people on tumblr are really weird

a character being a perpetrator does not negate their victimhood and neither does their victimhood negate being a perpetrator. it is not that difficult to accept and reckon w both dimensions

bad things happening leads to more bad things happening. u can create a monster. it is a condemnation of the bad things themselves first and foremost

my synagogue was set on fire last night during Shabbat at 3:00 AM in an arsonist attack.

no one was injured, which i am extremely grateful for. they have several security cameras, so there is a suspect in custody. the details and motivation haven't been shared, but it can be reasonably assumed to be a hate crime.

this was the first synagogue established in the state, the only one that's not hours away, and certainly the largest in the area. two Torah scrolls are destroyed beyond repair, 5 are damaged. the library where children have religious school and morning Shabbat service is held has been completely burnt down, much of that section of the building that's left is covered in soot and ash. the administrative offices were also lost.

our Tree of Life, which was for important life events like bar/bat/b'nei mitzvahs, was destroyed. i was just looking at it this past Tuesday while waiting for a meeting with my rabbi. it was dozens of bronze plaques in the shape of leaves with commemorations on them placed above a trunk. there is a photo of the wreckage that makes me cry every time i look at it.

we have a rescued scroll from Nazi-era Czechoslovakia (it is thankfully unharmed). we have a Holocaust memorial garden. we have names of dead loved ones displayed. memories in and on the walls. there are so many deeply meaningful and largely irreplaceable things here.

my rabbi was out of state for the last several days. i cannot imagine how he's feeling.

im fucking pissed at the police department. they said that they would patrol the grounds more often in light of the worldwide rise in antisemitism. I have not personally seen them once. they let the only area for our community to gather be set on fire.

i am exhausted. i am angry. i am thankful it is not any worse, because it easily could have been, but tonight i am grieving that little library full of vintage Jewish books.

The same Synogogue was also bombed in 1967. This is the best article I could find so far this soon after the fire.

yes, this is my synagogue. Beth Israel Congregation was firebombed by the KKK in 1967 along with the rabbi's house because he was an outspoken supporter of civil rights for Black Americans.

here are some photos of the aftermath of the most recent fire:

I have been asked about fundraising, so I will be providing a link to donations.

Please help us rebuild if you can.

pathologic fans we're eating good today

This phrase has already entered my vocabulary re: media criticism where like. The viewer has a concrete view of what they expect a story to be based on the tropes and cliches they're used to seeing together, and when that doesn't happen, they judge it as a failed depiction of what they assumed it was going to be instead of judging it as what it actually is.

"This show is problematic because the hero didn't kill the villain at the end": When does he steal the bread?

"These two characters who were close friends throughout the series don't kiss at the end! What the fuck?": When does he steal the bread?

"This feels like it's missing a conclusion! Like, the protagonist does bad stuff and because of a critical decision he makes as a result of his major character flaws, meets tragedy in the end! Where's the part where he learns better and brings is love back from the dead and becomes a good guy and gets a happy ending?": When does he steal the fucking bread??

I heard this out as "When criticizing something, you must judge it for what it is, not what it isn't"

#this is why so many of us urge people to get a wider diet of stories

People get very defensive if you tell them that there are steps they can take to create better art but like I’m not forcing you to make better art you can keep making art that’s bad if you want I have no power to stop you. But if you DON’T want your art to be bad just admit it. Are you Ana Mardoll saying it’s ableist to expect writers to read or do you want the satisfaction of learning a skill

media literacy would automatically go up 100% if people knew how to consume stories without self-inserting themselves into the characters' shoes. "if i were him..." you're NOT. you may relate to his story, his past, his traits, his quirks, his identity but the moment you start treating the story accepting what you feel/think as what the character feels/thinks, you're misunderstanding the story.

you cannot make a post about how men put women in certain boxes without someone going "but what if i love the box? what if i've decided that it's comfortable in the box? are you gonna tell me i'm not ALLOWED to like the box? not very feminist of you to police a woman's decisions... maybe you'd be less ugly and miserable if you stopped talking about the box LMFAO #Girlboss #MyBox<3"

No googling, curious about something

Things are going well

Spoiler

I'm going to be a little annoying here, but as a french, people who are over the age of 18 and who are okay with murder scenes and violence and not okay with consensual sex scenes or even just nudity scare the shit out of me, and this has bugged me since I was old enough to see the difference between french and US media. And I hate french stuff most of the time, okay. There's a lot to be said about the sexism of it. But STILL.

Sex is part of life. It may not be part of yours alright for any reason but it is part of life as a general thing. It's just there. You're here because of it one way or another. It's just something people do, alone, with someone else, or more people. Get over it.

As teenagers in France we used to joke that American were cool with seeing people being beheaded as long as their nipples weren't visible but now I guess that's just how people are.

I know that Peter’s Jackson Lord of the Rings trilogy technically has flaws but also….it doesn’t. It’s perfect.

‘Are these magic cloaks?’ asked Pippin, looking at them. with wonder.

‘I do not know what you mean by that,’ answered the leader of the Elves. ‘They are fair garments, and the web is good, for it was made in this land. They are Elvish robes certainly, if that is what you mean. Leaf and branch, water and stone: they have the hue and beauty of all these things under the twilight of Lorien that we love; for we put the thought of all that we love into all that we make.”

- Fellowship of the Ring, Chapter 8: Farewell to Lorien

This is how I think of Jackson’s movies. Yes, there are serious flaws - Gandalf’s de-powering, Gimli as comic relief, and Faramir, namely - but come on.

Remember when the guys making their chain mail invented a new method for quickly producing large amounts of it by hand? Remember Miranda Otto walking down the street, practicing sword positions? The guys who forged all of the swords - for leads and for extras? The men and women riders who volunteered to be riders of Rohan? The costume designers who designed the inside of Theoden’s armor (which no one would ever see) so beautifully that Bernard Hill said he felt like a king? The friendships between the cast, and their size doubles, and the stuntmen?

When they made that movie, they put all that they loved into all that they made.

#just hundreds of people who went ‘sure let me try this’ #and they made something breathtaking #and then they made it 12 more times in different sizes ( @byjoveimbeinghumble​ )

Wait tell me more about that chainmail thing

“Kaynemaile has worked tirelessly to perfect the material science behind beautiful architectural mesh, collaborating with architects and designers on projects that embolden urban environments with positive buildings. The company’s patented polycarbonate mesh, inspired by 2,000-year-old medieval chainmail, was initially created for the armor and weapons seen in the The Lord of The Rings movie trilogy and is now used on major architectural projects around the world.

“The film’s art director and Kaynemaile’s founder Kayne Horsham worked with his team to construct each garment from plastic plumbing tubes, coating them in pure silver. Once filming wrapped, Horsham dedicated himself to creating a change to the liquid state assembly process to mass produce the polycarbonate chainmail for architectural applications — products that were light, but strong enough to protect the interior or exterior of a building. Now an industry-leading manufacturer, Kaynemaile produces mesh for everything from small interior screens to large scale exterior façades. Their mesh is easy to install and can be custom created for specialized applications.”

https://architizer.com/blog/practice/materials/kaynemaile-mesh-facade-systems/

YOU GUYS

they took forced perspective and scaled sets to a new level by adding moving set pieces to create the illusion that the hobbits and dwarves were much smaller than everyone else even when the camera moved.

every scene you see in the 11+ hours of glory that is the LOTR masterpiece is most like ridiculously elaborate or expensive–from model towers to the all-new motion capture technology used for gollum to the costumes and sets to the aerial on location shots of mother-fracking new zealand and the big impressive battle scenes and horse charges.

but then the story and the screenplay too–there is just SO much lore that is there in the background lurking if you want to look for it, yet it still remains simplified for the average viewer. Crazy impressive feat.

And the acting is heartfelt and real and makes you love the characters.

ALSO DON’T GET ME STARTED ON FREAKING HOWARD SHORE AND HIS 100+ HEARTSHATTERINGLY BEAUTIFUL LIETMOTIFS AND BRILLIANT SUBTLE VARIATIONS IN THE FLIPPING 13 HOUR SOUNDTRACK. AND ENYA SINGING IN REAL ELVISH.

There’s so much detail in the costuming that we can’t even see, it’s wild. One of my favourite things I saw on a tour of the WETA collection was seeing a Gondorian sword and on the pommel of the grip, there were concentric rings with a triangle wedge raised about them. They had a representation of frigging Minas Tirith as a part of the sword.

Also, here are a few close-up costume/prop details from the costumes they had on display in the shop and at sites around Wellington:

Even the weapons for the extra were perfect. What does it matter if a weapon that’s going to be on screen for .2 of a second isn’t perfect? Well it mattered to Weta.

Source: My old work-mate’s fiance worked for Weta making weapons and she would occasionally ‘mess up’ one so it would go in the discard pile and she could take it home for him. He bought a sword to work to show us and none of us could figure out why that was a reject, it was beautiful.

22 YEARS AGO ON DECEMBER 18, 1998 - DREAMWORKS ANIMATION RELEASED “THE PRINCE OF EGYPT”

Because DreamWorks was concerned about theological accuracy, they decided to call in Biblical scholars, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim theologians, and Arab American leaders to help the film be more accurate and faithful to the original story. After previewing the developing film, all these leaders noted that the studio executives listened and responded to their ideas, and praised the studio for reaching out for comment from outside sources.

The animation team for The Prince of Egypt included 350 artists from 34 different nations. Careful consideration was given to depicting the ethnicities of the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, and Nubians properly.

Both character design and art direction worked to set a definite distinction between the symmetrical, more angular look of the Egyptians versus the more organic, natural look of the Hebrews and their related environments. The backgrounds department, headed by supervisors Paul Lasaine and Ron Lukas, oversaw a team of artists who were responsible for painting the sets/backdrops from the layouts. Within the film, approximately 934 hand-painted backgrounds were created.

THE PRINCE OF EGYPT (1998)

So one of the main criticisms I’ve seen of Reid’s writing is that she is bad at Show Don’t Tell.

I think it’s more accurate to say — and I think this is what most people really mean anyway — that she is really bad at conveying self unawareness. Ilya and Shane are supposed to be self-unaware. They’re supposed to be oblivious of their feelings for each other, and Shane is also supposed to be oblivious of his sexuality.

And to be fair, it is very difficult to write self-unaware characters when you need your audience to be aware of whatever it is the viewpoint characters are self-unaware of. It’s very hard.

I want to talk about two examples of Reid doing this. One in which she pretty much nails it, and one in which she fails.

Here’s the one she nails:

So, this is the scene in which Shane meets Rose and Miles (and apparently someone named Jiya) at the club.

Majority of this paragraph is spent describing Miles - a minor side character we don't know and don't need to know about. He is described in depth.

Rose, Shane's girlfriend, isn't described at all. We know, canonly, that she's gorgeous. That all the other hockey players think she's hot. It would be expected for Shane to notice his girlfriend, especially more than Miles. But Shane doesn't even mention what she's wearing.

Presumably, Jiya is a woman. She is as minor here as Miles is, contributes as much to the plot (nothing), but Shane doesn't think anything of her. We don't know her backstory, her outfit, or any of her features.

Shane doesn't notice he's doing this. At no point is his internal monologue taking note of what he didn't take note of, and that's the way it should be.

But we notice. We notice that he pays close attention to the only man in the group, and doesn't pay the slightest bit of attention to his own girlfriend. If this was how the book opened, already, we would have enough to extrapolate the subtext, or at least the possible subtext, that this character is gay, all while this character remains unaware he's gay/possibly gay.

(The only things I would consider revising in this example are the words "attractive" and "sexy" because they come to close to that self-awareness breaking through. They can both be cut without the implication that Shane finds Miles attractive being lost.)

But, on the literal next page, we get this:

Shane's internal monologue doth protesting too much about looking up Ilya on the internet.

Reid is being cheeky here, but the choice to do so weakens her writing.

By virtue of 1) Shane explaining his actions away, and 2) acknowledging any need to explain them away at all, he has demonstrated self-awareness of the thing he is supposed to be self-unaware about.

Reid does this a lot. I mean, a lot. Nearly on every page. It's a crutch, a shortcut out of doing the harder thing, which is finding a way to convey true obliviousness without keeping your audience in the dark. It's also sometimes very difficult for writers to trust that their audience's will pick up what they're putting down if they don't make what they're putting down obvious enough. But Reid has demonstrated in this example that she can do it.

She just...doesn't, most of the time.

If I were to try to revise it so that it had the same lack of awareness the previous example has, I'd probably do something like this:

(*revise "the array of blonde, tanned girls with dark eyelashes and shimmery lips" here to maintain Shane consistently not noticing minor details like that on girls.)

I don't doubt my revision isn't a star example but one thing it does do is prevent Shane from acknowledging the significance of an action he is supposed to be doing without understanding the significance of. I wish these books were written more like the first example or my revision (or better than both, really) more throughout. It would make them a lot more compelling to read.

I have two "theories" on this.

First Theory being Reid isn't someone who had to live through an extended period of self-denial and so does not have a frame of reference for what that looks like. I find a lot of people who have not experienced that have a hard time wrapping their head around how someone can be "unaware" they are gay until their adulthood. You just spent roughly a decade (or more) experiencing attraction to the same-sex so... how did you not know? With no experience to draw on they end applying this self-denial/"unawareness" in unusual ways (in their defense, I guess, the reality is usually weirder especially the further into the past you go).

I find it notable that she has him somewhat deny the action (which is not really a thing someone is going to be able to successfully deny to themselves in most cases) but he doesn't apply any justifications (something more sensible to have occur in an inner monologue and a more realistic way of lying to oneself and imho more important than the action itself). As it's written, it's a very "embarrassed young person" / "it's not because I like you or anything!" sort of reaction. Since it is such a weird thing for a person to think with only themselves as the audience, it also seems plausible that there is an intended audience for these thoughts. The reader. Which leads me to...

Second Theory is that fic-oriented fandom space, and thus, by extension BookTok, is centered around a phenomenon of getting to exclaim "Heehee! Hoohoo! The THing!!" Where "the thing" is whatever kind of trope it is they want. In this case it's "forbidden romance", and the more an author can *wink-wink, nudge-nudge* "look, it's The Thing! It's here! It's happening!" the more their audience enjoys it. Subtle is actually the opposite of its intended purpose.

If your primary purpose as a reader isn't to locate The Thing and then revel in Having Located The Thing and glory that the author wink-wink, nudge-nudged when The Thing happened then you're kind of outside the intended audience.

It's like the people who genuinely enjoy seeing Marvel films (which are still popular at the box office lbr) specifically because they want what those films provide (quips, and name-drops, and references, a wink-and-nod at their fandom). If you tried to make Marvel films "better", they'd probably like them less. If you took away (or lessened) the reader's "Heehee Hoohoo The Thing!" they would miss it.

I agree that your re-write is more compelling, realistic, and relatable, which is what I would want out of a book, but I suspect that isn't what Reid's niche of readers want.

it’s actually really easy to satisfy audiences with Good Representation. you can’t depict someone struggling with their Otherness because that portrays it in a bad light but you have to depict them struggling with their Otherness because if you don’t, then you’re romanticizing how hard it is to be Othered. be super careful not to depict anything that might be adjacent to a common stereotype but if you go too far to avoid all stereotypes, then you’re still building the characters around stereotypes, which is a stereotype in its own way. if your storyline uses tropes, then it’s cliche, but if it avoids tropes, then it’s inauthentic. if you lampshade any of this, then you’re speaking down to your audience but if you don’t acknowledge this, you’re also speaking down to your audience. this is all really easy stuff i don’t know why people don’t get it.

forgot The Most Important thing. you absolutely CANNOT make them perfect because that dehumanizes them, but if you give them flaws? hoooo boy…let’s just say, you do *not* want to give them flaws…

i can’t believe we are so fed up with discourse that this is over 1,000 notes and not getting any pushback…on tumblr.com….the frankenstein to this monster…