happysharkintensifies

[happysharkintensifies]

Why do you think people like SJM books so much even if their quality... is questionable at best? It's because they are easy to digesty, the narrative gives the ilussion of asking hard question while challeging absolute nothing, or these people are just idiots??

Many things about SJM’s writing are easy to digest. In a world where reading for pleasure is growing increasingly uncommon, the average person is looking for something unchallenging and fundamentally easy to read, both thematically and stylistically.

Themes in SJM’s are often an afterthought and gesture at basic concepts at best. This is appealing to many readers because it’s a step above other YA/New Adult/Romantasy literature that barely have anything substantive to speak of. Her writing is also in alignment with the status quo, despite her attempts at writing feminist messaging. It’s fairly conservative, but it wears a progressive label to make readers feel better about what they’re consuming. You see many people nowadays like to consider themselves as feminists, but they don’t actually care for the effort and self-reflection that comes with actually being one. The label makes them feel good, but questioning years of patriarchal conditioning and internalized misogyny feels not so good. So, they look for literature and other media that lets them feel good. SJM’s feminism asks no hard questions and doesn’t demand any critical thinking on the reader’s part, making it very appealing to a large audience in a patriarchal society.

Though I can’t speak too much on the style of her writing, I can immediately see why so many people read her books so quickly. The books are very easy to read and you could even finish one in a single day. Contrast that with something like Midnight’s Children or 1Q84 which take far longer to read despite matching the length of some of the TOG or ACOTAR books. There’s nothing wrong with that kind of reading of course, but it’s one of the things that make her books so widespread. The accessibility is incredibly important to the popularity of such books. Furthermore, many readers don’t care enough to interrogate the inconsistencies characteristic of SJM’s writing and instead assume that there’s an internal logic to it. This is natural for readers to do, but this ends up creating a situation where readers fight over what to fill in the blanks with.

In short, you hit the nail on the head anon. The illusion is what people truly want. They want something empty and comfortable to enjoy in their leisure time. Because we live in a society that enforces a certain status quo, people are going to gravitate towards media that does not disturb it. They’ll feel happy not just because of the fun wish-fulfillment fantasy and smut, but because their worldview remains unchallenged.

[happysharkintensifies]

I’m tired of explaining why a certain act is an abuse when it is clearly described word for word in these books. Why don’t you explain how these are romantic instead?

Why a man essentially stripping a woman naked and parading her in a room full of strangers is hot.

Why a woman in her drugged state forced to grind up against a man is hot.

Why a woman being dressed up in the same clothes she was traumatised in and kneeling to a man is hot.

Why a woman sitting on a man’s lap and getting off in front of people who have zero interest in such shows is hot.

Why a man keeping secrets about a baby growing in a woman’s body is romantic.

Why a man locking a woman in an inescapable tower is romantic.

Why a man controlling what and when she eats is romantic.

Why a man forcing her into clothes she isn’t comfortable in and taking her to a place she won’t be comfortable at is romantic.

Why a man training a woman in a skill she has no interest in is caring. Or to the point she is so physically exhausted she passes out later.

Why a man laughing at a woman with bruises is fun and flirty.

Why a man having sex with a woman, who is forcefully isolated from society and hurting, under his supervision is hot.

Why a man punishing a woman for her issues with her sister is caring.

Why a man dragging a suicidal woman up a hill, isolating her even more, without even checking on her once is romantic or healthy.

Why a man pushing a woman to be vulnerable when he never did so ever with anyone is romantic.

Without the names, looking at the actions objectively, if you still believe these are the ideal scenario in romance, you need to sit down and really need to reflect on why the concept of a woman being helpless with a man is appealing to you.

[happysharkintensifies]

Did SJM ever apologize for using Breonna Taylor’s death for marketing?

Did she ever apologize for the harmful stereotypes of POC and LGBTQIA+ representation in her books?

Did she ever apologize for disrespecting and slandering both world religions and mythologies, pretending as if she created them herself?

Did she ever apologize for plagiarizing most of the aspects of (probably the only good aspects) her books?

Did she ever apologize for her fake-feminism, her conservative ideals threaded in her books, her poor representation of healthy and toxic relationships and her poor representation of mental health and helping mental health? Especially when so many of this influences younger readers?

Did she ever apologize on her lack of research in any subject, especially ones that involve representation and ones that can seriously affect others?

Did she ever apologize for using a real place like Illyria and scythia (spelling is not my friend here) and claiming them as her own world building?

Did she ever make a statement regarding the genocide in Palestine, therefore solidifying her stance and no longer making her indirectly complicit by not speaking up on her platform?

Did she ever apologize for trying to trademark things like Illyria and the name Bryce lmao???

I heard she doesn’t even play nice with other authors. 😬

[happysharkintensifies]

25 years ago an unknown Chinese protester stood in front of a tank in defiance of the government. No one knows the identity of the man but he was given the nick name “Tank Man”. This is one of the most iconic photographs of the century.

[happysharkintensifies]

men are so privileged they dont even realized how oppressed they really are

[happysharkintensifies]

Remember kids, getting arrested to fill up jails and overwhelm the system was an effective tactic 60 years ago.

Now, though, Los Angeles has a prison skyscraper downtown, and the carceral state would love nothing more than to take you off the street and force you into years of prison labor.

Cover your face, be smart about what you post, and don't get arrested if you can help it.

[happysharkintensifies]

[happysharkintensifies]

I can’t believe this is a hot take that people get slammed for having but I despise booktok. I keep trying to toe the line because I’m glad more people are reading, I’m glad community is being found, I’m glad women are getting a voice through what they enjoy instead of being silenced by the majority, but I can’t straddle the middle anymore.

At the risk of sounding pretentious, I have an English degree. I’m pursuing an MFA in the same field. I bring this up not to sound superior but to make a point of what I know through my five years of studying this. Booktok might be getting people to read, but it’s killing critical thinking. Critical thinking in literature these days is dead.

It’s killing the publishing industry. The publishing industry is already incredibly problematic in so many ways that I don’t have time to go into it (the amount of books specifically written about modern warfare that were greenlighted in the last few years is terrifying and says enough) and booktok is making it worse. Things are being written for the purpose of creating virality instead of creating quality.

It’s killing bookstores. There are entire sections devoted to booktok instead of the revolutionary writers of the 21st century.

I’m aware I sound jaded, I’m aware this is an incredibly unpopular opinion, but I really don’t want pretend I’m remotely supportive of it anymore.

[happysharkintensifies]

There's some point to be made about SJM type books being like "you can be strong AND feminine" as though there was ever an overwhelming amount of strong masculine female characters and the slow rise of tradwives and girl math and the feminine divine and pink jobs. And I won't say that SJM and booktok are to blame for what is clearly a result of rising fascism and myriad other factors, but I also won't say it has helped it any.

Like it's really funny to look back on all the "um yeah Throne of Glass is soooo revolutionary because Sardines is both strong AND feminine" defenses now in the TikTok tradwife era where it's SO empowering to quit your job and go home and stay there and cook and clean and get fucked and get pregnant :) THAT is the true sign of FEMININE STRENGTH. Like wow how convenient! That doing the thing the patriarchal regime wants you to do is the revolutionary option. How interesting!! How fortunate!!! Quick, all women, CHOOSE this option please!! The option that benefits the powers that be!! It's totally soooo empowering!

It's really kinda sad. Men are being brainwashed by Tates and women are being brainwashed by faes and alphas parroting back the same ideologies but coming from a female mouth and coated with "empowering" language, so it skates by much easier. Like a violent rapist/sex offender saying women need to suck dick and stay at home is misogynist. But your Empowered Divine Feminine protagonists "choosing" to suck dick and have babies while her man rules the country? That's just her choice. It's super empowering and radical actually. And while those two sources would say they're in opposition, fundamentally they advocate for the same things. It's kinda wild. But of course if you point this out it's "um it's just a book sweaty!! nobody actually believes these things or adjusts their behavior according to fiction!! haha grow up we're all adults here!!"

[happysharkintensifies]

I was sent this YouTube video and I think the creator makes some EXCELLENT points and he really sums up my issues with the romantasy/BookTok/smuttok/etc community. I know it's long, but I think it's worth watching. At the very least, watch the first half if you can.

He goes over the latest drama on BookTok where Luke Bateman (conventionally attractive white man who has a big booktok following in the romantasy space) got a book deal despite not actually having a manuscript.

And while he does go over the inherent unfairness of this in the second half of the video, the first half goes over how we got to this point and he points out a LOT of issues with this community. He talks about how the romantasy/booktok community does not police themselves and how they prop up dangerous marketing trends which make it easier for publishers to take advantage of them. He talks about how Booktok quite literally props up the Luke Batemans. He talks about the performative activism in the space and how creators are ALL TOO HAPPY to call out Luke Bateman and lament about the state of indie publishing, but how as soon as the drama ends, they go back to their SJM/Rebecca Yarros/[insert other wildly popular romantasy author] corner and NOT read or prop up indie books or BIPOC authors despite screeching about it in the midst of drama.

It's honestly a fantastic video and I would love to yap with someone about it. Go watch it!!

[happysharkintensifies]

do fic readers know that their comments actually influence the course of the story sometimes? i don't mean in a "you need to write it this way because i say so 😡" type of comment, i mean when people are asking questions or really engaging with the plot and the themes in the comments they sometimes bring up things that i didn't even think of, or dig into parts of the story that i've overlooked, or get really interested/fixated on something i was going to just kind of glance over--and it has me going 'oh wait that's actually really interesting, that's a good point' and fully adding or tweaking or changing things about the story going forward. i'm literally adding an entire additional chapter to something right now because someone's comment had me like "oh i didn't dig into that as much as i could have." you have impact!

[happysharkintensifies]

THEY MIGHT HAVE FIGURED OUT WHATS CAUSING LONG COVID?!?!???

[happysharkintensifies]

[happysharkintensifies]

if you have OCD that moralistic post it not about you. keep scrolling. i love you

[happysharkintensifies]

You know what, fuck it. Let’s show some love for the “unpleasant” autistics.

For the autistics who are always accused of being angry or moody when all they’re doing is sitting there.

For the autistics who take everything literally and respond sincerely.

For the autistics who come across as “blunt” or “rude” for being honest.

For the autistics who are called “control freaks” for needing a sense of order and routine.

For the autistics who get told to shut up for infodumping about uncomfortable topics.

For the autistics who find it too exhausting to mask and pretend to be sunny and friendly.

“Unpleasant” autistics, I love you.

[happysharkintensifies]

I don’t know if anyone’s thought of this, but something that’s always intrigued me about A Court of Thorns and Roses is the way faeries age—and how deeply underexplored that concept is in terms of actual behavior. In Prythian, we’re told multiple times that faeries live for centuries, sometimes thousands of years, and yet, when it comes to their emotional, social, and psychological development, the series often maps mortal expectations onto them—especially regarding maturity. And that raises a lot of questions.

In human society, we have a clear (albeit socially constructed) marker for adulthood—18. In most countries, that’s the legal threshold where you’re considered mature enough to vote, join the military, sign contracts, or be held accountable under the law. But let’s be real: biologically and developmentally, most 18-year-olds are still maturing. The brain doesn’t finish developing until the mid-20s, and emotional regulation, impulse control, and long-term planning all sharpen much later. Even historically, this line was blurry. In medieval and early modern Europe, for example, girls were often married at 12 or 14, and boys were deemed men as soon as they could wield a sword or work a field. These standards weren’t based on actual maturity, but on survival, labor, and social structure. Meanwhile, in Ancient Rome or Greece, concepts of adulthood varied dramatically across gender, class, and region. What’s “adult” has never been as fixed as we like to pretend.

So how does that translate to fae?

We’re told in ACOTAR that faeries age incredibly slowly. A fae in their eighties or nineties might still be considered a child. But what does that mean in practice? What does a “childhood” that stretches over a century look like?

And more importantly—why don’t we ever see it?

The series tends to write younger fae (like the priestesses, or various High Fae we meet) with the emotional maturity of seasoned adults. Even Feyre, once she becomes fae, is immediately treated as psychologically equal to people like Rhysand, who’s literally over 500 years old. Yet logically, if an 80-year-old fae is the equivalent of, say, a 12-year-old human, then someone in their 50s or 60s should be acting like a moody tween. Immature, impulsive, maybe precocious, yes—but still fundamentally not an adult. Still learning about identity, morality, boundaries. And that opens the door for some deeply rich storytelling that just isn’t there.

I would have loved to see fae in their 50s and 60s behaving like children. Not just in an “innocent and wide-eyed” way, but in all the messy, intense, emotionally volatile ways children are. Think of a 60-year-old fae noble throwing a tantrum in court because someone slighted them. Imagine how layered a dynamic it would be if Nesta or Feyre met a fae who looked thirty but acted like a six-year-old—playful, emotional, deeply curious, easily hurt.

It’s not just about making the world feel more real—it’s about the consequences of immortality. If you live for a thousand years, then why wouldn’t a century-long adolescence exist? And how does that warp power structures, especially when you consider people like Rhysand or Cassian potentially having lovers who, in human years, are still literal children?

This kind of worldbuilding matters. It forces us to examine the ethics of power, of emotional development, of autonomy. It also invites more nuanced conversations around trauma, healing, and time. A mortal girl suffering trauma at twenty might be expected to “move on” within a few years. But for a fae, what does that look like when five years is barely a blink? Are young fae punished for childish mistakes because they “should know better,” or are they protected under fae law until their first century is complete?

Ultimately, I wish the series had leaned into this more. There’s so much potential for complexity, for culture, for age-based customs that aren’t mapped onto human standards. The real tragedy isn’t that the fae are inhuman—it’s that, too often, the narrative forgets to let them act like it.

[happysharkintensifies]

I do think there are a lot of valid criticisms regarding modern media consumers' impatience. There definitely is an unwillingness to let plots develop or initially flawed characters grow and change, and that's definitely a problem. Gratification can't always be instant.

But we also have to consider that there's a whole lot of shows that have promised us so much and then absolutely failed to deliver on it. Sherlock, the Moffat and Chibnall eras of Doctor Who, Supernatural, Game of Thrones, The Expanse to a lesser degree - they all had a lot of trust invested in them by audiences only to betray it.

I don't support the level of impatience modern audiences show towards media but I absolutely understand it.