#I feel like this constitutes a solid answer

[micewithknives]

Top 5 archaeological sites in Australia that you feel people should know more about? Or top 5 Australian artefacts?

I feel like I’ve talked a bit about artefacts in a few recent asks, and also I feel like a lot of Australian archaeology (and as such, sites) are very underrated, particularly on a global scale. Its often acknowledged in Australian archaeology that getting international academia to recognise the importance of our country’s archaeology is very very difficult.

While there’s a million and one sites I’d love to talk about, I’m going to TRY and give sites that relate to different aspects and locations

This is probably going to be long, so...

1. Nauwalabila, Madjedbebe (Malakunanja II), and the Deaf Adder Gorge region, Northern Territory (Aboriginal)

Rock shelters in this region, and specifically Madjedbebe, are currently the oldest location of human habitation in Australia. Dating evidence from 2017 excavations provided an estimate of earliest occupation of 50 000 years at certainty, possibly extending back as early as 65 000 (+/-6000). It also has provided a lot of evidence for research into the extensive grind stone technologies of the Pleistocene.

2. Cloggs Cave and the Buchan region of the Victorian Gippsland (Aboriginal)

So much research has been done into this region in various ways. Josephine Flood focused her research on Bogong Moth usage (and festivals) within this region, providing some of the earliest accepted academic research in support of Aboriginal peoples’ claims of large scale Bogong Moth Festivals in Australia’s highlands (although the fac that no one really believed communities until then…………..). In 2021 grind analysis found Bogong Moth residue, making this the earliest stone artefact with evidence of insect food remains. And in addition to that recent 2017 research in the area investigated Holocene occupation with Aboriginal community members, with a focus on understanding the interaction of spirituality with the resources found in the caves.

3. Mabuyag Island, Torres Strait Islands, Queensland (Torres Strait Islander)

Mabuyag Island (alternatively known as Mabuiag or Mabuyaagi) has archaeological evidence of human occupation since 7300 years ago. The island is both associated with recent religious practices associated with he heavy processing of dugong remains, and totemic associations with these, which played a role in early 2000s into community lead and directed archaeological research into ritual and religious traditions and practices. In addition to this, Mabuyag is the location of the first archaeological excavations in Australia to find pre-colonial pottery fragments. The fragments at the two sites on the island were associated with Melanesian and Papua New Guinean pottery trade. The excavations relating to pottery on the island played an important role in our understanding of domestic and international trade in pre-colonial Australia, and also formed an influence for the recent excavations at Lizard Island, 300km south, which identified the first datable domestically made pottery technology found in Australia.

4. Hyde Park Barracks, Sydney, NSW

Hyde Park Barracks is part of a collection of colonial heritage structures in Australia, relating to Australia’s time as a penal settlement. Hyde Park Barracks in particular were the location of the housing of convict men from 1819 to 1830, with the 1830s to 1840s also involving the site being a location of additional convict punishment, and the base for the Board of Assignment of Servants. Following on from a reduction of convicts to NSW in the 1840s, the Barracks became the Female Immigration Depot, and the Orphan Institution, later becoming the Asylum for Infirm and Destitute Women.

This time period of women’s occupation provides some of the most interesting archaeological remains, as redevelopment and management of the site has found high rates of preservation within walls, and in areas below floorboards. This includes textiles and fabrics, papers, and other non-organic materials such as pipes (with their tobacco intact) stashed in what was once floor, wall, and ceiling cavities. Archaeological investigations in the area form one of the most detailed assemblages of artefacts relating to instituted women in the British Empire during the 19th century.

5. Notch Point, Western Australia (Multicultural heritage)

Notch Point is a site of varied and mixed archaeology, ranging from pre- and post- colonial period Aboriginal heritage, to diverse 19th century occupation of the region by Chinese, European, Malay, and Aboriginal peoples in association with pearling industries off the coast. In addition to this, the point is located on Dirk Hartog Island (otherwise known as Wirruwana), the site of the earliest European arrival in Western Australia in 1616, and contains archaeological evidence of both various early Dutch interactions with the island in 1616 and 1697, as well as French arrival in 1772, 1801, and 1818. Notch Point in particular also contains evidence of conflict between the predominantly Chinese population of the pearling industry, with white-Australian and European pearling masters, and pastoral agents. Its not a site that is widely discussed, but provides a fascinating overlay of the amount of varied cultural groups that can be present within Australia’s archaeological sites.

-

-

Honourable mentions to:

Lake Mungo and the Willandra Lakes which should 100% be on this list, but also I feel like I talk about it ALL the time and I wanted to mention sites that I actually don’t see discussed a lot. Theyre super important for cultural reasons, for archaeological reasons, and also for their role the development of archaeology, Aboriginal community consultation, and the role its played in developing repatriation practices in modern Australia. I have multiple posts about them HERE

Budj Bin Eel Traps in Victoria (same reasons, I’ve definitely talked about them before).

Juukan Gorge (and its destruction, im still horrified)

Harrietville Chinese Mining Village

Strangway Strings and The Peake Afghan Cameleer sites

Recherche Bay in Tasmania, and its 1792 French settlement sites

Homebush Mill & Mission Hall in QLD and Beowa National Park sites containing South Sea Islander heritage

[wings-of-ink]

Hi Lunan, I was wondering about the player stats if you have time. I keep getting reckless as a go to response for things despite trying to play a more shy and timid MC and it made me curious. How do you determine what choices actions constitute which stat? I understand that the game is still in development and it may not be set in stone or other aspects of the game might be more of a priority, but I was mostly interested in picking your brain, in a general sense, if that's OK. I'm sure you're very busy so there's no rush to answer this ask, or answer it at all.

Hello, Anon!

Let's see, player stats are definitely something that will get fine-tuned as we go. And, funny that you ask, I have literally been dwelling specifically on the reckless stat this weekend.

I'll just explain how I have worked this out below. I apologize that I went a little long...I genuinely enjoy chatting about this stuff, and I gotta bit...lost in the sauce here, lol. ^_^

For the MC's personality and actions/reactions and some of their speech patterns, I have 4 main stats. These are on a scale with their opposing characteristics, so 8 total. There's a 5th stat that tracks how your MC flirts.

Reserved vs Outgoing

Gentle vs Assertive

Serious vs Playful

Reckless vs Cautious

Bold Flirting vs Shy Flirting

The MC starts with scores directly in the middle for all of these (50 on a scale of 100); however, I decided not to code for much in the way of "middle ground" behavior. This saves me tons of coding and tons of agonizing about what a middle-of-the-road response would be. So, if your MC's score is above "49" they default to the characteristic listed first, but lower than that, they default to the one listed second.

The only score that is treated differently is the one for flirting. To default to bold, the score needs to be below 40, so the character must show a fairly direct preference for boldness in this area. I did this since shyness is a fairly "safe" bet for this type of characteristic.

Number 4 does not come into play very often - yet. As things heat up, some actions that the player does not get to choose will be determined by their score in this stat. Currently, there are only a few options to choose what influences this score. It is possible to barely have any score for this stat one way or another. I'm going to be increasing the influence of this and probably adding some new ways to get points for this as I do some editing.

As for how I determine if something raises or lowers a stat in general, I try to use my best judgment to determine motivation when I design the choices that influence stats. To me, being reckless or cautious could be either intentional or not. I think the first time this stat comes into play is in Chapter 1 when MC decides if they are going to try to steal the honeycakes at the beginning. Trying to snatch one gives an increase to recklessness since it could be a naughty or impulsive decision.

I also wanted 1, 4, and 5 to be independent of one another since someone could be more outgoing but very timid when they flirt and cautious when they act. Outgoing/Reserved is another that needs some adjusting as well and will be tweaked in the future.

The others are more straightforward. If an action or speech choice is more kind/soft/mild/considerate, I label it "gentle." If it is more direct or even a bit aggressive, I label it "assertive." I kinda just have to use my own interpretation as best I can, and I know that to other people some of my options will feel flipped (occupational hazard, lol).

I have liked this system for the most part. It took a lot of working out when I got started. I was just learning so it was easily a solid week of me just hammering out what I understood and what worked. I have learned so much since then. I knew I wanted to keep things paired down to ease my own burden. Lots of stats can be so much fun in a game, but I just do not want to get too lost in it, so I keep my focus narrow.

Hope that helps, Nony! If you have follow-up questions, please feel free to let me know! ^_^

A side note, while we are on the subject...

For my next IF, I may play with a different way to set the MC personality. I may just have players pick at the beginning from either specific stats or like 4 or 5 MC archetypes. The wheels are still turning on this though, nothing is set!

[cecilxa]

aesthetics, complexity and deep affection

summary: kaveh is an architect in love

contents: fluff, established relationship, gn!reader, kaveh is so hopelessly in love, character driven

cw: nothing i can think of, tell me if you find any!

recommend listening to: let you break my heart again by laufey + philharmonia orchestra

a/n: happy belated birthday kaveh 🎉🎉, more at the end

To find something beautiful is entirely subjective. One person may argue that the depths of the sea contain all the beauty of the world, whereas another would argue the stars. On certain days when the moon hangs low or when the light streaming through the stained windows at Puspa Café hits his wine at an angle, Kaveh likes to ponder this topic. Flowers blooming, the desert sand glimmering, eyes smiling. Beautiful things. 

None quite as beautiful as you.

Call him superficial; call him an aesthete; call him yours. If Kaveh is the light of Kshahrewar, then you can be the butterfly to his sunlight, so he can hold you in his hands and bask in your attention. He wonders what colour your wings would be, how they would unfold, and how he would stare at them in awe, mesmerised. But you don’t need wings to lure him in, nor do you need anything more. Because if he is the light of Kshahrewar, then you are his muse, his own solace in a world of sorrow.

In architecture, there are several components that make up even a miniature wooden box, let alone a palace made out of brick and concrete. But no matter how complicated, no matter how long the hours spent, no matter how frustrating, a palace was created as a palace, and that will never change. On the other hand, what constitutes a ‘home’? Can you have multiple? Is it something you can create and then mould, or is it something that evolves and transforms itself? Grandiose staircases and lofty ceilings seemingly mean nothing if you can’t hear echoing laughs and joyous gasps. 

Kaveh thinks that he may have an answer. A ‘home’ is people. Good people, who care for each other. Like when he was younger, his parents–however long gone they may be–cared for him with all the tenderness of a coddling touch. He found a home in them. 

Now, this ‘home’ is you. 

As idealistic as Kaveh is, there are no lofty assurances he swears that float just out of reach. Because what he whispers quietly in your ear late at night, he vows to keep. On his life, which seems that much brighter with you. 

“Whatever you wish for, I’ll give.”

He kisses your shoulder. You laugh softly. You can’t count the many times he’s lured you into a slumber through the aid of sweet nothings and comforting touches. But as you turn around in his arms, the laugh manages to get caught in your throat. Kaveh isn't laughing back. There is adoration in his eyes, yes, and there is devotion in his gaze, yes, but there is something else–something special–that makes you wonder whether you’ve underestimated the depth of his feelings. The bed makes a slight creak as his face comes closer. 

“You have no idea how much I’m in love with you.”

He’s telling the truth. The beginning of a solid house starts with a solid foundation, which is then built upon. Kaveh is the foundation to your house, and he would gladly let you grow and flourish from his dedication, if only you’d let him. From your house stems a home that contains all that he cherishes, from the gleam in your eyes to the smile that he’d frame with the slight tilt of your chin. An architect should be able to indulge in all that they find breathtaking, which, for Kaveh, he has the privilege of being able to admire every day. And yet, every single day, he manages to fall for you again and again.

Kaveh promises that one day he will be able to grant all that you wish for, no matter how impossible it may be. You deserve more than the constraints of what constitutes ‘possibility’, and then will he be able to see your smile, and see his reflection in your eyes, and not notice anything else but the happiness enveloping both your bodies. 

But for now, he’ll have to make do with unbreakable whispers and the feelings in his heart that beat in time with the flap of a butterfly’s wings. 

He finally grins at you, never faltering in his gaze. 

“I want you to know how much I truly do adore you.”

a/n: I’M BACK BABYYYYYYY, I MISSED WRITING!111!1!1! my posting schedule will now be much more regular :) as always, likes, reblogs and comments are always appreciated 🩷🩷

[ordophilosophicus]

What it means to be a Moreau:

An essay and analysis of Jean Moreau's character-conflict  (Aftg and TSC - spoilers)

What this will not be about: The actual content of the book. Ok, that's not fully true. I am not about to discuss if something that happens itself is good/bad, in character etc. Or criticize topics.

What this will be is an analysis of parallels, character-motifs and questions concerning their trajectory and hindsight of actions. Questions AND Ideas how to answer these questions.

What does it mean when Jean states "I am a Moreau '', Why does TSC feel a bit like a crunched up Aftg? What constitutes the actual conflict of Jean - since either choice (staying or leaving) appears to be certain death? Why does Rikos death and Kevin's betrayal (the hand thing) matter to Jean?  

The book came out and my heart went racing. These books (aftg and tsc) bring me great joy, all I will criticize and analyze in this tiny, a bit too long essay, is said with greatest love and sincerity towards these books. But there can be said a lot - especially about TSC.

Get a snack and hop on.

Parallels between aftg and tsc - Stories about identity:

First of all let's begin with Nora's great writing of POV's. In this book we do get two pov's, giving us contrast to Neils in Aftg. Meaning we see the world, the characters from three different perspectives. And Nora makes them all matter. In the end I will tie it back with interpreting Jeremys pov, but for now let's only look at Neils and Jeans. A lot of characterization is made by what is focused on in their respective povs. What characters are interesting, how much rumination (thought) vs action is expressed. Both are unreliable narrators, and both tell us so much about what matters to them.

Both Aftg (Neils arc) and TSC (Jeans arc) are about the loss and gain of identity. From the retrospective, the arc consists of questions such as: Who am I?; Can I change who I am?; and what am I worth? But both arcs start with a clear sense of identity which is threatened.

However, somehow Neils arc is more concise and clear cut. Of course, part of this can be attributed to the simple fact that there will be a (second and maybe third part) to come for TSC, but it's mainly the groundworks I think which are "lacking". They are not necessarily lacking but rather not as (clear/spelled out).

The theme of "Identity" is special, since the stakes in the book/ark are about identity and its loss. Other stakes (death, loss of friendship, love etc) are not the main focus. The characters struggle and peril is about the loss of identity, which would mark a step into an unknown world they cannot navigate, and bring other dangers they avoided or dealt with the current identity. (Example: Lying vs telling the truth. Former obstructs the consequences of the truth, the later means you need to deal with the consequences.) On the other hand, it is the alternative identity which provides something of interest for the charatcer, creating a conflict of WANTING and perception of SELF. They WANT friends, but would need to GIVE UP their former sense of protection.

We are introduced to Neil Josten, and his very solid perception of identity. He is "nothing" = He has no right and no attachment to anything. He is a liar and alone. The conflict is created by offering him Exy and later on a team. Security stands in conflict with ending his loneliness and the feeling of not mattering. Nora introduces this conflict very early and very clearly. It is what makes us sympathize and, more importantly, understand and buy into the crazy thing Neil does to keep his secrets.

However, there is another identity which rides that one of "Neil Josten." Nathaniel Wesninski, the identity attached to that name, becomes more prominent throughout the books, and in the end, Neil needs to accept this identity to move on.

Nathaniel Wesninski's identity is very much spelled out in AFTG and it must be so, to make this shift of identity so impactful. A Wesninski is: loyal, does not lie, cruel but true. The very opposite of Neil Josten.

Nathaniel Wesninski is tied to the Moriamas, and is tied to his father. To pain, loss and a life of consequences and responsibility. (Not to run). The stake to shift to this identity (to be this person) is made clear by showing throughout the books how each of these parts are dangerous. And every step Neil takes (especially in the first and second book) is to avoid having to lose Neil Josten and be Wesnisnki.

And it works excellently. We fear WITH Neil when he makes the shift to Wesnisnki in Lolas car, and it is an epiphany when Riko dies and Neils makes a deal with Ichiro. When he wins in Exy and can play Exy. Because he not only shifted in the identity, he did not lose Neil Josten. He successfully changed to a Wesninski, to then further to a NEW Neil Josten. (Important: It's not losing an identity, which makes the arc powerful. It's the change of self. Nora is very explicit by making it a three step program. Josten. Wesninski, and "New" Josten.) We see what is the conflict, we get the stakes, and we see how Neil resolves the problems and takes on a new, stronger identity.

TSC is about Jean and a similar problem. However the swap, or rather the whole conflict does not appear as strong as with Neil. And the reasons for it are very simple, though still relevant for the trajectory of the story and possibility for the reader to emphasize and root for Jean.

TSC starts out with the bonus that we are already entranced with the fate of Jean and understand The Nest and Riko. However, what we do not know is Jeans' identity. Who does he think he is?; What stakes does he think hinge on being "Jean Moreau, the Raven, belonging to the Moriyamas' '? WHY is it so tremendous to leave the Nest, and what does he have to gain? What is the trade and what is the challenge? Etc. All that we have established with the Neil example prior.

Through Jean's mantra we get told that Jean has some kind of values attached to being "a Moreau '' and being "part of the Nest/belonging to the Moriyamas". The fatal problem is, we are never told what this actually means.

As readers we can understand why Jean is afraid to leave the nest, what Riko has done and could do to them. But this does not create the conflict we are looking for and plays out in the book. The conflict is happening, but the pov Nora gives us through Jean does not sufficiently explain what this conflict actually is about.

The answer is given implicitly and between the lines. These few bits I will try to spell out and interpret. Further, there could be a stronger case in certain scenarios, to make the conflict around Jeans identify stronger, and his relation to other characters more impactful.

First let's consider:

"What does it mean to be a Moreau?"

When Jean realizes he had been taken from Evermore, he tries to bargain with others and himself that he cannot leave. "Because he is a Moreau", and he belongs to Riko/the Moriyamas. But we are not let in WHY this exactly is a problem. Oh no, how horrible to not be beaten to death. If Jean leaves, Riko and his family will be angry and could try killing him. But the same appears to be possible if he GOES BACK. The whole first chapters establish that Jean is neither safe in nor outside the nest. (He might think it's safer inside, but for the reader, it  is clear this being not the case.)

Therefore, this conflict is not of external stakes, but internal. If Jean leaves, it would mean breaking with his identity, losing himself, creating or letting in problems he formerly avoided or dealt with through the identity he is trying to keep. It is essential that we understand WHAT HE IS TRYING TO UPHOLD.

Duty and being reliable:

I think we can define "being a Moreau" by being a person who has a strong sense of duty. Who is reliable and  sensible. I mainly read this from the fact that Jean asks Jeremy to add "being conform with USC appearance" to his contract. He has a duty to serve Ichiro, and by putting conformity in the contract, by extension he has a duty to be conform.

""You will have to pen it in," Jean said. "I won't sign it unless you do." It was the only way this worked: If Jean signed something that said he had to behave to be allowed to stay on the lineup, he could bite his tongue and stay his fists. It'd piss him off beyond telling, but he could follow orders if it meant surviving another day." p.71(kindle)

But this does not fully explain why breaking with the ravens is problematic for Jean in the beginning of TSC. Nora has not forgotten or overseen this, but it's not explicitly put in the text. Jeans backstory is about being sold to the Moriyamas. He is given the duty by his parents to serve Moriyama. Nora had portrayed it very much in a way that Jean was very reluctant to do. Although understandable, I propose to read this character more strongly. Make this matter more:

Jean is an older brother, prior to being sold, he had already understood himself as a reliable and dutiful person. An older brother to take care of his baby sister. A Moreau to in the future take care of business. resourceful and reasonable. Dutiful and compliant.

When he is told by his parents he is sold "as Moreau" - not as anybody, he is sold with a duty to represent and pay off the depth(?) of his family. Perform on the court, show the worth, protect his family, his baby sister.

His place at Evermore and belonging to Riko would be/is tied to his understanding of being a Morou. Leaving Evermore, would mean to not fulfill his duty, to give up, to be unreliable, since his parents and his sister counted on him.

If we accept "duty" and "reliability" to stand in the center of Jean's identity and conflicts, all other relationships and actions are to be seen from the perspective of Jean trying to protect this identity and stay conform with it. Most notably this strengthens both the events and dynamic between Jean and Kevin, and Jean and Riko respectively.

Riko & The Ravens:

Imagine Jean had been brought to the Nest, unwilling, hurt by betrayal, but with a strong sense of duty to go through with this. Take this burden given to him, and perform. Riko would have picked up on this. The amount of violence, the "breaking in" of Jean was not simply cruelty or any weird family feud thing. It was Rikos testing, an attempt to break Jean's sense of self. If he would not be able to perform on court, not achieve it - he would break his promises. Jean's small but consistent rebellions against Riko are an expression to keep his duty. He plays games even if he is hurt, he does not kill himself. For Jean to fulfill his duty and sense of self(worth) means going along with whatever, and holding out whatever.

Giving up on Evermore is not only breaking his sense of identity and purpose, but also making the pain he insured pointless (as Jeremy notices so fittingly). It means Riko wins by breaking him. His fear of Riko is tied to his fear of losing his sense of self. And him losing Riko means he has failed his duty to play for him on the court. The ravens are described by Jean as "loving and hating" each other respectively. And that nobody in USC could ever understand. But nor can we truly. Why does Jean not hate them, why is he not happy Riko is gone? because it means he failed, and they all contributed to his identity and achievement of his promises. The deal he made with Zane was one of the best insights or examples we are given to understand the Nest. To FEEL the Nest dynamic. Survival, reliance, schemes, dependance. Cruel intimacy to others, to know their secrets and fears. If you are not tight with someone (Jean and Zane, or Jean and Kevin) you also cannot find a way to protect yourself. Knowing Zane loved that one Raven girl and wanted that number, gave him the ability to stay away from Grayson and not break. The ravens, and Riko are not only an obstacle to his success and upholding of his promises, they are the means to an end. He needs them as much as he despises them. That's why leaving them, and Rikos death matters for Jean.

Kevin:

On the other hand we have the relationship between Kevin and Jean. We are given more insight on how Kevin got out of the Nest: by fucking over Jean. This scene or event is gutwrenching BUT it could be STRONGER if Jean would have known and been complicit with Kevin. Jean loved/liked at least cared about Kevin. Although his sense of duty is tied to Riko and the court, there would also be such a sense towards Kevin. Especially if Kevin came and asked him, directly. Confronting Jean with concieving him as a reliable, to be trsuted person. The one friend you count on the get you out of the shit. If one can help him, it is Jean. Because he is a Moreau. If we would read it as Jean accepting the consequences of helping Kevin, we would lose this ark of betrayal. But we would not need to erase the discontent and hurt Jean holds towards Kevin. For Kevin would have known and relied on Jean's self understanding, and played him. Used him as means of an end. Asking a person who is used to compromising their own safety, who understands themselves as a rock at a shore and understands the pain and fear one goes through - calling/playing on that is as much as a betrayal and use of a person as it is simple "not telling him". It makes it worse in some sense, because it highlights the intimacy between Kevin and Jean. They knew each other very well, and Kevin used that knowledge, in raven fashion, to survive.

(On the other hand, I would agree one could read it in the original way, Jean not knowing, because Kevin is aware of Jean's understanding of duty. That Jean would feel the sense that he NEEDS to betray Kevin. So there is still room for interpretation.)

SUMMERY:

Okay, okay. That was a lot. Let's surmise what I claim: That Jeans sense of self is shaped by duty, more explicitly the one he holds from his parents to be perfect court, please the Moriyamas and protect his family (sister).

Leaving the Ravens endangers all of this, all his sense of self and all he has done to achieve it.

Riko dying means there is never a way back, and he has failed. It upheaves all he is and wants, even though Riko and the Ravens did horrible things to him.

Neil making the deal with Ichiro formed a new duty, and gave him a way out. A compromise. Play court, but with USC. And still Jean loses a lot, or everything he considered constitutive of himself when he leaves the Ravens and comes to USC.

Whom he has duties to? Formerly his Raven partner, now? Jeremy offers to take the role. His experiences and background make him take duties towards the other Trojans to give him a sense of worth (asking if Cody is ok with touching/flirting with them.)

Neil drags him to the FBi and Stuard, and he comes to know all of his efforts to protect his family had been in vain. And it is that point in which his last tie of "old" sense of duty, breaks off. He cannot hold onto the same ideas and rules, duties and objectives as before.

For Jean, this break  is what is for Neil the end of a whole arc.

Whilst AFTG and TSC are similar in theme, they are very different in their outset. Whilst Neils whole arc is about getting and learning his new identity, Jean has to go through that all in one book. That's why we see and feel a great parallel between both characters, but also the arc itself. The telling of information, the parallel of fear of losing the old and gaining the new. Of betraying one's old identity/family in the end, and offer of a new, better, alternative.

However, Jeans arc does not end there. His story appears to be more about healing and the disconnect between outer, imposed, duty and value, and self-worth.

I think that's also why we get so little insight of Jeremys conflict in the first book. We get enough hints that have very likely to do with Jeremy being gay, stepfather, cops, maybe drugs and the family being publicly known. It has to do with imposed identity from the outside, self vs outer worth and dealing with that. We get so little from Jeremy, not only because he is an expert in talking and thinking around his own problems and issues, but because the story has Jean not ready yet. Jean first has to come in the same state Jeremy has been, or is in, before they both start pushing and pulling each other. Like Andrew and Neil could only start developing after Neil starts to compromise and change his sense of self, his willingness to be more than simple lying Neil Josten.

The same applies for Jean and Jeremy. But the end goal is about healing, and creating one's own self worth, rather than becoming a whole new self.

Thank you for coming to my ted talk.

p.s. I love Kevin, don't touch him.

[eresia-catara]

Do you think Dante was jealous of Guido? And do you think Guido was jealous of Dante? And why? They seemed to be very, very close. God, I can't stop thinking of these emo, fruity poets

Hi anon it is very understandable that you cannot stop thinking of these emo fruity poets, this is what the whole community does after all ahdfghs your question is very interesting I'm very happy you asked. I do want to say though that this is only my personal opinion and I do not think it has any solid evidence, so take it as such :')

First of all, when talking about jealousy I imagine we are not referring to possessiveness but rather to an envious resentment in regards to something that another person has (at least I hope so or this post will be completely useless lol); in this case, we are stating that the other has something desirable that we are lacking, meaning this feeling has to start from an underlying positive perception of the other. Now, this positive perception was certainly there in the first years of their friendship, first of all in the form of admiration. Guido was, in a way, an authority figure for Dante, especially in his earlier years. He was the one who recognized Dante's poetical talent and encouraged it; he was also one of the best poets in all of Florence, a great thinker, and was noble and rich, so Dante had a lot to gain from his friendship (poetical knowledge, connections...) but most of all it would only be normal to not only look up to such a person, but also to be influenced by him (let's remember Dante met him when he was only 18 and Guido was 25-28!! and the fact that they were best friends also implies another layer of idealization of the other). On behalf of Guido, we can just as confidently say that there was admiration. First of all because if Dante said they were best friends then it implies the feeling was mutual: Guido had to hold a high opinion of Dante as a person. Second of all, he had to appreciate him also as a poet as he chose to be his teacher and included him in the élite circle that constituted the ideal public of his poems (let us remember that Contini did describe him as snobbish, after all).

In both of them we can find a need to be distinguished from the others, and the fact that they found in each other that uniqueness would potentially give us a fertile ground for jealousy. However, I don't see it as something likely. Why? Well, in these early years we are talking about, their relationship was characterized by a strong unity of wills, as attested by Dante's poem Guido, i' vorrei. In this harmonic dynamic it seems unlikely that some kind of jealousy was harboured by either of them, as that would've rather created difficulties between the two. Yes, Guido did answer to that poem with S'io fosse quelli che d'amor fu degno however that sonnet only shows that their thoughts were starting to diverge. In fact, when their friendship teared, it was because they strongly believed in diametrically opposed theories, which can thus not provoke any envy. This can also be seen from a bigger picture, which is their pride: Dante himself believed he was too prideful and from what we can gather of Guido's personality he was not someone who held a high interest in others (something we would call pride too ;) ), so a feeling of jealousy? No, they could never.

I actually had another thought but I got interrupted and forgot... I'm trying to remember but I can't so I guess the post has to end here. sorry about that ;-;

anyway, have a nice day :]

[studies-in-the-art-of-deduction]

Chess and Deduction

Okay so, this blog is meant to be the place where i put a lot of my more fluid ideas, things like rants about a specific concept or theory in deduction, or posting some deduction that i made. I tend to use @amateur-deductions for more article-like posts explanations so here's a bit of a rant for you about what deductions can look and feel like.

So recently i've been answering questions about how to squeeze information out of the things you observe, how to break down what you see into information that can constitute as actual deductions. And while i was in that mindset to make one of my last posts, my Youtube feed blessed me with videos of Levy Rozman, (Gothamchess on youtube for those of you who don't know), and i've started to draw some parallels between chess and deduction.

Now, i'm by no means an amazing chess player, i've been more into it recently since i have time, but it's not really something i dedicate a lot of practice to. That being said, Levy said something in one of the videos i watched that caught my attention: As he was explaining very basic chess concepts, he mentioned how once you start pushing your pieces forward and entering the middle-game, the moves you make in the opening start tying together.

Essentially what he pointed out is that, once the opening is done, your pieces start to naturally intertwine with each other, they protect each other and take control of a plethora of squares, so many that sometimes you don't realize it until the game starts to develop more. You start to notice that the knights you moved in the opening can attack a certain way because the rooks that you also moved in the opening are conveniently in a position where they can cover the attacking pieces. Or you notice that as the opponent pushes pieces to attack you there's no reason to panic because a piece you'd moved during the opening is conveniently guarding the area the opponent is pushing into.

Now, you may be wondering what the hell does this have to do with deduction. Well in the same way that you don't always have to think about every single little implication about your moves during a chess opening, and even if you don't, you still can start formulating a plan in the middle-game with what you built during said opening, in deduction you're not necessarily always looking to make a "plan" from the beginning, or to set up your observations a specific way to get to a specific conclusion.

The way that deduction works a lot of the time is, you just start observing, maybe drawing small conclusions like someone's handedness or their extraversion level, and then as you start piling onto these conclusions you start to realise that a lot of them conveniently tie together, you start to notice that you can make forward progress because a new conclusion that you might consider happens to be supported by an observation or conclusion you made in the "opening". In the same way that, in chess, as you start to get into the middle-game you realize you can attack with certain pieces because other pieces are now set up in a way that can defend them. You're looking to realize that you can push forward in your conclusions because previous observations and simple deductions have been set up to defend these conclusions.

So taking a deduction from Sherlock for example. As you look at someone's phone and start to realize that it's expensive, and that it has an engraving and scratches, you start to draw small conclusions, like "huh, this is a gift because this person is clearly not in an economical position to buy this", or "huh, this has had a previous owner". This could be considered the "opening", you're sort of just going through each piece, developing it, getting control of the center of the board, and just scanning around for your next moves.

Once you have a solid footing, once you have a solid opening position, you start pushing forward, and start realizing that the pieces that you've set up can start moving and tying together, so you make a move that looks optimal with the piece set up (the information) that you have, something like "well if the phone was given to him by a previous owner, and that previous owner is a close family member, why not move in with them? hm, maybe they don't get along". And as the deduction goes on you try to keep making these optimal moves, moves that are supported with what you've already uncovered.

And like a chess game, yes, sometimes you blunder pieces, sometimes you reach a conclusion that isn't supported by any evidence, and it leads to you loosing the game. Sometimes you make a counting error and you realize that your pieces are not as protected as you though. Translating this from the example, sometimes you think every conclusion you're drawing makes sense and is fully supported, only to be corrected and realize that you didn't account for something, or that there was another, simpler explanation for what you've found, and this leads to loosing the game.

And when this happens the next move is to plug the chess game into an engine and see what you did wrong and what you did right, did you blunder anything? did you make a move that was horrible but the opponent didn't notice? did you miss a mate in one? or in 3? or in 5? In other words, did you reach the right conclusion with the wrong reasoning? or did you miss a clue that would have led you to a massive deduction? or did you just jump to a conclusion without a good base for it? As always the goal is to analyze this and make sure these are not mistakes you make in your next game

Here's where i'll leave this rant, i do hope it was informative (hopefully it wasn't confusing). If you have any questions feel free to send them over in my asks.

Happy Observing!

-DV

[the-path-to-redemption]

My problem with rwby is that it was hard to hate people for doing evil when the heroes were no different.

For example cardin is a racist se we’re supposed to hate right? Racism bad? However we see yang using a laser pointer on Blake, manga Yang talking about faunas acting like actual animals? Strangely the show tries to treat it as a joke which is wrong on so many levels. (Those anon posts were spot on!)

Jacques is considered abusive because of the slap to weiss right? Then later Blake slapped sun and was considered “funny”…somehow. (Weiss even pointed a gun at her unarmed civilian brother…and the show was trying to consider that as heroic)

If there is no standards or decency within the heroes then why should I support them?

No anon you don't get it! A heinous action is only heinous if the bad guys do it, and RWBY aren't the bad guys! So don't question them when they are racist to their own friends, abuse their loved ones, and are allowed to get away scot-free!

If my sarcastic irritation at this narrative choice isn't clear yet...

Unfortunately, RT does not know how to create a morally complex narrative without being hypocritical as fuck, and I highly contribute this to the fact they do not have a solid idea of what constitutes as "bad" or "good" regardless of the good or bad being in-universe discrimination or showcases of abuse.

CRWBY established that comparing Faunus to animals is a racist thing in-universe, but its Faunus characters behave like animals and have animal attributes literally tattooed onto themselves (Sienna), and we are left to question what is and isn't racially discriminatory. News flash, people, if you don't put a clear and distinctive guideline of what racial ideas are in your made-up race but instead allegorize its issues with ANTI-BLACK RACISM, you fucked up. I have a few posts that go more in-depth about this here and here.

And with the abuse? Listen, RT has made it very clear that they do not believe that male victims of abuse exist. Whitley, Sun, Ren, Ozma, and Oscar all went through abuse of some kind, and their abusers (most were women) never got called out for it. You're shit outta luck if you're trying to find a modicum of respect that this kind of subject matter demands.

To answer your question, anon, is that you DON'T. You are valid in feeling frustrated about this, as do we, because the creators sure as shit won't care.

[transgenderer]

Bataiile, The Cruel practice of Art:

It is with a sort of mute, inevitable, inexplicable determination, like that in dreams, that the fascinating specters of misery and pain have always lurked among the background figures in this carnival of a world. No doubt art does not have the same essential meaning as the carnival and yet, in each, a part has always been reserved for that which seems the very opposite of pleasure and amusement. Art may have finally liberated itself from the service of religion, but it maintains its servitude with regard to horror. It remains open to the representation of that which repulses.

...

The image of sacrifice is imposed on our reflection so necessarily that, having passed the time when art was mere diversion or when religion alone responded to the desire to enter into the depths of things, we perceive that modem painting has ceased to offer us indifferent or merely pretty images, that it is anxious to make the world "transpire" on canvas. Apollinaire once claimed that cubism was a great religious art, and his dream has not been lost. Modern painting prolongs the repeated obsession with the sacrificial image in which the destruction of objects responds, in a manner already half-conscious, to the enduring function of religions. Caught in the trap of life, man is moved by a field of attraction determined by a flash point where solid forms are destroyed, where the various objects that constitute the world are consumed as in a furnace of light. In truth, the character of current painting—destruction, apocalypse of objects—is not put clearly into relief, is not highlighted in the lineage of sacrifice. Yet, what the surrealist painter wishes to see on the canvas where he assembles his images does not differ fundamentally from what the Aztec crowd came to see at the base of a pyramid where a victim's heart was to be torn out. In either case the flash of destruction is anticipated. Doubtless we do not see cruelty when we envision modern artworks, but on the whole the Aztecs were not cruel either. Or what leads us astray is the too simple idea we have of cruelty. Generally we call cruelty that which we do not have the heart to endure, while that which we endure easily, which is ordinary to us, does not seem cruel. Thus what we call cruelty is always that of others, and not being able to refrain from cruelty we deny it as soon as it is ours. Such weaknesses suppress nothing but make it a difficult task for anyone who seeks in these byways the hidden movement of the human heart

...

Thus far I have demonstrated that the flash of destruction is, in the trap of life, the bait which does not fail to entice us. But the trap is not reducible to the bait. It supposes not only the hand that places it but the end pursued. What happens to someone who takes the bait? What are, for the individual who gives into fascination, the consequences of his weakness?

In truth, the question posed by the nature of the bait does not differ from that of the purpose of the trap. The enigma of sacrifice—the decisive enigma—is tied to our desire to find what a child seeks when seized by a sense of absurdity. What bothers the child and suddenly changes him into a whirligig is the desire to obtain, beyond the world of appearances, the answer to a question he would be unable to formulate. He thinks that perhaps he is the son of a king, but the son of a king is nothing. Then he thinks wisely that perhaps he is God: this would be the resolution of the enigma. The child, it goes without saying, speaks of this to no one. He would feel ridiculous in a world where every object reinforces the image of his own limits, where he recognizes how small and “separate” he is. But he thirsts precisely for no longer being “separate,” and it is only no longer being “separate” that would give him the sense of resolution without which he founders. The narrow prison of being “separate,” of existence separated like an object, gives him the feeling of absurdity, exile, of being subject to a ridiculous conspiracy. The child would not be surprised to wake up as God, who for a time would put himself to the test, so that the imposture of his small position would be suddenly revealed. Henceforth the child, if only for a weak moment, remains with his forehead pressed to the window, waiting for his moment of illumination

It is to this wait that the bait of sacrifice responds. What we have been waiting for all our lives is this disordering of the order that suffocates us. Some object should be destroyed in this disordering (destroyed as an object and, if possible, as something “separate”). We gravitate to the negation of that limit of death, which fascinates like light. For the disordering of the object—the destruction—is only worthwhile insofar as it disorders us, insofar as it disorders the subject at the same time. We cannot ourselves (the subject) directly lift the obstacle that "separates" us. But we can, if we lift the obstacle that separates the object (the victim of the sacrifice), participate in this denial of all separation. What attracts us in the destroyed object (in the very moment of destruction) is its power to call into question—and to undermine—the solidity of the subject. Thus the purpose of the trap is to destroy us as an object (insofar as we remain enclosed—and fooled—in our enigmatic isolation).

...

Yet it is from this double bind that the very meaning of art emerges—for art, which puts us on the path of complete destruction and suspends us there for a time, offers us ravishment without death. Of course, this ravishment could be the most inescapable trap—if we manage to attain it, although strictly speaking it escapes us at the very instant that we attain it. Here or there, we enter into death or return to our little worlds. But the endless carnival of artworks is there to show that a triumph—in spite of a firm resolve to value nothing but that which endures—is promised to anyone who leaps out of the irresolution of the instant. This is why it is impossible to pay too much interest in excessive drunkenness, which penetrates the opacity of the world with those gratuitously cruel flashes in which seduction is tied to massacre, torture, and horror

[youandthemountains]

haven't posted the excerpt yet but one of my favorite non-ship related moments of Dreams of the Raven is that the plot hinges on an experience McCoy had as a young resident during a Psych rotation - one of his patients was an old spacefarer who grabbed him and shoved a knife against the nape of his neck and told him that's how to help with these monsters of the week, and you imo you realize that's actually why he entered this fugue which implies it was a memory he'd repressed right? and yet he talks about it pretty frankly and cheerfully, happy he has answers and a way to help. which is of course accurate to mr. you're in bed holding a knife to your doctor's throat. but that happened at 40, he was like 21 in his first year actually dealing with patients in the field when this happened

and idk I just thought that was so interesting, thought the whole novel was written very accurately esp with regard to him as a doctor and gave him real solid backstory.

some thoughts on how it relates to my experience w hospital work below : (tw: mention of violent patients, sexual assault)

reminds me of the first hospital I worked in, how like. expected, as part of the job it was that sometimes people are violent esp in these extreme circumstances and assaults aren't out of the ordinary. We had a nurse who was brutally sexually assaulted and it was like a huge question about whether she could/should press charges. And just generally at that hospital I remember like hiding in the med room waiting out patients with violently expressed altered mental status, one who mistook a nursing assistant for his son and took a hefty swing at him when he went to try to help him to the bathroom and it was always like that sucks but 🤷 that's the job and tbh that was part of why I was like lollll not worth working in this field. I will avoid that in a heartbeat, don't have the constitution for that.

but part of why I did pick the place now - I don't know if it's times that have changed or different states or just managers or what - but our unit director always makes a point of reminding everyone that the rooms should be considered our rooms that the patients are guests in, and so you should never feel uncomfortable entering your room and if you are we address that immediately which seems so simple but was really a revelation for me even though at first it still felt a little like welllll but aren't people supposed to feel comfortable here? It's a nice, different experience and I'm glad it's changed, but it's good and interesting to see that part of his job portrayed

[havenofseven]

8. Where and when do they seem most and least at ease? Why? How can you tell? ( jack )

Character Development Questions

Honestly I think I have to answer the second half of this first because his whole thing, not as like, a schtick, but just a thing that happens to be true about him is that there is a stoicism. He doesn't give big reactions*. A little of it is a natural temperament. A lot of it is training, and I think no matter how long its been it'll never really leave him. And so, mostly, I don't think you can tell. In a solid... let's go with 80% range of his ease/unease scale, I don't think his level of comfort really shows. It's just a steadiness, questions if he has them, comments if they're needed. Then, it's only when you get into the extremes of either that it might show.

*Typically. The exceptions, historically, have always involved Tech. Now you could expect the same to extend to Colton, but (thank god) it hasn't come up yet. (First ~seven years with no major incidents or scares kind of win, really, though everyone would love it if he got sick less. ANYWAY->)

Extreme unease (which, for the sake of not arguing with myself, we'll say is distinct from escalating all the way into being actively distressed) is probably the more subtle. More keeping tabs of his surroundings, maybe clipped speech, but he's not exactly a chatty or unobservant guy to begin with so I'm not sure this is really a direct tell; he could reasonably shrug it off as habitual and I feel like most people wouldn't push back too hard. This kind of unease would come into play.. I mean, just whenever it does. But definitely when he had established plans for something, a trade or other journey toward the inner zones, that involved the crew and things took major unexpected turns. Not just minor surprises but location shifts and more coordinated numbers than he expected— not just that it went off the rails but that it leans threat shaped. Admittedly he can be a little sensitive about what does or doesn't constitute a threat, sometimes, so it's probably a good thing his unease tends not to show.

Extreme ease is both easier and harder to place. You'll mostly find it when he's got someone (proverbially or literally) guarding his back. This is why he and Arachnid vibe so well. In terms of tells, his guard is up in some capacity so much of the time I think it's easier to notice when it goes down. Smiles come easier, and laughs -though still not a particularly common noise- are more likely to appear. He's got a bit of a mischief streak, though it's hard won to get to a level where he'll mess with you, so if he's teasing and doing a little bit of harassment, truly we're at extreme ease.

I don't know that either are tied to specific where's, like. Obviously the Haven is like a the-relief-of-familiar-home shape and his and Colton's room is a physical resting place, but I don't think it's as simple as walking in a sitting down that promises ease. There's always something to be done.

[danjaley]

Specially for @nocturnalazure here are Matt's answers to the Bold-the-facts tag.

[ PERSONAL ]

$ Financial: wealthy / moderate / poor / in poverty (He can afford to live comfortably, and there was a lot of money saved over the last years, as there were no younger brothers to educate. However, he has to make sure the estate is prospering to maintain his lifestyle.)

✚ Medical: fit / moderate / sickly / disabled / disadvantaged / non applicable (Apart from his cleft lip he inherited Fiona’s robust constitution. This helped him survive to adulthood and enables him to lead an active life running the family estate.)

✪ Class or Caste: upper / middle / working / unsure / other (Gentry/Landowner.)

✔ Education: qualified / unqualified / studying / other

✖ Criminal Record: yes, for major crimes / yes, for minor crimes / no / has committed crimes, but not caught yet / yes, but charges were dismissed (Unless you count eloping with Alice as an offence)

[ FAMILY ]

◒ Children: had a child or children / has no children / wants children (Soon to change, only delayed by author's real-life projects.)

◑ Relationship with Family: close with sibling(s) / not close with sibling(s) / has no siblings / sibling(s) is deceased (Close to his cousin Jonathan)

◔ Affiliation: orphaned / adopted / disowned / raised by birth parent(s) / not applicable

[ TRAITS + TENDENCIES ]

♦ extroverted / introverted / in between

♦ disorganized / organized / in between

♦ close minded / open-minded / in between

♦ calm / anxious / in between

♦ disagreeable / agreeable / in between (Depends on his mood and what he thinks of the person in question.)

♦ cautious / reckless / in between

♦ patient / impatient / in between

♦ outspoken / reserved / in between

♦ leader / follower / in between

♦ empathetic / vicious bastard / in between

♦ optimistic / pessimistic / in between (Not the kill-joy sort of pessimistic, but he usually expects the worst. If the worst doesn’t happen, there’s still time to relax and enjoy the good things.)

♦ traditional / modern / in between (He’s traditional as in he wants nothing more than to be a respectable family father. On the other hand he’s unusually tolerant regarding same-sex relationships.)

♦ hard-working / lazy / in between (Due to his social status he’s expected to leave the physical labour to others, but he’s out on the grounds every day to make sure everything is done properly.)

♦ cultured / uncultured / in between / unknown (He’s not as much into culture as Jonathan, but has had a solid education. To strangers he often seems more uncouth than he actually is. Partly he does this on purpose as he feels he’s just giving them what they expect of him.)

♦ loyal / disloyal / unknown

♦ faithful / unfaithful / unknown

[ BELIEFS ]

★ Faith: monotheist / polytheist / atheist / agnostic (Protestant. As the local landlord he’s expected to be seen in church regularly and is content to fulfil this role. He doesn’t think about religion too deeply, but also doesn’t question it.)

☆ Belief in Ghosts or Spirits: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care (Growing up in a family and a house with some haunting-history, ghosts have always been part of his life. He doesn’t usually see ghosts, but he feels a special connection to his father.)

✮ Belief in an Afterlife: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care (Mixture of Christianity and ghost-lore.)

✯ Belief in Reincarnation: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care

❃ Belief in Aliens: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care (As I said for Jon, stories about life in other worlds or on other planets were a medium of satire, like in Gulliver’s Travels. When Matt read it as a child he didn’t get the satire aspect at all. He was doubtful even then about the truth of the dwarfs and the giants. But secretly he still believes Gulliver was an exiled Houyhnhnm.)

✧ Religious: orthodox / liberal / in between / not religious (Tolerating Alice’s orthodox opinions – and those of her brother of course.)

❀ Philosophical: yes / no (Sometimes brooding, but without theoretical background.)

[ SEXUALITY & ROMANTIC INCLINATION ]

❤ Sexuality: heterosexual / homosexual / bisexual / asexual / pansexual

❥ Sex: sex repulsed / sex neutral / sex favorable / naive and clueless (Gaining experience, but it was further complicated by Alice’s pregnancy. Made him more than ever afraid to break something.)

♥ Romance: romance repulsed / romance neutral / romance favorable /naive and clueless / romance suspicious (Being gruff and romantic doesn’t go together very well. He’s deeply convinced that sweet-talking with his pronunciation would be nothing but ridiculous.)

❣ Sexually: adventurous / experienced / naive / inexperienced / curious (See above)

⚧ Potential Sexual Partners: male / female / agender / other / none / all

⚧ Potential Romantic Partners: male / female / agender / other / none / all

[ ABILITIES ]

☠ Combat Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none (Unlike Jonathan he knows how to shoot, at least in hunting. It’s sometimes needed on the estate. After the pirate fighting incident, he avoided brawling situations for fear of further damage to his face. He’s strong though, so he could definitely defend himself if attacked.)

≡ Literacy Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none (He can read and write in English and French, but the only literary genre he really enjoys are stories of travel and adventure.)

✍ Artistic Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none (His only artistic talent is for music. He plays the violin and the piano. Recently it came up backstage that he regrets not being able to play the bagpipes. His drawing skills are as poor as Andrew’s.)

✂ Technical Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

[ HABITS ]

☕ Drinking Alcohol: never / special occasions / sometimes / frequently / Alcoholic

☁ Smoking: tried it / trying to quit / quit / never / rarely / sometimes / frequently / Chain-smoker (Similar to playing the bagpipes, he can’t smoke. So he’s excused from doing it at social gatherings, but still takes part in the conversations.)

✿ Recreational Drugs: never / special occasions / sometimes / frequently / addict

✌ Medicinal Drugs: never / no longer needs medication / some medication needed / frequently / to excess (Sometimes he regrets that he’s dependent on mushed food being served wherever he goes. He likes to think that without this condition, he’d enjoy travelling much more.)

☻ Unhealthy Food: never / special occasions / sometimes / frequently / binge eater (As stated for Jonathan, they sometimes go out to drink hot chocolate in Edinburgh. Matt’s weakness for hot chocolate is an autobiographical detail – it has saved my life more than one. Of course Matt can always drink fresh milk at home. To him, chocolate is one of the few kinds of luxury food that he can enjoy just like everyone else.)

$ Splurge Spending: never / sometimes / frequently / shopaholic (Although he did indulge himself buying three new horses :)

♣ Gambling: never / rarely / sometimes / frequently / compulsive gambler

[redadm1ral-moved]

48 for all of your ships in their respective universes? Or if you wanna narrow it down, Soap/Corvo in COH and Makayuri across different AUs?

~Jasper

Do they talk about their future together? Why or why not?

OH GOSH HMMMM............gonna go with Soap/Corvo and maybe a little Makayuri because answering this for too many ships will make my head spin rn

Soap/Corvo

I think there's a silent agreement between Soap and Corvo that Soap will follow Corvo anywhere, and Corvo is fully dedicated to Emily; unless she abdicates, dies, or literally orders him to step down, he intends to be her Lord Protector until he physically cannot anymore, and intends to continue being her Spymaster until he dies. So likewise, Soap will stay and serve the crown for as long as Corvo does, even if it means he stays in Dunwall Tower the rest of his life.

They still entertain cozy little fantasies about retiring, stuff like retiring to a vineyard in the Serkonan countryside or going sailing around the Isles. Stuff they don't really think will come true. They both have parts of them that long for a little bit of rest, but going back to civilian life is not a choice made lightly for either of them and I think on some level, they're both afraid of adjusting poorly and needing something to dedicate themselves to; so they're fine with leaving their fantasies as fantasies.

Makayuri

HM yeah this one is 'verse dependent, but I think Makarov is the dominant voice in the relationship in most of the Makayuri 'verses, for better or worse--usually for worse, but I've got some AUs where Makarov is like...normal. Not abusive, at least.

For the ones where he is, and/or he and Yuri are massively codependent (so canonverse and AUs like Venator and Apoptosis), I think Makarov works under the assumption that Yuri will follow him and his word anywhere no matter what, and any conversations about future plans are usually related to Makarov's goals and involve Makarov completely bulldozing over Yuri. Yuri is not completely passive about this and will argue with Makarov on things, but for the most part, he is willing to follow Makarov pretty much anywhere (or at least he thinks so; he does have a breaking point, at least in canon and most AUs), and most of the time, he won't argue about something unless he thinks it's a bad idea and/or he's absolutely certain he'll be able to get Makarov to listen to him.

In AUs where they're more normal, I think they're both people who find a lot of security in a solid plan, even if their approaches and what they believe constitute "solid plans" may be different. I feel like Yuri and Makarov have varying levels of flexibility on certain things that differ from each other, and view each other as neurotic in different directions that are really difficult to reconcile; they like to get their future planning Over And Done With, so they prefer to have a long conversation (usually involving an argument, knowing Makarov) about a milestone they want to reach, reach an agreement on their individual approaches on how they'll contribute toward that goal, and then chug along toward it without another word until it's reached and it's time for them to decide what to do next.

They do entertain idle fantasies and stuff in those kinds of AUs, I think; I think Yuri ultimately wants a comfortable, calm domestic life, and while Makarov loves piles of money and everyone wanting to suck his dick (unless it's an AU where he's more solitary, like Oasisverse), for the most part he wants to be able to retreat to a private, comfortable place where he has only a few close, trusted people he can be himself with. Ultimately what they want is dependent on the AUs they're in and I've got too many to bother digging into all of them rn.

[thirstyforred]

roderick/albrecht slash thingy

i got sorta bored halfway thru, but i guess I'll still revisit it at some time, posting now bc why not really

Looking at Roderick, actually looking at him, without the veil of pretenses, Albrecht can see why he’s like that. Sort of. It’s not that de Wett is some beauty, or has an incredibly dreamy body - he’s lean, with some muscles, just enough that you can tell he's a solid swordmaster. He’s pale, paler than Albrecht even though he’s the one hailing from the far north, but it matches well with the narrow dark eyes…

And so on and on. What actually Albrecht means has less to do with Roderick’s looks and more with the way he carries himself. The infuriating arrogance of someone well-born and capable enough to not be called a complete failure and freeloader. A mouthful, but there’s hardly a better way to describe it.

And Albrecht knows it, intimately even, considering that that’s exactly what he tried to emulate for the most part of his life. He would even carry on like that, if not the capricious destiny, putting them both in each other’s way, on both sides of someone they both needed equally bad.

(It would be much nicer to think that Jacques de Aldersberg ‘needed them’ and not just ‘had use of them’. Alas truth was never that sweet and gentle.)

For that reason, it was unimaginable for them to be anything more than rivals. Enemies in a single cause. Unwilling companions on this blessed road. Soulmates of the worst grade, if the world was truly cruel like that.

Albrecht smiled at that last thogyht…

“Stop,” murmured Roderick. His eyes were closed, mouth lax, up until he spoke one could be sure he was asleep.

“I’m hardly doing anything.”

“I feel like I can hear you thinking. A single cog running in that empty head of yours.”

“You know what wise men say: first you ought to empty your mind before you try to add any more new knowledge into it.”

At that, Roderick raised a single eyelid, scrutinizing the other man. Not friend, nor enemy, but a sacred third thing, that only the two of them could understand. No matter how much they would both prefer to pretend it wasn’t a thing in the first place. And then snorted with laughter. Something deep and true.

“So?”

“So what?” repeated Albrecht, feigning ignorance. But he reached toward Roderick and ran his hand on the naked biceps and down to the elbow. Roderick let him, didn’t even wince.

“Are you thinking about something so engaging right now?”

Albreach hummed inlay of an answer. 

Roderick blinked a few times and looked up again. He was half-lying on the bed, shoulders propped on the headrest. “What is it then?”

There was a small pool of blood under Roderick’s forearm, dripping from the cut there. Albrecht's fingers moved, ghosting the skin until he reached the exposed bone. Hovering right above the open fracture.

“I heard that bones stick to the tongue when licked. Because of their spongy structure.”

“That’s what are you thinking about? Licking my bones clean? What are you, some sort of vampire?”

Albrecht just shrugged with a lazy smile. Roderick was sweating, ridding off the big dose of fisstech that numbed the pain. But his eyes were still blown wide, deep and dark like the abyss.

Jacques told them to play nice with each other, but that left a lot of field for interpretation, what exactly constitutes “nice”. They had safewords, painkillers, healing magic even, they were both reasonable adults. Besides Roderick had a mean punch, and would start biting if Albrecht did something he didn’t like.

Breaking bones and then setting them back was easy. Childs play.

“I thought you studied monster lore with the boss? There are more flesh-eaters than just plain vampires…” However, if their beloved master was to be believed, suckers were the only ones that would be also interested in sex.

Which is something Roderick and Albrecht did a few times. Sporadically. Both are high as kites on the Salamandra merchandise. Nothing too involved or intimate, just hands and rolling hips, just enough to get off the edge. Something to pass the time.

But they fitted together, like two pieces of something… Something that shouldn’t be together in the first place, because of the danger for the surroundings. Like Cadaverine and good wine. Like rubies instead of diamonds in a megascope’s matrix. Something volatile and bad…

Roderick’s fingers, the ones from the unbroken arm, found their way inside Albrecht's waistband. Sneaky little things. “What about it,” started Roderick. Only slightly out of breath. 

Albrecht leaned closer, so whatever the other man had in his mind, he had a better grasp on it. Mindful of the broken limb Albrecht lowered his head to Rod’s chest, his warm breath causing a groan.

“You fix me up, and then I jack you off?” finally asked Roderick. A little bit more and he would start begging instead of proposing.

“But why? You already have a hand on me, don’t you?”

Roderick groaned again. There was new, red bite mark on his chest.

[asmuchasidliketo]

Under the cut: a long article by the author about gay marriage

Source

Here’s How 9 Predictions About Gay Marriage Turned Out

Not often—in fact, pretty much never—have I been lost for words in the gay-marriage debate. But the Supreme Court’s national legalization of marriage equality leaves me gaping and gawping like a guppy. For a homosexual man of my generation, born in 1960 and deeply etched with wounds of self-loathing, discrimination, and bigotry, events in America now feel like the end of a Hollywood movie. Or, perhaps, the beginning a classic rock song, by Queen. Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

Although most people correctly predicted how the Supreme Court would rule in Obergefell v. Hodges, my overriding feeling is still, in a word: surprise. How—how in the world—did we get here? I’ve written hundreds of thousands of words about same-sex marriage over a period of two decades, including many predictions. Perhaps there is insight to be had by looking back on nine of them.

How did I do? A mixed bag. Three of my predictions have been wrong, indeed spectacularly (and revealingly) so. Three have been borne out (also revealingly). The jury remains out on three more. Let’s start with those.

1) “A Supreme Court decision imposing gay marriage will spark a fierce backlash.”

For years, I said the federal courts should butt out of the gay marriage debate and leave it to states, where consensus could be gradually and organically developed. I feared that involving the U.S. Constitution too soon would short-circuit a vital process of social persuasion and deprive us of the deeper kind of civil rights victory that comes only from broad public consensus, not from courts.

It’s too early to know how Obergefell will go down. Republican presidential candidates are mostly hostile. But I believe my prediction, although sensible at the time, has passed its sell-by date. A solid national majority now supports same-sex marriage, and holdout states are moving in that direction. When I asked a couple of well-connected social conservatives whether they or others in their world were likely to go to the barricades in a multi-decade campaign of resistance like the one over abortion, both said no. One of them told me, “We could all see that the battle over same-sex marriage was over, and that was true regardless of how the court ruled in this case.”

Here is my guess: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the court’s five-member-majority decision, is the most astute politician in America (counting Bill Clinton as retired). He has shown a flawless knack for knowing how far he can bend public opinion without breaking it, and I believe he has correctly judged that the country is ready to accept his decision.

2) “Gay marriage won’t lead to polygamous marriage.”

Predictably, the Court’s decision led to another of countless rounds of forecasts that the marriage-rights movement will now expand to multiples. (Like this.) Again, we’ll see, but I’m willing to stand by what I’ve long said: the case for gay marriage is the case against polygamy, and the public will be smart enough to understand the difference.

Gay marriage is about extending the opportunity to marry to people who lack it; polygamy, in practice, is about exactly the opposite: withdrawing marriage opportunity from people who now have it. Gay marriage succeeded because no one could identify any plausible channels through which it might damage heterosexual marriage; with polygamy, the worries are many, the history clear, and the channels well understood.

I won’t repeat the reasons; you can read some of them in this article by me or this new book by Stephen Macedo, among many other places. Predicting politics is hard, but I believe polygamy, if it even gets traction as a matter of public debate, will be decided as a policy question, not a civil-rights question—and the answer, correctly, will be no.

3) “Same-sex marriage will be part of a broader renewal of the culture of marriage.”

I’ve always believed that cultural conservatives misunderstood the gay-marriage movement: far from being an attack on the culture of marriage, it represented a shift back toward family values by a group that had learned the hard way, through eviction by their own parents and suffering in the AIDS crisis, how important marriage and commitment and family really are.

Perhaps same-sex marriage will not have cultural coattails. I hope and believe, however, that gay America’s embrace of marriage has sparked renewed interest and appreciation among straight Americans. And the marriage-equality movement has warmed many on the social left to a pro-family agenda. It’s possible now, as never before, to be pro-marriage without being anti-gay. And the big message of gay marriage—“Pro-marriage is pro-equality”—resonates across the spectrum. More than 100 prominent Americans, of varied political and partisan stripe, have already signed a statement calling for a new Marriage Opportunity movement building on the cultural momentum of gay marriage. This is only a beginning, but it is a breeze in the right direction.

So those are predictions where the jury remains out. Now for three I was right about.

4) “Marriage will transform gay culture.”

I supported same-sex marriage for many reasons: its message of legal and civic equality; its promise of support and stability for gay couples and their kids; its potential to broaden and universalize the culture of marriage; and more. Right up there was my belief that the gay culture I grew up in was toxic and that marriage could change it.

In the 1970s, when I came of age, being gay seemed to mean leading life in a Mephistophelean subculture that was obsessed with sex and alienated from love. In that world, gay people could have casual sex with multiple strangers, but publicly holding hands and exchanging vows were unthinkable. Gay culture internalized the legal and social repression of committed relationships in ways that twisted our psyches, distorted our communities, and ultimately fed the tragedy of AIDS.

Today’s national debate about a culture of promiscuity and dangerous sexual behavior revolves around drunken straight frat parties, not gay bathhouses. This is partly because of AIDS, which shut down the baths. But it is also largely because of something I was right about: by tying sex, love, and commitment together into a coherent whole, marriage could heal a broken gay culture. The sexual underworld was not an inherent feature of homosexuality, as our critics charged; it was an artifact of life without marriage, and therefore without a destination for love.

Though casual sex and dangerous promiscuity aren’t dead (and never will be, among gays or straights), they no longer define gay culture—and never will again. Gay marriage represents our time’s greatest triumph of social conservatism, as today everyone except social conservatives can see.

5) “Marriage will heal gay kids like Jon.”

My biggest interest in marriage, though, was very personal. I understood as a young boy, long before I had any inkling about homosexuality or sex, that marriage was not for me. And this knowledge was devastating. Every step I took toward sexual love was a step away from marriage and all the social approval and personal stability that went with it. I had seen my own parents’ marriage fail painfully and harmfully (not least to me), and I yearned for the kind of stability and contentment that I saw marriage bring to my friends’ parents. Desperate to keep that option open, I spent 25 years twisting myself into neurotic knots in an effort not to be gay. (You can read about it here.)

When the idea of same-sex marriage came on the scene, I immediately saw it as a form of vaccine against homosexual self-hatred. I imagined how much different, and better, my life would have been had I assumed as a young child that the path to marriage was open to me: that I could love, and be loved, within adult life’s most sustaining and engulfing institution.

Today, young gay children know from the first whispers of sexual awakening that they can progress from their first crush to dating, committed relationships, and a destination in marriage. And for the most part that’s what they are doing. Marriage has been a miracle cure for gay self-hate. Of course being young and gay will always be difficult and confusing for many people. But now it can also be something it never could be before: normal.

6) “Gays will actually get married.”

Actually, I didn’t quite have the nerve to predict this. In fact, I worried about it. In 1996, when I published a big article on gay marriage in The New Republic, I ended it this way: “The biggest worry about gay marriage, I think, is that homosexuals might get it but then mostly not use it. … It is not enough, I think, for gay people to say we want the right to marry. If we do not use it, shame on us.” Twenty years ago, after all, many in the gay-rights movement saw themselves as sexual liberators, rejecting “heteronormative” straitjackets like marriage.

I’m going to put this in the win column, because in my heart I always believed that gay America would embrace marriage. Before long, I saw I was right. A turning point came on that day in San Francisco in 2004, when same-sex marriage was briefly legalized and the world saw gay couples lining up outside the courthouse and around the block. (There are some marvelous photos here.) Massachusetts, legalizing gay marriage a few months later, saw a similar rush to the altar—a rush that has never stopped.

Irving Kristol, the late conservative editor and commentator, used to joke about gays and marriage: “Let them have it, they won’t like it.” Boy, was he wrong. Gay couples have reminded the straight world how much marriage really matters.

And, finally: what was I wrong about? Here are the biggest three surprises:

7) “Gay marriage will take decades, if it ever happens at all.”

When I published my first words advocating same-sex marriage (for a memorable Economist cover and editorial in January of 1996), I thought I was writing for some future generation. Almost nobody supported the idea or even took it seriously. Getting a gay-marriage bill introduced in even a single house of a single state legislature was unthinkable. The courts were rudely dismissive, except in Hawaii, where their openness to the idea sparked a state and national backlash—led by Democrats, notably President Bill Clinton. This was not an uphill battle. It was no battle at all. It was a flea annoying an elephant.

I was astonished when Massachusetts’ supreme court legalized gay marriage there in 2004, only eight years after the notorious Defense of Marriage Act swept through Congress: and I’ve been astonished ever since. I was not only wrong about the pace of change, I was wrong by an order of magnitude. I forever nagged gay-rights advocates to be patient and go slow. They retorted that I was underestimating the country’s movability. It took a few more years, but starting in 2012, when the tide turned, they proved right. I have never been so happy to be wrong.

In my defense, there is no precedent in American history for so rapid a fundamental social change. The folks at Bloomberg put together this nice graphic illustrating the point. Everything I knew about social change foretold a long, slow battle. Why change came so quickly and dramatically will be debated for generations. It could only happen, I think, because a lot of vectors converged. I’ve tried to explain some of them in this 2013 article. Whatever the reasons eventually prove to be, I stand by what I concluded in that piece:

At the end of the day, however, to me an element of mystery remains. America’s change of heart toward its gay citizens is the greatest awakening of mass conscience in the United States since the civil rights movement of the 1960s, but it was achieved with far less bloodshed and bitterness. It is born of persuasion and love, not violence and hate. Witnessing this awakening has been the most exhilarating and humbling experience of my life. Explaining it completely is, perhaps, impossible. Or perhaps I just want completely explaining it to be impossible. It feels, after all, like a miracle.

8) “Marriage will retire the gay civil-rights agenda.”

Marriage, it always seemed to me, was the big kahuna for gay equality: so powerful in its symbolism and social reach as to come about only when there was little or nothing else left to be done. I assumed that traditional civil rights protections forbidding anti-gay discrimination by employers, landlords, and commercial businesses would be much less controversial than marriage and would be settled much earlier.

Oddly, I was wrong. Marriage was indeed much more controversial; today most Americans believe, incorrectly, that discrimination based on sexual orientation is already generally illegal. Yet marriage is now legal nationwide, but a majority of states and the federal government still lack antidiscrimination laws!

Indeed, antidiscrimination laws appear to be growing more controversial, because religious organizations see them as coercing participation in gay marriage. Conservative states are lining up to pass laws that shelter religious organizations, people, and businesses from antidiscrimination provisions. Like it or not, marriage or no, the battle over gay civil rights rages on.

9) “Writing about gay marriage will wreck my career.”

This was my father’s prediction, not my own. In 1995, he begged me to reconsider my leap into advocacy for same-sex marriage because, he said, the whole idea was so nutty that by favoring it I would give up my standing as a serious journalist. Twenty years ago, his qualms seemed perfectly reasonable.

I leapt anyway. And opprobrium never came. Instead I found astonishing receptivity. Never, to my knowledge, have I been punished or marginalized for saying my piece about marriage; time and again, my case has been welcomed in America’s most prominent journals—including some leading conservative ones, such as National Review and the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial positions were very different from my own.

In the wake of Obergefell, I received tweets and emails lauding my heroism. The truth is more like the opposite: after taking some risk initially, I never suffered or sacrificed at all. The real heroism was displayed by the culture and country, which opened its ears and ultimately its mind. For all the talk (some of it justified) of political correctness on the left and epistemic closure on the right and shrillness and polarization everywhere, I have learned that America, today as much as ever, or maybe more than ever, is a place where people can be brought to listen, consciences can be pricked, ideas can matter, and small, marginal voices can make themselves heard. That, to me, is a greater miracle even than gay marriage.

This is really sweet

So for my AP United States History class we have to write a research paper; my topic is the gay rights movement in America. Today I began reading one of the books that I chose as a source

And I opened it up to the dedication page and found this

And if you don’t think that’s one of the sweetest and most romantic things ever then get out of my face

[mitigatingacademics]

{10.30.2024}

I baked Black Velvet Cupcakes as my Halloween Crew Offering and, despite the fact that we're less than 48 hours from November, had to run my air conditioning on my trip down to the station to deliver them. #HappyHalloween #GlobalWarmingIsReal

I’ve had a productive first week back from vacation. I even picked up an overtime shift Tuesday night.

I had been studying for the LSAT and working on essays/applications for so long that, having less than a week after completing everything before being accepted into my first choice law school (I'm not complaining!) kind of left me floundering with a general 'what do I need to be doing next?!' kind of feeling. 

There are a variety of '0L'/pre-law school courses out there that claim to prepare you for the main event and I decided to see if I could find anything I thought I might benefit from. 

Kaplan has a free module. Of course, Kaplan is horrible even when you pay for it (I say this from experience re: GRE prep), so I wasn't expecting much. …it's really bad. Like, even for free. I tried, but I was gaining nothing but frustration and my time is more valuable than that. 

Harvard has a whole thing. You have to apply, but it looks like they accept just about all prospective law students. It's $200. Hell, taking the LSAT costs more than that. I set that aside to potentially come back to later. 

I've seen folks talk a lot about Barbri's free resources. I've looked on multiple occasions and haven't found much worth spending time on. I *did* save a list of suggested TedTalks to watch. Their 'Law Preview' class is $900. ...I'm sorry (actually, I'm not) but what could you possibly have to tell me in order to prepare me for law school that is worth the equivalent of a whole law school credit…that I can’t find elsewhere, probably for free? Ridiculous.

Then I remembered I still have an active LawHub subscription because LSAC makes you purchase it to take the LSAT. They have a few courses, and, if anyone should know what will be useful, it ought to be those folks, right? 

I completed 'Law School Unmasked.' It was decent. Nothing Earth shattering, but I'm glad I to have gone through it. Then I started 'Law School JumpStart.' I'm about a quarter of the way though, so far there’s been a solid introduction to the concept of Torts and multiple opportunities for case briefing experience. Good stuff. 'Legal Analysis Bootcamp' is another offered course. That one boasts a mock exam. So far, I’m as pleased with these resources as I expected to be with anything.

On the Con Law side project front, I completed Issue 6, discussing whether or not Congress should have broad Constitutional power to regulate the states under the Interstate Commerce Clause. 

This was the first of the issues presented in this book for which I didn't find myself, at least initially, favoring one side or the other. 

Ultimately, my conclusion was that the dichotomy approach wasn't an effective means of addressing the issue as 'Yes/No' isn't a useful response when *clearly* the only workable answer will be a matter of degree. The question, then, is one of scale, not affirmation or denial, and requires set parameters for determining what qualifies as 'broad power.'

Wickard v. Filburn (1942), is one of my favorite SCOTUS cases. I even made room in the love letter to Liz Cheney that became my law school personal statement to comment on the constitutionality of WWII era agricultural protocols. It's taken on that level of significance in my life. It's the first case that I can honestly say, even though I don't like the vast majority of the implications, I think the Court got it right and I don't see how it could have feasibly been determined otherwise.

United States v. Lopez (1995) is frustrating for me, personally, in that, as a person that would, generally, be supportive of the federal government acting to ban firearms in school zones, when you attempt to justify said ban in a ridiculous way, as here, you make us all look bad. It's clearly not commerce. ...and the state government was actually addressing the issue just fine itself before the feds took over. Again, in my opinion, the Court came to the correct conclusion. A few of its members really showed themselves in the dissent and the majority did not miss the opportunity to elaborate on the implications - this was, probably, the most valuable thing to come from these deliberations. That we have to take this case seriously at all, let alone consider it as potentially demonstrably representative of a rationally considered trend is just... 🙄

Anyway, never get me started on Wickard v. Filburn...

I took Robespierre all the way to Tennessee and back, but I never opened the book.

I fixed that this week by making my way through two chapters.

It's probably some level of civic blasphemy to admit this, but I’m enjoying this book a lot more than I did the one on Washington – and that was a *good* book…I just don’t seem to like Washington much? 😬

[lawrenceofbessarabia]

it took me an embarrassingly long amount of time to figure out what most first-year university students learn their first few months living away from home: that nutritious, homemade meals can be as simple and unceremonious as a bunch of stuff that tastes okay and is good for you dumped in a bowl with a bunch of other stuff that makes it taste better on top.

for so long i was stuck in the various thought-prisons of disordered eating, perfectionism, executive dysfunction, rigid thought patterns, and plain old snobbery that i treated every fucking meal as a test of my cooking skills, and most of the time that idea filled me with so much dread that i forewent eating altogether. not even when i was losing hair and nearly flunking out of college did i ever consider that perhaps i didn't have to be so rigid about what constituted an acceptable meal. sometimes cooking something that could be served in a restaurant was just a way to bolster my ego and feel proud of myself for a fleeting moment while i was slogging through classes i hated and that seemed to hate me back. most of the time it was just an unnecessary difficulty i was creating for myself.

why? because i duped myself into accepting the professional food writer's definition of an "easy meal" as my own. i love making pasta puttanesca, but for a single person in the throes of autistic burnout and the various other shit i was struggling with in my early twenties, it is not an "easy meal". it's messy, it has a lot of steps, you have to pay careful attention at every step lest it turns into a texture disaster, and it forces you to wash a bunch of shit afterwards. if you're not blessed with a great ventilation system, it also makes your apartment reek of garlic and anchovies. you have to stand and stir and move and pour and be On for a solid fucking hour. if that doesn't sound that bad for you, reading this, then congratulations! if it does, then perhaps you might understand why i underate myself into severe vitamin D and iron deficiencies rather than deal with that most days.

and yet i still did it. i'd send photos of my creations to my mom, who was always amazed at how good everything looked. i became the "head chef" at family gatherings. i honed my knife and my knife skills, learned how to make almost everything i like to eat, did lots of things from scratch "just because", nearly blacking out before i even sat down to eat what was usually my only meal of the day. all because that's just what Succesful Adult Women were supposed to do and if countless other women who had careers and children and spouses did it, what excuse did i, who had none of those things, have not to?

i'll leave the answer as an exercise to the reader.