#but a lot of people say they really found themselves then

[bestrongbebrave49]

I think a lot of people don’t seem to realise that every book does teach you something but not necessarily from a moralistic point of view; books with unreliable narrators and shady characters teach you that the world isn’t kind and that perception can be warped. That two truths can co-exist simultaneously and that people either intentionally or unintentionally lie to themselves and/or others as a means of self-preservation, gaining something for themselves, and/or simply because change and self-awareness are difficult when you lack the desire (for whatever reason) to do so.

However, let’s say you love the twisted character and you’re enjoying their deceptive nature, their manipulative engagement with others, and the self-centred actions they take. What does that say about you personally? The answer is way more simple than a lot of people assume; you enjoy learning about the darker aspects of human behaviour in a safe environment where that characters actions can never harm you.

You enjoy the violence because it’s not being directed at a real person. You cheer on the character because through the power of words you’ve found them compelling, exhilarating, relatable, disturbed, fascinating - they are a fictional lens of darker aspects that you can cheer on because they are solely comprised of words, or are portrayed by an actor, or are lines drawn on to a page.

Books can and do teach you empathy, injustice, a difference in perspective. They broaden your mind and give you comfort with the parts you may relate to. They push you out of your comfort zone and wrap you in a thrilling experience whereby you can escape from your troubles whilst seeking enjoyment.

But they are also fictional depictions and if you cheer for the villain that doesn’t mean you have failed morally. It means you found a fictional character compelling. If you enjoy the morally reprehensible events in a book, it means you like the fictional depiction of events - not that you condone those actions in real life.

I love Ramsey Bolton - from the shows granted haven’t yet finished the books - I cried when his character was no longer a central figure. That doesn’t mean I would go up to a real life perpetrator of such violence and congratulate them, cheer them on and demand they suffer zero consequences. Books teach you a lot about what you do and don’t like in fiction; what tropes, characterisations, themes and plots you prefer from ones you don’t. They can teach you right from wrong but that doesn’t mean they necessarily have to or that every book should. Many stories expect you to already understand morals before you crack the spine open.

Every book you read will be a journey of self-discovery, but that’s all every book should teach you really - more about yourself. What aspects intrigued you, excited you, and drew you in? Which repulsed you, and why were you offended, scandalised and uncomfortable during the reading process? Was that the fundamental purpose of the story or was there something in the text that hit a nerve?

I certainly have a purpose for what I personally write, but equally I write things for fun. When I write a morally reprehensible act it’s not because I want the take away to be - go forth and do these things - but simultaneously I want people to enjoy reading the scenes and find enjoyment in them.

I want whoever reads my stories to come away with some sort of understanding of themselves; whether it be a comforting aspect or an unsettling one - an understanding of new knowledge they didn’t have before the reading experience, or merely the cemented fact that they enjoy something they already knew they liked. I want them to learn they like my writing or for my writing to help them understand that something in the text - heck, maybe the whole book - just wasn’t for them.

Every piece of art we interact with will help us uncover something about ourselves however minor or major that discovery may be, and no matter or how brief or long our engagement with said artwork is.

Yes, books are teachable moments where morals are concerned, but if you’re using them purely as a moral testing means then I’m sorry (truly) but you’ve been unintentionally engaging with the art form in a damaging way.

“it sounds like you’re justifying their actions-“ i am. they’re a fictional character. i’m okay with anything they do all the time. hope this helps.

[drdemonprince]

People who are concerned about problematic or triggering kinks often couch these concerns in highly reasonable-sounding reactions and make what seems like highly reasonable requests.

They point out that lots of the most upsetting kinks may remind a person of their worst traumas, for example, and that these kinks, when played out, can resemble actual abuse so closely that the kink communities may attract bad actors who genuinely do wish to do harm.

They may allow that some kink practitioners are themselves survivors, and tolerate taboo kink's existence insofar as the correct people find it therapeutic, but they'll qualify that it should always be made clear what is fantasy and what is reality.

But ultimately, people making these arguments will assert, there are certain things that a simply beyond the pale -- across the line and wrong.

A lot of people say these things earnestly, and mean them, and I don't think they intend any harm in saying them. And in comporting their own personal lives, these guardrails may more or less apply well for them. But where it becomes a problem is in issuing dictates about how other people should act, and how kink friendly spaces should run, and how people who hold taboo kinks ought to be regarded.

Does it protect victims to view their kinks as inherently morally suspect?

Does treating a person who is forthright about their taboo desires and who has found a consensual venue to express those desires as more potentially predatory than your random vanilla cishet man help us make kink spaces that are safe?

Is it *true* having a fetish or kink makes a person more dangerous than someone that doesn't?

What's an acceptable reason to have a taboo fetish and what's an unacceptable reason? Who decides?

How might linking sexual practices that are already highly stigmatized and associated with queernees to abuse lead to increasing those group members' vulnerability?

Are communities where vetting of sexual play partners and frank discussions of consent are routine somehow more dangerous to be in than the vanilla world, where such things rarely happen?

What is a suitable way of flagging that fantasy is fantasy and real life is real life? Who decides?

Are certain real life enactments of a fantasy always wrong even when they are consensual, simply because they look bad/intense?

Which practices are okay to partake in in real life?

Who decides? Who decides? What happens to the people who violate those other people's rules?

You don't have to be interested in every kink and you don't have to visit all kink spaces. It's fine if you find certain fetishes disturbing, gross, triggering, a deal breaker, or reminiscent of your own abuse (and I'm really sorry that those things happened to you). But those entirely legitimate feelings in NO way translate to a need for anyone to place restrictions on how others play or fantasize or comport themselves in their own spaces.

Not all spaces will be for you, but please understand that for those of us who are kinky and queer, 99.9999999999% of all social spaces in the world are already viscerally violently NOT for us. Let us have our spaces to pretend to be puppy dogs and kitty cats and siblings and vampires and home invaders and monsters and rape victims and rapists and murderers and dead bodies and babies and robots and dolls and video game characters and everything else.

You don't have to like it but you don't have the authority to say we don't get to do it, and nobody should.

[felassan]

WBUR article: ''Dragon Age: The Veilguard' creators on their new vision for the fantasy series'

Rest of post under cut due to length and possible spoilers.

“Expectations are so high — whether from the fans of the franchise or the perspective of the company — there’s tremendous pressure.” says game director Corinne Busche. “One thing I’ll say about this team: They really rise to the occasion.” [...] “We sort of lost our way in a couple of previous titles, moving away from that character-focused storytelling that made ‘Mass Effect’ and ‘Dragon Age’ a success,” says John Epler, “Dragon Age” series creative director. “This project really coalesced when we consciously identified that central aspect of the experience: the characters.” “Veilguard” puts players in the shoes of an unlikely leader to a small band of rebels — think “Oceans 11” meets “The Fellowship of the Ring.” “It’s a deeply personal experience,” says Busche. “You’re creating your own character and that might be a representation of you, that might be reflective of the kinds of choices you'd like to make.” For the first time in BioWare history, that customizability allows player avatars to be transgender and access unique dialogue options around that identity. There’s also a prominent storyline about a party member coming out as nonbinary. “I'm an openly queer trans woman — I really believe that representation matters,” says Busche. “Everyone is welcome in ‘Dragon Age,’ and we want people to see themselves and feel like they can have a heroic place here.” [...]"

"4 questions for Corinne Busche and John Epler What makes “Dragon Age” stand apart from other fantasy games? Corinne Busche: “‘Dragon Age’ is a franchise that’s fundamentally always been about this really authentic team of companions that come together to take on insurmountable challenges. It's about people. It touches on some pretty deep themes as well. Injustices. The burdens of leadership. It really is about establishing this sense of found family to take on these challenges that lay ahead.” What feels different from previous iterations? John Epler: “I'd say this version of the game is much bigger in its storytelling, in its scope. We really wanted to put you in every one of the big story moments. So as an example, it's the difference between watching the Battle of Minis Tirith versus being someone who's fighting in the middle of it. You're much more participatory in it. We wanted you to feel like you were part of these big world-changing events. You were right in the thick of it and really focusing on making the story that is so big and epic feel personal just by how you interact with it.” What sort of hero is the player character, Rook?  Epler: “One thing we wanted to steer away from very consciously was the sense of them being a chosen one because that's something we've done previously. They are the right person in the right place at the right time. But there is always a core personality to them. They are always going to be someone who needs to pull together this small but somewhat dysfunctional group and really lead them in a way that makes sense for that team.” Busche: “And it's one of the interesting aspects of each new game having a different protagonist. We do have a true blank slate, some say in ‘Dragon Age: Origins.’ I would put the Inquisitor in that category. Whereas Hawke in ‘Dragon Age 2’ has a very bespoke identity. So we kind of strike a balance between that. One of the defining properties of Rook, who they are as a character, is this idea of someone who's very competent, but as a leader, they're learning how to shoulder this responsibility.” You’ve put a lot of blood and sweat into this game. It’s nearly out. Have people already been telling you stories about how they connect with it? Busche: “Absolutely. One of the reasons that I felt so honored, so privileged to be able to join this team and work on this franchise is so rarely have I seen a game or a piece of media, for that matter, that connects with people so deeply. There's a real sense of ownership and an affinity for the franchise. It's a rare thing.” Epler: “I'll share a very personal anecdote about this game and people connecting. So I wrote the follower Bellara. Early on while we were making this game, I got a diagnosis of ADHD. So I'm writing this character who has a lot of the same mannerisms, a lot of the same views of the world, in a very specific way. And hearing people online, connecting to this character in the way she speaks and the way she interacts, they were able to point to and say, ‘That's me, that's how I deal with the world.’ And it's just such a cool feeling to have someone connect with a character you create and be able to say, ‘I felt seen in a way that I've never felt seen in a game before.’”"

[source]

[lumdays]

chat is this real!!!

relationship charts + fun facts utc!! (sorry it's a lot of yapping)

- siyun and malleus met the same way novel!yuu (yuuya) and malleus met except siyun didn't take too kindly to him using magic on them. they had beef for a while and it settled into Respect, Sorta

(translation by @/yuurei20)

- siyun is the janitor (refused nrc studentship from crowley) so they've met a few of the students before their ingame appearances (jamil, ruggie and. jade)

- almost killed grim the first time they met

- leona often just grabs their ankle when they're passing by his spot in the botanical garden. he either makes them fall or uses them as a pillow, depending on his mood and the clothes they're wearing (if it's their regular nrc uniform then it's eep time, if it's the janitor uniform he's making them fall on their ass)

- it's not that vil isn't ambitious, it's just that siyun isn't all that interesting of an investment in the first place. so when his first few attemps didn't work, he gave up on them. they're not enough of an eyesore for him to fix anyway (also their reception to his ministrations were pretty hostile, epel bias)

- the first time epel and siyun ever met, they stood up to vil for him and all he felt was. Shame. wow, the magicless janitor is stronger, braver than him. he's. so. thankful (it's ok they magishift it out🔥🔥🔥)

- the light magic thing is uhhhh Lore Stuff, siyun has a strange connection to blot and that same connection makes them recoil at light magic (not the users themselves. Usually)

- THE ROOK AND SIYUN (onesided)BEEF!!!!! rook spreading l'amour et la beauté and forcefeeding them cheese (someone said rook is like aoyama's cousin and that's wonderful to me) meanwhile siyun is devising a hundred and seven evil plans to take him down. he chases them down as much as he does beastmen and siyun has taken to returning the energy by throwing increasingly sharp objects in his general direction (they miss by a mile cause their aim sucks ASSSSSS also their eyesight is shit but they have Bigger Problems rn)

more seriously though, rook's compliments and flattery may Mostly be in good faith but he makes siyun feel. Less Than Human (more so than they already aren't)

- if you couldn't tell, i have a huge freshmen/yun found family bias and they are Everything to me. they all think siyun's crush on jade is absolutely nuts (ortho is maybe a Little less unconvinced but he joins in with the others cause it's fun! yun gets it).

after a while, they start getting mad at other students who litter or trash the school cause it means more work for their fuckass janitor🔥🔥🔥(personally i think jack + maybe deuce are already the kind of people to pick up after other people's trash when they see it LIKE NOT ALL THE TIME, THEY’RE NOT SAINTS BUT. yea. meanwhile sebek is ABSOLUTELY the typa guy to YELL at people who litter)

- jamil and siyun were pretty good friends before shit went down in book 4, at least in siyun's perspective. it's not obvious on the chart but it actually took them a shit ton of time to actually make up and be friends again (for real this time!)

- the nrc staff and siyun all agree that crowley is public enemy number 1 (some more playfully than others read, siyun hae) but yea they all got SOMETHING against him. in siyun's case, he used a similar kind of magic as malleus first thing when they got out of the coffin and it got them tweaking really bad because they're kindaaaaaaa allergic to magic (should’ve mentioned this earlier but i forgor

- yunde time! (🤮🤮🤮🤮) siyun fell first and they fell HARD, 0 shame about shouting their love from the top of all the nrc towers or at jade himself, they 🔥dgaf, to say the least. at first, jade honest to god couldn't care less about their silly crush on him, though he did find it funny so he entertained them and ended up catching feelings by book 7 because he's a DUMBASS but by then siyun is like "i give up looking for white girl 🙂‍↕️✋️ it is not my fate" so jade is yearning + pining TOO FUCKING LATE

anyway, silly fun fact about them cause i feel like it, siyun was in jade's dream in book 7 but they basically looked like floyd

oh and

- floyd calls siyun “grouper fishie/grouper” because

yeaaaaaaaaaa…also he thinks siyun’s crush on jade is funny as shit until jade reciprocates

taglist (tell me if you wanna be added or removed🔥🔥):

@twistedwonderlandshenanigans @distant-velleity @sickle-stick @elenauaurs @heyhellohihowareyou @skriblee-ksk @angelwishess

[georgiapeach30513]

Peach! Mrs. Pasta here...checking in for the second time in a few days!

Normally I just lurk in and smile to myself when I see your posts and banters with your followers. But tonight I just couldn't resist...

Ramen, bless him, is getting really good at the non-specific, vague-turnaround, deflective answers to personal questions! I'm impressed.

Also...Nobody keeps their hands more to themselves than Ramen does when he's around a lot of salty things. Is he on a low-sodium diet? Is that why he exercises such great self-control when it comes to these things? TBF, he's very gentlemanly when it comes to being around women, especially costars/colleagues.

I can see (most) people on here are either tired, upset, tired, over it, or a combination of both. I can understand that, especially for the mods that run these blogs. I notice that for a lot of people, separation of professional and personal for their favorite celebrity can be a difficult task. I don't blame anyone for feeling that way, it can be hard to "not think about THAT" when you just want to enjoy "THIS". I will say this though.

Something I have found time and again to be true, is that IF something/someone/someplace is meant for you, things will fall into place. If something is NOT meant for you, no matter what you do, things tend to fall apart. You can try and put it back together, but then something else falls. This has happened to me personally recently, where I was in a situation where I wanted to make something work because I thought I had no other choice and I didn't really want to rock the boat further and go searching for something else. Unfortunately, the more I tried, the more I compromised and kept on staying, the worse it got. I'd fix one thing, another would break. I'd get over one hurdle, another inconvenience would pop up. Finally, I decided to take matters in my own hands and started actually listening to what the universe was trying to guide me towards. It was very hard for me to do this, as I'm more of a logical/rational person, than a spiritual one (I don't really like reading signs or feeling energies to tell me what to do)...But I tried a different approach, and started asking the universe, "If this isn't right, what should I do?" And I would listen and wait, and then tangible things would happen, and then I started making different decisions and taking different approaches. Almost immediately, things started changing for the better. I'm in a much better place now (figuratively and literally).

Just some food for thought: Let things play out. They will. And hindsight is always 20/20. Think about it. I believe Anne's blog has a library that can be helpful for those interested. If all else fails, keep coming to Jen's blog where she posts stories, baking, and general hilarity to keep everyone's spirits up. You are truly a beautiful soul, Miss GeorgiaPeach! <3

Mrs. Pasta! Welcome back. Clearly, your presence has been much needed this past week. Which I do say that there is a reason one shouldn’t consume too much sodium. I suppose were all bloated, and now need to fast.

Ramen is quite smart. He’s playing it coy and vague, non-definite answers. He’s doing good, despite a quick facial change with some questions. It’s funny to watch.

For someone that is quite a gentleman and claims to love PDA his hands do seem quite to himself. But it is a family movie after all, wouldn’t want to be too obvious, I suppose.

I think a lot of people are tired, and more so tired of ongoing arguments that suck the life out of the fandom, much like an overly salted diet. So maybe it’s just the influx of salt that has everyone red in the face? But this is why I implore anyone to curate the space that you want. Filter tags, block blogs, unfollow blogs, create the space that you watch to see with personalities that jive well with your own.

The universe is quite a tricky lady. She usually makes way for things that are for you. Usually when you try to fit a square peg in a round hole, you’re met with resistance. You can sit there, and smile you’re doing it, but others around you will eventually be able to see that you are in fact creating a bigger problem with an impossible task. I’m glad you were able to get to a better place once you listened, and were aware that what you’re forcing isn’t for you.

I do think that hindsight is 20/20. There always seems to be something poking around that pops up at the last minute. Eventually things either fall into place, or you’ve created a big mess. @anneslibrary is a great well of information. And of course @annislittleshopofhorrors herself is a peach in her own right. You are a beautiful soul from the inside out as well, Mrs. Pasta. Take care, and never feel afraid to pop on by when you can.

[jbaileyfansite]

Ariana Grande might need a good chiropractor after filming Wicked. 

Speaking to PEOPLE alongside costar Jonathan Bailey, the singer-actress, 31, confirms that the many haughty hair flips she performed as Oz’s Glinda the Good Witch left her “forever changed.” 

“I was, I still am, stiff,” she reports after Bailey, 36, asks if she got “physio involved” to toss her blonde wigs behind her just so. 

“I'm forever changed in a lot of ways emotionally,” Grande says of playing Glinda, before riffing: “But mostly my spinal column. It's not good.”

Wicked: Part One (in theaters Nov. 22) stars Grande alongside Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba, the future Wicked Witch of the West. Directed by Jon M. Chu, the movie is an adaptation of Stephen Schwartz and Winnie Holzman’s hit Broadway musical, itself inspired by the 1995 Gregory McGuire novel reimagining The Wizard of Oz’s witches. 

Many of Glinda’s hair flips are directed — flirtatiously — at Bailey’s dashing Winkie Prince Fiyero upon his arrival at Shiz University, where Glinda and Elphaba are studying.

“She flossed my teeth every time she did it,” quips the Bridgerton star. 

“You're welcome,” responds Grande. Adds Bailey: “That's why I've got absolute perfect pearlies.”

Speaking of Glinda’s hair, the “Yes, And?” singer recalls the difficulty Bailey had in inserting a flower into her voluminous wig in another scene. “There was a lot of real estate underneath,” she explains. “A lot of matter.”

“A lot of dark matter,” agrees Bailey. “And I had to put the flower [in], which actually is incredibly romantic and easy. It took about four hours of trying to find the right place to put it.”

“Yes,” says Grande. “And it really didn't — we never found it. They cut away before it makes it in. ”

Unsurprisingly, the two costars and friends call themselves “the giggliest pair” on Chu’s set. The filmmaker “was trying to sort of herd goats,” recalls Bailey. “But that feels right for Glinda and Fiyero, doesn't it?”

Source

[vimbry]

there's still a part of my brain that's in 2005 and reads an age like, 33 in a bio thinking, wowww. that person is so mature. bet they really have their life together. I am 4 years off this.

[xxplastic-cubexx]

sorry if you've already mentioned but what (re?)ignited your love of comics/x-men/cherik? curious because there are so many different adaptations of them

i think im gonna speak for a few (or a lot of) people when i say that TL;DR the wolverine x deadpool movie that came out this summer is what pulled me back into comics and i COULD leave it there but i will go into excruciating and unnecessary detail instead because i love an origin story and i love oversharing.

under the cut tho because im nice sometimes (there's also wxdp doodles in here. if you want to see that)

ironically (and probably commonly), growing up i was more of an avengers kid. Kinda. Loosely <- binge watched the cartoons and movies and read copious amounts of comics and fics and i am hoarding fanart in my old dresser as we speak ok 'loosely' is a modest lie.

embarrassingly i remember getting into discus cause of captain america LMAO so yeah needless to say i was a Humble Fan- me joining my school's comic class/club didnt help either (shoutout to my teach from that she was the realest one out there for. A Multitude of reasons). she definitely is was inspires me to even draw still and make comics and i often think bout the tips i learned from her class tbh she was great

back to the movies t and comics tho, i got into em because my brother would offer to take me and that's how we'd hang out (i rarely saw movies in theaters and i even more rarely went anywhere as a teenager. still kinda like that today tbh ooops) and yk. it just snowballed after that.

my brother and i have always liked comics- he just more than me for a while (though he still very much loves comics and As We Know From My Posts we still talk about them whenever i see him To An Exhausting Degree)

durin then i was really into stony and i have a few surviving doodles i made but those are between me and god. and anyone who asks tbh LOL

'snap can you make this related to x-men again this is long' ok so fast forward to This Summer again I Still Don't Really See Movies but my brother offered to take me and this was the first time i'd actually seen an x-men movie in full

as a kid i only remember seeing the 'perfection' scene between erik and raven in first class while i was channel surfing. pretty sure i changed the channel after seeing mystique naked cause i was scared my parents would get mad at me if they caught me watching it LOL

BUT MOVING ON As A Kid i think it's also natural you'll sometimes watch 92 if it's on And I Did though evidently it didn't stick too hard (i do remember really liking beast and gambit though.... still do really): my knowledge of x-men was. INCREDIBLY sparse. like diabolically so so i didnt have too much expectations (aside from the fact i vaguely liked deadpool beforehand).

tbh i dont know why my bro never took me to see any of the x-men movies. it's not like he doesn't Also like x-men (90% sure nightcrawler's his favorite but my brother will be caught dead saying he has absolute favorites like that)- he owns a bitch load of deadpool comics/omnibus sets too (of which ive read over the years and reread this year) but Shrug moving on

Much Like Most Of The Internet i fell down the rabbit hole that way. i have some doodles i made a couple days after seeing WxDP that i now have an excuse to throw at all of you Look And Perceive

and so. As I Do. i got curious and told myself i'd binge watch all the x-men movies the week before i went back to school And Then I Did ft. My Brother Sometimes and then i said i'd binge watch all of '92 and And I Did That ft. My Brother Sometimes But Less So and now we're here. currently watching Evolution...

once i got to school i realized i lived near a comic shop and started getting into the comics that way (the first ones i got since going down this rabbit hole was Magneto Was Right!, The Resurrection of Magneto, and The Trial of Magneto. if you were curious !!!!! clearly i didnt care too much about context i just needed to see My Guy jelvejlkvj i have no regrets and Evidently ive read more since)

i'm pretty sure what dragged me into cherik specifically was the fact i saw a clip of The Famous ending to 92 where erik's aghast at the notion jean even has to question his love for charles. i think that was what officially had me refocus my lens on them: not a single poolverine thought after that LOL (all the cherik posting i saw on twitter definitely helped too but that was the nail in the coffin for any other interests i had: i was locked into cherik and x-men in general now)

that clip specifically, i was surprised at the fact they- frequently even- have the x-men franchise say erik loves charles and vice versa so bluntly. even if it's not meant to be romantic, i fear im just a fan of how casually the word's thrown around with them two and i got tender bout it all. Then Yk. i just live for the drama. the hilarity even. the sincerity .... they make me sick if i think of them too long so im gonna end it here

before i go tho ironically enough, the first x-men issue i owned was This one (story a this is that while stuck in some wacko dimension charles accidentally gets himself trapped in logan's mind while utilizing his astral projection. if you were curious). pretty sure i got it for free with another comic set i got years ago since our old comic shop loved to do that, but it's poetic aint it. maybe ill doodle something referencing it..

i should probably look into finishing this arc someday im Dummy curious to even know how it started and how it ends.....

[gen-is-gone]

I can't go five minutes in DW fandom without people being just atrociously mean about things that I love with the blissful unawareness of majority mainstream opinion holders that the people they're being mean about are like. In the space with them. And this in a space full of ardent fans of arguably some of the most esoteric obscure side stuff that everyone else disdains or doesn't even know. And I'm having fun for the most part but also like. It's just exhausting, constantly goddamn exhausting.

[hecksupremechips]

Don’t you just kinda wanna go insane thinking about how it took years for Shane Dawsons youtube career built on blackface and pedophilia and other “edgy jokes” to get “canceled” but then some hardly semi popular marginalized creator who makes all their money online makes a tweet that’s offensive if you dig deep enough and they get instantly shit on and deemed as irredeemably harmful and no amount of apologies will ever make up for the irreparable damage they have caused to marginalized communities everywhere? Is this really truly how you want to live life and support your community or are you just a dickwad who thinks anger automatically=activism?

[eggy-tea]

Just going to vague about it because I don't actually follow any of these people and this is tangential to the post itself, but I saw an anonymous ask to the tune of "Why do you care about atrocities going on in the world if you're an atheist (unlike me, a principled believer)? Everyone dies; why does it matter how or when if you're not concerned about the afterlife?" and like...

It's really hard to deny the death cult allegations when you're out here straight-up admitting that within your moral framework, the only thing that matters is death, and the only thing that gives death any meaning is adherence to your religion. Death + Cult = Death Cult.

[peapod20001]

I actually do have very complex thoughts about many different things, it’s just a bit challenging to connect the inner voice to the outer voice sometimes </3

[hymnostic]

every so often i write a piece about how i’m essentially a bad person with the intention of posting it as a form of catharsis or more likely penance i guess but every time my twisted sense of self preservation gets in the way because i am a coward

[shy-sapphic-ace]

Heyyy, so, I need advice. I'm having another sexuality crisis and now I think I might actually be a lesbian... Should I change my username from shy-bi-and-ace to shy-sapphic-ace (or smth like that)?

[gu6chan]

Just realised

February 2022 - Drakengard 1.3

February 2023 - Drakengard "Magnitude Negative"

February 2024 -

I'm free :')

[emeryleewho]

I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got paid to review people's books, and one of the rules of that review company is one that I think is just super useful to media analysis as a whole, and that is, we were told never to critique media for what it didn't do but only for what it did.

So, for instance, I couldn't say "this book didn't give its characters strong agency or goals". I instead had to say, "the characters in this book acted in ways that often felt misaligned with their characterization as if they were being pulled by the plot."

I think this is really important because a lot of "critiques" people give, if subverted to address what the book does instead of what it doesn't do, actually read pretty nonsensical. For instance, "none of the characters were unique" becomes "all of the characters read like other characters that exist in other media", which like... okay? That's not really a critique. It's just how fiction works. Or "none of the characters were likeable" becomes "all of the characters, at some point or another, did things that I found disagreeable or annoying" which is literally how every book works?

It also keeps you from holding a book to a standard it never sought to meet. "The world building in this book simply wasn't complex enough" becomes "The world building in this book was very simple", which, yes, good, that can actually be a good thing. Many books aspire to this. It's not actually a negative critique. Or "The stakes weren't very high and the climax didn't really offer any major plot twists or turns" becomes "The stakes were low and and the ending was quite predictable", which, if this is a cute romcom is exactly what I'm looking for.

Not to mention, I think this really helps to deconstruct a lot of the biases we carry into fiction. Characters not having strong agency isn't inherently bad. Characters who react to their surroundings can make a good story, so saying "the characters didn't have enough agency" is kind of weak, but when you flip it to say "the characters acted misaligned from their characterization" we can now see that the *real* problem here isn't that they lacked agency but that this lack of agency is inconsistent with the type of character that they are. a character this strong-willed *should* have more agency even if a weak-willed character might not.

So it's just a really simple way of framing the way I critique books that I think has really helped to show the difference between "this book is bad" and "this book didn't meet my personal preferences", but also, as someone talking about books, I think it helps give other people a clearer idea of what the book actually looks like so they can decide for themselves if it's worth their time.

Update: This is literally just a thought exercise to help you be more intentional with how you critique media. I'm not enforcing this as some divine rule that must be followed any time you have an opinion on fiction, and I'm definitely not saying that you have to structure every single sentence in a review to contain zero negative phrases. I'm just saying that I repurposed a rule we had at that specific reviewer to be a helpful tool to check myself when writing critiques now. If you don't want to use the tool, literally no one (especially not me) can or wants to force you to use it. As with all advice, it is a totally reasonable and normal thing to not have use for every piece of it that exists from random strangers on the internet. Use it to whatever extent it helps you or not at all.