("make the au more fucked up, I dare you" you say? well, who am I but to oblige)
marion hid the scar from his father for an entire year. a physical mark can be covered up, but how do you hide the absence of a daemon? a little kid wandering around, a dead canary clutched in his hands, and suddenly there's no more birdsong following him about. he has to hide her, because even if she's not moving she's gotta be alive, because he's alive, and he knows with a seven-year-old's certainty that if the adults notice then they might get rid of her. he finds an empty matchbox for when she's a butterfly and tries to keep her in his biggest most comfortable shirt pocket when she's a bird and he tells the finnerty boys - all three of them, with their shepherd dog souls nipping at their heels - that they've made a game of seeing how long she can stay hidden for, or that she's asleep in his pocket, or that she's right over there but she's pretty small so maybe you just can't see her, and ignores the sensation, the creeping dread, that something vital inside him is rotted. (sean finds out, and so do his brothers, and he swears them all to secrecy. in the end, it's his own slip-up that gets him caught.)
jinnah watches her father cut the boy away from the dead bird, and tries to remember the feeling of insect's legs walking along the back of her hand. he kicks and screams in all the ways she didn't, watching it turn from avian to insect to avian to nothing but dust, and she wonders - only for a moment - if the empty hole in her would have finally settled into a beetle, or a spider, or a maybe even a snake, like the great python winding about her father's neck.
okay all right okay you know what
I was just thinking about how maybe in this universe, maybe the first time Sean understands that a soul isn't the same thing as a conscience
isn't necessarily all the times that his Saoirse doesn't keep him from getting into trouble, what kind of daemon would she have been if she stopped him from doing stupid stuff
but maybe it's the time that he looks up after finishing that mission for Dr. Nero, and sees Saoirse returning to him with the remnants of blue and gold Dust on her jaws, already fading away to nothing
6 notes
·
View notes
I honestly love that you talk about Tuco and Salamancas so much. it's partly the show's fault but they are such a fucked up chain of harm family, and nobody really talks about it much aside from memes
I really appreciate you saying this!
I remember specifically after my initial whirlwind six-day Breaking Bad bingewatch, i was doing a puzzle and listening to some music and I suddenly realized that, out of everything in the show, their collective tragedy had really affected me and stuck with me and thinking “hmm, well surely watching Better Call Saul will cure me of this…” and then I felt this absolute JOLT of delight upon unexpectedly seeing Tuco at the end of the BCS pilot and I was like “ah, okay, so I’m stuck like this!”
But seriously though, it’s been rewarding! I like puzzles! I like characters who the canon does dirty or who were clearly not the writers’ primary concern! I like to think critically about the media I consume and the way I interact with it! And I also ADORE inescapable cycles of tragedy! … So this whole thing was actually fairly predictable, in hindsight, haha…
And yeah, I’d LOVE to talk more about it… I’ve got another fic that’s fully done besides a final polish edit (which is gonna take awhile and I’ve been super busy with my new job, hence no progress in the past month or so!) - so I’m excited to get that out eventually as I prefer to share my more inference-heavy meta in fic form.
10 notes
·
View notes
Genuinely I absolutely, thoroughly hate the way people have gotten in regard to "You can write fic about dark subjects, but don't ever go into detail about those subjects" (if they even concede that people are "allowed" to write about anything unpleasant at all).
Because I just read an excellent one that was...very fucked-up! Actually!!! But it was also a nuanced and gripping examination of abuse--switching between the POV of the abuser (who lies to themselves about the reality of their actions, making their POV sections all the more uncomfortable for it), their victim (who lies to themselves in a different way, by refusing both to acknowledge their own victimhood or to consider the ways they later come to continue that cycle) and, eventually, an outside party (who is the only one aware of the true reality, and tries (and fails) to help, through the comparatively powerless ways that are available to them).
And this thing was not reserved in any way regarding its depiction of all of this. It didn't cut away cleanly after a vague uncomfortable comment for the reader to fill in every single blank for themselves. There were even times where the victim themselves was under the impression that they were genuinely enjoying what happened, because they convinced themselves that they had control over a situation they never had control over!!! And I know that...certain people. Would absolutely accuse this fic of "romanticizing abuse" because of these things. Which I think is an INCREDIBLY unfair assessment of it, especially since most of the time the discussion of "romanticizing [x]" is less a discussion and more, "I don't care what the author intended, this story simply shouldn't exist because this is incontrovertible proof they are a horrible person in reality, also they should die."
3 notes
·
View notes
reminder for the twitter, reddit and tiktok migrants: please do not censor words here. if you censor them, people’s blacklists and mute functions wont work, especially for important content warnings (this goes for twitter as well altho that function is breaking over there). spell out the whole word in the post and the tags. do not use euphemism words like unalive. the algorithm here does not work that way (there is an algorithm. not everyone uses it, everyone uses the following tab).
the only time you should censor words is when you do NOT want them to show up in the tag, like if you’re saying something unkind about a ship you should not tag it or mention directly the ship name so it does not clog the tag, or if you’re mentioning a person or community who should not get attention or clout, or whose attention you do not want to attract, then censor it (the way one might on twitter to avoid term searching)
19K notes
·
View notes
I’m trying not to be a huge dick about it but I got a “but what about us q-slurs who are traumatized by the bad words?” on my slur reclaimation post and so I’ve made a handy guide
1. You are being called the slur.
A. If it is with malice, I am sorry for this experience, however, this situation is not at all what I was talking about.
B. If it is with affection or as a joke from other LGBTs, and it makes you uncomfortable, ask them to stop. If they don’t, they’re a dick for not respecting your boundaries.
2. You are being “forced” to see other people use the word for a larger community
A. If it bothers you then you are probably not the “fag community” to which they are referring, then. In a post? Block. Blacklist words. Block tags. Walk away. Avert your eyes. You don’t vibe with “queer community” then refer to it as LGBT. You make it sound like a “someone saying Happy Holidays means I can’t say Merry Christmas anymore” situation. You don’t have to use any words you don’t vibe with. Hate to say Dyke March or Dykes on Bikes? Don’t go to the march. Avoid the bikes.
3. You are being “forced” to hear other people use the word for themselves
A. I mean this with love and respect…suck it up. If it is so deeply triggering, remove yourself. Leave the situation. Block. Blacklist words. Block tags.
In a conversation about reclaimation, I am sorry, but you only get to decide how people refer to you, no one else. If someone else’s use upsets you, YOU have to do something about it, not them. You do not, under ANY circumstances, get to ask someone not to use dyke or fag or queer or tranny for themselves. You don’t get to ask someone not to use it/its. You don’t get to tell someone to tuck or bind because it gives you second-hand dysphoria. You do not get to decide how someone else is queer.
If being around them is that debilitating, you need to take steps to insulate yourself.
On the curate your own experience website, you should know how to do just that. There are so many guides out there. And to the complaint that “now” Pride uses all these slurs which has made Pride hostile to you, I’d invite you to crack open a book, but perhaps what you find will be too upsetting
14K notes
·
View notes
Full offense and pun fully intended, but I genuinely think the very existence of "dead dove, do not eat" was a fucking canary in the mines, and no one really paid attention.
Because the tag itself was created as a response to a fandom-wide tendency to disregard warnings and assume tagging was exaggerated. And then the same fucking idiots reading those tags describing things they found upsetting or disturbing or just not to their taste would STILL click into the stories and give the writer's grief about it.
And as a response writers began using the tag to signal "no, really, I MEAN the tags!"
But like.
If you really think about it, that's a solution to a different problem. The solution to "I know you tagged your story appropriately but I chose to disregard the tags and warnings by reading it anyway, even though I knew it would upset me, so now I'm upset and making it your problem" is frankly a block, a ban and wide-spread blacklisting. But fandom as a whole is fucking awful at handling bad faith, insidious arguments that appeal to community inclusion and weaponize the fact most people participating in fandom want to share the space with others, as opposed to hurting people.
So instead of upfront ridiculing this kind of maladaptive attempt to foster one's own emotional self-regulation onto random strangers on the internet, fandom compromised and came up with a redundant tag in a good faith attempt to address an imaginary nuance.
There is no nuance to this.
A writer's job is to tag their work correctly. It's not to tag it exhaustively. It's not even to tag it extensively. A writer's sole obligation, as far as AO3 and arguably fandom spaces are concerned, is to make damn sure that the tags they put on their story actually match whatever is going on in that story.
That's it.
That's all.
"But what if I don't want to read X?" Well, you don't read fic that's tagged X.
"But what if I read something that wasn't tagged X?" Well, that's very unfortunate for you, but if it is genuinely that upsetting, you have a responsibility to yourself to only browse things explicitly tagged to not include X.
"But that's not a lot of fic!" Hi, you must be new here, yes, welcome to fandom. Most of our spaces are built explicitly as a reaction to There's Not Enough Of The Thing I Want, both in canon and fandom.
"But there are things on the internet that I don't like!" Yeah, and they are also out there, offline. And, here's the thing, things existing even though we personally dislike or even hate or even flat out find offensive/gross/immoral/unspeakable existing is the price we pay to secure our right to exist as individuals and creators, regardless of who finds US personally unpleasant, hateful or flat out offensive/gross/immoral/unspeakable.
"But what about [illegal thing]?!" So the thing itself is illegal, because the thing itself has been deemed harmful. But your goddamn cop-poisoned authoritarian little heart needs to learn that sometimes things are illegal that aren't harmful, and defaulting to "but illegal!" is a surefire way to end up on the wrong side of the fascism pop quiz. You're not a figure of authority and the more you demand to control and exercise authority by command, rather than leadership, the less impressive you seem. You know how you make actual, genuine change in a community? You center harm and argue in good faith to find accommodations and spread awareness of real, actual problems.
But let's play your game. Let's pretend we're all brainwashed cop-abiding little cogs that do not own a single working brain cell to exercise critical thinking with. 99% of the time, when you cry about any given thing "being illegal!!!" you're correct only so far as the THING itself being illegal. The act or object is illegal. Depiction of it is not. You know why, dipshit? Because if depiction of the thing were illegal, you wouldn't be able to talk about it. You wouldn't be able to educate about it. You wouldn't be able to reexamine and discuss and understand the thing, how and why and where it happens and how to prevent it. And yeah, depiction being legal opens the door for people to make depictions that are in bad taste or probably not appropriate. Sure. But that's the price we pay, creating tools to demystify some of the most horrific things in the world and support the people who've survived them. The net good of those tools existing outweighs the harm of people misusing them.
"You're defending the indefensible!" No, you're clumsily stumbling into a conversation that's been going on for centuries, with your elementary school understanding of morality and your bone-deep police state rot filtering your perception of reality, and insisting you figured it out and everyone else at the table is an idiot for not agreeing with you. Shut the fuck up, sit the fuck down and read a goddamn book.
8K notes
·
View notes