#not trying to say people aren't allowed to have their own interpretations of a media; do what you want -

[54625]

Morning crew discourse in fandom is so fucking funny .

"Morning crew are a family!! Fathers and their son!" (They constantly make dirty jokes towards each other/ make sexual innuendos about eachother, are generally very inappropriate and weird about eachother)

"Morning crew are a relationship! They're all in love!" (They have called each other family on countless occasions, Fit called himself an older cousin/uncle figure towards Tubbo, says Tubbo reminds him of Ramón and acted like he was a stand-in Ramón while he was missing, Ramón calls Tubbo his brother)

remind me to introduce yall to this crazy concept called a friendship

[jonnywaistcoat]

What’s your opinion on the contrast between “silly” and “serious” spaces? Do you think people can have very serious interpretations about a genuine piece of media and also be goofy about it? I’m asking this particularly because I’ve seen people in the Magnus podcast fandoms fight about people “misinterpreting” characters you, Alex, and the many other authors have written. Are you okay with the blorbofication or do you really wish the media you’ve written would be “taken seriously” 100% of the time?

And follow up question, what do you think about the whole “it’s up to the reader (or in some cases, listener) to make their own conclusions and interpretations and that does not make them wrong”, versus the “it was written this way because the author intended it this way, and we should respect that” argument?

This is a question I've given a lot of thought over the years, to the point where I don't know how much I can respond without it becoming a literal essay. But I'll try.

My main principle for this stuff boils roughly down to: "The only incorrect way to respond to art is to try and police the responses of others." Art is an intensely subjective, personal thing, and I think a lot of online spaces that engage with media are somewhat antithetical to what is, to me, a key part of it, which is sitting alone with your response to a story, a character, a scene or an image and allowing yourself to explore it's effect on you. To feel your feelings and think about them in relation to the text.

Now, this is not to say that jokes and goofiness about a piece of art aren't fucking great. I love to watch The Thing and drink in the vibes or arctic desolation and paranoia, or think about the picture it paints of masculinity as a sublimely lonely thing where the most terrible threat is that of an imposed, alien intimacy. And that actually makes me laugh even more the jokey shitpost "Do you think the guys in The Thing ever explored each other's bodies? Yeah but watch out". Silly and serious don't have to be in opposition, and I often find the best jokes about a piece of media come from those who have really engaged with it.

And in terms of interpreting characters? Interpreting and responding to fictional characters is one of the key functions of stories. They're not real people, there is no objective truth to who they are or what they do or why they do it. They are artificial constructs and the life they are given is given by you, the reader/listener/viewer, etc. Your interpetation of them can't be wrong, because your interpretation of them is all that there is, they have no existence outside of that.

And obviously your interpretation will be different to other people's, because your brain, your life, your associations - the building blocks from which the voices you hear on a podcast become realised people in your mind - are entirely your own. Thus you cannot say anyone else's is wrong. You can say "That's not how it came across to me" or "I have a very different reading of that character", but that's it. I suppose if someone is fundamentally missing something (like saying "x character would never use violence" when x character strangles a man to death in chapter 4) you could say "I think that's a significant misreading of the text", but that's only to be reserved for if you have the evidence to back it up and are feeling really savage.

I think this is one of the things that saddens me a bit about some aspects of fandom culture - it has a tendency to police or standardise responses or interpretations, turning them from personal experiences to be explored into public takes to be argued over. It also has the occasional moralistic strain, and if there's one thing I wish I could carve in stone on every fan space it's that Your Responses to a Piece of Art Carry No Intrinsic Moral Weight.

As for authorial intention, that's a simpler one: who gives a shit? Even the author doesn't know their own intentions half the time. There is intentionality there, of course, but often it's a chaotic and shifting mix of theme and story and character which rarely sticks in the mind in the exact form it had during writing. If you ask me what my intention was in a scene from five years ago, I'll give you an answer, but it will be my own current interpretation of a half-remembered thing, altered and warped by my own changing relationship to the work and five years of consideration and change within myself. Or I might not remember at all and just have a guess. And I'm a best case scenario because I'm still alive. Thinking about a writers possible or stated intentions is interesting and can often lead to some compelling discussion or examination, but to try and hold it up as any sort of "truth" is, to my mind, deeply misguided.

Authorial statements can provide interesting context to a work, or suggest possible readings, but they have no actual transformative effect on the text. If an author says of a book that they always imagined y character being black, despite it never being mentioned in the text, that's interesting - what happens if we read that character as black? How does it change our responses to the that character actions and position? How does it affect the wider themes and story? It doesn't, however, actually make y character black because in the text itself their race remains nonspecific. The author lost the ability to make that change the moment it was published. It's not solely theirs anymore.

So yeah, that was a fuckin essay. In conclusion, serious and silly are both good, but serious does not mean yelling at other people about "misinterpretations", it means sitting with your personal explorations of a piece of art. All interpretations are valid unless they've legitimately missed a major part of the text (and even then they're still valid interpretations of whatever incomplete or odd version of the text exists inside that person's brain). Authorial intent is interesting to think about but ultimately unknowable, untrustworthy and certainly not a source of truth. Phew.

Oh, and blorbofication is fine, though it does to my mind sometimes pair with a certain shallowness to one's exploration of the work in question.

[mare-sanguis]

The queercoding in Sangcheol's and Jeongwoo's relationship

Let me preface this by saying: everyone is still allowed to see them as whatever they want (a work related relationship, best friends, close friends, soulmates, lovers, and and and) but I think most (if not all at least here on tumblr) can agree it would be ignorant if we completely overshadow just how much queerness there is.

This analysis is brough to you by this thread (why JW is snow white and why SC is the prince) and @thedevildeer latest post. Its not structured and really just a ramble so excuse me if it might sound a little confusing at some points.

Let's start by looking at it through a heteronormative kdrama lense below the cut 

How often do most kdrama fans watch a drama, see the lead man and the lead woman and think "woah, they would look so hot as a couple" even when the drama isn't a romance? Quite often, that's right. That's because most M/F leads are designed to be shipped even outside of the stereotypical romance genre. If it's a crime drama, thriller, mystery etc. Where the focus should solely lie on the plot they will still most likely try to create an M/F duo so most kdrama fans will have something to latch into. It has happened so many times that people dropped a non romance drama because it had no M/F couple, but people apparently want it so badly because how else can they enjoy a non romance drama, right? And kdrama directors/writers know this- they see and read the reviews and work with them; That's why in kdrama land M/F ships are still the norm, still seen as the most canon- even if there is a 2nd ML who has insane chemistry with the 1st ML (perhaps even more than the FL, cuz let's also face it in a lot of kdramas women are written flat)

When the ML is near the FL, everyone immediately interprets all kinds of thoughts into it, even worse when they go as far as to look at each other and hold eye contact, when they worry about each other, support each other, visit each other or are just having a work related conversation. They dont need to confess their love or kiss for the viewer to know they are in love*

Those are all valid points for shipping, that's obivously not the issue- The issue starts when they genuinely can't see the FL as her own character, when they can't seem to understand that men and women can be platonic friends, the issue continues when the 2nd ML appears whos got way more chemistry with the 1st ML or even takes the place of where the FL should be. Its then where the issue peaks- their relationship will automatically treated differently (2nd ML get potentially hated by the M/F shippers even) and it creates rift within the fandom, its shipping and arguments about queerness as a whole (discrediting that queerness is a large spectrum) by cishet fans

Suddenly, if it's M/M those actions I mentioned earlier dont seem romantic anymore, suddenly it's just a simple bromance (and while the term per se isnt homophobic, in these circumstances it sure sounds like it which is why I personally dont like it and rarely use it), best friends caring about each other because homies are homies. ("why can't men stay friends?" we all know that argument) *if they don't confess to each other outright, don't kiss each other, then they aren't i love (last part especially is targeted towards specific BL fans who only think a relationship is valed if they kiss and maje out)

So, this out the way let take a look at SC, JW, HS and BO approach (intentionally or not) on queercoding and the importance of a strong man-woman friendship.

First, let's look at tropes commonly (but not exclusively) found in queer media or media that tries to imply queerness and the similarities they share with SCJW:

Found family (the most common trope in queer media, especially the media that emphasises on realness, as found family serves as a safe space for queer characters when they arent accepted at home)

A strong opposite gender friendship or a friendship that defies traditional views

Color coding (mostly a warm and a cold colour, often times its blue and red)

Language coding (do the characters say they are queer, do they use specific terms, do they confess or declare their love for each other through something deeper; just what are they saying?)

The character design (this is not just about how they look but the desgin as a whole: background story, family, friendships, career, driving force, are they representing something (like a specific color, a flower); what was the creators thought process while creating them)

How do they express love around the person they ador (for example, men express love with touches while women often times use words and actions)

Broken friendships (because old friends dont accept)

Then of course we have common tropes found in all media highlighting love

Clothes sharing

Intense eye contact

Personal space

Lingering

Caring

Hurt/Comfort

Touches

And what do we have here? That's right. Black out s well as SC, JW and HS fit right into the common tropes and the queercoding tropes and yet we see some totally discrediting its validity to exist within the universe because god forbid both JW and SC are queer or viewed as such cuz they both were with women prior and they can't possibly be one of them queers... right?

HS is a really well written female character who's got nuances, a great backstory with a fair share of suffering and the additional nosiness which makes her so special. She is sweet and caring to everyone who seems nice in her eyes. She cares about JW's mother (prior to knowng he's JW's mother so thers no point in saying she does it cuz of JW), cares about Suoh and is genuinely interested in his hobbies. Her character takes care of everyone because she's a med student (you can take a med's job away, but you can never take the job out of a med). This is what her character is about- taking care, worrying. Her purpose in Mucheon was (as we know by ep.13) to find what shes looking for, to find her way back. She is by no means not connected to eithe JW and SC but her story is canonically detached from both JW's and SC's- it takes part in a different pace, in a different setting and through a different lense and most of it happens off screen or throug her observig the people. We rarely get any of her POV's, unless it's either around Suoh or Geonoh. The other times when we do get a POV of her is when SC and JW and in the same frame. Then she is postitioned as the onlooker, the one who observes. When she is alone with JW she gets almost no POV, even less that focuses on her feelings towards him. But the most important thing I said already: her story is detached from SCJW. She grows alone unlike SCJW who grow together. She is that friendship JW needed to show him a part of humanity that got lost with his fake friends. She is to represent and tell that you do not need a large group of friends to feel at home. 

Then there is JW. Beautifully written full of nuances, a tragic yet amazing written backstory- easily to read as a story of someone being queer. A big group of friends, a beautiful home with loving parents and then you got the catalysator which sets the whole plot moving. While for JW it's murder, abuse, gaslighting by friends and people he thought were family, prison and finding new hope in humanity through one person- how can one not look at this and think "yeah it's somewhat reminiscent of someone coming out in a conservative country with traditional family values"? Family and friends ditching before the person can even stand up for themselves, people spreading venomous lies, all the guilt trips, that person shutting themselfs off retreating into their own little world. JW was obviously never meant to be read as such and some even might find this part weird, but it's undeniable he has those classic queercoding tropes. He finds true meaning in humanity again through HS and SC at the same time, yes, but it is SC alone who stands by his side the whole time- every single day. JW feels the safest around SC, falls asleep in his home (therefore also in his presence) and gives in to being taken care of only when SC is around, he also laughs at his dumbs jokes and makes sure to catch his reactions when he is sassy (handing out flyers scene or the scene at the scrapyard). JW is meant to not grow alone but together with someone else- and that someone is SC. who he shares the exact same pain with. He sees the good in people- he sees the good in SC so he keeps on pursuing him even when he would reject him. Because he can see himself in him. Because he feels he's different- just like him. (And isnt it like: Queer people know someone is queer when they see one?). We cannot forget him being a metaphor for Snow White which imo solidifies the queercoding in him even more and how he steps in to save SC and then again to support him by beating up those debt collectors. (Also, just a random little side note: I think it's funny how he's either loved or hated, there was no inbetween. BM and MS hated him, they were eaten up by jealousy; BY, NG, DE and the twins loved him (also again, random side note to me any anyone who cares: it's so easy to read the feelings GO felt towards JW prior and post time skip as more than just friendship tbh which again, adds to the queerness layer))

And then there is SC, just as complex and full of nuances like JW. Having an almost identical tragic backstory to hm even- losing the love of his life. While hes story is way more difficult to decipher as queercoding, his character is most definitely not. He is portrayed as rude and rough towards any criminal and at the beginning of the story we genuienly dont know where we stand with him with this ever fluxuating personality. He is hurt, struggles, doesn't even seem to know himself very well, has seen a lot and he also doesnt trust anyone (as seen when he immediately clocks BM as suspicious when the review the CCTV footage) except JW. How come he trusts him more, even after he had accused him of the hit and run accident, but is side eying everyone the moment the incident with the mother happens? When he should have more trust in his own people then defending and caring for a guy whos accused him of causing the car accident. Even when he finds out JW apparently killed the girls, his actions towards him are differet than the actions we see him taking against the guy he chases after in the beginning. We see him falter and struggle even more in the manhole when he's threatening to shoot JW, we see it again when they are at the shed and JW is reinacting the murder scene- he is reluctant. Even when using violence against JW. Because, just like him, SC feels they are the same. And it doesn't even take much time for him to switch side- we can see him questioning everything onwards from from episode 4 during their first team dinner. And when he switches side he suddenly becomes so soft and caring- completely taking on the role of a possible love interest in both drama, romance and fairytale. Because he has seen the good in JW, saw the same suffering, this unfair treatment. He is a character not meant to grow alone but together and this togethes is only JW. JW still has HS by his side but in SC's world there was only JW who shows him all aspects of what it means to be a good human being. It's through him he grows. 

Their shared journey:

To quote Leo Buscaglia again "Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around."

And isn't this what SC's and JW's shared bond is about? How they grow with and around each other- thanks to each other.

The little things SC does to make JW more comfortable, to show him love still exists? He takes him home without thinking twice because he's worried he might get sick when he could've taken him back to his house. He dresses him up in his clothes, let him sleep on his couch, in his blankets, gives him something warm to eat and drink (the glass of milk will never stop making me sob), showers him in touches and shows him warmth through them, always reaching after him because he's afraid something might happen to him, watches out for him, observes his reactions and waits for him. The little things JW does to SC- giving him a reality check that not everything is as it seems, graduately bringing back his old personality, stays by his side.

It's how SC brings JW's smile back and how JW brings SC's smile back. Its how SC not once but twice declares his worries, adoration and love towards JW: once when he's so worried sick JW might get hurt so he installs that app on his phone and the second time when they say their "goodbyes"- those words are so easy to read, so full of love. The "if you move" highlighting just how much he wants and hopes JW to stay in his life a little longer. It's longing and we can clearly hear it in his voice when he says "I'm sure you can" right after the monologue and then tilts his head. It's how JW doesn't know how to approach him after this, contemplating what to do and then goes on for the hug first. This is JW's way of showing his love. 

And yet, despite it all there are still people who only see it as a bromance. Those who think JW and HS will end up together because they are at the same uni, study the same. And are a man and a woman. If either SC or JW would be a woman, no one would even bat an eye to think they aren't in love- no one would even come up with the idea to even ship JW and HS. If one of them was a woman, every little gesture would be seen as romantic, betting on it the drama would perhaps even be a lot more popular as well as the ship. It's so disheartening to see how many deny an obvious queercoding between them just because they are men and for the sake of a straight, not well manouvred, ship because again apparenlty many kdrama fans don't dare to ship queer.

We know Black Out/Snow white must die is a fairytale because it very much is just one of many iterations of a snow white and exactly because is one of many nothing is impossible and queerness is allowed to exist within it.

[42bakery]

sorry but wouldn't it be kinda stupid of jorge to use that flag? i mean if the majority of spain recognizes that flag as far right symbol it feels really weird that nobody on his team told him to change flag and use a regular spain one considering that motogp respects the different regions and uses the rights flags for their gps and also considering how the riders try to/have to appear apolitical

like it doesn't make sense for him to choose such a divisive and controversial symbol on tv, especially when he's trying to get picked by ducati, he doesn't need a scandal. could it be that he just doesn't know the meaning or is that impossible?

Hey Isabella 👋👋👋👋👋

The flag and the bull is a bit more complicated than see it and automatically far/extreme right. That bull as @babynflames ( https://www.tumblr.com/babynflames/750298627086417920/the-osborne-bull-first-appeared-next-to-spanish ) pointed out was used to represent Spain as a whole during the dictatorship. Some people, specially in the centre of Spain (mostly both Castilles and Madrid) see it just a Spanish symbol, where as I from the periphery and a region with strong nationalism feelings see it as another imposition.

That flag will mostly be displayed by the right and extreme right, but not all the people with it will be from that party. As I said to the anon before symbols that are so wide associated with Spain are not always seen okay in Catalonia, and therefore, Jorge who is from Madrid can see them a bit differently. Also Madrid has marketed themselves as the perfect spot for holidays for people from outside Spain, but in reality the right is winning.

That flag is the same one his parents have had since before Jorge was born and given to him as a present, a memento, for his first win so no one from his family will say anything. And anon pointed that his new friends and group is from that ideology, hence why they aren't going to discourage it. About the team? How can people from outside of Spain say anything when they don't know the meaning of it? True that he has Fonsi Nieto, but he's a white privilege man from Madrid living from his uncle's (not even his dad! He's actually the son of Ángel's sister) fame.

There also the fact that due to the political differences between the centre of Spain and the periphery of it, some people will actually be happy that they have someone carrying their same values as oposite as Aleix who is vocal about having his own Catalan identity. Jorge doesn't need to make himself marketable for the Catalan public, we already have Rins, The Márquez, the Espargarós, and Maverick. Jorge is catering himself for the Madrid (and centre of Spain) public, so yeah so will be extremely happy to see that flag.

Riders being apoliticals is actually a joke. I remember that a few years back the backlash Aleix and Pol got due to Aleix words (as always) because media interpreted Aleix was pro Catalan independence, when in reality he only said he was pro-choice. Rider are afraid to open their mouth some times, but they are actually allowed to say and do whatever they want. I don't know why DORNA and Carmelo allows that flag, unless they are actually okay with it.

Ducati already chose him using that flag. I started to watch MotoGP in 2020 and I remember him in parc Fermé in Moto2 with the flag and later that same year he was announce. Ducati can't care less. They will sweep it under the rug, but if people in the internet didn't know until I mentioned it yesterday, do you think Ducati have the time to check it?

The photo above is Jorge after winning his Moto3 championship and he's already displaying the flag with the bull's siluete.

It's true that is stupid of his part and he might not really know the meaning, but given that he has been liking VOX post and how how many of this flags are popping in their events is easy to put 2 and 2 together. At this point he is just refusing to learn the meaning of the flag or chooses to ignore it.

Sorry I feel like I went out of the tangent and I'm just dumping political stuff into your laps

[arcadiabaytornado]

Why do you think the shipping wars in the Life is Strange fandom are so intense? Specifically with Pricefield and Amberprice, it’s always confused me because I feel like people can love more than one person throughout their lives, so I don’t understand why the arguments over the two pairs are as prevalent as they are.

I'm going to link this post if you don't mind because it goes over my thoughts about "one true loves" in media.

Now as for your question: I think the two biggest reasons are that A: Amberprice and Pricefield are treated with equal validity in canon. B: Rachel and Chloe's relationship has a lot "what if's."

When I say that Amberprice and Pricefield are treated with equal validity, I mean that the games never try to dismiss Chloe's feelings for Rachel or Max. She says she loves both of them at different points: "I loved her so much! How can she be dead?" and: "I will always love you. Now get out of here before I freak!" Both of these moments are treated as genuine expressions of love, and that's unique because of how most media go about the idea of "one true love."

Usually, a character is only allowed to have one love of their life. They aren't supposed to feel a real emotion toward anyone that they aren't "meant" to end up with. The fact that the LIS fandom goes "Who did Chloe REALLY love?" and then the game responds with "Both!" is not the way that usually goes. I think contributes to making ship wars intense because there isn't a real canon answer on who Chloe loved "more."

I also think Chloe and Rachel's relationship not having a conclusion contributes to the ship wars. We don't know what would have happened with Amberprice and Pricefield if Rachel lived. Maybe Chloe would have found out about Frank, and they would have had a huge fight and never spoke again. Maybe Chloe would have found out about Frank, and they would have learned to communicate better, gotten back together, married, and then lived out their lives together.

Both of those options are on the extreme end of the spectrum…but the thing is that even though those are both extreme examples, you can't say with 100% certainty that they wouldn't have happened because…well, we just don't know. The fact that it's left up for interpretation means that both shippers can make up their own ideas about what would have happened. And if I've learned from having unrestricted internet since the age of nine it's that people get very attached to their headcanon's...So yeah I do think having a situation where the fate of a canon relationship (if they both lived) is very interpretable contributes to some of the fighting. It's very easy to Pricefield fans to decide that Chloe would have ended up with Max, and it's very easy for Amberprice shippers to decide that she would have ended with Rachel.

That's my take on things! I love that LIS is such an interpretable series but I do think it leads to a situation where a lot of people are going to have polarizing opinions on things because...honestly a lot of what's "canon" within the game is just what we decide to take away form certain ships, characters, and moments.

[faggot-billcipher]

i haven't seen anyone else say it so i'll say it. expecting a creator to confirm your headcanons exactly as you want is also very parasocial. i don't think being parasocial is just thinking a creator of a media you like is your friend. it's also expecting them to know your opinions on art they make like they're psychic and expecting your interpretations to be 100% confirmed. and acting like you've been terribly and purposely betrayed when they don't. and dare to take the media in a direction you never wanted.

to me that's no better than the parasocial epidemic of acting like a creator is your friend because you like the media they make. it's on a similar level but in regards to how you view their work and them as a person. it's still expecting special treatment from them that you are not owed. it's still very entitled behavior. it's still expevting them to somehow be telepathic enough to know your every thought on their work which is an toxic and unreasonable demand. chill.

this is also why at this point i support the concept of death to the audience. instead of always going death of the author.with how it's used i'm getting tired of the term death of the author nowadays as it just enables people to do confirmation bias. even when the source material blatantly proves their views on the media wrong. it's pretty much going "i'm always right even when i'm wrong" about media anlaysis. and i shouldn't have to spell out how that's not a healthy or mature way of coping when canon turns out to be the opposite of what you theorized. it's both parasocial and terminally online behavior at its finest. and yes tbh i am lowkey thinking of this surge of communities trying to be the next su critical phenomenon while writing this. y'all aren't exempt from this behavior and are the worst ones about it honestly. and yes btw this includes groups like toh critical, amphibia critical, hazbin hotel critical, helluva boss critical etc. whatever else you're thinking of. and this is coming from someone who legit borderline hates amphibia. and the ableist messages it has about marcy's neurodivergency coded narrative. but i still don't wanna associate with those of y'all who try to go "oh but the su critical mindseet is valid and healthy THIS TIME uwu!" at the next media that comes out.

it borders on digital self harm, how far y'all tend to go with this shit most of the time.

also a lot of your communties like this are full of hypocrites just as bad or worse than the creator of the media you're criticizing. it happened with su critical. and it quickly happened with hazbin hotel critical too. it's almost like it takes more than being obssessively hypercritical of largely new queer media coming out to be a non bigoted and non abusive person. who knew!

and on that note of these communities being full of coddled abusers and bigots, y'all refuse to do anything about it. outside of the mess that was the callout against genderfluidlucifer. but lily orchard has done worse and is doing worse STILL. and you're excusing every shitty thing she does because she was a major influencer in this form of media criticsm subculture. which still proves my point i made that y'all refuse to hold genuinely bad people in these communities acocuntable if they get really popular first. especially when they hit a certain level of popularity arbitrarily like lily did. (and this applied to bismuthspartnerincrime until he left the scene altogether but that's it's own can of worms.) because you think anyone agreeing with your media criticisms in the right pandering way is allowed automatic social and legal immunity. when that's literally not how anything works.

in general these days i do not trust someone who thinks they can do no harm because they parrot the right criticisms against the media i'm referring to. also on a slight side note i still remember how a lot of people in the su critical community claimed wearing glassess wasn't a disability. what was that all about??

like that side note just shows my point of how these communities were full of bigots and abusers but not much was being done about them. and i'm tired of it being allowed to happen and this problem being repeated. because no one wants to learn and repeatedlyputs callouts full of exclus/anti rhetoric on a pedestal for no reason. like we don't have to put these subcultures on a pedestal but it keeps happening. why do we keep letting it happen?? and btw before anyone claims anything this is not an anti leftism post. i am a leftist at heart. i just hate seeing new leftists acting like they have to get themselves roped into these commuities to be real leftists. when there's way more pressing forms of activism to focus more energy on than getting mad about blorbo from your show THIS MUCH.

[galvanizedfriend]

What do u think about the fans mainly fans of the originals who say that klaroline was just a hookup and that caroline never liked klaus/ klaus never loved her. I see this sentiment alot on reddit and its so frustrating.

I think people are allowed to have their own opinions and interpretations of the show. Personally I have no hard feelings towards fans who aren't into Klaroline. I have my own opinions, which are obviously very biased, so I think it's fair that people will have their own biased opinions favoring different characters/ships that are more convenient to them. That's really the thing with media in general, different people can look at the exact same thing and have completely different views, and I'm totally ok with that.

Having said that, MY opinion is that Klaroline denialists (lol) have to pointedly ignore/turn a blind eye to a lot of things in order to completely disregard it. 😂 There's a hell of a lot of evidence, even in the final season of The Originals. I like to pretend that s5 never happened too, but it's mostly because it's an awful piece of television writing of which the KC parts and that one episode that is completely focused on Elijah are the only parts that can be salvaged. 🥲

I think that kind of thing tends to come from a new wave of fans who have started their TVDverse journey through The Originals rather than TVD, although ship wars have been around since the dawn of time. If you have only ever seen TO, then I guess Klaroline really doesn't make any sense. Even the crossover episodes that feature KC, the KC bits are kept mostly in the TVD portion. She seems to come out of nowhere in S5. Both are equally canon, one isn't truer than the other, and you need both to get a bigger picture, but some people would rather stick to just one of them. And when you've seen TO first and gotten attached to a certain ship and then go back to watch TVD, you're obviously going to have a biased view over that because what you find there is obviously not going to suit your heart's desire. It happens the other way around too.

The way I see it, it's really hard to simply deny KC when you watch TVD tho. 😂 It takes a LOT of determination lol Klaus was a total puppy for Caroline, in ways he never was for anyone else, and even in the crossover episodes, he still acts the exact same way. And come on 'he's your first love, I intend to be your last, however long it takes?' 😂 If that's not a love declaration 🤷‍

As for Caroline not liking him, it's very complex. When we get down to 5x11 in TVD, and then to S5 of TO, it becomes obvious that he's always messed with her head and she had complicated feelings for him she never wanted to tap into. Which is perfectly understandable. Klaus was a villain in TVD. He killed Elena, he ruined Tyler's life, he ruined Stefan's life, tortured him, murdered Tyler in cold blood right in front of everyone to force them to find the way to make him a hybrid, caused all sorts of havoc all over her home town. Klaus was THE BAD GUY. That's a problem I have with TO that I think gets worse for people who only see that show or who see that show first and then go back to watch TVD: they seem to think Klaus is not that bad. He's just a bad boy with a bad attitude. They fall for that cheap conversation they try to sell with Cami's character, the ~~explainer, that he's just misunderstood and all he really needed was someone to be on his side. No! Klaus is AWFUL. He's killed thousands of people! He's a villain! And that's what makes him such a great character! He never needed redemption. It's way easier for people to find him redeemable when he's done nothing to personally attack them/destroy their lives, which is obviously not Caroline's case. She's seen the very worst of Klaus. He's threatened everyone she knows, including her. And Caroline is someone who, aside from having a very strong however biased moral code, is also INCREDIBLY loyal, so of course it's going to be way harder for her to forgive Klaus and forget about the terrible things he's done to just see that she's an exception for him.

What becomes clear throughout S4 of TVD (for me, at least) is that she was struggling with how she felt and in a lot of denial. A lot of the things she says to him ('people who do terrible things are just terrible people') are really things she's saying to herself. She gets mad at the fact she's obviously ~~drawn to the darkness, and so she lashes out (because, you know, she has a personality 🤷‍). 5x11 makes that very clear as well. She doesn't want Klaus around because he clouds her judgement and it makes her mad that she's probably afraid she's not gonna be able to resist him for much longer and that's only going to complicate her life further. Everyone around her makes her feel guilty for not hating Klaus, so of course she's going to feel reluctant. But when they they do meet again in S5 of TO they're both at a point of their lives where she's ok admitting that she always wanted him to prove to her that he could do better, and that she always knew he wasn't her villain, even if he never hesitated to hurt anyone else around her, she knew she was safe with him (hence why she drove to Nola after him with her kids). She doesn't want him to die, tries to stop him by telling Elijah, and the fact she goes to New Orleans to have a last day with him, having saved that message for years and across different iPhones, probably, tells us that she had, deep down, had hopes that some day, down the line, they'd find each other again. But then they do, and it's too late (and that's really the only part of that season that is written with a certain degree of poetry tbh).

All that to say, Klaus and Caroline were complicated and clashed a lot and that's part of what made it so compelling to me. There were genuine reasons why they shouldn't be together, they were virtually on opposing sides almost the whole time, and I love that about the ship. It forced Klaus to grow a conscience. He wasn't sorry for the things he did, he wasn't trying to become a better person, there was no one petting him on the back and saying 'poor you, misundertood boy'. He was confronted with the consequences of his actions, which is, for me, the best (or worst) thing that could happen to someone like Klaus, unlike with Cami, for instance, who was just there to excuse his bad behavior.

But like I said, my opinions are completely colored by the fact that I 100% support that ship. And the same way I look down on other ships because I can't stand them, I get that other people are going to look down on my otp as well and have wildly different opinions. It's a fandom, we're never going to agree on everything, and I'm totally cool with that. There's room for everyone. Unless they come directly to my doorstep to talk shit about it, it honestly doesn't bother me. I'm all for ship and let ship.

ANYWAY 😂 Sorry for the long ted talk nonnie, I RAMBLE a lot 🥲

[utilitycaster]

I feel like something so many ppl just don’t get is it’s improv. I’ll see ppl be like “I hate this arc” or “this dragged on” I’m like?? If you want to watch a curated tight fantasy story with a normal beginning middle and end maybe don’t watch long form improv media? Also maybe I’m just fundamentally misunderstanding what ur post is about. I’ll constantly think and say “it’s their game” not as a “they’re above criticism” way but more in a “cmon it’s not like this is a script that’s being poured over by ten ppl sitting in a room debating whether this 30 seconds drags or not”. Like I love Play it By Ear from Dropout but I’d never hold it to the same standard as like Six the musical or whatever. Improv/normal media requires a completely different rule set for criticism imo

Hey anon,

So here's the thing - I agree with this in terms of formal, published criticism (Ebert's Law, if you will) where you are, to an extent, grading on a scale; you should be judging on what the work is trying to achieve and not some abstract ideal that applies equally to all works regardless of provenance.

However, for personal discussion (including your own personal Tumblr blog)? This is totally irrelevant. You're allowed to dislike things, whether it's a 30 minute improvised musical or whether it's the Marriage of Figaro, for any reason. It is 100% valid for someone to look at the Mona Lisa and say "eh, doesn't do it for me," and, moreover, it's just as valid for them to say "it doesn't do it for me because I don't care for representative art and prefer abstract, modern works, but Da Vinci's sfumato technique is indeed masterful" as to say "It doesn't do it for me because it's fucking weird to me that she doesn't have eyebrows." People's enjoyment of a work is not necessarily reliant on effort put in or how much the artist cares about - it should be based on how much the art appeals to them.

It's fine if people hate an arc. If they hate it so much that they aren't able to enjoy watching, then I think they should probably stop watching...but that's a choice for them to make, and as someone who loves complaining, I've talked about arcs dragging and had it interpreted by total strangers as "you clearly seem to hate this" when really it was just a case of me...not liking some aspects of a larger whole, and choosing to talk about that because I had things to say. Like, I do think the early Campaign 3 pacing was deeply frustrating, and I do think that this wouldn't be the case if it weren't improv, but there have been many improv actual plays that I felt had great pacing, and also it was still frustrating to me and I wanted to express that.

In fact, what I was getting at in my post is that if you're trying to provide a counterpoint to other people's criticism, you need to focus on the points they're making; and if you're trying to defend something in general, you need to be talking about what you find good that is specific to that thing, rather than making excuses like "the cast likes it" or "it's improv".

To give an example: I love the Aeor arc, which was, to an extent, divisive. Here's two responses I could have:

"I think the Aeor arc built up to a satisfying and emotionally charged final boss fight that was thematically resonant with the Mighty Nein as a group. I think the path there had a good balance of adventure, combat, and RP scenes, especially given its position as the final arc of the campaign and the one in which many of the character romances were realized. Eiselcross was a fun and well-crafted environment that was challenging for a party of their level, and Aeor provided new insight into the Calamity, which at the time had not been explored in depth, while also providing a lot of opportunities to tie into the arcs of the various individual characters, notably Caleb and Caduceus. I also personally am a big fan of exploring fallen technologically advanced civilizations in a fantasy setting as a trope."

2. "Well, it's the cast's table, and it's improvised."

Both are true, but the first one lets people know what I see in that arc and why I love it. The second one ends the conversation, is true of almost everything Critical Role does, probably doesn't address anyone else's complaints, and doesn't even explain why I like it. And for what it's worth I don't think meta needs to address anyone's complaints - you're allowed to look at the Aeor arc and say "cool, I think it took too long and dragged and was too stressful" and we can part ways knowing we are different people with different tastes. But if I were, hypothetically, passionately trying to defend the Aeor arc and were openly resentful towards people who disliked it, the first option is obviously superior to the second option, which makes me look like someone who cannot come up with a single specific reason why this thing I allegedly love is good, and who is whining because I lack the maturity to accept that my opinions are not universally shared by all.

[rayless-reblogs]

How about 8. and/or 27. from the author ask game?

Got it!

8: How do you feel about epilogues?

It's not something I've given a lot of thought, but on reflection, I really like them. One of my chief hang-ups with media, especially books and video games, is when there's too long of a stretch between the climax and the end of the story. Sometimes there's this long dead zone, where all the energy evaporates because the author's telling us how things are being resolved, but the tension is gone and we're just getting too much information. Or, the author spins things out too long by throwing in some little last-minute conflicts that can feel distracting and irritating. In general, I want the climax-to-finale interval to be as short as possible -- but then you run the risk of leaving the story feeling unfinished.

So an epilogue can be a big help. You've had your final confrontation. The Dark Lord is dead (or maybe your spouse now, who knows?) With an epilogue, you can end the climax on an emotional high note, and then fast forward to some time in the future. There, you can show how the characters' and the world's circumstances have changed without explaining every step. You don't have to endure a period of explanation and minor problem-solving. It allows the payoff of the actual ending to arrive much quicker.

So I think they can be very useful, and, looking back, I've noticed I often use them myself, both in original and fanfic. But they aren't always called for. With both Papom and Eola, that fast-forward after the climax to see what everyone's up to felt right. The next book, on the other hand, didn't need one. It's definitely a case by case thing.

27: Do you try to do most of your research ahead of writing (when research is necessary) or do you do it as things come up?

Up until recently, I hadn't set time aside to specifically research ahead of a project. Either I was writing fic, and "research" involved happily absorbing things through the fandom. (Though in some cases, I should've researched more real-world stuff too.) Or I was writing fantasy, and I felt I had enough of a grasp on my world-building not to have to research things.

(This is not to say people shouldn't research their fantasy world-building -- being grounded in reality enriches a fantasy setting -- but Papom and Eola didn't feel like they called for it.)

Papom is based on a number of fairy tales, so I did read up on the variants before writing, but I chose not to delve too far into academic interpretations. Given Eider's double amputation, I also researched that, but that came after I'd written the first draft -- that was useful in refining her character and realizing she'd actually be more self-sufficient than I'd initially thought.

Research is good, but I think it can sometimes bog down an author's progress. Sometimes, it's good to just launch into things and get your ideas down, and then worry more about getting details right on the next draft. So in some cases, I'd recommending researching as you go, or even afterwards.

But with my third book, the Next Book, it's a fantasy, but it's not a fantasy set in a cute little universe of my own making: It's set during real-world history, involving real cultures, in a very real point in time. I don't want to get too specific yet, but this is why I've been dropping little mentions about neat things I've learned regarding Greek culture in the Roman Empire. Something I am not an expert on.

Fake fantasy setting? Yeah, I'm totally an expert on that, let's dive in and make stuff up as we go. Rome? Uh -- I've read some stuff, but not enough to world-build. I need to learn a lot before I have an idea what the setting for my characters even is.

The book's plot is also based somewhat on the writings of an ancient writer, so I had to read through all of their output. I think that started some time in 2021. Then it was time to research Rome itself. It's a huge subject, so I focused on a few areas that were most relevant to my story, and then I went after different books on those subjects. That was 2022 and into 2023. I took notes and outlined during that stage, but I didn't start properly writing until I was done with all of the reading.

But once I started writing, I kept running into little questions like -- "Did the Romans have any understanding of asthma?" "How did Romans store their books?" So in a smaller way, I kept researching all the way through.

That was maybe more answer than you bargained for, but thanks for the ask!

Meme here.

[liliallowed]

I went into this trying to cause chaos but now I'm genuinely saying this because they kinda need to be called out.

Crimson, the big demon, the player, is kind of bleugh.

I would say pathetic but in truth the term they need should be more complex and left to interpretation.

Crimson, you clearly have issues and you have a horrible way of dealing with them. That is clear beyond belief. (It's even stated by lili herself.)

You should probably realize that you're never going to get what you want out of things. You clearly want some emotional attachment however the way you determined a "fool proof way" to get it will only lead you to disappointment. Though, personally, I don't care. You did this to yourself and you wrapped all of us into it because you're both selfish and blind. That's not my problem.

I can only be so calm and uncaring about your behavior, though I guess I still don't care lmao.

I don't care what happens anymore, I don't care about if we die(though idk about the others' opinions lol). We've been doomed to a cycle. We'll break eventually. The moment we weren't allowed to die was the moment that proved there is no turning point, there is nothing for us anymore.

God, all I wanted to do was relax.

I wish we were still with Dust, I really want cuddles right now.

Congrats, Crimson. You've officially made things harder for everyone, including yourself. I don't even care what you say to that or how you feel.

(Idk why I got so into typing this lmao)

yeah they're a bit of a self contradictory asshole. (you good bud?/gen/lh I did put the warning tags there for a reason lol. you're absolutely right to call them out for it. I hope it didn't trigger you!)

also not gonna deny them being basically a whirlpool of angst dragging anyone who comes close enough to the bullshit.

but this reaction of yours would... trigger them to go back to being absolutely HORRIBLE to you.

they were being "docile" and "peaceful" to you so far. but they can do SO MUCH worse to you than what they did to dust.

they'd also weaponize sans knowing you care for him. they're toxic most when they're being threatened with being LEFT BEHIND or left alone. if you treat them by ignoring them?

yeaaaah they're gonna fucking lose their shit and go off the rails just to keep you there... they're not yandere for no reason. and unlike most media actual people with yandere like traits aren't cool or bad ass. they're scary and disgusting selfish people who CAN'T see beyond their own desires. trapped in their own head.

dust is the opposite but has the same obsession he wants to save you from their games by killing you.

I know they're mean. and it's okay if you hate them! I didn't make them to be likable. I just made them the combination of being completely apathetic AND obsessed to death...

are you gonna choose death/true reset? that's always an option to weaponize against both dust AND crimson.

I'll wait to see who else is on board.

[haellen-o]

GET TO KNOW ME

its about that time again. thank you @gatheredfates for the tag!. unfortunately this is a bit more of a buzz kill post since it asks questions i don't really have happy honest answers to lol

tagging @the-unending-journey @elizabethrobertajones @dragonsongmakhali @dragoon-mid-jump @otherworldseekers and you the reader. should you find this interesting

are you named after anyone? yes. much to my dismay i am named after my father, its not that i dislike my dad. i just don't like the name very much. especially considering we could've pulled from scottish, irish, and welsh names. as we have extended family from those regions

when was the last time you cried? the details of it aren't very fun and pertain to mental abuse, so i'm not gonna share it. but it was a few months ago

do you have kids? i have a dog. and i plan on getting a rat once i have a place of my own again... Biological children? never happening lol

do you use sarcasm a lot. i'm english. sarcasm is like breathing

what sports do you play/have you played? i don't like sports. although i did pick up boxing in my youth

what is the first thing you notice about other people? how they look at me. i was forced from a very young age to learn to read peoples facial expression to interpret and separate what they actual think from what they say so i just kind of default to that now

scary movies or happy endings? i adore horror as a medium. From cheesy slasher flicks to intense atmospheric horror, and all the weird niché's in-between (body, analog, existential, ect) some of my favourite media is horror

any special talents? uuuuuhhhhh... i uh... I'm really adaptive? i learn new things pretty quick (i just forget them very easily)

where were you born? Kidderminster england, its a bit of a shit place don't visit there if you find yourself in england (i'm sorry in advance if you find yourself in england)

do you have any hobbies? video games, writing, listening to music, creating music, and looking at art.

do you have any pets? i own a jack russel by the name of timothy. tho we just call him tim or timmy for short, he' is the bestest little guy's just a little guy

how tall are you? when i last checked. which was nearly a decade ago, 6'3. Tho again it was quite awhile ago so that could've changed

favourite subject in school. i was homeschooled (poorly) and didn't enjoy any of it

dream job? i really don't know anymore. every job i've thought would be the dream job ended up getting incredibly bad very quickly for people trying to break into it, and for some just bad in general (Youtube. Streaming. Music) so i honestly have no idea what my "Dream job" would be... I guess one that pays well and allows me to have some money left over after rent/taxes/bills/groceries?

eye colour? blue, nothing special here. i'm told they're quite nice to look at though

[daculadaculadacula]

'either you liked the film or it wasn't for you' is literally a black and white statement (from a post i can pick out and @ but i am not trying to start a fight or whatever). i am allowed to love something and be critical of the media i consume. i like renfield a lot and have watched it multiple times, and honestly find a lot of it skippable, but i know what i want from it lmao and hint: it is not cops or drawn out fight scenes

i am not sure where statements like this come from or why u would be getting upset over mysterious people calling renfield copaganda. i havent personally seen this as much as i have seen people be critical of hero cop screentime.

at the end of the day the hero cop (you can call her chaotic neutral all you'd like, but i'm of the opinion that even this begs a closer look than what someone who's seen it once or twice tops would take away) still has the moral highground and serves as renfields larger inspo for becoming a better more self-actualizing person. renfield cites the support group at the end, but lbr, he is stated to not have a lot of free will(? free thinking ability or something similar) by the director and has his whole git gud arc really pick up speed after he encounters rebecca. she stops acting like a cop and starts acting like a person and tbqh, i am not entirely sure why she keeps her uniform and job (there's nothing about the rest of the cops or even just her job post drac chop) since she does state that she wants to take the rest of them down permanently. i think this might be something overlooked in terms of referring to renfield as copaganda, or maybe it's meant to be ridiculous, but i'm gonna go out on a limb and say cop discourse isn't at a place yet where even the majority can see it's ridiculous that rebecca is still in uniform fighting for her personal justice against drug lords and against "her own," which is the factor that makes me think the corrupt cop narrative is a bit less than half-hearted. at the same time, the narrative about group therapy is also this way. the characters are a little sillay. there's a lot to parse and a lot of interpreting that can be done. cops and narcissism are both serious issues, i think taking offense to anyone with gripes about either issue is a bit much. renfield 2023 doesn't need to be held up as a golden pinnacle of media in order for you yourself to still be a decent person and enjoy it.

rebecca's sister and father (both cops) are pitched as good people. they are probably morally the best people in the film. that the unnamed cops arent going around actively harming people but working with others who do harm people in this film make it seem as if this is something to be taken with a grain of salt, as with literally everything else about the film, when the reality is that usa cops do this as well as actively commit atrocities against people on the regular. functionally they serve their narrative purpose, but i'm within bounds to say they're still treated too gently (ie near neutral. if you aren't able to think the lobos are entertaining or funny you probably don't like the film to begin with, and the cops in this film have put themselves on their level), esp with no one except kyle having a name. nameless mobs don't make effective antags or even pseudo villains. i personally appreciate that the cops are shitty and take advantage of overtime while being part of the industry with the fattest budget in the us. it's still a blink and you miss it gag tho. maybe some people with cop and law oriented agendas would take issue with it. i can see how people with anti cop and law agendas could also take issue with it.

i just think people can be allowed to call it copaganda if they'd like. anyone invested enough knows there's nuance, and we don't need to be puritans labeling a film or people reacting negatively to it as not good or not having justifiable takes. 'like it or just fuck off and don't be critical over xyz,' isn't a realistic expectation. a lot of thoughtless opinions get posted online all the time. in the end this is about a horror comedy and not a groundbreaking discourse piece. i think the angle for cops as a senseless body (tbc not the heroes or 'good guys.' still don't like that!) in this film is fine even and a step in the right direction for slap-in inclusion in narratives. i don't think taking issue with the people still critical of cop portrayal is a great move tho.

[pink-strawberry-kissess]

I feel like if we get an re6 remake, lack of media literacy is going to have people up in arms about Ada/Leon's relationship like it came out of nowhere when they've either missed or purposefully ignored all the hints that build up their relationship leading to 6. :\

Replaying 2r right now and Leon's "You're stuck with me till the end" line is just so cute since it's true. It's 2013 (in 6 anyways lol) and the boy is still by her side. But also, just to add on to the previous anon about people villainizing Ada, she literally tells Leon to GTFO every chance she can in 2r! She's trying to get him to save his own skin and he keeps telling her no, he's not leaving. That's the choice that HE makes, over and over again. I don't think Ada even had any plans for involving Leon until after he rescues her from the garbage chute and again, even in that scene she still tells him to leave and save himself before involving him.

Another side note, kinda disappointed we still don't know how Ada survived in 2r. Maybe exposition in Separate Ways?

the lack of media literacy has already been shown with how people are interpreting re4r 💀 (some of them in their 30s- embarrassing..)

nope scratch that, lack of media literacy affected how people interpreted re2r

i just won't be trusting anyone who's still in high school to be giving me an interpretation of the games and the storylines

not only that- i feel like (and i kinda hope) that we get a infinite darkness part 2 or something that will flesh out leon and ada's relationship even more like how damnation did. i think there's a lot of background info that we even miss as hardcore aeon fans lol. it would be nice to see more of it on screen. the idea that "that night" was able to happen also allows us to interpret the fact that they must have been living their lives off screen during re5. they were both working, both still doing things outside of work as well. i really think that they saw each other a few times, maybe just having dinner and then rushed sex. they don't need to explore work, explore feelings and regrets, they can just enjoy their situationship as much as they can before leaving each other again. they're a constant in each other's life that they can go back to with no strings attached. (and it's also painfully clear that they care about each other, and are attracted to each other)

it would be nice if we had something in between re4 and damnation. since miss all the potential courting or whatever and it would be great to see another instance where leon lets his guard down around ada to only have her save his ass again lmao.

both leon and ada aren't capable of keeping a long term relationship. and the fact that leon flirts means little when he can't hold a relationship. no one is going to date a man who says the dumbest shit and has a job he can't talk about. and also that he'll be off somewhere almost dying constantly. they (leon and ada) can both go to each other, no words need to be shared, they can just get back to it and then leave. (with leon potentially more forward with wanting more, while ada is more guarded.)

people just genuinely dislike ada because she's "in the way," of themselves shipping themselves with leon. the blorbofication and babygirl-fication of leon needs to be studied. he is a grown ass man and they all wanna baby him.

2013 and Leon be jumping off burning buildings to save Ada. (Yes it's his personality to do so, but he also just straight up left Helena. I think that's also why i really like the relationship between leon and helena because she can read him so well. she that just knows that there's more to leon and ada and says it before he can.)

ada had always had leon's safety in mind. i think when leon so easily took the bullet for her, she realized that she could trust him. she works in a world where she can't trust anyone. why the HELL would she trust leon??? just because he's cute? she has NO reason to trust him.

i think that even with og separate ways, people were upset that ada just showed up in the village. no intro, no loading thing to tell us why she's there. we know WHY, but since capcom is spoon feeding us info, i really hope that ada will have her own little intro story like leon did.

the way that lily gao talks about ada makes me think that they spent more time characterizing ada and gave her more story to work with, and i really hope we get to see that with remake separate ways

[onewomancitadel]

I think what people really mean by Twitter being 2015!Tumblr is that the age demographic of Tumblr has changed (based on polls, I think the age group with the biggest user size is early-mid twenties), a lot of shitstirrers left for Twitter in the Purge of 2018, a lot of guys who used Tumblr for p*rn also left in 2018 (seriously, when I interacted with a guy at uni once who wanted in my pants I mentioned Tumblr because I am socially inept and he was like, oh the website for p*rn? *smirk* and I was like no I use it for my Reylos... he was wearing a Star Wars t-shirt, it's a long story) and obviously in general anybody else who used it for that reason also left, but you know exactly what sort of demographic I'm talking about - far be it from me to unturn that stone, I understand it's a mixed issue - and then overall you've got the fact that Tumblr is slightly better than it was, but it's not perfect.

I do think platform culture influences the way people interact with each other, and there are definitely ways you can fit somebody's interaction patterns into a typology - but the style of detraction you might see in Reddit comments is exactly the stuff you see on Twitter and it is the thing you encounter on Tumblr. Because Tumblr allows you to run your own personal blog, though, you have much more control over your interaction style. If Reddit is a free debate space, Tumblr is curated by comparison.

But it's also just a human nature thing lol. There are plenty of teenagers who have growing up to do on here (I was one of them) and you see a lot more on platforms popular with teenagers (Tik Tok, Twitter, Instagram) which changes the site culture. But I also think that teenagers need their own space to be edgy and get the angst out of the way. It's just much harder to do that when the platforms they're on also encourage putting your face, name, where you live etc. on it.

I find it a fascinating question because I don't think the Internet is wholly iredeemable and clearly we get some joy out of it - the things which concern me about the Internet have parts to do with social media and some not. I want to know what it is that makes Tumblr a pleasant site to use for hobbyist purposes. I can write longform posts, and consider topics which interest me, and curate my experience - by in large the the site has a slightly more mature userbase...

I also had on my mind recently how hard it is to write posts where you have people coming to you with the worst interpretation of what you've said. I think I am starting to accept again that I can't control that and people will read into what I'm saying because that's what they're looking for. That's something which still happens on Tumblr. It's a product of the Internet medium where it's very hard to clarify something you've said the way you could mid-conversation, and the fact that generally people are quite defensive. It feels like a combative space at times.

The real point I'm sort of trying to make is that like, part of what makes Tumblr a good platform is a consequence of its medium - it's a microblogging website - and part of it is a consequence of the userbase evolving. But I also think that loyal userbase is a consequence of what it offers in contrast to what others don't. Equally, issues with Tumblr aren't necessarily specific to platform, and I'd go so far as to venture that to be true of other social media websites. It's just very apparent that there are very bad decisions being made with them killing all user goodwill and reason to use them, but the myopic eye of short-term gains does not care for long-term growth and stability. It's a pretty sobering realisation to know that most of those guys up there think you're as dumb as a rock and will just take what you get. It's not some big conspiracy. They just think their site users are dumb. It's a pretty haunting and narrow view of humanity lol. There is no honour in it and yeah, it is actually nonsensical even from the view of a capitalist philosophy, because why would you willingly kill something with great brand and cultural foothold? Why would you abandon something that makes the platform what it is? This goes for Tumblr with its changes to the dashboard from Following (seeing things your followers post) to For You (algorithm).

[woahjo]

Hi Cal I saw the KS asks and I was summoned! This situation truly was the precursor to modern dark content morality policing. I remember so many people ran with the toxic BL label because the author had allegedly acknowledged it as a valid reading of the work. She was just excited that KS was getting so much attention and basically said that she was happy to see people engaging with her work even if it was in a different way from what she thought. Which brings up a really interesting point: is the author allowed to tell you how to read the book? And as an author, what do you do when differing interpretations escalate into completely missing the point? Is there anything you can do?

still insane to me that an author acknowledging that reading something as a romance is valid can equate to "i condone this behavior and think it's what people should strive for! it's only a romance!" very wild. the world is failing. media is dying. subtlety has been dead for a long time.

also.. as much as i'd love to say that an author is allowed to tell someone how to read or interpret work but i honestly think it's just not realistic. different life experiences breed different interpretations and, in most cases, that's not necessarily a bad thing. when it comes to missing the point completely... i really don't think there is anything to be done outside of just saying "this is the point of that work". people will read things the way they want to read things and im sure the author of KS feels some type of way about how people have interpreted her work.

when it comes to creative things, one of the blessings and curses is that people will make their own interpretations of intended messages or themes. honestly, i like it when people develop their own ideas about things i make, but there have also definitely been times where certain things i've written or done don't get noticed/are missed. i think the most an author can do (in the case that opinions end up spiraling into "missing the point") is to just.. say what the original point is and sort of let go of the reigns. once something creative is out in the world, there's no taking it back, ya know? on the other hand though, it's a wonderful things to have people enjoy / engage with your work so much that there's room for mass interpretation that way!!!

regardless, i really think that with KS and a lot of other works in similar genres that contain dark content, the issue is the demonization of thought and story. combined, ofc, with less media literacy and the currently prolific idea that writing it = condoning it. we all draw our line somewhere when it comes to that (i know i do), but the crux of the issue is that a lot of people simply... don't know how to properly read anymore. that sounds mean but it's def true. as a society, we've undervalued literature and the humanities to the point that print media is literally a dying industry. things that aren't STEM have taken a backseat not just culturally, but educationally, because they've been passed off as "easy" and "common sense", so people have stopped trying to learn it. the general belief has shifted greatly in the last few years to the idea that media literacy is a natural-born ability rather than a skill honed over many years (we all know the joke of "who cares that the curtains are blue" when the point of those exercises isn't about the color, but the ability to pick up on subtlety in literature and to teach people how to pick up on subtext). we've stopped caring about learning it because we've been taught that STEM is the more educated route and should be the central focus of education. tragically, this means that more complicated works end up in the "bad" category purely because bad things happen without obvious condemnation. and the worst part of it is that, on a daily basis (outside of profession), we use the humanities (reading, writing, analysis, ethics, etc) more than most people will ever need to use a complex math problem or know a specific scientific formula or cycle. but alas... the world is changing and i hate it.

[motherfuckingnazgul]

hello i'm hijacking this post because asker's comment is SO interesting in light of a) my own common gripes about reception but also b) just like, How Reception Works

because the thing is, the odyssey is a text. every text derives only part of its meaning from the text itself, and the rest is created when that text is consumed by its audience; this is what's meant by the phrase "meaning is created at the point of reception", which is a fairly common idea in reception theory. it describes a certain theory of reception (that is, how texts are received and understood and ultimately reinterpreted by their various audiences) that says that a text doesn't have much or any meaning until someone reads it.

(there are other theories of reception but i tend to subscribe to variations on this one because i'm a whore for death of the author, so, sue me)

anyway i tend to be Fucking Annoyed by modern media that presents a really forthright and unnuanced version of a classical story, because the nuance and possibility for reinterpretation is what i enjoy about classics. BUT. these modern versions are also texts with different potential interpretations. we just don't tend to practice them because they're blatant in their intended meaning to us, since they're created within and for our current cultural context; the author's interpretation is much more accessible. classical texts are more open to interpretation because we know we don't have all the context (that would allow us to read them 'as intended') and/or are reading them in a new context.

so, like, on the one hand: pieces of classical reception that present a very certain and specific Stance on the ancient text can be frustrating, because they often flatten the nuance out of the ancient version/present a certain interpretation. and yet: that doesn't mean that interpretation is 'wrong'. and moreover, there're probably multiple ways to read (or 'read') that modern text(/'text'--a text doesn't have to be like, words on a page). we're encountering it as an audience within a certain socio-cultural context that has conditioned us to read certain literary devices, references, etc. to mean certain things. in 100 years, or 2700ish (as the case may be), if Epic The Musical is still in circulation, who knows how people might understand it.

some modern interpretations are more sophisticated and maintain that nuance and room for interpretation even within the modern context. but a lot of them either aren't, or don't do that on purpose, because they are in fact very much specifically trying to portray their own interpretation of the text. and there are many valid interpretations available, to the asker's point. i guess one of the things about classical reception work is just to remember that like, first of all, we need to remember that each of these modern versions is an interpretation. it's not bad for being a certain and specific vision of some part of the meaning of the ancient text. you can certainly disagree, though.

and second of all, i think the ask itself just goes to show how valuable reception can be for the study of ancient texts. by viewing these modern texts as interpretations of the ancient text, we can see how by reading the modern versions critically, we're able to shed light on possible dimensions of meaning present in the ancient text. we open doors to new understandings of antiquity as well as what is important to us today by making comparisons and drawing connections, understanding what it is about today's context that has led us to emphasize certain elements in the ancient text and discard others, as well as highlighting what those elements are when we look back at the ancient text and try to grasp on ever-deeper levels what is available for us there in that text, that was produced by some unknown person or collective so long ago.

reception fucks, basically. even when we don't really like the actual media in question.

anyway go listen to my podcast classically trained wherever podcasts blah blah byeeeeee

this might be kind of a weird ask but as someone who enjoys greek mythology and mythological adaptations I've really been Struggling to enjoy epic the musical. I find that the presentation is very straightforward in a way that leaves little room for interpretation bc of how Clearly character decisions are layed out . it's by no means a poorly written adaptation but I feel like part of the appeal of mythos is the room for interpretation and meat to chew on?? in all fairness it's been a Minute since I've read the odyssey and most of the retellings/adaptations I enjoy are of Much Shorter stories . but idk! songs like "monster" where there's a very clear Point in which Odysseus chooses to Become an Unrecognizable Version of Self bother me because I feel like part of the point of the odyssey is that ship of theseus question- ie is there even a definite point at All where you would consider him irreparably changed?. I'm interested to see your perspective bc you're more familiar w the actual texts and you clearly enjoy epic as an adaptation! that's all :33 (again no Hate to epic the musical this is just personal taste!!!! )

My thing about it is I just treat both like separate texts/media haha. Treating it like how o brother where art thou is clearly based on the Odyssey but not exactly the same thing. I'm very easy to please, give me a fun sounding song and I'll probably get into it. I enjoy the passion that goes into it. It's also why I have two separate designs of Odysseus for both the classics and the musical, they very much aren't the same person to me. You don't have to enjoy it! It's definitely not for everyone