#I'm probably saying things that aren't true

[words-of-wolf]

Honestly, I don't really think there's such a thing as an "uncommon" type when you really delve into the community! There are a handful of species you see around a lot -- ones which make sense to be plentiful because they are animals which are closely linked with humanity in one way or another -- but besides the "common" ones, it all seems roughly equal. I've met as many insects and fish as I have antelopes, mustelids, or corvids, y'know?

Far as those human links go:

Wolves share many traits with humans socially and there's, I think, an echo of a simpler version of human life and structure that is mirrored in the lives of wolves. That's more than enough to be the basis of a psychological identity! And of course, probably even more impactful, there is the presence of werewolves in our cultures and stories -- we see them in so many contexts, in folklore and novels and film and games. A nascent nonhuman identity may be swayed towards wolfishness by that influence, I imagine!

Domestic companion animals are the animals a person is most likely to grow up alongside. Again, from a psychological perspective it's very easy to see how a person could come to be a dog rather than a human in their self-identification and experience, especially if they grow up with dogs! And far as spiritual reasons go, I think it would make sense for dogs and cats to be connected with humanity on a spiritual level given their deep connection with humans in all other respects.

Big cats are of course not domesticated, and their lives don't mirror human social structures in the way wolves' do, but in a way I think that is probably relevant to how many people are big cats. Big cats are well-known, well-loved, and very culturally impactful. In a way, they embody the opposite of a wolf -- strength to stand alone and be fiercely independent. So, again, a psychological connection could be intuitively drawn here; something familiar, but also unfamiliar.

When I talk about psychological links here, to clarify: I don't mean specifically voluntary or involuntary, because I believe they can absolutely be either, both, or not be clear in origin at all.

And I'm also not saying all wolves and big cats are psychological in origin at all, just wanted to share some ideas on those identities seeming "common". But I'm a spiritual wolf therian, so that's absolutely a valid thing too ahah!

And we don't need "reasons" to exist as our candid selves. As a thought exercise, it's interesting to wonder about, but on a practical level it means nothing at all. A person's own subjective identity couldn't possibly be invalidated by another person having their own subjective identity that shares a simiar theme. That's not how subjective identity works. :P

As for the "coolness" factor, well. If you think arthropods aren't the coolest animals alive, I'm sorry to say you are simply wrong. Arthropods are the most awesome, beautiful, powerful and whimsical creatures ever. This is fact. (<- Lighthearted, I'm arthropod-hearted though so this IS true to me ahah).

I'm convinced that some humans just don't look past anything about therianthropy whatsoever if they assume that there are no bug/insect therians, hardly any "uncommon" types in the community, or "uncool" animals. There are *plenty* if you look past... (almost) literally, 3 TikToks? One of the main arguments I hear against therianthropy is someone claiming it's all the "cool" animals. Well, for one, "cool" is actually very, very subjective, and is something that humans made up. Being a "cool" animal doesn't negate someone's therianthropy, ever. It never has.

Like, I see domestic cats to wild cats, domestic dogs to the toughest of wolves, aliens, demons, dragons, bats, birds, deer, reindeer, kangaroos, etc. on Tumblr so easily. Therians come in all species. We aren't just wolves, dogs, and cats. We can also be bearded dragons, kestrals, weevils, ants, horses, woodpeckers, alligators, mice, guinea pigs, etc.

We've always come in different forms and species. You just never took the time to realize it past a couple of short-form videos. :/

[yasmindifference]

8 (my birthday is the 8!)

The night is unseasonably warm, barely even cool enough for long sleeves. As such, the suit jacket Jason drapes around Tim's shoulders five minutes into their walk nearly makes him roll his eyes.

He channels his reaction into a girlish giggle instead, then has to swallow a more sincere laugh when he sees how the high-pitched sound nearly cracks Jason's mask.

"You're soooo chivalrous," Tim says, unable to resist pushing that little bit further. His Valley girl impersonation puts a twitch in Jason's eye every time. "Like, swoon."

Jason wraps an arm around Tim's waist--probably solely to disguise the sharp pinch he delivers to Tim's side--and smiles down at him.

"You deserve it, baby," he says, in the same smarmy tone he's been using all night.

It makes Tim want to punch him, a reaction he's sure Jason's eliciting on purpose--after all, he's been doing the same thing with his own Valley girl impersonation.

...It's possible he and Jason aren't taking this mission as seriously as they should be.

Oh well.

In retaliation for the pinch, Tim fakes a stumble over a crack in the sidewalk and drives his elbow into Jason's gut, earning a faint oof he wants to smile over.

Instead, he puts his hands to his face in exaggerated dismay.

"Oh, I'm so clumsy," he says mournfully. "It's so embarrassing..."

Jason brushes his hair (or rather, his wig) out of his face and twists his ear painfully in the process; Tim applies his stiletto heel to the toe of Jason's left shoe.

"You're not clumsy, baby, it's just those shoes," Jason says, voice a little tight--with pain or annoyance? Tim can't tell. "You want me to go get the car?"

"No, no," Tim says, "it's such a nice night--just look at those stars!"

He tips his head back and gazes dreamily at the sky which, being in Gotham, shows not a single star.

"They're so beautiful," he says happily.

"Not as beautiful as you," Jason says, with such smarmy passion that Tim barely remembers to hide the laugh he can't help behind a cough.

"Oh, pookie bear," he says--

--and finally, Jason breaks.

He lets go of Tim's waist to brace his hands against his knees as he cackles, choking out "fucking hell" and "pookie" as he struggles to catch his breath.

Tim just smiles and enjoys the victory.

"Okay," Jason says once he catches his breath, "holy shit, you win. How the fuck did you say that with a straight face?"

"Practice," Tim says dryly. "You play the tough guy too often. You should branch out more, broaden your range. Then you won't be so easy to shake."

Jason gives him a flat look and, straightening to his full height, spreads his arms in a silent invitation to look at him. Admittedly, Jason's height and bulk do make him less than ideal for the kinds of covers Tim prefers.

Tim was bullshitting anyway--Jason might default to tough guy, but he's entirely capable of more versatile covers. And he really wasn't that easy to shake; Tim was kind of expecting to break him when he showed up in a dress, stilettos, and wig without warning. Instead, he lasted all through dinner and a ways into their walk.

"Okay, you lasted a lot longer than I expected," he admits.

Jason smirks. "Admit it, I almost got you at dinner."

It's true that Tim came extremely close to breaking when Jason spoke over and ordered for him at the restaurant. Tim actually didn't get to say a single word to their waitress--not even thank you.

"You almost got a plate dumped in your lap," he corrects. Now that they've given up the covers, he shrugs out of Jason's jacket and hands it back. "I could see Ashley thinking about it every time you cut me off."

"Yeah, that was a close one," Jason agrees. "I doubled my usual tip in thanks for her restraint."

Tim nods in approval. "But yeah, admittedly I was not expecting you to go the--"

"Hello?" Dick's voice breaks in, thick with annoyance and a little too loud over the comms. "Did you guys forget that you have a job to do? This does not sound like an undercover conversation!"

Tim and Jason trade eyerolls.

"Good catch, Dickiebird," Jason says. "We are not in fact undercover."

"Excuse me?"

"Dick," Tim says with extreme patience, "Damian is a trained vigilante. He absolutely does not need us as backup on his first date."

Dick gasps in offense. "We agreed--"

"No, we agreed," Jason corrects.

"Yeah, we agreed your mother-henning was out of control," Tim says. "We tipped off Damian last night so he could change his reservation."

"And got Babs to find something to distract you with so you couldn't come follow him yourself," Jason adds.

Dick splutters.

"Take a deep breath," Tim suggests.

"Chill the fuck out," is Jason's less gentle contribution. "Anyway, we're done for the night. You should call it, too--maybe work on remembering the kid is sixteen and not six."

"Harsh but fair," Tim agrees thoughtfully. "Night, Dick!"

Dick is still spluttering when Tim pulls out his comm.

"How much do I owe you for dinner?" he asks Jason.

Jason shrugs and slings his jacket over one shoulder. "Buy me ice cream, we'll call it even."

"Deal," Tim says.

Because he, unlike Damian, is no longer a teenager, he doesn't ask if going for ice cream constitutes a real date.

He can't stop himself from wondering, though.

Happy early birthday, anon!!! In celebration, this got very long lmao. Prompt #8 was two characters on a nighttime stroll! I hope you enjoyed! ♡♡

[wings-of-fire-confessions]

Okay, imma be real? I think this fandom gets way too upset over characterization differences between books (this'll be a long one just let me explain).

I see a lot of posts in the WOF fandom about how certain characters got ruined in the next books or how their characterizations were completely screwed over. A lot of posts also are like, "Oh, Tui messed up X character in this book so badly!" Or "All their personality has changed in this book, what happened to my favorite character?" and so on like that.

This kind of thing, ESPECIALLY after rereading the series recently, then coming back to the fandom, pisses me off to NO END for a couple of reasons.

1. Tui wasn't "ruining" your favorite characters personality in the next book, because the focus of the next book wasn't the character in question. The spotlight is on another character entirely, and trying to micromanage THAT many personalities to their truest form is INCREDIBLY difficult.

2. Plotting out character personalities is a GRUELING process, coming from someone who does a lot of writing. ESPECIALLY if it's original characters, because then you can't just pull from fandom or canon, you gotta do that shit yourself. And over the course of the canon, their personality is gonna change!

This brings me to my last point and probably the biggest reason:

3. EVERY BOOK IS FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.

This has been a STAPLE of the Wings of Fire books from the VERY BEGINNING. With every new book, we as readers are jumping from one dragon's mental space to the next, learning about their traits and quirks and how they perceive the world around them, every single time we pick up the next book in the series. It's what helps give us those deeper insights into the characters that yall get so angry about when they aren't immediately represented in the next book, when that dragon is no longer our spotlight.

Also, when we are learning about the other dragons before we jump to their perspectives, the character that we are reading about is already making assumptions and assigning traits that they think correlate with the character in question! We are seeing the world through their eyes and thoughts, so when we move to another perspective, that dragon is doing the exact same thing, even though now we know more about one of the other characters!

And then the fandom gets hissy when the first character gets relegated into the background and assigned some base personality traits, even though that's exactly what happened before.

Personally, I think the ones who suffer from this the MOST are Clay in Arc 1 and Moon in Arc 2. Clay, according to fans, gets boiled down to nothing but his love for food, even though we see in his, Sunny's, and Peril's perspectives that he's more than that. His behaviors also directly correlate to why he gets that kind of background trait (although that's a whole other rant), and every time I see someone saying that Clay got screwed over by characterization, I take psychic damage.

And Moon. God, yall, Moon gets it THE WORST FROM YOU. I've seen SO MANY POSTS about how she got boiled down to nothing but a love triangle piece in the later arcs, which is only partly true, but we also see from ALL OF THOSE PERSPECTIVES (Qibli and Winter specifically) that the traits they're assigning her are both different aspects of how her character worked in the first book and what two lovestruck, moons-blinded dumbasses are seeing and choosing to view her as.

Her book even SHOWS how much of a NIGHTMARE it would be to have every character be deep and know their inner thoughts at all times. Moon herself gets mentally and physically overwhelmed near CONSTANTLY during the majority of her book, and I'm not even technically factoring in Darkstalkers' influence.

All of that to say, Wings of Fire fandom, is to stop losing your SHIT over how your characters might seem flat or not like they were in their books. All of these perspectives are different, and if you motherfuckers actually took some time to reread the books while actively LOOKING for those hints of your silly guys being the same silly guys, just from another dragon's POV, then maybe yall wouldn't be so pissed off about characterization in the books nearly HALF as often.

I don't even care how much discourse this is gonna spark I just felt the incredible urge to tell yall to use those skills you learned in English class and chill the FUCK OUT on this topic.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. Now go use your eyes :>

.

[qilinkisser]

I feel bad blocking my friend on this blog. but she can't see this anymore.

[o-uncle-newt]

I think that the thing is that Sayers a) always has SOME kind of a point if you don't take it too far and b) she's such a good and convincing writer that while you're reading, she can basically convince you of anything just by saying it. I noticed this when reading Unpopular Opinions, her book of essays, which are great but which rely a lot on "I am saying this and making it sound true so it is true, you have to trust my Vibes." And guess what, for a bunch of it I absolutely trusted her Vibes, even after I thought about it for a while with the book closed! She's just a fascinating combination of an incredibly clever and often actually wise person who combined that element of herself with weirdly nostalgically conservative politics. Always SUPER fun. (At some point I need to do my Sayers and the Jews essay but I want to do some reading first.)

The thing with Bunter is that I don't think there's much discrepancy there- the relationship between Wimsey and Bunter where Wimsey treats him somewhat like an equal wouldn't be the same if Bunter didn't already go out of his way to treat him as a superior. Wimsey can make the overtures of semi-equality because he knows that they aren't in equal positions- not in the sense of it being false or rubbing it in, but him also being more sensitive to their class differences because he's aware of them. (Incidentally, I was just reading Clouds of Witness and Wimsey stops Bunter before he can accidentally "forget himself" and insult the Duke's intelligence... as though that would be a step TOO far.) Sayers often returns to this well of "when everyone knows their place in society then everyone is happier," with the corollary being that the place of the aristocracy is to be friendly and condescending (in the non-negative connotation) to the common people and servants in a way that shows that they value them and are looking out for them. In Busman's Honeymoon, she basically has Harriet say this outright and appreciatively about Peter slotting into the role of local squire; and Murder Must Advertise, a book that seriously annoys me as I mentioned earlier, has this scene:

“Well,” said Mr. Smayle, “Tallboy always says that Dumbleton is a public school.” “I daresay it is—in the sense that it has a Board of Governors,” said Ingleby, “but it's nothing to be snobbish about.” “What is, if you come to that?” said Bredon. “Look here, Smayle, if only you people could get it out of your heads that these things matter a damn, you'd be a darn sight happier. You probably got a fifty times better education than I ever did.” Mr. Smayle shook his head. “Oh, no,” he said, “I'm not deceiving myself about that, and I'd give anything to have had the same opportunities as you. There's a difference, and I know there's a difference, and I don't mind admitting it. But what I mean is, some people make you feel it and others don't. I don't feel it when I'm talking to either of you, or to Mr. Armstrong or Mr. Hankin, though you've been to Oxford and Cambridge and all that. Perhaps it's just because you've been to Oxford and Cambridge.” He struggled with the problem, embarrassing the other two men by his wistful eyes. “Look here,” said Miss Meteyard, “I know what you mean. But it's just that these two here never think twice about it. They don't have to. And you don't have to, either. But the minute anybody begins to worry about whether he's as good as the next man, then he starts a sort of uneasy snobbish feeling and makes himself offensive.” “I see,” said Mr. Smayle. “Well, of course, Mr. Hankin doesn't have to try and prove that he's better than me, because he is and we both know it.” “Better isn't the right word, Smayle.” “Well, better educated. You know what I mean.” “Don't worry about it,” said Ingleby. “If I were half as good at my job as you are at yours, I should feel superior to everybody in this tom-fool office.” Mr. Smayle shook his head, but appeared comforted. “I do wish they wouldn't start that kind of thing,” said Ingleby when he had gone, “I don't know what to say to them.” “I thought you were a Socialist, Ingleby,” said Bredon, “it oughtn't to embarrass you.” “So I am a Socialist,” said Ingleby, “but I can't stand this stuff about Old Dumbletonians. If everybody had the same State education, these things wouldn't happen.” “If everybody had the same face,” said Bredon, “there'd be no pretty women.”

To me, this is kind of the summation of Sayers's whole attitude toward class and education as relayed in the books- if you stay where you're meant to be, you're taught the way of dealing with your class and privilege/lack thereof in life, how you're supposed to relate to others, etc. If you socially climb then you end up in uncharted territory where you're a) not meant to be and b) made to feel out of place, which you then end up pushing onto other people, making them feel uncomfortable.

You can kind of see where she and others who look at it so nostalgically like that are coming from- as depicted/essentialized here, part of Wimsey's privilege also meant responsibility for those beneath him, and part of a more "common" person's commonness meant, or should have meant, a sense of security. While MMA goes a lot into anti-consumerism in a way that's hard to deny, in Unpopular Opinions her essays get a lot more into it as a problem in that it destroyed the normal order of work- where instead of having a hundred shoemakers all (apparently) happily making 10 pairs of shoes a day, you have five shoe factory managers and forty-five miserable and overworked employees making two thousand pairs of shoes a day and fifty people without their "proper job." It's a totally different angle on the issue that rings a bit more false when the ideas of both class essentialism and, as you note, bio-essentialism are removed from the picture.

...And of course that's what makes Parker so interesting! On one level, Sayers clearly doesn't believe in an "aristocracy can only marry aristocracy" kind of a thing because Peter marries Harriet- and in fact there's a through line in the books about Gerald and Helen's marriage being a cousin-inbred disaster with Harriet pointing out in Busman's Honeymoon that the injection of common blood into Parker and Mary's marriage made their kids basically normal. So that's not inconsistent. But it's also so interesting that Parker is himself this innately religious, conservative kind of a guy- in many ways more so than Wimsey, who describes him as a "perfect Victorian"- and he himself, in two separate books, is insistent on highlighting the class lines that exist between him and Mary as a barrier between them, with Wimsey essentially having to give him permission to a) have interest and b) later act on it. Though, of course, in the end he actually DOES act because Wimsey suggests that his indecision is making Mary unhappy... so it really is about love and not permission, I suppose!

What's fascinating to me is that at the end of Strong Poison, when Peter is trying to convince Gerald that Parker's suitable for Mary, he makes the point that Parker will climb the ranks and will likely eventually end up with a title/knighted. Obviously, to a degree that's him trying to speak Gerald and Helen's language, where they REALLY care about that kind of thing. But it does I think speak to something else which is that Wimsey and Parker seem to have become friends because Wimsey saw something in Parker and let him in. And I think that your point about Parker kind of earning his way out of the lower/middle class by being not just smart but dedicated and, in his way, intellectual is very solid. It's made clear that he had a decent grammar school education, works to transcend it while also not being pretentious about it, tries to improve his French, reads religious commentaries, is conservative socially... it's like Sayers is drawing a sketch of someone who isn't trying to climb but is trying to be the best of the kind of person who he innately is, while also having the talent to back it up. And THAT is what makes him worthy of Lady Mary. Because, of course, upon marriage she descends to his level in terms of lifestyle and such (even with all that money behind her for their kids later). He's not trying to climb so he's allowed to.

I just re-read Gaudy Night, and it's interesting how it feels very relevant and very dated at the same time. There's so much discussion about a woman's "place" and whether a woman can (or should) still have an intellectual life/job outside her husband if she's married, and it seems like many of the academic women in the story feel on some level that they have to choose one or the other. On the one hand, this debate, again, feels very dated in an era where most women do have jobs regardless of whether they're married or not. On the other hand, women still are frequently expected to put their families before their jobs, while men are usually not; and women are still frequently expected to sacrifice their own careers and interests for the sake of their families, while men are usually not.

The "question" of whether women belong in academia no longer seems to be a question in mainstream culture, but women in academia still don't get the same amount of respect or opportunities as men. And while British and American society no longer demands that unmarried women remain celibate, I think there is still a great deal of discomfort at the idea of women who choose to remain single, and with the idea of voluntary celibacy in general.

It's also interesting that the Senior Members of the college (all women) seem to more or less jump to the conclusion that the college "poltergeist" is expressing some kind of psycho-sexual frustration born of celibacy and academic isolation, when in fact it's someone seeking revenge. It seems like even though these women have been in academia/running the college for decades, they still harbor some insecurity over the legitimacy of their profession and lifestyle.

And then, of course, there are the casual mentions of eugenics and the one woman who thinks execution is wrong and that murderers should be used for scientific experiments instead (because that's more humane somehow??). There's also the instance where one of the porters (who is otherwise very likeable) says that Britain needs "a Hitler" who will put women in their proper place. Interesting times...

Idk, Gaudy Night fascinates me because there's SO MUCH going on in it that even on my second read, I think there's a lot that I'm probably missing. The various philosophical debates in it make me really curious about what Dorothy Sayers' own views were.

[justalittlebluetiefling]

Something I've seen a couple people saying is that they want to make sure that Laudna understands that she's not the only one who has been through trauma. But like. Laudna is not the only one who needs to learn that lesson. Actually, it's not even that Laudna needs to learn that she's not the only one that's been through trauma at all, because they're all very aware of what they've all been through. This became an inevitable confrontation when Laudna decided to let Delilah back in, though, and after rewatching the scene, I actually think the only people who managed this situation correctly were Imogen* and Ashton.

Orym and Laudna are both more focused on their own pasts with the sword and not thinking about each other. Orym should have talked to the group and come to a decision with them about using the sword and Laudna should have talked to him about it instead of trying to steal it.

*my feelings about this are still up in the air don't read into this too much

[emiliosandozsequence]

tbh i think a lot of you who speak on booktok really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

[yesterdayiwrote]

For someone who's so thoughtful when he speaks, Lewis really does still give some absolutely terrible quotes when he's talking to journalists...

[sskk-manifesto]

Ep 5!!!

[the-busy-ghost]

Alright uninformed rant time. It kind of bugs me that, when studying the Middle Ages, specifically in western Europe, it doesn’t seem to be a pre-requisite that you have to take some kind of “Basics of Mediaeval Catholic Doctrine in Everyday Practise” class. 

Obviously you can’t cover everything- we don’t necessarily need to understand the ins and outs of obscure theological arguments (just as your average mediaeval churchgoer probably didn’t need to), or the inner workings of the Great Schism(s), nor how apparently simple theological disputes could be influenced by political and social factors, and of course the Official Line From The Vatican has changed over the centuries (which is why I’ve seen even modern Catholics getting mixed up about something that happened eight centuries ago). And naturally there are going to be misconceptions no matter how much you try to clarify things for people, and regional/class/temporal variations on how people’s actual everyday beliefs were influenced by the church’s rules. 

But it would help if historians studying the Middle Ages, especially western Christendom, were all given a broadly similar training in a) what the official doctrine was at various points on certain important issues and b) how this might translate to what the average layman believed. Because it feels like you’re supposed to pick that up as you go along and even where there are books on the subject they’re not always entirely reliable either (for example, people citing books about how things worked specifically in England to apply to the whole of Europe) and you can’t ask a book a question if you’re confused about any particular point. 

I mean I don’t expect to be spoonfed but somehow I don’t think that I’m supposed to accumulate a half-assed religious education from, say, a 15th century nobleman who was probably more interested in translating chivalric romances and rebelling against the Crown than religion; an angry 16th century Protestant; a 12th century nun from some forgotten valley in the Alps; some footnotes spread out over half a dozen modern political histories of Scotland; and an episode of ‘In Our Time’ from 2009. 

But equally if you’re not a specialist in church history or theology, I’m not sure that it’s necessary to probe the murky depths of every minor theological point ever, and once you’ve started where does it end? 

Anyway this entirely uninformed rant brought to you by my encounter with a sixteenth century bishop who was supposedly writing a completely orthodox book to re-evangelise his flock and tempt them away from Protestantism, but who described the baptismal rite in a way that sounds decidedly sketchy, if not heretical. And rather than being able to engage with the text properly and get what I needed from it, I was instead left sitting there like:

And frankly I didn’t have the time to go down the rabbit hole that would inevitably open up if I tried to find out

[soulsxng]

Name: Hope (Elpis)

Age: ???

Species: Spirit/personification of false hope

And so it was Hope that saved humanity from the evil and miseries that were unleashed from the depths of Pandora's box...or so some would believe. So Hope themself wants to believe. In actuality, the story is a bit more complicated than that. After all, Hope emerged from Pandora's box just the same as the others. There's a good reason that other stories suggest Hope is just an extension of suffering.

An extension of Moros, who wants to reclaim them. To make them realize that the "hope" they give is just as vicious as the things that he, himself, could inflict.

But they will never accept that. Not truly.

They tell themself that the hope they spread amongst the people is good. That it's better for them that way, to deny and ignore their destinies until it's finally claimed them. Everyone deserves comfort. Deserves to believe that everything is okay-- that they are okay.

Even if it's only a beautifully woven falsity.

[skydigiblogs]

veeerrry slowly making my way through appmon (just finished ep 6)

i'm enjoying it so far (still) but i also just had a realization that like

part of my hesitancy about watching appmon is that a lot of stills for the fused apps were kind of offputting (3d in 2d animation can be super hit or miss)

like i've seen screenshots of a lot of the higher grade appmon and was like "hm, that's not pleasant to look at"

and now i'm watching it and like "oh, that was definitely designed with movement in mind" because holy shit yeah the stills do not do appmon justice

the use of 3d animation in appmon gives me a feeling that the creators really wanted to include that code overlay effect, but since that's incredibly time-consuming to do in a way that might look good on 2d animated characters, the use of 3d allows them to express that excessively digital vibe (and it looks really good in motion)

as for all the standard grade appmon, i think something similar still holds true in that just looking at their ref book images doesn't do them justice. perorimon is the whole reason i wanted to talk about this (debuted in ep 6) because hooooly shit the ref book image just does not get across how good this goober looks in movement.

in other words, appmon seem designed for animation first and foremost

also while i'm at it i want to say i think it's fun that every appmon really does just have like coax cables in their back for applinks. more digimon shit should like, have weird technological things like that going on.

[im2tired4usernames]

I might just be dumb but I don't really understand making fun of you partners? I don't understand introducing them to your family like "gets my stupid asshole "I don't understand the play fighting I get teasing on some stuff is fun n cute if your both into that???? but?????my wife's smart I'm not gonna call em dumb to be funny and I'd cry if my wife told their friends I was super dumb n annoying? Yeah people are gonna do stupid things and no one's perfect I know I'm gonna do something that's gonna be annoying and stupid same with my wife n friends n family and well really anyone I just don't get when people talk down their partners to they're friends? Like do you want your friends to think low of your partner Do you want your friend to really think they're stupid and smelly and hate them????Do you actually like the person you dating???? Then why are you telling your friends and family what a stupid irresponsible jerk they are and how you can't stand them????????????? Am I missing a joke goin on is this a humor thing or social thing in just out of the loop on???????

[rosesradio]

.

[vaspider]

While I'm writing things that I've been intending to write for a while... one of the things that I think that a lot of people who haven't been involved in like... banking or corporate shenaniganry miss about why our economy is its current flavor of total fuckery is the concept of "fiduciary duty to shareholders."

"Why does every corporation pursue endless growth?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

"Why do corporations treat workers the way they do?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

"Why do corporations make such bass-ackwards decisions about what's 'good for' the company?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

The legal purpose of a corporation with shareholders -- its only true purpose -- is the generation of revenue/returns for shareholders. Period. That's it. Anything else it does is secondary to that. Sustainability of business, treatment of workers, sustainability and quality of product, those things are functionally and legally second to generating revenue for shareholders. Again, period, end of story. There is no other function of a corporation, and all of its extensive legal privileges exist to allow it to do that.

"But Spider," you might say, "that sounds like corporations only exist in current business in order to extract as much money and value as possible from the people actually doing the work and transfer it up to the people who aren't actually doing the work!"

Yes. You are correct. Thank you for coming with me to that realization. You are incredibly smart and also attractive.

You might also say, "but Spider, is this a legal obligation? Could those running a company be held legally responsible for failing their obligations if they prioritize sustainability or quality of product or care of workers above returns for shareholders?"

Yes! They absolutely can! Isn't that terrifying? Also you look great today, you're terribly clever for thinking about these things. The board and officers of a corporation can be held legally responsible to varying degrees for failing to maximize shareholder value.

And that, my friends, is why corporations do things that don't seem to make any fucking sense, and why 'continuous growth' is valued above literally anything else: because it fucking has to be.

If you're thinking that this doesn't sound like a sustainable economic model, you're not alone. People who are much smarter than both of us, and probably nearly as attractive, have written a proposal for how to change corporate law in order to create a more sensible and sustainable economy. This is one of several proposals, and while I don't agree with all of this stuff, I think that reading it will really help people as a springboard to understanding exactly why our economy is as fucked up as it is, and why just saying 'well then don't pursue eternal growth' isn't going to work -- because right now it legally can't. We'd need to change -- and we can change -- the laws around corporate governance.

This concept of 'shareholder primacy' and the fiduciary duty to shareholders is one I had to learn when I was getting my securities licenses, and every time I see people confusedly asking why corporations try to grow grow grow in a way that only makes sense if you're a tumor, I sigh and think, 'yeah, fiduciary duty to shareholders.'

(And this is why Emet and I have refused to seek investors for NK -- we might become beholden to make decisions which maximize investor return, and that would get in the way of being able to fully support our people and our values and say the things we started this company to say.)

Anyway, you should read up on these concepts if you're not familiar. It's pretty eye-opening.

[shadowtraveled]

"mithrun is the only real monsterfucker in dungeon meshi" is objectively the funniest bit you can get out of his everything, but in all seriousness i think his attraction to his love interest is deliberately overstated—and that makes sense, because romantic jealousy is a classic and digestible motive, which is explicitly what kabru was aiming for in condensing mithrun's backstory, and also because until chapter 94, mithrun wasn't willing to admit to the true nature of his desires.

but because romantic envy is both classic and digestible, it probably isn’t a unique enough or complicated enough desire to tempt a demon’s appetite. mithrun’s wish, as far as we can figure from kabru’s reduced retelling, was to have a life in which he had never become one of the canaries, and that carries like 3857 implications and desires within it. that’s delicious. his love interest acts as sort of a red herring to his motivation for making it, though. (side note: i'm saying "love interest" here because, keeping in mind that i barely speak japanese on a good day anymore, "想い人" is something i'd usually take as just kind of an old-fashioned and romantic way to refer to a lover, but in context i wonder if both the connotation of yearning and the vagueness are intentional, and i think this phrasing gets those aspects of it more effectively. anyway.)

mithrun considered his love interest to be untrustworthy. there was a minute where i thought that comment might be about a similar-looking elf (yugin, one of his squad members), but comparing the two…

the "sketchy" arrow is definitely referring to the elf we know as his love interest—the bangs go toward her right, she only has the one forehead ornament, and, most notably, her ears aren't notched.

every time she’s given a full-body depiction in his dungeon, she’s drawn as a chimera, with the body of a snake from the waist down. (side note: the “what if a dungeon has chimeras before reaching level 4?”/“then the dungeon lord is unstable” exchange just being mithrun grilling his past self alive is so funny. he’s so. but anyway) there are a couple things about this.

first, the snake part of the chimera appears to be modeled after some species of coral snake mimic

which, in the biology-for-fun manga, i… doubt is a coincidence, especially with the added context of the “untrustworthy” comment. the dungeon’s conjured illusion of mithrun’s love interest was a harmless copycat of a venomous original. for whatever reason, he felt this person was a threat and made up a "safe" version of her to be in a relationship with, and while it’s definitely possible to be attracted to or even love someone you find to be toxic and/or intimidating, when you take that into consideration alongside the configuration of her body, you get some interesting implications.

which brings us to our second point: if we assume that mithrun was not in fact fucking a snake, then sexual attraction, at least, was so far removed from his idea of a relationship with this person that he did not even bother to keep her dungeon copy human enough to maintain the illusion of the option of a sexual relationship. this is somewhat echoed in the depictions of their interactions, which also imply a frankly unexpected romantic distance. she kisses his cheek and he doesn't seem to react; she's at the edge of a narrow bed with only one set of pillows, on top of his blankets while he's underneath them.

the kiss is particularly interesting because it seems to contrast the text. kabru's narration tells us this was everything mithrun could have asked for, but mithrun is there looking unreadable to pensive, likely because this is right before the panel that makes it clear things in the dungeon are beginning to go wrong.

walking through this backwards for a minute, we have the physical barrier of his bedding and the spatial separation inherent in a bed made for one person, the emotional barrier of his mounting anxiety getting in the way of his ability to enjoy the affection he sought, and... the snake, which historically carries the connotation of temptation, yes, but also mistrust, barring physical intimacy. okay. ok. if a dungeon reflects the mentality of its lord, all of this might suggest that mithrun was not able to have any real desire for a relationship with this person. his unwillingness to be vulnerable or let another person in was insurmountable. but in that case, why was she such a focal point that she remained to the end, after his dungeon had stopped creating iterations of his friends to come and visit him? why would he get so upset over her meeting with his brother that he became lord of a dungeon about it?

well. mithrun's brother was also interested in her, probably genuinely. and mithrun had to win.

you have an older brother who your parents completely ignore, probably in part because he is chronically ill/disabled and almost definitely in part because he received a ton of recessive traits that resulted in rumors that he was an illegitimate child. you are aware, most likely because those same parents fucking told you, that you actually are an illegitimate child. but they keep you around because you had the good fortune of looking just like your mother. what can that possibly teach you but that you, like your brother, are disposable?

it's utterly unsurprising that mithrun, under these circumstances, developed a pathological need to be better than everyone around him. people don't keep you otherwise. i'd argue this is also why he says he looked down on everyone he knew while milsiril claims his dungeon reeked of feelings of inferiority—he sought out people's worst traits and prioritized them in his mind to protect his already extremely fragile sense of self-worth, and all the while he tried to be as likable and high-performing as he possibly could be. his parents disposed of him anyway, but even then he tried to keep up the performance. he was kind to everyone. he never once lost to a dungeon.

when he saw his "love interest" meeting up with his brother, what he saw was himself being replaced by a person his parents had always treated as worthless, and if that was what they thought of the child they'd kept, what value could anyone possibly see in the bastard they'd given away to die? mithrun and kabru tell the story like he wanted to win this unnamed elf's heart, but it was never about being with her. it was about cementing his worth, proving that he didn't deserve to be thrown away.

and so it's particularly cruel that his demon discarded him, too. but maybe it's also particularly gentle that, in the end, there was someone who refused to even consider giving up on him.

kui laid it out in three panels better than i could hope to.

yeah. it's love. you wanted to be loved, even when the only way you were able to understand it was through the desire to be wanted, and you wanted that so badly that the idea of being consumed felt like the promise of finally mattering to someone.