#I don't have a super specific situation in mind to illustrate this

[mrspockify]

☠ for Luigi for the headcanon meme?

☠ - angry/violent headcanon

I have been mulling this around all day in my mind because I feel like I am almost at a total loss for this! It is so hard for me to imagine Luigi being angry, and especially violent. I keep thinking about what it would take to push him to that point, and I think it would genuinely take a lot.

I think Luigi is almost endlessly patient. I personally headcanon him as having a pretty good awareness of his emotional state and has a lot of emotional regulation (ironic, I know, bc he's known for his anxiety--but I think that helps him with his awareness, he's very in touch with his emotions... idk just go with it). Because of that, he can pretty easily talk himself through his anger.

However. I think, like his brother, he is incredibly protective of his loved ones and has a strong sense of justice, not necessarily for himself (self deprecating king), but for the people he is close to. So if he witnesses, for example, Mario being subjected to mistreatment beyond what Mario could reasonably handle on his own, that is what would make him lose it. I also think anger would be such an overwhelming experience for Luigi that he'd be the type to cry, which would just frustrate him more, because it's hard to defend your brother when you're trying to see through tears and speak through sobs. But he would do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do.

[twilight-resonance]

On Film, TV, and My Favorites

Let's do visual - specifically film - media. Not a super interesting topic, but it's been one I've bouncing around a bit as my aunt (who works in a related industry) has been trying to figure out what I like. It's hard to express, I suspect because it's multi-faceted and complex; but I'll try, and I'll probably give some examples to illustrate.

The first thing, I think, is that I like things that are well-made. Or, as a friend put it, well-crafted. I like shows and movies where it's very clear that each part of the design and the writing and the acting - costuming, sets, music, lighting, camerawork, script, etc - were designed very much with the whole in mind, and designed to support each other to create that collective vision above all else. I like things that have clearly had a lot of design thought put into them. Examples that come to mind are things like The Irishman, Wheel of Time, and Reservation Dogs - and, for older movies, the Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Peter Jackson's make) especially.. That much I tried to express to my aunt; based on what she's shown me since, I think I have to correct that as being distinct from looking nice. Crisp camerawork and aesthetics and everything is... nice, I suppose, but ultimately superficial. I want something with depth and thoroughness, not something that glistens.

There's a secondary, related thought, which is... authenticity or spirit. The other niggling little thing in a lot of the "well done" things I come across is that they're polished and perfected to the point of, well, joylessness. Sure, they're "well-done" - but meant to appeal to a broad audience, and lose a lot of depth and direction in doing so; and they're so technically perfect in form and pacing that it ceases to feel lived-in in a way that's unappealing. Wednesday is a good example of this, as is The Diplomat. The Ballad of Buster Scruggs almost had this problem, but managed to avoid it - it has the technical perfection that starts to feel like sliding off of things, but it makes up for it when it comes to "what it's actually about" - which I think is the more important piece to me of the two.

Obviously, I also like very heady intellectual pieces that are making a point or have deeper underlying themes - I'm not as much a fan of light fluff or even light crunch. I'll watch it, but I really like things that make me think or that stir my imagination in some way. As above, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, Reservation Dogs, The Good Place, and The Irishman fall into this category; as do The Grand Budapest Hotel, The West Wing, and Babylon 5 (for some slightly older examples). That tends to lean me against comedy and romance both as genres, although Death of Stalin I thought was excellent as an exception to that.

Sidenote, I don't like documentaries. I've found that most documentaries are basically one person's opinion and narrative that they're presenting, not an accurate accounting of a given situation or story. I grew tired of them very quickly once I realized that. There are occasional exceptions - all the Planet Earth works are lauded for a reason - but for the most part, I find documentaries to be pseudo-intellectual rather than actually informative.

So I suppose that brings us to genre. Fantasy is of course my greatest love, when it's done well; but it's not a popular genre - not high fantasy, anyway - and when it's done, it's often not done a very good job on, mostly because I think it gets seen as a kids' genre more often than not. Sci-Fi is... okay as a substitute for that, although I'm not as much into tech. What I really like is stories that transport you into another world, and that do so as much by showing as they do by telling - that have lots of tiny sensory details that really build the scale and lived-in-ness of that space and world. Babylon 5 and Lord of the Rings are both places where this shines in a more fantastical way; but so do The West Wing and Reservation Dogs, which are both decidedly more grounded in earth and in current events.

So that all covers function. Form is also important to me, especially as someone who does a lot of story-writing professionally and has a sense of how these things work in all their guts and parts. You'll notice that a lot of the examples above are generally from the last ten years; those are very much the exceptions to the rule. Most of what I like tends to be from a fairly specific period in film and TV history, for reasons as follows:

Firstly: when it comes to specifically TV, I tend to prefer shows from times where seasons came in batches of 20+ episodes. This has to do with the lived-in aspect of things: rather than having to focus hard-core on cramming as much story into what's being shown as efficiently as you can, there's room for the story - and the characters, and the worlds they inhabit - to breathe, and I find that that breathing room benefits them. Specifically, I find that it allows the actors and writers and others more room to play - with concepts, premises, "what-ifs", and silly ideas they had - and in doing so, infuses the end product with a great deal more love and care and also a greater depth of understanding going on from the creation end. Play is how you learn what works and what doesn't, and I would much rather have a handful of bizarre flop episodes that we pretend don't exist than the sort of soulless perfection that comes from pieces that have been workshopped and streamlined to death.

Secondly: again, when it comes to TV, I tend to prefer pieces from that narrow window of time in the late 80s-early 2000s when shows were undergoing a transition from monster-of-the-week style episodes - wherein nothing about the premise could change permanently from week to week, and the story would have to reset to baseline after every episode so that people who missed episodes didn't get lost - and serial shows, wherein there's a strong throughline of story and sequence. I like the narrative structure, and I particularly like the narrative structure over long periods of time; but once again, with room to play and really flesh out not only the world but all the details of the narrative and bring it more to life. All of my favorite shows - Deep Space 9, Babylon 5, The West Wing - are from this era.

Thirdly - and this one applies to both film and TV - I also tend to prefer pieces from a particular time of transition between eras of film technology and acting methods. As acting goes, for most of film history, acting techniques have largely been borrowed from stage; because that was the available art to draw from, and where actors' experience lay. The earliest pieces are far too stage, to the point where they don't suit the medium; but as time went on and people tried various techniques, there was a very blended style that emerged that I enjoy. Again, I feel like the 80s and 90s were the sweet spot on this one, but that's personal preference. From a technology standpoint, camerawork was much more limited by existing technology until - I think - the mid-2000s; this includes things like color and clarity, things like the ability for the camera itself to take moving shots through a scene and remain stable, etc. Because of technology limitations - and, again, where existed to pull techniques from - a lot of film also ended up imitating theater in terms of set design, scene blocking, and so on. I enjoy the period of time, once again, in transition; wherein film and TV had solidly established how to make that sort of stage element work best on film, and were starting to push the boundaries of what they could do. TV remained so for longer than film, in large part due to the way that sets need to be kept around for repeating locations in TV; but I liked that.

I probably don't need to say that I don't appreciate the heavy use of greenscreen and CGI as a substitute for going to physical filming locations and using makeup and other practical effects; but that's neither here nor there, and that's not an unpopular opinion. CGI should be used to supplement and deepen - not wholly replace.

So, what are my favorites?

Star Trek: Deep Space 9 If I had to pick a favorite TV show, this would be it. The characters feel very real and lifelike in the ways that they grow and change, and the universe much more grounded and less utopian than most of Star Trek; and I love the complexities with which they explore things like religion in ways that are traditionally sort of frowned-up in a Sci-Fi setting (as well as they way they handle culture with nuance, which is more what Sci-Fi is classically for). The story is well-written with actual stakes, and with its high and low moments both feeling earned within the context of the whole thing. I'm not a huge fan of its last season and its ending, I suppose, but everything up til there is golden. I would say... that most of Star Trek idealism is easy and meant to be portrayed as such; but Deep Space 9 is about holding onto your ideals even when it's hard, and that is meaningful to me.

Babylon 5 Babylon 5 has many of the same traits as Deep Space 9 (and, to be fair, at the time there was a lot of drama on that count between the two shows). It's a very different, much less idealized setting than DS9; but with just as much depth and character. This one also has excellent character growth and narrative design - knowing how this one was written with all its "escape-hatches", I'm always eternally impressed. This one also has hope and light in darkness as one of its through-threads, and of course that's my big theme that I always gravitate back towards. It's definitely a bit dated, especially as special effects go; but I love it nonetheless just for how good the writing and the theming is.

The West Wing As stated above, I love this one for how it simulates the environment of executive branch politics; obviously it's still a fantasy, but as an avid watcher of C-SPAN (yes, I know) I feel like it does a much more grounded, nuanced, interesting job of it than anything else out there. I also enjoy that it has a strong education orientation - explaining to audiences how certain parts of government work, and what needs to happen in order for certain decisions to get made, and what parts of the constitution are etc - and does so in a way that's thoughtful and not condescending. I never connected with the characters quite as much in this one - though I did enjoy both Jed and Leo - and it doesn't have quite the same kind of narrative storyline as the ones above; but it was also well-written and well-researched, and I enjoyed it a lot.

Outer Range This is the only recent piece that makes it onto my list. In truth, it's not a particularly remarkable show - well-done, but not remarkable - but I had to put this one on here because it resonates so heavily with me. Despite being set in, like, modern-day rural Wyoming, it is I think the most Fal shit I have ever watched. Someone was operating on the same brainwaves as me when they wrote this, and I'm sure as hell not going to turn that down. ...Whoever wrote this also has a background in Classics, I think, particularly Greek mythology and theater. There's the obvious references, of course - but there's so many subtle nods to ancient greek stories, and much structural stuff about the narrative that's pulled from the structure of Greek theater and myth, that it cannot be in any way a coincidence. I do also enjoy that intersecting of reality and myth, which... Well... shows up in the first two heavily as well, and is probably one of my other big themes.

Priscilla: Queen of the Desert This one is definitely the odd child out. I didn't mention it above, but I do also like character dramas with a lot of nuance and depth; and this one does it for me on that count (so does The Big Chill). When it comes to that type of story, the theme that I tend to gravitate towards is outcasts and people who do not fit for one reason or another; and oh man, is this ever that. I also like the queer element, of course; and it strikes me as made with a lot of love, and a lot of honesty; and that honesty being its own kind of love.

Lord of the Rings If I had to pick favorite movies, this trilogy would be it. The craftsmanship on these movies was insane; and it was clearly made with so much love and care for what Lord of the Rings was actually about and what it meant, from every single person and department involved. It is tender and heartfelt in a way that is almost taboo in stories right now; and also so very much along that light in the darkness theme that I'm perpetually on. They picked great actors for every role, they did an amazing job on the sets and special effects and filming techniques, and while of course the adaptation leaves something to be desired, all adaptations do.

-----------------------------------------------------

So those are my takes, and my favorites. All that said, I think I'll take this and copy it over to its own post and then put that post in the queue; and try again with something a little less pop-culture oriented, because that's a bit more where I'm at spiritually at the moment.

[addictedtostorytelling]

Hi! Do you believe the exchanges in "tape me up" & "pin me down" reveal the sort of a power dynamic G&S might have in.. more intimate situations? I just imagine she'd want him to take charge, be dominant in a gentle but assured way, perhaps even surprising herself, but with Grissom it's all different, she's feeling the safest she'd ever felt and is actually seeking to be vulnerable with him, and it feels empowering to her..?Am I in the right ballpark?Hope I'm not out of line on subject matter!:)

hi, anon!

so i'll use this post and this post (which elucidate my views on grissom and sara's sex life) as preface to what i'll say here.

my short answer to your question is: yeah, i’d say you’re in the right ballpark.

my longer answer is:

honestly, i think the "tape me up" and "pin me down" scenes illustrate some incredibly different dynamics just between the two of them—in the first case, the scene is flirtatious from top to bottom, a tease on both grissom and sara’s parts; in the second, it's much more of a sincere and vulnerable "testing of the boundaries," with both of them ultimately being taken by surprise by the intensity of the moment—so even just starting right there, i think there's a takeaway: grissom and sara don't just have one blanket dynamic when it comes to their intimate behavior; how they interact with each other varies depending on the situation.

it’s also worth noting that since both of the aforementioned scenes take place before grissom and sara enter a regular sexual relationship with each other in las vegas, it’s unclear which elements of those scenes, if any, may actually carry into their sexual relationship itself. it’s possible that they have sex in those modes once they get to the place where they’re having sex, but it’s also possible that there is a difference between “theory” and “practice” for them, especially as their circumstances and even their character development have progressed by the point where they’re actually “doin’ the do,” you know?

not only do the dynamics in their bedroom probably change based on the situation at hand—there's a big difference between having celebratory anniversary sex vs. consolatory "we just worked a heartbreaking case and are taking solace in each other" comfort sex, say—but i also think they change over time.

as i talk about in the second post i linked, i think when they first start out having sex, both of them come into the relationship with some preconceived (erroneous) notions: specifically, sara is under the false impression that grissom is this super experienced older man who's going to be very much "in charge" of their interactions, while grissom is under the impression, due to his previous experiences, that he’s “bad at” sex or at least at maintaining sexual relationships.

to my mind, these beliefs in them lead to a situation where sara is kind of expecting grissom to “take the wheel,” but in actuality he needs her to be the one to do so, at least at first.

there’s probably some surprise on both sides to begin with, sara that grissom is so willing to follow her lead, grissom that sara actually seems to really like what he does and is receptive to him (i.e., that he’s not actually “bad at sex/relationships” at all).

thankfully, i think that despite the relationship defying their expectations, they both quickly find that they really like what they have between them, and especially because the dynamics give them both “room to grow.”

in the past, i believe that a lot of sara’s sexual relationships were performative, not in the sense that she wasn’t attracted to her partners and/or that she didn’t enjoy having sex with them but rather in the sense that she had to play a kind of role, stoking the guys’ egos, behaving passively herself, putting up with a certain degree of machismo on their parts. but with grissom, she doesn’t have to force herself into a particular box; she can want what she wants, be assertive when she has the desire to, be vulnerable when she has the desire to, etc., and, moreover, she doesn’t have to put up with any kind of “cool guy posturing” from him.

as i talk about in the linked post,

prior to grissom, sara dated guys who while not necessarily meatheads or himbos were generally traditionally masculine, athletic, hunky, and (based on her history of being cheated on) sex-motivated. they were all more than likely heterosexual/allosexual and had “typical” relationships with gender roles and sex. furthermore, her relationships with them were largely sex-based, as she, as a rule, did not disclose enough to them about her past in order to form close, emotional relationships or achieve true social intimacy.

given her previous experiences, sara likely comes into her relationship with grissom expecting not necessarily “more of the same”—because i think she views grissom as being much more mature and trustworthy than any of her previous boyfriends were overall—but certainly for him to behave in ways that gel with what she understands is “typical straight guy sexual behavior,” such as, for example, for him to be the “pursuer” in the relationship and to be the one to initiate their encounters, to have a highly active libido, to be assertive/aggressive in bed, to like to be made to feel big/strong/powerful, etc.

in contrast to what she expects, what sara actually gets with grissom is a partner who is more than happy to let her lead—i mean, even just in the nonsexual part of their romantic relationship, she is frequently the one who has to “make the first move” (see episodes 03x22 “play with fire” and 05x12 “snakes”)—and who, while definitely an active and eager participant in their sexual encounters, is not overly assertive/aggressive whatsoever. instead, he is highly attentive and takes an almost studious approach to figuring out what she likes. he is also unselfish, vulnerable, and not at all domineering. he doesn’t obsess about adhering to gender stereotypes and acting “macho” in bed at all times in the way some guys do.

and that difference in him is probably all very much a “breath of fresh air” for her, giving the liberty to be herself in bed with him more than she’s ever been in any of her previous sexual relationships.

meanwhile, on grissom’s end of things, once he realizes that what he does pleases sara and that she doesn’t look down on him for his (relative) inexperience or overall approach to sex, which is different than that of most people, he, too, feels better able to be himself than he ever has in any previous sexual relationship; i imagine he probably “finds his voice,” particularly as time goes on, becoming better able to articulate what he wants and increasingly comfortable taking the reins, at least on occasion.

of course, the fact that he’s actually enjoying having sex for the first time in his life undoubtedly helps matters a lot.

the more time goes on and the more they get to know each other as lovers, i think the more they both become accustomed to the uniqueness of their dynamic.

particularly once they get to the point where they’re very secure in their relationship and in the habit of openly expressing their feelings, i think they both do feel very safe and are incredibly willing to be vulnerable with each other in a way they’ve never been with anyone else before.

to quote from the first post linked above,

as for what kind of sex grissom and sara have, i imagine they’re for the most part very tender with each other. while that’s not to say they never just fuck, i think they’re really fond of making love—which is a new experience for both of them, coming into their relationship...    

the fact that they’re not as beholden to the traditional gender roles or the socialized aspects of sex as other couples may be probably allows them to experiment with what they both like until they perfect what they do together.

given that even outside of sexual situations, they’re a physical couple, it’s easy to imagine that they have a highly developed sexual lexicon with each other in the bedroom; that they know each other’s bodies and cues incredibly well and trust each other so much that even without the use of props or accouterments, they end up having an amazingly good time.

hands down, i think both of them would say that the other person is the best sexual partner that they’ve ever had, no contest.

of course, all of the above said, obviously, since the issue is never addressed in canon (more than just to assure us that they both do enjoy their sex life with each other very much), what i’ve said here is just my own headcanon and not in any way authoritative.

ymmv a lot!

thanks for the question! please feel welcome to send another any time.      

[maxwell-grant]

What do you like the least about the Shadow ? not counting bad adaptations or writings, just in general

The fact that he's not public domain. This might be a weird answer but here's the first thing that came to mind with this question: The guns.

Now, I don't dislike the guns per se, I think I've been pretty clear as is that I'm not exactly thrilled about guns or characters who yield guns as a selling point to begin with, but it's pretty far from a dealbreaker (I mean, I'd have a pretty dang miserable time as a pulp fan if they were) and it usually comes down to the execution.

I've already talked once about the guns in the context of comparing the Uzis from the 80s Shadow to the .45s of the pulp Shadow and why that shift is kind of emblematic of everything wrong with that version and, more importantly, the terrible precedent it set for future adaptations. I like the way the gun fights are written in the pulps because they tend to be written like duels, where time stops for an action scene and every stroke, every move, every decision by The Shadow and his enemies has an impact and a thought process behind it, and that's a lot more fun to read than just an overpowered Shadow massacring nameless gangsters in a second.

Both have their uses and selling points, of course, but if I'm gonna follow The Shadow as the protagonist who gets into danger, why should I be invested in his peril if he never even seems like he's in danger? It also completely removes one of the few things that gives The Shadow a justification for what he does, namely, that he's returning fire against criminals that made the decision to kill him or others, and not opening fire on faceless nobodies before they can even react and we just have to assume he's justified in that decision.

Again, small difference, might not even matter to some and I certainly don't think The Shadow needs to be cleanly justified in everything he does (obviously he wasn't always on the defensive in the pulps either, but again, I always point to the existence of a pulp Shadow character used specifically to point out why the guns blazing approach is counterproductive and not what The Shadow does), but when the character's already treading this close to villainy or worse from the get go, I think boundaries like that are important and there's a pretty solid line between "the bullets fired by the Grim Reaper were but a successful reflection of theirs, they who choose to bring death upon others now brought a karmic end to themselves" and "some guy walked into a room and started shooting bad guys out of the blue". And that's not even really my main problem with the guns.

Just, compare these 4 Shadow comic covers from the 40s, to 4 variants of the same issue from the 2012 run. See any pattern?

Or, to be more blatantly, look at some of the covers for the original Street & Smith pulp stories, and then the covers for those very same stories in paperback reprints made by Jim Steranko in the 70s. I'm not knocking on Steranko's art or pinning the blame solely on him, I really like his covers, but I mean...

For fuck's sake, even in the remake to the super iconic cover of Shadowed Millions, The Shadow's now pointing a gun at absolutely nothing. And really, that's my big issue with the guns. 95% of all Shadow art seems to treat the character like he lives with pistols glued to his fingers and cannot walk into a room without pointing a gun at someone, even in situations where he isn't doing anything that requires a gun. And since these covers, these illustrations, is what informs people's understanding of the character more so than anything that's ever been written in the stories, it's really not at all surprising that The Shadow's characterization has been made so often into that of a gun-toting borderline maniac who solves every problem with violence and murder.

This is the big reason why I really like the covers Alex Ross did for Dynamite. Not because I like Alex Ross (I mean, I do, but he's not really among my favorites, he's incredibly skilled but his art style's not really my thing, visually I preferred the Chris Samnee/Francesco Francavilla covers), but because he was the only artist who was doing things with The Shadow on the covers other than just having him pose with guns in an urban background. He wasn't afraid to put him in weird poses or uncharacteristic scenes, or mess up his clothes and have him be outmatched, and it made the covers so much more dynamic and more reflective of The Shadow, even more so than the stories themselves.

Doesn't The Shadow look more interesting when he's doing basically ANYTHING other than pointing a gun at something? Why not let the strikingness of his design and the mystique of his personality speak for itself? He's gonna look sinister or cool or even humorously out-of-place or some combination of the three no matter what he's doing, and there's so many ways you can distort his presentation or make his surroundings mesh or contrast. Frankly the LAST thing a shapeshifting being of mystery should be in their presentation is just, uniformly samey. Again, I don't dislike the guns and there's obviously great and creative Shadow artwork with them, but it's so hard to find good cover artwork where he's not holding them.

Frankly I'd even argue that, if the intent is to make The Shadow look scary or mysterious or threatening, then it's better to draw him without guns. Because everyone knows The Shadow's got guns, and everyone knows the things that guns are for. You know what a guy with a gun is gonna do, he's gonna shoot it to injure and/or kill people. We understand that, we all know gun-toting heroes a plenty, we know what The Shadow's gonna do with a gun. Anyone can look scary with a gun in their hand. If anything, the guns work to undersell how creepy or intimidating he can be.

(Art by Michael Kaluta, Sandy Kossin and John Paul Leon)

Because what the hell does THIS guy have in store for you? Leering gigantically above buildings with blood-red eyes and corpse-colored skin while puppetering the deaths of mobsters, standing with a hand curiously stretched with no eyes and no expressions save for a grin with too many teeth , or to quote this post from Dan Schkade's tumblr,

"walking down a street that knows not to look at him",

and who else but The Shadow could inspire descriptions like these and live up to them?

[summers-pratt]

I was tagged by @rosieposiepie for a fun book ask game!! Thank you for tagging me!!! :D

Bought: I buy so many books oh no I didn't think this through OH ok I just bought Nineteenth Century Women's Fashion, and it is all plates and brief descriptions of the displayed outfits from every year in the 1800s and I am very pumped about it bc I have been getting increasingly sucked into the discourse of accurate period clothing in media, so this is scratching a big itch lol

Borrowed: I don't really borrow books that much, I like having my own copies (my overflowing bookshelves are staring at me contemptuously), I think the last book I borrowed from a friend was in high school. She lent me Carrie, but she also included Flowers in the Attic for whatever reason, and, not knowing anything about it, I read it after I finished Carrie, and boy did 10th grade me not see romanticized incest coming.

Was gifted: The same friend gave me Bunny for my birthday and that was a really fun, really weird story about sorority-adjacent Frankensteinian creations for female pleasure and literary exploration and the relationships and imbalances between the women who make them. Super weird, little fucked up, kinda gay, really fun.

Gave/lent: After I read it, I lent my friend Outlawed, it's about women who couldn't conceive in the Old West and also gay people and gender and a dreamed of utopia for them achieved through robbing banks dressed as men. Be gay do crime cowboy edition.

Finished: I just read The Loved Ones and it was really cool at first, a guy worked at a pet cemetery in LA and then he planned a funeral for his friend, and then it got into people who prepare the people for funerals, and I LOVE weird super specific jobs and funeral planning stories (bc you never see that stuff in media, it always cuts from the death directly to the funeral and it's such a waste! So much happens in that period!) But then, because it was written by a straight white cis man in the 1940s, it got misogynistic and racist and was a relief to be over with.

Started: I just started reading Firestarter bc the new movie came out and I want to read it first and I really really like it so far, it just yeets you right into the story and the little girl sets fires with her mind!! It's so fun!!

5 stars: I read Plain Bad Heroines last year and boy howdy is this a fun book. It follows two related timelines, one at an all girl's boarding school in the early 1900s and one in LA and then the same boarding school in the present day, when they are making a movie about the events in the 1900s. There's supernatural occurrences (it starts normal and based in reality and the spooky stuff creeps in and you learn about it with the characters), there's gay people (literally almost every single character is queer, every main character is queer and it is incredible), there's super fun narration devices (snarky footnotes. Need I say more?), there's illustrations and MAPS (I love a good map in a novel, we need more maps in books). I cant even explain all the cool shit in this book, it is just the most fun book I've read maybe ever, I bought copies for three people for Christmas last year, I can't recommend it enough.

2 stars: I tend to really enjoy the books I read but one book I know I hated the ending for was Son of Rosemary, the sequel to Rosemary's Baby (the book the movie is based off of). At first it was great, a little weird but it's a weird story so whatever, then like the last few pages happen and (spoilers for this very old very unpopular book) it's just the biggest fuckin duex ex machina, literally, except instead of a god yanking the doomed character up out of the situation, she's plunged into hell but OH! JUST KIDDING! IT WAS ALL A FUCKING DREAM! EVEN! THE! FIRST! BOOK! IT'S JUST ALL NEGATED! Oh it made me furious I hated it. There is however a fun anagram that the author proposes and doesn't solve, unlike in the first book, and he encourages the reader to solve it, and I did (faster than he did apparently) after I finished the book in a rage, so that was fun.

Didn't finish: My friend and I each got a Pride and Prejudice book (essentially fanfic, but sold in stores), she got a vampire one and I got SUPPOSEDLY the smutiest P&P book out there, a sequel called Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife, but I could not get through it. It was trying to use the same language and only sometimes succeeding, and was setting up to be like a bodice ripper and all Dramatic (ie actually lowkey problematic), while also rehashing the original book as well as giving thorough backstory to characters when it was unnecessary, all the while trying to also be a sequel. It was just so much and none of it very well done OH and the smut wasn't even that descriptive, it glazed right over everything so it was like reading the scene through foggy glasses rather than seeing it clearly. Big bummer.

I'm tagging @momsopposed2theoccult, @silvermars, and @alittlemoretime and anyone else who wants to yell about books! Thank you @rosieposiepie again, this was so fun!!

[scriptflorist]

Hi, I have an artist character who does black/white art and does include various floral art. I've searched a lot of pictures of such online. Well, for me I don't recognise half of the flowers or maybe i'm even getting it wrong, or my recognition of only one of the possible ones. But what goes through the artists' thought process? Would they have actual flowers in mind, or just whatever makes good art, etc etc. Especially if this character actually does know more than just art.

Hi Nonny,

This may not be the answer you’re looking for, but I’d say the fundamental question that should be answered about your character first is whether or not they are the type of person who does extensive research about what they’re drawing before they actually draw it. Or rather, whether they have an inherent interest in knowing these things about the flowers, or whether they are solely interested in finding something that looks pretty and fits the theme of their drawing. If it’s just about something pretty and getting the correct scientific name they might as well ask at their local library for books on the flora of different regions. – Specifically books since they usually provide enough information to narrow down internet searches or already feature pictures. But anyone who isn’t doing scientific or floristic illustrations isn’t likely to know what plants and flowers they’re drawing unless they’re either super common or have a personal interest in that. (Thinking about that sweet guy who asked if we had tulips and where they were while standing right next to the big tulip display which also featured the word, he was so thankful though).

That’s just to get it out of the way whether or not they would have the flower knowledge. Albeit there is the caveat of whether or not it would look out of place in your writing style if the flower names weren’t mentioned because that’s just how detailed, which is a different angle altogether. And if that’s the case the question would have to be what is your character drawing or what did they draw and what was the occasion, was it supposed to represent anything? Was there a theme of some sort?

It’s really hard to say what goes through your character’s head when they draw, because well, they’re your character not ours and everyone approaches art differently. Which is just to state a little truth here since we can’t look inside anyone’s head.

What you’re asking largely depends on how your character’s mind and imagination works, which is something only you can answer. Are they someone with a clear picture in their head that demands to come into the world? Or are they creating both the picture in their mind and the one on the paper in tandem in real time? Is it a mix between the two? Where do they start when they get an idea? How do they conceptualise it? Does their knowledge outside of art help them create in some way? Is it something they can draw inspiration or motivation from? Which mediums do they like to draw with? Why do they prefer black and white? Do they create are to express themselves? For the sole purpose of creation? Is it to figure the different mediums? Or to relax maybe and what comes out doesn’t matter as much as the process in the first place?

What is good art to your character? Does knowing the flowers help them create that? Art isn’t a one-size-fits-all craft. Imagination isn’t either. There are plenty of answers to the questions that you’re asking, but the important thing here is the answer fits your character above all.

– Mod Jana

Disclaimer

This blog is intended as writing advice only. This blog and its mods are not responsible for accidents, injuries or other consequences of using this advice for real world situations or in any way that said advice was not intended.

[demiromantic-official]

Is it really possible to be demiromantic and not demisexual at the same time? I don't really get "crushes" just "oh this person is really really pretty" and I only had a more solid type of crush with someone I really got to know. Like I don't even know what a crush is supposed to feel like. But I'm also DEFINTELY not demisexual/asexual. What does it feel like to be demi/aromantic? How do you know the difference between "I want to have sex with you" and "I want a relationship with you" ?

One does not have to be both demiromantic and demisexual. 

It’s possible that what you feel in the beginning is aesthetic attraction, because usually that entails thinking someone is really pretty and being drawn to them in that sense, but not exactly in the sense that you would unwittingly fantasize sexually about them or feel any sexual draw. But, since you say that you are certain that you are not demisexual, then that sexual attraction seems like it comes later and/or is mixed with the aesthetic feeling.

What does is feel like to demiromantic? 

That’s a broad question, but I’ll answer as best as I can. Keep in mind that my experience of it may not be universal so I can recommend you listening to other people too if you are still stuck after this. For me, being demiromantic feels like being indifferent at the idea of dating when applied to a specific person. I mean, I guess I’m mostly indifferent anyway until I meet someone I really click with, but that could be more nuture/upbringing/culture than my orientation. Most often this manifests in me being confused when my peers start gushing about crushes they have on people they’ve seen at the supermarket or around campus and how they are working up the nerve to talk to them so they can get to know them enough to ask them out, because for me, even if I see a aesthetic appeal, I don’t feel a draw to want to talk to them enough to set up a romance. The confusion is even greater when people become infatuated with someone they barely know and call it love. Or when two people in my class became a couple less than a month after meeting and were practically obsessed to the point of ignoring their other newly found friends. Now I’m not here to judge how other people do romance, but I just want to illustrate how alien the typical way of starting relationships is to me. Because most of the time, I feel nothing of the romantic or wanting-a-partner nature toward people, and the idea of feeling romantic longing or interest toward someone I am not super close to, feels alien. Any romantic involvement with someone I am not close to, would feel forced, like a parody, like I’m doing the right actions but not feeling the right feelings, no matter how nice or how aesthetically appealing I find them.

But, as I become close to someone, and for me I mean really close as in we share emotional intimacy to great degree such as talking about mental health, fears, insecurities, then the friendship love I feel for them may grow into a different feeling that is somewhat harder to describe because I believe it varies each time one feels it.

In summary, for me being demiromantic feels like indifference at the thought of dating most people, even if they are pretty and kind. This indifference can change as I become emotionally intimate with them.

How do you know the difference between "I want to have sex with you" and "I want a relationship with you" ?

Typically wanting to have sex with someone includes a lot of physical sensations, though it can include some emotional sensations as well (at least it has for me). I would say that if you want to have sex with someone, you usually feel “horny” about them and may find yourself thinking sexual thoughts about them, without those thoughts feeling forced. These thoughts feel targeted specifically toward that person and generally feel pleasing/good, or sometimes urgent, though there are some exceptions where it feels bad/anxious, like if the person feeling them is sex-repulsed, or for trauma related reasons feels aversion/guilt at the thought of sex (like if they were raised to believe sex is dirty and sinful), or if the thoughts are intrusive (in which case they =/= wanting sex), but I don’t really have the education to go through the other parts and I don’t think it is relevant to your situation but thought it may be good to mention. Either way, in most cases for people who are not on the asexual spectrum, wanting to have sex with someone involves physically wanting it (i.e., having thought those thoughts and feeling good about them), and also mentally wanting it. The last part is important because I feel there is a difference between wanting something physically and enjoying the thought of it, and actually wanting it, which in my experience is not often talked about.

For me wanting a relationship involves different feelings. As a demisexual, I need deep feelings of trust and emotional intimacy to even want sex, but wanting a relationship is a different kind of feeling, and one doesn’t need to want both from the same person. For me, wanting a relationship is wanting to take a close friendship and form it into something different but that still contains the friendship elements. It’s wanting a spoken commitment and a ‘promise’ that you both want to remain close for a long time and that you both will continually make an effort for each other. It’s a yearning to be closer to them emotionally, and sometimes a “high” feeling when you’ve recently seen each other.

I hope this makes sense! Anyone is welcome to add their experiences.

[mittensmorgul]

I was watching the ep where they got Cas back after Lucifer stabbed him and I couldn't help but think "dang, it's a shame all this is still subtext." And then it dawned on me that it's not subtext. That if Cas were a woman, there'd be no doubt that her coming back was the pivotal moment for Dean that season. But they didn't outright confirm it because they don't think they had to. It's not subtext just because they don't spell it out. But we're conditioned to think that way with same sex ships.

hrrrrmmmmm... see I waffle back and forth between feeling like this is a postulation that could be useful for people who claim they don’t see it, and feeling like I need to douse myself with purell for even having to consider it, you know?

I tend to file this information under “things that make me slightly uncomfortable while also being a useful tool for people who are open-minded but just might need a little nudge into understanding what being bisexual feels like sometimes...”

I mean, dig back through my pages of posts in my “casual viewer stories with mr mittens” tag and somewhere there’s a post from like s9 (it was years ago) where he said “if Cas had been in a female vessel, he and Dean would’ve been married by now.” And somewhere else where he said, “too bad Dean’s straight.” And just... when he said these things (out of the blue, randomly) I’d been so caught off guard I kinda just blinked and stared at him like... who said Dean’s straight? but unfortunately didn’t actually say it out loud.

I was just... so dang flummoxed that anyone could look at Dean and not think he was a repressed, closeted bi. But then I remember straight people exist, and I’m married to one, and realize that yes, this CAN be a helpful tool to explain the dynamic we see constantly between Dean and Cas.

Because bisexual people exist. *waves hello* And sometimes bisexual people NEVER jump out of the closet. Sometimes we just think it’s easier to stick to what’s more socially acceptable (especially for someone like Dean who lived most of his life on the road with no attachments... strange small town where he’ll be for a few days at a time? Usually easier to draw less attention to himself by hooking up with a woman than DOUBLY putting himself at risk when he’s trying to maintain a cover id for a case and not getting himself run out of town for hitting on the wrong dude...). Not to mention the generation Dean was raised in, the lifestyle he has led (hunting seemed to be SUPER heavy on the dudebro types until their more recent reintroduction to the community through Jody’s hunder connections, the Witch Twins, etc.), and the transience of his life for years and years, believing he would never be able to actually HAVE any sort of long-term relationship at all. For a one-night stand? Sometimes it’s easier to play straight, especially in a lot of the sorts of towns we’ve seen them visit on the show (yes it’s 2019 and people need to wake up to the fact that bisexuality is real, but hooooooboy there’s still a lot of homophobia out there, and I get it).

SO! All that said... yeah, if someone REALLY just doesn’t understand where we’re seeing all this destiel subtext (and text tbh), then asking that simple question and inviting them to ponder the ENTIRE series again under that What If scenario... well, if that person STILL thinks Dean and Cas would just be pals, then I don’t think there’s any hope for them at all.

If their ONLY objection remains, “Well, but Cas is STILL in a dudesuit, and Dean is STILL straight, so...”, then I invite them to remember that bisexuality is a real thing, and that some bisexual people NEVER actually come out of the closet (which is TOTALLY FINE and A PERSONAL CHOICE and it’s always best to do what’s safest and most comfortable for yourself), and some only admit it to themselves later in life when they DO feel safe and comfortable enough to settle down that way... or until they discover they’ve fallen in love with their best friend and to their eternal wonder they discover their friend has also fallen in love with them...

Sometimes that’s just how things happen.

But I like to tell people to consider this bearing in mind that from the pilot episode, I completely identified with Dean Winchester... as someone who only came out as bi later in life, because when I was a teenager, literally did not even understand that was a thing someone could be. I was just really, REALLY confused for a long time. (and I’m five years older than Dean, and can completely understand the isolated way he was raised, his entire life one giant ball of intensely managed secrecy, that it’s absolutely something he would’ve believed best kept well squashed down and buried right alongside his memory of his mother and his own self-worth).

But just ponder for a moment, if Cas had always been in a female-presenting vessel-- which we have seen him in TWICE now (Claire Novak and the woman he possessed in the flashback scenes in 12.10)-- would he still have used male pronouns? Because he always did use male pronouns, independent of having a male-presenting vessel. (and yes, this opens a whole other can of worms which I already made one long post about: https://mittensmorgul.tumblr.com/post/174088047410/do-you-think-at-this-point-in-time-cas-thinks-of )

And all things considered, there was STILL the barrier Dean felt between them, clearly illustrated by his “last night on Earth” with Anna. It wasn’t her GENDER that kept him from being with her, but one she was an angel again... she pretty much instantly shut him down. She was also the one who explained to him what angels feel versus what humans feel, specifically listing the experience of sex as one of the reasons she chose the painful act of tearing out her grace, specifically to become human in order to feel that. So... what has Dean been left with regarding Cas’s OWN feelings about human intimacy in general?

Even after 5.03, when a female-presenting person was willing to have sex with him, Cas... didn’t even REMOTELY get it. In fact, he didn’t get it until he WAS human (which... 9.03 is its own horrific can of worms here, but this was the first time Dean realized that Cas MIGHT in some way at ALL be interested in human intimacy). And then almost as soon as he became human, Dean was forced to make the horrific choice (let Sam die on the spot, or kick Cas out). He gets ONE CHANCE to even SEE Cas during this time, and it’s a situation where Cas nearly DIES, bringing on a ton of guilt and making Dean feel like he made the right decision keeping Cas out of all the supernatural nonsense for his own safety. *cue rending of garments and gnashing of teeth*

And then the next time he sees Cas, Cas... isn’t human anymore... and Dean’s... resigned to that fact.

It’s always SOMETHING standing between them, you know? It’s not JUST the apparent physical gender of Cas’s vessel. But if playing a round of “what if” helps folks jump that hurdle for themselves, then I don’t see anything wrong with it. As long as the conclusion they draw isn’t “well then that’s the eternal barrier standing between them and we can’t do anything about that,” then refer them back to the above essay on bisexual people repressing the hell out of that until they feel safe enough or comfortable enough or just have REASON enough to step out of the closet. Okay. I guess that’s enough for that. :P

[batwomanandmotherpanic]

(Updated January 1, 2020)

I've mentioned a few times across various posts here that I strongly believe Kate Kane was officially involved in boxing at West Point, but I haven't really explained the reasons for that, at least not all in one place (apart from a few fanfics). So that's what I'll attempt to do now.

But there's a larger point here, too. This is a specific example, but it works to illustrate how a lot of information about a character can be gleaned from reasonable extrapolation and a bit of research, even if that information may not have been intended by the authors. It's a window into how I tend to read characters, and I think the principles described here can be applied in many different cases. I certainly don't claim to have invented it (especially since it's strongly related to Watsonian textual interpretation), but I do think it's a valuable exercise.

So first, let's look at the scene where this all spiraled out from, in Batwoman: Rebirth #1:

I try to research as many avenues as I can about Kate and the things she has probably done or experienced, but this was particularly interesting to me because it overlapped with a sport I love.

The first order of business was to establish a timeline. We know that Kate left the Academy early into her final fall semester, that DADT was repealed in September 2011, that Kate was 20 when she left, that Kate is 27 as of her 2017 series, and that there needed to be at least a year between her dismissal and the repealing of DADT, or else she would easily just have re-enrolled.

I really don't like that Kate was de-aged in Rebirth, but it does still work out; this scene with Sophie has to take place in fall 2010.

The next question then became: could women participate in boxing at the Academy at that time? After all, on the surface this scene says nothing about that one way or another. Maybe Kate and Sophie were just renting out some of the Academy's trunks and shoes for some private, unofficial sparring.

The answer to this question proved to be more complicated than one might think.

Through various articles, I found that female cadets were not required to box until fall 2016... but prior to that, if they completed all PE requirements in their plebe year, boxing was available to them as an elective, provided that they were each paired with another female cadet of similar weight (co-ed sparring was strictly prohibited).

I also found that West Point's women's boxing club started up in mid-to-late 2009, and that early 2010 was when some of their members competed for the first time, before they officially achieved club status. So that worked out as well. There was also, unfortunately but unsurprisingly, quite a bit of sexism from Academy officials regarding the formation of the club; this potentially serves as a valuable subtextual parallel to the homophobia already present in Kate's time there. Like her potential military service, it is yet another thing that became officially integrated and accepted after her time. Thematically speaking, this seemed like a right thing to include in her story.

With all this in mind, other things about that initial scene started to click into place and confirm that I was on the right track. And the beauty of it was that, like so many such things in comics, I don't know if any of it was intended to stack up this way. But it did.

There's Sophie's first line to Kate, which implies that Jacob helped her in a similar situation:

That is to say: a previous fight. Looked at from an internal perspective, why else would Sophie be saying this? What else could it be about in this context? It can't be a reference to Kate's kidnapping and rescue, because A) wow that would be a super inappropriate thing to be talking about in this situation, especially so flippantly, and B) Sophie says "help," not "save."

So, if Jacob helped Kate in a previous fight, it had to have been at a public event, which, based on the established timeline, would have been the 54th Brigade Open. And given the context of the line, since Kate is losing to Sophie here, it means Kate won in part due to Jacob's help. He gave her ringside coaching, in other words.

There's also the matter of the clothes each woman is wearing, if we circle back to the possibility that the gear was rented. Not so, it seems. None of it looks like West Point's own boxing gear (whether circa-2010 or present-day), meaning that it's almost certainly Kate and Sophie's personal attire. And why would they bother with that if they weren't involved in the sport somehow? Those articles I referenced earlier even speak of this very thing; due to budgetary constraints, many members of the fledgling club purchased their own gear.

And there are smaller, prior bits of evidence that also fit. Kate mentioning in her New 52 #0 issue that even before her Batwoman training she felt confident in her fighting ability, implying she had fought often:

(Bonus: Note where Kate describes getting beaten up.)

There's Simone's Batgirl #12, where Kate is shown jabbing as Barbara narrates that Kate is testing her reach, which is indeed one use for a jab:

Barbara's first line here also strongly ties into this discipline: boxing is at least as mental as it is physical (when done well, that is), so it's fitting that Kate would have that as a foundation for her future combat skills to rest on.

But most importantly, this participation falls in line with a few aspects of Kate's character.

Her sense of service: participating in boxing this way, at this specific time, would mean Kate was part of something that helped open up new opportunities for future female cadets at the Academy (a sentiment that a few of the real members of the club have expressed in interviews). The service aspect also ties into Kate's intended future as a leader of soldiers. A big reason boxing is required at all the service academies is not just for its obvious physical benefits, but also that it helps instill all sorts of disciplines into future troops. If you read or listen to interviews with the head coaches of the academies, they mention things like strategic thinking under stress, the ability to adapt to physical fear, perseverance in the face of hostility, etc. These are all things that would clearly translate to a battlefield situation and any good leader on that battlefield. I think Kate would have been savvy enough to seek out extra benefit in this way, and the fact that she would have had to go out of her way to do so sounds like her to me.

Dovetailing with that a bit, it also reflects her ambition: this would have presented Kate with the opportunity to be one of the first champions in a new and permanent athletic landscape at the Academy (though not the absolute first). Given the way she excelled in all other areas up to that time in her life, I imagine that this would have been another attractive point for her.

To sum this all up, the logical conclusion from all this evidence is that Kate was a member of the newly-formed women's boxing club at West Point, and won a match at the 54th BBO.

So. That was all very long-winded and thorough. Why is it important?

Well, in particular, it offers a new (if not totally revelatory) facet to Kate, and any information about a character has value.

But in a larger sense, this exercise demonstrates what I mentioned earlier: that researching a detail about a character, no matter how small, can yield a wealth of new info, even if that info was unintended or remains subtextual. To use another example for Kate: we can know a great deal about her academic skillset just from the medals she earned. Not because we're shown or even told any of that information, but because the qualifications for each of those medals can be looked up.

And this ties into a final, even more important point: this concept is a great strength of comics and other collaborative fiction. It allows for the sum to be greater than all the parts.

Even in this relatively minor case, the individual pieces built on each other and interlocked to such an extent that what they point to is pretty airtight, it seems, even though that endpoint may not have been considered by anyone involved.

Does this always happen? No, of course not, and often the exact opposite can occur, resulting in little more than a pile of narrative rubble. But when it does work, it’s incredibly cool. And if it can work for something like this… imagine the potential it can have when applied to weightier character details.

 What all is still out there waiting to be uncovered like this?

[dearartdirector]

Dear AD, hi! I went abroad to study Illustration in the UK, but while staying there, I discovered that I've had hard time coping with anxiety and panic attacks. All my self-esteem is gone, and I feel as if once I'm going to graduate, I'll go crying back in my country and have no chance to get a job as an artist. I was wondering if you can have a full-time job from abroad. If not, I'll have to find a way to cope, but I don't really want to spend every penny to doctors in order to be able to work.

You seem to be backed into a terrible corner, and I can feel the waves of overwhelmed radiating off you right thru this post. There’s a lot in this question. Let’s unpack this a bit:

A—Self-Esteem: Many many people, and a hell of a lot of artists, suffer from both anxiety and panic attacks. And the ones who don’t, in my experience, have just a hard a time with the opposite end of the spectrum, depression. I don’t even like to call these issues mental illness, because it’s just mental reality. I can tell you, after 4 decades on this earth, that no human I have ever met does not deal with some type of anxiety or depression. When it’s crippling, it is definitely an illness, but everyone has some level of it. You don’t get to be a successful adult without learning a method how to cope with your own mind and emotions. So don’t let the fact that you’re struggling with this eat your self-esteem. Everyone has their baggage. If you figure it out now, then congrats! You’re early! You’ll have less baggage to deal with when you hit middle age.

B—Anxiety and Panic Attacks: There’s 3 levels of dealing with this, and you’re going to have to work through them on separate layers at once, but I find it helps to think of it in artistic terms:     Foreground: Panic Attacks. There are methods to defuse a panic attack as you feel it come on, and they are all variations of first distracting yourself from focusing on your own panic, then taking a step back and looking at what’s happening from a teeny bit of distance. Like “Ok, I’m having a panic attack. I’ve been here before. I will be ok. I can ride this out and I will be fine. Is there a safe place I can stop and chill for a few minutes?”     Midground: How your body copes with Anxiety. Your body can’t deal with an endless time of flight or fight response – because that’s what anxiety and stress is. Your body is processing stress as if it’s in a battle, fighting to survive. And while that’s an important skill in short term, it’s totally untenable long-term. So your body is loading up on as much stress/anxiety as it can possibly take, and when it hits a certain threshold amount, it’s going to ditch it in a giant panic attack, and reset the clock to zero. Now, that’s super fucking inconvenient. Wouldn’t it be better if you taught your body to work through stress when you chose? Not when it chose? There are many methods to do that, but if I were you I would focus on the ones that have a physical component (yoga, working out, martial arts, deep breathing, runs, long walks, etc.) because your body is already dealing with it physically, so it’ll be easier to channel it into some other physical thing.     Background: What’s causing the Anxiety. Now, there’s stress you can reduce, and stress you can’t. Life is really fucking stressful, and while you can certainly reduce some by shifting things in your life, change generally comes slowly over time. There might also be family problems, traumas, or situations like stressful jobs you can’t get out of right now. It might take therapy. Actually, if there is anything you can do to afford therapy (in your case colleges usually have free therapy for students, ask around) then do so. It’s like personal training for your brain and completely ignore any social stigma you think is attached to it. Some of the most successful people in the world go to therapy every week. And I do too. And I will as long as I can afford to. It can help with all of the above. In fact, I’m not a therapist, so anything I’ve said above is just hearsay, and you should listen to your therapist’s advice if you have one. Everybody: if you don’t have one, go see if you can get one.

C) Finishing School: The end of school is scary. Do yourself a favor and try to get any job you can when you’re done. If it’s an art-related job, great. If it’s not, then take it to make ends meet and make art on the side. Keep working on your portfolio and network and making great art, and eventually you will get freelance jobs and/or an art job (depending on what kind of art you are doing). You are still an artist if you need time after school to figure out what you’re doing. Most people do. Don’t stress yourself out even more by insisting your baby art career has to support you 100% as soon as you’re done.

D) International Artists: Yes, people work in art fields from everywhere in the world. Your career does not die if you leave the US/UK. The magic of the internet makes it so everyone can network through social media. Since I don’t know what country you are talking about going back to, and I don’t know what kind of art you make, I can’t make specific suggestions. But there are art jobs in every country, but more importantly, you can freelance from anywhere. As for staff jobs, again, I can’t talk specifically without knowing more about what field you’re trying to get into, but there’s many companies all over the world that use artists. And again, when you’re a freelancer, usually people only care about the languages you can understand, not where you’re physically located.

Whew, that was an epic post, but I wanted to help your seriously stressed question as much as I could. Sending your hugs through the internet. Good luck!

—Agent KillFee

[blackboyjoy]

Just curious, what is your opinion on the portrayal of black stereotypes in movies? I've taken up an interest in film writing and I just want different perspectives from actual down to earth individuals. Pls don't spare mine or anyone else's feelings, I want pure honesty.

This is a great question! I’m glad you are asking for others’ opinions and pursing your interests. I apologize in advance if this gets long and for the typos since I’m on mobile! If something is not clear, feel free to inbox me on anon again or message me off anon (I will not post if you go off anon!) A few caveats: I might be switching back and forth between talking about the portrayal of blackness (including stereotypes) in film from both black writers and non black writers. Second, I am talking about folks writing black characters in film and these things may not be applicable to writing other races - and it’s my opinion, I’m not expert but I have an interest in a lot of different topics and I am very open to dialogue about what I’ve said here and in the future. Don’t be shy!! Third, I’ll be talking mostly about mainstream film so keep that in mind, I know there are a lot of folks doing fantastic things on a smaller scale!! Also, just regular narratives as well, I’m sure these things show up in places like super hero movies but that is a whole other situation that I’d be happy to talk to folks about. Lastly, I’ll be floating largely through the black/white or black/non black dichotomy, so this information is meant to be nuanced with the addition of other racial identities.

When non black writers write black characters, I ask myself if the writer is using them as a stereotype and not trying to create a well rounded character. Like, are they depending on the audience to fill in the blanks about this person because they are black or do they actually develop the character and it is part of their personality (which can be transferable to another person of another race playing that character and still kind of make sense). I’m not saying that race isn’t an important part of a character and everything they do should be able to be done by another person regardless of race. To help, I’ll illustrate with an example. If a non black writer would like to write a black character I would like to think that they have a reason they need this character to be black. Trying to create a story in Flatbush Brooklyn about a kid growing up and trying to understand race and immigration in a largely diverse cultural setting, it would make sense that that kid could be black, or Latinx (that’s where I grew up, not sure if it’s the same now since I’ve moved so that example could be dated) there weren’t many white folks there at the time so it wouldn’t make sense that the character be white. If the non black writer is using the character’s blackness to have the audience assume things about them, I don’t think they should write black characters. Maybe the character lives in a single parent household and they have a temper. When this character shows up and is protective of their mother and snaps at what seems like nothing and the audience has come to assume that they should have known that about the character strictly because they are black and not because they actually KNOW the character and they don’t get a chance to know the character through a rich story of how that came to be the case, there is not much humanity that was placed in that character. If you’re a non black writer and you don’t understand why that isn’t okay, you shouldn’t be writing black characters. I also think that black writers can fall into this trap as well, but I don’t think i see it as much in films written by black folks. More on this later.

I know that there is a long history of non black writers (specifically white writers but not exclusive to them) of using blackness as a tool to either shift perspectives of blackness or create a perspective of blackness. This isn’t new because art is political and so is blackness. As blackness and whiteness were created out of politics. If we take a look at blackness (this showed up before film in word of mouth as well as print and live performances that were popular both pre and post reconstruction era but I’ll stick to film with an example more folks might know) The Birth of a Nation the 1915 one by D.W Griffith. Men in black face were horrifically portraying black men as savages only out to fuck shit up as well as take white women *spoiler alert* she throws herself off a cliff rather than be taken by a “black man”. This portrayal served a purpose: black folks, men in particular, were violent and needed to be controlled hence it’s immense popularity and it’s role in galvanizing the jim crow era. Before this, black folks were portrayed as docile, meek, and enjoyed servitude which ~~YOU GUESSED IT~~ made white folks feel less guilty and more comfortable with the horror that was slavery in the U.S.

That’s why I don’t trust people that be like “It was just a movie, just a tattoo, just a painting, or just a book, it ain’t that deep”. It is, because art is important and it is political and has the power to influence politics. Let me get back on topic, I’ve digressed.

I say that about early film portrayals to get into my next point in the modern context. It has been commonplace for non black writers to write black characters to serve some purpose (although arguably less insidious, idk though I’ll have to think more on that) more recently I think I have noticed this purpose being comfort or familiarity. By this I mean, folks are comfortable/familiar with seeing black folks as criminals, gang members, activists, slaves, comic relief, no dad involved in their life, incarcerated, SUPER achievers, etc. This does NOT mean that people agree with these portrayals, just that they occur often and tend to pop up everywhere. Again this is mainstream films that I’m talking about. These portrayals are less likely to cause people to think critically about what they are seeing and just store it away.

That brings me to black writers writing black characters and using stereotypes. I’ll be quick with this part because I know this probably got WAAAAYYYY longer than you were probably expecting, I’M SORRY. I believe black film writers do it for some of the same reasons that non black writers do it. Especially for the part that I mentioned on comfort and familiarity. This could be for a couple of reasons, maybe finding comfort in not feeling like having to explain everything to folks that can already relate or trying to have your final product be more marketable to more than just black folks. Either way I think it is a shame if black characters aren’t being given full depth that has been seen in white characters for so long in film.

So much more to say and think about, but I will leave it at that for now! I’m a little cloudy in the head today so I hope this makes sense. Feel free to dialogue with me if you want to, I’m always open to talking about whatever I write. Again this is my opinion - no expert here!!

[animaechan]

MADE IN ABYSS (Thoughts)

Before I begin saying my piece, specifically in response to a comment I received, I'd just like to say that I have watched up to episode 10 of Made in Abyss and I will only be finishing it next week. So, no spoilers, please. I also would like to highlight my scores for each episode of the show so far.

Episode 1: 8.9/10

Episode 2: 8.9/10

Episode 3: 8.3/10

Episode 4: 8.1/10

Episode 5: 7.8/10

Episode 6: 7.7/10

Episode 7: 8.2/10

Episode 8: 7.9/10

Episode 9: 6/10 (I found out afterwards that this episode is mostly filler and that all the things that bothered me about the episode, did not happen in the manga, so that was great to hear)

Episode 10: 9/10

What I have said in my reactions so far that I love most about the show is the world building, visuals and soundtrack. If I were to score the show as a whole at this point, based only on these three categories, it would be a 9/10 overall (at least).

I got the following comment today and I'm sharing it so that I can discuss why I don't like these kinds of comments:

"What makes [Made in Abyss] different, is the fact that the MC is a child. To a child, a world can still seem wondrous, even though it is full of darkness. So, rather than being like other run-of-the-mill Shonen type anime, it is actually interesting. I think one of the key points of this show, is to depict scenarios where (one) MC is trying to deal with a situation that is beyond their ability. Not like some cliched Shonen, where MC has hidden/special powers, makes grand virtuous speeches and other character troupes."

I find myself to be very apprehensive to have a discussion with this kind of person. Their comment solely focuses on bringing down an entire genre in an attempt to highlight why this anime is good. It's not even something they needed to prove to me, since my scores reflect that I do think this anime is good. They continued to say:

"Average shonen means something like Naruto. A great shonen would be something like Jujutsu Kaisen, Demon slayer, FMAB. Although they have some cliched themes as well, that is offset by other great qualities.

The whole point of that statement, is that Made in Abyss is a dark fantasy, so judging it by standards of a typical anime does not help. Like trying to imagine the story having an adult (or older) MC kind of takes away the whole point of this story."

I find it interesting how they talk about what is an average shonen VS what is a great shonen, as if it's factual, and they use those "facts" to illustrate their point. Not only that, but they assume that I judge Made in Abyss by the standards of shonen for some reason, which makes no sense to me, as I never mentioned another shonen while watching Made in Abyss. I only ever said that I don't think it's necessary to have an MC which is as young as Riko. She is 12, but the character designs (in my opinion) make all the children look even younger. I mean, there is barely a difference between the features of Riko and Kiwi, who must be around the age of 4.

I'm not sure on Kiwi's age exactly, but there is probably an 8 year difference between these two and yet it barely shows. This is obviously not an objective fact, I am just responding (and expanding on my reasoning) to their argument about "...trying to imagine the story having [an older] MC kind of takes away the whole point of this story."

I don't agree that the "point of the story" needs Riko to look as young as she does. Sure, it will add to the shock value, but if the story solely depends on the shock value of the mutilation of a 12 year old, I don't think that says a lot about the anime... "Dark fantasy is defined as a fantasy sub-genre that is typified by a deliberately ominous tone, reinforcing what is commonly perceived as a gloomy atmosphere. Standard features of fantasy are deliberately intertwined with a sense of terror and dread to create this sinister subcategory of fantasy."

Nothing in the definition of dark fantasy presupposes that the characters must be children. It is definitely not something that is against any rules, by any means, but saying "...trying to imagine the story having [an older] MC kind of takes away the whole point of this story" just because it's a dark fantasy, makes no sense. Berserk is also a dark fantasy, but doesn't rely (solely) on the shock value of harming children to make the story development and characters interesting or unique. The same can be said about Attack on Titan.

Before I finish up, I wanted to respond to one more thought in particular, which was that Riko is unique, because she is "not like some cliched shonen, where the MC has hidden/special powers, makes grand virtuous speeches and other character troupes." Once again, this person relies on bringing down something else in order to make their point about why something in this show is good. I think this is very unfair, however, because although Riko does not have special powers herself, her super strong robot companion comes down to the same thing. There is no way that she would have made it this far into the journey without the special powers of a secondary character. How is that really so much different from shows like Naruto, One Piece or Bleach in which the main character is granted special powers and actually develops their powers themselves over the course of many episodes? This is a shorter show, and it's fine that the main character is given a strong sidekick instead of developing their own power, but I think it is unfair for this person to say that Riko is any less cliched, just because her "special power" (that helps her to make it as far as she does) is not her own.

I just want to emphasise that I don't think Riko is a bad character. My average score for the character category has been a solid 8/10. I am just responding to this set of comments and trying to challenge their view of what it is that makes Made in Abyss good. I never said otherwise (with the exception of episode 9, but that has been explained).

In summary, I think Made in Abyss so far is very good, because of it's beautiful world building and visuals, as well as a unique and stand-out soundtrack. The characters are good too. I like the mystery surrounding Reg's character and Riko is special, because of her inquisitive mind and excitable nature. I still do not think that it is necessary for them to be and appear as young as they do, in fact, I think it actually holds the story back. That, however, is only my opinion before seeing the last three episodes and the movie. Once I finish, I will revisit this opinion and give more in-depth thoughts on it.