I criticism I wrote for a writer, but I have so much anxiety about people being defensive that I feel like I cannot leave it in their comments. IDK if I wrote my concerns effectively, though, either. (TW: Failure to use appropriate tags/warnings, Mentions of Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault):
I mean this with the best intentions: You may want to add to the Warning section: "Sexual Assault", because the "bedroom confrontation" is an example of domestic sexual assault and that was a jumpscare-and-a-half to read; or, at least a "Dub-con" tag/warning. Solomon also blaming MC for accidental indecency mixed with the confrontation makes the ending feel like a band-aid over a bullet wound with MC fawning to protect Sol's ego -- the relationship reads as so toxic. If you intended to make it read a little toxic, you were very successful (though, my tag/warning suggestions still stand).
Tired and unedited: I don't know how much of this is well developed thought right now, lol.
Bro, you guys know that calling out a mischaracterization is not hate right?
Like, if you are choosing to use a non-OC, why are you upset when you get called out for not fully representing or miswriting the character and their traits?
Sure, you are using a form of expression and there is nothing wrong with that, but you are able to use a character that fits the situation better (probably within that original media or, again, an OC) or who already has the traits you are either adding or removing.
It feels like the idea isn't fully developed and allows for misinterpretation. You can 100% manipulate a character to fit a new/different scenario without changing their core self - especially if the scenario is completely removed to the events of the media. (Like adapting a character into an AU: yandere, supernatural, or animal, etc.)
As writers, we will only get better when learning to write within different types of limitations. It provides the challenge we desire while still providing the space for our expression.
If someone mischaracterizes, misrepresents, or just has an underdeveloped view of a non-OC and gets corrected (by immediate lore, creator references, etc.), we shouldn't take it as an insult or hate. Sure, it may be upsetting (especially if you aren't expecting it), but we should use it as a tool of introspection; look where our writing skills are lacking and work on that; criticism, even if it feels like an insult, may have a reasonable source and automatically dismissing it as mindless hate will harm your own writing over time.
I love fandoms and I love the work they can produce, but it has always left me confused when people would change so many traits that it no longer feels like the same character (sometimes it is just clearly someone stealing the popularity of the character to increase their own popularity). Connecting to a character and projecting some of your traits onto them is one thing, but reforming all the characteristics except the hair or an interest or some other small but general trait makes no sense to me.
For example, I know putting non-humans/non-human-looking-characters into Human AUs is popular and also allows for a lot of personal liberties. However, I've seen people just slap the name and relationships on completely knew characters with different personalities and designs.
For me, a good example of this is Mina from BNHA. I've seen artists draw her as a black girl with afro-styled hair. Mina doesn't present as typically human in the series so her design is up to your imagination in a (typical) Human AU. Plus, in BNHA, she has a mutation quirk, which we are shown can lead to discrimination in that world. For many people who are minority races within their own communities, they may see that correlation and build a bond with her character. Adding these traits don't take away from her character, they add without deleting other characteristics.
Unfortunately, I've seen this perspective be corrupted, for a lack of a better word. Instead of making a small adjustment to the original character or a completely new character that barrows traits from the original character, people just make a new character and slap the name on them.
Why not make a new OC and state that you were influenced/inspired? Why do some people feel the need to add traits that would realistically change the character fundamentally? If you want representation from a character, why slap it on an old character instead of making a fresh, organic character?
Like I love imagining, for instance, Cater from Twisted Wonderland just using queer slang. There is nothing funnier to me imaging him grimacing, scolding you gently but directly, and ending it by calling you girly-pop. It fits his characteristic of being chronically online as well as his canon laid-back-but-fun personality.
Honestly, I don't really have any bad examples in mind right now, but I do remember them popping-up here and there. As a whole, I definitely know the difference between a headcanon, canon, AU, and just a whole new character using a popular name/body.
Please, if you feel like you are missing representation, make a character with that in mind. That character you are projecting onto will never fully be able to give the needed representation the justice its deserves if the original character never had that trait in the first place.
Heck, pull a Spider-verse (or, well, Comic Books in general) and make a new AU where your whole new character is in place of the original character. Remember the main concept of that whole series: Miles Morales is NOT Peter Parker. Miles Morales is Spiderman.
Small Trigger Warning: Mention of the word p3doph!l3 but not any description of the act/behaviors.
If you want to call someone a pedophile but you cannot use the word for what ever reason (demonetization, chronically online, etc. etc.), replace it with PDF File.
If used in context with other people who know the English word of pedophile and who has been exposed to internet culture, people will probably come to understand it.
