u/SparkleLily_9874

I watched this YouTube video where this autistic girl started a charity saving foxes. Unfortunately some bad people lied and says she injures and captures foxes and records herself as a hero. I was thinking about Don Quixote, at first his friend made fun of him, because Don Quixote says he wants to be a hero. When Don Quixote’s actions showed it helped some people, the friend stopped mocking Don Quixote. However some people continued to mock Don Quixote. How do I tell if a friend will not be a saboteur or have continued mocking behavior?

I dislike leftism and communism because I view it as enabling, and teaching people to be angry at successful people. My mom is conservative so I was taught not to dwell on being “underprivileged,” even for my special needs and she also avoided enabling me. She did a help me help myself approach to raising me. I don’t approve of DEI because it’s using a law to take a job away from someone who worked hard in their life. For me I would pick up a job because I actually did the hard work. To me the woke policies it’s like instead of helping a person walk on a malfunctioning leg, always holding them up as they walk, so they always have to depend on you carrying them everywhere. The homeless people have mental health issues, and they are just given money that they use to buy drugs. What I like about RFKjr, is he is letting in supplements that were previously banned by the left and unbanning it, those supplements personally helped me out a lot. What helped me with learning instead of enabling me was Eaton Arrowsmith, where instead of compensating for my lack of academic skills, it gave me puzzles that start out simple and then get harder, like Clocks, and that helped me take on something like a chapter book. What I dislike about the left is that they root for big pharma to ban non-pharma ways that can help special needs and mentally ill people, then those people don’t have ways and then they’re jobless and need to depend on random people’s tax payer dollars.

Calm and coldhearted is like the people don’t get angry, sad, fearful, but they act cold by cold shouldering those who do not fit in like Bernard. Dostoevsky‘s view is when people try to engineer a utopia, you try to control their flaws, but that removes the ability for humans to create beautiful things and experience deep meaning. People are argue it is because of conformity culture or cancel culture. I’m saying some people have these criticisms of Japan not absolutely true of Japan, but that Japan is surface level polite, but rude to Koreans or the disabled.

The World State is a dystopia of debauchery, mood perfectionism, and drugs. In the World State people do not read old literature. The dystopia aims to erase pain and suffering. I heard America has a comfort culture. Does comfort culture mean people only want characters that will protect their feelings and act with pleasantness with everyone? Political correctness is ‘protect my feelings.’ How is behavioral control the same or different in the World State versus America the real world? Dostoevsky is famous for writing redeemable anti-heroes and is a cornerstone of literature, his novels are still present. Is fakeness when a person is pleasant to everyone and does not let any feelings of boredom or being upset show? Or is fakeness when a parent is too tolerant and still smiles, even though their kid kicked over a shelf? I have felt that flawed, troubled, and redeemable characters are important for me growing up, like Zuko or the ugly duckling who learn to endure and not to feel angry at the world, can those kinds of characters disappear. Can comfort culture cause anti-heroes or sensitive soul characters to get lost in time, because then modern people only want a pleasant to everyone kind of character? Or the flawed brooding redeemable character is too anchored in stories.

I challenged myself and read 10 books across a couple of months. So far I feel safer reading Dostoevsky, because it has complicated protagonists which I like and Dostoevsky novels feel familiar for me already. I feel drawn to books with a long string of thought because inner thoughts are unique to books but are barely present in movies. But Dostoevsky books can give me empathy fatigue and I would like his books interspersed with other books. I also want to branch out to books with pirates, cowboys or samurai. How do I decide if a book is that type that is meaningful but is not a depressing book that will give me empathy fatigue or is torture porn? If I pick up a modern book, how do I judge that the modern book will not have modern behaviors or debauchery which I dislike? Dostoevsky has debauchery in some of his books, but it is not treated in a positive sense but, many modern novels will treat debauchery like it is good. People say they read fifty pages of a book, and you can already decide if the book is good, but it’s not like that for me, I must read a hundred or two hundred pages and then I find some parts exciting and engaging and some parts tedious. The only book that I felt engaged in for most of it was The Picture of Dorian Grey. For the books I have already finished, I must weigh in, did it feel more tedious, or was it more thought-provoking, engaging or exciting than tedious. Sometimes classics are more engaging, they already put you into the character’s complex thoughts, but modern books can give you a basic character without complex thought paragraphs and it makes me wait for a reason to care for the character and then I don’t care for the character. Most movies I can just watch a trailer, and I know if I will like it, I know what I like in movies, high brow sci-fi and historical, or light and fun animated movies, how do people do that for books?

I’m new to some of Ayn Rand’s work I only read one book, the virtue of selfishness and read some articles. I don’t understand the moral binaries of objectivism? Like in stories isn’t the flawed and redeemable character important. Pinocchio and Zuko are examples. If Pinnochio was just treated with punishment, Pinocchio would have lashed out harder or become an emotionally shutdown child. Gepetto treated him with kindness and some strictness, and Pinnochio became a more mature individual, same with Uncle Iroh’s treatment to Zuko. I can only understand the moral binary sense in punishing a criminal for example instead of being overnice and letting the criminal free.

Like sometimes I see, “Life is straightforward, philosophy is stupid, toughen up,” but instead of seeing it as “oh, okay,” I see that person as a possibly future emotionally cowardly parent or a parent who will have an emotionally bottled kid who feels abused. I mean my mom can be like that sometimes but my mom goes to therapy or reads Confucian philosophy, so at least she’s honest with herself. I mean some people naturally don’t feel much emotional inner struggle, but then they have the kid that does, who is emotionally sensitive and introspective, they get into emotional cowardice or say their inner phrase to the kid, “Life is straightforward, don’t philosophize, just toughen up.” Like their is an issue of validating every kid's thought to the point they get hyperconscious, but the point is to guide the kid.

It's a ship fanfic. And it blends Genshin and the idea of the Severance tv show, but the Fatui Harbingers decode Irminsul inscriptions inside the severed floor, while they are their normal gang selves above the floor. Though I wrote it to have explicit content so be warned. Also their will be parts of going into Scaramouche's memories and Irminsul.

There is this story pattern, where a character wants to reinvent or reform themselves. As they worked hard to reinvent or reform themselves, people made fun of them for it. That person later became someone who is rich or has better social skills, but then they carry that resentment from of being bullied and so they choose to use their new power to hurt people. Like the character either starts behaving with toxic paternalism where they believe they are protecting a group and fighting an enemy or vengeance lashed out at everyone.

I have no one around me who has read the book to respond to me. John is a character who is meant to critique shallow entertainment but also a character that acts as a warning on a person who chooses to romanticize suffering. Like I kind of tend to have this thinking “I won’t be like those toxic positivity commie people who ignores the negative human history to protect their positive bubble but fall into the trap of being tricked,” or “ignore the damage their kids go through in public school, and is inadvertently cruel to the kid” I don’t understand how John is supposed to be interpreted? I mean John’s behavior is like getting a book like “Catcher in the Rye,” someones says Holden Caulfield is too whiny and then John, “You don’t know deepness,” or that the Underground Man would argue that he is “socially awake,” like that’s definitely not correct behavior. He is a treating feelings as facts kind of person, they both do.

https://shsdavisapes.pbworks.com/f/Omelas.pdf
My mom really dislikes it. My mom is from China and she told me she hates stories that make you feel guilt and obligation to people outside of friends and family. She felt like the story gave off the tone of the propaganda stories she was made to read in the Chinese schools. My mom identifies that a quality of the left is making you feel guilt and obligation to outside people. I read Ayn Rand’s virtue of Selfishness. Ayn Rand’s point is pretty much similar that a quality of the left is “altruism,” which is using guilt and conformity to pressure people into kind acts versus benevolence which comes from the heart. My mom made a point which is similar to the Virtue of Selfishness, that if you live a good life because you worked hard, why does a story have to use guilt and act like your good life means your complicit in other’s misery. I interpreted the story differently from my mom. I am very different from my mom. My mom became a computer programmer just so she could make a living and have a good life for herself. I want to get a job to aid special needs people, as someone who grew up special needs myself. I felt like the story was about a city of complacency and comfort similar to the world state in Brave New World. You have people who are super comfortable like the World State citizens or Omelas citizens, and then you have places like the Malpais reservation or the child trapped in the basement and those corners of the city get worse and worse. The old times were not perfect, but in the old times, people were Christian, they were traditional and helping people in your neighborhood and community was emphasized, but now people are distracted by phones. Do you think complacency reduces kindness, traditional virtues being dropped, do you think it is Dostoevsky’s point that people want to virtue signal and say they ‘love humanity,’ but then hate the people nearest to them? Do you think the Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas is a virtue signal story, or a story that warns about complacency and self-deception? Do you think it is one of those stories that teaches students to ‘love humanity,’ but hate the people nearest to them? I consider myself a Dostoevskian conservative more than a Randian conservative. Dostoevsky is like he wants to help people, but believes people should be guided to grow, and not left in a perpetual state of depending on people because of fake kindness. My mom leans more Rand in the pure self-interest aspect.

Like I do believe in integrating the shadow. My mom tells me that being strong and firm matters, coming from China. She dislikes the woke feminism stuff. My sister had a boyfriend, who kept skipping time to be with her and putting his friends above her, so my mom told my sister to ask instead of cling and say nothing. She did, that boyfriend got upset and then they split. Ben Shapiro says men should have traditional masculinity not the manosphere masculinity Andrew Tate displays. It should be taught respect and don’t cling to someone because you need their approval.

I want to read on history, but the new scholars want to twist history. I am Asian American myself so I would like to learn about Chinese immigrants coming to the US. By the way I believe in legal immigration, my parents are legal immigrants. And plus it’s good to be informed and good for making conflict for writing novels.

A lot of people read books but get stuck in abstract theories. There are people who read books but get deeper into groupthink such as the academic left who believe in multiple pronouns. There are people who stay in academies but never go to experience life. So I’m wondering, how do I know the right books? What about wisdom, wisdom is kindness but also knowing who is truly manipulative and fake nice, who is hurt?

I am asking. Like Kurt Vonnegut or Lord of the Rings is considered deep but still accessible to teens and regular adults rather than a stanford graduate.

I think movies appeal to me because of moments of comedy of errors and psychological drama and I am trying to read novels. Tend to be drawn to historical fiction, because it historical leans toward heavy more than cheesiness, but sometimes I go to fantasy or sci-fi, sometimes historical fiction is just too much dread and only using tragic and brutal conflicts… I like pretty much most genres I was just talking about historical, fantasy or sci-fi, but it does not have to lean into that, I like thriller, detective, etc.

I want it to be something well researched. It can be based on the OxyContin Purdue Pharmaceutical scandal. It can be inspired by Nellie Bly’s Ten Days in a Madhouse. It can be like the villain is smart like a Dostoevsky character, maybe they have Utopianism, moral rigidity, a sociopath. Like what if they are like if Inspector Javert or Claude Frollo did medicine instead of law or religion… I kind of need this, because I want to write my own story where my parent character was a former experiment and is trying to live an ordinary suburban life but their kid might be targeted. And then the rest of my story is based of the Kennedy family.

What I mean is the main character has reincarnated over many lives. I wanted to watch this K-drama called my 7th life… but the k-drama was not the way I wanted… I want it to be like when the main character in their childhood lives are normal, it is when in that lifetime they become an adult they remember the memories of their previous lives. It would be interesting if they carried over skills from their previous lives like martial arts or healing wounds. I would want one with a lot of historical research. It does not have to be this way, but I think it would be interesting if the character lived through the USSR. Maybe the character lived across China, the Middle East, the Caribbean or United States. If there is a villain, I want the villain to be as smart as a Dostoevsky or Victor Hugo villian, maybe they reincarnate too. The villian could be the British East India Company or it does not have to be that. There can be a romance plot, I’m not against that. Maybe I would want it to be kind of philosophical… I don’t mind if it goes for magical realism.

like cat and mouse between Wanderer and Dottore or even other Fatui. I’ve read really goods one on Ao3. I want to write a cerebral thriller Wanderer fanfic myself. It’s hard to find when a lot of them are shippy. If you don’t know what cerebral thriller, examples are Alfred Hitchcock, Edgar Allen Poe, Dostoevsky or Franz Kafka. Contemplative I want to add. I tend to like short fics.