#so anyone saying “my theory of xyz is true!”

[nicxxx5]

some of you guys have really extreme takes and need to like...chill the fuck out

[jambeast]

the problem with people complaining about the inaccessibility of academic texts on these issues is actually the exact opposite: they are utter fucking bullshit, you don't need to read the texts to understand what the terms mean, the texts exist to lie to you about what the terms mean, the terms are crude social attack vectors, they are hostile memes. here is my 50,000 page essay on Fuck Whitey Fuck Whitey We Need To Kill All White People, a new ideology which if you read all 50,000 pages you will understand is not racist at all

I will say that I have gone through the Anarchist Library and read a fair few posts and I've been thoroughly unimpressed.

It's always the struggle with these things. You get the impression that they're smart things for smart people. And they only *appear* dumb because you're not smart enough to get them. Then you read more and more and you're really unsure if there's something you're not understanding, or if it really is as banal and stupid as it looks behind the veil of wibbly wobbly mystery.

Like hearing about Anarchism, you have these questions like 'what about the roads' or 'how will xyz work' or 'what's this about bathtub insulin', and anarchists will laugh those off as being beneath even answering because the answers are so obvious, they're in a Theory book somewhere, just keep reading.

And you assume they're right because they sound pretty smart, and you keep reading, until it slowly dawns on you that it really is as dumb as it looked, and they really didn't know those answers, because the answers didn't exist, and they didn't even search for those answers to begin with because they believed so strongly that they were there - they were unquestioning. And because they were so unquestioning, they didn't question, so they didn't find the answer! (or lack thereof)

One of the big things I learnt that felt like real 'growing up' moment, after learning that adults were fallible and their knowledge didn't automatically superscede my knowledge, was that -books- are fallible. You kind of assume that if something's in a book that it's, like, respectable. That being in a book makes something more true, like surely they wouldn't let just anyone write one of these - they wouldn't lets someone just write a book and be *wrong*

But no, they really do let just anyone write books, and books are frequently dumb as hell!

[teeth--thief]

Hi. R again. It hasn’t been long, I know. And I could figure this out on my own (forgive my pride, but I must defend it in advance; I am an adequately intelligent man), but, what was the misunderstanding of the flaw? English may be poor. Apologies again. I understand the rods. Their design, the problem(s) they posed… the technical, chemical, science, physics… I see it. The sociology, less so. What information were they (and by they, I mean anyone and everyone) missing? Were they prevented from knowing, or were (some of) them unimaginative? You seem to focus on the empathetic and humane. Thank you, again. Many thanks.

-R

Heeeello once again my lovely lovely Rodka! I'm sorry that this ask has been marinating in my inbox longer than the other ones, I had to find a free moment to get into this.

If you'd like me to find more things on this, get some more quotes, back things up with sources... I can do that. But I think the general consensus would be the same.

We have to take quite a few things into account to get the full picture.

The designers of the RBMK seemed to have known about certain flaws but failed to share that information with the people operating their very own reactors (if I had to guess, so that the staff wouldn't be, rightfully so, wary of the reactor itself while operating it - the last thing any new operator would like to hear is oh by the way, that huge thing you're operating? Oh yeah, it can explode. Or meltdown can occur. Or both.). And yet, even they seem to have overlooked certain aspects, and only learned about them after bad things already happened - think, Leningrad in 1975 - with this one everyone just went: Well. That's a bummer... Anyway. We won't tell people much of anything. That's nobody's business (it was, in fact, everyone's business) - and Chernobyl in 1986. And probably some others.

Now, by all accounts, the operators did not possess any knowledge about the flaws. In the control room itself there were a few key people who, in theory, should (would) have known about the flaws - if anyone, other than the people real high up, knew. The most crucial ones being:

> Dyatlov, as a Deputy Chief Engineer, with years of experience under his belt, being the author of the test program they were running that night.

> The two SIURs (Senior Reactor Control Engineers) from the fourth (Tregub) and the fifth (Toptunov) shifts respectively. If there's someone in the plant who should know all about the core and the control rods, it's them, that was their job.

Things get... interesting with the second SIUR, as according to Sasha Korol, his close friend, in Midnight in Chernobyl:

(...) There were also health checks, and security screenings conducted by the KGB. After one of these safety exams, Toptunov sat down with Korol and told him about a strange phenomenon, described deep in the RBMK documentation, indicating that the reactor control rods may—under some circumstances—accelerate reactivity instead of slowing it down.

I'm not too sure whether to believe it at all, but, alright, supposing that's true, let's say that during one of the many "examinations in the station’s Department of Nuclear Safety" or the KGB checks, someone produced some documents for the future SIUR to read, something describing the control rod flaws. First of all: who would be in possession of such documents? The KGB most likely. Because if it was someone higher up from the station then... well, it'd be Dyatlov and he most certainly had not known.

And if that happened at all, it'd suggest that Toptunov either did not know how to apply this knowledge to operating the reactor or he was under the wrong impression regarding it - as in, maybe he believed, or was led to believe, it doesn't happen in XYZ situations, that it's an incredibly uncommon phenomenon, etc etc. But if Toptunov learned that from something or someone at some point, why hadn't seemingly anyone else? Tregub? Hadn't known. Dyatlov? Hadn't known. Any other operator? Had. Not. Known.

Hunter, how do you even know that?, you may ask. Well, simply because the "immediate" staff didn't know anything - they all met up while in the hospital, discussing and theorising about what might have caused the explosion. You'd think that if someone knew something like this could happen in some rare circumstances, they'd speak up about it then.

On the topic of the KGB being involved, actually... being a NPP worker was not a job you could have just... got. As far as I know, anything that was more complex than moping the floor (this is probably a great exaggeration but if your position was in control of anything then that would most definitely be the case) was possible only after passing more or less extensive background checks. The whole plant crawled with informants, according to the declassified KGB documents (if I remember correctly that that's where I got this info from). While power plants were not exactly the state secret, it's pretty much given that they wouldn't just employ anyone there. If you were to rely sensitive information such as that your perfect RBMK reactors aren't so perfect after all, I'd assume you could tell them that.

So, in conclusion: some things seemed to have been overlooked by the designers and scientist in charge (academician A.P. Aleksandrov, mainly - nobody touched him after, or before, the disaster because he was INCREDIBLY well connected and also approximately one billion years old and the Soviet Union sure did respect its seniors... but only if they were important enough) - either deliberately or simply because nobody bothered to entertain what would happen if [this, that or the other thing] - ignored certain aspects of safety for their own sake. That is: to make their design (and in turn, themselves) look good.

Remember: In Soviet Union there were no accidents because of faulty equipment. In Soviet Union accidents could only occur because of working personnel. (A.S. Dyatlov)

[hamiltonforpowerpoint]

Thoughts as a black person seeing the Hogwarts Legacy stuff

I’ve re wrote this so many times so I’m gonna stop fluffing it and build on point lates.

A main draw in for a lot of black people was the diversity. From the looks of it Hogwarts Legacy was able to capture a lot of black features and hairstyles accurately. A thing you still don’t see a lot in “popular” games less it’s the same 10 hairstyles.

I’ve seen loads of talks of transphobia but little to no talks of antisemitism and racism. While the transphobia gets the deep talks antisemitism and racism are usually added as tag on. And I know her transphobia is more prevalent especially on Twitter but I don’t think that means the other two should be talked about less

Brings me into my next point(WHICH IN GENERAL; NOT SPECIFIC) I think it’s an interesting to see how discrimination between (yt) lgbtq+ is handled compared to discrimination between poc/racism. This isn’t just a Hogwarts Legacy thing or a Harry Potter thing this is more widespread. You can say you don’t support Jk and majority of ppl will agree with you but you say the same things for idk Jefree Star(I have a better example but it’s for my next bulletin) and it’s the opposite

This one’s more for POC/black people who are watching this go down. A before I say what I’m about to say just know I don’t support JK nor will I be buying the game.

Does anyone feel sort of idk how to say it disconnect or non vigorous about the whole conversation. For me personally it’s seeing people go so hard on people buying the game, go hard on JK for transphobia, and then they will turn around and support a racist. MSI, Jefree Stars, literally one of the many yt ppl who have actively been shown to be racist on multiple accounts but are still shown to be in high regard of a mainly lgbtq+ group. And when black people say “hey don’t support xyz bc their racist” many times you’ll see people go “idc I’m still going to listen/watch them” and then you expect me to support you when dealing with a homophobe/transphobe? Not saying I wouldn’t but it feels…harder/frustrating.

I’m losing my train of though so before I totally forget I’m gonna jump the gun a bit. This is gonna be crazy and not favored by many. This is stupid but I have to say it. When it comes to something like Chik-fil-a that is a known costly restaurant that has donated to conversion camps(Ik this need to be fact checked but to my common knowledge it was true). And when lgbtq ppl were made aware of this many ppl responded “idc” “I still want to eat their” “joke” “joke” The jokes have continued even when ppl of conversion camp theory have come out and spoken how not funny the situation is. My point is I think that and Hogwarts Legacy shows a very similar pattern of lgbtq supporting something and giving them money even though they know the money is going somewhere that will harm ppl like them. But bc it’s not actively hurting them they support bc it gives them the entertainment/satisfaction or nostalgia they so desperately want. When it’s something racist, like Dollskill, you usually don’t see the same(I can only speak for the younger generation)

That was all but I’m really trying to open the discussion. This was written at 12:30am so it’s probably full of errors and nonsense. Also pls don’t be racist or rude. This just me brain blobing. It’s not a true reflection of me just some of my thoughts.

[bedazzlecunt]

wren, i know this is a somewhat personal question but have you ever felt unsafe or uncomfy when you went out all bimboesque? i'm a little scared of real life repercussions bc yes, while i do fantasize abt strangers taking advantage, i wouldn't want that to become a real, dangerous situation oof i hope u know what i mean. do you keep safe somehow? i'm sorry if this is too personal

omg no it's not too personal, and honestly i'm really grateful you asked. obviously this is a kink blog and i'm talking a lot about fantasy and fun and etc, but i really also love an excuse to talk seriously about it, especially since so much of the tumblr nsft community doesnt

the answer is yes, unfortunately. i'm lucky in that i live in a major city, where alt fashions are more common and turn less heads; it's not new york or anything, but i get way less shit than i did when i lived in Small Town USA. and it's a fucking shame that i sometimes feel like i have to compromise my style because men (and some non-men, but it's mostly men) can't behave. getting oggled or taken advantage of is sooo hot in theory, but in reality, that shit's just scary.

the thing is tho — at least in the major city i live in — i have gotten catcalled and whooped at nearly as much in long little house on the prairie style dresses as i have in miniskirts. the last time a man followed me anyplace i was in a knee-length selkie dress; not exactly the picture of sexy. this isn't to say that concerns about dressing too slutty aren't fair, but i want to emphasize that this shit is about men and their desire to punish folks who exist outside the 'appropriate' flavors of gender expression. it is not your fault or your clothe's fault if someone harasses, whether you're wearing a maxi dress with a high collar or god's shortest skirt. that's on the freak harassing you.

you have to navigate to what extent you're comfortable, and to what extent you're willing to compromise your style to avoid discomfort and stay safe. this is true of almost any alt-fashion, unfortunately. i'm extremely confident in myself and my style and hard to upset, so men catcalling or whatever neither bothers or scares me, but i still take some steps. i only go out in extra slutty fits when i'm with friends because i know men won't be as weird to me if i'm not alone, i stick to heavily populated areas when i am alone, and while i love to flirt and act ditzy and etc, if anybody starts crossing lines or getting too close, i abscond immediately. i also don't flirt with folks at bus stops or the like due to the risk that we'll then be stuck on a bus together and they'll know where my stop is and etc.

and like, this sucks! it fucking blows that i have to do this. but any person, especially fem ppl, who doesn't dress in a 'normal' way will have to navigate this until men learn to be normal. like i said, though; i turn more heads in a bimbo look, but in terms of actual harassment or shit, that often happens regardless of what i'm wearing, and i've luckily never been attacked or assaulted by a stranger. i wish i had a more coherent answer for you; something where i could say 'if you do xyz you'll be safe for sure' but that just doesn't exist. freaks will be freaks no matter how you look

this all being said — i will say that i get far more positive responses (particularly from women, lol) when i go out dressed to the slutty nines than i do negative, and overall it's fun and rewarding and a joy, or i wouldn't keep doing it. i get far more compliments than i do bad vibes, and i feel good. i don't want this answer to scare anyone out of a style they sincerely like. if you're just getting into it, just err on the side of caution at first while you feel out how your community reacts, and you can go from there.

[towlerknows]

I find it really interesting (and sometimes frustrating) that some people are so quick to direct anons to their ‘they never broke up’ tag (or whatever their blog’s tag is for compiling “proof” that they never broke up) and refusing to partake in any kind of critical thinking instead of engaging in conversations about what may / may not be true. I’m neutral nowadays in that I think they were together in the past but don’t care either way whether they are now or not (and don’t hate either one of them, which seems to be a prerequisite for many blogs who are no longer hardcore larries) but part of the alienation I felt when I was a larrie and only followed larries was the insistence that the party line couldn’t and shouldn’t be questioned. Frankly I think it’s gross and quite scary tbh that some huge blogs are so quick to shut down critical thinking when many of their followers (and anons) will likely be young people with little relationship / work / life experience. I hate to use the word ‘cult’ (ugh just typing that; horrible) but sometimes, when you see so much “my way or the highway” thinking it can feel like that. Anyway, all this is to say that I find you and your blog so refreshing and I’m so glad we can have these types of open conversations without being shut down.

Well thank you!! I appreciate the vote of confidence :)

But to be fair, a lot of Larries that point to the "why they never broke up" tags or whatever are just tired of talking about it and are not trying to convince anyone of their position.

Back in the day, Larries were much more of a force in the fandom and antis would badger and harass people all day long asking for "proof" and when they got a response, they'd just ignore it or mock and harass the OP to the point that people would get run out of the fandom (I still miss FIMQ).

I think (and I don't have proof of this, just my opinion) that after as many years as this has been going on, people are just tired of explaining themselves and want to be left alone in their little corner of the fandom and not have to defend their right to exist. And while that's a loss to new Larries since it's difficult to piece together the history of Larry in detail at this point, any single blogger isn't the official fandom historian, y'know?

At the same time, the "my way or the highway" Larries (or antis for that matter) are not on my dash. I've been blocked by most of them since I'm not on their particular side-street, so I don't have a lot to say about them. I do agree that they're ridiculous in the sense of thinking they know whats going on when we literally have no idea one way or the other. And the few that haven't blocked me, I don't follow because it's a bit of a slap in the face to scroll by a nice photo of Louis or Harry and see commentary of "this is OBVIOUSLY XYZ, it's undeniable!" when in fact it is not undeniable, and could easily be a coincidence.

As for me, I like having nuanced discussions about possibilities and theories that aren't hateful to anyone and just block the nasty anons I get in the aftermath telling me I hate Louis or Harry or I'm a liar or whatever. I see no point in engaging with that nonsense and I don't think my followers have any interest in seeing that day after day.

I state my opinion, make sure it's clear I don't know shit from Shinola, and move on with my life. It's a pretty good system :)

[bonbongiveshell]

please tell me your angel theory !

EDIT: Oh my God I forgot I saved this as a draft and never posted it, y'all are gonna love this one

Alright so get this. According to the New Testament, God uses angels as messengers mostly, sometimes as protectors. (John the Baptist's birth, Jesus' birth announcement to both Mary and Joseph, the angel who told them to go to Egypt, the angel that announced Jesus' tomb was empty, the angels who tended Jesus after His 40 days and nights in the desert. I don't have my Bible on me or I'd cite my sources more specifically but I can go back and do it later if anyone's curious)

However, as far as I can recall, we don't really get a description of angels, in the New Testament at least. (Which will be my main point of reference cause I'm coming at this from a Christian pov) So essentially, we know what they do and and we know that they intercede in the going's on of humanity, sometimes pretty obviously, but we don't have anything to say "this for sure is an angel bc taxonomically they meet xyz criteria"

Lots of people in the early church days argued about the nature of angels and while I am reluctant to agree with a Catholic about literally anything, saint Augustine proposed that "angel" is a job title as opposed to their nature, their true nature being "spirit". I didn't actually know that until after I formed the basis of this theory but I thought that was a cool tidbit because!!!! My theory is that angels can manifest in a couple different ways.

1. There's your guardian angel type way. Everyone's got one, whether they call it their conscience or their gut feelings or whatever. This is the angel that lives in your heart and stops you from texting your ex at 3 am or stepping out into the road without looking both ways first. The guardian angel is a messenger type angel that nudges you one way or the other, you don't necessarily have to listen to but you probably should

2. Physical or "physical" manifestation. So, angels that appear as a pillar of light or talk to you in your dreams or what have you. You know these are angels and they tell you to be not afraid bc if they don't you might lose your shit at seeing a spirit in meatspace. These angels are usually messengers but not always. The angel stationed in the Garden was one of these too.

3. Here's what my two angel encounters were. This type of angel "possesses" a human being, for lack of a better word, and does a bigger intervention than the type one can but smaller than type two usually does. My first angels saved me during a suicide attempt and my second angel saved me from some big boy financial ruin and fixed a long term issue my family had been having at the same time. I believe that the angel chooses the person based on who you are most likely to trust + who's around + what that person can physically provide you with after they are themselves again if need be (like in the case of my second angel)

Source: it was revealed to me

[lezzian]

wait sorry if I'm late but what's wrong w/ ecocriticism?

oh no worries, i'd love to talk about this- so first of all i want to be clear that i don't actually dislike ecocriticism on principle, there's nothing wrong with it. caveat: i am trained in literary criticism and not sociology or political theory. i read a lot of critical theory to apply it to literature, trying to explain what i think a text* is saying, how it's conveying multiple meanings that are working against each other, basically deconstructing the text to reveal something about its ideology. so i am more interested in what a certain critical approach allows us to do with a text than i am interested in how "true" it is, to a certain extent. another really important thing to keep in mind when you're discussing various critical lenses is that that thinking of them as wholly separate specialisations is a bit of a mistake - tangent alert.

so there's this idea in academia called the "buffet style" of teaching, that anyone taking a "critical theory 101" class will probably recognise: every week, maybe every two weeks if you're lucky, you're studying some texts and you're learning about the theoretical model using those texts. so maybe you'll start with a Freud/psychoanalysis week, then a Marxist week, then a postcolonial week and from thereon out you could have feminist criticism, ecocricism, queer theory, maybe your teacher wants to get spicy and throw in some formalism, phenomenology, and aesthetics. this method presents all of these lenses as isolated; identities you can take on as a critic without using any of the other stuff, a specialisation that doesn't touch "other areas" in which you're not an expert. this model of teaching emphasises specialisation as a narrow, liberal individualist (consumer) identity, the same way we want to identify with MBTI types and other arbitrarily constructed categories that you can take an internet quiz for to find out which one you are. the problem with this, of course, is that it's not true. that's not how any of this stuff was developed. in truth, all criticism grew out of what came before it, and "being an xyz critic" is not the isolated specialisation that it seems to be. critics are doing readings of texts**, but their "lense" didn't come into existence wholecloth. popular critical approaches now constitute fields like postcolonial studies, gender & queer studies, and ecocriticism, but those things grew out of Derridian deconstruction aka poststructuralism, which itself exploded the field of structuralism, which was a reaction to new criticism, which evolved out of Freudian and Marxist traditions, which developed out of aestheticism, which itself was a complication of biographical-historicist criticism at which point we get to joseph addison & the spectator***, the first serious english cultural criticism. so what i'm really trying to say here is that it is (in my opinion) not useful to stake out a single spot in theory and saying: "this is what i am, this is my specialisation". certainly that's useful in a job interview and when you're trying to develop like, research proposals that fit within your expertise, but you must always remember that you're not working in isolation. contrary to popular belief, academics do not work alone, and i think sometimes the way we talk about fields as if they were totally isolated from each other obscures the way that academia is a collaborative and continually evolving process.

so all that is just to say, my beef with ecocriticism is mainly relegated to all the ails of the modern academic world... it is just extremely visible in ecocriticism right now because it has massively exploded in popularity, which naturally means that you're going to read more writers who are... getting away from themselves as they write. this is just my personal bias, but i really dislike criticism that isn't "of the world", by which i mean, when the stakes are abstract to the point of being inconsequential. i think you see this in a lot of queer theory of today too, though perhaps less egregiously. to me it is really important that your approach still means something real for people living in the world. this is why i really like Gloria Anzaldúa, her work is complex yet very grounded in her actual life & experience. i think this tendency for ecocritism to become uprooted and highly conceptual will wash away with time. i really think grounded theory is the future and i think you can tell by the younger generation of critics spending more time doing things like positionality even in places when it would previously have been unexpected. it's impossible to really say anything definitive about a field that's as actively developing as ecocriticism, and i don't think all of its foundational work has yet been written. i had a bit here exposing which approaches i thought were too high concept, but actually i've decided now that would be unproductive and i'd rather refer people to stuff i think is good. what i've read of rob nixon's slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor, i've really enjoyed. the unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality by farhana sultana occasionally moved me to tears when i read it. oh, and we were assigned chapter 13 (rising up from the hold) in decolonial ecology: thinking from the caribbean world last year, i've got that marked as a re-read because i struggled to fully grasp it on my first read. sorry did this not end up being the teardown of the field u probably expected 😭.

TLDR; there's nothing wrong with ecocriticism i just think it sometimes struggles to stay grounded because it's a new and very active field.

*ᵇʸ ᵗᵉˣᵗ ᶦ ᵐᵉᵃⁿ ᵇᵃˢᶦᶜᵃˡˡʸ ᵃⁿʸᵗʰᶦⁿᵍ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᶦˢ ᵃ "ʷᵒʳᵏ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᵗᵉˡˡˢ ᵃ ˢᵗᵒʳʸ", ˢᵒ ⁿᵒᵗ ʲᵘˢᵗ ˡᶦᵗᵉʳᵃᵗᵘʳᵉ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵖᵒᵉᵗʳʸ, ᵇᵘᵗ ᵃˡˢᵒ ᵐᵒᵛᶦᵉˢ, ᶜᵒᵐᶦᶜˢ, ᵖᵃᶦⁿᵗᶦⁿᵍˢ, ᵖˡᵃʸˢ, ᵗᵉˡᵉᵛᶦˢᶦᵒⁿ, ᵐᵘˢᶦᶜ, ᵉᵗ ᶜᵉᵗᵉʳᵃ ⁻ ᵃˡˡ ᵒᶠ ᵗʰᵉˢᵉ ᵗʰᶦⁿᵍˢ ᶜᵃⁿ ᵇᵉ "ᵗʰᵉ ᵗᵉˣᵗ", ᵗʰᵒᵘᵍʰ ᵗʰᵉ ᵐᵉᵗʰᵒᵈᵒˡᵒᵍʸ ᶠᵒʳ ᵃⁿᵃˡʸˢᶦⁿᵍ ᵗʰᵉᵐ ᵐᵃʸ ᵈᶦᶠᶠᵉʳ ˢᵒᵐᵉʷʰᵃᵗ ᶠʳᵒᵐ ᵐᵉᵈᶦᵘᵐ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉᵈᶦᵘᵐ. ** ᵗᵒ ᶜˡᵃʳᶦᶠʸ: ᵃ ʳᵉᵃᵈᶦⁿᵍ ᵒᶠ ᵃ ᵗᵉˣᵗ ᵈᵒᵉˢ ⁿᵒᵗ ᵐᵉᵃⁿ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᵗʰᵉ ᵃᵘᵗʰᵒʳ ᶦˢ ʳᵉᵃᵈᶦⁿᵍ ᵃ ᵗᵉˣᵗ ᵃⁿᵈ ˢᵃʸᶦⁿᵍ "ᵗʰᶦˢ ᶦˢ ˣ", ᶦᵗ ᵐᵉᵃⁿˢ ᵗʰᵉʸ ᵃʳᵉ ᵘˢᶦⁿᵍ ˣ ᵗᵒ ᵗʳʸ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵉˣᵖˡᵃᶦⁿ ˢᵒᵐᵉᵗʰᶦⁿᵍ ᵃᵇᵒᵘᵗ ʰᵒʷ ᵗʰᵉ ᵗᵉˣᵗ ʷᵒʳᵏˢ. ᶠᵒʳ ᵉˣᵃᵐᵖˡᵉ, ʸᵒᵘ ᶜᵃⁿ ᵈᵒ ᵃ ᶠᵉᵐᶦⁿᶦˢᵗ ʳᵉᵃᵈᶦⁿᵍ ᵒᶠ ᵃ ᵗᵉˣᵗ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵉⁿᵈ ᵘᵖ ᶜᵒⁿᶜˡᵘᵈᶦⁿᵍ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᶦᵗ ᶦˢ ᵈᵉᵉᵖˡʸ ᵐᶦˢᵒᵍʸⁿᶦˢᵗᶦᶜ, ᵒʳ, ᵐᵒʳᵉ ᵘˢᵘᵃˡˡʸ ⁽ᵃⁿᵈ ᶦⁿᵗᵉʳᵉˢᵗᶦⁿᵍˡʸ��, ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᶦᵗ ᶜᵒⁿˢᵗʳᵘᶜᵗˢ ᵐᵘˡᵗᶦᵖˡᵉ ᵐᵉᵃⁿᶦⁿᵍˢ ᵃᵇᵒᵘᵗ ᵐᵉⁿ ᵃⁿᵈ ʷᵒᵐᵉⁿ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ʷᵒʳᵏ ᵃᵍᵃᶦⁿˢᵗ ᵉᵃᶜʰ ᵒᵗʰᵉʳ. ***ᵒᵏᵃʸ ᵐᵃʸᵇᵉ ⁿᵒᵗ ᵗʰᵉ ᵛᵉʳʸ ᶠᶦʳˢᵗ ᵇᵘᵗ ʰᵉ ʳᵉᵃˡˡʸ ʷᵃˢ ᵗʰᵉ ᶠᶦʳˢᵗ ᵍᵘʸ ᵗᵒ ᵃᶜᵗᵘᵃˡˡʸ ᵐᵃᵏᵉ ᵐᵒⁿᵉʸ ᵗʳʸᶦⁿᵍ ᵗᵒ ᵉˣᵖˡᵃᶦⁿ ʷʰʸ ᶜᵉʳᵗᵃᶦⁿ ˡᶦᵗᵉʳᵃᵗᵘʳᵉ ʷᵃˢ ᵍᵒᵒᵈ.

[metallteeff]

okay i will rant for like two seconds my once a month rant but i have recently realized fucking psychology or i guess like modern/pop psychology especially is destroyingggg art. so bad.

like as writer/artist for like the past 2-3 years i’ve found myself being like oh i need to be able to perfectly articulate how my stories deal with mental health and then i get in this awful loop bc i’m not writing anymore im dissecting.

and on the audience part too it’s also awful. i love metas and analysis etc etc but it’s all turned into this strange phenomenon of like “proving a theory” and so many of these metas (im just going to use that for the catchall) focus on the same dissection.

just lately when it comes to art and discussion old or new academic or twitter rants i feel like i constantly see people asking “what is wrong with the artist to make them make this” instead of understanding the emotion or subject present in the piece and dissecting that as it relates to you. it has ti be clinical and hard fact and true to the creators intent.

i hate this approach so much and the way i see it effects my writing has made me crazy so i’m glad i’ve realized. i do not like to see abstract concepts put into a box im sure no one else does but being in like online art culture it’s so so so bad for that because no one can discuss anything online it has to be a debate. and then you’re debating art instead of analyzing and sharing experience.

this is all very vague and that’s kind of the point. what i’m talking about applies to anyone from like brain rotted edge lord anime girl artists to characters in mainstream/high production projects. there is no separation of art from artist on the basis of how does it make you feel it seems like it’s everyone’s wondering what’s going on in the artists head and trying to use their art as tools to figure it out. i think that has terrified me in creating and it’s made me feel like i have to make it present in my art in the first place so i have “nothing to hide” but why does an audience need to be in your psyche???

this is not me saying exploring mental health and illness and symptoms of it in art is a bad thing, it is exactly the opposite. it’s when it turns into everyone fighting about how xyz proves their headcanon correct and then no one else is allowed to interpret a character another way when the point of most art from the people i know and/or admire want the exact opposite. every character should be a mirror to a large variety of people and experiences. the same shade of green should excite one person and disgust the next. i am just so tired and appalled and over the like compartmentalization of art to enjoy it as a monolith go fuck yourself!!!!!

and i kind of got off topic with the subject of psychology present in art but looking at art with a psychological lense can be fun but that’s the lens you should already be using in the sense of connecting emotionally to pieces. i’m seeing yourself in the art right in front of you. most people (especially people who don’t create art often) go into art immediately trying to “figure it out” which i understand but how to you make it clear to everyone that they already understand, they just need to listen to what is there in front of them.

to look at art through a clinical lens is the death of art is maybe a more accurate way of talking about it. to look at art and try to dissect it, not for yourself, but to say “i know exactly what the artist was thinking” you’ll never be right. it’s fun to joke about in the basis of relation to the art but then that’s just you relating. that’s your experience and perception. you will never know the artists intent.

this is more specific and a little more silly but i feel like that^ over laps with people freaking out about character and “good/bad” representation. saying gay characters can only act this way. that characters with plurality can only be portrayed like this. that characters with a disability or neurodivergence or this or that can only say this list of things or else you’ve made a “harmful character”. of course there is harmful stereotyping but i would hope everyone able to publish and produce stuff knows what to do and not to do. i know that’s not realistic but i hope majority of writers don’t need a strict do and does list to write all of their stories!

i really mean this more in the way of making a strict view of how exactly to portray a certain character especially when it comes to marginalized identity and psychology then makes a new box that pisses people off. people did not like autistic people being portrayed as emotionless genius robots who parade as people and that’s normal because that is fucked up. but why now does every autistic character need to be almost a joke about being “too weird”. why also does a character need to be confirmed by the creator to be anything. it’s definitely nice but to me if a character portrays your experience without being confirmed anything, why not just enjoy the character in the way you perceive them. i’m also just a really big fan of ambiguity and surrealism in art so that’s how i prefer to take it but i don’t understand why every single aspect of art needs to be labeled for enjoyment. it’s killing it.

i kind of got off track with this but i hope it’s clear how i feel like psychology effects art in the ways of when you confine symptoms to one box and you put people into those boxes and those people love art and make art. then the perception of art will be affected and it’s hurting it badly. it is okay to be uncertain but i think psychology is hurting people and art badly in tandem

[khloeblair]

Dear humans:

We are all hurting.

It permeates all interest groups, all localities, all tax brackets.

According to my personal research, law of attraction can be divided into three components:

Projective focus

Receptive focus

Receptive mode

Projective focus is intentionally thinking specific thoughts to attain a specific outcome.

Receptive focus is identifying a short term intention and entering a state of flow.

Receptive mode is a broader state of flow where the only intention is to relax.

I believe our society’s unhappiness is most heavily rooted within the constant application of projective focus.

Receptive focus is what working class does to fulfill the outcomes summoned from the use of projective focus.

My theory is that the receptive mode is where we were designed to spend all of our time.

In a world without projective focus, the receptive mode would be the safest way to exist. It is how our bodies most effectively restore themselves.

In a world with projective focus, the receptive mode still replenishes our bodies, but staying there for extended periods of time can be dangerous.

Projective focus feels like: “I WILL FORCE PHYSICALITY TO DELIVER XYZ OUTCOME.”

Receptive focus feels like: “I must do abc activity to achieve the required xyz outcome, here I go.”

Receptive mode feels like: “Cute boy/girl over there.” Freeze. Blush. Need them to touch me.

We have fallen into a pattern of flowing the highest amounts of quantifiable resources toward those who most ademantly seek them.

The problem with that is the seekers are in pain. They carry the weight of their decisions and their methods.

The producers of the quantifiable resources are also in pain, feeling robbed of their freedoms.

We all judge one another’s status based upon how many enviable attributes we can identify on a surface level.

We compete with one another in person—we fight one another—then finish our days feeling lonely and isolated.

I believe the opposite of competition is empathy.

And while being happy is the ideal, we can’t collectively jump from miserable to happy without first identifying some manner of common ground.

That common ground is empathy.

True, empathy cannot pay anyone’s bills.

Listening to your friend describing their fears and regrets cannot directly solve their problems, but it can give them a sense of community, a sense of feeling heard and understood.

We can’t offer solutions to every problem, but we can offer our time. We can afford to be with one another.

And then there are the moments when projective focus occurs, and we feel used because our own resources deplete…

…but then we go behind those entities’ backs and insult them at every opportunity. I’m inclined to believe that this only drives them further in the opposite direction of where we’re wanting them to go.

It hurts our feelings to let go of resources, and it hurts their feelings to be so disrespected.

We are all human.

We have all learned survival patterns that feel both unpleasant and necessary.

Competition has us terrified to be the first to take a leap of faith and to truly walk in compassion and empathy.

Since I am doing the preaching, I will take the first step.

Big music, you are all wonderful artists, and I thank you for your beautiful contributions to our world.

I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, so I will leave it at that for now.

I will include a more umbrella apology to big money as a whole and say I’m sorry for how hated you have been for centuries. If you were to disappear today, the entire planet would fall into absolute chaos.

We all need one another.

We all need more kindness.

[stormblessed95]

Another one here offering their two cents on why people might not see JiKook.

I’m sure this has been said before, but I think a lot of people dismiss JiKook on a “shipping is bad” mindset. They think that suspecting JiKook are together is shipping (whether or not that’s true is not my point though) and they fear that assuming things is disrespectful. Which, on it’s own is fine I guess, but I don’t like some of the attitudes these people have. Of course some of them are being hypocritical and will be fine with assuming BTS are with girls, but boys—pfft—impossible! Ludicrous! But even the ones that aren’t, the ones that don’t like assuming BTS are in a relationship with ANYONE—boys or girls, can be annoying.

Another is that they may be having a reaction to shipping culture in general. “Fans ship people all the time, they’re usually wrong, so that must mean that any ‘ship’ is very improbable.” Like: people say this happening all the time, what are the chances that it’s actually true?

There is also another group that tends to be a subset of either one of these or a hybrid of the two (in my mind, in reality it’s probably more complicated, lol). These are the people who are okay with assuming BTS are in relationships with people outside of BTS, but are not okay with assuming any two of the members are dating. Usually because it’s “disrespecting their bond”.

Honestly, shipping culture involving real people is… complicated (especially when some JiKookers don’t even ‘ship’ them in the traditional sense). And adding on the very real possibility that these people might ACTUALLY be in a relationship is just something that some people don’t want to touch with a 10 foot poll. And I get that, I really do, but it really pisses me off how hypocritical and homophobic/heteronormative (even if they don’t intend to be) these people can come off sometimes.

(Also was the free Jimin hashtag you and that anon were discussing the # freejiminfromtaekookers tag? Because I kinda agree. I mean a lot—although, not all—taekookers are also Jimin antis and from what I saw it was subsequently more of a free Jimin from antis tag and not a free Jimin from xyz member because I’m a solo/anti/toxic-shipper/etc. Maybe I’m wrong, though.)

-🦉

Hi Owl Anon!

I need to just go ahead and gather these 3 posts into one lol thanks for sharing your thoughts too! Like i said, I think parts of everyone are going to be right with this. Idk if there even is a wrong answer.

And as for the free jimin from tkkrs hashtag. In theory, I agree. But click on the profiles of the people who USE those hashtags. 9 times out of 10, it's going to be people who others would use a free different member from xyz group hashtag on as well. 🤷🏻‍♀️ Nor am i one to think that trending hashtags that lead people back to the hateful comments is actually helpful. In the end, it almost feels preformative. Wouldn't it be better for 11.2K tweets that get that hashtag trending instead had 11.2K reports to said actual Jimin antis. Especially the big ones? Perhaps then they would actually go away and get suspended. So instead of tweeting out hashtags that just give antis attention (which they want) share links to report the antis, send the links in GCs and actually try to get those accounts suspended. If 11.2K reports happened instead of tweets, these big Jimin antis would finally probably get suspended. Hope that makes sense.

[skepticalarrie]

Hi Allie, just want to get this off my chest. I think some people here should admit that Twarries exist is because of Tumblr Larries and it is true. From making up theories and outright telling people close to H and Louis that theyre xyz. If we're gonna be honest some tweets are just copy pasted from here and vice versa. It's quite fuck up tbh when some things are taken out of context and people then believed that said context rather than researching the full thing. Tumblr is literally the main source of Twarries, let's be real. For example: a blog here *claims* that Louis likes to get choked, then twarries spread that info that Louis confirmed that he likes to get choked BUT reading the whole context of the Zac Sang interview, he never stated that he *likes* to get choked. See how that works? Another example is this one blog who posted a certain magazine article of Louis (this was YEARS ago) stating he feels like a "mother/sister" and every twarrie and blouie uses that as proof that Louis is quote on quote " a woman like Harry " . Yes, I didn't post the blog's name cuz theyre "popular" here but that being said some statements are literally out of context and some blogs here should be careful on how they word their posts. Also, about the "debunk" issue that's been going around, I feel some people just don't accept the truth for their narrative to be correct. Like this thread is all facts but some people here tend to say it's fake. We have dozens of facts already, some shit is fake, tumblrinas should lower their superior complex and accept that fact. From said blog, doesnt like to accept it due to the "versatality" thing but we have to admit, those back scratches are fake/photoshopped and it's okay.

Anon, I don't like your tone and I don't like your opinion either if I'm being honest. First of all, if you have some sort of issue with a certain popular blog go talk to them or I don't know, or stop following them or whatever. You're going to find people you agree with more and people you agree with less and that's fine. I feel like you're being kind of a dick with this. I have no idea who you're talking about and I'm not particularly interested in this kind of drama on my blog.

As for the tumblr x twitter dynamics, I think all platforms feed from each other, twitter, tumblr, tiktok, instagram... and people will engage with whatever makes more sense to them. I'm on tumblr because I feel like this platform is superior for the kind of discussions and experiences I'd like to have about this. We have the ability to talk about facts, timelines, and context much better because we have archives and tags to check. It's that simple. Now, if people are taking something from my blog - what is supposed to be a "safe space" - and putting it out there with no context, it's their problem. I can't be responsible for someone else's interpretation of my words and what they're going to do with them. I can talk about whatever I want here and I trust people to have a drop of critical thinking to take away something reasonable from it. People need to think for themselves, for fucks sake! Maybe some people lack the ability of being truthful with themselves and others, and that's a shame. But it's not my problem, if they like running around like a headless chicken completely unaware and uninterested in what is really happening, I don't want anything to do with it and I don't want anyone bothering me about it.

I don't know what this "debunk" talk is about, I feel like I'm missing something, but I've ranted endlessly on my DEBUNKED OR NOT DEBUNKED tag. And the thing is, we're not talking about science here, we're talking about something that is incredibly subjective, it's someone's opinion/point of view on something. So what you can do is try to find the most reasonable explanation and with that try to figure out if something is real or not real... but people are going to believe whatever they want to believe. So like I said, I like interacting with people that are worried about making sense of things and finding the most truthful explanations, I don't want to believe any lies. But if someone is more interested in feeding something they already made their minds about and that makes them happy, I mean- that's fine. As long as they're not bothering HL in real life, or bothering me... nothing wrong with it. And I wish it was that simple lol But unfortunately it feels like they're not the ones responsible for the consequences when they do that. All the larries suffer from it. I get hateful messages because of something that is being said on twitter and that I don't even agree with. So I don't think people need to accept anything if they don't want to, but I think people need to take responsibility and most importantly I think people need to stay in their own lanes and stop bothering people on other sides of the fandom.

[wellthatwasaletdown]

Eh… There’s a number of stories out there about Harry hooking up with men, though they’re not as numerous as the stories about hookups with women. Also, there’s a lot of exclusive clubs and parties in Weho with photo bans, rich and famous people who keep each other’s secrets, etc. Not proof either way, but I’m sure he’d know where to go so he wouldn’t be outed. For me, any criticism of Harry has to stand regardless of his sexuality. The “sexuality is fun” statement was dismissive, privileged, and tone deaf. I can say that without reservation because it’s true even if he’s queer. And maybe he made that ignorant statement because he’s straight. Or maybe, it seemed like a non-confrontational way to dodge the question without outing himself. It was wrong either way, but I’m just saying I can’t - in good conscience - consider it some kind of litmus test for his sexuality. I’ve seen so many people say, “xyz is wrong because he’s straight.” Ok, and what if he’s not? It’s just not my (or anyone else’s) place to assign a label to him until he does so himself. I understand why people think Harry is straight, but I can also understand why people think he’s not. I understand the annoyance surrounding his silence and ambiguity on this issue, but I can also understand why someone (especially someone in the public eye) might not want to come out or make an explicit statement about their sexuality. At the very least, I feel Harry and his team should be more sensitive to the frustrations voiced by queer people (especially queer people of color). That’s non-negotiable for me//

The thing that bothers me about the harry being gay theories, and people saying he wants to be private and he’s being forced into the closet, is that harry does a bad damn job at it if he wants to be private about it. If he’s so secretive about his sexuality, then why have anyone ask him about it at all? Harry has the power to black list certain questions and he doesn’t. If he so badly wants to keep it all private then he wouldn’t do all those queerbaiting magazine covers. He would do the exact opposite. He would play into the stereotypes of a typical straight guy. I mean look at his fans and the gp they still stereotype things whether you like it or not. And because he does these magazine covers and allows people to ask them to ask these questions, he allows people to speculate and he answers vaguely because he is, imo straight. He wants people to speculate while not having to answer to anyone, because people will look like assholes if they force him to give an answer. Most queer people fear being outed and would do anything to avoid speculation not play into it. And harry plays into it in a massive way. If he’s so private then why let people speculate at all? I don’t want to label anyone either but Harry’s behaviour is so insensitive for someone to be queer. What he’s done up to this point is of someone who doesn’t understand what queer people go through and he plays into it because he knows there’s no risk for him.

.

[just-my-thoughts-about-stuff]

Alright y’all

I just got done rewatching Over the Garden Wall and I NEED to hear some theories!!

I’ve watched it a number of times, and I always absolutely adore it, but, though I’m usually quite good with symbols and deeper meanings...every time I watch it I feel I only have the vaguest senses of the symbolism, especially in regards to individual episodes, and it drives me a little up the wall.

Then when I try to look up theories, while I still love them, they’re almost always about the plot as a whole, not individual episodes.

I really want to hear people’s deeper thoughts on what individual episodes, characters, and items mean.

I know full well the answer could just be that it’s not supposed to make sense/is nonsense, but I do feel and hope there’s a deeper meaning to them, and that’s what I’m personally here to discuss.

I also haven’t done too much research on tumblr yet, so my apologies if there are theories galore here I just haven’t seen!! And please do feel free to link me to them if so!!

So, a very brief summary of some theories from other people that I’ve heard/read (spoilers ahead!!):

The Unknown is purgatory/limbo, or a purgatory/limbo of sorts. Asides from them being between life and death, this is especially evidenced by images like the trees being like those who committed suicide in Dante’s Inferno (and they are indeed people who lose hope in OTGW), and the fact that they have to pay a coin each to get onto the ferry, like the river Styx. (I’m sure there’s many many more but those are the ones off the top of my head).

The Unknown is a place where all stories exist. At the end it becomes clear Beatrice made up a story that her family became bluebirds, not that it was their punishment is some purgatory. Much of the episodes can be thought of as the stories people made up (wanting animals to talk, the cat could have thought up Pottsfield, Quincey creating a beautiful ghost out of his loneliness, Fred wanting to talk...)

The seasons: it starts with autumn because autumn is a symbol of life waning, and then it becomes winter when they are truly starting to die.

The Beast is a symbol for despair. People turning into trees is very clearly a symbol for lost hope. The lantern is a blind sort of hope that can people going with despair ever at their shoulder reminding that person what would happen if that hope goes out. (And Wirt proves a number of times before the actual scene he’s not the kind of person to follow blind hope.)

“Over the Garden Wall” could refer to the fact that the graveyard is called “Eternal Garden” and they go over the wall. Or it could refer to the comics and how The Woodsman tells his daughter not to go past the wall and into the unknown (I’ve not read the comics, just heard people mention them in theories. Anyone have links to where I can read them online?)

Personally I’ve also always wondered if some things in individual episodes are more literal plays on things that really happen:

Like I can definitely hear old ladies saying “close the door, I’ll catch my death of cold!” And I’m curious if Adelaide is a more literal play on that (I suppose that could be a story she would be telling herself—she told herself she’d catch her death of cold and did).

Lorna and Auntie Whispers seem to be a play on the Puritans. They’re wearing Puritan garb, and “don’t do XYZ because it’ll cause you to become evil/an evil spirit to take you over” seem true-to-form for Puritans. It seems like a play on that where there’s actually an evil spirit. (And again, could be a story they told themselves)

But for the most part those don’t answer much of what happens in individual episodes:

Why does the big pottsfield pumpkin/aka the cat say everyone comes to pottsfield eventually a) if only a few people are there, and b) if the story theory is true rather then the purgatory one?

Just...what is up with everything in the school episode, especially with regards to symbolism?

What’s the symbolism of everyone having an occupation in the tavern?

Is there any symbolism in the Quincy episode or is it just a cute little story?

Why can Fred talk?

What’s the symbolism of Greg’s frog being able to sing in that one episode? Is it just a funny unexpected thing? And why are there no other humans on the ferry if the coin thing is common knowledge?

What does it mean (literally and symbolically) that Adelaide does what the beast commands? She’s not a lantern bearer nor a tree yet she’s his follower, what does that mean?

What’s up with the threads in her house? Is it an old lady knitting thing or a Moirai thing, or something else ?

If Wirt has such a strong crush on Sara why does he seem attracted to Lorna that way? Is Lorna a symbol for Sara herself?

What does it mean that Adelaide and Auntie Whispers are sisters? (And is there a significance to both of them being voiced by male voice actors?)

What the heck is up with Cloud City and how is the Cloud Queen able to grant wishes? The North Wind being the real north wind upon them is really the only thing about that episode that makes sense to me. (Though Greg being able to bottle it makes less sense)

What’s the significance of Greg stealing the rock?

Is there symbolism behind the frogs name changing every episode, and then landing on Jason Funderburker or is it just a funny little throughline?

How can the bell be inside the frog if the Unknown isn’t a physical place they were in, either way?

And for the love of all things holy what do the black turtles mean?! This drives me absolutely bonkers every time I watch it. Why does that dog become so feral and beastly when it eats one turtle (not to mention look like it’s dripping with Edelwood oil), as well as have the same eyes as the Beast, but Autie Whispers just looks uhh...weird when she eats a bunch, but remains in possession of her faculties?

So uh, yeah! Anybody got any theories? Please reblog this with them or tag me with your own posts, or link me to posts you’ve seen!! Nothing is too big or too small!!

[meikuree]

fic writer interview

tagged by @lightdescending -- tysm, this was really fun and i enjoy elaborating on things about writing/the writing process!

putting this under a read more because of my trademark verbosity (AGAIN)

name: meikuree

fandoms: actively writing for snk, tempted to write for the locked tomb

two-shot: oh i've not intentionally done these! twenty years of snow accidentally fits the bill, but only because it's on an indefinite hiatus

most popular multi-chapter: of aubades, my pieck-centric ficlet series, by some metrics

actual worst part of writing: when I get stuck in a loop of perfectionism and excessive self-scrutiny and rewrite… and rewrite… and rewrite again. my solution to this is to send it to a friend and ask for them to tell me just one (1) nice thing about it and put me out of my misery, or do freewriting where the point is to write whatever immediately pops into my head. usually then I’ll bump into an epiphany in the middle about how to Make It Work.

alternatively: fic writing is at times such a solitary, obsessively recursive activity and that’s one tension I dislike/have to negotiate with, because part of why I like art is to share it with people or at the very least engage in some kind of reciprocal conversation about it. community in art is very important to me in general, and I try to cultivate it in my online presence in small ways!

how you choose your titles: i'm a fan of grabbing titles from poems and songs/song lyrics (like you!) -- and drawing them from regina spektor songs in particular, bc she’s by some metrics my all-time favourite musician and i’m very familiar with her discography

do you outline: usually, yes. i don’t confine myself to it, but at minimum I outline pivotal moments and turning points. my process tends to start with a compelling scene or character interaction popping into my head and then goes on with me thinking about how i can use it as a vehicle for communicating a certain concept/philosophical idea/insight about XYZ characters' relationships somehow. that becomes the core idea/endpoint I want to reach by the end in a fic, so then i'll outline the main emotional or introspective beats i want to carry across in service of that

ideas I probably won’t get around to but wouldn’t it be nice: wow, um... /gestures vaguely at my unending list of wips/ that said, one idea i'm tickled by is an obnoxious, utterly random M-rated pieck/lady tybur fic involving painplay and knifeplay, the plot for which is literally just… lara tybur stabs pieck with a knife, but make it sexy somehow… with a dash of political intrigue and a complicated ambiguous relationship where two women use each other in a decidedly callous but also self-aware and self-indulgent way. the idea for this just came from me going "ah yes... the inherent homoeroticism of being stabbed by another woman..." and wondering about ~scenarios enabled by being a titan shifter, when you can regenerate your wounds and such! (partial inspiration also came, I will admit, from the locked tomb fandom and its lesbian body horror influences)

callouts @ me: sensory details are one of my biggest weak points. i've been ironing it out through concerted practice, but when i first started out writing fic i tended to be more comfortable dealing with metaphor, introspection, and mental states than... writing about actual, corporeal things happening in corporeal textspace. it can create the impression while reading, I suspect, that the characters are stuck a lot in their own heads. one of my earliest and favourite ao3 comments i've gotten said in passing that i used "very little dialogue and description" and i'm still tickled by... how true it is as an MO. it also amuses me because it seems to parallel the same issue i had with essays i wrote at university, i think (!) -- my professors would tell me, “you have a great grasp on the theory but you need to include more concrete examples." and i'd go "what? i was supposed to use examples?? ?__? isn’t the point self-evident from the theory?” for me, shifts in relationship dynamics and the negotiation of one's worldview underlying an event ARE the plot! -- and everything else tends to become subservient to that when i write

the other thing, which is somewhat related to the above, is just... self-confidence! i can be very insecure about my writing style, as my partner and poor friends I’ve whinged to can attest. mainly because i always fear that reading it feels like wading through a thick, unappealing swampy bog of someone's thoughts. but i think the solution is to just take a grounded, balanced view, like: there are some things i do well, and some things i do not-as-well in writing, and that's fine! that's normal! and in the moment i can be very hard on myself, and wring my hands thinking OH MY GOD THE UTTER CRINGE OF ME WRITING ANY OF THIS but i find that somehow, i always end up enjoying rereading what i write.

best writing traits: the most consistent comment i get, i think, is that my writing is beautiful and poetic (and one time: "this is one of the most poetic things i've ever read." which -- ?!?!). I’ve also been told that i characterise people well or with nuance, and write about them sensitively and with depth. i'm grateful, always, to hear these bc these things constitute the one niche i CAN do, imo!

spicy tangential opinion: hm… from what I’ve observed, many fandoms have a tendency to flatten character motives and complexities into easy, tidy and dare i say, sometimes bizarre, labels and categories. it’s not surprising it happens, but sometimes there’s space for people (a big, vague, nonspecific ‘people’) to go beyond simplistic assumptions about characters and one-dimensional portrayals (and to give writers who achieve it their due! I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen an incredibly well-written fic that was relatively undernoticed and gone, “why, fandom???”) sometimes you write to fix canon, and sometimes you write because it’s fanon that needs fixing instead.

tagging (no pressure): @ebbet @noxcounterspell @leksaa90 @minoan-ophidian @frumpkinspocketdimension @acerinky @rose-gardens @chocochipbiscuit @whiteasy @ochen @kallistoi  anyone else who wants to join in!

[karliesbuzzcut]

Um @ that anon - why would any woman come forward and saying they've been with Taylor? That's called outing someone and anyone who is LBGTQ is not going to do that. If Taylor is bi/gay, it's up to her to say something (Personally, I'm bi and I'm not sure if she is either - I truly think she could just be straight and loving guys!)

You know how some people say that we are all projecting our own sexuality onto Taylor? Whether it’s straight, bi or gay?

While I don’t think that’s necessarily true, my new wanky theory is that maybe we project our own personal journey onto her. So if you’re confident that you yourself are xyz you probably will feel very confident saying that you know what Taylor’s sexual orientation is. Which might or might not coincide with yours.

And for this study I have only taken one person’s opinion into account, which is mine. So there’s that.

But honestly, I have struggled with own sexuality for such a long time — if I’m a Kinsey 2, a 5, a 1, omg I don’t know, what am I going to write on the test? — and I only found inner peace when I decided to be okay with not labelling myself. So when someone comes in and asks me how I think this white rich lady who I’ve never spoken to identifies herself as… I just don’t know. And it’s WILD for me that someone can be so sure of their answer. But I can only assume that, if they are, it’s because they don’t have many doubts about their own label.

But I’m very dumb, so don’t listen to me.