Satsuma @Satsuma@cat.family

@mlemweb@octodon.social congrats!!!

@Lady Missionary bibles were frequently KJV translated into whatever language rather than original translations from source

@Lady sarcastic etymologies are some of my favorites

#Ao3TagOfTheDay: Quinn runs from his feelings but his feelings have a moped

@Rowyn 😂

@fogsrollingin chaotic

@Cyannin oh no thats the worst :(

@cassolotl@queer.party if i don’t get back to you within a couple days, feel free to give me a poke :)

@cassolotl@queer.party i’ll need to check if the post office has them in stock, but I’d be happy to send you a letter!

@sublingual yeah the river does kinda squash everything to one side so it makes sense

@sublingual this makes Philly look incredibly triangular

I don’t think these two essays are intentionally responding to each-other, but I do think SuperDoomedPlanet’s critique of what they call the “novelization style” (transparent prose, consistently close 3rd person narrator, short time-frames & high stakes, narrative structures you’d expect from a tv show or a movie) reflects a lot of the reasons why I found Ex Urbe’s argument that specific worldbuilding is bad because someone might disagree with it so baffling

«Every really good novel is a little bit imperfect. The most fun, engaging books aren’t perfectly engineered; they have ambiguities, multiple interpretations, detours, and odd protuberances. They often include passages that look like side trips and diversions, straying from the plot but developing themes, ideas, and characters….They’re eccentric and weirdly shaped and packed with stuff. Some of the stuff may or may not work. Readers may disagree about which stuff worked and which didn’t. When that happens, that’s a clue that the novel is interesting.»

From: http://www.superdoomedplanet.com/blog/2016/04/15/conclusions-and-caveats/