#Fuck accuracy and nuance and all that shit if you just want a good read without care for the academic side of things

[gingermintpepper]

hi, i haven't read the iliad and the odyssey but want to - do u have a specific translation you recommend? the emily wilson one has been going around bc, y'know, first female translator of the iliad and odyssey into english, but i was wondering on if you had Thoughts

Hi anon! Sorry for the somewhat late response and I'm glad you trust me with recommendations! Full, disclosure, I am somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to translations of the source text of the Iliad + Odyssey combo wombo, which means I tend to prefer closeness in literal verbiage over interpretation of the poetic form of these epics - for that reason, my personal preferred versions of the Odyssey and Iliad both are Robert Fitzgerald's. Because both of these translations (and his Aeneid!) were done some 50+ years ago (63 for his original Odyssey tl, 50 flat for his Iliad and 40 for his Aeneid) the English itself can be a bit difficult to read and the syntax can get confusing in a lot of places, so despite my personal preferences, I wouldn't recommend it for someone who is looking to experience the Iliad + Odyssey for the very first time.

For an absolute beginner, someone who has tried to read one or both of these epics but couldn't get into it or someone who has a lot of difficulty with concentrating on poetry or long, winding bits of prose, I fully and wholeheartedly recommend Wilson's translation! See, the genius of Emily Wilson's Iliad + Odyssey isn't that she's a woman who's translated these classics, it's that she's a poet who's adapted the greek traditional poetic form of dactylic hexameter into the english traditional poetic form of iambic pentameter. That alone goes a very very long way to making these poems feel more digestible and approachable - iambic pentameter is simply extremely comfortable and natural for native english speakers' brains and the general briskness of her verbiage helps a lot in getting through a lot of the problem books that people usually drop the Iliad or Odyssey in like Book 2 of the Iliad or Book 4 of the Odyssey. I think it's a wonderful starting point that allows people to familiarise themselves with the source text before deciding if they want to dig deeper - personally, researching Wilson's translation choices alone is a massive rabbit hole that is worth getting into LOL.

The happy medium between Fitzgerald's somewhat archaic but precise syntax and Wilson's comfortable meter but occasionally less detailled account is Robert Fagles' Iliad + Odyssey. Now, full disclosure, I detest how Fagles handles epithets in both of his versions, I think they're far too subtle which is something he himself has talked at length about in his translation notes, but for everything else - I'd consider his translations the most well rounded of english adaptations of this text in recent memory. They're accurate but written in plain English, they're descriptive and detailled without sacrificing a comfortable meter and, perhaps most importantly, they're very accessible for native english speaking audiences to approach and interact with. I've annotated my Fagles' volumes of these books to heaven and back because I'm deeply interested in a lot of the translation decisions made, but I also have to specifically compliment his ability to capture nuance in the characters' of these poems in a way I don't often see. He managed to adapt the ambivalence of ancient greek morality in a way I scarcely see and that probably has a hand in why I keep coming back to his translations.

Now, I know this wasn't much of a direct recommendation but as I do not know you personally, dear anon, I can't much make a direct recommendation to a version that would best appeal to your style of reading. Ideally, I'd recommend that you read and enjoy all three! But, presuming that you are a normal person, I suggest picking which one is most applicable for you. I hope this helps! 🥰

[godnectar]

How do I becum a good writer like you

wouldn't know if 'm actually a good writer tbh,, but ig that if you wanna improve, some things u should try to do are:

♡ ── (obviously) write because you like to and want to, and definitely not because you feel obligated to 😭

i know it's impossible to always be happy doing the same thing over and over again and always be inspired, but as much as it sucks whenever author's block gets to you, don't push yourself to go and finish that work that has been sitting on your drafts for weeks because, 1) I can assure u most of the time it still probably won't convince you completly even if it's already finished, and 2) it's ofc bad for your physical and mental health >:

♡ ── have at least some basic knowledge on the topic you wanna write about and spend some bits of your time learning more about it 🫶

this certainly depends on what is it that you specialize on, in my case being yandere babes :D evidently, I wouldn't be able to write about yandere archetypes and everything that it involves if I don't know shit about what that is– and even after knowing the essentials, you will have to make some research and learn about it in a more developed level to add depth and accuracy to your writing. doing this can help you understand better the nuances and intricacies of the subject matter, which will def make your writing more engaging and compelling.

♡ ── expand your vocabulary, correct on grammar and spelling mistakes & make sure it sounds nice 👆

👏 literature 👏 is 👏 a 👏 form 👏 of 👏 art 👏 and yeah, this might probably sound cringy and obvious and whatever bs internet uses these days to describe everything,, but I learnt about it since I was seven and it never went away — art is made to express, communicate and entertain. in literature, a writing will appeal more to a reader with it's coherence and cohesion, with it's fluidity and with it's artistry. by correcting those things, you will not just make it more attractive, but will also develop a certain style depending on what tone u use while writing.

♡ ── read as much as you can and keep whatever feedback you receive (as long as it's constructive) in mind! 💬

it doesn't matter if what you read are just smutty fics on this hellsite or if you adore collecting and having entire bookshelves filled with classics. the thing is that, even if each author is different, we all want to reach an audience if we publish our works. if you find someone who writes about the same topic as you, if you pay attention on what makes them successful, or what does their audience and followers like and dislike, you will learn about small things that will make your own work more pleasant and entertaining. of fucking course, this doesn't mean nor refer that you can or should plagiarize anyone's writing.

♡ ── make drafts and take notes,,,, a big ass amount 🤡

don't be afraid or think it looks awful having +69 drafts unfinished deep in your acc,, absolutely all practice is good practice. even if you don't have your phone or laptop around, if you're on class or at your workplace or something, if you have an idea – no matter how small – write it down wherever you can and develop it as much as you want. it's impossible to improve without practice 😭

[alirhi]

Loki ranting

Okay. I had this thought in my head of like just compiling links of all the Loki shit I've posted/reblogged so far so that when I get into a conversation about the show and how it fucking disgusted me, I can just be like "here. here's this masterlist post, go read all this shit. This is my entire argument, and not only mine, but a lot of stuff posted by people far more intelligent and level-headed and eloquent than I am, whom I happen to agree with." Because the alternative is constantly getting fired up all over again, and that is exhausting.

BUT! I'm stupid and don't know how tumblr works. Apparently I can't just be like "give me all the Loki-tagged shit I've got" I can only search all the Loki-tagged shit on all of tumblr. And I'm not scrolling back through all of my posts. I talk too fucking much for that shit 😂

So, I'll try to remember all of my grievances with how the MCU has treated Loki, and all of the excellent posts made by other, equally upset fans, and put it all together here under this nice, neat little cut for everyone else's sanity and scrolling convenience...

For people who actually read my shit fairly regularly - bless you, you crazy, patient people. I love you! - this is going to be a lot of repetition of shit you've already read. Probably at least twice. I'm passionate and I have a terrible memory lol. Sorry.

Anyway, first, for those who don't know me and haven't been following my explosions of rage for the past couple of months, some quick background: I do not read comic books, so Loki's Marvel comic canon means nothing to me. I know almost nothing about it. The reason I'm so in love with the character in the MCU is because I am an eclectic witch and the deity I've actively loved and worshiped the longest in my life (literally for as long as I can remember) is Loki. So when he was mentioned in The Mask, I squeed. When they named Matt Damon's character after him in Dogma, I cheered.

When Thor came out in 2011, I just about died from happiness. I was hungry for any representation of this underappreciated god, no matter what it was. I didn't even bitch about how underpowered he was, because at least he was there. But I'm getting slightly ahead of myself.

I can hear anyone reading this going "Why Loki? Isn't he, like, evil? Like basically the Norse version of The Devil?" Because I heard all this shit irl all the fucking time. And no. So let me give you a quick rundown of who Loki actually is.

Loki is a Trickster God. He's often referred to as the God of Mischief. He is not and never was evil, simply chaotic and hedonistic. Loki Laufeyjarson was the son of Laufey (that's mama; they changed her to a man for some reason in the movie) and Fárbauti. Right from the start, from his name, we get a sign of how Loki goes against traditional norms of the time, because in Norse culture, families were patrilineal, and surnames were "son/daughter of father" (which would have made him Loki Fárbautitason), not the mother. But Loki's surname is matrilineal. Feminist icon woo! lol

Though he's a Jotunn, Loki is counted among the Gods (Aesir) in Norse tradition. Depending on his mood, he is alternately helpful or disruptive to the other Gods. I'm not gonna sit and teach a whole text class on him lol but I'll use my favorite example of Misunderstood Loki - the conception of Sleipnir!

So, get this shit. This is also part of why I DO NOT follow Odin and never fucking will (a very small part, but still part of the reason). So, the other Norse Gods are petty motherfuckers, and they wanted some shit built but didn't want to pay the dude doing the building. So they were like "okay, if you can get it done in X amount of time, we'll pay you, but if you can't manage it NO MATTER WHAT, this whole thing is free." And they made sure he had NO help, nothing but him, his materials, and his Very Good Horsey. And this guy and his horse were fucking BAMFs. So it was looking like he was definitely gonna get it done in time, and Odin was like "nah, fuck that shit. I'm cheap." and so he sent Loki to distract the work horse. Loki transformed into a mare and lured the horse away, got fucked, got pregnant, gave birth to the 8-legged (for some reason) horse Sleipnir. Odin rides Loki's son into battle. Um. Kay.

So Loki helped Odin be a petty mf, and Odin got himself a new pet out of the deal.

Oh, also, because he's smart af and a shapeshifter and a master magician and genderfluid, Loki "fails" to fit the super fucking toxic and narrow Norse/Aesir view of "a real man". He prefers intelligence and manipulation to solve problems rather than violence, he's not afraid to behave like a clown if it gets shit done, and that grosses the Aesir out, so they constantly ridicule him for being "less than a man".

Loki is the God of the outcast and the misunderstood. The marginalized people from all walks of life. He is the God of the LGBT community. In modern terms, he's pansexual, polyamorous (married to Sigyn and they are deeply in love, but boy gets around and I've never seen any indication that Sigyn gives a shit) and genderfluid.

Okay. Focus, Ali. This is part of why I usually post multiple rants instead of one big long one XD The longer I ramble, the more I get sidetracked and forget the original point.

So. Loki's awesome, and being a Trickster, is powerful as all fucking hell. There's not much he can't do.

And now we come to Thor (the movie, not the deity). Loki's there! 24-year-old Ali is spazzing! All is right with the world!

Oh lord, they've actually done him justice?! Amazing! He's complex and nuanced and emotional, just like the real Loki! I loved this movie. Loved. It. The climactic thing with trying to blow up Jotunheim never really made much sense to me until someone made an excellent point the other day about Loki being raised in a racist society that was racist against his own race, he just didn't know it yet, poor child. Baby Thor was never corrected when he pledged to commit mass genocide, so Baby Loki probably absorbed the lesson then that Jotunns=evil and killing them all will win his father's love. Anyway, 2011 Loki was a beautiful, heartbreaking portrayal of the God I've loved all my life and spent 24 years longing to see depicted on the big screen.

Then The Avengers happened. And I saw another Loki very close to Norse mythology - mainly, how he's treated. In the beginning of the movie, he's sick, exhausted, and in pain. He can hardly stand, he stumbles and needs help when he walks. He was very obviously tortured, and the sickly blue light of the scepter's control is in his eyes. That gets less and less pronounced as the movie goes on, showing Loki working his way free of it, but in the beginning, he's a mess. Because he was tortured and used by Thanos. Marvel directly confirmed this, and that he was under the scepter's/Mind Stone's control. Loki's actions are not his own in The Avengers. He's under both threat and Thanos' direct control. The movie actually shows The Other directly threatening him to keep him on task, because this is not Loki's plan. It is not what he wants. He's being used and villainized... Just like in real life. It hurt to see this done to him, but the accuracy was too beautiful to ignore.

Thor: The Dark World comes out. I've heard people complain that this movie is the weak link in the Thor trilogy. I disagree. I think that's Ragnarok, for a bunch of reasons, but we'll get there. (And for the record, I loved Ragnarok, too. It was a funny movie. Infinity War and the Disney+ series are the only portrayals of Loki in the MCU that I truly fucking hated.) Anyway, good, fun movie. Had its faults, as all movies do, but it still followed Loki's real-life arc in a way. How? By having Loki dragged back to Asgard in chains and imprisoned underground. Again, not super happy that this happened to my love, and having to see it on screen was painful, but at least in the MCU he's not chained to a rock with venom dripping on his face for eternity, so there's that. (poor Sigyn. how tired do her arms get, holding up that bowl? best wife ever, amirite?)

In TDW, we're shown Loki's love for Frigga, who favored him and taught him magic as a child. We see his bravado; his attempts to mask his true feelings, especially grief. We see him slowly coming back to himself after the events of The Avengers, and slowly mending his relationship with his brother. He accepts that Odin will likely never love him, but Thor just might, because they were close when they were young. "I didn't do it for him." No, no my sweet, you did it for your brother, and a little out of guilt for what happened to your mother.

At the end, Loki fakes his death and escapes, taking the throne, and I have mixed feelings about this. Not the writer's choices here; I love that completely! A natural progression in Loki's story. But my joy is tainted by how closely they're following the Eddas now. Because Loki's escape from his prison heralds the beginning of Ragnarok. And Loki will die in Ragnarok. I don't want to see that play out in front of my face. I won't be able to handle the grief (spoiler alert! IW broke me. I almost walked out of the theater. Loki's death was legitimately fucking traumatic for me. I don't even care how pathetic that is. That grief was real, it was intense, and I still shake and cry when I think about it.)

Marvel announces that Thor 3 will be called Ragnarok. The internet treats this as a shocking revelation. I roll my eyes and mumble "duh" to myself and move on XD

Then they say Ragnarok will be a buddy comedy. I throw up a little in my mouth and no longer want to live on this planet. If they're going to make something called Ragnarok, could they at least treat it with even a fraction of the respect they've shown these characters thusfar? Jfc. I mean, I'll see it anyway, because I'm a whore for Tom Hiddleston lol. But come on, people!

I hated that they made Hel the long-lost older sister and Fenrir her fucking pet/attack dog. Those are my favorites of Loki's children! Hel is such an incredible badass that the early Christians named their dimension of eternal torture after her! They were terrified of her, to the point of naming the place that terrified them most after her. That's awesome! And Fenrir's just the best. I love wolves. Those two details, and Odin's retcon of "we're not Gods! ...lol, except your sister. she's totally a Goddess. and def gonna kill literally everything, so... good luck! byyyeeeee" pissed me off royally.

The rest was great. I genuinely liked this movie. Still do. And they finally used The Immigrant Song! That was pretty cool. If they'd thrown in Bring the Hammer Down and Thunderstruck, I might've called this movie perfect. XD

I wasn't totally in love with their portrayal of Loki in Ragnarok. Yes, the falling for 30 minutes line was funny, as was "I have to get off this planet" and "YES! That's how it feels!" And "Get Help" was funny as hell. But also, like... There is no way Loki would have been the dumb one in that first encounter with Hela. Also, he can teleport and project copies of himself and shit, so... He would not have been that desperate to go straight back to Asgard and bring her right along with them. Loki's not stupid. But whatever. Movie's gotta movie.

What I did love was seeing the slow mending of his relationship with Thor continuing, and the badass fighting on the bridge. I also loved that, like Real Loki, Movie Loki helped when help was needed, was quick and clever, and while he was carrying out the main plan, he was also planning ahead and grabbing the Tesseract. Yes, that drew Thanos right to them, but that's a whole other thing. Loki never would have left that thing on Asgard to be destroyed or lost.

And now Infinity War. Hooooly fucking shit. You know what? No. I'm not going into this. He was killed, years of character growth were erased forever, my heart fucking shattered. The end.

Endgame. IW hurt me so bad I didn't see Endgame until this year. I actually watched Civil War first (for context: I had actively avoided all Cap movies until this year because I fucking hate Steve Rogers. I find him insufferable. Did not realize what I was denying myself until I watched CW and finally saw the charms of Bucky. When he appeared in IW, I was so lost. XD I was like "...who dis? Murder Jesus?" also I just... didn't care. I was numb by then from crying through most of the movie over Loki)

So, anyway. Endgame. Loki picks up the Tesseract in alternate 2012, escapes, fans go "yay! he didn't actually die!" I go "yes he fucking did. Five years of his life, gone. Five years of growth and change, erased. Loki is dead. This will not be the same."

I was more right than I could have predicted. Now we come to the point of this rant. Sorry it took so long, but you were warned lol.

The Loki series makes me so angry I actually get sick to my stomach. It was fucking TRASH. When I praised Marvel for following Norse mythology so faithfully earlier? Yeah. I DID NOT MEAN TREAT HIM THE WAY THE OTHER GODS DID. I did not mean paint him as a pitiful clown, a joke, a caricature of who he truly was, with his pain and suffering played for LAUGHS.

This is supposed to be 2012 Loki, newly freed from Thanos' control. The Loki we saw in the beginning of TDW - snarky, exhausted, nihilistic. The Loki who rolled his eyes and said "get on with it" expecting to be killed.

The bumbling clown flipping on a dime from posturing to calling himself weak is not 2012 Loki. That is not ANY Loki. That is Tom Hiddleston in a black wig doing what he's told by a shitty writer who had no fucking idea what he was doing and was salty about his (bad) original script (for something totally fucking unrelated) getting killed.

In Episode 1, Loki is mocked, imprisoned, stripped against his will, tormented, belittled, and given a flippant summary of all the trauma Actual MCU Loki suffered that this one skipped out on, with no context, no acknowledgement of the trauma he's already lived quite fucking recently, and with the narrative twisted to not only erase all the abuse he's suffered, but to make it all his fault. And this is supposed to make him want to help these people?

And worse, IT FUCKING WORKS. WHAT?! I CAN'T- FUCKING WHAT?! Remember when I said LOKI IS NOT FUCKING STUPID?! So why is he STUPID?

Episode 2, he's a child. Mentally, this Loki is a fucking child. Now we've erased all the growth and development of his entire adult life. He's dopey, impatient, impulsive, desperate for a pat on the back and actually shows it. Yes, abused and neglected children crave the positive attention we never received, and we often grow up to be a bit emotionally stunted. But not all of us, and not Loki. Not as we've seen him EVER in the rest of the MCU. Playful and a bit callous at times? Absolutely! But not a big dumb fucking puppy.

Episode 3, a ray of hope, despite Sylvie! (I hate Sylvie) Loki casually admits he's pan/bi; labels never come up, but he admits to being with both men and women! He sings! Not really relevant to whether I approve of his portrayal or not lol but Tom has a beautiful voice, Norwegian ("Asgardian" lol) is a gorgeous, entrancing language, and I could watch that one bit on loop for eternity and never get bored. And then, finally, we see a glimpse - a glimpse - of Loki's power! He stops a falling building and pushes it right back up! Are we finally getting to see what he can really do? Will the next episode bring us Loki in all his glory?

Nope. 4 and 5 we see him mocked and pushed around and utterly irrelevant. Again. We see tiny reflections of what he could maybe theoretically do in other random Loki variants, but the "main" (lawl. main. it was the Sylvie and Mobius show. Loki was never the main anything.) Loki? Nothing. He wears his heart on his sleeve for no reason, bonds with the man who imprisoned, taunted, and gaslit him, is killed, and continues to be a moron and a joke. Always the clown. Always the dumb one. The one with the bad ideas. The inferior Loki.

Don't even get me started on that finale. I can't. This already took so much out of me. Fuck Marvel. Fuck this fucking show. I just... I'm done.

[alethiometry]

Character simping breakdown for our man Brasidas,,, GO 👀

(sorry for the delay, was watching blaseball while gathering my thoughts) *cracks my knuckles* HERE WE GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

How I feel about this character

SEXY BOIIIIII

in all seriousness, i think brasidas is one of the coolest characters in odyssey not just because of his absolutely fucking legendary intro scene, but also because he’s... not actually that well-developed of a character? all we really know about him is that he’s your friend, and he’s also spartan, and also he’s not as bloodthirsty or warmongering as other spartans you encounter. but beyond that, and despite him being more involved in the latter half of the main storyline than other characters, we don’t really see that much more of his motivations or character development until we see him again in the underworld. there’s a distinct difference between game-brasidas and fanon-brasidas, and it’s hard to talk about one completely divorced from the other. especially as someone who writes a lot of fic from his pov—which, honestly, is 99% just shit i made up because ubisoft basically said “here’s this badass dude, here is why you should like him, fill in the rest of the blanks yourself” and boy....... We As A Fandom Did Just That.

basically what i’m trying to say is, brasidas is basically everyone’s collective-yet-distinct OC at this point.

also, i’m putting this here because i don’t know where else i would say it but it needs to be said: at the end of the arkadia questline, if you successfully spare lagos, brasidas gets SO smug and passive-aggressive when he thanks you, IN FRONT OF MYRRINE, for seeing things his way. and honestly?!?!? FUNNIEST SHIT. LOVE THAT FOR HIM.

All the people I ship romantically with this character

KASSANDRA!!! although that’s a given. also lagos and anthousa and, honestly, myrrine. i was only reminded of the latter by @winedark which i completely forgot about until just this morning, which is why i didn’t list brasidas in that post i did yesterday about myrrine. oops.

also thucydides definitely had a big fat crush on the guy.

My non-romantic OTP for this character

also lagos! i just like their relationship in any form, honestly.

i also have a headcanon that brasidas is buddies with kalibos (the dude from the sidequest where you do a bunch of shrooms) and together they form the Chill Spartans Coalition. actually they may be the only chill dudes in all of sparta, now that thaletas has (in my game, at least) more or less defected to go live on mykonos, and lagos no longer actually lives in sparta.

My unpopular opinion about this character

okay soooooo i have a few hot takes, here we go:

1. as much as i like to joke about ubisoft being cowards, i... actually don’t mind that we can’t romance him in the game. not because i don’t ship him with kassandra/alexios (i think we all know where i stand on that), but because i simply do not trust ubisoft to write their romance well. my stance is pretty much: leave it non-canon, because fans write it better. and because it gives us less restrictions on how the relationship develops.

2. i don’t really mind that he got killed off in amphipolis. by that point in the game i couldn’t care less about hIsToRiCaL aCcUrAcY (esp given how perikles went out) so that’s not why i don’t mind... i think by this point i’ve read so many fix-it fics that it has, effectively, fixed it for me. (it being watching deimos skewer him like a fucking kebab.) basically, having him die at amphipolis gives fandom more opportunity for both happily-ever-after fix-its that are frankly better than whatever ubisoft could have written, AND tragic angsty sad fics that are my ultimate guilty pleasure.

3. i loved his character development in the hades dlc. this might be the only instance i don’t dunk on ubisoft’s writing in this entire post, but i don’t feel as if they did him dirty at all; frankly i’m extremely impressed that they threw in a bit of nuance to his character and his spartan upbringing, considering how the main game is basically pro-sparta propaganda that erases or masks actual wartime atrocities. like, if they’re going to talk about war crimes in a way that engages the player, then yeah, it should be with the dude who you actually spent time developing a meaningful friendship with over the course of the game. and boy does that dlc looooooooove to hammer home how good friends you are!!! god. also: if you tell him to stay in the underworld, he has a job! good for him! i bet he plays poker with charon on fridays.

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon.

obviously it would have been great if brasidas were a romanceable character, if only because then we’d have more material to make gifsets of. still, at the end of the day, i still stand by what i said above. but that also doesn’t mean i’ll ever shut up about ubisoft’s cowardice in denying us the opportunity to peg him halfway to mount olympus.

anyway, back to the question/prompt at hand: i... actually don’t know? like i said in response to the first question, it’s really fun to have such a loosely-characterized npc to the point where we can pretty much write/interpret him in any way we want, and it’s hard for me to want more canon material that may restrict that.

name a character and watch me ramble my way into simping for them

[stabigail]

11 questions meme

1tagged by @myrkks, tagging....... @pentaughast @ghoste-catte @beamkatanachronicles anyone who wants to ig :V

1. how would you describe your writing style or “voice” as a writer?

HONESTLY i still feel like i’m growing into my style, lol! and i often feel inconsistent, but i think part of that is a lack of confidence, still, forever #justwritingproblems. being more realistic, i would say that i tend to write from a very firm point of view and my narrators tend to be quite unreliable; i also tend to focus a lot on sensory details. generally i’m very much a stream of consciousness writer! it’s what i love 2 do.

2. do you prefer to write in first person, second person, or third person, and why? which tense do you prefer?

it depends on what i’m working on, and i definitely flip-flop some, but i almost always write in third person. for me, first person works really well for Very Unreliable Narrators who are trying to skew their story in a certain light, or for stories that are literally one person talking to other people. i love love love first person in podcasts! alice isn’t dead is probably my favorite podcast that utilizes first person, and i really love the depth of emotion that it conveys as a result, so i am more likely to us first person for projects like that.

generally, though, i struggle with first person because it limits narration in a way that i struggle with at times. second person kind of creeps me out as a writer because i feel like a soulbonder?? WHICH IS NOT A KNOCK ON SECOND PERSON, i think it makes for beautiful work, but it’s just not for me. so 3rd person limited is my favorite and has been for a while!

as for tense, i used to write exclusively in past tense but now i write exclusively in present tense and i couldn’t even tell you why. is it because the focus on the present makes for more dynamic writing? is it because i’m pretentious? is it both? likely.

3. what is one thing that inspires/motivates you as a writer these days?

oh man haha . . . spite . . . no not really, it’s a little spite but more feeling a lack and a motivation to fill it! my original work right now is based around a lot of feelings i have about both personal and global uncertainty, and while it isn’t a political piece at all, i’ve definitely found motivation to explore topics that i wish were easier to talk about. when it comes to fandom stuff, it’s usually “i love this pairing, but i never see work for it” or “i love this pairing, but i wish there was more diversity of work around it,” because i like filling gaps and also just always fall for pairings few other people care about. i’m also deeply motivated to write character exploration pieces for fandom because holy shit, nothing makes me happier than picking apart a character’s motivations and rearranging them in a new form. i’m the sylar of other people’s characters.

that being said, sometimes my motivation is “why are there only like 2 smut fics of this lesbian pairing and 238974293874 of this pairing of 2 dudes” and that is spite and i’m not sorry for it.

4. what is one of your strengths as a writer?

uhh,,,, i think i have a good attention to detail? is that a cop-out answer? maybe. i have a good grasp of figurative language, i think, and i actually am quite proud of that now that i think about it. i used to write super purple prose, and through the past few years i’ve been able to really neaten my writing up so that it’s . . . still flowery! always will be! not sorry! but it’s not overbearingly so, and the figurative language i use enhances the story rather than drowning it. shoutout to @pentaughast who has been writing with me for like five years and giving me feedback until my writing stopped being a horrible disaster thicket of metaphors, you’re a pal.

5. what is something you’d like to improve about your writing?

(rolls out scroll)

no but seriously: my number one thing to improve right now is learning to stop editing while i write. every writer is their own worst critic, but i will literally write half a sentence and then go back and change the whole thing, because i’m convinced that everything has to be Perfect the First Time. which is in fact a microcosm of my entire personality. so, anne, don’t edit while you write! also, your first draft is not your final draft! i don’t feel a need to just barf out a certain number of words per writing session, but i do think it’ll benefit me to have momentum and iron out kinks later.

6. what is one genre you enjoy writing in, and why?

hmmm this is interesting because genre is such a broad and subjective thing. that said: urban fantasy is and has always been my jam! i wouldn’t say i’m particularly good at it simply because 1) it is a super vague genre with few hard and fast rules, so i’m not sure how much of my stuff is urban fantasy even, and 2) i’ve been struggling a lot with writing original stuff over the past few years, which is where i have written urban fantasy stuff in the past.

overall i enjoy writing in fantasy or fantasy/sci-fi most of all genres, but never high fantasy because it causes me physical agony. aspects of f/sf i like a lot are basically f/sf as a mirror to our world or otherwise connected to our world (without necessarily using f/sf components as a substitution for actual discussion of oppression cuz, nah,) as well as f/sf as satire, that is my FAVE. discworld (t. pratchett) was the first fantasy series i really locked onto and it was v formative, obviously; also gaiman, stiefvater, jemisin. this question was not about my influences but too bad here they are!!!!!!!!!!

7. what would be the biggest compliment someone could give you about your writing?

the biggest, biggest compliment would be: while i was reading this, i forgot the world existed. because that has always been the biggest thing for me as a reader! the way reading can just take you somewhere, so no matter how shitty things might be in your actual situation, you can just take a break from that and follow bilbo around, or whatever. another really excellent compliment that i actually have gotten (both in writing fic and rp) is “i can hear their voice,” either in narration or dialogue. that’s huge! and it makes me really happy to hear. basically i would love for my writing to be an immersive experience for people, and that’s what i’m always striving to improve.

8. what is one piece of advice you’d give someone experiencing writer’s block or feeling stuck with their writing?

READ

idk, for me, fighting my writer’s block literally does not work. just staring at a piece of paper or a computer screen makes me upset and frustrated. reading, though, is both enjoyable and relatively passive; you don’t have to come up with ideas, you just have to take in someone else’s. as a writer, too, you can read both as an audience member and as a fellow writer observing. what does this author do that works or doesn’t? how does this style work in this context where it might not in another? how does it relate to your style? etc.

more generally, do something nice for yourself cuz sometimes that will boost your creative spirit. self-care is huge!

9. what is one piece of advice you wish someone had given you when you started writing?

lskdjfskld uh . . . don’t follow any of the advice people give you because most of it either only works for specific people or is entirely bullshit? i suppose more specifically i wish someone had been more supportive of fantasy/sci-fi as a legitimate genre with meaning, although of course that is a societal view rather than a specific one that surrounded me as a kid. it’s shitty, though, because until fairly recently i viewed the type of writing i enjoyed as “less than”/less meaningful than like, i don’t know, anything written by racist old dead white guys.

also, young adult fiction is fucking valid and doesn’t make you a less “serious” writer. i, a Fucking Grown Up, am still most captivated by YA fiction because there are fewer restrictions on it and writers tend to experiment more and, most importantly, because stories about transformation and trying to figure out who you are will never not be compelling.

10. what is a common piece of writing advice you disagree with, and why?

rubs hands together

one: write what you know. what the fuck is that, i want to know who came up with it because fuck? you??? definitely it’s fine to write about things that you have a personal perspective about, or to write in a way that reflects your worldview or emotions or whatever. but write what you know is literally the stupidest, most limiting garbage, and i have met so many grown ass adults who believe in it so strongly. curse that mess.

two: you must construct x type of work in y format following z formula. a lot of times this is really great and works well for people, but other times it can be, again, really limiting. beginning-middle-end is great, but even that can be inappropriate for certain stories, depending on what they are? for me, strictly following writing formulas made me overly focused on “”accuracy”” and less focused on writing what i enjoyed.

three: this one isn’t quite as cut and dry as the previous two, but: write protagonists that people can relate to. here’s the thing: i feel like this often gets translated to “protagonists that are charmingly aware of their own assholeishness, totally perfect and always right, or bland,” and it’s kind of a shitty trap to fall into? this is another reason i love unreliable narrators, bcause you can have that nuance and imperfection without the entire story being about how shitty the character is. their imperfection is part of the story and perhaps even a driving force, but they aren’t just sort of a paper cutout used to drive the story along. hello i’m anne and i struggle writing protagonists.

11. what writing projects are you working on these days?

excited buzzing. a couple! i am really shy about talking about original stuff, but i am working on scripts for (tentatively) a podcast about a very apathetic and cynical gal who is one of a very few survivors of a series of natural disasters and also may?be the one who made them happen. Whoopsie.

fanfiction-wise, i am working on finishing . . . christ on a raft let me count. four! one-shots. there’s a fifth one that i wrote 10k words of in like 2015 and still haven’t finished and i don’t know if i’ll trash it or not lol. regardless, i am working on those! there is a fic that i started working on a while back that was meant to be a multi-chapter fic called reverse about giorno tripping into vampirism and fugo having 0 idea what to do about it; i’ve let it dangle for ages, but i am slowly fleshing out the plot again and getting it going. i’m very excited to do this! i love giorno having to figure out how to vampire and i love fugio.

finally, @relares and i are starting to work on a reset fugiomis fic which, weeps into tea, will kill us both.

[mermaidsirennikita]

Have you seen the movie Jackie? What did you think of it?

This is about to get REAL nerdy up in here anon.  I had such a painfully obvious boner for Kennedy!history and legends for like... my last year of high school and most of freshman year of college that my mom gifted me with a first edition copy of Profiles in Courage by (but not rlly, he was too busy politicking to write a whole book) JFK for my birthday.  And like, that wasn’t even the only Kennedy-related birthday present I got that year.

I have seen it!  I think it could have been better as a story about Jackie and a Kennedy-oriented history fan (I hate myself for identifying with that) but as a movie it is a Work, imo.  And I mean that in a good way, there were bits of the movie where I was like yeah I’m watching something really intentionally artistic here and it’s pulling it off.

The thing is that while the movie is OVERALL accurate (I’ll expand on my criticisms of accuracy later lol) the history isn’t the point, aside from when it relates directly to our perception of Jackie vs. the Real Jackie, and though obviously I don’t know the woman and I wouldn’t say this movie covers her entire personality (it spans over just a few days, it can’t) it nails certain aspects of her that we don’t discuss often, imo.

Jackie is as iconic as Marilyn Monroe, exactly because she was the antithesis, or so it seemed, of Marilyn.  Marilyn was sex; Jackie was love (romantic love, maternal love, patriotic love).  Marilyn was dirty, but in a touchable way that made you want to touch her; Jackie was clean, but in a way that made you want to put her behind a pedestal and maybe never even get to know her because that might ruin the image you have in your head.  You don’t want her to be human.  You don’t want to fuck her.  You want to love her.

The thing is that just as with Marilyn, the image was really, mostly, a lie. Jackie actually had a lot in common with Marilyn--she probably wasn’t faithful to Jack, though he started it, I’m sure.  She struggled with loving a man who could never really open himself fully to her (Marilyn chased these types like craaaazy).  Hell, they both even had fertility issues (Jackie had multiple miscarriages and actually lost a two-day-old son less than a year before Jack died).  She was saddled with legacy, and like Marilyn she really couldn’t be herself.  Even their interviews, ESPECIALLY if you listen to them (as a MASSIVE DORK I really recommend listening to those, like, 18 hours of interviews with Jackie done after Jack died, which this movie definitely pulls from).  She was never as raw, imo, as she even is to the interviewer in the movie. More vulnerable than usual, maybe, but never Raw.  Like, the movie has her saw really honest shit and it’s probably what she was thinking but then she’s like--strike that from the record.  Imo, the real Jackie slipped up and struck things from the record, but she never slipped up and was as honest with a reporter as she is in the movie.

Listen, I’ve got issues with Natalie Portman, but she NAILS those aspects of Jackie Kennedy that the movie is interested in, and I don’t like her as a person but she was robbed of a second oscar tbh.  She wiped the floor with Emma Stone.  There is more nuance to a single scene of her in this movie (the one where she’s sort of drunkenly dancing about the white house, as one example) than Emma conveys in all of La La Land, case closed.

The Jackie in this movie is an inner part of Jackie that I am certain existed.  She’s constructing a legacy for Jack as soon as he dies, because he never got a chance to make that legacy for herself.  She understand the myth of this family, of her, and she’s making sure that the myth lives on because that’s all they’ll have.  He’ll never get to his second term, which some historians opine would have been much more groundbreaking than the first, as is often the case (first term presidents don’t want to offend because they’re thinking about reelection; second term presidents can lay it all out on the table).  She’s been indoctrinated into this myth of this family (and the movie never covers this, but she was apparently Joseph Kennedy Senior’s favorite daughter-in-law, and maybe he was just being a creep and thought she was hot but I think he recognized in her a similar ability to go along and play for the cameras that his wife possessed, except better--she elevated the family, the Bouvier blood was much bluer than that of the Kennedys at that time) but she’s also making it what she wants it to be, because this is her greatest act as First Lady.  As much as Jack and Joe Sr. and Bobby and Ted adored Jackie, she didn’t get along with the women of the family because I think tbh there was some intimidation going on within both sides and she never fit in, but damn, in this moment, she gets to MAKE the family.  

The movie also both embraces and shies away from Sentimental Jackie, which we so often see.  Jackie is usually either a bitch who didn’t really love her husband but is annoyed with his embarrassing infidelities and is in it for the glory, or a weepy messy who’s always on prescription drugs to dull the pain and going “Jaaaaaaack” whenever he comes home after fucking some lady.  This Jackie is ABSOLUTELY played as deeply in love with her husband, and in some ways more sure of his love for her than I think most fictionalized Jackies are, in a very period-appropriate way.  Sure, her husband has mistresses.  But he’s also a brilliant man  in her opinion, and he puts her on a pedestal and she’s the one he comes home to, she’s the First Lady, she’s the mother of his children, so...  The infidelities are painful, but not the end of the world.  There’s a line she says to a priest in possibly my favorite part of the movie where he sort of broaches another part of her pain they’ve only alluded to--the affairs.  And she fucking SNAPS, it’s one of the only times she really loses control, being like “I was the goddamn First Lady of the United States, don’t you dare pity me” and it’s GREAT.

Now.  If you’re looking for a biopic, this isn’t it.  It’s a study in grief (grief for a beloved husband, trauma over how he died which is very graphically portrayed, grief for everything that will never be) and a character study of Jackie.  The entire Kennedy story isn’t as delved into as it should have been.  And to be honest, the biggest gap here is Bobby Kennedy.  If you’re going to tell a story of Jackie Kennedy’s grief, you gotta feature more Bobby.  I mean lbr I’m fascinated with the relationship anyway, but they completely turned to each other immediately after Jack died.  Literally nobody else understood how they were feeling.  Jackie devoted her life to this man, giving up so much to make his dreams come true... and so did Bobby.  Shit, Bobby and Jackie could finish each other’s sentences, and both professionally and personally they were hugely codependent in the last years of Jack’s life.  And Bobby, like I said before, worshiped Jackie at one point in his life.  They were both into literature and poems (especially after Jack died, she got him into poetry to help him grieve) and they’d visit the graveside just them two.  Bobby’s first concern after Jack died was Jackie; he immediately took up a more paternal role with Caroline and JFK Jr.  But this wasn’t just because Jack died, they were genuinely best friends--when JFK was away on a yacht or something after Jackie’s first miscarriage, Bobby was in the hospital with her.  Whether they ever crossed that line is irrelevant; if you’re doing a good “Jackie grieves Jack” moment you have to have a good Bobby and vice versa.  This guy... has none of the literally insane grief Bobby had (people thought he was gonna lose it for real, including Jackie).  He isn’t as acquiescing to Jackie as he reportedly was irl after the shooting, and yes he did resist the massive funeral she wanted from what I’ve read, but this is played a bit less like Bobby Is Going Into Guilt-Driven Paranoia and Is Worried His Niece And Nephew Are Gonna Be Assassinated and more like... ooh, this man is trying to put Jackie down, but she’s gonna have a Feminist Moment and fight him on it.

It’s the one big weak point of the movie, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE ISN’T DOING THE ACCENT AAAAAGH THE ACCENT EMBODIES THE FAMILY LINGUISTS HAVE STUDIED IT AND IT’S SO INDIVIDUALIZED THAT NOBODY ELSE REALLY EVER HAD IT THAT’S HOW RICH AND “YOU CAN’T SIT WITH US” THEY WERE.  This is especially glaring because JFK doesn’t have an accent for his little speaking role either which could be fine bc he’s barely alive in the movie but theeeeeen Natalie is WRECKING the Jackie voice, she got it just right.  Like fuck, I know this is a Portman Project but you’d think someone would want to not phone it in and maybe get some best supporting actor noms because Bobby Kennedy is a meaty role.  Look at Barry Pepper, he was in a legit not great at all miniseries but he killed the role of Bobby and did the accent so well (and I admit Bobby’s is apparently harder to do bc his voice was also super distinct without the accent) and the awards just came rushing in.

Basically: this is a very, very good movie that should have won Natalie Portman an oscar, I think it got so much right about Jackie but it wasn’t quiiiiiite as fucking nerdy as I’d like.  Also, I say this as someone whose favorite Kennedy is very obviously RFK (he was shady AF like all of them but he had good ideas and was viciously effective when he wanted to be, tbh his assassination is one of the great “what could have beens” of American history imo).  But yeah, I think this is a really impressive, well-directed movie if not necessarily the movie I would have made about the family.