#also nobody had critical thinking skills or media analysis skills

[irena-dubrovnaa]

honestly so glad i stopped using twitter as much bc most ppl on there are just genuinely so miserable all the time

[plethora-of-words]

The rise of ‘insta poetry’

The creative arts is a field that unfortunately, has never quite received the recognition it deserves. Few artists- like writers and painters- have ever been able to make a living out of their art, regardless of their skill level. Even legendary poets such as William Carlos Williams and Charles Bukowski had to take second jobs alongside writing their poetry to survive. 

However, with the rise of ‘instagram poetry/insta-poetry,’ it’s become a main career for many people. Instapoetry, by definition, is a term used to describe poetry written with the intention of being posted on social media platforms, especially instagram. It has a distinct style when compared to the work of poets from the past, or even the poetry taught in schools. 

One of the most notable poets who emerged using this style would be Rupi Kaur, author of ‘Milk & Honey.’ She began by posting her poems on tumblr back in 2012, switched to instagram, and eventually published her collection of poems as a book in 2014. By 2016, the book had made it onto the New York Times bestseller list, and her success continued to grow. The rise of Rupi Kaur helped the entire genre of poetry gain recognition once again; from an under-valued, under-appreciated art form to one that was in the front shelves of bookstores. 

Since Rupi Kaur, more and more insta-poets have begun to enter the spotlight, including many celebrities who decided to branch out into poetry. Cleo Wade, Atticus, and R.M. Drake are just a few who have been successful. This style of poetry’s success is likely due to how accessible and understandable it is to most consumers. The poems are typically quite short, aesthetically-pleasing to look at with drawings to accompany them, and are usually blunt and not heavy on literary devices or techniques. It also has a proven history of encouraging more people to engage in writing poetry, helping it stay relevant and brought into the changing world. Further, it provides more room for experimentation and freedom than typical poetry, which makes it more appealing to the majority of the population.

However, there’s another side of people who hold a different viewpoint. It’s often argued that insta-poetry is an invalid style of poetry, and is rather leading to the death of true, authentic, and meaningful poetry. Some claim that it’s nothing but shallow, artificial, ‘shower-thought’ lines that don't require any analysis or interpretation, with the only method of conveying meaning being line breaks.They say it focuses more on looking aesthetic and pretty instead of holding any substance, which leads to the demise of good quality literature in the modern world. Rebecca Watts, a British poet, wrote an essay in which she criticized the craft of insta-poetry and some of the poets themselves, writing it off as ‘amateurish’ and something that solely propagates the culture of instant gratification.

According to them, the issue does not lie with enjoying insta poetry- the issue is what its success shows us about society. It shows us society’s addiction to simplicity, and their interest in things that do not require them to think or have background knowledge about a certain topic. It’s also a testament to the steadily decreasing attention spans of people- nobody has the patience or energy to read the work of someone like Robert Frost and analyze the meaning behind his writing. The work of poets such as Rupi Kaur is much more immediately relatable and understandable, due to its simplicity, and that’s what sells. 

Further, most of these poets had no formal education regarding writing poetry. Those against it argue that people publishing works of poetry without having the proper knowledge are stripping the art form of its complexities, and making it seem like an easier task than it is. Writing is a learned, complicated craft, and many insta-poets are self-publishing collections of poetry as a side-job to their already famous profession. Simultaneously, many writers working on honing their skills and trying to publish poetry are hardly getting recognition, angering many supporters of poetry. 

In conclusion, insta-poetry may be a new arrival, but it’s evidently one that’s staying. It’s a double-edged sword, and it’s up to us to choose which side to focus on. 

[bestworstcase]

I feel like many bad takes or bad analysis from certain crowds ultimately boil down to people being utterly inattentive and basically wanting to FEEL smart over actually BEING smart.

They like the idea of "show don't tell", but scorn the idea of actually putting in any effort to actually understand what they're being shown, especially if it contradicts what they want to believe.

Media only exists in their eyes to reinforce their own biases instead of challenging what they think, and anything that does so is an affront to their image of themselves.

taps the sign. (<- a tangent but i have very strong opinions regarding “show don’t tell,” to wit that as it is utilized memetically as both advice and criticism it is nonsense.)

i think you are ascribing egotism and small-mindedness to a phenomenon better explained by the simple fact that textual analysis is a difficult skill to learn and one that is, outside of specific disciplines to which it is a core function, very poorly taught. i benefitted a great deal from having an exceptional humanities teacher in high school who made it a priority to teach textual analysis and critical thinking skills above everything else, and it absolutely blew me away to get to college and discover that almost all of my peers—incredibly smart, creative, thoughtful people—wrote analytical essays on par with what i had written in middle school. none of them were stupid or arrogant or lazy [frankly many of them worked a hell of a lot harder on every essay than i did, because they were learning new skills while i practiced things i’d already been doing regularly for four years]; but they hadn’t ever been taught how to parse texts analytically, whereas i had, so there was a huge divide when we entered college which shrank as they built those skills. as with anything some people will find it easier to learn textual analysis than others but nobody is born knowing how to do it and short of studying it in college in some capacity you’re unlikely to be taught more than the bare minimum lies-to-children basics.

there’s also the secondary factor that some people enjoy textual analysis and some really don’t, in the same way that some people enjoy mathematics and others do not; people in the latter category are generally not going to be reading or watching stories they enjoy particularly deeply because that would make the experience an unpleasant chore, and that’s, like, fine? the vast majority of people read and watch things to have fun and certainly in the context of fandom the core motivation is enjoyment. there’s no one right way to enjoy a story. (that said, fandom as a whole does tend to be rather analytically lukewarm because the primary approach to the text is transformative rather than analytical and this, in combination with the tendency for fandom to bring non-analytical and analytical audiences into close contact, can cause some friction. in my experience this friction most often occurs along fault lines between fans whose engagement is driven by emotional connection to or identification with certain characters and fans who engage analytically with character as a narrative tool; i think there is a degree of mutual incomprehensibility between the two camps that tends to spark conflict when the two interact.)

all of this is compounded by—(thwacks the dead horse)—christian hegemony, which is the underlying cultural engine driving things like fandom purity culture and the rigidity of good/bad categorization of characters and implicit expectation that all stories are or should be morality plays, and so forth; this is an issue on both sides of the non-analytical/analytical divide and has less to do with individual arrogance than it does the hegemonic moral framework that underlies US culture generally and online fandom culture by extension because online fandom is extremely americanized. although i do think that this is also, if not THE root cause, then at least a significant factor behind the recent-ish rejection of subtext as ‘real’ (so to speak) and the proliferation of the attitude that a story that fails to overtly and clearly explain itself is poorly written; points at evangelical christianity in particular fostering the mindset that individual questioning and interpretation and extrapolation from scripture is suspect on the grounds that there is a singular right answer that you are told by church leadership, which at minimum does nothing to equip the people who grow up in evangelical churches to handle critical analysis or even more-than-superficial comprehension of any other text.

of course some people are disingenuous and arguing in bad faith—that is the bedrock of hatedom specifically and tends to be driven by a variety of factors of which latent or overt bigotry, bitterness over jossed theories, and strong group identification with the hatedom seem to be the most common—but that’s a really small (if vocal) minority compared to the number of people who either lack analytical skill or don’t enjoy analytical engagement or both but form strong opinions anyway (as people tend to do about things they really like, or really don’t like). i don’t think it’s useful or kind to presume that anyone with a staunchly weird or whacky take is treating a story they like as a vehicle for self-aggrandizement.

[qqueenofhades]

Hi. You made a post a couple of days ago about how queer historical fiction doesnt need to be defined only by homophobia. Can you expand on that a bit maybe? Because it seems interesting and important, but I'm a little confused as to whether that is responsible to the past and showing how things have changed over time. Anyway this probably isn't very clear, but I hope its not insulting. Have a good day :)

Hiya. I assume you're referring to this post, yes? I think the main parameters of my argument were set out pretty clearly there, but sure, I'm happy to expand on it. Because I'm a little curious as to why you think that writing a queer narrative (especially a queer fictional narrative) that doesn't make much reference to or even incorporate explicit homophobia is (implicitly) not being "responsible to the past." I've certainly made several posts on this topic before, but as ever, my thoughts and research materials change over time. So, okay.

(Note: I am a professional historian with a PhD, a book contract for an academic monograph on medieval/early modern queer history, and soon-to-be-several peer-reviewed publications on medieval queer history. In other words, I'm not just talking out of my ass here.)

As I noted in that post, first of all, the growing emphasis on "accuracy" in historical fiction and historically based media is... a mixed bag. Not least because it only seems to be applied in the Game of Thrones fashion, where the only "accurate" history is that which is misogynistic, bloody, filthy, rampantly intolerant of competing beliefs, and has no room for women, people of color, sexual minorities, or anyone else who has become subject to hot-button social discourse today. (I wrote a critical post awhile ago about the Netflix show Cursed, ripping into it for even trying to pretend that a show based on the Arthurian legends was "historically accurate" and for doing so in the most simplistic and reductive way possible.) This says far more about our own ideas of the past, rather than what it was actually like, but oh boy will you get pushback if you try to question that basic premise. As other people have noted, you can mix up the archaeological/social/linguistic/cultural/material stuff all you like, but the instant you challenge the ingrained social ideas about The Bad Medieval Era, cue the screaming.

I've been a longtime ASOIAF fan, but I do genuinely deplore the effect that it (and the show, which was by far the worst offender) has had on popular culture and widespread perceptions of medieval history. When it comes to queer history specifically, we actually do not know that much, either positive or negative, about how ordinary medieval people regarded these individuals, proto-communities, and practices. Where we do have evidence that isn't just clerical moralists fulminating against sodomy (and trying to extrapolate a society-wide attitude toward homosexuality from those sources is exactly like reading extreme right-wing anti-gay preachers today and basing your conclusions about queer life in 2021 only on those), it is genuinely mixed and contradictory. See this discussion post I likewise wrote a while ago. Queerness, queer behavior, queer-behaving individuals have always existed in history, and labeling them "queer" is only an analytical conceit that represents their strangeness to us here in the 21st century, when these categories of exclusion and difference have been stringently constructed and applied, in a way that is very far from what supposedly "always" existed in the past.

Basically, we need to get rid of the idea that there was only one empirical and factual past, and that historians are "rewriting" or "changing" or "misrepresenting" it when they produce narratives that challenge hegemonic perspectives. This is why producing good historical analysis is a skill that takes genuine training (and why it's so undervalued in a late-capitalist society that would prefer you did anything but reflect on the past). As I also said in the post to which you refer, "homophobia" as a structural conceit can't exist prior to its invention as an analytical term, if we're treating queerness as some kind of modern aberration that can't be reliably talked about until "homosexual" gained currency in the late 19th century. If there's no pre-19th century "homosexuality," then ipso facto, there can be no pre-19th-century "homophobia" either. Which one is it? Spoiler alert: there are still both things, because people are people, but just as the behavior itself is complicated in the premodern past, so too is the reaction to it, and it is certainly not automatic rejection at all times.

Hence when it comes to fiction, queer authors have no responsibility (and in my case, certainly no desire) to uncritically replicate (demonstrably false!) narratives insisting that we were always miserable, oppressed, ostracised, murdered, or simply forgotten about in the premodern world. Queer characters, especially historical queer characters, do not have to constantly function as a political mouthpiece for us to claim that things are so much better today (true in some cases, not at all in the others) and that modernity "automatically" evolved to a more "enlightened" stance (definitely not true). As we have seen with the recent resurgence of fascism, authoritarianism, nationalism, and xenophobia around the world, along with the desperate battle by the right wing to re-litigate abortion, gay rights, etc., social attitudes do not form in a vacuum and do not just automatically become more progressive. They move backward, forward, and side to side, depending on the needs of the societies that produce them, and periods of instability, violence, sickness, and poverty lead to more regressive and hardline attitudes, as people act out of fear and insularity. It is a bad human habit that we have not been able to break over thousands of years, but "[social] things in the past were Bad but now have become Good" just... isn't true.

After all, nobody feels the need to constantly add subtextual disclaimers or "don't worry, I personally don't support this attitude/action" implied authorial notes in modern romances, despite the cornucopia of social problems we have today, and despite the complicated attitude of the modern world toward LGBTQ people. If an author's only reason for including "period typical homophobia" (and as we've discussed, there's no such thing before the 19th century) is that they think it should be there, that is an attitude that needs to be challenged and examined more closely. We are not obliged to only produce works that represent a downtrodden past, even if the end message is triumphal. It's the same way we got so tired of rape scenes being used to make a female character "stronger." Just because those things existed (and do exist!), doesn't mean you have to submit every single character to those humiliations in some twisted name of accuracy.

Yes, as I have always said, prejudices have existed throughout history, sometimes violently so. But that is not the whole story, and writing things that center only on the imagined or perceived oppression is not, at this point, accurate OR helpful. Once again, I note that this is specifically talking about fiction. If real-life queer people are writing about their own experiences, which are oftentimes complex, that's not a question of "representation," it's a question of factual memoir and personal history. You can't attack someone for being "problematic" when they are writing about their own lived experience, which is something a younger generation of queer people doesn't really seem to get. They also often don't realise how drastically things have changed even in my own lifetime, per the tags on my reblog about Brokeback Mountain, and especially in media/TV.

However, if you are writing fiction about queer people, especially pre-20th century queer people, and you feel like you have to make them miserable just to be "responsible to the past," I would kindly suggest that is not actually true at all, and feeds into a dangerous narrative that suggests everything "back then" was bad and now it's fine. There are more stories to tell than just suffering, queer characters do not have to exist solely as a corollary for (inaccurate) political/social commentary on the premodern past, and they can and should be depicted as living their lives relatively how they wanted to, despite the expected difficulties and roadblocks. That is just as accurate, if sometimes not more so, than "they suffered, the end," and it's something that we all need to be more willing to embrace.

[sneezemonster15]

Calling bullshit on the opinion that Kishimoto doesn't know how to write romance.

The reason why this entire shipping business on Naruto has been going on for over a decade and still going strong, making fans go absolutely mindless, about a story which is not even about romance, about things that are so effective and impactful that the fans feel completely consumed with it, to the extent where they have almost completely defined their life and philosophies on its basis, is because Kishimoto can write a good fucking romance. And that's what he did. That's the reason why ships are fighting with each other, because it's not just about Naruto the manga or Naruto the series, it's about how they imagine their own romance, it's a deep, profound feeling. That's why they have strong motivations and convictions that drive their insight into the story. That's why there is so much polarity in Naruto fandom. They are ready to jump to protect their ship at a moment's notice because that's how much it means to them.

Are you telling me that it just happened on its own? Just happy coincidences and random factors?

No.

A lot, a lot of thought goes behind closed doors of the studios. I know this because I work in the business. The reason why I was so astounded with Naruto's story because it was actually a brave story. A brave concept. In a shonen. Because I am ready to bet a million dollars I don't have on the fact that Kishimoto knew what he was doing. Anyone who enjoys poetry, or literature, or drama can, if not approve, appreciate Naruto and Sasuke's story. Because it's that deep. Because it's that impactful. Because it's that dark. Because it's that tragic. Because it's that tender. Because it's that painful.

Because it's so...

(Applause.)

Romantic.

These are all the ingredients of a well written romance. This is the reason why I don't care about other ships because I know that SNS is not random or a projection. It's mindfully and carefully and even tenderly written and developed.

Kishimoto's projection? Oh sure. It stands to reason that someone from his real life affected and inspired his favourite character through and through. He did say that he based some characters on certain people from his own life. And he did base Naruto on his own self, if partly. And the reason why I am able to surmise that he could have had a real crush on someone like Sasuke in real life, is because how clearly and insightfully written and contrasted the two characters are. So nuanced. They are like poetry, that's why I am so dazzled with them. Their story is so beautifully shaped by their characters and growth that it creates a clear impression of who they really are in the story. Soulmates. That's the whole crux of the story. They are written out to be this literally 'once in several lifetimes' pairing that finally broke the bonds of hate with bonds of love and changed the entire world and as a result, grew themselves. This is reflected in themselves what with Sasuke being propelled with hate and Naruto with love and coming together finally in a world that they made happen, for each other. And all of their parts and counterparts with which they think and move and function are so well in sync with each other that they lock together perfectly, like two pieces in a two piece puzzle box.

To say that this intricately and intelligently and tenderly written story is just like, an accident, my lord no!

No. The content that is finally syndicated on screens all over the world, especially with the type of response Naruto has enjoyed, and believe me when I say this, everything goes through many levels of scrutiny during production; to the extent of why would this camera angle work better than all the other angles, here's a flowchart and analysis of all of them and let's spend three days on deciding it while the producers are going crazy frustrated with fanatic creatives. This is a very common thing to happen in most serious studios.

Naruto stood out at the time it came out and reached a much larger audience for several reasons. But one of them was that it got the right exposure and was shown to critics outside of Japan, who could appreciate and admire it's cinematic beauty and this reached a different subset of audience. This extra effort is not consistent but it shines at so many places, because it's just good storytelling technically and aesthetically. And the reason why Naruto and Sasuke stand smack dab in the middle of that storytelling, is because Kishimoto told their story with so much feeling, it literally shows. The nuance is just crazy. Note that I am saying nuance and not subtext, even though it's there in heaps. But I want to make a distinction clearly. Like I can write pages and pages over it. Anyway, their story stands out because the nuances are so well defined and mindfully drawn by Kishi, that one can't help but wonder if Kishi actually experienced them. And they are just small things but still get a lot of exposure in the manga and anime. And because they are so small but clearly noticeable, it makes us stop in our tracks and think. And the thing is Kishimoto could have easily done without them and it would have made everything still seem undisturbed but he chose Not to. That kind of decision is a direct result of deep understanding, feeling and thinking in terms of forming a certain visual approach and meaning. The visual language Kishi has used to show their chemistry, their bond, their need for each other, is so tangible, like you could cut it with a knife, that it makes one feel something is right below the surface, simmering and about to explode, but you can't put your finger on what it exactly is. Until you start to think. And it takes some time.

You think that kind of writing is random? Are you out of your mind?

No, Kishi is a maniac. He pulled something that was not easy at all. He is a genius. He is also sadistic because he knows he didn't give us a resolution. Resolution is cathartic to viewers and the reason that nobody got any with Naruto and still not getting any from Boruto is making everyone go crazy. Fifteen years is a long time man. And I can bet my other non existent one million dollars on it. He owns a lot of rights over Naruto franchise, I don't think he can be cowed down to such an extent even by the studio. Kishi fought studios for a few significant scenes of Naruto and Sasuke, he is not unfeeling about them.

Maybe I am being a mere deductionist but more often than not, deduction is right. It's a valid form of acquiring knowledge. Sherlock is right more times than he is not.

Anyway, my point is, Kishi can write romance. Kishi can write very good romance. He could have chosen to remove some tropes and make Naruto and Sasuke either just brotherly or friendly. But he chose not to. A lot of people think that they are platonic. And I think I know why. But I don't. They are not platonic. They seem like they feel physically aware of each other, acutely so. they just don't know what it is. Maybe Sasuke does, Naruto doesn't. Kishi used also such common tropes to show this element, but just because it is in shonen and between two boys, y'all won't believe it. Don't you feel that palpable feeling, the simmering tension and emotion when they fight at the valley of the end both times? And it makes you think maybe it's just you, and what you are thinking can't be true because this is shonen and it would mean they are gay, let me tell you, no it's not you. It is Kishi. And it takes skill to write. Something like this is almost always used as a trope of unaddressed sexual tension in media. Pick any romantic drama of this genre, where 'hate turned to love' or 'two unlikely people who fall in love' and you would find it in almost every single one of them.

Why do you think Kishi designed it that way? You think with all the detail (action moves are literally inspired by real life martial arts, lighting, sound, editing, dialogues that sound like out of a Bronte novel), that was him just playing innocent?

No. No. No. And No!

He wrote SNS throughout Naruto and Shippuden and is still doing something of an extension of it that has made Boruto a weird and uncomfortable to watch family drama.

[of-monsters-and-werewolves]

Sad - though not surprising - to hear Lindsay Ellis won't be making anymore video essays. She's made some of my absolute favourites, and she's influenced my love of media analysis for years. I only wish the whole mess could have been resolved without it coming to this.

Just... please do some self reflection internet. The harm that mass harassment causes should be enough to make people stop and think about what they're doing, but for fuck's sake, if nothing else it's completely counterintuitive to any kind of genuine accountability or justice here.

Ellis made some big mistakes. There is genuine criticism to be had about her unlearned biases, her content, and the way she handled certain situations, and many people did make those good faith criticisms (heck, I myself felt her recent Loki video had iffy things to say about NPD). But the harassment campaign against her completely overshadowed any of those points. Not helped by fans of hers conflating the two, and dismissing many of the criticisms outright as simply part of the harassment.

Just please learn some critical thinking skills. Mob harassment is doing nobody any favours.

Oh, and one other thing. Can people please also recognise that nobody is owed forgiveness? No matter who you are. No matter how small the harm done. No matter how meaningful the apology or restorative action. Forgiveness is not obligated to be given, and you have to be able to accept that.

[slytherinsnekxvii]

let's talk about severus snape. he's one of the most controversial characters the internet has to offer, with several blogs, channels and pages dedicated specifically to hating him, despite him having one of the most—if not the most—intriguing character arcs the series has to offer. so, as a result of me coming across far too many of said blogs, channels or pages, here's an extremely detailed explanation of why i like him and think he's easily one of my favourite characters :)

1. he's not that bad of a teacher.

just so you know, i'm a teenage girl fresh out of high school. so, my experience with teachers? still keeps me up at night :)

my family is pretty strict about religion. you can guess what that means. anything that was magic-adjacent, especially something that, god forbid, had an entire school dedicated to witchcraft and wizardry was a hard no if i wanted to have any sort of freedom over the media i paid attention to, and any opportunity to go about my life without being monitored to make sure i wasn't suddenly possessed or something. thanks to this, i ended up secretly reading the philosopher's stone in my last year of primary school. i would've been 11 at the time, just about to turn 12, so a little bit older than harry and co. going on what i'd heard from those who had already read the series, i went in expecting to absolutely despise this man. i went in expecting to read a demon. i finished the book and came out thinking... that really wasn't that bad.

my mom found out, so i didn't get to read the rest of the series until i ended up on the executive committee for my school's book club and my friends were appalled that i'd only read the first book. at this point, i'm still expecting him to get worse and... he just doesn't. when i was in primary school, i had multiple teachers break wooden meter-long rulers across my classmates' backs. the first time it happened, i was in infant year 2 (about 6/7 years old). i had teachers who would insult us, based on anything from hygiene to behaviour to intelligence if you looked at them wrong. my sister (who was three years ahead of me) had a teacher who kept her in hours after school was over because the teacher had a written a note in her workbook upside down, and when my sister corrected her, the teacher made her rewrite it, turning the book each time the note was written so it would never be done the correct way.

in secondary school, i had teachers who would actively humiliate us in front of the class if we didn't do as well as they wanted. i had teachers who would throw markers and whiteboard erasers at us if we did something they didn't like during class. i had a teacher who looked for a friend of mine who was petrified of attention and then mercilessly picked on her until she went to the bathrooms to cry. these are the kinds of teachers that i was used to. so, when i read harry potter and read snape, who would have probably been one of the nicer teachers i met in my lifetime, i thought to myself, he's really not that bad. he's just... strict.

antis claim that he traumatised every kid that ever went through his class, that he straight up abused them and... no. he didn't. all of them are comfortable talking back, they talk during his class, no one trembles when he walks past, except for neville, who usually bore the brunt of snape's anger because he was consistently messing up in a potentially lethal class.

after school, i hated the thought of formal education, so now i'm working until i feel ready to do university. coincidentally, one of my jobs is teaching maths and english to kids writing the end of primary and secondary school exams. given the sheer amount of annoyance i feel sometimes, i actually respect him for not being more harsh with them, especially when they're all running off into danger or exploding cauldrons.

he really isn't that bad of a teacher, and we know this, since his classes' owl results are said to be consistently good.

plus, he was written in the 90's when all this was okay behaviour for teachers. hell, compared to some of the teachers in text, given that he goes out of his way to make sure the students are always protected, he's a lot better than most people give him credit for.

2. i relate to him.

come on, the man grew up to be a dramatic, queer-coded, petty bitch who wears all black all the time and likely has at least one mental disorder. i'm a petty, emo bisexual with (actually diagnosed, don't worry) depression and anxiety and I'm in a theatre group. what did you really expect from me?

on a serious note, both of the schools i went to were considered "prestigious". i got into my primary school because of a teacher's recommendation (she was a family friend). the second school i got into was because i scored ridiculously high on the placement test that would determine which school i went to. in primary school, i was the poor, really awkward, really smart kid who got left out of everything, and my best friend was the only kid who was worse off than me.

in secondary school, i was just as smart as everyone else... but i was still poorer, and still more awkward and still got left out of everything.

i got that isolated feeling, that feeling of not being good enough, that feeling where life always seems to have it out for you and that's even though i still got dealt a better hand than snape ever did. so, i get it. i'm never ever going to have it as bad as he did, but i acknowledge what he went through and i sympathise, because i have a chance, but it only ever got worse for him.

3. i genuinely enjoy his character.

this dude went through absolute hell for basically his entire life. the best years he had were probably when he was neck-deep in the group of people who hated witches and wizards like him, but somehow managed to treat him better than the good guys.

all of that, and he still manages to be one of the most entertaining motherfuckers in the whole series, with one of the most interesting character arcs ever. it's the witty lines, the sheer dynamic of his character, the change from the twitchy, hypervigilant kid from the slums to the adult that managed to spy on the Dark Lord himself and save the wizarding world in the process, while still being a hot mess of a person. it's the managing to get shit done while everybody hated him and everything was going to hell. it's the everything, and i haven't even talked about how badass he is.

come on, potions prodigy turned master, exemplary duellist (cough, cough, winning 4-on-1 vs McGonagall, Flitwick, Sprout and Slughorn, and leaving a scratch on nobody, while managing to not take a single hit himself, cough, cough), spellcrafter, spy and one of the only wizards to ever figure out unaided flight. dark arts master, proficient at healing (dumbledore would've been dead a lot sooner, if it weren't for him, most likely). he's one of the most powerful wizards of his time. i've said that any universe where he's actually a bad guy—or just legitimately loyal to the death eaters—is a universe where voldemort wins and this is why. if he was motivated by literally anything other than lily, the wizarding world was more than likely fucked.

the point is, i just think he's neat.

4. spite.

every time i appreciate snape, a snater feels like someone is walking over their grave. every time i appreciate snape, a snater turns blue out of sheer rage. every time i appreciate snape, a snater loses their mind looking for their non-existent reading comprehension.

the spite in my veins is tempered only by the broth of instant ramen and ungodly amounts of sugar, and i'm going to use them all in my mission to cause antis pain when they refuse to acknowledge their lack of critical thinking and analysis skills.

so, yeah. why do i actually like snape?

tl;dr: he's not that bad. for a teacher written in the 90's and compared to teachers i've had within the decade, the guy's just strict. sure, he's a dick (who i personally think is hilarious), but he always makes sure the students are safe and he didn't leave any lasting effect on any of the students. he's really not that bad of a teacher. and hell, he's not even that bad of a person. i fully admit that he was an asshole and i entirely believe he was prone to self-destructive behaviour, but he still tried to atone for his mistakes and he did, is the thing, even though the odds were stacked more or less completely against him. i like him because he entertains me, and because i relate to him, as a teen who went through some shit and probably would have joined up with some bad people if it weren't for my friends and family, and as a teacher who really can't stand my students sometimes. i also like him because it irritates people who don't like him :)

also, istg if any of you respond to this with "bUt hE was ObseSsED with LiLY and just WAnTEd to FUCK hEr," i'm crawling into your bedroom window with the most unrealistic, mangled interpretations of your favourite characters and making sure they haunt you in your dreams. meet me in the fuckin' pit, babe. reread the series, actually think about it and come with receipts that aren't Voldemort, because i don't think you want to have the same opinion as the character who canonically doesn't understand love, now, do you, sweetheart? when you do that, then, and only then, will i consider entertaining your bullshit :)

that's about it from me, thanks for reading!

[hellomynameisbisexual]

I’d go so far as to say that the nomination probably saved the site, in fact. For those who need a little background: despite being a small voluntary project the site was nominated for the 2014 Publication of the Year award by Stonewall, the UK’s largest LGBT charity, just nine months after its inception. This was a landmark step in Stonewall’s positive new direction on bi issues. To the best of my knowledge, this was the first time Stonewall had specifically nominated a specifically bi publication or organisation for an award. At this point my co-founder, who was taking care of the business side of things, had recently jumped ship and I was seriously considering packing the whole thing in. I won’t lie, I was astonished to read the email.

I’d worked on a publication which won the award under my editorship a few years previously. Unlike Biscuit, however, g3 magazine – at the time one of the two leading print mags for lesbian and bi women in the UK – had an estimated readership of 140,000, had been going for eight years and boasted full-time paid office staff and regular paid freelancers. Biscuit, by contrast, was being dragged along by one weary unpaid editor and a bunch of unpaid writers who understandably, for the most part, couldn’t commit to regularly submitting work.

Little Biscuit’s enormous competition for the award consisted of Buzzfeed, Attitude.co.uk, iNewspaper and Property Week. We didn’t win – that accolade went to iNewspaper – but the nomination was nevertheless, as I say, a huge catalyst to continue with the site. I launched a crowdfunder, which finished way off target. I sold one ad space, for two months. Then nothing. I attempted in vain to recruit a sales manager but nobody wanted to work on commission. Some wonderful writers came and went. There were periods of tumbleweed when I frantically had to fill the site with my own writing, thereby completely defeating the object of providing a platform for a wide range of bi voices.

The Stonewall Award nomination persuaded me to keep going with the site

The departure of the webmaster was another blow. Thankfully by this point I had a co-editor on board – the amazing Libby – so I was persuaded to stick with it. And here we are now. I don’t actually know where the next article is coming from. That’s not a good feeling. But, apart from for Biscuit, I try not to write for free anymore myself, so I understand exactly why that is. As a freelance journo trying to make a living I’ve had to be strict with myself about that. I regularly post on the “Stop Working For Free” Facebook group and often feel a pang of misplaced guilt because I ask my writers to write for free, even though I’m working on the site for free myself, and losing valuable time I could be spending on looking for paid work.

Biscuit hasn’t exactly been a stranger to controversy, in addition to its financial and staffing issues. Its original tagline – “for girls who like girls and boys” – was considered cis-centric by some, leading to accusations that the site had some kind of trans/genderqueer*-phobic agenda. Which was amusing, as at the height of this a) we’d just had two articles about non-binary issues published and b) I was actually engaged to a genderqueer partner, a fact they were clearly unaware of. Now the site is under fire from various pansexual activists who object to the term “bisexual”. To clarify – “girl and boys” was supposed to imply a spectrum and, no, we don’t think “bi” applies only to an attraction to binary folk. The site aims the main part of its content at female-spectrum readers attracted to more than one gender because this group does have specific needs. But there is something here for EVERYONE bisexual. Anyway, it’s a shame all of this gossip was relayed secondhand, and the people in question didn’t think to confront me about it (which at least the pan activists have bothered to do). We damage our community immeasurably with these kinds of Chinese whispers.

Biscuit ed Libby, being amazing

Whilst trying to keep the site afloat, I’ve also been building on the work I started right back when I edited g3, and trying to improve bi visibility in other media outlets. I’ve recently had articles published by Cosmopolitan, SheWired, The F-Word, GayStar News and Women Make Waves and I’m constantly emailing other sites which I’ve not yet written for with bi pitches. Unfortunately, although I am over the moon to be writing for mainstream outlets such as Cosmo about bi issues, it’s been an uphill struggle trying to persuade some editors out there that they have more readers to whom bi-interest stories apply than they might think. It’s an incredibly exhausting and frustrating process.

Libby and I are doing our best with Biscuit. I can’t guarantee that I would be doing anything at all with it if Libby hadn’t arrived on the scene, so once again I would like to mention how fabulous she is. But we desperately need more writers. We need some help with site design and tech issues. We need a hand with the business and sales side of things. We can’t do it without you. And if you know any rich bisexual heiresses who read Biscuit, please do send them our way. 😉

Grant Denkinson’s story

denkinsonpanel

Grant speaks on a panel chaired by Biscuit’s Lottie at a Bi Visibility Day event

So first of all, explain a little about the activism you’re involved/have been involved in. 


“I’ve been involved with bisexual community organising for a bit over 20 years. Some has been within community: writing for and editing our national newsletter, organising events for bisexuals and helping others with their events by running workshop sessions or offering services such as 1st aid. I’ve spoken to the media about bisexuality and organised bi contingents at LGBT Pride events (sometimes just me in a bi T-shirt!). I’ve helped organise and participated in bi activist weekends and trainings. I’ve help train professionals about bisexuality. I’ve also piped up about bisexuality a lot when organising within wider LGBT and gender and sexuality and relationship diversity umbrellas. I’ve been a supportive bi person on-line and in person for other bi folks. I’ve been out and visibly bi for some time. I’ve helped fund bi activists to meet, publish and travel. I’ve funded advertising for bi events. I’ve set up companies and charities for or including bi people. I’ve personally supported other bi activists.”


What made you get involved?

“
In some ways I was looking for a way to be outside the norm and to make a difference and coming out as bi gave me something to push against. I’ve been less down on myself when feeling attacked. I’ve also found the bi community very welcoming and where I can be myself and so wanted to organise with friends and to give others a similar experience. There weren’t too many others already doing everything better than I could.”

How do you feel about the state of bi activism worldwide (esp UK and USA) at the moment?

“There have been great changes for same-sex attracted people legally and socially and these have happened quickly. Bi people have been involved with making that happen and benefit from it. We can also be hidden by gay advances or actively erased. We still have bi people not knowing many or any other local bi people, not seeing other bisexuals in the mainstream or LGT worlds and not knowing or being able to access community things with other bis. We are little represented in books or the media and people don’t know about the books and zines and magazines already available. The internet has made it easy to find like-minded people but also limited privacy and I think is really fragmented and siloed. It is hard to find bisexuals who aren’t women actors, harmful or fucked up men or women in pornography designed for straight men. We have persistent and high quality bi events but they are sparse and small.”

What’s causing you to feel disillusioned?

“I’m fed up of bi things just not happening if I don’t do them. Not everything should be in my style and voice and I shouldn’t be doing it all. I and other activists campaign for bi people to be more OK and don’t take care of ourselves enough while doing so. People are so convinced we don’t exist they don’t bother with a simple search that would find us. We have little resources while having some of the worst outcomes of any group. I don’t want to spend my entire life being the one person who reminds people about bisexuals, including our so-called allies. I’m not impressed with the problem resolution skills in our communities and while we talk about being welcoming I’m not sure we’re very effective at it. I’m fed up with mouthing the very basics and never getting into depth about bi lives and being one who supports but who is not supported. I’m all for lowering barriers but at a certain point if people don’t actively want to do bi community volunteering it won’t happen. Some people are great critics but build little.”

What do you want to say to other activists about this?

“Why are we doing this personally? I’m not sure we know. How long will we hope rather than do? Honestly, are there so few who care? Alternatively should we stop the trying to do bi stuff and either do some self-analysis, be happy to accept being what we are now as a community, chill out and just let stuff happen or give up and go and do something else instead.”

Patrick Richards-Fink’s story

085d4de So first of all, explain a little about the activism you’re involved/have been involved in.

“Mostly internet – I am a Label Warrior, a theorist and educator. Here’s how I described it on my blog: “One of the reasons that I am a bisexual activist rather than a more general queer activist is because I see every day people just like me being told they don’t belong. It doesn’t mean I don’t work on the basic issues that we all struggle against — homophobia, heterosexism, classism, out-of-control oligarchy, racism, misogyny, this list in in no particular order and is by no means comprehensive. But I have found that I can be most effective if I focus, work towards understanding the deep issues that drive the problems that affect people who identify the same way that I have ever since I started to understand who I am. I find that I’m not a community organizer type of activist or a storm the capitol with a petition in one hand and a bullhorn in the other activist — I’m much better at poring over studies and writing long wall-o’-text articles and occasionally presenting what I’ve gleaned to groups of students until my voice is so hoarse that I can barely do more than croak.” So internet, and when I was still in school, a lot of on-campus stuff. Now I’m moving into a new phase where my activism is more subtle – I’m working as a therapist, and so my social justice lens informs my treatment, especially of bi and trans people.”

What made you get involved?

“I can’t not be.”

How do you feel about the state of bi activism worldwide (esp UK and USA) at the moment?

“I feel like we made a couple strides, and every time that happens the attacks renewed. I hionestly think the constant attempts to divide the bisexual community into ‘good pansexuals’ and ‘bad bisexuals’ and ‘holy no-labels’ is the thing that’s most likely to screw us.”

What’s causing you to feel disillusioned?



“It is literally everywhere I turn – colleges redefining bisexuality on their LGBT Center pages, news articles quoting how ‘Bi=2 and pan=all therefore pan=better’, everybloodywhere I turn I see it every day. The word bi is being taken out of the names of organisations now, by the next group of up-and-comers who haven’t bothered to learn their history and understand that if you erase our past, you take away our present. Celebrities come out as No Label, wtf is that. Don’t they make kids read 1984 anymore? It’s gotten to the point now that even seeing the word pansexual in print triggers me. I’m reaching the point now that if someone really wants to be offended when all I am trying to do is welcome them on board, then I don’t have time for it.”

What do you want to say to other activists about this?

“Stay strong, and don’t give them a goddamned inch. I honestly think that the bi organizations – even, truth be told, the one I am with – are enabling this level of bullshit by attempting to be conciliatory, saying things that end up reinforcing the idea that bi and pan are separate communities. We try to be too careful not to offend anyone. Like the thing about Freddie Mercury. Gay people say ‘He was gay.’ Bi people say ‘Um, begging your pardon, good sirs and madams and gentlefolk of other genders, but Freddie was bi.’ And they respond ‘DON’T GIVE HIM A LABEL HE DIDN’T CLAIM WAAHHH WAAHHH!’ And yet… Freddie Mercury never used the label ‘gay’, but it’s OK when they do it. And he WAS bisexual by any measure you want to use. But we back down. And 2.5% of the bisexual population decides pansexual is a better word, and instead of educating them, we add ‘pan’ to our organisation names and descriptions. Now, this is clearly a dissenting view – I will always be part of a united front where my organization is concerned. But everyone knows how I feel, and I think it’s totally valid to be loyal and in dissent at the same time. Not exactly a typically American viewpoint, but everyone says I’d be a lot more at home in Britain than I am here anyway.”

[letterstothemidnightsociety]

It’s crossroads and psychics and shipping, OH MY! Join me as I continue one millennial’s journey to discover why a show about beefcakes and demons managed to last on network television for over a decade. It’s Supernatural! 

So now that we’re in the thick of it, there are two moves that the writing team of Supernatural pulled that make a season 2 work, or, more specifically, work for me. The first is that rather than Level Up their heroes, they allow our heroes to lose, and I discussed that in my last post. Now we don’t know what’s gonna happen - they didn’t defeat the bad guy, their ace up their sleeve (John) is dead, and they don’t even have wheels to roll around anymore. 

Equally important, the second thing they do at the top of season 2 is World Build. I’ve read this article from Emily VanDerWerff at Vox like, 8 times so I’m just gonna go ahead and quote her directly:

Season two of a great drama usually finds a way to explain why the show isn’t just a story about the protagonist but a story about a whole cast and a whole world. With the premise having been thoroughly explored in season one, the show, by necessity, has to start looking for other ways to tell stories. This usually means turning to the other characters within the ensemble... but it can sometimes mean pivoting to explore a new corner of the show’s setting ...or diving further into core themes...

Side note: I know few TV critics by name but I find Emily VanDerWerff’s tv and media analysis to be particularly insightful and brilliant and if she ever reads anything I write about TV, I just want her to know it. Definitely go read/listen to some of her stuff at Vox.

So let’s break that down, shall we? The job of season one on a television drama (which SPN undoubtedly is), is to set up the show as a story about a hero(es) (which SPN season 1 undoubtedly does). We know the Winchester Brothers. We know their wants, we know their obstacles, we know their pressure points and triggers, they’re standard MO’s. We’ve seen them move as a cohesive unit against a big antagonist and with the start of season 2, we get to see how they handle failure at the hands of that antagonist. 

But now season 2 has a bigger job: “explain why the show isn’t just a story about the protagonist but a story about a whole cast and a whole world.” As fun as it’s been riding with Sam and Dean across the country, that Impala does start to feel a little claustrophobic. We’re so focused on just these two characters that it’s hard to believe there’s a great wide world out there. Now, I call it claustrophobic now, but the chemistry between our two leads was definitely enough to carry the show without 3rd or 4th or 5th wheels through that first season and possibly future seasons. I was certainly happy to stick with just Sam and Dean for another 13 seasons when I watched this show for the first time back in 2008/2009. But after many years and many more TV shows, I understand that that model can’t be sustainable for the long haul. And that’s the goal, isn’t it? To get to a season five (and the sweet, sweet payday that is syndication) or farther. If your only regulars in series are two brothers and a car, that’s gonna get a little stale, at least for a broad audience anyway. And frankly, watching season 2 now and knowing what I know about the rest of the series, I’m excited to see new Found Family members show. If there’s one running theme throughout all 15 seasons it’s that Sam’s and Dean’s lives are deeply, tragically lonely.

So the writing team opens up a whole wide hunting world for our brothers to reside in - first with Bobby (AKA Poppa Hunter), then with The Roadhouse. But Bobby plus The Roadhouse crew don’t just expand on the SPN Scooby Gang. They show us, the audience, that Sam and Dean aren’t actually two lone guns out in the wilderness. Sure, season one gives us Missouri Mosely and then the deaths of Caleb and Pastor Jim, but these characters seem few and far between, unconnected to each other except by chance meetings with John Winchester. Introducing the new characters in season 2 shows us that there’s a network, a community out there, one that works together to stem the tide of evil from overtaking the Normals and their Apple Pie Lives. 

Quick side note: Can we talk about how this, specifically, was a real disservice John did to his children? In “Everybody Loves a Clown”, Ellen tells Dean that she knew John was closing in on the demon and Dean responds “What, was there an article in the Demon Hunters Quarterly that I missed?”, and that’s probably a throwaway line for the joke, but it inadvertently signals that John really kept his sons isolated from having any kind of life at all. Sure, nobody wants the life of a hunter, but what if you had, oh, a community of hunters who took care of each others’ children and called people out on their bullshit abusive behaviors and watched each others’ backs so that there were fewer casualties and also were there so you could talk about all those things that Sam and Dean have spent their entire lives keeping secret from everyone? Ellen says John was like family once, and, like, whut? Why doesn’t Sam or Dean know who any of these people are? Why isn’t there a team trying to take down this yellow eyed demon? Why is it that Sam and Dean have, like, no support system other than their father?? I mean there probably IS a Demon Hunters Quarterly and John should have gotten his boys a subscription! 

Of course, the Wider Hunting World isn’t all good guys like Bobby and Ellen and Jo and Ash. There’s also Gordon and Dean’s new Father Substitute, who’s a straight up psychopath, but they can’t all be winners, can they? That episode, as mentioned in my last post, also opens up the world of Team Monster - they’re not just mindless Evil devouring innocent victims. There’s also people out there with hearts and souls and consciousness’ who happen to have monster-like physical attributes, making the Winchesters’ mission that much more complex and fraught with drama and the potential for more storytelling opportunities.

And, in “Simon Said”, we start to see more of the Special Children, which is a fandom term that I do not like. Special Children? Special Children?? THAT’S what you went with?!? Anyway, we get the second instance of 20 year olds touched by the yellow-eyed-demon. There’s new abilities, stronger psychics, and just generally more to these children than Sam and Dean even knew existed. And I actually really love Andy a lot and really enjoyed this episode a lot. Andy is just an instantly likable character and I feel like, with his skill set, he could have been a real asset to the team. I mean, the guys get arrested by the feds at least once a season. But apparently Kripke decided, like, two episodes into the Special Children plot that he hated it and *spoiler alert* kills them all by the end of this season. 

Just looking at the three other episodes on the same disc as “Simon Said” (yes, I am still watching the DVDs) I’d say “Crossroad Blues” is another expansion episode. Though it was hinted at in the first episode, the Crossroad Deal is now A Thing, and one that’s gonna come back to bite us later. So our lore is getting bigger, deeper, more involved in the plot. “The Usual Suspects” doesn’t do a whole lot of expanding the world, but that one feels more like filler/light fare to balance out the drama from the first 6 episodes anyway. I’ll add that even though it doesn’t have a lot to offer, “The Usual Suspects” is an A+ episode that does a great job of remixing the formula. 

But back to our World Building - At the end of “Simon Said,” you get another taste of what this life should be for Sam and Dean. When Dean starts to pull the same secretive crap his father did, Ellen cuts back “This isn't just your war, this is war. Now, something big and bad's coming and it's coming fast, and their side holds all the cards. Now, at best all we got is us. Together. No secrets or half-truths here.” REALLY, John, you could have gone about your whole life of vengeance in a way that didn’t royally screw up your children and yet…

But Ellen’s complaint sums it up nicely - this show isn’t just about the Winchesters anymore, it’s not their war, it’s a whole world’s war, a world that the show now has the opportunity to explore and expand to their hearts’ content. 

And here’s where things get sticky. 

Like I said, the first go around, I was happy with only two protagonists and now that I worry about characters’ feelings, I’m really glad that the show tried to expand the Winchesters’ social circle for you know, mental and emotional and spiritual wholeness. And all the new characters that got introduced at the beginning of season two are generally well-liked characters...now.

I mean, nobody didn’t like Bobby Singer, right? The boys lose one father figure and he is replaced by another - better, stronger, more paternal than the one before. He’s the perfect blend of back country tough love and big ol’ softie and everybody loves Bobby, right? 

I don’t think anyone hated Ash either, although, you know, he’s kind of barely there. I gotta say, I do appreciate the amount of mullets that show up in the show. I mean, that’s commitment to a bit right there. Ash is their Guy in the Chair and he’s ridiculous and I am not ashamed to admit that I kind of love him.

Then there’s Ellen. Ellen “Definitely Didn’t Sleep With John That One Time” Harvelle. And she is GREAT. She comes right out of the gate with that Big Mom Energy. Ellen is your mom, if your mom could also drink you under the table and still shoot you between the eyes without spilling her glass. A+ job on this character, would recommend, would watch again. Why she disappears for so long, I’ll never know, but it’s probably some kind of bullshit reason that has to do with misogyny and “bad” attitudes and unequal pay. 

Honestly, in a sea of testosterone, there emerged a much needed island of femininity, and that island was The Roadhouse. But The Roadhouse also brings us Jo. 

Oof. You guys. Now listen, I’m gonna say a thing and that thing might be controversial but here goes: there is nothing wrong with Jo. I’ll say it louder so that Me back in 2008 can hear: THERE. IS. NOTHING. WRONG. WITH. JO. 

I’ve done a little digging and it seems the “official” complaint for Jo is that she comes off too naive, too innocent. I...do not agree. At least one site I read through says fans called her “immature”, but watching it this time around, she’s light and bubbly, sure, but she seems very much aware of the world she lives in. If anything, it’s the people around her who treat her like a child, it’s not the character herself who comes off that way. This watch, I see a character who is confident and pretty damn capable. I think “No Exit” shows a character who is maybe more fully realized than I gave her credit for the first go around - she’s tough, she knows how to handle herself in a fight, and she’s quick on her feet. But she’s also a human person, capable of making mistakes and getting in over her head and we see her deal with that once she’s captured by Holmes. She holds her own in both Sass and Skill against Dean and I think, at the very least, she could have made a good addition to the team on a regular basis. She makes a nice foil for both brothers - Sam, who never wanted this life, and Dean, who is already struggling to remember why he does what he does. Given time, I think her character could have settled into something that really stood out in the show. But that’s the problem with new characters who are written to be green - they need time to grow. Supernatural never gave her that time. 

I think the REAL problem is that Jo is very obviously introduced to be a love interest for Dean and yeah, that feels pretty shoe-horned in there. But I think we have to hand it to Alona Tal - she really is doing the best she can with the material she’s given, considering that the writing team seems to have done very little work on fleshing that character out up front. It’s like the writers were shocked that they had to write? A person? And not? A sex appeal????? And that feels very on-brand for CW. 

Do I ship Jo and Dean? I don’t know. My OTP at 19 was Dean + Me, so I’m real thankful I had no interest in writing fic at the time and there’s no incriminating author-insert work out there. But if asked me to chose an OTP for this entire series now, I’d say I ship Dean and Happiness and I feel like these two could have been happy. 

But fans hated Jo, so much so that the writers completely abandoned the love interest subplot and all but wrote her out of the show for good. She was not well liked in 2006 when this season aired and according to several fan sites I looked through, attitudes towards her didn’t warm up until she comes back in season five, basically just to die. Sure, she sacrifices her own life to save Sam and Dean, but she literally comes back to be cannon fodder and that’s what changes peoples’ attitudes towards her. Listen, I’m not saying there isn’t some weird gross misogyny to talk about down the line, but I think we have to acknowledge that this fandom is also guilty of some real girl-on-girl crime. 

Now I was curious - what was it exactly that so many fans hated? Why was the backlash against this character particularly passionate? And boy guys, did I find an answer.

I knew this was coming. I knew I couldn’t avoid it. And I’m not happy about it. But I said I was gonna dive into this show and you can’t dive into SPN without acknowledging the darker spots of the show and one of those spots is: Wincest. 

I just. Hoo boy. Listen, I am a Ship and Let Ship person. My kink is not your kink, your kink is not my kink, and we can all still get along. At least I hope we can all still get along, cuz fandom is occasionally terrifying and I don’t want anyone coming after me. But also, I did not realize...that they were so...prevalent? Like, seriously. I am very glad that I never actually used LiveJournal as I intended to use LiveJournal because 19-year-old me was not READY for that kind of Fandom. 

And hey I...understand why this happened? Sort of? Like, for all of season one, this show is only about two VERY attractive men folk who have VERY good chemistry with each other. And I will admit, in the spirit of honesty, that I too disliked Jo because I felt that introducing a girlfriend character would destroy the brother-character dynamic that was the heart and soul of the show. And I don’t want to dig too deeply into that sense memory because I don’t know that I like where it leads. 

But where this becomes a real problem is the implication that Jo was written out of the show because it interfered with the Wincest community? The idea that the Wincesters had that much power is chilling. Chilling. I mean, it’s one thing for a creator to take their fans into consideration when creating, it’s another thing entirely when the fandom makes a major plot point disappear. I mean, I don’t know what Alona Tal’s contract for season 2 was, but I do know that contracting for actors on a television series is affected by how many episodes they appear in. The number of episodes you’re in is also tied to things like pay rates (like those mandated by SAG) and where your name goes in the credits (top billing vs. end credits) Are you a guest star or a recurring character? Are you recurring or a series regular? Now, as a new character, it’s probable that Alona Tal was considered a guest star/recurring role and contract was per episode and not by the season - after all, that’s how the majority of the cast of The Office worked for all of season 1 and most of season 2. Angela, Oscar, Kevin, Meredith, Creed, Stanley, Phylis - they were all recurring characters, only contracted for each episode as it was being produced and they were in way more episode than Tal had in SPN. In fact, it was not until half way through season 2 (episode 11, “Booze Cruise”) that they were promoted to series regulars and received season-long contracts. But as the love interest for their lead, she was probably hired with the promise of getting promoted to series regular at some point in the future. Now imagine being Alona Tal, and finding out three episodes in that you’re not getting that season-long contract and you’re probably not coming back for season 3 because the fanbase is more into Brother-Lovin’ than your character. I mean. Guys.

Now can we really say that the Wincesters derailed a woman’s career? I don’t want to believe it, so I’m gonna say no. I am sure there was a lot of testing the character in key demographics and screenings with diverse audiences and graphs and charts and it wasn’t just that the producers of the show were endlessly scrolling through message boards on LiveJournal to see what kinks the fandom was into. I’m sure that was not the case because that is not the world I want to live in. But also, it definitely seems to have played a part. A REAL part. 

So let’s move back to television structure instead - why is this world building important? The key lies in a lot of the “prestige” shows that stream today. A lot of them have really strong first seasons, but a sophomore slump in their second seasons. Emily VanDerWerff calls out Stranger Things specifically, which had a tight, streamlined story that wrapped up so nicely at the end of season 1 that season 2 was left to flounder, trying to find its feet and its new story to tell. And they're not the only ones - this is a trend we see in a lot of premise driven shows.

How did we get here?The trend in shorter seasons has been really appealing to a lot of writers and directors who would typically work for feature length films. That means that a lot of the best shows are being written more like long-form movies than television series. The first season is a complete storyline from beginning to end with little deviation from the Main Quest. There’s less wandering like you’d see in a 22 episode season. Less of those filler/self-contained episodes where the writers get to explore new concepts and character work. This leaves less to detract from the single stream-lined story, but it also leaves little for the writers to explore once the season is done. When you wrap up all the loose ends by your season finale, you’re stuck wondering what’s left of the story to tell in future seasons? By not wrapping up the loose ends in “Devil’s Trap”, and by using these first 8 episodes to expand on more lore, allies, and world to inhabit, SPN is able to make space to create more story for years to come. 

NOW - can they keep that up for the next 14 seasons or will it get boring? Will we end up with comically overpowered heroes and villains that result in lower stakes? I mean, all of the characters die at LEAST once and come back, so how can SPN sustain the audiences’ concern for the characters when we’re never that worried for them? How much of the world is there left unexplored as you get farther into the series? How are they going to keep plots and arcs and characters new and fresh and exciting when we’re so familiar with everyone and everything? So many questions and so many episodes left to answer them! 

[donnerpartyofone]

i just got a whole bunch of new followers on letterboxd, and checking out who they all are really reminded me of why i don’t follow too many people on letterboxd. bad amateur writing is hard to enjoy even ironically, but there’s something about bad film writing that’s really harmful. i have hate-read so many of this one guy’s reviews that i feel embarrassed about it now. he describes himself as an “arthouse manager”, which i assume means he runs a theater, but it bothers me because nobody says “let’s go out to the arthouse tonight” without the word “theater” in there, it’s just unnatural and pretentious. so that’s red flag #1 right in his description, which is followed by red flag #2 about how he hates modern media, as if being a luddite or nostalgia freak automatically means you’re a sensitive genius. it’s probably worth mentioning a sub-red flag, which is that he also says he’s 27 years old, which has to mean that he either wants to be congratulated for being precocious somehow, or he thinks he’s going to get laid off this movie website where you can’t even post pictures of yourself, or both, i mean who fucking cares how old you are anyway, for what reason? then the first review is of DAYS OF BEING WILD, in which he describes Wong Kar-Wai as “seeking to understand what draws women to shitty, emotionally unavailable men”; i mean imagine being so full of shit that you project your own sullen incel-y “UGH WHY DO GIRLS ONLY LIKE BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH” garbage onto whatever revered works of art show up on your tv screen? this guy goes on to reveal himself in almost a strip tease fashion across many of his reviews, breaking up his pompous analyses with macho mindbenders like “i have often said that being horny is the point of life” and biographical information like about his manipulative alcoholic father. i’m not trying to say that everybody with a delinquent or dysfunctional parent is destined to have idiotic and serial killerish attitudes about intimacy, because that would condemn pretty much all of us. but, i am sadly familiar with solipsistic assholes who brandish their alleged intellectual superiority in one fist while beating the dust out of their childhood traumas with the other, and just seeing his smug letterboxd reviews tells me everything i need to know about him. hopefully he just followed me in a spammy way to get attention and will never interact, or maybe i’ll say something he finds politically disagreeable and he’ll go away.

honestly finding anybody worth following on letterboxd is kind of hard. it can be nice to read stuff by people who are just having fun and shooting straight about what they’re watching, but the site is filled with wannabe J Hobermans and Lester Bangses who are just out to prove that they own a thesaurus. they’re practically all dudes, you can smell the old spice and maker’s mark wafting out of your laptop fan when you read some of this chest-pounding nonsense. not all of them have such toxic things to say as the aforementioned douchebag, but there’s a real preponderance of users who seem to think they’re reinventing the language. the sad thing is when they really like MY writing. there’s this guy i follow who i think used to write fairly clearly, but now everything he posts looks like a burroughs cut-up with really avant garde ideas about punctuation and adjectives, and unfortunately, i think it’s on purpose. i’d unfollow him, but i feel like i can’t, because he is as nice as literally anyone has ever been about my writing. he goes so far as to give me a hard time about why i’m not a professional film critic, he’s like a ~fan~...and then i gotta ask myself, how much is my writing like HIS writing? this is where the difficulties of letterboxd start to feel worth while, in a masochistic kind of way. like, how often do i write in the same wanky bombastic fashion as these shitty little internet valedictorians who i hate so much? probably a lot! i don’t like feeling that way but i have to admit that i’m grateful for the opportunity to check myself, and possibly improve.

however good or bad i am, letterboxd is still a better place to write than tumblr. i mean tumblr is less than optimal for long form writing anyway, but it’s also a question of who the majority population is here. the other day i got a comment on a pretty old post i wrote about ANNIHILATION, a movie i found kind of smarmy and shallow. the commenter said that my points about the movie were good, BUT they would all be negated by the content of the novels on which the movie is based, and they wanted to know why i deliberately omitted this material from my analysis, as if this were a conspiracy to be unraveled. they actually asked me what the point of my post was, like what was my goal in writing only what i wrote and leaving all kinds of things out. basically. this person COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF A MOVIE REVIEW. i answered them, because they had tried hard to be polite, that my movie review blog is just for movie reviews, in which i talk about what i think about movies i watch. i’m not pursuing everything related to certain intellectual properties, nor am i invested in the logic and content of Extended Universes of whatever individual movies i’m watching. i’m not mad at this person, who was asking an honest question, but i was completely dumbfounded by the question itself. i mean imagine being SO INVESTED in fandom as like a type of lifestyle that you don’t know what a movie review is anymore? like every piece of media is regarded as some sort of municipality, that belongs to a state, and is governed by certain people, and its characters are like Real People who are available for friendship, dating and more. no piece of media is just entertainment, or even an artistic statement anymore. for this person, watching a movie is something like studying civic infrastructure, except with more DIY alterations and more fetishizing of gay men. i keep trying to imagine reading three paragraphs about some middling hollywood movie that amounts to something like “i did not enjoy watching this film,” and just having no personal frame of reference AT ALL for what it means when somebody writes that down. like just not knowing what a movie review is at all, and asking the author to explain the meaning of the bizarre behavior of saying you thought some movie sucked.

why DOES anybody write about movies though? if i don’t find it normal or desirable to watch everything with an exclusive filter for who do you want to fuck and who do you want to see fucking each other, then what else am i getting at? surely i don’t see myself as a potential roger ebert or leonard maltin, especially considering the extremely limited number of celebrity film critics in the history of mankind. i’m also not Pro- the idea of sorting all movies according to some rigid standards of technical quality and deservingness, like anybody needs me to grade them after they’ve performed the nearly impossible-seeming task of even making one single movie to begin with. sometimes i stupidly start complaining about stupid responses to my writing that i get once in a while from the internet, and my shrink asks me, “what are you up to when you post this writing?” she always says i’m “up to something” when i seem to be following but willfully ignoring my subconscious drives, which i think is pretty funny. but i don’t think i’m pursuing feelings of superiority, over movies or other writers. i think i’m just trying to figure out what movies are trying to say about human existence--and they all are trying to say something, are motivated by some angst, even the really insulting ones that only offer up wish fulfillment pablum. i’m constantly trying and failing to figure out my own existence, and i must sense that attempting to decipher movies is one way of getting closer to decoding my own experiences.

and on that note, now i have to complain about the fact that Lyft’s driver rating system includes “fun conversation” as one of the four factors in giving someone five stars. i rarely want a stranger to try to force me to talk to them, especially at 4am when i’m headed to the airport under a miserable pile of luggage. even so, i recently got into a car in such a state, with a guy who was clearly going for that five star rating, babbling loudly and convulsively at me all the way to my terminal. it would be one thing if he were just trying to be nice, but he was giving me shit about everything from my pickup location to what i had done in his fair city for a week and a half. i did not immediately volunteer how many movies i had seen at the festival i attended, because i probably intuited that when he did make me tell him, he would inform me that he doesn’t need to watch movies, because “I WATCH *LIFE*, MAN!!!” the irony was that this guy clearly didn’t watch life at all; he didn’t even have the ability to discern that i didn’t want to talk, or that i didn’t want him to insult my favorite leisure activity, and that probably NOBODY wants to listen to him talk about his shitty generic blues rock band for half an hour before 5am. so that’s the one thing i can say for even the most obnoxious reviewer on letterboxd--that probably they are TRYING to hone the art of observation, a dying skill. probably they are TRYING to train themselves to be an active audience that engages thoughtfully with the movie instead of just hucking rotten tomatoes at the screen OR passively allowing it to wash over them. even if i often hate the results, at least some of these guys seem be making an effort.

[migleefulmoments]

Did I make her mad?

I seem to have ruffled Ajw’s feather. I left her a message- always anon or she won’t read them. I know this because used my username for years and they are ignored. So here we are with a LONG response to her answer.  

It started here: The CCers tried to change the history of Darren and Mia *you can read their entire exchange here* 

But here is the part I was responding to: 

ajw720

Agreed light bearding started April 2011, heavy bearding when they moved her to LA in Fall 2012.  In between I do think they considered other, more famous options but went with her as she is the only person that they could “prove” pre-C. And the CC relationship was their major obstacle and the thing they knew they had to hide to make D straight.

This being said, the article is WRONG if they are following the PR narrative that says they started to date in June 2010 and that is what the “7 ½ crazy and adventurous years came from.”  A narrative that was spun in 2015.

M herself would love to claim college as she is desperate to say Not Alone is about her.

So yes, it is likely they “met” in college, but I doubt it was more than a night out at a bar at most.

So I asked her: 

Come on, you know there are several public pics of M and D together before his "Blaine' audition hair cut. IDK if you have been in a serious relationship but how it works is you start out seeing each there occasionally and then as you get closer and fall more in love you start doing more and more together until you get married. Being in a long distance relationship means that can all take a little longer. Going out more publicly AFTER she moved & over time is how that works.

My responses to her comments are in Italics:

Dearest Michigan,

I really do make an effort to ignore you and your nonsense, but I just could not resist. I know on your blog you have questioned my credentials, well I must say, I question yours and I highly recommend you enroll in a grammar school level reading comprehension program. I have two master’s degrees and undergrad from Michigan, but thanks for the advice.  First, who is disagreeing that they knew each other pre-g/lee?  That is a fact, a fact i state often and frequently and no one that I have encountered here who has any knowledge refutes this fact. Yet you keep repeating this like we are unaware, both in this ask, and in your absolutely comical analysis of the handshake completely based on the the false premise that we think this is when M&D met. Please stop putting words in our mouths and READ critically.

Well let me leave just a couple of receipts as to why I keep saying that: 

This exchange on 11/20 regarding the Trevor Live 2012 video that they have claimed over and over shows Michael introducing Mia and Darren and Darren shakes her hand.  I proved that is not what happened here . 

1.  flowersintheattic254

I’ve never seen this video before and wondered if anyone else new here had? Apologies for putting her on your dash, but it’s useful to have a gentle reminder that this is and always was a business arrangement.  Watch them shake hands under the watchful eye PR at Trevor 2012 and D proceed to ignore her. #because most people shake hands with their SO right 9/ 

2. Anonymous asked:

So glad theTrevor clip exists. That’s my go to when people ask for proof. They had been “together” for 2 yrs. Question on the timing. Does this coincide with the “confirmation” date when D was so upset in Canada?

ajw: Hi anon, this was December, confirmation day in Toronto was the following June.  But no question, they had moved her to LA and the choice to make her full-time beard and to completely oppress CC had been made.  This was right after the BU episode of G/lee, a plot conceived to keep D&C apart.  Not a pleasant time in their lives and when everything really changed.

3. ajw: article is WRONG if they are following the PR narrative that says they started to date in June 2010 and that is what the “7 ½ crazy and adventurous years came from.”  A narrative that was spun in 2015.

4. Hi anon.  That is likely the correct answer.  Her friend dated Jo/e W when they were in college and I believe she maybe visited U of M one weekend.

That being said, to be clear, if they met then, and it is not 100% substantiated, they went to different schools, located in different parts of the country and she graduated before them. They didn’t start dating in college and I would guess they did not keep in touch. The real connection was later when Ch/uck and C/harlene were friendly with her in NYC after they all graduated.  And that is how she was chosen to be the beard, the worst decision D ever made.

Second, I am not disputing that from 2010-2011 it was sort of low key, though by April 2011 she was already being speculated about in JJ with pap pics, so maybe we can say it quickly went from low to mid-key.

Yes, this is how relationships work. You meet, you may not start dating right away. Eventually you start talking...maybe a date or two- they were long distance so likely much more talking. Fly to see one another...a few dates... more talking... more flying until she moved to LA. Nothing inconsistent about the story. They started out long distance so there is no doubt the “start date” is debatable to them. 

However, she was moved to LA in the fall of 2012 and from that moment forward there was nothing low or mid key about this.  That was SIX, count them (unless you need basic math classes as well) SIX years ago. Therefore, a publication CANNOT state that they have been low key dating since 2010. That is a boldface lie. They could say perhaps “they started out under the radar and have since decided to share” but NOT that it has been low key since 2010.

No, no it isn’t a bold face lie. It is literally how REAL LIFE relationships work..you know the unscripted ones. It’s their relationship and THEY get to say when they actually started dating. You could probably win an argument that the fandom didn't KNOW they were dating until 2012, ya know, if you REALLY just need to win.   

Since 2012 she has accompanied him to approximately 75% of all of his events, her picture is taken constantly, her image is videoed, her SM is full of him, and recently his SM contains her face. Their “friends” and family talk about them on their public SM constantly, She has been interviewed about him (remember when she claimed she never wanted to be associated with someone famous), and she is mentioned in D’s press constantly and has been for YEARS.

I will say this slowly.  They. Are. Engaged.  It is normal for her to be with him at events. As many events as they want to attend together. People like love; people like beautiful couples. Photographers and fans are going to take pictures of a beautiful couple in love. Interviewers are going to talk about the engagement and the wedding. It’s we do in America. The problem is you don’t like it. But I’m 100% sure that Darren didn’t ask you for permission. He doesn’t care what you think.. 

Her friends and family post about them constantly? Everyone’s family talks about family constantly. I’m sure YOUR family talk about you. It’s literally what social media is for- bragging about your kids and perfect life, posting naked belly shots in the gym, and connecting with family and friends. I know you talk about your family on Tumblr and you post your cats and your wine on Tumblr.  How does Mia or Darren or their family have less right than you do? I don’t follow the logic and as you say you're a lawyer, I really don’t follow you.  Everyone gets to pick what they want to post on their own social media...that is the rule. 

As for that article...Mia claimed she never wanted-PAST TENSE- to be with someone famous; it wasn’t something she imagined for herself. That isn’t the same as saying she doesn’t currently want to be with Darren who become famous after they fell in love. I will avoid ridiculing you about your lack of basic English grammar skills. 

Yes, she is mentioned in Darren’s press...so what? They are a couple. This is isn’t hard.      

So I am unclear why you are asking me about how a relationship works? I certainly understand how it works.  

Relationships dear michigan are based on love, friendship, and respect, Three fundamental things missing from the mi/arren relationshit.

Couples KNOW when they met and how long ago it was. But not mi/arren. Was it college?  Don Hi/ll’s? In NYC pre-g/lee?  They don’t know, but they will be sure to twist the answer each and every time asked. (D actually looked shocked when she said college). But you know what D knows in precise detail?  His mandate, when he went to see S/utton F/oster, a story he has recounted approximately  5 times, with g/olden g/lobe winning, NY T/imes best selling author C/hris C/olfer (his constant tribute not mine).

I already outlined how long distance relationships work and there is a vague, nebulous start date. But I also suspect that Darren, who does value his privacy, doesn’t really care to share those kind of details with us. So he gives vague, unimportant responses to that question. There is also the fact that journalists and bloggers do research and don’t always ask every question they cover in an interview. Sometimes they use their research to fill in facts- this can lead to perpetuating something that isn’t 100% accurate but Darren doesn’t care to call them out or correct it because it isn't our business. 

As for your mandate. Haven’t you figured out that it is the only Chris Glee story Darren is allowed to share without upsetting Chris? He keeps repeating it because it’s out there already. “Chris hates when you talk about him” so he keeps repeating the same story to feed the Glee nostalgia without getting him upset. Again, this isn’t hard. 

Couples know how long they have been dating.  Not m/iarren and you would THINK after the encage announcement they would stick to the very public timeline created, yet they don’t. She actually wants you to think they started dating in college, years before 2010.

Nobody cares when they started dating. I couldn't tell you when my husband and I started dating- there are times I can’t remember how many years we have been married or what year we got married- It isn’t important to all people. It means NOTHING in the big scope of the day-to-day struggles of being married and raising kids, and struggling with chronic disabling illnesses that we deal with in our kids. Love isn’t a Disney Prince meets Princess sweeps her offer feet and they live Happily Ever After cuz now she’s a Princess.  It isn’t Instagram perfection of big dates, huge romantic gestures and huge diamonds. It’s living with someone and negotiating who does what chores; who cooks and who cleans up dinner; who is taking the kid to PT or the doctor appt that is 3 hours away this week; it’s washing his dirty underwear and getting a puke bucket when the flu hits. It’s missing him because he is gone half the month flying FedEx packages to Dubai, India and China while I am single parenting a lot. In most people’s lives, the date they started dating isn’t that important after you get through a few. Those moments become less important.  

When one proposes to their partner after “7 ½ crazy and adventurous years” I would hope they would know the person well enough to buy them a ring that they would love and cherish. And in turn I would hope the recipient loved the ring, even if not their dream, because it is a symbol of love and devotion. Not mi/arren, D apparently got in wrong FOUR times as she is now wearing ring number FIVE, an indisputable fact.  And no, multimillionaire D did not buy FOUR place holders.

You have very childlike ideas of what relationships and engagements are like.  I haven’t worn a wedding ring in years, nobody cares. Mia wore one engagement ring from January to January- she added other rings to the stack at times which seems to have confused you that it was different rings. I saw your picture proof  and those are all the same diamond ring. She just got a beautiful ring on GG night. My GUESS would be that they designed the new ring together. Couples do that. Some couples get engaged long before there is a ring. None of this is “abnormal”...there is no “normal”. But even if she did have 5 rings...who cares? It means NOTHING to us. They get to do what they want and THAT is an indisputable fact. 

Generally partners don’t run in front of the other constantly when they think they aren’t being filmed. D runs ahead of her constantly as documented many, many times. And notice how he ALWAYS tries to correct it when he sees the camera. They also aren’t afraid to touch their partner (D constantly avoids it, remember Op/eration S/mile when he was caught on film hiding his hand behind his bag to avoid touching her?). 

You pick and choose pictures and videos to prove this trope. You and I both know there are many pictures of them waking together. Again, I ask if you have ever been in a long term relationship because after 8 years, nobody is worried about who is walking in front of who. On the red carpet, it is pretty common for the celeb to walk in front of the spouse because everyone wants to see the celeb and not the spouse. Darren is at work on the red carpet. But if you want to hang your hat on THIS being the BIG proof you have that it is all a lie then go for it. If you want to ignore all of the times Darren has said “I love her” and instead fixate on a photo of him standing in front of her....you are only deluding yourself.  

A partner would NEVER try to steal the spotlight from the SO yet M pulls focus constantly despite the fact that it is D who put in the time and effort to receive the accolades he is currently getting.

I honestly can’t with this one.  She only “steals the limelight” with you guys. Darren’s real fans just enjoy pics of them together as the gift that they are as we enjoy everything Darren does. You guys, on the other hand, stalk the internet looking for pictures of her just so you can rage over them; you guys talk about how she steals the spotlight. Nobody, NOBODY could steal the limelight from Darren Criss.  

A partner would respect that their partner has repeatedly stated that he craves privacy. Neither M nor any of their “friends” give two shits about his wishes as he is all over the internet as posted by this group.

This cracks me up because it assumes that Darren has no idea his pictures are being posted...the ones he posed for and the ones that he watched them post seconds later. Nobody is posting photos that Darren doesn’t want posted.  Mia shut down her public social except for very rare red carpet or special events. When you rage about untrue things you sound exactly like Trump “ there is an EMERGENCY AT THE BORDER...drugs...rapists...coyotes.. DEMS WANT OPEN BORDERS”. “DARREN BEGS FOR PRIVACY AND NOBODY RESPECTS THAT”. Both of those statements are complete bullshit. 

A caring fiancee would concede an award show to allow for him to take his mom (d’s express wishes as he voiced on ET. And no if this is corrected it does not count as he called her out in a very public way).

OMG with this one.  An anon pointed out that the one person who DID take his mom to awards shows after age 30 was Kevin Spacey.  Darren took who Darren wanted to take to his first GG as a nominee. Most adults have closer relationships with their lover than their mommy. His mom came to the parties. I don’t see her upset...she looked pretty damn happy hanging with her hubby. 

Mature, wealthy adults in their 30s don’t have another wealthy adult living with them for, and i quote from D himself “many, many years.”  And no B/en didn’t crash on the couch as you have deluded yourself to believe, he fully lived (or lives) there.

Mature, wealthy adults in their 30′s get to decide who lives in their home with them. If you actually do follow Ben on his social, then you know he is rarely in LA for more than a few days. I never said he is sleeps on the couch because I assume he had his own bedroom. 

If I got to meet a music idol and he wanted to move in with me and we could sit around and immerse ourselves in music, I would  be thrilled. In college my roommate, her boyfriend, and I sleep in the same bedroom. They were a couple, I was just a roommate. It’s even more disingenuous that you keep screaming what is and isn’t normal while you claim to be the biggest gay ally in the world. Gay families form in all sorts of combinations and configurations. You need to educate yourself before you proclaim you guys are the biggest bestest Queer Allies around and stop betting hung up on heteronormative 1940′s norms. . 

A loving partner would not constantly mock and ridicule the other publicly, something she has done often (remember that time she called him douchebag on twitter?).  Nor would s/he mock and ridicule his fans and treat them like the lowest form of vermin. particularly if not kissing said person’s ass.

First of all, I believe she was joking though I haven’t seen that tweet in ages. It is super old. Second, people fight. People say horrible things to their lovers. It’s NORMAL.

You have tried to make the “Mia is mean to Darren’s fans” trope into something with as much effort as “THERE IS AN EMERGENCY AT THE BORDER”.  Neither one is sticking. 

A partner that respects their SO doesn’t force them to perform in a bar nearly every single one of his/her days off, when it was evident the man was on the brink of collapsing from exhaustion, as M did for the duration of the summer.

When you say this I always wonder if you EVER ACTUALLY LISTEN to Darren talk...like USING his words, out of his mouth. Because Darren Criss LOVES making music with people. He played outside restaurants at Michigan, he played inside Sava (MI) and Maggianos (CA), he does concerts and he lives for a small venue event. Marie’s Crisis and other piano bars rock his world so he opened one of his own close to home. Darren LOVES TO CONNECT TO OTHER HUMAN BEINGS THROUGH MUSIC. This is something he has said many times, in many interviews. It is sad that you cannot see that-you cannot hear him- and you continue to disparage his joy. When you finally realize that you are wrong about all of this, the one thing that I hope makes you feel the worst is that you have degraded, disparaged, and denigrated two things he loves- Mia and TSG. 

I could go on and on and on about the issues with this horror show, but i will spare my readers.  But I will repeat something i have said often, the ONLY thing to me that would be sadder than reality, would be if this is real. Because they are the OPPOSITE of relationship goals and incredibly toxic as painfully evident in what they have allowed us to see.

I can go on and on as well. It is real and it doesn’t involve you. Your petty, ill-informed, silly conspiracy theorist investigations have created a reality that lives on in your heads. Darren is clearly happy and everyone around him loves him AND Mia. You spend a lot of time and energy wiping away ALL of Darren’s truths in order to keep your fantasy alive. The only toxic relationship Darren has is with the CC fandom. I don’t know his personal life but what I see from my position in MI is a man and woman who are living their best life and a fandom that is trying so hard to hang on to a fantasy that has FAR outlived its useful life. Chris and Darren have no public relationship and if I had to guess after reading STFF,  I would say no relationship at all. Chris has asked you to stop shipping them more than once. Instead of listening you continue to fabricate fictitious stories to explain away every single word out Darren’s mouth and many out of Chris’s. You aren’t “finding the truth” you are CREATING YOUR TRUTH to keep a fantasy alive. Reading Instagram ‘likes’ and looking at song lyrics WHILE IGNORING THE VERY WORDS OUT OF DARREN’S OWN MOUTH is really messed up and very disrespectful. If you really believe that Darren’s public life is a lie than walk away. You have the right to your opinion but you don’t have the right to bully Darren or his family and friends on behalf of that opinion. You don’t have the right to an opinion on the value of his love for Mia. If you don’t like it then you have the right to walk away...not to spread your hate on social media until it gets back to Darren & Mia, and their family and friends. The CC Bullshit that comes directly from YOUR MOUTH was left on Chuck’s baby post for fuck’s sake. That is ALL ON YOU. You claim you don’t post on their social but you have never told your followers to stop and they use your exact words. Chuck and that newborn baby deserved a hell of a lot better than the hate that a CC Family member left. You OWN that. 

Now i beg, please, please, please go back to your own blog where i can blissfully ignore you and leave me alone unless you an actually come back and produce a valid argument.

Nope...as long as you lie, as long as you made ignorant, unsubstantiated and easily disprovable statements, I will be here. Think of me as the New York Times...always giving the folks the well-researched truth. I learned to do research at Michigan. I might not be able to sniff out obscure facts like marriage licenses or who Mia’s mom works for (well mostly because I don’t care) but I can do a damn good job of disproving your tropes because they rely so heavily on misconstrued truths (see my take down of the Fox Studio 7 year contract fact) , outright lies, shortened videos, and photos taken out of context. Also BTW some fact checks: it was CrissColfers who moved into Chris’s neighborhood to terrorize him, NOT Miarrens, in their mission to find proof that Darren was really going to Chris’s home and your anon who mentioned Dot Marie Jone’s wife standing up for Darren and Mia...she is friends with Chris and she was defending Chris and Will NOT Darren and Mia. 

Love,

Me

[damienhasmoved]

Kiyotaka Ishimaru is Autistic - A Writeup

Hey there! 

As you’ve probably guessed from the title, this is gonna be a pretty long post about Kiyotaka Ishimaru from the Dangan Ronpa series, and how I believe that he is autistic. Note that I am #actuallyautistic myself, so a lot of this is drawn from my own experiences of autism, as well as some common symptoms Kiyotaka displays. This is one of my personal favourite headcanons, because I relate to Kiyotaka a lot, and it’s nice to be able to relate to him on a neurological level as well. That being said, despite the evidence I’m going to cover in this writeup, it is still a headcanon- so of course you can feel free to disregard this if you don’t agree with me (just don’t come and fight about it on the post... because a lot of that tends to go into “autism is a bad thing” territory and as an autistic person it kinda makes me feel shitty). 

With that out of the way, the rest of the post will be under a readmore, because this is about to get kinda long.

Kiyotaka Ishimaru is a fairly minor character when it comes to the Dangan Ronpa franchise. He’s a member of the cast of the first game, and dies halfway through, with almost no re-appearances or further mentions in the rest of the series. However, his personality is very distinct, and he’s been consistently seen as one of the most popular characters from the first game because of this. 

Kiyotaka’s personality boils down to a few essential parts- his keen sense of justice and morals, his lack of social skills and social intelligence, his drive to be the best in his schoolwork, and his encouraging, yet strict nature towards his classmates. Just from this base analysis of his personality you can start seeing some autistic traits- namely in his idealization of morals and ethics, and his lack of general social skills. The former is so important to his character, it’s what gives him his talent- as the Ultimate Moral Compass (Disciplinary Committee Member in the Japanese version of the game, and Hall Monitor/Prefect in a few fan translations). 

It’s quite common for autistic people to be unusually obsessed with justice or morality. I know from my own experiences that I absolutely hate situations I perceive as “unfair” or “unjust”- where I’ve been punished for doing things I didn’t do, when other people have been punished for things they didn’t do- I even find it hard to lie in certain situations. Kiyotaka certainly seems to display this pattern of thinking- his entire talent ties into making sure that those who do wrong are suitably punished, and those that do right are rewarded accordingly. The only time he goes against his morals and potentially condemns innocents are when he votes for himself instead of Mondo in the Chapter Two Trial, which seems to be him not fully realising that someone he associates with “being good, just and moral” (his new, and only, friend) doing something as amoral as murder. 

He simply doesn’t believe that someone he trusted could turn out to do something so wrong- to the point where, at the end of the second trial, he is begging everyone else to give him another explanation, or for Mondo to at least explain why he did the things he did. I understand that this is a reasonable reaction when one’s friend is faced with death, but consider this in the context of the Dangan Ronpa games. To keep up the flow of the games, characters usually seem to brush aside the murders and executions once the trials are over. Otherwise, things would drag out too long while the cast mourned. Even Naegi, who was good friends with Sayaka and knew her all the way back in middle school, only spared a few hours or so mourning her after the end of her trial.

Kiyotaka’s reaction is the most drastic in the first game, even surpassing Asahina’s bid to make Sakura’s suicide a mistrial. She’s only shown to be seriously affected by Sakura’s death for the duration of the trial, and afterwards is composed enough to fight back against the mastermind. Consider also that Asahina and Sakura were friends for the entire duration of the first game, and that Kiyotaka and Mondo were only friends for one day, and you can see how exaggerated and strange Kiyotaka’s reaction really is. 

Kiyotaka’s reaction is so strong compared to the other characters because Mondo’s killing is not only a betrayal to their friendship, but the betrayal to Kiyotaka’s perceived view of the world and what’s right and wrong. He fixates on his hatred of geniuses to an almost unhealthy level, and will not listen to anyone who tries to tell him that these “geniuses” can be good people as well. Simularily, he’s put Mondo into a box- a box that raises him above the amoral sensibilities of the killing game, making him someone who can do no wrong in Kiyotaka’s eyes- until he does. 

This is the only time Kiyotaka’s moral compass seems to be seriously tested in the killing game, and it destroys him. He relies so much on his fixation with morals, that the second they are shattered, he breaks apart. Of course, this is only a minor reason for his breakdown, but we’ll get into the rest of that later.

Another big clue to Kiyotaka being autistic comes in the form of his social skills- or, rather, his lack of them. Kiyotaka, in his entire life, has made one genuine friend. Mondo Oowada seems to be the only person he’s truly connected with, and he even states that he’s “never had a proper conversation before” in one of Naegi’s FTEs. It’s not hard to see why- Kiyotaka has very little social intelligence, which displays itself multiple times throughout the story.

He doesn’t understand that people watch TV shows and play video games to form connections over them- he just thinks they do so to get a temporary buzz out of them. He’s surprised when Naegi describes what people normally do when they hang out, and his idea of a social setting is a very old-fashioned Japanese tradition of communicating naked in a bathhouse with other men. It’s obvious that he’s personally never had an experience like this before, as he’s reportedly “never held a conversation longer than three minutes”, so he’s most likely picked this up from old Japanese literature or other media and assumed that’s still how teenagers hang out.

Mimicking behaviours from media is another common autistic trait, and even though Kiyotaka doesn’t seem the type to read a lot of books outside of school-assigned ones, he still displays this trait. Mimicking other people in general seems to be his go-to when it comes to social interaction- he calls Naegi a “Professor” when Naegi tells him how to hold a regular conversation, and says he will study the same games and TV shows Naegi knows about to be able to hold conversations just like he does. Kiyotaka, once befriending Mondo, is shown to be mimicking him in some ways- he starts calling Mondo “kyoudai”, something common amongst gangsters in Japan. In the English localisation, this is changed to “bro”, slang that would also most likely be picked up from Mondo.

After Mondo dies, Kiyotaka copes by completely mimicking him, even combining their names together and acting like Mondo to feel closer to him.

Kiyotaka doesn’t seem to understand sarcasm or humour, in most cases. Kiyotaka seems a little oblivious in general, and tends to brush aside other’s criticism- a lot of the times because he doesn’t understand it. He takes things very literally, which is a key autistic trait. 

He also wholeheartedly does seemingly idiotic things in an attempt to help others in the class trials- such as calling for the murderer to raise their hand, and stating obvious facts that were taken as a given (examples: “I propose that the victim was Sayaka Maizono”, and “We can be sure the knife was the weapon because of where it was found- sticking out of the victim’s midsection!”). Kiyotaka also displays this kind of well-intentioned, yet obvious advice when everyone is searching the school for an escape route- while others take note of potential danger and means of escape, Kiyotaka’s only contribution is to say that everyone has a dorm room. 

This makes sense for him, and most likely for others with autism- nobody’s mentioned it, and he has the information, so he thinks it will be helpful to share it. He doesn’t get the subtext that people will already know these things, and that clarifying them further wastes time and isn’t helpful in the grand scheme of things. 

While his dedication to morals and his lack of social skills are the most major identifiers of his autism, he also displays a few more subtler autistic traits.

Kiyotaka insists on holding the class meetings at a certain time in the morning, and arriving to the cafeteria at another set time. He’s always a punctual early comer, and he gets annoyed when others are late (holding back the time of his meeting). It can also be inferred that Kiyotaka is one to plan things- he has to be, if he’s taking on studying (and presumably kendo practise, due to the sword found in his room) as his only hobbies. This, and his love of the school system, can be hints towards him needing to function on a schedule. School is good for Kiyotaka because it’s structured, and planned, and not very subject to change. His hobbies of practise and studying are also not subject to sudden reschedules (unless he takes kendo lessons, but with his family’s financial situation, I don’t think that’s the case). A steady schedule is imperative for autistic people to function on a day-to-day basis. 

Kiyotaka only wears one set of clothes- his school uniform. He owns several copies of it, and refuses to wear anything else. It’s implied that he doesn’t own anything else. This could be his dedication to being a good student, but it could also easily be a manifestation of sensory issues. Kiyotaka may only feel comfortable in the material of his uniform, and doesn’t like wearing other clothes because they make him feel uncomfortable. As a fellow autistic who prefers their school uniform to their other clothes, I can definitely understand this path of logic. 

Similarly, Kiyotaka is a one-note cook. It’s revealed in School Mode that he can only cook rice balls and green tea. This seems like another case of sensory issues, where the textures of rice balls and green tea are soothing to him compared to other food tastes and textures. It seems a little odd that he’s put enough practise into creating his “famous green tea”, but wouldn’t branch out to cooking different kinds of foods than simply rice balls, especially if he wants to have a more balanced diet. 

Kiyotaka’s fixation with the things he does know how to talk about seem to be extremely intense. Kiyotaka seems completely ready to engage in a long debate with Naegi over politics, international affairs, and the economy. He also seems to have memorised his school’s old policy, and seems delighted to talk about schoolwork. These could be examples of special interests, topics that Kiyotaka fixates on and ignores all others. Kiyotaka’s biggest special interest seems to be revolving around politics, a career path he hopes to succeed in in the future. Other than that, he seems to have a special interest in school policy and the school’s curriculum, shown with his dedication to school code and his continued study of everything he has to learn about. He doesn’t understand that other people can do recreational activities that don’t revolve around these two interests of his.

Physically, Kiyotaka has an almost unnaturally straight posture. He stands with his legs pressed tightly together, and seems extremely rigid. An unnaturally rigid posture is a trait of autism (as is an unnaturally slouched or floppy posture, but that’s not relevant here). Kiyotaka is extremely prone to crying fits, even in the middle of regular conversation. He is shown holding his head and sobbing full-force in some of his FTEs, which then turns into him cheerfully laughing a few seconds later. Extreme mood swings and unprompted crying or laughing are traits of autism. When Kiyotaka is reprimanded, or when he believes that he’s done something wrong, he immediately switches into an over-reaction where he cries and begs someone to hit or “punish” him. Breakdowns like these are also common in autistics.

Kiyotaka’s speech is abnormally loud. He seems to have trouble speaking quietly or whispering, and most of his lines are yelled. Volume control like this is a classic autistic trait. Kiyotaka’s dialogue also seems stiff and stilted at times, or verbalised in a strange manner. 

I could go on more about Kiyotaka’s autistic traits, but I think I’ve said enough for one post! This is long enough as-is! I definitely think that Kiyotaka Ishimaru is autistic, but it’s up for you to decide if you agree with me.

[vinnx24-blog]

To all you current and future marketing students, here's a list of 20 things, under the umbrella of five key categories, of what you actually need to know before entering the professional marketing world. The list is a collection of advice from current members of the HubSpot marketing team -- including full-time marketing professionals who have graduated in years past as well as marketing interns who are graduating this year or in the future.

Academics

1) Don't be afraid of numbers.

I can't tell you how many students I've come across who tell me they avoid taking any classes that involve quantitative analysis or statistics. News flash: marketers need statistics.

You need to be prepared to analyze everything you do. Don't use the excuse that you plan on being a "social media marketer." When I was on the social media team at HubSpot, and I spent every single day looking at and interpreting charts and graphs. You need to be able to look at a spreadsheet of numbers, make the proper calculations, and analyze what they mean.

Otherwise, you're wasting a whole lot of time making decisions without proof that they work and/or benefit your business in some way. So pay attention in your stats class.

2) Don't obsess over the 4 P's or C's of marketing.

Whether your marketing courses preach the P's or C's of Marketing, it doesn't matter. While they can help introduce you to the core concepts of marketing, the chances of you brainstorming how you meet price, product, place, and promotion in the a real-life marketing situation is unrealistic. You need to be thinking about much more, which will come in later parts of this list.

3) Don't think your classroom experience mimics an actual job.

Simulate "real-life" scenarios as much as you want, but you won't actually learn to make important decisions in tight time frames until you're managing real dollars, working to uphold a real company's reputation, and investing your energy in real projects.

You can't practice it either. You have to be there and do it a few times, and then you'll learn. Use internships as an opportunity to do this, which takes us to our next section.

Experience

4) Having an internship on your resume isn't "impressive."

You had a summer internship at a marketing agency last summer? Great! So did everybody else. The fact that you had an internship isn't impressive, it's what you did while you were there that is (or isn't).

Students have accepted this false notion that even if you're just answering phones, the fact that you had some big company's name on your resume will get you a job. It might get you in the door for an interview, but if you can't share the benefit you provided to the company, you won't be seen as a valuable resource.

5) Having the multiple marketing internships isn't "impressive."

Okay, so we've already established that it's not just about having an internship; it's what you do there. A subcomponent of having great internship experiences is gaining diverse experiences and perspectives.

If you're interested in marketing, don't just apply to internships at marketing agencies every summer. Switch it up and test your skills in different marketing environments, such as at a company that executes its marketing in-house.

That way, you're staying true to your ultimate goal while also using your talents in different types of environments. Another great thing about this is you'll learn which type of marketing job you're best suited for.

6) Having endless extracurricular activities doesn't make you an "expert."

I get it -- you love being involved in every organization you can possibly be a part of. You think putting it all on your resume will show your great versatility and extensive experience.

But all it really does is confuse recruiters.

I've heard employers say they get turned off by students who seem too involved because they don't show any one true strength they can bring to the table. Instead of being an expert in one area, they just have their toes dipped in a bunch.

Employers are looking for something unique that you can do, not that you have tried everything -- that's what marketing teams are for. If you've participated in a lot of different activities in college, narrow down the few that you can actually say you've learned from, excelled at, and helped you grow.

7) Having a standard resume doesn't exemplify modern marketing.

Is your career advisor handing you a template for your resume to adhere to? Ignore it.

Marketing is changing. Buyer behavior is changing. That means your entrance into this evolving industry should be changing, too. Create your own resume template. One that highlights your uniqueness and is set up to show, not tell, what your value is.

While paper resumes will always hold their own value, you also need to be present where marketing employers are looking. In fact, 89% of all recruiters report having hired someone through LinkedIn, according to Herd Wisdom.

Beyond LinkedIn, think about other unique ways to present your experience: infographics, tweets, slideshares, or even ebooks (which is what I did).  

Marketing

8) Marketing moves fast.

Chances are, whatever your professor taught you your freshman year of college no longer applies. Need an answer to a pressing marketing problem? You won't find it in that years-old textbook.

Effective marketing isn't about looking up the answer, it's about creating the answer. For example, social media wasn't taught in a classroom until recently, yet it's been around for years. Nobody taught professional marketers already in the business how to "do social media"; they had to figure it out on their own.

That's your future: figuring out marketing. Forever.

9) Marketing isn't about pretty pictures and viral videos.

Effective marketing campaigns focus on creating content that benefits your audience. You can't spend your marketing career creating humorous videos for the sake of bringing attention to your brand. You need to be prepared to think critically and analyze the needs of your target audience. What do they want? What are they confused about? How can you best serve them while serving your business? Answer one of these questions correctly, and your content will naturally become viral.

10) Marketing is not just about branding or awareness -- it's about making money.

Gone are the days of going to the marketing department for happy messages and to Sales for revenue -- today, the two must work together.

We keep talking about how everything you do should benefit your company, but haven't said what that benefit is. The benefit is simple: revenue. What is the return on investment of that email send? That tweet? That press release? Each of these efforts should be positioned to represent your company culture, but they need to fit into the sales cycle. They need to have a monetary value.

11) Marketing doesn't have to be evil.

The negative connotation surrounding "marketer," "public relations professional," etc. is pretty pervasive. But that doesn't mean it's okay to act out these stereotypes. Don't lose your morals and ethics when you graduate -- they need to be omnipresent in your marketing career. And yes, it is possible to create marketing that people actually like.

12) Marketing is more than big brands and agencies.

Yes, you can work at a marketing agency. And yes, you could work for a big brand like Nissan or Pepsi. But there are SO many more options. What about working in-house at technology company? A small business? A hospital? Just because your professors only talk about the campaigns big brands have executed, doesn't mean those are the only marketing jobs out there.

13) Marketing is a balance of art, science, and tech.

Many marketing curriculums focus on the art. You craft advertising campaigns, brainstorm billboards, and storyboard commercials. In modern marketing, this art is critical in visualizing calls-to-actions, writing landing page copy, and launching products.

But marketing is more than that. On the science front, we already discussed the importance of a data-driven mentality in point one. Beyond that, you need to embrace the infusion of technology in marketing.

In an article by Marketing Magazine, Jamie Kenny writes, "On the one hand, new technology offers marketing fresh and more efficient routes to market, along with exciting prospects such as the capability for personalised, one-to-one marketing at scale. On the other hand, the marketing department is having to learn new skills, take on responsibilities and build other relationships within the organisation."

As an emerging marketer, being tech savvy can help differentiate you from the crowd.

Personal

14) Don't be afraid to be wrong.

How many times have you said, "I thought the same exact thing ... but didn't say anything." '

Well, if you ever get to that point, it's too late. If you have an idea or opinion on something being discussed at an internship or on at your first job, speak up! Experience helps create proper judgment, not ideas. Anyone is capable of thinking of the next big thing; it's just a matter of not being afraid to share it.

15) Grow thick skin.

As a marketer, you'll have to deal with complaining customers, social media bashers, unresponsive sales reps, frustrating clients, the list goes on and on ... and through it all, you have to bite your tongue and let them feel like they are always right.

If you get too emotional over how people treat you, you won't last in the business. Take all negative feedback as constructive criticism, and spin it into something positive. I failed at this big time when I was interning at HubSpot -- but I learned from my mistakes.

16) Be your own best case study.

Prove your skills by marketing yourself. Don't wait for someone else to give you the opportunity. There's a number of ways to accomplish this:

Write content -- on your own blog or for an existing blog -- demonstrating your knowledge and writing ability.

Build your social media reach. Start conversations on Twitter or leverage LinkedIn to connect with other professionals.

Demonstrate your passion for marketing by properly marketing yourself. If you can't market yourself, how will you market for others?17) Never burn bridges.

You know that annoying teacher's pet who never stops talking in class next to you? She may end up being your manager one day. Or your co-worker. Or the woman who gets to decide if a company hires you.

You never know where people may end up. In fact, last year I received a LinkedIn message from a young man who wasn't the nicest to me in high school. All of a sudden he was a total sweetheart and asking for a job referral -- you can imagine my response was, well, nonexistent.

18) Network with everyone.

Yes, you've heard this before. But the important part of networking is doing it with everyone. If you decide you want to work at XX company, don't only find ways to talk to people from XX company. Maybe that random stranger in the corner from Y company will one day be an employee at XX company, and then you'll be bummed you missed the opportunity to tell that person why you rock.

Point is, you never know who could end up helping you out the future. Get to know as many people as you can.

Miscellaneous

19) Get familiar with HTML/CSS.

You don't need to be a full-on engineer, but you do need to understand the basics. What happens when your web designer goes on vacation? What happens when you need to make a quick fix on your website? Or even just need to talk to your web designer?

You don't want to sound like a complete doh-doh head. Understand how coding works and be prepared to make little tweaks. If you end up in a product marketing role, this will be even more critical.

20) Understand the difference between B2B and B2C.

I'm surprised I was never exposed to such basic acronyms at school, but most businesses are classified this way. B2B = business-to-business. B2C = business-to-consumer. Look up the difference; it'll teach you a lot about different forms of marketing, and possibly where you want to work one day.

[bieke007]

Social Media & Participatory Culture

Henry Jenkins described Participatory culture as, “A participatory culture is a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along to novices.A participatory culture is also one in which members believe their contributions matter, and feel some degree of social connection with one another”. After studying Participatory Culture, my personal definition would be: the participation of users, consumers, and fans in creating culture and content. Participatory culture is emerging as the culture absorbs and responds to the explosion of new media technologies that make it possible for average consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media content in powerful new ways. Some potential benefits of participatory culture include opportunities for peer-to-peer learning, a changed attitude toward intellectual property, the diversification of cultural expression, the development of skills valued in the modern workplace, and a more empowered conception of citizenship. 

Hinton and Hjorth’s study on participation describes participation in different perspectives. The first aspect is that participation is public response. Their example was when users comment and respond to news articles. The next is the idea that the user is the producer. Rather than simply responding to media created by an organization, the user creates the media for example when a kid gets famous on youtube for doing something funny while at the dentist right after surgery. Later in the article it compares the two talking about how participation has shifted due to the recent technology and high quality cells phones/cell phone cameras. The ability to create content is right at our fingertips, and some social media sites only exist because of this. One term I had never heard before was Citizen Journalism. This is the idea that participative media is changing traditional news reporting. People view citizen journalism as more intimate and raw, especially being that their images are usually captured right in the moment with a phone. One thing that is getting lost due to this new and free form of journalism is newspapers. Nobody wants to pay for content that they can easily access online and in most cases for free. 

From an educators perspective, Henry Jenkins states that “our goal should be to encourage youth to develop the skills, knowledge, ethical frameworks, and self-confidence needed to be full participants in contemporary culture”. Why is this? The new literacies almost all involve social skills developed through collaboration and networking. These skills build on the foundation of traditional literacy, research skills, technical skills, and critical analysis skills taught in the classroom. That means as educators, we are equipping students (future users) with the skills to be able to participate in this new culture, the participatory culture. Some of these skills include, multitasking, performance, simulation, networking, negotiation, and creative thinking. It has been studied and found that children are much more active and engaged in their learning when it involved their own interests and input. When they contribute to their learning and create content to reflect this, they are much more likely to engage and want to learn more. We must place more value on the skills and knowledge young people are gaining through their involvement with new media. 

That being said, there are three implications to this participatory culture that we must consider. The first is the inequalities in young people’s access to new media technologies and the opportunities for participation they represent. The idea that not all children will have access to free or wireless internet and therefore have less opportunity to consume and create content. This is known as the participation gap. The second being that this assumes that children are actively reflecting on their media experiences and can thus articulate what they learn from their participation. This is the idea that although youth are becoming more adept at using media as resources (for creative expression, research, social life, etc.), they often are limited in their ability to examine the media themselves. Seiter (2005) concludes, “The World Wide Web is a more aggressive and stealthy marketeer to children than television ever was, and children need as much information about its business practices as teachers and parents can give them”. The last implication being that it assumes children, on their own, can develop the ethical norms needed to cope with a complex and diverse social environment online (the ethics challenge). As teachers, this ideas leaves us with three questions: How do we ensure that every child has access to the skills and experiences needed to become a full participant in the social, cultural, economic, and political future of our society? How do we ensure that every child has the ability to articulate his or her understanding of how media shapes perceptions of the world? How do we ensure that every child has been socialized into the emerging ethical standards that should shape their practices as media makers and as participants in online communities?

[thenwcollective]

The 8 Mistakes Guaranteed to Doom Your Corporate Video Clip Production

INTRODUCTION

  It's been a truly impressive trip. I have actually remained in the video clip as well as multimedia production service because 1981 and in my 30+ years in the business, I have actually seen some definitely extraordinary leaps in the market. To put video in historic point of view, it was only 22 years prior to I took the plunge into specialist video that Sony, Matsushita, Toshiba, and also JVC introduced helical-scan recording, which is the technique made use of given that to tape-record on video clip tape recorders. It took practically the whole succeeding 22-year period to bring these helical check recorders right into the residence.

  When I started in video manufacturing in 1981, consumer video clip recording was in its infancy. Many American homes did not have a VCR. VHS was still battling Betamax (what's that?!) for supremacy in the house video clip style wars. Tape (huh?) was the staple of commercial as well as advertising video production and 2" "Quad" equipments (what??) were what the "actual" program workshops utilized for their highest quality editing and studio job. Field video cameras with the ability of generating the very best broadcast-quality images cost more than a lot of houses at the time. (And now these have been gone beyond in high quality by today's consumer camcorders.) The CD-Rom had actually not yet emerged, and also internet use was years away. Pressed video as well as streaming on web sites were hardly the proverbial "delusion" of somebody's creative imagination. DVDs? HDTV? You're joking!

  Yet despite the unbelievable technical advancements over the decades, lots of things have actually continued to be consistent. The need to catch and also keep audience interest, tell a story, as well as accomplish one's purposes were all critical to successfully interacting then, as well as stay so today.

  And also as technical advancements have actually brought budget-friendly top quality video clip and also multimedia right into the hands of the neophyte, the need to utilize them "properly" has continued to be. Just because you've got a paint brush, that doesn't make you Rembrandt!

  Allow's take a look at a few of the mistakes still made in workplace business video and also multimedia programs:

  The 8 Errors Assured to RUIN Your Corporate Video or Multimedia Job:

Tv Commercial Production Companies Portland

MISTAKE 1. DON'T TROUBLE TO RECOGNIZE YOUR TARGET MARKET (OR TO REGULARLY MAINTAIN IT IN MIND).

  This is the firstly guideline of creating any type of kind of communications program, yet it is fantastic exactly how commonly it obtains gone against. This guideline is certainly not distinct to video or multimedia programs. In all forms of audio and aesthetic communication, it is vital to establish an accurate interpretation of the target audience - as well as remember it.

  Market research firms as well as departments spend billions of dollars yearly to establish that will certainly get a message to make sure that correct product positioning, advertising and also promos can be done. And it is cash well spent.

  Yet we typically see business approaching their video clip and/or multimedia jobs with a "Ready, Fire, Purpose" technique. They utilize a shotgun when a rifle is called for. They attempt to appeal to numerous audiences with the hope that the program will certainly offer several functions. Bear in mind, when you attempt to appeal to everyone, you attract nobody.

  While the same basic program can in some cases be utilized for various audiences, it is advised that various variations or versions be created for those different groups. It's a simple issue to re-edit or re-narrate sections of a production. Nevertheless, efficiency demands that this is prepared from the beginning of the job.

  So keep in mind to plan the job with your target market in mind. Know what their degree of competence or experience is with the topic. This will certainly stay clear of the problem of shooting as well low (e.g. losing their time revealing or informing them something they understand) or too high (shedding them since you presume a degree of know-how they have not yet acquired).

  ERROR 2. DON'T PRE-DETERMINE YOUR GOAL.

  This goes together with the first thing. In addition to understanding who you are talking to, you need to know what you want them to do or feel after the program has been delivered.

  Whenever possible, the purpose must be quantifiable. It is absolutely less complicated to determine results in the area of training. As any type of great training specialist knows, pre- and post-training assessment examinations can measure the results of a training program.

  Similarly, up for sale and also marketing or interactions, detailed screening as well as statistics can be gathered regarding job awareness and attitudes prior to as well as after the discussion of the total program plan. However each of those probably aren't the genuine wanted outcomes - real goal is inflating the sales numbers.

  As in training, it is preferable to measure the efficiency the sales or communications program has in fulfilling the stated goals.

  There is a trouble, however. Dimension of the specific impact of the video or multimedia program is hard, as the production is normally not utilized in isolation. Rather it is typically part of a package of other material supplied together with the video or multimedia program.

  Ideally, we wish to emulate huge customer firms, where considerable marketing research supplies in-depth analysis of specific advertising and advertising methods. They can isolate the effects of individual parts of an overall brand name advertising and marketing technique, for instance. However this calls for a comprehensive historic background and also a very large example dimension to help isolate variables and establish causal connections.

  However, this is extra bothersome in the business-to-business world.

  B to B companies seldom have the historical data to statistically separate the domino effect connections of specific advertising and marketing elements. This is intensified because a new service or product introduction is often where we see the merger of these bundles of video clip, trade show booth, collateral as well as profession publication marketing. This makes historical contrasts mainly unnecessary.

  The possibility to determine program efficiency is not impossible, nevertheless. Unscientific evidence can be gathered from customers as to what portions of the overall plan made the greatest influence. This can even be formally evaluated via using studies. Mix in an excellent section of sector experience and also good sense, and the sales or marketing officer can commonly obtain a pretty good feel for the influence of the video or multimedia section of the campaign, in addition to the various other individual elements.

  MISTAKE 3. JUST PRESUME THAT VIDEO CLIP OR MULTIMEDIA IS THE OPTION TO YOUR ISSUE.

  Not all troubles can be solved through the use of video and also multimedia, to ensure that is why it is so vital to comprehend the answers to # 1 and # 2 over.

  In the area of sales and advertising and marketing, video and multimedia can be a vital critical element in the mix. In other locations, such a skills training, a video clip discussion might be simply the ticket to be able to demonstrate proper technique to freshly hired or promoted people.

  Generally, video and also multimedia projects are best made use of where showing the product, solution or process is advised. In sales and marketing, a particularly effective usage is to show products in operation that are not practical to offer the potential client for a demo. For many years, we have actually done programs showing resorts, large production line robots, clean space processes, exercise programs, as well as numerous various other locations where a demo in a workplace of the services or product is just not useful.

  In areas including social skills, such as management training, video might be a component of the solution. Establishing the foundation in a location can be an outstanding use video clip, specifically if there will certainly be many workers in time who need this training. However, for smaller teams, or for brief amount of times, function playing and also other strategies could be warranted, whereas video as well as multimedia would not.

  MISTAKE 4. TAKE THE MINDSET THAT "IT'S SIMPLY A BUSINESS VIDEO".

  Let's deal with realities: your target market is included advanced tv as well as media viewers. According to Nielsen Study, the average American watches 4 hrs as well as 35 minutes of TELEVISION daily.

  With your viewers regularly bombarded with video photos, they are rather jaded to "common" video clip. They are advanced consumers of the media, so do not think that you they will excuse shoddy production values if you want to deliver an efficient message.

  The obvious ramification is that the more crucial the suggestion you wish to connect, the higher the factor to have your video or multimedia project professionally created. If it deserves doing, it's worth succeeding.

  I will be the first to admit that there are jobs that are exemptions to the "it's only business video" regulation. If you are simply videotaping a technological seminar or various other "mind dump" for future new hires or individuals that are out of town, then by all implies established the video camera in the rear of the room as well as let it run. But also if that is the case, please see policy # 7, below.

  Since we have actually addressed the pre-production concerns, allow's examine some major production gaffes that will doom your production:.

  BLUNDER 5. SKIP THE LIGHTING AND ALSO OTHER DEVICES THAT WILL REALLY MAKE THE PHOTO "POP".

  The present degree of electronic modern technology is really remarkable. Home cameras are very easy to use as well as budget friendly, as well as everyone likes himself or herself a TELEVISION supervisor. Yet like these video cameras have ended up being, a professional, high-impact look will only come when added lights as well as various other equipment are applied. Even present truth shows are supplemented by lots of lighting instruments and other gear specially developed to make the shots look excellent.

  Recognizing how to light is a full art and scientific research unto itself. If you were to review the movie credit histories at the end of a major motion picture (without computer animation or special effects) over half the people would certainly be associated with lights as well as associated locations to make the photo look just right.

  Obviously, we're not trying to duplicate "Selected the Wind" below, yet keep in mind that the photo that you show, is the picture that represents YOU.

  Along with lights tools, some of the equipment that may be called into play consists of soft lights, gels, reflectors, bounce cards, cookies, scrims and also light diffusion.

  In one shoot we did featuring Steve Youthful of 49er popularity, we utilized 2 huge soft lights as the primary lighting source. We have likewise have other "more challenging" (e.g. not soft) lights over as well as to the left of this photo - consisting of fill as well as back lights.

  A light cutter on top facility is made use of to maintain too much light from swamping the background.

  In one more shoot outdoors, we took legal action against a big reflector to the side of the subject along with a fog device. The reflector is made use of to reroute sunshine for an exterior shoot. We also made use of a half flag, used to block and also diffuse a few of the light coming from a large light (yes, you can make use of lights outdoors).

  While such a range of lighting and hold equipment is generally not readily available for shooting business video clip by yourself, it can enhance the photo substantially. And if your budget does not permit a complete video clip manufacturing team to fire the video, freelance lighting supervisors with rental devices are offered, which might give a corporate video an appearance that will certainly establish it in addition to various other a lot more inexperienced efforts.

  MISTAKE 6. DON'T UTILIZE A TRIPOD OR OTHER ELECTRONIC CAMERA SUPPORT.

  The pros know that a steady video camera is vital to obtaining a great, intriguing picture. If the camera is bouncing around, the viewer gets distracted and frequently, annoyed. If the visitor's mind is active following the subject around the display, it will not be focusing on your message.

  At certain times, a relocating cam comes to be an art type, such as is seen in music videos. But business video clips are not music videos. Keep the camera on the tripod as well as maintain the cam movements smooth.

  When the pros fire, there are a wide range of camera installs readily available for picture stablizing. These include different sizes of tripods, jib arms, cranes, dollies and also a Steadicam.

  In some fires we could utilize a dolly, with the electronic camera operator on board, and also the dolly hold pressing it on course. The dolly tracks movement efficiently, yet due to the expenditure of rental as well as both people needed to run it, it can be a costly addition to the program.

  We usually utilize a jib arm to make jumping and also climbing shots of a shop facade, a, etc. The jib can be rented in different sizes and also can develop an almost 3D look. It needs a skilled driver.

  While the jib can move thoroughly around a topic, for true 3D sights, a Steadicam is called for. This is a specialized harness that needs to be utilized by a seasoned camera operator. It can provide dramatic looks at the subject, including relocating efficiently around them for 360 degrees or even more. Unless you have a Steadicam and experienced driver, do not follow your subject around with the camera - leave it to the pros.

  BLUNDER 7. USE THE ELECTRONIC CAMERA MICROPHONE TO DOCUMENT THE SOUND.

  The quick enhancement as well as compactness of video clip is additionally materialized in the sound that accompanies it. Camcorders today record excellent sound. Yet there is an issue.

  The trouble is that the audio resource closest to the camcorder microphone will be tape-recorded best. And this might not be what you desire recorded.

  Have you ever before set up a camera in the back of the space to tape a live seminar and paid attention to the outcome? Isn't it outstanding just how the remarks, coughings and also crashes in the back of the space audio so clear - and also the speaker is muddled at those points?

  I simply can't count the number of times individuals have pertained to us to ask if we can boost the audio from simply such presentations, as well as other real-time events also.

  In short, the answer is however "No." We can not draw out sound that basically is not there.

  What is the option? It's all just an issue of microphone positioning. In such a circumstance, you need to purchase a lavaliere microphone for the presenter to put on. The mic is after that in position less than a foot from the speaker's mouth as well as will videotape clear sound.

  An additional option is to use a mic on a boom post just out of frame. We've done this frequently, such as in the Steve Young shoot I discussed earlier. The boom mic is usually just above the head of the subject, however is cropped out of the fired by the video camera.

  Preferably when purchasing or renting out a lavaliere, obtain a great wireless microphone. Don't defeat the purpose by getting a cheap microphone that feeds buzzes and hisses to your recording system. A pair of respectable, yet affordable earphones will certainly allow you listen to the sound that you are obtaining. If you do not get a clean signal, take the microphone back to the shop and also get one that helps you.

  Rates completely top quality mics have actually come down dramatically over the years, so if you are going to do much of this type of "talking head" recording, it's worth the little financial investment.

  Microphones are certainly not just for amplification. You require an excellent mic close to the subject to get good clear sound.

  MISTAKE 8. ALLOWING YOUR INTERNAL "ABILITY" JUST WING IT.

  Allow's encounter it, your colleagues are not specialist actors, and they need some aid to bear in mind all the important things they require to say and do on camera. I reviewed this just recently with an additional producer good friend of mine, as well as he commented, "If I had a nickel for each time I fired an officer who said he might simply talk off the top of his head ... What disasters!".

  I concur. Use a teleprompter. It places in front of the video camera. Your executive or employee can look right at the electronic camera as well as check out the words as if he were checking into the lens. After a couple of method runs, novices are almost always comfortable adequate to blow up throughout the script. It's cash well spent as it means much faster shooting, much less mistakes, and also fewer frayed nerves.

  As well as if your exec looks stiff or truly doesn't like the feel of "reading" words, we can install bullet factors or PowerPoint slides on the prompter so that he or she can still appear to be considering the target market. This stays clear of the trouble of the speaker averting to notes or sign cards as well as looking "tricky eyed" therefore.

  FINAL THOUGHT.

  As constantly, the slogan of "If it deserves doing, it deserves doing well" applies to your productions. Yet there are times when a huge full range manufacturing is not warranted. Luckily, it is no longer an issue of all or nothing when it concerns bringing professional manufacturing worths to your work.

  You do not have to spend 10s of countless dollars for a program.

  It surprises many people that are considering the production of industrial video clip or multimedia that there is a reliable middle ground that can be utilized. This can be an incredible expense saver. This consists of employing several specialists to aid. This can be:.

  a producer/director to oversee your production,.

a lights supervisor with tools,.

a teleprompter operator with equipment,.

a cosmetics musician to make your exec look "perfect".

an editor to bring together the video footage you have actually fired into a crisp, efficient program,.

a graphic musician or animator to brighten your graphics,.

a replication center to make mass quantities of your videotape, DVD or CD.

[coolmenmike]

Top Skills that Will Increase Your Chances of Getting Hired in 2019

Skills are some of your best allies to get your dream job. You need skills to be able to function optimally at your job, and before you employ, you should display some abilities to convince your potential employer that you have what it takes to take up that position. However, skills are not learned overnight. You have to be deliberate about it and go through the process of learning and acquiring the skills. If you want to stand out in your field and make your CV attractive, you must be ready to pay the price of learning and validating your expertise. There are some skills you need to develop in order to increase your chances of getting hired in 2019. In this article, we will look at various skills that will distinguish you from the crowd and help you land your dream job. You can go SPOTO CLUB to get more information.

Research an organization before your interview

When job seekers call for the interview, they get so excited and forget to do the needful things. It is crucial that you learn all you can about the organization that has called you for the interview. It goes beyond knowing the physical structure of the organization: you have to know about the product and services, organizational values, business ethics, and so on. The more you learn about the company, the more you will develop capacity to have a meaningful and rich discussion with them during your interview. By the way, hiring managers like well-informed candidates.

Craft an excellent career narrative

You must develop the skills needed to sell yourself. The content of your narrative must be so convincing that a potential employer will find it hard to refuse you at the end of the interview. Learn how to craft your professional story and tie it to the organization that has called you for the interview. Your skills and expertise are not so attractive if they don’t blend into the need of the organization that wants to employ you. It is essential that you learn how to develop an elevator pitch that will stand you out of other potential candidates for the job.

Use your networks

If you check your contacts, you can be sure that you will find someone that knows someone in the organization you are prospecting. You need to use this contact. Your skills, experience, well crafted elevator pitch, and extensive knowledge of a company are very important, but you need to get your foot in the organization’s door first before all these can be useful. The best way you can get your foot in is to use your network to find someone working in this organization. When you find an associate you can liaise with, request to have a meeting with him/her and have an informational kind of interview. This will offer you a good perspective of the organization from an insider’s point of view. Before you attend this meeting, ensure you highlight all concerns and issues you need to be addressed and also prepare a comprehensive report of what you have learned about the organization so that you can ask for clarifications from your contact. This will equip you with comprehensive knowledge of the organization and prepare you for the real interview.

Customize your application

Do not send general applications to organizations. Customize your application and address all the requirements of the organization in your resume. There is no one-size-fits-all resume for all companies. You should tailor your application to fit into the job role you are applying for and highlight the strong points that make you the best candidate for the job. In addition to this, you need to have an exceptional introductory letter. You don’t have to write a lengthy introduction letter; all you need is a clear, concise, and well-formatted letter. Don’t use high sounding words and check for your spellings and grammatical construction. You would not want to make a wrong first impression on your potential employer.

Demonstrate willingness to learn new things

Nobody expects you to know everything about your position and job functions. However, you must be able to demonstrate to your potential employer your willingness to learn. Well, you don’t just say this with the words of your mouth, you should have evidence that you are an ardent learner. You must be able to provide proof of training courses, certifications, and classes you have attended in a bid to develop your capacity in the past. You don’t have to enroll for the most expensive training, you can take up various free courses or pay tokens to take courses online.

Demonstrate communication and networking skills

You need to have flawless communication skills. The ability to correspond effortlessly with the hiring manager will be a great advantage for you. Before attending the interview, ensure you develop the capability to sell convincingly an innovative idea that will have a significant positive impact on the organization. This will definitely get you noticed. Many hiring managers ask open-ended questions in a bid to see how good you are at successfully expressing your views and opinions about a topic.

Understand digital and social media marketing

You don’t necessarily have to be an expert digital or social media marketer but you need to have some level of capacity with web-based system administration and contemporary promotional ability. This will validate your capability to learn and adopt new aptitudes, as well as keep up-to-date with the latest technology and mechanical development. Understanding substance administration, upsides of social media, and setting up profiles with having a level of digital marketing expertise will make a lot of difference in your job search in this new year.

Be creative

Creativity and innovation are top on the list of skills that hiring managers look out for. Businesses are constantly evolving, and business owners need employees that can adapt to changes very fast. You need to be creative and innovative, and be able to apply your creativity to your roles in the organization. It will be useful, especially in the areas of job you are applying for. You cannot afford to do things the same way. Get out of your comfort zone and learn new things that will make you better at your job role.

Use problem-solving skills

The hiring managers prefer those employees who can use initiative to solve problems without waiting for their superior to do it for them. At the point of your interview, you should highlight how you handled critical issues in your previous jobs and the outcome of such actions. You must be able to engage in critical thinking in your role. The fact is that the employers do not work with those employees who need to be supervised at every step. You have to be able to take initiative and be on top of your game. Every business wants a contributor and not someone they have to babysit at their job role.

Demonstrate your ability to adapt to changes

Organizations require those professionals who can get out of their comfort zone and customary range of familiarity to move into a new world of advancement and development. The ability to adapt quickly to changes in a company is important when you desire to get a new job. You should be able to present your potential employers with instances that you have had to adjust for the betterment of your organization.

Summary

Big organizations rely on data. Each step taken by them is informed by the information gathered from data analysis. From taking learnings from past marketing campaigns to planning future launches, all depend on the insights assembled from data. If you desire to get a job in such an organization in 2019, you must learn data analysis. The ability to break down clusters of big data and provide significant insights that will move a business forward is a skill that is much in demand in an organization. Enterprises are information-driven, and employees must have the skills needed to translate data into insights and actionable information. You need to develop this skill if you really want to attain your desired role in 2019.

Skills are very critical to your ability to tap into career opportunities in 2019. You have to go out of your way to learn new skills. Of course, having certifications and formal training is important to your success at getting a high paying position, but you should also not forget soft skills that are needed on a daily basis to maintain your job. Develop these abilities and prepare to take advantage of the opportunities that will be presented to you in 2019.