#because I wanted to write things that aren't commonly known??

[jennelikejennay]

In my watchthrough of second-tier TOS episodes (having watched the good ones first) I think a few loathed ones maybe aren't so bad?

Well, they're still bad. But they have more redeeming qualities than I thought.

Gonna talk about The Omega Glory, just in passing about Bread and Circuses (because that was pretty good), and about The Paradise Syndrome.

The Omega Glory

The Omega Glory is about 3/4 of a good episode. Basically, it's the plot of Insurrection: rogue Starfleet officer wants to break the Prime Directive because he thinks a primitive planet has the secret of immortality. And we get some good points about interfering with things we don't understand and the purpose of the prime directive. (Which, by season 2, exists a lot more than it did in season 1.) Plus, our heroes get the chance to show their worth by their resistance to this guy.

And then it takes a sharp left turn into absurdity. It's not enough for it to be a gentle Cold War metaphor. No, we need to write HI THIS IS ABOUT THE COLD WAR on its forehead and play the Star-Spangled Banner. The point being that you can't say "our side is better than their side because of our cherished founding principles" and then completely ignore the cherished founding principles to be a bigot. Which isn't a bad point but we don't need to be kicked in the face with it.

There's been a recurring theme (I'm not sure it's the first time it turned up, but this was the most pointed occasion) that development of other planets mirrors the development of Earth. Apparently it's a known scientific law: Hodgkins's law of Parallel Planet Development.

I thought this was pretty stupid. Why would planets all develop the same way? Why not jump between parallel universes if what you wanted to talk about was planets going in different directions from the same starting point? It's one thing to have themed planets, that's just a clever way to reuse whatever costumes they had lying around. But couldn't they just have an Earth-like planet, without having them actually have the paper Declaration of Independence lying around? It strains credibility and makes it look like history is some kind of inevitability instead of relying on thousands of factors and choices.

However, I'm not entirely sure I was right.

Bread and Circuses

This is a much better-appreciated episode, for good reason. It has some great Spock and Bones moments, Kirk showing his stubbornness strength of character, the crew loyally standing by to follow orders even though they know their captain is in trouble.

One brief off-topic moment: this guy is queer-coded, right? Extremely?

When he asks for Kirk to be sent to his room, Kirk gives a look that suggests to me he very much worries what this obviously gay Roman wants with him. But actually, he's given a nice meal and a female slave to obey his every whim. Which I think I will write a different post about sometime because it may be Kirk's most problematic moment. OR IS IT?

But anyway, it's another parallel Earth, Earth from a single point in history with one specific difference (the Roman empire never fell. No this does not make historical sense especially given they speak modern English). Yet again there is a twist ending where we realize an important parallel to Earth history and get a 2x4 sized moral lesson. But as this one is more of an afterthought, it didn't ruin the episode the way Omega Glory's ending did.

The Paradise Syndrome

Commonly reviled as one of the worst episodes, and yet....I kind of liked it?

I mean, yes, the stereotyped portrayal of Native Americans is a problem. It's positive, but in that weird idealizing way that media tends to be about Native Americans. The Chakotay problem, we could call it.

But all of the scenes that take place off the planet, between Spock and Bones, are great. Spock won't eat and won't sleep because he wants to save Kirk and all the people on the planet. Bones at first thinks he's being heartless, but he soon recognizes that Spock cares very deeply and made all of correct decisions. So let no one ever say Bones doesn't know how to be nice to Spock. He just usually does it when Kirk isn't in the scene, because Kirk isn't there to do it. He knows he's the guy on the spot and it's time to put the banter away.

This episode also has the first mind meld between Kirk and Spock! Spock struggles with it, saying Kirk's mind is "extremely dynamic." Okay, Spock, keep your fra'als in your pants.

But it was interesting, near the end, when Spock said that the Native Americans down on the planet weren't a perfect parallel of Earth development, they were actual Earth people taken from Earth by a species called "the Preservers," who scattered various human people all over the galaxy.

Bones says, "I'd wondered why there were so many humans around," and that's it, that's all we get on the Preservers. But if we assume this explains the other two episodes, I'm not so mad about it after all. A retcon when they realized they were doing it too much, or a trace of a long arc? Who knows. But I'm adopting it now: that old paper Constitution was stolen from Earth along with a bunch of Americans and Soviets and planted on the planet in The Omega Glory. Some Romans got planted on the planet in Bread and Circuses. It's not parallel development—it's branching development from a common source.

Why does this matter to me so much? I guess I just like things to make some amount of sense. It's always nice when they do. It doesn't redeem that obnoxious lecture on the Constitution or a planet of Native Americans thinking Kirk is a god, but it redeems a little bit the stupidity of those cultures existing at all.

[xclowniex]

I want to talk about allegations of jew face aka claims that someone is faking being jewish.

On one hand, people do fake being jewish. Last year, at pro Palestine protests, JVP handed out shirts with "not in our name" on the front and "jews say ceasefire now" on the back, to people at protests. Some of the people who recieved and wore the shirts were jewish, but there were also non jews given the shirts and wore them. This shirt is still available for sale on the JVP website. Non jews who wear the shirt are doing jew face, as the shirt implies they are jewish.

Then you have blogs like one which was deleted a few months ago, who claimed to be a jew but was actually someone from Iran. Whilst there are jews in Iran, the blog was claiming to be a Jew in the US. So safe to say, it was an Iranian psyop as they were antisemitic.

Conversely, there are many antizionist jewish bloggers who get falsely slapped with the accusation that they aren't really jewish. 10% of jews worldwide are antizionist or non zionist (someone who doesn't believe that countries should exist, and therefore believes both Israel and Palestine, along with every other country should no longer exist).

And it is actually disgusting when an antizionist jew gets slapped with claims that they aren't actually jewish. A jew is a jew is a jew. Someone's opinion does not strip them of their jewishness.

This post was something I have been wanting to talk about but the thing which motivated me to write it is a post I saw listing behaviors that if someone who says their jewish does, then they aren't really jewish.

And I agree with this in some capacity. A lot of those behaviors are indicative of someone faking being jewish, but no group is a monolith and there could be real jews doing that behavior. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to that poster and assuming they meant it as a loose rule and not hard criteria.

Some of the behaviors listed were people only saying they were jewish after Oct 7th, jews who post antisemitic content, and blogs which go beyond criticisms of Israel and is literally just xenophobia and that's all they post.

And yes, that are all things which jew fakers do. They only claim to be Jewish to gain a sense of being reputable. However I have spoken with jews who are really jews, who do engage in that behavior. Do I agree with that behavior (excluding claiming to be Jewish only after Oct 7th)? No, I do not. I think it's terrible. But does that made a person less Jewish? No. The reason I excluded the only claiming to be Jewish post oct 7th is because for some jews, being jewish wasn't something they want to advertise on their blog. Whilst I have said I was jewish on past blogs I've had, on this one, it wasn't till after Oct 7th did I make it known here. Which for those who never knew my old blogs, which would be everyone as I was cyberstalked by an ex and would delete blogs when my ex found them, it comes off as if I'm suddenly claiming to be Jewish post oct 7th.

There is also another claim commonly tied to claiming antizionist jews are fake jews, which is that antizionist jews must have no connection or limited connection to jewish culture. That they were either not raised with jewish culture or if they were, as an adult they no longer practice even secular judaism. And whilst again yes, this is true for some, it's not true for all.

There is a popular antizionist jewish blogger on here, which has spoken multiple times about how they practice jewish culture and religion. It would be stupid to deny it because of a political belief.

This post as ended up being far longer than I intended, so to hurry up and get to the point, I do not think we should fake claim jews unless there is hard proof that someone is faking being jewish.

Hard proof can be a person claiming prior to not be Jewish, if a blog is revealed to be a psyop, or if you personally know the person running the blog and know for a fact that they aren't jewish.

[saintsenara]

thoughts on sirius/narcissa

thank you very much for the ask, anon! this has the potential to be an interesting and controversial one...

i've spoken here and there about how - as much as i loathe the character commonly known as fanon!sirius - i'm also not the biggest fan of a version of sirius which has emerged as a reaction to this, who we might call dark!aristocrat!sirius.

this sirius - who appears not to have realised his canon self is being sarcastic when he says his parents considered themselves "practically royal" - is, i'm sorry to say to the aristocracy fans, just as distorted a version of the character as the heavily-tattooed and tiny fanon!sirius. and that's fine, obviously - people are entitled to like and read and write what they want - but it's not going to stop a tear beading in my eye whenever i see it...

[one day i'll hit publish on my the black family are not politically important manifesto and be removed from the fandom...]

which is to say, the sirius who tends to be shipped with one or other of his cousins - although, for exactly the tedious pro-aristocracy, people-belong-with-their-own-kind reasons outlined above, the cousin in question never seems to be andromeda - is this dark aristocrat version, and he's usually written as wanting to fuck either narcissa or bellatrix because the only woman worthy to be with a male scion of the house of black is a female scion of the same house.

and i think it's out-of-character and i think it's dull!

now, if you're looking for the whole twisted-obsession-ruins-the-vibe thing, i can see that there's a plausible case for sirius/bellatrix - they're set up by the canon narrative as extraordinarily similar [and i absolutely read sirius' claim in order of the phoenix that andromeda was his favourite cousin as a lie, covering up the fact that, as a child at least, that role was taken by bellatrix]. i think there's something very interesting which can be done with both of them shattering the expectations of their families in ways which would evidently be quite shocking in a society with such restrictive mores. bellatrix massively defies gendered conventions which require a pureblood woman of her social class to be little more than a wife and mother [although that she does so without being able to leave her family, like sirius, is because - you guessed it! - of those gendered conventions themselves], while sirius shirks his expected social role as the eldest son, upsetting the "natural" order of things in his family's eyes. that can, i think give some interesting flavour to that pairing.

but sirius and narcissa never - in my view - hits in the same way. while they're closer in age than sirius and bellatrix, their personality types are sufficiently divergent [but not in an interestingly conflicting way - their major difference is largely that narcissa doesn't seem to be particularly fun] that the spark is lacking. and this, i think, is the reason why siricissa tends to hang really heavily on the idea that it is hot, glamorous, and aristocratic to have sex with your first cousin.

and look, one of the only bits of "pureblood culture" fanon i accept is the idea that blood-supremacist families practise arranged marriage [i think sirius' comment in order of the phoenix about parents "only letting" their children marry other purebloods essentially confirms it], and that first cousin marriage may well be their cultural practise as well. but arranged marriages [and, indeed, cousin marriages - which are obviously considered much less unusual in some cultures than others] aren't inherently interesting things. they're just things some people do.

but the vast, vast majority of the sirius/bellatrix or sirius/narcissa i've ever seen thinks that the blood-relation element and that alone is enough to justify the ship as hot and exciting and wicked. and it's not.

what i would like to make the case for instead is shipping narcissa with regulus.

my reading of narcissa has always been that she's somebody who - a little like petunia dursley - feels an absolutely enormous pressure to adhere to social convention, owing to the shame she perceives her family as receiving following both andromeda's desertion of them and bellatrix's refusal to conform. she's someone, i think, who really leans into the character of the perfect lady-of-the-manor, the model wife and mother, the pure ideal of wizarding womanhood - and i think you can do a lot with her experience in this gilded prison of her own, and society's, making.

regulus too is someone who canonically conforms - again, as sirius tells us, as a reaction to sirius' own defiance of the behaviour expected of him by his class and blood status. i think the two of them finding themselves in a relationship which is constantly battling against this artifice - whether they end up clinging all the more tightly to the masks they wear in public or they're able to help each other gradually become more open and real - would absolutely slap.

[acilykos]

Hi. I see you're aroace and I'm too so I was wondering if I could ask you a question? Idk if this is something you do I found you through aroace senkuu post so absolutely feel free to ignore if you don't want to talk about it.

So basically I'm trying to figure out what exactly loveless means. BC a lot of people both arospec and not have told me that label might fit (as in I want 0 romance etc. But also no platonic equivalent). However. I am a very passionate person about my chosen career, music, art, my cat. Those are all things I feel so strongly about, I wouldn't know what to call it but "love". Similarly there are people I care about, just not in a way where I want romance with them or a platonic version of that kind of relationship.

(I've seen you call senkuu loveless too, and I'm a little confused BC he clearly does care deeply about some people and possibly even more so science. Why not call that love? Is it a terminology thing?)

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I really like your analysis of senkuu.

I'm genuinely trying to understand.

It's possible to reject the societal notion of what love is. I do so myself.

But there's no denying that the chemicals involved are something everyone experiences. Like. Everyone gets dopamine, vasopressin, oxytocin etc. It's just the context that's different. Much like oxytocin is experienced both in mother-infant bonding and in sexual contact, I get a dopamine rush listening to music but not making out with someone.

(granted romantic love hasn't been that well examined but there does seem to be a consensus on the general chemistry involved)

Same chemicals but different result/feeling, you know?

Not getting these chemicals at all is impossible I think, so that can't be what loveless means.

So what does it mean??? Is it just about society's perception of love??

I personally approached my lack of romantic attraction by Googling the brain chemistry BC clearly I wasn't getting anywhere with the emotional side. I'm not an expert. But the definitions of different aro orientations I see commonly, don't actually address this at all. It's like everyone decided on a different definition of "love" and nobody told me any of them.

Again, I know this sounds very passionate, but I always sound like that. I'm not trying to pick a fight, nor am I expecting you to solve my identity crisis. So really no need to reply if you don't want to. I can see how this would be. A lot to try and answer.

Hi, hi!!

First of all, I'm happy to meet a fellow AroAce!! I'm also calling myself loveless because it fits the most, I did research before and found it was the closest to describe myself.

Second of all, I think it depends on the definition of what loveless means for oneself because as always, sexuality at the end of the day is a fluid and personal thing.

Apologies if some of the thoughts seem jumbled or contradicting. I just woke up, was very happy about getting to ramble and I just don't know how to properly describe my "emotional thought processes" because I decided to illustrate my points with examples.

It's a long read too, I hope you don't mind.

Personally, I define it as a "lack of attraction" because oriented and angled AroAces experience other types of attraction (like platonic, aesthetic, etc.), but don't ask me to explain the difference between either, I really have no idea what it is (no offense to any angled or oriented AroAces). Personally, I find it ironic that the two most known "orientations" of AroAce people are still based on experiencing attraction despite AroAces being known for not experiencing it. So we had to create another word to say "Yeah, we actually don't experience any type of attraction”. It's also ironic to me that we call it "loveless" because it's not that we don't love, we just aren't attracted to people.

I'm an artist, I love art and drawing myself, as well as writing.

I'm also a scientist, I love chemistry, astronomy, pharmacology, psychology, really, I'm just always happy to talk about any subject. In fact, that's my current career, I'm a pharmaceutical technician.

I have favourite songs, favourite subjects, favourite seasons. Favourite shows, favourite characters, hell, I also have favourite ships.

I care about my family and friends too.

It's just that I'm not attracted to people. I don't want a romantic relationship because I don't experience romantic attraction. Same as I don't want a sexual one. I just don't see the need or appeal for another person if the goal is to just have a dinner date or a climax. Sure romance and sex can come hand in hand, but that depends on whether or not you experience either or if you're committed in a relationship. Anyways, I digress.

These two are the typical ones people talk about when it comes to attraction, but then there are the illusive platonic and aesthetic attractions, and many more I believe. One of them is explained later which causes AroAces in the first place to also use the labels oriented and angled.

Platonic attraction, or at least as I come to understand it, is seeing a person and just wanting to be their friend. You see someone and you think "wow, I really want to be their friend!!" also apparently called having a "squish".

I don't do that. I don't really feel something compelling me to talk to this person to become their friend.

Same as I don't feel attraction towards aesthetically pleasing people (which is also a highly individual definition). Or well, for a lack of a better term, the only "Wow, I really like how they look" I experience is in terms of gender envy. I don't want to be with them, I don't want to be them either. I just think "I'd like to express my gender like that". If that makes any sense.

I see people talk about "they're hot" and "they're so cute looking" and how they have this attraction towards them because of the way they look, but I just don't? I may appreciate the beauty by acknowledging that someone has nice features or a cool style, but it's the same as me looking at the weather and going "Ah, the sun is shining, isn't that nice." before continuing to do whatever I did, not spending more time on thinking about the weather.

For a real life example: My sister and I are going to a driving school. She has an aesthetic (and I call it on purpose an aesthetic attraction. She has not spoken once with the guy and she also said it's not exactly a crush) on one of the other people there, which to me makes no sense given his general character he revealed at least at the driving school. She even took his pen he forgot at school (just some company gifted pen from when we got a visit that day) in hopes of giving it back to him and struck up a conversation (She failed to. She was too embarrassed, in case you're curious).

I only acknowledge he has a nice jawline. That's it.

I don't feel any type of attraction towards people. I don't want or need to be their romantic partner. I don't want or need a sexual relationship. Just because someone has a personality that clicks with mine, I don't automatically feel the need to become their friend. If we become friends, great. If we don't it is what it is.

Obviously when I'm friends with someone, I care about them, but it's just... not the way friendships are usually portrayed. I don't feel the need to have many friends, or meet up with them constantly or go on trips or anything of the like. I like them a lot, I want them to be well. I just... don't really feel an attraction? I don't know how to properly explain it.

An attraction for me is either the need to be constantly with them, one way or another, because you physically and/or mentally/psychologically feel the need to be in their presence, whenever an opportunity arises OR that you spent a lot of time just thinking about them (daydreaming, fantasies, you get it). I just don't feel like that. I'm fine with not talking or seeing friends for multiple months or years. I'm also fine if we don't talk constantly too. If the friendship ended because we couldn't maintain it, it wouldn't destroy me.

It actually happened multiple times, I'm fine with it. Do I miss them or feel nostalgic when I think about past experiences with them? Of course, I care about them as people.

But I'd feel the same about it even if we had stayed friends, because I obviously feel nostalgic with things I did with my current friends.

I just really don't have the ""need"" to have friends in my life. I'm not "attracted" towards them, I care about them and I like them, but it's just not the type of attraction or even love that society usually attributes to what (best) friends are supposed to be or behave like.

(Same for my family. I haven't seen some of them in years, I don't need to. I like them, I care about their wellbeing.)

You may be wondering, if that's my attitude towards friendships, how do I even have friendships.

They talked to me one day and we happened to keep talking because we liked what each other had to say. It's been years later, so it's safe to say that we still like each other, but not once have I ever initiated a friendship, funnily enough. All I did was just... reply or talk once and we kept talking and meeting up, and eventually we became friends, and because they know a lot about me and I about them, I care about them.

And this is what I think Senkū is like too.

He cares about his friends deeply and he obviously cares about his family too. But he doesn't feel any attraction to people. He never once had an "I need to be their friend" moment. He accidentally sort of becomes friends with them because of the situation they're in and then develops a friendship with them because they've been through a lot of things for multiple years.

How did he meet Taiju? Because Taiju saved his machinery. Senkū didn't have any friends prior to that. But then they talked and spent their childhood together and became friends.

Taiju introduced him to Yuzuriha, they talked, she helped with his experiments as well, and they too became friends.

Senkū not once initiated a friendship.

He may have approached some of them first, but not because he wanted to be their friend/felt platonic attraction, he just needed them for a plan, then he used them for his plans, but they stuck around and they talked and time passed.

If it comes to his plans or science, he talks first. If it comes to any "emotional" conversational topic, someone else initiates it.

Senkū just doesn't feel the need to have emotional connections, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't care about his friends or won't develop friendships, if that makes sense. He doesn't seek them, but if friendships happen to develop, he accepts it. He doesn't portray it outwardly, but deep within his heart he still cares.

Everyone in his life started out as an ally, it eventually became friendship. Senkū didn't recruit people because he wanted friends, he recruited them because he had a need for allies to wage war against Tsukasa, then Ibara, then Whyman.

You can even apply it to Senkū's relationship with Xeno, who is according to the fanbook one of Senkū's "closest relationships" (the other one being Byakuya). Senkū respects Xeno as a scientist and as the only NASA employee who actually helped him build a rocket, but even then it's because Xeno talked first and their relationship was strictly mentor and mentee, it was hardly a friendship in what society defines it as anyway. I guess the closest equivalent would be Marty McFly and Doc Brown from Back to the Future (I know, Marty isn't Doc's mentee, but it's about the assisting in science projects part), if it comes to media, but even then Senkū's and Xeno's mentorship would not fit the definition of friendship the way Marty's and Doc's does.

I also call Senkū loveless, because he would never enter a queer platonic relationship (qpr). Entering one would mean you experience a type of connection that is more than friendship, but not romantic or sexual. Or at least that's how I came to understand it. Personally, I'm still confused on what they're actually like aside from them developing from a "tertiary form of attraction". This is where angled and oriented AroAces come in, and why some people call themselves "AroAce lesbians" for example. They experience a different type of attraction towards women that's not just friendship, but it's also not romantic or sexual (at least that's how I understand it, any tertiary attraction feeling AroAces correct or explain it to me, because it's been confusing me for years).

Now look at Senkū and tell me that he'd ever enter such a relationship, when he barely feels the need to make friends on his own. He says it himself "love causes only problems" because of the emotions involved in it. He also, as we established, doesn't feel the need to make friends. If that's already too much and Senkū doesn't have the need for friends, and a QPR is similar, except it lacks the romantic and sexual part and is supposedly "more than a mere friendship", then Senkū definitely wouldn't have that.

I think it's important to mention that, but I think at this point it is obvious, I don't define attraction and caring as the same things.

Why would I? It isn't the same thing, otherwise we wouldn't have different words for it.

Attraction means I myself feel the need to be close to whatever attracts me, maybe that I can't stop thinking about it because I need it in my life, but it can also be superficial.

Care is that it doesn't cross my mind every day, but maybe I happen to think about it once because it crossed my mind, or if I'm with friends or family who tell me about something that happened to them, I care about their wellbeing.

You may also have noticed that I barely even used the word "love" despite talking about being "loveless". As I mentioned in the beginning, I really don't think it's the right term. We love. We care. But it's just not the love people think of first (aka romantic). I love my hobbies, I love my friends and family, I love my favourite characters. But none of this is what society tells me that love is supposed to be or feel like. But it's the most direct way of saying "I don't experience any type of attraction", as misleading as it is, sadly.

And that's it, basically.

Again, it's just my own definition and experience, so how true it is for the majority of AroAces or how much you agree with me, is totally up to you and anyone else. Emotional matters are confusing, and a lot of the time don't make sense and are hard to put into words, but I gave it my best shot with all I know right now. If you're curious or think that loveless may not be the right term after all, you're welcome to do more research on the terms angled and oriented, I bet there are a lot of AroAces who identify with those labels ready to help you out, and who know much more about it than me.

I hope I was able to help you in any way to find some clarity! Thanks again for stopping by, feel free to do that again any time!!

[approximately20eggs]

Please don't vote for Mob in the upcoming Mob vs. Shallan Davar/Veil/Radiant dissociation swag poll!

Beloved mutuals, I write today to make a desperate plea for Squimbo From My Polls, as I threatened to do earlier. This is relatively unimportant and I need to be working on homework right now but this matters, To Me.

You see, Shallan, and Veil, and Radiant, my girls, my beloved, my collective poor little meow meow, soon face Shigeo Kageyama from Mob Psycho 100 in @dissociationswagcompetition's tumblr poll bracket. And folks, I love both of these blorbos. I really do. But Mob does not deserve to beat Shallan and Veil and Radiant! Shallan specifically here is the QUEEN of dissociating! And she's swagful! She deserves to sweep this entire bracket! However, the Stormlight Archive fandom is a fairly small one, and Mob Psycho's is... not. Do you know the post that's about Squimbo from an obscure manga from 2004 vs Pikachu, where Pikachu wins based on pure name recognition? I fear an impending situation like that when Shallan's system absolutely DESERVES to sweep. Friends, I know we all like Mob. I ask you to listen to my plea and vote for Shallan's system instead.

Let me start with the obvious. The mostly non-spoilery. To start, Shallan, Veil, and Radiant are a canon DID system. Yes, canon DID, that's not demonized and is accurately, fairly represented! They aren't side characters, either; Shallan's system is arguably one of the two most main characters in a book series with a very large cast! It's awesome! And Shallan, to be clear, has dissociation issues besides purely being part of a DID system as well. She is constantly emotionally dissociating to cope with life. It gives her significant memory trouble. She dissociates hard and constantly and her mental illnesses are a significant part of the narrative. And let me re-iterate: Shallan's system is so so swagful. Shallan is quippy and funny and smart, Veil is an utter badass spy, and Radiant is a master swordswoman. So much swag.

Plus, she does the whole bottling up emotions thing. I get that that's why Mob is in this poll probably and let me tell you: she does all that and more. She deserves this win.

This enough should be enough information to vote for her, but I want to give specific examples, and that gets into spoiler territory. So, a cut is in order.

TO START I want to say that Shallan dissociates so hard that the count of people that she murdered and then forgot about murdering is up to FOUR!! FOUR PEOPLE. She dissociates so hard her dissociation has a body count. All were very necessary murders which is why I do not consider this demonization. Her motives were incredibly understandable, such as self defense or necessary to save the world. Does not change the fact that she entirely forgot about them.

Also. She does not remember like half of her childhood at least, during which some of those murders took place! It is commonly suspected that she probably has more people she's killed under her belt and we just don't know about it because she forgot about them. Very little is known about Shallan's past in general because she dissociated too hard and doesn't remember it. She managed to acquire a shardblade, one of the most powerful weapons in the setting, and forgot how she got it.

Also!! She's very avoidant of things that are trauma triggers, especially if they threaten to make her remember stuff she's suppressed. It's very significant because Pattern, her spren, keeps trying to get her to confront her past and move on, and she keeps fighting this every single book. This is an ongoing, deep internal conflict, and not something brushed under the rug.

Finally: this system is so swagful guys. They She got stabbed and thrown into a room full of corpses, experienced The Horrors as they were being carried there, and still got up to continue their mission later, over the course of which they took a crossbow bolt to the head and acted like it was totally fine and the others were crazy for being worried about them, and they pulled it out solely because they couldn't talk around it. PLUS they magicked up an entire army once. Also, she's witty, and always has a quip, and she's married to another swagful guy, AND she and her husband would be down for a polyamorous triad with Kaladin if he was, which he sadly isn't. So much swag.

So please vote for my blorbo please please please I'll love you forever if you do. the end

[lapis-lights]

.·.·Blog Navigation·.·.

Welcome! You can call me Lapis and this is where you'll find all the information you need to know about my blog including rules, information about me, and my masterlist.

Please take the time to read through if you're new here :)

.·.·Blog Info/Boundaries·.·.

This is an x reader blog! I really only write for Leon Kennedy from Resident Evil for right now because hyperfixation went brr.

My fics tend to be LONG since drabbles and imagines aren't usually my thing. When I write, I tend to want a broader context that devolves into a whole story. Because of this, I usually write the whole fic before posting parts/chapters on consecutive days.

My inbox is open with anons enabled! You may ask to be a specific anon if you think you'll be coming back.

Requests are NOT open! Please don't enter my inbox asking me to write something because I will just delete it and move on. I only write for my own pleasure and honestly, trying to live up to an expectation is intimidating :') HOWEVER sharing ideas and just asking for a simple "What do you think of this?" is perfectly fine!

Please be aware that these stories commonly contain NSFW content/themes. Don't interact if you're a minor. I obviously can't stop you if you do decide to read it, but please don't engage if you do.

If you are inspired by my fics by any chance, anything is free game. Spin-off fics, art, analyses, anything! Pls, tag me if you do so.

Criticism is accepted in my inbox, but keep it as actual criticism instead of ripping into my fics and stamping it as feedback.

Please don't ask anything about my personal life. I'd rather keep matters private unless I willingly speak about it.

.·.·Masterlist·.·.

Link to Blog Masterlist

.·.·About the Author·.·.

I've been writing for roughly 7 years, and I'm still working on finding a solid writing style.

18+!

Your local matcha enjoyer. I drink too much of the stuff tbh but that's ok.

I started writing long fics by accident actually but it's what I'm known for best at this point.

I'm in the U.S. so posts will be centered around EST when being scheduled!

[magnoliamyrrh]

i guess. one of my genuine questions is (also bc i dont read or watch supppprr many things) can someone pls give some examples of western fantasy/sci-fi/nonrealism etc series which,,, are Both culturally diverse but aren't to be labled problamatic in one form or another?

like pls, i rly am curious. because generally novels and such while they tell a story in another universe or time, they are a critique and allegory for current things happening irl or that have happened irl. theyre inherently grounded in whats happening here

and yes, there is nonfiction/fantast/scifi/etc which is written from outside of the west or filmed from outside of the west and i think thats rly cool and i think those sort of media should be more widespread and commonly known and gain more attention and in the context of films and series and such given more of an opportunity to be adapted. this is the age old discussion around representation - its better to just get more diverse ppl in general to write things than have the same ppl write abt them more. fully agree

but im asking specifically largely in the context of western literature and media and such. when its fantasy, or scifi, or some combination of something, it is most often grounded in a)broadly focusing on things happening irl b)historical contexts (on the topic of dune, its set where and how it is bc the story is an allegory for and critisue of american and russian imperialism in a series of islamic countries). for a lot of them bc theyre made in the west, the most heavy infleunce is a western one - weather current western society or like western medieval histories. this shows in lore building, in costume design, in characters, in sets and designs and the world and a million other things

.but at the same time, people want representation. people want to see character and places which arent just that, right? people want to see a diversity of cultures and people?

... but then, many times whenever a place/culture/people are introduced which are clearly based on/infleunced by certain regions of the world or ppls (as the others are themselves clearly based on some western societies), people say this is inherently cultural appropriation. of designs, of language, of beliefs of this and that. even in the cases where i haven't seen ppl say its stereotyped or its harmful or orientalist or etc, its still cultural appropriation bc its showing things clearly infleunced by nonwestern cultures..... ... but then. im sorry this is what trips me up. if this is Inherently cultural appropriation and Inherently bad,,,, than,,, how do you have represention? how do you have a fantasy world which then isnt an entire globe or globes of western european cultures essentislly? because saying "well just invent wholly new things for everyone!!!" doesnt rly work. everything we create like that is inherently bound by a series of things no matter how hard we try to be "original" - and especially if youre trying to make it more grounded in reality that just.. doesnt work. these things inherently are using whichever western language as the set language, and a series of cultural and historical things to draw from...... so........ is it better to just,,, have a diverse cast but with no unique or other cultural infleunces at all, and just shove them all in a clearly western-based fantasy? but then ppl dont like that either... and if english and such and western infleunces can exist, why is it that it must inherently be bad or problamatic or stealing to adapt other cultures, places, regions, languages into that? to try to show and adapt at least to an extent the actual diversity of the world..?

and im really really not saying that there do not exist genuinely offensive and harmful and stereotyped and orientalist and noble savage and villainous and everything else ways that this has been done in. thats not what im saying at all, bc there have been and are and its an issue... im speaking and asking,,, more broadly. bc ive seen this be said plenty more broadly abt the adaptation of cultures in any way rly

[dark-dragon-8]

Honestly, since violence and weapons (such as knives, guns and Batarangs) are so common/such a necessity in Gotham (for self defense and/or other stuff) that pretty much all Gothamites probably know how to use weapons from a young age.

I even read a fic a while ago where the Batfam played a game called "knife monopoly" and it turned out it was an actual family game in Gotham that everyone there knows how to play. And several others where all Gothamites attending a Wayne gala had weapons on them and draw them out whenever a villain attacks, or even casually twirl their knives/play with their daggers during the party in general.

So I like to think/have this headcanon that knowing how to throw a knife/use any sort of weapon is something everyone knows how to do in Gotham (like, it's one of their signature traits, even kids know how to do it) to the point where it becomes a part of its culture. Like the suspicion/dislike towards outsiders and not really caring about/just dealing with the crime there without batting an eye, dealing with weapons (and knowing how to fight) has just become another norm for the people of Gotham, a defense mechanism they created in order to keep themselves safe.

Which is why I like the idea that Gotham has an entire "child friendly" (as child friendly as Gotham can be) set of games involving weapons, that it's a norm across the city, something that all its residents know and experience/do regularly/for fun, it teaches their kids how to use them without it being too much of a danger to them, it introduces them to weapons as a form of both self defense and enjoyment rather than hurt and violence. And, later on, gives them a way to enjoy those things, keep on using them (keep them sharp and capable) outside the house/self defense training, because they made it a 𝘨𝘢𝘮𝘦, a fun, city wide, commonly played game that they can play with their friends whenever they want to. Because, again, they now find it fun, not scary.

So I don't think it'll be so weird if the Waynes, who are known, born and raised Gothamites, know how to throw knives and later on, if enough people ever start learning how to throw them correctly, even Batarangs.

Like, I said it before and I'll say it again, Gothamites should have healthy relationships with weapons and violence the same way IRL people have healthy relationships with eating, drinking and talking, because to them, violence is as common as breathing, it's everywhere, no matter what, it's in the streets, it's in the water (Gotham harbor for example) hell, it's in the air (joker gas, fear gas, every other toxic gas). Gothamites are born and raised on vigilance and violence, the only way I can think of them not being absolutely depressed/suicidal is them creating new norms, developing new ways of survival, of creating and raising families in a way that both introduces, prepares and appeals them to at least a certain level of violence rather than just prepare them for it. Because if they don't find the appeal, if they don't see a light at the end of the tunnel, a way for them to live and 𝘦𝘯𝘫𝘰𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 in that city then they aren't living, they're surviving, not only that but they're only surviving, without any motivation, without any appeal to life, and that's what makes people die, that's what makes people addicted to drugs, that's what makes people feel suicidal, when they feel as though life has no point, no reason for you to keep going, no reason for you to continue fighting, not if you know there's little to no chance of you getting out of that cycle any time soon.

It's why they need to make those things fun. It's why they need to have a certain love for that city and how it shaped them otherwise they'll just leave, one way or another they'll find a way to leave.

But anyway that's enough for my rambling, I hope you guys enjoyed my little rant, because I'm going to be basing the entirety of Gotham (its premise at least) on this concept when writing my fics.

Do we think random people in Gotham find Batarangs wedged into walls or lying around and decide to take a shot at throwing them, and it slowly becomes a Gotham city staple you can play at the arcade/bar? (Everyone is surprised at how hard it is to throw them with accuracy and the force needed to have any sort of impact)

The Batkids delight in either pretending they don't know how to (as civilians)/alternatively flirting by demonstrating their expert ability to nail phone numbers to alleyways.

There are also definitely collectors who trade these Batarangs and organize them by era based on material, and you get extra acclaim if you know the provenance of the Batarang (fished out of the harbour or taken out of a GCPD squad car).

[gender-roles-can-suck-my-dick]

Wpuld you be interested in getting a 2k words ask with a more detailed version of the main plot points ofthe story in my head that i sent the last time?

(It's all from the same character's point of view, therefore some important things aren't explained because Antheas is commonly known as a pedant almost-scientist thar, despite his claims, knows nothing about whatever the fuck is going on. The main story isn't in Antheas' pov so yeah that's my anti-plothole shield for now, I just don't want to write Neri until they're not a projection of myself anymore)

I WOULD BE DELIGHTED YES PLEASE GIVE ME THE STORY 🤲

[hhemeraa-a]

POST  8  FACTS  ABOUT  YOUR  CHARACTER  &  TAG  EIGHT  OTHER  CHARACTERS

1. Music -- Myles absolutely loves music, especially things with acoustic guitars or really nice lead voices, things he can sing along to. If it’s quiet enough and you some how manage to be near him long enough that he forgets you’re there, he’ll hum to himself, and if he’s drunk and he hears a song that he knows, you better believe he will start singing it all. The plus side to this is that he’s not a bad singer and it’s one of those talents he has that just never comes up because who would really think Myles of all people actually sang. Probably knows this whole song, fluently and in perfect French and does not understand a single word of it. 

2. Some of you know this, some of you don’t, but Myles is dying. He is extremely sick and takes a combination of pills every now and then to be able to function normally/when things get really bad for him. They aren’t quite sure what is wrong with him and in high school ended up spending a year in and out of the hospital for months at a time which is one of the leading reasons to why he hates hospitals and doctors so much.  Symptoms include, but are not limited to: loss of appetite, rapid weight loss, fevers, head aches, sleep walking, bloody noses, bloody ears, hallucinations, loss of feeling in limbs, etc. If he gets any type of sickness (common cold, flu, etc) it’s devastating to his system and will be out for the count for a minimum of a week.

3.  Myles absolutely believes that everyone is using everyone for something - be it for emotional, physical, or material gain and it’s very very very rare that he ever takes something you say at face value which is why when people are genuinely nice or kind or soft with him, it throws him off. He’s actually a huge sucker for small romantic gestures, small thoughtful gifts, and can get a little meek in the face of someone’s raw emotions.  He will be very skeptical at first, but the claws tend to retract significantly because it’s not something he’s used to. Usually after these moments, we will try to escape.

4.   What Myles thinks is his ideal love and what actually is his ideal are very different. He needs someone who is patient and not willing to put up with his trash mouth.  Someone that makes him laugh and drags him along on their adventures despite his complaints, someone that makes him come out of his uptight shell every now and then. His partner in crime, the punny one, the one that tells him that he’s wrong right to his face, and ignores his I’m going to stab you threats even though he’s done it more than once now– Myles doesn’t need the mushy stuff (tho he likes it every now and then), he needs space so he doesn’t feel caged (which is probably why he gravitates towards people who Do Not Care about him emotionally), but that emotional connection would mean a lot to him when it’s there......... Also someone willing to just choke him the fuck out every now and then.

5.  ....he is a complete sucker for Dad jokes.   He loves puns. He loves bad jokes and he hates that he loves them. He has a bad sense of humor and it really only gets worse. Dad jokes destroy him. He’ll try and keep it together, might even be angry about it, but he’ll cry over some stupid “Hi Hungry, I’m Dad” nonsense if you catch him off guard.

6.   Myles enjoys play fighting. He was that kid in high school that would sneak up behind you and smack your face after trying to pants you or prank you in the bathroom before running off. He’s not strong (never really was), he won’t win, but he’ll laugh yell the whole time you’re trying to drag him through the mud tooth and nail across the football field to shove his face in the dirt. As an adult, it’s a bit harder to get him to do this, but it is still possible. He may not initiate it at first, but it’s a true testament to how much he likes a person. If someone he doesn’t know or doesn’t care for tries to do this with him, he will kill them. but he likes playing around just as much as the rest of the boys, you just need to take the chance.

7.  He works on a subtle hierarchy scale with how he works with and interacts with people. Those he thinks are above him (usually in a work place setting like a superior) are met with a very polite, well mannered and quick to succeed Myles. Those he views as equals are more likely to get the day to day plastic smiles or gut punches from him, but those he thinks are below him -- he becomes a predator through and through.  He will either attempt to build you up from your insecurities, or he will slowly destroy you from the inside out. He thrives off the suffering of others and will either want to listen or make the situation worse. 

8.  Myles has a very very pale white looking birthmark on his left ear that he often tries to hide with his hair. 

TAGGED BY:  @corpusdxlicti // @portalipsis TAGGING: @catastrophicur // @kashiings // @kallxope // @viclated // @vicariousphotographer // @bestiadeluna // @celestialspitfire // @pxssessiveness // @deimosea // and you! 

[zorilleerrant]

Ohhhh, I think about this a lot, and Murderbot is such a good example! Easing readers into a story will make it read well the first time, but if they ever try to reread it, all the exposition becomes glaring. Usually that's annoying and feels pointless, but sometimes it can highlight problems with the plot, characterization, or even the worldbuilding itself. It gets too big the second time through. (That's why everyone's always on about exposition.)

The typical way of getting around that is introducing a plot context or character relationship where people would be explaining the important parts of the story. Sometimes, people use an unusually verbose or nitpicky narrator who wants to keep talking about random mostly irrelevant things. Murderbot, though, does my favorite, and one I think is sorely underused: the stories just throw you in and assume you'll get it eventually.

(This is one of the particulars I'm talking about when I say fanfic ingrains good writing habits, too. Fanfic almost never tries to handhold you through establishing the known quantities, so it's no surprise a ficcer knows how to do this!)

It can be hard going into a story planning to do that, especially if you're a writer who does a lot of worldbuilding or otherwise keeps really detailed notes. You've made a lot of decisions! Unfortunately, to make the story flow, you're going to have to wait to share most of that with the reader.

The Important Parts:

There are things the narrator doesn't know about the world. Lots of things are true in real life, but you don't know them either; this is pretty much inevitable. Murderbot is fun about this, because some things it has opinions on, some things it doesn't understand, and some things just feel normal to it!

These include things most people in the world would know, and they include things the readers might/will likely know. Murderbot has a lot of trouble with emotions, which is relatable, because we've all had some trouble with that, but it really establishes how non-human it is that it often assumes humans never have any similar trouble. Characters in a different world won't always share the same premises as in your world.

The character should know things relevant to it. This is the most commonly talked about, I think, because a lot of the most aggravating exposition is a character 'learning' through an explanation of something they should already be deeply familiar with. It's not just about general facets of the world, though; it's important that characters know a lot about their established specialties. Murderbot may be confused a lot of the time, but when it knows something, it knows it. Or it's faking knowing it and it learned it from TV.

Different characters should know different things! I think this is often overlooked in favor of trying to streamline the worldbuilding, so most characters tend to have the same background but different specialties. But in general, lots of people are working from different premises and expectations about the world, not to mention different life experiences. Murderbot does this in an especially fun way because it's always speculating about whether other people know what it knows or if they think it knows what they know, adding an interesting metafictional quality to a strong basis for character building.

When the narrator likes or cares about something more, they talk about it more, and when they like or care about it less, they talk about it less. The worldbuilding is all equally important to you, and maybe to the reader, but a character will latch onto only specific things. Murderbot has so many of those specific things! And it will go on at length, until it gets to a metaphor roundabout on occasion. This fleshes out the character more than the world, but it's important to establish your lens.

Especially since most 'truths' about the world aren't universal! There are always going to be prevailing attitudes and common myths and personal biases. These add to the worldbuilding, because you can see different ways characters interact with the world and how they come to think this way. There's not just one culture, let alone one subculture, so you need things that seem different. Murderbot, with its relatively unique perspective, is adept at showing you how many different ways different people think about things. And yet, it keeps insisting all other SecUnits think just like it! Which is a particularly wonderful bit of character and worldbuilding.

Anyway, if you think you need to tell the reader something up front, no you don't. It'll probably slot in seamlessly three chapters later, and give you a chance to let the details appear organically. Let them live their lives and care about what they want to!

An important writing lesson I'm taking away from Murderbot is that you don't always have to ease your readers into the world and the characters and speculative concepts. Sometimes you can just start with the fun part where there's a sandworm trying to eat someone and that's fine too.

[owlbloop]

Neurodivergent coding and correlations with stereotypes

Neurodivergency coding is very common both intentionally and unintentionally in media. It's important to realize what stereotypes and archetypes are rooted at least partly in neurodivergency, particularly autism.

Marcy Wu's a solid example of ambiguous unintentional coding. They read as neurodivergent because the nerd achetype is very heavily based in neurodivergency. The clumsiness, hyperfixative areas of interest, over expressiveness, social obliviousness, feeling ignored and isolated from friend groups, scientific interest, rambling, much of that was formed with autism and neurodivergency as a basis. Which isn't much of a problem in amphibia but if we look to other media often that accidental "coding"(though I don't really consider it true coding) gets used to turn a character into comic relief.

General rules of thumb for writing nerd archetypes:

-Research the origins and real life application (Honestly applies to all character archetypes)

-Nerdiness can be used for jokes but be careful not to portray most of the archetypal traits as being a laughing stock, weird, or something messed up/wrong

-Just try to be aware of how things come across

-Be extra careful writing robots

If you want to write autistic characters:

-Inexpressive, monotone, or oddly expressive does NOT equal emotionless

-Socially inept does not equal rude or not trying

-Low empathy is not the same as uncaring or low compassion, plus many with autism actually deal with mirror and hyper empathy

-Probably not a good idea to make an autistic character a morally grey mad scientist if you aren't actively researching the autistic community AND have at least one sensitivity writer if posting or publishing to a broad audience

-Do your research but note that most "charity's"(Looking at you autism speaks) don't have our best interest at heart

-Endearingly clumsy and be easy to make minimizing, just note that clumsiness can leave you with scrapes and bruises not just a comedic scene

-We aren't all friendless loners

-Research comorbidities

-We are very disportianatly gay and trans

-We have senses of humor, we just suck at picking up other people's

-Research the less commonly known traits

-We have broader ranges of morality than for science. In fact while our morals tend to be different than non autistic people we tend to hold to our morals a lot stronger than others

-Be careful not to write us as inspiration porn for neurotypical people

-Non speaking, hyper verbal, and semi speaking are often fluctuating traits. I'm physically incapable of speech at times, have a speech impediment, and almost all A's. Intelligence and how good we are at academics doesn't correlate much with whether or not we can talk at all or well(A lot of autistic people struggle with academics and being non speaking is disproportionately met with people with IDs, which is fine. Very belatedly in hindsight I realize that was poorly phrased. Sorry.)

-HYPERSENSITIVY IS A BISH

-Most of the community doesn't want to be fixed or have a cure, just be accepted and have the world recognize we have different needs than others

-We don't just lean towards math and robotics, all the sciences and creative fields tend to be quite alluring. Also we don't all like the same things

-STIMMING, STIMMING, STIMMING!!!

-Stop making us either have zero agency or only villains/morally grey

-Please PLEASE be careful not to infantilize us

[sleepy-achilles]

So. A little birdie (doesn't want to be tagged so I'm respecting their privacy) dropped into my dms this morning with an article which could very well explain why Hunter and especially why Shawn don't talk to Ric Flair anymore.

Now, I've also made sure to check the person who wrote it and see if I can fact check, as well, I had a whole class on this type of thing. I know it's important to get things right. So if your interested in this whole thing, read more.

(This is a 100% a mess btw)

I'll be linking both the article and podcast down below and well any other websites I use. Incase you want to do more detailed reading or listening. As I won't be going too indepth as I'm just trying to answer a popular question on this blog of why hbk and triple h don't talk to flair.

-------

Intro-

Now the whole article itself is about Rics divorces, financial problems and also talks about other issues like sa accusations. I'm not going to go into those as I'm not talking about that, I'm just going to be focusing on the financial issues. Because well, that's most likely why Hunter and Shawn aren't talking to Ric.

Before I show you the parts of the article we will be looking at, I just want to go over the things I checked to make sure it can atleast be trusted. One, the author is clearly stated and his other works aswell. Two, he writes about different types of sports and three, Shane ryan has gone onto between the ropes to talk about the piece he wrote and stated he was doing work in Charlotte when he started researching ric. This is important as most of this takes place in Charlotte. He starts researching ric after coming across the fact he's in debt. He does it purely because he was confused how famous wwe legend couldn't pay off a small debt. Which is understandable. He was a wrestling fan as a kid who had grown away from it. Which actually makes me trust him more, he's not as connected to the business and stuff like I am.

He also notes where he got certain information from, like Elizabeth's divorce papers.

I also want to note that he has spent 2 months on this work before sending it to his editor. As someone who's done a research project multiple times, is more important then you think.

You also only have to put Ric Flairs debts into Google and you can spend hours reading about it.

I'm personally not going into detail about his debt, I more just want to share the reason on why Hunter most likely doesn't speak to ric anymore.

One final important detail is that Ric is referred to as Fliehr in the article as that's his actual last name.

Article-

Here's the part of the article that truly caught my attention.

And it think it's clear who those people are. This definitely would be a good reason to not talk to someone. Especially if they don't pay back. And we all know how Hunter is willing to help his friends, it's not his first time trying to pull ric out of the darkness.

And here's the part that was sent to me

Yeah, you know that rolex watch that Shawn was really giddy about? It meant a lot to him and its being used for debts.

And then I thought there's no way ric openly told Shawn he did this. So I went and did some research, which is where I found this,

Now, I knew ric and hunter didn't talk anymore because of ric saying it. So this, this is important as its not only a secondary source but also it tells us who else he doesn't talk to. It also confirms that Shawn and ric don't talk. And his own son?

I then discovered this. As said, ric is where I found out about hunter in the first place. I don't know what Shawn said. I haven't got around to it, but from the fact this is rics original answer to whatever hunter and Shawn said has me thinking it wasn't that bad

But what gets on my nerves most is, hunter is clearly apart of this and yet, ric only goes on to attack Shawn.

Which makes me think, if hunter and ric were speaking at the time of this, they 100% weren't after this. Its commonly known that Hunter will always stand with shawn, just like how Shawn will always stand with hunter. You wrong one of them, you wrong them both. Take the Hulk Hogan situation for instant. We've all seen hunter and Shawn glaring at hogan during raw anniversaries.

Back to the main point. The article. Rics debts have been publicly put out there. Shawn most likely found out from the Internet. Hell, now that I think of Shawn and the Internet, he probably didn't even find out at all. But hunter? Hunter knows how to use the Internet. He most definitely found out.

It just doesn't sit right with me. It never has. But to now have some context on why hunter and Shawn don't talk to ric. I just can't. Why would you do this to your so called close friends? Why would you take something so valuable and put it up like that? It's not clear if ric still has the watch or if it's gone, but that's not the point. It also won't take a rocket scientist to know that ric definitely loaned money off hunter and maybe Shawn. And who knows if he's paid it back.

I just know that, I finally got my answer on why hunter and ric don't talk anymore. Also just put in my mind that taker was 100% at rics last match to collect debt money. I'm sorry, I had to fit a joke in somewhere.

"Wheres my money Ric?"

Feel free to ask any questions if this confuses you. I'm kinda running off 4 hours sleep and ranting in this.

Here's the links I used:

Actual article that started all of this-

Podcast-

Other sites-

[thecurioustale]

ALL of my characters are Mary Sues. Go suck a lemon, fake literature experts of the Internet.

One thing I often see people do online is practice a kind of faux intellectual when it comes to regarding and evaluating the art and media they enjoy (or don't enjoy). On one hand it's heartwarming whenever someone aspires to the intellectual discourse that makes life so much richer. On the other hand it's devastating when they fall so far short.

There is a real lack of depth and internal understanding when it comes to most substantive criticism (I'm not even counting the insubstantive stuff), and one of the areas where this often comes out is the "author surrogate character," more commonly known as the "self-insert" character or less charitably the "Mary Sue." (Because of course names are going to be sexist when they can be. Sorry, "Gary Stu," you're trying but it's not a fight you can win.)

First of all, you usually know right off the bat that you're not dealing with real criticism whenever someone deploys this idea, because most people only ever deploy it on characters or works they don't like. They will readily ignore, and perhaps not even consciously notice at all, the author surrogates in characters and works they do like. Yet the author surrogate isn't an inherently bad thing, any more than first-person points of view are inherently bad.

They're really just misunderstood. Author surrogates are a common failure mode for bad writing. Not many people enjoy reading characters who can do no wrong and who are seemingly invulnerable to everything—except of course for when people do enjoy these characters, cough cough superheroes, cough cough Darth Vader. But, as you can well see, that is not actually the definition of an author surrogate character. An author surrogate character is a character who embodies or otherwise stands for the storyteller. This can be anything from a direct avatar, to a minimalistic template, to a few seeds of mere suggestion. Whether or not these characters are invulnerable or can do no wrong is another matter entirely; that's better described as a "power fantasy" than as an author surrogacy. (And, by the way, power fantasies aren't inherently bad either!)

But the mainstream discourse online has seized on the idea that poorly-executed or otherwise off-putting power fantasies as channeled through individual characters are cases of author surrogates...and the intellectual vapidity of this really shows.

I welcome people who want to aspire to a higher level of discourse in their criticism. But for corn's sake, you don't get to have this for free. You have to put the work in of actually using your brain. It's fine if you don't like a character because they seem unrealistically powerful to you. Just say that! Don't try to dress up your real criticism by calling that character an author surrogate. Well, unless you have the receipts to prove it. But, even if you do have the receipts, don't conflate author surrogacy as a technique with the act of bad storytelling.

My characters are all author surrogates of one form or another because that's the only kind of character I know how to write. I'm just not any good at writing characters who don't relate to my own experience. Like, for instance, petulant brats, cool jocks, businessmates who see no problem with ravaging the environment and exploiting their workers...these are all potentially great character types, but I can't write them for beans, because I just don't have the experience and I can't fake it. My characters are either parallels to or subversions of my own lived experience, mindset, worldview, and characteristic traits. I can change their hair color, and if I've done my job well you can easily differentiate between them. But they're all me, and I find it unamusing that the legitimacy of my entire body of work is collateral damage in the unintended consequences of the half-baked ideas of dumbass critics who don't know what they're talking about when they cry "Mary Sue!"

Thankfully, I don't put much credibility into their claims, so I don't get too bent out of shape about it myself, but for other people's own sakes I would say you're missing out on a lot when you get it in your head that author surrogates are a bad thing.

"Self insert characters are cringe"

Bro I'm trying to survive capitalism with maladaptive daydreaming. Leave me alone.

[shezzaspeare]

Pilot/Episode 1: Patching Things Up With Pastiche & Fanfiction

Hi, hello, and the wait is finally over! My name is Blessie, and welcome to the first episode webisode log installation I've decided to call these things an episode for now because why not also let me know what do you actually call these things episode of The Science of Fanfiction, where we take a closer look into our beloved works of fanon because we've all got plenty of time to spare till Season 5. Before I continue, I would like to thank everyone who's liked and reblogged the last few posts before this one. It means a lot for a small and growing Tumblr user like me, and your support is something I cherish more than my modules. You guys rock!

Anyways, like with most things, we have to talk about the boring and bland stuff before we proceed with the fun stuff. For today, we are going to settle the difference between a couple of things: first being the confusion between pastiche and fanfiction; then the distinctions between tropes, clichés, and stereotypes, which we'll tackle the next time. It's important for us to establish their true meanings in order for us to really understand what fanfiction truly is, even if it's merely just a work done for the fandom. I know – it's boring, it's something that shouldn't be expounded that much, but I believe that all forms of writing (unless it's plagiarised) is a work of art — and fanfiction is not something we always talk about. I hope that by the end of this, you'll learn about what they really are as much as I did. Let's begin to talk about the—

[Image ID: A flashback of John (left) and Sherlock (right) finding an elephant (not in the screen) in a room in The Sign of Three. End ID]

. . . I did say that this GIF will always have to make an appearance here, didn't I?

So, just as with Sherlock Holmes, all other works of fiction have their own pastiches and fanfiction, and many more original works out there have taken inspiration from them to create their own books. Although they've gained popular attention, this will not be possible if they did not have taken inspiration from the materials their writers had at the time.

[Image ID: Various actors as Dracula. Jeremy Brett in 'Dracula' (1978) (upper left), Adam Sandler in a voice role for 'Hotel Transylvania' (2012) (upper right), Gary Oldman in 'Dracula' (1992) (lower left), and Bela Lugosi in 'Dracula' (1933) (lower right). End ID]

For instance, Bram Stoker's 'Dracula' (the second most adapted literary character, next to the consulting detective himself) has been portrayed on the screen over 200 times — from Gary Oldman to Adam Sandler — and has spawned off numerous books and pastiches of its own such as Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot'. Its cultural impact served as a basis of how we see vampires today, since some characteristics of the Count were made by Stoker himself. Stoker's creation is the brainchild of his predecessors and inspirations.

[Image ID: Vlad the Impaler (left) and a book cover of 'Carmilla' by J. Sheridan Le Fanu (right). End ID]

Other than the ongoing hysteria over dead back then and the existing vampire folklore, Stoker also took his inspirations from the published books on vampires he had at hand. He is said to have taken inspiration from Vlad the Impaler, a Romanian national hero known allegedly for having impalement as his favourite method of torture. He is also said to have been inspired by the J. Sheridan Le Fanu's 'Carmilla', a Gothic lesbian vampire novella that predates Dracula by 26 years. I could go on, but hey, we're going back to Sherlock Holmes now before I deviate any further. However, if you want to know about Dracula's literary origins, I suggest you watch Ted-ED's videos about the subject matter such as this one or this one.

Very much like Stoker, ACD didn't just conceive Holmes on his own. He took his own inspirations from what he had available at the time.

[Image ID: Dr Joseph Bell (left) and Edgar Allan Poe (right). End ID]

As we all know, ACD's biggest inspiration for Sherlock Holmes was one of his teachers at the Edinburgh University, Joseph Bell. He was famous for his powers of deduction, and he was also interested in forensic science — both characteristics which Holmes is greatly known for. He also drew inspiration from Edgar Allan Poe's sleuth, C. Auguste Dupin ('The Purloined Letter' & 'Murders in Rue Morgue'). As ACD himself has said at the 1909 Poe Centennial Dinner: "Where was the detective story until Poe breathed life into it?" Some other writers he took after are Wilkie Collins, Émile Gaboriau, and Oscar Wilde.

Now, what does this say about us Sherlockians/Holmesians (depending if you're the coloniser or the one that was colonised)? Basically, ACD laid the groundwork for us with Sherlock Holmes: his humble abode 221B that he shares with his flatmate Dr. John Watson, his adventures, memoirs, return, casebook, last vow, and all that. Now that we have this material at hand, we can now make our own versions, takes, or even original stories featuring the characters of the Canon. Our inspiration comes from ACD's Sherlock Holmes, and we now get the chance to make our very own stories/conspiracy theories about them.

As I have mentioned earlier, Sherlock Holmes is the most adapted literary character in history. He has been adapted in over 200 films, more than 750 radio adaptations, a ballet, 2 musicals; and he's become a mouse, a woman, a dog, even a bloody cucumber. On top of all that are numerous pastiches and fanfics, and finally, we have arrived at the main topic of our post!

Fanfiction and pastiche are often confused together since they have three common elements: they take after the original work, they usually use the characters in that original work, and more often than not do are they set in that same time frame/period or not long after that. The common misconception is that pastiche are printed fanfiction, which is only partly true. While pastiche is definitely fanfiction in some ways and vice versa, there are fanfictions out there that aren't necessarily classified as pastiche that have been published.

Let's get on with our definition of terms to clear up the confusion a little more. Pastiche, according to Literary Terms, is:

. . . a creative work that imitates another author or genre. It’s a way of paying respect, or honor, to great works of the past. Pastiche differs from parody in that pastiche isn’t making fun of the works it imitates – however, the tone of pastiche is often humorous.

A good example of a pastiche is Sophie Hannah's 'The Monogram Murders', which is her take from Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot.

[Image ID: A book cover of 'The Monogram Murders' by Sophie Hannah. End ID.]

Although this was a commission from Christie's estate, it's still considered as a pastiche as:

It's takes after Christie's writing style;

It is set in the early years of Poirot's career (1929), which is still within the time frame that the author wrote him in;

It features Poirot and;

It pays respect to Christie in a sense that it stays true to her (Christie) characters and way of storytelling.

Meanwhile, our good and slightly unreliable friend Wikipedia defines fanfiction as:

. . . is fictional writing written by fans, commonly of an existing work of fiction. The author uses copyrighted characters, settings, or other intellectual property from the original creator(s) as a basis for their writing. [It] ranges from a couple of sentences to an entire novel, and fans can both keep the creator's characters and settings and/or add their own. [ . . . ] [It] can be based on any fictional (and sometimes non-fictional) subject. Common bases for fanfiction include novels, movies, bands, and video games.

To avoid any copyright infringement issues if I ever use a popular fanfic in the fandom, we'll use my (unfinished and unpopular) Sherlock Wattpad fic, 'Play Pretend'. You can read it here.

[Image ID: The second self-made book cover of Blessie/shezzaspeare's 'Play Pretend'. End ID]

Why is it considered a fanfiction and not a pastiche?

It takes after an adaptation of Sherlock Holmes (BBC Sherlock) which is a TV show, not the ACD canon itself;

The author (in this case myself) uses her own writing style and does not take after the original story's style;

Although it is set well in modern-day London and after Season 4, it also features scenes decades before the actual fanfic is set and outside of London;

I added a considerable number of characters, i.e. siblings to canon characters;

I had my own take some of the canon characters' personality especially after the events of Sherrinford;

It is written by a fan – myself. It is a work of fan labour and;

It is only a work of fanon, and isn't likely going to be considered by the show as its writing style is different from the actual show.

To put it simply, you can have more freedom in a fanfiction as it does not necessarily restrict you to follow or take after the original stories. Alternate universes (AUs) such as Unilock and Teenlock are perfect examples of this thing.

So can a pastiche be classified as fanfiction? Yes.

Can a fanfiction be classified as pastiche? Not all the time.

What's the difference? While yes, they share the basics, pastiche is technically leans more onto the original work's fundamental elements whereas fanfiction is a broader range of works inspired by the original work but doesn't necessarily follow all or any of its fundamental elements.

In order for us to understand it more, I'll give another example.

[Image ID: The 'Enola Holmes' title card (upper left) and Henry Cavill as its Sherlock holmes (upper right). Underneath it is a a scene from the opening titles of BBC Sherlock (lower left) and Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes in A Scandal In Belgravia. (lower right) End ID]

Most of you are familiar with these 21st-century adaptations of Holmes: the 2020 adaptation of Nancy Springer's Enola Holmes books and BBC Sherlock, which needs no further explanation – but for those who don't know, it's basically Holmes and the gang if they were alive today. I specifically chose these two as they are the ones that I believe would get my points across best. Though both are considered as wonderful pastiches with a well-rounded cast and awesome visuals, if we break them down bit by bit, we'll see which one is more of a pastiche and which one is more of a fanfic. (Yes, I know they're both screen adaptations. However, as Enola Holmes was based on the books and BBC Sherlock's fanfiction has the show's scenes written out in most fanfics, hear me out.)

They share these characteristics of a pastiche:

They feature characters from the Canon (Sherlock Holmes, Mycroft Holmes, and Lestrade);

They have additional characters added by the writers (Including but not limited to Molly Hooper, Eurus Holmes, and Philip Anderson for BBC Sherlock while Enola Holmes has Lord Tewkesbury, Eudoria Holmes, and Enola herself) and;

They pay respect to the original Canon as their stories are based on the cases (BBC Sherlock) or simply what was going on around them (Enola Holmes).

They also share these characteristics of a fanfic:

They are made by enthusiasts of Sherlock Holmes (Moffat has called himself and Mark Gatiss 'Sherlock Holmes geeks', while Nancy Springer's Enola Holmes books are not just one or two but six);

They follow a common trope (we'll discuss these tropes in the following episodes) that goes on in the fandom (Sherlock's Sister & Modern AU)

They are based on a fictional subject (Sherlock Holmes);

They used characters and story elements that are copyrighted by the author/author's estate (fun fact: prior to the production of Enola Holmes, the Conan Doyle Estate filed a lawsuit against Springer & Netflix over Sherlock's emotions since he was more 'sympathetic' than he was portrayed in the Canon – this was later dismissed by both parties) and;

Their writing styles don't necessarily follow ACD's.

Despite these similarities, there are very obvious differences between the two that separates them from being a pastiche and a fanfiction.

Enola Holmes embodies pastiche more as it doesn't stray far away from the original elements of the Canon. It's still set in Victorian England. While Springer added characters of her own and definitely twisted the Canon to suit her series, she didn't necessarily place them out of the social construct that was going on around the characters. It follows ACD's writing style more as Enola Holmes' setting still remains within the Canon's original setting.

Meanwhile, we can safely say that BBC Sherlock is a work of fanfiction. While it did give us The Abominable Bride, the main series focused on Holmes and Watson in 21st-century England, which is drastically different from Victorian England. There are phones, black cabs, and cellphones — things which ACD Sherlock Holmes doesn't have. It also diverted from the Canon in the characters themselves, which is mostly seen in the names: Henry Baskerville became Henry Knight, Charles Augustus Milverton became Charles Augustus Magnussen, the H in Dr Watson's name stood for Hamish and Sherlock's full name is actually William Sherlock Scott Holmes. They also changed the personalities of some Canon characters: Mary was actually an ex-assassin, Mrs Hudson was an exotic dancer who drove a kick-ass sports car, Irene Adler is a dominatrix, to name a few. Moffat and Gatiss created a world of their own featuring the characters of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, which is really what most of us fanfic writers do with Mofftiss' rendition of Holmes.

In conclusion: while pastiche and fanfiction could have been the same thing, they're actually not. There's more to them that just printed fanfiction or pastiche e-books, and we all should take some time to see and observe them in a closer perspective.

And that's it for our first episode! I hope you enjoyed it. It was a lot fun for me to write this, especially now that I'm only starting. I would also like to note that while intensive research has been done on this series, some parts of this comes from my own observation and opinion, which may vary from yours. I am very much open to criticism, as long as it is said in a polite and civil manner. I'm still young, and to be educated as I go is something that could really help me with this series.

Like and reblog this you like it. It helps out a lot. Be sure to follow me as well and the tags underneath if you want to see more of TSoF.

See you soon!

Blessie presents – The Science of Fanfiction: A Study In Sherlock (2021) • Next

Follow me! • My Carrd | My YouTube Channel

SOURCES • Pinterest, Google Images, Wikipedia, Literary Terms, Conan Doyle Estate, Definitions, The Sherlock Holmes Book, and Google

[queer-crusader]

So as some people may know, I've been attempting to write a book for like. 12 years. (Don't @ me) Anyway it's medieval fantasy set in Scotland, focusing on a girl who becomes a healer and faces magic, the faer folk, corruption and a prophecy she wants absolutely nothing to do with. And over the years I have amassed some books, partly out of my personal interest in the middle ages and how life (and medicine) was back then, and partly for research purposes. Here's my wee collection!

So these are the books that are actually relevant to my writing. The ones on the left image describe describe what medicine was like in the Middle Ages. The first book focuses more on the remedies used, why, and symbolism in those remedies, while the second focuses more elaborately on what the medical world looked like throughout the Middle Ages (a broad term that spans a 1000 years), what bits they got (surprisingly) right, how culture and religion influenced people's views, and also the representation of the human body in art. The focus in both books lies mostly on Western Europe but the second book also notes the universities in the Middle East. That book is divided into body parts, scanning the body from top to bottom and listing what ails and thoughts were commonly associated with these parts, while the first book goes from plant medicine to bestiaries in its chapters. Personally, while it may not be quite as useful as the second book, I have a great fondness for "The Wisdom of Nature" as it is the first one I got out of all these. Also because we went to Hay-On-Wye, a little town in Wales known as the the secondhand bookstore capitol of the world. (For good reason - every street has at least 5 bookstores. I shit you not.) And the first store we went into, which was literally someone's converted living room, I was hoping for maybe a book on medieval medicine, knowing I should not get my hopes up - yet there it was. Right among the gardening books. It felt kinda fated and really cool. So yeah, that one has a nostalgic little place in my heart.

The second image is of three books that are about medieval Scotland, ranging from the life of ordinary farmers and peasants to city life, as well as a separate book about clans throughout history. I've only managed to get partially through the first one, "Puir Labourers and Busy Husbandmen", but can tell you it is fantastically well put together, with clear references, and a list of locations under Historic Scotland that you can visit to learn more about the specific topics in the book.

On to books that aren't directly relevant to my writing, but are still relevant to my interests - whether it's historic medicine or historic Scotland. You see, there are more books in the "The Making of Scotland" series, which I had to buy of course. I think I'm missing two which weren't available when I bought these, that or they were stupidly expensive bc it's not a very common series? Idk. Anyway in the 3rd pic you see the rest of my collection, which are all pre-Middle Ages so not relevant for my writing but still hella interesting. The 4th image is some extra books in Dutch that align with my interest. The left book I picked up myself and is about a monastery in Amsterdam, right on the river Amstel, that grew a MASSIVE apothecary in the Middle Ages. The right book I got on my 25th birthday (clearly my mum knows me), which is called Nature's Apothecary, and lists medicinal uses of plants and certain foods and has tonnes of recipes, including for face masks, so it's modern and varied. (Sidenote: modern medicine is your friend. This isn't a "what medieval peasants thought was good for them" book but a "modern era homeopathy" book, which is mostly of interest to me through personal and magickal curiosity. I may make things with it, but never as a preferred cure over what my GP may recommend. Don't dick about with pharmaceutical drugs in combination with homeopathy, and always consult your doctor if something is up. Don't just go into your garden and make your own meds.)

Anyway, I thought this would be fun to show :3 I still need to read the majority of these books, but I love them dearly and they actually do come in super handy for my writing. I especially love the "The Making of Scotland" series, as I've never been into royalty etc which a lot of general popular history wants to focus on, but absolutely adore learning about daily life of your ordinary working person in the Middle Ages. These books seem to create a really good image of what daily life looked like! (It was really surprising to read "Puir Labourers" and see how many things I'd actually gotten pretty right in my first drafts, based on logic and my general knowledge of the relevant era in the UK. Still, feels really good to make it more accurate, more respectful, more Scottish, and generally just better!)

[Image description under cut]

[image ID of the first photograph: this image shows two books. One is called "The Wisdom Of Nature", subtitled "The Healing Powers and Symbolism of Plants and Animals in the Middle Ages" by Werner Telesko. Its cover is a medieval painting of five people in a garden picking roses. The second book in this image is titled "Medieval Bodies", subtitled "Life, Death and Art in the Middle Ages" by Jack Hartnell. Its cover is an amalgamation of medieval art collaged into an anatomical model from the torso up. End first ID.]

[Image ID of the second photograph: three thin square books are shown, two overlapping the middle one so that they can all fit in one image without obscuring the titles. All three have a header reading "The Making of Scotland", which is the series of books they are a part of. The left book is titled "Puir Labourers and Busy Husbandmen", subtitled "The Countryside of Lowland Scotland in the Middle Ages" by Piers Dixon. Its cover is a medieval artwork of three farmers harvesting wheat. The middle book is largely obscured bar its title and author. It is titled "The Age of Clans", subtitled "The Highlands from Somerled to the Clearances", by Robert Dodgshon. The right book has a medieval map of a town on its cover. It is titled "Burgess, Merchant and Priest", subtitled "Burgh Life in the Scottish Medieval Town", by Derek Hall. End second ID.]

[Image ID of the third photograph: four thin books laid out in a square, all four part of the "The Making of Scotland" series. Top left is a book titled "The Sea Road", subtitled "A Viking Voyage Through Scotland", by Olwyn Owen. Its cover shows a cloak pin, a medieval drawing of men in a boat, and an artistic rendering of people on a beach building boats. Top right is a book called "Angels, Fools and Tyrants", subtitled "Britons and Anglo-Saxons in Southern Scotland" by Chris Lowe. Its cover shows some artifacts as well as artistic renderings of a settlement, a standing stone, and a battle. Bottom left is a book titled "Farmers, Temples and Tombs", subtitled "Scotland in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age" by Gordon Barclay. Its cover shows a dig site, an axe head, and artistic renderings of a Neolithic hut, a spear, and a longhouse.

The bottom right book is titled "Settlement and Sacrifice", subtitled "The Later Prehistoric People of Scotland", by Richard Hingley. Its cover shows photos of a dig site and a shield, as well as artistic renderings of a roundhouse and what may be Pictish royalty. End third ID.]

[Image ID of the fourth photograph: two books are lying side by side, one large, the other small. The left book is purple with four squares of medieval drawings and Latin text. Its title is in Dutch, reading "Kruidenier aan de Amstel" (which translates to "Pharmacist on the Amstel"), subtitled "De Amsterdamse Hortus volgens Johannes Snippendaal (1646)", (translating to "The Amsterdam Garden according to Johannes Snippendaal"). It comes from the Amsterdam University Press, under editing of Ferry Bouman, Bob Baljet and Erik Zevenhuizen. The right books is black, with white and reflective orange sketchings of flowers, insects, pots and flasks. It too is titled in Dutch: "De Natuurlijke Apotheek", subtitled "Recepten, Medicinaal Gebruik en Folklore" (translates to: "Nature's Pharmacy", subtitled "Recipes, Medicinal Use and Folklore") by Christine Iverson. End fourth ID.]