tumblr dot com
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
taylor price
shark vs the universe
art blog(derogatory)
hello vonnie
Keni
will byers stan first human second
Kiana Khansmith
Misplaced Lens Cap
titsay
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Stranger Things
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Xuebing Du
wallacepolsom
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
macklin celebrini has autism
tannertan36
Cosmic Funnies
seen from Germany
seen from Malaysia
seen from Switzerland
seen from United States
seen from Lithuania
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from New Zealand
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from Denmark
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from Malaysia
seen from Australia
@bookshelfdreams
God made all man in his image Honey, I'm, I'm no man I'm what's left when children go to war
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I saw a post of yours about Tintenherz about her loving whump and violence and such being at contrast with her being a childrens book author, but frankly, i think that's kind of the reason why she is such a successful childrens book author. That plus her vivid writing and world building. But to the main point: the world of children honestly has a lot of that, and having that in a childrens media makes that media something that kids absolutely love because it makes them feel seen.
I appreciate your posts because it gives me new perspectives on these books and inspires me to think about them!
You're very correct! The best children's books and children's stories are the ones that do not shy away from violence and other unpleasant things.
I was gonna disagree with you a little bit and talk about how whump (to me, at least) is not synonymous with fictional violence in general but rather, a specific type of fictional violence that serves specific reasons
but actually, you are completely right. Violence in children's stories, in good children's stories, often has a whumpy quality to it, because a good kid's story won't revel in or glorify it.
So yes, it makes complete sense that she'd love whump. Even her older books, written for a younger audience, often have a bit of a tragic element to it.
Oh yeah for certain!
I think my definition of whump is more vague than yours so i defer to you on that but i find the discussion really interesting, and i agree about the portrayal in childrens stories. I feel like showing the impact of it is perhaps more important than the violence for making it meaningful to children.
Yeah absolutely about her books for younger kids too!
Also, side topic, something that really means a lot to me about Herr der Diebe is that it has a character that, validated by the narrative, escapes childhood and is much happier for it. You never get told that as a kid or ever, it's always "childhood is the best time in life" which is bullshit in my opinion. Or at least not possible to generalise like that.
Yes, very true! I'll admit, I did not really love Herr der Diebe that much, but that aspect of it was very cool. I think, maybe this all plays together: The validation of pain and suffering without glorifying it. Yes, childhood can be awful. Yes, horrible things happen, and you do not deserve them.
But you can survive. Things will get better when you grow up.
There's something about the inherent seriousness with which she (as all good authors of children's lit) approaches her characters, children and adults alike. How pain is never a joke to her, or something to be dismissed. How every one of her books feels like she's taking the audience extremely seriously, how she's never, never talking down to her readers, or trying to lecture them.
There's honestly not many authors of children's lit that approach their audience with the same respect as someone writing fiction for adults approaches theirs, but Funke is certainly one of them.
Omg yes this! Also, she brightens up that childhood with her stories and the magical colourful worlds which is also relevant to me. Her books were my absolute favourite as a kid, because the world felt so much brighter without compromising reality.
roxane as a bad mom not because of rosanna's death however many years ago which she blames herself for but because she's currently failing brianna which she doesnt care about is so important to me
I saw a post of yours about Tintenherz about her loving whump and violence and such being at contrast with her being a childrens book author, but frankly, i think that's kind of the reason why she is such a successful childrens book author. That plus her vivid writing and world building. But to the main point: the world of children honestly has a lot of that, and having that in a childrens media makes that media something that kids absolutely love because it makes them feel seen.
I appreciate your posts because it gives me new perspectives on these books and inspires me to think about them!
You're very correct! The best children's books and children's stories are the ones that do not shy away from violence and other unpleasant things.
I was gonna disagree with you a little bit and talk about how whump (to me, at least) is not synonymous with fictional violence in general but rather, a specific type of fictional violence that serves specific reasons
but actually, you are completely right. Violence in children's stories, in good children's stories, often has a whumpy quality to it, because a good kid's story won't revel in or glorify it.
So yes, it makes complete sense that she'd love whump. Even her older books, written for a younger audience, often have a bit of a tragic element to it.
Oh yeah for certain!
I think my definition of whump is more vague than yours so i defer to you on that but i find the discussion really interesting, and i agree about the portrayal in childrens stories. I feel like showing the impact of it is perhaps more important than the violence for making it meaningful to children.
Yeah absolutely about her books for younger kids too!
Also, side topic, something that really means a lot to me about Herr der Diebe is that it has a character that, validated by the narrative, escapes childhood and is much happier for it. You never get told that as a kid or ever, it's always "childhood is the best time in life" which is bullshit in my opinion. Or at least not possible to generalise like that.
Yes, very true! I'll admit, I did not really love Herr der Diebe that much, but that aspect of it was very cool. I think, maybe this all plays together: The validation of pain and suffering without glorifying it. Yes, childhood can be awful. Yes, horrible things happen, and you do not deserve them.
But you can survive. Things will get better when you grow up.
There's something about the inherent seriousness with which she (as all good authors of children's lit) approaches her characters, children and adults alike. How pain is never a joke to her, or something to be dismissed. How every one of her books feels like she's taking the audience extremely seriously, how she's never, never talking down to her readers, or trying to lecture them.
There's honestly not many authors of children's lit that approach their audience with the same respect as someone writing fiction for adults approaches theirs, but Funke is certainly one of them.
Concepts for a Ghosts show set in eastern Germany. MDR Ghosts, if you will. These guys have been in my head since before WDR Ghosts came out. I kept to the general template provided by BBC Ghosts with some deviations. Details under the cut 🏃
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
above all shadows rides the Sun and Stars for ever dwell: I will not say the Day is done, nor bid the Stars farewell.
Based on the chapter “The tower of Cirith Ungol”. In my opinion it’s the most beautiful scene that Tolkien had written and I really wanted to illustrate it.
I mean. Yeah. What the hell do you think war is? Why do you think we came up with the concept of a war crime?
"Violent and fucked up things happen in war" Yes! Yes they do! Because war is inherently fucked up and violent! There is no nice war! There is no good or just or noble war!
One might say that the very concept of a "war crime" is an oxymoron because all war is a crime against humanity.
But still. Rules for war exist to protect the civilian population, because they are an easy and rewarding target if you want to de-normalize your enemy. The whole basis for this is the assertion that civilians aren't a threat to military operations and therefore, not legitimate targets.
But yes! Hiding weapons or combatants in hospitals does make that hospital a legitimate target! Because it now is part of your military infrastructure! If someone participates in the fight, they are a valid target! What do you think war is!!!
The purpose of war is to strongarm your opponent into doing whatever you want them to do through violence. The commitment to upholding the Geneva convention is a thin veneer of civility at best. If you are truly committed to upholding human rights and protecting your civilians, you do not start a fucking war.
The Geneva convention is the promise to keep harm to civilians to a minimum as long as they are not put directly into the line of fire. It's a flimsy protection, that doesn't really do much, since there's little enforcement. But if you do decide to put your civilians directly into the line of fire, all bets are off. Which is why governments who actually give a shit about their population generally try to avoid this.
"That seems unfair" Yes! It does, doesn't it! Again, what do you think war is!
I mean. Yeah. What the hell do you think war is? Why do you think we came up with the concept of a war crime?
"Violent and fucked up things happen in war" Yes! Yes they do! Because war is inherently fucked up and violent! There is no nice war! There is no good or just or noble war!
One might say that the very concept of a "war crime" is an oxymoron because all war is a crime against humanity.
But still. Rules for war exist to protect the civilian population, because they are an easy and rewarding target if you want to de-normalize your enemy. The whole basis for this is the assertion that civilians aren't a threat to military operations and therefore, not legitimate targets.
But yes! Hiding weapons or combatants in hospitals does make that hospital a legitimate target! Because it now is part of your military infrastructure! If someone participates in the fight, they are a valid target! What do you think war is!!!
The purpose of war is to strongarm your opponent into doing whatever you want them to do through violence. The commitment to upholding the Geneva convention is a thin veneer of civility at best. If you are truly committed to upholding human rights and protecting your civilians, you do not start a fucking war.
The Geneva convention is the promise to keep harm to civilians to a minimum as long as they are not put directly into the line of fire. It's a flimsy protection, that doesn't really do much, since there's little enforcement. But if you do decide to put your civilians directly into the line of fire, all bets are off. Which is why governments who actually give a shit about their population generally try to avoid this.
I mean. Yeah. What the hell do you think war is? Why do you think we came up with the concept of a war crime?
"Violent and fucked up things happen in war" Yes! Yes they do! Because war is inherently fucked up and violent! There is no nice war! There is no good or just or noble war!
One might say that the very concept of a "war crime" is an oxymoron because all war is a crime against humanity.
But still. Rules for war exist to protect the civilian population, because they are an easy and rewarding target if you want to de-normalize your enemy. The whole basis for this is the assertion that civilians aren't a threat to military operations and therefore, not legitimate targets.
But yes! Hiding weapons or combatants in hospitals does make that hospital a legitimate target! Because it now is part of your military infrastructure! If someone participates in the fight, they are a valid target! What do you think war is!!!
I mean. Yeah. What the hell do you think war is? Why do you think we came up with the concept of a war crime?
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
wild horses living on the cliffs of the welsh gower
And that's all the singles done! But TdF is not over yet, so here's something else I want to spin:
That's 700g Corrie. I don't think I can spin all of this in less than a week, I'm not that delusional, I just hope to make a dent in it.
I saw a post of yours about Tintenherz about her loving whump and violence and such being at contrast with her being a childrens book author, but frankly, i think that's kind of the reason why she is such a successful childrens book author. That plus her vivid writing and world building. But to the main point: the world of children honestly has a lot of that, and having that in a childrens media makes that media something that kids absolutely love because it makes them feel seen.
I appreciate your posts because it gives me new perspectives on these books and inspires me to think about them!
You're very correct! The best children's books and children's stories are the ones that do not shy away from violence and other unpleasant things.
I was gonna disagree with you a little bit and talk about how whump (to me, at least) is not synonymous with fictional violence in general but rather, a specific type of fictional violence that serves specific reasons
but actually, you are completely right. Violence in children's stories, in good children's stories, often has a whumpy quality to it, because a good kid's story won't revel in or glorify it.
So yes, it makes complete sense that she'd love whump. Even her older books, written for a younger audience, often have a bit of a tragic element to it.
Ich kann nicht glauben, dass dieses Herumgeblödel um die Leihmutterschaft der Genickbruch für den Spahn war, die Union ist so ein Karnevalsverein
Jeden Skandal überlebt Spahn - außer dem, bei dem es implizit auch darum geht das er schwul (?) ist.
#vielleicht lese ich da zu viel rein
Nee, um ehrlich zu sein, denke ich schon, dass das in das Ganze mit reinspielt (wenngleich vielleicht nur unterbewusst)
(Sorry thinking about Inkheart again)
the thing about Staubfinger, that makes him so goddamn compelling, is that he's clearly the author's favourite, and the author happens to be someone who expresses her love for fictional characters through relentless torture.
the fascinating thing for me is no the kind of character Staubfinger is - a fairly typical antagonistic figure, at least in the beginning - but the way in which he is looked at. Because this kind of character (untrustworthy but charismatic, a social outcast, kind of queercoded, if we're being honest) is so often presented with the implicit assumption that the audience's biases will do the heavy lifting in painting him as antagonistic. His pain, as it is, is usually punitive. No less than he deserves, for his treachery, his otherness.
Staubfinger, on the other hand, deserves none of it. There is no point to his pain. It is not something to be cheered at, but neither is it self-aggrandizing; neither is it something he stoically endures to showcase his fortitude. It's just pain, and it's horrible; and the audience is not allowed to look away from it, either. We are invited, forced to look at all of it and sympathize. To find catharsis in it. That's the appeal of whump for me, not the sadistic pleasure of seeing someone hurt, but to see the character be pushed past the breaking point, past everything he can endure, and endure it anyway. Suffering that is not noble, but human.
Truly the kind of writing you can only get from an author who intimately understands the horror and evilness of violence but is also unapologetic about loving nothing more than making the pretty man cry.
#i like that the audience has to grapple with th3 fact that the idolised father character was at fault#or well. not on purpose which is it's own point. harm doesn't have to be on purpose. but he was the one who did it (and kind of#irresponsibly in my opinion at least)
@myboyrozanovv oh no, don't get me started on this, because it is actually! One of my favourite bits in the first book and a perfect illustration of what I mean!
Mo tells the story of how he read Basta, Capricorn, and Staubfinger out of the book, and I think the narrative is actually pretty emphatic that it's not really his fault. He did not do it on purpose, obviously, and he did not know this was an option. He stoops reading out loud , because he never wants it to happen again. He's absolved here, and rightfully so, imo.
What is interesting is what comes after. The narrative kind of glosses over it because we are in Meggie's POV and she's 12 and idolizes her father, but Mo - just isn't the good guy here.
What happens: Staubfinger comes back to him after days in terrible shape. Clearly lost, homeless, starving, with no idea how to survive in this hostile world.
And Mo sends him away. This guy who obviously needs help and Mo is the only one who could provide that, and he doesn't. He kicks him out. He keeps moving, even, so Staubfinger won't find him.
The craziest part is that Staubfinger doesn't even hate him for that! He doesn't even think he's wronged here, he kind of just seems to expect this sort of treatment from the world. This detail isn't included to make Mo unsympathetic (but it is foreshadowing his later character development). It's not dwelled on, but it's still there, when it didn't have to be.
That's so juicy.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
(Sorry thinking about Inkheart again)
the thing about Staubfinger, that makes him so goddamn compelling, is that he's clearly the author's favourite, and the author happens to be someone who expresses her love for fictional characters through relentless torture.
the fascinating thing for me is no the kind of character Staubfinger is - a fairly typical antagonistic figure, at least in the beginning - but the way in which he is looked at. Because this kind of character (untrustworthy but charismatic, a social outcast, kind of queercoded, if we're being honest) is so often presented with the implicit assumption that the audience's biases will do the heavy lifting in painting him as antagonistic. His pain, as it is, is usually punitive. No less than he deserves, for his treachery, his otherness.
Staubfinger, on the other hand, deserves none of it. There is no point to his pain. It is not something to be cheered at, but neither is it self-aggrandizing; neither is it something he stoically endures to showcase his fortitude. It's just pain, and it's horrible; and the audience is not allowed to look away from it, either. We are invited, forced to look at all of it and sympathize. To find catharsis in it. That's the appeal of whump for me, not the sadistic pleasure of seeing someone hurt, but to see the character be pushed past the breaking point, past everything he can endure, and endure it anyway. Suffering that is not noble, but human.
Truly the kind of writing you can only get from an author who intimately understands the horror and evilness of violence but is also unapologetic about loving nothing more than making the pretty man cry.
(Sorry thinking about Inkheart again)
the thing about Staubfinger, that makes him so goddamn compelling, is that he's clearly the author's favourite, and the author happens to be someone who expresses her love for fictional characters through relentless torture.
