#and that those flaws do not make it any less of a masterpiece

[sadlazzle]

no actually u kno what. elden beast apologists actually gtfo or take off the gold tinted shades cause this guy is so fucking annoying and tedious it’s arguably the worst boss in the whole game. ok maybe that’s a stretch but it’s such a disappointing final boss fr it’s genuinely not that good. would b better if it didn’t force u to fight radagon every single time. would be better still if i had torrent to keep up with the bastard

[moodymisty]

Hey Misty, sorry for the incoming braindump. I read a theory on reddit that the primarchs were partly made from minor gods of the Warp and that the Loyalists were gods that Big E bargained with and who went willingly, while the Traitors were gods he subjugated/tricked somehow. I thought this was really cool and had it on my mind all day. Full-on neuron activation moment. But I don't have any friends who know about 40k to talk about it with so I suppose I will leave some thoughts here :) sorry if this is annoying/unwelcome.

This focuses on the Traitors mostly because I find them very interesting.

Like, what if reader is/was a devout and beloved high-priestess/follower of one of those gods(maybe it's a steadily declining religion, even?) And so when the specific primarch in question fleetingly lays eyes on her for the first time while taking over the world she lives on, there is just this instant feeling of desire/attachment/protectiveness that they don't understand. Maybe the primarch had some kind of silent subconscious urge to go to that planet specifically, because the god has/had worshippers there and it sort of calls out to them. Like divine homesickness lol.

For the Loyalists it would be mostly wholesome and cute tbh. It'd be like they found a piece of themselves that they didn't know was missing. Very meet-cute potential.

But for the Traitors it could be soooo spicy. You get snatched by Curze and it is just a shitshow. Mood swings galore and most of the time you have no idea what you even did to trigger them(your silent prayers for mercy made something in his head feel like it was crawling) I think your take on him being really obsessive and almost desperately clingy(in the most unnerving of ways) fits super well. Whatever entity got diced up and put in the Curze soup was probably a fucking scary one.

I think Perturabo would be really scary too. Although maybe finding someone like that would soothe him somehow? You'd definitely be walking on eggshells with him (at least at first) though. Another one with mood swings. Another scary god, but less "horrific torment to cleanse you of your sins" and more of a "You lesser creatures exist for worship and labor." Maybe that's why he's so pissy, the divine part of him was used to having constant praise and offerings and now he gets almost none.

Angron would be soo tragic. His whole thing was empathy so I think whatever god he has in him/was made from might have been a much more gentle one. He's got one side of him crying out desperately to be near you and the nails raking through him on the other.

Lorgar would be hilarious tbh. A guy made from the blended up remains of a minor Warp deity constantly crowing about you being a goddess (when you were just a humble priestess before lol). It's like this comedically backwards situation, the God worshipping the acolyte. Maybe the entity he was made from was literally a deity of worship? I dunno. Kinda stumped on this one lol.

I think Mortarion would be pretty normal tbh. Might even fight against the thing in his chest that tugs him towards your presence. Slow burn city. I think whatever god he was made from very much wanted to be left alone, but wasn't particularly scary. Just a bit cold, distant, and stern. Maybe something to do with resilience in the face of suffering/adversity?

Fulgrim is pretty obvious thematically. Another one that wouldn't be too scary. Whatever divine he was made from was some kind of god of perfection/pursuits (obvs). Something you'd pray to before you tried to paint a masterpiece, or maybe even as you tried to learn any skill at all. Praying in the hopes of becoming a master at whatever trade you do. As for why it didn't go willingly, maybe it saw the creations Big E intended to make as flawed, and found being placed in such a vessel as distasteful? Might be why he's so obsessed with achieving perfection, because that part of him is viscerally digusted by his imperfections.

Bonus: Guilliman was made from some kind of deity of order. Or even a god of plenty/growth? He always seems to leave places better than they were before he got there, after all. I know a lot of people see Sanguinius or Vulkan as Konrad's opposite, but I think maybe Guilliman is closer. Guilliman feels like true order. Curze feels like chaos grasping for stability (via his obsession with executing criminals) idk.

Apologies for how long this ended up being >_< I had a lot more thoughts than I'd expected lol. I hope your weekend goes well!

This is an interesting idea! I've not heard of this theory before but given the vagueness behind Emps dealings in creating the primarchs, anything is possible

[ofekma]

On one hand I love Percy Jackson to bits and I dearly missed his narration.

On the other hand it feels like a lot of things in this book feel wrong *partly* due to to his narration.

Of course that Percy isn't stupid. But he THINKS he is. He thinks so lowly of himself it's actually painful and makes me want to shake him.

And he makes Annabeth looks like this perfect flawless person even when casually mentioning "oh yeah she's prideful but like. Isn't that kind of an advantage sometimes too??" because he's head over heels in love with her and has been through things no one deserves to go through with her.

There is no excuse for Grover acting the way he did tbh, but at least the reveal that he was so scared his friends will leave that might have driven him to act so irrationally managed to salvage a tiny bit his characterization. It's better than just "oh you see he just couldn't help himself because it was strawberry!".

But Percy not being able to word his anger towards him or even letting himself feel it fully? Percy blaming himself for "leaving him alone in Hecate's house" and for "not realizing how he and Annabeth's moving away would affect him" was so... Unhealthy.

And kind of infantilizing for Grover. Grover is (or should be at least) old and responsible enough to not drink something he's not allowed to, and to look after a house with two pets for a couple of hours as his friends are at school. Grover is (or should be) old and responsible enough to be able to communicate his feelings to his friends about them moving away. Percy described it as some point like he felt like they were kids again and Percy had to protect him from bullying. Like despite everything he still sees Grover as a kid who needs to be protected and not as someone who can be experienced to handle himself.

Overall I love the new books, they're as low stakes, slice of life as it can get without leaving behind the fantastical adventure element completely. It's a nice change of phase for those characters, a way to catch up with them and how they're doing without making them go through hell yet again.

I'll admit that it's been a few years since I've last read (the original) Percy Jackson. Maybe had I read it all again and compare the books I'll find even more flaws with the characterization or ideas. But as of now, I like it. It's nice. It's not any masterpiece but it's also not mindless.

Percy kept his core aspects of sarcastic humor, brilliant improvising skills at the moment of truth, undying love for his friends and pure, unfiltered empathy to everyone around him. Percy picks the difficult, scary but honorable option every single time. Percy is unbelievably brave but he feels so lost and confused over how to solve seemingly impossible problems.

I'm not sure entirely what are my thoughts about Annabeth's characterization. I do wish that the books would address everyone's trauma and get them treated tho. Otherwise it feels more like repression.

The book does have an excessive mention of peeing and farting. Tho it's not the first time a character is described like this (like Thor from the Magnus Chase series). The cuteness of. Nope just might make up for it.

It's hard to be an author, especially one with a large fanbase. People are ready to tear you apart for every mistake. And Rick Riorden does make many mistakes.

I feel like Rick Riorden might be more lenient in those new books than he was about his originals but less in an "I don't care anymore those suckers will read everything I'll write so I can write trash" and more of an "I like those characters, I want to have some fun with them and I think that my fans would want this too so I'm not as worried about those books succeeding as I was back then when I was a new author." Which... Yeah, does unfortunately show in quality but I don't want to be cynical about this man.

I don't think he should have let the frenchise die as long as he still feels like he has stories to tell in it (tho he can bother to polish them some more) and I don't think he doesn't care about his fans or work or characters or kids in general.

Some creators start off good but lose their touch or reasons for creating in the first place. Some creators weren't that good but became popular anyway. Some creators were put on a pedestal and when they couldn't meet their fan's impossible standards they got shunned. Some creators. Some creators aren't good people but their fans didn't know that because all they knew about them was their work which spoke to them.

But like, I want to believe that some creators are just good, if imperfect, people. Good if imperfect creators. And that Rick Riorden is one of them. That he's trying his best at least most of the time, that he's working on his shortcomings, that he's listening but knows that you realistically can't make everyone happy all the time and sometimes you just gotta go with your guts and do what makes YOU happy.

I want to believe in people. And in him specifically, even if it's because I'm biased.

[trans-corvo]

lifelong dragon age fan but heard veilguard was more marvel cinematic universe than before - what are your thoughts?

This is hard to answer because calling something mcu is pretty vague. Do you mean like in terms of reliance on cameos? ironic quips? writing? I don't see Veilguard as any guiltier of cameos and quips than the previous games (which is to say: they are abundant). I've never considered the writing in the Dragon Age games to be masterpiece level, but I don't think this one is any worse than the others. It's a little tonally inconsistent at times, a little saccharine, kinda campy (an organization called the Shadow Dragons, really?), but again, no more than the previous games.

Honestly, the one thing that does remind me of the mcu is some of the armor sets. There's a couple that look like they're made of the same weird cheap padded leather that marvel costumes are.

There ARE criticisms to be made, but comparing it to the mcu feels buzzword-y.

In terms of differences from the previous games...

The aesthetic is far more varied and modern. Only the Grey Wardens look like something out of that sort of generic medieval fantasy look Origins had going on. It definitely feels like an extension of Inquisition's more creative design. Tevinter looks a lot like Kirkwall, but Antiva looks like 18th c. Italy. Every country/region has a unique look to it that I really like.

Combat is more action RPG than classic RPG. The thing plays like Mass Effect way more than Origins.

So far this feels like the least tonally dark of the series. It has its dark moments, but overall feels a lot cozier/safer.

Feels WAY less christian than the others

As for flaws, those mostly come down to the villains being completely flat and unmemorable (very Corypheus, but hammier), and clear signs of the game having been in development hell. You can tell that they had to retool a multiplayer game to a singleplayer one in limited time. You get these intros to new areas that look like they're ripped straight out of Destiny and certain plot items feel shoe-horned in to explain things that would make sense in a multiplayer game. There's a lot of environment reuse like in 2, but at least the areas are all packed with stuff, and you're introduced to them bit by bit (new paths unlocking) so it's not as overwhelming as Inquisition. You can't just stop and talk with your party in the hub area unless they have something to say. There's also some minor technical issues, a lot of clipping and the like.

I got a little off-track, but to answer your question: no, it doesn't feel any more 'marvel cinematic universe' to me than the previous games. I haven't finished it yet, or even gotten very far (only just got all the companions), so my opinion on everything I've said here might change, but for now, this is it.

[longeyelashedtragedy]

twenty questions for fic writers

tagged by @tetrapod7 ...i did some of them already, but not all! so i might as well answer the ones i didn't already answer!

1. how many works do you have on ao3? 155! now that i have an anonymous fic these all will get more annoying to answer, looool

2. what's your total ao3 word count? 478,822

3. what fandoms do you write for? right now i just write for "men's football rpf." i'm occasionally tempted to write for the Old Fandom again.

4. top five fics by kudos: top 5 of all time are all from a song of ice and fire days:

drabbles of ice and fire

captivated

egg baby

arya saves the day

ends and beginnings

was i the best writer of aged-up arya/jaqen AUs in the fandom? uh, yes, since 4 of those are...that, lol.

if we're just talking footy though...

shakira ex machina

doce

two hundred words to say i love you

ça c'est ma dope

hairbrush

oh ffs...removing the crossovers....

shakira ex machina

two hundred words to say i love you

hairbrush

the right kind of blue

desperate times

5. do you respond to comments? sometimes....when i don't lose track 😭 i need to be better...

6. what is the fic you wrote with the angstiest ending? i answered that here!

7. what's the fic you wrote with the happiest ending? ummm...not sure. could it be 5.VII? that's a really satisfying ending. i'll go ahead and say that one.

8. do you get hate on fics? only once, and it was a very pathetic stab at armchair activism "how dare you write a fic on this problematic topic" shit. it could happen again at any time i guess.

9. do you write smut? unfortunately...i'm not very good at it and it stresses me out.

10. craziest crossover: i wrote hozier x jaqen h'ghar for my bestie long ago and posted it at like ass am in zurich airport :')

11. have you ever had a fic stolen? yes! answered here. it was this rakidric! published 3 days before we all locked down. i have not read this in a zillion years.

12. have you ever had a fic translated? also answered here!

13. have you ever co-written a fic before? answered here but also i want to cowrite with someone so very much!

14. all time favorite ship? also answered here!

15. what's a wip you want to finish but doubt you ever will? my ivantoine, "In The" :'( and others too...my post-WC modren for example. i'm wondering if Mare Liberum will ever be finished. we'll see...

16. what are your writing strengths? i think i am confident and experienced and that comes across (?) even things i wrote a while ago, that i think are "better" (more artistic, more daring) sound less experienced at the same time. my dialogue has improved so much. i think my fics have a good rhythm--varied sentence lengths, good use of repetition and parallelism, line breaks, etc. i like to think i can get people to empathize with/care about people they didn't expect. my writing helps me examine my own flaws. i am not sure what else? my bff said i describe love and loss really well <3

17. what are your writing weaknesses? i think i'm a weak writer, actually! i think my writing is shallow and always sounds the same. a lot of angsty endings, alienated characters, sounds more immature than it should. i don't know how to make porn hot (because i think strange things are hot, i guess?). truly, i've been grappling with how shallow it all sounds. i am a deep feeler (lol) but not a deep thinker at all and i think that shows.

18. thoughts on dialogue in another language? answered here

19. first fandom you wrote in? answered here!

20. favorite fic you've written? honestly--my favorites are probably still trophy boyfriend and then "chief of the armed forces" because that's just an absolute crackfic masterpiece. in footy...i probably should pick some favorites, no? let's go with dangerous, i tore off the golden branch, possible red card - violent conduct, rojo y blanco/crvena bijela, and 5.VII. i feel like some franko fics belong here but i just chose 5!

[todayisafridaynight]

Dude saying people haven't had any major complaints about rgg games after 0 is DERANGED LMAO did you conveniently forget about the response to 6 💀 most you hear about it is people disliking it... the response to 7? wasn't all that sunshine and flowers either considering the new protag and gameplay style. gaiden was also not that appreciated by quite a few people.

Also in case you forgot gaiden was written after 8...... not before...... the quality did not "go down"

Saying they hyped 8 too much as an excuse to hate on the story is also hilarious... that's on you my guy all they said it that it would be the longest game yet + a grand adventure... which... it was...

IMO Maybe you should replay the game and pay attention since stuff you complain about is... just wrong? You have the entire security company plot wrong...

It really seems like you're just viewing 7 like it was the best masterpiece ever written now that 8 has come out. Be honest dude 7's story is just as messy as you make out 8 to be

response became longer than i thought it'd be LMAO SO rest of the reponse is under the cut so i dont jumpscare anyone with a wall of text

If i made it sound as though i think titles from 0-7 were all perfect with no flaws nor complaints, then i’m happy to agree that those titles actually aren’t perfect and they do have flaws (as if i have to remind everyone anyway how i feel about Y7’s ending, but i dont think its ending is its only flaw on top of that). Highlighting 6 in its entirety is a great example of that really, as i still (rightfully lol) regularly see criticisms for 6 without needing to look for it. However, acting as though- bar 6- the rest of the rgg titles following 0 haven’t received minimal complaints is just dishonest. As i said prior, i don’t doubt that people have their issues (i remember specifically that someone criticized yagami’s character as saying it was nonexistent and that lost judgment as a whole is awkward with its characterization of its previous cast members), but compared to the likes of 1-5, it’s less common to see people’s grievances naturally; original titles following 6 were both judgment games, Y7, and gaiden, entries that i seldom see get the same treatment as pre-0 games (plot wise anyhow- i still remember when everyone was complaining about y7’s gameplay to me LOL). That’s what makes the quality of IW’s story so jarring: nearly five games in a row (again, minus 6) of satisfactory stories, and now there’s an entry whose shortcomings are glaring in comparison. Whatever ill will people had towards 0 especially back then doesn’t compare to how often 0 nowadays is put on a pedestal as one of- if not the best- title in rgg’s history (whether that title is accurate is subjective of course, but as a consensus that’s the opinion easily observable)

Gaiden being written alongside- if not mostly after- IW isnt grounds to excuse its writing. Arguably, the timeline of the games being produced could have ended up shooting IW’s writing in the foot (off the top of my head, i think of hanawa’s presence feeling less significant not just to the plot, but to kiryu compared to how we saw them in gaiden. He isn’t a major character overall of course, but kiryu’s reaction to his death felt more cold than you would’ve expected considering their established relationship). The overall warm reception gaiden received, once more, is what makes IW’s story’s shortcomings more obvious, especially when the titles were released less than three months apart.

The atmosphere leading up to IW’s release additionally didn’t help hide its storytelling quality. While i concede that yokoyama didn’t word-for-word say it would be the ‘best game’, alongside the RGG summit and yokoyama building up the hype of the game and wanting to build upon their prior successes was the start to building expectations. Particularly the quote saying that the efforts they put into Y8 compared to Y7 made the game ‘end up being about 130%’.

Alongside that quote, hiroyuki sakamoto and yoko promoted that IW was a result of ‘gritt[ing] [their] teeth… put[ting] everything we have at ryu ga gotoku studios’

in fairness, it is their job to build up hype for their products, especially when using language like ‘festival-like’ in interviews. With that anticipation however, it’s expected that we find the final product warranting these praises (and gameplay wise, it absolutely does- it’s just the story that falls flat).

even despite the team’s advertising, IW was nominated for one of the most anticipated titles at the game awards last year, and the copious amounts of early-launch reviews giving the title a clean, unanimous 10/10, 9/10, and 5/5 and dubbing it not just one of rgg’s best entries, but one of the best rpgs period was- again- doing an excellent job at making the title worth looking forward to. If the official team wasn’t calling it their best entry verbatim, then consumers were doing so, which is typically the reviews we value the most in practice. All of these in mind, there’s minimal fault on the players for walking into the game imaging they’d have an exemplary experience both gameplay and storywise.

As i previously admitted, i can accept that my memory can be spotty and i’m absolutely capable of misremembering things. However i don’t imagine i got the security plot wrong: after the tojo and omi dissolved, daigo and co set out to start their security company as they said they would. Business was fine until rumors began to spread, and despite doing ‘all they could’ they ultimately had to shut down. Im not sure what i could have missed, though i dont doubt that’s the basic rundown of the plot- a plot that, if portrayed efficiently, wouldn’t have garnered so much criticism from myself.

Rounding things off, i agree that i can let my biases guide my opinions- but that doesn’t mean it’s accurate to say y7 (and other recent entries- subtracting 6)’s flaws are comparable to IW’s storytelling. again, by no means are the other entries perfect (nor did i say they were, just that they demonstrated enjoyable stories compared to IW’s and less casual criticisms), but when comparing the quality of them to IW’s plot and characters, it’s fair to say there was a noticeable shift in quality. I still enjoy IW and i agree with the reviewers praising its gameplay, its story is the only gripe i have with it.

[mynametido]

Hola a todos!!

I wanted to make my first post on here about the desired reality that I'm currently focused on. This being my Hogwarts dr. Not Harry Potter, Hogwarts. We'll get to that in a minute. Just a note before we go any further as well, I took huge chunks out of my script when re-writing it here because it's quite lengthy, and all you guys need is the gist. Without further ado here is...

Hogwarts

[ a script ]

INTRO

“Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living, and, above all those who live without love,” - Albus Dumbledore. I am a 3rd year at Hogwarts School of Wizardry, and I have plans to become a dragon-keeper/dragonologist.

WHERE I ARRIVE

I am riding the Hogwarts express on my way to the Hogwarts School of Wizardry for my first day of year 3.

Our (Fred and I) train carriage smells distinctly like coffee and vanilla beans.

ABOUT ME

Things

- Name = OR name

- 15 years old

- Birthday = February 27th

- I am a full-blood.

- I am an optimistic extrovert.

Background

- Basically long story short my parents died in a house fire when I was 7 and I've been living with my adopted family ever since I was 9.

Appearance

- I don't have a face claim because I just script that I have my desired appearance and let my subconscious fill in the rest. But I guess some unique things that I've written down are:

Food doesn't affect my health or weight.

This just makes life so much easier. No second guessing that extra cookie or unnecessary guilt/shame for "unhealthy" cravings.

I am immune to any facial blemishes, acne, hyper pigmentation, large pores, blackheads, etc. My skin is flawless in every way and is always completely clear.

I'm a little bit of a perfectionist, guys, if you haven't already figured out, but only where it counts. I don't buy into the whole idea that you have to script in flaws for your dr to be "realistic" and meaningful. My motto is, "Even if the world is burning and crashing down around me, at least I'm hot."

(My nails) are indestructible, so they never break when I don't want them to.

Don't mind me, just taking out any minor inconvenience wherever I can. 🧍🏽‍♂️

Skills

- I can sing really well.

- I am fluent in 6 languages: English, Spanish, French, Korean, and Russian + ESL. I am immune to losing fluency in any of these languages.

- I can play chess well.

- My reading pace is 20 spp (seconds per page)

I completely just made that up btw, i don't think that spp is an actual thing. 💀

- I am an amazing artist. My style is so fun. I can easily draw anything and turn it into a masterpiece.

- I can play the piano really well. I am skilled at playing by ear.

You know essentially all of your default run of the mill dark academia associations. Piano playing, chess, speaking Russian, etc etc.

SCHOOL

Academia/status

So I'll just show the first few sentences of each bullet I created because the rest is just fluff.

I get 100%'s on all my tests, assignments, assessments, etc, without fail. I literally am incapable of getting less than perfection on everything. I always get homework and tests done fast with A++ accuracy. I am an excellent student. During a test, I could close my eyes and fill in random answers, and still get full marks on every question.

900 IQ groundbreaking big brain energy with this one everyone (being sarcastic obvi). Why should I work harder when I can...well damn not work at all right?

I am so popular. Everyone absolutely loves me. I am the main character. I live the most exciting teen dream filled life. My life is so interesting and fun, it's like a literal movie. My life is like that one part of the song Art Deco. I can live in the present easily and live each day moment to moment. Everything in my life is perfect. Everyday is an adventure.

I swear I have that song on loop in my head. Lana Del Rey is our lord and savior. 🙏 ❤️

As well as having a separate living area for each house, there is also a designated study space that is outside of the school for each house. The study space is open for students 24/7.

It's such bull that in the movies and books, they have a curfew. No one cares that I'm off doing my hot girl shit hitting them books at 12 am.

Schedule

(First class starts at 8:45 and last class ends at 2:30)

◗ 　1rst period - Core class: Potions

◗ 　2nd period - Core class: Herbology

◗ 　3rd period - All school year: Study Hall (45 minutes)

◗ 　4th period - Elective: Astronomy (1rst semester)

◗ 　4th period - Elective: Transfiguration of charms (2nd semester)

◗ 　5th period - All school year: Lunch

◗ 　6th period - Elective: Divination (1rst semester)

◗ 　6th period - Elective: Care of Magical Creatures (2nd semester)

◗ 　7th period - Core class: History of Magic

◗ 　8th period - Defense Against the Dark Arts

FRIENDS/FAMILY

Family

- Adam Rabon & Lowell Rabon: Adam and Lowell, 38 and 36, are my dads. My parents have been in a loving relationship since Adam was 22 and Lowell was 20. They are in a happy and healthy relationship with each other and will be with each other until death do them part. They are both full-bloods.

- Tobi Rabon: Tobi is my younger brother by 9 years. We have a really strong sibling bond, and my parents adopted him when he was 5 about a year ago.

- Natalie Rabon: Natalie is my aunt on Adam's side. She is a half-blood.

- Aaliyah Haughton: Aaliyah is my aunt on Lowell's side. She is a full-blood.

- 🧸 Fred Weasley: Me and Fred have been friends for 7 years. My family has been longtime customers to the Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes in Diagon Alley. We live very close to the Weasley house.

Friends/Other People

- *TB* Benjamin Wadsworth

- *TB* Someone from my OR

- (Mar) Marlon Wayans

SAFETY

- I am immune from any diseases, illnesses/sicknesses, or any other health impairments (such as lice, and etc.)

- My safeword to leave and go to my OR is "Jumanji", I can't forget this safeword.

- 1 second in or = 1 year in dr

- I have a high pain tolerance.

- I can only die from old age.

- I have an infinite amount of money to spend.

- Neither do Harry Potter or he who shall not be named exist in this reality.

They can both take their raggedy petty ass drama to another reality + (disclaimer: I am not talking about Daniel Radcliffe), Harry seems like he'd be super annoying irl. Anyways, side tangent over.

- I have all my desired clothes and accessories.

- Everything in my dr tastes, looks, feels, sounds, and smells 10x better than my or.

So that's the end of the blog. If you want me to go more in-depth about different parts of my script that I left out, pm me, and we'll talk! I'm still trying to figure out Tumblr, so I don't even know if pms are a thing on here. Okay okay I'm done for now. Happy shifting everyone! ☆☆☆

[hunterofthehunters]

14) Resident Evil 3 (PS1)

playing this on a vita may not have been the wisest decision (also on pre-4th of july time with family and relatives, but it's fine)

okay so. how to summarize my feelings here...

full disclosure: i played this on hard mode, and also as i said before on a vita. i did not learn until near the end there was a manual aim because it was physically not bound to any button. as such i had to make those adjustments myself very late. so yeah.

this game's really good and i can immediately see why people remembered it so fondly. but at the same time i'm very. mixed on my opinions.

i think the general presentation of it is great. the story's simple enough with a good premise and good execution. i like jill in it, i like carlos, nikolai is a bastard. but we're not here for those other two. we're here for the Big Boy

nemesis is very fucking effective in this game. like, actually a sincerely terrifying hunter enemy. but he isn't effective bc of his a.i. or his moveset in fights or anything. re3 does this very clever thing where it spawns him in specific ways, at specific times, with specific framing that gives off the impression he is constantly on your ass. they didn't have the ability to program a persistent enemy that actually chases you across the map. it's just a trick; a cleverly hidden illusion, and a great example of how games are very much bullshit that tricks you into believing certain things are happening in a certain way. it's a reminder of how similar to theatre they are imo and i like it a lot.

what i like less is when the game expects you to actually deal with nemesis instead of run

okay so. tank controls aren't inherently bad. they can even be really cool and fun, and they're why i think games like armored core fuck immensely

i don't feel like re's tank controls fall under that category. the number of times i got into bad situations, not because i made a fundamental error in judgement, but because the controls themselves were fighting against me, was actually very frustrating. these things are really just minor grievances when dealing with normal enemies (hell even the hunters were easy in this, but that was bc carlos had an assault rifle).

these minor issues become Really Fuckin Big Ones when nemesis decides to stop being a chase sequence and become an actual boss battle. the tank controls are designed for very slow, methodical gameplay. nemesis meanwhile is moving like you're playing an action game where you have a consistent dodge to avoid getting combo'd for half your health in a single sudden hit.

"oh well you can just get used to the weird dodge and get good" yeah i did. i'm posting this now, aren't i? the problem is the process was kinda grating. i don't feel like his moveset was really considered alongside the gameplay. he moves so quickly, so aggressively, and he has so many ways to disrupt your ability to fight him and make you mash to get up and Whoops He's Instakilled You Off A OTG Command Throw, Better Reload

i swear i don't hate nemesis in this. i like him a lot. i think i just feel a little let-down because i was expecting some masterpiece of design like people kept hyping him up as vs the remake. instead i'm seeing a flawed but cool idea that was let down by faulty boss design.

maybe that was the problem with the remake. people wanted to see it fulfill that promise.

either way, this whole rant is a minor gripe. these fights only happen like 3 times and the latter two can be beaten through the power of Let The Idiot Walk Into The Trap. which is fine i guess and fits the tank controls better. (i'll admit seeing him fall apart over time and grow more frenzied and blinded in the acid valves fight was a very cool bit. why didn't you do that, remake.)

re3 ps1 is a great game. i liked it a lot. i just wish i would've loved it.

[usernamesuggestionsarefunny]

“Lost Crown” by Sarah Miller has issues (Or I am extremely nitpicky when it comes to OTMAA)

I love “Lost Crown.” I may repeat that a thousand times. It is an almost perfect book and I doubt any Romanov historical fiction book will ever compare to “Lost Crown” in quality of writing, characterization, historical accuracy, depicting the love this family had for each other, wholesomeness, and pretty much anything else. I have reread that book three times. I admire Sarah Miller a lot for what she accomplished, hers is one of the few books I have re-read and I swear I hate re-reading the same books, so this is a huge deal.

If you are looking for a review praising it though, you are in the wrong place, because I actually think the book is flawed and I am going to be talking exclusively about said flaws (Single flaw? It depends on how you see it, it is mostly one issue).

I love “Lost Crown”, but I am also ridiculously sensitive regarding Sarah Millerʼs attitude towards Alexandra and Alexei, the latter most of all, because he was a child.

“People can stomach the political necessity of executing the tsar, the empress, and maybe the 13-year-old heir to the throne, but there was no reason for those four sisters to die”- Sarah Miller.

That is from an interview. I can not find the exact source, but I am sure I read it somewhere and that it is accurate. Sure, she was talking about what OTHER people feel about Alexeiʼs death when compared to OTMAʼs, but she did NOT make her own opinion known, which makes me think she either doesn't consider that way of thinking discusting or even disagrees too much.

Wow, Miller, really? Does that mean that if Nicholas had removed the Pauline Laws you would have “stomached” the deaths of these girls you wrote a masterpiece about better?

Nothing against Sarah Miller herself, as many people outside the niche Romanov fandom bubble have this mindset, but I genuinely find these sorts of comments and opinions gross. For any who think like that:

A) Premeditatedly (And assuming you are of sound mind) killing innocents for super logic and pragmatic, even downright Einstein level of genius political reasons is just as evil as killing them for any other reason. Yes, ANY other reason. Come at me with whatever “buts” you like. The reasoning of murderers throughout history may be diverse, more or less understandable, or even nonexistent in some cases, but if the effects are the same (Innocents end up dead as a consequence of their immediate actions), then they are just as evil in my eyes.

B) They also had political reasons to kill the girls. They could have been used as a White symbol of resistance against the Bolsheviks, who also wanted to demoralize the upcoming armies by killing the entire family (Further proof that “tactical” doesn't take away from the “evil” of it all).

C) He was 13, the literal youngest, you psychos. His murder was as wrong, sickening, shocking, and unjustified as that of his sisters. I don't care if he doesn't fit your aesthetics OTMA-edit-blog-whatever “Which Romanov Sister are you most like?” quiz or feminist college dissertation on how OTMA were overlooked in favor of him (Bo freaking hoo you care more than OTMA, who loved their brother, did, get over it).

Ok, rant over, let's get to the point. This all brings me to the only aspect of “Lost Crown” I have trouble coming to terms with: It is obvious reading it that Sarah Miller feels little for Alexei, projects those feelings onto the girls, and the worst part is that people don't notice. Well, I do. At first I thought I was seeing things, because not a single Romanov enthusiast had pointed out the same stuff I have issues with, but then I read that quote in the interview and thought: “Maybe I am not so crazy after all, I may be a sensitive little bitch, true, but I am not crazy” lol.

It should be said that I don’t think like this because I consider Alexei’s characterization on Lost Crown bad, on the contrary.

Alexeiʼs characterization is perfect in my view, and it is clear that Sarah Miller did her research on his personality, which is not what troubles me. She might feel “little” for him (Sorry, vibes she gives) but she does feel, I have never claimed she is not compassionate. It is hard to read about him without feeling a twinge of compassion. Sarah does feel for him and his illness, it is clear she does.

The best portrayal I have read of Alexei in Romanov fiction is actually from Sarah Miller’s Lost Crown. It is clear she TRIED to write him with a lot of empathy and sensitivity. But here is the thing, Sarah flawlessly described the POV of each sister but decided not to include Alexei’s POV, which I believe she would have been perfectly capable of handling. I read a review that said that Sarah probably knew too many POVs would ruin the book, but I think that is just silly, because four POVs are already too much. If you are fine with using four I don’t think a fifth one would ruin the story. Sarah is a talented writer, if she had wanted to include Al, she would have.

I think maybe Sarah felt Alexei’s POV was unnecessary for a book marketed towards teenage girls, or that it “ruined” the almost perfect young adult theme of the four sisters. I mean, even “serious” nonfiction author, Helen Rappaport, left Alexei out of the title of her “Four sisters” book, even though the book also talked about him a lot, almost as much as it talked about each of the four sisters individually. Alternatively, Sarah didn’t WANT to include his POV because of reasons already mentioned, she didn’t feel as much for him, which is fine, I mean, it is her book. This is not necessarily the issue.

What I truly freaking dislike are all those scenes where “Olga” is literally jealous of Alexei. Once, because he was allowed a friend to play with him in Tobolsk while her own friend was sent away (Ok, fair, that made a lot of sense), and the second time, when he was comforted in the Rus because he was afraid of the gunshots (The soldiers were killing seagulls). It makes sense Olga was afraid and wanted comfort as well, especially on the infamous Rus where they were not allowed to lock their doors, but her character gave these vibes: “Why DoNt theeyy comfOrt uus? Whaat about uss? He doesnʼt even need it as much!! His fear is not ValiD in comparison to ours!!! I am so jealous and resentful of my brother and I am totally Olga you guys!!!!”

The worst part is when Tatiana is jealous that the fake rescuers wanted to take Alexei down the window first (Oh, I don't know… maybe because he was ill and taking him down would be the hardest thing to do?! Maybe because as Sarah Miller HERSELF said, his murder made most political sense, and at that time, it was logical people thought he was in the most danger??), and “Tatiana”, the most mature, virtually Alexei’s second mother, and the best friend of politically astute Olga, who was bound to know all of this, was jealous, something we are the readers are supposed to view as “fair” and sympathize with.

I would have believed this jealousy arousing from fear coming from Anastasia, the youngest girl and almost a child herself, but not 21-year-old Tatiana. Romanov fans love bitching about authors making up fake cat fights between the girls and antagonizing them, which I sympathize with, one of many reasons “The Tsarina's daughter” was trashed (As it should be) and I don't want to read it. But Sarah Miller makes Tatiana jealous of the fact her disabled brother (Who it makes more political sense to kill) is being put into consideration first in a dangerous rescue attempt and no one bats an eye only because “Lost Crown” has more prestige in the fandom, and “Tsarina's daughter” was in general inaccurate, had insulting scenes, and the author had the nerve to give it a more satisfying ending by making Tatiana survive (Oh no! That didn't actually happen! The horror!! How dare the author put fiction in that fiction book!!!!).

I don't care anymore if people come at me. It is almost perfect, but some parts still irritate me and feel as insulting as parts of “The Tsarina's daughter”, or even the “The Last Tsars” and “The Passion of Marie Romanov” scenes where Maria has sex with a guard. Yea, THOSE scenes. There, I said it. Parts of “Lost Crown” actually offended me MORE, because Maria exploring her sexuality (gasp! horror!) with a guard in FICTION is not as bad as “the Romanov sisters mocking their little brotherʼs fictional self-harm issues” in fiction (I will get to that). Oh! And an added plus is that the author of “The Passion of Marie Romanov” is, as I am, just as horrified about the murder of Alexei as she is about the murder of his innocent sisters, as everyone should be.

Not only are Olga and Tatiana irritatingly jealous and resentful of her brother... but Anastasia is irritatingly jealous and resentful of her brother. The one described as the closest to her brother is. She is suuper annoyed about the family focusing so much on him after they all arrived at Ekaterinburg. Picture this: She has been separated from her parents and favorite sister, her other half of the pair, for weeks. She has missed Maria and wants to see her “so much it is pathetic'' (As she similarly described in a letter), she has worried for their well being and their conditions for weeks, and instead of being happy about the reunion, she is resentful about her brother receiving more attention from his mother for his silly “so painful it can make you pass out” hemophilia attack. She literally says something similar to “what is the use of being together again after weeks of worry and longing if people are paying so much attention to my sick brother, also, I totally am Anastasia, the same girl that wrote a letter to Ekaterinburg talking about how sweet Alexei was, you guys, the same girl that tried to cheer him up and make him laugh when he was ill you guys” *rolls eyes*

“But usernamesuggestionsarefunny...” you say, “you are too sensitive,” you say. “They could have had those thoughts of jealousy for their brother in real life because they were human!” You say.

I am fine with the authors exploring less than perfect sides of the characters (But Alexei-related jealousy issues are the go-to for most Romanov fiction writers, it is overused and rarely done differently, I said what I said), it is fiction, and in real life they weren't perfect and must have had their fights, we just have less information on that. What I don't like is when the narrative doesn't call it out as something wrong, or it villianizes, even if slightly, one of the characters, making you take the other characterʼs side even when, once you reflect about it, is not 100% guaranteed. It is especially obvious why these scenes annoy me when you consider we don't actually get Alexei´s POV. Sarah Miller didn't give us one. So we are just supposed to sympathise with Olgaʼs and only Olgaʼs thoughts and feelings of jealousy, not with Alexei´s own fear of gunshots. We are supposed to sympathize with Anastasiaʼs feelings of jealousy. We never know if Alexei sensed this resentment coming from his favorite sister, how it made him feel if it did, sometimes he is almost treated as some obstacle of sorts to the girls´ happiness instead of a character, I don't know how to explain it, but it is so blatant and annoying.

Oh wait! None of what I mentioned before is the worst part of the book, the part that angered me the most, that angered me more than “Maria having fictional sex with a guard” levels of anger. I leave that for the last part of my rant: The worst part is that Sarah Miller literally implies that after they arrived at Ekaterinburg, Alexei hurt himself on purpose. Now, I don't think this is true in real life, but I understand why Sarah Miller got the idea from: Nicholas´s diary entry, where he mentioned that Alexei bumped his knee against the bed “as if on purpose”. I personally think his expression was meant more as a “This is so freaking inconvenient” or “Why did it have to happen now?” kind of thing, like, Alexei was not in the best health before and now the bump had made the situation worse, you know what I mean? Maybe Nicholas was even annoyed at Alexeiʼs carelessness, but that is it. I donʼt think Nicholas meant he LITERALLY thought Alexei had done it on purpose. He just didn't, in my opinion. It is also possible he was simply going through a typical puberty growth spurt, which as most teenage boys and men are aware, makes you a bit clumsy because you are growing too fast and can´t calculate the size of your limbs lol.

Now, I am not bothered by Sarah Miller's interpretation of Alexei doing it on purpose. It wouldn't bother me even if it could be 100% disproven (I literally support escape plot fictional additions in Romanov fiction for the sake of the plot/story/character development/satisfying end/you name it wholeheartedly). It is fiction after all. I just want serious elements added or included in the story to be treated with the severity they guarrant.

Sarah made the girls aware of the fact their brother might have hit himself on purpose, which, considering his illness, would have caused him a lot of pain, like, A LOT, and it did. He kept his family awake with moans of pain in real life. I am sure Sarah Miller knows about this. I am sure by this point in his life Alexei knew his own body enough to realize this as well if it were true that he did it on purpose (Which I genuinely doubt). This tiny “detail” she decided to include in her book was literally self-harm.

Well, she made the four girls dismiss their brotherʼs self-harm as something selfish he did for attention, and I felt sick. I knew girls in junior high, around Alexei´s age, who did this. No laughing matter, and SUPER out of character for OTMA, even, I would venture, Anastasia, to dismiss this with a laugh as they did, but for some reason not even literal Romanov experts and scholars in the book reviews who are faaar more knowledgeable than me noticed this, maybe because they were blatantly tricked by the narrative (And so were you).The girls making light of their brother self-harming is treated by the narrative as a “cute” and “funny” sister bonding moment (It literally is treated that way, why did no one else notice? Why am I the only one upset about this?). The girls were right and their brother is an attention-seeking asshole for self harming. Also, self-harm is funny and if people do it “for attention” (Which in fact means there are deeper mental health issues that should be attended to), it should not be taken seriously. That is what we are supposed to get from that scene.

This wouldn't bother me if, again, we got Alexeiʼs point of view of this situation, so we the readers could see why he is doing what he is doing and empathize, maybe raise awareness to the serious mental health topic of self harm. Like seriously, hemorrhages into the joints, or in general some hemorrhages cause a lot of pain, and I think Romanov fans underestimate just how much. For example, in Spala, he sometimes had to pass out to be free from it. If he had bumped his knee as a form of self harm knowing it would cause that sort of physical pain, it would have probably meant that his emotional pain was becoming almost unbearable to cope with. That is one of the explanations people who self harm give (Not the only reason people self harm though, and it is much more complex than that), that the physical pain distracts them from the emotional pain. Like seriously, few people would go through that pain for attention, but we the readers are just supposed to believe Alexei was “playing with his illness”, and that he was not taking into account his motherʼs *cough cough his jealous sistersʼ cough cough* suffering.

Like for real, read the following passage from Anastasiaʼs pov and imagine if Alexei had been a 13-year-old girl and her older sisters mocked her self-harm issues behind her back, we would be calling the sisters bitches, Cinderellaʼs step sisters. If the older sisters were older BROTHERS people would go even further, some would call them abusive and uncaring pricks. Think about it for a second, how the way the narrative portrays something tricks you to see this as a “cute” sister bonding moment.

~

Every time the crowd in the doorway thins, I can see our brother sitting there in Maria’s cot like it’s a striped throne and he’s Tsar Aleksei II.

“I bet he hurt his knee on purpose,” I whisper to my sisters.

“If that’s true, I’d like to take him across my own knee,” Olga says.

“Olga!” Tatiana scolds. “How could you?”

“After what we went through for all those weeks because he was too sick to move? It isn’t fair to play with his illness like that.”

“The first time was not on purpose, Olga.”

“I know it. But think of how Mama suffers. It’s selfish of him.”

“Mama doesn’t seem to mind,” I say. “She looks pretty pleased to have someone to fuss over.” Tatiana’s jaw falls open so far her teeth ought to drop out. “And the only good part so far is that Mama’s hovered so much, Aleksei hasn’t had a chance to notice his own dog is missing.”

“Don’t, Nastya,” Maria begs. “Not on our first day all together again.”

I shut my mouth, but what’s the use of being all together again if everybody’s going to set up camp around Aleksei’s cot and never mind the rest of us?

-

Lmao I can't with “Anastasia” here. She is so selfish and annoying, sue me.

Nooo, H-O-W D-A-R-E Alexei have legitimate mental health issues as a result of his imprisonment when the book is about OTMA and THEIR thoughts and emotions during imprisonment? How dare I expect Alexei to be treated as a character and not a prop or obstacle to show how nice the poor girls are to put up with his spoilt ass, the attention he gets and his silly "selfish" cries for help?

Sarah actually does give us scenes of Alexei coping with the separation from his parents. His character is treated sensibly while he is at Tobolsk, and to that I give the author a lot of credit, but if she had already touched upon Alexei’s coping, as well as some of his feelings about the separation and of his illness, what was the need to include this fictional self-harm mini plot then? To make it about the girls and how much it annoys them? This is another thing I have noticed, a small minority of exclusively OTMA fans, most often people new to the last imperial family (so Sarah Miller has no excuse lol), talk about Alexei´s illness as if the only real victims were the girls, the people forced to”put up” with it and how much their brother's illness diverted their mother's attention from them, and Sarah Miller does write about Alexei´s illness like this in SOME parts of her book, which is infuriating. This does NOT mean the girls were not deeply affected, or the side effects of his illness, including potential favoritism, should not be mentioned or even extensively explored in fiction, but I don't like when it is made out to be the only important thing, when Alexei is right there, literally about to die in excruciating agony or something but... oh,well.

By the way, how come no author writes about how it affects the girls to see or know their brother is suffering? How come that is not made into a source of conflict for them? Pierre Gillard literally writes it affected their moods, never mentioned jealousy. Like seriously it would be super interesting, kind of accurate and still focus exclusively on the girls if that is what the author is most interested in, but I guess writers prefer to project THEIR personal “my parents loved my youngest sibling more than me” traumas onto OTMA lmao. I mean, Pierre Gillard said his sisters worshiped him, which I genuinely think is hyperbolic and immensely whitewashed. I take the “too good to be true” memoirs with a grain of salt, just like most people and *clearly* Sarah Millar. Of course the girls were human, and I think they got fed up with and bored of their brother once in a while, but if Pierre wrote that they worshiped him it was because he mainly witnessed love between them, more than fights or resentment, and he wanted that love remembered. Why is it the LAST thing remembered in Romanov fiction then? Why does Sarah Miller gloss over that at the worst possible times?

Romanov fans know this is a book true to reality that has no escapes or twists, so this self-harm side-plot leads to NOWHERE in the narrative, a total dead end (Absolutely no pun intended). It was literally added for the “lols”, or as a mini side plot. I hated it, I truly did.

How dare I expect something as serious as self harm to be given importance by the narrative after the author herself decided to add it to the story for no reason at all when she could have easily explained the incident away as an accident? Like seriously, that diary account from Nicholas is all we have and in no way is Alexei doing it on purpose the only valid or even most obvious explanation. If you still want to write about it, good! It might be interesting! But treat it S-E-R-I-O-U-S-L-Y I guess I am super sensitive but that is just me. I literally can't believe no one else has pointed this out.

Not everyone will get the reference, but an example of characters being treated unfairly by popular characters, and the narrative wanting to make you side with the popular characters, who are being unjust, is the case of Percy and the twins from Harry Potter. I love the twins and don't care for Percy that much. The twins are my favorite characters, but the fact is that they were bullies to Percy, and the narrative never called this out. It made you side with the twins and not Percy. It made you angry at Percy for his admittedly cruel actions but not the twins for their unwarranted mocking of their brother. After Percy apologized, the twins should have also done so, but this never happened. According to the narrative, the twins did nothing wrong.

Obviously, the popular characters in this case are the Grand Duchesses, who in Lost Crown didn't actually do anything nearly as bad as the twins. It was just gossip and private thoughts, but again... Alexeiʼs POV people! We don't get it! Or at least, if Sarah didn't want to write it or it took too much space, an explanation of his self-destructive behaviour through a heartfelt talk between the siblings. The narrative convinces you that the way the sisters are talking about their self-harming brother is completely fine. It never calls it out, it never proves them wrong, in fact, most readers didn't notice nor cared, but might come to internalize the belief that people who self harm are attention seeking, or that people that are chronically ill are wrong to have mental health issues because they are not being “grateful” enough to the people who care for them, they are being “unfair” to them, and not “appreciating” all the caretakers have had to do for their sake. It is a pretty toxic message, I don´t know, don´t mind me, I am a sensitive little bitch.

Alexei behaves horribly with Anastasia in Ekaterinburg as well, by the way. I hated him in that scene. He “pranks” her in a way that could have easily killed her. But the anecdote is told from Anastasiaʼs POV, we rightfully side with her and see how scared she is. The narrative shows us Alexei crossed the line, that is the difference.

To be honest, this other book is objectively less accurate, but I preferred “Anastasia and her sisters” to “Lost Crown”. Sure it has a made up romance between Anastasia and Botkinʼs son, and you know what? That innocent fictional addition is not nearly as harmful as Sarah Millerʼs diary-entry-based self-harm side plot and the possible message it sends to the readers, something that, admittedly, she may have not realized as she wrote it was harmful.

Another thing, this is more tongue in cheek. The only sister who never thinks of Alexei with humorous over the top resentment is, as far as I can remember, Maria (At least my fave Maria escaped from that terrible detail in the girlsʼ characterization lol). I appreciate Maria never did so, not even when Alix said “Thank God it wasnʼt Alexei!” when Maria hurt her eye. The only thing Maria thought was that her motherʼs expression hurt her feelings, which I completely get. I mean, that line was so obnoxious and obviously put there to show the readers how horrible Alexeiʼs existence was for the girls lmao, and it is impressive that Sarah Miller held herself back there from making Maria have an internal monologue on how little her mother loves her even though it was clear what Alix meant (Though I still don't like the line, it was downright cruel, sure Alix could have said it in a moment of carelessness, but in context with the rest of the book, it sounds as if the author was trying to tell me: “Look how poor OTMA were neglected by Alix in favor of the brat Alexei”). Mariaʼs love for her brother is also connected by the narrative to her nurturing nature and longing to be a mother, which was so ashfkdfhgdfgi I loved it! I canʼt believe Sarah Miller seems to think the same way as I do, that Mariaʼs personality makes it unlikely she was not as close to her brother.

The fact Maria is often talked about as the “jealous” one or “least close” to her brother for literally no reason (no evidence whatsoever) makes me consider the fact she escaped this book intact from resentment a triumph honestly, at least in that aspect I applaud Sarah Miller.

Tatiana doesn't escape from the rescentful part of the characterization, and many of the times she worries about Alexei, she clearly does so solely for her mother's sake (Literally, when she is caring for Alexei she barely thinks of him as a brother but as her motherʼs “sunbeam”, when Alexei calls for his mother in a clearly upset tone because they just literally ARRESTED his sailor nanny, Tatiana is like: how ddaaare he annoy my poor sick mother!!! When he is EQUALLY SICK!!). I loved the way Miller portrayed Tatianaʼs love for Alexandra btw. Tatianaʼs love for Alexei just doesn't appear to be as genuine as that of Maria in this book.

In conclusion, Lost Crown was almost perfect, and I have waaay less problem with the book than I have with the way the fandom blindly worships it as if it were the Bible of Romanov historical fiction. Sure, love it! I have read it 3 times and plan to do so again, maybe that is why I noticed these details while other fans did not, maybe I love it more than you do guys lol. In fact, I advise you to read it again, or buy and read it if you haven´t, maybe you will do so with new eyes, maybe not. But don't just appeal to it as authority on what good Romanov fiction is. Lost Crown is far from perfect, and if you have stuff you have issues with (I hope someone will say something in the comments, maybe even something new, and prove I am not alone, lol), or you like another Romanov fiction book more, even “silly” and inaccurate “they escape” fantasy books, you should be free to speak your mind without being called ignorant.

[mellifiedman]

Okay, I'm going to for-real take advantage of having unlimited characters again and tell you my very important thoughts on all the media I've consumed in the last month-ish. We're blogging! We love blogging, right?

BOOKS

Priory of the Orange Tree, Samantha Shannon: have you ever wished for a Guy Gavriel Kay novel that was way queerer, but also worse? Boy, have I got the book for you! It's clear that a lot of careful historical research went into this book, which I appreciate, but it doesn't make up for the fact that this book is an incredibly long exercise in writing multiple POVs that all kind of feel like the same boring, namby-pamby character, despite some surface-level angst (except for the scheming gay alchemist, who actually got to have some real moral conflict a few times). It's very clear early on that all of these little dweebs are going to make the most selfless and heroic choices possible at the end of the book, and they spend many hundreds and hundreds of pages riding a rail to just that conclusion. That being said, I can see this author writing an actual fantasy masterpiece in another 10 years, maybe?

The Luminous Dead, Caitlin Starling: this felt less like a real book and more like one of those extremely involved and gritty AU fanfics that people used to write for, like, Death Note. What if this couple you should hopefully already care a LOT about is in, uh...a cave? In space? A space cave? And they hate each other at first, but then they fall in love, and also only one of them is technically in the cave (the stronger one with the weirder hair color, still all according to anime plan [keikaku]). Also, it's psychological. The thing is, I don't actually care about these characters from a pre-existing media property, so I just thought this was an incoherent mess that didn't deliver on pretty much any count. If you want an actually good version of what this book was going for, just read a Patricia Highsmith novel with Alien on in the background or something.

Some Desperate Glory, Emily Tesh: man, this one slapped. You could definitely come up with some cringey booktok-style "what if Ender's Game was ~sapphic~" pitch for this one, but thankfully it's also just a really good, crunchy, humanist sci-fi book. Honestly, my main issue with this one is that I read it so obscenely quickly that I'm not sure I absorbed everything. There are some little flaws I could complain about if I really wanted to, but this book nails what I'm looking for in this contemporary crop of queerer, more diverse, etc etc genre fiction, which is that it's a good fucking book first, and not just an affirmation of my own personal laundry list of moral beliefs (which, hey! It totally is that, too!). Thank you @storywonker for the rec - you're at the top of the genre fiction friendship pile right now! Feel free to look down and grind your heel into the necks of those below you! It's what I would do.

Cradle series, Will Wight: these books are sooooo dumb. I've read ten of them and loved every second. Cradle 4 life!!

[freakingoutthesquares]

Zigzag, October 1984

Monster Mash

Hotdamn! These chickens can PLAY!

Faceworkers in the great opencast mine of modern pop, Pulp find themselves in a lonely venue, one where there is a little too much space between members of the audience. Cats should be swung and they sure enough will be.

What matter if only a few witness the swinging? Those who do are spellbound. Jarivs Cocker, the undoubted lynchpin of the operation, is a commanding presence — the nervous dementia of a stand-up comic, bespectacled and angular, truly inspired. From time to time he steps back and the other members of the band set the pace. It's a ragged and strictly p[?]-professional performance — a strange set of people with a strange set of instruments and each song an emotional marvel.

Russell Senior, guitarist, singer, and acting correspondent on Pulp's behalf, says that the group was formed four years ago by gawky schoolchildren. 1984 and schoolchildren no more, but still gawky. Ungainly and brilliant.

In 1983 Pulp released an LP called 'It'. It's a topic they don't seem fond of, not wanting to be judged on their past — but their past seems to stand up in spite of them. Johnny Waller warmly recommends the album. Dave MacCulloch said at the time that if it had had 10% less mistakes it would have been a flawed masterpiece. Mick Mercer wants a copy.

But Russell quietly denigrates their past: "It had innocence, naievety, romanticism, good tunes, and it was a fair document of puberty, but it doesn't compare to what we do now."

What do Pulp do now?

Russell offers four pointers to what they don't do.

ONE: "We'd all liked punk but it had disappeared up its own arse. Jaded cynics peddling pessimism — violent hardcore, pretentious spikey Batcave, new age hippie punk. It was a multicoloured refraction of the white light."

TWO: "Outside the new wave all was happy happy bubblegum. Thrusting crotches in the race to become the Mike Yarwood of pop. New technocrats selling sex to teenagers, fiddling around with knobs and rooting around the past as if it were a jumble sale."

THREE: "Social conscience music had a nauseating effect. Nena makes a million out of nuclear war fears and takes the edge off people's anger, diffusing any pressure for change."

FOUR: "We turned to hit the metal objects around us, but I feel an idiot when my dad's going deaf because of working in a factory, and we pass drop-forges on the way to the practice room that do it a damn sight better than us."

In a nutshell: "Our chosen means of expression was populated by diluters and devaluers of music that once meant something," Jarvis announces, "We wanted truth and beauty."

Before you raise your arms in anguish and cry, 'God! Not  more  convicts of conviction! Not more youths spouting grandiose piffle fresh from the grammar school', bear this in mind. Pulp are the real McCoy, not just going through the motions. They are chancing their gangly arms.

"Some songs," says Russell, "are more 'fragile' than the rest — we can easily look stupid doing them. But they're usually the most rewarding when they go right. We'd rather fail miserably than do all right."

Sticking your scrawny necks out doesn't always make you popular. Russell tells the tale of one night when the audience of oafish louts decided to lower their trousers to register their disapproval. Finding himself facing a bare backside, Jarvis did the natural thing. He kicked it. But, after molesting the obnoxious stag comic announcer, things got the better of him. Pulp made a hasty exit.

"Truth and beauty stayed in that night," comments Russell wryly. But truth will out. Like Russell says, "Things have been dead too long, but spring is in the air."

It may only be October, and we're only just planting our daffs, but this man is not wrong.

William Shaw

Source & transcription: PulpWiki

[gunkreads]

I think I’m actually going to be quite brief (future gunk here: “so that was a fucking lie”) about Seven Blades in Black by Sam Sykes, given how much I enjoyed it. Putting my critique goggles on is revealing it to be more derivative and flawed than I felt while reading.

This book is one of those “bear with me” kinds of stories. It presents a very over-the-top, indulgent, hamfisted approach to what is, in my opinion, fundamentally a very simple story. It’s an American Western revenge story with a pretty solid magical world laid over it. If you’ve ever seen The Outlaw Josey Wales--it’s genuinely kinda like that. However, as I’ll explain in about three paragraphs, this isn’t exclusively criticism.

The author has a bit of fun with the whole format of “protagonist telling a character a story in-universe” and plays very simply with unreliable narration (”simply” meaning it’s easy to tell when something’s narrated unreliably and the factual truth is pretty apparent). I feel kind of mean making this comparison, but it’s an all-around clumsier and less-artful version of Patrick Rothfuss’ style. That’s not necessarily to say it’s clumsy--though you may find it to be--but the book is... not the most elegant thing I’ve ever read.

Its setting is very fun--basically, the protagonist Sal is fucking around in the “no-man’s-land” area of this big war going on between a corrupted and rotting Empire and a fascist Revolution. Not exactly the newest thing on the block, and the reasons for the war aren’t necessarily that original either. There are some extra layers to it, but those would have to come up in later books, if at all.

Sal as a character is very fun to read, and there’s a particular phenomenon in the book’s prose that makes her that way. See, there’s this piece of writing advice that sticks in my brain like a shard of glass that goes something like “not every line has to be a masterpiece, or an emotional revelation, or a dust jacket quotable.” Personally, I don’t like this mindset, because I believe that striving for an impossible standard is the only way to find out how far Zeno’s Paradox goes when chasing perfection. Sykes doesn’t seem to like it either; his book is written like every single paragraph is supposed to make you have a physical reaction. It doesn’t land every time--in fact, early in the book, it’s so annoying that I almost put it down--but eventually you come to a realization: it’s fun to watch someone try to reach for the impossible.

Sykes really, really wants everything Sal says and thinks to be a tooth-cracking showstopper. In chasing this ideal, he necessarily misses most of the time. However, he chases the idea with a kind of earnestness that I rarely see in fantasy. I actually think that Sykes does “gruff antihero” the same way Sara Douglass does “highfalutin paragon of justice” or Tolkien does “unbreakable brotherly bonds”: with an absolute commitment to and love for the concept that allows you (or at least me) to forgive any misses (this is not commentary on whether Douglass or Tolkien miss on these).

I found myself cringing at this book pretty frequently up to about the end of the first act. It took a while to get a handle on how far Sykes was going to take this writing style. After that point, though, it grew on me enough that I realized he did the same thing that Pierce Brown does that I love so much: they create a world where People Just Talk Like That.

See, there’s this magical thing in fiction called “internal consistency”. If something does not align with reality, but aligns with a work of fiction the same way every time, it becomes real within that fiction. This is why “acting out of character” and “plot holes” are such an issue: they dive in the way of our suspension of disbelief. Internal consistency creates and aids suspension of disbelief. Have you ever heard a white guy from Seatlle say “y’all”? It’s the fictional equivalent of that. He doesn’t fucking talk that way. Why’s he doing it now? Sykes has People Just Talk Like That 24/7/365 and it lets you suspend your disbelief in a way that you couldn’t if he just doled out the hard-hitting lines once in a while. Keeps congruity in the prose.

Once again, this isn’t to say Sykes is consistently good at it. He goes overboard a lot, asking me to find gravity in things that are decidedly low-gravity or asking me to laugh or cry over things that I didn’t already want to. However, the through-line of over-the-top narration works.

Wanna know why it works? Because Sal, who’s constantly shown to be a dickhead with her entire skull shoved up her own ass (love those kinds of characters btw), is narrating. Of course this egotistical asshat wants you to think everything she does is the coolest thing ever. She’s even telling the story to someone who’s going to execute her--there’s no reason to put the brakes on. Of course, this is all a choice made by Sykes, so everything leads back to that, but it’s there in-universe.

The action in this book is fun. It’s not amazing in a kinetic way, but it has pretty stellar setpieces and never feels pointless. Sal navigates violence and chaos in a very entertainingly Nathan Drake kind of way--taking her licks in a mad dash to either safety or whatever she came here to do. The action tends to be of a very physical variety, with plenty of gory details and a solid dash of body horror mixed in.

However, here’s a pretty chunky issue with Sal’s character: her motivations do not feel consistent. I get that this is meant to reflect her complicated feelings about her current life path, but there were a lot of points where I didn’t understand why she took the hard path when the easy one seemed so obvious (and often had been pointed out by her). It felt like sometimes she took the hard path for one reason, but later she took the easy path for that exact same reason. The context had changed, sure, but it didn’t change that much. Just something to watch out for.

BUT ALL THAT SAID.

I had a really good time reading this book. If you like anything gritty and grimy and bombastic and dark and fun, I think you’ll enjoy Seven Blades in Black. It’s brain candy, for sure, and it’s a little more on top of that. It’s got all the same things right with it as Kings of the Wyld, just with a few more things wrong. A very fun choice and a good book to slap up on your in-progress pile while taking breaks from more serious reads.

[thedreamparadox]

What would you like to see in a new NiGHTS game?

Postgame ability to free roam ALL LEVELS without dealing with Awakers/Alarm Eggs/a potentially new wake you up "enemy." JoD doesn't let you free roam super far from my recollection, and NiD has a larger capacity to free roam by base since you can stun the Alarm Egg but it doesn't last forever. Plus the levels in NiD are small, I have tried to explore zones but straight up the areas in Mare 4 do not exist until they're called in by completing the relevant laps. You can do unlimited freeroam via a Game Shark on the Saturn version (which I have done, but I don't have a capture card to show it off), which is very neat, but I'd want that to be a basic feature.

New outfits for NiGHTS and Reala because I love seeing them in new costumes.

A Jackle cameo if it wouldn't break the plot. I like the idea of getting new Second Levels every single game, but Jackle is a fan favorite. Maybe have them as a bonus unlockable skin in the vein of Reala being playable in Christmas NiGHTS on April 1st (Reala Day) sort of like Claris and Elliot were unlockable in JoD if you got all the Dream Drops. (I did, in fact, go out of my way to get all of the Dream Drops in JoD. It was a nice little addition to the game even if some of them were fiddly as HELL to get.)

I've warmed up to the light puzzle platforming as the kids thing from JoD, so I'd want to keep that in to some degree. There NEEDS to be better control over Blue Chips though, those controls felt so fiddly.

Fix the My Dream system or remove it entirely. A-Life was the reason we later got Chao, so there's no reason we can't have a Chao-adjacent system. I love the idea of which levels you play the most influences the space, but in practice the changes are so minimal it's really annoying. Maybe let some features of the level be unlockable based on X number of replays or Y score.

I don't really have any particular wants for the story. I guess "less clunky" from JoD. The original NiD is a masterpiece, even if most of the plot is hidden in the manual. I was able to enjoy its story not having the manual as a kid and having zero concept of what was really going on. Owl can stay, but they NEED to not use his voice clips to the point of annoyance.

I've floated the idea of reversing the sporty and artsy thing, ie having an artsy inclined boy and a sporty girl, before, and I still think that could be nice. I've toyed with this concept for my own fics, but ultimately after writing Journey into the Dream Within I don't think I could do anything that interesting in this concept in a way that wouldn't be retreading what I'd already written with my JoD fic. Piano boy is my vote if we gotta pick an instrument, I don't sports so idk on the girl front. (In theory you could get away with a customizable Dreamer character but given how entrenched in symbolism and how much the series leans into Jungarian ideas, this could make the levels wholeass make no sense. I'd be down for doing the Pokemon or Balan Wonderworld thing of "you have a set protagonist but can pick their appearance" though.)

Soundtrack just needs to keep consistent quality. For all the flaws of both games, the OSTs always slap. Bring back the Nightopian mood mechanic from NiD though that's awesome. Love those remixes. I'm a sucker for variations on a theme.

MAKE PARALOOPS INCENTIVIZED! Having Nightmaren eat half my Nightopians after paralooping them because it throws them into the My Dream area was annoying as hell and I hated that.

Remove Personas unless it's for cosmetics. Honestly remove Personas entirely. NiGHTS fluidly changing form in NiD made much more sense than in JoD. (Attempting to justify their existing in my fic was suffering honestly.)

I'd really like it if the game leaned more into NiGHTS' origins. Not their backstory, but the fact they're a Nightmaren. They're not all sugar and rainbows they were made to torment humans. Lean into that. More gremlin former Nightmaren energy in my protagonist please. (It wouldn't even effect their characterization much. NiD NiGHTS can be sassy too, if you make them bonk their head on the Ideya Palace enough times they'll refuse to Dualize with you.)

[armchairambrose]

Ugly Art

Gyakkyou Burai Kaiji: Ultimate Survivor was released October 3rd 2007 and is likely not a piece of media that has been heard of or watched before by the majority of individuals with an interest in anime, even should drama or psychological suspense genres be a favorite of theirs.  It is not a memorable show to many because of a simple unfortunate factor about it; the anime is Ugly.  

Kaiji is a tense dramatic social commentary about the Japanese economic state and the failures of the government to provide for individuals.  It is about the desperation that Japanese men have become accustomed to when the most they could hope for is a part time job that pays too little.  Their bills climb, income is stagnant, and those who retained wealth from the last economic boom and were safe from the recession are flaunting wealth and driving imported cars, wearing Italian suits and have watches worth more than the average youths yearly salary.  The show centers around a young man with no income wasting away in a small room that costs a pittance to rent, with nearly no belongings, the only decorations to his borrowed home being a collection of Mercedes car emblems from the vehicles he vandalizes, and a poster with a governmental slogan used to shrug responsibility for correcting the economy onto the citizen.

“The Future is in Our Hands” 

The show is memorable, it keeps attention and deserves plentiful rewatches.  I spent nine episodes on the edge of my seat watching a man play Pachinko in this, and loved it.

But it was never popular, and even today more than a decade later, it is not accessible media to any outside of Japan, even the manga version has only got three volumes (Less than half) translated officially.  Because it's Ugly.

We don’t put much value on Ugly Art.  We easily look away from anything outside of conventional standards of beauty, and with as much media to look at in our lives it doesn’t feel like missing out on anything to turn off something grotesque and look at what we are used to instead.   

But what if it is ugly on purpose?  I chose Kaiji as my example because it is one of my favorite pieces of media as of late, but also because it has to be Ugly, it HAS to look rough and jagged, because it IS a rough and jagged world.  People are cruel and willing to stab a man in the back, people will lie to and cheat you on a whim and drown you for their own benefit.  The Art reflects the values, and lack of, in the media.  Characters are drawn with thick sharp outlines and bodily flaws are magnified and exaggerated, making the black-heartedness of everyone in the world more apparent, including our protagonists.  

Ugly Art serves a purpose of its own, but this purpose is no different than any heartfelt medium. To break the mold, to stand out, be different, to get across your message and feelings.  By refusing Ugly Art for the sake of its differentiation from the more common or traditional media in its field, we have shut away a world from ourselves, lost out on an unquantifiable amount of potential.  

Claymation will inspire thoughts in your mind of movies you have seen as a child, Chicken Run or Wallace and Gromit, and many people will remember those fondly, as a product of the time and forgive it as such for the awkward uncanny effect it can have.  Then they will no longer consider claymation or stop motion media, perhaps they will look away from a new movie for no other reason than this.  Isle of Dogs, for instance.  

A youtube account, Takena, is a longstanding and still likely unknown now creator of cinematic masterpieces, less than ten minutes at a time.  Takena makes claymation short form horror films ranging from the campy pleasures of Chainsaw Maid, involving a young woman in a maid outfit running down zombies with a chainsaw, to Pussycat, which has one of the single most disturbing lingering shots in the genre.  This is Art, these videos do invoke carnal emotions and apprehensive or elating reactions in the viewer, and yet again, this is Ugly.  As it needs to be.  The heart stopping anxiety that you’ll feel on seeing a drugged woman faint before her enceinte assaulter is infinitely enhanced by the unmolded lumpy nature of the medium, and would not carry near the same weight were it performed in a more conventional medium or even with more conventional habits of this same media.  

And this is not even to state that Ugly Art needs be utilizing its Ugliness for effect.  What value do we lose in Art by not being beautiful?  It is not the sole purpose of Art to be pleasant to look at.  We don’t create just for others to look at our work and appreciate it for a purely aesthetic validity.  

Art is for the creator to express themselves.  Emotionally, Idealistically, Politically.  For social value and to convey their opinions or desires, dreams they can’t actualize alone in the world.  We use Art to put ourselves out there in the world, or to find others like ourselves, or to make some call to action or radicalize others.  We use Art to educate, and to complain, criticize, love, and to appreciate other Artists.  

Art is not all meant to be a Mona Lisa and Artists are not supposed or need to all be Da Vinci.  It does not mean to be a failure if you create Ugly Art, you do not NEED to improve your visual aesthetical prowess to be a “Real Artist” so long as you are able to make a piece of Art that you find value in, that you put yourself in, your heart, your opinion and your beliefs.  No Art is more beautiful than that which is meaningful to the creator and touching the hearts of another like companion.  The point of Art is to bare yourself to another, something that can be done without beauty, without convention or forcibly exacting your work into the narrow constraining box of what is “An acceptable level of talent to be an Artist”  

In this modern day we are looking at a new trend of “AI generated ‘Art’” which threatens not only Artists and their livelihoods, the security of their employment and their futures, but also the potential Artist of the future.  We see people out in the world who want to be an Artist, but live with the fear that they will not be able to match the expectation of creating something traditionally beautiful.  Being an Artist to these individuals, who have had the rejection of Ugly Art burned into their minds as the only possibility, carries a weight of looking forwards to years and years of study and practice to create the media they wish, to put what they envision to paper, which is unbearable to them in the face of a program which can attempt to make what they wish, for them.  You need only put in the prompt words you think will create the Art you wish for, and the names and works of an Artist that you find the work of beautiful (But don’t respect enough to not steal from,) and then you have a priceless piece of work.  Or one without value.  You might have something beautiful, after enough attempts on the program, but to others, it may be empty.  After all, a robot does not convey; Non Habet Animum, the emotions, values, beliefs, and convictions of the Artist who paints their painstaking creations themselves.  

Even Ugly Art, amateurish and unpolished, rugged, jagged thick lines and error, carries the weight of the Artist.  We should not reject our Ugliness, it is our most human quality.  We should create Ugly Art, we should consume and cherish it as anything beautiful, for the work is meaningful, it is matter.  Make your Art, share, and let it be Ugly without shame. 

[sassypotatoe1]

I'm adding this story to my myriad of sage advice for budding artists and artisans. I have like a decade and a half of formal fine art training, a little less than a decade of fiber arts training but informal, and between 3 and 5 years of various other arts and trades that I pick up as it catches my interest.

I'm not a good sculptor, though I think that's down to my using cheap air dry clay meant for children because I can't afford the artist grade, and I can definitely whittle well enough, I know how to remove material to get to my desired shape, so by all accounts I should be able to do masonry and sculpting, and I won't know if I'm actually any good until I can afford better materials.

Every time I sculpt something with my cheap children's airdry clay I get people asking me for a sculpture, and I have to tell them it's a craft that, for me, takes way too long to accurately price with the quality of materials I have. I'm not giving someone a sculpture made of paper pulp air dry clay meant for children and pricing it according to my skill and the hours worked, because they will not get value for money. I have no guarantee that the sculpture will last.

When I make clothes for myself I'm pretty lazy about it, I construct it well enough that it won't fall apart, and if I alter the pattern I don't pay attention and end up with wonky seams and strange panels. I can block patterns, I know how they work, and I love draping to bits, I just don't bother with those steps because I'm lazy as fuck.

Part of it is down to the fact that when I sew I either have to sew completely uninterrupted for at least 6 hours, or not at all, because I can't get distracted halfway through or I lose my mental calculations and geometry. So the few times I've made apparel for someone else, I did it when I had uninterrupted sewing time, and it turned out pretty much perfect. Three of the 7 times I did it in the last decade people ended up paying me more just because they loved the final product. I saw all the flaws and hours of mistakes that went into it and that I wasn't able to fix. My last client 3 years ago told me they've never seen a skirt that neatly constructed. I glowed about it for a good while.

Sketching has always been easy enough for me, I have been drawing since I could hold a crayon and understand shapes. My sketching output, 20 years into the practice, still wildly varies. I can do chuck close level hyperrealism, and I can fuck up a stylistic Mr potato head doodle. It's all down to my energy, focus, level of inspiration and hyperfixation, and desire to get an idea down accurately VS quickly.

It's for this reason that I learned very quickly on that a sketchbook is not meant to all be perfect masterpieces. Sketches are doodles to get ideas down and practice techniques, not art works. My sketch book is an amalgamation of the most disproportionate mermaids and beautifully shaded hyperpigmented hands, they're never consistent, and I feel no obligation for it to be high quality.

Painting is a different beast. I paint tiny detail by tiny detail, in Neverending layers. I don't see the finished product until months after completing it. It's a collection of specific shading and highlighting techniques and brush strokes and all the mistakes where I couldn't get the line just right or the color vibrant enough. When I paint I can't just stand back and look at my painting to see how it's going, I have to take a picture of it, send it to someone and have them respond before looking at the picture again before I can see the whole.

I frequently go back to old projects that I deemed complete at the time and redo parts of it better than before, because my art is constantly improving the more I do it, but a lot of the time I go back to an old project, fully seeing it in my mind's eye as terrible, because I can't believe I was able to do what I did when I did it, and I find that I'm much more skilled at the craft than I remember. I get flooded with the question "I did that? How?" and I have to immediately try it again to prove to myself that I'm actually skilled and it wasn't just a fluke or a possession by an ancient master of that art.

My high school art teacher always insisted that a work of art is never complete, and it contradicted everything I've been taught about not adding more to a piece after it feels complete because you'll ruin it, so I didn't believe it, and then I revisited my high school final exam piece 3 years after making it to touch it up, fix some proportion and shading issues, because I wanted to enter it into a competition. I never did because you had to have created the entire thing within that year and I'm too honest to pretend that I did.

I feverishly repainted the gold handle on the tea cup at 4am after getting back from a performance, and I woke up the next day at 2pm wondering how the fuck I managed to do that quality of work. I'm capable of it, it's not a question of skill, I just have this mental disconnect between what my skill level actually is and what I think it is, and it's much higher than what I've convinced myself of.

Your art may be better now than it was before, but you might be surprised at how good it was in the past if you revisit old pieces, and if you redo certain aspects of those pieces you'll find that you're probably better now than you thought you were. And sometimes you're lazy and don't follow the right processes, relying on a sense of experience that can be distorted, and you'll churn out something much worse than your actual skill level could make, and that's okay too. Whatever isn't perfect is inspiration for the perfect piece. Keep going, give yourself grace, try again and again and again and you will see improvement.

When I was 19 or 20, I sewed myself a wool dress for medieval re-enactments. I hated it almost as soon as I put it on. The bodice was cut wrong; the lacing was uneven; the colour was garish; the front closure was historically inaccurate; the embellishments were sewn on with terrible thread. Wearing it, I was constantly aware of its myriad flaws.

Then in my twenties I hit my adult metabolism and didn’t fit into any of my old clothes anymore. I gave my old dresses to my foster mother, who sells costumes for a living, and the green dress sold. It entered the local medieval re-enactment secondhand economy.

Every time I go to an event, someone different is wearing my green dress. It draws my eyes because it’s a lovely colour and the fabric—real wool and enough of it—moves beautifully with the wearer’s body. I never recognize it at first, because every wearer has worn it a different way; it can be mixed and matched, dressed up and down, moved around a good century of history. From ten feet away its lacing looks elegant, its embellishments beautiful gracenotes. I think: Oh my god, that dress looks beautiful. Wait a minute, that’s MY DRESS.

That dress teaches me, every time I see it, to stop looking at myself through such critical eyes. That dress doesn’t just look good, it looks better than most other dresses in its category, because I put in the time and the effort (including using pliers to force a needle through six layers of wool) to make sure it was done right.

It’s my reminder that sometimes the things I do are actually good, and if I indulge my natural tendency to criticize myself in everything, I’ll end up missing when I’m actually awesome.

[ceefourbane]

My Favorite Movies of 2011, 50-1

If you haven’t already read my 2010 list, I would recommend doing so, as I explain a little bit about who I am and why I’m doing this. If you don’t care, that’s fine too.

In the process of going back and examining this year in film, I noticed a couple of things. For one, it really feels like the calm before the storm in the world of superhero movies. Sure, we had a few big ones; Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, X-Men: First Class. But in a day-and-age where the only movies that feel like they’re at the center of the culture anymore are MCU ones (and Top Gun: Maverick), 2011 suddenly seems ripe with adult dramas, studio comedies, auteur projects, and genre fare. Those are the types of movies we wish we had more of. And yet, the actual movies of 2011 aren’t that great. All in all, it was a pretty mediocre year. Welp.

I’d also like to shine a light on this year’s Oscars, which in retrospect... were god awful. The Best Picture lineup consisted of the following:

The Artist, the Descendants, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, The Help, Hugo, Midnight in Paris, Moneyball, The Tree of Life, Warhorse.

By my count, that’s two utterly pathetic movies (The Help and Extremely Loud), four relatively minor works from true geniuses (The Descendants, Hugo, Midnight in Paris, and War Horse), two masterpieces (Moneyball and The Tree of Life), and one of the most deflating Best Picture winners in Academy history (The Artist). Not great. Maybe the most stunning thing about this year’s Oscars are the ratings... 39.5 million. That number continued to go up for two more years. Depressing. I miss the days of movies mattering.

And so, here’s my fifty favorites from a year where they did.

50. 30 Minutes or Less

Lots of reasons why this movie wouldn’t be made today. Fair. But I’m glad we have it.

49. The Devil’s Double

There’s an argument to be made that the best performance of 2011 is Dominic Cooper’s portrayal of both the son and successor of Saddam, Uday Hussein, as well as a morally righteous opposite, named Latif Uahia. Effectively convincing as polar opposites, Cooper pulls off a sensational act of dualism in the middle of a smashingly fun, if not flawed, movie.

I’ll also add that in the 11 years since this came out, Cooper hasn’t been in a single good movie. That sucks.

48. Incendies

Ouch. This one hurts.

47. We’ll get there.

46. Jane Eyre

Taking these digressive 19th century novels, injecting them with some horniness, and adapting them into two-hour movies is a good idea, actually.* Not all of them work but some do. Cary Joji Fukinaga’s very faithful version of Jane Eyre is one that does. Gorgeous to look at and a breeze to get through... I’m a sucker.

*Bridgerton’s existence ceases any need for that nowadays.

45. Source Code

The Best Movies Set on a Train:

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)

The General (1926)

Strangers on a Train (1951)

Runaway Train (1985)

The Train (1964)

Murder on the Orient Express (1974)

The Lady Vanishes (1979)

Unstoppable (2010)

The Darjeeling Limited (2007)

Silver Streak (1976)

Source Code doesn’t crack this list thanks to it’s lackluster third act, but the exercise proves one of life’s surest promises: trains make for a great movie setting.

44. Nostalgia for the Light

I don’t care for stargazing as a way to spend time, but I liked watching this. A deeply compassionate documentary that grabs the heads of everybody who’s lost staring at the stars and forces them to look internally.

43. The Grey

Liam Neeson has made roughly *checks notes* 25 movies in which the premise revolves around his character exacting revenge upon a criminal organization, governmental body, pack of animals, or nature for it’s injustices. Some of them classify as B-movie pulp, others are true shit stains, one is Schindler’s list, and then there are a few that fit somewhere in between. Not worthy of any real acclaim, but also float above “guilty pleasure” territory. The Grey is one of those.

The pitch was easy: “Liam Neeson fights a pack of wolves.” Sold!

42. The Ides of March

This is the absolute highest I could rank The Ides of March, a stale and forgettable political “thriller” that runs like a slog despite being a thin 101-minutes. This is also the absolute lowest I could rank a fast-talking political “thriller” starring Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei, Jeffrey Wright, and Paul Giamatti. I kind of hate that I like this movie, but I do.

41. We’ll get there.

40. The Arbor

I’m learning to love documentaries. It’s ones like these that accelerate that process. The ones employing gimmicks that don’t feel gimmicky, and bare a borderline manipulative emotional weight. It isn’t always effective, but when they work, they work.

39. The Arbor

In Bruges’ less successful younger brother (or in this case, technically, older brother). Gotta love those McDonaghs.

38. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

The Mission: Impossible movie that saved the franchise from itself. Non-coincidentally, it’s the first one that loops in eventual director and Tom Cruise business partner extraordinaire Christopher McQuarrie, who worked on rewrites. While it isn’t quite as strong as it’s sequels, there are still half-a-dozen fist-clenching and seat-gripping “fuck yes, Tom” action sequences. It’ll also forever be remembered as the MI movie in which Cruise decided halfway through production that he actually *wasn’t* going to hand the franchise off to Jeremy Renner like initially intended. Thank the good lord.

37. Real Steel

Remember when Shawn Levy made fun, cheesy, low-grade punch-fests that didn’t rely upon constant eyebrow raising self-reference and winking humor, before attaching himself to Ryan Reynolds only to do exactly that and only that? Me neither. But this is the one time he did. I vote for more movie star-led robot action movies aimed for the souls of teenage boys. The ones that had recyclable, saccharine emotional arcs and truly impressive visual animation. Deadpool was fun, but talented directors like Levy being wasted on Netflix depresses me.

36. Insidious

This was a really bad year for horror. One of the worst of the decade, actually. But Insidious, which essentially gave birth to The Conjuring, should be discussed more. It is the godfather of the movie that is the godfather of countless successful horror movies. Without it, I’m not sure how the genre fares over the next eleven years. So whether or not it’s as good as those movies (it is) doesn’t really matter anyways.

35. Kaboom

I suppose this movie could be described as somewhat of a “bizarre inquiry into male fantasy.” But that isn’t what’s interesting about it, to me. There’s nothing truly profound going on here, and it isn’t even that funny. But it is funny enough, and takes some satisfactory aesthetic swings. One of those swings is Haley Bennet getting eaten out by a French model...sheesh. I do hope that Gregg Araki makes another movie.

34. The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975

Unbelievable and shameful that these archives didn’t see the light of day until 2011.

33. Rise of the Planet of the Apes

The kickoff to a marvelous big budget blockbuster franchise that only managed to get better by the film. Matt Reeves’ triumphs shouldn’t be understated but neither should Rupert Wyatt’s, who inarguably had the hardest job — to revive dead IP. It’s a perilous haywire act that almost always goes sideways. This one just checked every box. Exceptional CGI work, a trying movie star, strong character actors doing their best, and a mega-climactic Golden Gate bridge-set action setpiece for the ages. Like I said, all the boxes.

32. Midnight in Paris

How the fuck does Owen Wilson get to be engaged to Rachel McAdams in two movies?! Two fucking movies! Hold one one sec-

-...I’ve just been alerted that Owen Wilson starred in a movie last year in which he gets married to Jennifer Lopez.* God hates us.

*Don’t worry, I don’t miss Jennifer Lopez movies. I actually saw this one, and it was quite bad. Had a good ol’ time watching it though.

31. Bill Cunningham New York

Eye-opening beauty. This movie makes me want to go back to New York.

30. Fast Five

They drove a fucking stolen vault through the streets of Rio de Janeiro in a police chase! They drove a fucking stolen vault through the streets of Rio de Janeiro in a police chase! Don’t make me say it again. I detest the Fast & Furious movies that come after Five, and most* of the ones that came before it. But I stan for Five, and if you don’t then you’re lame.

*2 Fast 2 Furious is dope.

47. Bad Teacher

29. Young Adult

Studio comedies with big, bright, beautiful movie stars at their center. Cameron Diaz and Charlize Theron — two blonde sex bombs with electric presence, charm, and comedic wit — made good ones in 2011. Young Adult has a genuinely good script and finds Theron delivering one of her best performances. Bad Teacher is only dumb fun, but it hauled in about $200 million more than the former. Regardless, they’re a relic of a sort-of last gasp for this type of movie in Hollywood. I wish there were twenty of them every year.

28. Captain America: The First Avenger

27. X-Men: First Class

A bitterly ironic transition from the types of movies that don’t get made to the types of ones that do. The state of superhero movies feels as flat as it did in the pre-MCU 2000s, and yet they’re made at a more rapid rate than ever. On the bright side, these are two quality ones!

On a serious note, I will soon stop talking about how much worse off movies are nowadays than they used to be. Because, as previously noted, 2011′s cabinets are pretty fucking bare. However, I think we need to find the right balance between over-stuffed, self-serious machismo cape movies and mega-self-aware, winking fourth-wall-breaking comedies. These two movies captured that. Talented actors, smart ideas, a shaggy-but-effective script, propulsive action scenes, and maybe a tease in the stinger. That’s the formula.

26. Martha Marcy May Marlene

I just learned that this was Elizabeth Olsen’s acting debut. What the fuck?

25. 13 Assassins

Here’s the thing. This movie is 141-minutes and the first 80-or-so are truly plodding. For a Takashi Miike movie, 13 Assassins is quite... boring? Until. Yes, until. That is until it isn’t boring. Because, I assure you that the last 45 minutes of this movie are some of the most adrenaline-charging, bone-crushing, teeth-gritting, sit-up-in-your-seat-and-jump-into-the-television minutes of a movie in the past 20 years. It is a delightfully bloody massacre that shocks every gorgasmic sense in your brain, body, and soul.

The funny part is that this is actually one of Miike’s tamest movies. That speaks volumes about how sadistic he is, rather than how “safe” this movie is.

24. Hanna

The Saoirse Ronan biopic, I think.