Rune-enchanted cant

This is Audible. Witches.live Audio presents "Principia Amazonia, or How I Found Jeff Bezos, and What I Did To Him When I Found Him," by Colophon. Read by @anna .

Rune-enchanted cant

@ElectricAsherah For a while, I ran a lewd caption blog exclusively focusing on queer supremacy and heterophobia. It was much-beloved and I admit, sometimes I miss it quite a bit. We could all use a little bit more straight shaming in our lives.

Rune-enchanted cant

Opti & I reuploaded by yours truly back when I went by Frater Colophon: pastebin.com/BJAHyvZ0

@colophonscrawl Important addendum: The identified intent of a piece doesn't have to agree with, or even be related to what the authors claims the intent to be. If it's there in the text and you find it, then it counts. #ReaderResponseTheoryIsValid But also... there more than one way to read a piece, and no one right way

@colophonscrawl I think in general that's a great jumping off point for literary criticism and analysis: What is the author trying to achieve? What is their purpose and intent? AND what tools and techniques do these to achieve this? What evidence in the text is there for this claimed intent?

Great rule of thumb: If someone's work is "intentionally bad" or "intentionally difficult" or "intentionally shocking," follow up by asking, "what's the intent?"

While we're on the topic of unredeemable characters and actions in books: There's an awful trend of books that are supposed to be "deconstructions" of the genres they're in, when really they're just thinly-veiled crap written by authors whose editors and publishers know that they'll get more readers printing this stuff as if the author is "challenging expectations" rather than "bad at storytelling."

"Low fantasy" seems to be patient zero for this in its modern incarnation, and sci-fi/fantasy seem particularly susceptible, but recently (since the mid-late 80s) the young adult and coming-of-age genres have been hit hard.

To sum this up: Don't just make your characters and story nasty because that's grittier.or harder. Being hard, wanting to be really edgy, is you asking for patience and tolerance from your audience, in the expectation that they will come away with something like catharsis, or understanding a novel viewpoint, or grokking something they missed before. It is no excuse at all to say "well you could kinda-sorta read it as being really an exploration of shittiness if you spin this one particular line..." Your book should stand on its own as a text. If you didn't include info or material enough to get something from it, it's just unfinished, not too deep for us.

Good example: Moral Orel. Terribly painful show to watch, fantastic character development and overall exploration of empathy and coming of age, developing an identity distinct from one's surroundings, opening up to the world.

Medium example: Come and See. Exceptionally difficult, and the payoff is the bleak loss of innocence itself, but it is an extreme warning about an extreme thing that really happened and really sucked, very clearly depicting a message worth hearing.

Bad example: The Fault In Our Stars. Difficult subject matter with a bizarre, unrealistic twist, rendering the difficult subject matter pointless except as a narrative gimmick.

In the case of a book which is interesting in its subjects and also bad, your book can succeed in being a book that you (and even your target audience) like and others dislike. That's to be expected to some extent with all books, but if you publish a book about controversial subject matter, have a clear reason for doing so.

Not all honest looks at the ugly side of reality are bad or deserve to be criticized for those depictions. People are willing to look at hideous sides of things, but you need to know where you're going with it. To be clear:

It is not enough to simply depict bad/shocking things. Use them only to go somewhere worth the cost of admission.

Whether or not a book is interesting depends on a number of factors, but a good book is going to understand its audience (unless it's a journal, that's more than just the author) and will frame its story in a way that presents its subjects in a way that is compelling. That doesn't mean popular or formulaic, just, compelling to the intended audience. If that's two people, and those two people love it, then your book was a success! Great!

On the other hand, a book may be both interesting and also bad. WWII interests dads around the world, that doesn't mean you can publish a book of nazi apologetics and claim it's above criticism because it's a neat topic.

Since people are fired up about a revolting-sounding movie ("Adam") based on a revolting-sounding book (that I haven't read, in fairness), let's take a moment to recall a good point about writing generally:

You can write good books about bad situations, but you can also write bad books about bad situations. Your book is not excused from criticism because it is about difficult subject matter, nor is your premise immune from criticism. In fact, your premise is definitely a fair target for criticism! It might be interesting, but interesting subjects can also make for boring/bad books, all of which are actually written about potentially interesting subjects.

To the man with a hammer every problem looks like an excuse to show off his sweet-ass hammer

me, huge Mountain Goats fan, too ashamed to admit that i didn't enjoy the coffee from my new brew pipe:
i hope i lie
and tell everyone you were a good bripe

I gave somebody water. There will be no sympathy from me.

β€” Ingish Lisidavuz, Miner

A man is washing the car with his son. The son asks...... "Dad, can’t you just use a sponge?"

Show more
witches.live

A witchy space for most any face! Whether a witch or a witch-respecter, join the coven that is free of fash, TERFs, feds, and bigots