meridian_rose

I'm not going to tag Good Omens or shinynewfandom because I'd like that to reflect when I create or rec something and not just rant about the discourse.

At the heart of Good Omens, getting a renaissance due to the Netflix adaptation, is the Crowley (demon) and Aziraphale (angel) relationship.
Gaiman says it is a love story.
The book says while people assume Aziraphale is gay, angels are sexless unless they make an effort.
Gaiman also says the relationship can be platonic or romantic, not to rule out the characters being asexual or aromantic or trans.
People start screaming queerbaiting, homophobia.
They say if two men are together they're having sex or it's homophobia.
They say having asexual characters is "desexualising" and so homophobia.
They say there are already plenty of men in platonic relationships onscreen so there's no need for more so they're having sex. (Never mind that 99% of male platonic bonds are the H50 buddy cop style bromances, no homo, I love you man but look how many women I'm dating, live with you as a life partner nah I need to have sex with women)
They say it's obvious the characters are in love therefore they must be having sex. That their non-fannish mother insists there must be missing sex scenes because their love is so obvious.

People will ship what they want and post their explicit pwp to AO3.
But what they shouldn't be doing is screaming homophobia about, let alone at, Neil Gaiman.
They shouldn't be shouting down asexuals who want to see an actual QPR (NO IT'S JUST BEING BEST FRIENDS FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME) or nonsexual but romantic relationship onscreen.
They shouldn't be denying that there are het, bi, and homoromantic asexuals. By saying Crowley and Aziraphale have to be screwing they're saying no man can love a man without sex. In fact no-one can love without sex.

I'm tired of this love=sex crap. I'm sick of the discourse. I'm so done.
I've read the book twice. I've watched the first episode of the adaptation and will watch more. I've been reading some non-explicit fanfic. I may write some. But this constant "wahhhhh homophobia if they're not banging like a screen door in a storm" is not making the fandom a welcoming place to be overall.

While I'm ranting, there was a nice pro-asexual Good Omens article at Medium which I quoted from at tumblr. However I could have done without them insisting that most asexuals can/will have sex.
There's only 2 types of aces strongly acknowledged in the discourse typified as
1) aromantic aces, so lol they can only be friends with people don't date them anyway
2) asexuals who feel no/little sexual attraction but will always let you screw them anyway so they're still like real, dateable people!

The idea of nonsexual romantic intimacy is unacknowledged by most.

Final rant. I've been watching season 6 of Brooklyn 99 and jfc I don't know if the show is ruined for me after "Casecation".
The old "person doesn't want kids but is pressured by child-wanting spouse into agreeing to have them or they're getting dumped" trope.
There is never any "good" reason for someone to not want kids in these shows. You get pressured into changing your mind or you get dumped.
In B99 they even had mutual friend Rosa offer to bully Jake into changing his mind because Amy has to have babies.
I've seen this in too many other shows. This is the main reason I dropped Supergirl. (this article has a good take on that)

It's kind of related I guess. People are pressured to be sexual and to have children or else they're doing relationships/life wrong.

Why do I write nonsexual romance in fanfic? Because goddamn it I'm desperate to see that. It speaks to me as something I can imagine for myself.
Why do I write childfree characters in my original work? Because there aren't many options in fanfic, original fic is always pulling this "not a real marriage until he screws me and I give him heirs", and I desperately want childfree characters to exist. Not childless, not evil, not unsure but they'll change their minds, not damaged but they get 'fixed' and can't wait to have kids, but 100% committed to never ever having children.

tl;dr love does not equal sex.
Childfree people exist.
Comments are on but I'm behind on replies, the current climate has made me less want to check notifications and comments to be honest.

It's not straight washing to give a queer character a different queer identity. Canon sexualities (presumed, they're not often stated especially for het characters) are changed all the time for slash purposes and mixed sex OT3s. A character doesn't have to be "Straight" or "A Gay" just because you think canon says so.
The split attraction model is a thing.
Sexual fluidity is a thing. Questioning is a thing. Preferring an umbrella term like queer is a thing.
Bisexuality is a thing.
Seriously, bisexuality is a thing, it needs repeating apparently.
It's not desexualising a character to read them as asexual.
You can can ship asexual characters romantically or platonically; also demisexuality and gray-asexuality exist.
Seriously, you can love someone without having sex with them.
So panromantic asexuals, biromantic lesbians, demisexual bisexuals, and pretty much any other labels you want are available. Especially for fictional characters, who let us explore questions of sexual orientation and identity in ways we could not otherwise do.

---

Originally posted to Tumblr. I have some specific examples in mind here but I'm generally irritated at the policing of sexuality going on and the subsequent erasure of romantic and sexual orientations that aren't "straight or gay/lesbian".

Long venting follows below the cut in which I've finally finished watching DvD, I'm wondering if the DvD fandom is dead, I wonder why the BS fandom is so difficult to connect with, and while I find it hard to ponder a life without a fandom in general, I wonder if fandom is done with me.
( Read more... )

Reviews/comments are love - usually. Discussions are fun – I've been having a talk in the comments with the author of a lovely fic at AO3. And up until now AO3 has been a much nicer place than, say, ff.net, and the small fandom in question has been overall a nice place to hang out in.

Until now.
( Read more... )

This week I had the misfortune to see someone post about themselves (I won't say where, it's not the issue) and to be not only disparaging about fanfiction but to single out slash fiction as some different, even more disgusting entity. For them to be a fan means they've

read/watched the source material(s) and can talk intelligently about them. It doesn't mean I write or read fanfiction or (gag) slash.

So there's a difference between "intelligently" talking about material and (I can't help but interpret it negatively given the overall tone) unintelligently engaging with the material. The commentator was male, for what that's worth, given the frequent discussions about the femininity around fandom and fanfic in particular, and the fangirl (transformative creator/shallow devotee) vs fanboy (staunch defender of canon "as is"/loyal "true" fan) stereotypes.

Worse than that however- there are plenty of fanfiction detractors in the world after all - is the slash comment. Not just fanfic but a separate category of awfulness: male/male fiction that makes the writer want to vomit.
This is outright homophobia. The writer might claim it's wrong because the authors are "making" characters gay but that's not necessarily true.
It's only our heteronormative society that sees straight as default. There's no reason any character who has not canonically stated they are not bisexual cannot be read as such.
There's no reason to exclude the possibility of fluid sexuality in which one or both characters discover they're not exclusively heterosexual.
Some of the pairings/moresomes I read and/or write include a character who is canonically gay.
Some of the pairings/moresomes I read and/or write include a character who is canonically bisexual/pansexual.
Some pairings are canonically gay couples, lesbian couples, or a couple with a bisexual character and their gay/lesbian partner. Is fanfic around such canon couples just an unintelligent way of being a fan, or is it still gag worthy?

This "ew, gay fanfic" response would be pointed out as homophobic if it were phrased as "LGBT novels *vomit*" or "(retch), gay people". But silly fanfic writers "forcing" a different interpretation onto characters or letting gay/lesbian/bi/pan characters explore intimacy? Fair game, given that no-one challenged it.*

To end on a brighter note. Not too long ago there was a policy of labelling non-hetero pairings as "warnings" on certain sites and communities. After it was repeatedly pointed out that "warning" for healthy consensual relationships of the sort lived by actual people was not acceptable**, things started to change. Now some sites, aware of this history, specifically instruct that same sex pairings are not to be warned for. So things can get better.

---

*I take some of the blame for not speaking up. This is because last time I tried to stand up for myself it turned into nasty lesson about male atheist douchebags, and I haven't got the energy to engage with someone else who might well find a way to pull out the "what about the menz" argument alongside the mansplaining I'm sure I'd get. That's another rant for another time. Instead I'm writing this in my own space. If you hate fanfiction or hate that slash fiction exists, we can't be friends. And if you need to make vomit references around the existence of slash fiction I reserve the right to label you as homophobic, no matter how many "gay best friends" you have.
** One good example of such an argument:Warning for gay sex (why this is bad and wrong and needs to be stopped)

Watching something created by Steven Moffat is a bit like eating candy floss (cotton candy). It's fun at the time but essentially without substance.

Sometimes however it's more like a meal that looks tasty and the pastry is lovely but then what's this misogyny-gristle doing in here and why oh why is there unwanted mocking-homosexuality-celery which I didn't ask for? Don't even think you can order a glass of female-character-milkshake without extra doses of Motherhood-flavouring, a huge slice of She's!Mrs!John!Smith-lemon on the rim, and/or a few cubes of obsessed-with-asshole-genius being added.

It wouldn't be so bad if his brand of queerbaiting misogyny wasn't so prevalent in wider media, but it is.

So here's the thing. When it comes to my original fic writing:

I will never apologise for writing childfree characters who remain childfree.
I will never apologise for writing characters who are on the asexual spectrum or who otherwise identify as queer.
I will never apologise for exploring characters being in non-sexual and/or non-monogamous relationships.
I will never apologise for writing characters, especially female ones, who have no interest in marriage, especially "traditional marriage"
I will also never apologise for writing characters who are straight or white or male or all of those things, because inclusivity shouldn't be another word for exclusivity with no men allowed.
I will however include male characters who are in touch with their emotions, who don't objectify women, and/or who are otherwise not assholes. (Asshole characters of any gender shall be frequently fed to dragons, metaphorically or literally. I make zero apologies for this also).

Because these characters are hard to find, and if mainstream media can subsist on a steady stream of "white man wants a white wife to have babies with but spends most of his time being more emotionally connected with his white male sidekick (but no homo)" then I feel justified in writing lots of characters like childfree women and bisexual people to fill the gap in the narrative market.


(Also if you have felt angry at Moffat's writing, you might like the Does Steven Moffat Still Suck? tumblr. For reference I'm currently mostly pissed off after the 50th Anniversary Who and Sherlock 3.2, I don't even know what'll happen when I get to 3.3)

Tumblr is filled with 'Hunger Games' gifs and macros and spoilers and the media is filled with reviews and book/movie comparisons. Some of the conclusions are 'crappy Battle Royale ripoff' and others decide 'OMG BEST BOOK AND/OR MOVIE EVER'. As always I suspect the truth is somewhere inbetween.

I was even thinking about making an effort to try and the read the books and maybe later see the movies due to the hype. Then I saw this post on Tumblr in which an anon ( spoilers )

I'm also falling out of love with 'Castle' because, while the episodes are still pretty good, Stana Katnic, who portrays Beckett, can think of nothing more interesting or important for her character's future than to 'make babies' with Castle. I usually blame the [mostly male] writers for having nothing better to do with a female character than make her pregnant but now female actors can't think of anything else they'd like to happen?

I want to write fanfic where Castle, who in canon already has a teenage daughter he raised pretty much on his own, tells Beckett he's had a vasectomy and/or does not want to start having babies again at his age [he's older than Beckett]. But I'd probably get no readers for such a fic because the Castle fandom seems to be 90% 'Beckett and Castle need to get married and have lots of babies' and 9.9% 'Ryan/Esposito slash because men can't ever just be close friends'.

On a similar note I'm glad I quit watching 'Bones' before childfree Temperance went batshit for asshole Booth's sperm.

Add this to reasons I find it hard to relate to a lot of female characters. Even the canonically childfree ones, including the lesbian childfree [Arizona, Grey's Anatomy] give in eventually. Even Cara [Legend of the Seeker] had to be given a shoehorned back-story son.

So, here's the thing. In the outside of realms of possibility I ever get published I swear that I'll never write shitty epilogues where everyone is forced into heterosexual couples who breed like rabbits. If I have a childfree protagonist she'll remain that way. There will be gay/lesbian couples. There will be threesomes and open relationships and the happily unattached. There will be adopted children. And my commitment to these things are probably just one more reason I'd never find a publisher in the first place because there's this obsession with pretending that m+f=biological children is the best and only suitable life path.

I'm supposed to be finishing up my h/c bingo extra; it's due tomorrow night. Naturally, I'm trying to find ways to procrastinate. I'm a bit graphics'd out, so although I've got icons to make, it's not happening right now.

My userpic extras run out in a few days and I can't justify the expenditure, [though it's minuscule in the scheme of things]. I've got a gifted paid account, so I get a total of thirty seven icons but that's one third of what I did have available so I've been reluctantly sorting out my icons, and updating a few of them. When the package runs out I should be at my quota so the icons I most want to keep are still available to use. My new default icon is a bit blue for my purple lj theme but it's a nice sentiment and a neutral icon overall.

Quick rant. I was doing a bit of research for the h/c bingo and came across a site with some 'do' and 'don't' things to say to someone suffering from depression. The 'do' things, apart from a couple of cheesy things, were sensible, caring things like 'You’re not alone in this', 'You are important to me' and 'I can’t really understand what you are feeling, but I can offer my compassion'.

The 'don't' things...I'm guessing these are actual or paraphrased things that people with depression have reported to the Depression Alliance who provided the information. Things like 'No one ever said that life was fair', 'Haven’t you grown tired of all this “me, me, me” stuff yet?' and the one that takes the biscuit: 'I think your depression is a way of punishing us'.

Who the hell says that to someone? Is the 'us' the speaker and the sufferer, and the punishment is from God? Is the 'us' everyone in the sufferer's life, except for the sufferer - making it sound as if they are deliberately being depressed in order to punish their loved ones? I can't get my head around it.

This is from a beta offer comment [not going to say where I read it]; their profile is sparse, their journal inactive, they're old enough to know better but they don't give a location so I can only guess that they're American.

Please spell check first. I do tend to correct britspelling to englishspelling so please let me know if you don't want that done (ie humour is corrected to humor); I am very well versed with all 3 shows

• "britspelling" is not a word. I think you mean English, or to be pedantic, British English.
  
• "englishspelling" is not a word. English spelling implies British English. You seem to be confusing American English with British English.
  
• You do not "correct" humour to humor. You merely change the English spelling to the American one. I find it offensive that you suggest I'd be wrong to spell word in my native language incorrectly.
  

I'll accept corrections for language only in dialogue (I might need a reminder that an American character will say elevator and not lift, for example) or for facts (911 vs 999), but not for overall spelling.

In short, would-be beta reader with your completely borked html that does not inspire confidence from the start, I would not trust you to proof read a single line e-mail.

I guess I now know how some of the supposedly beta-read atrocities still end up on ff.net, complete with in-text author notes and a distinct lack of punctuation.

My internet connection went off yesterday and I've just got it back - intermittently only. So I'm behind on my LJ and email and don't know how long it will take to catch up given the service issues. Hopefully it will be back to normal soon. I've been made aware of how much I rely on the internet for everything from checking my emails to downloading pics to make graphics with.
Going away on holiday (anticipated, prepared for, doing other fun stuff) is not the same as losing access on a normal day :(