![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
sadly, the water is full of discourse
Today, I again dipped my toes into the waters of the wider Magnus Archives fandom, and then quickly pulled them out again and ran away.
Spoilers through the end of S4 only, under the cut.
I went on the official Discord twice, looking to see if there was any discussion of certain aspects of the newest episode. (Cannot mention these aspects until the public release tomorrow.)
The first time, I found a spirited discussion of Jon's moral state, at the center of which was a person who seemed to think (a) that Jon is selfish and terrible, and (b) that everyone else thinks Jon is an icon of moral purity. I mean, I don't doubt there are fans who think Jon is a perfect cinnamon roll, above reproach. But I do doubt that this opinion is widespread. Various people tried to reply with various shades of "Yes, Jon has done bad things, and he is not pure, but there are mitigating factors X, Y, and Z and he is not a moral monster." At which point, the "Jon is terrible" person would move the goalposts. Ugh.
Just now, I checked in again, and nearly the first comment I saw was to the effect of "We've only seen Martin interested in one person, namely Jon, so Martin might also be asexual! We can't assume that he's one of those icky gays!"
. . . okay, the word "icky" is my insertion, but it felt pretty strongly implied to me. It couldn't be said outright, as the Discord is intensively modded and that shit would not be allowed. But it's still pretty disheartening. (N.B.: Yeah, maybe Martin is asexual too. If that's someone's preferred interpretation, awesome! So long as it doesn't start drifting into "queer people who aren't asexual are Icky because they are having, or wanting to have, the Icky Gay Sex. It's only okay to be gay or bi if you never, ever do anything sexual." That's just homophobia in woke disguise, not unlike TERFism, which is transphobia that pretends to be feminism.)
So that was fun.
ETA: The Discord isn't always like that. Usually when I look, they're having perfectly nice discussions, and I'm just too shy to join in.
Spoilers through the end of S4 only, under the cut.
I went on the official Discord twice, looking to see if there was any discussion of certain aspects of the newest episode. (Cannot mention these aspects until the public release tomorrow.)
The first time, I found a spirited discussion of Jon's moral state, at the center of which was a person who seemed to think (a) that Jon is selfish and terrible, and (b) that everyone else thinks Jon is an icon of moral purity. I mean, I don't doubt there are fans who think Jon is a perfect cinnamon roll, above reproach. But I do doubt that this opinion is widespread. Various people tried to reply with various shades of "Yes, Jon has done bad things, and he is not pure, but there are mitigating factors X, Y, and Z and he is not a moral monster." At which point, the "Jon is terrible" person would move the goalposts. Ugh.
Just now, I checked in again, and nearly the first comment I saw was to the effect of "We've only seen Martin interested in one person, namely Jon, so Martin might also be asexual! We can't assume that he's one of those icky gays!"
. . . okay, the word "icky" is my insertion, but it felt pretty strongly implied to me. It couldn't be said outright, as the Discord is intensively modded and that shit would not be allowed. But it's still pretty disheartening. (N.B.: Yeah, maybe Martin is asexual too. If that's someone's preferred interpretation, awesome! So long as it doesn't start drifting into "queer people who aren't asexual are Icky because they are having, or wanting to have, the Icky Gay Sex. It's only okay to be gay or bi if you never, ever do anything sexual." That's just homophobia in woke disguise, not unlike TERFism, which is transphobia that pretends to be feminism.)
So that was fun.
ETA: The Discord isn't always like that. Usually when I look, they're having perfectly nice discussions, and I'm just too shy to join in.
no subject
That's always a red flag to me. Even when it comes from gay men of a certain age who have personal traumatic associations with being called queer, I raise my eyebrows a bit (because the reclamation of "queer" has been happening for 20+ years). From anyone else, I assume that they're anti-trans and dislike the word "queer" precisely because it's inclusive.
after Ben announced Zolf was ace
Which isn't even text! Personally, I responded to Ben's "biromantic and asexual" with a certain wariness, because it struck me as, potentially, a way for a straight man to play a queer male character without having to worry about that character ever, ever, ever touching another guy's dick. I can't help noticing that precisely 0 characters in any Rusty Quill production have been described as heteroromantic but asexual. [rant heavily curtailed here]
Anyway, the leap from "this character is asexual" to "asexual can only mean sex-repulsed asexual" to "writing this character having sex is WRONG" to "you're all fetishists and pedophiles" is . . ugly. It really depresses me that this kind of thing has become so common. (And not only or even primarily, I should be clear, to do with asexual characters. This discourse grows up around any ship someone doesn't like. Which is every ship.)
Similar discourse is going around Twitter right now about Pride (no nudity! no scanty clothing! no kink! nothing with sexual overtones at all! how can we ask for respect if we don't behave respectably? think of the children at Pride OMG!!! it's EVIL to embarrass LGBT kids in front of their parents!). In a year when there aren't even going to be any Pride parades.
It's frustrating because I feel like both extremes (the "free speech, don't like don't read" brigade and the antis) are jointly killing any possibility of discussion about really important issues. Like, there are definitely some m/m fans who fetishize, although my sense is there's a lot less of that than there used to be. There are fans who are disrespectful about asexual characters and asexual representation. But somehow the discourse has shifted from "this is sometimes problematic, could we talk about it?" to "this is sometimes problematic, therefore we must kill it with fire!"
It occurs to me that attempts to find a clear morality in The Magnus Archives, to finally decide which characters are heroes and which are villains, is part of the same phenomenon. There's a strong desire, in some quarters, to reduce ethical complexities to simple lessons.
no subject
a way for a straight man to play a queer male character without having to worry about that character ever, ever, ever touching another guy's dick.
ME TOO. Like, interesting that that came out after there were a bunch of comments on TMA fandom's horniness. [Frysquint.gif]
At least we'll always have Alasdair who has completely embraced Lonely Eyes.