#obviously depending on the story you can have more context than that | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

transmutationisms · 2 months

Note

could you talk more on eds and biopolitics?

sure, so this is broad strokes and it's also worth reiterating that the energy deficit characteristic of EDs can have a lot of different causes besides intentional food restriction—food insecurity is a huge and underrecognised factor here but there are many others. so when i talk about intentional restriction and the desire to be thin / lose weight, i'm not suggesting these are universal characteristics or causes of EDs.

anyway though, in the context of discussing these things, and particularly the relationship between 'diet culture' and EDs, a perennial frustration to me is that i often hear people fall back on the idea that the desire to be thin comes about as a result of the beauty standards perpetuated in mass media, fashion adverts, &c, without any subsequent interrogation of why it is that beauty itself is now so heavily dependent on thinness. after all, plenty of people have pointed out this is not a universal; beauty varies in different times and places, what is described or depicted as beautiful in historical records doesn't necessarily have much overlap with today's hegemonic standards, and so forth.

so when historicising this phenomenon it becomes very clear that the euro/anglo standard of thinness as beauty is, one, part of the ideological apparatus justifying colonialism thru the creation of race and white supremacy. sabrina strings and da'shaun harrison have written on this. two, the thin ideal is also inextricably tied up in medical discourses defining the ideal body as one that is economically productive, with the promise being that if the populace can be transformed into 'healthy',*** useful, hardworking citizens, the state benefits. control of bodyweight is therefore certainly a means of demonstrating one's supposed self-control, moral discipline, &c, but it is also a demand expressed in medical terms: these two discourses merge and overlap, and are both part of the capitalist state's transformation of its citizenry into a biological resource that can be controlled, managed, and exploited to bourgeois ends (profit): hence, biopolitics.

(***the story of how 'health' itself comes to be so dependent on thinness is obviously a critical piece of all this but this post is long as shit already so suffice it to say that this conflation is also not obvious, necessary, universal, &c &c)

medico-political discourses in the 19th century tended to talk about the dangers of both over- and under-weight more than what we hear now; similarly, if you think about something like wilbur atwater's calorie-value charts, these were explicitly intended to guide labourers to the most calorie-dense foods, because to atwater the central danger to be avoided was starvation among the workforce. these days in wealthy countries like the us, you are much more likely to hear about weight management in the context of demands to reduce; this is of course following moves like the WHO declaring an 'obesity epidemic' in 1997, and the rise in the usa of more explicitly nationalist, militaristic weight-loss rhetoric in the post-9/11 era.

however, my position is that these demands for thinness, and the beauty standard that follows and justifies them, are not a departure from earlier 19th- and 20th-century scientific nutrition advice, just an evolution that, for a multitude of reasons (politics, medical professional interests, insurance company practices, &c) has simply come to focus more on the ostensible economic and national threat posed by fatness. the underlying logic bears the biopolitical throughline: the state has, or ought to have, an interest in enforcing the health of its population, and as part of this demands that you the individual surveil and alter your weight according to the scientific guidelines du jour.

this is fertile ground for the development of what, in extreme form, we regard as ED pathology. first, because even the most purely 'health'-motivated individual engaging in the required degree of bodily monitoring and caloric restriction is liable to respond to energy deficit in ways that can become diagnosably distressing. second, because the morals of 'health' are never far from standards of beauty; thinness is sold in overtly profitable ways (the diet and weight-loss industries) and furthermore, our idea of beauty is often a kind of post hoc justification for the thinness already being demanded by state and medical authorities. which is really just to say, beauty is part of the ideological superstructure both resulting from and invoked as a justification for the material conditions of capitalist biopolitics. again this is very broad strokes, but imo it is a much more useful framework to understand EDs than simply presenting them as a result of desiring thinness because it is glorified in The Media, because... reasons (essentially the rené girard model, lol).

#eating disorders

184 notes · View notes

toxicpineapple · 5 months

Text

writing tips masterpost

hello to my loyal tumblr followers... i am often asked to give writing advice but usually when people ask me this i'm nooooot completely sure what to say despite having a ton of advice to give. it's such a broad question when there are so many different things i can advise on, right? so i thought i'd make a sort of writing advice masterpost where i can compile the tips that i think people specifically in fandoms could benefit the most from hearing, OR that i wish someone had told me when i was still finding my footing as a writer.

hopefully this will be helpful to you. i am putting all of the advice under a read more since this is going to be a long one. let's roll!

✬ paragraph breaks are your friend

the fastest way to get me to stop reading a fic is if i click in and see that there are NO paragraphs made and the entire piece is in a huge block of text. no matter how good your work is, i just can't read it at that point. the giant paragraph makes me get lost, i can't focus on anything... it's a huge no.

the trick is you want your paragraphs to sort of act as a guide for your reader, taking them through the story, keeping them engaged. do not be afraid to do short paragraphs! i can understand wanting to shy away from one or two sentence paragraphs for fear of not having "enough substance" in your work, but the truth is, a thousand short paragraphs is ten times easier to read than a huge block of text.

realistically, you want to have a good amount of variety in your paragraph length. variety is key. readers will notice when your work gets formulaic, and some people will like that, but for others that can turn people away from your work. but don't force it! a paragraph should end at the end of a statement, or if the paragraph is getting too long then cut off the thought and continue in the next paragraph with a transitional phrase.

as a general rule of thumb, you want lines of dialogue by different speakers to be put in separate paragraphs. you also want to avoid doing huge chunks of narration or exposition in the same paragraph as you introduce a new speaker. just make a new paragraph! no big deal. i guarantee you your reader will be way more engaged and nobody is going to come at you for doing more rather than less.

✬ make sure the reader knows who is speaking and when

you don't have to end off every line of dialogue with "she said" and in fact i would really recommend you don't. but you ALWAYS need to have some kind of indication in the text as to who is speaking, otherwise the reader can get lost.

this doesn't necessarily mean that you always have to explicitly say who is saying what, though. if it is obvious in a scene who is saying something -- so for example, a scene where there are only two characters talking OR the dialogue has some kind of phrase, statement, etc that makes it obvious who the speaker is -- then in that case you can just let the dialogue speak for itself. sometimes in writing less can be more. you disrupt the flow of a scene if you start to exposit unnecessarily when the reader could reasonably work something out for themself.

✬ "said" is your friend too

related to the last piece of advice, here's another note: don't shy away from using the word "said".

don't overuse it, either. obviously, you don't want every single line to be "he says" "she says" back and forth, especially when they might be asking questions or shouting, in which case the word "said" probably isn't all that applicable at all. but it's a nice default. if you catch yourself busting out the thesaurus, my recommendation? quit it. just use said. it's not going to hurt you and the reader isn't going to mind.

but yeah, in the event that a character is raising their voice, whispering, inquiring -- there are tons of other words you can use in lieu of said and then an adverb. it's just context-dependent, and also, you don't really want to lean too far one way or another. like i said, variety is key. too much of the same breaks immersion.

✬ if you wouldn't say it yourself, probably don't use it in writing

another related tip. look, i get it. you want to spruce up your writing with synonyms. but the fact of the matter is that a lot of these words that "mean the same thing" on paper actually have wildly differing connotations and if you don't understand what those are you're going to look kind of silly whipping out a word you just found off the internet. we can usually tell, too.

your vocabulary will naturally grow and expand as you continue to read and learn. you don't have to try and force it to seem smarter in your writing. people who can write compelling prose and dialogue without throwing in fancy words they barely understand look a lot more intelligent than people who have a thesaurus at the ready 24/7.

✬ if there's a simpler way to say it, take it

this one can be sort of style-dependent, so if it's not your cup of tea then feel free to take or leave this tip, but in my opinion, taking a whole seven-line paragraph to describe a simple action wastes both your and the readers' time.

how many times have you read a fic where the main characters are having a conversation with these long rambling paragraphs between lines of dialogue? sometimes this makes sense! if you were writing a death note fic it would absolutely make sense for light or L to be pausing every few seconds to carefully analyse their opponent's move... but that's not always the case. sometimes characters are just making small talk.

i'm not saying you can't show off. you should show off where applicable. but there's a time and place. sometimes a scene benefits more from you taking the easy way to describe something and moving on. flowery language is great, but if you're meandering too much the reader will lose interest and attention.

✬ a metaphor is useless if nobody knows what it means

writing is subjective and highly personal. write for yourself first and foremost, and use the metaphors that feel right to you -- but the best metaphorical pieces, to me, are the ones that people can understand and identify with.

you've read a story like that, haven't you? with a reoccurring theme or motif that comes back into play at the end in a way that makes you feel so satisfied and complete? THAT'S what you aim for with literary devices like that. if you write a story that nobody can understand, with metaphors that just don't make any sense -- then you haven't really successfully told a good story, have you?

i understand wanting to have a magnum opus. i think it's easy to fall into the "misunderstood writer" mindset where you want your pieces to be so magnificent that only the likeminded will get it -- but writing is a form of communication. metaphor is just another means with which we can illustrate how we feel. you WANT your readers to understand what you're doing with the metaphors, you WANT the people who step away from your story to know what you were trying to say. you don't have to be obvious, just make it good. make it something that can be reasonably drawn from the text.

at the end of the day flowery language is just flowery language. that doesn't actually make your story good.

✬ grammar intermission

(.) period/full stop: used at the end of sentences. oftentimes not used at the end of sentences in dialogue, because lines of dialogue are considered a fragment of a larger sentence. use a period/full stop at the end of a line of dialogue if the dialogue is followed up by another complete sentence. example:

"i just went to the store," he said, scratching his head.

"i just went to the store." he scratched his head.

(,) comma: used in the middle or to separate different clauses (parts/sections) of sentences. used for incomplete clauses, AKA sections of the sentence that could not function as individual sentences. also used to indicate a slight pause. example:

she reached for the ripest banana, plucking it from the bunch.

a comma can also be replaced by a conjunction like "and" or "but". example:

she reached for the ripest banana and plucked it from the bunch.

(;) semi colon: used to separate different complete clauses in sentences, AKA sections of the sentence that are related but COULD function individually as their own sentences. example:

he sighed as he looked out the window; it had been so long since he stepped outside.

not to be confused with

(:) colon: used at the end of a line that leads into or introduces another line. example:

his fingers drummed restlessly against the window sill. it was finally happening: he was finally leaving this place.

(-) hyphen: used to connect compound words like three-years-old or hyphenated surnames like jones-smith.

(–) en dash: used to indicate ranges of time or distance, like 3–4 hours.

(—) em dash: a girl's best friend. slash j. but an em dash is used to indicate a few different things: an abrupt end to a thought or sentence, a "cut-in" where you interject something tangentially or unrelated before returning to the original thought, or a diversion in the sentence/thought. examples:

"no, listen, you don't understand—"

he scowled—an ugly look on his usually handsome features—and told her to be quiet.

it's not like she had wanted it to go that way—but when had it ever mattered what she wanted?

(()) parentheses: used to add additional context, information, or a semi-unrelated thought that would break the flow of an ongoing sentence without completely taking the reader out. example:

"no, i'm sorry. i just forgot to call you this morning," he said, looking away. (in truth, he'd sat by the phone for fifteen minutes trying to psyche himself into it, but hadn't been able to muster the courage.)

✬ show don't tell, and tell don't show

show don't tell is one of the classic pieces of writing advice that i do, often, think is correct -- but it's a little more nuanced than just never telling your readers what a character is thinking. you want the work to speak for itself without you implanting messages or themes into the reader's brain. at the same time though you don't want them to be doing too much work because it breaks immersion.

this ties into what i was saying above about simpler being better sometimes. you want to be concise especially in scenes that might call for it. a fight scene should be quick and snappy. no need to dig into the physical sensation of being enraged -- just say the character is pissed! but if a character is having a meltdown or panicking, you can get SO much more out of describing how that feels than just outright saying it.

✬ remember your perspective

another huge thing with show don't tell is that you don't want your character to be able to objectively say what everyone else is thinking and feeling -- unless that makes sense for them within the context of the story. really dig into it. DOES the character have a reason to know what their opponents, friends, etc are thinking? how well do they know the other characters? how attentive are they to the emotions of those around them?

it's better to focus on descriptions than labels in that case. say what face a character is making, describe their body language or tone. your character can have impressions, just make it clear that those ARE their impressions. and let your character be wrong! they do not have to be a completely objective source of information.

✬ when it comes to representation, if you aren't confident you can do it well, don't do it at all

i'm one of those people who's kind of of the opinion that white or cishet or otherwise systemically advantaged people have no place being the loudest voices in conversations about representation, least of all AS the representatives. if you are someone with systemic privilege and you choose to portray someone who is oppressed -- that's not necessarily a bad thing. but you need to be willing to do your research and have a sensitivity reader, and you have to be ready for people to say you did it wrong.

not much else to be said about that. your voice on the matter isn't actually all that important. there are people from the demographics involved who DO have stories to tell about themselves that will be MUCH more valuable than your perception of them, so it's honestly better to just let them tell it. that's how i feel.

✬ don't break the rules unless you know how to follow them. in other words, your rebellion should be obvious

a lot of times i see people breaking grammar or other rules and citing "stylistic" choices as their reasons why. which is all good and well, to an extent -- but you want it to be very clear that you ARE breaking the rules on purpose in a way that adds to the artistic merit of your piece.

if you don't know the rules, then it really just comes across like messy work. you both have to know how to apply the rules, and also how to break them in a stylistically significant way. if it doesn't make sense for the rules to be broken, if it says nothing... it's honestly better to just follow them. that's my take.

✬ don't be scared of names and pronouns

i said before that you want variety in your work, and that is very very true -- but it's also true that certain words like names, pronouns, etc will sort of blend into the background in writing. people don't notice them. that means if you're using a name or pronoun a lot in a scene to make it clear who exactly is being referred to...

hey. look into my eyes. breathe. it's okay. you do not have to resort to highlighting arbitrary characteristics of the characters. i know. just breathe. it's okay. use their names. they have them for a reason. it's all good.

this isn't to say that you SHOULDN'T do that, just do it when it makes sense to. if height is something the characters are noticing then use "the shorter boy". if age is relevant, eye colour, hair colour, whatever -- go ahead and use them. but don't be excessive with it. i should not be having to read the bluenette more than i'm reading shuichi's actual goddamn name.

✬ read

this is the huge one. reading other works informs your writing. it teaches you skills and tricks you can use. it helps expand your dialogue and your world view. it might even highlight to you things you do too much of in your own writing. read, all the time, whenever you can. it doesn't have to be books. it can be fanfic, articles, whatever -- just keep reading, because you will be passively absorbing knowledge during that time and it'll help you grow as a writer.

✬ practice

BOOOOOO TOMATO TOMATO TOMATO! SHE SAID THE THING SHE SAID IT!

but listen, it's literally just true. i write almost every day for at least a couple of hours and i have been on a trend of consistent growth for the past five years. go read my fics from 2019 if you don't believe me. i've grown fast and i've grown constantly. you just DO grow through constant practice, even if it doesn't always seem that way.

not only that, but you start to build confidence too. writing a lot helps develop those muscles to a point where you start to realise that you ARE that good and you DO have that dawg in you. or whatever. you just have to keep at it. you're not going to magically improve thinking for six months about how you want to be a better writer without practicing anything about it.

✬ yeah, betas are good

you want to have a good editor. i know that that can feel like having someone ELSE be the reason your piece is good, but that's genuinely not it. a beta reader is a second pair of eyes on your work, someone who can tell you about the issues and mistakes you're missing. they'll tell you when something doesn't make sense. they'll point out your punctuation errors. you don't NEED to have a good editor for every crummy little oneshot... but it's good to have one.

✬ numbers are fine and all but don't compare yourself to other people

i think almost everyone in some kind of creative pursuit wants to get some kind of acknowledgement for it. we want to be the best we can be, and it can be discouraging to receive utterly no validation along the way! i get it!!

just don't get caught up in crunching the numbers. you are not as good as your fanbase is. you alone know your skillset and you absolutely should not say "well this other writer got THIS much attention" because that'll just wear you down. it really will. external validation will only keep you going for so long, and you'll always end up needing more. you HAVE to build your own personal confidence first or you'll crash and burn.

✬ read your writing out loud

there is no quicker way to see if something is wonky in your prose than reading it out loud and seeing if it makes sense verbally. i highly recommend this to anybody who struggles with sentence flow. it's a good one.

✬ yippee hooray!

🥰 and that's what i've got for now. thank you if you made it this far, please take all these tips as you will, it is all subjective of course, these are just the tips that help Me the most when i sit down to write something.

please feel free to ask me for additional advice (on specific topics if you could!) at any time, i love encouraging new writers and i am passionate about writing so i will gladly offer support in any way i can, including beta reading works for anybody who might need that.

take care now 💖

#writing #writing advice #writing tips #fanfiction tips

261 notes · View notes

anistarrose · 3 months

Text

So I have only my two cents to give on the "curing disabilities in fantasy/sci-fi stories" trope, as just one disabled person among many disabled people, but here are my two cents nonetheless.

One defense of the trope is that it's simply a form of escapism, and moreover, a fantasy that disabled people themselves can quite reasonably find joy in — as a feel-good story, a break from all the pain of real life. Many — not all by a long shot, but many — of us would jump at the chance for a cure, after all, and it's not like we're not valid to do so. Lots of us take pride in being disabled, but nevertheless, sometimes it really fucking sucks.

The counterargument to the above is this: that this isn't a realistic trope, and that particularly in combination with the suffocating frequency that this trope is used, this becomes the opposite of a hopeful fantasy. When you have an incurable condition, and the only happy endings you see represented for people like you in fiction are inevitably only achieved once the characters stop being like you — that can be indescribably upsetting.

Disabled characters do not get happy endings while remaining disabled — and fiction is fiction and all, but I'm not going to pretend like this doesn't have gradual, accumulative real-life effects on the amount of effort people/society are willing to put into accessibility and acceptance, because of beliefs like "aren't you going to be cured someday anyway?" Or "isn't this disability just going to stop existing, someday? one way or another?"

I hope I don't have to explain how damaging it is to think the above way, or to imagine a future where disability doesn't exist. (Yes, even though disability is partially socially constructed. That's a load-bearing "partially".)

So, if you couldn't tell, I do generally relate a lot more to the harsher, more critical view of this trope — but I certainly don't want to judge actual disabled people for writing it either (and especially not people with progressive conditions), not when there is genuine catharsis and escapist joy that can be wrung from it. I obviously don't trust non-disabled folks with writing "cure" stories any further than I could throw them, due to a long fucking history of non-disabled people fucking it up — but also, no one should be forced to reveal personal details, let alone medical history, to justify their choice to write something.

This is the paradox that I am willing to come to terms with, by throwing up my hands and saying, "okay, so some of the time I sure don't like it, but it's technically none of my business."

That said: if you're non-disabled, or you're writing about a disability much different from your own (a physical disability when you're autistic, for example), and you want to write an escapist feel-good story featuring disabled characters: I also want to stress that "escapist themes" versus "no one's disability gets cured ever" is very much a false binary. You can have both.

I've never written a "curing a disability" story. But I've both written and enjoyed some extremely escapist, unashamedly hopeful stories revolving around disabled characters — and it's all about accommodation.

A story of any genre where society is more accepting of — and willing to collectively help care for — chronic illnesses and chronic pain? That's escapist, and if it's something that characters once fought tooth and nail for, it's pretty damn cathartic. A fantasy or sci-fi story where medicines are still required to treat a condition, but the medicines are more accessible, more effective, et cetera, may also be escapist depending on the context.

Fantasy service animals, high-tech service robots, magical or indistinguishable-from-magic mobility devices? They're all possibly escapist too. (Just note that a lot of disabled people may still maintain a personal preference for seeing the "real world" versions, and that's that's also perfectly reasonable. Remember that the gripe with the original trope has a lot to do with a lack of variety in representation, justified by arbitrary rules about how fantasy/sci-fi "should" look, and the goal should be not to replicate that.)

So, in conclusion: if you find yourself writing a disabled character, and want to give them a happy ending, I urge you not to jump to "their disability is cured now" without at least thinking through the alternatives. Do your research regardless, and accept that disabled people will likely have a wide range of opinions on whatever you decide to go with — but accept that disabilities themselves are varied, and should not inherently have to consign either characters or real human beings to tragic lives by their mere existence.

#disability #ableism #long post #honestly i could tag toh here but i won't #(especially because the ableism in that fandom has calmed down since the peak in s2a - at least as far as i've observed)

88 notes · View notes

sunshine-jesse · 5 months

Text

In defense of Andrew Graves: A character arc in one sentence

HEY! I rewrote this essay and fleshed it out a lot. I'm keeping the original here for posterity, but the new version renders this one completely obsolete. Find it here!

I've focused a lot on Ashley in my past writings. She's my favorite character in the story (and depending on how episode 3 pans out, maybe ever) and I'm pretty mortified by how some parts of the fandom have reacted towards her, so I pretty much made it my life's mission to push back against that. From highlighting the ways Andrew mistreats her, to coming up with justifications for her behavior that aren't just being a manipulative bitch, I really wanted to prove that a more favorable picture of her could be painted than most were willing to.

But in doing so, I've left Andrew in the dust.

In highlighting his flaws and the ways he mistreats Ashley, I think I've implied a level of intentionality to his actions that I don't believe he has. Most of his worst actions are spur of the moment, or caused by a fundamental conflict that exists between his desires and his idea of the way things should be. That doesn't excuse them, obviously! But they do reveal interesting things about his character and how it develops over the course of the game. He starts out as a doormat, but eventually settles on either his bitterness or a sense of calmness and acceptance, both over Ashley.

But what exactly causes this change?

There's plenty of reason to believe that he was slowly evolving before the story took place, but within the context of the work itself, I believe there are two points where he can no longer ignore the changes that have happened to this point, both of which are in the first chapter: The killing of the warden and the 302 lady. In the first case, he was forced to do it to protect Ashley in a way he hadn't done before, or depending on how you look at it, since the death of Nina. But the intentionality was the key point here. After this point, he calls Ashley Leyley, which may or may not seem important at this point, but it's something I'll draw attention to later, so keep that in mind.

Next is the killing of the 302 lady, which is the much, much bigger point. We don't learn much about it until later on- as at first he just gives an excuse about the nail gun that doesn't line up with what we see on the map- but during the dream, it's revealed it was a calculated, intentional killing that he did to make sure there was no evidence left behind, and because Ashley (supposedly) would've wanted him to do it anyway. I say supposedly because Ashley herself doesn't seem to ever want Andrew to kill for her past Nina's death, because he only ever kills for her to defend one or both of them. If you want more evidence that violence for violence's sake isn't something she wants, look at this part in the final dream:

A knife isn't what opens the door, despite it being placed on the ground in that very map. While it seems obvious that the knife (violence) would be the key to solving the puzzle, it's put there explicitly to show you that it isn't. It's not what she wants; what she wants is a flower.

So, why is this important? Why am I centering Ashley- again- when this essay is supposed to be about Andrew?

Because I think it's important to point out the discrepancy between what he thinks Ashley wants, and what she really wants. When Ashley starts to grill Andrew over the killing of the 302 lady, he gets mad. Very mad. Ashley sees it as pointless, as him covering his own ass, but he genuinely did it for her sake, because he thought that's what she wanted, and that it'd make her happy. But what makes her happy isn't violence- or any similarly extreme action for that matter- it's attention and validation. Something he's always reluctant to give her, despite the fact that he always chose her over the alternatives. But despite making that choice, it's always empty and meaningless, because in Ashley's mind, he never did it for her sake.

And hoo boy, does he not like it being framed like this.

But is she wrong, though? He WAS the one who chopped up the Warden, and he WAS the one who chose to kill the 302 lady. Violence is his job, it's all he knows. He has to do it to take care of Leyley, right? To protect her? To keep her happy? Then why doesn't he ever acknowledge it? Why does he never admit that he did it for her sake, to keep her happy?

Because he doesn't know what he sees her as.

In his unique dream sequence, he sees two versions of Ashley; the child version of her- Leyley- and the adult version of her- Ashley. And the differences in the ways he interacts with the two of them are stunning. Leyley is an obstinate, annoying child. She's the one he NEEDS to take care of, and he hates that. He hates Leyley for what she did for his childhood. He hates that he needs to provide for her. He has the option of trying to kill her, even, over something as small as a candle!

But in the room with all the murders, the gilded cage, he sees Ashley as an adult. This version of Ashley is stuck in a closet that he himself has to open- and to choose to see. Their interactions are calm and friendly. She teases him a bit, sure, but she's still helpful, and they have fun together. He doesn't need her, and she doesn't need him. He needed Leyley- needed the candle- but here, there are other limbs strewn about for him to take. And, crucially, he doesn't even have the option to kill this Ashley for one of the limbs.

And during the choking scene, he lets her go the moment she acknowledges that he doesn't need her anymore.

What he really wants is Ashley for Ashley's sake. Not for what she can provide him. He doesn't even need her for sleep, he just wants her. But Ashley has trouble acknowledging this, because he's never before shown that WANT. Only a NEED. She keeps trying to find ways to make him need her, because she's never seen what his desire for her is really like. She's only ever seen him desiring someone else, someone other than her. She's only ever seen him as Andy, because she's never truly seen Andrew, only the violence he can inflict on others. Andrew, meanwhile is arguably further along in the realization of their relationship, because he can see and acknowledge both sides of Ashley.

He can see Leyley, the needy, bratty child who always needs his attention, that he needs to provide for. The one he hates and wants to get rid of. The one he kills for to protect. And he can see Ashley, the one who engages in friendly and cute banter with him. Who comforts and shows him physical affection. The one he loves. The one he kills for to make happy.

He just can't choose which one he wants to see. Every outside influence- from his parents, to Julia, to Nina- makes him see her as Leyley. Ashley herself makes him see her as Leyley too, whenever she brings up all the things he did for her, and calls him Andy, his child self, instead of Andrew, his current self. And as long as he sees that child, he feels like one too, and can never give Ashley anything that comes from the heart.

But he really, really wants to see Ashley as an adult. He wants to take pride in her, how much she's grown, and how driven and competent she really is.

But god damn, does that bitch ever make it hard.

But in the end, it's him who has to make the choice how to see her. Ashley can only see what she's shown, but Andrew can choose.

And in the basement scene, he makes that choice.

If Ashley refuses to leave him alone with their parents, that's it. In one of the most critical and important moments of his life, she couldn't give him the space needed to make up his own mind. She couldn't treat him as an adult. She couldn't see him as Andrew. If she does give him that choice, she chooses to acknowledge that Andrew is an adult who can be trusted to make his own decisions, even though she (perhaps foolishly) believes that this choice lines up with her own interests. And frankly it does either way, but in accepting their mom's offer, her chooses to see her as Leyley once and for all. He chooses not to reciprocate what Ashley showed him. He does it because he needs to, not because he wants to. Because it's his duty, not his desire.

But if he WANTS to?

That respect becomes mutual.

In choosing to treat each other like adults, to treat their relationship as one of desire rather than need, Andy starts to die. From that point on, their relationship becomes a lot more friendly, lighthearted, and playful. They ironically start acting more like children, but to quote CS Lewis:

"Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence."

He's not ashamed of being playful with Ashley, or showing affection towards her. He's grown up. He finally sees her, and himself, as an adult- although he still doesn't show that in full until much later on (more or that later). But in Decay, he still sees her as a child, and to an extent, probably himself. Let's compare the ways in which he reacts to being called Andy. In Decay, he lashes out at Ashley and gets angry, even threatening her. But in Questionable Burial, he calmly says that Andy is dead and doesn't need Ashley's comfort, but still tries to reassure her that she's still needed. He's not ashamed of or hostile towards their prior dynamic, because he's grown past it. He still recognizes Ashley's need to feel needed, but he still RECOGNIZES it, where he was hostile towards it before.

It's a display of respect towards her feelings.

This interaction doesn't happen in the Sane ending, however. He doesn't play games with her and is just a lot less fun to be around all together. Why is that? Because he still hasn't yet shaken viewing Ashley as Leyley there. He still views her as a burden, as someone who needs taking care of. He's calmly accepted that, too, mind you, but he lacks respect for her because she's still a child, in his mind. But in Questionable?

The vision did more than just make him extremely embarrassed and lay his deepest desires bare. It forced him to recognize Ashley as an adult. When choosing between "Never" and "Never say never," if Never is chosen, the burden of thought is lifted off of him. But if Ashley chooses "Never say never!", he has to reckon with the fact that Ashley is an adult, someone who can consent to those kinds of things. Someone who MIGHT. Someone who has agency, and can make her own decisions. And more importantly… someone who can trust him to make his own.

Whether he desires sex or not is secondary; he's always had those feelings and has always been ashamed of it. But now that the part of him where that shame came from is dead and buried, there's no childish impulse to grow up. There's no attachment to the hate and bitterness he had before. Look at what he worries about when he picks up that she's uncertain or confused about who he is now:

This is the one sentence I was referring to in the title.

It's her feelings.

He wants to be fun to be around. He wants to make Ashley happy. He loves her, and not as a romantic interest or even as a sibling. He loves her independent of all that baggage.

He loves her as a person.

In learning to respect Ashley, our boy has finally grown up. But there's a certain intimacy to being hurt by someone else that Ashley isn't getting in this ending, and now she has to reckon with that. And that's really, really hard to do when you're so used to being hurt.

Especially when you're no longer around someone who wants to kill the part of you that needs nurturing the most.

#andrew graves #ashley graves #the coffin of andy and leyley #gaming #tcoaal #tcoaal essay #gravecest

133 notes · View notes

miraculouslbcnreactions · 2 months

Note

This one guy I talked to on AO3 said that Emilie shouldn't be brought back because Adrien has already moved on from her death, but I'm not so sure about that. Other people think she should be revived so she can be her own character and not just someone else's sad backstory, and so Adrien has one good parent, of course. What do you think?

I think that it depends on the story you want to tell. There are cases to be made for bringing her back and cases to be made for letting her die. In the context of canon, I find not bringing her back to be fing stupid because it makes everything feel pointless. We obviously don't know the wish yet, but why let Gabe make the wish at all if he's not going to restore Emilie? Making a different wish isn't him being a good guy at the end. It's still him playing god, he's just now using his god powers to abandon his son for no logical reason. What loving father happily leaves his son an orphan???

Yeah, Gabriel saved Nathalie. I don't care. Nathalie chose to use the peacock to support Gabriel in his plan to terrorize Paris. That wasn't some noble sacrifice on her part! She didn't deserve to be saved any more than Gabriel did. Of the three dying/dead parental figures (I really don't know Emilie's status) Emilie is the only one who was never tempted by the dark side if we ignore the uncomfortable implications of how they got the peacock in the first place/Adrien's childhood isolation and just embrace the canon narrative that Emilie was a good and loving mother who was Too Pure For This World.

Meanwhile, Nathalie was a terrible mother figure! She supported Gabriel's awful treatment of Adrien for four seasons and then spent all of season five gently prodding Gabriel to change/tell Adrien the truth while leaving Adrien completely in the dark to everything that was happening. If Gabriel hasn't won, then Adrien would have lost both his father and Nathalie who knew that they were dying, but never gave Adrien a chance to say goodbye because Nathalie never stopped putting Gabriel first in almost every way that mattered. Adrien still doesn't know that he could have been allowed say goodbye to his father because Gabriel's death was entirely predictable.

Along similar lines, I don't think that Nathalie was wrong to undo Gabriel's senticommands, but it is deeply messed up that she was happily doing it in secret and never once considered giving Adrien a chance to consent. A loving parent should find the idea of controlling their child deeply upsetting. She should have been tempted to tell Adrien the truth, especially since she knew that she was dying, but we never see her consider that.

She also does nothing to get Adrien's slave collar away from Gabriel or to stop Gabriel from terrorizing Paris even though we have a scene where she literally pins Gabriel to a table. Her turn to "good" did nothing but maintain the status quo because she continued to support Gabriel in all the ways that truly matter. She never really protects Adrien. She does not deserve to be Adrien's new mother. #BringEmilieBack!!!

All of that is assuming that Gabriel's wish saved Nathalie while sacrificing himself and Emilie. If so, then that is literally the most boring way to go about letting the wish happen. You could have just as easily had Gabriel lose and have Ladybug know a way to save Nathalie via Guardian magic. The end result would have been the same.

If Gabriel had chosen to give up on the wish entirely? Then Emilie not coming back would be a satisfying ending. I personally really like Gabriel being defeated and the heroes then bringing Emilie back. Very much a spite move for me, plus it's a nice way to lessen the sting of Gabriel's defeat. Adrien losing his father, but gaining his mother feels really satisfying to me, especially if Emilie gets to serve Gabriel divorce papers. Got your wish, old man. Now suffer for it.

No matter the case, saying that Emilie shouldn't be brought back because Adrien has moved on is bad logic as it implies that Emilie is only worth bringing back if Adrien say he wants her back, as if she's a beloved childhood toy that someone broke long ago. It also implies that Adrien wouldn't want her back just because he's accepted her loss. Those are two very different things. Imo, one of the show's failings is the fact that Adrien is denied the right to grieve as if that makes him a better person. A better show would show healthy grief vs unhealthy grief (Adrien vs Gabe). She's been gone less than a year when the story starts. Everyone processes grief different, but that's really fast to move on from the death of a parent.

#ml writing salt #ml writing critical #ml season 5 salt

65 notes · View notes

keydekyie · 6 months

Text

𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕄𝕠𝕥𝕙 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝔹𝕖𝕒𝕣

~Frequently asked questions~

Wondering what the hell that human-faced bear monster was that you saw on your dash? Can't figure out whether it's supposed to be scary or cute? Confused deeply?

Well do I have the solution for you: All your questions answered, and more!

First of all: what am I looking at?

uh... well, the creatures are called Kanai. They're basically a sphinx, a creature with a human face, but instead of the body of a lion, it's a bear! It's not that weird! (right?) Oh, and they're also the size of a house. Don't worry about it, it's fine. It's fine.

What is this setting?

The story is set in my headworld, which is a sort of an alternate-reality Earth, and specifically in a country called Kellabor. Here's a big worldbuilding dump if you're curious, but there's no need to read it all before diving into the books. You'll discover everything important along the way.

So there are books?

Yes! I've published two books in the series, and I'm working on the third. I have a masterpost explaining them with content warnings here.

Okay but what is the story, really? What happens?

It's a very PG slow-burn fantasy romance adventure story with a dash of horror.

Oh, so there's romance?

Yep! It's been planned that way since the first words I put down. If you get through the first two books and are wondering where the hell the romance happens, just remember: it's a slow burn. A sloooow burn. We'll get there.

How many books are there going to be?

So far, I'm planning on four. Originally, I had three planned, but the second one was getting too long and I had to split it in half. That's why book II: The Crossing ends on a cliffhanger. Don't worry, it's not going to take four books to get to the cute parts.

Is there going to be a happy ending?

Yes! Yes, I promise there will be a happy ending. Might not, uh... seem very likely, at times, but yes.

What's the inspiration behind this story?

If you want a long somewhat-spoilery answer, you can read this, but the tl;dr non-spoilery version is:

I wanted to write a story about a monster and a human where the monster is the one facing the ethical dilemma, and they come to be friends and care about each other. And go on adventures. And love each other.

Wait, so... are the giant bear monsters the good guys?

Um... yes and no. There really aren't clear good guys or bad guys in this story. I'm going to have to ask you to have a bit of an open mind, here.

Okay, but I swear I saw a gif of one of these monsters eating someone. Was that from this?

Yeah, that gif is from a side-project set in the same world. It's a little more explicit than anything that happens on screen in TMatB, but let's just say it's not... uncharacteristic. That's the dash of horror I mentioned.

Listen... it's the dash of horror that makes the cute stuff that much cuter. The horror is the flavor. Trust me on this one.

Wait so if the bear monsters eat people, how are they not obviously the bad guys?

It's complicated! You'll find nothing is black and white here in Kellabor. The country has a long, mysterious, complex history, and so do each of my characters.

Okay but... what happens, though? Who's this girl I keep seeing in these drawings? Why does it sometimes seem like they are enemies and sometimes not?

The protagonists start out in conflict in book I due to ✨circumstances✨. They have a lot of issues to work out. Depending on where they are in the story, drawings of them might show them being more antagonistic or more sweet. It'll all make sense with context.

I'm still confused...

Ask box is always open! ♥️

#tmatb #faq #writing #books #the moth and the bear

71 notes · View notes

gendrie · 3 months

Text

i think its a shame that arya is so frequently labeled as "independent" bc it fails to capture the duality in her storyline between dependence and independence. contrary to popular belief arya depends on other people and her arc revolves around that profound need in a violent, desperate, wartorn world where connection is difficult (seemingly impossible at times) to maintain.

in the most basic context arya is a 9 year old child in the beginning of the story. she, obviously, depends on other people. in a sane and safe world she would be cared for by her parents - or at least competent adults. but she is forced onto the streets where she has to fend for herself. she goes hungry and risks assault but she is able to survive. when she gets picked up by yoren she becomes a (temporary) recruit of the night's watch where arya herself recognizes that they provide her with protection, food, and company. this is a similar dynamic to the one we see with her friends later. they provide arya with crucial companionship if nothing else. arya highly values gendry and hot pie. she forces them to escape harrenhal with her - she did not flee alone! and she stays with them despite the fact they slow her down and jeopardize her personal goals.

other people can be liability too. they can make you vulnerable and they can leave you. arya knows how it feels to be left behind. most of her family, to arya's knowledge, have been violently murdered. her allies and friends have left in a variety of ways. arya believes she is the lone wolf - not because she wants to be but because she is desperately alone. we see her try to convince herself that she is independent; that she doesn't need friends and that she must accept a life without a pack. these are the thoughts of a depressed and traumatized young girl trying to cope with abandonment. this is the condition arya is in when she arrives at the house of black and white where she will be required to forfeit her life to the god of death.

on a thematic level arya's very identity has been dependent on her family, her pack. the loss of this chips away at her sense of self until arya doesn't even know who she is without her father and mother and siblings and her wolf. nymeria represents arya's soul in wolf form and she has amassed a gigantic pack that she leads. arya holds them close in her heart:

And dreamed. That was the best part, the dreaming. She dreamed of wolves most every night. A great pack of wolves, with her at the head. She was bigger than any of them, stronger, swifter, faster. She could outrun horses and outfight lions. When she bared her teeth even men would run from her, her belly was never empty long, and her fur kept her warm even when the wind was blowing cold. And her brothers and sisters were with her, many and more of them, fierce and terrible and hers. They would never leave her. (Arya, ASOS)

this is the only comfort for arya in the wake of the red wedding: a pack that will never leave her.

arya is able to think and act independently. she has a will of her own and a strong one at that. but she is a deeply social character who depends on community. this is her most consistent character trait. arya thrives on her interactions with others. she wants a stable community and we see her cling to that whether its as arya of winterfell or cat of the canals.

the framing of arya as this independent entity is doing her character a great disservice in fandom spaces. its one of the main reasons speculation for her endgame is so weak tbh. arya going off on her own to be a lone wolf is completely at odds with her character and the themes of her story. yes, other people can hurt. yes, they can leave you. but that is the price we pay being connected to one another. arya's character explores this theme more deeply than any other character, i'd argue. the pack survives is her mantra and hers alone.

#asoiaf nonsense #arya stark #but they loooove to throw the pack survives on anything house stark lol

38 notes · View notes

raven-at-the-writing-desk · 1 year

Note

I don't know if this has been addressed, but what is Floyd's "squeezing"? I assumed he dragged students away to beat them up since the victims always reacted with fear. However, if Floyd's tsum copies his behavior, is he literally just squeezing students with all his might? It seems a little anticlimactic to elicit such a response because of a tight hug, don't you think? I mean, it will obviously hurt to be crushed, but it's better that getting beat up, right? 🤔

Interpreting Floyd's squeezing as only a "tight hug" is... well, it's sort of downplaying the harm he's causing to other people 😅 Depending on the context in which the phrase "squeezing" is used, I do believe it's a euphemism that can either mean beating people up (in a general sense) or actually squeezing them (because he is shown to do both). EDIT: In some contexts, “squeezing” can also mean playful hugs. It’s just that most of the time when Floyd’s threatening to squeeze mob students or other characters in the main cast, it’s meant in a more malicious way.

One thing you should keep in mind is that the size difference between regular Floyd and tsum Floyd is significant. Tsum Floyd does not have the arm or body length to completely wrap around someone, but regular Floyd definitely does (especially if we consider his merform). Therefore, even though they carry out the same action, the results are not necessarily 1:1. LOOK AT TSUM FLOYD'S NUBS, YOU THINK YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO A PROPER FULL BODY SQUEEZE WITH THOSE????? At most, it can handle someone's arm. Given Floyd's larger stature and longer limbs (to completely ensnare others), he'd be able to deal much more damage. There's a very clear example of Floyd "squeezing" someone so hard that they pass out early in episode 3 of the main story. He's strong enough to make them lose consciousness with physical strength alone, and (if we really want to go into darker fandom interpretations), this may even imply strangulation 💦 Floyd also has a number of voice lines in which he promises to "wring" people out, meaning he knowingly applies as much pressure as possible to deprive his victims of air. It isn’t some accident or an “oppise”, it’s intentional. Consider his merfom as well; he could easily coil around his enemies and squeeze them until they go blue in the face and their eyes pop. Just because Floyd squeezes people on land without the tail doesn't mean the matter is any less serious. Restricting someone's movements in general and/or cutting off their air supply will naturally elicit a panic of fear response. There's also the possibility of Floyd squeezing someone so hard that it damages their internal structures (ie like how even helpful movements like CPR compressions can break the ribs). "Crushing" someone in this manner is something that I would consider the same as "being beat up", not "better than" or "worse than". It's still damage, it's still legitimate fear and trauma. It's cruel, period, and the other characters' apprehensive reactions are 100% valid.

Again, tsum Floyd is presented much differently than regular Floyd. They don't match in size, and there is much more of an overall innocent, playful energy to the Tsumtsums. Them being a part of an event also says a lot about their presentation; TWST events are much more lighthearted than how the characters are typically portrayed in the main story. Mismatched anatomy aside, of course TWST won't show tsum Floyd squeezing students so hard they pass out. That's not the vibe the event is going for, so when tsum Floyd squeezes, it’s meant to be playful/cute and not at “full power” capacity.

(Side note: this is NOT to say that Floyd isn't capable of just normal behavior or genuine tight hugs/playful squeezes as well. He can do those too!! I'm just saying when he does threaten to "squeeze" others, there is always the potential for very real damage to be involved.)

#Floyd Leech #twst #twisted wonderland #disney twisted wonderland #notes for the writing raven #question

209 notes · View notes

thoughtfulpaperback · 2 months

Text

You know, I've been scrolling through the tags, and I've seen some posts arguing either that Colin never loved Marina or that he did love her and anyone who thinks other ways is being being misogynistic or racist.

And I will say that I agree that we can't overlook the mysogynoir I also think that many people are missing the big picture here: that Colin hasn't been in love at all based on the shows definition of love.

Okay like here me out before everyone jumps down my throat.

I will concede that love is complex. It comes in many forms. While I have never experiences puppy love I don't want to devalue the experience of others who have.

What I am trying to say is that based on how the show defines love in each of its stories. He just hasn't been mature enough to be in love.

Violet tells Daphne that the best match/choice is your best friend. Though each story takes on a different troupe (fake relationship and enemies to lovers) the heart of it is the same. Love is wanting someone who is your friend. Someone who you know well and can share parts of yourself that you don't share with anyone else. Someone who challenges you to grow and you you are willing to be open minded for. Someone you want to stick with even when life is tough. Passion and all that is part of yeah but essentially that is the gist from the main show and Queen Charlotte.

While I personally do think Colin has affection for both Marina and Pen and he knows and liked the idea of love, but He just isn't mature enough to love anyone in that way yet.

He could never have been Marina's best friend not because of the lies but because he hadnt really tried to be. He never seem to actually get to know her. He liked dancing with her and spending time with her but, and forgive me if I'm wrong since it has been a while since I watched it last but Colin didn't seem to ask her her much past the superficial or the rescue attempts.

He had the whole willingness to stick it out with her. And he definitely had the feelings. I don't think its fair to downplay that Colin felt genuine care and infatuation. Maybe it was based on a fantasy more than the reality, but those are still valid feelings.

I do think Colin definitely could have grown to love Marina because if they had gotten married they would have eventually grown to be each other's friends since he cared for her and would be more than eilling to make it work, but that also would depend on whether Marina ever let down her guard and stopped playing the part of wanting to be with him for security reasons (Which I don't think is a crime worth all the hate it gets her).

By the same token, he isn't in love with pen. Again there is genuine care. And Pen for sure loves him. He is one of her best friends, she would do anything for him. She wants to protect him and she sees him in a way no one else does.

Obviously while Colin also matches some of that, he isn't there yet. He cares for Pen, he sees a part of her that no one else does, and he's her friend. But he doesn't actually see all of her yet. And I'm not just taking about the LW thing. But everything that goes with it. She isn't a damsel that needs rescuing or a puppy to coddle. She is capable witty and talented.

He definitely sees some of it, but not enough.

Now again if we are going to talk about the complexities of love and validation of experiences.

Then yes Colin loved Marina and he loves Penelope. Just like Anthony loved Sienna and loves Kate.

Love isn't just one thing or another, and it isn't always equally reciprocated.

But I feel that in the context of the shows idea and presentation of love, Colin has not loved anyone truly and probably won't love Pen right away either because he just hasn't matured enough yet to get it.

I don't think this is a particularly new or insightful thought but hadn't seen yet while i was scrolling.

Also yall who are out here waiting for Marina to die....what the heck. I am someone who likes Phillip x Eloise's story, though I think a lot of that would have to be revamped for the show Eloise if they were going to do it.

I honestly would think that they will move on to Benedict before Eloise. That aside I'm not like out here counting down the moments and anticipating the death of a character...

Jeez. Yall out here posting crap that makes me like not want to admit I liked eloise's book.

But

Liking Phillipe x Eloise is not equal to wanting Marina dead ASAP.

I feel like I shouldn't have to say that but apparently it needs to be said.

That's pretty disgusting, y'all, especially knowing how poorly Ruby Barker has been treated.

Now I know you can feel away about a character and not an actor, but I don't think giving the trolls validation is a good thing.

#brigerton #polin #marina thompson #penelope featherington #colin bridgerton

27 notes · View notes

ashleywool · 3 months

Note

What would you need from the fans of How To Dance In Ohio for a ProShot to be streamed somewhere like Broadway HD or similar? Would it need to be a Kickstarter or a social media campaign? Is there anyone we can write to? Part of my reason for asking is selfish, since I would love to see the show, but this show is also historic and groundbreaking in a lot of different ways and I also think your amazing performances need to be preserved as a part of Broadway history.

I know this is probably a really sad time for you and the rest of the Ohio cast/creative team and even if a ProShot never happens and nothing ever comes of it, just know that you, all of you, touched more lives and hearts than you could possibly know just by being who you are.

Thanks so much for asking. This is something we have been discussing with the producers, because obviously we'd all love it to happen too.

Warning: incoming info-dump, albeit a grossly oversimplified one:

It would cost about $3M to produce a pro-shot. Here's an incomplete list of where that money would go:

-The regular costs of the venue itself--which, when you include rent, utilities, and staff salaries (security, bartenders, ushers, custodians, all the people who are just in charge of maintaining the Belasco), comes out to about $1K a minute.

-The labor of obtaining necessary permits for filming onsite.

-The labor of the film crew, including load-in, setup, and breakdown of equipment, and coordinating with stage management to make sure their shooting doesn't get in the way of backstage choreography, and making any adjustments accordingly

-The collaboration between the film crew and the in-house sound crew to make sure the audio is captured and balanced properly

-The labor of post-production: editing, color correction, sound adjustment, etc.

-There are also different contracts (and higher pay) for the actors, stage managers, stage crew, sound crew, lighting crew, and wardrobe crew, in addition to our current contracts wherein we're just doing the show as usual. This can get particularly complicated with the actors and stage managers, since our Broadway contracts are through Actors' Equity Association (the union for stage actors and stage managers) but the contract for having our work filmed and distributed in theaters or on streaming platforms is under SAG-AFTRA (the union for film actors).

This is not a complete list, but to give you some context: that's about what it would cost just to make the thing. The costs and logistics of actually distributing it is a different story altogether, and a lot of that would depend on strategizing around future productions and making sure the availability of the pro-shot wouldn't compromise, say, a national tour. I'm not a producer and don't have the numbers and the research, but what I'd love to see happen is, the pro-shot gets a limited theatrical release to coincide with a national tour, and then gets released to streaming platforms when the tour is wrapped. (Of course, as an elder millennial who's genetically incapable of not being financially stressed, I don't care where or how it's released as long as I get those residual checks lol.)

As to your question of crowdfunding: as far as I understand it (and I'm not an entertainment lawyer so I likely have very incomplete information, so don't take my word at total face value): in order to crowdfund for a pro-shot, the producers would likely need to establish a new business entity and it would have to be a nonprofit entity so it could legally solicit donations from the public. Broadway shows are commercially produced, and each iteration of the commercially-produced production has its own business entity. When the show was in workshops and in Syracuse, the business entity was "Amigos in Ohio, LLC." The Broadway entity is "Amigos on Broadway, LLC." The only difference it makes on my end is the name that shows up on my bank statement when I get my direct deposit every week, but the difference it makes from a producer perspective is much more significant and it has a big effect on how productions are legally and ethically allowed to be funded, and again I'm not an entertainment lawyer so explaining what those differences are is beyond me.

I will say, however, Ken Davenport has been a real innovator when it comes to how shows can be produced--in 2010, he launched what eventually became the first crowdfunded Broadway musical with the Godspell revival. I know very little about how all of that actually works, but I do think something like that would be a boon to the industry in the year of our dark Majestic Theater 2024. And it would also give the fans a way to connect with the material and the business on a deeper and more personal level.

Meanwhile, if you want to learn more about how Broadway works from the producers' side, you should check out Sammy Lopez's Producing 101 course on The Business of Broadway. (I'm going to be in an upcoming class myself and it's all virtual, so maybe I'll see you there!)

#how to dance in ohio #broadway #musical theatre #musicals #htdio #theatre #broadway producing #showbiz

27 notes · View notes

lutiaslayton · 10 months

Text

Random update on the transcription of the Eternal Diva novel, aka probably the one that most people don't even care about that much to begin with

(though you should, I haven't translated it yet but I spotted a few words here and there that caught my attention such as Luke mentioning Misthallery multiple times. Also there is in the introduction a novel-exclusive scene with Janice in it, just fyi.)

To those who didn't know, most of my free time as of lately has been put into the transcription/translation website I have dedicated to the Japan-exclusive Layton content that we never got to see, and more specifically I have been transcribing the Eternal Diva novel. Because yes, now you know, Eternal Diva was adapted into a novel and none of us non-Japanese fans got to read it. And boy this novel is going to drive me insane because I have been working on it for literal weeks by now.

In terms of progress, I have reached the part of the story in which Puzzle 004 is about to start, aka right after the end of the "Layton McGuffinned a helicopter that thinks it's a grasshopper" part. I have transcribed up to page 119 (+ the ending is already transcribed and translated because past me felt like it), and there are now 74 blank pages left for me to fill. And then the translation will come, too. I am totally looking forward to it. Can you feel the enthusiasm in my exciting punctuation.

This is the shortest novel of the list (200 pages if I count the blank ones), and this is the only novel that has furigana everywhere (aka the only one of the four I can actually read somewhat properly). Yippeeeee

Anyway if you want to take a look even though only the beginning and the end are translated for the time being:

You can take a looksie right here!

The reason why I'm going through the entire transcription first and that the full translation will only come afterwards is because, at least in my opinion if I were to view this as a reader instead of as the person uploading the content, this means that you guys get to know the story faster than if I progressed through both the transcription and translation at the same time.

After all, let's see it like this: sure, you can't read Japanese, and for the most part, neither can I. But since it's been transcribed, it means that you can easily copy-paste the Japanese text into DeepL, or Google Translate, or any translator of your choice. Sure, it's more work for you and if you are of the lazy kind you will still have to wait the same amount of time regardless (not saying it in a derogatory way), but at least it gives the choice for the ones who want the whole story to get it somewhat faster.

I don't speak Japanese, and I am not translating things as I go, so I have only a vague understanding of what is going on in the novel (and obviously, the fact that I know the plot of the movie is a huge help). But I can already tell you this much:

We get the lyrics for the ending's song, obviously. This is part of what has been translated so far.

The whole novel is not divided into chapters, but rather into smaller scenes/sections (however you want to call it). Some are narrated by Luke, some others are narrated by Janice (and/or Melina, I guess it depends on the context). Just like the three main novels you may be slightly more familiar with, the narration is in first person.

Since the only narrators who showed up so far are Luke and Janice/Melina, I don't think the scenes from Emmy's POV will be included (aka the one in which she questions Nina's parents, the one in which she is with Schrader, and the one in which she finds and rescues Grosky in the middle of the ocean). Perhaps they are going to appear later in the novel, but I highly doubt it for a number of reasons (number of pages in each section, and titles of said sections).

The novel starts with an exclusive scene under the POV of Janice. It takes place three years after the case, and she is just finished singing for the last rehearsal before the opera she will play in the day after — it is The Eternal Kingdom, which she has not sung in three years, and the next day will be the second time ever this opera will be sung in a theatre with a public. Of course, no eternal life game planned this time. Janice also gets a letter of encouragement from Whistler, which is pretty sweet.

Unless I missed it and it somehow happens in the part I did not yet translate, the intro of the movie in which Luke and Layton solve the case where Don Paolo decided to mess with the bells of Big Ben is not at all mentioned in the novel. Luke in the novel doesn't give the introduction-narration speech that he does in the movie, we jump straight into the scene in which he is shown in Layton's office pretending to be pointing at culprits (and we get a fun little scene showing what led up to him doing it). Go read it, it is translated, and I do not want to spoil for you the opportunity to read Luke being a dork all over again.

We switch to the flashback telling the actual events, and this is the part that has no translation yet. I won't give many details as a result since I don't know the things for sure myself, but as I said earlier, I saw a few words that I recognised here and there: notably, Luke mentions Misthallery on at least two occasions. If memory serves, one of them is when Grosky shows up to "arrest" the puppet, and I think Luke went on a small tangent to give a small summary of the events of Last Specter (aka how he met Grosky), and also mentions Descole (though he does not give his name, since I'm pretty sure that he didn't hear the words "My name is Jean Descole" at the time, and only learned that precisely upon meeting him again in ED). On another time he mentions it, from what I vaguely understood he may be making a reference to Naiya, Janice/Melina's friend who can be found in Misthallery and who is also a singer (she's the NPC who is meant to represent the singer of Paxmaveiti, just like Yuming is meant to represent the singer of Mysterious Flower in Miracle Mask). Pretty inconsequential, but it's always fun to have continuity nods and references to the actual plot of other stories.

Finally, back to three years later, we get an epilogue narrated by Luke which is the exact same scene as the movie: Layton and Luke are listening to Janice's opera, and at some point Janice shows up to say hi. Luke also mentions what happened to the rest of the participants after the case throughout those three years; most are just what we see from the credits, but the novel still gives a few more details in some cases:

By the time of the original trilogy, Amelia is studying abroad at a foreign university, and she recently sent a letter to Layton and Luke, saying that she is grateful even after three years.

Luke is friends with Nina, who comes by at Gressenheller every now and then, and he even considers her a rival of sorts due to Nina having a good memory and studying well. (also what the heck Luke why are you talking about getting to college and how you're worried that she may be admitted to college before you do, you're THIRTEEN)

Celia Raidley and Pierre Starbuck got married "just the other day" (yes, the ship is now officially confirmed beyond just the one image from the movie credits) and the tabloids are going wild over it.

Luke is reading Annie Dretche's latest mystery novel, and he can't put it down. Annie apparently told him that she has been writing faster so that Bargland (the guy who said he did not have much time left due to an illness) can read them at the hospital. Seems like "six months" turned into three years after all, good for him!

Anyway, that's all I have to say for now, I hope you enjoyed the rambling. I hope this will reach some fans of the movie who would be excited to get a few more details!

#professor layton #professor layton and the eternal diva #eternal diva #lutiasgithub #professor layton transcript #eternal diva novel

80 notes · View notes

gonzague-if · 2 months

Note

Hi Oscar! I was thinking about f!MC’s situation recently and had a few qs if that’s ok. Is her gender identity well known publicly or do people outside her close circle assume she’s a man? If he’s aware, why would Aurore’s controlling & sexist father would want to marry off his only daughter to a woman? Is same sex marriage possible and common? And if so, what did f!MC have planned for heirs if she’s afab and planning on marrying another woman (obviously before the reveal)?

Hi!

These are all questions I've given a lot of thought when I decided to make Gonzague's gender up to the player's choice.

First of all, I obviously took a big liberty here from the historical context, although it's not entirely without precedent. I recommend Kaz Rowe's video about the Chevalier d'Eon if you want to know more. In Gonzague's context, a woman or afab person taking the title of a man is uncommon, but not impossible. Historically, it probably would have made a lot more waves than the way I plan on treating it in the story, but it was not entirely impossible either. I decided to normalize it somewhat for the sake of the story.

Same sex marriage was not a thing at the time, at least not in theory. But if you are able to pass as the opposite gender, who knows? I'm not an historian so I wouldn't be able to tell you how likely and/or how often a scenario like thtat could have happened. But again, for the sake of the story, I chose to make it possible, if exceptional.

When it comes to heirs, Gonzague (regardless of their gender or agab) isn't interested in having any for several reasons. The first one is because they're mainly focused on their survival. Then there's their history with their father. They're not interested in repeating what their father have done for the sake of perpetuating a bloodline that has only caused them misery. Of course you can headcanon whatever you like about Gonzague wanting children, but in the story it won't be a goal for them at all for these reasons.

For the rest, it's somewhat up to the player's interpretations. It's possible that most people ignore Gonzague's true gender and/or agab. It's possible that Aurore's father ignores it as well. It would make more sense for a man as sexist and controlling as him, as you pointed out. But I don't want to impose that, because depending on how each player imagine their Gonzague to look like, it might not be easy/possible for them to hide their agab. So I leave it vague for that purpose, it's up to you what makes more sense for your version of Gonzague. After all, people can be contradictory. You could imagine other reasons why Aurore's father is overlooking Gonzague's sex and/or gender. Maybe the title of Prince is too appealing. Maybe it's another way of controlling his daughter. If he doesn't give her away to a man, maybe he feels like he still owns her? Sexism isn't logical after all.

#asks #Gonzague's gender

26 notes · View notes

voltstone · 3 months

Text

okay can i say a thing about esther in fics

So, this isn't something I loathe, or take great issue with, or anything, since I understand why this character is the way she is in a lot of fics, or any fandom interpretation. A lot of times, in fandoms, characters will change roles depending on the fanwork context. So if you want to explore a specific type of abuse with Enid, obviously Esther is going to fit that role.

I also have a lot to say with Murray, but I'll cool off with that for now. However, a lot of the same applies.

Anyway, I...do wish there was more nuance to Esther within the fandom? Or a better appreciation as to why she is a problem. Especially since she's a direct foil to Morticia, because both mothers ultimately have the same issue, it's just Morticia handles it with grace, and Esther doesn't.

Esther is an overbearing mother.

That is emotional abuse, which often stems from a genuine care for the child, but through a very warped perception that is so because of insecurity and/or entitlement.

I get it. I get why she's written to be physically abusive in a lot of fics, or do other things. It's a way to tell the stories people want to write, and I can't say that I won't be responsible for that. For context, the project I'm working on now has a lot of medical abuse where...it's really, really bad. Far worse than what's presumably in the show. And it's something done out of insecurity.

...can't really be a good judge of what or how I handle her, since I'm the writer of that. But. Whatever.

The point is, as someone whose personal experience with maternal abuse was never a physical one, and was purely emotional/mental, it does feel like a lot of the fandom doesn't understand how devastating those are, and equates physical abuse as...the worst kind. When in reality, they're not comparable, and it ultimately depends on the people involved. Some people can better defend themselves against mental abuse over physical, others it's the opposite.

And then you just have the additional context. Like what...is actually happening.

It's an oversimplification that I think really misses the point in trying to analyze what the show tries to say about Esther and Enid. Enid is a people pleaser. Enid does want to please her mom, but she acknowledges and pushes back against the pressure she's been put in. Very emotionally intelligent in that regard, probably because she had to be. And because she physically cannot wolf-out for the bulk of the show, Enid chooses to prioritize another thing that her mom may like: finding a "mate", of sorts. With or without a possible issue in comphet, this may be why Enid is so overbearing with Ajax. Because she's trying to compensate for not being able to frolic in the forest, beneath a full moon, as a saber dog thing.

Meanwhile, Esther is overbearing...because she is also compensating for something. When Esther hands Enid the pamphlet for summer conversion camps, she says outright that a cousin of Enid's had the same problem.

This is a familial issue. And may be indicative of something genetic: the Sinclairs, for whatever reason, have a predisposition for late-blooming. And Esther doesn't like it. Maybe because she's a late-bloomer herself, or, she saw what happened in older generations and wants to "save" Enid from it. By doing things potentially just as bad.

And she foils Morticia because Enid is not like her. The same way that Wednesday is not like Morticia. There's friction of interests. There's friction in communication, and in how to articulate love for each other.

However, Morticia actually accepts Wednesday. She doesn't understand her, but she tries. She leaves Thing to watch over her. Leaves the crystal ball. And leaves the necklace that Wednesday wears, because rather than physical touch, she doesn't mind the touch of cold obsidian. Ergo, by the time of season's end, Wednesday understands better how to communicate with her mother because her mother understands how to show her love. So she lets Morticia...kinda sorta embrace.

Esther meanwhile cannot get through to Enid because...she does not restrain herself. She's overbearing because she's being overruled by insecurity, and perhaps entitlement. There is an interesting implication with her wearing a wool vest--making her a literal wolf in sheep's clothing--, and that brings another layer of nuance.

And that's what...I really just want. I want more nuance and complexities than just "Esther evil. Esther hit Enid. Esther sell Enid off to be omega whore, or something."

So. Yeah.

I'mma go back to writing.

#volt's shit #wednesday show #wednesday 2022 #wednesday netflix #wednesday addams #enid sinclair #morticia addams #i want more nuance is all #no shade i get why but still #also i think esther's actress is pretty

46 notes · View notes

olderthannetfic · 5 months

Note

Hi! So it says in your bio that you're both a filmmaker and novelist, so I'd like to ask you something. First, are you involved with the script part of filmmaking specifically, or fo you work mostly with other elements of filmmaking? Second, if you are, what are the major differences you've noticed between script writing and prose writing?

For context, I want to make comics, and I'd like to have a script to work from, but I've only occasionally dabbled in script writing. I know I could just use thumbnails and that's definitely something I want to be part of the process, but one of the reasons I want a script is so that I can have something to hopefully make my comic accessible to blind readers. I don't have the money to pay for an audiobook version to be made, so my thought process was if I make a text version of the comic, like a script, I can then make sure that at least a version of that copy is screenreader friendly.

So, do you have any advice for me?

I'm a film editor, or was, which definitely involves a lot of understanding of narrative, but that's different from being a screenwriter, and being a screenwriter and/or novelist is different again from writing scripts for comics.

That said, I have written scripts. The biggest difference is that if your script is intended for someone else to direct, you are asked to leave out a lot of commentary and stage direction that director-written scripts tend to have and that novels would have.

Dialogue is a fairly minor aspect of both novels and films—at least most good ones.

In a novel, much of the actual characterization is done in the actions characters take or in the way things are described in the narration.

In a director-written script, the writer will often include a lot of stuff that isn't put into actors' mouths to remind themselves of what the point of a given scene is. What would be narration in a novel becomes cinematography and editing choices.

As a rando writing scripts, you're not supposed to shove in that stuff because you're telling the director and other creatives how to do their job. You're just the writer: you don't get to decide those things. The script is less a finished blueprint and more a main melody line that someone else will improvise on top of.

Unfortunately, most of the ~great scripts~ people are told to look at for inspiration are by someone with more creative control (director, showrunner, creative producer) and do have a lot of interpretation already baked in. That makes them more fun for a layperson to read, but it doesn't always make them great examples of how to write commercially.

My impression is that a comics script is a specific thing in the pro industry, and it's not a thing that would necessarily be ready for blind readers. If you want to make an accessibility aid, I think you're looking at descriptive commentary along with any dialogue. Depending on the nature of the comic, it might be useful, or it might be pointless.

I would indeed storyboard your comic, not for future readers but to help you plan layout. The visual storytelling is a key part of any visual medium, and a good comic does more than just put the key actions on page. Where are people standing relative to each other and relative to the edge of the frame and how does this create a balanced composition or an awkward tension? Do you need the equivalent of a film insert shot and why? How is the eye being directed around the page, and does this make it easy to follow or chaotic?

What kind of comics format you're doing will matter a lot, obviously, but even in a basic 3-panel webcomic, you can control things like how close to the edge of the frame characters stand.

If you want some 101 on visual storytelling from a film perspective, one of the best regarded books is The Visual Story by Bruce Block. I personally also greatly enjoyed The Eye Is Quicker by Richard D. Pepperman. I remember the latter having more on film editing but nice storyboards and the former having a lot more visual arts-adjacent commentary on cinematography: line, color theory, negative space, etc.

People focus way too much on words as a crutch because they don't understand the far more important grammar of visual storytelling.

If your visual story—comic, film—cannot do 90% of its work without the words, it probably sucks.

That's my biggest piece of advice.

29 notes · View notes