#the think about diversity and representation is it’s boring if only one kind of character is created for one group

[moondal514]

Whenever I see discourse about representation in media, all I can think about is how I have never ever once expected to see myself in a character, and in fact spent most of my childhood unaware that I was supposed to be seeing myself in the characters of the books/movies I loved, because the idea of expecting someone to write a character that’s an agnostic half-Korean half-Jewish Eastern European sex-averse asexual girl is laughable at best

[orangepanic]

I'm probably going to regret this later.

I had a good friend say to me recently that she's not reading any more books by white men. Clearly she was looking for congratulations. Instead, all I could feel was sadness.

To me, the point of pushing for diversity and representation in media is exactly that. Diversity, and not just to put points on a scoreboard or get kudos from your socially-minded friends but because you actually care about broadening your mind. For too long, too few people's perspectives and experiences have been overrepresented in history and popular culture, which limits our thinking and perpetuates the kinds of marginalization and discrimination that hurt society as a whole. We need to actively, aggressively correct that. But to me that means a process that is additive, not subtractive.

Add books to your reading list by people from different backgrounds and cultures, or that center characters who aren't like you. And "aren't like you" should be broad. Read a different genre than you'd normally pick up. Read about somebody older or younger than you, someone whose brain works differently, or someone who grew up in a different part of the country, even if they might look like you on the outside. Do this, but don't only do this to the point that reading becomes a chore or a performative action, or to the point where you're now cutting out other perspectives entirely. I hear so many sad stories these days about how little people read, and I think part of that is because there's been a push for reading as a requirement, as education, and that only certain kinds of books are okay to read because they contribute to this goal. That's such crap. Read what you want because it is fun! But then also add to that experience with new, different books. You never know what else you might like (looking at you, native Hawaiian vampire story). Growing your reading pie isn't about "no more of this" but "yes, more of that."

And the same can be said for fandom. Fandom has always been as space for people to explore different kinds of characterizations and relationships that aren't heavily reflected in popular culture. That's largely why we have transformative works. But lately I see this almost puritanical push in fandom for everything to check certain boxes when the whole point of fandom and fan creations is to make shit up. Don't see enough hairy-chested mlm werewolves on screen? Draw your favs as hairy gay werewolves who kiss! And if you've never thought about your OTP as werewolves, be open-minded enough to explore it, or to read someone else exploring it just to see how it is and stretch your brain a bit. Maybe you'll like it, or learn about werewolves. Maybe you'll hate it. Either way, support each other.

And like the books, this process should be additive. Push yourself to be open to more ships and interpretations of characters and canon. Also, curate your fandom experience, and if you explore something and it isn't for you, that's okay. It's for somebody else. And the fact that it contains no werewolves doesn't make it wrong, or boring, or toxic, or anti-werewolf, or something you need to tell the creator not to make anymore because you want to be seen in online spaces as coming out against what is unpopular so that you, by reflection, will look popular. If you do this you're looking for the fandom equivalent of kudos for saying you'll never read a book by a white man, leaving everything from Neil Gaiman to Tolkien on the table and thinking that makes you look progressive instead of sad and small and like you're trying desperately to sit at the right table in middle school. In short, fandom isn't a zero sum game any more than reading is. And real diversity in fandom means adding in the content and perspectives and characters we're missing, both on and off-screen, (and not just the ones you like, but the ones you might not) as well as not weeding out the ones that we already have. We can have more together, not less.

[askanonbinary]

Hi!!

I'm a writer and I'm trying to write my first book. One of my main chracters will be non binary and even tho I have made reserch on how to write enby characters, I feel like asking a nb person would also be great for learning.

So what I would like to know is pretty much if there's something that authors in general are misrepresenting about the community, some traits that nb people would love to see more in the media and other that you hate, because they are harmful or just plain and boring... that kind of stuff. I want to make a character for enby people to feel seen and represented, and I don't want to perpetrate any stereotypes.

Also, I'm a big fan of your blog, I really admire what you do!! thank you very much in advance :))

; hey !! Thanks for sending this in, props to you for actually asking questions to the people you're writing about, that's definitely the first step to writing a good and properly represented character.

; I think the most important thing is being non-binary is definitely a hugely personal thing, so don't just stop here ! Ask others, look around, maybe make posts asking for peoples experiences and their opinions too. ( any non-binary people reading this, feel free to add to this in the reblogs or comments ! ) But some main things that I, personally, think are important are:

They're ALWAYS androgynous

; and by androgynous I mean they have short hair, were AFAB and wear masculine clothing. Which, nothing wrong with doing / being so ! But it can be disheartening to only see non-binary people represented as such. So my biggest recommendation would be to really experiment with their identity, it doesn't necessarily have to be " complex " but ask yourself why one thing is complex, and why one thing is " normal " !! Non-binary people don't have a single normal look, and not all of us are even the most common idea of androgynous. Even then, everyone experiences androgyny a little if not a lot differently. Some enbies have beards, wear dresses, don't bind, don't " look non-binary " etc and still consider themselves androgynous !! We're people, we're different, don't be afraid to really branch out with your character.

they're known as The Nonbinary Character and only that

; just like any character you're creating, it's important not to get stuck on a single trait and make that their only noticeable trait. Especially with something like this, it's crucial to really give them personality and purpose to the story, don't make them simply The Enby. It's seen a lot with things like The Gay Bestfriend and all, their queer identity is their only defining trait and they end up, purposefully or not, simply being there for diversity points and truly being a terribly harmfully stereotypical and boring character. And even if it's not their only trait, it ends up being a really important part of them. Which is good and can be great representation .. But if them being nonbinary really doesn't effect the story or their character arc, there is no reason to force it into being that way. Their identity doesn't have to be a huge deal and certainly doesn't have to greatly negatively effect the story. ( See: people adding transphobia into fantasy worlds for seemingly no reason but just to have transphobia )

give them euphoria !!

; obviously I don't know your story, but something I see a lot in honestly any book with nonbinary characters ( especially ones centered around said identity ) is it's always doom and gloom, there's never really much positivity around the persons identity. Which can be good for story building, but being non-binary doesn't have to be a purely negative experience. It really never commonly is ! It's in most cases freeing and positive and opens doors to many more great experiences. Whether you make it a huge deal or not, don't be shy on adding some positive things relating to their identity !! Make them happy and proud to be nonbinary !! If they come out in the story, make it good and really describe the joy that comes from it. Small things like being happy when people use their pronouns, feeling euphoric from getting a new clothing item, being obviously comfortable with certain people and showing it through things like jokes about their identity, etc.

stereotypical people are still people

; obviously it's important to push away from harmful stereotypes, or excluding ones, but !! They can be positive, or could be inside jokes among communities that'll really make the character that little more relatable. And as much as stereotypes are bad in cases when pushed from negative and tainted views by " outsiders ", there can be ones based in general ( grain of salt ) truth. Or are sometimes from the community. So the best way to go about it while not playing into stereotypes fully is to, in my opinion, mix stereotypes and experiences. Find experiences from people who have had similar(ish) things happen to them, to your characters plot and see how they go through life with their identity, include common and include " obscure " traits !!

; again as I said before, make them a complicated character with multiple traits and sides and history, etc. It'll make them 10 times more relatable than just picking one common stereotype and pasting it into your world. ( things like hand gestures, how we sit, our mannerisms in speaking, etc. Not necessarily harmful but still technically stereotypical. Personally I find them funny and relatable, others may not !! And that's okay !! You could even find character specific stereotypes, look for positively represented nonbinary characters who share things with your character and maybe consider incorporating those things ! )

; and that's just four relatively vague points, coming from just one single person who has not in fact written a book + does not speak for every enby ever, so I really do encourage you to get opinions from others and really remember we're all very different and unique people, so your character can be different and unique too. Good luck on making your character and your book !!

- Mod Xela

[guriyuri]

School Zone/「スクールゾーン」

🌸9/10🌸 (HIATUS)

A quirky yuri comedy about the chaotic daily life of high school girls! Yokoe and Sugiura have been together forever, and they've mastered the art of making trouble when life's a bore. High school might be a drag, but these girls in love know just how to inject a little chaos and comedy into their sloppy school life.

(Seven Seas Entertainment)

*occasionally listed as ‘School Zone Girls’

I fuckin LOVED school zone, man. There isn't a single character in it that isn't eeping out of their minds at all times. It throws almost all normal shonen/male-targeted troupes off of their kilter and is incredibly refreshing to read. One of its best qualities is its ability to maintain its identity outside of being a queer story- providing commentary on a wide range of topics relevant to high school, youth, etc. I can't really describe the effect of finally being able to read girls just being fucking stupid- other than saying its like running your brain under cold tap water, if your brain was a lesbian yuri enthusiast with a perpetual craving for full-cream milk. As silly as it may be, I actually genuinely enjoy its approach to w/w and adolescent relationship. 2 out of the 3 arguable 'main' three couples have one partner that is gender nonconforming/visibly queer, a rarity for contemporary yuri as a lot of works- to no fault of their own- fall into pitfalls of exclusively drawing hyper-feminine women to try present itself more believably or because it has no other way of proving to you that the characters are girls. The negative of this being that ostracises an entire group of people within the real-life lesbian community and disregards the instrumental role of butch lesbians in queer history by refusing them representation in a genre for them. Despite how I phrase this, though, I'm not exactly trying to present School Zone as a Magnum Opus or the pinnacle of political-correctness and singlehandedly defeating lesbophobia worldwide (which it did); I just cannot stress how badly we need diverse gender representation in yuri.

The main two girls are both fucking hilarious and strangely adorable in their own way (aside from being every gay couple to ever™). Their dynamic mostly consists of Yokoe being a combination of stupid, evil, and helplessly down bad and Kei being a single thread away from pulling a glock on her. If that can’t convince you to give szg a shot you’re a lost cause + I’m unplugging your life support. Anyways, they’re only one of the 3(ish) main pairings in the manga; but that’s where we get to the difficult part to talk about. Touched on some-what briefly, but too often to be able to ignore (iirc they have a handful of dedicated chapters), is Tsubaki’s incestuous crush on her sister Hiiragi. It’s kind of unfortunate this is in here and it sucks for me to have to mention but In this specific case I do think it’s worth overlooking for *so* many reasons. At its’ core their relationship is mostly focused on teenage adolescence and navigating complex familial relationships whilst still trying to grow up and find yourself. In isolation both Tsubaki and Hiiragi are very well written characters; on par with the rest of the cast and really are both very likeable. It’s when their relationship with eachother gets played up for fanservice is when they start to shit on your salad. Still, though, the author pretty clearly has no intention of actually writing them ending up together/Hiiragi reciprocating. So it’s highly likely Tsubaki’s character arc will lead her to move on, especially considering how she’s developed thus far. Last Couple worth discussing seriously is Fuji and Kishiya-san. While I was reading I was under the impression that Fuji + rest were high-school aged and Kishiya was in her first year at uni, but the only source I can find that lists their age says that Kishiya is a first-year high school student; which must make everybody else be in secondary school. Either way though, the age gap between them remains roughly the same and doesn’t really change my hot take on these two. Out of the entire cast Fuji is definitely the truest depiction of the experience of growing up sapphic, unknowingly. She is also my favourite :-). It was also refreshing to read about a girl who hasn’t figured it all out and is just kind of weird and off putting instead of elegant and tragic like the atmosphere of traditional yuri + made me feel weirdly heard? Call me biased, or a victim of grooming ALL you want but looking up to someone maturer, more in control, someone who feels above it all is someone you tend to gravitate towards when you’ve felt helpless and inept at understanding yourself your entire life. Much like Tsubaki and Hiiragi, Kishiya-san has yet to show any indication of reciprocating or even knowing of Fuji’s feelings and is what I think a genuinely positive influence on her. I can also imagine Kishiya-san fighting on the mental FRONTLINES to stay as patient and kind to Fuji as she is, aswell as taking the time to talk to her and treating her like a friend. Everyone please take a moment to acknowledge her service in the troubled youth industry.

There’s also Yatsude and Kaname but they’re pretty interesting so I’ll let you develop your thoughts independently on those two. They also have ZERO buisness being the most beautiful fucking women alive. The things I’d let Kaname do to me are to be repented for.

[ignitesthestxrs]

I may have missed it but did you watch Shadow and Bone on Netflix? What were your thoughts on it?

i watched the first season! i think i have spoken about it on here before but i didn't tag it because i wasn't very nice, and i didn't want to like, spring that on the greater fandom tag lol

uh overall i think that the show flattened a lot of the things that i enjoyed about the books, and did not improve on anything i disliked from them.

the way the show engaged with race was deeply performative and one dimensional, like, jump-scaring the viewer with ISN'T THIS RACISM SO BAD AND AWFUL in a way that seemed intended to induce the viewer and the show itself to feel good about having noticed that they just got punched in the face.

like right before six of crows came out, i did Representation Math to figure out who was going to die lol and i was Correct and that's the kind of ethos that the show persisted with. coupled with the vibe from the books that has been increasingly sinophobic, i just uuuh Didn't Like It, it left a bad taste.

(obvs i am White and it is not my job to claim Good or Bad Job overall, or assign myself Progressive Points for having this take, but it is the way it hit me at the time of watching and after discussing with friends who are better positioned than i am to comment)

the casting of nina really bothered me, and bardugo's open support of it, while i get that it was probably a sensible choice for her, REALLY bothered me. like if you're going to create characters based on which Diversity Niche they fill, then it's incumbant on you as a creator to hold firm to that vision and use your power and your voice to push back on attempts to uuuuh hollywoodify fatness. like it was just a fundamental betrayal that...sure, i get, that's hollywood, but also this character was explicitly created as a balm to the hollywoodification of fatness, and the response to her casting was basically 'well so long as she's plus size that's what is important'. idk like this is not the fault of the actress at all, but it is: tiresome. the actress is not Fat.

also her costuming was terrible in a very un-nina way that felt like it was trying to disguise how unfat she really was/frumpify her

but aside from That Stuff, i also think that the show misunderstood the fundamental point of two of the core Alina relationships in a way that was deeply boring and in fact more of a problem in the case of the darkling in particular.

like a thing that the books does really well actually is the arc of mal and alina's relationship? in which they start off with a fundamental misunderstanding of what they mean to each other that results in them growing further apart to the point where they both have to change who they are as people to actually fit together properly again. it's a really good example of like, puppy love not working out because values and life circumstances change, but then character growth enables the characters to come together as new people with a different perspective.

because the show starts mal off in his Clear Devotion phase, it makes a lot of the potential growth in that relationship way less meaningful? lol i know a lot of people don't like book malina and...whatever to that, frankly, but from a Craft Perspective, they gave this man his character from the Third Book without giving him any of the Growth Triggers that got him to that point. i only care about I Am Become A Blade mal because he had to fight to get to that point.

re: the darkling on the show lol the show has this weird ethos that their relationship is somehow more ethical if the darkling is Really No For Real In Love With Her from the beginning, which is just SO off base with what the actual problem is with that relationship. the show tries to girl bossify Alina by have her take the darkling off guard/having him experience Real Emotions For Her without considering the fact that this just means that,,,someone who loves her is using her? that's not better! she doesn't have More Power in this relationship because she's shown to be more proactive in the romance side of their relationship, because he's still using her! she hasn't won something from him by making him experience an emotion or desire, she's just wound herself deeper into his web - but the show presents these moments as though she has gained some kind of control over a situation that she literally cannot have control over.

like the whole point of the relationship in that first book is that alina is being groomed, but instead of showing that, the show said 'oh grooming is bad, alina should have more agency!' and shot a situation where she literally cannot have agency because vital information is being kept from her, as a 'yas queen make him obsessed with you!' kind of situation. he's already obsessed with her! because she's a tool to him! it's not agency to make a man want you when he is already using you for his own purposes, it's being groomed!

i need shows that are engaging in depicting problematic relationships to fucking lean into that rather than wriggle out of it. because when they try to wriggle out of it, they always, always end up depicting something that's still fucked up, only now the narrative doesn't seem to be aware of its fucked upness.

anyway uuuuh those are my main thoughts on show, i did not watch the second season and probably never will lol

[mistwraiths]

3 stars

I am genuinely conflicted on Silver Under Nightfall. I didn't particularly enjoy my time with it but reading it didn't feel like a struggle nor do I regret not DNFing it. There's some things I like about it, things that I definitely didn't, and things that felt like they could have been done better. Overall, I cautiously give this 3 stars.

First things first, I really think this book could have really benefited from a map and a list of characters and their titles, etc. The worldbuilding here isn't really there. There's a vague European vibe but there's an attempt at diversity, mostly inserting a random character that says like 'pendejo' or using some different language or mentioning a country that but not going really into any depth. With that confusing unspecific world in the background, we have characters that are sometimes referenced by their first name but also sometimes their last name and also sometimes by their title. It remains so inconsistent that I forget what Duke has what name. The biggest part was that one of the main love interests was constantly called Zidan, Malekh, and the noble REPEATEDLY on the same page by the same character. As well as information on Eight (8!!!) different vampire courts.

This book had no business being as long as it did. On top of a plot that felt highly convoluted and not necessarily boring but nothing felt inspired or even shocking. Everything that happened felt resolved very quickly. The Rot mutating? Something that freezes it. The Rot spreading? Something is made for that. Nothing felt like a threat and I was never ever worried for a single character. The reveals felt pretty predictable. The one thing that felt almost silly was the "spy" who was just a random character we meet once.

The tone of this book also felt a little off. This is supposedly the author's foray into adult but this really didn't read like an adult novel. There's no depth in the themes that this book touched on and while yes there's some sex scenes, they are only a handful of sentences. There's an eagerness to use as many curse words that feels juvenile; literally a scene where characters just yell different curse words and these characters are 23 (I think) and 40ish? Sexual abuse and physical abuse get mentioned MANY times in this novel and this novel spends a very, very long time explaining how wrong it is and how the victim deserves better, deserves kindness, and its not their fault. Which is a wonderful thing however I felt like it was constantly being brought up that it felt too much. Again, wonderful sentiment and it is good to see that.

Remy was a fairly good main character to be with. I honestly just liked that he just wanted to do what was right?? Like it didn't matter if people didn't like him or hate him, he'd save people because that was what he was, who he was. That's about one of the big things I liked about him. I'm still UTTERLY confused about what the fuck Breaker is?? There's chains and scythes and daggers and more?? Is it partly a shield??? I don't know!!!

The romance unfortunately felt a bit too insta-lovey, while pointedly talking about how Remy deserves kindness and consent. I think there absolutely should be more polyamory representation in fiction! It's a good attempt here but I really don't care much about the romance or the characters! In my opinion, Xiaodan and Malekh are constantly connected to EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. They were there when his mother died. They killed the Fifth court. His Dad actually didn't kill the second court, they did. You see what I mean? They must be the busiest fucking vampires ever. They're literally just Nice and Broody. Malekh has a little more interesting of a backstory. Xiaodan just felt almost overpowered. Most all the characters felt flat and just... "hey they want to have sex with you, you totally should" kind of conversations.

Also, there felt like some HIGHLY interesting choices to like hold off on asking a certain question to a certain character. Iykyk. Why TF did it take PAGES??? Also like, the whole reveal of the Empress, and the aftermath felt very rushed. Like that's emotional and shocking for the character and he's acting so normal? The whole break up thing was stupid and imo Malekh better not be blaming or upset with Remy about his brother because literally not his fault. How does Remy literally have more trust in Malekh about his mom than Malekh had the moment he learned about the blood knowing (and the book states multiple times) he's not very smart so he couldn't have concocted shit.

If there was ever an interesting character, it was LITERALLY Remy's father. Was he terrible? Yes. But while he treats Remy pretty terribly, there's certain things that do make me believe he does in a fucked up way care for his son.

Despite all my issues, the ending was good enough that I'm slightly interested in reading the second. Because it wasn't TERRIBLE? Like everything that I listed wasn't a deal breaker or nothing I couldn't get over.

[catominor]

Honestly, I think we're really lucky we live in a time with a lot less formal/legal censorship than there once was. I guess it's maybe just a matter of staying away from The Discourse, but it does feel like the media criticism landscape is quite harsh as regards any kind of controversial subject, whether or not that's a new development or just a different form of something that's always been there.

in my own writing i'm trying to get away from worrying too much about what message i'm sending and go more towards telling a good story, because i don't think every story should have to have a didactic moral message. at the same time i do want to show more than one kind of perspective on the roman world as much as i can despite, in my own project, having two elite male main characters lol. but more importantly i just want to have fun with it and explore the aspects of roman society i personally find interesting..

i think you're totally right about trusting the audience. i really hate when writers treat the audience like they're stupid and need to have everything explained to them.. which is part of why it's hard to figure out how i'll explain some of the cultural differences in roman society that aren't so familiar to people today (for example their views on gender and sexuality...). i think this is another one of mccullough's strengths, actually (although i'm not sure how easy it would be to get through if i didn't have so much prior knowledge about rome, i generally think she does a good job of seamlessly integrating the 'exposition'...)

and god it really is harder if you're a woman and also if you write about any sort of lgbt theme... it seems like you get wayyyy more scrutiny on you if you include those things, which has never failed to be weird to me. it's like people want to see these themes written but whenever someone writes it they can't resist the urge to scrutinize and pick it apart and actively look for problems to criticize, far more than they ever would with a story with no diverse characters.

i think it goes in a lot generally with the concept of "representation" and how everything which contains any sort of diverse characters seemingly has to be judged only by this one metric of how good of "representation" it is... and to me it's like.... what if i don't want to represent anyone? what if i think that metric is a boring and unimportant one to judge most adult media by?

it puts such pressure to have characters be a certain way so people can relate to them. i don't want to have to tailor my writing to make everyone feel represented by the characters, or to avoid every possible pitfall or stereotype that would make the story 'bad representation', i just want to tell a good story, and also represent the actual period as well as i can.

i'm honestly really glad that i will probably only ever have a small audience, because i think things like this type of discourse-y criticism would be really demotivating and nerve wracking to me otherwise. plus i am very picky about how i discuss my work anyway lol

we need to make the hot new booktok book the first man in rome by colleen mccullough

[sylvana-the-tsarina]

I’ve seen people in niche communities say, or have said to them, “You/I can’t make every character have this one trait you/I have; that’s unrealistic and you/I need more variety!” “You can’t make every main character an ace-spec” “You can’t make every character childless by choice” “Perhaps I should add a romance because everything’s just focusing on friendship” “I probably should write more ��normal’ characters for diversity”

And, listen darling, please don’t. 

Write what you want to read, and nothing else. 

I’m certainly not going to write allo characters, or characters who’re crazy about having kids. For one thing, I sincerely don’t know how their brains work, but the other more important thing is that I simply don’t want to.  And the third thing is that it really doesn’t matter. 

The way I see it, there’s two kinds of diversity here. Diversity within your own books and diversity in the books out in the world as a whole. 

And get this, you can write every character an ace-spec or aro-spec or introverted or autistic or adhd or whatever you want to, and it won’t make a dent in the diversity of the books out there. It will never come close to overwhelming the amount of stories who only centre and spotlight straight, white, extroverted, neurotypical, amatonormative, normal characters. 

Which is why you should write more of what you want to read, and to bother with anything else that you feel obliged to add “for diversity”.

Your books will help diversity as a whole, even if it doesn’t have much inner diversity. You see?

Note that I said write what you want to read not write what you are. If you like reading stories with straight characters and children (even if you don’t really understand either) then by all means, go on ahead. If you want to write stories that fit the norm, then do it. If you want to write stories that don’t fit the norm, PLEASE do it. 

Make it your thing. Make your works the safe space that others who think like you are drawn to. Build a community from it. Bring in your own representation and taste and style, and don’t you ever dare apologise for being you. You get free rein to write whatever you want so long as it isn’t harmful to anyone.

“But Silva,” you say. “I’m still worried about my internal diversity. Won’t having one common trait through all of my characters make for boring repetition?”

Nope! I’d wager that most characters you’ve read were straight, but that didn’t make them seem repetitive, did it? There’s so much variety to be had even within the spectrum of aces and aros, and that’s not to mention other personality characteristics like intelligence that factor in to making every character unique. Your characters can still have that internal diversity while consistently sharing one trait, I assure you. 

So, be free! Write your own thing! Screw the norms! Tell your story! Share your point of view!  (And let me know if you’re writing ace characters and clean stories because boy I’m starved for those kinds of books ;-;) (I’ll let you know when I publish mine too, so we’re fair)

Those kinds of books are the best kinds of books, in my opinion, so please don’t force the norms into your books “for diversity”.

Anyway, have a good day!

[astrallazaelalbrecht]

Genshin Impact, Hoyoverse and the problems Twitter wont allow you to critique

The Genshin fandom is unique to me. I have been in many fandoms and some of them were incredebly toxic. I watched Netflix´s Voltron and engaged with the fandom. What makes Genshins fandom so odd to me is how hellbend they are to defend Hoyoverse. Even against reasonable outrage. To the point they demand you echo chamber every single post of any kind and never breathe out a negative opinion ever. And I dont get it.

Now personally I have this quirk where I struggle to talk about the things I like in media I enjoy. I cant meaningfully vocalize why I enjoy something. I just do. I like the look, the feel or the plot and I do just because. But when it comes to things I dislike in the media I enjoy I can actually go much more in depths and when I talk to people I want to have something to say beyond "Heh this character looks neat." I want to have meaningful conversations. But this fandom doesnt let me do that. If you like something and enjoy it you can still dislike aspects of it and if its a game or product activly being rolled out you should voice these dislikes in hopes of making a change. That is how I feel. Of course I take part in surveys but I also post it online or under related posts, assuming people are willing to discuss.

Instead I get pushed back and told to silence myself or go into a lonely corner where I cant bother anyone and I dont understand why. What makes Hoyoverse so deserving of this kind of protection. Im just one random as hell person. They stock market wont crash when I say their character design after Yelan has become stale, uninspired and down right ugly in Tighnaris case. "I like him." Is not a good argument to disprove my points. Of course you can like him, Im not saying you shouldnt! Or you cant.

But what has Hoyoverse done to deserve the defensive fandom? -Shit on their fans -releasing bugged or broken characters (Xinyan is still not fixed) -41 out of 43 characters are pale with only 1 new tanned character in sight -6 body models they are stubbornly holding onto (Itto being shafted by the fans obsessing over Ayato who turned out 100 times more boring than Itto) -A weird fixation on keeping the toddler body type exlcusivly female (Lolicon bait) -The Anniversary debacle -Exploititive publicity stunts -They are stingy with rewards, at least compared to the other gacha games I play. (You get 150 primos for clearing Floor 12 in the Abyss, the worst and most difficult thing to do in this game and you do not get a single pull for it.) -They make the game a pain/impossible for new players

The laundry list could probably go on if we get really nitpicky. But I personally am mostly concerned about plot and character design. As well as Quality of life. I will rund down my issues.

Plot: Every big event, usually the big event of the new patch, has a very important plot detail put in it. Recently in the chasm we learned what happened to the lost Yaksha. But any new player joining will not have that information. They cannot experience said cutszenes themselves they need to outsource to you tube, external to Hoyoverse. You cant even rewatch regular cutszenes without going to random you tube channels.

Character Design: I think the biggest issue is quite obvious. The skin type diversity does not exist. Neither does body type. Character design is strictly bound to 6 models. Toddler, teenager x2, adult x2 and kinda slightly more buff man. And thats it. Despite enemy models having more unique shapes. So models exist that could be used? Granted Im not a game developer so maybe that would be difficult to pull off. We currently have 43 playable characters with 4 unique skin types. Pale, 1 character with a warmer pale skin tone and 1 character with grey skin and then 2 tanned characters. Since Im not allowed to argue about representation according to Twitter I will just say that seeing the same stuff over and over again is becoming quite stale. Even for me. A white lady. We now got the Fatui Harbingers revealed and that seems hype at first until you realize that on one hand they are generic anime villains you have all seen before. And on the other hand Hoyoverses strict 6 model concept made it obvious which of them will die for sure. Which really shouldnt happen. Dont get attatched to Igor but Genshin, tiny elderly man is not a viable playable model, he is dead meat. Sumeru in general has no theme to its designs, even excluding leaks (though the official art confirmed the leaks as accurate) while you could tell if a character was from Mondstadt, Inazuma or Liyue you seriously cant with Sumeru. Tighnari and Dori look so unlike each other I would believe you if you told me they were from different games.

Quality of Life: The most obvious issues is the Artifact RNG, I think its the one thing we can all agree on. But also why cant we safe artifact sets to quick switch between builds?

Most importantly though New Players. If you were to join now and pull Kujo Sara off the standard banner you would get stuck with a completely useless unit until you finish all of Mondstadt and Liyue and some long winding quests in Inazuma. By then you probably already invested in more accessable characters and no longer need a Kujo Sara or you no longer like her because of the hassle. And maybe you think its not that bad. But it wont get better over time. Imagine the last region comes out. And you see the cryo archon deciding thats the character you will start playing for… if you even get her you then have her in Mondstadt. If you´re lucky someone pointed out the test run so you can at least get her to lvl 40. But thats it. Until you do EVERYTHING to get to Sneznaya you will not be able to level her talents. Get her past lvl 40 etc. Making your Archon a brick you have to drag along. And this needs to be pointed out and complained about or it wont change and lets be real here! Hoyoverse doesnt read our surveys. Its just a front to make us feel heard. Customer Service is so bad you are lucky if you get a hacked account back, though even if you do they dont restore destroyed or wasted currency or items.

The fix isnt even that difficult. Put in a traveling merchant who sells materials like Kujo Saras flowers. Hell put a buying limit of ten each week in and cycle it out each day.

Make a dream solvent type item for regular bosses. So you can transform the loot from the cryo regisvine into that of the electro oceanid. Hoyoverse still forces you to farm for resin but you can level your character at least.

I sincerely like the game despite my rough tone on twitter, but I am frustrated and feel unseen and silenced by a fanbase that rather die on the hill of defending a BILLION dollar company than admit flaws with this game. I just want the game improve and not be milked and lef tin the dust for other games. Because thats what happening. Genshin is financing Star Rail and other Hoyoverse projects and they put in the bare minimum for their cash cow to stay marketable when New Players are truely the ones most fucked over.

[thevalleyisjolly]

Hi there! If you feel up to it, would you be willing to expand a bit more on the idea of white creators creating poc characters who are ‘internally white’, especially in a post-racialized or racism-free setting & how to avoid it? It’s something I’m very concerned about but I haven’t encountered a lot of info about it outside of stories set in real world settings. Thanks & have a good day!

Hey, thanks for asking, anon!  It’s a pretty nuanced topic, and different people will have different takes on it.  I’ll share my thoughts on it, but do keep in mind that other people of colour may have different thoughts on the matter, and this is by no means definitive!  These are things I’ve observed through research, trial and error, my own experiences, or just learning from other writers.

The first thing I guess I want to clarify is that I personally am not opposed to a society without racism in fiction.  It’s exhausting and frankly boring when the only stories that characters of colour get are about racism!  So it’s a relief sometimes to just get to see characters of colour exist in a story without dealing with racism.  That being said, I feel like a lot of the time when creators establish their settings as “post-racial,” they avoid racism but they also avoid race altogether.  Not aesthetically -they may have a few or even many characters with dark skin- but the way the characters act and talk and relate to the world are “race-less” (which tends to end up as default white American/British or whatever place the creator comes from).  Which I have complicated thoughts on, but the most obvious thing that springs to mind is how such an approach implies (deliberately or not) that racism is all there is to the way POC navigate the world.  It’s definitely a significant factor, particularly for POC in Western countries, but it’s not the only thing!  There’s so much more to our experiences than just racial discrimination, and it’s a shame that a lot of “post-racial” or “racism-free” settings seem to overlook that in their eagerness to not have racism (or race) in their stories.

A quick go-to question I ask when I look at characters of colour written/played by white creators is: if this was a story or transcript I was reading, with no art or actors or what have you, would I be able to tell that this character is a character of colour?  How does the creator signal to the audience that this is a character of colour?  A lot of the time, this signal stops after the physical description - “X has dark skin” and then that’s all!  (We will not discuss the issue of racial stereotypes in depth, but it should be clear that those are absolutely the wrong way to indicate a character of colour).

This expands to a wider issue of using dark skin as a be-all-end-all indication of diversity, which is what I mean by “aesthetic” characters of colour (I used the term “internally white” originally but upon further reflection, it has some very loaded implications, many of which I’m personally familiar with, so I apologize for the usage).  Yes, the character may not “look” white, but how do they interact with the world?  Where do they come from?  What is their background, their family?  A note: this can be challenging with diaspora stories in the real world and people being disconnected (forcibly or otherwise) from their heritage (in which case, those are definitely stories that outsiders should not tell).  So let’s look at fantasy.  Even the most original writer in the world bases their world building off existing things in the real world.  So what cultures are you basing your races off of?  If you have a dark skinned character in your fantasy story, what are the real world inspirations and equivalents that you drew from, and how do you acknowledge that in a respectful, non-stereotyped way?

(Gonna quickly digress here and say that there are already so many stories about characters of colour disconnected from their heritage because ‘They didn’t grow up around other people from that culture’ or ‘They moved somewhere else and grew up in that dominant culture’ or ‘It just wasn’t important to them growing up’ and so on.  These are valid stories, and important to many people!  But when told by (usually) white creators, they’re also used, intentionally or not, as a sort of cop-out to avoid having to research or think about the character’s ethnicity and how that influences who they are.  So another point of advice: avoid always situating characters outside of their heritage.  Once or twice explored with enough nuance and it can be an interesting narrative, all the time and it starts being a problem)

Another thing I want to clarify at this point is that it’s a contentious issue about whether creators should tell stories that aren’t theirs, and different people will have different opinions.  For me personally, I definitely don’t think it’s inherently bad for creators to have diverse characters in their work, and no creator can live every experience there is.  That being said, there are caveats for how such characters are handled.  For me personally, I follow a few rules of thumb which are:

Is this story one that is appropriate for this creator to tell?  Some experiences are unique and lived with a meaningful or complex history and context behind them and the people to whom those experiences belong do not want outsiders to tell those stories.

To what extent is the creator telling this story?  Is it something mentioned as part of the narrative but not significantly explored or developed upon?  Does it form a core part of the story or character?  There are some stories that translate across cultures and it’s (tentatively) ok to explore more in depth, like immigration or intergenerational differences.  There are some stories that don’t, and shouldn’t be explored in detail (or even at all) by people outside those cultures.

How is the creator approaching this story and the people who live it?  To what extent have they done their research?  What discussions have they had with sensitivity consultants/readers?  What kind of respect are they bringing to their work?  Do they default to stereotypes and folk knowledge when they reach the limits of their research?  How do they respond to feedback or criticism when audiences point things that they will inevitably get wrong?

Going back to the “race-less” point, I think that creators need to be careful that they’re (respectfully) portraying characters of colour as obvious persons of colour.  With a very definite ‘no’ on stereotyping, of course, so that’s where the research comes in (which should comprise of more than a ten minute Google search).  If your setting is in the real world, what is the background your character comes from and how might that influence the way they act or talk or see the world?  If your setting is in a fantasy world, same question!  Obviously, avoid depicting things which are closed/exclusive to that culture (such as religious beliefs, practices, etc) and again, avoid stereotyping (which I cannot stress enough), but think about how characters might live their lives and experience the world differently based on the culture or the background they come from.

As an example of a POC character written/played well by a white person, I personally like Jackson Wei and Cindy Wong from Dimension 20’s The Unsleeping City, an urban fantasy D&D campaign.  Jackson and Cindy are NPCs played by the DM, Brennan Lee Mulligan, who did a good job acknowledging their ethnicity without resorting to stereotypes and while giving them their own unique characters and personalities.  The first time he acted as Cindy, I leapt up from my chair because she was exactly like so many old Chinese aunties and grandmothers I’ve met.  The way Jackson and Cindy speak and act and think is very Chinese (without being stereotyped), but at the same time, there’s more to their characters than being Chinese, they have unique and important roles in the story that have nothing to do with their ethnicity.  So it’s obvious that they’re people of colour, that they’re Chinese, but at the same time, the DM isn’t overstepping and trying to tell stories that aren’t his to tell.  All while not having the characters face any racism, as so many “post-racialized” settings aim for, because there are quite enough stories about that!

There a couple factors that contribute to the positive example I gave above.  The DM is particularly conscientious about representation and doing his research (not to say that he never messes up, but he puts in a lot more effort than the average creator), and the show also works with a lot of sensitivity consultants.  Which takes me to the next point - the best way to portray characters of colour in your story is to interact with people from that community.  Make some new friends, reach out to people!  Consume media by creators of colour!  In my experience so far, the most authentic Chinese characters have almost universally been created/written/played by Chinese creators.  Read books, listen to podcasts, watch shows created by people of colour.  Apart from supporting marginalized creators, you also start to pick up how people from that culture or heritage see themselves and the world, what kind of stories they have to tell, and just as importantly, what kind of stories they want being told or shared.  In other words, the best way to portray an authentic character of colour that is more than just the colour of their skin is to learn from actual people of colour (without, of course, treating them just as a resource and, of course, with proper credit and acknowledgement).

Most importantly, this isn’t easy, and you will absolutely make mistakes.  I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that you will mess up.  No matter how well researched you are, how much respect you have for other cultures, how earnestly you want to do this right, you will at some point do something that makes your POC audience uncomfortable or even offends them.  Then, your responsibility comes with your response.  Yes, you’ve done something wrong.  How do you respond to the people who are hurt or disappointed?  Do you ignore them, or double down on your words, or try to defend yourself?  Just as importantly, what are you planning to do about it in the future?  If you have a second chance, what are you going to do differently?  You will make mistakes at some point.  So what are you going to do about them?  That, I think, is an even more important question than “How can I do this right?”  You may or may not portray something accurately, but when you get something wrong, how are you going to respond?

Essentially, it all comes down to your responsibility as a creator.  As a creator, you have a responsibility to do your due diligence in research, to remain respectful to your work and to your audience, and to be careful and conscientious about how you choose to create things.  It’s not about getting things absolutely perfect or being the most socially conscious creator out there, it’s about recognizing your responsibilities as a creator with a platform, no matter how big or small, and taking responsibility for your work. 

In summary:

Research, research, research

Avoid the obvious no-no’s (stereotypes, tokenization, fetishization, straight up stealing from other cultures, etc) and think critically about what creative choices you’re making and why

Do what you’re doing now, and reach out to people (who have put themselves out there as a resource).  There are tons of resources out there by people of colour, reach out when you’re not sure about something or would like some advice!

Responsibility, responsibility, responsibility

Thank you for reaching out!  Good luck with your work!

[smytherines]

(I wrote an essay oh god I'm so sorry)

Exactly! It operates in such a weird little niche, especially for 2016- before Good Omens, before OFMD, before this little bubble of queer shows (that still get gutted before their time).

I mean so often, even to this day, queer representation is:

1. Flawless PR Good Representation Gays- who are so fucking boring that nobody on Earth can get invested in them and the media never takes off/can't sustain interest. They don't exist as characters so much as diversity points to tick off and dispose of.

2. Hate crime/discrimination/AIDS Gays- they're usually also portrayed pretty blandly (although not always, there are good compelling characters here too) and the emotional punch of the story is them suffering and/or dying horribly

3. It's for the Gays- shows that are openly queer and marketed specifically towards queer audiences as if nobody else could possibly be interested in queer stories. Often, like you said, still sorta othered by default

But Spies kind of defies the categories for a lot of typical offerings for queer media. Yes, one of them dies, but it has nothing to do with him being gay, and isn't done to give a straight character development (arguably it doesn't even give the other gay character any development because Curt is never shown reacting or changing due to Owen's real, post gay reveal death).

I think you could have a conversation about the "bury your gays" trope, because it is still noteworthy that gay characters die so often, but I would come down on the side of "giving gay characters plot armor removes any narrative drive or tension, making gay characters inherently less valuable- some people have to die and sometimes they are gay"

It's a queer romance, but the most physical affection you see is a 1 second hug. But the show is also heavy with intimacy and longing. It also isn't the god-awful trope of sexless gay romance, because holy shit Torture Tango and One Step Ahead are packed to the gills with sexual tension and homoeroticism.

It's like reverse queerbait, played as queerbait? Fans absolutely love analyzing shows to death to find the queer subtext. Its fun, its often the only queer content we get, its something a lot of queer fans do with any media, and it leads to very passionate fan communities. I think the Spies fandom is still so active because they give us very little to go on, so it's a wide open space to project our own queer (and disabled and neurodivergent and whatever else) stories onto.

But instead of giving you all this subtext and then saying "lol the joke is on you, sickos, these characters are straight!" Its almost like two shows: one an elaborate hoax using genre tropes to trick straight people into thinking this is not queer media until about 75% through the show, and the other a very earnest examination of queer intimacy and grief and compulsory heterosexuality that is shown instead of told for 90% of the show, but is then explicitly confirmed, like an affirmation to the queer audience that this is for us. That we are not unhinged sickos for seeing gay subtext- because it was actually text all along.

Actually, arguably it is three shows: the straight-until-the-end version straight audiences see the first time around, the "Okay wow this show feels very gay but probably won't be" show that queer audiences see the first time around, and then an entirely different show on the rewatch, with the context of who DMA is and who Owen and Curt were to each other.

I mean obviously it is not a perfect show in terms of ~representation~. There are some parts that land quite poorly, particularly with The Informant. But the Tin Can Bros are also extremely open to hearing those concerns. They don't get offended and try to argue that it's actually a problem with the audience, they truly give a shit about doing things well.

They've already rewritten an entire song because it was ableist (and the new version is 200% funnier in my opinion). There is no doubt in my mind that if they ever did a remount for Spies they would make adjustments with imput from the actually affected parties. From what I understand, Esther Fallick had a lot of input for her character in This Could Be On Broadway.

I'd also say, queer issues aside, it isn't a perfect show just as a show. There is, to me at least, a tone issue at the end. It's sort of a clunky finish after such an incredible climax. But that's okay! It doesn't have to be perfect. I just respect it so much for its commitment to weird messy queer people, to queer characters that feel real without feeling staged for public approval.

I respect how much effort and care Brian, Corey, and Joey put into writing it, how Curt and Joey always bring new dimensions to each performance and genuinely seem to love these characters. I love that Lauren and Mary Kate and Tessa adore the show and always give stellar performances. Esther hasn't been involved since the original production for very understandable reasons, but she does a phenomenal job in that. I love that Joe Walker does an incredible amount of background acting to portray Owen-as-DMA, a lot of which I didn't even notice until several watches in. It's unreal that they did all this with an eight person cast, a bare bones crew, and a laughably small budget.

And I'm especially grateful for Corey Lubowich directing it. I've been the queer creative among the straights- typically your voice doesn't get heard. You get outvoted, or your queer themes/characters get pushed to the margins. You certainly don't get to run the show. But Corey quite literally runs the show. A show he co-wrote. And from all the commentary and BTS footage, his direction is instrumental in any of this working as a story at all, but especially as a queer story.

Okay, shit, I have to stop, this is a ridiculous amount to write about the gay comedy spy parody musical. But that's how well this show hooks you. It has some kind of fucking magical gay alchemy that just takes over your brain and you cannot help but marvel at it.

There is something so weird about scrolling through my tumblr page and seeing it be populated by SaF posts and SPN posts at the same time.

Just, "Hm yes, do you want the tragic toxic gays that are canon but couldn't escape the narrative and ended up killing each other? Or do you want the tragic toxic gays that are canon in the worst way possible and that despite their numerous attempts to escape the narrative, ended up following it to the T anyways because the writers hate us?"

I did this to myself but I'm still gonna sob in a hole over them anyways-

[hellomynameisbisexual]

Since the very conception of the motion picture, the LGBT community have been represented on-screen in some form. An early example is Algie the Miner (1912), a short silent film which follows the effeminate Algie (Billy Quirk), who enjoys kissing cowboys. In order to marry someone’s daughter, he heads west to prove that he’s a man. While this is quite an outdated stereotype of being gay, the portrayals have varied greatly over time. Only recently is LGBT representation becoming more positive and common. However, when it comes to portraying bisexuality on-screen, it still seems to be a difficult task.

Many narrative tropes have been birthed through filmmakers trying to show sexuality on-screen and most of them contribute directly to the overall erasure of bisexuality in cinema – usually with ambiguous portrayals, negative stereotyping and characters needing to pick a side. Not all instances are problematic, but their prevalence isn’t helping to combat the stigma that bisexual people face. There are three main tropes when it comes to depicting bisexuality, which is infidelity, picking a side, and the horrible husband. They’re usually found together in a common narrative that erases bisexuality, whether intentional or not.

Infidelity

There’s a long-standing stereotype that bisexual people are more likely to cheat on their partners and are incapable of commitment. This is a trope that is heavily carried in some of the most well-known depictions of bisexuality. Typically, a female protagonist is engaged or married to a man, but she meets a lesbian woman and they become involved sexually and romantically, leaving the protagonist torn between two lovers. This happens in Imagine Me & You (2005) when Rachel (Piper Perabo) falls in love with lesbian flower shop owner Luce (Lena Headey), who provided the flowers for her wedding to Hector (Matthew Goode). It’s a fairly average film that could’ve been amazing had it acknowledged Rachel’s bisexuality, but it’s still one of the better ones considering Perabo and Headey have amazing chemistry.

For some reason, bisexual characters are often in serious relationships when they’re suddenly sexually awakened. This happened to Rachel right after her wedding because she happened to meet the right woman. While this type of experience does happen in real life, it’s always the go-to narrative for films about women realizing they’re not one-hundred-percent straight. In these instances, the same-sex love affair acts as the conflict within the narrative – this can create good drama when done right, but it gets boring and bisexual characters deserve better than constantly being portrayed as cheaters. People are not more promiscuous or likely to cheat on their partners because of their sexuality, but these tropes are constantly telling people otherwise.

We deserve to see bisexual characters whose sexuality isn’t the main narrative focus or who at least explore their sexuality outside of a relationship. Appropriate Behaviour (2014) is a good example of this as Shirin (Desiree Akhavan, who is also the film’s writer and director) is a bisexual Persian American woman who is keeping her sexuality a secret from her judgemental family, while also attempting to rebuild her life after breaking up with her girlfriend. Seeing bisexuality portrayed on-screen is another place where people pick up more stigma or acceptance, and with bisexuality it, unfortunately, seems to be the former. This is why bisexual filmmakers like Akhavan are better suited to portraying the experiences of bisexual men and women than others.

Picking A Side

When the protagonist is in conflict with her sexuality, the people around her usually wonder if she’s a lesbian now – despite them being engaged or married to a man. This can be seen in Below Her Mouth (2010) where Jasmine (Natalie Krill) begins having an affair with Dallas (Erika Linder). When her husband finds out, he tells her “You’re a lesbian” but she tells him that she loves him and nothing has changed between them. It seems impossible to grasp that a person could be attracted to both men and women. Bisexuality is erased.

Some films insinuate that the protagonist isn’t necessarily bisexual or even a lesbian, it’s just that they’re attracted to this one woman only and no others – they’re an exception! This is the kind of impression you get from Below Her Mouth, but also from other films such as Imagine Me & You and Elena Undone (2010), which isn’t particularly helpful for lesbian representation either. In Imagine Me & You, Rachel tells Hector “You are my best friend. That was enough before, and it will be enough again.” This implies that Rachel was never truly attracted to him in a romantic sense, thus implying that she’s a lesbian. While this could be a case of compulsory heteronormativity, it seems problematic as it’s never discussed or explained. Avoiding discussions about sexuality – as most of these films do – are what contribute to this trope massively and result in misinterpretation and erasure.

Films as new as Netflix’s Alex Strangelove (2018) also feed into the idea that bisexuality is a stepping stone to picking a side. Alex (Daniel Doheny) prepares to lose his virginity to his girlfriend but finds his plans derailed when he’s attracted to another boy. He spends most of the film questioning his sexuality and at one point thinks he’s bisexual. The film does highlight biphobia which brings attention to this problem, so it’s disheartening at the end when Alex realizes he is gay and not bisexual after all. The set up for Alex Strangelove was perfect for a bisexual love story and, while it’s still positive LGBT representation, it’s a shame it didn’t stick with that. It’s even rarer to see bisexual men portrayed on-screen, so it would’ve been really rewarding.

It’s important to acknowledge that bisexuality is a comfortable place for some people to be while they’re trying to accept that they are gay – and there’s nothing wrong with that. However, there still seems to be some widespread discomfort when it comes to sexuality being fluid. For bisexual people, there isn’t any side to pick – they’re not torn between polar opposites, nor are they confused. They aren’t on the fence, they’re on both sides of the fence. Nevertheless, films continue to portray bisexuality as a personal conflict that needs resolving, and it does this by putting bisexual characters in a situation where they’re having affairs. This makes their sexuality the narrative conflict, which is wholly problematic in itself.

The Horrible Husband

The protagonist’s fiancé or husband is usually abusive or passive in the relationship, and thus portrayed as the antagonist. She is then drawn to a lesbian woman who treats her so much better and gives her the attention she deserves. Sometimes it’s as though these films are saying that lesbianism is the cure for a dissatisfying heterosexual relationship. This contributes to bisexual erasure by suggesting that bisexual women can only be happy with women and never with a man because they’re horrible or not good enough. It also perpetuates the idea of picking a side – almost telling bisexuals that they should just be lesbians instead.

This trope is found in films like Elena Undone, where Elena (Necar Zadegan) meets Peyton (Traci Dinwiddie) who is a famous lesbian writer. Elena’s husband Barry (Gary Weeks), however, is a homophobic pastor. Elena Undone is actually loosely based on director Nicole Conn’s real-life romance with Marina Rice Bader, but the film itself isn’t great. It’s also shown in The World Unseen (2007) as Miriam (Lisa Ray) quietly follows the customs of 1950s South Africa, alongside dealing with her abusive husband Omar (Parvin Dabas). Miriam becomes empowered to change her circumstances when she meets and falls in love with free-spirited cafe owner Amina (Sheetal Sheth).

A much better film that deals with this trope is Bound (1996). Lesbian ex-con Corky (Gina Gershon) arrives at an apartment building to start work as a painter and plumber. She soon finds herself being seduced by Violet (Jennifer Tilly) who lives next door with her boyfriend Caesar (Joe Pantoliano). Violet explains that they’ve been together for five years and he’s a money launderer for the mafia. She wants to escape and make a new life for herself, so she and Corky plan to steal $2 million of Mafia money and blame it on Caesar. The horrible husband trope actually works well in this film because the women plan to screw Caesar over and it doesn’t use Violet’s infidelity as the main narrative conflict – it’s a lot more original, which isn’t surprising as the first directorial feature film from the Wachowski Sisters. Bound would’ve been much less effective if Caesar was just a regular guy who Violet hated, but she has a better motive with the drama surrounding his violent mafia connections.

These three tropes are collectively the entire plot of Imagine Me & You, Elena Undone, The World Unseen, I Can’t Think Straight (2008), Kiss Me (2011) and more. It’s a shame that there isn’t always a huge focus on the actual relationship between the two women in these films. It’s more about them hiding their relationship and because they officially get together at the end, we never get to see much of what their life is like as a couple. They all feature very similar themes, meaning that when it comes to telling the stories of bisexual characters, the narrative is rarely diverse. Romantic comedies in general always follow the same beats which is fine, but these tropes for bisexual characters either erase their sexuality and/or display it as a problem.

These tropes can still work well (like with Bound) depending on certain aspects of the narrative. Infidelity works well in Carol (2015) due to the 1950s setting. Carol (Cate Blanchett), who is in the process of divorcing her horrible husband, and Therese (Rooney Mara) have to hide their relationship due to homosexuality not being accepted during this time. This adds an extra layer to the narrative, giving actual depth to why things are happening the way that they are. There’s also Disobedience (2017) where it works well due to the Orthodox Jewish culture. Ronit (Rachel Weisz), who is considered bisexual, returns to the community for her father’s funeral to find her childhood friend Esti (Rachel McAdams) married to a man. Esti describes herself as a lesbian woman in a relationship with a man, which is disheartening but works in the film’s world. Disobedience also plays through the infidelity trope very differently to other films, allowing it to be more effective.

The Erasure

In films with bisexual characters, it’s rare that the word “bisexual” actually comes up. It’s mostly ambiguous, implied or erased completely by the protagonist seemingly picking a side. It’s constantly reinforced by narrative tropes that are set up for dramatic entertainment, with no real intention of representing sexuality with genuine care. Erasure also happens due to words like “gay” being used as an umbrella term when referring back to certain films. Brokeback Mountain (2005) and Call Me By Your Name (2017), for example, are often referred to as gay films on social media due to the gay relationships portrayed, However, the characters are portrayed to be sexually fluid/bisexual due to the nature of their relationships with women. It also happens with films like Blue Is the Warmest Colour (2014) which is always painted as a lesbian love story when Adèle (Adèle Exarchopoulos) is clearly bisexual. It’s not necessarily bad to use gay and lesbian as umbrella terms, but it, unfortunately, does contribute to bisexual erasure. We should be bringing more attention to bisexuality on-screen and pointing it out specifically when we see it.

One of the biggest erasures is the portrayal of bisexual men. They appear much less frequently than bisexual women. The most recent example that comes to mind is Jake Gyllenhaal’s character in Velvet Buzzsaw (2019), but the word bisexual was never used and he was portrayed as being promiscuous, which fits into the negative stereotype (although the film is satire so perhaps it can be excused). Some better, or at least more interesting, depictions of bisexual men are still out there and can be found in films such as Velvet Goldmine (1998), Kaboom (2010), The Comedian (2012), The Lobster (2015) and Moonlight (2016).

If anything, bisexual characters are usually left out of the bury your gays/dead lesbian syndrome trope. It’s very common both in film and television for gay men and lesbian women to be killed off in some dramatic way, such as in Brokeback Mountain, The Fox (1967), Les Biches (1968), Lost and Delirious (2001) and A Single Man (2009). Bisexual women have been killed off quite a bit in television – like Marissa Cooper (Mischa Barton) in The O.C. – but they’re relatively safe in film and hopefully, it’ll stay that way.

Acknowledging Bisexuality

It is disheartening that bisexual representation on-screen isn’t as good or as frequent as gay and lesbian representation. We’re also at a time where it could be massively improved, but now we face the barrier of “queer” as another umbrella term. It’s wholly unhelpful when not everyone identifies with it and when we want bisexual characters to say the word bisexual on-screen. We want to be acknowledged. Bisexual actress Stephanie Beatriz made sure her bisexual character in Brooklyn Nine-Nine got to say it earlier this year, because that word means something to certain people and the impact is great. Hopefully this will start to happen more in film going forward.

There are definitely films out there where the word bisexual is actually said, like in Appropriate Behaviour, Kiss Me, Velvet Goldmine and Margarita with a Straw (2014). It’s rare that we hear it so when we do it’s pretty exciting. In addition to these, other films that feature positive and/or complex portrayals of bisexual characters in general (and not the previously discussed tropes) are: Cabaret (1972), Chasing Amy (1997), Black Swan (2010), Atomic Blonde (2017) and Tully (2018).

There have been many positive and negative depictions of bisexuality, but the majority of them aren’t great or feed into the biphobia and the erasure of the identity. Filmmakers need to do better when it comes to portraying bisexual characters and their stories. It’s always helpful when bisexual people themselves get a voice, whether as writers, directors or actors. For some reason, although there are exceptions, most straight male and lesbian filmmakers have trouble portraying bisexuality both positively and accurately. They essentially give the message that bisexuality doesn’t exist or is an inner conflict that needs to be resolved. We must do better because one day someone will be watching a film where a character says “bisexual” and their life will suddenly fall into place.

[thegreatmercutio]

Gossip Girl Reboot…my “sideline” rant.

Part 2 is coming back in November, I believe? So, I am not loving the show but I am not hating it. It has a lot of potential but my faith in the writers is lukewarm, because part 1 wasn’t fantastic. It kept repeating plots and theme…and the characters are so inconsistent, especially Julien. I like the character, but who’s she trying to be here, give me at least a path or a direction here! She is not the only character with inconsistent development. And the triggers of that unnecessary student-teacher relationship…that is overplayed and overused in so many shows since the 80s…and it’s just disgusting. However, it’s Gossip Girl…so…not a surprise.

Still, I like the diversity. Compare to the original, at least the POC are not just the minions that a privileged White girl gets to boss around. Of course, big plus is the LGBT+ representations. So, definitely some pros and a lot of cons, but I am still optimistic.

So, my real big rant here is revolved around my only favorite character, Aki.

Aki…spoilers here…have come out as bisexual. He’s still new and discovering himself, I like that kind of journey. I am really hoping for more of him and less of…for example the Julien, Obie, and Zoya…and their love triangle shit, also overplayed plot…so done with it. I mean they’re sisters, fighting over a guy…a very uninteresting guy with a white savior complex.

Nice and pure beings are very rare characters in the Gossip Girl universe, very rare! And I hope they don’t destroy his spirit…however I have my fears. So, the thing is…in the beginning I wanted Aki and Max to get a “beginning”…and in some way, they have a build up or a connection or a bond…so it’s there. However…in the “first part” of the season, my feelings about the other characters that surrounds Aki…is that I find them toxic. Very toxic. Max is all over the places. I respect the freedom of sex. Yet, for this character, I just don’t see any depth yet. He’s a typical trope of a rich privileged guy, who seems to have a kick in just literally fucking with people, also in the literally sense too. Things like how Max used Aki to get into his teacher’s pants and when he didn’t get into those pants…he goes and sleep with Audrey “multiple” times in one night behind Aki’s back. Aki is his friend. Think about that. He drags and pushes Aki into situations that only benefits Max. He sees no consequences or guilt. He’s just a wild card with little purposes. Also messing with his dads’ relationship was also fuck up. It’s all fun drama when it comes to Max, but it’s also predictable and boring if its on repeat for every episode. Then Audrey, I think she’s funny but her level of whiny and complaining is heavy. The girl is a teenage Karen. She’s my least favorite on the show tie with Obie.

I don’t hate them, I just don’t care enough for them.

So, the polyamorous relationship, I am not against it. I am all for representations. My only issue is I am not of a fan of these individuals in a three way relationship, because Max and Audrey are too toxic (AT THE MOMENT) to be with Aki. I am still upset of the times…I say TIMES…they outed Aki. I firmly believe Aki deserves BETTER. Let him explore his sexuality more because I rather see that than that, if you know what I mean. Aki’s family dynamics already has a lot of potential. We can see more there and damn let the Asian male lead get his own arc!! Asian representations is only about 1% in western media…maybe we’re about 1.5% now.

Honestly, I am only watching for Aki…and maybe Monet and Luna.

Another rant here…I am tired of people weighting Aki kissing Max as the same weight as Audrey fucking Max multiple in one night. Aki kissed Max, to help Max get the attention of his teacher. In beginning of scene, Aki tried to talk to Max as a friend about his concerns and worries about his relationship with Audrey yet Max did not care because he just wanted to sleep with his teacher. Then later, Max ends up in bed with Audrey behind Aki’s back…while most likely Aki is at home, trying to find ways to apologize to Audrey. That’s mess up! But Drama is Drama. Also, Aki kissing Max is also part of his curiosity and self discovery of his sexuality. I liked the part when Aki said he’s not going to apologize about kissing Max, because it wasn’t about Max. It was about him. I appreciate that.

[milkpuddjng]

sex education s3 thoughts!

oh my god. so many thoughts. i’ve never been too into sexed just cause. but i have SO many opinions about this season and they NEed to be heard. i think i’ll also be making a post about young royals later on so. yes.

i think i’ll just. start off by saying. what the fuck was that? the only enjoyable characters to watch this season were Adam, Ruby, Aimee and the adults. the rest of the cast (that I had originally really enjoyed watching the first two seasons) were absolutely butchered and made to serve extremely boring, there-for-the-sake-of-it ideas. like?? huh?

for one, Otis felt like. an absolute loser this season. not just because he is the archetypical “loser”, but also because he was just so. bland and had such little zest. i understand that the whole point of the season was that he had no more clinic and couldn’t help people and therefore felt like a dampened version of himself, but wtf? his excuse was terrible. that in no ways would make you as different from your original self as you are in this season! the way he went about his relationship with his mum was good though - that was quite nice to watch. but his friendship with Eric this season just felt.. forced. it didn’t feel like it really did anything with the narrative, they were kind of just there for each other as fodder. and and GOD the character just flip-flopped between being spineless and an asshole, and it really didn’t read well with me. I thought the delicate kind of balance and characterisation of Otis they had in the first two seasons really fell through and it’s honestly a shame they let him ‘develop’ into this in this season.

and don’t get me started at ALL on Eric. to me this was the worst and most cruel character DECIMATION this entire season. my reading of Eric was as someone who had only recently developed into his gayness. he had only recently reclaimed his own identity and found pride in his gayness and flamboyance. this being a way-too-overdone gay trope aside, I had originally rooted for him lots in the first two seasons because it felt like he was doing it at his own pace and slowly getting comfortable with that. in s3 though, it feels like he is condescending BECAUSE of this confidence, and frankly that really just did not sit right with me. they made Eric out to be cruel, tone-deaf and insensitive. throughout the entire s3, even in his scenes with Adam, he’s uninterested, and really doesn’t show much interest in Adam apart from wanting a relationship and all its physical and social perks. he’s so preoccupied with having a Perfect gay relationship and takes no interest in actually knowing more about Adam, and that honestly really rubbed me off the wrong way, especially with the way their relationship was portrayed as being more emotional and something vulnerable in the last seasons. Eric this season felt like he was making use of Adam the whole way, and what was originally something I was looking forward to a lot in this season ended up being the thing that disappointed me the most. and i’m not sure if it’s the writing or not, and the lack of material for them to work with, but the chemistry between them this season was so lacklustre. really really disappointing.

fk i hate tumblr. i wrote a whole thing about adam and how much i love that his line was written in a delicate and sweet way, but it got deleted. rip. anyway i liked his relationship with Rahim, Ruby and interactions with Ola far more than his relationship with Eric, and I enjoyed how he became sweeter and more delicate towards Ms Sands and his own mother! to me this season was about him unlearning and trying better to relate to the people around him, and connect with himself on a deeper level and it was really very sweet to watch as that panned out. would have loved to see more interactions of him and Ola and them confiding in each other, but I swear if he and Rahim’s friendship develops into a romantic relationship I would lose it. ok but i love stoic boy learns emotions for people around him trope and the scene of him crying on the bridge really fucked me up :”) OH and i also enjoyed how the entire Groff family had their own individual developmental arcs this season, and i really hope that means something for them as a family unit later on and their reunion as a healthier, albeit un perfect still family.

on the topic of people who deserved more! i think viv for sure. i frankly don’t understand the point of giving her a hot boyfriend and of not exploring her friendship with Jackson more. not TO mention the own blandness of Jackson’s character,,, god. they had so much to work with and truly just abandoned it all. it made sense to me that she would engage in such ‘treasonous’ behavior with Hope and all, but I didn’t understand what the sexy boyfriend and sexting did for her character. i would have much preferred deep emotional talks between Jackson and her, and of the three of them solidifying as a solid friend group. would also have appreciated her becoming better friends with Cal but. wtv. very disappointed with her character this season, especially because her and Jackson’s friendship last season was done so well.

and on Jackson and Cal, i like Cal lots. really. but i really didn’t see the narrative function of their character in the show this season. while I really respect and enjoy the show’s decision to have more diversity of representation etc., i thought Cal as a character was quite unnecessary, especially because this season proved that the writers were struggling a lot to develop everyone’s characters and their backstories etc. Cal, while fun, just distracted from existing relationships and characters the show would have benefitted from exploring more. and i just didn’t see the chemistry between them and Jackson, idk at first I felt it but after a while it didn’t seem very genuine or legit to me and it felt even a bit forced. idk if this is unpopular but i honestly really enjoyed Jackson with Maeve a lot more. this was in my opinion, quite a disappointing match-up. also i missed Jackson’s mums - thought it would have been nice to spend more time thinking about that and showing that relationship as well. also didn’t think Jackson doing drugs was like. necessary. it was nice but like. ? i didn’t see the character development with that.

Maeve and Isaac. i really started off season 3 hating Isaac’s guts, but i thought that as the season went on, I really saw the chemistry between them which I truly thoroughly enjoyed. I also don’t know. why and how Maeve is still attracted to Otis - frankly, Isaac understands her way more, and allows her that much independence that I felt was necessary for her growth. Oh but I did like Maeve’s growing into accepting help and setting down her pride - especially in her relationship with Anna. i felt Maeve was more or less stuck in the same place as last season save for her letting down of her pride though. although her and Aimee as usual! were very enjoyable to watch.

ok i think this is all i have to say for sexed for now, when and if I do find more to talk about i will uPdate this!

[stina-is-a-punk-rocker]

'birds of prey': a cinematic masterpiece

It's been a little over a year since Birds of Prey came out, a couple of months since I watched in on a whim, and I'm still not over this film.

Too many men people get pressed whenever you say you like this movie. "It's objectively bad," they say. "It's campy. It's too divergent from the canon. It's SJW propaganda."

Who gives a fuck, Richard? Who gives a single flying fuck?

I'll preface this by saying, my knowledge of the DCU is flimsy, at best. I've watched a couple of movies. My mum used to watch Smallville. I watched the pilot episode of Gotham. And I know enough about it to get the few references sprinkled in other media. But I draw a complete blank when it comes to the comics. So the canon of the comics had no effect on my enjoyment of the movie. Which I did. A lot.

I walked in blind when I watched Birds of Prey for the first time. I was unaware of the controversy surrounding it, and the only reason I even gave it the time of day was because I was bored.

I watched Suicide Squad circa 2016, and positively abhorred it- the only good thing about it was the soundtrack (the best songs are always wasted on the worst movies. Case in point: Twilight). And the not-so-casual misogyny was just... Yikes.

And then, we got Birds of Prey.

Since watching the film, I did a bit of research (see: Googling 'birds of prey movie reviews' and clicking on the first few results that popped up). The response was mixed- which honestly came as a surprise, since I thought it was great, and mine is the only opinion that holds weight.

I've read and watched a lot of those reviews. I watched the CinemaSins video. I watched the CinemaWins video, because CinemaSins has taken a major nosedive since I first started watching them.

Were all the negative reviews not-so-subtly indicative of the (predominantly male) critics' misogyny? I dunno; how did they talk about similar male-centered action films? I don't think it's fair to scream, "SEXIST!" just because someone didn't like the movie. Critics hated Venom (which was admittedly pretty meh. I still enjoyed it, though), but it was still pretty well-received by viewers.

I saw one review say that Birds of Prey was 'for the birds'... I'll let you unpack that yourself.

And yet, though I try to keep an open mind, I find it unfathomable how anyone can dislike Birds of Prey.

One of my favorite parts about the movie was the female gaze present throughout its entirety. I've seen people bring up the obvious change in Harley's costume- which I'm a bit iffy about, to be honest. Don't get me wrong- I love her choppy bangs and fun pigtails and the whole fluffy top thing she's got going on, but a whole lot of the critique towards her getup in Suicide Squad comes off a tad too slut-shamey (that isn't a word? Well, it is now).

Her outfit wasn't the issue. It's how she was framed.

In Suicide Squad, we get loads of shots of men leering at Harley, and a little too much emphasis on her breasts and arse in almost every scene she's in. As opposed to Birds of Prey, where Harley's still sexy (I'm seriously concerned for the straight men who found Harley unattractive in this film... You good, Pete?), but we focus on her face instead.

That part where Harley gives Canary a hair tie in the middle of a fight scene? Brilliant.

The characters have depth (a lot of reviews disagree with me. Well, what do I know? I am but a lowly STEM student). One of my favorites was Canary (and not just because I found her insanely attractive)- I love, love, love her arc in the film.

I've seen people complain that the villain didn't really get all villainy until towards the end of the film; which, if Sionis had to put on the mask for you to finally see him as the bad guy, then you've clearly missed most of the film. He's literally introduced while he's peeling the skin off of someone's face. Not to mention that one particular scene at the club- I won't go into too much detail, because it could be triggering to a lot of people- but it chilled me to the bone.

Following up with the villains: "All the men are bad guys," they say. "The whole film is feminist propaganda," they say.

And me posting this on International Women's Day is a bit on-the-nose, I'll admit, but this particular critique bothers me. Because those men aren't unrealistic. They aren't caricatures of men in the real world. We all know men just like them. A lot of them hit a little too close to home for me.

I've seen people complain that women touting the film as feminist turned them off from it- which, I dunno about you, but seems problematic to me on so many levels. Sure, not everything has to have a political agenda, but it's hardly like Harley & Co. scream, "GIRL POWER!" every three minutes.

(Also: it's funny how way more people get mad about poorly executed feminism than actual issues a lot of women in the world face, but that's a topic for another day.)

The diversity was just- wow. Getting not only one but FOUR Asian characters with lines? Hollywood, am I dreaming? The LGBTQ+ representation (not going into Sionis and Zsasz being queer coded)? Holy shit, yes! Maybe I'm getting too excited about this- Hollywood's a lot kinder to us minorities as of late- but it still fills me with joy whenever I see people like me onscreen.

Another complaint that springs up with regards to Birds of Prey is the skewed order in which Harley narrates the events. Which is kind of one of her defining traits- she's an unreliable narrator. And she makes it pretty obvious (this video explains it better than I can). The cartooned beginning was engaging, as corny as some of it was (loved the style, too).

The fight scenes were thrilling to watch. Not a single minute passed by where I was bored (my eyes usually glaze over during prolonged action scenes in films, which did not happen in this case). The comedy was well-timed and bold; the cartoonishness added to its charm.

And this is probably not even significant, but I adored the color scheme. I loved the bright, shocking colors; the emphasis on the pinks, reds and blacks.

And, finally, how could I go without mentioning the soundtrack? It was divine- I listen to the Birds of Prey album on Spotify almost every day; Lonely Gun and Experiment On Me are among my most-played songs, and the rest of the music is just as delightful.

In conclusion: go watch Birds of Prey if you haven't already. It's the closest thing to a spiritual experience I had last year.

[crowsent]

a fuckton of things i want in da4

a few words censored bc tumblr will swallow this in the void if i dont. long ass fuck list ahead

a romanceable dwarf

more romanceable elves/qunari

more elf/qunari/dwarf companions

consistent writing for once

more nb representation

good hair. please just give me good hair options. give me long hair. give me luxurious flowing locks. give me braids. give me good fucking hair options

let me shittalk the chantry

dalish elf npcs that impact the plot in unique ways

dalish elf companions that are proud of being dalish

if it is set in tevinter maybe uh. maybe address the issue of systemic oppression (and slavery) of elves???????

a return of the friendship/rivalry system in da2 but improved. maybe instead of a friendship rivalry sliding scale its friendship/rivalry/animosity sliding scale. bc rivalry is more like. two people pushing each other to be better than they were before. friendly competition. hes an idiot but hes my idiot kind of deal. animosity would be just regular disapproval. i liked the crisis cutscenes in dai so high animosity would be the same as low approval and might make the companion leave still, but theres more variety with high approval. high approval “friendship” would be the “were best friends and we share many opinions and agree on almost everything” while high approval “rivalry” being “we disagree on almost everything but goddamn it youre my friend and ill follow you into the fade if i have to” so you can have a high approval with someone instead of being a kissass

actions and choices having consequences again

multiple endings again (epilogue slideshows dont count)

dialogue wheels with descriptions that match what you actually say

characters from rivain, antiva, anderfels, etc

gifts. bring back the gifts. i want to give my companions gifts

maybe. maybe a focus of non-andrastian religion for once?

let me shittalk the chantry

i know its a stretch, but maybe. diverse skin colours. please?

nd characters that are written respectfully and treated w dignity

please bring back the talent wheel from dao and da2

more bi romance options

more wlw romance options

more mlm romance options

ace romance options

nb romance options

background romances

let me shittalk the chantry

far fetched but maybe a polycule?

i lowkey LOVED the fast-paced feel of da2s combat so maybe bring that back in some form? maybe improved to mesh with the tactics of dai to give players absolute freedom of playstyle whether they want to be like me and rush into every encounter or play more strategically

companions with unique companion abilities

would be nice to explore cities

would be nice if the open world were a little smaller so it doesnt feel empty all the gd time

more mage spells. mages felt like just another class of fighter to me in dai. they dont really have any awe-inducing wow factor like in dao or even da2. if the narrative wants me to believe that mages are powerful and dangerous and that it takes multiple templars to hunt down an apostate, maybe show that? give me strong mages

remove the jump ability. its pointless

a narrative that addresses the oppression that the chantry and templars perpetuated please

bring back the attributes

make the choices in dai matter. mages governing themselves? i wanna see that

let me shittalk the chantry

please bring back the healing magic for fucks sakes

multi-class system between rogues and warriors?

multiple specialisations that feel like specialisations and not just skill tree+

player-only skill trees

hardening

companion quests that affect their abilities and further dialogue

actual morally grey choices instead of this stupid mage freedom vs templar oppression narrative that is in no way morally grey but is presented as such and thus leaves the conflicts and narratives set up by dao and da2 to be fucking meaningless

bring back the tactics

would be nice to have an origins-esque prologue again. maybe one that would determine future events in game just to give your character better narrative cohesion with the plot

an approval/disapproval system but for companions with other companions. bringing certain companions together may bring them closer or make them pissed off with each other which affects banter maybe quests maybe combat

give me a fucking mabari bioware. give me back my fucking mabari

day/night cycle

a nightmare mode where you have to finish the main quest on a time limit. it is absurd that dai expects me to believe that i have all this time to do wartable missions that can take literal real life DAYS to finish and still thwart corypheus’ plans in time. bullshit

that said. no more wartable missions. waiting for a countdown to finish isnt very fun

let me shittalk the chantry

kal-sharok. ive been hearing about it since dao let me fucking see kal-sharok

dwarven politics

politics in general. my fav dao quest was the succession crisis plotline in orzammar/the landsmeet and wewh in dai

npcs i can talk to. even with generic dialogue like in dao. makes the world more alive

using the environment to your advantage. far fetched but i would love to be able to pull down boulders if were in the mountains or freeze water to get to places as a mage

home base customisation but the customisation choices you make actually. mean something. and do something. or at the very least give more companion dialogue/banter/approval change

laconic and ergonomic codexes. like. sorted by what kind of codex it is, etc etc but then you just get a brief summary of the codex and the option to read more about it so i dont spend eternity scrolling through cards looking for a specific codex entry. cool aesthetic dont get me wrong but real irritating to deal with. also. maybe. the pc making comments about the codex if you do read more about it? like a dalish elf saying “they got it all wrong” when reading a codex about dalish elves written by a human??? that would a) give character to the pc b) incentivise people to actually read the codex to see what was so wrong about it c) summarise the codex for people who want to learn the lore but dont want to spent the entire game reading text

maybe have the merchants in your home base close to crafting stations so you dont have to take a fucking hike if you miscounted the amount of elfroot you need?

let me shittalk the chantry

avvar companion maybe??? interesting lore right there

bring back stat requirements for weapons and remove the class restriction for most shit. obviously a dagger would be better for a rogue than a longsword and a mage would do better with a staff than a sword and shield but its not about efficiency. its about the roleplay. its about the options. give me the option to make a mage with wildly inappropriate stat distribution

bring back sustained mode abilities

traps. bring back traps. bring back the option to stealth into an area, trap the fuck out of it, and go from there

have the three available classes in kind of a rock paper scissors scenario. warriors do real well against rogues who do real well against mages who do real well against warriors. so you can plan your party depending on who/what youll face AND how much their approval will change during the quest you take them on

let me shittalk the chantry

actually resolve the plot points introduced in dai

a more threatening villain. the inquisitor thwarted every attempt made by corypheus in dai. he was not threatening at all

queer characters. background, companions, etc. queer characters

mounts were meh in dai. maybe. make them faster? or less cumbersome? or have your companions on mounts too so theres still banter?

i liked the armour tinting. let me have armour tinting from the beginning

i would really like mages to move and attack at the same time bc lowkey standing in one spot is uhhhhhhh kinda boring

let me check companions friendship/rivalry levels

would be nice if the narrative acknowledged that elves suffered greatly at the hands of the chantry and stopped victim-blaming them

more taverns. specifically like tapsters in dao where theres a dwarf just reciting something in a language i cant understand and if you look its a ballad/poet about dwarven culture and that was a real nice touch let me have that

dalish elf clan. dalish elf clan that does not get murdered please and thank you

meaningful quests. more cinematic dialogue

make found gear / quest reward gear more valuable than crafted gear

game modifiers like in dai were real nice. i want more

let me shittalk the chantry

quests that can be resolved in multiple ways. like connors fate in dao. and for those ways to impact further quests

companions with varying moral alignments

companions that are mutually exclusive (like alistair and loghain) but are both good companions so itd really make you think

a pc that IS NOT a “chosen one” vanilla da2 is my fav dragon age game for one reason and one reason only and that is because hawke is just some random refugee who escaped lothering. no chosen one magic at all. just an ordinary person who is a real good fighter. and that appealed to me more than this “you are the only one who can do it” narrative

let me meet more elvhen gods

if the setting is in tevinter, GIVE ME FUCKING ARCHITECTURE. give me the high spires, the archways, the buttresses, give me statues lining city gates and magic infused into the buildings. tevinter is a land ruled by MAGES give me magical architecture. give me floating buildings. give me fire floating as orbs above the streets like lamps. GIVE ME ARCHITECTURE

SHALE

let me shittalk the chantry

PIERCINGS GIVE ME FUCKING PIERCINGS BIOWARE

more main quests, longer main quests

if it is set in tevinter maybe. maybe address the fact that tevinter has been at war with the qunari for a while? on and off war is still war. and maybe give us the option to influence the outcome of that war?

more voice options. instead of just american voice or british voice, do the thing in dao again where there are multiple voices of different tones to further cement the pcs personality

more armour designs

biased but uh. can. can taliesen jaffe va a character?

i already said qunari companions but specifically saarebas companions

blood magic

FINISHING MOVE ANIMATIONS

please do not let it be as long as inquisition. inquisition was a SLOG in later playthroughs

body sliders. what if i want a tall but lanky qunari? what if i want a buff as shit elf? body sliders

more eye options

let me call out companions

btw bioware. if you really wanted cullen to be a good guy. maybe handle his fucking redemption arc a little better instead of retconning all the terrible and creepy shit hes done in the past k thx

can female walk/run animations not have. so much swaying hips? no one moves like that

personality dialogue that affects future dialogue like in da2 but meshed with the wider range of emotions introduced by dai

keep the race/s*x lock on romance candidates like in dai. keep the fact that some characters can only be romanced by certain races or s*xes

nb and genderqueer options for the pc

cutscenes of companions interacting

ngl i lowkey liked the random encounters of dao so maybe bring that back

my fav quest in dao is the landsmeet / orzammar succession crisis questline but you know whats my second favourite? the rescue mission if the warden gets captured and you have to play as your party members. give me that again

more creepy/dark shit. dai was too lighthearted for me esp after da2 and dao

let me shittalk the chantry

broodmothers. in hd.

red lyrium broodmothers. in hd

companions with different backgrounds. different faiths. different statuses. different families. etc

maybe make the pcs appearance make an impact on the story? like how bull says he likes redheads, but even if you are a redhead, he says nothing about it????? maybe keep track of which slider the player picks so that can affect the story?

i love my inquisitors but maybe. dont. bring the inquisitor in as anything more than an advisor/npc in this game? let me fall in love with a new pc???

if theres gonna be a homebase like skyhold where youre not in armor. maybe give us better clothing?

a kind of gear skin mechanic similar to ac:odyssey where you can change how the gear looks but keep the stats. so you can equip that higher level armour and keep the look and aesthetic of your old armour and you unlock the skins/looks of the armours you discover/make so you can be both powerful AND aesthetic

i enjoyed the nobility/underworld/arcane/etc knowledge in dai unlocking more dialogue options so maybe keep/expand on that but make it more accessible by side missions or companions or something that isnt the abysmal perk system in dai

let me shittalk the chantry

customisable walking animations. does the pc walk straightbacked? slouched? with a swagger? please

since there will undoubtedly be an obligatory fade sequence, maybe have an option for nightmare demons that ARENT spiders. thank you

slap on subtitles and conlang some languages. i want to hear elvish. i want to hear tevene. give me the languages

more dragons. esp if they look vastly different

more bard songs

i am completely biased here, but i would like to hear laura bailey as a va for a character. preferably a voice option for the pc

hey maybe have the true ending actually included in the base game and not in a dlc (tresppasser cough cough)

better val royeaux

please remove the had to do it to em idle animation tis distracting

on that note, more idle animations. maybe some unique to companions?

very trivial but. unique stair climbing/descending animation

bring back talking to companions on the road. maybe with some dialogue that can only be said on the road???

if banter is interrupted, make like rdr2 and pick up where the banter left off

more vallaslin designs please?

if theres another formal scene like dai maybe. give us. decent clothing. or better yet, decen clothing OPTIONS. i wanna decide how i look in a ball full of haughty orlesians

mage vs templar conflict resolved and addressed please. it is NOT resolved in dai. what we got was sequel bait and a slideshow. resolve it please

let me shittalk the chantry

a pro-mage anti-circle circle mage companion like anders

religious person who doesnt victim-blame elves in the codex or in game or anywhere please

characters more like leliana who question the chantry and acknowledge its corruption and greed

unapologetically sapphic companion

idc if its tevinter i dont want to fucking see queer people being disrespected

a true tal-vashoth companion, one who escaped from the qun

have quest decisions affect whether or not a companion will turn hostile to you or not

if IF solas will be redeemed, please do the redemption arc right

more horn options for qunari

an apostate mage who doesnt use me for their personal agenda whilst hiding something from me (morrigan, anders, solas) thanks

i really dig the whole “leader of an army” thing dai was trying to go for. but you didnt actually. lead. anything. would be nice to have that option. command soldiers. send them places that affect further quests. would even use the wartable for its intended purpose. planning wars. battles. like. you get sent word that there are bandits harassing villagers. you can set up an ambush with your soldiers or confront them headon, and theres a new mini-location on the map like the manor you meet vivienne in where you can go deal with the bandits and depending on your choices, there are actually soldiers with you in a field, or traps in a narrow pass, or even in a city. id rather the wartable shit dont return but if they have to, at least this way youre not just waiting real life time for a bunch of text to appear

i am real fucking excited for the possibility that da4 companions can just fucking die on you. good shit. give me that angst

missions that certain companions would refuse to go with you to. you know. so you actually have to use other members of your party instead of the same 3 (three) people all the goddamn time

disabled characters (i want a character who suffers from the same chronic bad leg disease as i do is that too much to ask)

kinda touched on by the da2 combat point but let me do close combat damage with the staff

no multiplayer. and if there is a multiplayer, dont tie it with achievements

let me fucking explore weisshaupt

(i dont think solas will be the endgame villain of da and i dont think da4 will be the last da game but still) again. for emphasis. resolve the plot points dai brought up

full-body scars and tattoo options

companions and npcs changing their opinions about things over time. eg: a pro-circle mage wanting instead for circles to be abolished after a specific side mission or a main quest decision etc

keep the multiple companion quests. and maybe change what kinds of companion quests are available further down depending on choices made in previous companion quests

please for fucks sake give us more characters of colour

let me shittalk the chantry