i be lurking

[legalandnotease]

I like your blog because you haven't been silenced or bullied into a corner.

I'm tired of the rhetoric where people hear "I don't like Sam Wilson as Captain America/Sam Wilson is not my Captain America" ​​and automatically jump to the conclusion "You don't like Sam? Sam is black, so you must not like him, because he's black. And if you don't like him because of that, then you're a racist" and they're absolutely certain of it. But you know what, a teenage girl who thinks she's a great activist fighting inequality, because she anonymously called someone a racist on social media? No, that's not the reason.

You know what is? That I'm not going to get in the ass of the american military.

Steve Rogers was close to many persecuted minorities, having fought in World War II. Steve himself was a disabled christian descendant of Irish parents who, in the comics, was friends with a gay Jew and, in the MCU, associated with Jews, Japanese and black people. Steve fought against the Nazis, who were spreading eugenics, which directly threatened people like him and those he loved. World War II was a completely different conflict than any subsequent one the US has ever faced, and enlisting in the military had a drastically different basis. If I support any volunteers for the military, it was during this period.

Sam Wilson volunteered for the modern military and voluntarily went to Afghanistan. Twice. And I will never, ever equate a World War II soldier with someone who voluntarily went to Afghanistan. The US Air Force is responsible for many, MANY civilian deaths in its airstrikes. It's estimated that over 47,000 Afghan civilians died as a result of warfare. And that's precisely what someone serving in the military during that time represents. I won't support Sam Wilson any more than I'll support Rhodes or Tony Stark from the MCU. And I don't support them at all.

So no. I'm not anti-Sam Wilson, because he's black and someone calling me a racist won't change anything.

I'll go further. You know why I'd consider Bucky Barnes my Captain America if he become one? Because he's the anti-military in both the MCU and the comics. In the MCU he's a drafted man who became a prisoner of war and suffered torture, because he was sent to a war he never wanted to fight in, and was forced into many more wars he DIDN'T WANT to fight in. In the comics, he was a teenager groomed by the American military, who exploited him. So it gives a message that we should hold on to.

Nonny, I get you.

I will point out (probably have before but will have to again) Sam's first scene in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Its literally him in Algeria working with the US Military and Torres: and what's he doing? He's flying around blowing up "terrorists".

This is *not* in America. Its in Algeria. North Africa.

Like Sam Stans regularly hate on Walker for killing a terrorist but forget Sam's first act in the show was doing the *exact same thing*. Only difference is those terrorists were brown people/Muslims whereas John's "terrorist" was a white dude who speaks English and is European - passing.

And yes. Sam's association with the military *needs* to be considered. Since Thunderbolts Sam Stans have been incessantly hating on Bucky for "working for the government" whilst acting like Sam has no association with the government at all.

Like um- actually he does. The US military is controlled and funded entirely by the government. Torres is literally still a serving member of the military. Sam uses his military connections and resources in both TFatWS and Brave New World.

You know who doesn't? Bucky

Bucky relies on his own intelligence, experience and occasionally his connections but *he* doesn't have a $10 milllion Stark drone, a Wingsuit and a division or two of soldiers at his disposal.

And then we look at the Thunderbolts. These are all people who have been weaponized or exploited by the system against their will *or* screwed over by the very system they served. Their experience mirrors Bucky's: but Sam?

He's part of the establishment. He has never been in any meaningful way anti-establishment or gone against the system. He's always been part of the military, strongly connected with it or held a government position. Which is what Captain America is.

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

is Anon aware that none of these characters aren't real and they're fictional characters, right? like you're doing the teenage activist thing too –– just in a slightly more annoying way.

That's not even counting for the fact that both steve and bucky were/are/have been apart of The Establishment ™, both in and out of the comics, lol Steve was literally the Director of SHIELD and an NYPD Patrol Officer at one point for fuck's sake!!!

[legalandnotease]

The Comics and MCU aren't the same. Citing the comics to argue against something from the MCU which has been changed or is utterly different is stupid, actually.

And "its just fiction!" isn't an excuse to defend or justify bad shit. Weren't you the one defending fictional genocides?

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

... Where did I defend fictional genocide???

[legalandnotease]

I like your blog because you haven't been silenced or bullied into a corner.

I'm tired of the rhetoric where people hear "I don't like Sam Wilson as Captain America/Sam Wilson is not my Captain America" ​​and automatically jump to the conclusion "You don't like Sam? Sam is black, so you must not like him, because he's black. And if you don't like him because of that, then you're a racist" and they're absolutely certain of it. But you know what, a teenage girl who thinks she's a great activist fighting inequality, because she anonymously called someone a racist on social media? No, that's not the reason.

You know what is? That I'm not going to get in the ass of the american military.

Steve Rogers was close to many persecuted minorities, having fought in World War II. Steve himself was a disabled christian descendant of Irish parents who, in the comics, was friends with a gay Jew and, in the MCU, associated with Jews, Japanese and black people. Steve fought against the Nazis, who were spreading eugenics, which directly threatened people like him and those he loved. World War II was a completely different conflict than any subsequent one the US has ever faced, and enlisting in the military had a drastically different basis. If I support any volunteers for the military, it was during this period.

Sam Wilson volunteered for the modern military and voluntarily went to Afghanistan. Twice. And I will never, ever equate a World War II soldier with someone who voluntarily went to Afghanistan. The US Air Force is responsible for many, MANY civilian deaths in its airstrikes. It's estimated that over 47,000 Afghan civilians died as a result of warfare. And that's precisely what someone serving in the military during that time represents. I won't support Sam Wilson any more than I'll support Rhodes or Tony Stark from the MCU. And I don't support them at all.

So no. I'm not anti-Sam Wilson, because he's black and someone calling me a racist won't change anything.

I'll go further. You know why I'd consider Bucky Barnes my Captain America if he become one? Because he's the anti-military in both the MCU and the comics. In the MCU he's a drafted man who became a prisoner of war and suffered torture, because he was sent to a war he never wanted to fight in, and was forced into many more wars he DIDN'T WANT to fight in. In the comics, he was a teenager groomed by the American military, who exploited him. So it gives a message that we should hold on to.

Nonny, I get you.

I will point out (probably have before but will have to again) Sam's first scene in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Its literally him in Algeria working with the US Military and Torres: and what's he doing? He's flying around blowing up "terrorists".

This is *not* in America. Its in Algeria. North Africa.

Like Sam Stans regularly hate on Walker for killing a terrorist but forget Sam's first act in the show was doing the *exact same thing*. Only difference is those terrorists were brown people/Muslims whereas John's "terrorist" was a white dude who speaks English and is European - passing.

And yes. Sam's association with the military *needs* to be considered. Since Thunderbolts Sam Stans have been incessantly hating on Bucky for "working for the government" whilst acting like Sam has no association with the government at all.

Like um- actually he does. The US military is controlled and funded entirely by the government. Torres is literally still a serving member of the military. Sam uses his military connections and resources in both TFatWS and Brave New World.

You know who doesn't? Bucky

Bucky relies on his own intelligence, experience and occasionally his connections but *he* doesn't have a $10 milllion Stark drone, a Wingsuit and a division or two of soldiers at his disposal.

And then we look at the Thunderbolts. These are all people who have been weaponized or exploited by the system against their will *or* screwed over by the very system they served. Their experience mirrors Bucky's: but Sam?

He's part of the establishment. He has never been in any meaningful way anti-establishment or gone against the system. He's always been part of the military, strongly connected with it or held a government position. Which is what Captain America is.

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

is Anon aware that none of these characters aren't real and they're fictional characters, right? like you're doing the teenage activist thing too –– just in a slightly more annoying way.

That's not even counting for the fact that both steve and bucky were/are/have been apart of The Establishment ™, both in and out of the comics, lol Steve was literally the Director of SHIELD and an NYPD Patrol Officer at one point for fuck's sake!!!

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

still reeling from that *one* stucky shipper comparing pepperony to jeffrey epstein and ghislaine maxwell, like what the fuck are you talking about man lol

[the-desolated-quill]

Nostalgia is eating us alive. Instead of building a new world, we’re regurgitating a past that never existed | Martin Ingle

We want to go back to a time when we could drive our big cars and tease our hair – without thinking about the ozone or whatever

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

… I don’t think it’s nostalgia pandering? It’s just a stylistic choice — this is like me calling something like Speed Racer (2008) nostalgia pandering because it homages the original Speed Racer cartoon.

Same goes for Superman, it may be influenced by the Donner films but it’s wholly it’s own thing. This whole article seems like pure yapping to me, lol

[the-desolated-quill]

The point is that we’re rehashing stuff from the past because it’s comforting and familiar instead of coming up with something new. As a result, nothing moves forward and culture stagnates. The past isn’t how we remember it and our rose tinted lenses have distorted it into something it’s not. Hence the MAGA comparison. They want to take America back to a time where things were supposedly simpler and better, but the problem is those times never existed in the first place. So they choose to indulge in an alt-right fantasy rather than accept reality and strive to move forward. Media reflects reality.

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

Superman, even if it's influenced by Donner, is wholly it's own thing –– I'd say it's more influenced by Grant Morrison's All Star Superman in how tackles Superman's own dilemma with his ideology, heroism, and his own alien heritage.

(That's not even getting into the whole Boravia-Jarhanpur subplot.) The idea that something is influenced by something from the past that people are familiar with doesn't inherently make it bad. New doesn't always necessarily mean good/bad, and Old doesn't always necessarily mean good/bad either.

Like, we don't have to act like something like the DCEU was doing something "daring" and "bold" because it was simply "new." (*RedLetterMedia voice* THEY BROKE NEW GROUNNDDDDDD!)

[the-desolated-quill]

Sigh. You’re still completely missing the point.

This isn’t a DCEU vs DCU thing or whether or not a film is entirely original or not. This is about a media culture that has become solely reliant on its past to generate profit. Sequels, remakes, reboots, multiverses. Hollywood is cannibalising itself because it’s either unable or unwilling to move on and take a chance on something different. New stories, new visions, new IPs. Are you seriously going to pretend that an industry that’s prepared to pay Robert Downey Jr millions of dollars to come back and play Doctor Doom in a desperate bid to get bums back in seats is a healthy one?

I could not give less of a shit whether or not James Gunn is ripping off a 70s film or a mediocre Grant Morrison comic. This isn’t about one film and whether or not you like it. This is about the big picture. The culture as a whole and how it reflects our current society. You’re right in that there’s nothing necessarily wrong with nostalgia. There is something wrong however in using nostalgia as a crutch. It’s the difference between having a pint at lunchtime vs getting completely shitfaced. One’s perfectly acceptable and even a little fun. The other suggests you have a massive problem and that you need help.

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

"Are you seriously going to pretend that an industry that’s prepared to pay Robert Downey Jr millions of dollars to come back and play Doctor Doom in a desperate bid to get bums back in seats is a healthy one?

... No? I hate that shit just as much as any other sensible person, lol. I just think stuff like First Steps and Superman 2025 is very much different from something like The Flash and Deadpool vs. Wolverine. I do agree that Hollywood has a sequel/reboot/requel/whatever problem –– I do want to see more original stories and IPs, nothing's wrong with that! I just think this article is making a mountain out of medium sized molehill.

Try to judge the film on its own merits instead of going into it with a pre-determined bad faith interpertation of it because of some overly nebulous reasons.

Quill, I've been a reader of your work for awhile –– I happen to agree with some of your readings, and sometimes I don't. I just feel like, as a whole, you don't really tend to partake in good faith readings and often choose to lean too hard into needing to be overly critical/contrarian for no good reason. That's all. :P

[the-desolated-quill]

You know I’m critical, and yet it hasn’t been a problem until now only because I’ve happened to mention a film you personally like. Listen, I have no problem if you like James Gunn’s Superman. That doesn’t make you a bad person. That’s not the point of the article. It’s using Superman as an example of a wider trend in Hollywood at the moment, and how it reflects the current political climate. Again, you’re missing the point entirely. This isn’t a review of Superman. This has nothing to do with whether or not you personally think the film is good. You’re conflating the two.

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

Right, right –– sorry. I misinterperted you, my bad. :P

[the-desolated-quill]

Nostalgia is eating us alive. Instead of building a new world, we’re regurgitating a past that never existed | Martin Ingle

We want to go back to a time when we could drive our big cars and tease our hair – without thinking about the ozone or whatever

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

… I don’t think it’s nostalgia pandering? It’s just a stylistic choice — this is like me calling something like Speed Racer (2008) nostalgia pandering because it homages the original Speed Racer cartoon.

Same goes for Superman, it may be influenced by the Donner films but it’s wholly it’s own thing. This whole article seems like pure yapping to me, lol

[the-desolated-quill]

The point is that we’re rehashing stuff from the past because it’s comforting and familiar instead of coming up with something new. As a result, nothing moves forward and culture stagnates. The past isn’t how we remember it and our rose tinted lenses have distorted it into something it’s not. Hence the MAGA comparison. They want to take America back to a time where things were supposedly simpler and better, but the problem is those times never existed in the first place. So they choose to indulge in an alt-right fantasy rather than accept reality and strive to move forward. Media reflects reality.

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

Superman, even if it's influenced by Donner, is wholly it's own thing –– I'd say it's more influenced by Grant Morrison's All Star Superman in how tackles Superman's own dilemma with his ideology, heroism, and his own alien heritage.

(That's not even getting into the whole Boravia-Jarhanpur subplot.) The idea that something is influenced by something from the past that people are familiar with doesn't inherently make it bad. New doesn't always necessarily mean good/bad, and Old doesn't always necessarily mean good/bad either.

Like, we don't have to act like something like the DCEU was doing something "daring" and "bold" because it was simply "new." (*RedLetterMedia voice* THEY BROKE NEW GROUNNDDDDDD!)

[the-desolated-quill]

Sigh. You’re still completely missing the point.

This isn’t a DCEU vs DCU thing or whether or not a film is entirely original or not. This is about a media culture that has become solely reliant on its past to generate profit. Sequels, remakes, reboots, multiverses. Hollywood is cannibalising itself because it’s either unable or unwilling to move on and take a chance on something different. New stories, new visions, new IPs. Are you seriously going to pretend that an industry that’s prepared to pay Robert Downey Jr millions of dollars to come back and play Doctor Doom in a desperate bid to get bums back in seats is a healthy one?

I could not give less of a shit whether or not James Gunn is ripping off a 70s film or a mediocre Grant Morrison comic. This isn’t about one film and whether or not you like it. This is about the big picture. The culture as a whole and how it reflects our current society. You’re right in that there’s nothing necessarily wrong with nostalgia. There is something wrong however in using nostalgia as a crutch. It’s the difference between having a pint at lunchtime vs getting completely shitfaced. One’s perfectly acceptable and even a little fun. The other suggests you have a massive problem and that you need help.

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

"Are you seriously going to pretend that an industry that’s prepared to pay Robert Downey Jr millions of dollars to come back and play Doctor Doom in a desperate bid to get bums back in seats is a healthy one?

... No? I hate that shit just as much as any other sensible person, lol. I just think stuff like First Steps and Superman 2025 is very much different from something like The Flash and Deadpool vs. Wolverine. I do agree that Hollywood has a sequel/reboot/requel/whatever problem –– I do want to see more original stories and IPs, nothing's wrong with that! I just think this article is making a mountain out of medium sized molehill.

Try to judge the film on its own merits instead of going into it with a pre-determined bad faith interpertation of it because of some overly nebulous reasons.

Quill, I've been a reader of your work for awhile –– I happen to agree with some of your readings, and sometimes I don't. I just feel like, as a whole, you don't really tend to partake in good faith readings and often choose to lean too hard into needing to be overly critical/contrarian for no good reason. That's all. :P

[the-desolated-quill]

Nostalgia is eating us alive. Instead of building a new world, we’re regurgitating a past that never existed | Martin Ingle

We want to go back to a time when we could drive our big cars and tease our hair – without thinking about the ozone or whatever

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

… I don’t think it’s nostalgia pandering? It’s just a stylistic choice — this is like me calling something like Speed Racer (2008) nostalgia pandering because it homages the original Speed Racer cartoon.

Same goes for Superman, it may be influenced by the Donner films but it’s wholly it’s own thing. This whole article seems like pure yapping to me, lol

[the-desolated-quill]

The point is that we’re rehashing stuff from the past because it’s comforting and familiar instead of coming up with something new. As a result, nothing moves forward and culture stagnates. The past isn’t how we remember it and our rose tinted lenses have distorted it into something it’s not. Hence the MAGA comparison. They want to take America back to a time where things were supposedly simpler and better, but the problem is those times never existed in the first place. So they choose to indulge in an alt-right fantasy rather than accept reality and strive to move forward. Media reflects reality.

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

Superman, even if it's influenced by Donner, is wholly it's own thing –– I'd say it's more influenced by Grant Morrison's All Star Superman in how tackles Superman's own dilemma with his ideology, heroism, and his own alien heritage.

(That's not even getting into the whole Boravia-Jarhanpur subplot.) The idea that something is influenced by something from the past that people are familiar with doesn't inherently make it bad. New doesn't always necessarily mean good/bad, and Old doesn't always necessarily mean good/bad either.

Like, we don't have to act like something like the DCEU was doing something "daring" and "bold" because it was simply "new." (*RedLetterMedia voice* THEY BROKE NEW GROUNNDDDDDD!)

[the-desolated-quill]

Nostalgia is eating us alive. Instead of building a new world, we’re regurgitating a past that never existed | Martin Ingle

We want to go back to a time when we could drive our big cars and tease our hair – without thinking about the ozone or whatever

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

… I don’t think it’s nostalgia pandering? It’s just a stylistic choice — this is like me calling something like Speed Racer (2008) nostalgia pandering because it homages the original Speed Racer cartoon.

Same goes for Superman, it may be influenced by the Donner films but it’s wholly it’s own thing. This whole article seems like pure yapping to me, lol

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

of all the reasons to block someone on tumblr man ...

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

man the venn diagram of people who ship mcu stucky and are pro-israel is BIG but not really unsuprising, considering zionists tend to be the most annoying fucking people ever

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

@/amarriageoftrueminds: "tony & pepper are just epstein/ghislaine doing a 1940s bit"

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

the whole post in general was just a whole lot of yapping. i don't gaf about steggy/mcu peggy either but jesus christ that person is like capeshit tumblr hiroo onoda

what's crazy about AMOTM is that, judging from their archive, they clearly didn't always feel that way about mcu tony in particular -- (everyone can see your posts about 2012-2021 roughly praising tony bud you ain't fooling anyone with this "i've been a proud hater since the beginning" shit, lol) -- so i'm guessing that endgame just broke her brain like it did for a lot of other stucky shippers.

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

@/amarriageoftrueminds: "tony & pepper are just epstein/ghislaine doing a 1940s bit"

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

why was it so important to people post-aou that steve rogers has a potty mouth why is that the thing people have decided is a vital character trait whyyyyyyy

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

i don't even fw the mcu THAT much anymore, but i genuinely do wonder if people would hate tony stark this much if captain america civil war as a film just didn't exist at all

got a bunch of anti tony stark blogs still roaming around like fucking hiroo onoda like seriously

"oh but i made this account because i was tired of anti-steve people were making these kind of blogs too"

BLOCK THEM! USE THE BLOCK BUTTON! IGNORE THEM! BLACKLIST THE TAGS! lmfao

are you people fucking middle schoolers???

[assiraphales]

somehow someway I will find a way to correlate (part of) elons popularity to marvel using tony stark —billionaire inventor with war profiteering parents — as the face of the mcu

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

#interestingly I think the revelation of musk being a thieving idiot#is correlated to the revelation that Tony Stark also steals basically all his tech from SI employees#and never actually invented anything himself#not the arc reactor#not the alternative to polonium#not BARF#not his AI#and not his suit#he just made it happen because he has money and access to things#+.+

@cosmicmechanism

... what?

Tony DID create JARVIS, and his suit -- those were his ideas, he literally designed it and built it -- those are his inventions that he made.

I've never understood the narrative that Tony isn't smart and is just a "nepo baby" when the films have made it explicitly clear that isn't the case, lmfao. (see: Iron Man 3)

[assiraphales]

somehow someway I will find a way to correlate (part of) elons popularity to marvel using tony stark —billionaire inventor with war profiteering parents — as the face of the mcu

[isaiah-dereliction-den]

i think you would be very misguided in doing that, lol.

heavy disclaimer: i do not fuck with elon. like at all. i think he's one of the most dangerous figures currently in history, but i do not think a superhero movie and by extension the mcu is the reason WHY he's popular because ... like ...

this shit didn't start in, like, 2008 -- it's existed since roughly the 80s with steve jobs, bill gates, and so on.

it's nothing new -- and a superhero movie releasing in 2008 didn't change that.

The political transformation of Elon Musk

Elon Musk once said he preferred to “stay out of politics”. As with many things, it appears he has changed his mind.

"For all Musk’s previous insistence he wants to “stay out of politics,” there is now plenty of evidence to the contrary. His endorsement of Trump came after he said in 2016 that he “doesn’t seem to have the sort of character that reflects well on the United States,” and in 2022 that the former Republican president should “hang up his hat & sail into the sunset.”

Certainly, his political track record from the Obama administration onwards is capricious. In 2016, he supported Hillary Clinton and denounced Trump."

[fuckyeahblackwidow]

Why do you like Sharon Carter?

This doesn’t have anything to do with Black Widow, anon, but okay.

I like Sharon Carter because she is noble without being nice.  Because her heroism costs her.  I think it helps that I don’t see her, primarily, as Steve’s love interest, I don’t want to evaluate her in terms of how narratively fit she is for a man.  But I do think she makes Steve and his story better for being in it.  (I can’t believe they’ve killed her off twice.)

See, Captain America is not very interesting when everyone agrees with him except the Nazis.  His ideals have to be questioned for them to be felt.  Stuff like Wolverine sobbing at the grave of Steve Rogers never felt right to me; he needs someone around to tell him hard things, that Bucky might be better off dead than a brainwashed shell of himself, that he cannot protect everything, save everyone.  I’m not sure why people find Sharon heartless for choosing duty over love, when Steve’s commitment to service makes him lonely in the same way.

When Sharon died the first time it was this textbook fridging, the girlfriend burning up to give her hero grief and narrative freedom.  But when Mark Waid brought her back he gave her a plotline in the process, her own adventures: she didn’t burn up for him, but for her own missions.  It was clever, and I liked it.

Waid also deepened the way Sharon works as a foil in Captain America.  Look: Steve is an ideal.  His service has elevated him.  The Super Soldier Serum brought out the best in what was already there.  And Sharon was inspired by that, by her Aunt Peggy’s big adventures.  She chose a life of bravery but it didn’t make her an ideal.  It made her cynical, and bitter, and angry.  She saw horrors and war and it didn’t bring her any higher.  And that is a hard lesson but a real one and such a valuable perspective in the mythology.  It means more because it comes from Sharon, someone who Steve was in love with, someone he values.  All the UST flying around makes the stakes more than academic.

Sharon means more because she’s got no powers.  She’s part of a conglomerate, really, the number #13, and there are dozens of agents like her who must die when the helicarrier crashes in every goddamn summer event.  She means more because she gives that perspective a name and a face and a history.  I love that she’s motivated by her Aunt Peggy’s stories, that as a girl she dreamed of being just like her.  That she always wanted to be a soldier, not a ballerina or an actress or a lawyer or a wife.  I love that it costs her so much to be in Steve’s life but she still wants to help him, wants it to be worthwhile, wants to do the right thing.

I mean that in and out of universe.  She’s been killed off twice to give his story more weight.  But in universe Sharon has gone through a hell meant for no ordinary person.  She fights primary-colored robot Nazis and mundane human evil, and yeah, her world won’t let her be nice.  But she keeps fighting, because she won’t be coddled or shielded, because her aunt kept fighting too.  She is basically the most bad-ass person in the Marvel Universe.  And, deep down, no matter how rightfully cynical the world has made her, no matter how little breathing room she has for mercy, she wants to be something else, wants to believe in the goodness of people, wants to be a patriot.  It’s a give-and-take perspective with Steve, you see, but she has her reasons for sticking with him.  (And I don’t really mean romantically, but if it bugs you when women have a crush on Captain America idk why you are on tumblr.)

I like her because people tell me I shouldn’t, too, let’s be honest.  Every time someone dismisses a lady character for getting in the way of a ship, my ranting grows three paragraphs.

[rneliflua]

fandom approaches male characters from a watsonian perspective and female characters from a doylist perspective

[rneliflua]

by virtue of being made up constructs everything about fictional characters only exists as far as what is told about them, and yet underdeveloped male characters are assumed to have rich inner lives that the writer have simply not tapped into - when they actually did not give them any - and it's therefore up to fans to rescue the character from the writer's assumed negligence and explore him themselves through headcanon-ing the shit outta them picking up small bits of characterization and expanding from it, whereas female characters are taken at extreme face value: if the writer did not give them an inner life then she doesn't have one period, even within the universe of the story where everyone is a living breathing person, and it's not worth exploring. even when the small bits of context and characterization about her insinuate something interesting about inner world and leave room to spin an interesting backstory and motivations there seems to be no interest in fandom to do so.