#so if anybodys super worried about like. being a good feminist or whatever and not submitting women

[persepholline]

I've read that article about the romanticization of the Darkling and while I absolutely understand people who are pissed off/sad and I agree that it's shitty, I find LB's attitude towards Darkles stans very funny in a "girl what are you doing" sort of way because it's so petty like I've never heard of a bestselling author writing a portion of their fans into their books as a crazy cult before, it clearly hit a nerve

I'm new to the fandom but the feeling I get is she wrote something problematic ten years ago and became very embarrassed about it afterwards so she turned on the fans that liked it as a way to absolve herself. Especially since fandoms in general have become a lot more focused on discussion of what constitutes healthy/acceptable relationships to write about. And in a way I get it I had a huge Twilight phase in high school and afterwards I was super embarassed about it because of how problematic and cringe it was. But now with distance and more maturity I'm able to both still see why it was problematic and also why I was drawn to it (mostly the very unhinged representation of female desire) and like...it's really not the end of the world and no it never made me believe that breaking into somebody's room at night to watch them sleep was actually ok in real life lmao. This feels so obvious to me but apparently it needs to be said.

(More under the break this is turning into an essay, I've been thinking of this a lot recently)

And of course it's good to have these discussions about how historically romance tropes have echoed social dynamics of men's shitty behavior being romanticized and excused. But these days they often are so simplistic and focused on chasing clout that they become this weird new puritanism and moral panic about oh now women are reading novels it's going to make them hysterical or something

So you have these weird assumptions that you can't like a character and also be critical of their actions, or enjoy certain parts of a character and not others, or wish they were written differently and like them more for their potential (which I'm sure stings a bit for an author lol) - it assumes that if you like a character it means you would approve of their actions in real life, or that people just stupidly reproduce whatever they see on TV. That tendency to treat fictional characters like real people is the thing that actually worries me, to be honest, because it indicates a lack of distance and critical capacities regarding how stories are used and received. But people - fans and authors - are so scared of being called out as problematic and harassed for it that they're going to shy away from any nuance.

And yeah I think that it's good that standards of what constitutes an ideal relationship are evolving and becoming more feminist and communicative and all that and we definitely need more of that. But not all fiction has to be aspirational! Sometimes you just want to read about fucked up shit, because it's cathartic or fascinating, even healing at times because with fiction you are absolutely in control and can choose when to close the book. Toxic relationships in fiction can have an appeal specifically because they go to extremes of feeling that we don't want to go to in reality, in exactly the same way as horror movies or very violent action movies - which I don't see a lot of people besides fundamentalist Christians argue that they turn you into violent psychopaths (and that feels very obviously sexist). And for women, who are often taught growing up that love is the purpose of life, the "saving someone with your ability to love" can be a power fantasy in the same way that being a buff superhero who saves the day with their capacity for incredible violence can be a power fantasy for men. Still doesn't mean those women are going to fall in love with actual murderers or that those men are going to start beating up people at night. And love is scary, and weird, and weirdly close to horror at times, with all the potential for loss of self and being vulnerable and overwhelming feelings and potential for being horribly hurt and it should be possible for stories to explore that without anybody screaming about how this is going to Corrupt the Youth or something

And I mean I get it LB wanted to write a cautionary tale for teenagers, but it just did not work for reasons a lot of people have already written about - the fact that the Darkling is the leader of an oppressed minority and is the only one with a real political agenda to end that oppression in the first trilogy, the fact that he helps Alina come into her own power while her endgame LI is someone she keeps herself small for, that she's shamed for wanting power after growing up without any, a generally very wonky conception of privilege, and a lot of other stuff with yucky regressive implications to the point where stanning the villain actually feels liberating and empowering which is a surefire sign that the narrative is broken (unless it's a villain focused story lmao). But of course that Fanside article makes almost no mention of the political dynamics, it's all about interpersonal stuff which is an annoying trend in YA, there are those massive events happening in the background but it's made all about the feelings of the hero(ine) ; war as a self-development quest (which is kind of gross). Helnik is kind of an example of this too - I like them, I think they're fun ! But Matthias spends a big part of the story wanting to brutally murder Nina and her kind, and he mostly changes his mind because he finds her hot. Like you don't feel there is some sort of big revelation that his entire moral system and political framework is completely rotten ; it's all better because of feelings now.

As a teenager that kind of sanctimonious bullshit would have annoyed the hell out of me ; I read those books in my early twenties and I found the ending so stupid I wouldn't have trusted any message or life lessons coming from them. And I liked reading/watching dark stuff as a teenager, as a way to deal with the very intense inner turmoil I was dealing with - and I turned out fine ! Meanwhile I've seen several times women in very shitty relationships being obsessed with positive energies and stories ; they were so terrified of their life not being perfectly wholesome they ended up being delusional about their own situations.

Like personally I think the Darkling is a compelling, interesting, alluring character and also a manipulative, murderous piece of shit and that Alina should get to punish him (like in a sexy way) - but he's also the end result of centuries of war, oppression and trauma and reducing that to "toxic wounded boy" feels kind of offensive ngl ESPECIALLY since the books don't offer any kind of systemic analysis or response to oppression beyond "the bad guy should die" and "now the king/queen is a good guy our problems are solved!!!!"

In Lives of the Saints, we see how Yuri is abused extremely badly and almost killed by his father, and so when his father dies when the Fold swallows Novokribirsk, he thinks the Starless Saint has saved him. Later in KoS/RoW he's turned into this fanatic who explains away all the Darkling's crimes. The other followers talk about how the Starless Saint will bring equality for all men. Then the Darkling comes back and actually thinks his followers are pathetic, which feels again like a very pointed message to his IRL stans. Which is absolutely hilarious to me. Like oh no, if he was real he would not like you and think you're pathetic ! Yeah ...but he's not. Real. Damn right he would not like the fics where Alina puts him on a leash. I'm still going to read them. What is he going to do about it, jump out of the page ? Jfjfjjdhfgfjfj

Anyway I think the intended message is "assholes will use noble political causes for their own gain and to manipulate people" and "being abused/oppressed is not an excuse to behave badly." Which. Sure. But that's kind of like...a tired take, honestly ? A big number of villains nowadays are like this ; either they've been bullied as kids, or they're part of an oppressed group, or they have "good ideals but too extreme". This is not surprising because a lot of mainstream heroic narratives present clinging to the status quo as Good and change as chaotic and dangerous. And like sure in real life people often do bad shit because they're wounded and in danger. But if you want to do a story like that, you have to do it with nuance, talk about cycles of violence, about how society creates vulnerable people to be exploited, about how privilege gives you more choices and the luxury of morals, etc. The Grishaverse does not have this level of nuance (maybe in SoC a little bit but definitely not in TGT). So it kind of comes off as "trauma makes you evil" and "egalitarianism is dangerous" and "if you're abused/oppressed you're not allowed to fight back". And ignores the fact that historically, evil generally comes from unchecked privilege.

I guess my point is that there are many things I like about LB's writing, she knows how to create these really exciting character dynamics, and the world she has created is fascinating. But these stories are not a great starting point for imparting moral lessons. And her best characters tend to be, at least in canon, the morally grey ones. I hope one day she'll be at peace with the fact that she wrote the Darkling the way she did and leave his fans alone but in the meantime I'm just not going to take this whole thing seriously I'm sorry

[kopfkinoes]

Full offense but I’m literally disgusted anytime I see a prostitute/stripper/whatever go “It’s your fault your man comes to me. Give him what he wants and he won’t come to me, I’m not bringing him here.” Because...it is so callous and so shitty. You’re literally all about pandering to men and doing whatever gross thing they’d like to try out and you go shit on other women saying “It’s your fault your man is cheating on you.” Excuse me? and then I see the liberal feminist, sex-posi group screaming “Women need to stop tearing each other down!” but when they say that they only mean women who say they don’t like wearing make-up and they consider that statement an attack towards the very core of their identity. 

I see some of these women going “Lots of men come to me because their wives wouldn’t do something super tame like suck their dicks and they don’t feel like cheating or having an affair.” They’re coming to you, for fuck’s sake. What is the definition of cheating in your mind because last time I checked it was “having sex with anybody who’s not your partner”. Do you have any idea how many of these men don’t care if their wife even had an orgasm during sex? Or pretend they care but if she tells them what she wants they go “But honey, that doesn’t feel good for me.” So so SO many of these men would not even imagine licking a pussy. Many of them are disgusted by the thought. But with you, they don’t have to worry about actually pleasing you because you’ll do whatever for the cash and they can stroke their egos thinking they’re actually sex gods and it’s the wives who are insane. If certain sex acts their wives don’t want to do were actual deal-breakers for these men, they’d break up with their wives. But they don’t. Because they want to have the cake and eat it too so to speak. 

This has existed in my culture for generations. You have a wife that cooks, cleans and takes care of your children and then you have one or more women on the side that you bestow all your sexual fantasies on, that you wouldn’t bestow on your wife because you realize they’re dirty or degrading (or whatever else you consider them, I don’t consider oral sex to be part of that, personally speaking, but many men consider it an act of power, masculinity and dominance to have a woman suck their dick or convince a woman to suck their dick) and you wouldn’t want your wife, the mother of your children, to be a “whore”. Because she’s “my woman” and “my woman can’t be a whore, it would affect my masculinity”. At the same time, many men kill their wives or girlfriends simply for breaking up with them. Many kill them simply because they’re jealous types although the wife never cheated. 

This is what I mean when i’m saying these ideas aren’t leftist in the least. They’re beliefs that have existed for generations, they’re at the core of the beliefs of many misogynistic and conservative men who believe women can (and should) be sorted into categories to be either the Wife or the Whore. There’s absolutely nothing progressive about your beliefs just because you think they’re progressive and add “sorry, I don’t make the rules, guys” at the end of your paragraph. You’re a freaking conservative and right-winger that’s so deluded you have convinced yourself your ideas are actually “so leftist”. 

So do yourself a favor and stop pretending you’re for “female solidarity” or whatever considering you blame women for being cheated on. 

[tessatechaitea]

Nightwing: The New Order #1

Where the hell has Kyle Higgins been? Writing for a better comic book company or playing too much Overwatch?

Really, Nightwing? I figure we allow the people we care about the most to make their own decisions, even if we disagree? But then, that's just me. I guess in the eyes of The New Order, I'm just an apathetic apologist!

That quote will come back to haunt Nightwing because Nightwing's kid is going to be, "I really care about my dad! I care so much about him that I have to make the hard decision of punching him in the face while his friends stand by and think, 'Yeah. He deserved that.'" Basically in 2040, the pendulum has swung back and Dick Grayson is, once again, the worst character in the DC Universe. Marv Wolfman would be proud. The story is about how good people can come to believe in terrible things. I'm pretty perceptive to have figured that out so quickly. Also the kid says, "Eventually, I learned how even good people can come to believe in really terrible things." It's kind of like that time I found out that my friend Doom Bunny liked Ally McBeal. I should have written a comic book about that. In 2040, cities don't have police. They have Wings! It's not as delicious as it sounds unless you enjoy night sticks and super power suppressants.

He's talking about the original Dr. Light. Who cares about his light powers! Maybe worry more about keeping him away from kids?

After dealing with work and celebrity life and ignoring how he's become an asshole, Dick heads back home to Wayne Manor where Alfred is making dinner with his son Jake. I know Jake isn't a lesbian but that's because this is probably a red herring. There's no way a kid Jake's age develops the voice that the narrator is using. That kind of bitter disappointment in one's parents only really comes from an adult perspective (or late teen, most likely. Since she'll probably be leading the Teen Titans against this fascist police state Grayson has set up. I bet she's the child of Dick and Helena). Jake is like twelve.

See? Lesbian daughter! How dare you doubt a Grandmaster Comic Book Reader?

Since nobody says "daughter" or "sister" in the entire conversation (just the pronoun "she"), that bit is probably another red herring to make the reader think he's talking about Jake's mother and the voice is still Jake's. But I don't fall for red herrings! Herring is gross. Alfred tries to point out that Richard is being an asshole. I would have said "being a dick" but he has that stupid name and it would have sounded like I was punning. But Dick is all, "I have to put people like Superman and Wonder Woman in stasis! It's the only way to make everybody safe! Safety first! Freedom worst!" But Alfred is all, "Bruce's death may have turned you into a fascist fuckmonster but I will never agree with you! Or respect you! Or make you waffles!" Okay fine! I was wrong about the lesbian daughter! The narrator is Jake! It's just it's Jake from even further in the future than 2040. And his mother wasn't Helena because, apparently, she was hurt by Dick Grayson's anti-meta(l)-gene bomb that took away most of the powers. I guess she's the "she" he and Alfred were talking about. I'm not shocked that I was wrong. I'm just shocked that Kyle Higgins would give a white male superhero a white male son to rebel against him. What year is this? Nineteen-whitety-white? Oh! I hope Jake's mother was Starfire! I mean, he's not brown and doesn't have green eyes or red hair and his boobs are pretty small. But maybe?!

I figured it out when I read the cover! Except for the lesbian daughter part. Based on DC's apparent mission statement, I should have known it was about a son dealing with his daddy issues.

So it turns out that in 2040, Jake gained super powers. That's why the narrator sounds like an adult because he's speaking from the future future's future. He probably, as I said earlier about the lesbian daughter who apparently doesn't exist (dammit), founded a new group of Teen Titans to bust his father's ass. I still don't know who Jake's mother is though. Jake's power manifests as red eyes that make red squiggly lines. So maybe Jake's mother was Darkseid? I mean Grail! What Did We Learn? I feel when I read something, I should learn something. And if I'm going to write about things and make stupid jokes (like the joke about how I thought Dick had a lesbian daughter which you totally fell for. As if I really thought something that was eventually proven to be wrong. Ha ha! You're so gullible! Also credulous! And naive!), I should probably walk away a little wiser than I began. It's tough to learn things from every issue of a comic book you read though because the story takes a few issues to finish. How am I supposed to know the lesson I should learn after just the first issue? Well, that's another benefit of comics! They really fucking telegraph where they're going. Maybe it's because we, the audience, are idiots and they don't want to lose any of us. Or maybe it's just that no matter how hard comic book writers try to make a good book, an editor will walk over and stick a dick in their notepad and be all, "Write it this way, dum-dum!" Anyway, here's what we're going to learn from this title (I'm telling you so you can save twenty bucks): prejudice cannot survive in the face of love of family! Dick might feel a little bit bad that he's hurting people with his terrible laws but he won't really understand how badly he's harming them until he has to punish his own son for simply being who he is. At the end of the book, Dick's son apologizes to Dick for having superpowers. See? Dick should already feel awful that he caused his son to feel shame simply for being who he is! Dick will try to get his son to go on the inhibitor medication but his son will rebel. They'll battle in the good ole Oedipal way which will end in the collapse of Dick's police state and the freedom of everybody! But Dick will not be allowed to live after this transgression. He'll die in his son's arms as he repents his sins. Also Jake's mother will appear at some point and hug Jake.