#if it makes sense for the story that is

[virtues-end]

Regarding the results of the poll. I wonder how many players, same as me, voted for Shea, because if you choose the option to stay for a bit by the fire and let your mc have some tea, you pass by the option to "go straight to sleep", which is minus one option to vote for in the poll. And if you choose to stay, you are then left with only two options which are, "you're curious about these Order people" or "follow after Shea". And between the two options, I imagine, mcs who despise the Order wouldn't want to spend time with these order employees, who for all these mcs know might treat them just like their previous keeper did, so it's naturally better to join someone they already know, aka Shea. So, yeah, that's why I voted for Shea.

To elaborate further, I, as a player, like these characters and find all of them intriguing. My mc though hates these people. She sees Shea as someone who's deprived her of her freedom for the rest of her life for all she knows, and she hates the fact that Shea is essentially her jailer yet dares to treat her as an equal when they're clearly not. Penrose gets on her nerves, because how could he ever see mc's life in a positive light, does he not know how the Order normally treats people like her? And Elexis she can't figure out, she seems extremely untrustworthy though, so all the more reason to stay away from them.

These relationships and the ways that they can develop in are so very juicy from the player's perspective, but are hell to navigate for resentful mcs who want to see the order burn. Can't wait to romance all of the ROs! 😘

Oh, I totally get it! I'm certainly not expecting people (or rather, their MCs) to trust or even like Penrose and Elexis. From the MCs perspective, they're the baddies. Or at the very least, complete strangers they should be wary about. However, at the same time, I don't want to 'force' people to spend time with Shea if they do not care to. It's tough, because the player's bound to them, and Shea is just. Well. There, all the time, lol.

[oposssumsaucee]

Listen All Systems Red is so so funny from Gurathins perspective imagine you grew up with Space Socialism and was hired to go help some pal with science but you weren't allowed to go unless you rented AmaTeslas Torment Nexus Alexa Dot and then when you get there you find out a whole continent of people got annihilated by their Tourment Nexus rentals so you take a moment to check yours quickly and find out it already had disengaged its Don't Kill People box, the only thing you've ever been told prevented them from mass homiciding their clients, something that LITERALLY just happened to people you knew a day ago, and when you say to your fellow socialist doctors HEY I think our Tourment Nexus is fucked up and it's files said it killed dozens of people barely a year ago and we should probably get the hell away from it the same doctors are like look at what you're saying. You're hurting the Tourment Nexus' feelings. The Tourment Nexus is just a little construct who likes Netflix Gurathin stop antagonizing it on the plane ride.

[bamsara]

I think that one thing people fail to understand is that unsolicited literary criticism coming from an online stranger who is reading with no knowledge of what the authors intended goal is, is not going to be received the same as say: the authors beta reader or friends who know what the authors intended goal and has the sufficient knowledge and input to help the author reach that desired outcome.

"But I'm only trying to be helpful" How do I know you have the knowledge and literary skill for you to be able to actaully do that when we don't know each other and you are essentially a stranger to me? Are you applying this criticism based out of personal biased experience and desire to see the story or characterization be driven in another direction or tweaked, or do you know the author's intentions for the character? If the story is incomplete, are you basing your criticism of a character on the incomplete narration with only partial information available of them or are you building up a report until the story's completion? Did the author provide you with the information needed to make a fully informed criticism?

Have you discussed with the author what their plans are or are you assuming them based off the narration, especially if the narration is proven or implied to be unreliable or missing key points of the plot? Are you unbiased enough to help them reach their desired outcome for the characters and story regardless of your personal feelings towards the characters/antagonists and setting? Can you handle being told your specific input isn't wanted because you're a reader and/or have no written anything relating to their genre or topic? Do you understand and respect that the author's personal experiences might influence their writing and make it different than how you would have done it personally? Do you understand if an author only wants input from a specific demographic relating to their story?

If it's for fanfiction or other hobby media, are you holding a free hobby to a professional standard? Are you trying to give criticism because you feel like the author has produced 'subpar job performance' of their fic? Are you viewing their work as a personal intimate outlet or something that must conform with mass media? Are you applying rules and guidelines when the fic is shared for simple sharing sake? Is your criticism worded appropriately and focused on the parts where the author has requested input on rather than a general dismissal and or disapproval?

Have you put yourself in a place where you assumed you have the input needed for the story to evolve better, or have you asked what the author needs and what they're having trouble with? Can you handle having your criticism rejected if the author decides their story doesn't need the change and not take it as a personal offense against your character? Are you crossing that boundary because you think you are doing the author a favor? Are you trying to be helpful, or do you just want to be?

I think sometimes when people hear authors go 'please don't give me unsolicited writing advice or criticism' they automatically chalk it up to 'this author doesn't want ANY constructive feedback on their stuff at all' and not "i already have trusted individuals who will help me with my writing goals and- hey i don't know you like that, please stop acting so overly familiar with me'

[newtid]

saw this post and could not stop thinking about @punkitt-is-here as elmo's aunt i NEEDED to draw her

also also while i was drawing i thought up a sesame street episode plot that i think is cute

Elmo's uncle is coming over to visit, but they're looking a little different! They explain to Elmo that sometimes people realise things about themselves and that they start to change, which makes them happier- and though they won't quite be the same as before, that won't make them love you any less. So even if they won't be his amazing uncle anymore, she hopes she can still be his amazing aunt.

ggyuhhg hapoy pride mont 💥🔥‼️💪

letter of the day is T

[boysborntodie]

TUA S4 proved that Netflix cancelling their shows after the first season is actually a good thing

[homoquartz]

a show doesn't necessarily have to be ABOUT queerness to BE a queer show. it's a cultural dialect that cishets don't quite speak.

edit: i gotta clarify that the shows do indeed still have to have actual queer characters in them to count

[aethersea]

another thing fantasy writers should keep track of is how much of their worldbuilding is aesthetic-based. it's not unlike the sci-fi hardness scale, which measures how closely a story holds to known, real principles of science. The Martian is extremely hard sci-fi, with nearly every detail being grounded in realistic fact as we know it; Star Trek is extremely soft sci-fi, with a vaguely plausible "space travel and no resource scarcity" premise used as a foundation for the wildest ideas the writers' room could come up with. and much as Star Trek fuckin rules, there's nothing wrong with aesthetic-based fantasy worldbuilding!

(sidenote we're not calling this 'soft fantasy' bc there's already a hard/soft divide in fantasy: hard magic follows consistent rules, like "earthbenders can always and only bend earth", and soft magic follows vague rules that often just ~feel right~, like the Force. this frankly kinda maps, but I'm not talking about just the magic, I'm talking about the worldbuilding as a whole.

actually for the purposes of this post we're calling it grounded vs airy fantasy, bc that's succinct and sounds cool.)

a great example of grounded fantasy is Dungeon Meshi: the dungeon ecosystem is meticulously thought out, the plot is driven by the very realistic need to eat well while adventuring, the story touches on both social and psychological effects of the whole 'no one dies forever down here' situation, the list goes on. the worldbuilding wants to be engaged with on a mechanical level and it rewards that engagement.

deliberately airy fantasy is less common, because in a funny way it's much harder to do. people tend to like explanations. it takes skill to pull off "the world is this way because I said so." Narnia manages: these kids fall into a magic world through the back of a wardrobe, befriend talking beavers who drink tea, get weapons from Santa Claus, dance with Bacchus and his maenads, and sail to the edge of the world, without ever breaking suspension of disbelief. it works because every new thing that happens fits the vibes. it's all just vibes! engaging with the worldbuilding on a mechanical level wouldn't just be futile, it'd be missing the point entirely.

the reason I started off calling this aesthetic-based is that an airy story will usually lean hard on an existing aesthetic, ideally one that's widely known by the target audience. Lewis was drawing on fables, fairy tales, myths, children's stories, and the vague idea of ~medieval europe~ that is to this day our most generic fantasy setting. when a prince falls in love with a fallen star, when there are giants who welcome lost children warmly and fatten them up for the feast, it all fits because these are things we'd expect to find in this story. none of this jars against what we've already seen.

and the point of it is to be wondrous and whimsical, to set the tone for the story Lewis wants to tell. and it does a great job! the airy worldbuilding serves the purposes of the story, and it's no less elegant than Ryōko Kui's elaborately grounded dungeon. neither kind of worldbuilding is better than the other.

however.

you do have to know which one you're doing.

the whole reason I'm writing this is that I saw yet another long, entertaining post dragging GRRM for absolute filth. asoiaf is a fun one because on some axes it's pretty grounded (political fuck-around-and-find-out, rumors spread farther than fact, fastest way to lose a war is to let your people starve, etc), but on others it's entirely airy (some people have magic Just Cause, the various peoples are each based on an aesthetic/stereotype/cliché with no real thought to how they influence each other as neighbors, the super-long seasons have no effect on ecology, etc).

and again! none of this is actually bad! (well ok some of those stereotypes are quite bigoted. but other than that this isn't bad.) there's nothing wrong with the season thing being there to highlight how the nobles are focused on short-sighted wars for power instead of storing up resources for the extremely dangerous and inevitable winter, that's a nice allegory, and the looming threat of many harsh years set the narrative tone. and you can always mix and match airy and grounded worldbuilding – everyone does it, frankly it's a necessity, because sooner or later the answer to every worldbuilding question is "because the author wanted it to be that way." the only completely grounded writing is nonfiction.

the problem is when you pretend that your entirely airy worldbuilding is actually super duper grounded. like, for instance, claiming that your vibes-based depiction of Medieval Europe (Gritty Edition) is completely historical, and then never even showing anyone spinning. or sniffing dismissively at Tolkien for not detailing Aragorn's tax policy, and then never addressing how a pre-industrial grain-based agricultural society is going years without harvesting any crops. (stored grain goes bad! you can't even mouse-proof your silos, how are you going to deal with mold?) and the list goes on.

the man went up on national television and invited us to engage with his worldbuilding mechanically, and then if you actually do that, it shatters like spun sugar under the pressure. doesn't he realize that's not the part of the story that's load-bearing! he should've directed our focus to the political machinations and extensive trope deconstruction, not the handwavey bit.

point is, as a fantasy writer there will always be some amount of your worldbuilding that boils down to 'because I said so,' and there's nothing wrong with that. nor is there anything wrong with making that your whole thing – airy worldbuilding can be beautiful and inspiring. but you have to be aware of what you're doing, because if you ask your readers to engage with the worldbuilding in gritty mechanical detail, you had better have some actual mechanics to show them.

[siggiedraws]

illustrated the last scene of the official Sonic & Silver wallpaper cover story - translated by @acquascans!

[starbuck]

reading and watching “classic” books and films is such an interesting experience because, before you get into them, when you only know them by name and maybe the vaguest plot outline, they’re intimidating and stuffy and up on a pedestal, but then you finally take the leap and check them out and realize that almost every story that’s achieved such a legendary level of popularity did so because something in its emotional core reached out and grabbed a lot of people by the throat and you are NOT immune.

[saessenach]

What is honor compared to a woman’s love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms… or the memory of a brother’s smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy.

Jon Snow - and family that haunts him, because sometimes ghosts make for the best love stories.

[cuntylouis]

I feel like many people have a fundamental misconception of what unreliable narrator means. It's simply a narrative vehicle not a character flaw or a sign that the character is a bad person. There are also many different types of unreliable narrators in fiction. Being an unreliable narrator doesn't necessarily mean that the character is 'wrong', it definitely doesn't mean that they're wrong about everything even if some aspects in their story are inaccurate, and only some unreliable narrators actively and consciously lie. Stories that have unreliable narrators also tend to deal with perception and memory and they often don't even have one objective truth, just different versions. It reflects real life where we know human memory is highly unreliable and vague and people can interpret same events very differently

[batbabydamian]

A Quick Guide to Damian’s Furry/Feathered/Scaled Companions

LEFT: R:SOB #1 Cover RIGHT: R:SOB #6

GOLIATH THE BAT DRAGON

Introduced in: ROBIN: SON OF BATMAN (2015) #1

DAMIAN'S BABY AND BEASTY BESTIE!! On a mission during the Year of Blood, Damian kills the family of bat dragons guarding his objective. Goliath, despite being the youngest and last of his kind, forgives Damian. Goliath goes on to become one of Damian's most loyal companions, even featuring beside him in Batman Beyond (2016) #10, #11, #43-#47!

LEFT: B&R #13 RIGHT: B&R #4

TITUS THE DOG

Introduced in: BATMAN AND ROBIN (2011) #2

A Great Dane gifted to Damian from Bruce as an effort in fatherhood. Funny enough, Damian finds him a nuisance at first and briefly refers to him as "Dog". Titus is a good boy that follows Damian's every step, even joining Bruce on his mission to resurrect Damian!

LEFT: Batman Inc #1 RIGHT: Batman Inc #7

BAT-COW THE COW

Introduced in: BATMAN INCORPORATED (2012) #1

Bat-Cow, branded with a star signifying which cattle were contaminated, was saved from a slaughterhouse to run some tests (which they do find of a mind control variety). Damian declares himself a vegetarian, and calls her Bat-Cow! She also sorta has a running gag of literally standing in the face of danger to save the day.

LEFT: Batman Inc #6 RIGHT: Batman Inc #7

ALFRED THE CAT

Introduced in: BATMAN INCORPORATED (2012) #6

Considered a "hopeless case" by the animal shelter, Alfred gifts him to Damian. The cat is a bold lil guy, which Damian takes an immediate liking to, and names him Alfred (likely because tuxedo cat = butler lol). After hours of chicken, playtime, and scratches, Damian and Alfred become friends! He makes his first appearance alongside Damian’s first appearance as Batman in BATMAN (1940) #666

LEFT: Batman: Li'l Gotham #2/#1 RIGHT: Batman: Li'l Gotham #23/#12

*JERRY THE TURKEY

Introduced in: BATMAN LI'L GOTHAM (2012) #2 (Digital) #1 (Printed)

The Penguin unleashes an army of turkeys at the Gotham Thanksgiving parade which Damian turns into his own li'l turkey march by playing the trumpet. He ends up bringing one of them back for Thanksgiving dinner (as a friend), and Jerry becomes a fairly regular appearance in the world of Li'l Gotham!

*WIGGLES THE DRAGON

Introduced in: NIGHTWING (2016) #42

A sort of filler issue where Damian has been kidnapped for his blood by the "Crimson Kabuki" in Tokyo, and Dick goes through a series of boss battles to save him. The dragon's blood has been the group's main source of power, so it ends up teaming with the duo, and returns home with them.

Wiggles was originally named by a fan, "Shanootnoot" on Twitter!

*Goliath, Titus, Bat-Cow, and Alfred the cat have been Damian's main canon cast of furry companions, but SUPER-PETS SPECIAL: BITEDENTITY CRISIS (2024) may have just added Jerry and Wiggles!!

[sadclowncentral]

What uh. What's the frog story 👀

back when i was in second grade, my elementary school organised a school market with every class selling their crafts for charity. the contribution of my class were hand-sized ceramic frogs we made in art class. each one of us made one of them to be sold for five euros a piece (this is important later). the quality of the frog i made varies drastically based on who is telling the story, and for reasons that will become very apparent later there is no way to check, but i stand by the fact that it was average looking, if a bit wonky.

the day of the market arrived, and all frogs were bought within minutes, snatched up by enthusiastic and proud parents. all except - mine. because my mother hates spending money on unnecessary things, and she hates children's crafts even more. so she - loudly and vehemently - refused, in her thick eastern european accent, to "spend five euros on an ugly frog".

i will never forget seeing my ceramic frog alone on the slightly wet cardboard, surrounded by the imprints left behind by the already sold frogs. all the while other parents are getting more and more agitated, trying to get my mother to put the frog out of its misery. eventually, she budged, and spend five euros on a wonky frog. she was absolutely furious about this.

so furious, in fact, that when we came home to where my father was remodelling the kitchen, she WALLED IT IN. that's right. she cask of amadillo'd that poor ceramic fool. put him into the open wall and slapped concrete over it faster than my poor seven year old self or my dad could protest. out of pure anger over loosing five euros. and that's where it remains, until this day.

my mom hates when this story is brought up, which is why we bring it up all the time. she also thinks she what she did was right, because "do the other parents know where the frog is? no. only your creation is safe. because i love you." morally, i would disagree, but on a pure factual basis, she has a point.

i made her another ceramic frog for her last brithday, which was not buried like some pharaoh, and everytime guests compliment it my brother loudly goes "oh you should see the other frog he made" and when they ask to see it, he points at the wall. this is hilarious to him and infuriating for my mother. and that's the frog story.

[alfheimr]

the selkie sea captain and the seashell that sings a song of home.

i started this comic last year before my hand surgery and finally got around to finishing it! whew! i wanted to finish it in may because i intended this as a sort of mermay thing but now im realizing im not sure if selkies count for that. well, they do in My Heart.

[time-woods]

EMOTIONAL WIN ! ! the bug lets his emotions make decisions for once !

[novelconcepts]

Keep seeing people confused by Agatha letting the world believe she traded her son instead of telling the truth, but…kinda tracks, tbh. Not for the rational mind, of course. Not if you’re looking at it clearly.

Which Agatha isn’t.

She did the worst thing, in her mind. She fell asleep. She fell asleep, knowing Death had bookmarked her son for later, and when she woke, found him snatched out from under her. She failed him as his mother. She let go. And all the power in all the world wouldn’t be enough to bring him back.

So does the wildly grieving woman who has just lost her only child (to presumably her greatest love, but that’s a city-sized suitcase for another day) let herself go through the process of coping with and adapting to that grief? Fuck no! What is she, common?? She goes on a power bender! Even though the kid she prized in her heart of hearts seemed less than into that very thing! Even though that kid may have been able, given enough time, to convince her to stop! So now, not only did she fail him, but she also opted to speed race down Murder Road! For power! That she still won’t ever be able to use to get him back!

It gets muddled, after decades and centuries of this feeling. It grows teeth. In a way, she did trade him for power. In a way, she’ll always have that sitting on her chest. Never mind that it’s not true. Never mind that she wasn’t a bad mother at all (in this respect, anyway). Never mind that he was sick, and this was always coming. For Agatha, who has been stewing on this story she’s been telling herself for centuries, it is what happened. She traded her son. She did the unforgivable. She fell asleep.