#please feel free to respond!

[smoothlikeadolphinsbelly]

Dean woke up feeling so strange. On the last hunt a witch had hexed him. But, he hadn’t died and he didn’t feel any immediate difference when she did. So he thought he was safe to go to bed for the night. He slid out of bed and stood noticing he stood much… shorter. Dean frowned and looked down at himself. His bare legs were so scrawny. “No…” A scratchy voice whined out and Dean slid across the floor to get a look at himself in a mirror. “Oh my fucking god!!!” He shouted and fell backwards onto the floor. “I look like a fucking actor from Degrassi!” Dean shouted now touching himself all over being freaked out by his much younger body. “The fuck happened to me!?” Dean’s scratchy scream addressed the other.

[vamp1rate]

i love you schizophrenics. i love you schizoaffectives. i love you schizotypals. i love you everyone on the schizophrenia spectrum. i love you psychosis experiencers, i love you addicts, i love you sleep paralysis experiencers, i love you anyone whos had a bad trip, i love you current and past users of medications with hallucinatory side effects, i love you people with depression and/or anxiety with psychotic features, i love you experiencers of hypnagogic and/or hypnopompic hallucinations, i love you spoonies who have hallucinated from medical procedures/drugs administered during medical procedures, i love you sleep deprived students under too much stress, i love you people with a history of trauma, i love you anyone whos hallucinated while sick from high fevers and/or too much cough medicine, i love you people who hear things that aren't there, people who see things that aren't there, people who smell things that aren't there, people who taste things that aren't there, people who feel things that aren't there both inside their body and out, i love you people who experience one type of hallucination, i love you people who experience multiple types of hallucination, i love you people who used to hallucinate but don't anymore, i love you people who currently experience hallucinations, i love you people on medications for their hallucinations i love you people who aren't, i love you everyone and anyone who has ever hallucinated for any reason. thank you so much for your existence on this beautiful earth with me.

[triona-tribblescore]

WHAT DO THE TURTLE GUARDIANS LOOK LIKE WHEN THEY GET MAD?!

FOUND THE PERFECT IMAGE ON TWITTER TO RESPOND TO THIS

FUCKING GLOCK-

[gumm1defloor]

Vox can understand Velvette just fine. They don't necessarily need to get along all the time, but they have a mutually beneficial contract that guarantees her support in the most efficient way possible, just how they both like it, short and strict and to the point. Vox does not understand Valentino. It drives him unimaginably, disgustingly insane. He knows how to handle him, make no mistake. Valentino is a never-ending powerhouse that wrangles out content from his employees like there's no tomorrow. He's proven himself to be Vox's most lucrative investment yet. He is resourceful, well-connected and most importantly predictable enough to rein in. Because he listens to you, because he needs you.

He is also, undeniably, out of his goddamn mind. Yet you've already invested too much in the corporate empire you've built together and there is no point turning back now that you have him so close to your side. It's OK however! He couldn't possibly be stupid enough to throw away the best partnership deal he's ever had just for the sake of something petty cause -oh, wait - he genuinely might just be that stupid and you never would've guessed because he's so cocksure of his bullshit that 80% of the time it ends up working in his favor anyway.

Fuck his life indeed. The kicker for this of course is that Valentino, genuinely does believe he has struck gold with Vox. Valentino is a clingy, possessive, immature, perverted, sadistic, egotistical man-child with severe rage issues and zero impulse control. No he is not aware of this at all. No he does not know why nobody is able to tolerate him and why every single person he gets close to hates his guts with every inch of their burning rotting souls. All he knows is that hell has now given him a flat faced prince in shining liquid crystal armour, riding on a cash filled horse with promises of power and luxury, who's practically handing him success on a silver platter. Doesn't mean that Val trusts him, doesn't mean he doesn't enjoy seeing him lose his shit. But at the end of the day vox has his back, and as long as Val keeps calling for him, he'll eventually turn up and make everything better. Cause hey if Vox hasn't left him yet for this long he must be doing something right. Right?

[bloodydeanwinchester]

okay everyone, now that we're almost at the end of 2023 i would LOVE to know what your favorite fanfic that you read for the first time this year was?

i'll go first, mine was The Benjamin Franklin Key-and-Kite Experiment

[hipersensitive-pacifist]

Ok, I think we need to calm the fuck down about that joke...

Nobody is telling you to like Tommy, Tevan or even Lou, but I don't think we should say it's the greatest disservice to tv queer representation ever written. Treating it as some abhorrent manipulation of Buck's vulnerability is a bit of an overkill... I've also seen posts about how dedicated Oliver is to biBuck and how this is just heartbreaking suffering for him -> the cast is at least a little bit involved with Tim and I'm sure if it was so horrible/uncomfortable for him he'd have tried to change that line since it's so minor.

At the end of the day, it was a throwaway sexual joke said on a date of an established couple in their 30/40s that left both of them smiling and was at best a little weird...

Can some people find it hot/funny? Yes.

Can some people find it cringe? Yes.

Can we all agree that there are different interpretations of scenes? WE SHOULD.

Let's leave this one line alone, focus on actual storylines AND FOR HEAVENS SAKE BE A BIT KINDER TO EACH OTHER BECAUSE THIS IS A TV SHOW

[batsplat]

do you know why vale seems to have a soft spot for pedrosa?

there's not any single one reason, I don't think, but here's are a few contributing factors that come to mind:

history! in large part because of the honda link, dani's the alien he's known the longest... valentino was the number one honda rider at a time at which dani was honda's rising star. photo on the right is from the 2001 honda celebrations at the last race of the season (when dani was sixteen); from oxley's valentino rossi: all his races: "that night vale celebrated in style at a raucous honda victory party, where he taught honda youngsters daijiro kato and dani pedrosa how to drink". they've known each other forever! valentino was getting teenage dani drunk! quite natural to be fond of someone you've seen grow up like that, even if they are being moulded to be your next big rival

circumstance! the way it basically works with valentino is that if you want to have a feud with him, you generally need to have a title fight with him when you’re already ‘established’ rivals (ignore marc, that’s its own thing, 2015 is a freaky season). biaggi and valentino were enemies headed into 2001 and then were worse enemies, he was cool with sete in year one but not year two, mostly *wiggles hand* the same with casey and jorge… feuds aren't build overnight. valentino and dani weren’t ever really direct title rivals - closest they got was 2006 and 2008, but in both cases valentino probably didn’t see dani as his main problem that year. there wasn't really any competitive necessity for valentino to get nasty... also with one or two notable exceptions, valentino did kinda have dani handled in their actual wheel-to-wheel fights, which let’s face it probably didn’t hurt

yapping! so this is just a theory but it’s one I believe strongly in. you know how valentino loves to talk, right? the thing about pressers and podiums is that you're always going to have a few regular attendees, if you will, corresponding to the front runners in any given year. now, unfortunately for valentino, there were periods of time where almost every other regular attendee was someone he had pretty active beef with. that doesn’t mean he always avoided yapping at them, but relatively speaking you want a guy you can build up some good repartee with to pass the time. dani was his guy… less complicated than casey and jorge, plus dani is polite enough to go along with it and maybe even enjoy chatting to valentino (it’s been known to happen). pressers can be boring and at podiums you're still full of adrenaline, valentino wants to share a joke with someone! my completely unscientific sense is that valentino does this a lot with dani around 2008-ish to 2012, then for two years marc is the number one yap victim, then for a while it’s a bit…? oddly valentino does seem to chat quite a lot with jorge in 2015... he likes to throw in a quirky behavioural pattern sometimes to keep you guessing. anyway then in 2016 he is Actively Ignoring two of these men so vale goes!! hi there dani!! and takes it from there (though the field is more mixed up post-2015 so he becomes more of an opportunistic yapper). in general, valentino will chat to pretty much anyone with A Few Exceptions, but he does usually have a bit of an order of preference

dani’s personality! now, obviously dani is very much capable of feuds, but he’s not that naturally combative a character. valentino generally needs a competitive justification for beef, though some personal animosity can help too… but he never really hated any of that trio of young riders to come through. valentino's known dani forever, he’s been around dani a fair bit because of their respective statuses in the sport, dani isn’t going out of his way to pick fights with valentino, so no reason not to get on! he does clearly quite like chatting to dani and seems pretty fond of him even towards the start of the alien era, at a time in which it was broadly expected that dani not casey would emerge as vale's primary challenger... god knows if the relationship would have soured if dani had assumed that mantle (probably at least a little lol) but failing that, valentino does just seem to quite like him. y’know, sometimes it’s like that

They Have Also Had Their Disagreements, But There Hasn’t Been Much Cause For It To Escalate Further. these disagreements have tended to be over racing standards, where dani is generally in the ‘you people are all insane’ camp and valentino is generally in the ‘ah it’s fine’ camp (though, obviously, there is nuance here… cf vale also criticising sic over the le mans 2011 incident that left dani with the broken collarbone). generally, they don't get into direct conflict over it, more of an underlying difference in positions (hey, aragon 2013 is an example)... but there’s been dani’s suggestion that valentino’s sepang 2015 stance is inconsistent with his generally laissez faire approach, and also some other isolated little scuffles over the years like say 2017 aragon (see below). pretty small scale stuff in the grand scheme of things and if you've been on-track rivals for that long it's kinda inevitable you'll eventually disagree about some stuff, but perhaps worth bringing up

went through all of the alien combos in my head and these two slot in just behind dani/casey as probably the two most consistently beef-free inter-alien relationships? dani/casey gets extra credit for surviving The Teammate Test. but, y'know, the thing about valentino is that he's a sociable, outgoing guy... he likes talking to people... he's actually interested in them... he's a decent conversationalist, easy to get on with, all that stuff. so if you expose valentino to this nice fella who at most was like... perhaps a bit more reserved towards the start of his time in the premier class (partly due to his mentor's approach), but really was generally pretty chill... well, if valentino isn't given any reason to hate dani, then default state is that he won't. good on them etc

[canisalbus]

just a quick ask to tell u it makes me super happy seeing the detail u go into when pointing out stuff u like about other people's art of ur ocs :3 it's so rare to see but it's so so motivating!! <3

Thank you! I don't take any interest for my art for granted, and if someone goes through the trouble of drawing my characters for me, I feel like trying to write a proper response is the least I can do. For a visually oriented person, receiving gift/fan art is a huge deal, it means someone considered my goobers worth their time and effort, they've probably been thinking about them more than a little and found them inspiring in a way or another, and I find that terribly flattering. It's extremely fun and interesting to see other people's takes on them. And I've drawn stuff for people as well, I know how nice and rewarding it feels to receive a response that is longer than a word or two. Positive comments like that can linger in people's minds for a long time, at least for me they do.

[vairuler]

ʰᶦᶦ 𝐋𝐈𝐊𝐄 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐀 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐑 ! ♡ ᶠᵃᶦʳ ʷᵃʳⁿᶦⁿᵍ ᶦ'ˡˡ ᵐᵒˢᵗ ˡᶦᵏᵉˡʸ take a while ᵃᵈᶠᵍʰʲ

[brevium234m]

I don't know what happened really but all of a sudden in the last few months its really hit me just how much the demographics of the area I live in has changed. It's I think about half white now, possibly less. There was once no Indians in my neighbourhood, now there is a sizeable amount. Other demographics such as chinese and philipino have stayed the same.

The part that concerns me about it all is that whites seem to have an individualistic situation or perspective which atomizes them, not participating in tradition, culture, or working together productively, while most immigrant groups, chiefly the Indians, do to a great extent. They are able to financially outcompete individualist whites with their traditional collectivism, and the whites don't realize that they (we) have to come together and cooperate ourselves in order to stand any chance at not being legitimately displaced.

I don't want to be forced to move from my home town, from the larger general area where I live, this is my home and it's beautiful, and it seems that everyone who moves here now has no regard for the things that make it beautiful. And as things continue in this direction we won't have any ability to fight back against the destruction of the beauty, both because we aren't present in numbers and because we simply aren't here, choosing to live elsewhere.

I don't think this is some kind of "karma" for whites killing and displacing the original natives of the americas. None of this was any problem until the third quarter of the 20th century, and not a severe issue until maybe starting 20 years ago. It's only "karma" insofar as it being some sort of physical prophecy manifestation guided by the international jewry as some kind of punishment to the whites. Something something Sabbatean Frankists or something. Additionally my generation is responsible for none of the original damage, so why is it us that it is decided will feel the punishment so bad?

I don't think it's all really necessary for me to say this stuff, somewhat preaching to the choir here, but I suppose I feel the need to say that I do have a legitimate fear that I'm witnessing, alone, a sort of point of no return for my society. I really don't know what to do, anything actually effective could risk landing me in prison, whether or not I actually achieve anything with it, which I would say I probably wouldn't. If I work within the system I just burn my time away with again an uncertainty of effect, especially since with each passing year the demographics change even more. I refuse to be blackpilled on our situation, but there doesn't seem to be a path to success. I don't know what to do any it's eating away at my mind each day.

Apologies for the long post. This is all taken straight from my thoughts as they collect themselves, so that's how it reads. It is sincere, as I am afraid sincerely.

[thenightsystem]

Have you ever wanted to be known?

Have you ever wanted to be known? Have you ever wanted to be known?

H̶a̶v̷e̴ ̷y̷o̴u̶ ̶e̵v̵e̴r̷ ̷w̷a̷n̵t̶e̷d̸ ̷t̵o̷ ̷b̴e̵ ̶k̸n̷o̷w̴n̷?̷

H̷̖͛ȁ̸̜v̸̖͌e̵̠͊ ̶͚̇y̸̝͂ö̴̺́u̸͓͠ ̵̲̕è̵̟v̸̳̇e̷̡͝ȓ̷̻ ̷̨͑w̶̜̃ȁ̸̲n̷͉̏t̶͈̚e̷̯̽d̴̯͂ ̴̥͌t̶̝̍o̸͎̅ ̷͉͂ḅ̵͘ȇ̵̹ ̷̟̄k̷͓͆n̸͙͒o̶̲̔ẉ̸͗n̸̈́͜?̸͎̊

H̴̗̉͠a̷̬͐̆̓v̷͖̜̋͠ě̷̳̊ ̵̖̦̍̒̿y̵̟̙͇̆̆̃ŏ̴̪̪̘͠ú̶̙́̉ ̸̼̳̣͛e̴̞̎v̵͖̀̀́e̶̖̒͝ȑ̵̼̺̱̇ ̶̬̇w̷̖͍̉́ͅá̴͊̋͜ͅn̵͚͒̕t̸̻̰̾̀ͅe̵̗̯͈̾̃d̵̘̉ ̶̭̖͎̓̕͝t̷̥̂o̸̝̤̍ ̷̖̙̠̌̀b̸̧͖̩̃̐ḙ̵͆͠ ̵̠̩̗̍̓͝k̷͓͐ͅn̸̥͍͚̆ơ̷̡͝͠w̴̜̣͐ṋ̵͌͊?̴̤̎͆̏

H̶̡̝̦̱̼̪̃̌̽̓͐̈́͝ạ̵͈̉̂̃̓͐͝v̵̛͍̗͊͗̉͊̕͠e̸̢̨̬̞̼̻͍͌ ̵̘̖̬͆͌̐̂̍͋̆y̷̺̜͛̂͑̇̐͑͜͠ȍ̷͓̝͈̇̅̇͋̚ͅṳ̴͖͍̗̼͒̽̇̏ ̷̮͈̓̄ę̶̡̥̳̓̚͝v̷̬͛̒é̸͔͔͗̈́̊̕͘r̷͈̎̏͗̓ ̵̡̧̲͓̹̫͆́̅w̵̢̛̪͚̭͉̪̩̌ạ̷̢̧̱̙̑̕͝ͅn̸̤̐ẗ̸̯͙́̔́ë̶͍̹̥̠̺̖̈͜d̵̞͔̼͊͐͊̆́͆ ̴̧̰̪̱̺̂t̸̢̰͇̘͎̩̊ō̵̧̘͉̆ ̵͍͔͚̫̩̹͋b̷̢͎͉͍͗é̷̪̭͖̄̇͗͘͝ͅͅ ̷̨̧̤̠̰̈̎͒̽͘k̸͍̣͍̲͛͂̏̽͠n̴̢̛̮̲̘̟̊̔̄͗̊͝ǫ̵̤̪̞̲̞͍͛w̴̺̘͚̿̆͊̅̊̀͝n̵̰͚̥̉͂͐̎̋͠?̴̟̱̟̫̑̀̔̄̆͘

H̶͓͍̝̼͖͂̅̈̄̂̂̂̎͛̆̂͌̔̌̈́̒a̵̳̰͇̙̥̱̟͖̓̅̒͐̔̏̂͆̀̾́͘̕͘ͅͅv̸̝͚̲̻͓̆̒͛͆́͌̒̃̓̽é̵̢̡͉̥̥̼͓̥̩̱͓̈́͆́̍͆͂̈́̔͋̈̓̃̍̈́̚͜͝ ̵̧̛̠̟̱̟̅̃͛́͋̉̓͆̓̽̿̿̈́̐͜͝y̸̞͎̙̞̻͙̯̳̥͎̗̱͈͇͍̩͊̅͒͗̃̔͗̂͗͑͜ͅo̶̱͎̝̜͈̻̤͛̌̿̏͒̄̋͛̀́̌͊̀̔̚̚͠ú̴͌ͅ ̸̢̡̧̥͚͇̰͋͒͛͗͆̈́̿͜͜͝ẹ̸̡̡͎͈̘̦͎̬̝͇̩͉̩̲̱̺̐v̷̢̢̧̢̥͓̱͇̣͍̙̺̺̠̤̳͋͌̉e̶̮͔̫͎̱̱͉̮̳̬̝̫̊̑ͅͅȓ̶̢̛̛̛͈̞͕͙̺̮̐̅̑̌͊̔̏̔͜͠͝͝ ̸̨̨̝͚̭͐w̷̧͇̟͇̩͇̲͈̟̣̩͓͓̙̟̗͐̐̐̏́̔͝a̴̛̤̝͍̯͇̽̐̿̑̓̊̆͆̍̌͊̓̚͝n̸̨̘̭̹͉̘̱̪̈́̉̐͝t̷̮͙̻̔̓̿̒̀e̵̘͕͙̟̎̌͛ͅḑ̸̭͍̘̲̣̻̫̰͇̣͎͐͌̆̐͆̍̉̉͒͋̄̽̓̔́͘͠ ̶̧̖̻̥͉̬̟̫̩̯̤̺̐̾̂͒͛̐̎̈͂͌͂̚t̶̨̗̩̜̰̏́̓̈͜͜ͅò̸̲͖̺̦̙͎̟͎̥̥̝̺͇͔̼̩͒͛̎̾̽̂̇̏̈͑̈̑͋ ̷̛̦̘̝͉̅͋̏̀͆̒̽̿̿̅̄̎̾͝b̵̧̮͈̩͎̙͍͇̝̯͕͍̳̺͕̩͔̫̑̄̎̉̏̽͛̃̅̈́͊͌̃̚̚͠ḛ̸͈͈̘͇͔̬͂̓̾͘̕ ̶̢̢̨̳͕̻͉̣̙̯͉̠̦̝̘̺̜͘̚͜k̵̨̡̰̹̥̲̯̒̈́͗̈́͒̓͂̑̐̑͗̔̔̈́͝͠n̶̨̘͓̫͎͔̐̾̋o̴̡̮̻̗̺̪̝̖͍̊̀̈͒͐̇̐̀͘͠ẇ̷̛͗̓̎́͐́̏̂̔͋̒̆̕̕͜͝n̴̥̗̼̱̜̹̤̋̊̒͆͗ͅ?̴̜̣̓

H̸̛̲̙̍̽͌̔̌̎̃̀̐̀̓̏͛̊̎̽͛̄̌͗̉͊̿̌̒͑̊̇̃̉̚̕̚͘̕͝a̸̡̧̛̭͖͉̱̻̺̞̩̤̮̗̠̣̹̹̫̩̫̩͌̉̀̍̎̈́̏̀͊̈́̇̋̀̾v̵̳͍̮̺̺͉͍͎̳̟̞̻̱̹̪̟̗͇̂̐̒̓̉̽͜e̸̤̠͇̰̘̯̩̲̠̾̔̽͐͝ͅ ̷̨̦̳̲͔̮͕̗͉͙̪̟̅̎̄̆̈́̂̆̀̌̄̀̐̆̄̑̓̆͆̊́͑́͂̈́̂̐̽̈͘͝y̶̡̢̨̨̭̣̙̼͍͔̠̪̖̬̬͎̜͙̻̫̥̲̱̳̻͑̅̆͗̀͒̊͆̈́̂̉͋̎̃̎̉̿̅̓͊̋̀̅͂̓͒̾̿̑́̚͝͠͝o̵̹̔͐̇̃̄̂̈͛͑̕ū̸̡̡̬̦̘͖̦̮̣͕̖̦̩͍̯̼͙̥̳̬̗͊͌͑̽̇̑͗̂́̃̽̈́̋̿̽́͐͗̾̐̓̀̅̏̋͑̉͐͊́̄̏̈́͐͒̚͘͜͝ ̷̧̡̧̢̢̢̳͔̲̣̮̹̳̮͚̳̭͕͚̗̖̳͓̪͎͔͖̳̭̮͎̮̲͔̫̯͇͋̾̈́̽̀͗̎͌͒͆̒͛̃́̅̎̅̍̓̊͒̉̒̅̆̀̂͌̈́̚͘͝͝͝ͅẽ̸̡̢̡̢̡̧̨̥̥̜͓̠̜̠̤̣̖̳̱̻̜̫̜̭͔̞̤̮͇̼̭͈̤̦̤̤̘̯̀̋͋̿̈v̵͚̙͒̔͆͂͊̒̀͑̅̄̀͑͂́̇̓̄̈́̄͘ę̴̧̨̡̧̛͇̜̪̟̣͎͍̻̝̮̺̥̱̰̰̠͍͓̦̝̫̦͎͓͍̣̥̳͈̝͕̳̯̙̥͉͊̈̌̆̍̋̀̿̐͊̎̊̂̓͑́͐͒̔̈́͋̓̃̕͘̚̕͘͜͠͝͠ͅr̷̡̪͖̬͚̤̠̘̼͎̹̗̮̘̹̣͖̞͍̭̯̺̯̦̙̻̣͎̭̫͇͊̋̒́̈́̽̎̈̀̈́̅̾͛͌̋͊̈́̒͌��̓͋̃̇̃͌͜ ̷̧̜̬̣͕̭͎͈͕͖̦͛̀̎̆̋͑͊́͐͜w̶̨̡̢̛̛͕̞̠͕̬̙͙̤̳̝͖̝̼̞͐̄̐͗͌̊̅͗̏̓͐̐̃̾̒̌̂̃̈͛́̽͌̄̆̑̊͂͋̕͘̕͘͜͜͝͝å̸̧̦̥͎̻̠̝͈͗̏͛̿̃̔̇͂̉̇͒̚͜͝n̶̨̢̤̖̗̻͇̲̣̯̞̲̺̲̫̔̍͛̑̃̈́̉́̆̈́͌͒̌̽̐̂͒̚̚͝͝͝ͅt̴̨̨̛̖̬̬̜̲̥̻̭̄͛̆͗̒͌̏͂̒̓͗̒͠ę̷̜̮̭͔̙͑́̀̈́͆́̀̾̓̈́͘ͅd̸̢̦̦̺̺̥̜̻̻̤͐́̈̍̾̉͌͘͜ ̵̢̞̘̞͙̭̩̱̫̜̣̜̖̮͕̠̣͕̫͓͙̮̺͔͚̜̜̳̳̻̐̈́̀̏̽̉̆̆̈̓̀̒̀̍̒̐͊̂̽̋̀̃͊̏͑̀̕͘̕̚t̴̬͓̤͈̱͂́͌̇̈̍̍͒͊̍̀́̇̌̋̚̕͠͝ǫ̷̧̨̛̜̯͙͉̗̮̘̩̜̅́͜ ̴̢͔̪̖̠̣̳͚̯̪̥̫̻͕́b̸̢͖̺͈͍̫͙͉̻͚̮͔̦̗̲͙̼̱͇̂̓̂̈́̉̎̓̈́̿̓̃͌̕̕͝ě̵̡̦̩̱̭̠̱̱͈̤͔̖͓̜͕̼̥̥͚̯̻̯̟̝̣̥̫̤̦̠̎̎͛̎̇͌̔͆͒͋̑̇̊̋̈́̀̈͌́̋̓̒͂̈́̂̉̍̚͘͝͠͠ͅͅͅ ̸̡̧̧̢̡̡̧̮̖͚͍̪̲̥̬̱͙̞͔̖̬̼̣̭̤̭̺̝̥̼̯̰͚͎̬̖͇̋̒̇̃̓̉͂͒̓̀̐̄͌̄̓̋̔͐́̈́̊̇̾͛͘̕͘͘͘͝͝͝ͅk̷̡̟̹̪̯͙͉̞̳̩̜͇̪̞̫͚̩͔̱̩̝͉̣̹̜̮̩̳͆́̔̑̂̚̚ń̷̡̨͇̜͚̮͎̲͚̥̤̹̤̹̝̲̫̣̮̘́̈͑͛̎͂͝ͅǒ̸̙̞̩͙͈̻̣̱̲͖̭͇̰̝̠͉̌̀̑͝w̶̪̓͆̈́͊͗̏͐̃̋ń̵̯̮͈̥̖̤͔̝̜̞̖̝̠̪͉̏̈́͜͝ͅ?̶͔̩̦̺̮̥͓̐̓̈́̔̈͆̽̇̆̅̂̾̏͜͝

Ḥ̸̢͙̝̻̺̯̫̮̰̗̟̫̭͔̪̥͔͇̇̍̅̃̈́̆̿̊̂͗̈́͆̽̽̾̚̚͜ǎ̸̡̡͙͙̫̪͙̖̩̙̱̱̯͚̦̜̜͔̰̗̦̳̤͔̖̱̪̫͇̟̔̐͛̿̈́̑̃̽͌͑̑̑̽́͗̌̍̏̐͐̕̕͠͝͝ͅv̷̨̨̢̢̢͔̙̟̜̰̤̬̱͚̮̰̦̳̭͚͍̺̯̝̼̘̥̰͉̰̤͉͖̱͚̣̞̦̳̪͉̙̖̯̾̔́͗̋̑̏̓̊̏̾̀̅̿̾̾̂̕̚͠͠ͅę̷̡̢̨̧̨͉̮̰͕̜̮̙̦̣͈̤̥̬̱̯̠̔͋͊͑́̀͆́̇̽̈̎͛̃́̈̀̕͘͜ͅ ̵̢̢̨̧̣̣̥̗̳̦͚̯̻̱̖̙̱̖̫̟̻͙̬̻̪̖��͖̻̟͔̖͇͖͓̅͂̓ͅͅͅy̷̢̡̛̛̛̛͈̪̰͚͈͔͓͉̭̲̣̼͕̲͍̜̖͉͚̞̯̥̪̪̙̝̠̩̣̳͐̇́̎͋̈́̌̐̔̀̌̓̂̍̇͋̇̉̊͗̆̓͒̑̀͊̆̀̌́̍̈̆́̇́̈̐͐̿̕̚̕͘͜͝ͅǫ̴̗͚̦͍͚̣̥̥̣̮̭̐́̋͑̈̾̿̄̏̾̈́͊͒̓̒͘͘͜͜u̸̧̡̨̧͉͙̮̠̣͓̭̤̯͕̱͚̮̙͚̼̪̟̼̓̓̈̎̍̆̂̿̂̅̓̅͑̈́̇͋͗͛̐̉͌̆̌̌͌̓͐̓͂̓̈́͂́̒́̑͘͘̕͜͝͠ͅ ̴̨̹͕̠̮̱̿̂̆̓̈̔̀͆̾̂̅̀̇̑͊̎̓͆͑͑͝ͅè̶̢̨̪͈̳͎̹̮͙̝̯̦͚͔͖̝͚̥̃̇͊͆̅̀̊̔͂̕ͅv̵͍̝̭͓͎͗̋́͛̓̿̈́̄̕͝ȇ̴̡̡̡̛̺͙͇̳̺̺̮͍̞̮̙́̐͗́͐̊͐͐̎͛͐͋̚r̶̨̢̢̨̢͎̻̻͖̠̰̜̻̯̗̞͇̩̲̞̝̻̫̩̱̯̗̪̙̥̮̲̍͆̊̋̉́̈̀͆͛̾̎͜͜ͅ ̶̨̨̢̨͔͙̥̼̺̩͖̠͎̓̾͐̐̀̔͆͋̉͒́̉̾̍̊͐̓̇͋̚̕͝͝͝͝w̵̢̡̧̛̛̯͉̗͉̼͓̲̤̝̣͈̟̘͓̦̬̭̲̤̜̦̫̰̯̻̖͔̯̼͔̹͉̠̌̍͊̏̈́̾͛̐̉̃̃̊̇̅́́̈́̅̈́̐̌̅̋̉̂̔͆̐͑͐̈́̓̽̂̈́̕̕͘͜͜͜͝͝͠ă̸̛̗̄̅̐̊̂̾͒̃̄̌́͌̑͐̎̀͆̿̎̓͗̀͑̈̋̉̀̈͑͒̐̚͝͠͝͠n̸̡̨͇̰̣̫̜̮̳͓̱͍̙͖̗̜̊̑̌͊͆́̿͜t̷̛̗̞͔̀̒̀́͑̿̽̅̑̇̐̊̚͘̕̕͝ę̴̨̨̡̢̧̢̢̢̳̰͇͉̺̜̯͇͇͚̞̮͙̜͈̼͍̼͔͖̦͇͇͓̖̜̜͖̪̞̯̜̯͎̙̮̌̓̇̒̌͜͜d̸̢̡̛͚̙̟̘̭̫͙̪̭̭̖̬̤̼͎͉͓͎̳̤͗̉͒̈̿̐̄̅̉͑̓̒̽͌́́͋͋̿̅̊͐̆̇́̈̾̽̍̊̀̕̚̚̕̕ͅ ̵̛̛͎̫̜̗͔̝͇̝̯̤̝͈̥̫̫̯̊̈͒̓̄͑̎͛͑̈́̓͗̀̌̽̽́͋̿̒̉̿̓́̂͛̅̂̈͘̕͝͝͝͠ţ̵̨̢̡̛̺̖̘͉̳̲̣̩̭͓̭̜̘͆̒͆̊̌͊̈́̾̈́̿̅̅̀̉̾͑̉̇͒̈́́́̀́̈́̀̅́̅͗͊͂̅͋̈̚͘͝ő̴̧̡̢̫̦̲̞̪̩͓̪͉̗̦͔͖̭̠͔̣͙̱̖̟̤̫̘̆̌́͒͐̋͊̓̐̄͒͒́̓͌̔̓̀͑͂͌͑̚̕̕͜͜͝ͅ ̷̡̨̡̧̡̢̨̡̹̺̫̟͉̥̟̯̱̭̥̼̱̩̼̗̦̖̬̠͓̣̼̗̝̬͖̭̥̚͜ͅͅḇ̶̛͕͍̦̜͔̤̜̟͖̥̔̅́͛̿͒̑̅̂̌̎́̂̑̑̽̇̀͒̈̓̀̊̈́̕̕̕͘͜͠͝ȩ̴̨̙̱̗̻̻͓̣̗͔̗̜͈͈̲̜͑͊̀͆͛̏̌́̓͜͜͠ ̸̨̝̹͈̹͎͙̣̩̼̠̪̘͚̩͇̝̗̪̥̪̲̲̪͇̜͎̼́̀͑̄̆̐̊̒̋͂̇̏̑͋͊̿͒̎̓͆̉̓͒́̓̐̈̋͗̌͛͛̕̚̚͘͜ķ̷̛̥̩̯̟̖̿̾͌͌͋͊́̌́̿͌̂͆͂͛̉́̋̉͠͠n̸̢̡̙̘̺̻̹̖̬̥̱͉̱̰̬̭̯̝͇̻̠͈͙͈̲͔̖̫̯͕͗̍͑̈́̃̐̒̈́̂̐̀̌̐̈́́̔͋̔̈̅̚͝͝ǫ̶̗̦̦͓͈̩̝̮͖͇̠͈̍̌̐̆̌͐̏̿̀͑̀̋̇̇̊̈́̿̅͒͛̃͂͊̉̈́̓̃̒̀͊̋͛̚̕͠w̶̡̢̨̖̗̺̳̞̼̬͕͕̻̞̜̻̳̞̬̺̩̠̹͔̝̯̳͉̼͐̾͊̒͊͂͐́̂̇̏͒́̿͋̈́̐̈́̕͝ṅ̵̨̢̧̨̡̨͈̮̘͙̠͔̻͈͙̩̪͉̙͕̩̳͚̻̳̜͓̘̬̙̣͉̲̘͔̩̣̫̬̜̺̫͈̰̻̖̜͓̆̉̋̄͆͂̅̋̔̀͂̀̐͆͗͑͒̌̈́͂̇̋̊͆͂̆̌̆͛͌̀͘̚̕͘̕̕͜͝͝͠͝͠?̸̡͕̘̳̯̫̜͈̫̖̫̫̜̟̻̭͎̟͙̘͈͕̹̝͓̘̮̝̗̱͔̓̓̇͑̔̇̄̅̈́͛͛̓̽̒̃̇̾̎͑̕͜͠͝

Have you ever wanted to be unknown?

[frenziedtodiscordance]

writing practice (maybe opening for rp?) ------- Frank sat on the cold steps of Ormond Resort, fiddling around with his knife deep in thought. As much as he loved slashing and dashing, it does seem to get stale after awhile. Especially doing it for some being. He sighed while standing up, brushing off any debris stuck to him. Even with his crew and the other killers keeping him company he wonders if maybe he'd enjoy spending time with any of the survivors as well. That brings the question, who? He paced around the building, tapping the knife rhythmically against his thigh as he walked. "Meg? No- She pisses me off too much... Dwight- God no- How does a wimp like him try to act like a leader?" He mumbled, chuckling at the thought of that shivering dweeb. Thinking about it he finds majority of them insufferable. Only positive thought in his head about any of them is that Sable chick is kinda hot. But maybe he only feels that way due to the trials. I mean it's all he knows about those people, hasn't had a chance to ever actually talk to any of them. Frank pulled his mask off his head and looked down at it. Maybe The Legion is all he really needs in this place.

[i-am-the-oyster]

Ok I’m asking this question in the most polite way I can. I’m very very new to the fandom and just the Beatles in general and I just have to know the pure truth on John and Cynthia. Any time John is ever posted on anywhere, like TikTok, insta, ect, people are always flooding the comments saying John beat his wife and kid. Why is that such a popular belief when that didn’t happen? I know he slapped her once or something but people are alway saying it and I just want to know why if it’s not true. Again I’m asking this in the most respectful manner I can. Thank you !

Hello nonny!

I can tell this is an important and emotive question for you, and I hope I can respond in a way that is helpful to you without avoiding the truth.

I don't like the way that John's violence is often discussed---people do like to make complicated things out to be simple---but we can't avoid the fact that John was a violent man. He said it himself [1], Cynthia said it [2], May said it [3], Yoko sat next to him while he said it and she didn't deny it [4].

In her 2005 book, Cynthia claimed he only ever hit her once [5], but four decades earlier she told Hunter Davies a different story [6]. The way I interpret this inconsistency is some combination of personal revisionism (as we all do when we look back on our lives) and choosing a particular version of John to publicly remember after his death.

So what are we to do with this knowledge? This may be controversial of me, but I don't believe in dividing the world into Abusers [irredeemable] and Non-abusers [decent].

If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

John was violent, yes, but he also recognised that about himself and worked on changing. None of the Beatles were (or are) pure, and as fans we each need to decide for ourselves how much we engage with that reality, and how it affects our relationships with them and their work.

It's also worth noting that John was a notorious revisionist himself, and that whatever he said later, he really did love Cyn.

[1] "I used to be cruel to my woman, and physically — any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn’t express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women." --- John discussing the song Getting Better in an interview with Playboy 1980

[2] "Molly, the cleaning woman, once caught John hitting me, really clouting me. She said I was a silly girl, to get mixed up with someone like that." --- Cynthia to Hunter Davies in the official biography (chapter 7)

[3] "He was drunk and looked very confused. Slowly he reached out, put his hands to my throat, and began to strangle me. As his hands closed tighter I screamed out and I tried to pull away, but he was incredibly strong." --- May Pang in her book Loving John (chapter 14)

[4] https://amoralto.tumblr.com/post/46083471661/september-5th-1971-st-regis-hotel-new-york-in#notes

[5] "The next day at college he followed me to the girls' loos (toilets) in the basement. When I came out he was waiting with a dark look on his face. Before I could speak he raised his arm and hit me across the face, knocking my head into the pipes that ran down the wall behind me,". She goes on to claim that John promised never to hit her again and he kept that promise.

[6] See note 2 above. These don't sound to me like they could be the same incident.

[sofancydancy]

I need opinions, please...Should the splatter remain? Or keep it clean? I am doing the entire Caravaggio image, but I'm not trying to post it all until the end... The main reason I wanted the splatter is because I wanted to play around with the idea that this could be Astarion after climbing from his grave. Any thoughts, please? lol

[draagu]

Hear me out...

Cherrybush :D

ok maybe I will do ship doodle requests for any ship

I wrote an essay in the notes is should've probably wrote here but lazy to copy and paste

[batsplat]

thoughts on challengers ? 👀

haha okay sure. I was overthinking this when I first saw this ask but since then I've sent half an hour worth of voice notes to my number one person I send half hour's worth of voice notes to (listen she keeps encouraging me to) and I've ironed some of my thoughts out. also I should probably watch it again. some of this might be me misremembering shit. also it's not that serious. quick warning, this ended up being just. too long. it's basically just a long rant. under the cut it goes

so first of all, I really enjoyed watching this film. I liked the central premise a lot, I liked the chemistry between the characters, tashi was very hot, the score was fantastic, the cinematography was at least interesting, and a lot of the non-tennis bits are interesting

having gotten that out of the way. there's an interview where guadagnino says he doesn't watch tennis matches because he finds them boring, which to be clear is completely fair enough - but I do think it does slightly come across in how the tennis is filmed. there's definitely fun, neat stuff in there: the shot where it follows around the ball, the shot from underneath the court, all of that stuff. and I think there's obviously a lot of challenges with filming tennis when you have to make sure you can't, like, see the actors actually play tennis, and I don't know anything about film-making so I don't want to judge it too harshly. but there are a few established angles from which tennis looks good, and this film doesn't really use them all that much. it was interesting to what extent they went for side shots (basically from the tashi pov in the final match) rather than... well, picking a side, and at different points of that match actually giving the viewer a clearer sense of the visceral nature of what they're doing here. like, if you're going court level from behind the player, that's how you capture the weight of the shot on screen. which felt was a little bit... missing

okay... ffs this next section ended up kind of being tennis tactics 101, and then the other bit ended up being about how matches work. my basic point here is that I think this film did some interesting stuff with the tennis but, and this is part of my more longstanding frustrations about the untapped narrative potential of sports, I think you could've done a lot more and communicated a lot more through the actual tennis. not just for annoying people who want to go 'oh look that's an extreme western grip and explains why her forehand has so much spin but can also be fragile when absorbing pressure!!' but for the general viewing audience. I want to be very clear here: I do not really care about realism except when I'm being annoying in voice notes, I care about storytelling. if you understandably do not give a shit about all this tactics and match construction stuff, skip to the bit marked 3 for more of my thoughts related to the actual film

1

now you might go 'okay but this film isn't about capturing tennis and doing it justice - it's not even about tennis'. yeah, but tennis is the central metaphor! tennis is a relationship, right, but it's also a conversation. it's a way of communicating something to the audience, yes, in a way non-tennis fans can also pick up on. and a lot of the tennis looked pretty same-y. the points were very similar - the intensity was ramped up mainly by the characters just... whacking the ball harder, running side by side, and then sometimes they both move forwards. this isn't a realism issue, it's a storytelling issue. you can tell a story with a tennis point, you can construct these points in different ways to tell you different things

just to give you an example (I promise this is relevant): okay, the most common rally pattern in tennis is hitting cross court. so either you hit on the deuce court (from your pov, this is from the right side of your court to the left side of the other player's court, aka the forehand side for right handed players) or the ad court (the opposite, and thus the backhand side for right handed players). this is for a bunch of tactical reasons. the net is at its lowest in the middle so, y'know, you're less likely to hit it. perhaps most importantly, it's a question of angles and... okay look I don't want to bore the two people reading this with the details but just to very quickly explain, here:

say player a is hitting the ball along the red line to player b, the orange zone depicts the theoretical area in which the ball trajectory of player b's answering shot can go. like, if you want to get the other player to move 'out of the court', you can only do so by going back cross court... which is obviously where, in a cross court exchange, the other player is already standing. this is why a lot of the times, players don't 'recover' after their shots to the exact centre of the court, but instead make a judgement of where the centre is of the theoretical zone the opponent can hit. to put it in plain english: I hit a forehand cross, I don't move back to the exact middle of the court because I know where you can hit the ball back and I need to be in the middle of that - which skews to the right of centre. also, I just know it's more likely you're going to go cross again, because that's just how this works

you want to move the other player around, right, first of all to get the ball past them - but also to make it harder for them to attack you. you're trying to construct a point so that eventually they are the one who can't reach the ball/makes an error, not you. a lot of the times, continuing to go cross court is the smart option. it's less risky than going down the line, and also if your down the line shot isn't perfect, where it isn't a winner or at least a shot they'll struggle to attack, then you're setting up a situation where they have all the angle in the world to work with, where the centre of their theoretical hitting zone is nowhere near where you're actually standing and they can easily whack the ball past you

now, why the fuck does this matter when we're talking about the tennis threesome film? obviously, I don't expect the director to interrupt the film to explain angles to the audience. in tennis terms, 'go cross court' is tactics for babies, but it's still not something most viewers will be instinctively familiar with. but think about what it actually does if players keep exchanging shots cross court because they can't risk going down the line: they're engaging in a direct contest! they are measuring one shot against the other, my forehand against your forehand, my backhand against your backhand, and they are trying to assert dominance. sometimes, you have no choice to escape that exchange even when it's risky because their raw cross court shot is better than yours. sometimes, you're trapped in that exchange. how you can extract metaphors from that should be fairly obvious, and I don't think this should be visually too tough to get across - it's a power struggle between two people contained within a simple shot pattern. it adds variation to what the viewer is being shown (and, yes, it does make the points feel more realistic), but it's also a way of gradually ramping up intensity. my shot against your shot - who wins? who is willing to risk deviating from the norm? who sets themselves up for a trap - does patrick sucker art into attacking him down the line? can he then manage to counterpunch (to use attack as defence) by making it to art's shot in time and placing his response into the open court? who blinks first etc etc

look, this is only one way you can visually use tennis to add to the story. another common tactic is (if you're a right handed player) hitting forehands from the ad court, to 'run around the backhand'. that's an expression of dominance, it's a power play - you're trying to bully your opponent with your most powerful shot (which is the forehand for 99% of players, some might have better backhands but they won't have stronger ones), and you're deliberately recovering less to the centre. you're camping out on the ad side, and going 'yeah I don't actually think your down the line shot is good enough to hurt me, I actually feel very comfortable standing right here so I can more easily move far enough to the left to continue hitting forehands'. it's a tactic that is implicitly passing judgement on the opponent, and again, I refuse to believe you can't show this in a way that the audience understands roughly what's going on. have patrick bully art with his forehand into the weaker backhand or vice versa - they can use their faces to show how comfortable they are with their respective positions. y'know, make the actors act. have one of them find the backhand down the line, fire it into the bit of the court the opponent has completely left open. your characters are using tennis to assert dominance over each other, to manipulate, to deceive each other - you can do that with the actual tennis they're playing

you can also express character through tennis. I'm not saying different play styles function as a personality quiz, but inherently the way you play is going to reflect what you feel comfortable with doing on the tennis court. is your preferred point three shots long or twenty shots long? are you looking to dominate your opponent with your big weapons, or are you looking to trick them with your variety of shots and smarts in using them? or are you looking to just grind them into submission with sheer relentless consistency?

take the drop shot: a shot that 'drops' right after it clears the net as a result of how the player has put a different kind of spin onto it. ideally, it's so close to the net the opponent can't sprint forward quickly enough to reach the ball. how effective your drop shot is depends on several things. obviously, it's how good the shot and the placement and the spin you've put on it is. it also depends on where you're standing and where your opponent is standing, which means that particularly effective dropshots usually come after big, heavy attacking shots that have forced the opponent to move back and have allowed you to move into the court. and it also depends how good your disguise is: for as long as possible, it should look like the shot you're playing is going to be a bog standard forehand or backhand - until you readjust your grip at the last moment and slash the racquet downwards (vs the upwards motion you'd make with the bog standard forehand or backhand). this is a shot that depends on the element of surprise. it's about trying to fuck with your opponent, it's about choosing your moment. it's about playing with them! and you can get pretty memorable reactions from your opponent. if you wrong foot them well enough, they'll literally stumble when they realise what's happening and never even start running. maybe they'll comically flail their arms

I feel like when the men's world number seven throws his arms up in shock every time somebody hits a short ball, you can probably convey this kind of dynamic in a film

and think about what it says if somebody's using a shot like that. again, you're trying to fuck with the other player, and you are relying on your knowledge of the opponent to figure out when they might be susceptible to it. now, obviously, this is tough to do when you're playing someone for the first time and (unlike top level professional players) don't have a vast amount of data to work with and how often xyz shot works against them in xyz situation. this is generally why early in a match, it's a good idea to just like, test some stuff out to give yourself a sense of how they'd react, if it's a good idea to use it in a pressure situation (you also do a version of this in the warm up if you're smart, just check how they react to that high ball to the backhand! all about being curious y'know). but if you know someone, if this is an established rivalry, if this is someone you've played with since you're kids... well. then it's a different ball game entirely

patrick has the psychological edge in that match-up, right, and the whole point of that final match is that it shouldn't be that close but it's that close due to the mental dynamics between the pair of them. patrick constantly wrong-footing art and frustrating him is the easiest way in the world to visually demonstrate that dynamic. you're constantly trying to guess what your opponent is going to do, you're constantly trying to anticipate, yeah? you know what I said above about how you're 'recovering' to the centre of the theoretical zone and all that? well, sometimes you don't do that - you guess where the opponent is going to go. most often, you've got to do that when you know the opponent has a relatively easy shot and they can hurt you with it, so you have to play the probabilities and hope you get it right... it's basically like a penalty kick in football. it's a quick judgement you're making on the basis of past data, of what you think your opponent is thinking, of how big a risk you want to make - of when to time it, because if you move too early they can still change the trajectory of their shot and go the other way. maybe you even feint one way before darting the other. and your opponent might shoot one way or the other... but, sometimes they'll drop shot you while you're moving in one direction as you frantically try to change course. or, which is even more humiliating, they'll go straight down the middle - since you're no longer standing there

in narrative terms, what does it tell you if a character guesses rightly or wrongly? what would it say if art or patrick had that kind of intimate knowledge of each other - I know you usually do this, but I know you know that so I'm going to go the other way - round and round in circles, a mental contest between people who are so familiar with each other that it can become actively confusing to try and preempt their moves. tennis is a relationship and it's a conversation and the way we construct a point tells us a story about the history between you and me. it tells us a story if art, the six time slam winner and more accomplished player by far, is being read so perfectly by patrick that he's tripping over himself and getting in his own way and flailing. one of the most common commentating cliches is about the ball, or indeed the player, being attached to the end of a string. the extension of that metaphor is that one player is the puppet master and the other player is a puppet. easy visual metaphor bingo

you can literally express how the characters feel about each other by... where they're standing. if you're scared of your opponent's shot, then you're going to try and give yourself more time to react. if you are on the attack, then you need to move in, to take the ball earlier, to take time away from the opponent. to me, if you're showing fictional tennis, you really should be playing with time and how you can use cinematic techniques to play with that sense of time. now, you can do this on the broader level of the match, because your subjective sense of time is dependent on how well you're doing in a match. time never moves faster than when you're losing a six love set. but it's also obviously integral to actual points, because you are usually trying to maximise your own time and minimise your opponent's, trying to make sure you will always have enough time to get to the ball and making sure they won't (obviously often u kinda have to pick one of those because of how time works)

where you stand on the court is an integral part of that, for obvious reasons related to 'basic physics'. and, again, it's also psychological. take the return position, right, aka where you're standing when the opponent is serving. most people have a built-in preference for both the first and second serve, and a kind of basic 'return strategy' of what kind of shot they'd like to use and where to move. generally, you'll stand further back for the first serve because it's more powerful... but hey, maybe you have a slightly unorthodox return strategy where you're just trying to 'block' the first serve and use the weight of the opponent's shot against them, and then you step back for the second serve and have a massive whack at them. just as an example

and, again, this is another way in which you try to fuck with your opponent. there is nothing more annoying than seeing the twat on the other side of the net move in to the court by an insulting amount because they don't respect your shitty second serve and think they can take a swing at it from in front of the baseline. some players just do this in general - prime offenders on the women's side are garcia and ostapenko (and with all love to them, they do this more than is perhaps tactically prudent)

(for the other end of the spectrum, see another place from which you can theoretically return a serve from if you're out of your fucking mind) (this particular player's return strategy has been like a top five discourse point over the last few years but we do not have time to get into all that)

but you can also vary it up in a match, and you probably should if you're being smart. so for instance (and there's a specific match in 2022 I'm thinking of here), if you know your opponent has an awful second serve and a lovely little habit of double faulting when under pressure, maybe as the returner you just... well, look, the ball from the first serve has rolled right to your feet, so obviously you need to politely pass it to the ballperson, and maybe it just takes a little bit longer so that you know the server is looking right at you when you meander in front of the baseline to wait for their second serve. and then they double fault and that's the break of serve right there. you're not always standing that close to return second serves, but you're standing there when you know it'll make them most nervous. again, I am not saying the tennis threesome film needs to explain the difference between jelena ostapenko's and daniil medvedev's return strategies, but these ARE the kinds of things you CAN organically integrate, and give you very blunt and easy to understand messages about the characters and their dynamic

and like... different people have different play styles, yeah? let them express a little character! tashi is relentless, maybe she's constantly attempting to take everything with her forehand to attack and attack, or maybe she trusts herself to attack from any place with any shot. maybe she's so lively and confident and uncompromising that she uses down the line shots more than anyone else, or maybe there's surprising subtlety there in how the intensity and rage fades away for a moment as she flutters a slice across the net. what is it about her game that so captivates the two boys, its aggression or its complexity? is her game already more complete and well-defined and self-aware than it has any right to be from a high school student? or is it raw and untamed and a little wild and so full of potential?

art has a one-handed backhand and uniqlo gear in a very obvious federer allusion, but does he share any more with federer than that? is he particularly prone to rushing the net, especially after the serve? does he want to end points quickly? does he have good hands, is he trying to wrong-foot his opponent - or is he the one constantly getting wrong-footed as the others dance around him? is he constantly trying to assert his dominance, to end points quickly, and initially you think it's a sign of his power and confidence... but then you realise that it's insecurity - he's worried what will happen if they go on too long, if he gives too many chances to other players to outsmart him, if he's uncomfortable playing defence because it makes him feel reactive and weak. maybe in the second set he has to knuckle down and accept the rallies will be long and gruelling - which is a central aspect of tennis, it's about patience and managing risk. maybe he's so tense and nervous that he's just an error machine in the first set, but then he decides to just slow the pace and live with patrick in those forehand to forehand exchanges, let his natural weight of shot do the talking for him and force patrick to change things up

and patrick, with the unorthodox technique and the sleeveless shirts and the money and how he never really grew up - what does that tell us about his tennis? is it rough and energetic, big swings at the ball, layering on more and more spin to propel it high over the net? does he throw a massive forehand at art's backhand, making him hit it at a high point that is naturally uncomfortable for the one handed backhand? wouldn't it be interesting if you had patrick have a strong point to his game that naturally matches up to art's weak point, the chink in the six time grand slam champion's armour? what about the physicality, does he lunge further and harder and throw himself into balls just that little bit more? is he stronger than art, or is he faster, or is he neither? is he driven by instinct and gets in his own way less than art does, or is he tactically more astute and gets the better of art that way?

obviously you can't do all of those things in a film and you shouldn't because it's distracting. but what I'm trying to demonstrate here is that there is a whole range of potential storytelling you can tap into here. now, nobody's actually doing this, and my thing with challengers is that in many ways it came closer to the kind of narratives I would like to see. but then it still falls short just a touch, which is where the frustration comes in

a rivalry has got a history that is woken up again every time you step on court to face your old foe - you remember how they play, you already know what you want to do to beat them this time. you are trying to unsettle them. you know how they want to play and you want to deny them that opportunity. inevitably, any defined play style tells us something about the player and their personality and their approach to the game. the film is quite scarce on details about its lead characters and using the tennis more deftly would've been a great way to give us a stronger sense of who they are in a very economical, concise way. what does it mean for tashi's game that she can no longer run? yes, obviously it means she can't compete any longer, but the injury does different things symbolically depending on how big a part movement was of her game. often, tennis injuries directly affect your strengths. take a player who puts a lot of heavy spin on the ball by snapping their wrist - they are putting more strain on said wrist and may end up injuring it (a particularly terrible part of the body to injure for a tennis player). there's something extra cruel about that because it also affects how they'll recover, if they'll ever be able to trust that body part again. these are career-threatening injuries not just for physical but for psychological reasons. same thing if you're a great server with a shoulder injury... or if you're a great mover with a leg injury

also, and okay this probably did come across as nitpicking and it's not really an issue if it worked for people who aren't familiar with tennis... but omg the last point was so confusing. did check and this wasn't just a me problem, though I'd be curious if it worked for people less familiar with the game. when they came closer and closer to the net and hit back and forth, I thought what was happening was that they'd like, given up competing and were just hitting back and forth as a symbol of defiance or something. that they'd basically decided to stop playing the match and just play with each other. because like, you just can't do that in a match, the point would immediately be over especially if they're just standing there - they're too close! you'd immediately get the ball past! so I only realised when the film was over that it was supposed to be a really intense point... but I think that's the kind of thing where most people watching will probably be fine with it, so again. y'know. whatever. I do think you could have staged that point a little more cleverly to get to the same conclusion in a more natural way, but also. whatever. it's fine

(obviously there are also some other broader suspension of disbelief issues that I'm far less bothered about. the technique was like, not great, but also probably about as good as you'll get from actors, though again I would've liked a little more thought put into what they're doing beyond 'art's got a one handed backhand and patrick's got a quirky serve!' I thought the patrick serve thing was really neat and fun and theoretically you could hit a serve like that, though quite frankly in the men's game you'd probably be fucked because you need more racquet acceleration than that - but that does fit in with his character and the stubbornness and all that so it's fine. the art serve quirk... well, most players deliberately construct serving rituals like bouncing the ball several times or ball placement or whatever because it's the one shot in tennis that's completely 'on your own racquet' but is also really tough, so you're trying to trick your brain into always doing the same thing. I find it a little tough to believe art wouldn't have been aware of what he was doing, but again, not a massive issue. beyond my concerns about the lack of variation in the points they were showing, it did also trip me up whenever they were obviously stranded in no-man's land - you need to be either on/behind the baseline or right at the net and there's certain areas of the court where if you spend too long in them you are very much fucked. the whole concept of 'recovering' after a shot is like, as important part of tennis movement as getting there in the first place, and there's whole footwork patterns you use while you're hitting the shot and immediately afterwards to get yourself in position again. at times they'd just be standing in place in the fuck end of where on earth are you standing until the next shot comes and. listen. it really Does Not Matter beyond how it's fun to be annoying about this stuff but it did make me a bit twitchy)

2

so. match constructions and narrative arcs. I think if a literal match of tennis is the framing device of your film, you should think about the natural narrative tension that exists within a literal match of tennis. again, a match is a conversation, it has its ebbs and flows and peaks and troughs and all that other stuff. you are more tense at *4-5 30:30 than you are at 1-1* 15:0. you are feeling better about your life choices at 6-4 *5-3 than you are at 7-6(8) 0-6 *1-3. you change over the course of a match, as you test yourself physically and mentally and acquire a situationally specific data bank about yourself and the other player, as you notice and learn certain things about what's going on in your own game and your opponent's game. maybe you have a moment where you go 'yup the backhand's a catastrophe today, time to slice everything and hope for the best' or you go 'lol that's the third consecutive djokosmash they've hit, maybe I'll throw the ball high up again next time they get to the net'

also obviously all these things vary over the course of a match - and they do so more than they have any right to! there's no logical reason why 6-1 1-6 6-1 scorelines should happen, but they do! because game breaks and changeovers and set breaks and all of it can represent massive shifts in momentum. you play a *5-0 game differently than a *0-1 game, and suddenly those beautiful forehands you were ripping for half an hour are all flying out of the stadium and, shit, time to change tactics to defend more except now you're really screwed because you're playing your opponent's game. the most important thing to remember about tennis is that it fucking sucks. matches are psychological torture. I want to feel that part when watching the tennis threesome film

the basic mechanism of narrative tension in a match is the serve vs return dynamic. if you serve, you need to protect your serve, because those are the games you are supposed to be winning. if you return, you need to attack the opponent's serve, because those games represent opportunity. you want your service games to be short and fast and you want your return games to be long and tough and miserable for your opponent. and after every game, it ticks back again - you are literally passing the ball to the other side of the court. your turn, have fun!

there are a million different ways you can construct tension on a micro level within a match. you have breakpoints/matchpoints, obviously, which to some extent the film did feature. you have games that just get stuck on deuce, with neither player able to win the requisite two points in a row to release them, so it's like... basically groundhog day in sports as you keep trotting from one side of the court to the other, both players frustrated, one unable to escape the danger and the other unable to seize the opportunity. battle of the wills. games can completely realistically last more than twenty points. obviously you've got tiebreaks, which again the film did feature (though icl I had no clue what the score was supposed to be, again it doesn't matter but). you have the old cliche of 'it's not a break of serve unless you've backed it up' (aka by holding your own serve) and how common it is to be broken straight back for various nasty psychological reasons

I wish they'd played with this a little more, just showed a little more of why the players were reacting emotionally in the way that they were at certain stages of the match - rather than just basically reacting to the flashback we've just seen. like, there's plenty of reasons why a player might get particularly angry at a certain point of a match in a way that just feels a bit more organic. if tennis is the medium through which to explore this three-way relationship, then showcase that push and pull factor, those changes in momentum. the film suggests patrick has always had the upper hand - I'd make more clear this is the classic 'pigeon' dynamic where basically the head to head between two players is more skewed than it has any right to be given how 'good' those two respective players actually are. usually that means there's something funky going on with the play styles or it's something mental or it's an interaction between the two. patrick really cares about art, right, and then he's always able to beat him because he gets him and knows how to mess with him. art has the more raw ability(?) but it takes a bit longer for him to actually realise how good he is, in part because he always lost to patrick

the way they should've done this imo have a place where art does actually choke a sizeable lead, a kind of unexpected switch of momentum. like have this be the first set where art comes in hot and is y'know the obviously better player and all that, but then patrick just increasingly manages to unsettle him. make it a proper bad one, say *5-2 to 5-7. throw in a long deuce game. and then art is confronted with all his old demons again, his inadequacy, all that stuff. and then you've got the momentum switch after the set break when art manages to pull himself together. the thing is, they do actually show a fair bit of the match, but it's not always that interesting because it lacks a little bit of specificity, a little bit of detail... just make a few adjustments that accentuate the central dynamic. you don't have to go with this exactly but go with SOMETHING, 6-2 2-6 is such a nothingburger score lol like what does that tell us... 7-5 1-6 is what it's all about

(dumb nitpick corner: unlikely a time violation would get called between first and second serves, and if you do so then you'd better hand out a time violation if the receiver starts faffing about between points right after, rather than quietly talking to them off-mic. but hey, the establishment is corrupt, they obviously wanted art to win. also, there's a mistake on the scoreboard at the *5-6 game where they accidentally make it look like art is serving for the match at that stage, which would completely change the dynamic of that game and the previous game and the implications if art had let it go to a tiebreak - aka he would have choked. just slightly confused me when the umpire called out 'thirty love' after patrick won the point lol)

3

so maybe this all does come across like I hate the film, which I really did not. I enjoyed it a lot, and honestly it's not like there's much to choose from in terms of 'sports media that seriously engages with the narrative potential of the actual sport'. there were plenty of storytelling details I really vibed with, especially the dynamic between the central three characters and the push and pull between them and how they work as a trio. all three sides of the triangle were good fun. the way the two blokes were so in sync at times, that kind of easy intimacy and familiarity - again, I think you could have expressed that more through actual tennis but that did absolutely work for me

the actual 'playing a challenger before uso' thing was also fun, though I was wondering what his ranking was like because it must have still been kinda in the pits. like, you can't show up to a challenger as a top ten player. not that it actually matters matters but just. whatever. I do think the premise is neat

(though, that challenger audience was not keyed in enough! like omg if you're showing up to some random challenger to watch a top player on the injury comeback try to rack up some wins and the final is against the guy he played doubles with to win a junior slam, everyone watching would be SO aware of it. those spectators aren't just randomly being drawn into the drama, they know what's up!! you just know the challengers tv stream is racking up crazy figures. idk this is obviously more of a subtle thing, but I feel like it was supposed to give off the vibe of the non-tashi viewers being surprised by why they were being such weirdos all of a sudden but nah they would be ON IT with their patrick zweig backstory. including the fact he used to date tashi lol, like yeah they'd Get It)

I loved a lot of tashi's characterisation, how fucking obsessed she was with tennis and how everything was About Tennis for her... like yeah very real!! of course it eats her up!! I had a bit of a debate about this but I personally really liked the college tennis thing because it felt like a complete curve ball given her characterisation. it's good though, this idea that she wants to fool herself into believing she's more than hitting a ball but she's actually not... because of course she isn't.... none of these people are.... I like that element of self-delusion, even though it still... hm, I'm not entirely sure the film COMPLETELY sold me on that level of self-delusion because it was so obvious she didn't care about anything except for tennis... like it never quite felt entirely clear what she thought she was getting from that experience. but yeah, the central premise of it all... like the fact she just can't say goodbye to that world, that she can't really escape it, that she has to pursue something related to it to feel alive, even by proxy, the suspicion that all she needs art for is to have that kind of second hand thrill... really good!!

I was talking about this with the unfortunate recipient of my voice notes, and she's more familiar than I am with american college tennis than I am for the fairly obvious reason that only one of us has attended an american college. she said she'd discussed this with some of her friends and that that kind of injury did feel a touch unrealistic in the context of college tennis, partly because you're less likely to be playing with the kind of schedule that professional tennis requires of you. now, this doesn't really bother me, but I almost wish they'd leaned into the tragedy of it more - that it was unlikely and she didn't even get it while playing professional tennis! she was engaging in this grand act of self-delusion that there was more to her than tennis, which, let's face it, just really isn't a thing when you're a very good junior player, and she got injured before she ever even got close to 'making it'. it's tragic because it should never have happened. whatever injury art picked up (can't remember if they mentioned) would be statistically more likely to actually fuck you over, given their respective ages and time on tour and all that. you don't typically randomly get career ending injuries when you're running for a ball, not if you've trained properly - both in the sense that you're moving 'correctly' on the court and you've developed the muscles to protect yourself (which admittedly she was looking a touch light on). perfectly fine as a narrative choice, lean into it more

the churro college conversation between patrick and art was good, but that's another thing I would've integrated more into the tennis. like, the thing about him actually going for what he wanted and all that? you can do that through tennis! I also kinda wanted more of a sense of what tashi brought to the coaching dynamic, just something very simple and straightforward even the non-tennis viewing audience can understand. again, you've got this fairly obvious federer expy set up going on with art, and the glimpses we got of his game ... I mean mainly the one handed backhand, it does lean towards him being a player that's naturally oriented towards aggression. I would've maybe gone for the whole.... y'know. him not really being able to embrace that, him always holding himself back a little bit, not willing to fully give himself over and throw himself into the game. that tashi kinda has to get him to go for it, to go after the ball, to step into the court and use that technically excellent flat forehand stroke and trust himself to find those angles and rush the net and play the game, rather than letting the game play him. linking that into his loss of motivation post injury, where he feels like he's achieved what he wants to, where maybe he kinda retreats into himself. which is partly a motivation issue but also about trusting yourself post injury... not really being able to go after it in the same way any more, struggling to commit to that kind of aggressive mindset when your heart just isn't it any more. or something! just a thought!!

that's the thing right - sure, tennis might be a relationship, but the tennis will always be a character in its own right in whatever twisted threesome thing they've got going on. at the end of the day, the real toxic relationship is with the tennis! it's sad tashi can't leave it behind, it's tragic she's organising her whole life around something that'll always be lost to her. but it won't ever let her go, even though it hurt her, even though it caused her physical pain as well as emotional. it's the truest love in the whole film, tashi and the game itself, and all other love is subservient to that. it's also the most interesting relationship that needed to be... well, a little more foregrounded. she's always chasing that high, that moment of perfect communication and understanding and all that - and it's an entire lifetime of work, chasing the briefest of moments and now even that is gone. something she won't ever be able to recapture. she can't live her dream and she can't move on, so she is forever trapped, in stasis, frustrated and tormented by desires she can't act upon, the worst kind of repression imaginable. and it's not just about playing tennis in general - it's about playing matches. the height of competition, the moment in the point and in the match in which losing or winning feels like an equal possibility, where anything could happen but only one player will eventually emerge victorious... she's chasing the high of uncertainty, of suspense - the equivalent to showing up to the bedroom of two blokes and knowing anything could happen, not knowing yet what choice she will make, who will win, who will lose. if you really want to get abstract about this, she's essentially functioning as, y'know, the tennis gods with these two boys, where she is the one to make the choice of who wins and who loses. she is the one creating the uncertainty, the suspense. and she's doing it all for the love of the game, because that's all she ever truly loved

or that's what I think they should've gone for idk. I also have a few kinda dumb thoughts like 'ugh I needed more of a sense of what patrick's career looked like, are we talking never made it to the main draw of a 250 or slam quarterfinalist because both are plausible'. but anyway I think narratives in sports are neat and I wish more people did stuff like challengers did, even if I think I was just looking for something a little different from what that film was doing. you do kinda need somebody who's really into sports to do some of this stuff I feel, but. well. sports rivalries really is a bit of a tragically under-explored storytelling set up. they're good narratives. somebody write them