#also... is there interest for a discord server?

[alexanderwales]

Thoughts on Chilli, Northen Caves, and When I Win? Personally they're probably my favorite things on the whole list, but I feel like they never got as big a reception as a bunch of the other stuff. :(

The Northern Caves: I really really loved the first 80% of so of this. I grew up with forums and their particulars, the ways in which you'd come to know the personalities, and how the superfans would get into these long, drawn out debates that were steeped in the prior histories of conversations. There's something really magical about how TNC does this, and the "found media" elements work really well. It reminded me of the better parts of House of Leaves, I guess, and was also just hugely nostalgic (since I was in high school during the Forum Years). The philosophical stuff was also great, and the series they were reading felt rich, and nost is a great writer with wonderful prose. And then I just did not enjoy the ending at all. I think that in spite of that, I recommend it highly, and think it's one of the things on the webfic bingo card that's most worth reading.

Chili and the Chocolate Factory: I adored this one from start to finish, and also Dahl was one of the authors whose works I was steeped in growing up and also at the time it was coming out I was rereading a lot of Dahl's books with my son and also there are a few references to me and my discord server within the work. So I'm biased heavily in favor of this one, but I also also think that it's got this crazy energy to it, an insane density of ideas and weird things, and a wonderful sense of humor. Remy would probably hate to hear me say this, but I think he's one of the best writers I know. It's really really rare for me to read something and have so many individual pieces of it stick with me. I do wish that it were easier to get people on board with, because I have no clue how to pitch it to prospective readers.

When I Win: A few things here: I am just not a Pokemon guy. Red and Blue came out in 1998, when I was 12 years old, and everyone at my school was obsessed with it, and I just did not get into it, and had to suffer through a lot of Pokemon conversations I wasn't interested in. It's like the opposite of FOMO, then you wish that everyone would shut up about this thing you're "missing out" on. So whenever I read Pokemon fic, it's an uphill battle to care about the core thing, and I have enough Pokemon knowledge to get by, but sometimes it'll end up feeling like homework if I have to look up references or jokes or just understand things. Another thing is, I think Bavitz and I have very different tastes in character dialogue. I noticed this with Cockatiel x Chameleon too, and I suspect that when I get around to Bavitz's other stuff I'll see it there too. The differences in speech seem really exaggerated to me, blown out of proportion, idiolects heightened, and I think I've gotten in disagreements with people over whether this is actually true or not, but it's definitely how it feels to me. I found Cely in particular to be fairly grating whenever she spoke. This is a personal preference thing, and I don't know how much it generalizes to other people; I'm not sure that I've seen anyone else mention it, but I also haven't read a bunch of reviews.

So with that said, Bavitz is a skilled author who goes into a story with Something to Say, who milks the premise and theme for what it's worth, and brings a literary sense to his works. The fight scenes are really well done, even for someone like me who is not a Pokemon guy. There's a lot that I found interesting about competition and stagnation, the capture of competitive drive. Bavitz likes to think about the end of history a lot, and it shows here. It's thankfully a concept that I find interesting. I enjoyed the core relationship of Cely and Toril, it's a good, interesting dynamic. Without spoiling it, the ending worked well for me. Well worth reading.

[thinkblotted]

Building a Better Star (aka, the Star Essay)

I like Star. I’m getting that shit out of the way right here at the beginning, just in case. I like Star, I like what she is, I think she deserves better writing. 

Also - these are my takes. These takes may not be your takes. We can have different takes.

Okay? Okay. Let’s go. 

For the purposes of this analysis and suggestion, I’m only going to be going off of movie canon Star, rather than book canon Star, because while they’re basically the same, there are a few background elements in the book that expand  on Star’s internal thoughts and relationships with the boys that you could only get from exposition in the book, and that’s not as available a source as the movie, so. 

Since I’m either posting this on tumblr for the four people who will read it, or filming myself talking about this like a normal person with normal hobbies, I won’t explain who canonically she is because that’s unnecessary for this audience of me and a discord server, but rather who she is as a character as presented.

The thing about The Lost Boys is that it exists as a double edged sword of characterization for all its characters. They’re all incredibly simple, and in that white space that’s left behind where deeper characterization would be put in other movies, here there’s just a void, leaving the audience to fill in the gaps however they see fit with whatever they can glean from the surrounding world. 

The vampires are the prime example of this - of all the characters, they get the least amount of dialogue and have the most void to fill in who they are as characters. Star is the runner up, having more character, but the same amount of void in her backstory. 

So who is Star? 

Star is The Girl of the group, a trope wherein you have a group of characters who make up the core of your main cast and usually they’re all male, with one or occasionally two exceptions being girls - if it’s two, one will be the ‘nerdy’ or otherwise ‘not strictly desirable by main male cast’ role, and the other will be The Girl, who is almost always the love interest of the main male, who, even though she’s more of a main character then the secondary girl, typically does less than them. As presented, Star fits this trope easily, as well as filling out the subtropes that it consists of. 

She’s soft-spoken, pretty, demure, stays out of most of the fights in the story, offers the protagonist advice but never tells him directly how to face the conflict of the story, offers support but never directly physically supports the protagonist. She’s an inciting incident all to herself, but never actually drives the plot forward except to be a shining prize on the mountaintop of the narrative that the protagonist must climb in order to claim. 

After being in the Lost Boys fandom for about two and a half-ish years now, there are some take-aways specific to Star that the fandom tends to play on the most. 

And I want to add in here, I do not have a problem with these traits being assigned to her. Star, like the rest of the cast, is a very malleable character. The void around her is just as vast as the other vampires, and this is fandom - we play with blorbos from our media like dolls. This entire thing is purely based on what I personally would like to see Star become, and since I’m a freak, I don’t just write fanfic, I also do this. Apparently. So take everything I’m saying with a giant grain of salt.

The traits that I most see attributed to Star are:

-She’s a shrinking violet, either unwilling or unable to interact directly with the conflict of the story

-She’s being held against her will to the point that leaving in any capacity is not only not an option, but would lead to physical harm/possibly death if she tried (ie, she’s an abused captive) 

-She cannot be held responsible for any bad decisions she’s made in the past or makes in the current story, or any bad turns the plot takes 

The first assertion is held up pretty well by the canon of the movie, and most of the fandom also agrees that it would have been nice if the movie actually did make Star a little less soft. There have been several outcries for Star to ‘vamp out’ like the Boys did, to at the very least give her a scary vampire face! Her tiny confrontation with Max at the end of the movie would have been a perfect space for that, but unfortunately, the movie has 80s-itis and being the female love interest and a victim in the plot, Star isn’t allowed to be aggressive in such a blatant manner. 

Star also hangs back whenever the Boys have presence on the screen. She’s never in the forefront, sharing the space, she’s in the background, watching them, only observing. The one time she directly contradicts them, ‘Leave him alone’ she’s told straight up to ‘chill out, girl’, and she doesn’t continue the conflict. When she does decide to try and be more forward with Michael, directly affecting things, she waits until there is no other persons of consequence around in order to do so. 

The second assertion of her being held against her will is a little trickier to pin down as a trait, but evidence of this is implied with how she contributes to the narrative - mainly, in asking Michael directly to save Laddie and her from the Boys, or at the very least, the situation she’s in. Though, it should be noted, that Star never makes a direct statement of what that situation is. She hedges that it’s being being driven to kill to sate the vampiric nature, but when taking scenes like David simply saying her name to get her to come to him, being told indirectly to back off when the Boys are hazing Michael, and backing away in a fearful manner when Michael is drinking the blood wine into consideration, there’s the darker notion that she’s being abused in other ways. 

Because the movie is meant to be a lighter flick, full of scary-yet-alluring vampire punk boys and over the top monster-hunting gore, billing it as a ‘horror-comedy’ excludes any deeper exploration or more explicit on-screen showing of verbal, emotional, or physical harm that Star may be experiencing. Doing so would take away from the fantastical and darkly whimsical nature of the story, grounding it too much, and making the Boys, though they be villains, into villains we wouldn’t love to hate.

Thus, the darker implications of what Star might be facing behind the scenes, when Michael isn’t around and before he came along, is left to the audience’s interpretation, as well as any ability Star has to struggle against them. The fandom frequently interprets as none, thanks to the plot of the movie being what it is. 

The third major assertion that the fandom tends to adopt is that Star is largely if not completely irresponsible for the missteps of other characters and for her own predicament. 

This given trait is the most difficult to back up with evidence directly from the canon as it relies heavily on filling in the blank spaces of Star and the other character’s backstories. Star is not responsible for Michael spotting her in the crowd at the concert or deciding to follow after her. Star technically didn’t tell Michael to accept David’s goading to race. Star told Michael she both didn’t know how to help him, and couldn’t explain it. Star is not responsible for Michael’s induction into the Boy’s gang because, well, she told him what he was drinking was blood. Star never directly acts to drive the plot forward until the beginning of the third act when she does admit to Michael that she needs his help, thus, cannot be held responsible even in part to Michael’s involvement. 

Lack or acceptance of Star’s responsibility for her own inability to leave the Boys is even harder to pin down, as we have no movie canon for what her life was like before meeting the Boys. The implication from the world around them is that Star is a runaway kid like many of the people seen in the opening sweep of Santa Carla, likely from a crappy home and was taken in by the Boys but soon got in over her head, but this is never directly confirmed. 

The idea that Star made a bad choice, and was not just manipulated and coerced after the ‘honeymoon’ period with the Boys is somewhat controversial as it paints Star in a less favorable light. She isn’t an innocent victim, but rather someone who made a bad call and refuses to acknowledge her own agency in that decision, instead placing any and all blame on the Boys. 

‘But what if she’s tried that already?’ Unfortunately, that lies entirely in the realm of off-screen possibilities that are not support by any canon. Star in the movie is never shown or implied to have tried escaping before, and in the book she merely has internal monologues about wanting to leave, not that she’s ever attempted it. 

Giving Star any one of these traits on their own isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Star is very much helpless in this situation - she’s in a den of immortal man-eating monsters while only being barely half of one herself, and refusing to take the option that would grant her more physical power to assert control in the situation, because the act required would be a shattering of her moral compass. Regardless of her involvement in how she got here, she deserves to be able to leave and make better choices. 

But giving Star all of these traits at once with nothing else to her flattens her completely. It does her, in my opinion, an incredible amount of injustice to absolve her of any kind of responsibility in her own problems and then rob her of any bravery to take a risk and change it herself.

And that’s not a good character. 

In order to build a better Star, we need to first accept a truth that might be a slightly hard pill to swallow: 

A good Star is not necessarily a protagonist. 

At least, not in the same way that Michael or Sam can be. Michael and Sam are protagonists in that they’re the heroes of the story. They face the main conflict head on and drive the plot forward with their actions, and are who we’re rooting for to win. We see them and their actions as ‘good’. They are absolved by the framing of blame in what is done to them. (Michael in getting in over his head with the Boys by ignoring the reservations and loose warnings of others, and Sam of murder with the fact that the Boys are man-eating monsters bent on getting back at them when one of their own is killed.)

If you make Star a protagonist in the same way, with her needing to be framed as ‘good’ in the story, but only keeping the character traits previously listed, then she’s a boring character. She becomes only nebulously ‘good’ just by virtue of not technically having done anything that could be considered ‘bad.’ Being counted as a heroine only by default. 

And that sucks. That puts her simultaneously on a pedestal where she can do no wrong, but is an empty shell that’s there to smile or cry and do nothing else. 

Often, when talking about female protagonists, antagonists, anti-heros and characters with grey morality or amorality, the added layer of them being women forces ten times the scrutiny on not just how they’re built as a character, but on their creators and why they’re choosing to build the character in the way they are. Any mistakes plot-pushing decisions made by the character aren’t as likely to be accepted as just the character acting in the story, but get traced back to the author. The audience constantly asks the question, ‘if it was a male character, would there be consequences for this act, or are you treating this character special because they’re a woman?’ 

In this case, it’s ‘Michael also fucks up, and yet is treated as a victim, deserving of sympathy and being saved by his brother rather than having to fight all on his own. Their situations are the same. Why not Star? The only difference between them is gender.’ 

This essay is not about whether or not Star is deserving of being saved, nor is it saying that she deserves being trapped in the situation that she’s in. But much like how Star reminds Michael that she did indeed tell him that it was blood in the bottle and he scoffed at her, Star deserves not to be a lifeless doll being acted upon, and a good female character deserves to not be a pretty, perfect Barbie doll that does no wrong and always looks pretty. 

So with the knowledge that a better Star cannot be purely a protagonist, how do we lower her from the boring pedestal? 

My suggestion: by inverting her three main traits

The first: If she’s billed as meek and demure and soft, then make her more aggressive and vulgar 

The second: If she seems to be kept at silent gunpoint, then give her more freedom to act

The third: Make her at least partly responsible for her own situation, regardless of whether or not she thinks she is 

The first revised trait is the most important in my opinion to building a better Star, as it will help direct and reinforce the second two. 

A large part of Star’s lack of presence in the movie is quite literally, a lack of physical presence. Star seems to hate even being near the vampires, and depending on what kind of story you wish to show her in, it could make sense. But chances are, if she’s given the shrinking violet trait, she’s been given the other two as well, and that makes a bad Star. She must be allowed to speak, and more than that - she must be allowed to show emotion. 

Let Star be angry. Let her be hurt in a way that’s not beautiful and languorous, a wilting agony of suffering in silence. And I’ll say it: Let Star say the Fuck word. As silly and simple as it may seem, such a small detail can transform a character. Star deserves to be as rough-edged and imperfect in her words and attitude as any of the rest of the Boys, possibly more if she’s in a situation that she hates! If she had the bravery to run away from home, then she should be afforded the bravery to be more than a pretty, silent, pure woman who doesn’t know what a cigarette is. 

The second revised trait is going to be the most fluid in interpretation because it relies the most on the author or artist or fan’s personal interpretation of what the relationship between Star and the Boys is really like. 

In the movie, Star seems to move with the Boys. She’s usually near them enough that they can keep an eye on her, as we see with David watching Star talking to Michael before the beach race. The only times we see Star distance herself physically is right after the bonfire, where she comes to the Emerson cabin to convince Michael to save her, or when she and Michael have sex. The first time, she seems desperate, like she may not have much time, and the second, she’s been left there on her own while the Boys go out and cavort, likely with the implication that she should stay where they can find her when they get back. 

Again, this is the trait that can be toyed with the most, but a good way to combat the feeling that she’s being held against her will is to give the notion that there are parts of being around the vampires that she likes. There are tiny hints of this in the movie, and the book expands on this. In the movie, there’s a moment during the race where Star seems to be enjoying herself while riding with David - at the very least, she’s enjoying the speed and thrill, if not the person she’s with. In the book, Star and Paul have the best relationship of any of the boys, with Paul trying to cheer her up and promising a ‘happily ever after’. To keep it from feeling like a full captive situation, give Star a reason to feel a bit conflicted over the pack. She’s there in the first place, after all. 

The third revised trait is going to be the most controversial, as it’s a hard thing to admit when people in real life do it. 

Admitting that sometimes, the problems we find ourselves dealing with, are our own fault. We make a bad call, we make a poorly informed decision or decide in the heat of the moment. Sometimes, we are lied to, but the lie is flimsy and we chose to swallow it because it’s what we wanted to hear at the time. I like to ask authors writing villains this - what’s worse and more compelling; a villain who lies, or a villain who tells the protagonist a truth they don’t want to hear? 

And, as backwards as it sounds, making Star partially responsible for her situation is giving her more agency in her story. It gives her a reasonable character flaw that she has to confront and defeat. 

Here is where I’m going to throw in an interesting observation about a specific scene that I think helps lend itself to this particular revised trait: the scene where she asks Michael for help directly. In canon, the scene goes about like this - Star comes to the cabin, Michael tells her that he knows about the vampires, and when he expresses that he thinks it’s basically done for him, Star tells him that it’s not, he’s not fully gone, and that she needs his help to save all three of them. Now, there’s something really, really interesting to me about this scene: Star is NOT a reliable narrator during it. At all. 

To say that she’s lying outright about everything would be untrue, but when you examine it, you realize that she’s being untruthful all the same. When Michael gets upset, accusing her of not caring about him because in his eyes she let this happen, she says that she DOES care about him, using physical touch to reinforce this. When she’s soundly rejected, by Michel slapping her hand away and demanding to know why she REALLY came, she very reluctantly tells him that she was hoping he’d help them. It’s her last answer, the last thing she wanted to say. Obviously hoping that the emotions would be enough to persuade him, rather than just saying that she needed help outright, which would be easier to say no to. 

Secondly, the WHY. Star states that Michael was ‘supposed to be her first, because it’s what David wanted’. When watching the scene, the delivery, the body language, and given the full context of the plot and how we’ve seen Star behave? We can only come to the conclusion that Star. Doesn’t. Know. That. 

Max’s ultimate goal is to get Lucy, and to get Lucy, he needs Michael and Sam to be on board, or at least BE vampires. Killing one of her children would hardly serve that goal. Given the ending fight, Max doesn’t give a dead rat’s ass about Star. And Star? She doesn’t even know Max exists. David telling Star to kill Michael to turn her into a vampire is not only pointless, but going expressly against Max’s wishes. We don’t know how much of Max’s plan David and the Boys know about, or given their personalities and implied relationship with him, even care about, but defying him in this instance doesn’t seem like the smartest thing to do. 

Not to mention - Star does like Michael. She hugs him at the end, she does give him a warning about the blood, albeit a weak one. She does attempt to fight Max in the end, even if she fails. As for her thoughts on David, those are more complicated. Whether the relationship is real, coerced, that she’s simply a pawn being used to tug Michael around or whether she and David did like each other at one time, is unknown, but it is clear that Star knows that David is interested in Michael, and doesn’t like it. So it would then be logical to assume, given this, that Star would assume, based on what she knows and has been able to observe, that she’d pain David in a worse light. Insinuating that it’s HIM who’s pulling the string, assuming what he wants and what his intentions are, even if she DOESN’T. KNOW. 

All this to conclude: Star is an unreliable narrator taking actions based on her own flawed assumptions. Which means she’s going to make mistakes, and miscalculate her position. She’s going to cast herself in a certain light, and like anyone, maybe not want to admit when that light is suddenly not a reflection of her best. 

So, how do I conclude this. 

Star is an interesting character, and I do enjoy her. If you managed to sit through this to get to here, and if there’s anything to take away from this, it’s that I enjoy Star and I want her to be a better…her. She deserves to cuss and spit, she deserves to be angry and sad at her predicament, she deserves to be loved as a whole person and not some untouchable angel. Let her fight. Let her bite. Let her bleed for her freedom and personhood.

Most importantly, if you allow the Boys room to be more than they are presented as on screen, then you can afford to give that to Star. 

Thank you for reading, if you did. 

@misslavenderlady (I almost forgot!)

[soulsmake]

I'm so excited for this event! Making friends in fandom spaces is so hard sometimes and the mods being so open that it's okay not to do anything but have a conversation is so sweet :D

Also mentioning that sonas were allowed?? Even better, I love my sona but I feel weird putting them in events that people never talk about them in. Even if a partner doesn't also have one, sometimes it's just nice to know that they are allowed

We’re really glad to hear you’re excited! I hope you’re able to find a partner who will talk sonas with you, sona stuff is so fun.

I don’t think I’ve told this story in detail yet, but this event was originally run in a small private discord server of about 50 members, a little under half of whom signed up to participate.

The origin of this event was that a lot of the creatives in this server work in pairs or trios, usually preferring the same partner, so the bit this event was founded out of was that we had to swap our normal “emotional support [artist/writer]” and try working with someone new.

It was made for a bunch of people who love making AUs with a friend to have an excuse to work with a different person than they usually do, in whatever capacity they felt up to doing that or in whatever way their schedule allowed them to. Fully a for-fun-and-friendship event, hence the pretty minimal requirements!

As for the OCs: Most people in there were Life Series (specifically renchanting/treebark) fans, but not everyone was still into Life Series, so I opened it to other fandoms and sonas/OCs to allow for those people to participate. I saw no reason not to keep that allowance when making the event public, especially since the range of interests of participants would be even larger!

(Speaking of sonas and OCs: The funniest part of the original run of this event is two of my friends used one of my OCs in their AU, and I think they wrote him better than I do. I don’t think I’ll ever recover from that)

[minteajester]

📺 ☎️ Join Spamtenna Nation ☎️ 📺

Hey guys! My partner and I made a Discord server for Spamtenna enjoyers to hang out, share art/fic/etc., discuss headcanons and more. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

This is an 18+ server so please only join if you're an adult. Minors will not be let in.

While the server is adults only, it's not solely focused on NSFW. There are channels for that but you can choose not to see them if you wish.

On occasion, we will host server events such as game nights, collaborative drawing sessions and watch parties. We'd also love to have casual voice calls and art streams!

Since the server is focused on a relationship that's mainly explored in the new chapters, there will be spoilers. If you haven't played through chapters 3 and 4 yet, it might be best to do so before joining! The link shouldn't expire if you wish to bookmark it for the time being.

Please read the rules and make an introduction in order to access the full server.

If you're interested, the join link is below! I look forward to chatting with some fellow Spamtenna fans.

[sponeszine]

A Special Announcement!

Happy Spones Day, everyone! We've been hinting at a special announcement for weeks now, and we can finally share that our second NSFW theme is… Mirrorverse!

Introduced in the TOS episode Mirror, Mirror, the Mirrorverse is a twisted reflection of the regular TOS universe where everything is darker, crueler, and cold-hearted murder is the norm. Captain Kirk, Doctor McCoy, Scotty, and Lieutenant Uhura were sent to that universe where they encountered the Mirror Spock, and just barely returned home with their lives.

You're free to tackle the Mirrorverse in whatever way you like! We will release more information about submissions in the coming days, so be sure to stay tuned in to our page and/or join our Discord server to keep up with all the latest updates! In the meantime, you're free to begin brainstorming--submissions for this edition will close August 31st!

And now, a request: our committee needs help! We're searching for additional Production/Formatting, Illustration/Graphic Design, and Editors to assist our current team. You can learn more information about these roles through the application form linked below, such as the level of responsibility and time commitment.

Apply to join the We Go Together committee here!

We are also in search of a cover artist for this edition. If you have any interest, please contact us for more information!

We're so excited for this issue of the zine, and we hope that you all are too. Thank you everyone for your patience and support, and we hope that you enjoy Spones Day~!

[theoriesnstuff]

Hey! This is my first post about one theory I had in mind on these weeks about SOR:

(Please, if you can, read it. It could interest you a bit about the relationships between this crew)

Let's start with the names of the characters that were displayed in the first trailer. According to some people in the SOR Discord server, their names are:

1. Vam - main singer (white-haired guy)

2. Jimbo - (the brunette guy)

3. Luchino - (the drummer)

4. Iris - (the girl)

Note: Ranbo is the ship's name, and Vam is the captain of the ship, which would explain why he has the name Ranbo on the back of his jacket.

But something that took my attention was the tattoos Vam has on his hands, especially on his knuckles/fingers...🤔

Let's begin with the placements of the tattoo on each finger:

a. Index finger has the letter "V"

b. The middle finger has the letter "L"

c. The ring finger has the letter "I"

d. The pinky has the letter "J"

Just by looking at it doesn't mean much, but then I thought to myself, ¿what if each finger means something? Tattoos have meanings, right?...

So, basically, this tattoo could explain the types of relationships he has with his crew and how he gets along with them...

Soooo, here's another image, this time closer...

First, let's explore what tattoo on each finger means:

⛵️Index finger means: leadership or direction.

🦑 Middle finger means: strength and balance.

🐚 Ring finger: Love or even commitment.

🎣 Pinky finger: Communication or trust.

Note: Just to make sure, let's remind:

The letter "V" stands for Vam.

The letter "L" stands for Luchino.

The letter "I" stands for Iris.

The letter "J" stands for Jimbo.

Anyway, so if each finger means something, I could say that:

a. "V"(Vam) is on the index finger because he's captain of the crew, explaining why he tattooed his initial on that finger exactly, which means leadership.

b. The letter "L" (Luchino) on the middle finger could mean that he's the inner strength or general strength of the crew.

c. The letter "I" (Iris) on the ring finger could mean that Vam considers her as someone who has a very deep connection with him (usually people who tattoos someone's initials on their ring finger means deep love or perhaps devotion), basically this kind of tattoo screams: “She owns my heart” or maybe she's the heart of the crew. (That could hint that Vam can be a romantic type of character)

d. The letter "J" (Jimbo) on his pinky could mean that Vam sees him as a best friend, trusting and even a brother figure (many possibilities).

Also, the tatoos are not ramdom placed bc in his other hand, it has the same sequence of the initials. Look:

Here is a close-up...

That's all for tonight ✨️

I'll be posting more theories like this often, so if you guys want to give me recommendations, I'll gladly take it...

⚓️ Link for the SOR Discord server: ⚓️

Also, leave a comment, I want to know what you guys think about my theory. 🌊⛵️

[midnight-engene]

Attention all engene!

Are you 18+ and need more engene friends?

Do you want to have fun watch parties and game nights?

Well I have a server for you! Me and my friends have created a discord server open to anyone 18+ and we are also all multi stans!

We love groups such as Bts, Txt, &team, and etc.!

Preferred time zone would be pst, est, central!

We would love to have you join us for our fun and exciting game nights and to also make more friends! Even if you don't have discord we can help you set it up and join us! But we would love to have some more active members in our server! (Join or else eyebrow Heeseung will haunt you)

Please message me if you are interested!

[nagasriel]

(i never forgot about it dont worry)

So result here ! as said before since results are rather close i'll do a mix

First of as said the event will occurs during the month of August so stay tunes !

I also decided on a name : The Sickle & Scimitar Art War !! Although willing to change if suggestions

I'll prepare the event slowly !

If you're interested in joining i'll suggest joining the zelda themed discord server i own, while it is not only for the event, it'll be half held here (worry not you can still participate without discord !)

I'll also probably make another blog just for the event !

Interest check - Gerudo and Yiga themed art event

Hihihi ! was thinking about hosting an event about Gerudo/Yiga ! As I saw Zora-may around and not gonna lie but it kind of inspired me.

So interest check ! Unsure about dates but maybe August ?Probably during the whole month ! will be busy in July with artfight and September is school year starting so many people would be busy. Would also probably host on discord as well.

(let me know if any dates seems better)

Would be in the form of prompts and just draw around Gerudo/Yiga. Maybe thinking about adding rewards to spice things up, gotta think about it.

Both canon characters and ocs would be allowed ! Any games as well so could be Urbosa, oc x canon, oc, Ganondorf ect... you'd be free as long as Gerudo/Yiga themed. Honestly in the spirit of artfight would be fun to have an actual Gerudo vs Yiga art war)

If we go with the Gerudo vs Yiga then I'll probably host that with the help of discord and google docs. Either prompt only so you choose Gerudo or Yiga and score points for your team by drawing

Or like Artfight where you'll upload your characters and attacks other Gerudo/yiga ocs to gain point for your team !

So many possibilities I can't wait !

[lowstakesvampires]

little note

at the time of typing this, there is one week of queue left, so i gotta refill it soon.

and i've decided... to still include the longer comics in it, maybe. since i am currently posting my stuff in sketchbook order anyway.

it won't be pure sketchbook order anymore, since i will lump together the pages that belong together (and sometimes there would be several pages and other comics in between these, in the actual book)

but overall, you'll still see the art evolution going on, because wow who knew, drawing little comics consistently for years means the art will subtly improve over time haha

at some later time, these comics will once again be posted one by one - in actual story order. this will probably happen when we're caught up with the sketchbooks.

until then, have fun piecing it together lmao <3

[14dayswithyou]

Where are we sitting, angels? ✈️

[teh-inggris]

My name is Brutus

[mournfall-syscourse]

Heya~ so we wanted to understand your perspective on all of this a bit better. We're on the pro-endo lean of things, but we're a CDD system (DID specifically). Partly because of our views on things, we're going to use CDD systems and non-CDD systems to refer to things, rather than calling non-CDD systems endogenic. The distinction of whether a system is a CDD system feels more important than origin labels, here. I'll preface that all of this is genuine, as far as tone. We want to understand your perspective on all of this better. We also want to help you feel heard and listened to, and maybe figure out a solution alongside you, if possible. We're also responding to your post bit by bit, so apologies if there's any repetition or such, and for the length of the response too, ofc.

Firstly, yeah, definitely agree that it's a problem that CDD-specific discussions will get derailed by a non-CDD system demanding that the discussion also account for their experience. It's a problem, we've seen it often - hell it happens in other spaces for other stuff too. It's annoying. I wish people would respect that discussions about experiences specific to one group, or sub-group, are not "exclusionary" or "gatekeepey" or what have you. Additionally, spaces in general. We also absolutely agree that it's important to have spaces that are specific to each group (CDD systems and non-CDD systems), as well as the shared spaces. We think there are different approaches for each, and there's room for both. For instance, a CDD-specific space could either be entirely exclusive, only allowing systems that believe they have a CDD to join (it does raise the question of how you handle those who are unsure if their experience is that of a CDD or not), or they could allow anyone to join, but the space is for CDD systems, and so discussions that are related to non-CDD systems will either be not allowed, or at least limited and/or relegated to a specific part of the space. In a discord server, for instance, both of these are doable. In the latter, non-CDD systems (and those who aren't sure) would still be cool to observe, maybe some might find that information helpful to them. Some may even ask questions to try and understand some of the CDD-specific experiences and differences. As long as it stays on topic, that's fine. In the former, it's much easier to keep things in check, even if it's a bit more closed-off - and a rule of not mentioning origin syscourse would ensure that things are chill, syscourse conversations unrelated to non-CDD systems would not be needed there. In a space like tumblr... it's a public forum. It's near-impossible to truly keep spaces separate. It's more about ettiquette, and people respecting the tags, and keeping within their lanes. Some people do this well, others do not. I do think it would be nice if topics that are noted (tags or actual content) to be about or specifically catered towards CDD systems were allowed to be as such - hopefully over time that can happen. Yeah I do agree that non-CDD systems don't need to be involved in every system space. We're of the opinion that there are differences between CDD and non-CDD systems, but there are also a lot of similarities. The differences are important to acknowledge and accommodate for, while the similarities are helpful for solidarity and sometimes even just a different perspective. With that view in mind, absolutely we need to have the option of separate spaces. These spaces do exist, though it depends what platform you're looking for them on. As far as separation of plurality, we view things more as a spectrum - at a base fundamental level, we think non-CDD and CDD plurality are the same. But the existence of a CDD changes that plurality. The roots are the same. I can go into this further if you're interested, but I'm mainly including it so you can understand where we're coming from with our perspective, for this reblog. We don't think CDD and non-CDD plurality are so different that shared spaces don't make sense to have - but we still absolutely agree with you that separated spaces are also necessary.

I'll also add that your thoughts and perspectives are appreciated on this. You're an anti-endo that is very chill overall, from what we've seen of your posts, and we think that discussions with you would be good to have, for understanding that side of things more. There are things we don't agree with, sure, but we'd like to understand more about why you have the viewpoints you do, and share our own, if you're interested in those, too.

We can certainly empathise with feeling like your plurality is inseparable from your disorder. We have (and to an extent, still do) felt that way about our own. Our perspective is still a bit different to yours, but we do definitely understand that feeling, and why it feels that way. I can also understand the other side of things, of viewing plurality through the lens of identity. We personally look at our plurality through both lenses, disability/disorder and identity. I think it varies on which takes a priority, depending on a given situation, and sometimes they're pretty even. You say you see your plurality through the lens of disability and disorder first and foremost - do you view it through a lens of identity as well, with it just being less of an influence of your view of it, or is that not something you do at all?

As far as your plurality being impossible to view in a vacuum - we can also empathise with that too, it's something we also felt about our own system. That has changed, for us, but we definitely understand that feeling and perspective - our plurality is so tied up in our disorder and the trauma surrounding it. Untangling that will take a lot of time and effort. Recovery. Our goal for our system is functional multiplicity/resolution, personally, and while we still recognise that we will always have our CDD, we also view our plurality as being able to exist outside of the disordered/dysfunctional aspects of it, one day. How do you view that side of things? I understand the frustration of being told to just focus on the similarities and just accept them. The similarities are there, but the differences are too. Both are important. And just accepting things because you're told them is also generally not going to work - we struggle with it too - in various situations, not just syscourse. We've learnt how to manage it better than we used to, but it's taken effort to get to this point.

We get your point behind the Autism, ADHD, and AuDHD comparison. Honestly we agree with a lot of it, though we don't think it quite supports your argument as well as you hoped - but we like the general idea behind it, so we'll propose this comparison. If you swap out Autism and ADHD for plurality (non-CDD) and C-PTSD, then the comparison makes more sense (though still somewhat imperfect). CDDs then fit in the AuDHD slot. Having a CDD is kinda like having both plurality and C-PTSD together. They're both dissociative by nature (plurality just isn't pathological in its dissociation), but the combination of the two changes things, they blend together, like in your original comparison. There's similar experiences to non-CDD systems (just plurality), and there are similar experiences to singlets with C-PTSD. But the experiences aren't exactly the same. They can feel very different. The similarities are worth considering, but the differences are also incredibly important.

With that comparison as the perspective, then maybe that makes it easier to consider that shared spaces for all systems (and shared spaces for all people with trauma disorders) make sense. However, again, we absolutely agree with you that separation is also important to have available. Having spaces that are specific to CDDs is still a need. We do agree that it's frustrating when non-CDD systems request everything be shared or try to make things about them, when they're not meant to be. While I do think that non-limited resources (like digital documents or apps or such) should be shared, as it's not taking that away from CDD systems, there are still things that should be kept at least as a priority for CDD systems over non-CDD systems. I will say that generally, most non-CDD systems don't claim to have a CDD. Those that do, the majority of the (pro-)endo community doesn't condone, as far as I can tell. Non-CDD plurality functions differently - though we do think there's a spectrum to it.

As far as separate terms go, and the feeling of CDD and non-CDD systems living in different worlds, we'd love to hear your perspective on that more, if you can find a way to put it into words. As someone who views the two forms of plurality as having the same roots, I'd really like to understand why the two experiences feel so different from your perspective. If you can, please share that viewpoint.

It's definitely interesting to have felt like the experience was so different in a pro-endo space - assumably there were both CDD and non-CDD systems there? Do you remember what it was like interacting with the pro-endo CDD systems in that space, and their experiences of things? If so, did it also feel really unfamiliar and such?

Absolutely feel you on the awful feeling of being told that you don't need to understand, to just accept it, or to just get over it. Especially as someone with a strong feeling that we need to understand things. It can be really frustrating to be trying to understand as much as possible and then being denied that because the other person got tired of trying to explain it - though we've definitely found we were partially to blame in situations like that in our past experiences, for our approach to the topic - things we've worked on, even if we still mess up sometimes. "Make your own space if you don't like it" - this one is tricky. I don't know if it's always intended to be dismissive, but I suppose it depends on the situation in question. Are you trying to change an existing space? Not everyone's going to be okay with that. In some ways, making your own space is easier, and those that want in will join. Again, it really depends on the platform you're creating this space on, as some are easier to moderate than others. The thing with online spaces, as well, is that you don't have to leave one space to join another. If your CDD-only space is available and known about, then people can join it - if there's demand for it, of course - without losing any shared spaces they might be in as well. We do want to understand more about what you mean, in this section, about (pro-)endos and pro-leaning endo-neutrals doing what they want and ignoring you (also is that anti-endos as a whole?), as well as feeling like everyone has decided what they're doing is best. We're not sure we fully understand what your ideal for how the community at large would function like is - could you explain that further, please?

We don't think it's pointless or bigoted gatekeeping - there are definitely issues with shared spaces - not necessarily their existence, but having separated spaces be less common is definitely not ideal, and we very much support the idea of those spaces being made available. As far as separate terms go, we personally think CDD and non-CDD are good enough separators, but we'd still like to understand more of your perspective on that. Some things definitely need to change, yeah. Separate spaces are definitely a good starting point - some exist already but they're less built-up than combined spaces. We've been in some CDD-exclusive discord servers in the past (ones that didn't care about your stance on endos, as long as origin syscourse was not happening), and they worked fairly well at the time, for a while at least.

We agree that being separate isn't always gatekeeping bullshit, it's not always bad (and often can be good). We're a little confused regarding those wanting separation being told to go somewhere else - like above, we're not entirely sure if you're trying to change existing spaces, but if that is the case, then... doesn't it make sense that if you want a space built on separation, to create a new space for that, rather than changing the existing shared spaces to be separate? A shared space will always require an amount of compromise. If the problem is that you want separation, by nature of it being a shared space it's not going to be your preferred space to be in, so a CDD-specific space would need to be created (if you can't find one to your liking that already exists) to suit your liking more. Whether or not other CDD systems join that separated space is ultimately up to them - some prefer a shared space, some prefer a separated space, some like having access to both. As far as feeling like you're being suffocated by (pro-)endos, I want to ask about pro-endo CDDs specifically. If you're feeling suffocated by them as well, then wouldn't an anti-endo-specific space be helpful, too? Those definitely exist out there - many are receptive to endo-neutrals, too, though not all are. Separated spaces are always going to be smaller, by virtue of there being less people in them. I think it's less about meeting half-way and more about looking at the solutions to the problems at hand, right? Do existing spaces need to change for new ones to be created? The internet is great for allowing many different spaces to be created, for various things. Different platforms will do this better than others, but there's solutions to work with.

I guess our biggest question for you regarding all of this, is: what does your ideal structure for the system community at large look like?

Huh, that's neat, one of the current syscourse topics is relevant to something I was thinking about earlier.

One thing that I see a lot of endos do that annoys the fuck out of us is they like to make conversations about CDDs about them. I know a lot of people reading that will go "No we don't!! Endos rarely ever do that!!" to which I say; just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it's not happening. I myself have seen this a ton, I see people claiming that "anything a CDD system experiences an endo can too", people saying there should be no separation of terms at all (very common to see sadly) some saying that there shouldn't be CDD exclusive spaces, that endos belong everywhere that CDD systems do, all sorts of things all the time. I've even seen a lot of people who rarely ever claim this kind of thing, knowingly or not.

There seems to be this idea that endos need to be involved in everything. Some believe there are no differences, some know there are differences but that they "don't matter at the end of the day", this idea that there should be minimal separation. So much push back at the idea of separate terms, and, as said before, endos making CDD experiences about them. They get mad if they aren't included in everything, and people seem to hate the fact that we insist on there being more separation, both in terms and communities, in regards to plurality. So, since syscourse is talking about it for once, I'll share our thoughts from an anti endo perspective so yall can see how this whole thing looks to an anti.

In our eyes, our plurality in inseparable from our disorder. We wouldn't be plural at all without it, and all the various symptoms don't just exist on the side of our plurality, like some seem to suggest. No, it blends together with our other symptoms, to the point of being nothing outside our disorder. A lot of endos talk about their plurality in a very different way we do, viewing it through the lens of identity, but for many CDD systems, it's always viewed through the lens of disability and disorder first and foremost. Seeing how they talk about their plurality, how they seem to experience it, how they deal with it, it's very different from how we and many other CDD systems do.

The thing is, our plurality can't be seen in a vacuum. We really hate (pro) endos saying they're "more similar to us than we think" because we genuinely can't see how. We aren't just plural, we aren't just a disordered plural, our plurality is our disorder, and our disorder is our plurality. I know many don't like people talking about it that way, but it's how things are for us. It's unbelievably frustrating to see people constantly insist that we should "focus on the similarities" and "just accept them" when it's hard to believe they really experience what we do.

I'll put it this way; AuDHD. It's the combination of autism and ADHD, and some think that you just have both of them, nothing special, but the truth is, they blend together to create something entirely new. Sure, we have similar experiences to autistic people, and those with ADHD, but it's not the same. I still feel as though my experience as an AuDHD person is still very different from people with one or the other, because both of them have become inseparable. You can't view our ADHD without our autism, and vice versa.

I know what I lot of you are thinking, "But they still can talk about their experiences and be in the same spaces!" Here's the thing about that; both still have the disorder. Both still have these similar experiences because they have the same diagnosis we do. The reason endos frustrate me so damn much, why I can't stand their constant insistence on making everything about them, demanding that we share almost everything, getting mad when I want there to be separate terms; is because they have only a few symptoms, usually only one or two, then claim that it's "so similar" to mine. That's what annoys us so damn much. Yes, I DO feel like there are tons of important differences, because while their plurality isn't affected by a CDD, because they don't have one, ours is completely entangled in our CDD. It's irritating because it's not just that we're multiple, it's that said plurality is constantly blending and mixing with all the other symptoms of our disorder. They claim to have it in at the very least, a similar capacity to us, and it's so irritating because theirs isn't so entangled with a CDD. Just like with AuDHD, our plurality blends together with our other symptoms into something entirely new. It's hard to put into words, mostly because I can't figure out what we would be like if we weren't so completely entangled with our OSDD. It's hard for us to view systemhood separate from CDDs.

That's why we want separate terms. This whole "Oh just use CDD system" or "Just say you're traumagen" isn't fucking enough. I know to a lot of people that's stupid, but I really can't see how just differing origin terms are enough to encapsulate how much of a different world it feels like we live in. I know people think we're being dramatic, but I just wish I could get people to see things the way we do, just for a bit. It's so hard to put into words, and I still feel like even if I could put it fully into words, I'm not sure (pro) endos would get it.

I may not remember the specifics on what we saw in the pro endo spaces we were in, but I remember exactly how we felt. It was so...alien to us, for lack of a better word. It really did feel like we were living in completely different realities from them. When we talked directly to an endogenic, despite the similarities, something about the way they talked about it, something about how they experienced things, still felt so wildly different in a way I can't fully explain.

And it's especially awful to see so many say "You don't need to understand, just accept it" so much of the "just get over it" sentiment. So much "Make your own space if you don't like it." It just feels so dismissive. It really, genuinely feels like (pro) endos and endo neutrals with a pro lean are just, doing whatever the hell they want and are ignoring us. Our discomfort disregarded as "just go to therapy and leave everyone alone." It really does feel like everyone aside from us has decided that whatever they're doing is the best. That just shoving everyone together is the best option. That separation is "just too hard" and "pointless" to even bother trying at all. I know many don't give a fuck about what we feel, or want to bother taking our discomfort and needs into account, but the thing is, we're far from the only ones that feel this way. Practically every anti endo I've ever seen feels almost the exact same way we do.

I know a lot of people see this stuff as just pointless, bigoted gatekeeping. But many pro endo CDD systems aren't particularly benefitting from how things are either. Sure, they feel differently than we do, I'm sure, but plenty have expressed a need for separation regardless of stance. I really, really want people to take the idea of more separate communities and terms and think on it. Even if things don't end up the way we want it, it's very clear that something needs to change, and frankly I don't thing this whole hyper acceptance and sharing near everything approach is working. Even though tons of endos seem to prefer being as close to CDD spaces as possible, it really doesn't look like this kind of setup is working for as many CDD systems as people think it is. I don't mean to speak over pro endo CDD systems by any means, I'm just saying, maybe giving at least a little bit of the more separation approach a chance would be a good thing.

I guess the point I'm getting at here is that being separate isn't always gatekeeping bullshit. It's not always the worst thing ever. I know quite a few prefer things as close as possible, but those of us who prefer more separation are being shoved out and told to fuck off and go somewhere else. Basically, it really feels like people are making a "compromise" where we get the short end of the stick and are told to just deal with it. That we just need to swallow our discomfort to make everyone else comfortable. So many people complain that anti endos are ruining everything, that we're taking everything over and not letting anyone else have room, but from our perspective, it's the other way around. In our experience, we're being kind of suffocated by (pro) endos everywhere. Which one's true, I can't tell at all, I'm just going off my own experience here. I'm just trying to say, I don't think that just letting everyone share everything isn't the best compromise.

And before anyone comes at us, going "Oh but antis need to meet us halfway!" Look. I'm doing my part as best I can. I can only do so much, I'm doing what I can, I'm trying to get other antis to be better too. Just because a lot of antis are unreasonable right now, doesn't mean it's not worth at least trying to accommodate for us, just like how a ton of (pro) endos refusing to talk to antis peacefully doesn't mean yall aren't worth trying to accommodate.

-Kaz

[kugelgelenktpuppe]

noelle (genshin impact) pixels - requested in discord server! ^.^

[isaaclikesalienz]

Hi.... would anybody be interested in joining my gaming server..... we'll play all sorts of games there..... breathes down your neck

[rainbow-wolf120]

"How Do I Make You Feel?"

----

Also fun bonus invite to my Rayman server because I see a lot of post of people asking for some (I promise I won't make this a thing):

[batsplat]

Plsss batsplat drop a nice cozy place to talk motogp that is not this hellhole! twitter? Reddit? Old bar in my hometown? Plsss

idk man i'm quite possibly the worst possible person to ask about this because my motogp fandom experience before like a year and a bit ago was a deliberately solitary experience 😭 i'm not actually built for the discourse trenches ... idc enough about this stuff to discourse ... but if you had to rank all the social media sites

meet me 🥺🥺 in the comments 🥺👉👈 under old motomatters articles 🥺: carries the rare distinction of being an internet comment section worth reading. tightly moderated enough to cut out 80% of the most annoying talking points. gives you a range of viewpoints and often genuinely insightful. obviously you can't comment there anymore, which is a bit of a limitation

reddit: like all of reddit, has very gradually improved over the past decade. all sports subreddits are overly reactive and dominated by fans of whoever the big names currently are, but they do at least earnestly engage with the sport As A Sport. then again, they have no appreciation for narrative and also the understanding of human psychology there is downright asinine. anyhow, the mods went on an authoritarian bent last year i'm a HUGE fan of by banning ALL discussion of the marc/valentino rivalry. i always used to think the tennis subreddit should ban all big three fans and force them to debate the same tired talking points in a separate sub for eternity as a sort of huis clos-type deal - which they never did, but DID mostly banish it to a permanent thread for that purpose. it's made both subs so so much better!! god bless, shame they don't let you write essays speculating on drama from twenty years ago on there

tumblr: before last year, i had a wary attitude towards following sports on tumblr,, didn't know motogp was even a thing on here but the tennis community actively offended me. f1 was sort of my exception because i don't take that seriously as a sport anyway so it's fine. but i cannot stand when people do not engage with the sport as an actual sport... wheel knowledge on this site truly abysmal... i typed up and deleted further thoughts here a couple of times but it's maybe a bit much to take wild potshots at a community i'm in the process of posting in, so. to be delicate. let's leave it at that. i do like how many asks people send on here that simulate outside interest for hopelessly niche topics, a function previously fulfilled by the voices in my head

old motogp forums: funny to browse and occasionally quite insightful, but objectively all these people are clinically insane and more than a little homophobic. pigeon brain sports viewers

twitter: i have a list with motogp sites/journalists that has been a very handy tool over the years, but the fandom is - not to be rude - so fucking ass. i have never seen a single worthwhile opinion about motogp from a fan on twitter

anyway yeah hometown pub probably as workable an option as any of these