oswaldthatendswald

[oswaldthatendswald]

There's something really sweet and deeply sad about Zeff and Garp watching their kids become pirates together. For Zeff, it's a passing on of the torch, a relief in seeing Sanji finally go out and chase their dream. But for Garp it is an emphatic refusal of that torch, his legacy, and a horrible dread in knowing that Luffy's dream is going to set them apart. OPLA doesn't do much with the parallels, but Garp and Zeff are honestly incredible foils, and I think it was worth bringing Garp into this earlier arc to set up that contrast.

It also pulls the theme of the younger vs older generations into the spotlight, and the ways in which the younger generation is doing what those before them could not. You could interpret Zeff and Garp's relationship in a lot of ways, but they certainly don't have Luffy and Sanji's connection. Zeff might be retired, and yet they are still coming from opposite sides of the law. Luffy and Sanji are going to go out and grow together, while Garp and Zeff have an immoveable wall of perspective between them.

In a series so much about young people setting themselves against oppressive institutions, I think it's interesting to think about how the old guard sees that change, and how their views contrast each other.

You know, you could say a lot of things about OPLA, but having Garp and Zeff not only interact but know each other was Inspired. They said "make this shit intergenerational" and they were so right.

[oswaldthatendswald]

It's great when you accidentally and unintentionally set up an interesting parallel in a story. It's slightly less great when the parallel is really just blindingly obvious to anyone who isn't stuck inside your head trying to juggle the 67 balls that writing necessarily demands and so when someone points out the parallel your thought is less "oh, how clever am I!" and more "how the FUCK did I not notice that?????"

[oswaldthatendswald]

STOP TRYING TO SABOTAGE MY SOUPS

This is maybe the most precise example of this problem I've ever seen. They specifically recommend to dice the onion and mince the garlic, put them in the pot together, and cook until the onions are translucent. This is a pretty basic preparation of onions, though not always so clearly explained. The problem is, things which are cut up smaller (like mincing) cook faster than things which are cut up larger (like dicing). So if you put the minced garlic and diced onions in the pot at the same time and cook them, the garlic will be overcooked and unpleasantly bitter by the time the onions are done. Garlic is usually cut up so small that it only needs a very short time in the pan. Unless you're throwing in whole cloves, it should really only go in at the end of the onions' cooking time.

I cannot fathom why "put the onions and garlic in the pan together" is such a universal thing in recipes.

You know, every day I grow more convinced that recipe blogs are actively trying to sabotage me. There is no goddamn reason to put onions and garlic in the pan at the same time unless you want burnt and bitter garlic and yet every damn recipe I've ever found online says to put the garlic and onions in the pan together. This is conspiracy, I say, conspiracy and sabotage. And also bullshit.

[oswaldthatendswald]

There have been very odd sounds outside my apartment at night the last few weeks. For context, I live in the middle of the city, but there's a forest that serves as a wildlife corridor a few blocks away, so it's not uncommon to get interesting birds, rabbits, etc nearby, but it's still a pretty busy urban area. I'd assumed the noises were probably some sort of birdcall I wasn't familiar with-- hell, it could be a particularly odd owl.

Last night, though, they got close enough that I was finally able to hear them clearly. That's not a fucking bird. Those are coyotes.

[oswaldthatendswald]

im like if a dvd from a 3$ walmart bargain bin was a boy

[oswaldthatendswald]

writing tip #3657:

if you don't outline your book properly the words will try to escape

[oswaldthatendswald]

I just realized I fully forgot to post my extended notes on executions and imprisonment in the One Piece universe? Aha. Whoops. This is a very long post, so I'm putting it under a cut.

While working on Cry Havoc, I spent a lot of time thinking about Impel Down and the judicial system of One Piece because, frankly, they didn't make sense to me. Impel Down is a very large and very crowded prison, which would by its nature require a lot of personnel and a lot of money. The question I kept coming back to was: Why does Impel Down exist? Why is it worth using all those resources to keep it running? Bluntly, why not just execute all the pirates and call it a day?

I did research into the IRL history of executions, especially of pirates, and nothing came up that I felt was relevant to One Piece. The executions of both Ace and Roger demonstrate that people are fine with executions in concept, so no one's arguing against it on a moral level, and I couldn't think of any reason why it would benefit the government to keep captured pirates alive.

Eventually, I started thinking about the executions we do see in canon, and more precisely about the fact that we really only see two notable executions. Which are, of course, Ace's and Roger's. This got me thinking about the well-documented aftermath of Roger's execution. A significant portion of the pirates we meet in canon-- hell, most of the rookie pirates-- have set out to find the One Piece and become king of the pirates. By publicizing the execution and allowing people to hear Roger's last words, the WG allows him motivate an untold number of people to take to the seas. It would make sense, following such a blunder, that they then stop publicly executing people for fear of creating another Roger. Can't make a martyr if you're not killing people, after all.

And I really like this headcanon! I used it in Cry Havoc! I think it's an interesting lens through which to view the events of canon and offers a compelling explanation for the problem I was trying to solve-- and there's canon evidence against it.

Namely, Shiki, who is incarcerated before Roger and not executed, which kind of blows a hole in my theory that not executing people is a new thing. I had entirely forgotten about Shiki, due to not watching the films. He really only gets a throwaway mention in the main series. (I actually texted my friend while I was watching One Piece the first time to ask if I was missing something important, because they mention Shiki so briefly and then never bring him up in canon again.)

So, alright. My tidy headcanon now has a Shiki-sized hole in it (much like Marineford), and we're back to the problem of why he's not executed. The Doylist answer is, of course, that Oda likes to keep his characters alive in case they'll be useful later, but I'm a fic writer and I need Watsonian explanations. For plot reasons.

It is at this point, seething with irritation (especially since I'd already used that bit about Roger in Cry Havoc and I wasn't going back to change it, the implications are FAR too interesting), that I go back to some old AtLA fic for fun and an element of that canon jumps out to me: the big bads won't kill the Avatar once they capture him, because if they do, he'll just be reborn elsewhere.

And I sat back and said Holy Shit Devil Fruits.

Because the exact same logic applies to One Piece. If you kill someone who's eaten a Devil Fruit, the Fruit goes back into circulation and-- given how many pirates have or seek out Devil Fruits-- the Marines have a very good reason to control how many (and which) Devil Fruits are available. If they capture someone with a Devil Fruit, it actually makes a lot of sense that they wouldn't want to kill them. There's no guarantee the WG would be the ones to find the Fruit next, after all.

So that's a really good potential explanation! Now here's everything wrong with it.

I feel like the main problem is obvious: they really don't seem to be trying to keep people alive in Impel Down. Actually, they actively seem to be trying to kill people in Impel Down. Which-- okay, tangent, why not just execute them in the first place then. Why waste the time and money and manpower to make your goddamn hell prison if you're just going to torture people to death. It's logistically illogical.

What was I talking about.

RIGHT. The high mortality rate in Impel Down is the biggest argument against the Devil Fruit explanation. You'd think if they were imprisoning people to prevent Devil Fruits from being used by pirates or returning to circulation, they'd want to keep their prisoners alive. I think you could explain this as being disconnect between policy and people: the guards might know they're supposed to keep people alive, but that doesn't mean they care.

Another argument against it, though, is that there are definitely prisoners in Impel Down who don't have Devil Fruits. In canon, the guards and presumably the higher ups who put him there don't know that Buggy has a Devil Fruit, and it seems like many of the other prisoners on Level One actually don't have Devil Fruits. So what are they doing here?

Honestly, taking the Devil Fruit and post-Roger explanations together might offer the best explanation for Impel Down, but I'm still not quite satisfied. I'm unwilling to simply accept that this is some sort of cultural or ethical situation because a prison like that would be so unbelievably expensive to maintain. I'm also not going to call it a plot hole, because it's not my job to say that things are wrong. My job is to say why things might be right. I'm a fanfiction writer, not cinemasins, dammit. This feels kind of like a zero-sum post. I've come to no good conclusions. But I've been thinking about this for... fuck, fully three months now. I need to get it out of my head or it will consume me.

[oswaldthatendswald]

Cry "Havoc!" and Let Slip the Dogs of War

Chapter 8: A Mourning Rome, A Dangerous Rome

Strawhat Luffy has broken into Impel Down. Now he needs to break back out.

[oswaldthatendswald]

For you, @shitlinguistssay , I shall provide the recipe for The Best Stew.

.....except that I'm the sort of person who measures based on Vibes and never writes anything down? So the measurements here are very approximate and should be adjusted to suit your taste. This recipe made four large servings by my standards but that'll likely vary depending on how much stew you're willing to eat at a time.

The Best Stew

(also called Too Many Nightshades or Dracula Goulash)

Ingredients:

1 kg stewing beef

3 russet potatoes

a can of tomato paste (about 150g)

chicken broth (quantity depends on your preferred consistency)

half a package of bacon (or lardon)

one large onion or two smaller ones

two red peppers

3-5 cloves of garlic

about a tablespoon of ginger (I buy it minced, but you'll want more if it's powdered and possibly less if it's fresh)

2 heaping tbsp paprika

2 heaping tbsp cumin

1 tbsp turmuric

ground chili pepper, to taste

2 tbsp condensed vegetable broth

Brown about a kilogram of stewing beef, cut up into bite sized chunks, on all sides in a frying pan on medium high (this is the most approximate measurement, but they usually sell stewing beef in packages of about a kilogram at the store, and that should be the right amount). At the same time, dice three medium-sized russet potatoes and put them in a pot to boil. When the potatoes and beef are done, put them in a slow cooker together with 150 grams of tomato paste (or just a small can) and about twice as much chicken broth (if you used canned tomato paste, use the broth to rinse out the tomato paste can twice). Stir together and set the slow cooker to high.

At this point, you can also fry and then chop about half a package of bacon (lardon is better, if you can get it). I usually fry the bacon the day before to save time, if I can remember. Add that to the slow cooker too.

Dice either one very large onion or two smaller onions. In the same pan as the meat (do not clean the pan out. The meat bits left in the pan are the good part), cook the onion on medium low until translucent. Dice two red peppers and add to the pan. Cook for, say, ten minutes (just long enough for them to pick up the flavours of meat and onions). Add three or four cloves of garlic (or maybe even five, depending on how much you like garlic), finely minced, and about a tablespoon of finely minced ginger. Cook very briefly (really just until the garlic starts to smell like garlic toast). Add two heaping tablespoons of paprika and the same of cumin (this is the heart of the dish. The more the merrier), about a tablespoon of turmeric, and as much ground chili pepper as you would like (I put in a little more than half a teaspoon of very hot chili pepper, but it could have used more). Toast this briefly in the pan, stir together, and add it all to the slow cooker. If there's anything sticking to the pan, use more broth to deglaze. Stir everything in the slow cooker together.

This is the "adjust to suit your preferences" phase. You'll need to add salt, but how much depends entirely on your tastes. You may need to add more broth to get your desired consistency. Personally, I like to add about two tablespoons of condensed vegetable broth for flavour. The russet potatoes should break down when you stir it all together to give it a very thick texture (that's why I use russets; other potatoes are more likely to hold their shapes). Cook for four hours, at minimum. (Personally, I only use my slow cooker when I'm home to check on it, because I find that the bottom tends to burn if I don't give it a stir every half hour or so, but that might just be a quirk of mine).

Frankly, this is a very flexible recipe. You can adjust pretty much all the ratios to suit your tastes, and there's plenty you can add if you feel like it's missing something (carrots? More spices? Rice instead of potatoes?). I've also made it in a Dutch oven instead of a slow cooker, and that turns out well. If you have a whole day to cook it, you might be able to skip some of the steps (pre-cooking the potatoes, for example), but I usually make it around noon and leave it to cook until dinnertime, so I like to pre-cook everything to make sure it's done.

Pros of slow cooker stew: By dinner time, I will have the most phenomenal stew I've ever made. This one is going to be fantastic, folks.

Cons of slow cooker stew: my entire house smells like the best stew I've ever made and I can't. fucking. eat it.

[oswaldthatendswald]

the author's barely disguised hobbies and interests

[oswaldthatendswald]

Ive been trying to get a decent picture of this stew so I can brag about how good it is, but by its nature stew is not a particularly photogenic beast. So you're going to have to trust me when I say oh my god this is The Best Stew.

Pros of slow cooker stew: By dinner time, I will have the most phenomenal stew I've ever made. This one is going to be fantastic, folks.

Cons of slow cooker stew: my entire house smells like the best stew I've ever made and I can't. fucking. eat it.

[oswaldthatendswald]

Pros of slow cooker stew: By dinner time, I will have the most phenomenal stew I've ever made. This one is going to be fantastic, folks.

Cons of slow cooker stew: my entire house smells like the best stew I've ever made and I can't. fucking. eat it.

[oswaldthatendswald]

me: *writes fic*

me: great! time to post to ao3-

ao3 summary box: *exists*

me: 

ao3 summary box:

me:

ao3 summary box: 

me:

[oswaldthatendswald]

Studying fifth century (BCE) Athenian theatre has many benefits, including the opportunity to use words like "glossectomy". Haven't you always wanted to use the word glossectomy? I sure have.

[oswaldthatendswald]

i feel like fandom would really benefit from adopting the idea of readings, as in interpretations. anyone can interpret canon as saying anything on even the most tenuous of justifications. if you interpret a detail or moment in a particular way, great! but if someone interprets that thing in another way, even in a way which directly contradicts your interpretation, that’s also okay. multiple readings can exist at once without invalidating any of them

a lot of fandom drama seems to arise from people acting as if their interpretations are True or Factual in some way, when really all anyone can do is speak to their own interpretations & experiences. which is natural! and good! many voices with many interpretations and approaches is healthy and good. the trouble is depicting a reading, which is a very personal thing, as universally true, and then getting frustrated that others don’t interpret events the same way. & i get it, that can be annoying, especially if you think those other interpretations are misunderstanding the canon. but so much of the time it’s just a different reading, taking into account details you might not have noticed or maybe just viewing them in a different light, informed by different life experiences & values & everything else that goes into a personal interpretation of a creative work

by trying to depict One Single Reading of a text as Correct, fandom loses all the nuance of interpretation & also just turns everyone into a bunch of rabid raccoons fighting over different ways to look through the same kaleidoscope

[oswaldthatendswald]

being a writer leads to a genuinely helpful but also very stupid kind of mindfulness where you'll be having a sobbing breakdown or the worst anxiety attack of your life and think "okay, I really need to pay attention to how this feels. so I can incorporate it into my fanfiction."

[oswaldthatendswald]

OH HEY SOMEBODY REBLOGGED THIS AND REMINDED ME OF IT SO IT'S FUN FACT TIME:

I had the bones of Cry Havoc plotted out when I wrote this scene from Somewhere to be Safe-- including (spoiler I guess) the fact that Rocinante was going to sacrifice himself on Sabaody to protect Law and and Hearts. This was very very early foreshadowing that Rocinante was always going to put himself between Law and danger, always at his own expense. (That's also why I tried to build in the parallels to Ace and Luffy. We were always going to end up at Marineford.)

From the "DVD commentary on a snippet" ask, here's the snippet I chose, from Somewhere To Be Safe, because I legit think about Law saying, "you'll choose me, won't you" at least once every day:

"You almost died just to save me," Law says. He doesn't sound angry now. He sounds very young, and very, very frightened, like he dreads the words coming out of his mouth. "And if you have to choose again-- you'll choose me, won't you." Taking a deep, shuddering breath, Rocinante closes his eyes. Then opens them again. "Yes. Always." "Why?" Law says, agonized. "Is it because of my name? Why--" "No-- Law, no, of course not." Rocinante runs a hand through his hair, leaving it disheveled. "None of this has just been because you're a D. I had to get you away from Doffy because of that, but that isn't why I care about you." "Then why do you care about me?" Law almost shouts it, standing suddenly. "I don't understand! Why me? Why do you care about me so much? I'm cursed, I've lost my family, my home, everyone and everything I ever cared about, and if you were smart, you'd stay far away from me! So why don't you? Why do you care?" Rocinante had reached out for Law when the boy had stood up, but now finds himself frozen, hand outstretched. The words hurt, but not as much as the look on Law's face. Slowly, he gets out of his chair, and sinks down on one knee in front of Law, so that he is at eye level. He rests one hand on Law's shoulder and cradles his face in the other. "You're the bravest kid I've ever known. You've been through hell and you're still able to be kind, like you are with Bepo. You still put up with me, despite everything I've done to you. You're going to be an incredible doctor someday, and I want to see it." Swallowing, Rocinante holds back tears. "Every time I heard you say that you were going to die, my heart fucking broke. I just want you to be happy, and safe, and free. You deserve to be loved, Law." Law looks for dishonesty in Rocinante's face, his eyes searching. His brow furrows in confusion, the candlelight casting his face into half-shadow. "You deserve to be loved," Rocinante insists gently. "It's that simple." Law reaches out to hold on to Rocinante's shirt again. "Then why won't you promise to stay alive?" The answer is that Rocinante can't bear to live in a world without him, and if that means he has to put himself between Law and a bullet, he will, without hesitation.

Genuinely there's only one or two sections of the series that I love more than this scene. I am Thrilled to talk about it, always.

Oh god. Where do I even start.

I think a lot about how intense Rocinante and Law's devotion to each other is in canon. Rocinante, willing to betray everyone in his life and then die, just for the chance to save Law. And Law, who reciprocates by spending some thirteen years trying to avenge Rocinante. (Not featured here: the several thousand words I wrote about their relationship in canon because oh my god they make me feel so much. Focus, Ozzie.)

So what happens if Rocinante survives?

If Rocinante survives, then Law still knows that Rocinante was willing to die for him. He still heard Rocinante lie and say he'd be fine, Doflamingo wouldn't kill family (boy I sure love irony). And he still has Cora, sure, but-- man, he just had to witness the only person in the world who truly cares about him almost die, sacrificing himself to save Law. This kid has lost his entire family, his home, his whole world, and now, again, has had to face the potential of losing everything all over again.

This scene is in chapter five of Somewhere to be Safe, but it's calling back to a scene from chapter one, where Law lashes out at Rocinante for promising Doflamingo wouldn't hurt him when Rocinante knew damn well that Doflamingo was going to execute him, and another bit in chapter four, where Rocinante tells Law that he can't promise him he'll stay safe. The point of this ongoing thread is twofold: first, it's about Rocinante, man who has survived the past 3-4 years of his life by lying all the time, realizing that he needs to be honest with his kid. Second, it's about Law needing to know that Cora isn't going to leave him.

Maybe it would be kinder to appease Law's desire for affirmation that nothing bad-- nothing else bad-- is going to happen to Cora, but it wouldn't be true. This is the world of One Piece, after all, and Rocinante knows better than anyone that it is not a kind world. Promising Law that he'll be fine is setting himself up to break that promise.

But as much as Law is afraid of Cora dying, he also doesn't understand why Cora would die for him. This scene is very much pulling from Law's conversation with Sengoku at the end of Dressrosa-- the "Don't attach a reason to the love you've received" bit-- because it haunts me to think that Law spends so long after Rocinante's death trying to rationalize that sacrifice. I also tend to write Law as suffering from a great deal of survivor's guilt, and in this scene suggested that Law might feel like he is somehow responsible for the deaths of the people he loves-- "cursed", as it were. He can't figure out why Rocinante was willing to die for him because he doesn't feel like he deserves it.

Of course, both in canon and this fic, Rocinante has no greater (or lesser, perhaps) reason for his sacrifice than that he loves Law and wants him to survive. It doesn't matter that Law doesn't think he deserves love. That's not how it works. I can't make this point better than canon does, with Rocinante's drunken ramblings that Law overhears. Which, by the way-- this scene is also referencing that bit. ("Every time I heard you say that you were going to die, my heart fucking broke." I assume that Rocinante still doesn't know that Law overheard that speech. Seems like the sort of thing Law would keep to himself.)

The other reason why Rocinante won't promise not to stay alive, besides his awareness that that's not the sort of promise you can keep, is that he does love Law, to the point that he knows that if he ever finds himself in a situation again, where he's forced to choose between his own life and Law's, he will choose Law. Every time, without hesitation. He's got enough sense not to tell Law that, but it is still influencing his decision.

By the way, the whole thing about promising to stay alive is borrowed from Luffy and Ace, which is probably pretty obvious. It's an inversion of that promise, in a lot of ways, but also still about the same sort of feelings. It's about love, y'know? It's always been about love, the whole time.

Thank you so much for the ask, I had an absolute blast answering it!