Hello, writerly friends! I believe that there are certain subjects in writing to which there are (really) no unbiased answers. So, I thought instead of just sharing *my* opinion, that we would have an open forum. Share your opinion and answers in the comments! Today, let’s talk about: Titles!!
Today’s open forum questions are:
What came first, the title or the story?
How do you come up with titles?
➤ Have a writing question you’d like me to answer? Leave it in the comments, it may just make it into a video!
Want more writing advice, writer positivity, and more? Follow me!
Am I the only one who’s NOT okay with the fact that Harold just chose to save the Machine over John? He’s essentially told John will die if he doesn’t show up in 15 mins and he doesn’t go? Sure, he argues about it with Root but then she convinces him to just ignore it and continue saving the Machine? Um, no. No freaking way. I don’t care if the world’s about to end. Harold would still save John first.
Rihanna slayed the met gala. What she wore is now my favorite met gala look of all time! Robyn is winning at life. I didn’t even notice anyone else. Justin Bieber and Olivier Rousteing made my night as well. Loved the blazer.
Just curious, can we get a show of hands how many people are Chinese-American or Chinese-Chinese? The admins have been discussing cultural appropriation and it seems like the term’s pretty much unheard of in China. The consensus seems to be that CN ppl respond to foreigners wearing CN elements with 挺好的，外国人在接受我国文化, while CN-Americans respond that foreigners are just culturally appropriating another culture.
What’s your opinion on this issue? For example, Met ball?
Can I say something? I am a feminist because I believe women have the right to everything they can achieve. I am, however, an advocate of propriety, because freedom isn’t the right to do whatever you want, it’s the right to do what you ought, within reason of course. So what I cannot fucking stand is when people say you can’t be feminist AND pro life. I believe that to be pro life IS being feminist. I hate rape culture. I hate how the media sexualizes women so much. I hate the double standards for men. Guys who sleep around are guys, and women who sleep around are sluts? I hate it. I’m not “free the nipple” feminist, but I’m definitely an advocate for equal rights. But what I HAVE to say is that BECAUSE I am for equal rights for EVERYONE, I am pro life. Women don’t have the right to abortion BECAUSE it’s denying the right to life for another person. Religion and philosophy aside, and whether you like it or not, life DOES start in the womb. It is human. We ALL started out the same way. At conception, we all had our 46 (or 47) chromosomes given to us by our parents, and began cell division. Something can’t grow if it isn’t alive. Abortion ends life, whether it’s 7 months into the pregnancy or 2 weeks. If you didn’t want to be pregnant, then honestly, I am sorry for you, but that doesn’t mean the human growing in your womb doesn’t have rights. It doesn’t mean that at all.
If anyone cared enough to read this, I would appreciate any feedback, agreeing or disagreeing. All I ask is that you be respectful. I’m not here to shame anyone who is pro choice, I’m here to explain why I, and many others, believe to be an advocate for equal rights for all means to be for equal rights for all. Straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, black, white, Arabic, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, in the womb, or 100 years old, we are ALL human and we should ALL be treated with equal dignity. We all started the same biologically. So who are we to say someone doesn’t deserve to survive in their mothers womb, (what should be) the safest of all places?
I actually think the sorting hat shouldn't let the children have a choice. I mean, how many eleven year olds know what's really best for them? Also, how many people are the same age 11 and 18? Conclusion Sorting Hat = Ill-conceived macguffin
Why do people keep saying that you get to choose your house? Theres so many messages in here about how Bellatrix CHOSE Slytherin or it put her there because she wanted it.
Which, let me be clear here first, I wasn’t saying slytherin MADE her evil because slytherins ARE evil. I MEANT that Hufflepuff would’ve changed her and Slytherin was conducive to the way she was. Her family and all the other pureblood families and their ideas and ways of thinking have permeated that house for eons. So, no, not all slytherins are evil and the house doesn’t MAKE you evil but they wouldn’t have bothered to make Bella nice. I believe Hufflepuff would have. Sorry if that got misconstrued.
Anyway, this choosing houses thing. Is it because of Harry and his choice of Slytherin/Gryffindor? Because how does that even count? While Harry did have some traits that would fit into slytherin (but lets be honest, who DOESNT have traits that could fit into any of the houses) the only reason it pushed him towards slytherin so hard was because it was reading Voldemorts soul in his head.
“I always imagine that the Sorting Hat detected the presence of that piece of soul when Harry first tried it on, because it strongly tempted to put him in Slytherin.”JK Pottercast, December 2007 (same interview she said that Harry wasn’t ACTUALLY a horcrux, that dumbledore just called him that for convenience, if any of you want to read it. I know thats a popular debate topic.
And we know now that Neville ASKED to be put into Hufflepuff and the hat refused. So everytime this comes up I get really confused, what am I missing?
edit: Hermione didn’t CHOOSE gryffindor either. The hat “seriously considered” putting her in Ravenclaw, enough that she became a hatstall. But she didn’t PICK her house.
In your rape culture video, you mentioned that virginity ignores sexuality for queer transgender folks. Could you explain that just a little deeper please? I don't seem to understand entirely what you meant.
Sure! So I talked about how virginity was a social construct, and originally virginity was used as a marker of a woman’s value as a wife. Fathers were “gatekeepers” for their daughters’ virginities so they would be more valuable to potential husbands. This is where the concept of virginity came from–a time when women’s bodies were property. Men would actually do “hymen checks” on girls to make sure they were virgins (which is a super flawed system because there are several different types of hymens, hymens can be broken or stretched doing non-sexual activity, and some people are born without hymens at all).
Anyway, the idea was that any cis woman (although not that they would even recognize the existence of trans people back in the day) who had intercourse (penis in vagina–this system did not recognize any other type of sex) would have a “broken” hymen and thus would not be considered a virgin.
This system is very flawed, however, because it invalidates any other type of sex (anal, oral, manual, etc.). And since this is still widely the way we determine whether or not someone is a virgin today, many queer people and other sexual minorities find themselves unsure if the type of sex they have “counts”.
For example, a gay man might wonder if he is still a virgin if he has anal intercourse with another man because a vagina isn’t involved. Or a lesbian woman might wonder if sex that doesn’t involve being penetrated by a penis “counts”.
It also can be considered transphobic because it heavily centers around genitalia. It limits people and sex to body parts. What if a trans man who opts not to have gender affirming surgery (such as sex reassignment surgery) has sex with a cis woman in a relationship they define as heterosexual? Does that mean he is a virgin because the genitalia he was born with doesn’t fit the societal expectation of “maleness”?
Basically, the concept of virginity is an archaic social construct that confines sex to p-in-v intercourse and equates people with their genitalia based on hetero-and-cissexist (as well as misogynistic) assumptions about sexuality.
Reading through some of Emma Sulkowicz’s quotes from her talk, she seems to keep conflating what she repeatedly calls “science” with standard due process in the judicial system.
And while she makes some valid points, such as this:
She also says several things that don’t appear to make a single bit of sense. Perhaps I’m missing a larger message at hand but these quotes are confusing at best:
Why would you want to remove context? Won’t context be the driving force behind convicting your (alleged) rapist? Maybe someone can help me clarify this.
I wonder if the irony of the quote is lost on her, considering her entire Mattress-Carrying campaign was an “art piece” for her Master’s thesis. (She has several similar quotes regarding what she is calling “art”; I’m not entirely sure what she is referring to in that respect)
What the fuck does this even mean?
I wonder what other kinds of knowledge she is referring to here.
This one is one of the most troubling quotes for me. I understand that when it comes to something as private and invasive as sexual assault “proof” will be something that is hard to come by–aside from rape kits there aren’t very many concrete ways to prove consent–but when going through judicial process and a trial proof and evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, is the only way you are going to be able to get justice.
What other alternative would Sulkowicz provide to aid a case other than proof? If you cannot prove someone did something, how can you hope to successfully convict them?
I just find all of these quotes terribly confusing. I don’t claim to know what happened that night. At this point it is a he-said-she-said with some damning messages on her end, but nonsensical nature of this speech is very troubling to me.
i get so many comments saying “i don’t like the idea of privilege because it implies that having basic human rights is a privilege”
and i agree, white/male/cis/straight/middle-class/abled/etc. privileges shouldn’t be privileges–they should be a reality foreveryone
however, i think part of the reason so many privileged people have a problem with the concept of them being privileged, is because it shifts the perspective away from them and re-focuses it on people who belong to oppressed groups
for a privileged group, not being discriminated against because of their race or gender is something they have never had to deal with, so of course labeling that as a privilege seems ridiculous to them because that’s something they come to expect
however, non-privileged groups experience life very differently, and being discriminated against is something they have come to expect
it might seem like a subtle difference, but the concept of privilege is based on oppressed groups’ reality and view of the world, not on privileged groups’ view of the world
TH/LOTR: Legolas' change in nature/character development
There has been a lot of confusion over why Legolas’ character appears different in The Hobbit than it does in The Lord of The Rings. So I thought I’d share some of my thoughts on the subject to help people understand why he undergoes this change. In TH he is full of sorrow, and appears to be still grieving for the death of his mother. His behaviour is constantly being observed by his father and kin, for this reason he cannot show weakness. This includes showing compassion towards ‘lesser’ beings.
His change in nature seen in LOTR is partly due to him being away from Thranduil, Tauriel, and the elves of the Woodland realm. Mirkwood is a solemn place, and it’s understandable how the environment could have an affect on his personality. Just being around his father everyday would have had a huge influence on him, what with his selfishness and inconsiderate nature. However when Legolas parts with his father Thranduil finally tells him that his mother ‘loved him’, and I believe that hearing this helped Legolas recover from his grief.
In LOTR I have noticed that Legolas is less immature, he is not as stubborn and selfish as he once was, he is more compassionate and much wiser, and yet he is joyful. He actuallysmiles.
I believe that this is due to his time spent with Strider. Aragorn is a much kinder and gentler spirit than those of Legolas’ woodland kin, but growing up with the elves, he still understands their ways. It’s not hard to believe that Legolas is fascinated by Aragorn; a mortal man with the nature of an elf; a ranger who is in fact the heir to the throne of Gondor. It is apparent that during their time spent together Legolas learns a lot from him.
Both of them had lost their mothers, this being something they could both relate to. But where there was sorrow there was also happiness. Whilst in his company, Legolas was finally able to appreciate life and see the joys within it. Something that his father prevented him from doing.
“As you discuss this, please choose your words very carefully. Our mayor calling the participants in last night’s destruction “thugs” is unacceptable. Words matter. And they frame this debate. If you refer to the frustrated and disenfranchised as “animals,” then you are minimizing the complexity of this moment in history. We, as a nation, must be careful how we shape this narrative. Do not reach for the simple and easy explanations that we have been fed for generations. Embrace the confusion and complexity.“