#not trying to say people aren't allowed to have their own interpretations of a media; do what you want -

[54625]

Morning crew discourse in fandom is so fucking funny .

"Morning crew are a family!! Fathers and their son!" (They constantly make dirty jokes towards each other/ make sexual innuendos about eachother, are generally very inappropriate and weird about eachother)

"Morning crew are a relationship! They're all in love!" (They have called each other family on countless occasions, Fit called himself an older cousin/uncle figure towards Tubbo, says Tubbo reminds him of Ramón and acted like he was a stand-in Ramón while he was missing, Ramón calls Tubbo his brother)

remind me to introduce yall to this crazy concept called a friendship

[jonnywaistcoat]

What’s your opinion on the contrast between “silly” and “serious” spaces? Do you think people can have very serious interpretations about a genuine piece of media and also be goofy about it? I’m asking this particularly because I’ve seen people in the Magnus podcast fandoms fight about people “misinterpreting” characters you, Alex, and the many other authors have written. Are you okay with the blorbofication or do you really wish the media you’ve written would be “taken seriously” 100% of the time?

And follow up question, what do you think about the whole “it’s up to the reader (or in some cases, listener) to make their own conclusions and interpretations and that does not make them wrong”, versus the “it was written this way because the author intended it this way, and we should respect that” argument?

This is a question I've given a lot of thought over the years, to the point where I don't know how much I can respond without it becoming a literal essay. But I'll try.

My main principle for this stuff boils roughly down to: "The only incorrect way to respond to art is to try and police the responses of others." Art is an intensely subjective, personal thing, and I think a lot of online spaces that engage with media are somewhat antithetical to what is, to me, a key part of it, which is sitting alone with your response to a story, a character, a scene or an image and allowing yourself to explore it's effect on you. To feel your feelings and think about them in relation to the text.

Now, this is not to say that jokes and goofiness about a piece of art aren't fucking great. I love to watch The Thing and drink in the vibes or arctic desolation and paranoia, or think about the picture it paints of masculinity as a sublimely lonely thing where the most terrible threat is that of an imposed, alien intimacy. And that actually makes me laugh even more the jokey shitpost "Do you think the guys in The Thing ever explored each other's bodies? Yeah but watch out". Silly and serious don't have to be in opposition, and I often find the best jokes about a piece of media come from those who have really engaged with it.

And in terms of interpreting characters? Interpreting and responding to fictional characters is one of the key functions of stories. They're not real people, there is no objective truth to who they are or what they do or why they do it. They are artificial constructs and the life they are given is given by you, the reader/listener/viewer, etc. Your interpetation of them can't be wrong, because your interpretation of them is all that there is, they have no existence outside of that.

And obviously your interpretation will be different to other people's, because your brain, your life, your associations - the building blocks from which the voices you hear on a podcast become realised people in your mind - are entirely your own. Thus you cannot say anyone else's is wrong. You can say "That's not how it came across to me" or "I have a very different reading of that character", but that's it. I suppose if someone is fundamentally missing something (like saying "x character would never use violence" when x character strangles a man to death in chapter 4) you could say "I think that's a significant misreading of the text", but that's only to be reserved for if you have the evidence to back it up and are feeling really savage.

I think this is one of the things that saddens me a bit about some aspects of fandom culture - it has a tendency to police or standardise responses or interpretations, turning them from personal experiences to be explored into public takes to be argued over. It also has the occasional moralistic strain, and if there's one thing I wish I could carve in stone on every fan space it's that Your Responses to a Piece of Art Carry No Intrinsic Moral Weight.

As for authorial intention, that's a simpler one: who gives a shit? Even the author doesn't know their own intentions half the time. There is intentionality there, of course, but often it's a chaotic and shifting mix of theme and story and character which rarely sticks in the mind in the exact form it had during writing. If you ask me what my intention was in a scene from five years ago, I'll give you an answer, but it will be my own current interpretation of a half-remembered thing, altered and warped by my own changing relationship to the work and five years of consideration and change within myself. Or I might not remember at all and just have a guess. And I'm a best case scenario because I'm still alive. Thinking about a writers possible or stated intentions is interesting and can often lead to some compelling discussion or examination, but to try and hold it up as any sort of "truth" is, to my mind, deeply misguided.

Authorial statements can provide interesting context to a work, or suggest possible readings, but they have no actual transformative effect on the text. If an author says of a book that they always imagined y character being black, despite it never being mentioned in the text, that's interesting - what happens if we read that character as black? How does it change our responses to the that character actions and position? How does it affect the wider themes and story? It doesn't, however, actually make y character black because in the text itself their race remains nonspecific. The author lost the ability to make that change the moment it was published. It's not solely theirs anymore.

So yeah, that was a fuckin essay. In conclusion, serious and silly are both good, but serious does not mean yelling at other people about "misinterpretations", it means sitting with your personal explorations of a piece of art. All interpretations are valid unless they've legitimately missed a major part of the text (and even then they're still valid interpretations of whatever incomplete or odd version of the text exists inside that person's brain). Authorial intent is interesting to think about but ultimately unknowable, untrustworthy and certainly not a source of truth. Phew.

Oh, and blorbofication is fine, though it does to my mind sometimes pair with a certain shallowness to one's exploration of the work in question.

[42bakery]

sorry but wouldn't it be kinda stupid of jorge to use that flag? i mean if the majority of spain recognizes that flag as far right symbol it feels really weird that nobody on his team told him to change flag and use a regular spain one considering that motogp respects the different regions and uses the rights flags for their gps and also considering how the riders try to/have to appear apolitical

like it doesn't make sense for him to choose such a divisive and controversial symbol on tv, especially when he's trying to get picked by ducati, he doesn't need a scandal. could it be that he just doesn't know the meaning or is that impossible?

Hey Isabella 👋👋👋👋👋

The flag and the bull is a bit more complicated than see it and automatically far/extreme right. That bull as @babynflames ( https://www.tumblr.com/babynflames/750298627086417920/the-osborne-bull-first-appeared-next-to-spanish ) pointed out was used to represent Spain as a whole during the dictatorship. Some people, specially in the centre of Spain (mostly both Castilles and Madrid) see it just a Spanish symbol, where as I from the periphery and a region with strong nationalism feelings see it as another imposition.

That flag will mostly be displayed by the right and extreme right, but not all the people with it will be from that party. As I said to the anon before symbols that are so wide associated with Spain are not always seen okay in Catalonia, and therefore, Jorge who is from Madrid can see them a bit differently. Also Madrid has marketed themselves as the perfect spot for holidays for people from outside Spain, but in reality the right is winning.

That flag is the same one his parents have had since before Jorge was born and given to him as a present, a memento, for his first win so no one from his family will say anything. And anon pointed that his new friends and group is from that ideology, hence why they aren't going to discourage it. About the team? How can people from outside of Spain say anything when they don't know the meaning of it? True that he has Fonsi Nieto, but he's a white privilege man from Madrid living from his uncle's (not even his dad! He's actually the son of Ángel's sister) fame.

There also the fact that due to the political differences between the centre of Spain and the periphery of it, some people will actually be happy that they have someone carrying their same values as oposite as Aleix who is vocal about having his own Catalan identity. Jorge doesn't need to make himself marketable for the Catalan public, we already have Rins, The Márquez, the Espargarós, and Maverick. Jorge is catering himself for the Madrid (and centre of Spain) public, so yeah so will be extremely happy to see that flag.

Riders being apoliticals is actually a joke. I remember that a few years back the backlash Aleix and Pol got due to Aleix words (as always) because media interpreted Aleix was pro Catalan independence, when in reality he only said he was pro-choice. Rider are afraid to open their mouth some times, but they are actually allowed to say and do whatever they want. I don't know why DORNA and Carmelo allows that flag, unless they are actually okay with it.

Ducati already chose him using that flag. I started to watch MotoGP in 2020 and I remember him in parc Fermé in Moto2 with the flag and later that same year he was announce. Ducati can't care less. They will sweep it under the rug, but if people in the internet didn't know until I mentioned it yesterday, do you think Ducati have the time to check it?

The photo above is Jorge after winning his Moto3 championship and he's already displaying the flag with the bull's siluete.

It's true that is stupid of his part and he might not really know the meaning, but given that he has been liking VOX post and how how many of this flags are popping in their events is easy to put 2 and 2 together. At this point he is just refusing to learn the meaning of the flag or chooses to ignore it.

Sorry I feel like I went out of the tangent and I'm just dumping political stuff into your laps

[arcadiabaytornado]

Why do you think the shipping wars in the Life is Strange fandom are so intense? Specifically with Pricefield and Amberprice, it’s always confused me because I feel like people can love more than one person throughout their lives, so I don’t understand why the arguments over the two pairs are as prevalent as they are.

I'm going to link this post if you don't mind because it goes over my thoughts about "one true loves" in media.

Now as for your question: I think the two biggest reasons are that A: Amberprice and Pricefield are treated with equal validity in canon. B: Rachel and Chloe's relationship has a lot "what if's."

When I say that Amberprice and Pricefield are treated with equal validity, I mean that the games never try to dismiss Chloe's feelings for Rachel or Max. She says she loves both of them at different points: "I loved her so much! How can she be dead?" and: "I will always love you. Now get out of here before I freak!" Both of these moments are treated as genuine expressions of love, and that's unique because of how most media go about the idea of "one true love."

Usually, a character is only allowed to have one love of their life. They aren't supposed to feel a real emotion toward anyone that they aren't "meant" to end up with. The fact that the LIS fandom goes "Who did Chloe REALLY love?" and then the game responds with "Both!" is not the way that usually goes. I think contributes to making ship wars intense because there isn't a real canon answer on who Chloe loved "more."

I also think Chloe and Rachel's relationship not having a conclusion contributes to the ship wars. We don't know what would have happened with Amberprice and Pricefield if Rachel lived. Maybe Chloe would have found out about Frank, and they would have had a huge fight and never spoke again. Maybe Chloe would have found out about Frank, and they would have learned to communicate better, gotten back together, married, and then lived out their lives together.

Both of those options are on the extreme end of the spectrum…but the thing is that even though those are both extreme examples, you can't say with 100% certainty that they wouldn't have happened because…well, we just don't know. The fact that it's left up for interpretation means that both shippers can make up their own ideas about what would have happened. And if I've learned from having unrestricted internet since the age of nine it's that people get very attached to their headcanon's...So yeah I do think having a situation where the fate of a canon relationship (if they both lived) is very interpretable contributes to some of the fighting. It's very easy to Pricefield fans to decide that Chloe would have ended up with Max, and it's very easy for Amberprice shippers to decide that she would have ended with Rachel.

That's my take on things! I love that LIS is such an interpretable series but I do think it leads to a situation where a lot of people are going to have polarizing opinions on things because...honestly a lot of what's "canon" within the game is just what we decide to take away form certain ships, characters, and moments.

[galvanizedfriend]

What do u think about the fans mainly fans of the originals who say that klaroline was just a hookup and that caroline never liked klaus/ klaus never loved her. I see this sentiment alot on reddit and its so frustrating.

I think people are allowed to have their own opinions and interpretations of the show. Personally I have no hard feelings towards fans who aren't into Klaroline. I have my own opinions, which are obviously very biased, so I think it's fair that people will have their own biased opinions favoring different characters/ships that are more convenient to them. That's really the thing with media in general, different people can look at the exact same thing and have completely different views, and I'm totally ok with that.

Having said that, MY opinion is that Klaroline denialists (lol) have to pointedly ignore/turn a blind eye to a lot of things in order to completely disregard it. 😂 There's a hell of a lot of evidence, even in the final season of The Originals. I like to pretend that s5 never happened too, but it's mostly because it's an awful piece of television writing of which the KC parts and that one episode that is completely focused on Elijah are the only parts that can be salvaged. 🥲

I think that kind of thing tends to come from a new wave of fans who have started their TVDverse journey through The Originals rather than TVD, although ship wars have been around since the dawn of time. If you have only ever seen TO, then I guess Klaroline really doesn't make any sense. Even the crossover episodes that feature KC, the KC bits are kept mostly in the TVD portion. She seems to come out of nowhere in S5. Both are equally canon, one isn't truer than the other, and you need both to get a bigger picture, but some people would rather stick to just one of them. And when you've seen TO first and gotten attached to a certain ship and then go back to watch TVD, you're obviously going to have a biased view over that because what you find there is obviously not going to suit your heart's desire. It happens the other way around too.

The way I see it, it's really hard to simply deny KC when you watch TVD tho. 😂 It takes a LOT of determination lol Klaus was a total puppy for Caroline, in ways he never was for anyone else, and even in the crossover episodes, he still acts the exact same way. And come on 'he's your first love, I intend to be your last, however long it takes?' 😂 If that's not a love declaration 🤷‍

As for Caroline not liking him, it's very complex. When we get down to 5x11 in TVD, and then to S5 of TO, it becomes obvious that he's always messed with her head and she had complicated feelings for him she never wanted to tap into. Which is perfectly understandable. Klaus was a villain in TVD. He killed Elena, he ruined Tyler's life, he ruined Stefan's life, tortured him, murdered Tyler in cold blood right in front of everyone to force them to find the way to make him a hybrid, caused all sorts of havoc all over her home town. Klaus was THE BAD GUY. That's a problem I have with TO that I think gets worse for people who only see that show or who see that show first and then go back to watch TVD: they seem to think Klaus is not that bad. He's just a bad boy with a bad attitude. They fall for that cheap conversation they try to sell with Cami's character, the ~~explainer, that he's just misunderstood and all he really needed was someone to be on his side. No! Klaus is AWFUL. He's killed thousands of people! He's a villain! And that's what makes him such a great character! He never needed redemption. It's way easier for people to find him redeemable when he's done nothing to personally attack them/destroy their lives, which is obviously not Caroline's case. She's seen the very worst of Klaus. He's threatened everyone she knows, including her. And Caroline is someone who, aside from having a very strong however biased moral code, is also INCREDIBLY loyal, so of course it's going to be way harder for her to forgive Klaus and forget about the terrible things he's done to just see that she's an exception for him.

What becomes clear throughout S4 of TVD (for me, at least) is that she was struggling with how she felt and in a lot of denial. A lot of the things she says to him ('people who do terrible things are just terrible people') are really things she's saying to herself. She gets mad at the fact she's obviously ~~drawn to the darkness, and so she lashes out (because, you know, she has a personality 🤷‍). 5x11 makes that very clear as well. She doesn't want Klaus around because he clouds her judgement and it makes her mad that she's probably afraid she's not gonna be able to resist him for much longer and that's only going to complicate her life further. Everyone around her makes her feel guilty for not hating Klaus, so of course she's going to feel reluctant. But when they they do meet again in S5 of TO they're both at a point of their lives where she's ok admitting that she always wanted him to prove to her that he could do better, and that she always knew he wasn't her villain, even if he never hesitated to hurt anyone else around her, she knew she was safe with him (hence why she drove to Nola after him with her kids). She doesn't want him to die, tries to stop him by telling Elijah, and the fact she goes to New Orleans to have a last day with him, having saved that message for years and across different iPhones, probably, tells us that she had, deep down, had hopes that some day, down the line, they'd find each other again. But then they do, and it's too late (and that's really the only part of that season that is written with a certain degree of poetry tbh).

All that to say, Klaus and Caroline were complicated and clashed a lot and that's part of what made it so compelling to me. There were genuine reasons why they shouldn't be together, they were virtually on opposing sides almost the whole time, and I love that about the ship. It forced Klaus to grow a conscience. He wasn't sorry for the things he did, he wasn't trying to become a better person, there was no one petting him on the back and saying 'poor you, misundertood boy'. He was confronted with the consequences of his actions, which is, for me, the best (or worst) thing that could happen to someone like Klaus, unlike with Cami, for instance, who was just there to excuse his bad behavior.

But like I said, my opinions are completely colored by the fact that I 100% support that ship. And the same way I look down on other ships because I can't stand them, I get that other people are going to look down on my otp as well and have wildly different opinions. It's a fandom, we're never going to agree on everything, and I'm totally cool with that. There's room for everyone. Unless they come directly to my doorstep to talk shit about it, it honestly doesn't bother me. I'm all for ship and let ship.

ANYWAY 😂 Sorry for the long ted talk nonnie, I RAMBLE a lot 🥲

[utilitycaster]

I feel like something so many ppl just don’t get is it’s improv. I’ll see ppl be like “I hate this arc” or “this dragged on” I’m like?? If you want to watch a curated tight fantasy story with a normal beginning middle and end maybe don’t watch long form improv media? Also maybe I’m just fundamentally misunderstanding what ur post is about. I’ll constantly think and say “it’s their game” not as a “they’re above criticism” way but more in a “cmon it’s not like this is a script that’s being poured over by ten ppl sitting in a room debating whether this 30 seconds drags or not”. Like I love Play it By Ear from Dropout but I’d never hold it to the same standard as like Six the musical or whatever. Improv/normal media requires a completely different rule set for criticism imo

Hey anon,

So here's the thing - I agree with this in terms of formal, published criticism (Ebert's Law, if you will) where you are, to an extent, grading on a scale; you should be judging on what the work is trying to achieve and not some abstract ideal that applies equally to all works regardless of provenance.

However, for personal discussion (including your own personal Tumblr blog)? This is totally irrelevant. You're allowed to dislike things, whether it's a 30 minute improvised musical or whether it's the Marriage of Figaro, for any reason. It is 100% valid for someone to look at the Mona Lisa and say "eh, doesn't do it for me," and, moreover, it's just as valid for them to say "it doesn't do it for me because I don't care for representative art and prefer abstract, modern works, but Da Vinci's sfumato technique is indeed masterful" as to say "It doesn't do it for me because it's fucking weird to me that she doesn't have eyebrows." People's enjoyment of a work is not necessarily reliant on effort put in or how much the artist cares about - it should be based on how much the art appeals to them.

It's fine if people hate an arc. If they hate it so much that they aren't able to enjoy watching, then I think they should probably stop watching...but that's a choice for them to make, and as someone who loves complaining, I've talked about arcs dragging and had it interpreted by total strangers as "you clearly seem to hate this" when really it was just a case of me...not liking some aspects of a larger whole, and choosing to talk about that because I had things to say. Like, I do think the early Campaign 3 pacing was deeply frustrating, and I do think that this wouldn't be the case if it weren't improv, but there have been many improv actual plays that I felt had great pacing, and also it was still frustrating to me and I wanted to express that.

In fact, what I was getting at in my post is that if you're trying to provide a counterpoint to other people's criticism, you need to focus on the points they're making; and if you're trying to defend something in general, you need to be talking about what you find good that is specific to that thing, rather than making excuses like "the cast likes it" or "it's improv".

To give an example: I love the Aeor arc, which was, to an extent, divisive. Here's two responses I could have:

"I think the Aeor arc built up to a satisfying and emotionally charged final boss fight that was thematically resonant with the Mighty Nein as a group. I think the path there had a good balance of adventure, combat, and RP scenes, especially given its position as the final arc of the campaign and the one in which many of the character romances were realized. Eiselcross was a fun and well-crafted environment that was challenging for a party of their level, and Aeor provided new insight into the Calamity, which at the time had not been explored in depth, while also providing a lot of opportunities to tie into the arcs of the various individual characters, notably Caleb and Caduceus. I also personally am a big fan of exploring fallen technologically advanced civilizations in a fantasy setting as a trope."

2. "Well, it's the cast's table, and it's improvised."

Both are true, but the first one lets people know what I see in that arc and why I love it. The second one ends the conversation, is true of almost everything Critical Role does, probably doesn't address anyone else's complaints, and doesn't even explain why I like it. And for what it's worth I don't think meta needs to address anyone's complaints - you're allowed to look at the Aeor arc and say "cool, I think it took too long and dragged and was too stressful" and we can part ways knowing we are different people with different tastes. But if I were, hypothetically, passionately trying to defend the Aeor arc and were openly resentful towards people who disliked it, the first option is obviously superior to the second option, which makes me look like someone who cannot come up with a single specific reason why this thing I allegedly love is good, and who is whining because I lack the maturity to accept that my opinions are not universally shared by all.

[faggot-billcipher]

i haven't seen anyone else say it so i'll say it. expecting a creator to confirm your headcanons exactly as you want is also very parasocial. i don't think being parasocial is just thinking a creator of a media you like is your friend. it's also expecting them to know your opinions on art they make like they're psychic and expecting your interpretations to be 100% confirmed. and acting like you've been terribly and purposely betrayed when they don't. and dare to take the media in a direction you never wanted.

to me that's no better than the parasocial epidemic of acting like a creator is your friend because you like the media they make. it's on a similar level but in regards to how you view their work and them as a person. it's still expecting special treatment from them that you are not owed. it's still very entitled behavior. it's still expevting them to somehow be telepathic enough to know your every thought on their work which is an toxic and unreasonable demand. chill.

this is also why at this point i support the concept of death to the audience. instead of always going death of the author.with how it's used i'm getting tired of the term death of the author nowadays as it just enables people to do confirmation bias. even when the source material blatantly proves their views on the media wrong. it's pretty much going "i'm always right even when i'm wrong" about media anlaysis. and i shouldn't have to spell out how that's not a healthy or mature way of coping when canon turns out to be the opposite of what you theorized. it's both parasocial and terminally online behavior at its finest. and yes tbh i am lowkey thinking of this surge of communities trying to be the next su critical phenomenon while writing this. y'all aren't exempt from this behavior and are the worst ones about it honestly. and yes btw this includes groups like toh critical, amphibia critical, hazbin hotel critical, helluva boss critical etc. whatever else you're thinking of. and this is coming from someone who legit borderline hates amphibia. and the ableist messages it has about marcy's neurodivergency coded narrative. but i still don't wanna associate with those of y'all who try to go "oh but the su critical mindseet is valid and healthy THIS TIME uwu!" at the next media that comes out.

it borders on digital self harm, how far y'all tend to go with this shit most of the time.

also a lot of your communties like this are full of hypocrites just as bad or worse than the creator of the media you're criticizing. it happened with su critical. and it quickly happened with hazbin hotel critical too. it's almost like it takes more than being obssessively hypercritical of largely new queer media coming out to be a non bigoted and non abusive person. who knew!

and on that note of these communities being full of coddled abusers and bigots, y'all refuse to do anything about it. outside of the mess that was the callout against genderfluidlucifer. but lily orchard has done worse and is doing worse STILL. and you're excusing every shitty thing she does because she was a major influencer in this form of media criticsm subculture. which still proves my point i made that y'all refuse to hold genuinely bad people in these communities acocuntable if they get really popular first. especially when they hit a certain level of popularity arbitrarily like lily did. (and this applied to bismuthspartnerincrime until he left the scene altogether but that's it's own can of worms.) because you think anyone agreeing with your media criticisms in the right pandering way is allowed automatic social and legal immunity. when that's literally not how anything works.

in general these days i do not trust someone who thinks they can do no harm because they parrot the right criticisms against the media i'm referring to. also on a slight side note i still remember how a lot of people in the su critical community claimed wearing glassess wasn't a disability. what was that all about??

like that side note just shows my point of how these communities were full of bigots and abusers but not much was being done about them. and i'm tired of it being allowed to happen and this problem being repeated. because no one wants to learn and repeatedlyputs callouts full of exclus/anti rhetoric on a pedestal for no reason. like we don't have to put these subcultures on a pedestal but it keeps happening. why do we keep letting it happen?? and btw before anyone claims anything this is not an anti leftism post. i am a leftist at heart. i just hate seeing new leftists acting like they have to get themselves roped into these commuities to be real leftists. when there's way more pressing forms of activism to focus more energy on than getting mad about blorbo from your show THIS MUCH.

[rayless-reblogs]

How about 8. and/or 27. from the author ask game?

Got it!

8: How do you feel about epilogues?

It's not something I've given a lot of thought, but on reflection, I really like them. One of my chief hang-ups with media, especially books and video games, is when there's too long of a stretch between the climax and the end of the story. Sometimes there's this long dead zone, where all the energy evaporates because the author's telling us how things are being resolved, but the tension is gone and we're just getting too much information. Or, the author spins things out too long by throwing in some little last-minute conflicts that can feel distracting and irritating. In general, I want the climax-to-finale interval to be as short as possible -- but then you run the risk of leaving the story feeling unfinished.

So an epilogue can be a big help. You've had your final confrontation. The Dark Lord is dead (or maybe your spouse now, who knows?) With an epilogue, you can end the climax on an emotional high note, and then fast forward to some time in the future. There, you can show how the characters' and the world's circumstances have changed without explaining every step. You don't have to endure a period of explanation and minor problem-solving. It allows the payoff of the actual ending to arrive much quicker.

So I think they can be very useful, and, looking back, I've noticed I often use them myself, both in original and fanfic. But they aren't always called for. With both Papom and Eola, that fast-forward after the climax to see what everyone's up to felt right. The next book, on the other hand, didn't need one. It's definitely a case by case thing.

27: Do you try to do most of your research ahead of writing (when research is necessary) or do you do it as things come up?

Up until recently, I hadn't set time aside to specifically research ahead of a project. Either I was writing fic, and "research" involved happily absorbing things through the fandom. (Though in some cases, I should've researched more real-world stuff too.) Or I was writing fantasy, and I felt I had enough of a grasp on my world-building not to have to research things.

(This is not to say people shouldn't research their fantasy world-building -- being grounded in reality enriches a fantasy setting -- but Papom and Eola didn't feel like they called for it.)

Papom is based on a number of fairy tales, so I did read up on the variants before writing, but I chose not to delve too far into academic interpretations. Given Eider's double amputation, I also researched that, but that came after I'd written the first draft -- that was useful in refining her character and realizing she'd actually be more self-sufficient than I'd initially thought.

Research is good, but I think it can sometimes bog down an author's progress. Sometimes, it's good to just launch into things and get your ideas down, and then worry more about getting details right on the next draft. So in some cases, I'd recommending researching as you go, or even afterwards.

But with my third book, the Next Book, it's a fantasy, but it's not a fantasy set in a cute little universe of my own making: It's set during real-world history, involving real cultures, in a very real point in time. I don't want to get too specific yet, but this is why I've been dropping little mentions about neat things I've learned regarding Greek culture in the Roman Empire. Something I am not an expert on.

Fake fantasy setting? Yeah, I'm totally an expert on that, let's dive in and make stuff up as we go. Rome? Uh -- I've read some stuff, but not enough to world-build. I need to learn a lot before I have an idea what the setting for my characters even is.

The book's plot is also based somewhat on the writings of an ancient writer, so I had to read through all of their output. I think that started some time in 2021. Then it was time to research Rome itself. It's a huge subject, so I focused on a few areas that were most relevant to my story, and then I went after different books on those subjects. That was 2022 and into 2023. I took notes and outlined during that stage, but I didn't start properly writing until I was done with all of the reading.

But once I started writing, I kept running into little questions like -- "Did the Romans have any understanding of asthma?" "How did Romans store their books?" So in a smaller way, I kept researching all the way through.

That was maybe more answer than you bargained for, but thanks for the ask!

Meme here.

[liliallowed]

I went into this trying to cause chaos but now I'm genuinely saying this because they kinda need to be called out.

Crimson, the big demon, the player, is kind of bleugh.

I would say pathetic but in truth the term they need should be more complex and left to interpretation.

Crimson, you clearly have issues and you have a horrible way of dealing with them. That is clear beyond belief. (It's even stated by lili herself.)

You should probably realize that you're never going to get what you want out of things. You clearly want some emotional attachment however the way you determined a "fool proof way" to get it will only lead you to disappointment. Though, personally, I don't care. You did this to yourself and you wrapped all of us into it because you're both selfish and blind. That's not my problem.

I can only be so calm and uncaring about your behavior, though I guess I still don't care lmao.

I don't care what happens anymore, I don't care about if we die(though idk about the others' opinions lol). We've been doomed to a cycle. We'll break eventually. The moment we weren't allowed to die was the moment that proved there is no turning point, there is nothing for us anymore.

God, all I wanted to do was relax.

I wish we were still with Dust, I really want cuddles right now.

Congrats, Crimson. You've officially made things harder for everyone, including yourself. I don't even care what you say to that or how you feel.

(Idk why I got so into typing this lmao)

yeah they're a bit of a self contradictory asshole. (you good bud?/gen/lh I did put the warning tags there for a reason lol. you're absolutely right to call them out for it. I hope it didn't trigger you!)

also not gonna deny them being basically a whirlpool of angst dragging anyone who comes close enough to the bullshit.

but this reaction of yours would... trigger them to go back to being absolutely HORRIBLE to you.

they were being "docile" and "peaceful" to you so far. but they can do SO MUCH worse to you than what they did to dust.

they'd also weaponize sans knowing you care for him. they're toxic most when they're being threatened with being LEFT BEHIND or left alone. if you treat them by ignoring them?

yeaaaah they're gonna fucking lose their shit and go off the rails just to keep you there... they're not yandere for no reason. and unlike most media actual people with yandere like traits aren't cool or bad ass. they're scary and disgusting selfish people who CAN'T see beyond their own desires. trapped in their own head.

dust is the opposite but has the same obsession he wants to save you from their games by killing you.

I know they're mean. and it's okay if you hate them! I didn't make them to be likable. I just made them the combination of being completely apathetic AND obsessed to death...

are you gonna choose death/true reset? that's always an option to weaponize against both dust AND crimson.

I'll wait to see who else is on board.

[tero-ga]

Alright, as promised i'm going to giving details about my Barok and Albert SwapAU!! If you want to add more to this, you're absolutely allowed to!! I'm not going to lie that i really want to see of what you guys say and create djhdjd-

✨Their personality✨ (plus tiny things about the story-)

Okay i'm keeping this one brief since you're probably know how this works, their original characteristics are completely switched as well their occupation, demeanor, status and personal beliefs. As for the story in general, there's nothing really change other than just switching roles so that means original Barok's backstory are also applies to Swap!Albert too, just to keep it safe and not ruined much of anything of already good story lol (spoilers for this bit: so this implied that Albert has a sibling in this, and i know exactly who's going to play the role for this just you wait-). There is something that i think is nice to keep the same habit in this AU for example Swap!Albert still have nervous tic of bitting his nail but just on very, very rare occasion and Swap!Barok still have overly dramatic movements like his damage sprite, ect.

For their times in university, you can interpret it for yourself of how they met together like we are have our own interpretation of how the original met together. But as their personality, for this i thought it would be great if they have same behavior as the original. Swap!Albert is cheery and friendly and Swap!Barok is quiet and often keeping his manners in front of people but once he hangout with Albert, he began to getting comfortable and start to act like a goofball later on. I still don't know if this is a good idea but honestly if it's sounds cute, i'm gonna stick with it-

I think that's pretty much it for this section so let's go to the next thing-

✨The Facts and the Funsiesssss✨

or whatever this is idk what to call this section-

this is me just spewing bunch of stuff that i've been thinking while designing them so here it is-

there's something in me that wanting to change their name but i'm really not going to since i'm so bad at it- but if you want to hear it here's the name that i spend researching for puns way longer than i should, the name i've come up with is Albert Monstein & Barok Wattson. If it's sound bad, i don't blame you so that's why i'm just keeping it the same-

Albert changed his diet to vegetarian back when he was younger, he would be always gets sick after trying eating meat and later on he would begin to absolutely despises it.

Barok would have the most villainess laughter ever that some people actually scared of him, even though this is how he normally laughs.

I for no reason have a weird headcanon that original Barok is farsighted without he ever realized it so that's why i added glasses to Swap!Barok, his vision aren't that major and he'll be alright without glasses but he mostly wears it so he wouldn't get headaches too often.

The reason of why Albert have hood are just to keeping himself low profile in public. Whether it is stay away from media outlets or gets low chances from getting attack and killed.

Albert does have a curly and quite lengthy hair, but he did cut his hair and used hair product to straighten it to make himself look professional.

I've mentioned that Albert does have a habit of bitting his nail, he frequently did it like the original back he was in university. But eventually he learned to stop doing it, and i absolutely have a concept art in my mind of him does bite his nail again heheheh.

Here's their opinion of Herlock Sholmes, or anyone who takes the role as herlock sholmes- : Albert does actually loved reading the herlock sholmes series in his free time, he just only have enough of their bullshit and find their presence irritating. Meanwhile, Barok is absolutely a fan and would idolize them badly but he pretending and act he see them as a rival, archenemy. But he would still asking for their autograph though.

Andd I think this pretty much it, this is probably the most work i've ever put into writing lmao, can't even to compared this to my assignment for college-

But it is fun though!! just something that just keep my mind to rest from stressed and stuff, hopefully you're liking it! Once again if you want to add more, you're absolutely have my permission to do so! :DD

[haellen-o]

GET TO KNOW ME

its about that time again. thank you @gatheredfates for the tag!. unfortunately this is a bit more of a buzz kill post since it asks questions i don't really have happy honest answers to lol

tagging @the-unending-journey @elizabethrobertajones @dragonsongmakhali @dragoon-mid-jump @otherworldseekers and you the reader. should you find this interesting

are you named after anyone? yes. much to my dismay i am named after my father, its not that i dislike my dad. i just don't like the name very much. especially considering we could've pulled from scottish, irish, and welsh names. as we have extended family from those regions

when was the last time you cried? the details of it aren't very fun and pertain to mental abuse, so i'm not gonna share it. but it was a few months ago

do you have kids? i have a dog. and i plan on getting a rat once i have a place of my own again... Biological children? never happening lol

do you use sarcasm a lot. i'm english. sarcasm is like breathing

what sports do you play/have you played? i don't like sports. although i did pick up boxing in my youth

what is the first thing you notice about other people? how they look at me. i was forced from a very young age to learn to read peoples facial expression to interpret and separate what they actual think from what they say so i just kind of default to that now

scary movies or happy endings? i adore horror as a medium. From cheesy slasher flicks to intense atmospheric horror, and all the weird niché's in-between (body, analog, existential, ect) some of my favourite media is horror

any special talents? uuuuuhhhhh... i uh... I'm really adaptive? i learn new things pretty quick (i just forget them very easily)

where were you born? Kidderminster england, its a bit of a shit place don't visit there if you find yourself in england (i'm sorry in advance if you find yourself in england)

do you have any hobbies? video games, writing, listening to music, creating music, and looking at art.

do you have any pets? i own a jack russel by the name of timothy. tho we just call him tim or timmy for short, he' is the bestest little guy's just a little guy

how tall are you? when i last checked. which was nearly a decade ago, 6'3. Tho again it was quite awhile ago so that could've changed

favourite subject in school. i was homeschooled (poorly) and didn't enjoy any of it

dream job? i really don't know anymore. every job i've thought would be the dream job ended up getting incredibly bad very quickly for people trying to break into it, and for some just bad in general (Youtube. Streaming. Music) so i honestly have no idea what my "Dream job" would be... I guess one that pays well and allows me to have some money left over after rent/taxes/bills/groceries?

eye colour? blue, nothing special here. i'm told they're quite nice to look at though

[daculadaculadacula]

'either you liked the film or it wasn't for you' is literally a black and white statement (from a post i can pick out and @ but i am not trying to start a fight or whatever). i am allowed to love something and be critical of the media i consume. i like renfield a lot and have watched it multiple times, and honestly find a lot of it skippable, but i know what i want from it lmao and hint: it is not cops or drawn out fight scenes

i am not sure where statements like this come from or why u would be getting upset over mysterious people calling renfield copaganda. i havent personally seen this as much as i have seen people be critical of hero cop screentime.

at the end of the day the hero cop (you can call her chaotic neutral all you'd like, but i'm of the opinion that even this begs a closer look than what someone who's seen it once or twice tops would take away) still has the moral highground and serves as renfields larger inspo for becoming a better more self-actualizing person. renfield cites the support group at the end, but lbr, he is stated to not have a lot of free will(? free thinking ability or something similar) by the director and has his whole git gud arc really pick up speed after he encounters rebecca. she stops acting like a cop and starts acting like a person and tbqh, i am not entirely sure why she keeps her uniform and job (there's nothing about the rest of the cops or even just her job post drac chop) since she does state that she wants to take the rest of them down permanently. i think this might be something overlooked in terms of referring to renfield as copaganda, or maybe it's meant to be ridiculous, but i'm gonna go out on a limb and say cop discourse isn't at a place yet where even the majority can see it's ridiculous that rebecca is still in uniform fighting for her personal justice against drug lords and against "her own," which is the factor that makes me think the corrupt cop narrative is a bit less than half-hearted. at the same time, the narrative about group therapy is also this way. the characters are a little sillay. there's a lot to parse and a lot of interpreting that can be done. cops and narcissism are both serious issues, i think taking offense to anyone with gripes about either issue is a bit much. renfield 2023 doesn't need to be held up as a golden pinnacle of media in order for you yourself to still be a decent person and enjoy it.

rebecca's sister and father (both cops) are pitched as good people. they are probably morally the best people in the film. that the unnamed cops arent going around actively harming people but working with others who do harm people in this film make it seem as if this is something to be taken with a grain of salt, as with literally everything else about the film, when the reality is that usa cops do this as well as actively commit atrocities against people on the regular. functionally they serve their narrative purpose, but i'm within bounds to say they're still treated too gently (ie near neutral. if you aren't able to think the lobos are entertaining or funny you probably don't like the film to begin with, and the cops in this film have put themselves on their level), esp with no one except kyle having a name. nameless mobs don't make effective antags or even pseudo villains. i personally appreciate that the cops are shitty and take advantage of overtime while being part of the industry with the fattest budget in the us. it's still a blink and you miss it gag tho. maybe some people with cop and law oriented agendas would take issue with it. i can see how people with anti cop and law agendas could also take issue with it.

i just think people can be allowed to call it copaganda if they'd like. anyone invested enough knows there's nuance, and we don't need to be puritans labeling a film or people reacting negatively to it as not good or not having justifiable takes. 'like it or just fuck off and don't be critical over xyz,' isn't a realistic expectation. a lot of thoughtless opinions get posted online all the time. in the end this is about a horror comedy and not a groundbreaking discourse piece. i think the angle for cops as a senseless body (tbc not the heroes or 'good guys.' still don't like that!) in this film is fine even and a step in the right direction for slap-in inclusion in narratives. i don't think taking issue with the people still critical of cop portrayal is a great move tho.

[pink-strawberry-kissess]

I feel like if we get an re6 remake, lack of media literacy is going to have people up in arms about Ada/Leon's relationship like it came out of nowhere when they've either missed or purposefully ignored all the hints that build up their relationship leading to 6. :\

Replaying 2r right now and Leon's "You're stuck with me till the end" line is just so cute since it's true. It's 2013 (in 6 anyways lol) and the boy is still by her side. But also, just to add on to the previous anon about people villainizing Ada, she literally tells Leon to GTFO every chance she can in 2r! She's trying to get him to save his own skin and he keeps telling her no, he's not leaving. That's the choice that HE makes, over and over again. I don't think Ada even had any plans for involving Leon until after he rescues her from the garbage chute and again, even in that scene she still tells him to leave and save himself before involving him.

Another side note, kinda disappointed we still don't know how Ada survived in 2r. Maybe exposition in Separate Ways?

the lack of media literacy has already been shown with how people are interpreting re4r 💀 (some of them in their 30s- embarrassing..)

nope scratch that, lack of media literacy affected how people interpreted re2r

i just won't be trusting anyone who's still in high school to be giving me an interpretation of the games and the storylines

not only that- i feel like (and i kinda hope) that we get a infinite darkness part 2 or something that will flesh out leon and ada's relationship even more like how damnation did. i think there's a lot of background info that we even miss as hardcore aeon fans lol. it would be nice to see more of it on screen. the idea that "that night" was able to happen also allows us to interpret the fact that they must have been living their lives off screen during re5. they were both working, both still doing things outside of work as well. i really think that they saw each other a few times, maybe just having dinner and then rushed sex. they don't need to explore work, explore feelings and regrets, they can just enjoy their situationship as much as they can before leaving each other again. they're a constant in each other's life that they can go back to with no strings attached. (and it's also painfully clear that they care about each other, and are attracted to each other)

it would be nice if we had something in between re4 and damnation. since miss all the potential courting or whatever and it would be great to see another instance where leon lets his guard down around ada to only have her save his ass again lmao.

both leon and ada aren't capable of keeping a long term relationship. and the fact that leon flirts means little when he can't hold a relationship. no one is going to date a man who says the dumbest shit and has a job he can't talk about. and also that he'll be off somewhere almost dying constantly. they (leon and ada) can both go to each other, no words need to be shared, they can just get back to it and then leave. (with leon potentially more forward with wanting more, while ada is more guarded.)

people just genuinely dislike ada because she's "in the way," of themselves shipping themselves with leon. the blorbofication and babygirl-fication of leon needs to be studied. he is a grown ass man and they all wanna baby him.

2013 and Leon be jumping off burning buildings to save Ada. (Yes it's his personality to do so, but he also just straight up left Helena. I think that's also why i really like the relationship between leon and helena because she can read him so well. she that just knows that there's more to leon and ada and says it before he can.)

ada had always had leon's safety in mind. i think when leon so easily took the bullet for her, she realized that she could trust him. she works in a world where she can't trust anyone. why the HELL would she trust leon??? just because he's cute? she has NO reason to trust him.

i think that even with og separate ways, people were upset that ada just showed up in the village. no intro, no loading thing to tell us why she's there. we know WHY, but since capcom is spoon feeding us info, i really hope that ada will have her own little intro story like leon did.

the way that lily gao talks about ada makes me think that they spent more time characterizing ada and gave her more story to work with, and i really hope we get to see that with remake separate ways

[onewomancitadel]

I think what people really mean by Twitter being 2015!Tumblr is that the age demographic of Tumblr has changed (based on polls, I think the age group with the biggest user size is early-mid twenties), a lot of shitstirrers left for Twitter in the Purge of 2018, a lot of guys who used Tumblr for p*rn also left in 2018 (seriously, when I interacted with a guy at uni once who wanted in my pants I mentioned Tumblr because I am socially inept and he was like, oh the website for p*rn? *smirk* and I was like no I use it for my Reylos... he was wearing a Star Wars t-shirt, it's a long story) and obviously in general anybody else who used it for that reason also left, but you know exactly what sort of demographic I'm talking about - far be it from me to unturn that stone, I understand it's a mixed issue - and then overall you've got the fact that Tumblr is slightly better than it was, but it's not perfect.

I do think platform culture influences the way people interact with each other, and there are definitely ways you can fit somebody's interaction patterns into a typology - but the style of detraction you might see in Reddit comments is exactly the stuff you see on Twitter and it is the thing you encounter on Tumblr. Because Tumblr allows you to run your own personal blog, though, you have much more control over your interaction style. If Reddit is a free debate space, Tumblr is curated by comparison.

But it's also just a human nature thing lol. There are plenty of teenagers who have growing up to do on here (I was one of them) and you see a lot more on platforms popular with teenagers (Tik Tok, Twitter, Instagram) which changes the site culture. But I also think that teenagers need their own space to be edgy and get the angst out of the way. It's just much harder to do that when the platforms they're on also encourage putting your face, name, where you live etc. on it.

I find it a fascinating question because I don't think the Internet is wholly iredeemable and clearly we get some joy out of it - the things which concern me about the Internet have parts to do with social media and some not. I want to know what it is that makes Tumblr a pleasant site to use for hobbyist purposes. I can write longform posts, and consider topics which interest me, and curate my experience - by in large the the site has a slightly more mature userbase...

I also had on my mind recently how hard it is to write posts where you have people coming to you with the worst interpretation of what you've said. I think I am starting to accept again that I can't control that and people will read into what I'm saying because that's what they're looking for. That's something which still happens on Tumblr. It's a product of the Internet medium where it's very hard to clarify something you've said the way you could mid-conversation, and the fact that generally people are quite defensive. It feels like a combative space at times.

The real point I'm sort of trying to make is that like, part of what makes Tumblr a good platform is a consequence of its medium - it's a microblogging website - and part of it is a consequence of the userbase evolving. But I also think that loyal userbase is a consequence of what it offers in contrast to what others don't. Equally, issues with Tumblr aren't necessarily specific to platform, and I'd go so far as to venture that to be true of other social media websites. It's just very apparent that there are very bad decisions being made with them killing all user goodwill and reason to use them, but the myopic eye of short-term gains does not care for long-term growth and stability. It's a pretty sobering realisation to know that most of those guys up there think you're as dumb as a rock and will just take what you get. It's not some big conspiracy. They just think their site users are dumb. It's a pretty haunting and narrow view of humanity lol. There is no honour in it and yeah, it is actually nonsensical even from the view of a capitalist philosophy, because why would you willingly kill something with great brand and cultural foothold? Why would you abandon something that makes the platform what it is? This goes for Tumblr with its changes to the dashboard from Following (seeing things your followers post) to For You (algorithm).

[woahjo]

Hi Cal I saw the KS asks and I was summoned! This situation truly was the precursor to modern dark content morality policing. I remember so many people ran with the toxic BL label because the author had allegedly acknowledged it as a valid reading of the work. She was just excited that KS was getting so much attention and basically said that she was happy to see people engaging with her work even if it was in a different way from what she thought. Which brings up a really interesting point: is the author allowed to tell you how to read the book? And as an author, what do you do when differing interpretations escalate into completely missing the point? Is there anything you can do?

still insane to me that an author acknowledging that reading something as a romance is valid can equate to "i condone this behavior and think it's what people should strive for! it's only a romance!" very wild. the world is failing. media is dying. subtlety has been dead for a long time.

also.. as much as i'd love to say that an author is allowed to tell someone how to read or interpret work but i honestly think it's just not realistic. different life experiences breed different interpretations and, in most cases, that's not necessarily a bad thing. when it comes to missing the point completely... i really don't think there is anything to be done outside of just saying "this is the point of that work". people will read things the way they want to read things and im sure the author of KS feels some type of way about how people have interpreted her work.

when it comes to creative things, one of the blessings and curses is that people will make their own interpretations of intended messages or themes. honestly, i like it when people develop their own ideas about things i make, but there have also definitely been times where certain things i've written or done don't get noticed/are missed. i think the most an author can do (in the case that opinions end up spiraling into "missing the point") is to just.. say what the original point is and sort of let go of the reigns. once something creative is out in the world, there's no taking it back, ya know? on the other hand though, it's a wonderful things to have people enjoy / engage with your work so much that there's room for mass interpretation that way!!!

regardless, i really think that with KS and a lot of other works in similar genres that contain dark content, the issue is the demonization of thought and story. combined, ofc, with less media literacy and the currently prolific idea that writing it = condoning it. we all draw our line somewhere when it comes to that (i know i do), but the crux of the issue is that a lot of people simply... don't know how to properly read anymore. that sounds mean but it's def true. as a society, we've undervalued literature and the humanities to the point that print media is literally a dying industry. things that aren't STEM have taken a backseat not just culturally, but educationally, because they've been passed off as "easy" and "common sense", so people have stopped trying to learn it. the general belief has shifted greatly in the last few years to the idea that media literacy is a natural-born ability rather than a skill honed over many years (we all know the joke of "who cares that the curtains are blue" when the point of those exercises isn't about the color, but the ability to pick up on subtlety in literature and to teach people how to pick up on subtext). we've stopped caring about learning it because we've been taught that STEM is the more educated route and should be the central focus of education. tragically, this means that more complicated works end up in the "bad" category purely because bad things happen without obvious condemnation. and the worst part of it is that, on a daily basis (outside of profession), we use the humanities (reading, writing, analysis, ethics, etc) more than most people will ever need to use a complex math problem or know a specific scientific formula or cycle. but alas... the world is changing and i hate it.

[sneezemonster15]

Anon: a valid reason for why it makes no sense that sns is intentional

You: yOu'Re HoMoPhObiC

Typing out long paragraphs to prove a point isn't going to suddenly make it valid. I believe anon is right. The misogyny in Naruto does a lot to highlight the relationship between the males. Different aspects of a piece of media are bound to influence each other. Kishimoto wrote Naruto to be similar to a much intense version of a rival-like relationship in his own life. He also acts as if women are part of some foreign species, leading him to say "idk how to write women" as justification for ruining all the arcs of females. Queer baiting is a thing. These things collectively contribute to make Sns so obvious.

So I'm sorry to break it to you but I can't, in a million years, believe that this cishet, married man sat down and intentionally wrote a 700 chapter gay romance. And yes, some pieces of media are unintentional. You just make this piece of art and not everyone will interpret it the same way. Anyone can show up and say "character A looks beautiful. This is an intentional thing done by the artist" when the artist drew character A to look average to their eyes. Kishi does realize that sns must look so fucking romantic to some ppl and he allows us to see it the way we want.

That being said, i don't see the point in arguing whether kishi intended to write homosexual characters or not. Does saying that it was intentional make you feel better about yourself /the ship?? Does that help you glorify your favourite author of all time?? Are you going to sit here and defend this middle aged man who has literally moved on with his life, for something he wrote eons ago?? Go ahead ig. If you really want to live like that. You should go touch some grass.

Ugh, I go out for one night of drinking and dancing and this is what I come home to.

Look sweetheart. You ARE biased. And HOMOPHOBIC. And quite ignorant, I must say.

Also why are you so salty about my long paragraphs, seeing you didn't actually counter my arguments but only reiterated the earlier ask which isn't a proof of anything? 😂

Bubbla, it's not about writing LONG paragraphs that makes my answer valid. It's my reasoning. Which you obviously conveniently missed and came and ranted in the ask section, like some seven year old stubborn child. Next time, I won't write things that I want to say, (and I usually do have a lot to say because Kishi gives me a lot to think about) but just telepath it to my readers. Is that what you want hon?

And you know where I am coming from?? I work in the industry. I know how it works from experience. I also know because I am in the habit of watching films from all over the world since I was four. I make time to actually read about storytelling. I am a cinephile. A lot of fans, such as yourself, are ignorant about how things are done in the actual world. Like I am sorry but you obviously don't know jackshit.

I socialize with a lot of writers, some of them are national and international award winning film makers and I like to pick their brains, because of my own interests. One of them recently got nominated for an Oscar. I would have shared the link had I not been mindful about my anonymity. That's a privilege only special people get (you know who you are). Am I flexing? Let me know when your friend gets nominated for an Oscar, even though I think Murican film awards are quite overhyped, but it's still a major recognition. What I am trying to tell you is that I am coming from a solid background and I give reasoning for it. And I don't see actual counterpoints from you, just a sad little rehash of what the other anon said, also as ignorant.

Anyway, you know why I don't think Kishi's writing is unintentional? The whole reason why Kishi thought it was important to talk about - are they friends? Or brothers? Or More? points to the FACT that he wanted to say something with it. That their true feelings for each other is at the very least, suspect. If they aren't brothers, since Naruto does finally admit he doesn't think Sasuke is his brother when talking to Hagoromo, and if they aren't just friends, as Naruto finally admits in chapter 698, that he doesn't really know how to explain it, what else could it be?? And how is it that I have seen this trope so many times in other gay media, very much derived from personal stories of gay film makers?

Why would Kishi tell the story this way when he makes Sasuke ask Naruto over and over again, to define the relationship, and Naruto keeps saying, because you are my 'friend'? Why waste so much precious panel space when he could have added more fight scenes that otakus just eat up with both hands? Have you asked yourself these questions? Do you even think about writer's intent? Do you even use your head while consuming media?

I have the advantage of having watched I don't know, around fifty films about gay coming of age stories, and talking to actual gay people to compare if their stories or experiences were similar.

The writer's intention says a lot. I get that most fans don't understand the method of writing a story, but to think it's accidental is plain denial mixed with ignorance.

Kishimoto intended to tell a gay love story. Otherwise he wouldn't have told the story in this manner. No way. He deliberately moulded the story that forces the protagonist, who is closeted gay, to answer why he cares about Sasuke so much, and what his feelings for Sasuke mean. Why would there be this intent to define this relationship, had they not been purposely written as two boys in love with each other? And why are we seeing the same dynamic in Boruto which isn't even about these two? Yeah, sure, Kishimoto has apparently moved on but he is still continuing the same dynamic in Boruto, nice, heh.

Why aren't they close to their wives? Why don't they even talk to them, much less spend time with them? But they always have time for each other? They smile for each other and look alive and happy when otherwise they look so dull? Why is Sasuke's marriage such a sham? Why doesn't he kiss or visit his own wife? Why does Kishimoto show Boruto think of his mother when Sarada talks about bento in Gaiden but when she gives it to Naruto in the next chapter, Naruto thinks of Sasuke looking at the bento and not his OWN wife when she is the one who regularly makes it for him?

Do you really not see writer's intent? What is Kishi trying to say here, in a genre where he can't explicitly say it, but has other means that he uses so blatantly? Before you ask me questions, ask them to yourself. If you then have doubts, then maybe come to me. Or don't. I have a huge backlog anyway.

How easily you sweep significant moments under the rug without asking yourself why the writer wrote it this way if he didn't want to say something with it? Writers use everything in their toolboxes to tell their story. Narrative, dialogues, characters, visual imagery, which in Naruto's case, all points to a deliberate intention. You think it all happens in isolation? No thought required?? Maybe you don't do things that way, but don't expect everyone else to be as simple minded as you. I can agree that one can be susceptible to interpreting a piece of art as not intended by the creator. I remember once, when I was working in an art gallery, and admiring a painting. So this old man, a collector stood alongside me, also looking at the painting, and asked me what I saw in it. And I told him. He had a different idea, and he got offended by my reading of it, much to my amusement. But you see, it was abstract art. I can look at a Jackson Pollock painting and say it's about a murder scene. You could say it's about rains. That's the fun about abstract art. But there's nothing abstract about Naruto. If anything, it's too expositional, like any other shounen manga. Love, know your genres. Don't think you can get away with comparing apples and oranges, it's such an obvious ploy.

Heh, you don't have to break anything to me anon. I know it is possible to tell a story that accidentally looks gay. An example? You couldn't give me one in your rant, even though you apparently believe it, heh. No worries. I will give you an example.

Top Gun.

If you have seen that film, then you know what I am talking about. A lot of people who thought it was about mach speed and testosterone and male ambition were surprised to see how gay it looked and sounded.

You think people aren't aware of it? Wrong.

This is a clip from a dramedy film called 'Sleep with me' and this is one of Quentin Tarantino's acting roles. Now he is being funny here, and even though he makes a lot of sense, it's meant for comedy, that's the whole point of this scene in the film. It is funny. BUT. There is a difference. The difference is TROPES. Writing your script with a line or two that sounds like a character is saying superficial funny gay shit, is different from actually taking those tropes and embedding them in your narrative. The other reason why Top Gun sounds accidentally gay, and is not actually gay, is because otherwise Tom Cruise would never have signed the film, that man is probably gay himself and is notoriously homophobic, and he would sue anyone's ass who as much as breathes about his doubtful sexuality. And secondly, the writer admitted that he didn't write it that way, but he could see how it could be interpreted as gay. But these moments are only for laughs, totally circumstantial and don't add ANYTHING to the actual narrative.

Naruto's story on the other hand is GUIDED by it. Naruto does everything to get close to Sasuke, to understand him, to make him trust him. Kishimoto uses a lot of tropes well explored in global gay media to tell their love story. I have made comparisons with actual films, look for them here and here. I am sorry (not) to say your understanding of narrative is ridiculously poor.

As for your argument that cishet man like Kishimoto can't write gay romance, hahaha, is laughable. Kinda shows how much you really don't know about shit.

Abdellatif Kechiche is a cishet man. And he made 'Blue is the warmest colour' which is about a lesbian coming of age story. So what does that tell you, that he is actually a closeted lesbian??? Hahaha.

Like I said, I don't want to speculate on Kishi's sexuality. Maybe he is closeted, maybe he is bi, maybe he is cishet, we don't know. And I don't care, I am here for the story, not his personal life as it has no relevance in my consumption and understanding of the story itself. Why did he tell a gay love story? Because he wanted to. Just like Kechiche wanted to.

Your arguments are so bizarre.

You obviously don't know what queer baiting is. There's a difference between dangling a carrot knowing it won't work out in the story that way and basing your entire story on the idea. Kishimoto wrote his central narrative around their relationship. Where he wrote such romantic dialogues for them which would make even Shakespeare blush. You think it's unintentional? Wow. Heheh. You are such a pet, I wana pull your cheeks.

So this art drawn by my man Kishimoto where he has specifically drawn Sasuke's head over Naruto's crotch is accidental? Oh yes, he must not have thought about it all, how it would look to audience, or what it would indicate because he is an idiot who has only been writing and drawing since he was three. SO mUcH AcCiDenTaL.....

No no, Kishi is innocent, he isn't being naughty at all. Sasuke just happens to be looking at Naruto with that expression and that bottle in his mouth, Kishi is not being suggestive at all.

Yes, I know queer baiting is a thing. Apparently, you don't know what it means. You know what is queerbaiting? Ops and eds of Naruto is queerbaiting, such as Blue Bird, Diver, Broken Youth etc. Why? Because the producers knew it ain't never gonna happen. Kishimoto didn't write the lyrics or create the visuals of the ops and eds. But the studio still commisioned super romantic, explicitly so, ops and eds exclusively for the two of them. To attract a certain subset of audience and it did get traction because it was already established in the story and appealed to audiences it was targeted at. The studio was aware of how it looked to audience. But it's not the kind of genre where you can write it explicitly in the actual story.

As for Kishimoto being misogynistic, yes he is. But that still has nothing to do with Naruto and Sasuke's purposeful love. Is it possible to create homosexual media without or with minimal female interaction with the male leads? Absolutely. 'Hawaii' by Marco Berger has close to no female representation in it, but it's about two gay men realizing their love for each other. Same goes for 'Tropical Malady' by Apichatpong Weerasethakul. 'Happy together' by Wong Kar Wai. Minimal, completely absent or entirely irrelevant female representation. Does that invalidate their own story? No. Obviously.

The reason why I think you are homophobic is because when you trivialize, and appropriate gay content in the name of heteronomativity, you are being homophobic, whether you think of it as such or not. It's like saying - Oh I don't care if you are gay, just keep it away from me.

A person like, oh I don't know, You, would think - hmm that makes sense. He at least isn't opposing gay relationships.

But more insightful people would say - nah, that's homophobic.

And it is.

Your understanding of homophobia is quite shallow, I must say. Kishi's intent is so clear, that you really don't have to be a cinephile to get it. There are many other fans who got it in their first read or watch, just through an unbiased and unprejudiced stance. You don't even have to be exceptionally smart. You just have to avail yourself to the story, to let it immerse you, without coloured and unobjective lenses. Which is honestly the only right way to watch or read anything. Homophobia is such an ingrained mentality, quite like misogyny, that it shows in what you say and how you react to certain things, and it doesn't have to be overt. Almost all the - they are just friends, or they are brothers, or it is just accidental arguments clearly stem from heteronomativity and homophobia because it is such an ingrained response, that one isn't even aware sometimes that they are doing it. People often lack insight into themselves and the majority of Naruto fandom is emotionally young or belong to an age group that is inexperienced in both life and consuming media. Sometimes I suspect most of them haven't seen anything outside of Shounen or shoujo or anime.

And I will tell you something else. People who are in my film circles, I made a couple of them watch Naruto. I didn't say anything about it being gay or whatever, I said nothing. They also understand visual language and narrative like I do. And like I had suspected, they also came out knowing it was a gay love story. Coincidence?? I don't think so. You just gotta be honest with yourself, it's just so much more relieving. Why carry the burden of lying to ourselves? It's not worth it. If you still don't understand what I mean, maybe you will, when you grow up. Not just in terms of age, but experience and understanding.

Is this enough grass touching for you?? 😏

So the next time you feel like flaunting your ignorance in my face so confidently, just Don't. I know my shit. And I can prove it, like I do on my blog, with panel by panel analysis, and comparisons with other media. I would have written a more scathing answer to your boldly misplaced ask, but you are lucky I have a hangover today.

Your anonymity might have saved you from public humiliation but at least one person would know that you were dissed. YOURSELF. If you bother to read this, most ignorant people don't when presented with actual arguments and evidence, and I have a feeling you will prove me right.

But anyway, kindly keep away from my ask box if you can't be nice, because I am not nice to people who aren't nice themselves. I am also not humble and I don't care, it's bad enough I live in a world where people pride themselves for their willful ignorance, but to have to deal with them when all they bring to the table is stupidity and a misplaced confidence unsubstantiated with actual evidence or information, and then harass me for it on my platform, I don't have the patience for that kinda shit.

If you want, you can subscribe to my blog and educate yourself, looks like you really need it. Just refrain from being impolite.