I deman you to do it ?

okay but consider. i messaged you asking if you wanted to watch slow horses. and you did not reply. for six. Whole. Minutes

Ok yeah. Bad tradecraft on my part. No question.

Everybody driving a car thinks they're the main character of the car. This is an ideologically bourgeois attitude. You know who doesn't ever feel like the main character of the vehicle they're in? Literally everyone on the bus. You're on the fucking bus. And the bus driver doesn't feel like the main character of the bus because she's at fucking work. The bus is the most ideologically proletarian form of transport.

#blacksailsweek25:

DAY 3 — FAVORITE CHARACTER.

thinking about a post I saw that was arguing that how an author portrays a given thing can "tell you more" about that author than if they do or not, and while there is maybe some truth to that I also had an instinctive "well, sure, but" reaction to it.

I think that reaction is a little bit about the fact that there's a tendency on here (and sometimes elsewhere) to read an artist's work (whether literary, visual, or otherwise) as a revelation or a window into their inner world. And I don't think that's necessarily accurate, warranted, or a good direction to take criticism or analysis.

I'm thinking some about this post I reblogged about intentionality and art, specifically the prioritization of the unintentional in art and what it says about the creator/the lionization of the unintentional as more genuine/authentic, and how it relates to generative AI.

It's certainly possible that a creator depicting a queer character in a way that evokes queer stereotypes is showing their ass about the way that they "really" feel or what they "really" believe. It's also possible that they're intentionally saying something and that something may not be "queer people are bad." This is a clumsy example but I think it goes back to the desire to seek out didacticity or morals in fiction/art - to look for what the creator is telling the reader or wants the reader ("reader" here used loosely to refer to any interpretation of art) to think.

as opposed to, perhaps, creative work as play ("what happens if I...") or even just as an invitation to think; not toward a specific end or purpose but to provoke some kind of consideration in the reader's mind.

Of course this doesn't mark anything as above critique, and works deserve engagement with the social context from which they emerge and with which they engage. But I think it's possible to do that critical work without assuming that it necessarily grants some kind of privileged access to who the creator themself truly is.

Poll idea: how will Elon Musk kill himself?

Tineco Floor ONE S3 Cordless Hardwood Wet/Dry Vacuum

Oh my god THANK you

Once again:

Expression is sacred, and imagination is not illegal, but when your imagination is not from the soul, and expressed with stolen talents, then you don't deserve protection, but only punishment.

A MARTYR?????

GIRL WHAT RIGHTEOUS CAUSE DO YOU DIE FOR

i looked into this a bit more and studio ghibli didnt even send him a cease and desist. he faked the letter. hes pretending at being a martyr because.... if i were to guess, business is slow lol. what a loser

Out of curiosity rb and put in the tags how many fics come up when you type your last name into ao3. Apparently even though my last name is uncommon there's like 500

Fake rare last name havers when real ones come at them LOL

Inspired by a recent conversation:

Funniest conclave interaction I had on Twitter

The Nuns of the Conclave Conclave (2024) dir. Edward Berger

"never kill yourself" is perhaps my favourite meme these days. there will always be joy in your future and you just need to stick it out to find it