#nothing to be done about it

[hollerite]

The eternal Tumblr confusion that is reblogging something with tags that criticize it, and then getting a like on it. Are they liking the original post and ignoring my comments, or are they liking the tags? The world may never know.

[kpg-1126]

As soon as I think maybe I should stop checking Tumblr so much, someone goes and quotes Scully over kcfh gifs and I'm back.

[see-arcane]

this person who posted in the tags that you do "weird flanderization of Jonathan who suddenly is the most feral most strongest most specialest little boy who gets to meet all of the other characters." and that "he shouldn't be in the league at all" isn't because of your writing or anything but because they're mad that jonathan is taking up jekyll's spotlight in the league. i apologize on behalf of the j+h fandom they are notorious around here and now they have targeted you too.

I'll be honest, I seriously blanked on what post you could be talking about because my eyes kind of glazed over mid-rant when I was scrolling past it. (My pretty pink eye is always open but it doesn't always pay attention, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

On that note, I've mentioned before what my reaction to people/media being jerks about Jonathan Harker is *--

*Spoilers: It means I make even more gratuitously indulgent Jonathan Harker content. I'm making a whole monster AU sequel novel centered around the guy for crying out loud.

--and that was well before I started churning out fanfic for the LXGF comic that Does Not Exist Yet about the myriad public domain characters who are owned by no one, but who are, to the best of my knowledge, being written in a way that realistically grows from the canon of the books they come from. On that point, if their main issue is the League of Extraordinary Gentlefolk and my premature bootleg scribbling about the same, feat. Jonathan Harker? I guess it needs repeating (as it is made very clear on the comic's blog itself):

This is not Alan Moore's comic! The closest resemblance is the name! It is not, nor was it ever planned to be, a direct child of Alan Moore's work! Nor of any movie or musical or series or adaptation!

The characters and their potential adventures are based on what we can take from the actual books!

Which are being read en masse at this point by all the writers involved, as we love nothing more than inflicting book club after book club on ourselves. Anyway.

This isn't worth a meatier rant, honestly. Ditto for anyone's griping about how we're not catering specifically to their version of Jekyll and Hyde, or how they want the comic to be done, or how they want anyone who dares to write a story involving public domain characters to mimic their favorite adaptation or spinoff. None of the things they're complaining about are being made for them. They're being made by people who want those stories to exist for themselves and for anyone else who might like to see their stories. That's it.

I will say that I honestly hope they can get past whatever hang-up they have about these characters and their hobby of trying to shout or wheedle everyone else into playing along with their mean-spirited takes.

Because looking at the wider fandoms of all these classic literature and comic book fans? This person seems to be one lone sourpuss stamping their feet while everyone else is being chill or excited about their own stuff. Some have even done the easy thing and, you know, blocked the blogs/tags that upset them. I do it all the time. It's probably been done to me. I don't know and I don't care that I don't know.

I sincerely want this person to get to that headspace too. If only so they can find their way back to the point of being a fan, which is having fun with the content they enjoy rather than seeking out projects and people to throw bile at.

[familyvideostevie]

related to all this talk of other people i could write for: just an fyi that i am down bad for dilf of the century joel miller. when the show comes out i only expect that to get worse. watch this space.

[haunted-memorial]

So, I played 3 hours of Stardew Valley, and uh... here's a starter call while I recover from the headache. I got muse for the him :3

[chloesimaginationthings]

The true meaning behind FNAF princess quest

[lotus-pear]

learning to love

[tchotchkez]

my whole life is one giant Oopsie Daisy followed by the subsequent scramble to correct the inescapable yet rapidly occuring unintended consequential atrocities that come after 🤡

I mean really- how many times do I gotta say that I don't wanna be here!

[crumb-crumblet-s-crumbington]

"You and me, Ethan. Together we go save Rose, and then we can grind Miranda into paste!"

[seventh-district]

Making Incorrect H:SR Quotes Until I Run Out of (hopefully) Original Ideas - Pt. 5 - I Finally Finished the 2.2 Main Quest Edition

[Pt. 1] [Pt. 2] [Pt. 3] [Pt. 4] [Pt. 6]

[morganmnemonic]

I can't stop thinking about the relationship between Jon and Helen as perhaps one of the most important ones in the entire show. They are narrative parallels for each other, and they both know it. They've both known it from the very start!

Helen walks into the Archives, paranoid, unsure of who to trust, and Jon sees himself in her. And he thinks "If i can help her, maybe there's hope for me too." Then he can't save her. The next time they meet, she's a monster. They're both monsters. There was never any other way their stories could have gone, their fates entwined from the very start.

And Helen answers his original thought with one of her own: "Maybe if we can help each other, there's hope for us both." But Jon looks at her and sees everything that he fears becoming, and so he turns her away, and refuses to accept that their stories are still one and the same.

Helen went to the last person who was ever kind to her, the only person who both knew her as a human and had the context to understand what she'd become, and he hated her. He hated her because he liked Helen, and told her that she couldn't be Helen.

So she stopped trying to be Helen, and embraced being a monster. Reveled in it even. Then Jon wakes up from a six month coma, more monster than person, and tries so hard to cling to the things that mattered to him when he was human. Even with no support, even with the entire archives staff against him, he chooses humanity and compassion over and over again.

And this is a direct threat to Helen's world view. Their stories are entwined. If Jon can continue to be a person even after everything he's been through, then she could have clung to her humanity too, if only she'd tried a little harder. And that terrifies her! She wants to conceptualize herself as someone who was completely overwhelmed by forces beyond her control, who never had a choice but to become a monster. She want's to be an innocent victim. But Jon argues with his actions that they'd both had choices.

And, Jon, in turn, holds out hope that she might make better choices until the very end.

This is the conflict between them for all of season 4 and 5. Jon wants to prove that they can both be decent people, and Helen wants to prove that they were never going to be anything but monsters. This is why she's so devoted to trying to goad Jon into enjoying his newfound godhood. She knows that they are the same, and wants that to mean that he has a spark of evil inside of him, and not that she was always capable of doing good.

When Jon kills her, she loses her life, but wins the argument. Helen is nothing but a dangerous monster who needs to be killed for the good of everyone, and in the moment he decides that, Jon dooms himself to the same fate. Their stories are one and the same. "If i can help her, maybe there's hope for me too." he thought. But he couldn't help her, refused to, even, in the one moment when it actually mattered. And thus, there was never hope for him.

[twilightcitysky]

If S3 gets cancelled you know Michael and David will get dressed up, hair dyed, contacts and bow tie in place, and tell Georgia to grab the phone. Remember, they both know how it ends.

[stil-lindigo]

scorched earth.

a comic about a princess who died in a fire.

(this is a sequel to bite of winter, a comic about Snow and what became of her after her death.)

--

creative notes:

--

all my other comics

store

[communistkenobi]

"Sex" is commonly used to refer to a person's status as a man or woman based on biological factors. Although sex reflects a person's biology, as opposed to gender, which is generally considered to be socially constructed, the biological aspect of the body that determines a person's sex has not been legally or medically resolved. Traditionally, a person's legal sex is established by the sex that the birth attendant places on the birth certificate. Thus, for infants born with unambiguous external genitalia, the external genitalia typically control the sex determination. If the genitalia appear ambiguous, sex is assigned, in part, based on sex-role stereotypes. The presence of an "adequate" penis in an XY infant leads to the label male, while the absence of an "adequate" penis leads to the label female. A genetic (XY) male with an "inadequate" penis (one that physicians believe will be incapable of penetrating a female's vagina when the child reaches adulthood) is "turned into" a female even if it means destroying his reproductive capacity. A genetic (XX) female who may be capable of reproducing, however, is generally assigned the female sex to preserve her reproductive capability, regardless of the appearance of her external genitalia. If her phallus is considered to be too large to meet the guidelines for a typical clitoris, it is surgically reduced, even if it means that her capacity for satisfactory sex may be reduced or destroyed. In other words, men are defined based on their ability to penetrate females, and females are defined based on theis ability to procreate. Sex, therefore, can be viewed as a social construct rather than a biological fact.

— The Road Less Traveled: The Problem with Binary Sex Categories by Julie A Greenberg in Transgender Rights (2006)

interesting to note that 1) the introduction of chromosomal information doesn’t actually provide more “biologically accurate” precision in sex assignment, only a more complex set of administrative and medical instructions on the procedures of assignment, 2) the only concern in sex assignment is maintaining the distinction that “females make babies” and “males penetrate females to induce pregnancy.”

This is why the idea that “sex is biological” or that we can just drill down to find the sex atom of the human body, be that chromosomes or gametes or whatever else, is premised on the notion that sex assignment is simply a record of a self-evident reality, not the construction of the category of sex as the mythological foundation of cis-heterosexual reproduction

[benevolenterrancy]

("Always. Continuously. With increasing apprehension, and decreasing hope. I will love you if I never see you again, and I will love you if I see you every Tuesday. I will love you as a corpse loves the beak of the vulture. I will love you no matter what happens to you, and no matter how I discover what happens to you, and no matter what happens to me as I discover this." -- paraphrased from The Beatrice Letters, Lemony Snicket)