#rants with woodpengu

[woodpengu]

Learning to draw anatomy is not a beginner skill.

I repeat:

Learning. To. Draw. Anatomy. Is. NOT. A. Beginner. Skill

Drawing anatomy is made up of other fundamental skills that support efficient and sustainable drawing technique and practice. Fine tuning one's hand with the general fundamentals is a surefire way to improve one's ability to draw anything.

[this has been a PSA from someone who's beyond done with being stuck in a rut because healing their trauma yeeted their abilities]

[woodpengu]

I think people who consume fictional media forget something crucial: the characters do not exist to please the reader/onlooker/listener any more than real life people exist to please/appease other people.

Ashton doesn't exist to be likable. They be a ripe punk: living their life, abiding by their own creed, expressing their own truth without remorse. Did they do some hyper-cringe throughout his CR3 adventures? Hoo boy, yes. Do they grow, change, learn, adapt, stand firm...? Also a big yes. Still a punk, but also a person working through major trauma. Are they my favorite character... No. Are they a well-made, well-portrayed character... Absolutely.

You can dislike a character the same way you can dislike a person. You can fail to understand them, empathize with them, sympathize, etc. Some people cannot comprehend certain personality types because they do indeed lack those reference points in their life. Some people cannot get into the shoes of a character because something within that character's story, portrayal, or behavior is genuinely triggering. It doesn't mean the onlooker lacks intelligence, empathy, or insight. We all live our own lives independently of each other, and that gets complex and convoluted even at the best of times.

It's not fair to witness all the crap heaped on someone or something we ourselves might love, enjoy, or jive with. It can feel like that person is directly hating on us when it is something/someone we relate to. But... that's how we all operate. We're irrational, judgmental, reactionary. And we can take things out on something without really thinking about where it comes from or the impact it has.

At the end of the day, I know I'm better off reminding myself that no one else has to like or even understand the things that I love in this world. They're allowed to hate things I love and love things I can't stand; people are allowed to have differentiating emotions and perspectives, no matter how frustrating, annoying, or galling that might be for me.

Idk if people who hate/dislike Ashton didn’t grow up around actual punks, have never consumed media centered around punks, or are just obtuse. Nobody owes you magnanimity. Fictional characters can be grouchy and rude and imperfect and refuse to mask their hatred of corrupt systems. Real people do all the time. He has a charisma of 6. Could be neurodivergence. Could be the base level of chronic pain keeping them from giving a shit about other people’s feelings. Grog had an intelligence of 6, so like, do the math maybe?

[woodpengu]

As a person who loves to read and cares about quality in my writing, I need more than a single line of 5 stars to properly rate them with. And, no, the solution isn't to extend it to 10 stars.

Conversations with my lovely fiance over our love of reading whatever scratches the itch of the moment have resulted in an expanded idea. (note, the conversations were primarily focused on fictional books, but this could apply to more than that with some tweaks in perception/definition, mayhaps)

First: half stars. The option to give a fraction of a star to something rather than the total average votes from the reading community doing that for me... because I don't have the same opinion as someone else, nor does the rating reflect the same reasoning. "But that's what the comment/review window is for." My dude... I'm a complex organic lifeform with my brain matter defining me as an apex predator over the bear that wants to maul my ass. I have needs and laziness to put that bear to shame; give me my convenience.

Second: multiple ratings. Like, four categories of rating up to 5 stars (including, .5 and 0, please n thankies). Examples? I came up with the following (rough summaries)... 1. Technical Skill: Grammar, punctuation, vocabulary usage (doesn't have to be superfluous, just match consistently throughout the story), dynamic sentence lengths, etc. Am I reading a fictional tale or a textbook article; a persuasive essay or journalism on social issue; and does the writing match the intent? Which bleeds into... 2. Story Telling: Flow, emoting, pacing, clear themes, readable setting, etc. Is the writing too technical for fiction; too cerebral for YA; out of touch with the setting it's speaking from; misrepresenting a character's age, gender, [insert demographic here], or misrepresenting the themes in some way? Can I see myself sitting across the fire from an old nomad as they tell me this tale or am I distracted by the neighbor's cat in heat or the drunken minstrel wooing... someone (same thing, right?). 3. World Building: Believable, inspired (rather than stolen) concepts/ideas, relatable, comprehensive, etc. If I dropped into this world, could I discern what it takes to survive/thrive in it? Did I read this idea somewhere else before OR something like it? Religion, culture, philosophy, history, science, art, challenges/obstacles having explanations for presence or lack that aren't edgelordy or "because I said so". 4. Personal Feelings: The genuine, general feedback of the reader of [insert media here]. The biased opinion or personal thought of an individual towards what they've consumed. How did I, personally, as the reader, feel about this book/story/novel/manga/etc.?

Why? Because I've been known to absolutely despise a good book or absolutely love a bad one. Because I've been led on by a book with phenomenal writing only to encounter plagiarism within. Because the reason one person rates a book at 5 stars differs from another: some are personal, some are impartial, some are rating something very specific to themselves. And this all renders the average ratings on a book inaccurate.

I care too much for the above (world-building, skill of a writer, personal thoughts/feels) to settle for calling certain praised works "praiseworthy" in my own experience. No, I don't mean that I need everything to be Tolkien, because I would give it a lower rating in some categories than in others since there are ways it doesn't reach me as the reader. Books like "House of Leaves" or "Don Quixote" might be critically acclaimed pieces of literary brilliance, but they are difficult-to-consume pieces... which lowers my enjoyment of them. And my needs and mood differ throughout the day, which is why I have 6+ books on my "currently reading" list, changing up what suits me at that time.

It also goes back to recovering from complex traumas as a neurospicy adult trudging through the ick of the modern day. My brain requires more touchstones in the now, points of reference for sparking memory about media I've consumed and why I had certain feelings towards it. (Catcher in the Rye was a love of my youth and is far too cringe for my adulthood) Utilizing that data as a lens (alongside my stress level and mood meter of the moment) through which to look at something else I'm curious to give a try. And that's harder for me to do when the ratings and comments are vague and based inconsistently on personal feelings rather than the actual skill or quality of the work itself. Which adds to the common habit of traumatized beans to consume the same bits of media repeatedly (yay, trust issues).

Yes, I've been known to love a trash novel and hate a classic, but that's personal feelings opposed to writer skills. Which clicks back into my old post about critiques on art: you can hate something that is technically brilliant and well-executed... and you can love something that could use a LOT of reworking [*side-eyes Twilight*]. But the difference is crucial. Just finished a book that I would give 0 stars to on every category... that was gifted to me by a dear friend who is also dear friends with the author. But they weren't expecting me to love it as much as they were being supportive of their writer friend (kudos). Versus a different friend singing the praises of a book that turned out to be plagiarism incarnate with a side-serving of ick. Versus another person absolutely hating a story I enjoyed that scored high in multiple categories.

Point being... I need to live in a less-generalized reality.

[woodpengu]

As a prolific reader who's been paying more and more attention to book reviews, I'm mentally reinforcing the habit of etiquette and self-awareness in a world where those things feel... isolating. It takes effort to put consciousness into practice on the regular, and that's not me being sardonic; them's just the facts. Takes work to pay mind to one's own behavior and responses, especially when tired or stressed [*glances sheepishly at conversations I've had with my therapist*].

Just like any other, I lose sight of people being their own person with their own thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and ideologies. And even when I've got eyes open to these things, I'll still get bent on behalf of the author whenever people review something with their own personal bias of how people should behave or how things should have gone. It'd be heckin' nice if all people operated off of a certain level of healthy communication and courtesy, but organic life is a variation of beans on their own level of comprehension.

For those out there who are also book-reading fiends aspiring for higher consciousness, it's worth it to ask the question: Do I dislike [character, content, concept, idea] because it's poorly written, or do I dislike it because it doesn't suit me personally? It's a good habit to get into, especially if you plan on reviewing the book. Calling a book bad because you don't like the simpler writing style is definitely not the same as calling a book bad because a male author wrote another "Strong female lead must whore herself to be appealing" disaster.

For context, there's this book I'm reading that caught my interest through its popularity combined with another book I read that fell into a similar category of fiction. And this is my year to consume new content as a celebration of where I am [mentally and emotionally speaking]. I've started reading other people's reviews to get a different PoV of the book... and found myself upset with the top comments. They were scathing, but also misleading. These people weren't talking about the quality of writing or the depth of the characters so much as comparing everything out of context. Labelling it as crappy fanfiction or a NaNoWriMo early draft. Though I do agree on the one point of it being miscategorized, this ain't fanfic, nor is it a rough draft. I read it in an older Welsh granny's voice and the whole thing makes sense and I'm highly entertained. No, the mass scrutiny for this novel comes from it not suiting the mental image of what readers of a certain bracket want it to be.

I've learned from life that if I don't like it, I don't look. I walk away and leave it for the people who love it. And I give some context and nuance clarification to my reviews if I choose to review it.

Recently, I abandoned finishing a book that wasn't poorly written per se, but that wasn't a match to my present-day intrigues. And I wrote as much on it (in different words, at a bit more length). Another book I just finished did read like it needed more editing and finesse, but I definitely emphasized how much I wanted the author to do just that so I could read it again (because the book has so much potential, mother night). My fiance almost abandoned a book I recommended because it didn't ascribe to modern metaverse levels of erotica, until I pointed out the publication date and that it has an actual [good] plot.

Learn to be critical of one's own scrutiny and where it hails from. Put your thoughts in reference to every nuance before labeling something. You got this. I believe in your brilliance, fellow reader bean.

[woodpengu]

I came to resent the term "mindfulness" around the time it became a catchall many self-taught/barely-trained "life coaches", "yogis", "gurus" or "healers" would throw out to whoever was "on the same frequency" to the message they were preaching. I have religious trauma; there was too much similarity. And to some I would ask the question, "When you say 'mindfulness' what do you mean?" To which they would reply [paraphrasing], "If you're receptive to listening, you'll know what I speak of," or "I mean mindfulness, being mindful, feeling the thing," or some other thing along those lines.

It took a lot of willpower not to throw a dictionary and a thesaurus at some of those people. Or call them out for gatekeeping.

As a person trained within the realms of healing facilitation, studying the scientific and woowoo side of the equation, I realized a lot of these people lacked the vocabulary to express their meaning. Some people can make awesome researchers or practitioners but are poor teachers. And it's not right to pressure these individuals to become teachers as well.

Some people don't know or comprehend what the word "mindful" or "mindfulness" really means and could use some help in the form of synonym, explanation, metaphor, parable, or visual aid. Some people think they know and operate off of assumption whenever they heard it nestled in with other words/phrasing/context. And some people are terrified to admit they don't understand, smiling and nodding when they're internally panicking; fear of judgment/rejection is an old companion born out of old traumas for me.

The above comic is a great way of expressing by example what mindfulness looks/feels like in practice (also explaining meditation well in its own way). It also shows that confusion that comes up when the term is mentioned so vaguely all the time without support. I'm grateful for visual aids like this that don't over-summarize understanding into a single phrase. There are lots of terms that share similar definitions with "mindfulness" that might be more accurate to the circumstance. "Embodied awareness" is a good one for the experience above.

I might be rambling from mental fatigue at this point, but I think I got the point across.

Your body is with you wherever you go, so you can do this whenever and wherever.

[woodpengu]

AI has it's place in content rendering...

... but not the misuse of the recent times.

AI is not an artist. It's an engine for meeting criteria given to it by a prompt. Which is quite handy for a game dev working on a project with an immediate deadline that requires 800 pieces of content (like backgrounds, settings, photographs/paintings, etc) or a writer needing a bunch of random titles or names to fill up space for a scene due next week. Just as a couple examples.

That being said, AI designed for content rendering should NOT use existing, private domain (copywritten and/or TM) content as it's foundation. An artist taking inspiration from another artist's work isn't the same as a program scanning existing work to buffet-pick details and mash them together... not quite. Because AI doesn't "take inspiration" through observation the way the human brain can. We have a lot of imagination, nuance, and inherent cringe potential... meanwhile the computer is merely following highly-detailed instructions and reorienting its results based on feedback. Using existing artwork as a foundation for "something new" is not "taking inspiration"... it [to me] seems like vandalism and stealing in a fell swoop.

Because AI has its place [in content rendering], I feel it needs to be regulated rather than outright banned. Which is how I feel about a lot of subjects or ideas. Legislation to declare that AI cannot hold copyright of its creations is one big step, so the momentum of this intention can and should be carried to protect artists [of all kinds] further. Like clear examples of where AI is a handy tool versus a dastardly abuse of privileges. Or denying AI the kind of entity status that could turn it into a greed-feeder, instead funding the human charged with maintaining the computers strictly for the job of maintenance (not the content spewed by their AI monstrosity). But I ramble. I'm mostly an idea person, not an engineer of executing the ideas.

Anywhoodles... point being:

AI using any content to meet prompt criteria: major boo, thievery, violation of an artist's rights to their own work, "Buttocks, meet mine boot".

AI using public domain, royalty free, or "I paid that artist under a contract we agreed to" to go nuts: inspiring, motivational, get me the popcorn for this free entertainment, this is about to get wild.