#that I don't love enough to warrant gifts without obligation

[cesium-sheep]

we were talking about approaches to presents yesterday cuz my step-grandma did die a couple days ago (rip lady whose name I did not know and whose son does not really matter to me) and it's like well shit guess I'd better make my stepdad an extra present then, and matt was throwing out ideas like "well maybe we could find out her birthstone and make it the same color or something" and I was just bluntly like "I do not care that much about this man." and he said something about how the amount of thought he puts into his gifts is about him and his own reputation as much as (or more than) the recipient, and later I was able to put together that like, yes, for sure, I will always put thought into my gifts, but it's a question of effort. I never give someone a gift that's truly "whatever fuck you gift basket" even when I do give people gift baskets, because I still think a lot about what I'm choosing and why. even last year when everyone got craft fair leftovers I thought about who got what and why.

but because I make almost all my gifts, different people rate different amounts of effort. like, if you have a parent die or some other Shit Year stuff going on I'll probably make something extra warm that year, but if you're normally only on the list out of obligation rather than fondness it's going to be basic and made with yarn I had left over. if you're extra niceys to me I'll probably try to make you something extra if I can. also obviously my partners are the top of the christmas effort list because they're the people that are most involved in my life, even if it looks a little less weighted than many people's christmases just because the full effort list is uhhhh larger than average. (this is heavily simplified from how it used to be before I obtained the means to make socks with relative ease, thereby providing a "base gift" that can be given to almost everyone/anyone. obviously people that can't receive socks get worked out slightly differently, though the base principle is the same.)

the comparison I used is that like, matt may go to the mall to shop for anyone, but he would only go to a specialty store out of his way for certain people. the amount of thought is the same, but the amount of effort changes.

look I know there's still a month left of halloween but I've been having a fuck of a time for uhhhhhhhh A While and christmas and gifts therefor are Important to me.

[vidalinav]

Firstly, no one wants a therapy book. These are books about Faeries. So no one is sitting wanting to read about withdrawals, puking, crying and screaming. Maybe a very SMALL contingent of readers. Not the majority. Nesta falling down the stairs, Nesta refusing to train, Nesta giving attitude to Cassian, that's it. That's the withdrawals. Since she is not a full blown alcoholic or a sex addict, there wouldn't be massive withdrawals. She is not Amy Winehouse.

Secondly, the intervention is done exactly for that reason--so she doesn't turn into Amy Winehouse. It's not 'implied' that she is having potentially dangerous sex with people who could hurt her. It's a fact. She says it herself. It's not 'implied' that she drinks too much. She says it herself. It's observed. The concern isn't that she is doing those things--no one is looking for her to become a sweet, celibate virgin. The concern is that she is doing these things TOO much. That's how you become an addict.

People in power, on whom she depends decided to step in and put an end to it. That's how interventions work. Especially since she decided to be completely dependent on them financially. If she had a job, then yes, no one can tell her what to do. You make your own bed and decisions, and that's what she did.

The whole 'sisterly' involvement--she was the person who cut everyone out. She cut out Feyre, then Elain, Cassian, Amren. It was her decision. What are they going to do? Did Elain not try to get involved in her life? Did she not invite her to Solstice? Elain was the only person who gave her a gift. Was it Elain or Nesta who decided that they didn't the other? As I recall, Nesta didn't acknowledge Elain on the street. She refused to participate. So should the sisters just take it? Accept the bullshit and keep the checks coming? Should Feyre and Elain just sit back and watch Nesta spiral out of control until she does become an addict and/or gets raped? or hurt? Yes, there comes a time when you are just fed up and Elain, or Feyre, are not obligated to coddle Nesta and let get do whatever it is that she wants to do, and watch her hurt herself.

I am aware of your opinions and you will never agree and I know you'll still insist that the IC is horrible and the sisters don't care. But honestly, they saved Nesta so there is that.

I sometimes don't know whether I should just delete these, because someone always write a whole ass aggressive post in the anons when you know you could just post it yourself. But sometimes I get a lot of joy out of these-- I wish you put this much energy in analyzing the actual text but alas.

Anyway, let me read.

Point 1: this is not a therapy book. I agree S/JM should stop writing about trauma.

Point 2: The intervention is done for exactly that reason--I argue that you don't know the reason and neither do I, and nor do I feel that S/JM does. You can definitely argue about addiction and where it leads, but I can argue that the text doesn't support that she has one or one that warrants an intervention beyond offering a support system, which then I ask why the intervention is there at all, since I know very well that characters do not have autonomy and this was an author's choice. I question S/JM's narrative decisions and how they are framed in the novel which is why I cannot support specific claims about characters.

Point 3: I already talked about this in a reblog. So I'm going to dismiss this one.

Point 4: If the intention on behalf of the writer is to show that they care, then... I got to see scenes where they care. It can't be speculation. It has to be concrete. If the goal is to show realism, then you have to show realistic consequences of trauma, the dirt of it all, and then also the push and pull of healing which arguably is not in here. You can show people being annoyed by her trauma, that's realistic but it's not realistic for someone to jump into an intervention. You know realistically, as in of this world, you cannot force anyone to be in a program without their consent, and they can leave at any time. Of course there are certain instances where this is not true, but it takes years to get people the healing or help for addiction/trauma that they need and if people don't want to heal well you can't do nothing about it. That's realistic.

If you are arguing that Nesta is rolling down a steep hill to nowheresville as it seems then... by all means it probably should take more than giving a gift at solstice, which doesn't make Elain nor Feyre look good that this is the height of trying. To go straight to intervention without convincing evidence that it's needed nor that they tried literally anything else is my point. So if the goal was to make the foundation for a sisterly relationship, I am not convinced. If the goal was to show they care, I am certainly not convinced.

The objective of any book is to convince the reader of something. If you did not convince a bulk of the readership, whether that be anti-Nesta's who are not quelled or pro-Nesta's who are not satisfied, then the writer did not convince well enough. Which is what I am saying specifically about the benevolence of the IC. That claim lacks contextual evidence. It is not about whether I like them or not. Who cares about that? I like interesting characters, I am arguing that if the author herself wanted me to believe they were "good" or morally righteous, she did not provide that basis. Actually she gave me a lot of evidence that they aren't. Which is fine, if it amounts to something. If doesn't then, S/JM wrote an unconvincing book.

Point 5: The book says that Nesta saved the IC, literally. The IC did not save Nesta, neither literally nor emotionally. That would mean they were directly involved or... empathetic and supportive, which I already said I'm not convinced and why that is. What saved Nesta and what made the majority of the book was the House, her friends, a goal, the Mother, and a romantic relationship. A support system. I can argue that. Anyone can argue that. For one, because the IC is notably absent for most of the book and when they're there they don't look great. Then you have to think why did S/JM make a relationship that is supportive and have that parallel the presence/absence of the IC who is blatantly not? Doesn't make them look great again. Interesting yes they are, but not benevolent.

~

Look, I'm assuming the point of sending me an anon is because you don't agree and you don't know what to do with that, but you also don't want to reblog and you want to make sure I see this post, because I probably wouldn't. It is totally within your right to argue. I love discussions even with people who do not agree with me. But I want to discuss things. So, give me contextual evidence. Give me lines, give me connections. Connect them dots. Once you have done this then hit me up and we'll discuss. Right now your argument is based on opinion alone. You think this. You think that. Purely speculative. It's not based on anything and therefore can't be argued well. For lack of a better way to say this, I don't care about your opinion. Opinions are not fact. They don't mean anything, they're as good as the people behind them. I want to discuss the text and how it works, and what it does, and how it's supported. The consequences of certain narrative decisions.

So, if you think the IC is supportive and justified and want to tell me specifically, show me how they are--by the book, how scenes are framed, what actions characters take along the path to the end. Not by what you know interventions are or because the idea of mental health/substance abuse issues is generally hard to deal with--that's not good enough. You cannot argue the text without using the text either in quote or paraphrasing or giving examples especially on a post where I am talking about the evidence and the lack of it. You said I wouldn't change my mind, you don't know that. I can certainly see something from your pov, but you have to do more than this.

You chose to leave an anon, so you either do the homework or you don't leave an anon with me.