#i'm not criticizing the show necessarily. i know why they had to make these choices.

[smallblueandloud]

i keep feeling like. there's something parallel between rose and yaz's endings. maybe parallel isn't the right word -- but i keep wanting to draw comparisons, i think because they're two characters who really defined specific doctors and for whom it's basically confirmed the doctor returned their (romantic) feelings

(they're not the ONLY ones who fit this description, but i'm in no way qualified to talk about clara or even river, so bear with me)

it just feels. i don't know. rose never leaves on purpose. she is separated from the doctor, forcibly, every single time. the doctor sends her home, or she gets stuck in an alternate universe, or the doctor leaves her in the same alternate universe. every single time, she fights to get back to the doctor. the writers had to create a perfect happy ending for her (half-human version of her doctor who'll age along with her, in the alternate universe where her father is alive) because otherwise she wouldn't stop fighting to get back to the doctor, and the show can't have that. the show needs to move on. we need rose to fade into the past.

i haven't seen all of yaz's episodes, but her arc seems very similar from the limited amount i've seen. she keeps fighting to get back to the doctor. she's in love with the doctor, and the doctor basically confirms returning her feelings, albeit in a very stilted, hesitant, doctor-y way (compare "imagine that happening to someone you--" with "and if i was going to, believe me, it would be with you").

but when yasmin's doctor regenerates... yaz is just expected to. step away, go back to living her life, never see the doctor again. kinda like the abandonment that most companions have ever experienced -- getting dropped off once and then goodbye forever! -- except with more of the onus on her. the show has to move on from rose's era, so she gets dumped on a beach. the show has to move on from yasmin's era, so yaz has to accept that the doctor is going off to die alone. she has to make her peace with that information.

i don't know. i think yaz's ending is trying to go hand-in-hand with graham and ryan's purposeful exit -- it seems like the chibnall era tried really hard to have Not Terrible endings for companions. which is very admirable! but honestly? yasmin's ending feels crueler than most, including rose's. yaz was in love with the doctor. the doctor reciprocated those feelings. they should've gotten their equivalent of s2-era 10rose! she should've gotten a chance to stay with the doctor through their regeneration, the way other love interests have been able to (s/o to river and clara!).

i know this is because of the limitations of the show. bad ratings meant chibnall left after only one regeneration, and new incarnations of the show rarely bring in characters from other eras.

but i'm still very sad for yaz :( like yes, she wasn't just dumped on the curb without warning. but she was still expected to say goodbye to someone she loved, knowing that person was dying, and not say a word of protest. if the previous history of the show is any indication, she's never going to see the doctor again. she doesn't get a half-human version of the doctor to live out her days with, and she's not "allowed" to fight to get back to the doctor, either, due to the way the show's structured (but also the way the doctor talked about them saying goodbye). she has to live the rest of her life knowing that the doctor is out there, perfectly capable of visiting, and the only reason they won't visit is because yaz is from a specific time of their life that they've moved on from.

i know she has the companion support group. and i know she'll move on! she's yaz. she's strong and self-actualized. she'll be okay, eventually. but she has to be okay, you know? she has to learn to live without the doctor. rose never had to do that.

it just makes me sad :(

#doctor who #thasmin #yasmin khan #thirteen x yaz #i guess maybe this post can be summed up by ''yaz is kinda the (nuwho) doctor's first actual ex. and her being an ex makes me sad :('' #sb and l rambles #sb and l watches dw #this post has been brimming for awhile but i sat down to write dw fic tonight and went ''i can't do this without talking about yasmin'' #i'm not criticizing the show necessarily. i know why they had to make these choices. #i think i do prefer for 13 and yaz's ''breakup'' to be a mutual understanding as opposed to 13 leaving her on a curb w/out any warning #they were doing the best they could with a limited hand #it just makes me sad :( and it makes me hope that they mention yaz in the next season #essbie? hoping the show calls back to a love interest that isn't rose?? it's more likely than you think! #i am just so attached to yaz. i didn't expect to be but god she's so great and she just gets dealt such a difficult hand :( #and she copes with it! of course she does! ....but rose never had to deal with that kind of difficulty.

[ripplestitchskein]

I've been binge reading your Helluva Boss and Stolitz posts for a while now and I love how mature and nuanced your takes are. I've run into a good deal too many Stolitz antis on Twitter who won't give Stolas and Blitzo's relationship a chance to improve later, despite the show clearly trying to do just that. I'm especially tired of people saying that their relationship is one-sided. And even when actual evidence is put out there that Blitzo actually does like Stolas back, they say it doesn't count because those hints are less than 5 second long small details rather than being spoonfed to them. Just argued with one of them on Twitter like an hour ago and that's exactly what they said. And they accused ME of not paying attention because in their mind, Stolitz was built up from sexual assault, and they think Blitzo's line in Western Energy "He can get hurt?" is somehow out of character which confused the hell out of me, and they kept insisting that Blitzo had "zero interest" in Stolas no matter what.

Thank you so much!! I do try my best to be as rational and logical as possible so I’m glad it’s coming through, not to say I don’t have emotionally based reactions or bias but in my meta analysis I try to set my personal feelings about the text presented aside and just talk about what it could potentially mean based on recurring elements, themes, and deliberate choices made throughout not just in individual scenes.

LooLoo Land is a perfect example, there are some moments in that episode I heavily dislike (Blitzø shoving the dolls down his pants, the “as long as she washes it” convo, and Stolas being sexually inappropriate in front of his kid) so I do understand some of the criticism. It was also episode two and being a creative myself I know firsthand that things like that happen. You put in things early, for a joke, a laugh, to highlight personalities and they don’t necessarily come across the way you intended or jive with where the story ends up. Which is why a lot of my analysis takes in the entirety of what we have so far, the recurring stuff, not just individual moments or one off lines.

I’ve always maintained that it’s crucial to remember that creators are not perfect beings who are getting their story from on high fully formed, they make mistakes, they get inspired and take things in a different direction as things develop, they can contradict themselves over time. It happens.

It’s also a cartoon so it’s limited in how much it can even do, how expressive the characters can be, how much time they have to explore and the medium absolutely comes into play when analyzing it. Art has always been and will always be subjective, and unless the creator flat out contradicts something it’s largely left to interpretation, but that interpretation cannot be based on one scene, or one episode, or a one off bit of dialogue or a single expression either.

I always encourage not wasting your time arguing with people who are still serving up early content talking points or who dont have media literacy as a learned skilled. I know it’s super hard, I’m guilty of it myself. I was so close to going off on a “Stella and Stolas are mutually abusive” take last night you have no idea. It was more the dude was just being deliberately obtuse to the point I stopped myself and was like “they have to be trolling, no way someone believes this”. You can’t change their minds, they obviously don’t want to engage with the material from a place of good faith, and it just bums you out at the end of it.

A lot of them are really young too I find, which may be part of the disparity. I’m 38 so I have a lot of different experiences to draw from they haven’t had yet. I’ve been a fandom girl since I was a kid, I’ve always been a shipper and I also create things so my perspective is further down the line and with lived experience some people don’t have yet. I’m reminded of this daily, my oldest son is 18 and we have many conversations where I’m reminded about how much you learn as you grow older and the assumptions you make as a younger person. This is not to say that younger people can’t think critically but it is a skill and it improves over time like any other.

I also encourage people to think of what is being said and why. There is a lot of hate for VivziePop as a person. My understanding is she said some things early on and created a hate base that is going to deliberately misinterpret just to validate their initial assumptions about her motive and character. With popular things there is always a small subset that hate a show because of its popularity too, I don’t think because they are jealous like some speculate but because they didn’t personally enjoy it and don’t like feeling like they are missing something, so they take it in a “it must be the children who are wrong” Principal Skinner approach. They can’t see why people love it so those people must be ignoring what they didn’t like about it and they must tell them.

Sometimes people like another ship or another character more, and their ship might involve one half of yours, or they don’t feel their character is getting the same focus and attention because of yours. So instead of just letting everyone enjoy their own things it’s now a competition, a source of resentment and they must make that everyone else’s problem.

And I’ve talked about the fascistic purity culture that seems to encroach into fiction spaces as well that is also at heavily play. Any time a character does anything that is vaguely “toxic”, “problematic” they are immediately painted with the SA brush, the creator is promoting it and the fans are enabling it and are somehow directly responsible for it existing in the world. You can’t do anything about them except enjoy what you like, look at it critically within your own personal comfort level, and as always, my favorite thing to say “kill the cop in your head.” Not just with fiction but everything.

I’m glad my analysis is being enjoyed, and I super appreciate your feedback on it. Come to my inbox anytime and we’ll enjoy the ride together!

#inbox #stolas x blitz #stolitz #helluva boss #will I ever answer anything in less than 500 words? #not fucking likely

[a1-sh-a]

just thinking about the love in my heart i have for rhysand.

i know that rhys is seen as a controversial character to some. and i agree that he has made some questionable choices. but people conveniently forget the amount of pressure he has on his shoulders, the amount of lives that he has to consider in every decision he makes. rhys gave up his life for his people; he endured trauma every day for 50 years for his people. he was willing to give up his happiness, his mate, so that she could have her happiness. i do not care what people say; rhys is a good person, maybe one of the best.

rhys is the person who believed in feyre from the beginning, even before he knew she was his mate. people criticize him for what he did under the mountain. the first thing to remember is this is not reality—this is a fantasy world where there are different, higher stakes. if rhys did not do a lot of what he did, feyre would have died. and not only feyre, but many others would have remained under amarantha's rule for years and years to come. rhys had to tread carefully, but he saved feyre's soul, he kept it from breaking, with all the little things he did. sending her music, keeping her from starving, believing in her and betting on her, and then at the end, risking his life to save her. and he did it all knowing she didn't love him and believing that she never would. he walked away from his mate because he truly wanted her to be happy. that is the purest way you can show love to someone; wanting them to be happy just because, and wanting nothing in return.

i also cannot believe people criticize rhys for taking feyre to the night court after she began to suffer in the spring court with tamlin. this is the man who saw she wasn't eating, that she was wasting away in her despair and guilt, and he actually did something about it. he gave her a purpose. he saw what she needed because he knows her and helped her become the person that she truly is. and he never did it because he expected anything. i mean, in any scene where feyre shows him any affection in ACOMAF, you can see how truly wonderstruck he is by her, how he feels her slipping through his fingers at all times, how he doesn't want to let himself hope.

the last thing i want to say is that i do not fully blame rhys for not telling feyre that she was his mate (i'm not going to engage with the pregnancy storyline from ACOSF because that felt like poor writing and out of character to me). to me, it makes perfect sense why rhys would not tell feyre. while i understand feyre's perspective in wanting to have all of the information at her disposal, i understand rhys wanting feyre to feel free to live her life without obligation to anyone. i also believe that he wanted her to feel as though he would help her and be with her through anything because he wanted to, not out of obligation. i do not think that rhys was necessarily being overprotective or trying to shelter feyre by not telling her. in fact, i think the opposite; i think he wanted her to live and not feel beholden to anyone. i think he wanted her to feel free to be whoever she wanted to be.

anyway, i just wanted to say that i love rhys. there's no one like him - he is the standard and he deserves every beautiful lovely thing the world could offer, my self-sacrificing, kind-hearted, brave, gorgeous, loyal high lord.

#rhysand #high lord rhysand #night court #feysand #feyre archeron #acotar #acomaf

[burr-ell]

I'm afraid to ask, but here goes... who is that Matt Colville guy?

Regarding your tags about Colville and how he had written Vex. Why do you think his Vex sucks? I've seen some fans who think he did her justice and those who despise his portrayal of Vex, so I'm always curious to hear people's thoughts about his writing of Vex, as well as his handling of other VM members. Also, less important, but what did he do that didn't help you like Scanlan any better? Is it just the way he had written him in the comics or something else?

Matt Colville wrote Vox Machina Origins Series I, the first 6-issue arc of the prequel comic, and I...really don't like that take on Vox Machina, and I think his comic writing in and of itself leaves a lot to be desired. Now I've talked about him before, but that was in my dumbass era, so lemme take a crack at it now that I'm not filtering all my opinions through one subset of fandom.

(To be clear, I don't think he's like. a terrible person or "problematic" or what have you; I don't know the guy. This is purely a criticism of his writing, and I'm going to try to be as objective as possible in explaining my entirely subjective opinion.)

If my understanding is correct (and in fairness, my source for things Colville has said is gonna be "dude trust me" because I started writing this at almost 11pm and I don't feel like hunting around), Colville openly admitted to not having watched a fair bit of the show, including the Feywild arc. He considered those things to be "mining for backstory", and largely watched Critical Role for the combat. And that makes a certain amount of sense because DnD combat mechanics are his thing, but it also means that he wasn't necessarily a great choice to write here. He could have been! But over the course of this first volume he proves that he wasn't, and you'll notice that he's not writing for them anymore.

So to address the first topic: I really don't like his take on Vex, but it's not because she's written as mean—it's because of how she's written as mean and why she's written that way. Now, we know from canon that Vex doesn't start out as an especially nice person to people she doesn't know, and Laura has openly said regarding TLOVM that she wanted to show that Vex can be bitchy sometimes. And I like that about her; I think it's a good character trait. But there's a very specific way in which Vex is bitchy, and Colville's writing does not suggest that he understands it.

...Yeah, that's gonna be a no from me, chief.

Obviously we don't know what Vex was like pre-stream because otherwise these comics wouldn't exist, but we can reasonably extrapolate based on her behavior in the show, as well as the way she was written in TLOVM where Laura was an executive producer, that this is not the way Vex's frostiness would have manifested itself. She wouldn't disdain or dismiss lower-class people as "peasants", and she wouldn't reject the idea of asking them for information on that basis—Vex is usually the first person to start talking to locals about whatever it is she's investigating; she's one of the faces of the team whenever they have to talk to people.

What Colville has written instead is a character clinging to aristocratic status explicitly in order to establish herself in a hierarchy, suggesting that she sees herself as above peasants. But canonically, Vex never considers herself noble-born; no one else ever suggests that she did; and there aren't any indications that she takes pride in Syldor's position and what that might have granted her. Just on the face of it, it seems like Colville heard that Percy gave Vex a title and then she fell in love with him and worked backwards to deduce that Vex always wanted nobility, rather than engaging with her character as it exists.

Another indication that Colville really wasn't paying very close attention is the presence of Trinket—specifically, the lack thereof. The reason Trinket doesn't appear in the first three issues is that Colville didn't think Vex would have had him yet, because Beastmaster Rangers don't get their animal companions until Level 3. Except Vex had Trinket before the campaign even started; not only did Laura write a short story about it that was available on Geek and Sundry, but it's also a major moment in episode 65 because even Vax doesn't know the full details and finally asks her about it, and Vex makes it clear that it happened before they were anywhere near meeting Vox Machina. Colville brought Trinket in starting at issue 4 and wrote around the problem by having Vex explain that Vax made her leave him outside of town, but the fact that this was an issue at all doesn't speak well of the organization of this process. Like...he couldn't have just asked? Did nobody give him a lore document?

Additionally, in the above panels Vex says something about "the school". This is, by Colville's own admission, something he came up with, and it's elaborated on a bit later:

Y'all. I'm sorry, but this is the absolute dumbest possible addition to the twins' backstory.

Now, at exactly what age the twins ran away from Syngorn wasn't entirely set in stone by this point. But for one thing, again, that's probably something he should have asked about if it wasn't provided in any kind of lore document, and for another, while we didn't have exact numbers, the general idea was already that the twins were no older than their mid-teens when they finally left, probably closer to 13-14. So of course if they went to assassin school and graduated (lmao can you imagine), they probably started attending when they were a couple years younger.

Which raises the question of why Syldor Vessar, a diplomat with no martial interests whatsoever, fully aware that he has a rocky relationship with his preteen problem children, sent them to a secret murder school.

I get wanting to explain why Vex and Vax are so good at bows and daggers and why Vex knows five languages, but there have to have been ways to address that besides whatever this is. It's very telling to me that both Kith & Kin and TLOVM seem to be just quietly ignoring this, and it's never been brought up again as a legitimate part of the twins' backstory, even within the later comics.

Secondly (yeah, that was all under "firstly"), I really don't like Colville's take on Scanlan.

SHUT UP.

I'm going to get more into this a bit later, but Colville's Scanlan will. not. stop. talking. He is incredibly smarmy and obnoxious, but not in the fun lovable way that Sam Riegel actually played him; this Scanlan has the single most punchable face in Exandria. Canon Scanlan did not ever talk this much or in this way.

Like, look at all that "story" language—theatrical critiques and scenes and narratives and treating all of life like it's a story. When has Scanlan ever talked like that? He didn't in Kraghammer and he didn't while fighting Vecna. That's not the kind of bard Scanlan is or ever has been.

This Scanlan is very cool. He's collected. He's confident. He's smug. He never takes a hit in a way that matters. He even gets to lecture Vex about her insecurities. There's never a hint at any of his flaws, like that he's actually very unobservant and self-absorbed. His perception and insight modifiers were +1 in part because even by the end of the campaign, his wisdom score was a 7. Scanlan's never been very good at reading people; what he's good at is persuading or deceiving them. We don't see any of that charisma here; what we see is a loudmouthed fratboy who runs his mouth nonstop.

Speaking of running one's mouth nonstop, my final major issue with Colville's writing is his exposition scenes.

I mean, look at this:

Look, some of this is down to personal taste, but I also just don't think this is good comic writing. Comics are a visual medium; the script is meant to work with the art to tell us a full story. This is just massive walls of text in giant word balloons that take up far too much space for what they're doing, and the panels are flat and boring—it's just a bunch of talking heads jabbering at each other. We're clearly meant to focus on the words being said, but nothing about the art gives us anything else to work with. In fact, it's as if the art itself is saying that this scene is just the same thing over and over again with small modifications here and there. We're watching a conversation between people who all sound more or less alike rather than being genuinely immersed in visual storytelling.

Compare the above to these pages from VM Origins II #5 and VM Origins III #5:

Now, some of this is down to lettering—the letterer and colorist were both changed between Series I and Series II—but it's also down to a change in script and art direction. These scenes lay down some necessary exposition, but they’re much more interesting to look at. These aren't just full pages of talking heads; there are different angles and shots, breaking up the sequence as the conversation goes on to help it flow much more naturally and maintain the reader's attention. You can tell that Houser is giving these characters room to breathe and trying to write in their voices, not just making them exposition-dump at each other.

Colville was, and as far as I know still is, a friend of the cast of Critical Role; he just isn't working on the Vox Machina Origins comics and the writing has since changed hands to Jody Houser. I think this was a much better choice; she's a seasoned professional comic book writer and a long-time viewer of the show. Her Vex is a significant step up, taking the clear lead of the group and keeping them together while still maintaining a frosty and snarky personality. Her writing for Scanlan is also a lot closer to canon, allowing him to shine in endearingly goofy comedic scenes rather than giving the entire script to a smug fourth-wall-breaking theatre kid.

Like I said, I don't think Matt Colville is or was a bad person with bad intentions. I just don't think he was a good choice to be writing these comics because I don't think he understood who these characters were or what Critical Role was trying to do with them.

#cr discourse #asks #long post #like. Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here long

[olreid]

Hi! First of all i'm sorry if this is a weird or heavy question but i feel like i need to ask somebody, and you were the first person i thought of, so, yeah. How do i consume media critically? It's a phrase i hear around a lot, especially with some of my main interests, but i'm not 100% sure what it even entails. I know i have to be aware of the metatextual reasons for things and its flaws and such but... what then? am i supposed to do something about it or...?

this is from carl freedman on kant: "any mode of thought that declines to interrogate its own presuppositions and to engage its own role in the construction of the objects of its own knowledge may be appropriately stigmatized with the adjective precritical [...] precritical thought is the "intellectual equivalent" of the work of any status quo."

so essentially there is a certain amount of precritical thought that is necessary to maintain and reproduce the structures which make up dominant society. certainly there are people who are actively imperialist, capitalist, white supremacist, etc. but their numbers are bolstered by the people who don't question why things are the way they are -- whether it's why some people are forced to sleep on the streets or why we budget so much money toward police -- who ensure that things stay the same by accepting the things around them as normal, natural, and inevitable.

conversely, adopting a critical posture is not something that applies solely to media -- it is a way of moving through the world that involves being curious about why things are the way they are and questioning things that might otherwise be taken for granted. when we validate the claims that projects, policies, and objects implicitly make to being normal, natural, and right, we give them a lot of power. imagine a world in which cities had to start from scratch and justify every dollar they allocate toward police instead of just saying 'this is the way it is and the way it's always been.' when we start to poke at the historical, social, and political forces that have produced the world we live in, things start to seem a lot less inevitable and a lot more mutable. we can more easily imagine different ways to live and different ways to structure the world we live in. freedman again: "critical theory constantly shows that things are not what they seem to be and that things need not eternally be what they are."

we can apply this questioning and curious attitude, this desire to understand how things were made and why, to all parts of life, including the media we consume. the cop show wants us to take its centrality in the media landscape for granted; the true crime podcast wants us to squeal about the grisly details of murders without stopping to wonder why that particular form of storytelling is so popular in this specific moment in history and culture. the point is not necessarily to get definitive answers to those questions, but to explore, theorize, investigate, and take an interest in the things we consume. it's a lot like doing due diligence about where your food comes from -- aren't you interested in who is making the things you surround yourself with and what, if anything, they're trying to sell you or convince you of?

as to concrete strategies for developing your critical thinking and reading skills, i'm not sure i have any great advice that's not already been given. it depends on the person -- what they are naturally curious about and can use as an entrypoint, what methods of research work best for them, what pieces of media they love enough to do background reading and research about. you don't always have to go out of your way -- you can start being critical wherever you are. re: "am i supposed to do something about it?" no one is going to make you develop a critical framework for approaching your life. there is no force-feeding of interpretive tools and skills; no one is going to sit you down and supervise you until you are sufficiently critical . it's a choice you will have to make for yourself. for my part, i enjoy honing my critical capacities and actively work toward those goals because i never want other people to make choices for me about what i believe. i want my values and principles, the things that make up my life, to be chosen intentionally rather than handed down to me by the tides and trends of mass media, the propaganda in form of advertisements and targeted content and shows designed in a lab to appeal to my demographic, whatever that means. i want to be able to think for myself, rather than surrendering my agency and autonomy to those who are eager to think for me and make of me an uncritical, uncaring reproductive agent of the deathmaking systems that need our support to go on working.

one last freedman: "the increasingly totalitarian character of capitalism as a world system paradoxically makes it increasingly difficult to feel or even to theorize either capitalism in general or particular capitalist societies as wholes (just as fish, for instance, presumably do not feel wet and, even if endowed with rational faculties, would have great difficulty in producing the concept of wetness." being critical is stretching our capacities in pursuit of being able to be that fish that can conceptualize the wetness of water -- to see the things that were hidden from us before, often intentionally, and decide for ourselves whether we like what we see or whether we want to build something different .

#asks #anon #organs for the alternative

[frostofafeather]

thoughts about only friends

NUMBER ONE THING.

I liked it!

Honestly, looking at the entirety of the series, I think it's a solid 10/10 show and I feel very attached to the characters and their world.

The writing and the OVERALL narrative direction of this series were actually pretty satisfying to me and ultimately I enjoy it as a whole.

However, I do want to talk about the good AND bad

I felt only friends suffered in a couple different ways:

the cutting or sliming of scenes due to audience response or air time problems

bad pacing especially in later episodes

the narrative treatment of some characters (mostly boston but we'll get into that.)

Number 1: Cutting scenes

We know that several scenes were cut out, some due to audience "feedback" after a couple episodes had aired, some due to simple air time cuts.

The biggest reason I (and I think most people) have a problem with this, is that this caused some characters and events to feel like they don't have meaning or motivation. Because we as the audience don't have the full picture that the writers originally intended to give us.

Do I think that this series would have been totally "perfect" or "fixed" if this hadn't happened? No really, it's just one part of the problem.

Number 2: Bad pacing

I already talked a little about this in this post, but let me just restate some things.

I don't really agree with ALL the stuff in that post anymore however the main point still stands. This series would have benefited if the narrative events were more spread out and the characters were given more time on screen to make decisions and choices.

Controversial opinion I think, but I would have actually loved it if it was 14 episodes.

Number 3: How the narrative treats characters

Now, the thing about this. I do UNDERSTAND what the intentions for all the characters were. I see the writers's/directors's intentions and I can appreciate that.

That doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize it though.

How the narrative treated boston in particular makes me just a little pissed off and probably IS the biggest critique I have for this show. Other people have talked about this numerous times but this last episode only proves that the narrative wants boston to be unredeemable, not necessarily a "villain" but as someone who doesn't deserve or need to be given an apology even though he's been treated badly by his friends just as he treated them.

Ok, you can look at this in the meta way of "Well all these characters are supposed to be bad people and it's an example of what NOT to do" I agree with this for the most part, but with this last episode and how botson's role in the story concluded, I don't really think that was the intention.

(A quick side note, I was initially upset at how bostonnick ended but I actually think it's ultimately for the best and something the writers did right. See, I would much rather them not end up together than push the narrative of boston has to change for nick, which is what I feared would happen.)

So. All these things combined made this wonderful series not able to reach its greatest potential. And I think that's why most people are critical about it. It didn't feel like what it could have been.

This series claimed to be "different" and it would change the BL world. And, in my opinion, it did! But it feels like a letdown in a lot of ways because it still fell victim to tropes and narratives that are perpetuated in this industry while also adding in unique problems that come with creating a series of this nature.

But anyway, loved it, 100%. Would rewatch it a million times. Definitely recommend!

#i have more things to say btw #mostly about sandray #and i wanna talk about topmew a bit as well #just keep an eye out for those in the coming days ig lolol #ofts #only friends the series #only friends series #only friends #only friends meta #only friends spoilers #only friends ep 12 #topmew #sandray #bostonnick #ray only friends #sand only friends #top only friends #mew only friends #boston only friends #nick only friends #boeing only friends #thai series #thai bl

[theredqueenandthebloodwyrm]

I didn't like She-Hulk, but I wanted to

Obviously this is just my opinion so you're free to disagree and all that.

When I went into watching She-Hulk it was sometime after hearing about how bad it is "worst show ever" "she sucks" but I had chalked up most of it to bandwagon hate / sexism / the anti-woke crowd (which to be fair does and has review bombed stuff before). So I went into this thinking "alright, I'm not getting on any hate bandwagons, I want to give this show a fair take, I'm sure it's not that bad / not bad / let's judge it based off its contents". It just felt like wasted potential when I finished watching it.

(read more because this post is getting long)

Needless to say, I was disappointed...so much disappoint. Like did they want to fail? tf happened in the writer's room? Look, I'm not a lawyer nor do I study law nor do I have any idea of how it works so I'm not gonna criticize the lawyer stuff, just the characters + plot stuff.

The fact that the dude she went on a few dates with and sleep with, who then later ghosted her, turned out to belong to some evil villain hate group? It was stupid, I didn't like it, I feel like it would have worked better if he was just a regular guy who ghosted her (and it still tells a lesson about Jen Walters and what she has to deal with as a woman dating). It felt cheap and cliché that he was some baddie rather than some regular douche? I dunno, maybe someone else can provide a different take or explain it some to me. But that's just a personal nitpicky thing, not like "worst thing ever" yknow.

Daredevil was...something. His introduction during the Leap Frog episode was...fine? not entirely out of character but some of lines didn't fit his voice? and look I like happy Matt Murdock too, and I don't want just some dreary sad Daredevil, like he can be happy. It just felt that the writers didn't necessarily have a handle on his voice? Also that weird walk of shame was unnecessary and weirdly demeaning lmao now that I'm thinking about it.

I didn't mind Jen besting the Hulk, I thought it was funny and had that classic sibling rivalry vibes (well, cousin vibes in this case but you know). Her having a better handle on her rage due to sexism she experienced as a woman was dope and made sense to me.

The fourth wall breaking was...a...choice. It was a choice that was fine at first though there reached a point where there was too much wall breaking, especially in the episodes leading up to the Finale. Like, it had funny 4th wall moments but then the next episode it would start to be a bit too much 4th wall breaking at once? not sure if that makes sense.

The finale made me want to hit my head against a wall because just why? It's this weird mess of 4th wall breaking that doesn't work?

Also the episode starts at afternoon/night and then it skips to morning when Jen rewrites the story? The writers' room / Kevin Fiege Bot was like the best example of what not to do? does it count as lampshading? If it counts as lampshading then it's what not to do when lampshading. Like She-Hulk isn't Gwenpool or Deadpool, she shouldn't be breaking reality and rewriting her own story like that.

Also I didn't like the mustard ketchup suit Daredevil had? I get that it was an OG Comics reference but the colors clashed? and not in a good way. taste is subjective and all that, and red + yellow can look good but meh.

Look, there's fun moments and characters beat. It's not the worst thing ever but I just can't get behind the ending, it sours the whole thing a bit for me.

It had fun moments like with the rogue magician summoning demons, Leap Frog, and whatnot. Like I'd throw She-Hulk scenes on a funny marvel comp video, but it felt flat in terms of character building?

#she hulk attorney at law #jennifer walters mcu #bruce banner mcu #Shehulk Daredevil #mcu critical #mcu criticism #this is part nitpicks part criticism part “there's good parts to this show” and “the show has funny moments”

[jyndor]

I'm seeing too many people be wayyy too reactive to some people's critiques of how the show is handling Cassian and yeah I get it because most of the criticism of the show has been dumb and xenophobic and racist and so I understand why people may be protective (fuck I'm protective of Cassian and the show) but let's not act like this isn't a deviation from Cassian Andor's characterization in Rogue One. Let's cut the shit and acknowledge that this is a change and a subversion of expectations, whether you like it or not. I'm tired of saying it at this point but since I guess people don't understand that many of us are not actually looking for him to be some perfect rebel soldier white knight, we want the grit and the mess and a lot of what the show is doing but not necessarily in this way.

I think it's just a matter of rejecting the premise they're presenting. I just don't love how it's all about showing Cassian things he should already know?

I don't think it's a matter of poor writing or not understanding where they're going or what the path is going to be - I get what they're doing, they're doing it superbly. I just don't agree with the premise that Cassian has to learn that revolution is good. I don't think that's appropriate for this particular character given what he says in Rogue One about his lifelong fight to a former child soldier. I think it's inconsistent with the intention of the film, to call out people who are for whatever reason sitting the revolution out (even if it's for trauma and exhaustion like it is for Jyn).

I feel like some people who are confused about why people are critiquing this choice by the showrunner and by the writers maybe don't get what we're saying. like guys I swear I understand what they're doing. it's effective - they're saying what they need to say in an intelligent grown way without talking down to the audience. I like that and I think that's why the show is so damn good. I repeat, I think it's the best show on TV. Period.

I know Cassian will grow into being the Cassian in Rogue One. Of course he will and I am sure it will be well done and satisfying and I hope they win fucking awards and praise and get hyped the fuck up. But I don't get why we are starting out with a Cassian who lives in relative comfort (although why he's living on a ship and not in the home he has with Maarva that seems relatively nice for the area I have suspicions but idk) compared to the girl who at the moment is LITERALLY HOMELESS because the cause abandoned her.

She was raised and radicalized by Saw Gerrera. That's her father, she's a fucking weapon - and her story is more appropriate for someone who has had to stay away from the organized cause for trauma reasons but is doing little important acts of Rebellion on her own (which she does). Wanna talk about personal acts of Rebellion? It works better through Jyn, someone who could choose Rebellion but who it wouldn't be forced on.

Whereas Cassian, as the show keeps saying, does not have the option to keep his eyes closed to fascism. So how did he do it from 16-21? And how can he - who has to know that Saw raised Jyn and therefore knows she was a child soldier if not that she was left behind - tell her that he has been in the fight since he was six???

It's inconsistent and believe me I've tried to make it work with Rogue One's characterization of Cassian but idk. How much clearer did he have to be? I'm sorry I don't think that's just headcanon of stans run amok. Trust me I want cassian to be messy and human and raw.

I am not being unfair, I know the show will take its time getting there and I love that! But the starting point feels wrong. It always has.

The intention of Cassian was as a mirror and a foil to Jyn. A mirror to Jyn because they both have a need to destroy the empire. A foil because while Jyn has been running from her true calling, Cassian has been fighting for revolution the whole time.

#cassian andor #dont MAKE me tag this anti-andor because im NOT #its a critique ffs #star wars andor #andor spoilers #rogue one #i will tag as #andorshitpost #because it does feel a bit angry #meta

[rookie-critic]

City of Angels (1998, dir. Brad Silberling) - review by Rookie-Critic

The third stop on my Nicolas Cage weekly movie nights was an odd choice. After two absolutely unhinged films like Con Air and Face/Off, why would my friends' next choice be a rom-com between Cage and Meg Ryan that happens to be a remake of a beloved 80s film by auteur Wim Wenders? The answer was simple: The song "Iris" by The Goo Goo Dolls was written for this movie, and that was intriguing enough to give it a slot, and honestly I'm the kind of person who wants to devour an actor's entire filmography, especially for an actor like Nicolas Cage, so I didn't mind at all. I didn't have super high expectations going into this one, I'd never even heard of it before and, looking at the reviews, they didn't seem too favorable. However, I was pleasantly surprised by how well written, well acted, and just generally well made this was.

Cage and Ryan both give absolutely stellar performances, with Cage actually managing to draw a tear out of me with a line delivered towards the end of the film. Special shout out should also go to Dennis Franz, who is unforgettable as Nathaniel Messinger in the film. While the story may seem a tad ridiculous on the surface; an angel wants to become mortal after falling in love with a human woman, the film does a very good job of bringing that frankly wacky premise down to Earth and making it believable within the rules the movie sets up for itself. I know I've already mentioned that Cage gives a stellar performance in this, but I don't think I've really sold it enough, so I'm going to keep talking about it. This isn't Cage unhinged, this is Cage subdued. It's such a straight-laced, non-bombastic performance that I'm not sure I've ever seen out of him before. Even taking Pig into account, which by all metrics is a more subdued performance from his average outing, still has aspects to it that are wacky, and only one scene in this entire film sees Cage approaching his normal levels of insanity, but even then it fits within the confines of the character. I know that a lot of the charm surrounding Nicolas Cage is his crazed, frantic acting, but when I see him in films like this, like Pig, it makes me a little sad, because I know that he's more than capable of giving a truly incredible performance. One that's memorable for how good his acting is as opposed to how bizarre and bonkers it is, which, again, has its own charm and appeal. I don't necessarily want Cage's reputation as a wildman actor to go away, I don't want his legacy to consider how genuinely talented he is, as well.

While I don't understand the Tomatometer's 57% for this film (inversely to how I don't quite understand Face/Off's 92%), there are aspects of it that don't work for me. For one, while the dialogue is amazing, Ryan and Cage have absolutely no chemistry. Cage is definitely not the rom-com scene partner that Tom Hanks is to Ryan, and it shows. It really is their chemistry because, as I stated earlier, their performances are both stellar, but I just got nothing in the romance department out of them. Another lackluster piece of this puzzle is that it does lean over into overly sappy territory more than once, for sure. A lot of the music cues, while the songs themselves are good, were almost too much. One in particular, when Sarah McLachlan's "Angel" plays during a pivotal romance scene, was actually too much. This very possibly could be because of that song's connection to the ASPCA commercials from the mid-2000s, and if that is that case I can't really hold that against the film, but the on-the-nose nature of the song's titular line and the style of music it is was more of a hindrance than a help, as was the case for the scene where "Iris" plays.

One last thing I'll say in the con category is with a specific scene in the film in which we are shown flashes of black-and-white clips that don't really seem pertinent as well as black-and-white versions of things that had happened earlier in the movie. From what I understand, the black-and-white aspect of this is in reference to original Wim Wenders film, Wings of Desire, in which it is a major plot point that angels can't see color, which is all well and good except for the fact that this had never been established in City of Angels up to that point, which makes it very jarring and confusing as to why that was been presented that way. It also still doesn't answer what those other, unrelated clips were. The closest thing I think for them to be are shots from Wings of Desire that were placed there as a way to homage the original film, but I have no idea if that's true or not, and it still wouldn't make sense as to how they relate to Seth in this film. Regardless, City of Angels was great. It's one of the better genuinely fantastic performances I've seen out of Cage, the writing was awesome despite its leads' lack of chemistry, and most importantly, I had a fun time watching this with friends. What more can you ask for?

Score: 8/10

Currently available for rent/purchase on digital (iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, etc.) and on DVD & Blu-ray through Warner Bros./Regency.

#City of Angels #Brad Silberling #Nicolas Cage #Meg Ryan #Andre Braugher #Dennis Franz #Colm Feore #Robin Bartlett #Joanna Merlin #Sarah Dampf #film review #movie review #1998 films

[champagnepodiums]

Mick and Haas did not click the way supposed to also in part because of Mick. Same with Daniel Ricciardo it’s not all McLaren.

2021 aside because the car was bad, he did start 2022 really badly. His older and retired teammate had good results that was not great for Mick. He had some good moments but Haas could maybe not afford to wait too much and his low are really low.

I think he could deserve another chance because he is young and probably has potential but there is also only 20 seats and so many drivers waiting for a chance. So it’s expected that sometimes some are left frustrated. His family heritage, sponsors and money already had him having much more opportunity than others who were equally or more talented (like every drivers privileged like him). Does not mean they don’t work hard it not just the working hard part, it’s also an expensive sport and a hugely restrictive one (again only 20 guys)

I do hope we get some insides because I think the initial plan was to let him go that soon (from haas and FDA) but the plan changed. Is it from them, is it from Mick, or both ?

Some fans acted like it was Haas loss and Mercedes was an amazing move. I am not saying that Mercedes won’t be great for him, but the best outcome would have been for mick to race next year even in the worst team. At least Mercedes has the means to make him race other cars and do lot of simulator work. A lower team could not do as much because it costs a lot.

On the fan side since the beginning they thought Mick deserved an Alfa Romeo seat (like Charles from FDA) and not just the Haas one. So there was always this talk about injustice for him which was unnecessary. I mean he got an F1 seat and I think some forget how hard it is to get that opportunity. Look at Piastri case who is highly considered like Charles and George were (similar sporting results that we don’t see often at all). The guy did not have a seat and without the circumstances that we know of he maybe would not have gotten a seat until 2024.

There are some reality check needed sometimes

Every things that are not particularly nice said about Mick is not an attack against him as a person or his family. Sometimes it’s not that deep especially right now when DTS is not out yet. In the past they showed him in a really flattering manner ! They could have not talked about him at all because results wise he was nowhere.

Then also it would be good to know why HAAS brings a back so many retired drivers ! Why the need for experience that much that you get to people that have not driven f1 for years and that did not have awesome results before (development ?).

AH THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THIS BECAUSE YOU ARE SO RIGHT??

I think Gunther doesn't have the personality/desire to help develop young drivers and like it was always pretty clear that Mick was never Gunther's choice for a driver, you know? Like Mick had that seat because of a contract between Haas and Ferrari, not because Gunther chose him, I think that probably played a big role (and Mick's results didn't help himself). Maybe he would've done better at Alfa or maybe not but I agree -- an F1 seat is an F1 seat, there are lots of drivers who would take the Haas any day of the week because it's still an F1 car.

While Mercedes probably does see the talent and promise in Mick, it's undeniable that Mick holds extra PR value for their brand and I do believe that was a factor in Merc's decision to pick him up as a reserve driver. It's good for Mick, don't get me wrong but there was discourse on Twitter this week where people were acting like Mick's PR value to Mercedes wasn't considered and I absolutely don't believe that.

I agree though about how criticism isn't always necessarily personal against Mick and/or his family. Even if DTS isn't super flattering to Mick (which I'm guessing it will be), it still doesn't neccessarily mean it's a personal insult.

I think Gunther likes experienced drivers because like I mentioned above, I don't think he has the skills or personality to develop young talent. And they dont really have the budget for star talent or anything so I think that's why they're sticking with tried and true Nico/Kevin

[bellamysgriffin]

It’s funny, what you said about GG condoning bad behavior, I always felt that way when it comes to Logan. I mean, I personally think he lacks layers and I tried to make sense of what ASP wanted to tell the audience through his character/his romance with Rory. Am I supposed to root for them even though it seems like he’s just this guy who allows Rory to act recklessly? Are we supposed to hope for development or to get used to the way he is because that’s all we’re going to get? I know there’s more to it but just the way you put it reminded me of how I felt. And I think that once you get to AYitL this thing she does with Rory’s character gets even more evident (worse). And I sympathize with what Rory is going through then, but ASP doesn’t seem to be very into making a “the moral of the story is that THIS wasn’t okay at all” or a “she learned from that, she isn’t supposed to get away with that just because we love her” and that bothers me. And so does the way Dean’s behavior is romanticized and never treated seriously. (I don’t know how you feel about his behavior and all, but yeah.) Sorry if my ask doesn’t make any sense, I just wanted to share a few confusing thoughts! 🫠🫶🏻

okay i'm gonna break this up since there's a lot of moving pieces here! also, let's preface this by saying that i've only watched through 6.13 so i might not have all the info yet.

first off, i am (unfortunately) gonna have to disagree on the whole logan thing. i don't think it's entirely fair to say that logan allows rory to act recklessly. i think we should acknowledge rory's agency in these decisions. she was the one who talked logan into the boat thing, he wasn't sold on the idea until she basically insisted. and it was her choice to drop out of yale. we might be able to admire jess/lorelai for calling her on it, but i don't think logan should be condemned for "allowing" rory to make her own choice about her life.

i might agree that he feels like he lacks layers, but that's mostly because has no ties to characters outside of rory. i actually see a very clear point for their relationship, and i think it's to give rory a bit of a reversal when it comes to romance. with dean and jess, she was always the pursued, golden child. but logan is not really impressed by that side of her and she's the one who pursues him, she's the one who is criticized by his family as not being good enough, and she's the one who says i love you first. and so we get to see rory in a very different romantic position.

if i'm being honest, i think it's pretty clear that logan treats rory better than jess or dean did. i think it's her most functional relationship yet. that said, i'm not necessarily super emotionally invested in him as a character or their relationship. i liked them a lot at the beginning of s5, but they're relatively static/lackluster to me right now. logan is pretty smarmy/smug/spoiled rich kid, but to be fair, that seems to be what rory is interested in right now. this storyline is clearly partly about her exploring the emily/richard side of herself, and logan represents that life which is why (yeah, i know the spoiler) i think it will be interesting to see her reject his proposal partly as a rejection of that life (or at least thats what i assume the context is, at least partly). i was definitely more emotionally invested in both jess as a character and his relationship with rory, but that's because jess was a lot more well-rounded and had a very clear, well-executed arc outside of rory. the storyline it represented for rory at the time was an interesting one too.

moving on to the other part of the ask, i will have to see how a year in the life goes but i don't even mind if ASP doesn't outright condemn rory's actions, it's more that the show honestly seems to be promoting them. we're supposed to support rory's betrayal of paris with the paper wholeheartedly. we're supposed to see her side when she's icing out her grandparents. and i don't think either of those actions are great, and we shouldn't be rooting for them.

and finally, the dean point is SUCH a good one. for the record, i hate him, i think he sucks, and i cannot believe the show continues to frame him as the best boyfriend in the world. he was a piece of utter trash and treated rory worse than any of her other love interests, was persistently angry and treated people badly, but the show seems wholly oblivious to this fact. so yeah, maybe it's consistent with ASP lmao

#dana answers stuff #that was A Lot but yeah ajsklflksda #to be clear the rory ship i like the most is obvs paris/rory #even though rory is a massive dick to paris now lmao :( #and they've bastardized paris completely for another thing #but the non-crackship i like is literati but more in an #oh this dynamic is really cool and interesting and sad and moving #and less in an actually rooting for them to be together #i mean i was somewhat relieved when they broke up for a lot of reasons #but i liked what it brought out in both of them as characters #i just thought jess/rory was a better story than rory/logan

[guiltycorp]

Just did a deep dive into your genshin posts to get a feel for your thoughts on things and I'm still unclear but xD I did just want to comment about one of your recent posts. I hate that traveler is so silent on things like finding out about Kaeya. Especially since they have added canon lore stuff that matters in the main story (not just side stuff) to events (like that Scara had the gnosis and was MIA). Finding out sword stuff about Kazuha's family was cool but missing it isn't the worst

(2) Having archon quests like 1.4 and then getting the chance to confront Zhongli and us getting nothing (especially after getting nothing after fixing Liyue...), proceeded by getting several encounters with Venti and not confronting him at all despite 1.4 mentioning him in the "next time we see Zhongli or Venti..." option is just so frustrating

I'm actually really glad that you read through so many of my posts, it feels nice that even the older ones are still of interest to someone 🥺 Honestly I know I can be over-critical at times, but Genshin still fascinates me as a piece of media. Like, it both goes much further when it comes to writing quality than a gacha game would be expected to go, but also it.. sucks. It has an amazing cast of interesting characters, but then it does so little with them that you're left questioning your choices in fiction. Like, I recognize a lot of the themes and tropes which are also prevalent in other games and anime, but I think Genshin really does have its unique and in-depth take on it. So it's a shame that it can't quite reach the level of actually being good.

But to be fair to the Traveler... 1) Overall writing of Genshin suffers from pacing issues due to its gameplay and content release plans, I get why writers sometimes have trouble reconciling certain things even if it IS frustrating. And yeah, events are in that nebulous space where they sort of maybe happened in-canon but also not necessarily, so the game kind of awkwardly ignores most of what we learn through them. 2) But in case of Kaeya!

The Traveler already seems to have suspected something since this is clearly an answer to a pointed question, and they don't ask this of anyone else, so it's likely that the Traveler recognizing Kaeya's nationality isn't meant to be something surprising. Plus Kaeya's answer clearly shows that he isn't interested in further discussion, so it kiiiiind of makes sense why the Traveler would drop the issue. Kaeya already threw the Traveler a bone when he updated them on the Abyss Prince(-ess), but this doesn't look like a man ready to discuss his homeland or how it was destroyed. By the way, note how this kind of thing never happens anymore! Characters don't actively seek out the Traveler to tell them stuff, which also feels really awkward. 3) The 'next time we see Zhongli or Venti' thing was inexcusable. Like why phrase it like that? Even worse, going to Inazuma was given the flimsiest excuse, when it would make more sense to at least go to either straight to Sumeru or Snezhnaya for more knowledge. Like, the game didn't give us any reasons why traveling there would be more difficult than the isolated Inazuma or why Inazuma would be the logical next step. 4) They could have at least mentioned in the events that Venti or Zhongli are super avoidant and difficult to find, only appearing when it suits them, but nope, if we want to find them we just Go and Do That. 5) Another side of this is that there are plenty of characters who should be suspecting the Traveler themselves of being inhuman and overall a very strange being, but so far only Albedo vocalized his suspicions. To say nothing of Paimon! The Archons most probably recognize what she is, and I bet once the reveals about her come they will be like 'oh yeah we knew all along'. Which would be, once again, kinda weird. 6) I think this is both a case of not having clear enough plans for the future plot and also the unfortunate 'no spoilers!!' disease. I honestly believe that the game would play much better if the characters' intelligence wasn't put down like that, and if more of them just said what they think. Not much would change really!

#tbh i skipped kazuha's event lol #im unfortunately very uninterested in everything inazuma related #and about your last messages - #yeah the whole discourse was funny to me at first but now im just irritated #ask #anonymous #genshin #text

[foxymoxynoona]

how do you deal with misogyny from your own readers? i write fics for this tv show fandom and it pains me every time i get a misogynistic comment in my fics… like how come you go ‘oh no he’s just misunderstood 🥺 i’d forgive him 🥺’ about this male character who, mind you, just made an objectively horrible mistake, only for you to be like ‘ugh she’s so annoying why can’t she forgive him already 😒’ at the female character like?$€+*%>

It's a really complicated question! I never want to put myself in a place of definining or policing misogyny, and I know I have my own biases --I especially thought about this a lot writing Amended, and with the choices I made in that story....

But yeah, I see it in specific comments or trends of comments sometimes and how I handle it tends to depend on the situation. I won't say my approaches are the best! I'm pretty non-confrontational, so maybe I should be more direct but I've seen plenty of situations where being too direct just caused the other person to get defensive and shut down.

1. I try to give the benefit of the doubt as a starting point... I know lot of readers feel comfortable joking with me and there is some darker humor that it's not like I'm the police on haha. I also have a lot of non-native English speakers and I wouldn't want to make them feel shitty over unintentional wording. And plenty times I've had readers who, when I dig in a little with them, admit they've never thought about it that way. I think it's really cool to have these conversations! And I learn from them too!

2. If it's a specific comment, I try to respond in a way that either redirects or encourages some critical thinking about the response. LIke "huh that's interesting, how do you think that compares to XX?" or "ooh, I bet it would be really interesting to actually count" (when someone says something just incorrect like "the female OC always does this and the male never does.") Sometimes it's pretty blunt, and I like that tactic of asking for explanation or reacting with surprise. I'll respond like "yikes, that seems like a strong response!" or "I'm not really following... what do you mean by XX?"

3. If it's a trend like the ones you mentioned --which I do see sometimes-- I will sometimes try to address that in the reading itself. I know I can't like bring down the patriarchy in my writing, haha, but it makes for really juicy topics to dig in on, because chances are if some readers have that response, so would some characters in the story. I don't want to just get heavy-handed and didactic but like, maybe it's something Sasha is also thinking and she needs Dr. Kim to make her question why... so kind of raising questions through the writings on those topics, not necessarily telling people what to think or that they'd wrong to think a certain way.

And of course, if it's just really bad, I ignore/delete/block. I have only ever deleted an ao3 comment once. :) I've deleted a few more asks than that on here where someone was just approaching characters from a really upsetting place.

I hope this was enough of a response. It was hard not to give exact examples LOL but you can see them if you ever read my ao3 comments or some of the messages i answer on here. It definitely happens and I hope I can help media move in a more positive direction, even just with my little ffs...

#asks #anonymous #writingtips

[one-abuse-survivor]

Hey, this is the roommate anon.

So, my dad and I are looking for someone to rent the room left by the roommate who was having repeated medical emergencies. A coworker had expressed interest. Previously, she had said she only needed one room, but now she needs two rooms. We have a side room that we had rented out a few years ago, but the guy straight up disappeared on us. So my dad said we could give them the side room. My stipulation is that I’m not sharing my bathroom, cause the guy who disappeared had shared my bathroom, and after a gallbladder surgery, that became an issue. Also, it’s messy, and I’m not willing to clean it to anyone else’s standards. Which means slow going.

The coworker and her nephew showed up today unannounced, towards the end of me eating lunch. I’ve been cleaner than I used to be, but there’s still some of my stuff that need to be neatened up, in addition to a bunch of my dad’s stuff stored in the living room, and a bunch of stuff from both ex roommates in the side room. And add in the fact that I hadn’t cleaned up from lunch yet, it wasn’t perfectly cleaned through out the house. Not terrible, but not great.

My coworker and her nephew asked if we wanted help to clean stuff up, for everyone’s health, because of bacteria and germs. This bothered me, because the mess wasn’t that bad, and also so much of it belongs to other people. And then she showed up without warning. Like, it just bothers me so much that she’s complaining about the kitchen right after I used it, or the rugs being dirty (yes, there’s stains from the past 16-17 years, again not entirely my fault). Like I said, I was eating lunch, and was gonna neaten up after. And I don’t mind my dad having a bunch of his stuff here, it’s his house, but I’m not gonna have it blamed on me. And it just bothers me so much that she said that bit about germs and bacteria when she showed up unannounced, especially cause I don’t think it’s as bad as all that.

I think a large part of the reason it upsets me so much is cause my ex step mom basically used me being messy (because of depression) as an excuse to invade my privacy for years, and then I had a bunch of people give me a bunch of different advice over the years, none of which worked, it only gave me problems with hoarding. So far, the only two things that have helped are: 1. Cleaned on a timer, and 2. It doesn’t have to be perfect. That, and that I don’t have to be responsible for other people’s messes. And I don’t know if it’s a culture thing, or if she has some mental thing where she can’t have any mess whatsoever, or what, but I told my dad that I don’t really want to live with someone who shows up unannounced, and criticizes something that isn’t that bad. Especially cause I had to show my dad the kitchen, and then how much of the stuff in the living room is his to get him to believe me. Cause all he did was say that maybe it was the smell. We have compost without a lid (his choice, not mine), the sink has been having problems with smell recently, and then My cat eats wet food, which I put the cans in the trash, and his only suggestion was to get another trash bin, which only makes things more complicated and goes back to part of the issue of making things more complicated just makes me more messy. He hasn’t even met her face to face yet, and I had to literally prove him wrong to get him to actually take my side.

Hey, nonnie! I'm sorry this happened. It sounds like a complicated situation, and though I know this ask is old and I'm sure the situation has resolved or at least changed by now, I hope you know that it's absolutely fair to have that boundary to not want to live with someone who shows up unannounced and criticises the way the house looks.

I mean, I've lived in rented places for the past 7 years of my life, and I get that when you move into a new place that has been lived in by others, you want to clean everything a bit just to feel comfortable inside it. Maybe this is a me thing, but I always clean and disinfect the surfaces and cabinets before I start to fill the place with my things. Otherwise I get really uncomfortable and constantly feel like I need to wash my hands and like I don't want to touch anything. Not necessarily because I think it's full of germs or bacteria—I just like having control and knowledge of what's been in contact with the things I touch in my living space 😅

But it's one thing to have that need to clean up your new living space, and another thing entirely to show up whenever you want to before said space is ready for you and start making comments about the conditions the space is in. And while I do think your personal history can be a part of why this affected you more than maybe it would've affected someone else, that doesn't change the fact that they had no right to show up unannounced like that, and you have a right to set boundaries and be taken seriously.

Sending a virtual hug ❤️

#Ask #roommate anon #Depression mention #Germs mention

[immortal-enemies]

this would probably be an unpopular opinion but i don't understand how everyone seems to sympathise so much with grace

yes, tatiana was abusive and she didn't deserve to have the kind of childhood she did - but does that really make her "a great character that needs a redemption arc" though? She's done a lot of awful things (explaining in detail is tiring but i think we all get the gist lol) and not everything was because she was simply forced to. This one is based on personal preference but i really don't think she has that much of a personality either.

something common I see is "she would be a lot more loved if she was a man" and while i agree, i honestly think she would also be criticised a lot more by the fandom. So many of the m characters have the "they're terrible because they had a bad childhood/was abused and didn't actually want to be awful" trope and the fandom is critical of them (as they should). But why is it different with grace?

I'm not trying to invalidate other's opinions but i just find it hard to agree with her getting a redemption arc. I'm fine with people liking her character, I guess it's more of when they try to justify what she did and excuse her actions? also sorry this is so long 😅

Hey!! Absolutely no problem!! This was, for lack of a better word, interesting to read.

Alright, I'm sorry that this took so long to answer, but I was considering exactly HOW I was going to answer.

So, I'm turning this ask into a ask/rant. Under the cut is my current, unedited, written at 12:00 am, honest opinions on Grace and ig Tatiana, keep in mind that I am, I guess, “anti grace blackthorn” so this isn’t full of defenses for her, quite the opposite, in fact. Read at your own risk (fair warning, it’s long), but since no one will probably read it anyway, idk.

Yes, after CoI that is an unpopular opinion. No, I don't understand it much either. To a certain degree.

One of the things I think that people seem to forget/overlook/ignore is that, despite everything, Grace still had a choice. She decided to give in and spend years abusing a young boy. Tatiana is abusive, but that will never change the fact that, at the end of the day, Grace still had a choice. And yes, I understand why she did it. She was in a horrible place, mentally and physically, but she still decided. No amount of arguing will change that fact. It's her life, it's her choice.

Yes, she did do horrible things without needing to. Her power in to compel/control men. She didn't have to kiss Matthew and use it as some sort of blackmail, but she did. She actually had no reason to other then some personal reason. She could have made Mathew forget. In CoI Grace claims that Matthew would have forgotten the kiss anyway, so why do it in the first place?

That's one of the problems I have with how CC wrote Grace. She had to make the one girl abusing a boy be because she didn't want to show her young female audience that they can be abusive too. Women can be just as abusive as men, and TSC is an awful example of that. Looking at all of the abusive characters who were like that simply for their own possible benefit, the ratio of men to women in that is completely off balance. Not saying it has to be equal, but I'm fairly certain Grace would be the only female character abusing a male character for her own personal gain, while adding a character to her (yes, I also agree that she has none.) not necessarily a character to look up to, but she's not that in canon either.

Now, a point on Tatiana: Tatiana is a character who was driven to be crazy by severe trauma, grief and mental illness, and is portrayed as one of the main villains of the series because of what those factors led her to become. It's also used as a plot point that "she could have reached out to anyone in her family; they were willing to help." So you're telling me that she's the villain because she didn't reach out to the people who, in her point of view, murdered her father, husband and son? ESPECIALLY in the 1800-1900's? That ain't it. We all know that the Shadowhunter families, and Shadowhunters in general, are not responsible for this, but when you look for someone to blame, especially in a horrific mental state, that could very easily be the only thing you hold on to. To be clear: I'm not defending her. Going back to my Grace point, she DID still have a choice in who she became, but I hate how people go "UwU Grace" and then "Tatiana is the bad one 😡" when they're very similar.

Now, onto your last point: gender.

Yikes, touchy subject in fandom.

Yes, if Grace was a man, she would be much more liked from the beginning. But also, if she was a man, then the Grace stans probably wouldn't BE Grace stans, and would hate him relentlessly and criticize and hate. One of the main reasons that people excuse her so much are because she's a girl who's abusive to a boy!! And like, boy's can't BE abused. ESPECIALLY by women, right? I mean, THEY'RE always the abusers!! (/s)

Something else: Christopher.

Alright. This isn't very big, but people praise Grace for not controlling Christopher in CoI. That's horrible. You don't praise people and say "UwU so cute couple goals!" at the fact that she didn't do something absolutely awful to him.

A general criticism of YA is how, in general, m/f relationships are portrayed in a kind of stereotypical/abusive way? Like, you have the guy who, in absolutely NO way can call out/say ANYTHING negative about their female love interest, and are often portrayed as afraid of them. That's... Ew. And then you have the girl who is a badass mf who gets some sick pleasure out of scaring the "love of their life"? Ew. But it's also always said that that's what a relationship should be, and I'm not saying that that's what young girls are going to look up to/expect a relationship to be like, but fiction does affect reality. And honestly for a while I was genuinely terrified at being in a relationship because I didn't want to treat a guy how these girls in YA do. That was mostly unrelated, but I thought of it while thinking of a response to this ask so it's gonna be included.

Anyway, it does beg the argument: what would I have done in Grace's position? What was she supposed to do in such a difficult situation? Well. A mere year ago I would have said "I wouldn't have done it" but know that I would if I was broken down enough, especially at the age Grace was when she got her power. But now, I can easily and honestly say, that I would not agree to anything Grace did. If I was put in her position, I would venomously refuse.

There was more I wanted to say, but like, no one is reading this anyway do like-

#ANYWAY- #thank you for the ask!!! 💖💖 #sorry for derailing it 😭 #tw all caps #tw caps in tags #tw abuse #anti grace blackthorn #anti gracetopher #anti cc #anti cassandra clare #asks #anon #jenny rants

[sylvielauffeydottir]

Hi I just saw your post about Israel and Palestinian. I don't know if you're the person to ask or if this is a dumb question but I was wondering if anyone has considered starting a second Jewish state? I was wondering because there's a bunch of Christian countries so why not multiple Jewish ones.

Sorry if I'm bothering you and Thanks for your time.

That’s actually a pretty interesting question. I am going to apologize right now, because I essentially can’t give a short answer to save my life.

I’m not a ��Jewish Scholar,’ so while I can speak with some authority about the history of Zionism, I definitely couldn’t speak about it with as much authority as others. I mentioned in at least one of the posts I have written about the history of plans for a ‘Jewish state’ when Zionism was originally being proposed, and I can kinda of track the history of Zionist thinking for you if you are interested, though essentially it’s just about arguing where to go. But there are better scholars for this than me, so I would recommend Rebecca Kobrin, Deborah Lipstadt, Walter Laqueur … idk. Maybe just read some Theodor Herzl, honestly. With all of that said, I can speak with some authority about the post-war history of this in the Middle East. So let’s go.

In post-war times, there has really only been one serious discussion of an alternative Jewish state, as far as I know. And actually, this is part of why I find it so ironic that people are campaigning so hard to be “anti-Zionist” and to express views like “anti-Zionism” in their activism, because the Jews in Israel who are most anti-Zionist are actually the settlers of Palestinian territories, who want to secede and form a “Gaza-State” called Judeah. There's a great book about this called The Deadly Embrace by Ilana Kass And Bard O'Neill, if anyone is interested. Anyway, most of those people, who are largely Haredim (the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, though some of those settlers are semi Orthodox), have essentially been waging a “culture war” about what it means to have a Jewish state and what the identity of that Jewish state should look like basically since the 1980s.

There is a really good article about this that you can find right here written by Peter Lintl, who is a researcher at the Institution of Political Science for the Friedrich-Alexander Universitat. I’ll summarize it for the lazy people, though, because it’s like 40 pages. Just know that this paragraph won’t be super source heavy, because it is basically the same source. Essentially, the Haredim community has tripled in size from 4% to 12% of the total Israeli population since 1980, and it is probably going to be about 20% by 2040. They only accept the Torah and religious laws as the basis for Jewish life and Jewish identity and they are critical of democratic principles. To them, a societal structure should be hierarchical, patriarchal, and have rabbis at the apex, and they basically believe that Israel isn’t a legitimate state. This is primarily because Israel is (at least technically, so no one come at me in the comments about Palestinian citizens of Israel, so I’ll make a little ** and address this there) a ‘liberal’ democracy. Rights of Israeli citizens include, according to Freedom House, free and fair elections (they rank higher on that criteria here than the United States, by the way), political choice, political rights and electoral opportunities for women, a free and independent media, and academic freedom. It is also, I should add (as a lesbian), the only country in the Middle East that has anything close to LGBT+ rights.

[**to the point about Palestinians and Palestinian citizens of Israel: I have a few things to say. First, I have recommended this book twice now and it is Michael Oren’s Six Days of War, which absolutely fantastically talks about the ways in which the entire structure of the Palestinian ‘citizenship’ movement, Palestinian rights, and who was responsible for governing Palestinians changed after the Six Days War. If you are at all interested in the modern Middle East or modern Middle East politics, I highly recommend you read this, because a huge tenant of this book is that it was 1967, not 1947, that caused huge parts of our current situation (and that, surprisingly, a huge issue that quote-on-quote “started it” was actually water, but that’s sort of the primary secondary issue, not the Actual Issue at play here). Anyway, I’ve talked about the fact that Israel hugely abuses its authority in the West Bank and Gaza and that there are going to be current members of the Israeli Government who face action at the ICC, so please don’t litigate this again with me. I also should add that the 2018 law which said it was only Jews who had the natural-born right to “self-determine” in Israel was passed by the Lekkud Government, and I really hate them anyway. I know they’re bad. It’s not the point I’m making. I’m making a broader point about the Constitution vis-a-vis what the Haredim are proposing, which is way worse].

To get back to the Haredim, basically there is this entire movement of actual settlers in territories that have been determined to belong to the Palestinian people as of, you know, the modern founding of Israel (and not the pre-Israel ‘colonial settler’ narrative you’ll see on instagram in direct conflict with the history of centuries of aliyah) who want to secede and form a separate Jewish state. They aren’t like, the only settlers, but I point this out because they are basically ‘anti-Zionist’ in the sense that they think that modern Zionism isn’t adhering to the laws of Judaism — that the state of Israel is too free, too radical, too open. And scarily enough, these are the sort of the people from whom Netanyahu draws a huge part of his political support. Which is true of the right wing in general. Netanyahu can’t actually govern without a coalition government. Like I have said, the Knesset is huge, often with 11-13 political parties at once, and so to ‘govern’ Netanyahu often needs to recruit increasingly right wing, conservative, basically insane political parties to maintain his coalition. It’s why he has been so supportive of the settlements, particularly in the last five years (since he is, as I have also said, facing corruption charges, and he really can’t leave office). It would really suck for him if a huge chunk of his voters seceded, wouldn’t it?

Anyway, that is the only ‘second Jewish State’ I know about, and I don’t think that is necessarily much of a solution. I really don’t have the solutions to the Middle East crisis. I am just a girl with some history degrees and some time on her hands to devote to tumblr, and I want people to learn more so they can form their own opinions. With that said, I think there are two more things worth saying and then I will close out for the night.

First, Judaism is an ethno-religion. Our ethnicities have become mixed with the places that we have inhabited over the years in diaspora, which is how you have gotten Sephardi, Mizrahi, Ashkenazi, and even Ethiopian Jews. But if you do actual DNA testing on almost all of the Jews in diaspora, the testing shows that we come from the same place: the Levant. No matter how pale or dark, Jews are still fundamentally one people, something we should never forget (and anyone who tries to put racial hierarchy into paleness of Jews: legit, screw you. One people). Anyway, unlike other religious communities, we have an indigenous homeland because we have an ethnic homeland. It’s small, and there are many Jews in diaspora who choose not to return to it, like myself. But that homeland is ours (just as much as it is rightfully Palestinians, because we are both indigenous to the region. For everyone who hasn’t read my other posts on the issue, I’m not explaining this again. Just see: one, two, and three, the post that prompted this ask). This is different from Christians, for example, who basically just conquered all of Europe and whose religion is not dependent on your race or background. You can be a lapsed Christian and you are still white, latinx, black, etc right? I am a lapsed Jew, religiously speaking, and will still never escape that I am ethnically Ashkenazi Jewish.

Second, I think you raise a really good point about other religious states. There are many other religious majority states in the world (all of these countries have an official state religion), and a lot of them are committing a lot of atrocities right now (don't even get me started on Saudi Arabia). I have seen other posts and other authors write about this better than I ever could, but I am going to do my best to articulate why, because of this, criticism of Israel as a state, versus criticism of the Israeli Government, is about ... 9 times out of 10 inherently antisemitic.

We should all be able to criticize governments. That is a healthy part of the democratic process and it is a healthy part of being part of the world community. But there are 140 dictatorships in the world, and the UN Human Rights Council has condemned Israel 45 times since 2013. Since the creation of the UN Human Rights Council, it has has received more resolutions concerning Israel than on the rest of the world combined. This is compared to like … 1 for Myanmar, 1 for South Sudan, and 1 for North Korea.

Israel is the world’s only Jewish majority state. You want to talk about “ethnic cleansing” and “repressive governments”? I can give you about five other governments and world situations right now, off the top of my head, that are very stark, very brutal, very (in some cases) simple examples of either or both. If a person is ‘using their platform’ to Israel-bash, but they are not currently speaking about the atrocities in Myanmar, Kashmir, Azerbaijan, South Sudan, or even, dare I say, the ethnonationalism of the Hindu Nationalist Party in India, then, at the very least, their activism is a little bit performative. They are chasing the most recent ‘hot button’ issue they saw in an instagraphic, and they probably want to be woke and maybe want to do the right thing. And no one come at me and say it is because you don’t “know anything about Myanmar.” Most people know next to nothing about the Middle East crisis as well. At best, people are inconsistent, they may be a hypocrite, and, whether they want to admit it to themselves or not, they are either unintentionally or intentionally buying into antisemitic narratives. They might even be an antisemite.

I like to think (hope, maybe) that most people don’t hate Jews. If anything, they just follow what they’ve been told, and they tend to digest what everyone is taking about. But there is a reason this is the global narrative that has gained traction, and I guarantee it has at least something to do with the star on the Israeli flag.

I know that was a very long answer to your question, but I hope that gave you some insight.

As a sidenote: I keep recommending books, so I am going to just put a master list of every book I have ever recommended at the bottom of anything I do now, because the list keeps growing. So, let’s go in author alphabetical order from now on.

One Country by Ali Abunimah Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by Ronen Bergman Kingdom of Olives and Ash: Writers Confront the Occupation, edited by Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman The Girl Who Stole My Holocaust: A Memoir by Noam Chayut If a Place Can Make You Cry: Dispatches from an Anxious State by Daniel Gordis Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn by Daniel Gordis The Deadly Embrace by Ilana Kass And Bard O'Neill Like Dreamers: The Story of the Israeli Paratroopers Who Reunited Jerusalem and Divided a Nation by Yossi Klein Halevi Antisemitism by Deborah Lipstadt Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East by Michael Oren The Yom Kippur War: The Epic Encounter That Transformed the Middle East by Abraham Rabinovich One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate by Tom Segev Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation by Eyal Weizman

#ask #jew tag