#not because i necessarily think it means people are romanticizing it because i know there are 5000 different definitions of the word

[transmascutena]

what's with that "fucked up ships" poll having both utenanthy and . akio and anthy in it. like huhwhat.

[billfarrah]

One of my favourite things about Young Royals and its characters is how much it romanticizes being utterly ordinary.

Stories often focus on characters who are exceptionally good at something or who are more ambitious than the average person. Even in the teen shows I’ve watched, these young characters always seemed to have their dream career and dream university figured out at a young age and I could never relate to that because I had none of those things figured out as a teen. It always felt like pushing this narrative that teenagers need to have their entire lives figured out before their brains are even fully developed.

None of the characters in YR seem particularly ambitious and in fact, the main character’s journey is a story of anti-ambition. When he is introduced to Simon, it is precisely Simon’s ordinariness that draws Wille to him. Sure, Simon is a very talented singer, but it’s never indicated within the series that he has dreams of being a pop star. It’s just something he likes to do. Simon is motivated by very ordinary things - he wants to do well in school so he can have better opportunities for himself, he wants to take care of his family, he wants to hang out with his friends and play video games. He’s a dedicated student but not necessarily valedictorian. It’s not his ambition that Wille is drawn to but his integrity and kindness and warmth.

Wille had a chance to be extraordinary - to be Sweden’s first gay king - but being extraordinary has never been Wille’s ambition. Wille’s ultimate goal and dream within the series’ narrative is to be free to make his own decisions and live his life as he pleases. He just wants to kiss his boyfriend and get drunk at parties and live his life one day at a time instead of spending every moment of his life preparing for an inevitable future he doesn’t want. In the end Wille is extraordinary not for his ambition, but for his bravery to reject the expectations thrust upon him and throw himself into the unknown and see where it takes him. Wille had a whole future in front of him as crown prince and future king - he’d never have to work a day in his life and would have people advising his every move - and he rejects that. This lack of ambition is not portrayed as a moral failure, but a necessary step in Wille’s journey to personal self-discovery and fulfillment of his own desires. His desire right now is simple - be free with Simon, but that doesn’t mean his dreams end here forever. He deserves peace and tranquility after all the trauma he’s been through without having to worry about where or who he’s gonna be in a few years. He deserves time to just exist.

None of the characters know where they’re going when they drive away at the end. We as the audience don’t know what careers if any these characters will find themselves in, but that’s also not important to this story. The series is saying you don’t have to have everything figured out when you’re 17 and you don’t have to do something just because your parents think they know what’s best for you and even if you don’t know exactly what you want to do, that doesn’t mean you don’t have the agency to know what you don’t want.

It’s not a moral failing to want the simple things in life or to be ordinary, and I love that Young Royals celebrates that. It shows the beauty in simple moments that feel revolutionary to a person - touching the person you love, forgiving someone and making amends after a hardship, whooping with your friends in a car as you drive into the summer and celebrates them. Ultimately these are the moments that make life worth living.

[cameronspecial]

Loving the Zach stuff so far!!!

Could you maybe do something where yn hates his guts, but he is like in love with her and all her sass?? Then they're forced to go on some school trip together or something, and she realizes she likes him and a cute angry love confession, perhaps???

Danke 🫶🏼💐

Thank You, History Class

Pairing: Zach MacLaren x Reader

Warnings: N/A

Pronouns: She/Her

Word Count: 1.2K

Masterlist

Y/N and Zach have been running in the same friend group since Freshman year, but it doesn’t mean they necessarily get along. Well, it doesn’t mean that she likes him. His sarcasm and puppy dog vibe annoys her cool and distant personality. He’s always asking her how her day is going and trying to make her laugh with his stupid jokes. Zach, on the other hand, fell for her grumpy soul the moment he set eyes on her. Unlike most people, who don’t bother looking deeper into her personality, Zach could see the soft side that she held within and never let anyone see. He would always catch how she would stand up from her bus seat when she saw an elderly person. She wouldn’t let people around her know it was the reason, but she always did. He saw the little bowl of milk she left outside her house for a cat mother and her kittens. Finally, he saw how sweet she was to children whenever they were around her. 

Zach didn’t want to take a history class and he certainly didn’t feel like going on a field trip to a museum. It all felt very high school to him. The only upside about it: Y/N is also taking the same class. When he saw that he needed a history credit to graduate, he definitely didn’t go looking for what classes she was taking this semester to try and be in the same one. The cost was giving Jason access to his bathroom whenever he wanted, but it was worth it. He knows the field trip isn’t mandatory for any marks, yet he knows Y/N is going to be there. As he heads toward the Victorian house, he finds Y/N out front waiting for the professor to show up. Her clothing consists of black and brown colours as usual. Her hair was held back by a shiny black claw clip. 

“Fancy seeing you here,” he grins, coming to stand beside her. She gives him a side eye, “Could you be more cliche? Try something more original, would ya? I still can’t believe you are taking this class.” He doesn’t let her sour mood dampen his energy. “Come on, you know you like having me with you in this class. The only other people in this class are girls who have a romanticized view of the era, or guys, who have a history stick so far up their ass that they think a history degree will take them far in life,” he notes, turning to look at her. She looks him dead in the eyes, “I’m a history major. And I am neither of those things.” “I know, that’s because you are so much better than them. You are far too smart for them,” he flatters. She shakes her head, turning her attention to the professor who has just arrived, “Flattery won’t get you anywhere.” The professor leads them into the museum and begins his lecture. After ten minutes of listening to the man speak, both Y/N and Zach realized that coming was a big waste of time. He doesn’t know what he is talking about and Zach can hear Y/N constantly correcting the older man under her breath. 

He leans toward her, making sure his lips are close to her ear. “Wanna go on our own little tour? This man is getting half of this stuff wrong.” She thinks she has lost her mind because this must be the first thing Zach has said that she thought was a good idea. “That actually sounds kind of fun. They have a Victorian fashion exhibit I want to see, but I don’t think Professor Robo over there is going to take us to,” she whispers back. Her hand finds his and she hates to admit she likes the warmth of his in hers. They round the stairs to the exhibit. She looks delighted when she spots the first mannequin with clothes. Her feet find their way beside a girl about six years old, already looking at the dress. The child’s eyes find Y/N’s face and they smile at each other. “You know, this is an 1843 Evening dress. The bodice, the thing around the chest, is low off the shoulders. And they have lots of other skirts underneath to make it poofy,” Y/N softly explains to the little girl. 

They spent around thirty minutes in the small room. Y/N walks around with Willow and Zach, explaining each outfit to them. She is surprised that Zach seemed honestly engaged with what she was saying and would ask thoughtful questions. Eventually, Willow’s mother, an employee, came looking for her and took the girl to lunch. “Do you want to head to lunch?” she asks. He shakes his head, “Actually, I was hoping we could look at the Victorian sports exhibit. I brought some snacks, so if you are hungry, we can share.” He pulls out a bag of cucumbers shaped like hearts. She has to giggle at the sight because big jock Zach MacLaren likes to have his vegetable cut into shapes. 

“What?” he questions in fake offence, holding out the Ziploc to her. She shakes her head with a chuckle, “Nothing, just surprised your cucumbers look like an inaccurate depiction of a human organ.” “They make them taste better. Try,” he says with a shrug. He hands her a slice and listens to the sweet crunch of her biting into the vegetable. “Okay… I must admit it is more fun to eat it like a heart. I can pretend I’m a witch eating people’s hearts,” she agrees. He doesn’t look disturbed by her macabre comments, instead, he pretends to be ripping out his heart as he hands her another slice. She enjoys him playing with her deadly thoughts.

They spent about an hour looking at the different displays, eating his snacks and taking turns reading the display’s blurbs to each other. As they stand on the steps of the museum, Y/N towers over him from the step above. He looks up at her like she hangs the stars in the sky. “I hate to admit that you made this day pretty fun,” she confides. Her hands find their way behind her back, biting her lip as she looks into his eyes. His mouth turns into a crescent moon, “I’m really glad I did. I like spending time with you.” She takes a moment to think and moves her head away in frustration. Not at him, but at the turmoil inside her mind. Why is his charming smile suddenly getting to her? Why does she want to step into his warmth and let his arms bring her in? “Ugh, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think I’m falling for you, MacLaren. So… would you want to go to dinner? Like on a date,” she confesses with a hint of annoyance in her tone that is just normally there. She is disgusted by the excitement that crosses his face. He gets off the steps, running around the green grass in front of the building. He jumps every so often with a little whoop let out as he does so. 

He rushes back to her, grabbing her around her waist and spinning her around. She finds the sound of her giggles odd but enjoys it nonetheless. “Way to keep a poker face,” she sasses, looking down at him. He doesn’t care though all he wants is a chance to be with her.

Taglist: @winterrrnight @loves0phelia

[dollgxtz]

Why’d you write Sylus so crazy? You’re turning him into one of those booktok men and he’s anything BUT that. I just don’t get it :/

Hi anon! I know my yandere!Sylus story is disturbing. And while yes, I do take great pleasure in writing such topics such as kidnapping n such, I genuinely just wanted to write a dark Sylus fic exploring a different version of him where his desires and upbringing lead him to hurt even the people he loves. I love tragic characters and stories!

Think about if you watch a horror movie. You know murdering and killing is bad and yet you still watch it for entertainment, to see what happens!

By the way, this isn’t to argue or call you out anon, just hoping to shed some light on my perspective as the author. I love when people ask about my work, and I’m happy to answer regardless of the context! My ask box is always open if any of you have questions!

Below is a breakdown of some of the complexities I wanted to portray!

Yandere!Sylus Breakdown

I envisioned him as a deeply complex character—not necessarily in his emotions, because yandere!Sylus always knows exactly what he wants—but in the way he rationalizes his actions and interprets his “wrongdoings.”

On the surface, his actions are undeniably wrong. Kidnapping a girl, forcing her into a life of isolation, and desiring to have children with her while keeping her away from everyone she’s ever loved is, by all moral standards, reprehensible. However, Yandere!Sylus doesn’t see it that way. To him, these actions are justifiable as long as they fulfill a purpose in his grand design.

He operates with a calculated mindset, never doing anything unless he believes it will ultimately benefit him, even if it means causing immense suffering. The fact that the reader might hate him only reinforces his resolve; he views it as a challenge, something to be overcome or “fixed” rather than a deterrent.

This doesn’t mean he doesn’t love reader, he does. But he is inherently selfish at his core since that was what was needed to survive. I intend to break this down further!

In yandere!Sylus’s twisted logic, he genuinely believes that if he can get the reader pregnant, she will inevitably develop a bond with the child. He sees this as a means to an end—a way to “tame” her, to anchor her to him emotionally.

He is convinced that motherhood will soften her resistance, leading her to accept the life he has meticulously crafted for them. To him, this is not just a strategy but a deeply held belief that love, however twisted, can be cultivated through shared ties, like the birth of a child.

This version of Sylus is driven by a yearning for the idealized version of happiness that society often romanticizes—the “big happy family” with “children running around” and a “loving wife.” It’s a vision that he clings to desperately, not because he understands it in the way most people do, but because he was denied such love and stability as a child.

Sylus grew up in a world where love was scarce and survival was paramount, as depicted in the original story. This lack of nurturing has warped his understanding of love and family, leading him to believe that these things can be engineered or forced into existence.

In blending elements of the original story into this version of Sylus and the reader, I wanted to show the core aspects of his character while exploring new dimensions of his psyche. However, I didn’t want it to be an exact replication, as the reader in this version isn’t the canonical main character from the original universe. Instead, she represents an alternative narrative where Sylus’s obsessions and desires manifest differently, yet still retain the disturbing intensity that defines his character! ^o^

All in all, if this story isn’t for you. Don’t read it please. I write for a certain demographic of people who enjoy twisted media. It’s fiction after all! No one is truly getting hurt. I hope this helps with your confusion anon!

[landoscaring]

my thoughts after the statements provided by mclaren, lando, and oscar about team orders (azerbaijan gp media day)

folks, it's happening.

everyone and their mother is losing their freaking head over the confirmation we've been waiting to hear for weeks: oscar has been asked by mclaren to help lando's wdc chances.

couple of things, in no particular order:

1. the key word is asked. for weeks oscar has been adamant in his interviews about the fact that the team hadn't asked him to help lando. take monza as an example where he was basically told the complete opposite. am i glad they asked? not really. did i know they would? of course.

2. where did the hesitancy come from, you may ask, why did they wait so long? there's a few possible reasons, all of them purely speculative. i for one believe they needed more data to move on with the plan. it wouldn't make much sense to go all the way with the lando wdc agenda if they were unsure about the ratio between lando's performance, the car's performance, annnnnd red bull's shitshow. monza confirmed all three (i would argue we've known for a little longer than that, but i am no strategist). max's performance going down consistently was most likely the final push they needed to make the call.

3. what does this mean for oscar? we'll know for sure on sunday, i think, but i'm pretty positive we'll see same old osc trying to score as many points as possible (think wcc). he will not slow down or make any significant changes to how he approaches the race. there's an a-z list of scenarios at play here, but things will most likely boil down to him helping lando out mid race (think pit order, covering, helping him find cleaner air) and in the last few laps, if he finds himself in a better position, he'll most likely slow down and let lando pass. i don't think this is necessarily a situation that will be recurrent for the rest of the season, realistically. oscar's only ever been in front of lando a handful of times.

4. what does lando say? what you'd expect from an experienced driver like him. he understands that oscar has a right to race him, and he doesn't want him to simply roll over and let him pass every race. plans seem to have been discussed, so in good theory things should work out. as lando said, people on the outside think it's as easy as just telling oscar to help him and bam, wdc achieved. a lot of things are going to play a part here, and even with oscar's help lando's wdc is still a stretch (think race strat mistakes they've made in the past, risky corners, and ferrari's rising performance with charles in 3rd place in the standings.)

5. why are team orders so controversial? they've been around forever. i think most of us just like to romanticize the situation because we like both drivers so much, and thus we want them to succeed equally. that's just not possible in this sport. both drivers know this, and we as fans have to make peace with it.

6. sigh. mclaren, mclaren, mclaren. i've been guilty of cursing them many, many times, but to offer some perspective: i think newer fans might not realize that there are three elements in F1 that guarantee a team's success. There's having a good driver lineup, a competitive car, and an effective team strategy. most teams have been trying to get all three for decades. some have the strat and the car, but not the drivers. some have the drivers and the strat, but not the car. mclaren very recently checked off the car box, and the lineup box, and they've been struggling with the last one. they've only been in this position for months, and they've had a lot of movement within the team. hopefully they figure it out for the upcoming season.

anyways, enough rambling. let's hope for the best, y'all 🧡

[genericpuff]

Why is the art so unappealing in lore Olympus now Persephone looks like a highlighter and maybe it’s just me but the proportions like the fingers in arms are soul over the place I don’t think they used to be this bad. Am I just looking at it with nostalgia or am I crazy ?

Honestly, nostalgia does play a huge part in it, even to this day there are times I look back on old S1 panels and go-

Actually here's a great example that literally just happened yesterday in the ULO Discord that nearly had me on the floor LOL This is from Episode 70:

Like I didn't even believe that that was real until I was told what episode it was from and I was just. Astounded and flabbergasted. The over-shading of the blanket that just makes it look like a really bad edit. Insane.

And yeah, there are a lot of old panels that hit different now that the rose-colored glasses have been removed, crushed, and thrown into the trash compactor.

I think that's why it makes it all the more amusing when people come into my inbox and ask me "wait, why did you like LO to begin with?? It's always been ugly as shit, I think you're just romanticizing it" because like... there's something to be said about art and subjectivity, even if something is ugly to one person doesn't mean it isn't beautiful to someone else. It's why I try not to be too mean towards the fans of this comic for still enjoying it, because while I definitely have strong opinions about how "LO has gotten worse" and what kind of following Rachel has cultivated (cough cough), there are also just as equally valid arguments that LO has never begin good to begin with that I can't necessarily disagree with now that I'm looking back on it with a more critical eye.

That said, there's tons of media that I enjoy that is objectively awful. Like y'all, you don't need to take my opinions about a dumb pink x blue fantasy romance comic seriously, I like Starfox Adventures-

Like yeah it's a badly made rushed piece of shit that was developed right on the ass end of Rare's glory days and was really an original IP (Dinosaur Planet) that got Frankenstein'd into a Starfox game so it could "sell better" for Nintendo, but I don't give a fuck, I love Starfox Adventures and some day I wanna be in the top 10 speedrunner leaderboards for it, which I know doesn't mean much because no one is speedrunning Starfox, but I do and no one can take that away from me dammit-

Anyways. Lore Olympus has, in many regards, always had "bad art". But "bad art" can and should still be enjoyed by those who find joy in it.

And in LO's case, the world it existed in when it launched was a lot smaller than it is now - more specifically, the world of Webtoons. We can look back and see how 'bad' LO looks and reads now because there are genuinely way better comics surrounding it. It was unique and refreshing and experimental back then... now it's just "that stupid blue and pink comic for horny teenagers".

In most cases I would consider that "cringing in hindsight" feeling a good thing because normally it means something has grown and that it seeming "bad" in hindsight would mean that it's outgrown itself and moved onto bigger things. But LO has the more unique problem of "its current stuff is shit and it's making us want the old stuff more, even if the old stuff wasn't good either". In that regard, LO is closer to being like Harry Potter. Remember when The Cursed Child came out at the height of Rowling being exposed for being a TERF and even people who liked Harry Potter didn't like The Cursed Child because it was just objectively worse overall (with or without Rowling's bullshit attached)? It made a lot of people go back and re-read / rewatch Harry Potter with a more objective lens and go "wait a minute guys, I think we only adored these books so much because we were 12 when we read them". Often times it's the good memories we have surrounding certain things that make us have the opinion about them that we do.

Of course, LO is definitely not as politically weaponized as Harry Potter is, so that's where that comparison ends. But my point is that LO is definitely in a situation where it's been riding off the same privileges it had back in 2018 - having an 'experimental' art style while also utilizing tropes and characters that were VERY popular at the time (remember that 2017-18 was when Tumblr was at its height of H x P "Hades was a chill accountant guy who wore socks and sandals and didn't cheat on his wife like Zeus did" fantasizing) - and thinks that those same tricks and tropes will still work today.

Because of this, the art in LO really, really hasn't aged well, even the stuff that we look back on fondly. But I think it's the panels that we specifically think of when remembering "old LO" - the ones that stuck in our memories the most - that are the ones that make us miss or just not care about the panels that don't look good (the panels that make people question why we ever liked it to begin with).

We liked it because of how it made us feel to look at panels like these-

Those genuinely wonderful panels that we think back on the most don't exist separately from the bad panels, they exist in spite of them. Even if we can look back on panels like these and pick out problems in the lineart or the proportions or the color travelling outside of the lines, that can't and shouldn't change how those panels made us feel at some point or another. And that's why when people ask me "why were you even into LO in the first place" I don't have any one answer, because I can't fully explain how something made me feel to justify why it's good to someone who can see from the outside - without rose-colored glasses - that it evidently isn't. It's very much a "you had to be there" type of thing.

Unfortunately, nowadays even the 'best' LO panels in S3 still don't come close to what the S1 panels accomplished - because for many of us, the rose-colored glasses are gone, we can't appreciate the good among the bad because we know now how bad it truly is and so the good just feels like wasted attempts at trying to recreate something it can no longer be. It "came back wrong" so to speak.

LO came back just regular. But our journey to resurrecting it changed us to such a degree that even its closest intimacies are now foreign to us. Sorry dude.

This is still probably one of my favorite panels out of the entirety of S3 for being as close to "old LO" as I've seen since S2, and even it feels like a mistake, an accident, how could a panel like this exist in S3 when so much of it is a dumpster fire? It's like a flower growing in the ruins of an apocalyptic wasteland.

But wasn't that always the case? Isn't that 'always' what LO has been, since the very beginning? A poorly cobbled together mess of writing and panels that, every now and then, manages to leave an impression that makes you feel something? Did we ever truly know LO? Or have we just been relying entirely on an idea of it that we've built up in our heads that when it does do exactly what it's evidently always done (even if not made apparent until looking back on it in hindsight) we think it "came back wrong"?

[dotthings]

"Open to interpretation" does not mean you get to tell Destiel shippers how to see the canon, Karen

After the spntwit drama this week I think it matters to emphasize again how hard the antidestiel hatedom was going against how Jensen rolls when it comes to interpretation.

antidestiels continue to behave as if they believe "open to interpretation" means they themselves can dictate to other fans how to see the canon, and they call Destiel shippers and Misha "disgusting" just for speaking our viewpoints of the canon.

Destiel shippers give our take on the text and antis go "well you can't because JENSEN SAID--"

They very obviously do not listen to what Jensen says. Here is Jensen at Dencon 2021, where he pretty much clears the runway for fans to interpret however we please and his praise and appreciation for those readings: “This is the great thing about the show and I think the relationships and some of these characters is that they’re open for interpretation. If you find identity in a character because of whatever reason, fantastic! Great! If that encourages you to be a better person, or to love someone a little harder, to forgive someone for something, fantastic. That’s—that’s I think that’s one of the beautiful things about what we do is that we get to encourage people on a variety of levels.” -Jensen Ackles, DenCon October 2021

(Antis: But you CAN'T, because JENSEN SAID--)

Antis are stuck in a loop of their own making.

This is not the first time Jensen has conveyed his support for fan interpretation.

Jibcon 2015:

We also know from reports from a virtual m&g a short while after SPN ended that Jensen said he and Misha talked about the confession scene beforehand, and they "didn't want to over-define it" and "the artist isn't going to stand next to that piece of art and tell you what to see. You should be able to see, and it should be able to mean what it means to you and that's--that's the beautiful thing about art." (There is no video, this is pulled from fan reports, but as far as we know this is accurate reporting).

Antis: but you can't because Jensen SAID--

blah blah blah

Yes we can and it's not that we need Jensen's--or anyone's permission--however it's just so heinous how severely antidestiels stomp all over Jensen's respectfulness and protection of fan readings and his appreciation of that, and their lying about how he rolls. They are making very negative insinuations of him, yet somehow everyone else in fandom is the problem but them.

It doesn't add up.

"But you can't say Destiel is real and there was queer coding because JENSEN SAID--"

But Jensen said he's completely cool with how we see it.

He said so.

I have a permit. Jensen signed it. See?

Get over it. Find a new hobby. Move along.

A further thing--note my highlighting on excerpts from an interview with Jensen Ackles about Big Sky concerning the Beau/Jenny relationship. (TV Insider, 1.18.2023)

The phrasing should sound familiar.

Yes, that's right, he's used similar language to speak about Dean and Cas. And this is for a het ship.

"leave the audience wanting more" "we gave just a little bit" "but do we need to play it out in a graphic sex scene?" "a kiss wasn't necessarily needed" "let's tiptoe for now" "fired it up in a way that made it not so sexual...two humans really, truly connecting. It wasn't just like, oh, let's rip each other's clothes off."

Put that next to "I don’t think lust is involved with the romanticism" "there's some people that might try to sexualize that" "it was two sentient beings essentially" (Dencon 2021, Vancon 2022)

Isn't that interesting. (Also isn't it interesting he called it "romanticism"?)

Jensen also said something somewhere about how he would like to do a romantic comedy so long as it involves killing zombies. He doesn't hate romance. It's just that he likes genre and action stuff. He's not against, whether it's queer or straight romances.

He's also said he'd like to do a rom-com slash western playing opposite Misha Collins.

Not telling Destiel shippers what to do, but along with antidestiel misinformation spread, the Destiel lane is justly notorious for flinging accusations at him and I think it's relevant that he speaks about a het ship using similar language, and it's relevant how supportive he is of queer readings.

one last thing, this is old, from Jensen's time on Days of our Lives, but he wasn't against playing a queer character.

[antiendovents]

i’m so sick of endo culture being everywhere on this website. we discovered our system only in january, and when we learned what endos were we instantly thought that idea was absurd. but recently a lot of our close mutuals are getting really loud about being pro endo, which we didn’t know at the time of becoming their friends. i feel so gross being mutuals with these people and publicly associating with them in the past, but i don’t want to cut them out of my life entirely because i’m still attached to them and i’m scared of being“problematic” on here since this is the only space where i can be myself. i don’t want to be rude to endos because they’re usually just traumagenic systems in denial, but i’m also so sick of them fetishizing and romanticizing such a serious fucking disorder. as much as i love my headmates if i could choose to be a singlet i would always do it in every life. i wish i didn’t have to pretend to be “neutral” on syscourse, whatever that means. the idea of endogenic “systems” is such chronically online shit. i wish they would just be ok with roleplaying or stop using our tags and our terms because jesus christ this is a dissociative disorder that resulted from trauma and plurality is not the only symptom of it.

-❄️

yeah. We found out about endos not long after joining Tumblr. By then though we already knew we were a system for a while; and the idea of endos was disgusting. It made us so angry we wanted to delete Tumblr as a whole for it. I get how you feel with the mutuals, we've gotten attached to people too and then had to unfriend them / block them later on due to their actions or their beliefs and it sucks but sometimes it's necessary. If you feel gross just interacting with them or having them before your mutual that isn't good, I would recommend trying to do so, but only if you think you can safely (as in you're ready mentally and you won't be harassed or anything). Your feelings of anger are valid, and while I won't condone being rude to them for no reason I will say that endos do not deserve respect; they are ableists, ableists do not deserve respect (don't go out of your way to harass them, but don't necessarily feel bad for blocking them or arguing with them if they come to you, you know?). They're disgusting and seeing them in the tags is just so horrible, it's like we're actively being mocked and everyone else is just closing their eyes and turning their backs on us. No one treats endos as what they are; ableists and it's kind of sad. It's sad because people act like it's "not that serious" or like we're "overreacting" when we complain or bring up how harmful they are.

(sorry rant)

[soracities]

Hey! It has been on my mind lately and i just wanna ask..idk if it would make sense but i just noticed that nowadays ppl cant separate the authors and their books (ex. when author wrote a story about cheating and ppl starts bashing the author for romanticizing cheating and even to a point of cancelling the author for not setting a good/healthy example of a relationship) any thoughts about it?

I have many, many thoughts on this, so this may get a little unwieldy but I'll try to corall it together as best I can.

But honestly, I think sometimes being unable to separate the author from the work (which is interesting to me to see because some people are definitely not "separating" anything even though they think they are; they just erase the author entirely as an active agent, isolate the work, and call it "objectivity") has a lot to do with some people being unable to separate the things they read from themselves.

I'm absolutely not saying it's right, but it's an impulse I do understand. If you read a book and love it, if it transforms your life, or defines a particular period of your life, and then you find out that the author has said or done something awful--where does that leave you? Someone awful made something beautiful, something you loved: and now that this point of communion exists between you and someone whose views you'd never agree with, what does that mean for who you are? That this came from the mind of a person capable of something awful and spoke to your mind--does that mean you're like them? Could be like them?

Those are very uncomfortable questions and I think if you have a tendency to look at art or literature this way, you will inevitable fall into the mindset where only "Good" stories can be accepted because there's no distinction between where the story ends and you begin. As I said, I can see where it comes from but I also find it profoundly troubling because i think one of the worst things you can do to literature is approach it with the expectation of moral validation--this idea that everything you consume, everything you like and engage with is some fundamental insight into your very character as opposed to just a means of looking at or questioning something for its own sake is not just narrow-minded but dangerous.

Art isn't obliged to be anything--not moral, not even beautiful. And while I expend very little (and I mean very little) energy engaging with or even looking at internet / twitter discourse for obvious reasons, I do find it interesting that people (online anyway) will make the entire axis of their critique on something hinge on the fact that its bad representation or justifying / romanticizing something less than ideal, proceeding to treat art as some sort of conduit for moral guidance when it absolutely isn't. And they will also hold that this critique comes from a necessarily good and just place (positive representation, and I don't know, maybe in their minds it does) while at the same time setting themselves apart from radical conservatives who do the exact same thing, only they're doing it from the other side.

To make it abundantly clear, I'm absolutely not saying you should tolerate bigots decrying that books about the Holocaust, race, homophobia, or lgbt experiences should be banned--what I am saying, is that people who protest that a book like Maus or Persepolis is going to "corrupt children", and people who think a book exploring the emotional landscape of a deeply flawed character, who just happens to be from a traditionally marginalised group or is written by someone who is, is bad representation and therefore damaging to that community as a whole are arguments that stem from the exact same place: it's a fundamental inability, or outright refusal, to accept the interiority and alterity of other people, and the inherent validity of the experiences that follow. It's the same maniacal, consumptive, belief that there can be one view and one view only: the correct view, which is your view--your thoughts, your feelings.

There is also dangerous element of control in this. Someone with racist views does not want their child to hear anti-racist views because as far as they are concerned, this child is not a being with agency, but a direct extension of them and their legacy. That this child may disagree is a profound rupture and a threat to the cohesion of this person's entire worldview. Nothing exists in and of and for itself here: rather the multiplicity of the world and people's experiences within it are reduced to shadowy agents that are either for us or against us. It's not about protecting children's "innocence" ("think of the children", in these contexts, often just means "think of the status quo"), as much as it is about protecting yourself and the threat to your perceived place in the world.

And in all honestt I think the same holds true for the other side--if you cannot trust yourself to engage with works of art that come from a different standpoint to yours, or whose subject matter you dislike, without believing the mere fact of these works' existence will threaten something within you or society in general (which is hysterical because believe me, society is NOT that flimsy), then that is not an issue with the work itself--it's a personal issue and you need to ask yourself if it would actually be so unthinkable if your belief about something isn't as solid as you think it is, and, crucially, why you have such little faith in your own critical capacity that the only response these works ilicit from you is that no one should be able to engage with them. That's not awareness to me--it's veering very close to sticking your head in the sand, while insisting you actually aren't.

Arbitrarily adding a moral element to something that does not exist as an agent of moral rectitude but rather as an exploration of deeply human impulses, and doing so simply to justify your stance or your discomfort is not only a profoundly inadequate, but also a deeply insidious, way of papering over your insecurities and your own ignorance (i mean this in the literal sense of the word), of creating a false and dishonest certainty where certainty does not exist and then presenting this as a fact that cannot and should not be challenged and those who do are somehow perverse or should have their characters called into question for it. It's reductive and infantilising in so many ways and it also actively absolves you of any responsibility as a reader--it absolves you of taking responsibility for your own interpretation of the work in question, it absolves you of responsibility for your own feelings (and, potentially, your own biases or preconceptions), it absolves you of actual, proper, thought and engagement by laying the blame entirely on a rogue piece of literature (as if prose is something sentient) instead of acknowledging that any instance of reading is a two-way street: instead of asking why do I feel this way? what has this text rubbed up against? the assumption is that the book has imposed these feelings on you, rather than potentially illuminated what was already there.

Which brings me to something else which is that it is also, and I think this is equally dangerous, lending books and stories a mythical, almost supernatural, power that they absolutely do not have. Is story-telling one of the most human, most enduring, most important and life-altering traditions we have? Yes. But a story is also just a story. And to convince yourself that books have a dangerous transformative power above and beyond what they are actually capable of is, again, to completely erase people's agency as readers, writers' agency as writers and makers (the same as any other craft), and subsequently your own. And erasing agency is the very point of censors banning books en masse. It's not an act of stupidity or blind ignorance, but a conscious awareness of the fact that people will disagree with you, and for whatever reason you've decided that you are not going to let them.

Writers and poets are not separate entities to the rest of us: they aren't shamans or prophets, gifted and chosen beings who have some inner, profound, knowledge the rest of us aren't privy to (and should therefore know better or be better in some regard) because moral absolutism just does not exist. Every writer, no matter how affecting their work may be, is still Just Some Guy Who Made a Thing. Writing can be an incredibly intimate act, but it can also just be writing, in the same way that plumbing is plumbing and weeding is just weeding and not necessarily some transcendant cosmic endeavour in and of itself. Authors are no different, when you get down to it, from bakers or electricians; Nobel laureates are just as capable of coming out with distasteful comments about women as your annoying cousin is and the fact that they wrote a genre-defying work does not change that, or vice-versa. We imbue books with so much power and as conduits of the very best and most human traits we can imagine and hope for, but they aren't representations of the best of humanity--they're simply expressions of humanity, which includes the things we don't like.

There are some authors I love who have said and done things I completely disagree with or whose views I find abhorrent--but I'm not expecting that, just because they created something that changed my world, they are above and beyond the ordinarly, the petty, the spiteful, or cruel. That's not condoning what they have said and done in the least: but I trust myself to be able to read these works with awareness and attention, to pick out and examine and attempt to understand the things that I find questionable, to hold on to what has moved me, and to disregard what I just don't vibe with or disagree with. There are writers I've chosen not to engage with, for my own personal reasons: but I'm not going to enforce this onto someone else because I can see what others would love in them, even if what I love is not strong enough to make up for what I can't. Terrance Hayes put perfectly in my view, when he talks about this and being capable of "love without forgiveness". Writing is a profoundly human heritage and those who engage with it aren't separate from that heritage as human because they live in, and are made by, the exact same world as anyone else.

The measure of good writing for me has hardly anything to do with whatever "virtue" it's perceived to have and everything to do with sincerity. As far as I'm concerned, "positive representation" is not about 100% likeable characters who never do anything problematic or who are easily understood. Positive representation is about being afforded the full scope of human feelings, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and not having your humanity, your dignity, your right to exist in the world questioned because all of these can only be seen through the filter of race, or gender, religion, or ethicity and interpreted according to our (profoundly warped) perceptions of those categories and what they should or shouldn't represent. True recognition of someone's humanity does not lie in finding only what is held in common between you (and is therefore "acceptable", with whatever you put into that category), but in accepting everything that is radically different about them and not letting this colour the consideration you give.

Also, and it may sound harsh, but I think people forget that fictional characters are fictional. If I find a particularly fucked up relationship dynamic compelling (as I often do), or if I decide to write and explore that dynamic, that's not me saying two people who threaten to kill each other and constantly hurt each other is my ideal of romance and that this is exactly how I want to be treated: it's me trying to find out what is really happening below the surface when two people behave like this. It's me exploring something that would be traumatizing and deeply damaging in real life, in a safe and fictional setting so I can gain some kind of understanding about our darker and more destructive impulses without being literally destroyed by them, as would happen if all of this were real. But it isn't real. And this isn't a radical or complex thing to comprehend, but it becomes incomprehensible if your sole understanding of literature is that it exists to validate you or entertain you or cater to you, and if all of your interpretations of other people's intentions are laced with a persistent sense of bad faith. Just because you have not forged any identity outside of this fictional narrative doesn't mean it's the same for others.

Ursula K. le Guin made an extremely salient point about children and stories in that children know the stories you tell them--dragons, witches, ghouls, whatever--are not real, but they are true. And that sums it all up. There's a reason children learning to lie is an incredibly important developmental milestone, because it shows that they have achieved an incredibly complex, but vitally important, ability to hold two contradictory statements in their minds and still know which is true and which isn't. If you cannot delve into a work, on the terms it sets, as a fictional piece of literature, recognize its good points and note its bad points, assess what can have a real world impact or reflects a real world impact and what is just creative license, how do you possible expect to recognize when authority and propaganda lies to you? Because one thing propaganda has always utilised is a simplistic, black and white depiction of The Good (Us) and The Bad (Them). This moralistic stance regarding fiction does not make you more progressive or considerate; it simply makes it easier to manipulate your ideas and your feelings about those ideas because your assessments are entirely emotional and surface level and are fuelled by a refusal to engage with something beyond the knee-jerk reaction it causes you to have.

Books are profoundly, and I do mean profoundly, important to me-- and so much of who I am and the way I see things is probably down to the fact that stories have preoccupied me wherever I go. But I also don't see them as vital building blocks for some core facet or a pronouncement of Who I Am. They're not badges of honour or a cover letter I put out into the world for other people to judge and assess me by, and approve of me (and by extension, the things I say or feel). They're vehicles through which I explore and experience whatever it is that I'm most caught by: not a prophylactic, not a mode of virtue signalling, and certainly not a means of signalling a moral stance.

I think at the end of the day so much of this tendency to view books as an extension of yourself (and therefore of an author) is down to the whole notion of "art as a mirror", and I always come back to Fran Lebowitz saying that it "isn't a mirror, it's a door". And while I do think it's important to have that mirror (especially if you're part of a community that never sees itself represented, or represented poorly and offensively) I think some people have moved into the mindset of thinking that, in order for art to be good, it needs to be a mirror, it needs to cater to them and their experiences precisely--either that or that it can only exist as a mirror full stop, a reflection of and for the reader and the writer (which is just incredibly reductive and dismissive of both)--and if art can only exist as a mirror then anything negative that is reflected back at you must be a condemnation, not a call for exploration or an attempt at understanding.

As I said, a mirror is important but to insist on it above all else isn't always a positive thing: there are books I related to deeply because they allowed me to feel so seen (some by authors who looked nothing like me), but I have no interest in surrounding myself with those books all the time either--I know what goes on in my head which is precisely why I don't always want to live there. Being validated by a character who's "just like me" is amazing but I also want--I also need-- to know that lives and minds and events exist outside of the echo-chamber of my own mind. The mirror is comforting, yes, but if you spend too long with it, it also becomes isolating: you need doors because they lead you to ideas and views and characters you could never come up with on your own. A world made up of various Mes reflected back to me is not a world I want to be immersed in because it's a world with very little texture or discovery or room for growth and change. Your sense of self and your sense of other people cannot grow here; it just becomes mangled.

Art has always been about dialogue, always about a me and a you, a speaker and a listener, even when it is happening in the most internal of spaces: to insist that art only ever tells you what you want to hear, that it should only reflect what you know and accept is to undermine the very core of what it seeks to do in the first place, which is establish connection. Art is a lifeline, I'm not saying it isn't. But it's also not an instruction manual for how to behave in the world--it's an exploration of what being in the world looks like at all, and this is different for everyone. And you are treading into some very, very dangerous waters the moment you insist it must be otherwise.

Whatever it means to be in the world, it is anything but straightforward. In this world people cheat, people kill, they manipulate, they lie, they torture and steal--why? Sometimes we know why, but more often we don't--but we take all these questions and write (or read) our way through them hoping that, if we don't find an answer, we can at least find our way to a place where not knowing isn't as unbearable anymore (and sometimes it's not even about that; it's just about telling a story and wanting to make people laugh). It's an endless heritage of seeking with countless variations on the same statements which say over and over again I don't know what to make of this story, even as I tell it to you. So why am I telling it? Do I want to change it? Can I change it? Yes. No. Maybe. I have no certainty in any of this except that I can say it. All I can do is say it.

Writing, and art in general, are one of the very, very, few ways we can try and make sense of the apparently arbitrary chaos and absurdity of our lives--it's one of the only ways left to us by which we can impose some sense of structure or meaning, even if those things exists in the midst of forces that will constantly overwhelm those structures, and us. I write a poem to try and make sense of something (grief, love, a question about octopuses) or to just set down that I've experienced something (grief, love, an answer about octpuses). You write a poem to make sense of, resolve, register, or celebrate something else. They don't have to align. They don't have to agree. We don't even need to like each other much. But in both of these instances something is being said, some fragment of the world as its been perceived or experienced is being shared. They're separate truths that can exist at the same time. Acknowledging this is the only means we have of momentarily bridging the gaps that will always exist between ourselves and others, and it requires a profound amount of grace, consideration and forbearance. Otherwise, why are we bothering at all?

[dootznbootz]

I know we love our morally gray characters. But the internet kinda ruined Circe for me.

Let me explain.

I remember I actually used to really like Circe's character when I first read the Odyssey last year. I loved her as a "helpful antagonist type" character.

But what ruined her character for me was everybody calling her a "girlboss" or just simping for her in a way? But they completely disregard the fact she technically raped a man. (But no one cares about that because male SA victims never get taken seriously, especially in media smh)

Now, I can never experience Circe as the same character because all I see is a terrible person being glorified because of her gender. And then people say double standards don't exist!

Which I hate cause she's a genuinely cool character. (From a writing standpoint)

Circe isn't a bad character let me be clear (in the Odyssey anyway. Cough cough Madeline Mil-) But I just hate how people romanticize her completely ignoring her terrible actions. And to think it's all just because she's a "hot badass female".

And this isn't just about Odysseus either, there's literally a myth where she tries to seduce a man, but when he remains faithful she turns him into a woodpecker-

People can like her CHARACTER, however, they should still acknowledge her bad actions too and hold her accountable. If we can all agree it's shitty what Zeus did to a bunch of women, we can also agree what Circe did to Odysseus was shitty.

Women sexually assaulting men is just as inhumane as vice versa and we have to stop turning a blind eye about it, even if it's fictional.

And I feel like people WOULD actually hold her accountable if she was a male character. Which makes me even more angry.

Maybe this is just a me thing, but I just can't fawn over a character and call them hot when they've done something as bad as some of the things Circe has done.

So, I guess what you could get out of this-

Please stop romanticizing circe.

Hold her accountable as you would any other character.

Don't be so forgiving just because you find her attractive.

Anyways, thank you for coming to my Ted talk and sorry for ranting

honestly yeah, all of this.

I sadly had to block Circe's tag on tumblr because it pisses me off how much people glorify her and/shittalk Odysseus with it. (I trust my friends when they have Circe content lol)

I love Circe as well. She's such an interesting and fun character but how people twist her just fucks with me so much. Also to make HER a victim just for girlbossness? What's so girlboss about having such a horrific thing happen to you?

I said it in a different post but you can thirst for Circe without making fun of her victim. People will call a victim of rape a manwhore or a slut as if what happened to him was a grand ol time. It's genuinely disturbing. He is shown to have PTSD from it (in my opinion) in the Odyssey. This book is ancient and yet it captures that better than anything I've read.

Odysseus isn't necessarily a wholesome, "goody-to-shoes" man. He does a lot of awful things. That doesn't mean that the suffering he went through is suddenly negated.

Even bringing up stuff with female characters, the fact that people will water them down so then they're not "problematic" pisses me off. Women can be horrible, even good women. Penelope is my fave but she's pretty awful in many ways.

Evidence will be right in front of people and they won't care. Crying, begging to go, fear, avoidance, numbness, etc. There'll be excuses anyway. "He's a guy, he's fine with it." "Men are sex crazed, especially back then." "He didn't try hard enough." "He should be grateful."

Honestly? What saddens me the most is that I don't think people will ever really understand what happened or even WANT to because they have their own idea in their head and refuse to see it for what it is. I mean Hades game did it too. It's really sad.

Circe and him weren't fwb. They weren't lovers. What about "heart full of grim forebodings" screams love? He wanted to save his friends and go home.

[synnthamonsugar]

Sending an ask instead of commenting because I prefer to keep discourse away from my blog. but, I have to get some of this off my chest. it's bound to be lengthy, so don't feel like you have to read/respond. you just seem like maybe you'll get my point. Read this as one big I statement because of course it's my opinion and I'm not out here reading everyone's minds.

On that last post. I think a lot of people have gone and manic-pixie-dream-girl'd Eris beyond recognition, and that some of shippers (not all, ofc) have spent so much time with their own headcanons & fanfic that they've forgotten how their real dynamic is. It's easy to project a relationship onto them if you're already looking for one. People see them bicker and go "aw, they're arguing like an old married couple!" when, no. They're just arguing.

Drifter definitely flirts with her, but she doesn't reciprocate and I don't even think that it's necessarily serious. That man would flirt with a wall if he thought it would be funny. He seems like the type to tease people that way regardless of gender or attraction to them.

I don't deny that there's something between them. knowing the lore as I do I think it's safe to say that they're somewhat close, whatever that can even mean for either of them, but for fucks sake close isn't always romantic. Are they friends? Maybe. Can either of them have friends at their level of stability? I genuinely don't know. I don't think that we've been given enough to go off of, honestly. I don't like the idea that they're going to magically have their trauma cured by dating each other. She doesn't need him to "file down her teeth", and I don't think that he would. He definitely seems to benefit from her input, though. I don't feel like their relationship is very balanced in that. There's plenty of lore to back up him getting and using advice from her, and it being helpful to him, but I haven't seen much the other way around. He's immature in a way that she isn't, and people seem to think she's going to settle for that.

I don't care who people ship or what their headcanons are, that's all their own business. If I don't like it, it's not like I'm going off on their blogs in the space they've made themselves about why I don't agree with them. I prefer to just back off a bit, let them have their space and I'll have mine. But I don't always see that respect going both ways, and it starts to really bother me when people try to project their headcanons onto other blogs and onto the developers. Almost anything I see of them independently, it seems someone has to show up with "but where's [the other one]", and I've seen shippers go after multiple people for asking that their fanart of the two isn't tagged as ship art. It's just overstepping at that point.

Of course, I don't like lumping a bunch of people under the single label of drifteris shippers and calling them all a problem, I'm well aware that it's probably a loud minority silent majority type situation and I'm not going to assume someone's like that just because that's their content. But a lot (that I've seen) are.

On the misogyny part, I've definitely seen it in some. I'm a guy, so I'm probably not going to have the world's best explanation of why, but what gets to me is mostly the over-romanticism of Eris as his quirky goth gf. It's dumb and often comes off as objectifying. Sometimes it's like people think she's some edgy egirl twitch streamer. I find it strange how much fanart of her changes her appearance too, given we can barely actually see her. And sometimes it winds up painting Drifter as this douchy dudebro that he just isn't. One of the best things about his character to me is that he has his attitude without the shit treatment of women that comes along with it with most similar characters in games. I don't understand the need to turn around and twist him into someone that pushes her boundaries, which is pretty necessary to read their arguments as flirting.

I don't know what else to say, it's late and I'm tired and I'll probably feel stupid for letting myself get wrapped up in fandom discourse but I might as well say it while the conversation is happening.

(adding in case you do post this) v

No shade to shippers that don't fit the description I've put here. If you're reading this and go "Hey! I don't do that!" then obviously I don't mean you. You're all just doing what makes you happy and, hey, go for it. Tumblr is a great place for that. It's only an issue (imo) when that crosses the line into expecting everyone else to have the same headcanons or ignore what is canon. Go make art and fanfic and whatever you want, there's plenty of people who will appreciate it. I'm glad the positive side of the ship fanbase helps boost both of their stories, I hope it winds up driving Bungie to put more content in of them, together or apart.

Thank you for the thoughtful message Anon. Honestly I cosign all of this and wish I could respond to each of your points, but will at least try to cover a few of the ones that hit most with me.

Replies under the cut, since this is a long one ...

I think a lot of people have gone and manic-pixie-dream-girl’d Eris beyond recognition

I've thought about this for awhile. Eris is frequently written as a Manic Pixie Dream Girl insofar as being the offbeat catalyst for a jaded man's journey to a better version of himself.

He seems like the type to tease people that way regardless of gender or attraction to them.

Whether you ship them or not, it's odd seeing Drifter's canon characterization as a recklessly charismatic flirt lost in fanon. That special significance is placed on his flirtation with Eris, and not with the Guardian, Orin, Efrideet, or Rahool, or the others I'm probably forgetting.

Of course, the Guardian is a blank slate the player can project motives onto, and the others are characters whose interactions with Drifter are limited to lore. His & Eris' interactions stand out. That still doesn't mean it's inherently romantic; I've platonically flirted, held hands, snuggled, danced, bed-shared, and other things fans would dedicate thousands of words of shipfic to were I a fictional character.

Though reading it as such is fine (and I'll concede, probably lines up with the authors' intent, since we know some of them are shippers), nothing in the lore is explicitly romantic. Note, authorial intent, word-of-god and canon are all separate things, as much as fandom conflates them.

An aside, it's interesting how fanon surrounding Drifter paints him as socially anxious, touch starved, romantically awkward ... until he meets Eris. While I understand the utility in shipping — to emphasize the One True Love aspect since serial monogamy, much less polyamory, is unknown to most, especially F/M, shippers — it also comes off as "did not read the lore" at best, and "perpetuating negative stereotypes about Asian men" at worst.

Can either of them have friends at their level of stability? I genuinely don’t know.

This is why Eris' and Drifter's dynamic peaked in Arrivals & Beyond Light. The tenuousness of their alliance, the acceptance and rejection of each other's flaws, the trust between them that wasn't earned but necessary to survive. It was fun, tense and compelling and I wish more of the fandom focused on this era of their relationship.

I don’t like the idea that they’re going to magically have their trauma cured by dating each other.

Cosigned. The idea that love can mend any wound, heal any trauma, or fix any flaw is textbook amatonormativity, and has unfortunate implications when applied to Eris' story. I shouldn't have to detail why "woman overcomes trauma with the affection of a man" leaves a bad taste in my and many other fans' mouths, especially when it's favored over her longer-standing relationships with other characters. Why is her bond with Ikora ignored? Zavala? Asher? Mara? Why is so much of her growth pinned on one man, when there are other, deeper relationships that have existed since practically the beginning of Destiny's narrative? Why is there so little shipping surrounding Eris and these other characters?

Almost anything I see of them independently, it seems someone has to show up with “but where’s [the other one]”, and I’ve seen shippers go after multiple people for asking that their fanart of the two isn’t tagged as ship art.

I don't typically engage with popular Destiny ships, but I draw Mara Sov frequently. By herself, and, frequently, in non-Marasjur pairings. Not once have I gotten a "Where's Sjur?" comment, or even a "Where's Shaxx?" for that matter, as pushy as the "helmet stayed on" bros are. Meanwhile, I expect these comments when posting Eris art, particularly Eris F/F. I've had this happen in art I've drawn of her and Drifter with a disclaimer that the art is platonic/not to tag as ship! At that point it's not misunderstanding, it's entitlement.

I don’t like lumping a bunch of people under the single label of drifteris shippers and calling them all a problem

Agreed. I'm technically an Eris/Drifter shipper in the sense of consuming and producing art & fic for them, though I've pulled back from interacting with that part of the fandom because [waves hands generally]. I have no issues with drifteris as a ship, nor enmity drifteris shippers as a whole, but the individuals who engage in rude behavior.

what gets to me is mostly the over-romanticism of Eris as his quirky goth gf.

I'm going to repost what @/unsaelig said, since it's a salient point:

"I have no actual way of proving this, but given how much it’s been a staple, for the past 9 years, to speak of Eris as an unpleasant, unstable, worrying, suspicious individual, and given how much people like to fixate on how Eris & Drifter’s dynamic “softens” her and makes her more palatable and conventional, I do strongly feel Drifter is probably brought up with her as a “package deal” so often because in their eyes he “defangs” her & makes her much easier to take."

I do think there's a popular fandom read on Drifter as a funny, quirky guy who's a little out-of-pocket, an edgier fandomified-and-flanderized Cayde-6, if you will, and that Eris has to naturally follow by being an inoffensively gothy dommy mommy. It's perplexing, it's objectifying, and it makes me wonder what people are actually shipping them for if they sand down their characterization so much.

I don’t understand the need to turn around and twist him into someone that pushes her boundaries, which is pretty necessary to read their arguments as flirting.

The misogyny - amatonormativity combo again. Before anyone comes for me because I like enemies-to-lovers: sword-fighting your beloved to the death over a pit of lava isn't normalized, but saying that boys who bully girls are "just flirting" is. "I hate my wife", "I wish my husband was dead" and "ol' ball and chain" 'jokes' are. The patriarchy instructs men to disrespect women, and tells women to be flattered by the disrespect of men because at least you're receiving a man's attention. It's neither cute nor funny, and I equally dislike it when empoweringly reversed so that the man is the target of the insult.

No shade to shippers that don't fit the description I've put here. If you're reading this and go "Hey! I don't do that!" then obviously I don't mean you.

Cosigned completely. I know I have reputation as an arch-hater, but I have nothing but respect for people who are shipping them in ways that don't play into tired stereotypes of M/F relationships. (Or misogyny, or racism, or...)

Sometimes I wonder if I should try to put more good Eris/Drifter out there, but most of the time I fear I would only be stemming the tide; I am just one person with limited resources, and there is so much out there that my work will go unnoticed and my time is better spent boosting small ships that need the help.

Mostly I wish there was more focus on Eris and Drifter as individuals, in the game and in the fandom, further exploration of their bonds with other characters, and an environment where a wider range of gen and ship fic/art could flourish.

[taylorswiftstylequestions]

“I also personally LOVE the delusion of "Everyone we know understands why we're meant to be" because it's so integral to the entire point of the song” — THIS THIS THIS. Remember, that line comes after she admits that they’ve both told their friends separately that they’ll kill themselves if the other leaves, one of the biggest and most obvious red flags a relationship can have. As someone who’s had a friend say something similar to me in the past, I can guarantee that everyone most certainly did not understand why they’re meant to be — if Jack’s experience was anything like mine, that statement would have gotten an anxious laugh and an internal she doesn’t mean that seriously, right? The relationship described in little ttpd is neither healthy nor romantic. The narrator is trying desperately to convince herself it is, which is why she’s telling herself all their friends are on board with it when it’s not entirely clear if they are (notice that we don’t hear Lucy or Jack’s reactions to these very concerning statements — we have to take Taylor’s word that they understand why they’re meant to be*, and a recurring theme throughout especially the first half of this album is that Taylor isn’t always the most reliable narrator). For that reason I don’t really struggle with the “how could she write this about HIM??” feelings with little ttpd in the same way I do for songs like loml. Little ttpd is just a detailed accounting of what she’s summarizing in icfh(nric) — an unhealthy, rapidly failing relationship built on lovebombing and delusion. And I am totally fine assigning that to Mr. Smallest Man Who Ever Lived (said jokingly — obviously with the paternity test disclaimer and understanding that Taylor’s music is much more than the men who may have potentially inspired it)

*and yes I realize that all of Taylor’s work is technically based on us taking her word for things, and that even if she gave us the full conversation we would still be taking her word that it’s true, but I think even with that she’s still presenting herself as an unreliable narrator in this song and that the choice to leave out her friends’ reactions/responses was an intentional one

This was fantastically said friend and I so agree and I also think that this extra bit of Required Reading is perhaps why Poets might have such a higher barrier to entry for listeners and also why some of its earliest criticisms lose weight once you give the album its due and listen to it the way it was meant to be consumed - over a long period of time and with careful consideration to the context and the intent of the artist.

The album is too long and overly, unnecessarily wordy. Yes.

Some of the lyrics are super cringe and weird and awkward. Yes.

It's really gross that she's romanticizing being in love with someone who's not a good person. Y E S. YES?!?!?!??! YES!!!!!!

THAT'S THE POINT. THAT'S THE POINNNNNNNNNT! THAT'S THE POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And yes completely agree that while there's a precedent set that if you're listening to a Taylor Swift song you're getting her *biased* POV as in her version of events (which, tbh, her version of events usually goes reasonably unrefuted by people which I'm led to believe means it's typically close to right even if it's fuelled by her own biased personal emotions). But never elsewhere in her disco as we do on TTPD do we have to confront the fact that her biased POV is also a really fucked up one that she herself does not even necessarily believe but is doing her best to convince herself that it's true and good for her and right. And you have to be actively hearing and discerning and comprehending and analyzing what she is saying and how she is saying it in order to *get that*.

Poets inherently does not reward passive listening. And if you tuned out once you grasped who a song might* be about because you personally dislike them** you miss almost the entire point of what Taylor is trying to communicate.

[anti-anti-vents]

Welcome to my blog! If you’re new to these debate, leave now and never return there are some things I’d like to define, since I find often times people mean many things when saying them.

What is shipping?

Shipping is the act of depicting, or wanting depictions of, two or more FICTIONAL characters in a relationship, that is romantic and/or sexual unless stated otherwise. The most common reason people would do this, and the one that comes to most peoples minds, is that the person thinks these characters would work out well together. However, there’s many more reasons than that to want to explore a dynamic, so it’s a misconception that that’s always the case. Please note, it’s not shipping when real people are involved instead of characters, that’s sexual harassment!*

What is a proshipper? What is an anti? What is an anti-anti?

In short, a proshipper is somebody who believes it’s okay to ship any characters for any reason. An anti is somebody who believes that shipping dynamics that would be toxic or immoral IRL is also not okay to do in fiction, and often go to length to let people know this opinion when they find a ship they deem to be inappropriate. And finally, an anti-anti is somebody who doesn’t necessarily believe that EVERY ship is morally neutral, but does believe you should never harass somebody over it regardless.

So, why are you an anti-anti?

Obviously, I don’t believe in harassing people, that should be a given. And I do find most ships morally neutral, but the main reason I don’t call myself a proshipper is that some do still leave a sour taste in my mouth (namely ships that “fix” a queer person, or turn an abuser into somebody super sweet; but feel free to RESPECTFULLY drop some reasoning into my askbox why those are okay if you want). However, I do recognize that it’s just fiction, and I can’t see into the minds of the people making it, so I’ll never truly know their reasonings.

What the hell got you into this discourse?

Well, if you can’t tell by my pfp, I love the game The Coffin of Andy and Leyley. (Spoilers ahead) But if you know anything about the game, you’ll know that the internet didn’t agree with me. They got mad over the CLEARLY PORTRAYED AS IMMORAL, completely optional outside a few implications, part of a demonic dream and not actually a real thing that happened, horror game incest. My goodness, you’d think they’d be mad at the actually romanticized cannibalism, or the many other pieces of media that include incest, but no. At the end of the day, this was just an excuse to doxx a trans woman until she left the internet. Because that’s who’s affected by this discourse. Not big media sensations and fiction that’s reached enough mainstream appeal to be genuinely normalizing things for the masses, but instead small indie creators and queer people. We need to do better.

Do you have a DNI?

Just don’t harass people, that’s all I ask. Regardless, this is a side blog, so I won’t be following back.

[menlove]

I think people might lean toward romanticizing J&Y not only as a response to the romanticization of mclennon (I too am guilty ☝️lol) but also how Paul and Linda are pushed as a the down to earth perfect couple is with majority of fandom accepting it as well. Not to sayi think people should be like ‘well, this pairing’s more toxic! no this pairing’s toxic!’ because as most of us know that just leads to annoying back and forth’s that spiral. I think I’d just like to see more nuance in how people talk about these couples. Like I think the codependent insanity of J&Y is clearly THERE for anyone who cares to look at it. And I also think P&L was a different brand of the more traditional hetero marriage hell (specifically Linda here).

no that's very fair! i'm talking more like casual fans in offline spaces who talk a lot about john & yoko as like. rock's Ideal Couple. the types where the white indie boyfriend has lennon glasses and is calling his girlfriend his yoko and just being absolutely insufferable about it all

but i definitely do think the perception of paul & linda vs john & yoko is a VERY interesting one and one i think they were all very much aware of. it does also have a lot to do w racism if we're being totally honest. of course, linda did Not escape the hate & blame of the breakup, but it is interesting that she came to be a lot more widely accepted as being "good for paul" than yoko ever was for john.

i think what's also interesting about it is it's also largely to do w how these couples presented themselves. john & yoko were by no means pr-illiterate (in fact i'm 99% sure there's a paul quote where he talks about how they were always better at it than he was), but they sort of had this "open" feel about them. like they didn't shy away from the uglier parts of their relationship & let all that shit out, whereas paul & linda presented themselves as this very put together couple who never spent even a night apart from each other. and there's like. nuggets of truth in both of those (that john & yoko were very unstable with each other whereas paul & linda DID have a loving relationship), but i think both tend to hide aspects of their relationship that they didn't necessarily want the public to know about, which differed for both couples on what those things were. john & yoko were the activists who did crazy shit with each other and didn't mind being seen that way, where paul & linda were the "perfect family" and had to be seen that way

[copperbadge]

I know that it’s been a Very Long Time but do you ever get terribly nostalgic for old/less active fandoms? I confess I recently came back to tumblr and saw that I followed you. I was like, of course Sam storyteller, the Bucky guy. But then I got a hankering for my older and dearer by far love Ianto Jones and went back to reread some of the greatest hits and I remembered. You are not the Loki guy. You are the Ianto guy, to me, and I can’t believe I forgot that. I miss that fandom so much it was so fucking. Toxic. The Gwen bashing, I simply cannot romanticize it in good conscience. But the fic quality and diversity was, dare I say it, nearly unparalleled (in my heart). Like when it hit it really hit you know? A golden age of trashy sci fi indeed. I miss my dead welsh son. Sorry to ramble in your ask box about the dubious old days

Anon, I am so sorry, a bunch of my asks got pushed way down in the inbox and then I forgot they were there, so apologies this is MONTHS late in getting posted.

I, eh, I don't really get nostalgic for old fandoms. Usually I leave them for a reason, but even if I just drift away, my experience of a fandom is pretty fundamentally different from most because of my higher profile. There are things I can't do or say in a fandom that other people could, and there are things that happen to me outside of my control. They're not even necessarily bad things, just stuff like...I'll write a fic in a new fandom, and people from my previous fandom will start engaging with the canon because I did. So often, rather than just falling away from a fandom, I'll leave a fandom and drag a bunch of people with me. They might not even leave the older fandom, but they come along to the new one too.

And often the wanks that pull people in without their consent simply don't touch me because there's a portion of fandom that is either scared of me (or my readers) or just doesn't want anything to do with me. I can't determine which.

Torchwood's a pretty good case in point -- the Gwen bashing was extreme. I wasn't a fan of Gwen but what I saw from the antigwenallies was really, really gross. Still, even though I wrote fic about Gwen and engaged in meta around her presence in the show, I avoided them and thus had exactly one interaction with them ever, which was when they posted up a fic of mine as "anti-Gwen" and I asked them to remove it and never recc anything of mine again. They did, and that was the end of that. Nobody ever came to my posts to attack her or me. Likewise, there was one really, really aggressive anti-Ianto wanker, but she never engaged with me or even as far as I know talked about me, despite the fact I was a huge Ianto fan and wrote a lot of fic about him. I really hated the shit she said, but I also didn't see any value in arguing, so I left her alone and she left me alone. (I won't name her because I checked up on her a few years ago and it turns out she was struggling with serious mental health issues that she'd gotten a lot of help for, and felt really terrible about the things she'd done, so I'm actually quite proud of her. But if you know you know.)

I also just...have a bad memory, so I often don't remember what happened in a fandom, or even sometimes that I was in a fandom. Most of the memories I do have are either vaguely warm and friendly, or "avoid this fandom/person at all costs" based in a negative interaction (which I sometimes don't remember the details of).

So yeah...I mean, Torchwood ended pretty terribly so I don't miss it in part because I try not to think about it. Generally if I have a good time in a fandom and then leave it, it's because I simply said all I had to say there. But I'm usually looking forward, not back, just because the past is a bit of a fog bank for me, most of the time.

[mermaidsirennikita]

ARC REVIEW: The Beast Takes a Bride by Julie Anne Long

4.5/5. Releases 10/22/2024.

The Vibes:

—Beauty and the Beast (most obvi)

—weapon-grade pining

—big stern man meets lowkey bratty woman (his wife)

—covert boning (like... everyone is covertly boning in this book)

Heat Index: 7/10

The Basics:

Alexandra Brightwall should be relieved when her husband, war hero Magnus, bails her out of prison. The problem? They haven't seen each other for five years. Not since the day after their wedding, actually. Stern and cool, Magnus knows their marriage was a huge mistake, so he has a proposal. He's on the verge of being created an earl; he just needs to present a good face until that happens. As long as Alexandra helps him put on the facade of a harmonious relationship, he's happy to give her a life of luxury... far from him. Needless to say, this is a lot easier said than done.

The Review:

Julie Anne Long is always funny; but the best kind of Julie Anne Long also punches you in the gut. This? Does just that. In fact, I think it's my third-favorite JAL, after What I Did for a Duke and After Dark with the Duke. It kind of gave me everything!

The thing I've struggled with when reading a lot of recent historical romances is that everyone is very... nice. Sedate, even. They don't act out, they're fundamentally good people who don't fuck up, and so on. This is not that kind of book. It's not that Magnus or Alexandra are so horrible. They're clearly good people with good hearts and good intentions.

They're just also... delightfully flawed. She's a bit bratty and flighty and tends to act on impulse. He's stern and struggles with forgiveness, and has a tendency to want to win at all costs. Neither of them are by any means monsters (though Magnus is referred to as a "beast" by the gossips, and in one of my favorite microtropes, IT KINDA HURTS BIG GROWLY MAN'S FEELINGS WHEN PEOPLE CALL HIM BEAST). But they have their issues, and they haven't dealt with them, and that's why their marriage combusts before it can really even start.

Also, they're both pretty bad at talking about their feelings, and make judgments about each other that aren't really fair. Here's the thing, though: All of this makes sense, because they were kind of strangers marrying. You get the most glorious pining thoughts from Magnus, and it's clear that he was besotted with Alexandra from the start... But he really didn't get to know her as a person. He didn't let her be a flawed person.

And it's a surprisingly complex thing, the way Long both lets us luxuriate in the swoony romanticism of Magnus's initial feelings for Alexandra (and my God, is it romantic... this is just an achingly romantic novel, in general) while never condemning Alexandra for her resistance. Because Magnus's feelings can be genuine, and he can be right about this inexorable chemistry between him and Alexandra; and he can also push Alexandra too far too soon and go about making their relationship a reality in a bad way. And then act affronted when she doesn't respond well to being pushed.

They're both messy people who nevertheless have, as Magnus, one of those guys with a Good Sense About Things (hence him being good at war) amazing chemistry. The kind of tension that just has to be fulfilled. It's delicious, and it's part of what makes this one of the hottest books I've read by Long. I mean. Holy shit.

It's also just like... so sweet? I felt as if I really got to know both Magnus and Alexandra, despite the narrative being brisk and also, like every book in this series, offering time to supporting characters. Few people can pull this off. Long is one of the best romance writers I can think of in terms of noticing the small details that have a big impact. The little notes about Magnus's past that tell you so much about why he is the way he is. The beats for Alexandra that remind you of a depth he doesn't necessarily want to see in her, five years after she broke his heart.

(And: I LOVE what drove them apart initially. Handled with such humanity! A thing I think a lot of authors wouldn't have done!)

Also—for Jane Austen fans. Imagine Colonel Brandon local pushing the marriage with Marianne, and then having it blow up in his face. With public sex. This is the look!

Of course, I have to note those supporting characters. I always love catching up with the regulars. When will Dot and Mr. Pike figure it out? How loud is Dot going to be when they finally do it? A small subplot in the book is basically a lot of supporting characters being pushed into horniness because of the awkward situations that arise when a honeymooning couple rooms at the Palace. It is glorious. It leads to some super funny yet sexy moments between our two mainstay couples, Delilah and Tristan (Lady Derring Takes a Lover) and Angelique and Lucien (Angel in a Devil's Arms). The way these books keep giving me Lustful Married Couples is. Everything!

The Sex:

Again... this is one of the horniest JAL books I've read! You do genuinely get more sex on the page than a few of the previous installments in this series (four scenes between our main couple, including one particularly exciting moment), plus a lot of hardcore flirting/implied sex between two other couples... and then the "it's funny, but now everyone is talking about loud sex and it's getting hot in the room" loud newlyweds.

I really loved how Alexandra and Magnus had sex, though. The impetuousness of it all. The way he just SNAPPED around her. And honestly? When he's right, he's right. He knew they'd be great in bed together, and, like... yes. I also super appreciated how he used Alexandra's Lust for His Body against her. So great.

Basically: It's funny! It's emotionally devastating at points! It's sexy! This is what we want from Julie Anne Long, and it's a damn good marriage in trouble/second chance book. So excited for everyone else to read this one.

Thanks to NetGalley and Avon for providing me with a copy of this book. All thoughts and opinions are my own.