cheddy ju

When I saw the report, I literally about threw my phone across the room. I was spinning through the stages of grief like a fucking merry-go-round, telling everybody I knew how bad they butchered my boy.

But then, while looking for people online to validate my frustration (like a complete idiot), I came across some takes from people who... actually looked at something other than the songs (hi new mutuals, that's some of you!). And I realized I completely misinterpreted everything (and made the mistake of having an opinion without having the full picture).

The system intrinsically abuses poor people.

erm if there was more light shining into his eye his pupil would have constricted, not dilated

I'm planning an essay of the weighting of author's intentions versus the fandom-wide effect due to majority's interpretation specific to Milgram (meant to be about all prisoners but due to recent times, Mikoto would be a major point of debate). As we know in the case of Mikoto, the widespread interpretation likely doesn't match Yamanaka's intentions because a number of popular theories weren't explicitly confirmed and due to the accumulated lack of faith in Yamanaka. I think it's human nature to assume the worst when emotional but the response does feel unfair to not just the writer but also everyone who took part in creating Milgram.

On the flip side I've also seen people say it is ableist to ignore the effect on systems because it pushes the stereotype of good alter and evil alter. Personally that's not what I think the narrative is suggesting (I buy into the idea that it's John who wants us to believe that stereotype...) but I also get what they are saying. If a vast majority believes that then it's hard to deny that may cause someone to form misguided opinions of systems are in real life or the way Mikoto's narrative is most easily understood makes people feel hurt then that's still a negative impact even if that was not the intention. (Granted, Yamanaka can't control the opinions, expectations and understanding of thousands and thousands of people. Or rather maybe you could say he succeeded in making people believe in the Mikoto-John false binary?)

Sorry for that yap. The point is I'm interested in your opinion on this topic and would appreciate any input ^^ Thank you :D

nod nod nod. personally,

people say it is ableist to ignore the effect on systems because it pushes the stereotype of good alter and evil alter [...] If a vast majority believes that then it's hard to deny that may cause someone to form misguided opinions of systems are in real life

i just, will never feel that that a text's reception is predominantly the writer's 'fault' (texts, communication, ideas are interactive), and, especially, i refuse to entertain the idea that an interactive multimedia project has any sort of substantial effect on the treatment and perception of pwDID in their real lives as opposed to psychiatric spokespersons and influencers within the (plural+) community. i also laugh at the assumption that "good alter and evil alter" is a meaningful stereotype in any way, and especially, typically paired with that assumption, one a product of ascientific fiction, wherein it is assumed DID community and psychiatric rhetoric is the antithesis.

do you know why we have "good alter and evil alter"? it's because early fucking sensational famous psychiatric texts chose to equate the experience of MPD to gothic Split Personality tropes and demonic possession. because American diagnostic manuals chose to drop the obvious evilness, but continued for decades to use terms [1] and refer to scenarios [2] evoking similar uncanniness and pseudo-supernatural experience. because irrespective if you are an 'ally' or spokesperson or not, you are not immune to perpetuating ideas around pwDID that we are fundamentally 'other' to other people.

pwDID are not denied treatment, treated as spectacle, and have their accounts of reality mocked because of "good alter and evil alter". pwDID do not fear themselves and doubt themselves because of "good alter and evil alter". our cultural moment around DID that invites doubt and stigma is a product of psychiatric rhetoric, that would promote unhumanising depictions and explanation as a form of science that some outright rejected, but also, others believed. "good alter and evil alter" is a trope of the cultural moment we exist in, that combines supernatural, religious, gothic fiction with the fact that pwDID are already, thanks to the exploitation of multiple women by their clinicians, so often considered fictive and 'other' in some intrinsic way.

when the community refuses to engage with ideas around DID beyond what they find familiar (read: sensationalised, 'othering', MPD concepts around marked, independent person-agents 'within' one body), and then find it offensive to see what they believe is "good alter and evil alter", they are missing that they are themselves complicit in the cultures that let the idea that a pwDID can have something 'evil within' who may act as a terrorising and sinister agent, happen.

i think, in the current culture we have around DID, authorial intent and the success of it is one thing – see Split, written by a guy that clearly thinks DID is fucking awesome, that was still rightfully called out for going way too fucking far (although, painfully, succeeding with stoking the DID fetish in some people). it's obviously a factor, and it's worth questioning the biases of the works you are examining before taking it as gospel. but, christ, people overlook how far it is on us to create a culture that challenges unhumanising notions around pwDID, that would help keep these kinds of ideas in the supernatural genres where they belong. people overlook how far fanon and fan interpretations are also instrumental to people understanding and learning from media, in the best way, and the bad, and how within fandom, fellow fans model to one another what aspects of a text can be criticised, and how.

i just know i would feel so, so, much differently about this discourse, if those that were criticising yamanaka's writing choices, were at least doing so because they felt that not enough was done to demonstrate that mikoto was never possessed, to flesh out his collective personality and subsequent dissociative functions, to add aspects that challenge our preconceived notions around DID that would directly and more clearly pay off. i can sympathise with that. but it's not. nearly every critique i've seen, has been because mikoto does not fit USAmerican etiology as much as he could, and because – assuming, of course, that dissociative identities are independent agents, like well-meaning possessing entities – 'john' claiming he perpetrated the murders must mean that he spawned in one day, inexplicably ready to kill; no other possible reading. why would yamanaka write this?