#anyway I'm not actually that good at media and character analysis so I'm gonna try to not gonna put my mouth in my foot on that point.

[neverendingford]

.

[moghedien]

obviously there are a bunch of issues with the MCU and I'm not gonna sit here and try to convince everyone that MCU movies are cinema or whatever so don't get what I'm gonna say twisted. I do find their kinda mainstay in cultural media and the dominance they had to be interesting, especially now in an era where the MCU is undeniably falling off and struggling. just as like a cultural analysis I find that interesting and everyone has their opinions of why it happened.

my opinion/theory on why the MCU just crashed is because they sort of forgot what it means to be telling a comic book story, especially a marvel comic book story. Because I've read thousands of issues of various marvel series at this point, across tons of different eras and events, and the thing that makes them last (which is also a thing that drives me personally crazy and I hate so much) is that the status quo doesn't really change. Or when it does, it lasts for a few arcs or years at most and then gets reverted back to the norm eventually. Like the fact that everything is pointless and nothing is a risk is something I loathe, but it is admittedly what keeps them going. If someone just got into comics, they can pick up a modern issue and expect to find Spider-man or Captain America or whoever. They may be introduced to new characters, but the big ones will show up eventually.

And after the last Avengers movie, like half of the mainstay cast are just gone. Which as someone who likes good stories, I think is a good opportunity (which is arguably being wasted but idk I haven't watched any MCU thing in years) to actually shake things up and develop characters that mainstream people are less familiar with and give them a chance to shine and tell interesting stories. But that's not why people like marvel comics.

People like marvel comics because if they want to read about Iron Man, they can pick up any random issue about Iron Man and it will most likely be the Iron Man they know. People like the status quo, and Marvel has never been high literature and has always basically been pulp storytelling, and it gave people status quo and familiarity. And I think Marvel Studios figured this out waaayyy too late.

Because if Marvel actually understood what people like about the comics, they would have embraced recasting major roles from the start. They wouldn't have tied characters' identities so strongly to their actors and would have made it clear that characters can and will continue on with different faces. There is no reason why Tony Stark needs to be RDJ or Steve Rogers needs to be Chris Evans. They would have had plans to not write these characters out of existance the second actors wanted to exit or died or were fired or any of the various reason why actors are no longer involved with the MCU. Hell they had precedent. They didn't have a problem replacing Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle, who are very different looking people who give very different performances, but we know why they felt ok with that recasting but won't recast any of their boys named Chris...

Anyway it seems like they realized that general audiences don't actually like change if its permanent and are learning the wrong lessons with the Doom casting nonsense and the fact that they seem to keep changing what the new story is to fit what they think audiences want.

I'm fine with the MCU dying off and its probably better for media that it does, but again I'm just kinda interested in the fumble from like an objective standpoint because it seemed like they just locked themselves into eventual failure in such a stupid way. Like they could have told the same safe representative Avengers storylines for decades and wouldn't have a meltdown every time an actor in a major role needed to be removed from production if they just accepted that people would be recast as needed. It would be worse for actors and it would be worse for movies in general probably, but it would have kept the MCU churning out pulp like the comics do to this day. But now people are realizing its not just pulp but pulp they don't want and its gonna kill the MCU eventually.

[wistfulcynic]

gonna go off a bit on the subject of the "he's me fr" school of character analysis. Because while it's absolutely fine and good even to relate to fictional characters and see aspects of yourself in them, it's also important to recognise the difference between your interpretation based on your experiences and what is actually shown on the page or screen.

humans are primed to recognise patterns. We are strongly inclined to contextualise things to suit our existing worldviews. We don't like contradiction and we don't like things we don't understand. It's so natural for us then to reframe anything we find confusing or contradictory that we often don't even notice we are doing it.

this is bad! This is dangerous! This is how you get bigotry and hatred!

a lot of people reframe things they don't understand (other races, cultures, religions, genders) into Other and Other is frequently Bad or even Evil. It's relatively easy to spot when other people do this and to understand that it is wrong. But surely, you may then say to yourself, if i am reframing things into what is familiar to me that's good, right? i'm Relating and that's a positive thing!

and i guess, yes and no. Yes because finding connection can be validating and because there's a reason that representation in media is so important--that reason being largely because it gives a wider range of people the opportunity to see others like them on screens and in pages. But also that act of relating to something you know is in fact an act of bias. You are biased in favour of recognising that thing because it is You. It's important to you as part of your identity but you should be aware that this can lead you to overcompensate and to misinterpret things because you are seeking that connection so intensely. And honestly i think this is also fine so long as you are able to recognise the difference.

there's a difference between saying "i identify in X way and demonstrate Y characteristic. This fictional character demonstrates Y characteristic therefore i am going to interpret them as identifying in X way" and saying "this character MUST OBVIOUSLY identify in X way because I DO and I SAID SO and this is now a VALID TEXTUAL INTERPRETATION."

maybe it is. Maybe it also isn't. Maybe Y characteristic is something that supports many different interpretations and "because they're totally me and i said so" is neither a strong argument nor a healthy way to process the world.

let me give a real world example. i am acespec, something i didn't understand until relatively recently and definitely couldn't have defined when i was in college because that was like 1997 and the language i needed really didn't exist then. Or at least it didn't exist in my corner of the american midwest. Anyway. i had a friend in college who was gay. He had come out at 18, which in the late 90s rural midwest was a big fucking deal. He was very proud of his identity, to the point of being aggressive about it and one of his big things was trying to encourage other people to explore their own sexual identities.

which is fine, right? Good, even. People should be able to do that and his intention was to be a safe space for his friends. His intentions were good! What wasn't good was the way he absolutely targeted me as someone who didn't date and didn't "chase men" <-this was literally the way he phrased it to me. He said "you don't chase men and you don't want to date them therefore you are a lesbian just admit it."

he absolutely would not accept that i wasn't gay too. He used to get mad at me for arguing with him about it. The way his world was framed you were either gay or straight (reminding folks this was the 90s) and so if you weren't demonstrating Accepted Straight Behaviour, ie dating and lots of sex, that must mean you were closeted gay and should just come out already, otherwise what are you some sort of homophobe?

he wasn't able to recognise that his interpretation of the characteristics i showed were not the only possible interpretation. Even if i weren't acespec i could just not have met anyone i was interested in! (this was also true). There were at least half a dozen other explanations for it but he insisted his was the only way because it was His identity and His experience and he was i think genuinely trying to relate to me on that level. Instead he ended up alienating me because i knew the choice wasn't as simple as "gay or closeted and probably homophobic" but there was absolutely no convincing him of that.

obviously there is a difference between what he did and fictional character analysis. Obviously fictional characters are not going to be hurt by people interpreting them as whatever the way i was hurt by my friend's behaviour. But i put it to you that the same inability to differentiate between what is real and what is your own interpretation based on your personal biases is a negative thing and something people need to be aware of. If you are capable of imposing traits on fictional people based on your own identity and recognising that doesn't necessarily mean they have those traits then great, more power to you, go forth and fanfic. But if you interpret a character in X way and genuinely, deeply believe that your interpretation is the only right and valid one based on nothing more than your own experiences then i strongly urge you to examine your biases and learn to do textual character analysis. For yourself, for your own metacognition skills, but also for the people around you. Believing you are right and there is no other way to think is the quickest path to intolerance and hatred that there is.

[blonde-and-cat-suc]

choose violence ask game: 3, 12 and 22?

p.s. love your blog, please keep spreading the truth!

And I love blogging <3!!! I do it for the girls and the gays.

>>>><<<<

Answers under the cut . . . This is gonna be a long one.

3) Screenshot or description of the worse take you've seen on tumblr?

Okay, so, the only problem with this one is that I've literally seen too many to count. But the one that I'd often seen and had the most visceral reaction to were definitely the longer, well articulated analysis posts from stans that did SO MUCH bending and twisting to claim Adora being equally toxic/(and or abusive) to Catra. Which, obviously, I also spent time analyzing. Trying my best to understand what was going on. And you know what? I get it. I don't agree. But I get it. Adora and Catra grew up under the same circumstances, so yeah, they wouldn't be entirely innocent of picking up bad habits from their childhood. Realistically. Fine.

But implying that Adora is worse? Worse than Catra?

...

Anyway, I've suffered from my own self-inflicted torture in the past. I wish I hadn't spent so much time reading stan analysis the way I did, but... Here we are.

And that's just on Tumblr. I don't believe that other social media/forum sites are better or worse about c//a and SPOP, but I have seen worse in The Wilds. (At least on Tumblr there's the filtering options. Everywhere else, good luck).

12) The unpopular character that you actually like, and why more people should like them?

Guys. I LOVE SWIFT WIND. I FUCKING LOVE SWIFT WIND I DON'T CARE THAT HE'S ANNOYING THEY'RE ALL FUCKING ANNOYING!!!

First of all, yes, yes, yes, Swift Wind is horrendous wasted potential (surprise, surprise), and yes, of course, I'm still pissed over it. Those scenes where he's so loyal and kind to Adora, and she, having no other point of reference for a friend, much less a resourceful friend... Like, awwhh. Plus, he makes it very clear that he has his own will and isn't just mindlessly following Adora around like a god-honest horse would. He has his own agenda. He doesn't have to go into battle with Adora, and doesn't gain too much from risking his life to help her and her friends in the short term, but Swift Wind does it anyway. He's interested and invested in Adora, personally, anyway. He wants to be there for her and support her growth as a person.

And Adora deserves all of those amazing, raw, sappy, fairytale friendships!

I DON'T CARE THAT HE'S LITERALLY A HORSE HE IS STILL FUNCTIONALLY A HUMAN BEING. THEY ARE BESTIES. THEY LITERALLY HAVE A MY LITTLE PONY FRIENDSHIP IS MAGIC LINK GOING ON. THEY SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED SWIFTIE TO BE APART OF THE BEST FRIENDS SQUAD, I ACTUALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY HE ISN'T.

MORE LOVE FOR SWIFT WIND!!!

22) Favorite part of canon that everyone else ignores?

In my experience, this is the type of fandom that cultivates, um, extreme niches, for lack of a better term. As in, literally what my blog is compared to a "stan's" blog. They're like. Different SPOP fans everywhere, so I don't truly believe that there's a portion of this show that is genuinely ignored... There's someone out there that liked even the tiniest, unimportant fraction of this show. Just got to go find them. (Hell, I know people that love, like, Tall Star specifically, out of all the other characters. Nothing has gone totally unnoticed, which is something I really love about the fanbase as a whole, despite everything).

Anyway, to keep it short, my favorite "underappreciated" parts are hm... Maybe the parts where Adora gets to explore the world around her? And not in a super plot related way. I know that the BFS goofing off so much isn't totally ignored. But I like to see that Adora especially was still learning new things everyday in canon, just like, randomly. Nothing to do with the Horde or the Rebellion. Just. She should be excited for the new world around her, dude. Those are pretty rare moments in the show, actually. Wish there were more.

[miiilowo]

honestly id love if you talked about williams personality i havent read the books and only have that weird ending in the vr game to go off of lol

okay time to go silly mode

I'm gonna say first off I haven't really read the books, and that's where most of the information on his personality is, of course. The best source I've found regarding him is the @canon-william-afton blog- it's currently inactive, for what I fear are very unfortunate reasons, but there's a good backlog of content there with little to no fandomy sort of objections-Just pure analysis. It's rather sexy of them

When it comes to Williams personality, it's important to try and push the child murder thing out of mind for a minute I find. Mostly because serial killers tend to have a set personality in media-While William does have some of those traits, he doesn't conform to any particular stereotype or trope

He's a businessman! While he's still a very skilled engineer, he primarily took up the charismatic and.. Yknow, business, side of things, while henry stayed behind to be the ideas man with the creativity and animatronics. William can certainly use that charisma to his advantage like your average killer character might, but his charisma isn't your standard "I'm hot and sly so people like me" sorta vibe as much as it is "he's likable because he is goofy as shit"

He's a children's entertainer. You can't be a children's entertainer and have a high standard for what keeps your dignity intact. Hes very theatrical and expressive- The books and graphic novels tend to make note of this. Talking about magic and the supernatural while waggling his fingers, making big dramatic bows upon entering a room, stuff like that. I think one of the better examples of this is glitchtrap and vanny and how they're animated. I bring up vanny since glitchtrap is controlling her and all. They both dance and skip around over walking, make a show of expressing their intentions through body language, and make these big sweeping movements for no real reason beyond the fact that it's probably fun

Another thing to mention is that, in the books, he views both Dave and Springtrap as characters he plays over forms or aliases he's taken. He mentions it pretty explicitly, explaining how he viewed them as roles instead of disguises or otherwise- and that Springtrap was specifically supposed to be a comical, over the top villain. Which I appreciate. So much.

You can only be so normal and start up a restaurant wear you wear a bunny costume, yknow? Getting a job as a mascot is one thing, but starting the whole thing up??? And making trans and genderfluid fox robots in the 80s? (Canon) Come on. Come on now

While that's the more lighthearted stuff, William is obviously very fucked up for a myriad of reasons. Primarily, he deals with a lot of envy directed toward Henry-He thinks he's better at robotics, better than him in general, and it really gets under his skin. It's not just admiration and jealousy, it's hatred and envy. In the books it mentions him having stacks of journals, many of the entries raving about him-If I recall correctly, something along the lines of "admiration to near obsession".

The books also mention him being incredibly paranoid and jumpy-Skittish. I don't remember any explicit examples from the books, but it adds up with what we know about his character in-game too, which makes for a decent transition because I wanted to get over to analyzing what we get from the games anyway.

As for the evidence of it in-game, the first example that pops up is him freaking out when the kids corner him in the back room. I'm not sure if this is paranoia as much as it is cowardice, but we both already know he is because he killed children and is a loser

In my mind, the actual fnaf timeline is Wendigoons over on YouTube. It's fantastic, it explains almost everything (up to ucn-he doesn't get into vr or sb) and provides some really interesting insight on Williams character that I hadn't really seen brought up prior to that. But, the run down regarding his interpretation of william is:

William and henry start fredbears. Evan gets chomped because of Michael. He starts to resent Michael for it, but notices Evan is possessing Fredbear. From here, he becomes obsessed with figuring out how to bring his son back because he loved him so much, and it begins the spiral that'll eventually turn him into a monster.

And I do think William cared for his kids. A lot. If Wendigoons right, then he ruined his life attempting to save one of his kids. He designed baby after Elizabeth (canon), even if it ended poorly. In fact, I think he loved them so much it was a little overbearing, given the security cameras in his house and the fact he talked to Evan when he was away through the Fredbear plushie (which also has cameras installed.) It's almost obsessive, don't you think?

That's something else I wanna touch on: Obsessiveness. William was obsessed with Henry for all the wrong reasons, which backfires horribly later down the line for him in the game universe. But that's not the key point, really: It's his obsession with his work-with remnant and trying to bring his kids back-That would get so bad (combined with other elements and perceived betrayal from Henry) that he would completely become lost in it, leading to:

- intentional murder robots

- unintentional murder robots (x2)

- semi-intentional murder robots

- Killing Charlie (Henry's daughter)

- Elizabeth dying

- Killing 5 kids

- his death

- Michaels death

And so on and so forth. You get the point

William got so into his work that he lost all semblance of his humanity and took humanity from countless others. If that's not an example of negative obsession idk what possibly could be

I also think his ego is massive, but that's just kind of an observable fact. It's fragile, he's wimpy and pathetic, but I think he thinks very highly of himself and when someone (Henry) comes along and shatters that perception he kinda goes koo koo bonkers maybe

He is, of course, also a very determined figure-Something he and Michael have in common. I think his hatred for Michael kind of turns into a rage that fuels him later down the line since he wants to Kill Him so Fucking Bad. You can kind of see this in the hidden minigame in midnight motorist-its more than likely that you're William, and the kid in his room is Michael. Right off the bat who we can assume to be Williams wife tells him to leave him alone, implying it's a common occurrence that he's an ass to his kid. Immediately he goes to his room anyway, yells at him, says he's gonna be sorry, then finds out he ran off-Which he isn't too pleased with either.

William refuses to die, and he will do anything in his power to keep that from happening-including manipulating random gamer women

hooah! Vanessa! I don't think him doing the glitchtrap mind control thing is an example of how good of a manipulator he is as much as it is a show of how smart he is-Though, he obviously is a skilled manipulator in one way or another, considering.. Everything. At the very least, his unassuming personality and interest in acting makes it easy for him to get away with lying. But that's not the point. When glitchtrap shows up, he's not really manipulating anyone like people like to say he does-He just had a solid plan that worked. He IS smart, he is incredibly smart, and it usually works very well in his favor.

You may bring up that he isn't so smart maybe since he moves toward the BB voice in fnaf 3, but Im relatively sure that he's fighting against the suit the whole time. Its likely programmed to follow kids voices, and since the locks snapped shut on him, would be in animatronic mode and not suit mode-, meaning, it's not him approaching the BB voice, but spring bonnie. It also leads me to believe he gets angrier on the later nights, since he gets faster and more efficient-Working against it with more determination than before.

I think that's all I have for now, but for more information, I would recommend:

- The Wendigoon FNaF timeline

- This interview with Williams voice actor (he mentions taking inspiration from Hannibal Lecter and the idea of a snake oil salesman)

- And, of course, the @canon-william-afton blog for a metric shitton of genuine facts and analysis

[willel]

Why is twitter so toxic? I think you wrote something about it some time ago, that on tumblr, for instance, there’s no immediate incentive to write a hit post and then to come up with the most outrageous claims that create "engagement"? Or because it’s not really about direct conversation made of short messages when everyone wants to "win" the argument, but favors calm analysis instead. Anyway, I just can’t go there anymore right now, too much hate and stupidity, I’m glad there’s still blogs like you and a few others to enjoy some ST escapism.

Twitter's short form context was pretty great when it came out years ago. "Tweets" were generally someone putting random thoughts out in the aether or a quick notification or an alert to check out news on this site or that site. I feel like it wasn't meant for what it is today, for people to be interacting with each other in a meaningful way. Like, what are you gonna talk about in 100 characters or less? That's why you'll sometimes see old tweets of celebrities floating around of the most random nonsensical statements with no context. That's what twitter was as its core.

Now combine that with people starting to use twitter for more than just random thoughts that popped into peoples head. It started to be used for political activism (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) and fandom activities.

We all know how bad politics fandom can get on long form sites like tumblr and reddit. Imagine how much worse it is when you cut away all context and nuance to fit in a tweet.

Imo, it set twitter on a downward spiral. Doesn't matter how much they increase the character limit, the culture now is tweet fast. React fast. Argue fast. If you lose, resort to other means. Anything to win. Anything to get your tweets more attention that the other person.

It's like a game. I'm sure that plays into the desire to be "famous" that a lot of social media enjoyers crave.

I'm not saying tumblr is much better, but I feel the culture here is more like "take your time" or "time doesn't matter, old stuff is good". Tumblr does have an issue with people not reblogging content, causing good posts and content to go unnoticed given there is no real algorithm here, which is sad. But for the most part, ain't nobody here trying to get famous. Everything is talking and creating stuff for the sake of it.

Most of the time even the people arguing here are arguing about stuff that happens off site or they stay in their corners and tag correctly. (if you don't tag correctly and start fights on purpose, I immediately assume you must be from twitter)

People who have been here on my blog for a while are probably thinking "Tch, what do you know about fandom conflict?" and let me tell you, in my youth I participated in a ship war. It was just one,but still. I didn't resort to name calling or doxing people though, that's for sure. I wrote essays and essays in response to people, defended my ship, made stuff for my ship (which I still do), the whole shebang. It was all here on tumblr and deviantart. I do have a twitter for that fandom but I don't use it for any drama. I can say the drama on twitter is MUCH WORSE than anything I experienced on tumblr.

That is the ST fandom on twitter in a nutshell. No one can mind their own business. They're constantly spying on each other, posting using common search terms of the people they don't like and then acting surprised when the people they don't like respond to them. It's all like a game. Every blue moon when I go there to see if there's WillEl things, inevitably I will see shippers using it to fight against each other or crap on Will or El.

Once a week it's the same suspects saying the same things over and over again. Finding something pointless to be mad about. Sending angry anon messages. Never actually sitting down to enjoy the ships/relationships they claim to be a fandom of. Cannot mind their business and always have something negative to say. Denying what is literally in the show because they personally don't like it. Literally the worst kind of people to have in your fandom. (I associate that kind of behavior with like.... Riverdale drama or something. Sorry if you're a Riverdale fan. Lol)

In conclusion, yeah. I think twitter is that way because the short form context has breed a culture of "win or lose". Mixed with a little bit of celebrity idolization and a desperate desire for people to interact with you even if it's negative.

[petphantoms]

the abusive flower husbands thing does actually just come across as homophobic at some point. interpreting things in your own way is all well and good but as a gay man seeing people who are not gay men (from a lot of what I've seen anyway, not saying it's true for everyone), bending over backwards to say "no really they're abusive because I'm going to take these jokes and bits completely literally" it feels bad actually. I'm also not cool with the way people also tie this into scott being aro, bc I'm also aro and implying that he's abusive because he is aro is bad actually! sorry i really don't want to start anything this has just really been bothering me and you're the first to actually bring it up. it just has uncomfortable ties to the way people treat scott (as a character and as a real life person) as a gay man, and i think people should be more critical of these patterns

i had no idea scott was aro? huh! so i wont be able to comment on that fully because i havent seen it personally used as a point of discussion but that's really interesting..and im sure ur telling the truth i just. i havent seen it so i cant say much about my experience with it

other than that, yeah! like i said in my rb response, people dont tend to give the way that joel and grian and etc all bully jimmy the same treatment, where theyre Also horrible and abusive to jimmy etc, it just. it strikes me?

i know not EVERYONE who is interpreting FH as abusive hates scott or is even homophobic but it does just come off weird when people just don't seem to like... enjoy. the people involved at all. ... i enjoy some problematic ships because im interested in the dynamic and how things happened and the outcome, um. .. not because i hate this other guy??

idk if that makes any sense. id love to talk about the nuance and importance of media analysis and interpretation/representation of problematic relationships whether they be intentional or not but thats not rly what ur here for.

personally i do love discussion so if you have more shipping takes i am literally all ears, even if i disagree i really enjoy trying to understand different perspectives, which is a huge reason why i even made that post in the first place. it was a cry of frustration and confusion with what i was seeing because i had no context.

anyways everyone please remember we love eachother and to be civil and that im just here for discussion and understanding. i dont think FH is abusive personally, to me it reads as very just messing around and rough housing in a bad and unfamiliar situation (the life series is not like. a kind game, and 3l was the first! ofc theyre gonna be less comfortable).

i dont think its actually indicative of anyones personal beliefs unless theyre being freaks but i would implore everyone regardless of what you do or dont like both CCs and ships and etc to like. ask yourself why you dont like it, and where you're getting that information from, ykwim?

ok ty for the ask nonnie xx -🍄

[hopefullystillatheatrestudent]

i'm so excited about you taking asks again ahhhh okay so. if you'd absolutely had to choose. what would be your top 5 cockles moments, and why? thank you ily <3

here’s the thing: there are so many routes i could go down with this, because cockles moments come in all shapes and sizes and formats. these include moments from their panels, their bloopers, the footage we get when they don’t even know they’re being recorded, stories being passed down from photo ops & autographs(one of my personal favorite ways to get cockles, tbh, because they’re all insane), and social media(tweets to each other, instagram posts & comments, etc.). 

SO! since many a list like this has already been made, and i want to stand out from the crowd, what i’m gonna do is definitively give the number one spot to each of these five categories.(i might even throw in honourable mentions because they’re so despicably in love that they warrant that. i really put my whole pussy into this, guys, i hope you’re happy.) 

disclaimer: these are my own personal opinions. but that also means i’m right. so. enjoy. 

number one: top cockles panel moment

so we’re starting off with a bang, because how do you even BEGIN to rank what atrocities jensen and misha commit at jibcon. every single one they’ve had is damning in it’s own right, for different reasons.

however, considering just how much unabashed fuckery they’ve given us to sift through, it’s a good thing i do have a personal favorite despite it all. it’s heartwarming, the sweetest thing i’ve ever seen, AND it’s jarringly cinematic - mainly because it has a whole ass arc to it that was years in the making. it might even be surprising to some people, but my favorite cockles panel moment, and what i consider the one that encompasses their entire gut-wrenching journey from 2008-2013 in the most sweepingly romantic gesture possible, is this one.

i want this burned into my retinas. i am not even joking. when i'm through with my explanation, let me convince you why this is thee most romantic cockles moment of all time.

first, some history: people call this the resume off, but many seem to forget the botched attempt at a resume off a year prior. and yes, you guessed it: it's during their break up. it's a juicy time period for a reason, guys. it came across as exceedingly one-sided and VERY awkward. let me refresh your memory as to just how bad it was, and just how hard jensen was trying and ultimately failing at winning misha over: the funniest part of the whole resume off in 2013??? every joke/bit had literally already been made/done. they were just going through the motions again, but the difference THIS time...is that misha reciprocated jensen's energy. it. is. fascinating. i want to get into it more detail in another post, and i'll link it here when i'm done, but the main takeaway, i think, and the main difference that showcases how much they've grown in a year, is that in jib 3, misha flat out refused to do an accent, and this time around, he indulges jensen for literal minutes. when i tell you they're crazy, they're crazy. i can't wait to actually dive into it later.

ANYWAY, the resume off culminates in this moment here. and, like, a million things happen in this gifset. actually, more like a million and one. the music starts playingneediremindyouthatthesongissingingintherain(h e l p), misha starts dancing, jensen 'perpetually fake grumpy' ackles lets misha think he's not going to join, misha sits down defeated, but no!!! that was jensen's plan all along(look at his stupid fucking smirk) and he offers his arm to his dance partner who immediately grins like a fool, jensen then leads misha into their kick step, they perfectly synchronise and let loose, and are then very clearly having the time of their lives, hanging off of each other with joy and ease. from their expressions alone i can tell that this moment is so. so. so. so! much more than what initially meets the eye. i mean-misha is fighting back the biggest smile i've ever seen. to me, it reads like jensen is offering something to misha, something that misha kind of gave up on expecting, and him offering his arm like that is like, a surprise to him in the best possible way(and it's so not platonic, let me just say that.) as soon as jensen did that, it ushered in a new era of cockles. this panel is jensen and misha's favourite for a reason, and i think this moment is the biggest clue as to why.

whew!!! ok. that took a lot out of me and that was only point one. moving on,

number two: top cockles blooper moment

cockles bloopers hold an extremely special place in my heart, because it shows just how fucking disastrous jensen and misha are. they are so goddamn infatuated with each other that they HOLD UP PRODUCTION ALL THE TIME TO FLIRT WITH EACH OTHER(???). let me repeat. let it sink in. jensen ackles; arguably one of the most professional actors on that show who puts everything he has into each scene, with mountains and mountains of notes to prove it: would rather hold up production to flirt with misha collins. this sounds fake. it's not. he does it. all. the. time. and here's the thing guys!!! i'm gonna let you in on a secret!!! misha loves it. he loveesssss it. on top of that-misha collins: overlooked because he's pranked and people assume he's unprofessional as well, but his only pranks are in retaliation/off-set, and he rarely if EVER causes problems if he can help it....lets himself get carried away when it comes to jensen making kissy faces at him!!! are you actually kidding me!!! i mean. misha. it's just a face. you've seen it a million times. i don't buy that it triggers something in you that strongly....you like it, and you like jensen's reaction. you can't fool me!!! lisa berry's face in that one gifset shows just how fed up the crew is with their gross, coupley boyfriend antics.

i could pull up so many examples. sooooooo many. but my favourite was sealed since the moment i saw it.

i actually already wrote an analysis on it but i can't find it :(((( which SUCKS because i really unpacked the whole thing. i'll try to summarise.

basically, a backstory is part of this too!!! jensen and misha both had a really really hard time with this scene(because it's explicitly romantic there i said it), they sat down for hours and poured over their scripts together, they were super super nervous going into filming, both of them, jensen especially, were super hard on themselves for their performances not being true to their characters but they both complimented the other's work(boyfriend moments fr). so, yeah. they weren't confident going into shooting. and how do they get themselves to feel better???? by cuddling each other, apparently.

a lot. a LOT. happens in this specific blooper. to the point that i saw it years before i knew about cockles and it raised all sorts of flags for me.

1) stop pulling my face towards your crotch(as a thinly veiled request that misha would, in fact, move jensen's face towards his crotch, considering it was jensen moving himself there in the first place. also, why so comfy down there guys???) 2) you're my baby daddy i know(in the most intimate voice i've ever heard please) 3) i know, i know, i love you too i didn't say i love you i know but you wanted to say it etc. misha's right, of course. that's what jensen meant.

it just reeks of comfort, familiarity and intimacy between the two, and it's a moment that is extremely sweet and silly at the same time. they're so <3

number three: top cockles found footage moment

WONDERFUL category. truly the culmination of the cockles experience. many people have said that shipping cockles doesn't work because 'they're just onstage you dummies!! they're playing it up for the audience!!!' here's the thing, love. i could not disagree with you more. once you climb your way up the cockles ladder, you soon learn that they are, in fact, playing their dynamic DOWN, not up. they really are just Like That™, and they could not care less about the paying audience, if we're being honest, considering how much time they take to giggle with each other and refuse to let the audience in on the joke. and i love them for it <3

anyway, my point is that this category is for all you naysayers out there, all you 'jensen and misha's relationship is just for show and is real life queerbaiting'(?????lordhelp???) oh yeah? ok, explain this.

he. he. he calls jensen sweetheart. literally enough said. there's nothing to really add here, except, misha and jared then immediately engage in damage control. jared's method is distraction and misha's is retconning('get out of the car, dude') this was what got me to buy into the cockles dumpster for GOOD good. you don't call your buddy sweetheart accidentally and sound so completely earnest while doing it! especially not when that buddy is jensen ackles!!! you think he would let any of his friends call him that? do you?

one more thing; if it was a slip of the tongue, little mouth thing or whatever, you think jared wouldn't have jumped on it immediately??? i can hear it now. 'did you just call him SWEETHEART???' yeah. that's what i thought. you know why he didn't? because it was too revealing.

number four: top cockles autograph moment

i mean, i think we all know what it's gonna be, and if you don't, well, do i have the piece de cockles resistance that is gonna send you over the edge.

if you haven't heard of this story by now, as a cockles, truther, i'm gonna go ahead and get you to read it, because there is no possible heterosexual explanation for any of it, and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

spoiler alert: it's the story where phones weren't allowed in an auto session, jensen nuzzles himself in misha's hair, leans his full body weight onto him, holds his hand, etc. etc. i'm imploding just repeating this back, actually. also, just, the sheer amount of stories from photo ops where they tackle hug each other or slap each other's asses or sing romantic songs to each other or almost kiss is, frankly, a lot. if i could wish for anything, it would be to witness them in person.

and finally,

number five: top cockles social media moment

this one is super difficult, because there's obviously a lot to choose from. but you know what? full send, i'm going with this one:

i just. what to say about this. how often do misha and jensen watch sunsets together for it to qualify as ‘always’ ??? why are sunsets synonymous with their relationship??? that’s like??? a very romantic thing????? ‘this guy’??? the fact that it’s a CANDID??? i don’t know guys.

that could have been better but i am TIRED so. there you go rose ily

[butterfrogmantis]

why do u ship handy&clumsy? (i hope thats not a rude question i didnt mean it to be)

That's not rude! As long as it's not code for 'I'm passive aggressively judging you through the screen' lmao. I love talking about the origins for my ships! :3

But anyway if you want a post where I wrote an analysis about the canon relationship I did just that for someone a while ago!

As for me personally? Aha. Well, funnily enough it started out as a joke. Kinda. My original dynamic was actually teetered towards Clumsy having a bit of a one sided obsession/crush on Handy, mainly based on OGSDA. It was more of a guilt ship at that time, as I was in the middle of liking ClumsyStorm and HandyxMarina. Well my best friend actually picked up on it after I did a small doodle of them - she shipped Brumsy but didn't really like Brainy as an individual character so near-instantly dropped it in favour of fixer-uppers. Her fanart then pulled me away from 'haha guilt ship!' to 'oh my god I love them so much I wanna chuck clumsystorm away'. Dropping HandyxMarina wasn't really an issue because I kind of figured they wouldn't be able to last forever anyway :c Dropping Clumsystorm was harder because I had NG for it (the twins) that I didn't want to chuck but was willing to. In the end the whole step-parent thing worked out so much better!

But that's more like, the actual backstory to introducing it into my AU XD As for the actual reasons, I think the dynamic they have across media is both hilarious and sweet, and the whole opposites thing they have going on is good inspo to me! I really like that the running joke of Clumsy wanting to help Handy is kept consistent even from the magic flute movie!

My personal fave which Kitty showed me, the french vers

"When the Handy Smurf builds anything he is always helped by Clumsy Smurf"

And honestly that theme stands! With the exception of the other movies where Handy does frick all. It happens in the smurf village app too! Which isn't really canon media or anything I just think it's funny how they're still a secondary duo in that.

Clumsy just likes helping out <3 One of my fave lines is from the wishing tree one when he's getting rocks for a chimney and says 'Handy sure is gonna be proud of me!' that's so cute!! He's trying sdjfk

And you know what? He messes it up. Often. Like, all the time. But as Handy himself says, he keeps him employed! And fixing things is his job - tbh it doesn't really matter what these two do they're gonna be a constant presence in each other's life, so it's probably a good job they're friends. On that note, I've seen people say that Handy is mean to him but tbh I just .. don't agree. Objectively, I don't. Thing is, Clumsy annoys everyone, everyone is annoyed with him at times, Papa and Smurfette included. Handy only seems disproportionally upset with him because of how often Clumsy screws stuff up, and he only screws stuff up because Handy agrees to let him help out in the first place. One of my comfort eps being The Comet Is Coming for that very reason - they're gonna spend what they think is their last day alive together, that's not really the mark of two characters with hard feelings.

But wait! There's more! See, on that topic of niceness, unlike plenty of the others, Handy is a consistent apologiser.

He DOES own up to any unfair treatments. He DOES make sure Clumsy is ok and tries to make amends for situations where he was the one putting Clumsy in danger, as well as being grateful for favours in return, such as being saved from the monster.

And that might sound like simple decency but these are Smurfs, the little shits never apologise to each other /j. No but in all seriousness the dynamic is actually amongst some of the more well balanced of the characters, it's just not as easy to see collectively I suppose. And they have less than good moments, usually caused by mass hysteria (The Masked Pie Smurfer, The Golden Smurf Award etc) but that's not really something I can put a mark against since Clumsy arguably has even worse moments with Brainy, who he's supposed to have a better relationship with (The Comet Is Coming, The Smurfy Verdict). I think that kind of nullifies any they said/they did arguments, cause every character has bad moments.

And on that topic, as the shippER and not the characters, I have to approach things from an outside perspective as well as in inside one. Using Brumsy as my example because of it's obviousness. From a character point of view? Yah, it's practically canon in the og show lol. But from an outside viewer on the individual aspects well, I kind of see it where Brainy is someone that wants his ego stroked. Clumsy is happy to do so, but he's not really getting anything in return? Like objectively, they'd be happy together because Brainy would have a constant ego boost and Clumsy puts up with that but that makes me as an outsider feel bad for Clumsy. I love Brainy too but I think he needs his ego QUASHING not encouraging. Which is why I tend to prefer ships where Brainy has a bit more of a rivalry with them, I think if Brainy can actually learn to respect someone else by his own choice he's gonna be a much more well rounded individual. I want Clumsy to have someone that's not gonna try and use him and his never-dying loyalty to big themselves up. Handy fits the bill because Clumsy is, if anything, a detriment to him XD Again, that's an outsiders personal opinion looking in! It has no bearing on my actual views of Brumsy, which I think is cute and my friends draw cute fanart of it :)

Sooo yeah XD Some pretty basic thoughts, I just think they r neat!! Outside of my AU(s) I get so happy when they interact, even when it's not totally positive, though of course I always prefer those when they are- it's just a funky lil' rarepair for me, honestly I'm really really close to calling it my OTP at the moment haha

[serialreblogger]

Hey! I'm thinking of reading Dracula, and knowing that's your eternal hyperfixation, I wanted to ask your thoughts, if you had any comments, suggestions, ect.

HEY WHY DIDN’T I SEE THIS SOONER I’M SO SORRY FRIEND

okay okay okay okay (...several people are typing...) SO

the first thing you should be aware of when reading Dracula is that it’s quite Victorian, so you might find it easier, especially on a first read, to get an annotated version (the Norton Critical Edition version is quite good) that puts footnotes in to explain all the outdated references to like, London penny-meat merchants and stuff. I would say it’s significantly easier to read than Lord of the Rings, but because it was written 200 years ago the difference in language means it’s not a simple read. (However, if you have absolutely any attraction to the Gothic aesthetic, Dracula is so very much worth the brainpower to slog through the rougher sentences. Like. “...the courtyard of a vast ruined castle, from whose tall black windows came no ray of light, and whose broken battlements showed a jagged line against the moonlit sky.” The whole book is like that. A bit stilted to contemporary readers, but also breathtakingly spot-on in its Spooky Factor.)

the second thing you should be aware of is that Dracula is extremely gay, but in a Tormented Victorian Closeted way. There’s a part where Jonathan climbs out a window that just. It’s uh. The descriptions are very,, metaphorical-sounding. Again, the whole book is like that, and sometimes it’s very fun and sometimes (lookin at Lucy’s whole thing) it’s significantly more unsettling if you pay attention to the weirdly sexy descriptions of how the protagonists interact with the vampires, but I think that’s part of what I find so fascinating about Dracula--it’s unsettling and strange and the pieces don’t fit together clearly, and I still don’t know quite what to make of it, but all the same the feeling of what Stoker’s saying comes through quite clearly. There’s a reason why so many Dracula adaptations have this narrative of a protagonist falling in forbidden love with the tormented Vampyre, yknow? There’s something so unmistakeably sympathetic about the character of Dracula, even when the narrative of the story goes out of its way to establish that he has no redeeming qualities or even proper personhood, that he’s just a monster. Because there’s something about the story (even without getting into the whole “Mina and Jon murked their boss” thing) that makes a reader wonder if that’s really the whole truth. If there isn’t something tragic about Dracula. If there isn’t something in him, if not of goodness, then at least of sorrow, instead of only fear.

Anyway I digress but I think we all knew that was gonna happen; point is: Jonathan and Dracula definitely had sex, Mina and Lucy were definitely in love, Seward’s got something weird goin on with the old professor (and also he’s just very weird, full stop. sir. sir please stop experimenting on your asylum inmates. sir i know this is victorian england but please Do Not), and Quincey, well, Quincey is an American cowboy with a bowie knife, and I think that’s all we really need to know.

ok and! the third thing you should be aware of is The Racism. Imperialist Britain, yo. Bram Stoker was Irish so like, it isn’t half as bad as some other authors of his time period (Rudyard Kipling anyone), but the racism is real and I don’t wanna gloss over that. The g**sy slur is used with abandon for a huge assortment of people groups, there’s a tacit as well as overt acceptance of the idea that West is superior to East, and because the educational system where I grew up is a joke and I can only learn things if I accidentally fall down the wikipedia hole of researching the insect genus hemiptera, i genuinely still don’t know how accurate the extensive history of Romania recounted in the first third of the book actually is. Oh also casual and blatant anti-blackness is verbalized by a character at least once. I’m pretty sure the racism has a metaphorical place in the framework of Dracula’s storytelling, but I couldn’t tell you what it is because I am not going to bother putting myself in the mindset of a racist white Victorian man. This is the mindset I am trying to unlearn. So: read with caution, critical thinking, and the double knowledge that even as the narrators are meant to be unreliable, so too is the author himself.

Finally, regarding interpretation: so personally I’m running with the opinion that Dracula is, at least partly, a metaphor for Stoker’s own queerness and internal conflict re: being queer, being closeted, and watching the torture his friend Wilde went through when the wealthy father of Wilde’s lover set out to ruin his life for daring to love his son. Whether this is true or not (I think it’s true, but hey, that’s analysis, baby), you can’t understand Dracula without knowing the social context for it (as with all literature--the author isn’t dead, not if you want to know what they were saying), and the social context for it is:

- Stoker was friends with Wilde, growing only closer after Wilde was outed

- Wilde was outed, as I said, because the father of his lover was wealthy and powerful and full of the most virulent kind of hatred. This is especially interesting because of how many rich, powerful parents just straight up die in Dracula and leave the main characters with no legal issues and a ridiculous amount of money, which is the diametrical opposite of what happened to Wilde

- Stoker idolized his mentor Henry Irving. Irving was a paradigm of unconventional relationships and self-built family, in a world where divorcees and children born out of wedlock were things to be whispered about in scandalized tones, not people to love and embrace. Irving was also famous for thriving off of manipulating those close to him and pitting friends against each other. Given the painstakingly vivid description Stoker provides for his titular vampire and how closely it matches Irving’s own appearance and demeanor, Irving was widely understood even at the time of writing to be the chief inspiration for the character of Dracula

- the book is dedicated to Stoker’s close friend, Hall Caine, a fellow writer whose stories centered around love triangles and accumulation of sins which threaten to ruin everything, only to be redeemed by the simple act of human goodness

- Stoker was Irish, but not Catholic (he was a Protestant of the Church of Ireland, a division of the Anglican Church). This may come as a surprise when you read the book and see All The Catholicism, Just Everywhere. Religion is actually a key theme in Dracula--most of the main characters start out your typical Good Victorian Anglican Skeptics, and need to learn through a trial-by-fire to trust in the rituals and relics of the Catholic Church to save them from Dracula’s evilness. Which is interesting. Because not only do these characters start off as dismissive towards these “superstitions” (in the same way they dismiss the “superstitions” of the peasant class on the outskirts of Dracula’s domain), but the narrative telling us “these superstitions are actually true!” cannot be trusted, when you know the author’s own beliefs.

(Bram Stoker is not saying what his characters are saying. This is the first and most important rule to remember, if you want to figure out Dracula.)

- The second-most famous character in the novel, after Dracula himself, is Van Helsing, whose first name is Abraham. Note that “Bram” is a declension of Abraham. What does this mean? I legitimately have no idea. But it’d be a weird coincidence, right? Like what even is the thought process there? “Oh, yeah, what should I name this character that comes in, makes overtly homoerotic statements willy nilly, and encourages everyone to throw rationality out the window and stake some vampires using the Eucharist? hmmmm how about ‘Me’”

ok wait FINAL final note: you legitimately do not have to care about any of this. I love Dracula because it has gay vibes and I love trying to figure it out, like an archaeologist sifting through sentence structure to find fragments that match the patterns I already know from historical research; but that’s not why you should love Dracula. The book itself is just straight up fun to read. Like I said, Stoker absolutely nails the exact vibe of spookiness that I love, the eerieness and elegance and vague but vivid fear of a full moon crossed by clouds at midnight. The characters are intriguing, especially Quincey gosh I love Quincey Morris but they’re very,, sweet? if i can say that about people i, personally, suspect of murder? They come together and protect each other against the terrible threat that is Dracula, and you don’t get that half as often as I’d like in horror media. I don’t even know if Dracula could qualify as “horror” proper, because it’s not about the squeamish creeping discomfort that “horror” is meant to evoke, it’s not the appeal of staring at a train wreck--it’s not horrifying. It’s eerie. It’s Gothic. It has spires and vampires and found family and cowboys, and to be honest, I don’t know what could be better than that.

[mittensmorgul]

OMG. California scenes. I'm a SoCal girl and I just realized that this... is true. I think of myself as guarded, but wow. I think I've actually sat down and opened up to a relative stranger over lunch and then coffee. But I don't do it to seem centered! Anyway, gotta go back and look over my unpublished fics and make sure that I don't accidentally put too much of myself into them...

hi there! I swear I’m gonna write a bit about your message, but for reference, for others reading this, I think I need to provide a bit of context first. :) This is regarding this post about writing exposition:

https://mittensmorgul.tumblr.com/post/190756281185/cthonical-gallifrey-feels-fanfic-authors

Disclaimer time! I reblogged it specifically for that highlighted bit at the top:

And my specific intent in reblogging this was every complaint I ever read about why Dean and Cas don’t just ~talk to each other~ and deal with their issues. Every single “but they could’ve dealt with this years ago and been together!” I will counter “No, they really couldn’t! Because that’s not the story they’ve ever been telling!” 

But, I’ve heard argued, if they really wanted to, they could change the story they’re telling. They could so easily make it obvious, explicit, textual between them. And of course they could! If they had zero authorial integrity, they could do whatever they wanted.

The way they have set up this story for the last decade and a half has established-- through the slow unfolding of more and more important facts, of gradually uncovering details, as above in purple, that become necessary for comprehension of the characters and their progression through this story-- that Dean’s relationship with Cas has been established in an ever tighter orbit around their mutual most deeply buried and tightly guarded secrets.

For reference, I’m not pulling this line of thinking out of nowhere. This is literally a rephrasing of something Davy Perez said in an interview when he first started with SPN back in s12. I never finished transcribing that podcast, but the relevant bit of the two hour conversation is included in this post:

https://mittensmorgul.tumblr.com/post/160988290690/12-while-i-do-not-ask-this-to-be-negative-at

but the tl;dr of the handful of paragraphs of full context from that post:

Television is about a character that you become invested in, and that you fall in love with. That character grows in incremental ways. Not only do they grow in tiny little increments, and sometimes don’t even grow, they go backwards. You don’t close the loop. You keep the loop open, so that hopefully when you know that okay, this is our final season, this is our final run of episodes, that’s when you can find those landing points, and that’s when you can sort of say this is the end of this journey.

And Supernatural has been narratively riding around on that loop, on that spiral, for 15 years. And this is now the final season, and they’re gliding toward those landing points now. They’re homing in on those “painful truths the characters don’t want known,” those huge personal issues they’ve all been grinding down over the last 15 years and inching ever closer to unveiling. Because that’s how stories work when authors are writing to the narrative rather than writing instant gratification for a fickle audience. If one thing has been consistent over the years, it has been this progression of character. And Dabb era has chosen to lampshade all of this in text, through Chuck the Original Author.

And that is effectively the exact writing advice from this random post about how to write a believable and engaging story that has been all over my dash over the last few days. Like... the irony, right?

So now that I’ve explained my vagueing with this post, I’d be happy to address your actual question, from the rest of that page of writing advice. Thank you for bearing with me... :’D

I’d venture to say that the description of that sort of “identity info dump” that the article described as “California scenes,” where characters just spill their deepest secrets, isn’t always a negative thing. And it’s not a phenomenon exclusive to California, or borne of a need to prove someone’s authenticity, or angst cred, or whatever. Because it’s something we see happening on the internet, too.

And it’s absolutely something you can USE in your writing. I find it hilarious because it’s actually a major theme of my pinefest fic this year, which will be posting in April. Sorry I can’t point everyone to it yet, or really give too many spoilers... other than trying to explain this phenomenon.

Social media creates a weird sort of culture of identity. There was a post on tumblr years ago that explained it rather well. It said something to the effect of “in real life you meet people and slowly feel them out and reveal your deepest secrets only to a select few people after they already know your whole life story, but on the internet you’re just a screen name and an avatar and you might reveal your deepest secrets without any of the people who read them even knowing your NAME or what you look like or anything else about you.”

Because it’s not about complete open honesty, you know? It’s about understanding what carefully selected bits of information you present in a given circumstance. It’s social engineering.

Revealing your deepest desires or darkest secrets is an entirely different prospect when, say, sitting with a new acquaintance over a cup of coffee face to face or with a coworker in the break room than it is in an anonymous internet chat room. And it can be fascinating to understand what we’re willing to reveal about ourselves in these very different circumstances.

And once you sort through that sort of character analysis, you can write a truly believable and entirely in-character info dump like that without it feeling like an info dump. Because what the character chooses to reveal about themselves in a given situation can be as informative of the character and their relationship to the other characters as the details of what they say.

So, I guess the takeaway here is the reminder that you should still take all writing advice with a grain of salt, and remember that it’s not a blanket rule and all these “California scenes” should be excised in order for your story to be good, you know? If you know your characters well enough, they can be strategic moments of character insight, or even a complete misdirect. The key is to be aware you’re writing one, and then use it to illustrate a character’s weakness, or strength, or the dynamic of the relationship being exposed, rather than being a strict infodump of facts. Because infodumps are always boring if that’s actually the scene you’re writing and there isn’t a deeper layer of understanding going on or a deeper insight for the reader to gain.

Lol, this reminds me of another quote about writing that’s perfectly related:

“If the story you’re telling, is the story you’re telling, you’re in deep shit.” Robert McKee

If the only thing the reader takes from a scene is the words coming out of the characters’ mouths, you done screwed up... That’s why so many of these California scenes are just bad writing. They serve no other purpose than telling the reader a series of details about the characters’ backstories and fail to provide any deeper insight. The key to writing a GOOD scene is make it less a backstory catch-up bit of filler text, and more about what the characters aren’t revealing, or why they’re revealing any of this information in the first place. Because “to inform the reader of these facts” is never a good enough reason for a character to spill their guts like that.