#in fact i would argue that in most cases NOT being that is a failure of artistic vision

[thedreadvampy]

my god people who send Neil Gaiman asks don't half talk some fucking shite

#'what's the Real Canon?' shut up #'mr Gaiman mr Gaiman please clear up the ambiguity in your highly metaphorical story what is the Single True Meaning?' shhhhh #the latest one to pop my melons is 'excuse me sir i think you're a good writer but i don't like horror. why would you write horror?' #they appear to be legitimately confused that horror can include elements that are transcendental and spiritually powerful #AS IF THAT'S NOT WHAT DEFINES A LOT OF GOOD HORROR #like oh my god. not everything has to be tailored to your personal fucking taste #for real I'm generally not a Nobody Has Any Media Literacy These Days kinda guy #but reading asks on Neil Gaiman's page may change my mind #do any of you understand. The concept. of art? #art is allowed to be discomforting ambiguous and not to everyone's taste #in fact i would argue that in most cases NOT being that is a failure of artistic vision #bc like. if you can explain everything if you can explain its meaning if you leave no room for interpretation #then what's the art FOR you could just SAY those things #if you aren't discomforted by it then you're limited in your ability to find catharsis in it #if it's prepared. to express something meaningful personal or philosophical then there WILL be people who will not vibe with it #and that's ok! but it's also what art is MEANT TO DO #red said

[jasontoddenthusiastt]

BFTC isn’t really a case of terrible characterization for Jason so much as it was a terrible case of victim blaming. Like yeah, some of the things Jason did were a bit extreme compared to his “better” appearances, but that’s nothing new and pretty much true of many stories that aren’t utrh or lost days. The bad parts are are also definitely exaggerated by fans.

The story isn’t centered on Jason. Of course every other character’s description of Jason would be knee-jerk dismissive and misunderstanding, since (again) the intention was to make Jason out to be the cartoony bad guy villain. But if you look past the layers of grime they added, the bare bones of his characterization are not entirely incorrect. It’s a biased story in which their intended criticisms of Jason’s morals often fell short, so to compensate they deliberately cranked up his motivations to be more extreme and unrealistic (but one which, nonetheless got Jason’s overall thoughts and goals relatively consistent with stories that portrayed him accurately).

Yes, him shooting Damian was out of character, but granted we’re all in agreement that it was a true case of “bad writing decision”, I don’t think it’s hard to look past. The only other bit people probably complain about (which felt iffy at worst) was him being “a bit enthusiastic” at times in trying to convince Dick to become another lethal Batman (you can just as easily say Jason wouldn’t have been personally invested enough to have acted in the way he did). I don’t care though because he was probably doing it for shits and giggles, and it was funny watching him push their buttons on his spare time while being excellent at his job. Same old ‘none of them deny that he’s effective, they just can’t get behind the killing’ conflict.

Looking past the fact that Jason still had a valid point, the “he’s the bad guy” plot falls apart for other obvious reasons, which happen in the 3rd issue. It’s kind of hard to focus on how much of a bitch Jason’s being when the other characters are written in an infinitely more problematic way (which ends up happening in most “hate Jason” stories). Not only did they heavily imply Jason is a victim of SA, but the way Dick/the batfamily treats Jason about this is … horrible. Arguing that this was a case of character assassination for Bruce and Dick would be more realistic than using this story to claim Jason is a Bad Person™.

Even though Bruce does have a bad track record with his perspective on victims of SA.

Hey. Maybe listen to the living person begging you to turn it off.

Geez. I wonder why he never felt safe enough to confide in Bruce or any of the rest of them. Implying that enduring what he did made him “broken beyond repair”, that he needs to be “fixed”, and saying verbatim, “you are my greatest failure”, not “I failed you greatly”. Then deciding on behalf of Jason that a bunch of people who weren’t involved in what happened to him should all know about this so they can decide what should be done. And everyone agrees with this garbage. Unbelievable.

Aka, any sort of healing he may have tried to accomplish was ruined by you lot. When exactly am I supposed to see that Jason was evil all along.

The story collapses in on itself in the third issue because where Dick is supposed to be at his prime within the arc, he just sort of rambles about how Jason was a shitty victim and then awkwardly shifts to talking about personal growth and coming to accept his own heroic destiny.

I do resent this, but not because “Jason sucks here”. Jason’s “bad portrayal” pales in comparison to the problematic mindsets given to the other characters (namely Dick) which were framed as good-natured intentions and “tough love”. As for people who describe this as “vilifying Jason to prop up Dick” … I don’t really know what to make of that.

#my post #the way they constantly go out of their way to praise Jason’s marksmanship and overall combat skills #and how everyone he killed died because he meant for them to #and Tim and Damian weren’t critically injured. he didn’t attack them with the intention to kill and it’s obvious #not only that it’s made clear they were both wearing heavy duty kevlar #and considering Jason’s an expert on this stuff himself he knew it wouldn’t really do long term damage. #he also knows how to attack people to do any specific kind of damage. if you claim that about Bruce smashing a dude’s skull #against a brick wall and not killing him then you can claim the same thing for Jason #but of course people will always dwell on inconsequential bullshit and try to make a grand point out of it if it’s about Jason #even as they point out that it was a dumb decision made by the writers #‘Jason was violent towards children' do you want me to never shut up again about who is consistently violent with his own children? #not only was this pretty tame compared to the things Bruce has done to Jason and the other batkids #in the majority of his appearances Jason has always been deeply sympathetic and caring towards kids #hence why people always point out how this is a shitty outlier

[thagomizersshow]

I said a few days ago that I’d share my criticisms of Jurassic Park, so here goes. At its core, JP is a movie that has one message in the text and another in the subtext, and this all comes down to why of the park’s failure.

The film’s dialogue famously ascribes the failure of the park to hubris; don’t mess around in god’s play place (aka genetics) because you don’t know what will happen. Ian Malcolm’s "life finds a way” criticisms of the park are portrayed by the characters as correct. Malcolm even says that “he hates being right all the time.” It’s also worth mentioning that Michael Crichton and Steven Spielberg have both been interviewed on the message of Jurassic Park, and they both said it is about the misuse of science, in agreement with Malcolm.

That is the text. This all-too-common sci-fi story about humanity meddling in the domain of the gods. Which, BY THE WAY, did not originate with Frankenstein as I said in one of my earliest videos. I’ll argue now that lumping Frankenstein in with JP and other “man’s hubris” stories is an oversimplification and possibly even a straight up misreading, but that’s a WHOLE ‘nother post.

Now, when we look at the events of the story, rather than the dialogue, a different message is revealed. Looking at the actions that actually lead to the failure of the park, it’s clear scientists failing to account for something has nothing to do with it.

Yes, the dinosaurs turn out to be breeding, but this has zero effect on the events of the film. Maybe if they had included the raptors changing sex, like they do in the novel, this argument would have a leg to stand on, but as the film exists the discovery of breeding dinosaurs makes no difference to the plot. You honestly could cut this scene out and the film wouldn’t miss a beat.

The real reason for the park’s fall is much more mundane: Hammond didn’t pay one of his workers enough.

Dennis Nedry is honestly one of the most disgusting portrayals of a “disgruntled employee” ever put to screen. He’s written to be the least sympathetic character possible; he’s messy, annoying, gluttonous, physically inept, and to top it all off, of course he’s fat, a trait most often given to characters who are either comic relief or villains. So, when he complains about not being paid well enough, the audience is already primed to think of him as unworthy of sympathy.

This in spite of his clearly incredible feat of automating the entire park single handed. Nedry’s decision after being fucked over by a multi-billion dollar company — like anyone with a backbone — is to try and fuck them right back. In this case, it was by stealing their shit, which may not have been the best choice (workplace organizing, man, c’mon), but I honestly can’t fault him for it. He deserved better than to be the audience’s hate sink, and we can put full blame on the writers and director for creating such a vile representation of a worker.

All this to say that the theme park’s failure, and all the deaths it caused, fall on John Hammond’s shoulders. Not because he “didn’t stop to think if he should.” Not because “life finds a way.” But because he treated a worker like shit who knew more about the thing they made than he did.

Now, finally, I want to address the fact that I’m not the first person to make a Marxist analysis of JP. In fact, Idea Channel made a video on this topic forever ago, and there are literal academic papers on this topic well worth reading. The point I want to make is not just that JP says something about capitalism, but that the subtextual message about capitalism is at odds with the textual message about the hubris of scientific advancement, AND this degrades the film’s quality massively in my eyes.

If Nedry was portrayed as sympathetic, if Hammond’s abuse wasn’t glossed over, if someone called Malcolm out on how he isn’t right all the time, then MAYBE this movie could be an actual good commentary on capitalism. But as it stands, it feels like it ignores the questions its own story brings up, and even worse, is really mean spirited towards fat people and workers who’ve been wronged.

As much as I love SO much about Jurassic Park, including acting, cinematography, effects, editing (honestly SUCH good editing), the script itself falls apart so badly at the seams I struggle to enjoy it the way I used to. This, combined with the fact the series has turned into a nostalgia driven sludge machine, and I just can’t bring myself to engage with this franchise in a positive way anymore. 

#jurassic park #movies #crit post

[utilitycaster]

So, not gonna lie, I’m having trouble understanding this arc and what story the cast is telling, I’m hoping you can help me understand a little bit, are the gods good or bad? Should we be against them? Or is it a thing of “even the gods can make mistakes, their not above criticism and analyzation. And this is humanizing them.” I don’t know, I’m confused.

Hi anon,

If I may, you cannot know the exact story that’s being told by an ongoing improvised show until it completes, and stories for adults often do not have a clear good/bad split but rather encourage you to draw your own conclusions. As a result, I think it is impossible to answer the question that was asked, but I can try to provide some insight.

In Exandria, there are both good and neutral-aligned gods (Prime Deities) and evil-aligned gods (Betrayer Gods), and these gods explicitly oppose each other; they have only rarely come together as when, along with the primordial titans (post-Schism, loosely allied with the Betrayer Gods) they sealed Predathos. The Ruby Vanguard is against all of the gods, whether Prime or Betrayer, and in favor of Predathos. In the past, most heroic characters we’ve seen have been affiliated with either the Prime Deities or with entities who are neither, and most villainous characters we’ve seen in the past that were associated with a god were associated with Betrayer Gods.

During this arc, we’ve seen a lot of people’s opinions on the gods, and we’ve seen the actions of various people, affiliated and unaffiliated, with the gods. But we’ve actually only quite briefly seen the gods themselves, during FCG’s two castings of Commune, and the Dawnfather’s visitation upon Deanna. So, in the interest of guiding people towards developing their own conclusion on the gods: Would you form an opinion based solely on the opinion others have about something? Or would you take into account their biases, their reputations, and the structures of their arguments, and if possible, go straight to the source?

The Ruby Vanguard and Paragon’s Call, as well as people who have found meaning in Ludinus’s speech, have fallen into three broad categories:

Some, like Tuldus or the people of Hearthdell, have suffered at the hands of those who worship the gods. Whether this is the will of the gods or not is unconfirmed.

Some, like Liliana Temult, and possibly Ludinus Da’Leth, have suffered in life in general, and see this as a failure of the gods. This in fact touches on the question of theodicy (“if there is a god, why does evil exist/occur”) which has been a core question of religious philosophy in the real world for at least four millennia. I do not think we are going to be the ones to answer that definitively.

Some, like the various underlings at the Tishtan site, are merely apathetic. The gods don’t mean anything, good or bad, to them, and they are getting paid to help build and protect the key, so who really cares what happens.

The player characters we’ve seen this campaign have, with the occasional exception of Imogen (whose opinions fall weakly towards the middle category), either been in favor of the gods; apathetic but have not been given any incentive towards releasing Predathos; or apathetic/neutral but have suffered at the hands of those who worship Predathos. Indeed, one can argue that everyone except Deanna and FRIDA have suffered in some way at the hands of those who worship Predathos by being teleported at random. Certainly all of Bells Hells has by being attacked and in some cases murdered.

Now: I think that the point of this exercise is to help you make your own decisions, but I’ll reveal my bias. I think the most consistent message of this arc is what Ashton, Orym, and Laudna have been saying the entire time: regardless of whether the gods are good or not, as individual entities or as a greater system of power, people have always had free will. And regardless of whether the gods are good or not, Ludinus, Otohan, and other members of the Ruby Vanguard have slaughtered innocent bystanders without a second thought. I think the most important takeaway is that the primary source of both good and evil in the world of Exandria is, and always has been, mortals. The gods of the story are real within the story, but from the perspective of an outside viewer? This seems almost purely metaphorical to me. If things are less than ideal - if parts of complex systems have at times perpetuated harm, perhaps - should we introduce an unknown force with its own unknown potential to do harm to destroy them? Or should we work to address the issues within the existing system and at the very least gather considerably more information before asking something that might be even worse to rescue us?

#answered #Anonymous #cr tag

[fishyfishyfishtimes]

“unfortunately plesiosaurs, which were oceanic, almost certainly could not thrive in a cold lake in Scotland”

I know you didn’t say this, but while the temperature and size of the lake matter, its very possible the salinity doesn’t matter that much for aquatic reptiles except for buoyancy. I know from research (listen, i had a dream that made me curious) that sea turtles can do just fine in freshwater and they actually use freshwater to help dehydrated ones in rehab.

We cant be 100% sure how the late oceanic reptiles handled salt, but it wouldn’t be surprising if they handled it much the same by being good at excreting the excess.

I’m rather certain tumblr user transcyberism did indeed mostly mean the size and temperature of a lake compared to the open ocean! Loch Ness is pretty big, the biggest freshwater loch of Great Britain by volume, in fact, but you know, it would not compare to conditions of the sea in many ways. But, what I’m really focused on here is, I wouldn’t say sea turtles do just fine in freshwater? I hate to argue so firmly but a few sources indicate that sea turtles, while they can survive in freshwater for a while, suffer through quite a few bad side effects due to them being adapted to saltwater specifically and can even die prematurely due to long term exposure. Some sea turtles can survive in freshwater for years, sure… but I would call it just that, survival. Stress, a weakened immune system and even organ failure isn’t particularly nice! Using freshwater to rehydrate them seems logical, but it’s not a long term living situation. I don’t know if that’s the case for other marine reptiles, but it seems to be the case for sea turtles.

That being said, I agree on your last point! Extinct marine reptiles most likely would also have mechanisms to expel excess salt, yes.

#also im a tad confused on why send me this when i did not even make the original point? /nm #oh well. apologies anon! #asks #anonymous asks #anon #anonymous #aquatic

[bethanydelleman]

Jane Austen Characters and Neurodiversity

Jane Austen wrote characters who feel so real and interesting that scholars have been arguing about them almost since they were written. People identify with many aspects of characters that probably weren’t intended by the author, including reading Emma Woodhouse and Charlotte Lucas (among others) as queer. Headcanons are great and if you see yourself, as a neurodiverse person, in an Austen character, that is awesome. This post is only my opinion and I’m not an expert. It is also impossible to make a diagnosis based on a 200 year old book.

The main reason I don't attribute the behaviour of Jane Austen's characters to anything clinical is because I think Jane Austen was trying to show how wealth and the single-minded pursuit of wealth can twist people. Darcy is in the top 1% (or even the top 1% of the 1%) and even today, those sort of people don't come off as normal even if they are neurotypical. I think most of the characters' behaviour can be accounted for by 1. being extremely wealthy/powerful meaning they are unchallenged in a way that magnifies their faults, 2. the fact that most of these people don’t have jobs and are therefore idle and under-stimulated (even a lot of the ones who have “jobs”), 3. attention seeking behaviour and 4. being surrounded by fawning Yes Men.

There is also the complicated discussion of maybe neurodiversity would explain some behaviour but it does not excuse.

There are only two Austen characters that strike me as having some sort of possible psychiatric illness or neurodivergence: Mr. Woodhouse (Emma) and Anne Steele (Sense and Sensibility).

Anne Steele is the only character who is actually incapable of following social rules. She is about thirty years old, and yet twice in the novel she is kept from making a huge breach of decorum by her younger sister. She is obsessed with Marianne’s clothes/appearance, to the point of asking what the fabric and washing costs. Importantly, Anne is not wealthy or powerful enough to ignore social rules. She is trying to court favour most of the time and yet cannot manage it without Lucy’s help. Also, she is distressed that Lucy will no longer trim her bonnets, which suggests she is incapable of doing it herself. I’m not sure how difficult it is to change ribbons in a bonnet, but it stood out to me as a little odd.

The other is Mr. Woodhouse. He is tricky for me. We are told he’s basically been like this all his life, so it’s not a case of dementia (though that could be making him worse).

The evil of the actual disparity in their ages (and Mr. Woodhouse had not married early) was much increased by his constitution and habits; for having been a valetudinarian all his life, without activity of mind or body, he was a much older man in ways than in years; and though everywhere beloved for the friendliness of his heart and his amiable temper, his talents could not have recommended him at any time. (Ch 1)

Also, his health anxiety can’t only be a manifestation of grief from losing his wife, because again, we are told he’s always been this way and he married late in life. One of the interesting things is that he’s not just worried about his health, he is incapable of imagining that other people are unlike him in their health or even thoughts. That is a failure of theory of mind, a major developmental milestone.

He could have some form of anxiety, probably comorbid with something that accounts for his inability to understand others, but then again, he’s a very rich man that no one ever disagrees with... which makes me think there is a chance he’s just a health conspiracy theorist who’s gone off the deep end. This would fit better into Jane Austen’s overall thesis that wealth screws people up too. (Note: Isabella is very similar to her father. Anxiety disorders can run in families but she does seem to tolerate being challenged better than her father.)

Lastly, despite being so concerned about his health, Mr. Woodhouse is never actually ill during the novel, while other characters do have recorded illnesses. Isabella, who shares her father’s fears, has born five healthy children. So whatever is wrong doesn’t seem to effect them physically very much.

Another Note: I have heard an argument for Fanny Price having ASD based on her inability to stand the noise or eat the food at her home in Portsmouth. I found this compelling, but I think we are meant to understand that the noise is overwhelming and everyone else is just used to it.

Last Note: To reiterate, I am not arguing that anyone’s headcanon is wrong. A headcanon is meant to be something that can’t be proved or disproved by the book. I just personally don’t see enough evidence in the text for most other characters to fit a psychological diagnosis or neurodivergence, especially Darcy. Being the coddled child of overindulgent parents who told him the planet revolved around him because he was so rich and important seems like a pretty good explanation for his behaviour to me! (and is what he says in the book).

#neurodiversity in austen #jane austen #this is how I read Austen #I think she was describing the human condition under wealth #I think we sometimes forget that these are all pampered trust-fund kids #and people wishing they were trust-fund kids #many of the men are absurdly wealthy

[barid-bel-medar]

Aizawa is the worse teacher since 1-A can’t trust him due to his “logical rises,” he can “expel” you based on his personal standards over UA’s, basically expects his students to solve/fix their own problems or use other students to do it meanwhile can secretly train a student outside his class to replace one of his own current students. (Shinso was completely being trained to replace someone in 1-A you can’t convince me otherwise.)

You know what, putting this under a cut since this is Aizawa critical and I doubt if you're a fan of his you're terribly interested in reading that. Also really hoping this doesn't pop up in his tag since I really don't enjoy posting criticism of a character in their own tag...

It always kinda bugs me about how the kids probably don't trust really trust him as an educator and this is never touched on. I think the thing is that the kids trust him the sense they trust him to keep them alive, but it's kinda illogical that they'd trust him to either be a competent or trustworthy teacher; see the fact he's the one who repeatedly has the most failures between the First Year heroics course isn't really a good sign. Like during first trimester finals only Monoma fails for 1-B, and they all pass the Licensing Exam. We got multiple 1-A students failing finals and during the licensing exam two 1-A students failed, which is not a great look. Hell, Aizawa even acknowledges that between him and Kan, Kan is the better teacher.

I'd actually argue his plan wasn't to expel someone from 1-A and replace them with Shinso. The thing is, during the Joint Simulation arc part of the point of it is to see which of the classes he'd better fit in. Otherwise he wouldn't be on teams with students with both classes. I also suspect UA does in a sense have a certain amount of 'extra' spots in case a Gen Ed student shows enough promise during the Sports Festival or additional mentor-ship with one of the teachers (since I sincerely doubt Aizawa is the first to ever do it). You aren't really guaranteed one of the heroics kids will fuck up to the point they deserve to be replaced, while at the same time a Gen Ed or other track student who's interested in transfer, show they are deserving of a spot.

I also feel it needs to be pointed out if USJ had never happened, he'd probably never have had any interest in training Shinso. Like, we can assume it's very unlikely first of all he's ever actually taught one of the homerooms he's previously been given, and more likely has done a blend of administrative assistant and sub work. In Japan it's incredibly uncommon for homeroom teachers to not be students' homeroom teachers for all three years. Also when we do see what are apparently the Second Years he expelled the year before we get absolutely no hint that after he re-enrolled them he taught them. Actually I'd say, especially with the way the one student commented on it and the rather incredulous looks the others had they probably didn't. We get very little impression that he either likes or really wants to teach (remember, he's not even the one who sent in the job application as we're shown in Vigilantes). So I don't think he'd normally go out his way to privately train someone unless he's had a sort of traumatic moment like USJ. Though. I would also say it's not a great look that he's not giving any outside training to his actual homeroom students, especially in light of how some do seem to be struggling and while you can argue they get additional training at internships, not all of 1-A got internships at first, and only really did during the winter because the HPSC made it a requirement. Which does actually now make me wonder if in theory you can go through all three years without ever doing one in the past, or if it was purely a requirement for Second and Third Years.

But yeah there’s a lot of issues with him as an educator that I really wish the series would at least touch on more.

#aizawa critical #read more

[acorrespondence]

☔ !!

☔ Is there a fic concept you have that you'd like to just explain and share because you're not sure you'll ever write it? If so, what is it?

Oh there absolute is and I was really hoping I’d get this one, thank you for sending it! The working title for this fic is “Six Places Wynn Duffy Might Be (But Probably Isn’t)” and it’s probably the most insane and cracky fic idea I’ve ever had—kind of inspired by Timothy Olyphant’s character in The Office—but I really really love it. It’s multimedia, and the basic premise is that Rachel sends Raylan a file with six different leads in it, all of them documenting the possible location and assumed identity of Wynn Duffy. Each lead is a crossover with a different other TV show. The first item is a transcript from Troy and Abed in the Morning, discussing whether or not the new security systems professor and women’s tennis coach at Greendale is actually some kind of disgraced/retired crime lord, based on the evidence that he made several strange comments: one a reference to the job not being exactly what he wants but “at least no one’s throwing bullets at me.”

The second is a town meeting transcript from Pawnee, Indiana discussing the presence of a new food truck run out of an RV called Win-a-Bagel, with some citizens concerned that it’s a scam and/or money-laundering scheme, while other residents argue that it’s not worth looking into and possibly jeopardizing their opportunity to win free bagels. The one after that is a transcript from a documentary about a paper company called Dunder Mifflin currently in production in Scranton, Pennsylvania; specifically, interviews with/about a new hire named Larry Mawkins, who according to his own reports was previously a very unpopular motivational speaker/life coach, until one day the lone member of his audience killed himself in the middle of the seminar. One colleague in particular, Dwight Schrute, has become convinced that it’s impossible for anyone to be that much of a general bore and total failure at life unless it was intentional to make people underestimate and dismiss him, leading to the theory that he’s on the run from either the cops or the mob. Their other colleagues weigh in on the realism and likelihood of this theory. However, Larry Mawkins has since disappeared without warning, having stopped showing up to work the day after a new hire named Danny Cordray joined the staff.

The next two were a lot more vague and sketchy and I was having trouble trying to find shows that Duffy-in-disguise would fit into. The one I got the farthest with would have been a newspaper article from Santa Barbara where Shawn Spencer claims that all of the houses in a recent string of “unconnected” robberies were in fact installed by the same man, despite all being from different companies. When police looked into it, they realized that none of the companies had been made aware of these installations. However, all the names used with the clients were fake names, so there was no way to track down the culprit, and the rash of robberies ended, leaving the case cold. After that, I had a couple ideas that I couldn’t figure out how to fit into the structure: either a loan shark or a rival banana stand owner (who possibly also sold drugs) in Arrested Development was one, and Darryl from Crazy Ex Girlfriend’s new boyfriend, whom everyone agrees is sketchy and probably a criminal, was another.

And then, of course, number six: an extreme (and therefore extremely blurry) zoom on the background of an image posted to Instagram, centered on someone who could possibly be Wynn Duffy, actually on a beach somewhere in Fiji—and lying in the sand next to him is a guy who looks suspiciously like Neal Caffrey ;)

(Ask Game here)

#ask game #wynn duffy #justified #my fic #buck-aka-deputy-buck #thank you so much for the ask this was so funny i really wish i could have done this idea justice #justie2justie communication #writing #six places wynn duffy might be (but probably isn’t) #larry mawkins aka the funniest thing i will probably ever come up with #crossover #crossover shows in order are: community parks and rec the office psych arrested development crazy ex girlfriend and white collar

[itmeblog]

hey! i have context for you, re: the thing that both tonia and the person on bluesky would have have been responding to. it's towards the end of anonymousad's hellishly long and weird shelterwood takedown and it, uh, doesn't exactly make them look any better. if you want to see if you can """read and understand""" (lmao, you're right, that sucks so bad) the true meaning of their words, here they are, in full context so as to avoid accusations of cherrypicking! "as an example, let's look at the Afflicted Season 2 crowdfunding campaign that just ended in failure.

this was a FIXED GOAL campaign. they were asking for $23,500 USD and they only made it to $13,283, just over 50% of the way there. so they got none of it. it was all or nothing and the result this time was nothing.

and that really sucks for a lot of reasons.

I had some criticisms about that campaign that I kept to myself at the time, in part because diverse voices in audio drama is really important. Afflicted provided a lot of opportunities for marginalized creators to get established and share their unique voices. so often the campaigns that are getting met are the ones that continue to prop up the same types of voices and experiences as we've all heard before.

I am much more interested in the unique horror that a show like Afflicted is bringing to the table as a production driven by a Black woman than I am with hearing from the same types of voices we are used to. we have a lot of similar people making stuff in the community, and frankly a lot of our "diversity" is mostly driven by being white and queer. these voices are important too and there's a lot that is good, but that is the majority in this space. that's why we need to make sure we are getting opportunities to the people who don't have the privilege or connections.

this is a personal opinion, not one everyone will agree with. but we are better as a community when we do extra work to make sure that more varied diversity is highlighted and supported.

Afflicted planted their foot saying "this much or nothing" and took the gamble that most of these high number campaigns are unwilling to do. a gamble that they succeeded in last year to fund the first season.

the difference is partly that the economy looked really different last year. disposable income, rent prices, general cost of living. it wasn't great, but it was better than it is now and that MATTERS. we all know how fucking bad it is right now, especially in the US, so to be asking these massive amounts of money is tone deaf. in this case, Afflicted was even asking for MORE than they raised for season 1. you could argue some of that is because they already managed to prove themselves as creators who were good for the money and deserved that kind of chance.

but the fact of the matter is that people just don't have that kind of cash to give over and over.

which leads into my main point.

every time I see a campaign with this high of a goal I think one thing:

"this is hurting the community."

now, that may not sound reasonable to some of you, especially if you are one of the people who believes that numbers this high are justifiable.

when we talk about supporting each other from a audio drama creator standpoint, it is done so freely and with an understanding that new listeners isn't really a thing we're going to run out of. if I recommend 10 podcasts I like, that doesn't hurt MY show. it just helps the community by sharing things we generally enjoy and care about it. this is how you end up with the networks of support that we've seen in newer places like the Audio Drama Lab.

unfortunately, money is not the same.

the amount of money that each of us has to give to support the things we like is limited based on our individual situations. anyone recommending a specific crowdfunding campaign to give money to DOES have an impact on the amount of money left in the pool for others.

so when something like Shelterwood or Arden or Afflicted or Among the Stacks or The Magnus fucking Protocol asks for these amounts, this is ACTIVELY impacting whether other campaigns will succeed."

Ooooh, okay, okay, okay.

So

Thank you for sending me the context, I do quite enjoy reading drama at times

I actually don't mind accusations of cherry picking, it's fine either way but thank you for your concern. It's very sweet.

The main reason I'm about to do what I'm about to do is because I've actually had microaggressions on the brain for plot reasons and this is positively wonderful practice to put these things into words.

Alright, so OPs argument here is that there's a set amount of money in the AD pool from which we can draw from, and that taking bigger draws for a production leaves too little for the rest of the AD community.

I'm not going to argue whether this is true or false right now (but I am going to point out...what this echoes later and why I do not like the argument) and instead am going to continue as if this statement is fact.

My question is why bring up the race and gender of Afflicted's creator? The entire diversity statement here is completely unnecessary. If the argument is that big budget audio dramas are taking too much money, and that is detrimental to ADs economic ecosystem then it does not matter if Afflicted's show runner was an alien from Venus. OPs decision to bring up the race and gender of the showrunner and then point out that the actions from this particular production is harming the AD community was a contextual...decision.

And as a result the following is now colored by the acknowledgment of the creator's race and gender so things like hinting at the aggressiveness of the campaign

"Afflicted planted their foot saying 'this much or nothing'"

and that she's taking too much for the ecosystem to survive

"every time I see a campaign with this high of a goal I think one thing: 'this is hurting the community'"

...is just a bad look. Because these comments simply don't exist in a vacuum.

I also have to wonder why the chose Afflicted in the first place. This could have been avoided if they had brought in the numbers of the Magnus Archives Protocol (whose numbers are still available ~700,000 pounds) or Arden (a successful campaign that aimed for 26,000 but made a tidy $12,065 and will use that money to continue production) or Shelterwood (which aimed for $26,000, made ~$6,000 and will also be going into production). Because...why use a "failed campaign" to highlight the money this one production is taking and "harming the community" with, when they, in reality, took nothing at all?

Why choose Afflicted? Was it timing? Was it because they were at hand? Was it because it gave OP a chance to talk about how accepting they were to different types of diversity?

Let's zoom out for a moment. We've heard this argument before the "there's not enough to go around and some people are taking too much and leaving too little for everyone else"...in things like affirmative action, and immigration. It's a very faint, "if you blink you might miss it" replacement theory argument.

And it begins to fall apart when they bring up this argument

when we talk about supporting each other from a audio drama creator standpoint, it is done so freely and with an understanding that new listeners isn't really a thing we're going to run out of. if I recommend 10 podcasts I like, that doesn't hurt MY show. it just helps the community by sharing things we generally enjoy and care about it.

Because if there's an understanding that new listeners aren't really a thing the AD community is going to run out of...while claiming that the funds (coming from people who donate, aka the pool of listeners that is ever growing) is stagnant the argument fails to hold up.

All in all, very odd. I'd claim there's a lot here that I didn't touch upon such as the acknowledgment that the AD pool is majority white and that the one production in this list that is asking for the least amount cash at highest stakes that contains the highest concentration of diverse voices is somehow taking money from the acknowledged "majority" is a bit of a hot mess, but I digress.

#Anywhooo very excited to be working on season 2 from Stories from Ylelmore #Where these types of things come up and will be discussed in a fantasy setting....because I can :D #I spent waaaay too much time on this but I think it's interesting.

[balkanradfem]

Okay, I need a piece of advice.

I've been worried about this all day. I will eventually get to see another specialist for neck pain, and I have to find a way to behave so that he or she doesn't immediately diagnose me with 'psychiatric issues'. I've been trying to see what I've done wrong the first time - I was very nervous, worried, timid, and answered all questions honestly without thinking. Even when I was asked really personal questions, like 'are you married, do you have kids, where do you live, with who, are you employed, what do you do, are you on any medication', because I didn't think the specialist was asking with the intent to dismiss my pain. She specifically asked me if I'm on any medication 3 times, even though every time I said no.

I want your experiences and ideas about how I should act in the specialist's office so I do get taken seriously. Should I refuse to answer personal questions, or is that sure to get me dismissed even faster? Should I reveal that another specialist has dismissed me? Should I admit that I've been to a private practice and got some unconfirmed diagnosis?

The first time I was so scared and timid, when I tried to explain that it's not psychosomatic pain, the woman just shut me up and had me sit there silently while she was typing in that I'm psychologically ill. It was a horrible experience and I don't want to repeat it.

My instincts are to desperately try to convince this person that I am in fact, in pain, but in case they're looking to dismiss me, that alone would be enough, right? How do I say it then? Do I act calm and serious? Do I argue? Do I try to assert my own opinion at all? If I get argumentative, will I get kicked out?

I want to know what kind of attitudes are most likely to bring me to failure, and what could potentially work to make the person believe that I'm having a real problem and need her to help me and not dismiss me. Being polite, honest, nervous and trusting has failed me.

#seeking medical advice #how to be a woman in a doctor's office #or is like nothing ever going to help #like regardless of how i act it's just going to be ignored because i'm a woman? #but i can't walk :((((((((((((( #i can't walk and i need help

[eucatastrophicblues]

I think that the pop culture conception of hell absolutely deserves to be interrogated and critiqued, but I cannot stress enough that it’s so informed by Christian fiction that it often doesn’t resemble actual teachings on hell at all - most of the things people argue are inherently unfair about hell are either antiquated beliefs that no longer reflect accurate doctrine in any denomination, are taken from inaccurate understandings of the current doctrine, or are just straight up ripped from Milton and Dante. Even the accurate conceptions are usually reflections of a specific kind of Low Church Protestantism, which isn’t representative either of the Christianity that fueled Christianization of much of the world or of the beliefs of a few billion people today. And I want to be clear - I don’t think that this is a case of No True Scotsman or whatever; this stuff NEEDS to be talked about. But I see a lot of people reblogging things like “the fact that there’s no risen demons but there ARE fallen angels is indicative of how Christianity sees sin”; if you’re going to talk about that maybe actually make sure that this is something that can be broadly said to be believed?

just for reference, a few things believed by real practicing Christians, regarding hell/demons/etc:

“Risen”/redeemed demons do exist, and several have repented and come back to the fold as angels

Demons can be redeemed and will be welcomed home if they choose to repent, but most or all don’t make that choice, which is a sign of their moral failure

Demons don’t have any free will, and neither do angels, and this is why they can’t choose to come back - it would be like asking a sheepdog to comprehend CSS coding, it’s beyond their capabilities. Human free will is the only thing that allows us to be redeemed.

Demons and Satan don’t exist and anybody arguing they do is unbiblical

Satan exists in some form but demons don’t

Demons aren’t actually fallen. They’re agents of divine will, and they serve to test and try believers and challenge them to hold to their faith and stand up against temptation, but nothing they do is “fallen” or evil.

Human souls can be redeemed after death and it’s possible to move to heaven after not being in heaven, because most people go to Purgatory when they die and they earn their place that way

Human souls can be redeemed after death and it’s possible to enter heaven posthumously because you get one final shot at redemption after you die

Hell is only for people who have knowingly and willingly and willfully defied God while in full control of their physical and mental faculties - it’s impossible to go to Hell accidentally, or as a result of choices made while mentally ill

Hell doesn’t exist at all and God takes care of the souls of the dead in some other way before the final judgment

I’m not saying that none of the critique of hell that’s become popular as a result of things like Hazbin is valid or fair, but it’s very weird to see people talk about how risen demons don’t exist when I grew up in a church that held that the reason demons don’t become angels again is because they choose not to and they’re repeatedly given the option. Just because your weird Baptist church didn’t believe that doesn’t mean most do.

#catholic #christianity #hell

[animebw]

Short Reflection: Onimai (I Am Now Your Sister!)

I’ve been trying to put into words why Mushoku Tensei is so infuriating to me for a while. You think it’d be easy, right? All I have to say (and indeed, what I have said in the past) is “this show wastes so much gorgeous animation and obvious talent on a pedophile protagonist who’s never punished for his actions” and everyone with a functioning brain would understand why they need to avoid this show like it’s the scarlet rot in Elden Ring. And yet that doesn’t quite capture the whole of it. That simple explanation doesn’t offer an explanation for just how deep and personal my fixation with Mushoku Tensei has been since its airing. I’ve watched plenty of bad anime and tossed them into the memory hole, but something about this one refuses to stop pestering me. It demands my attention even when I wish I could just forget it ever existed, like a splinter constantly pricking the back of my mind. And despite my best efforts, I’ve been unable to understand or explain what about this particular bad show makes it impossible for me to stop thinking about it.

So if there’s one thing I can thank Onimai for, it’s that it finally helped me realize why.

Sure, on the surface, these two shows don’t have that much in common. They’re both produced by studio Bind, both lavishly animated to a frankly absurd degree, both about adult men being zapped into a new child body for a second chance at life, and both clearly aiming to conquer the lolicon share of the market. But one’s an ostensibly epic fantasy while the other is a pastel-vomit cute girls gender-bender extravaganza. You wouldn’t think there’d be many comparison points to be made here. And yet, these two shows are similar. In fact, I’d argue that at heart, Mushoku Tensei and Onimai are essentially the same story, just filtered through different prisms of genre. And it’s in recognizing those similarities that I was finally able to unlock the reason behind my visceral fascination with Mushoku Tensei, and why this studio’s brand of storytelling leaves me so, so angry.

See, both Rudeus and Mahiro, in their past lives, were losers. And not just any losers, no; they were full on hikkikomori shut-in failures who retreated into extreme otakudom and porn addiction to cope with not being able to understand the world. They’re the embodiment of the saddest, most pathetic depths a person can sink to, the worst case scenario for so many socially-deficient anime fans who come to this medium to escape reality. But in their respective rebirths, Rudeus and Mahiro are suddenly given a chance to live their lives over- and this time, to do it right. Unbound from the failures of their past lives, either by leaving their gender behind or leaving the familiar world entirely, they’re given a clean slate to try, stumble, try again, and struggle their way to achieve the fulfillment and self-actualization they were unable to accomplish before. At heart, Mushoku Tensei and Onimai are both stories about taking the lowest form of human scum, offering them a do-over button, and watching them work through their issues until they’re able to embrace their new life and be a functional human being at last.

It’s not hard to see the appeal of that story. The idea that even the worst, most hopeless person imaginable can turn things around and become a well-rounded person is one of the most inspiring philosophies to live your life by. And I fully understand why those messages resonated so much with people. Hell, I’ll even admit that some moments in MT- Rudeus’ reconciliation with Paul, his hopelessness spiral in the final episode- were so moving that I genuinely felt something for the guy in spite of myself. Bind’s animators aren’t just exceptionally talented at making things move on screen, they make full use of the medium of animation to convey their stories with some of the strongest, most emotionally potent cinematic storytelling in this entire damn medium. They take these stories of broken people trying to be better and imbue them with the kind of artistry that makes them sink into your very soul. You feel the weight of Rudeus stepping over the threshold. You feel the importance of Mahiru coming to terms with her new identity. At their best, these shows will make you believe in humanity’s capacity for change like nothing else can.

At least until the moment passes and it gets back to being horny for twelve-year-olds.

And that’s the smoking gun. That’s the reason Mushoku Tensei and Onimai are both such agonizing experiences. Because in these incredibly affecting stories of personal betterment, these expertly told stories of people overcoming their worst selves and becoming fully realized people, they’re never forced to outgrow their pedophilia. Or rather, the audience of otaku who see themselves in these shows and use them as inspiration to improve their lives are never forced to. Because no matter how much these characters grow or change, the shows they’re attached to still find time to put pre-teen girls in various states of eroticization for the audience to enjoy. No matter how these shows challenges their audiences to see the worst parts of themselves and work on being better, they never portray being sexually attracted to children as something you need to leave behind. Studio Bind sells a fantasy where you can turn your poor situation around and live a worthwhile life without sacrificing your desire to beat off to twelve-year-olds. Don’t worry, it seems to say. We won’t really force you to confront the reasons why society shut you out.

In other words, both Mushoku Tensei and Onimai send a message that says: “You can become a better person without actually fixing the worst parts of yourself.” And because of how fucking good Bind is at preaching that message, the anime community bought it hook, line and sinker. It’s almost impressive; finally, we have an omega universe KyoAni to balance out the cosmic scales. Never before have I seen such incredible talent and artistry so consistently put to such evil use. But allow me to burst the bubble for everyone taken in; this studio is lying to you. These shows are lying to you. If you want to become a better person, you cannot hold onto your worst impulses like this. You cannot treat the darkest parts of yourself as an acceptable hanger-on. You need to be better than these shows believe you can be. Because the second you accept the half-measures they’re offering as a win state, you’ve already lost the battle.

Also, don’t beat off to twelve-year olds.

Can’t believe I even need to spell that out.

Look, just like Mushoku Tensei, there are moments in Onimai that really soar. The comedy is fun when it works, the animation is infectiously lively, and whenever it decides to take Mahiro’s journey seriously, it’s unironically powerful stuff. But also just like Mushoku Tensei, there’s no way to buy into the strengths of Onimai without accepting a constant stream of sexed-up prebubescent fetish shots (greatly ramped up from the manga, I’ve been told). And there’s just too much good anime these days for this to be forgivable. Countless shows big and small have proved you don’t need to cater to the worst of humanity to craft something truly special. There’s no need to suffer through this slop when countless shows are doing way more without subjecting you to this agony at the same time. So until Bind learns how to weave its magic without dunking it in dogshit along the way, they will only ever be a stain on an industry with far too many stains already. For now, though, I can only give Onimai a score of:

3/10

Welcome to the end of Winter 2023. Expect my seasonal reflection in a week or two!

#anime #the anime binge-watcher #tabw #onimai #onii-chan wa oshimai! #onii-chan is done for #oniichan wa oshimai #onimai: i'm now your sister! #winter 2023 anime #winter 2023 sr

[magnusmodig]

thematic headcanons / @sparesovereign / no longer accepting !

╰┈➤ hc + 😨 for a fear-themed headcanon

||. Thor is courageous...and oftentimes, that quality is confused with fearless. (Something I think Thor would swiftly point out that he is FAR from.) To say he spirals into anxious fits or is prone to flights of panic would be an incredibly far stretch. Thor is hardly the sort. He isn't neurotic. (He is, in fact, quite the lax creature.) And so, while it would certainly be disingenuous to say that Thor is neurotic, the nature of which he has been bred, schooled and raised lends itself to something of an... active penchant for worrying.

I would argue, through sheer observation and general inferences, theory, you name it, that while Thor is generally quite calm (and cool under fire when pressed), he is far more anxious than he lets on. To be a leader of any stripe is to wear many different hats, all at once, after all. Knowing every detail at all times, having counter-measures for potential worst-case scenarios, combing through plans to be the most efficient without any loose ends. In Thor's case, not only has he been schooled to eventually lead an entire country, but multiple countries - planets, even - that extend throughout the Asgardian Empire (The Nine Realms). He's also the head of his squadron, meaning he has to be a great warrior and tactician, and beyond that, he's a person with great power, and an even bigger heart. So one will find, if one pays attention enough, that he does indeed worry. About his family, his friends, his personal warriors and the state of the Einherjar. He worries about whether the Asgardians have needs he can fulfill as head of state and crown, from prosperity down to safety, and then this extends to the other realms and their overall states of being, and the planets beyond that of the Nine Realms; the galaxy is big and filled with allies and enemies alike, after all.

Where worry turns to fear is when all of those worries compound, or become reality; when threat becomes reality, and when the state of things fall to his own shoulders. It becomes fear when it becomes personal. For Thor is a great many things. He is mighty and fierce, compassionate and kind... and he also fears greatly that he will never be able to fulfill the expectations set before him by his Father and his fore-fathers, and the expectations of the Realms and his own people. Even his own closest friends expect greatness. But how do you rise to the same height of the wisest, and longest-lived king in the universe? How do you compete with the concept of the endless, heroic valor of a storm? How do you ensure the safety of your people and the sanctity of your home's borders, when you yourself feel so small in comparison to the greatness behind you, before you, and expected of you?

And because his fear is vast, and because his worries so deep in him, at the end of the day what Thor fears is failure, and in that way, Thor is courageous, for daily he takes his fear and (usually) commands it. He rises, he competes, he ensures. If for no other reason than that he will not allow any other option, because that is his greatest fear.

Small meta/examples under the cut for why I say this generally:

From what I gather from all of Thor's appearances (and I mean all of them. There's not a single appearance he doesn't do what I'm about to say at least once. Probably twice.) is that he's a relatively anxious individual. Again, not to the point of neurotic behaviors ("... experiences anxiety, depression, irritability, and self-consciousness. It is also common for a neurotic person to interpret situations as threatening, making them feel overwhelmed easily. The reactions and feelings of a person who is neurotic are not by choice. - x.) but definitely to the point of some disruption.

In THOR (2011) there are multiple instances just in the (cut) opening scenes where Thor is pacing and fretting before his coronation. It's Loki who comes to him first and eases his mind, followed soon thereafter by Frigga's attempts. It's an act of genuine sincerity from Loki that gets Thor to calm down ("...But, really, how do I look?" / "Like a king.")

BEFORE that, though, he covered it up with over-enthusiasm, gloating, goading, and overall defensive behaviors. (I've expanded on it before, but his supposed 'arrogance' is less arrogance and more a bloated and failed attempt at self-confidence)

One that he attempts to keep through humor and frivolity. Only it doesn't exactly come across that way, when his anxiety/fear leads him to a fight response, which then leads to aggression when he feels he's cornered. (and when you're scared of everyone knowing your a fraud....well...)

In THOR: THE DARK WORD (2013) there are multiple instances of his depression and anxiety but the best and most obvious depiction is when he's sharing his plan to escape asgard (effectively committing treason against his own father) with the rest of the Warriors. He has a habit of rubbing at and wringing out his hands, the same as Frigga and Loki both do.

During the escape, he also exhibits what I lovingly call his panic-breathing, in that he's becoming overwhelmed with either fear or anger (or usually both) and then he begins to breath heavily with his entire chest, and slowly caves inward.

This panic-breathing and/or hand-wringing / anxious trait is also something shown in

THOR: RAGNAROK (2017)

AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON (2015)

and when he isn't caving inwards in a way that's physically palpable, then he's generally very closed off in his body language, in this... sort of self-sheltered, self-soothing, hunched inward way. He reminds me of a turtle.

He also has a habit of, when he feels threatened, trying to make himself big - and especially bigger than whatever thing or person is scaring him.

The best example of that I can find it with Nick Fury, because even though Fury has the power (both in the cinematogrpahy, and in the topic of conversation), you can still see Thor sort of bulk up (and stare Fury down) in an effort to seem unintimidated / larger than Fury.

TL;DR is Chris Hemsworth gives Thor some really neat body language quirks and all of them make me wanna hug him by boy is this guy stressed and/or anxious/scared like constantly

#( ooc . ) — stories that leap from the page . #( answered . ) — black feathers fall to a raven's call . #( headcanon . ) — glory to the man who toils for his land . may it ever prosper . #( meta . ) — son of cosmos . lightning flows through thy veins . #sparesovereign #(sorry to go on tangents and tangents i have ...thoughts)

[myimaginarywonderland]

Genuine question, what are your issues with both of the Ferrari drivers? I can think of somethings but I’m just wondering if there’s anything more

Okay, so first of all I want to start this by saying that I don't hate them (well I dislike Sainz) or something like that.

My issues are mainly their personality in a way I guess?

So to start with Leclerc because this is much easier and shorter, I am incredibly disappointed by his I guess self-doubt? He truly has never even fully stood up to Ferrari when it has been critical for his development for a while. The silent acceptance and almost self blame for some incident might be a cute characteristic but as a driver, especially the lead one in a team, it is counter productive because nothing will change. The team doesn't feel threatened by him standing down or even called out so there is no change in that regard and the team also isn't threatened by him potentially leaving which might have been a huge warning and made them change so they could keep him.

While rumours are ridiculous most of the time or useless, in Leclercs case they would help because Ferrari might finally realise that they could lose the one driver on the current grid available that would win them a world championship (Yes I do not think Sainz is WDC material.) This attitude of taking the blame means he gets taken less serious and in the case of his team it also means they could sort of use him as a punching bag to avoid their own parts of the failure.

I am also still side-eyeing his initial reaction during BLM and so many tweets that were quietly offensive that he has liked and quickly unliked in the hopes of being buried.

For Sainz it is much more complicated with me. I dislike him because of politically associated things (his father's business being involved in black face, his lack of stance on BLM and most prominently his hate/prejudice towards Asian people in particular Chinese people.)

But from a pure driver's perspective there is his horrible management/PR. Not only did his family get him on bad blood during the Verstappen days so that he could never return to RB anytime, they have also continued to make snide remarks, possibly even spread rumours to I guess make Leclerc look bad and push Sainz image? Which anyone who looks at fans knows will never work because the public loves Leclerc. They have continued to handle many related things about him horribly.

In start contrast to Leclerc he has also been rumoured to leave Ferrari multiple times. While I just said rumours can be a good thing, in the case of Sainz it just isn't for multiple reasons. 1.) Leclerc has been painted as a far more promising driver which has been noted by team principals such as horner which in turn 2.) offers genuine potential places in team. In the case of Sainz there just isn't anyone in the top 5 teams he is better then (I should state I am a biased Lance fan before anyone comes to me.) He is clearly the worst (or second worst) driver option out of all the top 5 teams because he does not hold as much promise as the younger drivers (Russell, Piastri etc.) nor does he have any WDC to back his skills up. So these rumours that probably were meant as a scare tactic don't work since no team would pick him over their current line up other than teams that are worse than Ferrari (+ other top teams.)

Add to that the fact the he is like genuinely too full of himself in yet another stark contrast to Leclerc. He never admits his fault, he argues with drivers that don't care because they know they are blameless, he reflects his own mistakes on the others etc.

There is a clear imbalance of Ego when it comes to both Ferrari drivers that just from a driver's perspective is both too much and too little which ultimately makes then lack luster drivers in a way? Both drivers have a problem with their confidence funnily enough in completly different directions which makes them both worse as driver in comparison to some of the others. It is also why I think neither are WDC material because this genuine flaw will be a downfall or has been a downfall in already existing fighting scenarios.

I hope this mads sense anon, I tried to answer this as honestly (from my perspective) as I can.

#f1

[bloody-wonder]

First of all, thanks so much for sharing your books recs and reviews. I love reading your blog (especially since I did not find many books blog that as good as you in tumblr). 💐🥰

Can I ask your opinion on something? So, I saw some discussion on why shounen series (or series with strong bromance vibes) have more romantic vibes than BL manga/mahwa (MLM books). (Sorry, do you like any BL manga/manhwa or shounen series?) And I kinda agree. But what do you think?

Sorry for this random ask, feel free if you want to ignore this ask....

wow thank you! i love sending my bookish posts into the void and i love it even more when the void expresses its appreciation haha

i didn't know about this discourse but in general i agree with the controversial (?) opinion that non-canon queer-coded or homosocial relationships oftentimes make for more compelling ships than their canon counterparts. one could argue that it's bc something that is just out of reach feels more appealing than something that you already have but in regards to my personal frustrations when reading romance stories and plotlines it often comes down to how the relationship of characters who the author already decided are going to fall in love has little room to breathe beyond that - the sword of damocles of romance is constantly hanging over them and determining their entire narrative. there's little intrigue in that bc when you're an experience reader or a genre-savvy media consumer you know exactly how it's gonna go, bit by bit.

furthermore, i think it's interesting that women and people who used to identify as women when they were young are likelier to write an explicit romance or a canon queer relationship bc they have been socialized to value that type of fiction and in doing that they will, whether by intention or not, regurgitate all the possible tropes and clichées which doesn't necessarily make their original story a compelling romance. by contrast, people who grew up socialized as men have been taught to suppress emotions and value no homo male bonds with their bros which is why a stereotypical cishet male sff author will 1) write an absolutely yucky romance for his male lead and his female love interest, 2) rather die than acknowledge that queerness exists and 3) pour all the most profound and intense feelings his conscious and subconscious mind is capable of into the depiction of the male lead's relationship with his male sidekick. ambiguity tends to make things more interesting so no wonder people will feel more drawn to a ship that is ambiguously homosocial in eve kosofsky sedgwick's sense rather than to a ship that is merely a love story between two people of the same gender.

which brings me to my last (more personal) point: as someone who has been socialized as a woman i am slightly obsessed with romance. however, as someone who identifies as aroace i don't find most romance books or even romance subplots relatable or compelling. this contradiction is a source of constant frustration that accompanies my reading experience - i often seek out romance books bc i do so enjoy a good love story and end up disappointed and alienated most of the time bc of this built in failure to connect with fiction that is written by allos for allos. for example, i have tried to take refuge in historical mm romance bc i figured that neither comphet nor modern identity politics would spoil the magic of two people falling in love for me in this case. however, having read quite a few of those, i have noticed this compulsion the authors have to 1) let the reader know by any means necessary and as soon as possible that the characters in question are in fact into men and 2) state explicitly that these men find each other attractive - a compulsion that speaks to the allo experience of being aware (most of the time) what type of person you're attracted to and being able to interpret a perceived connection as romantic or sexual attraction almost immediately. a compulsion which i, as an aroace reader, find utterly bizarre and terribly frustrating. not to shame allos for how their sexuality works or anything, but i think trying to convince the reader that two characters are into each other without relying on these two conveniences would be a good writing exercise.

by comparison, a relationship that is just allowed to develop without its participants interpreting it as a romance (bc the author who wrote it didn't intend them to at all) feels like freedom. yes, it's unfortunate that they won't kiss or fuck in the end of all that quality time but ah well, i can go to ao3 for that. and yes, if they're not canonically queer it's not real rep etc etc but i think that by now we have all understood that media consumption is not activism and queer rep in your favorite tv show will not bring about the age of tolerance. what i'm talking about in this post is why it sometimes feels like queer fiction fails to depict queerness and romance in a compelling way.

#asks #book tag #sometimes it's just like #no no THIS is queer #THAT is just two people of the same gender in a relationship #the specific examples i have in mind rn are empire of the vampire and the winnowing flame #the banter between gabriel and jean-françois is just inherently better queer content #than that what's his name side character's storyline #that one tentacle harness scene in the bitter twins is queerer than all the canon queer love stories of the series combined #something else i didn't discuss here is how diversity being used as a marketing tool in publishing instantly kills the mood #it's like that one oglaf strip - if we both know what's happening it ruins it #hashtag gaystream ig

[queenofzan]

i really don’t understand why people are so willing and apparently eager to believe people in the past found large age gaps and child marriages acceptable. like, i understand we have an urge to feel better and smarter than people in the past, but humans are basically the same now as we have been for thousands and thousands of years.

historically, it was most common for teenagers to marry other teenagers. and honestly most of the time that was viewed pretty much the same as modern teens getting married right out of high/secondary school, ie, as a rash and hasty decision that they would probably come to regret (that might work out. maybe. if they were lucky.)

“but ani, what about political marriages in europe? we know they were getting fourteen-year-olds married!” first of all, that was a fairly uncommon thing when it did happen. most of the political marriages involving quite young people or large age gaps were in fact betrothal or marriage contracts for years before they were actual marriages. it was also afaik usual practice to let these marriages remain unconsummated for years, until both parties were of an age for it to be appropriate instead of creepy. (there was also more than one case of a political arrangement being imperiled by the failure to consummate a marriage that had been in place for years.)

like, when anything remotely resembling young teens being married to adults for political reasons happened, it was a: considered weird by most people b: given some leeway to the child participant to at least wait until they were closer to adulthood (which was usually somewhere around 16-20, not 13. being old enough to get a job and being old enough to get married were not necessarily the same thing.)

“oh but what about in [foreign country], i’m sure they did it” i bet you $1000 that any examples you could find are either racist propaganda or an outlier scenario!

the first ~20 years of human life have been pretty much the same for as long as we’ve existed, in terms of developmental milestones. if you think it would be weird and inappropriate for a 14 year old to marry a 35 year old, so would most other humans in history. 

like, i’m not saying abuse and rape and child sex abuse didn’t happen historically. obviously they did, just like they happen today. but it wasn’t some kind of wide-spread thing everyone accepted in most societies. it is in fact a sign a society is deeply sick when such things are tolerated and not looked at with a critical and watchful eye, and plenty of rules to make sure any children involved are kept protected by the standards of that society (which are often not that different from yours).

idk man it’s just really weird to see people arguing with historians about medieval people finding a grown-ass man having sex with a 16-year-old inappropriate like “oh they wouldn’t have seen anything wrong with it” buddy,

do you see what’s wrong with it???