Table Talks

There is a really frustrating thing where some kinds of speculative story are hard to write because they will be assumed to be bad (clumsy, harmful, regressive) metaphors for real-world events or people, rather than exploring completely speculative ideas. Like:

"What if a small group of religious extremists, persecuted in their own country, moved to an inhospitable uninhabited island and had to rebuild society there?" - But the Americas and Australia weren't inhospitable and were full of Native nations, why are you perpetuating the idea of Terra Nullius and manifest destiny? - Yes, that's because this isn't a metaphor for the British invading other countries, it's a metaphor for finding out how much of a person's religious practise is rooted in worldly concerns, vs how much they will really stymie themselves for the sake of God.

"What if 1/100 children born was a werewolf?" - But queer people are no danger to straight people, and disabled people don't have predictable patterns to their illnesses, and most people who have uncontrollable rages really CAN control them and are just lying, and no minority group has superpowers... - Yes, but that's all immaterial, because I wanted to talk about a load of other metaphors about the passage of time and responsibility and the relationship between humans and wildlife.

It almost feels like death of the author, like "Death of the most obvious metaphor" - If you couldn't reach for the (tormented) parallel between being an alien species and being stateless, what stories could someone tell? If your changeling-baby was neither disabled nor adopted, what would the story be about? Etc.

I was literally just thinking about this yesterday! It's a trend I've seen a LOT in recent years in lit crit, particularly when discussing fantasy.

I think it particularly comes up the moment an author includes any sort of marginalisation/oppression for their fictional/fantasy world. I've lost count of the times now where I've seen people read a book on, say, the terrible oppression of the Gwyllion, and immediately gone "Oh, so the Gwyllion are a metaphor for the real world X people, either deliberately or accidentally through the author's inherent racism. This is therefore super problematic because the Gwyllion are also described as Y, which means the author is also saying that about X people."

There will always be real world parallels when discussing oppression. Always. But that's because oppression is oppression - precise details may vary, but it follows the same pathways the world over, and that will naturally be copied into fiction as well. This does not mean the author is intentionally telling the exact allegory that you've projected onto it. If that's how you read everything, then yeah, everything becomes super problematic, but also, why are you reading any fiction that isn't solely about real world historical events? It's clearly not for you

And, you know, obviously there are works that are racist/misogynistic/etc, including deliberately so. But I really don't like the way people have started going "I have spotted a PROBLEMATIC ALLEGORY here, I'm ever so smart" and acting like they're the cleverest little critic that ever lived. You have to meet a work on its own terms. Lovecraft was a big ole racist, sure. Someone who has written a book about the oppression of magic users in their fantasy world, however, is rarely writing a story about how queerness lurks in family lines and must be controlled; they are way more commonly writing a story about a world with magic that they then wanted to take seriously, and while there might well be elements of queerness there, those magic users are not a 1:1 replacement.

Sometimes these lines are blurry! But we're going way too far to one end of that spectrum

The post that got me thinking about this yesterday was someone talking about how they'd love to write a vampire story exploring vampirism as a disability (dependence on a substance to manage the condition, blindness/weakness in daytime, can't enter buildings without accommodation, etc). But, they said, they can't, because they don't want to be making the point that disabled people are parasites, and vampires are generally considered parasitic.

And like. What an incredible shame. That we'll lose that, because they're already afraid of the "I have spotted a PROBLEMATIC ALLEGORY" crowd. That would be a great story for exploring disability themes, OR just a great new take on vampires, and either of those things would be so good to read. But there would be so many people who would jump in with "So you think disabled people are draining the life force of the ableds around them?", never stopping to actually think "Vampires are not a 1:1 stand in for real world disability because they are fictional and do not exist."

Anyway sorry I've rambled here, not sure how coherent I'm being. But yes, I was thinking about this just yesterday! Wild.

I was thinking about this over the weekend, where you literally have a nigh unlimited amount of options to explore the world but you settle for the unnuanced metaphor that's as subtle as a sledgehammer and in two to five years will be outmoded.

The reason why DS9 works so well is that it's a series that says war is hell, it's complicated and at the end of the day even the "good guys" eg the Federation is willing to commit outright genocide to bring the war to an end.

Tolkien works so well because even though he draws from real life, he also draws on universal themes. He got so annoyed at people mistaking the Ring as a metaphor for the atomic bomb that he spent several pages explaining so in the forward to the Fellowship of the Ring back in the 50s. So, it's not an exclusively contemporary problem.

really compelling article about the number of "obvious ai tells" that are also… how a lot of people educated in english writing in colonized nations are taught to write. i.e. highly formal english rhetoric.

I *feel* like it's broadly known, but maybe this is just because I'm a teacher, but "ai writing detectors" discriminate disproportionately against ESL writers (that is, they falsely identify legitimate human writing that is ESL as AI writing at a higher rate)

And that means YOU, random ai witchhunter on your internet crusader horse, are quite likely to also accidentally discriminate .

Don't accuse strangers of AI writing based on vibes.

Sit with and process the fact that a lot of times you can't tell and you don't get to know for sure. It's frustrating and scary. You'll be a better person if you learn to manage those emotions.

One of the most useful things I've learned from how Bluesky block lists are public information (and this is damning with faint praise) is that I'm on both "proship" and "antis" lists, and was on those before saying a single word about fanfiction shipping wars.

This because whatever this discourse even is at this point, the factions have dug themselves layers deep in responses-to-responses-to-responses to each other, and have assigned such a broad space of opinions as belonging either to "proshippers" or "antis" that now, basically any statement posted on the internet can be placed into this dyad, in contradictory ways depending on who the one doing the assignment is.

And that's the point that's too deep in the discourse: Where you're projecting avowed alignment with a faction of niche online arguments onto people who have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, with no reference to the core ideas of the discourse to ground that alignment in.

Religion in fantasy worlds: Everyone believes the exact same things about Green Nature Goddess and has official rituals for her that are the same everywhere

Religion irl: Technically it’s heresy for me to worship this skeleton but my spiritual advisor said that it’s legit so I’m gonna keep giving it offerings of yogurt

Religion in fantasy worlds: We’ve gotta pour water over this statue or else the god will get angry

Religion irl: We’ve gotta pour water over this statue? Why? Idk man that’s just what you do. Just do it alright.

Religion in fantasy worlds: These are the rules. The rules are law. Nobody can break the rules.

Religion irl: Okay you say that there are “rules” but how exactly are we defining “rules” here? Like is a suggestion a rule? How are we defining suggestion? No come back. Listen. Are we going by nuance in the original language or are translations fine or-

High control religions/cults recruiting in fantasy worlds: Join us! For we shall all eat the moon! This is a legitimate position to have!

High control religions/cults recruiting irl: We have free snacks. That shirt looks sooo cute on you btw. What, you heard that we wanna eat the moon? The media is always telling lies about us you know. We may have some unorthodox opinions about the moon but, tell you what. Come get some snacks, make some new friends, maybe chat about the moon a bit. See what you think. We’ve got pizza.

Religions in fantasy worlds: We must make a sacrifice to appease the gods! *draws up a sacrifice circle and completely destroys the sacrifice*

Religions irl: We must make a sacrifice to appease the gods! *has a communal barbecue*

#yeah that's what happens when you think the only options for religious characters are Fundamentalist Zealot and The Good Christian#bonus points if the latter is a Secret Atheist cause even a TRACE of nuance is too much for you to handle

this still all smells of dnd and the dnd novels. There is more fantasy out there. Even A song of Ice and Fire leans far more into the latter than the former.

Seeing someone comment on the fakeness of the religion in a song of ice and fire is what prompted me to make this post lol

I think the “all the good religious people harbor doubt about their religion and/or aren’t real believers” is the most irksome thing. Fuckers can’t comprehend an actual believer in a religion being a good person.

to be fair to fantasy like dnd, when the god can directly tell you what to do and empowers people with magic the equation is pretty changed up.

saw this being debated and just wanted to talk about it too.

"is it rude if I politely ask a writer if they use ai or chatgpt on their works because I'm almost certain they do?"

1. yes, it is rude. no matter how polite you are being when you ask them this.
2. you say you are almost certain. so you are not absolutely certain.
3. unless you are absolutely, undoubtedly certain — with actual proof — that their writing is ai generated, never ever ask an artist if their work is ai generated.
4. I know several writers who would stop writing and delete all of their works if they were ever accused of using ai. so it doesn't matter if you are polite when you ask them this, you are suggesting that their works are ai generated, that they didn't create the works they could have spent hours, days, weeks, months or years working on.
5. ai and chatgpt are trained on real humans' works, they are trained to mimic the way real humans write. so if you say a genuine writer's work "looks ai", I'm gonna have to ask you what you think ai was trained on.
6. a writer whose English isn't their first language may also write in a way that "looks ai" to some, if they write in English and have to rely on translator.
7. using em dash isn't a sign of ai. I do it all the time. my fellow writers all love em dash.
8. having long paragraphs with "overly described scenes" isn't a sign of ai. I do it all the time, and so do my fellow writers.
9. all the "ai signs" are actually just what most writers actually do. they get mistaken for "ai signs" because sometimes the way writers write or describe a scene in a fanfic or an original work is different than the way people talk or text. because they're writing a fic and describing a scene, not chatting with a friend. the way I talk is different than the way I write my fics.
10. if you suspect a work was ai generated, but are not 100% sure, you can always just stop reading said work without saying anything.
11. if someone does use ai to write, they will either a.) deny and continue using ai to write or b.) admit because they see nothing wrong with it and continue using ai to write.
12. if a genuine writer was wrongly accused of using ai, they may stop writing altogether.

asking a writer if they use ai or chatgpt to write will always do more harm than good. witch hunting will always do more harm than good.

you are not "fighting against ai" by throwing around such accusations. you are harming genuine writers and artists.

It isnt an accusation. Its a fucking question. One that protects the very communities and artists that this post claims to defend.

all of the fanfic writers, whom I personally know, say the same thing that they would feel discouraged and might delete all their works if they were asked this.

it’s not “hey do you like x or y” question. it’s a subtle implication that your work looks like it was written by a robot within a minute. if you personally don’t find that offensive, that’s cool. but I know a lot of writers do. and they have the rights to be discouraged by it.

also we are talking about fanfic writers who write as their hobby, getaway or safe place, writers whose works you read for free. not writers who sell their works and are making profit from what they write. fanfic writers don’t owe you anything.

This just came across my dash. I'm going to be blunt.

Asking a writer or artist if they “use AI” is an accusation, no matter how you dress it up. It’s not neutral. It implies you think their effort, style, or voice is artificial. It implies that their human work doesn’t look human enough for you.

You don’t protect the community by policing people who are actually creating from scratch. You protect it by supporting human creators, reporting confirmed AI misuse when there’s evidence, and learning the difference between this sounds different than what I’d write and this is machine-generated.

Writers—especially fanfic authors—already pour their time, emotion, and identity into what they share for free. They don’t owe anyone proof of authenticity on top of that. And if your question makes someone want to quit writing, it’s not protecting the community. It’s shrinking it.

If you’re not 100% sure, just scroll. AI ethics don’t need to turn into public inquisition season.

“And if your question makes someone want to quit writing, it’s not protecting the community. It’s shrinking it.”

^^^^ this

I have never read a more excellent article

This is a great take and I would like to adopt “Feelings Yakuza” in English actually, I feel like it conveys the whole thing way more obviously than “anti” (not to mention the muddled meaning of “proshipper”).

To avoid harassment, EA and SEA artists have started pre-emptively blocking users with "proship DNI" or any variation thereof in their profiles as a result of this article and said feelings yakuza are getting pissed that their DNIs are being hard enforced by the other side. How very dare.

I’m screaming with laughter at the actual Japanese term, o-kimochi yakuza. The “o” is an honorific indicator to indicate how prissy and self-important these people are being.

I don't know if Maromi intended this to be the incredible takedown that it is, but I couldn't not share it:

ALT

Starship Troopers(the film) is an interesting example of 'death of the author' because every Verhoeven tells us about the film is directly contradicted by what the film itself shows.

We're told that the terran federation is a fascist dystopia, but what we SEE is a prosperous society with true racial and gender equality, and everyone is free to pursue their own path. The only real limitation is that you cant vote if you havent served.

We're told that the bugs are supposed to be victims who are only defending their homeworld from invasion. What we SEE is the bugs are violent monsters who lack either the ability or willingness to communicate with humans, making any kind of co-existence between the two impossible.

We're TOLD that the main characters have been propagandized into throwing away their lives for nothing, but we SEE them volunteering to protect earth, and heroically achieving their mission that will lead(eventually) to victory.

Oh and Verhoeven had this to say about the shower scene: "The idea I wanted to express was that these so-called advanced people are without libido. Here they are talking about war and their careers and not looking at each other at all! It is sublimated because they are fascists"

But then we SEE in the rest of the film, characters flirting, being stupidly horny, hooking up, and none of it being presented as weird or unique to the world.

I submit that, perhaps it is not fans of Starship Troopers who misunderstood the film, but Verhoeven.

I mean it's kind of the guy's specialty. Look at Robocop and try to remember that it was supposed to be anti-violence, and then shows stuff like Robocop shooting a wannabe rapist in the dick. The guy tried to make an anti-police brutality movie and made like the ultimate copaganda flick. He's so absolutely myopic in how he views the world and so absolutely certain that people see everything the way he does that he doesn't even realize that he's just filming himself shooting his own message in the foot over and over again.

When you're on so many layers of irony, you end up making some the best unironic action films ever

it is crazy how “if this childrens show doesn’t kill their villain at the end it’s irredeemable media” became such a popular opinion here. like people were calling steven universe fascist apologia. and to be clear I don’t even think that would be the case for non childrens media, either. perhaps holding every single story up to the same standard of “does it follow the acceptable narrative path or is it evil propaganda” isn’t the most anti-fascist thing, either. maybe.

"you are morally obligated to murder your enemies" is also perhaps not the most anti-fascist thing

"The death penalty is the only true form of justice" is not actually something I think children should be taught.

Stop letting Americans who don’t understand the concept of “cultural differences” whine about Japanese games made by Japanese people 2k15

maybe i'm just not american enough but i'm getting really fed up by people - even ostensibly progressive people - holding sexual art to the kind of standards that no other art is held to. like i saw someone on bsky say that there should be conversations about what kind of art should be allowed to exist, "especially sexual", and i'm just like ???? what the fuck do you mean, "especially sexual"? why? why not violent art? why is it okay for people to create violent art just because, without needing to defend or justify it, but the moment art is sexual you need some deep reason for it that justifies its existence?

Cause it's fucking different gooner. Kill yourself, i can't explain to you basic gendered social dynamics.

False equivalence as always.

be normal about sexual matters challenge: failed

I'm willing to bet that even more of a some do realize how insane they sound and don't care. Because some people just want to use a moral high point as an excuse to hurt someone.

I remember Back In The Day when I was still playing World of Warcraft and the first expansion came out, there was an outcry because there was a little non-combat pet you could get that looked like a tiny D&D beholder but without the extra eyestalks, so he only had the one big eye. His name was Willie. Get it? "One-eyed Willie"? People were having tantrums on the forums. "That is completely inappropriate, my children play this game!"

Meanwhile I, along with many other people, was playing as an undead warlock who could summon literal demons and devour corpses to regain my health. This went unmentioned.