#some of you need to know that exclusion is very nuanced and can be both a good and bad thing depending on how it’s being used

[lostryu]

it is absolutely wild to me that people will use the argument of “words don’t really have meaning” (a well-known transphobic talking point when someone is being misgendered) to use against lesbians who dislike the bi-lesbian label.

Like wow for someone who likes to accuse us of being TERFs, you guys sure like to use their talking points!

[anameistoohard]

Oh boy, lets open that can of worms

There's a LOT of discourse with endo vs anti-endo stuff (endogenic system=plural system not formed by trauma if you don't know 🙂). Like, death threats coming from both sides kinda thing. We try to stay out of it. But it's easy to accidentally stumble into it if you're not familiar with some of the nuance. So we want to share some observations as like, a crash course. (And apparently we had a lot to say lol.)

This post isn't really to debate how plurality forms. Just to give some context as to why so much hate is flying between these two groups.

Basically, you have 2 extremes. (And everyone in between obviously)

On one side you have people making up extra rules on top of the diagnostic criteria to exclude and gatekeep anyone who doesn't meet "their level" of disordered. (I've literally heard people say "you can't be a system, you're not as traumatized as me"). A lot of accusations of faking come from this bunch. Too much internal communication? Faker. Too many non-human alters? Faker. Too many or not enough alters? Faker. You can't win with them even if you have a diagnosis.

We've noticed a lot of parallels between this group and transmeds. You need to have x level of dysphoria to ride this ride. You can't be trans if you don't want xyz treatment. You need to reach my arbitrary bar of "trans enough". Enbys and everyone else are fakers. That kind of bs.

But on this side you also have a lot of people who just want to be taken seriously. They want to be validated by their diagnosis and feel hurt when people say or do things that they think will compromise that validity. They, at least initially, come from a place of sincerity not malice. But they fall into the trap of trying to be "one of the good ones".

On the other extreme you have the wild west. Things people treat as fact aren't codified with the same scrutiny as the DSM-5 or ICD-11. This breeds its own confusion and misinformation. We've seen people conflate plurality with things like maladaptive day dreaming, lucid dreaming, adhd, and (applying it to other people with ferocity to the point of harassment) metaphors of all things.

They have a spaghetti at the wall approach that reminds me of a less extreme MOGII (an attempt to define just about every possible form of gender and sexuality). It's a messy patchwork of ideas. We've seen 8 different labels that all mean the same thing and are being used by exactly no one. Redundancy and hyperspcificity, that's the name of the game. But frankly we like this if for no other reason than we want to see what sticks, what becomes mainstream.

We've seen people from this group attack people as badly as the anti-endo group. Openly mocking people for having trauma or saying vile shit like "traumagenics kys". They feel threatened by the exclusionary nature of diagnoses. But instead of taking their frustration out on the systems of power they take them out on normal people. After all if you're diagnosed, you "represent the system"... I guess. Equally bull shit.

But this is also where the edge cases go, the exclusions, those that don't fit into a neat little box. The DSM excludes people whose plurality is accepted as part of their culture or religion. These people don't suddenly stop being systems just because they're accepted, but they're distinctly not disordered. They don't meet the clinical definition of DID or OSDD. Same goes for someone whose symptoms are mild enough to not cause "clinically significant distress". You also have people who don't want to be pathologized or have been failed by the medical system.

So lastly, a warning: When dealing with plural stuff, it's very easy to go stumbling into a mine field.

Tldr: I would always rather land on the side of letting too many people in than exclude people who needed the support. However, no matter your in-group, some people take things too far. Like, ffs don't attack people. 

-Taylor & Mark

[harkingspot]

from all the vikdecai analysis/commentary i have read, i find this commonality: what i know of vikdecai has strictly been through the eyes of mordecai and mordecai alone. which is so strange because, i mean it takes two to tango and there’s another party people seem to overlook. VIKTOR HIMSELF!!!

like yes, i believe as a raging aro that viktor is not one for romance either. i just think he lacks that attraction and vikdecai is very far from that cookie cutter relationship type beat (idk what the hell i just said but you catch my wave)

it’s funny because, vikdecai has been the only ship (so far, in my eyes at least) that captures how i perceive love. i personally like calling it schrodinger’s romance: it’s both there and not there. moreso because i see their connection being so deep that it does not exist beyond the both of them. it is something that only they exclusively share with one another.

and i think this holds more truth with viktor’s side of the whole ordeal. while one may read it as unrequited on mordecai’s part— i see it as, YALL DONT GET VIKTOR THE WAY I DO /J

okay i kid. but really, i do think he cares. just not in a way that’s easily digestible or distinguishable in the naked eye. but i think i need to stick my thoughts back in the oven to cook a bit longer because it’s truly flying all over the place and some bits of the dish is missing— but i promise i will get to the bottom of it!!

look as much as i love vikdecai, i find it hard to visualise them in a lovey dovey, “let’s have breakfast in bed every morning” setting. but that’s also why they’re so special to me. it’s special to me how they can hold a conversation without any words being said. it’s also very special to me that, despite viktor being a walking accumulation of everything mordecai hates, mordecai still holds him in high regard.

not to highbrow/lowbrow the act of shipping two fictional characters but vikdecai is a very nuanced case and it definitely is an acquired taste— i can see why they’re not many people’s cup of tea. only one can say love is forcibly threatening your ex partner into retiring through the act of kneecapping but hey, that’s the vikdecai way baby!!!!

[amber-jinx]

A bit of a controversial question

Who do you think Chloe was in love with more, Max or Rachel? And what do you like/dislike about Amberprice and Pricefield?

Boy, been so busy I left this sitting in my inbox, oops!

This is indeed controversial cuz at the end of the day we won't be completely sure of either of the ships' dynamics unless we are Chloe herself, so it's all up for people's interpretations. (*whispers* therefore I hope we can all be sensible here)

Personally I don't think love could be measured in a way, like you could be head over heels for someone you've met for only over a month, and we can't exactly say that is more or less than a long-term friendship. I think even Chloe might not be able to choose one. I view Pricefield as a deep friendship, as with Ashly Birch's take; And AmberPrice as more of a romantic dynamic, even though they weren't official girlfriends.

If we refer to the intensity and passion of Chloe's love, due to the state of her life she was in when she got closer to Rachel and the AmberPrice dynamic, I'd say it's definitely more than Pricefield. With regards to how long-lasting it is however, we see that Chloe never forgot about Max even after not getting a response from her for 5 years; this is the kind of enduring love that friendships (which I personally appreciate a lot for) usually have -- is more prominent in Pricefield. These are not mutually exclusive and so all the infighting is really unnecessary haha, why not AmberPriceField! They're both what Chloe needs in her life ^^

I got into Amberprice because of the amount of chemistry they have, the mutual attraction they have towards each other and how they always have each others' back despite being in darkness themselves -- they're each other's angel and it's definitely touching. Sharing clothes and stuff freely and crashing each others' places? Cute. Mentioning the other around other friends often? Hella cute! There are also multiple elements of surprise, like you'd think a rebel like Chloe wouldn't care for a perfect student like Rachel, who instead turned out to have a wild side, and Chloe turned out to be a softie on the inside. Stuff like these makes their chemistry much better than generic straight relationships I've seen in the media growing up. And the fact that Chloe still held the belief that Rachel wouldn't leave without her after all that she's gone through, definitely says something. Rachel was very genuine with leaving town together. Also true love on this end.

On the other side of the coin though, I really wished they had communicated better, the both of them. (It's a pity they were too young and without guidance to navigate all these) Yes Rachel I know you care about Chloe's feelings and wanna protect her, but being honest and open can go a long way. Chloe could've better regulated her emotions and how she comes across, such that she'd not come off as pushy or react as negatively e.g. give Rachel "the stinkeye"; if they worked on themselves and are actually allowed to improve, a healthier relationship would've blossomed. I also felt like there wasn't anything holding them back from them doing overboard with doing wild things together, like drugs and weed. They kinda spur each other on without the voice of reason or given the chance to mature after getting out of arcadia.

These AP shots come from Life is Strange: Rachel's story "the diner" ep, which gave me new insights on some of the nuances that could've been present in their dynamics. Pretty well-made given its constraints!

As always I can't say too much about Pricefield cuz I've not seen all their interactions, so I can only make individual comments. Take them with a pinch of salt!

On the good side Chloe's enduring love is always impressive, like remembering Max's birthday after all those years and immediately gifting her William's camera and taking her back. Moments where she emoted and expressed her appreciation with Max felt really genuine and I like how she's really supportive of Max, lifting the latter's confidence when Max was insecure, not to mention standing up for her in front of Nathan, David, Joyce etc. Very wholesome. On the other hand Chloe could've better nuance the manners of her speech, especially when she's angry -- Max is helping her so much after just reconnecting her for 5 years, it's not really an obligation and so I think she could've held back on some of her words at Max, which still comes down to emotional regulation, but I also understand that she was going through really tough times. I also didn't particularly like how she'd only change her wallpaper to Max after Max followed her wishes, even though that's not super abnormal for an 18 yo.

Max the sweetheart is honestly endearing when she doesn't hold back on positive words for Chloe, and when Chloe's off-balance she'd also be able to provide the voice of reason to put them on the right path. It's giving secure attachment style-- except the bad texter part. I just wish she'd stand up to Chloe a little more to avoid getting them into even more trouble, but that's just a personal take. My main issue with Max is her not writing to Chloe as much in those 5 years, but friends grow apart and it's only natural. As with DE, we'd have to take into the account of survivor's guilt and that nothing last forever, so if they ever separate, it is also understandable and inevitable in life.

The OG did a good job on developing Max and Chloe's bond, and it makes sense why so many ship Pricefield, which I'm not against :) hope my slightly rushed response has answered your question pal! And as always, thank you for asking <3

[butch-reidentified]

Yet another time someone has sent me a screenshot from this random woman spreading 100% baseless, very obviously made-up ('i wonder if") bs about me due to who knows what deep unfulfilled need of hers, though she's never had the spine to come for me directly in any capacity. I so do not understand why I'm coming up again now, given I've not been on tumblr much for months, but 🤷

I'm not going to tag her like I usually would bc I have less than zero desire to invite that toxicity into my life so directly atp (I've @ ed her in the past when she started doing this ages ago), but I am gonna say something ab both the accusations she makes/spreads and ab the behavior itself.

She's been spreading unhinged rumors about me being into men for literal years, including accusing me of fucking my brother, and apparently doesn't find it at all fucked up to be harassing a lesbian trafficking survivor with literally COMPLETELY baseless accusations of sex with m*n (which I have never remotely desired and as I've literally made memes about, would sooner die) just bc I didn't think her treatment of macroclit was entirely fair, as the person who had actually known macroclit for years irl before even being on radblr. I don't necessarily think I would do/say all the exact same things now that I did at that time, for deeply personal reasons I don't owe anybody an explanation of, but that doesn't justify any of the toxicity on her part.

I don't think it's acceptable or even non-lesbophobic to act like lesbians need to be a complete monolith when it comes to their experiences with bi women and views. Nothing I ever said claimed lesbians can be into men or anything of the sort, nor supported polilez, and outside of shit like that, I don't think we need to all have the exact same takes on every single issue down to the smallest nuances.

I also don't think it's acceptable or feminist to completely invent and spread rumors about other women like some wannabe Regina George, as if women don't face enough of that stereotype already. Especially if these rumors undeniably play on themes of your target's trauma history. Especially when you yourself certainly know you're completely inventing said rumors, that they're purely weird parasocial (& blatantly dishonest) speculation.

yes, macroclit is my ex, and we were friends after dating but never "fwb." we did not "meet up and have 3sums," we met up and watched movies and went clubbing, and we have not even slept together since like a couple of years before she realized she was into guys. yes i had a "poly" experimental phase in/around my college years - and I'll admit I didn't formally & vocally end said phase until long after it had materially ended - but this was with exclusively other women, as should be fucking obvious, and frankly was mostly in name only; I just never had any meaningful urge to seek out more partners, and tbqh have never had a very high sex drive. I don't fuck anyone but my wife atp & very much don't want to (nor did I want to feel like I had to air my entire sexual history on tumblr to thousands of ppl).

idk what need is being fulfilled by doing shit like this, i rly cannot fathom it & have never in my life engaged in this behavior toward any other woman. in all honesty, I thought it was just a fully fictional misogynistic stereotype that women do this at all, bc I've never known anyone who does. I've seen rumors spread ofc but usually airing ppls real dirt or exaggerating it, not just lying outright. wild.

all that said, if you want to go toe to toe regarding actual irl feminist action, lmk. otherwise, fix your own shit and drop your obsession w imagining me liking d*ck, it's super creepy and weird.

[jjs-brainrot]

So I've finally read How Do We Relationship? by Tamifull

(spoilers for up to chapter 121 ahead)

What exactly is a relationship? Is it some natural part of the human experience where you pick a life partner? is it a social contract between individuals to ensure exclusive romantic and sexual feelings between each other? Is sex a requirement for a relationship? Is romance even?

I don't know to be honest. What I do know is this: How Do We Relationship? by Tamifull hit me like a truck and then backed up over the corpse.

It might be one of the most nuanced, unflinching and uncompromising works about understanding relationships I've read. I think, in general, a lot of romance fiction feels overly wishful. While I can certainly appreciate a good gushy and feel good romance, it kinda gets tiresome seeing the same "will they, won't they (they will eventually)" and "love at first sight (it works out even though they literally have no chemistry)" stories regurgitated over and over again.

So much of it just feels too fake for me. Like I'm not watching two characters come to understand and fall for each other, I'm watching two halves of a couple who only exist to be a couple. Chemistry? Completely optional! Hardships? Temporary and will only make them love each other more afterwards. Break ups? Reserved exclusively as a failure state or for purely abusive relationships…

What sets How Do We Relationship? apart from its peers is its commitment to understanding its characters as people rather than archetypes. People who each have their own wants, fears, feelings towards sex and romance and most importantly: their own personal definition of what a relationship should be. People who when confronted with each other think they understand how everything should go, only to find out that the other person has a completely different understanding that doesn't fully jive with theirs.

The only yuri series I can think of that does something similar is Yuri is My Job! by Miman. Yuri is My Job! focuses heavily on the idea of fake relationships in Class S stories with it frequently asking "what actually makes something a relationship?"

A lot of Yuri is My Job! is primarily a critique on Class S stories first (possibly also a direct refutation of Maria Watches Over Us… I still need to watch MariMite so I can't say for certain) with a lot of its characters being subversions of classic Class S archetypes. So a lot of its dissections of relationships are done in the context of Class S stories.

That being said, seeing a series directly refuting the idea of a relationship being static and instead coming to the conclusion that the only ones that can decide what a relationship is are the people involved? That stuck with me. How Do We Relationship? is far a more focused dissection of what it means to be in a relationship, or at least, what means for its particularly cast of characters.

Take, for instances, our two main characters: Miwa and Saeko

Miwa and Saeko start out as friends, but after coming out to each other and finding out they're both lesbians, they decide on a whim to date. At first glance, they seem like the perfect couple! After all, they bounce off of each other's personalities really well, enjoy each other's company (both out and about and in the bedroom) and in general seem to care for each other quite deeply. They were made for each other, right? Well, no.

They're both individuals with vastly different personalities, experiences and feelings from each other. Over time they begin to see things in their relationship that bother them. Mostly little things here and there. Nothing they want to start a fight over or strain their relationship over at first but… Small wounds still fester. It eventually finally comes to a head a little bit after Miwa visits her old crush in a high school reunion. It's very clear to both Saeko and Miwa that she hasn't actually gotten over her past feelings for her high school crush. What's more clear to Saeko is that Miwa doesn't feel the same level of love for her and she does for Miwa. Eventually they just… break up and go back to being friends.

In most romance stories, a break up is regularly seen as either the ultimate failure state for a relationship, a temporary set back for a relationship to overcome or purely as an escape valve from an abusive or just kind of shit relationship. The reality is that there many different reasons for a relationship to end.

Could Miwa and Saeko have worked it out? With the path they were heading down, no. Neither of them were willing to fully open up about their problems as both feared hurting the other. Which just ended up with them hurting each other even more. If they had continued the course, their break up might have been far more painful and resulted in them not being able to be friends any more.

And they do get to go back to being friends even after being exes!

I think back to my aunt who divorced her husband several decades ago. They ended their relationship but decided to remain close in part for their daughter's benefit. Over the years they've remained close friends and have gone back to living with each other as well. There's no hard rule that becoming exes means you have to fully cut each other off if that's not what you both want. Certainly there might still be mixed feelings between you both (Miwa and Saeko's relationship as friends certainly takes some huge bumps after they break up), but you shouldn't follow along with what society expects from you both in a relationship versus what you both want from YOUR relationship.

And that right there is Tamifull's thesis statement with How Do We Relationship?: don't determine how your life and relationships should be based on what society expects them to be.

Tamifull doesn't hold back anything when it comes to depicting how society treats relationships in general but also how it treats gay people in specific. While the physical danger of homophobia is always a constant that makes many queer people not want to be open with their queerness, being constantly other-ed in most social situations (whether intentionally or not) can frequently be reason enough to want to stay in the closet. Insensitive questions (that are more often born from ignorance rather than malice), being always seen as an outlier, frequently having to lie about who you like and a million other microaggressions that just build up as extra hardship in a queer relationships. Relationships are already not easy to keep together, but adding additional outside stressors can strain them even harder. Enter Shiho.

Shiho was Miwa's aforementioned high school crush whom she reconnected with during a high school reunion. After Miwa and Saeko's break up, Miwa started keeping up contact with her more and more and eventually has the opportunity to meet with her again. Miwa goes to meet with Shiho in order to confess her past feelings for her. Miwa is fully expecting to get turned down but when she meets Shiho, Shiho seems far more receptive and warm towards Miwa than she was expecting. Whatever mental protections Miwa had against the idea of actually having her feelings reciprocated crumbled as it seems like Shiho might have feelings for her as well? Could she actually get together with her old crush?

Unfortunately, while Shiho does have feelings for Miwa, she doesn't feel strong enough to deal with all the baggage that comes with being in a lesbian relationship with Miwa. She very clearly put a lot of thought into the subject, and while she does care for Miwa, she just can't put herself in a relationship with Miwa. Shiho isn't in the wrong about her own feelings and she doesn't invalidate Miwa's. But it still ends up breaking Miwa far more than if Shiho had out right rejected her.

External factors can have a major effect on relationships but internal factors have arguably far more impact on relationships. Namely: sex and romance. Or more specifically: how everyone has different levels of interest in sex and romance.

Figuring out that I was ace and aro took way longer than it probably should have. "I have no interest in having sex with someone but I still get off to porn so clearly I can't be ace!" was legitimately a thought that stopped me from fully embracing being ace for several years. Eventually I figured out that sex-repulsion isn't a requirement of being ace and that the ace spectrum covers a pretty wide variety of experiences under it and that my own is just as valid as the others.

Over the years I've had to engrave a pretty simple idea into my soul: there is no universal experience when it comes to sex and love. Regardless of whether you're allo, ace or aro, you'll have very different feelings towards sexual and romantic interest than everyone else. Let's take, for example, Rika.

Rika is one of the supporting straight characters of the cast. She's also arguably the most sexually active member of the main cast with easily the highest body count of them all. And yet she does not want a relationship past friends-with-benefits. I'm not sure if she's necessarily aro or just not currently interested in a romantic relationship, but the point is that the main thing she wants from her relationships is sex. And that is completely fine! It sucks that when she explains this to dudes she just fucked who want to start dating her that she only wanted a sexual relationship with them and they respond by thinking she must have some family issues that make her so sexually active (she doesn't) or they respond derogatorily that she's just a slut. That's just part of who she is, there is nothing wrong with her. If she was a guy, it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

And then on the flip side, you have Tamaki.

Some time after Miwa recovered from her heartbreak over Shiho (and after being sex friends with Saeko again for a bit), Miwa starts dating a year younger kouhai by the name of Tamaki. Tamaki is asexual/alloromantic, she very much has romantic feelings for Miwa and even enjoys kissing and looking at Miwa's body, but she has a very low sex drive. Miwa, on the other hand, has a pretty high sex drive. Tamaki and Miwa together might be one of the best depictions of an allosexual and asexual relationship I've ever seen.

I've know a number of aspecs who've gone through a similar situation as Miwa and Tamaki. Some are certainly able to come to an understanding with their allo partners about each other sexuality, personal boundaries and fulfilling each other's needs in a way that's healthy for both parties. But a lot end up in similar situations as Miwa and Tamaki.

Where in one or both partners feel like they're hurting each other. Some aces feel guilt over not being able to provide for their partner's sexual needs, even if their allo partner assures that them feeling comfortable is far more important to them. Some allos might feel like they're raping their ace partners when they have sex, even if their ace partner expressly gives consent because they want satisfy their partner's needs, even if they themselves don't get anything out of the experience. If you get both together, you end up with a feedback loop of self hatred where the ace person sees their own lack sexual interest as actively harming the person they love and the allo person sees themselves as a monster for wanting to have sex with the person they love.

It's a toxic situation to be in, but it's also one that's hard to leave as both parties feel they themselves are in the wrong and their solutions to correct their error (the allo refraining from asking for sex and the ace more freely offering up sex) just lead to the situation escalating to the point of serious damage to one or both parties.

And unfortunately, that seems to have happened to Miwa. As of writing this, we're at chapter 121 so we're still early on the current arc, but it's looking like Miwa breaking up with Tamaki has done a number on her sex drive. I'm no expert on fluctuations in sexual interest due to trauma, so I won't dive too deeply into this (especially since we're still so early in the new arc). However, associating your sex drive as something that's actively harming your partner to the point that you leave them even though you still love them? Yeah, that's going to cause some damage.

I could ramble on and on about other aspects and topics that How Do We Relationship? does so well (Yuria/Saeko insecurities and dependencies, Saeko/Miwa's brief stint as friends-with-benefits, etc), but I've already said far, far more then I was originally already planning to say. So I think I might have save them for some future posts if I remember them.

So to finally end this now very long essay, I return to my original question: "what exactly is a relationship?"

I don't know, I ain't a cop. Whatever you and your partner(s) say it is, is what it is. But watch out though!

[mx-myth]

Okay so I've had some meta thoughts about Laurence's amnesia and how it relates to his relationship with Tharkay sitting in my drafts for like over a year now so I figured I'd finally clean it up and post it. Heads up it's really long.

Laurence finally consciously realises that he loves Tharkay (or is in love with him, whatever nuance you'd like) after "knew him, and knew himself." But at this point he's completely in pieces as a person (more on this next paragraph). Post-amnesia, he's an entirely different man. Pre-Temeraire Laurence is the harshest, strictest version both of and with himself. He follows the rules to the letter, basically takes Temeraire only out of duty in the beginning, and even keeps the promise between him and Edith despite there being no formal arrangement at all. Post-Temeraire but pre-amnesia Laurence has softened. He's putting less emphasis on the rules and more on his morals (see: treason). He has more leeway but still carries that honor/duty/order with himself.

Which is why post-amnesia Laurence is the version of himself that discovers that he loves Tharkay. In the wake of losing his memories and then regaining them he's lost and unmoored. Both of his past selves are so different and therefore so distant. They're both true but it's too jarring for him - especially in his current circumstances, much less the overall war - so Laurence becomes a new person. This is Laurence at his most vulnerable, his most unguarded, who smiles more often now because he doesn't really know that he didn't smile that much before. He has two major tethers to his personhood: Temeraire and Tharkay (I hesitate to say only tethers, simply because Laurence's life isn't that small, but repeatedly these two are the ones who have had the biggest impact on his life, who have kept him going). Obviously he loves Temeraire, he's never going to stop loving Temeraire, he just isn't capable of it, but seeing Temeraire didn't bring back his memories (I can't imagine how Temeraire must have felt, meeting a version of Laurence who had never met him). Laurence loves Temeraire in the most unconditional, selfless way - to be very Greek about it, his philia. But I think when he finally comprehends how Tharkay was the catalyst behind this radical change of his self he dives into his memories again and goes over them in excruciating detail (and he was definitely doing that already, but now he's doing it with a lens exclusively focused on Tharkay). At some point he comes to the realisation that Tharkay loves him, and that he loves him, and that he's been unconsciously shoving it down every time it's surfaced (past-Laurence was saying no homo while actively homo-ing). And with the benefit of being an new version of the same person (and also some hindsight, finally), this Laurence says, I've committed treason. My country sees me as a traitor but they still need me to serve them as a tool. I lost myself once in a war (see: "what are you doing?") that's still being fought. Time is short and there's no guarantee I won't lose my memories again, that I will still be the person I am right now. What do I have to lose?

(And on some level, this Laurence thinks, what can stop me?)

He begins giving to Tharkay what Tharkay always had given to him. His acts of devotions start small (relative to Tharkay's; transporting too many ferals is obviously a little outside of what Laurence can feasibly do). He cares for Tharkay once he wakes ("have you noticed the top of your head appears likely to come off?"), he helps him eat and drink, he massages his hands once they heal, he stays with him through the nightmares that come to haunt him. And he continues doing these little things for Tharkay, hoping that he understands (he's willing to wait, Tharkay waited for him after all, and Laurence doesn't want to push him, especially as he's healing). But I think the act that hits Tharkay like, oh, it's different this time is when Laurence bargains his freedom to Napoleon. I feel like that carries unspeakable meaning for Tharkay, who was ostracized growing up and ended up never having a "permanent" home since he travelled so much. I can't imagine that he hasn't been in a similar situation before, but he's probably always been expected to weasel his way out of it without any outside help. He's trained himself out of expecting someone to help him, to care enough about him to save him. Yet part of the man who turned to treason simply so the dragons of France wouldn't die in pain lives on in this Laurence. Pre-Temeraire Laurence is rules and post-Temeraire pre-amnesia Laurence is morals, but post-amnesia Laurence is all heart. There was never a way he was going to leave Tharkay behind.

So Tharkay starts watching him. He watches Laurence continue to devote himself to him, again and again. He brings him his coat on cold days. When it rains and their scars ache he curls around his hands and rubs lotion into them. When he goes into town he always brings Tharkay back a little gift. He starts growing vegetables in the garden and he learns how to cook non-wartime foods and how to knit (because he is a man forged by war and what does one even do during peacetime when one's dragon is busy reforming the government, anyway?) and suddenly he's providing for Tharkay like never before. He looked away for one moment and suddenly Laurence's prescence and all that he does has made the manor a home.

Yet Tharkay, for years, has told himself so many times that Laurence is off-limits, untouchable, that he can love him but that there's no chance that Laurence will love him back. The only way he can love Laurence is silently, nearly from afar, and so he tried to do that. But he can't just stand by and so every time he finds himself committing a deux ex Tharkay (see: ferals, again). He understands that there's some shit Laurence needs to learn himself (and god is this series very good about character development for Laurence) but he's not going to do nothing when the man in about to die. For him it's about caring and providing for Laurence even if he doesn't know it. He learns to content himself with the knowledge that, even if nothing comes of it, he can still be by Laurence's side.

But then the amnesia plot happens (which he only learns of after all of it goes down) and suddenly there is a half-stranger wearing the skin of the man he loves (loved, he tells himself) looking at him with those familiar blue eyes filled with a completely unfamiliar emotion. He's relieved that Laurence remembers but he's said that his Laurence is gone that he's even thinking of it like that (Tharkay has a lot of anger, both at himself and others and the world). Laurence is right in front of him, he's not gone at all, but he's gone in a way that matters. But also this new Laurence is by his side all the time. He's feeding him and helping him drink and dress and he sleeps on the floor by his bedside. Tharkay is so confused because this has to be some kind of fantasy dream he's having. He must still be in the cave (and it's believable that he is, because he returns there every night in his dreams). But he isn't and he has to struggle to come to terms with this new Laurence.

So every time Laurence does something even remotely nice he hyper-analyses it and rationalizes it to himself. He deludes himself into thinking that this is normal for Laurence now. It's normal for Laurence to fuss and hen over him now; it's normal for him to smile at him with that emotion written plainly on his face that Tharkay still hasn't (refuses) to decipher. And he does this well into post-canon.

For that reason he only gets with the program when Laurence has to leave the manor (leave home) for a long while (probably with Temeraire) and suddenly Tharkay is all alone in this huge manor. He's wearing the socks Laurence knitted for him and eating food Laurence grew and walking into rooms and seeing little parts of him scattered everywhere. There's a novel he's reading left on the table by the chair he prefers in the library. There's a cookbook in the kitchen in which he's bookmarked recipes he thinks he might like. Tharkay finds a handwritten list of things they need to buy in town left out for him. He left his pillows on Tharkay's bed because he knows he likes sleeping with a ton of pillows (and they smell like him, and Tharkay pretends he doesn't bury his face in him, that he doesn't miss him while he's gone). When Tharkay wakes up in the morning he makes two cups of tea and waits for Laurence to come in from talking with Temeraire before remembering that neither of them are here (home). He expects Laurence to appear in the evenings to ask if he wants to go on a walk through the grounds with him (and he always ends up saying yes). Tharkay learns that the manor is too big for one man who has always been a little too lonely in his life.

So until Laurence returns home he plots and plans and agonizes. After a week once Laurence has come home (and the first thing he had said to him was welcome home, and Laurence had beamed at him, and it was so unbelievably natural to say it) Tharkay begins his attempts at reciprocating. He wakes up earlier so that he can brew Laurence tea so he can take it out to sit with Temeraire. He says that he cooked some of the recipes from Laurence's cookbook and insists on making them for Laurence (he had to figure out his system of marking which recipes were Laurence's favourites). He gifts him a sturdy, functional, and beautifully crafted knife to wear around the house for daily use; he specifically makes sure the knife is up to Temeraire's standards. In fact, Tharkay talks to Temeraire about everything, and Temeraire tells him, with no minced words while completely drawing his own conclusions, that it's very nice that Tharkay is asking him for his blessing, but does he really need it at this point? Haven't they been courting long enough? He's always approved of Tharkay, because he makes Laurence happy.

That's how Tharkay realises he and Laurence have been dancing around each other like shy birds, both of them subtly showing off but not making the first move. And maybe he realises that Laurence is thinking how he used to think - that it's okay as long as he can be by his side, that he doesn't need his love reciprocated (it's a very long chain of Tharkay loving Laurence, Laurence knowing Tharkay loves him and loving him back, and Tharkay loving Laurence and knowing he knows he loves him and loves him back). And of course Tharkay wasn't going to make the first move back then, and if Laurence hasn't by now, then maybe he should borrow some of Temeraire's courage.

It's something small. The words come later, given how action-forward both Laurence and Tharkay are. They don't even need words. Maybe Tharkay takes Laurence's hand during dinner and intertwines their fingers, maybe he touches Laurence's cheek after he's braided his hair as their eyes meet in the mirror, maybe as they pack away the port and piquet he kisses him good night. Whatever it is, they look at each other and simply know. Tharkay sees Laurence slowly start to smile, a huge one that spreads across his entire face, one that he's only seen on Laurence when he thinks he's alone with Temeraire. He seems to brighten, almost radiating light.

For his part, Laurence reciprocates. He squeezes Tharkay's hand, he turns his cheek into Tharkay's touch, he pulls him in for another kiss. He watches as something seems to drop from Tharkay, something that he hadn't even known he was carrying. He becomes loose and relaxed, his body language more open as he looks at Laurence with one of his little smiles, a bit of shyness that he's never seen before evident on his face. He tells Tharkay that he's the most beautiful person he's ever seen.

[eclipse-song]

Episode 230 Director's Notes

Wanted to share these ones since I really enjoyed reading Joseph's thoughts.

Ok, so this was a mean little trick.

Quite some time ago, we came up with the idea of Dr. Lubelle explaining away Night Vale. First, we had poor Sarah Sultan, under the title "Sarah Sultan, Explained". Then I knew I wanted to go after someone really big. An iconic character. Thus "The Glow Cloud, Explained." And we always knew there would be one last episode with this title format, and it would, based on the previous pattern, establish an existential threat against our sweet Carlos.

But at no point did we consider actually explaining him away. Because, as Carlos points out in this episode:

a) explanations are not inherently threatening. It is how they are wielded, and who wields them, that can do damage

and 

b) a lot of Dr. Lubelle's explanations didn't really hold water anyway.

I knew for this confrontation to work, we would need to hear from both Carlos and Dr. Lubelle themselves. It is always a joy and a privilege when Dylan takes the time from his busy schedule of, most recently, writing on Ted Lasso and creating a new podcast about Jar Jar Binks for TED, to record for us. 

And what can be said about Janet Varney that isn't just a lot of incoherent gushing? She is an expert at voice performance. For her final section, I let her know it was her character's big villain monologue before she gets squashed by a cow and to really go for it. I'm actually writing these notes before I get to hear what she did, but I have complete confidence that she will swing for the fences in the best way possible. 

In this era of science-denial, it can be tricky to try to tell a nuanced story about science. One that acknowledges the very real harms caused by western capitalism through the tool of science, while also keeping in mind that much of what makes our lives wonderful was also discovered through the same tool. Science has no morality. Morality is simply not what science is set up to do. So the ideas of right and wrong, harmful and helpful, those must come from the human being doing the science. 

America has become obsessed with STEM, but when we only teach STEM to the exclusion of the humanties, we get Silicon Valley. A heartless place where very smart people use their knowledge of computers to, generally, make our lives much, much worse, often without knowing they are doing that, because at no point have they been trained to think about the importance of considering the bigger picture and the moral implications of what they are doing. 

Anyway, it's a hard topic to write about, and I can't say we 100% pulled it off. But hey, I hope we at least enjoyed the bad guy getting a dead cow dropped on them.

We'll be taking July off as always, so see you in August with whatever is going to happen next year in Night Vale (genuinely we haven't talked about it yet so I don't know). 

-Joseph Fink

[scapeg8ats]

(Sorry for this being a long post, it became a rant/vent and a lot of thoughts. Someday I'll shut up about this I SWEAR lol. There's a TL;DR at the end.)

Maybe I'm not even interested in syscourse outside of learning more about plurality and its connections outside of CDDs and why someone may see themselves as plural or really any way of not seeing oneself as One Singular Self (whether it has to do with a disorder or it's a cultural/religious/etc. reason). Or I guess that does make me interested in syscourse. Just not echo chamber syscourse.

Like I'm sorry but y'all are fucking mean. I LOVE having discussions where I can learn and understand other perspectives. I guess to steal SAS's label, I'm very pro-syscourse conversation (though—and this isn't to bash SAS AT ALL—to me that feels redundant because syscourse is supposed to be conversation anyway. But it's not so the label is necessary). I want to learn. I want to be educated. I want to discuss this, even with people who disagree with me, because I want knowledge of other perspectives.

But it is so hard to find syscourse spaces that AREN'T echo chamber syscourse spaces. The desire to attain knowledge is stomped out by attaching inherent morality to labels that can be boiled down to one argument: Do you or do you not believe that plurality is exclusive to CDDs?

And shockingly this has more nuance than "endos are/n't valid". What may cause someone to see themselves as plural without a CDD? And the answers are vast and could be a FASCINATING discussion. Not even necessarily a debate, just learning more about people. And yet the answer to this question isn't even considered before so many people just go "[extremely loud incorrect buzzer noise]" and shut it down.

Maybe, ironically, this is me struggling to understand perspective. But I don't understand the lack of interest in wanting to understand, despite having experienced it myself. And even that, I want to understand. But I know that the fact that because of the nature of my opinions, I would be marked pro-endo, and shut out of that discussion. And it's INFURIATING because I respect the fact that they don't want to interact with me but I just don't understand!

There is endless room for discussion that's shut out and it's frustrating. It's heartbreaking. I want there to be discussion. But there won't be until the echo chambers start to open their fucking eyes.

I remember the moment for me was when someone in the Twitter dissociatwt community who I really respected, who always provided good resources, who was reliable and kind and honest...was pro-syscourse conversation. And my knee-jerk reaction was almost betrayal. How could someone that I respected be a pro-endo??

But I realized that they didn't stop being reliable because of this. Some of y'all will discount doctors who have been studying plurality, trauma, and dissociation longer than some of you have been alive because they're a stinky smelly "pro-endo". Therapists and doctors and the like who go "Why isn't it possible" get discounted because of this when they, too, just want to understand. Because with all due respect and in the most positive way, they're a bunch of nerds. And I don't understand. I don't understand how you can do that.

And that's really the thing. I don't understand and I'm not given the space to understand because my stance is somehow morally wrong. I'm not virtue signaling right. Sometimes for both sides. And it's awful.

TL;DR, I don't understand and am frustrated by echo chamber syscourse. That's it. That's all this long-ass post is saying. I don't get it. It didn't need a post but a lot of me just started Talking and did not stop.

[antisocialmastermind]

Chapter 11

Chap 1 Chap 2 Chap 3 Chap 4 Chap 5 Chap 6 Chap 7 Chap 8 Chap 9 Chap 10 on Ao3

Day 11: SONUEGL = lounges

As June unfolds into July, Kurt is a cat in the sunshine. His whole existence is warm and gold-dipped and he feels obscenely grateful and lucky. He doesn’t even mind Elliott’s constant ribbing about how happy he is. Because he is.

The inaugural show at Muse is drawing to its close and has been by all accounts a great success. The gallery is in the black, which is unheard of in these early days. Several artists have asked about exhibiting and there seems to be an ever-increasing stream of patrons with means and enthusiasm. 

Serena Mbali’s name and Rachel Berry’s notoriety have done wonders in a very short time. Serena’s works have sold well, three of Elliott’s paintings have little red stickers on their title cards, and Kurt has sold every piece on the gallery wall. His head spins when he thinks about it.

He’s dropped his Thursday shift at the restaurant entirely, feeling cautiously optimistic that he can get by, now that Elliott’s able to pay him for his gallery shifts. He uses the extra time in the studio, caught in a spiral of inspiration-creation-bliss-inspiration that he’s never experienced before.

And then there’s Blaine.

Kurt’s had his share of relationships, ranging from a couple of one night stands, when the mood was right, to Eric, who lasted a year and a half before his career took him to the West Coast and out of Kurt’s life. But he’s never had anything like this. He’s been utterly swept off his feet. By a lawyer.

On Fridays, they go out. Usually to somewhere fancy that Kurt never dreamed he’d see. They’ve ridden through Central Park in a horse and carriage like tourists and on a gondola while Blaine fed Kurt sugar-dipped strawberries. They’ve had dinner at the Empire State Building and Kochi and seen Broadway shows and Kurt’s first opera at the Met.

It was awkward at first. He was uncomfortable with the ostentation and wealth that seems entirely unremarkable to Blaine. But Blaine never seems like he’s preening or bragging or even concerned. He does things because he wants to and he can , and Kurt just needs to relax. He feels pampered and adored and giddy with it.

On Saturdays, Kurt lounges in Blaine’s bed for as long as he can before heading to Muse for the day. They lie there and talk lazily about nothing and everything, kissing and giggling and dreaming. They take turns making each other breakfast or dance around each other in the kitchen as they cook together.

And of course, between Friday nights and Saturday mornings, they fuck. Heated and intense and gentle and nuanced, loving and frenzied. It’s pure ecstasy and Kurt can’t get enough.

****

He feels stupid talking to Elliott. Like he’s a kid or naive or both. But if he doesn’t get out of his own head and get some perspective, he’s going to explode. Or eat an entire cheesecake. Or something. They’re in the living room drinking wine when Kurt brings it up.

“Do you think I need to ask Blaine if we’re exclusive?”

Elliott looks mildly confused when he replies, “Why are you asking me?”

“I don’t know,” Kurt sighs. “I don’t trust myself? Like, what if I ask and he’s insulted that I even had to ask, because of course we are. Or what if I don’t ask so he assumes I don’t want to be? Or what if he just laughs at me because I’m making a big thing out of nothing –”

“Kurt,” Elliott interrupts gently, ‘does it feel like nothing?”

“No,” Kurt tells him. “It kind of feels like everything.”

Elliott’s lips tighten into a tiny, repressed smile. “You need to talk to him,” he prods. 

“I know,” Kurt groans. “I know I do. But I just … I don’t wanna jinx it. It’s been so perfect I just don’t want to make waves, you know? I’m ridiculous.”

“You love him?” Elliott’s voice is quiet and his eyes are intent on Kurt’s face.

“I don’t,” Kurt replies. “Not fully. Not yet. But I’m starting to. Or I could. But sometimes it feels like he has all the power and that’s – Oh my god, never mind.”

“Kurt, that’s not okay.” Elliott suddenly looks concerned. “You guys need to be on equal footing if a relationship is going to work. You can’t be feeling less than. And he can’t be in charge all the time. That’s not right.”

“Oh god, no.” Kurt rushes to reassure him. “It’s just me. My head. It’s not anything he’s doing. I guess I just feel… inferior sometimes. Because he’s able to give me so much. And I can’t give him anything.”

Elliott’s eyebrows shoot upward and his face is earnest when he says, “Kurt, I’m pretty sure you’re giving him something he wants. He’s still here, isn’t he?”

“Was that a sex joke?” Kurt asks.

“It really wasn’t,” Elliott says, in that plainly honest way he has. “I mean, if you’re being truthful that he’s not lording it over you or anything, then it sounds like you just need to come to terms with the fact that you’ve got yourself a boyfriend who can spoil you if he wants to.”

“Is he my boyfriend, though?” Kurt whines.

And now Elliott does laugh. “Oh my god, Kurt. Talk to him.”

****

Kurt doesn’t talk to him. The timing hasn’t been right. He will. He’s going to, but right now Kurt’s still waiting tables and making art and helping Elliott change over the show in the gallery.

Several of the pieces from the first show, including all of Kurt’s except one, were sold online to anonymous collectors. In the sales records for each of them is a note reading, ‘ agent will call ,’ so those need to be packed up. 

Elliott’s unsold pieces will stay. He’s the gallery owner and it’s a good conversation starter to have some of his own work on display. But they move it further back.

The modular walls are moved into a new configuration and artists for the next show are coming in to hang their work. Posters and fliers and press releases are designed and typed. Kurt feels like a professional artist for maybe the first time in his life. It’s a strange, wonderful, giddy feeling.

Blaine sends him flowers. Or has lunch delivered for both him and Elliott. Or texts let me know the minute you're free, and Kurt is just over the moon with how perfect his life feels right now.

Which is why it’s such a dizzying fall when it all goes wrong.

Chapter 12

[trojanteapot]

The writing blindspots in Infinity Train with respect to race

To get this out of the way, I love Infinity Train! It’s one of my favourite shows! I started writing fanfiction because of this show, and it still inspires me every day. 

I really do think that Infinity Train as a whole is a very thought provoking children’s show and I applaud it for exploring darker themes relevant to psychology and psychological well-being, which are topics often overlooked not just in children’s media but for adult media as well. However, I do want people to acknowledge some of its shortcomings, especially because it is a show that is dealing with such heavy and complex topics, and also positions its human characters as coming from a world which is pretty much a stand-in for our own.

Now I know that the storyboard artists for Infinity Train were quite diverse, but I don’t really know if it’s the same for the writer's room. The reason why is that as a POC viewer, it really does seem obvious to me from the way that the POC characters were written pre-season 4, that their race was mostly an afterthought.

Okay and to be perfectly clear, this is NOT A BAD THING. This is just a neutral thing. Obviously we don’t need every single story with POC characters to have to be about their experience as a specific racialized person. There are experiences that are shared among everybody no matter what race they are. I am not saying that you need to do super in-depth research into every single cultural nuance of every ethnic minority before writing them. It depends on if you really want to delve into how their heritage or traditions or specific life experiences inform their character arc. Not every character arc is about that. And it shouldn’t be!

With that being said, I do think that perhaps the writers should have tried to consider asking themselves very basic surface level questions on how being non-white would inform the problems and conflicts their characters would face. They don't need to know the ins and outs of each culture for each of their characters, but they could have just asked “How would I feel/react to others if people made weird assumptions about me based on my race? How differently would my parents raise me if they were afraid of prejudice or discrimination?” I think they should have reflected on that before setting in stone the backstories for their POC characters, especially with respect to Grace.

Part 1: GRACE'S PARENTS

So I am not Black myself, but I have had many conversations about Grace with one of my friends in fandom who is Black, and we both do get the sense that Grace’s race was very much just an afterthought to her characterization. To be clear, this is NOT because she has very wealthy parents. I am well aware that there are Black Americans with generational wealth. However, knowing what we know about affluent Black people in the real world, how Grace’s parents treated her makes absolutely no sense.

For example, among extremely wealthy people of any race, networking and knowing the right people is of the utmost importance. This is why so many rich people send their kids to prestigious private schools so their kids can get a heads start on knowing the progeny of other one-percenters. If you look up famous people with famous kids, chances are you’ll see a list of all of the very exclusive private academies that they all went to (looking at you, The Strokes). This is the case for wealthy people of all backgrounds, not just white people. And honestly, I imagine that the pressure is at least double for the kids of wealthy POC parents to get to know the right people as early as possible to be able to open as many doors as possible, in order to mitigate the inherent disadvantage of being a racialized person.

But what did Grace’s parents do? According to her, they never sent her to school of any kind, only having private tutors teach her, and her ballet instructor only made her join the other kids in her class once for a recital or something? This is, for lack of a better term... buck wild.

In addition, her parents are American diplomats. Diplomacy is an extremely people-oriented position. If anything, her parents would want her to not only be in the best private school, but to be the best student in school, to know the best people, to join the school clubs that all the other diplomats’ kids are in, and train her from a young age to be a social butterfly. Yes I know that diplomats will often leave their home country and be stationed somewhere else for long durations, and yes their kids could be taken out of school then, but some diplomats just enroll them in a different institution in the visiting country, or not take them out of school at all. This is what the IB Program was invented for, actually. Her parents being diplomats does not justify never enrolling Grace in school. In fact, it makes it less justifiable. 

The fact that they did the extreme opposite of that is so illogical to me that I wonder if perhaps the writers just cobbled together a whole bunch of tropes that they think apply to rich people without actually checking if any of it makes sense, doubly so for rich people who are non-white.

I think the reason why is because they wanted Grace’s parents to stifle her growth and her natural social skills, but on the Train, she can be who she truly is. I definitely agree that Grace finding herself and being able to truly blossom into the girlboss she is on the Train is a great plot point from a characterization perspective. However, I do not think that it should be because she was being stifled by her parents. The solution is staring the writers right in their face, but they can’t see it because it’s a blindspot for them.

What they should have gone with is: Grace's inability to become a social butterfly and a queen bee in her daily life is because she is a dark-skinned Black girl!!!

Her parents have extremely high expectations for her socially. They could have pushed her to make friends with kids she didn’t like just because they wanted to be on better terms with their parents for networking or diplomacy purposes – which they could have shown with that one girl from her ballet class. Missed opportunity! But no matter how hard Grace tries, she will never be seen as the perfect girl because of other people’s assumptions about her just based on her race. 

Once she’s on the Train, Grace then uses her people skills and finds that they’re a lot more effective there, because it’s no longer Earth’s society, it’s a different world, literally! Plus this even allows her to be a little bit more mean, a little bit more honest, something she wouldn’t be able to get away with in the real world without being punished for it harder than her white peers. We already see hints of this with how she interacts with Simon, a white guy who is the same age as her. 

CAVEAT: The dialogue where Grace reveals that she never went to school was something that she told Hazel in a private conversation. So it could be that she did go to school, but lied about it to seem more relatable to Hazel, who had never been around other kids before. Lying is in character for Grace because she would pretty much do anything to get on somebody’s good side. But the way that they had her voice actress deliver those lines, and the way that her expression changes when she talks about how lonely she was indicates that she was telling the truth. To be charitable, I suppose we can land on the reading that Grace told Hazel a half-truth. She did go to school, but she was frequently taken out of class or skipped semesters because of her parents’ jobs as diplomats. So her loneliness in that instant is at the very least truthful. Your mileage is going to vary on this interpretation of course.

This points to a weakness that I can sort of see in Infinity Train in general, where they push societal problems into purely the realm of personal failings. “It’s not because of society that Grace couldn’t succeed, it was solely due to her abusive parents” being just one example. 

Never forget this monologue from a Black father to his daughter in Scandal:

Part 2: JESSE'S ARC WAS PRETTY GOOD THOUGH

The thing is they actually did write a POC character having to deal with a problem that was society-oriented quite well, at least in my view. Although, I am still pretty sure it was still coming from a race-blind method of writing the characters. Otherwise I feel like Jesse’s status as an Indigenous American would have come up more than a grand total of one time. That they could do this well for Jesse makes the fact that they didn’t do the same for Grace quite disappointing. 

Jesse’s main issue that he had to overcome was he kept caving to peer pressure and had trouble saying no to others for fear of disappointment. Now, this problem is universal, and it’s not solely something that is specific to Jesse’s race or ethnicity or cultural background. In fact, I am quite certain that they wrote Jesse as a character without even considering that this problem he faces is relatable to POC experiences. But I definitely know a lot of POC in my life who do take on more responsibilities than they can manage, or feel a higher pressure to fit in with their peers. Hell, I’m that POC in many cases! It’s kind of like background radiation to us as minorities that we just have to do more emotional labour in order to be seen as equals. That’s just the reality of the situation. You can understand and relate to Jesse’s problem without being Indigenous/Native American, but at the same time it feels like a natural problem for him to have, because he is non-white!

I will admit that a personal blind spot of mine is I don't know and haven't had the chance to speak to too many Indigenous people, so there could be aspects of Jesse's arc that don't really make sense. If you are somebody who knows more than me, please feel free to correct me! I would love to hear how you felt about Jesse's characterization and arc as an Indigenous person!

Part 3: SEASON 4, THE ASIANS 

Alright now it's time to tackle stuff that I actually could have any ounce of authority talking about? Which is how they wrote Ryan and Min-Gi in Book 4. I myself am Asian-Canadian. Specifically, I am a first generation Chinese-Canadian but I've been in Canada since I was six so I find a lot of the experiences of second generation Asian-Canadians more relatable to me. In addition, my partner is fourth generation Japanese-Canadian, so his dad would be the same generation as Ryan's dad. (I also am really really into rock music, but that's besides the point.)

What they got right:

So first off, I could tell that they really did consult Asian people in writing this season, so good on them! The difference in how Ryan’s parents raised him in contrast to Min-Gi’s parents felt very natural and realistic to me. Ryan’s family is more westernized and has assimilated more into broader Canadian culture. 

The fact that Ryan has an English name and not a Japanese name immediately shows that. Min-Gi’s parents not choosing an English name for him is a bit of a surprise; very few Asian immigrants go without an English name back in the 20th century. Even nowadays it’s extremely common for us to go by English or Western names that we, or our parents chose, instead of names in our native language. But there are good reasons to not choose an English name. Perhaps Min-Gi’s parents wanted him to have a closer tie to his Korean roots, or perhaps if they travelled back to Korea to visit family it would be easier for them. 

Also, Min-Gi’s parents not supporting his dream of becoming a musician and want him to get a stable job in… I think it was finance? Definitely true back then as it is today. I’m not entirely sure how Ryan’s parents feel about his life choices, and we’ll get into that later.

The character arcs for Ryan and Min-Gi are excellent. This dichotomy of wanting to do the good, responsible thing that your parents want for you because they want you to have the best chance at a good life, and doing what your heart tells you to do, is an extremely relevant character arc. It’s a life decision that is not just an Asian thing, but something anybody can relate to. However, in East Asian cultures that were generally influenced by Confucianism, which includes both Korean and Japanese culture, upholding your duty as a child to not disappoint your parents in any way is something that Asian cultures are prone to emphasizing to a great degree. We see this in other media centered on the Asian immigrant experience as well, such as Kim’s Convenience, Turning Red, and Everything Everywhere All At Once.

What was a bit puzzling to me:

So I'll start off with the thing that definitely raised many many eyebrows if you were an East Asian or Southeast Asian watching the show: Why were Min-Gi's parents so friendly with Ryan's parents when they're Korean and Ryan's family is Japanese?!

So like, not to bring politics into it but… World War II happened. It affected, you know, the world and stuff. And in the Pacific Theatre (god I hate that term), the Imperial Japanese Army… invaded Korea?? Among many other countries??? And did a bunch of war crimes?????

Like, Japan was invading other countries well before WWII even started… This is common knowledge… for Asian people that is.

Yeah I know what you're gonna say. “But Ryan's family is Japanese-Canadian!! They wouldn't have done those war crimes! They would have been sent to internment camps!” Yeah dude, I know! My partner is Japanese-Canadian, remember?! And even if I didn't know him, we learned about the internment camps in history class. It's pretty common knowledge among progressives in Canada and the US. George Takei did a whole musical about it. 

But that's not how racism works. I can speak from personal experience that the scars of WWII trauma in Chinese and Korean communities run deep. Even my own parents needed a bit of convincing to be okay with me dating my partner, and my parents were born two decades after WWII ended. My partner said that one time when he and his grandmother got into an elevator with an elderly Korean woman, and at first she was friendly, but once she realized they were of Japanese descent, the elevator ride became deathly silent afterwards. 

So when you have Min-Gi’s parents, who were probably born during or slightly after WWII, immigrate to Canada, and then be like… totally okay and hunky dory pals with Ryan’s parents just because their kids were born the same day in the same hospital…? I mean sure, anything can happen. But it definitely speaks to how abnormally accepting, forgiving, and welcoming Min-Gi’s parents are. 

To be clear, this isn’t something that pulled me out of the experience, personally. Yes, it is strange, but it’s not impossible for a Korean family to be super okay and friends with a Japanese family. Maybe it’s because their small town has very few Asians and so they have to stick together due to solidarity or something. Maybe Min-Gi’s parents are the type of Christians that believe in the inherent goodness of everyone and giving everyone a chance. Maybe they are just extremely progressive and see Ryan’s family as Canadian more than Japanese (highly unlikely), or they know about the internment camps and that was enough to get over their biases toward them (also unlikely). I dunno, anything can happen.

The other thing that bugged me was that they really didn’t explore Ryan’s relationship with his family to the same depth as Min-Gi’s relationship with his family. 

They already set up the contrast of like, you have an immigrant who is more connected to their cultural background, and a third generation descendent who is less connected, and more alienated from his cultural background. That kind of stuff can really weigh on you as somebody who is a minority. You feel like you simultaneously aren’t Canadian enough because you aren’t white, and that you’re not enough of your cultural background because you had to assimilate, or were forced to assimilate. 

Yes it makes sense why Ryan would throw himself into his music, and be disconnected from his family. But they didn’t take the time to really explore why he is that way. Ryan barely talks about his family except randomly mentioning that they don’t care what he does with his life. I don’t even know if that really makes sense that they don’t care what he does? Maybe Ryan thinks they don’t care, but his assumption is wrong? Either way they don’t explore this point that much. Even if his parents were more assimilated they would still care if Ryan had a non-standard job, such as being a musician. There is a gap between Ryan and his family/parents that was alluded to, but not explored. Feeling like you come from two worlds but not neatly fitting into either is so quintessential to the immigrant experience of Canadians (and also Americans) it’s a shame they only paid lip service to it. 

I mentioned in a different post that Ryan would be monolingual while Min-Gi would be bilingual, and how this could cause tension between them. I imagine Ryan definitely feels inferior to Min-Gi in that sense of loss and disconnect with his heritage, just as Min-Gi is jealous that he feels he doesn't have the freedom to pursue his musical career in the same way that Ryan can. This is all stuff that can take a psychological toll on people, and is something which the Train as a metaphor for therapy should have been primed to tackle. But unfortunately we didn't really get that.

There is a term among the Chinese Diaspora known as “Hollow Bamboo (竹杠)” or “Rising Bamboo (竹升)” [more info]. It's an insult tossed at kids of Chinese ethnicity from judgemental adults for being unable to read/write Chinese or who cannot speak Mandarin/Cantonese/other Chinese languages fluently because they've been “too westernized”. They say we “look Chinese, but are hollow inside, like bamboo.” I don't know if there are equivalent terms for other Asian diaspora/immigrant communities but there must be. This term is controversial, and in my own opinion very unfair, because it blames the kids for this loss of cultural identity when there are so many different factors at play that makes them lose it, all of them outside of their own control. 

Again, I think this is a blindspot from the writers just not understanding how much this loss of cultural identity is such an integral part of the experience of being an immigrant, and that it's not only felt in first or second generation Asian-Canadians, but also third or fourth generation, and beyond. It's scary to go out there and redefine what your culture means to you, and how to pass it on to the next generation.

CONCLUSION

So there you have it, a summary of the strengths and the weaknesses in Infinity Train as it pertains to writing about racialized characters. Just want to restate that a lot of what I pointed out is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things and I do overall think the writing is solid. I am not going into this to say that I expected the writers to do a good job, because generally my expectations for media and pop culture to portray POCs respectfully is quite low. At least they didn’t fall back on tired stereotypes, which is a low bar to clear, but it is where the bar still is these days.

If on the off chance Infinity Train does get uncancelled and renewed for more seasons, I hope they take these lessons and craft better narratives for their POC characters. Maybe hire some more non-white writers while you’re at it!

[brw]

What's your thought on those who called Vision 'abusive' to Wanda?

It's, well, silly, and more than it's silly, it undermines so much of Wanda's character and her history that I feel like it's an opinion fundamentally exclusive to being a fan of hers. It's more than understandable to not like the relationship, to not be a fan, to find it annoying or overblown or what have you, but the core of their relationship NEEDS to be love for the dissolving of their marriage to mean something. For their children to mean something. It was through her love for Vision and their mutual desire to make a family that the twins were born, and it was Vision being essentially a walking corpse, a shell of who they once were, that made the loss of the twins all the more difficult to deal with, because there was nobody who could share her grief with her properly, who could support and understand her. If Vision was abusive, the narrative and the tragedy completely changes, and I have no idea why anybody would want to change that when it undermines so much of the story there.

I feel similarly to people who call Pietro abusive to Wanda. He is often messy, and toxic, and can be cruel, but to frame their relationship with that kind of power dynamic is ahistorical and does them both a massive disservice. He isn't always a good brother, but he does ultimately love her and does want good things for her, even if he does equally have an issue of projecting his own feelings onto what he thinks is right for her. But his love for her is ultimately what always overcomes this, and to disregard that complexity and nuance into "Pietro is only ever a bad brother and is abusive to Wanda and is the reason for all the bad things in her life" is ridiculous! And very Watsonian, as most of the bad things in Wanda's life are John Byrne and Brian Michael Bendis.

Not every relationship that can be toxic is abusive, and calling it that does not empower Wanda in anyway, it makes some of her most important and meaningful relationships have a completely different context and meaning and I don't know why you would want that for her. If you cannot accept the reality of her relationships with Vision and other characters... you should probably read something else, I dunno.

[ihateedwardnygma]

please elaborate (ignore how i voted i thought about it for 2 miliseconds only)

info dump time yay!!

i’d like to preface this by saying what i believe abt ed is likely a personal thing and up to interpretation… for starters he’s a fictional character + also. as with the majority of characters i enjoy, a lot of the things i love / find interesting about him tend to be things i headcanon. i don’t think my perception is necessarily the correct one and i also think the original poll has a lot of right answers… like you said lust and even if you put no thought into that vote i actually think it makes sense… at least in my opinion it ties into his pride, which is what i voted.

anyway! i believe that ultimately his biggest sin- and his fatal flaw overall- was his pride. his downfall is caused nearly exclusively by his own sense of pride and inability to let go of his ego. whether directly or indirectly, pride was at the centre of the majority of poor decisions he made: most of the time he acted out of a need to keep up his ego and save face, desperate to earn the respect of others around him.

i think ed had a very fragile self image- throughout the show, we see him sort of project things onto other people- denying them their own personhood or autonomy and acting as if this can both save him and perhaps save them too, if he gets it in his head that they need saving. he might view himself as smarter and superior to others on the surface, but this disguises a HEAVYYY case of low self esteem… the guy literally can’t function without his ego being stroked. he doesn’t particularly know who he is, and tends to define himself by arbitrary traits such as power and intelligence. when his inflated and distorted view of himself is challenged, he becomes angry and prone to lashing out. this can and does lead to him inadvertently torpedoing the rare few good things that actually do happen to him, which is, even if he is kind of an asshole, really sad to watch.

with this being said, i believe the fandom do tend to characterise him in black and white- either this pride and innate selfishness is a flaw set in stone that cannot be fixed, and this therefore makes him 100% evil and irredeemable- alternatively, people will go the opposite route and suggest he’s some kind of innocent little guy absolved of all responsibility for his actions because of his evident issues. and i believe it should be looked at with more nuance than that- yes, he’s not a good person, and yes, he’s done some downright evil things. but at the same time, ignoring that he was a deeply unwell and mentally ill individual with zero support system or help- i mean he got thrown in fucking ARKHAM when he was caught- does a disservice to the character. i doubt he could ever have been normal- i view him as CEN-coded (childhood emotional neglect) and also having multiple mental illnesses- majority of these are my own so it’s not like. Stereotyping lol- that may make it harder for him to navigate life. but i do think characterising him as purely evil or purely good are both takes that lack comprehension skills.

i went off on a tangent there and i’m really sorry!! but i wanted to clarify what i mean when i talk about ed + pride- in no way am i villainising the character nor am i saying everything’s okay bc he’s got like. 12 gazillions disorders or whatever- i just think he’s a very fun and interesting character to analyse… ^_^

[sweetestpopcorn]

How would you rank Jaehaerys and Alysanne’s children in terms of greatness/potential? For me, Baelon was best out their children with Saera being second. I also think Viserra was a waisted potential. I think she could have done interesting stuff had she lived. Do you think perhaps maybe Baelon should’ve married her after Alyssa’s death? Obviously, no one could replace Alyssa in his heart.

Hi there :)

I have already kind of answered this regarding my thoughts about Saera and Viserra and none of it is good. I will just link them here and here . Legit they are just portrayed as mean girls with no real depth to them, though of the two, Saera is much, much worse. Viserra I can at least sympathise with since her parents seem to not give half a f_ck about her and did not even extend to her the same courtesy they did her siblings of having a say about her marriage (more here), but that's about it. I don't find anything else likeable about her she's just... empty.

I will go from least favourite to favourite.

Saera and Viserra go right to the bottom of my list. Followed very closely by Vaegon by obvious reasons. Like Vaegon, it literally costs you 0 golden dragons to not be so unlikable.

Then I would say Daenerys, she has a lot of sweet moments but dies young so I don't really know how she would have turned out. Besides, I know it's petty of me, but I don't like other characters having Dany's name. I do like Daenerys, Naerys's daughter but... yeah no more. You don't need more Daenerys, we have our Mother of Dragons. Yes, I know I am petty.

Then Gael because... poor baby 🥺 seriously what was George thinking writing a character who is Alysanne's comfort, with some degree of cognitive disability be r...... by some random singer, give birth, lose her baby, and kill herself?! Like enough's enough. It's literally just to add tragedy to her story and honestly Turtle man it's getting f:cking OLD. I swear this man gets his rocks off by adding tragedy and terrible abuse to female characters. This when he can bother to make them more than a walking womb.

Then I would say Aemon. Maybe he would be higher but at times I just feel he's too perfect if that's a thing. There’s just nothing wrong with him like 😂 he literally does nothing wrong.

Daella comes next because I find her funny. She's such a drama queen 24/7 making everyone around her want to protect her XD even Alyssa. I kind of got the vibes at times from her that she kind of knew what she was doing to get attention. Like the fact that she and Alyssa are Rhaenyra's grandmothers just makes so much sense no matter how you look at it. In a way Rhaenyra seems kind of a mixture of both? With tons of stubborn and style added. Another moment that really endeared me to Daella was her very tragic death, and how despite all her suffering she still wanted to be given Aemma and to feed her. Prime mom material right there -> like you can tell both from her and Alyssa that Rhaenyra got some top notch mom genes.

Then Alyssa of course, because she was THE queen. Literally she was just a better behaved version of her son and I'm here for it! I love how despite the fact that she was clearly a tomboy she still wanted to marry Baelon and give him an army of kids X'D because these two things are not mutually exclusive and liking or enjoying traditional boy things does not have to say anything about your sexuality or your desire to be a mother - just like being very feminine and liking traditionally feminine activities does not have to say anything about your sexuality or desire to parent. These are rules a society that does not understand nuance and in a sense is deeply sexist and stereotypical likes to put in place and that I find deeply harmful to people. But Alyssa is the BOMB, so funny, so bold, the way she embarrassed Vaegon who was a little sh:t *chef's kiss*

Then there's the best man ever -> Baelon Targaryen

Had his own cool nickname, The Spring Prince, funny, charming, sexy, single dad who never once forgot about his lady with the mismatched eyes, entered a tourney under the name of the Silver Fool... I don't feel like a need to say more, and in an era where all men were literally so problematic, Baelon was IT.

Baelon is what this fandom thinks Corlys is. Sorry not sorry.

And that's it :D

Also no, and more important that should Baelon remarry, the question is did he want to remarry? And the answer is no, and any Baelon fan would respect the Spring Prince and his undying love for his lady with the mismatched eyes <3

[adam-raki]

[ I wanna have a quick rant about Adam (2009). Yes, there is a TL;DR at the end.

Now, I love this movie. It means a lot to me. It's probably very obvious due to the way that I've dedicated my whole account to it. Still, I think people tend to fundamentally misunderstand this movie - and I wanna talk about it.

Let me first say that it isn't perfect. A better movie would have, for example, employed an autistic actor (despite how much I adore Hugh Dancy's performance) and made various other changes that I will not be bothered to list. Is it a perfect representation of autism? No. But, is there a better representation out there? Personally, I don't think so. It's hard to define what 'good representation' is.

I've actually heard this reviewed as a 'bad' or even the 'worst' autism movie ever, which I think is an unworthy assessment.

A lot of criticism of this movie boils down to people just not relating to Adam's personal experience as an autistic adult - and that's fine. Having autism is such a diverse experience, and I can understand the frustration of the representation being almost exclusively cishet white men who like STEM (trust me, it infuriates me too). Still, some autistic people ARE like Adam, and that's also fine. Some of us don't find his character exaggerated at all (like me, who found the shot of his multiple boxes on cereal in the cupboard painfully relatable). A more varied set of autistic characters need to be seen in cinema... including ones like this.

But, the reason why I have a problem with this movie is also why I love it so much; it's uncomfortable. I haven't re-watched it in so long because it genuinely makes me upset. It's uncomfortable to watch Adam mistaken as a predator and watch the miscommunication between him and Beth (per the "were you excited?" scene and the fakeout where you think he's pestering her for sex, but he just wants to practice for his interview). It's uncomfortable to watch him continually shut down by the people around him. It's uncomfortable to watch him misunderstood, mistreated, and left on his own when his partner couldn't be bothered to understand him. It's raw and a little bit ugly.

Was this what the movie makers were going for? Honestly, I don't know. Maybe it really was meant to be a 'pity the autistic' movie for neurotypicals, but I think that would be reducing it to something that it isn't. Yes some of the scenes are jarring to watch. It's less so romantic and comedic than it is awkward and kind of heartbreaking. But maybe that's the point.

Adam 2009 is very much a product of its time. I mean, it's roughly 15 years old now so I wouldn't have expected much. Yet still, it manages to be nuanced, showing the flaws in both sides of Adam's and Beth's relationship and how it ultimately doesn't work out (literally, almost exclusively because of Beth, not Adam).

I'm not telling you if you should or shouldn't like this movie. I happen to really dislike a lot of movies that are praised by viewers and critics. I don't even particuarly find this movie to be all that impressive in the narrative sense - but it hits hard. At least to me, it's the most authetic experience of my own struggles as someone on the spectrum. I hate how accurate it is, and I hate how much I see of myself in Adam sometimes. It's difficult to watch. And I love it.

TL;DR for this - Adam 2009 is flawed as a movie, but many of its facets are misinterpreted as bad representation unduly. I think it's supposed to feel awkward and uncomfortable. Some of us on the spectrum relate to that and good representation can't possibly cover every single autistic experience.

Anyway - if anyone has thoughts on this, I would love to hear them! You don't have to agree with me. Just be nice (or I'll be upset). ]

[letssendacountrysomecupcakes]

So I got dumped yesterday for saying I believe that transfemmes do experience male privilege pre-transition. My ex did not give me a chance to expand on that belief *at all*, just got triggered and decided I'm unsafe.

I'm going to expand those views here because I genuinely think I'm approaching the topic pretty reasonably and at this point I need to get the processing I've been doing written down.

First off, let me say that my opinion here comes EXCLUSIVELY from transfemmes I've talked to over the years as well as my own experiences with transmasc erasure. (My ex claimed that ALL of the transfemmes I know who've said that they've experienced male privilege only think that because of "internalized transmisogyny" while simultaneously refusing to engage with any of my experiences with erasure that are *specifically* things that happen bc of the learned behaviors inspired by the external factors of male privilege and socialization.)

The actual line that I have on this is that male privilege is an *external* force, not an internal one. It is entirely based in how you're perceived and how *others* interact with you based on that perception. It is based in the *societal and systematic* benefits someone receives based on the fuckin gender marker on your ID.

I absolutely do not think that that means transfemmes *interact* with male privilege in the same way as any c*s person, especially pre-transition. I do not think the *effects* of that privilege are the same and in almost every case it's going to be extremely complex and nuanced based on the individual. I *do* believe that, because that external force is applied *constantly* from a very young age, some aspects of that force can and often do come through even after transitioning.

Part of this being so upsetting for me is that it sounds like a rehashing of the "gendered socialization doesn't exist" argument that was going around here in like 2016 and is apparently resurfacing again. As far as I remember, when that argument stopped because the people who were pushing the conversation were outed as t*rfs who'd been posing as queer teens. The intent was to confuse the community and divide the younger and older trans folx.

The argument that gendered socialization doesn't exist (which, as far as I can tell, is the same argument as "transfemmes never experience male privilege) is laughably dichotomous at best and harmful at worst.

On the dichotomous end, we have someone who talks *frequently* about missing out on "being raised as a girl". If that person also does not believe in gendered socialization, they have the belief that they were also "not raised as a boy". Unless you come from a family or culture that has a third option or treats their kids the *exact* same (unlikely), you were fuckin raised in a way that was distinctly *gendered*.

That can transition to the harmful end *very* easily simply by not processing, analyzing, and questioning your learned behaviors. My ex spent the whole conversation calling me misogynistic and denying/devaluing my friends' experiences. She also very specifically made all of her points while simultaneously telling me I wasn't allowed to respond. At the point that I said, "Hey, I can't keep getting messages tangentially related to this when I'm not allowed to respond so I'm going to respond to a couple things, please keep your boundaries in any way that makes you feel safe", she immediately reengaged herself into the conversation fully, sent 3 messages - one of which was the dismissal of my friends' experiences, and blocked me.

I want to make it very clear that I put my responses under a break, specifically so she wouldn't have to read them immediately. I cannot be the one to enforce *her* boundary that *she* was repeatedly breaking. At the point that someone tells me they want a break from a conversation, I say okay and don't fucking respond until they do. I got two additional texts from her, both of which emphasized her points while continuing to disallow me from rejoining the conversation.

If that ain't the EXACT shit I've dealt with for my entire fucking life 🙄