nothing changes

I am begging the UK trans community and its allies to attend the Mass Lobby at Parliament on June 25th, 11am-4pm, organised by Trans Solidarity Alliance.

The new EHRC Code of Practice pushes trans people out of toilets, hospital wards, and community spaces. It normalises gender policing based on appearance and stereotypes. It becomes statutory guidance in the UK by the end of June.

Trans people are now legally their assigned gender at birth and must join gendered spaces accordingly, but if they are perceived as their lived gender, they can also be ejected from those spaces. The guidance says: either break the law, or don’t pass too well.

A mass lobby is where you invite your MP to discuss your concerns with you in-person. Ask your MP to:

Demand full parliamentary scrutiny, debate, and use their free vote on the EHRC Code of Practice.

Support any motions rejecting the EHRC guidance. As of June 4th, Labour MP Nadia Whittome has submitted a prayer motion - Early Day Motion 240.

Write to Bridget Phillipson, the Minister for Women and Equalities about our concerns

Your MP does not have to be an ally, they do not have to respond to your email for you to show up and greencard them (details below the cut.) What matters is that as many people as possible show up.

I cannot stress this enough: Showing up in person matters. It is much more effective than petitions, emails, and letters.

It is a horrible, stressful time, and I am so sorry if you're trans and live in the UK. But I was at last year's mass lobby and the line for greencarding alone stretched around the back gates. It was a record breaking mass lobby and made us impossible to ignore. Let's do even better this time. Details under the cut:

wait. obsessed with this 19th century gay freak

But yeah like to be more constructive than just going "lol tumblr prose bad", really the issue in Large part that characterizes "tumblr prose" (which to be clear I don't think is a discrete thing and at most is a combination of several writing tendencies influenced by the medium of Online) comes down to the lack of real contrast in Any aspect of narrative construction, and an obsession with being quotable and constantly being at 100% of Going Hard (which go hand in hand).

In that post, the character voice is indistinct from that of the narration, and the characters quote one-liners that look Meaningful as excerpts and are borderline nonsensical as dialogue. There is no more than the faintest, most generic hints of characterization; these people exist as vague concepts to say deep words for the reader. The sentence length has little variation from its staccato beat, and so it is awkward to read and fails to complement the action or accomplish anything with the pacing (save for the slight slowdown when the torturer feels all that damp animal electricity). The timing is awkward and exaggeratedly dramatic. The description is a flowery kind of tryhard visceral and seems avoidant of describing anything too directly ("something dark and arterial" where there's nothing being accomplished by conveying uncertainty about what is currently gushing out of the injured character and the simple use of "blood splashed across the stones" would actually be 10x more effective), in a way that does disservice to what is supposed to be a torture scene, and leaves it weightless and ungrounded. In fairness to the people saying "this is good", that is MUCH easier to say when reading this fake excerpt as the standalone piece it actually is, but this kind of writing Cannot function in an actual narrative and is not what an excerpt from well constructed narrative fiction is going to look like basically ever.

It reflects a lot of very typical amateur writing issues that just about everyone has to grow out of (the minimal diversity in sentence length, simulated non-attention to scene pacing and timing), and issues common to fanfiction-influenced writing on social media (allergy to paragraph lengths of more than two sentences, little to no description of the characters or setting because, in fanfiction, the reader already knows their physical characteristics and mannerisms and it doesn't need to be lingered upon, Unlike In Original Fiction). But this particularly hits on an issue I think is semi-unique to narrative writing in the social media milieu, which is a focus on being quotable. This may not even be a conscious impulse at all But It's There. This kinda apparent terror of any moment not being as beautiful and hard hitting as possible (or for comedy, any moment not being A Joke). Everything "Goes Hard", so nothing actually does. A lot of "tumblr prose" type writing is less a narrative, more a string of quotes loosely assembled into narrative that vaguely gestures at things like Plot and Character. It substitutes depth for Suggestions of depth by utilizing stock symbolism without building it into the narrative, and by gesturing at weighty contexts without actually engaging with them. There can be little contrast or effective use of tone, pace, description when your story is a series of Hard Hitting Quotes.

I'm reading Watership Down right now and I think it's a great novel overall and can work as an example of how important it is to utilize contrast in your writing.

This segment is the lengthy first description of the titular down, which the rabbits are now encountering for the first time:

Adams is slowing the pace here to introduce us to the setting of the next segment of the book. The average sentence length is very long and keeps us lingering in the sensory detail, while still varied and thus smoothly readable. This new place is introduced by simultaneously conveying its physical description in vivid detail and conveying its feeling and character, and getting the most out of every described feature to do so. The thorn trees are "wind stunted". The air is "scented". The language takes on a very flowery character and heavily utilizes simile and metaphor. Woodland is "tumultuous with evening", sunlight filters through grass "like a wind" to the small creatures below, in contrast to laying "like a gold rind" on the hill when seen from a distance. This grandiose description is heavily functional and conveys both exhaustive physical detail and a feeling that this place is beautiful, awe inspiring to something like a rabbit, and full of life, though not without quiet hints of danger. It hits because Not Everything In The Book Is Described This Way. It means something that we're lingering like this and stopping to get a sense of this place on every possible level, and moving away from more direct, simple prose to convey the feeling of the place in depth.

This segment describes the rabbit Bigwig being found caught in a snare:

The prose here here has the opposite approach of the first excerpt. The language is concise, direct, and brutal. It only veers slightly away from the literal to describe Bigwig's voice as 'bubbling out' from his mouth, both conveying that the saliva and blood in his mouth is literally bubbling as he speaks, and implying the unsettling way his voice sounds as he's being strangled. The sentences are much shorter on the whole, as fit for the pacing of a tense and rapidly changing scene, and the timing closely complements the action - "There was a pause" not only conveys That There Was A Pause but interrupts the rhythm of this segment; the moment of uneasy stillness is echoed in the act of reading itself.

I think there's something to be said about diversity of reading/writing. I think it's probably good for someone who enjoys writing to read a lot of different things, even things they don't like, things that challenge them. I also understand a... potential frustration? of reading the same kind of thing over and over, especially if you simply don't like it.

You’ll notice that I never objected to the actual content of the story or individual word choices unless I had a technical criticism surrounding it (outside of the one little jab at ‘wet animal electricity’), because that’s taste and that’s subjective (I do believe expression of taste has a place in criticism, but not when you're trying to talk about technique) but rather focused on the constructive elements that make for poor narrative writing. I attempted to synthesize multiple construction trends under the title of ‘quotability’ and ‘going hard’ and explained my reasoning for doing so. Arguments of disgust refers to people defining their beliefs along the lines of gut emotional impulses and treating feelings of revulsion like intuition and not simply feelings - "I feel uncomfortable when I see someone wearing a bondage harness in public, so this must be sexual harassment", "I love dogs and could never imagine eating their meat, people who do it must be monsters". Making an argument for technical deficiency in narrative writing is no more an argument of disgust/"cringe" than saying that a chair that falls apart when you sit on it is a poorly constructed chair. I don't even think making a taste-informed argument is necessarily "argument of cringe" unless you're claiming the book is Technically or ideologically bad just because you dislike it, without making an argument for its technical issues or message.

Say if someone just had a block of clay and said “I’m going to have fun and just make whatever I feel like” and they make a sculpture of a bird and share it, of course it would be cruel and elitist to sneer that their results don’t look like those of a master sculptor. That’s not the point of the exercise, the point is to have fun and make art. There’s no skill barrier for that, no right or wrong way to do things. But if someone sets out saying “I’m going to make a pottery vessel which is symmetrical, is smooth and solid, holds fluid, and is safe to eat and drink from, and then sell it for that purpose” there’s tried and true techniques and materials and PRACTICE required to accomplish this goal. There are literal millennia that have gone into forming standard techniques for this process. If that person disregards all this to do whatever the hell they want and then presents a cracked uneven lump in the vague form of a cup for sale, they did not accomplish their stated goal, and it would be very appropriate to identify the errors in their process and give them suggestions for improvement. It is ‘bad pottery’ by the standards set for it. When writing a narrative, you’re engaging with something much more fluid but ultimately similar, there are standards within your chosen literary tradition, and they can be met or failed.

Of course this isn't a perfect analogy since writing doesn’t have objective yes or no answers to its quality like a functional physical object does. Like you were describing, narrative writing is probably the most subjective form of storytelling there is, everything within the story exists only as words on a page and how they are interpreted in the reader's head. Every story exists only in interaction with the reader, as non-visual non-audio non-tactile media its experience is deeply subjective. It is impossible to make criticisms of the cumulative piece of literature that are entirely objective. But that doesn’t mean there is no way of measuring and arguing for the quality and effectiveness of writing within a specific craft, and there Are much more closer to objective ways to measure an author’s use of basic techniques like word choice, contrast, pacing, timing, etc, and to make very strong arguments for how they utilize tone, characterization, symbolism, and theme.

One of my all time favorite movies is Troll 2, it’s in my top 20 on the exact same list as some movies acclaimed as seminal masterpieces by industry defining directors like Tarkovsky and Kurasawa. Troll 2 is a terrible film and is an absolute DELIGHT to watch, if the same basic thing was made competently Troll 2 would be nothing, and there is nothing ‘ironic’ to my enjoyment. A favorite is a favorite. But just because I adore it enough to put it on the same list as Stalker doesn’t mean that the entire study of film and its techniques is rendered irrelevant, and that there are no ways to qualitatively define and argue for what makes Stalker regarded as a masterpiece and Troll 2 regarded one of the worst movies ever made. Which is, I think, a film equivalent of what is suggested when people become defensive over criticism of technically poor narrative writing and fall back on "taste is subjective and it's not hurting anyone who cares have fun".

You can write whatever makes you happy. You can enjoy amateur writing that fails at its intended purpose, and you can be bored out of your mind with literature that is widely considered a masterpiece. All writing has value as creative expression, and I believe it’s important to find a happy medium where we can both have literary criticism and not make people afraid to express themselves and write for fun just because it’s not technically proficient. But I believe the common response that boils down to 'stop being judgmental let people have fun’ when people discuss improvement of craft within a storytelling convention is an anti-intellectual impulse. It’s at least subconsciously expressing that anyone who tries to apply theory and academic rigor to an artform is a snobbish elite, there’s really just nothing to the theory behind narrative writing, anyone can REALLY do anything the snobbish elite can and it’s Good and beyond criticism because it’s art and not hurting anyone and someone might enjoy it. It devalues the artform by defending it with suggestions that it can't and shouldn't be expected to be held up to any standards.