#because those books just don't get discussed online at all

[oidheadh-con-culainn]

#also even if all YA books WERE popular US fantasy #this still not nearly specific enough to hate the whole genre #like not only is it an inaccurate and ignorant view it’s also just an argument that does not make sense #like you’re going to tell me that a well written fantasy novel by an American author has never been both popular and good? are you really? #alright everybody go home Americans can’t write good fantasy and if they do it won’t sell #and same for romance. and dystopia. #genres go through trends. most of the ya dystopia published in recent years is trying to copy the success of the hunger games. #most of the supernatural romance is trying to copy twilight. it’s literally just what happens because publishing is an industry. #I can critique YA all day long as long as the argument makes sense #but a lot of these arguments boil down to ‘women and teenage girls like it on tiktok therefore it’s bad’ #ya lit

(via @ghosthauntsthelibrary)

yeah i mean all generalisations are generalisations and generally the way tumblr talks about stuff is in the least charitable / positive way possible which is just. exhausting tbh

the reason i mentioned us-published YA fantasy in particular is because a lot of the generalisations i see about YA literature that *do* have a grain of truth in them are nevertheless *specific to that subgenre* and don't apply equally or at all to other genres within the category. and there is a lack of recognition that other YA exists. discussions about how YA is too "old" these days and full of sexy romance ignore that UK YA skews younger than US YA and that YA without romance exists, for example. discussions about magic systems in YA ignore the fact that non-fantasy YA exists. etc.

those critiques are always lacking in nuance and they are always too broad a generalisation, and "this subgenre does things i don't like" is valid grounds for not reading that subgenre, but not for saying it shouldn't exist. but i've just seen a slew of posts recently that made generalisations about all YA based on that specific subsection of it which is why i singled it out

(at this point i read enough YA and also am friends with enough YA authors that i can usually tell what book people are hyperbolically vagueblogging about, and you start to notice patterns)

PLUS there is a side issue of people constantly calling fantasy/sci-fi YA, particular when written by women, and this is also partially the result of treating "YA" and "fantasy" as though they're synonymous, which is the other reason this particular generalisation bugs me. i see so many posts about "YA authors" doing x,y and z on twitter and when i actually look at the thread, they're literally all adult SFF and romance authors and it's like. why are you blaming this on YA, come on bro, at least make half an effort

i will happily talk about the broader trends in YA that piss me off and have led to me reading less of it but the second Tumblr users start acting like "US-published YA fantasy that's popular on tiktok" = "all YA books" i switch immediately into YA Defence Mode bc honestly regardless of whether I agree with the critiques of more specific subgenres, this category is HUGE and has so much going on and we can't have a meaningful conversation about that until people get their heads out of their arses and acknowledge that fact

[thydungeongal]

I can't imagine what life must be like for you. You wake up every day shitting and pissing yourself with rage because somewhere in the world there are people playing D&D and even worse, playing it WRONG. You don't have to play it with them or even hear about them doing it but the fact that they exist and there's no way for you to stop them will cause you endless torment for the rest of their life. "

Stop homebrewing!!!!" you scream through tears, "Don't you understand that there are other games?" But they do not respond because they do understand, but they know you are mentally incapable of understanding that people who heavily homebrew their games do so because the act of homebrewing a game is the fun they are after. You are doing the equivalent of yelling at someone who plays modded Skyrim because don't they know that Pathologic exists? But they do know Pathologic exists. They do not want to play Pathologic. They want to play modded Skyrim. Because modding the game IS the fun they are having. For them, the modding is the game. And going to play a different game instead would not be the experience they are looking for.

You do not and will never understand that for the majority of the D&D playing population, it is primarily a social activity. A way for them to kick back and hang out and have fun with their friends. The idea that they would factor in the opinions of some random loser on the internet is absurd. You are going up to a group of guys who get together and shoot hoops every friday after work and screaming "NO!!! YOU'RE NOT FOLLOWING THE OFFICIAL NBA RULEBOOK! YOU'RE NOT EVEN KEEPING SCORE!!! TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY!!! AND WHY DON'T YOU PLAY HOCKEY INSTEAD!!!" But they do not care. This is a recreational activity to bond with people that they care about, and you are such an unlikable little creep that you will never know what that's like.

"I'm just trying to get them to engage with the art form!" you lie, "Only playing one game is like only reading one book or only watching one movie!" Except that the average number of ttrpgs that the average person has played is still 0, and even when you count all people who have ever played D&D, the vast majority are people who played a couple of games and then never got back to it. You're acting like this is some massive moral social disease that needs to be cured to solve the anti-intellectualism problem in society as opposed to being the niche hobby of a small portion of the population.

"I just want to show people how great other games are," you lie, because if you actually did want that you would spend your time talking about your favorite games and what makes them great instead of spending all your free time insulting D&D players for the fact that they don't already play these games. I love so many TTRPGS and there are so many others that I would love to get to play, but I can't talk to people about them because so many D&D players first exposure to other game is people like you screaming at them that "EVERYONE WHO PLAYS D&D INSTEAD OF MY GAME IS A FUCKING MORON IDIOT FASCIST WHO SHOULD BE SHOT" and it immediately turns them off from wanting to try those games.

Like maybe if more of you spend your time talking about how cool your last game was, posting session diaries online, discussing your favorite mechanical interactions, posting actual play podcasts or youtube videos, that would entice people to want to try, but in order to do that you would have to understand what having fun playing a game feels like, and you fundamentally don't.

You are the worst thing to happen to the hobby you're actively sabotaging people from wanting to try new games. Honestly Hasbro should be paying you for doing their work for them, making it look like if people leave D&D to try other systems they'll be surrounded by people who scream at and insult them nonstop.

At this point D&D is popular because it is popular. If I want to play D&D, I know I can find a group. If I dig harder, I know I can find one of the other big names (call of cthulhu, vampire the masquerade, pathfinder, MAYBE shadowrun) but finding a full table of people who are all interested in playing a more obscure game (and not even super obscure, even stuff like monster of the week or blades in the dark), and specifically who all want to play the SAME more obscure game? That's really challenging and you strike out a lot, and the fact is hat people get into this hobby because they actually want to fucking play game, not sit around imagining what it would be like to play and then argue with people on the internet.

And the funniest part of all this bullshit is that it literally does not effect you in the slightest. Those five friends hanging out after a hard week of work roleplaying about kissing elves in their basement half a world away are not going to break into your house and make you play D&D and play it their way. It shouldn't upset you but it does, because you are an unhappy person and rather than acknowledge that and deal with it you would rather put the blame for how you feel on some random people you have never met and will never meet, so you spend all your time on the internet frothing at the mouth with rage, trying as hard as you can to make everyone else as miserable as you are.

But it doesn't work, because those people aren't reading your posts. They are having fun kissing elves in the dungeon, blissfully unaware of what some miserable, unpleasant assholes on the internet think about it. They are having fun with their favorite hobby and you are not, and a hobby will never be defined by the 1% of people who spend all their time complaining that the other 99% are doing it wrong, it's defined by what the 99% of people involved are actually doing, and that's what makes you mad and that's what makes you such a fucking worthless loser.

Your mistake is assuming that when I write about RPGs, even critically, that I'm having a bad time, but I actually enjoy the intellectual exercise of thinking about the things I enjoy critically. You should try it too! :)

Also I'm very glad that you've really nailed down on my ideology of "everyone who plays D&D instead of my game is an idiot fascist who must be shot," a thing I am always saying and am in fact famous for saying.

[renthony]

On "Consuming Content"

Every now and then a post crosses my feed that follows the vein of, "you have to do things other than consume media or else you'll be a dumb person who doesn't know anything about how the real world works and does nothing but pointless fandom stuff."

I hate those posts for three major reasons, not counting the inherent ableism and classism of "you must have approved Smart People hobbies or else you're worthless" rhetoric:

You don't know what people do or talk about outside of what you see on their social media. Responding to fandom communities on a fandom-driven website as if all these people are one-note cardboard cutouts of people is asinine. In many cases this genre of post feels like repackaged 2012 tumblr "not like other girls" and hipster discourse. Yes, yes, you think you're better than everyone else on this website because your hobbies are less mainstream, more morally pure, and have greater intellectual merit, we get it.

What do you even mean by consuming content? As someone who purposely avoids using the phrase "consuming content" because I find the term too vague to be useful, please be more specific. Are you including every single form of media engagement and art enjoyment? Are you just talking about mainstream TV and film? What about novels? Plays and scripts? Nonfiction books and instruction manuals? Do you mean to imply that going to a book club is a worthless non-hobby? Are you including academic reading? Are you including going to the art museum? Going to the theatre, concerts, or other performances? Taped liveshows? Watching sports events on TV? Are you including news media? Are you including YouTube tutorials about how to do various tasks, crafts, or other hobbies? Are you including trade magazines? Are you including industry publications in various fields? What constitutes "content," and what constitutes "consuming" in this discourse? Define it. "Consuming content" is a nothing phrase that people use to mean multiple different things depending on what they, personally, judge as valid media. It's a buzzword at best, and when the same buzzword can be used to describe both "idly scrolling social media" and "reading and discussing a book," it's a meaningless phrase.

As an artist and author, if engaging with media is bad and worthless, am I supposed to conclude that making it is equally worthless? If "consuming content" is a bad, lazy, worthless, fake hobby, what makes creating art a worthwhile pursuit? If I am constantly being told as an artist that engaging with media isn't a worthwhile pursuit in its own right, and the people who want to engage with my art are just brainless fandom losers, what incentive do I have to make that art anymore? Furthermore, to everyone reading this paragraph and thinking, "that's not what content creation is," I refer you to bullet #2: If the phrase "make content" can be used to mean "low-effort posts made to advertise cheap and useless products" as well as "being a novelist" or "getting a gig as a writer on a TV show," it's a meaningless phrase.

None of that is even getting into issues such as the way influencers are preyed on by both brands and targeted harassment from trolls. Influencer culture has major issues, but boiling those issues down to "stupid vapid young people who are too lazy to make real art or get real jobs" (which is a mindset I see frequently online) is unhelpful. So many people pursue influencer deals because they're living in poverty but are skilled at various social media and advertising related tasks, and just like any worker, they're being exploited because they need to eat. Labor rights for influencers are a huge topic that entertainment industry unions have been actively discussing and working toward. (Related links for further info: [x] [x] [x] [x])

"Consuming content is not a hobby" is a worthless statement unless you define what you mean by both "consuming" and "content." Quite frankly, you also need to define "hobby," because if you're putting requirements on what is and isn't allowed to be a "real" hobby, you mostly just seem like you're moving goalposts and defining "worthwhile hobby" as "hobby I, personally, think is good." Use more specific language to articulate your actual problems with the entertainment industry, the art world, influencer culture, or whatever else you're actually upset by.

Media and fandom can involve any number of enriching, satisfying hobbies that take up a perfectly acceptable and healthy space in someone's life. If you aren't into it, go find hobbies you do like and stop policing how other people spend their precious free time in this nightmare hellscape of a world.

[anexperimentallife]

So you want leftist candidates? Here's how you get them:

First off, you have to understand that the far right didn't just wake up one day and say, "We should fuck up the country!" They have been OPENLY working for decades to fill literally every elected or appointed government position they could with Christian Dominionists and other right-wingers, and these folks show up to the polls EVERY SINGLE TIME.

When I was a kid in a far right church in the 1960s, they openly discussed how important is was to get their people into office who would help pass legislation to persecute/imprison/kill anyone who didn't follow their religion. If there's no one sufficiently right-wing running, they'll vote for whomever is closest, even if it gags them. And I cannot emphasize enough that they have long term goals that they are willing to take--and HAVE taken--generations to achieve.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade, for example, is a DIRECT RESULT of the decades-long effort by the far right to boost the most far-right-leaning candidates they could find. They've been talking for decades SPECIFICALLY about getting enough far right judges in SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade. And these SCOTUS appointments are for LIFE, so these judges get to set policy for your GRANDCHILDREN.

So yes, the overturning of Roe v. Wade was only made possible because Trump was able to appoint three SCOTUS judges, in addition to all the other federal judges he appointed. Amd they're talking about going after same-sex marriage, minority rights, etc.

(Hell, the judge in charge of his secret documents case is one that he appointed--she has indefinitely postponed that case,by the way.)

And you don't think local school board elections are important? Have you not seen the news about all the anti-queer policies, and all the book-bannings? This, also, has a generational effect.

Meanwhile the left refuses to turn up to the polls because none of the candidates are pure enough. So guess why things are getting worse?

If the Left turned out for the most left-leaning candidate at EVERY SINGLE ELECTION, whether local or state or whatever, including primaries, we'd start seeing more leftist candidates. Yes, that means that if there's a choice between two extreme right wing candidates, you vote for the least extreme one.

I know I keep emphasizing that this is not just about POTUS, but POTUS does figure in, of course (among other things, who do you think appoints judges for congress to approve?).

So swallow this pill: Anything shitty Biden is doing, the shitgibbon will do MORE of.

"Not gonna vote Biden because he supports genocide, so I'd rather the guy win who ALSO supports genocide, wants Russia to invade more countries, thinks it's fine if China retakes Taiwan, wants a nationwide abortion ban, removal of civil rights for minorities, wants to overturn same-sex marriage (which the right-leaning majority in SCOTUS are already talking about), to cut back the role of congress in checking executive actions (including workarounds to avoid the need for congressional confirmation for presidential appointees), to remove federal employee protections so federal personnel can be replaced with Trump loyalists, and so on! That'll teach those Dems a lesson! THEN they'll be sorry. And fuck everyone the bad guys hurt, because I'll still be PURE. So what if top GOP officials want to actually NUKE Gaza?"

That's fucking kindergartner thinking.

Yes, Biden is a piece of shit, but I am not waxing at all hyperbolic when I say that a second orange shitgibbon term, with a far-right-majority SCOTUS--especially if the GOP manages majorities in both houses of congress--may be the end of what little is left of Democracy in the US. Not gonna argue about it, because I don't waste my time with petulant children.

Look at the GOP's plans for a Republican administration, and tell me you think it sounds better than another term of Biden. Hell, they've even set up online trainings and loyalty tests to narrow down potential federal hires to those who will commit to follow Trump without question.

I repeat: If you want more leftist candidates, if you want more worker power, if you want billionaires taxed, if you want to protect minorities and the queer community, you have to adopt the strategy that the right has used, educate yourself about what candidates stand for, and show up EVERY SINGLE TIME. Again, that includes primaries.

So many of us on the left would rather sit in the basement dreaming of some magical revolution that's going to fix everything, giving ourselves and others purity tests, and proudly announcing that we're... boycotting democracy by not voting(?), "because none of the candidates are a good choice."

Yeah, the left refusing to vote--or only voting in presidential elections--while the right turns up every time is exactly how we got here.

And you have to support the most left-leaning candidate even if it makes you gag, and even if "most left-leaning" means "not as openly fascist." This is the ONLY way you can be assured of candidates getting further to the left in the future. (Note that this means learning about your local candidates.)

"But voting won't fix--" I never said it was going to fix everything. There's no rule that if you vote, you can't volunteer with Food Not Bombs, or run for school board, or demonstrate, or circulate petitions. It takes more than voting, but voting has to be PART of our strategy.

You also have to accept that it may take decades to change course, and that you're not going to like every candidate you have to vote for.

The right didn't just magically get the orange shitgibbon into office overnight. It took decades of work. And if we want decent human beings in charge, we have to be willing to do the same.

[ask-the-prose]

Do Your Research

This phrase is regularly thrown around writeblr and for good reason. It's important to research what you are writing about to know what to include, what can be fudged, and how to depict whatever you're writing. I see "do your research" most thrown around by well-meaning and highly traditionally educated writers. It's solid advice, after all!

But how do you research?

For those writers who don't already have the research skills necessary to write something comfortably already downloaded into your brain, I put this guide together for you.

Where do I even start?

It's a daunting task, research. But the best place to start is with the most basic, stupidest question you can think of. I'm going to talk about something that I already know a lot about: fighting.

When researching fight scenes, a great way to start is to look up what different weapons are. There are tons out there! So ask the stupid questions. What is a sword? What is a gun? How heavy are they?

Google and Wikipedia can help you a lot with these basic-level questions. They aren't great sources for academic articles, but remember, this is fiction. It doesn't need to be perfect, and it doesn't need to be 100% accurate if you don't want it to be. But knowing what is true to life will help you write well. Just like knowing the rules of writing will help you break them.

You may find in your basic research sweep that you have a lot more specific questions. Write them all down. It doesn't matter if they seem obvious. Write them down because they will be useful later.

How To Use Wikipedia Correctly

Wikipedia is a testament to cooperative human knowledge. It's also easy to edit by anonymous users, which means there is a lot of room for inaccuracies and misleading information. Wikipedia is usually pretty good about flagging when a source is needed or when misleading language is obvious, but Wikipedia itself isn't always the most accurate or in-depth source.

Wikipedia is, however, an excellent collection of sources. When I'm researching a subject that I know nothing about, say Norse mythology, a good starting point is the Wikipedia page for Odin. You'll get a little background on Odin's name and Germanic roots, a little backstory on some of the stories, where they appear, and how they are told.

When you read one of the sentences, and it sparks a new question, write the question down, and then click on the superscript number. This will take you directly to the linked source for the stated fact. Click through to that source. Now you have the source where the claim was made. This source may not be a primary source, but a secondary source can still lead you to new discoveries and details that will help you.

By "source-hopping," you can find your way across the internet to different pieces of information more reliably. This information may repeat itself, but you will also find new sources and new avenues of information that can be just as useful.

You mean I don't need a library?

Use your library. Libraries in many parts of the US are free to join, and they have a wealth of information that can be easily downloaded online or accessed via hardcopy books.

You don't, however, need to read every source in the library for any given topic, and you certainly don't need to read the whole book. Academic books are different from fiction. Often their chapters are divided by topic and concept and not by chronological events like a history textbook.

For example, one of my favorite academic books about legislative policy and how policy is passed in the US, by John Kingdon, discusses multiple concepts. These concepts build off one another, but ultimately if you want to know about one specific concept, you can skip to that chapter. This is common in sociological academic books as well.

Going off of my Norse Mythology example in the last section, a book detailing the Norse deities and the stories connected to them will include chapters on each member of the major pantheon. But if I only care about Odin, I can focus on just the chapters about Odin.

Academic Articles and How To Read Them

I know you all know how to read. But learning how to read academic articles and books is a skill unto itself. It's one I didn't quite fully grasp until grad school. Learn to skim. When looking at articles published in journals that include original research, they tend to follow a set structure, and the order in which you read them is not obvious. At all.

Start with the abstract. This is a summary of the paper that will include, in about half a page to a page, the research question, hypothesis, methods/analysis, and conclusions. This abstract will help you determine if the answer to your question is even in this article. Are they asking the right question?

Next, read the research question and hypothesis. The hypothesis will include details about the theory and why the researcher thinks what they think. The literature review will go into much more depth about theories, what other people have done and said, and how that ties into the research of the present article. You don't need to read that just yet.

Skim the methods and analysis section. Look at every data table and graph included and try to find patterns yourself. You don't need to read every word of this section, especially if you don't understand a lot of the words and jargon used. Some key points to consider are: qualitative vs. quantitative data, sample size, confounding factors, and results.

(Some definitions for those of you who are unfamiliar with these terms. Qualitative data is data that cannot be quantified into a number. These are usually stories and anecdotes. Quantitative data is data that can be transferred into a numerical representation. You can't graph qualitative data (directly), but you can graph quantitative data. Sample size is the number of people or things counted (n when used in academic articles). Your sample size can indicate how generalizable your conclusions are. So pay attention. Did the author interview 300 subjects? Or 30? There will be a difference. A confounding factor is a factor that may affect the working theory. An example of a theory would be "increasing LGBTQ resources in a neighborhood would decrease LGBTQ hate crimes in that area." A confounding factor would be "increased reporting of hate crimes in the area." The theory, including the confounding factor, would look like "increasing LGBTQ resources in a neighborhood would increase the reporting of hate crimes in the area, which increases the number of hate crimes measured in that area." The confounding factor changes the outcome because it is a factor not considered in the original theory. When looking at research, see if you can think of anything that may change the theory based on how that factor interacts with the broader concept. Finally, the results are different from the conclusions. The results tell you what the methods spit out. Analysis tells you what the results say, and conclusions tell you what generalizations can be made based on the analysis.)

Next, read the conclusion section. This section will tell you what general conclusions can be made from the information found in the paper. This will tell you what the author found in their research.

Finally, once you've done all that, go back to the literature review section. You don't have to read it necessarily, but reading it will give you an idea of what is in each sourced paper. Take note of the authors and papers sourced in the literature review and repeat the process on those papers. You will get a wide variety of expert opinions on whatever concept or niche you're researching.

Starting to notice a pattern?

My research methods may not necessarily work for everybody, but they are pretty standard practice. You may notice that throughout this guide, I've told you to "source-hop" or follow the sources cited in whatever source you find first. This is incredibly important. You need to know who people are citing when they make claims.

This guide focused on secondary sources for most of the guide. Primary sources are slightly different. Primary sources require understanding the person who created the source, who they were, and their motivations. You also may need to do a little digging into what certain words or phrases meant at the time it was written based on what you are researching. The Prose Edda, for example, is a telling of the Norse mythology stories written by an Icelandic historian in the 13th century. If you do not speak the language spoken in Iceland in 1232, you probably won't be able to read anything close to the original document. In fact, the document was lost for about 300 years. Now there are translations, and those translations are as close to the primary source you can get on Norse Mythology. But even then, you are reading through several veils of translation. Take these things into account when analyzing primary documents.

Research Takes Practice

You won't get everything you need to know immediately. And researching subjects you have no background knowledge of can be daunting, confusing, and frustrating. It takes practice. I learned how to research through higher formal education. But you don't need a degree to write, so why should you need a degree to collect information? I genuinely hope this guide helps others peel away some of the confusion and frustration so they can collect knowledge as voraciously as I do.

– Indy

[gabrielleragusi]

For Artists: My Experience with Commission Platforms and Illustration Agencies

Hi there! I’ve been wanting to compile a list of commission platforms that I’ve personally used for the longest time, and I finally did it! I’ve highlighted the still-active commission platforms in bold and struck those that don't exist anymore so you can jump to the sections that interest you without needing to read my entire story.

Let me start by briefly introducing myself.

I’m Gabrielle, a fantasy illustrator. Since 2014, I’ve been working on book covers and illustrations for publishers, authors, and book subscription boxes. Early on, work wasn’t as frequent as it is now. I had to search for opportunities myself, and even small private commissions were important for building my portfolio and earning some money, which I’d spend on materials, books, and online courses. Like many other artists, I started out by trying my luck with the biggest art community available at the time.

DeviantArt

2009-2018

Once upon a time, there was a virtual haven called DeviantArt. To my teenage self, it was a magical place. I signed up in 2009 and thought I’d never leave!

At first, I created an account just to share my work and learn. I didn’t even think about commissions for four or five years. But when that first inquiry finally landed in my inbox, things took off! My mum swears she remembers my excitement when I got my first commission, but for some reason, I’ve completely forgotten about it. I can't remember what it was or how much it paid. It might have been a portrait of a fantasy character.

Commissions on DeviantArt were fairly frequent, especially considering my cheap prices at the time. I used to offer discounts and post my rates in my DeviantArt journal, or in Commission groups that featured artists either monthly or weekly. After checking out my profile, a client could simply send me a private message and from there, we’d discuss payment, deadlines, and other details, and the platform didn’t take any fees, much like how ArtStation works today. Everything happened through private messages or email, with direct contact between artist and client.

The downside of this process was that there was no dispute resolution system on the platform. I had to handle all issues myself, and unfortunately, problems did arise sometimes: there were clients changing their minds about commissions, asking for refunds after work was delivered, refusing to pay, or just ghosting me. These issues didn’t happen because clients were evil, but rather because I was inexperienced and allowed some to take advantage of my naivety.

However, all that frustration helped me develop my commission process through trial and error (mostly error). And despite the challenges, I can say with satisfaction that most of the commissions I received through my DeviantArt profile were positive experiences.

DeviantArt eventually introduced a commission feature for Core (Premium) users, which came with a platform fee, but I didn’t use it much, and I’m not sure if it still exists.

The real beauty of dA, though, was the connections I made. I was able to meet people, both artists and clients, that I’m still in contact with today, and some of whom I still collaborate with.

I closed my account in 2018 or 2019, but by that time, I hadn’t really used it for a couple of years. The new user interface was a bit of a turn-off for me. I had always loved the geeky, and dare I say cozy, look of the old green and grey aesthetic, with its customisable panels that you could move around and personalise with HTML code... But I digress.

Artists and Clients

2013-2016

While taking small commissions on DeviantArt, I discovered Artists & Clients. It was a nice platform for clients to get things like their D&D characters or groups illustrated for relatively cheap. I think my highest price was $50 for a single character portrait, with the platform taking a 15% cut. I used it for about two or three years before the platform started to change.

As more artists with hentai art styles flooded in, the homepage shifted, and so did the clientele. There’s nothing wrong with drawing naked anime girls, of course, but you can understand that if a client is looking for a fantasy, semi-realistic painting of their female orc character, or a realistic portrait of their spouse, it's more than likely that they won't bother sifting through a sea of anime girls to find the style they want, imagining it isn't here. Let's just say that, at the time, the website took a definite direction that wasn't in line with my genre, but this direction didn't make the different, more realistic art styles stand out either.

Soon, commissions slowed down for me, so I closed my account, but by then I was already working elsewhere.

That said, this platform could still be a useful tool if you’re looking to take on smaller commissions.

DreamUp

2014-2015

DreamUp wasn’t an AI generator back then. It was actually a subsidiary of DeviantArt, where clients could post projects and artists could apply. It was a competitive platform that offered well-paid work–very well-paid. I remember seeing jobs posted that ranged from $300 to $1,200. DreamUp was a very professional platform for clients with a mid to high budget.

I believe I landed my very first book cover commission through this website when I was in my last year of high school. I remember getting the job and going to school the next morning, excited to share the news with my classmates. Everyone was super thrilled for me (we were a really close-knit class!), and I felt like I was walking on air.

Unfortunately, as far as I know, that book was never released, but it didn’t matter because I was moving forward, and fast.

I’m not sure when DreamUp was shut down, but I do know that DeviantArt held onto the copyrighted name, assigning it to something so anti-old DreamUp that it still boggles my mind.

ArtCorgi

Now Artistree

2014-2019

When I received an invitation to join ArtCorgi from its founder, I already had a somewhat consistent portfolio. I was painting portraits and fantasy illustrations, and the clients on this platform were looking for both–your typical wedding and pet portraits, as well as book covers, which were what really interested me. To get to the latter, I had to do the former. Over the years, I’ve painted so many realistic portraits that now I have a strict rule for my own sanity not to do them any more. I have great respect for portrait artists, but it’s just not me.

When I first submitted my prices to the person I was in contact with, she kindly suggested that I raise them... a lot. That was a major step forward in my professional career. I went from charging $50 to $100/$200 overnight. And to my surprise, people actually wanted to commission me at those prices!

From 2014 to 2019, I took nearly every commission that came my way. I never spoke directly with the clients; all instructions and feedback went through my point of contact, which helped maintain a level of professionalism, although now that I’m used to working directly with clients, I’m not sure I’d want to go back to having an intermediary.

Sadly, as with all good things, this chapter came to an end. My point of contact eventually left communication in the hands of someone else, and shortly after, the commission fee changed to, I believe, 30%.

Simply put, 30% is an unrealistic cut for a website like this. For an agent that gets you all kinds of big work in the publishing industry, sure, but since this was not the case I had to stop taking commissions. Despite that, my overall experience with ArtCorgi was very positive.

Today, ArtCorgi joined another platform, Artistree. As far as I can tell, Artistree doesn’t take any fees from artists, with clients covering a small cost instead.

Sketchmob (?)

2016-2020

This was probably the platform I used the most. I’ve lost count of how many commissions I received through Sketchmob. Many. Enough to generate a steady income at the time. With reasonable fees and a variety of art styles available, clients contacted me almost daily. Communication was direct between artists and clients, and payments could be split. The review system also worked very well… for a while.

Once I raised my prices, requests became fewer and farther apart. But by then, I was already working with my own clients.

Is this platform still active? Who knows. The website is still up and the chat feature works, but I’ve seen users complain that money available for withdrawal never arrived via PayPal (the only payment method the platform accepted, if I remember correctly). Personally, I wouldn’t risk completing a job through Sketchmob right now, at least not until they release an update.

If you’ve used the platform recently and successfully received payment within the last six months, please let me know, and I’d be happy to update this section!

Upwork

2017-2019

In 2017, I was determined to break into the book publishing industry. After trying out Fiverr and Freelancer.com with no success (the competition was too fierce for someone just starting out), I decided to give Upwork a shot. The platform looked very professional, and while the process sounded a bit complicated, I wanted to land the interesting projects I saw featured in my category. I really wanted to work with a big client… but big clients didn’t seem to want me, despite having the Rising Talent badge.

In two years of bidding for jobs and submitting proposals, I only landed two projects: a small commission from a private client who actually reached out to me, and another project that I bid on.

Don’t get me wrong, I was ecstatic at the time and truly appreciated every opportunity that came my way. But looking back, I can see why Upwork didn’t work out for me. The platform just wasn’t the right fit for my style and niche, which is fantasy illustration. Graphic design, however, was (and still is) in much higher demand.

The commission process on Upwork wasn’t as simple as on other platforms. For instance, at the time, costs were calculated hourly, which was a challenge for someone like me who prefers working with flat fees (having already calculated my average hours spent on an illustration). From what I’ve seen, this has since changed.

One positive aspect of Upwork is its current 10% cut on what artists earn. I don’t recall if this has changed over the years, but 10% is quite reasonable in my experience. Of course, 0% would be even better, but for a platform as large as Upwork, 10% is fair.

Illustration Agency

2019-2021

By 2019, I had built a solid, consistent portfolio thanks to my personal work and commissions. I had a simple website in place, my Instagram following was growing… I was steadily working toward my goal of illustrating covers for big publishers (which didn't happen until two years ago).

So, when an illustration agency reached out to me one day, I was over the moon. I had always heard that artists were the ones who had to approach agencies, not the other way around.

Well, that should have been my first red flag.

I won’t name this agency because, unfortunately, I have nothing positive to say about it. In fact, the word “nothing” perfectly describes my involvement with them. Nothing came of this barely there experience.

The agency invited me to sign up, not on an exclusive basis, but they assured me they’d get me work. That work never came. Once in a while, I’d receive messages saying they were trying to pitch my portfolio to a French publisher or another client, but... nothing.

Please understand that meanwhile I was already working directly with shops and authors, so I don’t believe my portfolio was the problem. The real issue was something I didn’t realise at the time: some agencies do this. They feature talented artists in their catalogue without having actual clients lined up, just to appear more professional and credible to potential clients. Did this strategy work for them? Maybe. I’ll never know.

In 2021, I politely asked them to remove my portfolio from their website, and that was the end of it.

After that, I never actively sought out an agent again. By the time my portfolio was strong enough to approach a serious agency, I just didn’t need representation anymore.

Hireillo

2019-2022

My experience with Hire an Illustrator, or Hireillo, is mixed. At the time, Hireillo was a platform that hosted artists' portfolios, featured artist-submitted news, provided useful articles, resources, and directories of artists and agents. I joined the site hoping to catch the eye of publishers, but I was mostly contacted by authors and one fellow artist for a graphic novel.

Unfortunately, most inquiries didn’t go beyond the first couple of messages due to budget constraints. I did, however, have fun sharing news about my painting process and projects I landed on my own, which were often featured by the website. Additionally, if I had questions about 'complicated' things like copyright, or just needed advice, I could ask the website’s owner and that was incredibly helpful.

Despite these benefits, I didn’t see any real results, which was a little disappointing. The subscription fee was also... odd, for lack of a better word. $5 per week. In the end I just couldn’t justify the cost, so I stopped using the website altogether.

Reedsy

2019-2022

Finally, we come to the turning point.

I remember stumbling upon Reedsy randomly. It wasn’t very well known at the time, and I think it still isn’t. I was nervous when I submitted my portfolio because their catalogue features the best of the best: designers who’ve created covers for bestsellers, THE bestsellers, people who’ve worked on Stephen King covers, or George R.R. Martin's. Designers, editors, and marketers who are veterans. I didn’t have high hopes for my application. So, I was in shock when it got accepted.

I had an introductory Skype call with a representative from Reedsy, who explained how everything worked. Before the call ended, I remember asking if there was a good chance I’d get work through the platform. The rep laughed and said, “Yes.”

A few weeks in, I understood that laugh.

Reedsy has an overwhelming demand for book covers and commercial projects. For every designer there are many more clients. In peak seasons, I was getting requests almost every day. I’m not exaggerating.

Reedsy transformed my portfolio and my pricing structure. Thanks to the income I earned through the platform, I was finally able not to take everything that came my way but be selective and choose only the projects that really interested me.

The commission process is simple: artists pretty much decide how to split payments, what to include in agreements, and the best part, the most beautiful and helpful feature of all, they can request and adjust deadlines. For someone like me who's terrible with deadlines, this feature was a lifesaver. The admins are also very kind and responsive, available via email or chat.

Unfortunately (this is my last 'unfortunately', I promise), my time on Reedsy came to an end for personal reasons. I’ll explain since it’s no secret.

All my images on Reedsy were watermarked with my signature (my full name), which apparently violated the platform’s rules. Why? Because if a client saw my last name, they could contact me directly and bypass Reedsy, which meant the platform lost potential fees. I’ll admit this did happen a few times, but I had the good sense to redirect the client back to Reedsy.

After three years, an admin finally noticed and asked me to remove my full name from the watermark and any text on my profile. It was a simple and reasonable request, but here’s where the problem started. Profiles on Reedsy are public, and images appear in search engines like Google Images, meaning anyone could download my work and use it without permission. Sure, watermarks can be removed, but uploading my work without one in the first place felt like a bad idea. Btw, not only do I use watermarks, but I also use Glaze to protect my illustrations before sharing them online.

Anyway, for this reason, and also because I couldn’t get over the fact that full names were public at the time, something I won’t get into because, believe me, I tried over email, and my reasons went into the void (now, last names are just initialised, like Gabrielle R. Okay. Sure.), I had to close my account–they would have done it anyway because it was already 'flagged'.

Overall, if you’re willing to overlook the last name conundrum, I can’t recommend Reedsy enough. If you have a killer, solid portfolio and a love for books and editorial projects, go for it!

--------------------------------------------

I hope you'll find this useful! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask (: Oh, and here's an old article I wrote in 2020, titled:

Tips to freelance illustrators to avoid being screwed over

Who knows, maybe I'll write another 'article' post in four years!

Instagram  - ArtStation - Website - Inprnt - Etsy - TikTok

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

theorizing

It's still early in the event, but I'm already trying to think about what Hot Topic Issue this year's Halloween event might tackle (assuming it follows the precedent set by GloMasq and Playful Land). Here's the theory I present to you: the conflict will be about escapism and where to draw that divide between fantasy and reality. Why do I think that? Because there are lots of parallels between our shiny new guy on the block, Skully, and us, Twst fans.

Book 7 presents a similar idea when Lilia and Malleus discuss the life cycle of Gao-Gao Drago-kun, how short it is, and how convenient it would be if the virtual pet could live forever in a fantasy world. In the same book, Yuu has finally found a potential route home... meaning an end to their story and their time in their current world. Read another way, it can be said that we, the Twst fans/players, are like Malleus, not wanting anything about our lives in Twisted Wonderland to change. We want to stay here among these characters we have come to love and grow close to, not return to our boring mundane lives in our original worlds... in reality. Likewise, similar points of comparison can be drawn between these themes and Lost in the Book with Nightmare Before Christmas, even as early as part 1.

Now in this allegory, Skully represents us, the average Twst fans. Here's the parallels I noted:

Skully is notably a first year, which matches up with the grade level that Yuu (the player self-insert/POV character) is assigned to

Skully attends a school where his peers don’t understand him or his interests. This mimics the experience of some Twst fans, who may be misunderstood even within the anime fandom. How many times have people joked “Oh, you like the Disney dating sim?”/assumed that Twst is cringe? Can you talk to fans of traditional Disney about Twst? Twst may be somewhat niche in your immediate area. Chances are, you have to retreat to online avenues to find like-minded fans. In this way, Twst fans may feel isolated or not understood.

He does not like to talk about school because he doesn't have many people who understand him, perhaps due to his eccentricities. Again, this may not directly translate to all Twst fans, but rather it can be very relatable to those who lack social connections and seek to fulfill that through fandom or escaping into a fantasy world.

Skully is an otaku for Halloween. And what are we, as Twst fans, if not also otaku?

He looks mysterious but has excitable reactions. The behavior reminds me of someone who can be very sociable online or in special circumstances but might come off completely differently in real life or initially due to how their face looks and how they dress.

The strongest parallel, however, is the fact that he, like Yuu (again, the player self-insert character) ALSO gets isekai'd... into the world of The Nightmare Before Christmas. And what happens in this world that Skully gets isekai'd to? He... 1) meets lots of new people--people that don't know him in the "real" world, so he is free to act however he wants around them, maybe even befriend them, 2) gets to meet his Halloween idol, Jack-sama, 3) gets to be praised by his idol, and 4) (presumably) helps out his idol with putting together this year's Halloween. THESE LINE UP ALMOST EXACTLY WITH WHAT YUU DOES WHEN THEY'RE ISEKAI'D INTO TWISTED WONDERLAND... Yuu, who represents you, THE TWST FAN. You, as a Twst fan, 1) meet and potentially befriend these new characters (and maybe even explicitly made an OC to act however you like in your place as the one meeting these characters), 2) hone in on your favorite(s), 3/4) hyperfixate on the intimate voice lines and the moments you have with your favorite(s). It's total wish fulfillment for both Skully and the average Twst fan. In other words, Skully will get lost in living the fantasy that is literally being transported into the world of his Favorite Thing Ever, just like we, the Twst fans, escape to Twisted Wonderland. In the book/Twst, you can be yourself or whoever you want to be. But what happens when that peace and comfort is about to be taken away? Perhaps that's when Skully will snap 🤔 refusing to return to his old life, where he was awkward and misunderstood... wanting to stay in this endless Halloween night forever and ever. Maybe he even tries to prevent the NRC students from leaving too, since he has now formed a friendship (?) with them? Like, he's trying to keep them trapped in this fantasy of his (very Malleus-core of him, honestly). Then it would be up to us to try and knock some sense into Skully, reminding him that there are things in the "real" world to look forward to as well.

Looking back at previous Halloweens, the conflicts presented usually tie back to something relating to the Disney counterpart's own identities. For example, Frollo (in the stage version) lost his younger brother to sin and pinned the blame on an entire group of people. Rollo lost his younger brother to sin and now seeks to eliminate that sin (magic) from the world. Honest John and Gideon worked for a shady guy and lured away children, even though they themselves were terrified of what would become of those kids. Fellow and Gidel are similarly forced to do this dirty work because they are so impoverished they need the job, even if their boss disrespects them. I think my theory about what Skully's whole conflict will be could work from this angle too. The character he is twisted from, Jack Skellington, is known to be somewhat naive and an idealist. Jack pursues Christmas with all of his undead heart, sure that it will return the "spark" that Halloween has since lost. This could be reflected in Skully, our twisted!Jack, in his desire to pursue Halloween--or, more specifically, this novel world where his passion is reinforced and he has a place in it. He would be naive to the world he snubbed in favor of this new one, deeming this new world superior (like how Jack thought the "new" Christmas would enhance the "old" Halloween).

as3gro8yvq ;ngqemf; KJLBFIsIFSLFS ANYWAY, that's my game theory 🙂 Not sure if it'll actually be this, but figured I'd throw my guess out there since my previous "lmao Skully will kidnap Crowley" crack theory ended up being shot down...

[doberbutts]

You mentioned in response to another ask that you don't use "transandrophobia" because the trans theory you were taught by trans women told you that "transmisogyny" covered those things and that is a total revelation to me. I've been thinking for a long time that it seemed to me that the idea of transmisogyny *does* cover transandrophobia, it just impacts trans femmes and trans mascs differently a lot of the time. But I had no idea that there has been theory/discussion that says this. I'm more used to the idea of "TMA" with the implication that only trans women are affected by transmisogyny. Is that more of a new thing and transmisogyny used to be considered as a more broad term? And would you trace that change to the same issue you're talking about with a lot of current feminism forgetting how feminism is also a "men's issue"?

Idk if I would call it "new" per say. The word trans-misogyny was coined in 2007 and did not include trans men, but the book in which it was coined did mention that language was likely needed to describe the trans man experience as well. There have been a number of different attempts, but none have really stuck.

I went to college starting in 2010, so roughly 3 years after Serrano coined the word. While in college, my school's GSA wanted LGBT elders to come and talk to all the scared freshly-minted adults who were trying to figure out this being gay thing. The woman who ran my GSA found a Trans woman who was willing to be my mentor and sponsor, she wrote my letters for me back when that was still necessary for medical transition, and we met frequently for her to teach me more or less how to be trans safely. Some things she did not know- how to bind safely, how to attach a semi-permenant packer, etc. But others she knew very well, because she herself dealt with both being seen as a man by society as well as the effects of testosterone on her body for decades before she transitioned.

Anyway. This woman was great, and is a significant portion of the reason I'm still alive to this day. And she is who taught me the word transmisogyny, and that it should really cover all trans people because all trans people experience an intersection of transphobia and misogyny. Whether that was popular theory at the time or not, that is what us young kids learned directly from the mouths of trans women at my college, which to me means that others were also learning this particular version of transfeminist theory.

Unfortunately by the time I dropped out of college in 2013/2014, online trans spaces were having stupid arguments such as "transtrenders are bad" and "neopronouns are bad" and "nonbinary people are cis people who want to feel special" and "trans men should be hunted for sport" and "trans women are incel nazis" and. Well. I went "wow this place is a cesspit and I feel like no one here has actually talked to another transgender person face to face" and then did not engage with the online community. So I don't really know how common or popular the understanding I was taught was at the time, though it certainly seems quite rare now.

(As a caveat I don't really think trans people of any gender have anything that isn't similar with each other when it comes to oppression, outside of certain bodily things that can't be helped because that's literally the thing we're transgender about, and I think we all experience very similar oppression but sometimes with a different hat)

As for what caused this particular defining to fall into obscurity? I really can't say. I don't know how popular the transfeminist theory the trans women who spoke at my GSA meetings taught us actually was in the broader world. Every once in a while I meet someone who lived through that same time who remembers that theory, which tells me it had gained at least some traction if it was being discussed in multiple parts of the country, but... that's really it. And it's pretty unpopular theory nowadays, I get people calling me a scumbag and claiming that I say transmisogyny doesn't exist just for mentioning that the theory I was taught includes trans men in the discussion.

But I don't think it's specifically the whole TMA/TME thing. I think it's a lack of understanding of what oppression and what intersectionality are, how they operate, how they work, how we define things through them. There are many people who believe that men do not experience misogyny. But, they do, that's why it's an insult to a boy to call him a girl during a moment of femininity or vulnerability, as a means of calling him weak because girls are believed to be weak. There are many people who think intersectionality turns oppression into additives, as though stacking marginalizations like dnd buffs. This also falls apart because oppression is not like quick math where you add a +5 to every roll if any part of your identity is privileged and a -7 if any part is oppressed.

I've had people get mad at me for saying that straight people experience homophobia while we also have sitting politicians that make jokes on live TV about how they'd drown their (presumably straight) children if they found out their kids were gay. For saying that GNC cis people experience transphobia when butches are getting kicked out of bathrooms and drag queens are getting jumped in bars. For reminding people that when Sikhs are killed due to being mistaken for Muslim in this country that hates Muslims over a national tragedy our Muslim population did not cause, it's still considered and called Islamophobia, because just because Americans are too stupid to tell a Sikh from a Muslim doesn't mean they weren't spurred into that hate crime by their rampant hatred of Muslims and the sight of a turban and long beard.

[severus-snaps]

a ramble and some open questions for fandom elders (and others) about whether Snape was only made more sympathetic on account of Alan Rickman's popularity/casting, and similar things

so I stopped engaging with a tiktok creator for a while who I'd previously found very interesting because nearly every time they brought up Snape, they'd throw in some casual "if Harry was a girl, Snape would be really creepy/predatory about it" or some other weird Snape take not rooted in anything (to my mind). Like, it was weird to me because they bring in book quotes or pottermore/interview snippets to other analyses of other characters and ideas, but never Snape - for Snape, it was always just about vibes and feelings. For Snape, the fact we never hear that he killed someone or the fact we never heard that he stalked Lily is, in fact, strong evidence that he did do those things - or certainly thought about it - and certainly enough to be considered predatory and likely to dose Lily (and later a hypothetical Harriet) with a love potion or keep them in his basement, or something.

I disputed that idea in the comments one time, and some Snape supporting comments outside of mine got removed and users blocked, meanwhile my comments were (I think deliberately) misinterpreted. I stopped using tiktok entirely for a while, and never went back to see if the comments got deleted or whatever. Tiktok never gave me any further notifications about it upon re-downloading, so I guess they were removed? Idk. I have no desire to check.

but all of that is background really; she's lately posted some videos (I still find the rest of her content interesting, but apparently snape content is a no-go lool) saying that Snape's whole characterisation is different after the 'three year summer' - that is, that JKR saw how popular Snape was in the films, that she had to find a way to keep Alan Rickman on board when he wanted to leave, and that when she took her break between writing GoF and OotP I think, Snape sort of morphed into a new character and she had to attempt to redeem him (which, in her eyes, he's not redeemed even at the end which is like. ok). She implied that there's no evidence of James' bullying prior to OotP, no evidence of Snape ever having had a relationship (much less a friendship) with Lily, and that all of that was tossed into the later books retroactively to 'redeem' his character. (Obviously, I have Thoughts on that, which I'll come back to).

Of course, with the sort of... bad vibes she's built up around pro-Snape comments on her videos, all of the comments were in agreement with her. I'm also new to HP/Snape in terms of actively engaging with the fandom online, as it somehow passed me by at the time. But now I have Thoughts

So with all of that in mind, and just because I want to hear other people's thoughts but TikTok comments are a nightmare on their own with the character limit, inability to read them properly/in order, and general vibe of TikTok comments (even without the creator deleting/getting antsy about pro-Snape ideas), if anyone wants to discuss this lot, I am keen to hear people's thoughts:

Was Snape always a popular book character, or did that change/skyrocket with Alan Rickman? (For my part, I don't remember hating Snape when I read the books the first time around - in fact, I hardly remember registering him at all - but I do remember hating Umbridge).

How true is it that Snape was made 'more sympathetic' following the films? To me, it doesn't make sense; the first big, weighty suggestion of the marauders bullying Snape was in PoA, which was released mid-1999; the first evidence that Snape was spying was in GoF, in mid-2000. The first film didn't even come out (Alan Rickman's charisma included) until 2001. Weirdly, the PoA stuff the user is convinced just says that Snape was jealous of James (probably true, not denying it) but in the exact same book Remus/Sirius all but admitted to Sirius trying to kill Snape, which seems like a massive overreaction to Snape being an annoying little hater of a teen that she never comments on because, I guess, Snape deserved it?

Also, does it matter if he was made 'more sympathetic'? ootp was published in 2003, and in early 2002 Alan considered leaving. sure, JK might have added/exaggerated SWM to make him more sympathetic, but the reasons for adding in scenes don't change the fact that that's now part of the fabric of the character - a character who, by this point, had already been revealed in PoA to be the subject of a near-murder plot at the hands of the Marauders and was Very Not Okay about it; the marauders had already been described as troublemakers; Snape was already shown to be wary of Lupin for reasons that weren't solely about him being a werewolf, but about the Prank/Trick/Willow incident. An incident, much like SWM, that occurred because Sirius thought it would be "amusing" to put Snape in a horrible position. if JKR wanted to, she could've made Sirius the ringleader in SWM - but for Snape, I think she just wanted to solidify why a grown man hates a child who looks exactly like his father, which was also referenced in the early books and strongly prefaced by the events of PoA in the Shack (I don't think she had it 'all planned out' from day dot, however, but went with the vibes and fleshed out the details later). Obviously, to this creator, Lupin's idea that Snape was solely a little bitch because he hated that James was better at Quidditch is to be taken at face value, despite the fact the conversation then moves on to Snape's near-death following Sirius 'trick'ing Snape into the willow

Same as above but with his characterisation; she acknowledges that the later books are darker and have a more adult tone, but somehow it's still suspicious that Snape's sympathetic backstory was never once alluded to in earlier books (which, again, I think it's fair to say it was alluded to, but in sufficiently lacking detail so that JK could deal with it when she got there). Also with PoA and GoF especially, there are hints of Snape going from his more 'silly evil teacher' which he kind of was in books 1 and 2, heading towards the more realistic, but still delightfully bitter and flawed, adult character as the books aged up. I haven't read the books in a while I'll admit, but from the Snape passages I have read, I never noticed a sufficient difference pre or post three-year-summer that didn't match the wider tone of the books changing also.

Unlike the tiktok creator, I also think that Snape's reaction to Harry in general is almost entirely to do with James, rather than Lily's so-called rejection, and so there's no evidence that Snape would be weird to a 'Harriet' that resembled his mother, or weird to Lily if he saw her again; I think with his characterisation it's more likely that Harriet would've been treated like Hermione, Ron, or Tonks - being largely ignored with the occasional insult and told off for causing trouble - aka, how Snape would treat most people. Outside of the one isolated 'mudblood' incident, Snape was a bit of a doormat when it came to Lily (bless his heart). He followed her from the train carriage without comment, backtracked when she appeared angry in the post-prank conversation, even the "I won't let you" seemed more "I won't let you turn him into some kind of hero" or even, at a stretch, an "I won't let you be with him" out of Lily's own safety or something than "I won't let you leave me", to me - because he did just let her leave him in school? James and Snape continued hexing one another in 7th year, but there's no suggestion that Snape ever tried to be weird to Lily.

To my mind, there's no suggestion that Snape stalked Lily, no suggestion that he asked Voldemort to capture her - just to spare her. And then Snape went to Dumbledore anyway, probably immediately based on how harried he is on the windy hilltop scene, because he knew Voldemort wouldn't spare her, and even if he did, Snape would probably have to keep up the ruse of 'desiring' Lily, and do the sorts of thing Snaters suggest he wanted to do, just to keep her alive. But with Dumbledore involved, Snape wouldn't ever have the chance to imprison/love potion her - and that wasn't what he wanted. He just wanted her alive so he wouldn't have played a part in her death. I also doubt that Snape had much time to think when Voldemort revealed who he was choosing to kill; it's not as though Voldemort makes decisions by committee. He'd have revealed his plans and Snape would make a quick, panic-stricken decision to tell Voldemort that he desired Lily (which he may have done, to an extent; he'd need to draw on something to back up his request when Voldemort undoubtedly looked into his mind to see why Snape wanted to spare his Priority #1 victim). And like I say, he then set up a meeting with Dumbledore, probably immediately/as soon as he could, sensing that that wouldn't work (was he not convincing enough? Did he just know Voldemort too well? I have so many questions about how that conversation went down, and subsequent conversations about Lily which presumably occurred after V's resurrection).

anyway, no conclusion, only thoughts too rambly for tiktok comments

[markantonys]

I truly think WoT is a well written, well acted show but you never see praise for it like that from most of the fandom (unless I'm following the wrong people). You see people praising GoT and HoTD like it's the best thing ever when I'm bored most of the time. Never anything similar said for WoT. I hope it does make it big in following seasons and gets more appreciation cause I truly think the show is underrated

i haven't seen GOT or HOTD so i can't speak to any comparisons there, but i agree that WOT is underrated! it feels like most of the viewership is either casuals who aren't Online About It and hardcore book fans who spend all their energy discussing book vs. show topics - not always in a negative way, i'm also including in here the show-positive discussions about improvements on the books or speculation for future seasons, but even these discussions are so rooted in book vs. show land that not a lot of people stop to discuss the show in a vacuum. it's often about "how is it similar to and different from the books?" and rarely about appreciating the show as its own standalone work.

which i think could be a difference with GOT and HOTD, they probably have a larger number of hardcore show-only fans who are Online About It discussing show-only things in detail such as writing and acting, whereas in my personal experience, WOT online fandom spaces are VERY dominated by book fans and they aren't talking as much about show-only things, or when they do, it's just to mistake "i personally don't like this change from the books" for "this is objectively bad writing and everybody who has ever watched the show agrees that the writing of the entire show is bad" lmao WOT reader fandom spaces have a reeeeaaaally skewed sense of the quality of the show's writing because they can't let go of their "similar to the books=good writing, different from the books=bad writing" baggage and also because they struggle to understand that good writing For TV is often very different from good writing For Books.

there's definitely also at play the societal tendency to praise miseryporn and characters who are terrible people as the creme de la creme of writing and acting. WOT has trauma and misery, but doesn't revel in it in a gratuitous way, and it has very flawed and complex characters, but the protagonists are all ultimately good people. it's a hopeful and uplifting story at its core and a story that wholeheartedly embraces its fantastical elements and wants to bring a sense of fun and escapism to viewers alongside the deep emotional stuff, and those are rarely taken as seriously as gritty cynical stories. hence, WOT is not viewed as a ~serious~ show worthy of having its acting & writing praised in the same way that GOT and HOTD are.

but WOT does do pretty good viewership numbers despite being kinda under the radar in the cultural consciousness, i think. i could see it gaining more attention in upcoming seasons as we enter the territory of the books that most people agree is the best portion of the series, and if they are finally able to do a proper promo cycle for s3 and beyond. from what i've seen, prime shows are never anywhere close to the level of promo netflix shows do (which is TOO much in some cases, rip to the poor bridgerton cast having to do about five thousand hours of interviews for s3), but WOT s1 came out during the covid zoom interview era and s2 came out during the strikes, so it's not hard to imagine that those 2 promo cycles might've been unusually low even for prime's standards and s3 might have a bit more. we shall see!

but at the end of the day, it's also kinda nice keeping wotshow as a hidden gem because greater online fandom attention would also mean an increase in insufferable takes haha i often find that smaller fandoms are a much more pleasant atmosphere than bigger ones!

[nobodysdaydreams]

In Honor of All Saints Day, Here's Some Random Assumptions About My Followers Based on Their Favorite Saints 😇

Please note this is a merely for fun and not meant to offend anyone, please be kind, thank you. Also, I obviously can't possibly include every saint here, so I'm just gonna stick to some of the ones I think are most likely to be favorites of my followers.

Saint Joan of Arc- I'll start with arguably the most popular one, or at least the one I see posted or discussed online the most. If your favorite saint is St. Joan of Arc, there's a good chance you're an atheist who doesn't vibe with saints in general, but likes her because she's a girl with a sword and that's objectively awesome. You're correct for that, and welcome to the post. Another option is that you're a girl who was labeled a "tomboy" growing up.

Saint Paul- if your favorite saint is St. Paul, you have a blog or a significant portion of your blog dedicated to one ex-villain character whose redemption arc you could rewatch on loop for hours. You also might be Protestant, and yes, this particular St. Paul is the same Paul from the Bible. Welcome to the post. ✝️

Saint Olga- if your favorite saint is St. Olga, you support women's rights, but more importantly, you forgive women's wrongs. There have been several times when you've gotten upset about people questioning the validity of a female character's redemption considering her past when they overlook and forgive way worse done by male characters. There's also a chance you might be Orthodox. Welcome to the post. ☦️

Saint Nicholas- if your favorite saint is St. Nicholas, there is a chance you followed me for TMBS content. Your favorite holiday is Christmas, and you're still hyperfixated on the same book series or television show from your childhood. You're also extremely passionate about your fandoms and can't stand it when people grossly misinterpret characters or things in canon.

Saint Benedict- if your favorite saint is St. Benedict, you also probably followed me for TMBS content. You're also a very humble and unproblematic person but the haters are bitter and always trying to bring you down (via their jealousy and also poison, but you can't be stopped).

Saint Scholastica- if your favorite saint is St. Scholastica, you also might have followed me for TMBS content because you know that she's Benedict's twin sister. You also wish that God would summon storms for you whenever you find your brother annoying.

The Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus- if you picked the Virgin Mary, you're neurodivergent, specifically the type of neurodivergent who loved those card games where characters had different levels of power. You take a similar approach to picking your favorite saint, so why wouldn't you go straight for the one that is objectively the most powerful and the best one? It just makes to most sense to you, and the thing is, you're right. You're 100% right. Congrats!

Saint Cecilia- if your favorite saint is St. Cecilia, you're a musician and were in choir either at school or church. You also probably are/were a theater kid.

Saint Lawrence- if your favorite saint is St. Lawrence, you were definitely a theater kid and tried stand up comedy at least once. You also use jokes and humor to cope with stressful situations.

Saint Josephine Bakhita- if your favorite saint is St. Josephine, you are one of those people who somehow remains positive and sees the sliver lining in literally any circumstance. Don't get me wrong, I love that for you, but please take care of yourself. 🫂❤️‍🩹

Saint Dymphna- if your favorite saint is St. Dymphna, you are neurodivergent, have struggled with mental illness, work in psychiatric or medical care, or you’ve dealt with a lot in your life, and I hope you heal. 🫂❤️‍🩹

Saint Kateri Tekakwitha- if your favorite saint is Saint Kateri, you're sick of your relatives pressuring you to date someone, and you're extremely worried about climate change (girl, me too).

Saint Anthony- if your favorite saint is St. Anthony, you have ADHD and lose things multiple times a week. On the off chance you followed me for Wolf359 content, you identified way too strongly with Doug Eiffel.

Saint Peter- if your favorite saint is saint Peter, you either watch "The Chosen" or you have ADHD and felt seen when you read about him in the Bible. That man boldly declared he would never deny Jesus and when told he would do it before a rooster crowed three times, to which he confidently replied "nah" and then immediately got distracted and preoccupied with cutting some guy's ear off and forgot all about the oddly specific terrible thing he was prophesied to do just a few hours earlier by a man he believed to be God incarnate. As someone who also breaks down in tears when I suddenly remember the important things I forget to keep track of, I sympathize with his story. Saint Dymphna is patroness of most mental illness and ADHD is technically covered by her, but if we ever get an ADHD specific saint, I know it has to be either be Peter or Anthony, and if it were entirely up to me, I'd give it to Peter. Don't get me wrong, Saint Anthony is there for us, but Saint Peter is one of us, you know what I mean? Though I feel like due to the problematic nature of diagnosing the deceased (no matter how evident symptoms might be) it would end up going to Anthony, since we do call on him often, and I think Peter would be fine with that.

Saint Mark Ji Tianxiang- if your favorite saint is St. Mark Ji Tianxiang, you or someone you know is probably in recovery from addiction, and I wish you well on your journey. You also empathize way too much with any character who suffers from addiction and if you followed me for Wolf359, that was the aspect of Doug Eiffel's character that stood out to you the most. 🫂❤️‍🩹

Saint Catherine of Siena- if your favorite saint is Saint Catherine of Siena, you've probably written a book or fanfic well over 100k words. (Yes, I know, you don't have to say it).

Saint Francis of Assisi- if your favorite saint is Saint Francis of Assisi, you either have pets or want them, and if you do have them, you've taken them or begged your parents to let you take them to a St. Francis feast day pet blessing. If you followed me for TMBS, SQ is probably your favorite character, and if you followed me for Wolf359 content, you were inconsolable when Blessie died. You're also probably the kind of neurodivergent who takes things like "if you want to follow God, sell all you have and give it to the poor" literally and as a result, this has caused conflict with your family (specifically on account of you giving all the money made from your family business to the poor).

Saint Joseph- I doubt I have a lot of followers who are parents because of how tumblr demographics skew, but if your favorite saint is Saint Joseph, you just became a dad or really want to become one someday.

Saint Monica- again, I doubt this is the case because of the age of tumblr demographics, but if your favorite saint is Saint Monica, you're a mom who really needs a break, and I hope your husband and sons get it together soon. 🫂❤️‍🩹

Saint Augustine- if your favorite saint is St. Augustine, you also like redemption arcs and likely went through a "party phase" at some point in your life that you regret and identify a bit too strongly with the younger brother in the prodigal son parable. However, in this case, you likely also love St. Monica and if you followed me for Star Wars content, you are particularly upset that we didn't get to see more interactions between Leia Organa and her son Benny Solo especially considering they led a whole war against each other the year between TLJ and TROS (dead horse, I know).

Saint Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin- if your favorite saint is St. Juan Diego, you have or grew up with a picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe somewhere in your house. You've also been in the incredibly specific situation of seeing or doing something super cool, but not having anyone believe you (but the satisfying payoff when they find out you were right).

Saint Mary Magdalene- if your favorite saint is St. Mary Magdalene, you either watch "The Chosen" or you're a woman who's faith pulled her out of a very difficult time in her life, and like St. Juan Diego, you also know what it's like to be proven right after a group of men call you a liar.

Saints Louis Martin and Marie-Azélie Guérin (Zélie)- if these are your favorite saints, you understand why you can't just pick one. This power couple comes in a set. If you picked these two, you heard about them because your favorite saint might actually be or have been their very famous daughter St. Thérèse of Lisieux. And if you're a guy and you picked these two, you're also a proud girl dad and can't stop bragging to everyone you meet about how successful your wife's business is (especially because she's so humble about it). Green flags all around.

Saint Maximilian Kolbe- if St. Maximilian is your favorite saint, you're a history guy or gal who is obsessed with world war two, but in a good way. In the "this was very not cool. Let's never forget so we never do this again" way. You also love stories of heroic sacrifice and aspire to always do the right thing even when it’s not socially popular or doesn’t benefit you.

(Soon to be canonized) Saint Carlo Acutis- You're a millennial or gen z who loves researching and talking about modern saints. You aspire to be like them and have a list of ones you want canonized (mine are Servant of God Dorothy Day and Archbishop Joseph Francis Rummel. They lived in the 20th Century and when you're dealing with 2,000 years of history, that's pretty modern).

I'm sure I'll think of more to add after I post this, but I'll leave it here for now. I hope y'all enjoy this!

[rivalcobalt]

Semi-Open Violence Jack Book Club!

Have you wanted to get around to reading Violence Jack but just never had the drive to power through it alone? Do you want to read or reread with the chance to discuss with others? Are you too daunted by the horrors of relying on google translate to get through the chapters that haven't been scanlated into English without people who can read a language it has been released in to ask if something isn't making sense? Come join us!

Discussion will be run through an existing Devilman server, which you are also welcome to participate in. We're generally open to most new members, but we will be vetting people because we want to avoid both those who violate the rules below and who spend a lot of time participating in online drama or harassment.

Additional info below:

Rules of interest:

18+ (both for the content of VJ and the current server age range being 21-40)

Discrimination in any form will not be tolerated

We're obviously fine with "problematic" content in fiction, but we don't want to interact with anyone into ship content involving pedophilia, incest, or rape. We know this is ironic given that Nagai's works include all of these topics, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with his use of them for shock value or people who like them in romantic fan work contexts

No excessively violent sentiments towards Go Nagai. We just don't wanna hear it, even knowing how bad his works can get

No jokes framing Ryo as violently misogynistic for being a gay man, calling characters derogatory terms for being mentally ill, or other similar sentiments directed at characters for any marginalized identities

Please for the love of god have a nuanced view of Japanese history as a country that has both committed and been a victim of imperialism

Zionists fuck off

General biases:

Ryoakira, mikimiko, kairene

Reading Ryo as a gay intersex man, Akira as a bisexual, Miki and Miko as wlw

(We have these rules in place due to some unsavoury behaviour from others in the past, and we really don't want to deal with that in a small space like discord again. Conflicting interpretations are not necesarily invalid, but if your opinions or interests strongly oppose these, this may not be the best group for you.)

Please DM myself, @astr0nomically, or @royasuka if you're interested in joining!

[rinadragomir]

My thoughts on the couples included in Better in Black for those who care

I expect you to write down yours so work work

📍Wessa

You know, as a dedicated Jessa stan I wanna say that it's okay~ Because these two were together for 50 years or sth, there's still some things to add. We might watch them in their 30s, 50s, 60s. I guess at this point both camps have around the same amount of content. Plus I'll have Jessa in twp so I'm in peace 🌱

📍Clace

All my first thoughts are over here. I'm a Clace defender, I'm their oldest stan, I'm a veteran👩‍🦳 So I feel like I have a right to say that...it was kinda unnecessary. We've witnessed every step in their relationship so far, beginning of it in TMI, gentle transition to adulthood in TDA and Tales of Shadowhunter Academy, adulthood in SOBH and proposal. So if the story isn't about their wedding then WHAT THE HELL IS IT ABOUT REALLY? And we know that they won't get married until twp.

📍Anna & Ari (Arianna!)

Hey🥺that is nice, we've seen so little of them in chain of thorns and I've loved them since their debut in 2018 in that short story. I'm very biased when it comes to TLH, cause I'm their mother. So YAY🌱they have a long way to go, Anna still needs to change a tiny little bit for them to be healthy, so I'd love to witness it

📍Jordelia

We all have known about it, because Cassie kinda promised us their story a while ago. Wedding runes scene, honeymoon, kids, mortgage etc. Go kids, slay, serve, eat and so on, I'm excited for u!

📍Sebastian & Seelie Queen

🤨🧐🤔👁👁

Yeah... That famous Sebastian &Fanbase. Like... I'm conflicted, because it's useless and doesn't make any sense even tho it might slay. Listen up, I'll show you.

Lots of people defend it by saying that it might be important for Ash's background in TWP. But... No it's not. Because this is exclusive book made for few people who were lucky and financially stable enough to get it. It won't be posted online. So most people won't read it unless someone leaks it. So there's no point for that story to be important for the plot, therefore it has nothing to do with it.

And it's definitely not "one of the most beloved" couples. BUT LIKE... WHAT IF IT SLAYS? Toxic, unhinged romance, what if I'll love it? 🤡

📍Jemma

So you see the problem? Because it's the same as Clace. What else might she add, because there's nothing. SoBH ended like yesterday. We know exactly where they live rn, their daily routine, their plans. So there's nothing to add between SOBH and twp. What will it be about? Hard to say, but I hope Cassie will come up with sth interesting for them.

📍Thomastair (why did Cassie say Alistair instead of Alastair, I'm lost help me)

Yay🥺slay, serve, eat and leave no crumbs, go, kill it idk you're doing great boys, there's so much to add and explore because they've just started dating. I'm so excited ^-^

📍Kierartkina

That is fine. No matter what I think about their relationship, because in my point of view Cristina and Kieran fell in love because Cassie said so apparently, I still don't mind them being there. Because there's also lots of things to discuss and explore. I hope the story will be soft and warm☀they've just started their advantage so it definitely makes sense

📍Sizzy

Even though we've had lots of them in TMI and Shadowhunters Academy I still think they deserve to be here. They are famous (I guess? 👁👁) and I'd like to know more about their plans for future. Simon was still a teenager in the stories collection and now I'd love to see him as a grown man being in relationship with the woman he loves.

📍Luke & Jocelyn

👁👁🤨🧐🤔👀

Well... That was... Unexpected. I guess... I've just never met their fandom but I hope it's huge af, because I don't know why else would they be here. Sophideon, Gabrily and Charlotte with Henry were supposed to be here, let's be honest. But since they're here, I do think Cassie is able to make a decent story. I expect it to be bittersweet, angsty and somehow heartwarming. I think there's nothing to say except let's wait and find out.

OVERALL I think it's pretty fine. Maximum 7/10 from me. I was ready to face the worst, but it turned out to be... Fine. So it's fine☺🌱

[stupidlittlespirit]

Cutie patootie again 🥺🥺

Lmao I'm sorry I'm always bringing Ford discourse but like !!!!! You're one of the only people online who like sees the bad in every character!! So many fans have been saying how Stanley has never done wrong and fuck Ford but like it's only cause Stanley is a guy who shows very obviously he loves his family and we got 2 whole seasons with the guy

This is probably why I really am hoping Alex gets the go ahead with a sequel! Stan and Ford show to flesh out their relationship more. Like I know Stanford really shows his feelings in the journal but I swear most of people's literacy is fucking dead 😭😭😭 showing will probably be a lot better than telling

I guess I feel really bad for Ford cause he's a victim who isn't uwu I am traumatized. Like there's NOTHING wrong with traumatized people being very teary eyed and soft spoken individuals. Fuck it honestly that's me to a fucking t. But other victims are rude and they do get angry easily. Ford reminds me a lot of Steven from the Haunting of Hill House. They just express their grief and trauma in a much more anger and sarcastic emotional response than others. And like it pretty much confirms in the Book of Bill that Stanford was gonna keep the book a secret also!! He says at first it's to protect his family but later admits it's because he still feels shame in having Bill trick him. In believing all of his lies. He still feels shame for almost causing the apocalypse and letting his pride separate from his brother for 40 years at this point!! Idk idk I'm rambling again but I honestly really love characters like Ford that show that victims don't always act the same but they deserve just as much respect and love all the same. They deserve a second chance and they deserve to be happy. 💜

No it's okay anon! I love having these conversations! I'm sorry it took me so long to answer, I've been really busy.

I have no idea if any of this makes sense but I hope it does because it's taken me like 2 and a half hours to write....

TL;DR - In my opinion, the entire show is about cycles of abuse. Ford and Stan are both imperfect victims for different reasons. They suffered abuse differently. Don't look at and judge them from the place that they start at: Do it from where they end up.

TW: Abuse, suicide, discussion of personal irl abuse.

All below the cut:

You're right about us having more information to work with with Stan v. Ford, but I also think people have a tendency to put Stan on a pedestal because he is, ultimately, the more relatable twin. Not many people are on Ford's wavelength in the sense of intelligence (I'm certainly not) and I would venture to say not many people fell through a portal and spent 30 thirty years in different dimensions running from/trying to defeat their arch enemy....

Alongside that, the twins experienced abuse and reacted to it very differently, and it can be hard to examine those differences fairly, and to see why both types are as bad as the other, especially because one is more obvious and likeable than the other.

They remind me a LOT of my familial situation in interchangeable ways.

My life ran parallel to Stan's for a long time (ironically enough Gravity Falls came out when I'd just been kicked out of home) and I had a sibling who was the 'golden child' for my family. I was the screw up black sheep and they were the one with potential.

That designation is neither mine nor my sibling's fault. It's the fault of my family for putting those labels on two kids who really had no chance, right from the day we were born, but who were forced to adopt them regardless. I think Stan and Ford are the same.

Where I suffered more direct abuse (physical, psychological etc) because I was reactive and was left in the firing line as the scapegoat (Stan), my sibling was held close by my parents and 'protected' because they were seen as well behaved and offered my parents what they wanted: Someone to control and push for success (Ford). They were still abusing my sibling, just in a different way.

I spiralled and went on to live a life where I was only ever in danger and at risk. I made my peace very early on in life (I think maybe before I was about 10?) that the people who were supposed to love me unconditionally, couldn't stand me, valued me as lesser than my sibling, and didn't want me. But I wanted to Be Somebody and prove my value and worth to everyone else to make up for that, which meant I fell into the wrong hands and did all I could to try and be that ideal for others in the hopes they wouldn't see me as my parents did.

I separated from my family early and went off alone, despite really always being alone, and was 'okay' with that (spoiler, I was not!). I also suffered abuse in the way Ford did and my sibling in the way Stan did to varying degrees too. We're all rarely aligned with one specific character because abuse is, unfortunately, incredible versatile.

My sibling, however, stayed with my mother (our whole family abused us, but I'll stick with parents now because it's most relevant. Our parents divorced when we were young and my dad was our 'primary abuser', but only because he was more blatant with it) and my sibling went to an excellent school because my family saw their potential and submissiveness as an opportunity. A meal ticket.

Their career and life was facilitated because I suppose my family also wanted them to 'make up for me' and get the kid they'd always wanted out of my sibling, which is a lot of pressure to put on a child. They went on to be successful (still are, I'm very proud of them) whereas I couldn't/can't keep a stable job and turned to sex work to survive (there is nothing wrong with sex work blah blah but being forced into it at a young age does have negative consequences, no matter what anyone says).

My sibling was emotionally and psychologically manipulated but also treated in a way that could be misconstrued as being loved. I would think that for them, that was hard to understand that that wasn't truly the case. I think Ford was the same in that respect, especially when he craves acceptance so much.

Those are both types of abuse but in different ways. My sibling lives with the guilt and shame of being 'the one who didn't get it as bad', and can't quite accept that they were never really loved (which is embarrassing to admit and I think/hope they will come to terms with that one for their own sake), and I live with the childish resentment of them being 'the one my parents never wanted' and with the absolute hatred of how unfairly I was treated by people who were supposed to love me unconditionally.

You can see where this is going, right?

Stan and Ford suffered equally in that same way, all throughout their lives in varying ways, and in my other response to you we talked more in depth about how Ford specifically was manipulated his entire life. I think Ford was made to be responsible at a young age and forced to carry this weight on his shoulders, and then as an adult had that insecurity worsened and coaxed by Bill.

Stan deep down knew his father hated him, and despite still wanting his love, eventually knew he wasn't going to get it. I mean, no one even came to his fake funeral for god's sake. Image how that must feel?

Stan grew to spot the signs of abuse and avoid it to the best of his ability. He was still vulnerable of course, but he was more street smart and clued up after a while. He didn't fall for Bill's flattery because he looked at Bill and saw his father. He recognised abuse.

Me and my sibling are the same.

Now, because of the differences in our abuse, my sibling and I turned out to be very different people. They still interact with my family (although they don't enjoy it but do so out of a sense of guilt and duty, and that they have to take care of them). I have nothing to do with any of them because fuck 'em.

I'm very emotional and can be unstable or rude (I have BPD), but love deeply and am sometimes overtly considerate of other people's feelings to my detriment because no cared about mine. I struggle with needing to be loved and being a chameleon who adapts their personality to those around them in order to be most liked and maximise that. I don't have a real identity, just the one I craft in the moment. I even worked/work in sales because having that ability makes it easy to pick up on people's emotional state and manipulate it, for better or worse. I have also done bad things and been cruel to others, I've also had an inflated ego and sometimes still do. I'm the Stan, for the most part, but I've experienced Bill-like abuse too and been the Ford.

My sibling can be spiteful and often acts like the things that happened me didn't actually happen the way I think they did and they minimise my feelings. They struggle to apologise and also behave in a way that is similar to my abusers, but I don't believe they do that maliciously. I think they don't know any better and haven't had the space to mature and come to terms with that. They have a bit of an ego, too. They're the Ford, mostly.

(This isn't to say I'm none of those things, because I can be and my sibling can be all the things I am at times)

I have to remember that they're still in contact with our abusers and were heavily manipulated against me growing up. They still get the Wormtongue treatment, as we said about Ford. They're still affected. They are also the only person I still see because we're in this together and they genuinely love me (as I do them). They're funny and cool and they love as deeply as I do.

My sibling and I, and Stan and Ford, were both raised in the same barn and we're from the same stock; of course we have the traits of our parents. It would be impossible not to. My sibling and I just learn to smother those parts as best we can as we mature and the process of doing so never really ends. I would say I'm a little better at it than my sibling is, but I'm also older and realised my abuse far sooner than they did. I've had longer to come to terms with it, like Stan did.

Stan was aware of his father's abuse much earlier and although I think he struggled to accept it, he eventually realised much sooner than his brother that he was being abused.

Ford wasn't able to mature because he was so busy working and then surviving. He eventually was forced to come to terms with his abuse by both Bill and by others, and it must have sucked to have that realisation so late in life. I have another family member that that exact thing happened to, and the shame we all feel at being taken advantage like that is immense. That's why post-portal Ford is so different in my mind. It breaks or makes you and it is very embarrassing to accept.

But both of them exacted their resentment and sadness and insecurities out on others: Stan literally scammed people out of their money because he wanted to be rich and committed other crimes That's a really bad thing to do!

Yes, Ford was manipulative and tough on others because he'd been taught to be, and I think he truly believed in his youth that he "turned out fine!" (a favourite one-liner of mine from people who are in denial about their abuse) because he couldn't accept it.

It was wrong of both of them to do the things they did, and there is no excuse for it, but we can understand where that behaviour came from if we examine them both fairly.

What matters is that eventually both Stan and Ford matured into people who recognised why they were in the wrong. They stopped that cycle of abuse by finding love and forgiving one another, and by finding their their family.

Stan and Ford were able to redeem themselves. They both have a plethora of faults but an absolute encyclopedia of positives, too. It just took them a long time to unlearn and they have to continue to unlearn those until they die.

All victims are imperfect victims because there's no such thing as a perfect one. Victims carry shame, victims can be aggressive, victims can repeat the mistakes of their abusers no matter how much they think they don't. Maybe they don't respond to their trauma 'the way that they should' (which is bullshit, by the way. There is no right or wrong way to be a victim).

When I suffered (a different, non family related) major trauma, I wasn't believed (by that same friend I talked about in the other ask) because I hadn't, in their opinion, reacted in the way I supposed to react. I wasn't sad enough or traumatised enough, when in actual fact I was all of those things but was too ashamed and afraid to show it to others until it got so bad that I couldn't hold it in anymore. I protected myself through jokes and being blasé about it.

Ford is a great example of a more obvious imperfect victim. He is a product of his environment and he protects his vulnerabilities with egoism. The most egotistical of us are the most insecure.

Stan is also an imperfect victim, just more obviously so. He was portrayed from the start as likeable and funny, but he is the same as his brother.

Initially Stan was as cantankerous and mean as he was silly, remember. But he changed over time. We get to see the toll his abuse took on him because he learned to come to terms with that shame and told the audience about it through his actions and behaviours. We actually saw his backstory in detail and saw how he learned to love the kids. We saw his vulnerability whereas Ford refuses to and struggles to lower that guard and show his soft spots.

Ford is portrayed in a very specific light that I think does him an injustice at times and contributes to the misunderstanding of his personality.

Ford's vulnerability is hard for him to reveal (to those around him and the audience) because he couldn't afford to be vulnerable during his time in the portal or with Bill. Vulnerability kills when you're not showing it to the right people and when he did show his vulnerable side to Bill (he didn't have the answers he thought he was so capable of having and had to swallow that bitter pill and ask for help), he was betrayed and hurt really awfully.

Ford then went on the exact same journey Stan did when Stan was kicked out of home, except Ford was 30 plus and in an interdimensional nightmare instead of the USA. They both suffered. (And also, the US might as well have been a different dimension for Stan at his young age because it was just a foreign to him as space was to Ford. Earth is cruel no matter where you are).

Anyway.... All of that is to say, nobody comes out of abuse clean.

Some of us become unlikeable and unfriendly, and sometimes even abusive ourselves. A lot of us learn to survive in any way we can and sometimes that is at the detriment of others.

But what really matters is how we unlearn those behaviours and how we grow.

Don't look at and judge Ford or Stan from the place that they start: Do it from where they end up.

I'd also like to add that just because you might be a dick, it doesn't mean you deserve to be abused and I see a lot of people say that Ford deserved what he got, and that pisses me off so fucking badly.

Again: disclaimer these are just my own feelings do not come for me thank u

[fangirltothefullest]

"I read some of the reblogs/tags from the proshipping post and one has got me thinking especially about the fictional minors, and certain restrictions like US not allow depictions of it. I get why this is a heated topic; but the moral responsibility should not be placed on the creators and the other people who enjoy in a fictional setting. I know that there will be really sick people who will use media as an excuse to do to certain heinous actions (like Fight Club) but i do think that is on those members of thr audience and not on the creator and those who are sensible enough not to that. There are so many things i wish i can articulate this better but i do hope that my words are enough. Let me know if you are alright discussing this with them or if you want me to stop."

i just get so tired because like.... i personally don't like that there are people who feel the need to write certain things or draw certain things and sometimes I wonder if the people who do write it need to go to therapy because maybe there's something that they could get help with.

But it sucks because like.... the moment you start policing what people write about it becomes an easy slope of "well EVERYTHING should be puritanical and censored to spare this group and that group" and suddenly it's an excuse to censor everything people consider even mildly "wrong". It's how "degenerates" are made out of homosexual and transgender people, how books are banned for talking about science, how even the most mundane of things we take for granted can so easily be labelled as "taboo" and banned.

There's so much bad that comes from censoring. If we just learned to be like you know what? There are more important things to think about than what random people online are writing about with fictional characters.

There's a reason this topic is heated and it makes sense but the whole point of the post was just to get people to think about the idea that instead of spending all day going "hey this person ships incest block them! Hate them! Send them hateful messages! Tell everyone you know to shun the beast!" it would save you so much energy and time to just.... walk away from this fictional thing you don't have to partake in. literally that's all.

But as usual it always devolves into whether people should get to draw fictional kids fucking or whatever because for some reason it's all or nothing for people.

I think the question for that post shouldn't be whether it's ok but whether we should not be dicks to the people who are like "dude if you wanna write about something I'm uncomfortable with, I'm just gonna hit da bricks"

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Charlotte Clymer at Charlotte's Web Thoughts:

Over the years, I’ve occasionally seen the argument pop up from some conservatives that men’s bodies are controlled through the military draft system. They use this bad faith response to women’s bodies being controlled by anti-choice lawmakers. In recent months, this argument has been more prevalent, particularly online, as abortion has become arguably the single most potent issue in the presidential campaign. So, let's quickly discuss this ridiculous talking point given that some conservative men have betrayed their complete ignorance on the Selective Service System.

Arguing the draft is to men like abortion is to women is ludicrous for three big reasons. First, the draft in the United States hasn't been in effect since December 27th, 1972. That was the last day young men were inducted in our Armed Forces. And yes, that means young men in the U.S. have been free of being drafted longer than young women have had abortion access. Second, the consequences for young men failing to register for the draft are not even close to being similar for young women who don't have abortion access. It's like comparing a scratch on your car to a catastrophic wreck. Young men who don't register for the draft essentially cannot be hired by the federal government and some state governments. And in some states, they cannot get a driver's license without registering for the draft.

That's completely unjust, I agree, but it ain't close to being the same. Conservative men will then come back and claim young men can be prosecuted for failing to register, but this is basically false. The Justice Department decided to suspend prosecutions for draft registration back in 1988 because they realized it's pointless and helps no one. Then they’ll claim that young men who don’t register for the draft can't receive federal student aid for college, but this isn't true, either. That law is no longer on the books. A young man's federal aid for college will NOT be impacted by their draft registration. Meanwhile, young women who don't have abortion access can literally die and many have. Women have died at hospitals because doctors were too afraid to offer abortion care for fear of breaking cruel laws implemented after the Dobbs ruling.

[...] For more than five decades, feminist leaders have argued that: 1) young men should have autonomy over their bodies and a military draft is the complete opposite of that and 2) exempting young women from the draft is a sexist double standard. But when efforts come up to either eliminate the military draft entirely OR require young women to register for it just like young men, it's Republicans in Congress who have led the way, every time, in killing those efforts. So, if you're a conservative young man who is angry about this double standard, I agree with you. It's not fair that you're required to register for the military draft and women aren't.

You have every right to be angry about that, but you should be angry at Republicans. Because it's feminist leaders who have been fighting for your equality all this time. It's the feminist movement who was first making the argument that young men shouldn't be coerced into military service. It's an issue of autonomy. And Republicans have consistently opposed that. So, please, don't compare draft registration to abortion access because it makes you look ridiculous, but moreover, you should hold Republican elected officials accountable for stripping away your autonomy in service to a sexist double standard. While you’re at it, thank feminist leaders who were calling this out long before you were born.

Charlotte Clymer wrote an excellent column on how males that were once being drafted to serve in the military is NOTHING like lots of American women losing abortion access as a result of Dobbs.