#unfortunately all forms of media seem to be full of people obsessed with figuring out what sells

[rinzi]

I keep seeing complaints about open world games but I don't think the problem is being open world so much as constantly trying to make bigger and bigger worlds when the story doesn't call for it which leads to inserting unnecessary filler

[theradioghost]

Can you talk more about the history of the language and storytelling techniques/conventions of audio dramas? That's an incredibly intriguing concept but I wouldn't have the first idea where to look for more info about it. It reminds me a lot of the idea of video game literacy and how a lot of games aren't accessible to people who are brand new to video games because there are so many established conventions that aren't explained to new players

It has taken me nearly a month to reply to this, which I know is in reply to this post, and I am sorry for that! But also, yes!!!!! Hell yes, yes, I see exactly what you mean about the video game stuff.

Unfortunately I think there’s not much out there already written about the developing conventions of the new wave of audio drama. In large part, I think, because coverage of new audio fiction from outside the community has been so notoriously poor. But maybe also partly because there seems to be a strangely negative take on classic radio drama from a lot of the US sector within that community? Which I think really comes down to exactly the things I was talking about -- Old radio drama feels wrong to a lot of people now, because its storytelling language just doesn’t exist in our culture the way it once did; and even fewer people are familiar with late-20th-century American audio fiction like ZBS that might feel more comfortable or closer to other present-day mass media storytelling techniques. I see it claimed sometimes that there’s something inherently unsophisticated about old time radio storytelling, which is just flat out untrue, and I would highly encourage anyone who’s wondering to check out something like the “Home Surgery” episode of Gunsmoke or “The Thing on the Fourble Board” from Quiet, Please to see just how effective and well-done a lot of those old shows were.

(Leaving the UK out of this, because audio fiction stayed way more prominent there and I do not think the same problems exist, and leaving everywhere else out because unfortunately I just don’t know enough about how the medium fared elsewhere, or how it’s doing now. Alas.)

I’ve been thinking lately about parallels to this in other media that I have been able to study and read other people’s writing on, and I think a good comparison is possibly novels? The western “novel” as we think of it is really something that didn’t exist at all until about the 18th century (there are earlier works that have been kind of retroactively labeled ‘novels,’ some of them centuries earlier, but even if they have the characteristics of what we now call a novel, they’re very much disconnected from the evolution of the novel as something we have a name and a definition for). There are no novels from the medieval period, from the Renaissance. There are books as long as novels, but they’re not novels.

The thing is, when you read 18th and even 19th century novels, it shows, because the techniques for telling a story in that form hadn’t been really figured out yet. What you get is a lot of meandering, episodic doorstoppers, some of which have hundreds of pages before the main characters even enter the picture. A lot of writers at the time, and into the 19th century, actually hated the whole concept of novels. I think it’s a bit like going back and watching Monsters, Inc. and then watching Monsters University. The first one was revolutionary, yeah, and it’s a good movie still, but it’s not hard to see the visual difference between the two just in terms of the tools that the people making them had available to them. Before you can write a story or animate hundreds of thousands of individual hairs on one character, you have to figure out how.

One of the big, obvious things about novels from that period, though, is that many of them are first-person, and many are epistolary. It’s hard to find one that isn’t supposedly a memoir or a journal or a set of letters. The third-person perspective in long-form prose was something that had to be figured out; it didn’t just exist in the void, automatically summoned into existence the moment we started writing novels, which I think is really fascinating. There’s a lot of work in those early novels that’s being put into explaining why, and how, and to whom the story is being told. Because otherwise, how does it make sense that the book exists? It’s not a poem, or a play; it’s not taking the form of a traditional story or myth, not attempting to be an epic. Those early novels were about contemporary, real-seeming people, so the writers and audiences wanted an explanation for how the story had been recorded that relied on other existing forms of writing -- letters, journals, memoirs, sometimes claiming to be older texts that had been “found” (gothic novelists seemed to like this one). Sometimes the narrative voice is just the author using first person to actively tell you the story. They hadn’t yet bought into the presumption that we take for granted now, that a novel can have a voice that knows everything, without being the voice of any character in it.

And I think that it’s fascinating how similar that is to the heavy use of recording media as frame narrative in modern audio drama. It’s worth noting: classic radio drama doesn’t do this like we do now. By far, the standard for OTR is the same as the third-person omniscient perspective, the film camera; the storytelling presumes that you’re not going to need an explanation for how you’re hearing this. The audiences those shows were made for were used to fiction told solely in audio, in a way that a lot of modern audiences are not, and so that narrative leap of faith was kind of inherently presumed.

There’s also a way more common use of omniscient or internal narration in old radio drama that I feel like I mostly see now only in shows that are deliberately calling back to old styles and genres. A good example is The Penumbra; we hear Juno’s internal thoughts, just like so many of the noir-style detectives from the 40s and 50s I grew up listening to, and we never really ask why or how. (Except, of course, when the show pokes fun at this affectation, which I think really only works because it feels more like lampshading the stock character tropes of noir, as opposed to the actual audio storytelling technique it facilitates.) To take it further, there are some old radio shows like the sitcom Our Miss Brooks which go so far as to use an actual omniscient narrator to facilitate a lot of the scene transitions, but do so in a much more confident and comfortable way than modern shows like Bubble, where the narration reeks of “we’re making this audio drama in the hopes we can finally make the TV show, and we actually hate this medium and don’t know how to work in it, so rather than learning how to make what’s happening clear with just audio, we’re going to tell you what’s happening and then reference that we’re just telling you what’s happening.”

Bubble’s narration doesn’t work, because it’s actively pushing against the show, telling you things that sound design could have told you just as easily, sometimes actively acknowledging that the narration feels wrong instead of just not using narration. Our Miss Brooks is admittedly not one of my favorite old radio shows, but its use of narration is much smoother, because it’s written with a confidence that it’s only being used to clarify the the things that would be the absolute hardest to show with audio alone; confidence that they know how to tell everything else with sound. Internal narration from the likes of Juno Steel or Jack St. James or my favorite classic detective Johnny Dollar works because noir as a genre is inherently tied to the expressionist movement, where the (highly idiosyncratic) personality and worldview of the characters literally shapes how the world around them appears to the audience; it works to hear their thoughts, because we’re seeing the world through their eyes. We don’t have to know how they’re saying this to us, they just are.

None of which is at all to say that there’s anything inherently wrong with using framing devices! Actually the opposite, kind of. First of all, because I genuinely do think that it’s a sign that we are actively, at this moment learning how to tell these stories, and how to listen to them, which is just so, so exciting I don’t even have words to express it. And secondly, because as a person who loves thinking about stories and storytelling enough to write this kind of ridiculous essay, I am obsessed with metafiction. I’m a sucker for the likes of Archive 81, The Magnus Archives, Welcome to Night Vale, Station to Station, Greater Boston, Within the Wires. They’re stories that take the questions that framing devices are used to answer for writers and audiences who don’t feel comfortable not asking them -- Why is this story being told? Who is telling it? Who is it being told to? -- and use those questions to the full advantage of the story, exploring character, creating beautifully effective horror, creating a bond with the listener. (Hell, one of the admittedly many things that Midnight Radio was about for me was exploring how much value and comfort I have found in listening to stories that acknowledged I was listening to them.) I think, though, that not all stories necessarily are their best selves when they feel like they have to address those questions, and as fiction podcasts become a bit more mainstream I’m really hoping that writers will feel more comfortable in trusting the audience to suspend that disbelief, and that audiences will feel more comfortable doing it, and that framing devices will be less unjustly maligned.

Of course, all of that is focused on writing techniques, and I think that’s because I’m a writer who has studied writing! I know very little concretely about the part of audio storytelling that relies on sound design, so while I have a definite feeling that classic and modern audio fiction is using different sound design languages, or that the audio language of British audio drama (where there’s much more continuity in the history of the medium) is different from audio fiction from elsewhere, that’s a lot harder for me to put into words like this. It’s something I would desperately love to see explored by someone who did know that field intimately, though.

[love-takes-work]

Ace/Aro Amethyst headcanons

Some people headcanon Amethyst as asexual and/or aromantic. I think that's pretty cool.

Unfortunately, some people are really hostile to this idea. Sometimes in a way that's problematic.

No, I'm not going to tell you you have to headcanon Amethyst as asexual and aromantic or else you're an acephobe. That's silly. Here's the problem: I recently came across a post on Reddit where a member of the Steven Universe subreddit demanded to know where the "stupid" headcanon of ace Amethyst came from and opined that it's ridiculous because that orientation does not "fit her personality."

Think about that for a sec, y'all.

Sexualities don't have personalities. This is a problem.

If you follow some of the interviews Rebecca Sugar has done over the years, especially lately, she sometimes talks about her growth toward understanding herself as bisexual and why it took her so long to figure it out. It was partly because media representation of characters follows a certain system, and as a result she'd been led to believe bisexual people were aggressively sexual, greedy, unfaithful, and extremely desirous of attention.

"I didn't know you could be a SHY bisexual," she said, and you can hear the wonder in her voice at that idea.

So let's really consider that, please. Any orientation can have any type of personality. And if you pigeonhole someone into what their orientation is likely to be because of how you interpret their personality and what messages you've internalized about what traits go with the way they are, you are probably contributing to this damaging message.

Moving on: full disclosure. I'm an asexual Steven Universe fan. I'm also aromantic. And anybody who says asexual people wouldn't have a personality like Amethyst has probably never hung out in a room full of asexual people. (Uh, I have.) 

There are shy people in the groups. There are conservative people in the groups. There are easily offended and sensitive people in the groups. But you will also find bawdy asexual people cracking gross jokes, asexual people who nevertheless turn everything into a sex joke, asexual people who are sex positive and even occasionally promiscuous or interested in sex. (If you don't understand how that's not a contradiction, I'll just leave you on your own to read some asexual education, because I'm not actually trying to go there with this post.)

Personally, I was raised by a rather crass mom whose sense of humor led her to blurt "IS IT A PENIS? BWAHAHAHA!" at the start of every round of Pictionary. She taught her daughters sex education early because she wanted us to know the facts, and though she joked about sex a lot, she also made it very clear that she expected us to make sex a part of our lives when we were older, and didn’t want us to think it was shameful or should be hidden. She gave us access to birth control in our mid teens and made sure we had the resources to make good choices about sex. It wasn't embarrassing or weird in our house. And even though I turned out ace, my siblings are straight and married. I grew up making ridiculous sex jokes and not being at all shocked by sexual humor or sexual situations. It was all just a good time and an accepting atmosphere. It was also okay that I didn't desire it myself. It didn't mean I couldn't dish out the innuendo with the best of them.

And yet, sometimes when I've come out as ace to someone and then they notice I use swear words, or am not horrified into covering my face during the movie's kissing scene, or have done things they really don't expect asexual people to enjoy, I'm treated to this weird mixture of shock-and-mock:

"Whaaaaat? Aren't you too PURE to use language like that, young lady?" "Plug your virgin ears, girl, we're talking about ADULT THINGS." "Don't worry, I won't mention S-E-X. LOL triggered." "She wouldn't be interested. It's about relationships and she thinks that's ICKY." "GASP! You just used the F word! Wait isn't that ironic?"

No, having a vocabulary that includes vulgarities and being tolerant of other people's desires is not inconsistent with being asexual. Being asexual means I don't feel sexually attracted to other people. It says absolutely zero about my behavior, and nothing I do is "wrong" behavior for an asexual person, because I am doing it.

Back to Amethyst.

Asexuality is a dicey issue for discussing Gems because technically they're all asexual. They are not a sexually reproducing species, so there really shouldn't be any reason for them to desire each other sexually. But they do seem to want intimacy and closeness in some situations, and there's definitely romantic attraction between some of them. It's sometimes hard to tell whether "sex" would be a concept available to them (besides Gems who shapeshift to mimic how humans do it), because it is after all a family show and sometimes you have to wonder if the relative chastity of some of the romantic scenes is due to the intended audience.

Amethyst has been more than once described by Rebecca Sugar as Dionysian. She was set up as an opposite to Pearl's Apollonian nature. If you don't know, Apollo vs. Dionysus is a concept of Greek origin that's often used in literature to set characters at odds with each other. Apollo is everything Pearl is: rational, clean, proper, perfect. Dionysus instead embraces the mess, just like Amethyst: Dionysian characters are sloppy, unruly, chaotic, and (this is important) hedonistic. They do what feels good.

Given this, I understand the root of why some people feel asexuality and Amethyst wouldn't go together well. And all things considered, it's true: Amethyst seems, to me, like the kind of Gem who would try anything, especially if other people seemed to enjoy it and especially if abstaining is portrayed as prudent and restrained. She's a let-it-loose kind of character. It's hard to imagine someone like her, who loves to eat, sleep, hoard, and be lazy, wouldn't have tried a few rolls in the hay, right?

Well, sure. Maybe.

And yet we've seen no specific evidence of it.

She could choose any form but she's never seen trying to change herself to look sexy; she's displayed no particular intimate or romantic interest in anyone beyond casual physicality and warmth; she's the only main-four Crystal Gem who hasn't been pursued romantically by a human; she's a little insecure and seems to crave attention sometimes but never spins it as a need to be fulfilled by romantic attention; she never expresses that she wishes she was someone's partner. Who knows? Maybe she's tried it out, found nothing she liked, said "Eh," and decided it's not her bag.

Hedonism is about embracing what feels good. If those kinds of relationships just didn’t feel good for her, I could see her just deciding they were boring and still fully embracing her other Dionysian qualities. She can indulge in naps and eat all the food in the fridge and hoard all the garbage she wants . . . without that indicating she must also possess and pursue amorous relations.

There’s also the fact that a minority of asexual people are like “eh, screw it, I’ll try it,” and don’t find sex completely objectionable or might even like it. (Not all, not most, not me, but this does exist.) They still may not desire it the way non-asexual people do, or may experience no attraction despite having neutral or positive feelings about the act itself. Who knows? Amethyst could be like that. We’ve seen her eat food that she doesn’t even like, just ‘cause it’s there. Some people take or leave sex like that.

And if you say her "type" necessarily incorporates promiscuity or a large sexual appetite, or you say she couldn't be ace because she's not uptight and strait laced, you're buying right into the damaging stereotypes about asexual people.

It's certainly not acephobic to headcanon Amethyst as bisexual or pansexual or lesbian or whatever you want. And it's fine if you believe the closeness she’s displayed with others that I interpret as friendship or non-romantic intimacy is actually a different flavor. What's NOT fine is saying Amethyst CANNOT be asexual or aromantic because of weird beliefs you have about what ace/aro people would be like.

Further, asexual people unfortunately don't have that much representation, and usually we're reduced to embracing absence as evidence. If a character isn't shown to "like" anyone that way, whoa, they might be ace! It's so very rare that a character does actively say or do something that indicates their lack of attraction. We often have to see ourselves in the "not yet" if we want any representation at all, running the risk of having our headcanons smashed as soon as a writer decides a certain type of attraction in a relationship will make that character interesting. But at least we're in the same boat as every other fan there. What we want to happen isn't necessarily what will happen.

And for those who think Amethyst might be ace and/or aro, she's such a great example of someone who isn't defined by the overly cautious, conservative germophobe who's obsessed with logic and conflates their abstention with purity and righteousness. I get really tired of asexuality being tied in with those traits because non-ace writers can't imagine ace people without sucking fun and flexibility out of their souls. (And on the flip side, isn't it wonderful to have the logical, organized, clean, perfect character be a giant lesbian? This is one box queer women rarely see themselves put in, but I know they're out there. I'm friends with a few.)

As for me, do I headcanon Amethyst as asexual or aromantic? Honestly, I am not very invested in this theory. 

I can see it and I could support it in a debate if someone asked me to. But I think Amethyst could turn out to be anything; really, the most likely thing for her to be is fluid. I think she's cute with Pearl sometimes, though Pearl having a mom vibe and being so much older and having other attractions does give me pause. I think the idea of her with Peridot or Vidalia is interesting, though Peridot more than Amethyst reads as possibly ace and there's more built up between her and Lapis now. I could even see her with another tertiary character someday; I wouldn't bat an eye.

But Amethyst as ace and/or aro would also make complete sense to me and might even fit best with her livin' free and unbound attitude, and when you look at the asexual flag, Amethyst is certainly dressed for it.

[lordendsavior]

In the latest episode of HBO’s new NSFW teen drama Euphoria, there was sex scene between Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson. Well, kinda. One of the characters in the show, Kat (played by Barbie Ferreira), is famous online for writing One Direction fan fiction, specifically about Larry Stylinson, the name given to the theory that Styles and Tomlinson were, in fact, lovers. The sex scene in the episode actually comprised of versions of the two former boyband members in an animated scene lifted from one of this character’s stories. It’s unfortunate that the animation left Styles looking a little like Lord Voldemort and Tomlinson like a sweaty teenage boy. 

But while that aspect of the show might not have been real, the conspiracy of Larry Stylinson very much is. Since One Direction were launched off the back of The X Factor in 2010, Tomlinson and Styles have been dogged by rumours that they are embroiled in a love affair. On Tumblr – a breeding ground for fan theories, fan art, fan videos and fan fiction – fans would collect GIFs, images and videos of the pair that “proved” that they were in a relationship. A lingering glance was decoded as a lustful stare, the brush of knees during an interview a sign of a secret intimacy. These in turn would mutate into smutty fan fiction about the pair, where these unspoken sexual wants could play out in full explicit glory.

In the tradition of Bennifer and Brangelina, their names, like their desires, were brought together for the portmaneu Larry Stylinson. Shipping them – the act of wanting two people to be together romantically – became a way of life for some fans. To this day, these fans, known as Larries, are unwavering in their belief, love and support of Larry Stylinson.

The same cannot be said for Louis Tomlinson. For nearly nine years, he has been dogged by rumours and speculation about his relationship with Styles. This latest outing of Larry in Euphoria is just another example of the theory’s pervasiveness. After the scene aired, some fans on Twitter messaged Tomlinson to see if he had been consulted about the scene. His reply was telling. “I can categorically say that I was not contacted nor did I approve it,” he wrote.

For years, Tomlinson has categorically denied that Larry is real. In 2012  he responded to a fan stating that “Larry is the biggest load of b——- I’ve ever heard”, and in a 2017 interview with The Sun, the Doncaster-born singer said that he found the rumours disrespectful of his relationships with women and shared how it had also affected his friendship with Styles. “It took away the vibe you get off anyone. It made everything, I think on both fences, a little bit more unapproachable,” he revealed. “I think it shows that it was never anything real, if I can use that word.”

The decision to include the animated Larry sex scene in Euphoria has provied divisive. On Twitter, One Direction fans have dubbed it “disrespectful”, “vile” and an “embarrassment”. Even self-professed Larries called out the scene and some fans went so far as to start a Change.org petition to have the scene removed from the episode. (At the time of writing it has over nearly 17,000 signatures.)

The fandom’s rejection of Larry, at first, seems hypocritical. How can the very people who have spent years perpetuating the narrative that Tomlinson and Styles are romantically linked show annoyance when that same narrative gets utilised in wider media? However, fandom, specifically fan fiction, is a contradictory and confusing beast. The thing is, Larry Stylinson is bigger than the two boyband members at its core. Their supposed romantic relationship really has nothing to do with them at all.

To give a brief history of fan fiction, the medium, while it always existed in some form, came to prominence in the 1970s in fanzines for the TV show Star Trek. Then known as slash fiction (the slash refers to the forward slash that divide the two characters, for example “Kirk/Spock”), these early writings reexamined scenes within Star Trek episodes where it appeared that there was coded queer behaviour, language or sexual tension. A chance meeting on the bridge of the USS Enterprise could result in steamy sex behind a computer console. A violent clash with a Klingon that left either Spock/Kirk injured, may end with a restorative tryst in a hospital wing.

As fan communities evolved from zines to online forums, so fan fiction became more widely accessible. Forums gave birth to sites like fanfiction.net and archiveofourown.org, where every intellectual property from Harry Potter to Bob the Builder was free game. And not every story written was sexual, either. Many fan fictions, while romantic in nature, kept their plots suitable for all ages. They also mainly took fictional characters and queered formerly heteronormative (or platonic) senarios.

Incorporating of real people – celebrities, public figures, popstars, actors, artists – into these stories propagated during this online boom of fan fanction. Portals like nifty.org had dedicated sections for celebrity fan fiction, while sites like Wattpad, a sort of social media site for writers to share their work, filled with stories about famous people. During One Direction’s imperial phase, Wattpad especially became a hive of 1D fan fiction.

And not all of it was slash fiction, either. Anna Todd’s popular YA novel After, which became a movie this year, had its beginnings as One Direction fan fiction on Wattpad. That story featured a heterosexual relationship. Her literary success follows in the footsteps of EL James, whose Twilight fan fiction was repackaged as 50 Shades of Grey.

Nevertheless, it’s fair to say that much fan fiction, smutty or not, specifically draws on queer narratives. The reasons for this are multi-faceted. Demographically, fan fiction is predominantly written by women. In the case of Spock and Kirk, it has been argued by academics that in queering their relationship, women were able to carve out safe sexual spaces in the world of fiction away from the dominant glare of patriarchal sexuality.

According to fandom academic Camille Bacon-Smith, the fact that the gender of the characters was the same allowed women to reconstruct men without the toxicity of masculinity. The American writer Joanna Russ added to this, suggesting that in this safe space, women were able to explore their fantasies outside the confines of heteropatriarchal normalcy.

In fact, Constance Penley, a professor of Film & Media Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, wrote in her book Nasa/Trek Popular Science and Sex in America that the gender of the characters was irrelevant. The act of having characters acknowledge their homosexual desires, she argued, was a metaphorical one, grounded in a desire to change “oppressive sexual roles”.

Still, exploring sexual desire with fictional characters doesn’t feel like an ethical problem. Neither, really, do private fantasies about real people. But fan fiction takes those private fantasies and makes them public. If authors like JK Rowling and Annie Proulx (Brokeback Mountain) take umbrage with fans writing their own stories using their made up characters, how do real people feel about having their lives dissected and fictionalised for entertainment?

The problem is the blurred line between celebrity and the human being. As celebrity’s lives playout on websites, television and physical media, their real life stories – often fabricated for headlines or sales – become a sport. There’s a twisted sense of ownership over these people. The public, as a throbbing and beating entity, made them famous. Their payment is their lives. The boundaries begin to disappear, and these human beings become characters in a soap opera. The internet, which its unending ocean of content, only helps to conjure more moments that fans can decode or adapt for their fics.

The implications of this are different for everyone. Stars like Benedict Cumberbatch and Andrew Scott, who played Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty respectively in the BBC’s cult favourite Sherlock, take the fictionalised versions of their lives in their stride. In an interview with MTV, Cumberbatch, while acknowledging that he found some of the racier stories weird, called it “flattering”. Daniel Radcliff and James McAvoy also seemed to be able to find the humour in it (although, again, acknowledging that they find it “really weird"). There’s also those who just outright ignore that this phenomenon exists.

Harry Styles, despite being one half of Larry Stylinson, has only ever alluded to it once. After the release of his debut solo album, fans speculated that the track Sweet Creature was about Tomlinson. In an interview with a radio station, Styles said: “I think people are always gonna speculate what songs are about, and I don’t think I’d ever want to tell anyone that they’re wrong for feeling what they feel about a song. Even when they’re not necessarily right. But I think if you really listen to the lyrics, I think you can work out if it’s really about that or not, and I would lean towards no.”

However, this level of ambivalence isn’t always easy. In a recent interview with British GQ, Taron Egerton expressed his discomfort with people writing fan fiction about him. “I don’t know why people think I’d want to see that,” he said. “I don’t love it at all.”

It seems that Louis Tomlinson exists firmly in this camp. And unlike these other celebrities, the ship he was involved in evolved into a full blown conspiracy theory. Fans accused management of keeping his and Styles’s relationship a secret. Paparazzi pictures, performances, interviews, press cuttings, tweets and Instagram posts were dissected for clues that the pair were linked. Tomlinson and Styles were bombarded on Twitter by fans, the first comment under every post on social media almost always being “Larry is real”. That level of scrutiny would have been difficult for anyone, but for a teenager progressing into young adulthood it was unbearable.

What’s debatable is whether any of these fans and their libraries of “proof” and “receipts” actually believe that Larry Stylinson is real or whether shipping them is just an extension of their fan fiction fantasies. For the millions of One Direction fans, the members of the group, while clearly real people, were also mythic, so far removed from their realities that they were almost imaginary.

Anyone who has ever truly obsessed over a band or musician can understand that this distance between true human interaction incubates a need to develop an alternative form of intimacy, be it through listening religiously to their music, attending concerts or cooking up fantasies.

And because of the inequalities in knowledge between celebrities and non-celebrities, where we know everything about them and they know nothing about us, these fantasies, and in turn our perceptions of them, become skewered. This mutation is the perfect breeding ground for fan fiction and conspiracy theories as we attempt to fill in the blanks in our intimate knowledge of celebrity lives.

In the case of One Direction, whose fans were mainly young girls and gay boys, this fantasy  became a way to explore their own sexual wants and desires. It’s what the showrunner of Euphoria, Sam Levinson, told The Los Angeles Times he was trying to convey by having the character of Kat write 1D fan fiction.

The fact that the members of that boyband were in a similar age bracket only intensified things. Intimacy and a coarse understanding of celebrity saw the lines between fantasy and reality blur, accelerated and magnified by social media. In a way, it stopped being about Styles or Tomlinson and became about the fans, the community they’d found, a safe space to explore their desires in which those desires were often mirrored and supported by others in their community.

Does all that make real person fan fiction okay? Speaking to i-D, sex psychologist Jess O’Reilly, put it like this: “How might is make someone feel? How would their parents, partner(s), kids or friends feel about reading it? How would they feel if their friends and family read your work? How would you feel if someone published a similar story about you, your child, your partner, your best friend, your sibling or someone else you love?”

For Tomlinson, who has repeatedly shared the impact the sexual speculation had on his relationship with Styles, maybe a line has been crossed. His discomfort with the theories and fan fiction, along with countless other public figures who take issue with it, should be respected.

And, really, in the pantheon of fandoms, Larry Stylinson was its own perfect storm of burgeoning internet cultures, the proliferation of social media and cute boys singing pop bangers. The need to share sexual desires in fan fiction and, by extension, romantic celebrity conspiracy theories, feels more complicated than mere right or wrong, but rather an expanse of grey, ethical ambiguity.

It also feels too late for it to stop, too. Perhaps, as the role and makeup of what constitutes celebrity evolves, accepting fan fiction in its myriad of forms, like with gossip and rumours, is par for the course. Clearly, it’s up to the individual to figure out if they’re okay with that.

[theparanormalperiodical]

The Real Ghost Stories Investigated by Ed and Lorraine Warren

It’s a classic love story: girl meets boy, girl is psychic, boy is demonologist, and they fall in love.

Oh, and they become the ultimate paranormal dream-team. And live happily ever after?

Last week Lorraine Warren passed away, and as the most famous clairvoyant basically ever, she certainly deserves some discussion here. And whilst I don’t wish to speak ill of the dead, as Lorraine probably agrees with - in whatever distant plain she has reached by this point – Ed and Lorraine Warren weren’t all jump scares and box-office big-hitters.

Indeed, it turns out that there are just as many mysteries with Ed and Lorraine Warren as there were with the cases they investigated...

Lorraine was eight years old when it started.

The odd breath on the back of her neck, maybe a whisper echoing down the halls of her childhood home, or even a dark figure traipsing the streets in the dead of the night.

Convinced she was going insane, she kept it to herself until she was 16 years old. And here we are: girl meets boy, girl is psychic, boy is demonologist, and they fall in love.

And whilst declaring that you see dead people doesn’t often feature on MTV’s My Sweet Sixteen, this would lead Ed and Lorraine Warren to found one of the oldest ghost hunting groups in New England (which has its own spooky past), and to chase up no less than 10,000 cases. Not to mention their commemoration in films which are still being churned out, namely that of The Conjuring, and The Conjuring 2.

Yet aside from the claims and the cases is something other supernatural investigators might not have in their repertoire: a museum for the occult.

Somewhere in their house, at the centre of the films detailing their most prominent cases, is a room chock-full of haunted objects. And Ed and Lorraine Warren’s most famous object homed here is the reportedly-possessed Raggedy Ann doll, Annabelle.

The story goes that in 1968, two roommates had a problem. They were making rent, and they were enjoying the freedoms that came with young life, but unfortunately, this was being scuppered by a haunted doll. And if you want to find out more about Annabelle – and other haunted dolls from which there are far too many in existence – check out this video: https://youtu.be/OGK-Bg-qK8M

Ed and Lorraine Warren answered their calls for help and claimed it being was haunted by an ‘inhuman presence’. They took the doll, and stored her on display in their museum where she still proudly sits as their main attraction.

Next up is another famous tale of terror thanks to The Conjuring, and it is probably their most talked-about case.

In 1971, the Perron family began to witness some strange goings-on in their new house (yep, we all know where this is going). And whilst a vase moving a few inches now and then might go unnoticed, the more extreme activity - like waking up to a 19th century witch at the foot of your bed telling you to leave her house - might be cause for concern.

The Warrens deduced that the Perron family were being haunted by a witch who cursed all those that lived on her land. The husband-wife team even assisted on production of The Conjuring, with Lorraine appearing in a brief cameo – think Stan Lee but with dead people, and witches, and a smattering of demons.

And although cinematically this is their most famous case, if you go back a few decades you might hear the names in relation to the most significant alleged-haunting of modern times: The Amityville Haunting.

In brief terms, a family claimed their house was being haunted by a demonic presence.

The reason this is such a well-known case is because of the debate over it being a hoax; Stephen and Roxanne Kaplan were couple of the many who firmly fought for the label to be added, despite Ed and Lorraine Warren countering back to the media that it was indeed demonic activity.

And it was this media interest – which was certainly given a helping hand by the Warrens – that would create our obsession with this case. Indeed, if you know anything about horror movies, you will know that this one got its fair share of screen time, including no less than 15 reboots/sequels/prequels/cash-grabs.

Rivalling this All-American ghost story is Britain’s very own haunted house: The Enfield Haunting.

It’s been subjected to countless TV retellings, and even had its very own film (The Conjuring 2). And although Ed and Lorraine Warren feature more prominently then the actual haunting in this horror flick, it turns out that that isn’t quite true.

Its here that the ‘hoax’ label fits rather too well.

The Enfield haunting has garnered its place as Britain’s favourite haunting not just for its excessive media coverage, but for the sheer scale of the evidence which suggests it was indeed faked by the children involved. The Warrens on the contrary claimed it was evidence of a demonic possession, but I’m afraid that’s as much as they get involved.

Whilst The Conjuring 2 follows a lengthy investigation of the haunting and close bonds forming with the terrorised family, the Warrens were actually turned away at first. They returned, made a brief investigation, and instead offered to provide the financial support for the investigation.

Yet even though they barely stepped through the front door, our favourite paranormal dream-team still managed to go to the televised interviews, and get a few pics in the papers.

And its here that a pattern emerges.

Some of our most famous hauntings have had some input with the Warrens, and it seems their real point of interest was making them just that: famous.

Their monetising of investigations, their placement in the media, and their assistance with the blockbuster flicks that have garnered them the fame to take to their graves might boost their cause to stop evil, but it also weakens their initial claims.

Indeed, the Ed and Lorraine Warren’s own reflections on their work – which featured a $12.50 price tag for the tour of their museum – was scattered with yet more points of concern. The glaring issues with flash photography and lost evidence fill their folders of evidence (or leave them a little emptier, I suppose), and left some visitors with rather curt words: “It's all blarney."

But Lorraine Warren wasn’t the only medium ever to be called a fraud, and believe me, this post doesn’t wish to glue any labels down just yet.

The truth is, just as much as there is dodgy evidence, such as with the Enfield Haunting, there were also countless eyewitnesses which confirmed that this was indeed paranormal activity.

Whether it was made up by the alleged victims, or crafted by the Warrens for a hefty sum of money, one thing is clear; Lorraine has taken it to her grave.  

[jorjathomas]

Comparing existing magazines

As I've began to do some mild research, I thought it was beneficial to gather some information regarding my intended audience. I should see if there's a gap in the market for this particular self help magazine or if it would be high in demand or not. In this post, I have compared old magazines that were published for young women to see what has changed and what particular topics have became more popular over the years. Obviously magazines aren't as popular anymore for teens as most people would pick up a phone and scroll to kill time rather than buy a magazine from your local store however, I'm interested to see the comparison between the two. 

Old vs New

At first, I was going to compare two magazines and analyse the differences however as I started to do some research, I thought it would be interesting to see how certain magazines which have been running for a long period have changed over time as digital journalism has grown. I will contrast these brands with zine businesses which suits my idea.

Tiger Beat:

Google states ’Tiger Beat was founded in September 1965 by Charles "Chuck" Laufer, his brother Ira Laufer, and television producer and host Lloyd Thaxton. The magazine features teen idol gossip and carries articles on movies , music and fashion.’ This magazine is aimed towards adolesant girls just like my idea which is interesting to see the differences. Its funny to see how young women were perceived from looking as this magazines as they seem very celebrity based. As Tiger Beat is created by men, I'm assuming this is what they think teenage girls think about. I would say in the 60s this was true as boy bands where the hot spot for screaming girls however personally having a magazine just to get in the celebrity gossip is draining. The 60s was a very pivotal time for music and musicians didn't have a massive social platform like most artists do now so having a magazine like this is where fans would get updates about their lives. I think my opinions about Tiger Beat are solely based on how this generation has changed, I've defiantly bought zines just like this if it has my idol on the front however when looking at certain quotations and how its predominantly males being displayed despite being for girls is strange to me. For example the third image on the right where it advertised a ‘Peek inside Justin Biebers room’.  Not only does this feed on the artists personal life but it heightens this concept of teenagers becoming a obsessive fan. when looking at this magazine I begin to question whether this sort of content is normal for teenagers or am I just conditioned to believe it is what I should be thinking about as a teenage girl? Its even more ironic that this is made by men aswell but I don't know if that's the activist in me. To conclude, there was defiantly a gap in the market for supporting young adults when entering the real world as you can see. 

Teen zone:

Again, continuing with my previous opinions Teen Zone had the same intentions for their audience. Looking back at their earlier issues, it mas predominantly celebrity based. This involves gossip, looks and updates in their ‘perfect’ lives. This defiantly increased the idea of needing to be famous and look good all the time in order to be successful or good in life. These magazines are full of photoshopped faces with content telling people that they could look a certain way to feel accepted. Although looking briefly at the magazines are harmless I think they can be deep rooting in the problems girls feel in society when growing up. The only difference with this magazine in comparison to Tiger Beat is that they are still running as a business and have changed their content significantly. Teen zone only publish online now and when researching into their content i was surprised when seeing their statement. It states ‘TeenZone Digital Magazine is a magazine for the South African teenager. Teens in today’s society are increasingly being fed a diet entirely consisting of celebrity gossip. This grossly underestimates them. Teens today have voices that we all need to hear. They need to be taken seriously, and to be given the opportunity to express their views and concerns; to ask the important questions and receive trustworthy, accurate advice; and to enjoy themselves in a safe environment. TeenZone seeks to provide this platform. It is a magazine for teens, by teens.’ 

Teens in society now are much more vocal on certain events and I think we are defiantly becoming more aware on subjects which we may have not noticed before. The fact that Teen Zone has turned this around and creating a platform for teens to speak on matters special to them in inspiring and what I want to do also. They've defiantly succeeded well since moving digital as articles are much more accessible than a printed zine.

This is a picture of their website which differs from their zine. They have toned down their imagery and noticed as they are able to add more content onto a site.

As i began to look further into popular magazines from particular decades, eg; teen vogue, J-14 etc, I began to see the same results and outcomes. They were all very similar in content but I was surprised to finally see a magazine which although was produced a little later than the others, was drastically different to the others. Both aesthetically and within their content. This was a magazine called Rookie.

Rookie:

What makes Rookie magazine so different to the others is that this business was created by teenagers for teenagers. They are much more closer to their audience and were able to relate to the content they were giving out. Rather than adults profiting of their perception of what a teenager goes through despite not being one. I personally can see the differences between the two. Firstly Rookie stood out to me because of its collage-like personality. Its much more playful and personal than the previous zines I've looked at. The layered imagery with colourful texture achieves this friendly environment for teenagers to read though. I defiantly want to achieve this with my zine and I am going to look into this sort of work digitally and also physically to achieve a dimensional look rather than all of my work looking flat or 2D. 

This is a screenshot of Rookies site. Not only do they produce articles that teens can read for pleasure or to gain information, they also have platforms that can actually gives teens a place to talk and interact with others which I think is the drastic change for the industry. Interacting with the audience on a personal level proves that Rookie cares for their audience and wants to spark change. Unfortunately Rookie has stop publishing altogether as a business since 2018 for financial reasons.

Other magazines that I am interested in: As I've looked into previous magazines and began to understand their concept and beliefs,  I began to look into modern magazines that also produce the same concept as me and to see what makes them so different especially since there has been a massive sift in the journalism industry. Both of the publications below are fairly similar. Both want to create change and form a safe space where women learn new subjects which may not be normalise yet are very important for personal growth. They both combine their articles with art which helps create a visual understanding of their zine even better than standard text. I defiantly aim to follow these footsteps but I need to search for an unique concept that could help my idea become more popular for a young girl to read. I wanted to this as sadly both of these zines are either discontinued or temporality stopped making issues which makes me assume this idea isn't that successful so far whether that's due to the pandemic or society as a whole I'm unsure as of yet. I will begin to look at the impact of Covid on magazines later to understand why so many of these great businesses aren't running anymore despite having a positive impact on young women.

Got a girl crush:  “Got a Girl Crush is a blog and annual print magazine about women, by women, for everyone. We aim to disrupt the broken narrative of most women's publications and tell stories of all ages, races, and backgrounds of women all over the world. We believe that print is not dead and that there is value to having a tangible medium to read, digest, and share--rather than sharing a link online that is easily forgotten tomorrow.”

(Issue 3, published September 2016 from https://issuu.com/gotagirlcrush/docs/girlcrush_issue05_content-final )

I liked this magazine statement because it isn't restrictive on a specific audience. They mention that their content is open for anyone which I think is surprising. When thinking about making this zine I wanted to think of content that isn't too limiting or biased towards women as I think the real change in society will have to come from men's views and actions aswell as women's. When looking at their monthly articles, it was very text heavy. They had many important figures like planetary scientist Carolyn Porco, human rights activist Grace Lee Bogg menstrual activist & drummer Kiran Gandhi etc. Each had powerful stories to tell and impact onto readers. Despite this the illustrations and other visual forms of art broke down this barrier which is why it didn't look too overwhelming. I will follow through with this if not add more art into my final outcome as I’d like to be more creative for this project and really experiment with collaging. I had briefly did this in the first project and enjoyed the process.

Selva Beat: “Selva Beat is an environmental magazine with an edge. We take environmentalism and place it in the context of your favorite topics – beauty, fashion, culture, food, sex, love – to make activism as accessible and engaging as possible. Founded in 2014, we began as a way of educating the public about conflict palm-oil and have expanded into a multi-media platform that motivates others to better the planet through creative means.”

A magazines visual décor is very important as sadly you do judge the book by the front cover. Initially, this is what I liked about Selva Beat, it was very colourful and they had nice curvy, bubbled typography which isn't that common on magazines. When researching I didn't realise they were very environmentally orientated aswell as being a conscious feminist magazine. I was saddened that they aren't running anymore as I think this magazine would've been a good pivotal point. 

[pretoriuspictures]

Interview w/ Ben Hozie and Jesse Locke for Aquarium Drunkard:

Aquarium Drunkard: I know you primarily as a musician, so can you tell me a bit about your background as a filmmaker?

Ben Hozie: I’ve been making DIY films for almost as long as I’ve been writing songs in rock groups. So far the music has connected with more people but I intend to do both for as long as I can. I shot my first feature Annunciation when I was 22 on 16mm w/ experimental filmmaker Simon Liu. At that time I thought we made this really significant work that would skyrocket us into international film notoriety so it was quite humbling when we got rejected from almost every film festival in the world.

I love personal cinema too much to be discouraged so I put my head down and made a few shorts and another feature called The Lion’s Den a few years later on DV cam for about ten thousand dollars. That one was also rejected from all the film festivals so here I am again with another new film. PVT Chat was shot and edited around the last seven or eight BODEGA tours. I’m hoping that one day I will make a film that people really respond to which will dignify and force people to revisit the rest of my movies.

AD: What are your first two films Annunciation and The Lion’s Den about?

Ben Hozie: Annunciation is a modern ‘adaptation’ of the Mérode Altarpiece Triptych (the early northern Renaissance painting) that is composed of three narratives (one for each panel of the painting) : a director of advertisements who falls for his intern, a young tourist struggling to overcome impotence, and an actress portraying the Virgin Mary who decides to become a surrogate mother. The filming coincided with Occupy Wall Street so we filmed scenes at Zuccotti Park and allowed Occupy to shape the timbre of the film.

The Lion’s Den is a comedy of errors farce about a group of radicals in a commune in Staten Island who attempt to kidnap the CEO of a giant corporation but instead get the wrong guy. While the group is figuring out what to do with their captive businessman, members of the commune attempt to ‘revolution the bedroom’ by exchanging sexual partners. The Den was an attempt at theatrical cinema : my two models were the essayistic political films of Jean-Luc Godard and Jean-Pierre Gorin and The Rules of the Game.

Both of those films were aggressively anti-naturalistic (in different ways) and at the time I thought of them as conscious rebukes to the mumblecore film movement. In 2017 something happened and I fell in love with a number of mumble and mumble-adjacent films. I was particularly impressed with how said films were able to achieve abstraction via documentary (that combination is perhaps the essence of cinema) so I decided to make a film of my own leaning slightly towards that world (PVT Chat).

AD: What inspired you to write the story of PVT Chat? Do you know people who have turned online gambling and online sex work into main sources of income?

Ben Hozie: I’ve known a few sex workers (as well as online gamblers) but I was initially drawn to that world because it seemed to really crystallize something essential about this historical moment where most emotion is processed through computer screens. I don’t see the cam or online gambling worlds as that different from social media: they are just different forms of stimulation addiction. This is the same theme that the BODEGA LP Endless Scroll was about.

AD: How do you feels about these kinds of relationships formed through screens now that we’re forced to do them in a pandemic?

Ben Hozie: I don’t think all relationships formed through screens are superficial or harmful. In the movie Jack (Peter Vack) and Scarlet (Julia Fox) become quite close through their cam chats — they become closer than any of the other characters in the film are to each other. Internet culture has its pluses and minuses.

AD: How were you able to cast Peter Vack, Buddy Durress, and Julia Fox? I understand this was her acting first role before making Uncut Gems.

Ben Hozie: I met Peter on a short that I was AD-ing a few years ago (directed by PVT Chat’s producer Oliver David). We’ve since become very close friends. I loved Peter’s performance in his movie Assholes — it was full of this naive boyish enthusiasm that made me realize he could be Jack. Peter is very handsome and charming too. It was important to me that Jack not become an incel-type character. He is obsessed with cam girls for other reasons than social inadequacy.

I was a big fan of Buddy’s from his Safdies movies and later met him through his old agent and was able to track him down in Queens at his mom’s place. I met Julia because I heard she was getting into acting and had also spent some time as a dominatrix when she was younger. She got cast in Uncut Gems shortly after we started shooting PVT. We started before their production but finished way after (I was shooting scenes almost a year after our initial shoot).

AD: Do you have any funny on set stories about Buddy?

Ben Hozie: Me, Peter, Buddy, and Kevin Moccia (who plays Will) got quite into blackjack during the production. We would always play hands online at my apartment in between set-ups. We had some good runs not unlike those in the movie (which were all improvised and real). A few weeks later Buddy called me and asked me if he could stake me some cash to double for him playing cards (which is literally the plot of the movie). I told him I didn’t feel confident enough to pull that off! Buddy is a great talker (one of the many reasons he is a great actor). He’s very fun to talk on the phone to. Unfortunately he went back to jail during the filming of PVT. I’m not sure if he’s out yet or not…I hope so.

Me and Peter shot some incognito b-roll at a real casino (which was later cut from the film) but he won us 3.6k off one hand (red 21) at roulette (which we were hoping would be a scene in which he lost….)!!!  You can see the footage here.  

AD: One thing I really like about this story is that Scarlet is portrayed as enjoying her work and having full agency instead of the movie shaming her. In fact, everyone else comes across worse. Was that an important part of it for you?

Ben Hozie: Yes. It was important for me that the movie did not depict cam girls as victims (certainly many are but not all of them). I also wanted to bring film eroticism into the 21st century which is why it was important to include scenes of a woman achieving pleasure just for the sake of her own pleasure. People seem reluctant to admit that some sex workers chose their line of work because they enjoy and excel at it.

I also wanted to film masturbation and fantasy in a way I’ve never seen at the cinema: raw, honest, and un-glamorous. Sex in cinema is often just cheap titillation or a quick stopgap in between plot. I wanted to film sexuality in a way that reveals something about its everyday-ness. That couldn’t have been achieved without Julia or Peter’s cinematic courage. It was also extremely important for me to film erect full frontal male nudity as that’s something rarely ever depicted in cinema.

AD: Can you tell me about Austin Brown from Parquet Courts’ score? Did he have a specific vision for how the film should sound?

Ben Hozie: I like to think of music in my films as samples. I like films that are relatively score-less (except diegetic music) but which include quick bursts of musical punctuation. I already was using quite a bit of Beethoven in the movie but wanted something contemporary to play against this. Austin has played a not insignificant role in my recent musical life (he produced my band’s Endless Scroll LP) so he was a natural choice to do the score.

After some initial experimentation before the tone of the film was discovered I remember telling Austin I mostly wanted two things : 1) some pieces in the world of the Parquet Courts EP Monastic Living: guitar feedback and contemplative harmonics and 2) something yearning and romantic similar to his song “Steady on my Mind” from their Human Performance LP. He’s a great guitar player and arranger and was able to come up with some excellent material (he also makes a cameo in the movie playing guitar as a street busker). He also composed some of the diegetic pieces in the movie and surprised me with a great little John Carpenter-esque synth piece which is now also in the trailer.

AD: What are your upcoming plans to get the movie out there?

Ben Hozie: It’s hard to say since it seems most film festivals are cancelled for the remainder of the year. I’m eager for audiences to see it. We will have to wait and see.

https://aquariumdrunkard.com/2020/03/31/stimulation-addiction-an-interview-with-bodegas-ben-hozie-about-his-new-film-pvt-chat/