#ratstaticgenius

[stan-denbrough]

i'm only weighing in to say i disagree with your characterization of stan. saying it's ooc for him to fight back is unrealistic... abuse doesn't only leave you deferent it leaves you angry too, i think that when faced with judith (who reads as a manifestation of his father's expectations and some outside obsession pennywise has with stan) it doesn't feel fair to me to say he's some weak scared child... youcan be scared and still strike back you know? completely infantilizing jews isn't good

Bitch where did I say he can’t fight back? I said he’d be terrified during the battle with Pennywise as adults... because all of them were. And I predicted that if Stan were there, it would still be Mike who said “We have to make him small, but there’s more than one way to make someone become smaller,” I just don’t see that changing because everyone headcanons Stan as this verbal assassin (which is a headcanon I enjoy, it’s just not realistic). 

And suggesting that Stan take a time out from the battle with Pennywise when they’re kids was purely to help give his arc more weight. Like... go read it? I clearly demonstrated that I wanted Stan to play a pivotal role in the fight. 

Literally, none of my canon analyses seek to infantilize Stan. Only to make him more narratively important or highlight how likable he is, because more people need to appreciate him. My aus on the other hand? Sure, you could make the case. But when I say “him baybee” it’s more shorthand for “The Losers are all fond of stan and feel protective of him and he appreciates their love and support and it’s a big ball of love,” because saying “him balboo” is just shorter. 

The conversation about abuse has little to do with Stan. Like, with Stan’s dad (and also Bill’s dad) the bare little sprinkling of character they both got, reminded me of my own unhealthy relationship with my father growing up. That’s the only parallels to abuse I drew to Stan (and Bill). 

And there you go with your flaccid appeals to wokeness. The antisemitic canard of Stan being an unmasculine cowardly weak crybaby was already doubled down on by the creators of the films, before they clumsily tried to retcon that by saying “No actually his suicide was noble and badass!” 

Anyway Stan does strike back, I have written about Stan striking back. Stan not striking back, freezing like a deer in the headlights, shutting down, those are also common responses to abuse too. To say “I don’t like how you infantilize Stan” is to basically say “You’re not letting this traumatized kid take back agency in the way I want him to :(”

1) I’m not “letting” Stan do or not do anything. He’s not real.

2) Stan can show he’s brave or strong in a number of different ways. Counterviolence against abusers is not the only way. I don’t think you mean to imply that it’s the only way, but for clarification, it’s not.

3) I’m not even characterizing Stan in that way in the first place?? I’ve written about Stan with a diverse number of attributes and facets to his character, both in canon and in my aus. What is consistent is that Stan is a sweet and kind boy/man who is loyal and caring toward his friends. But he’ll also pull out a dry remark of course. And I guess I add on top of that “Is clingy and likes to cuddle with Bill.” Like I don’t... even parse your “arguments” because they’re just so not... based on anything I’ve said?

[ashleyrguillory]

For the @itfandomsecretsanta. I got @ratstaticgenius who requested Bill, Mike, and Stan having a picnic.