Unavoidably detained by the world...

Came across this art installation, Liza Lou's Kitchen, at the Whitney Museum of American Art, NYC. It's a kitchen made of tiny glass beads, that artist Liza Lou did, taking 5 yrs. to complete, from 1991 - 1996.

My favorite part is the sink.

Ok, it's taken me SIX YEARS to make this. But I did it! It's done! Please watch it!

(No AI used fuck AI)

It's my first animation project, which is why it took so long. I had to learn to animate to make it. It's only a bit over 2 minutes, but I made it the best I possibly could. Please please please watch it. I am so proud of it.

It's a trailer for my first novel- a late YA scifi/superhero book.

Is it absurd to make a fully animated book "trailer" for a book that's been out for 6 years, with voice acting and commissioned music (by the fantastic @plottwiststudios) ? I mean yes. Of course. I'm not even doing this for real marketing purposes because this is a ridiculous thing to do. I don't even really think it'll sell books but the process of making it made me really really happy.

I love my fictional disaster queers, and I love my book, and when I was a kid I thought I'd grow up to be an animator. I've always loved animation, and I really, really enjoyed making something animated myself. I'm really proud of how it turned out.

Please watch it. Please share it.

If it does make you actually want to read the story, you can get it as an ebook, paperback, or audiobook. (the ebook is currently free)

I start my next animation project- a fake anime opening credits for book 3 in this series, starting next month.

psst,,, earth au Simon and Grace stargazing?

I was like "yes! A quick sketch! Well, you know. A little color...the blanket needs some details....well, the stars, of course. Of course!"

And have a close up for funsies

Then maybe...

Maybe...

Short

Sesquipedalian

Fifteen-lettered

Conceptual

Blue

Business-related

Inanimate

Misspeled

I’ve never in my life seen or been taught sentence structure like this. It seems incredibly interesting, though. Do any of my followers know anything about this or were taught this?

(Source: satrayreads on threads)

First, I do genuinely think it's a useful skill, for English language learning specifically (can't speak to other languages), given our rules are kinda...wibbly? A lot of my students, both native speakers and ESL kids, make the same common mistakes (like mistaking a verb in a clause for the main predicate, or the direct object for the subject, or writing a phrase as a complete sentence) and having them slow down and diagram stuff like this really helps. This is super useful when they move into more complex sentence structures and unorthodox ordering. "Will looked at the snow over the balcony." and "Over the balcony, Will looked at the snow." share an identical diagram. Where is Will looking? Over the balcony. Just because 'the balcony' is the first noun in the sentence does not make it the subject. You'd be surprised how much of a shocker this is to some kids.

Second, sorry if defining all the terms seems a bit pedantic, I figured if you're anything like me you dumbed this knowledge straight out of highschool, if you had it at all.

ok so, the most basic english sentence diagram is literally just this:

We call this a Sentence Skeleton and it is the minimum requirement for a complete sentence. ...Ok technically what you actually need is the Subject (main noun) and the Predicate (main verb phrase), there are often more non-subject nouns and non-subject predicate verbs, but it's just simpler to start this way. All complete sentences have complete sentence skeletons, no matter how complicated or simple, but if one of these two is missing, something's gone wrong. "Sue left." is a complete sentence, and the correct skeleton for this example. "Left school" is not a complete sentence either (the noun there is not the subject noun, 'school left' is not the sentence we're writing). "Sue had forgotten (her latin book)" is ALSO not the correct skeleton, despite having both a subject noun and a verb phrase, because 'had forgotten' is not the subject predicate.

what about all the other stuff??

right ok. the easiest way to tell where everything else goes in a diagram is just to ask how those words relate to the sentence skeleton. Lets take our full example:

Sue left school early because she felt sick, but her mother brought her back because she had forgotten her latin book.

Yikes ok! Here's a chart, and I'll explain why things go where.

A noun being acted upon by a verb is called a Direct Object. They go on the same straight line as the main sentence skeleton, and are placed after the verb. Where did Sue leave? Sue left School. (Indirect objects gooooo Elsewhere! Under the verb! we don't have one here)

Is 'school' early? No, she left early. Early, an Adverb is describing the verb (as adverbs do) so it goes on a diagonal line below the verb it is associated with. Adjectives, the ones that describe nouns, are diagrammed in the exact same way, just under their appropriate noun word instead. Articles like 'the' are diagrammed basically identical to adjectives.

Because! Oh joy, a clause. Now we can really get into it. So, this is now what we call a Complex Sentence because we have both a main, Independent Clause (sue left (early) school) and what we call a Subordinate Clause. Subordinate Clauses can not act as full sentences on their own. "She felt sick"? Full sentence, independent clause. "Because she felt sick"? NOT a full sentence. If it has one of them clause words in front of it, it's a Subordinate Clause, so it gets stuck under the main sentence line. Now, "Because" is a little funky, it's what we call a Subordinate Conjunction, meaning it's a lil like a conjunction where we're connecting two complete independent clauses, but instead of making them equal, it makes the connected sentence a subordinate clause. This is a little different from the more common under-the-sentence phrase work I'd usually start students with which involves the more flexible prepositions, which connect phrases which do NOT have to be full Independent Clauses. (in the sentence "Sue, who ate lunch, left school." "ate lunch" is not an Independent Clause because, would you look at that, we can't complete a sentence skeleton! It only has a verb and the Direct Object. "Who" is a preposition attached to 'Sue,' so it would go under her on a solid line. ok. ANYWAY) Subordinate Conjunctions = dotted diagonal line. Prepositions = solid diagonal line (because they are not full skeletons on their own). And then those lines go right down to whatever phrase they've got which is diagrammed accordingly. They've done a disservice by connecting these dotted lines to the middle of the phrases all sloppy like but here's a cleaner version

Subordinate Clauses and Phrases are connected to the main sentence structure under whatever word they're attached to just like our adjectives/adverbs. (In fact, if you noticed Prepositional phrases are diagrammed similar to adjectives/adverbs, you're correct! they're both expanding on a word or phrase in the main clause, just, one is a full phrase and the other is a word. 'John, who is green, writes books.' and 'Green John writes books' tells us the same extra thing about John (he's green), so that information is diagrammed in the same place (under John with a solid line). one just has some extra steps if that makes sense. And it's worth pointing out that if "Green John" was a proper noun both words would go up in the Subject spot. In this case it's being used as an adjective tho. I'm digressing again.)

ok alright. Because she felt si- what is THAT.

alright don't freak out. Sometimes the noun connected to the skeleton after the verb is NOT a Direct Object. What??? Yeah I know. Backslashes are for Predicate Adjectives which is panic inducing till you realize they're literally what they say on the tin: an adjective. In the Predicate. Wow. A Direct Object is something that is being acted upon by a transitive verb, a verb that is doing something. Sue left (transitive), so the place she left, 'school,' is a noun that is not describing Sue or her leaving (crucial). Certain verbs, called Linking Verbs, do not have Direct Objects and instead link (aha) the adjective, as a part of the Predicate clause, back to the subject. We use a backslash to indicate that, instead of having a DO and being a Separate Thing, our Predicate Adjective is reaching over the verb and back towards the subject.

BUT!!! A proper Conjunction??? From the Junction??? Wow a celebrity! Ok, did a little research and apparently the under-the-first-clause diagramming is an accepted strategy nowadays, but when I was a tyke, the idea was a conjunction combines two complete, equal sentences. This makes the sentence a Compound Sentence (there's two (or more) of them!) and they were diagrammed as such.

So the rest of this is pretty self explanatory. This is a Compound Complex Sentence, with two complete sentences and one 'because' subclause each. Note the 'had forgotten' is the full predicate of that last phrase, helper verbs get to sit pretty with their main partners, so they're in the same spot. Also note, despite being connected in front of the first 'because' phrase, I know the original sentence was 'Sue left school early because she felt sick, but her mother brought her back because she had forgotten her Latin book" and not, perhaps "Sue left school early, but her mother brought her back because she had forgotten her Latin book because she felt sick." because... 1 girl ur successive becauses. obviously. and more importantly 2!! that first because clause is attached to the First Sentence, not the second one. Attaching it to the second full sentence changes the meaning (she forgot her book because she was sick, now. that was not implied before even if it's a reasonable assumption!) and it would, obviously, be diagrammed differently. (this kind of split between the two complete sentences would be easier to see if the 'but' and second sentence was diagrammed out straight to the right, the way I was taught, but oh well.)

ok one more thing. I do want to say this diagram misses my absolute favorite bit of diagramming which is conjunctions between subjects or predicates.

So sometimes we combine two sentences and we notice we can be more efficient about it. Lets say. Sam hunted. and Dean hunted. It is grammatically correct to say "Sam hunted and Dean hunted." (two independent clauses combined by a conjunction) buuuut that's a little clunky. They're both hunting! So we say ok fine. We can say "Sam and Dean hunted." wooooah! neat! But how does that work on the diagram? do we have to separate it out again? NO. We get a ✨SPACESHIP✨

^ thing that actually made me do my english exercises when i was 10 (explosions and astronaut doodles not included)

And you can have as many lines in the space ship, or as many space ships, as you need. "Sam, Dean, and Cas hunted." (spaceship gets three lines) "Sam, Dean, and Cas hunted and ate pie." (spaceship has three lines and connects to ANOTHER SPACESHIP which has two predicates) so on and so forth. Any phrases connected to particular subject would be diagrammed under the subject. "Sam and his older brother Dean hunted." 'his older brother' would all be diagrammed as appropriate under Dean's line specifically, they are not describing Sam!

Listen all I'm saying is, all those posts about English grammar being bs? Wouldn't you like a map?

if you've ever watched a movie with your film buff friend and chatted about it afterwards, that friend might have pulled hours more of conversation out of the same 90 minutes of screentime, and wondered how the fuck they did that - it's not raw intelligence, it's a skill that's been honed. And I learned a lot about film from talking to friends who knew about film, and reading critique by film scholars

literature works exactly the same. so if you want to get more out of your reading, there are things you can do to train that. Find a book or short story you think you've got a pretty good grasp on, preferably from a widely read & respected author like Ursula K Le Guin or Ray Bradbury (if you're new at this don't swing for the Toni Morrison or the Samuel Beckett yet unless you feel very comfortable with the complexity of the text - the point is to develop a complicated new skill on good foundations). Then go to JSTOR, create a free account, and look up criticism on the story you've chosen. Find something that looks readable to you and at least somewhat interesting. Read that article, and look at what that writer got out of the same story you've read that you didn't get. Do you see the critic's points? Did they teach you something about the text? Go reread that story and see if the criticism has changed how you read it. Are you seeing more? Are you thinking about the implications of a line that you hadn't noticed before? Does the story feel richer now?

you don't have to read more deeply if you don't want to (but i'd recommend it, i genuinely think it makes you a better person)

if you want to learn to read more deeply, the resources are out there. try to find critical literature (that is, academic writing that analyzes the text) on works your familiar with so you can get a sense for how to do that analysis too

learning to deep read literature can help you deep read many areas of your life

When an English teacher, or reader, taught or picked up 1984, it wasn’t with the intention they were going to love the protagonist. They picked it up with the intention of reading a whole story and trying to grasp the theme or catharsis from the story. If the protagonist was a *shitty* person it played into the the themes or the story, because it wasn’t about morally judging the book or *liking* or feeling attachment to the protagonist. Sometimes and often times, books were just about gaining another perspective. 

No one read Lolita expecting to endear, or like, or be inspired by Humbert. You are supposed to be upset by his behavior, you don’t read Lolita with the intention of being inspired. You read it to learn more about what the fuck is going on inside someone’s head when they behave like that. How children get sucked into abusive situations. Or read “The Great Gatsby” not because they want to fall in love with Gatsby or Nick, but to better understand and analyze the experience of the 1920s or destitution of the American Dream. 

A lot of internet and fandom culture has changed that though. When we say something like “I love the Great Gatsby” it comes with the idea or association that means you must *love* or relate to one of the characters. And maybe you do, but the first assumption is not longer about the quality of the work or themes, or cathartic impact-it’s about character admiration. And with that character admiration, in tumblr stan culture, or kin culture, or exalting characters with fanart/romance/so on you don’t just ‘admire’ or find that character ‘compelling’ it now translates to ‘you LOVE that character’ or you ‘DIRECTLY relate to that character.’ 

You can’t say “I love how Humbert is written, it’s so fascinating and dark”, without it directly translating you somehow relate to a child abuser or condone his actions. Taking in media has become an act of worship and connection. We no longer watch meant to just see the story as a whole, we watch expecting to connect to a character and if we offer them our “worship” as it’s become, as opposed to just attention or interest study as it traditionally was, it means we are condoning the character or saying we directly empathize with all their actions. 

I think that’s why there is often now so much fuss over *toxic* characters or not. Or whether that classical novel is showing good or bad things anymore. We’re treating the characters as people we should love or want to draw or write about. Sometimes a story is just about getting the the theme or catharsis or learning another perspective. We don’t NEED to like the character. Or we don’t HAVE to like a character to be impressed by how they’re written or intrigued by their behavior. 

To 2025:

Hell, they even cover the devastating heaviness of MASS SHOOTINGS without censoring or watering anything down.

They've been doing this for YEARS, and it's ALWAYS handled with dignity, respect, seriousness, understanding, and love.

Or how about when someone is put into the foster care system because their home isn't safe anymore and their needs aren't being met?

Maybe some discussions about group therapy/getting help and support?

Hey look! Here's a segment about gender expression vs taught expectation, including unlearning harmful biases and what to do when you hurt someone on accident because you didn't know it was wrong!

Look! The topic of race and diversity! The importance of unity and equity!

They even also have a more allegorical take on discrimination and being looked down on for who you are, featuring Big Bird. The conflict is about how he's not being let into a club because the one bird running the club personally decided he didn't want someone like Big Bird there.

Big Bird goes out of his way to keep changing parts of himself in order to "prove" he can fit into this club if he just changed enough. The truth comes out though, and there's nothing he can do to gain the approval of that bird. He will never be good enough in his eyes, and Big Bird starts to hate himself. His real friends see this finally put their feet down, emphasizing that you should never change yourself just to fit into one singular narrow idea someone else has.

There's A LOT of different situations this can be an allegory for. Racism, sexism, homophobia, basically ANY form of exclusion is put on full blast in this 15 minute clip. Sesame Street can be both blunt and allegorical when approaching difficult topics, and it NEVER misses or looses the point.

It does an exceptional job in both styles of representation WITHOUT watering anything down. The more sanitized everything gets, the more radical Sesame Street is suddenly considered, hence why so many "particular groups" want it gone. Hmmm! I can only imagine why that could be, in this current political climate! (I'm being sarcastic)

When Sesame Street is suddenly labeled as "questionable" or "politically/agenda motivated" content...it says A LOT about where we currently are and who gets to decide what's "best" for kids or not. Don't fall for the censorship and topic-dodging excuses that are covered by the "But think of the children!!!" movement. Never fall for it, because you know which side you're on if you do.

Sesame Street proves kids can be taught and trusted with learning about these topics when it's handled with the right amount of understanding and care. It shows what all this "controversy" is all really about. What it's always been about, actually.

Monoculturalism is nothing but a bad attempt at a racist dogwhistle, but to defend accusations of being a racist dogwhistle requires you to say outright you embrace multiculturalism. The entire concept is self-defeating bullshit that only racist idiots fall for.

Let's be honest. This is not a real debate. This is a deliberate attempt to muddle the meaning of the word multiculturalism so it can become a loaded and divisive political term. It's like when the right appropriated "woke" which had a clear definition before being turned into a meaningless culture war catchall. This is not policy. This is racism and division and it's just luck that Hanson’s desperate throwing spaghetti at the wall style of making shit up has finally got something to stick.

"People back then always married young it's natural!!!" Every single 1800s guide I've ever met casually mentions that, of course, you really shouldn't get married before you're at least 20, and waiting until 25 is usually better.

Or, like. Okay here's a long segment:

Just firmly going "it is crazy sexist to blame The Wife for overspending when thirty seconds of asking questions will immediately establish that her husband was outright lying to her about how much money they had. Talk to your wife like a normal person."

Or--okay, here. A section on being honest and not writing love letters in secret, because that's usually a good sign that there's something untoward going on....

....except that he then immediately acknowledges that sometimes, the reason you're hiding this from your parents is that your parents suck. That there are parents who frankly have not earned the right to approve or disapprove of your partner.

"Men and women being friends with each other is literally normal. Don't be a controlling freak."

"If you have to abuse a child to keep order in your classroom then you're a bad teacher."