#what does it say about language ideologies? in fiction what does it mean for the characters and setting?

[waitineedaname]

sometimes i get worried im not in the right academic field and then i think about another form of discourse analysis to dig into and i get all excited again

[transmutationisms]

Is mbti pseudoscience ? Also what makes a term pseudoscience ? Is it the people involved? Lack of empirical evidence? Inability to replicate the results?

this is called the demarcation problem and philosophers of science have not settled it. i find this debate trite because it's generally framed around ahistorical, apolitical, asocial notions of 'science' as a set of disembodied ideas rather than as a family of knowledge practices occurring and evaluated in specific social contexts. for example, if we call phrenology a 'pseudoscience' we end up making nonsense of the historical observation that phrenological ideas were part of scientific discourses, practices, and experimentation throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. people measuring skulls and trying to map out localised brain functions were engaging in scientific activities; scientific inquiry is capable of producing ideas that are wrong, racist, internally contradictory, &c. one of the main ideological functions of the label 'pseudoscience' has been & continues to be providing a foil for its counterpart, the ideal of 'science' as an inherently noble and truth-producing activity.

it's dangerous to reify the sort of dichotomy that doesn't permit for the existence of scientific error, bias, or ideological taint; it also obscures the internal logic of previous modes of thinking and epistemological frameworks (bloodletting was not just something doctors did because they were stupid; astrology historically depended on particular cosmologies and philosophical axioms) and makes it extremely difficult to say anything worthwhile about practices and ideas that have been designated 'scientific' or 'pseudoscientific', 'orthodox' or 'heterodox', in different historical moments and places. it's easy to see the designation 'pseudoscience' as a neutral or even politically astute denigration of bullshittery or charlatanism, but consider also that powerful institutions, individuals, professional guilds, and states are just as capable of slinging accusations of 'pseudoscientificity' at those they wish to marginalise for various political and ideological reasons. one recent example of this is the fairly contentious argument over the basic and unfortunately true assertion that many respiratory illnesses, particularly covid, are airborne. the process of deciding whose ideas are bunk, and whose are proper science, occurs in social context just as much as the formation and dissemination of the ideas themselves does.

anyway if what you mean is "are the mbti categories real / fixed / universal human 'types'" then the answer is no, definitely not, it was always a philosophically unjustified taxonomy-forward attempt to bring jungian psychology to the masses that caught on with hiring departments and corporate consultants, and that more than a few people have compared to a kind of 'updated' astrological discourse on the 'personality' expressed in today's scientifically fashionable language rather than yesteryear's. now see if every psy-scientific discourse to which a similar critique applies were to be described as 'pseudoscience' then we would have an awfully hard time explaining what exactly are the professional activities their exponents are engaging in all day, and meanwhile we would have very handily preserved the fiction that there is some other, nobler, properly scientific discipline of psychology magically free of all such inconvenient history and conceptual baggage.

[lesbianrobin]

not to return to the drama of yesterday/invite more but the terf accusations are wild because like. the whole fucking thing is that it's trans exclusionary radical feminism. what makes terfs terfs is the transphobia particularly transmisogyny.

and accusing somebody of being a terf for. being mean to a fictional man. is like... first of all i actually don't think they believe anything they're saying like i do think they're just trying to use social justice language to make themselves seem justified but BESIDES THAT. it is actually so insanely transphobic and misogynistic to act like Being Mean To A Guy is equivalent to trans exclusionary radical feminism. terfs are not primarily hurting men they are primarily hurting trans women!! it is quite literally in the name!!

but "terf" has been watered down so much that now people just use it as an insult against any lesbian they don't like. if you commit the crime of not worshipping men then you are actually a radical feminist which means you are also a transphobe and now people can attack you for not liking men but in a Woke Progressive way. it does not matter your actual ideology or even if you're trans yourself All that matters is that you dared to not center men 24/7.

and the worst fucking part of all of this is that as always trans women are being shouted over and disregarded! these people don't CARE about trans women all they care about is bullying dykes. and they're losers so they invoke trans women as some bizarre justification for their actions while doing Nothing to aid or advocate for trans women. it's just like such hateful loser behavior and it pisses me off.

[seriousbrat]

This is so insidious. "Be aware of your language because you might unknowingly be spreading Evil ideology!!" basically just means "don't talk about this at all because it bothers me". It's so so transparent. If I'm constantly having to be careful about what I say about female characters (regardless of my actual intended meaning) because this Supreme Arbiter of Truth might randomly decide it's Terf Rhetoric Actually how can I ever have any sort of meaningful discussion at all? Notice how it's framed as "unknowingly"– if I have no possible way of knowing HOW I'm using Evil Language, how can I possibly avoid it? By shutting up is the answer.

It's based on NOTHING. It's a strawman. There is not a single Lily fan that thinks that Lily is just a mother and nothing else. Seeing Lily as more than a mother and recognising motherhood is important to her story are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, in what world is pointing out that women are sidelined in fandom terf rhetoric? This person is just deliberately conflating discussions about misogyny in fandom with hate groups because they know that's an easy way to get people riled. They're pretending the main argument against Lily's exclusion in fandom is about motherhood (it's not) and then doing a further mental backflip to stir up moral outrage about people defending female characters.

Be absolutely clear about this- this person KNOWS, deep down, that there is a reason why they only engage with male characters, and this bothers them. Instead of being honest with themselves about it they are inventing a bullshit faux progressive reason to silence any and all criticism and convince their own conscience that they're in the right.

There are no laws, obviously, saying you can't change lily's story or make her a side character if you want. I myself once made her a side character in a prongsfoot fic. The problem is when this is an overwhelming tendency in fandom, which IS significant and IS, in my opinion at least, worth pointing out. When arguably the most important character in the Marauders Era is routinely sidelined in favour of male characters who are literally irrelevant, that does actually say something about what sorts of characters fandom likes to engage with and why. When she's routinely bashed and hated for not really doing anything wrong while male characters who range from bullies to murderers are excused and idealised, that does say something.

It's never pleasant to have to critically examine your own interactions with fiction and accept that your preferences might be rooted in deeper-held beliefs about the world. But it is important, and one way to do this is to facilitate open conversations between different points of view. One way to NOT do this is claiming that everyone else but you is "accidentally" "unknowingly" using evil language so they might as well shut up about their opinions and about women in general.

[bohemian-nights]

How do Targies unironically praise T@rgaryen blood purity like legit white supremacists and then deny there's any racism there?? Please make it make sense

Honestly liking the Targaryens isn’t the problem(and at this point, I'm pretty sure we all like a Targaryen or two).

Yeah, they undoubtedly have some bad views as a whole, but as long as you acknowledge that their views are an allegory for real issues that’s fine.

We aren’t necessarily defined by the fiction we consume.

However, these fans outright taking on white supremacist talking points about blood supremacy and blood purity with 100% sincerity and then being confused as to why people are calling them racist is a mind trip.

If all you are getting from the books is how special and magical the Targaryen’s are and how they must keep the bloodline pure, how outsiders dirty the blood, and then use that to degrade and mock characters(and harass their fans) who aren’t silver-haired with purple eyes then yeah, you’re a fucking racist.

GRRM is admittedly not the best at handling race(or even certain female characters). He’s an old white man and it shows, but even he didn’t create this universe for you guys to spout out this crap. You are supposed to question things like feudalism and Targaryen exceptionalism not uphold it.

Nettles is a prime example of this, but they want to say she’s Daemon’s kid, or unquestionably Valyrian, and how she’s irrelevant since she’s Black(not to mention deny the racism she faces in the text as well as outside of it) rather than admit that maybe your blood, your gender(she’s a woman too but they always seem to forget that), your social economic status, your race does not define you. You and your actions do.

That all being said, I do think the Targaryen ideology is what attracts people to the house in the first place, but they won’t admit this because that means they have to confront their own biases.

If Targaryen ideology is harmful and you agree with it wholeheartedly what does that make you? How do you view people who are different than you? Who do you view as beneath you? How do you treat people who you view as lesser than you?

Yes this is all fictional, but the language being used is very much based on how they feel about certain groups in real life.

Look I’ve seen people straight up say things like there are too many Black people on HOTD and that the only in-canon Black character should be cut because they’ve met their quota and then cry that they are being (rightfully) called racists.

I’ve seen people say that since Daemon rejected a white woman(Alys) who they view as better than her(Nettles) he would for sure never touch Nettles’ with a ten-foot pole much less love her in a romantic capacity and then cry that they are now being called a racist.

I’ve seen people purposely reduce characters solely down to their race and then cry that they are now being called a racist.

I’ve seen people harass and stalk actual Black fans and then cry and say that they are being bullied when we call them out for it.

I’ve seen people outright use racial slurs then the fanbase brushes that aside to say that the racism is limited to just a few individuals when many of these same people are using the previous arguments and treat real-life fans like crap.

Racism isn't limited to saying I hate n-words and wanting to commit acts of violence upon us.

It’s easier to say you aren’t a racist than to deal with the very real possibility that you are a part of the problem. That you treat people(including fictional characters) who don’t look like you like absolute shit because of something as stupid as the color of their skin. That you view them as so beneath you that we don’t deserve basic respect.

It should be noted that Targaryren fans aren't the only racists in this fandom especially when it comes to Black characters/fans, but they are the most outright hostile to the point where it is utterly ridiculous when they say they aren't racist.

But what do I know? I’m just a crazy hating ass bitch who’s out of her depth and who should shut her trap…

[gacha-incels]

It's astounding that these liberal bootlickers *still* can't do the basic ass things of just re-examine those official posts, consult with those who can speak the language and look up the translated threads of the unions' responses.

And before anyone tries to rebuke, no, the things said in both the August & September posts WEREN'T condemnation, just vague corporate reassurances without any statements direct intentions or actions against the perpetrators.

Are these people that cocked up in their echo-chambers to hear out of another person's culture or are they *that* sensitive of hearing of things they like that has done bad things?

ngl at some point it really does feel obscene to me seeing people write about how PM & Limbus are some top tier progressive anticapitalist haven full of lgbt+ characters while Korean women try to tell them the company’s antifeminist actions are actively harming female workers and perpetuating this misogynistic 🤏 witch hunt.

like of course MTL is not perfect here but essentially she’s saying “if you’re a transphobe in PM’s fictional city it’s unacceptable but if you’re a feminist working for PM in reality you’re at risk of losing your job. I’m surprised people who are sensitive to representations of queer fictional characters are indifferent to the labor rights of Project Moon’s employees.” This is just one example, couple of days ago I had posted another, it comes up quite often. these users are trying to tell you that this is something that directly affects Korean women in reality and you just tell them, what? they’re wrong, they don’t get it, actually what PM did was normal in their country and they had no other choice?? it must be fine because the lead singer of mili is a woman and still works with PM and this is actually just like the hays code in the US? I honestly cannot believe someone had the gall to write that last one in their “PM masterpost”. the Korean users telling you this organized boycotts, frequent digital hashtag campaigns to get information out in multiple languages, completely removed fan accounts, created an organization to help victims of feminist ideological verification, monggeu came forward explaining her awful working conditions, Mimi legally took Wonderlab down because she did not want to be associated with project moon. honestly it’s been incredible watching them rise to the occasion and accomplish so much. and you think….what exactly when you see this? that actually all of these people directly affected by the misogynist, incel catering actions of project moon are just misguided fools who don’t understand what happened? that these women are worthy sacrifices for a gambling game because you think it has some epic capitalism takedown and there are male characters who have traditionally female names?

Why do they defend PM so vehemently in the face of critique? I think part of it is this increasingly common phenomenon where these fans need to think project moon must completely have the same progressive political leanings as them because they enjoy consuming the works and they consider themselves progressive, therefore the reverse must be true, that the media they enjoy must also be ideologically progressive because they enjoy it. it’s why they’re so shocked when someone completely different from them in political leanings enjoys PM’s games, we saw this as well when Arknights KR engaged in feminist ideological verification. these high earning gambling games can make all the vague political statements they want but it doesn’t mean jack shit if they’re engaging in antifeminism and harming employees in reality. in the past decade (and especially 2020 until now) “fandom” and “consuming content” have evolved into integral parts of these people’s personalities (especially those who are gen Z and younger) and have significant impacts on how they interact with others and how they see themselves. they wrack their brains coming up with excuses for project moon’s antifeminist actions and this genuinely gets fanfiction tier at some point.

like look at this example from that “PM masterpost” a user here on tumblr made. this is the same one we were discussing earlier that reposted rumors slandering the youth union.

beyond the ridiculous untrue claims (this is nothing like the hays code, what PM did was not normal, Mihoyo isn’t the only company that told incels to fuck off, they also have offices in SK and had literally dealt with a bomb threat at one of their SK events, etc…u get it, I’m not going thru every word) you can see this wild conjecture regarding the actions taken by the 2 studios. To me this is an example that shows how much these people defending Project Moon warp their thinking in order to keep believing this company is “progressive”. The company Mihoyo that did not respond to incels’ increasingly ridiculous harassment, blocked their livestream chat then deleted all their misogynistic comments in the next livestream and was one of the only (if not the only) targeted companies that did not take Studio Ppuri’s work for them down - this is presented as essentially “whatever” and further downplayed by saying “I personally doubt [this] was a part of any deeply held opinion on women’s rights.” And Project Moon, the company that folded to incel demands immediately, fired a woman at their behest, sued unions and condemned them in their later statements while saying absolutely nothing about the incels that caused the incident, put memes in their gacha game from the very community these incels came from, makes sure to dutifully censor any🤏 in their gambling game, worked the Leviathan artist so hard she contemplated suicide frequently and had to get IVs? These things are presented as just inevitabilities of operating in South Korea and PM is lauded as “I can’t believe PM is fundamentally misogynistic.” The editorializing is absurd. imo there also comes a time where you compare your “poor little South Korean gacha game who just got caught in the crossfire and actually they are totally progressive and feminist 🥺” to the “Chinese company Mihoyo who does whatever to keep getting the most money and has no morals about it” that at some point starts to lean heavier on sinophobia. I’m not here to blow smoke up Mihoyo’s ass but I do think their action regarding the korean incels’ harassment was significant at a time when companies were falling over themselves to kiss incel ass. And, as has been discussed before on this blog, Project Moon’s capitulation to incels was also significant just in the opposite, misogynistic direction. idk it just gets so unbelievably frustrating to see English speaking users who believe themselves to be “progressive” or “leftist” making excuses because they want to keep playing videogames without feeling guilt meanwhile the Korean fanbase has consistently mobilized digitally and irl to spread info, protest, raise money, etc. like how are you not feeling any shame whatsoever after seeing how principled they are?

[brilliantfantasticgeronimo]

dw rewatch - takes on "the end of the world"

companion watch:

"the artic desert" hits different lol

something something bella vs the witch

rose's fear attack when she finds heres lf in the alien situation. she's genuinely terrified! it's a good beat, man. more than that, it's a rare beat. I get a lot of people don't vibe with it and prefer the more "buffy-esque approach, since it's "more to the point" and gets you larger than life figures… but personally I much prefer it when scifi/fantasy scenarios are portrayed as the terrifying reality they would be. also this: "ROSE: I just hitched a ride with a man. I don't even know who he is. He's a complete stranger"

war of the world vibes with the little robot fellas. /unintentional parallel to how cassandra dies and how the aliens in that book die?

"it gets inside and changes my mind, and you didnt even ask" "i didnt think about it like that" it's interesting that rose question this tbh

"five billion years in the future, my mum's dead" "bundle of laughs you are" /god i love this exchange. nine's constant attempt to downplay ANY surfacing of Real Emotions. rose's naivety in contemplating for the first time in her life that oh yeah, people die. the first statement of the "everything dies, everything ends" theme that will be woven throughout all the rtd era.

ngl i wish rose Did More in the plot of this episode, in terms of actually solving the crisis, feels like a stepdown after Rose giving her the most climatic moment... that said she does get a lot of great quibs in this one: "you two go pollinate and i'll go meet the family"/ "and i want you home by midnight!"/ "its better to die than to live like you, a bitchy trampoline" / "youre just lipstick and skin"

she's really similar to nine/ten in that aspect. they both have that "humor as defense mechanism" thing

blorbos:

the way nine and rose Lean in those stairs…. im Looking respectfully and im Thinking pure thoughts. (honestly ppl talk a lot about ten and rose's body language in s2 but there was A Lot going on with nine and rose as early as episode 1)

"all that counts is here and now" can't tell if zen mindfulness or a desperate defense mechanism to cope with ptsd.

first thing rose does is call her mum ): - Cassandra "I'm too young" vs Ten's "I was going to do so much more"...(ben wyatt voice) it's about the hypocrisy (oh having written this note before rewatching new earth... put a pin on that!)

timeless child retroactive continuity bonus: perhaps cassandra as "the last human" (not really a "human") paralleling "the last timelord" (not really a "timelord)? - "JABE: And what about your ancestry, Doctor? Perhaps you could tell a story or two. Perhaps a man only enjoys trouble when there's nothing else left". well post-s13 they're gonna enjoy themselves a lot more lol - there's something very anti-entropy about how the child gets to regenerate indefinitely without "losing" its essence and its dna integrity (vs cassandra's "flatness", the child gains more and more complexity as time passes).

colonialism/hegemony: - NINE: "mind you, when I say "the great and the good" what I mean is the rich." / "Five billion years and it still comes down to money" / this maybe be harsh,,, honestly i hate to say but doctor who sometimes really is just typical neolib """anti-capitalist""" fiction. - in the sense that it pretends to be anti-capitalist, but really is just capitalist realist. it's writers can imagine 203223 scenarios of the earth dying but they cannot conceive of a post-capitalist world, a classless society or simply a world without taxes. Of course you could say "this is so these stories are relatable" but even in their relatedness, there's rarely a portrayal of the anti-capitalist struggle (rather than just generic star wars-style, ideology-less "rebellions).- (that said, obligatory "I'm not a politics robot" disclaimer... "Do you think it's cheap, looking like this? Flatness costs a fortune." is an iconic retort lol) - there's also a kind of subtle Myth Of The Linear Progress Of History thing going on with cassandra being framed as someone who "stayed behind" and has not embraced this analogue to our "Color Blind Post Racial Society" which has "Obviously" outgrown prejudice and notions of racial purity. - "good thing i didn't take you to the deep south" / "you were to busy making cheap shots about the deep south" // parallels to-> "who do you think makes your clothes?" "Is that why you travel 'round with a human at your side? It's not so you can show them the wonders of the universe, it's so you can take cheap shots?" "sorry" . actually no rtd i dont think these are chepashots at all lol they are VERY relevant shots!! it's very transparent how the writers are kind of meek about making these *truly* transgressive points, but it's much easier to have the doctor argue that rose having a donor card is "a different morality"... again one is truly transgressive, the other is fun-but-no-challenging-of-the-hegemony scifi "dilemma". - the "quick word with Michael Jackson" line is doing A Lot but idek how to even begin to entangle it lol it's very 00s, for sure. - for once, a self aware one: "People have died, Cassandra. You murdered them." / "It depends on your definition of people, and that's enough of a technicality to keep your lawyers dizzy for centuries"

themes: - everything has its time and everything ends check your bingo cards. racial purity vs mixing vs 'progress'. class. life cycles. gut instinct (rose jumping the gun to empatise w/ the doc + nine going through the fans + rose reaction to the alien parade). destruction as tourism, as "artistic event" (an uncomfortable parallel to how this is what our heroes will be doing for the next 10+ seasons). - this episode does a bit of a u-turn on the previous (And the next) on its constant questioning of the intrinsic "meaning" of a physical body. in this, cassandra's continuous operations are framed as a kind of "lost of an essence". also the "surface" of her thinking as metaphor for her missing the "essence" of what it means to be human (biologically but more fundamentally, ethically).

Live Fast Die Young / YOLO / everyone deserves to be mourned. everyone deserves a dignified death. thread carefully and cherish life, because it will all be gone. our time is limited and short and it is because it is short that it means something. Life only means anything because there's Death.

ecology and environmentalism. "there are many species in that planet. mankind is only one / I'm a direct descendant of the tropical rainforest." obsessed with it. wish they brought back the rainforest.

[script-a-world]

Submitted via Google Form: Gender Neutral Names

I'm trying to name my characters.

I see there are plenty of baby name charts with gender breakdown popularity charts. But I have no idea why so many names listed as gender netural, one gender does not even appear on the chart or maybe just on the very bottom a year or two. Yet it's gender neutral? What makes it gender neutral if it's so far off. Very lopsided 95%/5% charts, I can kind of get, but to not even show up?

In fact any name can always have exceptions. I know some people both real and fictional with names that do not get listed as gender neutral but are in fact the opposite gender than listed.

How does a name become gender neutral when the occasional rare person just decides to go the opposite (which is inevitable) unless it's actually a trend and starts showing up on charts.

Is there any kind of sexism involved? I don't know but if I apply the same kind of reasoning with hair. People still keep calling long hair for females and short hair for males, instead of all gender neutral hairstyles. Yet there is way more instances of females with short hair and men with long hair than it seems for those names that are so lopsided the other gender doesn't make the chart. Yet the name gets called gender neutral and hair still gets divided.

Tex: Gender is applied to a name on the parent’s or individual’s say-so, and when the name itself is used for another child, the gendered connotations of the original bearer of the name carry over or not as a situation develops.

Sexism is an inherent, though unfortunate, part of gender as a role in society. This is mostly created as a means to make someone feel better about themselves, usually by denigrating someone easily identifiable as Different ™ than them. Sexism is as ideologically easy to adopt as racism, in that it’s usually the first thing someone’s eyes can find when they want to treat someone poorly due to their own perceived deficiencies.

Modern cultural perceptions aside, it seems as if you’re sourcing your worldbuilding and interpretations from a narrow band of sources. On tumblr and WordPress, which our blog is hosted on, there’s quite a few worldbuilding posts related specifically to names that are quickly accessible with a keyword search in your browser of choice. If you have particular cultures already in mind, those are useful additional keywords to help you, and can give you multiple perspectives on how gender may be variably defined.

Licorice: - Oh, names and naming is such an interesting topic! 

Since it’s your own world you are building, you can decide on the naming system they are going to use. Are you trying to create a naming system in which nobody can tell someone’s gender from the name alone? Some of the naming systems in our own world are largely gender neutral. I am told Punjabi is one language in which the majority of the names can be used for any and all genders. 

According to the Linguistics stack exchange, Chinese is a language in which names are not gendered. Bear in mind that I am not a Chinese speaker, and I’m happy to be corrected if this information is wrong, but apparently there is no set of words that are reserved for “proper names” in China. “​​In China you can use any word or words (max. 2 characters) you like as your name provided it sounds good and you find it meaningful.”

Unless I’m much mistaken, the naming systems for many First Nations follow the same principle. You could have a look at these different naming systems for inspiration. Several African countries I lived in gave children names that expressed their wishes for the child’s future - “Talent” or “Success” - or reflected the circumstances surrounding the birth - “No Money” and “Lonely” were two people I knew personally - or even the parents’ wishes for their own future. I knew a guy, the last-born of twelve, whose name was “No More.”

If you want to move away from names that in English are traditionally associated with one or other gender, you could

Invent names, as Tolkien and JRR Martin do. If you choose this route but want to avoid gendering your names, avoid ending sounds that are traditionally associated with the feminine (e.g. -a, -ia) for girls’ names or sounds traditionally associated with the masculine (e.g. -us, -ius) for boys’ names. 

Use ordinary nouns and adjectives as names. In this way you can also express the things your in-world culture values. Are they careful environmental custodians? Then they may give their children names associated with nature: “Summer Rain”, “Green Twig”, “Feathered Nest.” Are they warlike and aggressive? They may give their children names that commemorate weapons or martial qualities. “Fierce Helmet”, “Sturdy Shield” “Steadfast Courage” and so on.

(and that reminds me of the famous Puritan whose parents used names to express their faith: Praisegod Barebones)

The master of the use of names in worldbuilding is Ursula K LeGuin. If you like, take a look at some of her short fiction or novels to see what techniques she uses. 

Mod Miri Note: We also have a Master Post on Names Here. 

[crewdlydrawn]

There’s a lot of text here, so while I recommend reading it all (and its links to the lead up timeline, if you haven’t been following along), below is an excerpt that gets to the core of the thing:

But as shocking as all this is, it is not the real scandal. In fact, if I have a criticism of Barkley and Sanford's report, it is that they seem to have been so hung up on having discovered the smoking gun that proves the theory fans have been bandying about for the last month, that they missed the true implications of what they had uncovered. The raw data spreadsheet Lacey leaked does not merely show that nominees like Babel and Paul Weimer were discarded for supposedly running afoul of PRC ideology. It also shows a large number of nominees, mostly Chinese-language, which do not appear anywhere on the final ballot or the nominations stats. When questioned about these nominees in the comments of File 770, Lacey—who, again, has been so apologetic about her treatment of Western nominees—replied simply that these nominations had been considered "slate" nominations (many of them were included in recommendation lists published by SF World and other Chinese-language SFF magazines in preparation for the Hugos; on BlueSky, user Yilin has translated the text that accompanied these lists to make the point that they were not intended as a singular slate but merely a list of recommendations). It's the removal of these nominations, Lacey suggests, that has caused the "cliff" that many commentators observed in the final Hugo stats, in which there was a drop of hundreds of nominating ballots between the top 5-6 vote-getters and the ones below them.

I'm going to say this again, because it is so shocking that it seems to have taken a lot of people some time to grasp the enormity of it: hundreds, perhaps even thousands of valid, legal nominating ballots were dropped from the final nominating stats, apparently under the pretext of having represented a slate, even though slates are perfectly legal under the Hugo rules. This was done on the orders of the Hugo administrator, with apparently no outside input or discussion, and appears to have elicited so little response from the Hugo team that they are casually mentioning it as if it's nothing. If these numbers are correct, it's entirely possible that the whole Hugo ballot should have looked completely different, and that none of the eventual winners in the fiction categories should have even been nominated.

What this means is that the entire 2023 Hugo scandal is something completely different from what we've understood it as during the last month. Appalling as it is, the choice to screen English-language nominees for ideological compatibility may, in fact, be a sideshow to the real scandal, which is that hundreds of Chinese voters have been disenfranchised. And—barring even more revelations—this disenfranchisement cannot be blamed on PRC sensibilities and censorship. I truly doubt that it was in the interest of China, or the Chinese business interests who took over Worldcon, to remove Chinese-language nominees from last year's Hugo ballot. This decision came from the American and Canadian staffers who made up the English-language Hugo team, many of them Worldcon volunteers of long standing.

In this context, it is infuriating to recall just how quickly the response to our original sense of what this scandal was turned to anti-democratic measures and calls to limit the power of rank-and-file Worldcon members. "Elections have consequences!" crowed the people who are still pissed they weren't allowed to steal the site selection vote in 2021, while others called to limit site selection to those with "skin in the game"—read, those with the wherewithal to travel to US-based conventions. But as it turns out, the call was coming from inside the house. This was never a China problem. It's an us problem. If the allegations that are now emerging claiming that McCarty has behaved this way in the past, and also harassed other Worldcon staffers, are to be believed (and there is certainly more than enough reason to believe them at this point), it's a profound failure on the part of Worldcon and its membership to police toxic members, which has now blown up in all our faces. And, it's a problem that casts all past Hugo awards into doubt—not existential doubt, because one of the advantages of EPH is that it reveals fiddling with the nominating ballots quite effectively, and the irregularities seen in the Chengdu nominating stats do no appear in previous years' data; but nevertheless, it's impossible to pretend that the award's reputation can ever be what it was.

“What this means is that the entire 2023 Hugo scandal is something completely different from what we've understood it as during the last month.”

[ticklepinions]

Not to like drop in and potentially cause drama but I am genuinely confused. Be nice in the notes/DMs. Content warning of mentions of s\x and m*rder and t*rture. I literally just say the words I don't go into detail

What's the issue with aging up fictional characters.

They are fictional

So that means they aren't real. They don't adhere to the same rules that we do irl. They quite literally can do whatever the writer wants them to do. If I want to make all my characters trans I can. If I want to make them all cucumbers I could also do that. If I feel like one character should be another race I can also do that.

Poetic license

The writer has full control over their writing. They can write about literally anything they want no matter how vulgar and taboo they have that right to do so. I understand the "it's giving people permission to do bad things". But I feel like we are giving writers too much credit, one of the hardest things to change are other people's behaviour. One smutty fic won't be enough to alter a person's ideology. It's the whole violent video games = to violence IRL argument.

The conscious effort to age up characters should not be punished and frowned upon

Like fr what is the point. If a character is canonically 12 forever does that mean that everyone is bound to never write about them in contexts where it wouldn't be appropriate for a minor?

To me if the writer ages up a character, is that not a good thing. That they loved a character so much they wanted to make it even more relatable to themselves by aging them up and putting them through experiences of the writer's choosing? How is that even remotely bad.

Calling people p*dos for shits and giggles isn't cool. Or because they disagree with you. Grow up. It's a psychological disorder. And how can you call someone that when they're aging up the characters to an "appropriate" age (18 in most countries).

Argument of giving people permission to do bad things

I've read about people being tortured and put through the worst of times. Do I now want to do that to another human being? No.

Using the same logic we should stop creating things altogether. Because people will interpret everything their own way. You can write the most sfw and tame fic and have someone use it as material to jack off. Sorry to burst your bubble. Alternatively the opposite is just as true. Does this mean we should just stop creating works that make us happy?

Conclusion

Like what am I missing. There is so much toxicity in the writing community when it comes to well writing. Like people have forgotten that writing is a tool, an escape for some people. It's so naïve to me to have a closed mindset of "you can't do this because I don't like it". Don't read it and most importantly don't create false narratives of calling people p*dos because they wrote about teenagers kissing. In the real world people have sex usually around 16+. Writing about it doesn't make you a terrible person, in the same way that writing about murder, or other taboo things doesn't tarnish your identity, or rather shouldn't.

There are lots of fics I will be less likely to read because they don't appeal to me. So I do this thing called not reading it. I also give the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that whatever "bad" thing they're writing about could be their way of healing from their own trauma. It's quite literally none of my business. And I'd rather someone write about their inner demons in the fictional realm rather than unleashing them irl. But that's just my two cents.

Note: my language/tone may sound mad and you'd be correct. I'm just frustrated to see how toxic communities can get over a subject that to me shouldn't be that big of a deal? I'll try to keep an open mind to other thoughts/opinions/ideas but I'm just angy at the way people are going as far as shaming others for aging up characters for little reason.

[flokali]

ꉂ★ Manners

┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈𖧵┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈

✕ 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 :

— This is a yandere blog, I – Mori – don’t condone any, and I mean any, of the behavior displayed in this page or in my fics.

— I am well aware that fiction does hold an impact on reality, especially on the minds of young people, which is why I ask this account be 17+. However, I also believe that dark content in fiction isn’t wrong by itself as long as all parties involved (either it be as a maker or consumer) are aware of the severity and wrongness of the actions displayed.

— If you don’t want to or just don’t follow the rules, there’s nothing I can do – I simply hope you’re mature enough to understand that this is only fiction and that this behavior isn’t healthy (though I will say; I block)

— I write for female, male, and gender neutral readers. You ought to specify in your request what gender you’d like else I’ll default to GN.

— As I’ve said, I'll mainly write for: Genshin Impact (main), Honaki: Star Rail, Love and Deepspace, Twisted Wonderland, Enstars, and Tears of Themis ; I may post about other

— Do not recommend me on any other platforms, especially on Tiktok. Please, the platform is filled with minors and the last thing I need is a child running around reading through my blog. Please ask before translating any of my fics into another language.

— I will write: non-con, dub-con, cnc, yandere, gore, violence, cannibalism, a/b/o, breeding, pegging, dom readers, sub readers, sadomasochism, mind control, mind break, milfs/dilfs, cheating, & somno. Basically most things go?

— I won’t write: underage, unhygienic, self-harm, vore, beastiality, anything to do with unsanitary bodily fluids (piss nd scat), & ddlg.

— If anything isn’t listed here please ask me!

┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈𖧵┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈

✕ 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 :

— Before I say anything else, I want to make one thing clear: I block liberally. If I see anyone actively going against my rules – it’s a block. I hope I don’t sound too rude but this is my blog and I’ll curate the experience.

— This is a side blog, one which I may transfer to a new account, I can’t send asks without showing my main; it’s easily accessible but I won’t be interacting much via main, sorry.

— Ask to tag, correct me on the terminology used or point out something that I missed, but don’t be rude about it — I’ll do my best to tag everything but things can slip my mind.

— Don’t try and guilt me into doing, changing things, or writing either; I don’t mean to sound rude but I’m literally just someone on the internet, I really, really don’t owe you anything and neither do you owe me.

— No bigotry, this includes (and isn’t limited to): Terf/Gender Critical Ideology, Racism, Xenophobia, Transphobia, Homophobia, Biphobia, Anti-Semitism, Zionism, etc. I’m not going to argue with you, go talk to the wall.

— MAPS/NO-MAPS (aka pedos) are also not welcomed and will be not only blocked but reported too.

— Radfems or “Gender Criticals”.

— Hate of any kind will either be deleted or posted to make fun of you, send three hate asks and you’re blocked though </3

… … … … …

If you are not 18+ don’t message or interact with me directly, please, you’re making me extremely uncomfortable. You shouldn’t be on this account in the first place but if you’re going to do it at least don’t be rude about it and brag to me. I know you think you’re mature (and realistically, you probably are!) — just, this isn’t the place for you. Come back here when you’re of age, please.

All of these rules have been written with my own experience and biases in mind, I’ve been on the “dark content” side of the internet for way longer than I should have — and I’m telling you this with all the love I can possibly give you. If you’re not 18+, don’t interact with me nor this account. I’m super honored anyone of any age likes my content but I’m begging you, please — wait until you’re older as exposure to this could affect you in the long run in a negative way.

[bettsfic]

Hi Betts. Do you have any advice on describing facial expressions? I find myself returning to the same old "furrowed brows" and "raised eyebrows" etc. and can't seem to communicate the subtleties of the expressions that I see in my head. Thank you so much!

unfortunately, while prose is an excellent mechanism with which to describe the internal experience of being, it is a deeply ineffective one with which to describe our external reality, despite what the show-don’t-tell purists would have you believe. the more i think about the idea of fiction as existing in part to render reality, the more i wonder why historically so many english novelists have chosen to shoot themselves in the foot by committing to that ideology, considering how fucking hard it is. 

i plan to touch on this in a different sort of context in february’s newsletter which will be about the depiction of compulsory reality in fiction, but for now let’s focus specifically on facial expressions.

part of the magic of fiction is being able to “see” something in your imagination, condense that image into language, write it, and then have it be read by an audience who can then see that very same image, or at least their approximation of it, in order to derive meaning within a narrative. and isn’t that all raised eyebrows really do? what does it mean to witness someone raising their eyebrows? in fiction, writing a non-pov character raising their eyebrows means:

you, the writer, have defined the non-pov character’s cognition > you, the writer, have then developed that cognition into a facial expression for your pov character to witness > you, the writer, lend language to the depiction of that non-accessible cognition cum facial expression through the pov of accessible cognition > they, the reader, witness the image of the non-pov character’s raised eyebrows > they, the reader deduce (through the pov character’s narration, through the non-pov character’s action, through the non-pov character’s non-accessible cognition, through you, the writer’s, intention) that the non-pov character is surprised

so with all that said, how the FUCK can you be expected to do that transaction elegantly.

first i’m going to tell you what i think most writers and writing teachers would tell you, and then i’m going to tell you how i see it, and neither of them are going to be fun answers.

many writers, particularly of the show-don’t-tell variety, would tell you (and of course they’d never show you, because they’re hypocrites) that it is simply your job as a writer to understand the english language well enough -- and take enough time on the page to -- describe, as you say, the subtleties of the expressions that you see in your head. but of course, those same writers may also tell you never to use adjectives or adverbs, to elevate your verbs, and complicate your diction. they would tell you that if something is worth rendering (and to them, everything is worth rendering), then it’s worth rendering meaningfully. it’s worth taking an entire paragraph to artfully convey the exact way one’s eyebrows rise up one’s forehead, without resorting to “telling” the reader that one is shocked. 

oof city. i mean, i get it. fiction exists to lend us the witness of alternate realities we can’t otherwise experience. but also it can also only ever be a facsimile of that experience through what is basically groupings of squiggles on a page. with writing, to paraphrase an ancient text, you’ve gotta pick your battles. and then, pick fewer battles. put some of those battles back.

so here’s my answer, which is easier but also in some ways harder: you can never truly convey the subtleties of the expressions you see in your head. the work of the writer is not, as much as we may like it to be, the same as a cinematographer or an actor. at some point, you have to let go of the idea of descriptive control. once it’s out of your head and into someone else’s, it’s no longer in your grasp. eventually, a story belongs to its readers.

i know, this is a deeply unpopular opinion and one which does not make me any friends in the literary community. it goes wholly against the entire history of “show don’t tell” and the lovely work of early novelists to lift the form to its present regard. 

what i’m saying is, sometimes you just have to fucking say “he looked surprised” and move on.

so, that’s all the theory surrounding raised eyebrows to hopefully offer you some deeper insight, or at least an alternate perspective. here’s some practical application you can play around with to see what works for you:

when editing, remove ALL of your descriptions of facial expressions

i’m sorry if you feel like you’ve just been socked in the stomach. bear with me here. do a revision where you get rid of all of your descriptions of facial expressions to see how the piece stands up. you will very quickly see the narrative gaps, the places where you lose or flatten meaning. then, add only those expressions back in. you’ll be surprised how little you need.

play with telling over showing, or vice versa

replace a few “he raised his eyebrows” with “he looked surprised.” replace a few “he looked upset” with “he lowered his head and glanced down at his clasped hands.” see how they differ? “showing” is factual and requires the reader to interpret the action. “telling” is an interpretation/conclusion drawn by the narrator and conveyed to the reader. one is not inherently superior to the other. they both do different kinds of work, and have different narrative effects.

use facial expressions to complicate or conflict with dialogue, not confirm it

“he raised his eyebrows. ‘i’m surprised,’ he said.” <-- that’s a very silly example, but i just want to show you how sometimes you can let the dialogue do the dirty work. if a character says something, and their facial expression matches the thing they’re saying, it is maybe not worth mentioning the expression. or vice versa, maybe they make an expression instead of saying something. or maybe there’s a reason you do need both. it’s going to depend on the scene and your narrator.

however, if what their face is doing is in conflict with what they’re saying such that it would alter the meaning of the dialogue, then perhaps it’s worth noting. 

“he glanced down at his clasped hands. ‘i’m fine,’ he said.” <-- in this case, the factual description of his action gives us, the reader, the sense that he is l y i n g.

bonus: “’i’m fine,’ he said, but he looked upset.” <-- what’s wrong with that? nothing. it’s simple, it’s concise, it tells us about the perception and capacity of the narrator. no, it doesn’t allow the reader to “see” anything, but as i’ve mentioned, i don’t think the work of fiction is to “see” things. it’s to experience them, and sometimes that has more to do with the capabilities and limitations of your narrator than it does by clinging to the belief that you have to render the shiny surfaces of reality.

i hope this helps! more on the depiction of reality in february’s newsletter. 

my carrd | writing advice masterdoc

[rpbetter]

How do you feel about all the 'proshippers dni" warnings in so many meme and resource blogs? If this is too hot of a subject to answer, that's ok!

Oh, I'm going to make it even hotter by being absolutely honest and saying that I hate it. For me, it acts as its own reverse-DNI. If I see that on someone's blog, I'm going to block. It's gotten bad enough that I won't reblog memes or resources without checking for it because I'm damn well not going to spread that around...and I'm not the only one.

It's also such an incredibly bizarre thing? lmao like every DNI that isn't "minors, don't interact," muns with that in their rules get weirdly bent out of shape when it is followed. My supposition is that either no one was actually supposed to notice their virtue-signalling bullshit so that their reblogs don't take a hit or the hope is that when they have an inevitable issue with someone, they can scream about how a proshipper violated their DNI. So, when muns who either are proship or who just feel this is a huge purity culture flag stuck in a meme/resource blog's front lawn don't interact, hit the block button instead...they're kind of out of luck on both.

I suppose I should, in rhetrospect, let people who might be new to the terms know what they mean before I proceed:

DNI - abbreviation for "do not interact." Usually found in a blog's description, pinned post, and/or rules. States who the mun of the blog (be it an RP blog, personal, help, resource, meme, or other blog) does not want to interact with their posts.

proshipper - someone who does not care what others ship or what might occur within the ship. A proshipper is not necessarily an "anti-anti," but they can be, and often are, both. They do not believe that fiction = reality - it does not have an influence on reality as relates to someone writing a ship in which something like incest or underage occurs making people in real life feel like either are normal or desirable. Neither does it mean that shippers are condoning whatever it is in real life, normalizing it, excusing it, or any other ridiculously charged language.

anti-anti - proshippers who have had enough, usually, but anti-antis are just as often simply reasonable adults who find it absurd that people seem to think shipping, liking a character, or enjoying a piece of fiction is activism. They are often concerned, like proshippers, about the language and methods used by antis and purity culture cultists as they frequently mimic the same language and methods used by various radical, exclusionary "feminists" and religious radicals. The difference tends to be that anti-antis are more actively vocal, taking on statements and arguments made by antis, running blogs specifically to counter that culture, and so forth.

purity culture/purity police/antis - people who seem to have no idea that they've been had by homophobes/transphobes/violent religious ideology, or that exactly nothing coming out of their mouths is new or a hot take, it's all just been mildly rebranded and rephrased in order to attract younger Millennials and all of Gen Z to keep peddling this shit. They believe that if you enjoy a character, ship, story, trope, plot, or anything else they've deemed as terminally problematic, that you, yourself, are the vilest non-human to exist. That's the crux of it, it's meant to divide, isolate, and remove the human element so that no one feels bad for bullying people. Just existing in one's own space isn't enough to not be called a pedophile, rape apologist, abuser, and so forth by an anti because you are considered to be an active threat to real people for liking the wrong cartoon people together.

Okay, I think that about covers it for those somehow spared thus far, let us proceed!

I feel that it's so disturbingly prevalent and spreading because purity culture operates on control by fear and exclusion, and is helped along by ignorance.

If you've just decided to start a resource blog, you might feel that it's just the thing to do to have a DNI that states this. (You might also feel that it isn't offensive or ridiculous if you're not directly stating something like "nasty ass pr*shippers dni," but that's still what you're saying so...) This is how you replicate what some popular blogs are doing, it works for them, right? And it's obviously the only way you can reblog their memes or other resources, by displaying that you're so far from being a gross proshipper that you also have a DNI about them on your blog.

Now, let's also say that you're young, kind of new to both fandom and the RPC, and have either managed to avoid discourse or ended up having friends on the anti side of it. You've come from a fandom that is meant for children, it's children's media like a cartoon centered around characters who are children or a live-action movie/series that's also meant for children and stars real children. So, the position in your first fandom has, not unreasonably, been that it's nasty to ship the child characters together in an explicitly sexual way. Much of your experience is having this posed as something that protects you from dangerous, disgusting people who would see you, also then a child, as a sexual object. Everyone who is proship is, then, A Predator.

What is cause for concern in one situation, like an adult who wants a minor to write a ship with them in which child characters are aged up enough to be legal adults, isn't modified as has to happen when approaching fiction and other people as an adult. They might not even actually know what proshippers stand for. Instead of being taught legitimate boundaries and warning signs, let alone being properly watched out for by adults "allowed" to be in a fandom, they've been indoctrinated.

Like children who grew up believing that queer people were Against God, these people are parroting what they've been taught into young adulthood because they genuinely believe they're doing the right thing. It's very...we've taught the children the rallying cry of "think of the children!"

So, yeah, I think this is a primary way it has reached so much of the RPC, specifically, and that it's symptomatic of the whole problem of purity culture, right from where it begins to how it starts exhibiting to how it ends up being weaponized. I mean, have you seen many rabid purity police older than about twenty-five? Me either. Probably a reason for that.

How many times have you seen posts written by former, now older, antis who expressly lay out how they were, effectively, indoctrinated in this way? Every time I see them, I reblog them everywhere. Not because I think any present bad actors will listen, they won't until they're in the appropriate cognitive and emotional places to see anything but red and any other option than reblogging the post themselves to, by turns, refute, callout, or make fun of OP. No, I reblog them for everyone else's education or validation.

As an evil proshipper myself, I'm pretty vocal about ship-and-let-ship and write-whatever-you-want, but not this. This isn't just fiction, it's a real problem, it's purity culture. Period. And purity culture, again, is meant to limit by any means necessary, preferably, it seems, by bullying very real people.

I feel like, if you're uncomfortable with the way muns might use your memes or resources or uncomfortable with the muns themselves...you need to reassess having such a blog.

People have the right to like and dislike whatever they want, on any or no grounds, and to cultivate their space. If you don't like what someone is doing, you have every right to not interact with them. But when you have a blog designed to put out interaction material not with yourself but with other muns on their blogs, that's fucking ridiculous. I cannot put it any more politely, it's that ridiculous and immature.

As well as being astoundingly obtuse to not realize that what you're doing is asking demanding in offensive tones that RPers cultivate their dashes according to your wishes. You...literally aren't interacting with any nasty proshippers lmao they're interacting with each other. Yes, they're using material that you provided, but why are you providing any material meant to be widely spread and used when you're aware that you're putting it out to a huge community like this?

(Look, I have no problem whatsoever if, say, a fanartist draws a canon friendship that fandom ships and it bothers the artist, so, the image's post specifically states it isn't to be tagged as that ship. Alright, that sucks if I ship it, but it's your original artwork, I'm not going to tag it as that. It's fine. If you're nasty about it and call everyone shipping it something vile, then I'm not going to reblog it at all and will just block you so I don't accidentally encounter and spread your work. That's how it works! You don't have to like my ship, I don't have to like your attitude. But it's very different than spreading memes around, things legitimately meant for community consumption, most of which aren't even original material.)

Most of that material isn't even lascivious in nature, either, which says even more about this problematic shit. They're not saying that they don't wish proshippers to use their memes in order to write the offensive material (imagine that, it's usually sexual), they're saying that they don't want a proshipper to touch even a meme about how their muse feels about snow. Doesn't matter if they're writing the offending whatever, being proship is enough.

It's like the statement itself, and others like it.

A decently well-adjusted adult in their RP blog's rules: I need dubcon tagged or I can't interact with your blog.

A purity cultist, anywhere: I'm okay with everything, except nasty freak shit like -giant list here- stay the fuck off my blog proshippers!

Stating one's boundaries in their own space is something I highly recommend, it's the only way we can be respectful of each other. Honesty and having boundaries is necessary and good! Flying off the handle because something nebulously exists somewhere out there in fiction, is not any of those things. It's a boundary alright...the boundary where being a respectful, mature adult ends.

It's not necessary to state any of this the way it is. Every bit as wildly unnecessary as hyper-controlling your memes, or resources, because that's totally even possible in an environment where muns just hit reblog from the dash and never see your DNI.

I love it when it's an aesthetic blog. I want to ask them if they think reblogging this image of a tree in the fog they lifted from a google image search/pinterest (not problematic, apparently, to repost a real person's photography or artwork, only to have two or more fake people fornicate incorrectly) is somehow personally violating them because I believe that someone else out there can ship my NOTP.

Little bit ironic, as well, that they tend to drop and reblog the actual most PSA's about treating RP too seriously. Normalize fucking off on everyone, it's just RP, it's not real! Normalize deleting your entire inbox because you reblog twenty memes a day while only wanting them for your preferred ship, it's just RP, you're here to have fun! Normalize treating other muns like entertainment machines and calling them out for having a problem with that, it's not real, it's just RP! Gosh, you little sparklebean angels, it's not real, you haven't any right to experience a single positive or negative emotion related to RP, and most certainly not to spend more than minimal time or energy on your hobby!

Weird how justifying and validating ill-treatment of other real people is fine because it's just fiction, but that doesn't apply to letting people engage with and create fiction as they please like adults. It's almost as though the fiction isn't actually the foundation of either of these things. It cannot possibly be that both things have more to do with policing other people who do not fit one's preferences, or that both serve the purpose of mob rule.

So, no...no, my feelings on so many meme and/or resource blogs slapping that on their dashes, or right there on the memes themselves, are about as far from positive as I can get with anything that happens online. I think it's part of a large problem that has severe, lasting, negative impacts on the RPC in the same ways that it does fandom.

DNIs are a part of purity culture when they go beyond age restrictions, and I know that's an incredibly unpopular take, but it's my honest opinion. You don't need a list like that. No, not even to list out every possible iteration of homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. We all have that same DNI, it doesn't actually need to be said in your blog descriptions that you don't want a damn TERF or nazis interacting with your blog. And newsflash, it's not going to stop anyone, it serves no purpose whatsoever. It's only become an extra space to virtue signal, place a callout or three, and establish oneself as being invested in purity culture/insulate oneself from bullying by throwing one's hat into the hate ring.

If you're an RP blog, you really shouldn't have to list all that in your rules either. It shouldn't be assumed that if you simply make the statement that you don't tolerate any manner of hate on your dash, it means you support or are this checklist of horrible things. But, if you're going to, likely because you're afraid of not doing so, your rules are the place for it. Not an additional DNI.

If you're a resource, help, meme, or other such RP-adjacent, RPC-support blog putting things out there for the community to interact with, you have the additional responsibility of what you're putting out there with how you engage with others and present yourself. Having DNIs that align with callout/purity/policing culture is not helping this community. You are not representing anything good. Your responsibility is to state that you are a minor inappropriate blog if that is the case, what sort of memes/resources you post, the language you use, how you tag.

The end, no resting drama face needed from you.

[yona-n-d-happy-hungry-bunch]

Realised lately that fan wars, ship wars, country wars, any kind of wars in this world will never end.

You see there are sorts of people out there. Nice ones, bad ones, good people, awesome ones, and toxic ones, the sick in the head ones and considerate people. Everyone having their own opinions from their own experiences, teachings, etc etc. Its hard to find a single train of thought among all.

So what I want say is.. this manga or any other, any movie or a drama, we read/watch for entertainment. It's something not real. It's made up. A fiction. An imagination of the writer wants/sees the world to be. Since it's for entertainment, we should just enjoy. If we can't enjoy a particular manga, find something else and move on. Let's not force our ideologies on others. Everyone has their own opinion for their own reasons. Some read it for politics, some for the romance, some for humor, while others for the found family, while yet others for everything it the story has to give. So let's be and let's others be.

Life is too short to be fighting and clashing over something so silly. It's just an imaginary story people, written by someone, totally fictional. If we need to argue and fight, argue over something real. Something that matters. This is just so not worth it.!

Our ships might be different, so can be our boats and seas. That does not give us an excuse to force ourselves on others. That's just pathetic. Find and mingle with like minded people. If you're toxic, find equally toxic group. If you're nice, find nicer people. Let's not go around hurting others, mocking, looking down, fighting, clashing.

What are we? Some kind of internet thugs?? Sure thug sounds cool, but still let's not do it.

I, for one do not like my mood ruined by some random stranger over internet, who I don't know and probably will never know. So why bother?

I'm reflecting on myself too, for I, jumping on others bandwagon, made a post for fun. I mocked. I kindly deleted it, otherwise I'd be a hypocrite right?

Excuse me, English isn't my first language and my writing is sloppy. The words and sentences I chose are not as cool as a lot of people out here. And somewhere somehow while writing I probably sidetracked and wrote something else entirely. But I mean every little thing I wrote. As long as I can get my point across.

Looking back, I joined Tumblr for fun. I'm not a social media person. I don't use any. I carefully chose Tumblr, a place I can interact about my fictional and real world. I've been interacting with people here more by the day and it brings a smile to my face. It's my side comfort-fun place. I do not want such a place to be filled with negativity. Want to continue having fun daily with folks out here. I'd like everyone who is reading this, to do the same. In your own world, in your life, in your social media. Because life is too short. Do not come at me saying I'm forcing my thoughts on you. NO. It's like an invitation which you can gladly reject.

To all the people who get asks, messages that clash with your beliefs, with your ships and boats and seas, that disturb the peace of ur heart, JUST IGNORE IT. Turn a blind eye and continue to walk your way. Because it's not worth a dime.

This post could definitely irk some people. Like they say, you cannot please everyone.

Have a wonderful day 🌼

[shortnotsweet]

Bakudeku: A Non-Comprehensive Dissection of the Exploitation of Working Bodies, the Murder of Annoying Children, and a Rivals-to-Lovers Complex

I. Bakudeku in Canon, And Why Anti’s Need to Calm the Fuck Down

II. Power is Power: the Brain-Melting Process of Normalization and Toxic Masculinity

III. How to Kill Middle Schoolers, and Why We Should

IV. Parallels in Abuse, EnemiesRivals-to-Lovers, and the Necessity of Redemption ft. ATLA’s Zuko

V. Give it to Me Straight. It’s Homophobic.

VI. Love in Perspective, from the East v. West

VII. Stuck in the Sludge, the Past, and Season One

Disclaimer

It needs to be said that there is definitely a place for disagreement, discourse, debate, and analysis: that is a sign of an active fandom that’s heavily invested, and not inherently a bad thing at all. Considering the amount of source material we do have (from the manga, to the anime, to the movies, to the light novels, to the official art), there are going to be warring interpretations, and that’s inevitable.

I started watching and reading MHA pretty recently, and just got into the fandom. I was weary for a reason, and honestly, based on what I’ve seen, I’m still weary now. I’ve seen a lot of anti posts, and these are basically my thoughts. This entire thing is in no way comprehensive, and it’s my own opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. If I wanted to be thorough about this, I would’ve included manga panels, excerpts from the light novel, shots from the anime, links to other posts/essays/metas that have inspired this, etc. but I’m tired and not about that life right now, so, this is what it is. This is poorly organized, but maybe I’ll return to fix it.

Let’s begin.

Bakudeku in Canon, And Why Anti’s Need to Calm the Fuck Down

There are a lot of different reasons, that can be trivial as you like, to ship or not to ship two (or more) characters. It could be based purely off of character design, proximity, aversion to another ship, or hypotheticals. And I do think that it’s totally valid if someone dislikes the ship or can’t get on board with his character because to them, it does come across as abuse, and the implications make them uncomfortable or, or it just feels unhealthy. If that is your takeaway, and you are going to stick to your guns, the more power to you.

But Bakudeku’s relationship has canonically progressed to the point where it’s not the emotionally (or physically) abusive clusterfuck some people portray it to be, and it’s cheap to assume that it would be, based off of their characterizations as middle schoolers. Izuku intentionally opens the story as a naive little kid who views the lens of the Hero society through rose colored glasses and arguably wants nothing more than assimilation into that society; Bakugou is a privileged little snot who embodies the worst and most hypocritical beliefs of this system. Both of them are intentionally proven wrong. Both are brainwashed, as many little children are, by the propaganda and societal norms that they are exposed to. Both of their arcs include unlearning crucial aspects of the Hero ideology in order to become true heroes.

I will personally never simp for Bakugou because for the longest time, I couldn't help but think of him as a little kid on the playground screaming at the top of his lungs because someone else is on the swingset. He’s red in the face, there are probably veins popping out of his neck, he’s losing it. It’s easy to see why people would prefer Tododeku to Bakudeku.

Even now, seeing him differently, I still personally wouldn’t date Bakugou, especially if I had other options. Why? I probably wouldn’t want to date any of the guys who bullied me, especially because I think that schoolyard bullying, even in middle school, affected me largely in a negative way and created a lot of complexes I’m still trying to work through. I haven’t built a better relationship with them, and I’m not obligated to. Still, I associate them with the kind of soft trauma that they inflicted upon me, and while to them it was probably impersonal, to me, it was an intimate sort of attack that still affects me. That being said, that is me. Those are my personal experiences, and while they could undoubtedly influence how I interpret relationships, I do not want to project and hinder my own interpretation of Deku.

The reality is that Deku himself has an innate understanding of Bakugou that no one else does; I mention later that he seems to understand his language, implicitly, and I do stand by that. He understands what it is he’s actually trying to say, often why he’s saying it, and while others may see him as wimpy or unable to stand up for himself, that’s simply not true. Part of Deku’s characterization is that he is uncommonly observant and empathetic; I’m not denying that Bakugou caused harm or inflicted damage, but infantilizing Deku and preaching about trauma that’s not backed by canon and then assuming random people online excuse abuse is just...the leap of leaps, and an actual toxic thing to do. I’ve read fan works where Bakugou is a bully, and that’s all, and has caused an intimate degree of emotional, mental, and physical insecurity from their middle school years that prevents their relationship from changing, and that’s for the better. I’m not going to argue and say that it’s not an interesting take, or not valid, or has no basis, because it does. Its basis is the character that Bakugou was in middle school, and the person he was when he entered UA.

Not only is Bakugou — the current Bakugou, the one who has accumulated memories and experiences and development — not the same person he was at the beginning of the story, but Deku is not the same person, either. Maybe who they are fundamentally, at their core, stays the same, but at the beginning and end of any story, or even their arcs within the story, the point is that characters will undergo change, and that the reader will gain perspective.

“You wanna be a hero so bad? I’ve got a time-saving idea for you. If you think you’ll have a quirk in your next life...go take a swan dive off the roof!”

Yes. That is a horrible thing to tell someone, even if you are a child, even if you don’t understand the implications, even if you don’t mean what it is you are saying. Had someone told me that in middle school, especially given our history and the context of our interactions, I don’t know if I would ever have forgiven them.

Here’s the thing: I’m not Deku. Neither is anyone reading this. Deku is a fictional character, and everyone we know about him is extrapolated from source material, and his response to this event follows:

“Idiot! If I really jumped, you’d be charged with bullying me into suicide! Think before you speak!”

I think it’s unfair to apply our own projections as a universal rather than an interpersonal interpretation; that’s not to say that the interpretation of Bakudeku being abusive or having unbalanced power dynamics isn’t valid, or unfounded, but rather it’s not a universal interpretation, and it’s not canon. Deku is much more of a verbal thinker; in comparison, Bakugou is a visual one, at least in the format of the manga, and as such, we get various panels demonstrating his guilt, and how deep it runs. His dialogue and rapport with Deku has undeniably shifted, and it’s very clear that the way they treat each other has changed from when they were younger. Part of Bakugou’s growth is him gaining self awareness, and eventually, the strength to wield that. He knows what a fucked up little kid he was, and he carries the weight of that.

“At that moment, there were no thoughts in my head. My body just moved on its own.”

There’s a part of me that really, really disliked Bakugou going into it, partially because of what I’d seen and what I’d heard from a limited, outside perspective. I felt like Bakugou embodied the toxic masculinity (and to an extent, I still believe that) and if he won in some way, that felt like the patriarchy winning, so I couldn't help but want to muzzle and leash him before releasing him into the wild.

The reality, however, of his character in canon is that it isn’t very accurate to assume that he would be an abusive partner in the future, or that Midoryia has not forgiven him to some extent already, that the two do not care about each other or are singularly important, that they respect each other, or that the narrative has forgotten any of this.

Don’t mistake me for a Bakugou simp or apologist. I’m not, but while I definitely could also see Tododeku (and I have a soft spot for them, too, their dynamic is totally different and unique, and Todoroki is arguably treated as the tritagonist) and I’m ambivalent about Izuocha (which is written as cannoncially romantic) I do believe that canonically, Bakugou and Deku are framed as soulmates/character foils, Sasuke + Naruto, Kageyama + Hinata style. Their relationship is arguably the focus of the series. That’s not to undermine the importance or impact of Deku’s relationships with other characters, and theirs with him, but in terms of which one takes priority, and which one this all hinges on?

The manga is about a lot of things, yes, but if it were to be distilled into one relationship, buckle up, because it’s the Bakudeku show.

Power is Power: the Brain-Melting Process of Normalization and Toxic Masculinity

One of the ways in which the biopolitical prioritization of Quirks is exemplified within Hero society is through Quirk marriages. Endeavor partially rationalizes the abuse of his family through the creation of a child with the perfect quirk, a child who can be molded into the perfect Hero. People with powerful, or useful abilities, are ranked high on the hierarchy of power and privilege, and with a powerful ability, the more opportunities and avenues for success are available to them.

For the most part, Bakugou is a super spoiled, privileged little rich kid who is born talented but is enabled for his aggressive behavior and, as a child, cannot move past his many internalized complexes, treats his peers like shit, and gets away with it because the hero society he lives in either has this “boys will be boys” mentality, or it’s an example of the way that power, or Power, is systematically prioritized in this society. The hero system enables and fosters abusers, people who want power and publicity, and people who are genetically predisposed to have advantages over others. There are plenty of good people who believe in and participate in this system, who want to be good, and who do good, but that doesn’t change the way that the hero society is structured, the ethical ambiguity of the Hero Commission, and the way that Heroes are but pawns, idols with machine guns, used to sell merch to the public, to install faith in the government, or the current status quo, and reinforce capitalist propaganda. Even All Might, the epitome of everything a Hero should be, is drained over the years, and exists as a concept or idea, when in reality he is a hollow shell with an entire person inside, struggling to survive. Hero society is functionally dependent on illusion.

In Marxist terms: There is no truth, there is only power.

Although Bakugou does change, and I think that while he regrets his actions, what is long overdue is him verbally expressing his remorse, both to himself and Deku. One might argue that he’s tried to do it in ways that are compatible with his limited emotional range of expression, and Deku seems to understand this language implicitly.

I am of the opinion that the narrative is building up to a verbal acknowledgement, confrontation, and subsequent apology that only speaks what has gone unspoken.

That being said, Bakugou is a great example of the way that figures of authority (parents, teachers, adults) and institutions both in the real world and this fictional universe reward violent behavior while also leaving mental and emotional health — both his own and of the people Bakugou hurts — unchecked, and part of the way he lashes out at others is because he was never taught otherwise.

And by that, I’m referring to the ways that are to me, genuinely disturbing. For example, yelling at his friends is chill. But telling someone to kill themselves, even casually and without intent and then misinterpreting everything they do as a ploy to make you feel weak because you're projecting? And having no teachers stop and intervene, either because they are afraid of you or because they value the weight that your Quirk can benefit society over the safety of children? That, to me, is both real and disturbing.

Not only that, but his parents (at least, Mitsuki), respond to his outbursts with more outbursts, and while this is likely the culture of their home and I hesitate to call it abusive, I do think that it contributed to the way that he approaches things. Bakugou as a character is very complex, but I think that he is primarily an example of the way that the Hero System fails people.

I don’t think we can write off the things he’s done, especially using the line of reasoning that “He didn’t mean it that way”, because in real life, children who hurt others rarely mean it like that either, but that doesn’t change the effect it has on the people who are victimized, but to be absolutely fair, I don’t think that the majority of Bakudeku shippers, at least now, do use that line of reasoning. Most of them seem to have a handle on exactly how fucked up the Hero society is, and exactly why it fucks up the people embedded within that society.

The characters are positioned in this way for a reason, and the discoveries made and the development that these characters undergo are meant to reveal more about the fictional world — and, perhaps, our world — as the narrative progresses.

The world of the Hero society is dependent, to some degree, on biopolitics. I don’t think we have enough evidence to suggest that people with Quirks or Quirkless people place enough identity or placement within society to become equivalent to marginalized groups, exactly, but we can draw parallels to the way that Deku and by extent Quirkless people are viewed as weak, a deviation, or disabled in some way. Deviants, or non-productive bodies, are shunned for their inability to perform ideal labor. While it is suggested to Deku that he could become a police officer or pursue some other occupation to help people, he believes that he can do the most positive good as a Hero. In order to be a Hero, however, in the sense of a career, one needs to have Power.

Deviation from the norm will be punished or policed unless it is exploitable; in order to become integrated into society, a deviant must undergo a process of normalization and become a working, exploitable body. It is only through gaining power from All Might that Deku is allowed to assimilate from the margins and into the upper ranks of society; the manga and the anime give the reader enough perspective, context, and examples to allow us to critique and deconstruct the society that is solely reliant on power.

Through his societal privileges, interpersonal biases, internalized complexes, and his subsequent unlearning of these ideologies, Bakugou provides examples of the way that the system simultaneously fails and indoctrinates those who are targeted, neglected, enabled by, believe in, and participate within the system.

Bakudeku are two sides of the same coin. We are shown visually that the crucial turning point and fracture in their relationship is when Bakugou refuses to take Deku’s outstretched hand; the idea of Deku offering him help messes with his adolescent perspective in that Power creates a hierarchy that must be obeyed, and to be helped is to be weak is to be made a loser.

Largely, their character flaws in terms of understanding the hero society are defined and entangled within the concept of power. Bakugou has power, or privilege, but does not have the moral character to use it as a hero, and believes that Power, or winning, is the only way in which to view life. Izuku has a much better grasp on the way in which heroes wield power (their ideologies can, at first, be differentiated as winning vs. saving), and is a worthy successor because of this understanding, and of circumstance. However, in order to become a Hero, our hero must first gain the Power that he lacks, and learn to wield it.

As the characters change, they bridge the gaps of their character deficiencies, and are brought closer together through character parallelism.

Two sides of the same coin, an outstretched hand.

They are better together.

How to Kill Middle Schoolers, and Why We Should

I think it’s fitting that in the manga, a critical part of Bakugou’s arc explicitly alludes to killing the middle school version of himself in order to progress into a young adult. In the alternative covers Horikoshi released, one of them was a close up of Bakugou in his middle school uniform, being stabbed/impaled, with blood rolling out of his mouth. Clearly this references the scene in which he sacrifices himself to save Deku, on a near-instinctual level.

To me, this only cements Horikoshi’s intent that middle school Bakugou must be debunked, killed, discarded, or destroyed in order for Bakugou the hero to emerge, which is why people who do actually excuse his actions or believe that those actions define him into young adulthood don’t really understand the necessity for change, because they seem to imply that he doesn’t need/cannot reach further growth, and there doesn’t need to be a separation between the Bakugou who is, at heart, volatile and repressed the angry, and the Bakugou who sacrifices himself, a hero who saves people.

Plot twist: there does need to be a difference. Further plot twist: there is a difference.

In sacrificing himself for Deku, Bakugou himself doesn't die, but the injury is fatal in the sense that it could've killed him physically and yet symbolizes the selfish, childish part of him that refused to accept Deku, himself, and the inevitability of change. In killing those selfish remnants, he could actually become the kind of hero that we the reader understand to be the true kind.

That’s why I think that a lot of the people who stress his actions as a child without acknowledging the ways he has changed, grown, and tried to fix what he has broken don’t really get it, because it was always part of his character arc to change and purposely become something different and better. If the effects of his worst and his most childish self stick with you more, and linger despite that, that’s okay. But distilling his character down to the wrong elements doesn’t get you the bare essentials; what it gets you is a skewed and shallow version of a person. If you’re okay with that version, that is also fine.

But you can’t condemn others who aren’t fine with that incomplete version, and to become enraged that others do not see him as you do is childish.

Bakugou’s change and the emphasis on that change is canon.

Parallels in Abuse, EnemiesRivals-to-Lovers, and the Necessity of Redemption ft. ATLA’s Zuko

In real life, the idea that “oh, he must bully you because he likes you” is often used as a way to brush aside or to excuse the action of bullying itself, as if a ‘secret crush’ somehow negates the effects of bullying on the victim or the inability of the bully to properly process and manifest their emotions in certain ways. It doesn’t. It often enables young boys to hurt others, and provides figures of authority to overlook the real source of schoolyard bullying or peer review. The “secret crush”, in real life, is used to undermine abuse, justify toxic masculinity, and is essentially used as a non-solution solution.

A common accusation is that Bakudeku shippers jump on the pairing because they romanticize pairing a bully and a victim together, or believe that the only way for Bakugou to atone for his past would be to date Midoryia in the future. This may be true for some people, in which case, that’s their own preference, but based on my experience and what I’ve witnessed, that’s not the case for most.

The difference being is that as these are characters, we as readers or viewers are meant to analyze them. Not to justify them, or to excuse their actions, but we are given the advantage of the outsider perspective to piece their characters together in context, understand why they are how they are, and witness them change; maybe I just haven’t been exposed to enough of the fandom, but no one (I’ve witnessed) treats the idea that “maybe Bakugou has feelings he can’t process or understand and so they manifest in aggressive and unchecked ways'' as a solution to his inability to communicate or process in a healthy way, rather it is just part of the explanation of his character, something is needs to — and is — working through. The solution to his middle school self is not the revelation of a “teehee, secret crush”, but self-reflection, remorse, and actively working to better oneself, which I do believe is canonically reflected, especially as of recently.

In canon, they are written to be partners, better together than apart, and I genuinely believe that one can like the Bakudeku dynamic not by route of romanticization but by observation.

I do think we are meant to see parallels between him and Endeavor; Endeavor is a high profile abuser who embodies the flaws and hypocrisy of the hero system. Bakugou is a schoolyard bully who emulates and internalizes the flaws of this system as a child, likely due to the structure of the society and the way that children will absorb the propaganda they are exposed to; the idea that Quirks, or power, define the inherent value of the individual, their ability to contribute to society, and subsequently their fundamental human worth. The difference between them is the fact that Endeavor is the literal adult who is fully and knowingly active within a toxic, corrupt system who forces his family to undergo a terrifying amount of trauma and abuse while facing little to no consequences because he knows that his status and the values of their society will protect him from those consequences. In other words, Endeavor is the threat of what Bakugou could have, and would have, become without intervention or genuine change.

Comparisons between characters, as parallels or foils, are tricky in that they imply but cannot confirm sameness. Having parallels with someone does not make them the same, by the way, but can serve to illustrate contrasts, or warnings. Harry Potter, for example, is meant to have obvious parallels with Tom Riddle, with similar abilities, and tragic upbringings. That doesn’t mean Harry grows up to become Lord Voldemort, but rather he helps lead a cross-generational movement to overthrow the facist regime. Harry is offered love, compassion, and friends, and does not embrace the darkness within or around him. As far as moldy old snake men are concerned, they do not deserve a redemption arc because they do not wish for one, and the truest of change only occurs when you actively try to change.

To be frank, either way, Bakugou was probably going to become a good Hero, in the sense that Endeavor is a ‘good’ Hero. Hero capitalized, as in a pro Hero, in the sense that it is a career, an occupation, and a status. Because of his strong Quirk, determination, skill, and work ethic, Bakugou would have made a good Hero. Due to his lack of character, however, he was not on the path to become a hero; defender of the weak, someone who saves people to save people, who is willing to make sacrifices detrimental to themselves, who saves people out of love.

It is necessary for him to undergo both a redemption arc and a symbolic death and rebirth in order for him to follow the path of a hero, having been inspired and prompted by Deku.

I personally don’t really like Endeavor’s little redemption arc, not because I don’t believe that people can change or that they shouldn't at least try to atone for the atrocities they have committed, but because within any narrative, a good redemption arc is important if it matters; what also matters is the context of that arc, and whether or not it was needed. For example, in ATLA, Zuko’s redemption arc is widely regarded as one of the best arcs in television history, something incredible. And it is. That shit fucks. In a good way.

It was confirmed that Azula was also going to get a redemption arc, had Volume 4 gone on as planned, and it was tentatively approached in the comics, which are considered canon. She is an undeniably bad person (who is willing to kill, threaten, exploit, and colonize), but she is also a child, and as viewers, we witness and recognize the factors that contributed to her (debatable) sociopathy, and the way that the system she was raised in failed her. Her family failed her; even Uncle Iroh, the wise mentor who helps guide Zuko to see the light, is willing to give up on her immediately, saying that she’s “crazy” and needs to be “put down”. Yes, it’s comedic, and yes, it’s pragmatic, but Azula is fourteen years old. Her mother is banished, her father is a psychopath, and her older brother, from her perspective, betrayed and abandoned her. She doesn’t have the emotional support that Zuko does; she exploits and controls her friends because it’s all she’s been taught to do; she says herself, her “own mother thought [she] was a monster; she was right, of course, but it still [hurts]”. A parent who does not believe in you, or a parent that uses you and will hurt you, is a genuine indicator of trauma.

The writers understood that both Zuko and Azula deserved redemption arcs. One was arguably further gone than the other, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are both children, products of their environment, who have the time, motive, and reason to change.

In contrast, you know who wouldn’t have deserved a redemption arc? Ozai. That simply would not have been interesting, wouldn’t have served the narrative well, and honestly, is not needed, thematically or otherwise. Am I comparing Ozai to Endeavor? Basically, yes. Fuck those guys. I don’t see a point in Endeavor’s little “I want to be a good dad now” arc, and I think that we don’t need to sympathize with characters in order to understand them or be interested in them. I want Touya/Dabi to expose his abuse, for his career to crumble, and then for him to die.

If they are not challenging the system that we the viewer are meant to question, and there is no thematic relevance to their redemption, is it even needed?

On that note, am I saying that Bakugou is the equivalent to Zuko? No, lmao. Definitely not. They are different characters with different progressions and different pressures. What I am saying is that good redemption arcs shouldn’t be handed out like candy to babies; it is the quality, rather than the quantity, that makes a redemption arc good. In terms of the commentary of the narrative, who needs a redemption arc, who is deserving, and who does it make sense to give one to?

In this case, Bakugou checks those boxes. It was always in the cards for him to change, and he has. In fact, he’s still changing.

Give it to Me Straight. It’s Homophobic.

There does seem to be an urge to obsessively gender either Bakugou or Deku, in making Deku the ultra-feminine, stereotypically hyper-sexualized “woman” of the relationship, with Bakugou becoming similarly sexualized but depicted as the hyper-masculine bodice ripper. On some level, that feels vaguely homophobic if not straight up misogynistic, in that in a gay relationship there’s an urge to compel them to conform under heteronormative stereotypes in order to be interpreted as real or functional. On one hand, I will say that in a lot of cases it feels like more of an expression of a kink, or fetishization and subsequent expression of internalized misogyny, at least, rather than a genuine exploration of the complexity and power imbalances of gender dynamics, expression, and boundaries.

That being said, I don’t think that that problematic aspect of shipping is unique to Bakudeku, or even to the fandom in general. We’ve all read fan work or see fanart of most gay ships in a similiar manner, and I think it’s a broader issue to be addressed than blaming it on a singular ship and calling it a day.

One interpretation of Bakugou’s character is his repression and the way his character functions under toxic masculinity, in a society’s egregious disregard for mental and emotional health (much like in the real world), the horrifying ways in which rage is rationalized or excused due to the concept of masculinity, and the way that characteristics that are associated with femininity — intellect, empathy, anxiety, kindness, hesitation, softness — are seen as stereotypically “weak”, and in men, traditionally emasculating. In terms of the way that the fictional universe is largely about societal priority and power dynamics between individuals and the way that extends to institutions, it’s not a total stretch to guess that gender as a construct is a relevant topic to expand on or at least keep in mind for comparison.

I think that the way in which characters are gendered and the extent to which that is a result of invasive heteronormativity and fetishization is a really important conversation to have, but using it as a case-by-case evolution of a ship used to condemn people isn’t conductive, and at that point, it’s treated as less of a real concern but an issue narrowly weaponised.

Love in Perspective, from the East v. West

Another thing I think could be elaborated on and written about in great detail is the way that the Eastern part of the fandom and the Western part of the fandom have such different perspectives on Bakudeku in particular. I am not going to go in depth with this, and there are many other people who could go into specifics, but just as an overview:

The manga and the anime are created for and targeted at a certain audience; our take on it will differ based on cultural norms, decisions in translation, understanding of the genre, and our own region-specific socialization. This includes the way in which we interpret certain relationships, the way they resonate with us, and what we do and do not find to be acceptable. Of course, this is not a case-by-case basis, and I’m sure there are plenty of people who hold differing beliefs within one area, but speaking generally, there is a reason that Bakudeku is not regarded as nearly as problematic in the East.

Had this been written by a Western creator, marketed primarily to and within the West (for reference, while I am Chinese, but I have lived in the USA for most of my life, so my own perspective is undoubtedly westernized), I would’ve immediately jumped to make comparisons between the Hero System and the American police system, in that a corrupt, or bastardized system is made no less corrupt for the people who do legitimately want to do good and help people, when that system disproportionately values and targets others while relying on propaganda that society must be reliant on that system in order to create safe communities when in reality it perpetuates just as many issues as it appears to solve, not to mention the way it attracts and rewards violent and power-hungry people who are enabled to abuse their power. I think comparisons can still be made, but in terms of analysis, it should be kept in mind that the police system in other parts of the world do not have the same history, place, and context as it does in America, and the police system in Japan, for example, probably wasn’t the basis for the Hero System.

As much as I do believe in the Death of the Author in most cases, the intent of the author does matter when it comes to content like this, if merely on the basis that it provides context that we may be missing as foreign viewers.

As far as the intent of the author goes, Bakugou is on a route of redemption.

He deserves it. It is unavoidable. That, of course, may depend on where you’re reading this.

Stuck in the Sludge, the Past, and Season One

If there’s one thing, to me, that epitomizes middle school Bakugou, it’s him being trapped in a sludge monster, rescued by his Quirkless childhood friend, and unable to believe his eyes. He clings to the ideology he always has, that Quirkless means weak, that there’s no way that Deku could have grown to be strong, or had the capacity to be strong all along. Bakugou is wrong about this, and continuously proven wrong. It is only when he accepts that he is wrong, and that Deku is someone to follow, that he starts his real path to heroics.

If Bakudeku’s relationship does not appeal to someone for whatever reason, there’s nothing wrong with that. They can write all they want about why they don’t ship it, or why it bothers them, or why they think it’s problematic. If it is legitimately triggering to you, then by all means, avoid it, point it out, etc. but do not undermine the reality of abuse simply to point fingers, just because you don’t like a ship. People who intentionally use the anti tag knowing it’ll show up in the main tag, go after people who are literally minding their own business, and accuse people of supporting abuse are the ones looking for a fight, and they’re annoying as hell because they don’t bring anything to the table. No evidence, no analysis, just repeated projection.

To clarify, I’m referring to a specific kind of shipper, not someone who just doesn’t like a ship, but who is so aggressive about it for absolutely no reason. There are plenty of very lovely people in this fandom, who mind their own business, multipship, or just don’t care.

Calling shippers dumb or braindead or toxic (to clarify, this isn’t targeting any one person I’ve seen, but a collective) based on projections and generalizations that come entirely from your own impression of the ship rather than observation is...really biased to me, and comes across as uneducated and trigger happy, rather than constructive or helpful in any way.

I’m not saying someone has to ship anything, or like it, in order to be a ‘good’ participant. But inserting derogatory material into a main tag, and dropping buzzwords with the same tired backing behind it without seeming to understand the implications of those words or acknowledging the development, pacing, and intentional change to the characters within the plot is just...I don’t know, it comes across as redundant, to me at least, and very childish. Aggressive. Toxic. Problematic. Maybe the real toxic shippers were the ones who bitched and moaned along the way. They’re like little kids, stuck in the past, unable to visualize or recognize change, and I think that’s a real shame because it’s preventing them from appreciating the story or its characters as it is, in canon.

But that’s okay, really. To each their own. Interpretations will vary, preferences differ, perspectives are not uniform. There is no one truth. There are five seasons of the show, a feature film, and like, thirty volumes as of this year.

All I’m saying is that if you want to stay stuck in the first season of each character, then that’s what you’re going to get. That’s up to you.

This may be edited or revised.

[ouyangzizhensdad]

What does death of the author mean?

Hi anon,

It is important at first to understand that theories, of any kind, are emergent: they exist within an ecosystem of existing traditions of thoughts. Barthes' essay Death of the Author was a critique to the dominant literary theories of his time (which he calls 'classical'), which focused generally on retracing on both anchoring literary analysis in the identity and life history of the figure of the author (l'Auteur).

The author is a modern figure, produced no doubt by our society insofar as, at the end of the middle ages, with English empiricism, French rationalism and the personal faith of the Reformation, it discovered the prestige of the individual, or, to put it more nobly, of the "human person". Hence it is logical that with regard to literature it should be positivism, resume and the result of capitalist ideology, which has accorded the greatest importance to the author's "person". The author still rules in manuals of literary history, in biographies of writers, in magazine interviews, and even in the awareness of literary men, anxious to unite, by their private journals, their person and their work; the image of literature to be found in contemporary culture is tyrannically centered on the author, his person, his history, his tastes, his passions; criticism still consists, most of the time, in saying that Baudelaire's work is the failure of the man Baudelaire, Van Gogh's work his madness, Tchaikovsky's his vice: the explanation of the work is always sought in the man who has produced it, as if, through the more or less transparent allegory of fiction, it was always finally the voice of one and the same person, the author, which delivered his "confidence."

Barthes' essay is primarily on the process of interpretation, and how meaning is produced out of a text--it's about semiotics, in a larger sense. For him, analysis should only be rooted in the text.

for Mallarme, as for us, it is language which speaks, not the author: to write is to reach, through a preexisting impersonality — never to be confused with the castrating objectivity of the realistic novelist — that point where language alone acts, "performs," and not "oneself":Mallarme's entire poetics consists in suppressing the author for the sake of the writing

His essay is rooted in views of interpretation/semiotics that were dominant or emerging in other fields, like linguistics.

Finally, outside of literature itself (actually, these distinctions are being superseded), linguistics has just furnished the destruction of the Author with a precious analytic instrument by showing that utterance in its entirety is a void process, which functions perfectly without requiring to be filled by the person of the interlocutors: linguistically, the author is never anything more than the man who writes, just as I is no more than the man who says I: language knows a "subject," not a "person," end this subject, void outside of the very utterance which defines it, suffices to make language "work," that is, to exhaust it.

It is to be noted that the views of interpretation/semiotics that Barthes drew from have since received a lot of criticism. The whole field of sociolinguistics would likely not agree with the statement above: in reality, the identity of the speaker often plays an integral part in the process of interpretation when it comes to language (I cannot say if it still holds true, but a few years ago explorations of embodiement were all the rage in sociolinguistics for that very reason).

Barthes considers that the author is incapable of dictating meaning because the utterance which defines itself by itself is however constantly prone to shifting, and considers that the author is only a repository of signs that he mixes on the page but which he cannot fix.

We know that a text does not consist of a line of words, releasing a single "theological" meaning (the "message" of the Author-God), but is a space of many dimensions, in which are wedded and contested various kinds of writing, no one of which is original: the text is a tissue of citations, resulting from the thousand sources of culture [...] his only power is to combine the different kinds of writing, to oppose some by others, so as never to sustain himself by just one of them [...] the writer no longer contains within himself passions, humors, sentiments, impressions, but that enormous dictionary, from which he derives a writing which can know no end or halt

We cannot "close" the meaning of the text, something that focusing entirely on the auteur and authorial intent tries to achieve, Barthes argues. The text does not have a final signification, which can be deciphered or discovered through the author. Meaning is more fluid than that. Instead, "the true locus of writing is reading" and it is the Reader who determines meaning, not the author:

In this way is revealed the whole being of writing: a text consists of multiple writings, issuing from several cultures and entering into dialogue with each other, into parody, into contestation; but there is one place where this multiplicity is collected, united, and this place is not the author, as we have hitherto said it was, but the reader: the reader is the very space in which are inscribed, without any being lost, all the citations a writing consists of; the unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination; but this destination can no longer be personal: the reader is a man without history, without biography, without psychology; he is only that someone who holds gathered into a single field all the paths of which the text is constituted.

As you can see, Death of the Author has nothing to do and has never had anything to do with trying to rescue single texts from 'problematic' authors, especially when decisions on what makes the author problematic is what people have found in the text itself. It certainly doesn't mean that you can decide to change the text itself to fit what you want as a Reader. It does not support the idea that the text 'belongs' to the reader in terms of ownership but rather in terms of interpretation. Barthes is not saying 'the reader can decide what the text means' but that the reader creates meaning by the very act of reading. As well, it is not about the identity of the author, because for Barthes it is impossible to locate the 'voice' behind the utterance (which makes his essay sort of antithetical with the current OwnVoice philosophy). Barthes even denies that the reader has an identity that is relevant! It is about the text, the utterances therein, and the reader who makes meaning out of them in relation of multiplicity of meanings.

Death of the Author is also not, as some people on social media seem to suggest, a final view on how to do literary analysis/criticism. It is a theory that emerged out of a specific context, both inside and outside of literary analysis, more than 50 years ago. I personally find that my boy Bakhtin did a more insightful job of exploring interpretation and the fluidity of meaning-making through language in literature. I can only disagree with a description of an interpretative process that considers that "the reader is a man without history, without biography, without psychology". I mean, I'm sure the same people who use Death of the Author would find Barthes problematic because the author is a Man, the reader is a Man, and in the essay at one point modern societies are being contrasted with 'sociétés ethnographiques' (translated as 'primitive societies'), etc.

NB: You can find the pdf, in English or in the original French, easily on google, and short summaries of the essays and its impact on literary analysis.