What they seem to fail to realize it that you achieve that ‘element of danger/suspense’ through GOOD WRITING, not by  1) being stupid enough to actually kill off the main character of the show or  2) continuously beating home/toying with to your audience in interviews OUTSIDE the actual show that you’re going to kill off said character/characters.

Allow me to explain further. I read a lot of books. And I mean A LOT. A good book is not one in which the writer succeeds in ‘shocking’ me by killing off the main character. I don’t go: ‘Wow, look how good this writer is because they just killed off the main character and I’m so shocked!’

Um, no.

A good book is one where despite being certain the main narrative character of the story couldn’t possibly die, I find myself sitting on the edge of my seat, holding my breath, biting my nails, fearing for the life of my beloved character. Why? Because the writing is so good that I’m so caught up in the heat of the moment that I forget that it’s pretty much impossible that said main character will die/suffer some horrid fate.

THAT, ladies and gentleman, is good writing. Writing that manages to pull you into the story so completely that you’re entirely caught up in the moment. If you are seeking to achieve that element of suspense by doing either point 1 or 2 above it is the complete OPPOSITE of good writing. Particularly point 2. I’m so sick and tired of the way these writers keep toying with their audience.

Now, I know I’m kind of weird like this, but I don’t really like to read/watch interviews with show writers/actors. I don’t like hearing spoilers, and I don’t like hearing analysis of the characters/plots from the show’s team. Why? Because I like to interpret and draw my own conclusions rather than have them being told for me by the writers and actors that are privy to much more information than the audience. I’m not talking about discussion with fellow audience/fans. I’m talking about how watching interviews with the actors and writers is in a way kind of telling how you should feel/interpret something or someone on the show. Because, let’s be honest, most of the time if one of the writers or actors says something you are likely going to take it with you when you watch the show from then on. It’s hard not to when they are literally running the show. Anyways, I’m getting off topic. Sorry. My point is, I try to avoid reading interviews, but one of the disadvantages of joining tumblr is that I end up seeing/reading bits and pieces of them even when I try not to. I joined tumblr for the GIFs/edits/pictures. Regardless, despite my avoidance I have seen the writers make a reference to killing off Reese at least three times in the past few months.

At this point, I’m giving up truly caring when I see it again, but my respect for the writers of this show has gone down every time I see them comment and joke about it. And I’m someone who has praised their intelligent writing numerous times. I don’t know whether they are actually going to kill off Reese before the end of the series or if they are just saying it in interviews to ‘bring an element of danger,’ but either way their attitude in these interviews has dropped them way down in my book. I’m at the point where I’m going, fine, just please kill him off already then so I can stop watching the show. If you have to 1. brag to your audience about killing off characters, or 2. actually kill off the main character, OR 3. do both 1 & 2, in order to gain viewer suspense, then you are NOT doing a good job writing your story.  Yes, there are exceptions in some stories where killing off a main character works and/or needs to be done or whatever, but for most people, including myself, this does not usually make for a good story. Particularly in TV shows where said character has been one of the two dominant characters on screen for years.

Again, there are exceptions, but in most stories the most important aspect is the characters, and the plot comes in second. Obviously they are connected and the plot is important, BUT it is the characters that the audience connects with. Without them the plot is nothing. Who cares if the whole world is going to be taken over by an evil AI if you don’t care about anyone IN that world?

Main characters are NOT dispensable, and even if you as a writer do go down the route of sacrificing one of them you do it with RESPECT. Particularly in TV where there are two elements that make up a good character. One, is the writing, but another is the actor who brought the character to life and brought a little bit of themselves to the role. This is what the audience falls in love with and it can’t be so easily replaced or sacrificed. If Reese goes, a huge portion of viewers will to, no doubt (including me). And even if the writers are willing to make that sacrifice, it matters greatly HOW you do it. Toying with your audience, disrespecting both their dedication AND the actors’ is not the way to go about it. And while as a writer you obviously hold the power, a good writer also respects their audience. To quote JK Rolling, “No story lives unless someone wants to listen.”

Sammy Winchester's "confession" (10x18)

Did anyone else find Sam’s confession to Charlie odd? He’s come to “love” the hunting life? Sam has never loved the hunting life and to believe it, I need “show”, not one line of “tell”.

When Sam thought he would go down with the Devil, he told Dean to get out and live a “normal, apple-pie life”. And when Dean was lost to him (in Purgatory) he gave it up and tried to settle with Riot and Amelia.

Sure, he may have changed his mind since then, but we haven’t seen the evidence. Certainly the discovery of the “Men of Letters” legacy and the fact that lore knowledge is historically a complementary part of hunting, has given Sam greater scope for the research loving side of him to fit in with “the life”. (Forever in love with Bobby, who was a self-taught lore expert, someone who cracked old books as easy as pack rock salt cartridges, but who would have had a pithy thing or two to say about MoL snobbery about hunters). But, I’m still not buying that Sam “loves” his present life. Sure - he loves his brother - that’s not in question.

Sam hasn’t had a break since he saved the world from Satan. He came back without his soul, their angel buddy went crazy and let the tortures of Hell back into his mind, Leviathan chewed up the world, he lost Bobby and then his brother. When Dean came back he was pissed at him. So, Sam threw himself back in with added guilt - and committed to death in order to close the gates of Hell. Sure seemed to have had a death-wish on that one. But, he let his brother talk him out of it at the last minute, got possessed by an angel against his will, and now? He is now struggling not to lose his brother to demon-hood. Who in their right mind would “love” that life?

Sam’s moment with Charlie was very welcome, on one level, because we hardly ever hear Sam talk about himself with anyone. But, I’m not buying it.

Give us more of Sam’s interiority by all means! I want to see the objects in Sam’s room - the music he loves, the journal he keeps to help him deal with the nightmares he still has about the Pit, the photograph of Bobby he talks to sometimes when he’s worried about Dean, but doesn’t want to add to Cas' own anxiety on the subject. Give us the Sumerian languages professor with whom Sam makes friends, and their occasional café meetings to talk obscure translations. Give us her curiosity about him, his deflections. Hell, give us some moments, when Sam and Dean catch breath and we actually see them enjoying each other’s company “off duty”. 

But have Sam tell Charlie he “loves” his life, with no back up? I’m a sceptic.  

So my question is, was Sam’s confession that he “loves” his life incongruent because the writing room has neglected the interiority of the character for so long? Or was it supposed to jar? 

Why I am feminist and Pro Life

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?

Let's Extend the Color Wheel!

What do artists do when nothing they do goes right? They start messing with other people’s templates. A terrible week later, it’s turned out to be both more productive than anticipated and significantly unproductive. Think I’ll call it a success?

Though the colors go all around the wheel, it is far from complete. There are many shades of some colors and a severe lack of others. In my opinion, the lack is mainly in the white and yellow regions. Additionally, there isn’t exactly a palatable pink in there for me. And last, but not least, Windsinger green is actually nowhere to be found. SO…

I present to you the off-whites: porcelain, sugar, and glass. Porcelain in particular is something special. White is a silver-toned color, like horses or white shepherds. There’s no real albino white sort of palette, so I made one.

To the other side is blush and guava, neither too neon nor too fleshy. Kind of fruity. Guava ended up looking like tangerine and coral’s lovechild.

Merlot was intended to be a sort of transitioning wine color, which is an area which has been completely cut off. Note that there are transition colors for all the other areas. Carmine is a pinkish red, seafoam and jade blueish greens, spring a yellowish green, goldenrod a greenish (greyish…) yellow, gold, sunshine, sand, rust, storm, thistle, black, platinum—all transition colors. (Notice platinum has whitish tones.) Mulberry is kind of like the magenta of the purple range, but it’s still not particularly between. Merlot didn’t turn out too great, and looks like some crimson-blood mix.

Honey and vanilla, because the yellows were in need of… not so much colors as palettes. Vanilla is a softer palette. Honey is a not-too-bold palette that does us a favor and doesn’t fall into the rotting fruit colors, neon, nor orange-yellow. Gold… does weird things sometimes. Most the yellows have a brownish accent that I don’t care for.

Mint is because there is a shameful lack of mint.

Muave is another of those transition colors, intended to do the transition between pink and purple (which it would if it weren’t skipped by the monochrome range). Didn’t quite work, but good color.

Periwinkle is because I saw the color on the fae male on a demo and decided it should be here.

And this is the point where I remember that I’ve forgotten to add the sepia tones I’d seen on the guardians demo.

No, I didn’t color the shading. It’d make it look better, but it’d hurt!

Palettes (particularly the bases) could’ve been tweaked better… P=

(The wee boxes are of the full color wheel guide by Resonance, here. It’s what I used to figure out which color went where on the fae.)

How would you extend the color wheel?


I think that this is something that is very important to talk about, Especially in the time that we are living in. Scale is important, I agree. It affects the overall experience of viewing the work, but that experience can only be felt in reality. Through digital means I feel as though size can be a set back in some cases. Maybe set back is the wrong term to use. I guess I mean it alters our interpretation. There is no opportunity to relate the space you’re occupying to the size of the artwork. The beautiful details shrink to a size that is barely noticeable.

I personally have noticed when I create larger works that they are definitely more striking in person when compared to my smaller works. When I share them in a digital space though they are often overlooked. The time spent does not translate to this realm of viewing. The pieces get the same amount of attention as smaller works. In most cases less attention. The digital space seems to level the playing field between small and large works. This is something that I find very interesting.

This question came from a conversation I was having with antropomorfisme. We were discussing size when it comes to art, specifically the fact that I tend to work in a smaller scale. He said,

“I saw that you mostly work in smaller scales. It’s kinda special, actually. It gives you a kind of authenticity, in a way. I also don’t know why people tend to like, or even expect artworks that are larger. But I must admit that I’m not different! It’s something that’s indoctrinated in this society, in the people’s minds. The ‘being able to put in a museum’-size tends to be more ‘attractive’. It seems to have a credibility of sorts.“

I feel that what he’s saying brings up another interesting question. Is scale a part of the public’s overall perception of what “good” art is? Can scale make or break the interpretation of a given piece of art?

Now for a tangent.

This discussion reminds me of the movie Synecdoche, New York. It’s a great movie that you all should see if you haven’t already. In the movie Caden Cotard’s (Philip Seymour Hoffman) wife, Adele Lack (Catherine Keener) is a painter. She works in an extremely small scale. I was very impressed by this when I saw the movie. She went the opposite direction. She scaled everything down to bring the viewer in.

I just read an article that states…

“Adele’s paintings are minuscule portraits that resemble tiny Lucian Freuds. They are so small that one must wear magnifying glasses to view them and she ships them in miniature crates that look as if they were made for a dollhouse. It’s a visual joke that counters the heroic, macho scale adopted by many New York painters, but the actual work is nothing special, and their size ultimately boils down to a marketing gimmick.“

I don’t think the author of the article was aware of the fact that the paintings were actually by a very talented artist named Alex Kanevsky, and saying they’re “nothing special” honestly infuriates me.

Thank you all for the replies/comments!

Episode 91, a day late but totes worth it! This week we’re talking Kylie Jenner’s blackface drama, Trevor Noah and the Daily Show, Jay Z’s Tidal announcement, and answering listener questions. Enjoy! Breakdown:

3:40 - Garissa and the Dehumanization of Black Bodies*

8:55 - The Pros and Cons of Trevor Noah on The Daily Show

19:25 - But Like Seriously What Is Tidal 

28:50- Free Purvi Patel

40:00 - Kylie Jenner - So Is It Blackface Or Nah?

49:00 - Listener Question: How To Find a Girl Squad

*tw for mentions of violence, rape during this convo

Like, Reblog, and Enjoy!

Ask Box





Episode Thoughts

I’ve had a long day and I’ve only just seen the episode and I don’t normally do my own thought posts but hey why not?

Episodes like this are always going to be hard to watch because let’s face it, we’re all pretty much the Aaron when it comes to Robert. We think he’s a hot bastard who does stupid things but we see something better in him and did I mention he looks good in a pair of black pants? I digress. So see him get cosy and sexy with Chrissie is not an enjoyable watch especially when you see said scenes and wish they were with Aaron (saying that, ‘coupley/sexy Chrobert scenes have been very thin on the ground). 

But let’s face it, Robert’s behaviour was very much a panic, try hard reaction. I’ve always been someone who believes he loves Chrissie for more than just the status and money but think of all the occasions he’s ditched her and everything (and at times when she needs him the most) for Aaron. But Donny comes along, the biggest threat to his precarious set up - he’s being there for Chrissie and the family in a way Robert can’t be - and now Chrissie takes priority. With all this going on, Robert seeks out Aaron in a very risky place to kiss him and did (even if he pulled out in a shitty and cowardly way) make plans with Aaron in an offer to make up to him - even risking a potential night away. You actually see the light switch flick when Chrissie starts praising Donny like he can feel his position/respect/authority/manhood/role just slipping away and he feels the need to “reassert” himself (yeah I know, bit gross, soz). Robert’s relationship with Chrissie is very reactive.  

Of course the worst part of this is its impact on Aaron. It’s such shitty behaviour towards Aaron, we know it is and that’s why it hurts us for him. A break is what they need, they both need. I welcome it, I welcome Robert’s turning point because Aaron shouldn’t stand for it and I’m glad he’s giving Robert stick for it too. 

I have about three thousand buckets full of hope for the future though and of course I’m in it for the long haul. I still 100% Robert loves Aaron and nothing tonight changed that for me. He has so much blood flowing to his dick it does restrict his brain power - it’s one problem at a time - I mean, bless. ;) Jokes, obviously. But seriously, so much of his focus is on “What does Robert need/want?” that he doesn’t have much empathy for others. And who does see a rare flash of that now and again? Aaron. It’s not like he feels guilty for cheating on Chrissie and it’s not as if tonight’s big show was about her either. He might as well just ask Donny for a measuring contest.

tl;dr: Bring it. You’ll have to prise this ship out of my cold dead hands.

On Episode 92 of the podcast we’re addressing the trolls who blew up our inbox over this post, discussing the dangers of “beauty science” and beauty standards, as well as Walter Scott, Eddie Huang’s tweets on ‘Fresh Off The Boat’, new diverse emojis, and more. FYI - I (Zeba) was very sick when recording this so sorry for the coughing. Also I was very sick while editing so please listen and reblog, retweet, share :). Enjoy! Breakdown:

2:00 - On the Dangers of ‘Beauty Science’ - A Message To Our Trolls 

18:41 - What Is A Justin Bieber

29:30 - A Few Words On Walter Scott’s Murder

37:15- Eddie Huang and the Authenticity of ‘Fresh Off The Boat’

47:50 - Emoji Fever

49:50 - Fariha’s Witchy Corner, Zeba’s Birthday, #BBHM…at this point we’re literally just chatting <3

Like, Reblog, and Enjoy!

Ask Box





floofiemoko asked:

So I've been wondering why when Cartman fights Kyle he isn't that tough but in other situations Cartman is shown to be pretty strong. Could he be holding back for some reason or is Kyle as strong as Cartman?

Yes, this is a strong headcanon of mine. You can definitely tell when Cartman’s holding back on someone, and it’s primarily shown with Kyle. He’s rarely ever fought Kyle with malice, and even if he is angry with Kyle he’ll just hold him down. 

But other than that it’s clear that he goes easy on Kyle, and doesn’t really take it seriously. The only time he really fought against Kyle instead of just taking a hit was that slap fight.

As opposed to things like:

He’s obviously not using all his strength or looking to hit that hard, when fighting Kyle. 

Jupiter’s Inheritance

This topic has come up several times recently, but I’m interested in hearing other people’s thoughts on this - do you think Jupiter was only left Earth in Seraphi’s will, or was there more to the inheritance than that? I don’t recall anything indicating that there was more to Jupiter’s inheritance, though she does seem to be entitled to a royal guard.

Personally, I’m inclined to think that she was entitled to Earth and some perks on account of her status as Seraphi’s recurrence; no other planet is brought up as now belonging to Jupiter, and since Balem is so pedantic and profit-oriented I don’t see him ignoring the other planets in Jupiter’s inheritance to obsess over Earth alone. 

Seraphi seems to have had a sentimental attachment to Earth, and I can imagine her leaving it to her eventual recurrence on account of that - if she were ever to ‘come back’, she wanted her new self to possess the planet she loved.

But that’s just my thoughts. What do you think?