i dont know man, im just.
99 percent of the shit i write and the art i make and the things i do in general never see the light of day. i dont post them and i dont share them and someday when i die someone might go through my shit and theyre going to find just. so much. so much that i have poured my heart and soul and love into and i will be the only one who ever saw it.
and a lot of that is because of fear. fear that its not good enough. that im not good enough to be worth sharing.
but its also fear that these things that i fill with myself will be taken and twisted and turned into something terrible. that the pieces of my identity that are woven into everything i do will be noticed, ripped out and pointed and laughed at. or worse, i think, that theyll get glossed over. that theyll fly so far under the radar that theyll get flipped.
i write queer stories and i put my queer self into them and i am afraid to be told that im hurting with them. with me. doing more harm than good. im afraid they would be right.
but i also like to believe that somewhere out there is at least one person who would feel seen in what i do. that they would see the pieces of me and feel like theyre looking in a mirror.
i like to think that of all the heartbreaking things ive read, and feet-kicking-y moments and the scenes you have to step back from and take a breath, and the books ive apparently read but have no memory of- i could be that for other people.
i mean maybe it sounds ridiculous or sad but i would love to be oh yeah i forgot about that one and i wish i hadnt wasted my time and oh my god i will never stop thinking about this and it is a thing i read. sure.
but im also terrified of what it would do to me to have any of those things on a large scale. i wrote fanfiction for several years and all i ever received was praise but that was terrifying too. i was so worried about letting people down. and that paralyzed me in a way, and i think i ended up letting people down anyway by quitting.
i went back to hiding my everything because the second i let any of it go there was an expectation. maybe not from everyone else but from me. i expected myself to continue to please people. i expected myself to keep up with it. keep producing and keep making people happy and when i would literally pass out while writing i would just be angry at myself for missing a self imposed deadline.
and maybe im better off this way. maybe im better off writing the stories i want to read and making the art i want to see and doing it all just for me only. because i still get the stories and i still get the art and i still get to cut myself open and pour myself into them. but they stay mine, and they stay whole and i stay afraid.
fuck man, maybe all this is proof that it doesn't even matter if i put shit out there, im going to twist it all around into something its not. i wanted to jot down some thoughts about queer media and also the imposter syndrome of writing, which i guess i did but i didnt mean for it to go like this. ive hurt myself in my own confusion.
i dont know. life is hard. everything is hard. but i think i make it worse for myself.
0 notes
It's gets extremely annoying when you're the one that gets told about everyone's life and problems, but when you try to voice your frustration or talk about something you get a "yeah" or a "hmm" and that person just beings the conversation back to themselves.
It gets exhausting. It makes me want to stop listening to you. It makes me want to stop reaching out.
I love hearing about the important things going on in people's life,, but I don't need a run down of the fact that you mowed the grass, swept and cleaned thia and that EVERY SINGLE DAY.
It's unnecessary...especially when I tried to voice that I'm having a tough time and you keep talking about what you cooked last night.
That's not what friends do. Period.
0 notes
Dam being a Jason Grace stan in the fandom is a fucking tragedy lol. Not only do we have to deal with him being screwed over by uncle Rick, but we have to deal with the fandom hating him aswell lol, i feel like Jason Grace slander wouldnt affect me half as much if his character had gotten a happy ending. I just saw an Instagram reel about a "character's povs you skipped through'' and the comments were flooded with Jason Grace just like I'd expected lol 😭 like blud has no mercy there.
It took all my will power to not defend him under a comment that called him "homophobic", I cannot believe that comment had 4 people agreeing aswell like- did we read the same books? Did they completey skip over the coming out chapter in HOH where jason was literally the first person to tell Nico not to be ashamed of liking guys and that no one would judge him? the guy is legit one of the least problematic characters and does nothing mean, how is he even CONSIDERED in the homophobic area anyway? (he also gets slandered for being "too nice" aswell lol) so seeing him wind up in such a contradictory accusation just screams tone deaf and anti-jason bias tbh, Nico legit said he considered jason as one of his first friend/supporter (apart from his sisters) in TSATS :') its like ppl keep throwing in these false stuff bc they WANT to find a reason to hate him. (dont take this as me saying you are not allowed to hate him or something cuz that would be quite hypocritical of me, wouldnt it? i just hate that ppl make up problematic hcs of him and push them as canon, it would taint non-reader's perception of him because of false info, what if a non reader stumbled across that comment and immediately figured that jason was indeed homophobic even when he wasn't?)
Also, can we please normalize NOT judging a person for their character preferences? I like jason and i am aware that its an unpopular take, but that doesnt make me any less of a pjo fan. The fandom seems pretty aggressive when we dont follow the popular opinion. i have seen multiple ppl pretend to hate jason simply bc they WANT to fit in and "look cool", since the fandom has a tendency to use Jason as a punching bag to insult like "he's a knockoff percy" or "he thinks he's so cool but he's not". or smth, so when people do claim jason as a favourite, a huge chunk of the fandom start belittling them and go like "really? Out of all characters, why jason?" Or "Percy/Leo is better, I don't understand why you like Jason"
okay thanks for coming to my ted talk. i am aware that i was yapping here. unfair Jason Grace slander does that to me.
358 notes
·
View notes
I started vnc way back when there was only one volume, stopped, and only restarted it last week 🙈 since then, I have reread it twice and will again, once I'm done with exams, as it has turned me insane. And since no one I know reads it, I just wanted to ask what your thoughts are on my theory that the reason not 'didn't reach out to vanitas' thus leading to his death is because of Ruthven compulsion on him? Cuzco after the 'ill never set you free'thing, I just can't see noel not reaching out tonight purpose. Your blog is a joy to read through, and I love your meta!
Hello!! Thank you so much! It's always great to see another person having fun with my favorite manga :D.
My thoughts on Vanitas's eventual death are. complicated. If we keep going down the path we're on now, I honestly suspect Vanitas's death is going to be more assisted suicide than murder. IE, Vanitas asks for Noé to kill him because it's preferable to the alternative.
Per Ruthven's compulsion, I definitely think it's going to come up, and I do like the idea of Ruthven trying to force Noé to hurt or kill Vanitas, but I don't think it's going to be how Vanitas dies. In a way, I think that would feel somewhat cheap.
Noé killing Vanitas because of his oath to Ruthven would make sense on a plot level. It's a nice, logical explanation for why Noé would kill someone he so clearly adores. I can see why it's a lot of people's theory! However, that explanation wouldn't really deliver on an emotional level. It's just not interesting for Noé's characterization.
For one thing, making Noé kill Vanitas when he's not in control of himself would strip away all of Noé's agency. With VnC's opening chapter, Mochijun sets us up so that the entire time we're reading, we're asking ourselves "but why will Noé kill him?" It's a big source of intrigue and suspense. And to me, finally resolving that suspense with "It's not his fault! He was artificially forced to!" feels like a major letdown. It adds nothing to Noé's character. It's answering that all-important "why" with "There is no reason why. He didn't actually want to." I think that would be a cop-out.
Through that denial of agency, I think this ending would also risk losing out on a lot of potential character development for Noé. The core of Noé and Louis's tragedy is that Noé desperately wanted to save Louis, but the only kind of salvation Louis wanted from him was death, and Noé couldn't give him that.
Now Noé has another person close to him that is also seeking salvation through death. If Noé kills Vanitas, but he's not in control of himself when he does, that misses out on a big opportunity. Has Noé come to understand salvation through death? Has his worldview changed since Louis made that request of him? Does he have it in him to kill a loved one if that's what they ask? If Vanitas's death is forced by Ruthven, then we're much less likely to get answers to those questions.
Personally, my favorite hope/theory for how Ruthven's order will play out is the idea that Ruthven will order Noé to hurt/stop/kill Vanitas, but Vanitas will manage to snap Noé out of it in the same way Noé broke Vanitas's self-hypnosis in the amusement park. There's nothing I love more than a gay little parallel.
I can see a scenario where Ruthven's oath is what pushes Vanitas close to death? Maybe Noé will be ordered to try to kill Vanitas, and that will set off whatever horrible chain of events pushes Vanitas to ask for death that final time. But even if Ruthven does order Noé to hurt Vanitas (which is a big if), I don't think it will be what causes the killing blow.
29 notes
·
View notes
Do you think the Logan abuse allegations might go into CSA territory? Unlike a lot of people I’m not 100% convinced roman experienced this, but people are speculating on Twitter that accusations of Logan’s physical and emotional abuse will snowball into CSA territory. If that’s the case I’d certainly imagine Logan was complicit rather than an abuser himself (if anyone probably uncle Mo?), but nevertheless shocking if it does come out
oooh i have a lot of thoughts about this actually!
personally, i'm with you -- i'm in the minority of people who don't think roman CSA is as good as canon, primarily because i don't think it needs to be in order for him to make sense. i think it's definitely possible and would certainly fit with his character, but a lot of people frame CSA as, like, The Explainer to roman roy which i just find kind of silly and cheap. people act like that's the only possible way he could turn out the way he has, and not only is that just blatantly untrue, it's also a pretty strange, diminishing narrative -- the way people talk about it really sounds like they're saying Well If You Have Sexual Dysfunction You Only Make Sense If Someone Molested You As A Child, which is just... not quite how things work. obviously, it's a reason someone might have those issues, but it certainly isn't the only one. i can write another post later on why i think rome makes sense outside of CSA if people want, but rn i'll just focus specifically on why i'm not convinced that CSA will become explicitly relevant to roman's character, especially not in relation to logan (and why i personally kinda hope that isn't the direction they take)
more under the cut!
for one thing just personally really doubt succession would make anything that explicit, that clear cut. like, i really don't think there's going to be a scene confirming or denying whether roman experienced CSA. and, as you said, i don't think logan was the abuser himself but i could see him covering it up for mo. maybe. i don't know. i don't know! it feels a little weird to me, honestly, just knowing logan's obsession with having power over his kids, his disgust at roman's grossness, and his blatant homophobia, it feels somewhat hard for me to conceptualize him not giving a shit about a colleague of his assaulting his son. i don't think he'd care for the right reasons, but i think he'd view it as either a) an attack on him and a disturbing power play -- you think you can take my kids out from under me? you think you can fucking control them? you?], b) absolutely fucking disgusting like the most sicko-ness of sickos -- not only are you attracted to m*n you're attracted to my weak little fuck of a son? what the fuck's wrong with you? are you not a man?, or c) both. like, idk. i just find it really hard to imagine that's something he would take lying down -- not out of protectiveness for roman but out of personal offense or pure disgust. i don't think he'd out it to the world or anything, he has his company to protect, but i think mo or whoever would definitely be cut out and shushed with hush money or something. which is still complicit, sure, but it isn't like i think logan would have actively turned a blind eye, which seems to be the prevailing opinion. it just... it doesn't fit from what we know of logan.
also, CSA is like.... it's inarguably bad. like, obviously. but succession thrives in realms of nuance. logan is abusive and horrible but you understand him. if you try to, you really can understand him. it doesn't excuse or justify anything, but he has a very human mindset that stops him from being, like, straight-up Evil. every succession character is a human before anything else, no one's a caricature (except maybe for s4 greg, but i'm withholding judgment there for now). succession fails if any character's deeds outweigh their humanity. no one is hitler. everyone thinks they're doing the best that they possibly can, including logan. that's why brian cox says logan's issue is he loves his kids too much -- he gets shit on for saying that, because i mean it does sound batshit, but i do get what he's saying. logan does not like his kids but he does love them. the reason he's so awful to them is because he loves them -- not in the sense that 'love is abuse' or whatever i'm about to get angry asks yelling ab, but because the only reason logan can't just let them go off and be disappointments is because he loves them. his abuse is not out of pure malevolence. it's because he wants them to become people they fundamentally aren't. that's what it comes down to. it's not just Evil Dad Hates Kids. logan wants so desperately for his children to become real people, people he can like and respect and trust and rely on, but they aren't those people, and that's something he's been entirely incapable of accepting. his abuse is an attempt to mold and to change and to fix, not just to punish. that's why the "i love you, but you are not serious people" was such an important line -- in some senses, it kind of was the end of logan's arc. it made a lot of sense for him to die there. where else could he go? he finally admitted what he'd known deep down all along: his children will never be the people he wants or needs them to be. no amount of pressure or competition or carrot-dangling will change that. he loves them, but they are not serious people.
that's why Logan CSA Committer/Allower feels really hard to imagine, both from a character standpoint and from a succession one in general — making logan an official CSA Allower would make it really, really hard for him to maintain the same kind of humanity and nuance he has as a character, which is rooted in the fact that logan doesn't hate his kids or want them to suffer. he wants them to become the peak of masculinist capitalism and none of them are capable of it. so if anything, he'd be furious at anyone who assaulted his kids because it would push them further from that ideal -- it would make them Wrong. if a boy were to be forced into sexual submission at a young age by an older man, they'd never be able to become that capitalistic ideal of masculinity; they're already fundamentally wrong. logan's anger would be directed both at the boy (roman) and at the man who forced it on him. but, to me, it seems like much of logan's anger with roman stems from his genuine lack of understanding as to how the fuck roman ended up like this -- how could a son of his end up like this? it's a personal failing for logan, one that he can't puzzle out. what did he do so wrong for roman to become the antithesis of literally everything logan stands for? i feel like if roman were a CSA victim and logan knew, he would probably... i don't know, try less to fix him. it's fucking awful, but i kind of feel like logan would find roman to be Tainted already and want to just shove him somewhere he doesn't have to look at him. but we see time and time again logan genuinely trying to squeeze the wrongness out of roman -- that's where his abuse of rome stems from, not so much molding him into the Right person as it is unmolding him out of being Wrong (bc only then can he do his ken/shiv tactics to mold him into being an heir) -- and try to understand in his misguided, cruel, offensive way what exactly is wrong with roman. i think if he knew, he wouldn't bother. he wouldn't ask, like "are you scared of pussy, son?" and "are you a sicko?" and call him gay slurs and all of that, because i think that would be too close to the truth he can't bear to acknowledge. just like how he pretends he had never and would never hit roman, even though he has, multiple times, both as a child and an adult. he wouldn't directly address something that brings shame to him, and having his son be the victim of CSA would indeed bring him a great deal of shame (not guilt, but shame). so, like, while it's true that logan's relationship with roman could be founded primarily in CSA-driven misdirected anger and victim blaming, i just again don't think that's necessary for their relationship to make sense, and that the nuances of their relationship almost make me feel like that's not the case either.
i also just personally think roman would maybe be more interesting were he not a CSA victim -- if it's confirmed that he is, everyone will be like Whelp Roman Solved! like, that would be all that's needed to explain him (or at least that's how people would act). and that would be such a fucking shame, man. i just think that there are a decent number of people in the world who have dysfunction not dissimilar to roman's who also aren't CSA victims and really, really struggle to figure out what exactly made them this way, especially when the entire world is acting like the only possible cause is CSA. and there are portrayals of CSA on television and in media. but... i can't think of anyone else like roman. i think him not having CSA and his dysfunction stemming instead from less obvious, more subtle-ly debilitating power dynamics and narratives of masculinity/sex would just be much more interesting, as even if succession handled his CSA with care, the majority of people would just see it as well, case closed, finally we understand roman. as if he isn't already perfectly understandable without it. maybe i'm just really biased as someone who thankfully did not experience CSA but seemingly inexplicably ended up quite similar to roman in a lot of ways, as someone who actually gets to feel a little more normal for once because of roman's abnormality. i just think there's a lot more to sex and sexual dysfunction than media often presents, because many storylines and characters are just very easy cause and effect relationships (CSA --> sexual dysfunction, rape --> hypersexuality, etc etc etc) when in reality there are so many ways that even tiny things could build up over time and end up manifesting in really detrimental ways. you can have a bad relationship with sex before ever having it, because sex is about soooo much more than the actual act of sex. and succession is about life and mirroring it, not creating easily understandable characters and narratively satisfying conclusions. so, yeah, i guess i don't know if succession will go down the CSA route, because that just feels... a little easy to me, maybe, when it doesn't need to be. not saying CSA is a bad plot point or anything, but that it is something depicted (and unfortunately often sensationalized) on television a lot, whereas characters with inexplicable sexual hangups are not.
i definitely hope this season delves further into roman's sexual dysfunction, but i'm kind of hoping it doesn't just explain it all away as Well He Was A Victim Of CSA, bc i think a) roman makes sense without it, b) the logistics of it happening relating to logan feel murky and confusing, c) succession isn't the type of show to outright Explain Things (and thank god), and d) there are a lot of people, i think, who have issues with sex they don't understand or that they don't 'deserve' to have, and i've never seen another character in any media that's depicted like that, although i have seen explorations into CSA.
sorry this was so long, but as i said, many fucking thoughts!!
107 notes
·
View notes