top ten ways to look at your coworker while married

Love Begins
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
ojovivo
$LAYYYTER
h
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
todays bird
Claire Keane
KIROKAZE

JVL
No title available
No title available
almost home
wallacepolsom
YOU ARE THE REASON
hello vonnie

#extradirty

No title available
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

No title available

seen from United States
seen from South Korea
seen from United States

seen from Poland
seen from Argentina
seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from Belarus
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from India
seen from Philippines

seen from Oman
seen from Mexico
seen from Australia
seen from Oman
seen from United States

seen from United States
@wilson-walk13
top ten ways to look at your coworker while married
me when i feel the most soul-crushing despair known to man for no discernible reason and then my period starts
the motorcycle on this season of the pitt is like chekhov’s gun except every hour chekhov is showing up with two or three more guns and now you’re starting to get worried. because obviously they’re going to go off but what kind of looney tunes ass bullshit requires that many guns. chekhov’s gun has become chekhov’s militia. and there’s still like 7 hours of your shift left.
SUNRISE ON THE REAPING (2026) THE HUNGER GAMES (2012-2015)
must a piece of media be “good?” is it not enough to first encounter it aged thirteen and have your brain completely rewired forever?
you know the post that's like: one day I'll be 45 at a party and ill hear a one direction song and ill be dancing my heart out because I never learned to love anything as much as I love one direction?......... yeah.......thinking of that right now
I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got paid 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.
Update: This is literally just a thought exercise to help you be more intentional with how you critique media. I'm not enforcing this as some divine rule that must be followed any time you have an opinion on fiction, and I'm definitely not saying that you have to structure every single sentence in a review to contain zero negative phrases. I'm just saying that I repurposed a rule we had at that specific reviewer to be a helpful tool to check myself when writing critiques now. If you don't want to use the tool, literally no one (especially not me) can or wants to force you to use it. As with all advice, it is a totally reasonable and normal thing to not have use for every piece of it that exists from random strangers on the internet. Use it to whatever extent it helps you or not at all.
"You got vampire lore wrong in your story because real vampires do this and that" Buddy I have terrible news about all of vampires. Heartbreaking news. Worst news you're gonna hear all day.
are they problematic. did they get canceled
Sharon van etten was so right. i used to be seventeen
I truly hate the word "unalive." There are so many other euphemisms that fictional Italian mobsters worked so hard to provide you with and you just ignore them.
Letterboxd reviews of Phantom of the Opera ( 2004 )
what are ur beliefs
whatever’s funniest
"ugh, that trope is so overused"
okay? what are you going to tell me next, that the sunset is overdone? the sound of your favorite song is passé? the sight of your loved ones is worn out and tired? that we shouldn't revel in the simple joy of enjoying what we know we like, all because of some arbitrary quota you've imagined?