Avatar

demented clockwork hummingbird

@queelez / queelez.tumblr.com

stressed but well-dressed.  your friendly neighborhood asexual.

genuinely think that most bad takes on fiction online stem from the fact that people don't engage with fiction as a constructed art form and instead view it as somehow generated from the ether

a TONNNN of fandom people particularly begin and end their conversations with "[character] or [event] is problematic" or "[character]'s actions make no sense] or even "wow I love [character!!!]" without analyzing in the slightest what literary devices were employed and to what effect. this is kinda okay if you're just talking about a character you like, but it can still lead to pitfalls in your understanding of the overall story, and that's ESPECIALLY apparent with some "criticisms" i see of certain characters in stories.

bc guess what! characters are storytelling tools! they're fun, sure, and if you know me you know i LOVE to rotate some little guys in my brain. but characters, just like everything else, are elements of a broader story. and it can sometimes be a very reductive criticism to be like "[character] is a bad person" if you don't grasp that they were constructed by an author.

like okay, WHY are they a bad person? does the narrative condone their actions? are they presented uncritically as a good person? did the author intend for them to be seen as a bad person? are there biases, good or bad, in how the author presents this character, especially compared with other characters?

also: what role do they play in the broader narrative? do their actions have thematic weight? what about tone? is this work intended to be comedic or dramatic? does that make their actions have different weight due to that? why?

a story is not (usually) just a simple retelling of events that happened in an author's dream. characters and events are intentionally written. and sometimes they can pack quite a lot of unintentional baggage with them! but you have to start at base 1 of understanding that characters often exist in conversation with a work's themes before you can get to the real juicy criticisms

Leverage Question Time: Is it "Chaos," or is he a l33t hacker d00d and spells it "Ka0s"?

Avatar

A very good question that shows both of our ages!

I've always written it cH(anarchy)0S

That's little c, big H, the anarchy symbol, a zero, and an S. The final S is capitalized or left lower case depending on my whim.

Avatar
Avatar

And then there is a star at the end and a big heart.

Only when he writes notes to Hardison.

Just me squeeing like a ten year old at @wilwheaton dropping Leverage discourse, nothing to see here...

*incoherent squeeing noises*

Avatar
Image

...and then he tells Hardison he needs to use the properly spelled versions in emails.

(there is no unicode for the anarchy-A. I assume cH(A)0S has hacked several university databases to create a custom entry for it just so his own emails have the correct character.)

this is gonna sound lame maybe but i am really glad that spiderpunk was actually, yk. a punk. a real one. he was an anarchist. he was everything a punk is SUPPOSED to be. ik that's his whole character ik that's the point but what i mean is that i'm glad he was still portrayed accurately and wasn't just "he's called spiderpunk bc he dresses like a punk." like i wouldn't expect anything less from the spiderverse team but man was it so nice to see a punk that's actually the embodiment of the punk movement. god bless <3