#and be like why is there no one exactly like me with the same exact dreams and morals!

[lilietsblog]

I was taught at school how to construct a face out of a lot more lines than just one in the middle. When I followed that method my faces looked very awkward and unnatural at first, but it helped me A LOT over time. I have a very hard time with visual memory, so a method that told me what to draw where in like, purely mathematical terms, helped a lot!

Unfortunately that method was front only. Still, I think it taught me stuff that's applicable at other angles also when you practice enough and internalize it and start just /seeing/ it!

This is a lot easier to do digitally because you can use The Sketch Layer. In real life you do it with a pencil and pray you can erase everything cleanly and don't accidentally draw any line too thick. Love drawing digitally.

(That said, this is me drawing with a fucking MOUSE. In real life I could use a ruler for these,,, ok i could have used the straight line tool i have in my art program i chose specifically for having the straight line tool, whatever. Part of why I drew this with a mouse was to prove a point that you dont need to have Good Manual Dexterity to make use of these guidelines)

(Also, the way I was taught to draw this produced the same face every time, and I struggled with sameface syndrome a lot. To cut this bullshit off at the root, I'm going to point out points of individualization when they appear)

Draw an upside down egg. Or something between an upside down egg and an oval. Or if you have the eye for it the approximate shape of the character's head. But really at this point an upside down egg is the necessary part.

Draw a line down the middle of the face vertically and horizontally! This is where this guideline works only for head-on view, in 3/4 you do the exact same thing but you need to curve it. Good luck with that lmao.

Draw a line slightly above the horizontal line. The distance between them is the approximate vertical size of the eyes. This is a major point of individualization. Draw two characters and how high up their top eyeline is from their bottom eyeline will be a significant part of how different or similar they look.

FROM THE TOP EYELINE measure half the distance to the point of the chin / bottom of the face. Draw a horizontal line across the entire face there. Using a ruler helps.

Draw a pair of vertical lines determining where & how big the character's eyes are! I was taught correct proportions for this, but from experience, that's bullshit. This is a point of individualization. Make sure there is A gap both between eyes and nose, and eyes and the side of the face, make the gaps roughly the same on both sides, and you're good. (VERY roughly on my example lol)

ONTO THE HELL PART: THE NOSE. The first step is simple though! Extend the inner vertical eyelines down until you meet the horizontal line we drew there earlier.

Draw two vertical lines between the midline and the outer noselines, roughly around the middle. This is a point of individualization! This is where you get wide nose vs narrow nose!

Draw diagonal lines from the points of intersection (between the lower eyeline and the inner nose width lines) to the upper inner eye box corner, then extend them above the eyes into the eyebrows. This is absolute dogshit to do with a mouse, and also a point of individualization. Make the eyebrows high or low, whatever. Don't worry about the character looking like they're frowning, we won't keep those lines.

Draw some more diagonals, at the bottom this time. These are your nostril part shapes. Point of individualization.

Draw the rest of the fucking nose. Which is to say, the nostril / nose tip line. The bad news is I forgot exactly what the formal instructions for this are, the good news is that that's because they're bullshit. Absolute and total point of individualization. You have the rest of the construction to anchor it to where and what size it should be, now just draw what this character's nose looks like from the front. Nostrils go roughly on the intersection, how visible they are / how upturned the nose is - all yours.

Ok we're done wth the nose. Draw vertical lines down from the middle of the eye box. (I draw it dotted because otherwise it gets too busy for me at this point)

The mouth line goes from the middle of the nose to chin line to these vertical lines. Yes, all the way. No, you don't have to keep the entire line in the finished drawing. If you're not doing hyperrealistic intricately shaded style, this is just your guideline for where, like, the smile lines go (outside of the mouth). Don't bother with the facial expression at this time.

The lips! Point of individualization. The rough guideline is that the lower lip is a single curve, while the upper lip tends to have two raised points with a dip between them, roughly corresponding to the position of nostrils above. Roughly. The guideline I was taught drew a Very White face, and this is one of the points where if you want to do not that, do not that.

The vertical lines from the nose to the upper lip. This is a 3D shape that is for real on your face. Touch above your lip, it's there. Obviously you can later stylize it away, but if you want to do any shading at all, this is going to help greatly.

Ears! All those horizontal lines we drew earlier - upper eyeline, lower eyeline, nose bottom line - are now telling us where and how big approximately they are. Just a nice curve from the lower eyeline to the upper eyeline and then back to the nose bottom line. Point of individualization - wide ears, narrow ears, long or short earlobe, ears angled away from the head, elf ears, go wild!

Ok so this part was kind of supposed to go way at the start when we were first drawing the horizontal lines, but we haven't really needed it for anything else, so now is the time. The hairline! See that distance between the upper eyeline and the bottom of the nose line? That's how high up above the upper eyeline you draw yet another horizontal line.

Ok going back to the eyes. So the top of the eybox is the top of the upper eyelid! Now draw the bottom of the upper eyelid (which is to say, the actual shape of the visible eye) somewhere under it. You have the nice dotted line from before down the middle helping you with symmetry, too. Point of individualization!

Now the lower eyelid. It goes approximately where the bottom of the eyebox is, but y'know a curve instead of a straight line. Point of individualization again, of course.

Time to erase unnecessary lines if you're drawing in pencil, and transition to a new layer if you're drawing digital. We're done with construction, time to enflesh it. I'm only doing the bare basics of it here, because I am drawing with a mouse, but this is where you can shade, customize the facial expression, determine the general outline of the face by adding cheeks/cheekbones/etc.

Ta-da! Believe you me, I could NOT have drawn a face this nice and even and deliberate without the construction steps WITH A FUCKING MOUSE.

the person who can explain to me how to construct a face gets a million dollars. i've tried that thing with drawing a circle with a line on it a thousand times and it DOESNT WORK

[nicoleanell]

(actual link to gif set because tumblr's being weird)

Man it's the fact this statement is weirdly big and generous and brave in Armand's mind. I think it was Assad or someone else who said it was a moment of overconfidence or almost gloating, which is not the exact vibe I get, but I think there's something to that big-headedness of having survived and gotten through it and it's over now and just... He just wants to see. He just wants to skip that little stone down the cliff and see what happens. Maybe if nothing happens *then* he would actually be able to exhale. (He will not. He'd find something else. There's an itch in him that's never going to be secure enough in the bed he made.) Maybe it's just wanting to test something - Louis or himself or how many ways he can't die.

People tie it directly to Armand not being able to say the words in 2x05, which is probably intentional, but also it's not *exactly* the same because for one thing it's in the Past Tense now. It's very much meant as a moment of *closure* - he DID love you, past tense, we don't know where he is or how he feels now and that doesn't matter - while in San Francisco with Lestat right there on the mind telephone, it was the present tense terror that maybe that really was all Louis needed to hear to go running back to him.

But their relationship has also changed SO dramatically since San Francisco that it feels like even the past-tense version is a very, very precarious thing to admit. Because it's not about the material love triangle, it's not who-will-Bella-Swan-choose, it's about 70 years of mythmaking and storytelling.

SIDEBAR: The show left us IMO with a very frustrating ambiguity about the extent to which Armand has used his mind powers on Louis, like to the point where you have some fans believing that *every single fucking memory* we saw onscreen that they didn't like for the last two seasons is Fake News actually, and other fans believing it happened Just That One Time GOD. (I personally lean toward way *less* mind manipulation than other people assume, and if it was literally JUST the shit that happened in 1973 that's... enough to be messed up lol. I think the "love of my life" and finishing each other's sentences scenes have some unsettling implications. I *don't* think Louis having imperfect recall and limited perspective of stuff that happened a century ago is because of Armand all or even *most* of the time.)

But the fact no matter what is that Louis has a lot of cognitive dissonance around Lestat because he WANTS it acknowledged on some bone-deep level that Lestat loved him, because he loved/continues to love him too. And if we're gonna insist on throwing the word "gaslighting" around when we just mean "lying", then at the end of the day it's about Louis being told he's not crazy by someone who has at times made him feel that way.

Idk maybe this is me getting Too Deep about a finale I still think is kinda unsatisfying and already had way too much to do with Lestat and not enough with Claudia. But I do like that moment when I look past the toxic love triangle and more toward "hey buddy [my best friend Armand] why are you Like That" and Louis' little smile breaking my heart.

Something sad about that moment is Armand's right that saying those words *doesn't* end the world, and if nothing else had happened and Daniel and the Vampire CIA weren't on their divorce-attorney kick, that'd be the end of it. (Hot take I don't think saying the words or not in 1973 would've really made a difference either, and there's so much more nuanced and wild shit going on there than an undelivered message romcom beat.) And Louis would be *grateful* for that moment of understanding and closure between them.

[swallowerofdharma]

Following the discussion from here. Hoping you don’t mind if I make a new post so that the other one doesn’t become too heavy. I’m answering some lingering questions, but I am also saying that I won’t be dissuaded from treating this manga differently. As said recently*, Yoneda takes such care to give details and context to the story, that it is intriguing to look into things with analytical eyes and I can’t see the problem with it. For those who maybe feel like “the story isn’t that deep”, that is more offensive to the author tbh than to me or others in fandom who write commentaries. * @dragomfry said: “It makes our analyses of her work hold extra weight because there are things that she wants us to look for and derive meaning from (rather than us trying to derive meaning from nothing to begin with)”.

So to clear this first.

I can’t quite see why this story would be distorted into something it’s not intended to be if we approach it under a romantic lens.

I am not debating people for approaching the story romantically, but - because some troubling arguments were made about the recent poll - I will say this. Rape culture takes some arguments from romantic and patriarcal views to defend the aggressors and blame the victims instead: this isn’t romanticism’s fault, but the very fact should be at least taken into consideration. [More on this below**]. So several of the reflections I was writing about framing the manga as romance rather than literary realism were prompted by this issue. And reading your thoughts about the story, I can understand where we differ so much: and that is in how we view Doumeki especially, rather than the rest. Maybe you are not romanticizing Yashiro and his trauma, but you are especially romanticizing Doumeki. For example:

I allow myself to indulge in the romanticism of it all; both of them falling in love at first sight, depressed Yashiro finally finding someone who truly cares about him, Doumeki who doesn’t back down when Yashiro rejects him, Doumeki still having feelings for Yashiro even after he shot him in the leg and pretended not to remember him, etc. There’s so much in this story that’s blatantly romantic, almost corny.

There are many aspects of the manga that I do find realistic in it’s portrayal, such as the CSA, what I don’t find realistic, however, is the portrayal of love, the romance. I find it very idealised and romanticised for the most part (i.e the falling in love at first sight (I’ll get to that), Doumeki being Yashiro’s exact type, Doumeki happens to be impotent which allows Yashiro to develop feelings for him, the fact that Doumeki is completely accepting of everything Yashiro does regardless of how Yashiro treats him, the fact that Doumeki is still in love with Yashiro after he shot him the leg, maybe he even stayed in the Yakuza world just to be near him (although who knows why exactly he did that?) Idk maybe it’s just me but I find it very unrealistic. It’s this romantic idea of „there is this perfect person out there who accepts you just the way you are and you don’t have to do anything to keep them happy, you can even shoot them in the leg and they’ll still love you, they’ll stick around no matter what it takes to be with you“.

I can’t pick and choose what I want to romanticize or not, I have chosen to look at things differently, and I am keeping the same approach when looking at characterizarion. When I look at Doumeki, I see as many problems as those Yashiro has. He is the one depressed imo, at the beginning of the story, he is in much worse shape than Yashiro. Yashiro has a support network, Doumeki was isolated in prison and kept family away when he was released. Doumeki isn’t this strong and stoic person who is in love with Yashiro and is therefore shouldering a burden or enduring abuse in the name of love. I have been misunderstood before on this, but I want to say that I look at these characters without romanticizing either of them. I am not so much interested in looking at who is right or wrong, or to paint one character in a better light and bashing another: I want to understand their differences and how they came to be, how the relationship is affected by those differences. This is why I don’t take a shipper’s approach either, I am not solely focused in their relationship, but in the story as a whole.

There are several posts where I talked at lenght about these characters, because Yoneda gave a lot of backstory, and I encourage who may be interested in checking further. Doumeki has trouble facing or recognizing reality, until reality kicks him in the face, and that is happening to him since the nurse and Aoi. So he is only observing when it suits him. Yashiro established his emotional boundaries plenty of times, and Nanahara is there to corroborate and reinforce Yashiro’s prefereces. Here are some examples, and these are from volume one alone. It is a pretty clear situation, and Doumeki understood it.

I know that people are objecting to the very idea of framing Doumeki as the aggressor in this case, but the power dynamics had already shifted at that point when things went down in ch 24-25. It is the result of an escalation that sees Doumeki hiding his feelings and his arousal, and becoming more aggressive and unhinged towards others during the investigation into who ordered the hit on Yashiro. Yoneda was painstakingly building towards that scene, while also painting a bigger picture and external plot, and there are so many details that I haven’t even touched upon yet, but nothing is filler. And the parallels between Doumeki’s arousal and his violent behavior can’t be easily ignored.

Again, I feel quite powerless and unequipped to persuade those who already formed their opinion. But when given arguments in favor of dismissing Yashiro’s right to object or arguments that shift the focus away from the simple topic of consent, then I have to ask myself why this is happening. **Rape culture does play a role, and as I said, rape culture can and does weaponize some romantic ideas about love. Or against the autonomy of the person, against choice and so on.

I find it very important that Yoneda chose to put those words in the mouth of an ex-policeman, while dressed up as a policeman, and of another abusive detective with the police. Or the fact that Inami commented on Doumeki’s father building a career to cover up his crimes. See these statements from the Wikipedia page on rape culture:

With how difficult has become to search on the web for unbiased results, I am just giving the Wikipedia page not as a source of authority, but as a peer reviewed summary that provides a starting point for research and some bibliography on the subject. For example:

I want to add that I don’t agree with the way the article frames “men” as perpetrators and “women” as victims. That should be corrected and can be misleading. Men have been historically and consistently discouraged to speak up about being victims of rape themselves and often the law didn’t even consider them. And the gendered approach contributed to make so many victims invisibile. There is so much we have to learn.

Again, this post is solely for the purpose of answering arguments or points made directly to me about how we interpret the story in Saezuru. These are my observations and reflections, the links I see, and it is possible because these things are in the manga. And last, I love love-stories. But romance - especially romantic tropes, often reinforced by fandom shipping culture - don’t always equal love to me.

[burning-an-indifferent-hell]

"It's not complex at all, like all male violence." Not complex at all, simply male violence, and yet here you are jumping through hoops like Charlie Kelly drawing lines on a clue wall trying to justify a connection to irrelevant trans people. No, trans people have not eroded any rights away from women or girls in Pakistan contributing to this situation. You are seriously deluded if you honestly believe this.

"And I didn't say that. Your disingenuous reduction to absurdity of what I said—" There is no reduction fallacy and that's not even how the reduction to absurdity works in the first place. You clearly stated that trans people are relevant to this issue and that the issue is ongoing because trans people have stripped international women of protections. That's just a bogus fucking lie that can't be backed up with any evidence.

"Not radical feminists." Yes, radical feminists. You think I'm not familiar with your kind and the kinds of contradictory political alliances you form? I've been interacting with you types for over a decade. I was one of the most well-known GC activists on the web for years, thousands of you have reblogged my posts, circulated them on other sites, and you even still try to rehash the same busted old arguments that I popularized on here against me as if I've never heard the shit before. Countless radfems and GC types have distanced themselves from the movement because of how toxic, single-issued, and obsessively hateful towards trans people it is, not to mention how racist, homophobic, and generally antisocial your kind is in private group chats and servers.

"And if you read them, you'd know." I've read quite a lot of radical feminist literature and that's why I ascribe to materialist feminism and don't believe your kind has any business calling yourselves radfems in the first place. You lack the dialectical approach, nuance, and revolutionary impact of the historic radical feminism movement, you're just the reactionary anti-trans movement.

"And if you read them, you'd know. As it is, you but regurgitate the liberal party line." Ah yes, liberals, well known for being anti-"transcendental-idealism, sex essentialism, and idpol" and advocating a "Marxian/materialist and intersectional approach to sex-based oppression". /s Of course you wouldn't comprehend basic philosophical terms or political nuance. Dumbass.

"70% of trans-identified inmates are imprisoned for sexual assault, 40% with more than one instance." Nothing but lies regurgitated straight from that idiot JKR and her far-right puppeteers at The Telegraph, etc. Funnily enough I already knew you would bring up this exact claim and was waiting to link this article:

Are 50% of Trans Women in Prison Sex Offenders? The Transphobic Myth That Refuses to Die

No, the conservative right just exaggerates and lies, and radfems are easily manipulated into believing it because they lack the analytical capability to see through it. The results of your kind's statistics are always based on poorly sampled, misrepresented data intended to draw a conclusion that isn't actually the case. And unsurprisingly always sourced from your far-right collaborators.

"And your pantomime of trying to convince yourself radical feminists have, directly or indirectly, contributed to anti-abortion legistlation is as laughable as actual conservatives' fear mongering of us as desiring to have abortions as a hobby." Hardly. You idiots campaigning as a vanguard to spread anti-trans/anti-queer rhetoric is EXACTLY why many throughout the world have adopted these ignorant beliefs and become hostile towards LGBT people, equating "gender theory" to pedophilia, warming up to conservative conspiracy theories, and supporting the populist right.

"You could say the same for radical feminism, except rules for thee but not for me." First of all, comprehend that one is a political movement with core beliefs and tenets whereas the other is simply a people who can believe anything. Secondly, no you couldn't say the same when I've made it clear multiple times to you and your friend that I distinguish the contemporary "radfem" movement from traditional radical feminism as well as material feminism, which I support, but you ignore that because all you're capable of is deflection and attacking a straw man argument.

"We always have—" No, what you do is treat liberal-individualism as inseparable from the existence of trans people or the belief that their welfare matters.

"but TRAs do exactly that to us, in response. Vilify us and categorize our criticism of gender and our sex-based advocacy as personal persecution of themselves." You're vilified as persecutors because you sell out in support of hostile legislation and form alliances with groups who are openly sadistic and violent towards them.

"—reads precisely as the gaslighting it is." More of that projection. Deflect, lie, gaslight, project, attack straw man, repeat.

Trans activists:

'Woman is an identity and a social construct'

Planet Earth:

[szfiction]

This parallel makes me insane actually (and there is something incredibly Lawlu about it to me)

[sakebytheriver]

The thing is like, what exactly am I supposed to do with a one to one live action version of How To Train Your Dragon?

Like the original alreay exists, it's already out there being the original with all of the scenes they're copying, not to mention it's also a pretty new movie already, like we aren't remaking a cartoon from the 80s here, this came out in 2010. It's just like, what am I as someone who went to see the original film in theaters, what am I as someone who states this film as my favorite movie, like no seriously though what am I, a peak audience member to market this movie towards supposed to do with a one to one live action remake of How To Train Your Dragon when I can just rewatch the original and have an experience that's ten times better?

[ayaffect]

While I think they have the right to know that Jean is deeply traumatized so they can better navigate the situation, I don't think they're entitled to know what exactly it entails. Jeremy has the right to know that he's taking in someone who might be difficult to handle, who might need extra care and attention etc. to prepare for that, not the exact whys. I honestly don't remember if Kevin told Jeremy he would 'tell him anything'. But even if he did it seems like he's always vague about it. He explains what Jean needs and what to expect from him without getting into details. It sounds like he shares his experience and the overall picture but not specifically what Jean went through. E.g. he didn't tell him how Jean was injured - he told him what Jeremy needed to know which is the list of injuries, he told Jeremy that the buddy system was important by "confessing his own lingering reliance on it" and that Jean might not want to talk because 'he was not afforded the same decency and freedoms and is not used to having a voice or power'. And for some reason it was important for Kevin to ask if Jean was the one to tell Jeremy about his hand before answering.

I think it doesn't matter if Kevin would be upset about it or not, we can only speculate about that. He deserved to know with whom he was sharing his own trauma. He made sure Jeremy understood it was a closely kept secret and Jeremy thanked him for trusting him with it. Sure, 'it won't leave the room' means he's making sure it won't be shared further but it feels disingenuous not to tell Kevin who is in the room, even if we assume Kevin trusts whoever Jeremy trusts. Kevin told Jeremy to be careful with the truth and careful with Jean and while from Jeremy's point of view he probably is, I don't know if I share the sentiment.

"Would've found out either way", "human curiosity" and "didn't exactly tell anything to him to make him silent" are not good arguments. The 'way' in which they find out matters. And it's common sense not to prod just because you're curious and to not share information about someone's trauma without their permission. And that applies for that person's other friends. Doesn't matter if Jean confides in them about other details. For some reason Jeremy understands it in some situations ("I don’t want you to tell me about Jean; I want him to tell me when he’s ready") but not others?

Jeremy said so himself: "Kevin had already sworn him to silence regarding his hand, so keeping Jean’s secrets would only be an extra step from there" (which doesn't include Cat or Laila for some reason? they somehow don't count in the 'silence' and 'keeping secrets'?) & "it wasn’t his place to interfere with Jean’s trauma or his healing"

I’m sorry but the codependency between Cat, Laila and Jeremy is so odd to me. Like the fact that Jeremy told Cat and Laila about Jean being assaulted at Evermore during his freshman year without his say-so?

And Jeremy was so wrong for getting Kevin to confess something that could cost him his life and then not telling him Cat and Laila was in the room? Like WHY. Why are you incapable of keeping a single secret to the point you betray people’s trust like that. Jeremy I love you but what the fuck.

[seaofreverie]

You ever finish a drawing that you really like and then you spend the next three days randomly looking at it for minutes at a time like that could make it possible for you to absorb its alluring and magnetic essence with your eyes

[skyburger]

venn diagram of these guys

[dawnthefluffyduck]

This game is so pretty 🥹

[ratatatastic]

no im still on maffhew calling the forsymaffhew lovechild a missile

[13eyond13]

.

[mars-ipan]

genuinely i don’t know how someone could meet a kid and decide children are horrid monsters actually. kids are so good

[qrowsofafeather]

My friend now feels used and unmotivated.

That's literally what I've said!

A writer friend told me something that broke my heart a little bit today; they're going to quit publishing their fanfic.

My instant thought was that they had been trolled or attacked or that something terrible had happened in their life because this person is so passionate about their writing. It wasn't any of that. Engagement with their works has been going down, as it has for many of us. Comments are like gold dust a lot of the time, and just looking through the historical comment counts on old fics on ao3 demonstrates this trend very clearly. It was not simply the comments dropping off which caused them to decide to stop posting, however.

My friend came across a discord server for their fandom (I should point out here that their fandom interest and mine diverged a couple of years ago, we stay in touch but don't currently read each other's posts because I'm not into their fandom and they would rather gouge their eyes out with a wooden spoon than read anything Star Wars) and specifically to share fic in that fandom. They joined, because we all love a good fic rec, only to discover that their latest multichapter fic, which has almost no comments and very few kudos, is being hotly discussed in this server as one of the best stories ever. Not one of these people has bothered to say this to them on the fic. When they asked, none of participants could see the point in telling the author of the fic they apparently loved so much that they love it.

This discovery has absolutely destroyed my friend's love of sharing fic. They share because they love seeing other people's enjoyment, and fic writers do that through comments and kudos/reblogs/likes because we don't get paid. There is no literary critic writing a blog post/article about how amazing the story is for us to copy and keep/frame. There is no money from royalties. All we have are the words of the people reading our works.

Those people on that server could have taken five minutes of the time they spent gushing about how amazing my friend's story was to other people and used it to tell the one person guaranteed to want to hear that praise how much they loved it. They could have taken a moment to express their opinion to the person who spent hours upon hours plotting, writing, editing, and posting those chapters. Instead, they deprived my friend of thing that keeps them sharing their writing, and in the process have killed their love of it. My friend now feels used and unmotivated.

I won't be sharing a link to their fic, they said I could share their experience but not their identity. I know they plan to post one final chapter. I know they intend to express their hurt at being excluded from the praise for the thing they created, and I know they intend to announce that as a consequence they will not be posting for a long while, if at all.

So please, I beg you, don't hide your love of a story from the writer. It's just about the only thing we have.

[pezpenser205]

me being largely nonhuman/antihuman and a lesbian, therefore being forced by my brain to be attracted to humans has actually allowed me to fully understand how men attracted women who say they wish they were lesbians are real and based and do not deserve the hate they get. like girl i get it thats literally how i feel about you.

no offense to the good humans out there #notallhumans <3

[aqparaq]

its crazy how i felt so incredibly lonely yesterday, and then i listened to zaqs new album, and then i found so many kz accs here, and then i thought about all the messages queer kazakh activists got after the hearing and now i think community will always be found and even if were not super loud we exist and i think i just didn’t see that before