I am actually so serious I think it really messes with a childs creativity and joy to tell them to never make a mary sue OC. Like that unbridaled form of joy where you make a self insert OC who super cool and everyone loves them and they have every superpower in the world SHOULD be something a kid makes, it nourishes their ability to create things for fun and not be stifled by "oh but what if my character is too overpowered and cringey...". whatever
41K notes
·
View notes
I didn't have someone claiming that only royalty at Versailles were allowed any access to toilet facilities, and everyone else had to walk around with miniature chamber pots strapped to their butt under their dress (men were apparently outta luck!) on my "Versailles myth" bingo card, and yet here we are.
Anyone that knows Ben Franklin was at Versailles knows that man would have written home immediately wbout how the women at Versailles walk around with teeny-weeny chamber pots strapped to their bodies underneath their dresses.
Abigail Adams, too, for that matter. Just for different reasons...
263 notes
·
View notes
Note: I am finally posting this (something that has been in my drafts for actual months) because @pinkeoni hurt my feelings talking about Will and Alan Turing). So...you can inavertently thank Robin for this LMAO
I don’t delve much into Stranger Things analysis anymore, but having just watched The Imitation Game, the biopic they made about Alan Turning in 2014—I’m thinking that maybe Will doing his presentation on the man might have an delightful (secondary) parallel to this film’s exploration of him, given Will’s burgeoning queerness + ongoing relationship with normalcy.
Throughout the film, the ongoing theme of "differences bringing about greatness/change" permeates every character, but Turing especially—something that the conversation he has with a character named Joan near the end of the film showcases well:
In this conversation, Joan is trying to encourage Turing to come out of depression and rely on her, given he is struggling immensely with physical effects of chemical castration—which he obviously resents, but feels is better than giving up the life he has and being “entirely alone” because of his sexuality / desires (sound familiar)?
This ongoing exploration of queerness as tied to greatness and/or otherness is something that is very often explored in Stranger Things as well, primarily with Will—to the point where Will has nearly the exact conversation Alan has with Joan with Jonathan in S2:
—in addition to us exploring the relationship between a lack of normalcy, queerness and even nerdiness through/by other characters like Robin, Mike & Lucas.
Now (as we all know), Will’s homosexuality has been forever and inherently linked to his otherness/lack of normalcy—whether with how he was bullied in S1-S2, his struggle to be open with his feelings for Mike in S4, or the million literal / metaphorical things in between, Will has always been encouraged not to conform, but still struggles to self-actualize enough to embrace himself fully…which most of us expect for him come S5.
Basically: the underlying theme of this film for Turning (much like the underlying themes at the heart of ST) revolves around how most people strive for normalcy, despite normalcy being undesirable if you expect to do anything great/interesting. While Turing was a homosexual man, he was also one who struggled greatly with fitting in overall—much like Will, which I think perfectly reflects how the Duffers have set up their S5 resolution + solving Will’s ongoing internal struggle with his romantic feelings for Mike + ongoing dissonance with normalcy.
(sidebar: there are articles exploring the idea of "embracing difference" in this movie that parallel Will's "Being Different." See: Embracing Difference - The Imitation Game)
Both TIG!Turing and Will exist in on the fringes on their respective worlds due to their differences and homosexuality—just as both of them are both most inspired by their (romantic) love for their male best friends....to the point that those relationships define their contributions to the story: Turing with the machine that helped the Allied powers break the Nazi Enigma code, and Will in ways I'm sure we'll be talking about in 2025.
TL;DR: While Will still has another season to sort through what his love for his best friend means for both his rejection of normalcy and his greatness, it's fairly apparent that (much like Turing) it is the embracing of both difference and homosexuality that leads to greatness—no matter how the world feels about that overall.
(We love it when the gays learn life lessons (and when they win)).
105 notes
·
View notes
I love how some of the Deadfire companions don't like each other. I love how things can get so tense between Xoti and Pallegina or Maia and Tekēhu that they boil over into a big fight with harsh words and hurt feelings. I love how Aloth doesn't get into a fight with Tekēhu but absolutely will bitch about him in an aside to the Watcher. I love how the endgame has some companions drawing lines in the sand and, depending on your choices, basically tears your party apart. I'm so invested in the Watcher's inner-party conflict, and the fact these arguments are triggered automatically after banter makes it feel like you're watching their nerves fray in real time. It's sooooo spicy, i love it so much
73 notes
·
View notes
5 SECOND REVIEW
* why the FUCK did i not read this sooner omg
* i finished it in 2 sittings and it was a JOY and a MARVEL to read
* i instantly got transported to my childhood, when i remember reading and loving the fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm
* this was so, SO well written, I can't even, it took all of maybe 10 pages to get me completely hooked
* having the story set in East Asia and drawing both from the Wild Swans fairy tale and East Asian folklore was just... so good, so well crafted and the prose was beautiful
* i kept squealing every time i recognised elements from the story i read as a child, but at the same time, the plot twists???
* i cannot recommend this enough, truly, it was amazing
* 5/5 ⭐️
504 notes
·
View notes
Understanding 18th Century
There's a prevailing problem I've noticed in interpreting frev: people not really understanding that this was 18th century. Oh, they understand it on an intellectual level, but they still apply today's worldview to it. And you can't do that if you wish to understand wtf was going on.
(This is not about anyone here nor a shade at anyone in particular. Just a trend I've noticed, especially in bad takes).
All historical periods have this problem where people interpret things from the point of view of our own time. So that's hardly special about frev and 18c. But a tricky part is that 18c saw the development of things that we still use today (constitutions, voting system, etc.) that it may seem like it's more similar to our world than it actually was.
For example. The voting system. They had it and so do we. Except they were assholes who didn't allow women to vote. (Which is fair criticism, but people often forget that not all men had the right to vote either - so any criticism of exclusion should take that into account. Was it really about women per se, or about their ideas on who can and cannot make a free and rational vote? What is that they saw wrong about women and certain men voting? - Their attitude sure sucks, but if we ask these questions we understand better what was going on vs just going "sexist men", which only explains part of the issue). Or: journalism. They had political slander and so do we. But uuugh, their slander was so openly personal and often ridiculed someone's looks/sexual practices in supposedly serious political attacks - wtf was that? Or: trials. Of course we all know how trials are supposed to be done and what kind of arguments/evidence they should include. The fact they focused so much on character slander is incorrect and ridiculous, and...
Stop. Instead of assuming that they "did it incorrectly", think about: 1) how we do these things today is a product of decades/centuries of development; they didn't have that. They were only inventing it for the first time. 2) They did stuff according to their cultural beliefs. If they focused so much on character assassination as an argument, it means it was significant for their worldview.
You might not like it (and fair enough) but it's not possible to understand what was going on unless we understand how they thought and what they knew and what their worldview was. Which is not easy. It's not simply about knowing the state of scientific thought or what they believed about the world. Understanding how this affected the way they thought and how they interpreted things, or how they build meaning and conclusions - none of that is easy. But we have to question our assumptions, even if we're unable to see things from their pov. Because that's the only way not to arrive at wrong conclusions.
Similarly, many terms what they used had a different meaning to how they are used today (or, at least, they were understood in ways dissimilar to how we use them). Concepts such as despotism, tyranny, dictator, terror; also some seemingly easy to understand terms like "being a moderate" or even "patriotism". If we assume 18th century people used them in the same way that we do, we won't be able to understand wtf they are talking about.
116 notes
·
View notes
no home is so refreshing in it’s themes and the character writing, the kids go through all kinds of situations but they’re not by any means portrayed as tortured martyrs,, that’s something I appreciate a lot and it’s because the story takes it’s time to show many sides of conflict and how the mcs can be mean and unfair and don’t magically get their shit together at the end of an arc and not everyone understands why they’re like that and it’s so human !!!!!!!!!!! read no home by wanan 🫂
125 notes
·
View notes