i-did

[i-did]

cigarette psychology (1959)

[i-did]

long time no digital painting

[i-did]

It’s so funny to me that Jean uses his lack of English proficiency as an excuse but then his inner monologue is using words like malcontent and cretin. Like the only thing that man is fluent in is being a straight up hater.

[i-did]

Look. Look I’m not reading as much fanfic as I used to.

But in case any young people out there need to hear this- it is very normal for gay people to just. take turns. For a lot of the stuff. That some of you. Seem to think are static, binariatic, opposing personality traits.

[i-did]

super simple low-effort ao3 summary methods that are 1000% better and 1000% less annoying than just saying you suck at summaries:

copypaste the first few lines of the fic. u already wrote ‘em. let ‘em be their own damn hook

if ur feeling fancy & don’t mind showing ur hand a bit, copypaste the first few lines of the fic that u feel are esp. Important or Interesting - the ones where u first start getting into the real meat of things

state the main tropes! theyre probably already in ur tags - just say them again - maybe as a full sentence if ur feelin fancy. or with a joke if ur feelin Extra fancy

ask a question. pose a hypothetical. eg what happens if u take [character] and put them in [situation]?

make an equation. [character] + [thing] = [outcome]

just write like a one-sentence summary of what the fuck is going down. just one (1) sentence. doesnt matter if it doesn’t cover every important aspect. or if it sounds bland. any summary sentence is gonna be miles better than “idk i suck at summaries”

just…explain the fic like u would to a friend? it doesnt have to be a polished back of the book blurb. it can just be “[pairing] coffee shop au, but like, still with murder, and also i made everyone trans. enjoy”

just stick a meme in there

honestly who cares

just put literally anything but a self deprecating comment in there & ur golden

[i-did]

the desire to be the kicked dog may not be so much about the kicking but its significance, i.e. that i serve any necessary function to my owner no matter how cruel and cathartic, and that i am thus an indispensable treasure either in my inability to break or my ability to break and yet perpetually return at the sound of your call. in this way you may absolve yourself of the violence you commit by reimagining it not just as merciful, but as productive; if i am the kicked dog, then you create me and give me life through violence, with the act of kicking not a destruction so much as a form of birth. anyways it's fine. put the boots on

[i-did]

Sketch for another project that turned into Jean Moreau

[i-did]

posted on r/badtattoes but i think it’s gorgeous

[i-did]

[i-did]

Me when a character starts experiencing an agonizingly, Horrifically, painful transformation :

[i-did]

*kisses you directly on the lips* That doesn’t mean anything. *tries to walk away but my ankle rolls and i break it so now you have to put me down for ethical reasons*

[i-did]

i love these two characters. i need to trap them in a collapsed building so they can talk about their feelings as one of them slowly bleeds out.

[i-did]

*I'd love to know what it depends on, feel free to send me an anon or message about it

[i-did]

IM ON MY RELIABLE NARRATOR VS UNTELIABLE NARRATOR KICK!!

People saying Neil Josten is unreliable does not understand what an unreliable narrator is. A person on tiktok explained that an unreliable narrator is “one who misleads the reader either intentionally or unintentionally through misinterpretation, manipulation, deception, or omission.” (Source: Charlie Boy on tiktok. Wanted to state who gave the definition because he has such amazing insights about AFTG)

By that definition, the most Neil does in his narration is some omission. So let’s talk about omission in Neil’s narration. Every narrator holds a unique set of information that they deem valuable for the audience to know, some information they will toss out for various reasons like it’s simply unimportant or a natural bias that they have towards that specific thing. There is a fine line between omitting for the sake of omitting and omitting because of irrelevance. Neil, a flawed character with natural biases, omit because he deems that information unimportant for the audience.

A PRIME example would be his name and his birthday. Both of these pieces of information are unimportant to us because they are meant to be unimportant to him. He is no longer 18 year old Nathaniel Wesniski with a January birthday. He is 19 year old Neil Josten with a March birthday. That is what matters to his persona until his true identity matters to us. We learn about his true name in a moment that we need to know. Before that moment, we did not need to know. We learn about his birthday in the moment that we need to know, before that moment we did not need to know. Delayed information does not always mean unreliable.

So is he truly omitting information or is he just not assigning relevance until it becomes relevant? Every single narrator does this, even the unreliable ones. Specifically, what Neil does in his narration is zone in on certain aspects of the room and tells us. All of these aspects are important to him in order to tell us. Neil Josten is not omniscient, so he can’t tell us everything, but damn try as he might.

Anyway. I implore everyone to compare Neil’s narration to Jean and Jeremy’s narration style. Both of them are unreliable in two very different ways that actually matches well with the above information. Jeremy is more obvious, but Jean’s is not.

[i-did]

via Culture jpeg (X)

[i-did]

pipe dream

[i-did]

bitches hate me because of my.... bad personality.... paranoid nature... addictive tendencies......the torture basement.