#i dont necessarily consider it anti more like criticism but just to be safe

[anarmorofwords]

I'm obviously not the previous anon, but your answer got me thinking. Firstly, I'll say that I do like what cc's doing with tlh, so this isn't hate per se? But I think her biggest mistake tlh-wise is how much of her original writing process she's shared with us.

That's what's prompted most of the 'show and not tell', in my opinion. Look at the characters's wiki pages. There's lots of trivia we've never been shown. Thomas's songwriting? Never even mentioned. James's passion for poem-making? Never heard of her. The Carstairs were going to be white (possibly half-french) ffs.

I'm an amateur writer; I'll by no means try to compare myself with a woman that has been an author for almost two decades, but I do know that characters change. Heck, my main characters changed a fuck ton in the few months it took me to come up with a plot; imagine how much cc's characters changed since 2013.

The thing is, cc overshared a lot of stuff about these foetus characters that she --ultimately-- must have realised had no true purpose to the story she was creating. That's completely normal, but nevertheless, it's information that should absolutely not have been shared with her big-ass following; who in turn came to expect something (or is currently expecting something) that simply won't happen for logistic --thus valid-- reasons.

Leaving original expectations aside and focusing on canon, I do think what she says is shown; but not to the necessary degree. This, however, is for obvious reasons concerning the plot.

Take TMT. We've seen they care for each other --we've seen them together as a friend group arguably quite often-- but:

1) James's drama with the gracelet, which we've seen greatly dampens his emotions (one of the first things he does after getting the damn thing off is try to go to Matthew to explain himself and basically tell him he loves him and say sorry)

2) Matthew's alcoholism and the secretiveness that came after his sibling's death

3) Thomas's massive crush on Alastair, who has bad blood with Matthew and James (I could talk more about this situation, because I have FEELINGS)

4) Christopher's probable fixation on Grace (there was actually no problem with him pre-coi, but oh boy will we have drama because of Gracetopher)

Are factors that greatly damage the confidentiality of a group, no matter how close they are. If we took them away, we'd see how J+M+C protested against T going on patrol alone, how TMT had a hiding out of sorts, how J trusted in them his marriage arrangement with Cordelia, how M+C+T are among the few J tells about his shit with Belial and accepts help from, or simply their interactions. We'd see all those things, and (possibly) think they are --indeed-- close.

I'd like to take a vote of faith, and say cc will resolve these issues satisfyingly in chot, but only time will tell.

(Concerning Matthew and Anna, I do have something to say, but I'm afraid this ask is getting too annoyingly long for you, lol)

(And this is clearly just my humble opinion)

hii!!! I'm probably repetitive, but, uhm, sorry for taking forever to answer!!

While I have issues with TLH (especially CHOI) that go far beyond the inconsistency between showing and telling, I do think you have a point and that might be part of the problem.

What makes this worse, however, is that for all her interacting with fans,CC never disproved any of that. It would make things so much easier.

And you know, she does rely on information included outside of books. She expects fans to know the short stories, she sends out Musicale and other bonus content, so it's not that we're being unreasonable trying to catch up with her additional content/info.

She doesn't, however, care enough to tell us which of those are still relevant and what changed, so it's all a little bit like wandering in a mist.

Concerning TMT, I kinda agree, and I personally don't hate their friendship, the dynamic between them, or think they can't be friends. Maybe it's because of my own experiences or the ones I heard about, but I don't think friends (just as other relationships) can't have problems without immediately being written off, especially when we consider how many truly intense things they're struggling with atm. I don't doubt that they love each other and have the potential to be amazing friends again, it's just that currently their dynamic is really lacking, and while some of that is understandable considering ~the plot~, some of it seems unnecessary to me?

The four months between ChoH and ChoI were apparently rather uneventful plot-wise, and while that didn't change gracelet, or erase Matthew's alcoholism, we could have been shown some of their interactions then?

The thing about writing is, I get that there needs to be conflict and issues and all that. But you need to also get it across that this wasn't always the case, you need to show that default state (aka them being good friends) as something believable, not just say it was the case. It's a challenge, but CC is an experienced author, she should be able to pull it off.

I hope I'm making sense - to provide another example, I read a book this year where MC's loved ones were murdered at the beginning. And I get it, in that case you can't see them interacting in the plot, but you still need to show how important they were to her, sell it to the reader. That's kinda the whole deal with writing.

Well, we certainly agree here, I also hope she can still resolve all that in ChoT. Hope dies last or sth.

If you feel like it, go ahead and share what you have to say about Matthew and Anna!

Oh totally! As you can see, I don't necessarily agree, but I get that we can see those things differently, that's absolutely fine.

Have a nice day/evening/night! <3

[csunrepublicans]

The New Struggles of Conservative Views In Modern Academia

The University of California Berkeley has always taken pride in its work to protect the first amendment and it can be proven with the groundbreaking work done in the 60s when Jack Weinberg, a mathematics graduate student, was arrested for violating a campus rule that prohibited political activities. This resulted in a student protest called the Free Speech Movement which lasted over 32 hours until Weinberg was released. Eventually, the campus allowed political rallies and designated Sproul Hall as an open discussion area for anybody on the political spectrum, making this a pivotal moment for the civil liberties movement of the 60s.

Sproul Hall was just recently on national T.V. But not for the right reasons, unfortunately. Last February, controversial alt-right personality Milo Yiannopoulos had to cancel a speech amid violent protests from alleged anti-fascist groups and just 2 weeks ago, conservative commentator Ann Coulter was also forced to cancel a speech due to safety concerns. Similarly, Secretary of Education Betsy Devos was booed off a commencement speech at Bethune-Cookman University last week.

The cancelation of these events has attracted heavy criticisms towards Berkeley and other institutions of higher education for not doing enough to allow different viewpoints on campus and depriving students from their first amendment rights. Ann Coulter in particular claiming it was “crushed by thugs”. On top of that, the protests attracted so much media attention that Milo Yiannopoulos’s, now canceled, new book “DANGEROUS” soared to #1 on Amazon pre-sales shortly after the cancelation of his speech and even President Trump threatened to cut funding to Berkeley.

A Delicate Subject

 In a time where the country is deeply divided, college campuses all over the country have become battlegrounds for people on both sides of the political spectrum. However, conservative students constantly find themselves in an uphill battle to express themselves without repercussions, specially those who go to school in California.

“Going to a liberal university to many republican students can be suffocating,” said Loren Ullman, a CSUN Republican member. “One might feel as If all their ideas, up front to this point, were misguided,”

In a recent story published by The New York Times, young Republicans described what it’s like to be conservative in a school that champions its liberalism and supposed freedom of speech. They’ve reported physical assaults, altercations with their professors, and marginalization by the campus in general.

This disconnect between young conservatives and college campuses has only fueled the sentiment of “reactionary politics”, which describes people who favor a return to a previous political state of society, supposedly one in which they can express themselves without fear of repercussions but not necessarily one where they promote social reform.

to achieve this, conservative groups at universities have taken upon the task of continuing to invite controversial speakers. Milo and Ann Coulter have already confirmed they plan on returning to Berkeley in the near future.

 Perseverance

Here at CSUN, the happenings at Berkeley have only encouraged the CSUN Republicans club to further express their sentiments.

“College Republicans is the nation’s oldest, largest and most active youth political organization,” said Spencer Ceurvorst, Vice President of CSUN Republicans. “We stand up for all Americans and believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

College Republicans was founded in 1892 and there are currently over 250,000 Republicans around the country on over 1,8000 college campuses, according to Ceurvorst.

           “I’m a mixed race Hispanic-Caucasian man with a mother that’s married to a woman, let alone to mention that I grew up below the poverty line,” said Trystan Vierra, President of the CSUN Republicans, when asked about the negative stereotypes Republicans get around Cal State Northridge. “The idea that I hate people I’ve been connected to my whole life simply because I have a different solution to the problem is nonsense,”

Political science professor, Kassem Nabulsi feels it is necessary for young Republicans to be able to express themselves in a safe space and CSUN Republicans is the safe heaven they need. Professor Nabulsi also pointed out that Professors must stay clear of politics and isntead provide the facts so their students can come up with their own conclusions.

           “I’ve had professors cancel class after the election results were announced and even had professors dedicate a whole class to mourn the elections,” said Ullman, who dislikes the way many professors are lopsided on issues.

It is proven that far more millennials identify as liberal rather than conservative, including college professors. Trump’s victory has emboldened the minority and put them on level terms.

Where is the line drawn?

           "People should always be allowed to speak their opinion," said Maricruz Soto, 2nd year student at UC Irvine, another famously liberal California school. "however, when it comes to hateful speech that targets a specific group of people, backlash can be expected."

The debate arises on what is considered "too much" to warrant a shut down of controversial viewpoints. It was reported that Milo Yianoppoulos was allegedly intending to oust undocummented students currently studying at Berkeley and to many that was enough to reason to shut down his speech.

           "To me, the argument should not revolve just around freedom of speech but also around the hate that fails to respect the humanity of undocummented people," said Juan Prieto in an op-ed from the Daily Californian editorial board. "This speaker has never provided an insightful look at conservatism nor provided intellectual debate to the arena,"

Milo and Ann Coulter may attract a lot of negativity but that isn't enough to silence him, even if he doesnt fully represent conservative thought, according to Jack Foley, a UC Berkeley student.

           "There's an idea that free speech is violent, that simply by espousing a view that you dont like i am attacking you, i am oppressing you, i am assaulting you," said Foley, 20, a political science major. "That view is funadamentally incompatible with a Western, liberal democratic society,"

The truth of the matter is that young Republicans won a huge battle but not necessarily the war. The majority of California youth will probably remain liberal for the foreseeable future leaving Republicans with a hard road ahead. Either ways, Republicans won back the House, Presidency, and control of the Supreme Court and that alone should give them the merits to demand equality in higher education. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like many people in the left are willing to listen, not as long as they keep feeling attacked by people like Milo. The result is a never-ending cycle of trying to cancel each other out. In a way, Trump's victory was bittersweet for these young California Republicans because, even though they are the minority, it shed a spotlight they would not be able to shake off, at least not in California.