Why not once more

In both the episodes 'Bug Busters' when his brothers aren’t listening to him about Big Mama & in the episode 'The Mutant Menace' when the Turtles find out that Baxter is trying to expose them to New York, Leo hugs himself slightly while crossing his arms, which is possibly a sign that Leo is feeling stressed & slightly overwhelmed over the situation.

Something that I have also seen a few people talk about is how Leo seems to curl into a ball when he is feeling particularly overwhelmed or stressed such as when he curled into a ball in the episodes 'Cloak and Swaggart', when Leo was trapped in the Turtle Tank with his brothers & Splinter and in the episode 'End Game', when the Foot Clan had captured the Turtles & Leo had been worried that they had disappointed Splinter.

Something that I also kind of noticed was that Leo also seemed to kind of curl into himself during the Rise Movie when he was in the prison dimension with Krang Prime, when he curled into himself around the photo of his family for comfort.

@jedijune // Resilience

I always thought she'd be sent to the Agricultural Corps, but now I see why she wasn't. It's not that Master Yoda feels sorry for her. It' that she's already passed the test the rest of us will be facing — (Whie, about Scout.)

✨🌙  ART LOG ->  @404ama

i also think it signifies akio’s perpetual immaturity in its unwillingness to deal directly with difficult subjects. akio, as much as any of the other characters, is trapped at the school, perpetually unable to “graduate” and thus deal directly with the real world.

Honestly...the concept of the Four Classics is a relatively modern construct.

Because vernacular novels, even in the Ming dynasty where they proliferated and gained mainstream appeal, were not seen as "serious" literature befitting of a proper literati.

What are "serious" literature? Studying the Confucian classics for the imperial examination. Poetry and prose. All of which were written in classical Chinese (文言文) instead of the vernacular language.

And even the classical Chinese fiction from the medieval compendiums (搜神记，酉阳杂俎，太平广记...) are less novels and more short story collections, mixed in with unofficial histories and encyclopedia entries.

You are not seeing discussions of other "classic Chinese literature" because it's pretty likely that these earlier works of literature aren't novels.

It could be the writings of the Hundred Schools scholars (Confucius, Laozi, Mencius, Zhuangzi, Mozi...), the poetry in the Book of Poems, the poems of Li Bai and Du Fu, the prose of Han Yu, the lyrical poems of the Song dynasty...etc.

All of which are part of an extremely rich and beautiful literary tradition, but these just aren't the mediums I'm personally interested in.

Going back to the topic of vernacular novels: at the end of the Ming dynasty, scholars like Feng Menglong and Li Yu did propose the idea of the "Four Masterworks"——Three Kingdoms, Water Margin, JTTW, and Plum in the Golden Vase.

However, I feel like that's more of a general acknowledgement of the most popular and influential novels on the market, instead of...institutional, or even elite recognition.

The idea of the "Four Classics" would resurface in the early 20th century, where literary pioneers like Lu Xun and Hu Shi were looking to vernacular novels as part of their reform efforts and academic research.

And the codification of Three Kingdoms, Water Margin, JTTW and Dream of the Red Chamber (JPM gets replaced bc of its R-rated nature) as "classics", aka "stuff kids have to memorize and analyze in school as representation of traditional Chinese culture", would have to wait until the 1980s.

The more academic classification tends to include Plum in the Golden Vase and The Scholars, though I feel like adding Liaozhai into the mix is kinda a stretch, since it doesn't exactly belong in the same genre as the other 6. Like, it is written in classical Chinese, and also a short story collection instead of a multi-chapter novel.

...As you can see, the very definition of "classics" is kinda complicated. It has more to do with how novels are viewed and re-classified by modern people than, say, how Ming & Qing people engage with novels.

And a novel's popularity or influence may not have anything to do with whether, by modern standards, its literary quality is enough to be counted as a "classic"!

Even though Meg is a popular heroine, especially among adult Disney fans, I've read commentary from two different people who didn't like her and considered her a "false feminist" character. One was Unshaved Mouse's review of the movie (though he did praise Susan Egan's performance, he just found the character of Meg annoying), the other was just a random Tumblr post. And their complaints were almost exactly the same. So because I love Meg, I've decided to write a little defense of her, and outline just why I disagree with those complaints.

The main complaint in both of these commentaries was that in Meg, Disney seems to be trying ham-fistedly to earn feminist brownie points by making her so tough, sassy, independent, "don't need no man," and Not Like Other Disney Heroines. Yet she doesn't actually do many feminist things. She repeatedly needs Hercules to rescue her, she spends most of the story as Hades' reluctant yet obedient slave with no agency, she's only released from her contract thanks to Hercules giving up his strength to free her, she stays on the sidelines during the battles (though her actions of freeing Pegasus, riding him to go get Phil, and last but not least, sacrificing her life to save Hercules are very important), and at the climax, she dies (the "ultimate loss of agency," as some say) just so Hercules can prove his heroism by bringing her back from the Underworld. These online critics complain that her independent attitude feels performative and hollow.

Now, I'll agree that I might have liked to see her play a more proactive role in some ways. From what I've read, the recent stage musical makes an effort to do this: for example, having her personally confess to Hercules that she's been working for Hades and warn him about Hades' plot against him, and having her take up a sword and fight alongside Herc in the climactic battle. Now, I wouldn't have made those exact same rewrites, but maybe near the climax, she could have found some loophole in her contract with Hades to finally break free herself, rather than Hades just releasing her when he has what he wants from Hercules. And maybe she could have cooperated with Hercules in the battle with the Cyclops: not taking up a sword, per se, but maybe she could have been the one to tie the Cyclops' ankles together after Hercules blinded him, or at least she could have called out to Herc to do it, using her brain to assist Herc's brawn.

(That said, let's not belittle her role of bringing Phil and Pegasus back to Hercules, or, for that matter, her death – she's not randomly killed, she sacrifices her life to save Herc!)

But for the most part, I don't think her role is "false feminism," because I don't think it's necessarily meant to be feminism in the first place. To me, Meg doesn't exist to be a role model for girls, the way the likes of Belle from Beauty and the Beast or Esmeralda from The Hunchback of Notre Dame obviously do. For goodness' sake, she spends most of the movie working for the villain! Her storyline is a redemption arc and an emotional healing arc, and I don't think it's necessarily either feminist or anti-feminist.

Yes, there is a performative aspect to Meg's "big tough girl" attitude, but the way I see it, Meg herself is the one performing, not the Disney creative team. Her ultra-sassy, independent persona isn't an attempt to earn feminist brownie points, IMHO. It's her defense mechanism; her attempt to cope with the fact that she's Hades' slave and to protect herself from being hurt again the way she was by the boyfriend who jilted her. Now, is she part of a general trend in '90s family media toward tough and sassy heroines? Absolutely yes! But compared to other animated movie characters, she's less of a cookie cutter "feminist" heroine, and more of a female version of Dimitri from Anastasia, Flynn Rider from Tangled, or Kristoff from Frozen. The initially prickly and cynical love interest, whose hidden capacity for selfless love and heroism are revealed as they gradually fall for the more innocent and idealistic protagonist.

Another complaint from both the Tumblr post and Unshaved Mouse was that Meg feels like a less-successful rehash of Esmeralda from The Hunchback of Notre Dame. In Esmeralda (they both argue), we already have a heroine who subverts the classic Disney model by being tough, sassy, and sexy, and who also has dark hair and wears purple to boot. But personally? I think apart from those basic qualities, Meg is a completely different character from Esmeralda! Meg is cynical, misanthropic, and amoral, until Hercules opens her heart; Esmeralda is kind, compassionate, and idealistic from the start. Meg is calm, laid-back, and relies on stone-cold verbal wit; Esmeralda is a lively, hot-tempered fighter. Meg is more sarcastic and funny than Esmeralda, who is more earnest and serious-minded and only turns sarcastic when she’s angry. Meg really is a bit of a femme fatale, who tries to seduce Hercules into admitting his weakness for Hades to exploit; Esmeralda just uses her sexy dancing to entertain people and only Frollo thinks she's a femme fatale. Meg has a transformative character arc; Esmeralda doesn't change herself, but inspires change in Quasimodo and Phoebus. As far as I'm concerned, Meg is no rehash at all.

From the article:

All these novels are just bad fanfiction written after the fact.

😂😂😂 That's right!!!

But most of the light novels were released only after the Manga got over, I mean in 2015. And we all know, those light Novels were written to satiate those shippers and hence Kishi partook in none of the writing aspects other than providing Cover Art.

And I have no clue, what happens in Shikamaru Novels. But what I do know is, it was adapted into Anime Episodes which describes the events that happens before Naruto's Wedding. I’ve never watched it and I won’t ever. So, I cannot comment on it. But I heard that during those awful episodes, everyone forgot that they live in a ninja world and were seen actively playing Wedding Planners, Matchmakers.... So, It must be some terrible block of episodes I guess.

As for Itachi Shinden, I have to agree with you about the contradictions. In the Manga, Other than flashbacks, Uchiha clan was portrayed as Elite and Prestigious clan of Konoha. Every villagers revered them. As we see in Chuunin Exams arc, Lee, Neji, Orochimaru and even Naruto were seen revering Uchiha Clan. 

But in the novel, It was written that the kids were shown having some prejudice towards Itachi for the Kyuubi Incident. Whereas in the Manga, it was Konoha’s Top Brass who suspected Uchiha Clan and asked to move to a different place, Villagers were kept in the dark. 

So, you see, these contradictions really confused a lot for me. However, Compared to all other novels which were written exclusively to satiate those horny SS shippers, I think Itachi Shinden was miles better. I liked this novel, because I wanted to know more about Itachi and his family and how do Uchiha Clan planned to organize a coup, I mean what are their demands!!!. I actually found some answers. Other than that, I didn’t find anyone going OOC here. 

Some new things I learnt from this novel was,

Naruto’s secret of carrying Kyuubi inside was passed out as rumour by Danzo (The Crass Bastard) and hence every villagers came to know of it and made the life of Naruto, a living hell.

Itachi was the Golden Boy of Uchiha clan by clearing Chuunin Exams singlehandedly with excellent scores next only to Minato.

Shisui got his Mangekyo by intentionally letting his best friend to die before his eyes, because he was jealous of him but he was very regretful about it.

[[I don’t know whether these facts were provided by Kishimoto or just made up by the author, but it’s interesting]]

HE HAS BEEN SOBER AND STILL WRITING FOR 30 FUCKING YEARS!!!

It's practice. Not just practicing writing in general, but intentionally practicing for speed. I have taught writing in formal settings, and the thing that seems to most frequently slow people down is the amount of time they spend tinkering with, worrying about, and sweating over every individual sentence as they write it -- and then they've written 800 words and they're fucking exhausted, because all of that worrying takes a LOT of cognitive energy. Turn your brain off. Practice not caring if it's a perfect sentence because you can fix it later. Just slap some bullshit on the page. Keep your fingers moving.

If you can type 60wpm, and you type without stopping, you'll have 3k in under an hour. Now, realistically, I'm a fast writer, and I do still pause to do a LITTLE tinkering now and then, so I compose at a rate of around 25wpm, even though my top typing speed is around 80wpm. At 25wpm, 3k would take me roughly two hours. Let's round it up to two and a half hours for a couple thinking breaks.

The point is, this is doable. 25wpm for two and a half hours, including some thinking breaks. It's not particularly superhuman, any more than being able to run a mile is superhuman. It just takes intentional training towards a specific goal and prioritizing what you're spending your day on.

When you first start practicing for speed, then yeah, a lot of what you produce is going to be garbage, and step one is to let that be perfectly fucking fine. Your mantra is "It doesn't have to be good, it just has to be done" -- it's a lot easier to edit a pile of raw material than to try to get it perfect on the first go. As you practice, you'll get more adept at the writing craft part of it too, so the product will not be garbage stream-of-consciousness anymore. The sentences will start to snap together one after the other like lego bricks.

But you don't get there if you say, "Well, it was just the cocaine" or "This isn't applicable to me because Stephen King is doing a completely different activity." Neither of those things are true. He's a regular human being, and I'm a regular human being, and so are you. Writing fast is a learnable skill, just like being able to run a mile or any equivalent feat of physical exertion. If you don't WANT to learn that sort of skill, you definitely don't have to. But there's a difference between deciding that you don't WANT to learn the skill and reflexively deciding that the skill must be impossible, and when I see people saying "That seems impossible, so there's no point to me even trying," it makes me sad.