sneezypeasy

[sneezypeasy]

*sigh*

Y'know, this really doesn't/shouldn't matter, but as this particular accusation keeps getting thrown at me over and over again - oh fuck it, I'm gonna take the bait this one time and set the record straight once and for all. Honestly my "appetite" in this context is truly not anyone's business (and if you don't care to hear about it this is the one warning you'll get to click away lmao) but I've reached the point where if you really wanna attack my credibility based on who you think I enjoy fantasizing about, I'm gonna throw you a bone and tell you exactly what type that is - cuz as much as I'm sick of the ad hominem attacks the Aussie in me is even more sick of watching them miss so fucking hard. If you're gonna roast me, the least you can do is hit me where it hurts, goddamn it. Get it right or go home you uncooked noodles. Capiche?

When it comes to my taste in men, my "type" is: big, strong, hairy brutes. There, I said it. Give me lumberjacks, give me cavemen, I want my Jason Momoas, I want my Ma Dong-Seoks, I want them broad shoulders and tree-trunk calves and I wanna see those muscles bulge. If a fictional character ever gets me biting my lip at the screen, it's never gonna be a fine-featured pretty boy, it's gonna be a good thick daddy who can take my wrists, pin me against a wall and [--------------------------------‐---sustained bleep sound effect---------------------------------]

1:38-1:51 🤣

Personality wise, I'm a basic bitch who has approximately zero defenses for the "jerk with a heart of gold" stereotype. Gets me every time, without fail. The smooth-talking playboy who flirts with everyone and who could bed anyone he wanted, but who only lets you see him at his deepest, dearest, most vulnerable moments? Sorry, am I supposed to not fall for that shit or something? Well frankly I don't understand how and I'm not ashamed to admit it. If he happens to be built like a fortress on top of that? Yeah, I'm done. Have me bathed and brought to your tent, sir, please and thank you.

I admit, it's rare that a character with the physique I like also has that heartbreaker personality I'm a sucker for. Guys in fiction are usually strong and mean or they make up for their lighter frames with silver tongues and barbed promises - rarely do writers create a character who's stacked with both brains and brawn, so to speak. Makes sense though, as while irl people can max out any combination of stats that they put effort towards - in fiction a character who's too good at too many different attributes can come across unbalanced or Gary Stu-ish and will fail to resonate with audiences unless the writer really knows what they're doing.

That being said, there really isn't any character in ATLA who fits my type - either of them, actually. There are some bit characters like Chit Sang who get close in terms of physical build - but Chit Sang has very gaunt, angular facial features that I'm really not a fan of and tbh, while I get that I can't expect all my big buff boys to also be masters of wit and cunning and charm, being dumber than a box of rocks does seal it for me, sorry. In terms of personality, I guess the closest character would be Jet, and he's cool and all but yeah, the whole "would go as far as killing kids" thing makes him a bit of a hard sell for me too. (And yes, it's worth questioning the writers' choices to create him with those flaws to begin with but look, that's a discussion for another day 😂)

All this to say, if you wanna tease me about coveting fictional characters and allowing thirst to cloud my judgment - COME AT ME BOYS. But not with Zuko, for fuck's sake. The character that makes sneezy.exe blue-screen ain't him. It's actually the late great Carthaginian General Hannibal Barca, the man the myth the legend may he Rest in Peace if anyone's seriously wondering. Look, I do like the scar, and the awkwardness is endearing - he's definitely not ugly or unappealing by any means so please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to bash him or nothin' - but if I'm being brutally honest, he's not my type! Not physically, not even emotionally. If I ship Zutara, it's because aspects of the ship appeal to me that are unrelated to my personal opinion of Zuko as an object of fantasy, which if you must know (and now you do, congratulations, you're welcome), the kind of boy I do fantasise about when I'm in the mood for that sort of thing could literally and figuratively sweep Zuko off his feet - and then sit on him. In either order.

P.S. While we're on this topic, the character I personally relate to most heavily is not Katara either btw. It's Toph. If you're going to accuse me of bias, questioning my views on Toph would make the most sense for that reason. But really, it's hardly my fault that she's basically the most perfect flawless irreproachable badass in ATLA or practically all of animation as a whole. Come on now. *whistles innocently*

#anti anti zutara #fandom nonsense #zuko's nice and all but if you want him you can have him #seriously #I'm good thanks 👍 #if he were built more like the Hound in GOT #well now we're talking 🤣 #text post #long post #rebutting antis like Iroh teaching that mugger to mug better #LOL #Youtube

[sneezypeasy]

Suddenly making Toph a cop after a 20 year time jump is like showing us a TV series of Nick Wilde as a sassy young fox already getting into some brushes with crime, and then skipping forward to where he's in uniform with Judy as his plucky lil partner, without ever showing us Zootopia.

Reblog if you also think Toph shouldn’t have been a cop.

I want to see how “unpopular” this opinion really is outside cop-worshipping Reddit.

#I said what I said don't @ me #atla #toph

[sneezypeasy]

Have your canon. You’ll never have the streets 🔥🌊

#zutara

[sneezypeasy]

Watsonian vs Doylist Analyses - A Couple Points of Clarification

I just want to clear up a couple of misunderstandings I may have unintentionally contributed to in my previous references on the subject:

1. There can be multiple explanations (multiple Watsonian explanations, multiple Doylist explanations, multiple of each etc) of a given scene or character portrayal or plot point, and people can accept more than one explanation at the same time. It's just uncommon for people to accept or present multiple explanations at once because that's kind of how people people.

2. Doylist takes aren't inherently "better" than Watsonian takes, and vice versa. People use both to engage with the text in different ways and for different purposes. Watsonian logic is fun for roleplay or immersing yourself into the story, and I imagine a lot of fanfic writers often start from a prompt like "I wonder what would happen next if I took x character and then put them in y scenario". Doylist logic is fun if you like examining the text from a more "meta" standpoint, trying to see what purpose various narrative choices serve (or undermine). Neither angle is intrinsically a more valid way to engage with fiction, and you might enjoy doing one thing one day and another thing the next - with different texts or even with the same text.

In litcrit, because I like to pick my brain on the subject of "what would have made for the best story here", I tend to be more interested in analyzing theme, character arcs, setup and payoff etc, which are Doylist interpretations. Some people focus a lot on authorial intent, which is also a Doylist perspective (just a different one). Some people like to try to get into the heads of the characters they're analyzing and discuss ideas like "what choice would make the most sense for x character given who they are as a person". That's a Watsonian take. There are contextual and individual reasons why some explanations may resonate with you more than others some of the time or even most of the time, but they're really apples and oranges. Which one you prefer will likely vary depending on the type of question being posed and what scope seems to be the most appropriate for it - and people are always going to have different opinions about that too... because that's how people people.

Of course, the opinions I personally care enough about to splash all over the internet are going to be opinions I hold with very strong convictions, which is why I can come off quite aggressive about them, but they're still just opinions and there's no such thing as "one true explanation", whether that's Watsonian or Doylist. If I make a Doylist argument and I dismiss someone else's rebuttal on the basis of it being Watsonian, that's not because Watsonian takes are intrinsically weaker, it's just because you generally can't use a Watsonian take to rebut a Doylist one or vice versa. You need to engage with someone's point in order to counter it, and you can't generally do that when you completely change the scope of the question, which is what tends to happen when a Watsonian perspective and a Doylist perspective comes into conflict.

(Of course, you can argue that a Doylist scope is situationally stronger than a Watsonian one or vice versa, but that's a different argument and usually context-dependent lol - point is just because a Doylist answer might fit one particular prompt much better this time, doesn't mean all Doylist answers will always trump all Watsonian answers in every single context all of the time, and that's not even accounting for the fact that you're never going to reach unanimous agreement about these sorts of things anyway.)

I hope that clears things up 😊

#litcrit #watsonian vs doylist #apples and oranges #long post #text post #side note but this is why I tend to only engage in Watsonian logic myself when I'm the one doing the rebutting #I don't usually care to come out with my own Watsonian takes #but occasionally I'll come across someone else's that seems totally bonkers #and unsubstantiated by anything #at which point I'll put the Watsonian hat on so I can engage 😂 #otherwise I prefer my trusty Doylist hats 😁 ✌

[sneezypeasy]

LMAO I FORGOT ABOUT THE PAPAYA Honestly Katara was never more relatable to me than in this episode. I too hate papaya. Most disgusting fruit on Earth.

it will never not be bizarre to me that kat.aangers use the fortuneteller episode as foreshadowing for ka when literally every possible interpretation of this episode is anti kat.aang.

if aunt wu's prophecies are unquestionably true, then kat.aang is DOA right off the bat because she explicitly says she doesn't see romance in aang's future. yet kat.aangers love to uphold the “powerful bender” prophecy as foreshadowing for kat.aang so… which is it? are aunt wu’s prophecies only eternally binding for katara but conveniently untrue when it comes to aang? because if katara marrying a powerful bender is unchangeable, then so is aang not being able to find love, so that’s strike no. 1 for ka foreshadowing.

now on the other hand, if we take aunt wu's prophecies as false, then our boy aang is free to do all the lovin’ he wants… but following the same logic, so is katara. and since her prophecy is the catalyst for her seeing him as a potential romantic partner at all, that’s strike no. 2 for foreshadowing.

finally, we come to the last interpretation and the episode's actual message: that destiny is real, but not immutable. throughout the episode, it’s clear that aunt wu's prophecies do come true, though not in the way that their subject(s) might expect. the future isn’t created through passive acceptance, but active agency. everyone has the power to shape their own destiny, and make their own choices.

this is the complete opposite of katara beginning to view aang in a romantic light solely because sokka makes an entirely on-the-nose comment about him being a powerful bender. because had katara not heard her prophecy, that would have meant nothing to her! how is this meant to be the spark that fuels the kat.aang relationship when it's entirely based on katara holding herself to a prophesized future instead of writing her own story, and hence antithetical to the fundamental theme of the episode?

which is also why so many people interpret this episode to be lampshading zutara, because the only way that all of these contradictory interpretations — aang isn’t meant to find love, katara is meant to marry a powerful bender, but both of them still have the power to shape their own paths — make sense is if the final scene was an intentional red herring… but that’s a discussion for another time.

#sorry to derail the conversation lmao #atla #katara #papaya hate squad rise uppp

[sneezypeasy]

All of this is true, (not to mention the whole Meng subplot as well) but tbh the thing that killed it for me was that Katara looked disappointed when Sokka accidentally implicated Aang as the potential answer to her prophecy.

I was a Kataang shipper when I watched The Fortuneteller for the first time (Zutara and literary analysis in general hadn't really entered my brain yet), but I could tell the episode was baiting Kataang. Aang's crush on Katara was already apparent by now, but Katara's thoughts on the matter had never been revealed one way or the other, and with the sudden focus on Kataang this episode (the whole "will they won't they" thing bubbling up to the surface) I began to anticipate that this episode, we would finally get a long-overdue peek into Katara's mind on the subject. So I waited patiently the entire time, waited as Katara dismissed and ignored and dodged Aang (and the episode's question of "will they...?"), waited to see how that tension would finally get resolved... till the curtains drew almost to a close, at which point Sokka casually suggested Aang was the "powerful bender" Aunt Wu had foretold. Katara startles as she hears the question of the episode for the first time, and I sat there staring at the screen like "A-ha!"

...only to see Katara look almost crestfallen at the thought.

I mean, compare to how she looked when she was fantasizing about her future beau 😂

Idk, it felt to me like -

Aunt Wu: Guess what, you're gonna marry a very powerful bender ;)

Karara: 👀👀👀👀

Later: It's Aang, Aang's your future husband.

Katara: .....Oh. 😕

And at the time, as someone who'd been effectively baited by Kataang and the "will they won't they" dilemma - you have to understand, I would have been happy to finally see some promise for the ship. I watched that episode wanting to see a Kataang resolution... and I finished that episode feeling as let down as Katara looked. 😂 I did not see the Fortune Teller as affirming Kataang at all. I came away from it thinking, welp, if it does happen, it won't be happening any time soon. Oh well.

(I guess that's what happens when Mai's animator has to take a day off fjisosksjaakaas 😂😂😂)

it will never not be bizarre to me that kat.aangers use the fortuneteller episode as foreshadowing for ka when literally every possible interpretation of this episode is anti kat.aang.

if aunt wu's prophecies are unquestionably true, then kat.aang is DOA right off the bat because she explicitly says she doesn't see romance in aang's future. yet kat.aangers love to uphold the “powerful bender” prophecy as foreshadowing for kat.aang so… which is it? are aunt wu’s prophecies only eternally binding for katara but conveniently untrue when it comes to aang? because if katara marrying a powerful bender is unchangeable, then so is aang not being able to find love, so that’s strike no. 1 for ka foreshadowing.

now on the other hand, if we take aunt wu's prophecies as false, then our boy aang is free to do all the lovin’ he wants… but following the same logic, so is katara. and since her prophecy is the catalyst for her seeing him as a potential romantic partner at all, that’s strike no. 2 for foreshadowing.

finally, we come to the last interpretation and the episode's actual message: that destiny is real, but not immutable. throughout the episode, it’s clear that aunt wu's prophecies do come true, though not in the way that their subject(s) might expect. the future isn’t created through passive acceptance, but active agency. everyone has the power to shape their own destiny, and make their own choices.

this is the complete opposite of katara beginning to view aang in a romantic light solely because sokka makes an entirely on-the-nose comment about him being a powerful bender. because had katara not heard her prophecy, that would have meant nothing to her! how is this meant to be the spark that fuels the kat.aang relationship when it's entirely based on katara holding herself to a prophesized future instead of writing her own story, and hence antithetical to the fundamental theme of the episode?

which is also why so many people interpret this episode to be lampshading zutara, because the only way that all of these contradictory interpretations — aang isn’t meant to find love, katara is meant to marry a powerful bender, but both of them still have the power to shape their own paths — make sense is if the final scene was an intentional red herring… but that’s a discussion for another time.

#Atla #anti kataang #The fortune teller

[sneezypeasy]

I know this isn't a new theory/idea at all, but count me as another voice who desperately needs to see Sinner!Adam wake up in Hell for Season 2

#hazbin hotel #hazbin spoilers #I want an Adam redemption arc so bad #he's such a piece of shit - perfect to get his face slammed with a huge slice of humblepie #I can already picture the look on his face once he finally grows to the point of feeling deep shame #and guilt #I guess if it doesn't happen that's what fic is for #🙏🙏🙏

[sneezypeasy]

rewatching The Western Air Temple, and i gotta say, i love that Toph is never even a little bit scared of Zuko, not even immediately after he burns her feet. she just jumps straight to being mad and it's kind of fantastic

#atla #toph #best character in ATLA as I keep saying #dont @ me

[sneezypeasy]

Schrödinger’s Redemption Arc:

It was either perfect storytelling or an insensitive colonizer guilt narrative…depending on who you ship him with.

#zutara

[sneezypeasy]

Sokka: small creatures are way more vicious. It’s because there’s less room to contain their wrath.

Katara: that’s ridiculous. name one example of this.

Zuko: wasps

Suki: spiders

Ty Lee: terriers.

Aang: Toph

[sneezypeasy]

Post canon Toph who doesn’t want to go back to her shitty parents so she just decides to stay in the Fire Nation and bum off Zuko’s hospitality.

Zuko’s like no, yeah, I totally get it, and just makes her one of his advisors. At first it’s just so she has a good excuse to stay but after the first meeting Toph storms out shouting about how EVERYONE was lying why would you even need to lie about what kind of tea you want??

Zuko: I mean they’re politicians…..but also who, and when, and in what way

They make a subtle Morse code system so Toph can warn him when someone is lying to him without tipping anyone off that she can sense lies.

Zuko gets a reputation for somehow being both extremely socially inept and yet somehow disgustingly perceptive?? You can’t get ANYTHING by him???

[sneezypeasy]

Toph is anti-authoritarian at her core. She enjoys breaking rules and fucking shit up.

If Toph were to do anything involved with catching criminals, it would still be something non-traditional... I could see her as a bounty hunter (like Jun), or maybe that whole "I'm a detective who only takes cases that interest me" Sherlock Holmes trope. But a cop? No - or at the very least, if we're gonna pull a 180 like that, I'd need to see how she changed so completely. That's an arc with a story behind it, and giving us the conclusion without the story is lame.

Reblog if you also think Toph shouldn’t have been a cop.

I want to see how “unpopular” this opinion really is outside cop-worshipping Reddit.

#atla #toph #toph discourse #toph is a rebel not a soldier #I will die on this hill

[sneezypeasy]

Ok can we talk about how toph held up a huge ass building? I feel like this is never addressed.

The Gaang is in the sand, which is already hard for Toph to see/feel, and then she holds up this giant library?? While trying to protect Appa.

Also, can we talk about how its not one mass of rock-it's made of bricks, and being held together by gravity. She really said "Every one of you blocks, pillars, tiles, boards, and the rest of you are going to stay in your exact spots and not sink to the spirit world BECAUSE I SAID SO!" while she was fighting super mystical spirit magic. While fighting and actual spirits power. For who knows how long, because Sokka and Aang had time to check every date till Sozins comet would hit at least a few months away.

Can we also talk about how Toph was so upset and ashamed about loosing Appa due to sand bending skill that she practiced hard to perfect it.

#atla #toph #my best girl

[sneezypeasy]

Zukka doesn't own the rights to "zutara but gay", Good Omens does.

#I will not be taking criticism at this time #zutara #aziracrow #friday morning shitposting #it's the consitution it's Mabo it's the vibe your honour

[sneezypeasy]

People keep searching for ways to argue that JK Rowling has always been a horrible person deep down as a way of explaining her recent behaviour.

But here’s the thing: that’s probably not true at all.

Pretending it is discounts the harsher, scarier truth: that even decent, well-meaning people can be radicalised by dangerous, hateful, predatory groups, and given enough time they can become truly hideous versions of their former selves.

It can happen to me. It can happen to you. It can happen to any of us, given the right mix of circumstances. And over the past few years, we’ve seen it happen to one of the most famous children’s authors of our age.

Nobody is immune.

#anti radfem #anti terf

[sneezypeasy]

The last reblog in this chain touches on a few things I think actually are worth addressing to an extent - namely, if anti Kataang shippers can call Kataang a predator ship, why isn't it fair game for anti Zutarians to call Zutara a colonizer ship?

I think there are a couple of nuances here that do matter - and important caveat, this is just based on my observations, and I do deliberately avoid wading into fandom discourse most of the time so I fully concede my observations here may be limited/incomplete - but, from what I have noticed: when it comes to moral arguments surrounding both ships, anti Kataang shippers tend to frame their criticism more along the lines of "how the show portrays Kataang in abusive/problematic ways"; in contrast, anti Zutara shippers tend to frame their criticism more along the lines of "how the fandom portrays Zutara in abusive/problematic ways". Anti Kataang shippers tend to bash canon, anti Zutara shippers tend to bash... Zutara shippers. (There is an interesting way this difference manifests, by the way, in terms of how each side of the ship war wields the accusation of fandom toxicity towards the other.) Either way, I think that's a distinction that isn't irrelevant here.

Now, that being said, I still stand by my belief that equivocating moral criticism with literary analysis is harmful. Like I said, I deliberately avoided talking about Kataang or Maiko being "problematic", beyond the scope of how I thought their flaws might have resulted in them adding more value to the story as false leads. I am 100% proship, and in fact where proshippers sometimes limit their "tolerance" to fandom engagement, I go further than that and argue that in general, problematic ships should be allowed to exist in mainstream canon works as well. If Kataang is problematic or "toxic", it has to be toxic in a way that actually does a disservice to the story overall, for me to use its toxicity as a foundation for a "Kataang being canon = bad writing" argument. Otherwise, it's just an aspect of the ship that icks me out, and while that might be a valid reason for me not to ship it, I do not consider it a valid reason, in and of itself, for the story to have been enriched from them being false leads.

Of course, there may be a conversation worth having as to whether some problematic aspect of a story creates - or has the potential to create - a negative cultural impact too significant to be ignored. At what point does that outweigh the artistic value of the work as is, or the freedom of the creator to tell the story they want to tell? These can be important questions to ask, and I don't mean to suggest we shouldn't be asking them. But, as I've said so many times now, I think we can and should ask these questions, while being careful not to miscategorize these critiques as something they're not, and definitely taking care not to shame people for finding something to enjoy about the work regardless.

All this to say, if you have indeed observed Zutara shippers/anti-Kataang shippers conflate moral criticism with literary analysis and if that bothers you, I sympathise. I especially sympathise if you've seen any Zutara shippers/anti-Kataang shippers use a "Kataang is an incel/predator ship" to then attack Kataang shippers for shipping it. I believe this kind of behaviour is unequivocally wrong. Unfortunately, anti-ship logic has a way of infecting a fandom/ship war, spreading its tendrils into the far reaches of fandom, until both sides end up adopting anti-rhetoric uncritically, even when they're defending their own ships. And yeah, this - this is bad. As freedom-of-fanfic put it in one of the blogs I linked in my original post:

ship defenders and anti-censorship blogs end up focusing on pointing out the ship is not csa or the fanwork does not feature abuse, not necessarily conscious that by doing so they quietly cede ground: ‘but if it was unhealthy/immoral,’ they quietly imply, ‘it would of course be indefensible.’ losing that ground - losing the position that all ships are valid and all fanworks are allowed to exist, moral value and purity aside - has naturally led shippers to adopt the language of antis when fighting back against antis or complaining about their NOTPs.

I do understand how and why anti-rhetoric from one side of a ship war can end up creeping into the language of defenders from the other side of the ship war. Hell, even I had to resist the urge to unload my ethnic background as "credentials" to support my takes on this subject, and I had to remind myself that doing that would just validate the very tenets around shipping and fandom behaviour I've written dozens of paragraphs now trying to challenge. I get it. It's a trap that's disgustingly easy to fall into, but one we have a duty to try to avoid regardless.

So, to answer the question posed above: while I think that anti Zutarians and anti Kataangers moralize shipping in different ways, reaching different conclusions that have different impacts (one side generally targeting shippers/fandom vs the other side generally targeting canon), I do think anyone conflating moral value with literary merit is making a dangerous mistake, and certainly, anyone extending their moral judgements to the point of shaming or harassing other shippers is being actively harmful - and this is me drawing a line in the sand to say there is absolutely no excuse for that behaviour, from either side of the ship war.

I hope that covers it.

Why I Deliberately Avoided the "Colonizer" Argument in my Zutara Thesis - and Why I'll Continue to Avoid it Forever

This is a question that occasionally comes up under my Zutara video essay, because somehow in 2 hours worth of content I still didn't manage to address everything (lol.) But this argument specifically is one I made a point of avoiding entirely, and there are some slightly complicated reasons behind that. I figure I'll write them all out here.

From a surface-level perspective, Zuko's whole arc, his raison d'etre, is to be a de-colonizer. Zuko's redemption arc is kinda all about being a de-colonizer, and his redemption arc is probably like the most talked about plot point of ATLA, so from a basic media literacy standpoint, the whole argument is unsound in the first place, and on that basis alone I find it childish to even entertain as an argument worth engaging with, to be honest.

(At least one person in my comments pointed out that if any ship's "political implications" are problematic in some way, it really ought to be Maiko, as Mai herself is never shown or suggested to be a strong candidate for being a de-colonizing co-ruler alongside Zuko. If anything her attitudes towards lording over servants/underlings would make her… a less than suitable choice for this role, but I digress.)

But the reason I avoided rebutting this particular argument in my video goes deeper than that. From what I've observed of fandom discourse, I find that the colonizer argument is usually an attempt to smear the ship as "problematic" - i.e., this ship is an immoral dynamic, which would make it problematic to depict as canon (and by extension, if you ship it regardless, you're probably problematic yourself.)

And here is where I end up taking a stand that differentiates me from the more authoritarian sectors of fandom.

I'm not here to be the fandom morality police. When it comes to lit crit, I'm really just here to talk about good vs. bad writing. (And when I say "good", I mean structurally sound, thematically cohesive, etc; works that are well-written - I don't mean works that are morally virtuous. More on this in a minute.) So the whole colonizer angle isn't something I'm interested in discussing, for the same reason that I actually avoided discussing Katara "mothering" Aang or the "problematic" aspects of the Kataang ship (such as how he kissed her twice without her consent). My whole entire sections on "Kataang bad" or "Maiko bad" in my 2 hour video was specifically, "how are they written in a way that did a disservice to the story", and "how making them false leads would have created valuable meaning". I deliberately avoided making an argument that consisted purely of, "here's how Kataang/Maiko toxic and Zutara wholesome, hence Zutara superiority, the end".

Why am I not willing to be the fandom morality police? Two reasons:

I don't really have a refined take on these subjects anyway. Unless a piece of literature or art happens to touch on a particular issue that resonates with me personally, the moral value of art is something that doesn't usually spark my interest, so I rarely have much to say on it to begin with. On the whole "colonizer ship" subject specifically, other people who have more passion and knowledge than me on the topic can (and have) put their arguments into words far better than I ever could. I'm more than happy to defer to their take(s), because honestly, they can do these subjects justice in a way I can't. Passing the mic over to someone else is the most responsible thing I can do here, lol. But more importantly:

I reject the conflation of literary merit with moral virtue. It is my opinion that a good story well-told is not always, and does not have to be, a story free from moral vices/questionable themes. In my opinion, there are good problematic stories and bad "pure" stories and literally everything in between. To go one step further, I believe that there are ways that a romance can come off "icky", and then there are ways that it might actually be bad for the story, and meming/shitposting aside, the fact that these two things don't always neatly align is not only a truth I recognise about art but also one of those truths that makes art incredibly interesting to me! So on the one hand, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to conflate literary "goodness" with moral "goodness". On a more serious note, I not only find this type of conflation unfair/inaccurate, I also find it potentially dangerous - and this is why I am really critical of this mindset beyond just disagreeing with it factually. What I see is that people who espouse this rhetoric tend to encourage (or even personally engage in) wilful blindness one way or the other, because ultimately, viewing art through these lens ends up boxing all art into either "morally permissible" or "morally impermissible" categories, and shames anyone enjoying art in the "morally impermissible" box. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people responding to this by A) making excuses for art that they guiltily love despite its problematic elements and/or B) denying the value of any art that they are unable to defend as free from moral wickedness.

Now, I'm not saying that media shouldn't be critiqued on its moral virtue. I actually think morally critiquing art has its place, and assuming it's being done in good faith, it absolutely should be done, and probably even more often than it is now.

Because here's the truth: Sometimes, a story can be really good. Sometimes, you can have a genuinely amazing story with well developed characters and powerful themes that resonate deeply with anyone who reads it. Sometimes, a story can be all of these things - and still be problematic.*

(Or, sometimes a story can be all of those things, and still be written by a problematic author.)

That's why I say, when people conflate moral art with good art, they become blind to the possibility that the art they like being potentially immoral (or vice versa). If only "bad art" is immoral, how can the art that tells the story hitting all the right beats and with perfect rhythm and emotional depth, be ever problematic?

(And how can the art I love, be ever problematic?)

This is why I reject the idea that literary merit = moral virtue (or vice versa) - because I do care about holding art accountable. Even the art that is "good art". Actually, especially the art that is "good art". Especially the art that is well loved and respected and appreciated. The failure to distinguish literary critique from moral critique bothers me on a personal level because I think that conflating the two results in the detriment of both - the latter being the most concerning to me, actually.

So while I respect the inherent value of moral criticism, I'm really not a fan of any argument that presents moral criticism as equivalent to literary criticism, and I will call that out when I see it. And from what I've observed, a lot of the "but Zutara is a colonizer ship" tries to do exactly that, which is why I find it a dishonest and frankly harmful media analysis framework to begin with.

But even when it is done in good faith, moral criticism of art is also just something I personally am neither interested nor good at talking about, and I prefer to talk about the things that I am interested and good at talking about.

(And some people are genuinely good at tackling the moral side of things! I mean, I for one really enjoyed Lindsay Ellis's take on Rent contextualising it within the broader political landscape at the time to show how it's not the progressive queer story it might otherwise appear to be. Moral critique has value, and has its place, and there are definitely circumstances where it can lead to societal progress. Just because I'm not personally interested in addressing it doesn't mean nobody else can do it let alone that nobody else should do it, but also, just because it can and should be done, doesn't mean that it's the only "one true way" to approach lit crit by anyone ever. You know, sometimes... two things… can be true… at once?)

Anyway, if anyone reading this far has recognised that this is basically a variant of the proship vs. antiship debate, you're right, it is. And on that note, I'm just going to leave some links here. I've said about as much as I'm willing/able to say on this subject, but in case anyone is interested in delving deeper into the philosophy behind my convictions, including why I believe leftist authoritarian rhetoric is harmful, and why the whole "but it would be problematic in real life" is an anti-ship argument that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I highly recommend these posts/threads:

In general this blog is pretty solid; I agree with almost all of their takes - though they focus more specifically on fanfic/fanart than mainstream media, and I think quite a lot of their arguments are at least somewhat appropriate to extrapolate to mainstream media as well.

I also strongly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" which the author, a verified giga chad, actually made free to download as a pdf, here. His work focuses primarily on right-wing authoritarians, but a lot of his research and conclusions are, you guessed it, applicable to left-wing authoritarians also.

And if you're an anti yourself, welp, you won't find support from me here. This is not an anti-ship safe space, sorrynotsorry 👆

In conclusion, honestly any "but Zutara is problematic" argument is one I'm likely to consider unsound to begin with, let alone the "Zutara is a colonizer ship" argument - but even if it wasn't, it's not something I'm interested in discussing, even if I recognise there are contexts where these discussions have value. I resent the idea that just because I have refined opinions on one aspect of a discussion means I must have (and be willing to preach) refined opinions on all aspects of said discussion. (I don't mean to sound reproachful here - actually the vast majority of the comments I get on my video/tumblr are really sweet and respectful, but I do get a handful of silly comments here and there and I'm at the point where I do feel like this is something worth saying.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to defer to other analysts who have the passion and knowledge to give complicated topics the justice they deserve. All I request is that care is taken not to conflate literary criticism with moral criticism to the detriment of both - and I think it's important to acknowledge when that is indeed happening. And respectfully, don't expect me to give my own take on the matter when other people are already willing and able to put their thoughts into words so much better than me. Peace ✌

*P.S. This works for real life too, by the way. There are people out there who are genuinely not only charming and likeable, but also generous, charitable and warm to the vast majority of the people they know. They may also be amazing at their work, and if they have a job that involves saving lives like firefighting or surgery or w.e, they may even be the reason dozens of people are still alive today. They may honestly do a lot of things you'd have to concede are "good" deeds.

They may be all of these things, and still be someone's abuser. 🙃

Two things can be true at once. It's important never to forget that.

#fandom discourse #anti purity culture #hope I didn't miss anything

[sneezypeasy]

Honestly I think what those three seconds show is really up to interpretation. To me, she seems to be glaring at him - you can read that emotion as anger, hurt, indignation, resentment, defiance... and then you can interpret any one of those in several different ways. Is she angry because of the fight she had with Zuko? Is she disappointed in his apparent commitment to treason? Is she frustrated because some of what he's saying is getting through to her in some way and she doesn't like being challenged?

🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

We literally have so little to go on that you could make almost any Watsonian interpretation fit the Rorschach test provided. But to present it as objective truth that's somehow supposed to answer for everything else Mai has been shown to do and say in the actual text is where it gets incredibly bizarre to me. Seriously, what? 😂

^ Okay, who the hell animated Mai in that one scene in The Boiling Rock? Whoever it was deserves a raise. They managed to portray Mai's sense of dejection, an epiphany that Zuko's position is both honourable and achievable, a sudden disillusionment with the war effort, a newfound conviction to take a political (not just a personal) stand against Azula, her parents and Ozai all in the span of three seconds and without even changing her facial expression or having any lines of dialogue to work with!

The other writers/animators needed three whole seasons to depict Zuko's infamous redemption arc. Pathetic.

Whoever animated Mai could have probably spedrun the entire show in one episode. Woulda saved a ton of money in hiring voice actors storyboarders etc. Give 'em a pay rise, hell better give them an academy award, a beer, a statue in Republic City, a gobby, you name it dude. What a ripper c*** ❤️