( No Title )
http://thecharactercomma.tumblr.com/post/161104140876/laurellynnleake-shwetanarayan-tangzhuang
So I like the idea of this post, and stuff like the eye thing or the eyebrow thing are totally right, but…
…there are some of these I can’t endorse?
Like “villains are scarred or have disabilities” can be ableist, yes… but if they acquired their disability through the violence that radicalized them, that’s not ableism, that’s understandable (if sometimes overused for reasons that might, yes, be ableist.)
As a disabled person, I identified with those villains very strongly. Why? Because, as tropey as they were… by and large, they were mad at ableism too.
By and large, they became evil because ableism broke them.
It made them angry. Not just angry. Soul-scorchingly angry, the kind you don’t come back from.
Mad enough to break things. Mad enough to give in to their rage. Mad enough to hurt people. Mad enough to do the unthinkable.
Sometimes I felt mad like that too. Sometimes I didn’t want to be polite. Sometimes I didn’t want to be nice. Sometimes I didn’t want to make sure the punishment fit the crime.
Sometimes I got scared it would take me over.
Having characters as angry at it as I was mattered to me.
Having characters as angry as I was meant I wasn’t alone.
Don’t take away the representation I needed–and still need–because the kind you need looks different.
It’s not either or. It’s both and.
Discussion ¬