#upward talks

[upward]

Why did you write the long diatribe that had NOTHING to do with what the original post was commenting on? Embarrassing

My post, despite its many flaws, was absolutely related to the original post. If you cannot see that, I cannot help you.

The anons tripping into my inbox are honestly just reinforcing my point: the vitriol directed at people for what they read and what they write is damaging and foolish.

Conversations about that topic ARE useful - if they are actual discussion and not simply calling people stupid.

For a post about reading, yall really dislike reading. It is probably the one thing that has amazed me the most. The people the OP criticizes seem to also maybe be the post’s most ardent defenders?

I am sorry that encountering this post made you feel embarrassed on my behalf. You shouldn't. Because I'm not. I agree with those who have thoughtfully pointed out that I projected a lot onto OP, a person I don't know. Or that in many ways my point was unclear. Or that it appears a typo or lack of clarity makes it seem like I don't support the linkage of women's studies and the study of literature (THAT one bothers me a lot because nothing could be further from the truth and that is a genuine mistake on my part if I suggested that).

It is not easy to face shortcomings. You'll get better at that, don't worry. I'm working on it as well. We all have a lot to learn.

You do realize we are on a website/platform where someone will post a picture of a potato and the reblogs include things like "my son" or "me at work" or "I photoshopped this potato into the top of the cannon Saint Barbara holds in her traditional icon" to "I turned this potato into something that can run Doom."

[upward]

hey, i'm a bit confused by your response on that post. while that OP may have come off sort of rude about popular lit, the post itself wasn't trashing more accessible/popular literature at all. it was just saying that people who have *specific wants* re:books, in cases where they are given the resources to do so, don't actually go and search beyond a "surface level" (well-marketed areas) for those particular books. it's not assigning a value to liking or disliking those well-marketed books. just saying that they do not fill every possible content niche on their own.

i agree with wanting people to provide resources when they talk about these things, and i agree the tone rubbed me the wrong way a bit. but... the issue with your response is that it *didn't respond to the post*. like, it's a fair thing to talk about in its own right, it just doesn't make sense being placed *there*, targeted at that person. it would be great as its own post, probably.

i hope this helps explain why people are dismissing your response? hope you have a good rest of your day. thank you.

I appreciate your approach and response to this! First of all? I was definitely all over the place as I argued a bunch of different points. Then kept drawing from experiences that reminded me of more and so on.

You’re right. I didn’t respond to the post directly or elaborate on the point like you have here. It wasn’t my intention to.

I did not miss OPs point as many have suggested. And the point itself was not incorrect. But how it is positioned, what is happening between the lines? That’s what I was reacting to. Maybe too harshly. Maybe not.

What’s happening in that post creates/fosters the mentality that drove anons to message me with things like:

“Sounds like someone's trying to write the kind of book with a generic colored cover that goes viral on tiktok and got her feelings hurt when someone pointed out it was shit”

So as I was thinking about the damage that accumulates between the lines, it was bleeding into my inbox in real time.

But it’s fine that people are dismissing my response. It’s rather telling that many are eye rolling at the idea of reading it in general while telling me to get back to TikTok/Twitter.

That’s why I really do appreciate this ask and the thoughtfulness behind it. Thank you for being kind and for questioning my response/pointing out where I may have gone wrong in constructive ways. I hope my answer sheds a bit more light on why I responded the way I did.

[upward]

girl what. so no one can criticize the insane rise of anti intellectualism and the tiktok-ification of publishing because it might discourage already lazy non readers from reading? what an unhinged sanctimonious response

to quote you: Hit pause. Take a deep breath. Step down off that pedestal. All the way. Alllllll the way.

Of course you can criticize the rise of anti intellectualism.

A. It's a valid thing to discuss.

B. You can criticize whatever you damn well please.

But lazy non-readers aren't the ones searching for books you absolute ding dong. You should be embracing and supporting people looking to branch out from other media. But honestly? I just kinda don't care about this part. See, I don't busy myself yelling at people for doing what they do. If they want to watch tiktok all day, that is their jam. Go on.

However, I will give hell to silly folks like you pretending to be all high and mighty and on about anti-intellectualism. You don't have a thing to say about high and low art or access vs lack of access to art? Not a damn thing about the intersection of women's work and privilege for leisure/entertainment? Or intellectualism and gatekeeping? No, just shout "ANTI INTELLECTUALISM!!!!" at me like you actually gave critical thought to my initial response. You didn't. It's fine. You'd exhaust me about it anyway.

You don't actually care about knowledge. You care about who can access it and who cannot and who should and how they do. Good lord forbid someone finds a book that doesn't meet your standards. How on earth will we survive the day?

Nah. Go on about tiktok. It's alright. If yelling about it anonymously in my inbox makes you feel better about your stupid post I criticized, by all means ... I am at your service.

[upward]

Nowhere in that post did the OP trash any genre. She was only talking about people’s willingness to put forth effort in looking for books on topics they want to read about. Nothing was said about taste.

I did not say anything about genre.

You are misreading my reaction to the second post of OP’s about the display in the front of the bookstore and bright covers. It is a thinly veiled jab at commercially successful novels. Sometimes those take the form of easy to skewer beach reads. Occasionally they are popular “coming soon to Netflix” high fantasy.

Either way, OP (who it sounds like you know if you aren’t actually them), takes a big swing at the concept of market value of art. It’s not genre based. It’s OP (and you) being snobby.

Also regarding people putting forth effort? I encourage you to read my response in depth instead of biting back immediately. Imagine if the original post and asks like this actually enabled people to broaden their searches! You could do good. And help. And further the reaches of *books*.

Instead, you and OP are positioning “people who give zero effort” against “people who have demonstrated some sort of effort measured against some arbitrary benchmark you have invented” against “maximum perfect effort OP!!”

It is absolutely ridiculous when you take into account that the people (0 effort and somewhat but immeasurable effort and maximum OP awesome effort!!) are all just people who are looking for things to read.

Step off that pedestal. Yea. Alllllll the way.

If helping people find books is such a burden, Maximum OP Awesome Person, please feel free to send people my way. I would love to talk to them about books they might like and how to find them.

[upwardwrites]

I hit a slog. But I think I found the problem (back about 30 goddamn pages). Printing the next 77 pages anyhow and pushing forward.

Obsidian vault is coming along nicely but my brain is too fried after work to do much other than rewatch shows and stab yarn.

December 14 marks the beginning of a two-week break. I can’t wait.

[upwardwrites]

Thinking out loud about character appearances

Tried to reblog a post about appearances that got deleted before I could hit reblog but oh well. Anyway, it got me thinking. Just word vomiting here at this point please ignore me ...

I always knew I wanted Sadie to have a wiry strength, but I need to be more intentional about describing that strength. She’s not just strong by the grace of the good lord almighty. She actively works for it and not to stay DisneyThin. Her musculature is defined and deliberate, the kind of physique she would need to survive in the post collapse world. But I’m not great at describing it and need to be.

But I have other characters who need attention. I’ve been working on reframing the “big strong tall typical hero man” (ex: big men with swagger, even if they are strong, are lousy fighters because they haven’t NEEDED to fight. tune in at 11 for our big strong frat boy Matthias failing miserably when he runs into someone smaller and strong who knows what they are doing).

Eugene (Sadie’s forever person) has an injured leg/knee that will affect him for the rest of his life. He’s got a limp that comes and goes and sometimes his knee will lock up if he steps the wrong way, over exerts it, if it’s going to rain etc. It gives him a bitterness and a causes some other characters to look at him like he is less capable than he is. It can make certain scenarios risky for him but I also promise I will never ever use this to kill him. I won’t.