#shes so hungry

[chloesimaginationthings]

FNAF Michael refuses to be gaslit on “THE BITE OF 83”

[inkskinned]

at some point it's just like. do they even fucking like the thing they're asking AI to make? "oh we'll just use AI for all the scripts" "we'll just use AI for art" "no worries AI can write this book" "oh, AI could easily design this"

like... it's so clear they've never stood in the middle of an art museum and felt like crying, looking at a piece that somehow cuts into your marrow even though the artist and you are separated by space and time. they've never looked at a poem - once, twice, three times - just because the words feel like a fired gun, something too-close, clanging behind your eyes. they've never gotten to the end of the movie and had to arrive, blinking, back into their body, laughing a little because they were holding their breath without realizing.

"oh AI can mimic style" "AI can mimic emotion" "AI can mimic you and your job is almost gone, kid."

... how do i explain to you - you can make AI that does a perfect job of imitating me. you could disseminate it through the entire world and make so much money, using my works and my ideas and my everything.

and i'd still keep writing.

i don't know there's a word for it. in high school, we become aware that the way we feel about our artform is a cliche - it's like breathing. over and over, artists all feel the same thing. "i write because i need to" and "my music is how i speak" and "i make art because it's either that or i stop existing." it is such a common experience, the violence and immediacy we mean behind it is like breathing to me - comes out like a useless understatement. it's a cliche because we all feel it, not because the experience isn't actually persistent. so many of us have this ... fluttering urgency behind our ribs.

i'm not doing it for the money. for a star on the ground in some city i've never visited. i am doing it because when i was seven i started taking notebooks with me on walks. i am doing it because in second grade i wrote a poem and stood up in front of my whole class to read it out while i shook with nerves. i am doing it because i spent high school scribbling all my feelings down. i am doing it for the 16 year old me and the 18 year old me and the today-me, how we can never put the pen down. you can take me down to a subatomic layer, eviscerate me - and never find the source of it; it is of me. when i was 19 i named this blog inkskinned because i was dramatic and lonely and it felt like the only thing that was actually permanently-true about me was that this is what is inside of me, that the words come up over everything, coat everything, bloom their little twilight arias into every nook and corner and alley

"we're gonna replace you". that is okay. you think that i am writing to fill a space. that someone said JOB OPENING: Writer Needed, and i wrote to answer. you think one raindrop replaces another, and i think they're both just falling. you think art has a place, that is simply arrives on walls when it is needed, that is only ever on demand, perfect, easily requested. you see "audience spending" and "marketability" and "multi-line merch opportunity"

and i see a kid drowning. i am writing to make her a boat. i am writing because what used to be a river raft has long become a fully-rigged ship. i am writing because you can fucking rip this out of my cold dead clammy hands and i will still come back as a ghost and i will still be penning poems about it.

it isn't even love. the word we use the most i think is "passion". devotion, obsession, necessity. my favorite little fact about the magic of artists - "abracadabra" means i create as i speak. we make because it sluices out of us. because we look down and our hands are somehow already busy. because it was the first thing we knew and it is our backbone and heartbreak and everything. because we have given up well-paying jobs and a "real life" and the approval of our parents. we create because - the cliche again. it's like breathing. we create because we must.

you create because you're greedy.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

All he knows is flirt with men and lie.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[linterteatime]

Have you ever forgotten your dead wife? Tune in next week for more iterator problems

[chimchiri]

Different practice doodles

Ianthe ended up looking like she has a chicken leg arm. Yum!

[alienssstufff]

Top 3 best red life skins and why is it this one

[barnespls]

Dumb little drawing after we ascended him today and I should have let Spinkle destroy him the second he talked down to her, he’s so embarrassing now.

[mask131]

I am re-reading the Silmarillion, and something strikes me. The women of Tolkien's world have been talked about TO DEATH especially with all the recurring debates surrounding the Rings of Power series.

As we all know, Tolkien was not a "feminist" in the modern sense of the word. He had a very male-centric point of view and appreciation of the world, he had male-driven and male-centered stories, and actual women characters were sparse and rare. There are only five really big female characters in "The Lord of the Rings" - the quintet of Galadriel, Eowyn, Goldberry, Lobelia and Shelob. [No, don't talk to me about Arwen, she only really was a character in the movies, in the book she's just there in the appendix and she was literaly an afterthought of Tolkien to act as Eowyn's romantic double...]

Consider this. Galadriel, Eowyn, Goldberry, Lobelia and Shelob. This tells you everything you need to know about Tolkien's women, in good and bad.

The Silmarillion has the same motif of having a lot of female characters, only for most of them to be just footnotes, secondary characters with no lines, under-developped one-liners... with in a contrast a handful of super-cool, super-badass, complex and developed heroines at the center of the plot.

Aka, on the bad side, when listing the Valar, while Tolkien gives an interesting personality, great domains and cool attributes to all the male ones, half of the female ones are just... there. And do one stuff. And never appear again. I mean come on... Vana and Nessa? Estë and Vairë were done dirty... That's the actual type of "non-feminism" Tolkien has. It isn't about him hating women or trying to be offensive in his depictions - it is about him just, not putting as much thought, effort and care into his female characters as his male ones, a bit the same way he creates the vast expanses of the East and South of Middle-Earth and then never bothers actually developing more of it or seeking to tell tales of it - but that's for another discussion about Tolkien's "racism". Here we talk about women.

But here's the thing, aka the good side... When Tolkien does find the time and care to develop and flesh out a female character, by Iluvatar he goes all out! Again, we are back on what I said earlier: the women of Lord of the Rings can be counted on one hand... but these fingers are Galadriel, Eowyn and Shelob, so you can't claim he isnt writing powerful, important or uninterestng female characters. Which leads me to my original remark - as usual I get driven away in digressions of all sorts and kinds.

Have you ever noticed that Melkor's greatest enemies, the ones he fears the most, and his most effective foes... are women? Tolkien might not like to put them front and center of his tales, and he might have been a man of the early 20th century England in culture and mind, but boy does he has something to say about how women are actually the first enemies of the literal embodiment of evil and destruction! I mean think about it. Varda of the Stars, and Yavanna of the trees. Nienna has her ambiguous relationship to him - her tears work against him, and yet without her plea for him he likely would not have been released from the dungeons of Mandos. You have Melian with her Girdle, and Luthien with her Hound. And of course most of all Arien, guardian of the Sun, not only one of the rare fire spirits that Melkor couldn't corrupt (despite him basically ruling over all fire), but that frightens him so much he keeps hiding away and doesn't even dare to attack her... [I also reblogged some times ago a post praising the brilliance of Tolkien keeping the old European sun-moon motifs but switching the genders. The weaker, inconsistant, lustful, whimsical, disorderly, untrustworthy Moon is now a male principle, while the steady, dangerous, strong, powerful and beautiful Sun is a woman.]

It is actually REALLY easy to do a feminist retelling of Tolkien's work. Melkor doesn't fear Manwë as much as Varda. Aulë's works and servants get corrupted by Melkor, while Yavanna's do not. Melian and Luthien actively works against him. He friggin' pisses himself when the Woman of the Sun shows up. Sure, there are some evil female characters that serve him down the line and are relegated to the "obscure footnotes and undescribed secondary characters" zone - Thuringwethil the vampire or queen Beruthiel. I coul also dropped deleted characters from early drafts, like the ogress Fluithuin. But among them stands Ungoliant... THE only true female big bad on the dark side of Arda. THE badass, nightmarish, creepy eldritch abomination. And who ends up double-crossing Melkor, almost KILLING him, and again making him basically shit in his pants - as Varda and Arien do.

The first enemies of Morgoth are not the Valar, or the Maiar, or the Elves... It's women.

[almondcroissantsandink]

my little sister got gonched in this year of our lord 2024 and when she brought it up i literally thought she was trying to trick me in some weird delayed goncharov shenanigans. she's devastated it's not a real movie we can watch lol

[the-crooked-library]

I would like to point out how clearly remake shows us that Ellen is not satisfied with Thomas sexually because their sex scene which is shot to be not sexy on purpose clearly, also shows us that when Thomas takes her Ellen thinks and talks about Orlok and wants Thomas to be like Orlok aka kiss her heart. But he can’t. He can’t give her what she wants.

^^^^ YES this aspect is incredibly prominent, and a significant component of the disconnect in Ellen's marriage to Thomas! There's a few intersecting issues there, but they all do come down to the same thing. Ellen isn't satisfied, because Thomas is never willing to actually take her desires and preferences into account when they are together.

It's shown numerous times that, in a sexual context, Ellen wants to be worshipped. She has a dominant and possessive streak, she is extremely sensual, and these elements are essential to her pleasure. They also intersect with her desire to be seen and recognized for who she is, as well to be given the respect she is so consistently denied. These desires are all strongly discouraged - both in her time, and sometimes in ours. As a woman, she is expected to be deferring; and chaste, except for when her husband chooses. Her opinions and complexity are also never really considered; which is not unexpected, of course. Ellen is a Tragic Madwoman - it's Ophelia, all over again. If you recall, when Hamlet appears mad, the people around him assume there is more to it than his father's death; but when Ophelia does, everybody chalks it up to her father's murder, and nothing else. With all that said, what I personally love about Ellen is that, despite whatever shame she might feel around the subject, or her efforts to be proper, she always knows exactly what she wants. In part, that's what makes her married life so tragic - she keeps reaching out to Thomas, offering him these vulnerable aspects of herself, as well as an opportunity to understand her and connect with her; and she is met with one rejection after another. Still, she cannot ignore what she is - and her choosing Orlok in the end is symbolic of her deciding to "deceive" herself no longer.

Thomas, by contrast, is playing mind games with himself. In theory, he could be submissive. If he indulged that potential within himself, it could be a way for them to connect - considering Ellen's inclinations; however, he sees this aspect of himself as weak, emasculating, shameful, and thus never explores it - except by force, as per the usual gothic exploration of shame/desire, which muddles the waters in that regard. Much of the way he treats Ellen is rooted in the patriarchal rules he cannot bring himself to abandon, since doing so threatens his own sense of masculinity - and, by extension, dignity and self-worth. As such, whenever faced with a situation that might prompt him to be soft, emotional, or worshipful of her, he overcorrects instead. He is afraid of Ellen's perceived "abnormality" because of what it might mean for him. Additionally, he is fairly obviously queercoded, in a classic vampire-genre way; which, in my opinion, is yet another reason they just don't quite seem to click. Whatever he might want out of a sexual relationship, he doesn't really want it with Ellen - and, of course, given his homophobic society, that just piles on more shame, emasculation, and repression. This is why, after their one depicted sexual scene, when she laments her "uncleanliness," he cannot reassure her, no matter how he tries. He cannot accept the "abnormal" aspects of her, because the way he sees her is always affected by the way he sees himself - through a lens of misogyny, queerphobia, and horror. His care for her is therefore largely superficial; he does not know her.

All in all, I am obsessed with this aspect of their failmarriage. They're both so lonely and so desperate for companionship; but neither of them is getting what they want. Not with each other.

[nicollekidman]

buffy knows spike loves her during season five. buffy knows spike loves her when she comes back and seeks comfort/silence in his presence. and as she comes back to herself and tries to make peace with the fact that she’s Here Again, she still knows he loves her. and i think part of the Big Bad Grabbing The Slayer For The Darkness routine they both cling to is that it allows them to pretend this huge thing isn’t between them so they can get what they both want (someone to stay).

and like obviously buffy cannot allow herself to believe that he loves her for many reasons, but she DOES believe it, she can’t make herself unknow it even though she tries so hard. which is partially where the breakdown with tara in 6.13 comes from because the cognitive dissonance of soulless spike loving her as if he has a soul while she is so lost within herself that the only way she can reach for him is to use him (which would be fine if he was the big bad grabbing the slayer for the darkness) which is hurting him! unfathomably! but he’s supposed to be the corruption! how can he??? any of it???

meanwhile spike has watched the woman he loves be brought back as a shell and he wants to see the light in her eyes and he can touch her now and sometimes that’s enough to make her laugh but he can’t linger in those moments or she’ll go away again! so he can play the role he needs to play so she’ll stay, as if he could keep her anywhere she didn’t want to be. as if he wants her to be in the dark instead of bringing him into the light. but how could he ask for anything more when he already got her back and he didn’t even need to kill her afterwards.

and so they hurt each other and he forgets himself and asks her if she even likes him and it’s too honest and he’s asking too much (he asks for nothing) so before she can throw her life away like it’s nothing, he puts the game face on, makes himself a target, and swallows it all. and she can’t unknow. and it would all be fine except he’s a vampire and she’s the slayer and how can he just say it like it’s nothing when she needs to beat his face in just to keep from screaming.

[randomminty]

The og iono fan

[everotten]

she wants that cookie so effing bad

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Sublime Equine.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[mythtiide]

Day 5. Firsts / Flirting 🫧

[lonesomenecromancer]

moth drinking her little honey soup