thoughtingdown

[thoughtingdown]

the concept and idea of “you can always start trying to be a better person” is extremely important to me both in media and irl and i continue to be deeply deeply disturbed by the trend on this site pushing that these ideas in media are bad writing or even morally reprehensible

because theyd rather someone stay terrible or just straight up die than become a better person 

from a compassionate point of view it’s deeply distressing and from a pragmatic point of view it’s outright frustrating

it’s fucked up. 

[thoughtingdown]

“Why should a man with no other expectation of an afterlife than adding his bit of clay to verdant Iowa experience dread? His father told him once that the more scrupulous a conscience is, the heavier the burden it carries.”

— Marilynne Robinson, Jack

[thoughtingdown]

Some observations on book covers

[thoughtingdown]

Monsters of Dungeons and Dragons

by jesjep/reddit

[thoughtingdown]

"Mrs. Dalloway said she would buy the flowers herself.”

One hundred years ago this month, Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway was published. The novel epitomizes modernism’s drive to capture the fragmented texture of early twentieth-century life and to render psychological landscapes with clarity and nuance.

Read more about Virginia Woolf's contributions to modern literature from JSTOR Daily.

Image: Mrs. Dalloway (first edition, 1925), cover art by Vanessa Bell. Wikimedia Commons.

[thoughtingdown]

Ben Kingsley in 1975 Royal Shakespeare Company production of ‘Hamlet’. Jay Cocks Studio Collection/Shakespeare Birthplace Trust.

shakespearenews.com

[thoughtingdown]

A still life with grapes and a bowl   -   Johanna Elisabeth ‘Betsy’ Westendorp Osieck,  1965.

Dutch,  1880-1968

Oil on canvas ,  45.9 x 37.9 cm.

[thoughtingdown]

Still Life with Apples and a Mixing Bowl - Mark Gertler , 1913

British, 1891-1939

Oil on canvas

[thoughtingdown]

A Study in Silver II - Jeremy Galton

British , b. 1949 -

Oil , 39 x 39 cm.

[thoughtingdown]

“Remember: you don’t have to be brilliant when you start out. You just have to write. Every story you finish puts you closer to being a writer, and makes you a better writer.”

— More awesome inspiration from Neil Gaiman, from this excellent post on overcoming Writer’s Block.

[thoughtingdown]

Keep the Channel Open

So a couple days ago someone uploaded my recent breakup comic “Salt Soap” to Imgur without my permission.

I wouldn’t have known this had happened if several Facebook friends hadn’t contacted me excitedly about the fact that it was on the front page of the site—7th most popular item on the whole network that day. Upon investigating the post, I saw that a) the comic already had 100,000+ views (WHAT?!), and b) the person who’d uploaded my work (without my permission) had removed the comic’s title card, which included my name and claim to authorship. Perplexingly, they did credit me in the “source” section below the comic, including a link to my website, but the comic itself was missing the important bit at the top that tells people who made it. Y’know, this thing:

I had a tough time distilling my feelings about Imgur and sites like it into a clear series of Facebook comments that wouldn’t shame my friends for being excited on my behalf. After all, hundreds of thousands of people were looking at my work! That must be success, right? Gosh, how cool for Lucy. I could understand why they were thrilled, but I needed to elucidate why users posting my modified work to Imgur without my permission makes me see red. 

After thoroughly explaining (I thought) why the reposting of my story was problematic, I received the following well-intentioned comment from a friend:

In your post you say the header was removed. You want me to repost it with everything intact? And/or are you okay if I make a post highlighting you.. like “hey people, here is more of Lucy’s work and you need to go to her page for the awesome.”

This threw me. After everything I’d explained in the first comment thread, the takeaway seemed to be that my one problem with Imgur and this post was that someone had tampered with my work. Now, granted, that’s a big part of the problem, but there’s more going on here. Eventually I pulled together the following mini-manifesto, which I didn’t want to lose in the annals of Facebook, so if you’re interested here’s the whole kettle of fish:

Here’s why this is a hard question for me to answer: I understand that Imgur has a huge user base, and if the response to this comic is anything to go by (400,000+ views now), many of those people dig the work I’m doing. That’s great! I’m glad the comic has resonated with so many people, and the more people who see my work, the better. 

But it’s also a site that strips images off the web and reuploads them without metadata, depriving the original creators of their agency and ad revenue. Now, I don’t personally run ads on my sites, but I have many friends who do. Many ads pay per impression—that’s money for every person who just looks at the page. 400,000+ pairs of eyeballs can make a massive difference in the ad revenue an independent creator receives. All those views on Imgur? They’re benefiting Imgur, not the artist who made the comic being posted. And while my lack of ad use means that re-hosting my comic (even if it’s posted complete and unedited by someone like yourself with excellent intentions!) on a site I don’t run doesn’t directly effect my personal finances, it creates a precedent where people feel like Imgur is an okay place to repost comics in their entirety, and I think that’s a bad practice for supporting independent creators.

This also affects me indirectly because my livelihood is dependent on forging and maintaining relationships with my readers. By divorcing my content from the sites where I’ve personally chosen to share it, readers have very little access to information that will allow them to follow and support me easily. We are all, as Internet users, pretty lazy. I know I get distracted if I need to click more than twice to hunt down or otherwise access an artist’s work. So even if a site like Imgur rehosts my work with a link and many, MANY people see it, the number of readers who will actually click through to find me elsewhere on the web, let alone remain engaged as fans, is really small.

I try to make sure my work is available for free on as many popular platforms as possible (I’m on Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, Medium, Patreon, etc.), and I’m always a fan of friends reblogging/liking/sharing on those platforms, or posting links to my work on places like Reddit (which I don’t personally use), because it’s a link repository, and those links take Redditors to sites that I design, curate, and update personally.

It just seems to me that places like Imgur take the artist out of the equation, and I love the Internet for precisely the opposite reason—it’s a place where comics fans get direct access to the creators whose work they enjoy. That relationship goes both ways and benefits both parties, and I feel pretty squiffy about platforms that get in the way of the channel.

So: the short answer to this can of worms is that I’d probably prefer it if you didn’t post my comic (even with the title!) on Imgur. If you want to post a preview of anything I’ve done, with a link to one of my sites where people can read the rest of the comic, that’s a great middle ground! But I just want folks to consider all the factors I’ve laid out above when posting content from creators they want to support.

Cool? Cool.

Got thoughts? Hit me up on Twitter: @LuBellWoo.

[thoughtingdown]

6 Writing Tips From John Steinbeck

1. Abandon the idea that you are ever going to finish. Lose track of the 400 pages and write just one page for each day, it helps. Then when it gets finished, you are always surprised.

2. Write freely and as rapidly as possible and throw the whole thing on paper. Never correct or rewrite until the whole thing is down. Rewrite in process is usually found to be an excuse for not going on. It also interferes with flow and rhythm which can only come from a kind of unconscious association with the material.

3. Forget your generalized audience. In the first place, the nameless, faceless audience will scare you to death and in the second place, unlike the theater, it doesn’t exist. In writing, your audience is one single reader. I have found that sometimes it helps to pick out one person—a real person you know, or an imagined person and write to that one.

4. If a scene or a section gets the better of you and you still think you want it—bypass it and go on. When you have finished the whole you can come back to it and then you may find that the reason it gave trouble is because it didn’t belong there.

5. Beware of a scene that becomes too dear to you, dearer than the rest. It will usually be found that it is out of drawing.

6. If you are using dialogue—say it aloud as you write it. Only then will it have the sound of speech.

Read more. [Image: AP]

[thoughtingdown]

"With Donald Trump set to take office after a fear-mongering campaign that reignited concerns about his desire to become a dictator, a reasonable question comes up: Can nonviolent struggle defeat a tyrant?

There are many great resources that answer this question, but the one that’s been on my mind lately is the Global Nonviolent Action Database, or GNAD, built by the Peace Studies department at Swarthmore College. Freely accessible to the public, this database — which launched under my direction in 2011 — contains over 1,400 cases of nonviolent struggle from over a hundred countries, with more cases continually being added by student researchers.  

At quick glance, the database details at least 40 cases of dictators who were overthrown by the use of nonviolent struggle, dating back to 1920. These cases — which include some of the largest nations in the world, spanning Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America — contradict the widespread assumption that a dictator can only be overcome by violence. What’s more, in each of these cases, the dictator had the desire to stay, and possessed violent means for defense. Ultimately, though, they just couldn’t overcome the power of mass nonviolent struggle.  

In a number of countries, the dictator had been embedded for years at the time they were pushed out. Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, for example, had ruled for over 29 years. In the 1990s, citizens usually whispered his name for fear of reprisal. Mubarak legalized a “state of emergency,” which meant censorship, expanded police powers and limits on the news media. Later, he “loosened” his rule, putting only 10 times as many police as the number of protesters at each demonstration.  

The GNAD case study describes how Egyptians grew their democracy movement despite repression, and finally won in 2011. However, gaining a measure of freedom doesn’t guarantee keeping it. As Egypt has shown in the years since, continued vigilance is needed, as is pro-active campaigning to deepen the degree of freedom won.  

Some countries repeated the feat of nonviolently deposing a ruler: In Chile, the people nonviolently threw out a dictator in 1931 and then deposed a new dictator in 1988. South Koreans also did it twice, once in 1960 and again in 1987. (They also just stopped their current president from seizing dictatorial powers, but that’s not yet in the database.)  

In each case people had to act without knowing what the reprisals would be...

It’s striking that in many of the cases I looked at, the movement avoided merely symbolic marches and rallies and instead focused on tactics that impose a cost on the regime. As Donald Trump wrestles to bring the armed forces under his control, for example, I can imagine picketing army recruiting offices with signs, “Don’t join a dictator’s army.”  

Another important takeaway: Occasional actions that simply protest a particular policy or egregious action aren’t enough. They may relieve an individual’s conscience for a moment, but, ultimately, episodic actions, even large ones, don’t assert enough power. Over and over, the Global Nonviolent Action Database shows that positive results come from a series of escalating, connected actions called a campaign...

-via Waging Nonviolence, January 8, 2025. Article continues below.

East Germany’s peaceful revolution

When East Germans began their revolt against the German Democratic Republic in 1988, they knew that their dictatorship of 43 years was backed by the Soviet Union, which might stage a deadly invasion. They nevertheless acted for freedom, which they gained and kept.

Researcher Hanna King tells us that East Germans began their successful campaign in January 1988 by taking a traditional annual memorial march and turning it into a full-scale demonstration for human rights and democracy. They followed up by taking advantage of a weekly prayer for peace at a church in Leipzig to organize rallies and protests. Lutheran pastors helped protect the organizers from retaliation and groups in other cities began to stage their own “Monday night demonstrations.”  

The few hundred initial protesters quickly became 70,000, then 120,000, then 320,000, all participating in the weekly demonstrations. Organizers published a pamphlet outlining their vision for a unified German democracy and turned it into a petition. Prisoners of conscience began hunger strikes in solidarity.

By November 1988, a million people gathered in East Berlin, chanting, singing and waving banners calling for the dictatorship’s end. The government, hoping to ease the pressure, announced the opening of the border to West Germany. Citizens took sledgehammers to the hated Berlin Wall and broke it down. Political officials resigned to protest the continued rigidity of the ruling party and the party itself disintegrated. By March 1990 — a bit over two years after the campaign was launched — the first multi-party, democratic elections were held.

Students lead the way in Pakistan

In Pakistan, it was university students (rather than religious clerics) who launched the 1968-69 uprising that forced Ayub Khan out of office after his decade as a dictator. Case researcher Aileen Eisenberg tells us that the campaign later required multiple sectors of society to join together to achieve critical mass, especially workers. 

It was the students, though, who took the initiative — and the initial risks. In 1968, they declared that the government’s declaration of a “decade of development” was a fraud, protesting nonviolently in major cities. They sang and marched to their own song called “The Decade of Sadness.” 

Police opened fire on one of the demonstrations, killing several students. In reaction the movement expanded, in numbers and demands. Boycotts grew, with masses of people refusing to pay the bus and railway fares on the government-run transportation system. Industrial workers joined the movement and practiced encirclement of factories and mills. An escalation of government repression followed, including more killings. 

As the campaign expanded from urban to rural parts of Pakistan, the movement’s songs and political theater thrived. Khan responded with more violence, which intensified the determination among a critical mass of Pakistanis that it was time for him to go.

After months of growing direct action met by repressive violence, the army decided its own reputation was being degraded by their orders from the president, and they demanded his resignation. He complied and an election was scheduled for 1970 — the first since Pakistan’s independence in 1947.

Why use nonviolent struggle?

The campaigns in East Germany and Pakistan are typical of all 40 cases in their lack of a pacifist ideology, although some individuals active in the movements had that foundation. What the cases do seem to have in common is that the organizers saw the strategic value of nonviolent action, since they were up against an opponent likely to use violent repression. Their commitment to nonviolence would then rally the masses to their side. 

That encourages me. There’s hardly time in the U.S. during Trump’s regime to convert enough people to an ideological commitment to nonviolence, but there is time to persuade people of the strategic value of a nonviolent discipline. 

It’s striking that in many of the cases I looked at, the movement avoided merely symbolic marches and rallies and instead focused on tactics that impose a cost on the regime. As Donald Trump wrestles to bring the armed forces under his control, for example, I can imagine picketing army recruiting offices with signs, “Don’t join a dictator’s army.”  

Another important takeaway: Occasional actions that simply protest a particular policy or egregious action aren’t enough. They may relieve an individual’s conscience for a moment, but, ultimately, episodic actions, even large ones, don’t assert enough power. Over and over, the Global Nonviolent Action Database shows that positive results come from a series of escalating, connected actions called a campaign — the importance of which is also outlined in my book “How We Win.”  

As research seminar students at Swarthmore continue to wade through history finding new cases, they are digging up details on struggles that go beyond democracy. The 1,400 already-published cases include campaigns for furthering environmental justice, racial and economic justice, and more. They are a resource for tactical ideas and strategy considerations, encouraging us to remember that even long-established dictators have been stopped by the power of nonviolent campaigns.

-via Waging Nonviolence, January 8, 2025.

[thoughtingdown]

“And yes, people in this situation can not exist as people. They need some more food, warmth, some more safety. If they are sharing bread, then it’s not the end. If friendship is possible, then it is not the end. If there are poems in the mind, then the situation is generally relatively good, no matter how monstrous it may seem from the outside. Because in a disadvantaged situation there are no poems. And you are not there. And us”

— from an interview with Elena Mikhailik about Varlam Shalamov

[thoughtingdown]

Witty Waste

Sometimes life is crap, and you could use a good laugh. In recognition of this, here we have A Load of Shit by John Berger with etchings by Mirta Ripoll. Berger’s short story was composed and printed in Buenos Aires, Argentina by Ruben R. Lapolla at Ediciones Dos Amigos. The 15-copy edition is on handmade paper made by Papelera Palermo in 1999.

View more posts from our Book Arts Collection

-Melissa, Special Collections Library Assistant (Boss Lady)

[thoughtingdown]

The origin of an inner Lie is often something of a mystery to the character.

Something in his history created a wound or inner divide that has hidden his true self from his conscious understanding. When the character is conscious of the wounding event but fails to truly understand, acknowledge, or accept the wound itself, this subconscious denial dumps the Truth into the darkness of his shadow, thus creating the Lie. Often, the Truth the character needs in order to be whole and healthy is nothing more than a simple acknowledgement that there is a wound.

Once the character can acknowledge the Truth about himself, he finds an inherent healing.

-

It's easy to write a character with a tragic flaw, what's hard is writing a story where the tragedy also has poetic irony, the most common example being a protagonist who, in attempting to avoid their downfall, unknowingly cause it. Try to give your characters flaws that are loaded with deeper meaning and that resonate with the larger themes of the story.

-

The theme of Good Will Hunting is that

"living up to your potential" isn't seeking advancement within the structures others have created to channel the energies of talented people, it's embracing the infinite challenges and complications of loving others. I don't think Damon and Affleck knew it when they wrote the movie, but that's what it ended up being

-

[thoughtingdown]

Manwë and Fingolfin parallels 

I’ve written before about the parallels between Melkor and Fëanor, but I think there are really interesting parallels between Manwë and Fingolfin too.

Manwë had to make a choice, when Melkor sued for pardon after his imprisonment in the Halls of Mandos, whether to grant his prayer or not. And he chose to grant it. And Fingolfin had to make a choice, after Fëanor had threatened his life in Finwë’s hall, after Fëanor’s exile, whether to grant him pardon or not. And he chose to release him and ‘remember no grievance.’ 

Both Manwë and Fingolfin had a choice to make, to keep their promises, in the hope that their brothers would choose a better path—or to break their promises, in the assumption that they never would. 

And I think the fact that Melkor and Fëanor went on to do great evil does not make Manwë’s or Fingolfin’s choice the wrong choice. I think we’re meant to conclude that granting someone mercy is good, and if they choose to do evil afterwards then the guilt rests on them, not the person who offered them mercy or pardon.

If Manwë had refused to release Melkor, then Tolkien says he simply would have become another tyrant: ‘If Manwë had broken this promise for his own purposes, even though still intending ‘good,’ he would have taken a step upon the paths of Melkor… In that hour and act he would have ceased to be the vice-regent of the One, becoming but a king who takes advantage over a rival whom he has conquered by force.’ And if Fingolfin had refused to release Fëanor, as he promised to do, he would have become the usurper Fëanor accused him of being.

It’s not that Fingolfin is perfect, but his imperfection actually makes him more admirable, in my view. ‘High princes were Fëanor and Fingolfin, the elder sons of Finwë, honoured by all in Aman; but now they grew proud and jealous each of his rights and his possessions.’ We all know that Fëanor had animosity towards Fingolfin, but this quote shows that Fingolfin also had animosity towards Fëanor, and that was before Fëanor threatened him with a sword. The fact that Fingolfin was able to forgive him is no small feat.

This is also one reason why I prefer the version in The Silmarillion, in which Fingolfin does not claim the kingship after Finwë’s death, as opposed to the version in The Shibboleth of Fëanor, in which he does claim it. If Fingolfin claims the kingship—breaking his promise of ‘thou shalt lead and I will follow’—it increases Fëanor’s justification for deserting him in Araman, which Tolkien explicitly acknowledges, and I feel like this lessens Fëanor’s guilt for something which the story itself presents as a selfish and treacherous act: deserting his own people. But in The Silmarillion, Fëanor betrays his people because he fears betrayal—not due to an actual betrayal by Fingolfin.

In The Silmarillion, the parallel is preserved: Manwë kept his promises to Melkor, but Melkor broke his trust when he destroyed the peace of Valinor. And Fingolfin kept his promises to Fëanor, but Fëanor broke faith with him and his followers when he deserted them in Araman.