my gripe with heartstopper both as a concept and a show in general

While I do dislike Heartstoppper, it’s not for any deep or profound reason. I think it has bad acting, bad writing, no coherent theme, underlying message or much nuance. Objectively, it’s just a shitty show. Of course that doesn’t mean I don’t think it should exist or anything like that - queer people deserve easy to watch and just feel good series, particularly one’s aimed at teenagers and children. God knows there’s enough straight ones.  

My issue is the reception it received. I think most people can agree that Heartstopper definitely “blew up” so to speak. That’s whatever but a lot of people are definitely acting as if Heartstopper is some kind of era defining genius of queer representation, when it just isn’t. 

I mean c’mon man. We have an abundance of new shows featuring queer characters and you choose to stand with Heartstopper?? 

Heartstopper is good at what it is, a linear and easy to understand romcom about two British boys. And that’s fine, not everything has to be a work of absolute genius but acting like Heartstopper is the be all and end all of queer representation and that it’s completely new, original and progressive just isn’t true in my opinion.

I’m sure there’s millions of reasons why Heartstopper gained so much attention compared to other queer centred shows, but in my completely uneducated opinion I feel it’s because Heartstopper is very linear and easy to digest and understand for non-queer people. I mean the show literally spells it out, “that’s homophobic, Harry.” There’s no room for nuance or intricacies, which is great if you’re not queer.

Other recent shows like Young Royals and Our Flag Means Death very much centre queer people and are made for queer people. Young Royals doesn’t appeal as much to a non-queer audience because it doesn’t always spell things out in a way that’s easy to understand if you can’t relate to the characters personally. 

In addition to this, I really feel that most news outlets, award shows, instagram influencers and whatever else, just don’t want to deal with queer people fucking nasty and being weird and eccentric because, say it with me, it isn’t palatable for a non-queer audience. In Young Royals Wilhelm threatens to blow his cousin’s head off with a shotgun. Our Flag Means Death is literally centred around gay outlaws that blow people up for a living. I mean why navigate that when we can just talk about those cute white boys kissing at a party.

It sort of feels like Heartstopper is trying to sell a story about queer people for straight audiences. Young Royals has never shied away from explicit affection between the two main characters. Our Flag Means Death takes old, fat and hairy men and makes them the stars of a queer story. Of course you don’t have to show sex or swearing or drugs to make a good queer show and teenagers do deserve to see themselves represented, but in terms of breaking boundaries and being innovative - which a fuckload of people are claiming it is - Heartstopper isn’t really the best example. 

It should be said that anything featuring a queer relationship does push boundaries for the most part, as even just two dudes holding hands can rustle the jimmies of homophobic people. But it’s important to realise that Heartstopper is not the absolute pinnacle of queer representation, it is just one way queer people can be represented.

tl;dr: Heartstopper is not necessarily a bad show but at the same time it is not incredibly innovative piece of queer media that a lot of y’all make it out to be.

I am curious what you, a preeminent Aziraphale Understander, thinks about all the Final Fifteen theories i.e. the slew of theories that basically boil down to the F15 are not to be taken at face value, Aziraphale is either lying under threat or being manipulated by the Metatron via coffee or whatever, etc.

thank you for asking! it is a blessing and a curse to understand aziraphale but i will do my very best to put vibes into words. like everything he did in the final fifteen tracks to me, but i'll try to explain why in case people are still struggling with it. obligatory this is my opinion blah blah blah but if you disagree then make your own post so it's easier for me to ignore

anyway. here's the thing. i think textually it's pretty clear that aziraphale didn't have a choice. i think the show made that obvious with the "give me coffee OR give me death", the title sequence includes a coffee cup marching along with the other figures, this being a shared moment of materiality/consuming human food which was established as significant in "othering" angels/demons from their respective sides in the job minisode. the end result is meant to be a kinship to rationalize aziraphale agreeing with the metatron, as everything about the metatron in e6 was designed to 1. attract aziraphale 2. repel crowley

the repulsion worked on crowley, even just secondhand. he sees the manipulation and understands that aziraphale being used as distraction for the second coming is far more significant than what aziraphale believes he is capable of towards making any meaningful change in heaven. but i don't think the metatron's attraction worked on aziraphale. i don't think the end result we saw was aziraphale agreeing because the metatron was likable, and i think he's fully aware of the manipulation (even if he doesn't know about the second coming yet). just as, with the coffee cup, he is fully aware that he has no other choice. of course, this isn't a removal of autonomy to aziraphale; most of his character choices throughout the series are him working inside the idea that he he NEVER has a choice anyway (re: god's plan, ineffable or otherwise). and in this case, he knows just as well as crowley does that he was offered this position in heaven to be split up from crowley/earth for whatever reason; he just absolutely thinks that what he'll be able to achieve in heaven overrides however the metatron thinks he'll be able to be restrained/distracted. and in a much larger sense, he sees this as something he's meant to do via god

and aziraphale wants crowley to come with him. that's not fake or naive, and he doesn't think crowley will refuse bc their communication skills are quite literally the central conflict of the show. aziraphale is like, look how powerful we are together. look how much heaven wants to split us up. if you come with me to heaven, we are in a much better position of making meaningful change so we can have a peaceful existence together in the future, ON earth. which is what you clearly want. and i don't think this is a naive viewpoint to have like other people have said; i think this is confident. i think aziraphale is saying we can change the FOUNDATIONS of heaven, while crowley is saying the foundations CANNOT be changed. they are operating off two different modes of thought. and aziraphale uses crowley's perceived 'rejection' as fuel when he steps on that elevator, not out of anger towards crowley (at least not genuinely) but as desperate fodder to the fire that's been stoking 6000-so years of anger. in that moment (regarding the smile in the elevator), following the look to the bentley after he learns about the second coming and understands what crowley knew and was purposefully not saying, i just think that to aziraphale, crowley becomes another person to prove wrong

so ultimately did aziraphale have a choice? no. does he know this? yes. does he still make the decision to accept the supreme archangel position as if he had a choice? also yes. why? because he's insane (i say this with love). and also he has aligned himself with god more than he's ever aligned himself with heaven, and he's going to show everyone what he's capable of

Rant Post #1

CW: Rant about fem!MC naysayers.

If this is something you don't agree with, ignore it, block me, and/or DNI. I'm so done with this opinion. 😩

.

You have been warned.

.

.

.

I really gotta get off my chest, but...

Why must the Debbie downers have to complain about having a fem!MC where people are excited about the said fem!MC gathered?? Do these ppl enjoy party pooping or something???

I'm not saying you can't have that sort of opinion, but do you really have to vocalize it at a freaking female MC celebration???? Or every freaking time when someone talks about Fem!MCs???

And their reasons are absurd as usual 🙄

YES, obviously god forbid that a female character in an official media to have a non-romantic relationship with the male cast!! And being female must mean there is going to be RoMaNce!!!

And on a different note, are these ppl just going to ignore the fact that one of the favorite pastimes of a fandom is shipping?? Sooo romance without an official female character is fine in their book, but somehow if a official female character is involved it's a problem all of a sudden???

Or they will claim that the existence of a female MC itself is bad because it brings unnecessary tension since the 'bad sort' of self-shippers can't keep themselves in check. Well, the shipping wars between M/M pairings say HELLO.

Stop calling the kettle black, you pots. And don't you dare blame the female MCs for the behavior of some bad apples. You know there are bad apples on either side, and even if you are not a shipper of any kind still you aren't neutral as you pretend to be when you ONLY call out on the bad apples on one side.

Also, what's with this 'no love for the male MC' bs?? You're at a party celebrating the female MC!!! Of course people are going to be excited and talk mostly about the female MC!!!! What were you expecting?????

If you want to see some male MC love in the middle of and female MC celebration, then go on and make your own thread, draw your own fanarts! No one is stopping you.

And if you wouldn't demand a character A stan to draw a character C fanart, why are you asking that to a bunch of female MC enthusiasts? Can we not have some preference and priorities??

Geez, the logic of these naysayers is so weird.

Obligatory disclaimer: This rant is NOT to complain about people who enjoy male/masc MCs or M/M pairings nor to condone attacking them because of the things they like. The only people I have a problem with are the Fem!MC naysayers and that's it.

Let me start by saying that I love all of your meta and analysis soooo much especially the ones about Ozpin. I was curious to hear what what do you think are some legit motally grey things/mistakes he did, not the garbage the haters love to throw around. The only things I can think of are either in an impossible situation with only shitty options (where I don't really consider the decisions as immoral since morality needs agency and the chance of a better choice) like with Pyrrha and Oscar (1/2)

Thank you, anon! And honestly? I couldn’t agree more. I often say that Ozpin has made mistakes partly so that people don’t blow off the points I’m trying to make with, “Oh an Ozpin stan. Ignore her, she thinks he can do no wrong and thus can’t provide an objective opinion.” But honestly? Not all mistakes are created equal. There are mistakes one makes because they’re selfish, foolish, didn’t bother to take precautions---things that are preventable and therefore invite heavy criticism and an acknowledgment of responsibility. However, there are also mistakes that, as you say, are simply outside of your control. You don’t have the information available to make an informed and therefore better choice, or you simply just have bad choices from the get-go. For me, the vast majority of Ozpin’s mistakes are the latter. 

Overall, I think the largest mistake he bears responsibility for is prioritizing his love for Salem over basic ethics. AKA, choosing to become a wannabe god with her and encouraging this mentality that they are intrinsically superior to everyone else in Remnant. Granted, there are many other factors involved in this, including Salem’s status as a creature now consumed by darkness (she was heading down this road no matter what Ozpin may have done differently) as well as her abuse towards Ozpin, her manipulation, and the sheer overwhelming terror of the goal Light set him. Which just reinforces that all Ozpin’s mistakes are understandable to one extent or another. He’s human and his mistakes resonate because, if people are honest with themselves, they’d probably admit, “Yeah. If I found the love of my life again I’d be tempted to ignore Light’s warning about her too. If I was offered a life of luxury and power under the guise of protecting the people, I might cave and go along with that as well...” We get how Ozpin got to that point, we may admit we couldn’t have done better, but we likewise understand that the man he became, regardless of how he got there---from natural human desires to abuse---isn’t okay. As Oz and his host ask themselves, “What are we doing?” And we see how he comes back from that edge. How he rejects that sort of power later when it’s offered to him after the Kingdoms were reunited. Ozpin learned from his mistakes. 

Which adds further complications to his choices in the present day. Just as Ozpin learned that the world doesn’t need him as an all-powerful figurehead, he likewise learned that sharing secrets leads to nothing but the worst kind of consequences. The first time he reveals what he’s hiding? His wife announces that she’s going to take over the world, then murders their children, then him. A more recent time he reveals information? A very close friend betrays him to said wife. Tries to kill him. Nearly kills his allies. Is eventually killed himself. The latest time he was forced to reveal information? People are shouting, grieving, he’s punched into a tree, the one friend still at his side completely rejects him. 

The fandom points to Ozpin’s lies and secret keeping among the group as his greatest mistakes and yes, objectively I agree. Without context I can say no, he shouldn’t have made a promise if he didn’t intend to keep it. He should have just told them that there were questions left, or that the relic attracted grimm. But the thing is that context is there and it always matters. I’ve spoken before about how I think Ozpin made that promise with precisely zero expectation that he’d ever be put into a situation where he might conceivably break it, that I’d also hesitate to tell a group that there were invaluable questions left when they were clearly eager to use them recklessly (which they then did), and that keeping the grimm aspect secret was the only logical course of action because telling them would just attract more. But even ignoring all of the potential justifications attached to each choice, I simply don’t believe we can ignore Ozpin’s trauma. I might not have lied to people like that, but I haven’t been horrifically traumatized for a thousand years whenever I do tell someone information. Ozpin has been conditioned not to tell people and though yes, everyone technically has free will, trauma like that will “force” you to take what you perceive as the only safe option. It fucks with your perception and your understanding of what even is an option in this situation. Ozpin simply no longer has the ability to go, “I’ll trust them!” like the others around him do and their reactions certainly didn’t help teach him otherwise. Imagine that for a thousand years you’re punched every time someone lifts their hand. Then someone you’ve just met demands that you stop flinching whenever they raise theirs. No matter how much you may want to stop, you can’t. Not immediately on someone else’s order. The human experience doesn’t work that way. 

(As a side note, the reason why I emphasize a thousand years so much is because I believe the extent of the trauma and its implied consistency is really relevant here. As is the close tie between that trauma and Ozpin’s choices. There are many other characters out there who I don’t believe “But they had a hard life!” excuses their actions: Snape, Bakugo, recently what I’ve read of Yennefer---among others. It’s notable to me that Ozpin didn’t endure traumatic events by revealing information and then, say, go abuse his students for years. Or tell someone to kill themselves. Or take over someone else’s mind. Not only is his trauma more extensive than the vast majority of characters we meet, but he hasn’t used that trauma as an excuse to get away with horrific---and unrelated---choices. The love of my life rejected me and then died... so I’m going to abuse eleven-year olds under my care. My mom is demanding and people cater to me too much... so I’m going to gleefully beat up my weakest classmate. I dealt with being ugly for a good chunk of my life and now can’t have kids... so I’m going to take away someone’s autonomy and endanger a whole town. Unlike most other characters with tragic backstories, Ozpin has a one-to-one correlation between that hard life and the mistakes he’s made: people hurt me when I tell them things... so I just won’t tell them things. By keeping that strong connection it eliminates the possibility that Ozpin is just using his trauma as an excuse (knowingly or otherwise) and he is, notably, still a good person beyond those very specific choices. We see his horror at the decisions he has to make. We see his endless attempts to be as kind towards others as possible. We see how much he’s fought not to allow his trauma to warp him into a person he’d despise. A person like Salem. Just like not all mistakes are created equal, for me not all people making mistakes are equal either. I’m less likely to forgive your mistakes if you’re an all around horrible person. You’re clearly a good person trying your best? Your mistakes are easier to stomach and, as discussed above, I’m more inclined to assume that these mistakes stem from things outside of your control. If someone who has been nothing but cruel to me lied I’d automatically be pissed. If someone who has been nothing but kind to me lied, I’m inclined to ask them why they did that, expecting that there’s a good reason attached to that decision.) 

So did Ozpin make mistakes? Technically yes, but I think they were mistakes largely outside of his control. Either he only had shit options available to him or he was in a position where the group demanded something of him that his mental health simply wouldn’t allow. People have to remember that we’re not Ozpin (insert obligatory, “He’s fictional” here). We have more options available to us when it comes to our choices, simply by means of not having gone through what he has. His choices are always limited, both by outside factors and his own experiences, and they likewise always have inevitable downsides. Ozpin doesn’t get the luxury of choosing anything that turns out well. 

As a final note, with Volume 7 underway I’d say that another potential mistake has been introduced: making Pyrrha the Fall Maiden. Meaning, unless the story reveals that Winter actually can’t become the next Winter Maiden due to her age (unlikely given that others have said the non-canonical age limit is 30), it raises the question of why he’d choose a 17 year old over a 20-some graduate. However, to me this is pretty clearly a writing issue. The creators were more concerned with keeping the story revolved around RWBYJNR than they were the implications of having Ozpin choose Pyrrha over a more suitable adult. So though yes, I’d technically consider that another mistake.... obviously not much Ozpin could do against his own creators lol. 

Which finally leads to me saying that although Rooster Teeth seems to want us to believe that Ozpin is a morally gray character, they haven’t succeeded in writing one well. That characterization requires a fair balance between what most would consider “good” and “bad” traits. Not a good person presented with only bad choices. Or a character so horrifically conditioned that his ability to make a better decision is almost impossible. We wouldn’t call a person who was manipulated or forced into doing bad things a morally gray character, nor would we use that term if, somehow, they were sick and that led to those choices. That’s how I view Ozpin, mentally as opposed to physically sick. After a thousand years he needs evidence that trusting people and giving them his secrets won’t result in him being hurt. Until he’s shown that, expecting him to trust people just because they insist they are trustworthy is like asking someone with a broken leg to run you a race. They can try, but good look expecting them to succeed.