They're an older couple who who have a very rampant, interesting, maybe perverse sex life.

Cronenberg: Yes.

Which is quite a taboo subject isn't it - older people having sex? Why did you want to address that?

Cronenberg: I'm old, and I have sex. So maybe that's why.

An interview with David Cronenberg on his debut novel Consumed

I’m probably parrotting to the wrong choir here, but at least part of the truth about liking villains vs. condemning villains is...I don’t consume villain content in order to find healthy coping strategies and genuine life advice. I don’t look for healthy coping strategies in sci-fi films and fantasy books or on ao3 in the first place, because 99% of all that input is not produced by people that a) intent or b) are qualified to give meaningful life advice.

 Sometimes things we read or watch can be detrimental to our mental health or can make us happier or mean a lot to us. And that is also why it is important to tag, warn, and summarise content: So that people can avoid things that are bad for them and find things that comfort them. But what popular fiction never is, is a clear, intentional, professional, and universal guide.

 We already talked about how even the most horrible people will read novels where they resemble the bad guys and identify with the good guys instead rather than reflecting their own behaviour. That is, because narratives need stakes. The hero needs to be David, not Goliath. And we too see ourselves as Goliath, in our lives. Because there are always things that are bigger than us. And because we know that David will win.

 But sometimes...sometimes it is quite nice to feel like the giant. Especially when we’re used to feeling small.

 Sure “I like this villain because villains get to do things we want to but can’t” might seem like a tiny brained answer, but if you expand a little, there is truth to it: Sometimes I want to see someone go bloody ape-shit in response to trauma, injustice, being underestimated or forgotten. Sometimes I want to see someone just care about themselves and burn the whole place down and look fabulous doing it, because I know, that in real-life, very often it is sympathy and empathy holding me back for even insisting on minor and very rational things, simply because I don’t want to be a burden on others and because I prioritise other people very highly. There is catharsis in that; in seeing someone getting it out of their system in the most violent way possible just like there is catharsis in going for a run or punching the hell out of a punching bag when you’re frustrated even though you would never chase down and beat up a person.

Because even when see characters standing up for themselves - think of the infamous internet rage over Captain Marvel stealing that bike from the dude that harassed her – their actions are usually centred around punishing the culprit, not the emotions of the party that was wronged. But people got angry. Not because she stole a car, or because she stole it from a men even – but because her acting in response to sexual harassment connected the scene with deep roots of social context and political opinions and expectations.

And, despite hundreds, maybe thousands of films in existence where a white male protagonist steals a car or bike or anything else to save the day, she is read as a villain here simply for doing the rational thing. Much less could she have killed him and burnt down his house, because she is a hero and it doesn’t serve the plot and that would not be the thing a hero does.

A villain burning the whole joint down because someone looked at them funny is acting selfishly, self-centred. But what are you going to do, call them a villain? Duh. Complain about how what they’re doing is wrong? Well, yes.

 The lane of their actions is not narrowed by the actions of the culprit on the one side (heroes have to react appropriately and proportionally) and the expectations of the good-guy on the other (they have to act in accordance with forwarding the plot). Which means putting up with an asshole sidekick or apologising if they undergo character development that makes them a ‘better’ person and requires them to forgive someone). You might have your odd Logan who will throw a punch when he’s pissed – but here we already venture into the territory of an anti-hero.

And personally, our anger, our disappointment, all that will always be much more contained than any fictional space - by our financial situation, the people we depend on, our job, our studies, or family, our social circle. We live in a web of social expectations that we depend on every moment of our life.

Fiction itself also exists in a web of social context: What influence does it have on the audience? Will it sell? What implications does it have? How does it present its characters? Who is the author and what do they stand for? - but the fictional space, aka the world constructed in a novel, is wholly separate:

If I write a novel where I state that every Canadian person likes the colour blue and wears funny hats, then this is true in the universe of that novel, no matter what any Canadian reader might feel about it. This means two things:

1.       As writers, producers, and even as producers of fan-content, we have to be critical about what we put into the world, because by creating a fictional space, we create characters who cannot stand up against the things we say about them or make them do. Just like the superheroine in the skimpy outfit who gets her powers through the sun shining down on her nipples cannot have an authentic discussion about her body. And when young girls read our comic and see that all the male heroes are clothed and the heroine isn’t, then we are the one that came up with the sunshine-nipples.

2.       Our very own, personal interpretation of the novel – even our own - and the way we relate to it is our own. The feelings we project on the characters are individual, personal, and shaped by us.

And yes, villains usually see their comeuppance. And the thing is, many people argue here: “Well, it’s okay if the villain does x, as long as they’re punished for it.” But...that’s a difficult subject. A piece of fiction can condemn the actions of the villain without seeing them lose – the challenge to the writer is to still form a satisfying narrative, because the villain winning is the ‘likely’-seeming thing that every narrative subverts when the hero levels up and returns with her new friends to kick the villain’s ass. But even if you sympathise with the villain, seeing them win would still be an unsatisfying narrative, most of the time.

Because the whole point of an actual evil villain - and sympathising with an actual villain - is that what they’re doing is unjust. Malicious. Selfish. And projecting your desire to strike back or stand up on a villain and seeking catharsis through seeing them go wild and tear down the city needs the pushback. For them burning down the house to be satisfying, you need to see the house burn. For them to blow up the house of parliament to be satisfying – you must see the explosion.

And watching them lose provides the ultimate, necessary gravitas. Watching Team Rocket fly off with Pikachu and live happily ever after on Team Rocket money would not be satisfying. Watching our super-villain burn the world to a crisp with their death-laser would not be satisfying if they just end up getting their rocket and flying off while drinking space-mojitos.

Whether they end up being redeemed or not: The initial moment that someone fights back and defeats them at the height of their immorality and prevents the suffering of innocents is the moment that their willingness and readiness to commit violence is put to the test.

 We know the hero goes through a journey of their own - one that requires sacrifice and steels their commitment until they are ready to take on the villain. And knowing that someone is willing to make sacrifices to be able to take the villain down is the ultimate acknowledgement of the transgressive act the villain committed. Without it, it would be empty. Like watching someone punch the air.

But the truth is also that when you recreate the fictional space in another, secondary space – fanfiction, fan content, fanart – you decide what to focus on. Like, we all enjoy hurt/comfort stories, but they have a different intention than something focussed on action or the growth of the hero – because that requires for us to see the villain go down. The focus is no longer the transgressive acts of the villain – but to lay bare the pain that caused them. It is no longer about beating them down for the sake of justice.

Like, when I make a post about Frankenstein’s monster living happily ever after and people tell me that hey, the monster killed a lot of people - then we have a different premise. Because me not adding a line about the evil things the monster did to my post was based on the premise that you knew that random tumblr user langernameohnebedeutung does not condone the crime of murder because she posts about a 200-year-old book. And the #fact that my point doesn’t construct an ending where the monster stands in front of a judge and is sentenced to a certain time in jail or punished by a more heroic person is because I have daddy issues and seeing a giant creature go on a rampage through Europe to get back at its asshole Dad in a way I never could makes me quite happy the novel focussing on its acts of violence already did this and my post clearly had a different intention.

The trickiest thing about tumblr is its level of anonymity, and the ability it gives a person to not be entirely truthful about who they are. You can be whoever you want to be! Nobody will know. You can roleplay anyone and no one can question you. In most cases, this is a good thing. Protecting one’s privacy is important, especially online. But in a lot of cases, it creates awkward situations where you might need to question the legitimacy of someone’s claim because they’re dropping red flags that they’re lying just to have an excuse to be abusive and avoid criticism, but in doing so you risk being labeled -phobic or -ist or a horrible person in general for daring to invalidate someone’s experience or abuse.

so when I see someone throwing a tantrum all over ship tags and equating shippers with pedophiles, while blatantly misusing that word in the same sentence as claiming to be CSA survivors themselves, that really makes me doubt that they’re being entirely truthful about their trauma, and that they’re likely just making up some story out of the mistaken assumption it will add some legitimacy to their false accusations. If you were really a victim of child sexual abuse, you wouldn’t belittle it so candidly just for a cheap attempt at policing strangers on the internet, you wouldn’t exploit it as a manipulation tactic, and you’d have a little more respect for the term (and actual survivors of it) and use it appropriately.

that goes for the transtrender thing too. Believe it or not, I dislike transphobes and terfs as much as the next guy, but when it seems like being a trans guy is the new iteration of last decade’s empty boast of “not like other girls”, and then seeing so many teenagers on here who have clearly never experienced dysphoria in their lives and are solely using that identity as a means to shit on girls for shipping the wrong ship and backing up their reasoning with “well AS A GAY MAN~~ I’M TELLING YOU HOW STUPID YOU ARE BECAUSE I’M TOTALLY A GAY MAN THEREFORE I’M THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY ON GAY MEN,” you’ll see why I’m so doubtful of a lot of people about who they claim to be. I doubt actual trans men would dedicate such a large portion of their leisure time to yelling at strangers on the internet over inane trivia, because I’m assuming they’d have bigger fish to fry, and actual real life problems to worry about. And probably also a considerable level of empathy on the subject of bullying and harassment, so…needless to say, that sort of behavior would likely be, erm…beneath them. Also, maybe let’s not appropriate that identity, because I imagine it’s demeaning to actual trans guys and the shit they’ve had to go through when all you’ve done is tapped off a hasty afterthought of pronouns in your bio and then assume to speak for them.

There’s also the implication it carries that it’s apparently a lot more beneficial on this site to be othergendered than it is to be female, that we’re still stuck in this shitty online culture where being female is still considered unfashionable and the Absolute Worst Possible Thing a person can be and that claiming to be anything but female is ideal, but that’s a conversation for another time. It’s just, illuminating, I suppose. 

Don’t think I don’t feel bad for pointing this out. I really don’t intend to invalidate anyone’s identity or past abuse, but when it seems like most of you are simply using those labels as weapons for the lone purpose of being huge steaming shitbags to people in fan spaces, you’ll understand why I can’t really take anyone seriously, and why my knee-jerk reaction on this site is to immediately disbelieve that anyone is really who they say they are and not just catfishing for catfishing’s sake. It’s a red flag that goes up whenever someone makes claims as to their identity or education or general worldly experience, when everything about their personality and claims suggest otherwise. Like CSA survivors misusing the word pedophilia, presumed law students making serious accusations of federal crimes with absolutely no evidence to corroborate it, trans people whose only motivation to be on this site is bullying and harassment. 

Pardon if I’m way off base here, I don’t mean to assume what might be considered “normal” behavior for any of these groups of people, but these traits seem a little out of character for those identities, so you’ll forgive me for my skepticism. I think a lot of people here are exaggerating a little about who they say they are. I know it must have been unpleasant, but accidentally stumbling across your parents’ porn stash doesn’t make you a CSA survivor. Occasionally attending a paralegal night class at your local community college for burnouts and recent divorcees doesn’t make you a law student. If you really want to make a convincing case for any of these things that you kids are impersonating, you need to start…well, playing the part a little more convincingly. You’re too obvious in your lie. 

So just a little litmus test the next time you find yourself arrogantly opening any rebuttal with “As a _______, I’m telling you with unassailable authority that you’re wrong/immoral/harmful for liking this thing”, perhaps delete that and try again with something a little more substantial. Because for any of you that haven’t yet made it to sophomore-level debate class, that is a fallacy called “Appeal to Authority,” and it fails from the start because it assumes an individual’s dubious claim on an identity/experience gives them justification to speak for all people in that group. 

This is flawed because it doesn’t rule out the imperfections of personal bias or intersectionality. Instead of using your identity to condescendingly explain why you’re right, try using factual evidence or actual statistics from reliable sources and studies rather than anecdotal evidence. We’re in a post-truth world now (in case any of you haven’t peeked out from under the tumblr-echo-chamber-induced rock you all obviously like to hide under and haven’t noticed), and you’d do best to not contribute to it if you want anyone to take you even remotely seriously when you claim to represent the rights of all those innocents and Others that make up the downtrodden minority of society. Just remember, anecdotal evidence cannot be proven, and it’s useless because literally anyone can just make up some bullshit and apply it to a situation to make themselves look right. 

You know who else does this? Donald Trump. Donald Trump and his lackeys. This little missive is directed mostly at fandom antis, but this can apply to anyone on here who claims to be of any left-leaning persuasion: maybe don’t do that, because you start looking like the very people you claim to oppose, and it weakens every argument you’ll ever make. And I have faith in all of you, that you’re better than that. That you’re smarter than that. Even if your anecdotal evidence is true, it’s inadmissible because it can’t be proven. And it shouldn’t be, for that matter, because you don’t owe that to anyone. All it’s going to do is result in some asshole at some point coming out with their own anecdotal data that’s made up or highly embellished for the sole purpose of belittling yours, and then you’re at an impasse because A) you just spilled your most painful, humiliating memories in vain and B) you either have to acknowledge both accounts or acknowledge neither, and everybody loses. You’ve achieved nothing.

So we’re not here to play oppression olympics or win edgiest blogger award. There’s this really gross thing about tumblr where people are pressured into exposing their traumatic histories and deeply personal information in order to validate enjoyment of their fucking hobbies, and in turn it inspires the children harassing them to “beat the score” or whatever, and that’s when you have them firing back with really dubious accounts of their own, more seriouser trauma that makes them totally righter than you!!! (and is in actuality just a regurgitation of a Law & Order episode they saw once, and very obviously never fucking happened). Fake Tumblr Stories are everywhere, we all know this, we’ve all encountered plenty, but you’re not allowed to question the veracity of any of them or you risk being labeled an abuse apologist or victim blamer or something.

That’s fucking psychotic. Someone shouldn’t have to bleed their darkest moments to some snot-nosed 16 year old brat just to keep from being harassed or falsely reported as a pedophile, and some asshole who arrogantly self-identifies as the fucking moral police shouldn’t be so obsessed with getting the last word on trivial nonsense that they feel obligated to play this woker-than-thou pissing contest with people who have experienced *actual* trauma. I mean, do you kids not see how completely unhinged this behavior is? You children need to be fucking sedated. You’re goddamn nuts. I fear for the day we have to rely on you assholes in the job market, because you’re just gunna fuck everything up. You’ll always be failures. You’ll make a trainwreck of everything.

For lack of a better word,

Yikes. 

Anyway, the point is just a reminder that your identity shouldn’t be relevant when you’re trying to prove a logical point or have any of your arguments taken seriously, if you really are right or justified in your stance. If your argument has any basis in sustainable fact, then your gender/orientation/mental illness/personal history will have no impact whatsoever. So lying about them really isn’t worth it and gains nothing. Just be yourself! I know at the tender ages of ~14-20 you’re desperate to be recognized for how unique you are and you’re struggling to be celebrated as a special individual when you’ve done absolutely nothing, but realistically…that’s a pretty tall order, there are like 7 billion people on the planet, so nothing you can make up about yourself will ever really be that impressive. Stop trying so hard and enjoy your fucking childhood.

And if you find you can’t make a stable argument without using a desperate appeal to authority like that, then maybe you should reassess your stance on things because chances are, it’s because you’re wrong.