It doesn’t make sense because IW decided that canon doesn’t matter and no one would remember the tiny details like when the war with Jotunheim happened:
And Gamora was the last survive of her planet, and there was nothing like killing half of the population:
According to the date of war with Jotunheim Thor can’t be 1500, otherwise he would be 500 at that time and could remember that his father brought a baby with him. As it is shown in Thor 1, Thor and Loki are very close in age. Therefore as Loki is around 1050, Thor must be only a couple of years older, not hundreds!
Officially Grandthorki is a subtype of Frostmaster in which the Grandmaster coerces a platonically related Thor and Loki to engage in sexual activities with each other and/or with him. There’s tonns of possibilities where one could take that, so for a more nuanced description, see this post.
What if I don’t interpret the ship that way?
That’s fine! There’s nothing wrong with interpreting a ship a different way! ^_^ However, since Grandthorki was coined for a specific purpose, the above definition will be the only type of content that will be tagged as #Grandthorki on this blog.
If you would like to write Thor and/or Loki as having pre-established sexual feelings for the other, then it will still be reblogged! It will just be tagged as #GrandthorkiB instead.
Variations of soft!Grandthorki/soft!Frostmaster (where it’s written as not even remotely dubcon/noncon) are not allowed for this event. I’m sorry. Your interpretation is valid; it’s just not worth my time or energy to cater content that I have no personal interest in.
That said, this is a hate-free environment. If you are hateful towards any ship, kink, or person, you will be blocked.
How do I participate?
It’s simple! You can post your content any time on October 20th or October 21st (UTC-6). Please be sure to use the tag #grandthorkiday within the first five (5) tags. If you don’t tag correctly, I won’t be able to find it and reblog.
I will be reblogging all content in the tag for everyone interested to see on October 21st (and likely for a couple days afterward). If you’re unable to post your content before October 21st, then that is okay; I will still reblog late posts if needed.
Note that it will help me a lot if all creators read the Rules before posting content.
Writers: Bad people are still people with their own problems and emotions, even when they cause problems and distress and hurt other people.
Tumblr Gremlins: Problematic. Blocked.
If you portray bad people as good people, then you’re normalizing abuse. Of course that’s fucking problematic.
Newsflash: people and good people are not synonymous.
If you portray a villain, that villain has thoughts, emotions, desires. Maybe even loved ones. They have things they want. They have reasons for what they do. And none of this excuses their villainous acts.
If you portray a good person, all of the same things apply. Thoughts, emotions, desires, loved ones, things they want, reasons, etc. And when you look at the acts they commit, you think to yourself, “That is a good person. I consider this person heroic, someone worth emulating.” Whereas when you see what the villain does, you think, “Man, that is fucked up.”
The entire difference between a good person and a bad person is not whether or not they are people, but whether the things they do and their reasons for doing them are good or bad. So you can portray a bad person, who abuses people, as having emotions, and desires, and thoughts, and they can still be a bad person.
So yeah. The OP says “bad people should be written as if they are people.” This is true. “Normalizing abuse” is what happens when you write bad people as if they are incomprehensible evil monsters with no common humanity with the rest of us, because this tells abuse victims, most of whom love their abusers, “You’re not really being abused because the person you love is not a bad person! Bad people are 100% evil monsters and the person who is hurting you obviously has feelings!” No. Bad people are people. When you write an abuser, write them as a person, with thoughts and feelings, because real abuse victims know that their abusers are people, and you don’t want to convince them that their abusers can’t be abusers because only monsters are abusers. You want them to understand that abusers are human too, because they already know the person abusing them is human. What they don’t know is whether or not they can consider what’s happening to them to be abuse.
^^^
Antis: “Only good people are actually fully human beings! This totally isn’t fascist or anything!”
“If you write well-rounded, deep, believable characters you’re a fucking abuse apologist!”
This is way too similar to that god damn “if you write characters being traumatized/in traumatizing situations then you are fetishizing abuse and you’re bad!” Like stories need conflict and sometimes being involved in conflict can be traumatizing, do you really want to consume only media that is entirely Good People Doing Good Things, Everyone Is Happy And Nothing Bad Ever Happens?? Because that’s sounds like a whole lot of boring to me
Given the alternative that we’ve had forever now, where characters go through intensely traumatic shit but have absolutely no trauma whatsoever – thus conveying the message that the problem is YOU, YOU’RE the only one who breaks like that – I’m gonna have to say I’ll take the realistic portrayals of trauma.
There is something, I think, to us as a whole, as humans, that is INSANELY disturbing and difficult about viewing irredeemable, evil people as PEOPLE. Like, we cannot accept that people who do things like commit genocide or murder people or abuse people are, in a lot of ways, just like us. That they have families and feelings and complex inner lives. And my gf just summed up why the portrayal of evil people as something apart from human is such a problem:
Because it keeps us from confronting evil when it DOES actually show up. It keeps us from confronting other people, who we know, who espouse hatred. Because how can this person, whom we know , who maybe we are even friends or family with, be an empty evil husk? It’s what keeps us from addressing things like racism, fascism, white supremacy- you name it.
When we dress up evil people as something apart from us, when we act like humans are inherently better than the evil people we see in media, it means that come being faced with a person who is doing abhorrent things, we are unable to process that. Because we feel like humanity and evil are incompatible.
You know it’s funny but we really need more bad people depicted as real people because it’s meant to be a warning to what you can become if you aren’t careful. Antis are good examples of that because they genuinely don’t realize how evil their behavior is because they think they are doing it for the greater good or with the best intentions justifies it. People are always the hero of their own story and if you can’t recognize that you are capable of being a monster then you will become a monster because you see everything that you do as good. It takes any complex thinking about morals out of the picture because you aren’t a laughing disney villain so why should you be concerned if your decisions hurt people if it wasn’t apart of the big picture or plan you have.
Think the Original The Lorax where the bad guy was viewed as complex and had good points even though he still was the bad guy. He was complicated and Kids could understand it through Seuss’s writing that he was just a person. Then look at say Ursula or Makeficent who had the complexity of a wet napkin and few kids could imagine themselves becoming. Obviously some kids can imagine themselves as them but which story really teaches you that good people do bad things or bad people don’t always realize they are bad.
It’s not some evil pro villain thing to make bad guys real. It’s a warning that you need to be careful because you could easily become the bad guy even if you have the best intentions.
During World War II, 600,000 African-American women entered the wartime
workforce. Previously, black women’s work in the United States was
largely limited to domestic service and agricultural work, and wartime
industries meant new and better-paying opportunities – if they made it
through the hiring process, that is. White women were the targets of the
U.S. government’s propaganda efforts, as embodied in the lasting and
lauded image of Rosie the Riveter.Though largely ignored in America’s
popular history of World War II, black women’s important contributions
in World War II factories, which weren’t always so welcoming, are
stunningly captured in these comparably rare snapshots of black Rosie
the Riveters.
I know I shouldn’t care this much, but right now I’m just feeling like it was such a waste… the MCU had so much potential to be something great, with strokes of casting genius like RDJ as Tony Stark, Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury (that one was a given), especially (as far as I’m concerned) Tom Hiddleston as Loki, even Chris Evans as Steve Rogers (he doesn’t seem to be a brilliant actor, but he fit into that role like it was made for him). They had Joss Whedon writing the first two ensemble films. Y’all hate him now because he turned out not to be a perfect feminist, but I saw “Firefly” before “Buffy” and I didn’t start liking his work for feminist reasons; it was for the storytelling, the snappy dialogue, the inventive characterization, the hints of philosophical themes, the distinctive voice. All of that was brilliantly on display in the first Avengers movie; AOU bit off more than it could chew, but I still admire the ambition and the ideas and I’m not nearly as bothered by the shipping choices as everyone else.
But with the possible exception of “Iron Man 3,” all of the MCU trilogies have suffered the curse of the modern superhero trilogy: the third one betrays the potential of its predecessors. Characterization crashed and burned in all of the part 3’s except IM. Could Whedon have evaded the curse if he had been writing “Infinity War”? I don’t know, maybe not… but the worst production of his I’ve seen was “Serenity,” which was definitely not bad (and no, I’m not considering the Wonder Woman script).
I’m kind of feeling the way I did about dumb choices in the LOTR movies – this could have been perfect, this was a convergence of opportunities that only comes around once, how could you screw this up? – only more so.
Loki is the Philosopher King 