#also these are NOT direct quotes do NOT misunderstand

[joshuadunshua]

He’s got like this weird fixation on his acceptance as a man in gay cruising spaces, as though “being perceived as fuckable” is an example of systemic & systematic trans masc privilege? And he won’t look past his own experiences as a trans guy in these spaces to listen to other trans mascs. “I was considered fuckable by gay men even before I passed” congratulations???? Literally what the fuck is with the fixation on being fuckable?

[inkskinned]

so while i was writing the book, i became violently suicidal.

this was mostly due to the fact that i had a very bad reaction to some meds and my brain stopped producing any serotonin. also i was in the last semester of grad school where it's actually illegal to feel anything but dread. so it wasn't going well.

somewhere in the fog of it i became aware i needed help. nobody was taking clients or my insurance. i didn't want to do inpatient care - it wasn't right for my needs. there's not really an "in between" stage between "inpatient" and "no care," but i was trying to do the right thing. i was trying to activate the chain of command that was my emergency plan. i knew i needed help now.

i used betterhelp.

i know, i know. i'm a straight-A student and so smart and so clever, how could i ever use something so blatantly bad. to be honest with you, i didn't feel particularly keen on it from the getgo - things that seem too good to be true usually are. also, if something online is free, the price is usually your privacy.

the thing is that there was kind of a global pandemic happening at the time and i worked 5 jobs alongside of being a fulltime student and also like writing a book on the side. it is a miracle that i even thought about getting help. i would love to tell you i had the mental wherewithal to like, process whether this was the right choice for me. mostly i was desperate. i was so suicidal that i was trying to find a reason to stay inside of fortune cookies. i was the kind of suicidal that looks like splatterpaint. i hadn't been that bad in an entire decade.

they took my data. i gave them it freely. somewhere out there, they have a dossier on me. on everything i survived. my story in little datapoints, scattergraphed beautifully.

the first woman told me that really i should be grateful, because (and this is a direct quote): "at least you're not anne frank." i said that i felt that statement was antisemitic, as anne frank's life and experience shouldn't be compared to like, a nonbinary lesbian in western massachusetts. the therapist said that i should try to use lucid dreaming to try to picture myself in an actually scary situation, like running from nazis.

i applied for another therapist. i was willing to accept the possibility that there was a bad apple in the bunch. the next therapist and i even laughed about how inappropriate that statement was. and then, in our next session: the new therapist said if i was struggling with body image issues, i should just work harder on my appearance. she spent 3 sessions in a row talking about how she was grieving, and made me memorize facts about her grandmother so "she can live on through my clients."

i am a three's-a-charm kind of person. okay, so what if the last person made me uncomfortable. i figured it was just a misunderstanding of priorities - she had felt she was sharing with me, i had felt like i had to take care of her. i applied for another therapist.

the last woman asked me to help her pray. she bowed her head. i stared at her, frozen, while she said: lord, i beg you: cure her. take the pain of being gay away from her.

i spent somewhere between 2.5 and 3 months on betterhelp. in that whole time, i was not getting the professional help i so desperately needed, even though i was fucking trying.

in the end, i survived this because i finally could get off the meds that were literally killing me. a request for a real therapist finally went through. i survived because my friends saved my life. because nick let me sob myself dry in his arms. because maddie took the razors out of my room when i asked them to. because grace slept over in my bed for like 3 weeks in a row since nobody trusted me not to hurt myself when i was alone. i survived because i got fucking lucky. because even when i was desperately suicidal, i was too old and too self-aware to take "you need to be prettier" as good advice.

the thing is that there's a 19 year old me who isn't like that. who would have heard "just think about how grateful you should be" and said - oh, i see. i would have assumed that is what it means to be in therapy: the same thing my abusers used to tell me. that i am just pretending and lazy. that i am ugly and unworthy.

betterhelp positioned itself to take advantage of an incredibly vulnerable community. it preys on desperation. it knows it is serving people who are not doing well mentally. it saw that there is a huge need for real, immediate, compassionate mental health care: and then it fucking takes your money and privacy.

i still get their ads on instagram. last night i watched as a woman in a pool pretends to talk to a different woman. they discuss her anxiety.

there's a 19 year old version of me, and she didn't survive this. she was too tired, and drowning. i almost fucking died. this thing almost fucking killed me.

in the ad, the woman playing the therapist takes a note on a clipboard and then nods once, sagely.

i have to admit it's a pretty scene. the steam and light coming off the pool water lands on the actresses. like this, it almost looks baptismal, holy.

[velvees-archive]

Making my case for ManoSouta, Ace Attorney’s token doomed yaoi

Bronco knew, and still he told nobody.

Ace Attorney Investigations 2 full game spoilers ahead!

Chalk it up to lucky guesswork or my expertly honed writer’s intuition (sarcasm), but so rarely do I latch onto side ships that when I found myself gravitating towards Bronco (Manosuke Naito) x Simeon (Souta Sarushiro, hence ManoSouta) simply because of this line, I knew something was up…

…and boy was I right.

Simeon Saint’s fall from grace was a direct consequence of subjection to a corrupt justice system and equally as corrupted individuals. There was his father, who saw Simeon’s existence as a means to an end (the end being a pharmaceutical “recipe” book that could cure Gusto’s affliction and a shiny world class confectioner title), his best friend, who kidnapped him and almost killed him on his dad’s orders, and—if that wasn’t enough to destroy someone’s psyche—there was the presidential assassination trio, who tormented, interrogated, and dangled their judicial and executive power over him like a special-brand curse.

This is a character who hit rock bottom so long ago he believes nothing is left of him except agony, paranoia, and anger. He crafts an intricate revenge plot that dishes Simeon-esque justice to everyone who wronged him. The acts are performed mercilessly, too, no hesitation, regret, or unnecessary feelings involved in the flawless execution of his plan.

Well, almost.

There was one person in the same boat—no family, no longstanding companionship (barring each other)—who set Simeon’s descent in motion. Ironically, it is also through this person that we’re shown what remains of his humanity.

For me to talk about Simeon’s feelings as shown before we found out he was the mastermind, though, we have to see how he reacted after the big reveal. Upon being fingered as the villain, Simeon makes it clear he does not feel remorse towards any of the people “he” killed. After all, they drew first blood; Simeon firmly believes retaliation was warranted.

That is, until Miles clarifies the following points surrounding Simeon’s kidnapping, his memory loss, and the fate of his and Bronco’s fathers:

The reason Simeon was kidnapped wasn’t so Bronco’s dad could kill Simeon’s; Bronco was only meant to stall Simeon so he couldn’t help his dad win the confectionary competition finale

When a murder did occur, the victim of the murder was not Simeon’s dad, but Bronco’s.

This is how Simeon responds:

“He deserved to die!…Didn’t he?”

This line, in conjunction with the contemplative flashback shown in the video, conveys Simeon’s uncertainty/regret about inciting Knight’s murder, though one could argue this is only in reaction to the revelation rather than a lingering attachment to Knight, who he “stopped thinking” was his friend 18 years ago.

But then he follows it up with this.

“Then what was all this…for…!?”

At this point, you have to ask yourself why Simeon is questioning his entire plan (keyword in the quote is all, not just Bronco’s death) because he realized whose father actually died. Technically speaking, Bronco did still kidnap him. On top of that, everyone else Simeon exacted revenge on still wronged him, so it makes no sense to say this unless Bronco’s supposed role in “Simeon’s” father’s death was pivotal in Simeon’s decision to proceed with his whole plot. In other words, the reason Simeon questions his plot after Miles’ clarification is because this fundamental misunderstanding was what pushed him to take revenge on everyone in the first place. Bronco’s betrayal weighed so heavily on him that Simeon had no choice but to kill him in line with his principles, but he didn’t actually want to.

I’m not saying he wanted to spare Bronco because of the power of friendship or some misplaced sentimentality. It was inevitable that Bronco would die by Simeon’s hand because Simeon vowed to get his revenge on everyone who hurt him. What I am saying is that Simeon’s resolve is clearly shaken once Bronco’s role in his suffering is cleared up. As soon as Simeon realized Bronco’s dad didn’t murder his dad, he regretted killing his only friend. This is the only time Simeon shows remorse.

You might think Simeon’s hatred for Bronco stems from his kidnapping and its consequences, aka setting off the chain of events that would ruin Simeon’s life outside of “his” dad dying. However, Simeon doesn’t hold a grudge over Bronco for anything other than the kidnapping. The statement, “If you hadn’t detained me 18 years ago…it wouldn’t have had to…end like this” is vastly different from “If you hadn’t detained me 18 years ago, none of this would have happened.” His “hatred” for Bronco was a personal grudge he had against his best friend, who also happened to be the son of his dad’s killer. Bronco was on Simeon’s list because his betrayal stung Simeon most. “What was all of this for” really meant, “I wouldn’t have gone through with any of this if I knew you weren’t involved.”

Had Simeon truly hated him, it’d be difficult to justify why he snuck away from his carnival preparations to talk to Bronco. Why did he pay such an incriminating visit when he’d already delivered Bronco’s chess set during visiting hours? And why did he tell Bronco he snuck something into it, leaving him vulnerable to counterattack should Bronco tattle?

Why did he bother saying goodbye?

Simeon’s actions betray logic because try as he might to hate Bronco with all his heart, he cared. Bronco Knight’s betrayal was the straw that broke the camel’s back, but imagine if the misunderstanding had been sorted from the start. Simeon's reaction to wrongfully killing Bronco was a stellar portrayal of his desire for genuine companionship, and a peek into what remained of his humanity before he was unmasked. He really was all alone.

If you’re still not sold on them being the doomed yaoi representatives of Ace Attorney, if a misplaced desire for revenge cutting their time short doesn’t make this tragic enough, then consider this: Bronco legitimately cared for and trusted Simeon, but unlike Simeon, he was left completely in the dark.

He’s legitimately excited to see Simeon’s performance. He happily awaited Simeon’s chess correspondences because he just likes being around him!!

Perhaps the biggest sticking point in all of this is that Simeon admitted he put something in his chess set, Bronco definitely opened his chess set, and yet when it came time for Fifi Laguarde to interrogate him (aka when she discovers the chisel), Bronco does not tell her he doesn’t own it, he does not tell her he’s been set up, and he does not tell her his best friend—who the precinct knows visited him—is the one who put it there. Why didn’t Bronco tell her?

That’s the greatest pull of their dynamic: we don’t know. Maybe everything happened too fast. Maybe he did try to protest. Maybe he ratted Simeon out but Laguarde was already in hysterics. Maybe Bronco didn’t understand why the chisel frenzied the warden so, and paid the ultimate price for it.

Or maybe, just maybe, Bronco already knew the moment he saw the chisel. Maybe he died a knowing victim of Simeon’s retribution. Maybe he thought it better that the knowledge of their past—Paul Halique’s ring and Simeon’s secret hatred— dissolve with his last breath.

Worse yet, maybe he couldn’t believe Simeon would do something like this. Maybe he continued to have blind faith in him despite the damning evidence. Maybe he believed in him.

[a-sad-mage]

Circling back to the whole Will Shane possibly having murdered Tom Por thing-

It's like, never brought up again, other than the mental connection we the audience make during 'The New Kid pt 2' when Twist is telling Eli his backstory.

Like did Will actually kill Tom?

Or was it a misunderstanding???

Because it's very well implied that Will actually did do it.

The gang kinda confirmed Tom Por just... Vanished, and no one knew exactly what happened to him?

Sure, Dana says Will Shane murdered her father. But she has no solid proof other than what her father told her.

And we know when she says 'he found out Will Shane was working for the enemy'[not a direct quote] it was about the Shadow Clan. And that Tom was attributing the time Will spent away as time collaborating with them.

In reality, Will was just going top side to spend time with his family. And a small portion was actually spent with the Shadow Clan as they were collaborating in protecting Slugterra and it's secrets. To the point Will was given the Shadow Talker, and the recorded messages Will left for Eli that were curtesy of Shadow Clan.

So they were friendly.

circling back, Dana claimed her father found out about it. But it's clear he didn't know the full truth at that moment.

We know there was a possible confrontation between the two men.

And in that possible confrontation, Dana claims Will murder Tom.

Key point, Dana claims. She doesn't know for serten. She says she knows it's the truth- but here's the thing, no one knows for serten.

Eli rebuffs the idea, and again, the gang is not entirely convinced themselves.

In short, Dana is an unreliable source of information because she doesn't know the whole truth(no one but Will dose) and she's also blinded by her emotions.

Another thing that orb Dana is now using after having taken it, a thing I've taken to calling the Shadow Walker. The thing that let's her walk in the Shadows like she's Shadow Clan.

That to me, didn't belong to Will. Because when Dana makes off with it, none of that Shadow Clan chase her down, nor make an effort to track her down to get it back. (I think, I could be wrong, been a while since I saw the EP)

Key point, they let Eli keep the Shadow Talker. Like they show up, just to tell him that he can keep it. That it once belonged to his dad, and now belongs to him.

They make no real fuss about the Shadow Walker orb.

What if the Shadow Walker was Tom Por's?

What of when Tom confronted Will, and Will told him the truth about his partnership with the Shadow Clan?

It was established that Will and Tom were friends. Good friends, after all, Tom was Wills navigator, and you have to trust the person navigating you.

So what if, when Tom confronted Will, Will told Tom the truth about his dealings with the Shadow Clan?

What if Will took Tom to see the Shadow Clan, and as a show of good faith, and a favor to Will Shane, they gave Tom the Shadow Walker?

But something happened, something bad, that was out of everyone's control, and Tom unexpectedly died, just moments after getting it?

[Mabye even suddenly disappeared? Spirited away by some unknown force, leaving behind the Shadow Walker]

Will, devastated, takes the Shadow Walker and the Shadow Talker and put them in the box, cover it in a metal only a Lavalynx could melt and hid it.

Will for whatever reason, can't bring himself to tell Dana the truth, and he knows his emotions might get the better of him as a dad to a son around her age at the time.

So he makes one more request of the Shadow Clan in regards to the Shadow Walker.

Should Dana Por ever get her hands on it, let her keep it for better or worse.

Again all of this is speculation, the rambling of a mad person who is in desperate need of sleep. I could be wrong. This is mostly crap I thought up while making my OC lore for Slugterra. There is no real evidence.

So take this with a grain of salt.

Anyway, I'm going to bed, I have a Flan to cook tomorrow.

[relaxxattack]

Hi i want to thank you for the QPR vs Moirail venn diagram. Its a rly excellent way of showing the difference. My gripe is about human romance, and how people will either 1- conflate it in a 1:1 ratio with Matesprit, or 2- claim it is “all the quadrants”. I personally feel both are false equivalency, and that the human romance is similar to both pale and red rom* and SO i was wondering if you agreed w that assessment, or if not, if you have the time to explain your thoughts on human traditional romance vs the quadrants (perhaps w another nifty graph)?

* which is why Rose’s destructive tendencies during sburb & her descent into addiction on the meteor were not addressed by kanaya, who feared palezoning herself like she did with vriska

OH MY GOD! YES!!!! why am i getting such great asks today?!

no, you're EXACTLY right. people are constantly conflating matespritship in those two ways; "all of the quadrants" being especially irritating (since Some humans occasionally argue, Occasionally in a kinky way, and i guess that means that they totally have all of kismesissitude covered?? :/).

matespritship is its very own thing. of the two interpretations above, i feel the idea that it's 1:1 to human romance is the closest to true. i mean, that's what they literally say in the comic, for gog's sake.

humans do not truly incorporate moirallegiance, kismesissitude, or auspisticism into their lives in any meaningful way. while it's possible for humans to sometimes have romances that might seem more like one of those than matespritship, they're considered abnormal or toxic-- and they often ARE, because humans do not have the same sort of biological drives or social understanding of these things that trolls do. humans do not understand the true needs and ramifications, or even the ROMANCE of moirallegiance. humans would be hard pressed to understand a kismesissitude in a 'healthy' way. i don't even need to mention how auspisticism flies over people's heads.

so, yes, humans only have the one quadrant. (and karkat vantas, i am sorry to say, is not going to "human date" anyone as the "solution to his quadrant problems". this would literally be the same as him trying to stick only to matespritship, and we all know exactly how that turned out.)

however! matespritship is not an exact 1:1 on human romance either. the direct quote from the comic is;

"[It's] the closest parallel to the human concept of romance trolls have." [x]

this is not really expanded on much in the text, honestly-- the intricacies of the social and biological traits of matespritship aren't shown enough for us to draw clear distinctions between them and human romance.

however, i think you're right that rose and kanaya are the best example we have of that-- despite them both aiming for matespritship, they have cultural misunderstanding quite often from some of rose's flirting, or even just her needs, crossing wires into a pale threshold that kanaya is weary of.

it's entirely possible that the differences between troll and human "hearts" might have made it difficult for kanaya to really connect with rose's problems and discuss them with her.

which might explain why when things go "better" for them in the retcon, they're portrayed reading a book on troll romance together:

it could be implied here that searching for a more in-depth understanding of quadrants actually helped rose with her ability to connect to kanaya-- and maybe, reading into it a little too hard here, this also could have been an opportunity for kanaya to work through her vriska-based hangups with the pale quadrant. that's entirely speculation on my part, though.

at the end of the day, we don't really KNOW enough about the details of quadrants for me to paint a clear picture of how matespritship differs from human romance. i mean, i could try, but it would certainly be more of a headcanon post than an analysis one!

[duchessofostergotlands]

I am confused about something

Why would someone who talks about a former porn addiction and has spoken out against it be showing nudes??

I don't understand how any other show people have sang his praises but this one specifically allegedly there are multiple women who were uncomfortable??

It sounds like yhe Heath guy is the main perpetrator in this to me.

I'm not saying Justin is innocent at all, im just confused that the actions don't line up with what he's said (which can happen people can put up a front)

(And just because Blake can be a mean girl and rude doesn't mean she can't have suffered sexual harassment)

He didn’t show nudes, that was Heath. But also, I don't understand your logic at all. I have a lot of experience with alcoholism in my family and it would be really odd if someone said “wait, the person who is addicted to alcohol but maintained a period of sobriety drank alcohol?” I'm not suggesting that his addiction is evidence of guilt in any way, but it's certainly not evidence of innocence and it's bizarre to suggest it is!

As for the second point about why no one has spoken up before, that just is a fundamental misunderstanding of how sexual harassment and power works so let me break it down:

Firstly: In 2024 - in a world where prolific abusers like Harvey Weinstein, Jimmy Saville, Russell Brand etc have been exposed and a string of high profile men have found ways to use the courts to revictimise women who do stand up - I'm shocked we're still having to explain that women do not come forward and absence of public accusations doesn't mean the first person to make the accusation is wrong. Sometimes victims don't want to relive the experiences. Sometimes they are paid off and sign NDAs. Sometimes they don’t realise what happened was wrong or they doubt their interpretation (it took me over a decade to realise things that happened to me when I was younger were sexual assault, and there have been women who have spoken out against things like intimacy coordinators or have said practices like the casting couch are just normal). And in an industry like Hollywood which is so heavily dependent on connections and reputation and where jobs are insecure, some people don't want to make a fuss and risk damaging their career.

Secondly: There's always a first time. Perhaps this was the first opportunity he had to behave in quite such an extreme way at work. Justin had unchecked power on this set and didn’t in most of his previous work. There is a massive difference between being one actor amongst many on a production and being an actor, director and producer of a movie adaptation you own the rights to (and this is the first time he had all those things). On previous projects he may have moderated and controlled some of his behaviours because he wasn't in charge. This movie also had sexual content, which would make it even easier to blur the lines and discredit her. If he was just directing a movie it would have been madness for him to walk up to an actress and bite her lip without consent. But if you're filming a kissing scene as an actor who is also director and producer then you might think that you can get away with biting your co-star's lip without consent because you can just say "oh it was to add to the scene, guys."

Thirdly: there’s that smashing quote about how predators groom their character witnesses as carefully as they groom their victims. Many people had positive experiences with Harvey, he got them Oscars and made their dreams come true. Jimmy got a knighthood and was venerated for his charity work. Justin has cultivated a reputation as being a feminist, an advocate for women, and he knows the language of an ally. It not only means that many women will like him, but also makes it harder to speak up because who will believe that Justin would do that to a woman?

Lastly: It's interesting that we never flip this narrative around. It's always "well no one has ever accused this man of sexually inappropriate behaviour before so he must be innocent." But never "Blake has never launched a law suit against a co-star for sexually inappropriate behaviour before so she must be telling the truth." I don't want to imply that women who have made multiple accusations aren't to be believed but it's just weird for people to suggest Blake's just being sensitive or covering her own bad behaviour on set when she's been an actress for 26 years and has allegedly had poor relationships on set before but has never felt the need to sue any of them.

And then for the point about how it was mostly Heath, it really wasn't. Did you read the complaint? Heath is mentioned 94 times and Justin's mentioned 327. He is also the co-chair and co-founder of Wayfarer while Heath is CEO, therefore Heath reports to him and Justin had the responsibility to chastise Heath for his behaviour if it got out of line, which arguably means Justin's partly responsible for everything Heath did too. Blake alleges that they went against industry standards on things like intimacy coordinators, hiring practices, closed sets, nudity riders, HR complaints processes etc. Those are the responsibility of the leadership of the production company so are also just as much Justin's fault as they are Heath's.

I would urge you to actually read the complaint. I know it's long but I deliberately didn't summarise it because I wanted people to read it for themselves. And just let go of the conspiracy theories and think about things with some basic logic.

[sir-adamus]

I may be uninformed, but isn't buffy also NOT an anime? If they gotta make a comparison like that maybe they should mention a "monster of the week" anime?

alright so i wasn't directly quoting this person, i was just summarising a couple of their posts to emphasise how dumb what they were saying was

they actually started with the buffy thing, saying, and this is a direct quote now "the one project i wish if i was ever given would be to completely rewrite all of rwb/y from the beginning to be more akin to buffy and monster of the week shows. not only a more serialized pattern and natural build up feel better..." and then after trailing off from that barely coherent grammar nightmare they had other posts that i didn't get screenshots for and don't fully remember what they said so i'm not gonna try, but there was the shit about the creators not understanding anime and i think something about not getting fantasy in general (and also wanting to push back the Salem reveal to much later which would've completely killed the momentum) - so it's not as dumb as trying to equate buffy to an anime but it's still like

a fundamental misunderstanding or ignorance (wilful or otherwise) of what limits the show is working with, what it's trying to do, and really what the point of the show is. like from jump it's clear that while the Grimm are a problem, they're not the problem, and wasting time on 'the gang fights a handful of monsters per episode' and not getting into the shit the actual villains are doing for a 'serialised format'

like as rocky as the pacing is early on, it's not trying to be a monster of the week show or a shonen battle anime (if anything in terms of narrative structure it's trying to be a JRPG), and every time i see someone say "if i were to rewrite rwb/y, it would be to completely change its format in a way that's not conducive to the story it's trying to tell"

square peg round hole fucking mentality

[bestworstcase]

are you willing to share the details on tdt! zhan tiri

behold my incomprehensible diagram!

um. after v9 i lost all sense of restraint, on the grounds that the blacksmith is an aspect of the tree and therefore the tree reasonably might have other aspects, and then there were four, and then there were twelve. lmao. (the artisan is the blacksmith—she’s depicted as a wood carver and lewis called her ‘the lively carpenter,’ so i figured she’d give herself a more nonspecific name.)

because i am also shaking heraclitus between my teeth like a terrier with a rat, Only One ever exists at a time; the tree is always becoming itself and its aspects shift and flow and transform into each other. in various directions and by varied means. ANYWAY,

those quartets (was/is/will-be) are not temporal categories but rather (copying straight from my lore notes here):

Presiding over forethought and remembrance, the Was concerns itself with what may be known: prophesy before, and memory after, for Time is the circle which remembers itself. It would be a mistake to say that the Is presides over, because the Is does not rule; but it might preside at the choosings, the turnings, the changings, and so the Is circumnavigates the Soul. Some things do not change—some things can never be changed—and over what is unchanging and unchangeable, the Will-Be presides: over strife, over hunger, over graspings, over flux.

was is about the flow of time and knowledge, is concerns action and choice, and will-be are manifestations of inevitability—things that Always Are. if you are uh. familiar with bitter snow zhan tiri i’m sure you can guess where she Goes…

The Reaper, called the Sitient Thorn and the Black Vulture and the Flower-Maker and the Goat-With-One-Thousand-Teeth and the Lady-of-Wilds and the King-of-Beasts—for she has been known by many names in many places—appears however she pleases, and it pleases her to change. Her fur and feathers are oil-dark; she crowns herself with the coal-black horns of a ram; her eyes glitter green; she reeks of vegetable rot and brine. Her true name, if she has one, might be the Wrathful Sky. All things want. Her season is Spring.

she is—as in bitter snow lmao—a little unusual in that she’s not a quote-unquote true aspect of the tree but rather something hungry that came from somewhere else, from the dark country which is nowhere. it is ESSENTIAL FOR HER CHARACTER that she’s a strangler fig. always. so she is kind of a quasi-parasitic trespasser into this Situation but also, in the same way that real stranglers protect their living host trees from being uprooted by storms, not an adversarial one necessarily.

what that means in practical terms is the reaper is the exception to a lot of the, for lack of a better word, “rules” that define the tree’s nature. in her aspect as an aspect of the tree, she takes on its nature; when she isn’t manifest within the tree, though, she exists outside and independent of it. so she can, for example, go for walkies in the backyard

by which i mean remnant. lmao

on remnant, the reaper is the god of animals. she didn’t make the fauni but once they came to be she decided she liked them Best and has favored them ever since. many, but not all, fauni receive her blessing, which (like that of the brothers) confers a magical gift, specifically a form of shapeshifting.

NOT like what the branwens can do—more in the vein of ‘cultivating’ the animal-like traits you already have as a faunus, so if (for example) you were born with shark teeth you might learn to rearrange your respiratory anatomy and grow gills, or give yourself sharklike skin. this can be done in a way that is permanent (this is called ‘ripening’) or not (‘borrowing’). most fauni who learn mix and match a bit (and there are different formal ‘paths’ that combine techniques in different proportions and intensities).

the gift itself is called khime and the practice is khimancy; humans often misunderstand khimancy as sort of a fauni tradition combining auralerie and konurgy (dust-magic) into a single art, but that is. um. Wrong.

(it is possible for master khimancers to fully turn themselves into an animal, but it takes a lot of dedication and many years of training to get there. the ones who get there are called turnskins and they’re rare, like on the level of silver-eyes rare.)

anyway the Reason not every fauni in the world receives khime is she only gives it to the ones who ask. asking is Really Simple—just a small ritual to get her attention, though the specifics vary a lot between different sects—and in many fauni cultures it’s seen as a rite of passage marking the end of one’s childhood. but because it’s a religious practice specific to khimerism, obviously not everyone Does It.

conversely, it isn’t Just For Fauni in the sense that a human could petition the reaper for her gift if they so chose, and she might say yes. for all intents and purposes this is Converting To Khimerism and under khimeric law makes you a faunus—although it won’t cause a physical alteration right away, there is a process for revealing your true form.

this is PRETTY RARE but not unheard of. there’s a handful of fauni folk heroes who are said to have been born human and either left in the wilderness as infants and being saved by fauni parents or outcast from human society and turning to the god of animals for solace; mythically speaking, the idea is that, just as the god of animals offered their gift to some humans who refused, perhaps there might be a very few humans whom they missed, or who weren’t born at the right time, and such people will find their own path to where they truly belong.

(IN CASE IT ISN’T OBVIOUS i’ve chosen to veer off the ‘racism allegory’ angle by leaning into the religious aspect of fauni identity; the narrative in ‘the shallow sea’ is essentially “we are our god’s chosen people and through this covenant we were changed” so—in the context of TDT where the god of animals and their shape-changing magic is real—if one chooses to convert and accept that covenant one can become a faunus. the reverse however isn’t true: one can leave the religion and relinquish the gift, but that doesn’t get rid of the fauni traits. nothing is erased, nothing forgotten.)

salem knows about her. (her opinion is chiefly “stop. trying. to eat. my. grimm.” they have tea sometimes it’s complicated.) ozpin thinks the god of animals is a myth, if a curiously persistent one. and the reaper is also like… at least half of remnant’s cryptids because when she’s out for walkies in the backyard most of the time she does it as a horrible mishmash Creature. when fauni characters say the Lady or the King they’re talking about her. she is both the Lady and the King because she doesn’t know what a gender is (and at this point she’s too afraid to ask) and she picks her pronouns on the basis of “i’ll have what my friend is having :)”

the god of light. HATES HER. she crawled in through the jabberwalker (no relation to the walker) (theophoric name) and latched onto the tree before the brothers could Get Rid of her and then made herself part of the tree Somehow!!! (you are what you eat) so now she just exists outside of his power.

(the brothers were both actually far more powerful than the tree when they left the ever after, because the tree is a passive force, it cannot act outside of itself, but the brothers had no power over the tree. so the reaper can’t overrule the god of light on his ultimatum—although she’d like to—but he can’t do anything to stop her from going for walkies. he just seethes impotently.)

[loanonlife]

i do think that a vital part of most nortmikes is that they can't stand each other at first <3

i just think their personalities would clash horribly and their biases would lead them to make assumptions about the other that would just compound the issue.

canonically mike dislikes 'rude people' and norton dislikes 'arrogant rich people' (although this has been removed from his official page for some reason? i don't think it's a retcon because this still lines up with the rest of his lore).

while mike probably isn't rich, i would absolutely describe him as arrogant. yes, his behaviour in closing night is heavily influenced by his distress regarding the fire, however, i do not believe it is a stretch to assume that some of his holier than thou/smug attitude from that story carries over into everyday life.

we know norton is an incredibly standoffish person (being described multiple times as 'reserved' and 'gloomy' after the mining incident, as well as his behaviour during his interview with alice, granted, it is likely he was more reserved than normal in order to avoid revealing his involvement in the cave in), he is also described as hot-tempered in his famitsu bio. he can also be incredibly direct in a way that may be considered rude, such as in the 2022 deduction star best performance quote where he says "let me be clear. i'm not paying." this leads me to believe that norton could absolutely be interpreted as rude, possibly even exceptionally so.

while we see in the call of the abyss 4/the great race video, that norton & mike get along extremely well and seem to be exceptionally fond of each other, i believe that their clashing personalities would lead to them getting off to a bad start in their relationship, and taking everything the other does in the worst possible way, before something causes them to realize they've been misunderstanding the other :]

i do think they should have explosive arguments lol, stageplay universe nortmike screwing with each other in matches, athletic games nortmike having very public beef and showing up to each other's games just to obnoxiously cheer for their downfall, coa4 nortmike sabotaging each other's cars. i love them.

[separatist-apologist]

What do you see as the difference between fanon Lucien and canon Lucien?

Canon Lucien is an asshole and fanon Lucien has no flaws, is the perfect gentleman and also just really boring.

I was ranting about this to LB, maybe I'll just make it public but if you examine the facts:

To break the curse of Amarantha, Tamlin HAS to send his soldiers over the wall. Presumably, Lucien also went in the wolf form looking for a human woman. They ALL know what's at stake, they all volunteer knowing the risks. Feyre is a starving human and she sees a wolf which is a threat even if she wasn't starving. Its a threat to her newly acquired deer AND her life- it makes sense to kill it.

So when she sets the curse in motion and Tamlin brings her, this is a LITERAL last ditch attempt to break the curse in the final hour and Lucien KNOWS this. He KNOWS if they fail that they'll all be enslaved. He, better than anyone, KNOWS what he has to lose because Amarantha has already taken his eye and forced them all into masks.

And yet when Feyre shows up, skinny, starving, and scared, his first words to her are insults. It's not necessary but he's pissed off and resentful- he wants to fight knowing three other courts tried this and were all killed for their trouble. Fanon Lucien would treat her with kindness and help her but actually interesting Lucien does not.

Lucien is the one who sends Feyre to the suriel knowing the dangers and knowing she's ill equipped to take on a Fae monster. And when he hears her scream, he ADMITS he hesitated to help her and if you follow the logic, its because he doesn't like her.

And I see people all the time lamenting for book 1 Lucien to return but then turn around and DEMAND we all acknowledge that Lucien would NEVER be anything other than a PERFECT gentleman when Lucien's own monologue acknowledges that what he loved most about Jesminda was how unimpressed with him she was. How she'd called him on his bullshit- and you HAVE to assume he gives it as good as he gets. The minute Elain has shit to say to him, she's gonna hear something back.

I like Lucien- like OBVIOUSLY, you don't write 2 MILLION words about a character you don't like. But I resent the constant posts going around that erase everything interesting and declare you're not a "true" elucien/Lucien stan would never write him/head canon him as a dick when like.

Baby. He IS a dick.

He's also loyal and clever and willing to do what's right even when its hard. He gets retconned into a perfect gentleman and I think this is borne of the pushback a lot of Lucien stans get from other folks in the fandom that lean too hard on his early missteps and refuse to acknowledge all the ways he's grown, too. But the swing went too far in the opposite direction imo and now I've got people in my AO3 comments mad that Lucien isn't weeping over Elain's beauty and it annoys me.

I have a longer piece brewing in the drafts about Lucien and Feyre and the ways the love each other + their misunderstandings of one another that I just need to get out of my system. It's taking forever because I hate quoting these books.

[devilsskettle]

I just watched The Love Witch for the first time and would love to know your opinion (if you have seen it)?

i have mixed feelings about the love witch tbh. on one hand, it’s visually stunning and i would love to see more movies embrace the style and production value of older cinema, especially these older horror movies that i love that are so atmospheric. it’s so whimsical and dreamlike

i also like MY interpretation of the movie, which is about elaine’s desire for agency and power to protect herself from men, but she tries to do so by appealing to male desires thinking that if she gives them what they want, they’ll give her what she wants, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of the exploitation of women under the patriarchy — you can’t gain your freedom from the patriarchy by submitting to it. she wants love because she wants control, and she conflates her hatred and bitterness with an excess of love because that’s the narrative that makes sense to her. but if you watch her interactions with any man in the movie, she really does fucking hate them. at the end, after her appeal to the male gaze fails to protect her from sexual violence, she realizes that manipulating male desire isn’t enough — her repressed desire to hurt the people who hurt her is finally expressed by direct violence. i find that to be a tentatively hopeful ending for her

however. i don’t necessarily think that is the “correct” interpretation lol (in terms of author’s intent) and the fact that i’m not sure if the filmmakers intended this story to be like a tradwife manifesto or if it’s being critical of that rhetoric is already a problem because that means the messaging is extremely muddled. i see people quote this movie completely uncritically, i think a lot of elaine’s idea that she can achieve agency by being the perfect traditional woman appeals to a lot of young women, it certainly is in line with the popular 2010s trope of female characters who can be feminine AND strong, she has eyeliner so sharp she can cut you with it and she’ll kill you with her high heels on and she’ll make men underestimate her by seducing them or acting dumb. which of course is a way to repackage the sexy male gaze token female character into an acceptably “feminist” character so we don’t question it anymore. that was peak Strong Female Character -ism and i think that’s widely regarded as a regressive trope now but this movie speaks to that logic, and now it speaks to the “coquette” trend as well which doesn’t even purport to be interested in female agency (not even “feminism,” just basic agency lol). anyway my least favorite criticism of satire is that it’s not clear enough that it’s satire because sometimes people are just being dumb when they say that, but in this case i really can’t tell which perspective the audience is intended to agree with and that’s a problem to me. idk if it’s even intended to be satirical at all lmao

the part of the movie that illustrates the tradwife-esque narrative for me is the character trish. she voices the perspective of female equality with men especially within a romantic relationship as a partnership, and not only is she shut down by elaine, but she’s framed as this naggy, jealous character who turns on elaine and is just as much a participant in elaine’s victimization as the men in her life. her relationship with her husband is actually insecure despite her insistence that they have mutual respect and her repressed desire to be the same type of woman as elaine is manifested as rage and violence towards her. they model two types of womanhood and we are not supposed to side with the model where women demand mutual respect, because the movie doesn’t believe that men are capable of that or that women actually desire that. it’s such a standard tradwife perspective that feminism is for ugly women who can’t be women the “right” way so they can’t be successful within the patriarchal status quo

and it’s such a bummer because i think the movie taps into such a real experience of rejection and powerlessness and being at the whims of shitty, deeply pathetic men. the movie has a sharp, derisive, sarcastic humor that i think goes under-appreciated, because it’s hard to tell what’s being said genuinely and what’s being said with a wink at the audience

all that is to say, i’ve watched the movie a couple times and i really enjoy what i got out of it but i don’t know if that says more about ME or the movie itself. upon first viewing i thought it was absolutely genius, i kind of wish i had preserved that experience by not reading what other people have said about it lol but i think it’s kind of a product of its time — we’re continuing to navigate gendered power dynamics and trying to figure out the best way to approach being a woman interacting with a male dominated world. i’m not convinced that this movie has it figured out but i want to be able to enjoy it for its merits and take what i want from the story

tl;dr: the way i interpret it, it’s one of my favorite movies. but idk if i’m interpreting it “right”

also: it reminds me of the haunting of hill house because of the main character’s sublimated loneliness, anger, and jealousy, the narrative doubling (elaine + trish are so theo + eleanor coded to me lol), and the 1960s aesthetic sensibilities

[twistedtummies2]

Year of the Bat - Number 4

Welcome to Year of the Bat! In honor of Kevin Conroy, Arleen Sorkin, and Richard Moll, I’ve been counting down my Top 31 Favorite Episodes of “Batman: The Animated Series” throughout this January. We’re getting close to the end now… TODAY’S EPISODE QUOTE: “Gotham can be a Wonderland, Alice! Tonight, let me be your guide.” Number 4 is…Mad as a Hatter.

If you know me very well, this episode being in my Top 5 is no surprise at all. If you don’t, then you might be a little surprised. While “Mad as a Hatter” is certainly a well-liked episode, by all accounts, I doubt too many people would name it as being anywhere on-par with stories like “Mad Love” and “Heart of Ice,” two other villain origin stories that I covered in my past two entries. I, however, am not most people: while I love Harley Quinn, and I cannot deny the power of “Heart of Ice,” this story is something close to my heart in a way those two simply are not. This episode is the origin/first appearance of one of the Dark Knight’s slightly more unsung villains, the Mad Hatter. In the story, the Hatter is a highly repressed and socially awkward neuroscientist, by the name of Jervis Tetch. Jervis is an eccentric fellow, who has a bizarre obsession with the “Alice” stories by Lewis Carroll. The strange scientist has created a special headband and cards, which – via highly sophisticated nanotechnology – allow him to control other people’s minds. It’s then revealed that Tetch has unrequited feelings for his secretary (probably not-coincidentally named Alice Pleasance), and – when her boyfriend, Billy, seemingly dumps her – Jervis seizes the opportunity to use this newfound power to try and sweep Alice off her feet. At first, things seem to go well…but unbeknownst to Jervis, after he drops Alice off at home that night, she and Billy make up and even get officially engaged. This sudden development causes Jervis to snap, and he becomes the Mad Hatter: determined to claim Alice as his own, hang all the consequences, and willing to put half of Gotham under his thrall, if necessary, in order to do so. Naturally, Batman can’t allow this; he’s already on Tetch’s trail, after a (presumed) misunderstanding with some street thugs. Now, he must rescue Alice (and Billy) and stop the Mad Hatter before things get any madder.

The Mad Hatter has long been one of my favorite Batman Villains, and I am 99% convinced that the specific version found in the DCAU is the main reason why. In the comics, the Hatter has always been an…iffy character, to say the least, as he’s typically depicted as a rotten-to-the-core little creep with many perverse desires. He’s a villain who’s meant to just be punched in the face, so to speak. Other adaptations have gone in other directions, but I think the version found in the Animated Series handled it the best out of anybody. This is, without a doubt, my definitive take on the Mad Hatter. Part of the reason why is the character’s voice: he’s played by Roddy McDowall, and in fact, the Hatter would be McDowall’s last proper character, as his final appearance in the DCAU – a Superman crossover episode called “Knight Time” – was released posthumously to McDowall’s passing, and a somewhat earlier episode, “Animal Act,” was released not long before his death. This was quite the role to cap a career with, and almost seems an inevitable one: McDowall had previously played a somewhat similar character, the Bookworm, in the 1960s Adam West show. He also was the narrator for an abridged audiobook version of Tim Burton’s Batman (where I swear he plays the most polite Batman in the history of anything). Not only that, but McDowall also played the role of the March Hare in a 1985 TV Miniseries of “Alice in Wonderland.” With credits like these, and his mellifluous voice, he was absolutely perfect casting for the part.

The other reason, however, sits with his origins. This by far the most sympathetic and fascinating take on Jervis Tetch I think we’ve ever been given. It’s easy to relate with the idea of unrequited love as the cause for someone’s descent into darkness, and at the start of the story, Jervis is really very nice. He’s a bit odd, and there are some subtle hints that he’s already on a slightly uneven keel, but he doesn’t come across as truly evil. There’s also an interesting dichotomy with the way his alter ego acts in relation to the rest of his life; it sort of reminds me of Catwoman’s setup in “Batman Returns,” of all things. At the start, Jervis is awkward, shy, panicky, and keeps a lot bottled up. Once he dons the top hat and trenchcoat of the Mad Hatter, however, he becomes a whole different person: he’s more charismatic, more confident, more flamboyant, and – thanks the power of his control chips – he has absolute control, something we get the sense he hasn’t had a lot of in his life. It’s only when his advances are so brutally shot down – when he finds out Alice, after all that, is ENGAGED to Billy – that he REALLY goes off the deep end. There’s some ambiguity and unanswered questions with his background – we don’t know why he’s obsessed with Wonderland, why he’s created these control chips, or even whether or not he intended what happened with the two aforementioned street hooligans – but that actually only makes him more interesting, as it gives the audience a little leeway to come up with their own thoughts, while still presenting a comprehensive understanding of why this Hatter is Mad.

Being a Wonderland-obsessed oddball myself, I’ve always felt a sort of dark kinship, for lack of a better way of putting it, with the concept of Jervis Tetch. That character concept has never been so splendidly handled as in B:TAS, and “Mad as a Hatter” is a phenomenal first impression for the character. I need no other reason to place it so high in my personal ranks.

Tomorrow we move into the Top 3 of the countdown! Hint: “Look at us. We’re all freaks and monsters. And who made us this way? BATMAN!”

[rayclubs]

Do you have any advice on how to improve writing characters and character interactions?

Yes! Oh my god, this ask got me so excited I’m actually typing out the response in a word document. Let’s fucking go. I’ll try to omit any well-known advice like “read other books” and “practice a lot”, y’all know that already, so I’ll get straight to practical tips. I’ll also be bringing up examples from my TF2 fics because it’s easier for me to make my points this way, and also because my fics are epic and you should totally read them.

Branch out from the widely recognized go-to emotion signifiers. Watch the people around you and notice how often they raise an eyebrow when confused, or tilt their head when inquisitive, or clench their fists when angry – it’s not entirely implausible that they do it, but chances are, they also do something else that’s way more unique, more interesting, more “them”.

It makes emotions personal, but it also makes gestures and non-verbal interactions personal. In the beginning of my fic “Kill the Red”, Soldier salutes Pyro in the way of encouragement because that is how Soldier acts when he’s trying to be reassuring and confident. At the end of the fic, this happens: “(Pyro) glanced up, found Soldier’s eyes, and gave him back that salute he owed.” It’s a very small bit, but it reinforces Soldier’s characterization as an assuring, commanding presence, as well as Pyro’s impressionable but proactive personality, and helps define their unique dynamic. I could have had Soldier give Pyro a pat on the back instead and be done with it, and the fic wouldn’t suffer too much, but what I went with in the end is way better.

Dialogue is my favorite part of the writing process, but it’s also the easiest to mess up. Here’s few important things to keep in mind when writing dialogue.

Get to the point. Skip the vocal fills, greetings and goodbyes, and all deceivingly human junk that is so easy to get caught up in. Have your characters say what they want to say, in the way that only they would say it, and be done with it. If there’s no consequence or weight to the way someone says “sorry”, write simply that the character apologized, but don’t dignify it with quotes and a dialogue tag. That’s for special occasions only.

Make dialogue tags into actions. There’s a bunch of examples for this in all my fics, here’s some from “Close Call”.

“Coming to a professional?” Spy smiled, eyes narrow like those of a mischievous cat.

“Where?” Soldier squinted and leaned forward but seemed to be looking in the wrong direction, just slightly too far to the left.

“I wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.” A cardboard folder was pressed into Sniper’s chest. Spy grinned proudly. “Take a look.”

He clutched the steering wheel. “It’s the only big enough clearing in these bloody woods.”

Like, it’s such a technical advice, but I read fanfiction and I know how many people struggle with this, and it just helps the flow of conversation so much? You can say “said” and “replied” and other such words, but it really does wonders to intersperse them with actions that do not imply speaking at all. This is also how I manage conversations among multiple people without constantly going “X asked” and “Y answered”. It establishes the presence of every character in the scene in a proactive manner but doesn’t overburden the text with needless clarifications.

Count your lines. That’s a simple one. Count your paragraphs to make it so the characters’ lines alternate. Even if nobody says anything, count that paragraph as a line too. It just makes text so much clearer.

Make characters say what they think. This is so basic but like. I saw the exact opposite advice once and it bugs me so much. No, you don’t obscure the characters’ intentions and feelings in fifty layers of unnecessary misunderstandings to create pointless drama, that’s the opposite of a good story! That’s how you get the one part of Shrek 1 that literally everyone criticized! Goddammit!

There’s a weird example of this with chapter three of my “Vignette Collection”, ironically titled “misunderstanding”. The gist of the fic is that Pyro communicates via gestures and social cues that Medic is too autistic to understand. It works – again, ironically – because both of them say exactly what they mean, even if they don’t understand each other and see the world differently. The resolution is fucking hilarious fitting because the conflict doesn’t exist strictly on the level of phrasing, there is an actual clash of interest in there. Does that make sense? I feel like it doesn’t make sense. Good god.

Make characters be wrong. It’s hard to explain but there’s a really good example in my “Acceptable Losses”. The context of the scene is that Medic is injured and Spy is worried about him, though, importantly, he doesn’t say it verbally. The story is from Medic’s POV, and at some point this happens: “Spy reached into his front pocket for the cigarette case, but reconsidered, for some reason.”

The “for some reason” bit is Medic’s thoughts. I know the reason. You – the reader – know the reason. The reason is that the man is concerned and doesn’t want to smoke up the kitchen when his friend needs clean air and a healthy meal. The only one who doesn’t get this is the point-of-view character. This characterizes him as someone who is accepting of other people’s occasionally strange disposition, but ultimately oblivious to social clues.

This bit alone doesn’t amount to much, but this trait reinforced like fifty times throughout the story works to built that character trait well.

Incorporate metaphors into characterization. I fucking love doing this so much. I have two fics that practically do nothing but this – “What’s it called, Engie?” and “Seasons”. I could write fucking essays about my thought process for both of them but this is already so long so let’s just briefly consider the former. On a side note, I hate that I named it that, I usually have nice names for my fics but that one fucking pisses me off. Anyway.

In “What’s it called, Engie?” Soldier and Engineer alternate POV’s as the story sees them build a close relationship over the course of several unconnected scenes. The core theme is that Soldier cannot express his emotions verbally in a manner that makes sense, so he works through associations instead, and Engie helps him navigate it, all while learning more about the way he sees the world in the process. Well, within this metaphor, Engie is a bee – a busy creature with a nurturing nature and an unexpected sting, while Soldier is an old tree – big and easy to stand out but purposeless and “dry”, as in emotionally. So here’s a few lines from the fic that practically state that directly:

Dell’s voice sounded like watching a bus leave seconds before you could reach it. Like waking up in the middle of the night finding no water at the bedside. Like winter striking too early and forcing the bees to hide.

Bees picked the nicest flowers with open petals, overflowing with nectar and so full of pollen it made people sneeze. Jane couldn’t imagine why such a hard-working genius bee would waste its time trying to nurture a dried-out old twig.

He stayed quiet. Like the silence of a flower to the buzz of a bee, sometimes no answer was an answer too.

And here are a few lines that are not about any of that at all:

“Here, how’s that feelin’?” – and up went the metal case, unfolding into a dispenser, adding its soft hum to the buzz of the workshop.

The clock ticked and tacked like a woodpecker fussing over a worm-eaten tree trunk.

There was a long pause before more words followed, shaky like tree branches in the wind.

“Can I still keep coming to your workshop though? I like how it buzzes.”

Here’s the kicker: THEY’RE ALL THE SAME IMAGERY. They’re the same fucking thing. Trees, bees, hums, buzzing, they’re the same metaphor. There’s one metaphor in that goddamn fic. This is so easy to write but can be so effective, it feels like it should be illegal.

(Another side note: I could write a dissertation about all the shit going on in that fic, like, there’s the naming of characters, the vibrant metaphors of Soldier’s POV contrasting with the practical view that Engie has of the world, the tiny little bits of blink-and-you-miss-it characterization, etc etc okay sorry to brag so much I’m just insane)

This is getting REALLY long so here’s just a few more points with very brief examples to wrap up, and let me know if you want to hear me ramble about writing some more because I love it to a ridiculous degree like. Okay.

You can use association to built unique metaphors. Try to imagine a feeling in your head, pick a few things that feel similar, and then tweak them so they fit the overall theme. My favorite theme is nature and weather metaphors, and my favorite example of this is this line from “Falter” – “Demo plowed through the ocean of their misfortunes with the ferocity of a steam engine, and Soldier clung to him like a flea to a fur coat.”

A character arc does not necessarily have to change your character in a big way. Sniper goes through a character arc in “Close Call”, but it manifests in really small ways, such as him resolving to call his parents, or him letting Spy have his coffee maker.

Also like. Basic but you need to have an idea of where the story is going and why, even if it’s a really small-scale story with very low stakes. That way you can introduce things in the beginning and then call back on them at the end. It’s called a circular plot structure, but on a smaller scale it does not have to be the whole plot, it can just be individual elements that aren’t plot-relevant, like the coffee maker described above.

Use nomenclature as a tool of characterization. Decide what words your characters use to refer to others and to themselves, and stick by that. Differentiate them this way. It’s fun.

Anything can be a bit of characterization. It never exists in a vacuum. You have to get into your character’s brain and just sit there all the time. Good luck.

Hope this was at least a little bit informative. Cheers!

[topbottomswitchblade]

update on The Situation

main admin made a post about how they are adding Confidentiality to the official rules. they made another post bc i guess ppl were confused on the specifics and it didn't seem to me like my partner had broken any of the rules bc it was mostly like, don't go around telling people who is in the group. which he didn't do. but this post went up like two days after the incident. so.

the admin then dm's my bf to be like "heeeey!" note: i am going to paraphrase a lot for brevity but that is how they wrote hey. "heard there was a potential awkward interaction between you and another member of the group. i would like to arrange a conversation between you two to remove any misunderstanding that may be present"

bf was like "listen idk what the deal is but this is what went down" and recapped it

admin was like "exactly, and they'd like to clear up any confusion if you're open to having that conversation, and then i'd be delighted to give my thoughts"

bf was like "ok i guess"

i want to paraphrase but also i really want to put direct quotes so i can be like. who talks like this.

"i personally think these conversations - while uncomfortable to approach - help communities grow in positive ways. so i appreciate your willingness."

and starts asking for dates and times bf is available to arrange to have this conversation. to which he is like "wait are we doing a whole in person meeting??"

little back and forth but my bf was like "look idk what you want from me. it was a pretty minor interaction and you already made your point with the new rules. i get it. i certainly won't be saying hi again."

admin was like "i think there's a miscommunication, what you did isn't a big deal but as an admin i need to make sure it doesn't become a big deal. not trying to make you feel chastised. they actually wanted to have the conversation so that you know it's not a big deal, not to attack you."

another direct quote incoming: "all that is expected of you is your attendance, a willingness to listen with compassion, and the ability to be honest about your perspective with the aim to eliminate any confusion or misunderstanding."

bf was like "look i get that you're trying to be thorough but you're making it fucking weird" [not a direct quote] "you say it's not a big deal and then you make a big deal out of it by scheduling a meeting with moderators over a faux pas. i feel like i have to walk on eggshells if this is how minor mistakes are handled and idk if i want to be a part of this."

admin, after some time, was basically like. "yeah i can see that this was a lot. the person said it was ok if gave you their phone number so you can just text directly. the admins don't really have any action we need to take since we already posted the new rule."

kinda made it seem like they were more worried it was gonna start drama more than anything and just said to be careful in the future as like a final note

bf has not texted the person yet but we just went out of town/are still out of town so we've had stuff going on

[anarchy-and-piglins]

Some people put buttercups around their garden to keep bunnies out.

Someone putting buttercups around their carrot garden to keep Bunny Techno from grabbing all the carrots. Techno eats the buttercups out of spite/not realizing they are poisonous/similar color to carrot and getting very sick.

"The carrots, Phil. Why did the carrots betray me?"

"It wasn't the carrots, mate, it was the-"

"What did I ever do to make carrots dislike me so much? I love carrots so much. Why did they betray me?"

"Techno, its was the-"

"There is nothing alive more agonized than a man who has been betrayed by carrots of all that breathe and crawl across the earth."

"That is not how that quote goes-"

"How can I go on when carrots have abandoned me, Phil?"

"...I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding. You can explain it to the carrots later."

"Carrots can't talk, Phil. You sound ridiculous."

"Bro, YOU ATE A FUCKING BUTTERCUP."

QSYUSQGJHGQSUYGYSQJH that's so funny

But also now I'm brainrotting this so hard though maybe more in the hurt/comfort direction. Somebody planting buttercups around their garden to keep normal bunnies away and bunnyblade eating them and getting really sick and then the person who planted them gets to feel super guilty >:D

[georgegraphys]

hey ari i hope you don't get mad but i would love to see the videos you post without the subtitles for a more clear view ^^ but thank you very much for the clips! i enjoy that

Hello anon! Sorry for the late replies as I just got back from a trip.

There is a reason why I will continue to put subtitles on the videos I clip. Said reason was to help people who struggle to listen to the audio of said videos, some may have listening disabilities that might hinder them from listening to the things that George shared with fellow grussell sprouts (I'm sorry if I worded anything disrespectfully here). I just genuinely want to help fellow grussell sprouts friends. Aside from that, it's to help people who are not well-versed in English to be able to understand George's words better (not all of us has english as our first language, to add the accent difference often makes it hard for things to be understood) and basically I chose to add the subtitles to also avoid any misconceptions or misunderstandings of what George said. Main point? It was to provide help to people who needed it and additional understanding.

If you were inconvenient by the subtitles, I always link the OG video to my posts. If I forgot to do so, please do not hesitate to reach out to me and remind me (qrt/comment/askbox/direct message/etc) so you can watch it on your own.

But I hope one day you'll warm up to the concept of subtitles itself as I don't put them all over the videos to disrupt the scene and ruin the visuals. There's this favorite quote of mine from the movie director of Parasite (2019) and Snowpiercer (2013), Bong Joonho. While this subtitle is about movies, I think it also applies in the similar way.

Thank you very much though, anon!