Stick It (2006) dir. Jessica Bendinger
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
sheepfilms
occasionally subtle
Claire Keane
cherry valley forever

@theartofmadeline
Fai_Ryy
Show & Tell
almost home
ojovivo
YOU ARE THE REASON
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
wallacepolsom
Mike Driver
todays bird

oozey mess
we're not kids anymore.
Jules of Nature
Keni
Cosimo Galluzzi

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Colombia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from France

seen from United States

seen from Singapore

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
@earlgrey-dyke
Stick It (2006) dir. Jessica Bendinger
people thinking louis lied or was "just joking" about being molested by his cousin- even though louis also being a csa/incest victim on the same show where claudia, armand and lestat are, and where claudia's rape by bruce was an original addition that isn't found in the source material is not remotely unrealistic- is directly related to the way this episode presents claudia as a malicious manipulator about lestat threatening her on the train btw. the framing in s3ep6 opens the door for mostly-nonblack antiblack and anti-survivor viewers to question and dismiss the black leads' victimhood and frame this as "objective" and "media literate" engagement- plenty of them are already talking down to and mocking viewers who take what louis said seriously.
and ofc people will say to justify the ghost claudia scene "survivors lying about specific things doesn't mean they aren't survivors/what they said about their abuse in general isn't true" or "why won't you let claudia be a monster same as the male characters are" and these are bad faith rationalizations bc the people who claim they love the idea of claudia lying about lestat threatening her are the same people who would be up in arms about the merest suggestion that lestat lied about anything his mortal family in auvergne or gabriella did to him. and wrt the point about survivors lying not invalidating the truth of their experience, yes, this is something that's true about survivors in real life, but that is real life and tvl is a fictional story written by nonblack people- you have to be honest and ask yourself if the writers were remotely interested in claudia's interiority or experiences as a survivor when they wrote her in s3ep6 or if they were only trying to backpedal about one of the worst things lestat has ever done in an effort to make him more palatable and use a black character- a black woman who was lynched, which makes the use of antiblack dialogue for claudia even more ghoulish- as a mouthpiece to spew antiblack vitriol at the sole surviving black lead on the show.
"claudia lied about what lestat said in the train scene bc she was desperate to leave and get louis to leave with her and she needed something to move louis into action" could've been pulled off as a survivor-centric plot choice if it had been foreshadowed properly and if it had been introduced during s1-s2, when claudia was still an active protagonist in the story, her pov was represented in her own voice and there were still black writers on staff. it could've folded into the thematic arc of louis' story wrt pursuing truth and been handled in the context where the focus was claudia's pain, claudia's entrapment and resolve to escape no matter what, and landed on a note that centered the fundamental truth of claudia's experiences as an abuse victim and how she outwitted lestat and freed both herself and louis from him. how this concept is addressed in s3ep6 is not that- to start with, the entire seance and the entire season are within lestat's pov. the idea that we're "finally hearing the real claudia" is false bc everything from what she says to her mannerisms to how she looks as a ghost are filtered through her abusive white father's pov.
how the train scene is mentioned in the seance isn't presented in the context of claudia convincing louis to escape lestat and outmaneuvering lestat- it's in the context of humiliating louis for being gullible and easy to manipulate for *checks notes* believing his daughter when she told him her other father threatened to do worse than rape her. louis is constantly villainized by viewers for the bad ways he reacts to armand and lestat's history of sa and for how claudia had to push louis to leave once lestat's abuse escalated in s1ep5-s1ep7- but when louis reacts to claudia as a good, responsible parent should and believes her when she tells him lestat threatened her, that too is presented as a sign of louis' weakness, stupidity and passivity. (and people are being willfully obtuse about this bc everyone largely agrees "except he just threatened me with it" "nah doesn't sound like him" in s2ep4 was one of louis' worst moments ever.) this decision can't be separated from the nonblack writers also choosing to have claudia volley explicitly antiblack, bioessentialist vitriol at louis and framing her as possessing an internalized antiblackness she never expressed in her own diaries ("bleak, black life" where her white companion was the only good thing about it.) when claudia compared herself and louis to lestat's slaves in s1 (back when the show had black writers) her words about herself and louis being lestat's slaves from the book was adapted as a incisive comment about lestat's oppressive control and white supremacy- lestat and his behavior were the focus of her mockery. but when ghost claudia calls louis a slave bc he has a mark on his ribs in s3, it plays into the white supremacist idea that was reinforced through decades of enslavement in the states where enslavers and their enablers argued black people had inherent, biologically ingrained passive traits and needed the white race's superior guidance to control and protect them.
and regardless of what in-universe reasoning people buy into to explain ghost claudia saying that, the problem is the all-nonblack writers choosing to write that rhetoric for a black woman who was murdered in a lynching (that the show refuses to call a lynching) and the white showrunner gleefully calling arguably the most antiblack scene of the show the best scene they ever wrote for their dead black fem lead (yes s3ep6 is worse than all of s2ep7 or s1ep3 or anything else the white supremacists in nola or the kkkoven did, bc in those scenes the focus was on the evil of the white supremacists while in s3ep6 the antiblackness is metatextual, reflective of the writers' biases and uncritically framed)
claudia could've called louis out for putting hands on her same as lestat had done- she could've pulled on the stories in merrick's mind from her family to call louis out for profiting off the backs of working class black women and then tryna make claudia, one black girl then woman among many, the symbol of his redemption at the expense of her pain. hell they even could've explained claudia's rage mainly being targeted at louis and not as much at lestat by having the seance be louis' idea, giving louis a several-episode arc of interacting with merrick then convincing her to call on claudia's spirit so claudia would be angry at him for wanting to yank her into the world of the living again to assuage his own guilt, instead of nonblack writers thinking the primary way to wound and call out a black lynching survivor is by having a black woman who didn't survive that lynching use antiblack language. it didn't feel incisive or truly cutting or had anything to do with louis' canon flaws unless you already thought the worst of him (as many viewers do) and fanon'ed him as the kind of eternally passive, navel-gazing patsy he was in the source material. louis in the show is not that character, and it exposes the thoughtlessness and antiblackness of the all-nonblack writers that they adapted the merrick scene without considering how louis and claudia's show characters and dynamic would modify the scene. the only change they seem to have made based on louis and claudia's blackness is by throwing in antiblack dialogue. it's such a tarantino (derogatory) move where the white showrunner knows he can't say certain things about black characters as himself irl, so he uses a black character as a mouthpiece in a fictional script to express that racist impulse.
when you take all of this into account, it's completely unsurprising that a large number of viewers who watched this scene and saw nothing wrong with it or even reveled in the antiblackness of it bc they've been feening for louis to be humbled and humiliated and taken down a peg for 4 years now (he's too arrogant and uppity you see) have also decided louis isn't telling the truth about being molested in the same episode, and he was just being provocative or he was just joking bc they can't conceptualize that louis is a victim of csa/incest like the other main characters are- they need to maintain this image they have of louis as "the most privileged black man in america", an inherently sexually predatory eternal pimp, and play into this either/or idea of sexual abusers and victims as discrete categories with no overlap in order to continue rationalizing their lack of empathy for him. (even though the framing of the entire bar scene is unserious and the tone it aims for undercuts the severity of lestat's reaction on the sidewalk and grinds that emotional momentum to a halt too.) and it's so predictable that so many antiblack viewers would be emboldened to deny louis being a survivor after watching s3ep6, saying he was never molested and it didn't happen even when louis says it did, bc this episode in its narrative framing is built on denying a black woman her depth and interiority in service of her abusive white father's arc.
your laura palmer comparison was trite and unfounded
do people still gaf about phm or am i late to the party
Written by Libby Banks for ASAN. This piece is for the autistic people who have been told, by themselves or others, that they are grieving i
"It means the watcher is finally off: no audience requiring a performance, no timeline imposing closure, no demand to feel a certain way by a certain date. For people who aren’t watched by default, that’s an ordinary condition; they reach it often. For many autistics, it’s rare. The audience went internal a long time ago, so emptying the room isn’t enough — the monitor has to stand down too.
"That’s why it can take years. Not because the grief wasn’t there, and not because we loved them less, but because the conditions that let grief happen for many of us — unwatched, unhurried — are the conditions we get least."
"Many autistics are demand-sensitive — not uniquely, but acutely. The body resists coercion, sometimes intensely, including when the demand comes from inside. This sensitivity sits on a spectrum, but for many of us it is integral to how we move through the world."
"By the time we’re grieving, the demand often comes from inside. Years of being watched install a watcher. You learn to monitor your own face, your own tone, your own timing – to grieve the way you’ve learned to do everything else in public: legibly."
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
i know we’re not exactly taking andy weir’s word as gospel or anything, but. thinking about that interview where he basically implies rocky wasn’t all that special on the blip-a. he’s a brilliant engineer, but he wasn’t first engineer. first engineer probably wouldn’t stay holed up in their workshop anyway — they’d be moving about the ship monitoring and fixing things. consulting with leadership and such. eridians are social and communal problem-solvers, so the engineering department is itself a small thrum, contributing their own sub-specialties, being extra hands when needed.
rocky’s like, third engineer. he’s quick and creative but he’s also bossy, impatient, and blunt; not really leader material! he thinks of himself as a cog in the machine and appreciates the freedom it gives him. plus he’s a bit neurotic, and flinches at the thought of having authority because that means everyone else will answer for his fuckups. noooo thank you. he’s content to be in the background and good at his job.
and then people start dying.
people aren't even exaggerating indeed is literally like that. walmart attendant $13 an hour, target attendant $13 an hour, AI dick sucker $40 an hour, home depot attendant $13 an hour, guy who designs bullets that can only kill children $160k a year plus benefits, gas station manager $18 an hour
NineRose nation, some post Dalek kisses.
I needed some comfort sketching.
revisiting my bffs lately
Your dialogue is stiff because everyone is being too honest
Great dialogue can come from radical emotional honesty. But in most real conversations, people
dodge questions
answer indirectly
lie (badly)
change the subject
crack jokes to avoid serious answers
lie (convincingly)
say half of what they mean
tell the truth but get so anxious/angry/defensive others now think they're lying
If your dialogue feels unnatural, it might be because everyone is saying exactly what they think, or articulating their thoughts too well. Try letting characters hide things instead.
Subtext is where tension lives.
I've only seen one other person say this so far, which bothers me, so I guess there is some value in me also saying it. While you are allowed to have your own opinions about the Good Omens finale, it does bother me that people seem to be getting more upset about the ending, or upset at the people who didn't like the ending, than they did about the news that Neil Gaiman sexually assaulted real women. I have also seen people treat this fictional ending as immutable and as serious as a death, and the real life news of the women Gaiman assaulted was speculated on to no end because people did not want to believe it.
Like idk maybe I'm oversimplifying what I've seen but people having a much stronger reaction to fiction than reality is upsetting and disappointing to me. You can re-write a work of fiction yourself if it means a lot to you and you did not like the ending. You can re-imagine it to be exactly what you always wanted, because it is fiction. You cannot re-write or re-imagine what happened to these women, no matter how much Gaiman wants you to. You are certainly allowed to be upset about the ending, I don't need to tell you that. You're allowed to like it too, but if you let it become so serious to you in either direction that it overshadows what he has actually done, he will try to work his way back into the spotlight once he thinks people have forgotten.
happy doldrums day to all the gays and fob fans
in the days since the finale leak, all i keep wondering is how a piece of media like iwtv of all things seems to have attracted a large majority fanbase consisting of people who are desperate to view every part of the show (down to the actual actors and writers, which is grim beyond words) through a victim/abuser mindset. it kills me that we’re in this tenderqueer era of faux-counter-culture media consumption where the most easily offended people on the planet are willing to watch a show with graphic violence, incest, and abuse, but only if they can easily parse who’s right and who’s wrong in every scene and relationship, as if that’s even close to the point of it all. and then having the audacity to not just object to that, but also to be up in arms over cruel shit the characters are saying to each other? in the fictional universe they all exist in as terrible, awful people? the game is so, so gone. if you would like to watch something that doesn’t challenge your black-and-white moral framework in even the slightest way, might i suggest daytime TV? i’ve also heard that children’s books tend to clearly lay out their moral lesson in the final few pages lest you get confused and think the author condones the big bad wolf eating grandma, which may provide a clarity some of you are in such desperate need of
The Lovers