me motivating myself

2

didnt wanna risk star magics-ing her hair into oblivion so marco decided to grow it out manually. it’s a process, but she’s getting there. (the hoodie remains a staple, obviously,)

I👏🏻CAN👏🏻NOT👏🏻EXPLAIN👏🏻HOW👏🏻IMPORTANT👏🏻IT👏🏻IS👏🏻TO👏🏻START👏🏻YOUR👏🏻PROJECT👏🏻THE👏🏻DAY👏🏻YOU👏🏻GET👏🏻IT👏🏻AND👏🏻FINISH👏🏻IT👏🏻WEEKS👏🏻BEFORE 👏🏻THE👏🏻DUE👏🏻DATE👏🏻INSTEAD👏🏻OF👏🏻THE👏🏻NIGHT👏🏻BEFORE👏🏻

i wish i could do things right and i wish i had motivation to get up

My 51 year old therapist mother LOVES Pokemon go

(Edit: my mom is only in here as brandy bc I imported a lot of my contacts from her phone and I haven’t ever bothered to change it. She and I get along perfectly, please don’t assume otherwise. I read tags and I see people doing it and it sucks to see)

(edit number 2: lay off on harassing me about my messages holy shit half of those were happy birthday texts from the day before and the other half were coupons. also depression makes it really hard for me to motivate myself to reply sometimes too. idk why i thought i could post this and nobody would find anything to pick at on this fucking website)

mild-lunacy  asked:

I have a question I think a lot of us in fandom struggle with: how do you manage to ignore not just the *specific* things Moffat and Gatiss say about John and Sherlock, but the overall idea they have always suggested that they genuinely didn't mean to write Sherlock as in love with with John and vice versa? Obviously, they *have* indeed written it regardless, but how does one integrate their constant denials with that? Aside from dismissing the importance of Authorial Intent entirely, I mean?

I’m afraid that’s not a path I can go down. I continue to admire these writers and what they’ve created, though I don’t understand why they would discredit a perfectly valid reading of their story. I stand by the reading I see, and while you and they are welcome to decide that I am too fanciful, overthinking things, or am seeing what I want to see rather than what’s actually there, I am confident that what I see in the story is defensible as a reading, backed up by textual evidence perceived through reasonable eyes. I’m happy to continue interpreting and re-interpreting that evidence here among other fans, being influenced by others and tweaking my views on this story in perpetuity. The evidence exists to support these conversations and interpretations, and frankly that’s enough for me.

As you know, I have never predicted that any particular ending was inevitable. Stories have patterns, but stories are engineered by human beings and are not predictable. But ships cannot be killed by creators; they only get more interesting the more obstacles get thrown in their way. I object to all attempts to control a fandom through creator edict. 

Stories are always collaborations with the reader, or in this case, the viewer. I reserve the right to interpret as I see fit. What I will not do is insist that the writers see it the way I do, defend their choice to write a story different than the one I would write, or question why they do what they do. None of us can guess at that. You can spin any theory you like about why this or that pressure from there or whatever is the cause, but I won’t follow you there. I don’t write meta about human beings, I write about fictional people. Fictional people can be fully known and dissected; actual people, you, me, the writers, cannot.

We may never know the answers to your questions, and we have to accept that. We aren’t owed the inner thoughts of Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss. They are free to say what they like.

To me, the story stands alone, and the story is generous with its evidence. I’ll stick to that.