THEOGRAPHOS

21 years old and hyperfocusing on cartoons :DDD

[theographos]

₊ ⊹ W E L C O M E ⊹ ₊

Just before you wander across my different hyperfixations, let me tell you a few things about myself. You can call me Lolita or Nico, i'm bisexual, I support the LGBTQ+ and Black Lives Matter, I have ADHD and I'm French.

₊ ⊹ M A S T E R L I S T S ⊹ ₊

→ genshin impact masterlist

→ lolirock masterlist

→ miraculous ladybug masterlist

→ spiderman masterlist

→ trollhunters masterlist

[theographos]

I do not usually post stories about my dogs, but today I want to, so here you go :

I had two dogs but sadly they both died earlier this year due to old age.

My first baby is called Gothan, he was a bit older and non castrated so he could sometimes be challenging. But he was also very gentle and affectionate, it's really hard to accurately describe his behavior since it was the perfect mix of brat and loveable teddy bear.

My family adopted him when I was still a child, and they made sure I understood to give the dog personal space whenever he needed to. I always thought he didn't love me, because everytime I came to pet him while he was napping, one glance at me and he would just let out the biggest sigh, so I'd just give him a few pats on the head and leave him be, thinking I was bothering him. I figured that he was like a cat, that he only wanted to receive affection whenever he wanted.

At some point when he was around 3 years old I decided to look up some dog body language out of curiosity. Turns out that when a dog sighs like that it means that they are relaxed. In other words, all those times I tried to pet Gothan during his naps and whatnot he was just making me aware that this was a good time, he was chilling and open to affection.

It broke my heart so much to discover this misinterpretation, even more so because we adopted our second dog in the meantime, who was more outwardly affectionate. He must've felt so left out to see us giving his baby sister more love. So at that time I took the matter into my own hands, and showered that boy with as much pets as he wanted until the end of his life. And of course it had a huge positive effect on him : he started to nuzzle against our legs whenever we were near him, sometimes he'd walk next to me just to be petted while walking, and I also became one of the very few people he licked (thing he never did before.) His spent his last day cuddled up against me, and I made sure to pet him for hours before he was inevitably put down.

So the moral of this first story is : understand your dog's body language, please ! Don't make the same mistake as I did. Of course I was a kid back then, I had no way of knowing it before the moment I actually found out about it, but still.

The second story is about my second dog, Inga. She was a year and a half younger than Gothan, and she was so smart and so affectionate. Like she learned that if she pushed the water bowl with her nose, we would understand that it was empty, and fill it back with water. Meanwhile Gothan's strategy before she arrived was to just wait next to us... Watch us ominously... Waiting for us to figure out if he either wanted to go out, to play, to receive pets or have his water bowl refilled. Not the most efficient one lmao

Since my parents figured that I knew how to behave with a puppy since I learned that with Gothan, they were a bit less strict with me during Inga's childhood. And while I didn't do anything outwardly wrong, like I was very gentle and nice to this baby girl, the concept of personal space flew out of the window without the constant eye of my parents on me. My personal space was hers, and hers was mine.

This story about her happens much later than Gothan's. I graduated, was in college but still lived with my mom. After my parents divorce a few years back I assumed the major part of the responsability for my dogs. While I didn't pay for their food, I was the one preparing them their meals, keeping up with the vet and their medications, taking them on walks, etc etc.

Those were responsabilities that I took little by little over the years, to the point where my dogs knew that they should come to me if they had an issue (even before the divorce). Gothan was bothering Inga ? Well Inga would come nuzzle against me, and since Gothan knew I didn't wanted him to bother her he'd just turn around and stop the moment she approached me lol. A toy was stuck under the couch ? They went to me to ask for help.

We also developped a nightly routine, where I would signal them that I was going to sleep by just closing all the lights downstairs and waiting by the stairs for them to lay down in their favorite spot, they would receive a kiss goodnight and then I went upstairs to my room.

Except one day Inga refused to go to her favorite spot. Usually it's Gothan who lingered a few minutes more before, but not this time it was her. She would lay down on her spot, which was near the front door, but then stand back up immeditaly. I tried to figure out what was wrong, but she didn't need water, she didn't need pets, nothing had changed in that spot so I couldn't figure out what it was.

When I would ask her what was wrong, she would just start to circle in the living room and looked at me expectantly. And that was a behavior she never had so I was completely clueless. And if I decided to give up and go back to my room, then Inga would bark in her "something is wrong and I need help" kind of bark.

And so after an hour of trying to figure out what was wrong, my last option was to move her dog bed to her favorite spot, in hopes to make it more enticing for her. And guess what ? She immeditaly laid down there and went to sleep. To this day I still don't know why she suddenly wanted her dog bed there, but ever since that day I moved her dog bed to her spot by the front door every night, and moved it back to its original spot every morning (since it was in the way and we needed to leave the house at some point.)

I don't know what kind of moral this story has, I am just flabbergasted by her mind who one day figured out "that if dog bed could be moved when people vacuumed, then the dog bed could be moved to the favorite spot every night !"

It's kind of a long post, but I hope y'all enjoyed those stories.

Here's a picture of them (Inga is the one on the back of the pic, Gothan is the one on the front)

[theographos]

TADC Episode 7 spoilers !

OH MY GOD.

I just saw a YouTube Shorts pointing this out, it proves that Abel was an NPC from the beginning

This is a screenshot from when Abel explains to the group his plan back when they're in the Chinese room. And if we look closely :

A FUCKING BEE IS DRAWN.

And you know who draws bees everywhere ? CAINE.

So to me it proves that Abel never was a real character. Everything was part of the adventure, even his previous appearances.

To be fair I never doubted that he always was an NPC, not a player replaced by an NPC once Caine caught onto what he was trying to do. The first episode tells us that Caine was planning some kind of "exit adventure" but wasn't quite finished with it yet. And if I remember correctly we start to see NPC-Abel in episode 2.

He was looking from afar because he needed to have some elements that would convince the other members of the circus that he was indeed real. Not because he was actually someone.

Credits to this video for pointing out that detail to me :

[theographos]

Messy 2AM thought about the new episode (the episode released at midnight in my timezone) so warning, spoilers ahead I so deeply believe that Caine is lying to himself about everything. He knows about C&A, he knows everyone's name, he maybe even know how to leave the Circus (or at least he has an idea). That his adventure are as much a coping mechanism for him, as it is for the other characters (the adventures aren't really coping mechanism for them, but like Ragatha says it gives them something to do and to think about in order to not go crazy).

He has pictures of C&A. He knows that Kinger has many memories that could ressurface at any time. He seems to fear what Kinger can remember as well. As far as we know this whole adventure could've been pieces of his actual knowledge buried deep inside of him. And he has power over the whole Circus too, so why wouldn't he also have access to some more private knowledge about everything ?

And since the show was heavily inspired by the short novel I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream, the concept of the AI mind becomming so developped that it has a conscious and a subconscious just seems fitting for the narrative.

And so if we were to treat this whole thing like we would treat a human mind, it doesn't sound so far fetched that Caine would've locked a part of his memories, or at least pretend like they doesn't exist (like the first abstraction for example) just to save his sanity. We saw many times before that the characters need to think of something other than "i am stuck in a digital world with no hope of getting out" in order to not go crazy. So it seems fair that Caine feels that way too.

To me it seems logical that Caine would be focusing on things he enjoys rather than the existential dread in the background.

Or everything could be locked away because he doesn't understand them. He clearly seems to not understand how the real world can be appealing to the members of the cirucs, the very concept that the life he is living is not theirs. That his entire realm of existence isn't made for the people who are standing in front of him. And maybe this lack of understanding is blocking him from actually knowing more about himself, the Circus and C&A. Maybe that's why he's obsessed with the pictures, he doesn't get them but he wants to understand, just like he wants to understand what appeals to the characters so that they enjoy his adventures.

To be fair, the second option sounds more possible now that I think about it. I believe it fits the character better, but I could be wrong

[theographos]

I was looking at markiplier's comment section, and like... Well the picture speaks for itself.

I quickly researched it and it seems like it's a crypto that Elon Musk made ? Does that mean that he's the one behind all of these bots comments or is it more likely that his fans are the one doing it ?

At least there are way more comments about the actual video than comments like these. I reported them for spam just in case btw

[theographos]

I have a highly specific question for all neurodivergent people on this plateform, and I figured I'd ask it publicly since the answers might help people in the same situation as me.

I need to do some planning with low social battery. It's not important what I want to plan, just know that I need to focus my energy on it. And I need some background noises.

BUT !

It can't be music, I listened to it all day and I just can't do it anymore

It can't be being in a call with friends, like I said in the question it's for the times where my social battery is at 0

It can't be a show or a movie, it's way too distracting and I don't have any shows that I can just put on and not really focus on

It can't be a livestream, again it's too distracting and there would be some silent moment that I can't control (I mean I can't expect a streamer to talk during every single second of their stream)

It can't be ASMR or white noises, it would either bore me or make me fall asleep

Documentaries could work, but I feel like they'd either be too boring (to the point where it feels like a chore to watch them, which would ruin my motivation) or too interesting. But I guess it would be a fair recommendation anyway

And finally, no you can't just answer "then don't put background noises" (though I'm sure some trolls will say it anyway). I know myself and I know that once I am seated in front of my computer I won't be able to work until I start the background noise

I understand that it can seem impossible to answer, but just in case I ask for y'alls help

[anarcho-catboyism]

Idk what trans man needs to hear this but you're NOT evil or disgusting for being a man. You do NOT have to suffer for the sins of the patriarchy committed by cis dudes. Being a man doesn't invalidate the misogyny you experienced growing up or experience now. Being a man doesn't mean you deserve to be isolated. Being a man doesn't mean you're inherently predatory or scary. You didn't "choose" this, and finding your true self is NOT "betraying the community" because you happen to be a man and/or masculine rather than a woman and/or feminine. You ARE allowed to be upset when people "affirm" your gender by malgendering you.

You DO deserve a community that uplifts you. You DO deserve to experience trans joy. You DO deserve to have your voices heard and your struggles recognized. Wanting the bare minimum of solidarity is NOT "making everything about trans men".

[theographos]

You were RIGHT. People who write disgusting things should be investigated, and censorship is FUNDAMENTAL to protect kids. Those writers of crimes are ALL criminals. I'm reporting all of them. Thank you for your help!

See, this is one of Tumblr's most problematic feature. When you update a reblog, it doesn't update it for every reblogs.

To be honest I won't even blame you for that, after all there was little to no way of seeing my original reblog of the post.

So here is the first screenshot, my original reblog that I then edited to prevent as best as I could any other misunderstandings :

Here is the end of my disscusion with the OG creator of the post. It was a long discussion full of reblogs, so i'm not going to put all the screenshots here. Here is the link if you want the full conversation

As you can see, I simply misunderstood the post of blackheartbiohazards. I thought they meant all kinds of writer.

And I do believe that someone writing about how they abused little children and openly say that they did it, deserves to go to jail for those crimes (if they weren't already sent to jail for this crime beforehand) Just like any real life criminal When it comes to the fictional part of writing, it is fiction. It doesn't exist, it doesn't hurt any real life person. So like I said, I agree with blackheartbiohazards's point of view : trying to censor this is authoritharian.

A writer of **fiction** is not a criminal for what they write.

A criminal writing about the crime they committed and escaping jail is wrong.

I hope I was able to clarify my point.

[theographos]

Perilous Trails is not the best representation for Itto...

Itto is a very hard character to comprehend. The base is simple : a troublemaker with a heart of gold, and while he might be all over the place and a bit too competitive for his own good, he has morals that he strictly sticks to.

But in practice it's actually more complicated to show this balance in him than you might think. You have to make him careless enough so that the 'trouble' and 'himbo' parts of his personality are present, but responsible enough to ensure he respects the "Oni Pride".

He do whatever he wants because of the Oni Pride, he's not going to put on a picture perfect act when it's not who he is. But whatever he wants at the end is fairness, equality and the safety of others. And winning in the process is a pretty big bonus.

And while this quest shows some understanding of Itto, (we all saw him punching the door, i'm not going to pretend like it's not something Itto would do because it is, and it's hella funny.) it also lacks some understanding in the other aspects of this character.

For example when he puts up a fight with Yelan at the beginning of the quest. Yes Yelan is an authority figure in this case, yes Itto doesn't care in the slightest if an authority figure approves his decision or not (unless it's Granny Oni or Kuki Shinobu) and he shows it quite well in his character quest with the Tenryou Commission.

But this is not the same context here. He is in an unknown land, in a unknown place and is trying to keep his "savior" (Yanfei) safe. And a random women who quite seem to know what she's doing tells him that this place is dangerous and he shouldn't stay here.

His morals clearly indicates that he should not back down against injustice. And it's clear in this moment that this is not injustice, Yelan is trying to keep everyone safe, including Yanfei.

So based on everything I said so far, it doesn't make much sense that he would get angry against Yelan. He would bargain, try to convince Yelan that he is capable of surviving down here by proposing a duel or even convince everyone to get out of this place and get to safety, meanwhile he and Yelan will do whatever Yanfei needed to do in her place so that she doesn't have to be in danger.

And I get that they needed to put a fight here so that everyone would get stuck in the timeloop (or timehole, i don't know how to describe it). I get that they needed to have some kind of tension beforehand so that you could clearly see them slowly warming up to each other and forming the best of teams.

But this is exactly where the difficulty of storytelling is. You have a bunch of characters with their own flaws and strengths, you have a situation in which you want to put them in and now you have to use those flaws and strengths to make it work. It's not an easy work, no one said otherwise here.

But the fact that this is complicated doesn't mean you can rough up a character's personality, even just a little, so that everything works. The writers could have added some kind of pre existing tension between Yelan and Kuki, a sort of cold relationship like Diluc and Kaeya. Kuki has been to Liyue, Itto considers Kuki as part of the gang and thus a part of his family, so if Yelan let out some passive aggressive comment about Kuki because of some pre existing tension due to an old event between the two of them, then Itto would get mad.

Then Itto would want to fight her, then the situation goes wrong and boum they are stuck in timeloop/timehole.

Same thing for when Itto decided to knock a wall with all his strength to make the arguing stop. The part that triggers me here is not his sacrifice for the good of others, he is able to do that, it's the fact that he does this without saying anything before hand.

Itto is anything but silent that's for certain. Before doing that he would at least yell a big "shut up" to everyone. Maybe he could yell that, hit the wall and say to or three sentences before fainting, because of course he wouldn't have planned the part where something bad would happen to him. He would have thought that he could still have some force left in him after that, because he is full of hope and would only hope for the best.

But in my opinion having him unconscious for the second half of the quest wasn't the best idea in the first place. Firstly because I absolutely adore him and he is literally my main, so having a quest with him being conscious only half of the time isn't what I can call satisfying.

Secondly because at the end for Xiao's sacrifice, I would have absolutely loved it if Yelan AND Itto were the one to go and get him. I mean the two people who caused this whole thing (not entirely, but if they didn't fought in the first place...). Itto would never want to see someone close to him sacrifice themselves for him, Yelan cannot allow that to happen again.

One of them is spontaneous enough to jump, the other one is protective (and traumatized) enough to jump. I don't see why this didn't happen to be honest.

[blackheartbiohazards]

"I don't want to read this" is totally valid.

"This is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't want to read this because it is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.

[theographos]

Unless it's like... Illegal or immoral. You can read that fae kinky story for all I care but if you bring a child, an animal or a dead body into this then it's not going to end well for you.

[blackheartbiohazards]

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.

[theographos]

Necrophilia, pedophilia and zoophilia are illegal in most countries. I do not think that it is so far fetched to say that no one should read and/or write about a theme that is illegal.

And I am talking about this three subjects being the main 'appeal' of the book. Reading and/or writing a book about a child getting abused like in the book Lolita from Vladimir Nabokov is okay, i'm not saying otherwise, since it's clearly meant to show that this is not something that is okay, it is to criticizing the abuser.

A book in which a human being is having intercourse with a dead body (not a vampire or a zombie, an actual dead body) and it is portrayed as "sexy" or "appealing" in another way than to criticize it should not be okay. Romancizing necrophilia is not only disgusting, but clearly immoral. Same for pedophilia and zoophilia.

I'm not saying that you are wrong in the OG post, I just wanted to put a limit to the last sentence. Yes anyone and everyone is free to read and/or write about the themes they like, but again I don't think that it is far-fetched to say that this kind of illegal content is not valid to be written about in a positive light.

[blackheartbiohazards]

You're missing my point entirely.

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.

Period. No exceptions.

[minu-moni]

Also if that person really wants to go there, being queer is illegal in a lot of countries too.

It’s really fucking funny reading arguments like this when you go to law school because the first thing we learn is something called INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. You can’t use the law that says “incest is illegal” against fictional incest because THE INCEST DIDNT HAPPEN. It has no merit in being analyzed and it only clogs up the system that receives this stuff. If you go to the police with these concerns you are literally DISTURBING THEIR WORK. They could be working towards helping actual children who exist in actual abusive situation, but no, here you come with allegations of something that DIDNT HAPPEN IRL!!

Also if you consider fictional shit one-to-one with shit happening in the real world, you open up way for bigoted laws to be implemented, like they’re already happening in certain states from the US actually.

[failure-artist]

i don’t think the law can interpret whether something is written to be appealing or unappealing. plenty of people have read lolita as an appealing romance so that’s not a slam dunk case.

[theographos]

@minu-moni

@failure-artist

Since Tumblr does not show when a post has been edited, I just wanted to clarify my part of the conversation :

And here are the last answers of the conversation I made with the author :

I hope you two and anyone who will read this have an amazing day

[theographos]

@sinistermushrooms

Hi ! So I was going through the reblogs of a post about how you cannot force anyone to write and or read things that you like (more or less)

I'm not going to answer all of the reblogs, I just answer here and there. I'm not a psycho who mentions everyone who disagreed with them don't worry.

I'm not here with any ill intent, I just wanted to let you know that my OG reblog was a misunderstanding. The author of the post was talking about fictional writing, whereas I was talking about writing in general. I did not understood that it was only about fiction.

I expressed that opinion was this way because I know about a french author called Gabriel Matzneff who wrote autobiographies about himself. He was very clear in french medias that he did the actions (or at least 90% of them) that he wrote about in those autobiographies.

The problem is that those said actions, were pedophilia actions. He recognized, he showed no remorse, there are known victims.

At no point he was showing any kind of remorse, and at no point was he arrested for his crimes that he admitted. What I was criticizing here is that if you apply that rule to this man for example, it means that he is valid and you shouldn't criticize him nor the readers that are/were defending him.

Of course it was one big misunderstanding, and after that was resolved, I edited my OG reblog to make sure that everyone knew that for the fictional part of writing, I totally agree with the original author's post.

The reason why I answered your post particulary is because I want to reassure you that I'm not trying to censor anyone's trauma.

You are totally valid for sharing your traumas in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable. Healing can happen in many ways, and this is a healthy way to heal.

I hope that this misunderstanding won't take a toll on your mental health and/or your love for writing. I don't specifically know what you write about, but whatever that is you are free and valid to continue to do so, i'm sorry if my post made you doubt that just a split second.

I don't know how your traumas feels like, but I know that mine would hurt even more if I someone told me that I wasn't allowed to write about them.

I hope you'll have a wonderful day, I hope that your healing journey will be okay, and I give you all of my support ♥️

[theographos]

@vodkafolie

I just saw your reblog passing by, and I feel the need to give you more infos because my edit of my original reblog is not showing on the post you previously reblogged.

My edit is that, I misunderstood the OG post, I thought they were talking about writing in general, not just fictional stories. Because you see, if we take writing in general, we have cases like the french author Gabriel Matzneff who wrote about pedophilia in his books. The problem is that he was openly affirming that his books were auto biographies, he was openly affirming that he did those kind of abuse towards little girls and at not point he was showing any kind of regret for it.

He was never arrested, you can still buy his books, he was even prized for his books even if everyone knew that the pedophilia parts were true. He even did interview on TV admitting that he commited them.

And some of his readers defended him, saying that "love is love" and all sorts of shit like that. And at first this is what I was criticizing. I was like "you cannot tell me that a writer openly talking about his crimes without any remorse is valid". But then the author of the post clearly told me it was only about fiction.

So I edited my original statement, saying that "In terms of fiction with no tangible proof and/or clear statements from the author, you cannot 'not allow' anyone from writing anything. Like the author said in another post, the author doesn't have to be your moral compass."

Now that this is cleared, I still want to address the comment you made about cartoons. Cartoons are not entirely made for children, it is a big misconception that people tend to have as they grow up. Shows like American Dad are cartoons, and personally I wouldn't let any kid watch it without any form of supervising.

Besides that cartoons are sometimes able to make big and good commentaries about relationships, personal issues, traumas and much more (Like Steven Universe, in which the fusions between two gems is a metaphor for sex, or the creation of a relationship between two characters. The metaphor depends of the context and the characters.)

But for the cartoons that are made and advertised towards children, it would be wrong to not take them seriously. Cartoons and TV in general is one of the major influences in a child's life. If that influence is not good, or not thought about enough, it just means that it is not a good influence towards the child.

And if indeed my brain has turned into mush because I interacted too much with "child's content" then can you really blame me ?

I mean I'm not the one who produced and put this show on TV, how was I supposed to guess that this specific program would alter my brain when it has been approved safe for children to watch ?

I'm not personally blaming you for thinking that way, I am more blaming a general thought that "everything that is for children is dumb and lacks of interest". I even thought like that during a time, it was until I discovered Steven Universe and changed my opinion about it.

Thank you for reading my post, I hope you will not feel offended by this post because this is not my intent at all. I'm merely trying to rectify a quiproquo, and since I know a bit about cartoons, I thought I could kill two birds with one stone and rectify the cartoon quiproquo thing.

I invite you to go through my account to see my full discussion with the orignal author of the post (if that interest you of course) like that you will have the whole context.

[blackheartbiohazards]

"I don't want to read this" is totally valid.

"This is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't want to read this because it is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.

[theographos]

Unless it's like... Illegal or immoral. You can read that fae kinky story for all I care but if you bring a child, an animal or a dead body into this then it's not going to end well for you.

[blackheartbiohazards]

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.

[theographos]

Necrophilia, pedophilia and zoophilia are illegal in most countries. I do not think that it is so far fetched to say that no one should read and/or write about a theme that is illegal.

And I am talking about this three subjects being the main 'appeal' of the book. Reading and/or writing a book about a child getting abused like in the book Lolita from Vladimir Nabokov is okay, i'm not saying otherwise, since it's clearly meant to show that this is not something that is okay, it is to criticizing the abuser.

A book in which a human being is having intercourse with a dead body (not a vampire or a zombie, an actual dead body) and it is portrayed as "sexy" or "appealing" in another way than to criticize it should not be okay. Romancizing necrophilia is not only disgusting, but clearly immoral. Same for pedophilia and zoophilia.

I'm not saying that you are wrong in the OG post, I just wanted to put a limit to the last sentence. Yes anyone and everyone is free to read and/or write about the themes they like, but again I don't think that it is far-fetched to say that this kind of illegal content is not valid to be written about in a positive light.

[blackheartbiohazards]

actually here, let me share another one of my posts with you.

🖤 Whether or not a taboo, unpleasant, or illegal subject in a piece of fiction has been 'romanticized' or 'glorified' is an entirely subjective opinion based on a personal reading of the text.

🖤 You cannot assume that an author is trying to make a taboo, unpleasant, or illegal subject seem appealing just because their writing made you feel like it was appealing.

🖤 'Glorifying' or 'romanticizing' a subject is not a good reason to say that a piece of fiction should be censored, or that the author or people who enjoy it should be harmed or punished.

🖤 Your personal interpretation of a piece of fiction does not reflect on the morality or psychology of the author of the fiction.

🖤 It is authoritarian to want to censor fiction based on your interpretation that the fiction is 'romanticizing' or 'glorifying' an unpleasant or illegal topic.

🖤 An author has no moral obligation to explicitly condemn taboo, unpleasant or illegal actions by characters in their fiction.

🖤 It is perfectly fine for an author to present terrible actions and events without holding the audience's hand to make sure they know they're wrong.

🖤 There is nothing wrong with writing a protagonist who does evil, immoral and illegal things without the author taking pains to make certain that the audience knows that they're wrong.

🖤 If you read a book and see taboo, criminal, or immoral actions as romantic, glorious, or something to aspire to, that is a you problem, not the author's problem.

🖤 An author is under no obligation to be their audience's morality teacher.

[theographos]

I understand your point, of course the reader's interpretation has much to do with it. I'm not trying to start any online trial about readers and writers, so let me put more nuance in what I previously said.

First of all, here is an example that confirms your opinion : Vladimir Nabokov's book called Lolita. Like I said it's about the abuse of a child, but the author chose to write his book from the point of view of the abuser. He made his intentions clear during interviews, his point was to critcise, to write a tragedy. Yet the readers did not understand that at all, and thought the child called Lolita was some kind of a femme fatale, it even became a popular femme fatale figure of cinema at the time.

Is it the author's fault that it happened ? No. Should he had been clearer about his intentions ? He was already clear enough. The fault is into the reader's interpretation, he isn't responsible for that.

But here is where I want to make my point : the author still has a mind of their own. I'm not saying that I am all knowing about an author's opinion just by reading their books. What I am saying is that some authors have written about romancized taboo subjects and openly confirmed that they did believe this taboo subject was a good thing.

My example here is Gabriel Matzneff, a french author who published books with clear pedophilia in it. He openly said that those books were autobiographics, even the pedophilia parts. Here I am condemning it because he is openly saying that he commited a crime.

What I'm condemning is that there are people who back in the days were clearly defending him, even if he himself did not hide what he had done, nor did he showed any regrets for what he had done.

I am not asking for anyone to play the moral compass for me, I am saying that nothing gives any validation to how he felt so comfortable talking about his crimes in public instead of surrending himself to the justice, I am saying that nothing justifies why he was given a prize on some of those books, even if everyone was aware of what he had done.

Yes I do find what he had done to be disgusting, but also at the time it was illegal, he recognized multiple times that he ahd that kind of opinion and that he commited those acts and some people were still happily reading him after knowing all of that, they were fiercely defending him.

Do I want to censor his books ? Not entirely, because they are the proof that he 'got away' with that kind of mindset. Should he be punished for his crimes ? Yes. Should France be more fierce about this particular law (that pedophilia is illegal), at least enough for that kind of situation to never happen again ? Absolutely.

I totally agree with your point of view for the vast majority of the authors out there. But for cases like Gabriel Matzneff, we should put a limit. For cases like Gabriel Matzneff, we should not give them any opportunity to excuse their behaviors.

[blackheartbiohazards]

Okay, so, I'm talking about people who write fiction.

And it looks like you're talking about people who publish written confessions of actual crimes they committed.

So, it looks like we're not actually having the same discussion.

Unless you're suggesting that we should for some reason investigate fiction writers because we suspect they committed the crimes in their books.

In which case we're going to have to open some murder investigations on Stephen King and Agatha Christie.

[theographos]

Okay, thank you for the clarification. I thought you meant any kind of writing in general, not just the fictional ones. Since that's what you were talking about, I whole heartedly take back what I said.

I am totally not suggesting to investigate fiction writers (with the only exception of if they publicly said that they did some of the illegal actions of their books). That is not the case for Agatha Christie, that is not the case for Stephen King, so nothing should happen to them and I do not believe anything should happen to them.

Nonetheless, after a bit more researches the example of Vladimir Nabokov seems to be quite appropriate with your statements, because the book Lolita is in fact a fiction from the author, he never said otherwise, but people decided that if he wrote that, it meant that he thought that. So in between the movies who sexualized the little girl (like the movie Lolita from 1962), his book got also censored from 1956 to 1958.

It is in fact a big example of what would happen if you take your interpretations too seriously, and believe that an author has to be your moral compass. I hope that this example will help you in any kind of debate you might have in the future. This was still very nice to talk with you <3

PS : I think I said Vladimir Nabokov was french, if that's the case then I was totally mistaken. He is from Russia and has lived a good part of his life in the US, and Lolita was written in american english, so I think it's safe to say that he is american

[blackheartbiohazards]

"I don't want to read this" is totally valid.

"This is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't want to read this because it is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.

[theographos]

Unless it's like... Illegal or immoral. You can read that fae kinky story for all I care but if you bring a child, an animal or a dead body into this then it's not going to end well for you.

[blackheartbiohazards]

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.

[wolveria]

@theographos I’m guessing this vague threat also applies to anyone who has written about murder? Or theft? Or assault? Where are you drawing your arbitrary lines?

[theographos]

I am going to share another response that I had with the author of this post, I hope it'll make my point clearer

"I understand your point, of course the reader's interpretation has much to do with it. I'm not trying to start any online trial about readers and writers, so let me put more nuance in what I previously said.

First of all, here is an example that confirms your opinion : Vladimir Nabokov's book called Lolita. Like I said it's about the abuse of a child, but the author chose to write his book from the point of view of the abuser. He made his intentions clear during interviews, his point was to critcise, to write a tragedy. Yet the readers did not understand that at all, and thought the child called Lolita was some kind of a femme fatale, it even became a popular femme fatale figure of cinema at the time.

Is it the author's fault that it happened ? No. Should he had been clearer about his intentions ? He was already clear enough. The fault is into the reader's interpretation, he isn't responsible for that.

But here is where I want to make my point : the author still has a mind of their own. I'm not saying that I am all knowing about an author's opinion just by reading their books. What I am saying is that some authors have written about romancized taboo subjects and openly confirmed that they did believe this taboo subject was a good thing.

My example here is Gabriel Matzneff, a french author who published books with clear pedophilia in it. He openly said that those books were autobiographics, even the pedophilia parts. Here I am condemning it because he is openly saying that he commited a crime.

What I'm condemning is that there are people who back in the days were clearly defending him, even if he himself did not hide what he had done, nor did he showed any regrets for what he had done.

I am not asking for anyone to play the moral compass for me, I am saying that nothing gives any validation to how he felt so comfortable talking about his crimes in public instead of surrending himself to the justice, I am saying that nothing justifies why he was given a prize on some of those books, even if everyone was aware of what he had done.

Yes I do find what he had done to be disgusting, but also at the time it was illegal, he recognized multiple times that he ahd that kind of opinion and that he commited those acts and some people were still happily reading him after knowing all of that, they were fiercely defending him.

Do I want to censor his books ? Not entirely, because they are the proof that he 'got away' with that kind of mindset. Should he be punished for his crimes ? Yes. Should France be more fierce about this particular law (that pedophilia is illegal), at least enough for that kind of situation to never happen again ? Absolutely.

I totally agree with your point of view for the vast majority of the authors out there. But for cases like Gabriel Matzneff, we should put a limit. For cases like Gabriel Matzneff, we should not give them any opportunity to excuse their behaviors."

[blackheartbiohazards]

"I don't want to read this" is totally valid.

"This is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't want to read this because it is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.

[theographos]

Unless it's like... Illegal or immoral. You can read that fae kinky story for all I care but if you bring a child, an animal or a dead body into this then it's not going to end well for you.

[blackheartbiohazards]

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.

[theographos]

Necrophilia, pedophilia and zoophilia are illegal in most countries. I do not think that it is so far fetched to say that no one should read and/or write about a theme that is illegal.

And I am talking about this three subjects being the main 'appeal' of the book. Reading and/or writing a book about a child getting abused like in the book Lolita from Vladimir Nabokov is okay, i'm not saying otherwise, since it's clearly meant to show that this is not something that is okay, it is to criticizing the abuser.

A book in which a human being is having intercourse with a dead body (not a vampire or a zombie, an actual dead body) and it is portrayed as "sexy" or "appealing" in another way than to criticize it should not be okay. Romancizing necrophilia is not only disgusting, but clearly immoral. Same for pedophilia and zoophilia.

I'm not saying that you are wrong in the OG post, I just wanted to put a limit to the last sentence. Yes anyone and everyone is free to read and/or write about the themes they like, but again I don't think that it is far-fetched to say that this kind of illegal content is not valid to be written about in a positive light.

[blackheartbiohazards]

actually here, let me share another one of my posts with you.

🖤 Whether or not a taboo, unpleasant, or illegal subject in a piece of fiction has been 'romanticized' or 'glorified' is an entirely subjective opinion based on a personal reading of the text.

🖤 You cannot assume that an author is trying to make a taboo, unpleasant, or illegal subject seem appealing just because their writing made you feel like it was appealing.

🖤 'Glorifying' or 'romanticizing' a subject is not a good reason to say that a piece of fiction should be censored, or that the author or people who enjoy it should be harmed or punished.

🖤 Your personal interpretation of a piece of fiction does not reflect on the morality or psychology of the author of the fiction.

🖤 It is authoritarian to want to censor fiction based on your interpretation that the fiction is 'romanticizing' or 'glorifying' an unpleasant or illegal topic.

🖤 An author has no moral obligation to explicitly condemn taboo, unpleasant or illegal actions by characters in their fiction.

🖤 It is perfectly fine for an author to present terrible actions and events without holding the audience's hand to make sure they know they're wrong.

🖤 There is nothing wrong with writing a protagonist who does evil, immoral and illegal things without the author taking pains to make certain that the audience knows that they're wrong.

🖤 If you read a book and see taboo, criminal, or immoral actions as romantic, glorious, or something to aspire to, that is a you problem, not the author's problem.

🖤 An author is under no obligation to be their audience's morality teacher.

[theographos]

I understand your point, of course the reader's interpretation has much to do with it. I'm not trying to start any online trial about readers and writers, so let me put more nuance in what I previously said.

First of all, here is an example that confirms your opinion : Vladimir Nabokov's book called Lolita. Like I said it's about the abuse of a child, but the author chose to write his book from the point of view of the abuser. He made his intentions clear during interviews, his point was to critcise, to write a tragedy. Yet the readers did not understand that at all, and thought the child called Lolita was some kind of a femme fatale, it even became a popular femme fatale figure of cinema at the time.

Is it the author's fault that it happened ? No. Should he had been clearer about his intentions ? He was already clear enough. The fault is into the reader's interpretation, he isn't responsible for that.

But here is where I want to make my point : the author still has a mind of their own. I'm not saying that I am all knowing about an author's opinion just by reading their books. What I am saying is that some authors have written about romancized taboo subjects and openly confirmed that they did believe this taboo subject was a good thing.

My example here is Gabriel Matzneff, a french author who published books with clear pedophilia in it. He openly said that those books were autobiographics, even the pedophilia parts. Here I am condemning it because he is openly saying that he commited a crime.

What I'm condemning is that there are people who back in the days were clearly defending him, even if he himself did not hide what he had done, nor did he showed any regrets for what he had done.

I am not asking for anyone to play the moral compass for me, I am saying that nothing gives any validation to how he felt so comfortable talking about his crimes in public instead of surrending himself to the justice, I am saying that nothing justifies why he was given a prize on some of those books, even if everyone was aware of what he had done.

Yes I do find what he had done to be disgusting, but also at the time it was illegal, he recognized multiple times that he ahd that kind of opinion and that he commited those acts and some people were still happily reading him after knowing all of that, they were fiercely defending him.

Do I want to censor his books ? Not entirely, because they are the proof that he 'got away' with that kind of mindset. Should he be punished for his crimes ? Yes. Should France be more fierce about this particular law (that pedophilia is illegal), at least enough for that kind of situation to never happen again ? Absolutely.

I totally agree with your point of view for the vast majority of the authors out there. But for cases like Gabriel Matzneff, we should put a limit. For cases like Gabriel Matzneff, we should not give them any opportunity to excuse their behaviors.

[blackheartbiohazards]

"I don't want to read this" is totally valid.

"This is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't want to read this because it is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.

[theographos]

Unless it's like... Illegal or immoral. You can read that fae kinky story for all I care but if you bring a child, an animal or a dead body into this then it's not going to end well for you.

[blackheartbiohazards]

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.

[theographos]

Necrophilia, pedophilia and zoophilia are illegal in most countries. I do not think that it is so far fetched to say that no one should read and/or write about a theme that is illegal.

And I am talking about this three subjects being the main 'appeal' of the book. Reading and/or writing a book about a child getting abused like in the book Lolita from Vladimir Nabokov is okay, i'm not saying otherwise, since it's clearly meant to show that this is not something that is okay, it is to criticizing the abuser.

A book in which a human being is having intercourse with a dead body (not a vampire or a zombie, an actual dead body) and it is portrayed as "sexy" or "appealing" in another way than to criticize it should not be okay. Romancizing necrophilia is not only disgusting, but clearly immoral. Same for pedophilia and zoophilia.

I'm not saying that you are wrong in the OG post, I just wanted to put a limit to the last sentence. Yes anyone and everyone is free to read and/or write about the themes they like, but again I don't think that it is far-fetched to say that this kind of illegal content is not valid to be written about in a positive light.

[blackheartbiohazards]

"I don't want to read this" is totally valid.

"This is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't want to read this because it is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to read or write this because it is disgusting to me" is authoritarian.

[theographos]

Unless it's like... Illegal or immoral. You can read that fae kinky story for all I care but if you bring a child, an animal or a dead body into this then it's not going to end well for you.

Edit : The author of the post was in fact solely talking about fictional stories. I thought that they were talking about writing in general, even more the books in which something illegal is talked about and the author later on admits on doing that said illegal thing, like pedophilia for example.

Since it was not the subject here, I feel the need to correct myself. I totally agree with them. In terms of fiction with no tangible proof and/or clear statements from the author, you cannot 'not allow' anyone from writing anything. Like the author said in another post, the author doesn't have to be your moral compass.

Sorry for the confusion, I hope everyone will have a great day