Post CR3 Episode 30 Thoughts: The Calloways and Intention/Impact
So I was right in my previous post that Birdie and Ollie are both irresponsible idiots. They willingly left their child daughter in the care of a known hag called the Fatestitcher and are then surprised when it's implied that Ira; you know child kidnapper/experimenter may have struck a deal with said HAG.
Trading away portions of their daughter's life/time. Her childhood in exchange for materials. Birdie and Ollie left Fearne when she was 8 years old, she's now 112 that is over 100 years of Fearne's life gone. And when their daughter brought up the years lost, they continued to brush it off until their daughter pieced together in like an hour of knowing Ira. They had 6 years to suspect something was fishy, 6 years to ask Ira what exactly they were building. 6 years of complete and utter irresponsibility.
Now I'm gonna talk about Intention vs Impact. Some may argue that Birdie and Ollie aren't bad parents because they ment well, that they risked 6 years of their lives, they had to work with morally dubious people all for they sake of their daughter. To keep Fearne safe. I have no doubt that they both love Fearne with all they have, but love isn't the only thing that makes you a good parent. They ment well, therefore they're good parents. The ends justify the means.
Now let's look at the impact of their actions. Fearne is a complete stranger to her parents, Fearne is so emotionally constipated that at the reveal of her being traded all she had to say was "Well that puts a wrinkles on things." Fearne has lost over 100 years and lived 100 years without her parents, that she can never get back.
They risked Fearne's childhood and lost. They should have never played with Fearne's life like that, they robbed her of her autonomy. Even if it was accidental. They knew Morri was a hag. They knew she was a Fatestitcher. Yet the played with Fearne's life, and yes, it was for Fearne's safety but was her safety really worth this?
I've seen people compare Birdie and Veth. Yes they both left their children in the care of others, for that child's safety and in Veth's case to give her time to reevaluate whether being a stay at home mum was what she wanted to return to. The difference is intention and impact.
Veth's intention: Keep Luc safe and have time for some introspection.
Impact: Luc was kept safe with his father and veth created a life where she runs a summer camp and takes care of her son.
Birdie's intention: Keep Fearne safe while she and Ollie further investigate Rudius.
Impact: Fearne has over 100 years stolen from her by a known hag and they may have unintentionally helped build a device that does something and accidental trading their daughter to said fatestitching hag.
It doesn't matter what their intentions were anymore because the impact has irreversibly changed Fearne's life, a life they accidental traded away.
54 notes
·
View notes
just needed to say but its 100% ok to write characters out-of-character.
if you craft a version of a character that is completely different from the canon character its not necessarily bad writing and that fact alone doesn't make you a bad writer in any capacity.
its ok to use a preexisting character as a starting place to write your own characters even if you're not changing names or changing a lot about them. I've read and adored a bunch of fics where the characters are definitely not like they are in canon and if i saw that version of the character in the show id be so confused. but I'm decidedly not watching the show, im reading your fic and im completely immersed in your version of the character.
using characters as a vessel to make your own story based on your own experiences is not in any way inferior to writing fix-its of canon or adhering exclusively to canon characterizations. not everyone will enjoy it or read it because no tropes or ways of writing will appeal to everyone, but there will always be someone that enjoys your work and appreciates what you do.
writing is fucking difficult no matter which angle you choose to take. and theres no trope or plot or personal experience that you can't write for any character because there are no laws of writing that say you have to stick to your source material.
its still a good idea to tag if you're characters don't adhere to canon characterizations just because like any trope your reader wants to be able to know what they'll be reading beforehand (and it'll help clarify that the mischaracterization is not an accident you forgot to edit but just how you chose to write this character)
basically your writings are still good and valid even if it wouldn't happen in the show. in some cases "they wouldn't do that in the show" is a damn compliment.
12 notes
·
View notes
it's not about that you "have" to get to exercise your autonomy. b/c like, yes you do, but not in the way that "if i don't get to do that Now i will explode & evaporate (& die)" which is what people keep leveraging to be like "so you don't have any valid argument for getting to act out your own choices"
therein is another issue of "why do you need a 'valid argument' to get Exceptions as ruled by this person to exist autonomously, unpunished" like why's this person an authority who gets to punish you. nonrhetorically, why do you have to appeal to their maybe possibly deciding to Let you be a person. should you "have" to.
and if you don't get that Permission that you supposedly "have" to get, you also will not immediately explode and die if you do that unpermitted thing, but shocking how "you don't Haaaave to" is only invoked re: things you want to do for yourself, and not what they want you to do for them....because it's Not Really About "Literally literally Haaaaving to"
the alignment between people getting on one for years about asexuality, and while doing so maxing out the saturation on their bullshit on any & everything, b/c you're just getting into anti autonomy, so ofc you're also just stoking & expressing "arguments" against autonomy that are deployed in plenty of other contexts, including against other queer identities....and that particular resonance with biphobia & transphobia, and how either groups are theoretically thwarting the Truest Gays because how will we have a valid argument against the truest cishets agenda if we can't convince them we haaaaaave to be like this instead of that no, we won't explode & die if we have to be repressed or at least closeted another day, and another, and you won't explode after another, either, etc. rather than thee point of "asexuality autonomy = queer autonomy = Your queer autonomy = Anyone's Autonomy" and "why do we 'have' to Convince anyone to go 'oh alriiiight' abt one's choices about how they express their identity, what decisions they make about having sex"....it's about anyone having the power to preclude & restrict others' autonomy & constrain their existence between one kind of more imminent, immediate harm/death & a more drawn out one where you exist as a resource for others' use but at least you aren't Literally dead today. so what if someone's saying "well i don't think your gender/sexuality stuff is Real" so long as they can't get in the way of other people living that out anyways. so what if someone's supposedly like "well, but everyone could be bi" (which they don't. just like ppl were never 'pretending' to be asexual to nefariously stand around in the queer space that never rigorously vetted everyone anyways? Making Up A Guy To Get Mad At) to supposedly argue that if all of you are bi you can just restrict yourself to the Cishet Appearing manifestations (which they don't) where what's that even matter if this [guy to get mad at] can't make that anyone else's problem? if he can, why can he. should he be able to. that's the problem, not "have we all tried the constant biphobia wherein they're always thwarting & sabotaging the rest of us?? like how trans people are keeping us from being legitimate?? with the opportunity for some trans people to also try declaring other noncis people Not Legitimately Trans?? well the cishet agenda loves asexuals, actually, they want everyone to never have sex ever (they don't want that, and that's not what being asexual is)"
using the "you can't Know through Direct Perception or extrasensory phenomena what someone else's Thoughts And Feelings are" both ways; wherein their assertion of their intentions, true or not, gets to be treated as an assertion of Reality, meanwhile b/c Your intentions/thoughts/feelings can't be directly observed, you're just lying or exaggerating or misremembering or failing to Express yourself correctly b/c they would've surely interpreted it correctly otherwise, or [anything else] re: your inner experiences that you can't "prove" are one way or another, so this other person gets to always decide for themself what they must be (why?) and if they just so happen to decide they Must be in alignment with what they want (good) or unacceptably, evilly, incorrectly Against Them, they also get to flex their control over the entire situation via their Authority / control over resources / the person's lack of other options b/c of isolation & that, say, breaking away from a family, job, marriage or just deemed correctly romantic relationship, is punished by the larger system of How Things Are, through a lack of resources that makes you more vulnerable in general as well as vulnerable to further punishment in how you might try to respond to that situation, through the general stance that maintaining cohesion of a Unit like the nuclear family, the "romantic" "man"/"woman" couple, is good, so breaking from it is deviant........anyways it's like. if you're like "well i'm having sex b/c i want to" and someone is like "well i say YOURE LYING" like, what? "isn't there someone you forgot to ask" shit. why should that get to affect things. whether you're like "oh no. what if they could say 'you're lying...b/c how do i knowwww you're not BI. where you could want to have sex with someone BESIDES this one person rn?? or ACE??? if you Don't have sex rn and you Don't explode and die 5 min later we will Know you Could Be Asexual" like, this isn't how it works anyways obviously but theoretically if it did: we would not be like "oh sorry guess that's what matters" unless what mattered was some people's being lower on a hierarchy and at the quite literal disposal of those with more power than them. what would the crisis be of someone going "well i think. every gay person? is bi" or someone going "you've just told me your name is gloria but i think your name is actually tetris...." or "i'm so embarrassed i wish everyone but me was dead" if none of these things can hinder the existence of people having sex w/autonomy for all involved or people getting to tell you their name or all other people being alive
the banger quote on my imdb page was saying "no, i don't 'Have' to, but i'm going to" to an authoritarian in my life, concluding several minutes' "negotiation" of [i 'have' to hang up on this call now b/c the movie i'm standing in this movie theater to see is about to start. no i won't explode and die if i don't. i also won't explode and die if i don't keep "talking" to you (being Talked At / lectured & upbraided from afar)] funny how that works. i also Know this was a checkmate b/c that person gave up on responding (or, technically, switched to The Silent Treatment, which worked even worse via phone than in person) and i did hang up rather than miss the movie i showed up for and then they had to resort to Other Methods: telling someone willing to take on the enabling cop mode that i had Essentially said Go Fuck Yourself. like well that's right, and the fact that it's a "go fuck yourself" to get to say "i am going to end the call b/c i choose to do something else" and then actually do so is a real testament to this relationship. and if one had said "i can't keep talking, i have to go" and someone's like "sldfj you mean thou MAY not keep talking" teehee i don't know, CAN you have the peas????? it's like this obviously doesn't matter. i can choose to do shit and choose to not do shit without exploding and dying right this very second, except for taking 5 sec to eat a deadly bomb with a timer set for 5 sec. This Is Not The Point. why is autonomy off-limits to Anyone.
5 notes
·
View notes
TL;DR: Steam just made library sharing so much fucking easier and so much fucking better. Instead of login-trading, it's just a simple goddamn invite.
Read this. Really. It's a good read. Because it shows that, full-stop, Valve isn't just doubling down on their stance to make sure that people can and should be able to share their copies of digital goods as easily as they can physical ones, but they're making it better and easier than ever.
But you know how Steam allowed you to, with either friends or family, link accounts with another person to be able to establish an ability to share game libraries with one another? The general gist of Steam Family Sharing was that, with a limit of five people plus you (six in total) on a limit of ten computers total could share account access to willingly mix your libraries. You could play theirs. They could play yours.
This was a huge boon. It was meant to emulate sharing a physical copy of a game. A way to allow children to play games their parents or siblings had bought without having to fork over double the cash to buy it a second game. But it had some major limitations and drawbacks, and was archaic to use.
If a person did not share the same computer, you had to manually log into that computer to give it and the accounts on it access. This wouldn't be a problem if both accounts were used on the same computer, but many households (and astronomically more family and friend groups) had multiple computers, all used by different people.
If that computer, at any point, was hard reset to any point before the sharing occurred, you lost access. And had to do the whole process again. This was also an issue with computer transfers. The whole kit and kaboodle needed to be redone on upgrades. On top of that, the old computer is now just dead weight that you may not realize you have to manually revoke access to.
Putting your account information on another person's computer opens up security issues. They could, intentionally or accidentally, land themselves on your account if the login information was stored. Which could easily lead to purchases or bans you did not want to happen.
If anyone was, at any point, playing any game on their own library, you had no access to their games. Even if it was a totally different game, you had to wait your turn as if waiting for their computer to be freed up to sit at. (Admittedly this is kind of like the "mom said it's my turn on the xbox" meme, but hey, kinda archaic.)
You could not choose whose library you accessed a game from. Not at all. It always prioritized the first library it gained access from, DLC access and multiplayer be damned. If another friend you were accepting games from had more DLC? Too bad.
And yet here we are. Steam Families Beta fixes EVERYTHING about the above issues. By just going through Settings > Interface > client Beta Participation and clicking onto Steam Families Beta? You get:
No more login sharing.
No more computer links.
You can now choose which person's library you borrowed from.
And you can play any other game from someone's library, even while they're in-game. It just needs to be a different game than what they're playing.
Pick five people. Invite them to your family. And now everyone has access to everyone's library. My goddamn library went from 150-ish to almost a goddamn thousand in ten minutes of setup.
Account sharing and password sharing are dirty words that "lose" billions of dollars. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Max. They aren't game storefronts, but they still allow you to access massive libraries and scream like you murdered their firstborns for daring to share your password with your mother after you moved out.
Microsoft tried pushing to demonize and undercut used games sales and borrowed copies of physical games. Remember the first attempt to reveal the Xbox One? People forget, but these vultures tried to make an always online console that checked to see if you were the account that owned the game, even if you had a physical disc, and prevent access to the disc's contents if you weren't the original downloader.
Valve walked the fuck up.
Valve tapped the mic.
And Valve dropped the fucking thing right onto the ground with one feature's revamp.
About the only issues I can see with this are twofold:
If someone sharing your library gets banned from a game's servers... so do you. No one else in the family does, but the both of you do. This is... rather unpleasant, because banhammers can be dropped quite frequently by mistake. I'd urge Valve to rethink this one, but I see the logic: don't cheat and effectively bite the hand feeding you. Still making me side-eye that, though.
If you leave a family you've joined? You have to wait a YEAR to join a new one. It's to prevent people form jumping ship to another group and screwing over who's in the former one in the process, but a YEAR? OUCH.
Problems aside, though... it's probably the biggest fucking power move I have ever seen a media distributor make in the current economic climate. It's the kind of thing that would let so many new games be available in a way that's easier than ever. Just a few clicks to send or accept an invite, and bam. Permanent access to dozens or even hundreds of new games with so much more freedom than earlier drafts of the system.
It's the kind of thing that slaps you in the face with positivity after so many Ls from the games and media industries. And I'm all the fuck for a W like this.
9K notes
·
View notes
the thing about art is that it was always supposed to be about us, about the human-ness of us, the impossible and beautiful reality that we (for centuries) have stood still, transfixed by music. that we can close our eyes and cry about the same book passage; the events of which aren't real and never happened. theatre in shakespeare's time was as real as it is now; we all laugh at the same cue (pursued by bear), separated hundreds of years apart.
three years ago my housemates were jamming outdoors, just messing around with their instruments, mostly just making noise. our neighbors - shy, cautious, a little sheepish - sat down and started playing. i don't really know how it happened; i was somehow in charge of dancing, barefoot and laughing - but i looked up, and our yard was full of people. kids stacked on the shoulders of parents. old couples holding hands. someone had brought sidewalk chalk; our front walk became a riot of color. someone ran in with a flute and played the most astounding solo i've ever heard in my life, upright and wiggling, skipping as she did so. she only paused because the violin player was kicking his heels up and she was laughing too hard to continue.
two weeks ago my friend and i met in the basement of her apartment complex so she could work out a piece of choreography. we have a language barrier - i'm not as good at ASL as i'd like to be (i'm still learning!) so we communicate mostly through the notes app and this strange secret language of dancers - we have the same movement vocabulary. the two of us cracking jokes at each other, giggling. there were kids in the basement too, who had been playing soccer until we took up the far corner of the room. one by one they made their slow way over like feral cats - they laid down, belly-flat against the floor, just watching. my friend and i were not in tutus - we were in slouchy shirts and leggings and socks. nothing fancy. but when i asked the kids would you like to dance too? they were immediately on their feet and spinning. i love when people dance with abandon, the wild and leggy fervor of childhood. i think it is gorgeous.
their adults showed up eventually, and a few of them said hey, let's not bother the nice ladies. but they weren't bothering us, they were just having fun - so. a few of the adults started dancing awkwardly along, and then most of the adults. someone brought down a better sound system. someone opened a watermelon and started handing out slices. it was 8 PM on a tuesday and nothing about that day was particularly special; we might as well party.
one time i hosted a free "paint along party" and about 20 adults worked quietly while i taught them how to paint nessie. one time i taught community dance classes and so many people showed up we had to move the whole thing outside. we used chairs and coatracks to balance. one time i showed up to a random band playing in a random location, and the whole thing got packed so quickly we had to open every door and window in the place.
i don't think i can tell you how much people want to be making art and engaging with art. they want to, desperately. so many people would be stunning artists, but they are lied to and told from a very young age that art only matters if it is planned, purposeful, beautiful. that if you have an idea, you need to be able to express it perfectly. this is not true. you don't get only 1 chance to communicate. you can spend a lifetime trying to display exactly 1 thing you can never quite language. you can just express the "!!??!!!"-ing-ness of being alive; that is something none of us really have a full grasp on creating. and even when we can't make what we want - god, it feels fucking good to try. and even just enjoying other artists - art inherently rewards the act of participating.
i wasn't raised wealthy. whenever i make a post about art, someone inevitably says something along the lines of well some of us aren't that lucky. i am not lucky; i am dedicated. i have a chronic condition, my hands are constantly in pain. i am not neurotypical, nor was i raised safe. i worked 5-7 jobs while some of these memories happened. i chose art because it mattered to me more than anything on this fucking planet - i would work 80 hours a week just so i could afford to write in 3 of them.
and i am still telling you - if you are called to make art, you are called to the part of you that is human. you do not have to be good at it. you do not have to have enormous amounts of privilege. you can just... give yourself permission. you can just say i'm going to make something now and then - go out and make it. raquel it won't be good though that is okay, i don't make good things every time either. besides. who decides what good even is?
you weren't called to make something because you wanted it to be good, you were called to make something because it is a basic instinct. you were taught to judge its worth and over-value perfection. you are doing something impossible. a god's ability: from nothing springs creation.
a few months ago i found a piece of sidewalk chalk and started drawing. within an hour i had somehow collected a small classroom of young children. their adults often brought their own chalk. i looked up and about fifteen families had joined me from around the block. we drew scrangly unicorns and messed up flowers and one girl asked me to draw charizard. i am not good at drawing. i basically drew an orb with wings. you would have thought i drew her the mona lisa. she dragged her mother over and pointed and said look! look what she drew for me and, in the moment, i admit i flinched (sorry, i don't -). but the mother just grinned at me. he's beautiful. and then she sat down and started drawing.
someone took a picture of it. it was in the local newspaper. the summary underneath said joyful and spontaneous artwork from local artists springs up in public gallery. in the picture, a little girl covered in chalk dust has her head thrown back, delighted. laughing.
10K notes
·
View notes
oh... just had a sad thought. was skimming reddit for recipe ideas and came across a post with parents discussing tactics for helping their kids with very food aversion-restricted diets get enough nutrition and. i just thought to myself. i really wish i had had the luxury of refusing food i couldn't stand as a child. i still cringe at the thought of my mother's chicken soup. or pork chops. frozen mixed vegetables?? (if the veggies had even just been on the side, it would've been okay!! but mixed into every pasta dish i was allowed to eat? with an added guilt trip about the pasta and veggies being "friends" and that they'll miss each other if i don't eat them both, every time i complained??) (i didn't even dislike vegetables!! she just refused to ask how i wanted to eat them!!)
but i didn't have the luxury of refusing to eat the things i couldn't stand!! at best, i would have gone hungry. at worst, guilt tripped to hell and back, and left alone at the table till i could eat through the tears. and my intake was restricted by my parents' fatphobia enough, i couldn't afford to skip meals. sure i knew when my next meal would be (though snacking was not a Thing in our house) but when i'd be allowed to actually eat enough to feel full? (even though that always meant eating more than the people around me.... but if i'd been allowed to eat til i was full regularly that probably wouldn't have been the case) hell... i wasn't even allowed sweets most of the time. "only on weekends"
it makes me so sad and... aware of the hollowness inside me when i think about how little space there was for me in my own home and childhood.
and i was thinking similar thoughts this morning. about my asthma, and how cruel it was that in high school gym class i was forced to trigger it every single day to avoid both a failing grade and bullying from my teacher. i thought about what i would have said to the principal of the school if i had been in the shoes of one of my parents. how i would have put a stop to it. how much more i would have done beyond the angry letter my dad wrote the school to keep me from failing gym that was more about preserving my GPA than me.
but then i realized—if i had had a parent willing to stand up for me like that... why would they have waited until high school? why wouldn't that have been something done from the start, and kept consistent throughout my k-12 years? why, aside from that letter, was the only thing done for me about it the awful "not allowed to run" sign my mother pinned to my shirt the first day of kindergarten, and the rescue inhaler kept in the nurse's office? (an inhaler that by high school my parents wouldn't even bother signing the waiver for, so i was always afraid of getting in trouble for carrying it in my backpack)
if you ask my parents, i was always their first priority. my mother starts to cry every time she says as much.
but then why. why does all the evidence point to the contrary?
how do i reconcile being wanted and loved but not cared for?
0 notes