#// thinky thoughts

[got-into-worm-by-mistake]

So, I'm not done with Worm yet, so I may be surprised by something, but while I will 100% agree that people who haven't read Worm (and have just read the fanfiction) shouldn't write worm fanfic, I think the degree to which 'the fanfiction gets stuff wrong' is vastly overstated.

Because things like the Wiki exist, and a pretty active fan community, getting the actual basic facts is not hard. Apart from particularly controversial bits of fanon (Aura Theory, for instance) it's rare that a fanfic, even one written by someone who hasn't read Worm, gets fundamental details about basic facts of the setting wrong. (At least as long as the person is making the effort to do that).

Where fic can trip you up is in implications, impressions and errant details regarding the motivations and personalities of secondary characters. That's where I've found the biggest 'that's not what I got from the fanfic'. And while those things can be really big deals and trip you up, I don't know if they're really as big a deal as a lot of people want to nitpick and bitch about.

Because while those things can be wrong, they're not usually wildly out of left field, but rather just - what happens in fanfic and frankly, in any sort of writing that goes on long enough (see TV shows, long running book series, etc) - an exaggeration of what's already there.

To take a recent example - the degree to which Carol Dallon gets portrayed as an abusive parent to Amy can absolutely and has absolutely been overplayed in some fanfics. Especially ones that make her trigger-happy with her magic lightsaber axe. But at the same time, while we don't see a lot of Carol in Worm, what little we do does give various impressions of the character, most of which are pretty fucking negative. The degree to which a fanfic then takes those impressions and then plays with them can start to get absurd and give someone unfamiliar with the source material false impressions, but they are derived from the actual text of Worm.

Like, I don't think Carol actually hates Amy, in the text. But I also think 'Carol hates Amy' is not a huge leap from what's in the text. It is, to paraphrase Buffy Summers, more like you take a few small steps and there you are.

This whole thing is a bit of a roundabout way of saying: That annoying fic trope of the SI into Worm who 'only reads the fanfic' as a way for the fic author to knock those who write worm fanfic without reading Worm is actually pretty stupid. Because in practice, they'd probably get along fine overall.

[froldgapp]

<shimmies next to you>

But what if there was a fic where Tim also had failsafe implanted and it started to kick in/malfunctioned when he was under extreme mental duress and it limited his cognition and caused him distress/pain and and and

[realtacuardach]

One difference between the Lord of the Rings books and the Peter Jackson films that I find really interesting is what the hobbits find when they return to the Shire.

In the books, they return from the War, only to see that the war has not left their home untouched. Not only has it not left their home unscathed, battle and conflict is still actively ravaging the Shire. They return, weary and battle-scarred, to find a home actively wounded and in need of rescue and healing. All four launch themselves into defending their home and rousting those harming it, and eventually succeed. But their idyllic home has been damaged, and even once healed, is never quite again the Shire they set out to save.

In contrast, in the Jackson films, they return to a Shire shockingly untouched by the horrors of war. The hobbits of the Shire talk, in the Green Dragon in Fellowship of the Ring, about not getting involved with issues "beyond our borders," and it seems those issues have not invaded their sanctuary. After having been bowed to by kings, dwarves, elves, and men alike at the coronation in Gondor, their only acknowledgment upon returning home is a skeptical head shake from an older hobbit.

One of the most poignant scenes to me in Return of the King (and there are a considerable amount) is the scene where Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin are sitting in the Green Dragon. The pub patrons bustle around them, talking loudly, clapping excitedly, drinking cheerfully, just as they had in the beginning of the story. But the four hobbits sit silently, watching almost curiously at what was once familiar but is now foreign to them. Their home has not changed. But they have.

Which is the deeper hurt? To come to your home to find it irrevocably changed, despite all you did to keep it untouched and the same? Or to return home but no longer feeling at home, because it is only you that is irrevocably changed?

[purpleminte]

Not me getting secondhand anxiety looking at the absolute chaos of this hypothetical discord user’s life based on these messages-

This person is apparently

• Travelling internationally likely very soon

• Currently having homework for an active biology class

• At least somewhat present in the moderation of a server

• Actively involved in competitive sports

• Has an engagement or event currently planned (that is understandably being ignored)

Maybe I’m lazy or something but this is enough to make me curl up and die

[thebibliosphere]

With hindsight, I probably should have realized I was polyamorous/ambiamorous sooner than I did. (And to be clear, I realized it pretty young. I just didn't have the terminology for it.)

Ignoring the fact that five-year-old me used to watch Signing In The Rain! on a loop and was already making up stories about Don, Cosmo, and Kathy all living together in Don's big house and *gasp* holding hands (maybe kissing), I was never any good at shipwars.

Like someone would ask me, "What's your OTP?" and I'd be like, "Well, I guess I like X/Y, but also Y/Z is good too..."

And they'd be like, "No. I mean your one TRUE pairing," and I'd just blink at them like, I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

I'm sure they thought I was trying to stir shit or being deliberately annoying, but I just... couldn't wrap my head around it. Why did I need to pick one thing? There were multiple options with different things that made them appealing. That's like going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and just drinking water. Which is fine! If water is all you want, great. But you don't get to go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and judge people for eating different foods...

And when I eventually found out multi-shipping was a thing, I was like, "oh neat, that's what I do!" and while there was a definite feeling of having found my people, it was weird having the moral judgment from other people who seemed to think multi-shipping was a symptom of a greater moral character flaw. Like my inability to settle on just one thing meant I was more likely to cheat irl.

This wasn't helped by the fact that I... kinda already didn't care about monogamy? Not the way my friends did. I didn't mind that my then-boyfriend liked Sarah, too. What I minded was that he went behind my back and kissed her when he'd told me I couldn't kiss anyone else.

It was the betrayal of the agreement that hurt. Because we'd agreed. He'd asked me to be exclusive with him, and I did. And then he... didn't. And my friends couldn't grasp that.

It was all, "How could he kiss someone else?!" and my chief complaint was, "Why didn't he tell me first?!"

Anyway, if I could go back in time, I'd tell teenage me, you're not weird and amoral, you're just queer, polyamorous, and have ADHD, lmao.

[tarysande]

The best part about coming back to the source material after a looooong time is you sorta get a fresh look at canon in comparison to whatever the dominant strains of fanon have become. Or, in fact, whatever your own dominant strains of headcanon have become.

I mean, yes, Garrus “I’m not a good turian” Vakarian gets infinitely cooler (and more competent!) by pretty much every metric as the storyline progresses. He does. But fresh out of ME1 and into ME2 through his recruitment, I find myself genuinely amused by how thin the veneer of badass is over a pretty dominant core of straight-up nerd sprinkled with idealism mixed with self-doubt.

When you have Garrus in the squad all the time (and thus get all his ambient dialogue and remarks), you really pick up on the number of times he calls out bad behavior, unethical actions, cruelty, and rule-breaking, especially in ME1.

He’s not actually a hothead who can’t abide rules of any kind. In fact, most of the time he’s pretty pro-law-and-order, and he gets amusingly hall-monitorish when people are breaking rules he considers important and worth following.

Fundamentally, Garrus chafes when his sense of what is just is at odds with what the authorities do about that injustice (or what they stop him from doing). And I would hazard a guess that the reason his actions seem so intense or harsh or "of course we should have shot down that ship in the middle of the Citadel" is indicative not of his impatience but of the degree to which he thinks the authorities have failed to uphold that justice. We know he can be patient. He's a sniper. His whole modus operandi on Omega is precision kills without civilian casualty. But when that long fuse finally burns down, he goes from zero to shooting down ships in the middle of the Citadel in what looks (from the outside) like a heartbeat.

And yes, injured pride hastens the burning of that fuse; he doesn’t like losing. Or admitting defeat. Or failing.

Having just replayed his recruitment mission, a few things really stood out to me this time.

The merc bands really hate him--and they also reluctantly admire him (he's described as smart, resourceful, dangerous, idealistic, brave, slippery; they all agree they only way they managed to get this far is by isolating him and employing dirty tactics). I mean, there's literally a station-wide announcement that Omega can return to "business as usual" once Archangel is out of the picture because he was disrupting things so completely.

The way Garrus blames himself for the deaths of his squad is so freaking turian. Failure reflects on the leader who places his people in danger they can't handle, not the individual who fails. Heavy is the head that wears the crown. Yes, Sidonis betrayed him, but the person Garrus blames the most? Is himself. For trusting Sidonis in the first place. For raising Sidonis to a position where he had the means and opportunity to harm others--and the weakness of character to turn coat, to save his own hide, instead of dying to protect the others.

Garrus mentions more than once that he was trying to emulate Shepard. And his tone always implies that he knows he failed because Shepard would never have let a Sidonis into the fold. Again, he's blaming himself. Like a good turian. Yes, he wanted to avoid the red tape and bureaucracy of C-Sec, but his code--Archangel's code--certainly aligns with Paragon Shepard's morality (with a Garrus Vakarian twist).

And since it wouldn't be meta without adding a Tara's Headcanon Twist ... I've always wondered why "Archangel" when it's such a ... human concept. But this time, when I noticed how he spoke about Shepard's influence, and how quickly he brushes aside the name when she asks him about it, I wondered if it wasn't actually his way of honoring the mythology of the dead woman whose example he was trying to follow. Not that Shepard is a God he's worshiping, but ... there is something about the way he talks about her. Garrus doesn't make himself over in the image of a God, though; he's the soldier, the right hand, the avenging angel responsible for carrying out divine punishments suited and proportional to the crimes committed, the rules broken, the selfishness or cruelty of the perpetrator.

[brightwanderer]

The more I think about hbomberguy's "Plagiarism and You(tube)" video essay the more I'm struck by a couple of his insights in particular regarding why people plagiarise - specifically, the combination of disdain for the people they steal from and entitlement to the things they steal.

Which has arranged itself into my head as: there is a kind of person who sees art - all art, including a witty one-liner or an essay on queer themes - as A Shiny Thing That You Put On Your Shelf So People Can Admire It And Compliment You On Owning it. When they see that Shiny Thing on someone else's shelf, they make a judgement on whether or not the creator deserves to have it. Is the shelf big enough? Fancy enough? Is the Shiny Thing being Properly Displayed?

And if the answer they come up with is "no"... well, then obviously it's fine to take it and Properly Display It. I mean, it's WASTED on that small-time creator who nobody knows about, right?

[isagrimorie]

Adding to my collection of Agatha Notices something others haven't noticed:

The camera moved to Agatha noticing/eavesdropping for a reason.

This happens again in this scene:

Again, the camera cuts to Agatha who is watching and listening keenly about Billy's powers.

Very Detective Agnes of her (again, Rio's inquisitive look as she asked Agnes-Agatha: "Is this really how you see yourself?" the answer more and more becomes, 'yes'.)

Speaking of Rio-- I have a hunch that maybe, possibly, the endgame of this show is not just to convince Agatha she needs a Coven True and not just a Coven Two. It's also to convince RIO.

Because Three of Pentacles features not just Billy in place but also someone else wearing a green cloak:

The card shows the whole coven including RIO.

Sure, Rio is a cosmic being but in this show that emphasized Death is the Original Green Witch.

Rio is still called a witch, the witches claim Rio.

And as Lilia's Maestra said:

"A witch requires a coven."

Agatha and Rio might have been Coven Two-- but that's not enough. To quote About a Boy:

“Suddenly I realized - two people isn't enough. You need backup. If you're only two people, and someone drops off the edge, then you're on your own. Two isn't a large enough number. You need three at least.”

Agatha and Rio needed more than each other, they need a community.

They needed a True Coven.

[stagefoureddiediaz]

So these pictures are gonna be an end of episode Eddie reassuring Buck that nothing will ever come between them isn’t it - it’s the I love you to the core scene.

This is the shift in things that we’ve been waiting for and need - because Buck getting jealous is gonna push him into looking at why he’s jealous.

Is it next week yet?!

[madlori]

So one of the reasons fans get frustrated with the writing on their show is that they are operating from a different mindset than the writers.

Generally, fans are operating from what I call a developmental mindset. How does this plot point affect the characters? How will it affect their relationships? How can it be used to illustrate broader themes or personalities?

This is how you write BOOKS. And most of us interact with fandom via fanfic, and fanfic writers or readers engage with a lot of this kind of storytelling.

I'm not saying TV writers DON'T do this, but it varies, and is somewhat genre-dependent. A lot of the time, they're operating from a more situational mindset. How can I set up this next plot point? How do I get this story from A to B to C in the time allotted? How do I get to use this joke or plot twist I wanna use?

Buck's conflict over whether or not he lunged at Gerrard to save him or kill him is a PRIME example of this.

Here's the difference:

Buck: expresses doubt about his own motivations and worries he tried to kill Gerrard.

The fans: How will this affect Buck going forward? Will it make him feel guilty and more likely to go along with Gerrard? Will it create conflict with the team because of that?

The writers: This will enable us to play a moment of suspense when Gerrard returns when Buck and the audience will be wondering if Gerrard will be mad or not, and then we'll whip the uno reverse on him when Gerrard hugs him. That will be funny and a good way to end the episode.

Aaaaaand that's probably as far as they took that line of thought. They viewed that plot point (Bucks' doubts about his motivations) as a means to the end of getting that stinger at the end of 8x03. We viewed it as a character beat. It's not impossible that it could be both, but it's probably the last we've heard about it.

[shaylogic]

Is he doing the teenage girl thing of "sigh can't wait for that handsome guy to burst in and fight my mom for me and whisk me away!"

Do you think he daydreamed these things all day long perched on that stool?

[memorizingthedigitsofpi]

This morning I find myself thinking of the phrase "write for yourself" and how it can be interpreted in more than one way.

Up to this point, I've thought of it as "write to please yourself" or "write to challenge yourself" etc, but it's always been centred on my own perspective.

I think that interpretation might not work as well for someone who is very community-minded or for someone who relies on the opinions of others to feel confident in what they wrote. But this morning, I thought of an addendum that might help those folks?

Write for yourself, and for other people like you.

This phrase could also be interpreted in multiple ways, but the way that I'm thinking of right now is related to audience.

We all have our preferences when it comes to characters, plots, themes, tones. Whatever aspect of storytelling you want to think about, each person has things they love, like, dislike, hate, and feel neutral about. No two people will overlap perfectly, but for any given one of those things, you'll have at least a few other people who feel like you (or adjacent to you).

So if you like a thing, write a story that will appeal to people who like (or love) that thing and don't try to please the people who hate it. No matter how good your storytelling is, the likelihood of "winning them over" is slim to none.

Don't write for the haters. Don't write in fear of being rejected by the haters. Write for the lovers and the likers and the "I haven't really got strong feelings one way or the others."

Pleasing yourself first is the best way to keep your motivation. Focusing on things within your control (like word count or completed fics or learning to write a new character) will always be better for your mental health than focusing on things that other people control (hits, kudos, comments). But, aiming yourself at a friendly audience and not worrying about people who are going to hate your stuff no matter what, just because of the content in it? Not a bad thing to do either.

[froldgapp]

I'll write a one shot with the "winner." It'll be sad and nostalgic and hopefully a little fun too.

[realtacuardach]

One of my favorite takes on Frodo, and why I value him so much as a character: unlike so many central characters in fantasy, he was not a Chosen One.

Instead, he was the One who Chose, and that made all the difference.

[ditzycowgirl]

I’d like to put my 2 cents in about tarot readings. It’s like a weather forecast. What may be true now will likely be subject to change later. For an example: a reading about your love life today will be drastically different than, let’s say, two years ago. Even if you’re in the same situation more or less. The future is in your hands. You are in charge of your destiny.

[minecraftbookshelf]

At some point I'll be able to fully articulate my Thoughts about how Mumbo Jumbo's only previous Life season was also the only one where reds were explicitly forbidden from maintaining their old alliances and how he immediately turned on the other Mounders when he became red in Secret Life.

Of course he turned on them. He's never seen the loyalty of a red and their greens/yellows. He's never gotten the chance to.