Fully forgot it was wip wednesday until I opened tumblr and saw your post! Anything for the math nerd au? It’s truly hilarious to imagine the different ways Andrew could attempt to (and fail at lol) “seduce” Neil away from his future self
WIP Wednesday (Closed) | Math Nerd AU
They're sat up in silence on the roof. Neil sitting close and just breathing in his smoke. Neil's penchant for sitting up here with him and breathing in his smoke is Kevin's one complaint about his Striker choice. It's not rare for the other Striker to come up to the roof if he feels that Neil has sat here breathing in Andrew's smoke second hand for too long.
"You'll destroy your lungs!" Kevin hisses every time without fail.
"I don't think smoke will be what kills me." Neil smiles every time but lets himself be lead off the roof by Kevin every time without fail.
But the next night Andrew will find Neil waiting up on the roof for him. Neil always offers to leave but Andrew has yet to make him leave.
"Kevin hates that you sit up here like this." Andrew finds himself saying because if he frames it as a question then he'll have to wait for Neil to ask his.
"Kevin can hate it if he wants, just like you can ask me to leave if you want." Neil returns.
Andrew doesn't want Neil to leave. "I don't own the roof." he says as if he hasn't chased numerous people away during his time as a Fox.
Neil laughs as if he knows.
Andrew bites the bullet and can only hope that Neil will lob him another question soon.
"Why do you like it?" Andrew asks.
Neil's laugh is softer, sadder, and suddenly Andrew knows without hearing the answer.
94 notes
·
View notes
Spilled Ink Session 1 discussion -continued
So I just read @freedominique's response to the session 1 prompt and I think you made a ton of good points that I want to discuss further. The post was getting long already so I figured I'd make a fresh post to discuss and reblog to our hearts content.
I'm just going to copy paste some points you put in bold and address them one by one to make this a bit more organized.
The film industry's promise of revenue and attention potentially encourages writers to undermine and neglect exploring the strengths of their own medium to try to better fit the demands of the silver screen.
Nothing to add to this; this was my exact point about the harm of the pipeline. Not necessarily that it exists, but that it could inevitably have negative consequences for the future of literature. My friend just told me something interesting the other day about how Reese Witherspoon gets the future rights to turn your book into a movie or TV show if it ends up as one of her Book Club picks (ofc with the author's agreement). Now, as you've alluded to, it's unlikely that the books she chooses aren't at least of decent quality (though that can be its own separate debate). It seems, as far as I can tell, that Reese is interested in putting forward strong, well-written stories told by female authors and wouldn't choose a book that wasn't (to her) well crafted and could stand on it's own. But I'm more so pointing out this paradigm of the fact that authors may cater to this business model to the detriment of their own medium. Because Reese is making billions off doing this. So what happens when that faceless greedy capitalist figure sees how profitable this pipeline is and doesn't necessarily have the same care or consideration for selecting strong, well-crafted stories? The film industry is simply concerned with whatever sells.
I'm not concerned that novels which resort to stage-direction style writing (to win over the movie industry) will take over the market because I'm sceptical of their appeal
This is where I have to disagree a bit. And I will link this post as sort of a thesis statement of my point (that post also touches on something that will be discussed in a future session so I will try not to get too off the rails). Books of, arguably, not great quality are already being published at high frequency, gaining a ton of traction among readers and in turn being turned into tv shows/movies. Where I will strongly agree with you is that Hollywood isn't entirely to blame and I wasn't trying to imply that. As the post I linked above stated, and as you also stated, the problem starts in the publishing industry and with us. The types of books that are being pushed to the forefront in social media circles fuels what publishing industries choose to pump out to the masses for maximum profit and creates this vicious cycle. Add in another large capitalist corporation such as the film industry to that mix? It only worsens the issue. So my disagreement is simply that the appeal for these low quality stories is already live and present. And that's my worry. That more of these low quality books will be produced and pushed to the forefront for the benefit of these corporations (and the author - Witherspoon Book Club picks are said to sell 700% better than other fiction books and all of them have at least sold 10k copies), thereby diluting the nuanced, introspective craft that is literature.
At the end of the day, we, too, as writers/authors want to make money (I'm talking specifically about writers who want to pursue publishing, which I know isn't every writer's goal). And as much as we love writing and storytelling and bringing worlds and characters to life, when you decide to make writing your full-time job and enter the query trenches where you're being faced with rejection after rejection or poorly selling books, and you see books of objectively not good quality selling better and being embraced by the masses, with those authors getting tv/movie deals and being better compensated*...wouldn't it be tempting to just...pivot and shift your standards a bit to cater to what's working/will help you survive?
Now, I will say that my views on the issue are not all negative (as this whole discourse series is meant to point out - nothing is black and white!). I think @that-chibi-writer brought in a very interesting/refreshing perspective with their response that I really liked and I also alluded to it at the end of my first response. When done well (with a strong story to begin with by an author who cares about the process of storytelling, an author who is heavily involved in the tv show/film making process etc), a book-to-screen adaptation can be magnificent, not only enhancing the way readers experience the story but also "deepen[ing] the actual content of the film industry by making the content richer and more diverse in a lot of different ways." (@that-chibi-writer). Dominique, I think it makes total sense for you to pursue making your book a film/tv show. You don't even have to justify doing that because I'm not making a case that doing so is inherently bad. I know you'd prioritize honoring the medium of literature first over catering to a business, and as you said you want to deepen the reader's experience of your story by not limiting it to just a print format/medium. If that were the motive of every author, I wouldn't have an issue. My issue just stems from the industry (publishing, film, whatever) exploiting the vulnerability of authors (especially debut authors) and making them think they have to write their story a certain way to survive as an author. I just hate that mindset being pumped into the literary scene, and given the current dumpster fire that is the gateway to publishing at the moment (book banning, the booktokification of books etc), I just worry about the effects that may manifest years from now.
*I don't pretend to know what the actual numbers on all of this are. It could very well be that authors who have their shows made into some form of screen adaptation aren't well compensated for that. But they do receive something from it that, in my mind, is priceless - exposure. Gaining an audience, selling book copies, is becoming more and more about exposure and how you market yourself, and a tv show/film is helping you do that on a much larger scale than your own personal social media account.
11 notes
·
View notes
btw while there's no one artist i can point to, that england birthday art was for me kind of an ode to the overseas, usually japanese but not exclusively, hetalia fanartists who i adored as a kid and who inspire me as an adult... every time i see what other regions of hetalia fandom is up to, it puts so much wind into my sails. i'm like wow, these artists all put so much love into their work and i'm consistently floored by the amount of talent and skill in rendering, stylization, concept, composition, coloring, and other such aspects of their art. it just makes me want to push myself to be so much better while loving and appreciating all of their art. i just wanted to mention that, especially since it's has some obvious stylistic deviations from the stuff i usually draw, that's why... thinking about england's birthday made me emotional about all of the art of him i grew up with
2 notes
·
View notes
Sorry to keep throwing Miscellaneous Asks your way, but I finally had a moment to get my thoughts in order on one of the points on your Venn diagram I wanted to talk about! I always kind of debate whether or not to send other, semi-unrelated long asks like this when we've already got a chain going, but oh well. I'll try and address anything brought up in response here in the main one and hopefully it doesn't get confusing lol.
So I was thinking about the extent of Jo and Arakawa's relationship. It is completely true there's not much you can say that's concrete, especially since most of what we see is from Jo's perspective. Although his perspective is crucial to forming an understanding of their relationship, it's not sufficient. This is particularly the case because, coming back to giri-ninjo for a moment, Jo is largely bound by giri; it's clear his loyalty runs deep, but it's not a choice for him.
Arakawa, on the other hand, can choose who he places his trust in, especially early on. And I think it's incredibly important that, despite having men who've already been with him from day 1, men who've already been helping him with his son, Arakawa chooses to "place every confidence" in Jo (per an old Famitsu profile, one of the first official ones) and chooses to make Jo his captain.
Similarly, he kind of chooses Jo "over" Ichi in sending Ichi to prison "instead of" Jo. Perhaps the family really would collapse without Jo's talents, but… does it have to collapse entirely? Didn't Arakawa make it pretty far on his own? I guess it's neither here nor there, but I've always wondered if things would've really played out as feared if Jo went to prison instead. Not to understate Jo's role in the family, of course.
Anyway, I think that trust shows not only in overt gestures such as entrusting Masato and the family's finances to Jo, but also in more subtle behind-the-scenes ways, such as what we were talking about before with regard to New Year's 2001. There's also the fact that leaking information to Aoki was Jo's idea; for that to be the case, Arakawa would have to discuss Aoki's threats at length with Jo. (Unrelated, but come to think of it, "complying with him [to] make him see value in keeping us around" is very often the strategy of victims of abuse and neglect…)
And this one's an underrated detail many people miss, but after Arakawa shot Ichi, while he was able to come up to Ichi to tell him he's counting on him and sneak in the fake bill, if the goal was to not arouse suspicion, I don't think he would exactly have been able to excuse himself from the dinner to drive Ichi to Yokohama. Time was of the essence in terms of Ichi's survival, so that leaves Jo, who was conveniently already at the scene and who was certainly in on the "secret rule" that constitutes part of the Arakawa Family's agreement with the homeless camp. Overall, there is a pattern of Arakawa approaching Jo before anyone else, isn't there?
Sort of branching off of that, I would personally feel comfortable saying that Jo knows Arakawa better than anyone else. He seems to know details about Akane and New Year's 1976 no one else does, details Arakawa would have had to volunteer himself, and that plus his own experiences are what allow him alone to have the most complete picture of that night.
I also get the impression Jo understands Arakawa better as a person than anyone else--certainly better than Aoki, but perhaps even better than Ichi in some cases. There are multiple instances where he defends Arakawa and challenges their perceptions of him--that he's "betrayed" the Tojo Clan, that he's betrayed Aoki, that he's the type to scheme and make power-plays behind Aoki's back. He hasn't. And, despite how little Jo's "allowed" to say, he turns out to be right every time. Also worth noting Arakawa does something similar in asking Ichi to try and understand Jo's frustrations, though he's more or less enabling Jo's abuse in doing so.
Lastly, The Smallest Detail that drives me kind of insane. Them arriving at the office in the back seat of the same car in one of Ichi's flashbacks. I wouldn't think too much of it if it were any other time of day, but the first-thing-in-the-morning quality and the fact Jo isn't driving (thus it's not as an act of service but as an equal) is like… Okay. You're carpooling to work. And if you're not carpooling, you're honest-to-god living together. What the hell.
So a lot of it is this web of inferences--it has to be, at least currently--but I really do think there's a lot to chew on. More than meets the eye, anyway. I've also been stewing in all of this for years, especially since drafting Jo's relationships section, so I might just have inhaled the fumes for too long lol
Thank you for coming to me about the nature of their relationship! Although I did put it down as being more-or-less 'uncertain' on my chart, I do agree that their relationship isn't as cut-and-dry as other relationships might be (it's going back to appreciating the complexities of RGG relationships, especially in the case of the Arakawa's where for every party involved it really IS complicated)
I wanted to exclude making any definitive statements on things that couldn't be verified without making a detour on the original post (I know I already mentioned frequently that Arakawa is able to joke about Jo being 'softer' on Masato, but I do think about their relationship often and the implied depth of Jo's loyalty if- as you said- he was able to climb through the ranks of the Arakawa family much quicker than preexisting members), but there are clear points in the game that due allude to a great trust between the two (and I also note that carpooling detail during Ichi's flashback- or at the very least I know I'd find myself noticing Jo sitting in the back opposed to the front/driving). It's definitely not hard to assert that Jo knows Arakawa well either, it's hard not to come to that conclusion when we have evidence from the game to infer that.
9 notes
·
View notes