#which implied to me that the world rewrites itself from a 'current' moment going to the past with modifications

[fyrapartnersearch]

Calling for dedicated roleplayers with a passion for writing

Hello! My name is Aaliyah or Ally for short, and I will cut right to the chase. I am looking for a mature role-player, preferably 21+ but will also accept 18+ (just to be sure that you are of legal age, otherwise it’ll be very uncomfortable).



As I am 26 years of age with 12 years of experience, I hope to meet someone who shares my passion in creative writing, as well as formulating interesting plots and characters. 

In case you are curious about me as a person, I am a full-time student and a young writer who works at the gym on the side, but also enjoys other creative outlets such as drawing. Usually my schedule is fairly full, including the attendance of friends or family. However I always have ample time for a good roleplay. :) 



I am seeking a literate writer who is committed to a long-term partnership, and by that I truly mean it. Please do not respond if you are uncertain of upholding a stable roleplay. Furthermore, I’ve noticed the “ghosting after the first few messages“ trope is a fairly widespread issue in the roleplaying scene / community. I would like to implore you from refraining it. I’ve grown quite irritated by it lately and rather like to avoid it in the near future. That way we don’t waste anyone’s time. Thank you in advance. If you are hitting a hiatus, that’s completely fine! A simple message of putting things on hold is completely sufficient, but I would like to keep in touch in case the story bears great potential. Now I have a wish, or as other say it, a certain craving for something new and fresh. And that something is quite specific, as my interests are a little unorthodox. Not the typical ‘Marvel, DC, My Hero Academia, etc’ type of stick. (Not to throw shade on them! They are great! Just not my cup of tea at the moment)


I heavily enjoy video-games, tv-shows, comics, films, books, the list goes on. Hopefully I can attract some kindred spirits. 
 I do roleplay both Canon and Original!



So if there’s no luck in finding a fitting Canon based story, we can always switch to original world building. First, I like to list all of my heavy cravings and interests. The ones marked in bold are usually the ones I am very willing to do.



Books:

Harry Potter Next Gen (original character cast)

True Blood

Vampire Hunter D (or Manga / Anime)

Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice

Game of Thrones

Videogames:

Dragon Age (from Origins to current instalment)

Castlevania

Devil May Cry

Infamous series

The Darkness

Smite

Star Wars the Old Republic


Webcomics:

Lore Olympus

Lookism

True Beauty

Comics:

Constantine

Hellboy

Witchblade

The Darkness

X-Men

Films:

Alita Battle Angel

Kingsmen

Vampire Hunter D

TV-Shows live action:

True Blood

The Boys

Vikings

Game of Thrones (Open for discussion. Still haven’t recovered from the season finale however…)

TV-Shows animated:

Hellsing

Castlevania (Netflix adaptation)

Devil May Cry (Anime adaptation)

Demon Slayer (I have only started watching this)

FMA Brotherhood

Jojo’s bizarre adventure

Black lagoon

As for original plots, I am very keen on urban and gothic fantasy, but also mythology as well as horror and crime and action. I have plenty of ideas up my sleeve, some of them quite fleshed out and some of them being concepts in the making. Either way, I would rather have these ideas introduced throughout email or whatever platform we choose to communicate on. Themes for an original story I am most inclined to do are:

Supernatural / Metaphysical (Demons, Angels, Spirits, Monsters, etc.)

Mystery

Crime

Action

Sci-Fi & fantasy (Aliens coming in contact with unsuspecting earthlings during the middle ages / ancient time-periods)

Urban fantasy mixed with high school / college themes (similar to Supernatural with local monsters, creatures, etc)

Now onto the qualities of what my roleplaying partner should have.

What it all entails: What the Partnership should be: I strongly encourage an active roleplayer who is not afraid of sharing 50% of ideas, plotting, length, detail but most important of all, passion. A bird cannot fly with only one wing. Communication: I love making new friends and brainstorming, and communication is the bedrock of it all. It strengthens our compatibility and the story. Should there be anything that might bother you, or if you think you are left out in some type of way (be it a mistake on my part or if we’re both at fault here), simply tell me. It really doesn’t bother me rewriting certain scenes to better fit the narrative. We can always exchange opinions and see what would benefit the story most. The Way of Writing: No one-liners. No text-talk. No half-assed replies. And certainly no ‘quality over quantity’ when you can have both. I don’t expect anyone to write a novel, absolutely not. I don’t either, but if I get the feeling of my partner wavering in their effort and not investing as much as I do, I have to give them the chop, unfortunately. Too often have I encountered partners who showed strong enthusiasm at first, but after a while… they slacked and eventually only put the adequate effort into their side of things whilst completely disregarding my characters. I hope to avoid this in the future. And now to myself and how I write: My writing: Third person perspective usually, although I have made some exceptions in my years of writing. My style is wide-ranging and flexible, which means that frequently, word count will go up 1000+ per reply - though it also depends on the given situation and partner. And yes, I do double, preferably even, most likely in a canon universe. However this again wholly depends on the type of story, partner and cast of characters. I am very open and willing to discuss.


Rating: So you are writing with some of mature age. I have 12 years of writing under my belt. There will be violence, there will be swearing, gore, intimacy, uncomfortable topics, drama, conflict and other dark themes included when you are writing with me. I have few limits but I will respect the boundaries of my partner. And lastly, I won’t fade to black or skip out on the nitty gritty, unless it doesn’t serve a particular purpose in forwarding the story.

Characters: I write canon as well as OC characters. Faceclaims, GIFs, drawings, mood boards or just a plain physical description is absolutely sufficient. Characters should be written as opulent, flawed, unique, talented, heroic, villainous, spiteful, angry, and everything in-between. In other words, don’t be scared of making them flawed.

Romance: Openly play and accept characters of both genders, preferable m x f pairings, but I am open to m x m and f x f relationships as well. I have more experience with m x f relationships, so I might be more adaptable with this one. If the chemistry of two characters compel me, I’m on board with it! When it comes to sexual scenarios and intimacy (intercourse, foreplay, all that funny business). I encourage eroticism, but always in a tasteful, sensual manner (that goes for romance as well), though it is never the main focus of any of my stories, rather a tool to further the plot. Erotica is welcome but never the focus of any kind of roleplay. Content: Drama, violence, sex, metamorphosis, symbolism, action, romance, pretty much everything is a-okay. I am not explicitly bothered by certain subjects that may be uncomfortable for the general public. Roleplays are fictional stories and we best keep treating them as such. If there are things you are uncomfortable with, name them and I shall respect those boundaries. But don’t be surprised when suddenly one of our characters bites the dust, or gets tortured, etc. It may be difficult to write and read, but it is all part of the story and a tool for furthering the plot. My roleplays imply and involve brutality, mayhem, psychological and physical altercations among other things. But I also endorse beauty, serenity and placid moments for our characters to grow in. I love it when it comes full circle… everyone- and everything has a beautiful and hideous side. Again, this is mature and I am not here to coddle, I am here for a challenge. Should I hit a hiatus myself, I will inform you as soon as possible. :)



Platforms I usually roleplay on are email and google-docs. I also have Discord in case for plotting and chatting outside of the RP. Though Google Hangouts has proven itself as a sufficient chat-medium for such things, so I rather stay with that one. 



When you message me, please use the given codenames so I know what you like to specify in.

Blue Rose: Canon 


Red Feather: Original 




I’d be happy to receive a small description of yourself and what your passions are! :) Message me here: EMAIL: [email protected] I am very excited to hear from you! Sincerely yours -Ally

#indie rp #indie roleplay #independent roleplay #oc rp #multiple paragraph #para #long term #email #tumblr #harry potter rp #spn rp #aou rp #submission

[readyaiminquire]

Part 3 - Unimaginable by design.

This is the third part on the rewrite of my thesis, from 2019. Here I take a slightly different approach, and rather than rehashing the same arguments from my previous works, I instead use the same data to argue for something new, and novel. Hopefully this will be as enjoyable, if not more so!

You can find the the introduction here, part 1 here and part 2 here.

How does someone build something that, for all intents and purposes, they are incapable of imagining, or visualising? This is at the core of Mark Fisher’s work on cultural hauntology, itself derived from the work of French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Our current experiences are haunted, it is said, by our past experiences, and our future anticipation. However, losing the ability to fully anticipate a future in which substantial change has taken place would imply the inability to also bring such a future into being. Looking over my experience working with transhumanists, biohackers, tech-enthusiasts, self-avowed futurists, among others, in Sweden, made me think about not only whether Fisher’s cultural diagnosis might have been correct – which, to be up-front, I do think he was correct – but perhaps more importantly, how to break out of such a cultural impasse. Fisher himself states that to fix this disjointed time, we must first recognise that it is indeed disjointed, and from there attempt to find solutions to put it back together. It dawned on me without realising it at the time, that this is what these Swedish techno-utopians were working towards, though likely not consciously. Their focus on building a new future, a better future, while remaining notoriously vague as to what this might entail came into new focus. The trust put in new technologies, while maintaining a high lack of knowledge of the future (as neither they nor I own a bona fide crystal ball), I would argue is exactly the point. What is being built, in other words, is not the future per se, but rather a new context: to create opportunities to experience the world in ways that are currently unimaginable, and through such experiences, also imagine new futures.

Robotic eyes to see the world in a new light.

Stagnation, cancelled futures, and how we go from here.

Mark Fisher’s work on hauntology is very clearly rooted in Jacques Derrida’s work, the man who coined the term itself. Derrida observed that we never truly experience anything as fully present, but everything that is, is always coloured by past experiences and anticipations of the future. Music paints a very clear picture of this: a single note holds no melodic quality, but is simply a note. It gains these qualities only when understood in the context of the preceding notes and in anticipation of future notes. The melody is thus ‘haunted’ by that which no longer exists, and by that which does not yet exist. This interplay, Derrida argues, exist across all our experiences. We always experience them as an interplay between past, present and future.

Fisher’s use of hauntology is much more specific, though. He refers to a type of cultural hauntology, in which the phenomenology – or the feeling – of time itself is disjointed. The past (and often the futures imagined in the past) bleed into the present, making it evermore challenging to delineate between ‘past’ times, our experientially present time, and anticipated new futures. To borrow a phrase from Fisher, the future has been cancelled. This cancellation, Fisher is careful to point out, was not sudden, though he argues that it started sometime around the 1980s or 1990s (indeed, pinning an exact date on such a sociocultural development will always be folly). What Fisher does observe, however, is the emergence of neoliberal capitalism and the beginning of this slow cancellation of the future. Neoliberalism, he argues, makes all other developments subservient to its own profit motive, as a means of reproducing the system itself. While this doesn’t make the system completely impervious to change, it does make change much more unlikely to take place organically.

It is important to understand that developments as a whole have not stagnated, but rather there exists a systemic and cultural stagnation. The phenomenology of time is that of standstill. For example, while digital technologies have made enormous strides, these new technological capabilities are, by and large, not deployed to do anything new. Rather, they remain subservient to neoliberal logics, and therefore operate instead to make already established processes and sociocultural modes faster, and by extension more efficient. Examples of this in practice is the digital addition of crackle to music to make a digital file sound as if it is played on an LP (an largely obsolete piece of technology) or to produce nostalgic movie remakes from the 1980s or 1990s. Marx famously wrote that all things in history appear twice, first as tragedy and then as farce, and with cultural forms, they appear first genuinely, and then as nostalgic pastiche. As a result, truly new futures become harder and harder to imagine.

How might such a cultural impasse be broken? It is important to delve deeper into what the phenomenology of time is. German historian Reinhart Koselleck once argued that what makes people experience a historical period as distinct is its tendency of existing within a complex knot of new developments and easily anticipated repetition which constitutes a “specific historical temporality”, or specific experience of the now, as different from the past (and indeed, different from an anticipated future). This is, in effect, why the 1970s might feel like an era in itself, distinct from both the 60s and the 80s, and themselves distinct from another such era, on a phenomenological level. Koselleck places much emphasis on the “surprise” (Überraschung) as the process through which one era comes to experientially feel like another. Once these surprises have been lived through in their original uniqueness, they become part of a framework of repeatability, and is therefore added to a kind of “horizon of expectation”. What makes different eras feel different is, according to Koselleck, the result of a process of accumulation.

Fisher himself wrote that to break out of his diagnosed impasse, he emphasised the need to first recognise the impasse itself, though he prescribed no clear roadmap, highlighting instead the importance of local contexts. Koselleck’s focus on the surprise, I think, serves as a good framing. It is not far off Alain Badiou’s capital-E Event, what he identified as the driver behind cultural change. Badiou defined the Event straightforwardly as the moment after which the world can never be the same again. The parallel between an Event and Koselleck’s Überraschung is clear, and serves as a useful framing for how such a cultural hauntology can be circumvented: to discover the ability to once again be surprised.

  Future

I met with Patrick, an older gentleman, in Stockholm. He worked out of a shared workspace focusing very much on start-ups, aiming to connect ambitious entrepreneurs and to foster innovation. The offices themselves felt like they had been modelled on something from a cyberpunk novel: stepping in from the grey and rainy Stockholm streets (one might even be reminded of the opening lines to Neuromancer: that the sky above the city “was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel”) through a corridor leading to a lift, that took me to the heart of the building. Irregularly shaped, with a platform suspended in its centre, the ceiling a skylight, people milling around, a lot of buzz. I eventually met Patrick, perhaps in his mid-60s, a stark contrast to the hive of otherwise young entrepreneurs buzzing around us. We moved through the building, past meeting rooms encased in glass, until we finally found a quiet corner in which we could speak – and within an amicable distance of a coffee machine (this was Sweden, after all). “Everything in the building is linked to our key cards; from meeting rooms, to the locks, lifts, and even the vending and coffee machines”, Patrick told me, excited to be working in a space that seemed to really lean into integrating technology even more in our daily lives. “Coffee?” he asked, waving his hand by a machine; it powered up.

Patrick looked delighted, as I was there to speak to him specifically about his apparent Jedi-coffee powers. See, beneath the skin of his left hand, nestled in the soft flesh between his thumb and forefinger, was a small NFC chip – and this is what I had ostensibly come to speak to him about. I suppose the question on my mind then is the one I often encounter when I reveal my own implant: “why?”. Patrick: “It’s an inevitable development, isn’t it? Technology just keeps getting better and bigger and faster”, and that “with modern medicine, and later computers, it was only a matter of time before this [gesturing at his phone] would be integrated in the body!” This ‘argumentum ad inevitability’ is one that many of the people I have worked with bring up, in one form or another. The logic goes, in a nutshell, that technological innovation, by definition, solves problems. Therefore, as technology grows and improves it will solve more problems: the implication being that technology will eventually be all-encompassing. I will not dwell much on this here, as I have discussed this elsewhere. Instead, as Patrick very much believed, I want to unpack the notion of this technologically driven future. What will it be?

Here we reach a degree of vagueness which permeated many of my conversations with these Swedish techno-utopists. From the logic outlined above, this imagined future was largely understood to be a good future, or perhaps more accurately as having the potential to be good. Indeed, much of their present efforts are directed towards ensuring the ‘correct’ use of future digital technologies (again, something I have discussed at length previously). Nonetheless, the perceived or imagined goodness of this potential future is worth dwelling on, specifically because of its vagueness. Another informant I spoke to, Jacob, made sure to highlight the importance of working on these kinds of projects because he wanted to “make sure my little ones grow up in a better world than this, and sure as hell not a worse one”. Yet another informant put it very succinctly with: “there is no inherent end goal; it’s all fluid. It’s fluid because we don’t yet know what it is we can do”. These approaches are all teeming with an inherent positivity towards technology and its potential.

Yet, beyond this positive feeling towards technology, this view of its seemingly limitless positive potential, as long as all get invested and channel some of Gilles Deleuze’s wisdom that, “there is no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons”, there is a stark lack of clarity as to what exactly this future might look like. This in stark contrast to the potentially horrific outcomes of technology gone awry, on which ample articles, books, lectures, and presentations have been written. Thought experiments with names such as The Paperclip Problem, or other such clearly defined (yet to a casual listener) seemingly absurd in scope and specificity exist. During my three months conducting fieldwork, the clearest vision of the future presented to me was at a Transhumanist conference here in London: TransVision 2019, at which the organiser merely described future as having the potential to bring about a world of plenty.

Yet, no-one offers much clarity as to what any of that means.

 The futures that never came to be.

If the future, such as my informants seem to imagine it, cannot be described with much clarity, some answers may be found in the past, where (presumably) the inspiration for these projects lie. Fred Turner reminds us that the metaphor for digital technologies as having inherently liberating qualities is a relatively recent one, and did not fully take root until the 1980s or 1990s. It was thus simultaneously surprising and not that Ethan, a university student at Lund and probably my youngest informant cited the video game franchise Deus Ex as a key inspiration. Deus Ex, solidly a piece of cyberpunk media, often frames the conflicts and risks associated with human augmentation: the division of humans into different groups, the ‘pure’ versus the ‘augmented’ and so on – deep-rooted risks, and issues which, in one shape or another, we tackle in contemporary society, though with different categories and labels. When pressed, Ethan, surrounded by lab equipment in his student dorm, highlighted the potential that he saw in the technology: that despite the bleak world presented by Deus Ex, he focused more on what could be instead. Deus Ex, and cyberpunk as a genre, a cautionary tale, should one read it as such.

Not surprisingly, many informants cited science fiction as a source of inspiration – the famous drive from science fiction to science fact. References, beyond the one mentioned above, was Star Trek, or Star Wars, as well as many comic books. This, again unsurprisingly, was deeply dependent on their age group. While Ethan referred to a contemporary video game franchise, Jacob referred to the Iron Man comics he read as a kid. However, despite such gaps, the takeaway was always very similar if not the same: not to focus on what technology was used for in these various settings, but rather what it could be used for instead. The clearest, and perhaps on the nose, an example of this came from a speaker at the transhumanist conference, quoting Arthur C. Clarke’s three laws:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

This opens for a discussion around inspiration taken from the past – from many different pasts! –  but it is also made very clear that the futures in the past are not compatible with the future my informants are seeking to build as a contemporary one.

This drive to want a new type of future, or one future that feels like a new era in some sense or another, is articulated especially strongly in sentiments around the importance of involvement, and put very bluntly, doing things within the various communities. This is a longstanding pillar among several techno-utopian groups, especially those focusing more heavily on grassroots involvement. My informants all showed how they valued the importance of direct involvement, from decrying a general lack of investment in maintaining broader community relations and events, to phrases such as “theory is nothing if you don’t put it into practice”. Returning to Ethan, who is exemplary of this stance:

“Some people come on the forums, or in a YouTube-comment section or whatever, and just talk about how amazing this or that would be. Well, have you done anything? No? Your ideas aren’t that original, so at least try to make something with them. Try to make a difference, so that these things can actually become reality.”

I have mentioned before that my informants hold themselves to an ideal initially put forward by architect, futurists, and many more things, R. Buckminster Fuller. Bucky Fuller put forward the idea of the comprehensive designer, as someone who can put bluntly ‘step outside’ of the current system and structures to therefore view it from a novel position. These comprehensive designers are by definition hard to classify because the very idea is to not be classifiable; flexibility from societal illegibility. These are, in theory, the type of people who hold the potential to be true innovators. Though this is a problematic ideal for many reasons, the notion of attempting to live up to a broader ideal to change and build something new for the future does highlight a certain, at least implicit, understanding of the current cultural predicament à la Fisher.

 Old habits die hard

There is the fundamental problem of imagining yourself as being able to ‘step outside’ of a system to view it form some neutral point in nowhere. If there is anything my favourite raccoon-cum-philosopher has taught me, it is that we can never step out of our ideology because it is, by definition, inside of us. As he says, we are “already eating from the trashcan all the time”. This predicament becomes painfully clear among my informants. One of the most prevailing ways of speaking about innovation, and building, testing, or disseminating new technologies is squarely through the lens of the contemporary entrepreneur, both in practice but also in aesthetics. It is telling, indeed, that my earlier vignette was centred squarely at one of these entrepreneur centres in Stockholm, and it is far from the only time where this became relevant, or even central, to my experience with the people I worked with.

Three of my main informants, Harrison, Jacob, and Samuel own their own companies focusing on selling and implanting the microchips in Sweden. Harrison, in addition, is a quite prolific speaker on the subject of transhumanism both in Sweden and in Europe, while Jacob is heavily involved in other forms of body modifications. Much of it is, very clearly, centred around an entrepreneurial sphere. The same can also be said about many of the people I met. Out of the two chipping events I attended in Stockholm – both organised by Samuel – many of the attendees spoke about the commercial applications, potential, and excitement of their implants, while others yet again referred to the implants as really useful PR stunts either for their own personal brands, or within their wider professional life (I remember that one of the only two women I managed to speak to used it as a way to leverage her image within an otherwise deeply male-dominated field).

This also became abundantly clear when attending TransVision 2019 in London, where all speakers either had their own book coming out, owned their own companies, and some attendees even attended to find start-ups worth investing in. Going back to my conversation with Patrick, he went as far as to compare the modern entrepreneurial spirit with the spirit of discovery among scientists in the 20th century. The new discoverers were, as it was told to me, the likes of Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and indeed anyone who has the grit and drive to commit to new technologies and finds ways to push these out into society. In addition, other informants, Ethan among them, spoke of future developments in very clear market-logic and metaphors. Specifically, when discussing the risks of creating an ‘underclass’ of non-augmented humans, the response was very much “sure, as the technology develops, only the rich will have the resources to make use of it, but as things go on, the technology will become cheaper, and more accessible. That is nothing but a temporary step, and the future past that will be better than today”.

The entrepreneurial metaphors really just highlight how deep the neoliberal/capitalist logics run, what other writers have called the “Silicon Valley ideology”. This, again, is closely tied to Bucky Fuller’s ideal, but it also inherently serves to undermine it. Though some individuals may have the appearance of stepping beyond the bounds of what is believed to be possible (refer back to Arthur C. Clarke’s rules), the inherent ideological framing remains, and such an operation still takes place very much within an established socio-political hegemony. The fundamental framing is still capitalist – and this without going into a discussion about, say, Elon Musk the symbol, and Musk the person.

Spoiler alert: he’s not Tony Stark.

  Purposeful unclarity

It is worth returning to Fisher here. Our fundamental predicament as he saw it is not difficulty of imagining a future, but imagining new futures. In an oft-quoted line attributed either to Žižek or Frederic Jameson, it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. The future, of course, remains, but it remains painfully constant. Herein lies the issue for my informants in Sweden, and likely many others within the same groups and communities: how to create the space in which a sense of newness can emerge. I argue that it is not surprising that their ideal futures are so ill-defined, for lack of a better phrase. The lack of clarity is indeed the point.

Given what he been outlined above, there emerges a clear tension between the will to create a new future, one better than today, a future of plenty, so to speak, and how this future is articulated. Either an image is painted with disappointingly few pixels, or the means through which the future might be created come through already well established and at times problematic logics. The entrepreneurial ideal, the comprehensive designer, and what is at its very base a neoliberal logic, is still extremely clear across all these movements, not only in words but also in action. Not only are the new discoverers and inventors compared to successful entrepreneurs, but most people operate within what can broadly be called a start-up space.

However, turning this perception on its head, it would not be unreasonable to think that these groups themselves have a feeling that they do indeed struggle to imagine a new future, at which point vagueness becomes a necessity. They do not stop believing in a better future being possible, but they recognise the difficulties they’re faced with describing what one might look like. The rejection of a clear view of the future is, to some extent proof for the accuracy of Fisher’s diagnosis, but it is also extremely telling of how such a cultural impasse may finally be broken.

Fisher himself told us that perhaps the only way to break the current loop is to recognise that time itself is out of whack, and once recognised deploy appropriate measures to “mend” time. Based on my own fieldwork, however, it appears this step isn’t entirely necessary. My informants have not explicitly recognised there being a hauntological component to either their day-to-day life, nor their ideology. Nonetheless, they move past this as a matter of course and instead begin to focus on creating this (admittedly) undefined future.

The problem with this approach is how it simply pushes the envelope. If we don’t know what to build, what do we build? A shift in focus becomes key here: it is not about creating a new future, but rather to create the context in which a new future can develop. What Koselleck called a surprise – Überraschung – is what is sought after, as what surprises us is also what delineates the phenomenology of time itself; what separates the feeling of one time from another time. The technology they strive for: human augmentation, human-computer interfacing, AI, and so on, are technologies whose outcomes we cannot quite predict and much less truly imagine. Replacing the human eye with a cybernetic eye capable of seeing more than just the visible spectrum of light create a fundamentally different way in which we interact with the world at large, and imagining the impact it will have it near-impossible: it would literally require us to imagine a new colour.

While the true aim is a new future, the practical aim is more about creating a context in which a surprise can take place, to create the context in which society can broadly move forward into a new phenomenological era of time; to not only move into a future, but to move into a new future.

  Conclusion

Mark Fisher declared that the future has been cancelled; that as a result of neoliberal logics, the cultural capability to imagine anything new from what already exists, socioculturally speaking, has been lost. Time is a funny thing in that respect, as it is often thought of as linear, one era leading to another. When Fisher says that time is out of joint it is not that time does not keep flowing, of course, it does. Today still turns into tomorrow. The phenomenology of time, on the other hand, has stalled: time might keep flowing, but not much changes. In fact, the past is capitalised on and repackaged and resold as a product of nostalgia and pastiche. Time keeps flowing, but culture almost feels regressive. German historian Reinhart Koselleck argued that how we perceive history is contingent on a horizon of expected experiences, and what breaks such an experience is the introduction of that which has not been expected, a surprise – the Überraschung. This mirrors the work of Alain Badiou and the capital E-Event. What produces change, or at least the feeling of difference from yesterday to today is how we might be surprised by something. This is what I argue my informants work to bring about. While they use the language of “the future” to position their aims, what such a future is remains painfully unclear. Even with such a lofty goal in mind, the language, the articulation of their work, and many of the spaces they inhabit remain (perhaps painfully) mundane. They are entrepreneurs, they are public speakers, they have their own start-ups or book deals. In a word, they attempt to capitalise on this vision. Despite these shortcomings what cannot be denied is the drive to continue forward, and to keep developing their ideas, and how internally these communities and groups place a high premium on those practically involved in developing new ideas or technologies. The lack of clarity for the future is somewhat purposeful; there is an acceptance that they cannot imagine what lies ahead, perhaps because they recognise their own inability to look past contemporary ideologies. What they recognise, most likely implicitly, is that they require surprise. Something that cannot be imagined, that throws the world on its head and forces new perspectives to emerge.

How do you build what you can’t imagine? You don’t; you build that which allows you to imagine something new.

 Key references

BADIOU, A. 2003. Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism (Translated by: R. Brassiered ). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

DELEUZE, G. 1992. Postscript on the Societies of Control. October 59, 3–7.

FISHER, M. 2009. Capitalism Realism: Is there no alternative? London: Zero Books.

FISHER, M. 2012. “What is Hauntology?” in Film Quarterly 2012 Vol. 66:1, pp. 16-24.

FISHER, M. 2014. Ghosts of My Life: Writings on Depression, Hauntology and Lost Futures. London: Zero Books.

SCUCCIMARRA, L. 2008. Semantics of Time and Historical Experience: Remarks on Koselleck’s “Historik” in Contributions to the History of Concepts 4(2), pp. 160-175.

[kvnynsphotolibrary]

Olivier Pin-Fat: I’m interested in your concepts behind and use of image repetition in your work. Especially between the 2 series 'FOG' (colour) and 'BACKYARD' (black and white). Why do you do this, what does it mean for you and what are trying to express with it?   Daisuke Yokota: We recollect a single experience from the past again and again. But I don't think these recollected memories are always the same. Memories are always brought out in relation to a present condition, and through this repeatable recollection of memories I believe a memory becomes influenced by - and therefore - a product of what is happening to us now. Although the physical experience of time is singular, I believe time at a conscious level can multiply every time one recollects a memory and the different experiences of times generated by these actions pass in parallel to a physical time. By recreating those multiplying memories via a series of recollecting actions, I use them as important data that tell me about my contemporary self and its surrounding world. My work Back Yard shows a big change in myself. Photographs used in the series Fog were taken around my home. I thought I could show this change through reshaping these same materials and by rewriting my current impressions over them - rather than taking new images of the same place. This change is not a change in appearance, but a change that my impression imposes on surrounding worlds. This change also reflects a altered impression of the visual effect of the photograph itself. Olivier Pin-Fat: It's interesting you talk of memory and the shifts, mutations and changes in how it is manifest in relation to what you call your 'contemporary self'. Would you, broadly speaking, describe your work as 'psychological' then? Daisuke Yokota: This is not something I am aware of before I create my works, but I believe possibly my psychological state naturally comes out in my photographs as a result. I always have a vague fear or anxiety inside me, although that is not the way I’d describe my works themselves. I think ‘recollection of memories’ is the basic drive of my creations and this may be a result of this negative nature, or malaise within myself. Olivier Pin-Fat: 'INTERCEPTION' seems even more striking and extreme in its mode of expression than your other works, ('FOSSIL' for example). Suddenly we are far away from the medium of photography itself, and more in the realms of 3 dimensional graphic animation and non-photographic abstraction. Why? Daisuke Yokota: Most of the things we see in daily life are easily recognizable. This is because people know what exists around them even before they conceive it to be a premise constructed from their experiences or memories. This implies a connection between the inner (memories) of oneself and the outside world. When people are in this state, what is important is to try to direct consciousness not so much to the outside - by looking or observing something - but more towards the internal by recollecting or making assumptions about something. When I was creating Interception, I asked myself: what do I see in those photographs? Of course photographs themselves do not contain any particular interpretations, such as ‘this means that person and that place’. Such interpretations are a product of one’s consciousness, so there will be a connection between the viewers of the photograph and their memories. These are the works that have developed from this thought: how do people see photographs when connections between information and their memories are cut off? (Imagine the outside world from a state of being whereby you’re unable to understand what you are looking at.) I have created these series in the following order in 2009: Fog – Interception – Fossil. In Interception and Fossil, I used photographs that I had been taking when I was taking the photographs for Fog. Around this time, I was working on photographs in order to think about things such as visual effects an image can produce by transforming an element in that image and the structure of the image’s photography. Olivier Pin-Fat: Yes, looking over the 'order' of your works chronologically, there seems to be a logic of its own at play here. Things become more abstract, more dislocated, isolated, and seemingly more lost in an urban alien-esque terrain as time progresses. Figures become just that, almost faceless abstractions lost amidst buildings, landscapes and city-scapes. A kind of visual autism. Do you think 'man's' dislocation to his environment, his surroundings (and himself) is an important theme to your work? Daisuke Yokota: Realistically, the relation between humans and their surrounding environments is not a separable entity. Once things are photographed, they can become dislocated and isolated from this mutual relationship. In the creative process of my works, what is most important is that the photographed object is not only completely dislocated from the surrounding environment but importantly, from myself as well at the exact moment I took the photograph so it once again becomes an object of my interest. This attempt to dislocate an object from me, or to include elements of uncontrollable errors in a process of my creation usually brings out clues for the next idea or project. Olivier Pin-Fat: I'm drawn by the damaged, ruptured, almost sculptural qualities, not to mention the content of the imagery itself in your series 'FOSSIL'. Could you explain a little about this series, as it's also very different to your other works? Daisuke Yokota: The original images are taken from the works of Interception. I think you can tell this if you look at the actual works themselves. Here we have images in which I deleted details from the Interception photographs and left only outlines. At first sight, they seem as if they've lost a photographic function and appear again like graphic images or animations. So, I had the intention to bring them back to photographic products or materials. In order to do that, I decided to transform a sequence of information originally contained in the photographs into a form of ‘noise’ (scars in the images). In terms of the fact that they are information on a piece of paper, they can be understood as the same thing. It is just a matter of whether one understands it or refuses to do so.  At the same time, I thought I could reassert photographic elements by leaving a scar on printed papers and then reprinting it as an image in its own right. This embraces the time I existed in ‘real space’, so for me, it was an act undertaken in order to consider the structure and fabric of photography itself. Olivier Pin-Fat: Are you working on a new series that pushes all of this into even more extreme realms than you already have done that you would like to briefly talk about? Daisuke Yokota: I am currently making a new series but I am not sure how it will go. One of the interests I have now is to see an alteration of materials at the stage of developing film and photographs. The temperature of developing solution I use has been getting warmer and warmer and now I am actually working with a boiling solution. This may cause an extreme appearance in my next works. Olivier Pin-Fat: How much would you say post-war Japanese photography has influenced your work? Especially the 'Provoke' and ‘VIVO’ generation of photographers (Moriyama, Tomatsu, Kawada, etc etc)? Are there any other influences on your work that aren't necessarily 'photographic'? Cinema for example? Literature? Daisuke Yokota: Yes, I am aware that I am influenced by the post-war Japanese photographers’ movements such as Provoke and VIVO as you said. Daido Moriyama is one of the photographers who I am especially influenced by. He said in the 1970s that ‘All objects I see outside have equal realities to me.’ I believe photographers in my generation who grew up seeing his repetitive and changing works and listening to his words have learned optical experiences, which I would say is something more than just an ‘influence’. I was and am also influenced by other media. For example, David Lynch’s ‘Inland Empire’ made me think about senses of perception and time. I also think I was greatly influenced by the music I was listening to when I was around 20, such as Aphex Twin, CLOUDDEAD, and Tony Conrad. Olivier Pin-Fat: How important is the book medium to you and how do you translate all of these aesthetic complexities into an actual 'object'? Daisuke Yokota: Well, it allows creators to engage with viewers in their private spaces while creators are still playing with their own rules. Unlike computer screens, it is the place where people see things as objects in a ‘real’ space. I think it’s really an important part of the process for people who see works to have sensory and physical experiences of them, such as smelling the ink, feeling the texture of paper, and flipping pages etc. As for translating complex ideas into an object, I think an appeal the photography has is different to what a three dimensional work has. Since photography is a two dimensional representation, how they appear is less likely to affect a viewer’s standing position and perception unlike three-dimensional works. Instead, they are largely affected by the viewers’ own individual memories. In this way, I believe photography is a medium that really belongs to the past/history. So with paper, which is a medium that conveys an image, a central element is to provide an impression to influence the viewers’ present perceptions. Choosing a type of paper to use is extremely important I think, and I try to choose the best combination of papers and images using my intuition and creativity. Olivier Pin-Fat: When you exhibit, do you design your installations using a similar 'dream-logic' as you do with your website for example – where there seems to be, as mentioned, a definite 'progression' towards abstraction, inter-play with repetition and the mutations of memory and 'self' over time? Daisuke Yokota: The way I currently exhibit my works is very simple and shows only one series at a time. There is a possibility that I will exhibit my works in the same way on my website in the future, but I still think the number of works I produce is just not large enough to do so. I have an idea now to create a web of images by repeating and metamorphosing many of my images. I believe a photograph does not exist on its own, but can connect with other photographs recalled by the photograph you are looking at now. (I am not only talking about the connections within series of images exhibited in an exhibition or in a book.) You might find an image which may connect to a photograph you saw at another exhibition or possibly a website or a photo-book. I believe in giving a chance for the viewers to imagine various connections by themselves, in order to effectively show more of the changes of memories inside them. Therefore, I think designing special ways to show exhibitions is the only effective way to show my works. Olivier Pin-Fat: Finally, with 'AM projects' – it seems all of us are working in radically different ways, using different photographic mediums and techniques to explore what's necessary for us to explore. Do you have a vision, or ideas, as to how all of our different works can come together effectively and cohesively? Daisuke Yokota: We talked about this before, but I believe we need words and text from someone outside, such as excellent critics, in order to give more comprehensible meanings to our works and projects for the public. I also believe our collaborating sometimes with other artists who aren’t AM members for certain projects could expand our possibilities.

#Daisuke Yokota #olivier pin-fat

[annabelaplit]

History in 1984

 Over break I reread 1984 to fulfill our third quarter reading requirement. It was way darker than I remembered, which is saying something. Seriously it might be one of the most hopelessly depressing novels I have ever read. But it is good, so good! So utterly fascinating.

What interested me most about it was how Orwell played with the concept of the past and what history actually is. I am very passionate about history and will probably end up studying it in college so those sections with Winston working in his job and ruminating about the nature of the past I found to be extremely interesting. 

Orwell’s clearest ruminations on totalitarian societies and the past comes in the context of Winston’s job as a man who rewrites the past. Because the government wants to appear flawless and above question they need to make sure the historical records reflect nothing but truth. To that end, 

“This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but ...to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct, nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place....A number of ‘The Times’ which might, because of changes in political alignment, or mistaken prophecies uttered by Big Brother, have been rewritten a dozen times still stood on the files bearing its original date, and no other copy existed to contradict it. Books, also, were recalled and rewritten again and again, and were invariably reissued without any admission that any alteration had been made. Even the written instructions which Winston received, and which he invariably got rid of as soon as he had dealt with them, never stated or implied that an act of forgery was to be committed: always the reference was to slips, errors, misprints, or misquotations which it was necessary to put right in the interests of accuracy” (41)

What’s happening at the Ministry of Truth is both horrifying and yet seems like it could be possible. It’s ingenious in a way, to control a citizenry by controlling the reality in which they live. Big Brother is taking history, which is supposed to be a way of looking at the past based on analysis of objective facts and is instead turning it into something overtly political. They are taking control of the past, not just twisting the analysis of facts, but twisting the facts themselves. They are making it impossible to question the veracity or accuracy of the government. History becomes a tool of legitimacy and oppression instead of something that can be used to inform the present. But of course the obvious flaw in this plan is that people themselves have memories and judgement and seem to have to ability to understand the nature of historical truth. Winston certainly understands the discrepancy between what is record and what is real

“He meditated resentfully on the physical texture of life. Had it always been like this? Had food always tasted like this? ... Always in your stomach and in your skin there was a sort of protest, a feeling that you had been cheated of something that you had a right to. It was true that he had no memories of anything greatly different. In any time that he could accurately remember, there had never been quite enough ... And though, of course, it grew worse as one’s body aged, was it not a sign that this was NOT the natural order of things, if one’s heart sickened at the discomfort and dirt and scarcity, the interminable winters, the stickiness of one’s socks, the lifts that never worked, the cold water, the gritty soap, the cigarettes that came to pieces, the food with its strange evil tastes? Why should one feel it to be intolerable unless one had some kind of ancestral memory that things had once been different?”(59)

Here Winston sense the wrongness of the world he lives in even if he has no actual evidence to prove that it is wrong. He is not old enough to have any concrete memories of a time before the Party ruled and he doesn’t have any paper evidence that denies what the party tells him yet he is convinced that his current style of life is a step backwards. There is something innate that gives him knowledge of a better past, a glimpse at what is actually the historical truth. But for Winston a gut feeling isn’t enough. 

“Day and night the telescreens bruised your ears with statistics proving that people today had more ... than the people of fifty years ago. Not a word of it could ever be proved or disproved...It was like a single equation with two unknowns. It might very well be that literally every word in the history books, even the things that one accepted without question, was pure fantasy.... Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth. Just once in his life he had possessed—AFTER the event: that was what counted—concrete, unmistakable evidence of an act of falsification. He had held it between his fingers for as long as thirty seconds” (75)

Here Winston thinks about the same themes of the other passages, the Party is constantly rewriting the past, the abolishing the truth of history, but the only source to corroborate this remains inside of one’s mind. However Winston cannot actually say for sure what is being lied about and what is the truth. Maybe the Party is only changing a few details, maybe they are making up every single thing. If nobody knows what the actual truth is, then the lie is your only source. Its tenuous connection to knowledge is the only thing you have to rely on. That is why Winston places so much weight on the scrap of a newspaper that proves three criminals could not have committed a crime. It provides clear literal evidence that the government is lying, it validates of all of Winston’s perceptions that he knows, but can’t ever prove. It shows him categorically that he is not insane and the world he lives in is actually flawed. But that assurance fades after the actual piece of paper is gone. 

“He wondered, as he had many times wondered before, whether he himself was a lunatic. Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one. At one time it had been a sign of madness to believe that the earth goes round the sun; today, to believe that the past is inalterable. He might be ALONE in holding that belief, and if alone, then a lunatic. But the thought of being a lunatic did not greatly trouble him: the horror was that he might also be wrong....The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable?If both the past and the external world exist  only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?”(80)

This passage is such a huge paradox. On the surface level it seems to make no sense, after all we all know that the past can’t be altered and two plus two makes four and that the basic realities of our universe are true. But on a deeper level it makes a sort of sense. After all truth in a lot of ways can be relative. On the one hand it is based on facts, but it also based on belief. If enough people believe a certain thing even if it goes against fact then that becomes the collective truth of society, For the believers in the minority the only thing they have to go off is facts, and in this case the only facts are the one in their own minds. And if everybody believes one thing and you believe something else and have no evidence the logical explanation is that you are the same. So Big Brother isn’t just changing records, and rewriting histories, they are actively changing the nature of reality. They are preventing people from ever fully knowing if they understand the truth or are just insane. It is an absolutely insane strategy but an absolutely brilliant one. Nevertheless his own lack of evidence doesn’t stop Winston from trying to find out the real truth. He tracks down an old man who would have been alive before the time of the Party but after asking him a few questions he realizes his quest is fruitless. 

“Within twenty years at the most, he reflected, the huge and simple question, ‘Was life better before the Revolution than it is now?’ would have ceased once and for all to be answerable. But in effect it was unanswerable even now, since the few scattered survivors from the ancient world were incapable of comparing one age with another. They remembered a million useless things.... but all the relevant facts were outside the range of their vision. They were like the ant, which can see small objects but not large ones. And when memory failed and written records were falsified—when that happened, the claim of the Party to have improved the conditions of human life had got to be accepted, because there did not exist, and never again could exist, any standard against which it could be tested” (118)

I think this is one of Orwell’s more important passages about history. It’s another paradox, that a true history can be false. But what is the truth if nobody knows it. In a few short years any memory of a time before the Party will be gone, even to those in charge. All the historical evidence has been changed and the original copies completely obliterated. There won’t be a single person alive who knows what has actually happened. The only source that one has will be the Party and whatever they say will be true because that is all that can be realized. History is a fragile thing, it is only what we have based on what we are told. We trust blindly in the truth of the sources we write and the garbled facts that come out of the minds of people still living but we honestly don’t have any true conception of the past. The only things we know for sure is what we ourselves have seen. As and Orwell reveals in 1984′s chilling third act even that might not be enough. 

The scene is that Winston has been imprisoned by the Party and O’Brien shows him the long ago photograph of the three spies and then destroys it. Winston is anguished over the loss of clear evidence of his correctness and even more anguished that O’Brien has willed himself into forgetting. He declares that the past can exist in his own memory which O’Brien cannot control. The Party leader’s response?

"You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline. You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one. Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party” (249).

These thoughts coincide with what Winston had been thinking earlier in the book. The only source for his views of the past is himself, his view of the truth disagrees with that of general societies and that would suggest a mental failure on his part. Here O’Brien is suggesting that what has happened in the past is immaterial and objective reality really does not exist. The only source of truth is what is agreed upon by societal powers, in this case, the party. Thus, it is the job of Winston to see things from the mindset of the group, rather than the group’s to cater to his reality. O’Brien believes that history really is relative, that it doesn’t need to have a basis in fact, it need only to follow group dogma. It is a frighteningly different concept than what most of us believe today. And indeed Winston himself comes to master the idea of doublethink and is able to change his own views on what is the past and what is the truth.

That’s all for now!

[fyrapartnersearch]

Ally's Apocalyptic Ad (Tripple threat)

Well hi there honey ～

The Quarantine has compelled me to post another ad onto FYRA, since there isn’t much you can do other than spend your days inside, I figured I’ll use this as a perfect opportunity to reach out to those who are interested in a specific role-play with me! :)

The name’s Aaliyah or Ally for short, and I will cut right to the chase. I am looking for a mature role-player, preferably 21+ but will also accept 18+ (just to be sure that you are of legal age, otherwise it’ll be uncomfortable).

I recently turned 27, with 12 years of experience, and hope to meet someone who shares a passion for creative writing and formulating interesting plots and characters. In case you are curious about me as a person, I am a full-time student and a young writer who works at the gym on the side, but also enjoys other creative outlets such as drawing and photography.  But at the moment, as the pandemic is spreading, I am reduced to attending online courses, thus have loads of free time on my hands. Be sure that you’re able to uphold a stable Roleplay. And if I do not message you back right away, I hope you can forgive me. I will make sure to let you know if either my capacity is full, or if I am not able to respond right away due to technical issues (or other reasons). If you are hitting a hiatus, that is more than fair! A simple message to put things on hold will completely suffice, but I would like to keep in touch in case the story bears great potential. I very much enjoy video-games, tv-shows, comics, films, books, and the list goes on. Hopefully, I can attract some kindred spirits. I roleplay both Canon and Original! 
But currently, I am looking for something very specific, and that something is heavily focused on Supernatural / Gothic / Horror / Urban Fantasy genre. So if there’s no luck in finding a fitting Canon based story, we can always switch to original world-building. For fandoms, I have only picked out four very specifically that I am more than willing to do. I have a heavy craving for a role-play based around dark gritty plots, deeply well-written characters and a whole lot of sass. So if you’re in the mood for something spicy, hit me up.

What it comes down to:

What the Partnership should be: I strongly encourage an active roleplayer who is not afraid of sharing 50% of ideas, plotting, length, detail but most important of all, passion. A bird cannot fly with only one wing. Communication: I’m a chatterbox, so I love making new friends while brainstorming! Communication is the bedrock of it all. It strengthens our compatibility and the story. Should there be something that bothers you, or if you think your characters are not given any proper attention (be it a mistake on my part or if we’re both at fault here), don’t worry about it. Just tell me and we can figure things out. I have no issues with rewriting scenes for a better narrative, or, correct a mistake. We can always exchange and see what would benefit the story most. The Way of Writing: Not a fan of one-liners or text-talk. No half-assed replies. And certainly no ‘quality over quantity’ when you can have both. What I expect for you to have is a basic grasp of grammar. Not to say you need to write a perfectly articulated novel - obviously, a no brainer. I don’t either, but if I get the feeling of my partner wavering in their effort and not investing as much as I do, I have to give them the chop, unfortunately. Too often have I encountered partners who showed strong enthusiasm at first but as time progressed… they slacked and eventually only put an adequate amount of effort into their side whilst completely disregarding my characters.

How I write:

My writing: Third person perspective usually, although I have made some exceptions in my years of writing. My style is a wide spectrum and very flexible, which means that frequently, the word count can go up to 1000+ per reply - though it depends on the given situation and partner. And yes, I do double, preferably even, most likely in canon universes. However this again wholly depends on the type of story, partner, and the cast of characters. I am very open and willing to discuss. 
Rating: So you are writing with someone mature. I have 12 years of writing under my belt. There will be violence, there will be swearing, there will be gore. Intimate, uncomfortable topics such as drama, erotica and other topics close to that will always be included with me as a partner. I have few limits but I will respect the boundaries of my partner. And lastly, I won’t fade to black or skip out on the nitty-gritty, unless it doesn’t serve a particular purpose in forwarding the story, then I can make an exception. Characters: I write both canon and OC characters. Face claims, GIFs, drawings, mood boards or just a plain physical description should suffice. Characters ought to be written as opulent, flawed, unique, talented, heroic, villainous, spiteful, angry, and everything in-between, beings. Don’t be afraid of making them human. Romance: Openly play and accept characters of both genders, preferable m x f pairings, but I am open to m x m and f x f relationships as well. I have more experience with m x f relationships, so I am more flexible with this one. If the chemistry of two characters compel me, I’m on board! When it comes to sexual situations and intimacy (intercourse, foreplay, all that funny business), I am not particularly squeamish about it. I encourage eroticism, but always in a tasteful, sensual manner (that goes for romance as well), though it is never the main focus of any of my stories, rather a tool for furthering the plot. Erotica is welcome but not the center of any of my roleplays, so I’d rather have it develop naturally and not rush it from one ‘sex-scene’ to the next. Content: Drama, violence, action, romance, pretty much everything's a-okay. I have no qualms with explicit subjects that may be uncomfortable for the general public. Roleplays are fictional stories and we best keep viewing them as such. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me, right? If there are things you are uncomfortable with, name them and I shall respect your boundaries. My roleplays imply and involve brutality such as psychological and physical trauma among other things. It may be difficult to read and write, but it is all part of the plan and a way of progressing the story. However, that’s not the end of it. I 100% endorse beauty, serenity and placid moments as well. It is all needed for our characters to grow and evolve. I love it when it all comes full circle… everyone- and everything has a beautiful and hideous side. This is for adults and I am not here to coddle, I am here for a challenge.


And finally, here are the things that I am looking for interest-wise! If your fields of interest are not listed here, I am sorry, but I won't be compelled to do anything but those things mentioned down below. Sorry :(

☞ Castlevania *** ☞ Devil May Cry **** ☞ Hellsing *** ☞ Hellboy ** ☞ Constantine *** ☞ AU / Where all universes clash into each other **** ☞ The Boys ** ☞ Bayonetta ** ☞ Buffy *

As for original plots, I am very keen on urban and gothic fantasy, but I am also inclined to do fantasy/alternative reality, mythology, etc. I have plenty of ideas up my sleeve, some of them fully fleshed out and some of them mere rough concepts still in progress. Either way, I would rather have these ideas introduced throughout email or whatever platform we choose to communicate on. I also have a strong penchant for world-building, especially worlds on a metaphysical plain or different planets, dimensions like the underworld, netherworld, purgatory, heaven, etc.

Original themes:

☞ Supernatural / Metaphysical (Demons, Angels, Spirits, Monsters, Hunters, Cosmic Horror,  etc.)
 ☞ Mystery
 ☞ Crime
 ☞ Action
 ☞ Horror
 ☞ Romance
 ☞ Thriller
 ☞ Monsters 



As a precaution, here are the things I am not interested in:

☞ Slice of life
 Topics that aren’t listed in my ad (although I am not against trying something new, I have had many messages that suggested we roleplay something completely out of my field.) 
 ☞ Anime cliches
 ☞ Solely smut focused plots

Aaaand should I hit a hiatus myself, I will notify asap!


Platforms I use are email and google-docs. I also have a Discord account in case we plot and chat outside of the RP. However, Google Hangouts has proven itself as a sufficient chat-medium for OOC-chat, so I rather stay on email (in case you also have a Gmail account).

If you message me, please use the referred codenames below so I know your specific interest. :)

♠ 𝕮𝖔𝖑𝖉 𝕭𝖑𝖔𝖔𝖉𝖊𝖉: Canon 


♥ 𝕭𝖑𝖔𝖔𝖉𝖞 𝕶𝖎𝖘𝖘𝖊𝖘: Original 


Even though not mandatory, it is preferred. I would love to read a small description of yourself and your passions. Message me here: EMAIL: [email protected] Excited to hear from you! Sincerely yours -Ally

#indie rp #indie roleplay #independent roleplay #oc rp #multiple paragraph #para #semipara #long term #email #tumblr #spn rp #smut rp #aou rp #submission