#is more inherently satisfying and cool

[slymanner]

If i was the creator of earth id make it possible for people to customize how they wanna look in a mirror like a video game change genders cool clothes eye color anything is possible my customizable menu is limitless ive been bug testing it for year's and its ready now for my lil creatures

even at the start of time, like, look into ur reflection from a lake or like when it rains and puddles are on the ground u get the menu it's a special rainpuddle customizable day make urself look awesome!!!

[orb-weaving]

Recognition

[galactic-rhea]

the handmaidens + padmé group can't be be this super wholesome group of besties that share make up and gossips and giggle as they make out ocassionally, they can't be always this cool and badass girlpower considering the fucked up way they are on this situation. Considering each of them is actually A Person that's different from Padmé, as much as they trained themselves to mentally replicate all her moves, considering that they're ready to die for her (but she won't for them, she can't, she's too important, as much as it pains her) I can't not think of this as a awfully unbalanced group of people that got forced to become friends and develop weird and intense feelings for each other but also a deep resentment and extreme passive-agressiveness because at the end of the day, they're Padmé's subordinates and there's no way Padmé doesn't, inherently and unconsciously (and sometimes consciously) step into a Boss role, there's no way Padmé, sometimes, doesn't realize the disagreements or drama that might be going on, and if she does there's...well, lots of awkwardness they're forced to overcome. She probably will obliviously hurt them, and they won't retaliate because that's their boss. Sure, there's a window of honestity that goes beyond the professional, but it only make things harder and messier. And them there's probably lots of talking behind backs, and little cliques and mini groups, not to even touch on the dating or romantic feelings, that probably just makes the drama skyrocket.

And still, they're a very close group of Friends (perhaps more for some of them), but more intimate than normal friends and at the same time less intimate than real friends because real friends become honest and intimate as a choice and as a natural relationship developing, and definitely not as healthy and honest as any normal friends. And do you think that keeps them awake? They're look-alikes, trained to copy Padmé's mannerisms and behaviour, and clothes, everything, and they all together created Queen Amidala as a facade, and yet there's still that feeling of lack of actual íntimacy, a feeling of a lack of actual friendship, like the itch isn't really satisfied in between them because as much as they care for each other, there's a feeling of fakeness into it all, a feeling of 'what brough us together is just a job, and what keeps us together is that we don't know something different'. But some of the handmaidens do leave and adventure away from this, and there IS happy moments and real kinship at times... is just that, the uglyness isn't not very far from the surface.

[thydungeongal]

Hey there! I just say your post about dungeon crawlers. I was curious about your second bullet point, "Dungeon-crawling challenge games actually kind of own if you're willing to engage with them on their own terms! There's a lot of potential for cool gameplay if you let go of silly reductive notions like "roleplaying" being just being when you play-act your character or social interaction!" I was curious if you'd mind telling me more about how you feel roleplay should be handled in these types of games. I am genuinely interested to hear your thoughts. :)

Okay, first of all, I have a very broad and admittedly circular definition of role-playing (in the context of role-playing game): role-playing is when you're playing a role-playing game.

As said, it's circular, but ultimately, throughout my years of playing role-playing games I've found that all other definitions are unsatisfying. To conclude that role-playing is the parts where the mechanics aren't used (the roll-playing and role-playing dichotomy) implies that mechanics are somehow inherently contrary to a good role-playing game experience, which is simply untrue, because good mechanics can actually enhance the narrative! Saying that only the social parts of play are role-playing undermines the fact that players will be still making decisions for their characters in various other situations where the personal and emotional stakes can be even greater than in social situations!

Ultimately, role-playing games as a medium are defined by the possibility space, and specifically that possibility space being near infinite. There's an old line I keep bringing up from some painfully twee eighties RPG ad which goes like "Role-playing games are like board games but you can move outside the board!" and ultimately that is the thing that defines a role-playing game. It's a game where the players collaborate in a shared fictional space to produce cool little narratives although sometimes the cool little narratives aren't the point but it's literally like a lil challenge that the players try to overcome by interfacing with the fiction and engaging with the mechanics.

To tie this into dungeon crawlers: even a traditional dungeon crawler is ultimately a role-playing game because it has the players engaging, via their characters, with the shared fiction, sometimes mediated by the rules. A lot of people assume that a dungeon crawler must mean that the gameplay is nothing but a meat grinder, but this is actually ahistorical and not actually reflective of how old-school dungeon crawling RPGs play out!

Even the most basic dungeon is still a location in the setting it's part of, so there is plenty of narrative content to be found there. The characters might just be motivated by greed, but there is plenty of narratively satisfying content that can happen in the pursuit of that goal once one accepts that there need not be a linear narrative where the characters must hit certain story beats, but the story itself can just be "the characters went into a place, explored, interacted with the locals, found out some secrets about the dungeon, fought some monsters." That is still role-playing.

None of this is to say that the play-acting part of play (which I sometimes call characterization) is in any way bad: in fact, it can very much enhance the gameplay. But that is in and of itself not the end-all-be-all of role-playing!

Anyway role-playing is so much more than describing your cool elf kissing other cool elves, it can also be your cool elf finding a cool sword in a dungeon and giving it a name. Dungeon crawlers kick ass because the GM can craft a whole narrative about how the dungeon used to be and then reveal it slowly to the players through their characters finding fantasy audiologs and that is already narratively satisfying in and of itself!

[orenji-iro-no-sora]

The most fun thing about SVSSS is that the female protagonist of the original story, beauty beyond comprehension, Liu Mingyan, became a BL fangirl shipping Bingqiu and writing fanfictions of them along with the Holy Mothers. Imagining it to be a self insert character, instead of fighting for Luo Binghe, MXTX said I'd rather write smut of him with his Shizun.

Also Luo Binghe really used the most successful strategy in the history of "getting what you want" aka crying. It works. every. time. Whether he's actually so sensitive or he knows Shizun would cave if he cries idk. Maybe it's a bit of both. Maybe he's just following Shang Qinghua's advice. If he was subjected to the system, he would have lost more badass points than he could ever manage to gain. For a protagonist revered so by cucumber bro, he really was so babygirl. He'd use his puppy eyes, whimpering and whining until he gets what he wants. So pathetic. So smitten. So unlike an overpowered hero. I loved it!!

While the story was hilarious (and heartfelt I loved Yue Qingyuan), I also really liked how MXTX commented on writing and fandom culture. Cucumber bro as a fan thought he understood the narrative and the characters so well but he did fuck up as SQQ. He didn't know anything about Luo Binghe in reality despite admiring him so much.

Was it because Airplane failed to write well or is it because a fan's perspective is inherently different from that of a creator while also being influenced by the creator's objectives for the characters? Afterall, Airplane created Luo Binghe to be loved and commended (he couldn't have a weakness like wanting genuine love and affection, at all cost he must remain cool), making Mobei-jun a side character even though he was his ideal man (I don't blame him).

Another aspect that points to the power of character interpretation held by the fans is the smut included in Song of Bingqiu and the Regret of Chunshan. While she as an author can not include "morally depraved" porn into canon material (although I mean whatever she wrote wasn't... well) unless she turns Luo Binghe into a twisted yandere maniac, fans can write them and she can include it through them. It's quite genius actually.

Airplane has his hands tied too. He couldn't write the story he wanted. His fans while criticising his work, also wanted it to be exactly how he's written it. In such creative works, audience really is omnipotent. It makes sense for him to turn out to be an 'insignificant villain' in his own story considering whatever he writes, it won't be good enough. He really has no power. Characters are often slippery anyway. Authors can't really control them, at some point they become sentient and independent and the narrative changes to accomodate them instead. Luo Binghe, the perfect example.

I wished she had written more in this universe although she picked elements of this series and used them better in other works like MDZS and TGCF. I would have loved to see Luo Binghe in the Endless Abyss but since Shen Qingqiu couldn't see what happened there, we can't either. It's the same as when Wei Wuxian fell into the Burial Mounds. Also, I wished there was more Bing-ge vs Bing-mei. The original Binghe is definitely a character I wished she had explored more especially how he'd have reacted with a Shen Qingqiu who wasn't as scummy as the original. Him just giving up and leaving didn't feel too satisfying :/

Overall it was super fun and weird. But mostly fun.

[sophieinwonderland]

Pro-endos: Name a single doctor that has said you need a disorder or trauma to be plural. Anti-endos: *Lists off some random names* Pro-endos: Cool. Can you cite where they actually said that? Anti-endos: Now you want PROOF instead of just taking our word for it? How dare you move the goalposts by asking us to prove our claims? We gave you random names and now it's your responsibility to educate yourself by combing through literally everything these doctors have said through their whole lives until you either find something that proves us right or your mortal coil expires and rots away.

I get being annoyed by legitimate moving of goalposts. I often am myself because sysmeds love this as their go-to tactic. I'd be able to buy Twitter if I had a penny for every time a sysmed asked for evidence of a doctor being pro-endo, and then when given proof, makes up some stupid reason it doesn't count.

I've seen "Dr. Eric Yabrough doesn't count because he's an LGBT psychiatrist and doesn't specialize in dissociative disorders," "Dr. Colin Ross doesn't count because he's studied some weird things in addition to having 40 years of experience studying dissociative disorders," "these psychologists who conducted an fMRI study on tulpamancy don't count because the psychologists were talking about it on Reddit," "research on tulpamancy is irrelevant because people on the internet told me tulpamancy is an offensive word," "only .edu/.gov are valid sources," "sources older than ten/five/two/whatever-number-I-make-up years are expired and no longer count," and so many other ridiculous excuses to dismiss professional opinions on endogenic systems. Sysmeds love moving goalposts.

But... I feel that, when asked to name anti-endo doctors... being able to cite the specific quote should be the bare minimum. Providing evidence should be inherently implied as part of the assignment.

And if you're unable to do that and resort to an ad hominem, accusing the person asking of being ableist in order to shut them up, I'm going to assume that it's because you're lying.

Because in theory, if you knew where these doctors had said the things you're claiming they said, you would be able to cite it.

In the end, moving goalposts is typically about demanding new evidence when the initial standards of evidence set by the discussion are met. If an anti-endo asks for a doctor that has said you can be plural without trauma, and you provide one with a citation, you've satisfied those goalposts with evidence.

If a pro-endo asks for you to name a doctor who has said you can't be plural without trauma, and you drop names with no citations, you still have no evidence. You're making an Argument By Assertion. Commonly known on the internet as a "trust me bro."

And expecting the person asking the questions to comb through the massive bibliographies of the doctors you named just to find where they said what you claim they said is shifting the burden of proof.

I can't see these sorts of tactics by anti-endos as anything more than bad faith attempts at shutting down discussions.

[physalian]

8 Signs your Sequel Needs Work

Sequels, and followup seasons to TV shows, can be very tricky to get right. Most of the time, especially with the onslaught of sequels, remakes, and remake-quels over the past… 15 years? There’s a few stand-outs for sure. I hear Dune Part 2 stuck the landing. Everyone who likes John Wick also likes those sequels. Spiderverse 2 also stuck the landing.

These are less tips and more fundamental pieces of your story that may or may not factor in because every work is different, and this is coming from an audience’s perspective. Maybe some of these will be the flaws you just couldn’t put your finger on before. And, of course, these are all my opinions, for sequels and later seasons that just didn’t work for me.

1. Your vague lore becomes a gimmick

The Force, this mysterious entity that needs no further explanation… is now quantifiable with midichlorians.

In The 100, the little chip that contains the “reincarnation” of the Commanders is now the central plot to their season 6 “invasion of the bodysnatchers” villains.

In The Vampire Diaries, the existence of the “emotion switch” is explicitly disputed as even existing in the earlier seasons, then becomes a very real and physical plot point one can toggle on and off.

I love hard magic systems. I love soft magic systems, too. These two are not evolutions of each other and doing so will ruin your magic system. People fell in love with the hard magic because they liked the rules, the rules made sense, and everything you wrote fit within those rules. Don’t get wacky and suddenly start inventing new rules that break your old ones.

People fell in love with the soft magic because it needed no rules, the magic made sense without overtaking the story or creating plot holes for why it didn’t just save the day. Don’t give your audience everything they never needed to know and impose limitations that didn’t need to be there.

Solving the mystery will never be as satisfying as whatever the reader came up with in their mind. Satisfaction is the death of desire.

2. The established theme becomes un-established

I talked about this point already in this post about theme so the abridged version here: If your story has major themes you’ve set out to explore, like “the dichotomy of good and evil” and you abandon that theme either for a contradictory one, or no theme at all, your sequel will feel less polished and meaningful than its predecessor, because the new story doesn’t have as much (if anything) to say, while the original did.

Jurassic Park is a fantastic, stellar example. First movie is about the folly of human arrogance and the inherent disaster and hubris in thinking one can control forces of nature for superficial gains. The sequels, and then sequel series, never returns to this theme (and also stops remembering that dinosaurs are animals, not generic movie monsters). JP wasn’t just scary because ahhh big scary reptiles. JP was scary because the story is an easily preventable tragedy, and yes the dinosaurs are eating people, but the people only have other people to blame. Dinosaurs are just hungry, frightened animals.

Or, the most obvious example in Pixar’s history: Cars to Cars 2.

3. You focus on the wrong elements based on ‘fan feedback’

We love fans. Fans make us money. Fans do not know what they want out of a sequel. Fans will never know what they want out of a sequel, nor will studios know how to interpret those wants. Ask Star Wars. Heck, ask the last 8 books out of the Percy Jackson universe.

Going back to Cars 2 (and why I loathe the concept of comedic relief characters, truly), Disney saw dollar signs with how popular Mater was, so, logically, they gave fans more Mater. They gave us more car gimmicks, they expanded the lore that no one asked for. They did try to give us new pretty racing venues and new cool characters. The writers really did try, but some random Suit decided a car spy thriller was better and this is what we got.

The elements your sequel focuses on could be points 1 or 2, based on reception. If your audience universally hates a character for legitimate reasons, maybe listen, but if your audience is at war with itself over superficial BS like whether or not she’s a female character, or POC, ignore them and write the character you set out to write. Maybe their arc wasn’t finished yet, and they had a really cool story that never got told.

This could be side-characters, or a specific location/pocket of worldbuilding that really resonated, a romantic subplot, whatever. Point is, careening off your plan without considering the consequences doesn’t usually end well.

4. You don’t focus on the ��right’ elements

I don’t think anyone out there will happily sit down and enjoy the entirety of Thor: The Dark World.  The only reasons I would watch that movie now are because a couple of the jokes are funny, and the whole bit in the middle with Thor and Loki. Why wasn’t this the whole movie? No one cares about the lore, but people really loved Loki, especially when there wasn’t much about him in the MCU at the time, and taking a villain fresh off his big hit with the first Avengers and throwing him in a reluctant “enemy of my enemy” plot for this entire movie would have been amazing.

Loki also refuses to stay dead because he’s too popular, thus we get a cyclical and frustrating arc where he only has development when the producers demand so they can make maximum profit off his character, but back then, in phase 2 world, the mystery around Loki was what made him so compelling and the drama around those two on screen was really good! They bounced so well off each other, they both had very different strengths and perspectives, both had real grievances to air, and in that movie, they *both* lost their mother. It’s not even that it’s a bad sequel, it’s just a plain bad movie.

The movie exists to keep establishing the Infinity Stones with the red one and I can’t remember what the red one does at this point, but it could have so easily done both. The powers that be should have known their strongest elements were Thor and Loki and their relationship, and run with it.

This isn’t “give into the demands of fans who want more Loki” it’s being smart enough to look at your own work and suss out what you think the most intriguing elements are and which have the most room and potential to grow (and also test audiences and beta readers to tell you the ugly truth). Sequels should feel more like natural continuations of the original story, not shameless cash grabs.

5. You walk back character development for ~drama~

As in, characters who got together at the end of book 1 suddenly start fighting because the “will they/won’t they” was the juiciest dynamic of their relationship and you don’t know how to write a compelling, happy couple. Or a character who overcame their snobbery, cowardice, grizzled nature, or phobia suddenly has it again because, again, that was the most compelling part of their character and you don’t know who they are without it.

To be honest, yeah, the buildup of a relationship does tend to be more entertaining in media, but that’s also because solid, respectful, healthy relationships in media are a rarity. Season 1 of Outlander remains the best, in part because of the rapid growth of the main love interest’s relationship. Every season after, they’re already married, already together, and occasionally dealing with baby shenanigans, and it’s them against the world and, yeah, I got bored.

There’s just so much you can do with a freshly established relationship: Those two are a *team* now. The drama and intrigue no longer comes from them against each other, it’s them together against a new antagonist and their different approaches to solving a problem. They can and should still have distinct personalities and perspectives on whatever story you throw them into.

6. It’s the same exact story, just Bigger

I have been sitting on a “how to scale power” post for months now because I’m still not sure on reception but here’s a little bit on what I mean.

Original: Oh no, the big bad guy wants to destroy New York

Sequel: Oh no, the big bad guy wants to destroy the planet

Threequel: Oh no, the big bad guy wants to destroy the galaxy

You knew it wasn’t going to happen the first time, you absolutely know it won’t happen on a bigger scale. Usually, when this happens, plot holes abound. You end up deleting or forgetting about characters’ convenient powers and abilities, deleting or forgetting about established relationships and new ground gained with side characters and entities, and deleting or forgetting about stakes, themes, and actually growing your characters like this isn’t the exact same story, just Bigger.

How many Bond movies are there? Thirty-something? I know some are very, very good and some are not at all good. They’re all Bond movies. People keep watching them because they’re formulaic, but there’s also been seven Bond actors and the movies aren’t one long, continuous, self-referential story about this poor, poor man who has the worst luck in the universe. These sequels aren’t “this but bigger” it’s usually “this, but different”, which is almost always better.

“This, but different now” will demand a different skillset from your hero, different rules to play by, different expectations, and different stakes. It does not just demand your hero learn to punch harder.

Example: Lord Shen from Kung Fu Panda 2 does have more influence than Tai Lung, yes. He’s got a whole city and his backstory is further-reaching, but he’s objectively worse in close combat—so he doesn’t fistfight Po. He has cannons, very dangerous cannons, cannons designed to be so strong that kung fu doesn’t matter. Thus, he’s not necessarily “bigger” he’s just “different” and his whole story demands new perspective.

The differences between Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are numerous, but the latter relies on “but bigger” and the former went in a whole new direction, while still staying faithful to the themes of the original.

7. It undermines the original by awakening a new problem too soon

I’ve already complained about the mere existence of Heroes of Olympus elsewhere because everything Luke fought and died for only bought that world about a month of peace before the gods came and ripped it all away for More Story.

I’ve also complained that the Star Wars Sequels were always going to spit in the face of a character’s six-movie legacy to bring balance to the Force by just going… nah. Ancient prophecy? Only bought us about 30 years of peace.

Whether it’s too soon, or it’s too closely related to the original, your audience is going to feel a little put-off when they realize how inconsequential this sequel makes the original, particularly in TV shows that run too many seasons and can’t keep upping the ante, like Supernatural.

Kung Fu Panda once again because these two movies are amazing. Shen is completely unrelated to Tai Lung. He’s not threatening the Valley of Peace or Shifu or Oogway or anything the heroes fought for in the original. He’s brand new.

My yearning to see these two on screen together to just watch them verbally spat over both being bratty children disappointed by their parents is unquantifiable. This movie is a damn near perfect sequel. Somebody write me fanfic with these two throwing hands over their drastically different perspectives on kung fu.

8. It’s so divorced from the original that it can barely even be called a sequel

Otherwise known as seasons 5 and 6 of Lost. Otherwise known as: This show was on a sci-fi trajectory and something catastrophic happened to cause a dramatic hairpin turn off that path and into pseudo-biblical territory. Why did it all end in a church? I’m not joking, they did actually abandon The Plan while in a mach 1 nosedive.

I also have a post I’ve been sitting on about how to handle faith in fiction, so I’ll say this: The premise of Lost was the trials and escapades of a group of 48 strangers trying to survive and find rescue off a mysterious island with some creepy, sciency shenanigans going on once they discover that the island isn’t actually uninhabited.

Season 6 is about finding “candidates” to replace the island’s Discount Jesus who serves as the ambassador-protector of the island, who is also immortal until he’s not, and the island becomes a kind of purgatory where they all actually did die in the crash and were just waiting to… die again and go to heaven. Spoiler Alert.

This is also otherwise known as: Oh sh*t, Warner Bros wants more Supernatural? But we wrapped it up so nicely with Sam and Adam in the box with Lucifer. I tried to watch one of those YouTube compilations of Cas’ funny moments because I haven’t seen every episode, and the misery on these actors’ faces as the compilation advanced through the seasons, all the joy and wit sucked from their performances, was just tragic.

I get it. Writers can’t control when the Powers That Be demand More Story so they can run their workhorse into the ground until it stops bleeding money, but if you aren’t controlled by said powers, either take it all back to basics, like Cars 3, or just stop.

—

Sometimes taking your established characters and throwing them into a completely unrecognizable story works, but those unrecongizable stories work that much harder to at least keep the characters' development and progression satisfying and familiar. See this post about timeskips that take generational gaps between the original and the sequel, and still deliver on a satisfying continuation.

TLDR: Sequels are hard and it’s never just one detail that makes them difficult to pull off. They will always be compared to their predecessors, always with the expectations to be as good as or surpass the original, when the original had no such competition. There’s also audience expectations for how they think the story, lore, and relationships should progress. Most faults of sequels, in my opinion, lie in straying too far from the fundamentals of the original without understanding why those fundamentals were so important to the original’s success.

[extraaa-30]

Why soft dom Aziraphale + bratty sub Crowley appeals to me

(be serious though they're both switches)*

Soft Dom Aziraphale

1. heaven

An angel is supposed to be the pure one, undefiled, meek, following orders without question, the girl to be got, the prize to be sought after, the white to be soiled. Subvert it! Aziraphale shouldn't be confined to an eternity of zero agency, naivety, and bland pastels. The idea of Aziraphale getting to really own his "bastard" side, getting to be "selfish," be demanding, be in control--delightful.

And, Aziraphale has guilt complexes on his guilt complexes. Because, unlike most of humanity, he is intimately aware of the righteous, pitiless violence that heaven is capable of. And he's made an art of subtly and ceaselessly defying it by being gentle, by demonstrating enormous restraint. He is a warrior who gave away his holy sword. He swerves severely in the direction of being reserved, harmless, feels clear guilt about any strong desires or direct asks. He has an obvious anxiety about excess (the mental acrobatics he does to justify his book collection, for example, are an entire circus). Free him from the fear of going too far!

2. the effeminate gay man

Thee Southern Pansy, "gay as a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide," with the fancy clothes and prim and proper aesthetic, ever the damsel in distress, flamboyant and limp-wristed, the one who is called slurs by children, the one who is sunshine and sweetness, "the nice one."

Except we know he is secretly a bastard! We know this bitch has preferences! Let him own that! The fact that he is effeminate should not automatically make him more submissive I literally hate that. On the inside Aziraphale is cunty and commanding and he should get to be!

3. with Crowley

Let him say what he craves directly so help me god! No double-speak, no games, no lustfully looking but then looking away immediately. Let him consume. Let him indulge in the gluttony he endlessly flirts with yet denies himself out of guilt and fear. The idea of Aziraphale as a gentle dom just seems so healing, like a puzzle piece that finally gets to click into place without shame.

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

Bratty Sub Crowley

1. hell

A demon is supposed to be the impure one, the defiler, the temptress, the seducer, the villain who takes, the black that soils. Subvert it! Crowley shouldn't be confined to the tropes of his demonic nature. He does not just take, just ruin. He is not inherently the one with experience while Aziraphale is the naive, pure little virgin. The idea of him being submissive to an angel (well...to this angel) is a delicious way to challenge that narrative.

And oh my god my girl has trust issues. As a demon his mentality is severely no allies, watch your back, the one who was cast out, rejected for a first offense, shaky ground, always in danger. He's not supposed to trust others, and he has legit biblically valid reasons to be wary and paranoid. Free him from the fear of trusting someone else to take control!

2. Mr. Cool

Mr. Bond, suave, smooth, stoic, sharp angles, stylish and slick, so very dangerous and criminal, the one with the car, the rebel, the snake. Compared with Aziraphale, he's supposed to be Mr. Hardass, "not nice."

Except we know he is secretly a disaster twink, 110% a soft sad little loser under that facade (and not buried that deep either)! He is a romantic who, in spite of hell, wants to give his angel chocolates! Let him own that!

3. with Aziraphale

Let him be unequivocally, unambiguously wanted oh my god! No guessing games! No trying to decipher what the fuck Aziraphale is really saying to him! Free him from the fear of always being "too fast" or "too late." All this bitch wants is for Aziraphale to be pleased by him, by Anthony J-acts-of-service Crowley! The idea of finally allowing him that...another puzzle piece. So satisfying and healing and safe.

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

*They're switches your honor

1. "our side"

Not heaven, not hell. Not angels or demons. Not all black or all white. If you think they don't switch, you're wrong.

2. weight & gender

Aziraphale is bigger and keeps his hair short and has a steadiness to him and all those things are perceived as more masculine by some and therefore stronger and more dominant. Fuck that! His size also is too often viewed as something unattractive, which--extremely fuck that. My boy is a treat and a catch. He should get to feel pretty and soft in a totally uncomplicated way as often as he goddamn wants.

Crowley is skinny, often has longer hair, has an absolute treasure hoard of gender, and there's a flightiness to him that's perceived as more feminine by some and therefore weaker and more submissive. Again I say fuck that! His slimness likewise is too often viewed as more desirable, more malleable and able to be cowed; to which I say: die! He is no dainty flower. He actually can often be commanding and capable. Take him seriously.

Furthermore: Aside from the obvious fact that weight, gender, and d/s all have jack shit to do with each other, subverting these tropes remains as important as subverting the other ones. Aziraphale should get to feel delicate and wanted just as much as Crowley. And Crowley should get to feel powerful and in control just as much as Aziraphale. To deny either of them those experiences...bad! Shut up!

3. Crowley & Aziraphale

Their dynamic is already basically gentle dom Aziraphale & bratty sub Crowley. Like literally inches below the surface lmao it's not that hard to spot (see: Az pouts about paint on his jacket, Crowley instantly rushes to fix it but in a cunty way; Crowley pins Az to a wall and Az isn't even slightly intimidated or out of control).

The problem is, they're not talking (see: Az can't ask directly; Crowley has to act tough). Which is why I personally feel that a more honest d/s dynamic, with all that unspoken ritual out in the open, would be an enormous relief for them.

That said, it's not fair to confine them to that familiar dynamic! Crowley isn't a sad wet rat all the time-- let him plan things and have them work out for once. Let him be (on purpose lol) successfully seductive! Likewise Aziraphale deserves to let his fucking hair down. Let my girl not have to do everything in this goddamn house! He deserves to not have to be the one in control all the time. He has trust issues just as deep as Crowley's, and equally deserves to feel safe and wanted.

Also Aziraphale is too much of a hedonist to not want to try everything. If you think he's sticking with one dynamic you are a fool. A clown. As my French-speaking 6,000 year old middle aged babygirl would say: an imbécile.

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

I wrote this for me, but if you read this far I hope you enjoyed it lol peace & love on planet earth

[pythoria]

i keep thinking about that line after you ascend astarion, when you pass that check to reveal he thinks you're degrading yourself if you continue to be with him. something about it seemed a little off to me, at least considering how ppl were saying it's because he sees you as beneath him, and it ties a little bit into some more general facts about his ascension. namely, that he didn't really get any powers out of it, and any powers seem to still be theoretical or projected into the future. he seems... excited about those prospective powers, but i can't help but notice an undercurrent of desperation. after all, why did 7000 people die for him if he can't even do the cool stuff like summoning wolves or walking on ceilings? sure, he can walk in the sun, but the worm already did that so there's no immediate difference. he can turn into mist, create spawn and has a more powerful bite, but isn't it all a little... underwhelming? imo after the ascension he's right back to posturing to hide his insecurities, which is why he says stuff about ruling the world (and i'm not saying he couldn't, but he definitely doesn't have that power immediately after his ascension).

i don't think the ascension is satisfying for him, i don't think he feels powerful (enough), and i think the reason he thinks you're degrading yourself isn't because you're beneath him, but because he thinks, deep down, that you're *better* than him. after all, you can't degrade yourself if you're already lowly. to degrade yourself, one has to have a height from which to fall. i think he sees you, either good and pure as tav or empowered by bhaal as durge and feels intimidated, either by your powers or by your inherent goodness. idk how people can look at ascended astarion and see a confident vampire lord, because all i see is someone whose worst nightmares came true and he doesn't even have the privilege of waking up.

[morsobaby]

Perhaps too spicy of a take

I am actually a victim of parental (motherly) abuse and I still enjoy abusive mothers in fiction bc I think it's good to portray them existing and it validates my pain. I find it really satisfying to engage with media about abusive mother relationships bc it helps me compartmentalize my feelings and experiences. I also am able to enjoy different things in fiction than real life, shocker. But I do not enjoy Fandom at large reception to these characters bc everybody fucking refuses to view it as the complex experience that abuse is and just opts to fucking shred the fictional mother character instead. That's not actually as cool and progressive as you think. It does not make me, as a victim, feel more understood and comforted actually. Refusing to engage critically with media about abuse bc it's a woman (gasp!) is completely trashy. Refusing to engage critically with media about abuse is always trashy but I'm talking about the misogyny aspect rn. It's the same thing as in my previous post: evil female characters are denied the privilege of being analyzed and viewed with any thematic complexity, which is often awarded to similar male characters much more (even when people acknowledge them as being actually as bad as they are).

Viewing abusers as simply "Pain dispensers" is grossly reductive and has the same problem as like. When in pro climate media, you portray the villain as this mustache twirling guy who just Really loves polluting and throws garbage on the ground for fun. Like it is that immature to me.

I think reducing evil female characters to "Grr she should burn in hell and be humiliated constantly and nothing else I have no opinions except I hate her and she sucks", honestly comes from the same spigot as the people who don't think women are capable of being abusive (or downplay/refuse to acknowledge abuse from women). It's like. Something something "Women are inherently more pure and innocent, and the ones that aren't, have some innate womanly failure to them and are not a sign of anything complex or real; they're just evil. End of story"

Like do you get what I'm grasping at here? It's not my most well constructed post but I feel a passion and want to make this post bc honestly I need to let this out

[smokeys-house]

I've finished watching season 4 of Moominvalley, and with the comet special being the definitive capstone of the gutsy 2019 adaptation, I can now give a proper and solid opinion on the series as a whole.

I was right all along suck it losers (joke)

Anyway I'm going to give my review of the series now.

As I've often said prior, MV19 revels in the major moments of the moomins, but does nothing to earn them. This leaves a lot of what should feel impactful instead feeling hollow, at least for a long time fan like me. I've also thought since watching the first season of MV19 that British humor clashes inherently with the genuine nature of the moomins, the sarcasm and attitudes present throughout make for a more modern feeling adaptation, but removes a certain luster from the moomins themselves and the other characters in the valley. The jokes are dry and impassionate, and the moomins are anything but.

"Classic," a term you could very easily apply to the moomins as a whole, is a word that means "undiminished by time." In an attempt to modernize the moomins, nothing is gained, and rounding edges and shaving off sides to fit a cleaner shape only works if you have more material to start with. Removing pieces from a classic, polishing them and filing them down does not leave you with a classic, it leaves you with holes and gaps. The time allotted per episode and the amount of episodes in a season didn't leave enough room for this modernization, in fact it didn't leave enough room for the series to breathe, with season 4 being the most damning example of this with its abysmal pacing and, at best, serviceable writing. With odd things here or there like the moomins ostensibly being vegans until season 4, or the appearance of modern appliances like freezers in moominhouse, the worst of it all in my opinion is that these things feel less like creative choices and more like revisions that reek of exterior involvement. The whole "it's a gown, not a dress" thing in season 4 epitomizes this, when in the book it's stated firmly that it is a dress that the hemulen got from his aunt. And what was the deal with the angostura plant? Is knife versus a literal plant too violent? I'm not asking for the moomins to be edgy I'm just tired of pandering to advertiser's fears of anything potentially pointy or objectionable. Change can be good, but what purpose do these and the many other changes serve?

Now, adherence entirely to the limitations of the original moomin books or even the 90s series that many fans hold dear is not a recipe for success and should not be looked to as an aspiration in my opinion. Creativity and innovation breed success, but the recipes for the moomin stories are simple and elegant. In all, I don't think changing them should be considered a sin, but i do think we should be mindful of how we change them and what we change. Dr. Seuss's wife put her foot down on film adaptations of the property following some bad movies, and while I don't think MV19 hits that mark of awful it should serve as a cautionary tale toward working with beloved materials.

I should clarify, it was not bad. It was actually a fairly enjoyable romp through moominvalley's tales, and had enough for both fans and newcomers alike. It wasn't exactly what anyone was expecting, and often felt like it backtracked in terms of character progression. The interior of the series moreso mirrored things like family guy, wherein at the end of the episode, everything within it was capped off and shelved with a complete and simple narrative A plot/B plot to boot. I personally don't find that to be satisfying and I find it ill fitting of the moomins as a whole. I'll also mention as a pet peeve, snork being autistic is cool! But sniff being highly autistic coded and being treated routinely the way he is, and then LITERALLY magically giving him empathy only for it not to ever be relevant again is something I just can't overlook. This adaptation treats sniff SO poorly which is unbecoming of the moomins in my opinion, and the way this adaptation handles things like autistic characters or characters being "weird" and then preaching inclusivity really bothers me. Everyone's welcome! Until they're not. None of these characters seem to meet the values they're known for. There's a subtle casual cruelty in this adaptation that stems from the British humor, and that's generally what I mean about it clashing. Some might praise this as making the moomins more relatable or humanizing them, but I'll tell you point blank that that's not the intention, and that they're not meant to be like you and everyone else, that's kind of the whole point.

While I did say it had enough for fans and newcomers, I will say that in an attempt to capture the way the moomins is not only suitable for and enjoyed by all ages, MV19 does exactly the opposite. The writing and the humor especially seems intent on bridging the gap between all comers, however there's fairly little charm and the jokes seem largely to befit a very young audience, but the show itself does not feel suitably enjoyable or lesson based to suit the purpose of media for that young audience. Characterizations of characters like Moominpappa as a bumbling fool with an ego problem and characters like Mrs Fillyjonk becoming catch-alls for every and any fillyjonk character in the moomins, alongside the hemulen becoming this... legion of the the same guy entirely not specific to a single entity until it suits the narrative, these feel like budgetary constraints which in turn leave the viewer feeling like none of this matters. Everything's been reduced down to a few key components, components that often don't line up with the characters' origins, and there aren't any surprises waiting given that it costs a lot of time and money (that they apparently weren't willing to invest) to model rig and voice a new character in 3D. Everything was always there from the start and you've seen it all the minute after you've seen each of the character's faces. Even props and immobile set dressings are reused blatantly and frequently. Cut, paste, ship. The woodies, mymble's kids, the hemulens, the whole lot. The firehose makes an appearance in the comet finale as the same model, which normally I'd compliment as a fun bit of homely continuity, but with the frequency of reappearing objects critters and locations, it feels... sandboxy.

Speaking of budget and constraints, the animation style is something i never got used to. Hot take, but 3D animation will never quite reach the coattails of 2D animation. It feels cheap no matter how technically impressive or high quality it is, which, to its credit, I'm not an animator but I'm aware from folks that are skilled in that area that MV19 is quite impressive. Also by the booble do not get me started on the horrible side mouth thing it really looks awful and I have opinions on that but that's not what we're here for. Anyway, whether you're for or against 3D being the go-to these days, I for one can't help but notice the drawbacks, which, often break my immersion. That's all to say nothing of things like snork going bald.

I could nitpick all day about creative choices, characters not lining up quite right, a complete lack of certain characters, or the swapping of roles and positions from what was originally one or several characters to a different character, but ultimately all of this would fail to encapsulate an actual sum of quality for the series as a whole. There's clear passion, effort, and all sorts of other good ingredients here. I can't dismiss the series as a whole, and honestly? It doesn't deserve to be dismissed, but it does reach the finish line lacking. It on its own is still enjoyable, and may even be someone's favorite I'm sure, but for me? I can't say I'm into it. There are a LARGE number of very valid complaints any given fan could muster when prompted with the question "what did you think of MV19?" and honestly far less things that this particular adaptation does that are memorable on their own merits. That being said, I very much enjoyed the time i spent with it and will surely watch it again at some point. I'm grateful for their being more moomin media going forward, and I'm glad this one went well enough. I'm grateful for MV19 bringing in new fans and bringing old ones together. I'm of the opinion that I'm happier when a show can forge memories with others rather than when a show on its own being a 10/10.

There was a lot I liked. And a lot more I didn't like. But, as Moominmamma said;

‘There’s a lot of things one can’t understand, but why should everything be exactly as one is used to having it?’

— Moominsummer Madness

Also you didn't get queerbaited stop talking about it lol

[pharmaciacatholica]

Someone once told me that suicide isnt like a "you're going to hell rn" situation because its often done under extreme stress/altered mental states and people aren't always in full control of themselves. I am sure the "instant hell" sentiment is probably a protestant thing but do you happen to know more on this?

I actually have a post in my drafts about this but is a subject that I do not love to speak on because it is inherently sensitive and it can often be difficult to express hardline truths without coming off as callous.

The cool part about being Catholic is that I often do not need to wade into the waters on my own. For the most part, I am able to point to the words or a far more learned and pious man than myself. In this case, I have the written words of Pope Saint John Paul II:

Suicide is always as morally objectionable as murder. The Church's tradition has always rejected it as a gravely evil choice.(x)(x) Even though a certain psychological, cultural and social conditioning may induce a person to carry out an action which so radically contradicts the innate inclination to life, thus lessening or removing subjective responsibility, suicide, when viewed objectively, is a gravely immoral act. In fact, it involves the rejection of love of self and the renunciation of the obligation of justice and charity towards one's neighbour, towards the communities to which one belongs, and towards society as a whole.(x)(x) In its deepest reality, suicide represents a rejection of God's absolute sovereignty over life and death, as proclaimed in the prayer of the ancient sage of Israel: "You have power over life and death; you lead men down to the gates of Hades and back again" (Wis 16:13; cf. Tob 13:2).

Evangelium Vitae (paragraph 66)

So you are partially correct and partially incorrect in your assessment. For some people, and I’ve seen this before, to go around telling those who have had a loved one commit suicide that they are burning in hell is completely insane and unjustifiable. It is also extremely dangerous to play off suicide as something that isn’t a grave sin or that every time it happens the person isn’t culpable for their actions. Suicide is one of the sins that landed Judas in hell, because he chose despair over repentance and mercy. I also think G.K. Chesterton spoke very poetically on the subject here:

Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings: it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds; but the suicide is not: that is his crime. He cannot be bribed, even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The thief compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them. But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it. He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the cross-roads and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer's suicidal automatic machines. There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart. The man's crime is different from other crimes - for it makes even crimes impossible.

Orthodoxy

This is just the writing of an overrated layman poet, but it really drives home the point.

[besttropeveershowdown]

The SECOND Best Trope Ever Showdown: Side C Finals

Take a Third Option

A character presented with 2 choices finds a way to choose a third thing instead (or something just a character presented with [x] number of choices finds a way to choose something that hasn't been presented to them as an option]

Propaganda:

I will admit when done badly it can be annoying and feel like a cop out to have a character swerve and make an ending or plot point feel really out of left field, but when well done it can be soooo satisfying, to watch a character think their way out of a seemingly limited situation and/or demonstrate that a false choice has been set before them and take control of their own narrative

Dark Is Not Evil

Dark colors, styles, themes, and powers being associated with good.

Propaganda:

Sometimes this trope means examining how those cast in traditionally “evil” roles are not inherently bad and, in more extreme cases, can use their abilities in creative ways to help others, thus doing away with harmful stereotypes regarding how appearance or circumstances of birth determine morality. Sometimes it’s just having your hero wear all black and wield a giant demon sword because it looks cool. You can’t go wrong either way.

[roxannarambles]

What are on your thoughts the cut storyboards especially on the hollow mind episode, where Hunter blushed at Luz from her comment? Or your thoughts on how the we don’t see Evelyn fully in person but just her in the photos in belos mind?

Hmm, Hollow Mind blush? Let's see . . .

This? I assume it took place after he said he reads about Mindscapes. Nothing too odd about that on its own, he's just embarrassed over admitting he's a big giant nerd, presumably. There's a similar instance in Hunting Palismen where he's nerding out over wild magic and in the storyboards he blushes as well. I don't think it's inherently shippy that he wants to seem cool in front of Luz or other people. Though it is a little interesting they always delete it when he blushes around Luz. Personally, I think they were a little . . . paranoid about potentially giving fans the impression he might have a thing for her.

Which is my personal explanation for how BADLY Hollow Mind ended and the rest of S2B went. Among those cut Hollow Mind storyboards is a scene where Hunter confronts the truth about Belos (inside the Mindscape) and Luz comforts him.

These were changed for story flow reasons, favoring the idea of Hunter confronting the truth closer to the end of the episode, when he promptly has a panic attack upon leaving the Mindscape. The problem is that um . . . the comforting part wasn't put back in? Luz just frickin' lets him run off and doesn't even try to chase after him? Which is wildly, wildly out of character no matter how you look at it?

The most sensible, intuitive, and satisfying course for the plot to run was that Luz pursued him and had him stay at the Owl House and they'd comfort each other over such a massive revelation. Not this randomly weird 'oh he stays at Hexside like a hobo' story. It's so awkward and weird. The show also shoehorned in a forced ship for Hunter at the last second. (maybe if the ship had been allowed the space to develop it would have felt organic and a decent ship, but it really didn't for me.) It really does feel like they suddenly went, 'oh crap we can't have him too close with Luz, it will look bad for our power couple of the show. do everything we can to distance him from Luz'

That's what I am choosing to believe, anyway, because that's a more generous assumption than 'it was just really badly written.' ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Buuuuut that's enough talk about S2B. To be honest, the end of Hollow Mind and everything past it is dead to me-- I didn't even watch S3 and never plan to. People might think that's an extreme reaction but I don't think so. Actually I highly recc trying it out. If you stop enjoying a show just stop watching it, if it sucks hit da bricks!! Why keep watching something just to complain and for it to sour your memory of the parts of the show you DID enjoy? I get to (mostly) keep my fond memories of this show, I call that a win

As to Evelyn, idk man, there's all kinds of threads that were never tied up, but to be fair that's 'cause the show was pre-maturely cancelled. Presumably she had ties with Eda's family though, it's what we've always assumed.

[graceshouldwrite]

How to Write Devastating Betrayals (Pt. 1)

Here are some elements + tips on satisfying betrayals that will destroy both your characters AND your readers!

1. Relationship Between Trust and Betrayal 

The #1 Betrayal Rule:

MORE TRUST = WORSE BETRAYAL

This is because TRUST implies 2 main things:

The traitor has probably PROVEN their trustworthiness, and now has a shared history + bond with the character they’re betraying 

The traitor probably has access to a LOT OF INFORMATION about the character, whether it’s career-wise or personal. Probably at least some information the character considers STRICTLY confidential 

An act of betrayal undermines Point 1 by manipulating Point 2 to their advantage.

So, if you want your betrayal to DESTROY, have the traitor be CLOSE with the character they’re about to betray. Lets compare examples: 

you are a gang boss. You hire a new recruit who doesn’t really know anything except one insignificant operation, like “today we buy groceries at 2PM”

your recruit tells the rival gang about the grocery trip   

→ betrayal doesn’t really matter that much

you probably didn’t place much trust in a new recruit 

the implications of information leak are insignificant 

→ not much plot weight 

On the other hand:

you find out that the entire time, your RIGHT HAND MAN (also your childhood friend!) has been feeding information to the rival gang and sabotaging your operations 

→ HURTS a lot more emotionally

might ruin everything you’ve built, career-wise, for good 

→ LOTS of plot weight

From a completely SECULAR PLOT STANDPOINT (please don’t come for me, theologians), Judas’ betrayal of Jesus is a good example because:

Judas was one of Jesus’ disciples, a.k.a. the people considered closest to him, and who followed Jesus throughout all of his preaching years

Judas’ information about Jesus’ identity and whereabouts led to Jesus’ crucifixion → LOTS of plot weight (the entire Bible from a Christian standpoint foreshadows this moment, and every point after is spreading word of this moment. Talk about plot implications!)  

ONCE AGAIN, I know all the “Jesus knew and allowed it to happen” “it was the will of God” stuff but this is purely used as a good plot example!!!!

2. Reason for Betrayal

“’Cause it’s super edgy/evil/cool” is DEFINITELY not a valid option. 

All the plot points in a book build towards achieving a goal, and all the characters do things they think will get them closer to what they want. Likewise, the traitor must want a specific thing that ONLY betrayal can get them, or that betrayal can get them more efficiently. 

People generally portray typical traitors as: 

completely selfish with no personality trait aside from infinite ambition and ruthless pragmatism

a hero whose had enough

someone who sees the person they betrayed as a “worthless disposable” or something 

Traitors don’t have to be morally bankrupt, even though betrayal is typically seen as something inherently bad, or just a bad means to a good end at best. 

They can be conflicted about the betrayal (like Macbeth delaying his murder of King Duncan), remorseful about it (like Discord from MLP feeling super guilty after he hands the main protagonists over to the villain), or even do it for the “greater good.”

e.g. Brutus thought Caesar was becoming too power hungry, and would destroy the republic by becoming a dictator, so Brutus betrayed him to preserve the republic 

→ example of a betrayal that was NOT self-serving

However, building on the MLP Discord example, a traitor can also have been manipulated into it themselves. 

(For context, the villain basically promised Discord lots of power if he handed over the protagonists, but then the villain also sucked away Discord’s powers afterwards—won’t bother explaining MLP magic mechanics LOL) 

3. Foreshadow It 

A satisfying betrayal is usually a subtle, looming shadow that creeps over your plot before it makes its grand entrance during the scene when the character realizes the traitor sold them out. 

A good example is in Shakespeare’s dramatization of Brutus’ betrayal: 

Brutus’ loyalty to the REPUBLIC is made super clear throughout. When Caesar starts deviating, seeming more dictatorial, Brutus remains firm.

Their values are CLEARLY conflicting, so SOMETHING has to be done. Either:

they reconcile by both agreeing on either dictatorship or democracy

they turn on each other...and that’s what happens

Basically, planting the possibility in your reader’s mind is a great way to foreshadow a betrayal. 

Other ideas could be: 

traitor begins suddenly acting a lot warmer to the unsuspecting character, or even colder right BEFORE the betrayal

traitor is always TOO obedient and/or sycophantic 

traitor acts suspicious, e.g. caught in lies, using inconsistent body language (ex. pretending to cry when talking about something really bad), caught talking to people they shouldn’t be talking to (e.g. rival gang)

∘₊✧────── ☾☼☽ ──────✧₊∘

instagram: @ grace_should_write

stay tuned for part 2!

Hope this was helpful, and let me know if you have any questions by commenting, re-blogging, or DMing me on IG. Any and all engagement is appreciated <3333

Happy writing, and have a great day!

- grace <3

[obstinaterixatrix]

THE GLIMM*R ZINE IS AVAILABLE FOR DIGITAL DOWNLOAD TO BACKERS AND IT'S SO GOOD IT'S SOOOOOOOOO GOOD I think it has a good mix of requited/unrequited, mundane/fantasy, literal/figurative (though dreams inherently skew more figurative than literal) (maybe more... a good balance between a 'concrete' implementation of 'dream' in the sleep sense, and 'abstract' implementation of 'dream' as the wish/goal sense?)

all the artists did a great job, I think every single story was complete and satisfying and competently executed (though obviously some of them hit my biases more than others). I can think of positive and unique things to say about each story. so I will.

Midnight Smack by Anna Chen Campbell: The art style is fun and distinct and very expressive, I loved the role reversal of a fantastical creature being in the position of going What The Fuck. Very solid meet-cute!

Dear Nina by Kristina Luu: The story is told through the perspective character reminiscing of the past, which means a nice intimate first(/second) person narration. I really liked the mood whiplash of wistful longing and seething cynicism, the atmosphere is top-notch.

Good Morning, Rose by Rowan Maccoll: I love the dream vibes in this one--it really captures that experience of going along with different scenes that aren't supposed to cohere, disjointed in a way that works for the story. I love how the... not-really-negative space is used during the true form reveal, very atmospheric.

R.E.M. by Jona Li: It's one of the heavier stories because [spoilers] the narrative centers suicidal ideation/suicide attempt, and I think the artist does a good job with emotional nuance; I also like that there's ambiguity whether the subject of the dream is their real self, or a projection of the dreamer. The contrast between hard/soft textures is super arresting.

Merderous by Gabrielle Kari: The first of three illustrations! Alas, the two-page spread is broken up in pdf format... I can't wait to get my physical copy so I can see it in its fully glory... it's got what's clearly an intricate narrative with no context or explanation, so you get to puzzle out your own interpretation if you want, which I liked.

Eternal Waltz by Adeline Kon: EXTREMELY heated drama between women. It has resentment, it has longing, it has separation and bitter reunions, it has violence, and it has a butch woman who's definitely an arrogant fuckboy. I want fifty more comics just like this.

Derailed! by Kimberly Wang: I'm very unfairly biased towards this comic because I've been following this artist for a while and I Love Their Work. Great composition, great expressions, great energy, just all around great stuff (there's also an interview about Of Thunder And Lightning in this zine!). Anyway, they described this comic as "type A hobonichi girlie meets girl who's perpetually late and has no impulse control, who survives", it's very funny and very charming and I knew I'd love it from the very first preview. and I was right. I want fifty more comics of this duo.

The Visitor by Yuchen H: The second illustration, which is also the cover of the zine. The art looks so soft and edible, really captures a dreamy atmosphere. I want to bury my face in those feathers. The pain (and longing...?) for someone ignorant to the impact of their own actions... solid vibes.

One Last Dream by Laura Rovinsky and Ez Carol: The protagonist is an old woman in hospice care, which really grabbed my interest. Despite the heavy premise, it's super sweet and cute and Filled With Joy, and there were a lot of elements I liked (the main character being active in working with the love interest, the main character's waking life being enhanced by the dream, etc). I would love to see more old women protagonists!

Step By Step by Jess Fleming: I liked the maze setup--the artist did cool stuff like the blueprint-to-completed-gardens page, and the atmosphere's very... I think liminal fits best. Also, the impossible status divide between a groundskeeper and a noblewoman who's in an arranged marriage to end a feud, AND the emotional implications of constructing the maze PLUS having to guide the noblewoman to her betrothed? Very good setup for The Longing

Love Everlasting by Ellen Mei: The third and final illustration. VERY clear narrative and VERY heated drama. I love an unethical scientist and I love how Very Definitely Unhappy the android looks about the situation. Sooo tasty and unhinged, nobody's getting out of this unscathed.

anyway, those are my thoughts, must-read for yuri enthusiasts, if you didn't get the chance to back the kickstarter definitely pick up a copy once it's for sale. I love it.