#you can enjoy fictional media but most be able to think critically | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

arkus-rhapsode · 7 months

Text

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.

#fire emblem #fire emblem three houses #fe3h #black eagles #edelgard von hresvelg #crimson flower #rhea #dimitri alexandre blaiddyd #claude von riegan #rhapsode rambles

38 notes · View notes

neruomancer · 13 days

Text

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.

#ramblings

5 notes · View notes

vampiremeerkat · 6 months

Note

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.

#fandom

16 notes · View notes

nerdby · 4 months

Text

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.

4 notes · View notes

marblebees · 6 months

Text

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??????????

#i know nuance is not huge on this site but like #genuinely i see ppl talking abt how ppl keep making raceplay fics and then posts abt how all fiction #being allowed includes incest and like no one mentions race at all so like????? who are you people

5 notes · View notes

wodania · 18 days

Note

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.

#my asks

5 notes · View notes

planckstorytime · 21 days

Text

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/

4 notes · View notes

abnerkrill · 1 year

Note

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.

#aadmelioraa #ask games

12 notes · View notes

enneamage · 1 year

Text

Youtube, counterculture and What The People Want. These are massive topics that really get the noggin joggin’. Tommy delivered a motivational speech (still peppered with a bit of a lack of awareness that the people he looks back on fondly were once criticized for creating low effort trend following content) about how the people are craving a change because of how hollow certain video formats are becoming.

I’ve touched a little bit on Mr.Beastification before, namely how people are using him as a scapegoat to disown their own pull towards the illusion of safety and guaranteed success. The era of algorithm hacks and mind tricks that we’re in now reminds me a bit of the media version of the pickup artist / redpill scene, where self-styled experts try to brute force human behavior and connection through over-focusing on numbers and science of dubious origin. People have always wanted to bottle and redistribute luck and charisma, and the fact that the YouTube game is half human and half machine makes it seem slightly less insane to try and ‘hack.’

As an aside, is there anyone checking up on the people who solely and religiously follow all these hacks and advice? Like, are they actually doing well (in a numbers and personal wellbeing sense) when that’s the primary pillar of their content? I feel like even in the case of Mr. Beast, he probably over-reduces his success down to the variables that he can control/measure rather than the unknowable pile of factors outside of them, so it’s probably not as easy to replicate as he makes it sound.

(Dr. Mittens has a good post about how despite the narratives around Dream, Dream did not come up from zero solely because of his tactical brain, although he’s often used as an example of someone who power-gamed his success.)

So two questions come up in the wake of all this, what is the public hunger that Mr. Beastification inspires, and is YouTube really the place that this pushback is actually going to happen? If YouTube the platform is partly to blame for a certain kind of content rising to the top, one of the simplest answers is to get content somewhere else, which sounds like what Tommy is trying to avoid. Youtube has a virtual monopoly on longform public video hosting so they’re not in meaningful competition with other websites doing exactly what they do, so the threat of this is a bit less.

I look in my subscription feed and even my for-you page and I kind of can’t complain—YouTube knows that I’m “The video essay type” and goes from there, and that’s the bit about the algorithm I can appreciate at the end of the day. I have, largely, been insulated from the dumber things out there. This feels like an issue that’s been taking root in areas that are less curated than my corner, and maybe that’s part of the issue—between youtube hiding most of it’s videos unless it already thinks you’re going to like them and the market flooded with nothingburger formula videos (these problems create each other), it’s more rewarding to stay in your corner than actively seek out new stuff.

Something that I think I want from YouTube (but I don’t think I’ll get because if it were to be part of the system itself it would immediately get abused) is a human referral system. Like the actual ability to curate a page/feed of videos, maybe with a comment to give them context / a reason why you like them. This is because I don’t think I’ll ever trust the creator’s desperation (built-in) and the robot overlords (just want more minutes) over another complete rando who is genuinely like “I enjoyed this :D.” Human attention follows the attention of other humans, and while the algorithm follows that logic in a crude way, putting some texture back into that process might be able to do a lot.

On the topic of franchises, most of the fictional content I consume is from a fandom background so I know that repetition and familiar formats/premises have their place. (Call me parasoical but I like knowing who people are.) I understand why people want to talk about creativity and originality in a world obsessed with formula and guarantees, but I would say to not throw the baby out with the bathwater either, because some people can become so obsessed with innovation that they become backhandedly disdainful of people who have more grounded and reliable tastes.

#tubeposting #Mage has decided to play one-sided discourse pong with Mr. Simons to pass the time

12 notes · View notes

ack4rwoman · 10 months

Text

𝐑𝐔𝐋𝐄𝐒:

note: i don’t mean to make this restricting, but if this blog is supposed to be a safe place for everyone (including myself) we might need some ground rules about what can and cannot happen here :)

requests:

you can ask for small drabbles to do with fictional characters you might be interested in. has to have a prompt, of course, so i know what i’m writing about

no [nsfw] content. the only thing that borders it slightly that is allowed could be random thoughts or head canons you might have of a particular character (in short, i still want you to be able to express random, funny thoughts you have because at the end of the day, we’re all simps for these fictional characters and completely down bad lmfao)

the awkward thing about requests is when someone asks you to write about a particular character that you dislike or despise. in order to prevent this, i’ll quickly jot down characters i like/dislike <3

i only write for fem!readers seeing as all my fics and works are self indulgent. that being said, in terms of what the reader is described as, my works are friendly for any and all skin types and hair types! :) (i try to make it so that it is, if you spot anything that you feel isn’t poc friendly, don’t be afraid to send me a message about it so it can be corrected!)

fandoms i write for:

aot and jjk

other mentions:

in the nicest way possible, i don’t want criticism on anything i write. i make fics for my enjoyment, to please myself and indulge for me. i only aim to do this with you all, not for you all.

on the contrary, i do like feedback on my writing. as long as it is polite, i’m okay with any other comments. i enjoy reading your thoughts!!

no hate comments will be tolerated in the comments or my inbox. i’ll respond to them if i feel the need to, and then straight after that, you’re getting blocked bcz you are a stranger on the internet - i truly do not have time for your ass lmao

if you support israel, get the fuck off my page and never return. you’re not welcome here, don’t stay where you’re unwanted. #freepalestine

why i might have blocked you:

i don’t block anyone at all, but if i have, it’s probably due to 2 reasons: 1. because of an interaction you’ve had with me that wasn’t pleasant. in other words, it wouldn’t have come out of blue. i’m never part of any drama lol, so you most likely won’t have to worry about this part (though it is safe to keep this up just in case)!! :) or 2. your posts with ships that i simply dislike (and/or hate) have come up on my feed a frequent number of times and i’m just tired of seeing it. this doesn’t mean i have any ill intent towards you when i block you, i just want to enter the app without seeing things i don’t exactly want to see! :)

who can interact?

anyone and everyone!

however, do not interact if you come under the following: racist, islamaphobic, misogynistic, anti-semetic, zionist, etc.

people under 18 can interact! this also includes ageless blogs :)

protection of my writing:

one thing that makes my writing specifically known as mine is the way i write y/n or the plot — usually follows a more comedic/crack type of story rather than an actual… story, lmfao?? i will not allow for anyone to take certain scenes i’ve written (and i’ll know, trust me, bcz i come up with them as they’re all inspired from IRL events of my own life) and then incorporate them into their own story. in short: i will not allow plagiarism, stealing my ideas, taking inspo from my writing without credit, and so on.

anything ranging from copying my stories to translating my work in another language is definitely not allowed.

i am certainly not against anyone promoting or recommending my story on their social media! i think it’s cute and incredibly wholesome <33

aot characters i am not willing to write for:

floch and zeke

jjk characters i am not willing to write for:

mahito and kenjaku

rules last updated:

14th of april, 2024

that’s all!! enjoy your stay <3

#took me a while #but it’s done #aot #attack on titan #jujutsu kaisen #jjk #yeah that’s it tbh #all for a new theme lmao #it was abt time i changed it

2 notes · View notes

autolenaphilia · 2 years

Text

It used to be a cliché to warn that reading pulp fiction and other kinds of popular fiction would rot your brain. That kind of rhetoric have moved on to first TV and then video games. So now the cliché in reaction to pop fiction is “at least the kids are reading”. But I wonder if there is some truth to it.

Not that reading one or even a dozen YA fantasy books will rot your brain. It is that only reading YA and consuming other kinds of simplistic pop fiction might rot your brain. Or at least your literary judgement. A lot of people who do that seem to judge all kinds of fiction by what they want out of the YA/pop fiction books they read exclusively.

And that is a kind comfy escapist entertainment. The good guys are good and most importantly likeable, and the baddies are bad. Problems are solved by defeating the bad guys. Often there is a detailed fantasy world to escape into, which is presented with verisimilitude and consistency, no immersion breaking surrealism.

Like there is nothing wrong with it, but a lot of fiction tries to do something different. It’s not escapist, and even if it is fantasy the books discuss real-world issues. Writers write about unlikeable and deeply flawed morally and psychologically people to illustrate how people work, because people irl are deeply flawed and do bad things. All people are like that, everyone has flaws and think and do bad things. The writers do it in subtle ways to, using subtext to criticize actions rather than slotting the characters doing them into a villain role or having obvious consequences for bad actions.

A lot of fiction have flawed and bigoted people as main characters because the writer wants you to understand how these people’s minds work. They don’t expect you to like them necessarily, but to empathize with them and understand them. Hopefully you come out on the other end with a better sense of empathy or understanding of the problems us humans have.

Note that I’m not arguing against “fun” or think literature should be some kind of moral improvement literature for the reader. I agree with Thomas Ligotti that “writing is essentially a means of entertainment for both the writer and the reader. I don’t care who the writer is — literature is entertainment or it is nothing.“ It’s just that reading complex fiction provides another kind of fun than simple escapism. Reading about flawed unlikeable characters is fun in a different way from reading about likeable heroes. Reading critically and analysing fiction is fun, at least for me, believe it or not.

Like there are a lot of books out there which unironically expresses all kinds of bigoted and reactionary viewpoints. But without reading and seriously analyzing the work you can’t tell when the work is examining these views or advocating them. A novel like Dracula and a novel like Umberto Eco’s The Prague Cemetery both feature copious amounts of anti-semitism, but one is expressing it and one is critically examining it. One must also be able to see when a book is both being progressive and bigoted, because people and works of art are complex. And furthermore a book can be well-written and enjoyable while advocating bad viewpoints, and if you can read things critically you can still find enjoyment in books that express bigoted and reactionary viewpoints. I think The Shadow over Innsmouth is both a very good horror story and also a detestably racist text (I think the same of Dracula for that matter, one of my favourite books).

Most YA and similarly simplistic pop fiction don’t give you the tools to read fiction in this critical, analytic manner, at least not in the way most of its fans read them. Which is to enjoy spending time with its characters and have fun seeing them defeating the bad guys. It doesn’t feature the morally and psychologically complex characters that more complex literature have, so it doesn’t invite the same level of critical thinking about what you read.

And that is fine in itself, I enjoy media like that myself. But the problem comes when you try to apply the standards of escapist fiction to other kinds of media. YA and other pop fiction assumes that you will automatically like and agree with the main/viewpoint characters.

So chaos ensues when our pop fiction-trained reader comes across a book that doesn’t do that. And it explains so much of the disc horse we see. So people react to main characters doing or even thinking bad things without the book immediately putting them into the villain/antagonist role as the book agreeing with the actions. It causes readers to demand main characters be “likeable” instead of just interesting. And it’s very much a problem when you start judging people for liking books you deem to be morally bad. It’s the assumption that if you enjoy reading about a character, you also agree with what the character represents.

Purity and call-out culture has deeper roots in how people tend to fall into black-and-white thinking, but how this is applied to fiction definitely partially has its roots in how its practitioners refuse to read morally complex fiction.

So yeah, I do believe some people had their critical thinking stunted by only consuming YA fantasy and similarly simplistic escapism. Unironically not reading novels that challenge you to read critically at all is bad for you.

I blameHarry Potter. A lot of millennial/gen z kids got their start in reading with HP. The clichéd answer when people pointed out how mediocre the writing of HP is (which many critics did) was “at least it got kids reading books”. And the answer to that is that it got kids reading books like Harry Potter and apparently nothing else. And they seem to have continued doing that into adulthood. And as I argued previously, it has stunted brain’s critical capacities.

They were able to do some because publishers reacted to the massive sales of HP by pumping out tons of YA books of variable quality. A boom that continues to this day. Kids wanted more books like HP and to paraphrase Ursula K. Le Guin: “And the mills of capitalism provide them. Supply meets demand. Fantasy becomes a commodity, an industry.” In fact her musings on “Commodified fantasy” in the introduction to Tales of Earthsea explains Harry Potter and a lot of the fantasy book market very well.

It’s not the first time this happened to fantasy. The Lord of the Rings became a massive success in the 60s, and in 1977 the first massively succesful Tolkien epigone was published: The Sword of Shannara by Terry Brooks. It’s a terrible book, but its success proved that writers could just copy Tolkien and simplify it and it would sell loads. So in the 80s and 90s publishers flooded the fantasy market with bad Tolkien epigone books, The Belgariad and The Wheel of Time and so on. It was the equivalent of today’s cookie-cutter YA fantasy books. Harry Potter is a product of that time, it’s a chosen one battling a dark lord story after all (all of those commodified fantasies had that exact story). But it also provided a new model for commodified fantasy that replaced TheSword of Shannara from 20 years earlier. Also the success of A Song of Ice and Fire and books like it pulled “adult” fantasy into grimdark territory around the same time, so YA fantasy fulfilled the needs of those into more upbeat fantasy.

So Harry Potter is partially responsible for all these YA fantasy readers who can’t read things critically. And it was not intentional, but I would argue J.K. Rowling’s lucrative hobby of writing mediocre derivative fiction provided support for her other hobby transmisogyny in an unexpected way. I’m not talking how she uses her fame and money from HP to support TERF causes, even if that is completely true, but in the expectations her fiction has created in readers.

For the book-reading culture of today that Harry Potter is partially responsible for intersects with the transmisogyny that Rowling is responsible for spreading.

Because of transmisogyny trans women are expected to be perfect examples of feminism and femininity or else rejected as gross perverted male socialized men. It’s a particularly virulent strain of the expectation of women to be perfect little angels.

For transfeminine writers, this works in a sinister conjunction with these purity culture expectations on fiction to be uncomplicated stories of good guys and bad guys. Transfems are usually the primary victims of call-out culture. So when transfem authors write fiction that is complicated and has messy characters, and god forbid messy and flawed transfeminine characters, the wolves come out for them.

Literally everytime a trans woman publishes a book these days and it gets mainstream attention, which happens rarely, there is a massive backlash and controversy over how problematic it is. Detransition, Baby by Torrey Peters had it last year, this year it is Wrath Goddess Sing by Maya Deane.Manhunt by Gretchen Felker-Martin had it inbetween. The call-outs are basically the same if they come from explicit terfs or social justice/queer people. It’s the same outrage over how dare a trans woman write a transfem character that is not a perfect feminist and has flaws. It’s the same purity culture bullshit, all founded in an utter inability to actually critically analyze what you read. The outrage over Reese in Detransition, Baby is typical. She was interpreted not as a character in a novel but as the mouthpiece for Torrey Peters which is objectively a shit way to read characters.

These backlashes against trans women writing uncomfortable books are the conclusion of so many shitty processes in our present-day society that it seems unreal, but its true. It’s the culture industry becoming even more profit-driven due to neoliberalism, publishing more safe and unchallenging media than ever before, media that teaches its audience to not think critically about what it is consuming. It’s Christanity-inspired purity culture having become so pervasive that it influences the mindset of non-believers. And it is the transmisogyny that is such a major part of our civilization’s ideological underpinnings. You can see all that in the backlashes against trans women writing.

#my writings #this ended up really rambly but its all interconnected in my mind

18 notes · View notes

mha-grievances · 1 year

Text

I posted 32 times in 2022

That's 32 more posts than 2021!

23 posts created (72%)

9 posts reblogged (28%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@anti-bakugou-memes

@mha-rewritten

I tagged 25 of my posts in 2022

Only 22% of my posts had no tags

#mha critical - 24 posts

#bnha critical - 24 posts

#anti bakugo - 13 posts

#anti katsuki bakugou - 13 posts

#anti bakugou - 13 posts

#anti bakugou katsuki - 10 posts

#anti bakugo katsuki - 6 posts

#mha tooru - 3 posts

#mha hagakure - 3 posts

#tooru hagakure - 3 posts

Longest Tag: 23 characters

#hitoshi shinso critical

My Top Posts in 2022:

So I think most of us can agree that anime has a lot of fan-service. Whether you like it or not, it’s simply the truth. For the most part, I could care less about fan-service. Too much makes me uncomfortable and deters me from an anime, but if it happens occasionally, then I don’t really care.

Another thing we can agree on is that MHA definitely has a lot of fan-service. I’m able to ignore a good chunk of it, but like others, there are things that make me uncomfortable. Momo’s costume, Midnight’s suggestive remarks when around literal teens, etc. Today though, I’m not going to talk about those though. Instead I want to talk about a certain panel that showed up during this week’s leaks:

It should be no surprise that the literal bunny hero is sexualized, both by Hori himself and by the fans. However, this right here is gore porn. Miruko is on display right here. The way she's laid out on the ground. The way her costume pinches in certain places. The way she’s even winded. For some reason, despite her injuries being super severe, Hori decided to use this moment to sexualize her. Why? What purpose does this serve to the story? Again, fan-service is going to be part of a story, but this is a huge tonal shift. This is supposed to be a dramatic moment. The number five hero was taken out, most of her limbs torn off. This isn’t a moment where she should be sexualized, but she is. Over on my other blog @anti-bakugou-memes, an anon said the following:

“People call her "disturbing and fetishized" purely for the fact that she has several missing limbs. Like... It's so terrible and abelist. Just because character is hot and disabled doesn't mean that they are sexualized. Fetishy disabled content is when character is helpless and used by superiour dudes. Mirko isn't. She is dominating the fight and being her badass self. How is she fetishized or disturbing? Fans are just ableist as fuck.”

In any of Miruko’s other moments, I’d definitely agree. I don’t have positive opinions on her, but one thing I do appreciate is that she’s never been treated as “lesser” or sexualized due to her loss of limbs. In fact, she’s still been kicking ass and taking names. Her sexualization has been focused on the fact that she’s an attractive and fit woman. Her disabilities play no part in her sexualization. It’s not treated in a fetishized way nor is it treated as something unattractive, which is commendable. However, here it feels that her being helpless and tired is being sexualized. This woman has had her limbs ripped off, is most likely dying, and even if she survives she’ll have a lifetime of trauma. Instead of showcasing that, it feels like Hori drew up something for some sick gore hentai. He could’ve drawn her in literally any other position or manner to convey she’s been defeated, and yet he chose possibly the worst one. It’s nasty and outright disrespectful.

55 notes - Posted September 15, 2022

Katsuki Bakugou and Why He’s Poorly Written

Whelp everyone, it’s time for me to kick things off with a bang by talking about Katsuki Bakugou. Just note that this essay is only a draft and I plan to release the full one once MHA officially ends. For now though, I hope you enjoy.

As the title says, Katsuki Bakugou is a poorly written character and is easily my least favorite character in all of fictional media. Now, I think there's two huge parts of his character and it's important to go over them. The first half of Katsuki is one that everyone recognizes, he's a boy with both a superiority and an inferiority complex. It's what the series considers to be his biggest flaw. As a character concept, this isn't new. In fact, anyone could list at least five characters like this without any issues. Why is this important? Well, simply put, this isn't why I hate him. Characters who start off egotistical and get humbled are often some of the best written ones. For Katsuki though, they don’t do this architype well. Now, he clearly has moments where his ego is checked (his fight against the Sludge Villain, him losing the battle trial, him not fighting Shoto at full strength, his fight against All Might, and him getting captured by the League of Villains). At first, he simply gets pissed off, which is natural. Soon though, he begins to reflect on this, realizing that he isn't the best. Normally, this is a good thing. However, most of these lessons don’t stick and Katsuki’s back to acting like he was before his ego was checked. What do I mean about this? I’ll get to that soon.

Sadly, now we get to the part I absolutely hate: the Katsuki that's a full on monster. For those of you raising your pitchforks at me, I'll provide some examples: first off, he bullied Izuku because he enjoyed it. He mentally destroyed a boy just because he dared to have a dream. Second, he nearly committed murder and didn't feel anything about it. Remember the battle trial where he launched a deadly explosion? Now, here's the part where some of you will say that he didn't intend to kill Izuku. That's true, but he didn't care if the boy died. He shouted "not if he dodges," not "he'll dodge." He was wiling to murder someone just to win a stupid exercise. Unlike his egotistical side, this side never develops. You never see him thinking to himself "oh, maybe I went too far," or "wow, I was such a shitty person." It's simply brushed to the side. No one in cannon ever bats an eye to this, and it hurts their characters. Katsuki nearly attacks Izuku in the quirk assessment exam? Shota gives him a warning, despite the fact he was about to expel Izuku a moment ago. So you're telling me that you'd rather keep someone who clearly has anger issues over a boy who's trying to learn how to use his quirk? After the battle trial, he's told to 'grow up' instead of being expelled on the spot. Shota's last class must've been filled with the worst people imaginable if he was willing to expel them and not the maniac. Ejiro and Mina have experience with being bullied, but they befriend Katsuki? Why? They should know that Izuku's being bullied based on his reactions (normal people don't flinch when around someone), but they conveniently ignore it. The entire class ignores it. Hell, I think they know something's up based on their reactions to when Izuku picks his hero name, which hurts their characters even more. Everyone else's characters are harmed because Katsuki has plot armor and everyone's got to worship him, even though realistically no one in that class would like him. Then there's the final exams, where the school tries to use Izuku to better Katsuki, phrasing it like it's somehow partially his fault that Katsuki doesn't want to work with others. Cool, let's treat Izuku as nothing but a prop and ignore the fact that he's actively tried working at getting Katsuki to cooperate. Next comes one of the worst things I've seen in a while; their confrontation when Katsuki learns that Izuku has All might's quirk (which have I mentioned is one of my least favorite scenes in all of media?). When Katsuki keeps questioning Izuku about why he was chosen, this should've been Izuku's time to shine. To give Katsuki 'the reason you suck speech' and let him know the literal hell he's been put through and how All Might doesn't care about strength but instead the person you are. Nope, instead that whole ordeal is brushed to the side and Izuku continues bowing down to Katsuki, showering him with praises. It makes Izuku look weak and makes me believe that he has some form of Stockholm Syndrome. This should've been Izuku's time to show that he isn't weak anymore (the battle trial doesn't count because after it, Izuku goes back to being skittish around Katsuki), but nope, let's ignore the fact that the reason Katsuki was kidnapped was because the villains saw one of them in him. No, it wasn't because he was weak that All Might had to save him. It was because he was a garbage human being. After that, Katsuki's sins are forgiven (if they weren't already) and everything's fine, except Izuku still has to deal with the trauma Katsuki inflicted on him. Unlike his ego, his shitty person-side is never checked. He's never punished for the things he did or has done. He practically gets off scott-free in this regard. He learns a lesson regarding checking his ego but never learns that he needs to be a better person. The only reason he's being "nice" to Izuku is that Izuku is no longer 'weak'. He's treating him like the rest of his classmates now (compare the way he treats the rest of 1-A in the beginning of the series to now. There's almost no difference).

Continued on a separate post cause apparently Tumblr has a character limit. Here’s the link: https://mha-rewritten.tumblr.com/post/685448765657792513/katsuki-bakugou-and-why-hes-poorly-written-pt-2

72 notes - Posted May 27, 2022

Katsuki Bakugou and Why He’s Poorly Written pt 2.

Continues right where part one ends. Read part one here: https://mha-rewritten.tumblr.com/post/685448277861269504/katsuki-bakugou-and-why-hes-poorly-written

Now, as I was saying before, he’s not doing so out of guilt, but because Izuku is 'strong' now. I guarantee that if he encounters another quirkless person, he'll bully them the same way he bullied Izuku. Hell, I believe that if Izuku did commit suicide, he wouldn't care.

In the end, Katsuki is supposed to be a hero, yet he's acting more villainous than the villains without any reason. Both Himiko and Twice have had their minds shattered by their quirks and find that they have no use outside of bloodshed. Tomura, Dabi, and Spinner want to destroy the society that destroyed them and prevented them from living a decent life. Their actions are horrible, but their motives are understandable and makes the viewer pity them, making them compelling villains. Even Muscular, who's basically Katsuki's steroid filled twin in characterization, is a better character because he knows he's a villain and rolls with it. He doesn't claim to be something he's not. He's not deep, but doesn't need to be as he's simply an obstacle. Katsuki? Well, cannon keeps trying to shove the idea that he's a hero in people's faces, but he's not. I get it, the point of Katsuki's character is that he has a superiority and inferiority complex: he has a strong quirk and hates it when people seemingly look down on him (hence why he took offense when Izuku tried to help him when they were kids). However, his response is to mentally and physically torture a boy. You don't have to like everyone, you can choose not to socialize with someone, but the moment you CONSCIOUSLY hurt others, then you're a bad person. People with trauma in the MHA verse such as Ejiro, Shoto (after the sports festival), and Izuku manage to be good people when they have every reason not to be. Even if Katsuki was right in that Izuku thought he was better than him, his response is to mentally and physically torture someone. There's knocking someone off a high-horse and then there's being a shitty person (not to mention how hypocritical Katsuki is being). He's a villain who is treated as a hero and gets no repercussions for his actions nor is he a villain who lashes out after being victims of injustice. He's not even one of those well meaning villains who chose to fight against society. He's just flat-out evil and a Karma Houdini. The only time he's ever punished is when he fights Izuku in the mock-city upon discovering his quirk and compared to everything else he's done, this is nothing, andIzuku also gets punished for defending himself. You can also argue that he doesn't earn his hero license, but he hasn't been shown to learn the importance of saving others from it. In fact, that's another strike against him, he never learns that the most important thing about being a hero is that you save the innocent and everyone sees it as fine. All Might literally says to Izuku that he needs to learn to understand the people who fight to win. Uh, this isn't an MMA anime/manga. This is a superhero one. In this case, saving people is more important than fighting. Even the most edgiest anti-heroes like Punisher and (later versions of) Deadpool avoid damaging the innocent in their crusades. Katsuki? He doesn't care if they die. As long as he beats up the villain, he's fine. I know this is supposed to be a process, but we're pretty far in the manga already and it still hasn't happened. Not hero material in the slightest. And sure, you can argue that his character is meant to embody the 'win to save' mindset, but only the 'win' part is ever shown, never the save. While he does mention this theme in his ‘apology’, it isn’t enough of a recognition for reasons I’ll get to soon.

I also want to highlight that Endeavor's development's been far better than Katsuki. He's been called out on his behavior, used All Might's retirement as a means of learning (discovering that only focusing on being number 1 is a hollow feeling), and is trying to make up for lost time. And guess what? Most of the Todoroki family makes it clear that he has a lot to atone to, and rightfully so. He has to work for their forgiveness, and so far, the only thing Shoto has done is begrudgingly given him a second chance. He still hates his father. Endeavor's being held accountable for his actions, and he still is now that Dabi's identity has been revealed. Katsuki hasn't been held accountable for anything. The redemption story is far from perfect (seriously, it should've taken a lot more for Rei to forgive him), but it's a million times better than Katsuki's.

Some of you might be thinking that I think he needs to have some sort of severe beatdown or something to change. However, I wholeheartedly believe that Katsuki doesn't have to have something traumatic to cause him to change. People change all the time without such incidents. However, he needs to have an 'oh shit' moment where he realizes what he's done. Hell, I've read fanfics that have redeemed Katsuki in magnificent ways without excessive violence. Canon has yet to give him a good redemption arc and doesn't seem like it will as they keep singing him praises. During the scene in the second movie where Izuku gives Katsuki OFA, he says that All Might won't mind it if Izuku gave it to him due to the fact that he admired All Might as well. What about the fact he was a shit human being and hasn't acknowledged this or bothered changing? I understand that transferring OFA was necessary in that final fight, but if All Might or his predecessors are even decent human beings, they will take problem with Katsuki having the quirk meant to symbolize hope and peace.

I think that the best time for his character to develop was during his fight with Izuku after discovering the boy has OFA (and in the way I mentioned or in a similar way). Its a bit too late for it to feel natural now…

Also, I know Katsuki sacrificed himself for Izuku and FINALLY apologized. However, both came out of nowhere. The sacrifice was way out of character for someone like him, especially when he still doesn't realize he's a horrible person ('his legs just started moving on their own' came from nowhere). If his development was more natural, like him consistently showing he's changed rather than him flipflopping between being the same person who bullied Izuku and someone who's trying to change, then this scene would've easily changed my opinion on him. The sacrifice felt more about protecting One for All instead of Izuku himself. If he were to have died, then he basically becomes resolved of any potential consequences he should face for his wrongdoings, stuff he still has yet to acknowledge as wrong. It'd be a cheap copout. It also felt forced seeing as it's supposed to be a touching moment between two friends, but Katsuki was nothing but an abuser. Same goes for the apology. Just ten minutes ago he was insulting Izuku and then he suddenly apologized? Yeah, there's a thing called consistency and this wasn't consistent behavior on his end, weakening the apology to the point where it was practically meaningless. These scenes also remind me of another reason I hate Katsuki's redemption story: Katsuki's 'redemption' story involves a lot of telling, not showing. We're told that he's changing, but he continues to do things that shows he hasn't. He still insults his classmates, hurts Izuku with a block of ice, mocks All Might the past users of OFA (he mocks the previous users dying due to them not being strong enough), fired a point-blank explosion at Tamaki for not fighting him, told a civilian to kill himself, stabbed Izuku in the head for talking about his progress with Black Whip (nearly killing him a second time), and yelled at Fuyumi for talking about her trauma. It takes a special kind of asshole to do the things he's done even AFTER his 'redemption story', especially nearly killing a fellow hero a second time, yelling at a TRAUMA VICTIM, and insulting people who risked their lives to save others while saying you could do better! Because of this, when we get moments like him sacrificing himself to save Izuku (which I think was more-so him protecting OFA rather than Izuku) or him telling the kids not to look down on anyone, it becomes hypocritical and/or OOC. Like what motivated such a random shift from Katsuki calling Izuku a 'wannabe All Might' (a sensitive topic to Izuku and is something he knows is sensitive to him) to suddenly apologizing? Either he has poorly written Bipolar disorder or he's just not a human being. In addition, the apology felt more as if Katsuki was apologizing about being an asshole, but not an abusive piece of shit. The apology needed to be lengthy, not just ‘sorry for everything I did’. He needed to actually acknowledge what he did instead of taking the easy way out, especially when his list of heinous acts are as high as they are. He even needed to acknowledge Izuku’s emotions and why it’s his fault Izuku suffers from self esteem issues. Instead, he just claims he was mean to Izuku, which is far from what he actually was. Dude nearly killed him twice. That’s not mean, that’s evil. Also, he still hasn't received any consequences for his behavior. Endeavor's life is being ruined and he has to watch his son Dabi become a villain, something he's responsible for. When has Katsuki suffered a blow to his reputation? Outright lost a fight to a 'nobody' or even a supporting character? The answer is never.

Another issue I have with Katsuki's development is that it also presents a horrible message: "if your abuser gets slightly better, what happened to you doesn't matter. Just forgive and it'll be like nothing happened! In fact, it was probably nothing so don't even bother thinking of it as abuse. Oh, and don't tell anyone because the person that hurt you is secretly good (lol, no, they wouldn't be hurting you on purpose then and sure there are good people who do bad things, but there's a difference in mugging someone and nearly killing them without remorse), and did I mention that it doesn't matter anyways!? Your mental health doesn't matter, just push through it, life doesn't revolve around you" (this was paraphrased from a comment on an AO3 story, I believe it was one left on 'Fuck Bullies' by RandomWeirdCat, which is a great anti-Katsuki story which I'd highly recommend reading). It may not have been the author's intended message, but it's the one he gives out (I have no ill-will for the author btw. It's horrible that people are sending him death threats for no reason. If you don't like the series, either complain about it online, write Fanfiction, and/or don't watch it).

I also want to mention that Katsuki has Mary Sue traits. Note that I didn't call him a Mary Sue. That term's been thrown to hell and back, but I do stand by the fact he has some traits of a Mary Sue. For starters, I feel Katsuki wins more than he should. In an outright fight, he's only physically lost once and that was in the second movie against Nine. You can also count his kidnapping by the LoV as a loss, but Dabi snuck up on him, so I don't really count it. Same goes with the Sludge Villain. I also don't count the final exam since it was a team battle and it was never concluded. Most of his 'defeats' is to his ego, which would be fine if A: he's humbled from his defeats which he isn't and B: his character flaw was only that he has a large ego (when in reality, his biggest flaw is being a terrible person, which is never addressed in canon). Yeah, he has a powerful quirk and good instincts, but he's never been formally trained and others have superior quirks which are barely shown off. Kyouka and Denki come to mind immediately. Kyouka one-shots anyone she plugs her jacks into (and from what I've seen, she can plug them into anything) and Denki can produce 2 million volts and his quirk lasts for a few seconds, producing a current which could easily kill someone. Shoto also would've stomped Katsuki if he used his fire as Katsuki isn't fireproof (otherwise Dabi wouldn't have been able to threaten him). Muscular, Rappa, and Overhaul would also kill him if he fought them. Rappa even has more striking force as he was able to break Ejiro's 'unbreakable' form while Katsuki couldn't pierce through Ejiro's regular form (only reason he even won that fight is because Ejiro has a time limit to how long he can remain hardened. If it wasn't for that limit, Ejiro could've just won the match. In fact, I'm positive that all he needed to do was grab Katsuki and headbutt him for a KO, but of course, Katsuki HAS to win all his fights. Oddly enough, this showing means that Katsuki's explosions are about as powerful as a bullet since Ejiro's regular hardening was able to take a gun shot with only a crack, more damage than he took when fighting against Katsuki. Katsuki's quirk does have the advantage of having a larger spread though while also being a combination of heat and force whereas a gun's only force). Fumikage would've also been able to demolish Katsuki if it wasn't for his weakness to light (a fair weakness, so I won't say anything about that). As for Katsuki's fighting style, his arms are his source of his quirk, so all someone has to do is break them and he can't use his quirk or else the recoil would bust his arms further (he does have enhanced strength, but he still gets hurt by things that would hurt normal people, so breaking his arm wouldn't be hard if you can get him in a correct hold). If anyone knows anything about boxing, Katsuki's fighting style is similar to that of an out-boxer, where he uses his arm's max reach when throwing attacks. Typically, an out-boxer does so to keep their opponents at bay and I think that due to the recoil of his explosions on his own body, he has to stretch out his arm if he wants to use his quirk to its fullest potential. In every fight, we see this and the only time he doesn't extend his arm is when he's letting loose smaller explosions. Simply put, if someone wanted to break his arm, all they'd have to do is dodge the first strike and slam his elbow with enough force. Long rant, but my point is that his quirk's overrated in canon and there are other quirks that exist that are simply better yet never get the time to shine (and if they do, it's for a running gag. Seriously, Kyouka casually one-shots people for laughs but when it comes to a fight, she suddenly forgets that she can). If they do get some spotlight, it's not against Katsuki who would get stomped without issue. He also has never received any formal training, with his only fights Pre U.A being against those who can't defend himself.

Adding on to the idea of Katsuki having Mary Sue traits, we're also told that Katsuki is also incredibly talented (somehow he can cook, is capable of tutoring when he has no social skills, ranks third in intellect, and can play the drums) yet we actually never see why he has these talents or when he developed them. Your character can be talented, but at some point, there's TOO talented (unless they're shown to have acquired those skills in a flashback or such is the purpose of a character such as Izuru Kamakura from Danganronpa who even then has a weakness- his apathy and the inability to find meaning in life). This wouldn't be that bad if his flaws hinder him, but they don't, or at least in a meaningful way. The worst it did was delay him getting his hero-license. He also gets suspended for provoking a fight, but so does Izuku for defending himself, so I don't count it since he wasn't solely punished for something that was his fault. In general, he never gets punished for his behavior. Seriously, despite how he treats everyone, he's still beloved and anyone who doesn't like him is painted in a bad light (such as Neito and the crowd who was correctly booing him at the Sports Festival). Ejiro and Mina, the two most anti-bully characters in the show, somehow don't notice that Katsuki is a bully and are still friends with him. I've already mentioned all the other stuff he should've gotten in trouble for (such as him nearly killing Izuku in the battle trial), so I'll save you that rant again, but all in all, Katsuki's flaws don't hinder him what-so-ever and he seemingly is good at everything (even in regards to social stuff, something he should be terrible at).

Katsuki is also clearly a writer's pet. You can clearly tell whom the writers pets in MHA are based on how they're treated and how they never receive consequences for their actions. Now, it's alright to have favorites, it'd be hypocritical for me to say you can't when I have my favorite characters of all time listed on my profile, but when it impedes in your writing, especially in a published material outside of FanFiction, you have a problem.

Finally, I also want to talk about rival characters. A rival character can be great. A character can learn how to improve themselves with the presence of a rival character. Naturally, a rival character doesn't have to be a good person, but they need to offer something to the main character. Katuski offers nothing, or at least nothing that another character can't. In terms of pushing Izuku to be the best hero, Tenya and Shoto could easily take Katsuki's spot. It isn't like Katsuki offers anything outside of being a skilled fighter and a benchmark that Izuku strives to be, which is something Shoto is better at anyways (him being considered the current strongest of 1-A and being able to fight almost evenly with Katsuki despite using 50% of his power). Tenya can also serve as an intellectual rival to Izuku. You also have Tomura causing chaos and showcasing the faults of the hero world. He represents the external conflict Izuku faces and presents an internal conflict as well (how far is he willing to go to save people). Katsuki is supposed to represent the idea that winning is sometimes the best way to save people, but Tomura could also teach Izuku this as well. Katsuki's actions only showcase why a desire to only win as a hero is bad and nothing else, which again could have been fine as well if it wasn't for the fact he's never punished for his mindset and that Izuku still worships him. Some might try to say Katsuki has a strong will and that this is something Izuku strives to have, but he nearly throws a temper tantum after having his butt handed to him during the final exam (he was stupid to even think he was anywhere near All Might's level especially after the Sludge Incident). Izuku was the one who snapped him out of it and has shown that he has a stronger will than Katsuki. Some might also say that Katsuki has confidence that Izuku wishes to emulate, but he could've easily gotten it as he got a better handling of his quirk. Seriously, Katsuki offers nothing to the narrative besides being a hindrance to the main character's growth, and not one the kind that challenges Izuku to grow further like Tomura and the other villains do. He also has no plot relevance, with the only plot relevance he has being that time he got kidnapped and triggered the fight between All Might and All for One, but you could easily replace him with someone else. Shoto's a perfect example due to his connection with Endeavor and Dabi being his brother. While rival characters are important, Katsuki is an example of one that isn't needed. MHA would've been much better without him. He's also a crap secondary protagonist (if you consider him to be one) due to his crappy redemption arc. I have no reason to cheer for him, rather, I'm waiting for him to get his long overdue karma strike.

I also quickly want to compare Katsuki to two other characters who get shit on by the fandom but in my opinion don't deserve to be, or at least don't deserve it as much as Katsuki does. First is Neito Monoma, who I think is a far superior character than Katsuki. Neito has shown that he can be a decent person (offering supportive words to Setsuna after she lost to Katsuki) and actually has a sympathetic reason for his behavior. He was constantly mocked for his situational quirk and wishes to prove that he can stand with other heroes. He also wishes to show people that his class is every bit as good as 1-A. Does it excuse his behavior? No. But it both explains it and makes his actions reasonable. He also hasn't tried killing or excessively wounding anyone, which is a bonus, and actually gets punished for his behavior. Yeah, you can argue whether the punishments are too light or whatnot, but Neito receiving some punishments is better than Katsuki receiving nothing while having everyone continue to suck his dick. Second is Minoru Mineta. There are several reasons for why I like Minoru better than Katsuki: first off, he doesn't hog that much screen time. He does his thing and is immediately out of the picture until he eventually comes back. The most screen time he's had is his battle with Midnight. Meanwhile, we have to deal with Katsuki almost all the time save for the Overhaul arc. Secondly, Minoru does face some punishments for his behavior. He gets nailed by a rock when trying to perv on the girls during the Summer Camp training arc, Tsuyu almost drowns him after he groped her, his classmates constantly look down on him due to his behavior (Denki mentioning that he thought Minoru was as dumb as him and Mina), and some of his classmates actively avoid him/are disgusted by him (Mina excluding him from the room competition). As I mentioned thousands of times, Katsuki never gets punished for his behavior. Everyone loves him for no reason and he gets a slap on the wrist at worst. Again, you can argue that Minoru's punishments are too light, but like I said with Neito, some punishment is better than no punishment when comparing the two. Finally, the series isn't constantly shoving down the idea that Minoru is a good person. His reason for being a hero is made known and mocked by his classmates. He's not treated by some noble person or someone who should be followed. He's constantly mocked for his shortcomings. The only reason he hasn't been expelled is due to plot armor. Meanwhile, canon keeps trying to get us to believe that Katsuki is someone who should be admired despite all his actions. He's given a shitty 'redemption story' to add on to the fact he should be admired, but due to how bad his 'redemption story' is, it only makes his case worse. He also has far worse plot armor than Minoru due to reasons I've already explained. In the end, I find Minoru to be much more tolerable than Katsuki. Now, in the case of me liking Minoru over Katsuki, I'm not arguing which of them is a better character, but which one I like better. I'm neutral towards Minoru as mentioned before due to him being a trope rather than an actual character while Katsuki is a horribly written one.

In conclusion, if the egotistical side of Katsuki was his main characteristic, then he would've been a fine character in my eyes. All that had to be done was make him a cocky asshole who looked down on Izuku for being quirkless and have him occasionally make remarks demeaning the boy, with him getting struck by karma or witnessing something life-changing causing him to rethink his behavior and work on improving himself. Sadly, he's instead someone who revels in another person's suffering and he neither learns from his actions or is punished for his manners. His behavior is simply brushed under the rug. Add the fact that he ruins other characters and he's one of the worst I've seen. It really speaks volumes when your creator wishes that he went a different direction with your character despite you being his favorite in the first place. Katsuki could have been something amazing, or at least decent, but he is never given the development needed to make a character like him work, reducing him to a shit character. Also, him being a kid doesn't excuse his actions. He's old enough to know how to be a decent human being. He simply chooses not to. If he is old enough to receive official training to be a hero, he's able to tell right from wrong. Another thing people use to defend him is that "it's not his fault he's the way he is. Society taught him to be that way." Except it didn't. It taught Katsuki that he has every right to develop an ego, but it didn't teach him how to be a bad person. He chose to torture others. That's 100% his fault. He chooses to tell Izuku to kill himself. He chooses to try fighting an unconscious opponent. He chooses to nearly kill someone twice. He's old enough to tell right from wrong and he doesn't have a reason as to why he can't (such as Himiko Toga whose quirk warps her brain to the point where she can't help but kill). Saying this is stupid and removes the concept of personal responsibility from someone who CAN control their actions. Now, there's things you can and can't help. Katsuki can't help but grow an ego in the environment he was raised in but he CAN help how he treats people (or at least help not torturing people). There's a difference between ignorance/being a cocky dick and outright evil behavior. Katsuki is the latter. In the end, he's one of the biggest wastes of potential I've come across.

Also, I know someone’s going to try to say something about how I don’t know Katsuki as well as Hori does, and that’s true. However, part of being a writer is conveying all the traits of said character. Katsuki is poorly written in that Hori hasn’t been able to convey all that he’s wanted to about Katsuki. Again, it’s a show not tell sort of deal. We’re told that Katsuki’s getting better but we never see it. Those moments that end up showing improvement only end up being OOC since they appear once in a blue moon and are not consistent. Hori may know his ideal version of the character and his intended development/feelings, but he hasn’t been able to convey them effectively in his writing of the character. As such, the Katsuki in his mind and the Katsuki on paper are two different people. An author can say whatever they want about their character, but unless they can effectively show the readers proof of their claims, then the claims are invalid.

TL;DR (To Long Didn't Read): I hate Katsuki because his development is crap, he constantly escapes punishments for his crimes, he has worse plot armor than the freaking MC (Katsuki's whole existence is protected by plot armor (him winning fights he should lose since his quirk's weaker than a bullet and easily countered by anyone who knows how to fight, everyone loving him despite him being awful to them, him not being expelled despite Shota being a 'logical' teacher, etc.)), his character spreads harmful messages, and his existence hurts other characters. I'd let his past behavior slide if it weren't for these reasons. I've actually had to stop reading the manga/watching the anime for a bit because of how much his character ruins the canon series. I love the setting and a lot of the characters, which is why I still write Fanfiction about MHA, but the cannon series is a waste of potential. Again, I have nothing against the creator of MHA, I'm just giving my opinion on his work.

If anyone cares, I can name other egotistical, psychotic, and/or antagonistic characters who've received ACTUAL good development than Katsuki 'let everyone ignore my sins' Bakugo. His character trope can produce some of the most powerful and well-written characters, but Katsuki represents how easily it is to screw it up. Some of the characters I know of who do his trope right even start off as worse human beings than him and have similarly crappy motives. The difference is how they're handled.

90 notes - Posted May 27, 2022

Hori being a perv part 69

So Tooru Hagakure is my favorite MHA character despite mainly being a gag character. So much could’ve been done with her, but hasn’t been done due to a combination of things (her not being a central character, there being many other characters already, Katsuki hogging up screen time that could’ve gone to others, etc.). After years of waiting, we finally got to see a glimpse at what Tooru looks like. Not only that, but not long after, we finally got her on a cover page. And what does Hori do? He fucks it up. This is the image-

Now let it be known that I love the color of her hair and design. What I don’t like is that instead of, ya know, putting her in a cute outfit or something to show off her design, he decides that he’s gonna make her naked. Why Hori? Yes, I know that her hero costume has her naked, something that still bothers me cause if Mirio can get a costume that phases with him then Tooru can definitely get a costume that turns invisible with her, but c’mon. Really? Should’ve expected this seeing as he admitted to Minoru being a self insert for his perverted nature but it still sucks to see. And like I said in my post about Miruko, I’m not a prude about fan service, but at some point, there’s a thing as too much fan service and unneeded fan service. This is one of those instances.

142 notes - Posted September 28, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

So in the future I want to go over Hori’s style of comedy and why it doesn’t work, but for now, I want to highlight an instance where his comedy does land, and it’s here:

Honestly this little joke got a chuckle out of me. I’ll even say it was well written just because Fumikage and Kyouka’s characters make it work. It isn’t overly sexual, it isn’t Katsuki abusing Izuku for the billionth time, it’s just two teens having a small and funny exchange that takes less than a second and doesn’t really detract much from the events going on. It’s one and done. And it’s relatable cause most people get flustered from physical contact, platonic or romantic. So Hori, you’ve earned a W this time.

201 notes - Posted May 29, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

#tumblr2022 #year in review #my 2022 tumblr year in review #your tumblr year in review #mha critical

14 notes · View notes

i-like-gay-books · 2 years

Text

lately been seeing a lot of pushback against the pushback against intellectual elitism, crying anti-intellectualism, and there are a few reasons this is bothering me which i’m going to try to list here to the best of my abilities all in one sitting because otherwise i’ll forget to finish it:

1. the whole attitude against consuming “easy” media like marvel or mainstream movies or books, etc, is intellectual elitism no matter how you sugar coat it. im not saying it’s intentionally malicious, in fact i believe most people doing it are unaware they’re doing anything at all. the thing is that privilege can affect you in many different ways, and the level of media you are able to consume and have an enjoyable experience with is one of those ways.

i am very well educated in language and writing, so reading experimental stories where the syntax and turn of phrase is almost more important than the actual plot or characters is easy and even sometimes enjoyable for me. however, i have next to no media literacy when it comes to films. i can watch something more artistic or experimental, but i likely won’t understand it even close to the amount i need to in order to enjoy it. it would take a lot of effort to fully understand and even if i got to the point of understanding it the effort it took would make the experience much less enjoyable.

i hope i explained that well enough. it’s kinda hard to put into words

2. it’s ableist. full stop. i’m not even joking here i saw someone seriously type out and post something that said people are using this callout of intellectual elitism as a way to hide the fact that they’re all just “jocks who don’t play sports.” that doesnt directly relate to this point in particular i just remembered it.

yes, less artistic or intentionally intellectual/ thought provoking pieces of art are easier to consume. speaking as someone who has not only dealt with chronic burnout myself but who is part of a generation of people living day in and day out with chronic burnout, sometimes easy media is all i can handle. by which i mean, most times. and its easier to consume again. and again. and again and again.

burnout is just one example of course, many disabilities can cause a lack of energy to devote to activities that are for leisure. and even without disabilities, humans are meant to rest. nobody wants to be thinking critically or philosophically 100% of the time.

3. communities are much larger surrounding mainstream/ easy to consume media. obviously that doesnt make it more worthwhile, but it does come with its own certain set of benefits. also you know what mainstream fandoms have a shit ton of? fan work. look at fan fiction and fan art and fan theories and tell me those people are not thinking critically and engaging meaningfully with their source material. just try to tell me.

some people work better with more hands on, creative pursuits. my favorite subjects growing up were always math and english, because there was a way to be involved, and not just be told the answers, the story. science and history never offered me that, at least not as openly. learning styles are different, and just because we’re talking about a leisure activity here doesnt mean that fact changes or becomes irrelevant.

this is just me word dumping onto a document because i didnt want to hijack a post at 12:30 at night, but these are a few of the reasons this “anti-intellectualism” accusation has been leaving a bad taste in my mouth for the few months its been going on. feel free to add on or ignore or whatever, i dont really care. i just needed to write it down and get it out there.

#anti intellectualism #intellectual elitism #media #disabilities #burnout #media literacy #privilege #cloudy rambles

11 notes · View notes

ahdriking · 2 years

Note

sincerely I don’t wanna be a bitch to you, I love your posts and enjoy your writing, but the whole separation of artist and art for me doesn’t really work in some cases, because the “artist’s” life and personality DOES affect their art. And more often than not supporting the art does validate the artist. Look at Woody Allen. Is the fact that he’s a pedophile who also married his adoptive daughter not informing his art? Then why are most of his movies about mature men falling for underage and barely legal girls? Art critics and movie aficionados have been repeating this same line over and over for decades, and the only thing it has accomplished has been shrouding him in impunity and a veneer of mythical untouchability. Crass example maybe, but I think it gets my point across. Is Poi from Daemi “training Barcode (a minor) as an actor” by having him massage her separate from what she writes? Is her telling Bible to call her mommy and forcefully unbuttoning Apo’s shirt amidst increasingly vocal refusals unrelated? Is Yok molesting Mile, pulling him and Bible forcibly onto his lap, posting Mile’s private pictures completely removed from the rape and sexual violence they write about and enjoy? What do you think buying their books and merch and ~enjoying their art will accomplish besides ensuring they can keep doing this? I’m not telling you to stop liking KinnPorsche the series, I am just saying that when it comes to directly financially supporting the authors and praising their novels you might want to reflect.

Ok, so there's a lot to unpack here. Imma try and do it justice, bear with me.

FIRSTLY, anon, I do appreciate how you've approached me considering your feelings on the subject matter. I understand its a topic that really affects some people, as it affects you, so thank you for not coming straight out the gates with a vengeance!

So, I understand the point that you're making because on the very surface of it it seems to make sense, right? If someone is a morally reprehensible person in real life, just like your Woody Allen example, then of course it makes sense to see some of that reprehensible-ness reflected in their art, right? It would just accidentally seep in, right? Well, sure. Maybe. But life, just like this example, is a little more complicated than that. Cos Woody Allen isn't the only person making his movies. He actually has a team of dozens of people helping him craft his story, his visuals, his scenes, his characters, dozens of people you could argue are just as equally responsible as him for what makes it into the final film. So even if the problematic content started with Woody, well, it definitely didn't stay only with him, and if that's true, then how can we blame the moral ambiguity of his films solely on him? Well, we can't. Because it doesn't belong solely to him. Not anymore. Just like a piece of fiction doesn't belong solely to you or me or even the author who wrote it once it's made and released. Because once it's out there, once it interacts with the world, it morphs and changes and warps into any kind of unrecognizable shape, especially as time changes, and this is entirely unpredictable. And, most importantly,

THIS IS NOT THE BURDEN OF THE CREATOR.

What that means, basically, is that when a piece of media exists, it is a piece of media unto its own sake. It does not have to exist with any more context than whatever is a direct part of it, because it has to be assumed that one day, no more context, or different context, may exist for it. Do you think we know everything shakespeare was thinking when he wrote his plays? Do you think we understand all the jokes and nuances? Of course not. Do you think 19th century victorians did? Nope. The edwardians? Also nope! They all had their own completely different contexts, and enjoyed Shakespeare through them. Because the context is gone, it's dust now. But we have still always been able to enjoy his plays for what they are. Because media and art must be able to be consumed completely independently of the artist or any contingent context. If it isn't, well then it's just broken and wont survive the test of time.

That's probably one of the biggest reasons why the most long lasting and compelling fiction tends to contain at least a few problematic themes, like race or religion or class or sex or sexuality. Because different generations will have wildly different perspectives, but a lot of shared problems and experiences. The problems and experiences are what survives, they're what endures, and the way we interact with them, not the personal opinions of the people who conjured the problem in the first place, because that perspective changes generation to generation, even person to person. If I read Pride and Prejudice, for example, and related deeply to the main characters, do you think I'm doing that based on the author's exact intentions? No! That would be ludicrous! Because bronte had no fucking clue a little gremlin like me would ever exist, and that, quite frankly, is none of her business.

But there's also something else here I want to touch on here: the fact of cognitive dissonance. Human beings have a remarkable ability to exist in a state of multiple truths, and this is something we take full advantage of to enjoy art. We know what we're consuming isn't real, but we can apply suspension of disbelief and turn off our logical brains to enjoy it anyway. If we can do that, then who's to say we can't consume something and walk away with differing opinions about it? I guarantee you if you ask an film school student they will have something positive to say about Woody Allen's filmmaking, even knowing the kind of man he is. Because they're capable of taking the art in as one thing and the man in as another. They're capable of enjoying the art, knowing the problematic aspects behind it, because they're taking something specific away from it-- maybe the way a shot was lined up, or colouring, or scene direction. They're taking away something meaningful to them, something entirely unique to them. That is what makes the experience of art so valuable and important, and it has nothing to do with Woody Allen or any other problematic content creator. Because they don't get to choose what you take away.

Now, if we could stop all problematic people from making things, like Woody Allen, obviously that would be preferrable to negotiating the complicated reality of their legacy. Look at Michael Jackson! People still don't know what the fuck to do with all of that, so a lot of people just kind of exist in the reality of both the rumours being true and him being a legendary artist. It's comfortable, despite how dissonant it is, because it actually requires the least amount of effort.

BUT all that aside, I do want to point out that your example is innately flawed, because there are two million examples of problematic fiction written by entirely mundane, average people for every one written by a cunt. This was what I was trying to convey with my 'pick a redhead, call all humans gingers' analogy-- you cannot take one example, woody allen or daemi, and paint the entire picture. It just doesn't work that way.

"What do you think buying their books and merch and ~enjoying their art will accomplish besides ensuring they can keep doing this?"

Now this is something I wanna highlight, because I have at no point brought up the idea of monetarily supporting anyone. I actually, personally, wouldn't monetarily support Daemi, because of what I've seen and heard about them, and I certainly wouldn't promote others doing it. But i'm not gonna stop them, either. Because I don't have that kind of power. People will make their choices.

Crucially though, me reading and enjoying Kinnporsche, or anyone else for that matter, does not enable Daemi. That is an incredibly harmful mindset to harbour, if you do. If Daemi are committing legitimate crimes they will hopefully be dealt with accordingly by law enforcement, but I have absolutely no say in this whatsoever. And me consuming more Kinnporsche won't change this in either direction. It doesn't work that way. I dont have the power to stop them or punish them, you don't either, but neither do i have the power to enable them and encourage them directly? It doesn't work like that. If they profit off of kinnporsche then so be it until the moment that they're stopped, because they made it and i love it despite that and them. Because of what I love about it, not what they do. And I'm going to continue to feel that way, as are many others.

Basically, anon, I want to really stress that consuming media made my problematic people that is problematic, is a very complicated subject. I haven't done it justice, and I've been slaving over this for ages trying to get it worded just right. It's an entire field of analysis that people spend entire lifetimes on, I'm little more than a cliffnotes. But that's the thing-- it's so much more complicated than you or I make it seem. Legally its complicated, ethically its complicated, morally its complicated, and thats fucking ok. It really is ok. Humans aren't perfect, we're actually really messy and all of us are problematic, so we have to have some kind of ability to navigate it. That's what separating fiction from reality is about, to me. Allowing the nuances to exist in their own space, allowing the art to exist in its own space, allowing the context to exist in its own space, and choosing how to engage with any or none of it.

Art will continue to exist long after you and I are dust, and our intentions and opinions cease to matter. Kinnporsche will live longer than any member of the cast or writing team. And that's ok. Because Kinnporsche isn't Daemi. Kinnporsche is Kinnporsche. And that's ok.

#fuck i hope this isnt nonsense #i tried to do it justice anon i really did #i hope you take something away from it even if you disagree!#i have no problem with people disagreeing with me just dont be a dick about it #discourse

9 notes · View notes