awkward writing moments

anonymous asked:

mickey and ian getting into an argument when they get home about ian grabbing his ass in public.... omg.

Mickey kicked the door open, the flimsy wood smacking against the wall hard enough to leave a dent in the plaster. He shimmied out of his jacket, his arms flailing with an urgency and anger Ian had never seen before. He didn’t know someone could even take their jacket off angrily until he met Mickey.

“You gotta stop doin’ that shit. Next time I’m gonna punch you in the throat,” Mickey said over his shoulder on his way to the kitchen.

Ian just shook his head, closing the door gently behind him and picking up Mickey’s jacket from where he threw it on the floor. He took his own jacket off slowly, placing both of them on the coat rack in the hall.

“Come on Mick, it’s not that big a deal,” Ian said as he walked closer to his irritated boyfriend.

Keep reading

Moeyy’s Awkward Moment Birthday Challenge!

It’s that time again, people. Since my birthday is in a few months, and I’m seriously itching to host another challenge, here’s this!

Theme: So, life is full of awkward moments. No one can really argue with that. But, we can certainly embrace it!


Fandom(s): Supernatural or The Walking Dead (yes, you read that right).

– You don’t need to be following me, but it would be very nice if you were. I won’t bite.

– For this challenge, pick one prompt, and write an awkward fic about it!

– Feel free to write fluff, smut, angst, or any combination of those! Whatever you’d like, as long as there is an awkward moment shoved in there! No, the entire fic doesn’t need to be awkward, unless you want it to be!

– It can be any pairing: ships, reader insert, friend!reader or sister!reader. RPF is also welcome. Whatever you’d like!

– There is no word limit, just make sure you use the Keep Reading cut if it is over 500 words.

– Please make sure that the awkward moment/prompt inspires your story, and isn’t just a tiny blip in the fic. Let the awkward shine, people! Embrace it!

Please tag me in your fic! It helps me track it for the master list I will make when it’s done. :) And make sure that one of your first three tags is “#Moeyy’s Awkward Moments Birthday Challenge”. Sorry it’s such a long tag.

Please shoot me an ask with your choice, your pairing, and a back up.

– Let me know if you have any questions. I will always allow extensions if needed. Just let me know as soon as possible if you need one.

The deadline for this challenge is November 16, 2017! My 25th birthday. :)

Prompts below the cut!

Keep reading

I’ve just been thinking (I know, that’s dangerous) that even though like almost everybody claims that the twins are exactly alike (besides the loss of an ear and a loss of a twin :/) I think otherwise… I’ve always thought that George was the more moral of the twins. Just looking back at pranks they did alone-ish, and pranks they haven’t done in front of Harry, George always seems more merciful…. For example, Fred was the one who transfigured Ron’s teddy bear into a spider in the first place, sparking Ron’s Arachnophobia. While George gave Ron the dud spell: “Sunshine, Daisies, Buttermellow, turn this stupid fat rat yellow.” The worst possible result of this prank-spell is merely public embarrassment, which anyone can recover from with enough time, while Fred’s spider prank’s worst possible result is a 4 year old traumatized for the rest of his life. Sure, you must admit, there is a bit of an age difference between these two pranks, Fred is like 6 in the spider prank, while George is around 12 or 13, so maybe you’re thinking, “They just matured a little, but only George had the opportunity to show it.” Well if you thought this, my dear reader, you are wrong. In the fourth book, when the twins made a bet with Bagman, and he didn’t pay up, Fred and George were found arguing in the owlery about whether to blackmail him or not. This is what they said, and I quote:

“’–That’s blackmail, that is, we could get into a lot of trouble for that–’

’–we’ve tried being polite; it’s time to play dirty, like him. He wouldn’t like the Ministry of Magic knowing what he did–’

‘I’m telling you, if you put that in writing, it’s blackmail!’

'Yeah, and you won’t be complaining if we get a nice fat payoff, will you?’ The Owlery door banged open. Fred and George came over the threshold, then froze at the sight of Harry, Ron, and Hermione…” it later goes on to say, “'Ron didn’t move. 'Who’re you blackmailing?’ he said. The grin vanished from Fred’s face. Harry saw George half glance at Fred, before smiling at Ron. 'Don’t be stupid, I was only joking,’ he said easily. 'Didn’t sound like that,’ said Ron. Fred and George looked at each other. Then Fred said abruptly, 'I’ve told you before, Ron, keep your nose out if you like it the shape it is. Can’t see why you would, but–’ 'It’s my business if you’re blackmailing someone,’ said Ron. 'George’s right, you could end up in serious trouble for that.’

Based on this, we can see that George was the one that was saying blackmail was wrong, and even though he was the one that sent the owl in the end and claimed he was joking, I bet that was just to cover for Fred, because why else would he continue arguing against sending the letter if he was only joking, and there wasn’t a better reason not to send it off other than blackmail? George also knows where to draw the line, when Arthur was attacked in Ootp, and Sirius forbids the Weasleys to go to Saint Mungo’s until they at least alert Molly, so it doesn’t cause awareness to Harry’s visions, the argument goes like this:

”'Hang on, you can’t go tearing off to St. Mungo’s!’ Said Sirius. 'Course we can go to St. Mungo’s if want,’ said Fred, with a mulish expression, 'he’s our dad!’

'And how are you going to explain how you knew Arthur was attacked before the hospital even let his wife know?’ 'What does that matter?’ Said George, hotly. 'It matters because we don’t want to draw attention to the fact that Harry is having visions of things that are happening hundreds of miles away!’ said Sirius angrily. 'Have you any idea what the Ministry would make of that information?’ Fred and George looked as though they could not care less what the Ministry made of anything. Ron was still white-faced and silent. Ginny said, 'Somebody else could have told us… We could have heard it somewhere other than Harry…’ 'Like who?’ said Sirius impatiently. 'Listen, your dad’s been hurt while on duty for the Order and the circumstances are fishy enough without his children knowing about it seconds after it happened, you could seriously damage the Order’s–’ 'We don’t care about the dumb Order!’ shouted Fred. 'It’s our dad dying we’re talking about!’ yelled George. 'Your father knew what he was getting into, and he won’t thank you for messing things up for the Order!’ said Sirius angrily in his turn. 'This is how it is– this is why you’re not in the Order– you don’t understand– there are things worth dying for!’ 'Easy for you to say, stuck here!’ bellowed Fred. 'I don’t see you risking your neck!’ The little color remaining in Sirius’s face drained from it. He looked for a moment as though he would quite like to hit Fred, but when he spoke it was in a voice of determined calm….“

Not only does this show what an awesome and totally supportive father figure Sirius would be, but it shows how savage Fred has the potential to be. This is probably the angriest either twin has been in the entire series, and Fred takes his anger to a nightmare level. You do NOT want to make Fred angry, he’s like a ticking pipe bomb with X-ray vision, seeing your greatest insecurities. We all know how much Sirius wanted to help the Order, and how frustrated he was with being cooped up for so long, and Fred sees this and uses it to his advantage in arguments. George was merely trying to convince Sirius to let them go to St. Mungo’s, and while Fred does the same thing, he tries showing dominance over Sirius by tearing him down. It also seems Fred and George’s senses of humor are actually pretty different. You see, as I previously mentioned, Fred’s pranks tend to do more harm than good most of the time, while George’s are usually just innocent pranks that may be annoying, but pretty much harmless… Heck, George is even inclined to make fun of himself for the sake of laughter. Need I put any examples? Just look back at the "I’m holey!” Scene and you’ll 100% agree with me. His ear was frickin’ blown off his face with creepy voodoo magic and he jokes about it like 5 minutes afterwards… that’s pretty lit, you must admit it…

And I’m not hating on Fred at all, Merlin knows after JKR killed him I needn’t tarnish his memory… and please, I’m not saying that Fred is a good-for-nothing bully, because he isn’t, it was mostly close family he was picking on and I’m pretty sure it was all intended to be playful, I’m just saying George is the quieter, more gentle twin, and if anybody states that they are carbon copies of each other, I’m going to die and then they are going to be charged with involuntary manslaughter and then when they attend my funeral, this post that you’re reading right now will be read there in my memoriam, and then they’ll die of shock and I will have gotten my revenge from the grave. Sorry, admin’s weird today…

Hey guys, I wrote my final research paper for Psychology on the authenticity of Dissociative Identity Disorder.

I’m not like, scholarly or some shit - but take a gander if you like, show your friends when they’re all - “you don’t exist”. 


(uh…I don’t know where else to put it….so i’m just gonna copy paste………so scholarly.) 



Dissociative Identity Disorder:
Fantasy or a Unique Reality?
Brittany Hersman
John Tyler Community College


Dissociative Identity Disorder is a Dissociative Disorder diagnosable under the DSM-5 that has received severe skepticism. Those who subscribe to a belief that DID is a manufactured condition state that the disorder is iatrogenic in nature – having a causation of fantasy proneness, therapist suggestion, client suggestibility, etc. This paper will define Dissocative Identity Disorder and present various examples and findings refuting numerous criticisms, and thereby suggesting the authenticity of the phenomenon.  

Dissociative Identity Disorder:

Fantasy or an Authentic Reality?

Dissociative Identity Disorder, formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder, is of the rarest and most misunderstood psychiatric disorders. Its existence dates back to the early 19th century, when French psychiatrist Janet (1889) introduced the idea of multiple personalities to the medical community (Stickley, T.,& Nickeas, R, 2006). To date, it has received perhaps the most skepticism and criticism of any diagnosis. The DSM-5 lists Dissociative Identity Disorder under the category of Dissociative Disorders. It is defined as “a disruption of and/or discontinuity in the normal, subjective integration of one or more aspects of psychological functioning, including—but not limited to—memory, identity, consciousness, perception, and motor control” (Spiegel, D., Loewenstein, R., Lewis-Fernández, R., Sar,V., Simeon, D., Vermetten, E., Dell, P, 2011). Patients diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) have developed two or more personalities, “each with its own way of being; its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to and thinking about the environment and self” (Spiegel, D., Loewenstein, R., Lewis-Fernández, R., Sar,V., Simeon, D., Vermetten, E., Dell, P, 2011). These personalities are often referred to as “alters".

Perhaps the largest criticism of DID is that its diagnoses are due to “fantasy proneness, suggestibility, suggestion, and role-playing” (Reinders, Willemsen, Vos, Boer, & Nijenhuis, 2012). The disorder has been linked strongly to false memory syndrome, dating all the way back to the psychiatrist Janet (1889) who was suspected of projecting ideas of abuse onto her patients (Stickley, T.,& Nickeas, R, 2006). While many remain skeptical of the existence and legitimacy of DID, it is vital that we broaden our understanding of this fascinating phenomenon – as research suggests it is in fact authentic, and a thorough understanding is key to helping those who currently suffer from its effects.

Daily Life with Dissociative Identity Disorder

            There are many things we take for granted, but to an individual diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder, one of those things may be as simple as remembering where we were last night. While the disorder is not as glorified or even obvious as Hollywood may present with movies like “Sybil” (Stickley, T.,& Nickeas, R, 2006) and television series like “United States of Tara”, it can be a terrifying experience. In the article “Becoming One Person: Living with Dissociative Identity Disorder” a nurse and an individual living with alters for most of her life come together in order to shatter some of the common misconceptions of the disorder (Stickley, T.,& Nickeas, R, 2006). The patient, Rachel, was the daughter of a bipolar schizophrenic father and a mother who was eventually admitted to a psychiatric hospital in 1964 (Stickley, T.,& Nickeas, R, 2006). She endured significant verbal, physical, and sexual abuse from both parents – as well as friends of parents (Stickley, T.,& Nickeas, R, 2006). Unknowingly, Rachel began using dissociative methods in order to cope with her abuse – eventually developing Dissociative Identity Disorder. “In order to cope with such persistent abuse, Rachel began to ‘sit beside herself’ so that it didn’t seem to be happening to her. She found a way of watching what happened rather than endure it herself.” (Stickley, T.,& Nickeas, R, 2006).

            Rachel experienced textbook DID symptoms through adolescence and into adulthood, and went on to live most of her life with no diagnosis or psychotherapeutic interference (Stickley, T.,& Nickeas, R, 2006). With this evidence, it is hard to understand a firm belief in DID existing as an iatrogenic disorder (Stickley, T.,& Nickeas, R, 2006).

The Evolution of Alters

Michael Pica of Central Michigan University further explains the development of the DID patient’s personality states in his article titled “The Evolution of Alter Personality States in Dissociative Identity Disorder”.  While many skeptics question why one child may develop Dissociative Identity Disorder following trauma and another may not, writers have begun to describe a prime window for DID development (Pica, M., & Silverman, 1999). “Manner (1991) suggested ‘the window between 18 months and 4 to 5 years of age represents the period of greatest vulnerability for the development of DID’ (p. 685). He attributed this to the tendency to use splitting defenses during this time in development and the still cloudy distinction between self and object” (Pica, M., & Silverman, 1999). There may however be something to the idea that DID relies on a proneness to fantasy – but not in the way criticism implies. Pica (1999) notes, “at about the same time the child begins using dissociation to escape immediate threats in the lived-world, he or she stumbles across another means by which to protect the self from owning the horrendous experiences of traumatic abuse, namely, the ability to form imaginary companions.” According to Wickes (1966) and Nagera (1969), (as cited in Pica, M., & Silverman, 1999), imaginary companions are used by children as a means to fulfill psychological needs. Research done by Lynn, Rhue, and Green (1988) discovered some 4% of the population who are highly hypnotizable, hallucinate vividly, and have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality. These children may be more fantasy prone than others, enabling them to use their companions in unique ways (Pica, M., & Silverman, 1999). Pica explains that this equation of the fantasy prone 4% and trauma occurring during the window of Dissociative Identity Disorder development could explain the fraction of children that do develop DID, citing the Three Stage Theory of development (Pica, M., & Silverman, 1999 p.410).           

Inducing psychobiological symptoms of Dissociative Identity Disorder. In the Psychobiological Study of Authentic and Simulated Dissociative Identity States conducted by A. A. T. Simone Reinders, Antoon T. M. Willemsen, Herry P. J. Vos, Johan A. den Boer, and Ellert R. S. Nijenhuis (2012), 11 diagnosed DID patients were studied alongside a selection of 10 healthy high fantasy prone and 8 healthy low fantasy prone individuals. A priori hypothesis was that DID patients would have a difference in psychophysiological and neurobiological behavior while engaged in a neutral identity state and in a trauma identity state (Reinders, Willemsen, Vos, Boer, & Nijenhuis, 2012). High fantasy prone and low fantasy prone controls were then asked to simulate the neutral identity states as well as the trauma identity sates. “Brain imaging data, autonomic (systolic and diastolic blood pressure, discrete heart rate and heart rate variability (HRV)) and subjective (controls’ subjective sensorimotor and emotional experiences)” (Reinders, Willemsen, Vos, Boer, & Nijenhuis, 2012).

Not only did findings continue to support the hypothesis that those patients with Dissociative Identity Disorder would have differing psychophysiological and neurobiological patterns between neutral identity states and trauma identity states, but the identity states were not “convincingly enacted by DID simulating controls” (Reinders, Willemsen, Vos, Boer, & Nijenhuis, 2012). Furthermore, the study actually found that those controls who were low fantasy prone did a better job simulating the personality states than those of which were high fantasy prone (Reinders, Willemsen, Vos, Boer, & Nijenhuis, 2012, p.9). Based on these findings, Reinders, Willemsen, Vos, Boer, and Nijenhuis (2012) believe their study “provides an important contribution to the etiology discussion.”

The study gives strong evidence against the Sociocognitive Model of Dissociative Identity Disorder, not only by providing observable data against it, but also by unexpectedly dislodging its foothold in the high fantasy prone theory.       

The Quest Continues

            In order to understand the phenomenon that is Dissociative Identity Disorder, we must continue to research and attempt to understand the rare cases that present themselves. Although many question the validity of its existence, it is undeniable that DID is recognized by not only the DSM-5 – but by the multitude of patients diagnosed each year. It is imperative that we shake the mystical stigma that has been applied to this complex personality ailment, and give it the attention it deserves. 


Pica, M., & Silverman, Wade H. (1999). THE EVOLUTION OF ALTER PERSONALITY STATES IN DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 36(4), 404-415.

Simone Reinders, A., Willemsen, A., Vos, H., Den Boer, J., Nijenhuis, E., & Laks, J. (2012). Fact or Factitious? A Psychobiological Study of Authentic and Simulated Dissociative Identity States (Dissociative Identity Disorder:Fact or Factitious?). PLoS ONE, 7(6), E39279

Spiegel, D., Loewenstein, R., Lewis-Fernández, R., Sar, V., Simeon, D., Vermetten, E., … Dell, P. (2011). Dissociative disorders in DSM-5. Depression and Anxiety, 28(9), 824-52.

Stickley, T., & Nickeas, R. (2006). Becoming one person: Living with dissociative identity disorder.Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 13(2), 180-187.

That awkward moment when you’re writing a story and you already have the love interest plan out and stuff but another character seems to just pop up and your just like ‘Oh, they have a good dynamic.’

And then you go, 'Shit if this thing ever gets published there’s going to be a shipping war.’


Title: direct sunlight
Summary: Adulthood AU where Kageyama works a boring office job, Hinata is a pro athlete, and Yachi’s mom just wants the best for her daughter (even though she has no idea what that actually is). Written for the Kagehina Exchange 2015 for #16.

“So, how do you know Hitoka-chan?” Hinata asks.

“Oh, uh. I work with her mom. She set us up on a date,” Kageyama says.

“I can see how you’d be a good match, if she wasn’t so in love with Kiyoko-chan,” Hinata says. “She’s small and cute, and you’re all tall and cranky-looking, but I bet you’ve got a soft side.”

You’re small and cute, Kageyama thinks.

Link: here!


anonymous asked:

hey, just wondering if you have any good tips for showing that two characters are angry at each other without actually getting them into a huge blowout fight? and also, if you've got extra time on your hands, for writing scenes that are embarrassing and/or awkward for your main character? :') thanks

Use subtext and condescension. Your characters can be passive aggressive, sarcastic, they can make snide comments at one another, or anything else that a particular person might do when angry.

Some people give others the silent treatment, some people hide possessions of others, some people give condescending compliments, some people smile and plan their revenge for later. It really depends on your characters and how they’re feeling.

For writing awkward moments, don’t be afraid to go through with it. Many writers end up weakening awkward and embarrassing scenes because they end up getting second-hand embarrassment. Try your hardest to push through this. If you get second-hand embarrassment, you’re doing something right.

Awkward moments can come without warning, or they can build up. Sometimes people know that something embarrassing is about to happen, but there’s not much they can do to stop it.

When people are embarrassed, they do weird things or they panic and then do something awkward. Even if they don’t do something awkward (like leaving the scene), it can feel like an awkward moment because everyone might be watching them. Try to set up the mood for these scenes in a way that makes them unbearable to be in.

Focus on what your character is feeling and how people are reacting to this moment. Focus on how your character reacts to those reactions. Do they panic and do nothing? Do they try to make a getaway? Do they laugh it off? Do they try to do something else to create a distraction?

Read some embarrassing stories to see what other writers have done. These types of stories aren’t at all that hard to find online and they’re pretty short.