#i don't mean this in a 'choices isn't as good as it used to be' way

[amorisastrum]

What if the Knox and Chris sub-plot had meaning?

WAIT NO GUYS IM SORRY PLEASE HEAR ME OUT I BEG PLE-

Okay I'm starting this post off by restating my downright hatred for Knox. I do not like his character, what he did was wrong, it's creepy and fucking disgusting. I will however like to talk about how his relationship with Chris could have potentially added to the story.

We all know (at least I hope) that practically everything in this film has meaning. I had spent ages wondering why they thought it was a good idea to include this frankly ridiculous sub plot to the story. And then I thought about it. Like really thought about it. I don't exactly remember what I was doing when I thought about it, but I do know that I had DPS playing in the background. (I initially thought about this on April 7th. It is May 29th when I am typing this up.)

So, here are all my reasons as to why I think they added the Knox and Chris sub-plot!

My first point is about this scene:

I believe that this line could be a form of foreshadowing. Yes, it is Knox being a dramatic and insufferable prick but it also feels like it could be more. Obviously it isn't Knox who dies in the end, but the idea of not being able to have something leading to suicide feels very important to the story.

Neil is unable to achieve a career in acting because of his father. As well as this, he is being taken away from his family. His real family. By not being able to have this thing that he so desperately wants, he feels like there is no other solution than death.

Knox says that if he can't have Chris he will kill himself, Neil has practically everything he loves stripped away from him- he cannot have it. So... He kills himself. There is a lot of foreshadowing in this film that hints to Neil's death at the end of the film and I do truly believe that this is a part of that foreshadowing.

My next point is that it is used as a form of contrast.

We see that Knox is extremely open about his attraction to Chris... In a multitude of ways, repeatedly throughout the film. Whether his actions that show his attraction are good or not is a different matter (Knox... God how I hate you.)

Arguably this is used as a juxtaposition. Knox (and Chris?) are relatively open about their attraction to one another- while Neil and Todd are very closed off about it. It is never explicitly stated that Neil and Todd like each other in that way, but through subtext it is heavily implied.

Why might this be? Well, considering the film is set in 1959, it could be because homosexuality simply wasn't legal at this point in time. Neil and Todd weren't allowed to be open about liking each other. Being open about it could put them in danger, they had no choice but to stay quiet.

However, as well as a contrast, it poses similarities between Knox and Chris and Neil and Todd. By setting up this contrast, it only brings to the surface some quite significant similarities.

Because let's be real.

How can THIS be a look of true love...

And THIS not be?

Or falling in love or admiring one's beauty or WHATEVER you want to call it. That's not the point. The point is, they're not that different.

You can see similarities between Knox's behaviour towards Chris and Todd's behaviour towards Neil (and vice versa). One of the main similarities is, well, how they look at one another. I personally don't see how the way Knox and Chris look at each other is true love but the way Todd and Neil look at one another is just... Them being roommates.

The juxtaposition between the two sets of people (I didn't know how else to say this) just doesn't seem accidental. The constant mention of Knox's feelings and love towards Chris just makes the way Neil and Todd interact more obviously... Romantic? Loving?

Their love is stated to allow the audience to see how similar they are to Todd and Neil, while still sticking to one of the key concepts of the film - conformity. Neil and Todd having to conform to societal standards, not being able to share their love for one another.

Knox's feelings for Chris are explicitly stated, repeatedly, because Todd's and Neil's can't. It makes it more noticeable. Neil and Todd's feelings can't really be stated due to the law. So they do it with Knox instead. The similarities can be seen throughout the film in how Knox treats Chris and how Neil and Todd treat one another.

Because again, how can Knox look at Chris like that and that show that he is in love, but Neil look at Todd like that and that just be... Them being friends?

The answer is, it can't. Not really.

Although Knox is a lot more explicit with his feelings towards Chris than the other two are with one another, the feelings they have are the same. Whether it is portrayed in the same way or not, it's love.

[spacingoutforever]

PLOT THEORY FOR S2 - Fallout

**MANY FALLOUT SPOILERS AHEAD - read at your own risk**

i have this weird theory that the juxtaposition we see between Cooper's outwardly grim appearance vs his morals being intact, and then Max's outwardly normal appearance vs his morally neutral choices, might be a way of telling us more about looks being deceiving for future developments.

hear me out.

Max is knocked out as soon as he finds out about Shady Sands, but he was definitely intending to do some damage, revenge had its hooks in him from the beginning. it was always there, whether it be to regain the honor the Brotherhood took away from him, then evolving into being part of the trio that was now after Hank. the man who robbed him of his home, family and hope for the future.

i saw a video essay discussing the moral choices of Lucy and Cooper's characters and i really liked the criteria they created for measuring it - ill link it below.

she says there's 2 main parts:

1. loss of control

2. being unrecognizable after enduring hardship

whether you agree with this criteria or think there's more to be added, i like how simple of a base it provides, when approaching these complex characters.

so if we then apply this to Max, he is the only member of our main cast who exhibits both points.

1. loss of control:

this is distinct to me in the Philly shoot-up, where he isn't able to control the T-60 power armor enough to put up a fair fight against The Ghoul. literally crash-lands it and then gets flung into the atmosphere LIKE PLS

he mistakenly attacks the people of Vault 4, once again losing control of his power.

the chicken-guy .... trying to derail that argument but saving the wrong person ><

Note: it's FASCINATING if you look at his character metaphorically, because the power armor is someone having the means for good but not having the understanding of what true 'good' means to them, yet. the power armor is LITERALLY his OUTWARD POWER like who is he really, underneath it??!!!!

we don't have this problem with Cooper and Lucy right now, their power is shown to be INWARD. the Ghoul's experience/connection to the beginning, and hers is her obvious moral strength and perseverance. they overlap.

i feel that his character is supposed to lean into the apprentice archetype, where he is currently lacking a proper teacher to show him the ropes. at first we expected Lucy to fit this role because of her inexperience on the surface, and yet when given a 'mentor' she not only challenges him but proves she can handle herself. ruling that one out, and leading us to believe the fate-intertwined aspect of ghoulcy has a touch more to it. implicit rather than explicit.

2. being unrecognizable after enduring hardship

Max to me fits this point too, because we still don't get a glimpse into who he truly is, besides knowing his past. from the beginning, his goal is to be a Knight of the Brotherhood, that's how he defines himself currently.

when he fights off the gulper, he reiterates this line to himself: "i am a Knight of the Brotherhood of Steel".

he says it AGAIN in response to Lucy's advances in the vault. which is a clue into how much he relies on it for his moral code, to the point where it crosses into his personal decisions. not just for 'missions' or survival.

this is like foreshadowing a tipping point for me, because without the Brotherhood, what does he want? he's acting in alignment of the code that was pushed on him, but it always feels like he has to remind himself to BE that.

that it doesn't come naturally, the way the other characters' do. we see this at the start where he gets the answer wrong in class, he's bullied, an 'outcast' within his own community (for lack of a better term).

by comparison, the Ghoul isn't even a real 'outcast' in the way cowboys are stereotypically portrayed, because he fits in the wasteland better than anyone.

so point 2. becomes relevant when he gets the armor and is unrecognizable from where he started. this is a point he never thought he'd get to, but he sacrifices his real identity to get there.

SO ALL THIS TO SAYYYY...... that's where i feel his character will be vulnerable to a villain-arc!

in the ending, he gets accepted as a Knight, but his expression betrays him. there is a continuous inner conflict within Maximus that is SO SUBTLE and its written so beautifully. i think we're going to see ghoulcy pushing each other in the right direction. their shared journey seems to be about regaining HOPE.

but for Max, i feel in my bones that something darker is coming for his arc, it feels like revenge. the goofy, lovable boy in the clunky armor, may very well end up having the darkest battle to face. and it's because he's alone in doing it.

this was a lot to digest, so if you made it this far i thank you from the bottom of my heart!!!!!!!

AND if you have anything to add i would love to hear it :) !!!!

[borderlinereminders]

Losing someone can be so beyond words. Here is some advice for losing a FP but it can probably be applied to losing someone in general!

Some things I like to remind myself are:

The feelings are temporary. They will pass. No matter how crushing they may be, you won't feel like this forever. Sometimes it can help to remember that what we're feeling is temporary because when we forget that and think it's how we're going to feel forever, it can make us feel so hopeless. So here's your reminder. This isn't forever.

You survived without them before, and you can do it again. I promise. It doesn't mean it'll be easy but it can help to have the reminder that we existed before then, and survived before them and we can do both of those things again.

Be kind to yourself. You are valid and you are allowed your emotions.

Healing is not linear. Grief isn't linear. And for a lot of us, when we lose our FP, it is something we need to heal from. It is something we grieve about. And it's okay if we feel ourselves doing better for a bit and then falling back. It doesn't mean you've failed or anything like that.

Some things I do:

Note that these are all personal things I do and aren't rules for how you should cope. I'm sure your own list will differ! But maybe my list will inspire you to think of ideas for your own list!

Focus on myself. Even when it's uncomfortable and I don't want to, I focus on my hobbies. I focus on finding new hobbies. Sometimes I make a list of different hobbies I've never tried, and then I go through it and try them at least once to see if I enjoy something. If not, it gets scratched off. These could be new shows, books, activities, etc.

Feel the emotions. Usually not all at once because it's too much, but my instinct is to bury the emotions. To turn my emotions off entirely ((I'm sure others relate to the turning them off thing. It's like a switch I can use). And it's uncomfortable, but sometimes I force myself to feel them. In bits as I can handle it. Allow yourself time to grieve.

Focus on my DBT skills like Urge Surfing for any urges that arise or Radical Acceptance for accepting my feelings.

Come up with a Crisis Plan in case I start to spiral. Here’s my walk through on that.

I diversified my relationships. I think this is an important thing to do. Even if you have a FP currently. Diversifying your relationships to have other people in your support system can be really good.

This is a personal choice, but I cut off all ties. I used to keep screenshots of messages they wrote assuring me they cared and stuff like that. I deleted all screenshots. I also made sure I couldn't look at their profiles and check on them. I made sure their numbers were deleted and anything else.

I like to do nice things for someone else. It's hard sometimes to get there, but there's a feeling I get when I make someone smile or help someone out that makes me feel a bit lighter. It reminds me that I am valuable as I am. This is actually a part of the ACCEPTS skill if you're interested in reading more about that.

Work on forgiving myself. Maybe you don't feel you need this, and that's valid. But I did. I had to learn to forgive myself for not knowing better, for making mistakes, and I always remind myself that I am human. In connection with this, I work on letting go of any regrets I have. It's easier said than done, I know. It's important for me to remember that I can't change the past, so dwelling on any regrets doesn't help me. What I can do is learn from them and do better.

I know it's hard. But it really does get better. I have lost FP's and thought the entire world was ending and that I would never recover. I still think about them sometimes, but it's such a dull ache that I barely notice it. It might always hurt a little, but it will be manageable.

Here are some other coping ideas.

You can do this.

[volo-thereforeiam]

"Choice feminism" is bad for women in East Asia? What are you on about? Are you seriously rather subscribe to radical feminism that is so white and fail to account WOC and women from the global south in general? Are you seriously going to subscribe to a transphobic movement? You can't say this kind of feminism isn't transphobic because look at 4B or 6B4T in South Korea and China. The movement explicitly exclude transwomen and has been glorified to death by mostly white women. If anything I say the feminism that includes transwomen is good for East Asia to fix the transphobia problem. I feel sorry for transpeople in East Asia if all the feminists are like you.

I'm just going to elaborate point by point.

"'Choice feminism' is bad for women in East Asia? What are you on about?" On paper, choice feminism sounds great because it empowers women to do whatever they want, as long as it's their choice. In reality, women have been groomed to "choose" things that primarily benefit men. People don't make choices in a vacuum; we're influenced by our environment. When strict gender roles and expectations for women still exist aggressively in East Asia, the path of least resistance is to conform to those values. East Asian women "choose" to be housewives and follow exhaustive beauty regimes because society is kinder to them when they do. Or they think these choices are good for them due to moral grooming. Let me ask you: if a conservative, religious, sheltered, and uneducated woman chooses to marry a man 20 years older and have 5+ babies, how much of that is truly her choice? What women need is not empowerment, but agency.

"Are you seriously rather subscribe to radical feminism that is so white and fail to account WOC and women from the global south in general?" That's an interesting perspective, anon! I'd love to hear more about why you consider radical feminism to be "white" someday. Personally, I think liberal feminism (or 3rd wave feminism/choice feminism, I use these terms interchangeably) is the movement that fails to account for women from the global south. While it's true that liberal feminism is quite inclusive, it is still mostly US/Europe-centric (and for simplicity, I include Canada and Australia in the same category). This means that when it accounts for WOC, it's primarily considering WOC who live in those regions. It is known as "Western feminism" for a reason. Radical feminism, on the other hand, doesn't need to work as hard to include WOC from the global south because those women already tend to gravitate towards it instead of liberal feminism. The reason is that liberal feminism has shifted its focus from women’s issues to a broader concern with gender. When women outside the US and Europe haven’t even secured basic rights directly tied to their sex, why should they align with a movement that has moved on to different concerns?

"Are you seriously going to subscribe to a transphobic movement? You can't say this kind of feminism isn't transphobic because look at 4B or 6B4T in South Korea and China. The movement explicitly exclude transwomen and has been glorified to death by mostly white women." 4B and 6B4T at the core are meant to serve as direct opposition of South Korea and China's patriarchal state and combat its aggressive pro-natalist policies, which view women’s bodies and reproductive abilities as tools for the state’s future. Other aspects of the movement, such as rejecting rigid beauty standards and degrading depictions of women in otaku culture, are part of women's effort to not make themselves (excuse the wording) look "breedable". I hope it’s clear why transwomen can't be included in this specific movement.

Regarding the movement being glorified mainly by white women, I'm not aware it is the case because my focus isn't on the West like yours is. But even if we accept your claim as true, how does the support from white women automatically make the movement fundamentally "white" (and, by implication, bad in your view)? Roe v. Wade was just overturned, so it's understandable that Western women, especially Americans, would take an interest in the 4B movement. Or maybe they simply empathize with their fellow women. Let me ask you this: for someone so determined to include transwomen in every feminist movement, why do you consider white women less of women?

"If anything I say the feminism that includes transwomen is good for East Asia to fix the transphobia problem. I feel sorry for transpeople in East Asia if all the feminists are like you." Or we could have separate movements that collaborate when necessary but don't have to be synonymous. Why does feminism need to stretch itself thin to cover every issue? Isn't that one of the factors Roe v. Wade was overturned despite majority in the US disapproved supreme court decision? Feminism in the West has been defanged so much by consumerism, sex empowerment and gender issues. I also believe having a movement specifically for trans people allows for a focus on their unique issues, making it more effective.

You don't need to be sorry for transpeople here because what I'm fighting for can ultimately benefit them too. You policing women's advocacy movement, however, does not benefit anyone.

[peonyblossom]

no Choices book is ever going to compare to the It Lives series

[fiapple]

for such a small fandom, the moral orel community really does have a huge fucking problem with woobification of the adult cast.

it's gross.

[itspileofgoodthings]

Matthew MacFayden’s Darcy is a fascinating thing to unpack because I don’t believe it succeeds as a performance of Darcy or even as a performance in general (it kind of can't) but there are layers to it and it's not simple.

[rotisseries]

what’re your thoughts on live action zelda movie? i assume they’re not positive !

so glad you asked! my plans for the premiere will be a suicide bombing at nintendo hq! hope this answered your question!

[pluto-boy]

i think more people need to talk about how their past identities echo into the present and how sometimes it's good to embrace those memories with open arms. i am a cumulation of every lived experience i've lived through; i am shaped by memories

[dabidagoose]

Me when I try to avoid my true nature and desires to do something practical

[sleepys-circus]

I keep seeing critics talking about the fnaf movie being poor but it literally isn't for them. I saw someone else saying the movie's a love letter to the fandom and i WHOLEHARTEDLY agree.

This is how i took it: We, the fans, are Anton Ego, the critic from Ratatouille; the ratatouille was special to us because it was our childhood. I hate ratatouille (the food), but to Anton Ego it was everything. Critics don't like the fnaf movie because they only have the movie as context, but to fans, the fnaf movie is everything and we love it even though it's a little cringey. In fact we love it BECAUSE it's cringey in some cases.

Like no new viewers would get the chica's magic rainbow part, or the MatPat reference, or the whole ongoing bit about Dream Theory sucking, or understand how hype the whole ending part was.

I was lucky to be in a cinema full of fnaf fans, and we were cheering and laughing, and screaming at the references. People got up when the movie ended and SAT BACK DOWN when the living tombstone came on. We shouted the letters of the code, and screamed when Matpat said his line. People clapped and cheered at the end, and people were crying at the parts where they were treating the animatronics with love and affection.

No critics would understand how much fans want to interact with the animatronics in a positive way, or understand how much importance the five seconds of its me on the mirror means in implications of the lore. They wouldn't understand because they haven't been waiting a good part of a decade to see this movie. They came, they saw, and that's it, it was a second of their life, but to us it was everything. This is our ratatouille, made to impress us, not the other people in the restaurant. This was our movie, a love letter to the fandom, not the critics.

I like the changes to the story, because it puts us back at square one. We're fumbling to rearrange lore and timelines. We have to rearrange names, and start with a blank slate, and it feels like a homecoming where to critics, it might feel a little messy.

We've been given a chance to start the journey all over again and i fucking love it so much. Because i'm an adult, and all of a sudden, i'm twelve years old again and we're trying to figure out if phone guy is chica, and struggling our way through whatever the fuck was happening in fnaf 3 to get the good ending. The critics don't get this.

They don't understand how hype the midnight motorists reference is, nor did they care about the references on the chalkboard. Or the code at the end, or the song choices, or the lore implications. They don't understand the sudden lore drop of william afton, or the way he's acting, but we do. They don't understand the vengeful spirit, but we do. Nothing is explained to the audience, because we don't need it to be explained.

This is our ratatouille, and we love the rats in the kitchen.

[rabbitrah]

A continuation on my post about unloved foods, specifically this is my in-depth defense of root beer.

Root Beer isn't inherently gross, it's just one of those weird local flavors that's off-putting to people who didn't grow up with it. We all like different things and also we all tend to like flavors that are similar to what we grew up with. That's okay! But honestly root beer is pretty unique and, in my opinion, delicious.

One of the main complaints against root beer is that it tastes like medicine. Funnily enough, it was originally marketed as medicinal! This is true for most OG sodas actually. Pretty much as soon as carbonated water was invented, people were drinking it to soothe various ailments. A lot of the original soft drinks were actually invented by pharmacists. I just think that root beer is especially cool because the main flavor came from the root bark of sassafras, a common North American shrub. Because it's so widespread and aromatic, all parts of the sassafras plant have been used in food and medicine by many different Native American tribes throughout history and was subsequently picked up and used by European colonists. In the 1960s, some studies indicated that that safrole oil, which is produced by the plant, can cause liver damage. Whether or not this would actually remain true after it had been boiled and added to root beer is unclear, but it was really easy to replicate the flavor, so the sassafras in commercial root beer these days is artificial. Another fun fact about safrole is that it's a precursor in the synthesis of MDMA. None of this information has stopped my childhood habit of eating sassfras leaves right off the shrub whenever I walk past it on a hike. I'm like 85% sure it's safe and also mmmm yummy leafs go crunch.

Another root beer complaint is that it tastes like toothpaste. I think this is probably because another key flavor in most root beer recipes is wintergreen. I'm assuming that the people who think this are the same people who think mint chocolate chip ice cream tastes like toothpaste. I can understand and even respect that some people don't like mint and associate it only with brushing their teeth, but like. Mint is a pretty common flavor. I mean I think it's safe to say that humans have been eating mint flavored stuff for longer than toothpaste has existed... anyway!

Other common flavors in root beer (real or artificial) are caramel, vanilla, black cherry bark, sarsaparilla root, ginger, and many more! There's not one official recipe, and root beer enthusiasts often have strong opinions about different brands. Some root beer is sharper, with more strong aromatic flavors, and others are mild and creamier.

Another thing I think is cool about root beer is that it's foamier than most sodas. This was originally because sassafras is a natural surfactant (and why sassafras is also a common thickening agent in Louisiana Creole cooking.) These days, other plant starches or similar ingredients are added to keep the distinctive foam. Root beer foam > all other soft drink foams. That's why root beer floats kick more ass than like, coke floats.

If you've never had root beer before, imagine if a sweetened herbal tea was turned into a soda, because that's basically what it is. If your first response to that is a cringe, fair enough. That's why lots of people don't like it. If your first response to that is "interesting... I might actually like it, though" then I encourage you to track down a can of root beer today, hard as that might be outside the US and Canada. Next time you see an "ew, root beer tastes like medicine/tooth paste" take, know that there's a reason for that, but also the same could be said for literally any herbal or minty food/drink.

My final take on root beer is that it would be the soda of choice for gnomes. Thank you and good night.

[caseys-breanna]

My favourite Parker episode has always been The Inside Job, y'know why? It's not just what Parker does, but rather what the others do FOR Parker.

Parker has 4 safe houses in the city, but Nate and Sophie know her well enough to know where she actually stays when she's away from the team

Parker's security code. Do you understand the level of trust someone like Parker will have to have to use their name as her security code? To the place that's her own personal sanctuary? Sophie EARNED that level of trust.

'The Sterenko can't be cracked-' 'Can you do it?' 'Nate, it can't be-' 'For Parker. Can you do it for Parker?'

This. Just this.

'I made her. I trained her, and I released her into the world.' 'She was broken! She needed you!'

This stood out so loud to me, because it's not Hardison or Sophie (the more emotionally intelligent ones of the team) saying it. Because it's NATE. It's Nate, the man who couldn't say I Love You to Sophie for so long. The man who got so caught up in his son's death that every job involving kids or medical malpractice he nearly went out of line. NATE, who pushes and pushes and is ruthless and so cold at times.

It's Nate protesting for Parker, standing up FOR Parker, and y'know why? Because Parker doesn't know what she got deprived of. Parker doesn't feel that loss because you can't grieve something you aren't even aware you could've had. But Nate does. Nate saw her injustice and loss of childhood and spoke up, KNOWING she'll never know about him defending her.

'Hardison I screwed up.' 'We're already here mama.'

Do you understand the level of trust and vulnerability it requires for her to say those words? She's never gotten anyone's help after a screwup, she's had to take care of herself on her own. And there's Hardison, right there, not upset, not angry, not disappointed. A right straight - I'm here and we'll get you out.

'Let's get our girl home.'

Do I even need to say anything.

'It's not what we do, we don't get involved!' 'No, that's what YOU do!'

Parker is not Archie Leach's protege anymore. She's Parker. She's the greatest thief in the world. She's the one person to get the entire Leverage Inc breathing down your neck to save her. She has a family who got her back. She has a life and friends and people who may not understand her always but will always support her and be there for her, no matter what, without changing any aspect of her or forcing her to change either. And she saves people, because that's what they do.

'It's your play Parker.'

The explicit trust Nate displays in her. For someone like Nate with control issues and need to be the guy calling the shots, this is practically an all out notice saying 'she's my people, she's my family, I trust her with my life, more than that I trust her with my family and our jobs.'

'No.' 'What do you mean no? This isn't time for crazy, Parker! Come on!' 'No! I need to go back. I need to put the vial back.'

Do you understand what it feels to have someone like Parker, who is practically a ghost and the prospect of getting stuck somewhere is unthinkable, to refuse an escape route? And that too because she wants to help people and not be used to hurt them? In the face of someone who brought her up to only steal? Now that's growth.

Now this is a callback, but when Sophie and Nate first enter her safehouse, Sophie says something that foreshadows the ending. She says 'Look at this. It's methodical. This could be one of your plans, Nate.'

This is a personal choice, but god it's so good when authors and writers and creators give you hints and foreshadow and reward your intuition at the end, rather than changing endings for shock value. Because Hardison isn't ruthless, Eliot isn't striving for control, and Sophie is dramatic, not clinical. None of it would have been worth it unless it went to Parker, which it did.

Man, this fucking show I swear.

[inkskinned]

most writing advice is good as long as you know why it is good, at which point it is also bad. the hardest thing (and most precious thing) about being an artist is that you gotta learn how to take critique. i don't mean "just shut up and accept that people hate your work," i mean you need to learn what the critique is saying and then figure out if it actually helps.

i usually tell people reading my work: "i'm collecting data, so everything is useful." i ask them where they put the book down, even though it's too long for most people to read in 1 sitting. i ask them what they thought of certain characters. i let them tell me it was really good but i like it more when they look a little stunned and say i forgot i was reading your book, which means they forgot i exist, which is very good news.

sometimes people i didn't ask will read my work and tell me i don't like it. and that is okay, you don't have to like it. but i look at the thing that they don't like and try to figure out if i care. i don't like that you don't capitalize. this one is common, and i have already thought about it. i do not care, it's because of chronic pain and frankly i like the little shape of small letters. you use teeth and ribs in all your work. actually that is very true. i don't know what's up with that. next time i will work to figure out a different word, thank you. you're whiny, go outside. someone said that to me recently and it made me laugh. i am on the whine-about-it website as an internet poet. you are in my native habitat, watching me perform a natural enrichment behavior. but i like the dip of whiny, how the word itself does "whine" (up/down, the sound out your nose on the y), but i don't know if i want to feel whiny. maybe next time i will work on it being melancholy, like what you would call a male writer's poetry.

repeated "good" advice clangs in a bell and doesn't hold a real shape, dilutes in the water. like sometimes you will hear "don't use said." you turn that around in your head and it bounces off the edges of your brain like it is a dvd screensaver. it isn't bad advice, but it feels wrong somehow, like saying easy choices are illegal! sometimes i will only use "said." sometimes i will just kick dialogue tags out to the trash. sometimes i make little love poems where the fact that i do not say "said" is very bad, and makes you feel bad in your body, because someone didn't say something. i am a contrary little shitbird, i guess.

but it is also good advice, actually. it is trying to say that "said" sometimes is clutter. it makes new writers think about the very-small words and very-small choices, because actually your work matters and wordchoice matters. "i know," you said. "i know," you sighed. "i know." we both know but neither of us use a dialogue tag, because we are in a contemporary lit piece.

it is too-small to say don't use said. but it is a big command, so it gets your attention. what are you relying on? what easy choices do you make? when you edit, do you choose the same thing? can you make a different choice? sometimes we need the blankness of said, how it slides into the background. sometimes we don't.

i usually say best advice is to read, but i also mean read books you don't like, because that will make you angry enough to write your own book. i also mean read good books, which will break your heart and remind you that you are a very small person and your voice is a seashell. i also mean you need to eat books because reading a book is a writer's version of studying.

my creative writing teacher in the 7th grade had a big red list of no! words and on it was SUNSET. RAZORS. LOVE. GALAXY. DEATH. BLOOD. PAIN. I liked that razor and love were tucked next to each other like birds, and found it funny that he believed we were too young to know the weight of razor in the context of pain. i hated him and his Grateful Dead belt, where the colored teddy bears held up his appraisal of us. i hated his no list. it is very good/bad advice. i wasn't old enough yet to know that when you are writing about death you are also writing about sunsets and when you write about love you are tucking yourself into a napkin that never stops folding.

back then my poetry was all bloody, dripped with agony when you picked it up. i didn't know there is nothing beautiful about a razor, nothing exciting about pain. i just understood sharpness, which he took to mean i understood nothing. i wrote the razor down and it wasn't easy, but it was necessary. that's what i'm saying - sometimes it's good advice, because it's not always necessary. and sometimes it is very bad advice, because writing about it is lifesaving.

hang on my dog was just having a nightmare. i heard that it is a rule not to write about dogs - in my creative writing mfa, my teacher rolled her eyes and said everyone writes a dead dog. the literature streets are littered in canine bodies. i watched the rise and fall of his ribs (there is that word again) and had to reach out and stop the bad dream. when he woke up he didn't recognize me, and he was afraid.

it is good/bad advice to say that poems and writing have to mean something. it is bad/good advice to say they're big feelings in small packages. it is better advice to say that when my dog saw where he was, he relaxed immediately, rubbed his face against me. someone on instagram would make fun of that moment by writing their "internet poetry" as a sentence that tumbles across a white page: outside it is sunset and my dog is still in a gutter, bleeding a galaxy out of his left paw. or maybe it would be: i woke the dog up/the dog forgot i loved him/and i saw the shape of a senseless/and impossible pain.

the dog is alive in this one, and he is happy. when i tell you i love you, i know what i said. write what you need to write, be gentle to yourself about it. the advice is only as good as far as it helps. the rest is just fencing. take stock of the boundaries, and then break them. there's always somewhere else you could be growing.

i love you, keep going.

[utlana]

.

[luveline]

anything bombshell reader I would adore!!!

Oh my god, Spencer thinks desperately, could she give me a break? 

You waltz into the conference room wearing a smile (your smile, as heartbreakingly perfect as always) and a motorcycle jacket buttoned to the chin. There's something about it. Spencer doesn't know what it is, just that it makes you even more attractive than usual. He toys with the word sexy, and sure, you are when you want to be, but he thinks about it long and hard. You're a fucking bombshell, and you're going to kill him one day. 

“What's with the outfit?” Morgan asks immediately. 

“You can't wear that to the precinct,” Hotch says, though he sounds curious rather than annoyed. 

“You called us in unexpectedly,” you defend, holding up two perfect hands. Calluses from shooting practice line the palm of your dominant hand and you've a cut down the side of the other, and they're still perfect. Everything about you compliments everything else. “I was out.” 

“What, on your motorcycle?” JJ asks. 

“Your motorcycle?” Emily asks. 

“I didn't know you had a motorcycle,” Garcia says.

“You're ganging up on me. Spencer, honey, would you save me?” you ask, though the tone you use doesn't express much urgency as you unzip your thick jacket and toss it aside, its logos and sponsorships crumpling over the back of your chair. “You're the only one who looks pleased to see me.” 

“I am pleased to see you,” he says honestly. 

You don't make it to cases every time; you're on a different type of leasing, you always say. He doesn't have the subtlety to pretend he isn't happy you're here. You flirt with him, sure, and he enjoys it even while being out of his depths, but he likes you. You're fun and smart and good to be around. You listen. 

“They couldn't keep me away from you if they tried,” you say, head dipped gently to one side, smile far from teasing.. 

“Since when do you ride a motorcycle?” Emily asks. 

“If we could get back to the case at hand,” Hotch says, and for a moment everyone looks rightly chastised, until he adds, “we can discuss Y/N's choices afterwards.” 

What's worse than your jacket is the quickness of your brain, the connections you make, your endless suggestions. You're so good at your job it makes Spencer feel funny. Rossi, who'd been mostly silent during the exchange, sends Spencer a pitying look. 

When the case has been introduced and everyone sent to make preparations for another trip, you and Spencer remain in the conference room. You, because your go bag is already here and you don't have much to do, and Spencer, because you're here.

“Do you really have a motorcycle?” 

You tap your nose. “Need to know, babe.” 

“I sort of do need to know. If you have a motorcycle, I should probably be spending more time worrying about you.”

“Well, it's not mine.” 

He feels a crushing wave of rejection descend on him. “Right,” he says. He knew this would happen. He knew you were just being nice—

“I'm borrowing it from a friend. Mostly to see if I still knew how.” You put your chin in your hand, smiling knowingly. “Who's did you think it was, Dr. Reid?” 

“Don't do that,” he says. 

“Or what?” You ease up anyhow. “If you don't like being flirted with, Spence, I won't do it.” 

“I didn't say that, just don't– don't look at me like that.” 

You sigh morosely, but your dramatics are unconvincing, and a smile plays on your painted lips. “Alright, I won't. But it's how you were looking at me, you realise? How's that fair?” 

Spencer is about to say you know how, but do you really? Why is it fair for him to ogle you (albeit without meaning to) when you walk in, but when you make your soft googly eyes at him, he tells you to stop? Maybe because his are real, and yours are… questionable in authenticity. 

You're smart enough to see that debate before it forms. “I have less choice over it all than you think, you know?” you ask, softer than before. 

“I know,” he says. He doesn't, obviously, because the idea that you flirt with him accidentally is hard to accept, because who is Spencer to you? Your nerdy, socially clueless coworker who very clearly has a crush on you. Why would you like that? So he doesn't know about that, but he knows about having little choice in the manner; he sees you and he trips over himself trying to get you to see him. 

“I say it every time, but I've missed you, handsome. How have you been?” you ask. 

Spencer forgets the depth of his crush in the face of a friend. “I'm good, I've been reading all this Russian existentialist literature–” 

“Yeah? Anything good?” 

Spencer beams. “Actually, yeah. There's this one writer, you've probably read him already, Dostoevsky…”