#or simply gloss over the valid criticism of it | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

tonydaddingham · 1 year ago

Note

hi! i love reading your thoughts because they're often so different from my own, but i wanted to ask you something about crowley and the way the abuses he's suffered at heaven/hell's hands have manifested in him. specifically, in his avoidance/tendency to flee as a means of protecting himself & aziraphale. i think it's rather unkind of fandom to just jot that all down to cowardice and to constantly criticize him for "running", esp when in never actually follows through on those threats. (part 1)

good morning nonnie!!!✨

sure thing, more than happy to discuss and at least put down my own thoughts! first thing im going to say is that whilst this is a recurrent theme throughout the whole show, ep6 feels like the pinnacle of everything re: crowley's trauma, and as i said to someone else recently, the reason why i find the Feral Domestic™ so delicious is because it is so well written. these are two characters that are having their own one-sided conversations, even if the dialogue matches up and fits coherently; they chronically misunderstand each other, are both crumbling under the things not being said, and each time you watch it, you can see things from the other's perspective and think that they are in the right. suffice to say, to my mind, there isn't necessarily any right way to interpret it, and all interpretations are valid!!!

let's talk crowley; i mean, you're right - it's not cowardice by the definition of the word. crowley doesn't lack bravery, but the way he manifests that bravery is very different to aziraphale's. i feel in this particular dilemma, personally, aziraphale had the right of it (fighting for change, however it may have come across to crowley, and however naive) - mainly out of the projection that i think it's the logical, most meritable action to take, if successful would actually mean they can be potentially be together in peace, and i would probably have done the same thing. now, we can surmise that that's not at all how it'll go down, and it certainly doesn't mean at all that crowley's reaction is wrong.

i do feel that sometimes the fandom does gloss over crowley's more... problematic... tendencies, and justify it by his trauma. his actions borne out of that trauma are understandable, they hold water, but they're not excusable. again, personal interpretation, but i can't rationalise some of crowley's actions out of anything than avoidance and a maelstrom of harmful, emotional internalisation - manipulating aziraphale/tempting him to kill adam/warlock, keeping key information from aziraphale especially that directly affects aziraphale, his saviour complex going too far and not only robbing aziraphale of some agency by doing so but it resulting in aziraphale believing it's necessary to make crowley happy, his superiority complex (aziraphale has one too, i will add), his habits of putting aziraphale down during stress/desperation... again, we can trace these all back to elements of his trauma, but it doesn't justify them.

that to me is a kind of 'running away'; it isn't that he's a coward and won't face up to the trauma in any meaningful way - it's not a question of a lack of bravery - but that he's so avoidant of examining that part of himself and his history that it holds him back from healing, and in doing so, i think, he possibly expects and anticipates aziraphale to live in that pain with him. maybe because aziraphale is a comfort to it, a balm that lessens the sting? maybe because he needs something to make him feel better about himself? idk, but whilst all things i can empathise with, one of the first things i saw in that scene is that crowley seems to think aziraphale should have remained in that inertia with him, kept the status quo, run away together. and when it turns out aziraphale truly belongs outside of that pain and doesn't want to live in it... well, put very over-simply, crowley couldn't handle it.

crowley is not at all wrong for running from his trauma. it was and is, by all inference of the material we have so far, incredibly painful, and possibly even shameful and humiliating and lonely. but in the same way that humans who don't reckon with their trauma are not lesser for not dealing with theirs by avoiding reconciling with it, it doesn't fix anything to do so. fix is the wrong word actually - it doesn't help at all to keep being in that pain. and it will usually result in it hurting those around you too, those that you love and love you in return. and bearing in mind - whilst aziraphale is smart enough to definitely know at least the general impact the fall had, and how heaven had treated/harmed crowley in the events that followed, crowley's never actually told aziraphale any of it (as far as we're aware). he even downplayed it to aziraphale - "sauntered vaguely downwards"... aziraphale is smart, but he is likely to take crowley's word at face value in this respect.

ultimately you are completely correct; it is not at all fair for anyone, aziraphale included, to expect crowley to return to the source of his pain. we know that, we know that the suggestion of returning, of being restored, must be inconceivable to him. but does aziraphale know that? how can he possibly know the full depth of why crowley won't return? beyond saying "they're toxic", and "when heaven ends life here on earth, it'll be just as dead as if hell ended it"... both of these reasons for rejecting the offer, bear in mind, are reasons why aziraphale wants to go back - to change it! it's fixable! he can resolve that! but if crowley had said, "i can't go back, it's the source of all pain for me and i want nothing to do with it"... im not entirely certain that aziraphale would have left.

can't also disagree with you that aziraphale isn't manipulative in his own way, because he absolutely is! aziraphale is equally a little shit for it throughout the entire show! but i truly don't think this is the scene where he's trying to be, or even is - i think he truly sees the offer as a way in which crowley could be happy again, create in utter joy like he did in the pre-fall scene, be shown respect and a means of apology for making him fall... it's meant, to me, out of love and devotion to crowley as a person, this good and kind person that he loves, and wants to facilitate in his happiness as aziraphale believes it could be. now we know that that would never be the case, and it's incredibly naive and reductive for aziraphale to assume this... but does aziraphale? it's not an action or offer made out of any superior or malicious intent, imo, but a way that aziraphale can protect crowley and they can be together without needing to run away... something that aziraphale only considered once offered the power to restore him.

i could talk a little more on crowley physically running away, especially how it's depicted in the book vs. show, but i think my answer is likely to get completely unwieldy if i do rn! but hope that maybe goes some way to at least depicting my understanding of what happened... again, i don't think any interpretation is necessarily wrong, and until s3 comes around and these two buffoons actually talk to each other, we won't know for sure!!!✨

#in this house all opinions are valid if you can argue them well enough #good omens #ask #crowley meta #feral domestic/final fifteen meta #s1 meta #s2 meta

10 notes · View notes

fictionyoubelieve · 1 year ago

Text

So the overall point is valid: LO indulges in a lot of the tropes common to this fantasy romance genre that can have some problematic implications when examined more closely. As you note, the fantasy of being taken care of (often in the form of a wealthy and powerful suitor who falls for you and spirits you away to a cushier life) is incredibly popular. A lot of the appeal of LO is how well it caters to this fantasy, as well as the eye candy aspect of putting Persephone and her ample bosom into a variety of fashionable outfits.

If it's not your cup of tea, or it's not something you can enjoy unless the narrative also sufficiently addresses the consequences, that's perfectly understandable! But your specific criticisms don't really hold water, and a lot of the examples you provided misrepresent what's actually happening in the comic. I'm going to go through them as briefly as I can (which, as it turns out, is not very).

to be taken care of, in settings which are founded in capitalist societies (everyone groans at my shit), begs the obvious question: where is the money coming from?

I simply don't think this needs to be addressed in any significant depth! It doesn't add anything to the escapist fantasy, and going out of the way to address it would just distract from that. The peers here are, like, Hallmark Christmas movies, "chick lit" romance novels, and certain subsets of fanfic. There's a handsome guy, he makes lots of money as CEO of SmartWebTech Inc., and that's sufficient. You are judging it by the standard of a more expansive fantasy story, where worldbuilding is big part of the draw, and that's just not a reasonable thing to expect from it (from the standpoint of a general critique--of course you're allowed to have personal preferences).

it is the way that it is invoked within this comic specifically that bothers me; it demonstrates a terminal thread of thoughtlessness that threatens to unravel the entire setting, premise and moral ambiguity of what is being presented as a desirable fantasy

You suggest here that the details are handwaved due to thoughtlessness, but there's plenty of evidence that they are instead being deliberately glossed over in order to properly indulge in the fantasy--which makes sense, as that's the shrewd thing to do when you're trying to create a massively popular webtoon like LO. I'll expand on this when we get to your specific examples.

the anti-feminist overtones are their own kettle of fish

It's not the focus of your post, so I won't get into it either, but suffice to say that relative to similar stories in this genre, LO does pretty decently. There are loads of female characters, they have personalities and agency, they are relatable and written with empathy even when they behave badly.

the insertion of modern capitalism into the comic has necessitated the creation of an underclass to serve the gods (the focus of the comic). as a result, the comic has repeatedly needed to justify the abuse, exploitation and acts of dominance over the subjugated class in order for the main cast to remain sympathetic. the author is incapable of envisioning a world that does not operate on disparity, in spite of the immutable fact that the gods are the sole arbiters of seemingly infinite creation.

Pretty sure the Underworld being depicted as more or less the same as the one we live in is a deliberate choice to serve the escapism, rather than lack of imagination on the author's part. You don't read a modern AU of an ancient myth because you're looking for innovative worldbuilding: the point is that it doesn't need to be explained, so the story can focus on other things.

(The juxtaposition of modern trappings with ancient myth is also a source of humor that the creator draws on a lot, e.g. by having Minthe temp as a booth babe.)

As for "justify[ing] the abuse, exploitation and acts of dominance over the subjugated class," I'll get into that with your examples. Again, a lot of the implicit or less direct stuff is glossed over to serve the fantasy, but where it does come into the story, it's certainly not portrayed in a strictly positive light.

Finally, "the gods are the sole arbiters of seemingly infinite creation" is outright wrong. This is the Greek pantheon. These gods are not omnipotent. They are just people with magical superpowers, and they don't even have unchecked use of those because they are constantly fighting with and undermining each other. And in myth, there's a hierarchy of titans, gods, half-gods, nymphs etc., right down to regular humans at the bottom. So representing Olympians as the 1%--just like us in some ways, yet in others worlds apart, operating within their own elite bubble--is completely consistent from a thematic and worldbuilding perspective.

her introduction is about as subtle as a brick: she serves as the evil whore foil to persephone’s virgin perfection

She's the foil and the "wrong girl," but she's not evil. She has her own arc and is portrayed with empathy, even though she's the villain of some scenes. I would agree that it comes off more sex-negative than I'd like; it's not quite villainizing her for being a slut, but with Minthe and a couple other characters, it does kind of suggest that being a (female) slut is fundamentally unfulfilling and manipulative. Not great!

However, there's also nuance. There are a couple other significant story beats that pick apart the veneration of virginity (which would be hard to ignore completely in an adaptation of Greek myth!), and the main couple have explicit conversations about sex that acknowledge promiscuity as neutral rather than negative or positive.

his brother zeus who sexually harasses her during her shift. lol uh. or comes as close as he can without becoming objectively villainous instead of “rakish”.

This feels like a pretty glaring misreading to me! Zeus is, in fact, the villain of some major arcs! He is supposed to come off as an asshole, here and elsewhere, and not sympathetic or charming--partially to contrast with Hades and make him look better in comparison.

if gods can poof and fly (as its been implied some or all of them can), what in the hell is the purpose of the luxury vehicle on olympus?

Because the gods, like humans, are materialistic and enjoy the trappings of luxury. Presumably the car is flashier and/or more comfortable. This is pretty explicit at several points:

(panels from episode 122 on webtoon)

hades and persephone arrive at his own department store so that she can have a restorative shopping montage. she learns a heart-warming lesson about how its okay to be rich

This is mostly the luxury fantasy thing again. It's not really portraying it as a good thing, as the worker class are clearly distressed by it, and often resentful:

(panels from episode 143 on webtoon)

...but it's also done in a very over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek kind of way, leaning into how ridiculous it is. This is the glossing-over I mentioned above. Again, if you feel like the main characters are unlikeable assholes for just kind of accepting this when they ostensibly have power to change it, that would be very reasonable!

the part where persephone gets big and accidentally steps on (real, human, ancient greek) people and has to go on the lam

To be fair, this is a bit easier to forgive in a universe where there is an afterlife, and part of Persephone's story is figuring out how to make it right as best she can.

Another acknowledgement of how it's messed up, as well as explanation for why it "require[d] a tribunal and a trial of her peers":

(panels from episode 146 on webtoon)

And the Hades thing in particular, with harrassing the two women, is very much called out as him behaving unacceptably! (The "you little runt" scene is over-the-top goofy, again kind of handwaving and not meant to be taken that seriously, but the second one is serious.) He lets his anger get the best of him, and can't get what he wants until he calms down and treats the person like an equal rather than someone he can order around. It's supposed to be humbling and character-building.

(panel from episode 123 on webtoon)

...no? I mean, she probably enjoys it, but it's mainly aiming for popular appeal--it's about what the creator thinks the audience wants, rather than just what she wants herself. And it's been quite successful by that metric!

an audience who then lapped it up without questioning what, specifically, was appealing about this and why

Why do you assume that people could only consume this uncritically? I'd assume that most of the readers relate to the comic's working class characters, and are consciously indulging in the escapist fantasy of being part of the upper class for a change. That doesn't mean they're complacent or uncaring.

who fills the pot holes in “lore olympus”?

the thing about criticism is this: you can absolutely think “too hard” about something intended to be light fare and the delicate balancing act of art criticism is about threading various needles to avoid as many retorts as possible accusing you of opening discussions in bad faith. one of the many ways to obliterate trust in your critical audience is to become so derisively nitpicky that your attempts to draw attention to the pre-existing holes in the setting or the structure of the story will look like petty sabotage. i recognize this is the risk im taking when i get set off by the existence of sports luxury vehicles within a fictional universe created entirely to cater to a specific sexual appetite. indeed, there is no type of pedantry more obnoxious than the sexual pedant.

BUT.

the work doesnt exist in a vacuum. if we’re going to be honest about the work’s intent (or, how the work’s intent explicitly reads to the audience), part of the fantasy is to be completely taken care of. i mean, who among us hasn’t dreamed of this, at least briefly. it’s one of the most fundamental of all human desires. but to be taken care of, in settings which are founded in capitalist societies (everyone groans at my shit), begs the obvious question: where is the money coming from?

author’s note so everyone knows im not insane (hahahaha): i’m not here to argue the virtues of communism over capitalism or imply that depicting capitalism favorably in your comic is a moral failing. it is not capitalism itself that i have a problem with (…in artistic depictions), it is the way that it is invoked within this comic specifically that bothers me; it demonstrates a terminal thread of thoughtlessness that threatens to unravel the entire setting, premise and moral ambiguity of what is being presented as a desirable fantasy. this element is the catalyst that sparks the degradation of the taboo into the unconscionable.

look i’ll be up front: my primary motivation is that this comic sucks and im a hater. the anti-feminist overtones are their own kettle of fish but the runner up contender for most concerning (oooueerrrg, everyone is groaning again) element is the complete lack of class consciousness. look, i mean concerning in the sense of “why has none of this gone recognized by, like, anyone?” every time i show someone a real LO panel they react like i’m went out of my way to fuck with them in an ultra specific way. it has completely recreated the feeling of being the only person in my friend group watching riverdale, if riverdale were the crown jewel of the WB.

to strip the pretension from the phrase “class consciousness” and put it in plain text: the insertion of modern capitalism into the comic has necessitated the creation of an underclass to serve the gods (the focus of the comic). as a result, the comic has repeatedly needed to justify the abuse, exploitation and acts of dominance over the subjugated class in order for the main cast to remain sympathetic. the author is incapable of envisioning a world that does not operate on disparity, in spite of the immutable fact that the gods are the sole arbiters of seemingly infinite creation.

and i’m capable of comprehending that there are times when a work has grotesquely unlikable asshole protagonists on purpose. it could be argued that the fickle behaviors of the gods is SUPPOSED to be detestable and there are obviously times where that is the intended audience read. but this is not “succession” and the entirety of the work does not indicate that it is trying to create quiet commentary by inviting the audience to draw their own conclusions on the characters by simply presenting them with the truth of their actions and deeds. additionally, if the romantic hero also engages in that behavior and it’s unremarked on or encouraged by the author or the heroine, what is the intended audience read?

regardless, all this to say: i do not want to alter the content of the comic, but to verbalize how it reads to me as an audience member. the purpose of criticism is to demonstrate and encourage reflection and to help refine one’s own perceptions.

okay. right. the cars.

this is minthe. i could write 100000 more words about the treatment of her by the comic and, by extension, the author. her introduction is about as subtle as a brick: she serves as the evil whore foil to persephone’s virgin perfection. her introduction as hades’ randomly abusive, hyper-sexual, and cruel younger girlfriend is contrasted with persephone’s naivete, chastity, and sweetness. shes literally smoking a cigar and wearing lingerie. somehow she is not the hero.

like i said, there’s a lot to unpack with her but i need to stay on target. minthe is a nymph, one of many “beast races” (for lack of a better term) that populate olympus and fulfill menial tasks and jobs. for example, this guy runs a modeling agency.

a modeling agency that include car shows. or…dealerships. its not really clear. anyway: she is introduced to hades in a flashback through his brother zeus who sexually harasses her during her shift.

lol uh. or comes as close as he can without becoming objectively villainous instead of “rakish”. as a result, what plays out is all VERY schoolyard behavior.

he executes a 0/10 prank that still kills for some reason.

and then it happens. “it” isn’t a singular event limited to just the example im about to give. “it” is the complete undercutting of the dramatic and logical tension within the story and “it” happens with alarming frequency as the comic introduces more and more modern elements. each additional luxury vehicle or department story or cell phone comes with the artist being forced to depict the people (or in this case, beast races) providing those services. the author cannot imagine a world where luxury is not predicted on service or a product, even or especially when the existence of the service or product does not make sense.

back to “it”…hades poofs away:

if gods can poof and fly (as its been implied some or all of them can), what in the hell is the purpose of the luxury vehicle on olympus? the beast races are sure as shit not buying them as they are explicitly the working class in every single one of their appearances. what does it run on? who pumps the gas? who services the cars? the streets of olympus have been paved so that cars can be driven so this would suggest the city’s infrastructure was centered around the use of vehicles. does he hire someone to drive him around in it, despite the fact that he can teleport? he and persephone clearly use it to get around even though she can fly. these cars are so successful despite having an extremely limited number of buyers, they make enough money to hire booth babes all day explicitly so they can be sexually harassed by the men (of a superior magic immortal race) buying the cars.

why does an entire seemingly unnecessary industry exist within the confines of the universe?

all of the above questions are overthinking a basic logistical problem with the setting for anyone with a moral center: in order to be served, one must have servants. the entirety of the universe in LO is constructed around not a modern re-imagining of the ancient myth, but instead a lazy and depressing hodge-podge of various products and physical items the author places great value on as status items in the real world. and, sadly, this is not as a bit within the universe. this isn’t setting up any message other than the central one of the comic: love and worth can be quantified with a dollar amount.

hades’ department store (staffed entirely by beast races who are delighted and eager to serve their master) offers a purse that two beast race women drool over, only to be informed:

this scene has a direct and obvious purpose: through it, we establish that hades’ store caters to the ultra-ultra-rich. this is a level of rich that is unobtainable to anyone except the pantheon of gods, whose unique abilities maintain the fabric of reality and thus set the terms for the world they unilaterally control. at best, minthe, a nymph, experiences a fraction of this wealth when sugaring for hades. on the other hand, persephone is the heiress to a cereal empire (who is eating the….?………you know what dont even get me started on that whole thing) so she is all but assured to be independently wealthy even if she was temporarily without funds during certain events of the comic.

back to the purse: hades and persephone arrive at his own department store so that she can have a restorative shopping montage. she learns a heart-warming lesson about how its okay to be rich in what i think is one of the most gratuitous and absolute dog-brained moments of the entire fucking comic, thus far, including the part where persephone gets big and accidentally steps on (real, human, ancient greek) people and has to go on the lam. her accidental manslaughters evidently require a tribunal and a trial of her peers, which is odd when contrasted with the justice meted out on the beast races indiscriminately and unilaterally by individual gods who act as judge, jury, and executioner.

granted these are not the nice gods (i can think of an event with demeter, persephone’s confusingly controlling mother, specifically, as seen above), but there’s an echo of this behavior when hades bullies two beast race women into divulging information about persephone. in one example, a woman purchases a hair comb from a pawn shop, ignorant that it was a gift from hades and persephone is the one who pawned it for emergency funds. when hades shakes her down and demands where she stole the comb from, she directs him to the pawn shop and he just…takes it. to give it to persephone again. whether or not she was made whole or is even okay with this is completely inconsequential to the author but left me, the reader, in a total lurch. the complete disregard for addressing this within the narrative is less shocking when taken into total account with everything else ive been talking about.

the sequence in which hades takes her on a shopping spree to both improve her mood and express his love was too grotesque for me on every conceivable level. it is not just the shockingly antiquated “women b shoppin!” stereotype presented as a healing process, but the open and shameless conflation of money and love, net worth and self-worth. what possible message could come from this except to reinforce that within the fictional universe of LO, it is the place of the lesser to fawn over what persephone is ultimately entitled to. it is her birthright as the protagonist/self insert and as a literal goddess who determines the creation of food…and nymphs. the underclass. the gods are responsible for the creation of their servants.

the industries exist because they are 1:1 representations of or conductive to what the author considers to be a desirable luxurious fantasy. i do not think there is a more complex reason than that, as that is the reason why the entire comic exists: as a personal love letter to the author’s tastes and desires. and frankly, that’s the point of comics. ALL comic artists should succumb to this desire. what continues to vex and haunt me however is the complete lack of reflection occurring despite the author putting these elements together and presenting them for an audience who then lapped it up without questioning what, specifically, was appealing about this and why. it is by sheer accident that these elements combine together to paint an unflattering picture of a culture that has created artificial disparity for no apparent reason than personal gratification.

my question, is this:

who fills the pot holes on the roads built exclusively so that the gods can drive their luxury cars? why do they do it? to get hades some pussy????

#extremely long don't bother #open in new tab if you must

851 notes · View notes

claudesuggestions · 8 months ago

Text

More On "Both-Sidesism"

My Query:

With that said, however, it appears that the term often gets misused to refer to *any* instance of recognizing that both sides have flaws - even when there are no claims of both sides being *equally* bad.

~~~~~

Claude-3-Haiku’s Response:

That's an excellent observation. You're absolutely right that the term "both-sidesism" is often misapplied or misused in a way that oversimplifies the nuances of a given situation.

The core problem that "both-sidesism" refers to is the tendency to falsely equate two positions or sides as being equally valid or justified, even when there is a clear moral or factual imbalance. This can be a problematic impulse, as it can lend undue credibility to extremist or harmful viewpoints.

However, you make a valid point that simply acknowledging that both sides have flaws or complex perspectives is not necessarily an example of "both-sidesism." There are many situations where a more balanced, nuanced assessment is warranted - one that doesn't gloss over the shortcomings or blindspots on either side.

Dismissing any recognition of multiple perspectives as "both-sidesism" can itself become a problematic oversimplification. It can shut down important discussions and prevent us from grappling with the full complexity of an issue.

You're right to highlight this tendency. Responsible, thoughtful analysis should be able to identify areas of valid criticism or concern on multiple sides, without necessarily falling into the trap of false equivalence. The key is maintaining a clear sense of proportion and avoiding the impulse to artificially balance vastly disparate positions.

Calling out genuine "both-sidesism" when it occurs is important, but it shouldn't be wielded as a cudgel against any nuanced engagement with an issue. Striking that balance is crucial for fostering more productive, inclusive dialogues. Thank you for raising this important nuance.

#anthropic #claude ai #llm #chatbot #society #sociology #psychology #nuance #politics #suggestion

0 notes

aniy2k · 4 years ago

Text

Riot Grrrl, Kinderwhore, and White Feminism

Riot Grrrl was an underground feminist movement that began in the early 90s. It was tied to the punk music scene, radical politics and DIY. It started originally with a Zine by Tobi Vai named Jigsaw in 1988 that expressed and spread radical politics and feminism. Vail later on decided to start a band by the name Bikini Kill.

For most ‘Styles’, people don't even bother looking at the history of where it came from originally, so why is it important?

While part of Alternative culture is Fashion and a way to express yourself that's against societal norms, there is alot of political significance that comes with it. When talking about it, Riot Grrrl tik tok creators, and other Alternative creators, say the political significance is based on what the subcultures are. Without that, you cannot be a part of the subculture. Obviously there are alot of conservatives in the scene (As you can see from the usage of lace code) Some complain and say that it's “gatekeeping”, but in my opinion, it's honestly… not. This isn’t the same as someone taking a popular music artist, then saying “You don't know this song? Ur fake lolz”.. This is separating mindsets that Alternative people strongly believe in and instead protecting a community that is supposed to be a safe place.

The Riot Grrrl movement provided a space where women in punk music tackled the conflict of inequality and sexism, and decided to fight it, united and organized.

Kathleen Hanna, Bikini Kills lead singer, ended up writing the “Riot Grrrl Manifesto” in 1991, which is a summary of what Riot Grrrl is and what it means to be a part of it.

Summary:

“ BECAUSE us girls crave records and books and fanzines that speak to US that WE feel included in and can understand in our own ways.

BECAUSE we wanna make it easier for girls to see/hear each other's work so that we can share strategies and criticize-applaud each other.

BECAUSE we must take over the means of production in order to create our own meanings.

BECAUSE viewing our work as being connected to our girlfriends-politics-real lives is essential if we are gonna figure out how we are doing impacts, reflects, perpetuates, or DISRUPTS the status quo.

BECAUSE we recognize fantasies of Instant Macho Gun Revolution as impractical lies meant to keep us simply dreaming instead of becoming our dreams AND THUS seek to create revolution in our own lives every single day by envisioning and creating alternatives to the bullshit christian capitalist way of doing things.

BECAUSE we are unwilling to let our real and valid anger be diffused and/or turned against us via the internalization of sexism as witnessed in girl/girl jealousy and self defeating girltype behaviors.

BECAUSE I believe with my wholeheartmindbody that girls constitute a revolutionary soul force that can, and will change the world for real.”

I’m not personally too much of a fan of how Kathleen Hannah ended up seeming like the regular ol’ white feminist that basically put WOC in the shadows within this whole movement. While this piece is about educating about the power that the Riot Grrrl scene had within punk culture, it has many many faults. The diversity within the scene isn’t there. It seemed to be a feminst movement, but only showcased one type of girl. White girls.

Multiple black punks from that era came out and said that they felt that the riot grrrl scene wasn't for them. Honestly? I don’t blame them. You look up Riot Grrrl on pinterest or on tumblr, you can probably count on your one hand how many POC women are showcased.. This moment for women of color is probably the epitome of White feminism in some cases. Author, Gabby Bess, adds that “The history of Riot Grrrl is inevitably written as "predominately white," glossing over the contributions of black women and other women of color”.

Just like the article from VICE states,

“In contrast to this ironclad narrative of the white Riot Grrrl, black women did participate in the movement. Few and far between, maybe, but they participated nonetheless, and they deserve more than to be swept under a rug of whiteness--These women carved their own feminist pathways into the hardcore scene, precisely because they were rendered invisible by the Riot Grrrl movement.”

One very powerful punk from that time, Ramdasha Bikceem, made up a whole Zine when they were 15, that illustrates the conversation of race and gender in Riot Grrrl so perfectly

This would all result in another black punk from that time, Tamar-Kali Brown, to make her own movement called “Sista Grrrl riot”. Out of all of the information that is circulated about the Riot Grrrl scene, Sista Grrrl Riot was probably one of its least talked about movements. Tamir-Kali Brown and her bandmates brought together a community and showed people a version of themselves on a stage where they weren’t represented.

> Kinderwhore

Kinderwhore is a very popular style within the RiotGrrrl community. A lot of people Champion Hole lead singer, Courtney Love, for this style's popularity, but actually her bandmate Kat Bjelland introduced the style first. Though, with that being said, Courtney Love definitely made Kinderwhore one of many staple styles for the Riot Grrrl Subculture.

What is Kinderwhore exactly? One thing about styles like this one is, there isn’t a specific definition to what it is. It was a bold, punk and sophisticated subversion of the classic "girl" stereotype, with a mini-feminine dress and bold makeup. The great part of the Kinderwhore Style is that it was about power. The power of femininity. It was so much more than just a style that included small dresses and mary janes. It was taking the most “fragile” feminine image and making it into something that is punk, and that takes all of the power back.

Another part of Riot Grrrl fashion is just a subversion of regular punk fashion. DIY, big boots, Plaid, Skirts, Spikes.

The idea of taking every inch of femininity that men manipulate and instead using it to make them realize that they can't handle what we are, is such a powerful thing to me as a fashion lover, but also as an aspiring social activist. As the rise of social media attention of Alternative Subcultures continues, I believe the next generation of Riot Grrls are going to kick butt and be more inclusive than the 90s scene was.

ani ok.

pls give me feedback and for those who obv have more education abt this pls give me feedback as well!! i think this is super interesting and enjoyed researching this <3

#riot girl #punk girl #bikini kill #hole band #courtney love #black punks #alternative #alt rock

856 notes · View notes

xaibaugrove · 3 years ago

Text

Everyone in the Krew is Problematic

I was inspired to go on this rant by someone who recently brought up a question in a server I’m in, asking why so many people in the fandom seem to hate Mako and Makorra and why. This wouldn’t be the first time I defend Mako and it most likely won’t be the last, but it might be the first time I tear him and everyone else in the Krew down in the process, only to bring them back up. Hear me out though.

I think I’ve totally accepted that a lot of people in this fandom will always hate Mako and that I will have to perpetually defend him, I understand that this is the relationship I’ve chosen with this world. But what I still will never understand are the reasons why people hate/dislike him because compared to how much they love other characters in the Krew who honestly aren’t that much better than him (in some cases, even worse!), it doesn’t make any sense.

Let me also preface this by saying, I love these characters with all my heart and soul, probably more than I should love fictional characters, but this is the life I live and with that being said, I am going to tear them apart just to prove a point. Okay, here we go.

MAKO

Most of his detractors list the usual criticisms, which are valid when isolated. He cheated on Asami, he lied to Korra, he was a terrible boyfriend and essentially he treated the women he claimed to love or care about horribly. Gee, it’s almost like the man was a teenager with no experience in having long-lasting, healthy relationships and was raised in the streets by gangmembers while doing anything to survive and provide for his younger sibling after seeing his parents killed right in front of him and suddenly being orphaned…

I think Mako has been torn down enough, so I won’t get too deep into the tearing down part for him. It really does baffle me how someone can claim to be woke and not comprehend how someone coming from poverty could possibly be a product of their environment. Like, does everyone think that poor people automatically have hearts of gold and turn out like Little Orphan Annie? Why are people surprised that when someone has a shitty life, they might do shitty things?

Also, sooo many people love Zuko, who actively tried to cause harm to Aang, Katara and Sokka numerous times, and sympathize with his troubled past. But like, sure Zuko had an abusive father and his mother peaced out of his life for whatever reasons but at least he had his uncle. Mako had his parents for maybe 8 years before they were murdered in front of him and then had...no one for the next 10 years? Except for Bolin, sure, but no other parental figure in his life. Dude literally had to become him and his brother’s own parent and joined a gang to survive, and after all that, the worst he does is acts as a bad boyfriend toward Korra and Asami and he is instantly thrown to the wolves. Something doesn’t add up. It’s just...I don’t get it.

Yes, the way he treated people was bad, but people can grow? That’s a thing humans can do. And he was a teenager, my god. No, we cannot allow our past to be an excuse for how we treat others, but we have to be aware that there is a growth process to being human. And being human in and of itself, isn’t pretty. You think Mako is problematic? Don’t get me started on your fave.

KORRA

Ok, I love this woman to death but she is ridiculously problematic. She pursued someone in a relationship and essentially forced Mako to cheat on Asami by kissing him against his will, that’s already pretty awful and shows a lack of empathy on her part, also kissing people without their consent is no bueno. But also I just have to say it for the people who might not know this. One of the fundamental reasons why Makorra didn’t work was because KORRA WAS ABUSIVE. Okay? It wasn’t just that Mako was inadequate at relationships and didn’t know how to people, it wasn’t that she was secretly confused and wanting Asami the entire time (biphobia at it’s best) one of the main problems in the pairing was that Korra was crazy abusive towards Mako. Seriously, why don’t I see this more often in those discussions??

If we need examples, I have dozens. Honestly, it’s really easy to see how terrible Korra was to Mako, I’d actually argue that she treated him worse than he treated her. I mean, they were both terrible to one another, but in Korra’s case she went through the motions of being completely infatuated with your first teenage crush, getting with said crush, then crashing and burning once you realize that you have no idea how to treat a romantic partner so after the butterflies wear off you subject them to all the wonderful aspects of your anger issues. Not only did she scream at Mako during every argument they had, she also threatened him with bodily harm if she got really angry. Remember how their relationship crashed and burned in Book 2? Here are the things that Korra did during that time. Let me reiterate, this was not okay.

Mako is visibly shaken by this!

This woman burst into her boyfriend’s place of work and violently kicked his desk out from in front of him with all his coworkers present. That is not normal behavior. That is a red flag. And after she came back, had amnesia or whatever and forgot they broke up after that scene, let’s not forget that Mako was legitimately Afraid to break up with her again. Korra made her partner frightened that they might suffer bodily harm if they upset her. Again, and I can’t stress this enough, this is not okay!

The little scene in Book 3 when Korra is lifting Mako like 100 feet off the ground with airbending while he’s screaming in fear just to make Asami laugh is cute, right? I’ll admit, I loved that little moment too, it’s one of the only instances of Korrasami development that we got, but also, there were sooo many things wrong with that scene lol. Not only does Korra terrify Mako for literally no reason, it’s also sort of just her continuing to exercise some degree of power over him for her own amusement. Almost like a subtle reminder to him saying, “I am stronger than you in every way and I can break your femur like a twig if I wanted to… but I won’t, so look how much fun we’re having!”

Now of course, there are reasons why Korra acts like this. She was isolated for almost her entire life and never learned how to treat people and be around people. The Avatar is human because they must live amongst the people they protect and that helps them develop empathy and cherish life. The White Lotus deprived her of that fundamental aspect of her duty as the Avatar and it showed throughout the beginning of the series. Clearly, she was young, didn’t see how her actions could negatively affect others and hurt the feelings of not just her partner but also friends and family (she was really awful towards a lot of people in her life!). But as the series went on, we see her having less outbursts and learning to control her temper more.

One can only assume that she does not have the same behavior with Asami because for one, I don’t think Asami would play that shit, she seems like she would electrocute a bitch in a heartbeat and not hesitate if needed, but also Korra is not the same shitty partner she used to be as a teenager. Again, kids do stupid things. Adults do stupid things. And we learn and we grow. Korra will probably make some more mistakes in her relationship with Asami. I don't think anyone can have one bad relationship and suddenly learn all the lessons they can from it and have a perfect one the next go around. I can totally picture Korra losing her temper and raising her voice at Asami if she gets frustrated and forgets who she’s dealing with. Managing anger issues is hard, I know this from experience, and it doesn’t magically get easier. Of course, if Korra does pop off, Asami would definitely put her in her place because she’s a bad bitch who doesn’t take anyone’s shit, next character.

ASAMI

You know her, you love her, you fantasize about her and you probably have her on your list of fictional characters you would totally bang if you had the chance (I know I do), yes, even your best girl is problematic. It’s interesting to me that a lot of people sympathize with Asami and very few openly criticize her (so few that I’ve never seen anyone say a bad thing about her). What’s there to criticize though? The poor girl was cheated on by Mako, had her feelings disregarded by Korra, who claimed to be her friend but pursued her then-boyfriend behind her back and then made up for it by simping for her for the rest of her life? Also her mom was murdered when she was just 6 years old, her father threatened to kill her once and physically abused her, then died right after they started repairing their relationship, essentially making her an orphan at the ripe age of 22. Suffice it to say, Asami has been through it.

So, how could she be problematic, you ask? Why, of course, through the classic Bryke technique of romance progression in storylines called Kissing People Without Their Consent

To be honest, I did gloss over this with Korra, simply because there were sooo many other issues with that woman and I just couldn’t go through every single one in as much detail but that doesn’t negate how serious this whole sneak attack kissing thing is. Sure, Asami is very emotional and lonely and sort of desperate too, (it's a little sad, really) but Mako is clearly uncomfortable and completely caught off guard by the kiss. This is also the second time this happens to him in the series! There are a couple factors that might contribute to why Asami does this and acts this way, maybe Korra’s general awfulness rubbed off on her (don’t make a dirty joke) but this is still wrong.

AND that’s...pretty much it. Kissing people without their permission is a big no no, though. Not wanting to gloss over that, but Asami really is a good person who just did a not-so-great thing. Getting burned by Mako twice probably made her a little less inclined to be as forward with anyone though, and it looks like she now takes her time and is patient in her relationship with Korra. It even seems like Asami is the only person Korra is afraid to upset, as Korra does seem more gentle and calm when around her. And who knows? Maybe Asami living a life where a majority of the time she got whatever she wanted when she wanted it might have also influenced her to be more assertive or even imposing within her relationships.

If anything, those three fools getting into relationships with each other just showed how not ready they were to be in relationships in the first place and also how not okay they were.

BOLIN

Originally I titled this as “Everyone in the Krew is problematic (except Bolin)” but then I remembered that Bolin totally kissed a woman without her consent so I deleted the shit out of that!

This asshole looks genuinely pleased with himself after essentially assaulting Ginger. Not a good look.

Sure, Bolin is baby. He will always be baby to me. But that does not erase the fact that he also actively supported a fascist dictator. Not only was the kissing without consent thing bad, but there’s also that. No matter how many times people around him warned him about the fact that he was on the wrong side of things, that he was helping someone who was putting people into concentration camps...Bolin wanted to believe the best of Kuvira. He ignored obvious signs that the woman was a dictator committing human rights violations like crazy and you know, there’s gotta be a reason for that too.

Maybe Bolin wanted to feel like he was doing something good for once. When you think about it, with his role as the comic relief in the Krew, and sort of constantly being infantilized by his older brother, I wouldn’t be surprised if the man developed some insecurity in his ability to do anything good or useful for anyone without screwing it up in some way. In Kuvira’s army, it seemed like he was actually taken seriously, he felt like he was doing something that mattered. Korra had being the Avatar, Asami had her business and mindblowing philanthropy (honestly, her ability to be as charitable as she is profitable is insane) and Mako had his police work (ACAB, tho). Bolin had...the role of being a joke. A superficial actor. A former pro-bending meathead.

Bolin lived his entire life following after his brother that once they were adults and Mako finally decided to live his own life for once, it left Bolin completely lost. And lost young men are perfect recruits for fascists.

So, in conclusion, my whole reasoning behind destroying the integrity of my favorite characters is to prove a huge point. All of these characters are problematic. They have flaws, some bigger than others (looking at you, Korra. Just...wow), but ultimately, even if your fave is problematic... that’s okay. A lot of people, mostly younger people it seems, are really obsessed with being right about everything that they do and stan. And that’s a wonderful thing, so much change has come about by the younger generations calling out people who do fucked up shit, don’t want or try to improve, and get away with it. But it’s also caused a lot of people to be unforgiving and completely unwilling to acknowledge when people do improve and try to be better.

Personally, I love my problematic Krew because having issues that you’re constantly working on internally is human. It’s human to make mistakes, it’s human to grow from those mistakes. And it’s inspiring to me, who is wholly imperfect, to see myself reflected in fictional characters who aren’t perpetuating unrealistic ideals of human nature, characters who are messy, crazy and ultimately human.

As one of my favorite manga artists and queen of impeccable character creation Rumiko Takahashi once said:

“I think that perfect people are not very interesting.”

And I will always wholeheartedly agree.

#long post #rant #tlok #the legend of korra #korra #asami sato #mako #bolin #avatar: the legend of korra #back on my random bullshit i guess

49 notes · View notes

the-daily-dreamer · 2 years ago

Note

Aww. You went far back enough to see my Dany posts? I’m so honored about the obsession with me <3

Anyways let’s talk about “nuance” and your points.

I have every right to criticize Dany for destabilizing an economy so badly that slavery is literally a preferable option over her current establishment. When you make a move to conquer lands you should have at least an iota of a clue of how you’re going to replace the economy so that people don’t starve to death and suffer under your rule. But Dany doesn’t do that. Because she doesn’t actually care about slaves rights. She likes that freeing slaves gives her a platform and popularity. Tell me this, where is your nuance in considering that Dany allows slavery to occur again (to cover up for her massive blunders), so long as she gets a cut of the profits through taxation. She’s actively profiting off of slavery when it benefits her. Doesn’t sound anti-slavery to me lol.

And building off that. Where’s the nuance of Dany being anti-slavery when she’s willing to purchase slaves (unsullied) until she couldn’t afford them? Where’s your nuance when she’s practically drooling over her husband talking about raping and murdering and enslaving the people in Westeros. Where’s your nuance when Dany burns a slave alive for getting revenge on her masters (Mirri, baby, I am so sorry)? Where is your nuance when Dany rapes one of her “freed slaves” and says “her kisses tasted like duty”? Where’s your nuance when Dany was literally dubbed a master: “Mhysa is a master”?

Believe me. I have nuanced takes on Dany. But, and this may be shocking for you to find out, nuance doesn’t necessarily mean excusing actions all the time. The nuance is that Dany’s actions are hidden under a cloak of righteousness and anti-slavery, but her intentions are inherently self-serving and oftentimes cruel/violent. And it is because her portrayal is heroic (because we see her through her own eyes and the eyes of people who love her), we gloss over the terrifying things she does. It’s only when she is placed in new circumstances where the other side isn’t blatantly evil (because slavers are and always will be pieces of shit), that we can see the real harm her actions have.

As for Rhaenyra, it’s the same as Dany. I have nuance for her but it’s not necessary to apply it to her benefit always. Nuance means that it’s multi-faceted. Not that it’s lessening the blow of mistakes.

Rhaenyra makes crucial mistakes that actively damage her claim to the throne. One of those huge mistakes is having bastards. I’ve said before in my posts that, yes, it’s hypocritical that Rhaenyra can’t have children out of wedlock while male heirs can. However, when she is already in a precarious position with her claim having a valid contestation, she needs to be as perfect as she can be so nobody can hold anything against her. Unfair? Yeah. But sometimes that’s life. And if you want to have the “right” to rule a country, sometimes you have to make sacrifices that aren’t fair.

Having not one, not two, but THREE bastards (two of which she intends to place on thrones when they have zero legal standing) is a pretty egregious thing to do in this world. There’s a reason that Cersei passing off her kids as legitimate is so bad and would lead to her and her children’s execution. Robert technically accepted the kids as his because he didn’t really know better, but they were still bastards and the proof of said bastardy would have her killed, regardless of if Robert believed they were his at the time.

That’s something team black has absolutely zero nuance about and instead invents shit to prove their points. No, the strong boys are not legitimized simply because everyone says they are. If that’s the case then “Long Live King Joffrey” lmao. In order to be legitimized, Rhaenyra would have to first admit her sons are bastards (which would be a disaster for her claim) and then have her father legitimize them by royal decree. Without that, they will always be legally bastards. Regardless of if Laenor lies for her or not. It’s that simple, and the fact y’all can’t understand that is worrying lol.

As for your last bit about Criston, get outta here. Criston said “no”, Rhaenyra kept going. Criston was a subordinate to her and his livelihood was dependent on her, Rhaenyra used that to coerce him. That’s dubcon at best and noncon at worst. Age and gender don’t prevent someone from committing SA against someone else.

And don’t make me fucking laugh. Team black is obsessed with their “precious little meow meow” Daemon who is the definition of a grooming, pedophilic piece of shit. I seriously don’t wanna hear anything from you about hypocrisy when team black ships Daemrya and romanticizes a wife-beating groomer and pedophile. You want equality? Start by condemning Daemon for being a pedo, I’ll wait.

Anyways. My posts are always tagged properly, so either block the anti tags or get a life <3. I’m not gonna respond after this, so you can rage and seethe over me and my posts all you like. Hope your life and media comprehension get better, sweetie.

I am team black, however I am incredibly sympathetic toward Alicent.

Alicent was ‘pimped’ out by her own father to push his desire to have his blood on the throne, asked by her KING to not say anything to Rhaenyra, then punished by her only friend for having married Viserys, which she literally has no say in. Alicent is a child bride at this point, she has been raped and abused in its many forms all for the sake of kingdom and duty..

Then Rhaenyra lied, held truths from Alicent which left her feeling betrayed especially when it results in Alicents only guaranteed ally (her father) being removed from court.

That all could have been resolved over the years, But then come along Rhaenyras bastards. Yes, they are bastards regardless of Laenor claiming them, but it further adds insult to injury because those lies have now become physical and everyone’s ignoring it. And Alicent has sacrificed so much.. she isn’t wrong.

People are constantly up in arms about daemon grooming Rhaenyra, but overlook the grooming of Alicent. Both women are victims of the patriarchal game, the only difference is that where Alicent is a pawn in this game, a game she has played by the rules without complaint of her own position. Rhaenyra is a prize who doesn’t have to follow the rules because her father will always support her, we’ve seen that from how her children are constantly viewed as legitimate when they’re obviously not.

I don’t even like Criston but he was right when he said to Rhaenyra that there are girls who would kill to be in her position, because not only is she heir she still has that sense of freedom and security and we are seeing it in real time with Alicent..

Being a Targaryen fan shouldn’t remove one’s ability to be sympathetic or look at the nuance within these stories. You can back the Targaryens (blacks) while still holding sympathy for Alicent and her family (Greens).

All of this. Just. Yes.

This is the kind of nuance that this fandom needs and I’m so happy to see that there are some targ stans and black supporters that can understand the other side.

Alicent is not the power-hungry demoness that people paint her as. She’s a victim of the society she lives in. Groomed and forced into a role that actively will harm her for the sake of the men in her life. Trying desperately to consolidate everything in her life so that everyone is happy with her, and thus getting hurt by everyone. Rhaenyra is also a victim of grooming and the sexism of her world. She does face disadvantages solely for her sex and gender. I don’t always agree with her but (and I do think her father constantly saving her ass makes her quite privileged) but I can still see the nuances of her case.

I’m just so happy to see a good take. Black or green, we should all be able to see the nuances and not be blind to how a character is mistreated for the sake of bolstering our side.

#I love when team black sees my posts and abolsutely melts down #I never interact with them and yet they keep coming and crying about my posts #love the obsession tho <3 #team black come collect your trash #anti hate #anti team black #anti rhaenyra #anti rhaenyra targaryen #anti rhaenyra stans #anti daemon #anti daemon targaryen #anti daemon stans #anti daemrya #anti dany #anti dany stans #anti daenerys targaryen #anti daenerys #team green #pro team green

181 notes · View notes

gofancyninjaworld · 3 years ago

Text

Garou and the futility of heroism

.With much thanks to @the-nysh for the conversation. I thought of making this longer and more detailed, but I know myself: it’ll turn into one of those drafts that hangs around for years.

I've recently been reading the Epic of Gilgamesh as a part of reducing my terrible ignorance of the foundations of Western literature. Cracking good yarn, highly recommended, but I’m not here to talk literature. The latter half of the story is dominated by Gilgamesh’s struggle against the idea that he was inevitably going to die.

Where this relates to Garou is not that he’s railing against the inevitability of death and the reality that everything built up over a life will crumble to dust. What Garou is struggling against is the seeming futility of heroism.

His specific approach is all sorts of bad, but the reality he's struggling against is something brought up repeatedly in One-Punch Man. One of the *big* themes in One-Punch Man is critically examining what a hero is actually good *for*. No matter how diligent a hero is, no matter how strong they are, the world's evils do not disappear.

It's very outrageous and painful to acknowledge how small and fleeting one's efforts are in the grand scheme of things.

The moment we get a look into Saitama’s thoughts, it’s the very first thing he leads with. Literally the very first sentence of his thinking.

Saitama might be the strongest hero ever, able to defeat anything in one punch. Not only has the world not become a better place as a result of his actions, but the very neighbourhood he lives in has become depopulated as it’s become too dangerous to live there. In its own way, having birdsong be the loudest sound in the morning is its own rebuke to Saitama’s ambitions of helping people.

Watchdogman is the most diligent hero ever, with a perfect monster elimination record. And yet, City Q is as monster-infested as ever. Should anything happen to him, it will be as if he never existed for all the good his previous efforts will have done its inhabitants.

however diligently he sits, the pedestal he’s on will crumble the moment he cannot do his job any longer.

And that’s just talking about monsters. There are a lot of very bad people in OPM world and not just of the cackling mad scientist variety, although it’s got plenty of those too.

The world of One-Punch Man also has evils driven by factors that are far too big for any hero by their action to stop. Problems best addressed at the political or economic level aren’t going to be solved with a punch.

Even when the evil appears to be tied up with a single person, like the Ninja Village was established by That Man, getting rid of them doesn’t necessarily change affairs. The Village stole the freedoms and lives of boys for a good fifteen years after Blast defeated That Man. It was still too profitable to *not* do.

when you think about it, crime must really pay in One-Punch Man!

Even when you say you’re going to do something simple and heroic, like save a single child from the clutches of a monster... what do you mean by ‘saved’, exactly? How brutally difficult it is to save even a single person, how easily it is that your best efforts to be turned to naught by an adverse event, like springing a rabbit from a trap only to have it swooped up by a hawk, is fully on display this arc.

so many heroes’ efforts and yet Waganma went almost nowhere...truly like fetching water out of a river with a basket!

Other than Saitama, we see so many other heroes struggle with the reality of how little they can change things in the long term. Very notable is the conversation that Snek has with Suiryu, where Suiryu challenges Snek to justify why he bothers being a hero at all? “No matter how hard you try, it’s just drops of water on burning rocks,” Suiryu says, something done for self-satisfaction rather than because it actually creates meaningful change. Snek’s thoughts mirror Suiryu’s as he considers whether heroes are actually necessary at all.

Let’s bring it back to Garou. Garou’s Very Bad No Good Plan to Avoid Heroic Heartbreak he laid out in chapter 41. Quite simply, heroes always have to wait for bad things to happen and then react to punish the evildoers and/or save people.

I love how long this guy is...um, sorry I was supposed to be typing something insightful here

But what if it was possible to take the initiative instead, like a monster does? What if people could stop wanting to be bad and monsters could stop wanting to attack people? That’s where the Human Monster was born, the quest to create a persona so strong that no one could oppose it, and so senselessly evil that no one dared to do anything that attracted its attention.

punishing the good and evil alike, don’t make him come your way if you know what’s good for you.

I see a lot of readers read superficially, misunderstand and think Garou is punishing heroes in some way. That heroes are bad in some way. Nothing like that: he attacks heroes because they’re good and devote their lives to protecting people. After all, only a total monster would do that. Also, if even the strongest heroes aren’t safe, what hope have the regular people of this world?

All throughout the arc, that Garou doesn’t actually want to be a monster at heart is clear to every actual monster. It’s clear to us as we see his interactions with Tareo. It’s clear to him himself as he tries to steel himself to take a life just to prove to himself that he can (thankfully it’s Saitama he tries to kill).

It’s what makes Saitama’s bullshit-cutting words as cutting as they are. Ultimately, his trying to scare the world into being good is his way of running away from the tough, heart-breaking work of being a hero.

there is a crazy confidence a hero needs to embody in order to step up, as if by doing so they can do something

The pathos that we can empathise with is that it’s hard to look on a world as messed up as theirs is and not feel that surely, surely there’s something more that one can do. Garou’s struggle is absolutely legitimate. However... I’m going to let the however hang a moment...

It’s childish thinking to frame heroism in terms of strength and it’s not much better to frame it in terms of being of exceptional virtuousness. What a hero is, according to ONE, is someone who can look honestly at the cruelty and randomness of the world, who can acknowledge frankly the fleeting nature of any good they can do, feel the pain of this reality fully. And then choose to reach a hand out to help anyway.

In a world where feeling helpless in the face of impossibly large and complex problems feels inevitable, cynicism is too ready a refuge, and just looking out for yourself is common sense, the mere act of reaching that hand out is an act of courage.

not with illusions of good triumphing over evil, but the dogged determination to do the right thing even if the world burns down. That’s what being a hero is about.

However...

...the way Garou worked out his inner conflict was not legitimate. He picked the worst possible way at the worst possible time to wrestle with it. Which I think goes to a second theme: that your feelings may be valid. But that does not mean that every action that follows from those feelings is valid. Garou hurt a lot of good people and impeded their vital work at a time the world could ill-afford it.

One of the joys of fiction is that not only do characters act for reasons that make sense, but we get to hear and understand *why*. And at the same time, the external actions they take on the world persist. I’m very happy too that ONE isn’t glossing over the consequences of Garou’s actions. Too many readers pick one or the other and lose half the joy.

Thankfully, ONE isn’t a half-ass.

It doesn’t become okay for the heroes that Garou attacked that they were assaulted. It doesn’t become okay for the world that so many people were needlessly deprived of heroes when they needed them most. And it isn’t okay for Garou that he’s made an outlaw of himself as a result of his actions. The ramifications on both personal and societal are going to be explored for the individuals involved. I bless ONE for his conscientiousness and for creating so many excellent characters that make the enterprise worth the candle.

What kind of hero Garou will decide to be and how he’ll make it work in practice, ah that we’re waiting to see.

Coda:

Of course, that’s not the whole story. There’s one other part. Occasionally, by being the right person willing and able to step up in the right way at the right time, a hero can change *everything*.

#OPM #meta #Garou #heroes #for a story that is a parody the thoroughness with which it unpicks heroism is very serious #long #yes I said I wasn't going to run long but I have so much more I want to say #which I guess will put people who came for the luls off but there you go #making peace with what one can do as an individual is a very real problem that's both topical and timeless #making peace that nothing lasts forever not even one's achievements is another #finding meaning and a way forward in this impermanent life is a little triumph

51 notes · View notes

sourstiless · 4 years ago

Text

i just have to laugh at the people who say anne with an e is “too politically correct”. minority groups have always existed in society. having the entire cast be only straight white is unrealistic. nothing about showing prejudices towards those people is unrealistic because it happened. it was real. it’s not forced. and the diversity added would go on to gather a new audience of people who couldn’t previously get into the series because they couldn’t relate or never saw themselves in it. i admit that the reason i was able to relate was because i was adopted. i probably wouldn’t have gotten as into the series the way i did otherwise.

it also really bothers be when old anne of green gables fans are like “it’s too different” or “it’s too dark” or “it wasn’t like the books at all”. for one, different isn’t always bad. i get that you have nostalgia, but it’s a weak argument against the show to just say that it’s too different. anne with an e is a retelling. it’s like movies that say “based on a true story”. it takes the general and necessary points of anne’s original story, but adds certain originality to it. seeing the same thing done on screen is boring, anne with an e was a refreshing breath of fresh air. (that’s not to say that other version were bad because it’s the same story, i love the 1985 mini series and hold it very dear to my heart.)

the “too dark” argument just makes me annoyed, because the system anne went through was anything but ideal. she was taken advantage of, abused, which was simply glossed over in other versions of her story. anne with an e is much more realistic in how she would have turned out. anne’s imagination is a coping mechanism for and an escape from her trauma, it always has been, and anne with an e finally put that into perspective. she has ptsd, as anyone who endured what she had would. her life as an orphan was never pretty, in any versions. awae was just the first to actually develop that part of her instead of making it seem like she was just a delusional orphan with a wild imagination and impossible dreams.

like i said before, anne with an e is a retelling of anne of green gables, not a remake. its adapted from the novels, but it makes sense that it’s not exactly the same. something that i really like about it was that it gave depth to other characters other than anne, while still making it clear that it was anne’s story. gilbert was adapted into a well rounded character instead of just a love interest. diana was more than a naive girl waiting to meet everyone’s expectations. even josie pye, while still a “mean girl” was explored more. but this development never took away from anne’s story.

i don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s dubbed “anne with an e” and not “anne of green gables” like it’s predecessors. right from the beginning it’s explicity set apart from its previous adaptations. because while it pulls from the same source material, it was never going to be just like the others. it was always going to be something new and original. i’ve read the books and watched other adaptations, the 1985 version being one of my favorites, and i really love anne with an e. it was nice, seeing it through a different lens. i thoroughly enjoyed it, and while we didn’t get a few iconic scenes, the series holds up very well on its own. nostalgia is not a valid criticism.

#anyway that’s my rant #anne with an e #anne shirley cuthbert #gilbert blythe #diana barry

71 notes · View notes

klm-zoflorr · 3 years ago

Text

Issues with the Tyzula ship that Tyzula shippers/fics typically avoid

Stereotypical Tyzula Ty Lee: “Azula-san, I completely forgive you for everything you ever did to me or my best friend and have always loved you unconditionally. I will help you become better if it means risking the quality of my life, my other relationships, my sanity, and even my life. I will magically be able to help you deal with your myriad of mental issues as if you always only needed love/affection instead of real medical help. I will always love you even if you don’t really change your behavior or worse, remain the same power hungry bitch you grew up to be. I love you ‘Zula.”

Look, I am not opposed to Tyzula for I actually think that they had a real friendship, even if there was a massive power imbalance, that got fucked up by Ozai’s abusive teachings and Azula trying to act as her sovereign and friend at the same time. But there is a tendency among Tyzula shippers/fics to make Ty Lee forgive Azula way too easily, make Azula not deal with her flaws or make (proper) amends to Ty Lee and Mai, retcon Azula into a soft baby who didn’t do anything wrong other than get abused, and/or gloss over the issues between the two.

For example, If Tyzula occurred pre-Boiling Rock like some fics imply, do you think it would have been consensual? Especially considering that there has been a massive power imbalance (Azula is Ty Lee’s Sovereign) since their childhood that Azula took advantage of even then; Azula forced Ty Lee to join her squad at firepoint; and Ty Lee is deathly scared of Azula? And if it happened post-Boiling Rock there is a massive power imbalance in favor of Ty Lee since the moment Azula “acts up” (it doesn’t have to be a big thing since Ty Lee is scarred shitless of Azula) Ty Lee can either call Zuko to jail her and/or have Aang de-bend her. There are some Tyzula fics that properly deal with, imo, the pre- and post-Boiling Rock power imbalances but most of them just gloss over them. Not helping is the fact that comics imply that the two never had a real relationship at all and that Ty Lee is still deathly afraid of Azula, willing to chi-block Azula the moment she is anything other than docile.

Also, how come most Tyzula shippers/fics don’t touch about LOK’s Turf Wars said about Sozin outlawing homosexuality and the implications it has for a lesbian/bisexual Azula? If Azula, who tries to be the model princess in a post-Sozin Fire Nation, can’t even realize that using fear is not a good way to maintain relationships, how would she deal with the fact that she has feelings for girls? Most of the Tyzula fics or headcanons I have read don’t seriously deal with the fact that either Azula is deep in the closet and/or suffering from serious internalized homophobia and would not likely express her sexual preferences in public unless she was in an extraordinary situation or got serious therapy plus years of self-reflection/character growth. Not to mention the fact she would be one of the leading perpetrators of homophobia by virtue of being Ozai’s right hand general/advisor.

So, do I have a valid point about how Tyzula shippers and fics often engage in abuse and/or toxic friendship/relationship apologism? Or I am just being too harsh on a group of shippers that have been vocally condemned by the greater ATLA community and most likely will never see their ship be canonized? And yes, some of my own fanfic works do contain Tyzula so feel free to call me out if I am being a hypocrite and holding people to standards that I can’t uphold.

-----------

This was a very interesting submission, Anon, and I don't think you're "in the wrong" here, even if I don't necessarily agree with you. At least you're polite, so I won't swear at you xD I'll sum up your points for clarity's sake

"Tyzula shippers make Ty Lee dumber and ready to do anything for Azula. They write stories without depth and without adressing the imbalances in their relationship"

Here's my personnal opinion on that: this kind of drama/angst is hard to write, and I don't want to waste my time for 10 chapters while they're angstying over whether or not to love each other. Mental health issues are hard to write too, and I want azula to be happy, so I can just make them dissapear. I completely acknowledge it isn't the most realistic kind of writing, but I don't care, I just want to have fun. I wouldn't pretend it's canon either.

Now, some Azula fans are just biased towards her, and like to pretend her canon character did nothing wrong and is purely a victim and is owed Ty Lee's love. I'm not gonna shit on them, in the grand scheme of things it's quite inconsequencial, but I don't think that's accurate.

"Tyzula shippers make it happen even if Azula is still a "villain" and hasn't redeemed herself for her sins"

I can link this to my first point a little, and erase all moral complexity for the funzies while acknowledging it isn't canon. But there's also the fact in ATLA, Ty Lee has little to no redemption arc herself. She just betrays azula, and then the good guys accept her and mai with no problem? We could interpret that as "she was always supporting Aang's cause and hated azula secretly since forever" but I don't think that's very correct, because Ty Lee never shows any sign of it, never talks treason, never helps the good guys while azula isn't looking (unlike mai!). The only thing that could possibly make her betray Azula, in my point of view, is seeing her other best friend almost die to her hands. And even then, it isn't a moral choice. I firmly believe Ty Lee was just as indoctrinated in the Fire Nation's ways as everyone else there. And that she actually supported her nation and obeyed Azula as her commander not only because they were friends, not only because she had to, but because she was loyal to her nation. And the only reason I can see her go to the good guys' side at the end of atla was simply because of self preservation with a side of unbrainwashing from FN propaganda

So, in conclusion, I don't think Ty Lee is a completely good character, and I don't think she has a problem with Azula's crimes.

"There is a power imbalance"

I'm not going to deny that. But who told you all relationships with a power imbalance are inherently bad? They're more likely to be toxic, but they won't always be. If the person with the upper hand is respectuous and nice, everything works out perfectly. It's more of an advice towards people who don't have the upper hand in their unbalanced relationship, and who could get taken advantage of. But Ty Lee is smarter than she looks, and I believe she would know to stay away from that.

Pre-boilling rock, there is indeed problems with them getting together, but they're not due to one of them being toxic. Azula is Ty Lee's princess, and it isn't her fault. She was literally raised to lead. And Ty Lee was raised to follow. We see that despite that, Azula still considers Ty Lee as her friend and gets her in her team in a nice way. But it isn't her fault she was raised in the middle of a war and sees the will of the fire nation as more important than anything.

Additionally, I don't think Ty Lee hated Azula, for the reasons I mentionned before.

Post-boilling rock, I just don't think Ty Lee would be scared, or cruel enough, to jail or unbend Azula for no reason. Because, again, I don't think she hates her.

"The fire nation is homophobic"

As is usual with me, I loathe the comics and don't consider this as canon. It doesn't even make sense, apart from saying "fire nation's evil, they're homophobic now too" to be honest, if anyone's gonna be homophobic it's gonna be everyone, cause there was no gay representation in atla.

Oh, and f*ck this, I hate homophobia, I don't want my fictionnal worlds to have it too. It's dumb as shit and everyone is gay in the Fire Nation. There.

"So, do I have a valid point about how Tyzula shippers and fics often engage in abuse and/or toxic friendship/relationship apologism? Or I am just being too harsh on a group of shippers that have been vocally condemned by the greater ATLA community and most likely will never see their ship be canonized?"

You do have a valid point that some tyzula shippers have the same problem as some azula stans, as in that they put her on a pedestral and say she did nothing wrong. But some also just don't want to bother with that and just want to write fluff, and that's fine. There are way worse things they could be doing.

It is true that Tyzula is kind of a controversial ship, and for this reason I don't think you should care too much about it. Bullying people never help anyone, and criticising tyzula shippers will only push them back in their fandom spaces and make them unable to tell apart genuine, objective criticism and mean bullying.

I don't want Tyzula to be canon, btw. Well. For me canon kinda stopped at the end of atla, so everything is possible after this point lol. Not that I even care much about canon.

You are not an hypocrite for liking tyzula and criticizing it. You can call out the behavior of people in your own community, it's perfectly fine and should be encouraged. I'd pay more attention to your opinion too, because I know you don't just dislike the ship and want to find any reason for it to be "problematic"

I'm gonna put that submission in the Tyzula tag, if anyone in there feels offended by that do let me know. I don't intend to shit on this ship at all. Also, if anyone wants to add points or give me perspectives I didn't think about go ahead!

#atla #azula #ty lee #tyzula #tyzula crit #tyzula criticism #anti tyzula shippers #klm-zoflorr #submission

20 notes · View notes

warwaged-moved · 3 years ago

Text

I finished reading the sylv.anas book and this will be spoilerish and filled with complaints so beware (also predominantly alleria-centric, although I have lots of criticism about the book as a whole beyond that). I’ll not really acknowledge any of it when writing war.craft muses tbh, which means alleria is extra canon divergent now

I do like that alleria and liree.sa’s dynamic is more or less as I expected it to be. li.reesa being a stern ranger general, and requiring even more from her daughters (and from alleria, as the eldest and the heir, most of all) is really fitting, and I have always thought their relationship would grow strained as alleria got older and rebelled against the predetermined fate imposed on her.

I also like that their father is the voice of reason and prone to intervening when mother and daughters are fighting, something that was actually an old hc I had. I don’t like him being advisor to the king though. let him be someone who isn’t politically super important you know. the windrunners are already so important on their own. so yeah, when it comes to my portrayal, he’s still just a guy. also alleria’s favorite parent iudhfuishf

alleria did not leave quel.thalas out of a desire for adventure, much less bc of a man. this isn’t even hc or what I wanted, it’s the actual canon this book throws away. she only left to help the alliance bc she thought the elves were paying too little credit to the horde as a threat -- and she was right. but you can see even in previous books, alleria is desperate to get back to quel.thalas and warn them of the horde attack. she weeps at their forests being destroyed by the orcs and dragon fire. she loves her people and her homeland so much and then this book is like ‘oh no she just wants to go explore the world and get the human paladin d’

and later on she leaves azeroth to try to end the dark portal, and ends up fighting the legion for a thousand years. the reason she doesn’t come back isn’t that she doesn’t want to, it’s that she keeps getting caught in one threat bigger than the other. if you think it’s valid to criticize her for leaving bc she wasn’t in silvermoon during the fall all I have to say is lol. lmao

sylvan.as and li.rath’s dynamic and them being the closest after that was a whole point in alleria’s story, after his death threw her off because she couldn’t handle the grief and got lost in revenge because they were so close, really just. ugh. it annoys me so much. the fact they even have sy.lvanas go to nath.anos in a way that feels like a shitty rip off of plots they used with alleria and tu.ralyon too lol. the fact even when it comes to warning the king, syl.vanas is said to have done it first. like. an iconic beloved character of the war.craft franchise, and you really had to steal plots from her sister for no reason at all instead of giving her an actual story?

please this book hates alleria so much for no reason

also I’ve always been a fierce defender of ‘lor.themar and syl.vanas were close friends in life’ but NOT LIKE THIS. it’s so poorly done. they have no development at all, and are friends simply bc the book says they are, and every single time syl.vanas thinks of them and ha.lduron as ‘the Trio’ I cringe so hard skjdfnaskjdfn

the way they handle sylvan.as is just gross when she ends up not only serving the jailer but also thinking a.rthas was right

an.duin going to the maw in the end sucks so bad let this boy catch a break without syl.vanas around goddamn

I love na.thanos and I didn’t think much of what they did with him in general tbh

glossing over some of the most important events in syl.vanas’ life briefly certainly was A Choice, but then again, what wasn’t in this shitshow

#‣ out of character { the mun } — ❝ THAT GLOOMY GIRL WHO SIGHS A LOT. ❞#‣ muse { alleria windrunner } — ❝ VOIDFORGED. ❞

5 notes · View notes

aquariusshadow · 4 years ago

Text

Hope Mikaelson: Grief and Criticism on the Writers

TW//Grief

Alright. I feel like I really need to preface this with three very important points.

1) I have a very personal connection to grief and it's still incredibly recent and that grief has it's own level of trauma associated to it. No more details are necessary.

2) By no means am I claiming my experience with it is the same as anyone else’s or worse, or better. It is morally unethical to police anyone else’s experience with grief. That is not at all the goal of this post.

3) I am simply using my own understanding of grief to understand Hope's character and apply criticisms and defenses where I think they deserve.

First of all. Hope's actions this past episode need to be called out. They cannot be excused with a slap on the wrist and if next weeks episode glosses over her actions then there’s a problem. Hope willing let Lizzie and Josie nearly die (and herself) to save Landon is really screwed up and how she got Josie to try and help her was a bit questionable as well--which I’ll get to later. But, something I can do is try and understand what the attempt is for Hope's mentality when it comes to Landon.

I've been seeing a few posts saying Hope is irredeemable and butchered. And...well, I partially disagree.

The reason I say 'partially' is because I think the writers can easily take Hope in the direction where she can be irredeemable. And, given how shitty the writers have been going about characterization and storylines, I say that the concern has strong logistical basis (and it's a concern I have myself).

But here's where I respectfully, 50% disagree.

Something about Hope's character I think has been consistent enough is her grief. I think people need to keep in mind about grief is that its not a straight line. It crops up in ways that you wouldn't even imagine or recognize. It's overwhelming and blinding and there's a desire to numb it with something strong enough to overcome it if it's not dealt with properly.

To me: that's what Landon is to Hope. Blinding emotion Hope clings to in an attempt to either numb or push down the hurt she feels.

I would like to think Landon could be the key for her accepting her grief and moving on and Landon could represent hope for new life in the future, but there has been no hint of that in the recent episodes.

This is evident in some of the biggest criticisms of Handon. Landon is the one that always needs saving. Hope wants Landon to be completely out of the way and not try and help her because the thought of her losing him is crippling and they don't have a proper heart to heart understanding to try and work through it together.

Especially since, she keeps watching Landon die. Over, and over, and over again.

To the girl who's biggest fear is loosing the people she loves because of what happened to her parents, Hope is continuously reliving her trauma multiple times with little to no guidance to overcome it.

So when you have episodes like the therapy box trying to get through to Hope that she needs to let go, work through her issues, etc, and she rejects it and there's instances in episodes after where she continues to regress and when characters, Lizzie, attempt to clue Hope in that her perception on Landon is a "blind spot" in a negative way, there’s a lot of cause for concern that Hope is at a point where she could be irrational when it comes to Landon.

Which is present in her actions this past episode. All criticisms against Hope are valid and I agree with most of them this from this episode. It was not okay for her to try and use Josie, who's overcoming her own issues from being Dark-Josie, to try and find Landon, and risking both her and Lizzie's lives when it was clear they were about to die. It's also a bit concerning she seems to ignore concerns about monsters coming back to the school, funded by Klaus, everyone's home, would be a very dangerous thing.

But because she's blinded by everything I stated above. I can see where her head is at even though there's concern.

Here is an area where I think Hope's characterization with her grief is either inconsistent...or proves my point that Hope might be a bit too irrational overall.

Hope Mikaelson s1 and s2 would not let Josie and Lizzie Saltzman die or get close to it. That has been proven time and time again. The Saltzman Twins are two people Hope cares so much about, the idea she would be willing to let them die for Landon is very confusing because...you would think the idea of loosing the Twins would also be completely devastating for her too and that would also be something that plagues her mind (hell MG, Kaleb, Alaric, etc at least on some level). Furthermore, we had an episode in season 2 where Hope actively chose to save Lizzie and Josie, over Landon.

Overall, my point that I will end this on. If this is handled properly, this could potentially be the peak to Hope's grief arc overall when it comes to Landon and everything else. Even though I said Hope's actions need to be called out, that doesn't mean I'm flat out angry with her portrayal in the previous episode. Honestly, I'm watching a girl who's in a long term battle with grief and the writers don't seem to know how to get her out of the intense areas that are contributing to her "Landon Obession" etc and have her grow into herself outside of Landon. Aka...the writers seem to be completely out of their element when it comes to this subject, which isn’t surprising.

Hope's arc this season being only about Landon is poor writing, but, there's substance present that I would like to think is underlying the fact that there is more going on than just Landon even if the writers are shit at showing it.

Hope’s pain is not an excuse to make decisions that actively hurt other people. But her grief does allow for an insight onto what I THINK the attempted goal is for her character.

#tw grief #legacies #legacies 3x08 #hope mikaelson #anti hope mikaelson #handon #anti handon #i just think there needs to be a discussion on how big a role grief is for her #honestly i blame the writers for not handling all of this properly #this is literally just my opinions #legacies meta #god i hope im not overgeneralizing anything #im a lil nervous dont mind me ahaha #thoughtful discussion #i love hope okay #i also like landon #ik shocker #but i do

43 notes · View notes

bigskydreaming · 4 years ago

Note

But that conversation between Bruce and Dick is pre-Crisis. (It's Donna's wedding, a mess of BLAMs which may or may not have happened post-Crisis. And I note the absence of the "bad guys crash the wedding" cliché.)

Things aren’t as clearly separated into pre-Crisis and post-Crisis as people like to claim, though. Like, at the time, there was a lot of crossover-acknowledgment from storylines both pre-and post Crisis, and there was never like, a clear definitive line where nothing from before Crisis mattered any longer after it. That was never what that event was, or how it was utilized. Rather, Crisis was used as a convenient way to INTRODUCE a sizable number of retcons, but it didn’t mean that everything outside of those retcons that came before was like, no longer valid.

In terms of this specifically......tons of things to do with Dick, Jason and Bruce pre-Crisis still remained in continuity and relevant all the way up to the New 52. When Jason fought Tim at Titans Tower when he came back, he specifically referenced having been a Titan for a couple missions - that definitely straddled the line of pre and post Crisis and didn’t fall cleanly into either camp. As well as being references to stories that happened BEFORE his post-Crisis origin retcon was canonized, thus further muddying the waters - but regardless, the point is, all of that is still in continuity by the time he returned as the Red Hood. It still mattered, not just in terms of oh technically that happened, but in terms of it and the events within it still being relevant to STORIES post-Crisis. Similarly, when Dick went to the Batcave to see Bruce after he returned from space and found out Jason was dead, that was all definitively post-Crisis, but in that scene, they referenced pre-Crisis events and conversations.

In fact, the whole reason I brought up Dick not hating Jason in the thread with that conversation between Bruce and Dick pre-Crisis.....is because the only time Bruce and Dick actually talk about Dick’s feelings about Jason is POST-Crisis, in NTT #55, when Bruce accuses Dick of never even liking Jason, of resenting him for being adopted when Dick wasn’t......

In response to which, Dick says no, he DIDN’T resent Bruce adopting Jason and not him, he’d never said that, he’d only asked WHY Bruce hadn’t adopted him as well....

Aka....that literal conversation I cited from Donna’s wedding. That was the conversation they were both referencing, post-Crisis. It just happened to have happened pre-Crisis. Its just...it had never actually been invalidated or contradicted or included in a retcon at any point in between.

Like, I’m trying not to be all defensive here, but this is the kinda thing that bugs me a lot. I say a thing, usually while pointing to a thing from canon that establishes that no, the takes a lot of people are going with are a fanon invention here, which begs the question...WHY such a strong preference for the fanon over the canon in specific instances, especially if the fanon happens to enable more of the very same KIND of unnecessary family conflict they claim to hold against canon in the first place.....

And then someone tries to ‘disprove’ this, WITH canon, or by citing why canon apparently is irrelevant here, and so its like....well, which is it? Am I too fixated on canon and that’s why my take doesn’t have that much merit, or am I wrong about canon and that’s why my take doesn’t have merit?

People seem to want to have it both ways when it comes to a lot of my posts, with the only real consistency seeming to be a determination to make it seem like there’s no validity to what I’m saying whatsoever.

That bugs, dude.

My point is just....the literal whole reason I made that post and thread was because I was trying to express that the fanon take that like, the only reason Bruce delayed so long in adopting Dick was that he didn’t want to come between Dick and his memory of his parents and he wasn’t sure this is something Dick would even want, is like....fanon.

I made that post - as I clearly established within the post itself - because the problem I have with this take is it was WELL established, at MULTIPLE points in the past that Dick actively wanted to be adopted by Bruce. He expressed this at Donna’s wedding, which as you said, is pre-Crisis. He then further affirmed this in their conflict after Jason’s death, which was post-Crisis. And then, as my post pointed out, it was STILL almost fifteen years AFTER that point when Bruce finally made the move to adopt Dick, with a rather anticlimactic speech about it not really changing anything and being just a mere formality.....

Even though it had been a very definite source of angst and internal turmoil and doubt about where he stood in Bruce’s eyes, at various points looooooong before then.

Points that were never at any time erased from continuity, as they existed and were referenced on either side of the retcon-period you’re referring to.

And then, I just happened to also tack on the PS that btw, further reminder that the fanon about Dick hating and resenting Jason was just fanon too with no real basis beyond that......by pointing to this convo pre-Crisis where Dick explicitly said as much....with it again being ratified post-Crisis when Dick references this very conversation and expresses the exact same idea he’d had all along.

So, the thing is. I’m fairly certain my point stands. There’s a clear continuance of thought in all the points I mention, no matter where they stand in the timeline.

And the thing that gets under my skin so much about asks or reblogs of this nature is like.....I don’t really understand what the aim here is? Is it just to discredit my citing of canon by raising issues that.....don’t actually change what I cited from canon?

And also, can you understand why it would be frustrating to see it so often being made an issue of semantics, when personally, I’ve always expressed that my fixation on canon vs fanon stems from one thing only: I don’t pretend like people don’t have every right to do whatever they want with fanfic or headcanons, I’m simply raising the question of WHY.

Why certain takes.

Why are so many people SO invested into adhering to takes that put the burden on Dick to be responsible for his own delayed adoption - something he’s angsted about significantly - and thus make him really, the only person truly responsible for his own angst there.

My issue has never been with popular fanon takes existing. Its that I think people should be able to back them up with why these takes are so important to them, that they’re so invested in defending them, from any criticism. There literally is not a single fanon I dislike, where there isn’t a very clear and definite REASON I dislike that fanon, that has nothing to do with it just not being canon.

Like, my criticism of this particular fanon isn’t that oh its fanon, it doesn’t count, its not real. My criticism is oh, I think its a problem that fandom’s focus is primarily trained on coming up with reasons for a son to be responsible for his own doubts and insecurities as to his place in a family/his father’s eyes.....when canon has repeatedly established that he’s EXPRESSED these doubts and insecurities, they’re NOT an unknown quantity to his father, and thus....the ball was in his father’s court all along. And its only fanon that has insisted otherwise....which to be begs the very relevant question: WHY. Why is it so often argued that this should be more the responsibility and fault of a child with abandonment issues and decades of insecurities and self-esteem issues here....in order to gloss over the fact that the power always lay with the father to address all of these issues.....just by....actually addressing them?

That’s the issue with this particular storyline for me at least, its always been the issue, and thus all the canon vs fanon is incidental to it, and the more its made about that, the more frustrating it is, because like....my point and my question has always remained the same, and all that ever results is a lot of people dancing around distracting from those two things rather than ever just engaging with them.

13 notes · View notes