i turned 21 last week and acquired a birthday ipad so ive been returning to my roots (fake pokemon designs)
first is mudfish line that grows prosthetic plant legs as it evos :)
second is a little man-made clay dove doll that people make for their wedding - during the ceremony the dolls come to life and go to live in the wild. if the married couple has a child, one of the deuxves they released will evolve into a vasilisk and return home to protect and care for the child!
heron puppet wip 3
my I ❤️ WOMAN SUFFERING (IN A FETISH WAY, NOT A MISOGYNIST WAY) shirt is raising questions obviously answered by the shirt
what makes something a furry. is it the clothing. the bipedal stance. what's the secret
paddington. peter rabbit. with the shortened limbs and quadripedal possibility are they furries or are they just animals in clothes with human behaviours and houses and dreams
fantastic mr fox is unmistakably a furry, i think. bugs bunny as well
interesting interesting. for the purposes of this i think we need to temporarily bench the definition of "furry" as a real world enjoyer of furry art and culture, just for clarity's sake. the idea of ferality is very interesting to think about. the discussion of social contexts and stigma around adult-oriented vs children's media is also good to bring up
anyway i'm trying to find the exact line where the figure becomes a furry
1. rat: just a rat. lion king. ice age except for sid. balto. bambi.
2. bipedal rat: also not a furry, just upright with human mannerisms for story purposes. characters appearing naked is not disturbing. secret of nimh. peter rabbit. paddington i think maybe. aristocats once they start playing the bass and dancing. ice age sid.
3. humanoid rat: possibly the "anthro" category? between bipedal and humanoid is the "anthro" category, but this one could also be a furry. entering the zone where the creature shown is definitely a taxpayer and seeing them without clothes is inappropriate. zootopia. disney robin hood. kung fu panda.
4. ratoid human: i think this is close to the quintessential "furry" we may be used to. similar to previous category, but their hands and feet may be even more human, like with toes and stuff. other features may be humanoid sexual dimorphism, such as breasts. probably is about functional on 4 legs as a human would be. different types of animal characters share more similarities among themselves than in the previous category. this is beastars. twokinds. fantastic mr fox wes anderson.
5. man with ears: catgirl, not a furry.
i am open to discussion as i have no idea what i'm saying
female rage is always traditionally dainty feminine women with long hair covered in blood :// WHAT ABOUT THE BUTCHES. what about a butch cradling her broken nose while eyeing the camera with contempt. what about a butch with the bottom half of their face covered in blood and viscera. what about veins bulging out of their muscular neck arms and back and sorry I lost track of what I was talking about
I always thought it was like an exaggeration when horse people would talk about how silly it was for anyone to think that riding a horse does not require any particular level of skill or balance or anything, or even that they "drive themselves" (???) but just the tags on the reblogs of that "can you ride a bike and/or horse" post from me alone are demonstrating how overconfident some people are in their (often entirely theoretical!) ability to stay on an alive and moving animal with a will of its own.
like don't get me wrong, I've put young kids on horses & seen younger ride them entirely on their own.
but I've also watched grown-ass adults do things like back a horse straight into a bush because they couldn't follow basic instructions like "stop pulling back on the reins".
and those are just the horses I trust with 8 year olds.
I just think the "horses are scary idiots who eat fingers and break all their legs whenever they see a plastic bag" website was very quick to believe themselves to be the wayward city girl who trauma-bonded with the wild & troubled horse on her family's ranch & won the race & saved the farm all before summer break ended.
is all.
yes Anna May I'm sure riding a horse is much easier than riding a bike. those idiot country folk just don't know what they're talking about. your bond with Serendipity will be strong & you will overcome his troubled heart with the power of fresh apples and transcendant horse empathy.
theoretically, of course.
unfortunately I am beginning to understand why horse girls are so defensive about riding being a "sport".
So turns out…..you guys are not gonna believe this…….but it turns out. Reading real books. Is good for you actually.
Let me be completely clear - I’m not being a sarcastic ass. I’m just realizing all over again, in real time, for myself, that reading a real life published book makes your neurons feel like they’re getting a spa day. Like I can feel my brain getting juicer and wrinklier with every page I turn. This shit is no joke, this is like hard drugs if hard drugs were good for you and made your brain feel revived and alive.
@7redmoon nothing against some good fanfic, I’m a fic author myself, but there’s something very necessary and mentally nourishing about reading a published book that isn’t just a recycled version of the same cast of characters you’re already familiar with.
@911boofer I hope it’s okay I snagged these tags bc YES!!!!! This is what I’m talking about!!! Diversify your palettes, my friends, it’s so so good for you!!
It's true, though. As someone who loves to give away days to a deep dive into fic, you need a well-rounded diet. There are brilliant fic writers out there, both talented hobbyists and award-winning bestselling professionals indulging in some fun, but as stated above, we're all using pre-fab characters/worlds/plots to fiddle around with ideas that interest us. Original fiction draws inspiration from all that comes before it, but still attempts to create something new. It's all the retellings and reboots vs. a new movie.
More than that, even though people like to say "I read fic that's better than anything published!" that's... not widely true. Sometimes it is! But fic is a thing that can go up without editing, without any kind of checks. It can be bad and ungrammatical and typo-riddled and nonsensical, and that's okay! Because fic doesn't have to be in any way good! It's for pure experimentation and fun for the writer.
Traditionally published works, however, are meant to make money. They have multiple sets of trained eyes that try to make the final result the best it can be. Sometimes the final work falls short of that goal, sure, but there are steps to at least try to filter out some of the worst elements, which means you're ingesting and internalizing fewer bad habits, which is crucial when you're trying to figure out how to do this writing thing.
To reiterate, reading actual books means:
Anecdotally, reading a really good book has always made me feel creatively sated to the point that I then feel like I need to release some pressure via writing.
TL;DR: Read widely. Read voraciously. Writers do not live on fic alone.
ok i had to draw harry's reaction. he's having a happy stroke or sth... it's cheesy, but what could possibly dissolve the past in him? either total annihilation OR something totally exeptional and unpredicted happening in his life, like kim B)
you're too late, i'm already standing in front of the sole source of light in such a way that it casts a halo about my head, leaving you to languish in the shadows, dependent on me to decide whether to allow my grace to reach you or not
actually can you just move over a little that way so that we're both properly aligned with - that's perfect. thanks. anyway as i was saying,
hunger
Genuinely 90% of historical fiction would be so much better if more writers could get more comfortable with the fact that to create a good story set in a different time period you do actually have to give the characters beliefs & values which reflect that time period
You can research what people actually said in history!
In 1726, when William Brown was on trial for attempted sodomy in London, he didn't say "I was born this way", he said, "“I think there is no crime in making what use I please of my own body”.
In the 12th century, Hildegard of Bingen didn't say, "A woman can do anything a man can do!", she said, God created men and women with different humours and having too much of the male elements will throw society out of balance.
In the 1860s, Millicent Garrett Fawcett didn't say, "Women are just as smart as men", she said, Men get to vote no matter how dumb they are.
In the 1850s, William Craft didn't say, "Africans are just as smart as Europeans and it's bigoted to say otherwise", he said that Africans have thick skulls “to defend the brain from the tropical climate in which he lived. If God had not given them thick skulls their brains would probably have become very much like those of many scientific gentlemen of the present day”
Writers not doing this is why the great majority of ancient Egypt-based fiction just reads like Westerners cosplaying an ancient Egyptian fantasy. Now I totally get there's a far larger gap between ancient Egyptian worldviews and modern day Western ones than there would be between, say, 1800s Europe and now. The ancient Egyptians saw the world fundamentally differently from us and it isn't always feasible for lay people to get all those big and small nuances right - even us egyptologists have to keep studying that stuff -, but I would love it if histfic authors just... tried a little more.
also begging every single one of these authors to realise Egyptian beer was a completely different beverage than modern beer oh my god
Hey, friends with poor memory. This is a sign to go ahead and learn anything you want, even if you're afraid you're going to forget it all. Read Wikipedia articles, watch documentaries, take free classes, and delve deep into books and lore. Maybe I'm the only one who has this fear, maybe not. But learning for pleasure is just as much--if not moreso-- about the joy of the experience as it is about memorization.
yall do realize just because something has been a target of misogynistic criticism, that doesn't make stanning it completely uncritically in response some kind of revolutionary feminist praxis. right.
like i hate to break this to you but plenty of people who dislike taylor swift have better reasons for it than 'she's a successful woman'. plenty of people who dislike twilight aren't just jumping on a decade plus-old hate train because 'teenage girls like it'. pure personal taste aside, someone pointing out the racism in your girlboss media of choice is not the same as an incel frothing at the mouth over a woman minding her own business while having fun, and you're frankly telling on yourself if you're equating those two people
