#that was both praised and criticized as people saw fit

[longeyelashedtragedy]

i hope dangerous au readers care about granit's past enough cause there's like over 9000 chapters of him getting established in london coming up! (But First: mikel meeting his brother, amongst other things)

[leikeliscomet]

“But We Love Martha Jones!” - The Doctor Who Fandom’s Selective Memory of Racism

Be aware that this article contains explicit examples of anti-black racism and misogynoir.

Chapter 2 - Utopia-ish

The constant nitpicking of Martha Jones for reasons white female companions could get away with was blatant anti-black racism. Let’s get that bit clear first and foremost. As a Black person in fandom, watching Black characters get torn apart while never being given the grace of their non-Black castmates is an experience that’s too common. Microaggressions are more subtle so the easiest way to shut down any mentions of racism is to accuse Black fans of making things up or telling us “Well it’s not like REAL racism”. Luckily Doctor Who Tumblr birthed the Martha Jones affirmative action and Aunt Jemima “memes” so I can cross both covert and overt racism off the list. As mentioned in extensive detail in the previous chapter, plus the various Martha Jones articles written before me, the treatment Martha experienced was racist. I don’t care if you personally didn’t like her. I don’t care that you missed Rose. I don’t care that Ten is your smol bean. Martha’s treatment was racist. Freema Agyeman’s treatment was racist. It might not have been everyone. It might not have been you personally. But it was there. The fandom can never be a safe space for POC, specifically Black people if this elephant in the room can’t be addressed over a decade after it arrived.

On paper, you’d assume Martha’s rep was good because “at least she wasn’t a Black stereotype”. Some fans praised her for having a present father, not speaking MLE and not being from the ends. This goes into respectability politics but the fandom’s weirdness about Black Brits and class is not the point of this article. The point is the revisionist history of how Martha was really treated and to do that it helps to know what Black tropes are. The Mammy trope is a Black woman whose main purpose is to serve her white counterparts and during slavery, she mainly cared for the slave owners' children. She is usually fat, dark skin and asexual, not as a representation of those things but as a statement of how if she isn’t used for sexual exploitation like the Jezebel (the promiscuous, reckless, sexualised Black woman), she has no sexual value at all. Her value is serving the needs of others only. Martha doesn’t fit this trope in theory but in practice, she fulfils the sub-categories of this trope both in show and fandom: the disposable Black (girl)friend trope. She is used as Ten’s emotional punching bag before he’s ready for Donna and then Rose again. She had to endure edgy moody S3 Ten so no one else had to. She’s the excuse people use to deflect any critical analysis of how race was handled in RTD1. She’s the fandom’s excuse to deflect from their own racial biases. Racism? No way! Everybody loves Martha Jones! What do you mean?

Some parts of the fandom have tried to mend things by suggesting Martha be paired with other doctors or romantically shipping her with other characters a bit better than Mickey Smith. But does this hold up? As much as I’m a big fan NineMartha as a concept and as someone who honestly saw one-off characters like Riley Vashtee from 42 or Tallulah from Daleks in Manhattan having way more romantic chemistry with Martha than Mickey ever did, simply re-shipping Martha isn’t enough. Doctor Who’s racism isn't exclusive to one doctor, one series or one era and new Martha pairings suggest the issue was “right person, wrong doctor” instead of what the issue actually was: racism. Moffat and Chibnall’s eras weren’t full of golden Black representation either so I doubt the Martha issue would’ve magically disappeared under those two. From Nine’s hostility to Mickey, to Twelve’s hostility to Danny Pink to Thirteen handing a South Asian Spymaster to the Nazis and Eleven only travelling with POC in comics most fans haven’t heard of and being besties with Churchill, simply putting Martha with another Doctor isn’t the serve fans think it is. Even RoseMartha seems like putting a bandaid on a bullet hole. If it's not enough for Martha to be compared to Rose, put down in favour of Rose, told she isn’t Rose and told she's worse than Rose in fandom and in show over and over and over, she has to be shipped with Rose too. Martha’s a great character… as long as you can tie her to Rose… again. Even in my own article I have to talk about Rose because Rose is centred in what was supposed to be Martha’s story. A doctor-to-be Black girl from London with a hectic family meets a Time Lord and gets abducted by space rhino police at work in one day. Her main conflict isn’t balancing work and time traveller life, or fighting to get her family back together, or seeing what’s out there in the universe - it's that she isn’t “Rose” enough. The Mammy and her sons’ main thing in common is simple; how well they serve and centre the white characters. In attempts to mend Martha’s treatment she is still only valued in relation to white characters. She should’ve been with Eleven because he would’ve fucked a Black woman. Or maybe Dilfy Twelve. Or a sapphic romance with another female companion who she saw twice or doesn’t actually know. Or maybe Ten in an alternate universe where he supports #nubianqueens. None of this is done to explore sexuality or romance with Black women and is definitely not to centre Black lesbianism and bisexuality. It’s Mammy with a dash of Jezebel. It's adding romantic and sexual value on top of physical and emotional value like a crappy meal deal.

I’m tired of Black women being treated as extensions of white women both in media and in real life. I’m tired of our value being determined by how well we serve white people emotionally, physically, platonically and sexually. And I'm even more tired of white feminism especially in this fandom. It would be so easy to label this article as anti-Rose, anti-Ten or anti-Tenrose to invalidate my whole racial analysis because it's the easy way out. I’ll admit I like both characters individually but not the ship but this isn’t something I decided on since birth - it's my conclusion as a Black fan in a predominantly white fandom, watching a predominantly white show, watching the first companion of my race be told she isn’t good enough compared to the white characters, and that the hatred of her is justified for the greater good of its popular white ship. Black fans can never have this conversation without being told we’re “pitting women against each other” and that Martha and Rose hugged once in S4 so everything's hunky dory. Martha’s happy that Ten found Rose again so what’s the problem? It sends a clear message that Black women’s pain will never matter a much as white women’s feelings. “Rose is amazing! Martha’s amazing! Stop pitting women against women!” but who was pit against who in the first place? These faux girl power posts fail to acknowledge the overlap of race and gender which separates the treatment of Black and white women. It fails to acknowledge Martha’s hate was rooted in anti-black racism. It fails to acknowledge the anti-Rose pushback was in response to how the show and fandom convinced us Rose was the untouchable bar this Black woman failed to meet. It fails to acknowledge Freema Agyeman the actress was targeted not just her character. It fails because the female empowerment rhetoric that leaves the Black ones at the bottom of the pile only “empowers” women of a certain demographic.

The harassment Martha experienced was swept under the rug of “stan wars” but it was so much deeper than that. I’m not saying Martha stans are angels but there was no “Great Stan War” because the sides were never even. At the end of the day no amount of “Martha’s better than Rose” tweets will ever compare to the fact that Martha hate was rooted in misogynoir. Rose was and still is considered the greatest companion of nuwho, whilst Martha is constantly erased and undervalued. Rose’s video views and hashtags have always been bigger than Martha’s. Amy and Clara came after Martha but still surpassed her in popularity and got plenty of fan edits of “The Girl Who Waited” and “The Impossible Girl” whilst Martha was conveniently skipped in the companion lineup. The fandom’s bias still shines clearly in favour of Rose over Martha. Rose’s jealousy towards other women is justifiable and just the ups and downs of a 19-year-old whilst Martha’s is entitled bitterness. Rose’s flaws are compelling character moments and depth, Martha’s are “holding her back from being a good companion”. Hell, even Donna calling out Ten’s BS was entertaining accountability whilst Martha was just the angry Black woman. Fans will weaponise Rose’s working-class roots to imply a pro-Martha bias, failing to acknowledge the working-class to poor background of the average Black Brit, the anti-blackness middle-class Black people are not spared from, the many working-class Black characters of the show like Mickey, Bill, Rigsy and Ryan or how most fans don’t consider Martha middle class because she doesn’t fit the white British cultural stereotypes. You can't be the most loved and hated at the same time. The hard truth is Billie Piper wasn’t racially abused by Martha stans but Freema was absolutely racially abused by Rose’s and the effects of this are still around. Go into Martha Jones tags today and you’ll see snarky posts of how Ten could never love another companion like Rose. Even when Freema bravely shared her experiences of literal racism, fans were quick to yell “But I wanted Ten and Rose though” as a justification for years of misogynoir. Again, we need to address the elephant in the room instead of covering our eyes and ears to act like it’s not there. A Black character and actress was collateral damage in order for a popular white ship to rise and whilst I’m not an anti, I as a Black Doctor Who fan, I’ll never be a supporter. At the end of the day, only one of these actresses is still carrying the burden of misogynoir over 10 years since RTD1 ended. A lonely walk across the Earth yet again.

<- Chapter 1 Chapter 3 ->

[fabuloustrash05]

Some of My TMNT Hot Takes (PART 2) 🔥

Warning: More Opinions

Part 1 Here

I don’t like that in Mutant Mayhem Donnie is not a “science guy” but instead is more of an anime and pop culture geek. I’m not against him being an anime fan (I love anime too) but I wish we saw more of his science and being a tech genius side instead of him just liking stereotypical “nerdy stuff”. If that makes sense.

I don’t like the Punk Frogs (any version).

The 87 crossover episodes in the 2012 series (as much as I did enjoy them & are great episodes) should not have happened. They leave no real impact or development to 2012’s overarching story and just waste time. These episodes could’ve covered more important things that 202 was desperately lacking like like character exploration and character dynamic development. It was just nostalgic fanservice. The arc in S5 specifically would’ve work better as a movie instead of a 3-4 episode arc in the (most likely non canon) final season.

Shinigami being Mikey’s second love interests ruins her character a bit (for me personally). That was a pointless decision that did NOT need to happen. She would’ve been our first recurring female character to not be a love interest, but nope!

People are allowed to like/ship Donnie x April in ROTTMNT (this is coming from someone who’s not crazy about April being shipped with the Turtles).

I ship Yuichi with 2012 Leo more than Rise Leo (still ship Rise Leoichi, but I just think 2012 Leoichi is way more interesting, plus 2012 Leo deserves a good love interest).

The humans in Mutant Mayhem look ugly af (I know that was probably an intentional design choice but still. It looks bad.)

I hate Raph x Casey (any ver). I’ve stated in part one that I don’t like Raph (any version) being in a romantic relationship with human characters and yes, that meant him with Casey. Not only that but Raph and Casey being a couple ruins their whole dynamic and iconic friendship I love so much. I’m all for friends to lovers but they are a line that should not be crossed. Not every friendship needs to turn romantic.

2012 Karai’s hair looks bad.

Fans often over exaggerate Rise Donnie’s character and badly mischaracterize him in fanfics and fan comics to the point it makes him feel like he’s an entirely different character.

Shinigami should have been revealed to be a villain.

Rise Donnie was just as mean to his brother as fans claim 2012 Raph was to his. Yes, they both do love their families and I’m NOT saying either of them are abus!ce (they’re not), but fans praising Rise Donnie for doing similar things fans criticize/hate 2012 Raph for doing just makes them hypocrites.

Venus does NOT need to be in every iteration of TMNT. It gets kind of annoying when fans keep on saying that she should be in all the other iterations when in truth her presence would not make sense based on the already established canon story. The only (recent) version of TMNT where I think her being included would’ve fit the best and deserved to make her comeback in is ROTTMNT.

The side plot of 2012 Karai being mutated and later getting brainwashed by Shredder was a waste of time and the most boring arc in the series.

2012 April, Donnie and Casey being in a poly relationship does not fix anything with their problematic dynamic and massive flaws with one another. I'm not saying you can't ship all three of them together, you do you! Idc But in reality their relationship would be a train wreck, that's why I personally don't ship 2012 Capriltello.

Renet is probably one of the most powerful allies the Turtles have in the 2012 series.

Rise Donnie would NOT hate 2012 April. He’d go crazy over her psychic powers and want to study them to help her explore them more.

From what I've seen so far, Leo x Usagi seems like the only GOOD ship in the 2003 series (this hot take might change tho).

Raph had the best character arc and development in the 2012 series and changed the most out of the four brothers. Next would be Leo. With Mikey and Donnie have little development (or none at all sadly).

[beloved-child-of-the-house]

i stand with you in the face of a defensive misunderstanding of what critique is.

i think understanding what a critique actually is is a skill that increasingly is not taught. i remember going through freshman art courses feeling the frustration that all negative, nasty, unhelpful, and missed-the-point-entirely feedback is so commonly conflated with critique, and then critique gets a bad name because everyone remembers the time someone said their painting looked like an asshole (true story, altho now i think i would take it as a compliment) instead of the time a teacher or friend or classmate helped them uncover a hurtful bias or think of new ways to explore the same idea or how to connect it to related ideas or how to look up and understand other people's ideas on the same topic.

anyway i think you're great.

ahhh you're so kind to me!! i appreciate your support, and i think you are great also.

i have experience with giving and receiving critique as a student myself, and i think it was the best part of my degree! i majored in creative writing in college, and critique was just a generally accepted part of learning to become a writer. i don't even remember people being especially worried about receiving critique on their work. we had guidance on what kind of feedback was useful, but we were still at liberty to give it as we saw fit as like messy 19 year olds. the standard was that we gave it both written on printed copies of the work AND aloud in front of the whole class, and the writer receiving it was not permitted to speak during the critique. understanding how people are perceiving your work is important!

i don't have any particularly negative recollections of the critique process, although once in a high school writing class, the boys in the class told me that my male characters touched each other too gently and real boys are more rough with each other. in particular, they took issue with me writing that one boy nudged another. nudging is too soft. nudging is for girls. that was more than 20 years ago, and i still think about it sometimes because it was such an interesting perspective! i did not take their advice, though.

i should dig up that piece and see if it reads queer in any other ways. i think that's what they were getting at. (actually i once had a non-fiction class tell me i was in love with my roommate after reading an essay i wrote about her)(i did not listen to that advice either, but having 12 acquaintances tell you that you're gay in 2006 before you realize it yourself is Truly Something!)

i think people have conflated criticism and critique and think that being more openly analytical is the same thing as being negative. but analysis is so fun to me! analysis is why i joined fandom in the first place, and it's why i write fic! can we trust each other to be respectful and to speak in good faith even when we're not singing each other's praises? for me fandom would be better if we could.

oh i also want to clarify that i don't think it's impossible to demonstrate that you've thought deeply about a piece of fanwork while remaining completely positive. people do it all the time and do it very well!

i know i sometimes have tunnel vision wrt my own perspective. in a lot of situations, i wish it were more acceptable to be more direct, and i know people sometimes find the way i express myself to be kind of shocking. i know a lot of people like to be spoken to more indirectly than comes natural to me, and i don't mean to imply that my perspective is the only correct one or that there's no good reason to err on the side of gentleness/politeness in our responses to amateur art and writing. i just think that at a certain level of circumspection, it feels like we're all holding each other at arm's length.

i think for people who can't bear to feel exposed, making and sharing art is always going to be painful and difficult, and maybe too painful and difficult to enjoy the process unless they're sure of a soft landing. but like. the rewards of being loved only come after the mortifying ordeal of being known, right?

[cienie-isengardu]

There is visual storytelling with Bi-Han's frustration with Liu Kang, but story mode does nothing to validate his frustrations at all, making said frustration seem unjustified, and that he's in the wrong for feeling this way, as he's the only Lin Kuei who actually is frustrated. Not everyone saw his frustration, so is the visual storytelling intentional, or coincidental? It's ironic, as Mortal Kombat is not known for its subtlety at all.

In advance, forgive me for starting with introduction-digression about Mortal Kombat 1’s storytelling - I promise it has a point related to Bi-Han.

Mortal Kombat 1’s main purpose is to set the ground for future storytelling so understandably, we can’t expect this game to spell out every detail to us at once right away. We, as freshly introduced guests to Liu Kang’s timeline, take a lot at face value about characters and setting because we simply don’t have enough knowledge about them yet. However I wouldn’t say MK1 lacks subtlety or it didn’t show us a pretty nuanced world already. The best example is the Edenia admired and praised by Liu Kang, as a beautiful, knowledgeable and wealthy place

and indeed the first impression fits well what Fire Lord told his champions. Yet under the gorgeous facade lurks the much darker, uglier side of Edenia - and by extension, of Royal Family. 

When the wonderful and joyful parade was disrupted,

the scene following was there to explain the conflict between Li Mei and the Royal Family, however the visual side of story foreshadows what Baraka’s chapter will reveal - the sick people are treated like unwanted trash. Here alone, they aren’t peacefully led outside the city, they are bound like criminals - both (potentially) sick and those who refused to hand them over to the authorities for "quarantine" (a word used by Li Mei, but as next chapters will shown, the quarantine means banishment and dying slowly in miserable conditions). This one chapter alone gives us two sources about Edenia - Liu Kang’s words and the background details which frankly paint two different pictures. Liu Kang noted how Sindel spared no money for the festival and Tournament (Mileena added it is to honor the memory of Sindel’s late husband and her father)

and how he does not judge the Queen, only admire 

- but apparently the Queen cared more for Festival/Tournament and to make Edenia look as a great nation than she cared for her sick subjects who for years were dying in poverty, excluded and persecuted by edenian society. She even blamed Mileena for getting sick and said that to her face. Sindel also accepts Umgadi system that literally forces edenian families to give up their first daughters for training (indoctrination), so the ruling Family have a loyal Palace Guard to uphold their safety - and power -  and Liu Kang, like most of characters, admired those warriors showing no criticism toward such practices that strips born-free citizens from their freedom, family, even from right to fall in love. All in the service of Edenia’s monarchy. 

My point is, what we are told about Sindel - the beloved good Queen - and what we are shown by details happening in background or brought by tie-in materials (character BIOs, intro dialogues) are not mutually exclusive, but those for sure highlight the contradictory and flawed image the new Mortal Kombat saga introduced in its first installment . However the main criticism toward Sindel is not focused at presented by story flaws and errors, only at her relationship with Liu Kang and Earthrealm and comes from General Shao and his allies. Considering who he is, it is easy to side with Sindel yet we can’t say the game didn’t laid some solid ground for a very serious criticism, both for Sindel, the ruling Family and Liu Kang who always spoke highly about the Queen, King and Princesses.

Now, let’s talk about Bi-Han.

On one hand, intro dialogues and story mode itself are too consistent and repetitive about Bi-Han’s firm take on freedom & enslavement to think it is coincidence, especially for a character so sidelined as Sub-Zero was. Clearly, someone made a deliberate choice to emphasize those two values in regard to motives behind Bi-Han’s action, even if the official BIO itself appointed POWER as his main theme. 

On another hand, there is no doubt that the game was not intended to focus on Sub-Zero’s frustrations nor examine its roots in any great detail, at least not at this early stage of introducing a new timeline. It doesn’t help that Bi-Han was seen in two first chapters, one his own (ch. 8) and in following Scorpion’s (ch.9) to disappear from the story for good and returning as the Champion/Titan Sub-Zero only as an alternative choice of player.

However! Even with such limited focus, the game in my opinion laid enough ground, both as what we are told and what we are shown by story mode alone, to get the feeling Bi-Han’s frustration didn’t come out of nowhere. Could it be handled better? Of course! But I must disagree with the opinion that visual storytelling didn’t do its work. It may not hit fans straight in the face with all its nuances, yet there is a clear difference in how Lin Kuei characters are treated by Fire Lord in contrast to other Liu Kang’s Champions and friends.

And this is not just about Bi-Han, but also about the treatment of Kuai Liang and Tomas. 

For one, the story always presented Lin Kuei doing Liu Kang’s bidding - be it testing the new Champions or eliminating a threat (black op mission). We do not see Fire Lord interacting with them outside of Lin Kuei servitude, while he clearly spent time with Johnny, Kenshi, Raiden and Kung Lao outside of their main (game) purpose. This is especially visible at the end of the story, when all of them dinner together at Madam Bo’s, clearly celebrating their success. Bi-Han’s lack of presence is understandable, yet Kuai Liang and Tomas? All we are told about Scorpion is that he was tasked with making a new clan to replace the rebellious Lin Kuei (thus he is doing another bidding of Fire Lord while Champions are allowed to take a break and enjoy time with friends)

while Smoke is completely omitted - even though the man fulfilled his duty to Earthrealm as any other Liu Kang’s Champion did and now helps to build Shirai Ryu clan. 

Frankly, not acknowledging Lin Kuei in itself contrasts a lot with how Liu Kang interacted with his Outworld friends and Champions. Bi-Han has never been addressed as Grandmaster of Lin Kuei (nor by his codename?), even during introductions to Kung Lao, Raiden, Kenshi and Johnny. Meanwhile, the edenian Royal Family’s titles are always respected. Jerrod is called outright a friend and so is Geras - yet not once in story mode Liu Kang expressed regret over the premature death of Bi-Han, Tomas and Kuai Liang’s father. Smoke actually was omitted all the time by Liu Kang and visually/story-wise speaking, Liu Kang alienated Tomas more than Bi-Han did in the few scenes the brothers shared together.

Even the recruitment of new Champions is questionable. Liu Kang took Bi-Han - a Grandmaster who had his own duties to a whole clan  - on a trip to test the new fighters. Since Bi-Han and his men weren’t fighting to the fullest of their strength, what was the point of dragging Sub-Zero in the first place instead of just picking fighters more closely in level to Kung Lao, Raiden, Kenshi and Johnny? Was Bi-Han’s presence there truly necessary, when already two other sons of the late Grandmaster took part in the test too? All done just to lose so the precious Champions could brag about their victory? That alone must be frustrating if we remember that members of the Lin Kuei weren’t trained to fight the “honorable kombat match”, as in one on one, but to kill the enemy as fast as possible - as chapter 8 and 9 clearly showed.

Sure, the story mode - be it the words taken at face value or visual storytelling alone - didn’t go out of its way to hit us in the face about Bi-Han’s frustration yet there is a clear contrast in how Liu Kang treats his Lin Kuei subordinates and how he interacts with people he openly admires and likes. There are plenty of nuances laid out for people who will bother to look for those hints and compare them to the rest of presented material. 

Also, a thing worth to remember: just because Kuai Liang and Tomas are content with their life and duties, it does not mean Bi-Han shouldn’t be frustrated by things the way they are. Just because he is not trying to be sympathetic, doesn’t mean his feeling of injustice is invalid or that his points have no merit whatsoever.

I may be disappointed with the creators' choices, but I can't say that MK1 is devoid of nuances and interesting contradictions. All comes down to fans and their personal perception of what the story tells us through characters and what shows to actually happening.

[chaos0pikachu]

I am here actually to appreciate your post. I saw a blogger’s post saying The sign would have been ‘successful’ had it got filled with fantasy and romance and limit action to 10%. I wondered why that person, who says BL is all about romance, watched a show whose genre is action. Then I saw your post about people watching many shows to stay in fandom and I agree. Also you are right about dramas with a complex story receiving heavy criticism. Everything (even lack of proper plot or conflict) is exempted in a romance drama. No wonder most BLs are confined to ‘2 boys and their jealous & crying moments, routine conflicts enhanced by Escola or leads explaining how important Nikon printer is for their relationship’

Well damn hit me in the feels with this appreciation I'ma get all shy and shit.

I always wonder if by "successful" people mean in terms of critical acclaim, story telling, or monetarily. When it comes to Thai shows - and some please correct me if I'm wrong - it's difficult to tell how "successful" they are terms of audience reach/monetarily because there's no easily verifiable information. Like, there's Youtube numbers sure, but The Sign as an example, aired on Channel 3 what were it's ratings total on that channel? Idk, does anyone know that? Sincerely asking lol

Personally the way I like to judge a piece of media is what I call the Roger Ebert method; he often judged films based not solely on whether they were "good" or "bad but by how successfully they accomplished their goals.

If you read his review of Space Jam while it's clear Ebert doesn't think the movie is high art, "You can watch the movie on the sports and cartoon levels, and also appreciate the corporate strategy that's involved. [...] It is difficult for an actor to work in movies that combine live action with animation, because much of the time he cannot see the other characters in a scene with him. But Jordan has a natural ease and humor, an unforced charisma, that makes a good fit with the cartoon universe."

Ebert praises that the film, while filled with obvious product placement and banking on both nostalgia for the toons & star power of Jordan, accomplishes it's goal of being a family for that can be enjoyed by adults and children, and also the ability to blend techniques of live action, animation and 3D rendering.

I bring this up specifically b/c when I see "reviews" of shows in BL - the most common form of meta I see in BL fandom as a whole and that's not a knock just an observation - it's usually always about the narrative. Nothing about the filmmaking. And if there is discussion about he filmmaking it's usually misinformed or worse misinforming - no that's not what aperture means, yaoi framing isn't really a thing in film, the t-shirt is really just a t-shirt, etc, etc.

And like I get why. Fandom is more about story, what the words on a page or what the characters on screen are doing and saying. It's easier to talk about the amazing communication two characters have b/c you don't really need a film knowledge to discuss that. Which is a factor in why I think shows with lower stakes, more streamlined and straightforward plots get praised at a higher, less diligent and harsh level, than shows that are a bit more daring. They're less challenging in structure, they take less risks, so there's less to critique, and there's less room for a show to disappoint.

There comfort food, rather than trying something new at the restaurant. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, again, this is just a general observation.

To me, The Sign is miles better than Cooking Crush on a simple technical level. I only watched one episode of Cooking Crush and I found it pretty mediocre at best from all technical points: acting, editing, cinematography, directing, storytelling.

This isn't to say Cooking Crush is "bad" or that even if Cooking Crush was "bad" people shouldn't like it. I don't give a fuck if people like it, good for you chase the things that spark joy! I like lots of "bad" media, have y'all ever watched Jason Takes Manhattan?

For me, The Sign, like Space Jam, accomplishes it's goals and those were ambitious goals. An action fantasy BL that actually lives up to that premise and looks good?? The fight choreography looks great considering the obviously budget??

Like one of my issues with Laws of Attraction - aside from how painfully disinterested those kisses looked - was the fight choreography was bad.

The characters very rarely land hits in a way that looks real, or even marginally real. I can only speculate they didn't hire a stunt coordinator and/or couldn't hire stunt doubles so there was a worry of injury on set (for both reasons).

This isn't a disparagement on the actor(s) either, like stunt work is difficult and it's important to have professionals on set who can walk an actor through the steps so both them and others don't get hurt. Jackie Chan is probably one of the best known actors alive for stunt work, but watch how many times he fumbles and potentially hurts himself to the point where other actors are actively worried for him:

So yeah I'm going to give The Sign it's fucking gold star stickers b/c aside from some missteps in the gun handling - to many one handed gun fights but even then it wasn't all the time and bullets ran out of ammo! Y'all don't know how exciting for me that was to see - the fight scenes look damn good.

I understand the work that went into them, I understand the pre-production time that it took for the crew and cast to learn that and filming them well is another beast too.

There's a couple scenes with shaky cam that I dislike, but god do I love that first long take in The Sign. I love how good the CGI looks overall again, considering what is probably less budget than Black Christmas (2019).

I'm admittedly, fucking picky about what I watch b/c I'm really lazy and prefer watching films in general. I don't really like TV all that much, but if I am watching a tv show I wanna be impressed with more than just the characters talking to each other. Especially if said show is 12 hours or more.

When I'm looking at a piece of media - a comic, a novel, a film, a tv show - I'm thinking about stuff like "what were it's goals, and did it accomplish them? How was the filmmaking? How was the narrative structure? What is the time/place/culture this was made in?"

I'm not sure if people are arguing if The Sign was "successful" in terms of narratively, monetarily, or critically.

In reality we can only really speculate on how successful a Thai BL is based on data that's not not entirely accurate - social media, youtube stats, awards, etc - and even then most of that is based off international audience.

I can glean that 2gether was successful for gmmtv b/c it got a second season and a film, pretty much skyrocketed Bright and Win's individual careers but again, and created a cross country alliance for activism. But even all that is still speculation not facts (except the alliance that's a real thing that happened lol).

[This is all regardless of my own feelings regarding the show which is not kind. But feelings have nothing to do with individual discussion about how monetarily successful or accomplished a show is or isn't.]

Like it might be valid speculation on both shows but it should always come with a disclaimer of - these are not facts. Also, what is "popular" or "successful" can and will be dependent on individual countries too.

Take Cutie Pie for example, I would argue that it wasn't super "successful" here with American fans, but given how overwhelmingly popular Zee and NuNew are in both Thailand and Korea, I would then argue that the show was a success in Thailand and Korea. So was Cutie Pie "successful" or not? I would say yes!

Because "success" isn't and shouldn't be measured only by how western fans receive a piece of media.

In regards to The Sign, I'd argue it appears to be very successful with only the partial data I have at hand - social media which includes places like twitter, facebook, tumblr, the success of their sold out showing for the finale, a special episode, etc. If people argue it was unsuccessful in terms of narrative, well that's debatable and I have no interest in debating why the show is good except in terms of technical filmmaking and storytelling.

And even then it's a pointless debate like or dislike whatever just don't lie or mislead people regarding film terminology and techniques or harass people because they did like A Thing or clog up the tags with annoying posts about how you didn't like said Thing.

Overall, I don't give "reviews" on things I watch either positive or negative cause, well, I'm lazy lol, I don't believe putting how much I hate a show in it's tags and a thorough rating system would be to much work. I actually like how My Drama List rating system works, I just find most reviews on it to be Annoying lmao. Like giving Kinnporsche a 5 or below is absolutely bonkers to me but whatever es lo que es. But I also don't think my thoughts and opinions on shows are that valuable in terms of discussion.

These are mostly my general thoughts on fandom at large and it's not directly at any particular people its just observations at large across various social media platforms.

I think if you like more squeecore shows that's totally gucci, I just wish didn't proposite that 1) those are the only valid shows in terms of BL/queer media and 2) didn't overhype them to such sky high levels

[presidenthades]

Hi could u plz write a short analysis on how the children are similar to their parents both in canon and fic verse . I love ur metas .

In the interests of time, I’m going to do just fic verse (I would repeat myself a lot for canon) and the core six kids.

Other than picking up on generational trauma and the ability to craft witty one-liners, I don’t think Aegon is similar to Alicent. He’s more like Viserys. Neither of them wants to rule, and both would rather chill as a lord without responsibilities. They like praise, and they’re stubborn once they make up their mind. They’re both prone to obsessions, Viserys with his LEGOs, Aegon with…well, Jace. If The Golds had ended more tragically, Aegon would have gone down the Viserys route of grief.

Aemond is more like Alicent. They both espouse duty, obedience, and behaving according to one’s station. They both have inner turmoil about what they actually want, which might conflict with their responsibilities. They readily criticize their own family but they’re also loyal to family (at least, they should be… *side-eyes S2*). But they’re opposite gender characters in a very patriarchal society, so their duties and expectations sometimes pull them in different directions.

Daeron is a more balanced blend of both parents. Like Viserys, he is affable, conflict-averse, idealistic, and sometimes a bit obtuse. Like Alicent, he is a natural at courtly etiquette, pious, filial, and more of a follower than a leader (when they’re young, at least). Like both parents, he is calm and courteous most of the time, but if he’s pushed too hard then his temper can snap explosively.

I think Jace looked at both her parents and tried to learn from their mistakes. She does imitate what she admires, like Rhaenyra’s regality and ability to take charge, and Laenor’s genial behavior. Otherwise Jace is course-correcting for things like Rhaenyra’s poor planning (I’m sorry, but Rhaenyra really isn’t good at planning for the long term 🥲) and Laenor’s irresponsibility.

Luce is like both her parents when they were young and had yet to be traumatized. We see a lot more of young Rhaenyra than young Laenor, so I’m predisposed to say Luce favors her mother more. Bold, (over)confident, a bit spoiled, loves her family very much, just wants to have fun. And Laenor definitely encouraged what he saw of Laena in her.

Joff is tricky because at first she doesn’t seem similar to anyone except her ancestor Visenya. But if you take away her occult interests, she’s just a little girl who knows she’s weird and doesn’t fit in. Joff is good at giving the appearance of not caring what people think, and she doesn’t want to be “normal,” but I think she does long for people who both understand and accept her completely, rather than just tolerate her oddities. That reminds me of young Rhaenyra for a S1E3, who feels lonely and adrift. And if Joff had a less supportive family, she might’ve become more like Laenor, who has a bit of self-loathing for failing to meet expectations.

[princeescaluswords]

This is more a comparison thought, but with the release of the X Men ‘97 trailer there’s been an increase in the “Wolverine is the real leader, Scott (Summers) is a dolt” sort of comments. Because I saw a text post about Scott (McCall)’s leadership skills I immediately made a, admittedly simplistic, comparison.

Fandom so often attaches themselves to the loud and angry characters, often the most reactionary, and declare them the most proactive and real leaders. I see it as a common thread in fandom, and one I worth a further discussion. How often characters with ideals, who consider the ramifications of actions, who attempt a steady hand are dismissed for the characters that meet our desire for action and violence.

I don’t believe I’ve fully formed thoughts on this, but it was an immediate consideration after seeing posts.

Before I tackle this question, I want to clarify that I only read Marvel Comics from 1984 to 1995 and then again from 2007 to 2013. I did read back issues during both periods, but those are the time periods where my opinion were set, and so there might be things from outside those time frames which do not impact my analysis.

The first time I stopped reading was due to two trends that simply made me uninterested. During the 1980s, the X-Men comics had adventures but there was at least some degree of being grounded in everyday life. The 80s X-men worried about fitting in with the people around them and about having a life outside the spandex and fighting off the Brood and the Marauders, etc. When Riptide put Nightcrawler in a coma, it influenced how other characters reacted to events. By about the summer of 1995, I didn't find that anymore in X-men.

The early 90s also saw the rise of the antihero in Marvel and a greater emphasis on bombast. The Punisher became a hero. Wolverine stopped worrying about his body count. There was no slow build up in the comics to a pulse-pounding conclusion; instead, there were pulse-pounding conclusions every three months. The comics I read slowly pulled away from "people with powers" and into what I referred to as "powers with a name tag attached." It was most likely me aging out of my interests.

The second time, I picked up the comics out of nostalgia and I found that there was a new level of maturity to be found in the storytelling. Characters like Captain America and Charles Xavier were being pushed out of their roles; a new generation had to learn how to protect themselves and others. And then came "Time Runs Out." It did, but in this case it was the time running out was my interest in the comics. Marvel Comics, like Hollywood, decided to go for retreads of original characters than take a risk on something new.

Both times, nuanced visions of leadership were the first thing to go. The "best" leader became the character who ignored everything but resolving the immediate problem as quickly as possible. With that criteria, Wolverine and characters like him -- lets call them what they are, killers -- were the best choice. But just as importantly, leaders who attempted to address systemic problems in the comic's world, the things that created the immediate problem were portrayed as bootlickers too inured to suffering to even notice it (various leaders of the Avengers), anxious managers whose refusal to act decisively simply perpetuated the problems (Cyclops and Spider-man), or hide-bound egoists too infatuated with their own visions and status to want to actually solve the problem.

Yes, I'm talking about Charles Xavier.

Don't get me wrong, Deadly Genesis is rightfully praised, and the terrible errors that Xavier committed there are legitimate criticisms of the character and how he approached resolving mutant oppression. But Marvel, as it frequently does, saw a golden goose and then beat it to death. Xavier barely remained a hero, instead becoming a stand-in for every corrupted politician in the history of the world. The thoughtful recognition of Xavier's sacrifice, his nobility, and his ultimate belief in the necessity of finding common ground was obliterated for the next episode of "What Did Charlie Do Now?"

The X-men wouldn't have been what they were without Charles's vision. The present writers know that too, they just resent it. I feel that Cyclops, too, has been robbed of his principles in order to become a Wolverine with speeches. When you can't tell the difference between one of Cyclops' bubbles and one of Magneto's speech bubbles, something's gone wrong. (This is not a criticism of Magneto. I thoroughly enjoy his perspective as one among many.) As far as I can tell, there are only two types of leaders in Marvel Comics who aren't villains: manipulative old people who have lost touch with the people they're trying to protect and the Voices of Generational Violence Embodied. I'm sure that there are people who enjoy that, but I'm not one of them.

[plasmasimagination]

Greetings ! I saw your match up event and I don't know if you're still up to it but I'll give it a shot anyways !

Fandom : Honkai Star Rail

Characters I don't want to be paired up with : Blade, Sampo (sorry boys)

Ahem, I'm an ISFP who's rising sign is Scorpio, moon sign is Aries and solar sign is cancer.

I absolutely adore writing, reading and exploring outside, urbex is the best thing I've ever known in my entire life. I'm also trilingual ! I just like languages so I'm studying them, probably to travel later although I might just change and get a bachlors degree in psychology just so I can help people. I also love swimming, favorite sport ngl. I forgot to mention, my pronouns are she/her and I'm bisexual though I lean a little more towards women (bless them).

In terms of personality I'd say I'm pretty shy and quiet with strangers but once I know them I'm a goofy dumbass and seem pretty extroverted because I become rather chatty. People have mentioned how intimidating I look, I'm about 5'8 and fairly fit with broad shoulders. So some have approached me out of curiosity and because I look mysterious (their words not mine). Though I'm a big teddy bear, my love language is physical touch and quality time after all.

Aside from my height I have middle length wavy (mb fluffy too ig) brown hair and brown eyes. I wear glasses or else I can't see crap. My clothing style is rather tomboyish, I prefer brown and beige colours and wear pretty simple things (tho I make them stylish).

Some details about myself are that I really like a good challenge and annoying the heck out of someone, some say I seem a little sadistic with my teasing lmao. Despite being chatty I'm rather laid back and quiet.

Have a good day btw ! I hope it was enough.

HELLO THERE SWEETHEART YAYAYA, so you didn't mention which gender you want to be paired up with so i just decided to give you uh...both? Bisexual problems frfr anyyyywaaays, matchup go!

.

.

.

March 7th!

Okay okay I know you might be asking why and stuff, so first off, who are you to question my way? (/J) and second here's why!

I always like to pair up introverts and extroverts together so they can balance each other out

And you two would fit so well, like-

Intimidating girlfriend that looks like she could beat your ass, and cute smol girlfriend protected

IDK I JUST FIND IT ADORABLE

You might say that you see her more as a friend but I think you two would start off as friends and then turn into something more

Also two chatty cuties would be a blast to be with one another, like I like to imagine march would enjoy chatting with you even if it's just random ranting about insignificant stuff and then be excited to hear your opinion on the insignificant stuff😭

Welt!

Calm collected and reserved

A complete opposite of march yet still a fit for you

This time two introverts together, who enjoy each others company

He prefers to listen to you talk rather than talking himself, but he does enjoy making small comments or chuckling at your stories

Very interested in your writing hobby

Will ask you to show him the newest thing you wrote, he gives constructive criticism but also praises, a tiny bit ;)

Your annoying won't work in him because he will just see it as your personality (ouch) and will sit there with a small smile on his face

Also enjoys different languages and will be fairly impressed by your knowledge, sometimes will ask a thing or two about a certain thing he's unsure of

Doesn't mind your displays of affection, quality time and acts of service are his so he's completely content and happy with spending time with you

About physical contact, he's rather not the one to initiate it, but if you do it first he'll have no trouble ab it

[world-cinema-research]

A Critical Analyzation of Tangerine (2015) with Comparisons to Reservoir Dogs (1992)

By Cris Nyne

From the opening scene of Tangerine by Sean Baker, the dialogue feels like a long string of firecrackers sparked by the lead character Sin-Dee Rella (Kitana Kiki Rodriguez) that doesn’t stop until the end of the film. Sin-Dee has just gotten released from jail after serving twenty-eight days and she is seated with her best friend Alexandra (Mya Taylor) in a donut shop. Both are transgender sex workers in West Hollywood. As soon as Sin-Dee mentions her boyfriend (and pimp) Chester (James Ransone), Alexandra interjects and states how she knew she was going to break up with him because of how much he cheats. This confuses Sin-Dee and throws her off into a tailspin of rage and determination to track down Chester, and they’re off! Interestingly enough, in Reservoir Dogs by Quentin Tarantino, the film opens up with the main characters sitting around a table in a diner, discussing topics like the true meaning behind Madonna’s Like a Virgin, and why Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) doesn’t tip waitresses. Both films revolve around people who are on the fringe of society and operate in the shadows of what is considered normal and accepted.

Sin-Dee Rella catching up with Alexandra during the opening scene of Tangerine.

Lawrence Tierney as Joe Cabot, a crime family boss who got the crew together to pull a diamond heist. This is the opening scene when Joe is counting the tip money and makes Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) throw in a dollar, despite his beliefs of not tipping servers.

Tangerine was filmed with an estimated budget of $100,000 and was shot with three iPhone 5s and an eight-dollar phone app. The film is based around transgender sex workers and the lifestyle that they live. This can hardly be considered a mainstream or conventional film. Although the film had an incredibly low budget, Tangerine generated more than $930,000 at the box office. It was picked up by Magnolia Pictures at Sundance after overwhelming praise for the film from critics and audiences alike. Rotten Tomatoes lists Tangerine with a critic score of 96% and an audience score of 76%. The film was also nominated for many awards, and co-star Mya Taylor won numerous awards for her brake out role as Alexandra.

Katherine Johnson for the academic journal The Conversation writes, “Given the marginal status of many transgender people, the mental health stresses they face and the likelihood of discrimination in access to health care, secure housing and employment, it is important that populist representations create realistic and non-shaming examples of trans lives.” Tangerine creates a narrative that expresses the determination and grit of the transgender community to thrive in a society that does not whole-heartedly accept them."

The official trailer for Tangerine.

A burgeoning new mind state was coming of age during the year of Tangerine’s release in 2015. RuPaul’s Drag Race and Caitlyn Jenner’s reality show I Am Cait pushed the idea of gender roles into the American lexicon and fostered a new mindset of understanding and acceptance from a swath of the public who only knew the concept of patriarchy. The Danish Girl was also released the same year. This was a film based upon a novel by David Ebershoff that told the story of an artist that is about to undergo one of the world’s first sex change operations. Collins dictionary runner up to the word of the year was Transgender in 2015. That same year also saw the Supreme Court federally legalize same sex marriage.

A monumental shift was happening. As we steamroll into the future, every family seemingly has a member that does not fit into the norms of society. Loved ones that we grew up with would keep secrets of their sexuality and desires, as to not be rejected or ostracized by those close to them. Seeing representations of themselves on screen facilitates acceptance and the related content is empowering. Roger Ebert concludes:

“That we rarely see transgender characters in movies who aren't prostitutes is an entirely separate issue that I'm sure will be discussed in months to come—but here, too, we have to keep such misgivings in context: American films rarely show us worlds like these, and when they do, the films don't tend to get much attention.”

Roger Ebert once again hits the narrative right on the head. It’s a positive step to see more diverse representation on screen, but how they are represented will remain a source of friction.

The official movie poster for Tangerine (2015)

As I mentioned earlier, Tangerine was shot with an iPhone and a film app. Perhaps that is harped upon all too often when describing the film, but fast forward nine years after the film’s release, a lot of us now experience a voyeuristic life through our smartphones. This has distinguished the film as unique upon itself and makes the style and feel of the movie relatable. It’s as if you are sitting in a rumble seat along for the ride. Tarantino’s film Reservoir Dogs, although created before iPhones, also lends itself to an up-close-and-personal style that is engaging to the viewer. Most of the film was shot in one room, almost giving the viewer space to look around the warehouse. Violence is evident in both films, although Tangerine does not supply the bloodshed that Tarantino submerges us in. Both films are dialogue-heavy, full of rapid-fire wit and over-the-top colorful street slang.

Another trait both films shared are the smaller production companies that financed the film that also did not have household name actors to help draw in an audience. Tangerine was a Duplass Brothers Production, along with Cre FIlm, Freestyle Picture Company, and Through Films. It was later at Sundance when Magnolia would assist with a wider distribution. The main stars Kitana Kiki Rodriguez and Mya Taylor were picked from an LGBTQ center and were virtually unknown. Since it was Tarantino's first film, he was not yet a name brand and most of the actors at that time were not that recognizable, except for Harvey Keitel, whose career was essentially at a standstill during this period in '92. Keitel wound up co-producer Reservoir Dogs, and paid for the studio to help secure the talent. Dog Eat Dog Productions Inc. and Live Entertainment were the companies involved with finance and distribution.

Sin-Dee getting into a screaming match while looking for her partner and pimp Chester.

A memorable scene of Mr. Pink (Buscemi) and Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) arguing over the next step after the cops threw their plans into disarray.

Although every country has its own distinct cultures and quirks, both Tangerine and Reservoir Dogs are international in their appeal to viewers who appreciate the representation of the underbelly of culture that is a shared common bond of anywhere in the world. They were both filmed in highly unconventional styles that exposed aspects of society that many mainstream audiences at home and abroad would consider best left in the dark. Reservoir Dogs was Tarantino’s first film, so he was virtually unknown during its release. Sean Baker had a few films under his belt, but they were independent films with low budgets that revolved around the lives of sex workers. Mainstream audiences would not be familiar with his catalog. Sean Baker’s latest film Anora was just crowned with the Palme d’Or at Cannes, and it also delves into the trivial life of a sex worker. Both directors have very distinct styles and references throughout their careers that build upon a cinematic theme.

Tangerine and Reservoir Dogs both came full circle by the movies end. There was nothing left for debate, and you could deduce that there was not going to be a part two for either film. All the gangsters were dead by the end of Reservoir Dogs, and Sin-Dee and Alexandra completed their mission, as both characters expressed resolve in the last scene.

Sin-Dee finally catches up with Chester (James Ransone) to confront him on his cheating.

Tangerine is a film that flew under the radar, but I believe will continue to find new viewers as Sean Baker continues to rise as a respected writer and director in the industry. Given the advances we have made in the last decade since the films release, the addition of genders up for debate and their roles in society, Mr. Baker will seemingly have a lot of content to sort through and create in an ever-changing world of self-discovery.

[jordanianprincesses]

My post is actually going to get some heat but I really have to say it

I know rajwa gets a lot of hate online and people are sympathetic towards her BUT BOOHOO CRY ME A RIVER she’s an iffing future queen and frankly I think she doesn’t give a damn (I’m not excusing bullying I’m just saying she clearly doesn’t care) here’s why I think some of the criticism she’s getting is actually somewhat justified…

Rajwa was really popular once the engagement was announced ALOT of people praised her and liked her but unfortunately here’s a list of what the JRF did to completely ruin rajwa’s reputation

1) they acted as if she was this very conservative Saudi woman from a big and important family (they literally mentioned all her family tree during the announcement) when in fact she wasn’t!

2) they literally didn’t even try to remove pictures from online and save rajwa from the public scrutiny she’s going to get once the pictures are released

3) rania spent so much time praising her and pushing her which gave people the illusion that she will be a working royal SINCE WE SAW HER EVERYWHERE BEFORE THE WEEDDING

4) they set high expectations for her without making sure that she was actually fit for these expectations (I feel like they just ignored that she might be lazy and simply didn’t want to work)

5) they spent way too much time coddling and protecting her instead of working on improving her and her work ethic. I think they did that because they were terrified she would leave otherwise!

It seems like the JRF were actually setting her up from the start l. Now now for the part that I will get hate for…I don’t think rajwa is completely innocent and she helped in tarnishing her image as well

1) she did not contact certain people to delete some of her past photos which is insane because she knows how popular Hussein was in the past and she should’ve at least used her brain a bit.

2) she enjoyed the limelight before the engagement a bit too much without thinking this will make the expectations for her higher.

3) she thought that being queen in Jordan is an easy task where you only have to play dress up and look pretty, which leads me to believe she didn’t even bother to simply google how messed things inJordan are.

4) she doesn’t even TRY to push against the royal family! She does what they want without even asking or thinking whether it was good for her or not. She doesn’t use her brain at all.

5) THE FAMOUS BIKINI SCANDAL: now now before you eat me alive I do think she was a victim and we should blame the person that invaded their privacy BUT it’s so stupid on her part to think that she can just slip under the radar and wear whatever she wants after the HUGE wedding they had! She was 100% aware of how popular she had become and still she didn’t USE HER BRAIN and think for a moment that there’s always people watching especially in public. I genuinely would’ve excused her if they were in the privacy of their own home.

6) now finally the most inexcusable of all: I think she genuinely doesn’t want to work. Now people like to come up with “theories” that maybe rania doesn’t want her to work (which is almost impossible considering how much time and effort rania put into hyping up rajwa and making her popular) or that Hussein is the one setting her up with is also not true because he is trying to push her as well… so we are left with the only option that Rajwa genuinely doesn’t want to be a working royal and just wants royal treatment with no royal responsibilities… because if she wanted to work, she would have. It’s not that hard to ask your team to give you a task to do.

7) wearing boycotted brands in the middle of genocide

Conclusion: I think both parts are at fault here they set her up and then she proceeded to set herself up as well. I wholeheartedly believe rajwa did marry for the title mainly and was so protected and coddled that she thought that’s all she’s getting A TITLE. I think she was shocked and overwhelmed with the work that comes with it. So she decided not to work at all. As if for the bullying? I honestly don’t think she cares she’s living her absolute best life and she’s set for life with the JRF stolen money and endless connections. 🤷🏼‍♀️

It’s crazy coming up with these conclusions now… I was rooting for her & Hussein so hard just about a year ago ! 💔

I agree with you in most of what you said but not all of them . Anyway, welcoome

[scotianostra]

October 16th 1774 saw the death of Robert Fergusson, poet, in the Edinburgh Bedlam.

The Scottish poet who was one of the leading figures of the 18th-century revival of Scots vernacular writing and the chief forerunner of Robert Burns.

Fergusson was educated at the University of St. Andrews and became a copying clerk in a lawyer’s office in Edinburgh. In 1771 he began to contribute poems to Ruddiman’s Weekly Magazine. Although he was noted for the vivacity of temperament reflected in his verse, from 1773 his good spirits were encroached upon by fits of depression and religious guilt, and after suffering a severe head injury in a fall he became insane. He died in the Edinburgh asylum at the age of 24.

Fergusson’s poems were popular from their first appearance, and a collected volume came out in 1773. He wrote in both Scots and English, but the English verse has little value. His Scots poems—racy, realistic, wittily descriptive and humorous—had a stimulating effect on Burns, whose “Holy Fair” and “The Cotter’s Saturday Night” stem from Fergusson’s “Leith Races” and “The Farmer’s Ingle.” But vigorous poems like “The Daft Days,” “Address to the Tron Kirk Bell,” and the famous “Auld Reekie” prove how well Fergusson can stand as a poet in his own right. Burns was a great admirer of Fergussons work and was appalled when visiting Edinburgh on finding no gravestone where the young poet was buried in Canongate kirkyard, he set about putting this to rights.

He paid for a simple headstone, although church records say they had to "remind" him to cough up with the money, he had it inscribed with…..

No sculptured marble here, nor pompous lay, No storied urn, nor animated bust ; This simple stone directs pale Scotia’s way, To pour her sorrows o’er her poet’s dust.

Fergusson’s ‘Auld Reikie’ is a 300-line poem praising Edinburgh through observations of the daily life of ordinary people. Never patronising, Fergusson’s poem documents a day in the life of the city, embracing shopkeepers, porters, children, whores, dandies, debtors, servants, lawyers and schoolboys. For Burns Fergusson’s poetry served as a model of how the Scots dialect was ideally suited to the energy of the lives of ordinary people.

I think a 300 line poem is a bit much to inflict on you all so here is a wee excerpt

… Now morn, with bonny purpie-smiles, Kisses the air-cock o’ St Giles; Rakin their een, the servant lasses Early begin their lies and clashes; Ilk tells her friend o’ saddest distress, That still she brooks frae scouling mistress; And wi her joe in turnpike stair She’d rather snuff the stinking air, As be subjected to her tongue, When justly censur’d in the wrong. On stair wi tub, or pat in hand, The barefoot housemaids loo to stand, That antrin fock may ken how snell Auld Reikie will at morning smell: Then, with an inundation big as The burn that ‘neath the Nore Loch Brig is, They kindly shower Edina’s roses, To quicken and regale our noses. Now some for this, wi satire’s leesh, Hae gien auld Edinburgh a creesh: But without souring nocht is sweet; The morning smells that hail our street Prepare, and gently lead the way To simmer canty, braw and gay; Edina’s sons mair eithly share Her spices and her dainties rare, Than he that’s never yet been call’d Aff frae his plaidie or his fauld. Now stairhead critics, senseless fools, Censure their aim, and pride their rules, In Luckenbooths, wi glowring eye, Their neighbour’s sma’est faults descry: If ony loun should dander there, Of aukward gate and foreign air, They trace his steps, till they can tell His pedigree as weel’s himsel …

[judasgodness]

"Alas, if Mu Qing had taken Hong-er—" nothing would have changed because Hua Cheng fell in love with Xie Lian before falling down in the middle of the festival.

"Oh because Mu Qing saved Hong-er from the army" lol Mu Qing expelled Hong-er from the army because Xie Lian praised his skills with a saber, which is also Mu Qing's weapon, and used the fact that the younger ones died early in the war as consolation so he didn't feel guilty and thought he didn't do anything wrong (remembering that he also said very humiliating things to Hong-er. And also remembering that he took out his frustrations on Hong-er because the social context he lived in made him see anyone as a rival or a potential rival).

It seems that of all the children in the army, Mu Qing was going to choose Hong-er to save, and even if it was in the sense "but he may have wanted to help, but managed to save only one, we don't know because there's no point of view" I still don't think it makes much sense. If Mu Qing had helped the army kids that would have been said, I don't see why MXTX would have taken away something so important that not only would it say a lot about the character, but Mu Qing would still be different in a way.

"Oh because Hua Cheng at least remembered Mu Qing right lol" he remembered Mu Qing and Feng Xin in the same way he remembered those 33 gods and Qi Rong.

Hua Cheng fell in love with Xie Lian for everything Mu Qing is not. He loved Xie Lian in every way for who he is, for the things he did, because he saw who Xie Lian is in both glory and fall, because Xie Lian was the only one to act when he wanted to save the common people and the only one who had the courage to ask him to live for him when Hong-er was helpless and had no reason to stay alive.

Not only would Mu Qing never do that, he even scolded Xie Lian for doing those things.

And Mu Qing would never stop the festival to save a child (I know it's mainly because of the social context since his safety would be at risk if he did such a thing, but it doesn't change the fact that it's not something he would do).

They really want Mu Qing to be Xie Lian, they just can't admit it.

Finally, I wanted to say that I don't care about headcanon, fanon, fanfics and such, what absolutely bothers me is when they treat anything non-canon as canon, and if you say it doesn't make sense because it doesn't fit the original/it's too ooc, you will receive criticism and attacks as if you were a criminal.

Furthermore, stop treating TGCF as if it were an incomplete work that MXTX handed over for you to improve. And stop invalidating her word just because what she created is not to your liking. It's okay to make fanfics and whatever trip you want, but don't want to treat what you create on top of the work of others as if it were the absurd truth, even more so if you don't want to receive criticism just because you don't know how to separate your fanfics from what it's already in the original.

Note: I did this analysis with a friend and there are phrases here that I just copied and pasted from him because I didn't have anything else to add or take away.

[primewritessmut]

2, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, and 40

2. talk about a notable time a narrative or character has looked you dead in the eyes and said “fuck your plan, here’s what we’re actually doing.”

already answered

10. at what point in the process do you come up with titles, and how easy or hard is that for you?

Very early in the process only because I have zero chill and as soon as that first chapter is written, it's getting posted. That's lead to having some fics that I wish I could rename because it didn't end up fitting the final form but... eh. It's all a learning curve.

Usually, I pull a quote out of the fic and that becomes the title (for the entire fic and the chapters), but I also like making puns or using well known phrases because I'm a fucking dweeb.

11. what’s something neat you’ve learned while doing research for something you were writing? also, how much do you worry about doing research in general?

I don't do a lot of research. Anyone that hangs around this blog and reads these asks for even a minute probably knows that I write strictly for the vibes. Basically, I don't worry to much about it and, if someone corrects me later, I try to change it.

I did an unusual amount of research about spiders as background for Peter in Songs for the Zombie Apocalypse. Mostly around how spider eyes work and what specific spider Peter might have gotten his mutations from. Jumping spiders have eyes that can do both telescopic vision and see colors and depth in the same way that humans do. I originally had plans to incorporate this more (lots of head tilting to dial in the telescopic sight) but it didn't fit the word count.

Also, if you ever need to know about New York cities surrounding Albany in the 1930s, I've drawn up a map. For reasons.

13. talk about a writing experience that has pleasantly surprised you.

already answered

16. where is your favorite place to write?

At home. I alternate between my desk and the kitchen table. I do genuinely enjoy writing in public as well (the library especially is fantastic!) but am hyper paranoid that someone is going to accidentally catch sight of a knife kink scene over my shoulder and call the cops.

18. what is your most and least favorite part of writing?

Writing is one of the few places that I ever experience a true sense of flow. The other being athletics which are frustratingly thin on the ground as an adult. I don't know, it probably sounds stupid to say that writing makes me happy. It doesn't make me happy but it allows me to get out of my own way sometimes which I fucking need.

Opening myself up for feedback is my absolute least favorite part of writing. It's why I usually don't edit (hope ya'll enjoy my sloppy first drafts!) or have a beta. Like, I write to get the fuck away from people and expectations, so it's EXHAUSTING when the writing creates those things in excess. I am terrible at taking constructive criticism. Don't give it to me. It will not end well.

19. what are some books or authors that influenced your style the most?

There are the authors that I wish would influence my style and then the ones that actually did. I grew up on a steady diet of very specific teenage horror and, the more I look back, the more I realize how much that probably influenced my work.

So, uh, thanks to Christoper Pike, I guess.

Beyond that, there aren't a lot of authors that I think influenced me. I found Chuck Palahniuk at a very special developmental stage for my brain and romance, as an entire genre, has (no shit) probably saved my life. Got to get the good brain chemicals from somewhere if you can't produce them yourself, right?

40. best piece of feedback you’ve ever gotten.

My fifth grade teacher, after grading a writing assignment, called my parents and convinced them to send me to creative writing summer camp. Maybe that qualifies more as praise than feedback, but it was wild to have someone believe in me that hard and go to bat for me just because she saw some potential in there somewhere.

[mint-yooxgi]

hey, i saw that anon’s ask and that’s really...inconsiderate? for them to say. you have evey right to be angry and i am for you too.

first off, writing so many works in such a short amount of time is so much work! kinktober and then the hotel california series...i can’t even imagine. plot line and storybuilding and character traits, even if it’s just blurbs or shorter things, those takes a lot of thinking. writing is a creative art and takes out a lot from you. after all, it’s bringing to the world what ideas you have in mind and that’s not easy. things like word count...does having more words really make a story better? no.

i know the anon was disappointed but...they need to have realistic expectations and understand that us writers have our own principles when it comes to writing, such as quality > quantity. or that hey, sometimes things fit long and not. i feel like word count doesn’t count as feedback, because feedback to us is about the quality of writing rather than the length. perhaps something more constructive would be “hey, i think you could’ve expanded on this part of taeyong’s character because it would make the story even more interesting!” or “the ending was confusing, maybe you could explain it more”.

but the whole thing about how everyone always wants, expects something grand from us writers...like yeah, requests are fine but some people feel entitled to give the asks like you mentioned that you receive and that’s totally not fair. we writers are humans too and saying that kind of thing really shows how...how it feels to be essentially used as an outputter for content even though i know for a fact most of us write for ourselves and have chosen to share it with the world because we want to. it’s so much more draining and easier to burn out otherwise.

sorry that you have to deal with those kinds of asks. you have every right to be angry and everything.

Y’all really pulled up for the ‘protect and support Jackie’ squad and I'm literally so touched 🥺🥺🥺

You have no idea how validating it is to read this message, I cannot thank you enough. Everything you said - you’ve literally taken the words out of my mouth. There is 100% a proper way to give constructive criticism, but I know so many do not know how to do that. Saying shit like “oh, it wasn’t long enough” isn’t helping, nor does it give a direction to take things in. Exactly like you’ve said!!

I’ve been so grateful to myself lately because of how much I've been able to write. I seriously haven’t had this much time, motivation, or inspiration to write like this in such a long time. I’m still proud of what I've done, and I really appreciate you saying these things. To have such a thing be acknowledged and even praised is so validating, you have no idea. But, like you’ve said, writing this much can really be very mentally draining, too! There have even been some nights where I have to force my eyes open and mentally jog my brain to stay awake to finish a chapter cause I want to get it out that night. It’s both physically and mentally exhausting.

Literally though!!! I can’t count the amount of times where I've been writing a fic and I'll get to the end of a scene and go, “this seemed like it would be longer in my head” but it is what it is, I have to accept that and move on. Yes, a lot of my fics (especially my full length ones) have gotten longer lately, because I've also grown as a writer. However, there are also going to be times where they’re not going to be very long, and I deserve to write those short ones just as much as the longer fics! I deserve mental breaks through writing, and I also deserve to not have people have these unrealistic expectations, as you’ve mentioned, that every fic of mine is going to be something like 20k words. I reiterate, these are technically also drabbles! Drabbles are meant to be short!! Like??????

Don’t get me wrong, when I want them, I do really enjoy receiving certain types of requests, like for drabbles of these kinktober prompts. But just like I have a right to deny a request, I have a right to make a request as long or as short as I want. I’m just glad you reached out to tell me this and it feels so validating to know you feel the same.

Thank you so much for this message, you have no idea how much I appreciate it!!

[schraubd]

You People, Get a Grip

So quick disclaimer: I have not seen "You People". It did not especially interest me to begin with, and the commentary I've read about it has not (to say the least) altered my initial instincts.

But reading the discourse about "You People", I've noticed a particular type of denunciation which seems to hold several presuppositions as gospel. They are:

"You People" is antisemitic;

Despite (or because of?) its antisemitism, "You People" is a critical darling; and

No other group but the Jews would encounter a situation where a media property that is so hateful is a media darling.

That this last claim is made unironically at the exact same time Dave Chappelle won a Grammy for "The Closer" is absolutely precious. But there's a bigger problem with the syllogism here, which is that "You People" is not at all a "critical darling". It has a flat lousy 42% rating on Rotten Tomato! It is widely seen as a mediocre disappointment!

The "nobody but the Jews is expected to suffer so" is an ever-flowering weed of antisemitism discourse, paradoxically living in largely harmonious coexistence with its opposite ("nobody would ever dare say that about the Jews"). Both positions are obviously wrong, which stops exactly nobody from asserting them with unimpeachable confidence. More interesting is the assumption that "You People" inevitably would be a critical hit; so much so that I saw people simply asserting that it was being lauded as an anti-racism classic in defiance of the actual critical consensus. What is going on here?

My suspicion is that there is a line of thinking amongst some that basically assumes that any film or media property which styles itself as "anti-racist" or "asking the hard questions about discrimination" will, in our supposedly hyper-woke era, automatically be viewed as a work of great significance and power -- and if punches at Jews, so much the better. They have bought in hard to the narrative that "woke" means a complete suspension of critical faculties in favor of blind support for anything that holds itself out as anti-racist; since "You People" fits the mold, of course it will be blindly and fervently supported via this inevitable collapse into groupthink. The complaint that critics will reflexively laud anything calling itself "anti-racist" -- ironically itself a reflex that has (as here) proven itself impervious to empirical refutation (perhaps because its very purpose is to enable the automatic and reflexive suspicion of any media property calling itself "anti-racist" -- it can't ever have earned its praise, if it is being lauded it's simply to fulfill the diktats of political correctness)  -- is paradoxically paired with the complaint that Jews and antisemitism are not included inside this paradigm of blind and uncritical support.

But again -- the whole thing is based on a misnomer. The critical reception of "You People" was not blindly supportive; it was not supportive at all. Whether because of its alleged antisemitism, or its clunkiness, or its heavy-handedness, "You People" was not a highly regarded movie notwithstanding its grand social ambitions. This should (but won't) falsify the notion that critics or commentators simply reflexively praise anything that styles itself as anti-racist -- which in turn should (but won't) make us more willing to consider seriously other "anti-racist" media properties which have gotten plaudits but also are hit with the reflexive dismissiveness that they are naught but contemporary PC pandering.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/sBVhc4a