#all critique allowed | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

maingh0st · 4 days

Note

The hate Taryn gets is way too exaggerated and disproportionate. It’s just straight up misogyny at this point, in my opinion. The fandom needs to get over it.

I could literally write a treatise about Taryn-hate at this point lmao. I’m going to share some thoughts (this actually got quite long), but I want to include a big ole disclaimer: at the end of the day, everybody gets to engage in fandom in the ways they want. everyone is free to love or hate whichever characters they want, for the reasons that feel valid and real to them. that being said, the treatment of Taryn specifically is really troubling and bizarre to me.

I think it’s worth pointing out that when we say Taryn-hate seems misogynistic, that means a lot more than just “people who hate Taryn hate her because she’s a girl.” in my opinion, fandom misogyny toward her often gets couched in broader terms. some examples of what I mean by this are:

(1) Taryn does things that are bad and I don’t like that - uhhhh okay. everybody in these books does shitty things, so let’s think about why specifically the actions of Taryn (a 17-18 year old girl being manipulated by multiple men in her life) fall into the category of unredeemable for you. the reason we might point to this being misogynistic is because it’s a double standard that doesn’t apply to other characters—we’re willing to forgive Cardan his cruelty, or centuries-old Madoc for the trauma he's inflicted and his ongoing need for bloodshed, but Taryn is just a stupid, evil girl for trying to secure her place in Elfhame through the levers of power that are available to her. she can never be forgiven nor redeemed no matter how loyal she is to Jude moving forward. why is that? what sin of hers are so particularly evil to warrant this response? and we have to answer these questions in the context of Elfhame & its moral code, not in the context of our own world.

(2) I could never see myself acting in the way Taryn does and therefore I don’t like her - okay? I can never see myself acting like Madoc, or even like Vivi (don’t get me started on Vivi & the fact that she gets passes Taryn never does), but that doesn’t mean I can’t have empathy for them. I understand that we experience the books through Jude’s perspective, so we’re automatically more prone to rooting for her—and to be clear, I love Jude! but fiction challenges us to experience the world through other perspectives, and it’s my opinion that Taryn acts in a way that is completely consistent and understandable with her experience of Elfhame. “I’m not like you,” she tells Jude. “I want to belong here. Defying them makes everything worse. You never asked me before you went against Prince Cardan—you didn’t care what it brought down on either of our heads.”

while Jude’s defiance is held up as girlboss behavior (by me, too! I love a “get worse” arc), Taryn’s more traditionally feminine approach to finding her place in Elfhame is reviled (@slightlyrebelliouswriter23 has a great post on the fawn response to trauma & on passivity). more on this point below.

(3) Taryn isn’t a “girl’s girl” - I am begging fandom to think critically about why Taryn betrays Jude & what that says not just about Elfhame, but about our world. these girls live in a world that affords them little power and agency. we meet them on the cusp of adulthood, and they’re both hyper-aware that they need to secure their place in Elfhame. Jude refers to knighthood as “earning” her place and is uninterested in marriage, but Taryn seems aware that she’s more likely to secure her place through the latter option (and also expresses the fear that Jude is going to leave her behind). it’s an oversimplification, but a useful one for the sake of this conversation, to point out that Jude chooses a more traditionally masculine approach, while Taryn chooses a more traditionally feminine one.

the tragedy is that this world—and particularly the men in their lives—pit them against one another. Locke offers Taryn the thing she wants most, requires a vow of her secrecy, and then begins flirting with Jude (and that's not even to mention him being a gancanagh!). at a point in her story where Madoc and Oriana are the only family who are still around for Taryn, Madoc capitalizes on Taryn’s ignorance (and also her awareness that she's never been the favorite daughter) & uses her to betray Jude. I almost never see these complexities brought up in conversations about Taryn, which is just gross to me, and echoes the ways that patriarchal power structures pit women against each other in the real world.

I’ve seen people argue that while Jude’s approach is also flawed, she at least doesn’t betray Taryn. and like… kind of? she certainly doesn’t betray Taryn as directly as Taryn betrays her—but some of that just strikes me as dumb luck. consider what might’ve happened if Dain hadn’t died at the end of book one. what lengths might he have asked Jude to go to in order to prove her loyalty to him? or if we rewind even further—it’s honestly just dumb luck that someone didn’t harm or kill Taryn (Valerian, for example, could've chosen the wrong window). Jude’s antagonism of Cardan & his friends had a direct effect on Taryn’s life, and even though Taryn begged her to stop, she bullheadedly charged on. the difference is that Jude’s risky decisions ultimately work out for her, while Taryn has to face the consequences of hers not panning out the way she wanted them to.

this isn't exhaustive, and there’s so much more I could say, but this is already so long. so in conclusion, the reason all this matters to me personally is twofold:

at its best, fiction teaches us empathy. part of why I love tfota is because it takes characters & dynamics that are really messy & helps you, the reader, understand where everyone is coming from & why. the fact that we love Madoc is a testament to fiction’s ability to do this. so why is a teenage girl treated like the true villain of this story? what about her makes us incapable of empathy? why, in the mind of the fandom, is she not allowed forgiveness (or even just a chance at redemption) for the harm she's caused, while other characters are? I see people stanning Nicasia, who actively tortured Jude (over a boy, no less!!) ffs

fandom misogyny reflects our world. why are people eager to forgive toxic male love interests, yet hold the bar impossibly high for girls? why is there such a narrow set of choices & behaviors that we consider acceptable for female characters? Holly wrote a story about two young women carving out places for themselves in a world hostile to them, hurting each other in the process, and ultimately deciding to forgive, love, and root for one another—and fandom has taken that complex narrative and pitted them against one another, upholding one as the girlboss who can do no wrong while treating the other as scum. misogyny thrives on women treating each other like the problem, so if this is our attitude toward a fictional story where we’re afforded direct looks into characters’ thoughts, how much worse are we going to be in the real world, faced with real, imperfect women?

anyways, in conclusion: you're entitled to dislike taryn, but if you feel such vitriol toward her that you're literally making hate posts (or commenting under fanart of her!! holy shit), I invite you to interrogate where that hate actually comes from. fin.

31 notes · View notes

princemonday · 3 months

Text

(pjo spoilers if you havent seen it yet but bestie the book came out almost 20 years ago....where u been)

this is just about the pacing and actual format of the show but i feel like lukes betrayal could've been so much more impactful if we actually saw more of luke (and his bond with percy) throughout the show. and i don't necessarily mean add more luke scenes. even just moving the scene of them training in the forest to half way through the show (or better yet the beginning) could've been a huge help. we learned the episode before that percy thinks its clarisse. we knew it wasn't going to be clarisse because we could tell there was supposed to be some grand revelation and him thinking its clarisse sort of eliminates her as the culprit. the way they framed it made it obvious luke was the traitor. annabeth is obviously not it. they already sorta went down the grover path. we know it's not going to actually be clarisse. what other kid were we introduced to? luke. by process of elimination it had to be him. and if you didn't already figure that out by then, adding the scene of luke and percy training and talking at the beginning of an episode that reveals the traitor when we haven't really seen luke for most of the show? pretty dead giveaway. we had maybe an episode or two actually at camp? we could've snuck the scene in there instead. or we could put the flashback at a more inconspicuous point like midway and not....literally the finale. like...idk the conversation luke had with percy in that scene felt like it would've reflected better in percy if we had seen it earlier. like...before he met his dad idk. i do recognize this show is for like 13 year olds and it's not that deep but 🤷🏻‍♀️

#im probably definitely being picky #im still v happy for rick #i feel like if anyone critiques this show the fandom will jump down your throat since its more accurate than the movie and rick likes it #i know we all want to love it but if we dont thats okay....and even if we do were allowed to critique it jfc #anyways dont jump on my dick this is just my opinions and preferences #pjo critical #pjo #percy jackon and the olympians #percy jackson #percy jackson and the olympians #disney pjo #luke castellan #charlie bushnell #walker scobell #pjo spoilers #...🦇

22 notes · View notes

strawberryicemoon · 2 months

Text

Why I can't watch the Ducktales Finale

I'm not the kind of person who struggles to watch the last episode of something. I love to finish a show, and let it sit in my brain. I'm the kind of person who often enjoys spoilers because it adds to my understanding of the media. I love to view the media in their entirety just as much as I love a journey to get there.

But I can't get past the first few minutes of Ducktales 2017, The Last Adventure. And it's because of spoilers that I couldn't deal with. I don't like them, and even years later after I've had time to digest, and have seen so many finale clips, that I still can't just sit down and watch it. And I've made attempts. I've looked through the summary of the episode to prepare. But I can't.

And there's... a couple of things that rub me the wrong way about the Finale that keep me from being able to just watch it.

1. Webby is Scrooge's Clone Daughter

2. Webby is April, of April May and June

3. Donald and Daisy are going on vacation.

Now, I don't actually hate any of these... conceptually. And I'm well aware that Frank Angones has stated the Webby twist was planned from very early on. And usually I am completely down for whatever a finale is, as long as I can tell that this was something the creator really believed in.

I'm a fan of such "controversial" endings as, Amphibia and Digimon Adventure 02, because I know exactly why they ended like that. It's written in the themes. Even if it took me time to understand Adventure's ending, I've grown to understand it and love it once I learned more about the original Japanese version and the shows production (and also grew up myself). Amphibia ended exactly as I expected based on one of the very earliest things I heard about the show from Matt Braly: "an ode to past friendships". Even if I think there are things they messed up I GET IT. I wouldn't want them ending any other way.

So I understand WHY the decision is made. Conceptually it does make sense. Webby exists as a composite character of April May and June, and I believe shares the same name as April in one language. Webby being Scrooge's clone daughter is an effective way of full-circling her relationship with him. Strangers in each other's home to father and daughter. She's family not BECAUSE of Blood, but because of Love. She still loves her Granny, it's just the non blood relationship wasn't the one she thought it was. And Donald deserves a vacation, and to have the more down to earth life experiences he wanted, especially after raising his sisters kids alone for 10 years.

But they still twist me up inside.

And I think it comes down to three reasons: 1. Lack of Continuity between episodes 2. An over-focusing on Scrooge 3. Handling of Word of God

1. Lack of Continuity between episodes Part of what got me to fall in love with Ducktales was S1 and the continuity of the Spear of Selene subplot. We got hints at a semi-regular pace, but it successfully overhung the entire series. It was what separated Scrooge and Donald. It was why Della was gone. The subject matter was of course not something that needed to be overstated, as most of it was being kept hush hush. Sure it was a mystery, but not an urgent one. Dewey had never had his mom, so it wasn't like he couldn't focus on anything else for a while

But in S2 I started noticing that the show stopped explaining or foreshadowing things. Maybe it always did, I haven't re watched it properly. But I definitely noticed something off about the storytelling then. But it was definitely a problem throughout the show.

Webby never brought up Lena after her sacrifice until the relevant episode.

Lena living with the Sabrewings was something never brought up until episodes later we saw her with them.

We had Della talking about the boys with their "Uncles" setting up the pain of not knowing how things fell apart after her departure, only to get no payoff.

We didn't get ANYTHING about Webby's parentage until the final episode, and barely a hint in 1 season 3 episode.

Almost every finale episode changes the status quo in some way. The question is how much. Lots of final episodes kind of have things going back to the way they were before plot kicked off but better (like with new friends or a new government). Sometimes someone dies.

Webby being Scrooge's clone is paradigm shifting. And that kind of thing needs to be set up. You CANNOT catch your audience off guard with something like that.

In Digimon Adventure 02 the series ends with everyone on earth with a digimon partner which is controversial but at least built up throughout the series at hints of other digidestined until an arc near the end showcased many international digidestined. Hilda ends with the reveal that Hilda's mother is half-fairy, and despite not being present throughout the first two seasons, it was hinted at through the third season, and contextualized some of the few things we did know before about Johanna's childhood. The Hollow's first season ends with you finding out it was all a game, but it had been hinted at before with the video game nature of the world. Sure Avatar didn't hint at Aang getting the power to take away bending, but we knew he was a pacifist who didn't want to kill so was looking for a solution, getting the power to remove bending (ie power over others) works thematically, in the same way Anne using the power of the stones and getting brought back to life by a god like being worked. Sure, Scratch turning out to be a wraith at the end of The Ghost and Molly McGee was rather sudden, but people had been theorizing that Todd was Scratch's body for a long time, so it wasn't like there weren't any hints, and while the show was cut short and had to rush to end, the build up of Scratch's memories at least gave some sort of foreshadowing link to what was going on.

There's a reason people rarely throw in new characters at the very end of a show. It can absolutely work. Amphibia and The Owl House threw in "God" at the end, but that gets a pass for being the kind of figure they meet once and then move on with their lives. On the other side, you can sometimes have secret big bads that were pulling the strings the whole time too. I can't speak for the finale of Ducktales (because again, can't bring myself to watch it), but adding two new characters on top of changing the entire dynamic of how the family is set up at the very end of the show does not sit well with me. We won't get to see how this change in status quo effects the characters. We saw how learning about their mom affected the boys relationship with Scrooge, her return and having to build a relationship with her and her presence conflicting with Launchpad's. But we don't get that with Scrooge and Webby? Basically too many status quo shifts in the finale all at once.

All we got was Beakley was a spy, was overprotective of Webby, and a few episodes before the end it was revealed Beakley was lying to her. Webby didn't seem to care about her parents. And this was a girl who was very dedicated to unraveling the secrets of clan mcduck. Couldn't they have had one hint at some point in the show where it was unclear if it was the boys or Webby who were recognized as a McDuck? Some offhand mention where the boys ask her about HER parents, because she helped them with her mom?

You couldn't tell what was or was not going be important in the way they dropped. It's very hard to set your expectations when you had no clue what to expect. And while there is something to be said for unexpected surprises and twists in a story, an audience really needs to know what is or is important or they're going to go on wild goose chases and get disappointed when they build up hype for something the show then refuses to address.

In HINDSIGHT, I find it extremely odd that Huey and Louie, prior to finding out about Dewey's investigations, did not pry at ALL into the fact that hey: if Donald was an adventurer with Scrooge, then he had to know their mom. Like that’s weird right?

2. An over-focusing on Scrooge Scrooge is the Center of the Universe.

I'm not a Disney Ducks fan. Aside from 2017, and pop culture osmosis, I know very little. But the thing is I am someone whose first inclination once I become a fan of something is to check out the wiki pages for information. Find about what longstanding fan mysteries there are. I understand the importance of cross continuity callbacks. I'm a fan of other longstanding series and have rubbed elbows with several others. I get really long franchises with several iterations.

Which is to say that I, despite not having a horse in this race, understand how this works and how it should work.

Now a bit of this is the fact Ducktales is ABOUT Scrooge. But Scrooge isn't the center of the Duck universe. Something I find pretty interesting is the fact that Donald has reasonably fleshed out family trees on both sides of his family. That's cool. That's how real people work, a meeting point of the stories of those who came before. But Ducktales doesn't care, the only adult the show cares about is him. I get that to a certain extent it was the show execs insisting on focusing on the kids. And again, he's kind of the main character. But you brought back Donald, and Della. There are other characters here with rich lives, he doesn't need to take over everything.

It's especially egregious ANY time the McDuck clan gets involved. Could Matilda be the youngest child now? Sure. But that's a really arbitrary change, that they don't use for anything. And even if that was purposeful, the fact is that the first thing they established is Donald's mom is still Scrooge's sister, so Donald is the grandson of Fergus and Downy McDuck. Not nephew? Surely they could recognize him? But where is Hortense and Quackmore? They brought them up in the first episode, and then they never made any appearances aside from references. Why were Donald and Della staying with Scrooge for Christmas? Never clarified. Fans (reasonably) assumed they were dead. Scrooge called Donald his ward (admittedly when he also called him Fergus and Downy’s nephew rather than grandson). I mean where else would they be when their DAUGHTER DISAPPEARED. Would they not want to meet their grandchildren? But that was never clarified. And I've seen some fans alternatively interpret them as bad parents, which I think is just really unfair. Scrooge gets to be the good parent? It's once again Scrooge to the rescue. The CAPITALIST? I mean it's also a little bit just a family issue in general: It's Uncle Gladstone and Cousin Fethry when they are theoretically the same: technically cousins but old enough to be honorary uncles. It's fair enough. But really that brings us to the Duck family in general.

Grandma Duck? What about Gladstone and Fethry's parents? Gus Goose? Are they all dead? Does Fethry have any siblings? Do the boys not know or not care about the Duck side of the family? They know Gladstone but no one else? I mean Scrooge's parents, who should be dead, were magically kept alive but nothing for the duck family. Speaking of which, they constantly bring up how old Scrooge and occasionally refer to the causes of his supernatural age, but that does not explain how young Donald and Della are compared to him. Overall, we get nothing on the Duck family except for its existence at least, so even removed from the context of Disney Ducks legacy its weird to introduce a side of the family and just gloss over it.

The one episode about the Duck family legacy is a Webby episode. Which, fine, she's not a Duck, but she's part of the family. Except wait. She's Scrooge's daughter/clone, and you gave her the focus on the one episode about the Duck family not the McDuck's? You couldn't leave Scrooge out of anything?

So for Webby's great twist in the finale, was taking not just one, but two characters NOT related to Scrooge (April and Webby), and tying them to Scrooge. I think I could deal with Webby being April, and (HUGE MAYBE) Webby being Scrooge’s clone or April being Scrooge’s clone but not both. Not to mention April, May and June are DAISY's nieces... not random three girls who are her boyfriends uncles clone and and boyfriends uncles clones clone? It doesn't sit right with me that a character who I thought was supposed to be learning that he was sometimes in the wrong, and not the center of morality (see how he made Glomgold a villain through his own ego), continue to be made the center of the universe in ways he simply shouldn't be.

He's literally an old rich guy. Like there is historical context for why this character is like this, but why does the world revolve around him in this show.

3. Word of God Word of God is useful. As are interviews and statements made by the creator. It helps to provide insight into the themes. I love seeing the person behind the art.

But here's the thing. Word of God is clarification, insight into how you should look at the work to set expectations. It's supplementary. It doesn't replace text.

This is a little bit difficult to really talk about now that I'm several years removed from the experience, so grain of salt and all, but I really think the way Word of God was handled did the show a disservice.

Back to Lena becoming a Sabrewing, we didn't get that in show. Lena just dropped off the face of the earth, not until S3’s premier we got a clarification on that in show.

We never got Della's reaction to learning that Donald and Scrooge were estranged, she just suddenly stopped speaking under that assumption.

So Word of God became an essential part of understanding the text, because a lot of necessary information was left unexplained by the canon its a huge problem. And Word of God is often fluid. It can be changed later if during the writing process something changes. (We should probably cover this topic in show and want to do it a bit differently, I have a great Idea of what we can do to turn that error into foreshadowing, I was lying to the fans to keep a secret).

But when word of god is necessary, word of god becomes essential for tempering expectations about the show.

This is probably going to be less of an issue for people who come and watch the show later. Sure, things are still unexplained, but when you can binge the show Lena's unexplained absence is less obvious, you're so busy moving on to other things that Della's change in understanding about the situation is clearly unimportant and you can move on.

But what ended up happening is that Frank Angones struggled to balance clarifications, keeping show secrets, and a sometimes changing story. Which sometimes left characters completely sure on where the story was sitting, only for it to be ripped out from under them. Also, tying back to the first point, of plot points being dropped until the episode where they where they were relevant made it VERY difficult to tell what was or wasn’t going to be relevant, and what emotional beats to get emotionally invested in.

Prior to the finale there was a bit of a community of Webby/Triplet shippers. Personally, I see that as a complete dismissal of the themes of the show and a bit heteronormative. I avoided all such content. But at the same time, shipping doesn't hurt anyone. At the end of the day, the boys and Webby were not related by blood, and hadn't even met until age 10. There wasn't... really a reason you couldn't ship them. There are TONS of shows out there with 10 year old characters and love interests. Just off the top of my head: Any Ship with Ash Ketchum, Sprigivy, Phinabella, Kenyako, Sorato. Even if they don't get together at 10, (or at all) the fact of the matter is 10 year olds getting shipped is old news. I'm still attached to Pokeshipping and Takari to this day, even if I tend to see them more as platonic relationships these days. So I avoided all shipping with them, but I understood why people (particularly younger people) were shipping them. Until the finale hit, and the ships that people thought never going to be canon, but were safe, weren't. To a certain extent, that's the game you play with shipping clearly noncanonical ships. But I feel that the way questions about shipping were answered didn't help, because iirc he tended to say the show wouldn't focus on that more than he explicitly stated the kids were family. He called Webby/Triplet shipping highly unlikely for example, giving it more legitimacy than a no, which leant to it being taken as a solid fact prior to the finale that Webby was definitely not related to the boys, because a lot of what else was said was solid fact.

4. (Bonus): of course, I do also feel it kind of isn't enough to justify breaking the found family. So much of Webby's arc was being accepted into the family. Becoming the 4th triplet. So for her to have been blood all along is a little cheap. Sure it doesn't break the becoming family despite blood before. But, having meta-knowledge of Launchpad probably finding family with Gosalyn and Drake Mallard, it's just Beakley whose left as not blood related (and she's technically the help...). And yeah, there's the Granny/Grandaughter adopted relationship. But....

Webby is one of four kids. Again, she became one of the kids. So yeah. I'm happy that she became one of the kids. Able to call him uncle scrooge. But it feels weird to me that she, the kid who already lived in the manor with Scrooge even if they kept their distance, displaced the triplets as Scrooge's natural heirs. The uncle relationships in this show being parental/grandparental was already good. Not all families look the same, some people parent their siblings' kids for one reason or another. Scrooge's presumed "heirs' ' was his sister's descendants, not his, but he loved them like his own. That's good. So to not only break the "not blood related at all" to "actually daughter", kind of ALSO meant a "my niblings are my legacy" got overtaken with "my daughter is my legacy".

And maybe I'd feel less sour about it if we had more time after the show. But on a fundamental level it didn't just alter Webby's place in the family, but her grandmother's, and the Duck Twins and Triplets. Again, especially with the triplets. I wanted the four of them to become functional equals. The 4th triplet. But for her to have a secret Scrooge connection that overtakes the one she was jealous of the triplets of having doesn't sit right to say the least.

I feel I could get over this one, especially maybe if they gave us more time. But it just didn't make it worth it to me.

5. (Bonus Bonus): Now I don't use the term Mary Sue lightly. But what I do think of canon Mary Sueism is a tendency to make female characters on predominately male casts "special" in some way to justify their presence. They have to be the level headed smart ones and the ones with . They have to be likable so they're robbed of character. I wouldn't say Webby is a particularly bad example of this, and it's not like Ducktales lacks other flawed female characters (Della my beloved).

But the way Webby is treated reminds me of April from TMNT 2012, and Allura from Voltron Legendary Defender (and kinda Larmina from Voltron Force). All are 80s characters in shows that had a predominately male cast of characters, and who were both an outsider, and defined by being a girl. And then the reboot both doubled down on making them special, integrating them into the group more, but also making them generally tougher the boys in some way, and also sometimes more in the know about things. Webby is aged up to match the boys age rather than aged down to match the boys age like April but the effect is still the same.

The girl is now a peer to the boys, 4th triplet, rather than a little sister. Webby is more capable and well-read than any of the boys. And at the start of the series she's socially awkward enough it feels like it will work. And I'm not saying Webby isn't flawed, she is. But when it comes to the things the family finds important: adventuring, she doesn't have any obvious shortcomings. Louie quits easily and isn't as coordinated, Dewey is reckless and generally uneducated, and Huey isn't flexible. And Webby... used to be socially awkward???

It’s kinda trading 1 sexist trope for another. And yeah, all shows do have OTHER female characters who kind of avert this. But it doesn’t change the fact the leading lady is more “special” than the boys. Like being a girl has to be special.

In short, at the end of the day Webby being Scrooge's daughter doesn't help her character, her grandmothers, or the rest of the family. It kinda helps Scrooge’s character, but while I haven’t seen the episode myself, I’m not sure there would be enough time for it to be meaningful. And again, I think a lot of the characterization and worldbuilding of other characters were already sacrificed for Scrooge’s sake in the show already.

Oh and the Donald/Daisy thing.

The reason Daisy/Donald's trip doesn't sit right with me is we barely got any Donald and Della having to coparent. Get used to each other again. We barely got any of them and we're heading back into separation. It doesn’t feel cathartic when we still have unanswered questions from this stage in their life. And even if the trip is well, a trip. It feels weird.

It feels kind of unexpectedly "conventional family", even if it's still really unconventional. Donald is going to go be happy with his love interest, away from the boys he raised who aren't actually his sons (and yes, I know he takes May and June with him but still, knowing that May and June are by default Daisy's nieces kind of has "new kids with new wife" implications to me but that's neither here nor there). Adding this to "Webby being Scrooge's daughter is a good plot point for him" and it's just really weird, and kind of feels like the final nail in the nontraditional family dynamics coffin. If feel only way they could have buried it more is if Beakley died or something.

I was already kinda uncomfortable with the “Daisy being the only one to understand him” thing because like. That’s sweet. His soulmate is the only one who really hears him. But also that’s a fucking speech impediment Donald has. Are you telling me that no one in his family cared enough to effectively communicate with him despite his disability? Like if it is REALLY that much a problem he should have an effective communication method. Sign-language for example?

The triplets he raised don’t always understand him. His twin sister doesn’t always understand him? But this random woman does? I am all for Daisy and Donald being basically soulmates. But uh? This feels both ableist and allonormative in a show that really wasn’t those things before. (well okay it was kinda ableist about Donald but it felt less weird to me when there wasn’t one person who could magically understand Donald). And Daisy understanding him still could be a big thing? The first person who understood him without getting to know him first/wasn’t literally raising him/raised with/raised by him?

I want to like Daisy so much, but she just feels a bit like Webby does: a legacy female character they are trying to make too cool, who gets some of their coolness incidentally defined by a male character, rather than a full-fledged character on their own. (For instance if we saw Daisy with anyone other than Donald, her overbearing boss and… whatever Storkules is).

I feel some of these may have been resolved with more time. But some of these problems had their seeds planted as early as S1. That said I think if the quality of S1 was maintained they would have been fine. Overall, I think Ducktales is a good reboot, and a good show, but it really could have been better. Was so close to being better.

#ducktales 2017 #it's been years and I'm still thinking about this #for my part #I disregard the finale #Webby has dead parents that she knows about hence never needing to learn more #I disregard the family not understanding Donald #because Daisy being the first STRANGER who understands him right away is just as sweet #idk what I’m doing about Boyd or April May June yet though #I can do what I want its not like Ducktales was wholly original or anything #probably still better than vld's finale #but I started to have critiques in s3 #and all of s8 was a dumpster fire so I was emotionally checked out by the time it actually came to that point #again I haven't seen it so maybe I'd like it more if I did see it #but the fact that knowing this has put me so intensely off watching it really isn't a good thing either #and I have never had this issue with a show before even if it's bad #to be clear though I do overall like 2017 Webby and Daisy I just wish they were allowed to be a little MORE #to fuck up a little more #I really do want to finish my abandoned ducktales fics but also staring at the finale and trying to figure out what I should do with this #ah #ducktales

17 notes · View notes

lacefuneral · 9 days

Text

if tumblr causes disco elysium to form an annoying fandom i will not forgive them.

#please. please tell me you are internalizing what this work is saying.#please tell me you are engaging with the themes #please tell me you are learning from this game #we can also make old man yaoi and silly video edits. but. you need to understand.#this is a work that tackles head-on police brutality and racism and homophobia and fascism and corruption #it is a critique too of the imperfect nature of leftist spaces #it's about how the kindest people can have the worst ideologies and vice versa #it's about people who have done wrong can still try to make the world better. even if not forgiven #it's about addiction and depression and suicidality and self-destruction and either allowing yourself to be consumed or to fight back #i've already seen someone with the url kraz masov make posts like ''remember to vote for biden guys!!!''#YOU DID NOT. UNDERSTAND. THE TEXT. AT ALL!!!!

7 notes · View notes

squuote · 1 year

Text

I think people should be allowed to share their distaste for certain headcanons n such without people making posts about how they’re ‘gatekeeping’. for as much as I’m a ‘do what you want’ kinda dude, I do think that includes allowing people to express why they don’t enjoy something. like most people are pretty civil bout it until you antagonize them by pointing and saying they’re ‘policing’ spaces.

#crow thoughts #sorry fandom stuff is like. kinda stressing me out a bit #and it’s kinda making me nervous to post opinions on things.#additionally I think people need to hear out minorities when it comes to things and not antagonize them #additionally if they aren’t going up to people and saying rude shit or actively posting rude shit in the tags #what does it matter if they don’t enjoy your headcanon?#like I’ve already seen four different posts all talking about fandom negativity and it’s like. just block them.#additionally maybe also don’t put those posts in the main tags? especially if the other person just posted it to their blog :-|#im not explaining this correctly. I just don’t have good experience with people who point and claim negativity #especially in the context of actual criticism about character design preferences and the treatment of certain designs #like you cannot deny that people treat fat designs very differently from skinny designs #ur not a bad dude for having a skinny design but you gotta allow people to discuss and critique things #idk I’m just tired as fuck seeing people in the main tags make longass posts about an opinion from a handful of people-#-who only posted it to their blog and not directly in the tags yknow?#if I get too anxious I’ll delete this but for now I’ll post this

43 notes · View notes

exhausted-archivist · 5 months

Text

In regards to my last reblog on the scale of Thedas, latitude and stuff. I’ve been thinking about how much thought I give all this. Especially because this topic is one I’ve been talking with a lot of people about lately. It crops up a lot with people who, like me enjoy natural world building or are fanfic writers. Or really anyone who sits down and reads the lore at length. More times then not the question of Thedas’s scale comes up.

So, I want to establish I am very well aware that I’m likely giving it more thought than the devs. I have that luxury as a fan and consumer of the series. It is extremely relevant for me because I like making maps for the series, plotting out travel paths, and scaling things for da ttrpg campaigns I write.

So because I think about it a lot, I notice all the many different scales of Thedas in terms of travel time. How the scale they gave the ttrpg doesn’t match up with any scale they established in the main games or books. I think if the devs sat down and thought about establishing a standard scale and also considering just basic stuff we also wouldn’t have the Deep Roads be 2-4 miles / 3.21-6.43 km below sea level and display a lack of geothermal qualities. I think they’d consider how they built a world with at least 9.1 million people and tons of mega fauna such as giants and dragons and 14’/4.26 m tall bears that hunt dragons, all squished into roughly 1/4 of Europe and how much that isn’t really sustainable. How there would be much more impact if nature encroachment in civilization and how common things like that would be in places. Which they do consider it to a degree, I’m not saying they don’t. But I think if they thought about it just to make the world something that holds up a little better to idle musings, it wouldn’t be a bad thing. That the world would feel more real and alive and also narratively give them more to work with.

The contradictions and lack of consideration for the natural world has always been one of my critiques of Dragon Age, among other things. The reason why that is, is mostly because of a noticeable trend the lack of natural world building in fantasy. It’s a topic that has been discussed elsewhere and at length by other people, but to summarize nature is slowly having less and less impact in fantasy even in an ambient quality. Obviously this isn’t a universal statement, nor a universally required thing for a story to explore and have. That there are things that do focus on and explore it, but speaking in general terms, it is a trend in the majority of media.

Which for me is a bummer as it is an aspect of writing and world building I enjoy. I really like themes of man vs nature and to have that you need to have a basic level of natural world building. Which BioWare doesn’t really explore in Dragon Age despite having elements of it - such as how regular raw lyrium is explosive, mages get sick around all lyrium unless it is diluted to a safe amount for mages, and raw lyrium straight up kills them if they’re in the same room.

So then you have questions of how do mages go/handle being underground with such a risk? Dwarves have stone sense but would mages be able to tell when they’re getting close to large lyrium deposits because they’re getting sick? Does this impact grey warden mages? Darkspawn mages?

Things that don’t get fully acknowledged or explored despite being mentioned casually in codices most people don’t read. And they don’t for a couple of reasons such as potential coding issues but also all the questions you’d have to ask:

How would you implement that as a mechanic? Would you lock mage players out of entire areas featuring raw lyrium? Would they take environmental damage if you wanted the players to explore it regardless? Would it be a mechanic only applied by in harder difficulty modes? Do you acknowledge it in banter but not in any other way? Create a way to explain why the pc mage and their mage companions aren’t dropping dead?

BioWare’s answer seems to seemingly just ignore it because it would make gameplay too challenging/punishing and likely might not be fun for a player to deal with. But they compromise by keeping the lore active in the canon through codices and low impact additions. Which is a completely okay solutions, not my preferred but I get why they do it.

When I approach this lore, I do so without expecting them to fully flesh out each nation or know which city has the most resources and the geologically rich lands in said country. Dragon Age, and BioWare in general, relies on semi-soft world building. The world was after all designed for a game. They only need to build out what they need and what hopefully won’t paint them into a corner with future installments.

Additionally, the writing style for Dragon Age doesn’t suit the hard world building that I prefer, I’m quite aware of that but also know that when it comes to talk about world building in any media, there is always the issue of people (like me) who world build for fun and consider all these small aspects but ultimately they aren’t always needed and necessary for the story a game like Dragon Age is telling.

Dragon Age is told with the intention of things being given from an unreliable narrator. Built on the concept of: there’s three sides to the truth, what x thinks happens, what y thinks happens, and then what actually happened. Which works and I love the premise.

That said, I think that it also impacts lore that shouldn’t be subjected to the unreliable narrator. Foundation or anchor lore points to be specific. Which, as we know, BioWare has always struggled with consistency in their lore, particularly with Dragon Age.

Distance is one of those foundational points that shouldn’t change, and it’s also one of those points that you don’t have to give exact travel times. You can leave it vague and stick to the official statements like the ones we have of Ferelden being the size of England (or Ireland depending on the source you use). If you’re going to be giving specifics, then I think being consistent with how long it travels to get to point a to b and not changing it multiple times in one game should be a basic expectation that is met.

Other ones the series has and is pretty consistent with is how we know Thedas has 24 hours a day, they have seasons like we expect, and are in the southern hemisphere.

Do they sometimes slip up because editing doesn’t catch they’ve made a reference that applies only to the northern hemisphere? Yeah, and that’s not bad. There are a lot of people working on the project and things slip through.

I know I have the luxury to think about Thedas in a capacity that allows for the hard world building that I like. I also know I focus on and enjoy aspects of lore that are not exactly popular for their main audience and are pretty niche.

I don’t expect BioWare to world build how I do because I’m not world building for a massive and varied audience. Not even when I do world building for my tabletop games, because I’m catering to a smaller and more specific audience.

Still I think it’s valid and worth pondering these little elements of the world building. For fun, appreciation, and to nurture one’s own creativity and understanding of media, the world, and what they think makes a believable world.

Devs might not have time to consider it but we sure do and that’s half the fun of enjoying media I think.

#dragon age #archi is musing #long post #I saw some people on my older posts while I was writing this talk about how its ‘not that deep’ and not everything needs to be explained #and like I’m aware of that lol #I’m just critiquing how logic and immersion breaking it can be to not be consistent on the fundamentals #how much I personally don’t enjoy a world built that starts crumbling if you think too hard on all the provided lore #love the game and the series but evaluating the media you consume and engage with is a good practice to have #as a creative who world builds knowing what I value and like in world building allows me to grow as one #I also think dragon age has a lot of really cool and under used elements of natural world building and while I would love to focus on that #BioWare gives the curve ball where I’m sent down a rabbit hole often because I realize it doesn’t make sense in context of the lore

14 notes · View notes

queenqunari · 2 months

Text

We need more fat bimbocore influencers and I’m so serious about this

#I know this is very anti-tumblr but if we must have influencers I do like the self-identified bimbos #but they’re all skinny!!!!!#and this is a critique about how femininity is taken away from fat women #like the further removed you are from the beauty standard the less you count as a woman #and like I know I’m nonbinary/butch and am not considered fat (by a good chunk of the population #I have received death threats for my weight tho)#but as someone who grew up as a ‘fat girl’ compared to my friends #I was straight up told I ‘don’t count as a girl’ by boys so they were allowed to hit me #sorry that’s a lot to share but these are my tags

8 notes · View notes

slocumjoe · 1 year

Note

I always thought it was weird that Hancock's drug addiction (or at least dependency) was never addressed.

And honestly I just look to fanon to finish Danse's character arc and I forget that isnt canon

Although why do you say that Cait's backstory was fetishized? And why was Nick Valentine's quest messed up?

YOU FOOL, YOU'VE OPENED A DOOR YOU CANNOT CLOSE

I GUESS IT'S TIME FOR...

THE CAIT BREAKDOWN

(TRIGGER WARNINGS FOR S/A, ADDICTION, AND ABUSE)

Firstly, some ground rules. This is directed at a Certain Kind of Contrarian, the kind of person who thinks characters are free-thinking entities with free will, who seemingly thinks they pop up fully formed out of the ground with no liberties taken by a writer. I need to preface this because these people always show up when discussing these kinds of characters.

We need to look at Cait in a Doyist lens. She is not a real person. Everything she does and went through was decided by her creators. It is a waste of time to justify something by saying well, this happens in real life, people go through this, people do this, because those actions and people are real. Cait is based in reality, but she herself is a puppet being pulled around with other puppets.

It can be viable to consider Cait in a Watsonian lens, but ultimately, we won't get anywhere picking her apart like that. Doing so would be taking her at face value, when Cait has a lot more going on behind the curtains. The Person and the Character Cait is, they're very different. One is a Person, the other is what decides that Person's personality, history, everything. Character comes first. You cannot defend Character by pointing at Person and saying that the Person exists in a world where anything is possible. Character comes first. Yes, Person exists, but Character defines it, and with Cait, we are discussing her Character.

We need to talk about the decisions made about Cait's Character, 'cause oh boy, ol' Beth really made some, didn't they?

FUCK UP 1: BETHESDA DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE ADDICTION

Cait's Psycho use starts after killing her parents, and at some point, she becomes addicted. Later, as it starts negatively affecting her, even causing her cough up blood, she no longer views it as worth the high. Why did Cait start using, though?

Well, look at everything she had gone through. We'll get to how poorly her backstory itself is handled, and how lackadaisically Bethesda throws various traumas at her with all the grace and care of a small child throwing rocks at cars on the highway, but for now, we're focusing on the Psycho use.

Cait uses to cope with her trauma, that much is obvious. That's usually why characters and IRL people turn to substances. The issue here is how Bethesda treats both the use, and the...fuck, is it fair to call that fucking chair recovery?

The chair. That Fucking Chair.

I wanted an option to say nope, we're not doing this to you, we're leaving. But...no. The actual solution to Cait's 20+ years of trauma was to lock her in an interrogation chair and have her tortured for a few minutes.

Okay. Let's discuss this.

Cait used Psycho seemingly as a way to both punish herself and never think about the shit she went through. Psycho makes the user aggressive, so it stands to reason, also cruel and capable of using that aggression. Perhaps Psycho influenced her feelings at any moment, allowing her to not care about killing her parents, or about her slavery. Either way, Cait is already being hurt, and it very much is self-harm.

So, the solution, the thing to help Cait, get her on the first step to recovery from both her trauma and her addiction, is to hurt her. Punish her. It very much reads like punishment, you are locked into a chair. She sits there whimpering in pain. Now, this makes sense for Vault Tec and their experiment with this vault.

But...as the end of Cait's arc?

We're getting into some potentially controversial territory, but...it's proven, time and time again, that compassion and sufficient resources are the best, and pretty much the only, way for an addict to recover. It isn't enough to just stop using, get off it. You have to address the circumstances that lead to the addiction. Yes, some people will choose not to stop using, they'll choose to remain addicted and never attempt to get help for their issues. But that doesn't mean the ones who want to shouldn't get the opportunity. And those opportunities need to be compassionate.

A TORTURE CHAIR IS NOT COMPASSIONATE.

It reads as a scare tactic. Don't do drugs, kiddies, or else you'll get so bad, you'll have to be locked into a chair and get tubes and needles attached to you, and be tortured for a few minutes. Jesus H Christ.

You know what makes this even worse? The blatant condemnation and mockery of actual recovery. The AA meeting in the overseer's room, in that vault? Bethesda makes a joke of it! Cait calls it bullshit! Motherfucker, AA meetings are one of, if not the, most effective ways to keep someone off a substance! It gives people a community, an echo chamber reminding them how bad their circumstances were and how much better they are without their substance. AA meetings are crucial for addicts, and Bethesda mocks it, criticizes it as stupid, and then portrays torture as the solution. They do this with their addicted character. You are supposed hear Cait call it stupid, ineffective, a waste of time. That is so fucking irresponsible.

Here's the obvious answer as to how Cait's addiction should have been handled; Cait herself either mentions wanting to come off it, or the Sole Survivor intervenes and suggests she stop using. From there, the Sole Survivor acts as a sponsor, or just a friend keeping an eye on her. Y'know, how substance recovery actually works?

Yes, it's not that easy IRL, and it doesn't have to be in game, she can relapse, even. But whatever happens, you cannot address a trauma-based drug addiction with more trauma being the cure. Holy shit, dude.

FUCK UP 2: BETHESDA STUCK EVERY TRAUMA TAIL ON THIS DONKEY

Cait's backstory is bloated with every kind of trauma, and it reads as very...last minute?

Actually look at it. She was grotesquely abused for 18 years, sold into slavery for a few more years, killed her parents, got a drug addiction, and then basically enslaved in a fighting pit for a few more years as a means of a suicide attempt, and then she gets traumatized when she gets clean because, again, that chair literally tortures her.

Starting at the beginning...why did her parents wait until she was 18 to sell her? Would the slavers not take kids? Did her parents not want her being raped underage, for some reason? Why 18, specifically?

Because Bethesda are cowards, and I mean that. They wanted all the abuse and trauma for Cait they could get, but...child rape? That was a little far for them.

Rule 1 of writing dark shit: If you, at any point, feel like you've gone too far, back the fuck up. Don't start walking left instead of forward. Bethesda wanted her nightmare upbringing, but child rape bothered them. So, they just had her sold at 18, but that's incredibly contrived. Hey, Beth? If it bothered you, you shouldn't have gone near it. Skirting the topic is a cowardly writer's way out. Shit or get off the pot.

Now, you can write a character with this much trauma. You just have to actually handle it.

Cait should be way more unhinged. You should be able to look at her, speak to her once, and figure out oh, this woman has been through hell. Instead, Cait is surprisingly well-adjusted. She's a little rude and doesn't care much for good-guy morality.

Here's where those Contrarians come in, saying "People don't have to act like their trauma!" They don't. But those are real people. Cait was made, and she was made with a normal personality and a horrifically detailed nightmare origin story. It isn't that Cait just powered through and got out okay despite all odds, it's that Bethesda didn't fully think about how her trauma would actually affect her.

If anyone played Silent Hill 2, remember Angela Orosco? She was also incredibly abused and mistreated all her life, and actually, her story is remarkably similar to Cait's in every way. And Angela, she acts like a person who's been traumatized at every single turn. Watching Angela is heartbreaking even if you don't know what she's gone through, because you can tell there was something.

Cait's backstory could be significantly pared down. Again, the dialogue and 4 affinities talk system butcher the character arc, but Cait suffered the most, I think. She tells you about all of her trauma at once, in her second affinity. Second. Other characters talk about their most intense/emotional shit at the final talk, but because Cait's third talk needs to start Benign Intervention, and her final talk needs to be about being clean now, they have to rush through her trauma at the second one.

For Cait, I think it'd be better to pare down the trauma, but it could work to just...move her opening up about it to the final talk. That makes the most sense, her explaining how she got that way.

Also, why was it Cait that got all of this?

No, really, why was Cait selected to be the trauma donkey de jour?

She's one of 3 female companions. Piper and Curie's trauma is both their dads died. Cait's trauma is endless rape, beating, drug addictions, slavery, and fights to the death. She sticks out. It's like the other girls got nothing so Cait got everything.

Cait is compared to Cassidy from New Vegas, but...why? Cassidy got off nice and easy compared to Cait. Everyone gets off easy compared to Cait. It's like she's the heaviest thing in the room, the odd one out because she's gone through significantly more and worse than anyone else. Can you seriously compare Cait to anyone in Fallout 4? MacCready lost his wife, Cait was raped for years on end. Hancock feels guilty for not doing more in his younger years to help people, Cait was constantly beaten and tortured by her parents for her entire life. Nick has some identity issues and body dysmorphia, Cait killed her parents and now is always attempting suicide via bare-knuckle combat for the same people who raped her.

It's like she was meant for a different game. I could easily see her in say, Wasteland 3, or the other Fallouts, which had much darker tones. Everyone else in 4 is lighter to slightly darker shades of grey, and then Cait is pitch black.

I especially find this suspicious, given that Cait is the addict character. No, it's not Hancock, because Hancock's addiction isn't addressed, it's just...seasoning, some texture thrown on top. His addiction doesn't matter, by the game's standards, you're not supposed to care about it. Cait, you are. She's the addict character.

It's like...weirdly implied that it's only incredibly fucked up stuff that makes you an addict. Like, there's a certain bar of trauma you have to have before you start using. First of all, incorrect, grossly so. Secondly, patronizing as shit. Thirdly, if you think like this, you shouldn't be allowed to write anything. Ever. Or vote, for that matter.

FUCK UP 3: THE IRISH SHIT

I will not bring up the accent, beyond that it, specifically, is pretty obnoxious. Katy Townsend, her voice actor, is Scottish, but...the accent is bad enough, I was sure she was American. Listening to this video, you can hear her natural speaking voice, and it's nowhere near Cait's thick, caricature Tough Irish Gal voice.

I have previously described Cait as a 'too many cooks in the kitchen' scenario. On one hand, she's a Trauma Donkey, as described in the last section. On another, she's a haha funny Irish lady love booze and fighting, ain't nothing better than getting pissed and picking a fight, am i right!

I have a theory that Cait was two separate characters that was merged into one. Fallout 4 tries to represent/dickride Massachusetts culture and history, and Massachusetts has double the national Irish population. New York and New Hampshire are more Irish, but Massachusetts is still very Irish. So, Beth made an Irish character, but then, like, Frank down the hall wanted his sadgirl babe, and they got stuck together.

There is no bigger clash than a historical cruel/tragic cartoon caricature and the darkest, most horrific character in a story, and it's the same person in Fallout 4. Again, Cait can be Irish. She cannot be a Tough Irish Gal, while being everything else that she is.

HOW IS THIS FETISHIZED?

I mean...look at it. I should preface that I've been writing for, like, three hours and am Quickly Losing Steam, so this conclusion is not likely to be great

I've also described Cait as getting sprayed down with a pain hose. Just drenched in every kind of suffering imaginable. It's not handled properly, it's not addressed properly, it's just kind of there for you to figure out on your own. Another thing I've called Cait is Whedonesque, for Joss Whedon loves makes strong female characters, making them tiny, not-like-other-girls waifs (Cait is very thin and skinny), and then putting them through trauma, making them cry. He's been accused of making strong women just to see them break.

I don't fully think that last part applies to Cait, but it gets close. Cait is one of three girls. She's the only masculine/androgynous, Piper and Curie are both rather feminine, even if in different flavors. Cait is all tomboy, and she's all trauma and addiction, and misery. She falls into the Whedon trope of "I can kick ass but I need someone to fix me". Cait is, very much, a fixer fantasy. She's broken and desperate and Sole is supposed to be the white knight on a shining horse to save her, fix her. That's why she makes a big deal about how they're the first person to ever be nice to her. It's a fantasy.

And finally, Cait has something in common with the two other ladies; Piper exists to serve a plucky, girl-next-door romance (she's the intended romance, even, the one you're expected to pick), and Curie is a french virgin maid fantasy. Y'know Lusty Argonian Maid? Literally Curie.

And that is at least half of why Cait's Character was made the way it was. It's to appeal to a fixer fantasy. Even if unintentional, that's what Cait's character adds up to. Compare to 500 Days of Summer, if the movie wasn't self-aware.

#was always very nervous talking about cait.#because criticizing addict and abused characters always brings out the hyenas #HOW DARE YOU DISRESPECT ADDICTS AND VICTIMS my point in this essay is that Bethesda disrespects addicts and victims #YOU CANT JUDGE HER im literally not I'm judging bethesda for not treating her with grace #I WENT THROUGH/KNOW PEOPLE WHO WENT THROUGH WHAT SHE DID you are real people cait is not. everything was decided for her #this is also why i dislike trauma donkey characters because at some point you cant critique the writing without bad faith counter arguement #that are always just. this is a sensitive topic so you're not allowed to say anything bad about it!#if it was too sensitive to me to critique they shouldn't have put it in the story #look at all this heavy subject matter but don't think or talk about it???#fucking ace combination right there #ill write abt nicks quest later. now it is time for stardew valley

48 notes · View notes