#literary opinions

[anunlikelymenagerie]

The Dead Romantics by Ashley Poston (A Review)

*Disclaimer: DNF at page 148

I picked up “The Dead Romantics” because it was recommended for fans of “Lisa Frankenstein.” However, I found the two books to be incredibly different, and not in a good way.

The story follows Florence, a ghostwriter for a big-time author, who is struggling to finish a book despite multiple extensions. Her life takes a chaotic turn when she encounters her ex, a new editor, and then faces an unexpected tragedy.

From the start, I found it hard to believe Florence’s role as a ghostwriter. Her character often dives into a victim mentality and avoids taking responsibility for her actions. Despite being an adult, she doesn’t seem mentally mature, which made it difficult for me to connect with her.

Specific Issues:

Florence’s lack of maturity and responsibility made her an unconvincing protagonist.

The story felt rushed and all over the place. For example, Florence’s quick submission to her roommate’s party plans, the coincidental run-ins with her ex and new editor, and the editor’s sudden death felt forced and unrealistic.

The romance between Florence and her editor felt unearned and inappropriate, especially given their professional relationship.

The book is filled with unnecessary pop culture references. Florence’s middle name is Minerva, clearly taken from Harry Potter. She refers to “Howl’s Moving Castle” as a ‘charming looking paperback,’ which is hard to believe given the movie’s widespread popularity. And why is the mayor a dog? These references felt out of place and distracting.

Overall, “The Dead Romantics” didn’t live up to my expectations. The plot was too rushed, and the characters lacked depth. I wouldn’t recommend this book to fans of “Lisa Frankenstein” or anyone looking for a well-developed romance.

[ofbreathandflame-archive]

With the rise of booktok/booktwt, there's been this weird movement against literary criticism. It's a bizarre phenomenon, but this uptick in condemnation of criticism is so stifling. I understand that with the rise of these platforms, many people are being reintroduced into the habit of reading, which is why at the base level, I understand why many 'popular' books on booktok tend to be cozier.

The argument always falls into the 'this book means too much to me' or 'let people enjoy things,' which is rhetoric I understand -- at least fundamentally. But reading and writing have always been conduits for criticism, healthy natural criticism. We grow as writers and readers because of criticism. It's just so frustrating to see arguments like "how could you not like this character they've been the x trauma," or "why read this book if you're not going to come out liking it," and it's like...why not. That has always been the point of reading. Having a character go through copious amounts of trauma does not always translate to a character that's well-crafted. Good worldbuilding doesn't always translate to having a good story, or having beautiful prose doesn't always translate into a good plot.

There is just so much that goes into writing a story other than being able to formulate tropable (is that a word lol) characters. Good ideas don't always translate into good stories. And engaging critically with the text you read is how we figure that out, how we make sure authors are giving us a good craft. Writing is a form of entertainment too, and just like we'd do a poorly crafted show, we should always be questioning the things we read, even if we enjoy those things.

It's just werd to see people argue that we shouldn't read literature unless we know for certain we are going to like it. Or seeing people not be able to stand honest criticism of the world they've fallen in love with. I love ASOIAF -- but boy oh boy are there a lot of problems in the story: racial undertones, questionable writing decisions, weird ness overall. I also think engaging critically helps us understand how an author's biases can inform what they write. Like, HP Lovecraft wrote eerie stories, he was also a raging racist. But we can argue that his fear of PoC, his antisemitism, and all of his weird fears informed a lot of what he was writing. His writing is so eerie because a lot of that fear comes from very real, nasty places. It's not to say we have to censor his works, but he influences a lot of horror today and those fears, that racial undertone, it is still very prevalent in horror movies today. That fear of the 'unknown,'

Gone with the Wind is an incredibly racist book. It's also a well-written book. I think a lot of people also like confine criticism to just a syntax/prose/technical level -- when in reality criticism should also be applied on an ideological level. Books that are well-written, well-plotted, etc., are also -- and should also -- be up for criticism. A book can be very well-written and also propagate harmful ideologies. I often read books that I know that (on an ideological level), I might not agree with. We can learn a lot from the books we read, even the ones we hate.

I just feel like we're getting to the point where people are just telling people to 'shut up and read' and making spaces for conversation a uniform experience. I don't want to be in a space where everyone agrees with the same point. Either people won't accept criticism of their favorite book, or they think criticism shouldn't be applied to books they think are well written. Reading invokes natural criticism -- so does writing. That's literally what writing is; asking questions, interrogating the world around you. It's why we have literary devices, techniques, and elements. It's never just taking the words being printed at face value.

You can identify with a character's trauma and still understand that their badly written. You can read a story, hate everything about it, and still like a character. As I stated a while back, I'm reading Fourth Wing; the book is terrible, but I like the main character. The worldbuilding is also terrible, but the author writes her PoC characters with respect. It's not hard to acknowledge one thing about the text, and still find enough to enjoy the book. And authors grow when we're honest about what worked and what didn't work. Shadow and Bone was very formulaic and derivative at points, but Six of Crows is much more inventive and inclusive. Veronica Roth's Carve the Mark had some weird racial problems, but Chosen Ones was a much better book in terms of representation. Percy Jackson is the same way. These writers grow, not just by virtue of time, but because they were critiqued and listened to that critique. C.S. Lewis and Tolkien always publically criticized each other's work. Zora Neale Hurston and Langston Hughes had a legendary friendship and back and forth with one another's works which provides so much insight into the conversations black authors and creatives were having.

Writing has always been about asking questions; prodding here and there, critiquing. It has always been a conversation, a dialogue. I urge people to love what they read, and read what they love, but always ask questions, always understand different perspectives, and always keep your mind open. Please stop stifling and controlling the conversations about your favorite literature, and please understand that everyone will not come out with the same reading experience as you. It doesn't make their experience any less valid than yours.

[confusionmeisss]

“Come home and shout at me. Come home and fight with me. Come home and break my heart, if you must. Just come home.” - Cardan Greenbriar

“I want to yell at you. I wish you were here so I could yell at you.” - Kit Herondale

parallels will be the end of me i fear

[mortalityplays]

Hi! I really liked and agreed with your post on purple prose, and I was curious what books if any you'd describe as having purple prose. Not even necessarily as shorthand for calling it bad! just examples of it, especially from non-classic literature. Unless the term is entirely subjective lol. Feel free to reply to this ask publicly or privately; I don't mind either way

Have some Conan the Barbarian (sorry about! the racism):

TORCHES flared murkily on the revels in the Maul, where the thieves of the east held carnival by night. In the Maul they could carouse and roar as they liked, for honest people shunned the quarters, and watchmen, well paid with stained coins, did not interfere with their sport. Along the crooked, unpaved streets with their heaps of refuse and sloppy puddles, drunken roisterers staggered, roaring. Steel glinted in the shadows where wolf preyed on wolf, and from the darkness rose the shrill laughter of women, and the sounds of scufflings and strugglings. Torchlight licked luridly from broken windows and wide-thrown doors, and out of those doors, stale smells of wine and rank sweaty bodies, clamor of drinking-jacks and fists hammered on rough tables, snatches of obscene songs, rushed like a blow in the face. In one of these dens merriment thundered to the low smoke- stained roof, where rascals gathered in every stage of rags and tatters—furtive cut-purses, leering kidnappers, quick- fingered thieves, swaggering bravoes with their wenches, strident-voiced women clad in tawdry finery. Native rogues were the dominant element—dark-skinned, dark-eyed Zamorians, with daggers at their girdles and guile in their hearts. But there were wolves of half a dozen outland nations there as well. There was a giant Hyperborean renegade, taciturn, dangerous, with a broadsword strapped to his great gaunt frame—for men wore steel openly in the Maul. There was a Shemitish counterfeiter, with his hook nose and curled blue-black beard. There was a bold- eyed Brythunian wench, sitting on the knee of a tawny-haired Gunderman—a wandering mercenary soldier, a deserter from some defeated army. And the fat gross rogue whose bawdy jests were causing all the shouts of mirth was a professional kidnapper come up from distant Koth to teach woman-stealing to Zamorians who were born with more knowledge of the art than he could ever attain.

Conan is an interesting example imo because it displays a lot of the highs and lows of pulp. Robert E. Howard could also write very punchy, straightforward action, and often did - but part of the selling point for the emerging genre fiction of the era was that it was lurid and lascivious. While the extract above is. Well. Bad. It is worth recognising that within its context it was also kind of experimental.

Howard wrote these drooling, sort of bewildering, sensory passages for the same reason Marvel movies punch you in the face with saturated colours and rapid cuts and a billion VFX. You see it in the work of H.P. Lovecraft too, and I will grudgingly acknowledge that that's something worth recognising about his literary impact. I also think Lovecraft was a pretty bad technical writer, personally, but that's a whole other soapbox.

My point is that a lot of truly purple prose today (in the sense that it is extraneous, distracting, undermines its own function) traces its legacy to this era of pulp where there was a distinct secondary purpose to overwhelming the reader with ornamentation. It was self-consciously indulgent, and strikingly distinct from the more genteel floridity of equally bad literary novelists. For instance, compare the above with the even purpler prose of the famously awful Irene Iddesleigh:

On being introduced to all those outside his present circle of acquaintance on this evening, and viewing the dazzling glow of splendour which shone, through spectacles of wonder, in all its glory, Sir John felt his past life but a dismal dream, brightened here and there with a crystal speck of sunshine that had partly hidden its gladdening rays of bright futurity until compelled to glitter with the daring effect they soon should produce. But there awaited his view another beam of life’s bright rays, who, on entering, last of all, commanded the minute attention of every one present—this was the beautiful Irene Iddesleigh. How the look of jealousy, combined with sarcasm, substituted those of love and bashfulness! How the titter of tainted mockery rang throughout the entire apartment, and could hardly fail to catch the ear of her whose queenly appearance occasioned it! These looks and taunts serving to convince Sir John of Nature’s fragile cloak which covers too often the image of indignation and false show, and seals within the breasts of honour and equality resolutions of an iron mould. On being introduced to Irene, Sir John concluded instantly, without instituting further inquiry, that this must be the original of the portrait so warmly admired by him. There she stood, an image of perfection and divine beauty, attired in a robe of richest snowy tint, relieved here and there by a few tiny sprigs of the most dainty maidenhair fern, without any ornaments whatever, save a diamond necklet of famous sparkling lustre and priceless value.

Christ. Hopefully you can see the depth of the scale here - the Conan extract is muddy and difficult to read, but this is near incomprehensible. Part of the reason this passage is so much worse is that there is even less intent behind the author's use of language. Here, she is working overtime to evoke a kind of dramatic-intellectual style borrowed from writers like the Brontë sisters (imo at least - not an expert, that's just the sense I get as a reader). The further these flourishes get from lending purpose to the meaning of the prose, the harder they are to parse.

BUT my other point is: far fewer writers these days set out to emulate Irene Iddesleigh's arch, roundabout, society conscious voice than they do the hallmarks of classic pulp. We're inured to sex and violence, sin and debauchery in fiction today, so extracts like the Conan example feel even more bloated than they did in their time. And that creates a real pitfall for amateur genre writers: the instinct to pay homage to the stylistic choices of the classics can lead them right into Irene Iddesleigh territory.

Too often, the purpose of these overwrought, leering descriptions isn't calculated to thrill the audience, but to establish a piece in the company of older works the writer admires. And that's what leads to truly purple prose in contemporary genre writing, which makes readers scoff and laugh, which makes authors self-conscious and timid, which leads us here to a point where wordy description is inaccurately identified as the problem. It's not. The problem is excess - and when something has purpose, by definition, it's not excessive.

[superfallingstars]

Personally I think jily is supposed to be idealized (like how James and lily were idealized) to Harry. James gets knocked of his pedestal in swm and so does jily by Harry questioning if his father forced his mother into marriage. Later when talking to lupin and Sirius James and Jily get a slight defense and Harry is back to feeling alright but with the knowledge that things weren’t perfect.

I personally don’t read Jily as abusive (even though I read James as being abusive to snape at school, but I don’t think that violent, physical behavior was extended to Lily) but I definitely don’t read them as a “good” couple (whatever that means). I think you can read it in many different ways given there is so little of them and I think an interpretation that their relationship wasn’t the healthiest is perfectly plausible with the scant information we’re given.

Yeahhhh that’s probably what JKR intended. James and Lily are the fridged parents who are dearly mourned and missed, and as a result, their flaws are completely smoothed over in everyone’s memories. But in Snape’s Worst Memory, Harry learns the hard lesson that things aren’t always what they seem, and that nobody is perfect, not even his dead father. Hurrah.

My problem with this is that I think it’s very boring, LOL. Like it really is probably exactly what JKR intended (given her middle-of-the-road takes on every moral and political question that happens in these books), but man, it feels like such a cop out. James basically ruins Snape’s life for no reason, and the conclusion we’re meant to draw from this is just, well, people are complicated! NO!!!! Bad answer!!! Like, Snape also did some terrible things, but at least he spends a ton of pages actively suffering/atoning for his sins. But James, on the other hand, is only somewhat implied to have changed maybe slightly a little bit somewhere off-page, and we just have to take #1 James Potter fanboy Sirius Black and serial understater Remus Lupin at their word. So if James was supposed to be “redeemed” – or even just excused – wow, it really doesn't work for me. You can't go as dark as "protagonist questions if his father forced his mother into marriage" and then just brush it off like no big deal, Joanne! And it’s so frustrating, because all it would've taken to fix this would've been to show James being a good person instead of just telling the reader that he was one (proof: trust me?). Ugh.

So because of all that, I agree that from what we’re given, it’s quite difficult to read Jily as “good.” We rarely see them interact, and when we do, James’s behavior is wayyyy too similar to the trope of “terrible guy eventually gets the girl even though she seems to hate him with every fiber of her being because his persistence and not taking no for an answer is just toooo romantic to resist.” Which sucks, lol. It feels like JKR is basically being like, “eh, James was young and dumb, whatever” and giving him a huge out for all the grief he caused Snape (and Lily, for that matter) – and she expects that the reader will agree that that is a legitimate excuse for his behavior, and by extension think that it's reasonable for Lily to forgive and eventually marry him. And man, I am just not sure if that is enough to convince me. (And evidently, I'm not alone, considering the “Jily is abusive” meta post that likely sparked this ask!)

With that said, I agree that it’s a stretch to say that James was abusive (or even implied to be abusive) toward Lily. It’s not a completely unfounded take – it could probably be written well in a fic, and even be canon compliant – but you would really have to extrapolate that dynamic from the little information we’re given (as you pointed out). And more importantly (at least, re: that meta), I don't think JKR intended that interpretation at all.

Personally, I just don’t think it makes sense for the narrative for James and Lily to have been in an abusive relationship. And by the narrative, I mean Harry. If Jily is an abusive (or even just bad) relationship, that would have massive ramifications for the way Harry sees his parents. Ideally he would have to come to terms with that at some point – I don’t think it makes sense for James’s and Lily’s relationship to have been this way and not have significantly affected Harry – but imo JKR clearly does not want to deal with that. Like you said, the point of SWM – aside from foreshadowing Lily and Snape’s relationship – was to knock James off his pedestal and basically go, See, nobody’s perfect. <3 And the story is not interested in engaging with James’s behavior on a level any deeper than that lol. Which ok, I don’t love it, but if we’re not going to spend time dealing with morally gray James, then it doesn’t make sense for him to be even more morally gray (or rather, have him fall face first over the line into becoming a downright despicable person) by making him abusive toward Lily.

So that's my Doylist analysis: no way in hell did JKR intend Jily to be an abusive relationship, but she also didn't do a good enough job defending and/or redeeming James after SWM, so we're just left to speculate about how much he really changed. Still, I don't think "JKR is a bad writer" is a very satisfying answer. After all, the only reason that I'm engaging with this text in the first place is because I'm a fan of it, so I think it's also worth looking at it from a Watsonian perspective – or at least, to accept the events of the book as they're written and try to fill in the blanks. (Imo so much of the fun of fandom is trying to fill in those blanks in a satisfying way, to expand upon a character and try to reach a more interesting conclusion than the author did... And I would be remiss not to mention that, because it undoubtedly influences the way that I (and probably also you, if you're on this side of tumblr) engage with the text.)

So for me, as a Marauders era fan, I’m faced with: ok, I don’t really like the idea of these two characters together, but they canonically got together, and I think the story is better because they got together, and it’s better if they genuinely like each other, and it all had to happen somehow – so how can I explain it in a way that both makes sense with the story and is satisfying to me? And my answer to that is twofold.

First, I imagine that James was not always quite such an awful guy (as in, not always as showy, combative, and cruel as he was in SWM). After all, there is a glimmer of goodness in him when he chooses to save Snape’s life during the Prank, revealing that somewhere deep down, he does in fact have a moral compass. And second, I think that he has to have changed. And I mean a genuine change – one that might not have resulted in completely different behavior (after all, he was still hexing Snape through his seventh year) – but regardless, something that makes him seriously reflect on his actions and reconsider his motivations. His behavior in SWM is just too inexcusable for him to get with Lily – partly because Lily is generally framed as a Very Good Person, and partly because regardless of how she is framed, James was still awful to her – without any self-reflection or growth. Of course, the problem then becomes explaining this in a satisfying way!

And I have some ideas in mind – but they’re definitely more speculation than fact, and omg this post is long enough already. Luckily, I received another ask on this topic, so I will save my self-indulgent headcanons for that.

There is one last thing I want to mention, which is (part of) my reasoning for why James may not have been such a bully all the time and why I think he has the capacity for change, and it's been nagging at me ever since I read that meta post (which again, presumably started this whole thing). I think one thing that bothers a lot of people (including me!) about James is that it seems like he chooses to pick on Snape in SWM because of Lily’s presence. He wants to show off to her, so he keeps looking over to the girls by the water, he ruffles his hair, he deepens his voice, and he tries to get her attention by targeting Snape. Following this logic, we can presume that James wouldn’t have done any of this if Lily hadn’t been there – and that’s the part that got me thinking. I have to wonder if Lily was perhaps not the only person who James wanted to impress in that scene… in fact, I think it’s incredibly likely that James would have acted differently if the Marauders hadn’t been there! (Harry has "the distinct impression that Sirius was the only one for whom James would have stopped showing off," and Sirius saying that he's bored is the inciting incident for James spotting Snape...!) Yes it’s going to be a James masculinity analysis because this is what happens every time I talk about these fucking characters apparently. So idk, stick around if you’re into that.

And of course, thank you for the ask!

[nondelphic]

literary fiction writers be like: “and here’s a 5-page description of an empty room. why? because it’s symbolic. of what? idk, but that’s for you to figure out.”

[artist-issues]

Some Things I Believe About Stories

Stories should not be PRIMARILY created to entertain. They should be created to teach, or encourage, or inspire, USING entertaining qualities. The Romans used entertainment to distract the populace from corruption. J. R. R. Tolkien, on the other hand, described "escapism" as "a prisoner of war escaping from enemy camp to go back home." You're not running from reality to fantasy when a story does it's job. You're running from the dark, twisted side of the world to something that reminds you of the good, the true, the beautiful, the correct. You've been imprisoned by bad ideas and confusion and dark perspectives, and the story shows you how to escape and get back to true and beautiful reality. It's got a point, it's not just for diversion.

Stories should be made to serve others and leave the world better than they found it. Storytellers should not only tell a story to exorcize their personal demons or point to how clever and artistic they are. That can be a nice bonus. But the point should be to serve the audience. Think about it. When it's made, it's timeless; it will be read or watched or listened to by the next generation, or the next. What are the storytellers letting fall into the hands of the people who come after they're not around to explain or gain a profit?

The storyteller should be passionate about the story while they make it. This could look like a sense of duty, or fun, or just excitement. But those outward emotions usually signal an inward understanding of how important the story is, and therefore, a level of compassion and care for the eventual audience.

You can like a story or dislike a story. You can interpret a story or misinterpret a story. Those things are subjective. But whether or not a story is good is objective: it can be measured. Does the story say what it is trying to say in the clearest, most compelling way possible? If yes, it's a good story. If no, it might be great entertainment. It might be funny. It might be cool. It might be quotable or franchise-able or profitable or even memorable. But it's not a good story if it does not say something in the clearest, most compelling way possible.

A story's main point, or theme, is the most important thing about it. The characters, the set design, the pacing, the soundtrack, the language, the use of color or lighting or blocking etc.; all of those pieces work best when they are unified in the goal of communicating that main point or theme.

Death of the author = death of the story. It's point is to say something. If you claim the speaker's intent is meaningless, so are the words spoken. If you claim it can mean anything, your words are meaningless too. We all might as well tell no stories and blabber gibberish instead. It’s one thing to say you understand what the author intended, and you like to think of it in/wish it were another way. But it’s quite another to say that what the author intended is unknowable or doesn’t matter. You’re either calling the author a bad storyteller or, again, recommending we all speak gibberish.

Both form (the quality of the story and it's elements) and content (the main point or lessons) matter. Without one you have a lecture, not a story. Without the other you have entertainment, but no valuable, timeless, beautiful truth to make it a “story.”

[weaponizedducks]

something something coriolanus snow is only as human as the people he surrounds himself with. grows up with tigris and his humanity is intact. he cares. tigris is one of the constants in his life. this is the starting point. he loses some to the things he's seen and had to do but mostly it's still there. becomes a capitol student and finds sejanus. sejanus keeps him human, keeps him kind, and coriolanus does not want to accept that so he tries to push him away but sejanus won't go. with sejanus he is at his most human ad at his best. he's a constant. he's familiar. he can be trusted. coriolanus snow takes them as a constant, thinks they will always be there. he meets lucy gray. lucy gray is not the same as the others. her humanity is half intact, but the half she has is blooming and blossoming with warmth and life. coriolanus is drawn to her tenacity, her stubborness, the same way he was drawn to sejanus. with her his humanity blooms a little too. but she's not a constant. but she's a little like a drug- he craves her, craves the thrill. he helps her win the games, and somehow he both loses and gains humanity. he's a killer now, he's a liar, but he has done it for the good of someone else this time. rescuing sejanus from the arena makes him realise this. it scares him. he's sent away to the districts and the blooming, growing warmth in him begins to dwindle with his hope. for a few hours he believes he is alone. all of his constants are gone, or so he thinks. but he's searching for his drug, his half- human, and there's a hungry kind of humanity in him. sejanus arrives and he blooms and he forgets to hide it because how can he. love scares him. he's afraid and while sejanus is a constant he's an unpredictable one. he might not be trusted. i think he's happiest with lucy gray and sejanus in the same place, free, wild, and his humanity might just be at a settling level. a comfortable level. then he kills sejanus and his humanity begins it's decline. sejanus is half of his humanity and he knows this. he hates it and he is afraid of his humanity, afraid to leave it and afraid to acknowledge it. he kills him and he kills his humanity. the terror and the guilt he feels and he knows he's made a mistake, that his humanity might not recover. he runs with lucy gray in a desperate attempt to save it, but lucy gray is not like the rest of them. she will not blindly trust him, will not let him get away with treating her badly. she is stubborn- she is a wildflower. when she leaves she takes his humanity with her. he returns to the capitol. he kills casca highbottom, a man with humanity, a man like sejanus, like lucy gray. a bit of his humanity dies with him. he surrounds himself with people like gaul and his humanity withers and twists into something he tries to convince himself is the same, is right. he's falling, and he knows it, and he can't afford to have anything that reminds him of lucy gray, of sejanus, of his humanity. eventually he sends tigris away with the last of his blackened, rotted humanity. he lives with his dying heart for year and each day it grows a little less. dies a little more. then in his last years he sees katniss with her stubborn tenacity and strong opinion and refusal to bow, and peeta with his kindness and quiet strength and performance and for a moment he sees sejanus and lucy gray and tigris and his heart grows a single flower. and then he dies with it.

[volitioncheck]

nvm this is still on my brain. kim does not like to watch harry suffer… to say that kim takes satisfaction in harry’s pain is a huge misconstruing of his character.

the “getting thrashed like a schoolboy” line comes from a board game, lol. it’s a tease, not a cruelty. there’s never any line that implies that Kim enjoys seeing Harry taking actual morale damage.

he can be amused if you fail a check, but the check is always relatively inconsequential, and again, Harry isn’t taking damage in these.

Failing to pry the trash bin open:

Failing to shatter Ruby’s lorry window:

(also in both of these examples he only responds smugly if you choose for Harry to stubbornly dig in his heels. if Harry gets huffy, Kim teases. If Harry backs down right away Kim won’t rub it in, which feels significant to me! it reminds me of that recent post goin around about Kim meeting your energy!)

and here’s some reactions to failed checks where he does take damage.

Failing the jump to get your cloak:

Failing to break down Plaisance’s door:

he’s not laughing if Harry’s taking damage because he’s not a dick lol.

aaaaand here’s some other instances of morale/health damage and kim’s reactions.

alternate dialogue for failing the harbor jump:

after the call with precinct 41:

seeing bullet holes in the wall:

most significant examples to argue this point for me come when harry has done something to jeopardize the RCM’s image. which kim goes on and on about the importance of maintaining— and yet even here, he still extends worry and assurance.

telling Billie about her husband and handling it badly:

hardie authority check failure cock carousel:

aaaaand the car. this line is one of the most mask-off kim moments we get in the game in my opinion, honestly.

tying this back to the schoolboy line— that line doesn’t show up if you have a negative reputation with Kim. if you have <1 rep, it gets replaced with him calling it “about four hours of our lives that we'll never get back,” lol.

it’s affectionate ribbing!! twisting it into anything else is bizarre 2 me lmao!

anyways. kim is a foil to every other cop we meet in the game specifically because he doesn’t view harry as a punching bag or a lost cause. gottlieb does nothing but sling jabs and glib jokes about harry’s health. torson+mclaine and the others laugh at harry’s panic attack over the radio. in response to harry’s suicide-by-car attempt(!!!!) jean yells about RCM budget. all kim’s lines in response to harry’s check failures and health-damage are consistent, explicit textual contrast against the callousness of the rest of the RCM. twisting kim’s character here requires a bad faith interpretation of the whole game.

[antigonick]

Finished Wuthering Heights... Heartbroken to be already done, but count on the Brontës for curing your reading slump every damn time. Maybe this summer I can read books again and all that.

Also since it's the era of FMK spinning wheels on Tumblr these days I have to know tell me. Would you fuck marry kill: Catherine Earnshaw, Heathcliff, Edgar Linton

[foursaints]

as your book recs are absolutely exquisite, what kinda books are the gang reading, mainly remus, reg, james barts even all them guys ( if they even read at all)

this is an elaborate excuse to get book recommendations from user foursaints everyone shut up

i imagine the slytherins as all very literary (pureblood tutoring will do this to you) which is a popular hc! but i think people tend to lump “the classics” together & assume the slytherins are all reading the same handful of Big Name canonized authors, which can be so reductive…. what about literary infighting.

respectfully you could not find regulus black within a MILE of camus or sartre or kafka! he finds them childish & cheap & sensationalist because he prefers the grandeur of stuffier armchair classics and he has a self-serious bent. he has a secret tendency towards sweeping romance and also enjoys the florid. regulus black is reading PROUST and PUSHKIN and he nurses a deep, uncharacteristic love for RIMBAUD. his most enduring favorites are rilke’s letters and moliere’s plays and goethe’s Faust. and he will call dostoyevsky juvenile if you bring him up!

evan likes his literature bleak and straightforward and sharp as a knife. he is open to experimentation with form. he likes short stories and playwrights. flannery o’conner is a MAJOR one for him, also thomas hardy, also august strindberg, also ibsen’s later works. he fucks with russian formalism a la viktor shklovsky. he probably has a gigantic boner for ezra pound and yukio mishima that everyone mocks him for and he has a warmth towards brecht & stein.

barty is my modernism #understander and #darling… he straddles evan and regulus’s tastes in that he enjoys both the stuffy & the deconstructed, but he has a taste for vulgarity and more of an openness to the playful. joyce. pirandello. eco. maeterlinck. borges. lorca. out of everyone i see him enjoying chekhov the most, and having a secret but very powerful attachment to him….

yes they are all reading the same hyper-canonical eurocentric aristocratic drawing room picks but they are NOT just reading Crime And Punishment or whatever. it’s like the english department on sabbatical in there. they are on the verge of coming to blows about it the whole time……..

[anachronistic-cat]

I think everyone needs to be at least a little obsessed with some old piece of literature that nobody else around you cares about. It's good for you.

[carl0p]

The madness went away with the summer, the melancholy arrived with autumn

-Carla.C.

[maceysbookclub]

4 types of criticism

So my Criticism vs Bullying post went well, I thought I would Expand on it a bit.

There are 4 types of criticism. Positive constructive, Negative constructive, Positive Destructive, and Negative Destructive.

Positive Constructive is what we all want to hear. "I love this so much, this character is written so well. I like when they do x or y." The unfortunate thing is we don't get enough affirmations when we do something well and this is the rarest form of criticism. You will only experience this when you have an audience who really like your work.

Negative Constructive is the bread and butter of criticism. You need to be told what doesn't work so you can improve. "I didn't like this because this character did x and that's not believable." You should love this, even though it might hurt to admit your faults. Do not fight against this criticism, people are trying to help you.

Positive Destructive, the worst enemy of the beginner. You probably got this without knowing it. You ask a friend or family or loved ones to look at your work. Then a few weeks later, ask them what they think. "Oh, I liked it, keep going." Like great input, what did you like? Did you even read it? Was there anything you didn't like? I need help. They mean well, but don't want to discourage you with criticism. Unfortunately this comes off as uncaring, but the reality is they weren't interested, or they didn't have time to spare. Don't blame them, they have lives where you aren't the center of their world. They want to help, but you are asking the wrong person. Just accept the compliment and keep looking for a better test subject.

Negative Destructive is just frustrating. It gives you little to work with and offers no insight. "I hated this character." At least you got that they didn't like something, now you need to figure out what they didn't like about the character. This is probably the most common form of criticism and it usually isn't meant to be mean, but the critic doesn't know what they didn't like or how to communicate it.

Criticism can be harsh, but the people who care most about your work are the ones giving it. Think of the people who pile on to big things like star wars. They like it, so they want to make it clear that they don't like the changes. They want the end result to be good, and if you fight against them, you are actively hurting your audience. This is a big issue in the games industry right now, where developers refuse to take criticism and are attacking the players who care most about the games. They are making the players out to be the bad guy when all they want is to help and be involved in something they care about.

Not all criticism is correct, but it is worth listening to. You get to hear who the people are who want to support you. Just because you disagree doesn't mean they don't have value to share.

[spiderh0rse]

every lets player in the world is cookie9

[moonworshippinglesbiandotcom]

i saw a really good post about the significance of food in the hunger games universe but i don't think i managed to reblog it. i wanted to further refine that point and add to it by providing a very brief recognition of the significance of bread specifically in the hunger games universe.

in both the modern world and ancient world, bread is seen as the quintessential food to an extent; it has come to stand for sustenance (think of "give us this day our daily bread" from the bible, and other famous phrases that use bread metonymically to represent food or sustenance). the name of the country in the hunger games universe comes from the latin phrase panem et circenses which means bread and circuses (or bread and games depending on the translation) and is, itself, metonymic and represents the fickle nature of the romans as they became mostly concerned with being fed and entertained. the same, obviously, can be said about the people of the capitol, whose only concerns are being fed and entertained, with little regard for the health and welfare of those who labour for those quotas to be met. there's also mentions of the different types of bread in the capitol, and how these breads are here, ultimately, to line tables. they are complimentary but they are not the whole meal.

in the districts, bread is a barrier between life and death. katniss' life, as well the lives of her mother and prim, is saved by two loaves of bread. the same things that garnish capitol tables fill up district tables. there is no space or disposable income or freedom in the districts for the luxury of the capitol. bread to the districts is not just the quintessential food, it is the food, period. it is the one thing that they can rely on, and it is ultimately what they are rewarded with when they choose to sign up for tesserae, and when one of their own wins the games. bread does not just occupy the dining tables but also cultural rituals. we see this in tbosas when sejanus breaks into the arena to sprinkle bread crumbs over marcus' dead body, to provide sustenance for his journey in the afterlife, a cultural practice brought from district 2. we also see it in the marriage rituals of district 12, what katniss calls the toasting, where the married couple toasts bread together and shares it, thus almost consummating their marriage.

what i'm trying to show (quite poorly; i apologise) is the importance of bread in the districts compared to the capitol; in the districts, bread consumes everything because it is the most readily available foodstuff; it can be made, though blandly, with the grain they receive, and each district has a different way of expressing their individuality through their bread. bread, and the general sense of lack, is one thing that seems to bind the districts, regardless of the attempts at class divide and they only make apparent the overwhelming difference between the capitol and the districts. bread permeates every aspect of life for those in the districts, from their nuptials, to signing up for the hunger games, to their funeral rites. in the hunger games universe, bread serves as a social marker, and it stresses the fundamental difference between the capitol and the districts.