#And I do understand what the writers were going for from the interviews and stuff | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thekillingvote · 9 months

Text

No Birds Allowed: Batman without Robin

The usual claim is that Jason Todd was singularly hated by audiences. Dick Grayson, Carrie Kelley, and Tim Drake are proper, beloved Robins—and Jason Todd is the one and only outlier so unlikable that audiences killed him off by popular vote.

But this claim ignores a massive piece of the puzzle—the Robin role has long been treated as an outdated remnant of a childish era, not only by a significant share of Batman fans, but also by Batman creative teams. While there were definitely fans who hated Jason Todd, he was at least partly chosen to be killed as a scapegoat for some long-standing complaints about the Robin role in Batman stories.

The 1988 poll to kill Jason Todd wasn't just a poll to kill Jason Todd—the poll to kill Robin was a poll to kill Robin.

Fan letters columns from Batman #221 and Detective Comics #398, reacting to Dick leaving for Hudson University in Batman #217 (1969):

Denny O'Neil Batman/Detective Comics writer (1970-1980) Batman group editor (1986-2000) on sending Robin away to Hudson University:

Dan Greenfield: Actually, last night I went back through my comics and the one thing that always strikes me is that before you came onto the character, they’d already made the decision to have Robin leave. Robin was up at Hudson University and was used sparingly from that point forward. Denny O’Neil: Well, that was a conscious decision of mine. Greenfield: Oh! O’Neil: Yeah, I mean … I had been offered Batman a year before I did it. Greenfield: No kidding? I wanna hear this. O’Neil: Because that was in the (Batman TV show) camp thing. The comics were very half-heartedly following in the footsteps of the camp because it was having a palpable effect on circulation. That’s not always true but it was in that case. Camp as in the sense — as opposed to the more erudite sense — this one-line joke about: “I loved this stuff when I was 6 and now that I’m 28 and I have a bi-weekly appointment with a therapist and a little, mild drug habit and two divorces, ‘Look how silly it is.'” I would go into the most literary bar in Greenwich Village on (Wednesday) or Thursday evenings and there would be writers and poets and college professors, all looking at Batman! But when that was over, it was over. It was like somebody turned a switch. And that’s when (editor) Julie (Schwartz) said, in his avuncular way, did I have any ideas for Batman? And at that point, I wasn’t going to be asked to do camp. I was going to be asked to do anything within the bounds of good taste, etc., that I wanted to.

O'Neil, quoted from “Notes from the Batcave: An Interview with Dennis O’Neil” in The Many Lives of The Batman: Critical Approaches to a Superhero and His Media:

There was a time right before I took over as Batman editor when he seemed to be much closer to a family man, much closer to a nice guy. He seemed to have a love life and he seemed to be very paternal towards Robin. My version is a lot nastier than that. He has a lot more edge to him.

O'Neil in 2015:

Modern Batman does not do camp. He has to evolve but to stay true to the concept he has to stay lonely. The kids, there shouldn't be many. Keep him the lone, obsessed crusader and the stories will be better. We did a story called Son of the Demon. It told a story where he had a kid, a baby. It wasn't in continuity. These days, the kid came back and became the new Robin, and I hear that Batman's got a few more running around.

Jim Starlin, Batman writer (1987-1988), writer of A Death in the Family:

I tried to avoid using [Robin] as much as I could. In most of my early Batman stories, he doesn’t appear. Eventually Denny asked me to do a specific Robin story, which I did, and I guess it went over fairly well from what I understand. But I wasn’t crazy about Robin.

I thought that going out and fighting crime in a grey and black outfit while you send out a kid in primary colors was kind of like child abuse. So when I started working on Batman, I was always leaving Robin out of the stories, and Denny O’Neil who is the editor finally said, "You gotta put [Robin] in."

youtube

In the one Batman issue I wrote with Robin featured, I had him do something underhanded, as I recall. Denny had told me that the character was very unpopular with fans, so I decided to play on that dislike. [...] At that time, DC had this idea that they were gonna do an AIDS education book, and so they put a box out and wanted everybody to put in suggestions of who should contract AIDS and perish in the comics. I stuffed it with Robin. They realized it was all my handwriting so they ended up throwing all my things out. About six months later, Denny came up with this idea of the call-in thing. [...] I didn’t find out about it until I came back [from Mexico] and found out that, just as I expected, my ghoulish little fans voted him dead. But by a much smaller margin than I’d imagined. It was only like 72 votes out of 10,000, so statistically it was next to nothing.

Dan Raspler, assistant editor/associate editor to Denny O’Neil (1988-1990):

Denny wasn’t really interested in comics continuity, and he didn’t like superheroes. And if you read his work, you see his influence was really a pushing away from the conventions at the time—it was growing old, that sort of Golden Age-y, Silver Age-y stuff, and Denny sort of modernized it, and he never stopped feeling that way. Jim Starlin’s Batman appealed to Denny. It was a little more ‘down to Earth. Nobody liked Robin at the time. For a while Robin was not—it didn’t make sense in comics. Comics were darkening, and so having the kid was just, it was silly, and even at the time I kind of didn’t. Now Robin is my favorite all-time character, but at the time when I was twenty-whatever, I accepted kicking Robin out, the short pants and all the rest of it.

Comic shop owner Phil Beracha on A Death in the Family, quoted in The Sun Sentinel (October 22, 1988):

"I got 100 copies, and I don't expect them to last past the weekend," said Phil Beracha, owner of Phil's Comic Shoppe in Margate. "I usually get 50 copies of Batman. I doubled my order, and I still expect to sell out." The readers voted right, Beracha said. "Robin is an outdated concept. He was created in the `40s, and back then in a comic book you could have a kid beating up grown men. I don't think that works today."

Writer Steve Englehart, quoted in "Batman, the Gamble; Warner Bros. is betting big money that a 50-year-old comic book vigilante will be a `hero for our times'" in the Los Angeles Times (June 18, 1989):

Writer Steven Englehart, who did a series of Batman stories in Detective Comics, also worked up some movie treatments. In a letter to Comics Buyer's Guide, he revealed the approach he had in mind, which would have pleased Batfanatics: "My first treatment had Robin getting blown away in the first 90 seconds, so that every reviewer in the country would begin his review with, `This sure isn't the TV show.' "

Michael Uslan, producer and film rights holder for the 1989 Batman film:

I only let Tim [Burton] see the original year of the Bob Kane/Bill Finger run, up until the time that Robin was introduced. I showed him the Steve Englehart/Marshall Rogers and the Neal Adams/Denny O'Neil stories. My biggest fear was that somehow Tim would get hold of the campiest Batman comics and then where would we be?

"Death Knell for the Campy Crusader" in the Orlando Sentinel (23 June 1989):

For most people, the name Batman summons up a picture of a clown in long johns, a Campy Crusader who - with the young punster Robin - ZAPed and POWed his way into our lives. That's the Batman that appeared on TV in the mid-'60s, and that's the Batman that the world at large knows. Such is the power of television. But this ludicrous image may become obsolete now that the new, $40 million Batman movie has opened. Robin is absent from the film, as are the perky Batgirl and the utterly superfluous Aunt Harriet of the TV series. And though the movie has plenty of sound effects, they don't appear on the screen as words, spelled out in neo-Brechtian absurdity.

Sam Hamm, writer for Batman (1989 live-action film):

The Case of the Disappearing Robin is high comedy. Tim (Burton) and I had worked out a plotline that did not include the Boy Wonder, whom we both regarded as an unnecessary intrusion. Really: Our hero was crazy to begin with. Did he have to prove it by enlisting a pimply adolescent to help him fight crime? Was Bat-Baby unavailable? But the studio was insistent: There was no such thing as solo Batman, there was only Batman and Robin. So, after holding off the executives for as long as we could, Tim and I realized we had better try to accommodate them. He flew up to my house in San Francisco and we walked around in circles for two days, finally deciding that there was no way to shoehorn Robin into our story. [...] We figured that if we managed to squeeze him in, the lame hacks who were making the sequel could worry about what to do with him next. When the film went into production in London, and ran seriously over budget, WB started looking for a sequence that could be cut to save money. And there was one obvious candidate: Intro Robin! So Robin was cut from the movie and shoved back to Batman Returns— from which he was cut yet again and shoved back to Batman Forever.

Grant Morrison on creating Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth (written 1987-1988, published 1989) with Dave McKean (see the annotated script's fourth page):

The original first draft of the script included Robin. Robin appeared in a few scenes at the beginning then remained at Police Headquarters for the bulk of the book, where he spent his time studying plans and histories of the house, in order to find a way in to help his mentor. Dave McKean, however, felt that he had already compromised his artistic integrity sufficiently by drawing Batman and refused point blank over for the Boy Wonder — so after one brave but ridiculous attempt to put him in a trench coat, I wisely removed him from the script.

Paul Dini on Batman: The Animated Series (1992), as told in the 1998 book Batman Animated:

The Fox Network, on the assumption that kids won't watch a kid’s show unless kids are in it, soon began insisting that Robin be prominently featured in every episode. When Fox changed the title from Batman: The Animated Series to The Adventures of Batman & Robin, they laid down the law-no story premise was to be considered unless it was either a Robin story or one in which the Boy Wonder played a key role. Out were underworld character studies like “It's Never Too Late"; in were traditional Batman and Robin escapades like “The Lion and the Unicorn.” A potentially intriguing Catwoman/Black Canary team-up was interrupted in midpitch to the network by their demand, “Where's Robin?” When the writers asked if they could omit Robin from just this one episode, Fox obliged by omitting the entire story. Looking back, there was nothing drastically wrong with Robin's full-time insertion into the series—after all, kids do love him. Our major gripe at the time was that it started turning the series into the predictable Batman and Robin show people had initially expected it would be. For the first season, Batman had been an experiment we weren't sure would work. We were trying out different ways of telling all kinds of stories with Batman as our only constant. For better or worse, having a kid forced him, and the series, to settle down.

Christian Bale, star of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy (2008):

If Robin crops up in one of the new Batman films, I'll be chaining myself up somewhere and refusing to go to work.

Summed up

Among the keepers of Batman, there has been a vocal contingent arguing against the inclusion of Robin. They argue that Robin damages Batman's brooding, solitary persona. They argue that the concept of Robin is too ridiculous and fantastic for the grounded, gritty ideal of Batman. They argue that a respectable version of Batman shouldn't allow, encourage, or train "child soldiers" to endanger their lives fighting against violent evil-doers.

The original and most iconic Robin, Dick Grayson, has definitely benefited from his deep roots in DC lore and his consistent popularity among fans—and yet even he has been shunned from various Batman projects over the decades. When even he struggles to get his foot in the door, his successors face stiffer opposition.

So it's not quite correct to say that Jim Starlin hated Jason Todd. In his own words, Starlin wasn't fond of Robin, and his storytelling (most obviously A Death in the Family) set out to argue against Batman having any kind of "partner" at all. This, following the wildly successful comic that treated Barbara Gordon as a disposable prop. A growing audience welcomed the Dark Age, and the gruesome spectacles made of kid-friendly elements like Batgirl and Robin.

This trend could be broken by the upcoming sequel to The Batman and by the planned slate of upcoming DCU films. But most Robin fans will tell you that many movie-going Batman fans still have their doubts about Robin sharing Batman's spotlight.

223 notes · View notes

maoam · 5 months

Note

"Kishimoto make sasuke and naruto gay intentionally and not on accident" Okay then so why did he go on multiple interviews insisting that naruto and sasuke's relationship is brotherly and is inspired from his twin brother and that people shouldn't interpret their bond as romantic but platonic?? Source : https://twitter* com/uchihassasusaku/status/1419104011265974275?

If a writer writes homoerotic subtext in his material and expects people to read the material as romantic, he doesnt go around calling the characters "siblings" and asking people to not interpret their dynamic as romantic because then people wont read into his queer subtext like he wanted to

Ship what you want to ship. But stop acting like everyone should buy into your delusions. Kishimoto never said or implied that he wanted naruto and sasuke to be seen as gay but he did say many times that their relationship is brotherly

Ah, another shipper who ships a ship where creator implied twice they never kissed. And whose couple never had a meaningful conversation in a 700 chapter manga. And linking me to some SS stan who gave Elon Musk money for bluecheck mark. 🤣 A good ground to stand on. Okay, I will guide you by the hand since you don't seem to understand. It's okay, illiteracy is a common problem these days. I will put this in easy sections for you, with added links.

Also you and your "queer" nonsense... we are talking about gay, homosexuality. Not slurs.

About the interviews:

The Kizuna thing isn't even written by him, it's an article by another person. These books aren't written by the mangakas ever, they do not have the time nor is the article written from Kishi's pov. Shocker, people write a lot of things in anime merchandise that the creator isn't even involved in. [link] If it were written by Kishi, then an interviewer wouldn't have had to ask Kishi years later whether brotherly relationship was what he was going for with Naruto and Sasuke's bond, and Kishi wouldn't have had given such a cryptic answer where he mulls over it. Because he would have given the answers years back already. Also the fact that he's asked to define their relationship shows how weird it is to the readers. He NEVER told people to not interpret their relationship as romantic. And personally, I have seen movies and a comic where two characters referred to each other as brothers, and their creator referred to them as "soul brothers" but later revealed them to also have romantic feelings.

But I don't expect your mind to be able to comprehend things like this, it does require a little bit of 1+1=2 math. The interview about Seishi is about the feeling of empathy, not that they are literally Naruto and Sasuke's characters. It is one aspect. Kishi has joked about how Naruto and Sasuke are him and his editor too, because he will try to impress his editor. So? And he has said Kushina is based on his wife. So Naruto is him and Kushina is his wife? Why aren't you freaking about this freudian stuff? I know why. I also remember someone saying if Kishi REALLY saw his relationship with his brother as the exact same as Naruto and Sasuke, his brother would need a restraining order against him. It was funny and accurate.

I have wrote about the inconsistencies in his interviews and what shows that he definitely didn't write their dynamic as the same as with his brother despite having one aspect of it [link] and here is another post talking about it more deeply (they also linked my post I just mentioned) [link]. This post also explains how Kishimoto wrote Naruto constantly to do what Sakura can't for Sasuke, and she also included many links to my other posts where I talk about how Kishi wrote Sakura and Sasuke's dynamic, which you can also read if you feel like it. Unless you are scared of being proved wrong, you will read those right, or at least the linked post itself?

About how the audience perceives their dynamic:

The thing is, you and SS fandom don't understand how stories are written. Authors don't do stuff randomly. They use narrative and literary devices to tell their story. Kishi himself has remarked on it many times how careful he is about writing characters, how much he does research, how careful he is about angles etc. [link] If Naruto and Sasuke's relationship was written as brotherly in the text, in the manga, it wouldn't make a bunch of people uncomfortable. There wouldn't have been meltdowns after specific chapters nor would we have people saying when the manga was going on that they are annoyed by the "gay stuff". [link] [link] [link] (there are many more, but here's some collections for an example). Here's one more talking about the Japanese fandom. [link]

When Luffy was saving Ace in Impel Town/Marineford arc, no one in the dudebro community was uncomfortable nor saying it was gay. Eventhough it was a touching and dramatic storyline that showed us how much the two cared about each other. When Alibaba and Cassim were having their past and relationship unravelled in Magi, no one was uncomfortable. Eventhough it was tragic and dramatic and touching yet again. Because despite neither of these pairs being blood-brothers, they were WRITTEN to have a brotherly dynamic/development/relationship in the text, in their behavior. Which is why this also translated to the audience successfully.

If Naruto and Sasuke were written to be brotherly, they would refer to each other as such, including in Boruto, and would tell other people such as well. Hell, they would be proud to tell other people that this person they respect and admire the most is like a brother to them. But they don't. Naruto even told Hagoromo they aren't siblings, but friends. Sasuke said he has only one brother and that is Itachi. If they were brotherly, Kishi wouldn't make Naruto kiss Sasuke, even if accidentally, and have that to be their first interaction. He wouldn't say he wants to be the first one to have rivals kiss in shounen. Not a single brotherly relationship in media is written like this. You know, tropes matter. He wouldn't have Sasuke think fondly about the kiss as one of his most precious memories when he is dying, while years later implying more than once Sasuke never kissed Sakura lol. He wouldn't say Sakura had her first kiss stolen by her rival Naruto. He wouldn't make Sakura be jealous of Naruto's importance to Sasuke, while also giving her zero importance in saving Sasuke. He would not constantly make fun of Sakura by having her be thirsty/desperate for Sasuke's attention, any little crumb from him, while Sasuke ignores her and focuses on Naruto. Kishi knows how his writing comes off. Plenty of people, both men and women who weren't shippers, made jokes about Sasuke going "where's Naruto? hey Naruto" whenever Sakura speaks. Because Kishi made it such a constant dynamic with the three of them. People who have the basic amount of media literacy will get it, and thus all those jokes and memes were born. [link] [link] [link]

If they were brotherly, the anime studio wouldn't have them make eyes at each other while lyrics "please kiss me all night" play in the background, aside from all the other gay ops/ends with romantic lyrics to them. And since Kishi watches the anime, he would have probably point out it's weird. That's what I would do if I wrote about my relationship with my brother and people did that. Magi anime didn't have Alibaba and Cassim in romantic endings...

Kishi wouldn't put this in the movie he made if he wanted them to appear as brothers. Everyone was saying this looked gay/homoerotic when the movie dropped. I saw men on forums say "lol this looks so homoerotic, why did he have to catch Sasuke like that" and even in Chinese theaters people were giggling during this scene. Because it's so in your face fanservice. And Kishi said he cares about angles a lot in his story and that he redraws them if they aren't good enough to drive the message home. So what exactly does that tell you?

People usually aren't sexual about their brother

He wouldn't sexualize and put so much homoeroticism surrounding Sasuke's character, if Sasuke was solely inspired by his brother. You know, unless he had a questionable obsession with his brother. [link]

He wouldn't make Naruto literally get sexually excited when about to fight Sasuke lol [link] [link] that's so obvious Japanese men got amused, uncomfortable and even angry about it, if Sasuke and Naruto were him and his brother.

Romantic tropes/brotherly tropes are not the same

The fact Kishimoto's het couples parallel Naruto and Sasuke's dynamic is very evident. If "brotherly" relationship resembles romantic couples by the same author instead of the other brother dynamics he has written, guess what, it's not written as a brother dynamic lol. Again, proof that he didn't write their dynamic as brotherly. Both Mario/Saori [link] [link] and Minato/Kushina [link] [link] parallel Naruto/Sasuke and have the same tropes as them.

Raikage/Killer B is written as a normal brother relationship. Itachi/Sasuke is written as a complicated brother relationship with a lot of tragedy. Shikamaru/Choji is written as a normal friendship. Kakashi/Obito is written as a complicated friendship with a lot of tragedy. Naruto/Sasuke resembles the romantic relationships Kishimoto wrote, instead of these ones I mentioned. Even in their world, Naruto's actions are seen as irrational and obsession, and the weirdness of it all is constantly pointed out, by Sai, Kabuto, Sakura, Raikage, Itachi. This is a choice Kishi made when he wrote them. [link]

He also made a homage to Devilman and Akira/Ryo relationship that even people in the Japanese fandom noticed. [link] He specifically picked the chapter where Ryo admits having romantic feelings for Akira, and the fight (which parallels Vote2) ending with Ryo realizing how deep his feelings for Akira lie. Kishimoto would not do that if Naruto and Sasuke were based on him and his brother. Why would he pick a character famous for being gay for his best friend/enemy in a chapter where we finally get to see inside Sasuke's head?

Aside from paralleling Hinata's feelings towards Naruto in the Pain arc with Naruto's feelings towards Sasuke in the very next arc, he also foreshadowed a romantic double-suicide with Naruto and Sasuke during said arc. ROMANTIC. [link]

Sasuke on the other hand, was never satisfied with Naruto calling him brother or friend. If their relationship was strictly brotherly, they wouldn't need to ponder about the nature of their relationship, because that's not how any brotherly relationship is written in media. [link]

Kishimoto dislikes SS and talks about Sakura's "love" negatively more than once. [link] Sakura's love is selfish, toxic... yet this doesn't mean anything. Sakura wanted to save Sasuke, yet the one Sasuke said saved him was Naruto.

Now think hard. Use the modest intellect you possess. So aside from Kishimoto having Naruto show sexual attraction towards Sasuke to the point it made Japanese men uncomfortable, he also used romantic tropes (one of them being double-suicide which a writer Kishimoto admires is famous for because he mostly wrote romantic plays ending in that) and romantic parallels to show Naruto's feelings towards Sasuke multiple times, which he did not use for other male friendships in the manga. To the point many Japanese men wondered why Kishimoto "has to push homosexual agenda with Naruto's character", despite the fact he's supposed to be " a normal/good guy". All of these things somehow do not mean anything, nor do the multiple other things I have pointed out on my blog.

I'm not asking you to "buy" into anything, because understanding Naruto is a love story between Naruto and Sasuke and that Kishimoto does not even like Sakura let alone SS would require a little bit of reading comprehension and common sense. Which you and the person you linked sacrificed at the pink altar of Sakura worship, because to you not having anything in common with your partner nor having anything meaningful to talk about nor knowing anything about each other is somehow love. To you having someone else help and understand the person you love because you can't somehow makes an ideal relationship. You mistake Sakura's onesided melodrama for love. She has never said anything meaningful about Sasuke's character, neither has Sasuke said anything meaningful about her. Yet you believe Kishi wrote some deep relationship between them. How am I supposed to reason with someone like that? But your gaslighting doesn't phase me, I have seen all this before many times, it's old news by now. You can call me delusional all you want, but I trust my own understanding thank you very much. It's not like that much is even required, as proven by how many people, even the ones that don't have any need to (casual viewers, straight men, etc.) see it, still see it. Because it is that obvious that only desperate need to not see it blinds someone like you from seeing it.

I'm actually working on another post about Narusasu and Kishi's writing tools regarding it, so stay tuned 🩷

#anon #sometimes I wonder if people frothing in my inbox #are just bored #I know I am bored explaining the same stuff over and over again

91 notes · View notes

buddiebeginz · 28 days

Text

I'm not sure what Buddie stuff we might get in this next ep but one thing I wanted to talk about is if something like a kiss were to happen it's important that we don't attack the show for it. I understand not wanting a cheating storyline (even though for clarification Buck isn't in an exclusive relationship with T*mmy as of yet). And definitly as a someone who is bi myself I completely get not wanting to see bisexual stereotypes perpetuated.

Still when it comes to tv they often will do love triangle/cheating storylines for drama. There's also the fact that tv shows often handle cheating differently than the real world. On a tv show a kiss might be handled differently than say if someone had sex with someone who wasn't their partner. I'm not saying they both aren't messed up but look at how the show handled Buck kissing Lucy vs Hen sleeping with Eva. Buck and Taylor didn't break up after she found out about Lucy but Karen and Hen did separate for a bit after what Hen did.

I'm not saying I think cheating is okay. I don't want Buddie to start out this way I just know it's a super common trope. But regardless I think as a fandom we really need to be a positive presence on all of the social media platforms rooting for Buddie to happen.

The B/T fans are out in large numbers right now being very vocal for the ship they want to stick around, some even want this to be Buck's endgame ship. They definitely aren't going to be happy if Buck and Eddie kiss because they know it threatens their ship. So I'm sure many of them will speak out about it.

We can't be adding to the backlash of a (possible) Buddie kiss by leaving negative comments and making post after post, some of which people involved with the show will inevitably see (remember Oliver has stated multiple times they see things we post online).

I get that there's these messed up stereotypes that bisexual people can't make up our minds that all we're ever gonna do is cheat on the people we care about. I get that if a cheating storyline comes about it will be upsetting for a lot of you. Again I don't want this to be how Buddie starts but at the same time if we are out there attacking the show for the first Buddie kiss it will look VERY bad for us and our ship and will only keep us further from canon Buddie. If Buddie do kiss we need to be encouraging the show to continue their storyline. Because you best believe that any and all interaction between T*mmy and Buck is going to garner positive engagement from those fans and it is only going to give Tim and the writers more incentive to keep him around.

This post might just be me rambling for nothing because nothing of consequence may even happen between Buddie in the next ep but I wanted to get this out just in case. I do believe Tim has a plan for Buddie regardless of what is being said in his interviews but that doesn't meant fan engagement can't alter things. The out pourting of love and support we've given the show for years for Buddie is part of why bi Buck has even happened. We want the show to know that if they're moving in a romantic direction with Buddie we support it. You also have to realize there's a lot of people right now complaining about Buck even being bi at all. For all the positive feedback they're getting for bi Buck ABC and Oliver etc are also dealing with a good amount of backlash to this story too. I just think we don't need to add to that.

#buddie #911!#911 buddie #911 7x06

24 notes · View notes

alpaca-clouds · 7 months

Text

(The concept of) Canon is like an Onion

It has layers.

Okay, I just gotta be the fandom elder here, because there is a thing that is kinda bugging me. And that is the tendency of especially younger fans of stuff to point at all sorts of suplementary material (artbooks, interviews with creators/actors, articles in magazines and what not) and go: "See, my interpretation of this and that is totally canon!"

And the thing is that... it is a bit more complicated than that. Because what is and isn't canon... Well, it is something people argue about a lot. But the general thing is, basically this. Canonicity can have multiple levels - and the top level of it is basically just the text itself.

Like, older fans of the Star Wars Fandom might still remember Lucas' five (or was it even six?) levels of canon. And those were just based on actual stories. It had become a necessity back then just based on the fact that a lot of the extended universe stuff was at times contradictory - even with the stuff that Lucas himself had done. So according to Lucas, the main canon was just the stuff he had been a part of creating. And then there were levels of things going from "most canon" to "least canon" basically.

But yeah, generally speaking: Canon is the information given within a story itself. You can argue about additional story material maybe being canon (like tie in novels to a movie, for example), but generally even those are not... necessarily canon to the main-thing itself.

I know that these days there is this big thing happening of creators just being very, very accessible to fans. So, the temptation is big to tweet or mail or comment on a twitch of your favorite media's creator/your favorite character's actor/whatever and be like: "I have this theory/analysis. Am I right?" Which is... fine. But you also have to keep in mind that stuff that people privately say is not necessarily authoritatively.

As some of the followers of this blog might know: My OG fandom is Digimon. And boy howdy, can I tell you stories about Digimon's "Word of God". Because... look people, if it is not a book, there is not a singular creator. And the people who were in charge of Digimon, had at times very, very differing ideas from each other.

With Digimon Adventure/02 I interviewed several of the writers. And guess what: I at times got opposing opinions from them. And those opinions were also differing from what the producer and the director said in official interviews and sublementary materials (like artbooks or the novelization).

Two examples are Sora's age and Hikari's crest. Sora is shown to have her birthday in movie 2, which is set in March. Given how Japanese school law works, this would make her 10 during the events of Digimon Adventure and 13 during DIgimon Adventure 02 (because the cut-off date is April 1st). According to Reiko Yoshida, who wrote that movie, this is true. According to the producer, however, no actually the movie is set in April, she is 11 during the events of the first season. And the other fun one: What does Hikari's crest of "light" actually mean. We asked five different people involved and got five different answers.

And the big thing is, that you cannot assume that someone, who is engaging with media, does also engage with ALL THE INTERVIEWS and FOLLOW EVERYONE INVOLVED ON SOCIAL MEDIA. Because most people don't.

I see this happening a lot especially in regards to people interpreting the canonicity of ships - and character sexuality.

Let me use an example where I totally agree with the person in question: Isaac from Castlevania. According to his voice actor Isaac is queer. I totally absolutely read the character this way, no question. But... technically it is never confirmed in the text. So if you come away from it not reading him this way, yeah, that is totally understandable. You do not need to know everything every voice actor said.

And if stuff within the actually story itself is kept vague, you cannot just go and say: "Person XY who also was involved in creating media X said this, so this is the only correct opinion." Because if the text does not confirm it, it is not necessarily "canon" and either interpretation is valid.

And if there is multiple entries as source material, also try to think of what people will usually think of, when you say "Fandom X".

Like, to get back at my own fandoms: Yeah, no, most people will not know about the novelization of Digimon Adventure. Most people will also not have played the Wonderswan games (that also at times outright contradict the primary text in form of the anime). Or with Pirates of the Caribbean: Most fans have never read any of the tie-in novels. Heck, most people do not even know they exist. Meanwhile, also a ton of people do not consider movies 4 and 5 canonical to the Gore Verbinski trilogy, given that again those movies outright contradict some of the stuff stated in the trilogy.

What I am trying to say: Canonicity is, if anything, a spectrum, not a binary. So for the love of all the gods, please stop the entire: "Well, the guy who did the storyboards for three of the scenes in this show agrees with me, so I am right," stuff. I know it is tempting (believe me, I KNOW). But... If it is not in the text, other interpretations are valid.

Also, headcanons are always valid. Always.

#canon #canonicity #fandom #fandom culture #digimon #digimon adventure #digimon adventure 02 #castlevania #castlevania netflix #pirates of the caribbean #star wars

33 notes · View notes

cynicalruins · 8 months

Text

Changérion Bible - Toshiki Inoue interview

Translation by Windii, scans by me

-SPOILER ALERT FOR THE ENTIRE SHOW-

Scriptwriter: Inoue Toshiki

Inoue Toshiki, a scriptwriter who wrote all but two of the 39 episodes by himself, convinced everyone who knew of the work that Changéríon was of the Inoue World. How did he create this unique series that is unparalleled in the history of television?

―Was the birth of Changérion a request of the times?!

"I think the first time I met Shirakura was on location in Nagano for "Jetman". At that time, I only had the impression that we were just smiling and drinking whiskey together, and I had no idea that we would become such close friends (laughs). Later, there was the movie version of "Hakaider", but at that time, we were still finding out each other's real intentions and didn't trust each other. It was only with "Changéríon" that we came to a kind of mutual understanding."

―How did you come to work on the plot for "Changéríon"?

"At first, the idea was to do "Hakaider" for TV. So I was supposed to do the plot from the beginning. Then we decided to do something original instead of "Hakaider," and Shirakura and I came up with the idea of doing something like "Detective Tale'"."

―In your interview with "Uchusen," you mentioned that you had a project in which the main character was a fugitive.

"Yes, there was also an idea that it would be like "The Fugitive," a foreign drama. But both ideas disappeared during the course of our discussions, and we decided to make the main character a cram school teacher. But when I tried to make it into a script, it was boring, so I forced it back to a detective, and it got a lot of traction. We decided from the beginning to make it a comedy. Both Shirakura and I felt that the traditional handsome hero with a frown on his face, carrying his troubles on his back, was outdated and uncool. It was the demand of the times, or rather, something inevitable."

―Another characteristic of Changéríon is that it doesn't present any particular theme.

"It is annoying when a work is preachy or pushes a theme to the forefront. It is not good to start with a theme. It's the creator's complacency. It's just enough to look at the whole picture and see what's there and what's emerging. Writers have a bad habit of wanting to make a theme look like a work of art, but that's a big mistake. Everyone knows that love and friendship are wonderful, and viewers don't want to see that anymore."

―There is more slapstick than comedy in Changéríon, isn't there?

"To tell you the truth, when I wrote episodes 3 and 4, I knew that this is what Changérion was all about, and I wasn't sure about it at the time of episodes 1 and 2 (laughs). But after episodes 3 and 4, the staff was on board, and we decided to go with this route, and things just escalated. Slapstick works in animation, but I experimented to see how far I could take it in live action. It went surprisingly well. Director Konaka did a great job. For my part, I was surprised that Mr. Nagaishi found it interesting. I've known Mr. Nagaishi since "Supernova Flashman", and he was the first person to reject my scripts (laughs). I thought he was good at love, flowers, and other stinky stuff, and wasn't interested in comedy or slapstick, but that wasn't so at all. I thought he was a great guy."

―You have listed your challenging works, favorite works, and worst works in the "Changéríon Memorial" on Toei's website. Could you tell us about them in detail?

"The first one I had a hard time with was episode 10. I needed a lot of ideas, and slapstick is difficult to structure. And episode 14. I was kind of tired at the time (laughs). I wasn't a writer who worked that much at the time. I only wrote up to six episodes in a row for Jetman, and I heard that Mr. Suzuki (producer Takeyuki) told Shirakura that I was limited to a maximum of six episodes (laughs)."

―The inspired works are most interesting!

"My favorite works are episodes 10, 12, and 25. That's because they are interesting (laughs). Before I write a script, I write a structure chart, and in my case, I make it very carefully, as if the script is ready when the chart is finished (laughs). I think that's where episode 10 came from. When you make a chart and throw away the excess, you get inspired. The inspired works are most interesting. In episode 25, the exchange between the two disguised as old men in the last scene is great. I think it was inspired by something else… I wonder what it was."

―Which works left you dissatisfied?

"Episode 14 is well done, but in Changérion's world, it's trite. It's a story that could have been written by anyone but me, and I don't like that. For episode 13, I like the title, but it was a bit tawdry. Episode 11 had a diluted plot. The lack of length in the script made the pacing a little sluggish. They tacked on the lines after the fact, the stuff about Kuroiwa's profundity. It's like it came about by accident. I wrote Kuroiwa as a guy who is obsessed with things, but I didn't expect him to become such a man of extensive knowledge. Mr. Nagaishi was suspicious of the direction and added classical music, which was well received. I think the music was very important. The person who chose that music was great."

―Looking back on each of the characters, do you have any thoughts?

"Akira is representative of what everyone cares about. Like, you wish you could live like that. It's a man's dream, like James Bond in that sense. You don't want to be Kamen Rider #1, but you want to be Akira, right? (laughs)"

―Akemi and Rui were cast in contrasting ways, weren't they?

"I wasn't involved in the casting. Shirakura and I don't seem to have the same tastes, so he wouldn't invite me (laughs). Akemi is definitely better as a secretary. Akemi has her stuff together and can put the brakes on Akira. Rui is the type of person who is weird and presses the gas pedal together with Akemi, so the scheme is wrong, but when Akemi is gone and we need a new secretary, there's no point in having the same type of person. It was a desperate measure to create a more impactful character that would eclipse Akira."

―The verbal tics at the end of their lines are also memorable.

"I don't think that went over very well (laughs), but Akemi is a firm person, so it's not cute when a girl like that talks the way she does (laughs). I think it's just right for her to add "maybe" and make it sound lighthearted. For Rui's style of speech, she's the ultimate posh lady, so she's repressed and wants to be someone she's not. She has a bit of a split personality thing. As for Hayami, Aizawa's acting got better and better from the middle of the show, and it was great to see how serious Hayami became. Ichiyama, who played Munakata, was also interesting, but I didn't change Munakata's character to suit him. I was going to make him a strange old man from the beginning. Come to think of it, there is not a single decent guy in this show (laughs)."

―As for creating the character of Kuroiwa?

"I had a lot of trouble making that one, because he was going compete with Akira, so I was thinking about a guy who would set up a consulting office at DarkZide, who would have an office in the apartment across the street, and who would be enthusiastic about stuff, and that's how I ended up with that one. Ogawa was good at it, too. When he first appeared, he had a strong impact, but it was difficult to decide what to do with him after that, so I made him the governor of Tokyo. It's interesting, isn't it (laughs)? Kuroiwa was crazy about Eri until the end. He said he was going to conquer humans, but he really wanted to be a human. Sayoko is a character that was really created at the last minute because of the deadline. Shirakura told me that if I didn't write by tomorrow, we wouldn't be able to shoot."

―Not only Kuroiwa and Sayoko, but many of the DarkZide is very obsessive.

"They are all enthusiasts. You could call them single-minded or pure."

Which is reality in the last episode?

―What made you decide to make the last episode the way it was?

"It is often said that the "it was all a dream"-ending is a forbidden technique, but I have always wondered if it is really so. I thought it would be crazy if I did it for the whole series, but if I did it for one episode, it would be a mere "it was all a dream"-ending. I told Shirakura about it, and he was stupid enough to think that was the way to go (laughs)."

―It's often discussed which is more real, the world of the story you've been telling or the serious world.

"Well, that would be less interesting if the dream wasn't more beautiful. It is better that Akira in reality admires Akira in the dream."

―The world DarkZide is trying to destroy is the real one?!

"Of course it is. In the structure, the point where the story ends is reality. It means it was all a dream. That's why Changéríon is ephemeral."

―Looking back on the work that is Changéríon now, what do you think?

"Everyone was in a groove. It was strange that we were all going in one direction and no one was there to stop us (laughs). It is rare to see such a united group going in a different direction from what was expected, isn't it? The greatest asset for me was that I was able to meet the staff. I knew Shirakura and Nagaishi from before, but getting to know Kimura (YOMIKO Advertising) and Iwata (TV Tokyo) was a big deal."

―When looking at Changéríon, it feels like individual ideas and inspirations were highly respected, rather than a parliamentary system.

"Programs are more interesting when they are made that way. If one person says no, the initial fun will fade away. I think that not only dramas but also TV programs as a whole should be allowed to run amok. I think it's boring because everyone is satisfied with making a mediocre product."

―How was Changéríon able to run amok?

"Because my episodes were funny (laughs). No, seriously. Everyone was fooled. Iwata from TV Tokyo said he was fooled by me at the wrap party. But the deceiver wins."

(Here comes Kochihira Chika.)

Kochihira: I have known Mr. Inoue for 10 years.

Inoue: She was in the same office as Wakamatsu Toshihide, who played Gai in Jetman, and we have known each other since then. I have known Kochihira since she was 19 years old.

Kochihira: But Changéríon was a regular audition and I passed. I knew that it was your work, though.

Inoue: So when I heard about that after it was decided, I was surprised, too.

―What do you think of Kochihira from your point of view?

Inoue: Well, she has an attractive face and figure, and has been admired by everyone since she was a child…

Kochihira: You really think so? (laughs)

Inoue: It got interesting when your, or rather Eri's, feisty side came out in episode 3 (laughs).

Kochihira: After that, Eri got cuter and cuter, and in the end, she even became Elisa (laughs).

Inoue: It was fun, wasn't it?

And so the fun night continued. Unfortunately, we'll end it here for the sake of this issue of the magazine.

Inoue Toshiki: Born November 28, 1959 in Saitama. Made his debut in 1981 with Dr. Slump Arale. Since then, he has been active in both live-action and animation. His latest work, Masked Rider Ryuuki EPISODE FINAL, will be released on August 17.

Works: Supernova Flashman (86-87), Birdman Squad Jetman (91-92), Mechanical Violator Hakaider (95), Masked Rider Kuuga (00-01), Ironclad Machine Mikazuki (00-01), Masked Rider Agito (01-02), Masked Rider Ryuuki (02-on air)

#changerion #tokusatsu #changerion bible #long post

36 notes · View notes

compacflt · 1 year

Note

you're a legend for referencing lauren berlant and michael warner in relation to your top gun fic and I'd like to think that they would say the same!! the stories that you've created are beautiful explorations of some of the biggest questions posed in queer theory: who are we in public? who are we in private? where is the line that separates the two (spoiler: there is no way to actually separate the two, no binary) and what are the structural forces bearing down upon all of that bullshit! I for one would love to see your questions about privacy and respectability explored with rooster and ice and mav. especially considering the generational cliff between them, with the aids crisis in the background of rooster's childhood when they were all the closest, in your world. anyway! you are an incredible writer and it's been a privilege to read you work :)

thank you so much for this ask!! yes i have spent so much time thinking about this. In March i started working on a new-yorker-style interview that tried to address a bunch of these questions. Since I didn’t do wip wednesday yesterday (sorry) here’s some relevant sections of that wip related to your ask. I don’t think it’s spoilers since I’m not sure id ever post this anywhere—you can see for yourself how entertaining the writing is and it’s overly political and didactic. Just a lame hegelian dialectic where im interrogating my own characters (at least, my own interpretations of them) on their politics. And I’m not an expert on any of this stuff (currently on the slow uphill climb out of the valley of the dunning-kruger graph—trying to learn). Nor am I fact-checking it & that feels irresponsible to post For Real. so just take this post as a fun (for me) exploration of what i (20y.o., ignorant, no editorial oversight, smooth-brained) think Might be some political implications of my fics, trying to write from a lib-moderate pov (tough!)

talking points I wanted to address:

The politics of ice’s career, both internationally & domestically (some wild navy scandals happened under his “tenure” [fat Leonard most pressingly—would LOVE to know how actual TGM’s ice & mav felt about that bc it was SO FUCKING CRAZY, navy officers & admirals having wild sex parties paid for by a singapore defense contractor (the details are so fucking crazy i can’t even say them here—one anecdote involves 7th fleet officers using WWII/Korean war general macarthurs historical memorabilia during sex acts—go read about it) a couple PACFLT RDMLs were charged with actual crimes, 60 admirals (of the navys total 160 admirals) were under investigation & both my and TGM’s ice & cyclone would probably have been two of them, basically if you were a pacflt officer in the mid-2000s-2010s you were under investigation it was so fucking wild]) —and another geopolitical look at the implications of both top gun movies (reagan weighs in from beyond the grave)

Ice and mav who can’t win—they want their relationship to Not Be A Big Deal. leave us alone. We’re Normal. we’re not Weird or anything. —but can’t understand WHY their relationship is so sensational/political—yes, boys, it is a big deal, sorry!! mavericks probably the last Ace the world will ever see & ice is the secretary of the navy and they’re married, fuck yes that’s newsworthy!!!

my version of Ice acceding to SECNAV at the intersection of a couple crucial contextual moments for the navy/military as a whole: 1. Recruitment is currently fucked. This interview takes place in 2020/early 2021, and things were bad then, but the numbers just came out for the Navy this year, and hoooooly shit they are so bad. And blame is falling along partisan lines like always: Ds blame low recruitment numbers on lack of benefits etc, Rs literally i am not shitting you are mostly blaming low recruitment numbers on the military going Woke. The USN has long been seen as the most obnoxiously woke/gay (derogatory) service to conservatives & there’s a lot of political baggage that comes with having a SECNAV who, while not openly identifying as gay, is openly married to another man. especially with a recruiting crisis like this one. 2. Withdrawal from afghanistan obviously. kind of a shit way for ice to end his career ngl. It Did Not Go Super Well. 3. rising tensions in eastern europe pre RU-UA invasion in 2022, what that means for the MIC and procurement, etc. 4. The joint chiefs openly declaring they (& by extension the military as a whole) would not support trump’s coup attempt post-J6—the end of that extremely politically polarized presidency—what does it mean for the following Dem president to then have a gay secnav after that? It’s HUGE. SO no matter what, Ice as SECNAV is going to go down in history. He just wants it to be for his actions, not the fact that he’s gay.

Icemav’s relationship with their identities. We really really don’t want to be known for being gay. “Ask me what my proudest achievement is, I’ll tell you without a second of hesitation—my family. Without a doubt. But does any military man really want to be best-known for his marriage?” We want to be known for being the BEST at our jobs, which we are. We’ve earned that title! There’s so much more interesting stuff about us than who we got married to.

AND how that is a liberal-moderate-conservative median-50% meritocratic WET DREAM of an ideology. an interview like this one is a straight fluff piece pre-ice’s confirmation to secnav—it lets him prove to the moderate liberals that he’s left-leaning enough to protect social justice interests in the USN, AND prove to conservatives that he’s right-leaning enough to not let identity politics/“woke bs” get in the way of the navy’s mission of providing a lethal maritime fighting force. the merits of this ideology are up for debate.

maybe helping the conservative viewpoint of that ideology: The fact that the Kazansky-Mitchell-Bradshaw-seresin family is so not-stereotypically gay. Like, look at these four guys. 9-to-11 combat kills between them (11 in my universe where ice gets an extra 2, 9 canon confirmed) in a period of history/modern warfare when ANY air-to-air kill is/was massively historically significant. Extremely macho & tough. They present themselves about as traditionally and toxically masculine as you could possibly get. Theyve KILLED PEOPLE. They’re not “soft” by any stretch of the imagination. Physically & emotionally they ARE extremely conservative, and there’s something to be said about the politics of that too—molding yourself into the shape of what you think a man should look like, just to avoid persecution, and then performing masculinity BETTER than even the men who would want to persecute you…!

Related to your ask: the modern/young ppl inclination to make sexuality SO political and public. When asked how he could reckon with joining a DADT-ruled navy, rooster answers: “hope I could do something to destroy it before it could destroy me.” When asked why he DIDNT use any of his considerable power to influence the repeal of DADT, ice answers: “it was better than the blanket ban that came before it. And maybe I’ve always wanted neither to tell nor to be asked.” the conservative respectable opinion that your intimate relationships ought to be PRIVATE, doesn’t matter if you’re gay or straight—just do your job, and preferably do it well. yeah, don’t ask and don’t tell. It’s not anyone’s business. ice doesn’t have a philosophical problem with DADT, because he agrees sexuality should be private & secret. —is it anyone’s business? whose business is it? How much of your personal life do you owe the public if you’re a public-facing individual like the COMPACFLT or SECNAV? all good questions!!!!

#& unanswerable!#sooo fun to ignore the big ‘is the military bad’ questions in favor of the nitty gritty of policy #yes it’s bad. next!#poor ice and mav honestly. if it wasn’t such a big deal theydve been married in the 90s #its all external influencing the internal #impossible to not be products of their time #‘marshallian system’ as very niche military officer succession strategy #pete maverick mitchell #tom iceman kazansky #icemav #top gun #top gun maverick #edts notes #top gun fanfiction #sorry i probably won’t be posting as much for the next couple weeks. finals season and i am so deep in the trenches its actually not funny.#i think there’s a grammatical typo in excerpt 2. their*#and in excerpt 1 too. not really proofreading these. shrug.

71 notes · View notes

wakandamama · 10 months

Note

I got a bit of a loaded question, sis. And if it's inappropriate you can tell me, but you said you're Black and Cherokee, so I thought you might have a good perspective.

Do you have any suggested authors, books, or articles behind what seems to be this lack of Black and Indigenous solidarity? I was scrolling this morning and I saw this post that literally was two seconds from dropping a slur (the dogwhistles were horns) and I'm like ... well damn. White Supremacy works terrible wonders, bc I would think the circumstances that brought our groups together would cause some sort of solidarity, so I'm always blown away when I see stuff like that. With other groups I'm familiar with the reasons behind it, but I don't want to assume things for this one.

Sure thing! I'm also gonna annotate this with my own story and learned knowledge of the struggles I've encountered while trying to expand the understand of my identity at the end.

This awesome article by Amber Starks

All these articles by Alaina E. Roberts she amazing at inner community discussion on this topic along with just being an amazing scholar and writer

This Guardian article by Caleb Gayle (another amazing scholar and author, just anything he's written on the topic will do but this article really helped me understand why I had issues connecting) that explores a case study of a Black family aving to fight for a claim to their indigenous identity with certain tribes that want to erase their history of participating in the chattel slavery of Black people

Also Gayle's book We Refuse to Forget

The book Untangling a Red, White, and Black Heritage by Darnella Davis

The Book Blood Politics by Circe Sturm

All of Zora Neal Hurston's black anthropology films they are free on YouTube or through her foundation site and the Black Film Archive

This article by Rebecca Nagle that explores the history of Cherokee confederates and the community slow acknowledgement and atonement for them

This blog post leads to many other articles and interviews with other Black Natives and their experiences in different tribes

This Kyle Mays interview about the re-establishment of Cherokee Freedmans status (hey that's me) and it impact

These npr articles 1 2 about The fight for tribal rights of Cherokee Freedmans

kararoselles, choctawchickasawfreedmen, and faithcampos on tik tok are incredible too

---

Okay so boom, me personally I am both Cherokee Freedman and by Blood quantum (ick) am Cherokee. However I claim my rights though the Dawes Rolls my great- grandfather enrolled too after emancipation because his father (and 2 aunts) were Cherokee slaves. I only really started connect with the native part of my identity recently (like 3 years)

Growing up I was told a lot of the family stories and raised to do a lot of old school practices that are crossed with being Black and being Cherokee. You drop me off in prairie land or a river side I'm surviving, (I hate it but I can process a deer) I grew up weaving baskets/wicker and doing beading, I know a lot of family recipes that now that I've expanded my knowledge are meals that are mixed between traditional Native American foods and AA cooking. My great-grandfather helped build Grand Lake in OK. My family is even prominently buried in and care takers for 2 Freedman Cemeteries.

But I was always taught that was just part of my and my family's Blackness. I have no living family that aren't Black in some way. Being Native American was an afterthought because of the generational racial trauma. Multiple of my full blood grandmas weren't allowed to have their grandchildren at their homes or on their land because they were Black. My mother often told me stories that her grandmother would sneak them to her home and land to learn how to forage, everytime they left she would cut her hair off to give to them because there was always the threat that they were going to get reported and her rights would be stripped. One of my ancestors is lost because he was a runaway slave from the Cherokee slave trade, many were denied status at some point

It's a lot and it didn't help that when I learned about this side of me and tired to reach out to the Native American club in my school. The Cherokee people there started being very racist to me and dismissed me. It jaded me, it pissed me off, I am still bitter and will probably be until I die.

Because a lot of the problems I advocated for (such as local climate change, environmental degradation, contaminated water, land stealing, food deserts, ect.) We're movements spearheaded by Native Americans in my area. I was denied say or acknowledgement because my issues were "Black issues". If someone told you "Hey this white rancher who had only been here 12 years is illegal trying to destroy a Native American cemetery so he had more graze land for his cows" the trial authority would be on that. But no, since the cemetery is Black Cherokees and Freedman they don't want to claim jurisdiction to help my family save it.

But, I do recognize that there has been a long and important history of Native and Black solidarity from social justice to environmental things. To just the clear fact that Native American people had everything stolen from them by white supremacy while Black Americans were stolen people brought here. Just as there was chattel slavery of Black people in certain major tribes, there were many that protected and supported escaping slaves. That history and cross culture is mine, I've made it one of my side missions to learn more about my Native side's culture, reconnects as some of my older family members are (mostly through folklore learning and connecting the things I was raised to do to Cherokee practices, participating in tribal news/votes ect.) But I haven't got the energy to connect with the people yet, I haven't gone to any in person Circles or powwows. I've only met other Black Cherokees with the intention to have community and friendship with.

Unfortunately but not surprising, the cause of a lack of solidarity comes down to white supremacy and global antiblackness. But I think that is the cause for a lack of ALL POC solidarity with Black people, especially in America.

------

And for the hoteps that are gonna find this post and try to be fucking weird on it.

NO! BLACK PEOPLE (THOSE DESCENDANTS OF THE SURVIVORS OF THE MIDDLE PASSAGE SLAVE TRADE, DEMOGRAPHICALLY CATEGORIZED AS AFRICAN AMERICANS TODAY, MAJORITY OF US) ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL NATIVE AMERICANS OR OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO THE AMERICAS

Do NOT be a fucking weirdo and deny the legacy of survival, tragedy, perseverance, and love that our ancestors went through in the past to lead to your lineage of today. I am a special and blessed case to have the family records, story keeping, and DNA testing available to claim my indigenous identity that is directly linked in through my Black identity.

DO NOT BE WEIRD ON THIS POST, THOSE STONE HEADS WITH THICK LIPS ARE NOT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN MISLED TO THINK THEY ARE. CHEROKEE NATION WAS A DICK BEFORE HOPKINS WAS ELECTED. PLEASE RESEARCH YOUR LINEAGE BEFORE YOU HOP ON MY POST BECAUSE I WILL EMBARRASS YOU WITH THE RECEIPTS OF MINE

#black people #black culture #Black History #indigenous culture #indigenous people #black rights #indigenous rights #indigenous history #sources #afro indigenous #i believe im solidarity but now that 7/10 times POC Solidarity is a myth #unfortunately antiblackness makes the world go round

52 notes · View notes

professional-sephiroth-scrungler · 2 months

Text

I finally finished rebirth! Here is my unsolicited review cause i don’t want to melt my brother’s ear drums with my rambling

First off, Rebirth is a wonderful game. It’s not perfect by any means but it’s still great. The graphics are stunning, the soundtrack is absolutely amazing, and all the issues i had with story flow and confusion in the OG are basically fixed.

Story: I’ve got so much to say but thats mostly theories so i’ll keep it brief. I love where they are taking things. They’ve done a wonderful job of blending the OG story with the new stuff and the new directions its going. We arent really gonna full know whats happening until its all wrapped up but I am here for it!

Gameplay: its a good improvement on what they did for the first part. I however, have slow reflexes with the bumper and trigger buttons so they milliseconds they give you to block for immunity is not great for me. Dodging around is really fun though

Side quests/world intel: the side quests and world intel are hit or miss for me. Most of the stuff that doesn’t enhance the story, give lore, or deepen character relationships feels like a chore sometimes. Getting all the lifesprings, phenomenons, summon alters, and intel fights is repetitive and annoying sometimes but its easy to fall into the groove of if you have something playing in the background for the dull bits and running around the world to get to another story/side story beat.

Characters: Wonderful, amazing, exceptionally characterized. The nuances of the cast have been fleshed out a lot and it’s great. Even with their limited screen time, Vincent and Cid have so much substance and i am extremely excited to see where the story takes them. No, i am not ignoring one character in particular, what do you mean? None of the characters have made me seethe and mald at all and make me want to stop playing because of how annoying they are! And im definitely not afraid of the wrath my opinion of the character will bring if i say who! … Fuck it.

Yuffie: Yuffie definitely has more character than in OG and has sure been fleshed out since Intergrade… In the sense they took the happy go lucky, hyper, materia obsessed kid and multiplied it by 1000. It doesn’t help that she is also inserted into situations she 100% does not belong in. What could have been bonding moments for Aerith, Tifa, Barret, or Nanaki, what would’ve fit well in those situations, have Yuffie instead. And it seems her story is not until part 3 so why is she here so much? During tense or sad moments, she says stuff that ruins the vibe or is just irritating. Many time, she would say something during the story, and right after i would think that the moment would’ve been 10 times better if she was not inserting herself into it. Sometimes it feels like the writers are partially writing her as the main character when in the OG, she was an optional side character. Its not to say its all bad, she can have some funny moments. Except those where near when she just joins the party and the more those “silly moments” happen, the more grating they become. I hope that whenever her story arc happens in part 3 or a dlc (god i hope not a dlc the game is already $70), she has some growth and mellows back at least a bit. But who knows, maybe this is just a personal thing and she is actually a fine character. If you like her, thats fine. In the end, her character just isn’t for me and i just dont understand. These were just things that annoyed me personally and if you are fine or like how much more Yuffie there is in the remake trilogy, thats perfectly ok. Anyways

Expectations vs Reality: my only real gripe with the advertising is around Sephiroth and him being called a “protagonist” and supposedly us learning more about him in some english translations ive seen of interviews. I don’t quite understand where the protagonist thing came from. He is still very much the penultimate antagonist. But i expected to at least be able to read some in the manor about his childhood and play as him in combat a bit more. Maybe some TFS promo material got mixed up in my brain. If not, the best i can come up with from where the protagonist thing came from is that Sephiroth believes he is the protagonist, that he is doing the right thing, that he is the hero saving the planet and all other worlds through his twisted vision. And i guess through that, we have learned a lot about his motivations now and how he currently sees things. Not the backstory stuff i was hoping fore, but still really cool to see and analyze.

Over all, i would say Rebirth is an 8.5/10 for me. Some stuff dragged, was fluffed out a bit much in parts and such but over all a great game!

Actually, no. Sephiroth didn’t fast ball a materia at us in the basement. Maybe that will happen in Part 3. But that loss makes it a 0/10. RIP baseballiroth

#final fantasy 7 #ffvii #ff7 #final fantasy vii #ff7r #ffvii rebirth #ffvii rebirth review #my thoughts #final fantasy vii rebirth #mostly serious review except for the last part #please dont come for my throat yuffie fans #ff7 rebirth #final fantasy 7 rebirth #final fantasy vii remake #ffvii remake #review

8 notes · View notes

thatscarletflycatcher · 5 months

Note

I might be interested in that “Sherlock writers/producers power trip” stuff 👀

Calling it a power trip was a bit dramatic of me XD but I do think the creators of Sherlock had a... weird relationship with the character of John Watson. He gets two different and incongruous characterizations, and I don't understand the rationale behind it.

The most clear example of this for me is how this changes between the Unaired Pilot and A Study in Pink. The Watson of the UP is self assured, practical, intelligent, competent, moral (if somewhat grim and with a veneer of darkness lurking beneath the surface) and mature. The Watson of ASIP is insecure, impractical, rather dumb, extremely loyal to a person he just met for no reason, a failure of a petticoat chaser, and essentially an adrenaline junkie. And these are two versions of the same story.

On the UP, the first meeting between Sherlock and Watson is marked by Watson's curiosity and earnest admiration about Sherlock's deductions; the same scene in ASIP shows us Watson being taken aback by Sherlock's behavior. When they are at the scene of the crime and Sherlock asks Watson if he's aware that he's speaking his appreciative remarks out loud, UP Watson just calmly asks if that bothers Sherlock; ASIP!Watson hurries to apologize. And in general he hesitates, apologizes and feels out of place much more across the latter version.

In the UP, what "cures" Watson's limp is that he notices that something has gone wrong with Sherlock's attempt at dealing with the cabbie, and he jumps to go help/save him. Watson is a doctor, his vocation in life is centered around helping and saving people; his psychological symptoms are caused by a sense of purposelessness, as he's been discharged after being wounded, and lives on a military pension. Now that he has met Sherlock and realized the ways in which Sherlock is self-destructive, he has found new purpose. ASIP, by replacing this for a foot-chase, replaces this element of characterization (intelligence, moral fiber, decisiveness) with... John is just an adrenaline junkie -and doubles down upon this through Mycroft words, and by removing from the ending scene the lines where Sherlock calls Watson "my doctor", and Watson tells Lestrade off by reminding him that Sherlock must eat if he is to be useful in future. In both versions we have the set-up of the gun Watson keeps in his drawer (that he may come to use to kill himself) and the payoff (that he ends up using to save Sherlock's life); but whereas in the UP it is of a piece with the characterization I mentioned above, in ASIP it feels like a leftover they couldn't remove because it was so deeply baked into the plot.

The framing of Watson's killing of the cabbie is also different between UP and ASIP: in the UP, we only see Watson leaving the restaurant, then the cabbie dying, and "realize" with Sherlock who the shooter was. It is implied that he guessed where the cabbie was taking Sherlock, called the police, made a detour to pick up his gun, and then headed to Baker Street where he chose the vantage point of a house across the street, from which he watched the cabbie and Sherlock, and waited till the last possible moment to shoot, in case bloodshed could be avoided. This shows that he can keep a very cool head under pressure, that he underwent military training and it stuck, and that he is moral and practical, grounded and efficient.

ASIP!Watson picked up his gun after his interview with Mycroft -the implication that he means to use it as protection/defense for Sherlock and himself from... MI5/6. Now that does give some credence to Mycroft's insult that Watson is brave, but bravery is what people say when they mean stupidity. You were in the army, Watson! You should know better! (the Mycroft subplot also includes two painfully awkward attempts at hitting on one of Mycroft's underlings, a woman clearly much younger than him. As I was saying, Watson loses maturity between the UP and ASIP). Watson then only follows Sherlock and the cabbie because of the phone setup that had been previously solved by Sherlock (so no application of intelligence here), does not think of calling the police, and then we watch him desperately searching for the room where Sherlock and the cabbie are, then when he casually lands on the room across that one, he screams Sherlock's name to the top of his lungs, and as he is not heard, he ends up shooting the cabbie as a last desperate effort. No planning here, no cold head, and some very stupid decisions (had the cabbie been armed for real, and he had stumbled into the room or been heard, chances are one or the two would have ended up injured or dead).

I think the contrast between the two versions of this other scene showcases this really well:

ASIP: Sherlock: are you alright? Watson: Yes, of course I'm alright. Sherlock: you just killed a man. Watson: Yes, I... That's true, innit? (pause) but he wasn't a very nice man.

UP: Sherlock: you are alright? Watson: of course I'm alright. Sherlock: you have just killed a man. Watson: I've seen men die before -good men, friends of mine-; 'thought I'd never sleep again. I'll sleep fine tonight.

The unaired pilot plays more with setting up a "dark side" to Watson; his profession as doctor makes him mainly caring and helpful, but it can also make him clinical and detached at points; I don't think it is a coincidence that Donovan tells Watson to take his distance from Sherlock because "One day just showing up won’t be enough. One day we’ll be standing round a body and Sherlock Holmes will be the one who put it there", but by the end of the episode the police is standing around on a crime scene for which the killer was... Watson. This last thing, again, carries over into ASIP because it couldn't be taken out without breaking the plot, but has been removed from the rest of Watson's characterization in the episode. Mind you, I don't think "exploring the dark side of John Watson's personality and maybe turning him into a villain or a conflicted antihero" is a good idea, but it was set up in one, discarded, and not replaced in the other.

I could write another post with the differences in the characterization of Sherlock between the two tellings of the story, but exploring that here would make this answer way much longer than it needs to be. I'll summarize it by saying that UP Sherlock is written to have some complementarities with UP Watson: Sherlock is rather juvenile/childish, too focused on "the game" to take care of himself, assess risks or evaluate how his behavior affects others. He has a hard time understanding the feelings of others, and that coupled with an enjoyment of tricks and disguises and games is what makes him difficult for other people to deal with. Basically, Sherlock is very intelligent in a rather theoretical, detached way, whereas Watson is a grounding presence because he's full of common, practical sense. ASIP Sherlock is... an asshole. It's not that he doesn't understand the emotions of others, he despises them. It's not that he's reckless, it's that he's super cool and dangerous (and suddenly is a master of combat what). He's basically a sort of pop culture übermensch?

The ASIP characterization for both characters dominates series 1 and 2 of Sherlock, and develops through two main dynamics: one is the "Watson as a silly wife in a bad 1950s sitcom", that is particularly intense and weird in The Blind Banker (which, in all fairness, was not written by mofftiss).

The first Sherlock-John scene in TBB is a juxtaposition between Sherlock having a skilled fight at the flat, while Watson is failing miserably at... checking out groceries. The following scene is poor silly woman Watson with her his silly little homemaking problems cannot understand the huge work and problems her husband Sherlock tackles when she's not looking. Watson is worried about having money to pay the necessities, Sherlock cannot be bothered to mind such pedestrian things.

This depiction of Watson as """"feminine"""" (derogatory) pops up here and then. He gets kidnapped three times for just being... careless (again, doctor, yes, but war veteran and human being that has been kidnapped before). It may not sound like A LOT, but when you consider the whole series is just 14 episodes, of which one is a short and another happens exclusively inside Sherlock's head... well...

Magnussen literally calls Watson Sherlock's damsel in distress in His Last Vow. His feelings upon discovering Sherlock is alive in The Empty Hearse are treated as over-reaction by Sherlock, Mary and the narrative. In general the whole Mary arc is filled with this sense that Mary and Sherlock relate to each other and understand each other and cooperate with each other on a level that Watson can't reach, and he's therefore relegated most of the time to a figure to be protected from both truth and evildoers, and then to give Rosie to, because man carrying a baby emasculating or something? (Sherlock's single interaction with Rosie is about his trying to reason with her, but he never touches or holds her, and she virtually disappears as a being once Mary dies).

This concept of Sherlock as idealized pop culture übermensch and Watson as a failure of a man takes the rest of the time a strange tone of aggressiveness, not only in the occasions in which Watson beats up Sherlock (A Scandal in Bohemia, TEH, The Lying Detective), but in smaller ways in Watson's pointed acting like he's not interested in the case or in explanations... and his dating women for apparently no other reason that to try and stick it to Sherlock (which makes it extra out of nowhere when he's not only so deeply affected by Sherlock's death, but that he tells to his grave "I was so alone and I owe you so much". Wait, what? You've spent most of your time being annoyed and feeling threatened by this guy).

Watson's relationships with women is also part of the weirdness of his characterization. He dates several of them one after the other in what seems an effort to show Sherlock that at least in this he's more competent than him; he doesn't seem to really care considering he mixes up their names and neglects them. However, the series also wants to make him also a very awkward and poor flirt with no standards (like trying to get the therapist in The Hounds of Baskerville, starting an emotional affair with a woman who just smiled at him on the bus, gets very mad at a tabloid calling him confirmed bachelor), and that the women that DO actually get into stable relationships with him think him beneath them one way or another (the series makes a pointed joke about how his girlfriend in The Great Game won't have sex with him or make him breakfast, Mary uses him first as a cover and then calls herself the best thing that happened to him as a joke while he's very seriously trying to propose to her). It rounds up again to that subtle "not man enough - feminine" undercurrent.

Then there's Watson's general incompetence. On my first draft of this answer I had written a list, episode by episode, of all the times Watson is being sent on wild goose chases, makes mistakes that no one with his background should, stumbles upon clues by sheer dumb luck, is generally useless, and his ideas are treated as extremely dumb, but it was very long and boring. So here are the ones I found to be the most notorious examples:

In TBB, he does not comment that left-handed people do in fact learn to shoot with their right hand (he is himself a left handed person who does that as established in ASIP); on that same episode he daftly stands by with a paint can and gets caught by the police and can't say anything to defend himself despite the high unlikeness of his being.... a street artist (his worrying about the charges is, again, framed as silly.)

He leaves the witness they need and who is in danger, alone, so he can go "help Sherlock" (which meant just... running out of the scene so she could get killed).

Watson's date is better than him at the brawl that happens at the circus somehow. He cannot tell a delivery guy from a ninja and gets kidnapped. He's scared witless because an old lady is pointing a gun at him (HE'S AN AFGHANISTAN VETERAN).

In TGG, Watson has kept the gun with which he killed the cabbie (against UP, and also, you know, incriminating evidence). Watson, a doctor whose CV specifies surgery, is jumpscared and upset by a head in the fridge.

In ASIB, he doesn't even know how to punch properly. The guy who is an ace with a gun in ASIP, is reduced and held at gunpoint like nothing here, and contributes nothing while badass Sherlock and Irene kick the goons asses. Falls for a dumb seduction trick because he's an idiot. Cannot tell apart real shock from Mrs Hudson just pretending.

In The Sign of the Three, Sherlock realizes Mary is pregnant before Watson, WHO IS A DOCTOR does.

These characterizations I have been talking about are very dominant through series 1 and 2, but then something curious happens on s3: without any warning or connection, the series starts acting like the characterizations of the UP have been the show's characterizations all along.

It begins with Sherlock's characterization; he's back and itching to see Watson, not realizing that he would have moved on in two years. Mycroft tries to warn him to break the news softly to him, but Sherlock doesn't understand; all he can think about is what a lark it will be to show up out of nowhere! There's no real meanness in it, just childish joy. This goes on through TsotT, with his anxieties about his speech, his difficulty to prepare and deliver it and following through the ceremonies, his surprise and emotion at being chosen as best man and called Watson's best friend, his promise to keep Mary safe and his efforts to save Watson in s4, and even his realization about Eurus' emotional needs in the series finale.

Not that the original ASIP characterization doesn't show up here and there again and again, through things like Sherlock's edgy comments about religion, his complete distraction and lack of attention at Rosie's baptism, his mysoginy and use of Jeaninne in HLV, etc.

Same happens with Watson. The narrative keeps doing its mockery thing, and will lay VERY THICK the whole "Watson is just an adrenaline junkie" with Mary's secret and how Watson married her because he's attracted to danger and that makes it all his fault somehow... it will also show Watson being bored by his job at the surgery. BUT the main storyline of the Sherlock-Watson relationship only makes sense through the UP characterization. It is, in fact, spelled out loud in TsotT: Sherlock solves puzzles, Watson saves lives. The back-cases of the episode show Watson being intelligent, competent, and helpful, specially as a doctor. Sherlock believes that he's been saved by Watson through their friendship. The case at the end is solved through both Watson's saving of lives and Sherlock's solving of puzzles (we are even shown that Watson has another friend! who is also a recluse!). Watson is at peace in his relationship with Harriet. We are even shown that Watson is secretly drinking more alcohol during his bachelor bender, to not disappoint Sherlock's calculations about his alcohol tolerance, and so "ruin" his fun and the work he put on it.

This goes on through HLV as well; Watson gets some PTSD flashbacks, then manages firmly and competently the "rescue" of Isaiah Whitley, and even shows some of that colder and a tad cruel side that was hinted in the UP. He has authority enough to make Mycroft leave when he tells him to. He's in on the plan to reveal Mary's past as a spy, and even later on is the one to suggest Sherlock puts a tracker on her before she drugs him and leaves, which shows both practicality and foresight. He even jokes with Lestrade about Sherlock being like a baby!

Even though The Abominable Bride only happens in Sherlock's mind and therefore doesn't really count towards Watson's characterization, it is worth noticing that in it Watson is so much more involved in monitoring and containing Sherlock's drug problem than he has proven to be till that point (sure, Watson got Molly to test him in HLV, but nothing came of it, and the treatment of the matter in TLD is even worse).

The only way to make some sense of The Six Thatchers and TLD, Watson-wise, is to play along with this idea of Watson as supremely practical, competent, and mature. His being rather checked out about Mary (he spends the whole morning (9 hours) of what seems to be one of his free days just proving with a balloon that Sherlock doesn't need him, while his wife is dealing with a very young baby, for example), and his emotional affair are to be understood not as part and parcel of the character we've seen through series 1 and 2, but as a moment of weakness of the character they say he is in s3.

It's not just the only way to understand not only his intense guilt, but the way the narrative tries to present the infidelity as "well, it is what it is, we are all human" down to Sherlock telling Watson that even Watson is human. That's not what Watson actually is, though, through most of the series. He's a callous, violent, horny idiot, which the narrative calls human, and that's the resolution of the opening scene of TLD about things being wrong and being able of calling them wrong. They are just what they are and we are all human.

The finale is all about Sherlock and Eurus, and so Watson's development ends here.

And the thing is, that I would have liked to see much more of the potential the characterizations in UP showed. That would have been an interesting dynamic. I think the casting of Martin Freeman for Watson was great, and that he elevates whatever he's in (yes, even The Hobbit movies), but was ultimately wasted, and for what?

Maybe it is that the BBC demanded those changes to bring in a lighter tone and comedic relief. Maybe they really wanted a sort of loose remix of House M.D. (which is what the Sherlock-Watson dynamic is most of the time in this show) instead of the Sherlock Holmes adaptation Mofftiss wanted to make. Maybe only after the show became wildly popular they were allowed to do what they wanted that way. But it was too little, too late, and mixed in with a steep decline of the quality of the writing of everything else.

Even within the limits of that generous reading of what happened, it is still stories they wrote and signed, where what could have been a compelling character with many interesting things to explore, from an actually accurate portrayal of PTSD (and not the "actually it is civilian life that is giving him PTSD because he's an adrenaline junkie, surprise!), and a war injury and physical disability being taken seriously, to his grounding role in Sherlock's life, a development of his deductive abilities, a more equal and complex relationship with Mary... we got an idiot whose function in the plot most of the time was narrative punchbag and high contrast to Sherlock's übermensch.

And that's such a pity.

#ask #apesoformythoughts #sherlock #sherlock meta #listen this isn't anywhere near as coherent and polished as I wanted it to be #but I've been working on this reply for so long #I have reached the #it doesn't have to be perfect it just has to be posted #stage of things #and for that I apologize #and will be happy to clarify/discuss specific points

17 notes · View notes

questinwitchface · 2 months

Note

Just in case someone else may want your opinion, I'm asking off anon. How do you decide which details to include for a slow burn fic? When do you know it isn't too much or too little but a satisfying amount of both prose and dialogue?

Thanks for the ask, dear! I want to preface this by saying I'm not a professional writer, nor am I a teacher, so my answer is based purely on my own experience and process.

How do you decide which details to include for a slow burn fic?

I usually start at the end and visualize or even write some sections about where I want the characters to be by the end of the story. Then I look at the beginning and take note of how far the characters are from that ending. Then I write down a loose plot involving them inching toward that end goal, with the little milestones along the way in their journey. Each detail or milestone needs to support that end-goal, and it's usually very character-driven.

I realize that might be kind of confusing, so I'm going to use The Promise of Cheesecake and a Decent Wine as an example. I started writing the ending smut scene first, and I was really taken in by how well they were communicating and how safe they felt with each other, and I wanted that to be the end goal. Then I started at the beginning with the fake dating situation, where they aren't even together. I wrote the first five chapters of the fic, and wrote in a happy ending for them where they get together at the end of that first fake date, and that was supposed to be that.

But I kept looking at that smut scene I wanted for their endgame. I kept looking at the communication and the sense of safety and understanding, and I kept thinking that it didn't feel earned from just one fake date. So I started thinking about ways to show them learning to communicate better, ways to show their relationship building and strengthening over time.

And I thought, what's a better way to show them growing together than showing them recovering from a fight that could've ended their relationship? So I had the idea for the fight, and I figured a fight needed a catalyst, so I thought of the media issues. And from the media issues, the interview/photoshoot idea was born, and I realized I could use the photoshoot as a way to have Sam let Bucky in on some of his insecurities. And I wanted Sam and Bucky to both have insecurities - not just because that's human - but also because it would contribute to their sense of safety with each other at the end if they were able to work through those insecurities together.

Then there was the second date and the family time plot points, which were really just excuses to show their relationship building, to show them getting closer to each other emotionally and establishing that foundation of care and understanding between them. And I thought, how can I show that care and understanding building? By having Bucky try a wine tasting for Sam's benefit and having Sam make it a point to include Bucky in all of the family stuff. They say so much without saying anything that way. And I could keep going, but I'm not sure you want me to dissect every plot point here or this post is going to be really long and annoying to read lol.

Equally important as their arc together, they each had individual arcs to go through focused on recovering from traumas. Sam's focuses a lot on his identity as a gay man and the traumas from his father and previous relationships. Bucky's focused mostly on recovery from his time as a Hydra captive. Each of them needed to show that they were, individually, getting better and growing. So I included Bucky's study to show that he was growing from that sparse and sad apartment in Brooklyn. I included Sam winning the award from the charity group and his conversation with his father. I included both of their sexual traumas, and I let them support each other through that because that built both of them as individuals and as a couple as well.

It's all about finding my endgame for my characters and using details to support that endgame. If each detail supports your endgame, then none of it will feel like it's too much because it all makes sense and fits in. If you read it and it feels complete and satisfying to you, then it's enough (at least, that rule works about 80% of the time, for the other 20%, I recommend having a beta reader who isn't afraid to tell you when things don't make sense, though I recognize those may be hard to come by).

When do you know it isn't too much or too little but a satisfying amount of both prose and dialogue?

I struggle with this a lot actually. My first drafts often are almost exclusively dialogue with very little prose - they read more like plays with a few stage directions than anything else. I compensate for this weakness during my revision process. I revise my work A LOT. If the first draft is for dialogue, then the second draft adds in actions. The third draft adds inner thoughts. The fourth draft adds details about the setting, items in a scene, other description. I know it sounds like a lot of work, but I find that breaking it down like that and in that order helps me see what's really necessary to a scene.

For the dialogue, I try to find the sweet middle ground between what a character wants to say and what they aren't saying. For instance, if Bucky wants to tell Sam that he loves him, but he's still scared to say it, he might ask Sam if he's eaten anything today instead. The underlying emotion, love and care for Sam, stays present then, but it's not explicit, which makes it something Sam could plausibly miss while the reader might pick up on it. Dialogue for me is always a balancing act between what the characters are saying and what they mean.

For actions, I try to add them doing something while they talk so it's not just two people standing in an empty room talking, which is kind of boring to watch/read. I like adding something like them doing dishes, so at least there's movement in the scene. I like to add facial expressions, which might align more with what the character is saying or might align more with what they want to be saying but aren't. I like to add gestures and mannerisms so that we get a sense of how the characters are feeling without necessarily being told "Sam feels embarrassed/sad/angry/whatever." It just makes the writing feel more alive.

For inner thoughts, I try to only include them if they provide more meaning to a scene. Showing where the thoughts align with actions and words and where they differ allows for conflict in a character, and readers love conflict. I'd say inner conflict is usually the crux of a good slow burn, because the character wants to confess their love but can't for ~whatever plot reason~ so it's useful to have inner thoughts showing that contradiction. Additionally, you can use inner thoughts to sort of double-down on something that happened by explaining more about why a character is doing/did that thing. If the thoughts aren't really adding new perspective to a situation, then I try to skip them because that gets to be too repetitive.

For setting and other descriptions, I just try to add them as necessary. This is probably a controversial opinion, but I generally don't care about setting unless it's specifically relevant to the story, like the house in Cheesecake being a metaphor for their building relationship, or the Captain's quarters in The Pirate Fic having all the books and being the place where Sam and Bucky start to build a friendship. If there's nothing important about the setting, I generally try to include just the bare minimum necessary, so the scene doesn't distract from what's actually important to me in a scene: the characters. It's a fine balancing act, and one I'm not really sure I've gotten good at yet, but that's generally how I try to approach it.

I hope I answered your questions in a way that makes sense. I know I was kind of long-winded, but hopefully it's all good information that you find helpful, or, at least, vaguely interesting. Feel free to ask more questions if I was confusing or you'd like a different example of something. Thanks again for the ask :)

#my answers #my process #my writing process

7 notes · View notes

sneezemonster15 · 1 year

Note

Can we trust databooks and chapter's covers? Did Kishimoto write them?

Like some databooks claim that Sasuke and Karin were in romance, Sakura used to have crush on Sasuke, Sakura filled Sasuke's lonely existence with love. On cover of chapter 363 it is mentioned that Sasuke left or threw away love and ss think it means he left/threw away his love for Sakura.

Haiyya.

No. Databooks, novels, games etc are not canon. NONE of them. Dot. Period. Kishi didn't write them. One of those few pages, where Kishi wrote Sasuke saying that the kiss tasted like miso, that apparently was written by Kishi and that was the reason it was written in first person. But honestly, you can go ahead and disregard that as well if you want. It seriously doesn't matter.

What matters is the story and the story only. Kishi personally wrote parts one and two, Boruto movie, Gaiden and those few extra chapters, one as a pretext for Road to ninja movie and the one where Naruto misses his hokage ceremony. And the one as a pretext to The Last where Kiba and his dog are the MCs. And a couple of pages where Naruto takes Hinata on a date.

Databooks are compiled by the editors. Why else would it talk about things that blatantly go against the story and the actual characterisation? Only people in the fandom, who want to go five steps deeper, have the time and patience to read the databooks. They are just extra material provided by SJ for fans as fanservice. It boosts publicity and keeps the fans interested. That's how any media business works. Just like novels and games which are merchandise. They are NOT canon and they are not to be taken seriously. When you read Harry Potter, what's canon for you? The actual books or the games based on them or the fanfiction based on them? You think the creator has the time to put that kind of effort and time that he already has a shortage of in derivatives of the original work? Kishi sometimes draws the covers of the novels or poster art etc, because he is under the contract by SJ. The novels have his name and the name of the actual writer of the novels written on the cover. Kishi's because he is the original creator of the characters. He has no participation in the actual stories.

He supervises Boruto, and he also was the creative story supervisor of The Last, where he said in an interview that he didn't write the romance bits of it, because he felt embarrassed to make two of his characters, that he thought of as his own children, kiss. Lol. He sure didn't feel embarrassed when he drew a naked Sai and Sasuke performing full on sexual foreplay in fucking canon. Also, Hinata's and Sakura's characters in it are pretty much in character.

But people who understand Kishi's writing know why he does the things that he does and says the things that he says. ALL of it pans out logically. A lot of it because he wrote a gay love story in a limiting genre such as shounen, which itself was a brave and risky thing to do, so he has to be careful about what he says in the interviews. And a lot of times, he just runs his mouth, and why won't he? He wrote such a great story diligently for fifteen fucking years and he can't even talk about it freely because of the limitations of this genre. He wanted to write something different, something that hasn't been done in shounen before, so he wrote a gay love story, which reads like it comes from such a deep and personal and emotional place, but he had to sacrifice other things for it. For example, the ending.

He says other stuff too in his interviews, the snarky stuff, that he says about Sakura and Hinata, tongue in cheek, because he is petty and he enjoys it and he also looks down upon people who aren't able to see his true intentions. Because of their own projection. And I don't mind it honestly. His hands were tied. So if this is the way for him to take his frustrations out, so be it. It's partly the reason he wrote Gaiden. He could have written it so differently, it was a new angle, he wrote new elements in it, but he chose not to. He decimated SS in it. Because he wanted to. Because he couldn't care less for SS. And he has never shown anything but disdain for Sakura's character consistently.

You know how he would feel for the SS stans? The same thing he felt and said for Sakura's seiyuu who was just so excited for Sarada's character, the result and reason for SS. Heh.

Mockery. It's pretty consistent too.

You can go ahead and stamp it up on your mind, only the original manga is canon. Plus few other things mentioned above. What Kishi wrote. Nothing else matters. Absolutely nothing.

As for chapter 363, this.

Guys. Do you really think Sasuke said this for Sakura? What does your understanding indicate?

With all due respect, I need to say this. You guys are just way too gullible. SS are one of the craziest and most delusional fandoms in the history of fandoms, so much so that, its own creator mocks it relentlessly.

Do you really think Sasuke means Sakura when Kishi talks about his love?? For real?

Who is Sasuke's one and only.....friend? Who is the ONLY one Sasuke needs to 'cut off' to be truly alone? Who became Sasuke's 'closest friend' which Sasuke himself said was very significant for him? Who is his 'Usuratonkachi' which is his word in Kishi's most favourite panel, a conclusive, final panel that he had already thought of years before the manga ended? Who is the person Sasuke protects and cares for at the cost of his own goals and ambitions, no matter how small the threat, and even almost died for without a second thought? Whom does his body move for on its own? Who is the person he shed happy tears for? Who is the person he resonated with, who related his loneliness with, and who felt warm and fuzzy for, who reminded him of his bonds with his family, his core motivation?

Now who is the person he apathetically attempted several times to get rid of in part two? Who is the person he called annoying and was utterly unimpressed with, who got called annoying by him consistently? Who was the person he said he had no reason to love and that person has no reason to love him? Who was the person he couldn't care less for and left to die in lava dimension but rescued Naruto even when he didn't need to be rescued? Who is the person he cannot even respect as a fighter, who is the person he can't even bother to answer the queries of? Who is the person he can't even bother to thank or apologize to properly? Who is the person he clearly said in reunion that he had already cut off his bonds with? Who is the person he doesn't see for 12 years? Who is the person he is never happy to see, who doesn't even smile for?

Also, what do you understand by love? What does love mean? What do you feel when you love someone?

Someone with whom you resonate deeply with, with whom you share your loneliness, whom you would give your life for and whom you would protect tooth and nail at the expense of your own life in order to sustain their goals and dreams, to have them live at the expense of your own ambition, someone whom you smile and laugh with, someone who makes you feel like family, warm and cared for?

Someone who you show at best some friendliness but then at their lack of understanding and empathy makes it easy for you to cut off your bonds with? Someone whom you can't respect? Someone whose intelligence and instincts you can't trust? Someone whom you can't even take seriously?

Do you really need me to answer these questions? For real?

Do you really cannot see something as crystal clear as this? Would you really let yourself be manipulated by silly ass SS who Kishi himself made the laughingstock of the fandom? Why do you give them so much credit? Honestly, if this was some experimental cinema that you needed explaining, I would have done it. I do explain the more indirect parts of it anyway. But you seriously gotta be smarter than that guys.

SS have NOTHING except for their crazy ass delusions. Trust your instincts. Trust Kishi's writing. He is the freaking creator. Who would you believe, him, the one who wrote this story or SS who come up with crazy ass garbage bin metas? Give yourself some credit.

I have like sixty repetitive asks just on the topic of SS said this, SS said that, and you guys ask this to every SNS analysis blog there is. And they all pretty much say the same thing. And why wouldn't they? Because that's what Kishi meant you to read. It's hardly rocket science. It's so goddamn clear for everyone to see. But you guys are still so goddamn insecure.

Even casual fans can see it's about SNS and both SS and NH are last minute shit for the sake of Boruto. How?

Common fucking sense.

SS have to be delusional to believe in their ship because they literally have NOTHING else. And they say shit like this and you believe it willy nilly.

Forget SS. Read the manga for yourself. Make your own conclusions. I don't mind explaining stuff but I draw a line at spoonfeeding shit that is already clear as crystal. What do you want me to do? Teach you the alphabet? English? Words? Sentences? You want me to be your kindergarten teacher?

Seriously. Stop. Doubting. Yourselves. Kishi's story might be a little indirect but it's not incomprehensive. Really, it's not difficult. For the most part, it's pretty straightforward. For the rest, I am here and I would do my best to help you understand. Which I already do.

But put some effort yourselves. And for heaven's sake, don't be so gullible. Don't be so fucking EASY.

YOU, SNS, have EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS. Fuck NH, SS. NrSk, SK. They have nothing. And you have one of the best written love stories in the entire world.

And you are still so damn insecure, it's seriously ridiculous. Kishi put so much damn work in this love story, you apparently are in the fandom because of it, but you still doubt it. At the end of the day, it pretty much negates what Kishi himself wrote with so much damn effort. All because of- SS SaiD tHiS, Ss saID thAt. 😭

This is a love story about Sasuke and Naruto.

I have said it a million times already. Trust your instincts. That's how stories work. That's how they are written. Follow the story for the story's sake. Not for shipping. You are not in competition with ANYONE. No one can compete with SNS, how can they? The whole story is a love story about THEM! Unless that's all you care about. Competing. In which case, go to someone else. I am here to talk story and characters. I don't give any credit to NH and SS and you are only enabling them when you obsess over every little stupid thing they say. Stop it.

#ask #sasuke #naruto #sasunaru #narusasu #sns

121 notes · View notes

the-writing-moon · 3 months

Text

so i work in a well-known library, right, as a part-timer, and it's been great working with the books, they're real friendly and everything. but this is a very exclusive library, right, you have to send in an application and maybe get interviewed to get in because we're dealing with really old archival material here; i've had to dust crumbled paper off of desks and some of the spines of these hundreds-of-years-old books have been replaced with electric tape with their titles rewritten with wite-out from how much the spines have fallen out. i look up and see dead white men glaring down at me from murals and paintings and busts from the ceiling, probably aghast and wondering how a fucking little island girl is handing their precious books and poking at their dutch-painted glass windows with her grimy brown fingers. this is just set-dressing, so you really know where i'm coming from.

anyways, you know those memes that go around writing communities? doesn't matter if you write fics or manuscripts, we've all seen them, liked them, reblogged them.

"writing a slash fic instead of writing i've been googling what jewelry young german women wore in the 1700s"

"i'm pretty sure i'm on the fbi and interpol hitlists because of my search history"

"story prompt: overly helpful serial killer sweetheart x clueless crime fiction writer"

"when you don't know long division but you can talk about the taxation laws in victorian england because you needed to find out how taxes work to make your story believable"

they're memes that make you chuckle, guffaw, and nod because they're relatable! everyone hates the idea of being corrected by a random poindexter who can call you out on your bullshit on victorian tax laws, you uncultured fool, or who happens to know how blood sprays look if you shoot a person a certain way, you gormless coward, not because they were shooting the gun but they were part of the forensics team, pinky promise, i wasn't there on the 15th of november. and it's a bit absurd. like, who exactly knows - or cares - about victorian tax laws? does it really matter to write about reality in all its facets into fiction? majority of your readers probably aren't vampires or other extant immortals so does it really matter if you don't hold history up as accurately as possible in your 30k friends-to-enemies-to-lovers dark academia yuri slashfic? does historical accuracy matter when you're writing about samurais in the heian period in modern english with modern sensibilities? who would even know what stuff was really like back then? some things aren't googlable, and you can't always trust google anyways.

i don't know the answer to all these questions. but i know the answer to one.

so, back to the library.

one day, i'm shelving history books one after the other, listening to an audiobook from a public library using a library card of which i faked my address for me to use. reparations. and way more ethical than piracy in my eyes. support authors, patronize libraries, and all that. when i shelve books, i like to wonder about who reads them and why. what research they're doing. what they're doing here. whether they know how lucky they are. i envy this library where i work. i envy the people who live in this town. i envy the readers. they have all of this because someone recognized the value of hoarding, the value of taking and tabulating and preserving. one could argue it's the colonial way. but enough of that, i'm shelving books, books that i sometimes wonder at, because i never could have imagined so many books on so many topics, and sometimes they are topics that are so trivial and-

and i'm holding, in my hands, a book about the jewelry young german women wore in the 1700s.

being in a university town, you come to understand that academics have their pet projects; the drive to understand the minutiae of their field, of humanity, of nature. think of a topic and there's probably a dissertation for that. you also understand there is a lot of publishing politics, that researchers' papers are paywalled behind exorbitant fees for which they receive no royalties from. you also understand that academia can also be elitist, even when the people inside it call for open access.

to other people, i'm sure i sound incoherent and raving. but i'm sure that there are people out there who understood why i took several moments staring at this book, recalling all those fucking memes about historical accuracy, of people joking that they're looking for things even the internet has no answer for. because the answers do exist. someone's written about them. someone took the time to look at and tabulate and write about german jewelry. someone else, tax laws. some other person, blood sprays, either through study or applied experimentation. the knowledge is out there. they just aren't available to you.

#writeblr #writing community #writers of tumblr #essay #personal essay #thought this was going to be a funny haha post #but you kno what #sure #i love writing essays on tumblr actually because i get to be as batshit and descriptive as i want here #anD EVEN IF THERE WAS AN ONLINE COPY OF THE BOOK #COULD YOU ACCESS IT FOR FREE? SAFELY? ON DEMAND?#booklr #open access

6 notes · View notes

multiplicity-positivity · 10 months

Note

I only have 2 headmates and idk how to get along with them :(

For context they're both OCS (one old, I made her in 3rd grade and one is new- made very recently) and they unfortunately know that. The issue is that all of my ocs have bad things happen often and I imagine they hate me for that

They also hate each other's guts for other reasons but it just sucks not having any peace

Hmm… we know it can be really really hard to get along with other headmates sometimes! And your headmates being OCs probably really complicates the situation, huh?

We have a little note that we keep with us when we’re feeling overwhelmed and stuck in memory time:

(ID in alt text!)

This really helps us when we’re starting to feel guilty for not handling our childhood trauma better, or feeling like we’re never going to be good enough because of what happened to us, or trying to bear the weight of our history on our shoulders all the time! Our therapist told us the mantra and we wrote it down to keep handy :3

This helps us deal with painful childhood memories… But! we really feel like this sort of message may help people with exotrauma or painful exomemories too! >w<

As writers and creators, it’s okay to put your characters in difficult or traumatizing situations!! It comes with the territory of being an artist!! And you shouldn’t have to put a stop to that or feel guilty about it just because your OCs developed into headmates!!

But for your headmates…. It makes sense that this stuff will bother them! It makes sense that they might have to process exotrauma because of some decisions made by their creator (you!). It’s possible to allow them space, to support them on this process, and to recognize that you may have made choices regarding their histories… but that doesn’t make you at fault even one bit!!

Exotrauma can be really tricky and also icky to navigate! We have alters with exotrauma in our system and it’s been a wild ride helping them process it while other members process real-life trauma! But being willing to help and listen, not judging your headmates for feeling certain ways about their circumstances, and understanding where their apprehension comes from could all really help you be there for them when they need it!!! Does that make sense to you? Idk if I’m using “apprehension” right lol but I mean like their wariness or cautiousness or unwillingness to put the past behind them and get to know you!

Speaking of getting to know you… maybe y’all should try conducting interviews to get to know each other!!

I made this headmate interview form a while back! it’s a fun, laidback way for headmates and alters to start learning about each other as they are now, not as they once were!!

Could y’all perhaps spend some time conducting lighthearted, low-stakes interviews to figure out what each other likes and what they are like? And once you have a good idea, you can start going out of your way to do nice things for each other!!!

If we’ve learned anything in therapy, it’s that kindness, apologies, forgiveness, and compassion can be amazing tools for coming together as a team!! Our frequent fronter group is able to work together the way we do because of this!! Like this time last year, I never would’ve dreamed I’d ever cofront with Kandi to work together on art or posts and stuff… but here we are!! And it’s all thanks to learning more about each other and daring to show each other compassion even when we didn’t want to!! :333

So in the end, we don’t know for sure what will help y’all reach a mutual understanding and stop hating each other…. But we can give you advice for what’s helped us in the past! We still have alters who hate each other (ahhhhh) but at least we’re making progress!!! And that’s what counts!! We Can Move Forward!! And we believe y’all can too!! >w<

💚 Ralsei and 🦇 Alucard (or Kandi - bats got two names and likes them used interchangeably!)

#trauma #exotrauma #exomemories #octive #getting along #cooperation #hope we tagged this right!

24 notes · View notes