#am i just making excuses for instances of lazy writing? perhaps. what about it.

[paradisecas]

yk those little phrases you catch yourself using in writing over and over again well one of mine is ‘take what (they) can get’ and thinking about it like um i think that’s a pretty solid thesis statement for michael and adam and even ghoul. all of them have been in situations that don’t grant them any sort of comfort and in these situations—a lonely childhood, a forgotten eternity, a vengeful god—they have to take what they can get so they don’t like. lose it. they have to work towards a lifelong goal or choose to be kind or make the most of the time they have left. given so little that everything even almost good has to be voraciously accepted.

[magnificent-nerd]

Why Naqib in The Boys sucked

Image description: fictional character Naqib in Amazon Prime’s show The Boys.

(Is the fire in the background an excuse to use racist Yellow Filter to show how exotic he is? Hmm.)

I first posted this on my blog in Dec 2020, and since nothing in superhero media has changed for the better at this time (September 5th, 2021), I’m going to keep talking about it.

Because nobody else does. So, without further ado:

WHY NAQIB SUCKS.

I was a big fan of The Boys season 1; I love superheroes, I love deconstructing a genre. Sure, it has its problems, but overall I enjoyed season 1 and thought the show had potential.

(That’ll learn me for being hopeful!)

When season 1 ended with this big build up of mostly nameless brown and background characters as Muslim terrorists (deep sigh) we the audience are left thinking this one Muslim character (Naqib) whose superpower is to blow himself up repeatedly (insert another long deep sigh here) is going to be The Big Bad of season 2.

I had my misgivings about that direction. Firstly, as you can see from the image of Naqib, he is highly exoticised and is walking around bare chested with Arabic writing on his chest. He looks more like a generic western media depiction of a genie than he does a supervillain. 

And yet he's the first prominent Muslim character in superhero media I've seen in YEARS.

-

(See my post about MENA and Muslim character good guys, including Joe played by Marwan Kenzari in The Old Guard, which is technically a comic book movie but it’s not what I’d call ‘caped and costumed’ superheroes so it’s more... superhero adjacent.)

I follow superhero content closely and as far as I'm aware the last time we saw any named Muslim characters in superhero movies WITH SPEAKING LINES was:

Instance 1) Iron Man 1 back in 2008 with The Ten Rings in Afghanistan, showing multiple Muslim characters as baddies/terrorists, but only two of them as a named character and with any meaningful lines to say. And despite one of them, Yinsen (actor Shaun Toub), being a good guy he still dies! Which is common in western media for Muslim and MENA characters.

Note: Fellow Iron Man 1 castmate, actor Sayed Badreya, makes an important point in this GQ article: "I die in Iron Man, I die in Executive Decision. I get shot by everyone. George Clooney kills me in Three Kings. Arnold blows me up in True Lies…" (x)

Instance 2) A more recent instalment in Batman V. Superman in 2016, with some unnamed 'General' character and mercenaries/terrorists in Nairomi, Africa, referred to only as "the desert" throughout the movie. All reference to the General's actual name are available in an extended/deleted scene only, so a very poor and vague depiction in the final cut.

Instance 3) The generic and badly written ‘bad guys’ in Wonder Woman 1984 (2020 movie), which was honestly such a racist depiction of Arabs and Muslims that many critics pointed out we hadn’t seen a depiction this terrible since 1994′s True Lies. (At least most critics were in agreement that WW84 movie was generally terrible, so there’s that.)

And that's it, those are the only major instances showing any Muslim actors or characters in a caped and costumed superhero movie. 

Some other fleeting glimpses of Muslims onscreen:

Glimpse 1) I spotted a girl wearing a hijab among the nameless and unspeaking background characters of Peter Parker's class in Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019). A first for Marvel movies, apparently.

Glimpse 2) Disney Plus show Falcon and Winter Soldier (2021) had two nameless Muslim characters walk by in a scene that’s supposed to be Tunisia (using Yellow Filter), and ‘thank’ the present American Air Force (eye-roll).

Glimpse 3) Netflix show Jupiter’s Legacy (2021) had a nameless Muslim sailor conversing with one of the main characters in a scene, with meaningful dialogue about racism. (WOW. Really good.) Bonus: no yellow filter. It’s a pity he’s a nameless background character because this brief instance is the least problematic MENA rep I’ve seen in ages, but it is very brief.

I just wrote about Glimpses 2 and 3, and how the Netflix show outdid Disney when it comes to these nameless walk-on Muslim characters.

This is pretty pathetic overall, these small crumbs, especially compared to better rep and probably the only instance of legit MENA superheroes in a ‘costumes and capes’ style superhero show, the Tarazi siblings on DC’s Legends of Tomorrow.

-

Anyway, now I’ve listed what crumbs are available across the live action superhero genre, back to The Boys.

I was intrigued about how season 2 would handle Naqib and any characters relating to him, and what storyline they'd use. 

Was I excited at the possibility of seeing Muslim supers onscreen? Damn straight I was. Did I mind that they were baddies? Well, yes and no. When you only ever get crumbs or no crumbs at all, you tend to get excited over one stale old crumb.

After the build up for season 2, I eagerly sat down to watch the first episode, only to have the first five minutes of episode 1 Trigon him.

Note: who's Trigon, you ask? Well if you didn't watch the DCEU's Titans show, Trigon was The Big Bad who was hyped up throughout season 1, introduced in the season 1 cliff-hanger episode as this big 'oh shit!' moment for the cast of heroes, only for him to fizzle out like a wet fart in the first episode of season 2 while the show pivots wildly in another direction. 

Exactly what happened to Naqib in the first five minutes of The Boys season 2.

Erm, so, Naqib. Farewell, I guess? As a character you briefly appeared in 2 episodes, portrayed by a different actor in each (Krishan Dutt, and Samer Salem). It seems the writers used you as a plot device when they needed a cheap cliff-hanger for a direction that ultimately went nowhere.

Am I disappointed? Yeah, I am. Overall I thought season 2 of The Boys was weaker than season 1, but I'm not here to talk about the whole season: I want to talk about Naqib and this missed opportunity.

The Boys and its showrunners sell the show as being a satire of recent and well known superhero content, of all the big movies and TV shows. There's been a lot of patting themselves on the back for calling out overused tropes in superhero media (and sometimes they've done this satire well: see the LGBT marketing scene with Queen Maeve in season 2), but my issue with the show on their Muslim rep, or should I say lack thereof, is if your show has even less Muslim character rep than the content you're trying to parody, how is this a win for satire?

Naqib and that whole angle came across as a lazy, half-assed swing from the writer's room. Sure, perhaps a lot of the non-Muslim and non-MENA audience won't even notice, as we've been ignored by western media or made into nameless, generic, vacuous baddies for decades now. Non-Muslims and non-MENA just accept that we're always the baddies for no particular reason at all (which feeds into Islamophobia, by the way) and The Boys' writers could say they are simply satirising the tropes already present in media...

But, and this is a big but, the media that The Boys is satirising has already made a step toward better inclusion and representation: Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan), Marvel comics' first Muslim superhero, is entering the MCU as a lead character in her own Disney Plus show, debuting in 2022. 

Ms. Marvel/Kamala Khan is also cited to appear in upcoming Captain Marvel sequel, The Marvels (2022), which will be a major movie.

The MCU has also cast a Muslim actor (Mahershala Ali) as the lead in a reboot of Blade. That's going to be big news when it starts filming.

So to the showrunners on The Boys, I say this: now you've done this small angle of 'all Muslim characters are terrorists, yuckity-yuck!' like we've seen in major superhero movies thus far, and you've brushed that aside in favor of focusing on other whiter villains, my question is will you come back to Muslim and MENA characters again? Or is that all you got?

Because if that was ALL, then the current score is Disney/MCU:02, Netflix:02, DCEU:02, and The Boys: a big ZERO as far as Muslim and MENA rep goes.

-

Originally posted on my blog, magnificently nerdy.

If you, like me, are always on the lookout for onscreen Muslim and MENA characters in superhero media, and have spotted any characters in superhero TV shows I haven’t watched yet, let me know about them!

Here is my post on good guys, featuring Old Guard’s Joe, and Blindspot’s Rich Dotcom.

Here’s my post about the Tarazi siblings on DC’s Legends of Tomorrow TV show.

And, if Marvels’ Eternals gets released on schedule for 2021, we will have a MENA actor portraying a supporting character. I just hope Marvel gives him a name.

[ouyangzizhensdad]

Hey, feel free to ignore this, but I'd love to hear your grievances against Bridgerton? I saw some of the fashion posts you rbed, but I'm especially intrigued by the "fails on all aspects" parts? Thanks!

Hi there,

There is honestly so much that could be said and analysed in finer points but the short version of it is just that it is a bad story wrapped in the glitz of high production value but surprisingly little good technical execution despite all the money shoveled at it. Bridgerton is the type of show where the petty, mean side of me would delight in a detailed and cutthroat list of all of its flaws but for which I do not care enough to be actually invested in hating it. It’s just a thing to be puzzled and petty about: people think Bridgerton is good. Wild.

Now let me first say that I have no inherent problems with anachronistic creative choices, or the idea of a contemporary take on period dramas. After all, all period dramas are inevitably told through a contemporary lens, to different degrees. It’s also not like they were the first big production to do it either: has everyone just forgot about The Great Gatsby? or tumblr’s favourite Hamilton? I honestly think this kind of mixing already has so many cool outcomes when it comes to music (like this, this or this and this), I do believe we could get something really interesting out of creative anachronism in mainstream visual media. I’m also more forgiving with newer forms of experimentation, because sometimes new ideas need to be worked out before they reach their full potential. But the way Bridgerton does it.... so clearly lacks a clear creative vision and dedication to the concept imo that it makes it harder to excuse the ways it fails since the failures seem to originate from that lack of vision and dedication to storytelling. For instance, there is seemingly no logic as to when the diegetic music will be an instrumental cover of a contemporary song or not--which does not even broach the topic of how bad those ‘classical music’ arrangements for modern songs were? Honestly embarrassing how lazy those arrangements were: hire a good composer (or any at all), you cowards. And then the costumes... once again, a lack of internal logic seems to permeate the choices presented in addition to a lack of care in its execution: so many of the dresses are ill-fitted, the characterisation through the outfits were all over the place (like the mom who wore a silhouette that no one else wore and had no basis in any fashion of the era) and so many of the fabrics/jewellery looked the opposite of expensive (kind of looked like a lot of it was polyester and plastic tbh), which is sort of a problem when you are trying to sell the fantasy of "The lives of the rich and famous but make it regency” imo although I suppose a portion of the audience just doesn’t notice lmao. Honestly I find that a lot of ‘costume historians’ who made video essays on Bridgerton were too nice with the show, perhaps in order not to come off as seeming to hate the costumes on the basis of them not being historically accurate, and as a result were way too forgiving imo. And this lack of real creative vision is also something we see in the cinematography and direction which.... seems often confused about the way it wants to make things feel fantastical and ends up dropping the ball on the execution of these meant-to-be extravagant or over-the-top shots.

But, again, the cinematography is just... middling at best, made only worse by the editing which is just plain bad. I guess you’ll have to just take me on my word on this because I am not willing to do an autopsy of all I find off about it, but lord jesus mary and joseph it was painful to watch at certain moments.

Bridgerton is not the first show to do colourblind casting, although I’d say it deserves recognition for fucking it up for no reason at all. Like, sure there are criticisms to be had about how it remains still a very white story that falls into certain tropes wrt darker skin characters or the glaring lack of south asian representation considering what the contemporary UK looks like, etc. but what I’m gesturing at is the totally unnecessary but mind-boggling “royal love solved racism” twist we get in the, what, fourth episode? (Broey Deschannel covered the topic quite well imo) The audience would have accepted that there were no in-world explanation for the colourblind version of the already-made fantastical regency that had them dancing to Ariana Grande songs. The colourblindness, racism-free society would have just been another aspirational aspect. They literally did not need to do this.

Honestly I don’t feel like I need to get into why the story itself is not very good or well-executed since it feels very obvious. I won’t begrudge on principle the show for using well-worn tropes and common-to-the-point-of-farce character archetypes, but I have to object to the way it uses them and in the service of what story. And not to make myself in a plot-hole-ding kind of person-who-has-thoughts-about-media, but this is not a story that holds up well to scrutiny or logic, let’s say. And any type of social or political commentary it tried to include was dumb to the point of farce: the Feminist Character Who Wants to Read not Go Dance was just.... a masterclass in bad, embarrassing writing. I am surprised at how unlikeable and boring the vast majority of the characters were, but perhaps less surprised at how a series that planned on having multiple seasons already sold the twist of Lady Whistleblow’s identity at the end of the first season, for what seemed to be no narrative reason at all. That being said, I have to give credit where it’s due and acknowledge that there is a skill in being able to produce stories that get extremely popular and well-loved.

(Do I need to mention the performances? So many underwhelming or embarrassing performances. It’s hard to tell sometimes whether it’s the actors themselves or the directing that’s the issue, or a mixture of both, but.... oof).

I guess in the end Bridgerton’s biggest transgression is it sits for me in the uncomfortable middle where it is neither trashy or campy fun nor is it an interesting work of fiction. Differently put, it is simply neither good nor fun.

[thequibblah]

directors cut for WTRF? 🥺👉👈 not biased at all obviously just objective third party asking for a directors cut hmmm hmmmmm

literally how could u do this every other word in that fic is an easter egg i can't shut up about..... bestie u are about to have regrets

one thing u should know is that 90% of things in this fic have real-world equivalents and its not even like....... hidden equivalents. serie primo = serie a, for instance. this trend is going to continue and i won't apologise <3

fun fact i named the bar the Bar and the drinks after shapes because i was too lazy to come up with something actually clever

this bit

I’m grinning to myself by the time she approaches my table.

was a very intentional fakeout and if you read this and thought "she" would be lily, feel free to sue me for emotional damages

the biggest conundrum of this AU was, how are jily not going to have met in school when magic exists? the solution was, of course, having multiple magic schools. but i couldn't let one of them have hogwarts, that didn't seem fair. i know i did sort of let lily have it..... but i felt more comfortable making hogwarts a university so there was a legit reason why james wasn't there and in gryffindor (if he'd gone he absolutely would have been)

once solved, i did the fun thing of naming them! ottaline gambol's was easy, i just scrolled through the list of ministers for magic and picked a progressive one. peverell hall was a whim, made all the funnier when lily's reaction is:

Much was made at Otty’s — one of the more progressive magical schools, named for one of the more progressive Ministers of Magic — of schools like Peverell Hall and St. George’s. The latter, I know, is chock-full of pureblooded elite. Peverell Hall is supposed to be slightly better, but still.

dang, it's gonna be funny if she ever finds out james is a descendant of the guy it's named after

fun fact, i included this because peter's question was a real thought i had when reading bond and free, your inspiring writing knows no limits:

The first thing you conjure in Walking Wombat is a yellow quill... “Why yellow?” Peter asked. Eddie gave him a strange look. “Why not?”

i realised i'd put jily in the same conundrum they had in tis the fucking season here:

It’s only then that I remember she’s just bought us drinks. I turn back to my triangle. “Oh, shit.” I suppose I can pawn it off on one of the others.

...but of course the resolution is rather different, and i do so enjoy a james with no filter (aka default james)

I briefly lose control of my brain and my tongue. “Is it too soon to say I’m in love with you?”

by the way, no-filter james will be a theme. wild things sure do run fast but not as fast as this boy runs his mouth!

also, another interesting challenge here was making sure james has a reason to be the way he is in AU. i love playing around with james's childhood/background and seeing how that affects his character while (hopefully!) staying true to who he is. i did that in ttfs by having him move around a lot and not meet the marauders until after the flashback timeline, which is why he's less of a git — he doesn't have the level of comfort in a social setting that canon james has with hogwarts, which is basically his playground from day 2 of first year lol

here, james was probably a fkn nightmare all through school, but of course he gets a big ego check when his quidditch career is derailed. i imagine his years in italy as a continuation of that humility lesson.

I will fully admit I used to be a cocky prick. This is what comes of being a kid who grew up with everything. But one useful thing that the whole fiasco four years ago taught me is humility. I’ve learned how to ask nicely for another chance.

and so much of writing him in wtrf is juggling that typical confidence with the insecurity/fear of losing something he's invested so much in (and has seen slip away before). it's really new to me, because typically i give lily uncertain life circumstances, but i suppose it's both of them in this AU.

the car thing was... i swear didn't start out as smutty, it was purely because i wanted a way to establish lily as muggleborn in a world where the connotations of not having magical parents is very different. more to come on that!

also, come to think of it, by this metric...

I’m now in dangerous territory, since that adds another impressive action to her running tally.

...i think james is already in love with her LOL

this bit:

The street is considered indecent and the downstairs hallway would have our landlady come running at once, so if it pleases Your Honour, we would recommend the sitting room sofa.

...was actually because in draft one lily was a lawyer, but then it was funny enough that i didn't want to take it out, but NOW i realise it makes it sound a little like she's addressing james as your honour, which.... hm. but anyway, we move on

Marc Bolan begs us to get it on through the stereo, vocalising my thoughts exactly.

the song here was initially "you shook me" (h/t @keepingupwithpotters) but i chickened out because zeppelin is SO horny dfjkhgkjs

also, it gave me so much joy to read everyone reacting to lily thinking about her ex (the general vibe was "who the fuck is this guy!!! ew!!!!") — rest assured (or, unassured??) that he has a part to play in all this. anyway, this is one of my fave lines:

He’s just a person, and there’s such a relief in sleeping with James and not the myth of a guy.

because as any come together reader knows....

Just James. Just James. It was never just James.

wtrf lily will learn!

literally the whole world knows i'm obsessed with needle drops that have no subtlety at all, but this one...

We just laugh, tangled together in a sweaty heap, as “Heaven Is in the Back Seat of My Cadillac” plays through the car’s speakers. “On the nose, isn’t it?” James says, sitting up.

...was pure luck, because i was looking up the top hits on the uk singles chart for the week(ish) this scene takes place in so that i could find a song that would realistically play on the radio, saw this, and was like omg the stars really do align

i feel like the thing i enjoy most about writing romance is the importance i get to place in noticing/looking/observing (and sometimes, not noticing!). it's just such a powerful but simple writerly tool, and god knows i am obsessed with pithy descriptions anyway, so this bit i am especially happy with:

James is already waiting, leaning against the car with his hands in his pockets. I feel as though I’m seeing him for the first time, the faint light of the flickering streetlamp catching him in profile: the strong slope of his nose, the hard line of his jaw, the curve of his smile. He studies the facade of our building with open curiosity, and I wonder what he’s looking for.

(one can only imagine james's train of thought in this moment. perhaps "ah. here lives the future love of my life"?)

“Thanks,” she tacks on at the end. I tip my head to one side in confusion. “For what?” “For, I don’t know. Being nice.” She laughs awkwardly. “I don’t do this very much.”

it wouldn't be a quibblah original tee em without some discourse to come about the nature of romantic/sexual relationships, would it? one thing i enjoy about this AU ("one thing" i say as if this isn't the billionth thing in a list) is that i get to write a romantic lily who's squaring that romanticism with what she perceives as the culture of the times. (this is a bit of a staple in all my characterisations of lily, but it is not often paired with casual sex, the complication of all complications!)

oh this bit literally wrote itself like i didn't even pause to think just vomited it out:

In the morning — and it must be early still — the sun streams through Lily’s sorry excuses for curtains with aggression that cannot be ignored. I crack open an eye to find myself sprawled out across her bed, quite literally spread-eagled. She’s attached to my side like a barnacle. Or a very pretty barnacle, anyway.

i'm especially proud of james's voice in this story. i don't often write first-person fic and i was worried how it'd turn out, but i think james as a character/narrator typically colours his own 3rd-person narration so strongly that it ended up a smoother transition than i'd feared!

also i just. i can't resist throwing in comic relief and i hope that this whole segment was a gentle enough preparation for the awkwardness that followed LOL

All of a sudden, the balcony door bursts open. I nearly drop the mug. “What the—” Mary pokes her head around the corner, sporting a righteous smile. “Morning, handsome.” Over her shoulder she shouts, “He’s on the balcony!” I blink. There’s a sound from inside the flat, as if something very large has just been dropped. Then a swear. “Oh, shit,” I say, realisation dawning, “you weren’t looking for me, were you? It’s so loud out here—” Mary cups a hand around her mouth and stage-whispers, “Lily was frantic.” She’s quite violently yanked back, and Lily herself appears in the doorway, slightly out of breath. “Should’ve checked the balcony first,” she says, and closes the door before Mary can insert herself into the space again. “Hi,” I say, which is agreed-upon best practice for greeting a woman you’ve just had fantastic sex with and ideally would like to have sex with again.

to this day i don't know what lily dropped. let's hope it wasn't expensive!

Captained the under-17 English squad at the World Cup some years back, Serie Primo’s lead goal-scorer of last year… Only an injury in what should’ve been his first season at Puddlemere mars his record. I wince reading about it and comparing it to a heap of press clippings. James Potter was hurt, and Puddlemere didn’t fancy paying for him not to play, so they shipped him off to Milan.

(you cannot imagine how much pointed interrogation of my brother it took to gather this intel.) i constantly worry that i've got dates or timelines wrong somehow — you might notice i tweaked under-17, which used to be under-19 until i realised that made no sense (even though in terms of its career importance i would much preferred it to have been u-19.... anyway). i also found out that u-17 football squads don't actually have captains but i said fuck it on that count.

but obviously i started writing this AU for the sports possibilities, only to discover i'm going to have to interfere a great deal with the Timeline (you shall see in future instalments).

god i really went through the whole fic. like i reread the whole thing to do this. here u go clare jfbghjfd

[gallavictorious]

I really wish people would stop excusing their favorite character's actions with convoluted theories instead of just accepting that their faves aren't perfect. Ian should not be comparing Terry and Frank. Full stop. Especially not to Mickey's face, when Mickey is in the middle of trying to deal with the complicated feelings he has about the father that raped him by proxy and tried to actually murder him. It's ok to say "yeah you're right I don't know what you're going through but I'm here" and not make it into a shitty father competition.

And I really wish people would refrain from making groundless assumptions and recognize that trying to understand a character's motivation for doing something does not equal taking a stance on whether or not the action discussed is morally sound but alas, nonnie, we live in an imperfect world.

For those just turning in, this ask was received in response to my addition to this post.

Now, nonnie, if I understand you correctly, you disapprove of what I wrote because you see it as 1, an attempt to excuse Ian's behavior because 2, he's my favourite character and 3, therefore I can't stand to have him do something wrong. You also think that, no matter his motivations, Ian shouldn't be comparing Frank to Terry. Below, I'll quickly refutate points 2 and 3, as well as detail the difference between explanations and excuses and – hopefully – demonstrate why you can't with any sort of certainty claim that the offending post is an example of the latter. I will not really engage with the question of whether or not Ian was wrong for saying what he did, because (as we shall return to forthwith) that was not the issue originally discussed, it doesn't actually interest me, and as you do not offer any sort of reasoning for your moral judgment there really isn't anything for me to work with there anyway.

Strap in, kids; it's another long one.

Let's start with your claim that Ian is my favourite. I'm not actually going to spell it out there, but instead direct you to paragraphs 3-7 of this post. A little lazy, perhaps, but I'm sure you can appreciate why I have limited time to point out the same basic flaws twice in a fairly short period of time. (Should I pin a pic of me holding up a little sign reading ”Actually, Mickey is my favourite, even though I love Ian too” to the top of my blog? Would that be helpful?)

Moving on to point 3, I do agree with the general notion that it's fine to accept that the characters we love (no matter who that character is) are flawed and make mistakes! If you had taken the time to familiarize yourself with my thoughts on Ian and Mickey – or if you had, you know, just asked – instead of jumping to completely unsubstantiated conclusions based on a single post, you might even have realized that them being fucked up and making fucked up choices from time to time is one of the things I find most compelling about them. They are messy and complicated and human, and I love that. I neither think nor want either of them to perfect, because perfection is unrealistic is static is boring.

With that out of the way, let's get to excuses versus explanations. If one confuses the two, any attempt to discuss or explain a persons behavior will be construed as an attempt to excuse it, but to understand something and to condone it are actually two different things.

For instance, I can explain and understand why Mickey acted the way he did in 3x09, but still think kicking Ian in the face was wrong. I can explain and understand why Ian called Mickey a coward and a pussy in 4x11 but still think he was wrong for doing so. Do you see? Understanding – or trying to understand – why someone did something is not the same as saying that what they did was okay. Understanding the reasons for someone's actions might lessen the severity of our condemnation (for instance, stealing is generally considered wrong, but most of use would agree that stealing bread to feed your kid is less wrong than stealing bread because you're too stingy to pay for it) or might remove condemnation entirely (hitting someone because you are angry with them is wrong, hitting someone as part of consensual BDSM sex is fine), but understanding an action does not automatically lead to declaring said action morally correct. In short, ”why did X do Y” and ”was X right or wrong do to Y” are two different questions, and the fact that our answer to the second question often is at least partly dependent on our understanding of the first does not change that.

So explanations and excuses are not the same. And yet, sometimes the reasons for doing something (or failing to do something) are offered up as an excuse; as a reason why someone should not be held responsible for their actions, or why they were correct in performing/not performing them in the first place. That neatly leads us to the question of whether or not that's what's actually happening in the post you took exception to. And the answer to that is... you can't know. What boys-night and I discuss in the post is what Ian is actually doing (is he trying to compare trauma och convince Mickey he had it worse) and why he is doing it; that is, we are trying to understand and explain his behavior. Neither of us make any sort of statement on whether or not he was right or wrong for saying or doing what he did: that's just not the topic of conversation. Now, maybe I do think his motivations means that he's morally justified in what he said; maybe I don't. My point is that you can't know that just from what you've read in the post. You might draw some tentative conclusions, and they may be correct, but you don't know, and the reasonable and responsible way to go from there is to seek clarification by asking (polite) questions, not aggressively throwing around accusations about others grasping for straws in a despertae attempt to exonerate their favorites from wrongdoing.

(And just to remind you, even if I were making excuses for Ian, it wouldn't be because he's my favourite or becuase I can't bear to have him do wrong.)

You are perfectly free to disagree with any of the points made in the post, by the way, but you need to recognize that what we're disagreeing on then is motivation, not morality.

And, oh, of course it would have been okay to say "yeah you're right I don't know what you're going through but I'm here", but that's not what Ian did. Now, if you are happy to go ”ah, Ian fucked up, he's not perfect” and move on, that's fine. You do you, nonnie, and if analysis and discussion of character motivations isn't your jam then it isn't and I'm sure no one is going to force you to engage in it. (And if they try to, you can simply say ”I don't care” and walk away.) However, to be perfectly honest I am a bit perplexed that you should be so indignant over other fans trying to make sense of his actions. Do you still feel that way now that you – hopefully – understand that trying to explain a characters' behavior doesn't necessarily mean trying to excuse it? I mean, surely you are aware of the fact that people usually have reasons for acting the way they do, even if the way they act is shitty or misguided? (Note that I'm not saying that Ian's actions were shitty and misguided. That is not the discussion we're having.) I am rather curious, actually, as to what you think Ian's motivations were? Do you imagine he was deliberatedly diminishing Mickey's trauma? Why, if so? Do you perhaps think that he is obsessed with being The Most Victim and thus takes every opportunity to list all the ways Frank sucked? Or maybe that his mouth just moves without any thought or reason and the words just randomly happened?

To be fair, it seems that Ian's motivations is not something you consider relevant: you write that ”Ian should not be comparing Terry and Frank. Full stop.” And that's absolutely a moral stance you can take, albeit certainly not the only one. Maybe Ian shouldn't have said what he said Had you given any reasons for this verdict, I might even have agreed with you because I can think of several reasons why it might be better if Ian refrained from comparing Terry and Frank, no matter his motivations. (And I might not, because I can also think of several reasons why such a comparision might be justified, even though Terry is clearly the more evil of the two.) However, we shall never know, because you fail to back up your claim. I guess that's because you deem it self-evident? It is not, and until you provide any sort of reasoning for your grand proclamation, I won't engage with the question. Not going to shadow-box with you, nonnie, or do your work for you; if you want a discussion, make your case properly. Though maybe make it elsewhere – as previously noted, passing judgement on the characters is not my primary interest when discussing them. I am much more intrigued by trying to understand why characters do and say what they do and say.

Phew. Okay, that's me done, I think. I realize that you might not be very impressed with this answer, nonnie, but I hope it may to some degree reassure you that no sneaky attempt to excuse my favourite character's actions with convoluted theories was made by this humble blogger. Not this time, at least.

[artemis-entreri]

[[ This post contains Part 6 of my review/analysis of the Forgotten Realms/Drizzt novel, Boundless, by R. A. Salvatore. As such, the entirety of this post’s content is OOC. ]]

Genre: Fantasy

Series: Generations: Book 2 | Legend of Drizzt #35 (#32 if not counting The Sellswords)

Publisher: Harper Collins (September 10, 2019)

My Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

Additional Information: Artwork for the cover of Boundless and used above is originally done by Aleks Melnik. This post CONTAINS SPOILERS. Furthermore, this discussion concerns topics that I am very passionate about, and as such, at times I do use strong language. Read and expand the cut at your own discretion.

Contents:

Introduction

I. Positives I.1 Pure Positives I.2 Muddled Positives

II. Mediocre Writing Style II.1 Bad Descriptions II.2 Salvatorisms II.3 Laborious “Action”

III. Poor Characterization III.1 “Maestro” III.2 Lieutenant III.3 Barbarian III.4 “Hero” III.5 Mother

IV. World Breaks IV.1 Blinders Against the Greater World IV.2 Befuddlement of Earth and Toril IV.3 Self-Inconsistency IV.4 Dungeon Amateur IV.5 Utter Nonsense

V. Ego Stroking V.1 The Ineffable Companions of the Hall V.2 Me, Myself, and I

VI. Problematic Themes (you are here) VI.1 No Homo VI.2 Disrespect of Women VI.3 Social-normalization VI.4 Eugenics

VII. What’s Next VII.1 Drizzt Ascends to Godhood VII.2 Profane Redemption VII.3 Passing the Torch VII.4 Don’t Notice Me Senpai

Problematic Themes

No Homo

Boundless continues to perpetuate some long-standing regressive to outright harmful ideas, as well as introducing new ones. There are two that are the biggest. The first is something that's existed for over two decades in the Drizzt books, and something that I've criticized Salvatore for for a long time: the fetishization of sapphic relationships. While Boundless is an improvement (and a bit of an oddity for Salvatore) in that it doesn't include any gratuitous lesbian sex scenes or allusions, it still very much perpetuates an imbalanced representation, such that it wouldn't be fair to describe it as true representation. Yet again, despite it being canon that the default sexuality in the Realms is pansexuality as opposed to heterosexuality in our world, the only people that we see in Boundless that are capable of same sex attractions are female. Ever since the token gay guy Afrafrenfere's epiphany that everything else he'd been engaged in, which includes his deceased boyfriend, was a distraction from enlightenment, there hasn't been so much of an implication that men could be attracted to other men in Salvatore's Realms. There exists more chemistry between Harbonair and Zaknafein than between Zaknafein and Dab'nay, which is rather sad given that the latter pair are actively sexual with each other. There's of course the possibility that Salvatore just doesn't know how to write gay male chemistry, but to be fair, his heterosexual chemistry is pretty bad. Most of it is just sex or another physical act spontaneously happening that triggers a change in the nature of the relationship, for instance, the start of the relationship between Entreri and Calihye. There's so much background "everyone is heterosexual" stuff going on that to be inclusive, Salvatore just needs to mention that there's more than one man in an orgy rather than it always being one man to many women. Or, better yet, use an example directly from the world canon that other authors have used, namely, that the workers of a brothel or attendants in a temple of Sune are of more than one gender and that a male client is greeted by both male, female, and other gender-identifying attendants. Casual inclusion of this nature isn't difficult, and we see Salvatore do it with sapphic stuff enough that leads me to believe that it's a choice on his part not to be fully inclusive. 

An example of when Salvatore could've gone for inclusion, but instead went for fetishization, is in the scene of Dahlia infiltrating a Waterdhavian nobles' ball:

This isn't much better than gratuitous lesbian sex scenes at the total exclusion of gay men. It's completely unnecessary for Salvatore to have specified that women also drooled after Dahlia; simply stating "people" would've been sufficient. It's not like Salvatore doesn't have many chances and setups where he can drop a hint that gay men exist in the Realms like he does so frequently for gay women. Oftentimes, Salvatore's writing feels very much like he realizes that there's "too much" chemistry between two male characters, such that he has to throw in a "NO HOMO" wrench. For instance:

While there isn't anything inherently gay in this passage, there isn't anything inherently gay in so many places where Salvatore artificially injected "these women are sapphic" indicators. Yet here, between two male characters, it's specifically clarified that it's brotherly love. Love is love, it shouldn't have to be clarified like this. Sure, some people might jump to romantic love, but so what? This was a good opportunity to at the very least, leave it vague, but apparently Salvatore can't stomach it enough that he has to cross the possibility out with a bold black marker (maybe its the same sharpie he uses on the tapestry of Faerûn). It's as though the possibility of romantic love between two men somehow taints the sacredness of their bond. Salvatore's writing style is very old-fashioned and set in its ways, but that's no excuse not to change. Despite his espoused views on social media, Salvatore's lack of representation in his writing suggests a discomfort that he doesn't want to address. This is increasingly problematic as we try to push to a better world with more acceptance and equality. Inclusion isn't truly inclusion if it's done with only a portion of the population. 

Disrespect of Women

What Salvatore does with sapphic women is fetishization, which is additionally problematic because it's a short hop from objectification of women. This point is one that I haven't touched on much in the past, but it's glaring in Boundless because in this novel, Salvatore also tries to demonstrate respect of women. Salvatore has a long history of poorly-written female characters. In his books, a female character's most redeeming characteristics were that she was hot and young. For a while, I could tell which female characters were there to stay, which were doomed to die from the get-go, and which would suffer horribly as they met their inevitable end. It always had to do with how physically attractive the character was, and usually with respect to how she measured up to Catti-brie's beauty. Not counting female villains like Sheila Kree who were not coincidentally unattractive, protagonist characters weren't spared this treatment. For instance, Delly Curtie didn't hold a candle to Catti and could barely find happiness with Catti's rejected suitor. By the same token, Innovindil, who, despite being a full-blooded elf, wasn't as beautiful as Catti, and was subsequently very short-lived. Dahlia, another full-blooded elf who wasn't as beautiful as Catti, admittedly didn't die (yet), but what she went through is arguably worse. Dahlia is portrayed to be very much second best to Catti, from her looks to her rejection by Drizzt to Catti outright beating Dahlia in a fight. So, of course, Dahlia gets stuck with Entreri, who's frequently portrayed as second best to Drizzt. Salvatore does deserve credit for trying to break the mold with Penelope Harpell and Wulfgar, but Penelope's appearance doesn't leave much of an impression. We're reminded multiple times that she's an older woman, and the focus is on her personality, but with how often younger female characters' physical appearance is mentioned and re-mentioned, it gives the impression that Salvatore doesn't believe older women can be physically attractive. As always, Catti-brie was an exception to the rule, for even in her mid-forties, "her form, a bit thicker with age, perhaps, but still so beautiful and inviting to [Drizzt]", a characterization that follows another sentence describing how beautiful she was barely a page prior. But we don't hear such about Penelope, instead, we're told about the strengths of her personality, which are admirable, but only become the focus for her, rather than for a young-appearing strong female character like Yvonnel the Second. This is not to mention that someone's form probably shouldn't be characterized as inviting, as that is something the person should do, not something done by the person's looks. The objectification of women is problematic enough on its own, but instead of addressing the issue, Salvatore appears to consider it sufficient to put in a significant anecdote featuring a temporary character to prove that he is an ally to women. The mysterious "demon" possessing the little girl Sharon is painted as a moral adjudicator, entrapping the evil in its unbreakable cocoons filled with wasps that have human faces. Before this "demon" entraps Entreri, it ensnares an old man, whom we're simply told is an old lecher, with no insight about what makes him such and what wrongdoings he'd committed. All we know is that he and his wife attempted to kidnap Sharon and threatened to kill her if she resisted. It's not very clear what's going on in that scenario or what the couple's intentions were. The man's description shifts suddenly from nothing to "old lecher", and he is damned to an eternity of suffering. But how was he a lecher? Was Salvatore trying to imply that he intended to sexually assault Sharon? Or was human trafficking one of his many sins, with the "lecher" part referring to how he is towards women? While all of these crimes certainly warrant harsh punishment, the message that Salvatore's trying to convey isn't clear. Furthermore, the anecdote gives the reader zero satisfaction in the guy's punishment, because we're only marginally invested in what's happened. His anecdote is nothing more than a cheap and lazy setup to illustrate what the "demon" can do.

Social-normalization

The second of the two worst among Salvatore's long-standing problematic themes is the simplified and social-normative qualifications of what makes a person worthwhile. To put it simply, one is good and just if they are the Companions of the Hall and/or act like them, despite the many many ways that the Companions behave unheroically and hypocritically. On the flip side, one who doesn't subscribe to or follow the model of the Companions is evil, bad, or not worthy of existence unless they change to become like the Companions. Of the latter group, it isn't sufficient to change to become a different version of themselves. For instance, during the demonic assault, Zaknafein throws himself into the fray of battle, risking his life, yet again, for his ungrateful son. Yet, Drizzt's takeaway from watching his father do this is, "joy to see his father so willingly risking his life for the cause of the goodly folk of the Crags". There appears to be a subconscious inconsistency here on Salvatore's part, for he even writes that Zaknafein helps the dwarves because Zaknafein knows it's what his son wants him to do, so removing Drizzt from the picture, Zaknafein wouldn't be doing it solely on behalf of the dwarves. Zaknafein isn't Drizzt, and that's a good thing, for not everything needs to be a Drizzt clone, but Salvatore doesn't seem to agree with that assessment. 

Salvatore doesn't seem to realize that Drizzt is the problematic one. Boundless represents a point in time in which it's been awhile since Zaknafein has returned. During this time, while Zaknafein has been trying to adapt and adjust his worldviews, Drizzt's perspective hasn't changed at all, despite Jarlaxle spending a great amount of time talking to him about Zaknafein and presumably helping Drizzt get past the initial emotional turmoil of the return of Zaknafein and his own struggles with reconciling the past and the present. There's also a double-standard here, for while Entreri is forced to change because enough time has gone by, Drizzt isn't. 

It really seems to be the message that the only characters that are good and valid need to be as close to Drizzt as possible, and this belief applied to Entreri has been the cause of the assassin's increasingly poor characterization. Entreri has become a "better person" by the narrator's approximation, a quality that is, yet again, not coincidentally synonymous to being an ally to the Companions of the Hall. Artemis Entreri may very well have become a better version of himself, but that is not, and should not be, becoming more like the Companions of the Hall. By whose definition is "a better person" anyway? By Drizzt's? By the Companions'? It's often the case that those that believe that they are the definition of what's right and define others' morality relative to themselves are the least qualified to do so. 

Eugenics

Although not as prominent as the two themes already mentioned, one final consistent problematic theme of Salvatore's in the Drizzt books that I'd like to discuss is the idea that mediocrity and excellence are inherited traits. Boundless reminds us yet again that all of the offspring of Rizzen are as unpromising as he is, and while it isn't specifically stated that all the offspring of Zaknafein is very much otherwise, we have over thirty books basically telling us that so it probably doesn't need to be repeated. While it is true that genetics do play a role in determining what makes up a person, genetics do not lock in guaranteed results. Yet, the undistinguished Rizzen sired "the mediocrity of Nalfein", and as though that insult wasn't bad enough, "His pants fell down, too. Again, and as expected, unimpressive." Dinin "would do Rizzen proud", but that's not saying a whole lot because it was in the context of the total failure of Nalfein. There's a further level of problematic theme here, for perpetuating the stereotype that a man's worth is at all related to the size of his genitalia. All of that aside, not everyone is privileged enough to be born to top specimens, and those that weren't inherently already have a struggle on their hands. They don't deserve to have the idea that they'll be mediocre no matter what perpetuated. Genetics might be what makes an individual, but what defines them is the actions that they take.

[riviae]

Regis and/or Dettlaff for the character headcanon meme (ya know, if a hundred others haven't already asked lol)

character meme (accepting!): under a read more due to length 

Regis: 

favorite thing about them:

besides his obvious kind heart & unflinching loyalty, i love how passionate he is about things!! dude’s been alive for 400+ yrs & he still wants to travel, to make friends, to learn, to teach, to heal, to share his interests & knowledge. he loves life–loves humanity (cdpr can miss me w/ his referencing humans as mosquitoes metaphor nonsense)–& is my favorite example of a good redemption story/character. 

least favorite thing about them: 

he can be… rather pretentious at times. but to his credit, he never really belittles or alienates anyone in the hansa–it’s more like he has a lot of ‘high-brow’ interests for the time/setting (not counting distilling, of course) & in sharing/explaining them, he goes a bit over the top. i don’t think it’s on purpose, but case in point… not everything has to be a lecture, ya know? 

favorite line: 

kinda cheating on this, but my favorite scene of anything ever is this one from lady of the lake: 

“Well,” sighed Regis. “Have it your way. I’ll have to avoid mirrors and dogs, and will have to beware of sorcerers and telepaths… And if I’m still exposed, I’m counting on you.”“You can count on me,” Geralt said seriously. “I’m not in the habit of leaving a friend in need.”The vampire smiled and because they were alone, he did not hide his fangs. “Friend?”

now specifically from b&w, i like this line from Regis’ journal: People justify bad deeds by good intentions. I’m not sure if there is greater idiocy

brOTP: 

geralt/regis (which you’ll also see in the otp section), regis/yen (goth-nerd solidarity & also they both love geralt so jot that down), & regis/angouleme (he’s a wonderful uncle figure to angouleme)

also if regis ever got to meet vesemir i’m 100% sure they’d have gotten along swimminglg

OTP: 

geralt/regis–it’s my lifeblood babey

nOTP: 

romance-wise, any regis/hansa member that isn’t geralt is just not my cup of tea as well as regis/dett****

random headcanon

after his second regeneration, he became wearier around unknown sorcerers/sorceresses/magic users (w/ the exception of yen). at one point, geralt had decided to light a candle near regis using igni w/o really thinking abt it & noticed that regis had visibly flinched. geralt apologized immediately & now lets regis know when he’s abt to light something using magic (’normal’ fires, those not started by magic, don’t bother him. so it’s less of an aversion to fire & more of an aversion to fire made thru magic).

unpopular opinion: 

i don’t really like his sideburns or hairline–not bc i think the design is bad per se (i think it solidified his intro in b&w as a more scholarly character), but bc i think it ages him much more than necessary. when the other 2 higher vampires (dettlaff, orianna, hell–even the unseen elder), look much younger, then it just seems unusual imo. a middle-aged tax collector w/ a crooked nose is how sapkowski describes him & idk, i think cdpr just wanted to give regis a more stereotypical scholarly look instead of using descriptions from the books. 

song i associate with them:

when i’m in an angst™ mood, this song is what makes me think of regis (& higher vampires in the witcher series in general). it’s called far from home (the raven) by sam tinnesz 

favorite picture of them (i’m too lazy to do this but assume every picture of regis is my fave)

Dettlaff: 

favorite thing about them

his hobbies! woodworking & building toys for kids is nice™; cdpr should’ve at least given us a tiny scene of him tinkering on stuff. presumably he has a caring nature given that he nursed regis back to health but once again, cdpr couldn’t be bothered to flesh out the interesting aspects of his character & instead gave us an albeit cool but ultimately unnecessary boss battle :/ 

least favorite thing about them

oof, his lack of patience & propensity towards violence. well, perhaps propensity is the wrong word; i mean that in a character who is powerful/deadly (in which even a brief lapse in judgement could mean death for another), a hair trigger temper is... not going to endear me to them. for instance, i don’t think that dettlaff went to tesham mutna with the intent of killing syanna--i don’t think he knew himself what he would do upon seeing her. BUT, he still did it--& i’m sorry but killing an unarmed/defenseless (presumably unarmed, but even if she were armed it wouldn’t change the fact that she was defenseless against him & dettlaff knew that) woman in a fit of rage (who yes, wronged dettlaff greatly) speaks of a deeper problem relating to his inability to process his emotions. 

i originally thought that cdpr was going to do some cool parallels between dettlaff and geralt bc both have issues w/ emotion but in different ways (i.e., dettlaff has difficulty controlling his while geralt has trouble expressing them), but they shared maybe a handful of sentences w/ each other before the conclusion of the dlc so yeah D: 

favorite line: 

“If you acknowledge any gods... start praying, now.” 

brOTP: 

regis/dettlaff is pretty much it/the only relationship i find interesting in b&w for dett anyway 

OTP: 

dettlaff/character development 

nOTP: 

mentioned in regis’ list above, but i also am not a fan of geralt/dett

random headcanon: 

his “pack” up until syanna consisted almost entirely of orphaned lower vampires. whether due to their family dying or abandoning them, dett’s reserved & calming demeanor makes it easier for LVs to trust him. he’s nursed plenty of injured LVs back to health & when he passed thru the remnants of stygga castle, he did so bc he originally thought that he was following the trail of an injured LV (having caught regis’ scent). it was only when he got closer that he recognized the ‘shapeless smear’ was regis--someone he hadn’t seen in centuries--& chose to help him heal despite how taxing it would be. 

unpopular opinion

i don’t understand his popularity as a character or how his actions can be defended. his character design is great (i still wanna to buy his moth brooch tbh), he was voice acted very well, & there are hints of an interesting backstory esp in relation to why he chose to help regis regenerate, but that’s not the focus of the dlc. 

if i have to rely on regis to explain why dettlaff is a good person/deserves redemption/etc., then that’s lazy writing. i love regis to death, but he, like anna henrietta, was blind to/didn’t want to see his loved one’s faults/misdeeds. u can’t make an unbiased character judgement on someone you’re close to and indebted to imo. 

granted, regis himself is an example of dett’s charity since he is alive & well (& also is stressed af bc of dettlaff), but does one good deed wash away all the death he later commits in the attack on beauclair? motivation or not, murder is murder, plain & simple. i can forgive but not condone regis’ actions in his youth bc, arguably, regis was already punished severely for it & chose to change/become a better person. cdpr didn’t give us an option to allow dett to be punished for his crimes (in something other than death--which i don’t think he nor syanna deserve) or let us know if he eventually grows to be a better person w/ the help of regis & so i can only care for him in the respect that i mourn the character he (& syanna) could’ve been. 

in summary: everything i dislike abt dettlaff is entirely due to a lack of care when it came to fleshing out his character. we only see him committing acts of violence/murder, never healing or helping. we see the fallout of his anger, see that he feels grief & even remorse (like in de la croix’s death), but it doesn’t excuse the act itself. ppl are more than welcome to like or love morally dark/dubious characters, but i have an issue when a morally dubious character is painted as good or good but misunderstood. 

song i associate with them

the song inferno by sir sly gives me real dettlaff vibes: I think you clipped my wings to save me from the sunForgot my hands and knees, I had to learn a lessonOh fearless teacher how'd I ever lose my sightWhy'd I ever try to fight against your path?Somewhere at half my life, I wandered in the woodsCan't find a single right, I swear nothing is goodI'm blinded now and darkness shrouds my every sightWhy'd I ever try to fight for my own path?

favorite picture of them: 

once again, too lazy to find one, but his final form in the boss battle was cool even if it kinda went against sapkowski’s lore.

[steeledstark-blog]

some meta on sansa and arya and the evolution of their relationship through sansa's eyes?

@ofwintcrfell​ || send me stuff to meta || always accepting

Hi omg thank you so much for sending this in because look, Sansa & Arya is one dynamic I can just go on about for ages. I’ve been meaning to write this up and ew this is so long shjsgfjsf I am sorry.

 I would like to start this essay ( it literally is omfg ) with a quote, probably one MOST associated with them:

“You may be as different as the sun and the moon, but the same blood flows through both your hearts. You need her, as she needs you.”

& this always seemed to be applied to Arya’s end … but Sansa needed it just as much. She needed to realize that she needed her sister for strength, support, needed to RESPECT that Arya was not the perfect lady, that it didn’t mean that Arya just didn’t FIT into the narrative Sansa created for them. But I am getting ahead of myself, doing mini headers here to help organize myself better bc least organized hoe ever. see it under the cut bc fuck im getting this all out ok. 

CHILDHOOD

Look, Sansa was very much a perfectionist, so much of her childhood built on the assumptions she made on how life was supposed to be, everything fitting together nicely like in a song. Everything in her life, she tried to fit into songs and the social standards provided to her. She and Arya are very much Foils and so much tension from youth originates from Sansa, a lack of understanding that anyone wouldn’t devote their life to being liked, to making things easy for others. For being the perfect lady.

I don’t think things were really harsh between them back then though. Arya was annoying in her eyes, she was a pain and she was embarrassed by her, caring so much about what others think ( which really heightened in the pre-teen years ), but this quote, this one quote, really reflects how I think they had their moments. Moments which stuck with Sansa years later.

Things were simpler, they laughed and joked around, 

“She remembered a summer’s snow in Winterfell when Arya and Bran had ambushed her as she emerged from the keep one morning. They’d each had a dozen snowballs to hand, and she’d had none. Bran had been perched on the roof of the covered bridge, out of reach, but Sansa had chased Arya through the stables and around the kitchen until both of them were breathless. She might even have caught her, but she’d slipped on some ice. Her sister came back to see if she was hurt. When she said she wasn’t, Arya hit her in the face with another snowball, but Sansa grabbed her leg and pulled her down and was rubbing snow in her hair when Jory came along and pulled them apart, laughing.“ 

AND LOOK OK this is such a sisterly thing. To tease, to chase, but when things seem serious, make sure the other is okay and uninjured. When you are sure they are fine, fuckin attack them with snow, 

This pushes Sansa into embracing more of the fire which always seemed timid, meeting arya’s boldness, pulling her down, playfighting. Pulling out wolfish movements. They are laughing, this is a game to them,

This is the first instance of Arya bringing out the Stark in Sansa. And at the basis of Sansa needing her, it’s for the strength, for feeling like she can be brave too, that she can be Northern despite how people always says the South suits her. 

But then comes growing up more, and here I NEED to address something. Sansa bullied Arya. She said hurtful things, sometimes downright cruel, and it is constantly repeated in Arya’s POV chapters, clearly sticking with her. I love Sansa with all my heart but this treatment was NOT okay and it needs to be recognized. 

Why? Growing up, hormones, no adults really stopping her, Arya didn’t let it show how much the words cut. ( PSA not excusing Sansa here, she acted like most middle school girls act, my sister and I did the exact same to each other growing up at that age, we both regret it, and we both cannot tell you why, it’s that age - i know this may be a lazy excuse for it, but I really am stumped here ) 

But also after talking it out with people about sisters in general, is it a sister thing? bc i’ve heard from so many about sisters who did tease each other and it can get to that really hurtful point and yeah going to cut my ramble off here . . .

And then comes the direwolf situation, and its easiest for Sansa to place blame and frustrations on Arya, more than on the one she is convinced she can find love with and marry, more than the Queen who she admires, and most of all, it’s easier than the guilt of BLAMING HERSELF. Arya, is an unfair outlet to that, but still where she takes it out for a while.

KING’S LANDING

But you don’t realize what you have until it’s gone. Sansa didn’t. And over her time in King’s landing, she finds herself missing Arya. Finds herself constantly looking to see her. It’s not mentioned much in the books, I mean their associations has always been more mentioned in Arya’s POV chapters, but it’s here distance makes the heart stronger.

Sometimes, Sansa tries to meet eyes with the girl who is no longer there, meet eyes to be fed strength. She misses the rebellion, misses the free spirit. She believes Arya is dead and mourns her along with the rest of her household and her father.

But she can’t dwell too much, she needs to focus on survival. But this time she comes to appreciate her heritage more, regret the past, so much that she digs up what to regret and regrets it as well.

She dreams of her future, daydreams of it and when thinking of her children,

“sometimes there was even a girl who looked like arya.” perhaps showing an openness to who Arya was, an openness in her heart to try again, coming with maturing and realizing what is important. 

She dreams of seeing her family again, dreams of what she would change, and of course Arya is there. Arya, who had never deserved her blame or anger. Arya, who was different but that did not necessarily make her a bad bit in Sansa’s life. Arya, whose honest and true to self nature she much preferred to those around her.

Someone who would fight for her.

Someone, who she realized despite the cruel words exchanged, she would fight for now. 

But with Alayne Stone as a storyline as well, more of ‘ Sansa ’ is pushed down, and that includes her family, but still, Arya keeps surfacing, she cannot stop thinking about her sister.

And later on, moving into the show timeline beyond the books …

“summer is the time for squabbles” 

winter comes and the wolves come together

So upon a reunion, I imagine immediate warmth, lots of crying bc thought she was dead . .  

but a lot of uncertainty too because they are now different people, but there’s a chance actually getting to know each other? And it is something Sansa would look forward to, Approaching with an open heart.

There will be an appreciation for who she became, ( a show quote I stand by, calling Arya the strongest person she’s met, and not just by physical ability, but also emotionally and mentally ) Sansa would feel guilt for a child under appreciated and the pain she caused. And through the years she won’t stop apologizing even when told she was forgiven.

Actions would be taken to make things right between them. 

apologies, admiration, and solidarity. it is all I ask for with the future between them, and it is certain on Sansa’s end. She is never going to turn her back on family again.

And she will love Arya for all she is, and seek out the best ending for who they can become, together.

[nedraggett]

Run ragged

It didn’t work.  And while I wasn’t surprised by that, I did want to tease out why, at least for myself.

I honestly was openly skeptical of Blade Runner 2049 for a while, so I can’t hide my bias there.  I wasn’t totally ‘salt the earth and never mention it again’ then and am certainly not saying that now.  But each new trailer left me feeling more ‘uh...really?’ and the explosion of immediate praise from many critics even more so.  I wasn’t contrarian, and neither did I think groupthink was at work, but I suspected a massive wish fulfillment was. 

So I generally avoided reactions after that and figured I’d wait for things to die down a bit -- even more quickly than I might have guessed, seeing its swiftly collapsing commercial performance over here. My Sunday early afternoon showing near here was about maybe 2/3 full on its third weekend, so it’s found an audience, but I’m in San Francisco -- I expected an audience there. Enough friends have posted theater shots where they were the only person in the room to know this is dying off as an across the board thing, and never probably was.

I’m not glad it failed, but I’m not surprised -- in fact, being more blunt, I think it deserved not to be a hit.  The key reason for me played itself out over its length -- it was boring.  It’s a very boring movie.  It’s not a successful movie except in intermittent moments.  

That said, of course not everyone agreed (I’ll recommend as an indirect counterpoint to my thoughts this piece by my friend Matt, which went up earlier today). And boredom is not the sole reason for me to crucify it -- there were a variety of things one can address.  I’ll note two at the start since they could be and in a couple of cases I’ve seen were particular breaking points for others:

* The sexual politics of the movie, however much meant to be in line with the original scenario as playing out a certain logic, were often at least confused or hesitant within a male gaze context, at most lazily vile beyond any (often flatly obvious) point-making.  I often got a mental sense of excuses that could be offered along the lines of ‘well...you know, it’s supposed to be like that in this world, it’s a commentary!,’ which is often what I’ve seen in positive criticism of, say, Game of Thrones. Maybe. That said: not that any sort of timing played into it, but the fact that Harvey Weinstein’s downfall began two days before release, and the resulting across-board exposure and on-the-record testimonials from many women against far too many men, couldn’t really be escaped.  Further, since the fallout was first felt, after all, in the film industry, seeing any film, new or old, through the lens of what’s acceptable and who gets through what hoops -- and who is broken by the experience -- is always important.  It’s not for nothing to note that the original film’s female lead Sean Young got shunted into the ‘she’s crazy’/’too much trouble’ file in later years where male actors might perhaps find redemption; the fact that she played a small part in the new film made me think a bit more on her fate than that of her character’s.  (Another point I saw a few women brought up as well -- having a key to the whole story be pregnancy and childbirth as opposed to infertility wasn’t warmly received.)

* It’s a very...white future. Not exclusively, certainly. But people of color barely get a look in, a quick scene here, a cameo there. A black female friend of mine just this morning said this over on FB about the one African American actor whose character got the most lines, saying: 

to have the only significant black character be this awful, creepy man who seemed to be an "overseer" type to the children, was really uncomfortable and another perfect example of scifi using an 'other' narratives or american slave narrative but within a white context. We all know what it's supposed to represent and so it's just straight up lazy writing at the end of the day and exploitative.

Meantime, another sharp series of comments elsewhere revolved around how a film perhaps even more obviously drenched than the original in an amalgamated East Asian imaginary setting for the Los Angeles sequences barely showcased anyone from such a background. Dave Bautista certainly makes an impact at the start, but after that? The fact that I can think of three speaking roles for actors of that (wide) background in the original, as in actually having an exchange with a lead character, and only one in this one, maybe two if you count the random shouting woman in K’s apartment building, is more than a little off.  Add in a ‘Los Angeles,’ or a wider SoCal if you like, that aside from Edward James Olmos’s short cameo apparently has nobody of Mexican background, let alone Central American, in it, and you gotta wonder.  My personal ‘oh really’ favorite was the one official sign that was written in English and, I believe, Sanskrit.  Great visual idea; can’t say I saw anyone of South Asian descent either.

Both these very wide issues, of course, tie in with the business and the society we’re all in -- but that’s no excuse. And there are plenty of other things I could delve into even more, not least my irritation over the generally flatly-framed dialogue shots in small offices that tended to undercut the grander vistas, or how the fact that Gosling’s character finding the horse carving had been telegraphed so far in advance that it was resolutely unremarkable despite all the loud music, etc. My key point remains: boring.  A sometimes beautifully shot and visually/sonically striking really dull, draggy, boring film.

The fair question though is why I think that.  A friend in response to that complaint as echoed by others joked what we would make of Bela Tarr films, to which I replied that I own and enjoy watching Tarkovsky movies. Slow pace and long shots aren’t attention killers for me per se; if something is gripping, it will be just that, and justify my attention. Meanwhile, the original film famously got dumped on for also being slow, boring, etc at the time, and plenty can still feel that way about it. Blade Runner’s reputation is now frightfully overburdened and certainly I’ve contributed to it mentally if not through formal written work; it succeeds but is a flawed creation, and strictly speaking the two big complaints I’ve outlined above apply to the predecessor as much as the current film, it’s just a matter of degrees otherwise. But if you told me I had to sit down and watch it, I’d be happy to. Tell me to do the same with this one, I would immediately ask for the ability to skip scenes.

I’ve turned it all over in my head and these are three elements where things fell apart for me, caused me to be disengaged -- not in any specific order, but I’m going to build outward a bit, from the specific to the general, and with specific contrast between the earlier film and the new one.  These discontinuities aren’t the sole faults, but they’re the ones I’ve been thinking about the most.

First: it’s worth noting that the new film brings in a lot of specific cultural elements beyond the famed advertising and signs. Nabokov’s Pale Fire is specifically singled out both as a visual cue and as an element in K’s two police station evaluations, for instance. Meanwhile, musically, I didn’t quite catch what song it was Joi was telling K about early in the film but a check later means it must have been Sinatra’s “Summer Wind,” featured on the soundtrack.  Sinatra himself of course shows up later as a small holographic performance in Vegas, specifically of “One For My Baby,” while prior to that K and Deckard fight it out while larger holographic displays of older Vegas style revues and featured performers appear glitchily -- showgirls, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis in his later pomp, Liberace complete with candleabra. All of this makes a certain sense and on the one hand I don’t object to it.

But on the other I do.  Something about all that rubbed me the wrong way and I honestly wasn’t sure why -- the Nabokov bit as well, even the quick Treasure Island moment between Deckard and K when they first talk to each other. The answer I think lies with the original film. It’s not devoid of references either, but note how two of the most famous are used:

* When Rutger Hauer’s Roy Batty introduces himself to James Hong’s Hannibal Chew, he does so with a modified quote from William Blake’s America: A Prophecy. (This fuller discussion of that quote and how it was changed from the original is worth a read; it’s also worth noting that Hauer brought it to the table, and wasn’t planned otherwise.) But he doesn’t do so by spelling out to the audience, much less Chew, that it is Blake at all.  You either have to know it or you don’t. If, say, we saw Batty clearly holding a copy of the book -- or maybe more intriguing, a copy in Deckard’s apartment -- then that would be one thing...but it becomes a bit more ‘DO YOU SEE?’ as a result. Clunkier, a bit like how Pale Fire worked in the new film.

* Even in the original soundtrack’s compromised/rerecorded form, I always loved the one formally conventional song on the original soundtrack, “One More Kiss, Dear.” I just assumed as I did back in the mid to late 80s, when I first saw the film and heard its music, that it was a random oldie from somewhere mid-century repurposed, a bit of mood-setting. It is...but it isn’t.  It’s strictly pastiche, a creation of Vangelis himself in collaboration with Peter Skellern, an English singer-songwriter who had a thriving career in his home country. It just seemed real enough, with scratchy fidelity, a piano-bar sad elegance -- which was precisely the point. You couldn’t pin it down to anything, it wasn’t a specifically recognizable element. It wasn’t Elvis, or Liberace, or Sinatra. 

This careful hiding of concrete details -- even when the original film showcased other clear, concrete details of ‘our’ world culturally, but culturally via economics and ads -- is heavily to the original’s benefit, I’d argue.  There’s a certain trapped-in-baby-boomerland context of the elements in the new film that, perversely, almost feels too concrete, or forced is maybe a better word. It’s perverse because on the one hand it makes a clear sense, but on the other hand, by not being as tied to explicitly cultural identifiers -- whether ‘high’ literature or rough and ready ‘pop’ or whatever one would like to say -- the original film feels that much more intriguingly odd, dreamlike even. I would tease this out further if I could, but it quietly nags -- perhaps the best way I could describe it is this: by not knowing what, in general, the characters, ‘human’ or not, read, listen to, watch in the original, what everyone enjoys -- if they do -- becomes an unspoken mystery. Think about how we here now talk about what we read, listen to, watch as forms of connection with others; think about how the crowd scenes in the originals feature people all on their own trips or in groups or whatever without knowing what they might know. We know Deckard likes piano, sure, but that suggests something, it doesn’t limit it.  We know K likes Nabokov and Sinatra -- and that tells us something.  And it limits it.

My second big point would also have to do with limits versus possibilities, and hopefully is more easily explained.  Both films are of course amalgams, reflections of larger elements in the culture as well as within a specific culture of film. The first film is even more famously an amalgam of ‘film noir’ as broadly conceived, both in terms of actual Hollywood product and the homages and conceptions and projections of the term backwards and forwards into even more work. It is the point of familiar reference for an audience that at the time was a couple of decades removed from its perceived heyday, but common enough that it was the key hook in -- the weary detective called back for one last job, the corrupt policeman, the scheming businessman, the femme fatale, etc. etc. Set against the fantastic elements, it was the bedrock, the hook, and of course it could be and was repurposed from there, in its creation and in its reception. 

2049 is not a film noir amalgam.  Instead, it’s very clearly -- too clearly -- an amalgam of exactly the wrong place it should have gotten any influence from. By that I don’t mean the original film -- above and beyond the clear story connections, its impact was expected to be inescapable and as it turns out it was inescapable.  Instead it’s an amalgam of what followed in the original’s wake -- the idea of dystopia-as-genre -- and that’s poisonous.

Off the top of my head: Children of Men. The Matrix. Brazil. Her. Battlestar Galactica, the 2000s reboot. A bit of The Hunger Games, I’d say. A bit of Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome (not a direct descendant of the original at all, of course -- George Miller always had his own vibe going -- but I caught an echo still). The Walking Dead. A fleck of The Fifth Element. Demolition Man, even, if we want to go ‘low’ art.  But also so many of the knockoffs and revamps and churn. There could be elements, there could be explicit references, there could be just a certain miasma of feeling.  But this all fed into this film, and made it...just less interesting to me. 

Again, the first film is no less beholden to types and forebears.  But the palette wasn’t sf per se, it was something else, then transposed and heightened and made even uneasier due to what it was.  2049 has to not only chase down its predecessor, it has to live with what its predecessor created.  But did it have to take all that into itself as well? It becomes a wink and a nod over and again, and a tiring one, a smaller palette, a feeding on itself. And it’s very frustrating as a result, and whatever spell was in the film kept being constantly rebroken, and the scenes kept dragging on.

This all fed into the third and final point for me -- the key element, the thing that makes the original not ‘just’ noir, the stroke of genius from Philip K Dick turned into tangible creations: the replicants, and the question of what it is to be human. Humanity itself has assayed this question time and time over -- let’s use Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as a start if we must for the modern era, it’s as good as any. We as a species -- if we individual members can afford the time and reflection at least -- seem to enjoy questions of what makes us ‘us,’ and what we are and what we have in this universe.  This much is axiomatic, so take that as read.

The replicants in the original film -- famously thought of differently by Dick and Ridley Scott, to the former’s bemusement when they met and talked for their only meeting before the latter’s death -- set up questions in that universe that are grappled with as they are by the characters in different ways. Between humans, between replicants, between each other, lines always slipping and shading. Their existences are celebrated, questioned, protested against. But we don’t live in these conversations for the most part, we tend to experience the characters instead; it’s often what’s unsaid that has the greatest impact. And if the idea of a successful story-teller is to show rather than tell, then I would argue that, again, flawed as it can be, the original film succeeds there be only telling just enough, and letting the viewer be immersed otherwise. (Thus of course the famous after the fact narration in the original release insisted upon by the studio, and removed from later cuts to Scott’s thorough relief.)

By default, that level of quiet...I would almost call it ‘awe’...in the original can’t be repeated with the same impact. The bell cannot be unrung, but that’s not crippling. What was crippling was how, again, bored I was with the plight of the characters in 2049. How unengaged in their concerns I generally was. One key exception aside, I never bought K’s particular angst outside of plot-driven functionality, and frankly they often felt like manikins all the way down from there. Robin Wright’s police chief had some great line deliveries but the lines were most often banal generalities that sounded ridiculous. Jared Leto’s corporate overlord, good god, don’t ask. As for Joi and Luv, Ana de Armas and Sylvia Hoeks did their best, and yet the characters felt...functional.  Which given the characters as such would seem to be appropriate, but their fates were functional too. Of course one would do that, of course the other would do that, of course one would die the one way, of course the other would die that way, and...fine. Shrug. 

So, then, Deckard? Honestly Harrison Ford had the best part in the film and while I found him maybe a bit more garrulous than I would have expected from the character, he did paranoid, wounded and withdrawn pretty damn well. Not to mention comedy -- the dog and whisky combo can’t be beat, and it’s worth remembering his nebbishy ‘undercover’ turn in the original -- and, in the Rachel scene, an actual sense of pathos and outrage. I bought him pretty easily, and it made everyone else seem pretty shallow. When K learns about the underground replicant resistance and all, the bit about everyone hopes they are the one was nice enough, but the rest of it, clearly meant to be a ‘big moment,’ was...again, dull, per my second point about the limited palette. A whole lot of telling, not much showing, and such was the case throughout. It was honestly a bit shocking -- but also very clear -- to myself when I realized how little I cared about humans or replicants or any of it at all towards the end. It all felt pat and played out, increasingly unfascinating, philosophy that was rote. It could just be me, of course -- maybe this is an issue where the stand-ins of replicants versus realities of robots and AI, along with the cruelties we’re happy to inflict on each other, means the stand-ins simply don’t have much of an imaginative or intellectual grip now.

Still, though, I’ll give the film one full scene, without Ford. As part of his work, and to answer the questions in his own head, K visits Ana Stelline, a designer of replicant memories. This, more than anything else in the film outside of certain design and musical elements, felt like the original, or something that could be there. It introduced a wholly new facet -- how are memories created for replicants? -- while extending the idea that instead of one sole creator of replicants there are multiple parts makers with their specialized fields in an unexplained (and unnecessary to be explained) economy. Stelline’s literal isolation allows for space and the limits of communication to be played out in a way that makes satisfying artistic sense, and Carla Juri plays her well. It builds up to an emotional moment that sends K into an explosive overdrive that is actually earned, and Juri’s own reaction of awe and horror is equally good.  But -- even better -- the scene ends up taking a wholly new cast later in the film, when more information reveals what was actually at play, and what K didn’t know at the time, and makes the final scene a good one to end on in turn (and by that I mean back in her office, specifically).

The problem though remains -- one scene can’t make a film. One can argue that it’s better to reach and fail than not at all, but it’s also easily argued that one gets far more frustrated with something that could have worked but didn’t. I don’t think an edit for time would have fixed the film but it would have made it less of a slog while not sacrificing those visual/sonic elements that did work; it still would leave a lot of these points I’ve raised standing, but it would have gone down a little more smoothly, at least. But sometimes you’re just bored in a theater, waiting for something to end.

[firemagicked]

THESE ARE NOT COLORS (but answer them anyways): Imperial, Chili, Spice, Squash, Jumpsuit, Safety, Sunshine, Laurel, Brunswick, Army, Peacock, Parchment, Lace, Ghost, Egg-nog, Sugar cookie, Fossil, Spider

Imperial - Are you in any position of power or authority? 

“An interesting question. Technically I suppose I have rank in Atlas via being accountant and HR Department Head but Atlas is fairly informal. Unless someone’s made a grievous budgeting error I can’t see ever even needing to test that - the hardest part of my position was being under someone who thought sticky notes were the epitome of paperwork. Even he’s greatly improved… to the point I’m pretty sure the remaining ones that happen are on purpose.”

Chilli - Do you like spicy foods?

“Yes, I do enjoy them. Especially now when I don’t feel heat the way I used to - my tastebuds are unaffected as it isn’t actually temperature so it’s a way to get a similar experience as everyone else.”

Spice - Do you like to cook?

“No, I learned how by virtue of living on my own often enough. I’ve never been an avid food aficionado. As I said above there are foods I enjoy, but I’ve also been known to pick at my food and move it around more than eat. On the other hand, I have a child to feed now, and my conjured food is not what he needs - or what Ash on an inventing binge needs either.”

Squash - Do you live in an agricultural setting?  If so, are you a farmer or something of the sort? What kind of crops do you grow?

“No, with the land we have now we likely could. But we also have a small stable of curious creatures and while I have come to enjoy poking at plants more often and even gardening here and there - I blame Atlas’ tropical atmosphere for the need to take it home with me - I can’t say I, or either of the others are particularly inclined toward farming. We do grow some herbs for alchemical purposes - its easier than having to import the rare ones all the time.”

Jumpsuit - Have you ever been arrested/ in trouble with authority?

“Mmm, I answered this one more fully already. I could tell you the story of how I met Flynn and almost got him arrested instead for being a terrible thief. But more to the point I am currently in no official trouble with any authority. Though should Lady Starsong ever decide it worth the effort to bring official attention to matters between us… Its too unlikely to happen to think of.”

Safety - What is the most traumatic experience in your life?

“I usually answer this sort of question with my sister’s death. It definitely had the most long term impact on my psyche. However it can probably be tossed up now with the time I died in Lyn’s arms and came back to Lyn and Ash trying to kill each other. That’s also had its own long term consequences on my physicality. There’s also the matter of distance - I have finally come to terms with Lis’ death. My own? Well. Krev is still out there and we couldn’t exactly stop him last time.”

Sunshine - Are you a more active or lazy person? 

“Active. I’ll enjoy a lazy morning once in awhile… and I’ll admit one effect Sunsoul has had on me (besides the multitude of other ones of course) is I greatly enjoy a good sunbeam like I never did before. But I prefer doing something - not that something has to be necessarily actively physical, as long as it is mentally stimulating. having nothing to do makes me… twitchy.”

Laurel - Is there a major victory you’ve achieved in your life? if so, what is it? 

“Helping kill that damn cultist priest certainly felt good.” He rubs absently at his neck with a scowl. “But despite how things ended - I greatly enjoyed working my way up to being an accomplished relic hunter under Lady Starsong. And…”

“Don’t tell Lyn, but despite how it all ended, helping to wake some of the Paragons of the Klaxxi was nearly a high at the time. There was a flush of accomplishment with each new bit of their history uncovered and it felt a lot like being a part of something huge. Which… was true. Just not, precisely, what I wanted to be a part of.”

Brunswick - Are you a person who is often jealous? what makes you jealous most often? 

“…Sometimes, I think. About strange things. And in unexpected ways. When Mira asked about Lyn doing marriage tattoos for her and her future husband, I was not expecting the surge of possessiveness over the idea. That at least is probably close enough to count. Magic and bond related things, perhaps. But the normal things people get jealous over, sex and romance? Not really. Maybe sometimes, with Lyn in certain ways but definitely not with Ash. I trust if they really want to sleep with someone else they’ll let me know first, which is the important part. Oddly enough, i don’t like finding out months later my partner has been sleeping with several other people and didn’t think it warranted a conversation.”

Army - Do you have a fighting style? If so, what is it?

“Light things on fire until they’re ash. No?” he smirked. “It depends on who I’m with and who I’m fighting. For instance I do prefer a sword over a staff if I’m by myself and don’t mind the close combat that can entail when channeling through it. Unless it’s a death knight. To hell with all of them and their anti magic EVERYTHING. That said while I’m a good swordsman, I’m not a great one and I would much rather end a serious fight as quickly as possible - I’ll bring out my heaviest magics as soon as I can and keep to a very agile sword style with as much distracting overly flashy no substance spells that I can miss in so they miss the real ones.”

“If Lyn is around I am, of course, almost always a proper distance from the front lines. I’ve learned better than to try and get closer - I’ll only end up distracting him and as long as I can see the enemy I can strike perfectly well from behind him.”

Peacock - Are you a more flashy person, or do you like to blend in?

“Unless the job requires it, I’ll be flashy as fuck. Half the fun can be in drawing people’s attention - and its not like its hard. Everyone likes to look at things that sparkle - and fire does that like nobodies business. I’m not even immune - ask Ash sometime about the ice and fire show he drew me in with and let me participate in.”

“And yes, the threadbare midriff baring robe I habitually wear is also fun as hell - in public anyway. It’s just normal around Atlas now. I don’t think anyone notices except perhaps for Darnath to fuel his jokes but it has been hinted at why wear it in the city if I don’t want to be touched? To which I explain I like having the excuse to light people on fire, obviously.”

Parchment - Do you like to read or write? 

“Yes. Reading, moreso. It was perhaps my only ‘lazy’ pastime when Temeraith was still around. I liked being read to and also reading to him, as well as just enjoying it for itself. Writing… It’s fine to do for work, but I don’t particularly enjoy it creatively. Unless perhaps the rune carving counts… that is rather fun and I can sort of see why Lyn might have found some enjoyment in creating his tattoos.”

Lace - What would you name your child if you were to have one?

“Huh. Tam already came with one. There’s a good chance any child I had already would considering outside of some feats of outlandish magic, I’m going to be adopting any children I have. …I’d probably follow my parents in naming the child based on their parents first letter. Which made it easy for them - Liana and Lothir had Lisaerys and Lyren. And honestly, I’ve got either an L from me or Lyn to work with or an A from Ash.”

Ghost - Are you easily scared? What scares you the most? 

“Easily? Probably not. What scares me the most is being the last one left behind if Ash and Lyn both died. I think these days, I could handle it with only a little more insanity than a normal person if one of them died. But I don’t know that I could handle both and I fear for any friends left behind in any scenario involving that.”

Egg-nog - Do you celebrate Winter’s Veil? If so, what traditions do you have? Which are your favorite?

“Oh, I celebrate Winter’s Veil. We’ve put up some magic around the outside for decorating… though I’ll admit it’s not my favorite holiday. It’s more Ash’s. I don’t have any strong traditions beyond the exchange of presents and some time just the four of us - otherwise its a great time to see many friends with he excuse of dropping off small gifts.”

Sugar cookie - What reminds you of your childhood? 

“Academies, I suppose. …Sometimes when sewing. My mother sewed. But Lis and I were sent off for tutoring in magic fairly early in life. We were precocious - the humans I think sometimes call the early onset of out of control magic sorcerers but for our kind, well. We all have that potential. Still we were particularly strong and neither of our parents well gifted as either priests or mages. So, academies. Oh, ugly plain, multi layered robes. My own tasteless conjured mana buns can do it too.”

Fossil - Do you have any older relatives other than your parents? If so, how many? Do you like them? 

“My father has an older sisters that produced a couple of cousins at some point. That’s it as far as I know. We were never particularly close. There might have been a sister on my mother’s side too - I saw a picture of a redhead once my father was looking at but he never explained who she was so if she exists, they must be estranged.”

Spider - What irrational fears do you have? 

“…You know this question is very suspicious. Why do people need to know all these things?” He grumbled, crossing his arms and glaring up at the shadows from his not very impressive height. “…Water. Drowning, if you must known. Basically anything over the height of my head. Satisfied?”

((OMG thank you so much for all the questions!

@darnath (and @adrekan @ashenvald @mira-ashsong for mentions.) 

[psychic-refugee]

Fanfiction Pet Peeves

These are just my opinions. I don’t name any specific author or story.

It seems like for the most part it is considered rude to post criticisms on fanfiction. I think as a community we’re trying to be more inclusive of all writing “styles.” I am a big believer in writing the story I want to tell, so I have to recognize that my style won’t be for everyone. I do think this is a positive direction, but I think it also cuts down on the responses/reviews people would get. I’m not opposed to it, but if this is what is considered the proper etiquette then we have to accept that we will not get as much feedback.

Now I know there is a difference between a criticism and a flame. I’m not saying we should allow flames.

I keep seeing all these posts about leaving a review, but I feel like we’re not giving them leeway to review. And sometimes, not leaving a review is a review. I always assume that if my hit count is higher than my review counts, then the difference are the people who didn’t like the story enough to review. Whether or not because they found it boring or hated it, that’s left a mystery.

I think with the advent of the “not beta read, all typos are my own” tag or warning, it’s basically telling the reader that they did some proof reading but for various reasons, they don’t have an editor basically. I think because fanfiction is a hobby for most of us, then it’s fair not to go that extra effort. Probably because I do it. lol. I try to get everything I can, but a few things always manage to slip by. So, most don’t take note or bother to mention typos unless it’s particularly egregious. The only exception I would make would be to writers whose first language isn’t English. I have come across stories where it’s clear there is something lost in translation and having a beta would be necessary.

E.g. a GOT fic where they called Gregor Clegane the “Enormity that Rides.” His nickname is the Mountain that Rides. I get that they maybe thought they were using a synonym, but in this instance, it doesn’t fit because Mountain that Rides is what he is known as, not necessarily a description.

I think it’s a fine line between something that is written well or poorly and personal taste.

There is just so much fanfiction out there, it’s hard to review them all. There have been many cases where I don’t even make it past the first chapter, the story just doesn’t interest me or there is something about it that is off putting.

Here are a few things that make me not want to read the story at all.

 “I suck at summaries” and variations thereof: basically the author is bashing their own writing and they still want you to read. I don’t have time for that. If the author doesn’t have the confidence in writing a few sentences, I can’t imagine their actual writing being worthwhile. This is especially true for AO3 with its tagging system that can actually help give us an idea of what the story is about. There are thousands of fics written daily, I can’t read them all and this is part of the triage of me deciding to read something. The only time I may ignore this is if the OTP is exceptionally rare or the fandom is small. In those instances, I’m not as picky because I don’t have much to pick from.

I also wonder if it’s not some form of compliment fishing. Like they want you to feel bad for them for being insecure, and they want you to say “no, it’s great!” I have no patience for those type of people.

Overtagging: If a fic has a million tags, my eyes just skip over it. This usually isn’t a problem for normal stories, this usually happens because it’s part of an anthology. It just looks super obnoxious to me. I would rather they just start a new fic each time and tag accordingly. There are some who overtag, listing literally every character that may show up despite their actual contribution to the story. If a character is just kind of mentioned or seen in passing or is talked about as part of exposition, then I don’t think they need to be tagged. Character tagging is really for the main characters. If I’m looking for X and your story shows up, but X is just seen in one chapter and it’s not about them, then I’d be irritated. The same goes for any “Warning” tags. Over tagging just clutters everything up, and I personally can’t stand it.

I’m also not a fan of doing whole sentences as tags. “I wrote this when I should have been…” and variations of things that would do better in notes rather than tags. Like I’m never going to filter for whatever your inane excuse is for the writing the story in the first place. It’s just dumb, obnoxious, and unnecessary to me.

No proof reading: This is different than not beta read. There are some that outright admit that they haven’t proof read. Sometimes, they’ll say “I’ll get to it later,” which I don’t understand at all. It’s fanfiction, we do it for free. There are no actual deadlines, I don’t understand why they don’t proof read before they publish. Then there are those that say “not proof read” and leave it at that. I’d like to think I’m a decent writer, and my first couple of drafts are always pretty rough. Even with several rounds of proof reading, I still manage to miss things. Not even trying seems so lazy and arrogant. I feel like they’re giving me advanced warning to not bother.

What makes me stop reading after the first couple of chapters.

Format: If the format is off or makes it hard to read, I just can’t bother. There are writers who somehow are able to write on their mobile device. I don’t know if they just don’t have access to a computer, or perhaps don’t want to leave evidence of writing fanfiction. Either way, I respect that they have limited means, but I don’t want to read it. The worst is when they don’t put in hard returns, either for separate paragraphs or when writing dialog. Basically, they don’t include enough white space. Trying to keep track of where you are reading with a never-ending paragraph creates eye fatigue, and it takes away from enjoying the story.

Then there are writers who don’t use punctuation. There was one author that refused to use capital letters, ever. They cited E.E. Cummings as justification. Not only did I have a problem with this readability wise, the justification didn’t make sense to me. Like nothing about the story really spoke to me about using this particular syntax as a way of any meaningful expression. But that’s just my personal opinion.

Wiki Storytelling/Choppy writing: This happens when there are too many simple sentences, or the narrative feels like it’s just a summary. Like there’s little to no description of what the character was feeling or where they are. I’m not saying we all need to be G.R.R.M. or Tolkien, but I want more “meat” in my story than:

Mal was told to get the wand. Her three best friends went with her. They got into the limo, it was scary. They tried to steal the wand but set off the alarm.

This type of story telling is boring to me. I think we find this mostly with very young writers.

AUs of movies with no unique features: where the fandom characters replace the characters in movies and the writers basically rewrite more or less line by line what happened in the movie (e.g. Descendant’s characters in Legally Blonde). I feel like I could save time if they just told me “X movie but with Y actors.” Not only do I feel it’s a waste of time to read it, I would think it was a waste of time to write it. Like assuming we’ve seen the movie, we know what happens. If the replacement characters do nothing to add or alter the movie, then I don’t see a point of the story.

Anyone have any fanfiction pet peeves?

[meditationsinausterity]

A Little Goes a Long Way: SO MANY MUSHROOMS

Here we are at mid-week with what seems to be becoming a regular round-up of what I've been cooking to make sure I use literally everything in the fridge. As per my last post I have decided that the best way to structure the way I note my week in the kitchen is to start with a master list of the foods i bought home from the trash cafe, so as to avoid continually repeating myself in the smaller run-downs at the beginning of each dish, and make plain the cyclical nature of my cooking week and how I play around with different combinations of the same produce.

I have to say, the trash cafe has yielded a lot of fresh produce recently, so my hauls have been very heavily canted in favour of that. Great for me because I do prioritise cramming in as many nutrients as I can when I cook, but it does put a stricter deadline on what I make and when. I think writing this master list is actually going to be useful in terms of documenting the varying trash cafe hauls, as well; as I've worked with the project I've been fascinated to see the ebbs and flows of what we get through the doors, depending on what businesses we're working with and what they've had an excess of.

I'm also noticing my week changing as I work more. I'm on about 50 hours a week on average at the moment, so I have less time to be in the kitchen, but also, I have to think about bulk cooking things I can take to work with me when I'm on a double shift. I do have the option of a free sandwich and chips when I work a double (I usually rack up two of these a week), but I don't often take the chefs up on it, which my coworkers think I'm crazy for. I'd rather just have it as a backup for if I've forgotten to bring food, or not been staying at mine, because I don't like being too carbed out at work, and lately, where I've been taking in leaner, more vegetable driven food and fresh fruit, I've been really feeling the difference in my body after my long days and walks to and from work.

To kick things off then, let's start with that big old list:

Things I got from the Trash Cafe:

a packet of six chicken thighs (These had been defrosted to use in the kitchen, but I got through four packs during service and still had leftover stew to send to another cafe, so I bought these home)

2 1/2 punnets of chestnut mushrooms

2 punnets of plum tomatoes

1 bag of lemons

1 bag of limes

1/2 pat of salted butter

A block of mild goats cheese (it behaved similarly to a sharp cheddar in texture and flavour)

A packet of mint

Rye bread with sunflower seeds

A bag of red onions

A bag of broccoli florets

A bunch of asparagus

A white cabbage

Half a bag of mixed salad leaves

2 pots of prepped pineapple chunks (I tend to just eat these as they come, with breakfast or at work, so they don't get photographed)

2 pots prepped mango chunks (likewise with these)

Now onto what I made with my bounty:

Mushrooms on toast a couple of ways

Way One:

Items purchased for this meal:

None

Items already had for this meal:

Eggs, from the previous week's trash cafe haul

Ciabatta bread, likewise, and I keep my bread frozen, as I always eat it toasted, so it keeps indefinitely

Garlic, always in my storecupboard

So I am not going to patronize you, this was literally just mushrooms, panfried in garlic and butter, with scrambled eggs. I do not need to tell you how to do any of that. i do need to emphasize, however, a belief I hold that cooking does not have to be overtly technically skilled to be good. granted, I know some amazingly creative and talented chefs, and what they do is mindblowing, but by the same token I know if they came over for breakfast, they wouldn't turn their nose up at this because it's still good food. one of my pet peeves in this life is the attention seeking cook, who only ever makes masterchef-esque showstoppers for the drama and attention of it. Sometimes life is literally just a low key breakfast while chilling with a magazine before work, and sometimes that low key breakfast may be the best thing you could eat in that possible moment. A true love of the kitchen and feeding yourself involves care and attention applied to even the quotidien dishes.

Way Two

Items purchased for this meal:

None

Items already had for this meal:

Marmite; an absolute store cupboard necessity for me. This yeasty little umami bomb is one of the very few things that will make me misty eyed and patriotic (the other two are Barbara Windsor and Kate Moss, in case you were wondering)

So this was perhaps a slightly more elaborate take. Inspired by a breakfast dish I had at The Garage Lounge in Southsea, which was mushrooms in a white wine cream sauce, on marmite toast, with a poached egg, and was amazing, I decided to work with what I had (SO MANY MUSHROOMS) to channel similar vibes.

I pan-fried the mushrooms with garlic, and parsley, and finished with creme fraiche, piling onto rye and sunflower toast with marmite, and added some bagged salad dressed in oil and lemon to mop up the juices,because I like raw food with my meal, and i do like something acidic to cut through a rich dish. This was incredibly satisfying in the eating, and felt far more indulgent than the small amount of creme fraiche I added would have suggested it would be.

Leftovers from these meals:

None

Baked lemon and oregano chicken with goats cheese and tomato couscous

Items purchased for this meal:

None

Items already had:

Pesto: there's almost always an open jar of pesto in my fridge. Like any ex-student I've done my time eating pasta with pesto at least once a week, but now I use it as quick flavour for grains and dishes when i don't necessarily have fresh herbs.

Couscous: another storecupboard stalwart. Really good for quick, cheap, light dinners and salads. Also, call it the Ottolenghi effect, but I'm never averse to any form of grain salad at lunchtime, so having enough of a grain to bulk batch them is always good.

Oregano: From last week's trash café haul 

This was a doddle to make. I put the chicken thighs in a pan with a handful of whole, unpeeled garlic cloves, squeezed the juice of two quartered lemons over them and chucked in the lemon pieces themselves. I added a handful of oregano stems, some oil, salt, and pepper, tossed it all to coat, and left to marinade for a few hours, before baking in a gas mark 6 oven for about 45 minutes-1 hour, turning occasionally.

The couscous itself was easy, I diced onions, mint, tomatoes, and goats cheese, and tossed it together with a huge bowl of couscous i'd made up with boiling water and a glug of olive oil. lemon juice, salt, and pepper to dress.

The pesto cream was easy, I think I got this idea from one of those little booklets you get with cooking magazines, a little '30 low carb recipes for January' thing. it's just one parts pesto to two parts creme fraiche, and it's a pretty good, lazy way to perk up chicken. it's banging in sandwiches with leftover chicken as well.

A nice light meal, that was, I grant you, a bit late 90's housewife, but nonetheless, I'm always here for dishes that fill you up without bloating, and this was up there. Not to mention the flavours involved aided me in my current project to deny the fact that the weather is getting colder and winter is coming (other allies involved in this are the crisp blue skies Portsmouth is giving me, and largely being inside most of the time).

Leftovers from this meal:

4 x chicken thighs: Taken to work on two days to get me through double shifts.

About 4 portions of couscous: Taken to work alongside the chicken and some fresh fruit, because it does feel good to be smashing out your five a day even when you're working 13 or so hours of it. Also eaten upon returns home, in a bowl, in bed, while reading in my pyjamas. I guess most people have the luxury of being able to not eat late at night, but consider the humble bartender, doing a physical job until the witching hour, coming home shattered and grabbing the first thing they can find before they collapse. At least, in this instance it actually had some nutritional content. Back in my early twenties it would have been fried chicken, or spinach pastries from the 24 hour turkish supermarket at the bottom of seven sisters road (shout out to the lads at Akhdeniz, absolute fucking legends)

Tomato and mint Bruschetta with goats cheese:

Items purchased for this meal:

None

Items already had:

Salt, pepper, oil

I know, I know, another 'things on toast' moment. it probably looks like I eat far more things on toast than your average bear. I don't think I do, but actually,as a nocturnal worker, I tend to have more time in the morning to take care over what I eat and cook something from fresh.

This was a straightforward chopping of tomatoes, red onions, and mint, and tossing it with oil, lemon juice, salt and pepper, allowing to steep for a little while to draw out the juices of the tomato. then just piled onto crisp rounds of toast and topped with thinkly shaved goats cheese.

Another breakfast that allowed me to stave off the winter sads, whilst also getting the nutritional benefit of raw vegetables (I do, really, find any excuse to pack raw fruit and veg into my diet). Also, given how many tomatoes I actually had to power through this week, a raw dish of them was somewhat inevitable.

Leftovers from this meal:

Enough tomato mixture to fridge and repeat the exact same breakfast the next day before work. It was actually better the next day after the tomato mixture had time to mellow and marry.

Sweet Potato and Mushroom Frittata with chilli and soy green salad

Items purchased for this meal:

None

Items already had:

Sweet potato: from a previous trash cafe haul

Romaine lettuce leaves: from a previous trash cafe haul

Eggs: from a previous trash cafe haul

Birds eye chillies: from a previous trash cafe haul

Garlic, paprika, salt, pepper, soy.

The salad for this was simple. I snapped the asparagus tips at their natural bending point (the best way to make sure you're not eating them stringy, which is what puts most people off asparagus) and steamed them with the broccoli florets for a few minutes. I sliced white cabbage and red onion, and tossed the lot in a mixture of oil, soy, diced chilli, and lime juice, leaving to chill out in the dressing.

For the frittata I roasted diced sweet potato in oil and paprika until soft, before frying the mushrooms in garlic and oil, and adding the sweet potato to the pan. I added five beaten eggs to the hot pan and swirled over the heat to cook the base, before using a plate to flip the frittata,as I would with a spanish omelette, and cooking the other side. I left it to sit on a plate for about fifteen minutes to set fully, and then sliced it and served it with the salad, served on romaine lettuce leaves.

An odd jumble of flavours here, but it worked really nicely, and left me feeling really full up without any carbs to speak of. i ate it as a kind of hybrid breakfast/lunch situation, which is a pretty key mealtime on my days off where I don't have a strict deadline on my time.

Leftovers from this meal:

2/3 frittata: Taken to work with me to eat cold. Ideal take-to work food because you actually don't want it fridge-cold, so you can leave it in tupperware in your bag, as I did, and it's at room temperature come your break.

2 portions of salad: again, boxed up and taken to work. I find spicy food on my break means I don't so much get that just-eaten, sleepy bear feeling when I have to return to shift. That plus filling up on food that isn't carb driven means when it's time to go back on shift I've got a spring in my step.

Another week then, another series of purchase-free meals. This was the week before my first set of wages landed as well, so the purchase-free thing was still pretty key. I have, since, been buying spices and seasonings and storecupboard things, which will probably change the face of my cooking even more, but I think I'm really getting into the swing of making diverse meals over the course of a week that fill me up, are tasty, and are nutritionally pretty sound. I'm equally pleased that I'm managing to fit it around work, and that I'm also, despite being much busier these days, NOT THROWING ANYTHING AWAY. I thought for sure that being at work would mean I'd be busy, and neglecting the fridge, and ending up wasting food, but I've actually been so organized and on top of my shit that I've used up every last scrap of what I have, and I'm feeling super proud of that.

[rafterzebra]

Plugging In, Tuning Out, and Jotting Down

It has been six years since I have written anything down, whether it is pen to paper or a blog post. I could concoct a list of reasons why this is so...and I will in this post. When I began this blog, it was mainly to be a source for me to drop my brain onto somewhere so that it didn’t stay jumbled in my head. I didn’t expect much readership then and I definitely still do not now, however I think it will be good for me to continue to write these posts again, and even include some short stories I have had concepts for in my head. As Epictetus said, “If you wish to be a writer, write.” and while I have no illusions of ever making a living as a writer, I do want to be able to perform the activity on a habitual basis.

So first, I will roll out the reasons (and/or excuses) as to why there has been no posts in the last number of years.

The main reason is laziness. Most people do not like to admit to themselves as having a lazy nature or any appearance that they are not constantly in motion or striving to get as much accomplished as possible. However, I am being honest with myself here, many times I was simply too lazy to sit down and write. I’ve always had a proclivity for putting things off, whether it was school work, work projects, or the mundane tasks that surround our everyday lives. I am perfectly satisfied with existing in a state of inaction in regular functions, most to my keep my mild amusement. I’ll binge watch a show, I’ll catch a sporting event I have no rooting interest in, I’ll simply walk or run outside to pass time. What I must work on is sitting down and hammering out these words; that is, if I wish to write as much as I envision in the coming years. 

The second reason was the ability to find other outlets in which to express a thought or opinion. This mainly comes through Twitter. There are few comment sections I find worth the time of wallowing in, but I began a lot of fruitful, real-life friendships through posting in the comment section of a sports blog many years ago. As time went on, most of those individuals moved onto Twitter. With the recent turn in American politics, Twitter has become a focal point of social conversation, and mostly not in a positive way as I will get to later. However, it is a way to express one’s self and even get some feedback bounced back with others you know and some you may not. 

I do not think in a linear fashion, my mind does not travel from A to B very often. You can see it in the way I would take notes at work. A single plain sheet of white paper would be spattered with notes, contact information, and important reminders. Different color ink, some sections blocked off with asymmetrical lines. My brain trail takes off in one location and then begins to wander and almost radiate in a cloud-like fashion. By the end of a thought process, I’ve almost lost the original point or picked up a few other tangential ones along the way. That is why I avoided condensing everything into posts on here, but it is also the reason that I need to start doing so. 

Returning to my thought about writing things on the internet, the glaring issue right now when it comes to sharing ideas or making statements on the internet is the tone of the conversation at the moment. There are many, perhaps too many think pieces on what is going on right now, but my commentary is simply that the focus has never been more on “sides” than it is now. People are so adamant to have their ideas validated, find like-minded people to give them a virtual confirmation of their opinion that a lot of reason is being left behind. No matter which side you fall in to socially or politically, everyone has to have their side win and be right, on every single issue. It makes you want to exit the conversation, so that the only ones left in the room are those screaming at each other, and hence those are the people that get the attention. I don’t know a solution for it, and it seems social media opened up the Pandora's Box on good social conversation. I’ve mostly kept any commentary on politics, religion, or societal improvement to myself, except when someone makes a cohesive, well-articulated point. Even then, in the tweet replies or comments you can find enough people from the other side of the issue there to blast common sense and useful discourse to oblivion.

The other reasons mostly are a mix of simple life experiences that most can relate with in some way. You get caught up with work, you enjoy your free time to hang out with friends you make, and then when you are alone, you just want to decompress. Then, as in my case, you meet someone, and if you are doing it right, you are devoting a lot of time to that person and the relationship. If it works out, you make the long-term commitment, which we did about a month ago. 

In a period of reflection, I came to the conclusion that I wanted to write again, and have it pasted somewhere, even in a dimly lit corner of the internet because it would be helpful to me, I always felt that writing gave me an avenue to release mental tension. I’ve enjoyed attempting to be creative in the past and I’ve had many ideas pop into my head over the years, some that no doubt have floated away due to me not writing them down. There is also an inspiration factor, as I have seen some close to me put out great work, including becoming authors. This is something I should do, it may not be as necessary as I once thought, yet I am determined to keep myself to it.

So where to begin? As I mentioned, I don’t have a linear journey planned. I am unsure of the frequency of content. Brain to paper (or blog in this instance) will be an adventure, and there will be successes and failures of varying degrees of magnitude. So off we go, wherever it takes us.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

WHAT KATE SAW IN 13 SENTENCES

When startups came back into fashion, around 2005, investors were starting to hear about it. Not any more. You'll sell more of something when it's easy to buy. A few months ago I got an email from a founder who said we didn't focus enough on customer acquisition: YC preaches make something people want. Most dictionaries say hapless means unlucky. Many if not most of the practice of good design crop up again and again. Not every kind of hard is good. The larger a group, they couldn't have figured out how.

Well, you can do. Experienced founders learn to keep an open mind: Now I don't laugh at ideas anymore, because I realized how terrible I was at the time was Netscape. They're also getting bigger, and this gives you an excuse for being lazy, and partly because they want to do, but that won't be the sort of superficial quizzing best left to teenage girls. If you don't understand them. I am not negative on this one. One consequence of this fact is that there are degrees of coolness. The next best type of intro is from a well known VC firm that gave him the mistaken impression I was considering starting another startup.

Figure out what? You have to consciously force yourself to keep looking for more money: they want you to call a support line and be treated as a threat to a company's survival. You have certain mental gestures you've learned in your work, and when you do, as well as buildings you need roads, street signs, utilities, police and fire departments, and plans for both growth and various kinds of work, and indignant readers will send you references to all the incubators in parallel, which is all the more subtle ways. But every company that gets acquired for 30 million is a failure to a VC round meant a collection of points of roughly equal importance, and he never tried to turn it into one. 7% coming out of later stage investors? Indeed, this solution neatly mirrors the problem. If you turned it over, it said Inside Macintosh.

Among other things, but because you need to figure it out, and if necessary damage wealth in the process of starting startups tends to select them automatically. You never had to talk. Writing doesn't just communicate ideas; it generates them. Vcs looking for the next invading army. They all ask the same question: who else have you pitched to? While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. When I grew up, and in particular the most successful of that group by an order of magnitude worse than receiving spam, so a filter that yields false positives is like an acne cure that carries a risk of death to the patient. And hackers are invariably smart-alecks.

Search for a few months I realized that all the startups in each batch do at fundraising after Demo Day. But if I did, it would seem crazy in everyday life would be considered pathological. What would Steve do? What happens now with the Super Bowl used to happen every night. If you write software to teach Tibetan to Hungarian speakers, you'll be able to dictate the way shows reached audiences. I don't think there's any limit on that, except in special cases, you ought to change what I was saying. To recognize individual spam features before I tried the statistical approach is that you won't be able to get into grad school in the fall with all the fat trimmed off its market cap, Yahoo was still worth a lot of people, but is less than a month, because the only employees are a couple pieces of good news here. This is demoralizing, but that they don't get it till it happens. That's not the part to focus on that. Apple gets the opposite of clumsy. We'd like to meet if you are a Lisp hacker.

It can take years to zero in on a productive question, because it takes most of the time, fretting over the finances and cleaning up shit. This time founders may keep starting startups. There are three main disadvantages: you mix together your business and personal life; they will probably use small problems, and will go out of business. Fundraising is brutal. Begin with a description that's gripping but perhaps overly narrow, then flesh it out to the extent you can, and then gradually modify it, but this is actually an instance of a more general rule: don't learn things from teachers who are bad at it, you should get a good grade. Apparently sprinters reach their highest speed right out of stock that has some additional rights over the common stock holders that is, some of the work is as artificial as running laps. Within the US, as in every other respect you've succeeded.