you need to think about why you identify a particular form of bigotry as a core part of your being. why don’t you want to question yourself? why don’t you want to let it go? what are you holding onto?

ask yourself these questions. if marginalized people aren’t exempt from examining their own internalized biases (from being raised in a society meant to cater to you,) then you damn well aren’t excused from the lesson.

poor people and POC in particular don’t want to have to see your FREEZING cold takes flooding the tags and the dashboard when they’re trying to go about their day. you are just PROVING to A Lot of people that you are not likely to understand our experiences enough to afford us genuine respect when the time actually comes.

because if you can’t understand it in the context of a fictional story that is Intentionally SCREAMING it in your face and begging you to spit out your silver spoon, then how the hell can you be trusted to identify injustice and unethical practices in the real world right in front of you.

your treatment of these subjects informs the level of safety YOU give off to other people, who, Yeah! are taking the subject more seriously than you! because they’re subjugated by these people and it’s inescapable lmfao. it’s not even escapable in fandom spaces. if you can just turn off your awareness of it, good for you i fucking guess. not everybody has that luxury. 

it’s exhausting to deal with people like this lmao we get more than enough of it offline we don’t need it here, especially when the whole show is Literally About pointing out that This Is Bad. it’s About This. this is the Plot of the Story you listened to 193 episodes of.

i am past asking y’all to do better now i’m honestly just begging you to shut the fuck up

clowning in the notes or my inbox will get you blocked before you can say praise bezos

[fixtheaxel]

Sokka's was a dig at his sexism, the second Suki explains the way Kyoshi warrior attire is honourable and brave and he accepts it, never mentioning it again. Azula fandom isn't even close to small and they can no longer pretend that.

The episodes where Azula features are the most highly rated, Tyzula is one of the most popular shps, Azula has near 4K fics centered around her. Her fandom is absurdly large for a 'villain'.

Please give me one example of a colourism issue in this fandom? It has a misogyny problem sure, but colourism? Where?

Iroh is a supporting character to Zuko the way Mai/Ty Lee are to Azula. His 'several' stand-alone moments pretty much sum up to dead son/relation to zuko. Suki is a member of the Gaang and treated like one. She has a developed relationship with Sokka, and later in the comics a developed friendship with Zuko too. She is crucial in ending the war and we get her arc outside the show as well.

Also your first assessment of what I said is just wrong. No that is not my point. My point is there is no rhyme/reason or even a trend that suggests any kind of favourtism for lighter skinned characters.

This was your point: 'the only 2 major characters in ATLA that don't get ridiculously scrutinised for all of their wrongdoings are both the lightest skinned and most traditionally masculine characters in the show'.

I've just told you that a) they are not the characters most exempt from criticism (thats Sokka, Suki and Toph) b) they are not the lightest skinned (Thats Aang and Toph) and c) they are not the most traditionally masculine (thats Sokka and literally everyone but Iroh. Other than being a guy he doesn't really have any masculine specific traits other than- good fighter. Which isn't even masculine-specific in this show.)

Opinions are valid, but you said it as fact, when in fact there was not a single part of your post that was accurate. You can hold the (irrational) opinion that somehow Zuko and Iroh get better treatment than other characters but at least admit that it's not coming from a basis in reality, let alone the numbers and statistics.

And in answer to your question. When something is pulled out of a vacuum, presented as fact with the wording of your post it comes across as virtue signaling. I apologise if that isn't want you were doing but when you say 'Crazy how..' and then heavily imply that a lack of criticism against 2 pretty well written characters must be because of racism and sexism (because surely, thats the answer to everything), it gives people that impression.

Crazy how the only 2 major characters in ATLA that don't get ridiculously scrutinised for all of their wrongdoings are both the lightest skinned and most traditionally masculine characters in the show (zuko and iroh). Probs just a coincidence tho

[trialbyflame]

Somethings We Need To Realise

(Tagged as Critical to be safe)

That’s rather alarmist isn’t it? But it brings the point across. There are a few things that the Fans of the DreamSMP Fandom needs to realize as we move forward. 

Number 1. Wilbur coming back won’t cause the end of the world, but it also won’t fix things completely. Wilbur is a great story teller, but he is human and managing a large cast of people, each improving at a million different times. The snippets and spontaneous bits of unplanned lore is wonderful from a viewer standpoint, but an organizational nightmare from a writing side. He also has been out for a season, and like every fan knows, it is very difficult to keep track of lore if you don’t watch everything in a timely manner. So him being back will be great for the next season (s), but he isn’t a magical god that can retcon everything perfectly and make the billions of narratives tie up neatly so everyone is happy.  Our expectations can be high, but they must be reasonable. 

Number 2. This has gotten better in recent weeks, but in the DreamSMP, there is no main character. Now the argument of the plot being focused on Tommy, therefore he is the main character is a valid one. Tommy does have the most lore around him, and his decisions seemingly hold the most weight. But that’s because people follow him. That’s how a lot of people were introduced into the lore, and many don’t want to expand into other points of view (which is perfectly valid). Another thing to keep in mind with Tommy is that he only streams during lore bits these days, and it’s evident when he has no other lore planned for that day. His side is simple, and doesn’t take that much time to go through. Tommy is a main character, in the same way Bad is a main character. In the same way Puffy is a main character. In the same way that Jack Manifold is a main character. In the same way that anyone that streams any ounce of Lore is a main character. Due to the nature of the DreamSMP and Twitch, every point of view is different and important for each story that the respective content creator is developing. Admittedly, some people are not in the “Main Plot” as in the overarching theme/story of this arc. For example, L’Manburg or The Crimson/Egg. That doesn't make their story any less interesting or important, as is evident with the Crimson/Egg. It was a side thing that people wrote off until they couldn’t any more. A similar thing happened with Ranboo’s earlier lore. Ranboo has been dropping lore bits since he started on the server, it just wasn’t important enough until he did a big dramatic scene. 

Number 3. This one relates to Number 2 quite well. Tommy isn’t why your favorite content creator is being ignored in the lore they do. That is the fans, and Tommy just has more of them. He is not pushing other people down, he is not taking the spotlight from them. Not on purpose. I will admit I want to see more Niki, Eret, and the others in this immersive lore. I want everyone to shut up and listen to them for once. I want their stories to be resolved. I want to see Niki mourn, angry, shout to heard, be vengeful. I want to see the world deal with a woman that has nothing left. I want to see Niki heal, and grow. I’m not validating her vengefulness towards Tommy, I’m not saying it’s right. He doesn’t deserve it admittedly, but he is not exempt from the pain he has caused quite a few people because he has been hurt and changed. In the same regard, I want to see Eret apologizing to Tommy. I want to see Eret be desperate for redemption and I want to see Tommy forgive him, but never forget. I want Eret forgiven. This may be mean, but you as the viewer need to hype your streamer up. You need to let people know on Twitter, Tumblr, TikTok, Pinterest,* that they are doing interesting lore. People will not be able to enjoy it or give it the importance and praise they deserve if they do not know it exists. Heck, I wouldn’t have known about Foolish’s cool lore if I hadn’t seen it here. 

However, this comes with a disclaimer. Which Twitch Streamer you watch and enjoy is a fickle thing. If you can’t stand how a streamer speaks, how they play, how they speak to chat, that is okay. Unless they are being mean or crude online, or are hating on people for liking that streamer, it’s fine. It’s not a personal offense. If someone doesn’t want to sit through their streams to catch bits of lore or don’t even like the story or the presentation of the story that is being told, they are no less of a fan than anyone else. IF they only watch Tommy, that is okay. 

Number 4. If a Twitch Streamer doesn’t do lore, do not spam them to be involved. If they do not show interest in it, do not tell them what is going on. Sometimes, it’s even part of the story that they are left out. 

Number 5.  Please, Please, Please take care of yourself. Lore moves fast and slow and fast and slow. It never stops. It’s rare that when you watch everyone there is a break in the story. Take a few days, take a few breaths. Do your homework (as I type this instead of an essay). Wait for a clip channel, wait for someone to post timestamps or summaries. Your mental health is more important than anything else, especially our lore bois. This side of Tumblr, from what I’ve seen, is more than happy to catch people up or educate people on things that they may have missed. So just post a question, reply, or reblog if you are confused. VODs are always there as well. 

Please if you have anymore, reblog/reply and add on! I want to see what others feel as well.

I’m always up for a good debate as well (as long as it’s reasonable and not just hate)

*DO NOT GO INTO TWITCH CHATS AND ADVERTISE  THAT OTHER STREAMERS ARE DOING LORE.

[jennycalendar]

As another poc btvs fan, I know Kennedy gets a lot of hate, but like I get where it comes from. People were SO attached to Tara, and Kennedy is kinda annoying. What I really can't understand is the Kendra hate. Kendra did nothing wrong!!! And she was killed off too soon to make way for another white slayer (don't get me wrong though I love Faith with my whole heart)

And tbh I didn't realize Kennedy wasn't white on my first watch. Though after realizing she's a lesbian of color, I got far more protective of her. But even Charisma Carpenter is only part white. So having white passing actors does complicate things

so my thoughts on this ask are multi-part!

i do agree that, as with any character, there are definitely reasons that people might personally dislike kennedy. i think that there are a LOT of problems with the way she was written, the way she fit into season seven, etc etc. but i do not see a lot of people criticizing the writing wrt kennedy -- the frustration and hatred is directed, very consistently, at her.

there is just this WAVE of hatred that is so rarely questioned by the fandom. the most common reason i see people hating kennedy isn't that she replaced tara, it's that she's "bitchy" or "arrogant" or "thinks she knows everything" or -- worst ever -- "doesn't know her place." and like .... that just makes me so profoundly uncomfortable? to have the sentiment of "this woman of color showed up on a white show and didn't know her place. she had the nerve to demand a larger role in the narrative than she was owed, when she's really just here to replace a white girl. what a bitch."

like the concept of kennedy needing to be "grateful" to the scoobies is one of the reasons that people hate her so much! it's what i see so often when kennedy hate shows up! that is just straight-up racist. we do not see that same sentiment in such huge numbers towards faith in season three or anya in season four -- two similarly assertive women who are often at odds with or on the outs with the scoobies, written at that point in time as largely minor characters outside the scooby orbit.

though i have in the past seen people expressing displeasure that kennedy showed up so soon after tara, their frustration isn't often directed at the writing -- it's directed at kennedy. and even THAT is kinda fucked in its own way: that kennedy gets all this vitriol for not being a blonde white girl who is very soft and maternal and nurturing.

i also think it's really fucked up that we as a fandom at large have started to be much less tolerant of dawn hate -- another character who in many ways was made polarizing and perceived as "annoying" by a multitude of writing choices (what comes to mind for me is the fact that the part was initially written for a much younger girl) -- but kennedy hate is still very much in vogue. like even when i make posts about characters of color not getting their dues that say "hey, this is a pattern i see in the fandom and it's fucked up," i get replies and reblogs saying "yeah, i totally agree with you except for kennedy! she was just a bitch." like i personally am so uncomfortable with that.

i don't really want to get into personal perceptions of race, because i agree that btvs's handling of race at large is a sticky situation. it's definitely possible that there are others, like you, who initially didn't know that kennedy is a woc. but there is a pervasive and consistent pattern to kennedy hate that has nothing at all to do with tara, and i think it's SUPER important for people to clock this.

white fans especially. like i am literally begging white fans who read this post not to do what you have done to my other posts and say in the replies that YOUR reason for hating kennedy is justified, actually! that YOU are somehow exempt from this pattern because kennedy DID deserve the hate, actually. i read the notes and the tags! i see these things! and it is genuinely so disconcerting to see y'all talking about feminism and girl power and how much you love btvs and then saying this shit about kennedy.

(also this ask that @faithlesbihane got last night really emphasizes my point, i think.)

[mychampagne-mybubbles]

I have followed H for a long, long time… and now I can only feel disappointed… I know this is planned, but at the same time I feel that there is nothing left of Harry, that Mr. Harry Styles ate him

I don't know if I explained myself….

I will quote this I saw on twitter “I have lost so much respect for Harry over the last 2 years but now I’m officially done. She is the epitome of everything he has said he’s against” and I can say that I totally agree

Hi lovely,

Yes, I see it, in me and even in those who keep their face firm publicly, as in that board game they have hit us… we’ll see what happens with the sink part. 🚢

Your feelings are totally valid, they always are and as I understand what a fandom is, it should always be healthy, pleasant and entertaining; We can confirm this fandom doesn’t meet these 100% right now. It is probably one of the worst peaks we have been in lately, due to the wear & tear and because, recently, a large majority understood it was almost over... the dimension of the smack is being hard.

As a positive message, I will tell you that just as it has risen, it will fall with the same grace. We are in the global launch of the movie and the best bet to hit headlines this weekend is a sad kiss on some NY street corner between a couple that nobody believes in, that is their ace in the sleeve.

As for Harry… I won't go into much discussion on this term, because the personal part of who he is is drawn in nuances, reflections and many illusions. I feel comfortable talking openly about his public side, even being critical with him if necessary, what I like and dislike; but we have to be aware that in this industry mess - where we consider fake children, fake girlfriends, censorship, blockades, threats, power struggles... . and money, a lot of money - we see little of their real personal side and even if we can, we don't know what they face when making these decisions (for better or worse) so I'm not a big fan of any totalitarian or judgmental statement either way. This doesn’t makes them a saint, neither exempt anyone from responsibility.

I have my opinion and feelings about the present situation and I will act accordingly. You are free to choose what your heart dictates and that is perfectly ok.

Take care

•Nik•

[bipercabeth]

i think one place where this fandom fails quite miserably in terms of critical thinking and consumption is understanding that these characters cannot make their own decisions. as the author, all decision making comes down to rick! and while it’s wonderful to find comfort in characters whose life experience you relate to, that does not mean rick’s decisions to give that character those experiences is exempt from criticism. many women have children at an older age, and that’s wonderful for them! but sally jackson cannot make that decision. she is not real. and she is not your mom! rick decided that after all she’s been through, he was going to give her a baby. a real woman who made her own decision to have another child after a lifetime of trauma and a newly empty nest might find this decision empowering! but sally jackson is not a real woman! 

not to mention that rick is the one who gave sally that lifetime of trauma! maybe from a plot perspective it worked best for her to have no living family, but sally’s life is just. brutal. it’s told sparingly and lovingly by a twelve year old percy in tlt, but her parents die when she’s five years old, and she drops out of high school to take care of the uncle who raised her as he dies from cancer. by 20 she is a single mom raising a kid who is a powerful demigod, and only means of protecting him are to enter an abusive marriage with a man whose scent will cover percy’s, or lose her only family to be trained as a child soldier year round. sally is a kind person who does her best as a mother, but this “trauma makes you kind” narrative rick pulls with her is bullshit! sally could be just as kind and capable of a mother without a lifetime of suffering behind her. 

also! portraying sally as this infallible supermom is harmful too! it’s wonderful for fans to see a mother and son with such unconditional love for each other, but the narrative of the perfect mother is genuinely harmful! not only is sally not a perfect mom, but to write her as one is harmful to both mothers and their children. parents, especially single moms, already struggle so much with the pressure to be perfect, which simply isn’t a possible standard! and kids deserve to see parents who love their children make mistakes and apologize for making those mistakes. even if they didn’t mean to hurt their kid. even if it was done out of misguided love. that would be such a powerful thing to see in children’s media. 

regardless of rick’s intention, it comes off as him not valuing women unless they are mothers (stealing that from @himbokorra), and perfect ones at that. the way he writes sally is a microcosm of the way he writes mothers in general. look at the mothers in pjo and hoo. poseidon is allowed to be a fallible, largely absent father with complex motivations and an equally complex relationship with percy. same goes for frederick chase and annabeth, tristan mclean and piper, AND hermes and luke. meanwhile may castellan, miss chase, beryl grace, and marie levesque are not extended the same kind lens. sally jackson and esperanza valdez are the infallible, tragic supermoms. 

(this post is referring specifically to sally jackson, but it’s doubly important to remember this idea as it relates to characters of color and queer characters, but those points have been articulated far better by people far more qualified than me. i’ll link some in a reblog once i find them.)