#superflue

[notbecauseofvictories]

I don't know how strictly accurate this is, but one of the things I find shocking about watching historical dramas is how many people there are around all the time---according to Madame de... (1953) a well-off French household in the Belle Epoque maintains a workforce of at least 3, and the glittering opera has staff just to open doors. According to Shogun (2024) you can expect a deep bench just to mind your household, and again, people who exist to open doors.

Could people....not open doors in the past? Were doors tricky, before the standardization of hinges? Because otherwise, the wealthy used to pay a whole bunch of people to do it for them in multiple contexts, and I find myself baffled.

[silviadeangelis]

SUPERFLUE

nomadismo del pensiero in quell’intrattenersi tra dune, insenature, confini e altipiani come fossero sculture su cui plasmare il manifestarsi di pietre miliari in cui pagaiare. Sulla patina “d’una quasi finzione” parafrasare un menù di convenevoli con cui condire le irriverenze dei dintorni nella memoria che si colora di supposizioni il più delle volte superflue�� @Silvia De Angelis

[probablybadrpgideas]

I like to think that most Monster Banishing Rituals are just kind of working on the assumption that really deadly things kill you.

"You need to tear out its heart, cut its head off, burn the head, cut the body into quarters and nail each quarter into a separate coffin buried miles apart"

"And that will stop it coming back?"

"Look buddy, if that doesn't stop it coming back then I think we probably just need to accept our new lives as vampire minions."

[metanarrates]

Hello. Sorry if this a stupid question u can ignore if u want.

How can someone get better at media analysis? Besides obviously reading a lot.

Im asking this bc im in a point where im aware of my own lack of tools to analyze stories, but i don't know where to get them or how to get better in general. How did you learn to analyze media? There's any specific book, essay, author, etc that you recommend? Somewhere to start?

I'm asking you because you are genuinely the person who has the best takes on this site. Thank you for you work!

it sounds like a cop-out answer but it's always felt like a skill I acquired mostly thru reading a ton, and by paying a lot of attention in high school literature classes. because of that I can't promise that I'm necessarily equipped to be a good teacher or that i know good resources. HOWEVER! let me run some potential advice to you based on the shit i get a lot of mileage out of

first off, a lot of literary analysis is about pattern recognition! not just pattern recognition in-text, but out-of-text as well. how does this work relate to its genre? real-world history? does it have parallels between real-life situations? that kind of thing.

which is a big concept to just describe off the bat, so let me break it down further!

in literature, there is the concept of something called literary devices - they are some of the basic building blocks in how a story is delivered mechanically and via subtext. have you ever heard of a motif? that is a literary device. it's a pattern established in the text in order to further the storytelling! and here is a list of a ton of common literary devices - I'd recommend reading the article. it breaks down a lot of commonly used ones in prose and poetry and explains their usage.

personally, I don't find all the literary devices I've learned about in school to be the most useful to my analytical hobbies online. motifs, themes, and metaphors are useful and dissecting them can bring a lot to the table, but a lot of other devices are mostly like fun bonus trivia for me to notice when reading. however, memorizing those terms and trying to notice them in the things you read does have a distinct benefit - it encourages you to start noticing patterns, and to start thinking of the mechanical way a story is built. sure, thinking about how the prose is constructed might not help you understand the story much more, but it does make you start thinking about how things like prose contribute to the greater feeling of a piece, or how the formatting of a piece contributes to its overall narrative. you'll start developing this habit of picking out little things about a text, which is useful.

other forms of in-text pattern recognition can be about things like characterization! how does a character react to a certain situation? is it consistent with how they usually behave? what might that tell you about how they think? do they have tells that show when they're not being trustworthy? does their viewpoint always match what is happening on screen? what ideas do they have about how the world works? how are they influenced by other people in their lives? by social contexts that might exist? by situations that have affected them? (on that note, how do situations affect other situations?)

another one is just straight-up noticing themes in a work. is there a certain idea that keeps getting brought up? what is the work trying to say about that idea? if it's being brought up often, it's probably worth paying attention to!

that goes for any pattern, actually. if you notice something, it's worth thinking about why it might be there. try considering things like potential subtext, or what a technique might be trying to convey to a reader. even if you can't explain why every element of a text is there, you'll often gain something by trying to think about why something exists in a story.

^ sometimes the answer to that question is not always "because it's intentional" or even "because it was a good choice for the storytelling." authors frequently make choices that suck shit (I am a known complainer about choices that suck shit.) that's also worth thinking about. english classes won't encourage this line of thinking, because they're trying to get you to approach texts with intentional thought instead of writing them off. I appreciate that goal, genuinely, but I do think it hampers people's enthusiasm for analysis if they're not also being encouraged to analyze why they think something doesn't work well in a story. sometimes something sucks and it makes new students mad if they're not allowed to talk about it sucking! I'll get into that later - knowing how and why something doesn't work is also a valuable skill. being an informed and analytical hater will get you far in life.

so that's in-work literary analysis. id also recommend annotating your pages/pdfs or keeping a notebook if you want to close-read a work. keeping track of your thoughts while reading even if they're not "clever" or whatever encourages you to pay attention to a text and to draw patterns. it's very useful!

now, for out-of-work literary analysis! it's worth synthesizing something within its context. what social settings did this work come from? was it commenting on something in real life? is it responding to some aspects of history or current events? how does it relate to its genre? does it deviate from genre trends, commentate on them, or overall conform to its genre? where did the literary techniques it's using come from - does it have any big stylistic influences? is it referencing any other texts?

and if you don't know the answer to a bunch of these questions and want to know, RESEARCH IS YOUR FRIEND! look up historical events and social movements if you're reading a work from a place or time you're not familiar with. if you don't know much about a genre, look into what are considered common genre elements! see if you can find anyone talking about artistic movements, or read the texts that a work might be referencing! all of these things will give you a far more holistic view of a work.

as for your own personal reaction to & understanding of a work... so I've given the advice before that it's good to think about your own personal reactions to a story, and what you enjoy or dislike about it. while this is true that a lot of this is a baseline jumping-off point on how I personally conduct analysis, it's incomplete advice. you should not just be thinking about what you enjoy or dislike - you should also be thinking about why it works or doesn't work for you. if you've gotten a better grasp on story mechanics by practicing the types of pattern recognition i recognized above, you can start digging into how those storytelling techniques have affected you. did you enjoy this part of a story? what made it work well? what techniques built tension, or delivered well on conflict? what about if you thought it sucked? what aspects of storytelling might have failed?

sometimes the answer to this is highly subjective and personal. I'm slightly romance-averse because I am aromantic, so a lot of romance plots will simply bore me or actively annoy me. I try not to let that personal taste factor too much into serious critiques, though of course I will talk about why I find something boring and lament it wasn't done better lol. we're only human. just be aware of those personal taste quirks and factor them into analysis because it will help you be a bit more objective lol

but if it's not fully influenced by personal taste, you should get in the habit of building little theses about why a story affected you in a certain way. for example, "I felt bored and tired at this point in a plot, which may be due to poor pacing & handling of conflict." or "I felt excited at this point in the plot, because established tensions continued to get more complex and captured my interest." or "I liked this plot point because it iterated on an established theme in a way that brought interesting angles to how the story handled the theme." again, it's just a good way to think about how and why storytelling functions.

uh let's see what else. analysis is a collaborative activity! you can learn a lot from seeing how other people analyze! if you enjoy something a lot, try looking into scholarly articles on it, or youtube videos, or essays online! develop opinions also about how THOSE articles and essays etc conduct analysis, and why you might think those analyses are correct or incorrect! sometimes analyses suck shit and developing a counterargument will help you think harder about the topic in question! think about audience reactions and how those are created by the text! talk to friends! send asks to meta blogs you really like maybe sometimes

find angles of analysis that interest and excite you! if you're interested in feminist lenses on a work, or racial lenses, or philosophical lenses, look into how people conduct those sort of analyses on other works. (eg. search feminist analysis of hamlet, or something similar so you can learn how that style of analysis generally functions) and then try applying those lenses to the story you're looking at. a lot of analysts have a toolkit of lenses they tend to cycle through when approaching a new text - it might not be a bad idea to acquire a few favored lenses of your own.

also, most of my advice is literary advice, since you can broadly apply many skills you learn in literary analysis to any other form of storytelling, but if you're looking at another medium, like a game or cartoon, maybe look up some stuff about things like ludonarrative storytelling or visual storytelling! familiarizing yourself with the specific techniques common to a certain medium will only help you get better at understanding what you're seeing.

above all else, approach everything with intellectual curiosity and sincerity. even if you're sincerely curious about why something sucks, letting yourself gain information and potentially learning something new or being humbled in the process will help you grow. it's okay to not have all the answers, or to just be flat-out wrong sometimes. continuing to practice is a valuable intellectual pursuit even if it can mean feeling a tad stupid sometimes. don't be scared to ask questions. get comfortable sometimes with the fact that the answer you'll arrive at after a lot of thought and effort will be "I don't fully know." sometimes you don't know and that can be valuable in its own right!

thank you for the ask, and I hope you find this helpful!

[deoidesign]

For my birthday... read my webcomic! It's literally free! (Unless you want books. Those are not free)

It's beautiful, it's gentle, it's funny, they're canonically t4t and gay... And it's about time traveling vampires solving supernatural mysteries!

I've spent thousands of hours writing and drawing it, and it's really good! I'm not biased!

It's on hiatus right now and coming back in 2 months, so it's the perfect time to get caught up

[thinwhitedoc]

SHERLOCK | Martin Freeman as John Watson

[meshimellow]

gay albino monkey found in venture compound

[johaerys-writes]

I don't get people who are like "whether Patroclus and Achilles had a physical relationship is irrelevant, their bond is more important than that" like yeah sure they're best friends that have grown up together and are each other's favourite/most trusted person, Achilles values Patroclus more than all the Achaeans put together and wishes to sack Troy just for the two of them, Patroclus asks to be buried with him so that they can be together forever, they are narrative foils but also share more similarities than any other pair in the Iliad, their love transcends physical intimacy; in fact no measure of intimacy could make their bond stronger than it already is, whatever souls are made of theirs are the same........... and also, they are fucking

[philosophybits]

Poverty and wealth are names for lack and superfluity; so he who lacks something is not rich, nor is he poor who lacks nothing.

Democritus, Fragments, B283

[clearancecreedwatersurvival]

For merthur fic writing reasons I must know: has anyone ever attempted to map the interior of Camelot in a way that makes any sense at all???

[bellshazes]

honestly figuring out an etho random mention mystery after several years of having wondered it bc he was shamed into showing his desk setup is amazing. i'd bet money that third monitor has been sitting on his desk, broken, for at minimum four years. he got a "second" monitor in 2020 although he used to have two ages before that. QED the old one broke, he never got rid of it, and eventually got a new second (third) one. mystery solved

[axl-awesome]

i think olly has very complicated feelings towards the LoS, as in hes pretty distant but still dependent on them; hes glad theyre loyal but hes not entirely trusting of them either…stapler is a bit of a different story though

[nutcasewithaknife]

It's so meaningful that Wen Xiao is mad about her apparently inevitable fate as a sacrifice. She has been desperately seeking control over her own life for so long, because so much of it has been her tackling what fate threw at her. Her father dies and she is adopted by the Baize Goddess. She's chosen as the next Baize, but the burden will kill her till she finds the other half of the order. She manages to fix the token, only to find that she is dying, the inevitable fate of the Baize Goddess is to be the sacrifice that saves the world, and that too may not be enough to save everyone she loves.

And yet, she keeps a firm hold over her self and refuses to passively accept her predestined role. She cares about the world of humans and demons not because she must, but because her father was killed by a demon and she refuses to let that fester into hatred, insists on protecting both worlds with understanding. She cares about demons not as her duty but because they are people who are repeatedly mistreated and murdered. She wants to save Zhao Yuanzhou and spends 300 years all alone to fix the token because she loves him and wants to save him as much as the world. She feels powerless but refuses to simply accept her role, accept her fate. She refuses to let anyone bear the burden but refuses to accept it meekly either. She wants to live her own life fully. She has to be physically restrained for Zhao Yuanzhou to take the burden of sacrifice upon himself.

To me, FoF is a story of claiming your life as your own in the face of fate, about changing what an action means even when it's pre-destined. Zhao Yuanzhou and Zhou Yichen are the most obvious examples of this, but they take time to get there. Wen Xiao is the one who has been holding her own against her fate right from episode one, when the other two were ready to play by the script.

[a-couple-of-notes]

I too loved everything about Agatha and Rio this week ("she is my scar"--that's my shit!) but I do want to give flowers for how efficiently that relationship is connected to and contextualized by Alice's story.

Alice has spent a long time dismissing her mother and being angry at her, not seeing that Lorna worked as hard as she could to protect her. Agatha and Rio both immediately see it--Agatha is the one to put the pieces together, and Rio's the one who answers the question of "what were Lorna's intentions?" with "to save her daughter"--because, in some way, they are Lorna. They would do the exact same thing to try to protect their child (as we see Agatha desperately attempt to save/protect Teen later).

At the same time, like Alice, Agatha has retreated into anger to avoid grief. She doesn't, or refuses to, understand it was Rio's job to (presumably) reap Nicholas' soul. Alice has to "face" the curse and her own grief by the end of the episode, and likewise, Agatha has to face both her feelings for Rio and the truth about Teen.

This is just really smart writing; it weaves the themes of mothers and children throughout, has two parallel narratives about bridging an impossible gap in a relationship, and furthers the larger arcs of every character involved. Plus it's super gay.

(And they even throw in the bit about Jen's backstory as a midwife! More thematic weaving of motherhood and children--it makes a lot of sense that Agatha specifically would consider midwifery "important work" worth leaving someone alone for, as she said in Episode 3.)

[norringtondeservestheworld]

Humans learning of the androids revolution: "must be military androids and androids created for fighting that started it damn that's why we are losing"

Humans discovering the androids revolution started because of a caretaker, a prostitute, a babysitter and a teacher:

[spookygibberish]

I've sort of developed a strange relationship with the concept of "realism" in the things I make.

Something I was very into as like, an eleven year old (im not implying this was immature to be into, just that it was formative for me), was speculative biology specifically for dragons, and now, specifically in the case of dragons I find a lot of attempts to make them biologically plausible fully missing the appeal of dragons at all.

Thinking specifically about the supernatural elements of JoM and where the line is drawn. The dagnyds are made from the remains of godlike entities, and are not entirely earthly animals. They have a supernatural origin. It would be fully justified in giving them magic abilities or making magic an aspect of the setting, but have absolutely zero interest in doing so. It doesn't interest me. I think about shit like healing powers or glowy energy attacks and my reaction is just "what does this even add? Why do I need this? Does this make things more interesting?" And it simply doesn't. Healing is more interesting as a prolonged process, combat is more interesting with teeth and claws and metal and blood. These are options which are more realistic, closer to real life, but the realism isn't what makes them interesting: it's physicality.

When I design a creature for this world, I am not thinking about making it biologically plausible, and yet, I try to design things which look like they could 'move under their own power'. There is a sense of heft and mechanical "soundness" which I value more than realism, but often also aligns with looking 'realistic'.

I would say that it's better to serve a narrative than strive for absolute realism, but I don't actually write stories, although I do have ideas for them occasionally. I guess a version of this which is more relevant and applicable is that i prefer to strive for a particular vibe.