I like Dick being romani as much as the next guy, but his situation in particular is one where im like. yeah, it's understandable if you'd rather not. firstly bc he was just white for most of his 80+ years of existing, and secondly bc the origins of making him romani are just straight up racial stereotyping... It's a hornets nest.
but as for why i keep it in my image of him. he's just so deeply detached from his heritage in a way that i find kinda comforting. im not romani specifically, but due to my family background, i have little to no connection to any cultural heritage on my moms side (and neither does she, really). Dick's relationship with his heritage isn't explored well from what I've seen of it, but the concept itself is meaningful. the concept of being detached. finding out there's a part of you, a part of your family that's different from what you thought it was. different from what you thought of yourself. different from what people think of you. you don't know it at all. It doesn't feel like it's yours to claim. a disconnect. It's isolating, but knowing you're not alone in your loneliness is an important concept, I think. I like the idea for its potential rather than the execution of it. I don't think I'm explaining this well, partially bc the whole thing brings up a lot of my own messy feelings.
TLDR: the actual stories about Dick's being romani aren't done well, but the bare-bones concept of it is something that resonates with me.
29 notes
·
View notes
if there is one piece of advice that i could offer writers that aspire to get traditionally published, is that when people say the industry is wholly subjective, they are 100% correct and coming to terms with this is the difference between continuing on and just breaking.
whenever i'm not getting automated rejection messages, agents who actually take the time to explain why they're passing on the manuscript (a HUGE rarity but i've been lucky this round) makes you realize real quick that it really does boil down to "actually, i just didn't vibe with it".
i keep seesawing between wanting to scrap or keep my opening chapters, and so far it's been pretty 50/50 between there's too much going on, and, there's not enough going on on most of these rejections.
the most bewildering comment i've gotten so far was that there wasn't enough worldbuilding in the opening chapters. not enough worldbuilding. in a horror novel. a contemporary horror novel. something that goes against every standard regardless of genre.
like, zoinks scoob. it's all good. i'm confused, but we're chill about it.
10 notes
·
View notes
@beatingheart-bride
"I-It's alright, you...you didn't know. I-I...I appreciate your c-condolences, though."
It was rather jarring, to say the least, to hear someone express their condolences for the loss of her father; to many, his death wasn't that great a loss, as evidenced by his lonely funeral, none of his old friends (all of whom had largely cut ties with him) turning up to bid him farewell. No one had cared that August Pace had died, anymore than they had when Wilhelmina Pace did.
Wanting to move away from such a somber topic (especially when it came to her mother-she sincerely hoped her guest didn't recognize her surname as being the same as an Irish-American woman who drowned in Lake Pontchartrain some several decades ago...she probably didn't have to worry; such matters would be beneath notice for the upper class), Susannah instead ventured to ask, "D-Do you, um...d-do you have siblings, M-Mr. de Clair? Wh-What do your parents...do?"
Unlike Abigail and many of the other seamstresses, Susannah was never one for the papers gabbing on and on about the more esteemed people of New Orleans, the people who really mattered: If she had to guess, his parents had their fingers in something lucrative (maybe shipping, like the Gracey's?) and that he never had to work a day in his life, and neither did any of his siblings, if he had any. It was likely a very charmed life he led, very different from Susannah's own.
5 notes
·
View notes
i do want to preface this by saying that overall i really did enjoy the good place, i think it's a fun show that's given me more to chew on than i expected it to. but part of that chewing is definitely me thinking about things i think it could have done better....
i already joked that it's over with supernatural in terms of things that are very deeply american protestant and seem to lack self-awareness of this.....characters keep refuting the idea that it's not christian heaven or hell, and it's not really but also the concept of an eternal Good Place where super virtuous people are rewarded forever and an eternal Bad Place where anyone shy of perfect gets tortured by demons forever. well.
i think overall though my biggest criticism of the show is that it's very....safe. this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it makes it very enjoyable to watch, but i think there's something missing in the criticism of the idea of a Good Place or Bad Place. now, mind you, i am coming at this from a perspective that totally rejects the concept of an eternal Good Place or Bad Place existing in the first place, which i'll elaborate on throughout the rest of this but yeah.
i think one of the things that gets me is that the main characters are like...none of them are really evil, except michael in the beginning and that's mostly played for laughs and it's also kind of a different situation with him being a demon and all lol. like yeah, eleanor and jason especially were kinda scummy people, and eleanor was even kind of aware of the fact that she was and jason suffers from being the idiot friend in the sitcom which means he has like zero brain cells.
anyway point is like, i don't think any of the main four humans really are going to like, really challenge people's ideas of whether or not the Bad Place should even exist at all, and the show also wasn't really going for that, and that sort of frustrates me because i'm just fundamentally opposed to the idea of Eternal Torture even for the worst of the worst. like. even if you uphold that an amount of torture as retribution for evil in the afterlife, assuming it exists, is a good and just thing (which is also something i fundamentally oppose), then like. for eternity??? that's a very long time! it feels like, even for like the Absolute Worst Humans, the sentence far far outweighs the crime!
but anyway it just doesn't feel very...challenging, that the main four humans were like, kinda scummy people, who absolutely did harm others (but pretty much only emotional harm, overall, none of them were ever violent) but like i would absolutely never call evil. like, ok, eleanor's job on earth was trying to scam old people out of money by convincing them to buy useless supplements. not exactly any points (heh) in her favor but also like idk, she had bills to pay and it was a job. not saying that it's harmless (i actually think it's worse than the show kinda makes it out to be?) but like, i don't think many people would necessarily think that she actually deserves to be in the Bad Place for it either?
i think the show would have been more interesting if there had been someone who had actually been more, like, hashtag problematic in the main cast who of course ends up learning and growing and so on, but someone who seems to really belong in the Bad Place (i think this would also make the initial Torture Scheme--which i did think was a brilliant way to write psychological torture btw lmao--more interesting. someone who is both bad and self aware enough to really think from the beginning that they shouldn't be allowed into the Good Place, and trying desperately to cover that up...maybe confronting their guilt over like the murder or whatever that they committed....). i think it'd make the tone of the show a bit less goofy, but imo that's not necessarily a bad thing either
4 notes
·
View notes
end thoughts: i need to badly go to bed and ill probably have to rewatch this movie to properly digest it but i felt it was a lil boring in that standard way, not great but not terrible, its the classics of modern doraemon where it goes on for so long and focuses on things i care very little about: which is the side characters that shall only exist for this one film.
sonya has been an exception for once in a long time of new character in these movies i can care about, reminds me of riruru in a sense... especially his relationship with doraemon. just makes me miss shizuka and rirurus dynamic if i think abt it too much however?
it also does that great sin i tend to dox points for in the movies: pushing the other three into the background so it can become 'nobita + doraemon & the side characters movie' it was tolerable-ish this time around bc i understand the premise of why [and enjoyed it!] but earlier sentiments still stand
the threat of this movie aka bugification is still very silly to me, ik the guy had a bigger more dangerous plot but i cant get around bugifying. its funny.
the part i like the most is highlighting the kids friendships with each other, the acknowledgement of the others flaws and good traits- i like nobita being torn on whether its a good thing or not suneo and gian are changing like this... would have loved if that was more of the focus! but it came and went oh so quick.
4 notes
·
View notes