#those people OBVIOUSLY can find quality of life still. it's ONLY these specific people that should be offered death as a solution'

[mythicalcoolkid]

If I had a nickel for every time I had to watch "I can't believe they're doing this!! This is heinous, who could have seen this coming?! <thing a minority group repeatedly and explicitly said would happen if x other thing went unchallenged>" I could afford to live somewhere with fewer human rights violations

[plasticbag3207]

Vox: Flatscreen vs. Box (CRT)

One thing has been mildly bothering me when it comes to people’s interpretation of Vox, specifically when showing him off in older settings: his portrayal (or lack thereof) as a box TV.

Obviously we all know he was a CRT (cathode ray tube; this is the more technical name for “Box TV” or “old-style tv”). We see him with this style of TV head in the picture of him and Val on the desk in Val’s room. (S1 E2 at about 7:27)

Not the highest quality photo, my bad, but it still gets the point across. We can also assume that this picture was probably taken in the 70s, since that’s when Valentino died. If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say late 70s, maybe early 80s.

CRT tvs have really only gone out of fashion recently, and flatscreens have only been common for the last 15-20 years. Although unlikely, it’s not impossible for Velvette to have been in Hell before Vox transferred to a flatscreen TV. Despite this, I still see a lot of people drawing Vox with a flatscreen way before they existed—or in general acting like he’s been a flatscreen way longer than he has.

I want to be clear and say that this doesn’t bother me a ton, and I still love all the art regardless. It’s just the little history nerd in me trying to point these things out and being mildly bothered by it.

I have a feeling it’s probably caused by a lot of younger people in the fandom that maybe weren’t old enough to remember their families having a CRT tv, or maybe they were born after their family had upgraded to a flatscreen? I don’t know. Maybe I’m all wrong with that idea, and the artists are purposely drawing him with a flatscreen because they prefer it?

Another headcanon of mine that I haven’t seen a ton of people talking about, that would support Vox not having a flatscreen until quite recently: new tech probably takes longer to get to hell.

When explaining this to my friend I used the analogy of how trends (fashion, architecture, lifestyle, internet, etc.) in the US tend to start on the coasts and work their way towards the center. By the time they even reach the Midwest, some of the shorter fads are already out of style on the coasts.

I sort of assumed this is how things work with hell and earth. Tech is invented/innovated on earth first, and generally takes a little longer for it to become common in Hell. Also, as far as we know (unless I’m mistaken) the main way hell finds out about the goings on on Earth is via sinners dying and relaying their expanded knowledge on to the rest of hell.

If this headcanon proves to be true, then that would push back the date when Vox upgraded to a flatscreen even more.

Idk, this is all just me rambling and just some food for thought. No hate to any artists or writers that have been portraying Vox as a flatscreen before it would make sense for him to have one.

Also rest in peace to all of the hazbin fans who were too young to have the life experience of almost being crushed by one of those old CRT TVs. Really missed out on that character building moment.

[supersoakerfullofblood]

Plot Twists Aren't Real: Defining "Agency"

People get into writing because they want to write cool things, and one of the coolest things in the eyes of the early writer is the "twist": twist ending, twist villain, etc. But twists only appear to exist; in strong writing, there are no twists. Let me explain.

If you've read some posts on my blog (which, thank you for the reception :)), you'll know I preach above all that character makes story, specifically character change. If Edmund wants something in the narrative, he will take an action towards that thing. That might lead to consequences or blessings that will cause him to make another action. More consequences or blessings, action, etc., until your story is done! All narratives are, at their core, cause and effect.

But obviously some stories are stronger than others (not in the sense of quality, since that word is subjective and nebulous, but in the sense of structure, how it holds up, its reliability), but how? It's about information. Think about the decisions you make in real life from a game theory perspective. In any moment, you can only make choices with the information you're given. If you want to get a pizza from the local pizzeria, and you're hungry, you will do that, and that will be a good choice. Similarly, if you want to get a pizza but you didn't know the pizzeria was staffed by murderers, you will still get the pizza, and even if you die, it will still have been a good decision, because you were working with the information you had.

Your characters can also only act on their own information. If your character wants a pizza and gets it, that's solid writing (albeit too bland), because it's solid cause and effect. If your character is killed by the secret pizzeria mob, that's poor writing. (Obviously there are exceptions: if it was a throwaway character designed to show the reader the pizzeria mob exists, for example.)

This is what people mean when they talk about characters who are "agents" in the story. A strong central character, a character with agency, is a character who makes decisions based on what they know and have. This doesn't mean they always make the best decision--and most of the best literature is filled with characters who make bad or mentally/emotionally/ethically gray decisions--it just means they're doing what we do as humans. But if your character operates on the best information they have and are still punished for it (ie. the pizzeria mob), they aren't an agent in the narrative, they are the narrative's victim. People don't want to read about victims; they want to read about characters who, by their actions, become victims.

Take maybe literature's most famous "victim" Oedipus, who has sex with his mom on accident. The story of Oedipus isn't him waking up one day, finding a beautiful woman, having sex with her, and then realizing it's his mother. It's a story of Oedipus making horrible decisions--killing a man, refusing to listen to people wiser than him--in order to sleep with this beautiful woman who happens to be his mother. The mom part isn't an accident in the narrative but the narrative punishment for Oedipus's horrible choices.

This is my summary of the idea, but hear it also from John Gardner in his book On Becoming a Novelist, a must-read if you haven't yet:

"Only the writer who has come to understand how difficult it is to tell a first-rate story--with no cheap manipulations, no breaks in the dream, no preening or self-consciousness--is able to appreciate fully the concept of 'generosity' in fiction. In the best fiction, plot is not a series of surprises but an increasingly moving series of recognitions, or moments of understanding. One of the most common mistakes among young writers (those who understand that fiction is storytelling) is that the story gets its power from withheld information--that is, from the writer's setting up the reader and then bushwhacking him. Ungenerous fiction is foremost fiction in which the writer is unwilling to take the reader as an equal partner." (Gardner 47-48) "The wise writer counts on the characters and plot for the story's power, not on tricks of withheld information, including withheld information at the end... In other words, the writer lays himself wide open, dancing on a high wire without a net. The writer is generous, too, in that, for all his mastery of technique, he introduces only those techniques useful to the story: he is the story's servant, not a donzel for whom the story serves as an excuse to show off pyrotechnics. This is not to say that he's indifferent to the value of performance. Those techniques he uses because the story needs them he uses brilliantly. He works entirely in the in the service of the story, but he works will class." (Gardner 50)

What we perceive as a twist occurs when both the reader and character have the information they need to understand the story, but by the writer's ingenuity, have been shied away from the truth. The best murder mysteries don't have twists but subversions. You as the reader are given everything you need to solve the crime but have trouble doing so because of the author's many tricks (probably the most common of these being a viewpoint character who comes to the wrong conclusions about the mystery. This is why so few detective stories are told from the perspective of the detective. SPOILERS FOR KNIVES OUT: Imagine if Knives Out was told from Benoit Blanc's perspective, who by his own admission uncovered the mystery early in his stay at the house, and not from Marta's perspective, who has all the right information but comes to the wrong conclusion that she killed Harlan Thrombey.)

So, as is usually the case, all strong writing comes down to characters and their choices. And strong choices are choices characters make based on the information presented to them. Strong consequences can only come in relation to the quality of these choices. If your character wants a pizza, don't give them the pizzeria mob. If your character kills a guy and refuses wise counsel, then yes, give him the pizzeria mob.

[radiosummons]

It's been so long since I’ve watched the Clone Wars movie that I completely forgot that a major plot point is that Anakin (also Ahsoka, but mostly Anakin) was tasked with keeping Jabba the Hutt's son, Rotta, safe/alive.

And like ... wow, that's actually super fucked up. Like S-tier levels of fucked up. Congratulations. The writers really did put Anakin in a situation where he had no choice but to actually protect the child of a being who was directly responsible for his family’s suffering (as well as that of everyone on Tattooine, but this is Anakin-we all know he only cares about his special circle of people more than he ever will the “greater whole”). 

And Anakin’s immediate disgust, while confusing and probably even downright unfathomable to Ahsoka in the moment, is so absolutely justified. He knows that Rotta is going to live and grow into an adult that basks in absolute luxury at the expense of slaves. 

You just have to know that it absolutely infuriates him that his duty as a Jedi and, by extension, citizen of the Republic has put him into this position. He can’t even object to his responsibility to carry out this mission (although he initially tries). 

Now, obviously, I’m not saying Anakin should have abandoned Rotta, refused to protect him, or force forbid actually tried to harm/kill him (though, I could totally believe Anakin had a brief moment where he might have even seriously considered or fantasized about doing any of those). Regardless of how unjust and fucked up it is that Rotta is going to continue to benefit from his father/the Hutt Clans’ brutal supremacy, he’s still, well ... a child.

And no Jedi would willingly ever bring harm to a child, right? *cough cough*

I can only wonder what was going through Anakin’s head as he watched this random ignorant padawan he only just met an hour ago pick up Rotta and then proceed to call him “cute.” Like ... can you even imagine the sheer amount of conflicted emotions he must have experienced in that moment? 

And the fact that Palpatine directly orchestrated all this whole other level of sick fucking shit just to force Anakin specifically into this kind of fucked up situation ... bruh. Mister Sidious just couldn’t resist an opportunity to bring even more pain and suffering into Anakin’s life, especially when it had the added benefit of sowing more discontentment/doubt into his already shaky relationship with his own personal morals as well as his relationship with the Jedi Code. 

Fuck, what an actual maniacle bullshit fucked up thing to do. Creating a situation where Anakin has no choice but to actively protect an innocent life (a noble and moral thing to do), but with the full knowledge that this innocent being will only later grow to contribute to the cycle of abuse and trauma that he himself has been scarred by (and has already committed great atrocities in direct response to) ... brilliant.

Sith Lord in fucking deed.

(Also, don’t let this post fool you into rewatching the movie. There’s small gem moments in it, sure. Meeting Ahsoka, Captain Rex and Ventress for the first time are some highlights, of course. And maybe a few other mini moments between Anakin and Ahsoka as they start to sorta bond. But like ... you can just find some Youtube compilations of those moments. Don’t force yourself to watch the movie. It’s not horrible, but it’s definitely not up to the quality of the show and uh, yeah. Not worth your time imo).

Update: Sorry for reposting this again. Grammar mistakes and typos were driving me insane.

[starfallcity]

THE ECLIPSE - VOLUME 36

Brought to you by Starfall's longest-running magazine, providing you with quality content about the latest news, trends, and high life of Starfall's elites.

This season is all about love- whether it's romantic or not, this issue of THE ECLIPSE has something for everyone, starring the heartthrob taking social media by storm. Founder and CEO of Dr. Love, and runner of the newest late-night show with a 'zine of his own on the way: everyone, welcome Cupid Amoré!

Interviewer: Thank you, Mr. Amoré for taking the time to sit with us. We know you must be busy.

Cupid: It's no problem at all! I'm honored you thought I was important enough to interview- the email startled me so bad I had to step away from my laptop! It was a little embarrassing...

I: Well I'm glad you found it so exciting! Getting straight into it, what are the basics of what you'd want the readers to know?

C: Hm. [pause] Obviously, there's my name, but that's likely been plastered all over the page by now. [chuckles] I guess from there it'd be my age, and so on- 34, as of right now. I'm a huge romantic- if you couldn't tell already. Mmn... [another pause] I don't really have a lot of nicknames- most people usually call me by my first name. Either that or my last. My favorite of all of them is 'squish', though. My sister gave it to me when I was younger.

I: 34? Wow! You seemed a lot younger- I wouldn't have guessed from your socials. And "Squish"- is there a particular reason behind it?

C: My sister would just say it's because my face was so fat. [sigh, a tired smile spreads on his face] She wasn't wrong, but I still want to whack her for it.

I: Siblings, am I right? Moving on, would you mind explaining the whole deal on your company, Dr. Love? It feels like it sprung up out of nowhere!

C: Well, I've actually run Dr. Love as a small online business for a while now, but only in recent months have we actually expanded into a "real" company. We sell products- mostly themed around couples, though our products can be bought by and gifted to anyone. Candies, cards, bouquets, etcetera. We even have a matchmaking service, and- ahem- 'items' for our older clients to enjoy on sale. Those ones are part of a...slightly different brand, though- the same one used for our late night show.

I: I see...it's nice to see you've taken the time to separate your adult and general brands. What inspired you to take this route? The type of business, I mean.

C: Love, of course! [chuckles] To be more specific, my love of love. I've lived in this city all my life- seen a manner of nasty things come about. I think if people took the time to slow down, and really take the time to appreciate themselves and the people around them- to interact without judgement, that Starfall can become a much better place. Too many people are on edge; trust is low- kindness to strangers is seen as some sort of novelty. If my company can help open hearts and change minds, well, I'd find that just wonderful.

I: An altruistic approach- don't you feel that's a bit naïve? With all the conflicts between humans and non-humans, not to mention the looming possibility of....well, I'm sure you've gotten your fair share of concerning fanmail yourself.

C: I have, and really, both of those issues are tragic to me, in a way. People are averse to change- I can see why someone with no experience would find the sudden appearance of non-humans jarring. Except, they aren't sudden- not in Starfall. They've been a long-standing part of our history. To try and push them out because of some sort of purity complex is, pardon my harsh words, stupid. Stupid and ignorant.

[pause]

C: And yes, that 'possibility' you've mentioned. I can't judge those people too harshly. At the end of the day, that type of behavior is more than your standard pushy fan. It's a sign of something deeper- it's something innate in that person. [frowns] I can't help but feel sad thinking about it. There are people who need help in this city. Real help. They're disturbed, but they're still people. I doubt they actively choose to be the way they are- it's unfortunate.

I: ...Of course. How genuine of you, Mr. Amoré. Aside from your business career, what can we come to expect from you? Publicity wise.

C: Of course there's the show- thinking about it is still nerve wracking, but I'll live. It's a late night show, nothing explicit, but I suggest streaming it after the young'ins have gone to bed. [winks] For our younger fluttering hearts, though, our magazine is all-ages, with an advice column for those struggling hearts in our community. We've been considering featuring some local stories in our magazine as well- meet cutes, self love stories...just things that make you feel fuzzy inside, you know?

I: Looks like we may have a bit of competition, eh? We're looking forward to its official release! Wrapping up now, any final words you have or our readers?

C: I am too. As for final words, not many, surprisingly. I just wish to thank those who have supported me up until this point, and welcome all those who decide to join the little community we've crafted. I wouldn't have gotten as far as I have without your help. Other than that, continue to spread as much love as you can- you never know who really needs it.

I: A touching message. Thank you again, Mr. Amoré, we appreciate you coming in and answering our questions. For our readers who want more of Starfall's newest star, be sure to check out the information listed below about his upcoming projects. Thank you for your time, and stay tuned for the next issue of THE ECLIPSE!

[batsplat]

sorry if you’ve answered this before, but do you count Marc as an alien? I’ve seen some people do it on Reddit & I fully get why, but personally I kinda feel like only the og 4 can count??? I find myself saying “the aliens AND Marc” but then I’m wondering if I’m just being dumb about the semantics of it lol. Do you know if ppl more broadly in the sport (commentators, other riders, etc) count Marc as an alien? (god I swear this sport makes me type out the dumbest sentences I’ve ever written in my life lol)

I'm not massively fussed about this either way, though I personally do include marc as an alien because it's just a useful shorthand for those five riders. the term for those 'og 4' that gets bandied about is 'the fantastic four'... I cannot tell you why, but personally I just cannot bring myself to call them That. (though I've also seen the term being used for the top four in this year's championship, which I fw even less.) I talked about how I use the term in this post, where my main point was that to me the term primarily is about an era. there was a specific time span in motogp history where the championship was completely dominated by a small group of riders, partly because they were just very good and partly because they had a substantial machinery advantage over everyone else. in any given year from 2007 to 2015, you could safely predict that every single race would be won by one of four riders. the only exceptions to this are le mans 2007 (vermeulen on a factory suzuki), motegi 2007 (capirossi on a factory ducati), donington 2009 (dovizioso on a factory honda), and assen 2011 (spies on a factory yamaha). all of these races were conducted in the wet too... in the dry, it's complete domination

which, again. this is partly about the machinery, like this was just an era with way more substantial a factory/satellite divide than you'd get today (or indeed in the 990cc era). you never know what would've happened if more riders had that quality of machinery - though obviously it's worth pointing out that dovi in three years at repsol honda secured a single race win to dani's nine. (and casey got ten in 2011 alone, when all three of them were teammates.) still, it's at its most useful to me to describe them as like. a group. as a dynamic that consistently played out in competition across a set number of years. which to me marc is a part of. basically this:

because marc took over casey's role in ensuring that dynamic SO completely, I think it makes sense to include him in that group. the dynamic is essentially the same, right? until change in tech regulations, control electronics and michelin tyres and all the rest of it, as well as gradual competitive decline of the 'og aliens' and shift of the competitive balance between yamaha and ducati from 2016 onwards signals the end of the alien era. the aliens describe a cohort more than riders of a certain talent level (which is fine by me since I am not a fan of discussions of talent). but valentino has roughly the same age gap to dani as marc has to jorge, so... might as well expand it to those five

as for what the wider motogp world says, yeah, I do think they're mostly on board with calling marc an alien. again, I think when people are trying to talk only about the non-marc aliens, they tend to use the term 'fantastic four'. I do not use this term and generally just rely on context to make it clear who I'm talking about. but also if you prefer to not use the term to include marc, y'know, fair enough - the term wasn't originally used to apply to him. the difference is whether you're talking about a group of competitors elevated from the rest in 2007 to 2012, or 2007 to 2015. in practical terms, to me there isn't a massive difference between the competitive dynamics when casey was on the grid versus when marc was on the grid, so. that's where I come down on this

[festivalofthe12]

So, in almost all cases, fiction depends on at least some minimal level of connection to realism. Unless something is explicitly written as a non-sequitur with no structure (and even then, some will find meaning in it if only by cross-referencing to real-world logic), we tend to expect things to be like real life unless we're given a good reason to think otherwise.

So, in Game of Thrones, we expect and accept dragons and magic existing because those are mainstays of the genre. And we expect some characters to declare life-risking loyalty to monarchs, even though almost nobody nowadays could really relate to that, because we understand the historical context the show is roughly based on, we expect it of the genre, and it 'makes sense' for the characters.

However, when Daenerys happily rides a dragon past a person she knows has it out for her and would try to kill her dragon, and her dragon dies, we get annoyed. We can accept dragons existing, but we just don't buy Daenerys psychologically acting that way: she's smart and ambitious and cautious, and most certainly would not just forget about a major threat so easily. People in the real world with her qualities and history wouldn't act like that: it isn't 'realistic'.

With that being said, writers are not omniscient. They carry into their works a countless array of assumptions about the way the world works. And so, even when they weren't deliberately intending for a story to send a particular message, we can still interrogate the array of 'common sense' presumptions that went into writing it: the stuff they thought was so obviously 'realistic', they probably didn't even think about it.

Take a very misogynistic writer who believes that it is normal and good for a husband to beat his wife when she misbehaves. And let's say this opinion isn't that far from the mainstream; or at the least, it's not a viewpoint that we often draw attention to. They would probably think nothing of having a heroic and likeable character treating his wife like that, the incident would probably be treated in a pretty perfunctory and undramatic sort of way (as it is, in the writer's imagination, a perfectly common and unexceptional occurrence), and there wouldn't be shown or implied to be any negative consequences for the wife.

This is all the sort of thing we think of when we talk about framing, and particularly around 'romanticising' behaviours. By examining the way a specific action (or theme or character or so forth) is treated - comically, dramatically, or neutrally? How are the shots staged; who gets any emotional close-ups? Who are our viewpoint characters? When does this scene occur, and how is it edited it; what comes before and after? - we can examine how a writer may have intended an action to be perceived.

Of course, this comes with a lot of caveats. This is all very subjective, not a checklist scenario: for example, a protagonist or even hero character performing an action is not necessarily always romanticised; characters can have flaws! Also, writers(/producers/directors/whoever) can just be... bad at their jobs? The clearest marker or failed art is in failing to communicate what was intended; maybe the creator of the scene described above thought it was 'obvious' that the hero beating his wife was bad, and mishandled the execution.

Additionally, everything has to be viewed in context. Sometimes, the bigger picture can completely change an interpretation of a scene. For example, the main characters of the What We Do In The Shadows TV show routinely act in vile ways typically reserved for horrific villains, but that's because the show is a dark comedy, and in this case, the show avoids romanticising them (among other ways) by making them giant fucking idiotic losers.

It's also worth noting that a lot of these analyses work far better on a societal level, much like BMI being intended to work with overall populations rather than individuals. If particular actions tend to be portrayed in certain ways, it says something about what we tend to think of as 'normal' for those actions. Looking at things that way is almost always most helpful than singling in on specific creators and holding them individually responsible for widespread, structural oppressions.

tl;dr: writers come into works with assumptions about reality, and through analysing fiction we can try to discern what they (or, ideally, what the society they're writing in) believe about the world.

[beatricebidelaire]

(Cont’d)

“Mr. Squalor. Is this your first masked ball with us?”

“Yes - I’m so glad to be here,” he beams at her, and she can see the excitement mixed with nervousness radiating off him. He holds onto Jacques’s hand a little tighter. “You and Jacques and Beatrice have the most interesting friends.”

“Ah, Beatrice is probably the most interesting of us all,” Kit replies.

“Thank goodness,” Jerome says. “I don’t think I can handle anything more than that. I mean - I think Beatrice is great, obviously! Very charming! A good friend!”

“It’s okay, Jerome,” Jacques cuts across Jerome’s rambling, in his usual calm, steady, reassuring manner. “We understand. We all share the sentiment.”

Jerome is not part of VFD, but he’s an acquaintance to many of them, and friends with Beatrice and Jacques. Well, more than friends, in Jacques’s case. Kit likes Jerome just fine - he’s nice enough, but she can easily tell that he’s no volunteer material. He lacks the decisiveness and backbone to be one, and in general is just not made for the life the volunteers lead.

That said, one extremely important quality of jerome is that he’s rich - or rather, his family is rich, to be specific. She had once thought that’s what made Jacques approached him at first, only to learn that it was not the case. Jacques and Jerome first met when Jacques chivalrously offered Jerome a car ride during a heavy rainstorm, and Jerome’s family driver who was supposed to pick him up got stuck at the other side of The City. Jacques didn’t know, back then, the “Jerome” he’s talking to is the much lesser known second son of the Squalor family. He simply quite enjoyed the conversations they had on the taxi, the two of them finding common interests in music of the 17th century. By the end of the ride, Jerome generously invited Jacques to a classical concert, saying he’s got an extra ticket, and the friendship developed quickly from there.

Jerome’s family fortune and his own generosity quickly catches the eyes of VFD, leading to many people complimenting Jacques for befriending a potential donor, telling him he’s such a loyal and great volunteer. Jacques has always been quite displeased at those comments, as he genuinely actually likes Jerome for who he is, not his money. To which Beatrice replied that “don’t you want him part of our noble goal, don’t you want to give him a chance to contribute, if you like him so much? How romantic it is, to share the same goals and dream as someone!”

Beatrice is, and has always been, magical. When she says those words, her big brown eyes sincere and hopeful and dreamy, her tone half-in-awe, she can make almost everyone believe in the vision she paints. It’s one of her strengths, and she has inspired so many of the younger apprentices with her talks. That’s partly why, even though sometimes people complain about her lack of disregard for rules, they all value her greatly as a volunteer.

That said, Jacques has always belonged to the minority in VFD - the ever shrinking group of people that Beatrice’s magic has no effect on. Jacques, the model volunteer of VFD who does every mission perfectly, has always been against trying to persuade Jerome to do something he doesn’t want to. The higher ups, always with utmost trust for Jacques’s skills, simply believes Jacques is just playing the long game with Jerome, which has so far worked in Jacques’s favor. Jacques keeps Jerome pretty sheltered away from VFD, and mostly only brings Jerome to events like today’s where there will also be people outside of VFD attending (such as R’s family’s friends).

Personally, Kit thinks that since Jerome’s parents still control most of the Squalor family money, it isn’t such a high priority to get Jerome to donate more to VFD’s causes. So she doesn’t push Jacques to do what the others want, for the time being. Jacques has always been highly loyal, and spends most of his time on volunteer work, he should get to have some happiness, she thinks. No matter how long this current state will actually last.

“Well, I’m glad you’re having fun here,” she tells Jerome now, “oh, and you have to try the mini-cheesecake. It’s excellent - they have it over there. Better go get one now or else those disappear fast.”

He blinks, slightly bewildered, and nods. As he walks towards the mini-cheesecake, Kit turns to Jacques. “L’s here,” she says quietly.

“I know,” he replies, equally quiet. “It’s good to see him.” He pauses. “He gave me a triptych. Not directly, but through Larry without him knowing. Well, two triptychs - one is for you.”

Kit raises an eyebrow. Jacques discreetly slides something into a pocket on her dress - different one from the one Beatrice put the book into earlier.

Jacques’s lips twitch slightly. “By the way, don’t look at it here.”

Just then, Jerome is walking back, and with a quiet, “talk to you soon” at Kit, Jacques walks towards Jerome and guides him towards the bar.

Curiously, Kit wonders what’s inside the triptych. Just as she is wondering if it’s something so secretive that she really should not risk looking at it here, or if it just contains an embarrassing photo of Jacques, she hears someone say, “Snicket.”

[indigos-kitty-cat-corner]

Well, it finally happened. My Warrior Cats hyperfixation is officially, just... Over. I'm still gonna leave this sideblog up because I still enjoy the art I made and posted here, and I largely still am very passionate about the topics of posts I reblogged, but lately I've been kind of falling out of love with Warrior Cats and the fandom as a whole. I think that kind of is because of two main reasons.

Number one, the Warrior Cats I fell in love with isn't the same as the Warrior Cats of today, and it simply never will be. This series is old enough to drink in America, it predates my own existence by about six years, and the writing team has changed so much that a lot of the charm of the first series simply can't be replicated today.

And number two is... Well, that's gonna be a bit of a chore to explain. See, in most fandoms I'm in, a good chunk of, if not all of the source material holds up without fandom content. Like, Hatchetfield is a genuinely good, well written series of musicals, with interesting lore and characters, so if there was an alternate universe where the fandom simply didn't exist, I'd still like it. With Warrior Cats, however... Well, it's just kind of a bad series. Sure, the first arc is well written and good, and some of the super editions are phenomenal, but it has a slow decline in quality you can start to see even in arc 2, meaning most of the fandom ends up consuming the series through fanmade content because that's simply just... The most enjoyable way to consume it. So as a series, Warrior Cats doesn't have that same quality needed to stand alone without a fandom, because often a lot of what keeps people interested is the fandom itself.

Additionally, there's this theory I have that out of any fandom, a specific, very small percentage of the fandom is going to be... kind of bad in some way. Like, outright misogyny, incest ships, misinterpreting other people's opinions and headcanons... that sort of stuff. As a fandom gets larger, that percentage remains the same; but if you did a whole unit on percentages, fractions, and now they work, you know that the sheer amount of people that represent a small percentage also grows as the number of people in the whole increases. Like, 1/5 of 5 is 1, but 1/5 of 100 is 20. And Warrior Cats is obviously a huge fucking fandom, so when this same rule is applied, there's a bigger amount of "bad fans" in this fandom than there are in smaller ones, despite having the exact same percentage.

Lately, it sort of feels like to meet the only real saving grace of the series is, in some cases, the fandom itself, and when the bad percentage of fans is so much harder to avoid, it's only natural that some fans, like me, will just get burnt out with the series as a whole.

So, yeah, I'm kind of leaving the Warrior Cats fandom. I'll probably reblog stuff onto here occasionally, or make the occasional drawing of the characters I like, but I simply just can't really enjoy the series in the same ways I used to. Hell, the only way I HAD been enjoying it on the tail end of my hyperfixation was with rewrites of the series itself where everything had to be entirely overhauled, such as @cryptidclaw and @bonefall and their honestly brilliant rewrites of the series. So, I think it's kind of fair of me to want to find a series that DOESN'T need extensive fanmade rewrites to be enjoyed, and while I'll still enjoy those specific rewrites, they'll be entirely divorced from Warrior Cats, the canon, because it just isn't good enough to hold my interest anymore.

I just wanted to share my rambling thoughts in hopes of finding other people who, y'know, shared my sort of mixed feelings, and also because it somehow felt wrong to not leave some sort of goodbye and an explanation for why I'm leaving a fandom that had been a huge part of my life for the better part of four years. Feel free to reblog this with your own thoughts and opinions on this sorta thing, I'd really appreciate some other fan insight onto this topic.

Now if you excuse me, I need a nap.

[cordycepsfem]

Hello! You reblogged a post about "bi" women who don't like vulva (https://www.tumblr.com/cordycepsfem/743621467814674432). Your blog is one of my favorites and I was curious about your thoughts on my situation.

I'm a woman and I consider myself to be bi, but I am disgusted by penis. I do think it's weird when a woman who doesn't like vulva says she is bi, but then I feel like a hypocrite by doing the opposite. I don't think it would be appropriate to call myself a lesbian, though. I still find some men attractive, just not their genitals and I wouldn't be able to have a sexual relationship with a man because of that specific lack of attraction. When I am attracted to a woman, I am attracted to the whole woman. I've been told I just haven't found the right man yet, but there have been men I've cared deeply for. When I try to think about having sex with them, I feel sick. I don't feel sick when I think of women that way. I am a virgin, if that matters.

I always hear about the "bi but eww pussy" stereotype, but never the opposite. Do you think a woman can be unattracted to male genitals and still be bi? I don't mean this as a gotcha, I am just genuinely confused and value your opinion if you wouldn't mind sharing it. Thanks in advance if you decide to answer this! :)

Thank you for your kind words. While I am glad you enjoy my blog, I have to admit that I am not really a font of information on all things lesbian or bi, and would have a hard time telling you how best to proceed. I will move forward with the information I do have, and you may take what you wish.

I existed as a mostly-asexual being until I was in my twenties. When my same-age girl cousins or peers would say a boy looked "cute" or "hot," I never had any idea what they meant. I never saw something in a boy that gave me any special feeling, no matter how many movie stars or boy band members had captured their hearts.

My family was (and still is somewhat) Catholic, and when I was younger I could never see myself married to a man. I didn't know about gay or bisexual people, and I thought the only way to have children was to marry a man and reproduce heterosexually. I have always wanted to be a mom, and I look forward to that in my life now, but back then I was told the only way was marriage to a man. The thought of living with a man, sharing a bed with a man, and having sex with a man was utterly repellant to me when I considered it seriously at the age of 12 or 13. I gave a lot of consideration to becoming a nun.

I got really sick around the age of 14 and the treatments I had between 14 and 22 really fucked up those ages, so I pretty much just worked on surviving. But eventually I was maybe 23 or 24, and I went to a local store and saw a woman who was just... beautiful. She was nerdy, and ticked all these boxes that I now know are qualities I'm attracted to. I asked if they had a certain item I'd been looking for and she checked, spent time with me, offered to order it... nothing more than a great customer service representative, but I was... fascinated. I suddenly had all these feelings that I didn't understand.

But then I also had all of these experiences that suddenly made sense. I'd always preferred "strong female character" types in shows and movies and books. I always wanted to be best friends with the female lead in media, not dating the male lead. I had intense friendships with girls, especially in high school. And now here I was finding a woman attractive for the first time - realizing that I was attracted to someone blew my mind.

I now have a girlfriend for the very first time in my thirties. (It is amazing. I am a big fan.) She is helping me to think very openly about attraction and arousal and how to explore sexuality. Her work will now help me to come to my conclusion here, which is:

I think only you can be in charge of what you call your sexuality (obviously). But if you are only attracted to men by basis of looks or personality, and know that you would not have sex with them, to me that doesn't seem like a full experience of sexuality. Sexuality, for many people, involves the desire to have sexual and romantic experiences with a partner, and it probably would be really hard to have a full relationship with someone who you wouldn't want to engage in sex with, unless that was something you were both wanting, and you felt your connection was more emotional.

I have also found certain men appealing for many reasons - they're a good singer, or they're funny, or they look really sharp in a suit, or I liked them in that one movie - but I don't ever see, nor have I ever seen, a relationship with a man going further than a cherished friendship. I have no desire to engage with one romantically or sexually. If you feel the same way about men, and are wholly attracted to only women, I feel like that's your answer. But again, I can't label how you feel, only offer my thoughts.

People who say "You haven't found the right man yet" need to mind their own business, and perhaps look to their own homophobia. It is possible to do so, because my 88-year-old devoutly Catholic Irish grandmother has yet to tell me to find a man and I am in my mid-thirties. If you aren't looking for a man, why would it matter if you found the right one or not?

However you choose to identify your sexuality, you seem very certain of what you do and do not want, and that will help you figure things out. Please let me know if I can offer a listening ear. I am grateful you were able to share your experience with me.

[cellsshapedlikestars]

I’m sure you’ve answered this before, but I scrolled through your Tumblr for an embarrassingly long time and wasn’t able to find a post on it so I thought I’d ask you (possibly, again) but please don’t feel any obligation to answer (which goes without saying), but: what is your secret? You’ve written 60 works in your fandom in 3 years — that’s insane! And they are such good quality writing! The prose, the plot, the dialogue, the characterization, everything. How do you do it? How do you find the time, because I assume you’re an adult with a job, etc. (this conclusion, dear reader, being the result of my aforementioned sleuthing) and how do you find the motivation? Sometimes I come back from work, and if I even manage to make it in before 8 pm, I’m still a zombie staring at the wall. Do you plot? Do you outline? If you outline, do you have a specific way of outlining? How long do you spend on a first draft? I’m sorry, I want to know EVERYTHING, because I’m so impressed, not just by your stories or your writing or your storytelling, but your CONSISTENCY — I’ve been writing 30 years and it takes me so so long to produce any type of writing (100 words can take me a whole week) . Having said that, obviously no pressure at all to answer this, in which case, just know that I find your writing magic 🥰

I feel like I've answered all of these in bits and pieces over the years.

answer below the cut cause it's kinda long

yes, I'm adult lmao, but an adult with a job where I'm high up enough that I often have a ton of excess time during the work day, which I'll use to write. Notice how my fics are usually updated on a Tuesday or Thursday? It's because I work from home those days. Now, does my job also have periods of intense stress where I end up not writing for a full week because my brain is too numb? Yes, absolutely.

on the topic of writing quckly, I've explained it like this before: when I'm doing something mundane like driving or showering or work or whatever, I think about my stories constantly, and therefore by the time I sit down to write, I've watched the movie version play out in my head dozens of times and so all I need to do is type it out. Writing is my creative outlet, stress relief, and therapy all in one.

Do I plot? In my head, absolutely. I always know the end of a story when I start it. How I get there may shift and change, but usually not the main plot points, and I've very rarely deviated from my original ending. The only one I can genuinely think of is help me out. The main killer changed about halfway through, as did what Jon chooses to do with his life at the end.

Do I outline? I try. My current outline for saddest summer is just "chapter 5 - festival". Like plotting, I tend to do it all in my head. If I type out an outline, it's a stream of conscious set of words and thoughts and possibly phrasing I want to use. there's no bullet points or anything like that

I'll be honest and say I don't really know what people ever mean by drafts. I just start writing the chapter and I'll usually reread what I've written before continuing to write, so the first part of a chapter is always the most edited. One shots I tend to write in one go, read it over once, then post it.

I've seen other people on here talk about writing like it's some elegant craft, whereas I feel like I throw a bunch of nonsense at the wall and call it art. I feel like my writing is as chaotic and random and last minute as my home renovations are, but somehow both always turn out alright. I'm really just here to have fun and hopefully other people can have fun reading what I write!

Also, you say 60 fics, but remember that 30 of them are one shots I did for events/prompts, and about 10 more are 2/3 chapters only. Also my stories in general tend to average about 10 chapters, which is also how I get so many written. I don't enjoy writing super long fics (though I have no problem reading longer fics?) When I was first starting out, I posted waaaayyyy more frequently, especially with the events here on Tumblr that aren't really a thing anymore. Now I average a chapter a week

[deadlawyerssociety]

As I get closer to turning twenty-one, here are some things I’ve learned about love, life and relationships (not twenty-one things, obviously, because I don’t know that many things):

1. People are a lot nicer than you think, and you’d be surprised just how many people are willing to go out of their way to help if you would just bring yourself to ask;

2. You’ll find a lot of bad ones before you find the one. This goes for everything in life, not just boyfriends or significant others — friends, clothes, homes, books, and about 500 other things — and what they do teach you is things about yourself that you never knew, and only could through those experiences;

3. Sleep. On. Time. I know we all hate to admit it, but our mothers were right. We all know staying up until 4 AM talking to boys who can’t spell ‘decision�� isn’t winning you any awards — it’s just fucking with your mental health and your grades (which, incidentally, are the things that actually matter);

4. Quality over quantity, always — except for clothes maybe (I’m kidding) — more specifically, on the topic of your friend group;

5. Make time for the things that bring you joy, and learn to spend time alone;

6. Exercise, but if you can’t, a walk will do wonders for your mental health;

7. Celebrate small wins. I know this can be hard, especially at a time when big wins are glorified on social media, but something that we’re just going to have to come to terms with is that your only competition is you, and recognising and cherishing these small wins is what will get you ahead;

8. It’s all right to not know what you’re doing. There is enough time. You have enough time to learn about your likes and dislikes, find a foothold in this time we call life, and find something that will set your soul ablaze. Have faith in your own abilities to figure it out;

9. And lastly, something that should have probably come first, but didn’t, because it’s really fucking hard and I still struggle with it: treat yourself like someone you love. Speak to yourself kindly. Make decisions that will help you, not feed into a cycle of self-loathing. Social media does enough to shake your self-esteem, you don’t need to add to that <3

[newsource21]

It’s one of those “good news / bad news” days for all potential fall 2025 Dartmouth College applicants. The good news is you are once again going to be judged at least somewhat on your quantifiable intellectual merits. (Yay! Unless you’re stupid! In which case — dang!) The bad news is that this means you can’t get away with hiding that lame SAT score and applying “early decision” anymore to lock in a first-mover advantage. For the Ivy League university is formally reinstating standardized-testing requirements for all applicants to the class of 2029 after a four-year interregnum of test-free applications. It seemed at the time rather obviously like a dangerous experiment in admitting a wildly underqualified and unprepared student body — very much the equivalent of surfing the internet without a firewall, exploring a BSL-4 biolab in Wuhan without a hazmat suit, or cruising the French Quarter without French letters. It turns out that after four years of this, Dartmouth agrees, and it has decided to protect itself again. Dartmouth first “temporarily suspended” its SAT/ACT application requirement back in June 2020, during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. I use scare quotes around the phrase “temporarily suspended” because it was understood at the time to be an act of educational activism made possible by the societal dislocation of Covid — a pilot program whereby Dartmouth could finally access a greater pool of minority applicants. (Yes, folks: It was a DEI initiative at its core.) The chronic underperformance of minority groups in standardized testing has plagued America for decades, but it has dramatically worsened in recent years; here was a way perhaps to — under the guise of a temporary Covid provision — level the playing field. (Last year, in a poorly timed effort to hop onto a stalling bandwagon, Columbia University announced that it was abolishing the SAT/ACT requirement permanently; the law school, tellingly, instead floated the idea of requiring a “video application.” Either way, it’s rather obvious what goal they’re working toward.) If for nothing more than black comedy, it would be fun to believe that the reason Dartmouth reinstated its standardized-testing requirement is that, having dispensed with the only neutral metric universities have to gauge applicants with, student quality precipitously dropped off a cliff. (Imagine some grey-templed guy with suspenders shaking his head disgustedly as he tosses yet another simpering “Dartmouth ’26” résumé into the trash can.) In all probability, however, what Dartmouth saw was something far worse: Even more rich white people were being admitted.

The cruelest joke about removing the standardized-testing requirement for elite colleges is that the policy — designed specifically as a way to increase minority enrollment — achieves the exact opposite of what colleges intend. Rich and privileged mediocrities used to have their parents donate to secure admission to elite schools. Now, in an era of exponentially increased competition for admission, the rich simply hire six-figure “college counselors” who stage-manage a child’s entire life down to the em dashes in their admissions essays. The one thing those parents and pros cannot do is walk into a testing room and take a child’s exam for them. (Well, not legally, at least; Lord only knows what some parents get up to.)

And the glorious irony of Dartmouth’s failed experiment is that it was these children — the least impressive of all, spoiled children of privilege without any real intellectual ability — who won big from Dartmouth’s woke move. My guess is that these types got in and accepted offers in disproportionate numbers . . . because all the other elite schools that still required an SAT score rejected them instantly. (Another big win for restorative justice!)

The beauty of standardized testing is that — no matter how many tutors paid for or practice tests taken — it ultimately tells real truths about the undeniable natural abilities of humans beyond the crude and forever visible markers of race and class. Tests are the great equalizer, the proof that while education is subject to class and privilege, intelligence respects no boundaries. I can do no better than to quote the editors of National Review on this subject:

Clinical studies have shown that standardized testing does exactly what you expected it would: It identifies intellectually gifted children from all strata of society, but even more crucially allows talented children from disadvantaged backgrounds (whether economic or minority) to shine in a way their local educational opportunities (or a chaotic home life) might never have permitted. It forms the essence of what any just conception of America as a so-called meritocracy was supposed to be about: You might have gone to Phillips Exeter Academy and had the best SAT tutors available to you — but this kid over here living above his parents’ corner store and studying when he doesn’t have to mind the shop? He took it once and scored a 1590.

So I, for one, applaud Dartmouth’s restoration of the SAT/ACT requirement for applicants, even if I wish I could believe that it was doing it because it feared that it was producing freshmen of lower intellectual caliber. Instead, you can bet that the real reason is that the policy was allowing too many rich kids who only looked good “on paper” to slip through the cracks. So now I suppose it’s back to the drawing board for the school’s DEI and admissions offices, working diligently to find a more effective way to discriminate.

[ileftherbackhome]

The difference between how men and women behave in society when it comes to dating is that women may have a dream man they fantasy about but they are also willing to date people who don't check off every box for them whereas men feel entitled to obtaining their dream woman and will settle for nothing less.

Not only is it unrealistic to go into dating with a preordained checklist and refuse to compromise on any of the qualities listed on it, it's also childish and immature emotionally. Like I don't mean this as an insult but rather as a diagnosis.

Every woman I know starts dating and is willing to let of of superficial preferences in order to find a genuine connection but few men are willing to accept less than what they believe they "deserve."

Like these dating interviews where misogynists are like "what's your dream man?" And then they take that answer as "see women admit they are looking for "chads" only!!!! I told you guys" no what you "discovered" is that women have preferences, like everyone else.

It's taboo to say this but it shouldn't be but everyone "settles" to some degree. You will not find a partner where every single quality they have is your individual preference, because humans are flawed creatures. We are not perfect and we don't realize that every "good" quality a person has reflects a "bad" quality they have as well.

Like I am very compassionate and empathetic to my friends because I am highly impatient + take steps to correct that about myself in my actions and behaviors. I am very intelligent because I am highly ambitious and competitive and view knowledge as the best weapon you can have in this world. It's all a give and take in this world, we are the sum of our good and bad experiences in life and as women grow up, we realize this about dating.

We realize that prince charming doesn't exist in real life, but men still look for Cinderella even though she's fictional too and they put their inflexibility to compromise on women because they think we behave the way they do, even when we tell them we don't.

Like, every single misogynist is always like "women lie about not needing a man to be 6 feet tall because when you ask them what their dream man looks like, they say 6 feet tall!!!" And it's like yeah, because you asked for their DREAM man, not their ex or current partner.

We all have preferences, my dream man has green eyes and is built like Dylan Obrien but the love of my life doesn't have either of these qualities. That doesn't mean I don't love my partner, it just means we all have different ideals in our minds that society and culture have influenced us to want, even if those things are shallow or not realistic. Because my dream man is also kind, empathetic, caring, supportive, funny, ambitious, a socialist, etc etc and I can afford to let go of the superficial preferences for all these other boxes he ticks, you know?

Like, also, even if we're talking about just looks wise right, what I find most attractive is what I would list as my dream man but that doesn't mean I'm ONLY attracted that very specific fantasy, right? Like if you ask for my dream man in terms of appearance, obviously I'm going to list the qualities I find MOST attractive. That doesn't mean other qualities don't turn me on or I don't find other eye colors attractive (I love brown, blue, Grey, hazel, Amber, etc colors but green is my favorite, I'd still sleep with blue eyed or brown eyed man right. Same is true for all my physical preferences). But like men seem to think listing preferences is the same thing as listing deal-breakers.

If these men asked those same women what are you dating deal-breakers for example, they'd get very different responses. Because like idk they're different concepts, you feel ?

I just find men to have a weird culture around dating where they project their thoughts onto women as justification for abusing them. It's wild.

[celinewitch]

Writing whatever I feel, once I think of something it just flows like this

Oh man, grojband huh (look at previous reblog). I didn't grow up with it or anything like that but back when I was obsessed with western world, including its animation series, I was really into that. Someone also posted the episodes on youtube too making it accessible to me. So I did have a quite a nostalgic feelings over it

There was this really interesting thing I have though. I found out from digging the net that canadian tv show have this stereotype of being varying levels of quality? It's kinda dumb thinking really cause like so is everywhere else in the world including america, so why only canada? just cause the most well known shows from there have mixed reception doesn't mean all shows from there are like that. There's this video I really like about canadian tv shows by someone growing up with it and I can feel the excitement and fondness that even I feel that nostalgic drive, even though I obviously don't grow up in canada

Anyway yeah I was a westaboo 3-4 years ago, I even sold a lot of my manga (which I will choke my past self for that wtf are you doing you idiot) I'll admit that. I guess I was trying to be less of a weeb after knowing that people out there find people like me cringe so I thought maybe I should migrate to other types of media. Which is dumb thinking. But seeing now I think it's... really no different from a lot of animes I watched back then? I really thought stuff like SU or Adventure Time is really very shonen-like? Please don't get triggered if anyone's reading this, I was a hardcore anime fan back then so I can't help but compare.

Back again I guess one thing about western animated shows is that it has a more off beat tone in its comedy? It took me a while to get used to that kind of atmosphere and mood not gonna lie. Yeah I grew up woth sponge bob but back then I was a kid who don't understand anything. While anime has more direct humor, and most of the time likes to reference other medias imo

I'm pretty sure that there are tons of essays out there that highlight the difference between these shows but one thing I do find about the western animated shows are they have this really big emphasis on 1 individual character arc. I feel this with something like Bojack the most it feels really... real which is a very bad description but bear with me. It focuses on a specific theme but in the way that's less melodramatic and just less fantastical at all (even though he's like a horse, but hey that's the point). It's really hard to watch at times but I also can't let my eyes off of that messy life of a talking horse. But then it also gets silly in a very american way, and those two jarring tones that sometimes works sometimes don't are what I tend to get from western animated shows

In anime I would usually say it's still realistic af but not to the point of despairingly, I guess it's brought up in a more subtle way and manifest more in its commentary on societal issues? It is still very real and gets to you but it will also still have a bit fantastical element of it. Like the way they tend to manifest emotions as physical manifestations. Perhaps because it was to show that those mental anguish is real? When it's shown in an understandable form it will be easier to see, especially in place where issues like this irl tend to be dismissed

Yeah they have their difference in themes and ways of storytelling mainly though thanks to cultural difference as well. But they also influence each other, like look at SU many manga and anime references. The Owl House's too. While from anime side the Osamu Tezuka Father of Manga has said he's influenced by a lot of disney animated movies back then.

So my thinking back then that there's this big difference between both and one is better than the other is so dumb. I wish people can just like both or even if they have preference for one, not to put down the other with comparisons. Letting go of that make me to this day enjoy them for what they are.

How I go from thinking over 1 canadian tv show to talking about why I used to have this phase of liking anything west animated tv shows and then talk about the difference I feel on east and western shows is beyond me, man if you read this I'm sorry

[hakasims]

The Ultimate And Entirely Correct Ranking Of Every Single Luca Marinelli Movie Love Interest

This post is exactly what it says in the title: I take every single movie Luca has ever been in, extract every single love interest of his and rank them all from worst to best both as characters and as love interests to those specific Lucas. The ranking is 100% biased. Of course, I’ll do my best to rationalize the placement of this or that character, but sometimes I just hate a bitch and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

Also: Feel free to call me out on my blatant misogyny, since it’s pretty obvious that I actually genuinely hate women instead of bad writing, incompetent directing, underwhelming acting or just plain offensive character work.

Ok, let’s go. Obviously, spoiler alert for Luca’s entire filmography.

22. Antonia (Tutti i santi giorni)

This. This is a bitch I hate. She may or may not be the sole reason I’ve even decided to make this list. I hate her so much it made me hate her actress as a person, even though I have no idea what she’s like. The fact that this movie feels like her vanity project with this character as her self-insert doesn’t help, of course.

Why is Antonia the worst? Because she is aimless, entitled, bratty, whiny, envious, controlling, abusive, self-centered, self-pitying - and she never changes. She has no character arc to speak of, she never apologizes or redeems herself for all the shit she pulls (i.e. kidnapping a pregnant woman’s child and cheating on her boyfriend for the sole purpose of hurting him, even though she was already planning on leaving him anyway) and she gets a happy ending she doesn’t deserve. People might say she is traumatized by her past domestic abuse and miscarriage, but this is bullshit because: A) her ex-boyfriend beating her in the past is never treated seriously by the narrative, nor is the abuser himself portrayed as a monster (he’s more of a goofy dumbass, classy); B) usually when a character does something cruel because of their trauma, it happens in the first half of the movie, giving them a chance to work through their shit and move on a better person, whereas Antonia does it fifteen minutes before the end of the movie, and there is zero work involved. She doesn’t even get Guido’s forgiveness because he’s never mad at her in the first place. She hurts him and he begs her to come back. The movie literally tells us she doesn’t have to become a better person, nor does she need to overcome her trauma. She just needs to get married, i.e. something she specifically didn’t want to do at the start. I guess that’s what constitutes for an arc around here. Fuck Antonia and fuck the people who defend her.

Ok, now that I’ve lost half of you, let’s continue with less controversial takes.

21. Claudia (Lasciati andare)

This one is easy. Ettore robs a jewelry store and goes to prison for that, with the jewelry still hidden. Claudia steals the booty from him, fucking KEEPS IT and lets him go back to prison for that! What a bitch! Not to mention she’s insanely annoying. The only character worse than her in that movie is the curmudgeonly main character. This film is unberable, you guys.

20. Antonella (Slam - Tutto per una ragazza)

She isn’t so much Valerio’s love interest as she is his ex, but this is my arbitrary list, and I find this bitch annoying enough to want to mention her. She’s a Cool Mom and she’s dumb as a rock. I hate everything she says, does and stands for. Literally zero redeeming qualities.

19. Elena Orsini (Martin Eden)

I find her so annoying I actually made a Martin Eden/Legally Blonde gifset with her as Warner. She is snobbish because she’s rich and educated but she has no idea how useless and pointless she is as a person. She is literally a tiny piece of nothing. Fuck her smug little face and fuck Martin for being dumb enough to build his entire life around wanting to please her.

18. Nina (Nina)

She is sinfully bland and boring and her wardrobe is that of a child.

17. Edward Pilaster (Die Pfeiler der Macht)

Mickey Miranda is a world class slut and he wasn’t happy at all with having to fuck this guy, which is saying a lot. Edward is needy, pathetic, talentless, worthless, and he has the audacity to be entitled because he’s rich. He didn’t deserve to be manipulated and used the way he was, but he’s no sugar plum, ok?

16. Augusta Pilaster (Die Pfeiler der Macht)

The mother of the aforementioned, she’s quite bad, though in completely different ways than her son. She’s cruel and scheming, and people have died because of her, but I give her points for girlbossiness her son doesn’t possess.

15. Alice Della Rocca (La solitudine dei numeri primi)

She didn’t really do anything wrong. She just annoyed the shit out of me.

14. Vittorio (Non essere cattivo)

Let’s not argue whether he counts as a love interest. He does, moving on. I just want to make things perfectly clear: I don’t hate Vittorio because he stopped using and left his best friend behind. Drug addiction is complicated, and helping addicts who don’t want to be helped is basically impossible. No, the reason I hate Vittorio is his treatment of the women in his life. He is a total dick to Viviana, having no issues insulting and humiliating her in front of other people. At the same time, he becomes a limp, spineless slug as soon as Linda waves her sandy vag in front of his dumb face, and then he basically spends the rest of the movie being her little bitch. Fuck Vittorio, for real. (Fuck Linda too, btw, if she qualified for this list she’d be right there with Antonia.)

13. Mia (Il padre d’Italia)

Part of me agrees that nobody asked Paolo to play a white night to some random pregnant lady he doesn’t know, but the fact that Mia is so dismissive and ungrateful is annoying. Not to mention it’s kinda uncool to drink, smoke and take drugs while you’re pregnant. Mia is trashy, but she isn’t as bad or as annoying as the people before her.

12. Fulvia (Una questione privata)

That “got nothing in my brain” Taylor Swift meme is about her. Also she called Milton ugly.

11. Florence Stalworthy-Pilaster (Die Pfeiler der Macht)

She is Edward’s young wife and a sweet, naive girl who became a pawn in Augusta and Mickey’s scheme. She didn’t do anything wrong and she didn’t deserve any of this shit.

10. Eva Kant (Diabolik)

Seeing how much I hated this movie, I’m very surprised Eva is so high on the list. I attribute this to her basically carrying this whole so-called plot on her shoulders and actually doing stuff.

9. Enrica “Puny” Rignon (Fabrizio de André - Principe libero)

She’s positioned as the worse of Fabrizio’s two wives but really, what did she do wrong? Knew her worth and hated being cheated on? Honestly, Puny is perfect. It’s not her fault she wasn’t her slutty husband’s One True Love.

8. Lei (Ricordi?)

She’s sweet and cute and perfect and she’s played by Linda Caridi. What more do you need?

7. Mario (Il padre d’Italia)

Who else is enough of a saint to continue being a shoulder to cry on for their ex? The same person who is ready to sacrifice a lot of time and money to travel across the country to fetch that same ex and bring him back home after he got his heart broken, that’s who.

6. Margherita (Martin Eden)

Take Mario’s saintliness and apply it to a love interest of a character who is way more of a pill than Paolo. Margherita deserves to have streets and bridges named after her.

5. Viviana (Non essere cattivo)

There’s literally nothing wrong with Viviana. She’s wonderful: loving, supportive, caring, and resourceful. She deserved the world.

4. Maria (Maria di Nazaret)

She’s THE Mary, Mother of Jesus, but her biggest achievement is not murdering her useless piece of shit husband. She deserved Oscar Isaac but instead she got one of the worst-written Luca characters in history.

3. Dori Ghezzi (Fabrizio de André - Principe libero)

As the actual One True Love of the main character, she gets to be quite high on the list, not to mention her patience, loyalty, bravery and literally her perfection.

2. Joe aka Yusuf Al-Kaysani (The Old Guard)

Whaat?! Joe isn’t number one?! But he’s literally perfect! Yes, I know. I told you I was biased.

1. Leonardo (Trust)

It’s not a movie, and Leonardo isn’t Primo’s real, canonical love interest? I don’t give a shit. He’s smart, resourceful, level-headed, loyal, and Primo totally wants to bang him. This is my list, and Leo is number one.

Do you disagree with my ranking? Please make your own list and send me the link or share your opinion in the notes. Don’t forget to like and subscribe!