#I don't take constructive criticism

[unfortunatelyevent]

Anyway 5 bucks says Alice and Sam will have hooked up after the ruins and it'll be super awkward by next ep

[blvcklizard]

Licht would be the type of aroace that's absolutely down to play the pocky game, partly because hey, free chocolate, and partly because he always wins. He thinks it's thanks to his angelic powers and not because his Servamp is a mess that's totally weak to this sort of stuff. Hyde is okay with that misunderstanding. It's a win win.

[nephiliam]

got the PHD

Post

Hang-out

Depression

[anemoneflower]

I believe Corpse Factory would be objectively improved if finale of act 3 included a lesbian sex scene but still ended in the exact same way

[american-girl-omegaverse]

Samantha Parkington is an alpha because from a young age she had to take on a lot of responsibility after her parents died when she was young and so that manifested as her being an alpha since she was used to being in charge and fending for herself.

Nanea is Samantha's girlfriend and omega. Nanea presented as an omega almost immediately after the bombing of pearl harbor and the presentation happened at the same time as her trauma response from the attacks on peal harbor

[meowmeowmeowimacat]

maslov meowmeowmeowimacat's hierarchy of needs:

[bamsara]

I think that one thing people fail to understand is that unsolicited literary criticism coming from an online stranger who is reading with no knowledge of what the authors intended goal is, is not going to be received the same as say: the authors beta reader or friends who know what the authors intended goal and has the sufficient knowledge and input to help the author reach that desired outcome.

"But I'm only trying to be helpful" How do I know you have the knowledge and literary skill for you to be able to actaully do that when we don't know each other and you are essentially a stranger to me? Are you applying this criticism based out of personal biased experience and desire to see the story or characterization be driven in another direction or tweaked, or do you know the author's intentions for the character? If the story is incomplete, are you basing your criticism of a character on the incomplete narration with only partial information available of them or are you building up a report until the story's completion? Did the author provide you with the information needed to make a fully informed criticism?

Have you discussed with the author what their plans are or are you assuming them based off the narration, especially if the narration is proven or implied to be unreliable or missing key points of the plot? Are you unbiased enough to help them reach their desired outcome for the characters and story regardless of your personal feelings towards the characters/antagonists and setting? Can you handle being told your specific input isn't wanted because you're a reader and/or have no written anything relating to their genre or topic? Do you understand and respect that the author's personal experiences might influence their writing and make it different than how you would have done it personally? Do you understand if an author only wants input from a specific demographic relating to their story?

If it's for fanfiction or other hobby media, are you holding a free hobby to a professional standard? Are you trying to give criticism because you feel like the author has produced 'subpar job performance' of their fic? Are you viewing their work as a personal intimate outlet or something that must conform with mass media? Are you applying rules and guidelines when the fic is shared for simple sharing sake? Is your criticism worded appropriately and focused on the parts where the author has requested input on rather than a general dismissal and or disapproval?

Have you put yourself in a place where you assumed you have the input needed for the story to evolve better, or have you asked what the author needs and what they're having trouble with? Can you handle having your criticism rejected if the author decides their story doesn't need the change and not take it as a personal offense against your character? Are you crossing that boundary because you think you are doing the author a favor? Are you trying to be helpful, or do you just want to be?

I think sometimes when people hear authors go 'please don't give me unsolicited writing advice or criticism' they automatically chalk it up to 'this author doesn't want ANY constructive feedback on their stuff at all' and not "i already have trusted individuals who will help me with my writing goals and- hey i don't know you like that, please stop acting so overly familiar with me'

[doodledowt]

favorite color?

White! But since I know it's a controversial to call it a colour my second favourite is Yellow (or like a Reddish-brown idk)

[denkies]

[star--anon]

Minho soaks his entire Oreo cookie by dunking his fingers into his cup of milk

Newt gets a plate -- a plate???? -- and pours a shallow puddle of milk, then drops in his Oreo and flips it around the same way you'd sear steak

Thomas sticks the Oreo in his mouth and then takes a sip of milk

They all think they're normal, and they are all disgusted by the other two's behavior

[embarasseddragon234]

Where's Waldo?

Part: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

[outsiderswolfpac]

dumb thing i made for my gf of mine and her fave wrestlers but it is too funny to not share

this came to me in a shroom-induced fever dream (/hj. it's a long story) and i just had to make it

so behold: wwf femme-butch scale. i can't explain my rankings. they are just like that.

[fanartsandstuff]

I don't think Jekyll is having good time there Layon

[galadriel-blue]

VENTING

Rant under the cut (people telling me to change things about my blog [like the way I tag things???] and just general Rings of Power hate towards me

Hey just so you know, it's not my job to cater my personal blog (that I made for fun) to your personal preferences. This is a Rings of Power & LOTR blog. I am going to post about both because it's my blog. If you only follow me for my Rings of Power stuff, great! If you only follow me for my LOTR stuff? Also great! follow me for both? Awesome! Spectacular even! but like, If you don't like one of the fandoms I post about, then block the tags or just ignore it instead of going onto MULTIPLE OF MY POSTS and messaging me, telling me what to change about MY BLOG.

This is all because I tagged something Rings of Power related with a LOTR tag and a few people got mad at me (comments and messages) saying that "The Rings of Power isn't LOTR??? Can you not tag it like that I don't want to see Rings of Power stuff. I follow for LOTR" like what???

They exist in the same universe whether you like it or not?? And lots of people tag TROP stuff with LOTR tags too. Plus, sometimes I am talking about both in the same post (like comparing and contrasting things that are the same or different from the show and movies) so I am going to use both tags for that. Besides, why are you telling a complete stranger who posts her stuff for fun to make her blog okay for YOU? I make my blog and posts for me so... Maybe just block me and move on if you don't like how I post things, or tag things.

Also, it's not my problem if you don't like Rings of Power?? Don't interact with it then?? Like, you can control that? My blog is pretty clearly a Rings of Power blog. I literally have Morfydd Clark's Galadriel as my pfp lol

If you don't like it don't interact with it. I could care less if somebody hates the show I genuinely enjoy because it doesn't affect my enjoyment if someone dislikes it. Just don't be a bully and don't tell me how to run my blog because it's upsetting when the only comments I get are "I don't like this show can you stop posting about it," and "Don't use those tags pls I don't like seeing Rings of Power on my feed."

Cater your experience to you and I'll cater my experience to me. If you are going to be entitled and tell me how to run my blog, I am just going to block you <3

If you read this to the end, you deserve a The Rings of Power Galadriel for your troubles.

[houlebubo]

One day I'll probably do a 40-minute video essay on this topic, but the internet's misinterpretation of "Death of the Author" is just a real shame.

I frequently see the concept brought up in relation to a certain terf author. People attempt to 'separate the work and the author', but that is frankly not how it is intended to be used.

"Death of the Author" is supposed to be a tool for literary analysis. That's all it is. It is not a theory by itself, nor a political stance or a way to judge morality.

It is a tool to encourage readers to interpret the content of a text authentically, but you should use it critically, and be aware of why, how and when it is relevant. It is not an excuse to ignore context or paratext, as both of those should also be considered in a proper analysis.

The tool was developed during a time when the discourse was more favourable towards an author's intention rather than a reader's interpretation. People used intention to dismiss other readers' analysis of texts, using diary entries or letters by dead authors to counter less mainstream takes of canon texts. It was a period where the 'goal' of literary analysis was to uncover a text's true meaning. The original essay was a short controversial counterargument but the conversations it sparked over the following decades have led to the scale tipping more in favour of interpretation. It has also led to a 180 of the original problem.

Killing the author has the potential of empowering readers and encouraging deeper. Maybe even uncovering biases the author wasn't even aware of! However, (mostly outside of academic circles but not always) people are misusing the concept and use it to dismiss context and racist dog-whistles as well as discourage readings that rely more on subtext.

In simple terms we have gone from a mentality saying "AHA, I have evidence and it said you are wrong" to "AHA, it doesn't matter and therefore you are wrong". Neither is constructive in a conversation about art.

If you use the death of the author effectively while acknowledging intention and context you actually add a lot of nuance to your analysis, and doing so can demonstrate your analytical abilities. You will be able to distinguish what the text is saying plainly, what is said between the lines, and if the narrative effectively handles what it originally claimed. It is an effective 1-2 punch. Let me give you an ultra-short example:

On the surface level, '50 Shades of Grey' tells you that it is a sexy BDSM story. Throughout interviews and promotional material, E. L. James frames her story as a female-empowering book. But by critically examining how the books handle themes of consent, privacy, agency etc. we can argue that the narrative doesn't live up to proper BDSM conduct and that the protagonist is not empowered, and is instead displaying an unhealthy relationship. If we take the analysis further we could make an argument about what this says about society at large. Does it normalise boundary-breaking behaviour? Could it make someone romanticise stalking? The thesis statement is all up to you. (disclaimer I have not actually read these books, don't come for me, this is an example)

Here is what we just did: I presented a surface reading of a text. I presented the most likely intention of the author. I then argued for my interpretation by looking at literary themes and context. I used the conflict between Jame's intention, and my interpretation to illustrate a conflict. 1-2 punch. I am not killing James, I consider her opinion and intention to strengthen my argument, but I don't let her word of god determine or dismiss my reading. In just 3 simple sentences I use a variety of resources from my toolbox.

When people weaponise the author's intention it can look like this:

"Well, E. L. James said it is a female power fantasy, you're just reading too much into it" <- dismissing context and subtext by using 'word of god'. Weighing intention above interpretation.

"Does it really matter that E. L. James didn't research BDSM before publishing, can't it just be a sexy book?" <- dismissing context, subtext as well as author intention and accountability. Weighing their own interpretation and subtly killing the author

Simply exclaiming "I believe in death of the author" (which I have heard in Lit classes) means nothing. It's nothing. Except that you want to ignore context and only indulge in the parts of the text that you find enjoyable.

In the plainest way I can put it, the death of the author is supposed to make you say: "the author probably meant A, but the text and the context is saying B, therefore I conclude C". Don't just repeat what the author says. Don't just ignore context. And allow the feelings the text invokes in you to be there and let them be something you reflect on. The details you pick up on will be completely unique to you, the meaning you get will be just your own. You can do all of these things at once, I promise it doesn't have to be one or the other.

There has to be a balance. Intention matters. Interpretation matter. Watch out and pay attention. Are you only claiming the author is dead or alive when it serves your own narrative?

When you want to ignore an author ask why

When you don't want to read a book because you don't condone the actions of the author ask why

Examine how you dismiss arguments and how you further conversations.

[butyouaremymess]

Bridgerton women + midnights lyrics