"but this ship is not even canon" and "but this ship broke up" and "but these people are literally dead" lol. to YOU. they're making love under the stars to me (insp)

hey so riddle me this guys:

how is that people on twitter (the nastiest, evil, cesspool of negativity site), have a healthier and distant appreciation and respect for Michael Sheen and David Tennant's real life partners/wives, whereas on tumblr (what I thought was a genuine safe space full of like-minded individuals), is actually full of the most disrespectful, jealous fueled, and hateful people, regarding Anna and Georgia (most of the hate I see is towards Anna but on occasion Georgia gets some of the same treatment) why tumblr?

WHY??

Following up on this excellent post from @nightgoodomens, it really is astonishing to see so many people in the GO fandom misunderstanding the characters/personalities of Aziraphale and Crowley. While I by no means am against people having head canons or differing interpretations, it has become frustrating to see people pushing their ideas about Aziraphale and Crowley onto others and declaring them to be official canon, leaving no room for any kind of discussion.

One of the things spoken about in the above linked post is the denigrating of Crowley, which seems to be a near constant in the fandom at this point, particularly in relation to the "apology dance" scene. (Which, to be fair, is chock full of soft!Dom Aziraphale vibes--thank you, Michael Sheen.) What seems to keep getting missed is that the entire apology dance routine is something that Aziraphale and Crowley do to each other. There is just as much of a possibility that Crowley sat there with a similarly smug look on his face and let out a guttural, snakey "Very nice" when Aziraphale did the dance in the years he listed off, because they play this game together.

Aziraphale and Crowley's relationship is one of equals, and I think this is also something people seem to not understand well. It seems as though a lot of fans who project themselves onto Crowley want to be taken care of, and so they want to believe the same of Crowley, and that the reason he wants to be taken care of is because he is broken. But someone doesn't have to be broken to want someone to take care of them. Sometimes the people who are a shambles on the outside can be dominant, just as sometimes the most buttoned up, put together people can also be submissive. And sometimes the people who look in control on the outside can feel not at all that way on the inside.

But this nuanced thinking seems to increasingly be difficult for many GO fans, particularly those who spend a great deal of time on social media, a place where people are either blindly praised or denigrated and torn down, and where such behavior greatly reinforces that binary, black-and-white mindset. We so badly want the world to be clear-cut--good vs. evil, heroes vs. bad guys--but very often that just isn't how things work. And it is exactly what Terry and Neil were trying to speak against in the GO book (and subsequently, the TV show).

The other thing that I think influences a lot of fans' perceptions about Aziraphale and Crowley is their chosen corporations (i.e., Crowley being thin and Aziraphale being plump). There is an automatic assumption that thin somehow equals more vulnerable, and for all of the emphasis that is placed on Aziraphale and Crowley being genderfluid/nonbinary/not subscribing to traditional gender roles, it's Crowley who seems to be viewed as more androgynous/femme, and is therefore looked at as inherently vulnerable. Meanwhile Aziraphale is thicker and viewed as more masculine, and therefore he is somehow inherently not vulnerable. Yet if the body types were reversed, it seems highly likely that fans' attitudes toward them would be much different.

(It also saddens me that this seems to mirror the fans' treatment of Michael and David, where Michael serves as a target for the fans' venom and is seen as less desirable/more threatening because he presents more traditionally masculine, while David is not targeted or attacked and is seen as more desirable/less threatening because he presents much more androgynously. Consequently, many fans find it easy not to sympathize with Michael, and when you can readily disregard someone's feelings, it becomes easier to see them as "less." In the case of Aziraphale and Michael, it leaves no room for either one to be vulnerable and is unfair to both of them.)

What I have always taken away from Good Omens--and from Michael and David's portrayal of Aziraphale and Crowley and how deeply they both understand these characters--is that Crowley doesn't need to be a perfect angel for Aziraphale to like him. He just needs to be a little bit of a good person. And Aziraphale doesn't need to be a perfect demon for Crowley to like him--he just needs to be enough of a bastard to be worth knowing. Neither one has to fully subscribe to the other's outlook or point of view to listen to what they have to say.

Aziraphale and Crowley meet in the middle. In the place that becomes their side, and where they take care of each other, fight with each other, and love each other. And that's more than most of us could ever ask or hope for...

i’m so serious about female characters that fandom tries to diminish and erase. I WILL keep my girl alive by all means, years from now a new generation will fall for her and she will mean everything to them.

You think the worst that can happen to your favourite character is death? Oh, you sweet summer child.

Try "being butchered by the narrative, mischaracterised to their very core traits to fit into a predisposed plotline"

Because the people in charge don't like anyone taking the spotlight away from the Character Who Was Supposed To Be Fan Favourite™.

Or simply because they didn't care enough about the little person you liked.

Or you survive these trials intact, maybe the fandom would do the butchering with a popular fanon interpretation of the character so wrong, you question if you consumed the same media.

So, I filtered out the bucktommy tag because I'm really not vibing with them. I'm somewhat of a mono-shipper I'm afraid. I also don't see the chemistry between Buck and Tommy. I tried to embrace them, but you can't force what is simply not there. 🤷‍♀️

So this is about curating the dash. No hate. Ship and let ship and all.

But now so much of my dash is being filtered out. It's insane how it is everywhere. I miss my Buddie-peeps and their theories and meta and just the general excitement of the fandom over Buddie.

Now that Buck is confirmed as bisexual (which is still mindblowing to me), it might actually happen some day. Buddie might go canon somewhere in the future. I really thought that the fandom would go nuts over that, after so many years of waiting and wanting this to happen. I simply don't get it.

So anyway, if there are Buddie fans that feel the same way, feel free to follow me and I'll follow back. I need some more Buddie content on my dash.

I don't tolerate ship hate or character hate (whether Buddie or Buck Tommy), so you won't see that here.

Let’s kick this post off with a little definition-

Mousy- nervous, shy, or timid; lacking in presence or charisma

This term is often used in a negative way, and in this fandom we all know who gets called mousy. Literally just saw someone today equate Molly being mousy with character flaws. But read the definition again… what’s wrong with this? Nothing. These are just personality differences, not flaws. Why does a female character have to be loud, pushy, and full of confidence to be seen as strong and valuable? Yes sometimes men don’t write women well, but I’d actually argue that’s not the case with Molly Hooper. There’s literally nothing wrong with being quiet and mild. (Which, btw, you’d have to have stopped watching at s1 to think that’s how she is all the time lol) And there’s also nothing wrong with being in love with someone, even when they don’t love you the way you want in return. Those things don’t make you weak or mean that you’ve had no character development.

People should be careful not to miss the point of Molly. The other characters that are important to Sherlock are very in your face and obvious. With Molly it’s more subtle. That’s a huge plot line! Because Moriarty missed it too. But there’s also plenty of times where it’s spelled out nice and clear.

“You do count. You’ve always counted and I’ve always trusted you.”

Don’t ignore what those words of Sherlock’s mean. It means that even back when she seemed less important to the viewer, she actually wasn’t. She was always important to him. Do you think he’d feel that way if she truly was a doormat of a person? No. Again, just because you’re quiet, nervous, or shy doesn’t mean you’re weak or worthless. Sherlock always knew how strong and intelligent and loyal she was, so he didn’t care about how she came across socially. Why should the viewer? Maybe because it’s just more comfortable to see her as the badly written doormat. 👀

And how about the argument that she “deserved better” and got cheated out of “closure?” I’d really like to dig into that and compare Molly’s supposed lack of closure to the other characters. Does anyone claim Greg got no closure? Or John? Or Mycroft? Or Mrs Hudson? Huh, that’s funny. Because I don’t recall a scene with any of them hashing out all their feelings with Sherlock and coming to a mutual agreement of where things stood. They all got the same thing. They were all included in the montage at the end. They were all shown to be happy and clearly still close with Sherlock. The implication of that is so incredibly obvious, despite not having it spoon fed to us on screen. So again, explain to me how she’s the poor sad victim when all the other characters aren’t? 🤨 Adding to that, a lot of us believe that Sherlock (at least by the later seasons) did indeed love Molly in a way that wasn’t just platonic. There’s plenty of evidence to that as well, though that’s not something that needs defending. You either see it or you don’t.

But anyway, regardless of ship canon, there’s plenty of Molly Hooper canon that is so misread and/or ignored. That’s what I wanted to defend. Because IMO the justice Molly Hooper deserves is simply that her character and canon is seen for what it truly is.

Being fan of a character who has everything wrong,can so strange sometimes.Like whenever someone badmouth them,you are like"Hey,leave them alone they have done noth-"!!...oh wait,nevermind boo them harder,"

Or when they are about to do worst mistake in their life,you are like"I love and care for you but for love of god please dont do this..."

At end of the day,you still love and hate them.

Possibly controversial opinion: Stargate Atlantis was actually pretty damn good. There were flaws, of course, and there's room for legitimate criticism, of course. But I've always been utterly bewildered by the fandom take where it's like Supernatural-level bad, only saved by the fandom.

I remember folks giving "shipping" episode guides that basically said "don't want 90% of the episodes" and then they'd complain that the show neglected certain characters, or other characters didn't have steady character growth. Or no one ever called out the admittedly very morally questionable choices.

...except they did. A lot. Those just happened in the episodes that you left off your stupid shipping guides.

(And it's not like fandom IMPROVED the treatment of the more neglected characters either. Particularly the characters of color. Ronon and Teyla absolutely deserved more screentime and stories in the show itself but fandom was conveniently good at ignoring the arcs they did get, shuffling them off to side roles - especially in the 18 million coffee shop AUs, or just omitting them entirely.)

TLDR: Stargate Atlantis is actually a pretty good show that holds up reasonably well on rewatch, as long as you ignore 90% of the fandom that still likes to celebrate how much they apparently disliked it.

feliciafancybottom replied to your post "angelsadvocate96 replied to your post "I am…"

I saw one earlier about Michael setting such a fine example for straight boys who go through a 'phase' of crushing on men. Yeahhh. Michael "No closet can hold me" Sheen… Michael "Happy Bi" Sheen… Michael "I set David on fire fairly regularly" Sheen… Michael Sheen who did one sex scene with Stephen Fry 27 years ago and hasn't stopped talking about riding him like a bucking bronco ever since. Is that the right Michael Sheen? If so, I think someone needs to tell him that he's the Sheriff of Straighttown now because I don't think he got the memo.

@feliciafancybottom Oh my God. "A phase"...yeah. That's always the other one, isn't it. Never mind that he had a crush on John Taylor when he was a teenager, and then a crush on Jude Law during Wilde when he was almost 30, and now an overwhelmingly obvious crush on David in his 50s. Nope, definitely just a phase.

I just...I genuinely do not understand how anyone thinks that the man who made that "closet" tweet, who christened himself "THE southern pansy" during Pride Month a few years ago, who said he considers one of his characters (Roland Blum) to be pansexual, and who has been telling us exactly who he is in every way possible for multiple years now...is completely straight. And to then have the gall to dismiss Michael's sexuality by further referring to it as a "phase" is the peak of bi erasure.

On one positive note, I will say that "Sheriff of Straighttown" made me snort, and I'm now picturing Michael and David roleplaying that with Michael as the "straight" Sheriff and David as the seductive "saloon girl" who leads him astray, so thank you for that. Haha. Good times...

Actors, voice actors, writers, directors, authors, etc. are PEOPLE. Often people just doing a job. They don’t owe you answers if they don’t want to answer. They should not have to put up with harassment of any kind.

PLEASE treat them like human beings.

What's a fandom that you think needs more attention?

If you even mildly like Hamilton, You will love SIX the Musical. It's a history musical but it's British, plus feminine rage.

We stan the queens