Pud

Erin go bragh & Alba gu brath

[stars-bean]

Sherlock Holmes (2009) dir. Guy Ritchie

[universalfanfic]

being a writer with writer friends is just:

writer: *unhinged idea*

writer friend: *encourages unhinged idea*

writer:  😈 

writer friend:  😈 

[nochubabystarcandy]

SAS Rogue Heroes

[imsowstcoast]

Connor Swindells as David Stirling in SAS: Rogue Heroes.

[stelly38]

Fuckable Fictional Priests

Day 10: Christian Bale in something called Flowers of War.  Bonus picture of him as Hot Jesus in some made-for-TV piece of trash called Mary, Mother of Jesus.  I mean, I *might* be a believer if Jesus looked like that.  And I could fuck him. 

[vox-anglosphere]

Big Ben & the Elizabeth Tower as seen from a snowy Trafalgar Square

[silvaris]

Falling snow between pine trees by Anastasiia Yanishevska

[chaoschaoswriting]

5 Mistakes to Avoid When Writing Romance

These Common Pitfalls Can Ruin a Romance Novel

Lust is about looks, love is about connection - romantic love, and romance, is somewhere in the middle. Creating this unique and potent experience as a writer is one of the most challenging parts of the craft (at least I think so). There are a million writing blogs, magazines, and gurus out there eager to tell you how to write better romance, but less information on how people most often go wrong.

The truth is that it’s rarely down to writing technique. With the screams of legions of plummy literary types in my ear, I’ll gently remind you that some of the most technically brilliant authors don’t make a living from their books. That doesn’t take away from their talent, of course, it’s a symptom of one thing; they’re writing for writers, most popular, widely loved authors write for readers. The very best, for example, Terry Pratchett and Barbara Kingsolver, do a bit of both. I’m boring you with this for a reason; the biggest mistake romance authors (or arguably any author) can make is to prioritize prose over storytelling.

The Importance of a (Good) Story

With the exception of very few, very esoteric, books which have gained cult acclaim, the majority of the novels you see in libraries and shops have a story. Storytelling is the heart of fiction writing, and in the romance genre, it is doubly important because the relationship is the story.

When writing horror, atmospheric descriptions may smooth some rough edges, in thrillers the plot is often an excuse for heart-racing action. In most novels, the story is the skeleton on which the book hangs - it’s hard to have a firefight or a haunted night without the shadow of a story, after all. If the writing falls short, the plot will seem bare and lifeless, but the structural integrity should keep it upright… should.

Read More

[fridaybear]

Today is Friday. Tomorrow is Christmas. So here’s a photo of polar bears at an abandoned Soviet weather station on Kolyuchin Island. You make your holiday amazing.

- - - - -

This December, we’re helping raise money for Polar Bear International. Spread the word! If you’re in the US or Canada and have a few extra bucks, throw some their way. They’re doing good work to protect some good bears.

- - - - -

Photo by Dmitry Kokh

[bearotonin-international]

Alas, the dates do not quite align this year, but this is the Friday before Christmas and here are more photos of polar bears at the abandoned Soviet weather station on Kolyuchin Island 

[lyralit]

types of conflict - world building

person vs person - between two people - a hero and a villain - the mc's goal is obstructed by another person - Victor Hugo's les misérables

person vs technology - a person faces technology - between a person / group of people and an object of science - technology refers to science over magic - Mary Shelley's frankenstein

person vs nature - a person faces nature - the effects of nature on the human world - the mc's goal (long- or short-term) is obstructed by an element of nature / a natural force - John Green's a fault in our stars

person vs society - a person faces a collective group of people - a smaller group of people vs a large group of people - their goal is obstructed by this group of people - Suzanne Collins' the hunger games

person vs supernatural - a person faces a supernatural subject - this tends towards the magic, although similar to person vs. technology in a sense - fate, magic forces, otherworldly beings, religion, deities - Rick Riordan's Percy Jackson

person vs self - conflict between a person and their inner self - may be conflicted with their own feelings - can have two opposing goals - Fyodor Dostoevsky's crime and punishment

[rainpuddle13]

Ending the year much like I began it sick and in the ICU.

[nervousladytraveler]

Our holiday updates of Duty continue!

Ross gets answers to one mystery but finds another cause for concern closer to home.

Read Chapter 20 ("An Artful Affair") here.

Read Chapter 21 ("Purpose") here.

(Thanks for reading!)

[jedi-grandmaster]

Me vs the porn bots constantly in my notifications

[steakandcheeeese]

Lmao you’re an adult, you shouldn’t be using the word squick. Use trigger. Use your grown up adult words to explain how you feel instead of leaning on a cutesy uwu term that no one outside of tumblr uses. It’s embarrassing.

Idek if this is serious or ironic honestly

[steakandcheeeese]

#like...why use this baby word when you can just say how you feel about it

Found this in the original post tags and I just... SIGH

Here’s the thing, anon. Squick isn’t just ‘I don’t like this’, it’s ‘I think this is gross and it makes me deeply uncomfortable but I pass no judgement on those who enjoy it, because I acknowledge that everyone is different and those same people may have the same visceral reaction some of the things I enjoy’ and was originally made popular in the kink community.

So yeah, if you want to say that every time you come across a trope or whatever you find icky then go ahead, say that every time.

Also, this term dates back to Usenet in the early nineties, so sure, go off.

[sugarfey]

This frustrates me so much because squicks and triggers are fundamentally different things and as someone with PTSD, the distinction is super useful!

Squicks are things I find personally gross but may not be gross to someone else. They don’t upset me or provoke my PTSD, they simply do not pop my corn. Example: Omegaverse. I don’t like it, it makes me uncomfortable and I’m not going to read it, but if you like it, you do you.

Triggers are things which directly provoke my PTSD. This means that my triggers may seem completely normal and innocuous to someone else, because my triggers are so personal and intrinsically linked to a specific event in my life. My reactions to these triggers can include panic attacks and flashbacks to this traumatic event. Sometimes being triggered can affect me for several hours or even days.

Describing something as either a squick or a trigger allows me easily establish the difference in my potential reaction to something without having to go into painful detail about why bodily fluids might make me back button quickly but poker games might leave me a crying wreck. 

[oopsabird]

Making this distinction, and having a specific word for something that is not your slice of pie, but also not an actual psychological trigger, is also REALLY important for making sure that the word “trigger” can retain its original, specific, purposeful, and collectively understood clinical meaning (both inside and outside online fannish communities).

If we encourage everyone to lump things that just make them slightly uncomfortable or simply aren’t to their taste in under the word “trigger”, it actually dilutes the meaning of the word. It makes it harder for us all to, for the most part, collectively agree on and understand what exactly is being described when the word gets used.

And that destruction of shared precise definitions is a problem! It is really useful to have the communal language to be able to clearly and quickly delineate between “this grosses me out, no thanks” and “this is going to set off a trauma episode, rattle my brain, and probably throw off the rest of my day/week as a result” while also maintaining your privacy, and to know that you will be understood in what you are saying. Not having it is actually detrimental to the effort of making our communities safe and navigable for people living with trauma. Which is a goal that is much more important to me, personally, than the idea of not being “cutesy” (a word which in this case which sounds a lot like it’s being used as a euphemism for “cringe”).

(Also, one has to wonder if people told Shakespeare he was being childish when he made up entirely new words that are still widely used in the English language today...... 🤔)

[mumblingsage]

My understanding is that “squick” was also created to avoid using more judgmental terms like “gross” or “disturbing”--like yeah, I do find X kink gross or disturbing, but that’s my personal feeling, not an objective fact about the world, and if I’m explaining to my friend who is super into X that I’d prefer they leave it out of the story they’re writing me in the fic exchange, I want to use politer language!

“Squick” does sound silly, like onomatopoeia, but I think that’s part of its role--it’s a word that defuses if, again, you’re saying something squicks you in front of an audience that may include its connoisseurs. When I say I’m squicked, I’m clearly not getting onto a high horse of dignity and moral righteousness. At the same time I’m not being so indirect for the sake of politeness--”oh, it’s not my favorite thing, I’m not sure it works for me, I haven’t found a fic about it that clicks for me”--that someone could misunderstand how much I do not want to see it.

[ruffboi-mags]

And, to reiterate, it is a grown up word made by grown up nerds in the 90s so if you think it was somehow born on and limited to Tumblr I'm going to need you to actually do some fandom history research before you ever speak authoritatively again about anything fandom-related or adjacent.

[littlethingwithfeathers]

I love and deeply miss the term “squick” and really want to see it brought back. It allows dislike for its own sake and without judgement. It’s polite, gentle, and has an air of “you do you.” A squick is not a trigger. Triggers are related to trauma. You’re allowed to not like things and not have them related to anything other than just finding them unpleasant. And that aversion can be strong! That’s okay! I really don’t like watersports. Like, gag-reflex levels of aversion, but it’s not triggering. I just really don’t like it.  I feel like we’ve lost the right/ability to just... quietly not like things and move on with our lives. Not everything is for everyone, and you don’t need a reason to not like something. Just politely and quietly excuse yourself. No need to draw attention, and if someone asks you why you just say, “No, it squicks me out.” No judgement. No narrative necessary. 

[lilykep]

There is a sad trend of trying to make everything you personally dislike morally reprehensible in some way to justify your dislike of it. You're allowed to just not like something for no real reason. You do not have to justify why you dislike something, and the word "squick" is perfect for that. It say "look I really really don't like this thing, but it's ok if you do" and that is useful.

[ruffboi-mags]

I think the biggest problem is that a lot of these kids are VERY into the whole fandom purity culture thing, so they actually DO want to make it out to be morally reprehensible, and they DON'T think it's ok that other ppl might be into it.

[neil-gaiman]

Cheerfully using “squick” since 1992, because it means a specific thing and other words do not mean that thing.

[rainpuddle13]

[rainpuddle13]

How the French do Christmas. Joyeux Noël! 🎄

[scotianostra]

Good Morning from Scotland 

Life’s a beach, North Ayrshire sunrise 

📸bear_stella_smith on Instagram