Fannish insanity and social justice rage, all in one helpful place! eleanor_lavish on LJ and AO3, if you're wondering why all this seems eerily familiar...
…a “primary pairing” category distinct from “incidental pairings” category (aka pairings that aren’t endgame, background or only-mentioned-in-passing pairings, or etc). So I can tell if this femmeslash fic I just clicked on is ACTUALLY ABOUT these awesome ladies being adorable at each other front and center, or if I’m just going to get three words about them off in the corner somewhere while dudes bone in the foreground.
Primary pairings tagging would make the AO3 experience so much smoother, and I heard from a little birdie that it IS on the docket as an update they’d like to do moving forward. Unfortunately, it means some serious back-end overhauls so I’m sure no one is itching to take it on as a massive project.
If you want this, reach out and (VERY NICELY- they are fans and volunteers, you guys) say that you’d like this functionality moved to the top of the updates queue! (And if you haven’t already, sign up for the OTW while you’re over there! That gives you some voting rights on board members who make some of these decisions.)
If you want a thing, make your voice heard by the people who can do the thing!
One thing I haven’t really seen discussed much yet about CATWS is the role of the Smithsonian exhibit and how it informs the theme of identity in the movie. As lots of you probably know by now, I find the presence of history (as a discipline) really cool when it appears in pop culture, so I kinda want to talk about what putting this exhibit in the movie does on a narrative level. Because museums tell stories through cultural artifacts, right? Only, cultural artifacts don’t always tell the whole story, or at least don’t tell a single story. The story they tell very much depends on how they’re curated: how they’re displayed, what they’re displayed with, how they are contextualized and commented on by the curator(s).
So while the exhibit is about Captain America, at least one of the stories that it’s telling is actually about Bucky.
This is an honest question. I listen to a lot of comedy podcasts and one of the things I have just learned to accept is that all of these guys, men in their 30s, are going to wax rhapsodic a minimum of once a month about the unparalleled greatness of The Dark Knight trilogy, films I skipped because I found the worldview (and the cinematography) too dark. Now Pacific Rim is out and they all hate it. They think it’s bland and uninteresting. Or even when they like it, like on Jeff Rubin’s podcast, they slam the things that I thought were the most meaningful and amazing.
I’ve given these podcasts a lot of time, support, and, in some cases, money. And I like that they have their own opinion. That’s why I listen. But I’m way too involved in loving Pacific Rim, so I’m learning to just hit stop when the topic comes up. A sort of tumblr savior for life. Otherwise, I just end up feeling alienated from the podcaster and the community.
But really, is this a gender divide? Do boys not like PR? I’m afraid to ask the boys I know for their opinion. (I learned my lesson on that one with STID.)
I think there is a grain of truth in this, especially when the protagonists of the story are a guy who is really good with feelings and a girl who ends up having the actual hero’s journey.
Maybe there is also a divide between cinema geeks and true geeks (an arbitrary distinction, but bear with me) in that the geeky podcasts I love (like Hardwick and Co. at the Nerdist) fucking worship this movie while the cinephiles deride it. Maybe it’s because the geeks know the origin myths that the movie comes out of?
But that doesn’t explain why I love this so much - I have never been much for Japanese mecha/anime/monster movies. I love it because there is a real emotional journey that ends in real, actualized HOPE, and that the moral of the story is just “to be a good person in this world, be connected to the people around you.” Maybe that’s too cheesy for dudes who watch Bruce Wayne suffer for decades and then suffer some more. Maybe that just makes them assholes who love schadenfreude?
If Talia Hale is Peter Hale’s sister (which was confirmed last night), then that means she didn’t change her name when/if she married. Which is totally cool and modern of her!
But it doesn’t explain why NONE of the Hale children have their father’s last name.
Is this a matrilineal werewolf thing? Do all wolf kids get their mom’s last name? Is it an alpha thing, where you marry an alpha and her name is the one everyone keeps? Or a “all the Hale children were fathered by different dudes in Talia’s harem of hot werewolves and she’s a badass single mom” thing? Or is this just a “Jeff is bad at continuity” thing?
I know which one I want it to be, and I know which one it probably is. Sigh.
In wake of this week’s episode, I wanted to write something about the way Teen Wolf has been plotted over the course of this season. I was pretty enraged about character assassination after “Visionary,” but this episode left me thinking more about the overall way Jeff Davis et al have been telling the story this season, on a broad structural level as well as in terms of character development.
I want to do this in as rational and systematic a fashion as possible because I actually am really interested in the ways they have gone wrong, and I hope doing it this way it will be productive for writers/would-be writers who are interested in plot. I am on record as thinking that the first two seasons of the show are very well-done, on the whole – the season arcs weren’t necessarily resolved in the most satisfying ways possible, but the arcs themselves were pretty solid and the character growth was also very well-done, I thought. The show’s sense of humor about itself and its habit of mining horror tropes for its own ends have also been extremely enjoyable. It has been far from a perfect television show, but given what it was trying to do, it was broadly successful.
HOLY SHIT, YOU GUYS. MORGAN NAILED IT.
So in a post today mostly unrelated to what I want to talk about, John Green stated, “It’s not okay to ship real people and other real people.” I respect John Green in all ways, but I disagree 100% with this statement, and I want to clear up why Real Person Fiction is not actually wrong.
The first important issue to cover is that RPF is not tinhatting is not harassment. If you ship something, you like to think about it, write about it, draw it, joke about it, talk about it with your friends, and it makes you happy in your own little corner of the world. This is okay. Tinhatting is when you believe your ship is really happening in real life and the Powers That Be are hiding it from you. This is also okay, until it becomes harassment, which is when you throw your ship into the involved people’s faces repeatedly in spite of requests to stop and you say nasty stuff about their girlfriends to them and generally make everybody unhappy. This is never okay.
But that’s not what shipping is, and that’s not what RPF is. The first point I want to make here is that RPF is not actually about real people.