#without using the writer's (assumed) identity to prop up your arguments

[anneapocalypse]

So, just curious how many writers and creators will have to be forcibly outed by relentless harassment before we acknowledge that "This queer characters was written by a cishet person and that's why they're bad" is not good criticism.

[the-blue-fairie]

An Extremely Personal Look at my Disconnect with Frozen 2

I’m trans and I’ve been closeted for so long that being in the closet has begun to feel like a futile routine, an inescapability born of my own weakness.

That’s... not how a post about a Disney film usually starts, is it?

But, like the title of my post says, this reflection is personal. I’m allowing myself to be vulnerable.

Because of my life experience, I’ve connected deeply with the character of Elsa over the years. I suppose that’s not a surprise. Elsa’s powers can serve as a broad metaphor for aspects of someone’s identity that others can stigmatize - whether that be read as gender, sexuality, anxiety, or depression. Part of the reason Elsa became so incredibly popular in the first film is because her struggle with her powers could reflect so many various people’s struggles with their own identities.

Frozen 2 actually leans into that broad metaphor of Elsa’s powers reflecting personal identity - a part of oneself that is unique but beautiful in its uniqueness. The lyrics of Show Yourself reinforce this, telling Elsa that “you are the one you’ve been waiting for all of your life.” So I should love Frozen 2. I want to love Frozen 2. There are things I absolutely do love about Frozen 2.

But I have a complicated disconnect with the way the film approaches the origin of Elsa’s powers.

 The film makes Elsa’s powers a gift from the spirits - and also suggests that they are a gift for Iduna because she saved Agnarr’s life. By introducing the idea that Elsa’s powers originate not because of anything to do with Elsa herself but because of an event that happened before Elsa was even born, the film kind of undermines the metaphor of Elsa’s powers reflecting a key aspect of her identity.

Identity doesn’t work like that. I’m not trans because of other people’s actions. My trans-ness is a part of me. It comes from me. It wasn’t decided that I was trans so that my mother could have a “reward” for her own righteousness. If some divinity did bestow my trans-ness upon me, I would be disturbed to find out if they didn't do it for my sake - if they did it because my mother did something and I was only an aspect of the equation insomuch as I related to her...

To me, that thought isn’t empowering. And it still wouldn’t be empowering even if my mother were as loving as Iduna - because it would tell me that I’m only a vessel...

There’s a difference between saying, “Elsa is a gift because Iduna’s good deed was rewarded with her,” and saying, “Elsa is a gift simply because she is who she is, Elsa is a gift by simply existing.” One is conditional and one is unconditional. One uses Elsa to prop up Iduna’s actions and the other loves Elsa for herself.

(Also, I’d argue that a better gift for Iduna’s goodness would be to let her see her family again. Why cut the Northuldra off from the world when the fault was solely Arendelle’s? I’ve seen some people speculate that Arendelle could have wiped the Northuldra out after Runeard’s death and the mist protects them, but what does that reading make us think of Agnarr if we assume he could be complicit in genocide? Why “protect” the Northuldra in a way that will negatively psychologically impact a generation of them? Why let them suffer? No, that rationale doesn’t make sense to me. The whole mist scenario smacks of the “both-sides-ism” of white writers - but that’s a discussion for another time, a discussion I’m not really qualified to comment on in depth. I need to return to Elsa.)  

The interesting thing is, after introducing the concept that the spirits gifted Elsa’s powers to celebrate Iduna’s nobility, the film doesn’t really bring up that angle again. Instead, it tries to frame “we made you a gift for someone else’s sake in a scenario where your individual identity is irrelevant because you did not even yet have a consciousness” and “you are a gift by being you” as being the same thing. But those two things are not the same.

Before F2, Elsa continually frames herself based on what she can do for the sake of others - even at the expense of herself. Clearly, with Frozen 2, the filmmakers wanted to have Elsa come into fuller self-acceptance and love herself for being herself - but that isn’t quite what they wrote. By making Elsa a reward for her mother and defining her powers based only on how Elsa relates to her, the film itself frames Elsa based on what she can be for the sake of others - while disregarding Elsa’s own selfhood and identity. Elsa’s self-identity is so immaterial to the decision to give her powers that it happens before she is even born.

I know the film may not have intended this, but it ends up validating Elsa’s negative thought processes in the act of nominally ‘refuting’ them. All because of those few lines trying to explain why Elsa has powers.

Show Yourself tries to fix this by basically brushing aside the “you were a gift from the spirits for Iduna’s actions” revelation and focusing on Iduna and Elsa’s familial connection and love. This is why Show Yourself is so much more amazing than the earlier revelation and an admittedly breathtaking scene. The focus becomes “you are the one you’ve been waiting for all of your life” - you are a gift to the world simply by being you - and that is so much better than the earlier revelation, but the damage of the earlier revelation has already been done.

Now, the film has two slightly different interpretations of the word “gift” that it tries to use interchangeably - in spite of the fact those two interpretations subtly contradict. The film never comes back to the “gift for Iduna’s good deed” element. It doesn’t establish that what happens in Ahtohallan is an expansion of that or an emendation to that. It doesn’t address the dubious implications of it. It just brushes it aside, never to explore it again.

Indeed, as I’ve said in other posts, if you take out those few lines from earlier, you lose the internal narrative contradiction and the film actually becomes stronger.

So why are they there at all?

I think they’re there because they give a seemingly simple, external explanation for why Elsa has powers. Show Yourself is more focused on what being at peace with yourself means to Elsa emotionally (that’s why it’s better, in my opinion), but the “the spirits gave her powers because of her mother” lines are there because the writers felt they needed to give a direct explanation of Elsa’s magic.

Here’s a hot take, though: Elsa’s powers work better without an explanation. The fact she was just “born with them” in the first film was part of what led to her broad appeal. It allowed countless people to latch onto her because - people who society deems “other?” We’re just people. We’re ordinary. We’re human. We just are. The first film understood this - and for all of Elsa’s magical abilities, she was allowed to just be. And the lack of any lore surrounding Elsa’s powers meant that scores of different people could identify with Elsa. Her powers were vague enough that they could stand in for any unique aspect of an individual’s identity. The point wasn’t where they came from; the point was what they meant.

But after the first film came out, I kept seeing the refrain: “Why do they never explain Elsa’s powers? That’s a plot hole.” it isn’t a plot hole. It isn’t a plot hole any more than not explaining how the Wicked Queen in Snow White got a magic mirror is a plot hole. Something being unexplained isn’t a plot hole. That’s not what “plot hole” means. But I can understand why the writers, after hearing things like that for years, felt like they had to address that explanation.

And in doing so, they tried admirably to connect that plot point to an internal journey for Elsa - and created some absolutely beautiful elements within the film - like Show Yourself. Although, in this post, I’m documenting flaws I see in Frozen 2 and my own disconnect with it, I want to stress that I respect the artists and creatives who brought the film into being and I value their work.

In the process of their efforts, however, they inadvertently opened up internal contradictions within their own narrative; opened up unfortunate implications when it came to their commentary on colonization; and opened up unfortunate implications when it came to their discussions of individuality and identity.

As I have said, there is much I admire about Frozen 2. And I know that my words here come from a very personal place. If Elsa’s arc in Frozen 2 works for you, you’re valid. This isn’t a takedown of Frozen 2. None of my more critical posts about Frozen 2 are. I don’t want to take anything away from you. You’re valid.

It’s just that my perspective is valid too. I know, there are scores of critiques of Frozen 2 and some of them are absolutely terrible or just plain racist, but I hope that as you read this, you’ll understand that my perspective comes from the heart and that I’ve done my best to support it with examples from the text of the film. I hope that you’ll read this. I’m writing it to be heard - because I feel like my perspective gets drowned out a lot, regardless of the posts I make. Flashier positive posts draw one part of the fandom’s attention and flashier and more toxic negative posts draw another part’s attention.

I’m just trying to express my thoughts in a cohesive way, trying to be heard and trying not to feel guilty. (Because I do feel guilty writing posts like these. I get scared that people resent them or that I’m spoiling other people’s fun - even though more toxic people make much more incoherent arguments and they don’t feel guilt, while I try to support all my claims.) I feel like I’m relentlessly apologetic to others, always begging, I’m sorry I’m sorry I’m sorry, always... feeling guilty for even having a perspective like this. As though I feel there’s something wrong with me for simply having a perspective. As though I’m scared it somehow invalidates all the good things I’ve said about the film elsewhere or will make people hate me.

(Not to connect everything back to my being closeted, but I feel like that entrenches a guilt in me that manifests even as I talk about innocuous things like fandom opinions). 

But I just... want to speak. I hope that’s not bad, is it? And I hope this post finds a receptive audience. I know it’s personal. I know it’s heavily informed by my own personal experience and perspective, but I hope it’s nuanced. And I hope people will read it and, even if they approach the film differently than me, understand. 

Thank you.

[skullvis]

Long post detailing confusion over The Last Night below (not saying the game is shitty or bad, not saying that its amazing and revolutionary, not saying its regressive, not saying it will be progressive, cause honestly its not even out yet so I literally can’t know anything but what’s been said in the synopsis. not trying to start shit or debates or arguments, literally just asking questions about plot based on how its been described)

Like, listen I actually don't think one's old political views should be dregged up and used to call someone out when they totally could have changed over time. I don't think that's fair. Everyone is always changing, and people have the ability to learn and grow, and to hold someone to a political stance they held a while ago without knowing if they still believe it just seems not cool to me.

That said, I feel like The Last Night's current description does sound like one that someone with regressive views might have (not saying that a stabilized income would solve all the worlds problems, but I do think people deserve a living wage. I think people deserve to have their basic needs met). It's really hard to tell (for me anyway) if this developer is just saying "oh I'm not like that" anymore to try and avoid getting flack or if he genuinely feels that way.

But regardless, I am still baffled by how the conflict in The Last Night is supposed to work. 

Here is the summary-”Stabilised by universal income, people struggle to find their calling or identity, and define themselves by what they consume, rather than what they create” and “The Last Night is what we call post-cyberpunk – it’s not the kind of dystopia the genre is famous for, rather it depicts an alternate direction for society. One where the fight for survival doesn’t mean food and water, but a purpose for living. Human labour and creativity has been rendered obsolete by AI, so people are now defining themselves by what they consume, not what they create”

If the premise is that everyone has stabilized equal pay and people don't know how to find their sense of identity or purpose so they identify themselves based on what they consume instead of the things they create, that still doesn't explain  why people just stopped creating. I promise you that a lot of my artist friends who have to worry about just getting by and being able to eat would be able to focus A LOT more on their art if they didn't have to worry about just surviving. I also am confused as to why the fight for survival is suddenly defined by needing a purpose to live. If someone feels like they don’t have a purpose, will they be literally killed by society or the AIs? Will they be ostracized? How is not having a perceived “purpose” in life going to affect someone’s survival???

And even if the AIs in the story were suddenly a lot better at creating things, I can't imagine how that would make humans just STOP creating, unless this is a situation like the Matrix where AIs control people or force people to stop creating things??? 

Arguably a lot of our population lives in a world of leisure now, but a lot of those people are still writers, artists, poets, musicians, designers, and actors? Is this like Fahrenheit 451 where people do still want to create things but are controlled or brainwashed into complacency by the government or AIs and those people must do so in secret? 

Is it like Extras, or Black Mirror where people feel that they have to compete for notoriety or popularity and only do so through consumerism? Even then, I feel like that wouldn't necessarily stop people from making things or having a sense of self?

Also, if people have time for leisure, wouldn't that lead to increased self awareness and more time for self reflection, philosophy, study, pursuit of the arts and creation? If people already have their basic needs met, why would the next logical progression be "lets never make art again and leave EVERYTHING to the AIs?" Are they really just THAT more amazing?    

This isn't me trying to criticize the game, and honestly I think (or at least hope) these questions will be answered, and y'know if they make it work, major props. I'm just really confused because, while the game looks absolutely stunning and gameplay is probably good, if the story doesn't adhere well to the major themes of cyberpunk and post-cyberpunk narratives, like? How is the story going to seem coherent or plausible? 

I'm not against this game, I actually really really, want it to be good, but with a lot of the descriptions of the story it seems like it doesn't really "get" what cyber and post-cyberpunk is. Like we saw with the American Ghost in the Shell movie, you can have all the beautiful aesthetics of a cyberpunk world, but if your story is cliched or has been done before, it'll be really hard for audiences to connect with it on a deeper philosophical level, which is something a LOT of cyberpunk stories encourage. I’m not even talking about this on a level of wether or not it’s “progressive” or not, because before you can even reach that point, the story synopsis doesn’t make a lot of sense when you think about it.

Also, I have seen people say that "Cyberpunk isn't just anti-capitalist stuff! It's all sci-fi, it's about technology!!!" and while that is true, anti-capitalism, anti-authoritarianism, and anti-class-ism are themes and ideas that can and do show up in a lot of cyberpunk narratives, along with ideas about what it means to be a person, and if technology's advancement is a positive or negative thing. 

Like this isn’t something that tumblr kids just pulled out their asses, if you go back and look at a lot of cyberpunk stories, you can find these themes. I don't think that all cyberpunk and post-cyberpunk stories have to follow those ideas, and it’s probably bad to assume they will, but many of them can be interpreted using those themes and do have them, so I don't think it's good to just act like they don't come from anywhere or were suddenly jammed into cyberpunk narratives by people who are concerned with social justice. 

I've gone on far too long. Again, I hope the best for the game, I hope that the guy who made it really has changed and I hope that the story is good and makes sense and that my questions will be answered. I didn’t bring up this stuff to be like “AND THIS IS WHY THE GAME SUCKS!!!” I really just want to know how it’s going to work.

[fayraje]

#yes i'm just going to come out and say it i'm talking about sera#not exclusively but i am talking about her#'but her writer actually iS A--' you don't know that! it doesn't matter! and i don't care!#just say that you do not like the character.#people will reblog posts about the latest actor or YA author or whatever getting forced out of the closet and be like#'wow. :( that's terrible.'#and then GO RIGHT BACK TO DOING IT#when are we going to learn#when are we going to stop doing this BEFORE somebody is forcibly outed#because in practical terms#that means you have to be okay with queer characters being written by straight people.#you have to stop weaponizing that against writers you don't like.#you have to be willing to critique the writing on its own merits#without using the writer's (assumed) identity to prop up your arguments#that's how it works#but who wants to actually change the way they talk about media#when tearing apart people's identities for clout is far more entertaining.#gwaren exports#fandom problems#fandom critical

So, just curious how many writers and creators will have to be forcibly outed by relentless harassment before we acknowledge that "This queer characters was written by a cishet person and that's why they're bad" is not good criticism.