2. If you're reading something where you find yourself constantly flipping past the sex scenes, you picked up the wrong story. You don't read The Mister because the human trafficking plot is that compelling and you know it.
Pfft, dumbass. I meant it's the wrong story
for you. If you don't like sex scenes the solution isn't to say "Make all your sex scenes superfluous so I don't have to deal with them", it's to realize the story isn't for you and go read something else.
It occurred to me thinking on this that it's such a ridiculous refusal of personal responsibility to tell everybody else that if you're gonna write a sex scene make SURE it can be skipped because I don't wanna deal with that. It's incumbent on you the author, writing what you want to write, to make sure that you're doing things the way Lily Orchard demands you do. (And I'm certain this is in reference to fanfiction because we all know Lily doesn't read actual books, so yes you, hobby writer who's probably just having fun with things, YOU must conform because God knows there isn't another 1600 Sylvanas-centric fanfics on Ao3 for you to enjoy).
That good old projection of her is coming again. She writes all her sex scenes because's horny stupid and so everyone has to be the same, but it's bad when other people do it because they're not horny about the same things Liliana is horny about.
Once again, applying her own logic here, we should side-eye even more that while her own 4 year old traumatized is screaming her lungs out, Rey still thinks about how sexy Alaina is and the sexy dream she's missing for attending her daughter. What exactly was so hot about a screaming toddler, Liliana? Care to explain?
This too. Lily's the kind of person that assumes that if you put it in the text you must somehow support it. There's no concept of examining a sick mind, or using it to make a character more questionable and morally gray, or emphasizing how dire a situation is, or framing it in a way that it's obviously a bad thing even if society doesn't realize it. It's ALWAYS because it's something the author supports.
(Except her, of course. Stockholm was definitely meant to examine the characters from a realistic perspective and didn't constantly play it off as kinky, funny, or an expression of real love that society doesn't understand.)
I wonder if her Anevay rape-torture fic got around again and she needs to smokescreen. Bad direction to take, though. By that logic she admits she gets off to women being raped. Which, I mean, given her preferences in the lewds she receives...
View attachment 3511078
I think the point she misses here is that even if a villain has altruistic goals, their methods or their personality might twist them into doing more bad than good. The flaw with the villain presented is that while they were trying to help a slave population, they ended up blaming the slaves for something they were born into and thought thinning the population to make slaves impossible to have was a good idea. How the villain arrived at this conclusion, and how they justify it to themselves is usually the mark of a good villain.
This can be done wrong of course, like all things, but it's not a bad idea in theory. Progressives are not automatically good people, it depends how and why they're progressive.
ooooh my god
First of all, the concept-- good beginning, but what the fuck. The first part of the pitch is rooted in a legitimate problem-- even ignoring the Jim Crow antebellum South, freedmen had a horrible time integrating into northern society, who ostensibly fought for their freedom but largely didn't want to actually
deal with them (leading to many freedman being forced to try and find a place in the South during the reparations era, fueling anti-black sentiment and leading to Jim Crow. Obviously this is grossly simplified but you get the gist). Ending slavery doesn't just happen all at once and there are no further tensions and everything is instantly fixed; it's a deep-rotted societal issue that requires time and patience for both the already established society to make room for a sudden influx of new citizens, and for the freedmen to integrate and find a place now that they have a chance at running their own life.
The way you'd have a 'villain' in this order would be to maybe have them so frustrated with the lack of progress that they turn the tables and enslave the previous owners to make them feel what it's like, if that's the direction you're going in. But if they're supposed to be sympathetic you don't have them
commit genocide against the people they freed to teach the slaveowners a lesson about manual labor, holy shit.
And the most deranged part?
Lily's response is just "Ugh, a villain shouldn't be anti-slavery!" Like did she actually read the post because there's a
way bigger problem here.
