Avatar

ALWAYSTHEQUIETONES

@alwaysthequietones / alwaysthequietones.tumblr.com

my favorite way to unwind is to make gifs and get silly over fictional characters and ships. 30+
Avatar

Can I just say, whoever Nancy ends up with, be it Jonathan or Steve or neither, it is not what matters the most about her character. HOWEVER, I really don't think she should end up back with Steve. Steve is not a bad guy in the slightest. He is one of the best guys and characters in the show. But, he and Nancy want different things and I think that's really important to focus on, because it's why they don't work. Steve talks about how he had this fantasy with Nancy as a mother to his children, and that's okay that it's what he wants from a partner, but Nancy doesn't. Remember the argument her and Jonathan had all the way back in season 1 where Jonathan mentions her "rebelling" and then settling down with Steve just like her mother (which Ted and Karen Wheeler should NOT be your romantic goals). It's clear she doesn't want to do that. She literally wants to fight the government and the patriarchy, seen especially in season 2 where she wanted to "burn the Hawkins lab to the ground" and season 3 where she wanted to stick it to her douche bag bosses. Jonathan, I don't think he wants that perfect family either. He seems perfectly fine with helping Nancy do all her illegal shit. He's fine with standing on the side, holding the camera and telling her that she's doing amazing sweety. Of course, if Nancy ends up on her own, that's fine, although I LOVE Jancy especially for the dynamic of it's them against the world. I just don't think Steve and Nancy rekindling their romance is the best idea.

Quick side note, I like the idea of Ronance, but I personally love Jancy and, from the few bits I've seen, Robin and Vickie ( Rovickie? Unsure if the ship name).

just a few things:

what nancy doesn’t want is a loveless marriage, she says nothing about not wanting children. and seeing as she is the “most important part” of steve’s dream, what matters to him is that she’s in his future, not that she gives him children.

jonathan, who says it himself in s4, can only see their relationship becoming miserable and loveless, with their children (because he expects nancy to have them) hating him. sounds a lot more like ted and karen to me. and he was very much not supportive of her “doing illegal shit” in s3 when she was “fighting the patriarchy”. in fact he pretty much tells her to keep her mouth shut and just put up with it!

you can like jancy, and not care for stancy, that’s okay! but these kinds of long posts are just getting silly.

alright, you went out of your way to ‘respond’ to my comment without responding lmao. but i’ll still answer you anyway.

jonathan may have been “worst case scenario-img”, but he’s also never “best-case scenario-ed”. the only thing we know about his attitude towards his and nancy’s relationship is that he thinks that if he and nancy don’t break up, they’re doomed to be miserable. he admits he’s slow-motion breaking up with her. he’s pulled so far away from nancy that she thinks he’s cheating on her! they may just be teenagers now, but these issues don’t bode well for a happy life in the future.

sure, jonathan is fine to support nancy in her revenge, until her actions don’t align with his own, at which point… nothing. my point with s3 is that, unlike what you said, jonathan isn’t constantly supportive of nancy. i know where he’s coming from, and i don’t strictly disagree with him telling her to drop it. but in the end he isn’t perfectly fine holding the camera and cheering her on. the only reason he ended up “coming around” is because nancy told him that will was in danger. not because he values her opinion above all else. it’s easy to call assholes douchebags when you’re out of the situation, and don’t actually have to support your girlfriend facing sexism.

steve doesn’t have a “perfect mom” scenario lmao! his dream is literally just “me, my loving wife, and our kids travelling the country”. he said nothing about wanting perfect children, and a perfect home-maker wife. steve doesn’t even say he wants nancy to be a mother! when he tells her she’s a part of that dream, once again, he says nothing else matters, but her!!! you really are just purposefully trying to interpret steve’s dream in the most awful way you can, while minimising all the negativity with which jonathan views his and nancy’s future.

you may be trying to talk about your hopes for nancy’s future, but it seems like most of your goal is just putting down steve and raising jonathan up. do you think nancy wants to continue to suffer in her uncertainty in her relationship with jonathan until he manages to sort out his issues? do you think she wants to be the focus of all his family issues as he assumes she’ll abandon her dreams, marry him, pop out kids and live in misery if he doesn’t break up with her? what nancy needs is honesty. she needs a loving relationship. she needs someone by her side as she tackles everything life throws her way. and of the two potential love interests, there’s only one that’s so far fulfilling those needs. and it’s not jonathan.

Lmao, if there’s one thing Jancy shippers and anti’s consistently do, it’s making shit up. 😭

Avatar

reasons why your complaints about stancy are dumb: steve’s dream edition

  1. the six kids thing isn’t literal. it’s very obviously a reference to the party.
  2. nancy has no canonical dreams for her future that steve’s dream could intervene with. we know nancy does not wish for a loveless marriage, and she seems to like journalism and wants to go to that specific uni that i cannot remember the name of (emerson! shoutout shan 🫶). but at no point does she lay out her dream life and have it stand in opposition to steve’s.
  3. the MOST IMPORTANT part of steve’s dream isn’t the kids. or the winnebago. it’s that nancy is by his side. if nancy wants one child, if she wants none, if she wants to live in hawkins for the rest of her life, or move to a different country; it doesn’t matter. his dream is just that. a dream. what matters to steve is that nancy is in his future.
  4. sometimes couples have contradictory little fantasies. one would love to live in the countryside and have chickens or whatever and the other hates that idea. doesn’t mean they can’t be together, so long as they both know and recognise the others feelings. they aren’t automatically incompatible.

if you don’t like stancy, cool! you can ship whatever you want. you don’t have to try and fucking moralise it with points that just make you look media illiterate.

Avatar

Hi! I hope you don’t mind non-anonymous asks.

Firstly, I wanted to say thank you for being one of the loudest voices of reason of this godforsaken fandom.

Secondly… Can I also share my complains? I feel like I’ll die if I won’t talk about it.

I feel like you probably talked about it before, but still these whole “Eddie being the only person in entire group who understands him” trop started a new era of fics where Steve is almost literally hated by Dustin & the party, no one (from Dustin to Hopper) supports him (except for Eddie, of course. Look at out knight in shining armor) and even Robin (EVEN ROBIN GODDAMNIT) abandons him.

And I don’t know where is this desperate desire to isolate Steve from his found family comes from (well, actually, I have a couple ideas)…

These trop also might seem one of the reasons why shovel talks trop became so popular. And again, in this kind of things, everyone in the group suspects the worst about Steve. But… I mean, in my head, the only person who will receive shovel talks from literally everyone would be Eddie. I imagine that even Mike will show up just to say something “y’know dude, you’re cool and I admire you, but if you hurt Steve I smash your head with your guitar). God, there so much potential for Steve & the party dynamics. So much potential for Steve’s and Mike’s dynamic to explore, but no. Of course, we’ll chose the most toxic, abusive and horrendous relationship dynamic to ever exist.

These “Hellfire club feat. Eddie acting like disrespectful pigs while being guests at Steve’s”… And Steve being a helpless damsel in distress who locks up in his room and cries instead of kicking these assholes out… Lord, give me strength.

This top/bottom, dom/sub shit… Look, I actually headcanon Steve as bi. And. I think that he most likely prefer to be bottom. (Not because he’s weak helpless cry baby who can’t stand up for himself), but because he takes care about everyone so much, that he will probably want for once be the person who receives care from his partner. However, this shit with feminisation and infantilisation of Steve went too far. I mean, you want to ship Eddie with someone fragile, feminine, gentle and someone who will actually cry when people being mean to them? Chrissy Cunningham is right there. There’s nothing wrong with shipping f/m ships. I’m telling ya, your taste hasn’t “upgrade” just because you started shipping mlm.

It’s one thing when people recognise that they’re writing toxic, even abusive relationship. But the way some harringrove fics recently started looked better in comparison with some (actually most) steddie fics is just sending me… Yeah, steddies be like “harringrove is this”, “stancy is that” and then write most horrific, toxic and unhealthy shit ever.

Don’t even get me started on this “Robin starts to care less about Steve/stops caring about Steve at all because of Nancy, or other shitty idea for the plot of another shitty fic”… Just fuck ya’ll. Seriously.

Again, thank you very much.

Avatar
And honestly, the way that rockie is (most of the time) in the love triangle fics in which ronance is endgame…
I mean, the most popular fic with rockie is actually a Steve-centered fic (and it’s good, cause it captures Steve’s dynamic with the party) with rockie being a background ship.
And the second most popular rockie fic is actually a ronance fic with vickie being abuser & manipulator. Ronance shippers stop making Vickie gross and rockie as a whole about ronance challenge. Level impossible.
And this is my villain origin.
Avatar
Avatar
nakianshuri
Anonymous asked:

If the upside brought you back in time then Eddie would have become more entrenched in his judging people based on their clique not as individuals position AKA becoming even more like Jonathan. Instead in the upside down he grew enough to admit that he was wrong about Steve AKA more character growth than Jonathan has had over the whole series.

I assume this is reply to my Stancy/upside down post? Because I agree. The theory only Nancy and/or Steve's previous feelings were somehow restored because they were in the upside down has no basis in anything.

And when it comes to character growth, well, it really goes to show you how much Steve, or more accurately, Joe Keery, changed the show.

Stranger Things gets a lot of recognition about going against stereotypes, but that's not really what it was originally supposed to do. Jonathan was the hero. The party were the heroes, and Nancy was the one who was supposed to free herself of Steve's evil influence, which was turning her from the girl who would dress up with her brother and his friends' DnD campaigns, to the girl who bought new bras for her popular boyfriend.

Barb was supposed to be right: Nancy wasn't being herself with Steve because he didn't fit the "freaks are the best" universe being created on the show. If Steve was played by any other actor, he would have been killed off like Jason was, and the moral of Nancy's journey would have been rather simple: choose the freaks because they, not the Steves of the world, are true to themselves, and with them, you can be true to yourself, too. Jonathan and pre-upside down Eddie were supposed to be right and popular crew were supposed to be the assholes forevermore.

And I think a lot of the audience online feels that POV is still true, and it's affecting how they view the show, the pairings they ship, and the pairings they decide to hate. Jonathan represents what the show was originally supposed to be about: the freaks. Steve represents the change of course. It might be in part why there's so much resistance in some places online to Stancy. In the old narrative of the show, they're supposed to be oil and water, so the idea of them reuniting to some might feel like regression. And it clarifies why there were a lot of bad faith readings of Steve’s love confession to Nancy, and it’s why there might be backlash against Nancy if she’s shown to have a real interest in getting back with him.

But since Steve's redemption arc, ST shifted more and more into Breakfast Club territory, which is that characters with radically different backgrounds and experiences can see each other's mutual humanity; establish platonic, familial, or romantic relationships; and evolve so they all (self-declared Freaks and Homecoming Kings) can be their true selves.

And that's why for me at least, it feels like Jonathan was left behind growth-wise because, unlike everyone other main character, he hasn't had to second-guess his assumptions about people. He wasn't supposed to. Other than realizing his mom was right about Will being alive and that she shouldn't doubt Nancy, what core beliefs has he had to change? Maybe it's fitting that the character with the hardest set beliefs about people since the very beginning is the last character to ever have those assumptions challenged?

Anyway, thanks for the message, and sorry for the length of the reply.

Avatar
You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.