the background conflict between the Abundance and the Hunt
I mean that conflict is basically an excuse to have an alliance of disparate groups invade space!China, which is drawing on the historical events like 五胡乱华. When these fictional events are made to reproduce historical battles of repelling invaders, I can't really consider the event "critical". Like yeah, there would probably need to be historical invasions happening in the AU, but like it doesn't have to specifically be evil bug race.
backgrounds that make up the different factions of the Xianzhou natives, the Foxians (vs Borisin), the Vidyadhara.
All factions in fiction are drawing from RL experiences/understanding of in-group out-group dynamics. If we start telling stories with the physiological differences as the defining character trait, then we start falling into biological determinism, which is basically the start of every racist ideology.
Physical differences being there to add quirks to the character is fine (like having a kink be animal ears or something), but having that physiology define the character is... I mean obviously people can write whatever, but that world view perpetuates racist stereotypes so I'm fundamentally against that style of world building. So for me the defining traits which constitutes the character comes from personality, something inherent to the individual.
Like Dan Heng isn't defined by his Vidyadhara background (hell, he barely identifies with them in the canon). Dan Heng is a close mouthed, introverted tsundere who has become isolated from the people who are his supposed in-group and found a new in-group amongst a bunch of misfits. Changing his in-group to an influential family that kicked him out and having the group of mis-fits be a bunch of gig workers sticking together out of solidarity doesn't suddenly make Dan Heng not Dan Heng.
I know you said it's subjective, but your description essentially denies room for any form of AU. By that logic, even though Xianzhou story is pretty much copying chunks of plot and characterizations from Xianxia/Wuxia genre, with Foxians obviously inspired by 狐狸精/kitsune mythos and 天人 inspired by 仙人 and 龙尊 essentially just being 龙王, a Xianxia version of Xianzhou story would somehow not be "Xianzhou" enough.
I feel like there's still some objectivity when it comes to recognizability of AUs. After all, if we don't give credence to homophobic incels who claim slash is OOC while also accepting "official" AUs as sources to inform the characterization of a character, then we're already functioning under the belief that there is something else beyond "is canon" and "is in the original setting" that informs us, the audience, when something reproduces the core of a character. That something can't be subjective, otherwise the people who think slash is OOC would be correct in their claim and I vehemently disagree.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2024-09-21 02:20 am (UTC)I mean that conflict is basically an excuse to have an alliance of disparate groups invade space!China, which is drawing on the historical events like 五胡乱华. When these fictional events are made to reproduce historical battles of repelling invaders, I can't really consider the event "critical". Like yeah, there would probably need to be historical invasions happening in the AU, but like it doesn't have to specifically be evil bug race.
All factions in fiction are drawing from RL experiences/understanding of in-group out-group dynamics. If we start telling stories with the physiological differences as the defining character trait, then we start falling into biological determinism, which is basically the start of every racist ideology.
Physical differences being there to add quirks to the character is fine (like having a kink be animal ears or something), but having that physiology define the character is... I mean obviously people can write whatever, but that world view perpetuates racist stereotypes so I'm fundamentally against that style of world building. So for me the defining traits which constitutes the character comes from personality, something inherent to the individual.
Like Dan Heng isn't defined by his Vidyadhara background (hell, he barely identifies with them in the canon). Dan Heng is a close mouthed, introverted tsundere who has become isolated from the people who are his supposed in-group and found a new in-group amongst a bunch of misfits. Changing his in-group to an influential family that kicked him out and having the group of mis-fits be a bunch of gig workers sticking together out of solidarity doesn't suddenly make Dan Heng not Dan Heng.
I know you said it's subjective, but your description essentially denies room for any form of AU. By that logic, even though Xianzhou story is pretty much copying chunks of plot and characterizations from Xianxia/Wuxia genre, with Foxians obviously inspired by 狐狸精/kitsune mythos and 天人 inspired by 仙人 and 龙尊 essentially just being 龙王, a Xianxia version of Xianzhou story would somehow not be "Xianzhou" enough.
I feel like there's still some objectivity when it comes to recognizability of AUs. After all, if we don't give credence to homophobic incels who claim slash is OOC while also accepting "official" AUs as sources to inform the characterization of a character, then we're already functioning under the belief that there is something else beyond "is canon" and "is in the original setting" that informs us, the audience, when something reproduces the core of a character. That something can't be subjective, otherwise the people who think slash is OOC would be correct in their claim and I vehemently disagree.