#it's a genuine opinion from the person writing the description like it's absolutely important that's what it should be written there

[schneiderenjoyer]

Was browsing through the wiki to get some reference and I've always found it interesting that Portrayals gave off the hint that Vertin captures their form's essence (through film most likely) and the descriptions of them are insight of the character from Vertin's perspective.

If we go by that logic...Schneider's Portrayal description ruins me.

[pierregazly]

Hi lovely! First I must say, your writing has me in awe! I find myself constantly coming back to your blog each time you post something new and never having failed hopes. This driver ship idea you’re doing is so creative too and has me obviously curious and wanting to be shipped! (Don’t we all?)

⚓️

I’m 5’3, 19 and a Taurus. Stubborn and determined but a pure introvert who loves to pretend they can be an extrovert. I am in constant need of reassurance (embarrassingly) and am all for physical touch!!

While I can be out with a loud group I also prefer my quiet time and can be a bit easily overwhelmed and shut down. I adore music, you will almost never find me without headphones, but I also love singing, guitar and piano. Writing is my passion! From stories to poems to songs, while I may not be amazing I find so much joy in it. Curling up in bed with a good show of movie playing on my laptop is my favourite way to end a night.

Hopefully this is enough or not too much, thank you lovely 🫶🏻

⚓️ give me a small description of yourself/your hobbies/your zodiac signs/life and i'll ship you with a driver

hiya lovely!! i don't even know what to SAY, your words are literally so lovely and im seriously so grateful and genuinely thank you so much!! and im so glad you're loving the shipping idea, i absolutely love doing them!!

i think i'm going to ship you with charles leclerc! although, with both of you being stubborn and determined that may be an absolute disaster if you two ever decide to be stubborn and set on something between the two of you - i think he would immensely admire how you're passionate enough to not let up on things that are important to you. his love language (in my opinion) is physical touch, and he most definitely seems like someone who's constant reaffirming his partner and making it clear that he adores them. charles is evidently a very chatty/extroverted person, so i think he would really help with pulling you out of your shell - but would also be a good safety net to fall back on if you ever become uncomfortable or just need to step away from a large group. charles LOVES art, and would be captivated by yours - he would be the biggest fan of any of your works, your poetry, your songs - he's totally the type of play away at a piano to try and match something you've written. such a lovely pairing, in my opinion 🫶🏻

thank you for celebrating with me!!

[thetreetopinn]

After perusing my youtube homepage to see what the algorithm might be erroneously trying to recommend to me, I came across something and felt compelled to leak my unloveliness across the internet.

I am continuously baffled by the fact that there are still people out there who think that a specific tactic is wise and or good--though it probably IS somewhat efficacious.

You've probably seen these channels. They have flashy thumbnails and attention-grabbing titles like "IS MARVEL DEAD!?" or "DISNEY HAS RUINED STAR WARS!!" or some shit like that.

Just look at these:

I'm not going to bother sharing the name of this channel. I've already told youtube to not recommend it to me anymore. The video that brought this channel to my attention was "DISNEY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND LIGHTSABERS!!" which... um... okay... it's a fictional weapon, and I didn't really see anything in the mainline Star Wars movies that suggested this but go off, king.

Just looking at the thumbnails, without clicking on any of them to watch the videos, they all seem like reactionary, factory-fresh hot-takes just WAITING for you to get mad and write an angry comment because negative engagement is still engagement. I could be completely wrong. I could click on any one of these and it could be a thoughtful discussion of why some people think the thing found in the thumbnail, and it's intended to be satire to draw in people who WANT to argue. It very well could.

I don't want to click to find out.

Because it's just as likely--if not more likely--that these are all exactly what it says on the tin. It could be that it's done in a satirical manner to make fun of these kinds of reactionary knee-jerk people... but there's a problem with this thinking.

Satire is only effective if you KNOW that it's satire.

Satire--by definition--must be obvious, otherwise, it runs the risk of being confused for the very thing that it is attempting to satirize. At which point, it stops being satire. Oops.

I get channels like this popping up in my recommendations from time to time, because the Youtube algorithm is just... really good at understanding me... just the absolute best, no notes, completely perfect, roll it out to everyone and it will solve world peace.

(see how I used satire there?)

Every time I find one of these channels, I have to take a moment to look through their list of videos to look for the common red flags: - Click-bait thumbnails using reactionary hooks - Click-bait titles of the same sort - A relatively high video release cadence (multiple videos a month with relatively similar subjects) - An 'About' description that says A LOT without saying much

According to this person, "The Last Jedi" is, to quote them, 'very, very bad'. Now, far be it for me to say that someone is wrong for not liking a movie. If you don't like The Last Jedi, that's your right to hold that opinion. I don't agree, but that doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong...

...that said... there's a very specific kind of person who thinks it's super important to announce that they think The Last Jedi is very, very bad. In their About description.

And right here is what I'm talking about when I say there's a specific kind of person who thinks it's super important to announce to the world that they are a big-brained genius who "knows" that a specific star war was one of the bad ones.

It's also why I don't think this person is attempting satire... but I know there are plenty of people who there who DO attempt satire of this kind of thing--and they end up looking exactly like the thing they're trying to satirize.

I don't really have much of a point here.

I guess I'm just kind of ranting.

I'd like a better class of video to be shown in my recommendations--not this hot garbage.

But that youtube algorithm just KNOWS ME SO WELL!!!

I guess that's why I follow a bunch'a folks whose work I genuinely like over on Nebula, so that I don't always have to put up with this nonsense when I'm looking for good stuff to watch.

[navree]

Have you watched Rome (HBO)? If yes what's your opinion on it?

I've watched some of it, but to be honest I didn't really like it. They got things like how society operated in that time, and I think Ciaran Hinds is an incredible actor and did his best with the material he had, and if you just want a good drama and don't know anything about the period and the actual history that went on, you'll probably like it. Plus, James Purefoy was genuinely perfect casting. It's why I wish that the show was better than it was.

Problem is, I do know the history. I know the history quite well, because the general fall of the Republic and rise of the Empire is an incredibly interesting time and Augustus is one of my favorite people to read about, from a historical perspective he's fascinating. And the show bungles a lot in that regard. I've never been a particular fan of "we're going to invent these fictitious characters and make them important to the historical narrative" type things, and the combining of characters caused some major problems for me personally (combining Atia Balba with Fulvia to create the show's version of Atia was very annoying to me personally, considering how at odds it is to the historical Atia Balba), and just in general a lot of the characters felt very shallow and like they were crafted more out of a pop culture understanding of who these people were rather than actually examining them historically. Like, ooh Cleopatra is a sexually voracious and seductive minx and Octavian is a monstrous little viper, how incredibly novel, never been done before. Not like the reality of Cleopatra as someone who wasn't very attractive but was so intelligent and charismatic that she seemed leagues better than any other woman, but still prideful and stubborn enough to let it be her downfall is more interesting than cokewhore but make it Hellenistic. Not like Octavian as an incredibly smart person and brilliant politician whose complicated family life created a situation that had him latch onto Caesar as a father figure (and Caesar himself having lost a child shortly before they started getting close allowing that latching to be entirely mutual) and who started his journey to power as a personal revenge quest and whose litany of personal tragedies at a young age created the circumstances that allowed him to make colder and colder decisions for the betterment of himself and his family and his country is more interesting than wimpy deviant who can't fight. IDK, they made Livia marginally more two-dimensional than most other pop culture portrayals of her (I, Claudius your sins are numerous and shan't be forgiven), but that's about it. From someone who's read a lot about all of these people and has consistently found that who they actually were is leagues more interesting and creatively inspiring than anything anyone could actually make up, the show being composed entirely of preconceived notions with some sprinkling of "this is what I remember from Shakespeare's Roman plays" just did not do it for me at all.

Also, Agrippa/Octavia is a fucking cop out and anyone who writes it is a genuine coward. Like, you cannot tell me that out of the two siblings, the relationship you find the most interesting is the one he had with Octavia, when Agrippa and Octavian were friends since they were twelve and were completely and reciprocally so incredibly devoted to each other that it almost defies description and beggars belief. Agrippa never once tried to grab power even though he absolutely could have and was perfectly happy being nothing more than Octavian's right hand man until the day he died. Octavian's first ever political act, the thing that kickstarted his entire career, was asking Caesar of his own volition to not kill Agrippa's brother (it's complicated) and Caesar saying yes entirely because it was Octavian who asked, not only showing how loyal Octavian was to his friends but also essentially binding the two of them together for life. It was a forty year relationship of the most insanely codependent friendship of all time, either get with the program and make it homoerotic or just admit you have no talent and wanna hetify it.

[sasukimimochi]

Making a post cuz i'm bothered by this and i see this kind of cringe-control type behavior around a lot. i don't think people are doing it maliciously half the time but when you don't know something you don't know and i think people should understand how it's actually quite controlling/hurtful.

Putting it under read more cuz i'm going to talk about pg-13 and above topics.

(there isn't anything explicit, just words are mentioned, thus why the keep reading line.)

This hasn't happened to me like, i haven't been told these words are cringe to my face but i see many posts about it.

but... i do use "cringe" typical words.

people will say don't call +18/explicit content "lewd/spicy/lemon"

people will say don't use "length/member/shaft" etc and these are just two categories i'm referencing here cuz i can't think of more off the top of my head. the abundance of examples here though isn't important.

now as you probably know i already use at least two of the words mentioned. i'm not saying my reasons are the same for others, but i hate seeing the posts saying that it's because you're too ashamed of what you're talking/reading etc about and then ranting about how cringe it is.

i can talk in explicit detail about +18 topics, but i personally cringe at the words sex/cock/balls/hot/sexy/dick etc like...my reasoning isn't that i'm ashamed of what i'm talking about, its that the words make me uncomfortable and i think they're words that aren't for me due to the vulgar vibe i get from them. you can like those words all you want though, just like how i can like my words all i want!

judging people for using specific words is the dumbest thing i've seen lately in my opinion (other than obvious important things going on in the world, let's not get that specific). i can understand if it's like, genuinely offensive or something. But this is different, these words are just straight up harmless- when did spicy even get put in the cringe category? you allergic to someone saying a picture/piece of writing is spicy?

tbh i have two reasons for using the subtler words like spicy, which i tend to actually use most often along with the word "length/erection" instead of "cock/dick". one of the reasons is a very simple one: tumblr does some weird shit if you put the abbreviation for not safe for work in your post (i did once and it scared me cuz something popped up saying something about changing my content and i was like asdfs??? but anyway i'm not trying it again), and second, i have some type of aversion to certain words. it has nothing to do with the conversation i'm having and all to do with the word.

I use the word "explicit" most often to replace n*fw, because of tumblrs issues with the content, but i have and will still call such content all three: you won't catch me calling it sex/porn etc because i find it personally a lot to mentally handle. I imagine a lot of these other words being used aren't only because of someone wanting to come up with other ways to write the terms, but for reasons like mine, where the words are disconcerting.

i get a similar feeling whenever someone says a character/person is "hot/sexy", i hate it, idk how to feel about it, it feels uncomfortable, but i absolutely agree that the person/character looks good! but you won't catch me ever calling anyone/anything by those.

like, there's a long list of terms i hate but are completely normal for the average person. You will not see me using them, but i don't judge you for it. i know its normal and i'm not out here to control your lives.

however i see so many people getting annoyed at these "cringier" word choices and i gotta say, live a little. embrace some cringe. it's not gonna kill you to see them just as it doesn't kill me to see descriptions in writing going on about cock and balls like its some elegant poetry.

let people live. enjoy your own life. i'll stick to saying slit, you stick to saying vagina. i'll stick to saying length, you say cock.

but stop making fun of people for it.

stop telling people they're doing it for no good reason.

obviously, you will never know if someone else identifies with what i've said.

so you shouldn't judge strangers and say they're ashamed and/or what they're saying is cringe- i fucking love explicit content. i get happy/excited about it too. i just do it differently in the way that makes me comfortable.

If you're uncomfortable with me using words that make me comfortable, then that's a you problem, i'd say.

[shiroselia]

I know that it's technically a day before but I genuinely might forget tomorrow, so I'm writing something about it now because I'm feeling very sentimental right at this very moment in particular

Which is to say that tomorrow (16th of September), it will be exactly a year since I started writing QuintSum, and really since I started actually writing properly period.

For those that haven't snapped it up yet, I've been very so-so about calling myself a writer for a long time because I've mostly stuck to storyboards and plot outlines and character creation and a lot of Background Stuff that I couldn't really show people because I didn't think that it counted. Even when I did start writing it took me a While to settle on the fact that I Have been a writer for 10+ years because it has taken me That fucking long to get this consistent and Good at it. But you know I haven't "properly" been writing before last year so you bet my brain was debating on if I was "allowed" to say I've been writing for 10+ years. (The answer is yes my skills are that of a decade+ that's just fact. You aren't at my level of consistency from just a single year.)

Nevertheless because I was also terrified of showing people my writing because when you grow up noticeably autistic and have a personality at all you're going to be made to feel like all your hobbies suck ass and if you even imply that you have interests you're going to get punished for it. And my stories and characters have always been incredibly personal, so naturally I just didn't show it to people because I know exactly what that does to somebody. (Read: You get told you're a fucking weirdo and then you get laughed at either in your face or behind your back. Fun stuff, truly.)

That isn't to say that I've ever been a person who writes very personal stories in the commonly assumed sense. I don't write a lot of problems or issues that are relateable to me, and I don't particularly care about channeling my own struggles through my writing. Completely valid coping mechanism and an excellent way to do it for the people who like it, I instead prefer to have a podcast talk with myself. Point being, that the personal part of my stories have Always been the kind of tropes I utilise.

If anybody has even glanced at my Ao3, you can tell that I have a bit of a Type. Always has been the case, always will be the case. I know that I like, always have been. But just because what I write isn't necessarily Personal, doesn't mean that it still doesn't reflect Absolutely everything about it. It, at its core, is literally everything that I love and adore and find fun and enjoyable. And I've always considered that to be equally as important to somebody as their struggles because once you get to know people, they really are.

So I just didn't show people my stuff, and didn't really write, and if I did it was half-baked drafts at best because I just. Didn't get it to work.

There is a WAY longer conversation of mine to be had with my personal view of writing style, and my friends have all gotten it multiple times in varying lengths, because I have a lot of opinions there (Shocker, I know). But there genuinely is nothing that has helped my stylistic writing more than, as funny as it is, becoming an English major. I've gotten introduced to so much Interesting and unconventional writing this way, and more than anything, I've been reminded that there's Multiple ways to do it.

When you hang around on The Tumblrs it's very fucking easy to foret that there's more writing styles than heavy-description standard past tense third person. Which is hilarious now that I genuinely do write in primarily past tense third person, but there's a reason why I didn't start out there. Because I fucking hate conventional third person. I write literally, I fucking hate dialogue tags, I don't give a shit about most things that a lot of "popular" writing emphasizes. And it took until last year to remember that that's literally not a problem because I had to sit through multiple lectures on stream of conciousness and why Shakespeare's literal writing was really fucking good so remember that I'm Allowed to write that way.

And then I started talking to @jorvikzelda and three days later the stupidest shit I've ever pulled off started.

I've said this to them so many fucking times, but Zelda is the most direct reason why you even see me writing at all nowadays. It's been a Really long process of getting over multiple layers of Stuff and Things, but none of it would ever have helped had Zelda not asked me to betaread Jorvikpov. The fact that Zelda allowed me to, with all due respect, rip their writing apart from the ground up, was definitely pretty important for me to feel comfortable with sending them, what I generally regarded, as something kind of trash (and while I nowadays call what I started out writing Not Good, all things considered, it's nothing but a receipt that I've improved and gotten more comfortable in my own style).

And all of a fucking sudden, I finished writing almost 300k words in 10 months and it would've been less had Real Life not gotten in the fucking way. Which is kind of where I'm at right now because guess what, it takes time to edit an already disgustingly long fic, especially when you're also studying full time. But whoptido it do be like that.

The point is, that it's fucking Insane to me that I'm sitting here a year later, hell, At All, and not only having accomplished what 8 year old Manda could only daydreamed about (yes, I've wanted to write an SSO rewrite story That fucking long), but also doing something I told myself I just Did Not Like. Which is to say that it's hilarious that I decided however long ago it was that I didn't like writing fanfiction, and also that I didn't like writing period, so I just stuck to storyboarding. And now look where I am.

Turns out that sometimes you just need some good friends to bonk your insecurities out of you, and all of a sudden you have a writing speed of 1100 words per 30 minutes.

Fuck around find out do shit the weidest unconventional way you can think of and sooner or later you're going to consider yourself the best writer you know. (And I am friends with some fucking geniuses let me tell you.)

[theonewhopoops]

Honestly, I find this extremely interesting, because I was coming at this from a completely different perspective!

I think part of the disconnect between your perspective here and mine, stems from the implications of the word "suggest." In my experience, that means someone saying "I think you might be [x]" or "sounds like you're [x], babe!" - which, I must say, is already a problem for me regarding its phrasing, but that's even deeper into the folds of my brain. But the important aspect is what FOLLOWS the "suggestion."

For me, it was followed by a lack of flexibility in their opinion on my own identity, which I have experienced countless times again and again - both about my sexuality and my gender, whether the other person was queer or not. I have experienced the exact bizarre phenomenon of someone basically calling me an Egg because of my behaviour and description of my feelings, and then acting smarmy about it permanently. Like "yeah, whatever you say, sweetie 😏" responses to my corrections. I stopped interacting with them of course, but their behaviour left a lasting effect! It even took me years to consider if I was trans because they hurt my feelings so badly when they behaved this way! (For the record, I still don't know, but I am at least now comfortable enough to explore the option!)

SO, the reason I bring that up (again, without looking at the notes because right from the beginning I figured they'd be a frustrating place lmao) is that I think there might be similar bruises being pressed on some other folks seeing those polls, just as I experienced. Like, my issues with the phrasing have nothing to do with transness specifically, but connotation of the OTHER word(s) they chose. And to be absolutely fair, that is a very ME brain thing and not universal in any way, but that may be part of the logic that others have in the notes as well. Maybe they are buried among transphobes, or maybe they aren't sure how to explain their thoughts, but they may be in there just like I am. Or maybe they ARE transphobes, but I hope not.

Of course, it does suck that there's already so much drama and trauma around transness, and people often treat queerness ITSELF as a disease that can be spread, so I completely understand why the disproportionately-common bad-faith misreadings are painful. I'm sure it feels a lot like people are saying that even the VERY IDEA they could be trans is hyperbolic and extreme and ridiculous. And hell, maybe there are folks saying that very explicitly. That sucks. That's hurtful. And I don't mean to come off like I am saying that at all

And again, I know you weren't explicitly saying that I MYSELF am transphobic, but I do genuinely hope I did not come across as such! Thank you for taking the time to write up your response, and I hope more folks see it as well. It's really good insight.

Honestly I think the claim “if you tell someone you’re close with nicely and gently that they might be lgbt and they’re Not Ready then they will have a self hating death spiral and hate themselves and die” is soooo unsubstantiated. Of course people who are closeted/haven’t figured things out can react badly but that’s as a product of suffering that already exists not suffering that You, The Interloper has put there. Conversely the chance of having a positive impact on someone, even in the long term, that they would have struggled substantially to generate for themselves is significant. God.

[captnjacksparrow]

I wish people would stop caring about the canon pairings and marriages in Naruto/Boruto because they should have absolutely no relevance for SNS shippers in terms of validating said ship. Those who say we are delusional because “Well, Naruto married Hinata so she is THE one he loves!” (I'll focus more on Naruto's marriage here... Is Sasuke's even a marriage?) simply don’t get that it just doesn't really matter who Naruto and Sasuke married because that in no way diminishes their feelings for each other. The main plot of the series revolves around the bond between Naruto and Sasuke. It is their story. They are each other's most important people and this was established back in Land of Waves arc even before the dramatic events that take place on the bridge - the whole point of that very first arc was making this a fact right from the beginning, because the story has always been and was always supposed to be about the two of them and the profound love and understanding that grows between them ever since they exchanged glances, smiles and pouts as lonely little broken kids. No reason to list all proof of their feelings and bond here, it has been done extensively, and if somebody watched the show/read the manga and missed it, they are missing half a brain. That these boys love each other more than anyone else is absolutely obvious.

So what about the canon pairings? Kishimoto stated time and time again that his focus was never romance, and that is not because he can't write romance as we know it (he clearly did), but it’s a matter of concept: what HE considers romance is the attraction that unites people with the purpose of marriage (confessing your romantic love for japanese people is the same as saying you want to be in a relationship, because feelings shouldn’t be voiced without an intention), and that, to him, is NOT the greatest expression of love, nor does it represent the most special bond two people can share.

It is understandable that westerners put so much weight into marriage because we consider it the epitome of love. Well, the truth is marriage in Japanese culture is mainly the only socially admissible means to have children and has very little to do with romantic love. In fact, in Japanese literature, it is much more common for unmarried couples to love each other than married ones. Obviously, there is no absolute truth when it comes to feelings and human relationships, what I'm doing here is generalising social norms and expectations (not exposing my opinion on them - that would turn this rant into something else entirely). A large number of Japanese marriages are loveless (and arranged, but no point getting into that either) and what motivates choosing a spouse is their ability to fulfill familial duties, meaning: is the woman good mother and consequently wife material? Is she going to devote her life to taking care of her children, house and husband, the noblest of acts for a female? Is the man willing and capable of putting his occupation above everything else, working extremely hard and for long hours, with total dedication and diligence for his job, to the point of not even seeing his family most of the time, as an honorable man should do as a provider? That's what makes a GOOD married couple: two people following their expected and strict gender-roles in a nuclear child-centered family (again, please, this is not MY opinion!). What a Japanese man should want in a woman is for her to be a dedicated housewife and mother, since having children outside of marriage is not only frowned upon, it is not acceptable at all, and not being married with children is not respectable enough (same with being divorced). Marriage is, therefore, NOT a symbol of undying love and a deep and special connection between two people, rather, it’s a partnership established with the goal of having and raising children.

Do these descriptions ring any bells?

In conclusion: the pairings were, in fact, created for the sole purpose of bringing forth the next generation, and that was made CANONICALLY true. Would it have been better if they hadn’t gone down that "safe" route? Hell, yeah! It would have been fucking amazing and could even have been groundbraking, for several reasons. BUT as unsatisfying as it may be, the fact is they chose a very TRADITIONAL depiction of marriage that has little to do with feelings, and that in itself shouldn’t be taken lightly, since it leaves the strongest bond, which is grounded on genuine love, untouched. In this scenario, justifying romantic love through marriage alone won’t cut it, and trying to discredit the obvious unmatched connection and feelings between two characters because they never got married to each other or married someone else is ludicrous. Yeah, a married couple can love each other deeply and above anyone else, but that is just not what marriage is ABOUT in Japanese culture and definitely not what Kishimoto wanted us to believe was the case here after dedicating 699 chapters to a story about the special bond between two boys that didn’t culminate in marriage. 

You know what IS a symbol of romantic love in Japan? Being willing to die together when the love you feel goes against your moral obligations, holding on to the belief that you will be reunited in the afterlife, where you will be free of any burden and able to love freely.

Are more bells being rung?! 

Oh, some bonus info: We also tend to associate sex with romantic love. Well, Japanese married couples with children rarely have sex, if at all. After a woman becomes a mother, she is no longer considered sexually desirable and becomes a mother figure to her husband as well (what happened to Hinata’s big "attributes" in Boruto? Huh). This is especially true when couples sleep in separate rooms and the mother shares a bed with her children. (Hinata co-sleeps with Himawari and we know Naruto sleeps in a separate room. Just saying.)

What's your say?

Is Sasuke's even a marriage?

Geezz!!!! LoLLLLL!!!! This sentence just made me cackle so hard for a good 5 minutes, Anon!!!!!

Hmmm.... So let's get back to your ask.

Well, I don't know how to react to this ask, Anon. Because, I don't know whether you are from Japan or you have a very close Japanese friend who might've told you all these cultural thing about marriage and relationships.

So, what I am going to do is to analyze from the facts you have provided , combine with my own cultural relevance and provide my answer. If there is any Japanese readers who are reading this, you can confirm or dispel this by sending me an ask. But again, I don't want exceptional case like, 'No, my family is different'. I want to know about the general lifestyle of a common citizen and their married life.

Having said that, this ask made me just yell at myself, 'Goshh!!!! Seriously???'

Because whatever you said, It fucking exist in my country too and is still followed by almost 70% of people in my country and I absolutely detest it. That is,

Most of the marriages here are loveless nd arranged - Check

Is the woman good mother and consequently wife material? Is she going to devote her life to taking care of her children, house and husband, the noblest of acts for a female? - Check

People following their expected and strict gender-roles in a nuclear child-centered family - Check Check

What a man should want in a woman is for her to be a dedicated housewife and mother, since having children outside of marriage is not only frowned upon, it is not acceptable at all, and not being married with children is not respectable enough (same with being divorced). - Check Check

Marriage is, therefore, NOT a symbol of undying love and a deep and special connection between two people, rather, it’s a partnership established with the goal of having and raising children. - Awww!!! A million Check.

That's why I was envious of Western people in this aspect, because they have a freedom to choose their own partner without any time constraints and when they do, their marriage can be said to be 'The Epitome of Love'.

My parents marriage is also an arranged one. And whenever they have disagreement and that leads to verbal war, they let out this words, 'I'm here with you because of my 2 daughters otherwise I would've left you long back'. So... Yeah. Here, most of the marriages are child-centered. Again, it's not just my opinion. Majority of the arranged marriage based family revolve around their child.

And I was born, a year after my parents' marriage, and If I hadn't been born, then people will question my parent's fertility factor and start to discriminate them. So, I can boldly claim that, I was not born out of Love or something. I was born because of social obligations.

But it doesn't mean, my parents don't love each other now. How should I say???? It's like a Stockholm Syndrome??!!!! Like when you stay with a person for a long time, you will eventually start to develop some feelings over the course of the time. It took them 15 years to come to a complete understanding of each other. It's the same case with many couples here.

Considering all these, Sasuke never even stayed with Sakura enough to make her understand him, So I wonder what kind of couple are they????? Weird!!!!!

In conclusion: the pairings were, in fact, created for the sole purpose of bringing forth the next generation, and that was made CANONICALLY true.

Awww!!!! Man, Seriously???? I made this claim long back in this post where I said, these women were used as a tool to bring out Next Generation Kids. My claim was based on Analytical Perspective.

And then one of the rabid SS stan reblogged my post and pulled out a hetero card stating, 'They are married and blah blahh...' when in reality, I never discussed about their sexuality in that post. That post was purely based on the number of pages each hetero couples shared with each other against the number of pages Sasuke & Naruto shared together.

Now, you have provided a cultural perspective for those shitty canon pairings.

On one side, I feel the need to smirk, because I am right.

But on the other side, I feel bad like, 'Is this how, this show must go on?? What are you trying to convey from this?'.

You know what IS a symbol of romantic love in Japan? Being willing to die together when the love you feel goes against your moral obligations, holding on to the belief that you will be reunited in the afterlife, where you will be free of any burden and able to love freely.

Hmmm.... It's interesting to know this. Anon.

This is where it differs slightly in my country.

Romantic love here is,

No matter what happens, I'll stand with you, You are just not alone. I will leave my fucking clan, parents, relatives if they don't approve you and we will start a new life somewhere.

[[Here, marriages happen mostly between their clan members. If you love a person from another clan, you will be ostracized or tortured or honour killed by your very parents. It just differs from clan to clan. I was subjected to this same problem and that's why I hate my Clan and left my parents. And this is also one of the reason why I love Itachi. Because we share similar Ideals. That is, Not to be obsessed over your clan and think beyond this restriction.

Also, here in Asian Culture if someone is willing to leave their family (when they don’t approve you) and prefer you over everything.... It means.... that's some Love beyond Comprehension. Just like how Naruto was willing to leave his Family (like Sakura and Kakashi) and like to stand with Sasuke... Just like how Naruto was willing to leave his own family and go on a long mission with Sasuke]]

So does it remind you of anything?????

It's the whole SNS dynamics starting from their childhood to VoTE2. That's why I started to ship SNS, because it represents the true love we always wish for.

Would it have been better if they hadn’t gone down that "safe" route? Hell, yeah! It would have been fucking amazing and could even have been groundbraking, for several reasons. BUT as unsatisfying as it may be, the fact is they chose a very TRADITIONAL depiction of marriage that has little to do with feelings, and that in itself shouldn’t be taken lightly, since it leaves the strongest bond, which is grounded on genuine love, untouched. In this scenario, justifying romantic love through marriage alone won’t cut it

This is very true, Anon.

I mean, they don’t even have to take a groundbreaking route. 

They should have given everyone an open ending, just like Kishi left at chapter 699. What is the need of a marriage, if Naruto is going to adopt Kawaki??? If Orochimaru was going to create a Baby Artificially?? If Rock Lee is going to have a child out of nowhere???

But I am happy that SNS bond is the only one that wasn’t diminished in this hot mess called Burrito. So, atleast we should be happy about that.

When someone pulls the marriage card, I just block them immediately because they are not even worth having a good conversation. NH will pull out the Last movie and SS will pull out, ‘Sasuke called Sakura ‘My Wife’.... So, it’s just pointless.

So, to conclude

Considering my Analytical perspective, I already made earlier in other post and your ask which provides some insight about Japanese culture which eerily resembles the culture I belong to, It all makes sense that this whole pairings and trash is just for the sake of bringing out Next Generation series and those boys never loved those girls whole heartedly. And I agree with you on this.

[hypnoticxopoison]

I know this is gonna set your minds on fire, but.... You can appreciate Zoey Deutch’s acting in the VA movie and like her for what we got and still acknowledge that the character was white-washed and therefore Zoey was not the best choice.  You can appreciate Sisi Stringer’s upcoming performance as well and hope she nails the part acting-wise and acknowledge that the erasure of Rose’s real ethnicity isn’t what we were hoping for when we hoped for a nonwhite actress for Rose. It’s possible to love her and love her acting as the character and acknowledge the erasure. It can go both ways. Things aren’t always so black and white. You can like and not like both, not like either, or like one and not the other. Differing opinions are not a personal attack and a wish for book accuracy does not equal racism, nor does the reverse. Vampire Academy was published at a time when Middle Eastern representation in American storytelling was not exactly favorable. I have known people throughout my years in the VAFamily who have expressed their appreciation and love for the fact that a character with a Middle Eastern background was a protagonist in an American story. And that she was a badass, heroic, FEMALE character at that! She means a lot to them for that reason. Of course they wanted to see a Turkish actress get the role. Of course they wanted to see that representation on screen and they are allowed to feel erased and disappointed. People of any race, color, sexuality, and background are allowed to view it in this light too because it’s a valid opinion. I can’t rule out racism of every single member of the fandom, of course not, but not liking this casting does not equal hatred for black people in every person who is feeling unsure or who straight up feels the way I just described. So cut the crap with that.  The other side is valid too. The cast is beautifully diverse and that’s a really good thing. Do I think known racist Julie Plec is doing it for selfish reasons rather than the right ones and do I worry about how the cast will be treated with her at the helm? Absolutely. All opinions are valid. I’m happy for those of you who are leaping into this without reservation and feel nothing but excitement. I’m happy for those of you who are looking forward to it. I don’t think you’re wrong. I don’t think you’re racist. I don’t think you’re evil. I just don’t agree with you. For all I know, Sisi will be flawless acting wise and she’ll win the entire fandom over and we’ll all feel blessed to have her... BUT the above opinion is still valid. You can like and not like something at the same time and I hope those of us who feel dread and fear that our favorite story is going to be butchered get proven wrong. I genuinely do. I would love to love it. For those of you who don’t see the racebending as erasure and who are simply plain happy with the casting, then you know what? I’m happy for you too. You do you. If it wasn’t for the fact that Rose’s ethnicity plays such an important role in the plot, I’d be right along side you. Rose Hathaway as a black woman would be unstoppable and amazing if it weren’t for that. I’d love her just as much as the rest of you, but like some, I have my reservations for the reasons described here.  As for Dimitri.... Ever since the Cold War, Russians have been the villains of American stories. Dimitri, the hero, is a rarity. Look at the most recent perpetrator of this: Stranger Things. It’s STILL a popular storytelling trope in the US. Of course Russian fans and fans who view Rose’s casting in this light are confused and disappointed by this casting as well. For all we know, this actor is incredible and he’ll have the perfect Russian accent. For all we know, he’s been training for months to perfect it. But the point is, is that we know virtually nothing about these actors and people are allowed to feel reservations and worries when it comes to characters that mean something to them. I think, if the actor masters a Russian accent and they don’t change him to an American, as is the rumor, then... that’s fine. I think? A Russian fan would know better than me about that.  At the end of the day, I personally won’t be watching it. I can’t afford another streaming service and I don’t trust Julie Plec with the actual writing as far as I can throw her. Even if the first season is good and it hooks everyone in, I feel pretty confident it’ll be downhill from there. Based on the character descriptions released today... I’m kinda thinking it’s gonna suck for people who want book accuracy and not a loosely based on the source material fanfiction. Some people don’t care as much anymore and they don’t mind new twists. Some people do. And both views are okay.  So VA fandom, let’s knock it off. Love it or hate it, find your people. Rant with them or celebrate with them and leave the other side alone. Their opinions don’t impact you personally. So just follow people who feel the same as you do and don’t drag yourselves down like this. We’re all adults in this fandom by now, so... let’s act like it. 

[bonesandthebees]

The urge to scream about stars is strong. But the realisation that I have not talked about clinic is making me change my mind.

Time to scream about clinic.

Okay so I read clinic a while back, it was one of my first mcyt fics and it's still one of my absolute favourites, and it's the one which made me fall in love with your writing style!

I mentioned this in a previous ask but your dialogues and actions come off very natural and genuine and you can almost see it all happening because it just, makes sense in the most wonderful ways. Simple things like, body language and thought processes add so much to a scene and I love little details and subtle connections >:D

I love crimeboys and you've written their dynamic so well and I just melt everytime I reread a chapter or the entire fic. SBI as a whole, really. Gorgeous.

More specifically though, I like that you didn't end it with either the heroes or the villains winning, and that the focus stayed on Tommy and his own personal growth. It felt, realistic in a way, that major institutions can't just be reformed or taken down in a small amount of time. The neutral stance on healers and Tommy's growth into the role are so brilliant to see as well!!

(Also, your descriptions of masks and in general villain/hero identities are some of my favourite ever and I don't think I can ever erase that from my brain)

Bloody hell, how long is this? Do I have to break this into multiple asks? Oh no.

- ❄️

oh snowflake anon you're so sweet <333

dialogue has always been my greatest personal strength in my personal opinion, so I have a lot of fun working with it to make the characters say things that I can hear them saying in my head. and I'm also an extremely visual person when it comes to imagining scenes in my head, to the point where I want to know exactly where everyone in a scene is physically, and what they're doing exactly with their bodies. it's such an important part of carrying tone into a conversation, so I make it a point to describe all my characters physical actions so the reader can see the scene like I do (thought process has been something I've had to practice to get good at lol that was NOT natural for me, but I think I've got a pretty solid grasp on it now)

crimeboys... i love sbi but as we all know i'm a crimeboys main at heart <3

you see i always really dislike endings that rush major events like taking down an entire institution. it just feels unrealistic. i knew that if i wanted to write that kind of ending i would have to add wayyyy more to the fic and I was ready to be done with it. not to mention, I always just dislike very closed ended stories?? I like leaving a lot of things up to reader interpretation. if I had decided to go all the way and write the hero institution being taken down, what then? it becomes the question of well now what happens to our protagonist? I like leaving ambiguity so people can have a decently clear idea of where things go from there, and I felt like just focusing on tommy's personal story instead of ending the entire institution and making it some big dramatic thing just did that a lot better

i have way too much fun with names and masks lmao i have a pinterest board dedicated exclusively to cool masks for inspo

[fonulyn]

Honestly, when it comes to fan discourse over Leon’s role in RE, I blame 50% of it on the trend of haring popular things, and 50% of it on Capcom’s truly abysmal writing. That company can’t write a consistent characterization even if it hit em in the head.

I agree that 50% of it is the trend of hating everything popular, but I genuinely don't think the writing is as bad that it deserves the other 50%. there are bad moments and incredibly lazy solutions they've taken, and the plots aren't exactly constructed brilliantly in a way that'd blow everyone away.

but even with the sometimes shoddy writing I don't think consistent characterization is their issue. like if I think of Leon (because I've played/seen all the games/movies he's in so he's the easiest example), he's consistently himself in every other installation except for Degeneration where he's basically a cardboard cutout that does some cool parkour :'D even in Degeneration there are some of the basic building blocks of his character, like, he encourages Claire, he throws himself in danger for just about anyone, and he tries to save whoever he can. but sadly they just didn't give him any actual facial expressions and flattened his character incredibly much.

every other installation of the series he's in? he's very much consistently himself. of course there are some changes but he also has aged like 20 years during the events so it makes perfect sense, no one is exactly the same person in their late 30s as they are in their early 20s. he gets more tired, he gets more Done™, but he somehow always finds just one more fuck to give and it's very much consistent thoroughly.

besides Leon in Degeneration, the only other example I can think of when they've been inconsistent with the characterization is Claire in ID, because in my opinion she does not act like herself a lot of the time in it. but other than those two? from what I've seen it's not actually the characterization that's the issue. (bear in mind though that I haven't played/seen RE0, CVX, RE7 and RE8, so I don't know all of the games and there might be something I'm missing)

personally, i think that the bigger issue is them not knowing how to write actual human relationships. most of the instances where the characters act oddly are moments when they're interacting with someone else, first of all. and they have absolutely no consistency when it comes to relationships, no matter if it's a friendly, familial or antagonistic one. like...

let's take Chris. he spends literally years obsessing over finding Jill (understandably so) but then after he's found her there's never even one mention of her again? as if she wasn't one of the most important people in his life for so long?? or Piers? Chris obviously is more than distraught over his fate but then after the credits roll in RE6 there's not even one single mention in a subordinate clause or anything. it's as if those people stop existing to Chris. (and please note that I'm not trying to bash Chris here, but the writing that does this.) Chris is still fairly consistently himself (I have heard things about RE8 but I haven't played it so I don't actually know for sure how he is there) but somehow everyone who ever was important to him vanishes and ...yeah, that is some epically shitty writing right there. and I don't mean they'd need to keep talking about those characters nonstop forever but like even one mention somewhere would be good seeing how much they have affected Chris and his life.

another thing that drives me absolutely bonkers is how they just act as if the characters stop existing the second they aren't on screen, anyway. like there are years and years in between when we have no idea what the hell was going on with the characters. okay that could be because they want to fill in the gaps later but I would not hold my breath. and the lack of backstories?? it's just. c'mon. we don't need a day-by-day description of their early childhoods but getting some definite lore there would be amazing.

but as for the inconsistency, I don't think it's all because of bad writing. I think it's very deliberate a lot of the time. they have a long history of wanting to keep things vague, and I think it shows. they probably want to keep playing in the universe as freely as possible and if they give too much definite information then it ties their hands and they want to avoid that. I don't think it has ever been even the intention to develop super well-rounded and fully fleshed out character stories. it doesn't seem like a priority to them and the fandom is probably putting too much emphasis on it.

and I get it. I want those things too. badly. but I also get why they wouldn't bother giving it to us because, well, it's a lot of effort they don't actually need to be making so why bother. so like. if you go to McDonald's you don't expect to get a five star filet mignon. so if you play/watch RE? you shouldn't expect to get the most mindblowingly thought out plots and character arcs that have every single detail ironed out. it's just not gonna happen and you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

there's a lot a lot a lot to love about their characters, but I think that we should also be realistic in what is ever in the cards for us to get. they're clearly not interested in the kind of depth a part of the fandom wants, and we're a small niche, most people are glad to just get their fun zombie shooting.

so like. my take? 50% the trend of hating on popular things, 10% bad writing, 20% wrong kind of expectations, and 20% fandom willfully either ignoring or misinterpreting things because they want everything to be clear-cut black and white and refuse to acknowledge nuance and the grey area in between. so... obviously just my two cents :'D but that's what I think.

[bihet-dragonize]

"Writing Tips" critique post Part 2

We’re not done :)

[Image description: A screenshot that reads "(75) Don't be afraid of failure and backlash. If someone is screaming at you about how a character you made is racist, that is literally free writing advice that someone is just giving you. Look on the bright side of life for a change." End description”]

Girl, are you fucking dumb?! It’s genuinely so fucking ugly to think “oh i did something racist and people are mad, but at least I’m getting free writing advice!” You fucking hurt people! Racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/fatphobic depictions of people cause real life harm and take a toll on the mental health of those people who are looking at media to escape. It is fucking cruel and ugly to view people’s reactions as a springboard for you to ���improve your craft”.

[Image description: A screenshot that reads "(89) Hardcore fans will tell you that "Continuity" is the most important thing. They're wrong. End description]

Continuity may not be the absolute most important thing but it's pretty fucking important if you want to tell a remotely decent story. There are definitely ways to play around and bend and stretch continuity to make the story more interesting, but if a character fucking dies and then just shows up alive the next episode with no explanation, then that's an issue. Unless you plan on making a story that confuses your audience on purpose, you should be worried about continuity.

[Image description: A screenshot that reads "(91) The Little Mermaid and Cinderella are more feminist than Beauty and the Beast." End description]

NGL my gf and I laughed at this one cuz what  about Cinderella screams feminist? Her getting a fairy godmother for being kind while her sisters and mother are cruel to her? Her going to the Ball? Her being saved by a literal man in the end?! Also I’m assuming that Ms. Orchid is operating on the 2012 “Beauty and the Beast is just Stockholm Syndrome” mindset, but that’s not actually how the story works and Stockholm syndrome is fucking fake anyway. Just say you like them better and move on. How is this writing advice?!

All in all, these tips were mainly just opinions from a person who probably reads and writes too much fanfiction.

[barricadebops]

As I'm about 99.9% positive you would agree, I will never understand why people say that Enjolras isn't a good friend or wouldn't be a good boyfriend. Like I get that the revolution and his work was important to him (I personally believe that he would balance his friends and work to the best of his ability), but you cannot tell me that he wouldn't drop everything, including his work, at a moment's notice if a friend needed him. This is something that I believe wholeheartedly, and someone would have to pry this head canon/belief/whatever you want to call it out of my cold dead fingers.

Yes, I of course agree with this 100%. I really don't understand why people would say that either, it is just not him! The thing about Enjolras is that he cares so much, enough to the point where it was what got him killed. Some may argue that he cares more for his cause than for people, and I would say that is because they are viewing the cause and people as two different concepts, when, in reality, they are actually one and the same! Because Enjolras' cause is the people and that includes all people—the common man Feuilly, his (probably previously) wealthy friend Combeferre, and even the man who on several occasions has let him down, disappointed him, and given him all the reason not to trust him, Grantaire. If his cause is the people, how could he ever feel cold towards the people who matter most to him?

I think the idea a vast amount of people have that Enjolras doesn't love comes from the fact that canonically Enjolras does not experience romantic love, and frankly, this sort of thinking is rather dangerous, because it erases the fact that love comes in so many more forms than just romance. Enjolras is filled with an incredible amount of love—love for his friends, love for the people around him, and love for the future, and every one of those aspects links back to the love he feels for those who surround him. It is the love for the people he would encounter everyday while walking on the streets, it is the love for the people he would meet when he would go to buy his bread, it is the love for the friends who would look to him as their beloved friend and leader—it is his love for these people that he launches an entire rebellion— and subsequently dies for it, too. His ideals are defined by the motto of France—liberty, equality, and fraternity—but these ideals are driven by his greatest ideal of all, the one he hold key above others: love, and he makes his value of the ideal abundantly evident in his speech following the execution of Le Cabuc when he says:

"This is a bad moment to mention the word 'love.' I mention it anyway, and I glorify it. Love, the future belongs to you... In the future there will be no killing, the earth will be radiant, the human race will love." (5.12.8.)

From this, it is quite clear that Enjolras does not just experience love, but feels one of the highest and most greatest forms of it, so the characterization that he knows not of the feeling of love is quite unfounded.

He absolutely does love his friends to death. The one time we see him ready to forsake his ideals is when rather than keep the valuable spy Javert, who holds information about the rebels at the barricades, he is willing to hold an exchange so that they may bring back Jehan Prouvaire.

"'Yes,' replied Enjolras. 'But not as much as by Jean Prouvaire's life.'" (5.14.5)

He also sees so much good in his friends, he believes in them wholeheartedly, and for Enjolras, his belief is his expression of love.

"He composed, in his own mind, with Combeferre’s philosophical and penetrating eloquence, Feuilly’s cosmopolitan enthusiasm, Courfeyrac’s dash, Bahorel’s smile, Jean Prouvaire’s melancholy, Joly’s science, Bossuet’s sarcasms, a sort of electric spark which took fire nearly everywhere at once." (5.1.6.)

I've always loved this passage because it allows us to glimpse into Enjolras' mind and see how he truly thinks of his friends, and the way he sees them is incredibly sweet. He sees these people as his brothers who are capable of amazing feats, who are just as passionate as he is, and will be the ones to help him fight for the future. The love he holds for them is incredible, and though we get to see inside of Enjolras' head so little, this passage here is quite enough to inform the reader of just how much Enjolras draws joy from his friends.

In terms of the canonicity of the brick, I have always seen Enjolras' final moment as him realizing and accepting Grantaire's love for him (I would also argue that this moment is also when Grantaire himself, having not known exactly what it was he felt for Enjolras, also realized what exactly he felt for him), but dying with him only as a friend, but the fact that he smiles, and that it is him who extends his hand towards Grantaire says a lot about how strong his platonic love for his friends is. And of course, once again it is not just for his friends; far too many people see Enjolras as a man willing to sacrifice whoever and whatever in order to accomplish his goals, but his words once he discovers that Paris has abandoned their barricade say otherwise. When the rebels stubbornly insist that they all remain, no doubt fantasizing of dying "heroic martyr deaths," rather than encourage them, he instead essentially chides them by reminding them that:

"Vain-glory is wasteful[,]" (5.1.14)

so to paint him as merciless holds no merit. I feel as if this image comes from the quote:

"Enjolras was a charming young man capable of being terrible." (4.4.1.)

While yes, it is very capable for Enjolras to turn ruthless, the key word in that sentence is capable. The word that preceeds it, the one that follows after the definite word was, is the word charming, and the fact that charming is put before terrible holds great significance. Enjolras' first instinct, what comes to him naturally, is to do good, to be good, to be charming. He can be terrible, yes, but he must put his mind into doing so, whereas being a good person comes to him without thinking. Many tend to ignore the first part of the sentence in favour of the second, and they twist it to mean that his first instinct is to do bad instead of good, which really does not define his character at all.

Perhaps the biggest contributor to the misinterpretation of Enjolras' character is the way people have read his dynamic with Grantaire, and the way the lines between canon and fanon Grantaire have been so thoroughly blurred that it has ended up distorting Enjolras' image while erasing major parts of Grantaire's character that makes him the character and to a greater extent, metaphorical representation he is. I will not lie; I write fanfiction, and the version of Grantaire that I write into my stories is most definitely his fanon image; in other words, he is a vastly improved version. But it is incredibly important to acknowledge the way the two concepts deviate from each other, or you'll end up with a situation in which the character you have in mind isn't really the original character itself. It's okay for people to have different perceptions! Everyone understand literature differently, and that's the beauty of the arts! I think it's totally cool that everyone believes in characters in different ways! But for me, it really bothers me the way the fandom tends to paint Grantaire as a saint while portraying Enjolras as a character who always seems to know less than Grantaire, always is on a lower platform than Grantaire, and is always harsh and unjust towards Grantaire, because it simply is not true. A lot about Grantaire is ignored in terms of the canonicity of the brick. For example, it is true that Grantaire is, in fact, ugly, and he's described that way for a specific element of the narrative that Victor Hugo is writing in (@lilys-hazel-eyes is writing a great analysis on morality represented by beauty, which is exactly the point here—you should definitely go check it out!) In the brick, Victor Hugo describes Grantaire's cynicsm to be the "dry-rot of intellect" (4.4.1.) Hugo's stance on nihilism and cynicism is made quite evident in the way he portrays Grantaire, a character meant to represent the physical manifestation of cynicism (some say that he's the physical embodiment of Paris itself and I think that's a really neat reading on that!)

"A rover, a gambler, a libertine, often drunk... Grantaire, with insidious doubt creeping through him, loved to watch faith soar in Enjolras... his soft, yielding, disclocated, sickly, shapeless ideas..." (4.4.1.)

From these descriptions, it is quite clear what sort of opinion Victor Hugo holds of cynics, which is why Grantaire's characterization is so deliberate. He is trying to make a commentary here about the harm those who do not hold passion or belief can do, to both themselves and society. It is why Grantaire's redeeming moment is the one in which he finally comes to accept the hope of the revolution and proves through action his belief in Enjolras.

In terms of what is presented in the brick, Grantaire does not exactly have much to really defend him. Often drunk, he expends his energy into drunk rambles rather than meaningful meeting contributions, (though admittedly, he does say some rather valid and eloquent things within his rambles—the quote "Take away 'Cotton is King,' what remains of America?" [4.4.4] comes to mind) he deliberately pokes and bothers people as seen when he calls Enjolras "heartless," (5.1.6) and when given a task, does not hold up his end of the deal and ger it done despite having asked for it in the first place. Enjolras' doubt in him is actually entirely understandable; after all, what has Grantaire really done to prove himself trustworthy and reliable? When Enjolras asks if "[he is] good for anything" (5.1.6) the question is, likely in his eyes, genuine rather than insulting. And even when he has every reason not to, Enjolras still puts his faith into Grantaire to get something of extreme importance done for him, which I do think says a lot about Enjolras' willingness to believe in the best in people.

Victor Hugo ends the chapter right before we can see Enjolras' reaction to Grantaire's failure, and while this part, I will say, is up for interpretation, personally I have always extrapolated that the most emotion this would draw from him is disappointment—though it is disappointment that he definitely thinks he should have seen coming, rather than imagining him as getting insanely mad at Grantaire.

Their next interaction is during the rebellion itself, during which Enjolras is put under quite a bit of stress and Grantaire's behaviour really is not helping matters, so him snapping is actually very believable, if a little harsh.

The Enjolras seen in fanon, derived from these interactions, always seems so harsh, so rash when he speaks to Grantaire and therefore is characterized as rash and reckless in general, and generally seems to not understand emotion very well, which is very unlike him. Rather than harsh, I would say that with the exception of course of the rebellion at the barricade and the lead up to that time, Enjolras actually seems to be quite calm.

"All held their peace, and Enjolras bowed his head." (4.4.5.)

Rather than instantly explode at Marius for his rather awful beliefs of Napoleon, instead, Enjolras keeps calm and silent, which demonstrates what an incredible depth of patience he has. And as for Enjolras not understanding emotion, when it comes to fanworks, I'm generally tolerant of people holding different perceptions for different characters, but of all perceptions, this one is one I cannot begin to comprehend, and this is one that I will say that to say he knows not of emotion is to have wrongly read his character.

"And a tear trickled slowly down Enjolras' marble cheek." (5.1.8.)

I simply cannot allow myself to believe that the man who cried at the prospect of having to shoot the artillerman, who calls him his "brother," who is no doubt thinking that had circumstances been different, the action he would be taking would not be necessary—I do not believe this is a man who would not understand feelings and emotions.

The Grantaire in the book who has "the dry rot of intellect," (4.4.1) only ever makes unnecessary rants during meetings, and is very much untrustworthy, is a far outcry from the Grantaire who bases his cyncism on being what he would say is being "well informed," often makes valid points in meetings, and proves himself reliable. Similarly, the Enjolras that is thoughful, as he proves himself to be in his "Outlook from the Top of the Barricade" speech, still chooses to believe in the best in others despite being given every reason not to, and is actually quite patient, is very different from his rash and reckless, short tempered, seems-to-hate-Grantaire, fanon counterpart.

Of course, if you take characters who are shaped by their surroundings and circumstances in the nineteenth century and adapt them to fit the scene of the twenty-first century, it's obvious things are going to change! However, I think it's important to keep these key traits in mind when doing so, and more often than not, it is these key traits that end up getting mangled. When one sticks to these traits, it's easy to say Enjolras would be a wondeful friend/boyfriend (if you see him as having one.) Enjolras' whole deal is loving and caring immensely, and to put his absolute one hundred percent effort into everything he does, and that includes into his friendships and relationships.

Once again, I'm not bashing on the fandom here, I'm part of it. I'll repeat again, I too write with the fanon image of Grantaire in my head. Everyone takes away different things from literature, and that's fine! This is simply how I have interpreted it.

One more note on Enjolras.

Les Amis de l'ABC absolutely love Enjolras. The way Enjolras' character has been misinterpreted has ended up having an effect on the way the Amis are looked at as well. The Amis are all so passionate about the revolution, they attend meetings because they truly do believe in the change they can create in their world, so I'll never truly understand the characterization of the Amis as laughing at Enjolras' devotion to the cause, or finding his passion for it stupid or bothersome. Victor Hugo himself describes just how passionate of a group they are:

"All these young men who differed so greatly, and who, on the whole can only be discussed seriously, held the same religion: Progress... The most giddy of them became solemn when they pronounced that date: '89... the pure blood of principle ran in their veins. They attached themselves, without immediate shades, to incorruptible right and absolute duty." (4.4.1.)

Everyone here, with the exception of Grantaire, is here because they believe wholeheartedly in the revolution. This is not something Enjolras forced upon them, this is not something they groan when thinking about, it is something they all believe in so passionately. It is not something they make fun of him for.

"Affiliated and initiated, they sketched out the ideal underground." (4.4.1.)

They are all here by choice, by will, and by the values they hold close to their heart, and so to say Enjolras is someone who constantly whines about his cause and the others think he needs to lighten up is both an insult to him and the rest. Furthermore, the Amis really love Enjolras, and not just as their leader, but as a beloved friend, and as strongly as I believe Enjolras would drop all of his work to help any of the Amis when they are in need, I believe the Amis would do the same for him. The unity of Les Amis de l'ABC says a lot about the kind of charismatic leader Enjolras is, and his friends most definitely adore him.

So yeah, anon, I 100% agree, and rest assured, if they try and take this canon fact away, they'll have to pry it from both our sets of our cold dead fingers.

[serialreblogger]

Hey! I'm thinking of reading Dracula, and knowing that's your eternal hyperfixation, I wanted to ask your thoughts, if you had any comments, suggestions, ect.

HEY WHY DIDN’T I SEE THIS SOONER I’M SO SORRY FRIEND

okay okay okay okay (...several people are typing...) SO

the first thing you should be aware of when reading Dracula is that it’s quite Victorian, so you might find it easier, especially on a first read, to get an annotated version (the Norton Critical Edition version is quite good) that puts footnotes in to explain all the outdated references to like, London penny-meat merchants and stuff. I would say it’s significantly easier to read than Lord of the Rings, but because it was written 200 years ago the difference in language means it’s not a simple read. (However, if you have absolutely any attraction to the Gothic aesthetic, Dracula is so very much worth the brainpower to slog through the rougher sentences. Like. “...the courtyard of a vast ruined castle, from whose tall black windows came no ray of light, and whose broken battlements showed a jagged line against the moonlit sky.” The whole book is like that. A bit stilted to contemporary readers, but also breathtakingly spot-on in its Spooky Factor.)

the second thing you should be aware of is that Dracula is extremely gay, but in a Tormented Victorian Closeted way. There’s a part where Jonathan climbs out a window that just. It’s uh. The descriptions are very,, metaphorical-sounding. Again, the whole book is like that, and sometimes it’s very fun and sometimes (lookin at Lucy’s whole thing) it’s significantly more unsettling if you pay attention to the weirdly sexy descriptions of how the protagonists interact with the vampires, but I think that’s part of what I find so fascinating about Dracula--it’s unsettling and strange and the pieces don’t fit together clearly, and I still don’t know quite what to make of it, but all the same the feeling of what Stoker’s saying comes through quite clearly. There’s a reason why so many Dracula adaptations have this narrative of a protagonist falling in forbidden love with the tormented Vampyre, yknow? There’s something so unmistakeably sympathetic about the character of Dracula, even when the narrative of the story goes out of its way to establish that he has no redeeming qualities or even proper personhood, that he’s just a monster. Because there’s something about the story (even without getting into the whole “Mina and Jon murked their boss” thing) that makes a reader wonder if that’s really the whole truth. If there isn’t something tragic about Dracula. If there isn’t something in him, if not of goodness, then at least of sorrow, instead of only fear.

Anyway I digress but I think we all knew that was gonna happen; point is: Jonathan and Dracula definitely had sex, Mina and Lucy were definitely in love, Seward’s got something weird goin on with the old professor (and also he’s just very weird, full stop. sir. sir please stop experimenting on your asylum inmates. sir i know this is victorian england but please Do Not), and Quincey, well, Quincey is an American cowboy with a bowie knife, and I think that’s all we really need to know.

ok and! the third thing you should be aware of is The Racism. Imperialist Britain, yo. Bram Stoker was Irish so like, it isn’t half as bad as some other authors of his time period (Rudyard Kipling anyone), but the racism is real and I don’t wanna gloss over that. The g**sy slur is used with abandon for a huge assortment of people groups, there’s a tacit as well as overt acceptance of the idea that West is superior to East, and because the educational system where I grew up is a joke and I can only learn things if I accidentally fall down the wikipedia hole of researching the insect genus hemiptera, i genuinely still don’t know how accurate the extensive history of Romania recounted in the first third of the book actually is. Oh also casual and blatant anti-blackness is verbalized by a character at least once. I’m pretty sure the racism has a metaphorical place in the framework of Dracula’s storytelling, but I couldn’t tell you what it is because I am not going to bother putting myself in the mindset of a racist white Victorian man. This is the mindset I am trying to unlearn. So: read with caution, critical thinking, and the double knowledge that even as the narrators are meant to be unreliable, so too is the author himself.

Finally, regarding interpretation: so personally I’m running with the opinion that Dracula is, at least partly, a metaphor for Stoker’s own queerness and internal conflict re: being queer, being closeted, and watching the torture his friend Wilde went through when the wealthy father of Wilde’s lover set out to ruin his life for daring to love his son. Whether this is true or not (I think it’s true, but hey, that’s analysis, baby), you can’t understand Dracula without knowing the social context for it (as with all literature--the author isn’t dead, not if you want to know what they were saying), and the social context for it is:

- Stoker was friends with Wilde, growing only closer after Wilde was outed

- Wilde was outed, as I said, because the father of his lover was wealthy and powerful and full of the most virulent kind of hatred. This is especially interesting because of how many rich, powerful parents just straight up die in Dracula and leave the main characters with no legal issues and a ridiculous amount of money, which is the diametrical opposite of what happened to Wilde

- Stoker idolized his mentor Henry Irving. Irving was a paradigm of unconventional relationships and self-built family, in a world where divorcees and children born out of wedlock were things to be whispered about in scandalized tones, not people to love and embrace. Irving was also famous for thriving off of manipulating those close to him and pitting friends against each other. Given the painstakingly vivid description Stoker provides for his titular vampire and how closely it matches Irving’s own appearance and demeanor, Irving was widely understood even at the time of writing to be the chief inspiration for the character of Dracula

- the book is dedicated to Stoker’s close friend, Hall Caine, a fellow writer whose stories centered around love triangles and accumulation of sins which threaten to ruin everything, only to be redeemed by the simple act of human goodness

- Stoker was Irish, but not Catholic (he was a Protestant of the Church of Ireland, a division of the Anglican Church). This may come as a surprise when you read the book and see All The Catholicism, Just Everywhere. Religion is actually a key theme in Dracula--most of the main characters start out your typical Good Victorian Anglican Skeptics, and need to learn through a trial-by-fire to trust in the rituals and relics of the Catholic Church to save them from Dracula’s evilness. Which is interesting. Because not only do these characters start off as dismissive towards these “superstitions” (in the same way they dismiss the “superstitions” of the peasant class on the outskirts of Dracula’s domain), but the narrative telling us “these superstitions are actually true!” cannot be trusted, when you know the author’s own beliefs.

(Bram Stoker is not saying what his characters are saying. This is the first and most important rule to remember, if you want to figure out Dracula.)

- The second-most famous character in the novel, after Dracula himself, is Van Helsing, whose first name is Abraham. Note that “Bram” is a declension of Abraham. What does this mean? I legitimately have no idea. But it’d be a weird coincidence, right? Like what even is the thought process there? “Oh, yeah, what should I name this character that comes in, makes overtly homoerotic statements willy nilly, and encourages everyone to throw rationality out the window and stake some vampires using the Eucharist? hmmmm how about ‘Me’”

ok wait FINAL final note: you legitimately do not have to care about any of this. I love Dracula because it has gay vibes and I love trying to figure it out, like an archaeologist sifting through sentence structure to find fragments that match the patterns I already know from historical research; but that’s not why you should love Dracula. The book itself is just straight up fun to read. Like I said, Stoker absolutely nails the exact vibe of spookiness that I love, the eerieness and elegance and vague but vivid fear of a full moon crossed by clouds at midnight. The characters are intriguing, especially Quincey gosh I love Quincey Morris but they’re very,, sweet? if i can say that about people i, personally, suspect of murder? They come together and protect each other against the terrible threat that is Dracula, and you don’t get that half as often as I’d like in horror media. I don’t even know if Dracula could qualify as “horror” proper, because it’s not about the squeamish creeping discomfort that “horror” is meant to evoke, it’s not the appeal of staring at a train wreck--it’s not horrifying. It’s eerie. It’s Gothic. It has spires and vampires and found family and cowboys, and to be honest, I don’t know what could be better than that.

[lowkeyorloki]

quick and random q for no reason at all other than my own interest :) what's your opinion on 'separating the art from the artist'? (like should they be separated in your opinion)

Hi anon! Thanks for the ask, I love discussion and discourse. You’re welcome to approach me for my opinion on anything - the only reason I’d refrain from answering would be if I felt like I didn’t have enough information on the subject to give an appropriate response. I’m a HUGE proponent of differing opinions and conversation. 

Also, just because we delve into morals a bit here, I’m an Ethics minor. It feels relevant to say that.

Ultimately, I think it depends on what the art (or media) is. I used to see this as a very black and white issue, but as I’ve gotten older and become a little less extreme in all my beliefs, I’ve realized this is something that resides in the gray area (like most issues). 

Basically, if there’s a way to consume the media in an educational way, I think that’s worth pursuing. For example, I HATE the book 1984 by George Orwell. I think the writing style is tedious, I think Orwell had a superiority complex, and I think the portrayal of Winston’s treatment of women is absolutely abhorrent (mostly because Winston is supposed to be the good guy, and his views towards women is never said to be a bad thing). I used to think because of that last reason, the book shouldn’t be taught in schools. 

Now, I would absolutely support swapping the book out for a novel written by a woman or POC, but that’s not what this conversation is about. When I really started to analyze the text, I realized that going over Winston’s behavior with a class and explaining why what he did/thought was wrong would be hugely beneficial. It would teach young boys not to internalize sexism like Winston does, and it would lay the foundation for them to see, recognize, and address shitty behavior. Furthermore, then the lesson of censorship of 1984, which is a super important one, isn’t completely wiped away and rendered useless. In my mind, there’s two lessons being taught this way. 

It gets a bit different when 1) we aren’t taught about the media, ie, the audience is given no guidance, and 2) the creator of said media isn’t dead. A lot of times, for me personally, the deciding factor of whether I’m going to keep consuming something comes down to if the creator/art is problematic or morally corrupt. Because morality is subjective, it’s hard for me to defend that point. What you find problematic I might find to be an actual bad thing, and vice versa.

But let’s talk about things within the context of the Loki fandom, because this is a Loki blog. It’s no secret that as a general statement, reader insert fics are written for a very specific audience, and more often than not, authors end up alienating POC readers for adding descriptions of y/n’s “pale skin” or “blushing cheeks” etc. etc.

There have been a lot of Loki authors who have had readers kindly approach them saying, “Hey, this detail makes it really hard for me to see myself in the fic. Would you mind taking it out?” And so far, I have only seen authors react defensively. They’ll launch into a speech about how what they create is free, how they ask for feedback that’s constructive, and overall create a victim mentality. Now, those points are valid, but only if you’re getting HATE. Hate and genuine feedback are very different things, and I’ve never seen any author get hate in this situation that we’re currently talking about. 

In cases like this, I unfollow these authors and I never like or reblog their fics again. I could absolutely continue to consume their writing: it’s not like those descriptions are going to appear in every single fic they ever write, and I’m also not directly impacted by this issue (I just have. You know. Empathy). However, I will not support someone in any capacity when I observe them belittling and hurting other people for going to them with valid and kindly presented feedback (ESPECIALLY if the group giving constructive feedback is marginalized). If I were to consume those author’s works, if I were to boost their note count in any way, I am telling them the following:

Your behavior is okay. 

And I don’t think it is. When I observe people hurting others and refusing to correct their behavior, I’m not going to give them that implicit reassurance that they didn’t do anything wrong. 

The crux of the “should we separate the art from the artist” argument for me is that we usually (usually) should NOT separate the two because in some way, the artist benefits from your consumption. And if what they have done is genuinely harming people, they have to be held accountable. More often than not, the only way to do that is limit your consumption so there is an impact on their (job, hobby, morals, mindset, etc. etc.).

Of course, I always support and encourage talking to the artist first in some way. It’s when they reject help and education I think it’s time to stop supporting them.

Let me know what you think of my answer, and anyone else is free to weigh in as well :)

[pathologising]

hey angel, i hope this is okay to ask, i just wanna know if you have any tips on like.. spotting medical professionals who are unsafe to talk to or are uneducated about PDs? im almost certain i have one but im terrified of going to a doctor about it cuz ive already faced a ton of ableism from doctors before sO kdsajhjdsa -🍞

any doctor that shows any distaste when talking about low empathy is a red flag to be honest. Any professional that is also unwilling to listen to your concerns irt your own behavior and emotions is also a concern in general but a lot of the time you have to kind of ??? Phrase it correctly when talking to them I literally cannot explain it but being careful with your wording is important to send the correct message. Saying "I think I have xyz" is off putting to any professional good or bad because they do sometimes see people who do believe they have something based off very little knowledge /a 5 minute google search and unfairly write anybody who's genuinely done their own research in order to find out how to cope with something they don't have a name for, so you could say something like "I am struggling with [insert description of a unique symptom of your situation]."

I also think its good to go in with a mindset that you can be absolutely wrong but so can a professional. Be an advocate for yourself (easier said than done) but also be willing to have a lengthy discussion. If they write you off immediately I wouldn't vibe with that tbh BC I think a good professional is willing to do just as much listening as they do talking!!

Also remember that they are seeing you from the outside! They don't know you and are learning about you through every communication, and with pds theyre complex as hell and some symptoms are similar to other disorders. Also they might be seeing something you aren't, because we often think we know ourselves but sometimes my doctor will point out something and I'll be like damn OKAY WOAH.

I hope this makes sense omg but the whole process in general has to be a mixture of trusting your gut, knowing that while sure you can be incorrect...your professional can also be wrong especially if theyre just throwing shit out within like 4 sessions lol !!! but also I wouldn't recommend going in looking entirely for a diagnosis but also focus on treating the symptoms as ur main thing !! A label is nice because it puts a name to whst you're expeirencing, but judt because you've received the acknowledgement doesnt mean you're symptoms are being properly treated !!! Talking abt what ur going thru and having a doctor who KNOWS what to do to help is tantamount in my opinion and if your doctor seems like they have no idea what can be done to help you I'd dip

But also remember theres no cut and dry way to go about this !! This is all my philosophy and influenced on my person experience in the system (and I'm also not a professional myself duh) but it may not work for you or fit into your experiences <3 you judt kinda gotta see what happens n advocate for urself n see what works for u Ig ! Other people might also have tips n philosophies and ideas so don't be afraid to ask about other peoples experiences and stuff