#Those essays aren't even creative

[ineffablegallyfreyanimpala221b]

Born to write spn fanfic, forced to write college essays

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Proud to be a blockhead

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/21/blockheads-r-us/#vocational-awe

This is my last Pluralistic post of the year, and rather than round up my most successful posts of the year, I figured I'd write a little about why it's impossible for me to do that, and why that is by design, and what that says about the arts, monopolies, and creative labor markets.

I started Pluralistic nearly five years ago, and from the outset, I was adamant that I wouldn't measure my success through quantitative measures. The canonical version of Pluralistic – the one that lives at pluralistic.net – has no metrics, no analytics, no logs, and no tracking. I don't know who visits the site. I don't know how many people visit the site. I don't know which posts are most popular, and which ones are the least popular. I can't know any of that.

The other versions of Pluralistic are less ascetic, but only because there's no way for me to turn off some metrics on those channels. The Mailman service that delivers the (tracker-free) email version of Pluralistic necessarily has a system for telling me how many subscribers I have, but I have never looked at that number, and have no intention of doing so. I have turned off notifications when someone signs up for the list, or resigns from it.

The commercial, surveillance-heavy channels for Pluralistic – Tumblr, Twitter – have a lot of metrics, but again, I don't consult them. Medium and Mastodon have some metrics, and again, I just pretend they don't exist.

What do I pay attention to? The qualitative impacts of my writing. Comments. Replies. Emails. Other bloggers who discuss it, or discussions on Metafilter, Slashdot, Reddit and Hacker News. That stuff matters to me a lot because I write for two reasons, which are, in order: to work out my own thinking, and; to influence other peoples' thinking.

Writing is a cognitive prosthesis for me. Working things out on the page helps me work things out in my life. And, of course, working things out on the page helps me work more things out on the page. Writing begets writing:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/09/the-memex-method/

Honestly, that is sufficient. Not in the sense that writing, without being read, would make me happy or fulfilled. Being read and being part of a community and a conversation matters a lot to me. But the very act of writing is so important to me that even if no one read me, I would still write.

This is a thing that writers aren't supposed to admit. As I wrote on this blog's fourth anniversary, the most laughably false statement about writing ever uttered is Samuel Johnson's notorious "No man but a blockhead ever wrote but for money":

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/20/fore/#synthesis

Making art is not an "economically rational" activity. Neither is attempting to persuade other people to your point of view. These activities are not merely intrinsically satisfying, they are also necessary, at least for many of us. The long, stupid fight about copyright that started in the Napster era has rarely acknowledged this, nor has it grappled with the implications of it. On the one hand, you have copyright maximalists who say totally absurd things like, "If you don't pay for art, no one will make art, and art will disappear." This is one of those radioactively false statements whose falsity is so glaring that it can be seen from orbit.

But on the other hand, you know who knows this fact very well? The corporations that pay creative workers. Movie studios, record labels, publishers, games studios: they all know that they are in possession of a workforce that has to make art, and will continue to do so, paycheck or not, until someone pokes their eyes out or breaks their fingers. People make art because it matters to them, and this trait makes workers terribly exploitable. As Fobazi Ettarh writes in her seminal paper on "vocational awe," workers who care about their jobs are at a huge disadvantage in labor markets. Teachers, librarians, nurses, and yes, artists, are all motivated by a sense of mission that often trumps their own self-interest and well-being and their bosses know it:

https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2018/vocational-awe/

One of the most important ideas in David Graeber's magisterial book Bullshit Jobs is that the ground state of labor is to do a job that you are proud of and that matters to you, but late-stage capitalist alienation has gotten so grotesque that some people will actually sneer at the idea that, say, teachers should be well compensated: "Why should you get a living wage – isn't the satisfaction of helping children payment enough?"

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/06/20/david-graebers-bullshit-jobs-why-does-the-economy-sustain-jobs-that-no-one-values/

These are the most salient facts of the copyright fight: creativity is a non-economic activity, and this makes creative workers extremely vulnerable to exploitation. People make art because they have to. As Marx was finishing Kapital, he was often stuck working from home, having pawned his trousers so he could keep writing. The fact that artists don't respond rationally to economic incentives doesn't mean they should starve to death. Art – like nursing, teaching and librarianship – is necessary for human thriving.

No, the implication of the economic irrationality of vocational awe is this: the only tool that can secure economic justice for workers who truly can't help but do their jobs is solidarity. Creative workers need to be in solidarity with one another, and with our audiences – and, often, with the other workers at the corporations who bring our work to market. We are all class allies locked in struggle with the owners of both the entertainment companies and the technology companies that sit between us and our audiences (this is the thesis of Rebecca Giblin's and my 2022 book Chokepoint Capitalism):

https://chokepointcapitalism.com/

The idea of artistic solidarity is an old and important one. Victor Hugo, creator of the first copyright treaty – the Berne Convention – wrote movingly about how the point of securing rights for creators wasn't to allow their biological children to exploit their work after their death, but rather, to ensure that the creative successors of artists could build on their forebears' accomplishments. Hugo – like any other artist who has a shred of honesty and has thought about the subject for more than ten seconds – knew that he was part of a creative community and tradition, one composed of readers and writers and critics and publishing workers, and that this was a community and a tradition worth fighting for and protecting.

One of the most important and memorable interviews Rebecca and I did for our book was with Liz Pelly, one of the sharpest critics of Spotify (our chapter about how Spotify steals from musicians is the only part of the audiobook available on Spotify itself – a "Spotify Exclusive"!):

https://open.spotify.com/show/7oLW9ANweI01CVbZUyH4Xg

Pelly has just published a major, important new book about Spotify's ripoffs, called Mood Machine:

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Mood-Machine/Liz-Pelly/9781668083505

A long article in Harper's unpacks one of the core mechanics at the heart of Spotify's systematic theft from creative workers: the use of "ghost artists," whose generic music is cheaper than real music, which is why Spotify crams it into their playlists:

https://harpers.org/archive/2025/01/the-ghosts-in-the-machine-liz-pelly-spotify-musicians/

The subject of Ghost Artists has long been shrouded in mystery and ardent – but highly selective – denials from Spotify itself. In her article – which features leaked internal chats from Spotify – Pelly gets to the heart of the matter. Ghost artists are musicians who are recruited by shadowy companies that offer flat fees for composing and performing inoffensive muzak that can fade into the background. This is wholesaled to Spotify, which crams it into wildly popular playlists of music that people put on while they're doing something else ("Deep Focus," "100% Lounge," "Bossa Nova Dinner," "Cocktail Jazz," "Deep Sleep," "Morning Stretch") and might therefore settle for an inferior product.

Spotify calls this "Perfect Fit Music" and it's the pink slime of music, an extruded, musiclike content that plugs a music-shaped hole in your life, without performing the communicative and aesthetic job that real music exists for.

After many dead-end leads with people involved in the musical pink slime industry, Pelly finally locates a musician who's willing to speak anonymously about his work (he asks for anonymity because he relies on the pittances he receives for making pink slime to survive). This jazz musician knows very little about where the music he's commissioned to produce ends up, which is by design. The musical pink slime industry, like all sleaze industries, is shrouded in the secrecy sought by bosses who know that they're running a racket they should be ashamed of.

The anonymous musician composes a stack of compositions on his couch, then goes into a studio for a series of one-take recordings. There's usually a rep from the PFC pink slime industry there, and the rep's feedback is always "play simpler." As the anonymous musician explains:

That’s definitely the thing: nothing that could be even remotely challenging or offensive, really. The goal, for sure, is to be as milquetoast as possible.

This source calls the arrangement "shameful." Another musician Pelly spoke to said "it felt unethical, like some kind of money-laundering scheme." The PFC companies say that these composers and performers are just making music, the way anyone might, and releasing it under pseudonyms in a way that "has been popular across mediums for decades." But Pelly's interview subjects told her that they don't consider their work to be art:

It feels like someone is giving you a prompt or a question, and you’re just answering it, whether it’s actually your conviction or not. Nobody I know would ever go into the studio and record music this way.

Artists who are recruited to make new pink slime are given reference links to existing pink slime and ordered to replicate it as closely as possible. The tracks produced this way that do the best are then fed to the next group of musicians to replicate, and so on. It's the musical equivalent of feeding slaughterhouse sweepings to the next generation of livestock, a version of the gag from Catch 22 where a patient in a body-cast has a catheter bag and an IV drip, and once a day a nurse comes and swaps them around.

Pelly reminds us that Spotify was supposed to be an answer to the painful question of the Napster era: how do we pay musicians for their labor? Spotify was sold as a way to bypass the "gatekeepers": the big three labels who own 70% of all recorded music, whose financial maltreatment of artists was seen as moral justification for file sharing ("Why buy the CD if the musician won't see any of the money from it?").

But the way that Spotify secured rights to all the popular music in the world was by handing over big equity stakes in its business to the Big Three labels, and giving them wildly preferential terms that made it impossible for independent musicians and labels to earn more than homeopathic fractions of a penny for each stream, even as Spotify became the one essential conduit for reaching an audience:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/03/16/wage-theft/#excessive-buyer-power

It turns out that getting fans to pay for music has no necessary connection to getting musicians paid. Vocational awe means that the fact that someone has induced a musician to make music doesn't mean that the musician is getting a fair share of what you pay for music. The same goes for every kind of art, and every field where vocational awe plays a role, from nursing to librarianship.

Chokepoint Capitalism tries very hard to grapple with this conundrum; the second half of the book is a series of detailed, shovel-ready policy prescriptions for labor, contract, and copyright reforms that will immediately and profoundly shift the share of income generated by creative labor from bosses to workers.

Which brings me back to this little publishing enterprise of mine, and the fact that I do it for free, and not only that, give it away under a Creative Commons Attribution license that allows you to share and republish it, for money, if you choose:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

I am lucky enough that I make a good living from my writing, but I'm also honest enough with myself to know just how much luck was involved with that fact, and insecure enough to live in a state of constant near-terror about what happens when my luck runs out. I came up in science fiction, and I vividly remember the writers I admired whose careers popped like soap-bubbles when Reagan deregulated the retail sector, precipitating a collapse in the grocery stores and pharmacies where "midlist" mass-market paperbacks were sold by the millions across the country:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/04/self-publishing/

These writers – the ones who are still alive – are living proof of the fact that you have to break our fingers to get us to stop writing. Some of them haven't had a mainstream publisher in decades, but they're still writing, and self-publishing, or publishing with small presses, and often they're doing the best work of their careers, and almost no one is seeing it, and they're still doing it.

Because we aren't engaged in economically rational activity. We're doing something essential – essential to us, first and foremost, and essential to the audiences and peers our work reaches and changes and challenges.

Pluralistic is, in part, a way for me too face the fear I wake up with every day, that some day, my luck will run out, as it has for nearly all the writers I've ever admired, and to reassure myself that the writing will go on doing what I need it to do for my psyche and my heart even if – when – my career regresses to the mean.

It's a way for me to reaffirm the solidaristic nature of artistic activity, the connection with other writers and other readers (because I am, of course, an avid, constant reader). Commercial fortunes change. Monopolies lay waste to whole sectors and swallow up the livelihoods of people who believe in what they do like a whale straining tons of plankton through its baleen. But solidarity endures. Solidarietatis longa, vita brevis.

Happy New Year folks. See you in 2025.

[hms-no-fun]

Hi! I just read your post about your opinion on "AI" and I really liked it. If it's no bother, what's your opinion on people who use it for studying? Like writing essays, solving problems and stuff like that?

I haven't been a fan of AI from the beginning and I've heard that you shouldn't ask it for anything because then you help it develop. But I don't know how to explain that to friends and classmates or even if it's true anymore. Because I've seen some of the prompts it can come up with and they're not bad and I've heard people say that the summaries AI makes are really good and I just... I dunno. I'm at a loss

Sorry if this is a lot or something you simply don't want to reply to. You made really good points when talking about AI and I really liked it and this has been weighing on me for a while :)

on a base level, i don't really have a strongly articulated opinion on the subject because i don't use AI, and i'm 35 so i'm not in school anymore and i don't have a ton of college-aged friends either. i have little exposure to the people who use AI in this way nor to the people who have to deal with AI being used in this way, so my perspective here is totally hypothetical and unscientific.

what i was getting at in my original AI post was a general macroeconomic point about how all of the supposed efficiency gains of AI are an extension of the tech CEO's dislike of paying and/or giving credit to anyone they deem less skilled or intelligent than them. that it's conspicuous how AI conveniently falls into place after many decades of devaluing and deskilling creative/artistic labor industries. historically, for a lot of artists the most frequently available & highest paying gigs were in advertising. i can't speak to the specifics when it comes to visual art or written copy, but i *can* say that when i worked in the oklahoma film industry, the most coveted jobs were always the commercials. great pay for relatively less work, with none of the complications that often arise working on amateur productions. not to mention they were union gigs, a rare enough thing in a right to work state, so anyone trying to make a career out of film work wanting to bank their union hours to qualify for IATSE membership always had their ears to the ground for an opening. which didn't come often because, as you might expect, anyone who *got* one of those jobs aimed to keep it as long as possible. who could blame em, either? one person i met who managed to get consistent ad work said they could afford to work all of two or three months a year, so they could spend the rest of their time doing low-budget productions and (occasionally) student films.

there was a time when this was the standard for the film industry, even in LA; you expected to work 3 to 5 shows a year (exact number's hard to estimate because production schedules vary wildly between ads, films, and tv shows) for six to eight months if not less, so you'd have your bills well covered through the lean periods and be able to recover from what is an enormously taxing job both physically and emotionally. this was never true for EVERYONE, film work's always been a hustle and making a career of it is often a luck-based crapshoot, but generally that was the model and for a lot of folks it worked. it meant more time to practice their skills on the job, sustainably building expertise and domain knowledge that they could then pass down to future newcomers. anything that removes such opportunities decreases the amount of practice workers get, and any increased demand on their time makes them significantly more likely to burn out of the industry early. lower pay, shorter shoots, busier schedules, these aren't just bad for individual workers but for the entire industry, and that includes the robust and well-funded advertising industry.

well, anyway, this year's coca-cola christmas ad was made with AI. they had maybe one person on quality control using an adobe aftereffects mask to add in the coke branding. this is the ultimate intended use-case for AI. it required the expertise of zero unionized labor, and worst of all the end result is largely indistinguishable from the alternative. you'll often see folks despair at this verisimilitude, particularly when a study comes out that shows (for instance) people can't tell the difference between real poetry and chat gpt generated poetry. i despair as well, but for different reasons. i despair that production of ads is a better source of income and experience for film workers than traditional movies or television. i despair that this technology is fulfilling an age-old promise about the disposability of artistic labor. poetry is not particularly valued by our society, is rarely taught to people beyond a beginner's gloss on meter and rhyme. "my name is sarah zedig and i'm here to say, i'm sick of this AI in a major way" type shit. end a post with the line "i so just wish that it would go away and never come back again!" and then the haiku bot swoops in and says, oh, 5/7/5 you say? that is technically a haiku! and then you put a haiku-making minigame in your crowd-pleasing japanese nationalist open world chanbara simulator, because making a haiku is basically a matter of selecting one from 27 possible phrase combinations. wait, what do you mean the actual rules of haiku are more elastic and subjective than that? that's not what my english teacher said in sixth grade!

AI is able to slip in and surprise us with its ability to mimic human-produced art because we already treat most human-produced art like mechanical surplus of little to no value. ours is a culture of wikipedia-level knowledge, where you have every incentive to learn a lot of facts about something so that you can sufficiently pretend to have actually experienced it. but this is not to say that humans would be better able to tell the difference between human produced and AI produced poetry if they were more educated about poetry! the primary disconnect here is economic. Poets already couldn't make a fucking living making poetry, and now any old schmuck can plug a prompt into chatgpt and say they wrote a sonnet. even though they always had the ability to sit down and write a sonnet!

boosters love to make hay about "deskilling" and "democratizing" and "making accessible" these supposedly gatekept realms of supposedly bourgeois expression, but what they're really saying (whether they know it or not) is that skill and training have no value anymore. and they have been saying this since long before AI as we know it now existed! creative labor is the backbone of so much of our world, and yet it is commonly accepted as a poverty profession. i grew up reading books and watching movies based on books and hearing endless conversation about books and yet when i told my family "i want to be a writer" they said "that's a great way to die homeless." like, this is where the conversation about AI's impact starts. we already have a culture that simultaneously NEEDS the products of artistic labor, yet vilifies and denigrates the workers who perform that labor. folks see a comic panel or a corporate logo or a modern art piece and say "my kid could do that," because they don't perceive the decades of training, practice, networking, and experimentation that resulted in the finished product. these folks do not understand that just because the labor of art is often invisible doesn't mean it isn't work.

i think this entire conversation is backwards. in an ideal world, none of this matters. human labor should not be valued over machine labor because it inherently possesses an aura of human-ness. art made by humans isn't better than AI generated art on qualitative grounds. art is subjective. you're not wrong to find beauty in an AI image if the image is beautiful. to my mind, the value of human artistic labor comes down to the simple fact that the world is better when human beings make art. the world is better when we have the time and freedom to experiment, to play, to practice, to develop and refine our skills to no particular end except whatever arbitrary goal we set for ourselves. the world is better when people collaborate on a film set to solve problems that arise organically out of the conditions of shooting on a live location. what i see AI being used for is removing as many opportunities for human creativity as possible and replacing them with statistical averages of prior human creativity. this passes muster because art is a product that exists to turn a profit. because publicly traded companies have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to take every opportunity to turn a profit regardless of how obviously bad for people those opportunities might be.

that common sense says writing poetry, writing prose, writing anything is primarily about reaching the end of the line, about having written something, IS the problem. i've been going through the many unfinished novels i wrote in high school lately, literally hundreds of thousands of words that i shared with maybe a dozen people and probably never will again. what value do those words have? was writing them a waste of time since i never posted them, never finished them, never turned a profit off them? no! what i've learned going back through those old drafts is that i'm only the writer i am today BECAUSE i put so many hours into writing generic grimdark fantasy stories and bizarrely complicated werewolf mythologies.

you know i used to do open mics? we had a poetry group that met once a month at a local cafe in college. each night we'd start by asking five words from the audience, then inviting everyone to compose a poem using those words in 10 to 15 minutes. whoever wanted to could read their poem, and whoever got the most applause won a free drink from the cafe. then we'd spend the rest of the night having folks sign up to come and read whatever. sometimes you'd get heartfelt poems about personal experiences, sometimes you'd get ambitious soundcloud rappers, sometimes you'd get a frat guy taking the piss, sometimes you'd get a mousy autist just doing their best. i don't know that any of the poetry i wrote back then has particular value today, but i don't really care. the point of it was the experience in that moment. the experience of composing something on the fly, or having something you wrote a couple days ago, then standing up and reading it. the value was in the performance itself, in the momentary synthesis between me and the audience. i found out then that i was pretty good at making people cry, and i could not have had that experience in any other venue. i could not have felt it so viscerally had i just posted it online. and i cannot wrap up that experience and give it to you, because it only existed then.

i think more people would write poetry if they had more hours in a day to spare for frivolities, if there existed more spaces where small groups could organize open mics, if transit made those spaces more widely accessible, if everyone made enough money that they weren't burned the fuck out and not in the mood to go to an open mic tonight, if we saw poetry as a mode of personal reflection which was as much about the experience of having written it as anything else. this is the case for all the arts. right now, the only people who can afford to make a living doing art are already wealthy, because art doesn't pay well. this leads to brain drain and overall lowering quality standards, because the suburban petty bouge middle class largely do not experience the world as it materially exists for the rest of us. i often feel that many tech CEOs want to be remembered the way andy warhol is remembered. they want to be loved and worshipped not just for business acumen but for aesthetic value, they want to get the kind of credit that artists get-- because despite the fact that artists don't get paid shit, they also frequently get told by people "your work changed my life." how is it that a working class person with little to no education can write a story that isn't just liked but celebrated, that hundreds or thousands of people imprint on, that leaves a mark on culture you can't quantify or predict or recreate? this is AI's primary use-case, to "democratize" art in such a way that hacks no longer have to work as hard to pretend to be good at what they do. i mean, hell, i have to imagine every rich person with an autobiography in the works is absolutely THRILLED that they no longer have to pay a ghost writer!

so, circling back around to the meat of your question. as far as telling people not to use AI because "you're just helping to train it," that ship has long since sailed. getting mad at individuals for using AI right now is about as futile as getting mad at individuals for not masking-- yes, obviously they should wear a mask and write their own essays, but to say this is simply a matter of millions of individuals making the same bad but unrelated choice over and over is neoliberal hogwash. people stopped masking because they were told to stop masking by a government in league with corporate interests which had every incentive to break every avenue of solidarity that emerged in 2020. they politicized masks, calling them "the scarlet letter of [the] pandemic". biden himself insisted this was "a pandemic of the unvaccinated", helpfully communicating to the public that if you're vaccinated, you don't need to mask. all those high case numbers and death counts? those only happen to the bad people.

now you have CEOs and politicians and credulous media outlets and droves of grift-hungry influencers hard selling the benefits of AI in everything everywhere all the time. companies have bent over backwards to incorporate AI despite ethics and security worries because they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, and everyone with money is calling this the next big thing. in short, companies are following the money, because that's what companies do. they, in turn, are telling their customers what tools to use and how. so of course lots of people are using AI for things they probably shouldn't. why wouldn't they? "the high school/college essay" as such has been quantized and stripmined by an education system dominated by test scores over comprehension. it is SUPPOSED to be an exercise in articulating ideas, to teach the student how to argue persuasively. the final work has little to no value, because the point is the process. but when you've got a system that lives and dies by its grades, within which teachers are given increasingly more work to do, less time to do it in, and a much worse paycheck for their trouble, the essay increasingly becomes a simple pass/fail gauntlet to match the expected pace set by the simple, clean, readily gradable multiple choice quiz. in an education system where the stakes for students are higher than they've ever been, within which you are increasingly expected to do more work in less time with lower-quality guidance from your overworked teachers, there is every incentive to get chatgpt to write your essay for you.

do you see what i'm saying? we can argue all day about the shoulds here. of course i think it's better when people write their own essays, do their own research, personally read the assigned readings. but cheating has always been a problem. a lot of these same fears were aired over the rising popularity of cliffs notes in the 90s and 2000s! the real problem here is systemic. it's economic. i would have very little issue with the output of AI if existing conditions were not already so precarious. but then, if the conditions were different, AI as we know it likely would not exist. it emerges today as the last gasp of a tech industry that has been floundering for a reason to exist ever since the smart phone dominated the market. they tried crypto. they tried the metaverse. now they're going all-in on AI because it's a perfect storm of shareholder-friendly buzzwords and the unscientific technomythology that's been sold to laymen by credulous press sycophants for decades. It slots right into this niche where the last of our vestigial respect for "the artist" once existed. it is the ultimate expression of capitalist realism, finally at long last doing away with the notion that the suits at disney could never in their wildest dreams come up with something half as cool as the average queer fanfic writer. now they've got a program that can plagiarize that fanfic (along with a dozen others) for them, laundering the theft through a layer of transformation which perhaps mirrors how the tech industry often exploits open source software to the detriment of the open source community. the catastrophe of AI is that it's the fulfillment of a promise that certainly predates computers at the very least.

so, i don't really know what to tell someone who uses AI for their work. if i was talking to a student, i'd say that relying chatgpt is really gonna screw you over when it comes time take the SAT or ACT, and you have to write an essay from scratch by hand in a monitored environment-- but like, i also think the ACT and SAT and probably all the other standardized tests shouldn't exist? or at the very least ought to be severely devalued, since prep for those tests often sabotages the integrity of actual classroom education. although, i guess at this point the only way forward for education (that isn't getting on both knees and deep-throating big tech) is more real-time in-class monitored essay writing, which honestly might be better for all parties anyway. of course that does nothing to address research essays you can't write in a single class session. to someone who uses AI for research, i'd probably say the same thing as i would to someone who uses wikipedia: it's a fine enough place to start, but don't cite it. click through links, find sources, make sure what you're reading is real, don't rely on someone else's generalization. know that chatgpt is likely not pulling information from a discrete database of individual files that it compartmentalizes the way you might expect, but rather is a statistical average of a broad dataset about which it cannot have an opinion or interpretation. sometimes it will link you to real information, but just as often it will invent information from whole cloth. honestly, the more i talk it out, the more i realize all this advice is basically identical to the advice adults were giving me in the early 2000s.

which really does cement for me that the crisis AI is causing in education isn't new and did not come from nowhere. before chatgpt, students were hiring freelancers on fiverr. i already mentioned cliffs notes. i never used any of these in college, but i'll also freely admit that i rarely did all my assigned reading. i was the "always raises her hand" bitch, and every once in a while i'd get other students who were always dead silent in class asking me how i found the time to get the reading done. i'd tell them, i don't. i read the beginning, i read the ending, and then i skim the middle. whenever a word or phrase jumps out at me, i make a note of it. that way, when the professor asks a question in class, i have exactly enough specific pieces of information at hand to give the impression of having done the reading. and then i told them that i learned how to do this from the very same professor that was teaching that class. the thing is, it's not like i learned nothing from this process. i retained quite a lot of information from those readings! this is, broadly, a skill that emerges from years of writing and reading essays. but then you take a step back and remember that for most college students (who are not pursuing any kind of arts degree), this skillset is relevant to an astonishingly minimal proportion of their overall course load. college as it exists right now is treated as a jobs training program, within which "the essay" is a relic of an outdated institution that highly valued a generalist liberal education where today absolute specialization seems more the norm. so AI comes in as the coup de gras to that old institution. artists like myself may not have the constitution for the kind of work that colleges now exist to funnel you into, but those folks who've never put a day's thought into the work of making art can now have a computer generate something at least as good at a glance as basically anything i could make. as far as the market is concerned, that's all that matters. the contents of an artwork, what it means to its creator, the historic currents it emerges out of, these are all technicalities that the broad public has been well trained not to give a shit about most of the time. what matters is the commodity and the economic activity it exists to generate.

but i think at the end of the day, folks largely want to pay for art made by human beings. that it's so hard for a human being to make a living creating and selling art is a question far older than AI, and whose answer hasn't changed. pay workers more. drastically lower rents. build more affordable housing. make healthcare free. make education free. massively expand public transit. it is simply impossible to overstate how much these things alone would change the conversation about AI, because it would change the conversation about everything. SO MUCH of the dominance of capital in our lives comes down to our reliance on cars for transit (time to get a loan and pay for insurance), our reliance on jobs for health insurance (can't quit for moral reasons if it's paying for your insulin), etc etc etc. many of AI's uses are borne out of economic precarity and a ruling class desperate to vacuum up every loose penny they can find. all those billionaires running around making awful choices for the rest of us? they stole those billions. that is where our security went. that is why everything is falling apart, because the only option remaining to *every* institutional element of society is to go all-in on the profit motive. tax these motherfuckers and re-institute public arts funding. hey, did you know the us government used to give out grants to artists? did you know we used to have public broadcast networks where you could make programs that were shown to your local community? why the hell aren't there public youtube clones? why aren't there public transit apps? why aren't we CONSTANTLY talking about nationalizing these abusive fucking industries that are falling over themselves to integrate AI because their entire modus operandi is increasing profits regardless of product quality?

these are the questions i ask myself when i think about solutions to the AI problem. tech needs to be regulated, the monopolies need breaking up, but that's not enough. AI is a symptom of a much deeper illness whose treatment requires systemic solutions. and while i'm frustrated when i see people rely on AI for their work, or otherwise denigrate artists who feel AI has devalued their field, on some level i can't blame them. they are only doing what they've been told to do. all of which merely strengthens my belief in the necessity of an equitable socialist future (itself barely step zero in the long path towards a communist future, and even that would only be a few steps on the even longer path to a properly anarchist future). improve the material conditions and you weaken the dominance of capitalist realism, however minutely. and while there are plenty of reasons to despair at the likelihood of such a future given a second trump presidency, i always try to remember that socialist policies are very popular and a *lot* of that popularity emerged during the first trump administration. the only wrong answer here is to assume that losing an election is the same thing as losing a war, that our inability to put the genie back in its bottle means we can't see our own wishes granted.

i dunno if i answered your question but i sure did say a lot of stuff, didn't i?

[tanadrin]

The most frustrating thing I saw in the "AI debate" (ugh) is where Ted Chiang apparently wrote in a New Yorker essay, "yeah, I could imagine there being some usefulness or merit to LLM use if you did it as one tool among many as part of an iterative creative process," and someone on Twitter was like "people literally do this all the time, including in writing," and their tweet got a bunch of replies along the lines of "those people aren't writers lol," who pointed to Chiang's essay as an argument. Like I dunno man, it sure doesn't feel like there's actually a principled argument here. LLMs just have the wrong Vibes, and since nobody actually knows anything about the jurisprudence of copyright and there's not actually a single consistent and concrete definition of plagiarism[1], people feel free to argue about it until the cows come home.

[1] don't @ me being like "lol everybody knows what plagiarism is." i have seen what constitutes academic misconduct on grounds of plagiarism vary widely between different fields of scholarship based on accepted citation practices; people have huge fights about what should or should not constitute fair use; the music industry is notorious for impossible-to-adjudicate court cases based on short fragments of a melody here and there happening to resemble one another. plagiarism, like all conceptual categories, has some clear central examples and a huge penumbra of fuzzy examples that are often highly contextual, if they can even be agreed on at all. the desire to treat plagiarism as black and white to shore up one side of an argument or another is at best shortsighted and at worst outright dishonest.

[olderthannetfic]

Genuine question: what's the point of writing fanfic? As in, what's the purpose? No one in the fandom I'm in comments on fics and I even got told off by one person for doing so, as it "encourages bad writers and makes them think they're good". So it seems that it's a lot like book writing, where people work hard and are creative, but instead of getting paid and getting comments on the work, you just sit there silently hoping someone will press the kudos button and make a number go up. I feel like that time and work could be better spent on making something you might get some kind of profit off of. Don't get me wrong, I love doodling fanart, but I don't post it, as I'm aware that there's no point to doing so, and while it's a nice way to fill the time on a commute, it's not something that takes me as much time and effort as fanfic does. So... why do people bother? Sometimes I describe ideas I have and people I know in my fandom will tell me I should write it, but I don't see why. I get more interaction from just saying "imagine if [thing here]" than I would by sitting down, writing for hours, editing and posting [thing here], so what would the point be? I'm not punching down or going "haha women and their fanfic lol!", I genuinely do not get what the point is and this blog feels like it might have someone reading who knows the answer.

--

Do you make art for profit? Genuine question.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being motivated primarily by external factors, but it's not actually why a lot of people create things, whether it's books or recipes or doodles in a notepad.

I enjoy the actual process of writing.

I think many people lose sight of that aspect in an era where tons of <500-word fics that are mostly outlines and "Imagine if..." posts get disproportionate attention for being easy to consume. But the satisfaction of doing a bigger art piece and doing it right is real and motivates a hell of a lot of creation.

I suppose you might be thinking "Okay, but why not just write it alone and never post?", but I like sharing. Showing off my finished creation is part of the joy, and sharing with other people like me is too. But those aren't quite the same thing as worrying about kudos. It's like dressing nicely when you leave the house because you feel great when you know you look good vs. needing another person to tell you you look good.

To be honest, though, this type of feeling has grown in me the better I've gotten at a craft. The closer my finished projects get to the vision in my head, the easier it is to find them fulfilling and to be excited to share them. When I fall short of my own ambitions, it's discouraging no matter how much attention I might get from others.

I feel like it's time for my regular reblog of Adam Westbrook's video essay series The Long Game.

The third and least known in the series is all about this idea of who you're making art for if you're not getting material rewards in the short term. It talks a lot about autotelicity—being internally driven instead of externally.

--

But if you really just want clicks, anon, start a blog that accepts anon asks and posts about wanky stuff. Actually tag things, unlike me, so people can find you.

No, writing for attention isn't worth it.

The time investment is too great and your brain will always fixate on the times people didn't respond instead of the times they did.

But that's not actually why most people write.

[idontliekmondays]

excerpts from a daily mail article released shortly after her arrest

When members of the Geneva High School role playing club asked 16-year-old Lindsay Souvannarath to choose a character they were expecting an elf, a sorceress or perhaps a female warrior.

But the shy, clean-cut teenager opted for a rather more unsettling choice, presenting them with a detailed pencil drawing of her chosen persona - the 'Nightmare Nazi'.

The trench coat, jackboots and gas mask were unmistakably those of an SS soldier; the skeletal hands clutching a vast dagger more akin to dark fantasy art.

Former classmates at Geneva High recall Lindsay Souvannarath as a shy, withdrawn youngster, who had few friends and instead sought out after-school groups and writing clubs to express her creative side.

But she was also prone to bouts of anger and violence - allegedly stabbing another student with a pencil in one outburst and occasionally letting slip an alarming infatuation with the Third Reich.

'On first impressions I didn't think there was anything too strange about her,' he told Daily Mail Online.

'She could be funny and intelligent but most of the time she was quiet and not very warm or outgoing.

'One year her character was a sort of Wonder Woman-type heroine, then all of sudden she tells the group she wants to be a Nazi ghost.

'You choose your species and come up with a back story. Hers was that her character was a guest from a crazy, dark Nazi universe.

'It's supposed to be a game in a medieval, fantasy setting but she would just argue if she didn't get her way.

'So we went on our quest with a robot, a couple of elves, wizards and this weird Nazi.

'Aside from the character's background he didn't do anything racist or too alarming. We didn't know about her interests at that time so we just got on with it.

Ms Szigeti recalled how Souvannarath began to idolize black-death metal bands in her mid-teens.

She became particularly infatuated with Varg Vikernes, a white supremacist musician convicted in 1994 of killing a rival guitarist and burning down three churches in Norway, describing him as 'cute' and writing essays about him.

'Her work was always dark and full of violence, there were soldiers and Nazis and all this weird stuff,' Sabrina said.

'She acted normal on the surface. She was never physically violent but she would get aggressive and upset if you criticized her.

'Everyone was uncomfortable but we just avoided trying to start a fight with her. 'If you asked her straight up 'are you a Nazi?' she would argue that she wasn't.

As far back as 2007 - when she was just 15 - she allegedly wrote 'free speech is dead' in one forum, adding: 'That's why we need people like David Duke to bring it to life again.'

In another warped entry, writing that same year under the pseudonym Snoopyfemme she wrote: 'They use sex in commercials all the time to sell products. Why don't they ever use violence?

'Wouldn't you love to see a bunch of guys tearing each other apart with machine guns to get a bowl of Cheerios?

'Sure, it might traumatize our children, but in my opinion, children aren't being traumatized enough.

'The only reason for Americans to breed is to create more soldiers to fight for freedom. We need to weed out the weaklings early on. Survival of the fittest, man.'

'She was very odd to the point among a lot of our classmates that no-one was surprised by her arrest.

'She was a very lonely person - but she isolated herself. 'From what I remember she was even suspended for stabbing someone with a pencil in middle school.'

'She was known for putting spells on people. She would do it by saying weird things and then putting on a curse - obviously we did not take her seriously.

'She would break out into laughter in the middle of class for absolutely no reason.

'When we saw that Lindsay did something like this, nobody was surprised. She was the one most likely.'

source

[drinkyourvillainjuice]

how to not let your autistic inner child win (or how to write an if) by the secretary

[id: a student with glasses being pointed at and mocked by two students on screens, and two more offscreen with only their arms showing. the central bullied student looks sad, and everyone else is laughing. end id]

Ruhoh, is this another secretary essay? Well, yes it is! The gender politics one will eventually come around when I feel like it, but this one, as the title suggest, is about how to write an IF. And since I'm presuming most of you are on the spectrum (or on a spectrum), it gets a little tongue-in-cheek.

hehe

Anyways, if you have autism, you have eternal swag. It's just true! But having so much swag makes it a problem when writing, or doing any sort of project. This is something I've noticed from people who don't have evil autism. Those not afflicted by the rare autism version of evil autism (my autism) will often be really bad at just... doing things - despite having all the abilities to do so! I think it might be a adhd thing or something too. Anyways, I love helping people, (this is my evil autism), and I'd like to share some girl tips on how to kill your inner child :)

I think something I've noticed from people making any sort goals- online, real life, job, working, etc - is it is straight forward. ie: I want to graduate from high school, I want to make a video game, I want to journal everyday. These are all achievable using your abilities that you learn and gain through your life, and failure doesn't exempt you from trying again. Thing is, this specific thing I just described (straightforward goals) is something I think a lot of autistic people struggle with.

I deeply remember sitting down in the corner of my high school, looking like the hottest girl who played pokemon on her ds when someone who had +1% more autism than me told me that, one day, he was going to make the most cool pokemon game ever where you could date other characters and have babies and have your children go on adventure too. As a 14 year old, I thought to myself 'bitch, shut up' but also, 'this is so unrealistic, but he really believes it, uh'. And he did! And you know, I think that's okay. I think it's okay to believe that you can make things that you cannot do at the moment - I mean that's just how life it. We didn't go on the Moon thinking we couldn't

But... the guy didnt know how to code, or how to make games, or how to program, or how to develop stories, or how to make art, etc etc etc. He didn't know these things, but he wanted to make these things. And I see this to a certain degree quite a bit when it comes to creation. I want to say: it's a very important of the process but simply one part.

I think being able to imagine what you could do if you have all the resources in the world, all the time, and all the help is important - but it is even more important to look within and go 'alright with all this in mind - what can I do?'

And if you're in the field of IF, well, what can you do? Coding, storytelling, character design, plotting arcs, etc. I think the skills can be learned by anybody (sidenote incoming)

If anybody ever fucking says that art is innate, they're fucking lying. It's a skill you grind out. You work it out. You work even if you feel not creative. You write words even if they don't come to you naturally. You draw even if the images can't be conjured. You work you work you work and you make something. You cannot always make art when feeling creative because you aren't always creative. you must be willing to die for your art, yes, but you must also be willing to create without any creative sparks! If you want to be an artist, you better work bitch.

(sidenote ending) and with that in mind, you need to develop restraints onto yourself. In IF, it's actually to create restraints, and here are some I suggest for all of my fellow autists who might struggle with them. I love you guys, truly, anyways. here they are:

restrain characters.

Make three characters + a main character. Write a couple of scenes with them. Is that your maximum? Is that too much? Go up and down until you find the right amount. You can add more character when your writing is better. Stick to a minimum per scene. If you have ideas for 30 characters, you can easily melt them into 10. Seriously. Put the heat on maximum and start creating new fun dolls to play with.

2. restrain scenes

You cannot write 500 per interaction. This is a bad idea because a) you might do the thing where you run out of creativity which you need to learn to do without but it is hard and b) interactions are time limited and time sensitive. not everybody will go through them. if you have a 30k update, but most people will only see 1k... are you really writing a game for them or for yourself? I made my wife do this format:

youll gain the ability to gauge if a scene is important or not eventually, I'm sure.

3. restrain area

I recommend writing like a murder novelist. You have a closed circle, and the player cannot leave it. they can only be within that space. That space that exists within that specific story is the only thing they have access to. it can be a school, a city, a bedroom - but its limited. you create setpieces that players interact with. some set pieces are the same with just a different coat of paint on.

anyways, i believe in dreaming big, but i also believe that we have little time on our hands to create. when wanting to make something, restraint yourself. its always way more fun to find ways to break out of our bonds then just roaming free, right? I mean... maybe not. I'm not your mother, you know.

[chunniwritesalot]

home - nh27

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! welcome to my 3rd haas related fanfic 😍😍 i think i should be named the nh27 queen by the amount of ff i'm writing about him (not that im complaining... i want to eat this guy...) if you dont follow me, or check my rambles (go follow me PLEASE... im a desperate gal) you wouldn't know that im going to vacation so i wanted to write something super quick before i left. when i get back- TRUST an smau WILL be made, probably for nico because this man is so beautiful 🤗😋 the writing on this is super rushed but i've been out of practice (uni is starting soon PLEASE SEND HELP) because i major in english and BRO i write so many essays that when i get to break i just stop writing all together. my creative writing is SAUR shit because all i write are analysis's and shit like that BUTTTTT im taking a lot of creative writing courses this year (2) so watch out because i might become Shakespeare cw: sad, cursing, you have a son but your gender isn't included, mentions of crashing (obviously, its about the monaco grand prix), mentions of hate, banner is mine but photos aren't, use of yn, bad writing style

other: y/s/n means your son's name! I DIDN'T EDIT THIS SHIT SORRY FOR GRAMMAR OR SPELLING MISTAKES. MY REQUESTS ARE OPEN IM BEGGING YOU REQUEST wc: 682

you didn't watch f1 races because of your love for the sport. in reality, you hated the sport. the loudness, the chaos, the danger. you thought that maybe nico would've finally listened to you, he would retire and you two could finally live... peacefully, that you could live your life not fearing the fact that the love of your life could quite literally die almost every week. you watched those stupid fucking races because nico was your husband, and you would never forgive yourself if you weren't watching and something unspeakable happened. so nico promised you that he would always come home to you, and he would never break that promise.

sometimes you wished you never got involved in this stupid sport, because then maybe you wouldn't find yourself sitting in the haas garage with your 3 year old being restrained in your grip as you watch the screen. everything going in slow motion as the two haas cars and the redbull collide in with eachother. was it bad to say you hoped most of the damage went to kevin or checo? you didn't care, f1 made everyone a bad person. you were sure louise, who was glued right next to you, thought the same thing- that most of the damage went to nico or checo. "shit" you muttered, your son looking up at you. he was too young to know what was happening, but you could tell he was worried.

"its okay love, just an accident." you whispered to him, he wriggled out of your grip to go run around the garage. not that you cared, right now, you were focused on nico and lord, were you fucking mad. mad that he broke his promise to you, mad that he never listened, mad at this fucking sport. you hated nico for this, hated that he sacrificed his entire life to this sport, when he knew that he had a 3-year-old son. when he knew you were waiting for him, and you would never forgive him if he didn't come back. you sat there, arms crossed as nico made his way back to the haas area after getting checked with the medics. you watched as he approached you, a flash of guilt on his face. louise seemed to get the message because she quickly got up from the seat next to you and made her way over to the children as she waited for her own husband. "y/n, i'm sorry." nico cracked out quietly, reaching out his hand to take yours. he grimaced when you snapped your hand away and stiffened at his words. "what if you died?" you spat out, "god nico, i-" tears burned in your eyes, "i hate you." nico watched as you stormed to the bathroom, not bothering to follow you. he knew you needed time to cool off. after a while, you came back, sitting next to your husband again. "even y/s/n was fucking worried." you whispered to him, "nico, you-." nico stayed silent, his gaze never tearing from the TV infront of them, he nodded slowly. "i was thinking about you the entire time." he started, "and i'm *sorry*, i'm so fucking sorry." he slowly turned to you, "i-i would never forgive myself if something happened to me, love. i-" he stopped, reaching out to wipe your tears, "i'm... i know you hate this sport, but- its my..." you shook your head, motioning for him to stop. sure, you hated this sport, but you didn't hate nico. you loved nico, and loving him meant you would always be there with him. even if that meant you had to watch all his stupid grands prix. because as much as you knew nico loved his sport, he loved you more, and nico promised he would always come home to you and y/s/n.

"i..i don't hate you" you said back gently, "i'm sorry." nico cracked a smile, "i know, my love. don't be sorry." he reached out again, and this time? you didn't pull away, because nico kept his promise. he was always going to come home to you.

[hunxi-after-hours]

“Another horse, this one slightly muddy: I'm not sure whether it was Daniel José Older who originally conceived of this thesis, but he wrote a popular essay about the subject. ‘Writing begins with forgiveness.’ ‘Beginning with forgiveness revolutionizes the writing process, returns it being to a journey of creativity rather than an exercise in self-flagellation. I forgive myself for sitting down to write sooner, for taking yesterday off, for living my life. That shame? I release it. My body unclenches; a new lightness takes over once that burden has floated off.’ (sic)(he's missing a "to" and a "not") I feel I once read this expressed slightly differently, or perhaps my memory has paraphrased it into a pattern that rings clearer to me, something like: ‘Before I sit down to write, I forgive myself.’ It's very easy to tie yourself into knots with shame in this line of work, because it is very easy to fail. You fail to finish that chapter, or meet that deadline. You fail to make friends with your colleagues, you fail to read all the important stories, or even just those that you meant to. You fail because you aren't kind enough, because the joke doesn't land, you don't try hard enough, because you're too slow, because you didn't think deeply enough and that story went to print with words you can't undo. It all feels so public. Everything is irrevocable, and it buries you. So before you write, it is necessary to forgive yourself—to unburden the weight of that shame—or try to. You shift your assumptions (I have proven deficient, no one will care to read this, etc) or you set them aside (it must be done, irrespective) and you begin. And every day, you do it again. No one pays as much attention to you as you do yourself. The world is not so unkind; by and large, your failures go unnoticed. So why not grant your own absolution? Begin again. Your shame—that well of grief for all the lost, better versions of yourself—will not redeem you. But you are allowed to begin again.

—Kerstin Hall, "A Small Hall with Grace"

[messrsrarchives]

Let me scream this, fanfic is the only form of literature that is divorced from capitalism

oh how i wish this were true 😖 i literally JUST wrote about the politicisation and capitalisation of fanfiction for an essay comp with my uni (i won :3) and UGH.

theoretically? yes! and being separate from capitalism is so important,,, not just for fanfiction but for literature as a whole? to be separate from this idea of profit, of your voice and ideas being profitable and marketable, of having to fit into a predetermined box for your voice and experience and words to be heard? capitalism ruins literature. it ruins freedom of voice when we see the demographic of those getting published (and like,,, that historically) but also it limits creativity and ideas when your focus is now on what's marketable and what's trending, and we go through waves of the same tropes/story being told over and over and over again until the next big trend hits. capitalism prohibits creativity. and theoretically,,, fanfiction is devoid from that, right? because we aren't profiting from it, we aren't buying it, and theoretically everyone's voice holds the same power and we aren't restrained by what's marketable and who's louder.

BUT realistically:

i mean obviously the first point - people selling binds. instantly bringing capitalism into fandom. fanfiction becomes capitalised on a monetary level.

but money isn't everything here i think! i think we have ideals in fanfiction/fandom that aren't necessarily about profit, but still uphold capitalist values.

especially over on tiktok, we see the same ideals through followers, likes, 'influencers'. we see it when cosplayers call themselves actors and want to use fanfilms for portfolios, we see it when fanfilms ask for money *before* content, which goes against the whole "fandom content is shared with you, not made for you" ideal, we see it when people start gatekeeping their ideas rather than sharing like we used to, etc etc - ideals of capitalism infiltrating. we start developing this hierachy of those at the "top" with more influence and more power and whose ideas we follow more, and those at the "bottom" start becoming more like consumers than enjoyers. fanfiction - and in turn, fandom as a whole - becomes a market. (and we see the same concept with hits and kudos on fanfics and how this determines what ones people think are worth reading)

we see it when people start criticising fics - again, not monetary but rather the same ideals - and determining which voices and which experiences can be heard, whilst the others are pushed aside. "no you can't write about this because i think it should be done this way and xyz and therefore your voice is irrelevant and we're going to cancel your fic online". people start determining whose voice can be heard and what the "right way" to do something is, the exact way they do in tradlit which is obviously dependent on capitalism now (which is a big part of why there's been a rise in selfpub recently)

we see it in the puritanical view people take towards fandom and characters - in the way certain ideals are restricted as being "too immoral" to write about and we end up, again, cancelling people (see here: period typical misogyny = the author being misogynistic and thus getting cancelled??) - we start, again, determining right and wrong ways of doing things and turn this sharing of ideas for fun from a hobby based mindset to more of a "i am a consumer and i am unhappy with the product i have received" type of mindset, which then leads to people making their ideas and works more "marketable" to the "consumer", and suddenly these capitalist values have changed the very way we produce content. are we doing X this way because we want to, or because people will get mad at us if we do Y?

we see SO many capitalist ideals in fandom that even if binds weren't being sold and fanfilms weren't taking extortionate amounts of money,,,, i still wouldn't say fanfiction is divorced from capitalism. i'd say we definitely have signs of the hierarchy, the restriction, the consumer x producer dynamic, and i'd argue that likes/followers/"the next big fic" etc etc are all signs of how fanfiction is infact not divorced from capitalism.

BUT!! my final point is that:

as a concept, absolutely it is! and in most instances, yes. fanfiction is divorced from capitalism - fanDOM is where it gets a bit trickier. but i think the big transition from more anonymous and communal ideas of fanfiction to a more interactive social media based one (esp platforms with high traction like tiktok) has meant that a lot of capitalist values (which are prevalent on SM in general) start infiltrating fandom so naturally because it's what we're used to! we're so used to the traction and the power and the hierarchy and the cancelling etc etc that we don't even notice it really. but fanfiction starts becoming more mainstream, people want traction, they evaluate the "market" and determine the best way to go about "selling" their fic, jump on the more "profitable" trends, etc etc etc. capitalism. hinderance of individual exploration and expression to appease the masses.

so theoretically and ideally? yes, fanfiction is divorced from capitalism. but realistically and in practice? no, because fanDOM isn't, and it affects fanFICTION

[tangents-within-tangents]

Local Ace overthinks headcanon and shipping culture

Happy ace week, my friends! Imma be posting some aspec hc's this week so I felt the need to overexplain my personal stance on orientation headcanons and such

To start, as with any and all fandom things: to each their own. People can do whatever they want, and (for the most part) I can choose what I do or don't engage with. I know that hc and shipping and stuff is mostly for fun, or for seeking/creating representation, no hate to anyone who does it and enjoys it.

But also sometimes things can be problematic and I can still be bothered by those things. Even things that are 'just for fun' or 'not for you' can impact and reflect our views and behaviors, so it's still worth speaking about.

Aro/ace-spec identities are really diverse and complex, and we're really underrepresented as is. We have historically and chronically been plagued by problematic misconceptions and tropes, both in canon representation (or lack thereof) and fanon mindsets. Some of the main issues to be aware of with this topic specifically:

The majority of (sometimes unintentional) representation being non-human characters (like aliens and robots) implying that sex/romance = humanity and/or a fulfilling life. (Here's some video essays that touch on this: X X)

Related stereotype issues like racist or ableist de-sexualization and infantilization of certain groups like Asian men, physically disabled people, or people with autism. (It's an intersectionality thing bc yes those people can be aro/ace as well but it's still complicated) (more video essays! X X)

Common erasure of historically aspec characters in favor of allo plotlines bc that's "more interesting/realistic". Or ignoring canonically established aspec characters in favor of allo shipping (often excused by the fact that some aro/ace people do have sex/relationships, which is true but the complexities and nuances are often ignored and there's lots of double standards) (Here's some posts that touch on this: X X X)

Amatonormativity's over emphasis on sex/romance as a fundamental and necessary part of life, which is often reflected in how media and shipping culture are generally allo-centric, and it can just get pretty pervasive at times (note: we aren't a monolith obv, some aro/ace people enjoy it and participate too, but others don't and it is hard to avoid) X X

So while I know there's lots of reasons for shipping and headcanoning, and for the most part there's nothing wrong with it and people aren't trying to do these things, there are still issues that exist. Honestly seeing posts talking about these things has been really validating for me bc it let me know like yeah this is a problem other's have noticed too and I don't have to just accept it.

So with respect and awareness of nuance, ship and headcanon however you want. The rest of this post is about my own personal preferences and such. I'm not necessarily trying to persuade anyone here, I just have some thoughts I want to put into words:

For me personally, when it comes to characters' sexualities/gender identities/etc, I prefer just to stick to whatever is established in canon (or in confirmed intentional coding), and, if nothing is specified, headcanons that are based in canon evidence (more like theories I guess, as opposed to reimaginings or straight-up projection that knowingly ignores parts of canon. Which is fine and fun if that's what you like but to me there is a distinction). This is because:

1: While fandom culture is all about freedom and creativity, I do think it's important in this day and age to recognize actual canon representation and strive towards that because that is what will reach more people and have impact (and personally I think that writers' intentions should actually be given more thought/value)

2: I think that shipping/hc/fandom culture in general tends to perpetuate amatonormativity (specifically in devaluing/erasing friendship and non-romantic love), and sometimes leads to harmful parasocial queer speculation in real life (though again, I know that's not the intention but it's still a thing).

3: Generally, unless it’s explored as a part of a reimagined fic or something, just saying a random character is aspec (or whatever identity) when they did not present that way at all in the actual media doesn't really help me feel seen.

For example, I've seen a lot of people headcanon Mabel Pines as aromantic and that really threw me off bc in the show she is obsessed with romance. Like if other's see themselves in her that is great I won't stop you (the idea is that her crushes are comphet, which is not something I personally struggled with, and maybe I could see it if I rewatched the show with that in mind) but when I watched the show, I specifically did not connect with or relate to Mabel BECAUSE of my ace identity (yeah this post was mainly about her lol) so it just doesn't do much for me to claim her as aspec, in fact it feels counterproductive.

Sometimes it can feel really tacked on too, like 'well it's not confirmed that this character has sex so they could be ace', or 'some ace people do have sex so they can still be ace.' And like sure yes they could be but often it's like a kid show or something so none of the characters' sex lives are relevant or explicitly confirmed. Just bc they aren't not ace doesn't mean that they are, or that saying they are is meaningful if the character/story doesn't actually speak to anything related to the ace identity or experience. (This can happen with canon characters too, like Sponge Bob being asexual means absolutely nothing to me, especially since I get the sense that the creator said that more in a 'sea sponges reproduce asexually' type of way :/ )

So basically, in terms of representation I prefer the theory/interpretation type of headcanons that have supporting evidence of some kind, because that evidence is what makes me see myself in a character and feel represented in some way by them. So that's the type of headcanons I'll be posting, and that's why I'll be discussing evidence and explanations, even though I know plenty of people have fun and find value in just claiming identities without any of that.

Another thing I feel the need to overexplain is kinda the reverse of that. I think it's important to recognize that a character does not have to be a certain identity for you to see yourself in them. Like that sense of relatability and representation is still valid even if they aren't, and I think it's good to leave space for that ambiguity.

This is coming mostly from the fact that I have always valued platonic relationships (between any and all genders) long before I ever knew I was ace. I've always wished that was better normalized and represented in media and real life. I think that is just as important as queer representation, and sometimes they can counteract each other.

Like yes Min and Ryan could be gay and if that's what the writers were going for despite restrictions, or if people see themselves in that, great! But I would also love for this story to give a close friendship this much narrative value for once.

Merida does not HAVE to be aro/ace (or lesbian) to not want to be forced into marriage with a stranger at the age of 16 (in fact she specially says "I'm not ready" and "not yet"). But regardless, aspects of her story are still really relatable to us and applicable to living in amatonormative society.

Mako and/or Raleigh do not NEED to be aspec for this glorious refreshing no-romo moment to happen (nor does one need to be aspec to appreciate it)

And maybe claiming them as aro/ace could even undercut the power of this platonic bond (like saying the only way they could not be interested in each other is if they are not interested in anyone (same if you said they are gay, as if that's the only possible way for a man and woman not to be attracted to each other)). But it's still a moment lots of us aspecs love because platonic relationships AND aro/ace characters do go hand in hand and BOTH are so rarely portrayed in media.

So these ideas also play into my preferences, and I want to acknowledge that my headcanons don't have to be definitive (which like I know that is normal amongst fandom culture anyway) but are more about pointing out aspects we can see ourselves in and relate to, especially in a media landscape that is so lacking in representation and understanding of our identities.

[centrally-unplanned]

To share another thought on the Folding Ideas video I Don't Know James Rolfe from my last post, while I enjoyed it a ton I do think its core "meta" element fails to reach the heights it could. It is never made that explicit so I am making a subjective read here, but essentially while most of the content of the video is textually about James Rolfe, there are dozens of moments where Dan performs actions that mimic or parallel James, culminating in his own parodic angry video game review as the finale. The idea is something of a "there but for the grace of god I go" point, that perhaps all youtubers, and Dan specifically, are too close for comfort to Rolfe's reality of limited creative options and a hostile fanbase clinging to the past .

But I can't really say for sure! Because he is very adverse to making this concrete enough for the audience.

At times the visual parallels are incredibly direct. There is one moment, where Dan is explaining the real skill and craft of being an internet clown on demand, where he mimics Rolfe's style of rant to explain it while projected AVGN videos that were looping in the background flash over his own body:

And it really works, the meaning shines through; it is a moment you can see back through time where the idea for this shot was, spiritually, the impetus for the film, that this idea must have come to him and he built the essay around making it happen.

Other visual parallels are less explicit; when the parody sequence starts, Dan - who has built a 1/12th scale recreation of the Rolfe's "video game basement" aka studio set in order to "understand" him like normal people do - represents himself in that room via a tiny hand puppet

Which is cute if, like probably most people, know him as the guy who makes videos about NFTs or Qanon. But close to a decade ago, when he was first making ~20 minute media analysis takes, he represented himself on screen with a wooden puppet like this:

It is even like the same color, I am confident this is intentional, it is saying "yeah this could have been an alt version of me; I was not so far from this".

All these symbols function to make the emotional impact; but an emotional impact in service of...what? So in the essay he discusses the film Wavelength, a 1967 avant garde film that is almost entirely composed of filming the side of a room with minimal camera movement while actions occur around it. It is a movie that never gives you a meaning, and therefore you must project meaning into it, bring yourself to the table. That makes sense for Wavelength, and the aggressive cinematography of I Don't Know James Rolfe - which is stellar to be clear - is making the film out to be sort of its own personal Wavelength for YouTube.

But then we go back to that text, which is over an hour of Dan directly talking to the camera about a real person. It is incredibly concrete and detailed, with explicit points being made over and over. And through what those explicit points reveal... I don't think Dan Olsen is like James Rolfe! Does he have an hostile fanbase trapped in nostalgia? Do people acuse him of being cucked by his bitch wife? He has evolved as a filmmaker, intensely so, he does things completely differently than Rolfe does and completely differently from how he himself used to. He doesn't have a shitty biography that self-outs his own creative narcissism, he isn't obsessed with remaking his own childhood films - I am pretty sure as a kid he had never heard of NFTs, they didn't really exist! The final line of the film is "maybe you aren't a filmmaker either" - but idk, Dan, I kinda think you are! If documentarians can be filmmakers you have to qualify.

Now I'm not a fool, I understand that the film could be suggesting these are differences of degrees and not kind; that Dan is equally "trapped in the room" making vlogs for the net, just with more outward trappings of success. But, in the ruthless specificity and detail of his treatment of Rolfe...this film cannot be Wavelength. I am not capable of forging my own meaning from the pieces, he connected way too many of them. This is the trap of avant-garde; you are tempted to help the audience, but once you try to answer some of the questions, it forces the hand of the rest, they all have to fit into that schema. And the film is just too coy with Dan's own parallel life for me to figure the schema out. I make my guesses and I lack confidence in them, they feel "contradicted" by the text.

More detail would have been the easier path; less detail and more symbolic expression would have been the harder path. But right now the balance is just a bit too out of whack for it to come fully together.

[tixdixl]

The academic in me is itching to write an essay... and I kind of want to an analysis of how Twisted Wonderland frames complacency from its collectivist lens. How it explores and demonstrates a common feeling of powerlessness amongst those who are not in power, and how that complacency begets violence.

The characters I am considering exploring this with are:

Crowley

Cater and Trey

General of the Right

The Dawn Knight

Kifaji

I'm not sure exactly how long I'm going to make this essay. I already get the feeling even in these points, there is going to be a lot to talk about, and I may not include all of them. But the stronger the evidence, coming from both the ENG localization and the original JP, the more likely I will be to include it. This is your warning that if you aren't caught up with Book 7 and haven't seen Cloudcalling, there will inevitably be spoilers in the analysis.

Do I also acknowledge the fact I have way too many projects going on? Yes. But if I am able to knock some of them out and balance some of my creative energy, I do actually want to write this. And if I can find enough supporting scholarship I very well might figure out a way to submit for publishing. And if nothing else? I'll publish it here.

[zsakuva]

How do you come up with so many intricate plots and characters? They seem so… human? I’m very surprised you don’t read much! I guess what I’m asking is, what’s your creative process? Do you take inspiration from aspects of yourself, or is it more of a form of escapism? When you write your plots, do you imagine yourself as the character, the audience, or both? 

Another thing that truly amazes me and makes your channel stand out a lot is the way you give the listener a voice. It feels like each listener is so different and unique, and *actually* interacts with the character. It also feels like you’re never spoon feeding us information? All the questions do get answered, but it’s different style imo. Usually, in most ASMR RPs I’ve heard, the speaker will repeat what you said verbatim, (eg. “You think XXX?”, or “You want me to XXX?”), and the frequency at which these types of phrases are used makes it *seem* like a RP. Of course, it’s a challenging medium - the audience needs to know whats going on somehow, but you manage to achieve the same in a much more subtle way. It makes me wonder how long you spend planning out your content haha.

Final question, do you prefer to type or handwrite your plans, scripts, etc? I’ve always preferred planning on paper, even though it’s a bit impractical haha. Also, would you mind showing us your handwriting? I think it says a lot about a person! There’s the stereotype that people usually have a certain handwriting that corresponds to their major/occupation, and if I remember correctly, I think you studied film? I’m just curious hehe. No pressure, of course!

Sorry for sending you an essay, I hope you have a restful and comfy Friday! 

Thank you!

Honestly, I don't know how I do it myself considering my memory is absolute shit! Though I don't read much, I learn about characters through other mediums such as television shows and movies. I'll try and break this down for ease of reading!

~My Creative Process~

When making a character or series, it all depends on where my initial inspiration began. For example, with Niall, I wanted to create an M4M series exploring a character who carries trauma of being forcibly outed, betrayed by someone he confided in, and how those events affected him through his adult life. The core of Niall's story was confronting fears that manifested due to the Listener's actions in school, and finding that there was a way to heal, albeit slowly, and a hope to love despite external animosity. Niall exists because I wanted to tell a particular story.

With Zaros, he first came about because of The Noble Trials plot. I knew that he would be different from other characters, so I'm using this series as a means of testing my skill with a new editing style, story format, and new world setting. Although it's more work, I have the most fun with The Noble Trials and making its lore (though I'm always a sucker for that)!

I go into creating characters with the belief that they are all extremely flawed. Whether that be by nature or nurture, there will inevitably be some slew of events in their pasts that shaped the way they act in the current timeline. This also extends to the Listeners so they aren't rigid, boring, and an empty shell. Characters can clash, but they can also change with and for each other. A good example is Isaac's story. He was scarred by his past, and was willing to confine Pickle in the house if it meant not losing someone he cared for again. Pickle was also scarred with abandonment and instability, wondering if they would ever find a home. Isaac gave them a place to belong, and Pickle gave him consolation and courage to face the unknown.

When I write, the character's actions must reflect the backstory in which they were crafted, so I always need to dive into their heads.

~Listener Dialogue~

This requires much more thought to make interactions seem authentic, but there's a fine line between repeating words verbatim and not alluding to any sort of context. I dislike repeating the Listener's words so I try to indirectly insinuate what they were saying whenever possible. If I can do so with SFX alone, that's a bonus! But when scenes contain heavy dialogue, it can be difficult to get the message across without being heavy-handed with repetition, unless that's the purpose of a specific moment.

~Handwriting vs Typing~

I always handwrite my outlines! On some occasions, I can start and finish a script without the help of one, but my workflow tends to include writing an outline of some kind, and it has to be done on paper! I feel like the ideas manifest quicker that way.

However, I always type my scripts. It's much easier to edit, share with other voice actors, and there's a level of professionalism in formatting that motivates me to write more!

Here is an example of my writing. This screenshot was part of a Twitch stream!

[phantomrose96]

So I'm one of those people who had to take a break reading ABoT. Part way through reading I thought of that writing advice that goes something like "look at the current scenario and figure out how things can get worse" and decided ABoT was applying that advice with both fervor and finesse. It had me hooked through multiple all nighters and it wasn't until, ironically, the ending of chapter 37 where Reigen is standing in the remains of the Mogami house that I stared at the next chapter button and realized I would absolutely not be able to handle more, mentally or emotionally, if this fic kept following the previous advice. So I set it aside for a month to recover, tentatively poked into the next chapter tense and ready for things to continue spiraling, and gradually started to relax and unravel until...well, you know. I remember having to put my phone down and take a walk with the reveal of everything that Ritsu had incidentally caused (even if the blame can be pinned on basically everyone in some measure, but that's a whole other essay in my notes).

When I reached the current cliffhanger, I waited a scant day before starting all over, this time slower, more careful, and with a more analytical eye. Not for critique, but because I was confused. That writing advice from before, I'd seen it implemented both poorly and skillfully, and ABoT used it with a finesse I've yet to see anywhere else, and I had to figure out how. What made what can be boiled down to a high stakes wild goose chase so compelling? Why couldn't I put this story down until my emotional limit couldn't handle any more? How could I learn from this and make my own writing better? What did this have that I clearly lacked?

I don't think it was until after Teru's and Ritsu's first fight that it clicked for me. I stared at that scene, then my own characters, and realized I'd written two of my own meeting in a similar fight and had neglected any form of consequences. My characters became friends because of a mutual friend. Because that was the end goal I wanted. I had that omniscient knowledge; I knew I wanted them to end up as friends, so I wrote the most objectively logical decision to make.

Except. These characters aren't objectively logical. They make the decisions that look the best to them in the moment, even if those decisions are bad, or horrible. A character who's been soundly beaten into the ground by another won't so easily become their friend, even if their opponent is the nicest person ever. There's distrust and fear. They're going to make bad decisions. Things weren't getting worse for the sake of getting worse. They got worse because of the direct (bad) decisions of the characters.

Once I realized that, I was struck with such violent inspiration I wrote something like 11k words worth of scenes and revitalized my own love of writing in a day. I was so stuck on the end goals I forgot about the struggles in between. I had gotten so focused on grand, overarching conflict, I forgot how compelling it can be to just have two characters punch each other in the face. Too much of my writing had stuff happening around the characters instead of happening TO or BECAUSE of them. I had forgotten character conflict, and when I started writing those flaws, I couldn't stop. I was having too much fun!

Sorry for rambling about my own stuff, I just wanted to convey how much impact you and ABoT have had on my own creative endeavors. I've been inundated with too many stories, fics, movies that occur on such big planet-wide scales with dire, multiverse threatening levels of conflict, that when presented with a long form tale of a kid desperate for his missing brother, told from the perspectives of a small, well developed and spectacularly characterized cast, in a single city, told with stakes that made me care more than any threat to the world, it was like a breath of fresh air. So I guess this is a thank you for ABoT as a whole and a thank you for writing Ritsu the way you do.

Unfortunately for him, he's an inspiration.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA YES YOU GET IT YOU GET IT YOU GET IT

ABoT, if nothing else, is a story about its characters. Everything that happens with consequence to the plot can be traced back to a character's own decisions. The characters' wants and needs and actions and faults all come first, and the plot follows accordingly.

(And maybe that sounds obvious.) Aren't stories about characters? But there are so many stories where the characters are just kinda... there. They're blank slates to receive the plot happening around them. Many things they try to do have no consequence. They'll try to take action and the plot will carry on exactly the same as though they'd never even tried, because the writer doesn't want to figure out how that character action might matter. Or a character will do something awful and the plot will just brush past and forget, no consequences or continuity, because the writer had their fun in the moments but now they care about getting the plot back on track, and that would be annoying to work around. They create stories where you can't put your excitement and investment in the characters cuz you just... can't trust they'll matter.

The most important thing about ABoT, to me, is that the characters are making it happen. The good, the bad, can all be traced back to decisions characters had the active choice in making.

I have plenty of fun joking that ABoT is one of those "oh my god it keeps getting worse!!!" stories, but I never ever do that by just dropping random terrible things from the sky. It's always the characters. It's them and it's their consequences of everything they've set in motion, or fought against, or allowed to happen. It's always a thread, thoroughly traceable, spawning from character actions which drives everything both good and terrible (and SUPREMELY terrible) that happens. It will always be the characters.

And I really, truly believe this is what I'm doing to make what is ultimately a wild goose chase featuring less than a dozen people worth reading. When Ritsu fucks up, it's worth caring about because you know this will impact the course of the story. When Reigen succeeds, it matters because he does have a grip on the reigns of the plot and has the chance to better this for everyone. When a character does anything, it matters because is about them, and what they're desperately trying to achieve.

And when a scene isn't about "an action with a consequence", it's still a scene with a point. For any scene I write I always make sure I can answer "what's the point of this scene?" Mob and Reigen reopening Spirits and Such isn't about to barrel the plot forward, but it's hearty and important character development for them. It's the "why should I care about this future being snatched from their grip" when everything goes wrong.

When everything went bad bad around chapter 32, and tumbled worse for many chapters to come, it was me finally tipping over the first domino in a chain of dominoes the characters themselves have been setting up since the start. It went bad not because I arbitrarily decided to fuck with them, but because everyone's actions carried consequences.

Even with ABoT's WORST possible outcome, where Mogami comes out the victor with everything he wants, all others crushed beneath him, this will mean the ruination or death of about... 10 people. A blip on the news. An "oh isn't that sad?" when a second kidnapped son never makes it home, when a conman goes missing (not noticed until a month later when the rent comes due), when a police officer kills his wife and himself, when an orphan kid vanishes off the map from Black Vinegar mid. And life would carry on. And the sun would still rise every day. And no part of this would end the world.

But if I'm doing this right, I want that outcome to feel like the end of the world. I want it to feel worse than that, given what a quiet and unsung tragedy it would be for all these personal efforts and struggles and desperate reaches for betterment are snuffed where they stand. Because they tried and it mattered and they failed anyway.

It IS just a wild goose chase centering around a kid who wants to have his kidnapped brother back, and it's 350k+ words to me.

dfjkdfnkjdf so anyway, I am very clearly super thrilled you were able to see this! It all ties back to character weaknesses and strengths, consequences of actions, irrational responses to situations fueled by character, and not by logic, and the audience knowing that what these characters do will matter. I love stories where humans are messy. I love stories where the tragedy happened because of them, where you can trace the thread back and find exactly how it all went wrong. I love clashing personalities. I love character spirals you can see a mile away and yet you know exactly why the character did that. I love yelling at the pages while knowing that realistically, this character wasn't going to do any better than that. I love knowing exactly how things could have been avoided, and knowing exactly why they happened anyway. I love seeing consequences stick. I love seeing characters matter. And I'm goddamn thrilled you feel that way too and that ABoT could make you find the way to do that in your own characters!!!

[thewalrusespublicist]

Do you have any expectations for Ian Leslie's book? While I'm not holding out for too much, I've noticed that he's increased the number of songs to 43, and I've observed that this book is ultimately positioned as a biography, a dual biography navigated by songs with the core focus on the study of jp relationship. I must admit, I'm indeed very curious about it!

Hi anon!

I am cautiously very optimistic! From the looks of it you're right it is a biography framed around the songs which I'm glad about as the page extent is way too short for a standard bio. An extract from the prologue I managed to find seems to sum up what it's about nicely:

This is a book about how two young men merged and multiplied their talents to create one of the greatest and most influential bodies of work in history. The partnership of Lennon and McCartney was responsible for 159 of the Beatles’ 184 recorded songs, and they were the dominant creative decision-makers within the group. “There is no doubt in my mind that the main talent of that whole era came from Paul and John,” said George Martin. “George, Ringo and myself were subsidiary talents.” This is also a love story. John and Paul were more than just friends or collaborators in the sense we normally understand those terms. Their friendship was a romance: passionate, tender, and tempestuous, full of longing, riven by jealousy. This volatile, conflicted, madly creative quasi-marriage escapes our neatly drawn categories, and so has been deeply misunderstood.…

This book tells the story of John and Paul’s friendship, from when they meet until John’s death. It does so by way of the richest primary source of all: their songs. Each chapter is anchored in a song that tells us something about the state of their relationship at the time, either in its words or in how it was created or performed.

Overall I think Ian Leslie is an excellent writer and I loved his episode on OSD and his Get Back essay. He was interesting, insightful and has been open to the varying shades of John and Paul's dynamic including a potential sexual element. I'm a bit of a lurker on the OSD facebook page and he did thank Diana and OSD for being a big influence so I'm expecting it to follow on those lines. It's hitting a lot of 'Books to watch out for' in 2025 which is an excellent sign (unless the PR team is working in overdrive in which case power to those guys they're doing a great job!).

That being said, it's not going to be perfect because no bio is and I think some of older Beatles fans bias is going to permeate a bit. I'm AM a bit concerned about one review saying that Paul comes across as more 'ruthless and caustic' than expected. (Like don't get me wrong, he is those things, but he's also a soft marshmallow and you have to get that balance right.) I know as well that people on here may be disappointed if he doesn't outright say that John and Paul were doing it out back by-the-bins of the Apple office. To be clear, he definitely isn't going to. But if doesen't believe that for reasons that aren't homophobic, which seems to be the case, then fair enough (I mean I feel the same way so might be biased in that view). Like this guy's an 'If I Fell' truther and according to the Kirkus review for it, openly states that he believes 'In My Life' is for Paul, he's very much on the team. Considering where we were not even a decade ago, these are huge leaps in how the Beatles are viewed and I'm excited to see where it goes from here.

Also some of you have already read this surely as they were giving out free copies at Central Park, c'mon gang spilllll.