I see a lot of posts and guides to help artists take critiques on their work “gracefully,” but honestly, there is a huge need to address the other side as well. The constant pressure to force artists to take feedback comes from a harmful culture that takes artists for granted, as if their work exists solely to please others or be industry-ready (aka to make money). Some people just want to be creative! Art doesn’t have to be “realistic” or “technically good” or anything like that; it can be a hobby and not seeking improvement.
Break out of the mindset that you have to correct an artist and remember that you are ultimately trying to help someone, not discouragethem.
So here is a guide to help all you potential art critics out there:
Ask for permission! Do they even want critique? Critique isn’t always warranted, some artists are just drawing for fun! Even if you visibly see someone struggling with something, always ask first! “Are you looking for feedback on this piece?” “Did you want any help/critique?” If the answer is no, back off. I don’t care if the knees are going backwards, leave it alone dude!
What do they want help with? If they respond positively to wanting critique, ask what they’re struggling with, what they need a second eye on. This will make the process easier and more positive for both parties, since you’re making it obvious you are here to help THEM. They may not always know what they need help with, if that’s the case, go onto step 3.
“Can I suggest something (else)?” If you finish addressing their request or they don’t know what they need, again, ASK if you can comment on something else. This might have been what you wanted to point out since the beginning, but it’s rude to jump in with it when no one asked you.
Offer resources and examples! Don’t just say “this looks weird, fix it.” No one likes that. Help them find tutorials, websites, books, examples of what you mean. Make your own example, draw over a copy of their work. People can’t read minds, so communicate directly by showing them what you mean.
Admit when you don’t know something. A lot of art is subjective and about un-quantifiable gut feelings, and that’s part of the beauty. Let things be vauge sometimes! It’s not wrong to give an emotionally-driven critique, but you have to admit it. Confess when you don’t know, simple things like “It still looks weird to me, but I can’t place it” or “It just feels off to me” are good indications to help both you and the artist identify your critique as emotionally-founded. This can help you both decrease the sense of urgency and let the odd feeling sit for a while until you figure it out. It also keeps you, as the art critic, humble.
Art is a manifestation of creativity, it’s subjective, it doesn’t exist for supply-and-demand. So remember, giving feedback and critique is an act of helping someone, not proving a point or humiliating them.
Critiquing another person’s work isn’t as easy as it sounds. To write a critique that’s not only thorough but useful, you need to include (and avoid) quite a few things.
Tell them what doesn’t work. This might be the most obvious part of critique, something that everyone knows to do. However, it’s not enough to say, “I don’t like this” or “This is bad.” The thing about critiques is that they’re constructive, which means providing the author with a reason for why you don’t like something. If they don’t know why you think something sounds weird or doesn’t make sense, then they’re not going to know what to fix, and they won’t be able to learn. It’ll come off as simple hate, since it doesn’t offer anything for the author to work with. So always be sure to give specific reasoning.
Tell them what does. A lot of people seem to believe that writing a critique means only pointing out what’s wrong, but they ignore what’s done right. It’s just as important for the author to know what they do well as what they don’t. When you put emphasis on the good, you’re not only showing the author encouragement, but you’re also allowing them a chance to focus on and strengthen what they’re already good at. Again, avoid being vague here. It’s specifics that are going to be the most useful.
Don’t rewrite the story for them. This is not your story; it’s theirs. Unless they specifically ask for ideas or help with a section or plot idea, do not tell them what they “should” do. That’s for them to decide and discover themselves, and it can seem invasive when you try to make huge changes to their work. Showing them how to rewrite a sentence to make it flow better is fine, but telling them how to rewrite their villain is not.
Don’t focus on line-editing. When you’re critiquing something, chances are this isn’t a final draft. Therefore, line-edits don’t really matter and just take up both of your time. While they’ll certainly require line-editing at some point, it’s most likely not now. It might be worth mentioning a recurring grammatical error, but otherwise, you should probably lay off.
Yes! I got some feedback from “Apples” on the pose. I knew the leg felt off but I couldn’t figure out why. If I make it into a print I’ll be sure to fix it.
I was hoping if maybe you could critique this please? This is my first sigil that I plan to use and not made bc I was bored, so I want to make sure this is alright or if there was anything I could do to fix it. If you wouldn’t mind please.
Hiya! Mod Finley here! I’d just change the wording from “I WILL be qualified” to “I AM qualified”
This makes it so the sigil knows you want results RIGHT NOW not sometime in the distant future like “will” possibly indicates. Otherwise, it looks good! If any mods or followers have any input, please add on!
I’m passionate about cartoons, especially adult animation, so I decided to examine another cartoon trope.
Unlike the previous post, I don’t think the problems of this trope solely belong to the fans. The problem I have with Rick and Morty, BoJack Horseman, and Mad Men was with the fans, I thought the writing and characters was sophisticated and had an important and subversive message. Not so with the three above.
To be clear: it’s okay to enjoy these shows. I enjoy these shows and still watch them all the time. Family Guy least of all, but that’s because of how much it’s declined in quality, not because it’s offensive to me.
That being said, the trope we’re examining is the careless, selfish, bumbling patriarch. This usually comes along with the attractive, nagging, neglected, wife character.
The three characters listed above, Peter Griffin, Homer Simpson, and Stan Smith are all examples of this. The Simpsons is one of the first animated tv shows to use this trope, and Family Guy was largely based on the model of the Simpsons. American Dad, another similar Seth MacFarlane show came shortly after.
The problem with this trope is it does a massive disservice to both women and men.
The male characters in all three shows are consistently portrayed as being incapable of doing basic things like simple household tasks, they’re also stupid and reckless, unless the plot demands otherwise. The nagging wife is usually portrayed as smarter, although Francine Smith alternates between being smarter than Stan and so stupid she’s almost comatose as the plot dictates.
The problem with this is it persists in the idea that men need to be taken care of by women, that men go out and have adventures and work and do crazy things and in most episodes the women mind the home and clean up after their husband’s antics.
Granted part of this is a commentary on the problems with the nuclear family, but unlike many other subversive animated shows, the themes are not central to the story telling in a way that makes the message clear. The only character that significantly grows and changes for the better of these three is Stan. From season one to present he’s changed significantly and become less openly selfish and reckless than Peter or Homer.
If you watch season one of family guy or the Simpsons, you find a much more understated version of the character than in current episodes, they’ve gotten worse over time, likely because the writers have gotten bored, and because to keep the shock value going, the characters have to be more and more outlandish. Although don’t get me wrong, Stan constantly does appalling things.
The characters are also more believably connected to their families earlier on, as the shows progress, both Peter and Homer treat their wives and children worse and worse, but are still portrayed as lovable. At the end of every episode, all is forgiven, and the following week the abuse continues.
In family guy especially, in some episodes there’s straight up domestic violence from one party or the other, and the emotional abuse Peter directs towards Lois makes it clear it’s a show that hates its characters. Something similar happens in later episodes of the Simpsons.
In the current season Marge and Homer’s marriage is more in shambles than ever before and yet it drags on. They even tease us with divorce and rather than follow through, similar to the plot for Brian’s death in family guy, it was a bait and switch to make us think the show would change, significantly, permanently, only for them to go back on it so they can keep their tired formula as it is. And it gives us the same message about the characters. People can’t change.
This doesn’t work well with the formula of ending each episode on lovable buffoon learning a lesson, because the forgiveness at the end of the episode feels increasingly hollow, and the lesson learned, immediately forgotten.
While for some, these are “just” TV shows that shouldn’t be analyzed too closely, I personally think it’s important to be critical of the things we like and the media we consume.
video starts he is bored, by his tone, with the song, cant be bothered to pronounce wap correctly, dismissive but has some insight..ok
he is more interested in what the media is saying about the song so he is being a gossip instead of an art critic off the bat but maybe he’d say social critic weak cop out with him reading the guardians definition of the video instead of what cardi and meg say or even give his own summary of the song
also side note i heard the song and thought it was average and video was boring it also is weird to me we are stuck on the hamster wheel of female sexuality in rap at least like didnt lil kim foxy brown trina nicki minaj my neck my back my pussy and my crack already put a period on these convos
when he says that cardi and meg are aspiring to the patriarchies values which completely duhumanizes them and takes their agency away, like they just actually enjoy their wet ass pussies and its a human value not a systematic inoculated value. so stfu
there is no replicating values from males its just females getting to be female and it has nothing to do with hierarchy or patriarchy…which is revolutionary
then she starts going on about TRADITIONAL VALUES so dumb , defining what men and women are generally but ignoring you cant apply averages to individuals and thats even ignoring the fact that bravery is considered male in his diatribe…
then calling margaret thatcher a woman man and saying she expels male values like wtf do you hate yourself that much and see women and people who arent white as innocent pure sinless waifs….part of humanity is our potential for evil and dismissing that to sexism or racism is an insult on top of the pity
conventional female values— gagging
maybe he didnt mean these things but talked about them from societies perspective but he still seems to be talking from that side—- there is nothing wrong with objectification he is a complete lunatic - you can objectify all day and still see humanity beyond the objectification - its fun to be objectified its fun to objectify its fun to make an object (art piece) of your self if that is your job as a visual artist like cardi and meg, and even if not everyone agrees objectification is good is my opinion void because it doesnt agree with yours what kind of revolution are we having here…and russell take your tattoos off then those are objects those are false idolss
if meg and cardi lived in the perfect utopia that russel envisions, and wanted to express their sexuality - how would they do it without being objectified… focusing on the body or sadnesss or happiness apart from the complete humanity of someone is objectifying that one part and if we were in utopia it would still be consumed as a commodity…whats wrong with a commodity…exploitation of commodities through not paying workers or raising prices unfairly is wrong but just now the idea of commodity is wrong…isnt that video he is making to be a gossip also a commodity
wap isnt doing enough cause it isnt calling out who has power in the systems that so dumb - go live in an artless world til everyone is fed then why is he wasting his time on philosophy of the mainstream people are starving out there. cardis bernie campaigning wasnt enough now her work and personal self expression needs to be exploited by your cause for revolution
isnt a youtube video about as far away from a product as you can get - how is it different than making a vlog like he is doing - they both selling the product of themselves in both cases they are objectifying their authenticity
its still the same aesthetic its the same values and ideals…uhhh no its not women in rap changed the definition of what men in america find attractive and in different time periods different body types were attractive cause it changes with cultures there was a womens body revolution and it has 99% percent to do with thicc women in hip hop not conforming to the “male” but i would say human standards of the 50s-80s at least
before capitilism were their women owning their sexuality…yes so its not a product of capitalism
we should be aspiring to an entirely different set of values not who has the power in these values…so he is saying cause women are taking power in the same system its not a good thing and shouldnt be celebrated..i do agree with that to a degree but i also could see the power shift as a step on the way to a different value system, but also im not going to be zealot and hate on cardi and meg for not having my same level of desire for a utopia revolution or a rapture
i also dont see wap as a commentary on social structures just maybe dating when you are younger power which russell was a part of, like he says as ive gotten older my values have changed, welll then maybe the same will happen for the young women doing the same shit you were doing, old and wise is only old and wise when you dont see it as a personal revelation you had instead of seeing all older people change their values to more conservative back in my day bull shit
so he is scared of power and attractive to him cause, o my god these women are so beautiful, the whole video is about his own sex addiction and blaming the pretty girls for getting grabbed on
what are we looking for, something fun to dance to, something to give me confidence, something to make silly videos undermining the sexuality entirely, its not just porn porn porn like he is trying to claim so fucking stupid
this russell brand video is the same as the ben shapiro
i aint squeamish about sex but this is not making people equal….wtf are you talking about
he also wont go as far to say what the ideologies cardi and meg are fighting which im curious about
ooo so now he says meg and cardi dont need to be doing anything other than commodity, admits hes puritanical, sees it through a warped lense what was the point of this video. spend 15 minutes seemingly arguing that they are being too sexual, just capitalist pawns, not radicals and will make poor russell want to packer his peepee
then say in one minute well that was all bullshit and should cardi and meg be doing something different…no
A Very Short Fact: On this day in 1924, American art critic and philosopher Arthur Danto was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Though known primarily as an art critic, Danto also made considerable contributions to the philosophy of history and the philosophy of action.
“Arthur Danto writes for the left-liberal magazine The Nation and is a very well-known philosopher and theorist of contemporary art, particularly of what he sees as the break in art production set in train by Andy Warhol. If Warhol’s Brillo Pad boxes cannot be visually distinguished from actual Brillo Pad boxes, he argues, it follows that art cannot be defined in terms of its visual distinctiveness, and must instead be characterized philosophically. […]
Danto’s After the End of Art claims that the character of art has changed radically since the 1970s and the last gasp of the avant-garde, and is now properly post-historical. Modernist and avant-garde views were tied to an idea of historical progress – towards formal abstraction, perhaps, or the merging of art and life. For Danto, in contrast, ‘life really begins when the story comes to an end’, and those who now expect art to progress have missed the point, which is that the final synthesis has been reached. While Danto does not mention him, this stance is close to that of Francis Fukuyama’s political views in his widely publicized book The End of History and the Last Man, and is based on the same Hegelian contention that, while of course events continue to occur, History has come to a close; that we are settled for ever with a version of the system which now sustains us. Similarly, for Danto, once art had passed through the black night of the 1970s (which he compares, with its dreadful politically engaged work, to the Dark Ages), it emerged onto the sunny Elysian Fields of universal permissiveness, never to leave. And in those fields, any mixing of styles or patching together of narratives is as good in principle as any other.” — From ‘Contemporary Art: A Very Short Introduction’ by Julian Stallabrass
My Review of Julie and the Phantoms: Episode 2— Bright.
Last Sunday, I watched episode one of the popular musical comedy-drama Julie and the Phantoms to surprise my sister. I enjoyed the episode ‘Wake Up’ much more than I had anticipated— previously expected to find it bland and overrated.
Episode Two is about Julie attempting to convince her music teacher, Mrs Harrison, to let her join the music program after the deadline. As a subplot, the ghosts perform at a local beach to focus on their new ‘lives’, Ray reconsiders selling the house, and Carlos becomes interested in the orbs from the photographs. Julie performs Luke’s original song ‘Bright’ at the school’s spring rally after Carrie.
While I enjoyed the ghosts visibly performing alongside Julie, I am weary that this may cause some cringy future plot points. However I know that the writers do have a magical way of making the show flow gracefully from scene to scene.
Characters Flynn and Alex have also grew on my liking: Flynn is exceptionally supportive of her best friend, which I personally find is admirable and shows the true meaning of friendship (friends are there for the good and the bad); and Alex seems to be very considerate towards Julie, for example, when he asks about the music program.
I still am not fond of Carrie, who performs a cringy song (sorry, I know some of you think differently), sends Julie constant death glares, and acts ditsily after her performance. Yet, every good story has an unpredictable antagonist so I will let this slide.
The episode ends, like the first, with Julie performing a song. While this is effective as it is like a finale scene to the episode, it becomes expectable and therefore less interesting. I hope that the ordering changes in the future.
I just watched the first episode of Julie and the Phantoms. For those who don’t know, my sister is a fan of JatP and I’m surprising her by watching them after weeks of telling her I won’t.
I honestly didn’t expect to like it as much as I do. So far, the plot is so well-written — the dialogue flows and the writers created great introductions to all of the characters which outline the main cast. The actors are incredible and suited the characters perfectly.
My favourite part is when Julie’s dad hears Julie playing her mother’s song. Also I like how the ghosts do not disrupt her so it can be her special moment. Perhaps the next episode will continue from there.
The episode ends with Julie singing a song on the grand piano, which her mother wrote. This song alone is very inspiring so if you do not have time to watch the show, give “Wake Up” by Anne Preven a listen; it is also available on the Spotify playlist.
However, there are some parts which I am not particularly fond of. Even though there was little of it, I did not enjoy the scenes at school— Carrie is already a pain, Flynn seems a bit immature, and I already know that Julie is going to end up with Nick, who honestly seems a bit lame.
Despite that, the first episode of Julie and the Phantoms is definitely worth the watch so I will recommend it as well as keep self-restraint so I do not binge it.
There is so much writing advice out there lately, and I mean - a lot! On tumblr alone there are countless writing blogs full of authors and writers making remarkable efforts to provide all their own experiences and writing tips. For me, this is paradise! But I’ve definitely had that experience where it can all be a little bit overwhelming and hearing from some of our readers, so have they. So I wanted to give a little rundown about some good ideas when taking in writing advice.
To preface, this is not in any way shutting down any of the following tips that you might have found helpful or prescribed to others yourself. The number one rule that writing is an extremely subjective experience and everyone will find different things helpful. So as part of my ‘how to’ post I’m going to tell you to simply disregard whatever tips you don’t find help you personally - including this post!
So, let’s discuss.
Try everything first and avoid what doesn’t work for you. See what works for you. If you hear some advice, and you are sceptical, I’d always suggest giving it a go. Similiarly, if you hear some advice many others seem to find helpful but it doesn’t work for you you by no means have to stick to it. The whole idea of ‘you should write every day’ has made writing a stressful experience and turned many amazing storytellers away from the hobby, for example. But the basis of the principle is a good one! As with most advice, routed in good intentions. It will not make you a bad writer to avoid certain pieces of advice that the majority stick too. Speaking of…
Avoid any ‘you should’ or ‘either/or’ statements put forward as if they are fact. As mentioned above, writing is hugely subjective and I tend to find any advice put forward in the form of a command or with no room for movement can be just as detrimental as it is helpful.
Try not to let writing advice put you down. Because it can. As someone who tries to give others writing advice this is a hard pill to swallow, but check this out: here’s one example. ‘Oh, you’re having a hard time on your first draft? Well, I’m editing my second and you haven’t even started the hard work yet!’ Again, while this statement is not advice in itself it’s such a commonattitude I see in any writing community. It scares a lot of people who are just trying their best. You can’t control what tips are given to you without what hyperbole, you can’t control the actions of others - so I would advise you learn to spot it, so you can absorbing it.
Keep in mind the country of origin of the advice given and if any dispensation has been given for International readers. The main reason for this is practicality: things like the editing process and how to get published, copyright law, and even common grammar errors might vary from country to country and I don’t want anyone getting themselves in any deep water.
Learn to recognise negative input. One example would be the trend that tells people that they are ‘not allowed’ to write a certain topic, culture, etc, because of who they are. In my opinion, art including writing should be limitless, should be for everyone. Obviously this one depends on your own personal beliefs, but for me I would advise everyone to learn to recognise the signs of negative input. Some of these include; condescending or negative language or a presumption that the author/writer has done or is doing something wrong.
If they want to charge you an up front fee, something’s sketchy. I’m sure there’s a lot of articles that I hope you guys have made yourselves familiar with about scummy publisher/editor practises. Please always keep these in mind! Now, it’s not the case advice will be poor if paid for, but it’s not the case it will be better, personalised to you or even given either. You don’t need money to get help, not on this internet.
Try to avoid having someone else do your research. This one is difficult, because what really constitutes having someone else do your research? I’d say: asking one tumblr blog for a master list of links about, say, Norse mythology, and having this be the basis of your research. Research might not be everyone’s forte but it is a huge aid to the inspiration process! You would not believe the amazing things you could learn about your worlds; the things characters will just tell you stand out to them - the detail your story will bloom with if you research for yourself from many sources. Which ties into another point about cross-referencing different advice and tips given, especially when those tips are factual.
Be vocal. Talk about your work. Talk about what has worked for you in the writing process and what hasn’t. Share sites, blogs and videos you’ve found to be helpful. Share resources. For example; for me, one piece of advice that has never worked for me is when people say ‘just skip the beginning’ of your story, start in the middle or at the end. There is so much I learn from every page and I find syncing up time lines hard enough!
Anyhow, that’s just a few things for right now that I hope really help you guys out. This post isn’t about being down upon anyone’s advice, because really, none of us are entitled to someone else’s advice. It’s amazing that there’s such a community for writers online. I just want everyone to thrive!
I really enjoyed making this lovely chopper inspired knife. Sometimes the quick scribblings of soapstone lead to some fantastic pieces. Things I find enjoyable about this one: 1) organic flowing patterns make me happy and I enjoy the slice of a mono-steel edge, so I got the best of each world by sandwiching some 80CRV2 in the middle of 280 layers of 15N20/1095 2) This handle wood from @forrester_woods made a great compliment to the steel pattern with bonus spots of orange highlights that almost makes it look like nature’s paisley… so lovely and feels right at home with 3/32 copper pins and copper liners. 3) the geometry almost comes to a 0 grind. It’s just the tiniest bevel and it cuts so well! 4) It’s got a comfortable fit in the hand and balances nicely just north of the index finger. The @maumasifirearts inspired curled heel aids in the feeling that this knife is connected right to your hand 5) The shape is curvy with nicely flowing lines and that blade height and thick spine allow for that thin edge to be properly supported in the heavy cuts . I hope you enjoy it as much as I do! . #thepxsmith #joshaweston #forgedinfire #knifeordeath #knifenut #knifemaking #makercommunity #productreview #critique #happythoughts #artreview #knifereview #knifeporn #knivesinnature . Forged in a @diamondbackironworks knifemaker II 2 burner Ground on a @wuertzmachineworks TW-90 with @red.label.abrasives (at Pixel Smith - Josh A. Weston) https://www.instagram.com/p/CKmK8LhjiR5/?igshid=q96parfs43p4
That thing, in particular, was a thirty dollar Barnes & Noble gift certificate. I was still too young for a part-time job, so I didn’t have this kind of spending cash on me, ever. I felt like a god.
Drunk with power, I fancy-stepped my way to my local B&N. I was ready to choose new books based solely on the most important of qualities…BADASS COVER ART. I walked away with a handful of paperbacks, most of which were horrible (I’m looking at you, Man-Kzin Wars III) or simply forgettable.
One book did not disappoint. I fell down the rabbit hole into a series that proved to be as badass as the cover art promised (Again, Man-Kzin Wars III, way to drop the ball on that one). With more than a dozen books in the series, I devoured them. I bought cassette tapes of ballads sung by bards in the stories. And the characters. Oh, the characters. I loved them. Gryphons, mages, but most importantly, lots of women. Different kinds of women. So many amazing women. I looked up to them, wrote bad fiction that lifted entire portions of dialogue and character descriptions, dreamed of writing something that the author would include in an anthology.
This year I decided in a fit of nostalgia to revisit the books I loved so damn much. I wanted to reconnect with my old friends…
…and I found myself facing Mary Sues. Lots of them. Perfect, perfect, perfect. A fantasy world full of Anakin Skywalkers and Nancy Drews and Wesley Crushers. I felt crushed. I had remembered such complex, deep characters and didn’t see those women in front of me at all anymore. Where were those strong women who kept me safe through the worst four years of my life?
Which led me to an important realization as I soldiered on through book after book. That’s why I needed them. Because they were Mary Sues. These books were not written to draw my attention to all the ugly bumps and whiskers of the real world. They were somewhere to hide. I was painfully aware that I was being judged by my peers and adults and found lacking. I was a fuckup. And sometimes a fuckup needs to feel like a Mary Sue. As an adult, these characters felt a little thin because they lacked the real world knowledge I, as an adult, had learned and earned. But that’s the thing…these books weren’t FOR this current version of myself. Who I am now doesn’t need a flawless hero because I’m comfortable with the idea that valuable people are also flawed.
There is a reason that most fanfiction authors, specifically girls, start with a Mary Sue. It’s because girls are taught that they are never enough. You can’t be too loud, too quiet, too smart, too stupid. You can’t ask too many questions or know too many answers. No one is flocking to you for advice. Then something wonderful happens. The girl who was told she’s stupid finds out that she can be a better wizard than Albus Dumbledore. And that is something very important. Terrible at sports? You’re a warrior who does backflips and Legolas thinks you’re THE BEST. No friends? You get a standing ovation from Han Solo and the entire Rebel Alliance when you crash-land safely on Hoth after blowing up the Super Double Death Star. It’s all about you. Everyone in your favorite universe is TOTALLY ALL ABOUT YOU.
I started writing fanfiction the way most girls did, by re-inventing themselves.
Mary Sues exist because children who are told they’re nothing want to be everything.
As a girl, being “selfish” was the worst thing you could be. Now you live in Narnia and Prince Caspian just proposed marriage to you. Why? Your SELF is what saved everyone from that sea serpent. Plus your hair looks totally great braided like that.
In time, hopefully, these hardworking fanfiction authors realize that it’s okay to be somewhere in the middle and their characters adjust to respond to that. As people grow and learn, characters grow and learn. Turns out your Elven Mage is more interesting if he isn’t also the best swordsman in the kingdom. Not everyone needs to be hopelessly in love with your Queen for her to be a great ruler. There are all kinds of ways for people to start owning who they are, and embracing the things that make them so beautifully weird and complicated.
Personally, though, I think it’s a lot more fun learning how to trust yourself and others if you all happen to be riding dragons.
Mary Sues exist because children who are told they’re nothing want to be everything.
A girl making herself the hero of her own story is a radical act. Stop shaming girls for doing it. Stop shaming yourself for it.
I’d like to take this as another opportunity to remind my fellow writers not to be a jerk to people (especially kids) who write Mary Sues.
It’s a totally normal stage of a writer’s development, and it can get people through tough times. They also build a lot of writing skills while they do it, and could turn into great writers over time. Don’t be rotten and try to take that away from them. I don’t care if you do it under the guise of “constructive criticism.” Truly constructive criticism is meant to build someone up and teach them, not to discourage them, especially if the writer is just a kid! And it’s only given if the writer is open to receiving it.
Writers go through Mary Sue stages all the time, and if you aren’t going to be nice, then mind your manners and don’t say anything.
Oh, I’m not sure what I think of this since I still have the slightly serious version of the 80s series stuck in my head. Dax Shepard is his usual over the top self but there’s nothing really wrong with that. But Michael Pena makes this… though it seems sort of the same character he played in Antman. So be it.
