Is this fanfic friendly? I feel like an outlier.
I guess this is my sign it's time to throw together a FAQ post to link to lol.
Yes, every event for this blog is fanfic friendly :D
Though as I mentioned on my Ominous October post, for events that include multiple short stories, I encourage everyone to flex their creativity and take one of their planned short story fanfics, and at least *attempt* to turn one of them into something entirely original; rebuilding a character and story from the ground up to stand on its own two legs is no easy feat, and that is what makes it so fun!
It really gets your creative gears turning, to make an "au of an existing material" to be something entirely original, and you can be pleasantly surprised about the things you come up with!
As a few people say, its not just a matter of "filing the serial numbers off" -- you have to add in just as much *or more* as what you take out when you are turning a fanfiction into something that is original and completely divorced from its original source material / inspiration, and that is a hard, but very rewarding challenge!
Obviously, this is not a requirement (there's no hard requirements for any of the challenges, other than no cheating, including no using AI),
but if you would like an extra challenge for the short story events and you're planning on doing entirely fan-fiction, I highly recommend trying it out at least once, and seeing where it leads you--
you may find yourself pleasantly surprised by what you find down that rabbit hole!
12 notes
·
View notes
i feel like ohh everyone else is writing and creating such cool, detailed, incredibly well thought out and poignant interesting pieces that really have something to Say and do a lot of to delve into character's mindsets and histories and traumas and what that means and how it would change if certain circumstances were different and im just. doing what exactly? writing what, exactly?? like where is fruityumbrella's Meaningful Magnum Opus Work, yknow. but then its like, well for every eyeopening riveting exploratory work that everyone goes crazy over, someone has to write the kind of commonplace thang that people can read n chill w i guess. idk. whatever
13 notes
·
View notes
I've had this rant locked and loaded for YEARS but have never figured out how to quite make it right for Instagram and this post has brought it back up for me, so here goes:
Solidarity needs to flow DOWNWARDS. Stop expecting people who are poorer than you to stand with you for YOUR causes. This is true of literally every marginalization.
If you make 65k (or jesus, 100k) and are frustrated at the people making 30k, 10k, 5k for not standing alongside you in your fight for higher wages, turn back and see what *they* need. Listen to *their* perspective.
I can almost guarantee (with few exceptions where the privilege DEPENDS on their oppression) that in uplifting the MOST MARGINALIZED, you will better your OWN experience.
We've *seen* what happens when we only focus on our own struggle and getting *our* next step up. Nothing changes and there are just new steps to climb (hello, white feminism etc).
If you want less "infighting" and more "solidarity," look back.
Listen.
We are not your enemy.
We are not the ones making us enemies.
If you want "class consciousness" and "workers solidarity," start with yourself.
2 notes
·
View notes
Sanders Sides is really annoying (affectionate?) to me bc when we talk about 'canon' most people in the conversation are all going to have different ideas of what 'canon' is from each other. For example, for me (and I'm making this post bc I wanted to clarify what I in particular am talking about when I talk about canon) canon is the mainline canon videos, asides (and videos that were previously asides) as well as other dedicated videos (such as the grwm) are supplementary but not canon, and nothing else is canon. But then there are people who take clarifying tweets as canon. And that's fine! It just makes it a little confusing when people are talking about 'canon' but everyone is talking about a different range of information.
Like I'll personally admit I'm a little snobby about what I consider canon. I'm the type if person that thinks if the creator wants something to be canon, it should be stated, implied, or possible to extrapolate from the canon work. For example with Dungeon Meshi, I don't take Daydream Hour as canon information, but rather supplementary. (Not that I need to bc Ryoko Kui does put everything you need to know into the manga, seriously if you haven't read it, I can't recommend it enough.) But there are some people who do. And that's ok! I also don't take her tweets or interviews as canon. This is a general rule I have in what I take as canon across all fandoms.
And I think I've not been clear enough about what I mean by 'supplementary' and I mean like, for example in Ace Attorney I am again, a total snob, and I only count canon as AA 1-4 and AAI 1&2 and this is not an incredibly unpopular opinion but it's still... y'know. Not considering 2 main line games canon. And there are loads of reasons for that which we don't have time for in this post bc we're not actually talking about Ace Attorney, so to get to my actual point. I don't consider the audio drama CDs to be 'canon' but you bet your ass Mikeko is showing up in my fics (a CD only pet cat for Apollo) and I also just stated I don't view AA5 as canon, or at least the same canon (it's complicated) but I love playing around with Clay's concept and several of the other characters from 5+6. I'm just not talking about them when I'm talking strictly about canon.
Idk if I explained that well enough (and if I didn't, please ask me to clarify). I just feel like everyone should have access to the information that I am a snob with unpopular opinions and I love you even if you're less of a snob than me. In fact that would probably be a plus. You DO NOT have to agree with me, I love when people have their own opinions, 'it takes all sorts' and all that, yeah? I just wanted to clarify what I'm talking about when I mention canon.
4 notes
·
View notes
to be clear: when i am critical of megan's law/the sex offender registry it's not bc i don't take sexual violence seriously or whatever. it's bc its largely useless and excessively punitive. bc before megans law, sex offenders already had very low rates of recidivism compared to other violent offenders (re-arrest for sex offenses). and because the sex offender registry actually disincentivizes offenders from NOT recidivating ("if everyone is gonna know anyway, what's the point of NOT re-offending?" "Life is now so hard for me due to the stigma i carry for life, I might as well re-offend and risk getting sent back to prison") NOT TO MENTION the fact that it stigmatizes and silences victims. how many people do you think haven't come forward bc they don't want a family member or loved one to be on that list for life. there have been real instances of young children being identified (and harassed) as victims of abuse based off their parent's place on the registry. if you actually wanted to rehabilitate people you wouldn't force them to publicly humiliate themselves (and potentially invite actual violence) every time they have to move or apply for a job
5 notes
·
View notes