the actual narrative

                                  𝔴𝔥𝔢𝔫 𝔶𝔬𝔲'𝔯𝔢 𝔩𝔬𝔰𝔱 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔬𝔲𝔱 𝔬𝔣 𝔱𝔦𝔪𝔢
                                    ℑ 𝔴𝔦𝔩𝔩 𝔟𝔢 𝔯𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱 𝔥𝔢𝔯𝔢 𝔴𝔞𝔦𝔱𝔦𝔫𝔤

Friendly reminder that Jack hasn’t been saved and Anti is still running the channel and getting stronger from us everyday as Jack stays trapped in oblivion. (◡‿◡✿)

Bonus Fun Fact of the Day: I̲̮͕̹̖͔͞t̸̳̥̞̬̬̥̖’͉̼̗s̲͜ ̺͓̦̼͔àl͔̺̘̼̳̝̪l̼͕̱̳ ͙o̯̰̳̮͢ṵ̡r̳̮̹͙ ͉̠̜͔͔f͓̖̠ạ̻̥̠̭u̡̳̖̦͎̟l͓͓t̩͕͚̘͓̟  (ʘ‿ʘ✿)

it kind of amuses me that every time I see a victuuri angel/demon au it’s always ‘innocent angel yuuri’ and 'seductive demon victor’ bc yall are forgetting that the gpf is an actual thing that happened. I mean, sure, your little innocent angel yuuri katsudon katsuki got drunk off his ass, stripped, pole danced, seduced the figure skating legend, and then left him for months to die of blue balls bc he forgot all about it in the morning like some inconsequential fling he has dozens of

like, come on now 

cishets really love to blame us for everything that happens to us, like the whole “violent homophobe is actually a closeted gay” narrative they so love to apply to all attacks against us to absolve themselves of responsibility and guilt

or the whole belief that our attraction is predatory, that lesbians fetishize other women and share the male gaze, as though it’s our fault that cishet men love to jerk it to lesbian porn

everyone loves to pretend they’re supportive until the time comes to own up to their privilege and the harmful stereotypes they (perhaps unknowingly, but still) perpetuate

I guess I’ve been doing a better job of avoiding the worst of the left here because I honestly didn’t know that many were still insisting that evidence of connections between Russia and Trump’s administration, and of Russian interference in elections in the US and Europe to prop up right-wing candidates, are just elaborate liberal fantasies AND a pretext for the US to go to war with Russia. Because…imperialism. Or the Deep State. Or both.

it’s like when I see comments from people enraged that democrats haven’t prioritized introducing a health care bill that mandates single payer. I’m wondering, have you all not caught up to 2017 yet? Or is this what happens when your primary sources of information are the Intercept and tumblr posts by teenage communists?

Drafting: Four Methods For Highly Anxious Individuals

(This is a revised version of an old post you might have seen elsewhere.)

Is writing really fucking painful for you? Do you finish a draft of a story maybe once every forty years? Is your computer littered with outlines and abandoned beginnings? Maybe you’ve been told to “write a shitty first draft” but have no idea how to do that because writing takes so much out of you that you can’t do it without at least trying to make it goodbut when you do, you inevitably give up and hate yourself.

Chances are, you’re drafting in a way that doesn’t respect the way your mind works. You’re either 1) forcing yourself to deal with too many things at once, or 2) you’re stifling the free, imaginative, playful part of your mind with premature critical evaluation. Or, most likely, both. But you can’t just make yourself stop doing this spontaneously. You need a method of writing that interferes with those habits. Think of it as mental ergonomics. If your back is sore and your neck is stiff, you need a different chair. Similarly, if writing is agonizingly painful, you need a different drafting method.

Here are four methods you can try—or adapt, experiment with, and combine. (Nobody practices a pure version of any method.) For simplicity’s sake, I’ll talk as if you’re faced with drafting a single scene:

1) The Pitch Meeting Method

Don’t write the scene in the actual narrative voice of the story. Instead, write as if you’re describing what happens to somebody you know, somebody who’d be interested and excited about it. You could, in fact, actually address it to someone. Or write as if you’re writing a really long headcanon post.

Write the way you talk. Use your usual slang and vocal rhythms, and get all of your enthusiasm in there, everything you envision, everything you want for this scene. You could even do this out loud and record it, if that’s easier.

Let your desires run wild, even if you don’t yet know how you’re going to fulfill those desires. Say stuff like “and this part is really emotional!” without worrying about how you’re going to make it emotional.

When you’re done, go back and find parts you can elaborate on. Make the description as detailed as you can.

Once you’re happy with this description of what you’re going to write, start writing it. Translate your “sounds like you” prose into a voice more appropriate to the story. But don’t change it too much. Don’t kill the energy your own voice adds.

2) The Expanding Outline Method

This one’s similar, but it works better for folks who like to think structurally.

Make an outline of the scene. Maybe it starts with only a couple of items: two very general things that happen in the scene.

Now take one item and break it down into several items. Then break those items down into several items. Zoom in closer and closer to the action, breaking actions and events down into their constituent parts.

You can include non-event, non-external items like “Character feels [x].” You can even include things like “The reader feels [x].” But go back later and add detail to those where you can. Just keep making your outline more and more specific.

Now, following your outline, draft a prose version of the scene.

3) The Anatomy Textbook Method

For this one, you start with the scene itself, not with a plan for the scene. But don’t try to write the entire scene fully fleshed out in one go. Rather, start with a single element you’re most comfortable with. The dialogue, for instance. Or a description of the action in a bare-bones, stage-directions sort of way. Lay down a skeleton of the scene, and don’t worry if it looks a little…sparse.

Now go over it and add another element on top of that skeleton. Description, maybe. Or more details that flesh out your bare-bones description.

Keep doing this until you have a complete scene.

If you think you tend to leave a certain element out, dedicate a “layer” to that. I’m often quite sparing with characters’ emotional reactions, for instance. So I might go over the scene and do nothing but add in my character’s internal reactions to what’s happening.

You can divide the scene up however you like. The point is, each time you go over it, only focus on one element at a time.

4) The Sourdough Starter Method

This is probably the weirdest, and it might sound like the hardest, but it’s quicker and easier than it sounds. You just have to get comfortable with making a mess.

Start writing the scene, in all its nonsensical, inarticulate glory. Feel free to hate both the form and the content; just keep your head in the scene, walking your mind carefully through what happens, even if you think what happens is stupid. Don’t worry if what you write is boring or wrong or irrelevant, because you’re not actually going to use most of this.

Now read through what you’ve got. It may help to print it out. Go through what you’ve written and mark anything you kind of like or that seems promising. And if rereading what happens has given you new ideas about what should happen instead, write those ideas down too.

Review the promising bits and the new ideas. There might not be much, but that’s okay. Now, start the scene over. Wipe the slate clean and write it all again from scratch. But this time, include those good bits you discovered in the previous version.

You’re not revising that version. You’re using it as a petri dish to grow ideas for the scene. And then you completely rewrite the scene, this time with a little more focus and a better sense of what will work.

You might only do this once, but some people do it several times. It sounds labor-intensive, I know. But remember, each time you write the scene, you’re just barfing it onto the page without much critical scrutiny. And that scrutiny is mostly what makes writing feel so hard.


So those are four methods you can try. I’m sure many more exist. If you’ve tried or know about any, please send them to me!

Next post: the theory of shitty first drafts

Ask me a question or send me feedback!

6

LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT WHY THIS MOMENT IS SO IMPORTANT TO ME.

What Anakin’s saying here and the connections that are hinted at here–he’s feeling lost.  “What do you mean?” Padme asks.  Obi-Wan and the Council don’t trust him is his first response.  Let’s set aside that Anakin isn’t a reliable narrator in the best of times (because we have explicit confirmation that Anakin is wrong about this–Obi-Wan tells Mace and Yoda that Anakin won’t let him down, he never has, it’s obvious that Obi-Wan absolutely does trust him) because that’s not the point, but that he’s feeling lost and his first response to the question of why is to talk about Obi-Wan.  And the Jedi.  And how he wants more than what the Jedi are.  And that he knows he shouldn’t.

(Of course this is about how he wants more with Padme, he wants to be publicly married, he wants to have a public family, he wants to still be a Jedi, etc.  But this is also tied up with his feelings about Obi-Wan.)

I realize that i’m a shipper and so I’m not the most objective person about this. But, setting aside that it would never happen in canon, that for all that you can find some really eyebrow-raising moments re: evidence for Obikin, I know it’s not actually narratively intended.  SETTING THAT ASIDE, I kind of really do believe that Obi-Wan sleeping with Anakin would have saved him.  (Well, not just the act of sex itself, but the relationship that would have come with it.)

It would have opened up communication between them, it would have opened Anakin up and told Obi-Wan about all the secrets he was keeping and he would have understood that Obi-Wan loved him and wouldn’t turn him in and that Obi-Wan trusted him and, honestly, I think Obi-Wan would have seen that Anakin needed to find a new path in life, that the structure the Jedi Order provided that worked for so many didn’t really work for Anakin.  And Anakin wouldn’t have turned to Palpatine in desperation because he wanted a magic wand to fix everything and instead Obi-Wan could have sat him down and forced him not to panic.

It would have been complicated, because it then brings up the question of what Obi-Wan himself would do.  During the war, I think he could have bent his principles enough to have a relationship while still being a Jedi, because the war was grinding them down, there were no perfect choices, just difficult situations you made the best of.  But once the war was over… he would have had a choice in front of him.  Devoting his life to the Jedi Order or devoting his life to Anakin.

If Anakin were more stable and independent, I think Obi-Wan would stay a Jedi.  He is very much, through, and through, a Jedi at heart. But the Anakin we saw in ROTS?  Who was floundering and Padme was crumbling under the weight of everything that was going wrong, with the Republic and with Anakin? But the Anakin who desperately needed Obi-Wan to rein him back in?  The Anakin who was emotionally unstable and Obi-Wan understood how badly off he was?  Who so desperately loved Obi-Wan, loved him as much as he loved Padme, who benefited from being around him, who was so much happier when Obi-Wan was with him?

THAT Anakin, Obi-Wan would leave for, in a heartbeat.  If Anakin needed him, Obi-Wan would be there.

Because I really think that Obi-Wan tried to help Anakin be independent.  To be the Jedi Knight who stood on his own.  Obi-Wan, I think, tried to see too much of himself in Anakin.  Obi-Wan, who is much better suited to being the emotionally stable, independent, reserved one.  Obi-Wan who loves very much, but is, well, the more stable of their dynamic, for all that he can be incredibly reckless so very often.

And that’s what I think he was trying to train Anakin to, that same sense of being able to be the one others lean on.  And we see how well that went, with Anakin during ROTS.  He’s just really not made to be the emotional leader, despite that he feels he should be “that Jedi”.

He tries so hard to be that for Padme (who asks him, “Hold me, like you did on Naboo.”) and it tears him apart, his anxieties and fears consume him, his desperate push to try to be what he thinks he should be (the rock that she can lean on, the one who will save her, etc.) fails miserably because it’s just not in him, not like that.

This isn’t the same as being a leader in a war, because that he’s really good at!  But emotionally he wants someone to follow, someone to make things okay FOR him.  That’s why he follows Palpatine, because he wants that someone to fix things for him so very badly.  And I think if Obi-Wan knew that was a bone deep part of Anakin, something that could not be trained out of him, then he would fill that role.  If he knew how lost Anakin felt while pushing himself to be the Jedi he thought he was supposed to be, that he was floundering while trying to be the one who fixed things, then it would have changed everything.

So that line of “I’m not the Jedi I’m supposed to be.” always stands out to me.

Anakin very much is selfish and cannot let go, he’s obsessive about this love that he’s idealized in his mind.  He doesn’t given any consideration at all to what Padme would want (as it that she would NOT want him to go down this path to save her). Which is very, very selfish!  It’s absolutely about that just as much as anything else.

But I think it’s also his desperate attempt to be the strong one, to save the day and be who he thinks he’s supposed to be.  The Jedi he’s supposed to be, the husband he’s supposed to be, the friend he’s supposed to be.

All of which just goes down in rather literal flames, because that’s not who Anakin Skywalker is at his core.

anonymous asked:

Dean has been trying to be open with Cas, telling him he's worried, we're better together and Cas doesn't really respond except with what could be called flippancy saying I didn't mean to add to your burden or betrays him again. So it's not that Dean needs to open his mouth, it's that when he does, he's shut down. This happens a lot in the series with other people too and I think we undervalue how much that shapes Dean's willingness to open up. As in, I think we often ignore it completely.

This is an interesting point, and the thing is, we’ve come so far in this ‘haha, we’re not describing a relationship, #no homo’ thing that the tropes of the genre have started to have an impact on the actual narrative of the show. Like, one of the main reason I don’t like romance movies is the lack of clear communication between the two main characters. I mostly hate it in its classic ‘chick flick’ form - ie, a woman going on and on with her girlfriends about how perfect this guy is and being encouraged to do all sort of ridiculous things to catch his attention rather than just talk to him - but if the movie is not subtle, I’m even capable of hating those pregnant ‘I wish I could come out and say it, but I’m too manly to’ pauses because, come on. Sometimes I truly find romance movies are the plague of our societies and are way, way more dangerous than horror or violence or whatever, simply because they set a model of behaviour for situations we actually encounter IRL - and the idea that we can’t communicate openly and honestly with each other, especially in a romantic relationship, is often at the centre of whatever demented story they’re telling.

Anyway.

I guess this is to say that miscommunicaton is a classic romantic trope and the most usual way to keep lovers apart (short of, let’s say, family obligations, mind control spells and terminal illnesses - not that Supernatural has used any of those, of course), which means neither Dean nor Cas are, at this point, to blame for any of it. It’s simply how the narrative goes, and one of the most tried-and-tested ways to preserve some semblance of UST and will they won’t they even in those circumstances where it’s very clear that yeah, they will. 

You say Dean’s been opening up, has been clear about what he wants, and that’s true. Dean’s been incredibly direct this season (and the last), not only with Cas, but with Sam and Mary as well. I think it’s unfair, though, to say we ignore it - some days, it seems we talk about little else: performing!Dean walls coming down, that’s a huge bout of character development, especially considering Dean’s worst fear is people leaving him, and, well - if you don’t come clean to someone, if you don’t tell them how much they mean to you, then you can hold on to the illusion they left because they didn’t realize how much they would hurt you - but if you’re clear about your feelings and you do your best and they still leave - ouch. Dean’s faced this dilemma with both Mary and Cas this season, and basically lost both times. His ideas of creating some kind of patchwork family - all of them safe, happy, and living right there in the Bunker where Dean can keep an eye on them and protect them - yeah, that didn’t work. Despite the unusually honest conversations he had with them, both Mary and Cas continue to do their own thing without much regard for Dean’s feelings - and I feel like I need to stress it’s not only a character’s ‘fault’, but a narrative need: to keep Dean on edge, and to make him miserable.

Something else we need to consider is that Cas is new to humanity and sees things from a completely different perspective. To him, human feelings are - well, not irrelevant, but I think he sees them as something so complicated and changeable that it’s not really worth analyzing them. Like, consider his impatience when Dean asked for help in how to deal with Mary - Cas is millions of years old. Planning a conversation, however life-changing that conversation may feel in the moment, is completely irrelevant on the long term - a speck of meaning against the backdrop of eternity, or even of a human life. When he shuts Dean down, he’s not saying he doesn’t care about Dean feelings; he’s saying everything will sort itself out, and why do humans always stress so much about such small and transient things? It makes no sense. Oh, and another thing that presumably makes no sense to him is Dean’s worry over him - Cas was created to obey and walk into battle and die, if necessary - nobody’s worried about his happiness or wellbeing for thousands of years - why would Dean? Cas is an angel - Cas is the (self-appointed) Winchester’s guardian - not the other way around. I know they keep telling him they care (sort of), but, again, different species here. And Cas also knows, because he’s seen it, that (unlike angels) humans are built to withstand grief and loss - that both Dean and Sam have done it, several times (that despite everything they’ve endured, they can still be sort of happy). To him, his own death is perhaps a matter of regret, of things unfinished, but certainly not something that’ll hurt either Sam or Dean in any definitive way - which is why he prefers to be out on the field and keep them safe, rather than staying close to them and avoid danger.

Finally, something about the mixtape scene. 

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

What do you mean with four part narrative? 🙈

Ooohhh, anon, you’re my favorite for asking this question. Thank you. So, the Four Part Narrative is my prevailing and favorite theory to explain what we’ve seen since the hiatus began.

You can read this post of mine about OT4 Rebrand a Four Part Narrative for some thoughts.

But in general, for the whole of the hiatus we have seen one of them in the media every week (often every day) since January of 2016. They often seem to be taking turns

I also happen to believe that different parts of a narrative that actually goes together are being put out by each of the boys. Liam with R&B producers and vocalists. Harry with Paul McCartney. Niall with singer/songwriters but also possibly trying to hold down the older, male demographic with his golf stuff. Louis with Steve Aoki and others with the discussion of his infinite worth as a collaborator. I’m not trying to say that’s ALL that’s been said about them. But those are the pieces I find most interesting. 

So when I say Four Part Narrative, I mean that these four boys are working together. And that makes me feel warm and fuzzy because if 1D was over (as some would like us to believe) they wouldn’t be coordinated. And I think they are.

anonymous asked:

you kunikida fans are sooooooo annoying, stop bitching about some unimportant side character not being important enough/over-glorifying his importance and focus on characters who are actually needed for the narrative, like dazai/chuuya and atsushi/akutagawa

anon here says they want some more kunikida content…. get on it mods im on mobile 👌👌👌

- mod radish

“Deconstructed” Assimilation Plot

My wife and I were thinking of writing a near-future (2030) sci-fi novel with utopian/dystopian themes, revolving around an viral video (produced by a team of researchers) that causes a profound quasi-religious experience in a receptive viewer. As a result, people who have watched it are generally happier and have a sense of shared purpose and trust of others who have watched. 

They also become more altruistic, tend to want to “convert” dissidents, and organize together to do so. Essentially an optimistic deconstruction of the Assimilation Plot, which maintains individuality, so most of the typical reasons why assimilation is bad aren’t such large factors. We thought this had some fascinating parallels with a lot of different issues about identity, religion and politics, as long as we present it as something not entirely good or bad. We figured that this would be a great opportunity to have a ethnically diverse cast of characters to discuss the moral issues posed by such a ideological group attempting to integrate/assimilate different communities and groups of people. Our main cast is fairly diverse, though we plan to use their families and friends to offer more varied viewpoints, and avoid tokenism.

Anyways, we’re concerned about crafting authentic and nuanced reactions to this event, particularly among our main characters, so if you have any suggestions about how their ethnic backgrounds might contribute to their viewpoints about the event (either as converts or dissidents), we’d love to hear them. Two of our characters we’re particularly concerned about are a 30 year old former Syrian refugee female software developer (non-practicing Muslim, married to a white agnostic ethicist), and a 23 year old Afro-Latino cyber-security expert/conspiracy theorist (middle child from a stable lower-middle class family).

[ask shortened due to exceeding length, reminder: aim for brevity, askers]

Deconstruction is not the word

I’m confused by this question.  Let’s look at what a “deconstruction” in literature actually is.  Quite literally, you take a common or established storyline and break it down into its component parts, then examine each of those parts closely and play them through to their (often painful) logical conclusions.  In a deconstruction, if some action has a consequence, the deconstruction of that plot point is to to play that consequence cruelly straight without handwaving things away, seeing in gruesome detail what effects that conceit has on the characters.

In brief, when you deconstruct high fantasy, what you get is Game of Thrones.  When you deconstruct space opera, what you get is Season 3 of Battlestar Galactica.  Deconstruction is an intentional reading of an established formula with an eye counter to that which was originally intended.  Deconstructing modernism gives you Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” wherein the protagonist becomes a giant freaking bug for no god damn reason.  When you consider that many of the things that often occur in narratives would actually be incredibly psychologically damaging in real life, balance and optimism are not really a thing in deconstruction.

What Deconstructed Assimilation Looks Like

So, with this knowledge, let’s look at what deconstructing assimilation would look like in this context.

Cultural assimilation is about subsuming the characteristics of one’s native culture to the larger society in which one lives.  Wholesale assimilation requires you giving up your native food, your native dress, often your native name, because its “easier” or “cooler” or whatever.  People actually do this a lot. Often we choose to do so because it kind of greases the wheels when we live in a place where people like us are the minority.  But there’s a price.  Even the most psychologically well-balanced individuals are going to be torn by the tightrope act required by assimilation.  

I often give my name as “Nick” at Starbucks even against the twinges of feeling like I’m selling out my family, because it makes my afternoon proceed just a little bit easier.  Sometimes I don’t.  It’s basically a coin flip depending on how I’m feeling that very second.  But each act is a choice that changes a person’s sense of being an individual in an culture that regard them as an outsider.  If we deconstruct this notion we’re going to be playing the consequences through to the gory logical ends—every choice a person makes to assimilate or not assimilate is going to be affecting their sense of what being “an individual” means on a very basic level.  

In this sense, I see the whole point of a deconstruction being that “individuality” isn’t a discrete, concrete concept.  Deconstructing assimilation means deconstructing individuality, particularly cultural individuality, and a storyline that deconstructs the concept of assimilation can’t do so while maintaining “individuality” because the two concepts are inextricably and contradictorily linked.

Subverting Assimilation may be the word

If you mean subverting the concept, that’s different, but I have a very hard time seeing how deconstructing and closely examining the notion of assimilation can be done “optimistically” if you’re coming at it from the perspective that assimilation is a bad thing.

~Mod Nikhil

I’ve discussed people ‘deconstructing’ assimilation plots with a more positive twist here: [Pagan Scandinavians and Colonialism]. I’d suggest reading that post to get my full thoughts.

Risks of Adding Optimism to Assimilation

Broadly speaking, attempting to create a “positive” spin on assimilation runs an extremely high risk of sanitizing cultural genocide. The core rooted belief of converting others is that all other beliefs are wrong, your way of life is the best, and you should do whatever it takes to convince people to jump into your way of life because they’ll eventually see it’s the best thing ever.

This has huge problems. If you think it’s okay just because the doctrine will adapt to individual culture, allow me to point you to the sheer number of places Christianity got mixed with the local beliefs in order to convert more people. That’s what made it such an insidious religion; they were willing to adapt to whatever culture in order to get more converts (usually destroying parts of the Indigenous culture in the process, using the mix as a stepping stone to slowly assimilate them and have them lose touch with their original beliefs).

While some of the mixes have been taken back by their individual peoples, that doesn’t stop the mixed reaction many many many Indigenous people have with any religion that tries to take over. Trying to spin tactics that directly lead to cultural destruction as positive “this time” doesn’t hold up, because you haven’t created a situation that has addressed the problem. You’ve just draped it in new decoration, with a video instead of a metaphysical being. Otherwise, this mirrors colonialism. 

This sort of scenario has happened all over the world, with dozens of faiths, hundreds of ethnicities, and it always follows the same method: a group of people believes everyone should be like them, and is willing to use whatever tactics to get there. I see nothing different, at its heart, with your plot.

If you want to try and avoid it, get rid of the need to convert others. You could still have some squicky parts, but at least without a need to convert others there is far less room for psychological manipulation and coercion. 

~ Mod Lesya 

On the other hand, Smith is really, really good at monologues. Not (and this is an important distinction) dialogue; if you get two people talking in a Kevin Smith movie, it sounds like they’re reading off the back of cereal boxes until the next dick joke comes around. But he really has a talent for pausing a movie and letting a character sink into a long, uninterrupted story, like Tracy Morgan’s elaborate hypotheticals in Cop Out or a gripping emotional moment from Genesis Rodriguez in the absolutely execrable Tusk, a movie inspired by a dumb joke he made on a podcast. And of course, the speech he delivers as Silent Bob in Chasing Amy (an admittedly decent movie).

In Mallrats, the unexpected airplane story seems like it’s building to something remarkable. It feels like it should be the climax of the movie, but it’s not; it’s not even the climax of that scene. It’s just a long speech about a dude jerking it on a plane. And yet it’s riveting, not just to the audience in the film, but to us, the watchers of the watchers themselves.

Smith, for all of his faults, has a genuine and deep talent for writing speeches that pull you out of the movie and into another emotional place entirely. Like somehow, it just has the weird, wondrous Kevin Smith power to suck you in that his actual narratives and command of the screen utterly do not. It actually makes a lot of sense that Kevin Smith has pivoted into a second career lately as a podcast host and all-around pop culture raconteur; he’s just not as good as making films as he is at speeches.

5 ‘Meh’ Directors Who Do One Thing Better Than Anyone Else

3

This is another one of those scenes that I never really comprehend is real. I keep thinking that’s just how I remembered it in my shipper brain, but it actually happens. I’ve rewatched many times to make sure that, yes indeed, it does occur.

I’m talking about the one from Extinction, when the Convoy walks into an ambush in Vegas and “Project Alice” gets shut down. Isaacs says the word and offline she goes. She instantly becomes motionless and as a nice sign of ownership Umbrella’s logo flash across her iris. No more herself but now an inert automaton. And for the time being that’s where and what she stays as.

Meanwhile shit hits the fan and the rest of the survivors are pretty much screwed and dead in the water. Big time. Claire gets to be hot as fuck though while taking down a hoard of the undead that are going after Mikey. Unfortunately her badness is not enough to save the boy’s life (to be fair he never stood a chance, this is not the series that will keep its male characters alive, unless they’re evil), so she kills them all dead, but not before Mikey bit the dust. The action awesome of Claire gets to flow into a moment of heartbreak and anger, and then she screams her despair straight out into the Nevada desert. It’s a pretty great cry of despair. The kind that’s primal and from the toes.

And after the movie having spent minutes on the action this scream is on which we now cut back to Alice who takes that moment to start fighting the conditioning. So the events are; Alice gets shut down - a lot of bad stuff happens to all of the Convoy - a lot of screaming and dying - for many minutes - Claire shoots zombies in the head - Claire screams in anguish - Alice starts fighting back.

That’s some nice stuff right there, some A+ editing. Reads as emotional cause and effect. Suggesting that Claire in distress triggers some kind of human response and a will to resist in Alice - that’s just - that’s nice. That’s also pretty old school trope; the hero fighting off the evil influence when they’re reminded of/confronted by their loved ones. The fact that it’s Claire that gets to play that role is - interesting. 

I mean it’s not as if there aren’t other options that might have been more obvious within the actual narrative of the movie (at least on a shallow note). For one you’ve got K-Mart who’s established as the child that needs to be taken care of, and Alice did have an instant connection with her and was shown to be gentle and considerate around her. Putting the child of the pack in danger is a pretty accepted way of getting an emotional response. Also could have been parallels back to the second movie and Alice saving Angie. Would have made sense and no one would have thought twice about it. 

Same with Carlos, with whom Alice actually has a previous connection and history with. Not to mention that on the surface they sort of play the flirtatious angle between them (even though mostly feels like casual flirting and soldier buddies). At that point though Carlos would definitely be the closest Alice has to a loved one, if they’d accepted heterosexual surface and shallow storytelling. Luckily the movie doesn’t. Which means instead it is Claire that gets to play the agent behind snapping Alice out of her stupor and into fighting mode. Claire, the woman she met a few days ago, the woman she instantly supported. The woman Alice keeps looking at like - yeah- that’s another post.

At the end of the day though remember that the editing of this film makes it appear as if Claire is what brings Alice back, it’s Claire that triggers her resistance, it’s Claire that returns her mind to herself. That’s not even subtext, that’s text. As for the reason behind this though - feel free to sub that into pure sapphism, I know I do.

anonymous asked:

de fan was comparing stefan saying how he shouldnt have made the choice to finish the transition and damon saying if he chosed differenlty he wouldnt have met elena to prove that damon loved her more. or how elena says stefan sees her as a broken toy and damon saying she's not a toy soldier and the ever so old "erase it all every memory" vs damon's rather spend every moment in pain and agony than erase her and even stefan taking the cure and damon taking in speeches. what do you say to these

The thing about DE fans is that they rarely look at Damon outside of DE and I relate this to the first “point” because, it’s been stated repeatedly and in different ways that Elena is Stefan’s ultimate solace and the love of his life:

The ferocity and passion of his love is also repeatedly stated:

not to mention shown:

When he deems Julian responsible for killing Elena, he has his break down:

and then kills Julian.

When Katherine gets in the way of him being with Elena, right away he makes a plan to take her down:

It’s been repeated/hinted at that he will never be able to love someone the way he loves her:

Stefan is so in love with Elena, deeply, profoundly, passionately, soulfully but Stefan also isn’t selfish. Stefan was a ripper and so many of the circumstances are complicated and actually aren’t his choice but he still caused a lot of damage as a ripper:

not to mention he takes on the guilt of Damon’s victims because he still blames himself for what happened. Him saying he shouldn’t have transitioned proves that he wants to take back all of that suffering, all of that death, all of that pain, his happiness isn’t worth all of the destruction that’s come about because of his condition. This is why Stefan is the better man, this is why he’s the hero because he puts others’ needs before his, that doesn’t mean he loves Elena less, it means he’s a better person than Damon.

The second point, Elena is sired first of all, second of all it makes literally no sense because none of that is actually proven within the narrative up to 4x10. Because this was SE in 4x01-4x06:

When Elena was barely holding it together during the eulogy, all Damn said was Elena was going to “lose it” but what did Stefan do:

And when he finds out about the blood-sharing, he puts his resentment and jealousy aside to help Elena with her grief and decides to hold a memorial for the dead so she (and the people she loves) could get a sense of closure and feel slightly at peace whereas Damon just left:

4x03:

And then Elena says this in 4x04:

Plus there was this:

4x05:

Elena doesn’t even know Stefan is searching for the cure for her until 4x06 because he didn’t want to make her life about getting the cure. In 4x07 when she’s all “you mean fix me”, 3 episodes ago she was breaking down in his arms about how she’s not going to survive this and she doesn’t want to feel what she feels and literally during their breakup she says that she wants to get her human self back so like he was literally just doing what she wanted. 4x10 doesn’t make sense.

Finally, the last point and Stefan wanting to erase his memory. The very big difference between Stefan and Damon is that Stefan doesn’t like to spread his hurt around. Sure, Damon says he would rather live in agony but that agony destroys everyone around him and most of the time those people are people that Elena cares about

^^ when he kidnapped Jeremy

or it’s random strangers

(when he thought he killed Elena)

or it’s his “distractions”

so the fact that they put Damon on this freaking pedestal because he’d rather swim in his agony is fucking ridiculous because he destroys everything around him in the name of Elena which is supposed to be the exact opposite of what he’s meant to do, she’s supposed to have changed him and made him good right? Whatthefuckever.Elena as a character is meant to condemn all of this, be against all of this, hate all of this but he does this because of her? And he loves her? Nah.

Here, have some Jewish Holts (+ autistic Pidge) headcanons from the Voltron AU I’ve been writing (though most of these work on canon universe, too). I haven’t managed to explore these much in the actual narrative, yet, but I wanna talk about them so here they are:

  • The entire Holt family is Jewish, but they’re not a super religious family. They mostly just celebrate major holidays + Hanukkah.
  • Of the siblings, Matt is marginally more spiritual, but Pidge is way more into Jewish cultural traditions.
  • Matt makes a lot of jokes about “putting the ish in Jewish” and proudly refers to himself as a “lazy but sincere Jew.” But when the going gets tough, his faith is a big comfort to him.
  • Pidge is more-or-less agnostic, but you can pry her Jewish cultural traditions from her cold dead hands.
  • The family keeps Kosher during holidays (most notably Passover) but they don’t really bother the rest of the year.
  • Except Pidge. Pidge decided at some point that she’s going to keep Kosher all the time because it just doesn’t make sense to follow a rule only part of the time. (See also: Pidge is totally autistic.)
  • That being said, Pidge is never about blindly following rules, religious or otherwise. If there’s one thing her family’s faith has taught her, it’s “question everything.”
  • Although Matt doesn’t generally keep Kosher, a lifetime with his sister has led to him reflexively turning down blatantly non-Kosher food items on a pretty regular basis. I’m not sure Matt even knows why he doesn’t eat Jello, but he’ll probably turn you down if you offer it to him. (And then turn right around and eat chicken Parmesan without registering the irony of the situation.)
  • In addition to keeping Kosher. All the time. In the midst of a family that does not. Pidge also has a lot of food aversions (see: peanuts). A LOT. Of food aversions. Many of which are Oddly Specific.
  • She also has at least a couple food allergies/intolerances in the mix. Hey, at least it’s easy to avoid mixing meat and dairy if you don’t consume dairy at all?
  • Cooking for Pidge is a delicate endeavor. Everyone’s pretty sure Hunk has superpowers.

As someone with my own laundry list of religious/health/sensory dietary restrictions: Jewish Pidge with a million dietary restrictions brings me great joy.

anonymous asked:

1/2 (While i do NOT ask this to be negative at all, i realize it could be a controversial topic so feel free not to answer!) I have a friend who stopped watching SPN a few years ago after, according to her, they jumped the shark to the point she just couldn't take the show seriously anymore. Now, i'm so deep in fandom it's hard to step back and be objective, but that's not the first time i've heard that complaint, and it got me thinking; obviously i love the show.

2/2 But it did make me casually wonder what keeps me coming back to it specifically, because ibr if any other show had made some of the same writing, plot, etc. choices as SPN has, i’d diagnose it with a serious case of the trope “seasonal rot” and move on. But i haven’t. And i think it’s because SPN is SO character driven. Like, these characters make the show and the genuine heart and love shows through in the writing. I think that’s what balances out the at times questionable quality for me.

Hi there. I just reblogged this post over here that mostly expresses my feelings about this:

http://mittensmorgul.tumblr.com/post/160986841910/hey-i-stopped-watching-spn-like-during-season

I think it’s really not accurate (nor fair) to describe the character growth and narrative progression as “seasonal rot.” I think that’s sincerely missing the point.

From a podcast interview with Davy Perez shortly after 12.04 aired (Not About The Weather, episode 8):

(Sorry, y’all, I started transcribing this two hour long interview, spent two days transcribing the first hour last November, got to 7.5k, and haven’t had a chance to finish… )

N: It’s really interesting, because what you mentioned as well with Dean when he was living his sort of normal life with Lisa and Ben, it’s interesting as well because we’re six years on from that. So how do you look at that kind of thing and then go okay. How do you stop it being regressive, if you know what I mean? How do you go like, oh, he’s actually grown from that, or if he hasn’t or if he has. How do those decisions get made?

DP: For me I think it’s funny because I might have read it in a book somewhere, or maybe it was advice I got, in regards to writing television versus writing film. When you’re writing a film, you’re writing what is hopefully a complete journey, where a character gets called to action, where they go on their journey of discovery or their journey of tribulation, and then they arrive to an end point and you find, “Oh, I’ve learned this lesson,” or “I’ve grown so much.” And that was a satisfying, closed-ended story. Television doesn’t work that way. Television is about a character that you become invested in, and that you fall in love with. That character grows in incremental ways. Not only do they grow in tiny little increments, and sometimes don’t even grow, they go backwards. You don’t close the loop. You keep the loop open, so that hopefully when you know that okay, this is our final season, this is our final run of episodes, that’s when you can find those landing points, and that’s when you can sort of say this is the end of this journey.
As far as having to imagine what Dean might be eight years ago, well all I can say is that’s who Dean is. There’s a well of knowledge to watch, and you can see that that’s who he is. Maybe they’ve grown in some small way. Maybe Sam can talk about the psychic stuff where maybe before he didn’t even want to talk about it, but he’s not a completely different Sam in that he’s learned from his mistakes and will never make the mistakes again. You want to make sure that you’re staying true to who they are, and allowing the characters to just live in those moments, and to of course grow and have that journey, but to really take time. In an essence you really enjoy those incremental growths and they mean so much more.

This is exactly what I’ve described as the “spiral narrative” where the same things come up over and over again, putting the characters in similar situations. But this has become a character-driven narrative. The mytharc is entirely secondary to what the characters are going through.

Playing “spot the difference” each time you see a “wait, that’s really familiar” moment is where you really SEE those incremental growths. This is not “seasonal rot.” I find myself irrationally offended on behalf of the writers here… like, got up and stormed around the house ranting out loud to myself.

So when meta writers talk about how the writers are doing all of this intentionally, we literally really truly do mean the writers are DOING THIS ALL INTENTIONALLY. They have even TOLD US THIS IS THE CASE IN ACTUAL WORDS.

I  wrote a thing recently that sort of touches on this a bit, that started out as a reply about character driven vs plot driven narratives, but I think it also goes a little way toward explaining some of the reasons why people are having difficulty understanding what the show is doing now:

http://mittensmorgul.tumblr.com/post/159511693805/a-very-random-question-but-in-your-opinion-whats

If folks are still looking at the show as if it was actually a plot-driven narrative, there’s bound to be some sincere disappointment. But if you see it as a character-driven narrative, everything begins falling into place. I don’t mean to say that someone might be “watching wrong,” but if your impression is that the narrative is inconsistent and has made questionable plot choices, then I feel at least slightly obligated to politely suggest maybe watching it from THIS perspective and see if the entire picture doesn’t become perfectly clear.

Like this sculpture illustrates, look at it from the wrong angle and it all seems random. It’s supposed to inspire you to walk around looking at it all from DIFFERENT angles until the entire picture clicks into place.

This is the amazing beauty of the story Supernatural is telling us right now. I just want as many people as possible to realize this, because I think a lot of people right now are just seeing the random scattershot dots and feeling like they aren’t telling us a full story… I’m just trying to drag as many people around to the other side, to see what it looks like from where I’m sitting. Because it looks like art to me.

I know that fandom and media isn’t a safe space and that the onus of teaching ethics is not entirely placed upon the artists who make content for consumption BUT I also know that it’s really messed up that almost nine times out of ten i know which character will be killed in a show because they are either a) black b) non-black poc c) mentally ill or d) LGBT or even all these BECAUSE WRITERS DELIBERATELY CREATE THESE CHARACTERS SO THEY’LL BE MARGINALIZED SO THEIR DEATH WILL HAVE IMPACT AND SEEM “WOKE” because killing a dark skinned black person, or Asian, or mentally ill wlw, etc is a reflection of the current political climate, right? NOOOO

The worst part is that they think this is deep and don’t understand how showing the brutalization of these character’s deaths and bodies only further desensitizes audiences to similar issues happening in real life 

Killing Poussey Washington did nothing for BLM, despite the writer’s claims, all it did was tell millions of black wlw the world over that the struggles of existing and staying positive despite them will get you nowhere (what’s worse is that making her death an accident actually shifts the narrative to absolve white facists of any responsibility). Poussey was in a loving relationship, she was happy and yet…

Killing Wes Gibbons wasn’t “necessary” nor did it make sense. You took a mentally ill dark skinned black man who had endured trauma, remained kind and altruistic despite all that, killed him, desecrated his body, had the characters use his traumatic history to worm their way out of responsibility for their actions.and you did all this just as he admitted he was starting to feel genuinely happy with his life… for what? how is that progressive?

Killing Glen Rhee did not show us how violent Negan is. 5 minutes before he killed Glen, Negan bashed Abraham to death and YET Glen’s death is the more gory and violent of the two. Glen was happy, he was about to have a family with Maggie. All killing Glen showed us, like with the deaths of the other aforementioned characters, is that writers don’t want characters of color to be happy, especially if they’re LGBT.  

And though she is not a poc, Vanessa Ives in penny dreadful was a religious bisexual mentally ill woman who constantly and literally fought her demons as well as patriarchal Victorian/catholic values her whole life, had finally learned to accept herself and the writers used this (a moment that should have been empowering) to make her force her love interest to shoot her in the head, an act that no matter how u look at it is essentially sending the message that religous mentally ill wlw  should just give up 

i’m just so damn tired of this narrative that white writers keep throwing in my face that i, a wlw mentally ill poc, will never be content in my life and if I am the world won’t allow it for very long it s absolutely appalling and needs to fkn stop, or at least stop pretending that it’s edgy when all it does is add to the hurt we feel every single fkn day and doesn’t help others understand our hurt either