bunkbedmcgee

[bunkbedmcgee]

How did you get so good at writing??? Did you take classes? I feel like you should get paid all the money for this! (I subscribe to your website!)

after i dropped out of high school i found a torrent of like 5GB of OCRd romance novels and i read like 3 romance novels a day for a while

read enough romance novels and you will realize that they live or die entirely on technical skill. if you are new to romance novels then even bad ones can dazzle you with novelty but by the time you are on your 30th historical fake engagement between a bluestocking and a rakish duke you can grade them and you know when they've failed. when two books have what should be the same main characters hitting the same plot beats, but one of those books is delightful and the other fucking sucks, you learn some things. some books are bad and still delightful. other books are good but they just don't hit. you start to see the seams in the bad ones. 'oh, this is a weird out of character moment because she wanted to have the kabedon moment and didn't know how to get there'. 'she didn't want the ust to end but couldn't think of a better reason than this deus ex cockblock.' that kind of thing.

you could probably do this with other genres but i like romance because the plot is two people fall in love. that's it. everything else is set dressing. if you can figure out how to make that work you can carry it over into whatever other genre you feel like. mysteries would give you a different skillset around plotting that i don't have.

anyway after that i wrote a lot.

[bunkbedmcgee]

YOU hate JK Rowling!

[bunkbedmcgee]

I remember meeting a guy at a bar a year or so ago who told me he worked at the international consortium that does the porn parodies of all the top-grossing film releases. He said that the whole Barbenheimer situation presented his combine with some spectacular highs and lows. Because he said that with Barbie, right, the thing about Barbie is that there's already kind of a three-way ideatic, structural parallel between the curated artificiality of Barbie as a children's toy, the curated artificiality of Barbie as a mass market film, and the curated artificiality of pornography as a genre. Add on top of that that Barbie as a film is already feeling this tension, right where it's trying to be about a character graduating from the platonic sexlessness of a children's franchise to the functional-and-frank sexuality of being a living human woman, but it's also being bogged down in the "Everyone-is-beautiful-no-one-is-horny" aesthetic restrictions of any contemporary big-budget mass-market film so the two states end up looking pretty similar, he said. I mean the film itself is very aware of that tension, right, with that joke about how "casting Margot Robbie is the wrong move if you want to make that point," all that jazz. So, all that in mind, Barbie-themed pornography, he said, is in a weird way actually kind of complementary to the extant project, gesturing at unaddressed tensions and ideas, a dark mirror, the shadow self it wants to deny but can't, there's a lot of room to play in the space. He used the adjective "Lynchian" a couple of times, he seemed super stoked, he was talking with his hands. Oppenheimer, on the other hand. Oppenheimer he said presented a problem. Because obviously you can eroticize the detonation of an atomic bomb, we're all probably three mutuals removed from someone on this site who does exactly that, but obviously that's a niche market, and moreover it's a market that has a ton of overlap with high-minded thinkers who treat the historical use of atomic weapons against Japan with the level of gravity that atrocity demands. So they were stuck. They were really stuck. He told me that they'd been pulling their hair out for months trying to square the circle and all they had to show for it was a big whiteboard with the phrase "Grope-nheimer" written on it

[bunkbedmcgee]

[bunkbedmcgee]

[bunkbedmcgee]

olympic gold in hitting christian babies with a bat

[bunkbedmcgee]

[bunkbedmcgee]

[bunkbedmcgee]

“Hear me out”s are a losing game. You are better off betting your life savings on a single game of poker. You can’t do a meaningful hear me out, it isn’t possible. The very nature of the internet is people lowkey trying to come across as “I Have Seen Fucked Up Things In My Time” experts and survivors. Anything that can threaten to put a crack in that fragile ego will immediately be shot down. “Hear me out”s aren’t regular statements, they are challenges, you are trying to come across as someone with Higher Fetish Power than others, which directly clashes with someone’s I Have Seen Fucked Up Things In My Time-fu. No one will ever admit to have a less esoteric fetish or kink than others. Not on the internet.

“Hear me out”s say something about the shooter: They too want to Have Seen More Fucked Up Things, and not only have they normalized it, they get off on it. They usually append “cowards” to the “hear me out” because it is a statement of me > you. The most annoying kind of person, in the most annoying arena, challenging you to the most annoying duel. The best counter is to shoot it down because that has no counter in this context: They already showed their hand, you can simply call it a bad hand and win.

“Hear me out”s are self-destruction. Your “hear me out” could have been a link and a “this is hot”. You willingly chose the losing battle when it would have taken less effort to not lose. “Hear me out” is not about your “hear me out” ultimately, it’s about you thinly veiled with something else. Sun Tzu warned you about this.

[bunkbedmcgee]

The game's pretty good too.

Just finished mouthwashing and wow. Everyone was right, that was incredible.

[bunkbedmcgee]

Just finished mouthwashing and wow. Everyone was right, that was incredible.

[bunkbedmcgee]

mouthwashing x disco elysium

[bunkbedmcgee]

making accidents on purpose

[bunkbedmcgee]

get it twisted.