tbh I think that there being no big story somewhere for your dogs is what made them fun when I first found them, if that makes sense.
Like the first art I saw of Machete was the teen art you did of him back in June, and it was like oh??? who is this liddol guy? why is he sad?? ‘It’s the bug-eyed teachers apprentice again’ who is talking about him? Then later I saw the ‘nodding off at the office’ one and it was like oh! It’s the dog again!!!! why he mad? why he eepy? and then stumbling across Art of him and Vasco (I think it was the reunion one) and it was like alr Ive gotta find out who this doggo is
Anyway I remember sitting in the grass of my grandparents front lawn and going through your entire blog to learn more about Machete :3 it was so so fun to pick up little bits and pieces of him as I went further back
So I think that experience was a neat core part of discovering your dogs and I really love that.
A couple of people have said the same thing, and I think it's wonderful that you found them interesting enough that you went through the trouble of combing through my old posts and figuring out how things connect!
I can see how the process itself might be part of the fun for some, but you'd have to be really invested in these dogs to go scouting for that hard to find and disorganized lore. I'd imagine it takes a lot of effort, initiative and time to do that.
221 notes
·
View notes
Sorry but I love the thought of trying to deny ascended Astarion something— maybe it's letting him feed on you, or maybe it's crawling into bed with him, just use your imagination— and he decides he won't take no for an answer anymore. He takes it upon himself to rectify your little mistake. You know, slowly advancing on you until you're back against a wall, with one pale hand caging you in place against his chest, the other coming up trace and prod at the swell of your lips with an eerie softness.
This gentleness doesn't last. Eventually, he forces the digits between your teeth, fingertips splaying across your tongue, gagging you with his fingers.
"Funny. I could have sworn you just told me no," He says, head cocked as he leans in. You can feel his lips against your neck, breath against the shell of your ear that sends a shiver rolling down your spine. An ivory fang plays at the curve of your throat, just enough to dimple the skin. "Surely, I must have misheard you. You'd never be foolish enough to do that, would you, little love?"
It really doesn't matter what you say. Whenever you try to respond, he presses his fingers down, scissoring them out over your tongue to silence you. All you can do is drool pathetically around them, looking up at him with pleading eyes.
"You're a clever girl. You'll do as I say, won't you? It's easier when you obey. You wouldn't want me to be forced to hurt you, would you?"
He still won't let you speak, pushing his fingers farther to dance at the precipice of your throat, reveling in the way it tightens when you panic (he'll remember that). He doesn't care what you have to say. He is only looking for one answer.
"Now, be a good girl and nod."
So, you nod, stricken with fear at his sudden shift. He removes his fingers from your mouth after a lingering moment of discomfort, wiping the viscous mess on your cheek. You breathe easy, thinking it's over-- only for him to pucker your sodden face in his hand, thumb digging callously into the soft of your jaw, grating gentle flesh against the sharp edges of your teeth. He bears down on you, those terrible red eyes a mirror into your own petrified reflection.
"There's a girl. Silly little thing. It's in your best interest to behave, don't you think? Don't you fret! I'm sure you know just how to make it up to me."
431 notes
·
View notes
I need people to understand how S&P (standards and practices) works in television and how much influence they have over what gets to stay IN an episode of a show and how the big time network execs are the ones holding the purse strings and making final decisions on a show's content, not the writers / showrunners / creatives involved.
So many creators have shared S&P notes over the years of the wild and nonsensical things networks wanted them to omit / change / forbid. Most famously on tumblr, I've seen it so many times, is the notes from Gravity Falls. But here's a post compiling a bunch of particularly bad ones from various networks too. Do you see the things they're asking to be changed / cut ?
Now imagine, anything you want to get into your show and actually air has to get through S&P and the network execs. A lot of creators have had to resort to underhanded methods. A lot of creators have had to relegate things to subtext and innuendo and scenes that are "open to interpretation" instead of explicit in meaning. Things have had to be coded and symbolized. And they're relying on their audience to be good readers, good at media literacy, to notice and get it. This stuff isn't the ramblings of conspiracy theorists, it's the true practices creatives have had to use to be able to tell diverse stories for ages. The Hays Code is pretty well known, it exists because of censorship. It was a way to symbolize certain things and get past censors.
Queercoding, in particular, has been used for ages in both visual media and literature do signal to queer audiences that yes, this character is one of us, but no, we can't be explicit about it because TPTB won't allow it. It's a wink-wink, nudge-nudge to those in the know. It's the deliberate use of certain queer imagery / clothing / mannerisms / phrases / references to other queer media / subtle glances and lingering touches. Things that offer plausible deniability and can be explained away or go unnoticed by straight audiences to get past those network censors. But that queer viewers WILL (hopefully) pick up on.
Because, unfortunately, still to this day, a lot of antiquated network execs don't think queer narratives are profitable. They don't think they'll appeal to general audiences, because that's what matters, whatever appeals to most of the audience demographic so they can keep watching and keep making the network more money. The networks don't care about telling good stories! Most of them are old white cishet business men, not creatives. They don't care about character arcs and what will make fans happy. They don't care about storytelling. What they care about is profit and they're basing their ideas of what's profitable on what they believe is the predominate target demographic, usually white cis heterosexual audiences.
So, imagine a show that started airing in the early 2000s. Imagine a show where the two main characters are based on two characters from a famous Beat Generation novel, where one of the characters is queer! based on a real like bisexual man! The creator is aware of this, most definitely. And sure, it's 2005, there's no way they were thinking of making that explicit about Dean in the text because it just wouldn't fly back then to have a main character be queer. But! it's made subtext. And there are nods to that queerness placed in the text. Things that are open to interpretation. Things that are drenched in metaphor (looking at you 1x06 Skin "I know I'm a freak" "maybe this thing was born human but was different...hated. Until he learned to become someone else.") Things that are blink-and-you-miss-it and left to plausible deniability (things like seemingly spending an hour in the men's bathroom, or always reacting a little vulnerable and awkward when you're clocked instead of laughing it off and making a homophobic joke abt it)
And then, years later there's a ship! It's popular and at first the writers aren't really seriously thinking about it but they'll throw the fans a bone here and there. Then, some writers do get on the destiel train and start actively writing scenes for them that are suggestive. And only a fraction of what they write actually makes it into the text. So many lines left on the cutting room floor: i love past you. i forgive you i love you. i lost cas and it damn near broke me. spread cas's ashes alone. of course i wanted you to stay. if cas were here. -- etc. Everything cut was not cut by the writers! Why would a writer write something to then sabotage their own story and cut it? No, these are things that didn't make it past the network. Somewhere a note was made maybe "too gay" or "don't feed the shippers" or simply "no destiel."
So, "no destiel." That's pretty clearly the message we got from the CW for years. "No destiel. Destiel will alienate our general audience. Two of our main characters being queer? And in a relationship? No way." So what can the pro-destiel creatives involved do, if the network is saying no? What can the writers do if most of their explicit destiel (or queer dean) lines / moments are getting cut? Relegate things to subtext. Make jokes that straight people can wave off but queer people can read into. Make costuming and set design choices that the hardcore fans who are already looking will notice while the general audience and the out-of-touch network execs won't blink and eye at (I'm looking at you Jerry and your lamps and disappearing second nightstands and your gay flamingo bar!)
And then, when the audience asks, "is destiel real? is this proof of destiel?" what can the creatives do but deny? Yes, it hurts, to be told "No no I don't know what you're talking about. There's no destiel in supernatural" a la "there is no war in Ba Sing Se" but! if the network said "no destiel!" and you and your creative team have been working to keep putting destiel in the subtext of the narrative in a way that will get past censors, you can't just go "Yes, actually, all that subtext and symbolism you're picking up, yea it's because destiel is actually in the narrative."
But, there's a BIG difference between actively putting queer themes and subtext into the narrative and then saying it's not there (but it is! and the audience sees it!) versus NOT putting any queer content into the text but SAYING it is there to entice queer fans to continue watching. The latter, is textbook queerbaiting. The former? Is not. The former is the tactics so many creatives have had to use for years, decades, centuries, to get past censorship and signal to those in the know that yea, characters like you are here, they exist in this story.
Were the spn writers perfect? No, absolutely not. And I don't think every instance of queer content was a secret signal. Some stuff, depending on the writer, might've been a period-typical gay joke. These writers are flawed. But it's no secret that there were pro-destiel writers in the writing room throughout the years, and that efforts were made to make it explicitly canon (the market research!)
So no, the writers weren't ever perfect or a homogeneous entity. But they definitely were fighting an uphill battle constantly for 15 yrs against S&P and network execs with antiquated ideas of what's profitable / appealing.
Spn even called out the networks before, on the show, using a silly example of complaints abt the lighting of the show and how dark the early seasons were. Brightening the later seasons wasn't a creative choice, but a network choice. And if the networks can complain abt and change something as trivial as the lighting of a show, they definitely are having a hand in influencing the content of the show, especially queer content.
Even in s15, (seasons fifteen!!!) Misha has said he worried Castiel's confession would not air. In 2020!!! And Jensen recorded that scene on his personal phone! Why? Sure, for the memories. But also, I do not doubt for a second that part of it was for insurance, should the scene mysteriously disappear completely. We've seen the finale script. We've seen the omitted omitted omitted scenes. We all saw how they hacked the confession scene to bits. The weird cuts and close-ups. That's not the writers doing. That's likely not even the editors (willingly). That's orders from on high. All of the fuckery we saw in s15 reeks of network interference. Writers are not trying to sabotage their own stories, believe me.
Anyways, TLDR: Networks have a lot more power than many think and they get final say in what makes it to air. And for years creative teams have had to find ways to get past network censorship if they want "banned" or "unapproved" "unprofitable" "unwanted" content to make it into the show. That means relying on techniques like symbolism, subtext, and queercoding, and then shutting up about it. Denying its there, saying it's all "open to interpretation" all while they continue to put that open to interpretation content into the show. And that's not queerbaiting, as frustrating as it might be for queer audiences to be told that what they're seeing isn't there, it's still not queerbaiting. Queerbaiting is a marketing technique to draw in queer fans by baiting them with the promise of queer content and then having no queer content in said media. But if you are picking up on queer themes / subtext / symbolism / coding that is in front of your face IN the text, that's not queerbaiting. It's there, covertly, for you, because someone higher up didn't want it to be there explicitly or at all.
314 notes
·
View notes