yelllloww

😭 weepyjim2 <- me if i was in schmiserable world

💨🧹sweepyjim2 <- me if i was household cleaning tool world

🚗jeepyjim2 <- me if i was in cars world

Tumblr post from jesncin reading: my high school english teacher would often critique our literature analysis work by pointing out: "you're treating these characters like they're real people. They're not. They're characters." And it took me a long time to understand what he meant by that. Because I always thought "isn't that the point? That writers want to write characters to be so three dimensional that they act and feel like real people?" but that's not it.

Characters are tools a writer uses in service of a story. Of course characters can be written with depth to the point the feel real to us, but they exist in service of their narrative. Something real people aren't beholden to at all. When discussing characters, I think it's easy to accidentally see these characters as "real people" and not extensions of the author's beliefs. Tools for a narrative. Means of storytelling.

Quote tweet from Inkfy (@/ inkfyCreates) reading: People have developed unhealthy attachments to fictional characters. "A character can't be a narrative tool, they make you Feel things so therefore they are Real to me" is a major problem for literature nowadays. People can't engage with what's actually being showcased.

Image #2: Tweet and reply from rea (bubbles emoji) (@/ lyfjiaberg) reading: Half the reason why we cannot get genuine readings of characters anymore is because people project too heavily on them and treat them as extensions of themselves so when the character is criticized it feels like a personal attack on their own personhood