#not because I think people should read “adult” books because they're adult themselves

[romanticatheartt]

The fun is over

People can read whatever they want even if it's for the younger audiences. And funny enough most of YA books I've seen and read are in 3rd person...

If people stop telling other what to read and what not to read would be perfect. You can enjoy any form of literacy without shaming others or feel ashamed.

[frownyalfred]

Can I get clarification on your pro shipping post? The example you gave was a 20 year old with a 40 year old, and that's "problematic" (not really), but not really what I think of when I hear "pro shipping". Usually it's the shipping of minor/adult or incestuous relationships that I see getting defended. Does being against fictional works/ships that depict pedophilic or incestuous relationships as normal/romantic count as puritanism to you? Do you see the ship of Bruce Wayne/Damian Wayne as a personal preference with no moral implications?

I think there's a huge difference between being personally against something, and wanting to shame others or ban others from reading or writing something. The Puritanism comes from wanting to limit and ostracize others who don't share your beliefs. It comes from believing that your perspective is the only morally right one.

I think there will always be people who want to write or read about ships like that, yeah -- incest, pseudo-incest, everything in between. By moral implications, do you mean for the person interested in the ship? Or do you mean for others? Because I see that concern a lot on here -- this idea that somehow, by wanting to read/write about something, people are either 1) harming others by spreading this morally wrong ship or 2) harming themselves by normalizing the ship, and therefore making it more likely that they'll pursue similar relationships in their real lives.

We don't have much evidence for either of those claims. People have been clutching their pearls and wringing their hands over "morally wrong" books for ages -- and yet, Game of Thrones is still available in every bookstore. Am I a bad or woefully misguided person for having read Lolita in high school? Is a 16 year old reading a Bruce/Damian fic likely to turn around, shrug, and say "guess fucking my Dad is okay now"? Did an entire generation of fans shipping Wincest somehow have lasting, moral effects? I really don't think so. Not at the scale anti-shippers online seem to think, at least.

I think we need to separate how we moralize people from the content that they consume. And acknowledge that shaming and excluding people for wanting to read something doesn't exactly do much to prevent "moral implications." There's also a huge difference between reading a book, and endorsing the ideas/events inside of it. Same things with fics.

Anti-shipping is very appealing to people because it purports to protect people from harm. Until you look a little closer, and you realize that that protection comes at the expense of free expression, creative license, and agency to choose what we personally do and do not consume. And that that protection isn't really airtight out of your anti-shipping discord or tumblr community.

I think the best we can do is let people write and read what they want -- whatever they want, with limited warnings/etc like ao3 employs -- and ensure that those pieces of content are tagged, warned, and displayed accurately. We need to understand that the only control we have is over ourselves, and what we choose personally to consume or not consume.

I don't generally read those fics you mentioned, but I'm not saying they should be banned from ao3. Just because I might possibly think they're wrong or gross doesn't mean I think the person who wrote them is wrong or gross, either. The more we go down that moral slip and slide, like I said in my previous post, the worse off we will all become.

[olderthannetfic]

Why is there now apparently discourse about how listening to audiobooks isn't REAL reading, of course with maximum condescension?

I guess the assumption is that people listen to audiobooks because they don't have the attention span to sit down and focus on reading a book? And that by not forcing themselves to read they're further rotting their brains?

In my experience, choosing audiobooks over written books has everything to do with time and place and very little to do with attention span and preference. Most people listen to audiobooks while driving, doing chores or hobbies, exercising, etc. because they're adults with busy lives who still want to experience books.

Or, they have impaired vision and physically cannot read, in which case this whole argument is especially mean-spirited.

--

I definitely can have a different experience of a book that way. A good reader can add a lot or things can be harder to follow without seeing how some made-up word is spelled or whatever. But yes, it's a silly form of gatekeeping.

Reading reading is superior because it's one of the fastest ways to input a shitton of information, and it's more likely to teach you spelling and punctuation. But that's it. It won't make you more of an intellectual. It won't mean you're more or less capable of experiencing a book that also has an audio version.

This is the kind of thing we should care about for school kids because, no matter how we go on about different learning styles, the kid who has to use documentary/audio/etc. is going to input half the info of the kid who is good at reading words on a page. Vocabularies suffer, among other obvious signs and issues. (Yes, even if you listen at 2x speed. It's only comparable if you're a slow reader of text, the very thing school wants to address.)

But for an adult trying to do a handsfree activity? For someone savoring a fiction book for entertainment where speed is not a priority and may even be a minus? For someone who actually is a bad reader of text but likes books?

I'm perfectly willing to entertain the semantic argument about what constitutes "reading", but people aren't making a semantic argument: they're saying "You're dumb if you listen instead of using words on a page".

--

Honestly, aside from pure snobbery, I think a lot of this comes from people whose attention wanders when they listen but who are voracious and unusually capable readers of text. It never occurs to them that other people are more skilled at listening.

[ingravinoveritas]

Hello, lovely followers. I was traveling for work again in the second half of this past week, but I'm now home and looking forward to answering all of your Asks that I've been seeing in my inbox. I first wanted to reflect a little bit, however, because this trip was also a personal one for me.

This week's travels took me to Anaheim, California, which is where Disneyland is (I think I actually must've not been far from where David and Georgia just were, funnily enough, as my hotel was right by the park). It wasn't my first trip to Anaheim, though. The last time I was there was when I was 11 years old, on summer vacation with my dad in California while my mom was on a tour in Italy at the same time. As you'd expect, my dad wanted to take me to Disneyland...but I was too scared and overwhelmed, and we only ever got as far as the parking lot. The gates were visible, and I remember how they loomed, that feeling of something foreboding washing over me...but rather than excitement, my tiny body was filled with dread. I mentioned this while in conversation with one of the hotel employees during my stay, and he said, "What kind of kid doesn't want to go to Disney?"

What kind of a kid. Well, an autistic kid. A kid who was constantly anxious, emotional, and terrified of sensory overload. A kid who hated crowds and noise and rides. A kid who didn't travel well to begin with, because she was afraid of new places, anything unfamiliar, anything that wasn't safe and home.

A kid who was me.

Even before this, there were so many ways that the world had said "This is not for you." But still, there was something different about it happening there, in the bright California sunshine. My favorite Disney princess as a kid was always Belle, because she also loved to read and didn't fit in with the people around her. Belle connected more with books and animals than people, and that made me connect with her. But Belle was also beautiful (as Disney princesses tend to be), and thanks to the bullying from my peers, I was very aware that was something I was not. So no matter how much I wanted to be Belle, there was no way I could ever be a Disney princess.

This is not for you.

Thinking about all of this during my trip made me feel so many things, but I was most surprised to find myself feeling a sense of nostalgia in particular, a longing for the child I was, who I wish I could comfort. It also made me feel such sadness for that child and anyone else who finds themselves in a situation or a place where the world thinks they should be happy, but they're not. And there are few things more difficult than feeling that way in (of all places) "the happiest place on Earth."

I didn't end up going to Disney on this trip, even though I had a little bit of time to do so. It's still not for me, but the difference now is that I am okay with that. That need to be the kid who wants to visit Disney--the "good" child, the child who isn't "broken"--has gone away, and I'm more than happy being adult me, and finding a place that fits me, instead of the other way around.

And that was my nostalgia trip, in quite the literal sense of the phrase. I have a picture or two to share in another post, so stay tuned for that as well...

[nohoperadio]

Some of my coworkers (I work in a bookshop, I'm getting kinda tired of having to add that parenthetical to every work story I tell on here but it's often essential context, I wish there was a better way. Why can't you just fucking pay attention and remember where I work, that would be nice?) are very smug and proud of themselves about the fact that they make a habit of ratting out teenagers to their parents when they're trying to buy books (to be fair I could probably have just let the context do its own work in this particular post, I didn't really need to say anything. I'm sorry I spoke to you like that earlier) which are, according to the bookseller's no doubt eminently wise and edifying judgment, not age-appropriate--not outright refusing sales, but like when a teen and their parent are both at the till, saying something like "oh just so you're aware this book has some controversial stuff in it"--and I hope I continue to successfully hide how much this pisses me off because oh my fucking god.

Mostly this happens with Colleen Hoover books, who if you're unaware is a very tiktok-popular romance author whose books are sometimes accused of glorifying abusive relationship dynamics, I haven't read her and don't have a good sense of to what extent this is a fair accusation vs people misrepresenting the books to score backlash discourse points, neither possibility would surprise me, but also I don't think the answer to that question is very relevant to anything.

And look, I accept that my free speech absolutist radical position of "teenagers are less stupid than you probably think but even the stupid ones probably should be allowed some intellectual liberties maybe, they're going to be adults in like five minutes jesus christ" is not something everyone can embrace, I do. But the sheer glee with which this one guy the other day was telling the story of a mom getting quite angry with her daughter when he told her about what she's trying to buy, like "haha someone's gonna have an awkward conversation when they leave the shop!", is so so ugly to me... like it would be much easier to believe this was a principled moral stance if you weren't actively making fun of the people you're claiming to protect! And holy shit do you not remember this exact experience, of being a teenager and a bunch of adults who are clearly not actually smarter or better than you nonetheless having strong opinions about what kinds of things you ought to be enjoying and spending time on and thinking about? Do you not remember how much that sucked? (I'm like a decade older than most of these booksellers, I should be the cranky old person whose heart has been consumed by cheap cynical moralism, not them!!)

I could add a little bit here about how obviously it's only the books that are girl-coded that receive this higher level of scrutiny and shaming, but sadly it's getting dark and I had intended to make this a short post so I could go for a run after and I should really do that now if I'm gonna do it at all, you'll have to think about that part in your own time. Sorry for ranting everyone I hope we're all having a chill Saturday apart from me. Are we having a chill Saturday?

[okerum]

people who put all their energy into hating teresa annoy me a lot, tbh. of course, people can have their own opinions, but its when people go out of their way to rip on her at EVERY CHANCE they get without spending even a SECOND to try to understand her or put themselves in her shoes.

i highkey hate the way the movies portrayed her, but in them, she placed the wellbeing of the entire world above her own. she explicitly asked that her friends NOT be harmed-- and i think blaming HER for the harm that minho faced even more than janson or ava (the fully grown adults who hold the power) is silly and extremely misplaced. there wasn't really ANY good option in her shoes-- choose herself and her friends and let the world die around her, BECAUSE of her, or choose the world around her while letting her friends continue to suffer, also because of her. there is no winning for her. she wanted to help people-- she thought that if she made a deal with ava, she could help people while minimizing the harm to her friends. and once more to emphasize-- she is 16. she is a child, and i dont believe in the movies she even HAS 16 years of memories to help her make good decisions. she was told by WCKD that she could help people, and that is ultimately what she cared about the most. WCKD, and more specifically ava and janson, were the ones who lied to her, manipulated her, and misled her. and since the cure WAS possible in the movies, her actions were even more justified! it's so weird to me how people act like she was so heartless and like she purposely hurt people when we see time and time again that she cares DEEPLY for everyone. you'd have to watch the films with your eyes closed not to see it.

and in the books, (i only read half of tfc so bear with me if i'm missing info) she only betrayed thomas, she warned him beforehand, and she spent the entire rest of the series trying to make up for it to the point where she sacrificed herself to save him. thomas was her EVERYTHING. she betrayed him because she thought he'd die otherwise. she would do ANYTHING to avoid that-- she'd decieve him, she'd hit him, she'd sacrifice herself for him. not to mention, since her memories weren't swiped, she was still entirely under WICKED's thumb-- the YEARS, the DECADE they spent grooming her and manipulating her into trusting them, doing their bidding, the lies they told her, are still affecting her. she's still 16. she's still a child. once again, to blame her for her actions that she was specifically groomed into by WICKED, instead of WICKED itself, is extremely misguided and a little gross to me, honestly.

in the movies, teresa wanted to help as many people as she could even at the cost of her friends. in the books, teresa wanted nothing more than to keep her lover as safe as possible, even at the cost of his trust and any possibility of love between them. she's simulataneously selfish and selfless, kind and cruel. she's all too willing to give up her own wants in order to reach her ultimate end goal, all too willing to put people in harm's way to prevent any further pain. once you look at her for just a few seconds, if you try even an ounce to see her character for what it is, you'll see a child who was put in a position where she had to make a decision no child should ever have to make. no child should have to choose between their friends or the world. no child should have to choose between their lover and themself. and no child should be blamed for their actions that are a result of grooming enacted by a number of fully grown adults who understand fully what they're doing.

if you don't like her, again, that's okay!! she made bad decisions and she hurt people in the process. but before u start talking down on her, before u proclaim your hate at any chance you get, think for a second about how she could've ended up there. and dont insult people for liking her. because on tiktok, at least, people are really bad about that Dx

[greenerteacups]

I think I've seen you mention in previous asks that you didn't really like aspects (or possibly the whole thing) of DH. I'm curious if you could expound more on that? Was it the horcrux hunting? The hallows themselves? Did you think the final battle came too quickly? What did you want to see when you read it the first time? And looking back as an adult what ways do you think DH should have been altered?

I've always found DH has too many plot holes.... Almost like it tried to wrap itself up too quickly. When I was reading the books as a kid I actually thought there'd be more than 7 books. Like there'd be a least one more since the war began and ended rather quickly when the first wizarding war seemed to go on for years.

To make a long story short, I don't like DH because it's not a war story, and Books 5 and 6 read like the setups for a war story. They are books packed with espionage and spycraft, flareups of violence, and are simmering with tension. In contrast, most of DH is spent camping in a forest, far away from anywhere that the Death Eaters or the main battle could have been. The Order has vanishingly little to do and the friends that we spent the last 6 books making and learning to care about vanish until the last act, where half of them die in a big battle that only happens because Harry needs to find the last horcrux.

And the thing is, horcruxes are a great plot mechanic for the final book, because they give you discrete milestones that count down to the final battle. They also clearly establish why you can't just rock up and fight Voldemort the old-fashioned way, i.e., why the Order needs to run defense for most of the book. What they don't explain is why the Order isn't then a much bigger part of the horcrux hunt, because by all accounts, Harry's first move should be to tell them what's up with Voldemort and how they can help, including — especially!— if Harry and the Trio happen to die, in which case the only knowledge of how to kill Voldemort would die with him. This is the nightmare scenario, and I cannot think of a counterfactual risk attached to telling the Order that would outweigh the danger of this happening. But I could honestly tolerate plot holes if it weren't for the thematic problem — if the story is about love and familial sacrifice, why do we spend 75% of the last book completely disconnected from the found-family that Harry built? Why are the Weasleys gone? Where is Ginny? Where is Molly? Where is Lupin?

The book really should have been called "Harry Potter and the Last Horcrux," in my opinion. The Hallows are red herrings, and they're used more as excuses to set up nice scenes/moments than they ever are as mechanics that fully integrate into the world. The ring gives Harry the ability to talk to his parents before the final sacrifice, which is a nice touch, and it explains why his Invisibility Cloak is so OP, but (and I've complainted about this before, but TLDR) the Elder Wand stuff makes no sense except as a buff for Harry in the final battle to explain how he beats Voldemort in a 1v1. Which, fine, but it opens up more questions than it ties off: how does it work? What does this mean for wand ownership? Is it actually possible for a wand to be "unbeatable"? Also, why do wands respond to fucking monkey-in-the-middle rules? If you hand your wand to someone, does that count as disarming? Etc., etc. And it also weakens the final battle of the series, which should be about Harry as a person triumphing over Voldemort because he was capable of doing something Voldemort never could, i.e., fully and willingly sacrificing himself for another person (or people). You have a soft magic system! You don't need to invent these weird rules of wand ownership to give Harry the W here! There's so much more that could have been done with this!

So. To leave a long story long, I was disappointed with Deathly Hallows. It wasn't bad, in that there were no decisions I thought were galling or egregious breaks with someone's character, and nothing happened that ruined what came before; but there was a ton of missed potential, and that's why I still kvetch about it all these years later.

[hylialeia]

thoughts on the Daevabad Trilogy, short version: holy shit that was good

longer version:

holy shit that was good.

I adored the writing style, the imagery, the worldbuilding, the characters, the character dynamics, and the pacing all the way through. I first picked up this series because of how Global Medievalism talked about it as a stepping stone away from Eurocentric medieval fantasy and it definitely delivered. this is tied with Spinning Silver for my favorite recent reads--which is even more impressive since SS was a standalone, meanwhile this series kept up a consistently high quality across three separate books.

after Fourth Wing masquerading as a rich, complex adult fantasy and then being What It Actually Was, this was an immensely satisfying series to pick up. it skirts the fantasy staple of the Inherently Evil Race/Species that so many works fall into (even asoiaf with the Others) and instead opts to explore in-depth religious and racial prejudices, revolutions, bigotry, power, and privilege in ways that can be frightening for a lot of authors (and readers). I can see why this series would frustrated a large swath of fantasy fans and not just because it steps completely away from the Europe-but-slightly-to-the-left settings that they're so familiar with; people looking for escapism and a palatable black-and-white conflict definitely wouldn't find it here.

that said, I also think the narrative did a fantastic job of showcasing the brutality of oppression, as well as cycles of revenge and violence, without turning into a sermon about how anyone who fights back is Just As Bad as the oppressor. you can sympathize with any faction within the trilogy while still seeing that there's a clear hierarchy. this is a series that asks the reader to be open minded and to sympathize with a variety of people's suffering while still condemning heinous actions, crimes, and ways of thinking. portrayals of violence, swearing, and sex aside, this is where I believe the adult label is earned. the Daevabad Trilogy outshines Fourth Wing in its entirety, actually following through on promises of depth, complexity, and exploration.

I don't think the series reaches into absolutely flawless territory; on reflection, there are a lot of scenes I wish we'd seen happening in the moment rather than summarized or briefly flashed back to. this goes especially for the end of the last book, Empire of Gold, which would have enhanced the pacing quite a bit. there's a bit of rushing through the final battle, and though it's still quite fantastic and follows through on a deal of foreshadowing and character build-up, it definitely feels over too soon. there are also a few loose ends and potential conflicts when it comes to the characters themselves that the series felt too tired to actually flesh out by the end. I can forgive that chiefly because of just how well-rounded and consistent the characters themselves are, even despite those instances.

and holy shit did I adore these characters. I've only seen the barest tip of the iceberg of discourse this series caused (which I'm sure was insane when it first came out), but thankfully the 10 million+ Way More Problematic Characters (that I also love) in asoiaf has made me immune to whatever the hell was going on over there. I also couldn't get involved in a ship war if you paid me.

I think the first book made a good call only having Nahri and Ali's POVs not just from a technical standpoint (Dara's POV wouldn't have added much, and may have even spoiled some meaningful twists) but also in priming the reader for what is the heart of the entire trilogy: their dynamic. Nahri and Ali carry the series whether they're young, platonic best friends who should be enemies, awkward ex-friends who still get a long way too well, or best friends who are deeply in love which each other but too traumatized to admit it. they both stand incredibly well as individuals (evidenced by the fact that they don't even meet until over the halfway mark in the first book), with Ali being a particular favorite of mine from the very beginning. their opposite upbringings yet similar interests made them a fantastic duo, one where it made sense the impact each one would have on the other's journey. there's something so incredibly endearing about their inability to legitimately dislike each other despite their circumstances, one that makes sense based on their already established personalities; they propel the series' most meaningful moments.

for the elephant in the room: as frustrating as Dara's POV could be I found it a worthy and fascinating addition in the later books, one that I think a lot of people missed the weight of if they were too busy excusing him/hating him. his perspective, biased and misguided as it often was, provided so much rich exploration of the trilogy's overall themes: militarism, religious fanaticism, prejudice, free will, just war, revolution, cycles of violence, conditioning and abuse, etc. that so much of this seemed to fall to the wayside in a strive to decide if he was excusable or not (and thus a viable love interest or not) is a huge shame. his ending was, to me, profoundly satisfying; not redeemed but finally allowed to act of his own free will, no longer bound by outside magic or internalized religious obligation. I never violently disliked Dara and Nahri's romantic entanglement so much as I knew it was doomed from the moment Ali had a POV chapter.

the secondary characters were no less engaging for me, especially as their prominence grew throughout the books, antagonists or otherwise. it was refreshing to see Muntadhir and Jamshid's individual characters (and thus their relationship) become a more prominent aspect of the story--again, especially after the tokenism in Fourth Wing. side characters always seemed to have deeper personalities and roles to play, with even early character deaths like Anas having lasting impacts for our main POVs. their presence was as vital to the immersion and depth of the world as much as the setting and imagery--which are also aspects that completely blew me away. from character, technical, to thematic standpoints, the Daevabad Trilogy absolutely amazed me.

final thoughts and rating: if you give me a book where two married characters are in love with the other's brother and expect me not to give it a high rating you're insane. 8/10. maybe even 9/10. go read these books.

[writingquestionsanswered]

I have a question about publishing, especially in the YA or New Adult genre. Friends and I read a book series recently where the books after the 1st were kinda sloppily written, and I saw that each book was published a year after the other. It happened again on this other book series I'm reading. And it made me wonder if the problem behind this is that some authors HAVE to publish once a year and can't devote time to editing as they otherwise would. (I'm really not saying this to be mean btw)

Subsequent Books in Series Seem Sloppy

I would be curious to know whether these books are self-published or traditionally published. It matters, so I'll answer for both.

In the Case of Self-Published Books - When you self-publish, the only publishing timeline you have to meet is your own, so you wouldn't have a situation where the author "has" to publish once every year and can't devote time to editing. There are a lot of opinions as to how often self-published authors should publish, and since it's common for traditionally published authors to publish every year or so, it's common for self-published authors to aspire to a similar timeline. However, that shouldn't preclude a self-published author from doing the necessary self-editing and/or hiring a professional editor. The truth is, many self-published authors publish two or three books per year or more, and their books are still well-edited.

Having said that... the harsh reality of self-publishing is a lot of people go into it hoping they're going to have the next big TikTok sensation, so they invest thousands of dollars into their book for editing, cover design, interior design, formatting, promotional materials, and more. Then, the book doesn't sell as well as they'd hoped and they don't make back the money they invested. They may find themselves in a situation where they simply can't afford to hire a professional editor for the second and third book, but they put them out to complete the series and in hopes of making back some of the money they lost on book one.

In the Case of Traditionally Published Books - When you traditionally publish, you do have a timeline set by the publisher, but it's unlikely a publisher would put out an unedited or poorly edited book just to stick with a publishing timeline. Also, traditional publishing houses have in-house editors, so it's not like the author is editing completely on their own. Obviously they do self-edits, and they make the necessary edits suggested by the editor, but it's not like the author would come up against their deadline, turn in the unedited draft, and that goes straight to print.

Having said that... I do think it's worth noting that many readers and industry experts feel there has been a substantial decline in the editing quality of traditionally published books over the years. I'm definitely in the camp of people who've noticed this trend, and I subscribe to the theory that it's just another sad check mark in the column of unbridled capitalism. Publishers aren't putting out books because they love the written word or because they want to encourage literacy... they publish books because they want to make a profit, and like any business, they want to make the biggest profit possible. In today's constantly shifting landscape--where self-publishers are putting out million-dollar best sellers, and where TikTok can launch a book so far into the stratosphere that books two and three could be moldy copies of a 1970s phone book and they'd still sell a million copies--traditional publishers are cutting corners where they feasibly can in order to maximize profit, and those cut corners usually impact product quality.

Fortunately, there are still loads and loads of well-edited, high quality traditionally and self-published books hitting the market every year, so while you may find sloppy subsequent books in a series more often now than you used to, hopefully you'll still find more well-edited books than not. :)

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I’ve been writing seriously for over 30 years and love to share what I’ve learned. Have a writing question? My inbox is always open!

♦ Questions that violate my ask policies will be deleted! ♦ Please see my master list of top posts before asking ♦ Learn more about WQA here

[goodluckclove]

How I Critique Writing (A Loose Collection of Tips)

Someone asked me for insights into my methodology when it comes to giving feedback on writing and I realized I had way more than I could say in a reasonable amount of private messages. Are you someone who I've spoken to about their writing? Did someone send you their work and you don't know how to respond? Maybe this will help? Based on how people react I feel like it might be controversial but it seems to work.

When someone sends me their writing, no matter the size, subject or genre, I:

Take it seriously. It's a generational epic about the Vietnam war and its effects. It's a cute, young adult romance. It's Zim and Dib from Invader Zim realizing they've always been in love with each other. All of these things can be written with earnestness, strength, honesty and skill. It's fucking hard to write and if someone writes a single sentence that wouldn't otherwise exist its worth holding in your hands and examining with the same eye as if you were taking an interesting book off the shelf.

Respond with curiosity. It's common for critiques to follow a theme of ambiguous disdain. This doesn't work. Delete this. Bad. No. Gross. Guess what? That's not helpful. If you got that feedback, even if you followed it, you wouldn't be thrilled about it. Oftentimes you can take a line that makes you want to say Bad and ask something else. What is this supposed to express? What were you trying to do here? Am I supposed to feel happy/sad/uncertain when I read this? Curiosity can reframe something that you don't think works as a reader and turn it into an opportunity for the writer to look inward and solve their own problem. They might explain what they were trying to do, and if you were to say that it didn't pan out for you they're way more likely to tweak things themselves and feel like they still have control over their project.

Give comments. I've started giving more in-depth comments on the writing people give me depending on how anxious they are about it. If you're a pretty confident writer I'll give a summary of what I gained and what I was left wondering, what I thought and what I felt, what associations it made me think of in terms of tone and other forms of media - stuff like that. For newer writers, especially those who are far more doubting of their own abilities, I go buck wild. And in my opinion notes should be less like Good! I like this! Wow! Nice! (What are you, grading my book report? No thanks), and more like what you think when you're reading a book you're truly invested in. Make jokes about the characters (Not mean ones. I will send bugs to you in the mail.), chart exact lines that provoke physical reactions, even a small one. Can you imagine reading someone treat your work like it has its own fandom on Tumblr? You can do that for someone else.

Fucking have some fucking awareness of the fact that it might not be for you and that doesn't mean it's bad. I'm angry about this one considering the novel a friend sent me last night that they've been too terrified to try and post online, despite it being fucking brilliant. I'll try and calm down. Listen - you read what you like. I mainly read literary and experimental fiction, some poetry, horror and some sci-fi. Not a lot of genre fiction. But I will always be down to read someone's high fantasy story, because even though I don't really like fantasy I know what the good ones sound like. I've forced myself to gain a sense of what someone else would like, even if I don't like it. And I can still critique it. If I'm a builder and I see a house that's painted a shade of green I find sinful for a home (i.e. mint), I can look past that and focus on the state of the walls and the stability of the foundation. You aren't a reviewer, man. You are neither Siskel, nor Ebert. They write for readers, you write for writers. So you don't like historical fiction? Cool, man. Congrats. If someone trusts you enough to give you some to read and critique, you should still do so objectively. If you give it an automatic F because you wouldn't buy it, then you are legally a stinky little trash man. That's just the law.

Ask them what they liked to write and what was the hardest. There's apparently a weird trend on online writer communities that say there are specific rules that all writers need to follow. This is not true. It just isn't. If the dialogue in a story you read is weak, and the writer says they hate writing dialogue and really struggle with it, maybe tell them they don't have to use it. You might change their entire life.

RESPOND WITH CURIOSITY. You see the Ask games where people try and get more detail on the WIP of certain authors. If you have a WIP and I ask you a worldbuilding question that doesn't relate to the direct plot of the story as it exists now, I bet you'd like to talk about it. If I ask if you were inspired by a certain tone or movie, you might know the work I was talking about and feel happy. Or you might not know it, look it up, and feel inspired. I don't think people realize that a critique of new/unfinished writing is not a one-and-done exchange. You are taking part in an isolated process in a way few other people on the planet will. It's not homework. It's. Not. Homework. We spend so much of our time alone just fiddling our hands and making our magic, and in instances like these we share something in one of the ultimate forms of artistic trust. They're taking you into a world that hasn't fully formed yet. Is it cool? Can you tell me about it? Can they?

Be nice. Storytime, friends. In the way early 2010s, there was something on the internet called sporking. It was pretty much a line by line roast of someone's writing - typically fanfic. And I hate to say this, but I read a lot of it. I was 13, somehow untreated and overmedicated, and I was miserable constantly. Just cold in my chest. At one point I had the chance to critique a stranger's story - probably another child - and I essentially mocked the whole thing. They ended up deleting the story off the website. I cannot begin to describe to you the shame I feel about doing this, even ten years later. It burns in my heart and makes me sick to my stomach. If you are a serious writer, especially a young writer, and you insult another writer's craft to their face just as they're getting started - you will regret it. I promise you that. You will think about holding something alive and full of potential in your hands and squeezing your fists until it is just flecks of meat and crushed bone. It will haunt you. Maybe only a little, but constantly and for the rest of your life. So don't do it.

Wow what a grim note to leave on! That's essentially my philosophy on writing critique, do with it what you will. Want to send me some writing to receive this kind of excessive treatment? Cool! I have an email in my pinned post and I'll do that! I'm also down to chat if anyone wants to send me asks or DMs on writing/writing struggles/publishing tips.

[decolonize-the-everything]

I think that a lot of the adult "immaturity" is result of being abused by the family structure and capitalism so growing up into some agency allowing certaint comforts. Then having to challenge some comfortable established belief, aspect, themself or lifestyle poses a struggle they aren't willing to engage in if at possible as it frequently seemingly has no reward outside of their current comfort.

I think when youths are liberated the concept of "immaturity" will be largely replace by a more accurate term because we have adults less "mature" than children because of the absurdity of it. It's like lazyness it's not a thing but a situation. Idk this a ramble now, but appreciated you broaching the topic of adult "immaturity'" publicly

1000% I agree & I don't like the terms I'm using, but they're what we've got. Someone else sent an ask about what "child traits" are for the same exact reason.

Also no it's okay ramble, that's all I do, watch this.

I think the way we discuss minors/kids/YA/maturity entirely needs to change tbh, but not in a child wife way, before someone says that.

They're robbed of a ton of autonomy, are raised to be workers, and then are thrust into adulthood with no teaching about the Real, actual world. They're treated like 2nd class citizens and are the only people I can think of who you can still legally assault. We belittle everything they do as less important and then wonder why everyone needs therapy as adults.

I was more critical thinker than my parents by 8 and more capable than both parents by 12. This isn't a flex because I was too smart. At all. My parents should have had more skill than I did. They were capable of it, I assure you. By their own circumstances they just weren't able to access it.

But this goes back to capitalism and broader mental health and family resources because they also weren't raised with Google and didn't have gentle parenting TikTok or free zoom classes to join. I don't think we even had healthcare growing up so it's not like they had access to a lot of methods to improve themselves outside traditional reading BUT both parents worked too and they were already too fucked up and in their ways to even be interested in a self help book lol so like?? Realistically and in reality that didn't happen. They were thrown out as teens as had to work to support Me very quickly. Then had 2 more.

Like you said; lifestyle and having no reward. They didn't seek out being better people cuz it doesn't pay the bills.

And I know that isn't entirely their fault, but they are Still responsible for how they handled the hand they were dealt. Me and my siblings deserved better regardless of their background ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But I can be compassionate and understanding too in that I know if they had the Actual opportunity to heal and resources to be good parents then at least at the very least they could have been.

And like I said, as a person who does try for my daughter I get it's hard and it is unfair that I can't catch a break, but that's the way it is. And yeah it is harder for me than it would be for a lot of other people and it's not especially easy to begin with. BUT I also don't work cuz I'm disabled so I have a lot of time to do it that others don't.

You're right. I don't know if immature is the best word to use for this but idk what is.

What's the word for state sanctioned generational trauma?

Cuz not providing more resources given the world is much more than just ableism or not caring enough about families. It's like they're creating people like this on purpose which is I think is more fucked up. But hey, who else would they hire for as cheap as prison labor if everyone was making good choices amirite? 🤧

[thyme-in-a-bubble]

Writing anon #1 here with a few questions! As usual please don’t reply if you don’t want to. :)

What kind of character would you suggest writing for? Characters I’m currently interested in or characters I know more about? Perhaps a mix? I’m a little afraid that if I write for the characters I’m currently fixated on I’ll lose interest in them for awhile. For example, I’m currently interested in Daredevil but I know more about the Avengers because I hyperfixated on them in high school.

Where/how do you find inspiration and motivation to write? 

Do you think someone could write a relationship without having experienced it themselves? (Like a romantic relationship) I would assume it would just take a lot of research and editing to make sure it’s fairly realistic. Just like when you writing something else you don’t have experience in (like writing a character being a doctor or barista if you don’t have experience with that.)

Like the second anon I have a lot of trouble with outlining and plots. I usually get an idea I would love to write but have no idea what to do with it. Like how to get to the idea/scene or where to go from it. I really should try actually outlining and taking my time. I also really need to get my brain to understand that drafts are okay and normal. (I struggle with perfectionism, but I’m working on it.)

I realize now how number three might come across. I am an adult not a minor. I just had an extremely sheltered life growing up and have spent the few years I’ve been an adult dealing with a few things that are out of my control. So I haven’t had a romantic relationship of my own, I have read a ton of x reader fanfics and watched a lot of romcoms. And number four isn’t a question. :) Thank you so much in advance!

I'd say write for someone you like, someone you're comfortable with, and if you don't feel like you know enough about them to begin writing then that's easily fixed! rewatch/reread/re-whatever the thing that they're from and pay extra close attention, do it however many times you'd like, take notes. wiki's about the characters can also be super helpful for a ton of those little facts. but at the end of the day, write for whoever you like, whoever will be super fun to write for, whoever will make you excited to write. also you don't have to just choose one or even be stuck if you ever wanna move on, you make up the rules.

inspiration? i find that everywhere. sure, a movie is an easy thing to get my mind hooked on a fantasy, but most of my stories have just come to me in very mundane things. I've leaned into my own life experiences for a lot of sad stories (also used it as a therapeutic tool). there is literally inspiration everywhere, you just gotta open your eyes and see it. that weird tree right outside your window? that could be enough inspiration to begin a whole book. and as for motivation? well, first of all I really enjoy the whole process, so that helps a ton. I'm also autistic and have very good concentration, so I can easily just disappear completely into my wip. I'm also really good at just having it in my routine, sitting down and writing when I have the most energy for it. when I'm working on something very long, that's when it can become harder to keep that flame alive, but I think I've worked out a good rhythm to keep it going and not loose the drive to work on it: first of all, a detailed outline and notes. making a proper routine with it, though also not beating yourself up if it's a bad day and you only reread the last page 50 times, but don't actually write anything new. I also try my best to stay in the world while I work on it. like for when i'm not sitting and actively writing it, then I listen to music that fits the theme or watch movies or shows that have the vibe.

I think that truly depends on the person. some people can and some people can't. I personally don't write about too many subjects I don't have experience in (though still some like for example murder and some of the jobs the characters have, but my imagination can get me far enough to make me comfortable tackling those subjects). so yeah, that's so individual whether someone can do that well or not.

from my understanding of you from the very limited interactions we've had, I'd say that it'll probably continue to be difficult while you're not getting enough sleep for your brain to function properly as well as some other stressful things I could imagine is also going on and perhaps is the cause of the sleep issues. a few things that helps my perfectionism is to say that this draft will only be read by me and no one else, to say that this is only a silly little fanfiction just for the lols and not a fancy leather-bound novel, and also to aim for it simply to be finished and not for it to be perfect. and sometimes when it comes to beginning, you'll just have to jump straight in with the attitude of an imaginative and playful child. also sitting down and being like "okay, I'm not allowed to do anything other then come up with a story. I'm allowed to sit here, look around at my surroundings, and push through the boredom till my brain comes up with a story to entertain me". don't be afraid of slowing down and embracing the stillness, that's always where my best stuff comes from. and plot stuff? that is a huge subject and I'm not sure what advice could be beneficial for you. it's one of those things where learning about it on a technical level can be helpful, but only to get the sense into your bones and then throwing those rules and patterns out of the window like they never existed to begin with and just letting the flow of the story lead you.

[urfavnegronerd]

percy jackson brain-rot as i begin the books again

as someone whos hopelessly devoted to the workings of rick riordon i absolutely never understood percabeth

like,

they're literally 12, children, CANNOT LEGALLY DRIVE OR CONSENT TO SEX at the end of the og series (chalice of the gods) and niggas really out here shipping the fuck outta them

shit dig hard enough on a03 and there's prolly smut of the two of em

never understood it, like i get a cute lil mutual pining thing where they both like each other but a whole ass ship never made sense. like no, the two don't make babies. why? CUZ THEYRE BABIES THEMSELVES

edit:

okay to clear things up cs people are in the comments saying i don't know what a ship is (i'm literally a fanfic writer on here but okay)

i'm just saying that these are literally little kids in middle school. i'm not saying that middle school kids don't have relationships, but it's still weird. and from, i'm boutta geek out about this incredibly obscure topic i'm sorry, a developmental standpoint middle grade children are nowhere near psychologically ready to be in a relationship which is why it's extremely rare to see couples who have been together since middle school (that one episode of abbott elementary). if you go on tiktok and look for people who broke up with someone they were in a relationship with from middle school- high school, those breakups are traumatic

all breakups are traumatic in some way, but there have been several people who have developed traits of borderline personality disorder because they broke up with someone they had been romantically involved with since middle school.

also let's not forget how warped your view on intimate relationships go (fucking. imma say it the way you think about fucking is skewed). the people i've spoken to who broke up with their middle school partner in their older parts of high school have recounted just how awful their view on sex was, some have even pondered if they were asexual because they couldn't picture themselves up under anyone else.

like i get it, it's cute to see little kids who like each other, but most of this fandom are of age to drive, to study for the SATS/gsces, some are able to legally drink in the united states, or applying to college. these are little baby children that high school students and young adults should not be playing match maker for. ALSO WALKER SCOBELL IS IN MIDDLE SCHOOL/ HIS FIRST YEAR IN HS HE WAS BORN IN 2009.

anyway,

i get it, we all have head canons, but shipping two middle schoolers who a) may or may not have started puberty b) did not stay at one school for too long c) don't know trig formulas d) may or may not have had their first period/ voice dropped/ you get the picture.

SO

i don't understand percabeth as a whole romantic ship, but mostly as a fluffy little middle school flirty thing (prolonged eye contact, stealing hats, asking if they can hug/kiss at a certain time, etc.)

i love love love the concept of seaweed brain and wise girl, smartwater, percabeth, whatever, I THINK THEY'RE ADORABLE but i don't understand the draw of why people feel the incessant need to make it extremely romantic. like why why whyyyyyyy. can we js let them be kids, because lets be real a lot of the newer additions to this fandom only know about the show (and its okay we love you guys anyway its just that some of us have read the books too, its not required for you to love the show that you need to read the books) and are already talking about 'annabeth and percy need to just kiss already' no they don't. cs percy just lost his mom (i know something you dooonttttttt) and our cutie patootie annabeth is still lowkey a mystery (i'm guessing?? idk i haven't watched the show yet i think im gonna pirate it soon or smth, im js assuming because idk what point the show is at in relation to the first book), etc. can we maybe not make them a whole ass ship until the show is in relation to the last few books of the series. lets js let them be kids for now.

AND THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT I DIDN'T LIKE WHEN THEY WERE AN ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIP IN THE LATER BOOKS OKAY ITS NOT TO SAY THAT im just saying that i didn't understand the concept of percabeth within the first few books because it was a little wonky to really really want two twelve year olds to be in a relationship. they're cute when its in the last few books but come on yall. lets not ship them yet. also report any smut you see of them that's not cool or rick riordon approved.

theyre still babies, even if some of the fandom has read all of the books and others didn't.

does this make sense?

xoxo,

rae <3

[marblecakemix]

Welcome to my humble domain!! 🫧✨

Hi, you can call me Marble (this is my internet nickname), a lesbian in her early 20s from Poland. Just vibing here on Tumblr from time to time. If you want to look into my post/reblogs read my takes on #talk tag.

*I'm an adult and I post things for adults. I don't have time to block minors, feel warned!

You can ask me anything you want. I won't shy away, but remember that I'm not your therapist and all my opinions are biased forward women!

More information about me under the cut! 💕

If the part has * in front of it that means I changed something in the text and/or my views are different than before.

*I'm still quite new to radical feminism and I'm trying my best to learn how to take action. In short, I fight for women's rights and freedom from sex-based oppression. *I'm looking into different ideas too, but this blog is mainly focused on radical feminism.

I desisted in the middle of 2023. I used to be a non-binary/agender and asexual individual for around 3 to 4 years, but I understood all of that was because of internalized misogyny and homophobia and I actually wanted to have my boobs intact and I did like being a woman before I was introduced to the trans community. (For clarification, I didn't take hrt or have any surgeries done. I've only transitioned socially, thank goodness.)

I'm an ex-Christian, now I probably would call myself a spiritual person, researching my Slavic roots at the moment. I have a complicated relationship with faith, so nothing in this department is set in stone.

I believe in critical thinking and triple-checking facts. Everyone can have their opinions, but actions should have a base in grounded reality and unbiased scientific research. Read those books ladies!

I'm mostly talking about my experience as an ex-TRA, a lesbian, a woman, someone who lives in a misogynistic/conservative family and a country that has yet to legalize same-sex marriage, but you can safely transition here even as a minor.

*I'm a trans identified men hater. I don't care. Fuck all men, I don't care anymore. Gender dysphoria or perversion (autogynephilia) in males should have never been "solved" with a surgery and/or irreversible drugs/HRT. No other mental illness has permanent body modification as its treatment, same should be for gender dysphoria. The trans movement (men's rights movement in disguise) is the most harmful thing that happened to homosexual youth and I'm so tired of seeing more people being pushed into it just because they are themselves and aren't scared to dress unconventionally!

I gave up on men. I don't believe men can change, at least not in the closest future. I will probably never trust a man again with anything. The stakes are too high and my life is more precious. I believe that women don't need men, period.

I make mistakes! I'm just a human being and, naturally, I will be in the wrong sometimes. May it be because of the language barrier or me just not thinking things through, doesn't matter. I will try to acknowledge my mistakes and say sorry. I'm still learning and there isn't a better way than through your own downfalls!

I don't block people, unless they're insufferable. We can have different opinions, different lifestyles, different views, but if you're annoying I draw the line there.

I also draw sometimes (I don't have much time for it right now, bc I'm in the middle of my academic years), you can find my work under #my art.

Nothing here is set in stone. As I grow as a person my views will probably change. If you have any questions, just ask them! I'm happy to answer all of them ❤️

Last update: 6th August 2024

[bookish-bi-mormon]

Hey there. I had a question for you. I was wondering what kind of resources someone might look into if they were interested in learning more about Mormonism, particularly if the person is LGBTQ+ and also has a witchy spiritual side too? Not sure if the latter is relevant, but I thought I'd mention it anyways just in case.

oh boy oh boy this is quite a question. I do feel like both the LGBTQ and the witchy stuff are relevant because it kinda changes how I would approach it.

This is long so I put it under the cut

So, the official way to get to know more about the LDS church is to contact the missionaries. These are young adults who are dedicating 18-24 months of their lives to teaching people about the core aspects of Mormon doctrine, with the goal of baptism (usually within a month). They give out free copies of the Book of Mormon, as well as pamphlets that explain basic tenets of our religion.

That's not necessarily the path forward I would recommend to an LGBTQ person, or someone interested in the potential witchy/folk magic side of Mormonism. Most missionaries are young, and although some of them are queer themselves (I was a missionary and out as bi) most of them will be deeply steeped in the homophobia that is unfortunately all too common and perpetrated by our leaders. If a queer person wanted to get baptized into the LDS church, they would have to repent of any past queer activity and promise to live a 'chaste' life moving forward (no sex outside of a heterosexual marriage.) A lot of missionaries also will never have learned of the folk magic that Joseph Smith and other early saints practiced, because those things have all but been erased/denounced from church culture. Most missionaries aren't even comfortable acknowledging that Heavenly Mother exists.

That's not to say you shouldn't try if you feel called to the LDS church. We can use all the queer members we can get if we're gonna fight for change. But I just want to acknowledge that it is an uphill battle.

I would recommend reading the Book of Mormon, which you can access free online, plus there's an app you could download.

Saints Unscripted is a youtube channel run by members of the LDS church, where they talk about doctrine, culture, and all things mormon. Some of the videos get into some of the more controversial aspects of our history/doctrine, while other are just fun conversations about Mormon culture. I think it's a great place to go if you just wanna get to know some mormons.

Beyond the Block is a podcast run by a gay convert to the LDS church (like I said, it does happen!) and an African-american member of the church. They're on a hiatus right now but they have over 100 episodes so you'd have plenty to listen to. The LDS church has a curriculum called "Come Follow Me" where each week we are assigned certain chapters to read out of our scriptures (Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants). Brother Jones and Brother Knox talk about the reading from each week specifically from a perspective of marginalized identities. Although they are speaking for an audience who is already familiar with Mormonism, I think it's a good example of what we believe, and the Mormonism that I personally strive for.

Queer Mormon Theology is another personal favorite of mine. Although also intended for a familiar audience, I think it provides enough background information (and sources you can look at to learn more) about what Mormons believe, AND it explains how these core beliefs include queer identities, and why the current queerphobic policies should be abandoned.

Witchy stuff is more difficult to find resources for. I started with Early Mormonism and the Magic World View by D. Michael Quinn, but that's a hefty book and I don't know if I would necessarily recommend it if you are new to Mormonsim.

Most resources I have found online that explore Mormon folk magic are made by nonmembers, or exmembers, in an attempt to discredit or make fun of our founders. I've also discovered a few off-shoot groups that attempt to blend Mormon beliefs with Kabbalah (which seems like cultural appropriation to me) or psychedelics (drugs scare me idk man).

That being said, two resources I could point you to is this wikipedia article that is just like, an overview of some of the folk magic the early saints practiced. And this website which collects information about some of the less often talked about aspects of our history/culture/practices.

Most members of the LDS church don't know much about this stuff, or they just don't care. It doesn't really impact the typical LDS life, but as someone who is trying to expand my spiritual practice to include more magic/witchy stuff, it's interesting to me.

OH I CAN'T BELIEVE I FORGOT. There's this music artist named Marcie Dawn who is a Mormon Witch. She has an instagram and here she is on spotify . She doesn't talk a whole lot about her personal beliefs, it's mostly ~vibes~ but I love her and I love her music so I had to give her a plug.

And that's what I've got for you! I hope this is helpful, sorry it's so long. Please feel free to send more asks/messages about this!

[nrth-wind-a]

Okay folks strap in. Sejanus Plinth is not naïve, and he does not blindly trust Coryo. He does understand what he's saying when he speaks out against the games.

I have a few reasons for thinking this way.

One: Sejanus is a smart kid. He not only grasps the situations that he's put into, but he also shows very clearly that he can extrapolate important information from them, and then use it to think critically of the systems in place. Just about everyone recognizes that killing kids is wrong. Many of the people of the capitol themselves in this era recognize that it's a morally incorrect action to take. However. They are also willing to put that morality aside in favor of what they believe is a justification which makes it right. They are taught-- especially Sejanus's class-- that it is a necessary punishment in order to restore fairness after a period of uncertainty, danger, and unfairness (after all, it is unfair that citizens suffered from a war enacted by a small few in power). In addition, many of Sejanus's classmates were, like him, eight or younger when the war ended. The only thing they remember from the war was how it affected them, and reasonably so, given that they were children. They were then taught, from early development, that they were wronged. And they have no reason to doubt that; after all, the war did hurt them.

Unlike the other children in his class, however, Sejanus recognizes the one fact that he has a particular proclivity, being district-born, to recognize: The war was not fought by the district children like him, like Marcus. It was fought by the adults who, conveniently, are left out of the reach of the games. He draws on the things that he has learned, especially as someone with a foot in both the districts and the capitol, in order to come to a conclusion about what is happening in front of them, to them, and to the people around them.

Sejanus's perspective is never revealed to us, given the point of view of the book, and so, for an outsider, like Snow-- someone solely capitol-born and severely indoctrinated-- all he and others believe is that Sejanus is upset that children are being killed. And that's part of it. But Sejanus is also upset because he recognizes the bigger picture, and he calls it out: “You've no right to starve people, to punish them for no reason. No right to take away their life and freedom. Those are things everyone is born with, and they're not yours for the taking. Winning a war doesn't give you that right. Having more weapons doesn't give you that right. Being from the Capitol doesn't give you that right. Nothing does.”

Notice that he isn't just talking about the games, there. He is talking about the bigger picture: that the victor of a war is enacting its power post-war in a way that compromises the freedom and rights that every individual is not only deserving of, but entitled to.

Keep track of this belief of Sejanus's-- it's going to come into play a lot here. The most important thing to remember is that with this belief, it follows that Sejanus would also believe that we, human being to human being, have a right to secure these rights not just for ourselves, but for everyone around us, too. Simply put: Sejanus believes that we have a duty to help each other. This is seen when he brings food to Marcus, then asks Snow to help him, expecting that Snow will help Lucy Gray, who will help the other tributes, which could inspire others to help the tributes as well, and so on, and so forth. A duty to each other.

Two: I touched on it a bit above, but I want to re-iterate it here. Everything that we read in TBOSAS is from Coriolanus Snow's point of view.

And sure, this is obvious, but it's a very important thing to keep in mind when thinking about characters from this book, as well as the story events that take place. We can reasonably assume that Suzanne Collins didn't feed us complete lies about the story, of course, but what we should note always is that everything in the story is told through a filter, and that filter has proven itself to be an unreliable narrator.

We aren't supposed to believe Snow at face value: and neither does Sejanus.

This is most clear in two spots: first, when Sejanus recognizes correctly that Snow is a calculating individual who watches others before interacting with them (for his own gain), and second, when Sejanus lies to Snow (something that is not a one-time occurrence).

Sejanus understands that Coryo cannot always be trusted. The reason that he does, in the end, is that he is still an optimist: he believes that if he provides Snow with enough chances to do the right thing, that eventually, he will. (A duty to each other).

This is because of one overarching point that the book as a whole makes: the book shows us, the readers, the sheer volume of choices that Snow was given that could have kept him from going down the path that he did. He was given countless second chances to do something for the benefit of someone else. He was given countless second chances to not take control over another person's life. He was given countless second chances to care about the people around him.

And he didn't take a single one.

Sejanus's mistake was not trusting Snow. It was not believing that someone selfish could do something selfless. In fact, it wasn't even Sejanus's mistake. He did exactly what he was supposed to do according to his own world view: he didn't try to control Snow's choices for him, and instead, he kept extending mercy after mercy, in the hopes that Coryo would realize that everyone deserves agency, freedom, life, food, and love. (A duty to each other).

It was Coriolanus Snow who continued to choose the wrong choice every time.

(A small addition: there is not a doubt in my mind that Sejanus knows that Snow sold him out).

Three: Speaking of Sejanus being sold out-- let's discuss that pesky thing called consequences.

Sejanus has been given a reputation of being too stupid and naïve to understand that speaking out against the capitol might have consequences.

I disagree-- to an extent.

I think the truth of the matter is far more nuanced. The trouble is, we can't know what Sejanus was thinking, due to the issue raised in point two: that we only see Sej through Snow's eyes.

But now I want to circle back to point one: Sejanus is a critical thinker. We know he is smart. And as addressed in point two: he didn't blindly trust Snow. He hoped, of course, that another person would choose to do the right thing, but that doesn't necessarily correlate with stupidity or an inability to recognize that other people disagree with what he says, and that there might be consequences for that.

However, since I do believe that there is one explanation that could provide some insight into why Sejanus decided to act out, even with all the risks of doing so (aside from the character trait: Good Person TM), I'd like to point it out here:

Sejanus is affluent. Even in 2, it can be assumed that his life was comfortable. He shows marks of someone who's lived comfortably for at least most of their life: a constant supply of food, to the point that there's excess, squirreled away money, the likes of which even Snow is shocked by, and a good education, which the book informs us was paid for at a hefty fee.

Perhaps Sejanus isn't spoiled or ungrateful-- but one thing we can recognize, as a fact, is that he doesn't often face consequences for his actions (his father pays them away). This is covered in the trilogy, when Katniss herself recognizes that the people in twelve cannot afford the luxury of speaking out against the capitol, as they are barely surviving, much less able to fight. She recognizes something that is even true for America today: it would take all of us, at once, to rise up together, or we will be beaten back down by the inability to eat, to rest, to learn. To save up money to fall back on in times of strike.

Sejanus is lucky enough that he is in a position where he can speak out-- and he does. I'm not saying that he has any less of a valid point due to his wealth. It was largely luck that he ended up that way-- the same way that it was random (bad) luck that Snow's fortune was lost.

But we are supposed to think of Sejanus and Coryo as foils. Sejanus is everything that Snow is not: both rich (something that Snow wants to be) and kind (something that Sejanus wants Snow to be).

At the end of the day, the fact is: Sejanus has had a safety net for most of life. And whether he's using it for good or bad intentions, it doesn't take a detective to figure out that he's got it-- which means that I think he knows he has it, for a time. Sejanus knows that whatever trouble he might get into, it probably won't cost him his life. He is using his position of power and affluence in exactly the right way-- until he goes too far and walks over a line that steals the net out from under him. Because, at the end of the day, the more he escalates, the more the capitol must also. The bigger waves that he makes, the harder the retaliation has to be.

The problem is: Sejanus has to make bigger moves, or else nothing will change.

Sejanus likely knew that eventually, the net would go away. He just didn't know when. And he couldn't have known. There are some things that an eighteen-year-old just will not see coming, safety net or not, intelligent or not, determined or not.

The story of a character who is reduced to someone who speaks out against what's wrong in a book simply because we as the audience know that it's wrong is just a morality lesson in disguise. And pardon me for saying so, but I don't think that's what Suzanne Collins had in mind.

However, the story of a boy who knew that he was playing with fire, but decided to purposefully hope ("a lot of hope is dangerous") that everyone else around him would do the right thing in the end (a duty to each other)... That story? That is a story that I buy would come from the same pen that wrote about an uprising which stemmed from that very same belief system.

--

Bonus:

One extra note that I want to make: I can't control whether someone finds Sejanus annoying or not. Everyone is entitled to their feelings on the matter regardless of what I think about it. That said, I would encourage anyone who feels that way to consider why he comes across as one-dimensional, foolish, or annoying at times. Consider what would happen if we got THG from Snow's point of view: do you think that Katniss would not have been given the exact same treatment? A young rebel who doesn't know what game she's playing and so seems childish and reckless? The book is a skewed bias, and that's what makes the story so compelling to me. That's what makes Sejanus so compelling to me. Coryo sees him as stupid, idealistic, and doomed to get himself killed.

It is significant to me, then, that Coriolanus Snow makes that happen by his own hand.

I ask: Was Sejanus doomed to die for his beliefs, or was Coriolanus doomed to kill Sejanus for his?