Jump to content

Hina's Simp

Members

Hina's Simp last won the day on March 14

Hina's Simp had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

95 Honored

About Hina's Simp


  • User Group: Members


  • Member ID: 65


  • Title: The King'd King


  • Post Count: 137


  • Post Ratio: 0.09


  • Total Rep: 95


  • Member Of The Days Won: 10


  • Joined: 01/07/2019


  • Been With Us For: 1534 Days


  • Last Activity:


  • Currently:


  • Age:


Clubs

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This was probably my favorite pokemon game of lat; I haven't played Sword and Sheild or Let's Go. I have played Legends Arceus. This just felt more open and playful, what I think should be key themes in Pokemon games moving forward. I like the disconnect of taking the play and world too serious and big, it was nicer that the game felt more down to earth even if somethings were much bigger than that.
  2. Beatrice and I are still the YCM dream couple.

  3. Derrida isn't really a postmodernist, though. Have whatever views you want; I really think you have more position on knowing less about postmodernism than postmodernist. Remember that these are "movements", they are not just fundamental ideas but the ways in which ideas develop when the goal of the movement does not suffice. Modernism caame to an end when it could not come to truth and answers with the knowledge already claimed, so instead of looking for answers it had to seek questions. This was a time when the world was already becoming more and more disconnected, reaching new frontiers and new monikers for events that had not been conceivable before. While postmodernism rather seeks a question - a question of questions, it doesn't do so without a purpose and position. Gilles Deleuze, I think, develops this idea the best: Philosophy in modernism lacked the ability to complete is persual, that it had to come to an "end". But postmodernism is where the venture continues as, "its differences lie within modernity itself, and postmodernism is a continuation of modern thinking in another mode". Such an idea is where Deleuze regards this idea best, as philosophy in modernism was: "It called for the re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was "holding back" progress, and replacing it with new, progressive and better ways of reaching the same end", where postmodernism disregards to "end", and rather positions itself as a beginning: "Philosophy is the art of forming, inventing, and fabricating concepts. But was not only necessary for the response to take note of the question; it also had to determine a time, an occasion, the circumstances, the landscapes and personae, the conditions and unknowns of the question". In part, where we could not reach an end, we had to choose where to begin: postmodern is the place of beginning and ends, or rather the lack of these metadirectional ideas. There is no end or beginning in its entirety, only where we begin and choose to end, and that can be anywhere. I never understand the hate against postmodernism, because most of the time there is an argument against postmodernism, it is itself a postmodern idea: if postmodernism does not pursue a goal, then we turn to something else that has already been done and start from there. Now, to say that Derrida is a postmodernist is wrong, though. Because, as I mention before, the very subject of these movements is that they are development in thoughts: Postmodernism hadn't existed in Derrida's invocation of poststructuralism and deconstruction, as he was the precursor for it. But much of his thoughts have postmodern applications; But so does Freud, Darwin, and Neitzche, the fathers of their own disciplines. You're also confused about Derrida, it seems: Derrida never really said anything about "there is nothing out-of-text", and the most positioned translation of "Il n’y a pas de hors-texte" is that there is nothing outside of text. The assertion was never a criticism of structuralist theory; it very much offers respects to Claude Levi-Strauss, even if the history of the conference dictates otherwise. The only subject that it criticizes is the position of semiotics as a way to translate the lived world into or through language, which is where Derrida's idea of the "text" is posited. Semiotics and structuralism was recognized as a system of interpretation that followed many modernist positions, where Derrida sought to look at language not as a system of interpretation but as a layering of interpretation, "We need to interpret interpretations more than to interpret things". In that, the text is only the conclusion to the ways we give names to something: "The logical conclusion would be that language did not come into existence out of nothing, but was preceded by the concepts it was about to name", and on top of that we have to use language to structure everything else. Derrida meant that the "text" is language itself. Reality is but a collection of texts, a collection of language that instead of criticizing structuralism, sought to look at the ways in which it came "out of nothing" regardless of where it came into translating being-in-the-world. This is where deconstruction begins, not where structuralism ends. They are not opposites of each other, but tools to help each other, and that each time we come to language as the answer, we must also recognize that there is something beyond language that can only be translated because of language. If we are going to develop the idea of the story having conflict, I think we need to bring the postmodern into this easily. Without the subject of the narrative, each text is already at at struggle and conflict: The story has to end, the book has to be closed; It must pursue this closure upon opening of the first page, and at that position means that there is already conflict within and outside of the narrative, in the physical object of the text. This is where I get to have my fun now because it seems like this argument is very much lacking something in the idea that "conflict" means a dynamic of tug and pull. If we bring into the idea of the text as a single object, then the conclusion of the object is to be read and then closed. The text embodies this conflict, because it must come to an end in both the terms of the narrative and the physical objective of the object. The objective of the physical book is to be put down after it is picked up, and the way that it approaches this idea is through reading of the work. Relating this to narrative theory, the drive of the reader is to pursue the meaning or the effect of the text through a mapping of narrative, a traveling through the narrative by turning the page to the next, by reaching the next chapter, by attempting to finish the narrative. But as much as this is the goal, it is also what "ends" the text. So, we and the text must approach the end not as a destination but as a death, a final marking on the life and experience of reading. In that, the conflict of the book is put forth: to end the book but on terms that hit on finality, not on abruptness. This is where the idea is a drive, a pursuit: the death-drive of the narrative. Rather than broaching this topic for too long, as I will either go into a whole rant, I will close on where my argument is going: Conflict is the tug and pull between the start and end, between life and death. And the life of the text is a pursual of its own death, "the aim of all life is death". Peter Brooks comments that, "es a certain analytic force in its superimposition on fictional plots. What operates in the text through repetition is the death instinct, the drive toward the end". But it cannot just die, it has to die properly: the pursuit of death of more akin to dying on the terms and satisfaction of one's life, so in turn the book-object must also die on these terms, "The organism must live in order to die in the proper manner, to die the right death. We must have the arabesque of plot in order to reach the end". Yes, each text must have conflict: If we take it from Freud's ideas of the pleasure-principle and the death-drive, all texts are a series of reaching a satisfying death. To approach death is to satisfy that which gets in the way, the conflict. So, in part: be killers, be the ones that bring about death to conflict only through the conflict that reaches it. As to read to is to kill, and the reader is only subject to this killing if they begin with it, as well: the reader as killer "must be ransomed by the death of the Author". ngl i had too much fun coming to that conclusion.
  4. Does it need to match? It seems to me that your focus is trying to posit both of these ideas at the same time without developing everything that is going on within the world. Stakes only matter when there is a form of uncertainty for the main character to establish, and that is already set: her internal and external stakes are already side by side, that the conflict should be just about navigating that form of uncertainty. First, to navigate the story, you need to establish clear ideas of what the motivation/curiosity are. The main character shouldn't have other focuses, especially at a young age; the character, instead, should focus more directly on the ignorance of that curiosity, since there is nothing else in front of her. With this introduction: "soon after arriving she discovers and befriends a creature who takes care of the life on the island", have the main character focus on building that relationship. How does the main character learn to communicate? Why is she curious in this creature? How do they meet? The biggest concern that needs to be addressed in your story, before you develop their separation, is this relation and freedom. This main character has the ability, freedom, and curiosity to explore the area of her vacation. In that, she needs to have motivations that push her to explore. In My Neighbor Totoro, the relationship was a matter of curiosity and child wonder, nothing more: there was a sense of freedom and safety that push the character forward. In Kiki's Delivery Service, the main character was pushed into the world and had to discover it alongside her journey. There was not "stakes", but a idea to explore. The one thing that comes to mind with this idea, that you should focus on, is the internal conflict that pushes the main character to first explore and pursue the relationship with the creature. Look at what pushes your character out into the "world" to explore, to traverse, and what sparks her wonder toward the character. To help with this, think of what characteristics the character has and how that aligns with this journey. In this, the stakes start to develop on their own; The relationship and what separates them becomes more clear. If it is like Gravity Falls, then it is that there is a limited amount of time that pushes the relationship away. If it is The Chronicles of Narnia, then the idea is that characters grow up and grow out into the real world away from the fantasy space. If we develop this relationship between the creature and the main character: they are brought together by some idea that motivates the main character, yet the creature lacks something as well. The creature doesn't need to have internal motivation, but needs to express something outwardly toward the main character. It needs to be something that connects them: what makes the creature safe/certain/understanding of the main character? If we take something like The Jungle Book, then it is because the main character needs to be taken care of by the jungle, and only knows of the jungle from a young age. If it is something like Kara from Superman, then the Kal-el cousin is both the learner and the mentor as she connects Superman to Krypton and Superman connects Kara to Earth. In all of these stories: the stakes are not separated by internal/external binaries. They are separate in the ways that they are explored. If your main character is navigating the "vacation" space on her own, even with the creature, it is a lonely and exclusive journey, a sense of escape. The parents/guardians/adults have no knowledge of this, so the main character lives "two" moments in her revelation, her life home and her exploration home. This already develops a form of stakes: learning but with limited time, friendship with an end, etc. Something to more reference will be closely related with Where the Wild Things Are: The kid was punished to a room, and yet was able to escape through imagination: the limits of the world were only the limits of the punishment, but this hadn't mattered, as the main character sought to explore and develop a relationship with the creature. It wasn't a matter of escape, it was something more aligned with the freedom to travel. Upon returning from that imaginative space hadn't mean a return to punishment, but a way to bring that journey back with him and invite his mother back into that space. My advice is: Build the stakes of the relationship. What connects them together? What pushes them away? Why is the main character interested? What makes the creature certain or safe? Sure, this implies the idea of both internal/external stakes, but that shouldn't be where the concern is, as it undermines the main focus in which this idea seems more fruitful.
  5. thats still some shitpster bs my guy ill give you some effort since your description hopefully has effort
  6. You call yourself an artist or did look at what you have become
  7. It is Hina's birthday, the most important celebration that ever takes place. Happy birthday, my love!

  8. This is pretty hot.

    1. Thar

      Thar

      ur pretty hot

    2. Hina's Simp

      Hina's Simp

      My wife is hotter, ngl.

    3. Hallohallo

      Hallohallo

      Not gonna lie, the weather IS hot. I'm fuckin melting.

  9. Your prompt: Krow: What did you do with Hina's body? Dae: What didn’t I do with the body? Krow: Dae: Okay, that sounded more sexual than I intended.
×
×
  • Create New...