not my art or my work or my edit blah blah

Character breakdown for After School Affairs

Yahooooo final-freaking-ly they are releasing this app! I’m super excited for this game since it was released in Japan partly because I love the art style (same artist as FILA from what I heard) but mostly cause of the theme of ‘No Love Allowed’ cause this reminds me of high school where its an unwritten rule discouraging students to have romantic relationship (they meant well as they want us to be good young ladies and focus on school and extra curriculum and exams and not get knock up to be on a reality show and blah blah blah).

Long story short I already love the game so here are my thoughts and impressions of each of the characters of the game. Keep in mind this is my opinions from what I read on the Japan app with the help of crappy google translator before voltage drop the international version.

  • EDITED: I got several messages about misjudging some of the characters/routes and have edited all of my opinions about the characters to avoid more misjudgement. I’m really sorry if I wrongly or misrepresented any of the characters but as I disclaimed above this is my impression/prediction for the game and was just something I wrote for fun in excitement for the international released. If there is ANYTHING wrong please be kind when informing me.

Beware for mild spoilers and me rambling

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

hey i just discovered feminist literary theory is a thing and i'm way too old to have just discovered that, i'm not a person who is grounded in english at all. like, i'm almost done with my gsex minor and i JUST discovered literary theory, which is so unlike reg fem theory, which has so far for been just about riot grrrl and slutwalks and blah blah blah white stuff anyway we read bell hooks, eve sedgwick, cixous, va woolf, nella larsen, winnett, kristeva....i what should i read next?

It sounds like you are doing really good so far! This is not my expertise except that I have had some training in it I guess. Feminist theory as it is a thing is not really distinct from literary theory,* or, they are embedded in each other. One important reason is that feminist literary theory is not necessarily about literary objects as much as it is about language (and other stuff I guess) and, like, I’m not really sure how to tell you to get into Lacan but you should at least familiarize yourself with Simone de Beauvoir–I really liked Butler on de Beauvoir, it takes work but it helped me a lot. You can probably also handle Foucault, at least, like, The History of Sexuality volume I which is maybe not the most valuable but it’s a good read. I dunno I actually sort of don’t think there is a structuralist or postmodern thought without feminist theory which is maybe wrong and stupid but I think it’s true. Somebody here will have something to suggest. I think my contemporaries read Deleuze out of context for no reason and are highly sloppy but maybe you wanna.

*I want to say, like, “slut walks is not feminist theory” but feminist theory is an institution and a place and that place is dumb undergrad classrooms. my WS intro to feminist theories class talked about slutwalks and also read Wittig and Kristeva so idk. It was taught by a historian!

The other important reason that I talk about and think about a lot because it aligns more with my interests is that literary studies, especially by victorianists, was one of the major places where women’s studies the Discipline was institutionalized in universities in the U.S. in ways that I think it is very important to be critical of. ON THAT NOTE, probably you should read The Madwoman in the Attic. It’s pretty much as canon as it gets and there’s a lot of value in it but it’s my opinion that it relies on and ultimately institutionalizes white feminine subjectivity and has itself supported a lot of racism in women’s studies programs. It’s sort of one of the first great works of feminist criticism by one of the first great tenured professors of english literature at one of the U.S’s powerhouses in gender studies, etc., etc. In Susan Gubar’s later notoriously racist screed “What Ails Feminist Criticism” (her answer is literally black and brown women fyi) she wrote of stages of feminist literary criticism and I think it’s useful both as an overview of some things that really were happening in feminist studies at different times and how this history has been imagined by (reactionary) theorists like Gubar. Robyn Wiegman iirc wrote a response to this piece that articulated why it sucks. Those two things are good things to read. If you are interested in feminist literary criticism’s canon you should also be looking at Elaine Showalter. This is not my field this is all I got for you.

So, like, quick aside, none of these things are perfect and many of them are actually extremely fucked up or bad but we are working on a genealogy here, right?

In the past I really liked the Routledge Queer Studies Reader. I also have the Routledge Feminist Theory Reader which I think has pretty good breadth but not enough of anything. Some of my lit theory people have recommended Terry Eagleton’s Literary Theory for an overview and it seems like if you are going in this direction you should pick that up. I have poked into it before and I like how it is set up. If you start getting into more art theory, visual theory and film theory I looove the Feminist Visual Culture Reader edited by Amelia Jones and Feminism-Art-Theory edited by Hilary Robinson. I’d recommend those for anybody getting into feminist theory or histories thereof. 

Okay so here are some other things you need to read: 
Audre Lorde’s Sister Outsider–I keep thinking of this story mostlyflowers​ told of a litbro being like, “you know, that one famous Audre Lorde essay?” but if I had to pick the pertinent pieces here it would be “Uses of the Erotic” then “The Transformation of Silence into Language and Action” and “Poetry is Not a Luxury” and “The Uses of Anger” and of course “The Master’s Tools.” It’s funny because when I read that story I really couldn’t figure out which of these would be the one that is ~~~assigned all the time! They are all Classics.

Adrienne Rich’s “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” is something you absolutely can’t not have read, minimally, but the book of essays Blood, Bread, and Poetry has a lot of things more directly about literature if you’re interested in this moment in time.

I have seen the Combahee River Collective Statement assigned in women’s studies classes, as performance/popular literature, and in lit theory classes, and it’s important but on top of that I think that Barbara Smith’s lit criticism gets ignored a lot, here is “Toward a Black Feminist Criticism” which is a good thing. Patricia Hill Collins’s Black Feminist Thought is a go-to text, too. She’s a sociologist. You might want This Bridge Called My Back as well–I had really good experiences with most of my WS classes but if you haven’t been exposed to these things you should start with these.

You need to read Donna Haraway’s A Cyborg Manifesto! read that right now. Read it yesterday. Then you have to read Judith Butler, I think Excitable Speech and Bodies that Matter are probably something you want to look at but I love Undoing Gender. If this direction is interesting to you, take a look at Shoshana Felman, I have really loved Ann Cvetkovich and Peggy Phelan in my life. These are “””””performance theorists.””””

You gotta read at some point probably Laura Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Here is a pdf of Gloria Anzaldua’s “ To(o) Queer the Writer– Loca, escritora y chicana.” Irigaray? Probably you should familiarize yourself with Susan Sontag and definitely read “Notes on Camp.” 

I can’t remember anything else I’m tired

is this about books? I don’t read books. this is not helpful but like one million professionals of this field follow my blog so they can help. I dunno I think you should read Barthes

Do you really care about the literary in feminist literary theory or is it the theory you want help with? What are you into? Sexuality, film, madness, work? What did you like or not like about what you said you read? what looks good to you anon 

pineapplebank  asked:

How bad is Filmation back in the 80's? Like I used to remember hear cartoonist like John K, Sam Simon, Paul Dini and Eddie Fitzgerald said that Filmation is the worst animation studio of all time. Like I know the shows bad but why?

TL;DR version: everything about FILMATION was CHEAP

  • animation
  • storytelling
  • editing
  • production

It was so cheap it took over and forced everybody else down for a very, very long time.


Let me back up a sec, growing up I didn’t have a lot of cartoons, what I got was either old crap from the 60s/70s or 80s toy cartoons. Now don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of affection for old crap because it was my childhood, watching G.I. Joe, Transformers, He-Man, SuperFriends and Scooby Doo is built into my being, I have a soft spot for the fucking WONDER TWINS so like, I get that a lot of people outright love these old shows. But time marched on and good cartoons were just on the horizon and they changed our perception of what cartoons could be on TV forever…

Originally posted by nothingislinear

That’s not to say my childhood wasn’t devoid of good cartoons; Yogi Bear, Rocky & Bullwinkle, The Flintstones and Jetsons all 1960s vintage, but otherwise there was just so much crap SO MUCH CRAP being pumped out to fill Saturday morning advertising spots and I just can’t forgive abhorrent turds like Gilligan’s Planet, not now, not ever

So what made FILMATION suck? It was CHEAP with a capital ¢

Limited animation, boring interchangeable stories, lazy, lazy editing. Even as a kid you knew you were watching 2nd rate crapola but it was either that or the Farm Report so you watched it anyway (any port in a storm right?) You can always tell a FILMATION cartoon because not only is the animation limited BUT that animation going to be shown again and again and again and again (and again). Sometimes even in reverse. Star Trek was at least blessed with some decent writing to distract you from the crumby everything-else (thank you DC Fontana) but it was virtually a slide show. When a show has less animation per episode than Rocket Robin Hood or Spider-Man ‘67 my face kind of scrunches up in amazement that we ate it up like we did (but then again there weren’t as many controls regarding sugar to food value ratios in breakfast cereals back in those days, so maybe my sugar fits added frames of animation where there were none)

Originally posted by welele

Most shows only assembled mouth animation for each episode and if you were lucky the eyes, otherwise everything else was recycled. All the shows were written first and then animated after with these interchangeable factory parts. Even Synchro Vox stuff like Space Angel and Clutch Cargo had new art from time to time but with Fat Albert you saw one episode you saw them all blah-blah-blah all talk, no moving around. You might as well dust off your storybook 45″ and listen to that, at least there’d be voice acting in those

Originally posted by napsmear

What sometimes confused me though was after they escaped the 70s they got ambitious in the 80s with stuff like He-Man and She-Ra (and maybe BraveStarr much later as they fought to survive actual cartoons) the problem with it was you’ve got some realistic bodies to animate with complex shapes and a company that is notorious for moving characters the least amount possible; the result was twitchy and weird and recycled beyond belief. SIDE NOTE: I challenge anybody not on the 80s nostalgia wagon to marathon She-Ra episodes and not fall asleep, watch 10 episodes in a row and then tell me what each one was about. People take it for granted these days that even with serial cartoons like Steven Universe each episode gives you something, whether its story or some new character detail or just something really fun happenin’ (Star vs The Forces of Evil) cartoons of yore were made like sausage links on an assembly line. If I wasn’t a horny little kid there’d be no reason AT ALL to watch garbage like The Archies or She-Ra

Anyway, sometimes you can’t see how big a circus is until you escape it and look back at the size of the tent. In the late 80s something started happening to cartoons, they were getting better, more interesting, more … animated. There are a lot of theories as to why this was. Some people claimed ownership over the movement that happened, I just think it was the zeitgeist at the time, Disney wasn’t the king of animation anymore and that meant there was a gap to fill and more stuff going on at the theatre where REAL money was being made with things like Heavy Metal and The Secret of NiMH, home grown animators were giving a shit about what they made. Then on TV when old timey cartoons with more than 24 frames of animation per second were shown to us by the geniuses at Pee Wee’s Playhouse we got woke real quick, most people hadn’t seen that stuff in decades. And then surprise! Roughly the same time that was happening The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse came about, and man, what a cartoon! That was the first cartoon I remember my parents watching with us kids. It was funny and interesting and WEIRD. It was also animated differently from other shows. It wasn’t as janky as He-Man and yet it wasn’t as somehow as slick-yet-boring as 80s Hanna-Barbara, it was fluid and interesting and weird and funny….

…and then it got yanked off the air because the 80s was a strange, strange time and place BUT the fire was lit and so many other more zany cartoons came out shortly after, Tiny Toons is pretty dated now but back then it was like WHAT! they can do that on TELEVISION? It was animated fairly well and it was funny and it wasn’t that episode of The Flintsones or Looney Tunes you’d seen for the billionth time it was fresh and interesting.

Disney started making a comeback as well what with Family Channel; new original works like Gummi Bears and DuckTales was a big departure from other stuff that was on TV at the time, it was fresh and interesting. Game changers!

Originally posted by ducktales88

At the box office we had stuff like Who Framed Roger Rabbit breathing life back into so many cartoons at once, what happened through the 80s really sparked what would lead to the animation explosion of the 90s


For me looking back at the first half of the 80s (and most of the 70s) you could clearly see how cheap and uninspired the cartoons from that era really were, and then later as an adult learning about other TV cartoons that struggled to pit entertainment vs cost was equally eye opening. The problem with TV animation has always been the expense, TV has always been the “cheap” medium. When it started they used to show old crappy cowboy serials because that was the cheapest stuff they could show to fill airtime. Early cartoons tried very hard to be economical AND funny (Tom Terrific, Rocky & Bullwinkle!) a lot of these shows benefited from a simplistic style and a bunch of animators who’d been plying their craft for years. When they started retiring in the later 60s you could see the impact it had on everything. To my mind Hanna-Barbara was the only shop that was still producing decent cartoons through the mid-60s to the mid-70s, and even then Scooby Do was cearly made in haste to combat newcomers like FILMATION but luckily for HB it caught on in a major way. But by then it was like there was a race to the bottom. Who could make the cheapest crap to get away with and then land syndication rights YIKES (I’m sure somewhere Scooby-Doo, Where are you! is still playing right now)

Originally posted by witchywoman22


Now I’ve seen cartoon trends wax and wane between creator-driven and merch-driven, cheap as dirt / actual care and attention over the last 30+ years, to me its cyclical. We have been blessed with a lot of great shows for a few years which means we’re in for a bust cycle of cash-in dreck, I feel that this time around its main cause is television as a format is shrinking and producers are scared to death that their ad revenue isn’t as fat as it was over the last 30 odd years so they’re rapidly trying to make bank on easy-to-sell crap (remakes, toy tie-ins, all the stuff that make cartoons BAD).

Who knows maybe direct to web / streaming services are the next step for quality cartoons and help us avoid another dank age of animation, but for now I feel that we’re already seeing cheap, rushed out the door stuff seep in between our good cartoons.

Originally posted by jwblogofrandomness

Time will tell… time will tell…