#you can enjoy fictional media but most be able to think critically

[bigothteddies]

I think that part of what like. kills me about the whole media literacy and critical thinking aspect of enjoying media these days is that people refuse to like. contextualize that

A. Bad media can still hold significant meaning to people

B. Media made for a demographic you aren’t apart of is not inherently bad media

C. Media made for and consumed by the opposite demographic is not inherently shallow or flawed nor is it above criticism for its media tropes either.

[impactrueno]

I saw your twt about holding back on telling stories with serious and deep tones and it reminded me of an issue I had a while back. Im a south park fan and I loved reading deep analysis of the characters. and south park being south park, people dont take it seriously and think its just funny so it doesnt deserve deep analysis like other forms of media. I always came across comments saying "its not that deep" or "doing all of that for south park" and I used to hate that so much because why are you commenting that under the authors post? In media there is like a "spectrum" of how deep you are in it as a fan, and it doesn't make you less of a fan if you like to binge watch the show when you feel like it because its funny. Someone who makes fan fiction and psychoanalyses the characters doesnt make them a better fan than you. I hate "it's not deep" because it is that deep to me, I enjoy it, but it dismisses critical thinking and discourages deep discussions about our interests. I want to learn more about the turning point for eric cartman and the friendship dynamics between the main 4. I want to read psychoanalysis of the characters and understand why they do the things they do. I loved reading fan fics with an author that understood how the characters work and put them in situations while making it believable. Whether the content was deep and serious or lighthearted and silly. I don't see those as cringe at all. What I see as cringe is trying to downplay someones time and effort. you dont care for it. cool, just dont make it our problem.

I believe in recent years, this cringe and its not that deep mentality is linked to media literacy/reading comprehension issues. On top of the fact, that fandoms right now has been "normalized", so alot of mean and rude kids and adults are in this space not having a mature and respectful conversation and discussions, as well as zero fandom etiquette. (I understand the past wasnt this magical respectful place but this behaviour has increased compared to past years).

Please don't worry about making deep content, its super fun and there will be fans of what you write/draw that will definitely be into it.

GOSH anon you are absolutely right. cringe culture has done some serious damage to people's creativity and freedom of expression. doing things in earnest is now cringe to so many people (specifically that 18-21 age where they think they're better than everyone else and everything is cringe to them, image is everything) and they actually give you shit for it?? it's crazy. the most harmless thing in the world. whenever my hey arnold comics would leave my target audience on instagram i would get the meanest comments for no fucking reason, because i was taking hey arnold "seriously" (nevermind that hey arnold is probably the nicktoon with the most emotional depth and moments besides ginger but i digress) but hey at least i'm not the one losing my marbles over some random cartoon comic on the internet.

i think rudeness in general has been too normalized not just in fandom, but in social media in general. it's sad. the only thing you can do about it is be kind as much as you can to counterbalance it. i'd like to think that rubs off on people just like how being rude rubbed off on them.

i said that thing about holding back because i'm admittedly too hard on myself sometimes. no one is calling me cringe or making fun of me for what i do, thankfully, people have been super cool and supportive. and it means a lot to me because i'm very earnest about everything i create, even when i try to hold back. i literally cannot help being myself. it's all i know how to do. i'm just glad i was able to grow a platform where i'm free to be openly passionate about the things i like, talk about them and why i like them, the little things that i find fascinating, the emotions they make me feel, all of that shit is awesome and i wish more people did that.

[utilitycaster]

I have this on my mind due to Midst/Unend especially, but also for both TLOVM and Critical Role and what I've heard from friends about Dragon Age and the media landscape at large and I think a really interesting challenge is that sequels and adaptations are not inherently bad as concepts. I love a massive doorstopper fantasy epic series as much if not more as the next person. I think the problem is that a lot of fans do just want The Same Story But Again, which is an ever diminishing return; but also telling a new story does not guarantee the new story is any good either.

I also think that modern fandom has prioritized a very blorbo/shipping-centric model of enjoying fiction, and so while I personally think a lot of the most successful continuations of a series are new stories in a beloved world, the blorbo/ship crowd doesn't handle this well because their blorbo or ship is no longer a central focus of the new story. And in Midst/Unend in particular, I think the fandom's been quieter in part just because it's early days and we're getting our footing, but also it is genuinely an extremely different kind of story. It's a great story, but if you were attracted to the original because it can be made to fit in a roughly Uwu Messy Sad Blorbo model (even though it is much more than that, obviously, as witnessed by the fact that it's good), an adventure/exploration story that does not have that same initial character-driven focus does not fit that same category.

Anyway: I think it can be difficult to separate out the cries of "ugh it's just more of the same", "noooo it's NOT the same", and genuine critical analysis of the story in ongoing, multi-part narratives and it requires a lot of confidence in your own abilities without constantly falling to whoever in fandom is yelling at you the most; I don't think the structure of modern fandom makes it impossible, but the Please Please Validate Me culture is certainly a detriment to this analysis. Anyway I think the point of all of this is to understand why you like something. You don't have to be able to articulate it to enjoy it! But if you can't, then don't try to analyze.

[clangenrising]

I want to take a second to talk to those of you who find it funny that Scorch has been calling the Clans a cult. I agree, it is kind of humorous, but I do want to be a wet blanket for a sec and point out that the Warrior Cats Clan structure IS actually very cultish. As far as I can tell, the Clans meet at least three out of four criteria laid out in Steven Hassan's BITE model of Authoritarian Control.

The BITE model lays out 4 kinds of control that Cults and groups like them use to keep their members in check:

Behavior Control Information Control Thought Control Emotional Control

And Warrior Clans exibit most of these traits (keep in mind I haven't read past Omen of the Stars). More below the cut

Behavior Control

Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates/isolates (Clans live in specific areas and only really socialize with their own clan)

Dictate where, how, and with whom the member has sex (half clan and outsider mates are extremely discouraged and even punished)

Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals (Warrior Clans are full of ritual ceremonies that create group cohesion)

Rewards and Punishments used to modify behaviors (breaking the code results in punishments ranging from disliked duties to physical harm and cats can be rewarded with things like the best patrols or getting their warrior names early)

Impose rigid rules or regulations

Separation of Families (if a kittypet joins they are discouraged from ever talking to their family again.)

Information Control

Compartmentalize information into Outsider vs Insider doctrines (Clans discourage their members from listening to kittypets, loners, and rogues)

Extensive use of Cult Generated information and propaganda (I would argue the ubiquity of StarClan in Clan life would count. StarClan's word is seen as pure truth not to be questioned.)

Thought Control

Require members to internalize the group's doctrine as truth including organizing people into us vs them and adopting the group's reality as the only reality.

Change a person's name and identity (this is a big one! If you join a clan you are highly encouraged to take a Clan style name. You become a warrior and that is your new identiy)

Forbid critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy allowed (The leader's word is law. StarClan is not to be questioned.)

Labeling alternitive belief systems as illegitimate, evil, or not useful (A warrior rejects the soft life of a kittypet)

Emotional Control

Promote feelings of guilt or unworthiness such as Identity guilt, not living up to full potential, etc (Half Clan and kittypet bigotry within clans ticks this box when applicable)

Instill fear of enemies, thinking independently, the outside world, leaving or being shunned by the group, losing one's salvation, etc (Again, more present in Clans that are depicted as 'evil' by the books but things like fear of losing one's salvation is present in kit tales that warn cats about ending up in the dark forest)

Phobia indoctrination: instilling irrational fears about leaving the group or questioning the leader, saying things like there is no happiness outside the group, shunning those who leave so people fear losing their friends and family if they do, never allowing for legitimate reasons to leave aka anyone who does was weak or selfish or brainwashed. (This one is fairly self explanitory)

So yeah. The clans tick all the boxes that cults do.

Now, I want to be clear, im not saying you should start hating the clans or that you're bad for thinking they're cool. Part of that is that Cults inherently try to sound cool to draw in members and part of it is that its okay to enjoy fiction about things that are bad or immoral. The important part is being able to recognize and understand those things.

So my real intent here is to get you to examine the media you engage with more critically and, most importantly, as someone who was born into a cult and managed to escape:

Be careful not to let fun depictions of cults normalize cult behavior. You are not immune to propaganda and I would hate for any of you to get sucked into a group or religion that will control you in these ways. I recommend you take a look at the BITE model in its entirety and really think about how it may apply to groups you are in. Cults are really good at painting themselves as welcoming and fun and they are not. Look out for yourself.

I love you. Your regularly scheduled Warrior Cats content will resume shortly.

[mokkkki]

been following your works since your AJA series and love your choice of allusions, references, metaphors, similes, and motifs - your intertextuality is so layered and insane and established so right off the bat (no pun intended). how do you do it?

hey gorgeous! okay, wow, this is a very big question and i will try to do my very best to answer, though i might miss some things just because of the ginormous nature of this ask.

read. the most important thing a writer can do is read. i love fic as much as the next person, but it's important to delve into works that have been professionally published. when people say this they dont understand that reading is only the first level (and ofc, the most important level) of this step. read fiction, non-fiction, comics, or whatever you want to write one day, and after you're done with that, read things that you would never, ever write. don't stick to a genre. don't even stick to a format! go to podcasts, video games, movies. all of these are based on scripts. it is so so important to be able to recognize those universal elements of good media. there are so many components to this: reading will give you more general knowledge that might work its way into your writing one day, it allows you to meet a vast variety of povs, it develops your critical thinking skills, and ofc, it can even provide a roadmap for your later projects. writing has no rules, but if it had one, id have to say this: a good writer knows good writing, and the fastest way to that is reading a lot.

research. this ties into the fact that reading a lot will give you more general knowledge, and i think that general knowledge is an important factor in being able to write well! you asked specifically about my intertextuality, and most of my intertextuality is historical or religious in nature. i chose to intertwine my characters with historical and religious figures because i like them and the information i have built in! "research" doesn't have to be some crazy note-taking adventure (though it certainly can be if you want it to), it can quite literally be reading a wikipedia article on the toilet. some fascinating aspects of history i personally enjoy reading about is the ancient world, which ties directly into mythology, and eventually flows into abrahamic religions. religious intertextuality is so built-in and inherent, just because of its universally applicable themes (death and rebirth) that apply to every story told. i think its a great place to start if you are trying to add intertextuality to something you've written! i also recommend looking at non-western history, because it tends to be overshadowed, and there is truly so many fascinating things contained within it.

write. like. duh! and im afraid this might sound a little discouraging, but i think that if its your first time writing (and your goal is to be a good writer, rather than a cute hobby on the side), you also have to know that on some level, your first draft/project will suck compared to published novels, just a little bit. but you can't let that discourage you! you just have to keep going. its still something you've created, and even if that thing is ten pages of a bathing grandpa's stream of consciousness, it is valuable and important. i literally mean that with all my heart. i think that writing is a really tough discipline sometimes, just because it's a solitary activity where you type out what is, for all intents and purposes, an extended daydream you are having, and its for that reason that people tend to just run out of steam halfway through a project. you have to be able to motivate and push yourself. write like the wind! write poems and short stories and scripts and fanfic and novellas and epics, experiment with different styles, and above all, know that the content you are creating has value, simply because it came from you.

okay, i think that's everything! thank you so much for trusting me to answer such an important question, and if there is anything that seems unclear to you, please don't hesitate to leave another ask or even send a draft over <3 lots of love!

[arkus-rhapsode]

I want to talk about Crimson Flower and 3H as a narrative

So... after FE3H discourse makes the round every other week, I end up thinking about it for a bit until I realize, hey maybe its better to not focus on a 4 year old game at this point and occupy your time with something else. Everything has basically been said about it at this point and you know where you land.

But this time my thoughts were just getting too strong for me to ignore, so that's why I'm writing this both get it out of my system and maybe just be another voice in the crowd that some people might want to listen to on the divisive topic that is Crimson Flower route.

Now I really hate that I have to put this disclaimer up front, but I feel like the well of this discussion has become so poisoned that I have to before I make my piece. I want to say that if you enjoy Crimson Flower, if you love Edelgard and believe she did nothing wrong and this is the right route, if you are a Black Eagles stan and you genuinely do not have any issues with Crimson Flower route as a whole-that is perfectly fine.

This will be a somewhat critical examination of the narrative choices about the execution of CF, which I feel like whenever 3H, specifically Edelgard is discussed, there is often very disingenuous arguments people make. Which I believe can create more defensive fans of a particular aspect of a story that we should be able to criticize freely. Which perpetuates this never ending cycle of discourse of legit criticism and defense against that criticism becomes drowned out by trying to decouple these very disingenuous claims from legitimate flaws. So I at least want to make it known that I am going to try my best to be in good faith with this post about this tricky subject.

I also want to just say, this is also going to be mostly an examination of narrative. The thing that I personally enjoy the most in an FE game, but we need to genuinely acknowledge that narrative isn't the only reason why people may like Fire Emblem. The ability to form parasocial relationships with fictional characters and being able to experience something the genuinely brings you emotional fulfillment is not invalid. Being able to enjoy fighting against establishments or ideologies you in the real world disagree with through the experience of a video game is not invalid. The same way someone who plays this game for the experience of gameplay isn't invalid when their primary enjoyment stems from the actual mechanics rather than the "logistics" of the story. The point I'm trying to make is that everyone will engage in media in different ways and will enjoy it other ways and that you don't want to invalidate those feelings someone had with their personal experience. So this is going to be about me and my experience as someone who primarily enjoys narrative.

I am just one guy with opinions who is going to layout what I had an issue with and how I think for me that could've been improved upon. You don't have to agree with me on that, and I'm not saying my way is legitimately better. This is all opinionated.

Buckle this is a long one

First things first Im gonna say Im not going to be using any information given in Three Hopes that may contradict what Im about to say. As in my opinion Three Houses came first and does not include the content from Three Hopes so I should think that Three Houses can stand on its own merits and the content that was provided.

Next thing is I want to catch people up on what in my opinion are the points I think CF did for me that ultimately left me unsatisfied

The post time skip Fodlan was too different and felt contradictory to Byleth's role

Edelgard's Characterization in CF in comparison to the other lord's in their respected routes

The role of Rhea

The role of Those who Slither in the Dark

SO the first thing is probably the thing I'm mostly going to have to defend if I haven't lost you already, but Fire Emblem Three Houses as a narrative provides us with a five year time skip in the game that depending on the route will change who is control of the monastery at this point in the war, with each route providing a lord the chance the forge their campaign. However, something I don't think is brought up enough is talking about the liberties that CF takes with their time skip vs the other three routes. Azure Moon, Verdant Wind, and Silver snow all paint a post five years Fodlan as one where the monastery territory has been abandoned, Rhea has been captured, the Alliance territory is split between an imperialist faction and an anti imperialism faction, and the Kingdom has been split with Cornelia making an alliance with the Empire to create the Dukedom of Faerghus as the houses of Gautier and Faldarius hold up the Kingdom.

There are obviously minor changes like Dimitri camping out in the monastery in Azure Moon rather than in the care of Kingdom Allies, but for the most part there is a consistently defined world between the three routes. However, Crimson Flower's post Fodlan is much different. With a grid locked Fodlan after five years with just the church territory falling under the control of Adrestia, Rhea wasn't captured and instead made it to Faerghus, The Alliance is still feuding amongst itself, but most importantly than all, Faerghus is a complete kingdom with Dimitri as King and no Cornelia's Dukedom.

So there are two main reasons why this bothers me.

The first is that Three Houses as a game wants to present you with three options at first, with the idea that your choices will effect the outcome of the war when Byleth returns, however there's enough consistency to imply that this is what Fodlan would be like regardless of whose House you would join, with the primary effect being your class making it to the church for the festival which in turn will make the monastery your new territory for which route. However, Crimson Flower decides to do away with the consistency, implying that the effect Byleth had on the situation is far greater than that of any other route resulting in a drastically shifted Fodlan. So this is more of a problem with FE3H as a whole with the consistency of choice. Fire Emblem has never really had a BioWare style choose your own adventure type of game. There's only one real choice you're given in the case of 3H and that's which house you side with, which you are essentially locked into. Black Eagles is really the only route that offers a choice beyond that with choosing to side with Edelgard or Rhea which will effect who the class sides with in the time skip. The reason I bring this up is that it essentially means that you the player are for the most part on rails for a predetermined plot where all the choices for the series have already been made. So the Fodlan post five years being consistent makes some sense as essentially mostly everything that happened in White Clouds was the same with the acceptation of the class. However, the Crimson Flower one not being consistent and being so radically different based on a game with so minimal choice feels more like an act of narrative convenience. That this is what happened because of a writer fully independent from me the player had decided that this is how Fodlan shall be for this story because it fits what they want to tell.

Somewhere I had once read that FE3H shouldn't be treated as one story, but since its a bunch of routes they're all a different universe. Everything might look the same but everything is fundamentally altered that you should accept it as an independent universe. And I can't necessarily say that's wrong as the concept of multiverses is to create a world/scenario that allows to explore familiar characters in unfamiliar settings and you could say that Byleth effect on Edelgard in picking this universe was just so much greater that it would result in such a different universe.

I personally disagree with that which brings me to my second point as I believe this one is going to be a more philosophical point on game design. But I feel like the effort to make three routes so consistent with each other with one so different seems to deliberately undercut the core themes of the game. Offering you a choice that this is who you get to spend your happy schools days with and it is what is going to result in them returning to the monastery one the day of your return. That is the true effect of Byleth on the characters. But as you play through white clouds you can't change what happens to other characters which will result in a brand new scenario. Byleth's presence can never stop Dimitri from going blood mad, Byleth's presence can't stop Claude from discovering the Immaculate One research, and Byleths presence can't stop Edelgard from declaring war. And that is a good thing for this type of on rails route story. Byleth while a player insert who can help their lord in the future, right now everyone is on a path that Byleth can only lightly change. With the characters acting independently of what Byleth and the player desire. And the post time skip Fodlan is a sign of that. Its Five Years without Byleth. This is what these characters would do, that they were always capable of doing and that is why Byleth's return and effect on them is important. This also gives us the ability to observe what a lord is like now after the war, and Byleth's effect on them but also see what a character could be like without that Byleth effect on them. Without Byleth Dimitri stays mad, without Byleth Claude always flees Fodlan, without Byeth Edelgard... well lets put a pin in that.

The only other true choice the player can make beyond the initial one is the side with Edelgard or Rhea which radically alters her. Which honestly feels kinda defeating in a game that has locked Byleth so much on a path and the one time it can deviate actively alters everything. It just feels very hollow as there are parts that make you realize how great the effect Byleth could have on people's lives could be if the game actively wanted to integrate choice with the plot. But it didn't. It wants to make one early choice then lock you in that route for several chapters then remove Byleth and then have their return effect real change on the future of Fodlan. Except for this one route. Its why Crimson Flower feels so much like an asterisk compared to the other route. And I don't just mean the lack of chapters, but this feels like a route that can only exist because it was the one that the developers bothered to create something overly deviating from everything else.

Which brings us to Edelgard's role in Crimson Flower as a whole. Now lets just get this out of the way. Im not going to be talking at all on the morality/realistic implications of what Edelgard is doing. I feel like the "Is she a fascist/authoritarian" conversation is not really helpful to talking about FE3H as a work of narrative and mostly exists to create a bunch of petty beef. This is also not going to be a deconstruction of ever minute detail of Edelgard as a character. This is an examination of her as a character in the narrative that we are presented. This will also involve comparison's to Edelgard and other series lords and I want it to be known that this is not a talking down to the only female lord in the game as being something "lesser" than her male contemporaries. I believe there is genuinely sexism when discussing Edelgard as a character, so I want to say that I am approaching Crimson Flower and Three Houses as a whole in a good conscious that there is not a "right route." That this is a game that where all choices have their pros and their cons. Because that's why we like this entry, right? That 3H would provide us some genuinely complex lords who were all capable of doing great and terrible things regardless of gender?

That's why I had such a long winded discussion about why the change in the post time skip Fodlan is so important both for narrative consistency, but also just generally keeping with the tone, but also it reinforced that Fodlan and its lords while all righteous in their own way can be dangers in their own way. Well that's when I return to the pin about Edelgard. So first I want to go through how the lords are characterized in non devoted routes.

Dimitri in non AZ routes is portrayed as someone so damaged by loss that his who response is to avenge and fight. To never stop making those pay for the damage it has brought on his kingdom as well as any lives lost during the tragedies in places like Duscar and Remire.

Claude in non VW routes is portrayed as a brilliant individual with a lot of charm but seems to be hiding something from everyone. He's a lot smarter than one could assume and that he has some mysterious tie to the kingdom of Almyra that he departs after leaving his land to the stronger kingdom that has come so far, be it Dimitri or Edelgard or the Church.

Edelgard in non CF routes is portrayed as a conspirator to overthrow not only the church but all rule in Fodlan as she believes the Crest based system is flawed and that the only way to enact systemic change is through a single rule. And while she is aware her ideals have costs, she believes that those costs are worth it when weighed against perpetuity of the crest system.

Now I want to talk about what happens to those lords as you play them in their routes.

Dimitri in AZ is portrayed as someone burdened by loss and his quest for vengeance has led to a neglect for his own health and his own actions. That his kill everyone attitude will perpetuate more loss of those he loves and that he needs to learn to rely upon others. That is his true responsibility as king.

Claude in VW is portrayed as an individual who is outside of Fodlan's system who has observed it more as a third party and believes it can be a great place if people work through diplomatically. He too is not a fan of inequality and racism and wishes to make a Fodlan that is more accepting and able to work through negotiation. While he still leaves Fodlan at the end, this time he has been able to implement real systemic change and make one that is sustainable beyond that of a ruler.

In CF we find out that Edelgard is a traumatized girl who was experimented on for the purposes of Crest Research. This makes her a conspirator to overthrow not only the church but all rule in Fodlan as she believes the Crest based system is flawed and that the only way to enact systemic change is through a single rule. And while she is aware her ideals have costs, she believes that those costs are worth it when weighed against perpetuity of the crest system.

Hey wait a minute, that's the same?

So this is where I get to the most glaring flaw for me in this case of narrative and why I think altering the post time skip so much did a lot of damage. Edelgard is a good character and a fascinating one, but in the practice of her narrative, her character journey in her own route isn't like the other lords. Rather she is "right" from the start of the time skip and with the world altering in ways to justify why she is that way.

Now look, I know right now someone could be saying I can't read, that its clearly stated in the text that Edelgard says without Byleth she may have turned into a complete monster to see her goals through to the end. This is referring to how in non CF routes she is on the backfoot getting beaten back and forced to take more drastic measures as whoever Byleth comes closer to ending her ideals. Unlike Dimitri or Claude there's not really a psychological arc she is working through with her sociological arc. Dimitri's arc is almost entirely hinged on him as a character changing in his route. And while Claude the character is also mostly the same, you get an understanding of how his continued participation in Fodlan's politics is so important as he effects sociological change. Claude also does the less stuff that could be considered questionable in Fodlan. He neither initiates the war nor does he intimate greater conflict that is tied into a character arc like Dimitri. Claude action's through the war are mostly to keep the Alliance fighting against each other with avoids giving one side a greater advantage. The truth is Claude real "flaw" is that by being an Almyra he is from a race outside of Fodlan that is inherently untrustworthy in society so his continued prescience in his expanded campaign is done with changing that mentality.

Now one could look at everything I said about Claude and say "well isn't that Edelgard though? She's not the one who needs to change but rather society needs to and this is you making it a fruition?" And I would agree however, then why did post time skip need to change and not Edelgard? So going back to the altered Fodlan, the Fodlan post time skip we see in non CF routes has what can be argued Edelgard's biggest moment of political conquest, making an alliance with Cornelia inside of Faerghus using her authority and influence to expand and bring over a chunk of the kingdom underneath Edelgard's wing. And this makes sense with what has been proposed before us-Edelgard had released a manifesto to lords that would side with her and become her allies in the war to come. This act of subversion is something that benefits her goals for conquering all of Fodlan. However, this is one of the key alterations in CF's time skip. Faerghus is not broken in half, with Edelgard having not empowered Cornelia over the five years. In fact, you do battle with Cornelia with her as a kingdom general.

So if Edelgard isn't a character who is subject to change, why did the world change? Well there is speculation in universe that perhaps Rhea fleeing to Faerghus didn't give her the ability. But I do believe the most likely reason is that narratively the writers of 3H wanted to avoid a scenario where while Byleth was gone Edlegard may have empowered and individual like Cornelia. One of the most objectively evil characters in the game. Now I won't go into to detail if I believe Edelgard knew Cornelia was a TWSITD or not, but as it is presented to us, she seems unaware. Instead I'll focus on the primary point is where they don't want to discuss that while in her route Edelgard was capable of doing something that would potentially cast her in such a negative light. After all, the point of her campaign is the while the bloodshed is worth it to make a new Fodlan free of crests, she's willing to show lenency to those who bend the knee. Again, an action not unreasonable for her character. However, I feel like this not happening in CF genuinely robs us from exploring the flaws of Edelgard's path/showing us what Byleth's effect on her truly is.

This is compounded by my issues with how CF is the only route in which you have an active choice beyond class. That by choosing to side with Edelgard when given the option in the tomb would result in this much radical history alteration. But also all of Byleth's effect on her not being as much conqueror over the last 5 years was all done pre time skip. That all that change was done at that moment rather than being something that prompted her to return to Garreg Mach where they'd remeet Byleth and then that would get them to claim it as a base of oppositions in their future war. In CF, Garreg Mach is already claimed rather than the formation of the Dukedom with no real progress. So it makes it seem as though Byleth's real effect on altering this lord's path was always possible in the short time they knew them before disappearing over five years. Of course this is again a bit miffling given that CF is the only route this is a possibility. We can't Change how Dimitri will act in the pre time skip. That he will make choices without Byleth even if they feel urged to remeet at Garreg Mach. But in the case of CF, Edelgard has apparently been changed despite the only real difference in white clouds fighting beside her in the tomb and against the church pre timeskip. But that has sociologically altered so much of Fodlan.

And maybe you genuinely believe that one extra change is enough. Perhaps that one extra choice is enough justification for such a radically new scenario. For me personally, I find that unsatisfying and feels more like the writers traded in a level of consistency for this new scenario that greater justified being on the side of someone who is portrayed as a more active antagonistic force in other routes (Reminder this not me saying the Empire route is an antagonist route. All routes are antagonistic relative to which side you are on).

This is where we get my first what I would've done to make it more narratively satisfying for me. Keep the same post time skip Fodlan as the other routes. Keep Edelgard having brokered a deal with Cornelia to establish the Dukedom and have Byleth find out about it. Be some that either Byleth or another character close to Edelgard questions the extremity of. Then have Cornelia do something evil like she's experimenting on people for TWSITD or maybe she's just abusing the power. Then have Edelgard clean it up. Have Edelgard realize that while she still wants to make her dream of a crestless Fodlan a reality she can't just back lords or nobles that are willing to go along with her for more power. She can still keep the Dukedom territory, but instead she'd be now more understanding what it means for there to be a ruler with a noble soul. So she continues her campaign of conquest but has realized that if she's going to be emperor, she can't just empower people arbitrarily.

In my opinion this not only would tie together some more TWSITD plot while also paralleling it to Edelgard's past and how there was no authority figure to step in and help her all those years ago. But now she is that authority figure. And while it doesn't call her method in question and like Dimitri and Claude she can continue her expanded influence over Fodlan, but now we actively see that Byleth has helped show her that her allies aren't just those pledging loyalty, she actually needs to empower those who are good. She gets to have her fight with Cornelia level and this won't stop her from killing Dimitri in the future.

Like I said, this is what I'd do. And in my opinion it would give Byleth's presence in CF more purpose beyond the bond with Edelgard is nice and fun. But also stay consistent with each route. Showing that there are flaws in Edelgard's sociological plan, but not undercutting what her actual goal is. You can still believe her quest is just and the only right one with her taking an active role in not making the mistakes she perceives Rhea as doing.

And if you are still with me up to my third point, lets talk about Rhea.

So Rhea as a character can best be described as a neutral evil throughout White Clouds. She doesn't really do anything but there is a lot of ominous foreshowing and presentation that Rhea may be up to something or at the very least complicit with many of her policies and tendencies. And when I say "evil" I don't mean she's bad (please don't skewer me Rhea fans). I mean that if the crest system is flawed and the church is emblematic of the systems maintenance of that flawed system. Then Rhea as the face/founder/head of that church bares some responsibility even if all she does is passive.

In all other routes, Rhea is captured by the Empire. Imprisoned in their capital. Anytime she is seen after she is characterized as somewhat docile or defeated, having been imprisoned for so long. VW goes a step farther to reveal what she did as Seiros and all of her actions leading to this point presumably all thanks to be imprisoned and rethinking her life over. CF is the only one Rhea is allowed to be an active player, she is now portrayed a ranting self righteous warrior priest who swears vengeance upon Byleth for being the reincarnation of her mother but not being a proper vessel as she intended and fighting against her. Naturally, if Byleth being the potential for the reincarnation of Sothis siding against her is what her drives her mad, that is believable, however much like the altered Fodlan Rhea in this version is not captured. This is now for Rhea to serve as Edelgard's true climatic opponent. With her symbolically killing the representation of the church and the power of crests being slain by Byleth and Edelgard. Its very poetic. But once again we reach my issue of the time skip altering so much in CF.

As stated before, Rhea was presented as a neutral evil, in doing so she's not really a direct antagonist in any route. Except of course Silver Snow. Where she is deployed as a weapon against Byleth. In this case killing the immaculate one symbolically is cleansing the church of Rhea and allowing it to pass into the hands of the new archbishop. However, Rhea in that fight is under control. Rather than be conscious as an opponent, they make her more of a beast without choice. Thus making this less a flawed character meeting their end and rather a forced confrontation by the evil cult of evil. Now Rhea I think being kept a neutral party was ultimately a good choice. We are given enough about her to understand she has done things questionable and should possibly not hold the authority she has. But she also has not instigated any open any hostility. As such Rhea is more a symbolic player. By making her an active player, CF has to make Rhea more domino and more a threat. She can't portray constant neutrality in a war. But by making her the active antagonist, it makes her less of a symbol and more if just a rotten character who Edelgard is justified in wanting dead. And much like Cornelia and the Dukedom, this alteration comes off as an attempt by the writers to never truly challenge Edelgard's plans for Fodlan. That Edelgard has no flaws in her plan and the bloodshed is beyond justified more than just philosophically. Had Edelgard captured Rhea in CF this would lead to some genuinely uncomfortable questions of keeping her a prisoner. And to 3H's credit they were actually willing to make the player uncomfortable already in Dimitri's route showing him as a mass murderer. Once again, I want to express this isn't me saying Edelgard's quest or goals are wrong and the plot should undermine it. This is me saying that for a game that wants to genuinely have nuanced and uncomfortable political choices made by their character, this is the route where they opt to alter the scenario so that Edelgard is the most justified and does less things that one could find objectionable. Flattening a lot of interesting implications this would raise and what Byleth as a force in this route could possibly able to influence.

Now one could again say, well the reason Rhea wasn't captured because Edelgard didn't use crest beasts this time. Edelgard not using crest beasts is a sign Byleth is changing her and thus that greatly alters the future. Once again, I can see that as understandable justification, but again, my issue off only ever being able to effect this lord pre time skip comes in again. If it was possible to get Edelgard to not use crest beasts, then how come it wasn't possible for me to get Claude to have Almyra support? How come I couldn't stop Dimitri before the war? The answer is again as a game the only other narrative choice that could possibly alter the story happens in CF which is the side with Edelgard in tombs choice. And while I'm not against the idea of angry pope Rhea, but I feel making her CF's full on antagonist was almost making a straw man antagonist for your opposition.

As an aside we also know Arundel is still on Edelgard's side and he is Thales so while she might not know his entire deal, I hesitate to imagine he'd stop using crest beasts in the war over the two years Byleth was gone.

If I was going to once again alter CF to be something I would personally find more satisfying. Have Rhea captured and then have Arundel use the same rage stuff he uses on her Silver Snow. This way you can facilitate an Edelgard vs TWSITD conflict AND you still get your symbolic victory of Edelgard and Byleth killing the symbol of the crests and church. Again, Edelgard is able to do what she wanted to originally, but now we are also confronted with the role TWSITD did play in her life and allowing her to rectify it as well as truly killing the old world by getting rid of Rhea and Thales.

And final point TWSITD. TWSITD are bad. They've always been bad. And they genuinely damage the overall story of CF because this is beyond just a narrative choice, its very clear CF as a story wasn't complete. I feel confident in saying that given the numerous chapters missing compared to the other routes, but also the epilogue needs to say "Oh yeah there was totally a bunch of war against them. Totally." I know this point is probably the least controversial when talking about CF, but I still think its a glaring flaw.

So what's the tl;dr?

This is not an "I hate Crimson Flower or Edelgard post" I genuinely have no interest in debating people about characters that like or enjoy. Nor did I want to turn this into a moral argument about the implication CF. I feel like these topics do real damage to any real criticisms one can have for CF as a narrative.

Which for me, CF as a route fails to really mesh with the rest of 3H as a whole. It feels like it takes a lot of narrative ways out to avoid potentially making their lord seem objectionable, despite much of this game wanting to be about how tragically flawed everyone is. Im not saying Edelgard needed a come to Jesus moment of "Are we the bad guys?" No absolutely not. In my opinion we just lack seeing Edelgard change the same way post time skip as others have due to creating an entirely brand new setting that keeping her as a mostly the same character is not questionable. Nor does she have to do anything that could truly be seen as flawed. Things that Byleth's influence may overcome.

Edelgard is a good character and her goals are understandable. I just personally find the narrative bending to accommodate her in ways so different from the other time skips genuinely make it a weaker narrative for me.

If you enjoy CF as it it. More power to you. Please keep loving CF. This isn't supposed to be a dissuading post. This is merely me as one guy who likes a lot of FE because of the stories it can tell sharing why he personally didn't enjoy this one. Maybe I helped put it words for some who might feel similar. But this is just my opinion

If you have something you'd like to add or reply in the replies or tags please flee free, but for the love god, please be cordial about it. There is so much toxicity and disingenuous takes around Fire Emblem Crimson Flower and Edelgard and Rhea in general, that I would like for us to please be able to talk about this in good faith.

[mamuzzy]

MAMUZZY READS HARD CONTACT: Introduction

Hey All, remember when I vented about how I will start my own re-reading because I'm annoyed about the existing fan-takes over this series, discouraging new fans to engage?

Now it's happening!!!! ☆*:.｡.o(≧▽≦)o.｡.:*☆

This one is an Introduction post about my personal thoughts before actually starting, not an actual chapter.

I don't have a specific agenda on what I want to achieve with this blogging, other than I want to share my thoughts with you, share my enthusiasm, collecting favorite or thought-inducing quotes, hunting for lore (clone, jedi, mando, kaminoan and character lore in general) and most importantly: thirsting over my favorite blorbos.

Maybe a bit want to counter all that negativity that surrounds this fandom with providing a different perspective.

Is this a masterpiece? Probably not. Do I enjoy it? HELL YEAH. And in the end, this is what counts.

I won't tag this as pro-jedi, or anti-jedi, or [insert a name/faction/author here]-critical or similiar kind of fandom faction fuckery. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

But before reading it, I wanted to share some thoughts...

-- About Critical Thinking... --

My first reading of the books happened without the influence of knowing anything about the author and I avoided repcomm side of tumblr like a plague. I didn't want the author's personal worldview or the existing factions on the internet influence me in any way while reading.

I think this helped me completely immerse in the story itself and not just looking it through a glass wall like an outsider under peer-pressure and with a strict community guide how is allowed to engage with the books otherwise you will be called names.

If you follow me through, I still encourage you to read it yourself so you can form your own opinion. But don't forget, you can always put down a book if you end up not liking it.

Everyone interpret the books differently: enjoyment or hatred depends on different life experiences, how old are you, what culture are you from, and often what opinions have you heard before about the said media. Sometimes it's just about basic reading comprehension (or the lack of it).

Critical thinking is not "skipping 20 pages because it contains Kal Skirata who is a shitty person and it taints you if you read". Critical thinking is able to form an opinion outside of the existing factions influences and resisting peer-pressure and being open minded for new information.

I'm just a random dude on the internet who will share you with his experiences about the books. But that is just one part of the truth. Just as an anti have their own truth. You will have your own truth.

But Mamuzzy, how can you be so gullible! This book is a bad representation to [insert a group here]! It conveys the wrong message!

What do you do with the wrong messages? You follow it through like it's some kind of ultimate truth anyway?

If you need fiction to hold your hand and tell you that you shouldn't treat your friends/family/partner/pets bad, the problem is not in the fiction, the problem is in YOU. If you feel you can act shitty toward people because that one fiction validated your urge to hurt people, the fault is not in the fiction but in YOU.

In the end of the day only that matters how do you behave with a living, breathing person in front of you.

-- Republic Commando IS A FANFICTION --

Bear in mind that mostly every written Star Wars book is a published fanfiction. Treat Republic Commando as such.

-- Star Wars is a fairy tale. RepComm is not. --

The Original Triology is a fairy tale. Good guys with blue lightsabers beating the bad buys with red lightsabers who hurt people and destroy planets and in the end good guys win. The roles are established. You know who to root for, you are spoon-feed with the narrative.

Republic Commando is not a fairy tale. Mando'a doesn't have a word for heroes, and this book doesn't have heroes either. Just people.

Protagonists =/= Heroes with unquestionable morals.

Am I supposed to root for THESE PEOPLE?

You are not obligated to do anything. Just know that this is not a traditional hero's journey story.

In my reading this story is about broken and lost people trying to find their place in the world while trying not to die. A literal found-family story.

-- About Jedi lore --

Karen Traviss doesn't make it a secret questioning the jedi about handling the whole war situation, about handling the clones, about being the puppets of the Senate/Sheev Palpatine and with it, Darth Sidious. But the conflicts and hostility between the Mandalorians and the Jedi are not Karen Traviss' invention.

Her characters are mostly Mandalorians who have grudge against the JEDI ORDER as a faction, and other characters who are influenced by mandalorian culture.

In the prequels, the Jedi Order is introduced like any other religious cult with govermental support behind them and George Lucas uses the same black-and-white thesises in this grey area. Darth Sidious didn't destroy the jedi with his sith force powers. He could destroy the jedi because he was damn effective politican and a master manipulatior who found the perfect pawns to execute his plans. That's my take on the jedi order in the prequels.

Also note that Karen Traviss' lore about the Jedi and the Force is completely different from George Lucas' thesises about the Star Wars universe.

I'll try and point it out these differences as we are advancing through the chapters.

-- No inhibitor chips in RepComm --

Inhibitor chips don't exist in Republic Commando universe and the concept wasn't introduced until The Clone Wars series. The troopers are very well aware of the 150 Contingency Orders, including Order 66.

Throughout my reading, comments and thoughts are appreciated! I'm open for conversation ^^

Because this is the first time I'm doing such thing, I can't say how much time I need to process a chapter, but I plan to do at least 1 chapter/week so I won't neglect my other hobbies, while surviving my increasing workhours as I go into the summer. :D

See you soon at Prologue + Chapter 1! (* ^ ω ^)

[ancientcity]

One of the first things asked in survey #2 was “What makes a fanwork not RPF?”.

Now, there isn’t one concrete answer to this. In fact, the majority of people’s responses to this question fell into one of three categories:

Having aspects of being a “character”

Not being “out of character”

Author/Artist intent

(There were also a few instances of people thinking RPF stood for Roleplay Fiction)

To expand upon the first two, Joel (Smallishbeans) states in a QnA:

“When you see me in these videos, this is not what I’m like in real life most of the time. When I’m acting all crazy and stuff that is me just messing around, having fun, and sort of like playing a character where the character is myself. But I guess for me to actually do that, I guess part of it has to be me, as I do come up with these ideas all by myself and they are a bit weird sometimes.”

And in E. T. Hetzler's "Actor Self vs. Character Self: An Empirical Exploration", they paraphrase a chapter from A Dictionary of Theatre Anthropology by Franco Ruffini.

“The actor does not have the luxury of distance. The actor must create the illusion for the audience. But for this to be the case, the actor must surely see a distinct separation between the character and his/her personal self. This is not always an easy distinction to make.”

They go on to poll actors about their relationship with their role. Nearly 75% of respondents answered "It depends on the role and production. I can be detached or immersed." to the question of "How important is it to become your character?"

A few responses caught my eye in the survey I did as well:

But regarding Author/Artist intent?

Alright alright… what does this have to do with anything?

Once the essay I’m writing on this subject is out there, I will no longer have control of how it’s interpreted. Nor this slideshow. The same goes for any form of art, fanwork or otherwise. Even with the responses to the survey, I probably didn’t get exactly what was intended out of them!

Being both an author and someone who enjoys analysis, on top of someone who enjoys reading, I’m in a bit of a tricky spot. Do I subscribe to Roland Barthes’s proposal that “the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author”? That the author must “die” in order to give space for the reader?

Or do I follow the whims of the statistician in me? To say, for certain, what is true or false about the data given?

Do I follow the wants of the author in me? To say, for certain, what is right or wrong about a piece of canon?

An author should be given space to share what they believe about their story.

A statistician should be given space to explain their reasoning.

But as viewer of the work provided, you should be able to come to your own conclusions and interpretations about a piece of media. Author intent be damned.

After reading the answers to this survey, I think it’s safe to say that I am in the minority that believes intent doesn’t matter. That as the reader, you are able to interpret other’s work however you see fit.

So I invite you to criticize my analysis of the data. I’m not perfect, and I’m still learning. But I can and will try to see different interpretations of the data.

[neruomancer]

This will not be the last post on the topic but I want to say something that has been on my mind and is relevant to the context of the video.

I have been part of the fandom space for most of my life. It is where I have made most of my friends, it has been where I have found my passions and it has been where I have found a community of people who care about each other. Capitalism has atomized individuals into complete isolation that we can now only take comfort and solitude in consuming, it may be hard so some to hear this but the function and form of fandom has always existed to be marketing for products. Going back to the days of pulp magazines and science fiction clubs, they have always existed to cut costs on advertising and to promote products.

I don't think that fandom is inherently bad or evil but it is a tool that was made in the conditions to promote this function. Criticism is not the other half of fandom because sometimes it can work in tandem with the goal of sales and media properties. Criticism becomes a problem when it interrupts the flow of product and when it challenges the conditions of how that product was made. For people who say that something like horror or any other kind of genre isn't inherently political I would have to disagree because everything is. Anything you do exists and only exists within the context of something that you would consider political. You are a product of a political environment and you will never be able to understand anything outside of that. The exchange of information from one person to another via the means of images, sounds, textures or anything is inherently going to be political.

I knew that Wendigoons politically tuned fans would immediately go right into the general harassment that reactionaries typically go for but what I saw that was disturbing where people who either identified as people who "weren't fans of Wendigoon" or people who weren't really even tuned into the context of the situation that transpired immediately take the side of Wendigoon in this situation. I can't help but think that people weren't actually mad about anything that was actually said but the fact there was anything said in general. People were mad that the "wholesome apolitical smol bean dad vibes" YouTuber was revealed as someone with insidious personal beliefs and associations. Any kind of criticism that interrupts the consumption of content is immediately seen as a threat that must be pushed or removed.

I think that fandom as a concept is something that can exist as a space for people to enjoy what they enjoy. I don't think "politics" or media criticism deludes that, if anything I think it makes it better. Not only is it better to enjoy but it allows us to view the context in which these things exist so we can better improve.

I think we should reject fandom as an extension to marketing, corporate sponsorship, IP laws, and content mills. We should reject the concept of content all together because it is the opposite of art or work.

I don't think fandom should be shock troopers for content.

[vampiremeerkat]

I kinda need some advice (if you're comfortable giving), how does one keep their cool/sanity in the hellish atmosphere that is fandom nowadays? I really wanna get back to fanart and stuff as purely a hobby (and it was a huge part of my childhood) but considering how much of a warzone it is nowadays, I dunno if I can. Got anything?

Don't think I'm the right person to ask, I've not had that many entanglements with fellow fans throughout my online career. It's easy to assume that's because my overall viewership/online presence is low, but I've had the occasional semi-viral success and always enjoyed more praise than "criticism". I'd say fandoms in general are lenient and supportive, but every and any kind of community in the world has an insufferable minority. They shout and have alot of time on their hands, making it seem like you're dealing with a crowd, but that's never the case. Even if hundreds of people jump you, billions walk the Earth; it's not even a fraction of a percent you've displeased. But here's an actual answer to your question: In short:

Choose your fandoms wisely.

Don't overstay your welcome by sticking with one.

Don't join any online communities or participate in ongoing discourse. You're only here to draw.

Train yourself to understand that nothing in life fucking matters anyway. :(

In ｌｏｎｇ: I switch my focus alot. If I attract fans of a particular fandom, but the next thing I show off is less likely to tickle their interest, most will leave again, and it's kinda protecting me from growing an unsettlingly invested fanbase. Praise and attention never motivated me to stick around with one series for long, because I know what's waiting around the corner and don't want to be known as "the <insert this one piece of media here> artist", anyway. Look at my nonsense and go away, I just want to die alone! I'm also not active at any online forums and rarely look up and comment on other people's work. Spares you alot of "who asked you"-styled responses. I might've not when I was younger, but agree with the sentiment now. Unless you come across something criminal, why intrude on someone else's fun. Grumble about it on your account if you must, but don't take it to theirs.. even though it's valid to argue that posting something online is an automatic invitation for others to critique it, especially when you don't apply any form of visibility restrictions. I don't really care to discuss ideas with fellow fans. Weird claim, since my Tumblr exists, but I started this account to post Deviantart stuff. People showed up one day and started asking questions about the fandoms I've been involved in (or haven't), but it's not my hobby to get deep about a fictional property. Without getting instigated, anyway. I think about a question's subject as I read the words, do my best to dissect the whole thing and not throw around one-sentence replies, but seldom have the answer ready in my head. The3Eds was the only forum I enjoyed myself at, and the things I talked about over there barely had anything to do with Ed, Edd n Eddy. In the end, no one will be able to offer you one foolproof strategy on this matter. There've been many artists in the past who minded their business and were slaughtered by strangers. You need to be the kind of person who doesn't take online verbal abuse to bed. That's hard to do if you're looking for validation. You could avoid large fandoms that are known to attract the overly defensive and offensive, but if you have to tiptoe through life for others, what's even the point. Know that the internet is a luxury you don't have to participate in. Log off for a week or so if you're feeling down, or alternatively, delete all comment notifications indiscriminately as you keep on doing your thing.. unless you insist on deleting negative comments, but I don't think you should. Why stop people from embarrassing themselves in public. I don't think I've ever deleted comments, unless it's copy-pasted stuff/spam, because what often happens is that the poster regrets and deletes it themselves. I suppose that has value too. Allow that shit to stay alive, so the poster may one day return to it and potentially realise they're better than that. It's easier to keep your calm when you humanize your critics, if you can. The way a person expresses themselves may be trash, but what is it they're saying, and can the reason be empathized with? Sometimes you're dealing with someone who's obviously a child. I struggle to get angry at people under the age of 20. But really -and more importantly- no one should waste their time on fighting fellow fans when it concerns an issue that's objectively not important, you have better things to do. Try to close your eyes for it, it's seldom personal, even if the attacks try to be. People can pretend, but they don't know you and never will.

[marblebees]

A lot of ppl here post a lot about what other ppl are or arent allowed to enjoy or write about and like??? Genuinely im unsure what yall’re talking about or like. Intending to do with posts abt this topic.

Like idk i get that a lot of ppl take “i personally dislike this thing” as “i think this thing should be outright banned” both bc. Some ppl conflate the two positions, and bc some ppl are used to understanding that the former means the latter.

And like again I can only rlly see. What ppl say broadly bc im just NOT in fandom spaces i have no clue what ppl rlly mean bc i havent seen the posts theyre reacting to?? But also like theres something in between which is the reality that there is a level of sensitivity ppl should have when approaching certain topics and especially when making mass media, bc there rlly isnt a lot you just outright Arent Allowed to Publish even as Fiction in the US, at least; but if you’re like, say making a tv show thats going on netflix i feel like a lot of ppl were in agreement that shows like 13 Reasons Why and Dahmer did handle their subject matters inappropriately in a way that Could Cause real Material Harm.

But thats the thing right. Most ppl talking abt “you shouldnt do x or y in your stories” are talking about Indie Media like it has the same intentions or ability to shape public opinion like mass media does; and its just weird to me to treat both as the same- and I do know a lot of ppl get rlly uppity when indie media isnt able to do the kinda of things mass media can bc they dont realise that difference.

But all this is still different from Censorship. I think “all media has a right to exist regardless of subject matter” is honestly an awful blanket statement, bc even if true from an anti-censorship pov, it kinda leads into the similar “my thing that i enjoy shouldnt be criticised bc it has a right to exist” and like??? Thats the issue, you can still object to media on a personal level and engage in criticism of it without wanting it Censored by some hypothetical government you have influence in to this extent. Idk why this is so polarised, either This Thing is Cancelled or everyones just a bootlicker for not liking this controversial thing like??????????

[nerdby]

Just need to say this thing I've been keeping to myself: Judging people for the media they consume is the worst type of hypocritical pearlclutching that leftist extremists are guilty of.

ALL MEDIA IS PROBLEMATIC.

Unless someone is knowingly supporting whyte supremacists or pedophiles or something with the media they are consuming then shut the hell up. If people are on social media going off about how amazing cops are because of Law & Order or are actively fearmongering hateful bullshit cause they just watched Silence Of The Lambs for the first time or whatever then go ahead and say something.

But if someone is just saying shit like, "Oh, that was a great episode of CSI," or whatever then just shut the fuck up. People don't need to be fucking lectured and preached at twenty-four-fucking-seven. Especially cause most of the people watching shows like CSI are adults who are able to discern fact from fiction.

We know that 99.9% of cops are pure fucking evil.

We know that serial killers aren't good people.

We know that domestic violence isn't cute and romantic.

We know all of these things are true in real life, but luckily most media is FICTIONAL -- it's not fucking real. And yes while all media is political the media one consumes is not necessarily a reflection of their political leanings. Especially if the creator of the media in question is already DEAD!

Do you think everyone who owns a copy of Alice In Wonderland is a pedophile?

And if so, how can you NOT realize how batshit paranoid that is?!

People keeping going on and on about how there's no counterculture in the US, and I cannot believe I am saying this but it really is because people are too easily offended. Because once a piece of media gets labeled "problematic" anyone who enjoys said media is automatically pure fucking evil. Because pearlclutchers exist on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

Like people hate Colleen Hoover because she writes toxic romance, but how many of them actually know Colleen Hoover? How many of the people criticizing her have ever even met or spoken with her? Cause writing toxic romance stories can be cathartic and therapeutic. It can help process trauma or let us confront our fears in a safe environment where we aren't in any danger.

By declaring things as inane as a romance novel problematic and therefore evil YOU are actively contributing to the erasure of counterculture in the US. Because counterculture is all about being an edgy McPunkRock emo edgelord -- that's sarcasm by the way. Because really counterculture is about enjoying the TABOO -- like banned books. Those are taboo and things like true crime, horror movies, toxic romance, and even things like the Civil Rights movement have also been historically considered taboo.

Because the taboo is anything that upsets the mainstream society -- anything that makes the suburban whyte Xstrians uncomfortable is taboo.

That is the entire point of the phrase ART DOES NOT EXIST TO COMFORT YOU. The phrase is directed at the whyte suburban Xstrians.

THATS WHY RIGHTWINGERS HATE THE ARTS FFS🤬

But we aren't allowed to enjoy the taboo anymore cause now everything is triggering or problematic. Everyone needs fucking spoilers for everything now whether we want them or not because everything is just SO shocking and SO traumatizing. For two fucking years, we had to listen to fangirls cry about Peter Parker getting turned to dust in Infinity War.

TWO FUCKING YEARS!!!!

If seeing a fictional character get harmed upsets you that fucking much then you should probably be in therapy, okay? Like if you're having an emotional breakdown from reading a Colleen fucking Hoover novel then you need therapy. Cause there is something else going on there. And that's not a bad thing.

Needing therapy is a neutral thing. Like obviously its something we'd all probably rather avoid, but realistically it's probably something we could ALL benefit from in the long term. Like everyone needs therapy. We're all fucked up, okay?

So just stop it.

Unless someone is using a movie or book or whatever as justification to be a racist, queerphobic eugenicist assholes just fucking stop it. Unless they are supporting LIVING people who are actively going out of their way to inflict harm on marginalized communities -- people like JK ROWLING -- then just shut up. Just let people fucking live and enjoy things.

Stop projecting your triggers and insecurities onto everyone else. Stop fucking shitting on people cause they like true crime or Law & Order or anime or whatever. Because you -- yes, even the noble leftists fighting for Civil Rights -- are really just acting like a pretentious, judgemental white fucking knight pearlclutcher and you're erasing counterculture.

And that is EXACTLY what the right wants.

[wodania]

hi! this isn’t an ask but an appreciation barge in, i love seeing you on my dash because you always have interesting takes (which i agree with like 99% of the time - leaving the 1% out just because i don’t remember if you ever said something i disagreed with atm) and i think we share some similar ways of thinking/approaching media so yeah i like you!! 🫶✨ have a wonderful day/night

akskaksks thank you 😭😭😭

I always get scared sharing my opinion bc I’m used to the Twitter environment that’s super toxic. I’m so glad people there’s people who enjoy reading what I have to say and agree. My own experiences have made it impossible for me to not think of the wider picture when it comes to fandom discourse. How the depiction of characters impacts real life communities or perceptions of these communities, how fandom often focuses more on the fictional than the real, etc etc. Being in the asoiaf fandom where there’s so many problematic elements in the story means that, imo, you’ve gotta analyze things deeper than what you’re given. Why did the author feel the need to do this? How is racism written into this character? Why is this culture written in an orientalist way? You can tell I was a favourite in English class. When it comes to engaging with “problematic” stuff, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it as long as you are able to distinguish the good and the bad and aren’t afraid to criticize decisions that were made by the author or writes, which a lot of people are unable or unwilling to do. That’s sorta the basis of most of my opinions I find. Look at the bigger, real picture as opposed to the fictional one when dealing with topics such as racism, misogyny, etc.

[planckstorytime]

Final Fantasy VII Rebirth: A World Beyond Anger (Part One)

“A confluence of worlds… and emotions. Loss, chief among them. It engulfs fleeting moments of joy, transforming them into rage, sadness, hatred.”

– Sephiroth, Final Fantasy VII Rebirth (2024), speaking to me, specifically

*The following contains spoilers*

I. Memoirs of a Neurotic Fan

Hoo boy.

It’s been a long four years since Final Fantasy VII Remake (2020) released, and I don’t think I have ever before devoted so much emotional energy to deciphering how I truly feel about a piece of media. Initially, I enjoyed my return to a reimagined world of lovable characters, but unfavorable writing choices and a mind-boggling finale left me feeling torn. Despite striving to maintain an optimistic outlook at the end of my previous essay, my perspective on the game only darkened as the years wore on. Developer interviews constantly oscillated back and forth as to whether they would remain faithful to the original FF7 (1997), or, as the ending of Remake indicated, strike out on a brand new “unknown journey.” That’s not to mention the downright radioactive discourse among fans, combined with the litany of harassing messages I received for the most tepid criticisms.

Eventually, I grew to despise Remake. The positive emotions and ecstatic love I had for parts of the game sunk beneath my waves of ire toward its creative divergences – as well as what they represented to me. And I fed that hate. I hated its ponderous navel-gazing about the nature of adaptations. I hated its self-congratulatory insinuation that asinine story decisions like the “Baby’s-First-Metacommentary” Whispers and the resurrection of multiple deceased characters somehow constituted “bold” storytelling. I hated the uncritical portion of certain audiences that fell for this illusion of transgressive storytelling, all the while embracing a game that went out of its way to barrage the player with fanservice and puerile pandering. I hated the frequent argumentation that “it’s not a remake, it’s a sequel” was somehow seen as a mitigating factor, when it actually further aggravated my problems with it. I hated Remake’s emphasis on novelty, its subversion without meaning, its arrogant alienation of new audiences that wanted to experience a classic story, and its implicitly cynical view on thousands of years of storytelling tradition for the sake of “surprise.” To quote director Naoki Hamaguchi:

“When you try to remake a game and make it an entertaining game, having the exact storyline as the original would lack the excitement and surprise. I was looking for an essence to add to the story, and Zack was chosen to be this essence because in the original, there wasn’t much story about Zack, but in Crisis Core, he had a huge character development.”

But that lonely ember of hope persisted; after all, I had loved Remake at one point. I hated that stubborn attachment most of all. By the time Rebirth was fully unveiled, I wanted only one thing from it: to repulse me to my core, to be something so egregiously offensive to my sensibilities that I could never associate the project with anything positive again. “Perhaps if things get stupid enough,” I thought, “others will also see the emperor’s nakedness.” Pain and despair morphed into objects of desire for me. They were my keys to escaping these contradictory feelings of love and hate.

As you can see, I am quite well-adjusted and able to engage with art in a healthy way.

Silly feelings, right? I totally agree, but I can’t deny that’s how it played out. I realized that I was allocating an unhealthy amount of energy into something that made me feel bad, but I felt powerless to stop it. I kept picking at that scab. It itched insatiably. Surely, I must be justified, right? After all, Square Enix was clearly in the wrong! They wasted a golden opportunity to modernize a legendary piece of interactive fiction with massive talent and money behind it! They marketed a crappy predatory gacha game as “another opportunity” for a more faithful remake! They ran a crappier battle royale game into the ground in just a year! They sold energy-sucking NFTs as a package deal with cool figures of eco-terrorists! If I stewed in my anger enough, perhaps the multi-million dollar company would realize the error of its ways! It seemed that the very future of the artistic medium hung in the balance, and I was determined to be on the right side of history.

In truth, I don’t think the magnitude of my displeasure can be attributed entirely to my gripes with Square (though I stand by my criticisms). Rather, the intense response resulted from the emotional displacement of a lot of personal trauma and grief that plagued me for years. Ironically, there are few things more definitively “Final Fantasy VII” than that. Those negative emotions needed somewhere to go, but they just got caught in a feedback loop where bitterness and pain became both the motivator and the end goal.

All of these notions turned out to be eerily relevant to the narrative of Rebirth. Or perhaps my narcissistic ass couldn’t help but see my darker self in the black reflection of a 4K TV. Grab your cigars, folks, because you can bet we’re getting psychoanalytical today.

I dreaded it for so long, but I’m glad that I tried out Rebirth. To my surprise, I did not hate it – at least, not completely. I first engaged with it in Lizard Brain mode, doing my damnedest to just let it happen. I tried not to let my nitpicking get the better of me and ruin my enjoyment. Cautiously, I opened my heart to the series again. In many ways, it continues to frustrate and disappoint me, but I had something of an epiphany upon finishing it. I will elaborate on that in due time. First, I need to share my thoughts, criticisms, and interpretations of the story, as they are all critical to my personal reconciliation.

If you have the patience, please listen to my story about how I (possibly) stumbled onto a path of spiritual enlightenment through examining my feelings on a dumb anime game.

“Glimpses of Moksha in a cycle of Saṃsāra” by Crawfish Comic FULL ESSAY: https://planckstorytime.wordpress.com/2024/05/11/final-fantasy-vii-rebirth-a-world-beyond-anger/

[suncchaser]

anti-intellectualism in the booktok & the whole tiktok generation is a real thing & I knew it would continue to get worse when my Gen-Z younger brother told me TikTok had overtaken Google as the most used search function. Just from observations over the years, these new young fans don’t really do their due diligence when entering pre-existing fandoms which I guess they don’t HAVE to, but it causes so much issues that the “old-head” fans constantly have to spell things out for them when they can literally look these things up themselves. It evolved from new younger fans trying to shame & push the narrative that adults in their 20s who engage in fandom are weird and it’s a space only for teenagers when it’s the adults who are the ones who create the best free fandom content and it adults who created the media they are fans of, then it went to younger fans advocating for a “For You Page” on Ao3 bc they can’t be bothered to use the basic search function and filter to discover new fics they want to read and that an archive is not a social media platform, to saying fanfic writers should be able to be paid/tipped directly on fanfic sites for their their hard work resulting in them getting lectured by older fans about how copyright works

This issue is very layered and very nuanced because there are so many factors that play into the current state of social media and fandom spaces due to the influence of Tiktok. 

I have seen so many people, including adults completely missing the point in the conversation about anti-intellectualism in booktok and acting like people are shaming them for reading “easy romance books” and being elitist and pretentious when it was never about that. It’s about the tropification, dumbing down and reducing books and even entire series to one little thing about them. It’s about no longer existing a place for real, nuanced conversations about books on booktok. It’s about the refusal to have open discussions on problematic books and authors because “let people have fun” and “it’s not that deep”. 

That is what anti-intellectualism is about - closing the door to any critical discussion simply because you enjoy something and therefore, no one should criticize it. And that is harmful because it actively shuts down important conversations. And I see this attitude often in the Marauders fandom. It’s always “it’s not that deep, it’s fictional” but like I said, I don’t believe actions can exist in a vacuum. I do not believe that you can exhibit biases and prejudices towards a female character, per example, and not carry those biases and prejudices in your real life because that has to come from somewhere. 

And regarding the younger generation, I think growing up on social media has done a lot of damage in the sense that they have become completely detached from empathy and kindness online. They do not understand the weight of their words on social media because they genuinely do not think it’s that deep. And that’s problematic. They like provoking, they like arguments, it’s all part of the fun for them. It’s normal for them because it’s what they grew up with. I remember when I was a teenager, 10 years ago, we used to be embarrassed to say we were 15, 16 years old. These kids nowadays are calling anyone over the age of 20 a hag and telling them to go get jobs (as if you can’t have a job and be on social media).

[trans-elrond]

7, 8, 14, 24 for the choose violence asks 😈

thanks for your contribution to the unending torments <3

7. what character did you begin to hate not because of canon but because how how the fandom acts about them?

funny that this is the same answer as the last question........ but H*lbrand in ROP. I mean, it's not hate hate, I think he's an interesting character and i have read fic with him that i liked, but the next person to go omg daddy sexy slut s*uron i want him to spank me or whatever? u get the KNIFE. develop some shame!

8. common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

I think there are ... lots but it is sometimes annoying when people didn't want characters to die and it's like, okay, but that's the point of the story?

(saying this as i'm guilty of not wanting abner krill or bialar crais to die, but like, i can recognize i wouldn't have loved the stories as much if they had avoided their fates.)

14. that one thing you see in fics all the time

this is petty English major of me, but people use the wrong fucking words all the time, especially in the sort of... flowery sensual archaism tone that is so popular among younger fanfic writers. just so many misused words. i will close a fic and also if the mistake is funny enough make fun of it to my friends. (I like words a lot! but not blatant misuse. idk, use a dictionary.)

(this is not to shame second language English learners, who are often way more careful with words anyway? i'm talking about regular old first-language English speakers who are trying to make their prose better and accidentally make it worse.)

24. topic that brings up the most rancid discourse

where do i begin. so much rancid discourse on this website! any kind of petty ship wars or fandom wars and... uh-oh girls i feel a thought coming on

okay i'm going to attempt to say this next bit in a way that doesn't set the snipers on me, or alienate the people i know and love who enjoy them critically, because i have obviously watched m*rvel and t*p gun myself and read & enjoyed fic for them. but like: while there are obvious exceptions and there are plenty of fans reclaiming & reworking these fandoms, i think it can be a sign of immaturity to latch onto those giant blockbusters with obvious pro-imperialism pro-cop themes and not be able to take constructive criticism about your media diet. (see: "it's just escapism", "it's my comfort show", "it's just fiction it doesn't mean anything" etc.)

if pro-cop pro-imperialism media is a significant part of your media diet, you maybe need to consider branching out and watching stuff that isn't spoon-fed propaganda. and you need to be able to say, these are things within these films/shows that do not align with my own worldview; i enjoy it for these other reasons. ALL THAT TO SAY watch what you want whatever i ain't a cop but please do so with brain cells and also there is a wonderful world of non-cop/CIA propaganda out there that you might find you enjoy if you watch something other than Generic Blockbuster #72 because it stars one of the Chrises you like.

basically i think people on tumblr need to touch grass. my absolute favorite film of 2022 was Athena, a French film about brothers and their different approaches to police brutality, that had about 0 marketing. i wouldn't have discovered it if i only watched giant studio films.