#also another unrelated but not really sort of thought people disagreeing with something writers have said is not the same as attacking said

[lliquidllyrium]

It’s still pretty annoying to me when people downplay issues with the Lu romance as wanting a Latin lover type of archetype because idk about them but I enjoy different types of romance and the one thing that unites everything from slow burns to the raunchier love affairs is that Good Romance is as much about the build up as the pay off and A Lot of People agree that there was Very Little Build Up in Lucanis’s route

[4ragon]

Can't speak for anyone else but I for one would love an incoherent rant about the dark age of the law plotline

Alright buckle up kiddos.

So I have a lot of complaints with Dual Destinies as a whole. It’s a poorly paced mess, the final confrontation was deeply underwhelming, it has all these weird “Gotcha” moments where they put in the most bizarre, logic breaking plot twists and then undo them within ten minutes completely for shock value. And yet, despite all of these issues, there is nothing in this world that pisses me off more than the words “The Dark Age of the Law.”

I hate the Dark Age of the Law subplot more than literally any other thing in Ace Attorney. It is a complete failure of a story in literally every possible way. It not only doesn’t work within the context of Dual Destinies, it also completely flies in the face of everything we understand about the original trilogy! It!!!! Sucks!!!!

But no. That was too coherent. I think we should break this down.

First I’m going to start on a macro level. The Dark Age of the Law is the clearest indication to me that the writers of Dual Destinies never played another Ace Attorney game. They treat this Dark Age of the Law thing like this big bad, this shiny new toy, this never before seen wonder, but??? Corruption has been a CENTRAL part of every single AA game since game one!! Since case 2 even!!!

The Dark Age of the Law is this whole idea that people have lost their trust in the court system. And what do they site as the catalyst for this breaking of trust? Phoenix Wright’s disbarment and Simon Blackquill’s arrest.

And okay. Phoenix Wright’s disbarment is a reasonable one. Phoenix was sort of known for being this paragon of truth and justice, this man willing to do what it took to find the truth and protect people in need. His name being smeared through the mud could very well shake up the foundations of trust that the people had in the court system.

But Simon Blackquill? Simon FUCKING Blackquill shook up people’s faith in the court system?? Simon Blackquill is the reason that people are convinced that the entire system is full of lies and deceit? SIMON CONFESSED!! He didn’t even do anything corrupt!! He murdered a woman, sure, but he then immediately lets everyone know “Yes, I super did this murder. No one else.” And they treat it like it’s this big turning point??

LANA SKYE!! You guys remember Lana Skye? The Chief Prosecutor at the time, who was accused of murder, and who still went to prison for doing like a million other crimes after being blackmailed by the chief of police.

SPEAKING OF WHICH the fucking CHIEF OF POLICE was a murderous monster who blackmailed people and also murdered. Did that have no effect on people’s trust in the courts?

Manfred von Karma? Never lost a case in 40 years, literally everyone talked about how he and Miles were KNOWN to be corrupt? Also, you know, murdered a man in cold blood?

Blaise Debeste??? Chairman of the fucking ETHICS BOARD???????? Like!!! That’s some deep fucking corruption right there!!!! And he constantly talks about the mysterious disappearances around him of people who disagreed with him, does that not shake your faith?!

In Turnabout Sisters, as early as case 1-2, Redd White calls up the Chief Prosecutor (who also is not Lana, just to be clear) and demands his complicitness in covering up his own crimes. That’s how central corruption is to the entirety of Ace Attorney.

And you’re going to look me in the fucking EYES and tell me Simon Blackquill, some 21 year old nobody with no power or influence, who theoretically stabbed a woman and made no effort to cover that up, is the reason the courts have lost the faith of the people? You have the NERVE??? the AUDACITY??? the fucking GALL????? to tell me that SIMON is what caused this? The system was never trustworthy, and if it was, what the FUCK did Simon have to do with changing that???

Horrible. Terrible. Disgusting.

BUT

Let’s pretend for a moment that Dual Destinies existed in a vacuum. First Ace Attorney game you’ve ever played. Never touched another one in your life. If you were unfamiliar with the world that Ace Attorney has already spent six games establishing, does the Dark Age of the Law subplot hold up?

No. No it doesn’t.

So as I’ve said a million times before, it was clear that Dual Destinies should not have tried to juggle three protagonists. It just didn’t work. They learned their lesson and booted Athena out of that protagonist title in SoJ, and as much as I hated that decision, it was at least a much stronger overarching story for it.

Now. There were three main throughlines in Dual Destinies. Athena’s story centered on introducing her, of course, but it also was about her struggle to save a friend who needed saving from the law and also himself. It was very AA1 in that way.

Apollo’s story was a little harder to outline, because a lot of it is saved for the last couple of cases, but it’s really about his relationship with Athena. Coming to trust her, his trust in her being shaken, struggling to overcome that, grief, loss, yadda yadda, and I have my criticisms of how it’s handled, but that’s the gist of it.

And Phoenix needed a story. So they made up this stupid fucking bullshit garbage and dumped it in his lap and said “Here you go, best friend! Our dear money maker! This is what you’re working with!” And then they proceeded to use it to beat the shit out of Phoenix until he started spitting out dollar bills.

Okay no sorry I have no idea what the fuck I just said but liSTEN

The Dark Age of the Law storyline was clearly supposed to have some significant thematic relevance to the story, given how hard they were hammering it into us in case three. It was supposed to mean something, and I think it was supposed to mean something to Phoenix in particular. After all, he and Miles won’t stop TALKING ABOUT IT GOD MAKE THEM SHUT UP

The Dark Age of the Law subplot had nothing to do with that final case. Remove it, and nothing changes, because, again, Simon had nothing to do with the corruption in the first place, and the Phantom certainly had nothing to do with corruption. It’s so surface level. “Uh oh, people don’t like the courts. If you can solve this unrelated crime, everything will be fixed.” And then he does (also Athena should’ve been the one to win the case, but that’s a different problem) and nothing ever comes of it, other than “Hooray, you fixed the corruption!” He didn’t??? Miles what the fuck are you talking about????

If they had woven in the corruption throughout the story somehow, maybe it would’ve found some way to be impactful? But it was a floundering, half-thought-out subplot in an already bloated game that failed to give any meaning or help anyone develop as a character. Hell, it kept falling out of relevancy and only popped in to rear its head when the writers remembered it existed and decided to have yet another person remind us that THIS IS IMPORTANT GUYS NO REALLY.

Like! Okay. What if they tied it more to AA4? I mean Phoenix’s disbarment and subsequent return could’ve actually affected the plot. Have people actively mistrust Phoenix or something. Or maybe have it affect anyone in any way. Sure it divides the fucking high schoolers for that mess of a “power of friendship” storyline, but so could a plot about, I don’t know, electing a homecoming queen or something. It affected Athena for one case, but what did that even teach her other than “Trust your gut, sweetie, don’t do lawyer crimes!” Phoenix didn’t have an arc in this game, and he shouldn’t have had to, unless it was coming to grips with the fact that he was never going to get those 7 years of his life back and the smears against his character were always going to linger. But they didn’t do that, they just needed him in there for brand recognition.

I can handle a lot of bullshit in these bullshit lawyer games. That’s part of the appeal. But unlike most of the other bullshit, this particular threat was unsatisfying, meandering, and unnecessary.

[musclesandhammering]

Loki (2021) Positivity from an Anti

Ok so all of my mutuals know I’m extremely anti-Loki (2021), anti-sylki, and anti-sylvie. But at a certain point, even we antis get tired of all the negativity. So! Here’s some Loki series commentary in the opposite direction! This is a list of all the things about the show that I loved :)

Also adding a disclaimer that all of this is just my opinion and some of my fellow antis (or even people who liked the show) might disagree, and that’s fine! I’ve been planning this post for awhile. I always say in my other posts that I don’t entirely hate the show and I wanted to be a little more specific about what I think are its good aspects. Feel free to leave your thoughts!

• Mobius is a gem (Owen Wilson owns my whole heart) and his relationship with Loki is so so great. He’s not one-dimensional at all, he has conflicted loyalty and is morally complex, and he has the tragic backstory- which makes him a perfect choice for eventually becoming Loki’s first genuine friend.

• The casting was really really great. Lots of women and people of color. Most of the female actresses (as well as the males) are over 30, which isn’t very common and is fantastic!

• Superb acting all around. I can’t think of a single scene where the actors under or oversold it.

• Beautiful set design, incredible cgi, and gorgeous cinematography overall. It looked more like a movie than a tv show, which is really good.

• Kang being the big bad was a huge plus for me. Johnathan Majors was perfect in the role, his vibes were immaculate, and I was honestly pretty worried that the man behind the curtain would end up being another Loki variant, which imo would’ve been boring and predictable and counter-productive, so it was a big relief when that didn’t happen.

• I like that it sets up a bunch of future marvel movies, rather than being contained to its own little world. It gives it more importance and (hopefully) will encourage writers to not just toss Loki’s character aside in future projects.

• All the Loki variants were delightful. All of them except Sylvie. Kid Loki has my heart. Boastful Loki is a fashion icon. Alligator Loki is a savage. President Loki is the superior variant. Classic Loki became my fav character in less than half an episode.

• It showed some more variety in Loki’s magic. A lot of his powers we’ve seen before, but it feels like they were portrayed a bit more blatantly in the show. The energy blasts, the telekinesis, the teleportation… Outstanding.

• It also implied that Loki has the potential to be waaaay more powerful than he knows he is right now, which? Yes.

• Some of the quotes- and the themes behind them- are just profound as hell. Such as:

“I think we’re stronger than we realise.”

“It’s never too late to change.”

“You can be whoever you wanna be, even someone good.”

“We’re Lokis. We survive. It’s what we do.”

“Loki, God of Outcasts.”

“The universe wants to break free, that’s why it manifests chaos.”

• Technically Loki was Marvel’s first canon lgbt (bi) character, which is a win. His genderfluidity is also technically canon, even if it wasn’t really acknowledged on-screen.

• There were a lot of throwback references to Thor 1, Avengers, and Thor The Dark World. Which I loved.

• Sylvie’s so pretty. Her hair and makeup and costume were all perfect.

• Big fan of Loki finally getting Laevateinn.

• Sufficiently slutty imagery, courtesy of a female director (Loki in a collar, kneeling to Sif, President Loki looking down into the bunker, the hair flips)

• The music was Excellent Wonderful and Superb.

• I love that Loki being a good singer is now canon.

• I love that Asgardians having their own language is now canon (even if it’s basically just Icelandic).

• I also love that they disproved all of those “Loki was a shy nerdy wallflower pre-canon” theories in Episode 3. The drinking/eating/singing scene was fun, if a bit wacky.

• There’s a million different reasons why Loki does what he does, especially in regards to the New York attack (I’m literally writing a huge meta on them), but somehow I never considered that Loki being desperate for control was one of them. It makes a lot of sense, and I always love getting new insights into his motivations.

• I love that Loki finally outright acknowledged that he doesn’t enjoy hurting people. We Been Knew™️ but it’s still nice to hear it out loud from his own mouth.

• The TVA outfit wasn’t as hideous as some people make it out to be. It could’ve been A Look, even. You know, if he’d just accessorised a little better. And kept the jacket on. And not gotten sweaty. And not gotten dirty. And maybe had at least one other costume change… But it had potential, though!!

• Even though I despise the Obvious One, I did actually like some of the other romance crumbs they tossed us (sifki, Loki x the flight attendant).

• The whole DB Cooper thing was iconic idc idc.

• Loki’s hyper sort of overly excited puppy attitude in episode 2 was actually pretty refreshing and funny (for awhile). And now I can headcanon him as adhd, yeehaw.

• “We’re all villains here.” That quote was iconic, my favourite one in the show. And the entire theme that it summarised was really great as well. When you think about it, every single main character in this series has been the villain at one point or another. I mean, I know all marvel characters do bad things etc, but none of the Heroes are ever narratively categorised as Bad. This show did just that with all of them, though. . Loki was framed as the psychopath that attacked New York. Sylvie was framed as the murderous fugitive. The TVA/Ravonna/Mobius were framed as the murderous fascists. Kang was framed as the crazy totalitarian. It’s made clear that all the Loki variants were the villains of their stories.

However, every single main character in the series is also framed as the Hero at a certain point. Loki is framed as the main protagonist who throws a wrench in the TVA’s dastardly plans. Sylvie is framed as the persevering freedom fighter who wants to take down the fascists. The TVA/Mobius/Ravonna are framed as the ones who maintain order for the greater good. Kang is framed as the weird but ultimately benevolent wise man who’s just trying to prevent something worse from happening. The Loki variants are framed as generous allies who befriend the main character and help him on his journey.

Everyone in this equation is openly acknowledged by the narrative to be morally corrupt, but not entirely morally bankrupt. There are no Straightforward Hero Figures (like the Avengers) in this entire scenario at all, and that makes for a super interesting dynamic that marvel has never done before. So yes: “We’re all villains here.” But also: “No one bad is ever truly bad, and no one good is ever truly good.” I loved that.

• Even if it wasn’t really enough imo, I still treasure the crumbs we got of Loki being competent and capable (him putting the collar on B-15, him figuring out Sylvie’s hiding place, him teaching himself to enchant on the fly while fighting a giant cloud beast of eldritch proportions).

• I love that B-15 was the one who stepped in and saved the day in Episode 4, when we all thought it was gonna be Mobius. What a queen.

• Marvel usually has a bit of a problem with creating compelling and memorable side characters. But aside from Sylvie, I genuinely got attached to every single character in this show. Like Casey, C-20? I was seriously emotionally invested in them and they were only in like 2 episodes. Wtf.

• Introducing the TVA storyline in the Loki series specifically was a really good move. I’m not saying they executed it well, just that it had a ton of potential. A lot of people have wondered why marvel even thought to put those two (the TVA and Loki) together, when they had literally nothing to do with each other, nothing in common, and essentially no connection at all. But when you think about it, it’s a really interesting twist on both of those stories. Forcing the embodiment of destructive chaos and the pillar of rigid order to interact could make for some seriously entertaining and compelling television. And as far as meshing these two completely unrelated entities together goes, I thought they did it pretty well- at least just the bare bones of the story (loki being arrested by the TVA and being one of their most common variants).

So that’s it! If you guys (fellow antis) wanna add stuff you liked, feel free. If anyone wants to discuss (or debate) my list, feel free to do that too!

[periakman]

A Commentary On One Aspect of My Brain

Under a readmore because it was six pages on google docs lol

I couldn’t have been very old when I wrote my first story. I had gotten an idea in my head, and I was going to write it down. The plot, was very simple, Samantha, the girl who was Me, was going to compete with Eric, the enemy, to see who could get more halloween candy. Samantha would win by having such a scary costume, she’d scare people away and get their candy.

Dreadfully simple, but I assure you, at my age, I was pumped by such an interesting and indepth story idea.

I wrote the first few pages, and in my excitement, I showed it to my mom.

I clearly remember the sentence that made her pause.

“One day, Samantha and Eric, Eric was mean.”

In hindsight, someone’s adhd had decided to kick in and completely change the trajectory of that sentence. So my mom pointed out that this sentence was wrong, as one would.

I was livid. I argued. I cried. I never finished the story. I was so mad.

My mom tried to point out that I had a perfectly good story, just with this one error, that I had discarded the entire story over, and had gotten mad.

I don’t think I ever decided she was right.

A few years later, I made minor waves in elementary school, I believe first or second grade.

We had to write a journal entry about snow. Maybe why we liked snow, or a story about it. I wrote a story about a girl named Samantha (it was my favorite name for a very long time), who went on an adventure with a snowman. It was, more or less, a complete story, with actual structure, and about three pages longer than anything anyone else wrote.

It got praise. Not a lot, but enough for me to realize I had done a good job. It went in the school newspaper, alongside other stories. I don’t remember my parents complimenting me, but I also don’t remember them not complimenting me, so I assume that I got enough praise to be satisfied, but not so much it stuck out in my head.

A few months later, we had to write a journal entry about easter. I wrote another story. The exact same story, actually. A girl named Samantha went on an adventure with a bunny. I am fairly certain I even consulted the original story so it was exactly the same.

My class was amused by it enough. They remembered what it was last time, and knew what I had swapped. That felt good.

I showed it to my mom. She however, was not too impressed. She pointed out it was the exact same story. I just swapped out words.

I don’t remember being particularly devastated, but I don’t remember taking it well either. I think I sort of quietly internalized it, with the brain of a tiny child who couldn’t actually self analyze well.

Over the years, I also showed my dad a lot of stories and things I wrote. I don’t remember what they were at all, but I definitely showed him things. He’d always respond with criticism. This frustrated me, a lot, just as it had in my younger years.

My dad, in his infinite eloquency, explained his reasoning.

“If I was sitting at a gorgeous table, and there was a misplaced fork, I would correct it! But if I was sitting at a table, and it was covered in poop, I wouldn’t care about the misplaced fork!”

I don’t know if I really absorbed that as a child. In my own way, I accepted he was criticizing my work because he thought it was good, even if I still hated that he did it.

There were some other interesting statements my dad said, over the year. One such statement that still sticks with me, that seems unrelated, but actually very relevant: “I used to try and get [you and your sister] to work harder during your soccer games, but then I realize you guys didn’t care, so I stopped.”

A small one off sentence. My sister and I played soccer, and my dad saw we could be good at the game if we applied ourselves. But we didn’t want to, so he pulled back. If anything else, his philosophy was consistent.

I finally hit middle school, and show my mom a play I wrote. It’s 80 pages long, and the first thing I ever completed in full. My mom points out a word I used was incorrect. Essentially, “monarchies” does not mean the same as “any given power structure in the world”.

I got mad. I got annoyed. I did the same thing I did as a kid. I shut myself off and threw a tantrum. My mom read the story anyway, and quoted me the last few lines of the play, pointing out how good they were.

That made me feel a lot better.

As a middle schooler, I was obsessed with people reading my stories. Until I sent it to one girl. “Did you like my story?” I asked.

“Not really,” She replied, as I heard those words for the first time in my life.

“You didn’t like the character?” I asked.

“He was drunk!”

A stupid reason, in hindsight, to not like a character, but at the time it was monumental. It wasn’t the complaint that mattered. What mattered is what it symbolized. My sloppy absurdist work where the joke was a character was a lazy bum was not good enough on its own.

I later tried to put that story on fiction press. I took it down before an hour even passed, because I realized it just wasn’t good enough.

By the time I hit high school, something had changed. I started to have opinions on things. My focus on media had started to emerge. I had always been opinionated, proven by my years and years arguing with my dad.

I kept writing. In high school, I had stories that for the first time felt good, felt publishable, felt like actual stories and arcs.

But I still did the same thing I always did. One time I had an off hand setting where someone was being chased by a bully. One of my friends questioned the logic of the scene, and I fought him over it for a long time, because that was what I pictured in my head.

The fact was, I didn’t want to take criticism for a long time. And I could argue until the cows came home. This was a toxic combination, but at the same time, I soon approached another problem.

I wanted feed back. I wanted to improve. I was existing in a void where my stories were not being commented on, and the comments I were getting were not to my liking.

I tried, again and again, but I found that small inaccuracies made me annoyed. For a long time, I wanted to write comics, and wrote graphic novel scripts. The problem with this is that as a result, I was using a visual medium in a community where no one else was.

I distinctly remember someone saying something to the extent of “why are you refusing to take this criticism” and arguing back “because in this case you’re wrong.”

Of course, I had grown by then. In hindsight, I was correct in those arguments. That argument had been over if I had too many characters in my story. I tried to explain that in a visual medium, it didn’t matter if I had a dozen distinct minor characters, because the reader didn’t have to remember their name, unlike in a prose book, where such things would be much more jarring.

Other times I argued over things like how fighting worked, or how many things could change panel to panel.

It ended badly. Very badly. To the point I’m not interested in explaining how badly it ended, but rest assured, there are still people I hold grudges against to this day because of it. It never could have ended well, due to a combination of them refusing to listen, and myself refusing to listen.

I got some amazing advice, in the aftermath of that trashfire. “You don’t have to listen to all the criticism you receive. Find people who like the premise of your story, and listen to them.”

At that moment, it finally clicked. It was all put into perspective, albeit subconsciously. I had always wanted the premise to be accepted, and my struggle had been how I perceived that. In my younger years, I had seen an arguing of grammar as a fundamental rejection and ignoring of The Art Of The Story.

And now, older, I had been trying to accept criticism from people who had never bought into my premise in the first place, and had suffered immensely for it, because I had essentially exposed myself to what amounted to bullying, only without the criticizers ever realizing why it was so toxic on me.

College was when the transition happened.  I still argue. I still stand my ground. But now I’m a bit more fast and loose with it. I started writing for LARP, and in this field, I quickly learned where my skills were and where my weaknesses were, thanks to friends I had who were far more talented than me, but in different areas.

This journey, alongside other journeys of constantly arguing with my dad and other people, led me to the person I am now.

Am I the best at taking criticism? Not always. But you know what? I’m a helluva lot better than a lot of people out there, and I can only thank every individual person who tried to take me on, from beginning to end. It wasn’t the people who praised me that mattered. It was the people who questioned what I was doing, while still fundamentally respecting me as a person.

I even have some gratitude for the trashfire experience I had when I was looking for real criticism. If only because I’m glad it happened when I was seventeen, and not when I was older, and in a situation I was able to completely walk away from, without causing any lasting damage. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone else, but the fact is, as a writer, you are always going to encounter someone who hates you for what you write, and I’m glad it went the way it did, with me getting good advice, as opposed to just falling further down the hole.

But it did cause this huge blind spot, which I’ve only recently realized.

My dad in our arguments, always emphasized a huge thing whenever I cried and fought with him. Don’t get your ego involved. Your argument, your stance, it’s not you. If you get invested in an argument, you’re not going to win.

Now, I disagree with some of the finer details, in hindsight. Some arguments you can’t afford to not be invested in, but that’s what backup is for, and for not getting into stupid hypothetical arguments with jerks who refuse to accept there’s a reason you’re emotionally invested.

Due to a combination of these reminders, the constant practice, and being his genetic daughter, I slowly created a huge stamina bar to this one specific aspect of my existence. I might get stressed and refuse to do homework or cleaning because it’s too hard, but I could argue. I could explain. I could stand my ground.

The slow journey into accepting criticism and being able to argue my own points with minimal expended energy led to a dangerous combination.

I probably would have always been like this, even if I had been raised in different circumstances, but the way I was raised definitely strengthened the attributes. It made me rather confused by the fact that being told you’re wrong was something so painful and distressing, that often the only response was to assume the person who said it was a sadistic condescending jerkface.

I’d express idle disagreement, knowing exactly what my weakpoints were and where I was wrong, and find the disagreement suddenly explode when the person I was talking to get mad at me, and lambast me for being so cruel, or for forcing my opinions.

I didn’t know why for a long time. To be honest, I still don’t. I don’t know if I ever will. But I do know that I am thankful for the experiences that led me to this point, and I hope that I can help other people along their own similar if unique path.

I don’t really have an end point to this, except to possibly explain why I am the way I am. I have always been made aware of how skilled I am. I know where I am truly skilled, and I know where I’m truly not. And this has led to clashing, because oddly enough, my slowly built and cultivated self esteem, which can still be as easily shattered, does in fact resemble a healthy mentality, and this can rub anyone with low self esteem the wrong way. Because my confidence becomes condescension. My attempts to try and patiently explain what I had to fiercely argue and cry over, becomes a lecture.

One day, I might figure out how to fix that. I love communication, so I might figure out the Perfect Way to explain things to people without coming off as insulting. But for now, I know the facts.

I am not tolerated because of how I give information and how I explain things. I’m embraced by it. Not by everyone, no, but there is value in honesty. And it won’t be perfect every time, but so long as everyone knows that I truly accept and honor them as a person, I am loved for what I do.

There’s nothing wrong with being wrong. It took me a decade to learn that. And that’s okay.

[ievani-e]

Random Rant Regarding Ignorance (Originally posted 2013)

When I write, I do it both to simply capture my thoughts down on paper (or, in this case, a computer program) and also in order to show someone else the world through my eyes. I pour my own thoughts, feelings and emotions into my pages; but the important thing is giving those things a context, so that someone else who isn't me can still come to understand my thoughts, feelings and emotions. A story is simply a backdrop for delivering ideas: it's a stage to present concepts in a way that people can understand. Simply saying “love one another” is too abstract for us to truly understand until we learn as many details as we can: about other people, about the situation, and about ourselves. When we know people, we can love them; but it's hard to love out of ignorance.

I've been struggling with writer's block recently because I've felt like the weight of the world is on my shoulders. I didn't have a clear message I wanted to portray: I simply liked painting a pretty backdrop and getting caught up in the characters. I liked just listening to their conversations, watching them live their daily lives and seeing what happened next. Writing is, for me, just like reading is for you: you don't know what to expect until you actually read the next word. Paper is a blank canvas where you can add to it, bit by bit, until you have a coherent picture which is actually kind of decent to look at.

But lately, I haven't felt like I've had a blank canvas. There's been so much buzzing around my head, I haven't been able to get into the heads of my characters. I feel like I've lost faith in humanity: something that happens quite often, actually, but I always manage to get it back. In my stories, I tackle issues such as sexual abuse, neglect, and people simply standing by and doing nothing even when it's clear someone needs help. But I've never tackled them with the intention of teaching anyone anything about them: I've simply been exploring my own feelings in a way I could resolve them and that hopefully other people could understand. I don't write with a message in mind, or a “lesson” I want to teach my readers: though of course, if they do take something away from my work, I'm happy.

However... there are times when I feel like I can't just break away from the world and hide away in my “happy place” and focus on my own novels and nothing else. Every day, I read stories about rape, sexism, racism, discrimination and hatred and intolerance in general. Now, I'm a sensitive person, and these issues are so upsetting I used to just stick my head in the sand and cover my ears and hope that these things would go away. I hoped that, by the time I pulled my head back out of the sand, these things would just magically be gone. But they're not. And I'm actually part of the problem, by refusing to acknowledge it exists and speaking out against intolerance and inequality in all its forms. I think the main part of the problem is that people simply don't understand each other. We rarely take the time to think about the world through other people's eyes. We rarely think about what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes, think the way they think and feel the way they feel. We assume that whatever we think is right and that anyone who disagrees must be stupid. We don't think about the myriad of ways people are different, yet similar. We don't think about people as individuals: there are simply people “like me” and “unlike me”.

I hate making generalisations, which I realise is an ironic statement to make given the many generalisations I just made, but I do have a point: I'm using my generalisations as a way to exaggerate an issue simply to make it more noticeable. Problems of hatred and discrimination exist. The majority of people are kind and decent and treat each other with respect, and I truly believe that. But there are those who abuse and exploit others, who seem to lack empathy and understanding: and for them, generalisations are not used to innocently place a magnifying glass over a problem to see it clearer, but as malicious justifications for self-serving, prejudiced behaviour.

Rape and sexual abuse is particularly a sensitive topic for me, and one I have explored in various ways (though by no means fully) in my writing. But so far, my stories haven't really offered me a plateau to discuss other kinds of issues. My stories are now at a point where I must keep the plot moving forward and make it consistent with what has already happened: I can't just go off on a tangent to discuss feminism and equality. When I read articles everyday about how people are mistreated, misunderstood, shunned and ostracised, I feel powerless and I have no clue how to get my feelings out in a productive and constructive way (other than getting into political debates with my friends). And it's interfering with my ability to write.

How can I use writing to express my feelings about the intense debates on sexism and homophobia when the events occurring in my story are completely unrelated? How can I use my characters to portray my astonishment at the lack of empathy and compassion some people show, especially when they are granted anonymity by the internet? How can I focus on weaving a fantasy story about make-believe characters when the real world has so many problems that need to be sorted?

I don't have the answers to those questions and so, instead of continuing my story, I'm writing this. I have written about depression, psychopathy, abuse and neglect. I have gotten into the head of rapists, murderers and the criminally insane... yet I'm just completely at a loss of words at the sheer amount of ignorance and intolerance displayed by people who comment on online videos and articles who claim that the status quo is fine the way it is and anyone who says otherwise doesn't even deserve to live. Politicians and judges who overlook situations they aren't even involved in and suggest it's somehow the victim's fault. People who mistake genuine suffering for attention-grabbing. A society which defines “gender” by its basest trait and divides humanity into arbitrary categories. Religious and non-religious people alike who think homosexuals are inherently evil.

Let me just say one thing: we are all individuals. You. Me. The person sitting next to you at work or at school. Even the creepy guy no-one likes. We are all different. We are all similar. We all have our own likes, dislikes, interests, skills, hobbies, abilities, dreams and aspirations. But the thing is: it's all completely random. Our entire existence is dictated by chance. Even when we were first conceived, we were made by one of millions of sperm cells: each one would have resulted in a different combination of DNA. We are all unique. You can't tell what someone is like just by the colour of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation, their gender or their biological sex. You can't tell what they will like, what they will do and what they will be just by looking at them and categorising them.

So please, let's stop all this hatred and discrimination. While prejudice is born out of ignorance, I think that ignorance can actually be a beautiful thing if we embrace it. If we admit that we don't know what other people are like based on heuristics, biases and logical fallacies, it means we have an opportunity to genuinely get to know people. And learning more about each other is always amazing.

I still think that, at their core, all humans are good. All humans can love. But first, we have to stop judging books based on their cover. We have to stop letting fear and ignorance get in the way of love and acceptance. I don't want to hear any more generalisations or stereotypes lumping every man or woman into a single category. Nor people of a certain sexuality, nor race, nor religion, nor anything else. No more categories. No more assumptions or pre-conceived notions. Let's just admit that we don't understand other people very well, but — and this is the key difference — let's try to.

Thank you for reading.