things and stuff !

[jonnyinthewell]

okay so when Hermes continues to loop the same musical story about death and doomed romance he’s “hopeful” and “raising his cup” but when I, Pokotho-

[cactusringed]

I think fanfiction as a medium is different enough from mainstream literature in the tools it offers writers that it's a shame that it's not talked about more often. And it's not me saying "fanfic is better than books xD" because that sort of mindset is a symptom of people who aren't particularly well read in either medium. I'm just speaking of like... The little things you get to do with a fanfic that you genuinely can't really do in an original story.

I had a big fanfic in a previous fandom where one of the big reveals was the involvement of a kind of infamous villain, whose presence was built up to and foreshadowed through the whole fic until his reveal without ever mentioning his name, so that the name drop would be a gut punch. It worked especially well because of who the villain was and his presence in that fandom space specifically (it's very complicated) and if it was an original story this reveal wouldn't work at all the way it was written in the fic. Because if you don't have a predisposition to think about that character and his relationship to the hero in a very specific way, then just seeing their name won't do much to you; the reveal and the recontextualisation it pushes upon you hinges on your previous knowledge of the source material.

I think it's an interesting tool fanfic authors are given. One of my favorite fanfic of all time is partially a re-imagining of its source material's canon, and something it does is introduce antagonists much earlier in the story or deepen npcs' stories. It then works to evoke a tragic irony that again wouldn't work if you didn't know the source material, and it's something the author obviously has a lot of fun with.

You could call it cheap or a crutch and I mean, yeah, sure, it is a little bit: the fanfic relies on previously established emotional bonds and stakes to achieve its goal, and in some cases it saves the author from having to 'properly' build up its stakes. But I think it's INTERESTING that it has that tool at its disposal. I think it's a fun thing to play with and I think these built in expectations and emotional bonds are especially why I find story driven aus in particular to be fascinating in the amount of ways you can play with them. You know??

[prokopetz]

Something I see getting overlooked a lot when discussing queercoding in historical media is that in many cases it's not evidence that the writers secretly shipped it; it was aimed at straight dudes specifically to freak them out. Depicting a male villain as sexually interested in a male hero reads as horror to the cishet male audience. Like, Venom didn't spend years and years being blatantly characterised as Spider-Man's creepy stalker ex because Marvel's writers were all closeted yaoi fans. That was meant to be scary – which of course doesn't mean you can't read it differently, but don't give them credit they don't deserve!

[redstonedust]

unfortunately i dont think its queerbaiting if the creator is just so terminally heterosexual that they never remotely considered the same gender relationship their show is centered around could be read as romantic. it is deeply painful however.

[melanqueerly]

Maybe accidental queer baiting? The way someone may not mean to say something rude, but it may come off rude, so it's rude. Frustrating either way.

[phinarei]

Not being a dick, just a friendly clarification.

By definition you can't accidentally queerbait. Queerbaiting is specifically using a same sex pair from the show to market the show to queer audiences with no intention of ever following through on a romantic relationship.

There is officially licensed Destiel merch signed off on by Kripke. Teen Wolf had a commercial with the actors for Derek and Stiles draped over each other talking about being "on a ship." Both shows actively used scenes between them as marketing while actively mocking fans for wanting them together. Sherlock has multiple characters refer to Johnlock as a couple, including characters we're supposed to believe are never wrong about human behavior and pushed those scenes in marketing. Then they acted insulted when fans saw them as a couple.

That's queerbaiting.

Done on accident it would just be queer subtext. Done because they had no other choice due to censorship is queer coding.

The specific meaning of the word is really starting to get lost and it's a pretty important one to keep accurate. It describes a very specific phenomenon that was done repeatedly and maliciously for decades and is meant to examine that specifically.

Doing it on accident sucks, but it isn't a tactic of capitalism intentionally intended to suppress queer representation while making money from queer fans.

[joyandotherstories]

Reblogging to keep the accurate definition and examples of queerbaiting circulating in the world

[artigas]

there's something to be said, i think, about modern fandom's increasing fixation with paratext versus canon -- whether that's something as substantial as entertainment articles, actor interviews, comments from showrunners, bts footage, and deleted scenes or something as insubstantial (and often misleading) as an actor's body language while they do promo, unsubstantiated rumors of displeasure or friction between the cast and/or the writers, and full blown conspiracy theories ("there's a secret unaired episode that will make everything right" is a popular one right now). maybe it's obvious to say that this probably stems from an audience that is fundamentally dissatisfied or disinterested in the story they're being told and instead privileges the story they've convinced themselves they've been told by virtue of their fandom experience. in other words, that there's a kind of enmeshment that happens for some of us where the meta-analyses, headcanons, and fandom chatter (which often takes a kernel of truth from canon and runs with it to often fascinating but not always legitimate readings) becomes blurred with what is actually canon to the media we're enjoying. at least, i can certainly trace where this blurring of boundaries has shown up with me in my long history with fandom, particularly when i was coming of age.

i think it's uncomfortable, but often necessary to recognize when we're watching a show or a film or reading a book or playing a video game with different expectations or desires than the story ever promised to fulfill. simply, you can't draw blood from a stone, you know? and I think this idea, however simple, is often very easy to forget when you're in fandom because fanworks are innately transformative. in fandom, we draw blood from stones all the time. we re-imagine characters, relationships, universes in whichever way we deem fit so that we can experience wish fulfillment. but as the fourth wall between fandom and the creatives behind media becomes thinner and thinner, the boundary between what is the job of storytellers (to tell a story), what is the job of the audience (to receive the story or opt out), and what is the job of fandom (to connect with one another over shared imaginative and transformative reception of the story being told) is getting muddied to detrimental effect. coupled with the rise of hyper-individualism and the increasing commodification of fanworks into traditionally published forms, this is where we get a real wave of entitlement from fandom -- this sense that the storyteller owes something to us by virtue of our fannish devotion and that perceived failure to meet our desires is worthy of a host of outrage and abuses. i think this is where paratext comes in and why the notion of what is or isn't canon feels perhaps more debatable now than ever before. i think it's born from a blend of hyper-individualism effecting how we think and behave as audience members, the increasing sense of entitlement that is borne out of such individualist thinking, the vanishing of the fourth wall between fandom and the mainstream as well as the creators of media that fandom enjoys, and a growing inability to accept the story you're being told on its own terms (and go happily and exclusively to fandom to remedy the urge for something more). because, really, what paratext offers is a sense of legitimacy -- usually when it conveniently upholds what you privately wanted in the first place. if the show you love isn't giving you enough to substantiate your ship, you can get your fix through an actor's interviews, their exposure to fanfiction and fan art, and their perceived approval of the ship. their opinion, by virtue of their literal proximity to the show, legitimizes your own. if the movie you love doesn't do enough with a character you find interesting, a scrapped plan for what the character might've done or a deleted scene might do the same. etc etc.

And while I think it's fine to find the perspectives of actors and showrunners interesting, I do think you get into messy waters when you consider these things just as legitimate as what makes it onto the page or screen -- because, factually, that just isn't true. and if you step outside of fan spaces, you often see this disconnect: i'm sure we have all had the experience of talking to a friend, a parent, or a coworker who "isn't online" and is completely flabbergasted by fandom discourse or simply never would've come up with a popular fanon interpretation or critique if you'd given them a hundred years. because casual viewership (which is almost by definition never going to seek out actor interviews, articles, social media stories, and what an actor likes or doesnt like on instagram) is receiving only the text: the story that, by virtue of the many forces that constrain, edit, and transform the myriad intentions of every person involved in the project, finally and actually made it to the screen. and i dunno, i wonder sometimes if there's something to envy in that.

[commodoresays]

Every time Flint and Silver touch

[sparvverius]

abigail's journal talking about how she worries that the pirates are putting on a show of being normal sailors and that at a single gesture from their leader they'll drop the act does hit different after reading treasure island

[sword-wielding-sapphic]

John Silver and text posts part 2 (part 1) (Black Sails 15/?)

[blackheartbiohazards]

➡️ Content warnings on fiction are a courtesy. 

➡️ Not every medium of fiction and storytelling has or is expected to have content warnings or extensive tagging.

➡️ Print novels do not traditionally warn for content in any way.

➡️ Until AO3 came along, fanfiction did not traditionally warn for content in any significant way.

➡️ An author is only obligated to warn for content to the degree mandated by the format they publish their fiction on.

➡️ Content warnings beyond the minimum are a courtesy, not an obligation.

➡️ 'Creator chose not to warn' is a valid tag that authors are allowed to use on AO3. It means there could be anything in there and you have accepted the risk. 'May contain peanuts!'

➡️ Writers are allowed to use 'Creator chose not to warn' for any reason, including to maintain surprise and avoid spoilers.

➡️ 'Creator chose not to warn' is not the same thing as 'no archive warnings apply'.

➡️ It is your responsibility to protect yourself and close a book, or hit the back button if you find something in fiction that you're reading that upsets you.

➡️ You are responsible for protecting yourself from fiction that causes you discomfort.

[sparvverius]

flint.

he's alive, silver told the truth

he's alive, but it's not as silver described it

he's dead

Voting ended onJul 12

no "it's ambiguous" i know it is. no secret third fourth thing. vote for any reason and with any rationale you like.

[knucklecurve]

filthy, filthy read

[timmyreads]

'RGB V. MR. PUZZLES: Copyright Infringement Claim' Information and Research Masterpost

It's been a while since I promised to have this masterpost out, but I think I finally have everything roughly organized together

This is a masterpost compiling most of the information and resources I've collected while researching Modmad's copyright infringement claim and case related to SMG4/Glitch/ZAMination. Some of this information is collected from points I've touched on in previous reblog chains, some are new points I've come across since, and some address arguments/points I've seen brought up by others.

As some of the information or research I've done can apply to a few different points covered within the posts listed below, there may be times where certain pieces of information are repeated.

Just as a note, I've set many of the individual posts in this masterpost as not rebloggable, as I think they'd be missing too much context as stand-alone posts.

I've collected and organized most of the information in this masterpost myself, so I'll apologize ahead of time for any mistakes or weird wording I may have missed while writing out these posts - I'm sure there are bound to be a couple, at least. Hopefully a lot of this though will still remain relatively informative

LINKS TO POSTS/TOPICS COVERED

Legal Information

Difference between 'plagiarism' and 'copyright infringement' [X]

Standards of Copyright Law and copyright infringement [X]

Relevant copyright terms and tests [X]

Berne Convention Overview - regards law on international copyright recognition [X]

Potentially relevant copyright infringement cases [X]

Copyright Laws and Standards - Sources [X]

Case Relevant Information

Background and Timeline [X]

Copyright Law and Standards in relation to current case [X]

Outside perspectives noting similarities between RGB and Mr. Puzzles' designs [X]

Argument against 'Common Source' [X]

Relevant Clothing/Style References and Notes [X]

Breakdown of Cube/FM's statement on the matter [X]

Character Information

RGB and Mr. Puzzles - Brief similarities overview, images [X]

RGB and Mr. Puzzles - Isolated differences/design elements [X]

Compiled list of established TV head characters [155] [X]

Spreadsheet comparing relevant shared similarities across established TV head characters [155] [X]

Design and development breakdowns of 'similar' characters; Tenna and Vox [X]

Modmad

RGB - Specific design elements and reasoning behind them [X]

RGB - Theming [X]

Modmad's re-known and popularity in the online artistic space [X]

Modmad popular fanworks compilation [X]

Claims and arguments against or referring to Modmad [X]

SMG4

SMG4's design culture and general reliance on outside IPs [X]

Mr. Puzzles' reception in SMG4 community [X]

(please note - Modmad, at this point, is working with a professional legal team on this matter, so the sole intention of these posts are to provide information and context about this case to those who may not have it yet)

(I fully encourage others to do their own research if there's additional questions they have that they're curious about that I may not have included, or if they think what I have is either incorrect or lacking - I always think it's good practice to get into the habit of fact checking for oneself and practicing independent research when the opportunity comes up for it!)

[modmad]

Another huge thank you to Timmy for compiling all of this so that people can understand- many folks have been asking how this situation is going, so I've asked my lawyer and I am allowed to say this: I am continuing to defend my work against infringement, but can't say more now due to pending litigation on the advice of said lawyer.

Thank you all for your support and understanding, and please do keep sharing this information so that people are better informed.

[rneliflua]

"shipping and blorbofication are not inherently at odds with understanding a story's deep themes" and "some people can't grasp the themes of a story because they never learned how to engage with stories outside of the lens of shipping and blorbofication" are two statements that can coexist

[rneliflua]

blorbofication to me is when you love a character in such a laser focus way that you somewhat detach them from the narrative from which they are inserted and treat them in a way roughly similar to how you'd treat an oc for which you still have no story and just like to put them in situations just for fun. which there's nothing wrong with btw, it's just that it can easily lead to people forgetting the character engine in a narrative and not just a barbie doll

[sparvverius]

flint always has such good seemingly rational reasons why he should be given complete and unquestioned power in every situation. i would say that i suspect that sometimes he manufactures the circumstances that make it destructive to undermine his authority but i don't have to because i've already seen him do it on purpose with dufresne's mutiny

[raichett]

liking a ship but disliking the distinct set of stock fanon that they have been assigned is like one of those punishments dante came up with when he wrote the worldbuilding for hell in inferno

[sunderwight]

You know how in Toy Story, at first glance it seems like Sid is way more of a freak than Andy, because Sid's doing things like playing evil surgeon with his toys and dismembering them and putting them back together weird and etc, and Andy on the other hand seems to take really good care of his?

But then when you think about it outside of the context of the sentient toy plotline, Sid's just a creative kid who likes to experiment and modify stuff and that's, in fact, a totally normal way to play (setting aside some of his other problems), meanwhile Andy has a cowboy doll from the 1950's that is somehow still in really good condition and has most of his accessories, and survives until Andy goes off to college with only relatively minor damage and repairs?

Which wouldn't necessarily make Andy's way of handling his toys more abnormal than Sid's, but at least implies that he is just as weird in a different direction?

I often think about this dichotomy in terms of fandom. In one corner you have the kinds of people who are like, yes we must treat our beloved fiction Respectfully, and in the other corner you have the kinds of people who would hot glue robot arms onto Hello Kitty so she could fight Megatron because that's badass, and honestly neither is better or worse it's just different. But sometimes the Andys of fandom think that the Sids of fandom are messed up and committing crimes against their toys, when in reality the toys aren't actually capable of caring, and the Sids are just doing their own thing.

Maybe the metaphor's not a perfect fit but like. At the end of the day, I think the worst thing you can do in fandom is fall prey to the temptation to be a sanctimonious prick about how other people play dolls. "Why would you watch a show if you don't even like canon and only want to write deranged fanfiction about some of the characters?" man I owned like, five GI Joes when I was a kid, and I didn't even like GI Joe. But some of those color change ninjas were cool.

Sometimes it's just like that. You might think you're less of a freak but probably, in your own way, you aren't and whatever you're doing with your toys is weird in a different direction. It's better just to not throw stones lest you invite people to come explain how your impeccably preserved haunted antique doll that you got from your dead father is in fact, not less creepy than a fishing rod with barbie legs.

[chimaerakitten]

One thing that I like very very much about the way Black Sails handles Miranda is that like. She’s obviously dead from the beginning; she represents the hope of reconciliation, and there’s only one way for that to end.

But.

But, in any other show, they would have forced her to die innocent. Not of everything, perhaps. She could be allowed to know she was betrayed before she died; showing her shock and sorrow would heighten the tragedy. But still, it would have to have blindsided her. She wouldn’t have gotten a word in edgewise. Other characters would be able to use “this isn’t what she would have wanted” against Flint. This is all very classic for this type of plot beat.

Which is why it’s so great that the show doesn’t go that way. Miranda dies, yes. She dies quickly and brutally and at the hands of a person who didn’t give a fuck about her as a person. But she does get something; she gets to die enraged.

She is the one who sees the clock. She is the one who puts it together. She is the one who weighs the choice: go along with the reconciliation she pushed for and wanted, or take the violent path, with all the miseries of the last ten years and the risk of death?

And she chooses. She dies for it in the very next instant, but she chose.

Which is a hell of a lot more respectful of her as a character than dying still wanting England’s forgiveness would have been.