#the only reason I was ranting about bad opinions I don't usually SEE the other day

[statementlou]

Maybe you can help me understand. The LATAM promo content has been great in my opinion in quantity and quality. Louis looks relaxed and his answers show thought, humility and maturity, and with his usual sass and humor. This is the most he has shared of himself since his solo career started.

So it's become a real surprise when I've read a few anons write to blogs saying they don't like the person Louis has become, and they like 1D Louis. Another said that they think his persona has gotten "progressively worse and worse". And I'm like, did you not see the years and years of being pushed aside, of being told he had a bad voice, of no support from radio, of stunts, etc fighting for his career. And did they not watch or read his interviews?? So many interviewers during this past week have complimented Louis.

Louis can never win.

I agree, it can really feel like people are just not actually seeing the same content as we are and it's hard not to feel like some of this is that they AREN'T seeing it, like people go way too much off blogs' (often very wild) interpretations of what Louis says and how he says it rather than just listening to him talk or watching him interact with fans. Or maybe it's that they have been believing in these made up versions of him when he hasn't been around for a minute and now that actual Louis reappears it doesn't match up with those ideas and they feel shocked and upset. But if people are saying he isn't the same as he was in 1D well, it's hard not feel like they were NEVER paying attention and are just talking about the made up image of him that was sold by 1DHQ (or saying they don't like him unless he's twinky and flamboyant.) Louis said he "were a lot sweeter back then" and maybe so but in all the core ways, I think he's just the same as he has always been. If people don't like how that looks now that's their right, but he's not gonna be 19 again and he's fought hard to get to decide for himself what image he wants to project and has said over and over that he won't be going back to the 1D version of that, so maybe go find someone else to follow, IDK. Me, I'll just be over here sitting back and admiring what he's like now. I think he's the same as every time he does promo (charming, chill, funny, introspective and smart and willing to share little glimpses of emotional honesty)! It's been a while since he's done so much promo and with so much content to enjoy just now I hope more people will tune into that rather than interpretations of it and discover that for themselves. I am gonna disagree with you about one thing though: Louis CAN and IS winning, 100%, right now in front of our very fucking eyes!!! So who cares about the haters :)

[brucewaynehater101]

I miss the feeling I had when I first joined this fandom, I knew virtually nothing so everything was correct and I loved everything, even if that stuff just isn’t true, i was like

Bruce is a bit emotionally constipated but loves his kids? Hell yeah sounds legit

dick is a silly happy flippy man who is a bit promiscuous? Love that for him

Jason is a mega feminist literature nerd who is also buff and takes care of the street kids? Perfect man honest

Tim is a nerd who never sleeps and is queer and has never known the touch of a man nor woman? Sweet

Steph is waffle obsessed goofball? Well I prefer pancakes but right on

Cass is a mute badass who loves her fam? I love her

Duke is a normal dude? Well someone has to be and he seems neat

Alfred can do no wrong? Aight, I love old perfect tea men

Damian is a little prick? So are all middle schoolers give him time

But then I had to go learn about the characters and now I have complex opinions about them, and can see the inherent racism and sexism in how they are portrayed

You know before I joined the bat fandom I did not use the exclude tag in ao3? Like tmnt and dp have some bad stuff but usually I could just scroll past.

but now I am having to avoid fics where whole ass adults are bullying and/or oversexulizing a child

Im constantly on the look out for untagged batcwst

I struggle to find fics that don’t describe dicks ass

I have been in this fandom for probably about two years now and y’all I swear

sorry for ranting, and don’t worry I love all your stuff and I know the just back click don’t leave mean comments rule

I’m just tried bc most of the stuff I thought was true turned out to be false

Mm. I do find it a little exhausting trying to navigate the lines of what's canon, what shouldn't be canon (but is due to racism/sexism/homophobia/etc.), and just having fun.

I'm also trying to cultivate the mindset of what I've seen on Tumblr about not policing other people's ships/ideas. I am highly uncomfortable with some (particularly underaged people and adults dating), but I'm also not leaving hate comments. Like you said, the backspace exists for a reason.

Idk. There's a toooon of takes/ideas about the batfam that are inherently false, but as long as they aren't racist/sexist/etc takes, I don't see the harm in them. So what if someone wants a coffee obsessed Tim? So what if Jason's kill code is very strict? As long as they don't claim it's canon, let them be

But yeah. I have a mile long exclude list for fics on AO3. I used to use it only for triggers (I can not do stockhold syndrome, my lords), but now it's got other weird ass shit I've stumbled upon (I saw a fic where the batkids were spanked as punishment??? Like I said, not gonna leave hate comments or single anyone out. Just not my cup of tea).

I also am usually not a fan of romance/sex. It's why the batfam intrigued me so much (found families usually don't have that in it). I like exploring dynamics outside of romance and thus love the batfam. They've got so much going on that romance/sex is not needed. They are such a mess without that dynamic being added (talking about the Bats getting with a third party, but, again, trying not to yuck anyone's yum).

However, I agree. There's a ton of misinformation within fandom. I like how complex canon gets with the characters, but there's also widely different takes with them (mostly talking about Bruce here. He can either be trying or just a straight up horrible dad).

[the-way-astray]

keefe has never gaslit or extorted anyone ever . manipulate MAYBE and i ONLY say that because katie knows all but i draw a line at extortion you arae wrong

hi, anon! those are some opinions you got there! obviously, it seems you've made up your mind, so my goal isn't to change your opinion, but rather to defend my side. i believe gaslighting is actually a form of manipulation, and you've already acknowledged that keefe could be manipulative, so i'm not really going to talk about that. however, it seems you feel very strongly about the extortion thing, so let's chat.

keefe's threats don't tend to come off as threats, because he's usually camouflaging them as something else, but the force (his use of empathy) is blatantly obvious. here are some examples (copy-pasting from my rant, only the stuff in the [brackets] is new):

(note: these are all out of order and i'm tired so i'm not citing shit. i may or may not change that later. point is, there is evidence in the text that proves that keefe is an extortive little shit, which is what i'm trying to prove.)

“Keefe nudged Dex’s arm, then grinned at Sophie. ‘Interesting.’ ‘What?’ Dex asked. ‘Which one’s your gift, Dex?’ Sophie interrupted. She didn’t have to be a mind reader to know what Keefe was going to tease Dex about.” Here we mark the start of Keefe using his empathy to learn people’s secrets without their consent. He feels not a hint of remorse for it, and instead uses it as a way to breach people’s boundaries and embarrass them. As a lot of people have already said, Keefe is the primary reason empathy should have similar restrictions on it to telepathy. [He obtained something (Dex's feelings, without permission, for no other reason than he wanted to) through force (his use of empathy).]

“He reached out and brushed Grady’s arm. ‘Whoa—that is some serious tension radiating off of you. Is it that bad?’” Again, here we see an example of Keefe breaching boundaries and using his ability to get people to tell him things they aren’t comfortable telling him. If Keefe was a Telepath, this would be breaking the law. In case you care. [Same thing as above.]

“Keefe grabbed Fitz’s wrist and pressed his fingers against the exposed skin. ‘Hate to break it to you, but I can tell you’re hiding something.’” (26) Another example of Keefe breaching personal boundaries and using his empathy to extort secrets out of people to get him to tell things they wouldn’t ordinarily tell him. This happens a lot starting in this book, and yes, I am going to point them all out. By the way, what Fitz was hiding was not at all important to their mission. It’s a secret of Sophie’s that Fitz accidentally saw and was forced to tell because of Keefe. And Keefe tries to make fun of Sophie for it, but is cut off. [Same as above.]

“Keefe spotted the crush cuffs about ten seconds after he got to Havenfield the next morning—despite the long-sleeved tunic Sophie had worn to keep them covered. And he dragged out the rest of the story with a relentless bombardment of questions.” Can Keefe keep his nose out of Sophie’s personal business for even a minute??? The “dragged” here is very telling: Sophie would not have chosen to tell Keefe all this of her own free will. He bombards her with questions, and so she tells him, not because she wants to, but because she knows that he won’t shut up until he has the full story. This is Sophie’s secret. Sophie’s business (and Dex’s). Keefe has no right to ask about the cuffs at all. The fact that he “retelentless[ly]” asked her questions until she was forced to tell him the entire story is not a good thing. It does not demonstrate trust, but quite the opposite: a breach of personal boundaries. Keefe is so toxic, I honestly find it impressive how Shannon has twisted him into a seemingly perfect-angel love interest. [He obtains something (what happened between Sophie and Dex) through force (his questions, which are specifically described using the words "dragged" and "relentless", as I stated).]

“She could feel him reaching for her glove—and yanked her hand away.” Keefe tries to breach Sophie’s boundaries. But what else is new. [Once again, he tries to extort, yes, extort, Sophie's feelings out of her. He isn't successful, but hopefully this proves that Sophie is not a willing participant here.]

“He traced his thumb over the sliver of skin between her glove and the edge of her beaded sleeve. ‘There’s something you’re not saying right now. I can feel it.’” (12) Keefe once again breaches boundaries because he can’t keep his nose out of other people’s personal feelings. He has no right to just help himself to Sophie’s emotions like that. It’s a massive breach of boundaries, and then using that to try to pry the secret out of her is nothing short of repulsive behavior. [He obtains something (Sophie's feelings, specifically the feeling of "she's not saying something", which he states) through force (his empathy).]

“Keefe snatched Fitz’s wrist. ‘I knew it!’ ‘Knew what?’ Fitz shouted, trying to wrench his arm away. Keefe tightened his grip. ‘Shhhhh, let the Empath work.’” (367) Oh, boy. Keefe really is such a manipulative asshole. He grabs Fitz’s hand to read his emotions because he wants to know why Fitz is offering to search his dad’s memories. He really can’t respect his supposed best friend’s privacy, can he? He can’t control himself; when he wants to know something he needs to have it right away. He breaches people’s trust and boundaries. Fitz tries to “wrench his arm away”, meaning that he’s uncomfortable and clearly doesn’t want this. But Keefe instead tightens his grip and forcibly extricates what he wants out of Fitz, even having the audacity to say “let the Empath work”. What an asshole. Honestly. He’s such a piece of shit. He’s a terrible person and the fact that Shannon is romanticizing this behavior is revolting. [He once again obtains something (Fitz's feelings, and from that the fact that he's trying to go after Alvar) through force (very literal here, he uses not only his empathy, but also his physical strength to keep Fitz from wrenching away).]

“‘Okay, two choices,’ Keefe told her, standing up and tilting her chin toward him. ‘You can tell me what’s wrong. Or I can put my Empath powers to work—but keep in mind, Option B will likely pick up on all kinds of other feelings.’ Sophie gave him her surliest scowl, but he didn’t back down.” First of all, here’s another example of Keefe touching Sophie’s face creepily. Secondly, Keefe just extorted Sophie’s personal feelings out of her. He just threatened to use his empathy on her if she didn’t tell him what was going on. He then said that if she didn’t tell him the thing she obviously doesn’t want to tell him, he’d not only use his power on her and figure it out, but would also probably pick up on other things she doesn’t want him knowing about. Sophie then makes it very obvious that she doesn’t want to do it, but he “didn’t back down”, by which Shannon of course means “didn’t respect Sophie’s feelings and her right to keep them to herself”. That is so. That is just. I don’t understand how Shannon somehow managed to twist this into Keefe caring about Sophie. He threatened, coerced, manipulated, and extorted her into telling him, sure, but caring about her??? Don’t make me laugh. Keefe is possibly the most toxic character in this entire series, and it is disgusting how Shannon gives the impression that this is caring behavior, or correct in any capacity at all. When someone wants to be left alone, you leave them alone. Keefe needs to go back to seventh grade health class, where they teach you that no means no. [My personal favorite example, because this is the one that most makes me think Shannon actively does not realize what a shitty character she's created in Keefe. He threatens Sophie (by telling her that if she didn't tell him, he'd forcefully take it from her, with some possible extra secrets, thrown in for funsies) into getting something he wants (her telling him what she's feeling). Yes, this is still shitty if you mask it as "caring". If Sophie doesn't want to talk, he needs to respect that, not pretend he knows her wishes better than she knows them herself. That is gaslighting. And taking away someone's agency to make their own decisions regarding their own feelings is bad and not good!]

[block limits are fun!!!]

“‘[ . . . ] forced herself to meet Keefe’s ice blue eyes. ‘I’m fine.’ When he raised one eyebrow, she added, ‘I’m just frustrated [ . . . ]’” (7) That’s right, the page numbers return. And I have physical copies of the rest of the series, so they’re here to stay. It may seem like Keefe is just trying to check on Sophie and make sure she’s okay, which is a noble cause, but when someone says they don’t want to talk about something, that means they don’t want to talk about it. That does not mean you prod and prod until they spill. So many things Sophie tells Keefe get twisted and people think she tells him because she trusts him, but more often than not she doesn’t and he just prods her or extorts them out of her. [It may not seem like Keefe "prod[s] and prod[s]", as my past self put it. But this is Flashback, so you do have to take into account the fact that Sophie has been putting up with Keefe's shitty behavior for six books, so she succumbs quicker. She knows that he will just take it from her if she doesn't give him what she wants. There is a quote later down that proves this, actually (it'll be in red).]

“‘Yup! But I can’t stop her, so I might as well let her take you down with me.’” (97) This is Keefe talking about Ro using him as a lie detector to extort Sophie’s secret out of her, by the way. Which Keefe agrees to do. Which he wouldn’t do if he really was a good friend. Just like Sophie wouldn’t have to make this deal with Ro if Keefe would just listen to good advice for once and do the smart thing. But he doesn’t care about Sophie’s mental health, and he doesn't care about Sophie’s feelings, because or else he would respect them by agreeing to stay out of the Neverseen’s way and not using his empathy to extort secrets Sophie clearly doesn't want to share out of her. And Ro. Honestly, she’s even worse than Keefe, partly because of her personality, but mostly because of the wasted potential. Keefe was always going to be the “bad boy angsty prankster with daddy issues that causes trouble” trope that we've seen a million times. But Ro could’ve been so much more. She’s the ogre princess, and the most Shannon could do with her is make her a Sokeefe fangirl. [Again, Keefe uses his empathy (force) to keep Sophie honest as Ro forces her to tell her and Keefe the secret that she desperately doesn't want to tell to the both of them (obtaining something he wants). And this is somehow spun around and sold to the audience as caring.]

“‘But do you really think you’re going to be able to leave here without telling me what happened with the Forklenator? If you do, you’re going to be sorely, sorely disappointed—and covered in biscuit crumbs.’” (351) Again, Keefe as good as admits that he’d force Sophie to spill if she didn’t tell him what happened with Mr. Forkle. His extortive ways need to stop being glorified and start being treated like the horrific manipulation it is. [This may seem like a joke, but it got Sophie to spill, so I mean. And yes, Sophie came there with the intention of telling Keefe. But that doesn't change the fact that telling someone they have to tell you something they may not want to is shitty. Especially considering how Keefe has acted for the past seven books (this is in Legacy).]

“She wasn’t sure if they were allowed to tell him—but it was so much easier than arguing.” (336) Keefe has literally annoyed Sophie so much that she doesn’t even think it’s worth the fight to keep a secret. That’s not good. It means that Sophie just succumbs to whatever he wants without a thought. That’s pretty much the highest sign of a toxic relationship. [And the reason she succumbed? Because he consistently shows her he has the power to take what he wants from her, over and over and over, and consistently has threatened/forced her, so now she doesn't even think it's worth the fight to try to keep stuff secret anymore. I don't know what else to say. This is not good. It is not caring. It is extortive and shows a clear lack of trust in Sophie and Keefe's relationship.]

and just as a comparison point, here's what keefe using his empathy in a healthy, not extortive way looks like:

so yeah, i'd say keefe consistently and constantly extorts sophie (and others) when he decides it's convenient for him.

[bum-tan]

So I read the comic "Wanted : Lucky Luke," and I just wanted to pop up here to rant and comment about it.

I'd recommend you read it first if you don't want to be spoiled, but if you don't want to, I'll still explain the plot for context.

The official synopsis:

"Riding peacefully along a western trail, Lucky Luke is suddenly ambushed by an unknown assailant. After a quick gunfight, the cowboy loses his mysterious attacker but happens upon a lone wagon beset by Apache raiders. Another quick fight later, Luke is surprised to find that the occupants of the wagon are three lovely young women! Three sisters on their way to start a new life, and who all find the lonesome cowboy ... quite interesting."

Just by reading this synopsis the premises sound interesting, but not enough to be engaging, in my opinion.

Anyway, here is a short explanation of the overall plot for better context :

In "Wanted: Lucky Luke," the famous cowboy finds himself on the wrong side of the law. After being framed for a crime he didn’t commit, Lucky Luke is declared an outlaw with a bounty on his head. The tables have turned, and now, instead of chasing criminals, he must evade capture by both lawmen and bounty hunters. Along his journey, he must clear his name, uncover the real culprits, and help a group of sisters he has encountered on his way.

I'm sure some of you may have recognized the artstyle as it was made by Matthieu Bonhomme; The same person who made the comic "The man who shot Lucky Luke", which is interesting in on itself, but I won't be talking much about it in this rant.

Regarding the art ? I enjoy it for the most part. It feels very fitting to the world of old western, but I understand the people who may not like it as it's not suited for Lucky Luke's stories that are usually more light hearted.

I personally don't really like the way Luke is drawn in Matthieu's art style. But I digress.

Moving on, here are some of my favourite panels from this comic that I'd like to comment about (please click on the pictures to better see if need be) :

For context, this was when the girls were being held hostage by the criminals, who then forced them to sing and dance. The girls were defenseless against these men. And as they were being harassed, I feared something explicitly bad would happen to them.

Thankfully, this big guy (Big Jack) stepped in and stopped the other men. I know he is a bad guy and the only reason why he protected them was because he was enjoying their performance, but still. It was nice to see.

Next set of my favourite panels :

Sadly, I couldn't put all the panels, but basically, this was when Lucky Luke was catching the criminals late into the night, after he managed to escape from them.

It was very entertaining and badass, the way he hunted them down, like a predator chasing its prey, when they were the ones chasing him earlier that day. Love the colours and art as well, making for an intimidating atmosphere. Very nice.

Now, here are a few sets of panels that I find hilarious:

This was when Lucky Luke was being teased over the wanted posters that were displaying him with a flower in his mouth. Need I say more? Just look at Luke's reaction !

It's especially funny when you consider the fact that the legendary cowboy used to smoke in the past, but now he just sucks on a piece of grass like a bum.

The duality of this man, going from formidable foe in front of his enemies to a lightweight when teased, is just too funny.

And finally, these panels :

This was when the comic hit its climax. Everyone was fighting over who could get Lucky Luke, including the outlaws, the Indians, the ladies, and the cavalry. Everyone wanted him !

And speaking of the outlaws, I was pleasantly surprised to see some of the iconic villains, from the original comics, make their apparitions to do Lucky Luke in.

But I was pretty disappointed that the Daltons weren't included amongst them. However, they were still mentioned by a character named Dick Dalton, a distant relative of the Daltons. Which I originally did not like, but his presence ended up making for quite a treat.

When the outlaws caught him, Dick felt strangely familiar to Lucky Luke, who unconsiously stared at him. But he didn't care much about engaging with Dick, even after the guy spilled out his story.

It was later revealed, near the end of the comic, that Dick was the one who put up a bunch of wanted posters of Lucky Luke, to make him suffer and hand him over to Joe (who is actually mentioned by name !) so Dick could be recognised as a Dalton.

Coming up with a plan like that, it's on brand with the Daltons. However, Luke is simply unimpressed and condescending to Dick. He calls him nothing but a pale imitation, clearly implying that Dick could never be at the same level as Joe Dalton.

Which i find funny as hell.

The next thing that i'd like to talk about is the sisters' interactions with Lucky Luke. More specifically, with Cherry (the blond one).

Because you see, in his journey of trying to hide from his enemies, Lucky Luke encounters and saves a group of 3 sisters (Angie, Cherry, and Bonnie), who need to reach the nearest town with their herd of cattles, all without being scalped by Indians.

Of course, Lucky Luke volunteers to help them. And obviously, the 3 sisters end up being interested in him and are aiming for his heart. Competing with one another.

They all attempted to flirt with him, naturally with no success.

So far, no suprise, until a tangible romance subplot seemingly formed between our hero and Cherry !

I initially kind of disliked that development. Especially how there seemed to be a reciprocated attraction on Lucky Luke's side.

Because it doesn't fit with his character, as in the comics and cartoons, he never shows any interest towards women or their advances.

However, as I kept reading, I realized it made for a compelling storyline, as well as a good introspection on our beloved hero. Explaining why he may be the way he is.

One of the many reasons why Lucky Luke is a lonesome cowboy who won't form long-lasting connections is because he has never received love in the past. So he doesn't know how to receive or give any back.

To me, this panel could be interpreted as him also wanting to learn how to love from Cherry, but he refuses to give in because of his convictions.

And since he has never known love, how could he know what it's like to be in love with someone?

So while she may harbor love towards him, he appreciates her in return, but it's more of a friendly admiration than romantic love. Because he could never reciprocate her kind of love.

In the end, he still ends up leaving, choosing independance over love.

But at least, now he knows that there are people who do love him.

All in all, I quite enjoyed this comic and I recommend any Lucky Luke enjoyers to read it as well.

P.S :

-I think the name of the comic is "Wanted: Lucky Luke," not only because he was being hunted down, but also because there are people who love him. Meaning he is quite literally wanted. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

-The whole Dick situation shows how irrelevant he is to Luke compared to Joe. And if i'm not reaching, this also implies how much Joe wants Luke, to the point of being mentioned in a story about wanting Lucky Luke without even being present !

So fun ! So yeah this is all pretty neat.

[alatismeni-theitsa]

Hi! I would like to know your opinion with the idea of how cruel the greek gods are represented in modern media (not always, but many times). We have Zeus's despictions as a bad king, a terrible dad and husband, a pervert who only want to impregnant women :/ And he is not the only one, so many male gods: Poseidon, Apollo, Ares... I already know that some myths portrayed them like this... But i don't think the idea lf those myths was: make the god looks like an asshole who don't respect women :/

We are talking mostly about US media, right? Let me know if you have something else in mind, but I can only recall their productions in this case.

I think there's a lack of understanding when it comes to how the Greek gods are/were viewed by Greek societies. Modern producers are approaching this ancient religion from a more recent, Christian lens. You are right: The idea of the myths wasn't to present the gods as villains. People back then had a different philosophy; that humans were at the mercy of the gods, and the gods were beyond "right and wrong" (in the human sense) but they were still just and they could assist humanity.

The myths where male gods couple with human women were symbolic, to explain how certain families or certain natural phenomena came to exist. As ancient Greek societies were extremely patriarchal, little thought was given to how the human women felt in these situations. Often, the women's perspective wasn't even mentioned because in those societies women's sexual desires weren't spoken about. In that cultural context, the women were also supposed to not want to have sex, to "preserve their honor". So even if they wanted to have sex with the gods, they were not supposed to show it, or the story was not supposed to show it, in order to portray them as "good women". Finally, the feelings of humans aren't given much consideration, because the will of the gods has a "higher" priority and a bigger purpose. For these reasons, the focus wasn't on the human women/mothers, and that's not the focus of these myths.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like to be used by a god without my consent either. But these myths are not to be taken literally! They are just very simple explanations for certain phenomena, and you are not supposed to examine the feelings of gods and humans because this will make you miss the point. That's how these gods were seen as protectors of humanity despite the existence of these stories.

"Asshole", "terrible dad", "misogynist", "terrible husband" and other adjectives really have no point. People of course can joke a bit about how Zeus fucked everyone, but when they believe it literally it looks like they don't understand we are talking about gods. Gods don't care about what you think! Gods are forces of nature, gods are different than humans!

These are not views I support today, and - as I've said in the past - there was a reason the Roman societies (including the Greek one) turned to Christianity very fast. (They were given the option of a more merciful deity) However, I think it's important to understand the ancient gods if you want to portray them accurately, and not look like having the understanding of a toddler!

Sadly, the modern progressive movements don't examine the myths in their context, and as a result, they spend hours and hours ranting about how "horrible" the Greek gods are, about which... forgive me, but literally nobody cares.

If you ask Greek women today about their issues they're not gonna tell you "2.000 years ago we had myths where women were not given proper consent". We have much larger, and more real issues. It's usually Westerners with too much time and decent salaries who spend too many hours blaming ancient gods for being... ancient gods 😬 You can tell I am salty here because the femicides in Greece finally get to see the light of day and none of these Western women with degrees in Classics batted an eye. They rant right and left about ancient Greek fictional women and how "bad" the gods were while ignoring our ancient and modern reality.

[uboat53]

It's been a while, but I feel the need for some political analysis. Not the specific issue things I've been doing, but a broader look at the 2024 election. LONG RANT (TM) time?

INTRODUCTION

As I imagine you're aware by now if you read anything I write, I'm a bit of a data guy. I've been following the polls for a few decades now and I find it a good way to keep sane in the chaos of an election season. This time, though… this time I'm not so sure.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm still following the polling like a crack addicted muppet, I'm just no longer sure that it's accurate, even within its own margins of error. There are a few reasons for this, the long-standing ones like declining response rates, but also some new ones to do with the changing electorate. A bunch of things are coming together in ways that make me no longer certain that we're getting an accurate picture.

That said, there is still data I'm seeing that I find useful. Focus groups, for example, are still producing interesting nuggets of information that help fill in a few gaps, but more on that later. First, the polling.

HOW POLLING WORKS

So polling, at its heart is fairly simple. You call, text, or otherwise survey a bunch of people, usually on the order of a thousand or so, and ask them for their opinions. Then you figure out the race, age, and other demographic information of the people you got and use some statistical tools to normalize them to the broader population.

For example, if your thousand person sample was 5% black but you think the voting population is going to be 10% black, you'll "weight" the answers your black respondents gave. In other words, you'll give more impact to their answers to try to better represent who you think is actually going to show up on election day. If you get more of a group than you think will actually show up, you'll do the reverse and de-weight them.

If you think about that for a minute, you'll realize that there are two really big places where error can seep into your polling.

POLLING ERRORS

The first is called the response rate. It used to be that you'd have to call about 2,000-3,000 people to get 1,000 responses. Nowadays, you've got to hit closer to 10,000 people. And there's good research showing that the kind of people that respond to polls are meaningfully different than the kind of people who don't respond but still vote.

That said, pollsters have adapted and have gotten reasonably good at adjusting for this kind of error. Well, the good ones have, the bad ones just do low-quality polls and their results are terrible as a result. There was one particularly longitudinal poll during the 2016 election that apparently only had one black Trump supporter, who they weighted heavily, who would just stop answering their questions when he felt Trump was doing badly which led to some wild swings in their results depending on whether he answered that week or not. Generally speaking, though, this kind of error isn't as big of a problem in decent polling as we kind of thought it would be when it started showing up a decade or two ago. The other kind of error, though…

Look, in order to weight your polled population properly, you have to have a reasonable idea of who's actually going to show up to vote. Will 30% of white women between the ages of 18 and 24 show up or will it be 50%? Will the electorate in Georgia be 30% black or 40% black? Answering these questions makes a huge impact on how the final result turns out, and the way we generally answer these questions is we look at the past few elections.

The problem with that is, there's nothing consistent or predictable about the last few elections. 2012 and 2014 were pretty standard elections where the predictable groups showed up in predictable numbers and things went as expected. In 2016, though, Trump turned out a huge amount of people who had never voted before and shifted the result in key states that were not expected to go for him. Those same people, though, didn't show up in 2018 when he wasn't on the ballot and the result was a pretty solid win for Democrats in places that hadn't been expected to for them after 2016. Then, in 2020, those same people showed up to vote for Trump again, but this time they were outnumbered by ANOTHER new group of voters who hadn't showed up before but now showed up to vote against Trump. Finally, in 2022, yet another huge wave of new voters showed up, energized and outraged by the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe vs. Wade, and completely overturned the conventional wisdom of a strong Republican showing.

In other words, there's no way anyone could reasonably say that we can make a strong prediction of what the 2024 electorate is going to look like based on the last decade of elections. Are the voters who were outraged about abortion in 2022 still outraged? Will the new voters who showed up for Trump in 2016 and 2020 show up in the same kind of numbers? Will the anti-Trump voters of 2020? Maybe they have got it right this time, but there's absolutely no way to know that. Even worse, there's no way to know which way the error is running, the polls might be massively overweighted in Trump's favor or Harris's.

I certainly can't say and I'm fairly certain no one else can either.

OTHER DATA

That said, there is other data we can look at. My personal favorite these days are focus groups, particularly those conducted by people who are good at running them like Whit Ayers or Frank Luntz. Rather than look at what percentage of voters are voting for Trump, Harris, or undecided, they simply take a group of undecided voters and ask questions to determine why they're undecided and what could shift them and the results of those conversations are really interesting.

I've seen results from a few of these focus group results so far and they're fairly consistent. There's the standard undecided voters, the low-information voters who simply haven't paid attention enough to know where they stand and there's the so-called "double-haters" who just really dislike both candidates, but, surprisingly, these groups aren't the majority.

The majority of undecided voters apparently are generally moderate conservative voters who know that they don't like Trump but don't feel like they know enough about Harris to vote for her. Specifically, they feel like they don't know enough about her economic policies.

And that's a very interesting result, because it's the kind of result you see when an unpopular incumbent runs for re-election. Unpopular incumbents can and do win re-election; it's not enough that people don't like them, they also have to like the alternative. That's why John Kerry didn't defeat George W. Bush in 2004 and why Bill Clinton did defeat George H. W. Bush in 1992. Clinton persuaded voters that he would be better and Kerry didn't.

When Biden was running against Trump earlier this year, he was the unpopular incumbent and, while people didn't like Trump either, a critical mass of them seem to have liked him better than Biden. With Biden's withdrawal, the race has shifted. Trump may not technically be the incumbent, but people have seen him in office and they didn't like him. Harris has been Vice-President for about three and a half years now, but that's not being President, not even close. She's the unknown in this race.

WHAT IT ALL MEANS

Look, I don't know if there's enough undecided voters in this race to make a difference. Heck, it's possible that either Trump or Harris already have enough voters in the tank to win this thing in the key states and we just don't know it. All that said, there's a clear fight on for what undecided voters currently exist.

Harris needs to convince them that she has a plan to manage the economy. Job growth, wage growth, and consumer spending are strong and inflation is back down to reasonable levels, but the scars of high inflation remain. If she can convince voters that she has a plan to bring down costs and/or raise wages, she'll win. This is going to take more than the broad-strokes style answers she's been giving so far, my take is that she'll need to give a formal economic policy address, preferably more than one, and go into detail and depth about her economic plans.

Trump's only chance, on the other hand, is to smear Harris as well as he can. After four years in office and about a decade of a constant campaign, I'm pretty sure there's nothing left that could convince these voters to like him. Fortunately for him, he doesn't need them to like him, he just needs them to dislike her. That said, the relentless personal attacks he's been lobbing aren't going to do it, he's going to need to actually attack her economic policy, but that runs the risk of highlighting it to voters who may have otherwise not have heard about it.

CONCLUSION

Look, the polling data is iffy to me. It may be accurate or it might not, but we really have no way of knowing given the massive churn in the electorate this last decade. Assuming, though, that this race really is a tight one and will come down to undecided voters, it seems like this really is Harris's election to lose. If she can define herself, particularly her economic policies, in a way that appeals to undecided voters, it's likely that she can win them and, presumably, the election as well and there's not a lot that Trump can do about that without becoming a far different person than he is.

[goodluckclove]

Actual Hot Take: Ramble Incoming

I'm in a mood, less than a week out from my hysterectomy, and I have some thoughts. Rough thoughts. Medium spicy.

They're about world-building and critiques and readers and writers. It turned into a big ramble as I processed some feelings - you'll note the subject change partway through - so I'm throwing a read more.

I would say here that this is my own personal opinion but essentially I realized that my real issue here was how sick I am of cynicism in lit spaces and like...yeah I don't think that's a crazy hot take. I feel at this point that I am incapable of hot takes.

I am deeply intimidated by the kinds of writers and readers who eviscerate logistical world-building choices in genre fiction. I usually only see it in sci-fi and fantasy communities but I have to imagine it happens in every genre.

Maybe an unrealistic fabric is used in a historical fiction novel. Or a poor choice of saddle in a western. Or a medical inaccuracy in a horror scene. It has to happen all the time because certain people have expertise that research might miss, or a writer's research could be wrong, or they could've just not researched at all. But for some reason specifically the Speculative Fiction crowd are the most likely, in my experience, to lose their goddamned minds.

Has anyone read Greg Egan's Schild's Ladder? It's about the hardest sci-fi out there. So esoteric and thorough in its scientific accuracy that when I tried to read it it circled back around and sounded like fantasy. Listen to this excerpt from the plot summary:

Huh? Huh???

I don't know about you, but this is virtually indistinguishable to me from the schizophrenic rambling of Philip K Dick. I did not hate the book. I couldn't finish it because I had no fucking clue what anyone was talking about, but I enjoy it's existence. The prose was pretty retro. It's like a pulp novel from an alternate universe where everyone has a PhD in Quantum Physics.

It's just a weird spectrum, the questions you're supposed to answer and the ones you're allowed to leave a mystery. What mysteries will the reader use against you as proof that you didn't think it through? People say write for yourself, and you should, but some of those same people are quick to produce massive think pieces on why your choices make you a bad writer. That's just a thing some writers choose to do. And there's really no way to predict what someone might get unreasonably rant-y about. As I put my writing more out there I have no idea what people will use to claim I put no thought into the most emotionally vulnerable writing I've ever created.

And they say that's not supposed to bother you. But like. Of course it does? There's a level of thick skin you're supposed to develop about writing, but I don't think that applies to all aspects of writing or all the time. If someone disregards my entire novel that I gave myself tendonitis over because my depiction of back of house food service wasn't realistic or my magic system didn't go in a direction they thought it should, I'm going to be upset. It won't ruin my life or get me to give up writing - I don't see anything doing that at that point. But I'll get sad. I'll probably get pretty sad and it's weird that I feel like it's bad for writers to admit that.

My hot take, nestled within this hot take, is that I think this applies to every writer. Even the ones that react with ego and anger to massive critiques on their books - right before we cringe and scoff and laugh online - are probably also just sad that we didn't like their writing. Unless they specifically didn't try, or posed a scam in the form of a book, they're likely sad they offered something born out of creative effort and got rejected. Nobody likes that.

It's one thing if the writer themselves has some trash beliefs. I am fine with people eviscerating JK Rowling or any of the writers who feel like the best way to get a book deal is to bring down other writers or pretend to be a different race online. But it's just crazy to be a writer in an age where you might publish a book someone hates so much that they release a three hour-long video essay roasting entire segments for a potentially incalculable audience.

I used to be into that kind of stuff, but after being here for so long relishing in that rage-bait feels weird. Because a lot of the people here, even if they write themes I'm not interested in, seem like nice enough people actually trying to do something. I had strangers on here send me their writing and someone sent me what was clearly a fetish thing and even though I wasn't into the kink I talked to the person about it and they were perfectly civil and courteous. I'm almost 30 and I'm learning that while some artists are using their medium to push unhealthy beliefs or hateful ideologies, a lot more people just want to tell a story that feels important to them. Even if other people don't like it.

I don't know. I was angry at first when I started this but by now I'm just sentimental and I think people should stop treating complaining as their primary hobby. I think critiques are important, but there comes a line in which I'm forced to think you'd just like hearing yourself talk. And if you like to talk why not talk about something you enjoy?

If you've read this far (you're very odd), I'm going to go ahead and list a few books that inspired my writing and say why I like them a lot.

Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut: Love my man Vonnegut. His prose is so warm and easy to read and his stories are so wild and interesting to think about. Everyone should read Vonnegut he's great and he seemed like a pretty nice guy.

Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison: This book wrecked me hard. Some of the descriptions were so beautiful I put the book down and let out a sigh. When I finished I walked out of whatever classroom I was in without asking for permission from the teacher and spent the rest of class wandering campus in the rain and weeping openly.

Griffin and Sabine by Nick Bantock: it's a trilogy told through postcards and letters you can physically open and remove the pages. Has some of the most beautiful romantic intimacy between two people who never meet. There's one particular letter I read and reread a lot when I was younger because it was exactly what I wanted in life.

[999nikes]

i'm gonna be so fr rn, doxxing people for writing smut about the triplets is unhinged. all you are doing is indulging in the problem and even being a part of the whole issue yourself. and if you're one of those people going on all the smut writers accounts and harassing them with the "the triplets don't like being sexualised." comments, you're just giving them a reason to clap back and then you guys get upset with it. everyone's entitled to different opinions on how they think fics of the triplets should be written within the fanbase. personally, i like to read fics where they're just nice and cute and i know i can usually read a well-written fic without it getting tooooo sexual.

and since we don't know how they feel about s*x fics being written about them, i don't think it's safe to assume anything. if they want to speak out and say "hey, just for the record, we still don't want smut fics written about us", then cool. if they come out and say "hey, we really don't give a fuck what you write", then cool; it's their decision and we have to respect that and what other writers do with that info.

as for smut writers, i've seen some of your guys' blogs and the fact that you are CONSTANTLY talking about how stupid and "sensitive" sturniolo fans are is just plain annoying and uncalled for. sure, you can have your own opinion but when you make your opinion the ONLY thing you post about on your blog, it's really annoying. you don't see "sensitive" writers constantly complaining about the smut fics rn. they say what they want and move on but you guys are the ones who are going on rants about how "sensitive" and annoying some fans are for not agreeing with you writing smut about chris, nick, and matt.

as for the whole nick x fem!reader stuff i keep seeing (i won't say names or accs, you guys know who you are), it's honestly pretty sad because it shows me and other fans around you that you don't respect nick or nick's sexuality. he has always said he's always known he's gay and that he's never liked another girl so why are you writing fics where he's making out with a fem!reader?

and also, all i can say is, the whole incest shit and "oh, i had a dream chris made out with nick" thing is just gross. they are brothers, not fuck buddies.

also, the whole thing with "suggestive" fics is honestly something for each reader/writer to decide if it's okay to them. i know some writers use the word "suggestive" heavily and lightly. for some writers, "suggestive is making out without actually getting to a point where sex happens (which can happen a lot in real life! you can definitely makeout with someone without having sex with them). and for other writers, "suggestive" can be alluding to sex or suggesting that sex was going to happen. personally, i'm fine with a fic that has a small makeout moment but if it gets to the point where sex is going to happen, that's where i will probably just silently scroll away and find a different fic to read without makking a fuss on every smut/suggestive writers account and it’s not because i hate smut writers, i’ve just had bad experiences with sexual things and i personally choose to avoid it! there's some writers who have a few works i read but they also write "suggestive" fics about the triplets and that's where i agree to disagree with a writer but i can still enjoy other fics they write. it's like strawberry picking what works for you.

and to tie it all up, smut is usually poorly written and not accurate to how real life s*x is. so for a young fan to read that and get a poor representation of how sex is can be really damaging and can cause insecurities in someone. i know when i was younger and people introduced me to smut, it made me insecure because i thought my body was supposed to be a certain way for men to like me. so with that being said, if you are a smut writer and want to continue your writing, no one can forcefully stop you. but i would suggest that if you are going to write smut, label it mature so people can turn on/off their mature tags and get the fics they actually want to read. wattpad writers do it with their work and i think it's only respectful for you to do it as well on this app.

also, i'm tired of seeing smut writers saying "Well they aren't minors anymore and they didn't like it when they were minors". they can still not like it even if they're 20. smut about a real person is very invasive and can make someone insecure about their body. if someone you didn't know wrote smut about you and they knew nothing about you, you'd be uncomfortable and grossed out too.

all i'm saying is at the end of this, no ones going to win their case. smut writers aren't going to get "sensitive" fans to stop rambling about smut since there are always going to be people who don't agree with you or what you do. and non-smut writers aren't going to get smut writers to stop writing smut since they think it's fine and will continue to do whatever the fuck they want. i still stand by my thought that if you are a smut writer, label your sexual works 'mature' so people who don't want to indulge in smut can turn that tag off.

that's all i got to say about it !

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

Momtara fans, who usually are ztara fans trying to make the ship seem more feminist, have this weird attitude with sokka. One thing a lot of these fans think is that katara buried all her emotions and took on all the emotional labour for the gaang, specifically her brother- which is blatantly untrue and a great misread of her character because in the series we see so many times how she allows herself to be angry, to be happy and sad. she's a very emotional character. but there's this opinion that katara stepped up to be sokkas mom, and that he got over his trauma because of it, and they use this as a reason for why katara takes the emotional labour but it is so untrue. Like the momtara argument based on the fact katara stepped up into kyas role doesn't really work, because we know sokka stepped up into hakodas. You can tell this opinion is biased because even though katara did help her brother a lot, sokka buried a lot of his real emotions on things (like his mom and yues death), and had this thought he had to keep her safe. Weirdly enough the momtara argument fits sokka more lol. But either way, it's such a dumbed down reading of sokka because not only does it just tell people you misunderstood his conversation with toph (personally i did not see it as "he views katara as his mom!" More that he associates katara with her sacrifice and that's why he sees her) but also just ignores that he did suffer too. More than one character can suffer, katara did a lot for him but she didn't take it all on, vice versa. He's also dumbed down quite a bit by those shippers as well, but that's a whole other thing.

"Momtara fans, who usually are ztara fans trying to make the ship seem more feminist, have this weird attitude with sokka" Boy, don't I know it. I had a very unpleasant discussion with one of them in the comments of my "In Defense Of Azula" collection of metas on Ao3.

I mentioned fandom misogyny in one of said metas, and that person, somehow, thought that that was the perfect opportunity and place to say shit like "Sokka never really cared about Katara, every nice thing he ever did for her was all about wanting to be 'Macho', not out genuine affection" and I was just in SHOCK at such an obvious bad-faith reading of the character and story. I could not understand what the fuck that person had against Sokka to just flat out about him like that.

Then they started ranting about how nobody in the Gaang truly cared about Katara, essentially treated her as their maid, and then just "casually" mentioned how she'd be much happier in the Fire Nation because they're totally a more egalitarian nation, and I was like "Okay, I get it now. This person is a zutarian and they think they have to dunk on every character that isn't Zuko." I checked their profile and yup, that was exactly the case. Thank God Ao3 lets you block/mute users now.

[ninainthetardis]

⚠️⚠️⚠️ HoFaS Spoilers ahead ⚠️⚠️⚠️

.

.

.

Just a bunch of things about this finale that I wanted to get off my chest. I will start by saying that I found it overall underwhelming, unsatisfying and anticlimactic, so you can guess it's not going to be a positive rant here. This is the part of my GR review I haven't posted there.

Please, do not come at me under this post or the others. This is just my opinion, and I won't be answering any rude comment. I have the right to express my own disappointment. Those who want to have a constructive and respectful conversation are always welcome, though.

.

.

.

• The crossover ended up being reeeeally underwhelming, and the whole Ruhn/Rhys thing that built the entire hype for this book was explained in the lamest way possible (and at a certain point even forgotten by the characters). Also, what the hell were those references to ToG that were just dropped there without further explanation? We know how the Fae from Prythian got to Midgard, but what about the ToG ones? How is it that Lidia has knowledge about her ancestors from the other world? Also, how could Lidia know she had fire magic even when Danika was alive if elemental magic had been hidden and kept dormient in every Vanir for centuries?

• I am not a big fan of Azriel and Bryce, and I am definitely not on the list of Nesta's fans, but you know what? This trio worked. For some reason, I liked to see them interacting, and I actually found Azriel and Nesta's dynamic an element that could be interesting if explored in the following acotar books. Maybe it's just that I didn't care about any of them enough to be bothered by the things I usually find annoying (Bryce), triggering (Nesta), and irritating (Azriel) in such characters.

Too bad Nesta screwed it up with the mask thing (which I have already discussed here) and in Ember/Randall's bonus chapter with the return of her spiteful, ungrateful, behaviour/attitude. I guess the best I can hope for when it comes to Nesta is to be civil to her and nothing more, just like it happened with post ToD Chaol. Slightly less even. Like, maybe she could stop triggering me every two pages. That would be progress and beyond any of my expectations, really. It would make the next acotar books much easier to read, though I cannot forget how she's been in the past.

• I didn't like the info dump both in the final part of the crossover and in the part with the Princes. I would have preferred some flashbacks showing what happened to the "tell don't show" technique SJM chose here. And finding out what happened in the First War, for me, was the most interesting point of the whole book, so that execution disappointed me.

• Why was everything resolved so easily? Bryce got everything she needed provided for, or told by someone else, she somehow managed to master new skills within a range of few seconds (the same can be told for Lidia and the other characters when freed of the infection) and the most interesting aspect of her character - her being so underpowered in comparison to the Asteri - Was totally nullified by the ridiculous amount of power she got along the way. Literally, all they did/tried to do, worked first try. Where is the struggle? Where is the pain KoA made me feel? Where are the emotions? The only moment I felt something was that "Light it up, Danika!" At the end of the book. Just that.

And where is the characters development? Ships development? Also, the always absent talking about traumas is really getting on my nerves. I'll be making examples about this later.

• What the hell was that recycled finale? It resembled KoA's finale. It even had the "Rhys is dead" plot twist, but with Bryce and with the same resolution. Also, what was the point of having characters killed in books 1 and 2 if Hypaxia could've just resurrected them within a couple of minutes? I hate the resurrection theme, especially when overused. It diminishes everything.

• I am apparently one of the few people who's given Hypaxia some consideration. She's been one of my favourites ever since the first book, but... in HoFaS she's just doing miracles, resurrecting people, and developing an antidote out of the blue in a couple of hours (really?), which brings me back to the fact that in this, everything happened too easily.

• So, SJM is trying to tell me that the Asteri were so clever to submit a population of powerful Vanir people for 15000 years, meanwhile keeping hidden form them that they were limiting and stealing their magic, - and even eating their dead's - but then failed to imagine Bryce's real plan because they were too arrogant? Wtf was that? Am i supposed to believe that Rigelus just underestimated her when in book 1, he was the one trying to keep her calm and content because he recognised how dangerous she was, after all she had done?

• What was the point of introducing Ariadne?

• I can't say I am totally disappointed in Jesiba's character, I just don't understand why the most powerful characters for magic or combat skills were kept away from the battle against beings as powerful as the Asteri lol Her arriving only at the end of the battle, Fury and Baxian being away... meh, everything was just kind of disappointing.

• Also, black holes? 🤨 no insights about the battle and the Princes fighting? All we got was literally: "The Princes killed the other Asteri, yay!". Did I mention that it was all so disappointing and anticlimactic?

• Now, let's move on to specific characters:

- Tharion "the funny one turned into Mr Boredom".

I have to say it. He was the king of repetitive povs in book 2, and just one of the many characters in this series who started off as being interesting only to become almost annoying by the end of it. But he's the friend who can't do anything right to the point you end up thinking your own bullshit is not that shitty. Repetitive povs and excessive whining (he was supposed to be the funny one sigh) aside, I kind of still care about him. And him and Sathia are unexpectedly interesting as a couple, but we'll see if they become an actual one. I also liked his sort of friendship with Ariadne. And the one with the Aux and Ithan, "the pack". Please, let him sort his shit out and be fine because he's such a mess I cannot even hold it against him, lol

- Bryce the Fa(k)e Woke Queen-lan

I won't say that Bryce's character was butchered here because there was nothing to butcher according to me, she's always been like this. It just became more evident.

From HoSaB to the end, she's been annoying. Though she had some moments of glory along the way, I have to admit that. But why was she convinced that she could be Aelin all of a sudden? She was never a strategist nor a planner (and her plans ALWAYS failed, except her plans in HoFaS? How's that?). Her most successful moments were due to improvisation, - prompted by survival instinct - and luck. Now she's suddenly an entitled overpowered mastermind lol

She has zero respect for others feelings/traumas, as usual she's always right and anyone who disagrees with her is just an alpha asshole, she's better and knows better than anyone else (and I am still trying to figure out why she's supposed to be any of those things) and she's constantly criticising anyone else... for things she does herself too. Great. Like, in the crossover she literally complains about Nesta and Az manipulating her while.. she was doing the very same thing to them? Just like in book 1, when she was complaining all the time about Fury not talking to her while she did the same thing to Ithan.

And what the hell were her plans, anyway? She was so desperately trying to be Aelin, but she never even had a chance. Leaving Baxian and Fury in a naturally protected place and not taking them to battle? How is that smart? Not calling Jesiba, the powerful witch, to join the battle? HOW IS ANY OF THAT SMART?

She had a whole conversation with Nesta before Rhys arrived, his shadows announced pages before? (Wtf?)

She bloody endangered Prythian, almost freed and unleashed an Asteri on Prythian's soil, and Nesta GAVE HER THE MASK? (WTF I-don't-even-know-which-part-this-is-anymore)

Now, should I comment on Bryce's total disrespect for her mate's trauma and past while he's always been thoughtful when it came to hers? I do not ship them AT ALL, and it's not because Hunt is boring as someone claims, but because Hunt deserved better, tbh and I loved them in book 1! Worst SJM main female character, really.

Also, please tell me again why she was supposed to be the queen of a species she literally hated and didn't want anything to do with. She was Queen of generalisation in that sense. I loved how Baxian called her out and made her realise that she was only considering what was convenient and conform to her prefixed, biased ideas (the speech where he compares wolves and fae). I mean, she was right about fae nobility, but there were innocents among the fae too and she was talking about how the whole species deserved obliteration, while claiming wolves were better (when statistically there was a huge amount of wolves who judged her just like the fae and did nothing to help during the attack, just like the fae... because they obey to their leaders, and Sabine was just as bad as Morven and the Autumn King. Wolves were not all like the Devil's pack, Ithan and Danika, just like fae were not all like the Autumn/Avallen king). All while not considering the fae among her group and treating Declan and Flynn like shit for absolute no reason. Or giving those shitty answers to Sathia about her plans for the fae people... she was a victim of the system more than Bryce tbh Bryce's wokeness would have been so much more believable, useful and coherent if she wasn't biased as the ones she accused or an alpha asshole herself.

I am sorry, but I just cannot stand her hypocrisy. And I cannot stand generalisation.

- Hunt "the powerbank" Athalar

He was literally conceived to be Bryce's powerbank first and later his shadow (Umbra Mortis?!) who follows her everywhere without even being given the chance to have a say in what they are going to do. Otherwise, he'd be acting like an alpha asshole. Just to be told not to make a fuss about being held captive and tortured with his friends. I'm so pissed for his arc, because he was so interesting in book 1, only for his povs to become repetitive and sometimes boring in book 2 and almost non existing in book 3, like he didn't have any inviduality other than being Bryce's mate and anchor. Also, how could he blame himself for anything when Bryce didn't even listen to his warnings/complains/objections, leaving him with no other choice but following her to get at least the chance to protect/help her?

And then she's like "I don't want you to just follow me, I want that you want to do this" (wtf?)

Bonus: being son of Apollion or Thanatos instead of somehow created by them in terms of powers would have been so much more interesting.

I liked his friendship with Ruhn and Baxian though, and missed him and Isaiah/Naomi.

- Ithan "I don't even know what I'm doing" Holstrom

Why was Ithan so damn sure Sigrid would be a good leader for the wolves is beyond me. He didn't know her. Literally, it was just because she was a Fendyr. That was his only argument in support of his theory. As if Sabine wasn't proof that being a Fendyr didn't automatically make you a good leader. As if Sigrid didn't act entitled and reckless and dominant and selfish and despotic the whole time. It's all she's done, really, and he did not expect that she was not that good as he wanted her so desperately to be? SHE AIMED TO KILL HIM IN THAT PIT! Him, the very person who risked everything to save her, the only person who ever cared about her! A person who was not trying to harm her despite the circumstances. She was not going to try and find another way even though she knew all those lives depended on the group getting out the Viper Queen's hands... it was self defense and I truly get his struggle to accept what happened BUT defeating the Asteri was the priority and the fact that she came back 5 seconds later as a creature that could not be killed and known for being dangerous, when it is known that messing with the dead usually leads to no good... did not exactly make me empathise at all with this whole arc. And after that, he was still whining about Sigrid instead of fully focusing on fighting the Asteri...

It's a pity because I really liked him before this Sigrid thing. But I'd be willing to give him a second - or should I say third? - chance. I think Perry may be his mate, anyway, and I am kind of curious about that.

- Ruhn/Lidia

I was totally unimpressed by them as a couple after book 2, but I thought they were getting interesting at the beginning of book 3. Then somehow Lidia felt entitled to be pissed at Ruhn because he was struggling to accept that Day was the Hind (wtf) and then Ruhn felt entitled to be pissed at Lidia for not talking to him about her past (wtf part 2). Only to forget/postpone all of their issues because they were horny and about to go to battle against the Asteri. That's not ship building/development. Ruhn shooting her was too much, even if he was trying to protect her and sacrifice himself. But that idea made no sense and had literally no use or purpose. Why did SJM think it would be a good idea? Adding some drama/shock value element that was totally uncalled for and that only resulted in diminishing a ship that wasn't even well developed to begin with? Because it served nothing and it was dumb. Leaving Lidia wounded and vulnerable. One of the best assets they had in that battle - and they didn't bring many with them. Just like clockwork hadn't been for Tharion, they would have all been dead five seconds later.

To think that the fact that Lidia already had two kids was such an interesting and unexplored arc for mates... sigh, I am disappointed.

I am happy that it was Ruhn to deal with the Autumn King in the end, though. He deserved closure and to free himself of that monster. I am quite sad that his character never had the chance to fully come out.

Lidia carried the whole book. I loved her.

- Baxian/Danika

They truly were the most interesting ship in this series. I hope there will be a flashback book/novella about them. I swear I would love it. Their dynamic is also interesting, and I'd love to get to know Baxian better. But maybe, we will?

To sum up, this series left me absolutely nothing. I do not care enough about any of the characters, I didn't get particularly affectionate to any of them. Its major strength was the focus on friendship, but after the first book, it was almost absent, the principle only slightly reminded by Ruhn, Dec and Flynn/Hunt, Rhun, and Baxian. The premises of the story in general were so good (HoEaB), but the execution through book 2 and 3 was so poor it disappointed me. It's not a bad series, it is entertaining in its own way... it's just a bit "undertone" if compared to the other SJM series, it lacked of emotions, plot/characters/ships development and impact, I don't know how to say it. I hope the next books will be better. My guess is on Ithan, Tharion, Flynn next. Or even Sathia, considering that SJM prefers female povs. I wish we'd seen Fury and Juniper a bit more, and Dec and Marc, but they are established couples, so I don't think we'll see any of them as main. Flynn has that slightly hinted thing with Ariadne, who was introduced and forgotten, so maybe she'll be important later? I want to stay optimistic lol

I wished there was a better development for Ruhn and Lidia as a couple, though, and Ruhn as a character because I think they'll be side characters from now on. Also, why on earth was their marriage in a bonus chapter? That's not extra content. That's the ending for two of the main characters. It's not fair!

Btw, imo the only memorable characters in this series so far are Danika, Baxian, Aidas, and Lidia.

[waywardangel-wilds]

I recently saw you reblog the ask referring to the post about how someone stated that Katniss&Peeta and Finnick&Annie are only together because of trauma. I also wanted to say that's just not true? Like everyone in the series has trauma, everyone copes with it differently but I don't think Katniss, Peeta, Finnick, or Annie sought out their respective partners because they too had trauma. In the grand scheme of things, wouldn't it have been easier for Katniss to be with Gale so she wouldn't have to deal with Peeta's hijacking OR HIS TRAUMA from the games because wouldn't that trigger hers? (you know aside from the fact that Katniss will always link her sister's death with Gale's weaponry and disregard for human compassion). Same with Annie, would it not have been easier to just close off that chapter rather than be with Finnick, someone that is also linked to not only the Hunger Games in general, which is where "her mind broke", but HER GAMES as he was likely the mentor or one of the mentors for the male tribute who she watched GET BEHEADED. Like wouldn't Katniss have rather just not been with someone, like she always planned, or Annie been with someone from D13 who would have had no link to the games in general. Or Peeta been with Delly, who he didn't have hijacked memories of or been to hell and back with. Or how bout Finnick being with literally anyone but someone else in the games, someone who he had to fear for her life in the games?

I could rant about this all day. I looked into the person who wrote the original post and that just made me feel like I was losing my mind. I don't care if people like Gale, I can understand their points, but to tag everlark in a post shitting on them and then reply to said post and be like "I love debate" but then go about blocking people who are debating you AND CLAIMING that they didn't tag EVERLARK for attention, come on, you know you did. It's hypocritical. The person seems stuck in an old phase of internet which I have grown too old to engage in. Have your opinion, but respect general etiquette of keeping that stuff out of the tag you are actively shitting on. It only draws "bad" attention but they strike me as all PR is good PR which like, why do you want negativity in your space when you could just not?

And frankly, the original post was hypocritical because...Gale has trauma too, like a lot of it, which is what drove him to, in a way, be used by Coin. So, if the theory that Katniss had no thoughts, emotions, or feelings outside of trauma is true, would she not have originally had MORE trauma in common with Gale? Like Katniss should have fallen at Gale's feet no? Before the games, in those woods for hours, she should have bonded with him and fallen in LOVE with him due to that bond but she didn't. Because trauma doesn't make her love someone, who they are does. Frankly her bond over trauma with Gale is what kept her feeling guilty and like she had to be in his life despite, as we see in MJ, her realizing that outside of the hatred they had for the way things were in D12, they weren't compatible, their MORALS were different.

This rant is basically it. Its the HER or rants. Yes I agree. I must confess, I didn't take that other person seriously at all and mocked them in their comments, something along the lines of 'reading comprehension is dead.' (That's so mean what's wrong with me!!) I usually would feel bad about that but I think it's fair to say they were being mean for no reason (I actually still feel bad haha).

The only thing I really have to add is that the OG 'trauma bond' person seems to be using Gale's butthurt logic from the end of the last book. You know, when Gale is like "Katniss will end up with whoever she can't survive without." Which is so not the right thing to take away from the series. I thought it was common knowledge that this was incorrect, and it was put in to highlight once again that the entire series was about not just the war and the suffering but how it affected people. The whole thing is about emotions, and Katniss, the person whose emotions we know the best, is absolutely full of a kaleidoscope of emotions. It isn't so simple as to say 'Katniss chose Peeta because he was in the games with her.' Or 'Katniss chose Peeta because she was on the brink of death from depression.' No, Katniss chose Peeta because she felt so much for him. Because she was so deeply connected to him, as her friend, her partner, her teammate, even at times her enemy. She knew Peeta completely, and she liked what was there, that's why she chose him in the end. She saw him at his best and his absolute worst, but she wanted him anyway. That's love. I don't know how else to put it. But if any one of us is lucky enough to fall in love in this life, would we want to only be chosen at our bests? Why would I call that love? That's just infatuation. Love is the hard stuff.

[milfhandholder]

Redcliff headcanons bcs no one can stop me

Grell obviously fell first but kept it a secret because she just got out of a relationship (read: William) and isn't looking for a new one yet

However that all changed when Madame suddenly had the biggest sapphic revelation of all time (personally, I love seeing her as a lesbian with comphet but feel free to smoosh it around if you see her as bi / pan. I just know that this girl loves women)

Madame: what does it mean if I like someone whose gender expression is similar to yours?

Grell: you'd be gay, Angie

Madame, standing up: w a i t

Madame's very confident in her romancing expertise until Grell comes to the equation. At this point, they're very used to being affectionate with each other #girlythingz SO A GIRL IS PANICKING

Secretly, Madame thinks Grell's very cool in how unfazed she is with gorey stuff

Grell isn't cool actually, it's just the shoujo filter talking

The butler persona was definitely all on Madame, she's down bad since the beginning actually

They're not the healthiest couple on the block unfortunately. Like yes, they'd kill for each other but a big argument could make them kill each other instead

They don't say sorry either, just do a grand gesture and hope for the best

Madame is the one who likes to push Grell's buttons so when Grell's in a bad mood, she'd say something nasty in return and that's usually how they fight

Madame: your taste in men is horrible but I guess that's what happens when you're dead for so long

Grell: oh, like your sister?

They need to seek a couple therapist, I am so serious

As much as they love red, modern day wise, I think they'd have a different fashion style but still compliments each other. Madame is very business formal & the occasional sexy night outfits. Grell is just statement pieces

I like to think that if they met in a different time, they could be really sweet and shit but unfortunately that's not how it goes so we could only dream

They love gossiping so much

Grell laughs genuinely with Madame the most :(

They're like Drea and Eleanor from Do Revenge. A couple of besties who bring out the worst in each other but they do love each other!

Madame is the only person (other than Othello and sometimes Eric) who could make Grell a grumbling shy person

With how the relationship... started, Madame feels very comfortable confiding and ranting to Grell about everything and anything. Grell listens very tenderly because her wife has every reason to get mad at this rude man

Grell gives Madame a lot of nicknames. Some are normal (Angie and Ann), some are cringe in my opinion but unfortunately she's cringe like that

Madame: it's impossible to give you a nickname from your name

Grell: come on, you can do it. Try

Madame: ....Rellie-

Grell: actually, sweetheart and darling are fine

[siriuslysatorusimping]

Okay I thought of one lol - I don't love the I must hurt you to save you kinda tropes. They rarely feel resolved to my satisfaction, they make me cry, and I'm constantly sobbing "WHY CAN'T WE JUST FUCKING COMMUNICATE?!"

RAI, I CANNOT EXPRESS HOW HARD I AGREE.

BECAUSE FUCK'S SAKE. WORDS EXIST FOR A FUCKING REASON. AND IF YOU CAN'T/AREN'T WILLING TO COMMUNICATE WITH THAT PERSON, THEN DO. NOT. STAY. IN THE. RELATIONSHIP.

I HAVE RANTED A LOT AS USUAL, SO IT IS BELOW THE CUT

Now, the issue here is that it's human for miscommunication to happen. But the difference is trust. And not blind trust, but trust that's genuinely earned.

But, and this is literally just my personal opinion, most of the time, those tropes genuinely don't make sense. Their only purpose is usually for conflict and drama. Typically, they involve listening to someone the characters would never listen to on any other day. And then at the end of it, there's no growth, no development, just an, 'Oh, that thing that happened, and I forgive you, but I'm going to throw it in your face next time we fight.'

The most common one I see is, 'My parents hate you and threatened to take my inheritance/your parents hate me and threatened to take your inheritance, so I'm breaking up with you instead of talking to you and thinking about your actual happiness/desires because MONEY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING. OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN'T MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS, YOU STUPID CHILD.'

And tbh? That's so fucking insulting. If I were on the receiving end of being broken up with for that reason, I would feel so betrayed that the person genuinely thought I was shallow enough to care more about money than a living human. And part of me wouldn't want to be with them anymore knowing that they think so little of me.

I think a huge issue with these tropes is that the pacing is always off. It either feels too fast or too slow. Now, granted, pacing is hard to get right. But what ends up happening most of the time is that forgiveness happens with no consequences, or the angst is drawn out so far that it's exhausting to read. OR, you'll see the classic 'I started dating their best friend and destroyed their friendship'

ACTUALLY, ADD THAT TO MY LIST OF HATED TROPES: We broke up, so I immediately started dating their attractive best friend because they were sweet and caring and there for me while I was getting over a super horrible heartbreak and all of my friends who told me not to do it are just bad friends and don't care about me and don't want me to be happy

Now, to end my rant, I'll say this: there's nothing inherently wrong with these tropes or the things I just described. Those stories are hugely popular. And there's a reason for that. But it just leaves a huge opportunity for stories with healthy relationships that have the growth and development and trust that isn't blind but built.

[velmashaircut]

List of unpopular opinions about everything because I’m bored:

I don’t like enemies to lovers because I think it’s written awfully most of the time. From what I've seen, enemies to lovers is usually just character A hating someone and character B pretends to hate them back or secretly likes them. Other times the 'enemies' part of the dynamic isn't nearly as long as it should be. I also don't it when enemies to lovers is used in settings like office environments, having an enemy at work is silly, it's more like you dislike or are rivals. I think the dynamic becomes boring when the enemies become lovers too. Most of my criticisms with the trope is due to poor writing, if I find a story where its written well, I would probably change my mind.

I don't like Sheila from The Inspector Calls, despite her being the best person in her family. What she did to Eva Smith did was the least worst, but that’s why I don’t like her. It was so avoidable - she got Eva smith fired for looking better than her in a dress. It’s such a dumbass reason that could have prevented everything else from happening.

I lowkey do not like Saitama (ik I'm getting hung drawn quartered for this). I don't hate him or anything but I'm more interested in the other OPM characters than I am in him.

I also dislike the Tsaritsa in Genshin and I do not want to work alongside her to go against Celestia, which really sucks because that seems to be what the game is leading too. The Fatui overall are an evil organisation, we see the Fatui do awful things more frequently than Celestia, and its infuriating to see them get a slap on the wrist for their crimes most of the time. Just because the Fatui apparently have a good end goal (is burning away the old world even a good thing?) it doesn't mean I want to side with them. Speaking of Genshin, I hope the game ends after Khaenri'ah, I don't want to go to new worlds or anything like that.

The weather in the UK is not bad.

I like Jojo’s Karma more.

I do not like people who are seen as the ‘child’ in a friend group. They’ve always pissed me off, probably because they are the most liked and that makes me jealous.

People only care Aaron Taylor Johnson was groomed cause they think he’s attractive.

Fanfic readers and writers are both entitled and annoying.

This is more of a mini rant but I hate it when a celebrity gets exposed for something and everyone is suddenly like ‘I’m not surprised they seemed like the type’ or ‘I always had a funny feeling about them…’ like no you didn’t. Yeah that celebrity sucks and probably deserves the backlash they are receiving, but let’s not parented you were on step ahead and knew all along they sucked.

I like sitting at the back of a car, even if it’s cramped. Idk why everyone wants to call shotgun, sitting at the back gets more privacy and less responsibilities. I actively volunteer to sit at the back sometimes, people think I'm just being nice letting them at the front but nope. The back of the car is my sanctuary.

[jeremy-queere]

Been asking around random bmc blogs to see what their favorite bmc song is. So you’re next! A full rant and everything would be nice >:)

I'm answering this 3 weeks late. sorry. don't @ me

Shoot, okay, that's a toughie. I think I'm going to go by "odds of me skipping when it comes up on shuffle" rules. So unfortunately, that immediately knocks out many of them - The Play (obviously...), Do You Wanna Hang; both Christine songs (SORRY CHRISTINE I HAVE NO EXCUSE) (i just like singing dude songs ;-;); the instrumentals. Do You Wanna Ride may well be called Do You Wanna Singreallyhigh :/

More Than Survive is the best for when I want to sing along loudly and flex my "acting" but it's also a million years long and starts out with porn, making it harder to play in mixed company.

Two Player Game - OK, so this one is good but. But. If we're including the big band version in our ranking, it might manage to eke its way out on top.

I'm calling this an unfair advantage since the other songs, if similarly arranged, might also slap this hard. Might.

Michael in the Bathroom and the Pants Song are on the same tier for me (SORRY AGAIN!!!) in that they are both very easy to get stuck in your head, you gotta get weirdly heartfelt singing them, and you really gotta be in the mood for them specifically. MitB is iconic for a reason but I'll skip it more often than not if I want to keep my energy up (which is usually the only reason I listen to music whoops). Loser Geek Whatever is also in here if it's the Broadway version. I know in my heart that the Christine songs also belong here.

Halloween, Smartphone Hour, Pitiful Children, and hell, Be More Chill Pt. 1 - These are all bops that are really plot important but that also means you gotta be willing to engage with the story if you want to jam out about it. I dunno if that makes sense? But like you can't sing along to Halloween without paying attention to what's going on with Jake's house during the song. (Sync Up may also fit in here but like. it doesn't go quite as hard as these 4)

Upgrade also fits in with the above category because um. Sorry to all again but. I used to love the first half and then just skip it as soon as the SQUIP verse was done. Again, for singing-along hype building.

So I think that narrows us down to Voices in My Head and the SQUIP Song.

Voices in My Head is an all-mood all-ages fun ditty. It's got heart, dammit. Does anyone not like this one?

But the SQUIP song......... That's the moneymaker, I think. I used to not be able to get my voice low enough, but either I've gotten better at it or I've stopped caring. This one is just fucking FUN. BUT. But but but but. But it has to be the original cast recording.

The Broadway version, someone send me an ask and I'll give my opinions on it. tl;dr they cut out a section of the song for NO reason.

HOWEVER, ON THE FIRST HAND. I have incorporated the Broadway version's little fake audio glitches into it whenever I sing the SQUIP Song. That's good shit.

If you were asking me what my fav is to listen to and not to sing along to, I couldn't tell you. If BMC is playing and I'm not singing along, there is something wrong with me. I don't say that jokingly. That's literally how I realize I'm in a bad mood/really tired is if I'm not singing in the car lol.

[ask-serendipity-sky]

https://www.tumblr.com/serendipitous-sky/721067916878118912/pjms-made-a-joke-about-charts-and-v-solos-started?source=share

defending jm by making vile hashtags in return to one of his friends (idc what your opinion of th is, as far as we know they're still friends), how does that work? bc now y'all look just as stupid and hateful as the kths and tkks that started the hashtags towards jm.

ik that a pjm joking about charts is nowhere near as bad as what these people do to jm, but why do y'all (the ones hating on others and provoking nasty solos/fans) purposely set jm up and then when you see the nasty and vile bs in your quotes leave that twt up and laugh at how mad they are while they harass and defame jm??

y'all (once again, the ones doing this) are just as bad as dumbass armys that poke fun at blinks/jnk or use jm achievements for fan wars or involve him for no reason when everyone knows that those deranged fcks are obsessed with jm and will take any chance to be as vile as possible to him.

then when those same nasty hashtags that were used today are spread by blinks, other kpop fandoms, western stans, locals, and antis, they sit there and act clueless and refuse to take accountability for their own bs actions. and you wonder why jm isn't as active now?

also fck jjks (jk solos/agakes) for involving jk for no fcking reason to drag th and jm, thus getting him dragged by both pjms and kths.

i'm not saying don't defend or call out the hate against jm, bc lord knows armys won't unless it involved th (or any other member) so they can make it about OT7 or VMK and then start claiming it's only a solo issue and not army letting cultists and jm antis run rampant in this fandom, but still you don't need to set jm up for hate.

if you wanna giggle at chart positions or others' misfortune, invest in a private account or honestly just shut the fck up (at least online).

it's already hard to support and love jm in this fandom without being attacked or harassed, y'all don't need to make it worse.

Hi anon,

Ah your ask is a little on the confusing side for me. Or maybe it's my anger that doesn't let me read. Maybe. But I feel like you contradict yourself and answer yourself in a lot of parts.

People will come at me like usual but that's how things are, I guess. My thoughts may change later but right now this is what my brain feels:

You acknowledge that what pjms initially said is nothing compared to what the kths and jjks said yesterday (and always). Ok.

Do you really think pjms care about looking stupid if it means defending Jimin when army always brushes it aside? But I didn't know defending Jimin was called looking stupid. For real.

You think pjms are setting up Jimin for hate? Really? The problem is not the other haters, maybe? You do state that other deranged people take any chance to hate on Jimin. Ok. Like tkkrs today with the interactions that we saw between Jimin and Jungkook.

If Jimin exists these people consider him a threat. And they should. Jimin is the best. So the blame is not pjms. Its the insecurities of the other solos and anger from other fandoms. And the fact that twitter is a dumpster.

It would be hypocritical of me to say that pjms should not have done that and they should have just reported. I'm kinda done being the bigger person when it comes to the hate Jimin gets and the way army and fans have normalized this. So pjms did what they had to do. It wasn't nice but it's what was done.

I support Jimin like crazy and state that in my blog all the time and people come and send angry rants like children asking why I only love him and not their favorite.

And you know what? I don't care about their opinion or harassing asks or their wannabe guilt trips they try to send me on. I don't care about army, other Jikookers, solos, whoever. I only care what I want and I care about Jimin. And what I want is to love and support Jimin. And I will say that over and over. If someone has a problem with my opinion, they can block me. And of course people have a problem with others loving Jimin or defending Jimin. Because it's Jimin.

If you want to scream to the world that you love and support Jimin, do it. Why would you be scared of people who hide behind the screen? If someone says something, block them and continue professing your love for Jimin.

That works for me and I don't find it hard at all.

Thanks for stopping by.