#this is what I mean when I say you shouldn't only read ya literature

[penelopelima]

I find it fascinating that, still today, you can't escape this take that everyone now seems to agree on. "The Hunger Games was about the horrors and the oppression, and Suzanne Collins intended to criticize the media by subverting romantic tropes and highlighting how they focus on easy, star-crossed lovers stories instead of the deeper thematic elements at play. Oh, and the movie is responsible for focusing too much on romance, the books are nothing like that."

Be honest with me. Do you really think that intention was well executed? I mean, sure, some of that was there. But it falls really short. Sure, the Capitol exploited their fake love-affair and they had to play into it to survive. Except that no, that was only on Katniss' part, Peeta was crushing from the beginning, and she ended up reciprocating.

There ended up being a very real romance arc that vertebrated the trilogy. The characters involved are very preoccupied with their interpersonal drama, their hurt feelings, their miscomunication, their sacrifice for each other. Come on, Katniss prioritizes saving him over challenging the system all the time. She only commits to the rebellion as a result of seeing him reject her due to brainwashing, in a sort of "well if you don't love me I guess I'll just die then". In fact, the only character within the triangle that was actually more interested in overthrowing the dictatorship ended up, in true American media fashion, being villainized for it, his characterization becoming very much an unsympathetic caricature of the typical "you become what you once hated" trope. Which was unneeded, by the way, since you already had the full-circle revolution trope and the leader of the revolution who is deep down just as bad as the dictator trope. Like, Suzanne, you could have done with a bit of nuance by not making every main supporter of overthrowing the Capitol a crazed maniac.

The real message of the Hunger Games books was very much "you can disagree with an unfair system, but the moment your motivations go beyond pure survival or protecting loved ones, you may just become an extremist."

You will see this take of The Hunger Games not being about romance so often that it almost manipulates your memories about reading it, tbh. So many people say there was no love triangle. False, there was. I've seen even some people say that Katniss and Gale had only platonic feelings for each other. False, Gale was pretty clearly interested in her from the beginning, and Katniss contemplated the idea of a relationship with him several times throughout the books. Why is everyone saying that the books had no triangle, and that this was a marketing ploy for the movie exclusively? Have you collectively decided to forget the text?

I read them when they came out, while I was a teen, and I still found the romance arc endlessly frustrating and truly anticlimatic. The weakest part of the story. So, I get that Suzanne Collins might have had that intention in mind when writing, but she could have been much more groundbreaking by actually making the romance purely fabricated for the sake of talk shows and sponsors. Instead of dragging that "love triangle and fake relationship but deep down real relationship angst and pining", which really watered down the tone. You can't say there's romance subversion when the romance can be accurately summarized in ao3 tags.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with writing or reading romance. I just cannot for the life of me fathom why so many people are denying its existence in the books, or downplaying its importance in the narrative.

[antisociallilbrat]

We Need To Talk About It

Buckle up boys, this isn't one of my fun fandom discussion posts but I want to talk about it.

Before we proceed, Tw: for mentioned racism and csa

So I came across this tiktoker who read It by Stephen King and said verbatim "You should not read it" and then proceed to list reasons why. He has since corrected this but his point of 'it's not crazy to question why this was written' still stood. I want to talk about how this harmful to writers and just the future of fiction in general. Also I'm not giving out the name of this tiktoker because I don't want any hate being sent his way.

Two of his driving points for 'why you shouldn't read It' was the racism throughout the book and the infamous sewer scene concerning the kids. While I have not read all of the book, I am aware and have read parts of what he's talking about. And if you have read all of It and want to contribute to this post, please do, even if you don't agree with me and want to put your own input.

Let's tackle the racism in the book. Mike Hanlon was a black boy (one of the only poc in Derry if I remember correctly) growing up in a small town in the 1950's. This tiktoker's issues stems from him feeling like King 'overused' the n-word. For me personally, writing slurs that are not mine to reclaim, such as the n-word, I usually try to avoid writing in fiction but when an author does it write it in fiction (keyword there) it's much like an actor playing a racist character, at least imo. The actor themselves are not racist but the character they are playing are, just like when writers write fictional racist characters. That is what was happening in the book It. Also it's worth a note that It is intended to be horrifying and King is known for not just using 'monsters' to unsettle the reader but also real everyday horrible things. Hate crimes, violence on minorities, racism, ect, he writes these things to make the reader uncomfortable on purpose. It's a horror novel, that's the point. Other genres this could be called into question when the point of the book isn't to, ya know...scare you.

Now on to the sewer scene. This was probably the biggest point for this tiktoker on not reading It, and I just felt like they kinda just missed the point of this scene. The entire point of that scene was to signify the loss of innocence of the Loser's Club after their first battle with It. It was not written in a 'sexy' manner and it was written again, to make you uncomfortable. This tiktoker's statement that really bothered me was "we should question why this was written" and...you really don't have to. It's a horror novel, you being uncomfortable by that scene was the goal plus the deeper meaning behind it. And the implication of 'questioning why fictional writers write certain things' is so harmful because if this was to be the majority mindset, it wouldn't just stop with scenes like this. There's also the fact it almost sounds prosecutory and literature and books as a whole in the U.S. are already under attack and mindsets like this just fuel that fire.

Moving on, let's talk about Bev real quick. Look I don't like how King writes women for the most part but he's always kinda...written them as 'women written by men' and I just chop that up to bad writing. That's very prevalent with how Bev is written in It- but bad writing is just that, bad writing.

A side note, things like manifestos or harmful agendas should 100% be questioned, I'm only talking fictional works here.

So here's the thing at the end of the day, authors don't owe you trigger warnings (or so they say but that's a deeper topic I don't want to talk about rn) but if you are aware of your triggers there are tools to help you avoid them. Read reviews, ask a friend who's read the book, or google it. Goodreads has helped me avoid a couple of my triggers in books I was interested in. If you don't like or can be triggered by disturbing things King probably isn't the author for you.

This idea of 'questioning writers' or 'holding them accountable' needs to stop in its tracks. I fear the day if this ever becomes the majority mindset. Odds are this would lead to the questioning of 'why do people enjoy reading this, should we judge them?' and the answer is no. Some people enjoy feeling disturbed or scared by a book just like some people enjoy laughing or crying because of the book they're reading. It's honestly not that deep.

Also tiktoker idk if you're active in the It fandom on tumblr (im going to guess not) but again, this is no hate to you, I just deeply disagree with you.

Last statement: King was high off cocaine when he wrote It.

[hazydaaze]

An analysis of the Bold Type that I need to get off my chest (it'll be worth it, I promise)

I studied English literature at university, and it has always been instinctive for me to analyse characters, storylines, bigger pictures and under the surface tensions in film & tv. Discussing emotions, motivations and themes with my gf and my pals late at night is one of my favourite pastimes ever and I love everything to do with filmography and art ahhhh. (I wrote my dissertation on David Bowie & The Artistry of Sexuality, ya feel me?)

The Bold Type isn't filmography at all, but I think Jane Sloan and Jacqueline Carlyle hit different for me, being a queer woman in my 20s and a full-time writer. I can't really explain why. I guess there are a lot of queer female characters in film & tv that don't really feel inherently queer, and even as two identifying straight women Jane and Jacqueline felt queer to me. Their connection and understanding of each other was authentic and quite complex. I think they had potential to be something that we'd never seen before in mainstream media, because of their age difference and life experiences. I thought that was so compelling and so important to talk about and to give a recognised space to.

There is one thing that struck me most about them and it's insane to me that I haven't seen a lot of analysis on it, so it's the point of this post.

To my knowledge the show or actors haven't delved too deeply into it either, and given what went down I don't understand why people AREN'T talking about it. I wanted to bring it up. Btw, this post contains spoilers.

***Sexual abuse trigger warning***

In season 1, we learn that Jacqueline is the victim of rape, and the only person she has told about it is her husband, Ian. Given that she mentions that they've been married for around 19 years and the assault happened before they met, we can assume Jacqueline has been carrying the weight of what happened to her for over two decades. During all that time she didn't talk about it with anyone else, not a single other person.

And then Tiny Jane comes along. Jane Sloan, the big swing writer who just wants to write meaningful stories that help other women and girls that need it, like she did growing up. She fucks up a lot on the way and slowly begins discarding her judgemental opinions as she grows. But when she is at her best she has genuine compassion and empathy for people, and despite her reservations, Jacqueline gives her the opportunity to write about the story of a rape survivor and performance artist. She isn't aware, at the time, what that means for her own trauma or her own acceptance of it. But she does it anyway, because she sees something in Jane and she has seen it there from the beginning.

Jane starts to write and, as we know, in the most beautiful and compelling moment at the season 1 finale, Jacqueline is confronted with what happened to her. She stands in Central Park holding these weights, and you can see the crushing pain in her eyes as the realisation descends down on her. She shares a look with Jane, and a moment of understanding passes between them at what this means.

Despite all this, she lets Jane capture her trauma. She lets her publish her untold experience of her rape from two decades gone. She lets millions of people see her story in writing, with Jane Sloan's name printed above it. She re-lives and faces up to the harsh reality of that pain and that truth, through Jane.

Can you even imagine the trust you must have in someone to do that? The sheer love that took, for Jacqueline to give Jane her voice and her truth, with all its painful and hard repercussions?

This storyline is the boldest part of the Bold Type. It's the most honest and the most authentic. It captures the raw emotion of Jacqueline, and of Jane, and the two characters really see each other for who they are. It's one of the reasons why their relationship is so central to the other's storyline.

We don't ever see Jane truly unpick in detail what Jacqueline did for her. It spoke so many volumes and ... well, isn't that what love is?

It's this storyline that sets the tone for their relationship over the course of the show. Jacqueline sacrifices herself for Jane again and again. She publishes the article about the lack of accessible healthcare at Safford and gets fired for doing so, purely so Jane can afford to freeze her eggs. Jacqueline says there were a lot of other things that contributed to it, but Jane knows her article was the final straw, the point of no return.

Over a decade of pouring everything she could give into Scarlet Magazine and it’s readers, only to be gone in a second. All for Jane.

And again, in season 4, in the few real moments we are given between them, one of their final interactions is Jacqueline giving Jane the go-ahead to explore a story of potential abuse at States & Nations, a company Ian is associated with. Ian literally asks Jacqueline to stop pursuing the story, due to the sexual relationship he had with the source when he and Jacqueline were separated. When Jane challenges Jacqueline over her reasoning for pulling the story, she asks her to give the story a chance. Jacqueline lets her, knowing full well that it could prove irreparably damaging to her marriage and her family, and she does it anyway.

Jacqueline chooses the truth, over her career and over her marriage. She chooses Jane. As humans, there isn't much more you can give to someone else. I’m wracking my brains trying to think of a way Jacqueline could portray her love for Jane more, and I’m all out of ideas.

I want to reiterate again how insane it is to me that none of this is really acknowledged, or at least not nearly as much as it should be amongst the show, its creators and its viewers, Jacqueline continually falls on her sword for Jane (weird analogy, but she does) and it is repeatedly glossed over. Their relationship is quickly dismissed as a "mother Jane never had" or a simple "boss/employee" power dynamic, and it seems so hollow, unjust and sorry - so unbelievably boring - in contrast to the experiences they have shared together and the sacrifices they have made.

I understand Jacqueline’s character was based on Cosmopolitan Editor in Chief, Joanna Coles, and therefore it makes sense that this queerness to her relationship with Jane was not intended. However, it’s there. Everything I mentioned in the post happened on the show in canon.

In 2021, the possibility that these two women could have romantic or sexual feelings towards each other shouldn't be a stretch. If either of these women were male characters with this much intertwined investment, high stakes and sacrifice, there would be no doubt they would be endgame. They would run away, have the hottest sex, all the while their reputations would be forever ruined in the name of love. And we, as viewers, would celebrate it without question - we would never dismiss it.

The concept of what they are, and what they can be as two women should be able to live and thrive. It should be given a beating heart. In the very least, the reality of it should be on the table and up for debate. But for many viewers, and the show’s creators, it just isn’t. And here lies the problem.

Jane and Jacqueline have such a beautiful dynamic, it is so deep and soul-wrenching. How can we ever limit what these two women are and what they would do for each other?

I really hope that one day we can see a relationship like theirs given the queer space it deserves. Because it would've been the bold thing (and the right thing) to do.

I'm going to publish a longer and more in-depth article about this on Medium, because as I said, analysing is my favourite pastime and I can't stop doing it. But for now, this is all I can manage.

Edit: Read my published Medium article.

Here's to Jane and Jacqueline and what could've been.

[xhannahbananax03]

The Boyfriend Diaries - Act I - Chapter 1

Warnings: Implications of Sexual content, Extreme gore, violence. If you are easily trigged by any of these things, PLEASE DO NOT READ

Words: 1.9k

MASTERLIST

She was sat across from a cute boy in a small diner, wearing a big smile on her face. "So Dorothy, what's your favorite subject right now?" The boy asked, his name was Ben.

"Oh, I prefer biology and chem. lab." She smiled, of course it was her favorite subject. She got to learn about the chemicals she would steal when the teacher wasn't looking. Just little things like some chloroform here, some bleach there, the occasional disinfectant.

"I actually prefer literature..." Ben said a little awkwardly, rubbing the back of his neck shyly.

"I have absolutely no pleasure in the stimulants in which I sometimes so madly indulge. It has not been in the pursuit of pleasure that I have periled life and reputation and reason. It has been the desperate attempt to escape from torturing memories, from a sense of insupportable loneliness and a dread of some strange impending doom." She spoke up staring at him intently, "Edgar Allen Poe." She finished softly.

"Oh..." He chuckled awkwardly, before casting his eyes up to the approaching waitress. She was dressed in a bright and annoying pink and blue outfit, the same one all the other female staff was wearing.

"What can I get for ya!" She said in a loud and cheery voice. Before "Dorothy" had a chance to speak up and tell the older woman to stop being so obnoxious, Ben told her his order.

"Can I get the chicken salad and the green shake?" He asked politely, smiling up at the woman who's name tag read, "Bethany".

Ugh.... Dorothy thought to herself, he's a healthy eater... "I'll just get some fries and a Sprite" she told Bethany with an annoyed smile.

The woman's face fell slightly before she huffed and frowned, "sure, it'll be out in 15." She said with a hint of anger in her voice before quickly turning around and walking off.

About an hour later Dorothy and Ben walked out of the diner hand in hand, even though she was annoyed and his hands were oddly clammy, she stuck with it. She had to. Only a little big longer. She kept telling herself.

"So where do you wanna go now?" Ben asked her, a smile on his face unaware of his impending doom.

She squeezed his hand tighter and took a deep breath before slapping a smile on her face. "It's a surprise, just follow me." She said walking down the sidewalk and towards the small dirt road back in the woods that led to an old shut down factory. The same place she'd been staying for almost a month.

"Ok if you say so." He laughed and walked beside her, still holding her hand. Now's your chance. She told herself.

After a bit of walking, the pair finally made it to the beginning of the path, where he stopped walking and just stood. She turned around a panic beginning to bubble inside her, "What's wrong?" She asked innocently, trying to keep her cool.

He chuckled lowly, looking down at the ground as one of his brown hiking boots kicked around a rock. "I know what your doing..." He said softly, not yet looking at her.

"What do you mean? Do you know this place?" Crap she thought, might have to do it right here... That's probably the last thing she wanted, but if it had to happen, it had to happen.

"Don't play coy with me sweetheart..." He smirked up at her before taking a step forward and wrapping an arm around her waist, "you're taking me to the old Mill to shack up, aren't you?" He asked a smile in his voice. But not a sweet, gentle smile, more like a predator lurking just beyond the surface, and it made her heart pound beneath her chest.

She giggled softly, trying to cover up her fear of getting caught and her fear of something much more dark happening. "You caught me..." She said flirtatiously looking up at him.

He leaned down to kiss her lips but she leaned back in response, "let's get there first, then you can kiss me." She giggled pushing away from him and turning back down the path.

She frowned to herself and let out a shaky breath. She heard the pounding of feet behind her and she wanted to run forward in return, but instead she put a fake smile on her face as she felt an arm wrap around her waist and pull her closer to the warm body of her date, Ben.

Eventually they made it to the run down Mill, inside she had everything set up, in one room a dusty old couch and in another closed off room, a clear tarp on the floor, chains hanging from the ceiling, and a table with things like cleaning supplies, gloves and, knifes. She wasn't too much into torture, but she would have to hack up the body and bury it in several locations. So even if the cops did go looking, they'd never find all of it.

Walking into the old and rusty front door, she led him towards the couch and he sat down, almost immediately reaching out for her, "you wait here while I go get ready ok?" She winked at him really trying to sell it.

He leaned back and spread his legs, "I'll be here." He said with a smirk, making her cringe, but it was dark so hopefully he didn't notice.

She smiled down at him and turned around walking to the closed door. Behind it, a crime waiting happen. She didn't just do the things she did for no reason, she always had a reason. She liked to think of it as justice.

Walking into the room, she closed the door and let out a heavy sigh before getting to work. First she stripped down into her underwear and put on a self-made hazmat suit of sorts. She put on a pair of black rubber gloves and a pair of socks.

She walked to the table to double check she had everything she needed when a loud bang came from the door, she jumped back and ran towards it, "just a minute!" She shouted, looking around the room one last time before standing behind the door and turning off the light.

"Come in!" She shouted loudly. The door slowly creaked open and in stepped Ben, his hand immediately flying out in search for a light switch, "don't!" She squeaked out not ready for everything to be seen. That would just make this that much harder.

His hand fell back to his side and he completely stepped into the room, closing the door behind him. "Dorothy?" He said quietly in a creepy manner. She shuddered but stayed still and quiet, she needed him just a few more steps into the room before she could jump him. "Where are ya?" He asked stepping further into the room.

This was her shot, probably her only shot and she had to take it, she unfolded the chloroform covered rag in her hand and moved quickly towards the light switch before flicking it on, "what the-" were the only two words he was able to get out before she was on him.

She jumped into his back and immediately shoved the rag over his mouth and nose, he screamed into it and reached his hands back grabbing for her hair only to pull off the dark black wig and hold it in his hands.

He struggled for a little while longer, before inevitably passing out, falling onto the old cracked pavement face first. She got off of him and stretched her back, "put up quite the fight there Benny..." She mumbled to his limp form.

She dragged his heavy body over to the chains and sat him in the chair below them, she huffed out a breath before tugging his arms above his head and wrapping and locking the chains tightly around his wrists.

In the corner of the room was a big metal barrel full of wood and old newspapers covered in gasoline, she lit a match and threw it in before throwing the wig, their clothes, and the rag into the flames. She quickly attached a hose to the old sink in the room and turned on the water before spraying Ben down.

After a few minutes he came to, he still was out of it, but he was awake and ready to be charged for his crimes, "Benjamin Dowle..." She said pacing in front of him with a folder in her hands, "I'm Riley... Lovely to meet you." She said not looking up at him.

"How do you know my real name?" He shivered, "I changed my last name after..." He trailed off a dark expression taking over his face as he stared down at the ground.

"After what Ben?" Riley asked staring up at him, "you know, if you can't talk about it, you shouldn't have done it." She said before turning back to the table and grabbing a knife, his eyes widened and he started pulling on the chains, "I wouldn't if I were you, you yank to hard and the rafters will come down on you. Giving you a more painful death than I will."

He started panting but was done moving, "You're gonna kill me!" He shouted out the panic finally hitting him, "You're crazy! You can't do that!" He shouted at her starting to scream.

"Go for it. Scream. No one can hear you Ben." She said loudly, talking over his cry's, "now, shall we start? You're originally from Oklahoma... Rich parents... Blah, blah, blah..." She stared intently at the page running her finger tip over the words written there, "ah, here it is!" She said gleefully, "a few months ago, a young girl in Tulsa, around your age, went missing around the time you and your family moved up here. Says here, she was last seen with you."

"What? I don't know what you're talking about! Now let me go!" He yelled at her almost accusingly. She tsked him and walked towards him with the knife, drawing a straight line up his leg and towards his thigh before she slightly dug it into the meaty flesh there.

He screamed out in pain, "Stop! Please God! Stop!" He screamed out. She did as he asked and stopped but left the knife there, he cried silently for a second before dropping his head, "I killed her... I wasn't meaning too... She just- she just made me so mad." He whimpered out.

"Where's her body Ben?" She asked softly looking at him, pulling out the knife. He gave her the address and hung there, "I'm gonna have to kill you now." She said almost sympathetically. He began screaming and begging for her to let him go, which she never enjoyed. It brought her back to the night where she was the victim. But she had to, this needed to happen.

She decided to make it quick, the sound of his pleas bouncing off the cement walls and giving her a headache, she pulled out her father's pistol before planting a bullet in the boys head. "Sorry Benny, today was the day you faced your judgement, and just like you, I'll face it one day too..." She whispered to his limp body hanging from the ceiling.

She didn't do what she did for no reason, for her it was justice for the poor girl that he murdered.

[callioope]

Hi! So I read your harry and Ginny are perfect for each other rant and I feel ya! That bit about haphazard comments from an author who wants to stay relevant...Thanks for that. I needed that. Somehow the creator telling me my OTP is shit did stuff to me. But you said something about being instigated by the actress who played Hermione? Will you elaborate Please? Also I think she said Hermione and ron shouldn't be together. so Hermione should find someone else (who is not dating my baby

Hello!! Glad you love Harry & Ginny, too!! They really do suit each other so well.

I do often think HP fans can be rather harsh towards JRK – she is just a person, after all, and prone to mistakes like the rest of us. That being said, when a person has such a huge platform like Rowling does, they sort of *have* to put some extra care into what they say and how they say it. And how she’s talked about Ron & Hermione really irks me. (also the dumbledore & johnny depp stuff but THAT is for another time & place)

Okay so what I meant about stuff being “instigated” by Emma: the comments about Ron and Hermione appeared in an interview between Emma and Rowling, and in my (apparently inaccurate) memory, I thought Emma had first brokered the idea of Ron and Hermione not being right for each other.

Under the cut because per usual I’ve rambled.

I just googled the interview and it turns out Rowling sort of brings up the subject first. Here’s the conversation:

Watson: I thought we should discuss Hermione… I’m sure you’ve heard this a million times but now that you have written the books, do you have a new perspective on how you relate to Hermione and the relationship you have with her or had with her?

Rowling: I know that Hermione is incredibly recognizable to a lot of readers and yet you don’t see a lot of Hermiones in film or on TV except to be laughed at. I mean that the intense, clever, in some ways not terribly self-aware, girl is rarely the heroine and I really wanted her to be the heroine. She is part of me, although she is not wholly me. I think that is how I might have appeared to people when I was younger, but that is not really how I was inside.

What I will say is that I wrote the Hermione/Ron relationship as a form of wish fulfillment. That’s how it was conceived, really. For reasons that have very little to do with literature and far more to do with me clinging to the plot as I first imagined it, Hermione with Ron.

Watson: Ah.

Rowling: I know, I’m sorry, I can hear the rage and fury it might cause some fans, but if I’m absolutely honest, distance has given me perspective on that. It was a choice I made for very personal reasons, not for reasons of credibility. Am I breaking people’s hearts by saying this? I hope not.

Watson: I don’t know. I think there are fans out there who know that too and who wonder whether Ron would have really been able to make her happy.

Rowling: Yes exactly.

Watson: And vice versa.

Rowling: It was a young relationship. I think the attraction itself is plausible but the combative side of it… I’m not sure you could have got over that in an adult relationship, there was too much fundamental incompatibility. I can’t believe we are saying all of this – this is Potter heresy!

In some ways Hermione and Harry are a better fit…

(Source)

So, what I remembered as instigating was Emma saying “I think there are fans out there who know that too and who wonder whether Ron would have really been able to make her happy.” To be a little more fair to Emma, Rowling had sort of started that conversation on her own. 

Until that interview, Rowling had (at least from what I had seen and read online) always been super supportive of Ron & Hermione. And even in that interview, you can see her admit that Ron/Hermione had always been the original plan. Before book 6 (I think it was before?) came out, there was an infamous interview where she called Harry/Hermione fans “delusional” – I think that was the MuggleNet interview. That caused an uproar, and rightly so, I think, because calling fans of your book delusional really isn’t wise (however much I may have agreed with her at the time… heh. Well, I was young then)

I’ve always thought Ron & Hermione was a foregone conclusion, from the very moment Ron saved Hermione from the troll using the spell that she helped him learn. That seemed quite poetic to me. (There are many other examples of Ron and Hermione complementing one another and that’s off-topic here.)

So it’s very frustrating for a writer to renege on her own writing, to try to negate what’s canon. And there are also many wonderful things about Ron and Hermione’s relationship; it seems unfair to simplify it as merely combative, as she did in this interview. It also seems to be forgetful of Hermione’s own shortcomings, and somewhat bashing on Ron. 

Also, the idea that people are trapped in the personalities they have when they are children – because the Harry Potter characters are only eighteen when the books end, discounting the epilogue – the idea that people don’t grow as they get older – that’s utter nonsense to me. I’m not the same person I was when I was eighteen, I have much more self-awareness (or I like to think that, at least? I try). I do think even by the end of TDH, Ron and Hermione have grown a lot and they aren’t the “combative” couple they were when the books started. (And why their first kiss in the books is so beautiful.) That’s the whole point of a coming-of-age story, isn’t it? Character growth. Learning. 

I think I’ve gone a little off topic here, but I hope I answered your question. It’s weirdly refreshing to talk about Harry Potter since it’s been so long since I’ve really done so. Thanks for the ask!

[therealvinelle]

Excellent post, I have a few points which may or may not be helpful.

First, one not-so-small addition the reading section: you are what you eat. If the literature you consume is homogenous, published recently, or all within the same genre, or all of it YA, odds are you're not going to improve much as a writer. By all means, read the novels you're into, but it's my recommendation to anybody whether they want to be a better writer or not to broaden their horizons. The classics are classics for a reason, older literature or literature from different parts of the world will confront you with people very different from yourself, and when you don't like something you learn you didn't like that, and you get to figure out why.

(I used to have a habit of... I want to call it a witty comparison-ism, the "he stood tall like a ship's mast, which is to say he was very rigid and silly-looking", "she had hair like a cocker spaniel who had entered a car wash, which left Dave, a dog owner and expert dog show groomer, with an inexplicable urge to find his brushes and shampoos. Smiling britishly as he tried to repress this unwelcome thought, he asked if she wanted to go for a w-a-l-k" type. You'll find it in my earlier writing on Ao3, even the first chapter of Nebuchadnezzar's Dream has traces of it.

I thought I was brilliant and so funny, until I read much better authors doing the same thing and hated it. I realized my writing was a thousand times better without. Thank you, British author who shall go unnamed.)

In that same vein: if you want to write people from a different period, or a specific culture, try the best you can to find literature from people who lived there. No amount of wikipedia, statistics, period shows, or general preconceptions of "what it was like" will help you as much as what the people who lived there thought of their world. (Important note: you can literally just Bridgerton it, that's fine too and your readers won't mind, but this particular bit of advice is for people who don't want to be writing Bridgerton.)

Now, a brand new section:

Be confident (and find a cheerleader or two)

I see this in fanfiction channels on discord, I scroll past it on reddit, I've received it in my DMs, I see it in author's notes. Authors have an idea, they want to write it, but is it a good idea? Should they do it? Will it get readers?

I regret to inform you that the reader gods are cruel and your story can be great, just fantastic but you're not netting any readers, just as unsalvageably bad fics will have tens of thousands of kudos. And no, self-advertising doesn't work, I follow authors who self-advertise better than social media reps at big companies and whose only faithful readers are their friends. You have to find sufficient joy in writing for your own sake, because the readers may never come.

I'm not immune to wanting praise and validation for my writing: however, I have the rare blessing of a cowriter whose opinion I respect, so I know anything we post has already passed that elusive "but is it good?" test, and for reader praise I have the lovely @franzias-cave. In that, additional readers lavishing comments and kudos are a happy bonus but not something I need to motivate myself. And this brings me to the headliner advice: get yourself a cheerleader. A friend you can discuss your writing with, whom you can share your joy with so it's not just you giving yourself pep talks until you run out of pep. If you don't have cheerleaders, my advice is to consider prewriting the story because it's much easier to remember you're writing for yourself when you're not checking your inbox every other hour and finding it's still empty.

Hopefully you will get readers too, but you really shouldn't rely on them for a myriad reasons (a very pertinent one being that if you do get readers, you're not guaranteed they'll be nice to you. Basically, if there's a large reddit community for your chosen fandom/subgenre/pairing, you'd best have thick skin.)

Yes, this was a discouraging few paragraphs, but I see so much advice on reddit and tumblr going, "The readers will come!!" or "Write for yourself!" and the repeated-ad-nauseam "Remember to advertise for yourself!" when the readers sometimes never come, writing for yourself is a lot easier said than done (and really only advice you need if you're wondering how to cope with not having readers, in which case it's the "just think positively!" of writing advice), and while I haven't tried to run statistics on this (and wouldn't rely much on any statistics presented to me as most fan-run surveys I see are poorly designed), I don't think there is a significant enough correlation between popular and well-advertised, or unpopular and poorly advertised fics, for the advice to be sound. I'd much rather give honest advice and realistic expectations.

I know practise is the one true way to get better at something: but what other tips do you have for others to improve their writing? What has worked for you? What hasn't?

How long have you (and Vinelle) been writing?

All my writing tips are here.

Generally though, here's a few things off the top of my head.

Just Do it

You got it, the only way to get better is practice, and that means sit down and write. Don't get intimidated by a blank page, something is better than nothing, but also don't be afraid to rewrite an entire thing if you need to.

Just sit down and do it.

Get Someone to Look at it, Get Their Real Opinion

Get someone to look at your work and ask for honest feedback. Ideally, this is someone whose writing you admire/think you can learn from. Regardless, though, you have to make it clear that you're not afraid of honest to god criticism and do actually want to improve.

A lot of people I see asking for advice substitute it for asking someone to a) validate their writing b) tell them only when they have a few typos. This encouragement is nice, crucial even, but it won't help you improve.

You have to be willing to be honest with yourself and have others be honest with you in turn.

Read Everything

Read things that are good, read things that are bad, think about why you find them to be good or bad.

What Doesn't Work

Any cheap trick that will tell you "all you need to be a good writer is to do A, B, and C, and always avoid D" if it was that easy, everyone would be Shakespeare.

Character sheets are nonsense. They turn whatever character you have into a 2-D pile of waffle. If a character is only a pile of traits, likes and dislikes, they fail to be real on a page. And you can almost always tell what quirky character came from a character sheet.

There are no golden dos or don'ts. Having a character more powerful than other characters isn't always bad. Having a character with 'flaws' doesn't always make them good and complex.

The Hero's Journey and other plot structures are helpful only to a limited degree. Yes, you need a climax and catharsis, but don't marry yourself to a particular outline and tell yourself that you can't stray from it because you have to follow the structure.

You got anything, @therealvinelle?

[oidheadh-con-culainn]

#also even if all YA books WERE popular US fantasy #this still not nearly specific enough to hate the whole genre #like not only is it an inaccurate and ignorant view it’s also just an argument that does not make sense #like you’re going to tell me that a well written fantasy novel by an American author has never been both popular and good? are you really? #alright everybody go home Americans can’t write good fantasy and if they do it won’t sell #and same for romance. and dystopia. #genres go through trends. most of the ya dystopia published in recent years is trying to copy the success of the hunger games. #most of the supernatural romance is trying to copy twilight. it’s literally just what happens because publishing is an industry. #I can critique YA all day long as long as the argument makes sense #but a lot of these arguments boil down to ‘women and teenage girls like it on tiktok therefore it’s bad’ #ya lit

(via @ghosthauntsthelibrary)

yeah i mean all generalisations are generalisations and generally the way tumblr talks about stuff is in the least charitable / positive way possible which is just. exhausting tbh

the reason i mentioned us-published YA fantasy in particular is because a lot of the generalisations i see about YA literature that *do* have a grain of truth in them are nevertheless *specific to that subgenre* and don't apply equally or at all to other genres within the category. and there is a lack of recognition that other YA exists. discussions about how YA is too "old" these days and full of sexy romance ignore that UK YA skews younger than US YA and that YA without romance exists, for example. discussions about magic systems in YA ignore the fact that non-fantasy YA exists. etc.

those critiques are always lacking in nuance and they are always too broad a generalisation, and "this subgenre does things i don't like" is valid grounds for not reading that subgenre, but not for saying it shouldn't exist. but i've just seen a slew of posts recently that made generalisations about all YA based on that specific subsection of it which is why i singled it out

(at this point i read enough YA and also am friends with enough YA authors that i can usually tell what book people are hyperbolically vagueblogging about, and you start to notice patterns)

PLUS there is a side issue of people constantly calling fantasy/sci-fi YA, particular when written by women, and this is also partially the result of treating "YA" and "fantasy" as though they're synonymous, which is the other reason this particular generalisation bugs me. i see so many posts about "YA authors" doing x,y and z on twitter and when i actually look at the thread, they're literally all adult SFF and romance authors and it's like. why are you blaming this on YA, come on bro, at least make half an effort

i will happily talk about the broader trends in YA that piss me off and have led to me reading less of it but the second Tumblr users start acting like "US-published YA fantasy that's popular on tiktok" = "all YA books" i switch immediately into YA Defence Mode bc honestly regardless of whether I agree with the critiques of more specific subgenres, this category is HUGE and has so much going on and we can't have a meaningful conversation about that until people get their heads out of their arses and acknowledge that fact

[delusion-of-negation]

"wow. okay." bro please don't read my phraseology as aggressive, people keep doing this no matter how many posts I make saying that I'm autistic and I'm in constant agony from slowly dying, I barely sleep and I'm grumpy, and tone is hard enough over text for the normies. people getting what I'm saying so backwards is annoying, so I tell them that they were wrong. it's not aggressive and I'm sorry it reads that way.

"I do think it’s possible for a character to be written badly."

this is where we're disagreeing. I explained it. you end it there - the post is about how you shouldn't do that. there is no inherently bad characteristics, only bad execution or ill-fitting contexts, and a critic's job (not yours, you're a random tumblr user idgaf, the post is about critics) is to explain why the character being written that way had a negative effect on this story. so many critics lately have been saying "she was rude. I don't like her. protagonists are supposed to be likable and relatable. this is bad writing." and that's the extent. and I mean the extent. that's all the depth. and that's pathetic. that's not how characters or stories work at all. some stories do rely on you being able to connect to and like the character - they want you to put yourself in their shoes, like them, enjoy being "in their company" so to speak, and that drives a lot of the emotional weight of the story, leaving it hollow for those who didn't connect (a lot of YA literature does this, superhero media often does, etc - if you don't put yourself in their shoes and find them quippy, charming, and blorbo, the emotional weight starts to get more and more hollow). that's the sentence a critic needs to be able to expand upon and express adequately. you're not acknowledging how that was my issue here, you're saying that there are inherently bad qualities to have in a character - specifically, being not worth investing in. that's not true at all. things like blackadder give us protagonists we can root against and also like in comedy, absolutely, and I prefer that personally, but we've also had quite a few (for example) british slapstick comedies with characters that you fundamentally aren't invested in - like, you don't even hate these guys, they're gross and weird, sure, but you just turn your brain off for half an hour while they get hit in the nuts, there's no investment in them deserving to get hit in the nuts, no moralising effort to make you truly think they deserve it (british comedy does not do that as much as american comedy anyway, especially not ones as old as this). I've barely thought about the show enough to remember its name, but there was one where these two guys wanted to go on a date, and over the course of the episode they got beaten up, mauled by dogs, and blew up their flat. at no point was I invested in seeing them succeed or fail, I wasn't supposed to be, their character traits were non-existent beyond whatever was most likely to get them hurt this next second. that isn't inherently bad writing, because the purpose of the show was not to make me invested in these two guys getting hurt, it was to make dumb puns and kick some dudes in the nuts for half an hour. the context in which the character exists matters for whether a particular feature is bad or not. so when you say that unlikable means you're not invested, you kick the ball further down the road - you say "okay, so you're right (if they were using it how you say) that it's not bad to be unlikable that way, BUT if you're unlikable THIS way then that is always bad" when I was specifically saying that it bothers me that critics fall back on catchphrases of fake rules, instead of elaborating on why a particular feature wasn't working here. what about this story makes it unenjoyable when you don't relate, and what about this character or writing style made it hard to do so? of course there are trends - generally a character will work better if they're likable because that casts a wider net and doesn't alienate average joe who's been sold moralising fiction his whole life, and it means you can afford to fail other things because the audience is rooting for the protag and that can carry you, like generally you don't want to "show your audience 4" you want to "show them 2+2". for the most part, as a writer, you can sail by thinking of those as sort of unwitten and mostly true rules. as a critic, you need to be able to assess a story much deeper than repeating a mantra that's only really useful if helping an author spot common ways their story could flop.

edit: hence the ought/is comparison. I thought that would get my point across. this is a post against rules and categories and quick catchphrases. and for seeing stories as a web of moving parts that might fit together and might not, and a critic's job is to analyse it thoroughly, not to shrug it off by saying it didn't tick the boxes. if a critic can't ask "what is the thing trying to achieve?" I do think it's lazy critique and ultimately not helpful to the audience.

the two sentences "this character isn't an ideal protagonist for this book that relies on us liking them to drive emotional weight, which leaves much of the book hollow because they're really unlikable" and "protagonists are supposed to be likable, this one is not likable, so the book sucks" are different. the latter is incorrect. and lazy. the protagonist of berenice is not a likable person - he's gloomy, he's obsessive, he literally steals someone's teeth. hamlet. lolita. death note. rick and morty. greek mythology. grimm's fairytales. these aren't likable people... they're interesting people. and the stories get their emotional weight and tension in ways other than holding our favourite meow meow over a fire. it's sad that so much media analysis has devolved into shallow "protag was unlikable therefore story bad", instead of the deeper analysis of how and why the story fails to carry emotional weight when the reader doesn't find this person cute, charming, funny, or whatever. or if they aren't able to project themself onto this person. tbh most good stories are "hey everybody, look at this fucked up sack of wet potatoes, sure would be fucked up if they self-destructed in a way that harmed everyone around them :)" and somebody analysing media should be aware of that. just think a few steps deeper about these sorts of things.