#rent collection

[firstclassdxb]

Rental Property Management with Firstclass Property Management

Managing rental properties can be challenging, but with Firstclass Property Management, it’s a seamless and stress-free process. We specialize in effective rental property management, focusing on maximizing your returns while minimizing your workload. From tenant screening to rent collection and maintenance coordination, we handle every detail with expertise and care.

Whether you own a single apartment or a portfolio of properties, our customized solutions are designed to efficiently manage your investments. With an emphasis on transparency and professionalism, we provide regular updates and detailed reports, ensuring you’re always informed about your property’s performance.

Why Choose Firstclass Property Management?

Tenant Management: Our thorough tenant screening process and consistent communication ensure reliable and responsible tenants.

Maintenance Services: We resolve property issues quickly and efficiently, maintaining your property’s value and tenant satisfaction.

Legal Compliance: Stay worry-free as we ensure your property adheres to all local regulations, protecting you and your tenants.

Maximized Returns: Through strategic pricing and marketing, we help achieve high occupancy rates and optimal rental income.

At Firstclass Property Management, we transform rental property ownership into a stress-free and profitable experience. Let us handle the complexities of managing your property while you enjoy the rewards of your investment.

[kids-worldfun]

Common Challenges in Property Management and How Services Can Help

Managing a property involves the coordination of tenant needs, property requirements, and, most importantly, the owners’ expectations.   Property managers in charge of residential, commercial, or industrial properties face many challenges that may alter how they work and make it more challenging.  This article discusses the various problems that may be encountered related to property management…

[tenth-sentence]

Life in convents and abbeys collapsed, with no one to farm their fields, nor run their industries, nor collect their rents.

"Normal Women: 900 Years of Making History" - Philippa Gregory

[nafeeszack]

Property Management: Elevating Your Rental Experience

Expert Insights in Rent Collection, Property Maintenance, and Tenant Disputes

In the dynamic realm of property management, ensuring the seamless functioning of your rental properties is vital. From rent collection to property maintenance and addressing tenant disputes, every facet of property management demands finesse and efficiency. This comprehensive guide will explore these key aspects in detail, equipping you with the knowledge and tools to excel in the world of property management in Canada.

The Foundation: Effective Rent Collection

Why is Rent Collection So Crucial?

Rent collection lies at the heart of successful property management. It's the financial backbone of your real estate venture. Timely and consistent rent collection ensures a steady cash flow, allowing you to cover operational costs, mortgage payments, and even invest in expanding your property portfolio.

Streamlining the Rent Collection Process

To streamline the rent collection process, consider adopting online payment methods. Online platforms not only make it convenient for tenants to pay but also offer transparency and security. They provide automated reminders, reducing the risk of late payments and improving cash flow.

Handling Late Payments

Dealing with late payments can be challenging but essential. Implement clear late fee policies to encourage on-time payments. Open lines of communication with your tenants to understand their situations and work out mutually agreeable solutions when needed.

Property Maintenance: Protecting Your Investment

The Value of Regular Maintenance

Property maintenance is the key to preserving the value of your investment. Regular inspections and preventive maintenance can extend the life of your property, saving you money in the long run. A well-maintained property also attracts quality tenants.

Creating a Maintenance Schedule

Developing a maintenance schedule ensures that routine inspections and repairs are not overlooked. Consider seasonal maintenance checklists, which encompass tasks like HVAC servicing, gutter cleaning, and landscaping upkeep. A proactive approach can prevent minor issues from escalating into costly repairs.

The Role of Professional Service Providers

In property maintenance, it's crucial to partner with skilled service providers. Building relationships with reputable plumbers, electricians, and contractors can save you time and money when issues arise. Their expertise ensures that maintenance tasks are completed to a high standard.

Navigating Tenant Disputes: A Delicate Balance

Preventing Disputes Through Clear Communication

Effective communication is the first line of defense against tenant disputes. Maintain open channels of communication with your tenants, making them feel heard and valued. Set clear expectations through comprehensive lease agreements to reduce misunderstandings.

Mediating Disputes

Despite best efforts, disputes may arise. As a property manager, your role includes mediating these conflicts. Approach disputes with objectivity, listen to both sides, and aim to find mutually beneficial resolutions. This approach fosters positive tenant relations and minimizes legal entanglements.

Legal Considerations

Understanding local rental laws and regulations is vital. Knowledge of your rights and obligations, as well as those of your tenants, can help you navigate disputes more effectively and within the boundaries of the law.

In conclusion, by mastering these aspects of property management, you can position yourself as a standout property manager, confident in your ability to excel in the industry.

[mikami1992]

Supernatural Cops

The fandom has come to the conclusion that all kinds of supernatural or unusual things happen in Amity Park and people take it like any other Tuesday.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if this place is the only place in the country (not to say the world) that has a police division in charge of handling Cults…

Yes, in Amity Park there is a group of police (not to say half of all the police in the city) that are dedicated to controlling cults and their peculiarities, because we must remember that, despite the reputation of being a tourist trap, this town in the middle of nowhere has the reputation of being the most haunted place in the country (or the world), so it wouldn't be crazy to say that on certain dates of the year many "tourists" (cough cultists cough) arrive who come in order to do "events" (cough rites cough), so whether they want it or not, someone has to control that the limits on how they are "celebrating" are not broken… and to top it off, the limits of what the city considers acceptable is a greater margin than other places, so it has become common for some groups to come back later.

So yes, Amity Park has one of the most effective police departments in dealing with cults and supernatural beliefs, not only are they effective in identifying participants, most of the time they know what kind of cultist they are dealing with, whether they are just playing a game or are the real magic business and how dangerous/troublesome they will be in the end.

What's more, this group is so good at what they do, that many times the inhabitants of Amity Park prefer to call them instead of the GIW (they are too destructive and there is still no 100% reliable insurance that will pay for the damages they cause), when it comes to a problem with a ghost and the ghost child is not around.

and that competition is more noticeable when other cities in the country begin to ask for help with some unknown cults that are appearing rap

[nefarrilou]

L U N A R N E W Y E A R

🐭 ⋘ Hair | Hat | Rat* | Earrings | Hanbok* | Shoes 🐮 ⋘ Hair | Flower | Top | Skirt | Shoes 🐯 ⋘ Mask | Hand Preset | Loincloth | Tiger (cat) 🐰 ⋘ Hair | Hair Acc | Necklace | Dress

🐲 ⋘ Hair | Horns | Top 1*2 | Acc* | Tail*+ Scales 1,2 🐍 ⋘ Hair 1,2,3 | Hat | 🦋 | Outfit | Snake* | Tail 1,2 🐴 ⋘ Hair | Hat | Top | Skirt | Shoes 🐐 ⋘ Hair | Headdress | Dress | No-Feet

🐵 ⋘ Hair | Hat | Dress | Shoes | Blossoms |🐒+🖐🏽 🐔 ⋘ Hair | Wings | Tongue* | Jewelry | Dress | Claw 🐶 ⋘ Hat* | Scarf* | Straw | Outfit | Katanas 🐷 ⋘ Hair | Hat | Outfit + Legwarmer* | Shoe* | Nails

+* Clipping

* Edited to fit the design

* Base Game

C r e a t o r s

🐭 @goamazons @magpiesan @kismet-sims @yakfarm @rimings @rustys-cc 🐮 @simandy @dizzyrobinsims @marsmerizing-sims @dallasgirl79 🐯 @vapidsims @ssspringroll @xldsims @dustyrat 🐰 @sixcircles @palacesims4

🐲@sixcircles @zynoox @maye @julhaos @srta-leila @dansimsfantasy @shandir @astya96cc 🐍 @luutzi @wenwem @simbience @1-800-cuupid @ommosims @natalia-auditore 🐴 @daylifesims @marsmerizing-sims 🐐 @sixcircles @wenwem @kotehok @snaitf

🐵 @plantainboat @zeussim @jius-sims @dansimsfantasy @kalino-thesims 🐔 @simandy @asansan3 @maya @zeussim @regina-raven 🐶 @natalia-auditore @myfawnwysimblr @the-daydream-archives @sims-musou @studio-k-creation 🐷 @zao @maya @charonlee @feralpoodles

🏮 H a p p y L u n a r N e w Y e a r ! 🏮

[lexi-cology]

[applysome]

Alex Turner on his knees: a collection. Part one

Credit: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Enshittification isn’t caused by venture capital

Picks and Shovels is a new, standalone technothriller starring Marty Hench, my two-fisted, hard-fighting, tech-scam-busting forensic accountant. You can pre-order it on my latest Kickstarter, which features a brilliant audiobook read by Wil Wheaton.

Many of us have left the big social media platforms; far more of us wish we could leave them; and even those of us who've escaped from Facebook/Insta and Twitter still spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to get the people we care about off of them, too.

It's lazy and easy to think that our friends who are stuck on legacy platforms run by Zuckerberg and Musk lack the self-discipline to wean themselves off of these services, or lack the perspective to understand why it's so urgent to get away from them, or that their "hacked dopamine loops" have addicted them to the zuckermusk algorithms. But if you actually listen to the people who've stayed behind, you'll learn that the main reason our friends stay on legacy platforms is that they care about the other people there more than they hate Zuck or Musk.

They rely on them because they're in a rare-disease support group; or they all coordinate their kids' little league carpools there; or that's where they stay in touch with family and friends they left behind when they emigrated; or they're customers or the audience for creative labor.

All those people might want to leave, too, but it's really hard to agree on where to go, when to go, and how to re-establish your groups when you get somewhere else. Economists call this the "collective action problem." This problem creates "switching costs" – a lot of stuff you'll have to live without if you switch from legacy platforms to new ones. The collective action problem is hard to solve and the switching costs are very high:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/29/how-to-leave-dying-social-media-platforms/

That's why people stay behind – not because they lack perspective, or self-discipline, or because their dopamine loops have been hacked by evil techbro sorcerers who used Big Data to fashion history's first functional mind-control ray. They are locked in by real, material things.

Big Tech critics who attribute users' moral failings or platforms' technical prowess to the legacy platforms' "stickiness" are their own worst enemies. These critics have correctly identified that legacy platforms are a serious problem, but have totally failed to understand the nature of that problem or how to fix it. Thankfully, more and more critics are coming to understand that lock-in is the root of the problem, and that anti-lock-in measures like interoperability can address it.

But there's another major gap in the mainstream critique of social media. Critics of zuckermuskian media claim those services are so terrible because they're for-profit entities, capitalist enterprises hitched to the logic of extraction and profit above all else. The problem with this claim is that it doesn't explain the changes to these services. After all, the reason so many of us got on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram is because they used to be a lot of fun. They were useful. They were even great at times.

When tech critics fail to ask why good services turn bad, that failure is just as severe as the failure to ask why people stay when the services rot.

Now, the guy who ran Facebook when it was a great way to form communities and make friends and find old friends is the same guy who who has turned Facebook into a hellscape. There's very good reason to believe that Mark Zuckerberg was always a creep, and he took investment capital very early on, long before he started fucking up the service. So what gives? Did Zuck get a brain parasite that turned him evil? Did his investors get more demanding in their clamor for dividends?

If that's what you think, you need to show your working. Again, by all accounts, Zuck was a monster from day one. Zuck's investors – both the VCs who backed him early and the gigantic institutional funds whose portfolios are stuffed with Meta stock today – are not patient sorts with a reputation for going easy on entrepreneurs who leave money on the table. They've demanded every nickel since the start.

What changed? What caused Zuck to enshittify his service? And, even more importantly for those of us who care about the people locked into Facebook's walled gardens: what stopped him from enshittifying his services in the "good old days?"

At its root, enshittification is a theory about constraints. Companies pursue profit at all costs, but while you may be tempted to focus on the "at all costs" part of that formulation, you musn't neglect the "profits" part. Companies don't pursue unprofitable actions at all costs – they only pursue the plans that they judge are likely to yield profits.

When companies face real competitors, then some enshittificatory gambits are unprofitable, because they'll drive your users to competing platforms. That's why Zuckerberg bought Instagram: he had been turning the screws on Facebook users, and when Instagram came along, millions of those users decided that they hated Zuck more than they loved their friends and so they swallowed the switching costs and defected to Instagram. In an ill-advised middle-of-the-night memo to his CFO, Zuck defended spending $1b on Instagram on the grounds that it would recapture those Facebook escapees:

https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/29/21345723/facebook-instagram-documents-emails-mark-zuckerberg-kevin-systrom-hearing

A company that neutralizes, buys or destroys its competitors can treat its users far worse – invade their privacy, cheap out on moderation and anti-spam, etc – without losing their business. That's why Zuck's motto is "it is better to buy than to compete":

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/zuckerberg-its-better-to-buy-than-compete-is-facebook-a-monopoly-42243

Of course, as a leftist, I know better than to count on markets as a reliable source of corporate discipline. Even more important than market discipline is government discipline, in the form of regulation. If Zuckerberg feared fines for privacy violations, or moderation failures, or illegal anticompetitive mergers, or fraudulent advertising systems that rip off publishers and advertisers, or other forms of fraud (like the "pivot to video"), he would treat his users better. But Facebook's rise to power took place during the second half of the neoliberal era, when the last shreds of regulatory muscle that survived the Reagan revolution were being devoured by GW Bush and Obama (and then Trump).

As cartels and monopolies took over our economy, most government regulators were neutered and captured. Public agencies were stripped of their powers or put in harness to attack small companies, customers, and suppliers who got in the way of monopolists' rent-extraction. That meant that as Facebook grew, Zuckerberg had less and less to fear from government enforcers who might punish him for enshittification where the markets failed to do so.

But it's worse than that, because Zuckerberg and other tech monopolists figured out how to harness "IP" law to get the government to shut down third-party technology that might help users resist enshittification. IP law is why you can't make a privacy-protecting ad-blocker for an app (and why companies are so desperate to get you to use their apps rather than the open web, and why apps are so dismally enshittified). IP law is why you can't make an alternative client that blocks algorithmic recommendations. IP law is why you can't leave Facebook for a new service and run a scraper that imports your waiting Facebook messages into a different inbox. IP law is why you can't scrape Facebook to catalog the paid political disinformation the company allows on the platform:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

IP law's growth has coincided with Facebook's ascendancy – the bigger Facebook got, the more tempting it was to interoperators who might want to plug new code into it to protect Facebook users, and the more powers Facebook had to block even the most modest improvements to its service. That meant that Facebook could enshittify even more, without worrying that it would drive users to take unilateral, permanent action that would deprive it of revenue, like blocking ads. Once ad-blocking is illegal (as it is on apps), there's no reason not to make ads as obnoxious as you want.

Of course, many Facebook employees cared about their users, and for most of the 21st century, those workers were a key asset for Facebook. Tech workers were in short supply until just a couple years ago, when the platforms started round after round of brutal layoffs – 260,000 in 2023, another 150,000+ in 2024. Facebook workers may be furious about Zuckerberg killing content moderation, but he's not worried about them quitting – not with a half-million skilled tech workers out there, hunting for jobs. Fuck 'em. Let 'em quit:

https://www.404media.co/its-total-chaos-internally-at-meta-right-now-employees-protest-zuckerbergs-anti-lgbtq-changes/

This is what changed: the collapse of market, government, and labor constraints, and IP law's criminalization of disenshittifying, interoperable add-ons. This is why Zuck, an eternal creep, is now letting his creep flag fly so proudly today. Not because he's a worse person, but because he understands that he can hurt his users and workers to benefit his shareholders without facing any consequences. Zuckerberg 2025 isn't the most evil Zuck, he's the most unconstrained Zuck.

Same goes for Twitter. I mean, obviously, there's been a change in management at Twitter – the guy who's enshittifying it today isn't the guy who enshittified it prior to last year. Musk is speedrunning the enshittification curve, and yet Twitter isn't collapsing. Why not? Because Musk is insulated from consequences for fucking up – he's got a huge cushion of wealth, he's got advertisers who are desperate to reach his users, he's got users who can't afford to leave the service, he's got IP law that he can use to block interoperators who might make it easier to migrate to a better service. He was always a greedy, sadistic asshole. Now he's an unconstrained greedy, sadistic asshole. Musk 2025 isn't a worse person than Musk 2020. He's just more free to act on his evil impulses than he was in years gone by.

These are the two factors that make services terrible: captive users, and no constraints. If your users can't leave, and if you face no consequences for making them miserable (not solely their departure to a competitor, but also fines, criminal charges, worker revolts, and guerrilla warfare with interoperators), then you have the means, motive and opportunity to turn your service into a giant pile of shit.

That's why we got Jack Welch and his acolytes when we did. There were always evil fuckers just like them hanging around, but they didn't get to run GM until Ronald Reagan took away the constraints that would have punished them for turning GE into a giant pile of shit. Every economy is forever a-crawl with parasites and monsters like these, but they don't get to burrow into the system and colonize it until policymakers create rips they can pass through.

In other words, the profit motive itself is not sufficient to cause enshittification – not even when a for-profit firm has to answer to VCs who would shut down the company or fire its leadership in the face of unsatisfactory returns. For-profit companies chase profit. The enshittifying changes to Facebook and Twitter are cruel, but the cruelty isn't the point: the point is profits. If the fines – or criminal charges – Facebook faced for invading our privacy exceeded the ad-targeting revenue it makes by doing so, it would stop spying on us. Facebook wouldn't like it. Zuck would hate it. But he'd do it, because he spies on us to make money, not because he's a voyeur.

To stop enshittification, it is not necessary to eliminate the profit motive – it is only necessary to make enshittification unprofitable.

This is not to defend capitalism. I'm not saying there's a "real capitalism" that's good, and a "crony capitalism" or "monopoly capitalism" that's bad. All flavors of capitalism harm working people and seek to shift wealth and power from the public and democratic institutions to private interests. But that doesn't change the fact that there are, indeed, different flavors of capitalism, and they have different winners and losers. Capitalists who want to sell apps on the App Store or reach customers through Facebook are technofeudalism's losers, while Apple, Facebook, Google, and other Big Tech companies are technofeudalism's great winners.

Smart leftism pays attention to these differences, because they represent the potential fault lines in capitalism's coalition. These people all call themselves capitalists, they all give money and support to political movements that seek to crush worker power and human rights – but when the platforms win, the platforms' business customers lose. They are irreconcilably on different sides of a capitalism-v-capitalism fight that is every bit as important to them as the capitalism-v-socialism fight.

I'm saying that it's good praxis to understand these divisions in capitalism, because then we can exploit those differences to make real, material gains for human thriving and worker rights. Lumping all for-profit businesses together as identical and irredeemable is bad tactics.

Legacy social media is at a turning point. Two new systems built on open standards have emerged as a credible threat to the zuckermuskian model: Mastodon (built on Activitypub) and Bluesky (built on Atproto). The former is far more mature, with a huge network of federated servers run by all different kinds of institutions, from hobbyists to corporations, and it's overseen by a nonprofit. The latter has far more users, and is a VC-backed corporate entity, and while it is hypothetically federatable, there are no Bluesky services apart from the main one that you can leave for if Bluesky starts to enshittify.

That means that Bluesky has a ton of captive users, and has the lack of constraint that characterizes the enshittified legacy platforms it has tempted tens of millions of users away from. This is not a good place to be in, because it means that if the current management choose to enshittify Bluesky, they can, and it will be profitable. It also means that the company's VCs understand that they could replace the current management and replace them with willing enshittifiers and make more money.

This is why Bluesky is in a dangerous place: not because it is backed by VCs, not because it is a for-profit entity, but because it has captive users and no constraints. It's a great party in a sealed building with no fire exits:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/14/fire-exits/#graceful-failure-modes

Last week, I endorsed a project called Free Our Feeds, whose goals include hacking some fire exits into Bluesky by force majeure – that is, independently standing up an alternative Bluesky server that people can retreat to if Bluesky management changes, or has a change of heart:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/01/14/contesting-popularity/#everybody-samba

For some Mastodon users, Free Our Feeds is dead on arrival – why bother trying to make a for-profit project safer for its users when Mastodon is a perfectly good nonprofit alternative? Why waste millions developing a standalone Bluesky server rather than spending that money improving things in the Fediverse.

I believe strongly in improving the Fediverse, and I believe in adding the long-overdue federation to Bluesky. That's because my goal isn't the success of the Fediverse – it's the defeat of enshtitification. My answer to "why spend money fixing Bluesky?" is "why leave 20 million people at risk of enshittification when we could not only make them safe, but also create the toolchain to allow many, many organizations to operate a whole federation of Bluesky servers?" If you care about a better internet – and not just the Fediverse – then you should share this goal, too.

Many of the Fediverse's servers are operated by for-profit entities, after all. One of the Fediverse's largest servers (Threads) is owned by Meta. Threads users who feel the bite of Zuckerberg's decision to encourage homophobic, xenophobic and transphobic hate speech will find it easy to escape from Threads: they can set up on any Fediverse server that is federated with Threads and they'll be able to maintain their connections with everyone who stays behind.

The existence of for-profit servers in the Fediverse does not ruin the Fediverse (though I wouldn't personally use one of them). The fact that multiple neo-Nazi groups run their own Mastodon servers does not ruin the Fediverse (though I certainly won't use their servers). Not even the fact that Donald Trump's Truth Social is a Mastodon server does anything to ruin the Fediverse (not using that one, either).

This is the strength of federated, federatable social media – it disciplines enshittifiers by lowering switching costs, and if enshittifiers persist, it makes it easy for users to escape unshitted, because they don't have to solve the collective action problem. Any user can go to any server at any time and stay in touch with everyone else.

Mastodon was born free: free code, with free federation as a priority. Bluesky was not: it was born within a for-profit public benefit corporation whose charter offers some defenses against enshittification, but lacks the most decisive one: the federation that would let users escape should escape become necessary.

The fact that Mastodon was born free is quite unusual in the annals of the fight for a free internet. Most of the internet was born proprietary and had freedom foisted upon it. Unix was born within Bell Labs, property of the convicted monopolist AT&T. The GNU/Linux project set it free.

SMB was born proprietary within corporate walls of Microsoft, another corporate monopolist. SAMBA set it free.

The Office file formats were also born proprietary within Microsoft's walled garden: they were set free by hacker-activists who fought through a thick bureaucratic morass and Microsoft fuckery (including literally refusing to allow chairs to be set for advocates for Open Document Format) to give us formats that underlie everything from LibreOffice to Google Docs, Office365 to your web browser.

There is nothing unusual, in other words, about hacking freedom into something that is proprietary or just insufficiently free. That's totally normal. It's how we got almost everything great about computers.

Mastodon's progenitors should be praised for ensuring their creation was born free – but the fact that Bluesky isn't free enough is no reason to turn our back on it. Our response to anything that locks in the people we care about must be to shatter those locks, not abandon the people bound by the locks because they didn't heed to our warnings.

Audre Lorde is far smarter than me, but when she wrote that "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house," she was wrong. There is no toolset better suited to conduct an orderly dismantling of a structure than the tools that built it. You can be sure it'll have all the right screwdriver bits, wrenches, hexkeys and sockets.

Bluesky is fine. It has features I significantly prefer to Mastodon's equivalent. Composable moderation is amazing, both a technical triumph and a triumph of human-centered design:

https://bsky.social/about/blog/4-13-2023-moderation

I hope Mastodon adopts those features. If someone starts a project to copy all of Bluesky's best features over to Mastodon, I'll put my name to the crowdfunding campaign in a second.

But Mastodon has one feature that Bluesky sorely lacks – the federation that imposes antienshittificatory discipline on companies and offers an enshittification fire-exit for users if the discipline fails. It's long past time that someone copied that feature over to Bluesky.

Check out my Kickstarter to pre-order copies of my next novel, Picks and Shovels!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/01/20/capitalist-unrealism/#praxis

[goodforwho]

I felt SO robbed after reading the script omg like WE COULD'VE HAD THIS DIALOGUE AND BIG BROTHER MIKEY *sobs*

Anyways, good thing I'm an artist because I can at least bring one scene to life!

[rawmustardfourtwenty]

just had the realization that because this moment is from investigations 2 we're either gonna lose this iconic screenshot or we'll get it in hd for the collection. capcom holds a lot of power here

[luckyraeve]

RE4R Leon wearing Jill's RE5 Battle Suit [source]

#TacticalCleavage

[ssseriema]

lonely little starboy

[a-dauntless-daffodil]

So in love with the "Canival Town Vaggie" AU, but that lead to a thought. In Alastor's first song he puts Vaggie in a certain outfit that people have noticed shows up later. This time, Vaggie would recognize "You dressed me up as Susan!?"

what with Alastor kinda being Vaggie's live-in Susan, she might take it as a compli-

WAIT

WHAT IF SUSAN WAS LIKE VAGGIE'S GRUMPY BITCH CANIBAL GRANDMA?? WHAT IF THE ONLY PERSON SUSAN DIDN'T HECKLE WAS VAGGIE????

like- like vaggie, in the hotel in canon SHE'S the one getting pissed and frustrated and and and the one being realistic (pessimistic???) about stuff, STRICT, judgmental (to anyone not charlie) like imagine her meeting Susan like "Wow. mean granny says it like it is" and Susan latching onto her "I'VE ONLY HAD THIS SNARKY JADED GRANDDAUGHTER FOR /FIVE MINUTES/, AND IF ANYONE LOOKS AT HER WEIRD, IM EATING THEM AND THEN EVRYONE ELSE IN CANNIBAL TOWN"

can you imagine mom/aunt Rosie struggling valiantly to be supportive and have Vaggie's evil granny over for tea steeped in the skull of earl Grey, CAN YOU IMAGINE CHARLIE TRYING SO HARD TO BE NICE TO HER GIRLFRIEND'S GRANGRAN BUT ONLY EARNING SUSAN'S RESPECT WHEN SHE CRACKS AND CALLS HER A BITCH

(and Vaggie grinning and CHEERING HER for it???)AND THEN SUSAN IS GIRNNING TOO, LEANING OVER TO HER GRANDAUGHTER AND GROWLING

"oh i see why you like her now~" - "that's not why, granny chops, but yeah. she's great"

WHILE CHARLIE SITs THERE, TRYING NOT TO REACH OVER AND THROTTLE THIS OLD LADY THAT HER GF CLEARLY LOVES

even in hell no one can figure out how this (healthy?) (happily fucked up??) granddaughter / grandmother relationship works!!!! they just know they'll find Vaggie and Susan standing in a corner of the party, smirking / grinning with too many teeth together as they trade sick burns about everyone else there! (especially Alastor) (and excepting Charlie once Susan decides she might almost be worthy of dating her sad emotionally burnt dropout angel vegetation grandchild)

the non-cannibal vegetation diet thing is ONLY part of Vaggie that Susan ever picks on, and it's only because she's WORRIED Vaggie will fall off the flesh is she doesn't eat human three times daily in the special way Granny kills it~

original au credit to @sunsetcougar

[suddenly-frankenstein]

WELL

just decided to share with y'all my not-so-big but not-so-small Frankenstein editions collection 👁️👁️

I have 14 books for now! most of them are English-language editions, but I also have several books in Ukrainian, as well as one in German and one in French – really hope to find an opportunity to collect more editions in other languages in the future.

details are under the cut!

1. one of my latest thing! Frankenstein (Deluxe Edition) 2023, with absolutely stunning illustrations. Damn, it was quite expensive for me, but ahhhhh this is so beautiful I can't-

2. another beaty! Macmillan Collector's Library's edition, small but so pretty under the supercover, and THIS blue colour!! and inside design!!

3. this one is one of my ultimate faves ahhhhh. Signet Classics's edition, and I'm absolutely IN LOVE WITH THIS COVER, HEELLLL!! it also is very pleasant to touch

4-5. German and French (with McAvoy on the cover jkjdkdjdkd) editions! they were the gift from my friend and I really love to have them in collection – also really love the choice of colours in the German edition, just YES

6-8. three Ukrainian editions – first 2 in Ukrainian, the 3rd is in English and has a very silly cover :)

the first one is my favorite, because I really like this format, and I also leave notes in it during the process of re-reading the book

9. also my latest purchase – Frankenstein: Junji Ito Story Collection. I haven't read it yet, but heeeellll so gorgeous wtf

10. Usborn Young Reading's edition of Frankenstein. More like retelling for children, but oh, it has really cute illustrations on each page :3

11-13. few more editions in English!

first one – Penguin Clothbound Classics's edition, and of course I NEEDED to have it, because it's really looking and feeling so damn good. This also was the gift from my friend (the same one with the German and French editions) and god, SHE IS THE BEST.

second – Collins Classics's edition, I just like its cover – laconic, but kinda expressive??? idk. but well, this one has very small font of text just uhhh impossible to read.

third – idk what it really is lol, but the cover looks pretty but also kinda funny because of this photoshopped heart lol

14. my very first edition, it's in russian and I don't have much to say about it, but it was cheap and has some of my notes so I keep it.

[mayhemspreadingguy]

aaaaand it's finally done :D. Coffee shop date.

Why use a chair when there's the better option?