#this is a joke please do actually engage with media critically

[oysterspearl]

You read theory so you can argue online. I read theory so I can be annoying about Disco Elysium. We are not the same

[blackened-angel]

I'm personally not looking forward to the Netflix adaptation of Devil May Cry.

With the new trailers, I wanted to share my opinions again but I will say that this post isn't recommended for those who only have praise and that any criticism is forbidden.

It's a pretty long post where I try to explain what is my main problem with the adaptation and that is the person who is directing it.

I highlighted some parts that I hope you can at least read those ones, but if I were to give you a TL;DR it would be this:

If you want to make an adaptation based on an IP that's been around for a while, even if you proclaim that you're fan, at the very least be modest and try not to cause trouble with your audience, given that you're supposed to be a professional in the industry and perhaps trying desperately to please everyone isn't such a good idea because you might be hanging with the wrong crowd and that will reflect on your image.

Sorry but I'm not interested to coddle that guy so if that brief summary is enough to make you displeased, I'm asking you not to read any further.

So, will talk about why it's difficult for me to praise Netflix Devil May Cry. It's because of the person attached to it.

I've criticized aspects of this adaptation before and while the majority will get angry because the show hasn't come out yet, thus any criticism is invalid, personally, what I have seen so far has been enough for me to have a disdain for it because one of my favorite series is being handled by someone who has never done anything with it before.

Proclaiming to be a fan doesn't automatically mean that it will be a masterpiece and for someone who is allegedly a professional in the industry, their conduct reflects on the product and others that are involved.

Also, just saying, that I refuse to use the word "anime".

Pseudo-anime perhaps but I'm sorry, DMC The Animated Series from 2007, that's the only Devil May Cry anime. I don't see any 'bishounen'/ biseinen' . Have you?

Anime, to someone like me who has been into anime and manga for two decades, is animation produced in Japan, primarily for the Japanese audience, with aesthetic that is different from Western animations.

So yeah I'm just gonna say Netflix DMC.

Ok, so, let's return to the subject, but first, I want to ask you and of course, you can provide examples because from my experience, I haven't seen anime studios acting so desperate like Shankar.

Please tell me if you have seen anime studios on their social media accounts being so friendly with people?

At most, there are some who on some occasions retweet fan creations like art or cosplay but in general they just post information regarding what they are producing, trailers or key visuals, but they don't engage much with the audience.

They are just working on the stuff they want to deliver to their audience, hoping they will enjoy it and look into feedback afterwards.

How many anime studios have you seen bragging like Shankar has been doing?

He actually said on Twitter "I never miss."

Oh and on a few occasions, this grown-ass man kept referring to himself in 3rd person, somehow thinking his fans will find it...cute? Yeah, so it was more like "Adi Shankar never misses."

It's obnoxious. You can tell me that he was joking, but he seems committed to his whole "I never miss with my projects" bit, so it's kind of hard to tell.

Oh and do you think it's also adorable when he reposted people's fanart without crediting? Even when some of them had watermarks?

Like I'm not kidding. If you follow him on Twitter, there were a few times when he was called out for not properly crediting artists and you'd think he'd stop after being told once but no.

In addition to that, one time when I was reading the comments on a reposted artwork, there were only two people that mentioned the artist while the rest of them didn't even ask things like "Hey did you draw this? Did the animation team do it?"

It seemed that even though they must have known it wasn't art made by Shankar or the ones doing the animation, they treated like it was no biggie if he was reposting.

As a professional, allegedly, he should have never done such a thing, but most of his followers seem treat him like "oh he's just enthusiastic, cut him some slack, don't be mean to him".

And we know that in general, anyone else who would do that sort of thing just once would get torn apart by others, but with that guy apparently we must be indulgent.

When caught in the act, he did apologize but like...shouldn't he know better? He most likely expects that everyone will forgive him for anything he does.

Thus, can you understand why I'm having a tough time to like something from that person? Who keeps bragging, promising the best anime ever, acting as if he invented DMC...

That's a person who is supposed to be a professional in the industry, yet he as only been acting like a redditor...And of course he promotes a lot of memes. Gee, I wonder who's the intended audience?

He's been desperately trying to please everyone.

This is why I like the way anime studios conduct their promotion for their projects. They are humble and want to avoid causing problems t and that's why they generally just post information, artwork, trailers etc..

That's something I personally appreciate.

Shankar has only been off-putting...Honestly, what the heck was Capcom thinking?

Apparently he wanted Dino Crisis, but Capcom was like, have DMC instead. It feels like they were saying "yeah do whatever with this IP, doesn't matter", as if DMC isn't popular, which was proven by the popularity poll they hosted.

I feel like this adaptation is mostly for the people that know DMC just from memes and I'm sorry for the long time fans that will most likely get insulted and told to shut up by the people who will only watch this generic Marvel/DC looking animation and be told that DMC is only good because of Shankar or think he should be in charge of other Devil may Cry projects.

So yeah, to me, above all is that narcissistic man who has been trying so hard to please everyone.

No, I don't think it's endearing when he spoke in 3rd person and claims that he never misses with his projects. I did not find it cute when he went on to say stuff like Vergil is a hero and other bullshit, because some people would believe those will actually be the characterizations in the show, only for Shankar to post something like "I'm joking, I'm just a troll" after those kinds of posts, wanting to gain sympathy from people, to see just how much of a fun guy he is and you must definitely watch his DMC "anime".

We already had the reboot that was supposed to appeal to the Western audience because Capcom thought the original series isn't appealing to westerners, but man were they wrong. Still hate it for the fact that they mocked the OG series and here we are again, another production that's mostly for the western audience.

So yeah, I'm just not a fan of how much that man has been boasting and assuring everyone how great the show will be.

Perhaps, for some of you, it will the greatest "anime" ever, he keeps telling you that! But not for me. I don't appreciate the shit I've seen him do on Twitter done and as much as he brags that failure never happens for Adi Shankar, not everyone is of the same opinion.

If it turns out that it might fail the expectations of those who only praised, what then? Will they keep praising despite being disappointed so that the series keeps getting content, even if it might be the same quality or even worse?

I think that will send the message to the bigwigs that those people are willing to consume anything.

Like I've mentioned thought out the post, I personally would have appreciated humbleness instead of someone trying so desperately to please everyone.

I'm not sorry for what I said and I know there must be others who share my opinions.

If you have made it this far, I thank you!

[hcgossips]

He lost weight, his eyes are deep, almost cadaveric, he looks sick. But, for some reason, "stans" are trying to ignore that. The image of "happy in love and in life", has to be promoted, no matter what.

What I feel for this man, right now is an enormous pity, but no respect at all. I keep remembering the first lucid dream I had with him and I know something is odd and doesn't fit in.

We can all see how miserable he has been for the last four years. So, why insist on it? Does he really believe he's doing Viscuso any good? He's exposing her more and more to public execration. Well, maybe that's the goal, now. Maybe, the only way to get rid of the situation is if she gives up after being totally execrated.

This woman will never gain the recognition nor respect they apparently, are trying to get her. She might have left promiscuity behind, but her promiscuous nature is in her blood. It's stamped on her face, on her looks, on her moves, on her body language.

I doubt he's really proud of being her man. But, hey! What do we know? A man wants what a man wants. And you are the reflection of who you surround yourself with. So, maybe the dude is just a guy who, secretly, likes h**kers and often uses the Mayhem "services".

What intrigues me is why the media stopped questioning this and decided to support it with fake news? The first pap walk was ridiculed by a TV show, which baptized it as Shit Show. Very accurate for a freaking horror story.

Is this going to remain the same shit over and over? A few pap walk pics and premieres? Come on! There has to be something else. Because the more they stage it, the more people doubt it, the more she's execrated and the more he's discredited.

Well, maybe Henry wants to show he supports the h**ker, despite her promiscuous reputation, teasing, gaslighting and trying to mock his fans with this shenanigan. He might be against the criticism towards her and wants to give her some support.

But, what he's doing is actually, put fuel to fire. He probably sees Viscuso as a poor thing he needs to save from execration, by exposing her to public execration. It's a contradiction. But, that's Henry Cavill: A hypocritical contradiction.

Unfortunately, he's available to take this forever, deluded, thinking he's doing it in consideration and respect for her. After all, the bad publicity is a consequence of having her into this PR, to boost his manhood. So, he feels responsible for her. But, not for the rest.

As an escort, he will go all the way and even please her sexually. Yes, Henry! It's part of escorting to sexually please your partner and your job has to be complete. We all know what kind of actor you are, now. So, don't be shy nor afraid of showing your real professional activity.

Jokes apart, this shit hasn't come all the way up to here with him destroying his reputation with frustrated attempts in proving the fake is real, for nothing. They have already faked a baby belly and a paternity and I don't see an end to this circus. I believe they will make a fake engagement announcement soon.

It's obvious they want to continue with this freaking shit show. He already proved to be available for faking without ethics. So, make yourself a new bowl of popcorn. The next chapters will bring updates.

[capybaramurdock]

Red Ring Series ♡ CHAPTER TEN ♡

“Paparazzi” (Reader POV – 17 Days Until the Wedding)

“That’s why they trust you. That’s why I trust you.”

Summary: The engagement leaks. The press shows up at the shelter. One of the girls has a panic attack. She doesn’t hesitate. She doesn't get angry for herself—She gets angry for them. And Matt is behind her. With her. Always.

⚠️Warnings ~ Emotional distress ~ Media harassment/press intrusion ~ Panic attack (brief, not graphic) ~ Protective behavior ~ Hurt/comfort ~ Soft domestic intimacy ~ Forehead touching (critical)

Series Masterlist | Next Chapter

Want to read on ao3? Available there too! 🫶🏻

https://archiveofourown.org/works/64668514

Borders by: @dollywons

She wakes before Matt does the next morning, her heart racing out of both affection and anxiety. She wasn’t expecting to wake with him holding her, but she’d intended to leave before he woke up, and she doesn’t think she can now with how tightly he’s holding her.

So, she just lies there for a while.

Eventually, she hears his breathing shift as he wakes, and her heart pounds even harder. She’s almost certain he can hear it. (He definitely can. He would just never admit it.)

She hears a soft groan as he tightens his hold on her, effectively ending any plans she had of sneaking away.

A shiver runs through her when he nudges his nose gently against her head. She hears him inhale, then clear his throat and speak softly.

“You’re awake, aren’t you?”

Her eyes widen, and for a second, she considers pretending to be asleep. But she knows he’d see—or rather, hear—right through it. Instead, she replies in a tone just as soft, trying to ease the tension with a joke.

“…Uh, yeah. Sorry I’m still here… I wasn’t expecting to wake up like this again. Was this your doing, or mine?”

He lets out a quiet chuckle.

“It was me again,” he admits, a little sheepishly. “But honestly? I could get used to waking up with you like this… Are you alright, though? You’re kind of tense, and I can feel your pulse a little with how I’m holding you.”

She stiffens slightly before answering, timid and embarrassed.

“I… I just feel a little bad that I’m still here. I assume you read my note, so you know I meant to be gone before now…”

The guilt in her voice is obvious, and Matt answers immediately, his tone firm but gentle.

“If it wasn’t clear by now... I don’t mind having you here. I prefer it, actually. I know I’ve never said it out loud, so it was probably hard to read—but I really do enjoy having you here.”

She starts to reply—but is quickly interrupted by her phone ringing. Not buzzing. Ringing.

“Are you sure? I don’t wa—”

Her head snaps toward the nightstand. She always tells people to text unless it’s an emergency.

She scrambles to grab the phone, but Matt is closer and gently hands it to her.

The caller ID reads Wendy—the shelter’s receptionist. The same one Matt spoke to the day her father “offered” her hand in marriage.

She doesn’t hesitate. She hits answer, pauses, then switches to speakerphone, trusting Matt enough now to let him hear.

“Hi, Wendy? What’s wrong? Did something happen?”

Wendy’s voice comes through, hurried and frantic.

“Hey, Honeybee. I’m so sorry to bother you—I know it’s early and you weren’t planning to come in until later…”

There’s a pause. In the background, they both hear someone crying.

“…But there’s a ton of reporters and media people outside the shelter. They’re asking about you, your engagement, and something that happened at a charity event the other day? Could you come down here? A lot of the girls are getting anxious—some are panicking.”

Her eyes narrow. Her brows furrow.

“I’ll be right there,” she says quickly, already climbing out of bed. “It usually takes me ten minutes to get there. I’m going to try to make it in five. Please, try to keep the girls in the back bedrooms for now.”

She and Wendy exchange quick goodbyes. She pulls on the sweatpants Matt had lent her and adjusts the hoodie she’s still wearing, trying to make herself somewhat presentable.

As she’s grabbing her keys, she pauses—eyes widening when she sees Matt is already getting dressed, too.

They’re both too upset to care that he’s changing in front of her.

“Matt… what are you doing? You don’t have to come with me. This is going to be a lot.”

Matt lets out a quiet huff as he buttons one of his nicer suits.

“I know I don’t have to, sweetheart. I want to. And I know it’s going to be a lot—but I’m already in it with you. Let me help.”

She knows that tone. There’s no changing his mind. So she just nods and walks over when she sees him fumbling with his tie.

She gently takes the ends from him and ties it correctly, then hands him his shoes. While he puts them on, she grabs his glasses from the nightstand.

Once he’s fully dressed—and she’s as ready as she can be—she takes his hand and pulls him to the door, barely letting him pause to grab his cane.

They make it to the shelter in five minutes.

From down the block, she can see the swarm of reporters. Matt doesn’t need to see them—he can already hear the chaos: frantic camera shutters, questions flying, footsteps shifting.

They don’t notice the pair approaching until they’re nearly at the entrance. The second one of them spots her, he announces it, and the others pounce, crowding them like a feeding frenzy.

Matt is having none of it.

She feels Matt immediately pull her closer, his grip firm and grounding as he guides her through the crowd. Neither of them speaks, except to repeat a unified:

“No comment.”

Over and over—until they’re safely inside.

Once the door shuts behind them, she finally breathes.

She leads Matt to the back bedrooms. Her chest tightens at the sounds—soft sobs, panicked murmuring, shaky breathing.

She opens the door gently.

Most of the girls are huddled together on one bed. A few are pacing. Wendy and the other staff are trying to comfort everyone, but they’re clearly frazzled.

Matt stays close. One hand on her shoulder. Steady. Warm.

She steps into the room with calm, commanding energy.

“Hi, everyone. My sweet girls…” she begins softly, “I know it’s scary. This is your home. It’s supposed to be safe. I promise I didn’t know they were coming. If I had, I would’ve stopped it. But I’m here now. Matt’s here, too. And you’re safe. We’re going to handle this, okay?”

A few of the girls rush to her. She kneels and wraps her arms around them, murmuring comfort into their hair. The shy, nervous version of her is gone. What’s left is protective. Fierce.

“What do they want?” Elena asks, her voice trembling. “Why won’t they leave us alone?”

She shakes her head. Her heart squeezes. She doesn’t have an answer. But her resolve hardens.

Matt squeezes her shoulder again.

“I’ve got you,” he says quietly. “Whatever you need to do—I’m right here.”

She nods and turns to Wendy.

“Keep everyone in here. Lock the door behind me. I’ll be back soon. If someone can escape for long enough, everyone knows where the hot coca supplies are, and something tells me we're gonna need a lot of it.”

She sees the brief flash of worry on Matt’s face, but his steady nod encourages her as she walks back to the front door, the protectiveness even evident in her walk. Something else is obvious there too: a feeling of fury is there just under her skin, vibrating away like an angry hornet.

Matt follows closely behind her, silently supportive and ready to intervene if needed.

She throws the door open.

The reporters surge again. Cameras flash.

They must think it’s feeding time.

However, before anyone can get a single question out, she speaks in a clear and authoritative voice, still feeling like she’s boiling in a pot of water from her anger.

“I don’t care what story you’re after, what your boss sent to investigate about me, or what you’re just 'genuinely curious' about. These women deserve more than that, more than what even I can provide for them. You’ve disrupted the only safe space they have, and now they've been scared while inside that one secure place. And you've done all of this, for what? Some uppity, elite gossip? Some dramatic scandal?"

Her voice continues to rise, each word growing sharper as her boiling anger finally starts to spill over.

"You can follow me around this whole goddamn city, I don't care. But listen to me carefully when I tell you this: Leave. These. Women. And. My. Shelter. Alone."

She grows quiet for a moment as she stands tall on the top step and stares the crowd of gossip-hungry sharks down, letting her words land and settle heavily among them all before she finishes with one final statement. 

“This isn’t entertainment. These are their real lives. And this is their home.”

Matt stands behind her, his hand returning to her shoulder, unwavering.

For a moment, the crowd is still. Then:

“How long have you known Mr. Murdock?”

“Why did you leave the event early?”

“Did you really bake all those cookies?”

“Why go public now?”

She opens her mouth, ready to snap, when Matt steps forward instead.

His voice is cold. Controlled. And terrifying in its precision. His angry lawyer voice.

“That’s enough. Allow me to remind you that this is private property. Leave. Now.”

They listen.

Reporters scatter. Some apologize. Most don’t.

She deflates the moment they’re gone. Matt steadies her with one hand on her lower back, guiding her gently inside.

Wendy is waiting with a hug.

“You didn’t have to go that hard on them,” she says. “But I’m glad you did, honey.”

She shrugs, exhausted.

“I had to. I… I don’t think they would’ve left otherwise.”

Matt gently tugs at her hoodie sleeve. She excuses herself and leads him to her office near the back.

As she closes the door, she hears it—quiet. The shelter is finally settling.

She turns to find Matt smiling softly.

“You were incredible. I knew you’d protect them, but watching you like that? You’re stronger than you think.”

Her throat tightens. Tears sting her eyes.

“I wasn’t scared for me. I was scared for them. I always am. I just… wish I could do more.”

Matt brushes her hair behind her ear, his touch reverent, before cupping her face.

“I know. That’s why they trust you. That’s why I trust you.”

Her breath catches. She steps forward and gently presses her forehead against his.

They stay like that—still. Breathing.

And then Matt pulls back a second before the knock hits the door.

She looks at him curiously before she opens the door.

Wendy stands there with two mugs of cocoa.

They follow her to the bedroom where the girls are gathered. She sits with them. Matt sits beside her.

She leans slightly into his shoulder, finally at ease.

“Well,” she says, smiling faintly, “I don’t think that was in the wedding binder. But I guess there’s a first time for everything, huh?”

✨Hope you enjoyed! Likes, reblogs, and comments are always welcome!✨

[cranialisotope]

just thinking about being an Extremely Picky Enjoyer of Media today. it's honestly really exhausting.

i don't know about you guys, but i actually am very frustrated with myself when i don't enjoy things. in fact, i think i end up taking that frustration out on whatever i'm seeing/hearing a lot of the time, because it's really pretty rare for stuff to be so genuinely bad that it deserves the negative response i often give it. and it's not even necessarily because i think i SHOULD enjoy it because of its content or something like that, but just because... so many other people seem to enjoy a lot of things of varying quality and subjects?? and i am very very selective about what i enjoy, even casually??? and it kinda mega-sucks????

(stupid ass essay incoming)

i want to like things! i want to hear a song for the first time and go "haha nice" and add it to my Fun Songs Playlist instead of wrinkling my nose! i want to i want to see people talking about a show a bunch and go "huh interesting" and put in on my non-existent watch list instead of waiting for some secret thing about it to be so compelling that it finally passes muster! i don't want to feel obligated to express to those i love that i don't care for that song/show/meme they just shared with me, because i worry that if i do pretend to like it they'll keep showing it to me solely because they think it pleases me and then eventually, inevitably, it'll slip that i Don't Actually Care At All and then everybody feels bad about the whole thing!! i want to like more things!!!! life would be easier and i'd feel better if i liked more things!!!!!!!!!

but some people are just wired the same way i am, and it is what it is. it's not a flaw or a thing to be ashamed of as long as you're not a jerk about it. not that i was always or ever perfect—i was a teenager and an angry young adult, once—but i'm older now, and i have deliberately spent time learning things like this about myself so i can keep a better handle on them. i'm still not perfect, but i like to think i'm kinder now, and better at just going "not for me thanks" instead of gritting my teeth and building idle resentment or immediately spouting off every time about why i don't like something.

if you're like me: it's okay to not like a lot of things. some people just come out with a strong sense of their personal taste (neutral) and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. but it's imperative to focus on what you DO like. if you keep seeing things on your feed that you don't give a shit about and it's getting on your nerves, filter the tag. unfollow the person who posts about it. no hard feelings, you're just curating your timeline, and that's better for both of you. don't make comments about stuff you don't like just because the subject pops up, either IRL or online. no, your Valid Critical Opinion On Why It Isn't To Your Taste isn't needed. save that for things you actually do want to engage with in good faith and keep scrolling. fill your spaces with things you enjoy, even if those things are few, because it's pure brain poison to stew on inconsequential things that bring you no joy. as long as you're not obstructing anyone else's ability to enjoy what they want to enjoy in the way they want to enjoy it, you're okay. don't be a little asshole.

but also... pick your battles. sometimes you just have to give an unfunny joke a little chuckle. sometimes you just have to let someone you care about infodump about their blorbos that you couldn't possibly give less of a shit about—and if you can't manage to do that for them, you'd better not fucking expect them to do it for you. fair play if you don't have the bandwidth to commit, but treat the people you love with the same respect unless they specifically ask you to engage with them differently about the things you like.

if you're not like me: i'm sorry. honest to god. i know it's a pain in the ass to deal with people who have a hard time engaging with Things At Large the way you can (enjoying most things as a baseline?? what's that like) but please know that i'm not doing it on purpose or to be contrarian. i don't dislike things because you, specifically, showed them to me. i'm not not-following you because i don't like you/wouldn't rather be mutuals. i'm not irritated with you for liking or sharing or engaging with that thing you enjoy. i don't think less of you for liking lots of stuff; in fact, good for you. i'm just inclined to be discerning to an irritating degree, and many things don't pass my stupid little mostly-irrational sniff test. keep liking the stuff you like, and if we overlap on something we both enjoy, then fuck yeah, babey!!

anyway. i feel vilified by my own brain a lot because i was born a Certified Hater against my will, so if you feel the same way, just know that i see you. and i also probably can't manage to give a fuck about that new thing everybody's on about, but i'm glad they're having fun, too.

[digitalmarketingph]

Unwritten Rules in Social Media Usage

I have pet peeves when it comes to other users on social media.

Yes, we're not perfect but I'll just put these here because it can make you look less cringey on social platforms.

Liking / Reacting to Your Own Post/s

Self-love is good but not to the point of liking your own post. It looks a bit sad and desperate. Just because nobody reacted on it, it doesn't mean nobody actually liked it or saw it. Some users may not be participative or reactive enough, they're "lurkers." Some may be a day or so late to see your post. If you're seeking engagement, do so with posting good content or ad boosting it if you have the money for it.

2. Messaging for Likes/Reacts/Comments

This sounds more desperate. Unless it's for a school project or contest (geez, why do these schools/teachers do this? Popularity contest much?), then it's understandable. Getting authentic reactions rather than forced ones will also let you know who are the authentic ones in your friend group or friend list.

3. Wrong Simple Grammar

A typo is forgiveable but basic grammar mistakes have stopped me many times from sharing a possibly good post/meme (unless it was intended as part of the joke). Yes, not everyone use English as their first language and I'm not preferring advanced to master level of English proficiency here but not sharing posts with basic grammar mistakes saves from further spreading the adaptation of wrong grammar usage by other people. They may believe those mistakes are normal. 😬 The power of Google lets us double check our grammar before posting, fyi.

4. Sharing a Post without Reacting First

I dunno, it's like stealing credit even if I didn't create the post and only shared it too. A simple react first feels like a virtual "I see you, homie" so I appreciate that when someone decides to share my shared post lol.

5. Sharing Fake News (and believing them instantly)

Google. Please. Quickly exit social for a sec and just google. Check the post's comment section too to see if anyone has fact-checked already and laid down the actual truth. Don't just blindly share, use your mind's ability to critically think please.

It's my pet peeves but you can agree or disagree, feel free to add if you have any. This list isn't about instigating hate; it's more like implying unwritten social media courtesy and promoting better socializing online.

[dwarf-vader-of-middle-earth]

My biggest pet peeve is the constant pressure for everything to be considered a monumental success. Anything that is made and fails to completely outdo its predecessors by a huge amount of views/profit/downloads/streams/etc. is immediately considered a flop, therefore is entirely abandoned and seen as unenjoyable, unplayable, unwatchable, unconsumable, and is discontinued and taken off all services and is forgotten about entirely.

Critics of anything ever will treat all flops as a detriment to society and production, say they should never be enjoyed, or watched, played, read, listened to, etc.

But the thing is almost all "successful" media fucking sucks. It follows the same formats, the same formulas, uses the same dry "jokes" that aren't funny, the same cliches, the same plot arcs, literally everything is the same. Nothing critics say is a success is ever really unique. And for something that is unique to become a so-called success, it NEEDS to be so popular and make such a huge profit that, again, it outdoes every single predecessor.

But when push comes to shove, the margins for success become entirely unachievable by any means. What is considered a success will be beyond what we as people are capable of doing, whether because there's not enough money in the world, or not enough people to view/download/buy the thing, whatever.

And because anything that isn't a success is automatically deemed a flop, it becomes a target for all critics to hate it, point out every flaw, everything possibly wrong, most of which is opinion based and not actually flawed by mechanics/technicality. It gets hated on so much that creators lose their entire careers, and critics pressure everyone to never engage with that media under any circumstances for any reason because they themselves say it's just that bad.

But really, in the end, you like what you like. Nobody can or should tell you to stop consuming media that has "flopped", that hasn't made it to triple A status, or to the big names. Nobody has the right to convince you to drop all interests that aren't mainstream, and consume solely mainstream media. Mainstream shit sucks a lot of the time. They're soulless money grabs, versus a small name project that was made with heart and soul, originality, and uniqueness. It's something NEW. And legit by design, humans need new experiences to enrich us. Doing the same thing or experiencing the same thing over and over and over again, especially if it doesn't bring you joy, is legit damaging to the mind.

So I am begging everyone. PLEASE listen to those small bands and musicians, watch those movies that seem interesting even if you feel or know they aren't going to be popular/successes, play those games that nobody enjoys but you love for whatever reason. Whatever media it is, if you find enjoyment in it, and it's not actively harming anything or anyone to consume, just enjoy it.

Not everything will be a huge success. Not everything has to be. Not everything will become mainstream. Nothing ever has to be for it to be enjoyable.

[magxit]

Just dropped: https://twitter.com/rollingstone/status/1663660316817780745?s=46&t=Jv7EvC8oVb-dKk_gHc29yQ

I haven’t read the full thing. But kinda sad when the media gets it more so than her own fans…

We Wouldn’t Be Having This Conversation If Taylor Swift Was a Man

Publicity stunt or not, Swift can have a sleazeball summer if she damn well pleases.

ON THE FINAL night of Taylor Swift’s MetLife shows this weekend, 80,000 Swifties screamed in the swamps of New Jersey for over three hours. They wore outfits from every era — tinsel fringe dresses, serpent arm cuffs, and heart-shaped sunglasses. I saw countless faces in cowboy hats similar to the emoji — only these cowboys were sobbing uncontrollably while eating foot-long hotdogs. And the bracelets! They were all wearing beaded bracelets coded in Swiftian lyrics, trading them in the parking lot like Deadheads swapping grilled cheeses. (Take my advice: do not try to pay for the bracelets. They will look at you like you’re from outer space.) 

It’s hard to believe that while this magical Eras tour is happening — and while Swift is somehow reaching previously-unimaginable heights of popularity, surpassing even the ludicrous highs of 2015 — she is also experiencing a backlash from some corners of the Swiftie community over her supposed new boyfriend, the 1975’s Matt Healy. 

Their sentiments were best summed up in an open letter on Twitter using the hashtag #SpeakUpNow (named after Swift’s upcoming re-recording of her 2010 album), which states that Healy’s many controversies “deeply trouble” them. “From engaging in racist remarks, making offensive jokes, and admitting to watching degrading pornography in which people of color are being humiliated and assaulted, his actions contribute to the perpetuation of hate, stereotypes, and objectification, which targets and hurts some people from the Jewish, Black, Chinese, Hawaiian, Inuit, LGBTQ+ communities, as well as women.”

The statement refers to the derogatory comments Healy made about the rapper Ice Spice on The Adam Friedland Show podcast in February and the questionable apology he delivered onstage last month. Fans raised eyebrows when Swift recruited the rapper for her “Karma” remix last week, and on Monday, Healy finally addressed the controversy in a New Yorker profile that only exacerbated the issue. He explained that the whole thing “doesn’t actually matter” and that the backlash he received was merely virtue signaling: “It’s just people going, ‘Oh, there’s a bad thing over there, let me get as close to it as possible so you can see how good I am,’” he said. “And I kind of want them to do that, because they’re demonstrating something so base level.”

If you didn’t catch this quote aggregated on the internet about 137 times (you probably had better things to do than scroll Twitter and hustle children for their handmade bracelets), you aren’t missing much. This is all part of Healy’s artistry: an intricate, tangled web of bits intended to rile you up and piss you off. This is the guy who eats raw meat onstage, gives Nazi salutes, and delivers intelligent observations like, “I’m obsessed with my dick for some reason.” Stupid Shit is his brand. Are we really supposed to take anything he says seriously? 

I’m not here to answer that, but I am here to tell you that none of it is Taylor’s problem. For the last 17 years, we’ve held this woman responsible for the actions of men she chooses to spend time with, and it’s time to stop. It would be fair to criticize her for walking out of Electric Lady with the ghost of Pol Pot or wondering why her dad and Matt Lauer are grooving out to her performance of “22.” But this is just a hot sleazeball who wants Oasis back together (I don’t know about you, but I’ve dated a lot of guys who fit that description), and it’s up to Taylor to spend her time as she pleases.

[fyoggo]

I don't think you are consuming Hypnosis Mic properly

I have already had to tell someone else this here but it seems you need to hear it too. first off I dontlike how you use that square ended highlighter resembling brush when drawing them. They look like abstract Minecraft characters.

Seconsd off your jokes are not very funny or at least not in the context of Hypmic they do not seem relevant. You seem to have a very loose understanding of these characters and these stories, as if you were someone just pretending tney were in the fandom because they enjoy the characters on the surface, but do not bother to do digging or reaearch or someone who has only seen Rhyme animal and does not care about their full story and this is why you hyper focus on Dotsuire Hompo to try and mask in the community who know what they are doing

I have been called a troll for this and possibly a hater but I can't remember. The point is I am just saying, you snould take some time off. Take a break from Tumble or at least HypmicTumbler and then in your spare time;

I will organize a short list of what to research

Find Slugtranslations and ask for their link to their Discord where they will give you a password so you can go read the manga (it is private now due to their personal decisions). Please read all of the manga

Go to the wiki and Spotify and watxh the drama tracks and read alongside them then go to Sound cloud to find the manga drama tracks (special drama tracks that come with special manga issues these are harder to find because they are not on streaming services) Please read and listen to all of these they are the final step in canon

DNI with rhyme anima and the live action musicals they are not true to canon

I think when you come back after this you will feel very refreshed and have more relevant takes and funnier jokes. Thank you

When you are done can you please, with a normal brush draw some Saburo funny memes

I was thinking about whether or not I should answer this at all but I'll give it a shot.

First and foremost: I don't engage fandoms. I don't create story relevant content because I don't particularly feel like it... not that I should have to justify drawing what I like.

Second: humor is subjective. also the comics I draw are memes. again, I draw those to have fun to make some people chuckle. if it doesn't amuse you, that's totally fine!

I appreciate the art criticism, but unfortunately I only draw on my phone at the moment and I don't have a touch pen to do any better. sorry if this bothers you; not much I can do about it when I am pretty much finger painting digitally.

As for the story stuff... I have actually read all of the drama track translations while listening along, but none of that is really relevant to what I want to draw... I'm not sure I understand what kind of art it is that you want me to produce. like I said, the things I draw are meant to be (subjectively) funny, and I haven't gotten any anon asks like this before about any of the other games / media I created content for. is every piece of fan art you've come across 100% accurate, relevant and/or thought-provoking? I'm sure there are creators that you can follow for those things instead of sifting through my doodles. Sorry if they clutter your feed, I think I'll have to ask you to block me because I don't plan on stopping drawing things that I enjoy.

I appreciate the offer to help me open my eyes to the lore and whatnot, but I respectfully decline. it's nice of you to want to do all those things for me, but I don't like joining discord servers and I don't really think I need to do any of those things you listed either to be allowed to just draw, like thousands of other people on this website do.

thanks for this message, though! I hope if anyone else out there felt the same way they'll read this as a bit of a clarification. I doubt my sense of humor will change, and as for the takes, I haven't had a single one — I just drew characters I liked. I do suggest blocking me though, and I don't mean it in one of those "if you don't like it, block" ways, but just so you can get me out of your way. I think my blog isn't for you, and I hope you find another creator that'll check all your boxes! 😄

[serviceable-mechanism]

Oh no you never learned how to argue :/

it seems like you’re getting irrationally upset so I’d advise you to calm down a little and try to see the conversation a little more clearly. Maybe check on your mother. As I previously clarified, I didn’t wear a condom the other night and I’m not sure if she’s hit menopause or not yet. Using basic media literacy skills that I learned in high school, I am easily able to tell the difference between a product simply stating where it was made, and one that focuses entirely on advertising its origin as a selling point. New York, notably, is not referred to as a Jewish holy land by anyone but the most insular and insufferable liberals, and my criticism of Israel was specifically from the lens of its relevance to the holiday in question. If you want to talk about colonial enterprise as a whole, that would require broadening the discussion. I think the existence of the British monarchy is also an affront to any belief in personal freedom or liberty. Happy? They’re just far less relevant to Pesach specifically

Ultimately, I feel like you’re ignoring the actual things I’m saying in favor of grasping at a vague sense of personal outrage. “Lmao even” Yes quite but I’ve yet to see anything you have said actually… contradict the statement. You may be laboring under the common playground belief that conservatism ends at the American Republican political party. If this is the case please let me know and I’d be happy to pick up where your primary education seemed to tragically fail you

It seems as though you are attempting to pick and choose between seeing our traditions as literal Christian gospel, and uncertain metaphor. As a bit of friendly advice, you’d be able to argue better if you chose one side over the other. Whether it’s an actual divine entity, or the vague and ultimately meaningless force of “tradition” you are still arguing without an argument. Believing that things must be a certain way because of historical precedent is probably an even more conservative stance than saying so because you heard a voice from above. Neither position is worthy of respect. Policies should be enacted if they will lead to greater degrees of human prosperity. Whatever you choose to call your justification otherwise, faith or forefathers, it is worthless in the face of real people.

I think you may have misunderstood me again. Israel (that is to say, the Israel of our faith, not the one in reality) can be broadly interpreted to mean the community and freedom of Jews worldwide. I have yet to see any compelling argument as to why it should be an actually physical country with a seat on world councils. To be sat beside the greatest colonial powers of history. Do you truly think so little of our people that we cannot aspire to a better path than that?

I’m sorry but I did say “church” and I meant “church.” Judaism may not have them but Israel might as well. This is hardly an important point to make, but you don’t really see the current existing country of Israel as a real representation of Judaism, do you? The country primarily funded by Christian nations, that allows Christian business owners to speed through their “conversion” and exists specifically due to a Christian belief in the end of days starting with the collective death of the Jewish people. I thought we were trying to engage seriously

I don’t care how you grew up. It clearly wasn’t with Jewish values. Just Jewish trivia. And that’s such a shame. Though I will admit, you made me laugh so that’s one thing to be proud of.

“breAd (dumbass can't even spell???!)”

Genuinely. This was very funny. I promise, when you’re older you’ll get the joke. Now if you’ll excuse me, I think her and I should go for another round

As passover rolls around again this year, i think it's a good opportunity to examine the fascinating interaction between capitalism's neverending drive towards profit seeking, and a product specifically designed to be unpleasant and unappetizing

Passover, for the unaware, is a time when (particularly strong willed) practicing Jews abstain from risen bread and a fair variety of other grain-based foodstuffs, and eat matzah in their place, to commemorate the historical suffering of the Jewish people. As such, matzah itself, the bread of affliction, is specifically intended to be, more or less, pretty bullshit. It's hard and nearly flavorless and cold and boring and nothing at all like warm soft beautiful sourdough bread my beloved (may we be reunited soon). As a result, attempting to sell matzah puts advertisers in a difficult position, presented with the task of making this horrible bullshit (i like the soup, okay?) look like something one would choose to eat outside of the confines of religious tradition

To commemorate this holiday, I'd like to look at a few of the approaches they have taken

Manischewitz

Right off the bat, we've got the brand recognition to carry this one through, and to be honest that's largely all a good box of matzah should need, considering the 99% of the time it will be bought out of obligation. Often considered to be the "autism of religions" Judaism is a faith that celebrates the importance of tradition above all else, so Manischewitz is going to have an advantage from jump. That said, I find the phrase "perfect for Passover" to be particularly redundant in this context. If you're Jewish, it hardly needs to be said, and if you're not, well, please eat something that tastes good instead

7/10

2. Manischewitz (again)

Here's where we hit our first roadblock. In addition to the brand name being sized down, thus lessening the advantage granted by cultural cache, this particular product makes what I would consider to be a rookie mistake. Onion flavoring. That is, they attempted to make matzah taste good. While tempting, this is ultimately an error. It's not supposed to taste good. It was designed and perfected by our most talented artisans for three thousand years to be be the culinary equivalent of watching paint dry. It is absolute hubris to believe yourself capable of turning that into an appetizing snacking treat with the addition of a little bit of onion powder

4/10

3. Streit's

In general, this one is not particular offensive in any direct sense. It has bold, bright colors, and a clear image of the product. I feel that "thin and crispy" is a particularly unnecessary addition, as, yeah man I should sure hope they are, and the addition of (light) salt edges this just a little closer to attempting to taste good, but these are relatively minor complaints. My true issue with this is the assertion that this matzah is meant to "pair with soups, spreads, and salads." This is false advertising

5/10

4. Yehuda Matzos

On the surface this appears to be a relatively inoffensive example, but the longer one looks, the more the cracks begin to show. The images present give off a particularly sickly yellow quality that makes them just a tad less appetizing than they already would be, and the description of them as "Matzo-Style Squares" really sells the unsettling quality of this whole display. And they're also gluten free. Yes, I know some people have dietary restrictions, but as far as I'm aware, most people who are gluten free already don't eat all that much bread anyways, and with the helpful acknowledgment that this particular product is "not a replacement for matzo at the Seder" as in the one time where actually eating the stuff is part of suggested tradition, I fail to see a scenario in which these things are consumed. It also, obviously, loses points for the "Imported from Israel" banner in the lower corner, though I'll get into that in a moment

3/10

5. Holyland

There is basically just the one advertising strategy being employed here. It's subtle, but with a keen eye I'm sure you can figure it out. The natural issue, of course, is that it's an inherently polarizing one. It positions itself such that one's political alignment is the only deciding factor in the decision to purchase it, and without other appealing characteristics, this is ultimately a losing strategy.

Obliviously, the primary issues here would be the ongoing genocide and human rights abuses, but as that's largely out of the scope of this particular post, I'd like to focus on how inappropriate a pro-Israel message is when it comes to the celebration of Passover specifically. Ultimately, the story of Passover is that of Jewish escape from bondage and slavery, leading to a forty-year of wandering through the desert looking for a home. That is, it is a celebration of the history of the Jewish people specifically as a diaspora. As the period of Jewish chattel slavery in Egypt is considered apocryphal from a modern lens, one should approach the narrative not as an earnest recounting of true events, but as a metaphor for the Jewish condition as a whole. And from this framework we understand the forty years in the desert searching for a homeland not to be a specific literal stretch of history, but instead a collective journey that the Jewish people undertake, to escape antisemitism broadly. Considering how antisemitism is alive and well to this day, one must come to the obvious conclusion that this is a journey we are still in the middle of. In addition to the fact that ethnostates as a whole are an evil endeavor, the idea that Israel should exist at all, is, from a Jewish perspective, incredibly hubristic and antithetical to the message Passover means to instill in us.

0/10

6. Streit's (again)

To lighten the tone somewhat, here we have something almost passable. Passover matzah. That's what it's for, that's what it is. And with what appears to be a depiction of the bitter herbs meant to be consumed alongside the matzah during a traditional Passover seder, this branding subtly hints at the clear implication: you are eating this because of your traditions. No attempt is made to make the matzah itself look good, and I respect that. That said, I balk at the idea of purchasing an entire five pounds of the stuff, but that inherent revulsion is in conflict with my desire to find out what exactly the "Passover game" enclosed inside entails.

7/10

7. Yehuda Matzos

I hate this. No, I will grant you, matzah is not supposed to be good. You are meant to long for the taste of bread. You need to want it. But, at the same time, there's no need to make it taste worse than it already does. It may be the bread of affliction, but, like, maybe not too afflicted, and I really think that making it whole wheat ruins my last shred of enjoyment of the stuff. This one's also from Israel

3/10

8. Streit's (again)

Go fuck yourself.

0/10

9. Rakusen's of Yorkshire

There's really a lot to say with this one. From the completely superfluous "vegan" sticker in the lower left hand corner (they're flour and water), to the helpful description of these as "crackers." There is just such a monumentally small target audience for this. I'm sure the population of British Jews excited to celebrate the coronation of King Charles with a holiday snack...exists, I don't imagine they're particularly numerous. Also, doing some research, King Charles' coronation took place on the sixth of May, 2023, while Passover of that year took place between the fifth and thirteenth of April. What event could this possibly be appropriate at? Having them for the coronation itself would mean eating matzah outside of the timeframe in which it is specifically necessary to do so (untenable), and having them for Passover of that year means saving this box in your pantry for a month so you can get questioning and uncomfortable looks from your friends and relatives during the Seder. Additionally, I really can't tell if I think it's antisemitic or just pretty funny that they thought a possibility of winning money was one of the best ways to advertise matzah.

1/10

10. Streit's (once again)

Finally. Now, here is something to be celebrated. Note the helpful yellow ribbon in the lower right corner, and the glaringly prominent "UNSALTED" staring us in the face. No salt, no flavoring, no bells, no whistles. There is nothing here to differentiate this particular product from any other box of matzah, except the specific advertising flourishes being utilized. And what flourishes would those be, precisely? "For each box of this matzah that goes unsold, a woman will die of breast cancer. This will be on you." That's right. Sure, you can rely on creative flavoring, to mask the taste of bitter affliction. You can offer cash prizes, nationalist posturing, or an appeal to tradition. But only Streit's is out here advertising their matzah the right way. The Jewish way. With guilt.

Buy our matzah. If you don't, you're a bad person.

10/10

[karmicpunishment]

Roleplay Conduct in the Dream SMP

just want to forwarn, this is throwing no hate to any cc involved with the DSMP, i just think this is something that needs to be talked about. For example, I will be mentioning cc!phil quite a bit, but thats just because he’s a good, recent example of what i want to talk about. this has no hateful intent, just hopefully helpful critisism.  also if there are any spelling errors or something, ignore them please <3 ---- I think there’s one major thing that bugs me about the DSMP, both on the side of the content and the fandom, and thats the lack of understanding of the basics of roleplay. it’s clear that most people involved (both cc and fandom wise) this is their first major experience with rp. and while thats not a bad thing per se, it does majorly effect how the proccess runs and the content produced. 

with the dream smp its incredibly clear there is a lack of awareness relating to rp experience, especially when it comes to etiquette. and to some people that may sound silly or to complicated for something like a blockman rp. i promise it’s not. 

rp etiquette is a vital part of ensuring a roleplay experience is enjoyable (for the rp’ers and the viewers if there are any), consistent, and understandable. this applies to things like dnd campaigns, improv shows and yes, the dream smp. 

there are several different versions of rp etiquette, depeninding on medium and what you want out of it, but there a few that stay pretty consistant. things like “show respect to your fellow rp’ers”, no godmodding, no metagaming, keep irl drama outside rp, and more. but the ones i really want to talk about today are: retconning, powerplay/imposing your ideas onto other’s characters. these three things are all major problems i percieve in the dsmp, and for the most part, this has to do with lack of rp etiquette. 

examples of these things: retconning: c!jack manifold’s canon deaths, c!phil’s not knowing about l’manburg/schlatt/the festival etc and the letters, the various age discussions, three canon lives and the many retcons attached to that, family sbi dynamic being canon and then not (also falls under powerplay)  powerplay/imposing hc’s onto other cc characters or the story at large: cc!phil talking about c!wilbur as a child, tommy posting to twitter about c!wilbur smoking (though this was more a joke the fandom took as canon),  puffy canonizing horns for tubbo 

and look, no one is expecting them all to be master rp’ers, especially considering for most of them this is their first time. but to engage in a media form like this, with an audience the size of the dsmp, there has to be expectations that people will educate themselves and learn as they go. you don’t see these breaches of etiquette on other rp media like critical role or dimension 20, you simply don’t, at least not on the scale you see it in the dream smp. and this damages the media, making it incredibly difficult to follow, especially when depending on who you watch, facts about the story change. the dsmp suffers from not having a headwriter(s) and set schedule to keep it in check, as well as its actors having a deep lack of understanding of rp culture, especially in terms of etiquette. 

and these problems spread to the fandom as well. there’s a real problem with people making headcanons that are actually au’s (and yes there is a difference between the two) and letting it influnce how they view canon. this also stems from the problem of not listening to cc about their own characters (ranboo and tubbo saying michael will not be hurt, killed or involved in angst, as well that beeduo won’t divorce, are things commonly thrown away by the fandom) and letting their favorite “hc’s” influence how they percieve canon and its characters (especially see it with characters like wilbur, dream, niki and fundy)  once again, none of this is intended as hate, neither to the cc’s or to the fandom, just some honest criticism. also im sorry if this was very rambly, i can’t stay on topic for the life of me  tldr; the cc’s (and the fandoms) lack of experience in rp and its etiquette is actively hurting the story. please go play a dnd game and learn /lh 

[iamanartichoke]

Please do not screenshot or link to this post on any other blogs/discord servers. If you think my take is hot trash then you are more than welcome to reblog and engage with me about it (or just think I suck bc you're entitled to your opinion) but I cannot stand being talked about behind my back, so to speak, so please just don't.

The Problem With The Term “GirlBoss” (aka The New Mary Sue)

The thing that I really dislike about the term Girlboss(TM) is that it's become so ubiquitous that any original, possibly positive meaning of the term has been lost, bc it's now a label that's slapped onto seemingly any woman character who is assertive and/or has the physical prowess to defend herself; Girlboss now functions to, essentially, be another box to shoehorn women into.

I don't know where or when Girlboss originated, just that I see it increasingly applied to women characters across media (including, of course, Sylvie, but I'll talk about her specifically in a bit), and the ease with which fans apply it to this or that character honestly just irks me.

It's dismissive. It's limiting. It's reducing a woman character to the sum total of her parts and saying, this character is Label and nothing else about them matters; they should not be taken seriously and also I hate them.

(Cut for length.)

And, I mean, I'm not saying people can't dislike women characters for whatever reasons they want - but, to see fandom adopting the term and it becoming so widespread just makes me wonder if the inherent misogyny in it is just lost on them, or if they realize it but just don't care.

So like, okay, let's really think about the term Mary Sue for a moment, bc the Mary Sue is kinda the predecessor of Girlboss (in my opinion).

For literal decades (at *least* going back to the 90s, as far as I'm aware), Mary Sue has been liberally applied to women characters whom audiences decided were too perfect in some way - whether they were liked by everyone, effortlessly good at things, incredibly smart, or some combination of all these "flawless" qualities, Mary Sues were consistently called out for existing in the space of a story and not being flawed enough to earn her spot there.

The Mary Sue isn't always the main character, but often she is, which adds another layer of contempt to the term bc in addition to being flawless, the Mary Sue is also accused of being a stand-in for the author, a vessel through which the author can write out her fantasy of *checks notes* being well-liked and good at things. Or her fantasy of *checks notes again* finding a partner who is both very attractive and also kind, respectful, and thinks the sun rises and sets on her.

In other words, calling a character a Mary Sue is implicitly saying that a woman who either doesn't have enough flaws, or fantasizes about an idealized version of herself and her life, or both is a woman who deserves to be mocked. Bc that's what the term Mary Sue is used for - to mock, dismiss, and just generally hate on a character who exists in a story.

If Mary Sue equals a "flawless" woman ('flawless' as defined by whoever decided that a woman should have A, B, and C wrong with her and if she doesn't, she's perfect, regardless of whether or not she's dealing with D, E, Q, S, and W. But I digress.), then a "flawless" woman equals a woman who has no depth or complexity and deserves mockery.

And when the Mary Sue is also functioning as the author's stand-in? Well, the author deserves mockery, too. Little boys can fantasize about being knights and slaying dragons, or being professional baseball players, and adult men can fantasize about being Tyler Durden or whoever, but if a woman fantasizes about being loved by everyone and good at things and having men fall in love with her for no reason except that she exists, well, that's stupid. That's cringe. Chuck Palahniuk gets to be critically acclaimed and Stephanie Meyer gets to be a joke.

This isn't about saying Fight Club is actually bad or Twilight is actually good, for the record. This is about saying that women characters in media - and by extension, women writers - are held to different, kinda impossible standards and the term Mary Sue is emblematic of that. Something a male character is admired for is something a female character is mocked for. Etc.

And, yes, I realize that "Gary Stu" exists, but 1) it doesn't hold the same weight or negative connotations that Mary Sue does, and 2), even if it did, I rarely see it applied to male characters who "earn" it, and 3) even if that character did get defined as a Gary Stu, well, that's not okay, either, bc it's just as flawed a concept as Mary Sue.

But, so, thinking about Mary Sue in this context - as a dismissive label - provides context for Girlboss, in that the Girlboss is a Mary Sue but also she can fight. Or she's just physically strong or athletic. Or she's written as being "better than the boys," in-universe.

Girlboss (TM) is what happens when the same kind of people who resent "flawless" women characters also resent flawless women characters who then outshine the men.

Because why else would being able to fight be seen as a negative? Why else would speaking her mind or being better than her male counterpart at something be seen as a negative? And therein lies the misogyny, the kind of misogyny that says a woman needs to "earn" her existence in the story by being the "right" kind of flawed that aligns with "complexity and depth" but also she can't be better than the men or outshine them or basically do anything that's going to detract from the Male Hero of the Story. It's like how guys get pissed when their girlfriend is better than they are at a sport or a video game, stereotypically "male" things, or how women and mens' sports teams compete separately bc they can't risk the possiblity of any of the women beating any of the men. (See: that Olympic swimmer.)

And, I mean, I might be getting kind of jumbled here but the point is that Girlboss is just another term that contributes to keeping women characters in boxes, and those boxes are getting smaller, not larger. And that just means that the woman who is writing the story is also being pressed into a box. Writing is hard enough, but now the writer also has to be cognizant of whether or not her character is flawed enough, or too flawed, or if giving her a mean right hook is going to dismiss the entire rest of her arc bc readers think she's a Girlboss, or just - these labels are just tools to limit creativity, not inspire it. And it's really, really frustrating to see.

This is going to have to be a two-part post, bc I don't have time to write anymore and it's ridiculously long but I also intend to talk about Sylvie. I'm gonna throw caution to the wind and hit post without editing (I will regret this) but if nothing else, please don't take this post as me saying that women as characters are not allowed to be disliked, bc they absolutely can. Some characters are good and well-written and some are shitty and poorly-written and a lot of them fall somewhere in-between - *gasp* just like male characters. It's almost like what I'm saying isn't that these labels are bad bc women characters shouldn't be criticized, what I'm saying is that the critera with which you criticize the character shouldn't rest solely on the few attributes or deficiencies that the label you gave her has reduced her to.

[docholligay]

I was going to write most of this in a reblog of another post, but then I realized that I was straying quite a bit from what the post itself was about, which was genre conventions and how they are a thing. 

It talked a lot about children’s media with response to this, because tumblr is wild about children’s media, so you get wild takes like, “This adult is ABSUING A CHILD” when it’s like, a villain beating up Sailor Moon or some shit. 

As a media analyst (lol let’s put a title to ‘talks about TV’) something I run into a lot is what I like to call “Schrodinger's Children’s Show” where the show is magically for and about children and not, at the same time. 

When a show is sold to me or when I hear it talked about tumblr, it is pretty much always, “This show has MATURE THEMES, and is VERY SOPHISTICATED and TALKS ABOUT TRAUMA IN A MAJOR WAY” so I engage with it, and then I’m watching it and I’m saying something like, “Wait so is this show ultimately prizing pacifism even in the face of evil” to be met with “It is a CHILDREN’S SHOW and you have to remember that it is FOR CHILDREN” 

This has happened to me MULTIPLE times, and even more the “This character is a child/there’s nothing untoward about this character being in their position” So, back to the post this is based on: We accept that teenagers have to save the world because adults are idiots. Genre convention. But if we actually delve into the reasons YA/children’s shows exists FOR TEENAGERS AND CHILDREN and not for ADULTS ON THE INTERNET, though sadly the market is moving away from its Actual Target Audience...much of the “teens saving the world” thing is allowing the 12-15 year old set to imagine themselves as possible adults. So, in that vein, criticizing a teenage character who is not a real teenager in many ways, because we have suspended that belief, is probably okay! 

I think this tendency with favored characters and shows, to use the “children” thing as a mode of protection from criticism, is why you see people sometimes, like me! Very guilty of this. Going, “well then if what you’re telling me is I can’t expect too much from it, why are we talking about it at all?” There was a show I ADORED the concept of, but the whole time I was watching it, I kept thinking, “Fuck I wish this was made for grownups*” because I knew the SECOND I said something like, “wow I wish we would have explored this point” I would hear “Well doc lol its for children do you want to traumatize the children” and its always sold as this unrealistic desire. But I should definitely still carefully analyze the show in all the good ways! It’s still totally worth watching! Please enjoy this sanitized version of an adult concept with me and other adults! I don’t like adult things because they’re all about men having affairs but each of these magical girl shows is special and unique! 

So yes, genre conventions are a thing we accept when we enter the door! I am totally for that, and sometimes, man, the Narrrative Requires, and other than in joking, I don’t actually get surprised when there are no adults in an anime. But I think what I find frustrating is the insistence that we take this show seriously, often, but also let it slip serious critique. I can’t say, “This show is immature because it is literally made for developing minds” that’s judgmental, but if I say, “This show actually does not explore trauma in a meaningful way, it touches on it in and moves away” I get accused of not understanding when I thing is for children.”

Schrodinger’s Children’s Show. 

*This show goes into Top Ten Anime Betrayals for me because I was SO SO excited for it, because when the pitch was sent, not even to me, but to a friend! I jumped on her stream because the pitch said it “was on HBO” and I read the concept and thought “OH MY GOD THIS SOUNDS INCREDIBLE” and then the fucking....cartoon network logo popped up and I think Jetty watched me visually deflate. 

[ms-demeanor]

Some meandering thoughts about jokes about rape and cultural changes in the last decade and a half

Like, don’t get me wrong, I’m really glad we’re in a place now where we DO question rape jokes and it would be much harder to get away with “raping Jonah Hill is incredibly amusing” as the center of a scene the way that you could in 2007-2013 but I do kind of feel like we don’t talk about how sudden that change was enough.

People talk about how you should have always known that awful things are awful but if you’re surrounded by rape jokes and pedophilia jokes all the time and that’s what’s funny to the other kids around you and the adults in your lives and what makes up the jokes in the movies you watch then it’s hard to act like you always knew it was wrong.

Dead baby jokes were a HUGE thing when I was a teen and in my early twenties and sitting around swapping dead baby jokes was just a thing we did, and tossed in among them were things like:

A joke about incest with the punchline “Get off me pa, you’re crushing my smokes.”

This joke about a pedophile murdering a child.

Let’s not turn this rape into a murder.

And hell, look at the activity graph for “soap on a rope” on urban dictionary:

2014 starts a significant taper.

Letterboxd has their “sexual assault against men played for comedy page” and if you sort by release date there’s a downward trend with 2014 as a really stand-out year for rape jokes about men in popular movies:

2010 - 10

2011 - 12

2012 - 14

2013 - 12

2014 - 18 (jesus, which includes a prison rape joke in “Paddington”)

2015 - 9

2016 - 9

2017 - 11

2018 - 15

2019 - 4

2020 - 1

(this is of course with the caveat that this is only what has been documented so far)

Shock porn sites used to be a thing and they used to be a COMMON thing. A thing that would get remixed and have late night hosts make jokes about them and that got parody music videos.

So on the one hand I was really glad that in 2010 the hacker conference WASN’T asking me to make a rape joke on their tee shirt, but since Pool 2 Girl came up at every single “this is what defcon is about” discussion and some of the guys from the con had printed up “lemonparty.org” stickers to slap up around town it wouldn’t have been *surprising* if they’d been asking for that.

If you were a teenager in 2005 would you have known how much of a dick move goatse-ing people was? We didn’t have the same culture of trigger warnings (not that I disapprove of trigger warnings, they are good and I like them) and there was very much an attitude online at the time of “if you can’t handle it log off.”

I think the fappening was the turning point for a lot of this stuff - I think that was a big cultural moment that changed a lot of people’s attitudes really quickly and I’m seeing echos of that with what Chris Evans is dealing with right now: people are a lot faster to say “oh, that sucks, don’t be an asshole, report people for posting the pics” while I remember sitting and arguing in an imgur thread because there were a bunch of people saying “if you don’t like it don’t take nudes” about the celebrities who got caught in the icloud leak.

People look at Shane Dawson’s (admittedly gross and incredibly inappropriate) behavior with a poster of Willow Smith and act like it’s unprecedented***** but as someone who remembers not only Olsen Eighteenth Birthday countdowns but ALSO the jokes about fucking the Olsen twins that came BEFORE they were legal that’s just bizarre. Seeing people my age and older react to James Gunn’s pedophilic twitter jokes like they’re worse than Jay Leno’s jokes about Michael Jackson (which were made on TV! Across America! On a major network!) is just. It’s bizarre.

I’m glad we are where we are now, I’m glad that making rape jokes in public or jokes about incest or pedophilia (or murder or abortion) is less common and less okay (especially in children’s media, jesus fuck) and more likely to get criticized.

But I’m also pretty sure I’m going to get called a rape apologist by *someone* for saying “2010 was a different time, rape jokes were more common and we didn’t realize how shitty it was” when it really was a different time and rape jokes were more common and most people didn’t realize how shitty it was. I sure didn’t. I do now, and I’m glad I do now. But pretending that we should have ALWAYS known this, pretending that this was NEVER acceptable, pretending that it WASN’T a different time is ignoring the fact that for over a decade there was an entire genre of pedophilic rape jokes (that were frequently also racist) centered around one celebrity and that people told these jokes in public and in pop culture *all the time.*

Does that make it right? Fuck, I don’t know, shit is relative. It was still largely acceptable to electrocute gay kids and people tossed around the word “faggot” pretty freely. Mean Girls is full of jokes about how awful it is for people to think you’re a lesbian and Superbad is full of jokes about getting people shitfaced so they’ll sleep with you (so date rape) and there’s an entire “cute comedy” from the 80s starring Kurt Russel and Goldie Hawn that’s an extended rape-by-fraud joke. I think that as a whole we’re better now as people than we were in 2010 and the 90s and the 80s and the 50s and I don’t think that someone who made a sexist joke in the 80s is irredeemably evil and I don’t think people making rape jokes in the 2010s are rape apologists in 2020 and I wish there was a lot more understanding of both history and nuance in these conversations.

*****to be very, very clear Shane Dawson has been filmed kissing underage fans on the mouth and having explicit sexual conversations with his very young cousin - Dawson has done things that go beyond “inappropriate” and fall clearly into “wrong” “bad” “dangerous” “illegal” etc, which is all the more reason that it’s so strange to see people focusing on him fake masturbating on a poster of Willow Smith. YES doing that was gross but why is it even being compared to the way he’s been filmed interacting with fans? The lack of nuance, making “fake masturbating at a poster” and “creating a sexually abused puppet character” the same as “inappropriately touched and kissed minor fans and engaged a young child in explicit sexual conversations” is NOT GOOD. That is a bad thing. Two of those things are tasteless and two of those things are actively harmful and it’s the actively harmful stuff that we should be focusing on and part of why it’s really weird to see shit like “pizzagate conspiracist accuses James Gunn of making inappropriate jokes” like yes Gunn please don’t but can we maybe refocus and talk about the dude who can be pretty significantly assigned blame for a fucking shooting? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/01/james-gunn-alt-right-marvel-film-director-tweets

Actually, you know what, I thought I was done ranting, I’m not.

It’s purity culture.

YES you should attempt to do less harm with your language, YES you should attempt to not use slurs, YES you should try to avoid making rape jokes. But there’s an entire huge group of people who are willing to drag up rape jokes from a decade when rape jokes were REALLY REALLY common in order to say that nothing you say or do today matters.

And that same group is ALSO really interested in expanding the concept of what pedophilia is to include age differences in adults or liking the wrong style of drawing and it’s a purity culture silencing tactic and can we PLEASE stop pretending that gross, tasteless jokes are the same thing as actually sexually abusing people? Can we stop pretending that pointing out “rape jokes were more common fifteen years ago and I feel bad about it but that’s just the way it was and I don’t make jokes like that anymore” is the same as saying “rape isn’t bad and you shouldn’t make a big deal out of it.”

It’s always good to try to be a less shitty human but if you’re only allowed to grow and improve and be less shitty if you never fucked up in the first place then it’s all just calvinist bullshit and none of us could ever really be saved in the first place.

I dunno, dudes. We got so careful about disapproving of the wrong kind of language that we let a white supremacist concern troll Disney into firing a director who caught the attention of the alt right by shit-talking the president.

I think perhaps we need to reexamine some strategy here.

[likeadog]

okay so im seeing people get anons about this and its coming up in friend groups so i think now's actually a pretty good time to tackle the idea of religious (specifically cultic) abuse in media and how we as an audience interact with it

TLDR: dehumanization and sexualization of cult victims furthers the misunderstanding that cults "don't exist now", and RA survivors would feel much safer in fandom spaces if people acknowledged and analyzed the harmful portrayals of cults in media.

cw: discussions of cults, abuse, and sexual assault

also, if you have questions, please shoot me an ask or dm (off anon preferably, though)

let me start this with a disclaimer that i dont think every media that features ra is inherently bad. i think thats a bit harsh and as an ra survivor ive come to terms with the fact that there are going to be depictions of it in ways that maybe dont give it the respect it deserves, and trying to "what about [x]" everything will only lead people to talking in circles with themselves. what i want to address here is how you, as a consumer, respond to and parse out what cultic abuse means in any particular portrayal of it.

*also please don't harass people about their RAS status, like, if you see someone enjoying something with a less than stellar portrayal of cults, don't send them asks or dms like "well are YOU a cult survivor?" reducing the consumption of media to a yes or no game based on identity-- especially an identity that comes as the result of explicit pain and spiritual violation is not only derivative but also degrading to survivors and the people you're grilling. all we want is for people to think carefully about what they spread and portray, and how they think about those situations.

so, i think the first thing to tackle is...what is a cult? This is something that's surprisingly hard to define, especially in fictional settings with fictional cults. For example, (and pardon the use of this example, I don't feel like hunting for others), My Hero Academia has an organization in it that I would say fits the criteria for being a cult, but by and large isn't considered one by fans because it's not explicitly called a cult. (Although numerous cult jokes have been made about it). It also has an organization that IS explicitly referred to as a cult.

So, when you're dealing with how to process what is and is not a cult-- and how to make your presence safe for RA survivors, you have to be able to sift through more than just "did the narrative tell me this is a cult?"

There's a few different models people use; one of the most popular being the BITE model-- but I should clarify that the BITE model is really tailored towards religious and strictly hierarchal cults, but can be applied to other kinds of cults.

(and yes, there are cults other than religious/spiritual ones. corporate cults and wellness cults have been on the rise, and it's good to keep that in mind both when engaging with media and also in the real world.)

However, I'm a religious cult survivor, so a lot of my experience is strictly irt this, so please take what I say with a grain of salt, and know that I don't speak for every cult survivor, every religious cult survivor, or every religious abuse survivor. I am One Guy on the internet.

When it comes to media, I have a few questions I run through in order to figure out if something is A Cult.

1) Fringe Ideas. This one is one of those that most people know-- and often incorrectly use to attribute cult status to other things. However, it is worth mentioning, that you don't become a cult by following mainstream ideologies. BUT. BUT. not every group with weird ideas is a cult! Some groups are just weird and are fine being weird. It's a rectangles and squares situation. All cults have fringe ideas and behaviors, not all fringe ideas and behaviors belong to cults.

2) Hierarchies. Cults always have people in power, at least in my experience. There have been ideas thrown around about "completely decentralized cults"-- but to be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about that concept, and I don't know enough about it personally to say whether or not it's legitimate. If you have any sources, hmu.

BUT. Most cults have a power structure. You're going to have leaders, usually with a handful at the verrrrry tippy top, whose word is law. This can be associated with things like religious ideas (channelling god) or being "a genius", like in corporate cults.

3) Control. I cannot stress this enough; cults are all about control. How you think, feel, behave-- they discourage critical thought, encourage snitching on each other, buddy-group behavior; the BITE model explicitly lists these models of control.

4) Us V Them. Cults will give all those that oppose them or simply don't believe them a bad name. They're uneducated, they're evil-- it varies cult to cult, but you'll see them turning the non believers into a homogenous, frightening group. They want to discourage looking outwards, and they want to viciously isolate members.

Other things of note are extremism, talks of enlightenment, harsh punishments, the cult eating large portions of the member's finances, etc.

However, this post is largely to address FICTIONAL cults. and the unfortunate fact of the matter is that fictional cults are rarely fleshed out in a way that can be held one to one to a model, and, more often, don't even afford the victims of a cult humanity.

and this is one of THE biggest issues you find in cult portrayals. the leader is usually a charismatic, or perhaps menacing, figure, one that usually our protagonists-- who are rarely cult victims, they are typically outsiders (not inherently bad, mind you)-- faces personally, with the hoardes of mindless zombies forming one giant hurdle.

Naturally, this can be...hurtful. There's nuance to who is and is not a victim in a cult (although my rule of thumb is to look at what abuses that person specifically exerts over others-- and you can be both a victim and perpetrator of abuse. to treat them exclusively is lacking all nuance), but the people are the bottom, even if they joined willingly, are people who were preyed upon. Not only that, but many media cults forget that people can be born into cults, and never really had a choice to begin with. To treat these people like they are mindless-- or that they deserve the suffering they are in because they are there-- completely erases all nuance, humanity, and understanding to the cult survivior struggle. Not only that, but it continues to sensationalize and deify cult leaders, which is doing their job for them, really.

The second biggest issue is the romanticization and sexualization of cults, religious abuse, and cultic abuse.

(yes...this is a thing.)

The use of cults as a way to make a character edgy or tragic is one thing, but there's something sinister about using it to project a certain sexual behavior onto that character-- whether it be as the subjugator or subjugated. Sexual abuse is rampent in cults, and ritualistic sexual abuse is used to justify it. To sexualize the idea of a cult(ist) raping and abusing someone is...beyond offensive to anyone who has been in a cult where their sexual safety and autonomy has been compromised. Or, in some cases, the cultist is so naive and sheltered they can be easily coerced and taken advantage of due to their brainwashing.

This is...bad? This is bad. To ignore the fact that these depictions are just as harmful as any other romanticization of abuse is to ignore the real suffering of cult victims.

Really, the larger problem is that people don't really think cults exist, not really. They're all things of the past, or things that exist solely in fiction-- when in reality, every day cults form and continue to grow. If you've ever met a mormon, you've met a cultist. The moment you begin to process and parce the fact that this isn't as bizarre and unusual and fictional as it seems, you take the steps to respecting people who have been in that situation and become better at detecting cults, cult recruitment, and are able to more clearly assess what you take in.

Once again, there's so many bad portrayal of cults that it would be...stupid to call for an immediate disowning of anything with it in it. I personally have come to terms with the idea that I will have gripes about these portrayals in most cases, but rarely do I see people other than fellow RA or cult survivors discussing these portrayals. I'm hoping people can become more aware and willing to discuss cults in a serious and analytical context and criticize how they're portrayed in the things they love.

And once again, cult survivors are NOT a monolith. If a cult survivor expresses they are uncomfortable with something I said here that I'm not, or vice versa, listen to the people who actively surround you and whom you care about.

[raymondebidochonlifechoices]

All fans are equal but some are more equal than others. NOT.

There’s been quite a few people in the fandom lately getting very stressed, feeling they’re obligated to constantly be on the defensive re: their fandom choices.

Apparently, whoever has a different opinion about a character or a ship must be said character’s/ship’s stan i.e. overzealous and/or obsessive, i.e. not an objective viewer. Even worse, they must be a dreadful person, who condones a number of moral offences that said character/ship perpetrated (or is thought to have perpetrated). Because, of course, the only acceptable reason for appreciating/enjoying a fictional character or dynamic is their morality. And, by that reasoning, fans who support the correct character/ship must be better fans and better people.

Nothing is more ridiculous than the notion of the objective fan. An “objective” fan is called a “viewer”. You and I, Riverdale friends, we are not just viewers. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have created blogs and dedicated hours of our lives to a fictional couple from an extremely mediocre show. We are still undoubtedly capable of critical thought and objective analysis but we are also aware of our own emotional investment in the show. (Or, at least, one hopes). As a fandom, we engage in activities that exist independently of the show. Fandom is a space of free expression. No one gets to play the higher moral card here. Needing to loudly tell everybody how wrong they are? That’s not the sign of an objective viewer. That’s the sign of a viewer who is also extremely invested, just for different reasons than I am.

Are we seriously holding the morality card over people’s heads for a show that used a poc woman’s pregnancy (Toni) as the means to retroactively establish trauma for a white male (Kevin), all the while touting it in every media possible as a woke response to the BLM movement?!

Are we seriously holding the canon card over people’s heads for a show that treats its 5th(!) season as a tabula rasa?! If the Lodges new backstory in 5x12 shows anything, it’s that s5 is not a time-jump. It’s a reboot.

There are so many people “enlightening” others on their inability to understand canon …

Seriously? That’s the hill you’re willing to die on? Canon Riverdale? You think that people don’t understand what they’re watching? That they’re interpreting canon incorrectly?

No, but seriously: canon for a TV show consists of what the characters say, what the characters do and how the actors portray them. Does this really apply to Riverdale?

Let’s take Donna for example.

Canon explicitly tells us Donna did what she did to avenge her grandmother. At the same time none of her canon actions were against the people who were actually responsible. So, riddle me this, fandom friends: why did Donna do what she did, as per canon?

Let’s try this another way:

Donna is a psycho bitch. Both in terms of Riverdale’s canon (the writers’ intention) and real-life criteria. To create a tag that reads “Bonna for ever uwu!” is deranged.

On the other hand, her character is (like a lot of Riverdale’s characters) an inconsistent caricature. Canon uses ridiculous dialogue and a lot of the Bonna scenes are cartoonishly enemies-to-lovers tropey. To create a tag that reads “Bonna for ever uwu!” is hilarious.

This doesn’t mean that Bonna is a canon couple. It does mean, however, that a Bonna crackship is based on Riverdale’s campy and over-the-top canonic writing.

A viewer who thinks Bonna is disgusting is not more “objective” or more “correct” or more “true to canon” than a viewer who thinks Bonna is funny. Nor are they a better person for it, and this cannot be stressed enough.

Similarly, who is canon Cheryl?

1. Cheryl is an absolute bitch: if a privileged student was calling an actual homeless boy a hobo in your real-life school, you would neither think her a queen nor use “hobo” affectionately in your tags, comments etc.

2. Cheryl is a deeply traumatized person: her father killed her brother, her mother killed half the town and forced her in conversion therapy, she attempted suicide and more.

(Note #1: this more does not mean more than the other Riverdale characters).

(Note #2: nor is it an excuse for her rudeness, affectionately called “mood for chaos” by the writers).

3. Cheryl is also a caricature of the archetypal mean girl who’s there for laughs and meta comments. She’s not to be taken seriously.

4. Cheryl is lgbtq+ representation …

5. … who canonically shits on other lgbtq+ characters.

6. Cheryl is one half of Choni, who are canonically presented as an uber couple.

7. Choni is also, as per canon, a couple with an acute power imbalance (cough!gaslighting!cough) that visually very clearly panders to the male gaze.

But most importantly:

8. Cheryl canonically is not the sum of her parts. The different facets of her character do not intermingle in any meaningful way.

Was Betty kissing Archie specifically a sore spot for Jughead?

Canonically no [2x14]. But, also, canonically yes [5x03, 5x10].

Are there seriously fans that are astonished that Betty is making some highly questionable choices while investigating?! Did they just discover Dark™Betty/Killer Genes Betty? That is canon Betty! Was it ok before because she was then smooching Jughead instead of giving him the cold shoulder? Honestly, the only newly outrageous part of s5Dark™Betty is the fact that she still believes in “killer genes” despite having spent 4 years at Yale …

As for liking/disliking Betty and morality …

Look, I’m going to be very honest: I am NOT particularly enjoying s5 Betty. And it’s not because of b*rchie.

S5 Betty has 99 problems but the sexcapades ain’t one.

For me, it’s the fact that she’s turned into s1 Alice 2.0. But surely that’s not news either? Ever since the first info about the time jump, everyone and their mother have been speculating about the teens becoming their parents …

Just because Jughead is better written (and written to be more likable), it doesn’t make him more worthy of redemption. Just because the writers are keeping Betty’s redemption “secret” (insert eye roll) for their big reveal in the season’s penultimate episode, it doesn’t mean she won’t have one.  

Simply put, the writers have made Jughead more likable. He’s still the underdog. He’s the only character in Riverdale actively trying to deal with his trauma, since the very first post-time jump episode (working at Pop’s explicitly to fend off the debt collectors). He has scenes with a new and extremely likable character (Tabitha). He has the only new plot line (the Mothman). Said plotline is narratively already tied to both his unknown past and the town’s destruction by Hiram. His behaviour is explicitly explained, even as his recent trauma remains unknown. He’s transparent.

In comparison, s5 Betty is traumatized but not the underdog. Her trauma (TBK killer) is both known to us and a repetition of previous storylines, which makes it narratively less exciting. She is completely disconnected from any other storylines. She comes out as being judgmental and self-interested: telling Tabitha Jughead’s not her business while previously accepting his help? Berating Polly for lying while not keeping in touch and lying about her own life (TBK)? Please note: I’m not saying there isn’t a reason behind her behaviour, just that it comes out in a negative way.

You don’t like Betty’s current behaviour? You don’t consider trauma a good enough excuse? Cool.

You feel sorry for what she’s going through? You consider trauma to be a valid explanation for her behaviour? Also cool.

Personally, I don’t give a flying fig, either for Betty’s trauma or Jughead’s. Because, even though Trauma™ is s5’s actual mystery plot, narratively speaking, trauma never affected the plot of the past 4 seasons, nor s5 trauma will affect future plots, once revealed. And you know what? That is also cool.

None of the above is better.

And just because I’m not enjoying Betty right now, it doesn’t mean that I don’t want her to overcome her current situation or that I won’t cheer for Bughead like a River Vixen on fizzle rocks, once they reunite.

This thing though, where people are made to feel as if they owed anyone in the fandom an explanation about why they like the things they like, because, somehow, their preferences are a reflection on their character or their cognitive abilities to read a TV show? This is a joke.

There is no “wrong” way to consume any show, let alone Riverdale, with its fractured format, its short-term memory and its see-sawing characters.

Look, everybody’s here for their own reasons. For most people this is a place of escape. No one’s escaping better than the other, because of how they enjoy their teen TV show ...