“it Would Be Impossible For This Disabled Character To Be Played By A Disabled Actor Because Of The

When writing descriptions, consider what you want to accomplish. Giving the reader an idea of the layout of a room will require different types of descriptions/different descriptive words than evoking emotions. Think also of who is giving the descriptions: a first person or subjective third person narrator should describe based on how they experience the setting, while an objective third person narrator may have more freedom to match the descriptions to your own preference.

I always find it kind of weird that matriarchal cultures in fiction are always “women fight and hunt, men stay home and care for the babies” because world-building-wise, it makes no sense

think about it. like, assuming that gender even works the same in this fantasy culture as it does in ours, with gender conflated with sex (because let’s be real, all of these stories assume that), men wouldn’t be the ones to make the babies, so why would they be the ones to care for the babies? why is fighting and hunting necessary for leadership?

writing a matriarchy this way is just lazy, because you’re just taking the patriarchy and just swapping the people in it, rather than actually swapping the culture. especially when there are so many other cool things you could explore. like, what if it’s not a swap of roles but of what society deems important?

maybe a matriarchy would have hunting and fighting be part of the man’s job, but undervalued. like taking the trash out or cleaning toilets: necessary, but gross, and not noble or interesting. maybe farming is now the most important thing, and is given a lot of spiritual and cultural weight.

how would law work? what crimes would exist, and what things would be considered too trivial to make illegal? who gets what property? why?

how would religion work? how would you mark time or the passage into adulthood? what would marriage look like? if bloodlines are through the mother, bastardy wouldn’t even be a concept - how does that work?

what qualities would be most important in a person? how would you define strength or leadership? what knowledge would be the most coveted and protected? what acts or roles are considered useless or degrading?

like, you can’t just take our current society and say you’re turning it on its head when you’re just regurgitating it wholesale. you have to really think about why things are the way they are and change that. 

The things I've seen about this whole fucking DOGE thing, from reputable sources, so far have been

there's a very good chance that this will basically be cut off before it even happens because it would require some form of approval from the House and Senate

presidents cannot make departments so it would actually be an office

their plans involve massively cutting down on regulations relating to safety and the environment and potentially getting rid of the FBI??? Inexplicable.

their promise of saving the country $2 trillion is literally impossible, like every single politician and financial advisor agrees that there is absolutely nothing that could be done to save that amount of money and very few expenses that can actually feasibly be cut (and would only save a few billion at most)

Making a Plan

So, editing is eating my soul.  And by that I mean I’m so deep in the revisions process that getting my brain back to writing for this blog is proving quite difficult. But I’m making a plan.  Two posts a week!  (This totes counts as a whole post.) Even if it’s just to say, “Hey I’m alive! Also, still editing.” (It’ll be longer than that, promise.) Regular updates are back, baby! PS. Puck and I…

View On WordPress

Why I’m Team Cap (and It Really Couldn’t Be Any Other Way)

#TeamCap and the big problem with the superhero genre #Arrow #Daredevil #CivilWar #MCU #DC

I recently started watching Arrow on Netflix; everyone on Tumblr seems to think “Olicity” is the greatest OTP since The One True Way or at least Destiel (neither Destiel nor Olicity reaching the heights of OTW obvi) and I wanted to understand (this is also how I ended up watching 9.5 seasons of Supernatural, but that is a story for another time). I also recently, like everyone else with a Netflix…

View On WordPress

When Men Write Fanfiction, It Isn’t Fanfiction Because It’s “Academic”

Today in the worst things I have ever read, an author claims that his book is "not fanfic" for a variety of reasons that seem to coalesce in his need to quote literary theorists.

Some of you might have spotted this week’s kerfuffle about how it if was written by a dude it can’t be fanfic, in the guise of an interview with author Lonely Christopher, who claims not to have written fan fiction of Stephen King’s The Shining. The Mary Sue article covers it pretty well (and has a link to the original interview, should you be that way inclined), but we thought we’d highlight some Fan Studies research that could help Christopher put his work in the wider fan fiction context.

Here are a couple of extracts from the interview to get us started:

“LC: The book can be read as a self-contained “novel,” but it’s more than that. I used another text conceptually, structurally, and materially to generate a resultant yet original work. That’s what I mean by “source.”

The text that I was utilizing was the novel The Shining by Stephen King and the subsequent media iterations and interpretations and its cultural ubiquity. So I wrote my story in relation to another, more specifically on top of it. I took the basic tropes of The Shining and replicated and subverted them, and I also took chunks of language and interwove material pieces of Stephen King’s novel.

(…)

Interviewer: You’ve described this book as “intertextual.” Tell us a little bit more about this book’s relationship to other literature.

LC: The book is a concerted rejection of the standards of any type of literature, so in that way it is reacting to the formal elements it eschews, and interacting with readerly expectations as well as the history of the medium.

I guess the reason why this isn’t “fan fiction” is because, first of all, it’s not enjoyable in the same way and then it’s vaguely academic. Aesthetically speaking, it owes much to Stein, Beckett, Robbe-Grillet, and Bernhard. Intellectually, it has a relationship to Barthes, Foucault, Derrida, Debord, and especially Baudrillard. So it is having conversations with different texts in different ways.”

You may recall a couple of relevant articles, such as this one by Abigail Derecho on fan fiction as “archontic literature”. One of the really interesting points Derecho makes in it is how fan fiction writers will frequently repeat the same motif, explore the same scene, but with a difference. (For those interested in the “vaguely academic”, Derecho bases on Deleuze’s concept of “repetition with a difference”.) So we may look at something from a different character’s point of view, or take a group of characters and put them in a coffee shop AU, or try to work out what would be different if a character had made a slightly different choice. You know what that does? It plays with and challenges the reader’s expectations, and allows readers to make meanings from both the similarities and the differences between the two texts.

You may also remember this paper by Mafalda Stasi which looks at fan fiction as a “palimpsest” - the medieval practice of partially erasing and writing over past manuscripts, creating layers of text and meaning. Does that sound a bit like what Christopher is doung by writing his novel “on top of” The Shining? Maybe a bit.

Fan fiction and transformative work intellectual property law scholars like Rebecca Tushnet may also have something to say about Christopher’s taking “chunks of language” and “inter[weaving] material pieces” of King’s novel, and how ideas about this both among the fan fiction community and among rightholders of the commercial works we base our fan fiction on have evolved over time to a point where Lonely Christopher can do this.

Writing from Scratch #9

Complex Plots, Part 2: Modifying Plots

The second way we’ll try complicating a plot is through plot modifiers. This happens when a try-fail cycle not only furthers the solution of one plot-problem but spawns a new plot-problem. What these plots actually modify are the stakes. They can give far-off worst-case scenarios more immediacy, which is what the plot analysis we’ll be getting into today does. Or they can show clear examples of what’s at stake for more abstract cases (think of Gollum in The Lord of the Rings clarifies our fears for what could happen to Frodo).

How does this work? Let’s look back at the plot analysis I did for The Expanse, Season 1 Episode 2, “The Big Empty.” A brief recap:

The Background: The Knight, a small, rickety life-boat sized spaceship with 5 survivors is all that’s left of the Canterbury after an attack on the larger vessel.

The Problem: The Knight’s radio is dead.

Read more on WordPress

Note to self

Stop thinking: “I’m not talented enough to execute this concept.” Start thinking: “I’m going to be a stronger artist when I’ve finished this piece.”

Accepting help is brave - Hotlines/crisis lines