#Probably this book is directed to a certain audience

[prommethium]

Nuestra Parte de Noche is a joy to read. There are fragments in French, English, and Latin. One would expect to see footnotes with the translations and interpretations, but no. Mariana Enriquez is a pretentious author, or maybe it was the editorial; who knows?! My point is that accessibility would be nice!! 

The third chapter, narrated by Gaspar (page 234 in the Spanish version),  what Juan was doing was a ritual to open scars; from what we have seen so far, they were probably Mercedes' (the solve and coagula on his arms).

[tearlessrain]

please help me- i used to be pretty smart but i’m having so much trouble grasping the concept of diegetic vs non-diegetic bdsm!

gfkjldghfd okay first of all I'm sorry for the confusion, if you're not finding anything on the phrase it's because I made it up and absolutely nobody but me ever uses it, but I haven't found a better way to express what I'm trying to say so I keep using it. but now you've given me an excuse to ramble on about some shit that is only relevant to me and my deeply inefficient way of talking and by god I'm going to take it.

SO. the way diegetic and non-diegetic are normally used is to talk about music and sound design in movies/tv shows. in case you aren't familiar with that concept, here's a rundown:

diegetic sound is sound that happens within the world of the movie/show and can be acknowledged by the characters, like a song playing on the stereo during a driving scene, or sung on stage in Phantom of the Opera. it's also most other sounds that happen in a movie, like the sounds of traffic in a city scene, or a thunderclap, or a marching band passing by. or one of the three stock horse sounds they use in every movie with a horse in it even though horses don't really vocalize much in real life, but that's beside the point, the horse is supposed to be actually making that noise within the movie's world and the characters can hear it whinnying.

non-diegetic sound is any sound that doesn't exist in the world of the movie/show and can't be perceived by the characters. this includes things like laugh tracks and most soundtrack music. when Duel of Fates plays in Star Wars during the lightsaber fight for dramatic effect, that's non-diegetic. it exists to the audience, but the characters don't know their fight is being backed by sick ass music and, sadly, can't hear it.

the lines can get blurry between the two, you've probably seen the film trope where the clearly non-diegetic music in the title sequence fades out to the same music, now diegetic and playing from the character's car stereo. and then there are things like Phantom of the Opera as mentioned above, where the soundtrack is also part of the plot, but Phantom of the Opera does also have segments of non-diegetic music: the Phantom probably does not have an entire orchestra and some guy with an electric guitar hiding down in his sewer just waiting for someone to break into song, but both of those show up in the songs they sing down there.

now, on to how I apply this to bdsm in fiction.

if I'm referring to diegetic bdsm what I mean is that the bdsm is acknowledged for what it is in-world. the characters themselves are roleplaying whatever scenarios their scenes involve and are operating with knowledge of real life rules/safety practices. if there's cnc depicted, it will be apparent at some point, usually right away, that both characters actually are fully consenting and it's all just a planned scene, and you'll often see on-screen negotiation and aftercare, and elements of the story may involve the kink community wherever the characters are. Love and Leashes is a great example of this, 50 Shades and Bonding are terrible examples of this, but they all feature characters that know they're doing bdsm and are intentional about it.

if I'm talking about non-diegetic bdsm, I'm referring to a story that portrays certain kinks without the direct acknowledgement that the characters are doing bdsm. this would be something like Captive Prince, or Phantom of the Opera again, or the vast majority of bodice ripper type stories where an innocent woman is kidnapped by a pirate king or something and totally doesn't want to be ravished but then it turns out he's so cool and sexy and good at ravishing that she decides she's into it and becomes his pirate consort or whatever it is that happens at the end of those books. the characters don't know they're playing out a cnc or D/s fantasy, and in-universe it's often straight up noncon or dubcon rather than cnc at all. the thing about entirely non-diegetic bdsm is that it's almost always Problematic™ in some way if you're not willing to meet the story where it's at, but as long as you're not judging it by the standards of diegetic bdsm, it's just providing the reader the same thing that a partner in a scene would: the illusion of whatever risk or taboo floats your boat, sometimes to extremes that can't be replicated in real life due to safety, practicality, physics, the law, vampires not being real, etc. it's consensual by default because it's already pretend; the characters are vehicles for the story and not actually people who can be hurt, and the reader chose to pick up the book and is aware that nothing in it is real, so it's all good.

this difference is where people tend to get hung up in the discourse, from what I've observed. which is why I started using this phrasing, because I think it's very crucial to be able to differentiate which one you're talking about if you try to have a conversation with someone about the portrayal of bdsm in media. it would also, frankly, be useful for tagging, because sometimes when you're in the mood for non-diegetic bodice ripper shit you'd call the police over in real life, it can get really annoying to read paragraphs of negotiation and check-ins that break the illusion of the scene and so on, and the opposite can be jarring too.

it's very possible to blur these together the same way Phantom of the Opera blurs its diegetic and non-diegetic music as well. this leaves you even more open to being misunderstood by people reading in bad faith, but it can also be really fun to play with. @not-poignant writes fantastic fanfic, novels, and original serials on ao3 that pull this off really well, if you're okay with some dark shit in your fiction I would highly recommend their work. some of it does get really fucking dark in places though, just like. be advised. read the tags and all that.

but yeah, spontaneous writer plug aside, that's what I mean.

[she-who-fights-and-writes]

“Show, Don’t Tell”…But This Time Someone Explains It

If you’ve ever been on the hunt for writing advice, you've definitely seen the phrase “Show, Don’t Tell.”

Writeblr coughs up these three words on the daily; it’s often considered the “Golden Rule” of writing. However, many posts don't provide an in-depth explanation about what this "Golden Rule" means (This is most likely to save time, and under the assumption that viewers are already informed).

More dangerously, some posts fail to explain that “Show, Don’t Tell” occasionally doesn’t apply in certain contexts, toeing a dangerous line by issuing a blanket statement to every writing situation. 

The thing to take away from this is: “Show, Don’t Tell” is an essential tool for more immersive writing, but don't feel like a bad writer if you can’t make it work in every scenario (or if you can’t get the hang of it!)

1. What Does "Show, Don't Tell" Even Mean?

“Show, Don’t Tell” is a writing technique in which the narrative or a character’s feelings are related through sensory details rather than exposition. Instead of telling the reader what is happening, the reader infers what is happening due to the clues they’ve been shown.

EXAMPLE 1:

Telling: The room was very cold. Showing: She shivered as she stepped into the room, her breath steaming in the air.

EXAMPLE 2:

Telling: He was furious. Showing: He grabbed the nearest book and hurled it against the wall, his teeth bared and his eyes blazing.

EXAMPLE 3 ("SHOW, DON'T TELL" DOESN'T HAVE TO MEAN "WRITE A LOT MORE")

Telling: The room hadn't been lived in for a very long time. Showing: She shoved the door open with a spray of dust.

Although the “showing” sentences don’t explicitly state how the characters felt, you as the reader use context clues to form an interpretation; it provides information in an indirect way, rather than a direct one.

Because of this, “Show, Don’t Tell” is an incredibly immersive way to write; readers formulate conclusions alongside the characters, as if they were experiencing the story for themselves instead of spectating. 

As you have probably guessed, “showing” can require a lot more words (as well as patience and effort). It’s a skill that has to be practiced and improved, so don’t feel discouraged if you have trouble getting it on the first try!

2. How Do I Use “Show, Don’t Tell” ?

There are no foolproof parameters about where you “show” and not “tell" or vice versa; it’s more of a writing habit that you develop rather than something that you selectively decide to employ.

In actuality, most stories are a blend of both showing and telling, and more experienced writers instinctively switch between one and another to cater to their narrative needs. You need to find a good balance of both in order to create a narrative that is both immersive and engaging.

i. Help When Your Writing Feels Bare-Bones/Soulless/Boring

Your writing is just not what you’ve pictured in your head, no matter how much you do it over. Conversations are stilted. The characters are flat. The sentences don’t flow as well as they do in the books you've read. What’s missing?

It’s possibly because you’ve been “telling” your audience everything and not “showing”! If a reader's mind is not exercised (i.e. they're being "spoon-fed" all of the details), your writing may feel boring or uninspired!

Instead of saying that a room was old and dingy, maybe describe the peeling wallpaper. The cobwebs in the corners. The smell of dust and old mothballs. Write down what you see in your mind's eye, and allow your audience to formulate their own interpretations from that. (Scroll for a more in-depth explanation on HOW to develop this skill!)

ii. Add More Depth and Emotion to Your Scenes

Because "Show, Don't Tell" is a more immersive way of writing, a reader is going to feel the narrative beats of your story a lot more deeply when this rule is utilized.

Describing how a character has fallen to their knees sobbing and tearing our their hair is going to strike a reader's heart more than saying: "They were devastated."

Describing blood trickling through a character's fingers and staining their clothes will seem more dire than saying: "They were gravely wounded."

iii. Understand that Sometimes Telling Can Fit Your Story Better

Telling can be a great way to show your characters' personalities, especially when it comes to first-person or narrator-driven stories. Below, I've listed a few examples; however, this list isn't exclusive or comprehensive!

Initial Impressions and Character Opinions

If a character describes someone's outfit as "gaudy" or a room as "absolutely disgusting," it can pack more of a punch about their initial impression, rather than describing the way that they react (and can save you some words!). In addition, it can provide some interesting juxtaposition (i.e. when a character describes a dog as "hideous" despite telling their friend it looks cute).

2. Tone and Reader Opinions

Piggybacking off of the first point, you can "tell, not show" when you want to be certain about how a reader is supposed to feel about something. "Showing" revolves around readers drawing their own conclusions, so if you want to make sure that every reader draws the same conclusion, "telling" can be more useful! For example, if you describe a character's outfit as being a turquoise jacket with zebra-patterned pants, some readers may be like "Ok yeah a 2010 Justice-core girlie is slaying!" But if you want the outfit to come across as badly arranged, using a "telling" word like "ridiculous" or "gaudy" can help set the stage.

3. Pacing

"Show, don't tell" can often take more words; after all, describing a character's reaction is more complicated than stating how they're feeling. If your story calls for readers to be focused more on the action than the details, such as a fight or chase scene, sometimes "telling" can serve you better than "showing." A lot of writers have dedicated themselves to the rule "tell action, show emotion," but don't feel like you have to restrict yourself to one or the other.

iv. ABOVE ALL ELSE: Getting Words on the Page is More Important!

If you’re stuck on a section of your story and just can’t find it in yourself to write poetic, flowing prose, getting words on the paper is more important than writing something that’s “good.” If you want to be able to come back and fix it later, put your writing in brackets that you can Ctrl + F later.

Keeping your momentum is the hardest part of writing. Don't sacrifice your inspiration in favor of following rules!

3. How Can I Get Better at “Show, Don’t Tell”?

i. Use the Five Senses, and Immerse Yourself!

Imagine you’re the protagonist, standing in the scene that you have just created. Think of the setting. What are things about the space that you’d notice, if you were the one in your character’s shoes?

Smell? Hear? See? Touch? Taste?

Sight and sound are the senses that writers most often use, but don’t discount the importance of smell and taste! Smell is the most evocative sense, triggering memories and emotions the moment someone walks into the room and has registered what is going on inside—don’t take it for granted. And even if your character isn’t eating, there are some things that can be “tasted” in the air.

EXAMPLE:

TELLING: She walked into the room and felt disgusted. It smelled, and it was dirty and slightly creepy. She wished she could leave. SHOWING: She shuffled into the room, wrinkling her nose as she stepped over a suspicious stain on the carpet. The blankets on the bed were moth-bitten and yellowed, and the flowery wallpaper had peeled in places to reveal a layer of blood-red paint beneath…like torn cuticles. The stench of cigarettes and mildew permeated the air. “How long are we staying here again?” she asked, flinching as the door squealed shut. 

The “showing” excerpt gives more of an idea about how the room looks, and how the protagonist perceives it. However, something briefer may be more suited for writers who are not looking to break the momentum in their story. (I.e. if the character was CHASED into this room and doesn’t have time to take in the details.)

ii. Study Movies and TV Shows: Think like a Storyteller, Not Just a Writer

Movies and TV shows quite literally HAVE TO "show, and not tell." This is because there is often no inner monologue or narrator telling the viewers what's happening. As a filmmaker, you need to use your limited time wisely, and make sure that the audience is engaged.

Think about how boring it would be if a movie consisted solely of a character monologuing about what they think and feel, rather than having the actor ACT what they feel.

(Tangent, but there’s also been controversy that this exposition/“telling” mindset in current screenwriting marks a downfall of media literacy. Examples include the new Percy Jackson and Avatar: The Last Airbender remakes that have been criticized for info-dumping dialogue instead of “showing.”)

If you find it easy to envision things in your head, imagine how your scene would look in a movie. What is the lighting like? What are the subtle expressions flitting across the actors' faces, letting you know just how they're feeling? Is there any droning background noise that sets the tone-- like traffic outside, rain, or an air conditioner?

How do the actors convey things that can't be experienced through a screen, like smell and taste?

Write exactly what you see in your mind's eye, instead of explaining it with a degree of separation to your readers.

iii. Listen to Music

I find that because music evokes emotion, it helps you write with more passion—feelings instead of facts! It’s also slightly distracting, so if you’re writing while caught up in the music, it might free you from the rigid boundaries you’ve put in place for yourself.

Here’s a link to my master list of instrumental writing playlists!

iv. Practice, Practice, Practice! And Take Inspiration from Others!

“Show Don’t Tell” is the core of an immersive scene, and requires tons of writing skills cultivated through repeated exposure. Like I said before, more experienced writers instinctively switch between showing and telling as they write— but it’s a muscle that needs to be constantly exercised!

If I haven’t written in a while and need to get back into the flow of things, I take a look at a writing prompt, and try cultivating a scene that is as immersive as possible! Working on your “Show, Don’t Tell” skills by practicing writing short, fun one-shots can be much less restrictive than a lengthier work.

In addition, get some inspiration and study from reading the works of others, whether it be a fanfiction or published novel!

If you need some extra help, feel free to check out my Master List of Writing Tips and Advice, which features links to all of my best posts, each of them categorized !

Hope this helped, and happy writing!

[watkinsglen]

Review: “My Investing Journey and Learning” by Carmen Mundt

Qualifications: I’m a journalist reporting on business, economics, and defense who’s been in the industry for 7 years — the last 3 have been at, debatably, the #1 business publication in the world.

Rating: 2/5 stars

Thoughts: I cannot believe I spent 39 euros on this.

This 39 page ebook provides incredibly basic information that can all be found in this article.

First: while the ebook is about 40 pages, it probably has about 10 pages of actual information in it, interspersed with inspirational quotes from Sheryl Sandberg and Warren Buffet, with some pictures of Carmen in Monaco.

There’s about 1 page of “introduction” from Carmen that talks about her upbringing and journey to university in London. I won’t comment too much on her personal story, but an important thing to note is that she says she came from a “traditional Spanish household” where her father was the breadwinner and her mother had no access to family finances. After the 2008 crash, her family couldn’t afford to send her to college. She moved to London, applied for a student loan, and began studying finance at a university while working part time.

Carmen very, very briefly mentioned her regrets as to her mother’s inability to access higher education, work, and family financial planning; she says she’d never want to be in that position. While literally only one sentence, I think it makes it clear who the audience for this ebook is: someone who has absolutely, positively, no idea about money.

(She also very, very briefly mentions “big changes in her personal life” that made a full-time job in finance “not sustainable,” leading to her move to Monaco. This is her only reference to George.)

The rest of the book very simply explains how to make a budget, set financial goals, invest in the stock market, and mitigate risk. The information was kinda factually correct, and was written in a coherent manner. I think that’s the highest praise I can give it.

Here’s the thing: like other reviewers have called out, I am pretty certain that Carmen didn’t write anything besides the introduction. Whole sections (and indeed the entire format of the ebook) were clearly ripped from the Female Invest introductory courses. (I spent 3 hours clicking through each course so I could find direct wording comparisons to make this claim. I really wouldn’t recommend it.) I do think she edited these sections, and she interjected a few personal sentences; but I believe that’s where her involvement ended.

From an expert perspective, a lot of the information is so simplistic as to be almost incorrect. This isn’t a “first day of Econ 101” ebook — this is a “freshman year of high school home ec class” ebook. (Did anyone else’s home ec classes teach budgeting, or just me?)

Here’s an example. In a section on stocks, Carmen/Female Invest writes: “Investing in stocks allows you to support companies and causes you care about while still making a profit.”

On a basic level, this is correct. Purchasing a stock technically means you’re buying a little bit of a company, and I guess therefore supporting it. But unless a company is IPOing, you’re buying those stocks from another investor — which means your purchase has no effect on the company. So it’s a little disingenuous to claim you’re somehow helping the company. The ebook is rife with this kind of thing.

Carmen pushed in her advertising posts that the Female Invest courses were a key supplement to her book. So obviously, I had to do those too. And holy shit, they were so much worse than the ebook. Some parts were blatantly incorrect on basic information (they claim markets are open 24/7, when most are only open 9am-4:30pm on weekdays) and have some of the most patronizing metaphors I have ever read. (One of the most egregious was comparing your investment portfolio to a pizza because “stocks, bonds, and ETFs” make up different “sizes of slices to make a whole pie”. This isn’t even an accurate equivalent — maybe a calzone, pasta, and pizza make up a whole meal? I don’t even know.)

I would not recommend buying this ebook unless you, too, were barred from even thinking about a stock by your traditional father. Even then, consider free sources.

A Disclaimer on disclosures: So, after @ohblimeygeorge sent me a reddit post also reviewing Carmen’s book that mentioned ad disclosures, I decided to dive into the regulations. In the U.S., influential advertising is regulated by the FTC — in the EU, it’s regulated by the EU Commission, which I believe Carmen would qualify under since she is a Spanish citizen who lives in Monaco. First, I looked at this legal brief on content monetization business models, and concluded that that the ebook likely falls under “affiliate marketing” as Carmen likely receives a percentage of each ebook sold through her link.

(An additional disclaimer: obviously, I don’t know the details of the deal Carmen has with Female Invest, but I’d think it unlikely that she isn’t getting paid for their collaboration. She mentioned in an Instagram story under her Female Invest highlight that she “tried purchasing equity but they were already too big for what I could afford” but “did buy a bit of their crowdfunding.” Since she doesn’t have equity, i.e. doesn’t own a piece of the company, it’d be weird if she was doing this for free.)

Back on topic. I next looked at this legal brief on advertising disclosures. It states that affiliate marketing must be disclosed: “you need to make sure your audiences understand that it’s advertising.” Disclosures can include hashtags and “mentioning” advertising in the caption. Carmen has not disclosed advertising in any of her Female Invest posts, and appears to be violating this regulation. (Interestingly, her only posts that follow disclosure requirements are her Tommy posts.)

It’s apparently not uncommon. An EU Commission study showed 80% of influencers in the EU do not properly disclose ads.

So, there’s that too.

[robustcornhusk]

due to the circumstances, fell into a hole of reading through the archives of a blog that got deleted ~8 years ago

Reminds me of research on how ‘gaze aversion’ (e.g. avoiding eye contact) helps people think by removing the cognitive and emotional load of face processing, etc., so teachers who get caught up in forcing students to make eye contact are missing the point. Likewise abstract doodling while listening helps improve recall. Speech is so bad for conveying information, people need all the help they can get when forced into speech-based learning scenarios, really.

the writer has a bone to pick with lectures & orally-delivered information: they don't like 'em. i don't disagree from personal experience but i don't know enough to agree in the general case. maybe other people do learn well from lectures.

the gaze aversion link led to me to this paper on gaze aversion in adults with and without autism, williams syndrome by the same researcher.

[...] in phase 2 participants were required to maintain eye contact with the experimenter at all times. Looking at faces decreased task accuracy for individuals who were developing typically. Critically, the same pattern was seen in WS and ASD, whereby task performance decreased when participants were required to hold face gaze. The results show that looking at faces interferes with task performance in all groups.

to listen to some people talk about it, you'd think that only autistic people suffer do worse from being made to maintain eye contact. ... actually, given the rest of the wording in the paper, you might be able to say that NT people don't suffer from it, they just suck more when made to maintain eye contact, whereas the autists suffer. but i think more research is required.

this is only one paper and i haven't bothered to look into replicability or reliability or literally anything else about it. perhaps the author has been kicked out of the profession for making shit up. perhaps they are a pioneer. idk. i bring it up only as 'some authoritative-looking people have this position, so it's probably not completely without basis'.

....

perhaps one issue with lectures is that the audience can't fidget without causing a problem. (i can't sit still to watch movies but can watch them for hours with a treadmill)

---

less thought out position: i think people as a whole are bad at teaching.

i tried to look up why the fuck every curry i cook at home sucks, and instead i got a bunch of people talking about how it's impossible to learn to cook it if you haven't grown up there copying your parents' (=your mother's) cooking. that which can be destroyed by women's liberation should be.

went to a certain woodblock studio once. as i recall, the owner talked admiring about how the traditional way to learn to do the prints was to 'steal' the techniques from the person working next to you; very little direct instruction, but pick it up from noticing. it takes years and years to get good.

this works okay -- i mean, i suspect a large part of it was hazing, so i hesitate to say it worked well -- if you don't have better options, but what happens when there's no one able to take years and years to get good?

transmitting information is hard! it's really, really hard! i can't blame the people writing it down (or lecturing, or otherwise) for stopping at 'good enough'.

but like....

Have you ever had a book like this—one you’d read—come up in conversation, only to discover that you’d absorbed what amounts to a few sentences? I’ll be honest: it happens to me regularly. Often things go well at first. I’ll feel I can sketch the basic claims, paint the surface; but when someone asks a basic probing question, the edifice instantly collapses. Sometimes it’s a memory issue: I simply can’t recall the relevant details. But just as often, as I grasp about, I’ll realize I had never really understood the idea in question, though I’d certainly thought I understood when I read the book. Indeed, I’ll realize that I had barely noticed how little I’d absorbed until that very moment.

though given how many (nonfiction) books suck (=get the facts wrong, make logical jumps that are unjustified, etc), perhaps it's for the best we don't remember much

It’s easy to attend a lecture and feel that you understand, only to discover over that night’s problem set that you understood very little. Memory feels partly to blame: you might sense that you knew certain details at one time, but you’ve forgotten. Yet we can’t pin this all on memory. When you pull on certain strings from the lecture, you might discover that you had never really understood, though you’d certainly thought you understood during the lecture.

partner had a beloved professor in university who had a particular reality-warping field; it was so easy to come away from the lectures on a very hard topic believing one had understood everything! everything!

[jcs-singular-slut-strand]

Hi, I’m new to the fandom and thoroughly confused by all the JC hate? I started with the live action, then watched the donghua and just finished the book. Maybe I missed something- but everyone in the story, including some of the juniors, get messed up one way or the other from the whole experience and no one is really to blame? (Except all the Bad Dads™️)… but why all the hate for baby boy in particular?? And why the haters using his tag lmaoo sigh

Lmao tell me about it. Haters using his tag is probably the worst thing about this situation because I don't really care if people don't like him, it's when they have no fandom and tag étiquette that really pisses me off.

Basically i think the reason people dislike Jiang Cheng so much is because he is the one of the two people still alive who Wei Wuxian has had a direct negative impact on (with the other of course being Jin Ling) which means that people then cannot fully enjoy the wangxian ending, as the suffering of Jiang Cheng is too apparent and raw. So they make him into a villian and hate on him in order to make Wei Wuxian (and wangxian overall) look better. They take his anger and hurt along with Wei Wuxian's lack of reaction and twist it to make Jiang Cheng look like he's overreacting and Wei Wuxian to be the victim.

Jin Ling doesn't get this level of hate (the fact he gets any hate at all is beyond me) but when he does get hate it's about the character before "forgiving" Wei Wuxian. They only like characters when they conveniently get over all the pain and suffering that Wei Wuxian had caused them (jiang yanli, jin ling). And because Jiang Cheng really does not do this... well you can see for yourself.

Also not to make this about chengxian... but I'm gonna make this about chengxian. As I've said in the reblogs of a previous post, this one to be exact, for Wei Wuxian, loving Lan Wangji is easier, because Wei Wuxian has never done anything to Lan Wangji that needs a proper apology. Lan Wangji let's Wei Wuxian run away from his past because he wants to be his future, this makes things wayyy easier for Wei Wuxian.

And by extension it makes things way easier for the audience/reader as you never really get a proper insight into Wei Wuxian'd head.

Wei Wuxian, known liar.

We never get a proper insight into his feelings and relationship with Jiang Cheng, all we see is the nasty fall out as a direct result of Wei Wuxian's actions that he never properly answers for.

This makes people hate Jiang Cheng because of Wei Wuxian's brain filter and the fandom's habit of placing the blame everywhere except where it's due.

This is all down to the way that the story was written (as a romance novel that just happened to have extremely detailed side characters) and with the focus on only the main character's point of view, making it so that more thinking is involved in the sympathy of certain characters and that some people just simply do not want to or cannot do this said thinking.

This is really long and does not make sense, so I'm sorry 😭 but i hoped it answered your question at least a little!!

[vii0so]

[BSD 120] Theory/Analysis

These are my first thoughts on parts of chapter 120. It includes my personal interpretations and theories of certain things.

Warning: Spoilers ahead

█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

1. Akutagawa & "True strength"

In my previous theory, I believed Rashoumon was in control of Aku's body (hence the old speech and clothing choice).

In BSD, abilities are the soul. "True strength" and "within yourself" could point to Rashoumon.

It could be that Akutagawa has inherited the purpose of his ability (Rashoumon). Therefore unlocking its full potential and or memories. Hence the drastic change that Atsushi sees.

The "purpose" stuff was another thing I briefly mentioned in my previous theory. In short: Purpose = job (e.g. the bookmark)

"This blade serves the heavens"

This blade = "I" (Akutagawa/Rashoumon)

The heavens = probably "the book"

"This soul follows the path of righteousness"

This soul = Rashoumon

This would mean: Rashoumon is righteous.

"The path of the knight"

Knight = Protector/Defender

This could mean Rashoumon is the book's protector.

So his purpose could be the book's "Knight", just like Atsushi is the book's "Bookmark".

If we want to say it in book terms, it'd be the book's cover.

─────────────✧

"Idea. Will. All are empty."

This is directed at Akutagawa. Saying that he has no individual thoughts or will, he is just an empty shell.

I believe this can be seen as saying "You're a puppet."

This could mean that the current Akutagawa is like this because his role as the "knight" is needed (A god-level threat to the book has appeared and needs to be dealt with).

Meaning, it could very well be his soul's (Rashoumon's) purpose (the knight) has taken control. Making him a puppet with the only thing moving him being his purpose.

─────────────✧

███▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

2. The higher dimension

First off: If we think of the real world where we are, then the BSD universe would be a "lower dimension" to us.

In BSD, the book can change/shape their world and therefore is part of the "higher dimension"

Basically, anything that doesn't follow the law of abilities and/or our everyday normal earth standards, can be considered as a higher dimensional being/thing.

As Fyodor explained: Stabbing a page will "kill" the character drawn on it. No matter how OP they are, they will never be able to perceive our dimension (reality) and therefore will not be able to stop it.

To make it easier: An author can write a story where the mc faces an enemy and dies. The author controlled the story/fate of the mc. The mc would never be able to stop that from happening.

...Actually this example would be closer to what the book does...they are a similar plane of existence but not the same. Fyodor's example is better for Ame-no-Gozen though.

─────────────✧

Let's think of it the other way around to better explain:

In short: if you were to write/draw a character, that character would never directly be able to harm you or interact with you. That's because we're in a higher dimensional plane of existence.

Stories may just be fiction to us but to the characters they are real, just like life for us is real.

When a character becomes aware that there is a higher dimension/they are in a story, they still can't physically/directly interact with our world. The most they can do, is "break the 4th wall" and indirectly interact with the audience (e.g. talking to/looking at the camera/us).

─────────────✧

Random:

The book is a higher plane of existence than anything in the BSD universe. Hence why anything written in it becomes the truth.

Ame-no-Gozen is a lower dimension than the book.

Therefore, if someone wrote Ame-no-Gozen out of existence in the book, it would be considered true and he'd be gone.

─────────────✧

█████▒▒▒▒▒

3. Fyodor's Plane

This entire "plane to board" thing has had me worried since the previous chapter.

I know they want us to think of this:

But it still feels odd. He gets on that, becomes undetectable. Is that what he's really planning to do though?

He says it's not his concern (whether they live or die) but it seems like a definite lie. In one way or another, it matters.

He seems to be in a hurry. It doesn't seem fake, in actuality it seems like he's trying to hide how urgently he needs to leave.

He completely dropped the whole "Dazai wasn't it so I'll just take Atsushi" and switched to "I don't care whether any of you die".

Honestly, he probably decided to drop the "other half" stuff when he realised Atsushi didn't have the same thoughts as the tiger.

And the "idc what happens to you lol" is more like "I need to leave quickly so let's stop here" which shows urgency.

Which means, Fyodor has somewhere to be...and fast.

Okay, this next theory is a long shot even for me, but what if he needs to get to Sigma before he wakes up?

Don't ask me why, I'm not sure. But it sure is something to think about. It's time-sensitive and we're aware that Sigma hasn't woken up yet. It seems to fall into place with the urgency.

─────────────✧

███████▒▒▒

4. Fukuzawa's Survival

This seems like a challenge to battle but Fukuzawa knew there was no way of fighting Ame-no-Gozen. So who is he challenging?

Fyodor.

Yep, Fukuzawa will fight Fyodor...

All the people (including me) that believed Fukuzawa will die at some point in the story, might be right after this battle.

Why does he say it like that?

And why does he look like he hesitated?

I checked the Japanese and it's: 特には (toku-ni-ha)

Which means:

Note: The "ha" (pronounced "wa") is a particle.

Fyodor, what do you mean?! Is it that you care about his survival "in particular" or "not particularly"? (...I should just leave this to those who are fluent in Japanese. I'm overcomplicating stuff again.)

Anyway, I feel like there's more to this than what we're seeing (Or maybe I just forgot something...)

─────────────✧

5. Where's Rampo?

...no, seriously, where is he during all this?

He's probably doing stuff in the background to help fix this situation but we haven't even seen a glimpse of him since Fyodor came back.

Maybe we'll see him during the Fyodor vs Fukuzawa fight.

─────────────✧

██████████ Completed!

TLDR:

Akutagawa is basically Rashoumon right now.

Akutagawa is the book's "cover" (protector/knight)

Higher & lower dimension = Pretty much the same difference between us and any character in BSD.

Fyodor may need to get to Sigma before he wakes up. Hence the urgency to leave the fight.

Fukuzawa might die fighting Fyodor.

[skaruresonic]

Hey, I'm writing a book going over the history of Sonic SatAM (I'm SatAMHistorian on Twitter), and I was curious if you could give me the source on the coverage of Ben Hurst and Pat Allee's Unto These Hills? I feel it'd be a good source for my book, as it's good to acknowledge when I talk about that section that the reaction to their script was negative. Didn't know about that. Will say that I feel both you and the paper was a tad overly negative regarding the duo, as it's possible there were outside factors which led to their script being compromised (such as John Tissue's seemingly kinda shadiness indicating he may have requested certain elements be changed to be more marketable). Will say that Ben and Pat DID work previously on Native America related stuff, contrary to what the paper suggests. They previously worked on a virtual tour CD of the Museum of the Cherokee Indian in 1998, and worked on a paper regarding Duane H. King and his work with native american museums and such entitled "Trail of Tears". I don't doubt Pat and Ben were knowledgeable on Native Americans, and I think it's very possible those issues with the script may have been due to the direction they were given. Although the childishness and jokes being eh was probably on them tho.

Will say that I feel both you and the paper was a tad overly negative regarding the duo, as it's possible there were outside factors which led to their script being compromised (such as John Tissue's seemingly kinda shadiness indicating he may have requested certain elements be changed to be more marketable).

1.) No offense, but it kinda sounds like you're trying to excuse Pat and Ben here under the guise of executive meddling. I'm more inclined to believe a paper with sources than conjecture.

2.) Both me and the paper were overly negative? Both me and the paper. Not just me, but the paper specifically describing their rendition as whitewashing and their credentials as dubious.

Too negative. About cultural appropriation. In a paper literally entitled

...........I.

also how can you tell if the paper is being "a tad overly negative" when you haven't even read it.

Okay. Let's break this down, piece by piece.

First: intent doesn't matter when it comes to harm. Even if neither Pat nor Ben intended harm, the fact of the matter remains that they took a job opportunity away from an indigenous person who could have handled the source material with more cultural sensitivity and empathy, and instead used that opportunity to present an unfunny whitewashed version of history.

If they were really dialed-in to Cherokee culture as claimed, they could have recommended another indigenous writer to the CHA rather than take the position themselves. I'm fairly confident in asserting there probably wasn't a dearth of indigenous writers at the time.

Second: more accessible to who? White audiences? The play was originally white-directed; why would it need to be made even more accessible to white audiences? Would an indigenous perspective be considered too alien for general audiences to understand? What does "accessibility" mean in this context, and why do you assume accessibility to a culture that has suffered the appropriation of its history is something to strive for?

I. (rubs temple) I've been having one hell of a time trying to explain to people that not all cultures are up for grabs all the time. Just recently I had to tell a Sonic fan to knock it off with their w****goag AU because those spirits are sacred to the Anishinaabe and should not be treated like fictional playthings, and their defense was a flimsy "free cultural exchange is good."

No. Not always. Not to indigenous people, who have had their stories and beliefs violently ripped away from them and placed in the hands of outsiders who then profit off of them. Sometimes stories Are Not Meant To Be Told By You.

Indigenous people in particular have suffered a nasty history of being deprived of the right to tell their own stories by the dominant culture, and of having our stories regurgitated back to us in some whitewashed form. Unto These Hills was originally a white-directed morality play about Cherokee removal that the Cherokee then tried to make their own in order to generate revenue for the nation.

That is an act of survival. To take the narratives that hurt us and say "If we cannot stop this from happening, we might as well do it in a way that helps us."

With all due respect, I don't think I'm being "too negative" about cultural appropriation.

If this is what Pat and Ben did to Sequoyah, reducing him to a joke for The Lolz, I can't imagine what they did to the Cherokee museum.

And I'm sorry but frankly, I doubt Pat's credentials in this case when she, allegedly, was an "expert on Native Americans" and had her Wolf Pack do such quintessential Eastern Woodland tribe stuff as: wear togas and live in stone temples. ._.

The Wolf Pack are not based on any specific tribe. They're based on an ignorant view of Native people as a vague pan-Indian monolith.

Source: I'm a Haudenosaunee person and know we didn't wear togas and live in stone temples. Easterm Woodland tribes means our structures were made of wood. Longhouses, wiiigiwaam, etc., are made of wood.

We also do not mess around with fake curses because kačíkačiks (voodoo) isn't something you casually mess around with, even if the intent is to scare off outsiders.

Back to the main point... Sure, Ben could technically say he'd worked for the museum, but what did that actually entail when the CHA's standards were lax under John Tissue? You can't say "executive meddling was the reason they bastardized the play" in one breath and "Pat and Ben's work is legit because the same organization hired them to work on other stuff" in the next.

The problem here is twofold:

1.) Pat Allee and Ben Hurst were given a position that previously belonged to an indigenous man when their own credentials were dubious at best. The play's previous playwright was a Kiowa man, Hanay Geiogamah, who lost the position for petty reasons.

Furthermore, the man who vouched for Pat and Ben's credentials, John Tissue, could not specify why they were a good fit beyond a vague shrug. Especially brow-raising was the fact that they hadn't had a single writing credit to their name since 1999 when they got the job in 2006:

The CHA replaced Geiogamah the following year with Pat Allee and Ben Hurst, who made their living writing cartoons. They decided to replace Geiogamah because of his inability to fulfill the CHA‘s expectations. Though he did not inform the press of the reasons for deciding to fire Geiogamah, executive director John Tissue admitted to Scott Parker that Geiogamah "plagiarized text from the old drama and [had] no second act. "Hanay lifted the second act nearly verbatim from his American Indian Dance theatre shows and we didn‘t get that version until [two] days before opening!" The accusation of plagiarism did not focus on the script, but the series of dances and ―a Cherokee version of the American Indian Dance Theater DRUM CALL which served as the prelude to his removal scene. Because of Geiogamah‘s tardiness, the Association considered cancelling the first week of shows.

Choosing Allee and Hurst to write the new script showed that the CHA sacrificed its desire for a fully Cherokee story, to use 'veteran Hollywood writers.‘ Their credits, however, consisted of mainly children‘s cartoons such as ―Tiny Toon Adventures and two separate ―Sonic the Hedgehog series. Neither one had any writing credits to their name since 1999. Tissue, defending his choice, wrote to Parker that ―"Ben and Pat did write cartoons among many other things including the TV show Taxi but they also have [ten] years experience writing about Cherokee history. I needed that mix." Tissue did not divulge the details of their work on the Cherokee to Parker or strangely enough to newspapers.

I was not saying this to be a dick. You can read it in the paper yourself.

2.) Pat and Ben turned the play, which was originally about Cherokee removal, into glurgy, unfunny, "we're all one race" Christian feelgood schlock:

The main focus of removal here, however, does not occur in Cherokee, but in Nashville, Tennessee. White citizens line the streets to watch the Indians pass through their town. Upset by the occurrences, they bring out blankets, food, and clothing, and some begin crying. Kamama, a small Indian child mentions this to her grandmother, who responds "―never forget, Kamama, there are always good people, no matter what color they are." Throughout the scene, Cherokees sing the hymn Amazing Grace, and ―after a few stanzas, all the whites join in. The orchestrated score swells, filling the house and the song is sung in full harmony to a huge dramatic finish. This picture of harmony between the races took the focus off of the impact removal had on the Cherokee people, and showed how the playwrights imagined whites and Indians interacted. [emphasis mine]

Compare this to Geiogamah’s treatment:

Whereas Hunter [the play's original white author] saw this as the end of the action, Geiogamah chose to place removal as the center of the drama. [emphasis mine]

Even the construction of the scene created a different message then that of Hunter‘s script. The scene has few spoken words. It begins with Major Davis giving the order for the Indians to remove in two weeks, and ends with Kanati singing about removal.

According to the paper, Pat and Ben's rendition reflects a puerile view of history:

Their background in cartoons showed in the very childlike script that played for laughs. The play is more a series of vignettes than a cohesive story with a unifying thread running throughout. Though news reports claimed the second change in the script brought Tsali and Thomas back into the story, the playwrights relegated their part to the end of the play. Whereas Hunter denied the Indians any sense of humor, Allee and Hurst, made the Indians cartoonish, filling the script with bad jokes in English. Instead of using the Kanati and Selu as narrators, Allee and Hurst used a grandmother and grandfather telling bedtime stories to their grandson and granddaughter, an idea more accessible to white audiences.

Native people get opportunities ripped out from under them in favor of white people all the time, so it acts as a double kick in the face when our own stories aren't allowed to be told on our own terms, either.

As I've said earlier in this post, Unto These Hills was originally a white-directed morality play that the Cherokee people eventually tried to make their own.

Losing an indigenous playwright to two white cartoon writers for bullshit reasons is bad enough, but they then produced a cartoon mocking important figures, shelving other significant figures, and having everyone sing Kumbaya around the fire... as if dispossession was just an unfortunate tragedy instead of a calculated act of assimilation forced upon the Cherokee by the federal government.

Yeah.

No.

I didn't have a high opinion of Ben Hurst to begin with, considering his disdain of the Sonic series' core identity, the video games, led him to comment that Sega's vision for the series was "not very creative"; considering his comments on wanting to be "whatever species was compatible with Sally" were creepy (and yet this fanbase that hounds you over "impure" ships let it slid, maybe because they didn't know, but who knows?); and considering that his posts on SatAM seemed to heavily imply he couldn't let go of it decades later. Quite a claim to make that a hypothetical season 3 "wouldn't suck," and, just on a personal note, it's a little sad to think nothing else creatively fulfilled him quite like a cartoon he developed in his youth. Those are all the petty reasons I don't like Hurst.

...However, seeing two white authors take job opportunities from indigenous people and whitewash Native history actively pushed that dislike into upset.

Frankly, I was going to include a disclaimer, after a friend pointed it out, that just because Ben and Pat wrote something racially insensitive doesn't make them bad people. But, you know what, this is 2025 and it should go without saying. And centering their feelings/honor shouldn't be the focus of this post anyhow.

There's someone else here who is also dead, and can no longer defend himself, but that didn't prevent him from being made fun of. Sequoyah.

[tossawary]

I'm letting the 1984 "Dune" film play in the background and there's a LOT to say about this beautifully campy ridiculousness, but the part that's really getting me is the "inner voices". The audience at times hears the internal thoughts of various characters, presumably taken largely from the book, in a whispery voice. And it's not even just from Paul! It's from his mother and father and other characters as well, each making various observations and sometimes delivering exposition via their thoughts shared in voiceover narration.

Character A: "Greetings, Character B."

Character B: "A pleasure, Character A."

Character A: (inner voice) "That special outfit indicates that this person is secretly working for our enemies."

I made this exchange up, but that's the vibe here and it's wild. It's shockingly frequent too! Directly sharing character thoughts like this is something I'm used to seeing only in older novels, comics, and anime, due to the strengths and limits of their mediums. Like, the last thing that I was watching with any "tell, don't show" device similar to this was probably "Jojo's Bizarre Adventure"! It's striking (not a compliment) when other live action film (including the most recent "Dune" films) tends to prefer using actors' expressions and body language to communicate certain "unspoken" ideas like suspicion or affection or awe, and to let other sweeping visuals and musical cues speak for themselves as well.

You can also just have the lights go out, zoom in on a character's face, and have them whisper aloud, "Sabotage!" if you need to be that blunt about it, rather than have us hear the character's thoughts directly. You can insert a conversation of "as you know" technobabble between characters if you really have to do hasty exposition.

I don't want to call this film style "bad" exactly, inherently. But it's more than a little confusing when some characters are a little telepathic(?) and lighting is dim, so I'm briefly unsure which characters actually heard certain lines.

And I do personally think this kind of heavy-handed bluntness generally undermines what can be achieved with acting, sound design, music, set design, prop design, costume design, and so on. And I also think that a degree of uncertainty for the audience can be good for tension anyway. These inner thoughts being shared in this film are generally not ideas that couldn't be communicated through acting, visuals, or direct dialogue between characters, so this choice by the film often feels redundant and clumsy to me. Let the actors do what they're good at! Good actors can often communicate their emotions and thoughts to us without words! Or they can at least stand there while a majestic musical score communicates to us the depths of the character's grief and determination.

Like, not every use of voiceover narration in film is a bad thing. It's a choice. Sometimes it works really well and sometimes it doesn't. Voiceover narration often gets used at the beginning of films because it's an efficient way to quickly convey a lot of exposition and set the tone of the story!

But this film seems like it has a bad case of "science fiction is obviously too confusing for movie audiences to follow just by watching the characters move through the world and interact with each other, so we had better hold their hand every step of the way via voiceover narration constantly overshadowing the acting and musical score". It's not really helping the story, in my opinion. It's not letting the film breathe. Though "showing" in storytelling is often preferable, "telling" in a story is not always bad, but damn, this is a LOT of "telling" for an audio-visual medium.

[strange-anni]

The one time Murray struck gold in the jncy get-together scene

... and he didn't realize it at all

I have already talked about this scene in length here but there is still one aspect of it I want to highlight a little more. While I think Murray was definitely in the wrong with everything he did in the jncy get-together scene he still managed to uncover a certain bit of truth in Jonathan without even realizing it.

It starts with this part in which Murray asks for the name of the person Nancy would retreat to. This is very important as it's Jonathan who makes the connection between safety and Steve and not Nancy. It's him who says Steve's name first when Nancy doesn't do so. His thought process here must have gone from safety directly to Steve and unlike Nancy Jonathan doesn't hate the idea.

Also note that Murray asks for Steve's name twice which can also be read as follows:

Murray: Name? Nancy: ... Murray: Name? Jonathan: Steve

It's like Nancy never gave an answer to that question because to her Steve doesn't represented safety at all and even if he would she certainly doesn't want to return to him because of it.

Nancys face says it all. Even she can't believe Jonathan actually said Steve's name.

While Nancy seems like she is in confrontation mode Jonathan actually looks down. He's hugging himself and wiggling with his foot. You can't see it in this picture but his knee is actually moving as they all agree that 'we' like Steve.

Jonathan is getting progressively more nervous during this entire bit of their conversation.

They are discussing if 'we' like or even love Steve which to me is an interesting choice of words. It's not 'you' as in "You (Nancy) like Steve" and "You (Nancy) love Steve." It's 'we' which to me seems like they want it to sound inclusive here. 'We' in this room are obviously Murray, Nancy and Jonathan and while Murray certainly doesn't like or even love Steve and Nancy doesn't either (although she may like but doesn't love him) there is still someone left in the 'We' and he looks caught!

This happens while Nancy can barely get the words out and Jonathan is probably just glad the question is not openly directed at him as his answer as to whether he likes or even loves Steve might be the exact opposite of Nancys if he were to be honest.

No one notices any of Jonathans behavior though. Not even Murray who thought he could read them like a book and then claimed Nancy was even harder to read than Jonathan.

At first I did not understand wat was happening here at all. Why would Jonathan even act like that? He barely had any interactions with Steve whatsoever and then to go straight to liking let alone loving him? It never made any sense to me until I discovered how Jonathan was already in Steve's heart in the very first episode of the very first season. It's likely that these two have some ancient history we as the audience aren't aware of yet.

On a last note I also want to point out how there is something to be said about the safety Steve provides and what it does for everyone around him. He's the one to first mention the dangers in the russian tunnels under Starcourt Mall. He's the one who makes sure everyone is safe before he himself is and he's also a certified life guard but he's the real deal aka a real life saver. He's not like Billy or Heather who were inverted lifeguards and then took lives instead of saving them.

[courtkossai]

as faerie folk , probably pretty well aware that depictions of faeries in 2000s media especially can be twee , girly , and sometimes downright silly . understandably , not all faerie folk care too much for these things , especially if did not grow up as target audience . but , indulge kossai here momentarily , please ;D

specifically narrow in on 2000s releases here , and especially things that have girly or twee depictions of faeries - and even this is still far from everything , especially with availability ( or lack thereof ) in other countries and languages .

also , this is not to discount mature themes and tension which some of these media do carry - but have to admit still draw on certain ideas !

[lunarheiress]

I have a lot of thoughts about dungeon Meshi since I finally got around to watching the new episodes that came out and put a lot of the discussion into a new perspective. (Also full disclosure I have not read the books though I wish to acquire them for that purpose at some point.)(also also I have to work so I’ll probably break this up into a few posts because time is short atm)

So, the recent fight between Toshiro and Laios. It’s got a lot going on, and people seem to really be trying to assign blame when both of them are at fault (one a bit more than the other in my opinion but I’ll get to that):

1. First of all, there’s the clash of culture a lot of people have been discussing where more open communication style is not mixing well with a subtler communication style. This can’t be ignored, as these modes form the basis of (or at least highly influence) how they learned to communicate in the first place.

2. Second, there’s the inherent character lack of communication skill. Laios obviously is and benefits from being direct, and struggles otherwise. Also i can’t quite remember what part gave me this impression but I felt that Toshiro struggles with expressing his thoughts more than just because of a cultural difference. Perhaps it’s a combination of factors but it really just seems like he’s on the opposite end of the ‘ways to be bad at communication’ spectrum from Laios.

3. Third. The situation they’re in is awful and Toshiro has not eaten or slept in days as Laios accurately points out. Toshiro is also (rightfully) shocked due to the black magic revelation. (Rightfully meaning within the in universe context of the stigma around black/ancient magic) The man has received some of the most frightening/worst case scenario ever imagined news and all while he’s running on whatever’s left after fumes. He’s stressed, unwell, not taking proper care of himself, and completely unable to pull himself together, especially compared to how well Laios comes across (all things considered)!!!

(As a very long side note, I also have some thoughts on the ancient magic. I don’t feel like we as the audience really know enough about ancient magic to pass judgment as harshly as characters in the story. The evil evil bad bad blah blah reputation the magic has might have come from biased sources, or the characters could be completely correct regarding the danger. I will say however, that I think the type of magic Marcille used seems to have nothing to do with Falin transforming into a dragon. The only things she didn’t know was that the dragon ‘soul’/physical body would remain in some way and that the mad mage had dominion over whatever it is that’s remained. This also raises some interesting questions about what the dragon was exactly. They say that only human souls remain tethered, so, is the dragon soul originally human? Did the mad mage create certain monsters and power them with human servants? Did he originally transform a person’s body into the dragon, but couldn’t this time fully because Falin’s bones didn’t belong to the dungeon? Or does the body of the dragon belonging to him give him control over Falin until she consumes enough outside food to replenish herself? So many questions)

4. We as an audience know how hard a time Laios has been having. He’s also been behaving like a lunatic and putting himself at risk in ways that definitely indicate he’s not being completely rational at times. However, Laios also seems (on the surface) incredibly unaffected by what’s going on from an outside point of view. Despite his direct nature Laios is shockingly good at compartmentalizing, as well as refocusing his attention and efforts. This is in no way a bad thing? His ability to remain composed and focused is astounding. The problem is that Laios is likely coming across as cavalier, or at the very least not taking things seriously enough. It’s actually the opposite, he’s taking this situation very seriously, so much at times he’s not being completely rational which can easily come across as carelessness if you don’t know Laios well enough.

So, to sum up this first part? The argument is kind of born from two people who are both uniquely bad at communication in a way that clashes severely. They have also built a relationship they both view very differently. (Some recent decisions on both their parts are not helping either tbh). This argument was going to happen eventually, it just happened to break at the worst time possible, turning what might have just been an uncomfortable conversation into a full blown fist fight. But there’s also so much going on around them and in the fight that I still want to talk about so badly aaaaa part 2 later I guess!

[danielfuckingricciardo]

Why Anita Driver should be Stopped - An Essay(ish) Post

Hi. So I don’t often do long posts like this, you probably know me as a fic writer and shitposter, but this situation has been irking me since I first read about it and so I only felt it right to explain why.

First off, I wanna say that I understand what she’s doing (I’m going to refer to Anita as she/her throughout this though I have no clue on the author’s actual gender identity). I think she’s very intelligent, using pastiche and parody to create content tailored towards a certain specific audience.

But as someone who knows their fandom history, and has moved in fanfiction circles for over 10 years, the attention one specific book I’m not going to refer to by title because I may throw up in my mouth a little, has received has me very worried for F1 RPF writers as a whole.

RPF has always been a main stay of fanfiction culture. Though there are many ‘antis’ who think it’s wrong and inappropriate to write about real people, RPF fandoms, think One Direction, BTS etc have always been some of the biggest out there.

And I’m sure you’ve seen as popular fan works such as the ‘After’ series by Anna Todd and ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ by E.L. James have transitioned from fan work into published original novels.

Because of this, fan works are booming. Fanfiction is less of a dirty little secret now, confined to locked sites and email chains, but is something that many people know about even if they don’t consume it themselves.

And so, enter Anita Driver. Capitalising on the BookTok trend of ‘spicy’ fiction (what I would call erotica), the author has taken it upon herself to self publish a novel in that similar style but using Daniel Ricciardo not just as inspiration, but as the main protagonist.

I get what she’s trying to do, I really do. I can see that it’s parody, it’s not meant to be taken seriously, but firstly it’s illegal and secondly it really puts fanfiction communities at risk.

Part One: Defamation

Legally, you can’t take someone else’s identity and profit off of it without their explicit consent to do so. There’s a reason Harry Styles became Hardin Scott, and Edward Cullen became Christian Grey. That’s someone else’s intellectual property, or their identity. You cannot legally make a profit out of that. The subject could quite easily build a lawsuit against the author, and the author would have no grounds for defence. There’s a reason AO3 do not allow you to share fundraising links or anything else similar to that, and it’s to protect themselves and the authors against possible lawsuits.

I’d also just like to add that there’s plenty of erotic F1 inspired books out there. I haven’t read them myself but I know that the ‘Dirty Air’ series draws inspiration from current drivers on the grid, but doesn’t explicitly mention anyone real by name! Every character is the intellectual property of the author, it is original fiction that can safely make a profit.

By using Daniel Ricciardo’s image and personality, Anita Driver is putting herself at risk, in this case, not for theft of intellectual property, but of defamation. I haven’t read the book, of course I haven’t read the book, but I can easily believe that the content within could be considered to be defamatory as it may damage public perceptions of him. Now I’m no expert on law, I took a semester of media law and that’s it, but people have definitely sued for less.

In U.K. law (which I’m going off because I know the most about it) “A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.” (x) It could easily be said that portraying Daniel in this way would cause damage to his reputation. We know his image isn’t squeaky clean, but having this book using his name could easily lead people to believe that he was in some way associated with its production. I don’t think anyone would like their public perception to be that they actively encourage and fund the production of erotica about them.

In a lawsuit, Amazon could also be held liable for this, as their website is the main distribution platform for the book, and Anita Driver is a pseudonym and and an unknown.

“It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website. The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement.” (x) If Anita Driver remains anonymous, Amazon could easily be held liable in a court case. Because of this, it would be in their best interests to remove the book to avoid this. (I do not like Amazon, and while they would easily be able to fight the court case with their billions, it would be much easier for them to remove the book and avoid any possible cases.)

So honestly, it is easy to see why this book is a danger to the author. Now I’m not saying that Daniel would necessarily sue. I think he’d probably just laugh it off even if it does make him feel uncomfortable (which it probably does, it would me!) because he has more important things to do. But I honestly don’t know how F1 and Liberty Media might react to this, they would definitely be more likely considering Daniel’s Reputation in turn reflects their own.

Part Two: Danger to Fan Works

This leads me in nicely to part two, actually, because legal threats against fanfiction writers have been a real problem to various communities over the years. Anne Rice, creator of the ‘Interview with a Vampire’ series, had all works purged from the internet in the early 2000s, and threatened writers with legal action if they continued to post fanfiction.

Fanfiction has always been a niche. It’s a small part of the internet for those who want to put their blorbos in situations, or just to think about them fucking nasty. But fan works haven’t always been accepted. Many people still look down on fanfiction, particularly those feature OCs (original characters) or reader inserts.

Anita Driver’s book would be more at home on Wattpad than Kindle Unlimited. It is a fan work. It is written by fans, for fans, and should be kept to that specific audience (without paying for it of course, because as I said, it’s very illegal!)

A work of fanfiction being a book is nothing new, as I mentioned earlier, the ‘After’ series and ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ started out life as fanfiction. But when published, they were no longer fanfiction, they became original works of their own.

Putting fan works out in the open like that only threatens the F1 RPF community. It leaves us open, vulnerable, more so than normal. Sites like AO3 can only protect us to a certain extent, we can lock fics, sure, but that only stops those who don’t have an account from accessing our works.

If this one book is out there, who knows what may happen next. All it takes is for someone to say ‘I don’t want works featuring me published online and I will threaten a lawsuit’ and we’re back to email chains and password locked neocities webpages.

So it genuinely makes me worry.

And with the recent development of Dax Shepard sharing the book with Daniel himself, I feel that it’s all just too close. Fanfiction is never meant to be seen or read by its original subjects. Sure, they may actively seek it out if they want to, but unless they explicitly consent to it, they shouldn’t be seeing it. Daniel has had no say in the matter, it seems. It is being forced on him, which is going to look bad for the fanfiction community as a whole.

Part Three: Conclusion

Honestly, I don’t know whether I’m just being overly freaked out by this whole thing, I hope it just nicely blows over, the book disappears from people’s minds and we get to just keep our niche little side of the internet safe. But part of me is scared.

I’m scared for what may come, if the book is popular, will people try and emulate it? Will people start ripping fics from Tumblr/AO3/Wattpad to sell on Amazon to make a quick buck off the back of this? And will we have another Anne Rice type situation which kills the community completely?

I don’t know. And that’s what worries me. I hope that this whole thing blows over, that Daniel isn’t too freaked out, and that Anita Driver stops using ai image generators to make her book covers (Lance has waaay too many fingers on her most recent one. Caught you out babes x)

This is the end, for now. I suppose I’ll probably add to this if there are any more developments, and if anyone has anything to add (maybe some better law knowledge because mine is basic) please feel free!

Thanks for reading.

[droughtofapathy]

"Welcome to the Theatre": Diary of a Broadway Baby

Smash

March 18, 2025 | Broadway | Imperial Theatre | Evening | Musical | Original | 2H 30M

So, your resident mean lesbian who notoriously hates fun went to see Smash this week. And you know what? I had fun and didn't hate it. Now, I saw the open workshop presentation the show did last February, so I was already familiar with the approximate plot. I have also never seen the tv show. I don't give a flying fuck about what happened on the show, I don't care about whatever preestablished dynamics were at play, I don't have any background whatsoever. And that must work to my benefit in enjoying the show as it is now because I've seen the preview reviews on the forums and people do not like what they see. Well, I did.

It's not a spectacular book, by any means. But it's certainly far from the worst one on Broadway right now. It serves the story adequately, and while I do think there should be more cuts to some attempts to imbue the show with certain depth, it's fine. I will say that the ending is far better than the shocker they had cooked up for the workshop. I shan't spoil it, but at least we don't get that wild turn-of-events. And it's still very early previews.

Strong showing in choreography and music direction. The performers all slot into their parts well. I'm still baffled by everything Kristine Neilsen does on that stage, but willing to just suspend my disbelieve and roll with it. Brooks Ashmanskas has played the exact same role in every single show I've ever seen him in. I guess that's his niche. I think the writer pair here is more suited to each other than the workshop, though frankly I just don't care about their drama. All three "Marilyns" perform well. Musically, it's a lot of fun. The costume design sparkles even if the set design does not. Robyn Hurder is working her ass off on that stage. While I'm a little disappointed that we don't get as much pre-Diva time with her character, and the new ending seems a little slapshot in her arc, she's still a delight to watch. The show is asking a lot of her.

Do I think the show has lasting potential? Well, let's just say that I don't think the planned Imperial renovation will interfere with things at all. If it has a similar run to Some Like it Hot, I'd be surprised. But I do like this show better, at least from the perspective of getting to see women on stage (that aren't Borle in drag...) though I think it's probably a little weaker in spectacle. But then, given the storyline's demands, I don't see how massive set pieces would even be appropriate.

Verdict: A Lovely Night

I'll put this under the cut because it's spoiler territory, but I am interested to see if and how the death scene evolves. On one hand, it's enormously tacky, but it's deliberately meant to be in-story so I understand the purpose and I'm mostly fine with it. But I do think the audience reaction should influence how the creatives tweak going forward.

Do I care that the main storyline isn't Ivy vs. Karen? Nope. Not a single fuck given. That's a boring plotline. Cut, print, etc. If that's what you want, well, too bad. Live with it, I guess.

A fine show. Neither a must-see standout this season nor a trainwreck.

[d-8tober]

D8Tober Prompt List (Long Version)

FAQ for the event is available here and the prompts-only version is available here

The Shining

Characters facing an extended period of isolation together, such as a deserted island or a snowed-in building

One of a bazillion movies based off Stephen King stories. A family goes to take care of a haunted hotel for the winter, trapping them with each other. There's probably three movies on this list that are genuine indisputable classics not just within horror but also for movies in general; this is the first of those three. If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend it just for the level of cultural references that depend on it even now.

Do you recommend it?

Absolutely.

Are there sequels?

There's a tv miniseries version made because Stephen King notoriously hated both the Kubrick version and Kubrick himself; it's a soulless mess. There's also a direct sequel made just a few years ago that tries to be a followup both to the King novel version and the Kubrick movie, Doctor Sleep; it got a little overlooked from some bad timing on the release but it's actually incredible and I HIGHLY recommend it.

Saw

Characters making a difficult choice or a required sacrifice.

If you're not a horror fan and you've heard of Saw, you've probably heard it called torture porn. That's a reputation that's almost entirely earned by the sequels, however - the original Saw is a hyper-low budget movie that borders more on thriller than horror, starring Cary Elwes (of Princess Bride and Robin Hood: Men in Tights fame) doing what may be the worst American accent in the history of movies. It's a very grimy movie, for certain, but it's also kind of a taut little mystery.

Do you recommend it?

Yes, though not that strongly.

Are there sequels?

Yes, and they're where the series gets its reputation. The movies involve a theoretically continuous plotline, and they manage to get incredibly convoluted and also increasingly gorey. Personally, I'd recommend just stopping after the first one.

Pet Semetary

A character's favorite pet or other animal.

Another King story, and also a book the man himself claims he can't remember writing and thinks is his most miserable story. I don't think either of the two movie version are that good, but they can be okay - I can't even talk about them without giving away the most major twist, really.

Do you recommend it?

Not really, but it's not actively terrible.

Are there sequels?

There's a recent remake, and the original movie had a truly awful sequel. I'm also told there was a direct-to-Paramount+ prequel to the remake, which I'm sure is every bit the quality that you could expect from a direct to C-tier streaming service horror movie prequel.

Suspiria

Characters exploring dance.

Technically I'm talking about the 70s Italian version here, which is a fever dream of a film made in a style in which all the actors spoke in their various native languages on set and then were overdubbed for all versions of the movie. Taking place in a dance boarding school run by witches, the script was originally written envisioning the students to be children in the 10-12 range and then cast with them as college-aged but without changing any of the dialogue, which honestly just makes it more unsettling. It's stylish as hell.

Do you recommend it?

Yes, but if you're looking for something SLIGHTLY less weird to most modern audiences maybe go for the remake first and loop back.

Are there sequels?

As mentioned, there's a very recent remake that basically takes the framework of dance boarding school run by witches and abandons the rest. There's much more emphasis put on dance (and rather less on 70s progressive rock music) but it has a style all its own. I love both versions, but I slightly prefer the original myself.

The Thing

An imposter; a character replaced by a foe unknowingly.

I'm talking about the 1982 version here; as someone who was born in the 80s but is mostly not on board with 80s nostalgia shit at ALL I make a lone exception for the works of John Carpenter. Taking place at an Antarctic research station, this movie is both known for its paranoia-inducing plot and its incredibly detailed special practical effects. Among Us is 100% not based off this movie, they promise.

Do you recommend it?

Yes, wholeheartedly.

Are there sequels?

There's a prequel from the mid 2010s that basically uses the exact same plot but replaces the practical effects with CGI (which has already aged poorly) and has less interesting characters overall. It's not the worst thing in the world - the plot is good! - but why watch it when you could just watch the 1982 version instead?

Friday the 13th

Violence without glory or mercy.

There are a million of these, of course, featuring Jason Vorhees murdering a bunch of people in various sometimes-creative but usually not fashions. The original isn't that, though; it's a cheap Halloween knockoff with boring kills, shoddy acting, and maybe the world's worst who-dun-it mystery. (Jason is not the killer and in fact never really appears.)

Do you recommend it?

Absolutely not.

Are there sequels?

There are SO MANY sequels. None of them climb all the way up to good, though most are at least a little better than the original; personally the one I enjoy the most is Jason X, the one in space, which at least is aware of how fucking bad it is and dances in the sewage a bit.

Scream

A metatextual story or image.

Breathing some fresh air into horror in the mid-90s after like fifteen years of the same stale slasher series limping along, Scream still holds up quite well today - I watched it last year. The cold open of the movie alone would be an incredible short horror film. Also, it's the first R-rated movie I saw in theaters, at far too young an age to probably be watching it in theaters (I was 10). Movie theaters really didn't give a shit before Columbine happened, I have to tell you.

Do you recommend it?

A strong yes. Genuinely, as a writer, there's a lot to learn in this movie, which is VERY funny without actually being a horror-comedy.

Are there sequels?

Yes; none of them are as good as the original, but none of them are BAD necessarily.

You're Next

Betrayal from a beloved one.

A home invasion movie where it turns out the main character and designated final girl to be grew up with survivalists and is WAY prepared for a situation where people are trying to murder the shit out of her.

Do you recommend it?

Yes, though it's a milder recommendation than some of the others on the list. The violence in this one is a little more realistic than many of the others, as well, so know that going in.

Are there sequels?

Nope, this one's a pure stand-alone.

Alien

Placing profits above safety; an anti-capitalist message

A crew of a spaceship finds they have an unwanted stowaway. Actually, multiple ones. Honestly the idea that someone in circumstances to be reading this wouldn't at least have a vague idea what happens in this movie is baffling to me.

Do you recommend it?

YES. Yes, yes, yes. This may be one of the twenty or thirty best movies ever made, and made 45 years ago or not it still LOOKS great.

Are there sequels?

Bunches, in complicated branches that would require flowcharts to fully explain. Aliens, the most direct sequel, might actually be better even though Alien is one of the best movies of all time in my books; after that, it drops off in a hurry but if you want more and an expanded universe and all then hey, you've got that going for you.

An American Werewolf in London

Werewolves! Either all characters are, or one is newly turned into one.

A comedy-horror that is more or less what it says in the title; an American in London gets bitten by what locals definitely won't admit is a werewolf, and then things happen.

Do you recommend it?

Eeeeh. The movie itself is okay, not great. The director is a, ah, controversial figure MOSTLY known for his work with comedies and also his work in running unsafe sets that got actors harmed or killed, including two children and one adult on the set of the Twilight Zone movie; unfortunately, he also made a number of movies that ARE legitimately classics of my childhood, this just isn't one of them. I just wanted a movie where I could prompt werewolves. Werewolves are great.

Are there sequels?

There's one, An American Werewolf in Paris, which involves none of the same people and is actively terrible.

Freaky

Body swap two or more characters

The movie was pitched as Freaky Friday but instead of getting swapped with her mom the main high school character gets body swapped with a slasher movie killer, played by Vince Vaughn. Legitimately this one's a lot of fun, made by the same people who made the Groundhog's Day inspired Happy Death Day, and also it's VERY bloody.

Do you recommend it?

This one was literally the Halloween recommendation I gave my mom last year.

Are there sequels?

No, at least not yet.

Evil Dead

Characters not leaving well enough alone, and pushing into danger from curiosity.

A very classic 'group goes to an isolated place and then dies one by one' kind of movie, this was Sam Raimi's first movie, starring his college buddy Bruce Campbell. There's a lot of genius in this, but it also does have some real rough spots, and in some ways is basically a student film.

Do you recommend it?

Honestly for most new viewers I'd recommend skipping to the second one, which basically remakes the first one for the first half and then continues from there. There's a lot of filmmaking brilliance on display in a much less raw but still campy state in Evil Dead 2.

Are there sequels?

Yes, even beyond the second one there are several plus a TV show. Army of Darkness and the TV show are more fantasy adventure comedy things, and a lot of fun; the remake and the recent sequel to the remake, on the other hand, cut out all the campy humor elements of the original and play them straight horror and end up being pretty divisive as a result. I recommend everything in the series, though.

It Follows

Characters regretting a relationship

A remarkably low death count on screen in this one, which is a tense movie about a shapeshifting monster that gets passed off STD-style and steadily walks towards the current target, killing them if they catch up but moving on to stalking their partner if they hook up first. Features a memorable score, in particular, enough so that I'm mentioning it here.

Do you recommend it?

Lukewarmly yes; it's good, but I don't think it's great. This one's got a real cult following, though, which led to…

Are there sequels?

There's one coming out soon, titled "They Follow". Horror movies get sequels relatively easily - they tend to be cheap to make and while they generally don't do gangbusters at the box office they usually do okay - but I have to admit I didn't think one was coming for this.

Final Destination

One or more characters fighting against destiny

The premise on this one is pretty famous, and while this isn't the first story ever to use it by a long shot it's probably the most well known: After seeing a vision of the future where he and a bunch of other people die, the main character takes action to prevent it. Only, it turns out that death doesn't like to be cheated, and the survivors start dying in mysterious and bizarre circumstances…

Do you recommend it?

This entirely comes down to one thing: Does the idea of repeated scenes of people either dying or nearly dying in tremendously Rube Goldberg-esque fashions appeal to you? If so, then absolutely yes, even though the acting is overall VERY late 90s teen drama.

Are there sequels?

Yes, four of them, and most of them are pretty good in the category of fun deathtraps. The second one's 'mass death vision' scene, in particular, is a traffic accident scene that genuinely probably causes multiple millions of people to avoid following behind log trucks. Avoid the 3-d one, but the last one and the first three are all fun if it's your thing.

Reanimator

Characters attempting to bring back a dead friend

Extremely loosely based off an HP Lovecraft story, but don't let that stop you from watching this science gone wrong film about a researcher attempting to bring the dead back to life. Honestly, just that is enough that you know a lot of where this is going, but do exercise caution - it's VERY 80s and also VERY gorey. Also, and the fact that I'm giving this warning in this article when I haven't on several other films means you should take it seriously, if you're sex repulsed stay far, far away from this one.

Do you recommend it?

Yes, assuming you can tolerate those warnings in the above paragraph. Barbara Crampton and Jeffrey Combs are great.

Are there sequels?

Yes, two of them. There was also apparently a Broadway adaptation in the early 2010s so those of you with tastes in that might be able to track down a cast recording or something?

Candyman

Characters fighting against someone seeking revenge for the sins of their ancestors

One of the few decent 90s pre-Scream horror movies, this one features a researcher in urban myths going into a housing project in Chicago and seeking information on the titular Candyman. She finds him.

Do you recommend it?

Yes; it's a very good movie, though there's a pretty heavy social message aspect (both racism and feminism are major points within the film) to it that is at times ham-fisted. It means well, but I'll leave it to the viewer to judge on that front the quality.

Are there sequels?

Yes, and they're dogshit slashers that lose everything good about the original except for Tony Todd playing the villain. There's also a more recent reboot, but I have not seen that one.

Ready or Not

Characters playing a childhood game.

A comedic horror movie, this one features a game of hide or seek and some of the world's worst in-laws. There's some GREAT props and stuff if you're into board games at all, and honestly you're on a dimension 20 promptlist so there's a decent chance you are.

Do you recommend it?

Strongly so, yes. The ending is particularly memorable.

Are there sequels?

No, and there better NOT be any either.

Sinister

Discovering records of past tragedies, such as a journal, photograph, or film.

A fine member of the long tradition of horror movies where the secret villain is the protagonist (see also the Shining, though it's even less of a secret there), this is a haunted house movie with a nasty twist. Very much in the jump scare vein of movies so if you're not into that, maybe give this one a past, though unlike its near-contemporary in the jumpscare heavy front of the Conjuring movies this one's got the FULL courage of its convictions to actually follow through on some of them - this is a nasty, bloody movie.

Do you recommend it?

If you're okay with a nasty, bloody movie then yes. I'm not exactly sure what sent Ethan Hawke on the road to where he's ended up in a bunch of movies like this, but he's good as the aforementioned protagonist.

Are there sequels?

There's one, which is weirdly easier to find on streaming than the original. It's not very good, but I've seen worse.

Tucker and Dale VS Evil

The kindness of strangers in the face of the unkindness of those once thought friends

Another horror comedy, this one turns one of my absolute least favorite tropes of hillbilly murderers on its head, and is purely a (bloody) comedy of errors for the vast majority of the runtime.

Do you recommend it?

Yes.

Are there sequels?

No; filming conditions on set were apparently bad enough that there's basically no possibility anyone would come back for it, and the movie wasn't a huge financial success even though it's become something of a cult classic.

Midsommar

A relationship continuing past when it should have ended; the failure of inaction.

An extended exercise in misery dressed up in spring tones, this is the only movie on this list I remember actually getting specifically called out during a D20 episode - Aabria talks about going full Midsommar at the start of ACoFaF, which it is something of the look if not AT ALL the tone. This one's a cult movie. Not, like, a cult classic - it's literally a movie about a cult.

Do you recommend it?

It's a great movie, but it's also HEAVY. If you're in the mood for that then absolutely go for it, if you're not then maybe wait for more cheerful days.

Are there sequels?

No, and I can't imagine anyone involved making a followup.

The Lighthouse

A character assuming another's identity.

There are people who would try to make the case that this is actually not a horror movie and I think that's fair. This is the same director as The Witch, and it's a very specific style for this movie up to and including it being in black and white and the accents that the two actors (the ONLY two actors) choose to take on. If you're into Greek mythology, see when you figure out which myth this is a reference to as a fun little minigame.

Do you recommend it?

I… kind of? If you think you'd be into a period piece with two actors in black and white that also features a shockingly high amount of talk about various biological functions, go for it.

Are there sequels?

Good god, no.

Hereditary

A character's bloodline being cursed in a mysterious way.

This one was a big hit a few years ago, and is half horror movie, half family tragi-drama, and all miserable. It's not the scariest movie on this list by any means, but it is in rare company on my personal list of things I recommend watching once and then never again. (Total Forgiveness is actually also on this list.)

Do you recommend it?

Yes, unless you have already seen it, in which case no.

Are there sequels?

Midsommar is the same director and in spite of an almost opposite aesthetic inherits much of the ethos of misery, but no, not really.

Phantasm

Dealing with a character's corpse, either to reanimate it or bury it.

One of the WEIRDER entries on this list, Phantasm is a late 70s film featuring a truly great villain known only as the Tall Man, who steals corpses and reanimates them as slave zombies back in his home dimension and honestly it just gets a little odder from there. His main opposition is a like ten year old kid.

Do you recommend it?

I can't say I DON'T recommend it but I probably wouldn't put it high on the list of things I would recommend to people partly because unless they're deep into weird movies themselves they're going to look at me like I'm crazy after they watch this on my recommendation.

Are there sequels?

Yes, and they form an allegedly continuous story and feature mostly the same actors - that original movie was an indie production in the freaking 70s and cost less than many houses to make, returning something like a hundred and fifty times its budget. The first sequel is probably the best movie in the series; the later ones kind of lost what plot there was.

The Ring

Impending death, to one's self or another.

A mysterious tape leads to death seven days after you watch it - this is probably one of the best-known and most-parodied movies on this list, to the point where I'd be a little surprised if even the younger audience hadn't at least HEARD of it even though it's somewhat older now.

Do you recommend it?

Yes, either this version or the Japanese version (which is the original; this is one of a string of American remakes of Japanese horror movies from around this time, and definitely the best of them.)

Are there sequels?

There are sprawling franchises in BOTH the US and Japan around this, with substantial differences in the lore and varying degrees of sucking. Personally, I'd just stick to the original two movies, but all the rest of it has fans certainly.

Child's Play

A character's favorite childhood toys.

A serial killer gets shot down by a cop and possesses a doll, but wants to steal a real body back. In contrast to what the sequels eventually became, the original is much less comedic, with a lot of practical effects around the doll - who in spite of being a serial killer has to play it smart because he's a doll, at least in this one. Chucky gets a lot of his superhuman abilities later on in the series; in the original it's mostly a deception play.

Do you recommend it?

Yes, the first two movies in particular here are quite good.

Are there sequels?

Buckle up, because this one's a long runner - this series has a continuous timeline spanning like eight movies and three seasons of television, with more still forthcoming. There's also a reboot that basically is in name only and also is bad.

Dracula

Vampires! Either all characters are vampires or one is turned into one.

I mean, it's Dracula. Do you seriously need me to explain to you on tumblr.com what Dracula is?

Do you recommend it?

It here being the original Bela Legusi Universal movie? Sure, as long as you know that's what it is - this thing's damn near a hundred years old at this point.

Are there sequels?

Yes, and a million different versions of this story.

Nightmare on Elm Street

A work focused on a character's dreams.

A school janitor who may or may not have been committing sexual assault on children - it's implied in the original that he wasn't and it was a witch hunt from the parents in the style of the satanic panic of the time; in the remake he absolutely was - has regardless become a demon who haunts the children of the parents who killed him and murders them in their dreams. One of the great 80s slasher franchises.

Do you recommend it?

Yes; it's the best of the 80s slasher franchises, at least in the first movie or two before Freddie descends into full clownhood.

Are there sequels?

Yeah, a whole bunch of varying quality, including a deeply weird one in New Nightmare which is effectively RPF of the first movie except instead of Real Person Fanfiction it's just Real Person Fiction.

It

A work focused on the character's greatest fears.

Yet another Stephen King story, this one features a creature from beyond space and time who comes up every so often to murder the shit out of people and especially kids while taking the form of their worst fear to do it. Tim Curry plays the clown in the miniseries in one of his most well known roles, and again this was a MADE FOR TV MINISERIES that broadcast on network television and is one of TIM CURRY'S best known roles. He's by far the best part of it.

Do you recommend it?

Yes, I recommend it. And It.

Are there sequels?

I suppose we can mention the much more recent theatrical movies, which split the childhood and adulthood portions more firmly into two films and also made literally over a billion dollars between the two of them. I've never seen them, though. There's only room for Tim Curry to clown around in my heart.

Jaws A beach episode! Beach-inspired fic or pic.

THE shark movie of all time, and also the movie that singlehandedly created the concept of a summer blockbuster movie, and ALSO the movie that kicked off Steven Spielberg's career and in spite of all of those things it's also genuinely incredibly good.

Do you recommend it?

If you somehow haven't seen this you should watch it the next time you have two hours to kill; this is a genuine classic work of art in popular filmmaking and also you'll suddenly understand a thousand cultural references you've been missing.

Are there sequels?

Yes, three of them, and they're increasing levels of bad. The second one rehashes the first but does a shittier job; the third one is IN THREE-D and that was the only reason they made it, and the fourth one features a telepathic shark that stalks the family of the sheriff from the first movie to the Bahamas out of wanting revenge for the murder of that shark but is both worse and more boring than this description makes it sound.

The Fly

A character going through an unwanted physical change.

Did you know Jeff Goldblum was hot once upon a time, and also like, genuinely ripped? This movie absolutely shows that off and then desperately makes you wish it hadn't. Another classic, though not really for the weak of stomach - a lot of real body horror in this one, so buckle in if you're going to give it a watch. I miss practical effects.

Do you recommend it?

Yes, though if you're on an older movie kick and haven't seen a lot of these the other older movies on this list are mostly better. Unless you're genuinely curious to see Jeff Goldblum as a sex symbol, in which case hey, go nuts. Also fun fact - this movie was still in a few budget theaters on the day I was born, though it was far behind the #1 movie in America, Crocodile Dundee. I'm mostly bringing that up because it invariably makes the Australians in my life flinch.

Are there sequels?

There's one, which I've never seen and which certainly doesn't involve either David Cronenberg or Jeff Goldblum. It is by most accounts quite bad. Also, technically, this one's a remake to begin with and there's a 50's version but I'm not counting that one - the difference between a movie from 1955 and one from 1980, even though they were only 25 years apart, are VASTLY greater than the differences between a movie from 1980 and today even though that's almost 45 years.

A Bay of Blood

A comedy of errors, with deadly or painful results.

Another foreign film, and kind of a proto-slasher, this one involves a real estate deal gone bad, family feuds, accidents, a whole lot of deaths, and some gratuitous nudity. It's basically like Friday the 13th in some ways except actually fun, assuming you're into that kind of thing. Definitely cheesy though.

Do you recommend it?

Eeeeeeeeeeh. If you're into schlock and cheese and people getting murdered in the middle of sex (not, generally, by the person they're involved with) then you could do a lot worse.

Are there sequels?

Not direct ones.

[pureshadough]

aaaaaaand that's jambound. general rambling ⬇️

i literally don't have anything to say about 32 it was a perfectly fine book end. for all of my bitching about the way this fic progressed it really was honestly Pretty Solid all the way through. fandom adores this shit for good reason, i personally just stopped being part of the target audience after the focus of the fic adjusted over the course of time. It happens . i accept the fact that this just stopped being For Me after a certain point, twas nothing against the quality of the work itself, but that doesn't eliminate the sense of disappointment that comes from following a piece of fiction live (like literally from the very beginning) (i read that shit when it was a oneshot with like 80 kudos tops) and watching its appeal slip from ur fingers over time while you simultaneously cannot stop hearing about it at every turn

i'm not taking back my grievances with 31 in light of 32s general Elaborations though because i genuinely still just Don't like how the last like 4-5 chapters progressed & were executed on the whole but those kinds of mass-activity climaxes are really gd hard to write as is, so like. is more a matter of "i dont think the scope needed to be Nearly this large" than anything else. conclusion of the soulbond redux thing was fine, Cute, In fact, and im glad we got chronic pain shmilk rep (‼️) but im still going to forever be blindingly pissed off about the pv pov thing Fuck you for that jamma /lh

i definitely stand by the sentiment that 1-11 was one "season" and 12 onwards was another (possibly even 2 more) that had a pretty significant tone/objectives shift nd ended up losing appeal in the process. that progression was kind of inevitable given the sheer amount of ground jamma wanted to cover, but by the time we got into the latter half and things REALLY stopped being about the soulbond i was like. Okay what are we even doing here. the point of interest for me was Always going to be on the codependency and navigation of their newfound Obligatory Proximity, and the way that evolved (esp as relevant to pure vanilla) just ddddidnt. Hit.

i think a lot of my grievances with this fic (and with most other Redemption AU content for shmilk on the whole really) is just rooted in a fundamentally Different perspective on how these characters handle affection & vulnerability. funny as this probably sounds coming from someone with This Fucking Blog Name i don't actually like most romantic milkshake content under hurt/comfort slowburn pretenses? and like, the sheer degree of Fluff on the table from like ~22 onwards Always struck me as OOC even With the soulbond feedback loop in the picture. this is going to probably sound Fucking Insane, but i think i would have been way more on board with the backhalf of this fic if their relationship was set back WAY farther than just Taking it slow after the bond broke. like im talking Almost Zero Romantic Content until around This Last Chapter.

shmilk has never struck me as a character who would willingly engage in affection unless he is perfectly and EXCLUSIVELY in control of the situation, and the soulbond feeding into that exact desire for (unhealthy and wildly imbalanced) social autonomy could have been a REALLY interesting vehicle to dive into whether or not he values that control over an actually authentic interpersonal connection. how much he's willing to sacrifice to obtain something Real, and in turn having to take several more steps to be willing to Learn Vulnerability. i'll take the angst and struggle inherent to a pairing having to EARN that kind of trust and affection in both directions over several chapters straight of unchallenged hurt/comfort (emphasis on comfort), but given how many people pissed their pants in the ao3 comments the MINUTE their relationships authenticity started to be challenged i get why this wasn't the direction that was taken. im of the understanding the audience reception ended up influencing jammas decision making a decent bit relative to the way this fic ended which bums me out. Should've just killed shadow milk off at the end in retaliation /j