jumpingjacktrash:

bariumsulfateacetone:

vampirekilmer:

bpdcecilpalmer:

the-real-seebs:

roachpatrol:

televisiontelepath:

This post was triggered by something that @roachpatrol​ said over here about the expectation for girls to be sweet and clean and harmless:

Holy shit, if I was eight years younger and wandering into fandom for the first time, I can guarantee that the culture right now would’ve fucked me up and ground me down and taken away all my healthy outlets.

Picture: you are a girl at the tender young age of mumbledyteen. Up until this point you have been taught that all dark thoughts are literally hand-delivered into your head by the devil, and that the only correct method of dealing with negativity is to ignore them and pray harder. Concentrate on what is good and righteous and pure to the exclusion of all else, this is how you be a good person.

You are also a fully-functioning human being, one who can feel stressed or lonely or angry or any number of bad things. Mostly, with emotions that are still working themselves out, you feel this rumbling, white-hot white noise under everything, all the time. Sometimes it rolls in like a thunderstorm and everything else gets drowned out, and sometimes it’s only quietly muttering in the distance. Either way it’s always there, and the sound shreds uncomfortably at the inside of your brain.

When you were younger, before you were in charge of your own media consumption, your brain would shred up a myriad of saccharine stories to try and match the noise of the shredder in your head. Bad things happening, people getting hurt, characters trapped in unhealthy relationships of all kinds.

Fanfiction, the product of a hundred thousand other mumbledyteens whose brains are all screaming the same way, makes something in your brain go ping

Unfortunately, if the planet had ever been united on any single message, it was probably that no matter how you feel: 1) your feelings weren’t unique 2) they didn’t matter 3) they didn’t matter because they weren’t unique, they were shared among millions of hysterical, worthless teenaged girls just like you.

Fandom was confirmation of the first, but (with some hiccups along the way) outright rejection of the last two. Fuck you, our feelings do matter, and this is a story just for us.

A disclaimer: these aren’t good stories, otherwise they wouldn’t have to be defended. Their flavor of topic is not within societally acceptable bounds. Fictional characters have sex and get tortured and raped and abused, but their screaming harmonizes with the pitch of the shredder when it’s burrowing deepest.

As a teenager I never thought that my feelings were important enough to deal with, but these stories let me look at them sideways. Audience catharsis is the whole point of tragedy, after all.

And hell, these days I’m a happy, healthy adult who barely even has the urge to go looking for whump fic when I’ve had a bad week. I’m not going to forget just how much bad stuff that fic helped me air out, though, not ever. (Not to mention that thanks to all of those abuse!fics, I can recognize an unhealthy relationship at 500 paces, even if the fictional abuse was depicted as something loving and romantic. Abusers in real life don’t go around with helpful warning tags on their sleeves anyway.)

But holy shit, can you imagine if I’d found fandom as it is today.

Yes, your church is right, your family is right. Horrible things in stories are only there because they were written by horrible people, and they’re only popular because horrible people read them. The very concepts they address corrupt everything they touch.

That shredder in your head, the one that takes innocent cartoons but then shits out sadness and mayhem? That’s disgusting, you’re disgusting. How dare you think about minors having underaged sex, you minor? How dare you consider another person getting hurt? Your feelings don’t matter, they aren’t unique, they’re shared with all kinds of worthless shitbags just like you.

Every ounce of what you read and write and enjoy is going to be weighed for sin and tested for purity. You know, just like the rest of your life, except this time there’s no deity who’s handing out second chances.

Maybe that’s what bothers me most about all of this. It’s the same petty fandom bullshit as always, but “you’re wrong for liking a ship because IT WILL NEVER BE CANON” is a hell of a lot easier to laugh off when you’re young than “you’re wrong for liking a ship because YOU’RE AN ABUSIVE PEDOPHILE AND IF SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS IT’S YOUR FAULT FOR PERPETUATING IT.”

My fault, my bad thoughts, no outlet for any of them. The message to repress all the bad things so I can look like a good person, but my brain is so full of unprocessed shit that it’s solidified. Nobody actually saved any real children, but my brain sure is getting a second dose of fucked-up.

Are the people getting attacked going to be okay, will they be able to go and address their braingremlins somewhere else? I’d also ask if the people doing the attacking are okay, with all of the denial and repression they must deal with, but it seems like they’ve got venting pretty well handled by taking it out on strangers. 

Hey, c’mon, calm down friends. I bet I’ve read a story that’s got a character screaming at just the same pitch you are.

It helps to read one of those and harmonize your voices, I promise.

holy shit, dude, this is powerful. i’ll delete this reblog if you don’t want the extra attention, but thank you for your thoughts.  

Roachpatrol speaks my mind on this matter.

Posting because I know so many traumatized people, and so many of them just really need to see this, right now, for so many reasons.

“Audience catharsis is the whole point of tragedy, after all.” 

A thousand times yes. This, some scholars believe, WAS the point of Greek tragedy. It wasn’t for teaching specific lessons (don’t do this or that will happen), it was for creating pity and fear. Pity is, of course, feeling badly for the characters you’re watching/reading. Fear is the understanding that these things can happen to you, or things like them, and that you may not necessarily be able to protect yourself from it. You may never accidentally kill your father and marry your mother, but you can watch Oedipus do it, see his downfall, and empathize with the kind of human frailty that caused him to try to outrun fate in the first place. Empathizing with him doesn’t mean you want to off your dad, it means you have made and will make mistakes too, that were based on consequences you hadn’t foreseen, and his distress resonates with yours. This pity and fear is what causes the emotional purging we know as catharsis.

Furthermore, Nietzsche (yes we’re citing Nietzsche too) basically considered tragedy a dress rehearsal for real-life suffering; if we see, say, a fictional character in great pain, when we are faced with great pain it’s easier to see that we can survive it too, that we have survived bad things and we are capable of surviving more of them. Even if it doesn’t end well. Because suffering is human, and we are humans, and human life can go on in the face of great suffering.

So yes, I read and created dark horrible fic, that is not directly related to the horrible things I have experienced (I have never been abducted by strexcorp or forcibly reeducated or kept in a lab with abusive creators), and I feel pity and fear for the characters and I recognize that I have seen some shit, and that they have too, and that all people have. Was Sophocles a sick incest creeper for writing Oedipus Rex? Or was he just giving us a chance to purge intense, and intensely human, emotions?

(source: my primary partner, who has been teaching Greek drama at NYU for more years than he’d care to admit; any remaining mistakes are my own but if you come at me with “hubris is just pride” i will fight you.)

(ETA fixed spelling of Nietzsche; autocorrect why are you like this)

This.
This.
A quintilian times this.

Well put

i wouldn’t enact gruesome revenge on hospitals and doctors for my recent medical nightmare – for starters, they aren’t actually at fault, shit just happens sometimes, no matter how much my subconscious doesn’t want to accept that – but i can sure as hell read ALL the winter soldier medical torture fic. i can get my catharsis through his torment, and ride his rage out of the dark place as he slaughters his tormentors.

that doesn’t make me a person who, in real life, condones bloody vengeance. it doesn’t make my rage at my doctors anything but the reflex of an animal in pain, and it doesn’t mean i would act on it.

it just makes those feelings easier to bear and to work through, having that vicarious experience to carry me for a while.

and yes, that includes noncon – visiting that level of degradation on the character helps with the catharsis. people who don’t understand seem to think i’m cheering on fictional rape like it’s a great thing. no, it’s an awful thing, and that’s why it’s there.

freelancerkiwi:

thenearsightedmicroraptor:

obstinaterixatrix:

*everything* that’s considered romantic has been conditioned by society, it’s performative, like the emotion can be genuine but romantic *gestures* are a societal construct, chocolates, flowers, rings, there’s no inherent act of romance, the purest form of what is conceptualized as “romance” can probably be boiled down to emotion + intent, and the manifestation of that combo’s gonna be different for everyone

an action evoked from a feeling of adoration and the need to express it can be constrained by what society provides, but once it’s made irrelevant the meaning becomes tailored to those experiencing it; someone giving fancy chocolates to their s.o. because it’s ‘the thing to do’ can’t measure up to someone giving the chocolates because they know their s.o. thinks the boxes are nice and really likes hazelnut fillings, same gesture, but former lacks ‘inherent’ romance because romance isn’t ‘inherent’, the later has a standard approach but it goes beyond what’s considered ‘romantic’

Hello I am a big fan of Obstinaterixatrix’ Romance Meta and I’m just gonna add to this bc it’s a good post.

I feel like what makes the difference between something being romantic and something being What Society Says Is Romance is the connection between people.

Let’s say two people arrive on my doorstep. One of them has a bouquet of expensive roses from the florist. The other one has a dead bird in a plastic bag. We all know which one is to be considered the romantic gift (hint: it’s not the corpse)

And it’s not like I don’t like flowers or am allergic or anything, I would probably be flattered. But I have no connection to roses, and like, you can give roses to more or less anyone

Dead birds are not a standard gift, for pretty obvious reasons. A person bringing me a corpse in a plastic bag had to know me well enough to know that I collect bones and process them myself, and you don’t go shopping for birds in the Dead Bird Shop around the corner, so that means this person didn’t go out with the intent of getting me something and came back with an Appropriate Gift, they probably stumbled across something and thought about me (this ‘something’ just so happens to be a dead bird, because I’m weird) And then they had to go through the process of picking this bird up and bagging it and bringing it to me, probably pretty spontaneously and without a calendar event that says Find Dead Bird For Raptor with a timeslot between three and four pm.

You can’t have Corpse I Found In a Ditch be romantic without some sort of connection here. Roses can be romantic, but it can also just, be a formula. Two plos Two Equals Romance. A shortcut for ‘I care about you‘, even though the person might …. not, actually.

If it’s someone who loves fresh flowers in their home but rarely has the money to buy large arrangements, or like OP’s example where person A gets the chocolates because they know their s.o. thinks the boxes are super cute, then we have Standard Romantic Actions actually be romantic, but they might as well not be.

This is where my squad has the joke of someone posting a picture of a dead rat to the skype chat and goes ‘Raptor I saw this and thought of you‘ and I go -exaggerated gasping noise- “how dare you blatantly flirt with me right in front of my girlfriend“ from (and also THIS JOKE that bunch of people were confused about).
Because there’s INTEREST and CONNECTION there. They’re obviosuly not actually trying to steal me from my gf, but there is a human connection and a knowledge of who I am and what I want to be associated with.
The humor then comes in from the self-awareness that this could very much be the opposite of a compliment in, like, probably most other situations ever.

So TL;DR: Things can’t be romantic without the connection between people, no matter how ‘inherit‘ people claim the gesture is. However, more or less anything can be a romantic gesture if there’s the right connection and consideration behind it. Taking out the trash can be romantic. Bringing home a dead fox can be romantic. There’s no Romance Shortcuts. You have to actually care about the other person (sorry, Writers Of Like 9 Out Of 10 Mainstream Movies), there’s no way around it.

So basically: Care about each other!! If you’re writing, write characters who care about each other!! And if you don’t know what character A could do for character B, you might wanna look into whether or not you’ve made a Cardboard Love Interest, like I feel many mainstream writers do. But that’s a whooooole ‘nother can of worms.

There’s so many cans of worms.

Oh god there’s so many worms.

Please help.

I’ve wondered for a long time why so many fictional romances feel forced and this is the exact reason. So many main couples in media only express their love through performative romance.

This is also why a lot of platonic fictional relationships are seen as romantic because for some reason screenwriters have a habit of making friends express their love for each other with actual thought and intent to their actions.

i know you have a specific interpretation when it comes to bitty and sex/physicality, can you talk more about that?

lesbeebooks:

this is something i find really kind of key to the way i characterise bitty generally speaking, because it relates to some central things that have really shaped who we understand him to be: his attitude towards physicality; his relationship with his own sexuality; and his upbringing. these three things are pretty intertwined, and i think there’s a bit of a tendency to overlook it all in regards to how bitty approaches dating and, specifically, his relationship with jack. i wrote about it in tu ne t’intéresses pas au sexe? but this as an analysis is a lot more detailed and a lot more pretentious.

let’s get started, eh? i hope you’re ready for an essay, because that’s what you’ve got.

first up: 

Keep reading

Teeth

craftastrophies:

thecharmingstrangeness:

psshaw:

turbofanatic:

Has anyone else noticed that in the largely female horror/monster artist  community on DA and tumblr (myself included) tends to focus a LOT on teeth, mouths, and violence as a consumptive act (there’s a lot of cannibal characters is what I’m sayin’) and that seems as a bit of a weird counter to mainstream horror and monster art where violence is nearly always penetrative? It’s usually knives, chainsaws and blades, heck even the Alien had a phallic mouth used to bore into faces.

Is this even a thing happening consciously?

No? Never mind then.

I… am trying to figure out approximately how much this post has irrevocably changed my life.

okay so we actually talked a lot about horror in my philosophy class this past week?

and like one of the things about typical horror movies is that they’re very much about violence towards women? like i don’t want to say that all horror movies are about violence towards women but i also don’t want to talk for a thousand years on the nuances of that trope so long story short if you watch a lot of horror movies there’s a lot of penetration imagery and blending the boundaries of sex and violence. and even the entire “final girl” trope that has become a basic structure of horror is basically asking for all of this imagery of penetration and violation etc. and all of it happens because the victims in horror movies are often women because he stereotype is that women are vulnerable.
i’m probably explaining this really badly it’s all waaaaaaaay more nuanced than this but it all kind of ties together in a really fascinating way.so when you look at it that way, it makes sense that a lot of monsters created by/for men (i.e., mainstream monsters) are going to be penetrative. as for monsters created by women being consumptive… that’s a very interesting trend and there’s probably a reason for it but i havent thought about it enough to pick one out

I wonder how much of that, then, is tied up with women’s consumption being a subversive act? Women being encouraged to not consume or take up space, so that then greedy, unapologetic consumption and largeness and loudness and appetite becomes monstrous, which could be problematic. But when driven by the people who are told not to consume, it become atavistic and wish-fulfilling and an outlet for impulses and desires, which the best horror always does.

zenosanalytic:

orestian:

tmirai:

This is such an interesting dissection of a very common trope in writing female characters that I never really thought about before, but it’s so prevalent and so obvious and so fucking disgusting.

it’s called infantilization and i hate it but “born sexy yesterday” is such a good way to put it

Yeah, though I think there’s another thing going on here too that the vid mentions but could focus more on, which is the male fantasy of “making” a woman precisely as they wish her to be, including her ideas about what is acceptable treatment and romantic/sexual behavior.

One of the HUGE inaccuracies in this, which is to say one of the major fantasies it embodies, is that because these women are naive on a particular topic, they have no self-image or dignity/self-possession, nor instinct/intuition on the particular topic, or on how the world ought to work. Take Celeste(Kim Bassinger’s character) in that My Stepmother is an Alien scene. Who gives a damn whether you know about sandwiches or not, what frigging interstellar traveler is going to let some schmuck yell at her, browbeat her without explanation or even basic interpersonal respect, into doing anything? Why would a professional, an individual accomplished enough to be sent by her planet’s government to investigate a potential attack on their world, someone responsible and respected enough to be entrusted with reality-warping technology who has traveled across the cosmos to confront a potentially hostile alien world and put an end to any threat she finds there, acquiesce to that treatment? Why would she find being insulted and ordered around and treated like she can’t be trusted to make her own decisions acceptable? In reality she wouldn’t, and therein lies the fantasy.

In the movie, because she doesn’t know about Earth and Food she has no concept of the sort of treatment she, as a person, deserves. That’s fundamental to the fantasy in this trope: these women never know how they ought to be treated, because they don’t know some specific thing they apparently have no concept at all of the treatment they deserve, and because of that these men get away with bullying, manipulation, and taking advantage without being caught, and without having to feel guilty for their behavior since there is no chance to get caught(which, of course, also presents their behavior as normal: if only men didn’t have to worry about censure, it says, they’d all treat women this way, which is the sort of mendacious bullshit creeps tend to tell themselves).

But it doesn’t stop there of course; not only do they not get caught out and called on their dickery, which is presented by the movie as “proof” that the woman doesn’t mind it, their dickery is celebrated and admired as “helping” the woman learn her place in the world and become a full and “real” person. That last bit of the dynamic is particularly notable in Tron(where the guy literally brings Quorra into the real world and a flesh-and-blood body) and The Fifth Element(where the movie ends on Leelo and Dallas having sex, after the climax where Dallas teaches Leelo “the Fifth Element” of “Love” and saves the Earth, through kissing her, without her consent, while she’s having an emotional breakdown. A particularly strident stating of the trope’s core thesis).

geejaysmith:

@paledreamcomputer HERE YA GO. 

Game Over dropped on my 19th birthday wherein one of my (both since disowned) patron trolls murdered my favorite kid. Then I spent the next few days an anxious wreck glued to MSPARP to cope.

So there’s that. 

Thematically, I think Game Over fits snugly into Homestuck’s overall narrative. Destiny says “you’re done here”, the kids say “fuck you” and figure out a way around it. That’s what they’ve always done, except now they’re going to an even greater extreme and breaking the concept of narrative itself in order to do so. I have only ever seen the flash itself once (and would only watch again under duress and with protest) but I think it’s one of the last times Hussie used animation and the layout of MSPA to push the boundaries of what could be done to tell the story. Here’s reality falling apart, reflected by the characters shifting out of the frame and parts of the flash itself shoving other parts out of the way. In theory, this is a good “all is lost” moment, an end of the second act in a three-act structure where the heroes seem utterly defeated, only to rally and pull out a victory. In theory, this is a good extreme for John’s powers to go to. In theory, it plays out like a video game: the kids fuck up, die, and John starts them over from a save point with an extra life. Everyone learns from their mistakes and goes on to complete the game. 

In practice, I think it became Hussie’s way of writing himself out of a corner. Except he was never in a corner. He was actually in a perfectly straight hallway the entire time. But this is the point where I break off and start rambling about post-retcon, so skedaddle here if you don’t want to hear me bitching about that. 

tl;dr: I find the flash itself horrifically upsetting, but I’ve made my peace with its purpose in the narrative and can admire its construction. Bitching about the fallout of the flash starts… now: 

Keep reading

The Importance of The Unlikable Heroine

clairelegrand:

I’ve always had this tendency to apologize for everything—even things that aren’t my fault, things that actually hurt me or were wrongs against me.

It’s become automatic, a compulsion I am constantly fighting. Even more disturbingly, I’ve discovered in conversations with my female friends that I’m not alone in feeling this impulse to be pleasant, to apologize needlessly, to resist showing anger.

After all, if you’re a woman and you demonstrate anger, you’re a bitch, a harpy, a shrew. You’re told to smile more because you will look prettier; you’re told to calm down even when whatever anger or otherwise “unseemly” emotion you’re experiencing is perfectly justified.

If you don’t, no one will like you, and certainly no one will love you.

I’m not sure when this apologetic tendency of mine emerged. Maybe it began during childhood; maybe the influence of social gender expectations had already begun to affect me on a subconscious level. But if I had to guess, I would assume it emerged later, when I became aware through advertisements, media, and various unquantifiable social pressures of what a girl should be—how to act, how to dress, what to say, what emotions are okay and what emotions are not.

Essentially, I became aware of what I should do, as a girl, to be liked, and of how desperate I should be to achieve that state.

Being liked would be the pinnacle of my personal achievement. I could accomplish things, sure—make good grades, go to a good school, have a stellar career. But would I be liked during all of this? That was the important thing.

It angers me that I still struggle with this. It angers me that even though I’m an intelligent, accomplished adult woman, I still experience automatic pangs of inadequacy and shame when I perceive myself to have somehow disappointed these unfair expectations. I can’t always seem to get my emotions under control, and yet I must—because sometimes those emotions are angry or unpleasant or, God forbid, unattractive, and therefore will inconvenience someone or make someone uncomfortable.

Maybe that’s why, in my fiction—both the stories I read and the stories I write—I’ve always gravitated toward what some might call “unlikable” heroines.

It’s difficult to define “unlikability”; the term itself is nebulous. If you asked ten different people to define unlikability, you would probably receive ten different answers. In fact, I hesitated to write this piece simply because art is not a thing that should be quantified, or shoved into “likable” and “unlikable” components.

But then there are those pangs of mine, that urge to apologize for not being the right kind of woman. Insidious expectations lurk out there for our girls—both real and fictional—to be demure and pleasant, to wilt instead of rally, to smile and apologize and hide their anger so they don’t upset the social construct—even when such anger would be expected, excused, even applauded, in their male counterparts.

So for my purposes here, I’ll define a “likable heroine” as one who is unobjectionable. She doesn’t provoke us or challenge our expectations. She is flawed, but not offensively. She doesn’t make us question whether or not we should like her, or what it says about us that we do.

Let me be clear: There is nothing wrong with these “likable” heroines. I can think of plenty such literary heroines whom I adore:

Fire in Kristin Cashore’s Fire. Karou in Laini Taylor’s Daughter of Smoke and Bone series. Jo March in Little Women. Lizzie Bennet in Pride and Prejudice. The Penderwick sisters in Jeanne Birdsall’s delightful Penderwicks series. Arya (at least, in the early books) in A Song of Ice and Fire. Sarah from A Little Princess. Meg Murry from A Wrinkle in Time. Matilda in Roald Dahl’s classic book of the same name.

These heroines are easy to love and root for. They have our loyalty on the first page, and that never wavers. We expect to like them, for them to be pleasant, and they are. Even their occasional unpleasantness, as in the case of temperamental Jo March, is endearing.

What, then, about the “unlikable” heroines?

These are the “difficult” characters. They demand our love but they won’t make it easy. The unlikable heroine provokes us. She is murky and muddled. We don’t always understand her. She may not flaunt her flaws but she won’t deny them. She experiences moral dilemmas, and most of the time recognizes when she has done something wrong, but in the meantime she will let herself be angry, and it isn’t endearing, cute, or fleeting. It is mighty and it is terrifying. It puts her at odds with her surroundings, and it isn’t always easy for readers to swallow.

She isn’t always courageous. She may not be conventionally strong; her strength may be difficult to see. She doesn’t always stand up for herself, or for what is right. She is not always nice. She is a hellion, a harpy, a bitch, a shrew, a whiner, a crybaby, a coward. She lies even to herself.

In other words, she fails to walk the fine line we have drawn for our heroines, the narrow parameters in which a heroine must exist to achieve that elusive “likability”:

Nice, but not too nice.

Badass, but not too badass, because that’s threatening.

Strong, but ultimately pliable.

(And, I would add, these parameters seldom exist for heroes, who enjoy the limitless freedoms of full personhood, flaws and all, for which they are seldom deemed “unlikable” but rather lauded.)

Who is this “unlikable” heroine?

She is Amy March from Little Women. She is Briony from Ian McEwan’s Atonement. Katsa from Kristin Cashore’s Graceling. Jane Austen’s Emma Woodhouse. Sansa from A Song of Ice and Fire. Mary from The Secret Garden. She is Philip Pullman’s Lyra, and C. S. Lewis’s Susan, and Rowling’s first-year Hermione Granger. She is Katniss Everdeen. She is Scarlett O’Hara.

These characters fascinate me. They are arrogant and violent, reckless and selfish. They are liars and they are resentful and they are brash. They are shallow, not always kind. They may be aggressive, or not aggressive enough; the parameters in which a female character can acceptably display strength are broadening, but still dishearteningly narrow. I admire how the above characters embrace such “unbecoming” traits (traits, I must point out, that would not be noteworthy in a man; they would simply be accepted as part of who he is, no questions asked).

These characters learn from their mistakes, and they grow and change, but at the end of the day, they can look at themselves in the mirror and proclaim, “Here I am. This is me. You may not always like me—I may not always like me—but I will not be someone else because you say I should be. I will not lose myself to your expectations. I will not become someone else just to be liked.”

When I wrote my first novel, The Cavendish Home for Boys and Girls, I knew some readers would have a hard time stomaching the character of Victoria. She is selfish, arrogant, judgmental, rigid, and sometimes cruel. Even at the end of the novel, by which point she has evolved tremendously, she isn’t particularly likable, if we go with the above definition.

I had similar concerns about the heroine of my second novel, The Year of Shadows. Olivia Stellatella is a moody twelve-year-old who isolates herself from her peers at school, from her father, from everything that could hurt her. Her circumstances at the beginning of the novel are inarguably terrible: Her mother abandoned their family several months prior, with no explanation. Her father conducts the city orchestra, which is on the verge of bankruptcy. He neglects his daughter in favor of saving his livelihood. He sells their house and moves them into the symphony hall’s storage rooms, where Olivia sleeps on a cot and lives out of a suitcase. She calls him The Maestro, refusing to call him Dad. She hates him. She blames him for her mother leaving.

Olivia is angry and confused. She is sarcastic, disrespectful, and she tells her father exactly what she thinks of him. She lashes out at everyone, even the people who want to help her. Sometimes her anger blinds her, and she must learn how to recognize that.

I knew Olivia’s anger would be hard for some readers to understand, or that they would understand but still not like her.

This frightened me.

As a new author, the prospect of writing these heroines—these selfish, angry, difficult heroines—was a daunting one. What if no one liked them? What if, by extension, no one liked me?

But I’ve allowed the desire to be liked thwart me too many times. The fact that I nearly let my fear discourage me from telling the stories of these two “unlikable” girls showed me just how important it was to tell their stories.

I know my friends and I aren’t the only women who feel that constant urge to apologize, to demur, to rein in anger and mutate it into something more socially acceptable.

I know there are girls out there who, like me at age twelve—like Olivia, like Victoria—are angry or arrogant or confused, and don’t know how to handle it. They see likable girls everywhere—on the television, in movies, in books—and they accordingly paste on strained smiles and feel ashamed of their unladylike grumpiness and ambition, their unseemly aggression.

I want these girls to read about Victoria and Olivia—and Scarlett, Amy, Lyra, Briony—and realize there is more to being a girl than being liked. There is more to womanhood than smiling and apologizing and hiding those darker emotions.

I want them to sift through the vast sea of likable heroines in their libraries and find more heroines who are not always happy, not always pleasant, not always good. Heroines who make terrible decisions. Heroines who are hungry and ambitious, petty and vengeful, cowardly and callous and selfish and gullible and unabashedly sensual and hateful and cunning. Heroines who don’t always act particularly heroic, and don’t feel the need to, and still accept themselves at the end of the day regardless.

Maybe the more we write about heroines like this, the less susceptible our girl readers will be to the culture of apology that surrounds them.

Maybe they will grow up to be stronger than we are, more confident than we are. Maybe they will grow up in a world brimming with increasingly complex ideas about what it means to be a heroine, a woman, a person.

Maybe they will be “unlikable” and never even think of apologizing for it.

dexthecryptid:

dexthecryptid:

I’VE SAID IT BEFORE AND I’LL SAY IT AGAIN

BITTY! HAS! PTSD!

lord now with this recent update and people will actually LISTEN TO ME EXPLAIN THIS unlike all the posts ive made about this before 

Bitty has PTSD!

This is coming from someone who is diagnosed with PTSD and has suffered from it for the past 6-7 years! My PTSD is in relation to trauma from verbal and emotional bullying/abuse, and from what it looks like, Bitty’s is similar to mine except with less emotional abuse and more physical abuse. See here:

image

Basically? He was bullied. His trauma is in relation to bullying and negative physical contact, see here:

image

and SPEAKING OF nightmares, lets talk about his symptoms! We now have proof of recurring nightmares (as seen above), (mild?) panic attacks,

image

and aversion to things like rough housing, namely checking

image
image

(I’d like to argue here that he was suppressing an anxiety/panic attack)

Now you may be asking!! But Alex, he tweets about Holster and Ransom rough housing with him! He seems fine with it!

Let me tell you about something that happens when you have undiagnosed PTSD for an extended amount of years, something that I went though. I, like Bitty, experienced my trauma in 7th or 8th grade. I wasn’t properly diagnosed until my freshman year of college, so that was 5-6 years later.

You suppress your triggers. You learn to live with them and suppress them. Basically it’s either suppress them or you really fucking suffer. And hey, if we know anything about Bitty, it’s that he’s a champ at suppressing things (though he has gotten better with communication with Jack lately!).

I have a trigger of other people touching my neck. It used to be way worse, inducing panic attacks and leaving lasting arousal symptoms for a week after. (Click here for some info on PTSD symptoms including arousal symptoms!!) But because I just had to, you know, live with it for 5-6 years I just learned to suppress them. Someone touches my neck now? Yeah, I still jump a bit and have a panic response, but I’ve stopped going into full on panic attacks and instead suppress the feelings associated with it. 

So basically? It’s HIGHLY possible Bitty has suppressed his triggers! Large boys picking him up? Probably have an immediate panic response and then the subsequent “no, it’s just holster and ransom. i trust them.” Jack doing the checking clinics with him was literally immersion therapy. That being said, even with immersion therapy, you know, the triggers are still there. You just have coping mechanisms. You’re numb to them. But, they’re still there.

image
image

There’s a reason Bitty is afraid of checking. And it’s because it triggers his trauma of being tackled in football.

image

Writing theory in relation to the Check Please fandom

wheeloffortune-design:

in regard of posts I’ve seen circulating lately, I just want to give some depths to the discussion around characters most used in fanfics. Bear in mind that this is not a way to take a stance in the debate, but merely a tool for people who think about the issue. 

The question at hand it: Is the CP fandom racist because it prioritises white characters over characters of color?

First, I want to redirect you to a post on Writing Theory and the different tiers of existing characters.  If you’re lazy, it’s okay, overall it says that characters come in tiers of importance to the story, and tier 1 gets all the characteristics, tier 2 gets 2, tier 3 gets 1, etc.

If we analyse Check Please characters, you have

image

The Main Character, which is Bitty. The story revolves around him, his coming of age, his doubts and fears and love, etc. His characteristics are: sweet, likes to bake, vlogs, used to be a figure skater, plays hockey, fears checking, etc.

image

The secondary character is Jack. Some plot points revolve after him, since he’s the antagonist in year 1, and the love interest in years 2 and 3. Jack is focused on hockey to the point of anxiety, and soft when he has control of said anxiety. Notice that he already has less depth than Bitty. Not because he’s a less rounded character, but because the story is not built around him. His life affects Bitty, that’s why we know about it.

image

The rest are, at the very least, third tier characters, they get 1 characteristic each, and will never divert from that description. Holster is a loud bro, Ransom is a smart bro, Lardo is an art bro, and when you get further away, the rest have less and less leeway in their personalities. Dex is grumpy, Nursey tries to be chill, Chowder is excitable. Then we almost know nothing of Tango and Whiskey, because they just need to fill spots, like Johnshon the metaphysical goalie needed to fill a spot before Chowder could get there. Notice I didn’t mention Shitty because I’m on the fence between putting him in second or third tier. His story arc doesn’t affect Bitty, I should place him on third tier, but he’s more nuanced than the others.

(loads more under the cut)

Keep reading

snitchanon:

theunitofcaring:

I know I’ve discussed this to death, but someone asked for a single, comprehensive post. So:

No-platforming people gives them a much, much bigger platform. And violently preventing a talk from occurring means that the ideas will reach thousands of times as many ears. While their talk would be one among a hundred poorly-attended talks on one of a thousand college campuses, a backlash against the talk will make headlines everywhere and get people curious. If the backlash escalates to violence – and lately, it often has, the protestors successfully boost the opinion they’re protesting to overwhelming national attention and sympathy.

(Google searches for Milo Yiannopoulos; the first spike is the violence in Berkeley; the second spike the pederasty videos surfacing). The violence in Berkeley increased interest in Milo tenfold at least.

In addition, after the violence in Berkeley, Milo got invited to speak at CPAC and interviewed on major news networks.

Same pattern with Charles Murray:

The hundred-fold spike corresponds to the violence interrupting his talk at Middlebury. The violence was of course also followed up by a gazillion news articles about his views. And of course it did wonders for sales of his books.

The direct immediate effect of ‘no platforming’ someone is giving them a huge national platform and favorable press coverage. The single biggest favor you can do someone abhorrent and attention-seeking is to violently protest their talks. 

The most commonly offered justification of preventing people from delivering talks is that the ideas do not merit any discussion and should be prevented from getting any. When I present the above evidence to supporters of shutting down talks, by violence if necessary, they sometimes say that it’s really about the talks being prevented on campus, where students are vulnerable. It does not seem to me that moving talks from ‘on a campus in a lecture hall, advertised in advance so people can avoid them, surrounded by a skeptical audience’ to ‘on national television with a sympathetic audience’ is an improvement. Another explanation sometimes offered is that it’s about making other people aware that they should fear for their lives if they voice those opinions. Aside from being a morally abhorrent thing to strive for, I don’t think that works either; all the people who bought The Bell Curve clearly learned the wrong lesson, and people in general like feeling that they’re standing up to coercion and intimidation and violence.

It’s convenient when something you think is morally wrong turns out to also be spectacularly ineffective and a really terrible means to its intended end. I think that’s part of why lots of proponents of getting speeches cancelled don’t trust the arguments that they shouldn’t be doing it; they’re hearing those arguments from people who are like ‘your goals are bad and I want to thwart you in achieving them and also your methods won’t achieve your goals so you should stop for your own sake’. Of course they find that unconvincing! And yet. I don’t agree with suppressing speech as a goal and I also think the evidence is overwhelming that when you try it you fail spectacularly. I think it’d be very courageous of people who support or are open to suppressing speech to say “I think this would be justified if it worked, but it doesn’t work”. I really hope some of them do.

For the consideration of the audience.