#i sound dramatic but i probably won't change a lot. it's more of a mindset freshener thing

[darkestrellar]

Embracing full autism mode when I revise all my infopages across blogs just like I did with the rules page when I rewrote them a month or two ago and writing out as much information as I like as long as I also keep it structured well, so that you can find what you need in it easily. Fuck the keep it brief ideal

[mdhwrites]

This might be a bit of a broad question, but what do you think makes a piece a media Timeless?

Is the sum of its parts or do you think its something in particular

So this is a subject that is both really simple and the answer sounds obvious but also is one of those things that can get lost in being pedantic. Worse yet, I feel like you might be asking this with the mindset of how most people talk about timeless works in that they're also commonly considered classics.

These two are not synonymous. The sum of somethings parts usually being greater than the whole while every individual piece is great is what commonly makes something a classic. Spiderverse, the first one and potentially the whole trilogy if it sticks its landing, will be considered classics because those movies are great in each part but combined together they're absolutely incredible.

This also makes what is a classic or not up for debate. If you don't like Shakespeare, you won't consider Romeo and Juliet a classic. You'll see it as over dramatic pedophilia potentially. (Not my opinion but I've seen more than one person like to do the modern 'criticism' angle towards Romeo and Juliet because of the ages of the two leads, not taking into account that that was probably pretty common back then.)

They're timeless however because of one thing: Audience resonance. Or, in other words, themes, and commonly how universal they are. This makes them much less up for debate.

After all, there are fantasy works that are timeless. That shouldn't be possible, right? I mean, they're set in medieval times for many works so the technology, social structure and even priorities of those characters shouldn't function for a modern society, right? Or hell, for something less bluntly absurd, just look at It's a Wonderful Life. The main character in that movie runs a successful business, has a wife and two kids and a full group of friends and allies and he's considered as just doing alright. To a modern millennial, that is an INSANE amount of wealth and could make the main character much less likable.

But to most, he truly is the good every man. Not just in that he does good things but in the doubting. In the jealousy. Mr. Bailey is by no means a perfect soul, but his soul does indeed shine bright. It's so easy to compare ourselves to others though. To always think we're not doing enough or not see the good we're putting into the world. The idea that all we make is mistakes and even if we're not literally worth more dead, we would do less harm if we were dead.

To any empathetic soul, this makes It's a Wonderful Life easily a timeless movie. It doesn't matter if what George Bailey faces is different from our modern context, what matters is that he is going through life, just like we all are.

This is actually something that a lot of bigots close a blind eye to. "How am I supposed to relate to this if the character is gay/black/a jew, trans, etc.? I'm not any of those things so it must be impossible for me to connect to this work!" They believe that racial background is everything. That you must have lived those experiences in order to connect with them.

We are all human though. No amount of time will ever change that what beats in our very beings is the same. How that manifests in personality, skin, gender, religion, etc. like that doesn't matter. We all face fear, anxiety, anger, joy, passion, etc. A common laborer with no ambitions can still connect to a mad scientist on the screen because the same feeling that scientist feels when he screams "IT'S ALIVE!" is the same joy of success and passion that that office worker gets when he puts down the last piece of a ten thousand piece jigsaw puzzle.

And while I say whether something is or isn't timeless isn't really up for debate, what is is whether it connects to you. I have two relatives who don't like It's a Wonderful Life. They are some of the most financially motivated and petty people I know, at least that are close to me. And neither are my brother shockingly enough, who loves the movie too.

I won't say that just because I try to have a universal outlook on things that I could connect to a story that is strictly that of an African American. I didn't have to live through the prejudice many of them face because of the color of my own skin. I can try my best to empathize though. That when they tell their stories and let their anger and frustration be known, I can try to connect with those emotions so I can better attempt to see the world through their eyes, if even briefly.

This is much of why while I write a lot of sapphic fiction, I root a lot of those elements in emotions like love, anxiety, fear, shame, etc. because I understand those emotions. I lack the specifics to make it resonate 100% with a sapphic reader, which is why I do recommend people check out proper sapphic writers if that's what they're wanting most of my works, but I can try to make it emotionally honest enough that they can see some part of themselves in the work.

Honestly, to me, what makes a work timeless actually makes anything that's emotionally earnest, and at least a 6 or7/10, hard NOT to be timeless. It also makes it damn near impossible for a work to have NO ONE who considers it timeless.

It just needs to be able to resonate and if you're worth anything as a writer, that resonance should simply be a part of your process. After all, your work should at least resonate with one person: You. Because if you don't enjoy it, why are you writing it?