Text

hbmmaster:

deliverusfromsburb:

hbmmaster:

hbmmaster:

deliverusfromsburb:

Hello everyone! Today, instead of doing my history homework like I’m supposed to, I’m going to explain why I think my aromantic asexual John headcanon is a fair reading of the text, even though it will probably not be upheld in canon.

I’m sure that’s enough to put most people off, but if anyone’s interested or is looking for some kind of representation to be carved out for themselves, read on.

Read More

THE KID IS PREPUBESCENT

MOST PEOPLE DON’T EXPERIENCE ROMANTIC OR SEXUAL ATTRACTION UNTIL AFTER PUBERTY

Hey! I see that you have an objection to my post. I will attempt to address your concerns, although as a general rule I prefer people to not shout in all caps on them.

The average age of puberty for boys is actually 11-12, according to Wikipedia. This is not always the best source, but hey, I’m not a med student. John starts the comic at thirteen, and this post discusses stuff he’s said and done up through the age of sixteen, which I think everyone can agree is far into the hellish progression of puberty.

Also, this argument would suggest that no sexuality labels or relationship stuff for any Homestuck character is valid, since they’re all around the same age. Plenty of the other kids were flirting at the tender age of thirteen and in relationships not too long afterward, so I fail to see how John is any different. If the text is going to provide me with relationships that are admittedly on the young side, I think it’s fair to look at how John deals with similar matters.

On a personal note, I was sure of my aro-ace status by the age of thirteen (although I didn’t have the words for it) and I’m nineteen and still sure of it. So there’s that. And I know I’ve seen kids thirteen and younger IRL having crushes and dating. Whether that’s wise or not is up to debate, but it definitely happens. Plenty of people are experiencing some sort of attraction by that age.

Thank you for your time. :)

Hey!  Professional discussion!  Cool, I was not expecting this.

The thing about John is that, although he is around the age most boys begin puberty (at least, at the time all your cited conversations took place, to the best of my knowledge), he is still a very young boy.  Being a “tween”, John is mostly unaware of what it means to be attracted to someone.  He (supposedly) has figured out that he isn’t attracted to men, and it is likely that he isn’t attracted to women yet (if he ever is). As for the other characters, they tend to either be more mature (like Rose or Kanaya), or at least put up a mature front to make people think they’re more mature (like Dave or Vriska).  This is what being a young teen is like; there is a wide variety of maturity levels in all categories, and romantic attraction is one of them. Don’t get me wrong, the aromantic asexual John headcanon is great, and, at least at this point in the story, is probably accurate, but I think it’s less of a sexuality thing and more of an age thing.

That’s just my uneducated view on this though.  

I attempt to be professional, anyway, although unfortunately I’m on my way out for the evening.

John’s level of maturity is mysterious. He is the youngest of the kids and often acts very immature, but he doesn’t always act that way. Sometimes he even shows himself to be more even keeled than other members of the cast. I think he comes across as more immature because he acts silly, while other characters who also have a lot of growing up to do make more of an effort to cultivate a polished facade. 

I think either view is possible. It’s possible that John is simply behind in romantic development, and his confused/uninterested responses to romantic topics and solicitations are a product of that. But, since the other characters were presented as old enough/mature enough to pursue romantic attachments (although perhaps not mature enough to do so wisely or to maintain them for very long) I chose to read John in that same light. Judging one character based on their peers, in other words. Although he could be a “late bloomer”, I have only the other kids to compare to him, and this is the conclusion I have reached based on how his behavior/words contrast with theirs. It’s not the only conclusion available, and I’m not in any way assuming it will become canon in the end. 

Text

ok I got the card done. That’s a relief. I have work soon, so I rushed it a little.

I need to get my stuff together and prepare for another night shift. One class had the entire group send in papers, and we’re swamped.

Text

Temperance

Read More

Text

hbmmaster:

hbmmaster:

deliverusfromsburb:

Hello everyone! Today, instead of doing my history homework like I’m supposed to, I’m going to explain why I think my aromantic asexual John headcanon is a fair reading of the text, even though it will probably not be upheld in canon.

I’m sure that’s enough to put most people off, but if anyone’s interested or is looking for some kind of representation to be carved out for themselves, read on.

Read More

THE KID IS PREPUBESCENT

MOST PEOPLE DON’T EXPERIENCE ROMANTIC OR SEXUAL ATTRACTION UNTIL AFTER PUBERTY

Hey! I see that you have an objection to my post. I will attempt to address your concerns, although as a general rule I prefer people to not shout in all caps on them.

The average age of puberty for boys is actually 11-12, according to Wikipedia. This is not always the best source, but hey, I’m not a med student. John starts the comic at thirteen, and this post discusses stuff he’s said and done up through the age of sixteen, which I think everyone can agree is far into the hellish progression of puberty.

Also, this argument would suggest that no sexuality labels or relationship stuff for any Homestuck character is valid, since they’re all around the same age. Plenty of the other kids were flirting at the tender age of thirteen and in relationships not too long afterward, so I fail to see how John is any different. If the text is going to provide me with relationships that are admittedly on the young side, I think it’s fair to look at how John deals with similar matters.

On a personal note, I was sure of my aro-ace status by the age of thirteen (although I didn’t have the words for it) and I’m nineteen and still sure of it. So there’s that. And I know I’ve seen kids thirteen and younger IRL having crushes and dating. Whether that’s wise or not is up to debate, but it definitely happens. Plenty of people are experiencing some sort of attraction by that age.

Thank you for your time. :)

Photo
keysandtoffee:

My friend Hannah came up with this comic

keysandtoffee:

My friend Hannah came up with this comic

(via aisenchou)

Tags: wtnv
Text

demoni:

deliverusfromsburb:

While doing research for my essay, I came across a conversation where Joss Whedon and some other Buffy writers talked about how they’d forget whether they intended various bits to be foreshadowing/meaningful/etc. I think it’s funny but also interesting, since it ties into the viewpoint I’ve been trained to have as an English major. 

I think the idea is loosely “death of the author”, and the way I’ve been taught to use it is this: if you can make a reasonable case for something, you’re good. It doesn’t matter if the author didn’t mean it. It doesn’t matter if your classmates disagree, or whether your professor wrote their dissertation on an opposing viewpoint. Any argument you can make about a text is valid as long as you can back it up. Literature belongs to the people. 

This freaked me out at first, because I’m a writer myself and I felt protective over whatever I might put out into the world someday. But the longer I’ve thought about it, the more I like it. I’ve written stuff without meaning for it to be symbolic and come back later thinking, “Wow, that totally creates a parallel, and I didn’t even mean it.” People with different experiences will always find different meanings in a text, and I think that’s super neat. It makes a text (written, visual, musical, whatever) a living, breathing, flexible creation that looks a little different to everyone, and who doesn’t want to create art that’s alive?

The Buffy trivia page I found this on continued by describing Whedon’s original aversion to fan readings of sexual tension between Buffy and Faith. Apparently a fan showed him an online post where she’d set out to ‘prove’ this subtext existed, and he changed his mind. Convincing the creator of a show that there’s something in it he never saw… that’s really cool, in my opinion at least.

This reminds me of one of my favorite stories about Arthur C. Clarke and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Basically, he wrote a lot of the meaningful stuff with a specific intention - but he didn’t want to taint anything anyone took away from it. So people would sometimes go up to him and ask “Well, I think this part means this, and is symbolic of that. Am I right?” and he’d respond “That sounds really great! Go with that meaning.” because he really liked when people had their own interpretations of it beyond whatever he intended.

I think when you write, keeping the idea of “death of the author” is a really good thing - people are going to find meaning and connections in your work whether you intentionally put them there or not, and it’s a wonderful thing when that happens.

Sounds like a cool laid back kind of guy

zenosanalytic said: Yeah. My view of it is that insisting on strict authorial intent actively denies the experience of the reader. It’s telling the reader “if this poem makes you feel this way you’re wrong; the author meant this”. And that seems ludicrous, frankly

Yes to both of these things

Another amusing bit from this trivia page was this

If death is just a plot twist to them, what is it to us? A way to rile up the fans if we’ve gotten too lethargic?

Text

dainesanddaffodils:

littletinyboy:

ah yes, a healthy relationship… my ultimate fetish……

#my ultimate fetish is extremely healthy relationships with EXTREMELY UNHEALTHY SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES #like how did this healthy relationship happen? nobody knows. it’s extremely improbable. HERE IT IS

(via soliairs)

Text

fallingloki:

what if you gained your icons personality for a week

(via zhepurplespy)

Text

While doing research for my essay, I came across a conversation where Joss Whedon and some other Buffy writers talked about how they’d forget whether they intended various bits to be foreshadowing/meaningful/etc. I think it’s funny but also interesting, since it ties into the viewpoint I’ve been trained to have as an English major. 

I think the idea is loosely “death of the author”, and the way I’ve been taught to use it is this: if you can make a reasonable case for something, you’re good. It doesn’t matter if the author didn’t mean it. It doesn’t matter if your classmates disagree, or whether your professor wrote their dissertation on an opposing viewpoint. Any argument you can make about a text is valid as long as you can back it up. Literature belongs to the people. 

This freaked me out at first, because I’m a writer myself and I felt protective over whatever I might put out into the world someday. But the longer I’ve thought about it, the more I like it. I’ve written stuff without meaning for it to be symbolic and come back later thinking, “Wow, that totally creates a parallel, and I didn’t even mean it.” People with different experiences will always find different meanings in a text, and I think that’s super neat. It makes a text (written, visual, musical, whatever) a living, breathing, flexible creation that looks a little different to everyone, and who doesn’t want to create art that’s alive?

The Buffy trivia page I found this on continued by describing Whedon’s original aversion to fan readings of sexual tension between Buffy and Faith. Apparently a fan showed him an online post where she’d set out to ‘prove’ this subtext existed, and he changed his mind. Convincing the creator of a show that there’s something in it he never saw… that’s really cool, in my opinion at least.

Photo
polterghast:

Long Ago There Was A Legendary Auspistice Who Made Peace Between Four Long Warring Kingdoms
And Saved The Universe As God Merely Ogled On Disconcertingly With The Power Only Of His Words
His Story Even Reached Our Universe In Its Own Way And I Am Quite Partial To It
And If He Were Here I Am Sure He Would Impart Divine Wisdom
That Of Suggesting I Finally Jam This Chainsaw Into Your Solar Plexus
-
Kanaya is Best Sleuthdaughter.

polterghast:

Long Ago There Was A Legendary Auspistice Who Made Peace Between Four Long Warring Kingdoms

And Saved The Universe As God Merely Ogled On Disconcertingly With The Power Only Of His Words

His Story Even Reached Our Universe In Its Own Way And I Am Quite Partial To It

And If He Were Here I Am Sure He Would Impart Divine Wisdom

That Of Suggesting I Finally Jam This Chainsaw Into Your Solar Plexus

-

Kanaya is Best Sleuthdaughter.

(via mishas-dispicableminion)