#which is inherently a weak bad thing
Text
been seeing some weird takes ab the shiv pregnancy. like being ambivalent about how the writers will play it is one thing — it could end up being an incredible exploration into shiv’s internal life and her as a person beyond her relationships with men, but there are also a lot of ways to fuck up a pregnancy narrative and most are exercises in thinly veiled sexism, so it’s only natural to feel uncertain. we just don’t know how it’ll go yet!
…..buuuut. saying that pregnancy playing a role at all in shiv’s life/arc/character inherently reduces her to being The Woman just feels soooo like … rooted in internalized misogyny to me? that’s kinda doing the same thing as everyone always does — thinking less of a woman once she shows signs of, y’know, actually ‘being a woman’ quote unquote. a female character won’t stop being fully-fleshed-out, strong, independent, and interesting the second she get pregnant. pregnancy isn’t, like, just a sexist trope, guys. it’s a real thing with real importance in the lives of many, many people! pregnancy isn’t reductive to women, it’s just a part of life for some women! a lot of the time it feels like ‘good female characters’ are only seen as ‘good’ so long as you can almost forget that they’re female, so long as they act so ‘masculine’ it’s like they’re just a regular complex male character repackaged in a female body. but to be a complex female character, you’re going to have a relationship to your gender! that’s inevitable and necessary in order to actually create a good female character, rather than a good character who just so happens to be female. and this isn’t even touching upon the weird essentialism of being like oh womanhood = pregnancy & vice versa like…. y’all are complaining about the show ‘reducing shiv to womanhood’ but are you sure you’re not doing that? and besides what do you even mean ‘reduced to womanhood’? was she not a woman before? is she only a woman now that she’s pregnant? just some fucking bizarre takes all around.
the rest is under the cut because this got long, sorry !
i mean, why are we acting like the decision to explicitly explore shiv’s relationship with motherhood and femininity is bad writing and rooted in misogyny — like, not even the way it’s done, just the decision to make shiv pregnant? like, making a female character pregnant is not sexist in itself, at all! that is just part and parcel of some women’s lives! the only reason you would think pregnancy as a concept for a woman is sexist is if your internalized misogyny makes you think that pregnancy weakens or devalues a ‘strong woman’ !!! why are y’all acting like pregnancy is this terrible emasculating trope that puts the curse of Woman on characters like you sound like the roy men
and, like, maybe the storyline will suck! maybe it’ll be shitty and weird and not-so-secretly misogynistic. maybe the way they end up writing it will be yet another Career Woman Grows Heart And Has Kids or the equally bad Career Woman Feels Forced To Reject ‘Womanhood’ Entirely And That’s Supposed To Be Empowering narrative. but maybe it won’t. maybe it’ll be fucking great. maybe it’s fucking needed — maybe it will try to unravel to undo this exact centuries-long prejudice against pregnancy, against women who ‘act like’ women, whatever that’s supposed to mean. we just don’t know yet. so, like, while it is so fair to feel ambivalent about this development, maybe try to figure out what the root of that ambivalence is — is it fear that the writers will fuck it up, or is it your own pre-existing biases about pregnancy and stereotypically ‘feminine’ experiences and traits? because, yknow. it just feels kind of weird to act like the mere existence of pregnancy in the arc of a female character is inherently diminishing and reductive to her — after all, what you’re saying between the lines is not only that pregnancy diminishes and reduces independent powerful women to just being women, but youre also literally reducing the entirety of womanhood to pregnancy and the entirety of pregnancy to womanhood, and all of that feels just, like. a strange stance to take, maybe
#this is not about anyone or anything in particular!!!! i’ve just seen a lot of random weird posts and tags that just have these undertones#of internalized misogyny and judgment towards pregnancy and a lot of things that i just like… don’t think people really meant to say#if that makes sense. like it’s not purposeful there’s just some really weird language being thrown around that just feels very like… judgin#a woman for ‘acting like’ a woman#which is inherently a weak bad thing#like womanhood and strength are not diametrically opposed guys. you don’t have to choose between self-respect and femininity#actually this is getting into another arg about the unempowering nature of a lot of abortion plotlines these days but that’s for another#time so i digress#might delete this later i’m not trying to like start drama. i’m just thinking thoughts ab shit i’ve seen on reddit twitter sometimes here#sometimes articles…. idk. just thinking thoughts here fr#succession#succession spoilers#shiv roy#casey shut the fuck up about shiv roy#100
120 notes
·
View notes
Text
A book asks the reader to imagine any sensory input of the story, whereas a film or TV show provides both sound and visuals. Audio fiction lives in the space between these two approaches. I think there's a unique power to that middle ground. I love how audio drama asks the listener to co-construct their sensory experience of the story.
Audio drama allows me to simultaneously experience 'This character feels real to me because I've heard their voice' and 'This character feels real to me because I've pictured them myself'.
What the characters are experiencing is both directly presented to me and left to my imagination. There's no page or screen between me and the story. It's there in my ears. It's there in my mind's eye.
There's a strange sense of intimacy to that, the intimacy of feeling like a fly on the wall during a conversation or of hearing a character speaking as if directly to me. Perhaps it sounds contradictory to say that experiencing a story only through sound allows me to feel uniquely connected to that story, but that's one of the reasons why I love audio fiction so much.
#I am conscious that this is very much the perspective of a sighted and hearing person#and I hope that doesn't come across weirdly#I'm just trying to articulate how I feel about it#This is no shade to books/films/TV btw#They are also excellent mediums with their own strengths#Honestly the main reason why podcasts are my primary form of media consumption#is probs that I'm bad at setting aside time to read/watch things#rather than necessarily because of the specific power of audio fiction#but the particular magic of audio fiction is a nice bonus#I don't really buy into the idea that reading is 'active' while watching video is inherently 'passive'#but under that way of thinking audio fiction is kind of between passive and active in an interesting way#podcasts#audio drama#audio fiction#the empty man posteth#I'd be interested to know if this resonates with anyone else or if it's just me#Also another element to this which makes it weirder is that I have a pretty weak visual imagination#so when I say 'mind's eye' that tends to mean vague concepts for me rather than actual images#but it still helps me feel connected to the story in a unique way. Idk
363 notes
·
View notes
Note
please get your nasty ugly mutt off the internet, where you had to pay to get someone to care to look at him. and while you're at it please euthanize him to put him out of his misery of being owned by you =) thank you
who talks like this irl
#anon#ok timmy its time to do your math homework#like if youre gonna send anon hate dont be embarrassing about it?#reasons this is poorly done hate: 1 youre hiding behind anon which is cowardly#2. based off of the fact that i sponsered pictures of my dog something inherently funny. weak thing to get angry at#3. you literally didnt even say why i was a bad pet owner and then insulted my dog then asked me to kill him out of mercy#do you hate my dog or not timmy#anyways if youre gonna hate do it well this is embarrassing
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
What I find really really compelling about Laios' special interest is this:
As a person who's special interest is dogs, I'll tell you right now that I fucking love them. I live in a city full of strays, and I actively go out of my way to pet, play with, and interact with them. It brings me a lot of joy and comfort to be able to be surrounded by puppies.
I will also be the first to tell you that, like it or not, dogs are animals - and animals, ultimately, can be unpredictable. They can be scared, they can be territorial, and they can be impulsive. And while I genuinely believe that there's no such thing as a bad dog or an angry dog - only a scared one - I also don't believe it makes a functional difference once a dog has bitten you what intentions it may have had.
Dogs are dangerous. I've seen people get bitten, I've been bitten, I've had close calls, some of which were my own fault and others which were not.
And Laios reflects this so beautifully, especially in the Kelpie arc. He's not blinded by his love for these creatures, he's not overtaken by baseless empathy - he understands, understands better than anyone, that these are at the end of the day monsters, and they are dangerous, and when push comes to shove sometimes you've just got to kill them. In fact it's his love for them that lands him this knowledge and understanding in the first place - just as I know that there's no room for fear and weakness when it comes to interacting with dogs, he knows there's no room for hesitation and empathy when it comes to interacting with montsers.
It's so fucking realistic of someone who genuinely researches and cares about these creatures, rather than superficially "liking animals" and then trying to assign human qualities to inherently inhuman creatures.
God.
Laios is fantastic fucking representation.
20K notes
·
View notes
Text
I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got paid to review people's books, and one of the rules of that review company is one that I think is just super useful to media analysis as a whole, and that is, we were told never to critique media for what it didn't do but only for what it did.
So, for instance, I couldn't say "this book didn't give its characters strong agency or goals". I instead had to say, "the characters in this book acted in ways that often felt misaligned with their characterization as if they were being pulled by the plot."
I think this is really important because a lot of "critiques" people give, if subverted to address what the book does instead of what it doesn't do, actually read pretty nonsensical. For instance, "none of the characters were unique" becomes "all of the characters read like other characters that exist in other media", which like... okay? That's not really a critique. It's just how fiction works. Or "none of the characters were likeable" becomes "all of the characters, at some point or another, did things that I found disagreeable or annoying" which is literally how every book works?
It also keeps you from holding a book to a standard it never sought to meet. "The world building in this book simply wasn't complex enough" becomes "The world building in this book was very simple", which, yes, good, that can actually be a good thing. Many books aspire to this. It's not actually a negative critique. Or "The stakes weren't very high and the climax didn't really offer any major plot twists or turns" becomes "The stakes were low and and the ending was quite predictable", which, if this is a cute romcom is exactly what I'm looking for.
Not to mention, I think this really helps to deconstruct a lot of the biases we carry into fiction. Characters not having strong agency isn't inherently bad. Characters who react to their surroundings can make a good story, so saying "the characters didn't have enough agency" is kind of weak, but when you flip it to say "the characters acted misaligned from their characterization" we can now see that the *real* problem here isn't that they lacked agency but that this lack of agency is inconsistent with the type of character that they are. a character this strong-willed *should* have more agency even if a weak-willed character might not.
So it's just a really simple way of framing the way I critique books that I think has really helped to show the difference between "this book is bad" and "this book didn't meet my personal preferences", but also, as someone talking about books, I think it helps give other people a clearer idea of what the book actually looks like so they can decide for themselves if it's worth their time.
Update: This is literally just a thought exercise to help you be more intentional with how you critique media. I'm not enforcing this as some divine rule that must be followed any time you have an opinion on fiction, and I'm definitely not saying that you have to structure every single sentence in a review to contain zero negative phrases. I'm just saying that I repurposed a rule we had at that specific reviewer to be a helpful tool to check myself when writing critiques now. If you don't want to use the tool, literally no one (especially not me) can or wants to force you to use it. As with all advice, it is a totally reasonable and normal thing to not have use for every piece of it that exists from random strangers on the internet. Use it to whatever extent it helps you or not at all.
44K notes
·
View notes
Text
Iron Man (1968) #14
#ooh we got Johnny Craig as a guest penciler this issue and I really liked his work#anyway the nature of these ongoing superhero comics is that bad things have to continually happen to the main character#and to the people in their life#I’ve found Betty Ross’ position in the Hulk comics I’ve read so far to be really interesting#I would say her life is inherently worse than the lives of the supporting characters of these Iron Man comics I’m reading#due to the fact that the Hulk is a particularly tragic character#but also that because the Hulk has such a poor memory and wanders from place to place in what are oftentimes unconnected stories#the feeling of progression of an overarching plot comes from what’s going on with the side characters#typically meaning that once one crisis ends in Betty’s life then another one has to begin immediately#and then there’s that as a female character she’s limited in the kind of important actions she can take#so it’s largely just her being negatively impacted and having to react to what’s going on with the men in her life#which she’s questioned before if she’s somehow the problem that’s making everything a disaster all the time#this page here distills how Tony Stark as a character has interpreted all this#the idea that the main character is to blame for things being bad for the side characters isn’t really unique#what is unique I feel is how Tony reacts to it#he takes pushing people away to such an extreme that he wants to reject his own humanity#and of course the unique danger element of him not just doing dangerous work but having a weak heart throughout it all#which of course Tony takes to mean that he doesn’t deserve close relationships#because he’s got to approach everything with whatever’s worse for himself lol#marvel#tony stark#janice cord#happy hogan#pepper potts#my posts#comic panels
1 note
·
View note
Text
And just to follow up on that previous reblog without derailing it: a lot of the really weird relationships and discourse that exist out there in the neo-pagan, Satanist, and atheist communities are in fact echoes of the weird relationship that Xtianity has with Judaism.
Xtianity has a weird, tumultuous relationship with Judaism because they must simultaneously validate the Tanakh and the Jews who created it or else their own religion is devoid of context and built on a house of cards. But! If they validate Judaism, then they have to grapple with the fact that the Jews did not accept their interpretation of the Tanakh, that we still, against all odds, exist, and that because we still exist, we are still around to point out the ways in which the New Testament does not fit with the Tanakh and that the Tanakh does not inherently or naturally point to Jesus. And that's to say nothing of the bloody history of Xtianity towards Judaism. Our continued existence is a sore point and a weakness in the Xtian narrative that has been a constant source of irritation, frustration, and violence since the dawn of Xtianity. And, at the same time, there is a certain fascination with Judaism related to things that have been appropriated by Xtians or understood as particularly useful in spreading supercessionist ideas. So what you wind up with is a toxic mix of antisemitism and philosemitism (effectively fetishization and orientalism) that drives too many Xtians to "love" us by attacking our beliefs and way of life, and stealing whatever they think will be most helpful in their mission (especially as it pertains to Jews) in order to try and convert us.**
Many people who have also been hurt from inside of Xtianity or by the broader Xtian culture they live in seek to deconstruct those ideas by creating an inverse of Xtianity in one way or another. Those who turn to Satanism typically do this by worshipping the opposite force of the Xtian god. Those who turn to neo-paganism typically do this by embracing an unambiguously polytheistic religion and/or by turning to the cultural historical enemies of Xtianity. Those who turn to atheism typically do this by rejecting "God," "faith," and "organized religion" (as these concepts are understood by Xtian norms.)
And honestly? That's fine. If it helps, if it brings you meaning and joy, knock yourselves out. I have no problem with people turning to these beliefs for reasons of healing as well as simply being drawn to it. And for what it's worth, I did a similar thing by turning to Judaism. Obviously I had many other reasons for becoming a Jew as well, and I assume that's true for the aforementioned folks, too. Judaism healed a lot of Xtianity-shaped wounds for me, and if your paganism, Satanism, and/or atheism helps you in the same way as well as bringing you meaning, I sincerely wish you the best.
However, the problem is that many times, unless you turn to Judaism and learn our side of the story, it's very difficult to deconstruct the antisemitism of your past entanglement with Xtianity. Xtian antisemitism has permeated western society so thoroughly for so long that it is real *work* to identify and unlearn it. Those converting to Judaism have the benefit of the Jewish community and extensive educational resources to help. Other folks do not.
Here's the problem: if you simply invert Xtian ideas, you are still treating Xtianity as the baseline reality from which your other assumptions and beliefs flow. If you just choose the opposite at every chance, you divorce yourself from Xtianity, but not its prejudices.
Now you might fairly ask, "hey Avital, if we are making the opposite choice at every turn, wouldn't that invert the antisemitism to being at least neutral if not positive towards Judaism?" And that would be perfectly logical! But unfortunately deeply and (for us) dangerously incorrect.
The reason is because (1) antisemitism has never been rational but reactionary instead, (2) philosemitism is also bad, and (3) it is structured in a way that it's pretty much always "heads I win, tails you lose." Have you ever noticed that according to antisemites, Jews are both ultra-white and also dirty foreign middle eastern invaders? That we are supposedly very powerful and run the world, but are also weak and degenerate? That both the Right and the Left have extensive antisemitism problems? Etc.? There's a reason - it's because antisemitism is designed to other us no matter what. So oftentimes I see folks inverting Xtian philosemitism to being "those awful fundamentalist Old Testamenters" or inverting Xtian antisemitism to valorizing Judaism, but only to the extent that they can meme-ify our religion down to fighting God and/or being un-pious godless liberals.
But like other groups, we are a diverse and complicated group with a very long history and a lot of trauma to boot.
If you're trying to unpack your Xtian conditioning, please also unpack your antisemitism and philosemitism. If not for our sake and for it being the right thing to do, at least do it for yourselves, because unless you deconstruct that as well, you will still be operating within a really ugly aspect of a Xtian mindset.
(**Please note that this isn't literally all Xtians everywhere, but it is a lot of Xtians in most places and throughout most of history. There are absolutely Xtians who are good allies to Jews, but they are much smaller in number and are swimming upstream in their relationship to both Jews and Xtianity.)
2K notes
·
View notes
Text
qsmp has accidentally stumbled into a psychology experiment that would make the stanford prison experiment sob in fear. they’ve gotten a bunch of cc’s, and tens of thousands of viewers, to be deeply emotionally connected to pixel eggs. in doing so they’ve presented a problem:
how the fuck do you get outta this
the eggs were obviously never intended to be permanent (logging on every day to do tasks isn’t feasible to upkeep forever) and they were even given a vague limit of When Mama Dragon Comes Back (and then, of course, the “6 days til they die” thing). now you’ve made it so quackity (and his team) have a big ol dilemma, where two things are true: 1) they can’t keep the eggs forever since it’s not sustainable 2) you can’t take away the eggs without, oopsies, emotionally damaging your friends that you invited to have fun on your server.
turns out, when you give a group of humans all their own fully-realized individual who presents as a (weak, vulnerable) child that is in need of care from them, whatever instinct has kept us alive for generations goes “!!!!!” which is both really cool and compassionate, but also kinda concerning!
because, well: not sustainable! and if the eggs aren’t sustainable, what’s the alternative? killing them?? no! just look at jaiden’s reaction to bobby “losing” a life, even when it wasn’t his last one. or bad’s genuinely heart wrenching reaction to dapper losing a life. or how quiet and angry phil got after chayanne and tallulah had a “nightmare,” before it was resolved. that’s not acting. that’s real. what the hell will they do if the eggs actually die? from what i see, the cc’s are taking the “6 days til death” thing as something that’s avoidable. a threat that can be overcome. and for their sake, i hope it is.
ever played a dnd game where you actually feel insulted bc of smth someone’s pc did? yeah. that x20 because there’s SO much overlap between “streamer persona” and “literally just who they are”. and this level of roleplay character bleeding is cool, but i hope the eggs are handled carefully, or all those involved might end up actually hurt.
there’s also the whole added element of fans, many of whom only tune into the streams for egg content. the plot is very egg-centric. the roleplaying and characterization that the cc’s are doing is all centered around the eggs in one way or another. it’s been going on for a month, but it does not feel at all resolved, and plot-wise it would completely mess up so many plot threads happening if the eggs were all to go (charlie’s unresolved deal with lil j, quackity’s goal to bond with tallulah, the trial, etc etc) so if you take away the eggs, you risk messing up the whole vibe they’ve got going on, and facing backlash from fans who are also emotionally compromised by pixel eggs
we inherently want to protect the cute and vulnerable, and by god are these eggs cute and so very fragile. (then, there’s another layer of people’s own issues that they project onto the eggs. be it desire for paternity, some kind of maternal instinct, or, even in the matter of chayanne, using chayanne as a sort of way to cope with loss by making connections between chayanne and technoblade. which is beautiful and very sweet but would give chayanne dying some additional emotionally charged elements which i think should be avoided at all costs). there’s a reason that movies and other media generally do not kill named children characters—audiences really hate it. it’s taboo for good reason.
which leads us to
schrodinger’s egg: until sunday, they r both alive and dead. and this is both good and bad. god help us all
#please handle it carefully please handle it carefully please handle it carefully please handle it carefully please handle it carefully pleas#eggs :)#qsmp#quackity#Wilbur soot#tallulah#Philza#Charlie slimecicle#pleaasseeeeee#and this isn’t even touching on how the eggs feel#emotionally connected to somebody#never to talk to them again#having to watch them be sad#knowing it’s because of you#kinda fucked up#badboyhalo#dapper#Jaiden animations
4K notes
·
View notes
Text
Anyway that's what I got out of doing drugs yesterday and getting stuck in an endless loop of trying to assert the right to create meaning every three fucking minutes only to wind up on the floor in a body immaterial and wasted and all my thoughts flown to little bits and then getting up and trying again, which is exactly as bad as it sounds
#it was so bad#like having my bones shattered isnt 'fun' but#there was a structure to the world in which my bones were shattered that made it the right thing to do#and something in which i was engaged and complicit even though i obviously couldnt like. stop gravity#this was just bad and pointless and also i forgot the ouside world existed except for the implied judgment inherent#in being preoccupied with how stupid and weak and childish i must look
0 notes
Text
Dark features/people as blessed, white and light people as sick
ladyoftheseastuff asked:
I'm writing a fantasy story where the world is permanently covered in snow & ice. The people share a common culture & are loyal to their city states, but they are not homogeneous in appearance; there will be many, many characters coded as PoC. The main religion centers on the sun, & those with dark features are 'favoured' by the sun god, while pale people or anyone who has white/blonde hair are thought vulnerable to "snow sickness", a disease caused by environmental factors (1/2)
& have other rules and customs to gain religious approval. It's dangerous & infectious but not well understood. It affects social standing and opportunities, but it's meant to be tied with ideas of youth, vitality, & fear of aging & sickness: it's not limited to those coded as white. This is a cultural detail and not part of the main conflict, but I want to avoid unintentional allegories/parallels & fetishization. Is this a concept that's too close to crossing any of those lines? (2/2)
This feels less like a means to show dark skinned people in an empowering light and more like a weak attempt at subversion. My primary concern (which you have not specified) is how do the "blessed" class treat the "sickly" so to speak. We have fantasy stories like The Grisha Trilogy and Girls of Paper and Fire, which deal with magical ability/feature-based segregation and conflict.
In both cases there is a sense of entitlement which comes with hailing from the "favoured" class, quite obvious, since there will always be an inherent othering metaphor whenever you create such a division, whether it was meant to be a source of conflict or not.
However, the two mentioned series use the "magical people are blessed, non magical people are to be pitied" arc which is somewhat more subtle than divisions created just on the basis of skin colour.
Disclaimer as I do not have albinism or vitiligo: The latter can be extremely harmful, and not just in a racial context, but in cases of albinism, vitiligo etc.
~Mod Mimi
The pitfalls of subversions
While it is always lovely to see dark features considered in a favorable way, there are some issues you may come across. Such a story could easily end up dressing those you wished to uphold as bad guys in the readers' eyes, even if the story's society and the sun god etc. thinks they're amazing, and white and light people as the victims of dark people, deserving reader sympathy. This may especially be the case based on how these groups get treated in the story.
These sort of subversions lean dangerously into "reverse discrimination" plots which are not overall accurate or favorable allegories for your real, human audience. There being diversity on both sides doesn't necessary fix this issue or remove racial or ethnic implications. On that note, and as Mimi mentioned, being demonized and ostracized particularly for skin and genetic disorders like albinism is already a thing. What does your concept say of them?
I think Dark/Black as good and Light/white as bad is a doable concept. Your concept differs a bit from simply subverting black/white tropes. This is not just Black good guys and night skies being peaceful or neutral. It's not just white/light villains (as opposed to victims) or snow symbolling death or sickness.
White and light people are quite blatantly being declared as sick and unfavored and they may very well be victims in the reader's eye with the dark people being the villainous, unsympathetic bunch. Is this your intention?
More to consider
Such a concept requires thoughtful, careful planning and intentional writing. You should have an understanding of what your story implies to the readers and the real-life takeaways.
I think it's possible to make dark skin the favored skin of the sun god without it meaning white/light people stand in a negative light and are sick or unworthy.
Consider what it is that you like about the concept of your story. Can you keep the essence of whatever it is that excites you about your ideas, without denying a whole group of people favor? If not, how will you go about telling such a tale that is not meant to symbolize a sort of reversal of roles discrimination?
Why does the sun god get to determine what is good?
Are there other gods that might have different strong opinions? Perhaps who is favored varies by time of day, season, region, culture, god?
Can dark skin get its favor without white and light features being deemed unfavorable as a whole?
How big of a deal does this favor have to be? I advise reconsidering it being the point of discrimination to white/light people for all the reasons already described.
No matter the directions you go, please research and get the appropriate beta-readers for feedback on the in-depth concepts and story.
~Mod Colette
602 notes
·
View notes
Text
As a female gamer, one thing I love about Fromsoftware games is their female characters.
For me, a game having decent female characters is a huge selling point. I literally bought Elden Ring (and therefore got into souls games) just because of Malenia. She is literally the sole reason why I bought the game. I even bought the collectors edition of the game so I could get the figurine of her, which sits at the top shelf of my glass display shelf along with a figurine of Lady Maria.
I love how fleshed out the female characters are in Fromsoftware games. I love how the female characters are allowed to just be people, and not have their entire character revolve around them being female. They're allowed to be kind, mean, caring, selfish, deceitful, cunning, mysterious, vulnerable, strong, weak, and so many other things.
Even in the modern age, there are still so many games coming out that use female characters for just fanservice. All the time, I see games underutilize their female characters or just set them to the side entirely. Not once have I ever felt like a female character was used for fanservice in a Fromsoftware game, or at least, their entire character wasn't based around it.
I'm not saying that fanservice is inherently bad, I'm just saying that it gets a little exhausting when all of your favorite female characters, especially in video games, get over sexualized to the point where there's NSFW content of them everywhere. I know the same thing happens with some male characters, but I see it a lot more often with female characters.
I feel like a lot of newer games should take some notes from Fromsoftware when it comes to making female characters. It's 2023, after all.
#fromsoftware#dark souls#ds3#elden ring malenia#malenia#lady maria#sister friede#soulsborne#bloodborne#elden ring#games#rant#female characters in video games#i could write a lot more about this but if i did this post would become too long#resident evil#dmc
445 notes
·
View notes
Text
The way some people talk about “misogynistic writing” with the female genshin archons—specifically Nahida & Furina— kills me a bit, because while i do feel there’s valid criticisms of genshin’s writing to be made (especially regarding Ei, who I do feel was done a massive disservice writing wise), often I see people seem to come from a place of not understanding the writing/characters well, and/or leaning into like…very reductive ideas of what makes a female character “good” that honestly says more about their biases than Genshin’s
For example, a common complaint I see against Nahida & Furina is about them being made to be “weak/unserious” and how this is bad writing because genshin is unwilling to take their characters seriously—but the way this is argued seems to suggest Furina & Nahida would be better characters if they were more physically powerful, mature, or “cooler” in some way. But I really dislike the notion of girlbossification being seen as the one standard of good writing for women. A girl being strong and independent and able to punch things really hard isn’t a marker of inherent good writing
Nahida and Furina not being physically powerful or completely sure of themselves is the point. Their lack of life-experience-based maturity and overpowering physical strength are intentional and points of strength for their character writing, not flaws or weaknesses:
Nahida is the God of Wisdom—her primary source of strength is her intelligence, which comes from her curiosity about the world that is intrinsically linked to her being very caring by nature. The reason Nahida is at a disadvantage in physical strength with the antagonists—Scaramouche and Dottore—and doesn’t have an epic moment where she brute force overpowers them, isn’t because Genshin is treating Nahida like an incompetent joke, it’s because her character highlights the overall theme in Sumeru’s AQ that power isn’t everything and strength/wisdom comes from many places.
She outsmarts both Scaramouche and Dottore through her ability to strategize—if you’re trying to sell Nahida as a character who embodies wisdom, it’s far stronger writing wise to have her use her wisdom and mind to overcome narrative conflict than have her be all powerful. If you don’t think Nahida revealing she’s trapped Scaramouche in a dream loop after he tries to rip her gnosis from her, or her standing her ground against Dottore and forcing him to bargain with her when he attempts to intimidate her into giving him what he wants doesn’t make her “cool” or interesting….idk ! Maybe it’s not the writing and just your personal preference for character appeal
Furina —without getting too deep into 4.2 spoilers—has an arc revolving around the loneliness & conflict of needing to mold yourself into a performance for a greater purpose, and grappling with personal identity and autonomy in the aftermath of performance and repression shaping your life. I really don’t understand how people watch how she’s handled and come away with the conclusion her character gets bent around Nuevillette’s man pain/the fact he’s just so ~much more competent than her unless you’re just really not interested in trying to engage Furina’s writing or taking it in confusingly bad faith
Her struggling with lacking the physical power/competence a god “should” have is, again, the point of her character and they are very clear where that lack of ability comes from within the writing. Her narrative actions follow an arc that revolves around this internal conflict she has—she feels very established to be her own person and they certainty don’t shy away from expanding on Furina’s emotions without it only being done as footing for other (male) characters
I think Nahida & Furina were just not what people were expecting the Dendro & Hydro Archon to be like, I also see a lot of complaints that neither of them “act like gods” or “seem very godlike” but see, in my opinion, one of the central themes to genshin overall is to examine the relationship between humanity and the divine. Part of this also includes calling into question what a god should be, especially in relation to humans/having a sense of humanity
The center conflict within Nahida & Furina’s characters is that their sense of humanity is at odds with being held to what being a god “should” be. Nahida is imprisoned by the Sages who treat her with disdain for being a child and not being inhumanly perfect enough to be useful to them as a deity. We see Furina try to engage with her people earnestly in a more human way before realizing she needs to put up the performance that proceeds to shape her life & state of deep loneliness for the next 500 years to be taken seriously and fulfill her duties. You aren’t supposed to look at Nahida or Furina and think they’re all powerful otherworldly divine beings. You’re supposed to view the, as people—people who are young and inexperienced regarding their position in life. Venti and Zhongli act like people in the same way—the only difference is they have more experience and have had the time to accomplish more feats as original members as the Seven
Again, it’s not that I don’t think there’s criticisms to be made. Genshin to me sets up Ei to be a character who requires a lot of self reflection/growth and thought with handling her moral dubiousness, and then out of desperately worrying she won’t be likable enough, seems to bend over with trying to insist on Ei being palpably appealing while not following through on a lot of what her character really needs to feel well handled. (I feel they barely even address Ei needing to rebuild trust with her people and it’s only more clear when you now see Furina spend a lot of time handling something similar despite doing less um, government oppression thsn Ei did for instance HDJNDJDJ. But I guess me pinning where my personal dissatisfaction with her writing comes from is another post in of its own and more based in general issues with Inazuma vs viewing it as misogynistic writing alone) The trend of not letting a female character grapple with her morality and try to push her being livable at the expense of addressing her complexity does honestly feel it falls into a misogynistic writing trends. I am really bummed out with Ei’s execution when genshin has proven through other characters along with Nahida and Furina they are capable of handling a character like her writing wise imo
But I really think, again, if someone thinks none of genshin’s women are engaging or interesting, or that Nahida and Furina aren’t taken seriously enough narratively while seeming to not really understand the intent of the characters’ writing, or want to take them seriously unless they’re cool/girlboss-y enough, I feel it may say more about their ideas of handling women in fiction than it does about genshin. I get personal preferences and not being really into a character, but people so frequently frame it as a possibly misogyny pattern with how genshin writes the female archons and I can’t help but disagree. I think sometimes people don’t consider what the story is trying to say with the characters vs what they think is cool or want (and of course what we all think is cool or may want/expect narratively is always informed by our own biases). There’s a level of subjectivity in how you can interpret writing and narratives of course but they’re just not interpretations I feel fit into what’s presented in the text !
#fern.txt#nahida#furina#Genshin#archons#THEY DONT GET MY GIRLS GUYS#fandomferns#slight 4.2 spoilers for thr furina bits#I keep it mostly vague tho#smh it’s not like I see genshins writing as the holy grail but sometimes I think it’s solid#I enjoy nahida and furina a lot and feel people just don’t get it a lot#and yeah some of the ways ppl don’t get it…does feel kind of like. damn. misogyny.png#which especially kills me a bit when it’s funneled through a lens of insisting their issues w the chars r bc of sexist writing
218 notes
·
View notes
Text
I'm so curious about Kagha, because she's so different from Halsin. She and Halsin are both wood elves, and I get the sense that Kagha is probably not ~young~ but she's not nearly as old as Halsin. When you deal with the Shadow Druids, she's very quick to defer to him and treat him like a teacher she's disappointed. He probably mentored her, if he's chosen her as his second in command - though, I would bet it's in more of a general thing in the way that the First Druid is everyone's mentor, rather than the clearly more direct and specific mentorship he has with Nettie as a healer.
Canonically, Halsin isn't an exceptionally good leader. He's not bad at it, and he has good instincts. He correctly surmises that after the dust-up with Kagha and the tieflings, the Emerald Grove needs an outsider to step in and lead without being tied to any particular grudges or politics. That's savvy enough that I think Halsin was a good First Druid, he just wasn't especially good or great at it and clearly didn't like the position. At worst, I think he let some situations fester because of his focus on the Shadow Curse.
But I'm not ready to say that he didn't realize Kagha was a proverbial snake in the grass ~the whole time~, because I don't think she was. I think she was genuinely and recently radicalized by the Shadow Druids. I think she probably had something of an edge before, maybe she was a hardass or had a mean streak or something. Regardless of how I feel about the quality of the Shadow Druid subplot (which is that I think its pacing is meh and Kagha's face-turn is way too fast and kind of shitty), I think it speaks to the fact that her care for the Grove is genuine. That perhaps Halsin's failure with her wasn't in not realizing she was A Bad Person Actually, but in not tending to her insecurities or noticing that she might be feeling isolated, if she was so effectively shaken by the Shadow Druids' fearmongering.
The recent wave of IRL cults should have taught us all by now that everyone is susceptible to cult tactics if they're sufficiently scared and alone, and BG3 is a game riddled with various cults. You don't have to already be a bad person, or a stupid or weak person, to fall for them. And I think Kagha's story is way less interesting if you just think she's an evil power hungry shrew too stupid to keep herself from being radicalized.
She clearly has a nasty streak, but her apologies and regrets also sound sincere, if you manage to hear them. Even when she isn't "redeemed", she accepts her punishments, even if she does so bitterly and not believing she was wrong. And I have to wonder just how much of that mean streak is self-defensive rather than inherent in her, how much of it is that she struggles to admit failure and learn from it. Or how much is her modeling Halsin's level of single-minded commitment, picking a methodology or an action and throwing all of her weight behind it, even when it may no longer be working.
I wish characters like Kagha got nearly as much love and fandom development and benefit of the doubt as someone like Ketheric. I think she has a ton of potential for that, and way fewer crimes to her name than other fandom favorites who just happen to also be, you know. Men.
#bg3#baldur's gate 3#kagha#halsin#bg3 spoilers#bog post#tbh i get more fond of kagha in every playthrough#also i wonder how much of kagha being so high strung#is BECAUSE halsin was obsessed with the shadow curse#i wonder how much of his responsibility as first druid#were already being performed by kagha#saddled with the tasks but not the responsibility#not the ability to make new decisions#THAT will certainly make someone feel unbalanced and insecure#i like the idea that he chose her because of their differences in temperament perhaps#but how much of that was savvy decision-making#and how much of it was saddling her with extra burdens#to make up for halsin's preoccupation and distraction
102 notes
·
View notes
Text
So I made the mistake of stumbling onto the NOT STEVE ROGERS FRIENDLY tag today and..
You have to be a special type of delusional to be this obsessed with a character you don't like!??
Over 2k fics have the tag and are almost entirely Tony Stark-centered fics. I'm assuming these are the "fans" who totally buy into the MCU canon and don't know any other Captain America lore outside of what Feige and Whedon have done. Or, they're the "fans" who refuse to understand the politics behind Steve's character and how he was inherently undermined throughout the entire ten years of the MCU by the directors and writers for most of the films.
Because the arguments in most of these fics for being "not Steve rogers friendly" are really surface level shit like:
1) "Steve refused to sign the Accords and broke up the Avengers" (he was right & he didn't break them up, an overemotional Tony did when he refused to listen to Bucky's side of the story).
2) Steve fought Tony and almost killed him (yeah, like Tony didn't blast Bucky's arm off and shoot his repulsor rays directly at Steve).
3)Steve is homophobic (y'all are just making up reasons to hate this man atp)
4)Steve is racist (Steve hated racists & you'd know that if you read the comics, or you guys are just that deluded that you're making Steve racist & trying to project it as canon and therefore a "reasonable" explanation as to why you hate him)
5)Blaming Steve for Rhodey's accident (WHICH WAS TEAM TONY'S FAULT!)
6)YALL, THEY MADE STEVE THE BAD GUY IN A BROCK RUMLOW/BUCKY FIC! I stg I cannot make this shit up💀 Steve's bad for wanting Bucky to be Bucky again, but somehow Brock's the good guy for wanting Bucky to be the Soldier...
Steve left Bucky for Peggy (we'll get to this soon)
There's a hundred more irrational reasons for the Steve Rogers hate, but let me get to the WORST part.
THERE ARE BUCKY STANS WHO ARE ANTI-STEVE ROGERS.
And I'm sorry, no. I don't accept that you love Bucky Barnes but hate the one person he loves the most in the world.
They argued in a couple fics that "Bucky also went rogue after Siberia but he didn't want to associate with Steve, Nat & the rest of the team- WHO HELPED RESCUE BUCKY & EVENTUALLY EXONERATE HIM- but rather, he went off on his own & eventually Tony finds him, they hash it out and become friends to lovers."
Helppp???? Wdym Bucky isn't gonna stick with the one man he's been keeping diaries about to try and get back his memories? But he'll go to the one guy that re-traumatized him by blowing out his arm again?
Not only that, but Bucky absolutely hates Steve in some of these fics and the reason will be, "he left Bucky to go back to Peggy." Like, you cannot be a serious fan if you're still going with the Endgame canon. For a majority of us, we recognize Endgame as being nothing but terrible writing and mischaracterizations. Why are yall not analyzing and interpreting media critically? The MCU has never been on Steve's side and have always diminished his character in an attempt to make Tony the ultimate hero of the OG 6. Don't yall know the discourse? It's embarrassing atp.
And this is my stance on the entire thing: there's nothing wrong with writing fics about characters you don't necessarily like or aren't interested in. It's OKAY if you don't like Steve Rogers- but you've gotta be rational about him, instead of hateful. Most, if not all of these "anti-steve" fics are written in bad faith. Bad understanding of the character and pure, shameless mischaracterizations which just makes these types of fics fickle and weak- hilarious to read though cos that Brock one had me deadddd😭💀.
#steve rogers#anti steve rogers#not steve rogers friendly#ao3#stucky#stony#tony stark#fanfic writers#yall gon learn today#bad writing#captain america#mcu#marvel#avengers endgame#infinity war#iron man#cacw#bucky barnes#the winter soldier#think piece#ted talks#mischaracterization#steve rogers hate is unsubstantiated#kevin feige#joss whedon
112 notes
·
View notes
Text
Would Artemis Fowl, from his book series, survive Castle Dracula?
pros:
Child Genius (psychology, physics, folklore and mythology, chess, and more)
Ruthless (blackmailed a fairy in exchange for magic knowledge, kidnapped another fairy for two tons of gold)
Determined (crawled through painful mildly radioactive sludge to save his friends once, travelled the arctic to save his dad)
Resourceful (literally a millionaire at the start of his series, has Magical Resources by the end)
Minor magic skills (weak capacity for commanding voice and resisting psychic commands)
cons:
overconfident (regularly underestimates his opponents. the times he was wrong about his opponents things went off the rails big time)
not physically fit (so bad that he considers buying exercising gear from an infomercial when faced by his own lack of athleticism, finds running in running shoes more awkward than in dress shoes)
insufferable (he must make it clear he is the smartest person in the room)
bad cook
---------
Oh heck this is a submission not an ask! Thaaaat's why my only option is "edit."
Gonna add the other two asks to it as well:
So. On the one hand he's a child so and both inherently delicious and easy to underestimate. On the other hand his underestimability might be somewhat undercut by his need to be the smartest guy in the room. One question is whether Dracula believes him to be the child genius that he is, because Dracula also thinks he's the smartest guy in the room and is dismissive (to his detriment) of other people's intellect. So once again this seems like it might wind up an underestimation contest. And between Fowle's extensive research and familiarity with the supernatural, I think he has the advantage here... unless it makes him overconfident?
The ability to resist mind-contol and potential preparedness is a double-edged sword. It means he won't lie still when the Girlies come to eat him - which means he'll get chased and hunted instead, and he certainly can't outrun them.
I can't see his incredible wealth helping him inside the Castle. His tech skills perhaps. Can he pick locks? How good is he at improvizing? How hamstrung will he be by the theft of his Stuff?
He's a genius though, right? So unlike poor Jonathan, he will probably figure out that there isn't any key. Two weeks of brain cudgelling might actually result in some kind of a Plan. I don't know what it could possibly be, but I am not a child genius. He definitely cannot make it down the wall, but if there's another available exit strategy he will find it.
The other factor is that Artemis Fowle is specifically an evil genius. Will he attempt to join forces with Dracula? Can he convince Dracula to let him be his, I dunno, project manager? Will Dracula abide by such a deal? (Will Artemis expect him to?)
I am leaning slightly towards Artemis Fowle surviving but I really don't know
135 notes
·
View notes
Text
flint fascinates me bc he comes off as rlly polite and kind
but also. not really. at all
they apologize often and it seems like they try to be nice to others, but then u look deeper and take into account different details
one of the biggest things abt flint that gets overlooked is that he likes drama .
i dont think liking drama itself is bad, why else do we have reality tv shows yk. but i think they actively indulge in it and one of the biggest things that points to this for me is how they treat the satellite investors
he seems to talk bad about them behind their backs, then can't handle the comeuppance of cosmo yelling at him.
this is further implied with cosmo saying they're "goin' around spreadin' lies", meaning flint does actively talk shit on what might be a regular basis. and flint saying "oh, no, I shouldn't have said that" implies FURTHER that they KNOW they're gonna get yelled at for it but continue to do it anyway with the hope cosmo wont find out. like hes not sorry for doing it, only sorry for getting caught.
cosmo gets HEAVILY neglected both in the community as a whole and whenever flint is brought up even though they have a really interesting and honestly hilarious dynamic (but thats for another post..)
whenever cosmo DOES get brought up in the context of he and flints relationship, people defend flint and blame cosmo for being "mean" to him. but tbh, i think cosmo has a fair point in this particular text. Flint can talk all he wants, but at the end of the day can't handle the consequences of it and lacks the confidence to put his foot down. He's a follower, not a leader (unlike cosmo, who flint looks up to canonically. WHICH NO ONE TALKS ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!)
flint also seems to have an interesting habit of apologizing even though he actively and intentionally attacks the toons right after
which i think is interesting. i think it's just a habit of his to say sorry when he knows he's doing/has done something wrong (especially bc he doesnt like facing the consequences), even if hes not actually sorry. Considering this is the same person who claims they like setting toons on fire, i dont think any of these apologies are sincere:
speaking of not being able to handle the consequences, when flint does get defeated by toons, there's a line that sticks out.
Specifically the "i'll be back" feels vengeful. Like he takes the defeat personally, and doesn't want to give up because it makes him feel weak and he wants to come out on top.
something else i find interesting and almost jarring in flint's dialogue is some of their Power Trip dialogue:
this dude is incredibly power hungry. he craves confidence and the ability to be a leader, given how he looks up to cosmo and is drawn to graham, who also appears confident.
speaking of graham, i think it's important to note that earlier, when flint was talking shit abt the satellite investors, he was saying that specifically to graham, who encourages flint not to "let people walk all over him".
graham encourages flint to feel more confident, which is not inherently a bad thing. confidence is great! and its something flint deserves. but i think there's an issue with how they choose to express this "confidence" on the rare occasions they do.
shown throughout this post, flint's way of trying to be confident is being power hungry, talking shit, and fighting toons . i think it's pretty clear that flint has been walked all over in the past and present, and it's caused them to become shy and a bit of a doormat. which he clearly doesn't like (more evidence of this is the fact that he explicitly dislikes belittling.)
and on the rare occasions when they're "allowed" to be confident, they proceed to belittle OTHERS, like toons. in a lot of their dialogue, they come off as condescending towards the toons, even if it's pretty awkward.
i think Flint deserves to feel confident, but the way they go about it is unhealthy. They've clearly been treated like a doormat and is fed up with it, and it seems like they lash out as a result. I think he has a good and genuine heart, but he almost comes off as bitter due to being walked all over constantly. its rlly interesting to dive into flint's flaws and the way they act due to their desperation for confidence, something they really lack.
#toontown#toontown corporate clash#ttcc#flint bonpyre#toontown firestarter#my big juicy brain in full effect#hi. flint was my first favorite. he has a very special place in my heart#i needed . to make a post talking about them.#i rlly do think abt em constantly#and the brainrot has been huge lately now that ive thought more abt their lack of confidence#and their lashing out bc of it#this post started as “flint is kind of an asshole actually”#then turned into a “his lack of confidence is what sometimes causes him to act like an asshole”#idk. its a messy ramble. but it works. my point is made#flint is my 3rd fav#or maybe. 2nd fav? since cathal and graham are tied for first#i intend to post abt him more. and also abt he and cosmos relationship bc its both interesting and hysterical
165 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
