#note idk if he explicitly uses the label but it describes what he says he experiences

[thecommunalfoolboy]

Diversity win! The “using math to find when your dad is coming home” guy is aroace!

[vanimeldes]

can you elaborate a bit what made you divorce from asoiaf/got as you say?

Ooof, so, after the G0T finale, I think my reasons should be obvious, but you also mentioned the books and yes, I lost my interest in books too and I will try to not make this answer too long, but in the same time, to convey all my thoughts on this matter.

*Putting it below cut because.... when I`ll explain the problem of Martin`s fans later, you`ll understand why*

It`s amazing that just a year ago, AS0IAF was my second favourite franchise ever, second only to Tolkien legendarium, but even then, I didn`t love it for the fantasy elements in it, but rather for its characters and some twists and how Martin does forshadowing and writes the dualistic nature of the human being, but...as I read other fantasy series that do these four things AND have fantasy elements, I paused a bit and thought that these series would be just as popular, if they had popular adaptations such as G0T. But I got that AS0IAF was the first that had the opportunity to be adapted and I accepted that. Yet the show highlighted (and in some cases, amplified) some of the very big issues of these books and yes, D&D have many things to be blamed of, but it`s not as if they didn`t have a basis for their fuckery in the books. Martin is just as guilty. So here we go.

1. I am not sure if Martin has ever seen a 13 year old girl, but he writes grown-ass men having fixations and being sexually attracted by Daenerys and Sansa, two prepubescent girl. Martin would call it the gritty realism of the medieval times, but last time I checked, he was writing fantasy, not historical fiction. Fantasy means you can do what you want in your world, so even if you are inspired by the medieval times, it`s still YOUR fictional world and no one will question your research or accuracy if you want to have a female character married when she is at least, say, 18, not FUCKING 13. Not to mention that even in our real world, child brides existed but, guess what, in most the cases, both spouses waited until the wife reached a certain age (16 or older) to consummate their marriage. @eyes-painted-with-kohl explained in the notes of one of my posts and even gave an example or two. I can think of Isabella of France and Edward II. They were married when she was 13 (according to some historical evidence)/16 (according to others). Yes, I know he was homosexual, but he still needed heirs, so they still had children...4 years later, when she was 17/20.  

2. In this same vein, the treatment of his female characters (with the exception of Arya and, maybe Catelyn) is egregious. Daenerys and Sansa are sexualized by the male characters (don`t get me started of the bullshit that is S/ansan, because The Hound is still a murderous man who is aroused by a 12 year-old girl, who invaded her personal space and even pointed a knife to her; do not get me started on book!Jorah, who is a creep). Cersei is paraded naked on the streets and needless to say that during the walk of atonement for an adulterous woman in medieval times, she was never stripped naked; she only had her hair shaved and walked BAREFOOT. That`s it. What Martin did to Cersei is just disgusting. We are shown how Arianne uses sex to have Ser Arys help with her plans and it is implied that Margaery uses sex also. I get that sex is Cersei`s mechanism, but you have two more feminine (this is important) women in power and both of them explicitly use, or are implied to use sex as a mean to gain that power. I get Brienne`s point, her treatment bothers me the least, but it`s annoying from time to time how most of the other characters see only her ”ugliness” and nothing else. Of course, this is the result of the heavy patriarchy in Westeros world that I will discuss in the next paragraph.

3. The heavy patriarchy in Westeros world is nowhere similar to the patriarchy in the medieval times, and that was Martin`s choice and his only. A clear example is what was dubbed the Dead Ladies Club, namely a group of dead female characters whose only purpose was to serve as object of desire for one or more men, to give birth AND to die (gruesomely in some cases). Joanna Lannister is meant only to further fuel the enmity between Tywin and Aerys and Tywin`s hatred towards Tyrion. Elia exists solely to die gruesomely and motivate Doran`s desire for vengeance. Lyanna (the most explored dead lady still exists mainly to give birth to Jon and to be one of the reasons behind a war started by men. Rhaella exists solely to be raped by Aerys and give birth and die. Ashara Dayne exists solely to commit suicide. Ned, a POV character, spends chapters thinking about his father and siblings and never to his mother. Martin had the audacity to say that Tolkien himself didn`t left notes about Aragorn`s mother, but Tolkien had an entire story when Aragorn`s mother and her impact of his life is explored (more than his father, for that matter). The heavy patriarchy serves as reason for the utterly disgusting right of the first night (read Fire & Blood for more). I am not so versed into history as @mydaylightruyi who discussed this, but I too know that in our real world, this practice was a MYTH. But GRRM made it very present in his world because of reasons I guess. 

4. The racism is just rampant and disgusting and even I didn`t notice all the racism until I read @polysorscha `s insights. There`s a to be discussed here, mainly about the portrayal of the Dothraki and how they are reduced to barbaric rapists - interestingly, they are supposedly inspired by Huns, but guess what: the Huns formed a very permisive society, where any religion and culture had its places, where women were very respected and, while cruel  in the European people`s POV, were never....like THIS. 

5. The rape cultures. The Ironborn. Similarly to the Dothraki, their culture is reduced to pillaging and rape. That scene when Euron conquers that castle in the Reach ( I forgot its name) and how he had the daughters of that lord stripped naked and serve his men the meal, and how his men started raping them was....honestly, I wish I could have skipped this chapter. I still read fantasy books written by men more than I read fantasy books written by women, but never in my life did it occur to me to read something like this in a novel that is so hailed for fantasy (?) and realism (???????). I`m not saying that things like that didn`t happen in our cruel history but, again, Martin writes a fictional story. He could choose not to include the rampant violence against women, cultures whose practices are reduced to this utterly gross things, racist and orientalist elements, but he chooses not to. Why? I don`t know. I am not sure I want to know. And Victarion`s POV...oh boy. Or Theon, in ACOK, when he literally rapes that Kyra girl after takes Winterfell. Not only that it`s very disturbing, especially coming from a character that is supposed to be redeemed in some way (yes, I know how he`s been through in ADWD and I also know this is meant to be his redemption arc, but I personally still can`t get over this). And in the same time, while we`re still at the redemption discussion, Theon will surely undergo a redemption of some sorts, Cersei (a female character) will most likely be killed by her lover/brother, who will strangle her to death, most likely while he will embrace her, without a second chance of a droplet of redemption. 

6. I love Tyrion and I love Tywin but in the same time, I acknowledge their misogyny, but Martin chose to write them as misogynists, but in the same time, writing them in such ways that they are inherently labelled as „badass”. He also says that Tyrion is his favourite, but his POV is utterly misogynistic. The reason he kills Shae is because she dared to sleep with his father, but let`s unpack the things a bit: she was a former sex worker with no power, who was forced by the most powerful man in Westeros. She had no choice. She couldn`t refuse him. Yet, for Tyrion, she is ”the lying whore” and that`s it. We are given no chance to try to see the things from her POV (I am not implying that she should have been a POV character, but Martin should have written Tyrion considering for a moment what other choices Shae had). 

7. I discovered that Martin straightly ripped-off many plot points and themes from another series who isn`t half as popular, sadly. 

8. Last, but not the least, the snake pit that is THE FANDOM. You know, as much as I tried to stay away from its toxicity because „it`s just an internet thing, it can`t affect me”, it did affect my online experience in ways that I hadn`t imagined. To sum up, if you don`t like a character or hate another, you are  a pariah. You are dumb because you don`t understand that character or you are a misogynist (because, sadly, this discourse is mostly about the female characters). If you dare to voice up your thoughts about a certain event and/or a certain character and tag your post as #asoiaf or #asoiaf meta (you know, because this is it to me: a meta; plus, I want to have an ordering system in my blog so that whenever I want to look for a certain post in a certain topic or fandom, I would only look into the tag) or #my meta (highlighted „MY” because this is also important, as in it`s MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION), and those thoughts happen to not fit into the general consensus of the „great AS0IAF bloggers” (namely those meta writers with many followers who sound like they already read TWOW and ADOS), you are trashed and called an idiot. Granted, I met enough great people, meta writers included, in this fandom, and it was a real pleasure to chat with them, but I also had bad experiences with others and idk, I thought we were all mature people, but the way they reacted can hardly be described as mature. And in the same point, it`s just funny to see the hardcore Martin stans reacting in front of the clear evidence that Martin isn`t half as original as they thought (see 7) and acting like they are personally attacked.

Ok, it took me an hour. There is a lot more to discussed, but I got bored and I honestly want to shut the door to this fandom forever. To answer another question, yes, I will be reading the last two books  if when they will come out. I invested many months in this series not to finish it. I`ll probably block all the ASOIAF-related tags to avoid any interaction with its fandom during those times.

[class-wom]

Another Legion Chapter 24 Spoiler Discussion

   *

   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

 SPOILER TERRITORY

  *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    * So just today I’ve been rolling around a rather chilling theory that definitely puts an extremely strong “Your mileage may vary”-warning beforehand.  And it is based in an extremely strong part on a key speech delivered by Syd in Chapter 23, as she explains to her younger counterpart/time demon what it’s really like for her to wield her power.  And she uses explicitly sexual terminology to do so, as she describes with disgust a “smell” upon regaining her body and “feeling dirty.”  When describing male violations of her own body, the phrase she uses in question is “He turned me around.” 

Seemingly unrelated, no? and the idea is to, once again, feel sorry for Syd.  Okay, fine, although some of the “body jumps” we’ve seen thus far start to take on a whole new meaning in that context.  I’d like to let the Pilot body swap go for the time being, since David had no way of knowing what was going to happen and didn’t quite leave Syd enough time to warn him.

Fast-forward to Chapter 24.

You know...the Sydvid Swap?!?

Here we come to my potentially unpopular opinion:  Now that Syd has made a point of describing her ability as sexual violation, and the whole idea was to seduce David into letting his guard down and telling him everything he wanted to hear (lulling...like a drug, perhaps?!? especially since it’s been noted that David has what has been described as a “love addiction”)...

Did Syd essentially and knowingly sexually assault David?!?

Worse still, did she fully and knowingly intend to follow up her physical (if not sexual) violation with premeditated murder?!?  We can’t make that statement about David’s Chapter 19 actions, can we?  (And okay, yes, by this point in the ep, David’s already mounting a hefty body count, but he’s been pushed pretty hard since that initial Chapter 19 incident, so that’s neither here nor there where this point is concerned.)

Also, coming back to the infamous “He turned me around!”-Chapter 23 line, I just tried to rewatch the scene again just after the switch.  I guess you could say it’s a slight turn, but once in David’s body, I’m pretty sure Syd turns “David-in-Syd” around oh-so-slightly while pulling “her” towards the hallway?  Also note the dialogue between the two:  “It’s okay, David...don’t fight, it’s okay...”/”NO!...no, no!..no!”  Taken out of context, doesn’t that sound like dialogue from a rape scene?  And note that the weak, almost drugged-sounding “No’s,” while technically delivered by a male character, are uttered by a female actress using a female voice!

The consequences for Syd’s actions come fairly quickly once Legion becomes aware of her presence in David’s body and confronts her.  Everyone was so busy freaking out and labeling her being overcome and having her mind absorbed or whatever as “horrific,” but I’ve started thinking more and more about that scene in a new light.  Compare it, if you will, with David’s trial in the S2 finale, where David is lured into the middle of the room, then surrounded by the “atomic field,” and then the guns.  (Ooooh, perhaps there was purpose in the reuse of that shot during Farouk’s “triple-dog-dare”-moment with David after all, now that I think of it!)  Similarly, Syd is surrounded by Legion (note the now-familiar circles not too far from where she’s standing -- kind of like the circle in which David was trapped for his trial?), then overwhelmed and ultimately overcome by a mob intent on punishing her.  It could very well be that they had been lying in wait for their big “Let’s see how you like feeling that way after you try to overpower a person!”-moment, although I still maintain that they’re trying to protect David and have seen Syd as a threat for quite some time now.  And now she’s just given them a valid reason to think so and opportunity to act upon it, just as David finally gave Clark the chance he had been waiting for to entrap him by Chapter 19.

Now I suppose one female response to this would be “HA! David finally got a taste of his own medicine! good for you, Syd!” and say that “revenge assault” is justified.  And if I’m right about any of this -- and at this point, who honestly knows if I am or not, since this is admittedly quite the theory -- well, I’m not so sure it’s justified at all.  But then again, I stand by my “Two wrongs don’t make a right”-views where Syd is concerned, editorials notwithstanding.

That being said, I will cut Syd a little slack, backing up to Chapter 21 where Farouk proposes the idea of sweet-talking David and her initial reaction is, “That’s gross!”  So okay, she did have reservations, and I’ll give her credit and acknowledge it.  But did he suggest the body swap to her? and if so, did he fully understand the sexual implications? idk, since he himself was involved in a body swap or two in Chapter 8 in particular, perhaps he did.  Still, the body swap part of the plan was clearly a (cough) ball in Syd’s court.

Anyway, idt Noah threw that in accidentally.  I just haven’t seen that argument come up yet, and heck, I just stumbled on to the idea myself!

[cerberus253]

The Product of a Crazy Person

Dragons of Dark Souls, Imma talk about them. There are tons of arguments behind is/if there is a difference between the titles Everlasting and Ancient, which dragons are actually drakes and which are “true” dragons, and are Stone, Kala, Sinh, Seath, Gaping, and Midir Everlasting Dragons or not. Here’s my two-cents in the DS community, enjoy~

Terms...

First, I will be specifically using “dragons“ with a lowercase “d” for the overall term, which includes Drakes, wyverns, dragon people, Everlasting, Ancient, etc. “Dragons,“ with a capitol “d,“ are specifically Everlasting, Ancient, “True,“ etc.

Second, I want to state that the Souls games are Occidental based, meaning all the lore, designs, and even the word choices are based around western (American and European) culture. Because the Japanese like to use specific descriptions and word choices, the translation team does their best to get the closest description they can make to everything we read so we can get the feel. Therefore, completely placing the belief in the translation team for half of this discussion, we can use the English dictionary to differentiate between various labels specifically stated in the games and ones that are inferred from them:

Ancient- (adj) Belonging to the very distant past and no longer in existence; Having been in existence for a very long time; Belonging to a period of history that is thousands of years in the past.

Everlasting- (adj) Lasting forever or for a very long time; Lasting or enduring through all time; Tediously persistent; Never changing

Arch- (prefix) Chief; Principal; Main.

Descendant- (n) A person, plant, or animal that is *descended from a particular ancestor.

*Descend-  (v) Come or go down a scale, especially from the superior to the inferior; Be a direct blood relative of (a specified, typically illustrious ancestor); (of an asset) Pass by inheritance, typically from parent to child.

Immortal- (adj) Living forever; Never dying or decaying.

Invulnerable- (adj) Impossible to harm or damage.

Senescence- (n) Biological aging; The gradual deterioration of functional characteristics; The condition or process of deterioration with age.

... and What They Tell Us

From these definitions, one can infer (basic points): 1) All Everlastings are Ancient, but not all Ancients are Everlasting.

2) “Arch-” is a prefix for describing one with the basics. Archdragons are named that way because they have the basics of a dragon: They are born naturally and have the blood of dragons coursing through their veins. Some, like Midir, have more of the basics than others, like the two sets of wings and the humanoid build. So, if you think about it, all the descendants, wyverns, drakes, man-serpents, the guys from Archdragon Peak, crossbreeds, etc are all archdragons because they have the basics of a Dragon. However, the artificials like the “Ancient“ Dragon (DS2) and the transformed (Or as I like to call them “Those with the dragon’s curse”) Oceiros are not archdragons because of the sole purpose of not being naturally born like that. Gywndolin, Priscilla, Lothric, etc are considered archdragons because they were naturally born like that, not transformed in the midst of their lifetime.

3) Any dragon can be a descendant of an Everlasting as long as their bloodline directly connects to them. Like “arch-” from above, just about every rule applies again, except those that were born from non-archdragons, like Prince Lothric.

(Just in case it was confusing with the halflings: Priscilla is an archdragon and descendant because she possesses the basics of a dragon in the DS universe and she is a crossbreed from a full fledged human and a full fledged dragon. Lothric is an archdragon but not a descendant because even though he sports the basics of a dragon, he is not directly related to dragons because he was the product of an experiment).

(I do not agree with everything on this chart, but it gets my point across)

4) Immortal does not equal invulnerable, and so the former also states that one can not die from injuries even when harmed. We have seen Everlastings being vanquished, therefore they are not immortal nor invulnerable, despite popular belief. Well, why are they called Everlasting Dragons? They were described to live forever? My closest guess is they do not posses senescence. Everlasting Dragons are named as such because these creatures specifically can never die from aging. I have been researching and I cannot find any descriptions where they were explicitly stated to be “immortal,“ only that their scales provide immense protection, therefore only mimicking that characteristic, just like Seath did with his Primordial Crystal. Although, there was another factor mention by Miyazaki about Everlastings, and it was they were not alive to begin with, or at the very least half living and half element. So hey, maybe I’m wrong and they are specifically immortal and when we see them ”die“ it’s really just souls leaving the body and the vessel is still there. However, that still means they are alive to some degree, and when a soul leaves a body, that equals death. ??? IDK, fight me, I guess

Third, there are two main families of these wondrous creatures (relative to the DS universe): Dragons and Drakes. According to how the games label them, Drakes are distant cousins/relatives of Dragons, which explains why the games describe wyverns (do not look like Dragons, but are naturally made) and the artificial dragons (they look like dragons, but they are artificially made) as “Drakes” specifically, but never Stone, Kala, Sinh, Seath, Gaping, and Midir as such. The latter are only ever referred to as a “Dragon” (they look and are naturally made).

Drake:

Dragon:

(Quick note, I am aware of Seath being titled “The Paledrake.” However, 1) The entire community agrees he is a Dragon, 2) the terms “brethren,” “his own,” and the intro cutscene were specifically used to confirm he was one of the many Everlastings back in the day, and 3) personally, “paledrake” sounds more like an insulting nickname for him because he was born deformed. Alas, the term “drake” is used in this context to describe him as inferior to his kin if we are comparing to what is commonly referred to as such).

From learning this, we can say the Saucy Six are Dragons, not Drakes.

The Pug Effect

At least five of the six main Dragons are Ancient Dragons because they all have been stated being descendants or referenced/hinted to being alive at least during Gwyn’s time. But, which ones are considered Everlastings and which ones are not? That lies within the timeline and/or biology of each one.

To begin, we all know after years of stuff happening, animals begin to change in many ways because of the crossing of genes. What’s not to say that Dragons would avoid the same fate? Back in the 1800s, our doggo, the pug, looked noticeably different compared to the ones we have today. They had a visible snout, longer legs, more lean bodies, and their tails were not that much of a curly-cue. However, through years and years of (selective) breeding, they changed.

In Dark Souls, Dragons looked a certain way, but through years and years of (survival of the fittest) breeding, they changed, drastically. However, both of them are still considered pugs/Dragons even though they are pretty different from their former ancestors.

Think about it like a spectrum, from 1 to 10. On one end, we have the 1800s Pugs (1). On the other, the Present Day Pugs (10). Then we have the Transition Pugs, the ones in the middle where you can see the gradual change, some leaning more towards one end or the other.

Classifying Who is What and Why

Each of the Six have their place on the Pug chart, and I will explain my reasons:

Seath the Scaleless: (Strong 1) Timeline wise, Seath was there with the Everlastings. Everlastings were all that there were at the time. There was no Fire or Abyss shit to screw up a Dragon so badly that they lack individual consciousness and become a bestial lunatic. Warped biology, however, is thrown out the window because he was born deformed, so almost any little detail goes, except for those four wings, baby! That’s trademark! All close enough Everlastings have them. If one argues the fact that he was not a “true“ Everlasting because he lacked scales, therefore he was not immortal, refer to my argument above about how Everlasting only mimicked “immortality.“

(Note the biology. Every true Everlasting had humanoid shoulders)

Stone Dragon: (1.5) The theory of it being a littlun’ is plausible because of the size differences, and if that is correct, then it is most likely an offspring of one of the Everlastings from the War; It is stated to be a descendant of Everlastings. However, it looks so much like one, yet so different. This is probably because it was the closest to being related to one that even though it is a generation or two away from the originals, making it slightly different in appearance, it is close enough to be grouped with them still. It is an Everlasting dragon, but not one of the Everlasting Dragons of yore.

This face (True Everlasting):

THIS face (Stone Dragon):

Darkeater Midir: (3) This one was difficult because first, where was his place in the timeline? He was raised by the Gods, therefore he was during Gwyn’s time, making him an Ancient. What about the biology? He has two pairs of wings, two pairs of legs, humanoid shape, and has five digits on each hand. To me, this seems pretty close to being closer to an Everlasting compared to the others. However, what makes him not an Everlasting is his scales are not stone-like. This must have taken quite the gene smashing to mutate one’s biology like that. With this said, he is just under being labeled an Everlasting in my eyes (he’s fuckin’ strong, that’s for sure, but not Everlasting strong).

Gaping Dragon: (5) Another weird one because of the very little lore we have about him. Anyways, he is speculated to be a special Dragon for the fact of being able to cut off his tail and gain the titled weapon, “Dragon King Axe.” Seems fair, especially because of all the other tail weapons have something to do with their original attachments. However, he was deformed by his hunger, so maybe he just so happened to steal the Axe? Just a thought. But anyways, he has two pairs of wings, at least two pairs of legs, and has five digits on the hands. Pretty close to Everlasting, but again, no stone scales, so he is not one (he is a descendant, though). What throws me off is why was Gaping thrown down the shitter, but Midir was kept? My only guess is that Midir was closer to the original Everlastings than Gaping was. However, Seath might of had an interest towards him because there is a Chandler that is found by the arena and it defends Gaping. So, did Seath always know about this guy? And if he did, that means then maybe Gaping was during Seath’s time? The latter seems like a bunch of conclusion jumping because Seath could have discovered him at any time, but that Chandler was oddly placed if their purpose was to kidnap maidens. Or maybe, he was just so unimportant and really didn’t have any affect on the plot that he had little to no lore. Or maybe he is the symbol of Dragons finally becoming more like animals and beast, straying away from their intelligence??

Scales:

Black Dragon Kalameet: (5.5) This is about where the Dragons really started to visually and mentally become more beast like, and relative to all the others, Kalameet seems to be the perfect dividing point, right after Gaping. This Hun Bun of Fun has one set of wings, two sets of legs, four digits on the hands, no stone scales, and (this is my favorite part) his shoulder structure is changing to more animal than human, unlike the previous four who have broad shoulders like people. Right there we see Dragons have fallen from their tower and now have begin de-evolving. His place in the timeline was still during Gwyn’s time, but he is so far away from Everlastings that he has lost almost all of his beloved characteristics of one. However, you can still see two remnants of his ancestors: His shoulders are at the halfway point between animal and human, and he does stand on his back legs quite often, more than any normal animal would.

Sinh, the Slumbering Dragon: (6) I had difficulty deciding on where to place this guy, but it came down to one factor, which I will get into. First, things first, Sinh is a Dragon that I am not sure if he is considered an Ancient or not. We don’t know if he was there before or during Gwyn’s time, only after. The Sunken King built the sanctum around the Dragon, who was already there. The Sunken King was before Vendrick, so we can already confirm he was not recently made (aka, not one of Aldia’s creations). But also, we know that Sinh’s existence was far enough back that it was after Manus’ break up because the Squalid Queen found the Dragon herself. So then it begs the question as to when did Manus’ pieces really begin to take shape into separate forms and go off on their quest? Whenever that was, it could help with placing Sinh on the timeline. Either way, Sinh still sports the bestial characteristics that Kalameet once had, but (and this is my favorite part again) his shoulders have changed to being even more animal based, all the way to the point of how he walks is more like one as well. The upper arms are becoming shorter, he is walking on his toes, he tucks his arms in really close (more than Kalameet does) when squatting or flying, and his shoulders are becoming less pronounced. Heck, it even looks like his arms in general are becoming smaller and his chest is getting bigger, like a wyvern?? And personally, I do find it odd how Kalameet side steps, but Sinh does not. How strange~ But yes, the anatomy is really making me think too into this shit and it makes me connect things to where they may not be connected.

(Just for reference) Guardian “Dragon”: (Hard 10) It’s a fucking Drake, specifically a wyvern. It is the furthest from an Everlasting by far. Heck, it’s not even a Dragon.

TL;DR

Let’s summarize this: IMO, All Everlasting Dragons are Ancient Dragons, but not all Ancient Dragons are Everlasting Dragons. Seath and Stone are Ancient and Everlasting. Midir was a close descendant and Gaping was a twisted descendant, both are Ancient but not really Everlasting by definition. Kalameet was an Ancient, but not an Everlasting. Sinh might have been an Ancient, but definitely not an Everlasting. Drake, wyverns, serpents, man-serpents, crossbreeds, experiments, etc are not Everlasting Dragons, but could be Ancient (not necessarily having to be a Dragon in this sense).

I went way too into this. I should have been doing other things, but because of my love for dragons and the astounding versions of them in Dark Souls, and my greed for organization, I really wanted to try and make sense to whatever degree of them in this series for my personal interest. I’m not a person to be always doing this lore stuff, but when it comes to things that fancy my Asperger’s, anything crazy like this could happen. I love dragons, I really do. I have two future art projects concerning them that will eventually be started on. I have so many other things to do, I want to finish those first before I begin anything new.

Anyways, thank you for reading the ramblings of a madman about dragons.

[lawlightfan42069]

iyo when you write non-straight characters should you specify their sexuality/gender? I mean I'm personally a very 'not into labels at all' person for my own sexuality but support ppl who do find comfort in labels. but when I write I also tend to go toward the 'he just loves who he loves !!!' that sounded stupid but idk how to explain it.. so... like I was wondering why you feel strongly about explicitly stating someone's queerness instead of it being implied (at least u come off as that sorta)

i do definitely feel like that so!! i happen to have a lot of feelings about this so get ready for a Long Ramble. this is a precaution before ive even started typing i just know im gonna write a lot

i think before we start saying anything, we’ve got to acknowledge the difference between people who say that they dont like labels, and writing characters who Don’t Like Labels™. pointing out the problems of the latter is not a condemnation of the former. if someone rly doesnt feel like labeling their sexuality or gender, thats totally alright. the difference between these two is the person is a nuanced, multifaceted human being who may have lots of personal reasons for feeling that way, while the second is a fictional character that is Created and informed by cultural views of the creator. a person is not “created” by one single author and characters arent like…real living agents that have their Own Free Will, they are what their creators make of them. anyway i just feel like this is a rly important distinction that gets lost often!! i’m also more willing to look favorably on someone who self describes that way writing characters based on their own experiences, bc this perspective is inherently different from a straight person writing these sorts of characters. but moving on. 

whats also important to understand, beyond writing characters, is how being openly not straight is shunned. queer people are not allowed to Exist as openly queer and they have not been allowed historically. even these days among people who consider themselves progressive, you’ll often hear that “its alright if someone is gay but do they have to shove it in my face all the time.” this attitude isnt somehow formed in vacuum, but created in a society that treats been openly queer as a taboo. we aren’t allowed to be open about our sexualities the way straight people are. we can’t acknowledge that we’re queer lest someone tells us to Stop Shoving It In Their Face (not missing the irony as we’re surrounded by 400 billboards of hetero couples everywhere). i dont wan’t to delve into other aspects of discrimination and get too off track here, i just want to focus on how being Openly queer is treated as a taboo, particularly among people who still want to call themselves ‘accepting.’ the only way society allows queer people to exist is if they never remind anyone, Ever that they are not straight.

this is Integral to understanding why the i Don’t Like Labels characters are so frustrating. the unwillingness to Explicitly talk about queer people carries over quite handily to media. the same faux progressive people that demand queer people never talk about being queer bc its Too Much Information, will praise queer coded characters that hint at their sexuality but never confirm it. the reason these characters are written is not to genuinely explore why someone might feel uncomfortable with applying labels to themselves, but to appease people who will accept queerness as long as they never have to acknowledge it. this way, u can court queer people interested in representation And people who might like the story but will be uncomfortable with explicit queerness. its an attempt for writers to cash in on peoples desires for interesting queer characters without ever actually fully committing to representing them. you dont get to claim to support queer people if ur also out there providing comfort for peoples homophobia. you cant have a foot in both doors. 

describing queer experiences without calling them queer means that youre okay with this story as long as u dont acknowledge it as something Explicitly not straight and like…why?? why is it suddenly not okay when u take that bundle of experiences and use the word that theyre defining?? theres Weight behind using words like bi, gay, lesbian and if u reject them are u Really okay with lgbtq people? or are you okay with them Despite the fact that theyre lgbtq and not because you take into account theyre lgbtq. acceptance is not tolerating people Despite something, its acknowledging it and validating it as an okay thing to be. especially when it is something that historically Not been validated as okay. dismantling structural systems of queerphobia does not go about by ignoring queerphobia…shit this doesnt just fade away by chance, it takes active work. and part of this active work is Acknowledging Peoples Queerness As Something that is okay Out In The Open. the You in this isnt directed at you anon, just people who have these sentiments. 

throwing vague statements like ‘they just love who they love’ Also creates this level of ambiguity. you might say “well why do u need the certainty when ur describing what is at the very least, something obviously very not straight” and to that i say youd be fucking surprised at how goddamn hard straight people will try to erase the queerness out of a character. like i’m going to use a game called life is strange as a example. i’ll give some background: in the game, the main character max can romance both chloe and warren. note that max is not one of those blank state wholly customisable bioware-esque player characters, she has a personality outside of the choices u make. anyway, the conclusion that is Logically drawn from this is that she is most likely bisexual. or at the very least in some way, not straight. and Yet i have seen discussions that say “she doesnt have a set sexuality it just depends on the playthrough so shes not rly a Queer Character.” even more than that, ive seen people that saw “well even in the chloe one shes not necessarily gay or bi maybe shes just Making an Exception for chloe bc their relationship transcends sexuality” and like ??? Why??? why cant she just be bi?? even when given a queer romance, why do u try and interpret it in a way that sets her up as straight?? ive seen people say “its not a romance its just something that Transcends Words” as if this is… mutually exclusive from being a romance. like… Why doesnt this happen when hetero relationships are depicted?? ive literally never seen someone say “u know, maybe hes not attracted to women and just Making an Exception so hes not straight” why dont u see people try to erase the romance aspect out of hetero romances by claiming their relationship is “Beyond Words.” this treatment is 1000% only ever afforded to queer characters. this attempt to play off romance as not rly romantic is only done to queer characters, even if its done subconsciously. people will Refuse to accept a character is queer as fuck if you dodge around it, because heteronormativity is so ingrained in every interaction that even obviously queer characters get filtered through this lens. the problem with this isnt necessarily apparent until u look at it within historical context, where queer people are repeatedly not allowed to be openly queer. these arent isolated incidents, but manifestations of the idea that queer people shouldnt ever be open about their sexuality. youve got to tackle the discomfort that people have with words like gay/lesbian/bi/etc

i think this particular character trope wouldnt bother me so much if it wasnt like… the only narrative ever present. time and time again, i have to see characters proclaim that they dont like labels while never once even hearing people breathe the word bisexual. if it existed alongside characters who were explicitly queer it would be less frustrating But its literally one of the few ways (semi positive attempts at least) queer characters are ever portrayed. this is particularly true for bisexual characters lmao like… yes…theres people who dont like labels…but theres also millions of bi people that just wanna see a fucking bi character Talk about being bi and all we ever get is a vague “i dont like labels” (that is often never explored further than that and treated as a throwaway line anyway). is creating characters who say that a genuine attempt to characterize someones struggles with labels or is it just a way to avoid saying the word Bisexual.

same with queer romance in media. its only ever Okay if u just hint at it- see dumbledore being gay. see- the korrasami thing (though i dont fault the writers for this bc they pushed hard for what they got, its issues with the network). why are queer people relegated to drawn out stares that May imply something while straight characters are allowed to get into explicit relationships. when u create ambiguous characters that May be interpreted as straight (even if youve really gotta stretch) ur prefer to maintain the negative “neutral” of the heteronormative status quo and allow homophobes to live with their views unchallenged more than u care about addressing queerness in characters. 

 its not a coincidence that we dont do this to straight romance or straight characters. this is particularly important for queer kids!! its good to see queer characters out there being openly queer. while me and u can often pick up on queer themes and narratives, a 8 year old is not going to get that. especially when theyve been conditioned to see straight romance as the only feasible choice. they wont realize the character youre writing is gay or bi or whatever Because they havent been exposed to the connotations we associate w certain phrases. its so important for queer kids to see queer characters Owning that theyre queer. its especially importantly to normalize words like gay or bi or pan. being gay is often Extremely hypersexualized (which is why so many people will tell u they dont care what u do in the bedroom bc they can only picture queerness is a sexual context) so when u Dont treat these words as things only adults can say, u help get rid of the stigma surrounding them. u help remove the idea that being queer is inappropriate for kids to hear about and that the only possible aspect to being queer is sexual. 

anyway this has been Quite the Ramble but the point is that yes, we need to write more characters who are absolutely explicit about their sexuality and move away from the expectation that queer people need to create euphemisms to comfort homophobes desires to never hear about queerness.