Sapphire Sapphics

And this is going to make a lot of people very angry to hear.

But a lot of y'all on this website are truly deeply genuinely never going to be capable of any kind of real narrative analysis--and I don't mean 'being right all the time' I mean 'meaningfully engaging with the text in any way'--

The match cuts were meticulously designed and put there to communicate something.

The VA's delivery of a line was being directed. Inflection and tone change the meaning of dialogue. This is intentional. There are entire teams of people shaping those choices and deciding which take to use based on what works best for the story.

Information is being revealed in a specific order, on purpose, to craft an emotional arc and guide the audience's understanding.

A character's romantic preferences are only, and SHOULD only be, their primary motivation if the genre is romance. That is why there is a genre called that. Most stories are other genres.

Creators who dislike a character generally give them LESS attention, MORE boring storylines, and LESS screentime.

Sometimes curtains are just blue. But if the shot composition or written narration takes time to HIGHLIGHT, especially more than once, that the curtains are blue, then the blueness of the curtains is by definition narratively important.

"Cite your sources" is not a witch's curse that banishes People With Different Opinions to the shadowrealm of Being Wrong. Someone making points that challenge your perceptions, while including screenshots and explicit examples, cannot be dismissed with "cite your sources" because they are literally doing that. Don't @ me on this one I've seen shit in the wars, y'all.

Failing to understand these things WILL bar you from ever really engaging with or understanding any narrative more complicated than Paw Patrol for the rest of your life.

OP: you guys are never going to be able to meaningfully engage with story and character analysis if you cant understand or aren't willing to even consider the context within writers create their stories and the intention behind characters actions and motivations, which are intentional and complex. Not everything begins and ends with romance and relationships, in fact most stories outside of the romance genre feature more complex themes and motivations than straightforward romance and romantic love. Sorry if that makes you mad.

Preview of some doodles based on the event of TADC cast playing PEAK. Which you can watch at Ashley Nichols (aka Zooble) Art's channel.

I had fun drawing Ragatha's (or in this case, Amanda) expression.

I'm not sure if I wanna post the entire scanned notebook page or wait until after I clean up or redraw the outlines and colour them digitally.

===

Other places to my find my art:

Bsky: rinacat Insta: rinacat.tay DA: rinacat Tumblr Art only: @rinacatdraws (if you're not interested seeing my reblogs of others' works)

Like, bro. You are literally admitting that trans women can indeed be misogynistic by making that accusation at all. I'm sorry to break it to you but we're not all perfect little beans. Before I came out, I was DEEPLY misogynistic. I'm willing to bet Goose was too. She's just trying to explore that topic because it's a real thing that happens. Of course it's not EXCUSABLE, but that's exactly why I've since moved on and learned from that time in my life.

This is just a bad take being repeated over and over by insecure chronically online teenagers who think that harassing fiction writers for writing the wrong fiction is how to make change in the world.

Some experiences aren’t comfortable to see, some are pretty grotesque, violent, tragic, saddening or even enraging— whenever Jax’s character works as a cautionary tale or not to people shouldn’t invalidate the fact that his [her] experience is real. It is not “invalid” or “valid” as people claim, because there is no such thing as a parameter that decides whenever an experience is worth sharing/discussing or not, for better or for worse.

Yes, there is good and bad representation of trans folk in media, but it shouldn’t revolve around the morality of the character. It should rely in whenever the character was made with actual nuance and if the creator actually did the research needed for the topic, or if its just an stereotype of a group of people made without any actual thought put into them.

If you see Jax as enby, they're enby to you.

If you see Jax as transfem, she's transfem to you.

I genuinely don't see why people are fight so much.

Even if Jax is canonically transfem, that doesn't mean you can't headcanon him as otherwise. Hell I see him as tmasc.

One is called Chimptopia. It was made by a MAGA follower, looks like a knock off of Family Guy, has thoroughly inspired character designs and muted colors, and the titular “chimp” of Chimptopia is a Mexican man with a monkey tail.

Chimptopia’s Kickstarter promotional video was a riff on an old Tex Avery gag where a character that resembles Gobbles the Dinosaur from GameOverse is taken behind a tree and beaten to death. All while the white alpha male main character rolls his eyes and says “you wouldn’t wanna watch that crap.” Implying that HIS show is better than The GameOverse.

When this introductory Kickstarter video came out, and people started looking into how deeply racist it was, it got so much backlash that he put out an apology video… of himself apologizing while being lynched (literally handing from a try by a noose) and being beaten up by the Gobbles Dinosaur knockoff.

I mean to say this was offensive beyond belief is an UNDERSTATEMENT.

Compare that to The Amazing Digital Circus, which is a show made by an open trans woman and is by all accounts very inclusive.

Some of the VA cast have said some questionable jokes, but never anything overtly racist with the intent of being racist toward minorities. The worst their jokes got were making fun of how awkward it would be to say a bad word on stream… and even then they apologized for it immediately and acknowledged it was in bad taste… 7 years before the show was created.