A gravity falls/ the hitchhikers guide crossover fic involving young Stan in space with a truckload of his fucked up shammies “sir! Sir! Do YOU know where your towel is?!”
Possibly with Zaphod helping him, possibly chasing his ass around the galaxy after revenge for staining both his heads pink
look i reblogged this because this piece FUCKS but then
then I looked in the notes and y’know.
some people seems confused.
Why a shopping cart with stained glass?
or This would be cool to shop with
or something about religion and NO
NO
THIS. Is about HOMES.
That style stained glass? Those diamonds? They speak to me, and they say “Townhouse”. and FANCY townhouse, at that. They say “City home, old home, a home that is RICH, a shelter from the storm and a safe place for a family”.
But on! a! shopping cart!
That evokes - to me - Homelessness.
The person on the street who had no other choice but to steal the best cart they could from a store’s corral just to have a way to transport the meager belongings that are all they fucking have in this world. And it’s NOT a home or a safe place or a shelter but it’s all you fucking have!
And this piece goes and puts them fucking together! AND NAMES IT.
I love to see very expensive and beautiful jewelry/sculpture of unpopular animals even though I will never actually be in a position to pay 2330$ for that hermit crab. These are Herend porcelain from Hungary
oh my god. most of life really is about the little things. a good haircut, a nice playlist, trying a new recipe that turns out well, a poem that hits home, a comfortable spot in the sun, spontaneous messages, a pen you enjoy writing with, tea with the right temperature to drink, buying that thing you’ve been eyeing for a while, a warm bed. yeah im so grateful for the little enjoyments
I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got payed to review people’s books, and one of the rules of that review company is one that I think is just super useful to media analysis as a whole, and that is, we were told never to critique media for what it didn’t do but only for what it did.
So, for instance, I couldn’t say “this book didn’t give its characters strong agency or goals”. I instead had to say, “the characters in this book acted in ways that often felt misaligned with their characterization as if they were being pulled by the plot.”
I think this is really important because a lot of “critiques” people give, if subverted to address what the book does instead of what it doesn’t do, actually read pretty nonsensical. For instance, “none of the characters were unique” becomes “all of the characters read like other characters that exist in other media”, which like… okay? That’s not really a critique. It’s just how fiction works. Or “none of the characters were likeable” becomes “all of the characters, at some point or another, did things that I found disagreeable or annoying” which is literally how every book works?
It also keeps you from holding a book to a standard it never sought to meet. “The world building in this book simply wasn’t complex enough” becomes “The world building in this book was very simple”, which, yes, good, that can actually be a good thing. Many books aspire to this. It’s not actually a negative critique. Or “The stakes weren’t very high and the climax didn’t really offer any major plot twists or turns” becomes “The stakes were low and and the ending was quite predictable”, which, if this is a cute romcom is exactly what I’m looking for.
Not to mention, I think this really helps to deconstruct a lot of the biases we carry into fiction. Characters not having strong agency isn’t inherently bad. Characters who react to their surroundings can make a good story, so saying “the characters didn’t have enough agency” is kind of weak, but when you flip it to say “the characters acted misaligned from their characterization” we can now see that the *real* problem here isn’t that they lacked agency but that this lack of agency is inconsistent with the type of character that they are. a character this strong-willed *should* have more agency even if a weak-willed character might not.
So it’s just a really simple way of framing the way I critique books that I think has really helped to show the difference between “this book is bad” and “this book didn’t meet my personal preferences”, but also, as someone talking about books, I think it helps give other people a clearer idea of what the book actually looks like so they can decide for themselves if it’s worth their time.
i highly recommend developing an intense interest in some natural phenomenon or creature such as bugs or stars or mushrooms. you will be delighted every time you go outside
i imagine that steve had lucas’ game schedule and every time he was trying to plan any date on a day of a hawkins bball game he would tell the girl like. that they HAD to go to the game and it was non-negotiable to him so he could have a chance to see lucas play because he knows how much it means to him to have people there. if whoever the date was with didn’t wanna go he would simply cancel and say it wouldn’t work because that’s his child
I further imagine that the whole fall semester, Steve and Lucas practiced basketball at the park twice a week, to make sure Lucas would make the team when basketball season came around.
