#form your own opinions about controversial subjects!
Text
kinktober day twenty-seven: car sex
>>> no one will read these anyway based off of the reception for nobara, but i wanted to give the ladies some love this time around <3
>>> starring: maki zen'in x curvy!f!reader
>>> cw: jealousy, homophobia w the zen'ins, making my own cannon, oral and fingering, car sex, semi-exhibitionism? i don't think so but just in case
>>> wc: 1.8k
>>> event masterlist:
formal events were the bane of her existence. she hated all the ritualistic steps of looking presentable for a clan celebration, of all things. maki has never been celebrated amongst her clan and she knows they won’t start anytime soon—so why did she have to show up and celebrate them? even worse, why did she have to drag her girlfriend to such an event? she knows half the elders will spend their time whispering about either her supposed powerlessness or her lesbianism, and the other half would be thinking about it all night long. she hated having to subject you to such nonsense, but her mother insisted–and she knew she’d never hear the end of it from her if she didn’t just suck it up and go.
so here the two of you are, shoved into the zen’in family banquet hall in a tight fit. maki was absolutely uncomfortable, forced to mingle with people she can’t stand while trying to keep a possessive hold on you. despite the controversial relationship, she wouldn’t let it be lost on anyone. you weren’t here as a plus one or just a friend, you were here as maki’s partner and she wasn’t shy about it. they hate her already, she couldn’t give less of a fuck. her anger will make her the perfect protector too, she won’t allow them to say anything offbeat to you or their reckoning may come early.
she also hated formal wear. it was impractical and stuffy, and she didn’t like being painted up to the nines, either. at least you looked amazing. you might be enough to make her rethink all her earlier opinions. seeing you tucked into a gorgeous kimono was definitely a lifeline to get her through the night—naobito’s birthday celebrations could perhaps pass harmlessly by with nothing more than the memories of how good you look. the silk highlights your body for days, tight around your chest and flowing down your legs. whereas maki feels completely out of place with rouge and lipstick on he skin, somehow it makes you look even more elegant and graceful. you’re flawless, evidence that maki is indeed good enough to deserve happiness. she keeps your hand in hers for the better part of the evening, fake smiling to some clan members while she keeps her scowl for others, you couldn’t quite find a rhyme or reason to her reactions. it isn’t until she’s pulled away by her sister that you’re able to understand.
of course you were familiar with the atrocities of the zen’in, and it made you more than just a little uncomfortable to be surrounded by them, but with maki by your side, you knew that no harm would possibly come to you. but with her gone, well. now you’re left wide open.
they don’t waste any time, a wall of zen’in has formed around you with various men bidding for your attention by offering you drinks and compliments, swearing that a zen’in man could give you a much better time than any woman—but especially one as weak and powerless as maki. their sentiment makes you snarl, but you don’t know how far maki is—meaning you don’t know how crude you can be with all these disgustingly vile creatures.
“weak? naobito’s birthday or no—we can test that theory.” her sharp voice cuts through the cacophony of others. the men are quieted instantly, and you feel yourself smirk. they start rattling off excuses as to why there should be no fighting here tonight—but you hear the real reason: they’re afraid.
maki has always been far more powerful than they deign to acknowledge. she’s a talented fighter, and you knew most of these old fuckers would be dead to rights if she really wanted to cause a scene. her presence is scary enough, brows set with a menacing look in her eye. she stares above their heads, making eye contact with you.
“come. i think it’s time we left, dear.” she extends her hand for you to take, holding the stare of the disgusting old men that came to hit on her girlfriend the moment she stepped away. you skip forward to take her hand, almost giddy at her demeanor as she squeezes your palm in hers. you knew that she was pissed. she was mad when she woke up this morning and remembered this stupid fucking party was today, but now she’s irate. everything she thought would happen, did, and she didn’t feel like subjecting you to any more ogling eyes. she starts to drag you both towards the door, hoping that the hour and a half she had managed to occupy the same space as her family would please her mother enough. not that she quite cared anyway, hearing your little giggles of excitement told her that you knew exactly how she would remedy her bad mood.
maki has a track record of jealousy, and you knew this time was no exception. this time may be the worst of them all, your girlfriend’s grip on your hand tightening as the driver brings the car around. her mind was racing with the harassments from the crowd, different cousins and uncles offering to show her girlfriend a good time after the party. tch, she didn’t have to wait. she would have you now, the windows of the car are tinted anyway. she opens the backseat of the spacious suv, jutting her chin out to the backseat.
your feel your face heat up as you obey her, crawling into the back on your hands and knees. maki turns to give the chauffeur a tip, patting his knowing shoulder. she doesn’t much care if people know what she’s about to do to you in this car. in fact, she hopes rumors spread about it. the windows being tinted was all she cared about—no one would get to see her pretty little girlfriend’s faces of pleasure but her. she steps into the car after you and pulls the door closed behind her. she’s thankful for the air conditioning and radio humming lowly in the background, your noses pressed together for a brief moment as she adjusts your seat, pushing you back and ensuring she has enough space in the floorboard.
you giggle a little, parting your thighs to give her room to sit between. she slinks between them easily, resting her hands on your knees as she peers over her lenses. you lick your lips in anticipation, seeing that anger in her eyes.
“worked up, babe?” you tease just a little, resting your hand on her head. she raises a brow at you, quietly warning you to watch your attitude. you grin a little, knowing you could push her to her limits after the night that you’ve had—but you’d be the one to reap the consequences. so you lean back against the seat a bit, easing your cunt closer. she looks down at your middle at the movement, but she nods.
“yeah. i’m a bit worked up.” she groans, bunching your silken skirt up by your thighs. her mouth salivates the closer she leans to the apex of your thighs. she catches your scent, grinning at the arousal already leaking down your legs. “they’re all just dying for a chance at you, hm?”
you roll your eyes with a satisfied little grin, shaking your head at her. you pull your skirt up some more for her, but you know not to worry about anything further or you’ll further irritate your already ticked off and overzealous girlfriend. “just too scared of you to come around.” you decide to stroke her ego instead.
she scoffs a little, amusement sparkling in the vast darkness of her emerald eyes. her fingers stroke over the center of your panties, and she hums approvingly at the dampness she can feel beneath. her lips tilt into a smirk, “and you like that?”
“i love that.” you purr, scratching her scalp a little bit. she smiles softly and pushes the flimsy fabric keeping your cunt from her to the side. she gives you a breathy chuckle, watching the strings of your arousal stick to your panties as she peels them away, she’s enamored.
“and i love that sloppy pussy, pretty girl.” she whispers, letting her fingers spread your lips apart. you take your lip in between your teeth in anticipation. she lets her slender thumb drag figure eights along your clit, face focused on your hardening tits and shifting face. you’ve always been so sensitive, it’s one of maki’s favorite things about you—how you jerk into her hand as she’s barely touched you, little moans coming from your pursed lips as the sounds of tires squealing outside overtake the music in the car. maki grins—you’re holding up the line, leaving the other zen’in’s no choice but to pull around maki’s signature suv. she chuckles a bit as she leans in, attaching her pink lips to yours, letting her fingers work their magic over your bundle.
your body drowns in warmth, looking down at your sexy and strong girlfriend giving you head never got old. she always knew how to get you going, possessively shoving you in the back of her car was on the list. you grip at her hair as the pressure from her fingers intensifies, tongue slipping past your lips and straight into the hole—and she moans at the taste of you. your head rolls against the rest behind you, hands weaved into green locks in an effort to grind yourself down on her tongue inside you without moving her fingers. one of her hands pushes your thigh away, keeping you from breaking yet another pair of her glasses.
she works in perfect time, knowing exactly how to send you over the edge without much work at all. she knows no man could tend to you so easily—making you cum like it was chewing gum or breathing. that’s why only she gets to wear the remnants on her face. you buck into her mouth, whines going high pitched. she taps your thigh, giving you express permission to cum on her face.
you whimper, the affection in her eyes was enough to send you toppling over the edge. your hips shake, the dam breaking in your gut—your release covers your girlfriend’s tongue as she curls it inside, gathering all the taste of you that she could with a few animalistic moans as she sucks you clean.
she pants a little as she pulls away from your cunt, tucking your panties back over the mess with a little smile of arrogance. “did that make you feel better, sweetheart?” she asks, pulling your skirt back down as she leans up toward your face. you bend down to meet her, she was still on her knees after all.
you chuckle, giving her a soft kiss. “i meant to ask you that.”
#kylee's kinktober event#kinktober#kinktober 2023#kyleewritesjjk#maki x reader#maki thirst#maki zen'in#maki smut#maki zenin#maki zen'in x reader
405 notes
·
View notes
Text
Running Commentary: What is “ok to do” in Mixed-Culture Supernatural Fiction?
Dear readers:
Today we are trying something new. To give you some insight into our process in the Japanese moderator section, we are presenting our response in the form of running commentary to show you how we dissect and answer long asks. We hope this makes clear what points are useful and not useful when sending us a query. As always, this is for learning purposes, not callouts. Be prepared: this is a long one.
To summarize: the asker is looking to create a comic drawn in Japanese manga style, and has provided a long summary of the story and worldbuilding which involves a mix of “reimagined” Japanese yokai mythos and cultural symbols from many other sources. They have questions with respect to cultural appropriation, coding etiquette, and “what is and isn’t ok.”
Opening Comments
I know a common advice when it comes to the thing I am about to ask is to talk to people involved in __, but I struggle with opening up to strangers for reasons I'm uncomfortable explaining.
Marika (M): This is already a red flag. If you want to engage with another culture without talking to people from that culture, then research is going to be very challenging. You won’t have members of that culture to guide you towards sources and perspectives they feel most accurately represents public opinion. If I were in your shoes, I might start with tackling my discomfort when engaging with other people, if only to improve my work. If you aren’t ready to engage with a culture and its people directly, then I think you should wait until you are.
I should note, reaching out to the Japanese mod team at WWC does count as engagement, but WWC should not and cannot be the only point of contact because there is no single, legitimate cultural perspective.
Rina (R): Also, you don’t need to “open up” to strangers or talk to them in person to get perspectives. Asking specific research questions anonymously to a forum or on social media requires very little vulnerability. You managed to do it here on WWC. So give it a try!
Anyway, my question basically amounts to the what is and isn't ok [sic] in terms of depicting fantasy creatures and concepts outside of their respective culture.
R: So, the reason why we turn away rubber stamp questions by that ask “is XYZ okay?” is because “okay” & “not okay” 1) is vague and 2) creates a dichotomy where there isn’t one.
When we say something is “not okay,” do we mean:
It’s offensive to the general majority of XYZ group?
It’s contentious among people who ID in the group?
It has a potential to be interpreted in a certain negative way, but may not be a red flag to everyone?
Insetad try asking:
What are the reasons this subject is offensive?
What makes cultural appropriation bad?
When might it be “okay” to intentionally discuss a difficult or controversial topic?
What is your reason for including something that may be interpreted as offensive and can it be sufficiently justified?
What stereotypes or tropes might it be consistently identified as or associated with, and why?
When might it be justified to bring up these tropes?
With That In Mind...
Let’s get into the rest of the ask below.
…a story I've been working on in recent times is largely inspired off the Japanese yokai, and the setting is basically Earth in the far future, as far as when the next supercontinent may form. These yokai, although portrayed differently here, do retain their main characteristics [...] Included in this world are two goddesses of my own creation, primarily representing the sun and the moon. [...] There will be thirteen nations, named and based after the Chinese Zodiac, and the life force found in the living things in this world, called qi, comes in two forms that are always opposing each other but can never fully overpower the other, this being based off yin and yang. They're even directly named this; yin qi and yang qi.
M: This reads more like using Japanese and Chinese culture for the “aesthetics”, not the cultures themselves, which I personally feel falls under cultural appropriation. From a world-building/ coding standpoint, the actual use of concepts is workable, and, dare I say, typical, given how Chinese cosmology influences Japanese culture. However, naming a concept “yin qi” or “yang qi” is the equivalent of naming something “- charge” or “+ charge”, respectively. That you don’t seem aware of this tells me you are pretty early in your research phase. In that vein, we’ve covered translating terms and names from foreign languages in fantasy before. See the following article linked here for our recommendation against using RL terms outright but instead encouraging people to create their own conlangs.
R: Worldbuilding-wise, I think you would have to figure out the chicken-or-egg of the zodiac nations. Did the nations come first, and the zodiac later as an origin folk story (which you would have to rewrite to serve the nation-building narrative)? Did the zodiac come first, and the nations named (most likely re-named) by a political entity? What is the justification? Otherwise, again, it’s a shoehorning of aesthetics.
There is also a third, lesser known god based off of fox spirits and trickery and I imagined he's the patron deity of a family that honors and worships him, but his influence on them has transformed them into Kitsune-tsuki, which I depict as fox-like anthros.
M: Not related to this ask directly, but I have jokingly ranted about how often non-Japanese people prefer using imagery related to kitsune-tsuki in Japanese coded world-building (link). This makes me feel the same level of petty irritation. See my troll answer below for a similar experience.
R: Same. It’s boring tbh.
M: Troll Answer: I get that kitsune-tsuki are very sexy furries, but Japanese folklore has other sexy furries too! These underrepresented demographics also deserve recognition and appreciation!!
The plot of the story is this; modernization has left the goddesses neglected of their worship and forgotten, something that is necessary in this world to stop them from fighting each other. The Moon Goddess awakens first, punishing the humans by unleashing the yokai. Then the Sun Goddess wakes up to fight in humanity's defense…
M: This could feel rather like Shinto-like coding (Ex. the myth of Amaterasu and the Cave, or Tsukuyomi slaying Ukemochi), but something about this scenario feels a bit too binary in terms of themes of good v. evil, light v. dark to be Shinto. The plot also feels more Gaelic/ Nordic in influence for me as a person raised in a Japanese Buddhist and Hindu household. I imagine this dissonance could have been fixed with better guided research.
…but their fighting has caused a perma-eclipse and this world is in danger of ending. The yokai have run rampant; some are loyal to the Moon Goddess, and some aren't, and it lies to the main characters to bring balance back to Midgard. Yeah... the name of this future Earth is Midgard. I debate changing it since it and some other things I will mention sorta feel out of place.
R: Marika, looks like you were right on the Gaelic/Nordic influence /j
Also, worldbuilding question: if the Earth is in the far geologic future, how long has it been since modernization (19th-20th century)? Centuries? Millennia? How long has this fighting gone on for? What triggered the perma-eclipse, and why now? Why is this time depth necessary?
One of the main characters in question is a humanoid woman with wolf features named Ling, and she is a descendant of the dynasty that had first ruled the one of the nations, particularly the one based off the dragon zodiac. She accidentally summons the other main character to this world as she's praying at a shrine, a humanoid with dragon features--I call them drakon--named Angelynn.
[on the names of characters] is it appropriating by not having the world entirely based on [Chinese, Japanese, and Indian] influence? it's a little weird to me how worldwide the creatures are referred to as yokai, implying a strong Japanese influence not unlike how it is today with Western culture being so dominant, yet there are still names like Keith and Kiara.
M: I will give you credit for recognizing you have unconsciously veered towards white-washing/ race-bending: either presenting European cultural influences (drakons, Angelynn, Keith, Kiara, Midgard) as default or utilizing general E. Asian cultural influences and aesthetics for a Western-style story (Ling, qi, Chinese zodiac, yokai). I agree with you that this creates a sense of cultural dissonance. At this point, I’d say you have a clear choice: write a Western-style high fantasy using a background with which you have more familiarity, or get some better guidance on research with East Asian cultures so you can code the story more effectively.
The focus of this story is centered around meeting all these yokai and showing that there's more nuance to them than Ling believes, all while saving the world. But I worry if I'm appropriating these concepts and creatures by 1, drawing from more than one culture--I initially imagined that there would be a mix of Chinese, Japanese and Indian influence because according to a website I am getting the info on yokai from, the yokai in question already draw inspiration from or have been based on something in Chinese mythology or Hinduism [...]
R: Sure, some yokai have Chinese or Hindu parallels as that tends to happen with folk tales. But not all–some are unique to Japan, and some are more modern. Sometimes it’s very political–some people consider the Ainu Korpokkur as being a “Yokai of Japan” despite it belonging to the indigenous culture. It’s up to you to research, untangle, and understand these influences.
The fact that you bring up that the Asian continent has seen a lot of cultural exchange is not a sufficient reason to randomly combine influences for the sake of visual appeal or “coolness.” That is appropriation. These influences must be understood in their historical context so that you know how/why certain things combined or morphed into another, and what makes sense to combine/morph.
M: This also indicates that the character views the yokai as evil/inherently bad, which I would argue is not a typical stance for much Japanese folklore. Again, this shows a deficit in research.
2, reimagining these yokai in a new context even though I have done the research on them, because one thing I kept seeing in regards to cultural appropriation is that it's bad to do that […]
R: Refer above to my note on “okay” and “not okay.” The thing with folklore and fairy tales is that every–and I mean every–folk tale is reinterpreted with every new iteration of it. Reimagining in a new context is what people do every time they pass on a story or tell a story with the same plot or characters. Do not think of folklore as an “original” that is altered and rebooted, but rather a living document that gets added to. Reimagining is not the inherent issue. HOW you reimagine something matters.
So I suppose my question is...if someone were to do research upon the creature they want to use, given they are allowed to use it, and gained an understanding of what the creature or concept stood for, are they allowed to pick it apart and reimagine it? Alternatively, is it ok if it's explicitly pointed out that it is derivative of the original?
It has actually become my biggest fear that I may have internalized something that could both continue to do harm long after the fact and attract the wrong people to me work. I don't wanna let people down!
M: As Rina has noted several times, I think the problem is in trying to ID a set of specific variables and circumstances that make a thing “okay” or “not okay.” I want to recommend that you read my joking response about writing in secret rooms while wearing a disguise (Linked here). Who can you hurt if no one knows what you are doing? There’s a difference between creating for oneself and creating to share.
You have internalized a message incorrectly, but not the one you cite. The goal of many recommendations against cultural appropriation is to avoid causing direct harm to people who have seen their cultures demeaned, discredited and devalued, especially in shared spaces. Assessing cultural engagement, whether we are talking about appropriation, appreciation or exchange is not a measure of personal virtue or a collection of commandment style do’s and don’t’s. Rather, I believe engaging with other cultures is the state of mind of acknowledging that when using these cultures’ in one’s own work, there is value in consulting members of that culture and giving credit where credit is due. This will be challenging if you are only comfortable engaging with all of these cultures in a distanced, minimal capacity.
FWIW, I’ve written stories that probably will offend people from other cultures and backgrounds, but I don’t show them off. I don’t think writing these makes me a bad person, but I also don’t see the need to give unnecessary offense, so those stories are just for me, to be written and read in my own secret room. However, I’m not ashamed of having written them, and I’m also comfortable to “let people down” provided that my own shared work reflects my personal principles of what I consider to be sufficient research and engagement with other cultures, As a creator, my work wouldn’t be mine if I didn’t first please myself. I think the trick to the creator role is deciding what to keep private, what to share and what constitutes sufficient engagement.
P.S.
We’ve referenced the need for research multiple times in this ask, and in some of the other asks that have gone up this week, so we thought this would be a good place to plug a beginner’s guide to academic research created by the mod team.. Look for it soon under WWC’s pinned posts!
#japanese#chinese#fantasy#cultural appropriation#coding#worldbuilding#names#mythology#folklore#fairy tales#asks#running commentary#writeblr
584 notes
·
View notes
Text
A BEATLE DIDN’T SAY THAT! Lewisohn’s lab-created quotes
“One of the things about this book that is a strength is it’s not me saying anything, it’s them or other people. I shape the text, I plot where it goes, I weave it, but the quotes are theirs. And so when I’ve got Paul McCartney behaving in a way some readers might think, ‘Whatever, oh dear,’ it’s actually him saying it. So you end up thinking that to his own credit he said that. It’s not me saying it.” (Mark Lewisohn, ‘Noted,’ (October 7, 2013) Somerset, Guy.)
This is hella long, and that's because it's actually a full blog post. (In case you want it in a less monstrous form.)
A lot of people for a long time have put a lot of trust in Mark Lewisohn’s footnotes. Or at least in the fact of those footnotes. Because once you dig through them for any length of time you quickly discover that Mark Lewisohn’s footnotes hold secrets that would get him expelled from any undergraduate program. They reveal a “history” often contrived through a mass of Frankenquotes, ala carte creations, Lewisohn rephrased ‘paraphrases,’ and worse. For some parts of the narrative things aren’t too bad, yet in others monsters lurk around every corner. But this is not the sort of thing that’s graded on a curve, and it is past time to have a conversation about what standards should be accepted in Beatles’ scholarship.
Lewisohn lists his sources unlike most others. And his footnotes alone are more insightful than some other writers’ books. (Reddit, r/beatles)
I do not judge footnotes based on their insightfulness, nor do I want to single out a redditor, but I grabbed the comment because it’s an opinion that is widely shared and even accepted as canon. At least by people who have not combed those freakish footnotes. And while the pages of piled up sources do look fearsome en masse, a closer inspection reveals an offense to the truth, a threat to the record, and a blight on Beatles’ historiography.
“The rules for writing history are obvious. Who does not perceive that its chief law is never to dare say anything false, and never dare withhold anything true? The slightest suspicion of hatred or favor must be avoided. That such should be the foundations is known to all; the materials with which the building will be raised consist of facts and words.” –Cicero
A Look at Lewisohn’s Lab-created Frankenquotes
FIRST, WHAT ARE QUOTES? AND WHY ARE QUOTES?
Quotes are the soul and center of recorded—and recording— history.
And the rules around quotes and quotation marks are pretty simple. Most people, even if they’ve never written anything beyond a term paper, understand what quotation marks represent.
A set of quotation marks means, “This person said or wrote ‘these exact words’ at some given time.” You can smash a quote from two hours before or two years before right up against a separate quote to make your point—although it might get your grade lowered—but what you cannot do is take two different statements from two different times and make them seem like they are one statement.
When you put words inside one set of quotation marks you are stating, in black and white, that the identified person made this statement. That they said all those words together—or if you want to excise a reasonable part and use ellipses to represent that— as part of the same statement.
Look, combining two separate quotes that are not part of the same thought or topic is not a subjective issue. It is not an issue of controversy. Quotes are the bone marrow of written history. Quotes are the alpha and omega. In academic work or journalism they have to be, which makes sense as soon as you think about it. If it was cool for me to take a transcript and grab half a sentence from page 2 and half a sentence from page 17, push them together as if those words were spoken one after the other in a single thought, I bet I can manage to get those words to say almost anything I want.
Separate thoughts must be in two separate quotation marks. Separate. Somewhere between four sentences and a paragraph is widely accepted as the “two separate quotes” line, and there can be some ethical and technical wiggle room in a long rant by a person, but what makes all that subjective nonsense go out the window is if the quotes come from two separate questions. Or two separate days. That’s two quotes. Not hard.
Which again, makes sense if the point is conveying information to the reader and lessening the chance of a writer manipulating someone else’s words to express something that the person didn’t mean.
This is the contract inherent in a quote. These are the rules we all agree to and understand, and these are the reasons why. And there’s no reason to break them.
Why do you want me to believe that John said these two things at one time? What was wrong with what he did say?
THE FOUR MOST COMMON WAYS MARK LEWISOHN MAULS THE MEANING OF THE QUOTE:
The Basic Lewisohn Frankenquote 🧟♂️
(“CONCLUDING FIVE WORDS FROM—” – I cannot even see the point of this THREE PART monster. Full footnote reads: 9) Author interview with Tony Meehan, September 6, 1995. (“I met George again in 1968 and for some reason he was harboring a grudge against me. He was very, very uptight about it—’You blocked us getting a recording contract …’ ”) First part of George quote from interview by Terry David Mulligan, The Great Canadian Gold Rush, CBC radio, May 30 and June 6, 1977; concluding five words from interview for The Beatles Anthology)
This three-headed monster attributed to George Harrison is a very dull little guy. Not particularly venomous. Just convenient, I guess. For whatever reason, Mark Lewisohn decided it was worth rummaging through the quote buffet until he collected enough pieces for George Harrison to say this thing. “…concluding five words from…” What are we even doing here? No, really. Please tell me.
And like a lot of the footnotes for these bespoke quotations, there are further problems. “[F]rom interview for Beatles Anthology”? An interview that aired? In one of the episodes? Can you narrow it down? I guess I’ll just have to listen very closely to them all and hope I don’t miss the five words.
But if we got bogged down in the sorts of trivial details that would immediately lose a college student a letter grade off a History 101 paper we would never get anywhere. We have to stick to the violent felonies.
*Love the "George would say——" Uh, would he? Well, I guess after all that trouble you went to, he would now. It's really incredible how cavalier Lewisohn is about a Beatle's words.
These sorts of reconstituted, lab-engineered, made up “quotes” are shot throughout Tune In. “Quotes” made up of words from two, three, and even four sources, spoken months or often years apart.
Ala Carte Creations 🍱
It really is a buffet, and these ala carte creations come in all shapes and sizes. They might just be words that have been plucked up and glued back together to make something more useful to a particular narrative. (Ellipses or dash optional.)
TUNE IN: “John saw a bigger picture, and it would be surprising if it wasn’t equally obvious, or made obvious, to Brian and George. He likened Paul’s enduring snag with Brian to his other long-standing difficulty: ‘[Brian] and Paul didn’t get along—it was a bit like [Stuart and Paul] between the two of them.’” (Footnote 37: Interview by Peter McCabe and Robert D. Schonfeld, September 1971)
Bonus 🍒 Phoebe's dramatic reading of John's original quote:
The Donut 🍩
Then there are a seemingly uncountable number of “quotes” with a sentence or three ripped out from the middle, but with zero representation that more words were ever there. (And in most of these particular deceptions, the simple representation of something excised (. . .) would make the quote fine. There are a lot of these, but they are also the easiest to fix.)
Chapter 10: “I was in a sort of blind rage for two years. [I was e]ither drunk or fighting. **It had been the same with other girlfriends I’d had.** There was something the matter with me.”
And then there are the true buffet bonanzas, words lifted and twisted beyond recognition until they say something brand spanking new.
However, John remembered Paul’s attitude to Brian being very different. John was always emphatic that Paul didn’t want Brian as the Beatles’ manager and presented obstacles to destabilize him, to make his job difficult … like turning up late for meetings. “Three of us chose Epstein. Paul used to sulk and God knows what … [Paul] wasn’t that keen [on Brian]—he’s more conservative, the way he approaches things. He even says that: it’s nothing he denies.”
The Lewisohn Remixes 🍸
And then there are the “paraphrases.” I couldn’t even begin to guess how many of these there are, and often they aren’t even paraphrases, but whole new Mark Lewisohn re-interpretations with quotation marks slapped around them. But if you don’t check, you probably won’t know, because like this Lewisohn rewrite of a well-known Mrs. Harrison quote, there’s a good chance you’ll recognize the bulk of it, making it less likely that you’ll catch the scalpel work excising Paul. And while I don’t want to get caught in the nooks and crannies of intent in an example like this one I have to say, just this once, that what has to be a purposeful excising of Paul to create a slightly new quote on one side, combined with a badly acted, bad faith—(or bad scholar)—“Where was Paul when John’s mom died?” on the other, is par for the course.
George Harrison’s mom’s made up Lewisohn rephrase which coincidentally removes Paul from the imagery.] ❦ LEWISOHN:“ Asked some years later to describe how he’d been able to help John cope with the loss of Julia, Paul could remember nothing of the period at all. It could be they didn’t see much of each other in the summer of 1958. John was working at the airport, and Paul and George went on holiday together—adventurous for boys of 16 and 15. But Louise Harrison would recall how she encouraged George to visit John at Mendips, “so he wouldn’t be alone with his thoughts.” ❦ DAVIES: “They were still practicing a lot at George’s house, the only house where they got endless hospitality and encouragement. . . . I forced George to go round and see him, to make sure he still went off playing in their group and just didn’t sit and brood. They all went through a lot together, even in those early days, and they always helped each other.”
Why do you have to slice and dice and reconstitute people’s words? No writer, and certainly no historian, should ever feel empowered to take words from a historical figure from two or three different places and topics and times, splice them together, and tell us, “Winston Churchill said this.” No he didn’t! Why are you so intent on changing the words of the people you’re writing about? What’s wrong with just using two different quotes?
You cannot take two or three quotes from two or three or even four separate statements, stick them between one set of quotation marks and say John or Paul or George or Joe Smith said this.
No they didn’t. They never said that. Why do you want me to think they did??
All these words are Abraham Lincoln’s, but this is not a Lincoln quote:
“Every man is said to have his peculiar ambition. Whether it be true or not, I can say for one that I have no other so great as that of — making a most discreditable exhibition of myself.”
(I kept it ridiculous, although I didn’t have to.)
But I want you, the reader, to be saying to yourself, “Okay, enough already. I get it!” Because in the last few days I have wandered too far into the weeds too many times and written far too many words detailing the multiplicity of ways Mr. Lewisohn does violence to each and every law of reporting historical facts, and could write many more. And I will post a more detailed list of the crimes against the quote that I am charging Mark Lewisohn with as we go forward, but I don’t think we need that now. The fact is that every fair-minded person knows what quotation marks represent, and there is no more fair-minded group of people than serious Beatles fans and scholars. And it is those fair-minded scholars who I want most to hear me. Whether you’ve written books or host a podcast or just know that you know a whole lot of stuff and take seriously your part of the trust in preserving the truth about The Beatles for us and future generations, it is you I am really talking to. My Cicero quoting-freaks. The ones who care about getting it right.
“The chief, the only, aim of style is to put facts in a clear light, with no concealment.”
- Lucian of Samosata
What footnotes can do, and what footnotes can’t.
You can list multiple sources in a single footnote. That’s not only fine, it’s correct. If I want to tell part of a story based on several sources, that often means several sources in a footnote. But not for one, single quote.
The problem isn’t the footnote, it’s the bioengineered quote on the page that you swept under a footnote hoping I wouldn’t notice.
Which leads us to what a footnote is not. A footnote is not a post-hoc fixative for your textual sins. You cannot do whatever you want as long as you confess it in a footnote. A footnote is not a magic spell. A footnote is not the universally understood symbol for “I have my fingers crossed behind my back.” You cannot fix lies and misrepresentations in the footnotes. Footnotes aren’t for trying to chase down three different sources to match up which part of a manufactured “quote” someone said on which date. Footnotes are not the picture on the front of a puzzle box. I should not need to find corner pieces to figure out which of these George Harrison words were actually spoken together.
Footnotes are a truthful and independently verifiable record of primary sources. It’s that simple.
And taking Mark Lewisohn completely out of the picture for a moment, I feel sure we can all agree that neither John Lennon nor Paul McCartney nor George Harrison nor Ritchie Starkey would want anyone rearranging their words as if they were guitar chords. You wouldn’t take three-quarters of Penny Lane and one-quarter of Across the Universe, put them together and call it a Beatles‘ song. So don’t take three quarters of John to Jann Wenner and one-quarter of John to Lisa Robinson, put them together and call it a Beatle’s quote.
MY PERSONAL STANDARD IS THAT IF SOMEONE REPRESENTS, “A BEATLE SAID THIS,” IT BETTER DAMN WELL BE SOMETHING A BEATLE SAID.
None of the Beatles, dead or alive, would be cool with their words being taken out of context at all, let alone two or three different statements on god knows what being combined into one. This isn’t hard, though. Use two or three separate quotation marks, and don’t take statements out of context. Don’t mix and match their words, but don’t twist them, either. If a person said something, it is the historian’s duty to represent those words to the best of your ability, and then use them to tell a factual story focused on what you feel is important. Staying true to the original words and true to their meaning. If you can’t use those words without twisting them, then change your story to fit their words, not the other way around. If their statement helps tell the story your way, use it! For goodness sake, John Lennon said at least two opposing things about almost every topic on earth, so there should be enough to choose from without being deceptive. I actually want the truth. Don’t you?
Biography is story based around accurately represented, trustworthy and verifiable facts. And look, Beatles fans, whoever your favorite is: we are not going to get the truth about his history if we don’t learn to take these things seriously. Let’s have—if not high standards—at least the lowest generally accepted standards. In the mid-term we need a lot more Beatles scholars with a lot more points of view, and now—right now—we need experienced Beatles scholars to prioritize searching out and finding smart, interested people to mentor. And we simply must ensure that we aren’t allowing to solidify into stone “facts” that are not facts and statements no one ever made. I don’t think any honest Beatles fan—(which rounds up to all of them)—wants any question around that issue.
The record is the most important thing. Now, and always. This is not about John versus Paul. John versus Paul may live on always in our hearts, but for Beatles history, it’s the wrong question. I’d rather someone be up front about their loves, but in the end the focus should be on representing the primary facts in their most pristine form. Love who you love most, but place truth above all. Pristine facts. Pristine quotes. Nothing hidden. Nothing misrepresented.
Let the historical actors speak for themselves. That is their right.
And the historian’s duty.
NEXT, WE DISSECT A MONSTER.
Final note: I became frustrated and (maybe strangely) offended by Lewisohn's obscene pretenses in 2020, but my frustrations were nebulous and unfocused until this incredible AKOM series. I feel much better now. Angrier. But better. They worked their asses off. 🥂
#lewisohn#akom#the beatles#tune in#fine tuning#frankenquotes#lewisohn's monsters#historiography#paul mccartney#john lennon#george harrison#ringo starr#mark lewisohn#a beatle never said that#beatles#brian epstein#allen klein#Spotify
162 notes
·
View notes
Text
Femme Fatale Playbook: How To Construct A Mysterious Aura While Still Maintaining Your Personality
Oversharing is the simplest way to breach your own boundaries. When you think about it for a minute, you realize it's a form of self-sabotage and can take away from your high-value allure, charm, or the magnetism that radiates from cultivating a mysterious personality. Here are some tips to practice self-restraint in conversations to own your privilege to privacy and construct a more mysterious aura.
Understand the root cause of your talkative nature: Are you genuinely extraverted and gain energy from speaking to others, or do you have repressed thoughts/emotions/ generally feel unheard and use social conversations as an outlet to release these thoughts or feel seen?
Find ways to transmute this communication, but make it self-referential: Journal your thoughts as a stream of consciousness exercise or as though you’re speaking to a close friend. Draft a document that reads like a short dissertation on a topic that you would love to talk endlessly about but know would be a disservice to your reputation or mysterious allure if you shared it with someone else (an embarrassing story, details of a work fiasco, sex stories, a fight with a family member/romantic partner, a hot take or controversial opinion on a polarizing topic, etc.). Write anything that comes to mind. You can even create a voice memo as a mini-podcast to yourself to get the feelings out.
Reframe your mindset: Having a mysterious personality means being selective – not repressive – with how you share information, engage in conversations, and present yourself to others.
Create a social rulebook for yourself: Write out a conversational “dos” and “don’ts” list. Decide on the topics/stories you want to share in a given situation and those you want to avoid discussing (work, family setting, intimate social gathering, dinner party/wedding, etc.) to help censor yourself/curate your image. By having a plan in place at all times, you’re doing half of the work beforehand to help you avoid oversharing when in interpersonal settings (at least most of the time!). Always have a few “fun facts,” opinions on cultural topics (music, movies, celebrities, current events that aren’t politics or religion, fashion, historical facts, favorite books, etc), and light-hearted stories that you keep in your metaphorical back pocket to give you something to talk about in particular conversations.
Always think before engaging: Before speaking, consider this way of thinking when you enter a conversation: You want to share information that helps you connect but allows them to speak more about their personal experience (so you feel less vulnerable). You don’t always want to hold back.
Learn the art of following up. Re-articulate to connect: Essentially, allow the other person to speak, and ask thoughtful follow-up questions. Paraphrase their points to confirm your understanding of what they’re saying. Make generalized connections about the overarching themes/point of their opinion or life story. This way of responding will help you become captivating to the other person. It makes your conversation partner feel understood on a deeper level.
Connect through intellect without being intimate: Share your thoughts on topics, just not your personal experiences as to why you have these opinions necessarily. This approach allows you to maintain a mysterious aura without appearing closed off. Sometimes, you can intellectualize your conversation points and relate certain surface-level portions of your story/life experience to current events or other cultural/worldly subjects. Use these more philosophical or worldly connections to ask more follow-up questions. Make sure to read, educate yourself, and stay up to date on different topics across industries/life arenas to help you navigate a wider variety of conversations.
Always maintain proper posture. Talk and move slowly. Practice grace and elegance with your hand gestures, slight fidgets, etc. Keep a calm demeanor, smile, and maintain eye contact. However, it's important to remember that being mysterious doesn’t mean being cold. Still laugh, smile, and show that you're enjoying the conversation.
#social skills#femme fatale#femmefatale#it girl#the feminine urge#dark femininity#dark feminine energy#high value woman#queen energy#dream girl#life advice#relationship advice#boundaries#self respect#self improvement#ideal self#high value mindset#divine feminine#female manipulator#hypergamous#hypergamy#cult of personality#female excellence#success mindset#journal prompts#shadow work#lifelessons#femmefatalevibe
2K notes
·
View notes
Text
How I Critique Writing (A Loose Collection of Tips)
Someone asked me for insights into my methodology when it comes to giving feedback on writing and I realized I had way more than I could say in a reasonable amount of private messages. Are you someone who I've spoken to about their writing? Did someone send you their work and you don't know how to respond? Maybe this will help? Based on how people react I feel like it might be controversial but it seems to work.
When someone sends me their writing, no matter the size, subject or genre, I:
Take it seriously. It's a generational epic about the Vietnam war and its effects. It's a cute, young adult romance. It's Zim and Dib from Invader Zim realizing they've always been in love with each other. All of these things can be written with earnestness, strength, honesty and skill. It's fucking hard to write and if someone writes a single sentence that wouldn't otherwise exist its worth holding in your hands and examining with the same eye as if you were taking an interesting book off the shelf.
Respond with curiosity. It's common for critiques to follow a theme of ambiguous disdain. This doesn't work. Delete this. Bad. No. Gross. Guess what? That's not helpful. If you got that feedback, even if you followed it, you wouldn't be thrilled about it. Oftentimes you can take a line that makes you want to say Bad and ask something else. What is this supposed to express? What were you trying to do here? Am I supposed to feel happy/sad/uncertain when I read this? Curiosity can reframe something that you don't think works as a reader and turn it into an opportunity for the writer to look inward and solve their own problem. They might explain what they were trying to do, and if you were to say that it didn't pan out for you they're way more likely to tweak things themselves and feel like they still have control over their project.
Give comments. I've started giving more in-depth comments on the writing people give me depending on how anxious they are about it. If you're a pretty confident writer I'll give a summary of what I gained and what I was left wondering, what I thought and what I felt, what associations it made me think of in terms of tone and other forms of media - stuff like that. For newer writers, especially those who are far more doubting of their own abilities, I go buck wild. And in my opinion notes should be less like Good! I like this! Wow! Nice! (What are you, grading my book report? No thanks), and more like what you think when you're reading a book you're truly invested in. Make jokes about the characters (Not mean ones. I will send bugs to you in the mail.), chart exact lines that provoke physical reactions, even a small one. Can you imagine reading someone treat your work like it has its own fandom on Tumblr? You can do that for someone else.
Fucking have some fucking awareness of the fact that it might not be for you and that doesn't mean it's bad. I'm angry about this one considering the novel a friend sent me last night that they've been too terrified to try and post online, despite it being fucking brilliant. I'll try and calm down. Listen - you read what you like. I mainly read literary and experimental fiction, some poetry, horror and some sci-fi. Not a lot of genre fiction. But I will always be down to read someone's high fantasy story, because even though I don't really like fantasy I know what the good ones sound like. I've forced myself to gain a sense of what someone else would like, even if I don't like it. And I can still critique it. If I'm a builder and I see a house that's painted a shade of green I find sinful for a home (i.e. mint), I can look past that and focus on the state of the walls and the stability of the foundation. You aren't a reviewer, man. You are neither Siskel, nor Ebert. They write for readers, you write for writers. So you don't like historical fiction? Cool, man. Congrats. If someone trusts you enough to give you some to read and critique, you should still do so objectively. If you give it an automatic F because you wouldn't buy it, then you are legally a stinky little trash man. That's just the law.
Ask them what they liked to write and what was the hardest. There's apparently a weird trend on online writer communities that say there are specific rules that all writers need to follow. This is not true. It just isn't. If the dialogue in a story you read is weak, and the writer says they hate writing dialogue and really struggle with it, maybe tell them they don't have to use it. You might change their entire life.
RESPOND WITH CURIOSITY. You see the Ask games where people try and get more detail on the WIP of certain authors. If you have a WIP and I ask you a worldbuilding question that doesn't relate to the direct plot of the story as it exists now, I bet you'd like to talk about it. If I ask if you were inspired by a certain tone or movie, you might know the work I was talking about and feel happy. Or you might not know it, look it up, and feel inspired. I don't think people realize that a critique of new/unfinished writing is not a one-and-done exchange. You are taking part in an isolated process in a way few other people on the planet will. It's not homework. It's. Not. Homework. We spend so much of our time alone just fiddling our hands and making our magic, and in instances like these we share something in one of the ultimate forms of artistic trust. They're taking you into a world that hasn't fully formed yet. Is it cool? Can you tell me about it? Can they?
Be nice. Storytime, friends. In the way early 2010s, there was something on the internet called sporking. It was pretty much a line by line roast of someone's writing - typically fanfic. And I hate to say this, but I read a lot of it. I was 13, somehow untreated and overmedicated, and I was miserable constantly. Just cold in my chest. At one point I had the chance to critique a stranger's story - probably another child - and I essentially mocked the whole thing. They ended up deleting the story off the website. I cannot begin to describe to you the shame I feel about doing this, even ten years later. It burns in my heart and makes me sick to my stomach. If you are a serious writer, especially a young writer, and you insult another writer's craft to their face just as they're getting started - you will regret it. I promise you that. You will think about holding something alive and full of potential in your hands and squeezing your fists until it is just flecks of meat and crushed bone. It will haunt you. Maybe only a little, but constantly and for the rest of your life. So don't do it.
Wow what a grim note to leave on! That's essentially my philosophy on writing critique, do with it what you will. Want to send me some writing to receive this kind of excessive treatment? Cool! I have an email in my pinned post and I'll do that! I'm also down to chat if anyone wants to send me asks or DMs on writing/writing struggles/publishing tips.
#writers on tumblr#writeblr#writing#on writing#writing community#authors of tumblr#actually writing#queer writers#fanfic writing#writing critique#writing criticism#writing tips#writing help#writing resources#writing inspiration#i went crazy on this one didn't i
41 notes
·
View notes
Text
Spirit Work: Connecting to Spirits through Food
We've all got to eat. I'm a huge proponent of casual, every day spirit work and devotions. In my post about Hanging Out, I briefly mentioned sitting down for a meal with your chosen spirit(s) to bond. That concept goes beyond just eating together, of course. There's far more than just eating when it comes to food.
Food as Devotion to Spirits
Food is the heartbeat of culture. Consider where your ancestors came from.
If you talk to folk practitioners, especially ones who do spirit work with ancestors, they'll tell you about all the things they've learned about their culture, their history, their people, and where their beliefs came from. Well, maybe -- folk practitioners are often a secretive bunch, and for good reason. Our practices are highly personal, constructed from local and family beliefs, cultural hand-me-downs, and word of mouth.
Even if you aren't a folk practitioner, there's value in looking to the foods and ingredients that were (or still are) crucial to the culture you come from. Especially if you work with your ancestors, but this can apply to deity and other spirit work, too.
And this doesn't just apply to immigrant US Americans whose families came from Europe, either. Think about where you live now, too. What did your grandparents or great-grandparents like to eat? What dish is your hometown renowned for? What's your country's signature dish?
Research is devotion. The time you spend asking questions or reading about the foods that formed the foundation of your culture's existence is time devoted to the spirits connected to that culture. Even for spirits with whom you have no ancestral ties, like deities from other cultures, researching the foods they were historically offered is valuable.
Taking time to learn how to make a dish and then taking the time to actually make it is a great offering. So long as it's done conscientiously and with purpose, it counts.
When you sit down to eat, dedicate the meal to the spirit(s). Set a place for them at the table and put together a little serving of everything on offer. The contents of the meal don't necessarily matter. Hell, I've set aside a chicken nugget and little pile of french fries for spirits before. Offer the first bite, a taste of whatever the spirit would like. Then, dig in and know that you're sharing a meal with that spirit.
The idea is that learning about, making, sharing, and consuming the foods that have been made for years -- centuries, even, sometimes! -- forges a strong connection. It's all about learning and appreciation.
Food as Connection... to the Living
There are few experiences more powerful than sharing a meal. Cooking for someone, having someone cook for you, going out to eat, going through a drive-thru -- it doesn't matter. People have been gathering to enjoy meals since time immemorial. Food is love, I really do believe that. To consciously choose to share a meal is an act of love.
I'm of the perhaps controversial opinion that the most important spirit work occurs with the living. Living, breathing, human people. We all have spirits, and we nurture ourselves every day. But do we nurture each other?
When we die, we don't really know what happens. There are countless theories on the subject, and I don't plan on revealing mine currently. If you work with spirits, chances are you've got your own thoughts; and even if you don't, you might still have thoughts.
The vast majority of spirit work we see in books and online occurs with the intangible spirit world. Deities, ghosts, Fair Folk, and the like. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but I do think practitioners who don't turn their attention to the living are missing out.
Making connections with the living is critical. My views on spirit work have been massively impacted by interactions with volunteer programs, community outreach programs, and events in my community.
Don't wait until they're dead to respect them. Whoever they are, don't wait.
If it's your family members, ask about their favorite foods. What did their parents make them, and when? What's their go-to secret ingredient? What do they make for the holidays, and why? What traditions do they follow? Why do they make this particular soup on this particular day?
If it's your community leaders -- who can absolutely be your ancestors, too, even if you've never met them in person -- talk to them about where they came from. What did they eat as a child? Where do they like to go when they eat out, and why? Would they share that cookie recipe with you from the last community potluck?
Understanding the living will help you understand the dead. Not only will you form strong, lasting connections to people who care about you in your life, but it'll also strengthen your ties to those who are gone. Spirits of your ancestors will recognize your efforts to learn and preserve the memories of the people in your family and community. Your deities will see you reaching out and learning, and they will appreciate it as devotion to the culture they came from.
You don't need to be a fabulous cook or even cook at all. It all comes down to the effort you're putting in. Learning is enough. Reaching out is enough. The work is enough.
If you like my work, consider tossing a tip in my Ko-Fi tip jar! Support helps me keep making posts like this one consistently.
#aese speaks#witchcraft#witchblr#spirit work#food#spirit offerings#deity offerings#food offerings#spirit worker#ancestor work#deity work#community#witch
47 notes
·
View notes
Text
@/GeorginaKellyX @/mandyjb65 "Do you believe in God though Gerard? What's your view on religion?"
People have been asking me my views on religion and my beliefs, so I decided to start writing this last night, then I got tired. If the topic of Religion offends you, or you can't respect others personal beliefs, stop reading now and just focus on my tweets about Chapstick or guitars.
Here is my answer, though potentially controversial, lets do this because I'm an open book nowadays-
I was raised Catholic, which turned me off from religion because I had a very bad experience. Then, as a young adult, a death in the family resulted in a lot of anger and an even greater distance between me and faith, though I had always acknowledged I received my artistic gifts from God. I even firmly believed in creating MCR, I was given a mission from God, not unlike the scene in The Blues Brothers. The mission involved helping people and battling the forces of evil, by using word and the purifying flames produced by Marshall Halfstack amplification.
This is true. It is also my version and my story, and if you disagree, one day you can tell your own version of your own personal story, but this one is mine, as are my beliefs- I ask you to respect them, as I respect yours, as long as they don't advocate hate, discrimination, or violence.
Now, where I am today-
Re-engaging more seriously in a sobriety program has provided me with an opportunity to face a lot of questions, and be honest with myself about how I truly feel about God, and the anger inside of me went away years ago. The truth is, I always believed in God, I was just young and angry, and more angry with myself than anything. I stopped hating myself, and started to truly love the person I truly was, as long as I was being who I am, which is who I am now.
Does God look like a cartoon version with a white beard for me? No, God never has. It's something that has always changed for me, little visions I get that tell me what it is right now. Is it a man? Not always. Sometimes, for longer stretches than others, it's a woman, or a creature with female gender. For years to me, God was a planet-sized intergalactic space worm, blind, but seeing and feeling through sonic vibrations. Once God was even an imaginary J-Pop star.
What God looks like is not important to me.
In fact, I believe there is more violence created over what God looks like, and the differing of opinions on the subject, than most other foolish forms of violence.
So I don't engage in that.
I also believe in evolution, and science.
So yeah. I believe in God and I'm cool with that.
I also didn't check my spelling
From Gerard Way's letter on twitlonger. May 12, 2013
207 notes
·
View notes
Text
I really don't get the controversy surrounding trans Samus headcanons as far as more progressive spaces.
"But the person who said she was trans meant it as a transphobic joke!" Okay, and? Not everyone knows or cares about that statement and have their own reasons for headcanoning her as trans, myself included. Also, turning a character who was in some fashion treated as a queer caricature or joke in the past into genuine representation that people are able to get happy about is a common practice. It's actually fine, dare I say cool, to headcanon her as trans specifically as a form of spite.
"This is such lukewarm representation, we can do better!" Who says we aren't? Like obviously we need more active and better representation, but what the hell is the average person supposed to do about that more or less on their own? I think it's fine actually to have personal idea or opinions about a random fictional character just for your own comfort or fun, it doesn't mean you are settling for it alone.
I don't know what really gets me about these comments is the implication that trans people who headcanon Samus as trans are doing trans people as a whole a disservice? Respectfully, you don't get to tell trans people who they can't and cannot headcanon as trans, it's entirely up to them. If you think it's dumb, that's fine, but that is a matter of opinion.
This is all just people having subjective opinions to begin with anyways so why does everyone have to be so gatekeeping about what trans people do with their own trans headcanons about fictional characters?
13 notes
·
View notes
Note
As a woman with no male genitalia whatsoever and who was raised in a Muslim household, I’ve been pretty unaware of circumcision being an unethical practice. It took me a while to realize that it might not be as unproblematic as I had thought.
I think circumcision should be fine as long as the person who is going to get the procedure done is aware of what happens to his body and agrees to it - without invasive persuasion from his family, friends, etc., of course. So, I agree that it’s not okay to be done to a baby, a child, or someone who is not able to form his own opinion on this matter. But I don’t see a problem with it when these circumstances are in place. Same thing with piercings, no permanent changes until the person is fully able to comprehend and able to agree to what is going to happen. But that’s just my personal opinion on the matter. Never in my life would I have thought that I’d have a discussion about circumcision when I joined this app but here I am 🤡
Anyways, simply ignore the ask if you don’t want this subject to be dragged on further on your blog. Kinda wanted to share my thoughts though.
I try to keep this Tumblr relatively 'controversy free' as it's a relaxed space for me.
However, I don't usually stand for non medically necessary procedures on minors, for religious or aesthetic purposes, or because of 'research' which suggests the procedure is healthier for them, as if evolution hasn't been working out what's healthier for us for millions of years 🤷♀️
There's no excuse for it, in my books. I understand people feel *personally* about it, because if they acknowledge that it's wrong on a moral and ethical level, they'd have to acknowledge hundreds of prior years of assault against infants. Or, assault against themselves.
Anyway...the last I'll say, is this:
MY PAGE IS NOT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE SO CHILDISH, THEY CANNOT APPRECIATE DISCUSSION AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. IF YOU VIEW ANY CONTRARY VIEW TO YOUR OWN, AS A PERSONAL ATTACK, I ADVISE YOU UNFOLLOW OR BLOCK ME.
I don't stand for people masquerading as adults.
OP, acknowledging the gaps in your own knowledge and seeking to address them, is a serious strength, and you should be incredibly proud. It's truly incredible how many adults are unable or unwilling to do this.
Mwah,
-- Haitch xxx
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
Remembering British film director and writer Sir Alan Parker CBE, who passed away July 31st, 2020, aged 76.
Born to a working class family in Islington, North London he made his early reputation as a pioneer of creativity in television advertising. He formed a creative partnership with David Puttnam and went on to become one of his generation’s most accomplished film directors.
He directed Jack Rosenthal’s television play, The Evacuees, for the BBC (BAFTA and International Emmy), and his first international cinema success was Bugsy Malone (1976), a musical gangster pastiche featuring a cast of children, including Jodie Foster, Scott Baio, Andrew Paul (The Bill), Bonnie Langford and an uncredited Phil Daniels. He said that he wrote Bugsy Malone out of frustration, as his work was constantly being rejected on the grounds of being 'too parochial'.
He went on to create a commercially successful, diverse and at times controversial body of work, including Midnight Express (written by Oliver Stone: they didn’t get on), Fame, Pink Floyd-The Wall, Mississippi Burning, The Commitments, Evita and Angela's Ashes. His final feature film was The Life of David Gale in 2003.
According to his official website;
"...In all, his films have won nineteen BAFTA awards, ten Golden Globes and ten Oscars...In January 1998, Parker took up his post as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the British Film Institute and in August, 1999 he was appointed first Chairman of the UK Film Council; a position he held for five years...In November, 1995, Parker was awarded with a CBE by Queen Elizabeth II for services to the British film industry and he received a knighthood in 2002. He is also an Officier des Arts et des Lettres, awarded by the French Government..."
He was also fascinating to listen to on the subject of the film industry generally, and gave a number of entertainingly grumpy interviews over the years. In the mid 1980s, his Thames TV documentary, A Turnip Head’s Guide to the British Film Industry, which according to his own website ‘lambasted the British film establishment and film critics’, seemed to upset just about everyone but won the British Press Guild award for the year’s best documentary.
He was interviewed by Warner Brothers executives as a potential director for the first Harry Potter, however during a teleconference (from his kitchen table at home) didn’t seem to express enough interest or gratitude at being asked. When a Warner exec told him that lots of directors would just love to do it, Parker said, 'Well go and ask them, then', and that was the end of that.
In conversation with David Puttnam for a BFI function, Alan Parker explained why he gave up making films, and talked a little about his art and drawing.
"…I’m out of it, I’ve had enough, I think it’s time for someone else to do it. I get more pleasure out of doing my art…I’ve been directing since I was 24, and every day was a battle, every day it was difficult, whether you’re fighting the producer who has opinions that you don’t agree with, the studios or whoever it is, because film, unlike art, pure art, film is hugely expensive, and the moment it gets expensive, you have people you have to serve…I’ve been punching out, all my life…to fight for the work…for our right to make our movie, the way we want to do it, and that’s hugely difficult, because it seems that you’re forever punching out. There comes a time, when you think, I don’t want to do that…I showed (a friend) one of my art works, and he said, who’s your audience here? Because that’s what film people think. I said the audience is me, and that’s all I care about, if someone likes my art, fine, if they don’t, fine…If they don’t like my movies, I want to kill ‘em…"
He was Michael Parkinson's first guest on Desert Island Discs in 1986, (a great interview) and featured once again 14 years later talking to Sue Lawley.
#social history#working class history#film history#british cinema#british film directors#alan parker#mississippi burning#the commitments#british film writers#british film history
19 notes
·
View notes
Note
What would you say it’s the biggest misconception about French revolution?
I could answer a thousand different ways about politics and the historical side but, honestly? I'm going to be open and answer this very honestly and touch on something I haven't seen anyone talk about.
One of the biggest and maybe most controversial misconceptions I've seen is the way people view those involved in it. Like, the mental image people build up in their mind of the biggest players- and I mean this literally, for many figures. Robespierre, Danton, Marat, Saint-Just, Desmoulins etc.
We have portraits and engravings and descriptions etc, but of course everyone builds up their own version of these people in their head. What do you see when you picture Danton in front of the people? Robespierre at the stand? What do you envision when you read about them? Is it your favorite actor portrayal? The way your favorite fanartist draws them? Or is it picked directly from the idealized portraits?
I'm incredibly autistic and while my writing and art and sewing can being fantastical things about my thinking processes are very literal. I devour as many primary sources as I can- things written by historians are well and good and they can help you find translated or obscure stuff, but they have biases. I like to form my own, based on a person's own words- and with a dead person, their letters and writings are all you have. In terms of the French Revolution thankfully however, there is a wealth of this available and many lovely translators at work. So I build my idea up personality first, descriptions by others second. I don't know how others go about this, but it seems the idea they build up is as clear as the one I build for myself.
But you will see something strange. People going about something that actually happened as if it is fiction, consuming history as if it is media. Which isn't bad, but it is strange to see people fighting over history as if it is a fandom war, hurting others over an ideal they have built up. And this goes for the Revolution in its entirety, on both sides. When someone has a strong idea in mind, and you give them a primary source to be helpful, one is surprised to find themselves on the lit end of a match.
People's ideas of someone tend to me more important to them than what actually is, even if the real thing is... pleasant? Different from what they want, yes, but not always bad. And sometimes I sit back and wonder how much of that is just human nature, clinging to our perceptions and biases, and how much of that influenced things back then. It gets me on a bit of a philosophical rabbit hole, I'll admit- the twisting and exploitation of public opinion is something that is very key in something like this. And its interesting to see that trend still continuing now, and rather than be upset, sometimes I wonder what brought a person to the conclusions they hold so tightly to. I'm being honest here, because while I have been the subject of very nasty attentions for asking the same kind of questions as above, and while I have been made to prefer to indulge in this subject privately now instead of engage in the community, I'm not really upset anymore.
Just extremely curious about the way other people think and comprehend things.
76 notes
·
View notes
Text
my biggest fixation for the past year has definitely been music, sharing and discovering new music, the stories behind music, little analyses of the sounds of music (which i've been writing on my Album of the Year account that kinda has longform bloggy content too) etc. etc. but the thing about music is that it is incredibly hard to discuss on text-based social media, not only cause it's trying to transmit audio based media through a predominantly visual based medium, but also engagement farming causes discussions to focus around hot takes and controversial opinions all the time. not saying differing opinions are bad or anything, music is THE most subjective form of art imaginable, but seeing the same black & white thoughts engineered to promote arguments and division every day, that's what those sites feed on, it's the worst. i like nuance. nuance makes my brain happy, taking in different perspectives and forming your own opinion, fucking love that shit, wish so many english essays didn't take off points for you using it. do you see how much i'm writing about nuance right now? this could've been an essay but here i am writing it for free
6 notes
·
View notes
Text
I often think about how easier my life would be if I were conventionally attractive.
Don't get me wrong. I don't look myself in the mirror and wish I looked good for the sake of looking good. I just wish I were treated that way.
When you're conventionally attractive, you get better job opportunities, and you get better paid. You get more social opportunities, from being first pick for games or projects, to having more friends, love interests and overall being more desirable to spend time with. Your opinions weigh more, and people are more inclined to listen to you, and care about you. Me? When I was a kid/teenager and the PE teacher had us form a circle or something, people literally refused to stand closer than 6 feet away from me, even though I've always been a very clean person. I've never been given pet/nicknames. I know for a fact that if I were to start a GoFundMe to help my medical expenses, I wouldn't get a single dollar.
If you're conventionally attractive, you get compliments just for existing. You post a selfie and people actually compliment you. Slay, girl. Smash. Daddy. Goals. Pretty thing. I've never experienced that. Not once have I been complimented on a random pic of myself, I'm only complimented if I've done something truly spectacular. All compliments have to be hard-earned and even then, they're very conservative. People have to be careful not to seem like they're attracted to me, for that would be embarrassing and make them seem weird. I could never use myself as a model to show something I've created, or in order to create something, since it would negatively affect what the subject is. Never have I been praised for simply existing. The world has never told me I have any reason to feel good - or even neutral - about the way I look.
I think about how my medical history would've looked so different and been so much easier for me to work through, how much more healthy I would've been today, if only medical professionals had treated me like they treat conventionally attractive individuals. If I would've been given the same treatments and trusted and taken seriously the same way. If people had an instinctual wish to treat me right.
I think about how movies, books, comics, series, music, video games, photography, art, podcasts, every single medium keeps telling me I'm undesirable both as a partner and a friend, that my existence is comical, that I'm unintelligent, selfish, lazy, greedy, filthy and evil unless proven otherwise. I can never find myself represented in media, or when you can build your own character. In perfect fictional worlds, I don't exist. Any instance where this stereotype is criticised or disproven, is treated as controversial and an exception to the rule.
I wonder what it would be like to be in a public space without being unfairly ignored or judged. It's either one or the other. You either don't exist at all - and don't deserve the time of day - or you exist too much and you're taking up too much space, judged mercilessly and picked apart. I can't go to the gym without getting looks of disapproval and disgust, which does nothing to encourage me to work harder. Imagine how much that damages you over time, even when you do your best to learn how to ignore the haters. It still doesn't change the fact that people do it. Doesn't change the fact that the average person still wants to treat you this way.
I'm not saying attractive people don't have challenges as well. I'm not saying there are minorities who don't have it worse.
But that doesn't change the fact that this is my life, and being unattractive means I have a considerable amount of additional hurdles to overcome - hurdles that I can't change with my mindset, hurdles that are unnecessary and wouldn't have to be there if people simply decided not to place them in my way.
#conventionally attractive#attractiveness#stereotypes#me#fatphobia#transphobia#yeah i'm envious of attractive people#but not in the way one might think#can be reblogged#i'm sure i'm not the only one who feels this way#and i'm sure a lot of people could use reading this
4 notes
·
View notes
Note
Objectively i know jealousy in relationships sucks and removes subject agency and that harassment/schmoozing is deeply uncomfortable and violating but at the same time I want to see my blorbos overcome. I wish to see them be protective and start biting people with no boundaries. I wish for them to see the other person fronting or glaring or unable/unwilling to fight and step in smoothly. I wish for emotional conversation about self esteem and the fear of people leaving bc they realized u suck. A self chastisement for your own possessive and jealous feelings. I'm thinking about Valenstrifesodos
this might be a controversial opinion but i think there's nothing inherently wrong with jealousy in a relationship as long as it is communicated and dealt with clearly in a way that all sides are in agreement with. just like any other emotion, the experience of it is uncontrollable and not inherently (im)moral in any way, the important thing is recognizing that it is irrational and dealing with it accordingly. the main problem with it is that if it isn't handled healthily it often drives a deep distrust of one's partner and attempts to control them without their consent. like obviously no one should be making demands like "seeing you with other people makes me jealous so stop going out with other people" and so on but at the same time "no one is allowed to feel jealous and/or insecure ever" is just as unachievable
and i think a lot of the time we do like the idea that someone cares enough and thinks we're special enough to be afraid of being replaced with other people in our lives, whether out of romantic attachment or not. we want to see people protecting themselves and each other without regard for consequences in a way we are never really able to protect ourselves in real life. we also want to have people see our insecurities and flaws after having acted out and still love us enough not to leave.
basically this is fiction and inherently self-indulgent and even if you want to portray an unhealthy form of jealousy that would suck in a relationship irl literally who cares??? anon you're valid go out and write the valenstrifesodos possessive boyfriends you want to see in the world
#skadren rambles#trust and consent are the two most important parts of a relationship send tweet#ok now i will get off of my soap box
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
Taurus Sun (ultimate thread) by @milkstrology
When the Sun ingresses into Taurus it is Venus-ruled. Meaning, that Taurus being ruled by Venus sees the world through rose-colored glasses. However, unlike its airy Libra counterpart - it is also a fixed earth sign. Meaning, Taurus suns' learn from an early age that good things don't usually just stumble into your lap - and much effort or even work is applied to achieve the things you hope to find/have in the first place.
However, because Taurus is heavily Venusian influenced, and the Sun is the lens of self-expression - A Taurus Sun person may appear artistic, creative, or quite luxurious. Taurus Suns naturally have an acute awareness of the arts, or in general, the finer things in life.
Yet, what sets them apart from your overwrought stereotypes and tropes on Taurus being materialistic - is that Taurus is an earth sign, anchored in the innate need to work and do everything - often - entirely on their own.
Their biggest hardship and at times downfall is their pride - however, what needs to clear and understood about a Taurus Sun - is that from an early age, they've learned they must simply do things on their own to have the life they want for themselves. It's not that they are incapable of asking for help, it's that they simply didn't (often) grow up in an environment that encouraged them to be able to. Material things and status for them isn't so much a symbol to prove their worth - but often to prove their ability to go after what they want.
You must learn when navigating a Taurus Sun person, the juxtaposition with them is that they enjoy and can spot the finer things in life - but they are not defined by them. They literally take the $100.00+ earrings off of them and hand them to a friend who complimented them. Taurus is often an enigmatic person who leaves people mystified with how they can outdress everyone in the room, but have the laidback and easygoing disposition to never actually make anyone feel less than. Unlike (more) stereotypes of them being stubborn bulls, they take much time and gentle care to truly sit back and learn or assess all of their information or resources. If they're getting to know certain people, they will spend many hours conversing with them, or many months - getting to know them, before they form an opinion.
Where people often confuse a Taurus's immovable stubbornness is perhaps after the Taurus Sun person has rolled up their sleeves and fully immersed themselves in the complete immersion of studying the ins and outs of a topic, person, or situation before they come to a conclusion. A Taurus Sun person's mind is truly fascinating, because not only is it incredibly important for them to make their OWN decisions/understandings about a situation. But, they need to have every receipt, fact, book, or statement on a situation before they speak.
However, once they've taken their TIME to fully assess or hear out all sides of an argument, or topic, or gain a true understanding of a person's character. Hell hath no fury like a Taurus Sun willing to speak their truth on the matter.
Taurus Suns are FIXED for a reason, meaning they are immovable once their mind has been made up. This is not to say they can be immovable after having made up their mind - but people are quick to trivialize why they stand on their beliefs and opinions so firmly.
Taurus Suns do their due diligence, and you will rarely see a Taurus Sun just jumping on a band wagon to post an immediate fleeting thought on a trending TikTok controversy. They'll either have a personal experience to attest to, or know the subject matter intimately.
I often think Taurus Suns (speculatively) are used to feeling overlooked or spoken over, either in their childhood or in social situations growing up. Because they are natural observers, this can be why they slowly grow into more passionate individuals. Taurus Sun people are incredibly sensitive and delicate individuals who don't always feel they have room to be treated this way - so as they gain more wisdom they may become more vocal or willing to stand up for themselves. But, this was not always the case for them.
So when navigating or encountering the complexities of a Taurus Sun person, keep in mind these are multilayered people, and you cannot pigeonhole them into one box so easily. They care deeply about the people and things that matter to them, because they take the TIME to understand the inner workings of the people/situations around them. All they hope is that people can take equal measure and care to reciprocate this level of devotion and patience they extend to quite literally everyone they cross paths with.
1 note
·
View note
Text
BRITNEY SPEARS CLONED AND REPLACED?!?!?!
By: Hydra 🐍
Looks like you fell into the trap of conspiracies with that title huh?
I would like to start this discussion with the quote provided by Bridle saying, “We’re all looking at the same skies, but we’re seeing different things.”
When I first read this, I was immediately transported back to a memory of visiting the 9/11 Memorial Museum in New York City. One of the “exhibits” (I put the word ‘exhibit’ in italics here because it feels wrong to describe these pieces as merely “art” on display for the public) was a wall filled with squares identical in size, yet significantly different in colour. The idea behind the installation is that many different people saw the sky that day, but all viewed it differently (almost exactly what Bridle mentioned in their quote!). Bob may have woke up, looked at the sky and said, “What a nice clear blue sky we have today,” but our perception of the colour blue may not be the same as Bob or anyone else for that matter.
I guess the point I am getting at here is: no matter what we are presented with, we will each perceive (insert item) in a completely different way, unique to our individuality.
Take Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain for example. Where I may be disgusted that someone has simply turned a urinal on its side, signed it, and called it “art,” someone else may view as beautiful; An everyday item that we don’t think to appreciate. If anything, the piece opened up major discussion of what “art” meant to each individual. Trust me when I say the artists and intellectuals of the world took little time to get their grippers on the “clearest” explanation of Fountain’s purpose and importance.
As an Arts and Humanities student (advanced at that! Thanks SASAH!) that feels the pressure of abiding to the intellectual lifestyle, I can’t help but call upon notable philosopher: Immanuel Kant. Kant has this crazy in depth theory about individual taste… but to spare some time, I will just bring up his critique of the aesthetical judgement. Kant’s critique states, “In order to decide whether anything is beautiful or not, we refer the representation, not by the Understanding to the Object for cognition but, by the Imagination (perhaps in conjunction with the Understanding) to the subject, and its feeling of please or pain” (OSU Library).
So what main stream, controversial, opinionated, subject can we apply all of this to??
CONSPIRACY THEORIES
I’m going to bend Kant’s critique to fit my argument and you can’t stop me (!) because guess what? This is my post and you are simply a mere voyeur to my biases hehehehehe
Conspiracies are the ideal beautiful object in this scenario. We spend time listening to them and forming our own opinions on them (whether good or bad), not because of the “logic” provided from them, but because they free our imagination. They allow us to think and discuss beyond popular and imposed upon beliefs (I’m talking societies of control type shizzz), but all though we can express freedom of speech within this, it can lead to dangerous outcomes.
Elise Wang’s TED Talk “Why some conspiracy theories just won’t die,” describes the dangerous outcomes of conspiracy theories. Where one may think they are silly and lighthearted, another may use certain conspiracies to validate a negative opinion (Wang mentions violence and racism) to commit crimes. Do you remember that time a mob invaded the U.S. Capital because they believed that the Democrats were “rigging” the election against Donald Trump? Well the FBI considered that to be an act of domestic terrorism, proving that people act upon violence when applying specific conspiracies.
So what is the solution? Wang suggests that media literacy is the solution that has been proposed, but she does not agree with this. Wang says, “[...] being presented with information that contradicts a firmly held belief is more likely to back fire, making you cling to that belief harder than it is to change your mind” (4:56). When confronted with evidence that challenges someone’s beliefs, they will most likely respond defensively, even if it means ignoring or distorting evidence to fit their prejudgments. Instead Wang’s call of action is: work as an activist. Instead of falling down the rabbit hole of trying to debunk people’s theories (because at the end of the day we have realized media literacy doesn’t work), we must stop giving a platform to radicalizers (14:54). → “[...] proactively protecting the people that conspiracy theories target” (15:02). I agree with Wang in the sense that this has worked in the past. I hate to bring up Trump twice, but he did become a lot more irrelevant once he was put in time out and banned from Twitter.
You may be wondering how we went from talking about a urinal to serious societal issues, and I am also wondering the same…. I guess I am leaning into my yapper characteristics. Anyway’s with all this said, I hope Wang’s solution won’t prevent me from being provided with a good ole’ video about how Chuck E. Cheese reuses old pizza…
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
xphotolovex-blog
Kyra!
daddyssubbitch
Daddys Girl
tapegagaddict
tape gag addict
slow-fires-blog-blog
Let's talk all day and say absolutely nothing