#it's not about the conclusion it's about the argument

[artist-issues]

How does the cultural background relate so strongly to the central theme of the story? I’m not saying that “layer” isn’t there. I’m saying it’s not a “first and last straw.” But by all means, and for the tenth time, please provide examples or reasoning that shows the cultural background relates “so strongly” to the central theme of the story, in a way that causes damage if that specific culture is changed? (Which it ((the cultural background)) wasn’t, so why are we even talking about this)

If you don’t want to read a wall of text, that’s ⬆️ all I’m asking you to do.

I promise you nobody’s ever accused me of thinking anything is “not that deep.” 😂 It definitely isn’t what I’m saying here, either. I’m just saying “measure what depth it is.” Every decision in storytelling, especially moviemaking, is deep because of the amount of manpower, hours, and money spent on it and the impact each facet has on the whole. But it’s relative depth. Which was the point of this conversation. Both her skin color and her culture are important—to the extent that all those choices by the storytellers have a purpose, and are therefore important—but my point is that the original replied was not saying that either of those factors were important. They said those factors were the most important! That’s the conversation here.

Please take note: someone said “first and last straw.” On a post where I said “everyone’s focusing on the wrong things.” And they specifically said it about whitewashing, and then the next person down the line brought the idea of culture into it. I didn’t jump, like you implied in the tags. They jumped, and I followed.

You’ll also note that although I asked for the reasoning behind the assumption that the live-action filmmakers were making a decision in casting based completely on racism, and positing that if they were it was really poorly executed—what the main thrust of this post has been was not any of those things. Which I said in the first reply.

Instead, the main thrust is: “What was important to the theme about the original so that we know what makes the Live Action bad, exactly?”

So. With all of that recapped for you—

(which was necessary since you seem to be under the impression that I’m “refusing to see the additional layer and insisting it’s not important,” when—again—I did not refuse to see it and I said how it was important, just not that it was the most important)

—all I’m asking you to do is provide just like one reasonable piece of evidence for the claim “Nani and Lilo have a cultural background that relates so strongly to the central theme of the story.” From the story itself. Not the story we could have had. Not the story we turn it into in our imaginations by projecting our own experiences on it. The story itself.

Take all your biases and racism out of hearing something you don’t like to hear. Stop jumping to the conclusion that you know everything about my skin color and cultural background just because you read some words that weren’t saying 100% of the same niche thing you were saying. You don’t. And it’s racist to make that assumption.

And see if you can just have a normal back-and-forth about this. Since this is what we’re talking about: a huge amount of people 200 years ago believed slavery was a good and right thing to have institutionalized in the United States. They were wrong. Hundreds and thousands of people believing something with all their heart based on their experience doesn’t make those hundreds of thousands of people right. I can’t trust that. It’s called an “argument from majority.” Now that doesn’t mean they’re wrong either. I could be wrong.

But I have not been convinced by evidence that I’m wrong. None of the people you’re talking about have given me evidence, or in your analogy, “told me that the curtains are blue for a reason,” and then said what the reason is. They’ve just asked me to believe them because…I guess because it’s popular opinion, or because I’m “white” if I don’t, or because they say it repetitively enough. I’m asking you to break that cycle. I’m not promising that all you have to do is show me a reason to get me to believe you: I’m promising I’ll consider the reason you give and see if it makes any sense. Like I do everything.

How does the cultural background relate so strongly to the central theme of the movie? In such a way that if you swap it out or remove it, the central theme and story fall apart, which is what “first and last straw” implies?

Or geez, you don’t even have to answer that. Just point me back to where any of the other people on this post have done that and I ignored them. I’ll turn right around and weigh what they said. Easy.

That’s It.

I’m tired of seeing everyone repeat the same four points: “1) Nani gives Lilo to the state! 2) Hawaii has a better marine biology program than San Fransisco! 3) Jumba doesn’t get redeemed! 4) Pleakley’s not wearing a dress!”

Those are not the only things that were bad about this remake. You could easily tell it was going to be all that and more beforehand, but most people’s reaction to the trailer was “it’s surprisingly good!” and now they’re acting all surprised. If you didn’t see this coming, enough to purchase a ticket, you’re part of the problem and you don’t get the original movie any more than the people who made this remake did.

So I’m done being quiet, this is the Lilo & Stitch 2025 Takedown Post.

And as usual the only good thing about an attempted-remake is that it gives people a reason to think about what made the original so good.

Let’s go in order. But just scroll down to the Heading you Care About if you don’t want to read all this.

1. Cobra Bubbles

In this movie, Cobra Bubbles is a secret agent hunting for aliens and they have a new character take his place as the state social worker.

The Problem They Were Trying to Solve With this Change: “We shouldn’t have a black man or a government worker feel like an insensitive antagonist to Lilo’s family.”

That’s a stupid surface-level one-dimensional misread of the character from the original…and it wouldn’t have been hard, at all, for a child to explain to the 2025 filmmakers that Cobra is not an insensitive antagonist in the original.

Cobra Bubbles is not insensitive and he is not in any way portrayed as a bad guy in the original. Nani sees him that way, Nani sees him as antagonistic, because he’s the representation of Lilo being taken away.

But Nani is wrong about him and learns that she is wrong about him by the end of the movie.

Can we please make a list?

Cobra’s first interaction with the caretaker of the child he was being sent to protect was that she ran out into the road, yelled at a complete stranger, and dented his car.

Then he found her locked out of the home and threatening the child inside with a hammer in her hand.

Then he found out the stove was on while she was out, and she’d left a 7 year-old alone.

The 7 year-old made comments about being disciplined with bricks and a pillow case.

The 7 year-old looks like she might be more than a little emotionally unbalanced because she’s figuring out how to put voodoo spells on her friends to punish them.

He still gave that pair of sisters three days to straighten the ship. When in actuality, in 2002, under HRS §587-73, (don’t play with me) the social worker would’ve been well within his rights to remove the child from the home right then. But instead he gives her three days to fix it. THEN

The 18 year-old loses her job.

The family gets a “dog” who he is implied to know is an alien, right off the bat.

The alien is violent and wreaks havoc across town.

The 7 year-old almost drowns while they surf instead of find a job.

He lets the child and caretaker have one more night together to say goodbye, but when he’s on the way to get her he gets a call that she’s being attacked by aliens, hears a chainsaw, and finds the house on fire.

Do you understand what I’m saying.

Cobra Bubbles had NO BUSINESS being as BIG A SOFTIE AS HE WAS for all of the original movie. He was not only well within his legal rights to take Lilo away from Nani immediately, but he was actually required by law, it was his DUTY, to remove her immediately. But he didn’t do that. Why?

Now listen to me very carefully.

Lilo and Stitch is a movie about how “Family chooses to love and commit to one another selflessly, no matter what the other person can do for them or how hard they make it.” The fancy way they say it is just “Ohana means family: family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten.”

Did you catch that? “No matter how hard they make it.”

Cobra Bubbles was a CIA agent before this. A CIA agent who saved the planet, by doing what? Convincing an alien race to leave them alone. Oh, he didn’t fight them off? No. How? He “convinced” them? He talked it out? Sounds like a pretty compassionate guy, for all his tough exterior. How did he do that?

He could’ve picked any animal that’s actually endangered. The filmmakers chose to make him the guy who convinced aliens to value mosquitos.

MOSQUITOS. Creatures that give nothing, only take. Ugly little bloodsucking monsters. That’s the creature he convinced them to care about enough to save the planet.

NOW do you have any trouble understanding why this is the specific social worker who would give an alien-infested dumpster fire of a dangerous home a chance when two sisters are about to be torn apart?

Do you see that Cobra is just another example of the grace that the movie is always talking about? The love that transforms someone from bad to good simply because it refuses to give up even when it gets nothing out of it? I’m repeating myself because I want you to see why he was a well-done character who NEEDED NO CHANGE.

Cobra Bubbles’ character is not an insensitive monster who doesn’t care who his actions hurt as long as he gets the job done. But you know who that does sound like?

2. Gantu

Gantu is not in the remake at all.

The Problem They Were Trying to Solve With This Change: “It’s going to cost us upwards of 1.5 millions of dollars to design, sculpt, rig, animate, and render a character this big in addition to finding a suitable voice actor to play the part.”

This is a really dumb choice for several reasons. A. Without Gantu, there is no “stakes-raiser” to Lilo and Nani’s story. The movie has no climax without him. For the first and second acts of the movie, it’s about a grieving pair of girls trying to prove themselves to a social worker while the story-equivalent of Beethoven the Destructive St. Bernard wacky Jumba & Pleakley antics get in their way. But when a 40-foot tall alien stomps into their lives and abducts Lilo & Stitch in a spaceship that careens around the island during an explosive sky-chase scene, now you have a high-octane, somebody-could-die climax.

B. Without Gantu, Stitch looks weaker. The climax gave Stitch a reason to come out of the wackadoo puppy he’s been posing as and suddenly remind everybody that he’s a lethal weapon who can survive thousand-foot drops, lava, and astronomic explosions—and a giant alien’s Thanos-dwarfing fist. Take him out and who do we have as a match for Stitch to go up against, even for a moment, and prove how much he’s changed to be willing to risk his freedom and fight?

C. Without Gantu you have no villain to reflect that STITCH is no longer a villain. (So they substituted Jumba.)

But the reason this character is really worth millions is, again, the theme.

I told you Cobra Bubbles was a character who did not put “duty” or even “convenience” or “position” over the real lives of Lilo and Nani. He saw that there was love there, and in his own way, he gave it a chance. And even when he chose to take Lilo away, he did it carefully; he gave them time to say goodbye.

GANTU IS THE OPPOSITE OF COBRA BUBBLES.

Gantu is the insensitive, uncaring, unyielding Captain whose commitment to duty turns into rage and cruelty. Not Cobra.

Nani thinks Cobra is walking in a threatening to tear apart their family in a display of government judgement. But that’s what Gantu literally does.

His first reaction to Stitch is to call for his destruction. Without even waiting to see if “it can be reasoned with” like the Grand Councilwoman suggests. He’s merciless. He mocks Stitch when Stitch is captive. And he knows that he caught Lilo, a human, along with him. He doesn’t care. He even suggests that Stitch eat her as a snack.

There are only two other characters who laugh at others’ misfortune in the movie. One is Stitch, the original villain. Then love changes him. The other is Jumba, who made Stitch. Then love changes him. But Gantu never gets changed. He’s only concerned with his job, and with personally annihilating the flaws he sees in Stitch.

Gantu is unyielding, ungracious, and cruel. And he’s big and powerful enough to be a test for Stitch to prove he’s changed. For the benefits he brings to the story, he’s worth 1.5 million and more. But they cut him anyway.

3. Jumba

In the new movie, Jumba is a villain through-and-through with designs on overthrowing the Galactic Council using Stitch, and instead of being redeemed, he’s sentenced to prison.

The Problem They Were Trying to Solve With This Change: “We can’t spend money on our real villain so we’ll just keep Jumba evil.”

The reason this is dumb is obvious. They created their own problem, and the ‘fix’ makes the movie weaker, not stronger. But here’s how.

In the original, Jumba is introduced as trying to self-protect. He’s on trial, and he lies. But when Stitch is revealed, he’s genuinely passionate about the thing he’s created. And he cares about image. He prefers to be called “evil genius,” and he hates the headlines labelling him “idiot scientist.”

You have to remember he’s part of “Galaxy Defense Industries.” They had him making weapons of destruction anyway. He just got too into it with his genetic Experiments, went a little insane.

I’m not downplaying the fact that Jumba is evil at the start of the movie. He is. It is evil to be outcasted from society and then respond to that with, “well, if they’re going to treat me like an idiot, I’LL SHOW THEM, I won’t care about anything except my passion for mad science!” That’s evil.

But it also explains a lot.

I said it in another post. Jumba’s whole utility as a character is that he knows who and what Stitch really is, better than anyone. He made him to be a monster who can’t belong and wreaks havoc on everybody else’s ‘place of belonging.’ Jumba is the audience’s insider’s perspective on what is going on in Stitch’s head, at first.

But when he’s redeemed, it happens fast. And why? Because that’s how plain and simple Stitch is, as a character. Jumba knows Stitch is a disgusting little monster with nothing inherently loveable about him, and no “greater purpose.” So when his disgusting monster is loved by someone? When his disgusting monster is willing to ask him, Jumba, for help? Something totally outside his programming, totally not what Jumba thought he’d ever be capable of?

That proves to Jumba, in an instant, that there’s love out there that transforms. And creates a place of belonging.

There were already germs of that, a desire to belong, a compassion, in Jumba after he reached earth.

He doesn’t try to get Nani fired, he offers an explanation for Pleakley’s swollen head.

He claims he won’t hit Lilo (why would he care about collateral damage?)

He sounds sorry for Nani when she’s upset about losing Lilo, and tries to keep Stitch from bothering her.

My point is, Jumba’s redemption isn’t important because it’s cute or because we need to set up the big happy found-family trope everybody loves.

Jumba’s redemption is important because it is just one more PROOF that what’s happened to Stitch is so incredible. The love Jumba finds transforming his monster is enough to transform Jumba, too.

But sure, fine, whatever, make him a soulless one-dimensional talking head. Whatever.

4. Stitch’s Design

In this movie, Stitch is cuter than he is ugly, and he’s half Lilo’s size.

The Problem They Were Trying to Solve With This Change: “Ugly-cute doesn’t come across as well in ‘live action’ animation. And all the Wal-Mart moms remember Stitch as ‘cute.’ Plus we’ll save about 15% in rendering the animation.”

This is crippling to the characterization of Stitch.

Stitch is supposed to be an echo of who Lilo could become now that she’s lost her parents and may be losing Nani. This scene:

Where Jumba points out that Stitch has nothing, and destruction is his only purpose, is the evidence for that. But Chris Sanders, who made this whole story, also point-blank said it. Stitch is a future Lilo, if she loses her family.

So that’s reason number 1 that he should be her same height. But also, practically, no iconic pair of best friends, yin and yang, have visuals where one is smaller than the other. Especially not if one of them is supposed to be disguised as a pet.

The point is, Stitch is not LILO’s pet. He is her best friend, her other half. But between the muzzle-muscles they worked into his upper lip and the darkened dog nose and the butt-scooting across the floor, the remake is trying to make him more pet-like in relation to Lilo.

That’s not what he is.

I said this in another post. But Stitch is supposed to throw food to the back of his head like a gator—his lips are not designed for forming words. His gums and teeth are supposed to look like a shark’s. His nose is supposed to be too big, stamped into his face. His ears are supposed to be like bat ears, not bunny ears. He hunches forward, instead of bending at the waist like a toddler. His eyes can narrow to lizard slits.

He has to look like he can believably be a disgusting monster. Yes, he can also be cute. But he has to first look like a monster. Because that’s what he really is, in the story. If he isn’t, then LILO’s love for him doesn’t look as powerful.

It is easy to love a cat even if it scratches you, because it’s cute. It’s harder to love a life-sized spider that keeps knocking you down and eating your prized possessions and laughing when you get hurt. Stitch is supposed to be closer to the second one, so that Lilo’s love shines brighter.

But also, practically:

She can’t look him in the eye for emotional shots when he’s that short. He’ll always have to awkwardly be standing on a box or a chair or a bed.

How is he going to scoop her up, hero-style, and leap off of an exploding spaceship with her in his arms, when he’s half her size? He could do it: it’ll look stupid, though. So they just don’t have that part in the movie.

She can pick him up. That alone is demeaning and again, the visuals are silly. Not what we’re going for.

5. Lilo’s Personality

In this movie, Lilo doesn’t like weird stuff, and she screams when she first meets Stitch. There’s no problem that this solves. It’s just laziness and a lack of care about the characters.

I would like to remind you that the original Lilo:

Made her own doll that looks like a shrunken head and pretended a bug laid eggs in her ears.

Makes up stories about a fish that controls the weather and actively deep-sea dives to bring it peanut butter sandwiches.

Has a knee-jerk reaction of using practical voodoo spells on friends who wrong her.

Listens exclusively to Elvis Presley.

Fills baby bottles with coffee.

Believes Nani’s manager is a vampire.

Has fishing nets and seashells in her room for decoration.

takes safari pictures of overweight bleached tourists.

meets a social worker and her first impulse is to ask if he’s killed someone.

Nails the door shut when she’s mad at her big sister.

She’s not friends with pound dogs in that original movie; when they first get there she acts like she’s never been in the kennel before, and originally wants a pet lobster.

I know that we all love that little girl they got to play Lilo, but if you were really being objective, you’d acknowledge that she’s a little girl. She’s not Lilo. She’s a cute little girl.

They did not write Lilo into the 2025 movie. They wrote any old little girl.

You should have known, from the moment she first sees Stitch and her reaction is to scream in the trailer, that THAT IS NOT LILO.

Lilo had a very specific set of characterizations. She was a character with a personality that exploded out of the screen. Every other character in the movie meets Stitch and reacts with disgust.

But not. LILO. She’s the only one to react to him like THIS:

She is literally not like anyone else. She’s doesn’t care that he’s ugly. Or weird. Or blue. Or even bat an eye when he can talk with all those shark teeth.

From Moment One, Lilo chooses Stitch. She chooses to love him. Regardless of what he can do for her. Regardless of how many times he pushes her over or rips up her house or makes her relationship with Nani harder. That is the number one thing about Lilo.

She is desperate for people to stay, but she chooses to love Stitch even though he’s a monster. And she tries to make him better. And her love succeeds in transforming him when nothing else could.

Lilo’s personality traits all mean something in the story. (I.e. she likes Elvis because she’s clinging to the past, she snaps pictures of tourists like they’re safari animals because they’re inherently people who LEAVE and she has issues with LEAVING, etc.) But the thing I think that was so obvious that the moviemakers missed for 2025 is she has to be weird. If she’s not weird, there’s no reason for her not to have friends. And if she has friends, what does she need Stitch for?

But also, Lilo’s personality in the new movie is just boring. Cute. But boring. Cute’s not that great of an accomplishment; any 7 year-old is cute.

6. Nani

I don’t think you guys need to know this. It’s not just that Nani leaves. It’s that “take care of yourself” is the exact opposite of the selfless message of the movie.

In the beginning, Lilo literally argues with Nani after being told she’s “such a pain,” and goes, “why don’t you SELL ME and buy a RABBIT INSTEAD?”

And then breaks down and cries at the thought of Nani wishing she had a rabbit instead of Lilo, later.

Because Lilo is afraid of people leaving. But Nani won’t leave her. Nani loses her job, her own life, because of Lilo. But she’s desperate to keep Lilo anyway, because she loves her. Don’t you understand? The message of the movie was about self-sacrificial love. A love that doesn't care what I get out of the relationship.

Nani starts it. But you know what, David loves her like that, too. And then Lilo transfers it to Stitch, who shows it off to Jumba. It’s a chain reaction, but Nani is spearheading it.

You realize that when their parents died, Nani already would’ve been in high school? With a whole life of her own? Her own friends, her own potential boyfriend, a job she went to, surf competitions (the trophies are in her room.) Lilo would’ve been well aware that that was the status-quo: Nani has her own life. And even a seven year-old can see that that life is being put on hold, but maybe the big sister wants to go back to it, at every turn.

The fact that Nani never does that, never expresses a desire for that, only ever expresses a desire to keep Lilo with her, is huge. It’s the core of the movie.

I don’t think that needs any more explaining.

We could talk more. Like about how Lilo needs to see that Stitch is an alien, because that’s the ultimate test: he’s one of the monsters who destroyed her house, he’s been lying to her and using her as a human shield, he’s a criminal—but she still winds up giving everything up to protect him.

Anyway. My neck hurts and I don’t want to type anymore. But we could talk about the music, the social worker, the grand councilwoman—it just doesn’t matter.

Ya’ll had more than enough details in the trailer to be able to not go see this movie because it was obviously going to ruin everything. But instead you chose to make this twisted corpse “the highest-grossing movie of any Memorial Day.” You bought tickets because they ruined a perfect movie and slapped together an uglier package for you.

Whatever. It was my favorite movie today, it’ll be your Treasure Planet or Tangled tomorrow. Keep riiiight on giving them your money, and keep letting influencers regurgitate the same four obvious facts to you over and over, because they paid Disney to make a talking-point for their content benefit. Whatever.

[svt-demi]

⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ DATING HISTORY ୨ৎ

⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ masterlist

JEON 𝐉𝐔𝐍𝐆𝐊𝐎𝐎𝐊 ; BTS 𓍼˖

( jan 2017 — nov 2017 )

demi and jungkook weren’t as close with each other like the other members were with each other during the first year of seventeen’s debut. it wasn’t because they didn’t get along, or because anything had happened between them — it was just that demi always got shy around new people and she was still trying to fit in. jungkook eventually came to the conclusion that demi was a very difficult person to talk to.

when 2016 ISAC came along and the other members of bts had broken off to go speak to other idols, leaving jungkook alone, he and demi bumped into eachother. he did most of the talking at first but noticed that she wasn’t making it easy to start a conversation with how quiet she was. eventually, in a last effort to get her to say more than two words, he bribed her with a chocolate bar jin had slipped him before BTS arrived. god knows how it worked, but it did.

at the time, demi didn’t really have many friends in the industry outside of seventeen. she was still struggling to open up, and not being able to visit australia wasn’t making things any easier. but somehow, jungkook and demi became extremely close.

they confessed in early january of 2017. but a few months in, both of them began to realize that the feeling they had wasn’t really romantic. they liked eachother, but not like that. they talked about it one night and admitted that maybe they’d just gotten their feelings crossed — that they were best friends who cared so much about each other that their friendship had started to feel like something else.

so they came to a mutual agreement to break up. there was no fallout and no harsh feelings. they stayed best friends (still are), and have a hangout planned for after jungkook’s military discharge.

KIM 𝐖𝐎𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐎𝐊 ; ACTOR , formerly X1 and UP10TION 𓍼˖

( april 2018 — sept 2018 )

demi met wooseok backstage at music bank in march of 2018. it was quick. he made a stupid joke and they had a short conversation before demi was called back to her members. they ran into each other again a few days later when demi was there to support the debut of BSS, and wooseok asked for her number.

their relationship picked up fast. maybe a bit too fast. they were both under a lot of pressure at the time with alot of schedules and so much stress and it felt like they were clinging to each other just to stay afloat. they got along so well, like they’d known each other for years, and having someone that close who got it made things feel a little less draining.

but the timing was off and eventually, what they had between them started to crack.

they were both exhausted. it was like they were running on fumes, and little things turned into arguments. their personalities started clashing and instead of being eachother’s peace, they kept ending up on opposite sides of the blame.

by september 2018, things fell apart. they broke up on a bad note. it wasnt something overly dramatic, but alot was left unsaid. unfortunately, neither of them had the energy or time to fix it.

a few months later, wooseok messaged her. just a short text asking if they could talk. they apologized to each other (properly, this time) and even though it helped clear the air, they both knew things had changed. it wasn t the same. it felt awkward now.

they don’t talk much anymore, but they’re still able to keep in touch — even if its rare. every now and then, they’ll congratulate eachother but that’s about it.

XU 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐇𝐀𝐎 ; SEVENTEEN 𓍼˖

( june 2021 — present )

demi and minghao have always been in love with each other, even if it wasn’t obvious near the start. minghao became a trainee about two months after demi did. he barely knew korean back then — much like her — and he was shy, quiet, still trying to fit in.

although she was still trying to fit in too and she wasn’t the type of person to start a conversation, demi made sure to go talk to minghao. her chinese was broken and barely made sense, but just two or so words that somehow got the point across allowed them to start talking. they quickly grew extremely close in just a few weeks, closer to each other than anyone else in the group.

over the years, their bond stayed strong as best friends, but the other members could tell they had feelings for eachother.

minghao wasn’t bothered at all when demi dated jungkook — at the time, he didn’t even realize he liked her. but when demi started dating wooseok, minghao felt a little off. there was an ache in his chest that he couldn’t quite name. he wasnt devastated or jealous as he was always supportive, but knowing that the girl he was so disgustingly in love with was with someone else wasn’t a great feeling. it was strange. confusing.

demi had been blind to her feelings for minghao for years. and when the realisation of ‘fuck, im inlove with him’ finally hit her , she didn’t know what to do. controlling her emotions has never been something she’s good at, so the easiest solution then was to distance herself from minghao. she didn’t want to ruin what they had and liking her best friend like that was overwhelming.

minghao never pushed her to talk or force anything. he gave her all the space she needed, which only made it easier for her to stay away. they spent months in an awkward, distant phase, pretending everything was fine when it really wasn’t.

in june 2021, they had to share a hotel room after a photoshoot. the tension that had built up between them finally spilled over. they argued a little and said all the things they’d been holding back for so long. their bond was back to normal, except they were both finally clear about their feelings and that allowed them to become something more.

they are still dating now.

[agaypieceofcheese]

"Everything the USSR didn't like was a cia fbi capitalist western buzzword psyop" tankie ass

You make the mistake of assuming I support the USSR out of a dogmatic belief, but it is the opposite.

The USSR did many horrible things, religious repression and passive Russification mainly harmed non-Judaic and non-Christians.

The early deportations and relocations were also completely unnecessary and whatever benefits they got from these actions were far outweighed by the damage the capitalists have done with their propaganda.

That being said, it was also the first ever socialist experiment. I am also not dogmatically against the US, but the fact that the US is the main arbiter of imperialism, casts a light on every action they take and every word they say. A lot of the information we know now about the Soviet Union was from after its illegal dissolution, and as such we can’t ask the Soviet government for their side anymore. All we can do is take the information we have, compare it against all claims, and come to our own conclusion.

That process is called dialectics by the way, and it is the philosophy which underpins all of Marxism. Marxism. Is. A. Scientific. Method. It is the application of dialectical materialism to the historical materialism and using that analysis to synthesize a hypothesis. Like all historians, the Marxist hypothesis can’t be tested because we don’t have a Time Machine. So what do we do? We create experiments

That’s what the USSR was, and it did many things right and quite a bit wrong. We have a lot to learn, but we can only learn from history when we learn it truthfully. Shutting down and going ‘Muh authoritarianism!1!1!1!1 buzzword!1!1!1!1 100 gorbillion dead!1!1!1” isn’t an argument, it isn’t a hypothesis, it isn’t analysis. It’s a dogmatic thought-terminating cliche.

[midnightquips]

What We Never Were

Jake Seresin x Reader

Summary: Y/N needs a fake boyfriend for her sister’s wedding. Jake Seresin, her childhood best friend, is all too happy to play the part—until pretending starts to feel dangerously real. One bed. Old feelings. A week of dancing around the truth. She thinks he’s out of reach. He’s just been waiting for her to see him.

Themes: fake dating, bestfriends to lovers, pining, slow burn, fluff

🔴 MINORS DNI 🔴 Warnings: 18+ content, eventual smut, dirty talk, praise kink, jealousy, soft aftercare, pwp, piv sex, unprotected sex, mild praise kink, foreplay

Author's Notes: I've slacked a bit here haven't I? Apologies for not wrapping up Chapter 5 last week but here you go!! Parts 3 and 4 are UP! Also, I cannot stress enough how I LOVE reading all your thought and reactions. They always keep me going. Thank you all lovely people for sticking with me through this story. ‪‪❤︎‬

💫 What We Never Were Masterlist 📌 Sign Up for TAGLIST

Chapter 5

Part III – The Argument

The silence in the truck is like a pressure cooker.

Jake’s hand rests on your thigh, thumb tracing circles just like he had on the way to the lake house, except it didn’t feel the same. Not anymore. Not after the things he said last night. Not after your silence.

You stare out the window, watching the pine trees blur into fences and farmland, and try to ignore the anxious coil tightening in your chest.

He still hadn’t brought it up. Not the “kids” part. Not the “house” part. Not the “life with you” part. But it was still there, sitting between you like a third passenger.

You think he’d try to talk or maybe demand answers, but for once, Jake Seresin didn’t push. He just keeps driving like nothing had changed and in your opinion that made it worse. 

The silence stretches, sharp and stiff, until it’s you who finally cracks.

“I don’t know how this works,” you say quietly, still facing the window. “Us.”

Jake’s hand pauses on your leg.

You turn to him. “We’re in two different worlds.”

He glances at you, confused. “What are you talking about?”

“I mean real life, Jake. When we’re not in a cabin pretending it’s always going to be that easy. You live on base. You deploy. You have a life tied to a schedule and a squadron and constant reassignment. And I live in a third-floor walk-up that leaks when it rains and barely fits me, let alone… us.”

His eyes flicks to the road, jaw tight.

“I can’t just slot you in like a puzzle piece. There’s no room in my life for this kind of… fantasy.”

Jake’s voice is too calm. “It’s not a fantasy.”

You shake your head. “It felt like it. That’s what this weekend was, wasn’t it? A little pretend honeymoon. And now we’re heading back to reality and I’m supposed to do what, exactly? Wait by the phone while you’re halfway across the country again?”

His fingers tighten on the steering wheel. “It doesn’t have to be that way.”

“How can’t it be that way?” you snap. “You’re in California, Jake. I’m in Manhattan. You think that’s sustainable?”

“I’d make it work. I’d move if I have to.” he says immediately.

You blink. “You’d what?”

“I’d move,” he says again, more firmly now. “If it came down to it. I’d leave the Navy. Or transfer. Find something closer to you.”

Your heart thuds painfully in your chest.

“Come on Jake. You’d leave everything you’ve ever worked for?” you ask, voice rising. “Everything that makes you you? Because of this?”

His mouth tightened. “This isn’t just this. This is everything. You are everything.”

Your breath caught. “Jake…”

“I mean it.” he says, voice low and steady. “You don’t think I’ve thought about it? I’ve spent years thinking about it. What it would take. What I’d be willing to do. And it always comes back to one thing: you. I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t want to do any of this—fly jets, chase promotions, live on base—if it means I don’t get to come home to you.”

You stare at him, throat dry, taken aback by the declaration.

Finally, you scoff. “And then what? We live in New York? You quit the Navy? You get some desk job? And you’ll be what—happy?”

“If it means I wake up next to you every day? Yeah, I’d be fucking thrilled, Y/N.”

You swallow hard. “You say that now. But give it six months. A year. You’ll hate it. You’ll hate the noise and the rent and the fact that my apartment has a window unit instead of central air. You’ll hate that I work late. That I’m stubborn. That I’m not like the girls you could have.”

Jake let out a harsh breath, like he couldn’t believe what he was hearing. “Jesus Christ, Y/N.”

“It’s not a match!” you insist. “You’ve always been this golden-boy, Texas-perfect, Top Gun pilot and I’m—”

“You’re what?”

You flinch.

Jake looks at you, eyes blazing. “Go ahead. Say it.”

“I’m not right for you,” you snap. “I’m too loud. I’ve got walls so high you practically needed a ladder to get through them. And even now, after everything we’ve done, I still don’t know how to let you in.”

Jake remains painfully quiet. Then, in a voice like gravel: “I know who you are.”

You blink.

“I’ve always known who you are,” he continues. “You think I don’t notice all the times you change the subject when things get emotional? Or the way you laugh everything off when it gets too serious? You think I don’t see how scared you look every time someone talks about forever?”

You open your mouth but Jake doesn’t even let you speak.

“I didn’t fall for some fantasy version of you, Y/N. I fell for the real thing. The woman who cusses when she’s overwhelmed. Who leaves half-drunk cups of coffee on every flat surface. Who works her ass off, then beats herself up like it’s still not enough. I fell for you. All of you.”

Your heart is in your throat, ready to launch itself to him, but fear keeps blocking its way.

“And what if I can’t give you what you want?” you whisper. “What if I can’t be the woman who gives you that house and those kids and that life you keep picturing?”

Jake’s face softens for a moment. “Then we build something else. Together. We figure it out.”

You shake your head. “Is it really that simple.”

“It is,” he says. “You’re just scared.”

Your eyes burns, tears threatening to fall.

“Of course I’m scared!” you cry out. “You’re the only thing that’s been consistent in my life Jake. If this doesn’t work. If I lose you…”

“I’m not going anywhere.”

“You say that now.”

Jake slams his palm against the steering wheel, not violently, but enough to snap the tension like a whip.

“Goddamn it, Y/N,” he says, voice raw. “Why do you always assume the worst about me? You say I’ve always treated you like you were just there but you’ve always treated me as if I’m just this. But I’m still here aren’t I? I’ve stayed. I’ve never left. I deserve some damn credit for that.”

You flinch. The silence that comes after that feels enormous.

You blink rapidly, your breath caught in your chest, and when you had a chance to really look at him, his face was etched with hurt. There was no anger. Only visible hurt. The kind that came from loving someone who didn’t trust you to stay. Your throat tightens. You only ever worry about Jake hurting you, not knowing you’re the one hurting him in the process.

I’m scared. I love you. I don’t know how to survive if you leave. All the words you’d been shoving down curl up inside you and stick there like glass. Tears well in your eyes before you could stop it, and once it started, you couldn’t stop.

You break apart tight there in the passenger seat of his truck, pulled off on the side of the road under a sky too blue to make sense with how much you were unraveling. You bury your face in your hands, shoulders shaking. You don’t care that it was ugly or that your nose was running. Your whole body felt like it had been cracked open.

Jake doesn’t say anything. He just sits there, silent, hands in his lap.

You want him to reach for you. You want to reach for him.

But neither of you moves. And that makes it worse.

Taglist: @kvmitchell @mrsevans90 @natureartisian @purplefluffycows @eolsens @lunatygerqueen @deadlybeauty16 @ronniesreverie @anony1080 @vicky199625 @teacupsandtopgun @dizzybee03 @stillinracooncity @7dreambaby @pogueprincesa @jackiehollanderr @cozyjess @mrsnikolestan @midnighttithe @Lynnevanss @laserpente @cheyrenee @malindacath @girlypopmymelody @antheiagoddessofnarnia @yellowjm @itllbefineeeeee @dancethroughthethunder @ravenmourningstar @coldmuffinbanditshoe @ifilwtmfc @AnglophileForLife @violet-loves-to-write @itsmaytimetosaygoodbye @khouse712 @imaginecrushes @dempynovagreen04 @lynnestra44

[korrasera]

That isn't an accurate description of the paper or its statistics. I already refuted that analysis in another thread on this topic that everyone can read here. [link]

Long story short, the paper reports that a majority of trans men and trans masc people surveyed say they experience male privilege and the paper doesn't support the conclusions that staticespace is trying to draw from them.

And staticespace, I don't think you're making a semantic argument. I don't actually think you're making an argument at all, really. I think you're making an appeal to emotion.

The core of what you're saying is that you're uncomfortable with the term 'a lot' being used and you'd rather people didn't say that. To support your position, you're misrepresenting the data provided while also claiming that any discussion of this topic is bad/wrong/evil.

That's not an argument, that's an appeal to emotion. You're saying don't talk about male privilege or transmisogyny from trans men or trans masc people or you're being bad/wrong/evil.

And keep in mind, you aren't just saying the people who disagree with you are bad/wrong/evil, you're also ignoring and misrepresenting the experiences of trans men and trans masc people when they directly refute what you're saying.

I get the emotional discomfort. It sucks to consider privilege and oppression, it really does. But you can't get through that discomfort by saying those things don't exist.

And you can't deal with that emotion by telling people experiencing transmisogyny that they're wrong for pointing out that some of the people that hurt them are trans men or trans masc people.

Those don't help you deal with the emotion, they just push it away and keep you from working through the emotion at all.

Come the fuck on

[ghostof-awriter]

Thinking about an AFTG Track Au for some inexplicable reason and here's the conclusion I've come to (currently). This is based on my ten or so years doing track & field.

Neil: The most obvious, he would do long distance. According to current NCAA guidelines, he would be seated for the 10000m, 5000m, and the 3000m. Neil would also probably ask to do a 1500 (as if he wasn't already a freak) but would be rejected by Wymack.

Andrew + Aaron: Throwers. I imagine them both on the stockier side, which is a build meant for throwers and height isn't required (height and weight aren't much of a factor, it's all a matter of controlling your body and putting enough force behind it all–coming from a 5'2 ex-thrower). They would do discus, shot put, and the hammer, although I could see Aaron swapping shot for javelin.

Nicky: 110 hurdles, javelin, and long jump. He doesn't seem like the type to just stick to one event type but with these his height and (what I imagine to be) a slightly more lean build would help him. Neil + Kevin would tell him he would be a great distance runner, but he would always complain immediately or make an excuse to not do anything beyond an 800 outside of practices.

Kevin: Middle distance. I think that he would be in a situation where as a Raven he would have been pushed to do sprints, since that's what gets all the glory in the mainstream, but he would feel more comfortable in-between. He could do the 200, 400, and 800 or the 400, 800, and 1500. If in this AU he also becomes temporarily disabled and can't run, I could see him doing what I did and become a weaker thrower for a while.

(I could also see the argument of him being a decathlete, taking all of his skills and being able to do a little bit of everything).

Renee, Allison, and Dan: Middle distance, same as Kevin. However, if there was a fourth person, they would be a fantastic relay team for the 400/1600. If I were to separate them more, I think Renee would be a thrower like Andrew, just as she is a goalie. She would be a little more of a surprise, compared to the bulk of the Twinyards, but it adds to her sense of "hiding something" that Neil feels (in this case, that would be "not looking like a thrower."). Dan would jump like Matt, because, and Allison would probably do the 100, 200, and high jump. She's would absolutely have that sprinter glam and would tie her hair up in the perfect way every single time.

Matt: I think he would be a great jumper. I considered putting him with sprints and while he could do it, I think his power would be in using his legs as a launching point. High jump, long jump, and triple jump would be his trio, although dipping into a 100m or a pole vault could easily be in the cards for him.

Seth: He would be the true sprinter of the group. I think he has the attitude for it and believes that sprinting is the true strength of track and field, so he would do the 100, 200, and 400 at max. He prefers to stick with the 100/200 though. (it's hard talking about this without sounding like I have a bias around sprinters, but in my experience sprinters, distance runners, jumpers, and throwers all have different attitudes. Sprinters can especially be a little more showy because they're afforded the time to be and know that sprinting is significantly more entertaining to watch compared to the monotony of distance).

I feel like Wymack would be very multidisciplinary for all the Foxes, just as he is for exy. Practices would likely be broken into sections, where there's the throwers, the jumpers, and the runners, with a section of each practice being focused on group exercises (be it at the gym, through endurance runs, group sprints, etc). Most could be independent with a group leader where Wymack would choose a different group to focus on every day.

[deertaz]

Camera Focus: A Case for and against Byler

This little essay is, ultimately, in favour of Byler. But it also makes a case for Mileven. I later rebuke this.

First, I wish to present something heavily discussed within the fandom, I promise I'm going to make a somewhat original point:

Scene One

Scene Two

Okay this shit could mean two things:

This is a proper, proper parallel. If Vicki and Robin get together, then Will and Mike will get together. This particular argument has been given oodles of analysis and attention, so I don't wish to rehash the same point here again.

Though, as not to get my Byler hopes up, this is something else I noticed.

It could be a juxtaposition.

Look at the focus in these pictures. The focus in Scene One is Robin. When Robin sees Vicki and her boyfriend kiss, she is in clear focus, while they are not. This hints at the fact that Vicki sees her in this moment, not her boyfriend. Therefore, mutual pining/attraction.

In contrast to this, in Scene Two, Mike and Eleven are in focus, not Will (though he is there). This could potentially be hinting at the fact that the love Will has for Mike is unrequited. You could say that, in this scene, blurring Will out was to show that Mike only sees Eleven in this moment. Therefore only sees her (not Will) as a romantic partner. He is not in focus; he is not in the picture.

Basically.

Robin is in focus while Vicki is kissing her boyfriend, because Vicki is thinking of her.

Will is not in focus while Eleven and Mike hug, because Mike is not thinking of him.

However...

Mike and Eleven do not kiss in Scene Two, while Vicki and her boyfriend do in Scene One.

Vicki and her boyfriend are kissing, acting like a couple. But Vicki sees Robin in this way. That is why she is in focus, because she is the one whom Vicki wants to be kissed by.

In Scene Two, Mike and Eleven do not kiss. They behold each other in a way that could be interpreted as platonic. Therefore, this scene indicates that Mike is still currently seeing only Eleven (and not Will) in this scene, but in a platonic way.

Will is outside this scope, because Mike does not see him platonically.

That was a reach. But I have a way better thing that goes against my original argument.

Directly after Will and Mike hug, Eleven turns to Will. And BAM!

Scene Three:

He's in focus. And what does Mike do?

Scene Four:

Scene Five:

He looks between them with a conflicted expression.

Mike says 'everyone is here', and by doing so, this shows that Mike has now realised 'oh shit Will is here too'. Will fades into the foreground. He's now at the front of Mike's and Eleven's minds.

Eleven, of course, hugs him, happy he is here. She has missed her brother and hasn't seen him for days/weeks. Of course her mind was now on him.

But why would Mike be thinking of Will in this moment? Hasn't he been with him the whole time?

Well, it could be that after meeting with Eleven again. After feeling that short burst of romantic love for her (after Will says the painting was commissioned by her) Mike was hoping that by reuniting, he would finally, finally love her, and be able to fucking say it. He has a moment with Eleven where the world melts away, glad she is safe. Maybe he does love her, maybe this will all work out.

Then he remembers that Will exists. Will comes to the forefront of his mind, Will fades back into view, and his smile drops.

Pretty telling if you ask me.

So, in conclusion, these two scenes show two different things:

Vicki already sees Robin as a romantic partner. She is literally thinking about her while she kisses her boyfriend. She is not conflicted about it, but she is stuck in a relationship with a man.

Mike has been trying to repress the idea that he sees Will as a romantic partner. He is trying to not think about him while embracing Eleven, but fails. He feels stuck, but by more than just being in a relationship. It's because he cannot accept himself and his feelings.

(Eleven deserves better if this is the case. She deserves a boyfriend who adores her.)

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

[theadhddimsenion]

Debunking the "protagonist centered morality" "argument" on i.m.p.

One of the truly worst takes on helluva boss is the nonsensical claim that i.m.p are some how worse than the villains of the story! So I am going to systematically debunk all of the so called "evidence" for this "argument" one by one.

"I.m.p are murderers and therefore worse than all of villains!" Bullshit. I've said it before and I will say it again i.m.p killing humans is not meant to be taken seriously and your inability to enjoy dark humor is not a fault in the series writing!! Now sense you all seem to be unable to grasp basic literary conventions let me break it down for you in the most basic of terms. I.m.p do not kill humans for the heck of it. They kill humans because it was the only thing that would A. Put food on the table. B allow them to have independence from the higher-ups of hell and C give them an edge over all the other dime a dozen assassin's and mercenaries in hell!

"They got cherub kicked out of heaven for no reason!!" No deerie got the cherubs kicked out of heaven for no reason! Like for fuck sake do you honestly believe that they were dedicated to helping people who actually deserved an angels grace? The fact they were trying to get lipton past the pearly gates despite him being clearly an awful person says otherwise not mention the fact they were clearly seen scaming people with false good deeds to pickpocket them. Moreover i.m.p played by the heavenly jackasses rules and got upset and tried to murder their opponents when they lost and as much as I love collin he is still complicit with the cruelty of his cohorts so he is still sadly still just as responsible for what happened as his "friends" and like I said i.m.p aren't responsible for deeries action nor cherub screwing up so badly that her actions were carried out. You can't blame the imps for what their manager did to them and if you think otherwise then I can't help you.

"Satan was just upholding demon law which i.m.p willingly broke!!" You are literally saying that trying to rise above systematic oppression is a bad thing. I'm not even going to bother trying to explain why that's a terrible argument.

"They destroyed via's home and peace!!" Look I'm not going to say that via doesn't have a right to be upset about this whole situation far from it! She has every right to be upset about this whole situation and be as angry as she wants but your acting like stolas living for her sake is the solution for that problem rather than the very thing that caused it in the first place!! I don't blame stolas for not telling via the truth about he and her mothers relationship having to explain to your kid that their parents never loved each other and that her mother is a abusive monster is a awful thing to have to do but it's still something he should have done. Sadly stolas wasn't granted the "luxury" of a non abusive relationship outside of via for the majority of his life so it's no surprise he failed in this one regard. My point being that as painful as it would have been stolas should have told his daughter that he wasn't happy with her mother. It would have hurt but via would still trust him. Instead while his choice to hide the truth from her was noble it was still lying and no matter how good your intentions are lying to people especially people you care about will result in them not trusting you. In conclusion i.m.p didn't destroy via's home and peace because her home and peace where based upon the noble lie her father told her and as such was never real. You can't destroy something that never really existed and stolas's only mistake was trying to protect his daughter from reality.

"Blitz is a theif!! Reeeeee!!!" This is literally proven wrong by both mastermind and the circus.

"But striker is a assassin too!!" As I explained above i.m.p kill because they want to rise above the oppression of their people and survive striker just kills because he wants power to compastate for whatever happened to him in the past and takes it out on whoever he can find.

"But all stella,mammon,cash, etc etc did was be mean never kill anyone!" I told you before that i.m.p kill because they need to stay in the black and don't want to be pawns for the powerfull like most of their kind are meanwhile all those mentioned above are those who actively gain their power off the exploitation of others. That's like saying that if Val didn't kill anyone he would have the moral high ground over charile because she killed exorcists. And while I'm on this point no stolas did not exploit i.m.p any more than blitz did which is none at all he could have literally demanded anything and everything but he didn't and i thank him for that and we are moving on.

In conclusion no the i.m.p family are worse than the villains of the series and if you still think that it's a case of "protagonist centered morality" then my friend you have no media literacy whatsoever and I will kindly ask you to find a different show to watch.

[feathery-dreamer]

first, I went on to do other stuff for a bit. I do not spend my days remaining on tumblr, spawn camping posts. (you on the other hand, seem to be doing just that, so I suspect I won't need to @ you.) so you can chill with prodding me and the row of a bazillion question marks.

second, why do you send them to me in private, if want me to then post them for you? all you gotta do is make a reblog with those links, instead of making me do your bidding. it's so much simpler and quicker than sending me Asks, too.

conclusion: you are either trying to gaud me into an argument, or distract from the topic-leaping I pointed out, or both.

either way, I am not gonna bother with those links. you want people to see the sources, post them yourself.

edit

Also, if you need a source you can type what I said into a search engine to double check. Here’s a link to an article […] since looking things up online is hard for you.

yeah nah I ain't gonna deal with your awful personality. also, that link was about the war thing which, like I said, is irrelevant to the rest.

you are an obvious troll~

I learned yesterday that 1 in 4 men under the age of 40 are suffering from ED and it’s MORE THAN LIKELY from consuming copious amounts of pornography starting at a young age.

[lizhly-writes]

currently staring at my current big wip doc, specifically at my wu youxuan/chen liwei cnovel offshoot, because. look. sometimes, you (me) are impatient. sometimes, you (still me) are not in the mood for writing buildup. what if you (astonishingly enough, still me) skip ahead to the point where they're already in a relationship. what about that point, huh.

...this is the state of mind in which fluff fics originate from, huh.

[metanarrates]

Hello. Sorry if this a stupid question u can ignore if u want.

How can someone get better at media analysis? Besides obviously reading a lot.

Im asking this bc im in a point where im aware of my own lack of tools to analyze stories, but i don't know where to get them or how to get better in general. How did you learn to analyze media? There's any specific book, essay, author, etc that you recommend? Somewhere to start?

I'm asking you because you are genuinely the person who has the best takes on this site. Thank you for you work!

it sounds like a cop-out answer but it's always felt like a skill I acquired mostly thru reading a ton, and by paying a lot of attention in high school literature classes. because of that I can't promise that I'm necessarily equipped to be a good teacher or that i know good resources. HOWEVER! let me run some potential advice to you based on the shit i get a lot of mileage out of

first off, a lot of literary analysis is about pattern recognition! not just pattern recognition in-text, but out-of-text as well. how does this work relate to its genre? real-world history? does it have parallels between real-life situations? that kind of thing.

which is a big concept to just describe off the bat, so let me break it down further!

in literature, there is the concept of something called literary devices - they are some of the basic building blocks in how a story is delivered mechanically and via subtext. have you ever heard of a motif? that is a literary device. it's a pattern established in the text in order to further the storytelling! and here is a list of a ton of common literary devices - I'd recommend reading the article. it breaks down a lot of commonly used ones in prose and poetry and explains their usage.

personally, I don't find all the literary devices I've learned about in school to be the most useful to my analytical hobbies online. motifs, themes, and metaphors are useful and dissecting them can bring a lot to the table, but a lot of other devices are mostly like fun bonus trivia for me to notice when reading. however, memorizing those terms and trying to notice them in the things you read does have a distinct benefit - it encourages you to start noticing patterns, and to start thinking of the mechanical way a story is built. sure, thinking about how the prose is constructed might not help you understand the story much more, but it does make you start thinking about how things like prose contribute to the greater feeling of a piece, or how the formatting of a piece contributes to its overall narrative. you'll start developing this habit of picking out little things about a text, which is useful.

other forms of in-text pattern recognition can be about things like characterization! how does a character react to a certain situation? is it consistent with how they usually behave? what might that tell you about how they think? do they have tells that show when they're not being trustworthy? does their viewpoint always match what is happening on screen? what ideas do they have about how the world works? how are they influenced by other people in their lives? by social contexts that might exist? by situations that have affected them? (on that note, how do situations affect other situations?)

another one is just straight-up noticing themes in a work. is there a certain idea that keeps getting brought up? what is the work trying to say about that idea? if it's being brought up often, it's probably worth paying attention to!

that goes for any pattern, actually. if you notice something, it's worth thinking about why it might be there. try considering things like potential subtext, or what a technique might be trying to convey to a reader. even if you can't explain why every element of a text is there, you'll often gain something by trying to think about why something exists in a story.

^ sometimes the answer to that question is not always "because it's intentional" or even "because it was a good choice for the storytelling." authors frequently make choices that suck shit (I am a known complainer about choices that suck shit.) that's also worth thinking about. english classes won't encourage this line of thinking, because they're trying to get you to approach texts with intentional thought instead of writing them off. I appreciate that goal, genuinely, but I do think it hampers people's enthusiasm for analysis if they're not also being encouraged to analyze why they think something doesn't work well in a story. sometimes something sucks and it makes new students mad if they're not allowed to talk about it sucking! I'll get into that later - knowing how and why something doesn't work is also a valuable skill. being an informed and analytical hater will get you far in life.

so that's in-work literary analysis. id also recommend annotating your pages/pdfs or keeping a notebook if you want to close-read a work. keeping track of your thoughts while reading even if they're not "clever" or whatever encourages you to pay attention to a text and to draw patterns. it's very useful!

now, for out-of-work literary analysis! it's worth synthesizing something within its context. what social settings did this work come from? was it commenting on something in real life? is it responding to some aspects of history or current events? how does it relate to its genre? does it deviate from genre trends, commentate on them, or overall conform to its genre? where did the literary techniques it's using come from - does it have any big stylistic influences? is it referencing any other texts?

and if you don't know the answer to a bunch of these questions and want to know, RESEARCH IS YOUR FRIEND! look up historical events and social movements if you're reading a work from a place or time you're not familiar with. if you don't know much about a genre, look into what are considered common genre elements! see if you can find anyone talking about artistic movements, or read the texts that a work might be referencing! all of these things will give you a far more holistic view of a work.

as for your own personal reaction to & understanding of a work... so I've given the advice before that it's good to think about your own personal reactions to a story, and what you enjoy or dislike about it. while this is true that a lot of this is a baseline jumping-off point on how I personally conduct analysis, it's incomplete advice. you should not just be thinking about what you enjoy or dislike - you should also be thinking about why it works or doesn't work for you. if you've gotten a better grasp on story mechanics by practicing the types of pattern recognition i recognized above, you can start digging into how those storytelling techniques have affected you. did you enjoy this part of a story? what made it work well? what techniques built tension, or delivered well on conflict? what about if you thought it sucked? what aspects of storytelling might have failed?

sometimes the answer to this is highly subjective and personal. I'm slightly romance-averse because I am aromantic, so a lot of romance plots will simply bore me or actively annoy me. I try not to let that personal taste factor too much into serious critiques, though of course I will talk about why I find something boring and lament it wasn't done better lol. we're only human. just be aware of those personal taste quirks and factor them into analysis because it will help you be a bit more objective lol

but if it's not fully influenced by personal taste, you should get in the habit of building little theses about why a story affected you in a certain way. for example, "I felt bored and tired at this point in a plot, which may be due to poor pacing & handling of conflict." or "I felt excited at this point in the plot, because established tensions continued to get more complex and captured my interest." or "I liked this plot point because it iterated on an established theme in a way that brought interesting angles to how the story handled the theme." again, it's just a good way to think about how and why storytelling functions.

uh let's see what else. analysis is a collaborative activity! you can learn a lot from seeing how other people analyze! if you enjoy something a lot, try looking into scholarly articles on it, or youtube videos, or essays online! develop opinions also about how THOSE articles and essays etc conduct analysis, and why you might think those analyses are correct or incorrect! sometimes analyses suck shit and developing a counterargument will help you think harder about the topic in question! think about audience reactions and how those are created by the text! talk to friends! send asks to meta blogs you really like maybe sometimes

find angles of analysis that interest and excite you! if you're interested in feminist lenses on a work, or racial lenses, or philosophical lenses, look into how people conduct those sort of analyses on other works. (eg. search feminist analysis of hamlet, or something similar so you can learn how that style of analysis generally functions) and then try applying those lenses to the story you're looking at. a lot of analysts have a toolkit of lenses they tend to cycle through when approaching a new text - it might not be a bad idea to acquire a few favored lenses of your own.

also, most of my advice is literary advice, since you can broadly apply many skills you learn in literary analysis to any other form of storytelling, but if you're looking at another medium, like a game or cartoon, maybe look up some stuff about things like ludonarrative storytelling or visual storytelling! familiarizing yourself with the specific techniques common to a certain medium will only help you get better at understanding what you're seeing.

above all else, approach everything with intellectual curiosity and sincerity. even if you're sincerely curious about why something sucks, letting yourself gain information and potentially learning something new or being humbled in the process will help you grow. it's okay to not have all the answers, or to just be flat-out wrong sometimes. continuing to practice is a valuable intellectual pursuit even if it can mean feeling a tad stupid sometimes. don't be scared to ask questions. get comfortable sometimes with the fact that the answer you'll arrive at after a lot of thought and effort will be "I don't fully know." sometimes you don't know and that can be valuable in its own right!

thank you for the ask, and I hope you find this helpful!

[gaym3bo1]

i've said it before and i'll say it again

thame and po have Such a wild mix of fantastic communication and bad communication going, i need to study them under a microscope

[off-the-rails-raccoon]

When ctommy lived with Techno, he was very suprised to found out he and Phil eat Eggs with bacon for breakfast

And horrified, so very horrified. After loudly shaming Phil and Techno for half an hour, Phil probably said something in passing about not even being able lay eggs and Tommy instantly had the assumption that was because of bird-menopause and silently lived with that truth for the rest of his life.

Techno also adamantly believed that piglins and normal pigs are different enough for it to be considered normal for a piglin to eat pork from a pig. But considering Tommy's lack of literacy and reading comprehension, Techno's proof in the form of books didn't help much.

[barnesonly]

thanks for tagging me, i also do not have letterbox but here are my trakt favorites 🫣

Pulp Fiction (1994) — always and forever my n.1, i absolutely adore this movie — it’s pure chaos in the best way and i literally could watch it everyday. The iconic but terrifying characters? The deep conversations about burgers? Nonlinear storytelling? gimmie more of that.

Civil War (2016) — The Avengers had ONE (1) group chat argument and broke up for YEARSSSS. I live for the drama, sorry. Not only Captain America was/is my fav Avenger so of course I was thrilled about this movie when it was announced but the amount of characters??? holy shit i was not prepared to have literal another avengers movie under “CA” title! and Bucky UGH bucky… 🥰🥰🥰

Me Before You (2016) —my favorite horror movie! jk… am i? This stupid movie broke me in so many ways — I literally couldn’t walk out the theatre because my vision was so blurry from crying. Also Emilia Clarke is sunshine in human form and I love her so so much. Probably the best romantic movie to ever exist and I recommend it to everyone who hasn’t seen it you will cry ugly and question life by the end!

Scream (1996) — “What’s your favorite scary movie?” THIS ONE. Oh, Jeez where do I even begin with this slasher masterpiece?? I recently argued with one of my coworkers about slashers and despite our differences and taste we both came to a conclusion that Scream is THE movie. But let’s be real — Stu Macher is the reason I fell in love with this movie so much — He’s unhinged, hilarious, and somehow stupidly charming “My mom and dad are gonna be so mad at me!” GODS HOW I LOVE YOUUUU… Matthew Lillard absolutely devoured in every scene, and I’ve never recovered… can’t wait for his comeback one day 💔

tags: @iamthatonefangirl @bcksgirl @bckyslover @sunday-bug

Share/Rate Your Letterbox top 4 movies!

Fuck it share ur top 4 favorite movies and let ur followers rate ur taste.

tagging ppl to share their own 4 favorites! @princessanglophile @tezooks @lubdubology @lostinlovingrevery @cruel-as-sin @damimami1994 @lareinedulune @freythecrazyfae @mcrdvcks and anyone else who wants to share!!

[compress1repress]

writing part 2 of bottom art and plotting & planning the order of the sex scenes. this is a very serious task to me actually

[1nk-ling]

It bothers me when people use "Best friends don't do that" as an argument for a ship.

Just to be clear, I'm not dumping on any specific ship rn. This could be used as an argument for a ship I liked and it still wouldn't sit right.

Because...Why not?

"Best friends don't hold hands." Why not?

"Best friends don't start wars for eachother." Why not?

"Best friends don't live together." Why not?

"Best friends don't hug like that." Don't they?

"Best friends don't smile like that in the background of a shot." Yes they do.

"Best friends don't go that far for eachother." Yes. They! DO!

Let me tell you a story.

Not too long ago I was crew on a tallship being taken to Martha's Vinyard for touring purposes. I'd been there for a while, but there was another girl crewing who'd just signed on.

We'd stayed at the first port for a couple days, and were now heading out for the shot hop to the next harbour. The first mate was stressing hard because there was wind blowing us down as we tried to get off the dock, and also stressing is what she did best. Stressing may have been her college major.

Now, it was traditional (on this boat, where tradition was more important than sense and sanity) that we take down all pennants and flags, and run up the old stars and stipes as soon as we were out of the harbour. And despite the fact that we were still trying to coil dock lines, stow fenders, set watches, and ACTUALLY GET THE DINGHEY ON BOARD because some soaked guy was still trying to motor alongside in an inflateable-! Despite all that the first mate decided it was really important that my friend take down the flags.

She tried, but one of the pennants had gotten jammed in the rigging. I could see that, and I was haluing a tender up the side of a boat in 4ft chop with people yelling at me. You could not have brought that pennant down without ripping it off. And that was clear.

I was about to go help her when the mate walked by and my friend tried to get her attention and tell her it was stuck. Cutting her off in the middle of her sentance, the mate leaned down, said her name twice like she was so stupid to not have understood, then said: "Take down the pennant." and walked away to yell somewhere else.

My friend just stood there, tearing up, and I was more angry than I've ever been in my life.

I am not a violent person, especially when I'm angry. But

I wanted to DECK that mate. I wanted to climb up those ratlines, rip that flag down, bring it to her, and shove it down her throat. I wanted to say "Here's you stupid flag. It must have been a real danger to life and navigation if it was worth making someone cry over. I'm glad I was able to get it down for you." and drop its mangled remains at her feet.

Now, I'd known that girl for maybe, I don't know, six days? A week? We were barely friends yet. Mostly crewmates. Certainly not lovers. And I was ready to kill and die for her.

So, to return to my original topic: Best friends DO. Best friends WOULD. Best friends CAN. Best friends LOVE. And that love is not less for not being romantic. I have been it, done it, and seen it.

In short: find a better argument for your ship, because "Best friends don't do that" is simply untrue.