I promise to build you a machine

"Beneath The Golden Willow"

reblog & your followers can send asks with the questions they’d like you to answer!

the last sentence you wrote

a character whose POV you’re currently exploring

how you feel about your current WIP

a story idea you haven’t written yet

first sentence of the fifth paragraph of an unpublished WIP

the word that appears the most in your current draft (wordcounter.net can tell you)

your preferred writing fonts

if you had to write a sequel to a fic, you’d write one for…

start to finish, how long did it take you to write the last fic you posted?

what is the longest amount of time you’ve let a draft rest before you finished it?

a WIP you’d like to finish someday

a trope you’re really into right now

a fandom you’re thinking about writing for

where do you get your inspiration?

favorite weather for writing

favorite place to write

talk about your writing and editing process

if you keep them, share a deleted sentence or paragraph from a published fic

the most interesting topic you’ve researched for a fic

in what year did you publish your first fic?

when did you publish your most recent fic?

do you ever worry about public reaction to what you’re writing? how do you get past that?

pick three keywords that describe your writing

how do you recharge when you’re not feeling creative?

besides writing, what are your other hobbies?

are you able to write with other people around?

your favorite part of the writing process

your least favorite part of the writing process

how easy is it for you to come up with titles?

It's not that we can't have conversations about the intentionality or meaning behind the asexuality (or if you want to argue, not aseuxality) in the books. It isn't that at all. I'm not going to have a tantrum if someone disagrees with the asexual read and I can't force anyone to see an asexual read if they don't want to.

The problem is the acephobic bullshit and the baggage and language that always comes with it, and the fact that no one seems able to talk about this without being acephobic as fuck.

The problem is that people speak loudly & confidently about a segment of the queer community that they know nothing about.

The problem is thinking that asexuality means celibacy or prudeness or whatever the fuck your problem is, and the refusal to understand what asexuality even is.

It's never "I don't read it that way because of the implication of hunger & desire" or "I don't read it that way because we should talk about the vampires as Other and we shouldn't equate aseuxality with monstrousness or the inhuman creature" it's always "Well it's not asexual because they give handjobs" or "Well it's not asexual because Anne Rice was just being homophobic" or "The queerness in the book is subtext because they never fucked." It never comes from a place that respects asexuals or even understands what asexuality is, and the fact that people feel so confident being wrong about this shit and talking about it so openly really does a lot of damage.

So yeah, if you say that the show "corrected" the asexuality in the way it corrected the racism, you can go fuck yourself. Being asexual isn't a bad thing, it isn't weird, it doesn't make anyone a frigid prude loser. it isn't something that needs correcting.

And adding gay sex into a show doesn't make it more queer than the book because asexuals are already part of the community and the books are already queer. You are not less queer just because you don't have sex.

Springbrook… one of the last surviving ancient cloud forests on Earth.
A UNESCO World Heritage wilderness.
Rare.
Fragile.
Remote. 
These walking tracks were never designed for mass tourism. 
There’d be no stopping.
No silence.
No connection to nature. Just… keep moving. 
Stop for one photo…
and people start falling off the track. 
Trash would pile up everywhere. 
There aren’t enough toilets.
Human waste and urine would seep into the rain-forest. 
“A World Heritage rain-forest… smelling like a festival toilet.” 
Birds vanish. Wallabies retreat. Dead wildlife beside roads. 
The wildlife would disappear.
The noise.
The pollution.
The traffic. It would drive animals away…
or kill them on the roads. 
Imagine Byron Bay traffic…
every single day of the year. 
The roads are too narrow.
The infrastructure doesn’t exist. And widening the roads?
Building massive services? 
Huge carparks? That destroys the very wilderness people came to see. 
A cloud forest is not a theme park. These ecosystems are ancient.
Delicate.
Rare. Once they’re damaged…
they may never recover. 
Springbrook became World Heritage listed because it remained remote…
wild…
untouched. Not because it could handle mass tourism. 
“Protect Springbrook” 
Tourism must be limited.
 Before we love this place to death. ACT N O W!

Sign the letter”
“Protect the rain-forest before it’s too late.”

At least, I have never encountered a text produced by AI that feels sufficient. They can write technically well and even craft some fortunate phrases of singular and genuinely surprising beauty or wit, but that is the extent of it. They lack any capacity for introspection, cannot create characters that transcend clichés, and above all, they are incapable of originality. In other words, if a writer submits their work to AI, it will strip away all originality to become perfectly impersonal. There will be no digressions to distract, no stylistic ambiguity, nothing but a completely "logical" and linear narrative.