#so many male writers get to write harley quinn content and i feel like they almost never understand anything about domestic abuse

[forevercloudnine]

re: the joker post you reblogged, I always wondered personally if people's unwillingness to forgive him compared to other rogues is cuz he reminds people of their abusers (with his relationship with harley) I tend to find fandom is often less forgiving of behaviour that hits closer to home when compared to potentially worse but more abstract stuff. Like a character who hits their wife will get more hate than one who blows up a planet, bc the latter feels more fictional? Just my theory though

(The Joker post in question)

I think you're definitely right about that. Plenty of people hate Joker specifically because of Harley Quinn (or, predating Harley's conception as a character, because of his mutilation of Barbara Gordon in The Killing Joke-- which, though not considered sexual assault by the author Alan Moore, was definitely sexualized in the art by Brian Bolland). And honestly, given the way he's written as an exaggerated parody of an abusive misogynistic boyfriend in Harley's various solo series, it's completely understandable for anyone who reads those comics to want to never see him ever again, because his appearances are not fun to read!

But I think it's also true that people who are mainly fans of other male villains use him to make their own faves look better in comparison. Though it is funny to constantly see posts in character tags that are like "[insert supervillain here] hates Joker and could totally beat him up," because invariably the supervillain has a) been depicted as friendly with Joker in canon, and b) HAVE fought Joker but lost embarrassingly.

#joker #harley quinn #panel is from 'prelude to the wedding: harley quinn vs. joker' #which is just the premier example of how joker is portrayed by harley writers #because in canon an HOUR after he has this convo with harley. he goes and has the church fight with bruce and selina #and the difference in characterization between these two appearances is absolutely staggering #he is genuinely unrecognizable as the same character #anyway there is definitely something to be said about how btas has permanently added 'abusive boyfriend' to joker's character #and that batman media has sooooooo much trouble with figuring out how much that has to factor into any given portrayal #i think the most transparent struggle with that is on The Harley Quinn Show #where joker goes from being an abusive misogynistic creep to Harley's Funny Ex in-between seasons #to the point that he hooks up with some civilian nurse with two young children and it's treated sweet and romantic #instead of like. incredibly worrying. because he's a noted abuser with a terrible track record around women #but he's switched from being the antagonist of harley's Feminist Character Arc to a comedic side character so whatever it's fine now #so many male writers get to write harley quinn content and i feel like they almost never understand anything about domestic abuse #so they just write the most exaggerated parody of it possible and then have harley hit him with a hammer #and then feel like they've made her a strong female character #which like. i guess makes sense as an evolution for a female character who was originally written as side joke eye candy #NOT that i don't enjoy a lot of the stories paul dini has written about her #but like. there's a lot of contextual baggage in her character from day one

[rachello344]

A glossary of fandom terms that have either been taken from literary criticism (incorrectly) or that I use that are either no longer in use or have... different definitions now.

If anyone has any terms they’d like to see added or words you come across that have confused you, please drop me a line.  I’d be happy to add to this whenever.  It’ll all be under a readmore so that I can edit it when needed.  ^^

Discourse--Literally a discussion, like, the act of discussing.  That’s it.  More specifically, people will say, “the novel here participates in one of the many discourses on gender” or something like that.  Essentially linking one occurrence to a wider conversation.  Literature and Media do not exist in a vacuum, but neither can one work make a trend, but I’ll get to that. Just call it wank or meta.  Use the words we have, don’t take words from academia, especially when you don’t understand their context.

Romance--One of many genres of fiction.  This is a story that centers around a romantic relationship between two or more characters.  I could tell you about how all genres are crutches and constructs we assign to make ourselves feel better, but that might be moving too fast.  For now, what’s important is what a romance isn’t.  A romance is NOT some kind of idealist model that must serve as a positive example for the Youth.  That would be Utopian Romance fiction (which is boring because stories need conflict, but that’s my own opinion on the matter).  A romance only needs the major plot conflicts to hinge around the romantic (as in not platonic, this could be love or lust or some combination thereof) relationships between its characters.  Pride and Prejudice is a romance.  Captive Prince is a romance.  The Foxhole Court, while containing a romantic subplot, is not a romance.  Harry Potter is not a romance.  A story can have romance without being a romance.  Compare romantic comedies with action movies, as an example.  But, don’t think that a romance can’t be tense or unhealthy or whatever.  Fifty Shades is also a romance, remember.  If you wrote out the Joker and Harley Quinn’s story, only focusing on them, their story would be a romance.  It’s more complicated than that, obviously, and there’s nuance, but I think you get the picture.  Regardless of your moral views on the love depicted, a romance is nothing more or less than a story about the development of a romantic relationship.

Fetishization--I hate seeing this word thrown around.  This literally means that something has been made into a fetish object on a cultural level.  You can have the fetishization of purity in American culture, for example.  And you can have the fetishization of homosexual relationships in pornography intended for heterosexual audiences.  However.  A single work of fiction is not fetishizing anything.  It may contribute to an overall trend, but this is not a word to use for single entities.  This is a cultural trend word.  Sure, it can be used for subcultures, but whenever I see this word used, it’s used to mean that some work of fiction or other is bad for displaying a queer sexual relationship in any kind of (perceived) perverse way.  Please stop using this word incorrectly.  As a kind of burgeoning critical theorist (i.e. English grad student), it is incredibly frustrating.  You’re using words you don’t understand in ways that undermine the hard work being done by people in my field.  Unless you’re going to read Marx and Lukacs and learn what the word “reification” means, I think you should use another word. In most cases, what is meant is that some group people don’t like are showing an interest in something perceived as not belonging to them, whether that’s true or not.  I think if we unpack that a little, we can all find better ways to phrase things.  Fetishization is an accusation thrown around, not the analysis it’s meant to be.  And, frankly, it needs to stop.

Normalization--This is thrown around so often I hardly know where to begin.  This is not a word that can be used for a single object, again.  This is a word meant for trends.  For example, we could talk about the fact that male violence in our culture is normalized and so no longer taken as seriously as it should be.  A fictional work depicting something you don’t like in a way you perceive as positive and uncritical does not mean that it’s normalizing it.  A single crime procedural does not normalize crime.  You could say that the trend of always showing cops to be in the right, no matter the extreme actions they take, normalizes the liberties they take in the real world, making it difficult to speak out against police brutality and other such abuses.  But again, that’s the genre as a whole--procedural cop dramas could all contribute, but one of them is not going to be normalizing on its own.  That isn’t how that works. Just say that you find whatever it is unpleasant to read because of X or Y trope.  Or talk about how the TROPE is normalizing something.  That’s totally legitimate.  The trope of X normalizes Y behavior in Z culture/situation/etc. and this is harmful because W.

Romanticization--This does not mean that something bad is shown in a romantic light.  This is another big trend word.  Cultural myths about heterosexual marriage and related gender roles contribute to the romanticization of domestic abuse.  A single work of fiction depicting an abusive relationship in any kind of perceive positive light is not romanticizing abuse.  Cultural narratives about women needing to be convinced can romanticize the act of rape, especially from the male perspective.  One work of fiction cannot do this.  It has to be on at least a genre level, if not cultural or societal.  Again, subcultural too, but you have to make the argument apply outward. The BL/Yaoi trope of having a Seme character force an openly reluctant Uke character into sex romanticizes sexual assault.  One BL using the trope can contribute to it, but it isn’t romanticizing anything on its own.  It’s not powerful enough to be capable of that.

Wank--The word once used to describe what is now called “discourse.”  It’s usually a circle jerk of complaints about some fandom or another or the people in it.  Every example of so called discourse I have ever seen was actually just wank wearing a new hat.  Don’t put on airs or borrow credibility.  Call a spade a spade.

Meta--Analysis on a series or character.  Some of these are better reasoned than others, but the only way to truly rate them is in how well they use their evidence (and how much evidence they have) to support whatever claim they make.  These are often essays, but can be a couple paragraphs, sometimes with pictures as evidence along with quotes from the source.  Some “discourse” falls into this, but only very rarely.  Most people call meta either meta or analysis instead.

BNF--Big Name Fan.  This is THE person in your fandom, generally an artist, occasionally a fic writer or other content creator.  You’ll know them when you see them.  This is the person everyone follows.  Their headcanons are so widely accepted that they almost always become fanon (whether you like it or not).  Some of these people are super nice and use their powers for good.  Others can become divas, mad with the power the fandom has given them.  Regardless, there is almost always drama brewing around them (whether they like it or not, unfortunately). I recently saw some commenting on people actually asking other fans for permission to hold certain headcanons.  Someone with that power is a BNF.  That is a TRADEMARK of a BNF.  Their fandom credibility and respect is so high that people see them as some kind of authority figure.  Be wary of people who go along with this.  They’re not to be trifled with, and frankly, it’s safer not to engage.

TPTB--The Powers That Be, otherwise known as the writers/producers/creators of any given series.  These are the people that create Canon and produce Word of God.

Canon--Anything that explicitly happened in the confines of a series.  Basically, the events of any given series in whatever form the standard is.  I.E. episodes of a TV show, books in a book series, etc.

Fringe Canon--Works that are connected to the series in question, but not part of the standard form.  Often includes movies, novelizations, guide books, etc.  Can be considered canon, but isn’t something every fan will see/have access to, so can’t really be considered The Canon.  Can also includes things that are implicit in the text, so something that can be argued in meta but that not everyone will agree on.

Word of God--Something said by TPTB that remains outside of canon.  I.E. interviews, panels, and other things said at conventions or for PR.  Common mantra, “PR is not showrunning” meaning that Word of God often has little to do with what happens within the series. Example:  Some sub-textual evidence of Dumbledore being gay does not make his being gay canon (it makes it fringe canon, imo).  Rowling saying that he was gay in an interview is here considered Word of God.  You can take it or leave it, because no one in the series says the words “Dumbledore was gay” or any other variation that would make it explicit canon.

Headcanon--Something that you decide about a character.  This isn’t canon and often has no strong basis in canon.  It can include sexuality, gender, religion, favorite color, anything not covered by canon.  You can also have headcanons that contradict canon.

Fanon--Headcanons that have become Too Powerful.  These are things, good or bad, that have been accepted by a probably absurd number of people.  Some of these can be great, especially when the series has some seriously bad writing, but if you find yourself disagreeing, this can be the worst thing you ever have to deal with.  Especially when people who subscribe to it insist on its being canon...

Ship--Any feasible romantic relationship, canon or non-canon.  There are of course platonic variants, but those are usually specified (broship, brotp, etc.).  Most often two people, but more recently polyshipping has come into vogue. To Ship (v.)--For me, this does not apply to canon ships no matter if I like them or not.  Shipping is transformative.  To me, more than anything, shipping (as a verb) means you consume or create transformative media centered around that relationship (most often non-canon or not explicit canon, but could include canon, it just needs to be an active not passive interest in the relationship).

Canon Ship--The series endgame, usually (but not always!) straight.  This is an explicit couple.  They are in a relationship.  They kiss (or something) on screen.  You can still take it or leave it, but that doesn’t stop it from being canon.

Rare Pair--This is a ship that has some basis in canon, but is extremely unpopular.  Some people include anything with less than a certain number of fic on Ao3, but it varies by fandom.  I’ve been into rare pairs with less than 10 fic written for them, so anything around 500 still seems like quite a bit in comparison.  Your Mileage May Vary (YMMV), but you’ll know it when you see it.

Crack Ship--These people have probably never spoken.  There is no reason for them to be in a relationship other than the fan’s preference (often aesthetic or story-related).  A crack ship is often random and completely baseless.  A crack ship is not simply a ship that won’t be canon.  Most ships will never be canon.  This goes beyond that into the ridiculous.  As a recent example, Keith x Zarkon would be a crack ship, while Keith x Hunk is perfectly reasonable (if rare).

Multi-shipping--Shipping characters together without a strong preference for one combination over another.  For example, shipping your fave with every possible romantic partner, not just one (or more in a polyship).  This includes Everyone x Character type things, not just “I could ship them with literally anyone.”  Both count.

OTP--One True Pairing.  The ship you love above all others, canon or not.  For me, I have exactly one of these per fandom, but I know other people use it differently now.  This used to mean that you ship the thing exclusively.  You might like art for other ships with the characters in this OTP, but you’re not that into it.  This used to be THE ship.  The characters in this OTP were not shipped with others, and other relationships were used for jealousy or plot reasons, not usually because you enjoy the other ships.  This is the ship you go to war about.

OT#--Same as above, but there are more than two people involved.  So, the one polyship you hold above all other ships (poly or not).

BrOTP--Platonic version of the above.  These are the ride or die friendships of the series.  You don’t see them as in love, but they absolutely love each other.  There’s devotion and loyalty and affection--or you just think their friendship is the best/greatest/funniest and you don’t see them ever ending up together romantically.  You want these characters to be BFFs, not lovers.

#fandom meta #my meta #Glossary of Fandom Terms #Lemme know if I missed anything big lol #I've been sitting on this for over a year XD