#what can i say beyond i love writing and exploring identity

[chocobothis]

Perrine Kryze Profile

Name: Perrine Kryze

Nickname(s): Perry, Quiet

Pronouns: She/Her (Questioning)

Species: Human, Echani, and Keshian (Percentages Unknown)

Birth Year: 39 BBY

Gender: AFAB (Questioning)

Sexuality: Queer (Questioning)

Romantic Status: Single

Love Interest(s): Who has time for that?

Enemy: New Mandalorians, Satine Kryze/Her Brother (for tarnishing their Clan, House, and her father’s name)

Hobbies: Photography, Radio Dramas, Admiring Leatheris Work (she wants to actually make own one day), Mythology

General Likes: Strills, Maintaining her gear/helping others inspect theirs, Camp Fires, Space Pirate Stories

General Dislikes: Large gatherings where she’s expected to socialize with everyone, How alarms only sound when she’s comfortable in bed, People who pirate radio dramas and leave in the commercials, Nobility because there’s so many rules

One Word To Sum Them Up: Exacting

Noun to Describe Them: Introspective

Temperament: Compared to Kloe’s sweetness she’s a little sour and definitely in her own head. She’s not the best at trying to socialize or expressing her feelings. So, it’s really common for her to show her feelings through actions i.e. helping people maintain their gear.

Other’s First Impression of Them: Physically, she’s tall (5’10”) with nearly white eyes, a muscled physique, and a facial scar making her come across as imposing and severe. With her job as an assassin and loner personality people assume she’s a hardass bitch. It’s not wrong entirely but there’s a lot more nuance there.

How did they get here: She’s not exactly a bastard cousin to Clan Kryze but she’s not not a bastard cousin? It’s a super complicated situation where the thing they are sure of is that she’s blood related to Clan Kryze. Growing up she heard a lot of the stories from her part of the family about Clan Kryze’s former greatness and the accomplishments of Adonai Kryze the Warlord. Seeing what became of Clan Kryze and House Kryze with Satine in charge pissed her off even as a young child pissed her off. That fire was discreetly stoked in her, culminating with her falling into Hudu Shiv’s tutelage at 13. She’s a skilled member of Death Watch with a multitude of missions under her belt. Her goal is to help Bo-Katan make up for the stain of her sister and brother; maybe even get Bo-Katan instated as the rightful leader.

Fun Fact: Because she mostly works alone, and at a high volume, she has two strill to help. Their names are Ordo and Cadera. Privately, she also thinks of them as some of her best friends.

Free Space/Ramble: She was actually sent with the group of assassins to Coruscant to assassinate Satine. Because it was with a group she didn’t have her strills. The others in the group died at the hands of a monumentally pissed off little padawan that was thriving on the hunt. Pre recalled her before she could make another go at Satine and Obi-Wan. Dutifully she returned but expected to be executed for her failures. Which she wasn’t but she did get some shit jobs as punishment.

Armor Notes: Perrine's willing to adapt almost everything to fit the Death Watch/Nite Owl Standards. However, she's keeping the Kryze Blue. It's very much her digging her nails into something that's Hers. Satine and the New Mandalorians don't get to poison that blue. It's her Clan's.

[st-hedge]

I said a while ago that for totk’s one anniversary I would write a weird little review of the game in which I throw roses at it while simultaneously slandering it. So I made an attempt which is very abbreviated

Disclaimer: I’m not telling u how u should feel about totk or what’s the right way to feel about it, I’m just trying to make sense of why the game frustrates me and putting it into words. It’s completely fine if u disagree with me, I’m not pitching an argument but just putting words on paper

Totk is one of the best games I’ve ever had the opportunity to play. The mechanics, the music, the designs, the revised world of hyrule, makes me want to curl up on the floor and cry. It is stunning and done with so much love. Where botw had lacked, totk has improved and gone above and beyond. It had frustrated me that botw only allowed us to explore the ground surface, but botw was an exploration into open world games which allowed for totk to happen. The caves, the boats, the islands, and the depths add so much to already such a vast world. I only wish there was also diving but beggars can’t be choosers beh

Although it still doesn’t make too much sense to me why all weapons are suddenly corrupted, I do love the new weapons system. I love how it gives more variety to explore. Materials which previously sat unused in the inventory are now key and nothing feels like a waste to collect. Even rupees have found another use. I’m not the biggest fan of the zonai devices but the addition feels like a love letter to the creativity of the fan base and it feels at place. They help to traverse an otherwise huge and intimidating world. But at times I feel like they give too much leverage and break down too many boundaries and leave little to solve and explore. What im basically saying is fuck the rockets.

I feel that totk doesn’t have enough progress boundaries that make u pause and explore what u have at hand. I found myself just pushing and pushing, forgetting and leaving behind areas I barely touched. It felt too easy getting into the sky and returning to the islands and they lost some of their mystery to me. I think this would have been a great opportunity to reintroduce the loftwings from skyward sword. I’ve talked before about how much this would make sense for totk. The loftwings could be a means to cross boundaries and explore new territories, but it takes time to catch and tame one as a companion. But like horses they should have their limits, presenting new boundaries u need to overcome again

Where the totk’s hyrule begins to confuse and disappoint me goes hand in hand with my main issue (confusion?) with the game. Although botw felt incomplete (the world was a little sparse and one dimensional), the story was comprehensive and clear. Meanwhile, totk has a complete and lively world but it doesn’t have a story to carry

Totk’s story doesn’t have an identity I can grasp and understand. It’s like it doesn’t know what it wants to tell the player, what story it wants to direct them to. On one hand, it seems to want us to know about the origins of hyrule and the mysterious landmarks and characters that are permanent fixtures in this world (castle, ruins, dragons) but at the same time it suddenly wants to do a retelling of OoT and about the sages and these secret stones. But the game never completes any of these stories. Maybe it wants to tell us these stories through the environment, but there is just not enough embedded into the world to grasp and tie together into a narrative. Which is ironic considering how big the world is

We begin to be told the story of the dragons, we suddenly understand how they came to be (the secret stones). But we are never told about the events of their creation (an act of desperation, like Zelda’s) and we are never close to understanding them. Then we are told about the sages, but meeting them tells us nothing new. No new cutscenes, no new items or lore directly related to them. The new sages are found, but didn’t we just discover the divine beasts with them? Suddenly another layer of importance is added to them which makes the ties between legacy and the current sages muddier. I wish there had been focus on them creating their own legacy instead

I think totk could’ve had a very interesting story to tell if it chose what it wants to focus on. Maybe the secret stones were introduced just as a way for Zelda to become a dragon? I dunno

There are so many new places that feel like fantastic opportunities for moments of pause and to uncover lore, unearth memories. But instead they’re brisk puzzles or empty sites. Like the graveyard underneath the desert, the forge islands, the factories, and the fucking poe statues. Tell me as much as u want that I can’t read environmental story telling, but I’ll just keep saying there’s nothing to read into cuz the game doesn’t know what it wants to say. There’s no thread to follow in the way there was with, for example, the graveyard at the spirit temple in OoT. We could’ve been just left with a strange well and a graveyard and told to figure it out, but a thread is laid down that these are the skeletons in the royal family’s closet.

Totk does have amazing moments, like Zelda meeting her ancestors and giving up her identity to become a living legend to revive the master sword, the discovery of the ancient temples, the story of the zonai and their origins. But these are just pieces with many loose ends around them that go nowhere. Even Ganon is left as a loose end where there was so much opportunity to say something worth saying. He seems comically evil with bogstandard bah I want to rule the world lines. If u want to make a case for evil for the sake of evil, u can at least show me a character repeatedly making horrible choices which lead them to the current predicament. Just like totk’s hyrule, he is lovingly designed but he tells absolutely no story

If the reason behind the lack of story is that the devs/writers wanted us to make our own story out of this, then I think this is a case where it was a poor choice. The fans can make theories, hcs, pick up pieces and make AUs, but we also love the stories told by the games and it’s what inspires us to uncover more stories (hey wanna talk about tp and why we hear Malon’s song at night, or what’s up with the empty desert)

I’d love to see totk from the perspective of someone who had never played or known botw. Did it really help to remove any traces of sheikah tech besides the labs and the guardian limbs in the towers. Although the zonai devices and the sheikah tech are from different time periods, totk was a perfect opportunity to marry the two elements together. The shrines and the divine beasts could’ve collapsed into the depths, but instead they have just vanished like erased history

Totk’s story doesn’t have an identity in the same way botw’s does. Even though botw’s hyrule was much smaller and emptier, we found stories there cuz we knew what that game was trying to tell us. If totk is about making sacrifices, then this message feels obsolete by the end. U should make sacrifices, but u will only be happy again if it all goes back to exactly how it was before

As happy and sweet the ending is, it made all the worry and sadness I felt seem pointless cuz of course everything would reset back to the norm cuz how else would this game have a happy ending. What was there to worry about. Yeah so what that Zelda became a dragon losing herself, she was just asleep the entire time and effortlessly she becomes her normal self. So what that link lost his sword arm, of course he would miraculously get it back even though it took him 100 years to recover from a mortal wound. No trace of the things they withstood and lost, no mark, nothing.

I loved the final battle and spectacle of the dragons struggling against each other in the sky. The battle went from the deepest depths to the highest reaches of the sky and I thought it was perfect. But once again how the story concluded and the logic behind it me made me feel like I was chewing on sand and the idyllic ending just made me look about in confusion

TLDR; totk is an amazing game with a stunning world that lacks a comprehensive story to tell

I hoped that I would get a better understanding why I’m so frustrated by totk, but instead I just feel even more confused by it and I think that’s just how I’ll have to leave it

[pankielovesfan]

II SPOILERS!!! (Ramble about fan again)

I randomly started writing paragraphs about how fan's character arc was very much super-centric on how he was made by mephone but it was hidden SO well because it could be really easily played off as fan having an extreme attachment to the show. which he does. but I'll see if i can explain it better.

There's so many instances of Fan being "just a fan" and that's quite literally what his entire character is centered around, and his development is all about him becoming more than just a fan and exploring more about himself.

All of this??? SO clearly ties together with him being generated by mephone. And its not noticeable even if its in your face! IT ADDS A WHOLE NEW LAYER BEHIND EVERYTHING that still amuses me.

The scene where the prime shimmer says, "but beyond that, who are YOU?" with Fan saying he didn't know- IS SO PERFECTLY PLAYED OFF! Because of course it perfectly ties together with Fan not being able to see himself outside of his identity. You read it as fan being so dedicated to the show that he doesn't have an identity outside of it. But then it turns out he quite literally HAS nothing else. He's NEVER had anything besides being a fan. It makes everything so much more.... LAYERED AND IT'S SOMETHING I KEEP THINKING ABOUT!!! BEcause before this it's like. He was so obviously making his entire identity about what he loves in a very much neurodivergent way I will mention that, so it's not even a subtle thing that he quite literally WAS made to be a fan of the show!!! BUT YOU DONT EVEN NOTICE IT. GOSH

And WHY this works while still hiding the reveal is how persistent Fan is about still BEING a fan of the show and not seeing himself outside of it. Fan is smart. He seemed to KNOW there was more than just the show. He had already figured this out long ago but was in denial because it threatened his comfort. I'm sure the new episode tells you just how intelligent Fan is in reaching for conclusions and speculating about everything along with several other episodes where he could predict future episode plots. Yet when knowing there is more to the show, he refuses to accept it, he states he didn't want to believe Paintbrush because they Knew the game was "more", right? This means he Did know something else was going on. But he's avoiding it. Why? (Already very much seen in episode 13 and explained but I'm re-saying it all)

Fan obviously loves the show and is very attached to the show. He wants to stay in the comfort of playing the role he was meant to! He wants to keep being ii's biggest fan! He's so tied to his identity as a fan of the show and he doesn't want to let that go and embraces it so much that it's easy to think this was a conscious choice in his story. That he chose to indulge as much as he does in ii and he has no urge to escape the role he was meant to play. His whole story just makes sense writing wise- but the reveal twists this entirely. Contrary to a lot of people who feel they want distance from the show due to experiences and feeling trapped, Fan is still latching onto it! BECAUSE HE LIKES BEING TRAPPED IN THE ROLE HE WAS MADE TO PLAY!!!!

thanks for reading. goodbye

[sapphicscholar]

CW discussion of racism, kink, transphobia, and sexual violence in fan works

Look, I wish this wasn’t something I had to say in 2024 in a space (fandom) that touts itself as queer and feminist and progressive but:

1) Kink is not a cover for forsaking sexual ethics. Just because a character is into something doesn’t mean that consent falls away as a concern or that their desires and pleasures outweigh their partner(s)’ needs and wants. Fic can be a space to explore desires that you’ve never actually lived—yes!—but that means it’s also a space for listening and learning from those who may chime in to say “this kind of behavior isn’t okay.” It’s okay not to know in advance, but redress needs to involve proper tagging and/or changing tracks with the way you write these kinds of dynamics

2) If you show a character saying “no,” “stop,” and “I don’t want this” on the page, particularly without any discussions (shown or implied) beforehand that would turn this sexual encounter into a carefully negotiated sexual scene with its own safe words or escape plan, the sex that follows is not consensual. That is rape. Even if you believe your characters love and desire each other, one person’s willfully ignoring another’s demand that they stop is rape. Full stop. And choosing to passive aggressively respond to a comment requesting proper tagging by noting that the chapter contains “very trace elements of dub-con” is actually far more disconcerting and harmful than not tagging it at all. I am decidedly not saying these works can’t exist, but proper tagging and acknowledgment of what is on the page (even when it’s your OTP) is necessary.

3) While reiterating that I am not opposed to the existence of works that don’t mesh with my personal politics or sexual interests, I want fans to sit with the question of why it is almost always women of color (and often woc who are conventionally feminine in canon) who are made in fic to occupy particularly violent and misogynistic butch/masc identities, transmasculinity, and/or gender fuck/play and who are written as enacting forms of sexual violence or other forms of harm on their white cis femme partners. Ask yourself why these characters are so often cast in these roles even when they are so far from anything like it in canon. (And tbc these are critical self reflections that should include but also extend well beyond baseline facts like the fact that trans and gender nonconforming people, esp trans and gnc folks of color, are far more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of intimate partner violence.)

A wide variety of stories can and should exist in and outside of fan spaces. I’m not saying they shouldn’t! But nothing exists outside of its social contexts, and failing to be attentive to these larger questions is actively harmful to so many people for whom spaces of imaginative creativity should be a liberating and welcoming venue.

[thelostgirl21]

A celebration of Joey Batey offering TV show writers a pure masterclass on how to write a queer character with a queer audience in mind.

Can I just say how much respect and appreciation I have for Joey, that he went above and beyond in term of queer representation, by bringing some much needed attention towards people on the aromantic spectrum, and making gender a complete romantic/sexual (and even queerplatonic) non-issue?

I mean, imagine that you are part of a show with a young and powerful canonically bisexual lead, Ciri, who is at an age where people might start exploring their own sexuality, slowly figuring out who and what they like, etc.

And suddenly, you're offered to also be playing another queer lead character, with a male love interest - while knowing it will be the very first time that the audience will be officially introduced to the idea of Jaskier being queer...

And, instead of going with the more familiar, and often expected:

"A man that's always been with women before, now finds himself romantically and sexually attracted to a man, and starts questioning his own sexual identity..." coming out story...

You find yourself with a unique opportunity to go a bit further, to explore more specific and lesser known LGBTQ+ themes, and to delightfully surprise your queer audience!

You can take a full dive into the wonderful world of Queerdom, by exploring a different - yet just as equally important and significant - coming out story!

i.e.

"A usually aromantic person, that has always experienced squishes, smushes, and possibly meshes before, finds himself experiencing a (sapio)romantic crush for the very first time, and starts questioning his romantic identity..."

Of course, a lot of people in the audience will probably miss this.

The monosexuals that have been conditioned to believe that gender must always play a role in how one experiences romantic and sexual human attraction - will likely be paying more attention to how Jaskier is showing an interest in a man.

People that are used to equating "falling in love" with "romantic attraction", might miss the significance and importance of Vespula specifically using the word crush to refer to Jaskier's current attraction towards Radovid.

People that typically see non-gender-related orientations as "mere preferences", or have simply never heard of them, might miss how Jaskier goes on and on about how "emotionally intelligent and insightful Radovid is" , with a look of vulnerability and wonder, putting emphasis on how different he feels about him.

People that were taught to see emotional relationships according to the "platonic vs romantic" binary - with a strict idea of what each means and implies - may not be familiar with what queerplatonic relationships are, and will interpret Jaskier saying that he loves Geralt "platonically" as meaning that he's not as deeply and strongly in love with him as one might usually expect a romantic partner to be.

They'll be unaware that there are committed life partners out there - that would go to the end of the world for each other and perhaps even share sexual intimacy together - that don't have any romantic feelings for each other whatsoever.

Romance does not mean "being in love", romance means "being in love in a romantic way".

And it is not the only way.

To aromantics and greyromantics - and even to romantic people that also have the capacity to fall in love in non-romantic ways, such as yours truly - queerplatonic and alterous relationships aren't "lesser than" romantic ones, they are different.

And Radovid... is different.

Radovid is no better, nor worse, than a hammer...

But he's a spoon.

He's a romantic connection that is completely new, exciting and intriguing to explore for Jaskier!

According to Joey Batey, as a sapioromantic panromantic pansexual, Jaskier finds himself developing a strong sapioromantic and sapiosexual connection with Radovid.

Jaskier is representing people that aren't romantically or sexually affected by a partner's gender in the way that they experience sexual atttraction, and people that experience a lot of tertiary attraction when falling in love, while very seldom ever being able to love others in a romantic way (sapioromantics / greyromantics... ).

Jaskier is a queer character that was truly created with a queer audience in mind!

He was created so that all of us that don't see or experience love according to the platonic vs romantic binary.

All of us that are hyperaware of those other forms of attraction (tertiary, aesthetic, sensual, etc.) that one can experience for another human being.

All of us that don't see or experience romance or sexuality as something that ties into their partner's gender.

Could finally see themselves in a character on screen.

Of course, you still need characters that experience their sexuality while feeling like the gender of their romantic and sexual partners matters - including those that love all genders... Desperately so!

First, because all members of the queer community matter and are equally as important and valuable. Rejoicing over Batey diving into lesser known and familiar representation doesn't mean that familiar and better known representation should not be encouraged and celebrated as well!

This is not a "there should be less gay character on TV to make room for more aromantics and asexuals instead" post.

This is a "we need queer identities people are less familiar with in addition to proper gay, lesbian and bisexual representation" post.

And second, because you still need characters that don't stray too much from the platonic v.s. romantic binary, too - and the usual social conventions tied to romance and sexuality - so that non-queer audiences can more easily connect, and empathize with, the queer community.

Because, when the existence of bisexuality already is something that monosexual people often have a hard time understanding, acknowledging, or even believing in...

Well, going:"By the way, I'll have you know that you can totally want to have sex with, live, and raise children with someone you've got platonic feelings for, too!"

You might accidentally lose them.

And if you try to explain that some people are unable to romantically connect with anyone, unless they get specifically attracted to their intellect (often combined with their aesthetic looks)!

That's likely going to be even worse!

And this is where Batey's pure genius comes to light.

Because he's just shown that you can find a beautiful and organic way to explore queerness more in depth - totally stepping away from the usual relationship conventions and specifically addressing your queer audience - simply by using a vocabulary that said queer audience will understand and connect with.

You can make it clear that the character is on the greyromantic spectrum, by having Vespula state that she's never ever seen him with a crush before!

You can put the emphasis on him being more specifically sapioromantic, by having him dreamily go on about how Jaskier perceives Radovid's intellect.

And, if Batey is to be believed - and he's been exploring the idea of Jaskier being queer since the very beginning of the show (without any clear response from the writers or producers regarding Jaskier's sexuality) - then, by making it clear that he loves Geralt platonically in Season 3, he's also allowing us to revisit all the scenes between Jaskier and Geralt from Season 1, while enjoying them through an aromantic lense.

Someone on the aromantic spectrum watching that scene might thus find themselves deeply connecting with the strong platonic squish (although it could also be a mesh) that Jaskier immediately experienced the very first time he saw Geralt...

You can see Jaskier as specifically believing himself to be Geralt's best friend in the whole wide world, and instinctively reading into Geralt allowing him to physically/sensually touch him (rubbing chamomile onto his lovely bottom) as him possibly desiring a queerplatonic connection with him also.

And, the scene where he's suggesting to Geralt that they could get away for a while, head to the coast together...

Where he mentions that life is too short not to do what pleases you, and admits that he's trying to work on what pleases him...

Look, the fact is that there's always been aromantic and greyromantic people experiencing tertiary forms of love and attractions for other people long before we had any words to put on those emotions, desires and needs.

So, it's rather easy to see Jaskier as someone that is experiencing a powerful alterous attraction for his best friend, and realizing that what pleases him the most, is the idea of them sharing a queerplatonic or alterous relationship together...

It makes sense to interpret what Jaskier is saying as him trying to express and articulate the love he feels for Geralt the best he can - implying that Geralt is what pleases him - while trying to ask Geralt if he also feels the same way...

Sadly, Geralt doesn't quite get it; likely because he's also romantically and sexually attracted to Yennefer and, when he loses her, instinctively throws all his own hurt and heartbreak at Jaskier - blaming him for everything that (he believes) lead to that loss!

And just because the break up Jaskier experienced wasn't a romantic one doesn't make it any less devastating.

Poor loving bard was making plans for them to continue to travel and enjoy their time together as the platonic boyfriends he believed them to be, and Geralt told him that all Jaskier had to offer him was a giant pile of shit that he kept shoveling his way!

There's been a lot of alterous and/or queeplatonic subtext since Season 1 (that could also read as romantic, but should never be used as evidence or proof of romance if we were talking about a real life partnership).

And, while I do acknowledge that queerbaiting has been messing with our ability to perceive and appreciate those relationships as such, I do think that, canonically establishing Jaskier as a sapioromantic, at the very least, clearly addresses the reasons why Jaskier was behaving in such an amorous way with Geralt without being romantically in love with him.

For once, instead of mocking the queer audience for "having mistakenly read two same-gender close friends as being romantically attracted to each other" (while doing as much as they can to suggest romance to keep them hooked!), they are canonically establishing Jaskier as a sapioromantic, with him experiencing his first romantic crush with Radovid.

The show's dialogue is telling people on the aromantic spectrum that "Yes, Jaskier is one of you. He gets squishes, meshes, lushes, and can desire a queerplatonic relationship with a best friend he's got strong platonic feelings for also."

You can speak to your queer audience, without fully risking alienating your non-queer audience, by simply using clues, and a language that your queer audience understands.

And I will forever be grateful to Joey Batey for having understood it, and having so skillfully managed it.

As someone who is ambiamorous, panalterous, panromantic, demisexual, and pansexual, all the nuances and details he brought to Jaskier's queerness was a pure delight, and spoke to me in a way that no TV show character has ever spoken to me before (except, perhaps, in "Sense8", but the whole show itself was about what it meant to love and be human, with main characters sharing a supernatural psychic bond making them more likely to open themselves to all the queer forms of love... whereas shows like "The Witcher" is of a more mainstream fantasy show).

I wish I had a way to contact him to tell him thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for breaking gender boundaries, and "platonic vs romantic" boundaries with Jaskier, and offering us a character that is one of the purest, most beautiful, and most perfectly balanced love song to queerness that one could have written and sung about!

Jaskier is a queer representation groundbreaking masterpiece on a show such as this.

That representation is as intelligent, insightful, and sharp as Prince Radovid himself.

And Extraordinarily Things said more about Jaskier's feelings, issues, and vulnerabilities than any piece of dialogue ever could have, and had me weeping my eyes out by the time Jaskier sang about how he finally felt like he was enough...

Well done Joey, you absolutely brilliant and deeply empathetic real-life bard and poet, well done...

[celaenaeiln]

opinion on songs from Moana being used for dick? (Eg. How far I’ll go, Where you are and I am Moana)

Let's do this!

How Far I'll Go

How Far I'll Go is my guilty pleasure!

Listen, I'm so happy that Dick adores the stuffings out of family and friends and loves them with all his heart but please, I just need one self-indulgent piece of writing where he just abandons everything, takes a break, and goes on a long self-discovery journey via a roadtrip or something. Sometimes I feel like he's too busy being a part of everyone else's self-discovery journey that he doesn't get to enjoy what he wants to do. How Far I'll Go is a cumulation of Dick being the leader and taking on the leadership role while sacrificing his own needs. The lyrics express a longing for exploration and pushing boundaries, which also aligns with Dick's journey from Robin to Nightwing.

Furthermore, Dick Grayson's robin is characterized by a sense of adventure and exploration-

Detective Comics (2016) Issue #1000

literally.

And this need for adventure is what Moana and this song is all about. It's a craving, a desperate urge to go beyond the known and explore. Dick's known for his willingness to explore new territories, both physically and emotionally, often venturing into the unknown to protect his city and his loved ones.

The song is also about his desire for independence because like Moana, Dick Grayson grapples with his desire for independence while also feeling a sense of duty to his family and community.

It's actually a cycle. In the song it goes-

Every turn I take, every trail I track Every path I make, every road leads back

-and this is just a reflection of Dick's internal conflict between his personal aspirations of happiness and living his life vs his responsibilities as a hero and his duties as a leader of his community and the pillar of his family.

Where You Are

Where You Are is literally what I think Bruce wishes he could do to Dick lol. Except he's acting as the village and the father, not the grandma.

Don't walk away Moana, stay on the ground now Our people will need a chief, and there you are

These lyrics in particular -

🤌

*takes a deep breath in*

Now why does this sound familiar? :/

oh right, Bruce tells Dick that he needs a Batman whenever he's gone and he also tells Dick that his place as Robin is by Batman's side. This is also practically word-for-word what Cass says to Dick about his responsibilities of Batman.

Mainly this song is about sacrificing personal ambitions and desires to fulfill your duties.

That's right, we stay We're safe, and we're well provided And when we look to the future, there you are You'll be okay In time you'll learn just as I did You must find happiness right where you are

I don't think this song really needs any more explanation about how it's related to Dick because Dick's life practically embodies this song. It's sacrifice upon sacrifice he's done in order do his duties as Dick Grayson and Nightwing. This is his Eldest Daughter Syndrome song.

(Also just realized that without the background music this song is creepy af. Imagine the batfam singing the lines to him in a dark room where he hallucinates them. It's like a gothic horror story.)

I am Moana

Ooof. "I am Moana" is Dick Grayson's contant identity crisis song. In like every comic he's like "I was robin, I was nightwing, I was amnesic, I was Agent 37, I was Batman. But now I know that I am Dick Grayson."

Look at the lyrics-

I know a girl from an island She stands apart from the crowd She loves the sea and her people She makes her whole family proud Sometimes the world seems against you The journey may leave a scar But scars can heal and reveal just Where you are

The people you love will change you The things you have learned will guide you And nothing on earth can silence The quiet voice still inside you And when that voice starts to whisper "Moana, you've come so far" Moana listen, do you know who you are?

Who am I? I am a girl who loves my island And the girl who loves the sea, it calls me I am the daughter of the village chief We are descended from voyagers Who found their way across the world They call me

I've delivered us to where we are I have journeyed farther I am everything I've learned and more Still it calls me

And the call isn't out there at all It's inside me It's like the tide Always falling and rising I will carry you here in my heart You'll remind me That come what may I know the way

I am Moana!

Just replace girl with boy, add correct context, change Moana to Dick Grayson and boom! There you have him. "I am Moana" is Dick's Agent 37 arc.

Grayson Issue #1

"Dick, you've come so far" Dick listen, do you know who you are?

Grayson Issue #20

[drdemonprince]

I just got your piece The Asexual Fetishist in my inbox and wanted to send you a quick thank you for breaking my brain open with that one. I've spent years trying to square my desire for novel sexual experiences/specific kink related interests with not actually being sexually attracted to other people. I've consumed a lot of content by asexuals about kink and the like but having someone actually explain their experience with their fetish and its impact on their sexual life has never popped up in my perusing. I've had a lot of hang ups about the asexual label so I haven't dug too deep. This has definitely inspired me do more than a cursory exploration and I will definitely be giving Ana Valens work a read. Thanks again!

yeahhhh!!!! I love to hear it, thank you. Ana Valens' writing is GREAT and seeing her, a very outspoken and proud perv and accused "degenerate" claim the asexual label made me feel better about revisiting it, too. Others land on a different way of describing themselves -- Cosima Bimbotheory for example says that while in contemporary parlance she qualifies as ace spectrum / demisexual, she instead identifies more with leathersex, because the leather community has always made space for boundary-breaking ways of achieving intimacy, and has always included people who have sex without "having sex." I don't think these views are incompatible, hence my inclusion of vintage leather exhibitionist porn That Boy in my essay as an example of what Valens calls Ace Erotics.

I got my start as a queer kid on the asexuality forums of the early 2000s -- before I had the language of being autistic or trans or unempathic, ace spaces were the only community where I could easily express feeling outside and beyond what normal human beings were expected to feel. And so I still find I have a home there.

I think asexuality gets clowned on far too much -- there is this annoying tendency to equate people having bad opinions or doing annoying shit with their identities, and so aces get written off as sex-shamey scolds and enbies get characterized as anti medical transition and all other kinds of dumb shit like that, often from people who should know better. im here to say you can be an asexual free use hole and that is actually not confusing at all if a person actually considers what asexual means.

heres the link to the essay, for the curious

[hms-no-fun]

i just want you to know that i read... i think Most of godfeels and had to stop because i was not enjoying it. but i think its really good and i really respect what you do. i think it's all too easy for people to mix up "this is not my cup of tea" with "this is bad and/or problematic". they dont take the time to see the artistry in it, why it is what it is, what it might be saying beyond their surface level read and the kneejerk reaction to it.

i also wanted to note that ive always been kind of scared of sharing fanworks for fear of writing "out of character" - and ive also even been afraid of it in original works. character isn't real and concrete, so anyone can decide something's out of character. so your exploration of that concept gives me more confidence as a writer. i really appreciate that and everything else you do. :)

thank you so much for this message! i'm glad you tapped out rather than force your way through something you weren't enjoying, that's a very mature response and something i wish more folks would recognize as a perfectly valid option. in fact i think pushing through and reading long after you've given up on the material, so to speak, is a great way to wind up angry at a writer for having "forced" you to endure such a trying experience. as i've said before, an author can't force you to do anything. you can close the book any time you like.

as far as the tension of "in character/out of character" goes, i think a lot of people in fandom struggle with the fact that "character" is very much in the eye of the beholder. sub-groups form within fandoms based on identities, politics, sexual predilections, etc, and typically gather around the fire that is their particular interpretation of a character. but from within that sub-group, it's rarely considered "an interpretation" so much as the obvious intended truth of the text. it's that intoxicating mood of finding people who share a perspective you rarely see elsewhere, like oh my god, you GET it, finally someone GETS it!

in homestuck fandom, for instance, quite a lot of people hate vriska and think she sucks, with a vocal sub-group of that sub-group still actively beating the drum that everything about her arc after [S] Game Over is the worst part of homestuck. but i love vriska, and my corner of the fandom very much organized around a full-throated defense of her. some folks think homestuck did tavros and gamzee dirty and that this is a fatal flaw in the text; when i countenance these people, i am convinced we read two very different comics. who's right and who's wrong? there are degrees. i can pull out any number of quotes from andrew hussie about the importance of vriska and the weenieness of tavros, but then, authors love to say things, and there's plenty of stories i love in ways that directly oppose to the authors' stated intent. the debate can never end because we are only ever talking about the version of a character or story that exists in our heads, based on the things that stuck with us when we read the thing (however long ago that was-- which is important because i find a LOT of people adamantly defending their headcanons haven't read the source text in a number of years. as time passes, your perception of the media you've experienced in the past morphs and distorts. someone who was right five years ago can be wrong today and not even notice the difference).

something i've realized in the last year is how much godfeels emerged from a very specific milieu, not just in terms of how we interpreted certain characters but in our approach to analyzing and talking about the text altogether. i believe most of the important stuff in godfeels is "in character" in most of the ways that matter, but it's built on a very specific meta that centered vrisrezi and transness and radical leftist politics and experimental hypertext. really, it's a post-Epilogues fanwork even despite the fact that godfeels 1 predates their release by a few weeks. and i think to this day a lot of homestuck fans haven't read the epilogues but have read fandom posts about how terrible they are (quite a lot of which will have either been written by teens, by people who already didn't like homestuck very much, or by one of the regressive stalkery weirdos prominent in the homestuck reddit/discord), and that misapprehension keeps them in the dark about just how many amazing tools the epilogues introduce to the homestuck formula that exponentially expand the expressive possibilities of attentive fanworks. and it of course elides the fact that the homestuck epilogues are a story about being in your 30s. i think we'll be getting a big re-appraisal of the epilogues in 5-10 years. it'll be the "twin peaks: fire walk with me" of homestuck, just you wait.

so these readers see my version of dirk being an unhinged murderous dick to a newly-out trans woman and go "he would never do that." then if i point at the epilogues, they'll say "i didn't read them/they're not even canon/that wasn't in character either." at which point there's nothing really to say, because we have two completely different perceptions of the text. who's right and who's wrong is almost always infinitely subjective, a circumstance that humans are notable for being very good at handling in a mature and politely discursive manner.

so i've got an "author's introduction" to godfeels baking in my docs to provide some context about the meta this story is built on, the milieu it came out of, that sort of thing. it won't make much of a difference in practical terms, but it'll at least be something i can point to.

in any event, thanks for this message. all i ever want is for people to give it an honest shot. i hope you can continue harvesting confidence from wherever it can be found. it takes a lot of audacity and backbone to be an artist, especially when you have something worthwhile to say. remember that you're not writing for the haters, you're writing for the kind of person, like you, who wants to see more stories like the thing you're writing. they're the ones who'll get it, they're the ones who'll stick around long after the haters have lost interest.

[imminent-danger-came]

Why do you think s4 lmk is sometimes seen as a drop-off in writing quality compared to earlier seasons?

IS IT REALLY. That's so funny, I personally think s4 elevated lmk's writing to unbelievably high levels. It recontextualized previous seasons in ways that cemented my faith in lmk's writing team, and proved to me that this wasn't just going to be good, it was going to be GREAT, an honest to god masterpiece.

I find that the more complex the writing, when things like love and devotion aren't put into "good" or "bad" boxes, when characters are hypocrites and things develop in a way people don't like (it doesn't make them "feel good" but the writing itself is solid), that's when people start to say things like "the writing's gotten worse". I've seen plenty of takes for characters like Wukong and Viren (from The Dragon Prince), where folks want to boil down the mess and the complexity into "the writers don't know how to write this character," when the truth is the opposite. Sometimes, characters say one thing and do another and that's on purpose, thank you. Sometimes, characters mean well and have good intentions, but they still suck. Writing like that is fucking awesome.

(Big Owl House rant incoming, turn back now if you're not interested in that)

It's not really a surprise to me that something like The Owl House, where the characters are fairly one note and everything is said out loud and the themes are much more simplistic, is/was far more popular. Obviously, I don't want to shame anyone or make people feel bad for loving toh—like it's great if you love it, keep doing that—but I do think that objectively, toh has pretty weak writing (which honestly doesn't/doesn't have to determine how much you love it).

I was discussing this with a few friends last night, how with toh, the implications are hardly thought through, and characters aren't viewed beyond the role they can serve in the episode or the arc. Like, I think of the beginning of Hollow Mind, where King says "No one wants to believe they've spent their life following the wrong person", which is fine, it's something that could be interesting given the proper execution, but when you analyze it deeper, try to find the consistent character thread...it doesn't make any actual sense for King or the development he went through at the beginning of s2. Had he said something along the lines of "No one wants to believe they've spent their life following a lie", now THAT ties directly into the lie he believed for his whole life, and to King as a character. But that's not what happened, and that's never what happened in toh.

Even with Belos, the main villain, it's clear the writers wanted Grim Walker angst for Hunter, but they didn't want to explore the implications of Belos recreating his brother over and over again. So at that point, it's like...why not just have Hunter be adopted? Why have him be a grimmwalker at all if it's not something we're going to explore deeper on Belos' end?

Needless to say, lmk isn't like that. If a character has dialogue or a scene, it's going to contribute to our perception of them and their internal motivations. If Pigsy is worried about his relation to his ancestors in s4, and what that says about him, we can actually trace that back to 2x04: tradition matters to Pigsy, and it's a huge part of his heart, identity, and life. Of COURSE Pigsy is affected when he learns his ancestor was someone he doesn't like, someone who tried to eat the love of his life. He even tries to comfort MK with what he thinks is a shared experience, and it's AGH. It's so good

If something is established in lmk, it's expanded upon. Hell, even the Mayor of all characters was given his own spotlight outside of LBD. He even has a direct parallel to Azure—following and giving service to an Emperor before becoming disillusioned and changing loyalty to the person that will bring about real change: their Lady and their King.

Anyways,

I went on a super long tangent. I can't truly know why some people think of lmk s4 as a drop-off in writing quality, but those are some thoughts from me to you!

[theerurishipper]

A few more things because I am not done talking about this finale.

I know a lot of people think that this issue of Gabriel being seen as a hero and Marinette keeping the fact that Adrien is a sentimonster and that his father is Monarch is going to come back as a major plot point, or that Gabriel isn't really redeemed and that this isn't the end. And I'm not saying I have evidence that it's not going to turn out that way, but like... this is Miraculous we're talking about.

The show which famously tries to offer sympathy to bad people because of their tragic backstory by:

Trying to half-assedly "redeem" Natalie into some kind of super mother figure for Adrien, even though she enabled and participated in his abuse for years and never showed remorse for it, or even took accountability for it. Her callously killing Sentibug is never brought up again either. And she still does not give Adrien the Amok that helps him choose for himself or tell him he is a sentimonster, and yet is framed as a good parental figure for him.

Trying to redeem Andre Bourgeois and frame him as some kind of great person by having him adopt Zoe and send Chloe to live with her abuser by disowning her, even though it's his shitty parenting that let her get to this point. And letting him get off scot-free for all the times he abused his power as Mayor.

Trying to redeem Felix by glossing over such crimes as him giving all the Miraculous to Gabe, him committing genocide, him trying to ruin his cousin's life, him victim blaming Adrien, him returning Adrien's Amok to Gabe, and many such things. All because he had a tragic backstory and cared for sentimonster rights (even though he killed two on-screen with only regret for one of them) so that clearly means that he did nothing wrong and does not need to be held accountable for those things, even though he showed no remorse for it or desire to do better.

And the show which also famously ignores major plot points and leaves them behind with little to no resolution in favor of dropping new bombs on the audience, such as:

Choosing to ignore the Ladynoir conflict in Season 4 by having Chat Noir just push aside his legitimate grievances with Ladybug's bad decisions to continue being her emotional support partner. This conflict was not addressed ever again, even in Season 5, and was left without any resolution.

Neglecting any exploration of Chat Blanc beyond some obligatory mentions now and again to remind the audience of why the show needs more seasons.

The whole plot with the alternate love interests Luka and Kagami, which was built up across a whole season and dismissed within two episodes of the next season so that the writers could focus on the new Love Square drama they came up with for Season 4.

Luka's conflict about knowing Chat Noir and Ladybug's identities, which was written out in one episode, only for it to have been ultimately pointless in favor of having Kagami know it anyway.

These are great examples of how the show neglects to build up and conclude previously established plot points and conflicts in favor of substituting them with other ones and/or does the absolute minimum to somehow write them out in order to move the story forward and focus on other new plot points that they came up with for the new season.

From these, we can understand that:

Trauma is a valid excuse for everything, and a tragic backstory frees you from accountability unless you're Chloe.

And:

Previously established conflicts are not brought up or explored in any meaningful capacity in order to make way for new ones.

Knowing this, I think it's highly unlikely that the show will ever explore this idea of Gabriel not having truly become a martyr and a hero, and that even if it is the case, it will be neglected as a plot point in order to push this Lila thing to the front. At most, we will get a moment where Adrien learns the truth and instantly forgives Marinette for doing what his abuser asked because she did it out of love, and no one will question the implications of this in any meaningful way. This is because Adrien is not allowed to have feelings that inconvenience Marinette in any way, be it his hurt at her keeping secrets from him, or now her siding with his father and outright lying to him, because his role in the story is now that of Marinette's love interest and emotional support partner, and that's all he's good for. And as for Adrien acknowledging that Gabriel was a bad father again, combining the redemption that simply having trauma gives him and the fact that Thomas "Chloe is not an abused child" Astruc doesn't seem to understand the severity of such things, I doubt we will ever see him outright reject his father ever again.

For all these reasons, I really do believe that it is wishful thinking to expect this to be addressed in any way that matters. If it is not forgotten, it will be relegated to a single moment and forgotten after. That is, if it was ever meant to be explored. The writers of this show are... not the best at dealing with this sort of thing, after all. After all I've seen, it is not surprising to me at all that Gabriel was redeemed. There is a clear trend of characters with any motivation that could be construed as sympathetic or with a tragic backstory portrayed as being justified in their actions, having their actions erased and ignored or at the very least severely downplayed for the sake of making them out to be better than they are. Gabriel has been consistently given sympathetic scenes throughout the season, which culminated in this finale which absolves him of every wrongdoing.

And I know people feel like this is clearly not the end, but that's how a lot of people felt about the Ladynoir conflict in Season 4, and look how that turned out. This show has always been bad at dealing with nuance. An abused child is portrayed as irredeemable and evil, and her enabling father is portrayed as a good person for giving up on her (I don't even like her, but damn). There is a trend of demonizing those characters who really should not be, and offering sympathy to characters who haven't earned it. I have no trouble at all in believing that Gabriel is supposed to sympathized with and redeemed by the end. He gets his happy ending, he gets what he wanted, and his actions make the world a better place.

I've seen the idea that Gabriel actually lost floating around, but did he? He already knew he was dying, and he had, to some degree, come to terms with it. And in the end, he was clearly very happy with just dying if it meant being able to make his wish. His end is clearly portrayed as him making the ultimate sacrifice to wish for a better world, as one last good thing he does for his son. It's portrayed as him asking Marinette to hide all this from him to protect him. Of course, anyone with common sense can see that this is still really controlling and manipulative, but the show pretty clearly frames it as a selfless act. The line "all the times I tried to be a good father," isn't framed as the delusional statement it is. He's smiling in that scene, surrounded by light, and that's not the framing for someone who's supposed to be read as manipulative and evil at that point. The writers seem to genuinely believe that the man was a good father at some points. I've also seen others say that clearly Gabriel was not redeemed by the end because he refused Marinette's hand, but that's not really true. He did paralyze her, but then he freed her and returned all the Miraculous, and Marinette ends the season by fulfilling his dying wishes and letting the world know he was a hero. He paralyzed her, but then he also clearly listened to her. He was also genuinely emotional. Her words did reach him and it is framed as him making a "selfless choice" even though it clearly is not.

I've also seen people say Adrien's reaction isn't necessarily acceptance of Gabriel's heroism since he might be trying to cope with his loss by convincing himself Gabriel was a hero, or that abused children often cannot recognize that their parent is not a good person. And I agree, but that is clearly not what is happening here. Adrien has already expressed disgust for who his father is, and it is possible for him to fall back onto old thoughts and feelings regarding him, but that isn't what's going on here. This here, is Adrien being fed a lie that his father was a good man and a hero by people he trusts. This is Adrien being told what to think and feel, because there are statues of Gabriel being erected and Ladybug spreading the word that he is a hero. This is Gabriel's abuse being erased to portray him as good. And Adrien, after spending the whole season working up to calling Gabriel out, ends the season with hoping to be like him.

And I've seen arguments about how episodes like Chat Blanc and Ephemeral were there to show us that Adrien facing his father isn't a good idea because his reaction makes him vulnerable, but then... why would you write that! Why would you set the protagonist up with this plot point only to write reasons to leave him out of his own plot and character arcs? What about that is good writing? It only makes this finale more deserving of critique! It is not the defense it's trying to be. It just shows they couldn't care less about their own narrative.

I get that this could lead to a potential arc about trust and honesty and all that, but... we've done that before. How many times will Marinette learn the same lesson? How many times will Adrien forgive her for it? How can you even forgive something like this? And even if it all comes to light, what purpose does this serve in anyone's arc? Gabriel is dead, so there's no consequences for him. Marinette has been "learning" the same lesson for two seasons now, and not even losing all the Miraculous made her stop keeping secrets. And what more does it contribute to Adrien's arc to have him learn the truth later rather than now? How does it add to his story to know that everyone he trusts lied to him? Nothing, if you think about it. It really takes away from his story, because he can no longer confront the man who did this to him, he can no longer get that closure, because Gabriel is gone! Sure, it'll be dramatic and all, but that's all it is! But that is how Miraculous operates: shock value and dramatic scenes over consistency and character arcs. Which is why characters like Marinette aren't allowed to retain the lessons they should have learnt ages ago, and characters like Adrien are actively pushed away from their arcs to make way for some other drama.

And this is me saying this while believing they aren't going to bring it up anyway. How many times have we seen this kind of thing happen? For a conflict to be set up only to be ended unceremoniously with no proper conclusion? What reasons are there to believe that the show will actually follow through with this plot? Other than speculation, I mean. I don't see any. The ending did not indicate that there was anything wrong with what happened. The seasons prior set up the conflicts for the next season in the finale episodes. In Season 3, we had Gabe fixing the Peacock and Marinette becoming the guardian. In Season 4, we saw Monarch rise and Marinette lose all the Miraculous. In Season 5, we see Lila get the Butterfly Miraculous and that light that scared her or whatever it was. But we never see any set up for this being a plot point. There is no point in which we are supposed to think this is wrong. A set up, for example, would be something like Marinette looking to the Gabriel statue with a frown, or Adrien feeling unsettled somehow. But there's nothing like that. For all intents and purposes, Gabriel is done and there are new threats to move on to. And removing all that stuff with Lila, it just seems like it could be a solid series finale. The conflict is over, all the characters are back and together and happy, the main couple kisses as the theme music plays in the back in a scene that's clearly the sort of scene used in the ending of a show, and no one even hints at anything being wrong. It's all audience interpretation, and quite frankly there's no real reason to believe it's setting up something. Something was already set up and it wasn't the thought that this ending is in any way flawed. It's a charming, idyllic ending where all the characters are clearly happy and content, basking in the end of Monarch.

And what he did is not clear at all. Did he not actually rewrite the world? It seems like he just traded his life for Natalie's (and Emilie's???? Is that her?), because Hawkmoth still existed here, the Alliance rings still exist, which means everything happened exactly how it did, and the only thing that's changed is that Natalie has recovered. But this just makes the "clearly something isn't right" argument less valid. This isn't Gabriel's "ideal world," which needs to be fixed, this is just the normal world, where there is a statue of Gabriel only because Ladybug told everyone he was a hero. The things that are being done are completely against everything Gabriel ever believed in, so clearly the world is not based on his ideals, and it hasn't been rewritten. So, the only one really responsible for Gabriel being seen as a hero is Marinette (this is not a criticism of Marinette btw, just the writing). This is just the normal world, and the only thing that needs to be "fixed" is that Marinette should tell the truth. But the writers clearly think that Gabriel is fully redeemed, so there isn't anything that needs to be fixed. So why would they address this plot point again? They have no reason to.

And if he did rewrite the world, then the writers just made Gabe rewrite everything and everyone's memories so that he didn't have to be held accountable by anyone, especially the son he abused. That's going to be even harder to fix.

Any resolution to something I don't believe will be resolved anyway will undoubtedly a side story or a minor plot point. Remember, this is the show which is notorious for setting up plot points only to do nothing with them in the end. Everyone was so hyped about the resolution to Luka discovering both Mari and Adrien's identities only for the writers to decide Kagami fit that role better and shittily write Luka out in one episode. Everyone was talking about how Luka keeping secrets would undoubtedly have massive repercussions only for no one to give a shit about it and simply write Luka out for a few episodes and have him come back with no consequence in the finale. And this is a pattern for this show.

All this to say that no, we're probably not going to address this. It hasn't happened before, and I doubt it will happen this time. I've tried to give this show chance after chance, but it never delivered, and I don't trust it to do so anymore. I'll take all this back gladly if it does deal with this conflict well, but as of right now, I feel very confident in putting this post up.

[therealslimshakespeare]

Ugh this blog has been bursting with content lately which I love love love love. I haven’t sent many asks but trust me when I say I follow them religiously. But amidst all this controversy about Maureen and the resurfacing of the fight between her and Ida, I do just want to say that, all that stuff and discourse is so fun and special and it’s amazing that you’ve created all of it, but in addition to that, there’s so much other stuff about ur blog that’s incredible as well. The biggest thing that I think is, I know this sudden surge of asks about Tallulah Smith that started at the start of summer and just has continued on since, might have surprised you and certain readers. And I feel like it might be easy to boil that all down to “oh well she’s not as controversial as some of the other characters so she’s easy to like”, and while that might be true to some extent, if I can offer a bit of context to all that, I have been a part of SO many fandoms over the course of so many years and this is actually pretty common. A lot of the time, with historical shows especially, where a lot of the characters and therefore the OCs that are created are white, people in the fandom who are NOT white will find one creator or one blog who is doing gods work in representing history in a more diverse way. And they will absolutely rally around the OC/ OCs created by that individual because hello?? Where else am I gonna get this sort of representation?? And like I know, I know, people might think oh but this is just fanfic, it’s not that deep, but the thing is, it absolutely is that deep. I mean think about all the people that have Indigenous family members who fought in world war two and didn’t get recognition or respect. Or all the people who might have family members that experienced racism and discrimination in the army. OF COURSE those people would be so intrigued by what you’ve created here and OF COURSE they’d be so excited by Tallulah. And I just don’t want you to think that she’s comparatively flat or boring compared to the other girls. You’ve really created something thats so incredibly special for so many people by writing her character. I mean even just her backstory aside from her identity, I was so thrilled and amazed to see this brave and incredible young girl who’s in a male dominated field and who’s going through it but is still SO gracious and tender hearted. Like even ONE of those qualities of hers is enough to absolutely adore her and of course I love her for her strength and bravery and ambition AS WELL AS her identity. And I know you said a few things about being surprised that everyone was up in arms for her and Sanchez so early on, again, I personally was not the least bit surprised at that just because of the fact that this fandom is sort of limited in what it explores. And I know that it might not have been your intention to have ur blog and this universe be THE haven for a lot of BIPOC members of this fandom, and I hope it’s not an insane amount of pressure to insinuate that it is?? Cause part of why what you do is so special is how it’s folded in so seamlessly, you acknowledge the identities of these women while also not making it the only thing about them. But I just want you to know that what you’ve done in writing Sanchez and Lu and now Tilly as well is SO beyond special and incredible and I hope you are so appreciated and loved for it because you deserve it.

Oh my goodness, this was so very sweet.

I had not registered it as a haven necessarily but I knew I was spoiled with interaction and affirmation and I massively appreciate your perspective on it. It’s not a crushing pressure at all to be that, it’s an honor and maybe a bit of a daunting one but the sheer amount of contributions my beloved anons such as yourself has brought to the plot and the BIPOC characters gives me a lotta surety I might not otherwise have.

I wanted these characters for all the reasons you mentioned and to simulate my own friend group in some ways. Glad to hear it’s gone above and beyond even that intention. Glad? Thrilled

And this last compliment?? Literally soothed my soul as it’s exactly what I wanted to come across and yet I never know if I’m managing it, thank you thank you thank you:

“Cause part of why what you do is so special is how it's folded in so seamlessly, you acknowledge the identities of these women while also not making it the only thing about them.”

[turbulentscrawl]

Any headcanons for Embalmer and Andrew? 🥸

Oh yes! I am systematically working my way through most of the characters ehehe. I actually think I need to do some situational writing for Aesop as practice, he was a little harder for me to pin down than the other characters I've done so far.

As always, feel free to send me requests if you like my stuff <3 these are fun to do before work ;;

Identity(V) Headcanons: Aesop Carl

-With my current knowledge of the characters, I think Aesop is one of the more dangerous people in the actual horror-story telling behind IDV…. But I’ve been filling these under the game/stageplay setup where the manor is an unescapable, endless game and no one actually dies for realsies…so we’ll ignore his murderous training and tendencies for now.

-That said, he’s still going to be a very difficult guy to get along with. Aesop is confirmed as autistic, and most of his related struggles fall into social categories. He does not typically enjoy casual touch or conversations about anything other than his work. In fact, the longer the conversation is, the worse time he’s having. If there’s a lot of people around too?? He’s McStruggling.

-It takes him a very long time to become genuinely comfortable and friendly with someone, and only then does he start to explore them beyond his comfort zone. Luckily, since everyone is stuck in this would-be purgatory, you’ve got nothing but time!

-One-on-one time is best for Aesop, and while you’re first getting to know him it’s recommended you do not initiate this unless he’s in a public space. He’s mentally prepared to be approached at those times. If you try to barge in on his quiet time or safe spaces before he clears you to do so, it’s only going to hurt his opinion of you.

-He most definitely has long-stints of going nonverbal. At times, the amount of conversation expected of him is too much and he just shuts down completely. If he’s pressed too much during these times he may fall to tears or lashing out. He may, however, be willing to write out any answers that are very important or time-sensitive.

-The trustworthiness of the living and the dead are flip-flopped in Aesop’s mind. When someone is dead, they are a resting summation of all their deeds in life. He learns about who people were through the clues they leave behind: their health, their scars, their effects, the company they receive at their funerals. He considers these things to be more truthful than whatever the deceased would tell or show him about themselves. The living, meanwhile, are all actors, just proxies for what they want to be rather than what they actually are. This is a large reason why he feels closer to the dead than the living.

-Aesop’s favorite love languages are a little difficult to pin down, but I’m going to say Quality Time is his number one—especially when you’re good with parallel play and keep things quiet. This will foster feelings of safety and comfort in relation to your presence! He also likes Words of Affirmation, but mostly in the form of letters, as he’s a little biased for them from all the times he’s nosed through a patient’s effects. Even when he’s head-over-heels (or as close as he can be, since I honestly get AceAro vibes from him) he leans towards written communication but could learn to trust verbal praise in smaller doses.

-When he’s very close with someone, he can learn to enjoy a good hug now and then, or lend them his shoulder to lean on, but he always prefers to keep his arms uncaged so it’s easier to pull away. Unwelcome physical contact feels like bugs crawling under his skin. It’s obvious when he’s had far too much of it because that sensation leads to twitching and spasming, like he’s trying to shake it out.

-He likes to read! His favorites are mostly nonfiction. Biographies (not autobiographies) and other works of an educational nature are preferred, but he has been known to pick up some poetry every now and again. This is due in part to not having finished school and thirsting for all the knowledge he wasn’t allowed.

-He treats learning about his loved ones like reading these books; they are a list of facts and stories to be memorized. Small exceptions to any major preferences can be confusing for Aesop to keep track of, but in general he is very good at committing people’s likes, dislikes, and histories to memory.

-He doesn’t really care to celebrate his own birthday, but likes to help others celebrate theirs. The kitchen is far from his preferred workspace, but he’s actually a decent baker when the situation calls for it. The cake decoration….well, he’ll leave that to someone else. But the cake itself will taste good!

[butchhamlet]

some reasons you should watch abigail thorn’s “the prince”

i mean, reasons beyond “it’s about trans women in a shakespeare multiverse and abigail thorn plays hotspur.” because--do you need more? but i have more to say, so i’m going to say it.

1. the exploration of the conflation of death and transition. i think trans people are in the habit of pushing back against the idea that transition is any sort of metaphorical death, because so many cis people say shit about feeling like they’ve lost a son/daughter/brother/sister/niece/nephew/gendered acquaintance/etc. but in truth, taking the plunge in deciding to transition, or deciding even to be honest with yourself about your transness, can look and feel a lot like a death, even if it’s a death that’s necessary for a rebirth (something thorn & other trans writers have touched on before). i can’t cite specific parts because spoilers but just trust me that this does a lot with that that made me want to put my head in my hands and scream

2. the interaction with manhood in the history plays. the henriad is incredibly concerned with what it means to be a man the right way--richard ii’s effeminacy assayed against bolingbroke’s stubborn strength; hotspur’s yearning for glory and love of war tied to his destructive masculinity and abhorrence of the feminine; hal’s gendernonconformity through use of language more often than weapons; henry v’s presentation of the english as a virile “band of brothers” identified in contrast to the foppish french dandies. the way this play examines gender--womanhood, manhood, masculinity, femininity, structural misogyny--is fucking delicious in that context, particularly in that the play turns hotspur’s obsession with masculine glory into something of a defense mechanism, as hotspur strives to be the person northumberland and worcester and kate percy expect. (ALSO THE COSTUMING. AND THE SWORD. AND THE DOUBLE-CASTING. AND THE SYMBOLISMS. FABULOUS.)

3. interaction with 1H4 in general. the way thorn cut up this play and rearranged it. i couldn’t go two minutes without turning to my friend and hissing, “this is a line from the real play! except in context it doesn’t go here!” and then gasping over how shifting the context, length, or speaker of speeches brought new aspects of both works to light. ALSO? SO MANY SPEECHES/SCENES IN SHAKESPEAREAN VERSE THAT WERE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL PLAY AT ALL. WHICH MEANS THIS WOMAN WAS JUST WRITING RAW IAMBIC PENTAMETER. LIKE, CONVINCING ELIZABETHAN-ERA IAMBIC PENTAMETER. WHAT. (also also! you don’t have to be a shakespeare nerd to enjoy this play, but if you like iambic pentameter jokes, boy howdy have i got good news for you!)

4. that said, it’s accessible to non-shakespeare-superfans, too! if you don’t know much about the histories, or if you struggle to comprehend shakespeare, don’t fear! the play is doing more than just riffing on shakespeare. it’s at least 50% modern speech, and the switches from one dialect to another tend to come at the most destabilizing and thus hilarious (or gutting) moments. there’s one particular modern-language-paraphrase of a specific 1H4 speech that i haven’t stopped thinking about since i saw it, because it’s the perfect balance of comedic and agonizing.

5. trans people. not just transgender shakespeare characters, but also modern-day trans women! i love that we get both original trans characters and shakespearean characters hit with the transgenderification beam, and i love how many trans people there are; it allows for a more thorough exploration of identity, and also so many good fucking jokes.

6. prince hal is gay for real. not sure i need to say much else about this

7. who doesn’t want to listen to abigail thorn recite shakespeare? not even just 1H4! but i shan’t say more, because oh, baby, that one’s gotta hit organically.

you can read more about it here if you’re not yet convinced, but come on. if you like shakespeare, or if you like art about gender and transness and narratives and confinement and freedom, or, hell, if you like seeing women with swords, i literally don’t know what to tell you i don’t know why you’re still reading this go watch the prince come on now

[saintsenara]

not the ask’s original sender, but your response re: stonks was so thoughtful and heartwarming, it got me smiling like a fool at some parts! i never considered the ship much, and don’t know if this is controversial but i’m a huge transfem snape enjoyer/truther & your post got me thinking a lot on the potential for queer themes exploration in post-war stonks—for both snape and tonks. i’m always wishing there were more transfem!snape shippy fics and there’s just so much one could do with 1) an snape who survived and, now out of such dire lifelong conditions, finally can have the space for personal self-evaluation of who he is and what he’s accomplished in his personal life, forced to confront his gender identity/expression and sexuality in ways that go beyond what one does behind closed doors, and who can finally set out to investigate and experience who he wants to be after repressing so much of his development for the war effort and self-flagellation; 2) a tonks who’s juggling single parenthood and sexuality and/or gender expression simultaneously in her 20s, and the ways in which they could support e/o even in that department more than any other potential partners. that is to say, you made me realize stonks could go so hard for queer exploration of both characters. (also, snape as teddy’s stepmother vs. godfather harry strikes me as an hilarious follow-up to a stonks rship, from a (platonic) snarry perspective, and there’s a lot of potential here for forgiveness and things coming full circle too, i think. as a snarry girlie i especially love to think about their post-war rekindling esp. platonically and the potential for friendship or even found family there, and teddy being another point of contact would be nice). so... thank you so much for selling me on this ship. i’m fr so into this concept now 👀🕵️‍♀️

ahhh thank you so much, anon! i'm delighted to welcome another person to stonks nation!

and my god yes i am compelled by this whole premise.

i am absolutely obsessed with the insight into snape's relationship with gender we get in canon - especially his association with aspects of gender performance which are often understood as feminine. i love the whole gamut we get to run with this - from snape as a cis man [queer or otherwise] who is figuring out his relationship with his unconventional masculinity, to snape as a trans woman, which is something i am currently writing about.

i am also a queer tonks truther - one of my favourite pieces i've written is about tonks exploring her sexuality and gender identity, and - while the tonks of that piece came to feel that cis and bi were the right terms for her - i like fics which place tonks across the whole, vast spectrum of gender and sexuality. after all, they can literally change bodies on a daily basis - there is so much scope there for the sheer joy of exploring who you are when writing them.

and i think that idea of joy - and of the broader liberation and freedom tonks and snape could experience post-war - is something really valuable. i said in the original stonks manifesto that i like the idea of the two of them initially coming together because of a need to cling to a life-raft in the aftermath of the battle, when they both find themselves adrift and unmoored in a world they didn't expect to live to see, before realising that they have something deeper in common beneath that initial comfort - and i really like that "something deeper" being each of them coming to realise that they finally have the option [and the supportive partner] to sit down and actually think about who they are.

especially because this would allow an author to play with the fact that both snape and tonks would wake up post-battle with the unnerving feeling that the script which was directing their lives is now at an end and that they have no guide on what to do next... i think there's something really revolutionary in saying "fuck it, that chapter's closed" and leaving the snape who was bitten by nagini and the tonks who was attacked by bellatrix - who are understood by harry's narrative perspective as straight and cis [even if that's more ambiguous in canon than harry thinks...] - behind in deathly hallows while the stonks of the post-war world say "yeah, so you guys were mistaken there..."

plus, this would give harry a chance to recognise his own queerness [baby, there's a reason you want to spend so much time talking about how handsome tall, thin, dark-haired men are...], which is always fun. although there's nothing on earth which will stop him and snape beefing constantly over teddy - even if, after a while, this starts to look more good-natured than either is willing to admit.

tonks clocks it though.

[wubwubmywub]

ah jeez, let me make this it's own post

villains are villains, in the end of the day. what's the concept of a villain? a character who is opposing the heroes. we all know that. but, whats so special about writing and making a villain, is that they can have multiple reasons to be what they are and race can be one of them.

first off, fiction can and it will take from reality. there exist black people who hate their race and skin color, and that's factual. systemic and structural racism are a thing and for the foreseeable future, they will continue to be a thing. internalized racism will follow hand in hand with them, too.

what jack, and many other villains do, they're supposed to make you uncomfortable with what they're doing. no matter if they're white, black, asian, whatever. you should feel uncomfortable with their actions because that discomfort is what the characters in the story are feeling. when a villain’s motivations are rooted in trauma, systemic issues, internalized self hate, etc, it adds layers to them. they're not just a “bad guy”. they're human. it makes them believable. characters like eggman, bowser and other cartoony villains are fun, but their motivations are described by just a few words. "take over the world." "capture the princess" etc etc. it's not exactly impacting because those are just there to be the end goal for the player, they're not supposed to have any other emotional depth or motivation beyond "i'm evil". they serve their purpose, but they don't challenge anything. they don't have layers.

but when you introduce a villain who grapples something so deeply personal and systematic, like internalized racism, you create a character who reflects the real world. they have layers. they have reasoning for what they're doing. even if it's bad in our eyes (obviously) they truly believe that what they're doing is right. that's why i truly think that a self hating brown/mixed jack works is because he is a character that centers around himself around his identity, hell he named himself 'handsome' jack for a reason. he's a insecure egotistical asshole.

poc of color can be villians and they can do wrong. they can inflict trauma on others. they can lash out on others. they can hate themselves. for a poc villain to be a villain, they don't also need to puff out their chest and say "i'm a poc" on screen, while looking at the camera because that's just not necessary. you think white villains should just be like "ahaha yeah i'm oppressing you because i'm white" like? no one needs to perform their identity for a crowd be part of a community, make them a good person or bad. no black person is obligated to hit their chest and go "i'm black". no asian person is obligated to hit their chest and go "i'm asian". no native is obligated to hit their chest and go "i'm a native". if they do? hell yeah, more power to them, but they're not obligated to.

it's crazy to me we're still in this closed thinking that characters of color must always be “good representations”. fiction serves as a space to explore and talk about the uncomfortable. straight up pretending that characters of color can't feel the full range of human emotions is just offensive. letting people of color be allowed be complex, flawed, hell, even monstrous, shows that they ARE people. poc should be allowed to be everything. heroes, villains, anti heroes. they don't need to be perfect angels to be worthy of representation. hell, look at Aurelia! i love her, i finished presequel with her once, and she's a huge bitch! do you see what she did in borderlands 3? is she any less of a black woman because of that?

handsome jack is no less than a human. handsome jack can feel internalized racism. handsome jack, even as a poc, can be an oppressor.

saying that a poc can't be a villain because it makes you uncomfortable, just means that you don't know anything about good story writing and world building.

[your-queer-dad]

Hi dad,

I'm new to all of this, and it's a bit overwhelming. I hope it's okay to send a longer message.

My spouse recently came out as trans. We haven't been on good terms for a few months, which is due to events unrelated to their gender identity. Even after he's treated me poorly, I'm happy for him embracing this part of himself. It's really beautiful to see him in such a good place.

After my mom died, I've slowly been on the path to realizing that I am trans since it is safe to come to terms with my gender identity with her dead now. She was really emotionally abusive and not supportive my queer sexuality much less anything I did that was out of the norm for clothes and a nickname I chose that was a more gender neutral version of my given name. Her bullying me about anything I did that she wouldn't have done or wanted for me was immensely painful. I was unexpectedly really torn up when she died cause I thought I would feel more safe than anything. I'm glad I am starting to feel that safety in her death now.

I came to terms with being genderqueer after my spouse came out to me (independent of my spouse coming out to me). I don't want them to feel like I am encroaching on their journey or to think I am copying them or something (which I think is my mom's voice, though my spouse has been saying some really mean things to me and about me lately so maybe I'm picking up on something with them.. idk). I am not going to come out to him for awhile so he gets the space and independence he needs in his transition. We have a lot of mutual contacts, so I will have to stay closeted at in a couple of places in my life right now. It's all really stressful, especially with the grief in multiple areas of my life. I'm really lucky to have an amazing chosen family who has been largely supportive.

This brings me to why I'm writing to you. When I told one of my friends who is genderfluid about my spouse and his new name, they laughed and said that my spouse has the most stereotypical nonbinary name (I guess because it is a noun or something; I looked it up, and it is popular among nonbinary people). I was really taken aback by someone making fun of my spouse for doing something I thought was a beautiful name that fit his personality really well. My spouse has hurt me, and he doesn't deserve to be laughed at for whatever he wants to do or be called in his transition and beyond. He deserves love and support for who he is.

Now I am really insecure about doing things that are going to be made fun of by other people or be seen as stereotypical baby-trans things. I only felt safe coming to terms with being genderqueer after someone who would say the meanest things to me in my life died (with whom I was estranged for years before she died). I don't even know what my transition goals will be or what I'm going to like since I think I exist in either a genderfluid space and/or a blob of masculine, feminine, agender at the same time space. I started experimenting with androgynous makeup, and I felt so much joy at first. Today I have been feeling really insecure about it though, and I'm sad my fear of what people may say is interfering with experimenting with new ways of expressing myself.

Do you have any advice on exploring things during my transition? I don't want my insecurity and fear about what people will say stop me, and I am human with feelings that can get hurt. I do have to be relatively cautious about some things since I live in a state where it is dangerous to be trans. Though, there's a lot I could explore without putting myself in danger if I could get out of my own way and stop worrying about others' opinions.

If you read this, thank you for reading such a long message. I've been so overwhelmed, and I appreciate your time and support. I love your blog and what you are doing for those of us who need some dad advice, love, and support. Thank you for what you're doing.

-mebb

Hey kiddo! Thank you so much for reaching out. That sounds like a really complex and pressured situation for you to be in and I am so sorry. My best advice is that there is absolutely no rush- it isn't a race and you don't need to try anything until you're ready. And never ever let anything anyone says stop you. There will always be people who make fun of things, or judge you- you can't stop them but you can always block them out. Stay true to yourself and if something feels right in your heart, go for it.

- dad x