thewarshipper

[thewarshipper]

Of course.

Stop thinking of it in terms of colonialism and the like. An adventure is exactly that - an adventure. It's going out and exploring new places, finding new things, learning new information. Absolutely nothing about the classical adventure demands that one be a selfish asshole about it. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Many stories utilize the core premise of a person exploring some lost or distant land to learn and grow from it as an excuse to push narratives of theft, of being more worthy than the natives, ect, but that does not mean the story is of that thing entirely. Just as not every rescue romance must be entirely composed of the belittlement and marginalization of women; just as not every fiction about superheroes must be about the empowerment of a fascistic few at the expense of the many; just as not every detective story must be about the exploitation of the poor and violation of privacy; and on and on it goes. Stories are about the feeling that they give you. If somebody is looking for a sense of colonialism and exploitation of outsiders, then they'll find it no matter how careful you are to avoid that. By all means, consider the implications of your writing, but attempting to limit yourself to the perspectives of others or the potential themes of prior stories beyond ensuring that your own perspective is sufficiently clear is folly. Your story is your own, nobody elses. Compare and contrast it against others for the sake of improving your own craft, not for the sake of satisfying arbitrary standards of moral certitude.

Putting out a question for my followers: Is the pulp adventure treasure hunting genre, ala Indiana Jones, redeemable for the colonialist tropes and themes baked into its DNA? Can it ever be separated from that legacy? Is it possible to tell a story in that vein that does not perpetuate the harmful idea of taking artifacts from their rightful resting place/owners? How do we rehabilitate this genre while still keeping the fun parts alive? Asking because I'm having trouble overcoming this hurdle in my attempts to write a YA book series in that genre.

[thewarshipper]

I have no idea who this is or what it's about.

and then people had the gall to say she was being unreasonable for setting boundaries

[thewarshipper]

How I Came to Understand Queer Stuff

When I was two years old, I was homeless. My mother was homeless. We lived in a shelter and often had to go to doctors appointments, because I was born with a severe deformity that required surgical correction, while dealing with those issues. And one day social services came to my mother and told her that if she couldn't find a home, they would take me from her.

So she went to her support group, a little circle of complete strangers, and she told them about this. About how she had nothing and nobody who could help her. And two incredible women helped her.

I will call those two women E and L. They had two sons of their own, who I will call D and J.

I grew up with those two women and their sons. Their sons were better brothers to me than my actual brother. They were incredible people who we lived with, multiple times over the years, when life got hard and we didn't have anywhere else to go. I loved them because they were part of my family, and often times when I looked at them I was envious and felt frustrated and depressed because they seemed so much happier and more stable and more healthy than my "real" family.

And I didn't know they were gay until I was fourteen, and I was going through what could be charitably described as an ecoconservationist phase, and I thought that the world would be better off if humanity was extinct. At that time I was very enamoured with the idea of the "natural" world. The way things "should" be. And in one discussion I had with my mother, I don't know how the topic came up, I said that being gay is unnatural.

And she asked me if I thought E and L were unnatural. Wrong.

They didn't hide their relationship. As I said, they had two sons. I knew that they were together. But it wasn't until that moment that the idea that they were gay entered my mind. That I ever even conceived of the idea that people I knew were gay.

One of my favorite actors as a child was Jim Carrey. He was in a variety of films, but for the purpose of this post we'll focus on one in particular. If anybody here monitors the depiction of transgender people in media, you'll likely already know what I'm about to talk about, but spoiler warning for the 1994 comedy film starring Jim Carrey known as Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.

The plot of the film is that an important dolphin named Snowflake (I'm not sure if that counts as irony or just an interesting coincidence, but there it is) is kidnapped and, in the course of investigating, protagonist Ace Ventura stumbles upon a murder plot conducted by a disgraced football player. At the climax of the film, Ace Ventura reveals that football player is actually... the female police officer in charge of the investigation. Ace reveales this by stripping her clothes and revealing that she... has certain organs. In front of the entire police department. Funny music then plays as dozens of men openly vomit upon seeing the nearly naked transgender woman.

I was too young to watch this movie. It's horrendously sexual and, to be frank, I didn't understand many, if not most, of the jokes. The idea that the villain was a "man who made himself look like a woman" literally did not penetrate my brain. The entire main twist of the movie flew over my head.

But when I was... perhaps ten or twelve, the exact year is difficult to pin down. But slightly older, but still a child. I discovered fanfiction, and among the many articles of fanfiction I found, there was one story in particular that has stuck with me all these years. A single aspect of it, at least. I don't remember the name, or the plot, or when I read it. All I remember is that it was a Harry Potter fanfic where Professor Snape acted as a caring, loving mentor to Harry... and that Hermione was a shy young girl who would much prefer to be a boy called Hermy.

I don't think the word transgender was ever used. I don't think any recognizable queer terminology was used. But nonetheless the concept was explained to Harry, by Professor Snape and by Hermy himself, that some people are simply more comfortable being treated differently to how they normally would be.

It was a very calm and empathetic explanation. Hermy's pain and troubles were described, but did not define his situation. He was simply happy to be accepted as he was by Snape and Harry.

There are other works that have featured "queer" characters I have seen since. Likely better written ones. I'm certain that if I found that fic now, I would hate it to some degree, for lionizing Snape if nothing else. But nonetheless I remember that story, something I read what must be close to two decades ago, for allowing me to conceptualize something I'd never known of before.

Because I'd seen "transvestites" and "Crossdressers" in media before. And every single time it was as a joke. I did not see those characters as something that could legitimately exist. Even in movies that, at least on a surface level, was amenable to their existence, such as 50 First Dates which features an amnesiac character awkwardly correcting her referring to a post-transition character by the correct gender and name, still uses that as an opportunity for comedy.

A year or two ago a coworker of mine was extremely angry that Sesame Street was "teaching kids to be transgender." He argued that the subject was inappropriate. That you shouldn't talk about that kind of stuff with kids. He said that he no longer believed in Sesame Street.

I haven't seen whatever clip he was talking about. To be frank, I don't care. Childrens' entertainment and education is important, but just about anything can be twisted for a purpose. That wasn't what got me thinking. That conversation got me thinking back to my own childhood and how, one day, I said that being gay is unnatural.

And I said that because I didn't realize that two women who I loved like my own mother were gay, despite living with them and eating with them and mourning with them and playing with them and learning with them.

Being gay or straight or transgender or so on isn't important. I don't think kids need specific classes on that kind of thing. But I do think that some effort must be made to ensure they are aware that it happens. That it's a possibility. That it's just another part of a person.

Because I didn't understand who two people I loved were, and I could have very easily hurt them in that ignorance.

[thewarshipper]

When I was a little kid, a stray dog came to our dogstep. I let it in and my mom started trying to find the owner. But in the meantime, I thought it was sad that the dog and my (pregnant) cat couldn't be friends. So I put them in the same room and tried to hold them away from eachother, but still close enough to get used to eachother.

My mom saw what I was doing and rightfully told me off for it. I started sulking for a little while, and it was only then, maybe half an hour later, that my (pregnant) cat jumped on my face and scratched the hell out of me.

There was blood all over my face. Pouring down. My mom covered my head with a town while I was sobbing and we got in the car and were jetting off to the emergency room.

And before we were halfway there I had switched from crying because ow, and started crying because I thought animal control was going to murder my cat and I was begging my mom not to let them do it.

Anyway the doctors looked me over and stitched up something like twenty lacerations, the largest of which was right at the corner of my eye. No bites, which means my prayers were answered and nobody was calling the exterminator squad. Rachel lived several more years, had a lovely litter of kittens the next day, and I got a nice big scar beneath my eye that is still slightly visible to this day.

scars in fiction: I got this trying to save my lover from an assassin- but tragically, I was too late. now I carry the mark of my failure with me always, and I can never forget~

scars in real life: so I was trying to open macaroni sauce with a paring knife

[thewarshipper]

A lot of the time arguments against immortality feel a lot like arguments for suicide.

I can understand opposition to immortality due to the potential stressors it puts on society, unprepared civilizations falling into unending madness and suffering, limited availability of immortality being inherently unfair, ect, ect. Practical, pragmatic reasons.

But it's always shit like "But life sucks."

"immortality sucks because all your friends die" all your friends die anyway. those we do not mourn are those who mourn us.

"immortality sucks because you forget who you are" we always forget who we are. do you remember who you were at four years of age? who you were at fourteen? "who i am" is a shadow cast on the wall.

"immortality sucks because" skill issue. skill issue. skill issue. give me your liver

[thewarshipper]

Makes a nice two minute story... but it doesn't feel true.

Bruce Wayne is a rich motherfucker who hobnobs with other rich motherfuckers and who deliberately cultivates a reputation as a vapid moron who likes charities. The people who are gonna seek him out for dates are nine times out of ten going to be trying to take his money, his attention, or his reputation for their own purposes. The idea that he would inadvertantly grow a socialite cult of women who consider him a huge ally through his "vapid idiot dating" technique is just... bleh.

I've seen a lot of posts about Batman using his Bruce Wayne alter ego for the good of Gotham: job programs for felons released from prison, orphanages, charities, high wages for his employees, ethical business practices...the legendary post where Bruce Wayne goes to Wal-Mart.

Thus far I've never personally seen anybody really dig into the persona of Bruce Wayne the Billionaire Playboy. A handsome, rich, powerful man who always is seen at fancy galas, art openings, charity dinners, and wild parties with at least one beautiful woman on his arm.

We know Bruce Wayne is the mask, and its Batman who has a...complex love life, depending on the iteration we're talking about. Talia, Catwoman, sometimes Wonder Woman.

Bruce Wayne's dates, on the other hand, are all "normal" people. Maybe they're an aspiring actress, a supermodel, a prima ballerina, the occasional reporter...and every time there's that bit of nervousness at the start.

Sure everyone knows Bruce Wayne. Everyone knows the story with him. Sometimes his wilder parties make the news, but there's never really been anything nasty reported about him. Never...allegations. But he's a billionaire. He's one of the most powerful people in the whole city, nevermind the country. If he did have some skeletons in his closet. Well. Men with power have a way of making those kinds of stories go away, don't they?

As time goes on the Date's fears dissipate pretty quickly. Bruce Wayne is nothing but polite, kind, and at times charmingly awkward in an 'raised by his butler in a mansion' kind of way with his dates. Some of them can tell he's holding back, of course. Maybe the more perceptive Dates notice he's smarter than he lets on - playing the himbo or hamming up the "no-nothing rich boy" act to the cameras or some of his wealthy peers.

He also listens, is the thing. He's always listening to what they're saying, is interested in hearing about their careers, their hobbies, their lives. Really listens, too. Might refer to something a Date said weeks later off-hand. Buy out the whole museum for a private dinner date with a famous painting from an obscure artist they like, or a private performance with another's favorite band.

He has anecdotes and funny stories for days that somehow says very little about his personal life. The Dates know he has kids (it's practically a running gag in the news that Bruce Wayne has adopted yet another orphan) and maybe she might spot one of them at the mansion, but Bruce seems very keen to shelter them from any intense spotlight and scrutiny, and they all seem happy if a bit weird like him.

Eventually, there's drifting. He's a very busy man, with a very busy schedule. On more than on occasion his nice old butler will call and extend apologies that Mr. Wayne will not be able to make it this evening. Sometimes it's virtually impossible to get a hold of him over the phone. After a while they stop trying. None of them feel quite surprised by that. In the end, it just doesn't work. Sure, he's a little distant and doesn't make himself emotionally available...but he's not a bad person.

Especially when the so-called "exes" of Bruce Wayne start networking. Gotham isn't a small city, but the social circles Bruce Wayne travels in aren't as big. They don't quite gossip or complain about him. More like...who else would get it?

(I touched his side once and he winced...like he'd been hurt real bad there. He laughed and said it was tackle polo. How does that even-?)

(Somehow, after two dates, he saw right through me and listened while I told him what that casting director tried to do. He nodded, gave me the contact details of a law firm, and said not to worry about the legal fees.)

(I don't know for sure it was him, but it can't be a coincidence that my building got bought out from under my shitty landlord and we were all able to buy our apartments under market value.)

(He got my brother in the best rehab program in the city after his relapse. It probably saved his life. We'd stopped dating months ago, I still don't know how he found out.)

(He gave me a card with a phone number and told me that if I was ever in trouble to call it. Said one of his cars would come to pick me up, any time, any place, no questions asked. The one time I did have to use it after a bad party, it was Alfred.)

I think any tabloid reporter digging around for salacious stories or dirt about Bruce Wayne's love life would be completely and politely stonewalled when they try asking his former Dates. Even when money is offered. Every single one of them.

[thewarshipper]

But women acting manly is fundamentally more acceptable on a broad level than men acting womanly. The point isn't that there are no people who treat girls as wrong for having masculine traits or behaviors, but that there are less people who treats girls as wrong compared to men.

Putting up all the most extreme examples of one side doesn't indicate what the average is or comment on what the opposite side experiences. Spiders Georg does not represent all humanity, and Spiders Georg doesn't say anything about how many spiders eat humans a year.

"No one cares if women / transmascs / afab people wear pants and boy clothes!!!"

On my knees begging you to talk to people who grew up in religious fundamentalist communities and high control groups / cults

[thewarshipper]

The idea that you have to "translate" stories to fit yourself is sad. You see yourself as so different from other human beings that you constantly put a filter between yourself and their stories. I've experienced stories that were "meant" for women, for children, for adults, for straight and gay and lesbian and more. And not everything resonated with me, not everything spoke to me, not everything made sense to me, but the difference was never whether or not I was exactly the same as somebody in the story. Being exactly the same would have been the worst thing in the world. One of the most valuable things about telling stories is being able to see how other people feel and think.

I've never had to translate a story. I've had to understand them. If the idea of understanding other people puts such pressure on a person, then I grow a little closer to understanding why they feel so alienated.

[thewarshipper]

You know those posts where somebody spends a bunch of time putting together brilliant ideas, looking back on everything that already exists and trying to create something new and brilliant and genre-defining

and then they realize "Goddamnit that already existed. I literally just made the thing that made this popular in the first place. I looked at the world and tried to make something new and got to the starting point that everybody else has been at for years."

I've never seen that happen in real time before.

"Who Is Superman? A Private Interview with Lois Lane" a fancomic about hope and connection. I've had this story in mind for so long and I'm very excited to be able to share it at last. Thank you for reading, and happy Lunar New Year!

[thewarshipper]

Going on a completely different track, while I was reading this series of posts I was reminded of David from the Reckoners' Trilogy and how, thematically, it features a very similar mix of "Simple Soul" and "Black and White setting becomes grey over time."

Spoilers obviously, but I want to discuss the Reckoners' Trilogy. The Reckoners is all about a superhero setting where getting powers literally, verifiably makes you an evil bastard. Having superpowers is described as giving you the impulse control of a child, even an infant, where everything that is even slightly obstructive to your wants and needs becomes an irritant to be removed. And the first book is all about David gathering the allies and resources necessary to enact his plan to kill Steelheart, one of if not the most powerful supers in the world, the man who murdered his father.

And the only thing that makes this possible is that supers each have a special weakness. A personal kryptonite. It seems random, but over the course of the first book David comes to learn that each Super is weakened by, vulnerable to their greatest fear.

And Steelheart's greatest fear is somebody who isn't afraid of him.

In any other series this would be the point where David is able to prove that he isn't afraid anymore, that he's not the little boy who hid while Steelheart murdered his father and he can take down the greatest villain in the world on his own. But that's not what happens.

Because David is afraid. He's terrified. At the end of the first book he's facing down Steelheart personally for the first time and there is nothing he can do to hurt the man. Even knowing his weakness, he can't exploit it himself.

But he faces Steelheart down anyway, in spite of his fear, and wins by tricking Steelheart into killing himself. Because the only person who doesn't fear Steelheart is Steelheart himself.

And this is a theme that continues across the series. David is brave, not fearless. And this seems like it should be unique, but as the series goes on and he learns more about how powers work, we discover that there's nothing inherently special about David except that he convinces other people they want to be brave.

Because the entire series is about fear and bravery. The reason people granted superpowers become violent paranoiacs is because they refuse to face their greatest weaknesses - their fears. When David is able to talk to some of them on equal ground despite having no powers, when he's able to connect with them and show them that you can be afraid and still decide to do something, he's able to teach them to overcome their innate corruption.

And what starts as a story about one small team saving a single city in a world that's post-apocalypse becomes grander in scale as David tackles the very nature of why the world is the shithole it is. And there's nothing about David himself that makes him special. There are other brave people. There are other people who have gained powers and overcome their fears. But he's the one who was determined enough and got lucky enough that he could convince some of the most powerful Supers in the world that he's worth engaging with on personal terms.

In a world where immortals can destroy or raise cities in the blink of an eye, David is able to meet with and engage with them on equal ground because he's brave. And not just because he's brave, but because he makes other people want to be brave.

He's not the hero just because he's the viewpoint character. He's not the hero because he has more power or more powerful allies than anybody else. He's not the hero because he was divinely ordained. He's the hero because he's a heroic person and that means something to those he interacts with.

And I used to believe that Ruby was somebody like that, but as RWBY progressed she just continually failed to convince me that anybody would be honestly inspired by her.

In volume 1 through 3, Ruby made friends with Jaune, engaged with Blake over a fairy tale, told Penny that she was a person regardless of flesh and bone or nuts and bolts, stepped up to the plate of leadership. We were told she was socially awkward and kind of weird, but we were shown that she could build genuine connections with people - especially the people who didn't necessarily know how to build those connections on their own. She was somebody I could see changing the world not through simple violence and power, but by becoming somebody people would want to change to world.

But as the series went on, that changed. Her importance to the plot relied less and less on what she brought to the table as a person and more on the violence she could enact. She didn't draw people to her, she forced her way into their business. She didn't inspire trust, she demanded it.

Ruby at the end has no business being the leader of the world against an overbearing darkness because she has no great power with which to ward it off, nor any grand network of allies to stand at her side, nor any overflowing sense of empathy with which to reason with it. Every victory has felt like it was handed to her on a silver platter and every defeat has felt like it was wrested from the jaws of success.

Okay, so I saw this RWBY meme made by a fan and I can't remember it completely but it was about Emerald switching sides. What stood out to me was the language used and how Ruby's group was specifically referred to as "The Good Guys side" and if that doesn't show how broken this show's morality is then I don't know what does. Emerald switched to the side of good, not just Ruby's side. The side that is specifically good because it's Ruby side. You're either with Ruby or against her with no in-between. Compare this to Aang's group in ATLA, affectionately called The Gaang by fans. A term that collectively refers to the group without proclaiming them as THE good guys. We know they're good because their actions show they are good. It isn't just a title grafted on because they're the stars of the show. And while they have an official grouping in the form of Team Avatar. It still isn't used in the same manner as RWBY fans calling all who agree with Ruby "The Good Guys".

Decided to start answering backlog asks! We've officially entered the post-RT discussion era. Fun! 😬

You know, RWBY is compared (unfavorably) to Avatar a lot, but this comparison is particularly interesting to me because Avatar is, well... Avatar. That's a title. And it's a title built into the fictional world, one that's so significant it's worthy of being the name of the show. The Avatar is a combined destiny/job description that, in the words of the wiki, is the "human embodiment of light and peace." Obviously free will still comes into play - I'd never ignore the significance behind Aang's personal choice of how to bring balance to the world - but there's an element of fate here, of self-fulfilling prophecy, and fourth wall-breaking knowledge. In-world, benders are (presumably) not chosen if they're unsuited to be this embodiment of peace. Once someone knows they're the avatar, they can more easily find the courage/determination to meet such high standards because this is how it's "supposed" to be (regardless of whether anything cosmic is actually ensuring their success). And the audience knows, by virtue of that title and our opening, how we're meant to view Aang: as the Good Guy of the story. All that already exists outside of the actions he takes within the show, helping to soften anything potentially suspect with a "Well, he's just a kid" or "Well, everyone makes mistakes," or whatever explanation that's technically true in any harrowing story featuring a young protagonist... but continually falls flat with Team RWBY.

Because RWBY didn't do that same work. RWBY doesn't have a handle on its own identity the way Avatar does. It laid some of the groundwork early on but then never capitalized on it, which is why I'm endlessly groaning over the failure of not doing anything with Ruby's status as a SEW/simple soul. Those could have easily been titles the way "Avatar" is a title, something that the people of Ruby's world see as cosmic evidence of her purity and inherent ability to lead them in this war. Instead, it's just a one-off, ambiguous statement and a very badly used skill.

So yeah, Emerald joins The Good Guys, which wouldn't be bad if, as said, the show had shown the group unambiguously being Good people in a war with black and white solutions. Or, if we had some reason to believe that Ruby is The One True Leader, destined/worthy of bearing this burden no matter the number of mistakes she's made. But RWBY even undermines the title aspect by making Ruby herself fairly inconsequential in later volumes. Yeah, the show is also named after this team/our protagonist... and yet that began to feel incidental as the cast grew AND many of the characters brought new - arguably better - perspectives + powers into the fray. Avatar made the simple but VERY important decision to say, "This is the ONLY GUY who can do this job. Sure, he's going to need a lot of help and saving the world is absolutely a team effort, but that team revolves around him because he is, again, the ONE PERSON who can accomplish this." RWBY failed to set that up and (arguably) failed to show the group being The Good Guys, at least to the extent that the whole world would understandably put their faith in a teenager who, frankly, just keeps making things worse. Like, that's a big consideration imo. Ruby's intentions have always been good and most fans are fully on her side regarding justifications for her choices, so in that sense she is absolutely The Good Guy, but beyond that she's just really bad at saving the world. So if she's not somehow ordained to do it and continually shows a severe lack of skill in this regard... why are the characters/the viewer rooting for her again?

[thewarshipper]

Volume 9 in a nutshell

[thewarshipper]

If it's a gift, then I have the right to tell them it's a shitty gift. Politely. If somebody gives me a book about a demon romantically assfucking Hitler, I'm not a better person for lying to them and telling them it's the best thing I ever read. A gift is meant to be something shared between two people for the explicit purpose of joy. Giving one without any regard for what the other person wants or cares for isn't charity or sharing joy, it's selfishness in the guise of benevolence. It's handing out things and demanding people gratify you so that you can feel better about yourself regardless of what effect that has on them. White lies like that are supposed to smooth over minor issues in a relationship, not distance people from having a relationship in the first place.

Fiction published for all to see isn't a "gift" except in the loosest and most malleable of ways. If you wish others to see what you have made, then you are putting yourself out for judgement. This applies in all ways. Setting up a booth and handing out ham sandwiches - people have the right to tell you if the bread is moldy or complain that you've overcooked it. Engaging with people with constructive or inquisitve ideas and advice is better than simply ignoring anybody and everything you don't like, otherwise nobody would ever engage with anything new ever.

All you're doing is encouraging people to be more close minded, to be more hateful, to shut out anybody and anything they see that doesn't instantly and immediately conform to their inherent biases. There is a place in the world for self indulgence and creating purely for yourself, but the internet, sites like Ao3 or tumblr or so on are not private, they're not the sanctity of your own home or your own private discord group or your phone group chat. They're a public space and by posting on them then lashing out at even the kindest and most well meaning and polite of critiques or questions or discussions on differing opinions, all you do is prove that you don't want an actual community, you don't want to create and exchange ideas and talk to people, you just want to run in circles in a house of mirrors.

Telling people that their opinion doesn't matter because it isn't your own isn't building a community, it's destroying any chance of one.

Nah, fam. It's not about "taking" criticism. It's about the fact that unless a writer asks for it specifically, it's a dick thing to do on a website that is rooted in community.

If a writer wants critique they will ask trusted friends or professional associates (in the relevant field). When a writer shares a fic on AO3 it's not necessarily with the aim of improving their craft (there are better places for that). It's about sharing joy.

Positive comments enhance that feeling of joy and community. Negative comments do not.

Fic isn't a product to be evaluated. If it's not for you, then you can just walk away. 😁

[thewarshipper]

First things first, I exclude tags. Hurt/Comfort, gone, angst, gone, fluff, gone, slowburn, gone, soulmates, gone. Tags that make the most popular angsty characters into dads (like Aizawa for MHA or Snape for Harry Potter) gone. The most popular crossovers, gone, gay, lesbian, and multi ships, gone, villain ships, gone, tags that focus on horrible villains, gone. On and on it goes.

Then I exclude anything that hasn't updated in the past year or so, to get rid of dead fics and the old stories that are super popular but going nowhere and the stories that built the Ao3 fandom culture.

Then I sort by comments, rather than kudos or views or anything, because if a fic got a lot of people talking and bitching it's slightly more likely to be actually worthwhile rather than a vacuous maw of recycled garbage like 98% of what's found on Ao3.

Then I proceed to exclude more tags based on what the filter leaves after I enter these conditions. Usually this ends up with me getting rid of stuff like "The protagonist parent is a terrible person" or "the protagonist is evil this time!" or "The protagonist time traveled! No he won't change anything." or "This society is awful, let me introduce an objectively worse person to rant about how to fix it." Ect.

And then, finally, after searching through the dozen to two hundred fics that are left, I give up out of disgust when all that remains still sucks, leaving me without anything to read until an author I actually respect posts something or bookmarks something they like.

Alright, so this is legitimately something that I have wondered about for a long time, so I figured that I would finally make a poll about it to hopefully satiate my curiosity

If y'all could reblog, I'd appreciate it! I almost always look for the fics with the most kudos, but I'm curious what everyone else does when looking for fanfics! Sorry if your way is not listed, I ran out of options, ha. Feel free to elaborate in the tags too! As a fic writer, It's interesting to me to see how people choose the fics they read.

Also, this is mostly based on the tag system that AO3 has since that's what I'm interested in. If you choose mostly based on the summary or something else, please mention that in tags!

[thewarshipper]

...because causing suffering as a necessary aspect of your very existence is an intrinsically fucked up thing and anybody who would do so without caring is clearly a selfish asshole who doesn't care about the impact they have on the world?

now it may be my own weirdness with the nature of existence but, i dont really get why everyone in TMA cares if someone is inhuman?

so your buddy feeds on fear? ok! sure!

does being human even matter???? whats the big deal about not being human!