#The Case for Rational Compassion

[morpsychology]

We often think that empathy, our capacity "to feel someone's pain," is the ultimate source of goodness. Nothing could be farther from the truth, argues psychology professor Paul Bloom. Scientific studies show that empathy is a capricious and irrational emotion that can cloud people's judgement and even lead to violence and cruelty.

[writers-potion]

Writing Female Fighters

The Heroine Must. Fight.

Today's female protagonists cannot sit on the side crying and breaking down or whimpering as the battle ensues.

Readers want to see autonomous female fighters who can at least defense themselves with courage and adequate skill.

Not all women are the same, but the heroine should get her butt moving.

Less Muscle, but More Flexibilty

The average woman is shorter than the average man, which makes it more difficult to wield a long sword or slam something down on the opponent's head.

A woman who works out can plausibly be stronger than a male couch potato, but if her male counterpart works out as much as her, the man is going to be much stronger.

On the other hand, the center of gravity in a woman's body is lower than a man's which makes it harder to knock her off her feet.

She is also more flexible, which gives her advantage in grappling fights, making use of complex landscapes, or deflecting blows.

A woman's small size can also be an advantage if her opponent has only ever trained with male opponents. His big hands might not get a good grip on her slender limbs.

In historical fiction, giving your heroine good muscule build can be tricky as exercise was generally considered harmful for women, with some exceptions for horseriding any maybe archery at best.

In such cases, make your heroine an accomplished dancer or an eager horsewoman, or the only girl whose father considered to be son replacement and thus, gave her a boy's education.

Women of lower classes who couldn't afford to be fashionably weak will be plausibly stronger, perhaps even more than an idle gentleman.

More Room for Negotiation, but Prolonged Ruthlessness

In the Suspense part of your fight scene, females are more likely to negotiate and talk more, strategically trying to descalate the situation rather than attacking on a momentary impulse.

Generally, women are less aggressive than men and remain level-headed longer than her male counterparts, opting for non-violent methods first before using force.

Exceptions apply if she is trying to protect her children (or someone who she cares for as a child). Mothers can be tigresses.

A female pre-fight conversation may be: "If you had not done so-and-so and betrayed me with so-and-so, we could have been good friends as I thought we would be." "What do you mean? It was in fact you who brought bad blood between us. I can still hear you laughing with so-and-so, taunting me, purposefully making me look bad -" "But that was so long ago! If you want me to say sorry about something so insignificant, you should have just said so: I'm sorry. There. Satisfied?" "Ha! I can't believe you say that so easily. You still don't get it, do you?" "Who's being petty and unreasonable now?"

A male pre-fight conversation will be shorter: "Who's the coward now?" "You're wrong." "Prove it." "Bastard."

Compared to men, it will take more time for a woman's fight hormones (adrenaline, neurotransmitters and such) to kick in.

She would be slower to engage initially, throwing reluctant punches and thinking, but she'll grow more and more violent and lose all rational thought and compassion, and once she's in full flow, may not stop even when her opponent begs for mercy.

When writing a male-female duo, you can show him going for the first blow while she observes and strategizes first. When he's past his peak and panting, she is flying about left and right. Later when the tension wears off and she becomes wobbly and teary, she can rely on him to have recovered faster and distract other teammates so that they won't see her cry.

Plausible Skills and Backstory

In many cultures and time periods, the general attitude of society towards girls is that they have no place in fist fights or martial arts, unlike how it is encouraged for boys of the same age. So if your heroine has physical prowess that surpasses typical 'fitness' or is hidden, build a backstory of how she's obtained it.

For modern heroines, it can be as simple as signing her up for martial arts classes or yearly membership at the local gym. For historical fiction or girls with strict 'feminine' upbringing, it can be trickier.

It can be related to profession: maybe she was an erotic wrestler, catfighter, or an assasin who thought killing was more honorable than prostitution. They may have dabbles with it for a short time and is now trying to hide their past from their respectable employer or fiance.

It can be family backstory: Perhaps her mother was an accomplished martial artist or she had to fend for younger siblings on the streets from an early age. Maybe she was the only girl in a family of many boys who refused to be the punching bag.

Inexperienced Female Fighters

A woman with no fighting experience or training is likely to resort to one of these on instinct:

Try to talk herself out of the situation, attempting to persuade or negotiate for her life.

Grab something to use as a weapon. This instinct seems to be stronger for women than it is in men.

Use her hands to try and break free, or kick (often wth little success)

Pull hair

Scratch.

In a serious fight, pulling hair and scratching won't be helpful, except when the police come to find her body, they would find the opponent's DNA under her fingernails.

Plausible Weapons and Clothing

All of the above applies to scenes where both parties have no weapons, or has the bare minimum (like one dagger each).

Weapons are equalizers, and if your heroine is pointing a gun at her opponent she will definitely NOT hesitate to be the one to shoot first.

When giving your female character a weapon, choose one she can plausibly use. It would take an unusually brawny woman to wield a great medieval longsword.

For historical fiction, give your heroine something she'll plausibly own. Swords and firearm were a no-go for women, but archery was borderline acceptable.

For clothing starters, you definitely CAN NOT dress her in a tight miniskirt and chainmail bra with long, flowy hair and multiple silver chockers. Unless she's trying to seduce her way into her opponent's bedroom, and he has a chainmail bra fetish.

A practical heroine will have her thighs covered, preferably with leather but at least with fabric, since a lot of blood flows through the thighs and a slash would be critical.

She'll keep her hair tied, tucked under a helmet, braided back, etc. so that it won't impede her vision.

She'll support her breasts with a strong sport bra. In a historical eprioid, she'll either tie her breasts tight with a fabric bandage or support them with some kind of leather corset.

Invent a female version of male fighter clothing of the time you are writing about if it doesn't exist.

If you like my blog, buy me a coffee☕ and find me on instagram! 📸

[rosie-dear-rosie]

I feel like we don’t talk nearly enough about Taissa and her axe motif.

Out of the three(?) yjs with weapon motifs Shauna and her knife, Nat and her gun, Tai and her axe. I think what makes the axe really unique is how nonviolent its use cases are compared to the others. Mainly, collecting lumber.

She’s not slaughtering or butchering but it’s equally important. Ultimately she keeps the team warm. She’s reliable, sturdy like the wood she cuts, in doomcoming they chat about how much they think Tai resembles the trees. She’s their heart. Their moral compass. Despite her seemingly cold and rational exterior she’s the one doing her best to keep everyone morally grounded.

[shock]

it's very difficult to explain the empathy that comes with making decisions our animals can't make for themselves and unless you've been in that position before, having to weigh the suffering against the quality of life, I can understand why people think everything can be saved but like

being so serious here once you've had to put an animal out of its misery with your own hands life looks different - not inherently worse or bad just different - and there is at the same time a profound sadness and a profound relief that you as the person who cares the most about the safety and life and happiness of an animal is the one who GETS TO have this animal in your life is the one who HAS TO be part of that decision

My relationship with the death of my pets and livestock is that death is inevitable but it's my obligation to be familiar with what I believe based on evidence, research, experience, compassion and individual understanding combined what is a permanent life-lasting experience or a way of dying that I will prevent a living thing from having to experience. I know what situations I would put my animals down in, and I've had to, and that initial grief and guilt and 'what if' has over time led to calm conviction and peace of mind that it's natural for a species that evolved to socially empathize with every living thing around them and be able to collaborate with nature to try to find ways to make the last experience of life be as dignifying and respectful as possible. that's not a curse, and there is no pleasure in doing it, but there is pleasure in knowing that you have the capacity to logically, emotionally, rationally weigh every single possibility and go through everything we know could save a living creature either from whatever is hurting it by successfully intervening in a way that sustains long-term quality of life or, in the case of the last resort, from the experience of a constant state of misery... idk. Whenever I see people keeping animals alive who are rotting from the inside and at baseline permanently suffering I just have to question whether that person is motivated by love for the living creature they are responsible for from the moment they sign on for the experience, including death and decisions regarding the remains, or a fear of what it will feel like to THEM in the immediate aftermath of another creature's death

[furiousgoldfish]

When you're continually berated and punished for something, even something harmless or normal, it's going to feel like a 'wrong' thing to do, or to be. If your appearance is constantly insulted, it's going to feel like you 'look wrong', if your curiosity is being shut down and attacked, you'll start to perceive your own positive traits as bad, annoying and wrong.

Abusers especially love to punish any 'standing up to them', or 'questioning their intentions', and 'getting rightfully angry at them'. Or, god forbid 'attempt at creating boundaries'. Those will get shut down and punished very fast, and you will instead be 'corrected', and 'told how to think and how to act instead'. So you'll be told that the correct thing to do is to stay silent, not voice your thoughts, not talk back, repress and stuff down your anger and sense of justice indefinitely, don't believe you have any right to deny abusers anything they might want of you. And you always, always have to assume their intentions are what's best for you, for everybody, or at least, each and every of their actions has good reasons behind them.

I was trained to think like this as a child, and thought it was in fact, wrong to ever make a negative assumption about anyone's behaviour; this in fact will make them act bad! I thought the only correct way to behave was to defend and try to rationalize and understand any kind of disgusting behaviour. To the point where even when looking at the fictional characters, or people who had nothing to do with me, I would always attempt to see what had happened to those people and understand their motivationss for doing evil. I even mistakenly thought that this was some depth of character and a way to see nuance and good in everybody, I thought it was a positive trait of mine that I tried to understand everybody. It would later prove to be a vulnerability, since I  never extended the same grace to myself, and nor did anyone else.

Understanding why people do what they do makes sense if you're talking about friends, people who understand you back. It makes sense if you're trying to extend compassion for victims, trying to understand how they felt during what was done to them, and why they reacted in the way they did. It makes sense if you're trying to understand how the world works, and if you want to attempt to make changes. It even makes sense if you look at why abusers do what they do – but in that case, you can't look at their perspective for the answers. What they do is explained perfectly in what it accomplishes.

If constant berating, humiliating and shaming their victims accomplishes to ruin the victim's self esteem, being too scared to stand up to the abuser, struggling to socialize and ending up alone, isolated and more vulnerable to the abuse – then that's exactly what it accomplishes. If abuser's violence, threats, blackmail and manipulation hold the victim hostage, make the victim scared to run, scared to fight back, scared to disobey, scared to put the end to the abuse – thats what it accomplishes. If abusers control of victim's finances, appearance, social life, behaviour, activities and work gains the abuser the ability to control this person's life, and extract as much labour, catering, emotional care, and lack of a fight at violations and pain, that's exactly what it accomplishes!

A person's past doesn't come with instructions to hold someone hostage and hurt them indefinitely, no history will accidentally cause this. It cannot be explained by past experiences, because no past experiences get resolved by controlling another person to one's pleasure and benefit. Nobody is predisposed by their past to engage in intimate violation of another person's well being and integrity, hold it secret, and stop this person from defending themselves or running away. This is learned, calculated, purposeful, intentional and self-aware behaviour (or they wouldn't hide it, would they?).

Why they do what they do lies in what they get out of it. They wouldn't be doing it otherwise. You don't need their history to explain it, because the reasoning is very simple: they want to, they can, and they think they can get away with it. Difficult and painful past can cause a person to isolate themselves, to fear others, to struggle with emotions, trust, panic, triggers, to avoid situations where another thing like that could happen, to struggle with eating, to not be sure how to properly form bonds and connections, how to socialize, how to get close to people, or how to get separated when things get bad. But it doesn't cause a person to blatantly lie, fake, untruthfully promise and manipulate another to believe they're being loved, only to lure them into a hostage situation where they're not allowed to be a person anymore, not allowed to even voice what's happening to them. Nobody does this accidentally or because they 'don't know any better'. They do it with calculation because their intention is to exploit and harm for benefits. And that's not something to defend, in fact once you understand it, you know there is no possible defense in the world.

And to circle back to the beginning of this post, they shut down your curiosity because curiosity results in new knowledge, and any new information you get is a threat to them; curiosity is a powerful and desirable trait to have! Nothing was ever wrong with your appearance, they just prefer if you don't go outside and feel too ashamed of yourself to ever examine whatever is wrong with them; it's to keep you in shame and self doubt so you wouldn't notice how unworthy the abuser is of you. You standing up to others and fighting for what's right is not only a positive trait; it demands courage, integrity and personal strength to do that. And being suspicious when it comes to someone's intentions can save you mountains of trouble and abuse. You have every right to doubt what people are saying, every reason to notice if things are a little too convenient, little too unbelievable. It shows a clear mind and unclouded judgment - which, I can't judge you if you don't have, because I don't have it either.

People with good motivations don't need their actions defended, because the motivations are reflected in their acts, not their words. Anyone who needs you to defend them when they do evil, likely does not deserve it. Anyone who would have a problem with your appearance, curiosity, courage, strength, reasoning and distrust, could only have it because they don't like how you can see trough them, and fight them on their abuse. All of these traits should earn you respect and dignity.

[scoobydoodean]

Made a similar post before but... I think people in their minds actually revise 2.03 Bloodlust to be this episode where Sam is on this "Monsters can be good" train before he ever gets kidnapped by Lenore and he then is burdened with the task of convincing poor stupid idiot Dean who isn't as open-minded and rational as he is to think for just one second and then at the end of the episode, pats him on the head and tells him not to feel guilty about it when he finally becomes enlightened like Sam has always been but that is not how that episode goes.

Sam's immediate reaction to the alleged existence of good vampires is not any different from Dean's. He immediately rejects the idea that the vampires aren't hurting anyone, and throughout his entire conversation with Lenore, refuses to believe her until she goes, "Fine. I'll let you go to prove it to you" which rocks his whole ass world.

Face of man having his whole worldview toppled sideways and having to figure out how to adapt:

So yeah after this Sam and Dean get into a 2 minute fight about it which turns into a completely different conversation because Sam decides for the third time in three episodes to try and pretend he's Dean's therapist then (badly) psychoanalyze him about how Gordon is a substitute for their dad and it (shocker) doesn't go well. But then Gordon steals the car and the moment Sam and Dean walk into the room where Gordon is torturing Lenore, Dean's feelings about the entire thing happening in front of him are "This is bad. This is very bad."

The SECOND he enters the room Dean picks a side, and it isn't Gordon's.

Just like Lenore "proved" her goodness to Sam by letting him go, she "proves" her goodness to Dean by resisting the temptation to consume Sam's blood... but Dean started defending Lenore and trying to get Gordon to back off the moment he entered the room.

Dean is also much more thoughtful about where this leaves him and Sam in terms of their past hunts while Sam doesn't consider the past at all?

Istg people rewrite this scene in their minds to be Sam approaching the whole thing from the perspective of someone who was already "enlightened"... but he wasn't. He was equally shocked by the revelation of good vampires possibly existing in this episode. He just doesn't bother to also consider the implications as far as any previous case they've ever been on. He doesn't feel any guilt about it he just lets it go with a shrug and Dean doesn't.

Add to this that in 1.12, Sam was the one with the hardline stance that they couldn't kill humans—ones who would get away with their crimes because they committed them by supernatural means—and that doing so would make them "just as bad" as the things they hunt. The only difference between a human using a reaper to murder people for clout, and a monster murdering people, is the physical characteristics of the monster versus the human. Dean sees a human using a reaper to murder people for clout and says, "they're a monster in my book". He argues they should take care of it because of the human's actions—otherwise there will be no repercussions for the human involved, while Sam draws a hard line that they can't kill a human simply because they're human and for no other reason. This is also crunchy in terms of how it might relate to Sam's eventual feelings about his inner nature making him evil, versus Dean's actions-based analysis.

Sam has a lot of compassion for Max in 1.14, but it's gone by 2.05 when his reaction to Andy is to immediately assume he's a murderer while Dean rightfully thinks there's something else possibly going on... and that's two episodes after 2.03 Bloodlust.

[sea-salted-wolverine]

I regularly catch accusations of "mom friend" for a handful of reasons and honestly, it's a case of doing the math wrong and getting the right answer.

if you are scared i will reassure you. if you are uncomfortable i have snacks, i have advil, i have a spare sweater. i will comfort you when you are sad, i can be an effective bitch and chew out people on your behalf. I can deliver a shovel talk that will make even a dedicated fuckboy call me ma'am. if you find yourself lacking confidence i can bring out a rousing pep talk on just what a wonderful person you are and how you are logically and rationally completely capable. i can mediate arguments with a cool compassion.

this is pretty much the definition of mom friend, but I got there by being a wildly overconfident low-empathy person who is constantly prepped for fuckin armageddon and doesn't fear death. i can manhandle you into the minivan or i can bribe you with a juice box, but we are getting this show on the road

[stardustdiiving]

I notice Nahida is portrayed as frustrated or scolding of other characters (usually Wanderer) in fanon often but to be honest I don’t think Nahida really has that much of a temper where she defaults to that sort of thing very much….She can be angry and firm as needed but I really don’t think that’s her first instinct on how to assert herself in a lot of cases.

She instead really strikes me as someone who primarily gets upset when it’s on behalf of other people or someone embodying ideas she finds very devoid of care and compassion for others….but struggles to really be angry on her own behalf. Like, it’s pointed out it’s only until she’s actively being rescued that she finally says she’s angry at the Sages, and while she is openly angry then we see later everyone comments on how they seem to have gotten off days, which I touched on in this post and feel u can infer from that this idea Nahida struggles to be harsh even towards to the people who kept her in a cage for 500 years—which makes when u see how much she rationalizes being treated like this earlier on. She ultimately seems more concerned with the Sages mistreatment of her people vs their mistreatment of Nahida herself.

This feels consistent to why she seems pretty visibly disgusted with Dottore when they have their negotiation. Dottore is more or less an antithesis to everything she believes about wisdom and embodies a lot of malice and cruelty that Nahida would be really disturbed by. I personally like to write her lack of a temper in some areas as something that seems almost troubling — bc on one hand she’s very forgiving and kind despite through being a lot, but on the other this seems like it might be rooted in just genuinely not allowing herself to be angry to protect herself. But yeah overall I think unless you’re really causing an issue Nahida is more likely to give you a kind of frazzled sad puppy look and very politely ask you to be better as opposed to hitting you with a sandal or scolding you for it

In the case of her relationship with Wanderer specifically I’ve like, talked about how I feel people overlook the fact Wanderer makes a genuine effort to cooperate with Nahida and doesn’t really fight with her much…so i don’t think they’re often bickering with each other to the point Nahida has to get really firm with him. She seems to have a pretty interesting amount of patience with him especially post AQ, which again I think is helped by the fact Wanderer is genuinely trying to cooperate and she sees that. We do see her ask Traveler + Scaramouche to stop bickering in Inversion of Genesis but she is in my opinion very polite and at most a bit awkward about it, not scolding or irritated

[nori-the-cat]

RIIZE Lee Sohee as a Boyfriend

Remember, this is just my interpretation based on the tarot spread.

Cards: the world, the sun, strength, knight of pentacles, five of wands, and temperance.

First, he has such a good vibe. His energy is lively and positive. Although honest, he’s also careful. Doing this reading was a breeze.

These cards to me suggest that Sohee is the type to run to you when he sees you.

He is also the type to smile at pictures of you in his phone gallery. Then would laugh at the funny ones, but still compliment the pretty ones.

Sohee might also be the type to laugh at you when you have tomato sauce at the corner of your mouth, but would wipe it off with his hand.

I think he would use the “I’m a cool and mature boyfriend” around his partner (you). Or at least tries to be.

In terms of the appearance. He doesn’t have much to say. Though looks matter to him. Sohee doesn’t really care whether you have makeup on or not when you’re around him. But he loves a good amount of lip tint or a pop of colour. I do think he prefers “natural beauty”, whatever the case that may mean.

Sohee is mature yet childlike. To me, this makes him seems like someone who knows when to be playful. For instance, if he notices you feeling moody, he would crack a joke and make you laugh. His jokes are probably quite childish but not offensive or hurtful. Though I must say he’s blunt.

He is a romantic guy at heart. The hopeless romantic kind. But he doesn’t show it. He will probably try to hide it by showing his cool side. Quite sensitive too. But not emotional.

Despite choosing to show his cool side only. Sohee would most likely show his playful self. He would crack a joke or two whenever he’s around his partner (you).

He might prefer date activities that require some spontaneity or something that would bring him and his partner (you) joy. In a way, he’s a thoughtful guy. He would do something that makes him happy, but would ask you first whether you would want to do it with him. Pretty considerate I must say.

Second, in a relationship, he’s the enthusiastic one. The one who is up for doing fun things with his partner (you). He probably loves a good game night with his partner (you) or trying out new foods with his partner (you).

He and his partner (you) might have a playful and fun dynamic. There won’t be a dull moment with him. Lots of laughter and cute picture moments.

Third, he’s a sensitive and thoughtful guy. If a conflict arises, Sohee is the guy who might approach arguments or challenges in a relationship with compassion and understanding. He would patiently work things out with his partner (you) and willing to work it out. Though he would put you first, Sohee would consider how it would make him feel too. He’s logical, rational, and intuitive.

Adding to the points above, the card the Knight of Pentacles signifies reliability, practicality, and hard work. Sohee could be a dependable and responsible boyfriend. He might be someone who takes initiative and puts effort into making the relationship work. Despite his playfulness, he is someone who would take the lead or wants to be seen as dependable even though the one who wears the pants in the relationship may not be him.

However, Sohee might have a tendency to get into arguments, especially if he feels unheard or misunderstood. His whole personality surrounds, or at least love language is words of affirmation. He prefers someone who is honest, clear, and trustworthy. For him open communication and compromise would be key to navigating these challenges. He doesn’t like to waste his time overthinking things.

Once he’s in a relationship with someone who truly gets him and he thinks it’s going to be fun with them. He might be open to compromise and finding a balance between his needs and his partner's. He could be someone who is willing to grow and evolve within the relationship.

Overall, Sohee has the potential to be a warm, reliable, and emotionally invested boyfriend. He might value communication and connection, but could also be somewhat introspective and need some space to process his emotions.

In my opinion, he’s sweet, thoughtful, and attentive. Super fun too. But may need to work on dealing with his emotions. He’s sensitive, but sharing his emotions is something he doesn’t do easily. Would I date him? Yes.

[portraitoftheoddity]

Beginner Hiking Guide: Gear - What to Bring Hiking

What you want to bring with you on a hike will vary depending on what kind of hike you’re doing. If you’re going on a very short (under an hour) and easy hike on highly-trafficked and easily accessed trails for instance, you may not need to bring much at all -- though I always recommend a water bottle, sun protection and a hoodie or something. But if you’re doing a longer trek on backcountry trails out in the wilderness, you’ll want to bring quite a bit more with you, because the stakes are higher if things go wrong.

My general rule of thumb is: Pack for the Worst Case Scenario.

What is the worst that could happen if you get lost or injured? How long would it take for someone to find you if your phone died and you couldn’t call for help? If you get stuck out overnight, how cold is it going to get, and will you be able to survive it? How about if you have to wait several hours for a rescue party to carry you out if you can’t walk?

I carry a bunch of emergency items in my pack that, on an ideal hike, I never need. But if things don’t go ideally, given the places and conditions I hike in, they could save my life. In the list below, I’ve put an asterisk next to items I recommend packing even for short day hikes (2 hours or less)

So let’s start with the most important thing:

You Need a Backpack.

If you’re going to carry supplies, you need something to carry them in, and a backpack is the easiest, most comfortable way to do so that won’t compromise your balance or leave you unable to use your hands on a hike. (On short outings, fannypacks are great, but you’ll want a backpack if you’re going out into backcountry).

DON'T: use a drawstring backpack -- this will dig painfully into your shoulders pretty quickly. 

DO: use a backpack with a waist/hip strap (and chest strap if possible). Having more of your pack’s weight on your hips than on your shoulders will cut down on back pain! The more adjustable, the better; you want to be comfortable.

There are really great hiking specific backpacks out there, but they are on the pricey side. It’s something where, if you plan on doing hiking more regularly, I would recommend investing in a good pack, but for your first time your old book bag will probably do okay.

The Ten Essentials

If you do any research on backcountry hiking, you will probably see “the ten essentials” mentioned somewhere. These are the things that you’re recommended to always bring on a hike with you if you’re going out into the wilderness. The list can seem a little daunting, but honestly a lot of the things on it are pretty small and easy to acquire. 

1) Navigation / Map & Compass* -- Have a paper map in a ziploc bag and a compass in addition to any digital tools and GPS you may be using to navigate. Technology fails, and having a map that you’ve familiarized yourself with before you set out will help you to stay on your route and avoid getting lost. REI has useful articles on how to use a compass and how to read a topographic map.

2) Nutrition / Extra Food -- I always bring food hiking. You burn through a lot of energy while hiking, and snacking will help boost your energy levels and keep you moving. Calorie-dense foods with sugar and protein like trail mix, nuts, and granola bars give you the biggest boost while not taking up too much room in your pack. And if your hike runs over, you’ll be grateful for the extra rations.

3) Hydration / Extra Water* -- I typically bring a full liter of water (or gatorade!), minimum when I hike. Nalgene bottles are great because they’re lightweight and virtually indestructible. You’re going to be losing a lot of moisture through sweat and through the vapor your exhale while breathing heavily, so you are going to need to hydrate. Bring more than you think you’re going to need in case things go badly.

4) Insulation / Extra Layers* -- I talked about this in the post about clothes, but always have an extra layer. If the weather shifts, or you get injured and can’t move to keep warm, or you get lost and need to wait for a rescue, the last thing you need is for hypothermia to come along and make your day worse.

5) Illumination / Light -- There’s always a chance of something going wrong, be it a twisted ankle or just misjudging the length of a hike, that can lead to you being out for longer than you anticipated -- and if you’re stuck out in the wilderness when the sun goes down, you want to be able to see where the hell you’re going to find the trail and get home. On any longer hike (especially if you’re starting later in the day), bring a headlamp or flashlight with extra batteries (and test it before you leave!)

6) Emergency Shelter -- Is there any chance that on the hike you’re doing, you could potentially get lost enough that you have to spend hours and hours out here? In the theme of extra layers, if you get lost, injured, or otherwise caught out in bad conditions and can’t hike out on your own for any reason and rescue won’t be there anytime soon (search and rescue teams take time to assemble, deploy and then hike out to you), you want to have some means of shelter. Obviously, you don’t wanna drag an entire tent out into the woods if you’re just going on a day hike, but a there’s a few lightweight options that can make a difference when you’re improvising protection from the elements, such as:

A mylar space blanket / shock blanket

A bivvy sack (basically a lightweight plastic sleeping bag that keeps warmth in and water out!)

....And if you’re on a budget, a large plastic trash bag can do in a pinch!

7) Firestarter -- On the topic of shelter, especially if you’re stuck out in the cold overnight, a fire can be an emergency source of heat and light. Since most of us are not capable of starting a fire just by rubbing two sticks together like in the movies, we’ll want to make it easier on ourselves by bringing something to start a fire with: pack something to ignite it with, and something to use as tinder to catch the flame and sustain it long enough to ignite other fuel you’ve gathered. I personally carry a bic lighter that was like, .99c at the gas station, and a toilet paper tube stuffed with dryer lint for tinder. This is one of those “hopefully you never actually have to use it” things.

8) First Aid Kit* -- You want to be able to treat an injury if it happens, and to address smaller health concerns before they become bigger health concerns. With blisters especially, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure -- putting blister pads on your feet when you’ve got hot spots before they turn into full on oozing blisters is going to make a world of difference. And as someone who has taken a nasty spill on the trail and hiked out injured, I always carry a solid first aid kit with me. You can buy a compact pre-made kit easily enough to carry with you, but you may find yourself customizing it to your needs. I recommend having the following:

Ibuprofen -- good for managing pain, swelling, and soreness

Tylenol/Acetaminophen -- pain reliever, fever reducer, better for head injuries than ibuprofen since it doesn’t thin blood (also, if you’ve hurt yourself and you’re in a LOT of pain, you can alternate Tylenol and Ibuprofen)

Benadryl or some other antihistamine for allergies

AfterBite -- good for stings and bug bites

Bandaids in assorted sizes

Blister pads

Disinfectant wipes x 2

Gauze

A triangular bandage

A lightweight SAM splint 

Ace bandage - good for wrapping sprains

Tweezers - good for removing splinters!

Any important medications you personally need, such as an EpiPen or inhaler, or personal joint braces you require

9) Sun Protection* -- Even if you’re hiking under tree cover, or on a cloudy day, with hours spent outdoors, you’re getting a lot of UV exposure. Regardless of whether you’re someone who sunburns easily or not, it’s good to have sun protection. Bring sunglasses and sunscreen, and consider wearing a hat. Especially at higher elevations, where the air gets thinner and blocks less UV radiation! And don’t forget when hiking in winter, that you can get snowblindness and sunburn from light reflected off snow. 

10) Repair Kit + Knife / All That McGuyver Shit -- A few lightweight and simple objects can make it much easier to jury-rig a shelter, replace a snapped bootlace, or hold together a torn pack until you can get back to the parking lot. I personally always have:

A pocket knife/multitool

Flat-wrapped duct tape

Several safety pins

A handful of zip ties

A spare shoelace

And other people may find other items useful depending on their gear and the kind of repairs they might need.

In addition to the stuff on this list, there may be weather-specific or trail-condition specific gear you might need, like microspikes for traction on ice, or rain gear for hiking in wet climates. You can use your best judgment and the recommendations of others who have hiked where you are hiking to figure out what the best packing list is for your specific hike. This list is a guideline and a starting point.

Other things you may want to bring:

Whistle -- if your phone is dead and you’re waiting for rescue, you can blow on a whistle a lot longer (and a lot louder) than you can yell. Three short bursts usually means ‘hiker in distress’ and will help other hikers or searchers find you.

Toilet Paper + plastic bag -- If you don’t think you’re going to be able to hold it, bring a means to go in the woods. But bring the plastic bag to carry out your used toilet paper so it doesn’t pollute nature (Leave No Trace!)

A ziploc bag big enough for your phone -- if you need to cross a river or if it starts pouring, have a means to bag your phone to keep it dry. If there’s a risk of rain, bring a trash bag as well that you can use as an improvised pack cover to keep your stuff dry.

Insect Repellant -- even if you don’t bring it with you and just put it on in the parking lot, if you’re hiking in spring or summer especially, you’ll want some bug spray.

Keeping It Light

You want to pack smart, which means maximizing the usefulness of what you pack while keeping things as light as possible. Try using a lightweight plastic water bottle instead of a heavy steel one, and packing spare layers that are warm without being too bulky. Put sunblock in a small tube or bottle instead of packing the huge family-size one. The weight adds up, and the final weight of your pack is what you’re going to have to be carrying along with you. Though the good news is, your pack will get lighter as you consume the food and water you’ve packed!

If you are hiking with friends in a group, there’s some things you don’t really need multiple redundancies for -- if one person has a well-stocked first aid kit and another person carries enough sunblock for the group, you don’t need three of each and every item. Communicate with your group to make sure all your bases are covered, but also be sure you stay close together while hiking. Your friend having the group’s utility knife isn’t going to help you if you go off on your own and get separated. And you will all still want your own food, water, clothing, and light.

Organize Your Bag

Having the right gear is helpful. Knowing where it is is even better!

I try to organize my pack so the weight is evenly distributed (with the heaviest objects at the center near my spine to avoid throwing off my center of gravity), but also so I can find stuff easily enough. If your backpack has different pockets and compartments, think about using those to organize your supplies. Put stuff you’re more likely to need to use in easy to reach places. I usually keep my water bottle in a side pocket that I can reach from the outside of my bag, and my snacks in the topmost compartment so they’re easy to get to and not squished.

I also have a couple of lightweight smaller bags inside my pack I organize things in -- a mesh bag I keep all my first aid supplies in so I can pull out the splint, main kit, extra bandage, AfterBite, etc. all together, and a waterproof stuff sack that I keep all my “emergency” supplies (bivvy sack, shock blanket, headlamp, lighter, knife, etc.) inside so they aren’t all rattling around loose at the bottom of my pack where I will never find them. 

-

Using your knowledge about the hike you’re doing, the duration, the conditions, and your own body and needs will help you make smart choices about what you need to bring in order to keep yourself safe, both during your hike, and in the hypothetical scenario where something goes awry. Be informed, be prepared, and have fun out there!

<< Previous Part: What to Wear Hiking

[nighttimeebony]

Reasons why I think L has autism (updated now that I've been diagnosed with autism):

He does not emote very often. L's facial expressions and tone of voice are very flat and almost never change with the situation no matter what happens.

He does not know what is considered appropriate for social interaction.

The fact that he doesn't wear shoes implies that he has sensory issues with physical stimuli. In the same way that autistic people are bothered by tags on clothes or certain textures of fabric, some autistic people don't like wearing shoes because they like to be able to feel the ground or because they don't like how tight or restrictive shoes feel. (I also hate wearing shoes for this exact reason, and I will go barefoot whenever physically possible. If given the opportunity, I would literally never wear shoes)

Autistic people can also struggle with physical care and maintaining proper hygiene, which we can see in L by the fact that he wears the same shirt and pants every day, and by how messy and unkempt his hair is

It's fair to say that detective work and psychology is L's special interest. He's driven more by how the work stimulates him mentally rather than because of a particularly strong moral compass.

It's safe to conclude that L also has low empathy. It's not that he doesn't care about people, because he does, but he doesn't seem to understand it when people get upset with him for making certain decisions for the sake of solving the case. He is very much a "logic first" kind of person, and for the most part, he makes decisions based on what makes the most practical, rational sense to him, even if it seems morally dubious.

Literally the only thing we ever see him eat is candy and sweets. Autistic people are often picky eaters and have difficulty eating certain kinds of food because of either the texture or sensory processing issues, so a lot of autistic people tend to eat primarily sweets and junk food because of this. (My bf and one of my close friends, both autistic, are also like this. My bf doesn't like most vegetables bc of the texture, and the only thing I've ever seen my friend eat is Uncrustable PB&Js and chocolate; chocolate is like a whole thing for her.)

He has a tendency to touch his mouth, but he also rubs his feet together while he's sitting. These are both examples of stimming. (I also have a habit of touching my mouth and picking at my lips)

The bags under his eyes indicate that he has difficulty sleeping

He interprets certain instances of conversation literally, like the infamous "Yes, that would be dark" line

Incredibly blunt and doesn't waste time with small talk, even coming across as rude a lot of the time

L's level of eye contact is abnormal. A lot of autistic people don't make eye contact because it makes them uncomfortable, but some autistic people will go in the opposite direction and overcompensate by staring, which is exactly what L does: staring directly at people without blinking for inappropriate amounts of time (Wednesday Addams does this too)

The way he sits

The way he holds objects with the very tips of his fingers

In the deleted theater scene when Light and L meet for the first time, L wipes his hands off after shaking Light's hand

He frequently invades other people's personal space (again, see the deleted theater scene)

[the-badger-mole]

Azula stans really need to stop projecting the tough childhoods they had unto her. She is not some helpless little girl who never did anything bad on her own accord. Her fangirls are nothing but toxic terfs who think any criticism for them are sins from the patriarchy, please.

Idk enough Azula apologists to say they are all terfs or not, but I think the larger issue is people aren't comfortable rooting for the bad guy anymore. I, personally blame Wicked. I love the show, and I really liked the book, but it kickstarted this trend of What If stories that make villains more sympathetic. In a lot of cases, they just outright flip who was the villain and who was the hero, which is the least interesting thing you could do in terms of exploring a villain character's motives (glaring daggers at you, Maleficent).

No one is all black or all white. Everyone exists in shades of grey, and that includes villains. There's nothing wrong with exploring the grey areas of villains. Some of the best villains in literature are multi-dimensional. Some of them are even sympathetic, but at the end of the day, they are villains and nothing justifies their destruction. The best recent example I can think of is Killmonger from the Black Panther movie. He wasn't wrong to criticize the exploitation of Africa and the Black Diaspora by the West. He wasn't wrong for thinking that Wakanda should've stepped up and intervened. His anger was absolutely justified, but his methods absolutely were not. As an audience we can both love and empathize with Killmonger but also admit he was the villain.

That is, unfortunately, not how a lot of Azula's staunchest defenders approach her. Instead of allowing themselves to feel empathy for her, even though she is definitely in the wrong and has definitely made decisions on her own accord that show her own moral compass is broken, they have to turn her into a victim of circumstance. I think that is actually a very sexist way to look at Azula, though I don't really think for the most part her defenders are trying to be. Azula made choices she didn't have to. She was a child who was likely abused (albeit in a different way from Zuko). She was also an abuser herself, and very ruthless and cunning in her own right. All those things can be true at the same time, but Azula defenders can't seem to accept that.

Now I could speculate on why this is, and personally, I think it's because of this really annoying trend of needing your fandom opinions to align with your morals. I don't have much to base that on, though. I don't spend a ton of time engaging with a lot of people on the opposite end of the fandom from me, so I haven't heard directly from the more rational Azula defenders on why they think the way they do (the ones I've interacted with have been just...the worst and I didn't care to engage with them for long). Even if I did, who is self aware enough to say "my need to defend this villain is because I don't feel comfortable liking them if they are truly bad"? My opinion is based entirely on the posts that I see on my feed sometimes of mutuals getting asks that accuse them of terrible things because of the characters and tropes they like. Also, on the metas I sometimes see explaining how rather than being the villain, Azula was a broken little thing who had been failed by everyone around her, including her brother- who was a child himself, and her uncle- who couldn't have intervened even if he wanted because Azula wouldn't have ever accepted his help.

I could be right, or I could be way off base, but I think if we're ever going to see a decline in the rabid defenders of characters like Azula, we have to get to a point where we can admit we like bad guys without trying to make them heroes. It's okay to like a character and still want to see them defeated in the end. Or to want to see them win, even if it means that evil has triumphed. It doesn't mean anything about you as a person. It just means that you like a good story.

[herejusttosufferalong]

Re:

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGeWp68rB/

Like her view on things. Rather balanced. She suggest L is resentful or heartbroken a bit towards N, that is why the lack of interaction with her SM? Sounds like in sync with your theory about waiting for the green light?

I agree with this anon and much of the video. A lot of people are saying that L may be currently limiting his sm presence due to negative fan backlash “no matter what he does”. I can see how this may come to mind, but if this was the case then why have a public non-professional sm presence at all? If he is fed up, then just stop all-together. Use his private account for friends and family, and keep it purely professional on his public IG. That's not what's happening rn, as he continues to like A's posts on his public and has done the minimum for boosting professional content. So the question is why? Promoting professional aspects of his life would take the focus away from his private life, but he hasn’t done that. I’m sure his team would have been advising him to do this particularly when the iron was hot, days and weeks following the Premiere?

Thing is, he has limited liking his friends/loved-ones posts (e.g., R) on his public IG since earlier this year. So he is limiting public non-professional displays in some aspects. But why not with A? And why has he reduced his level of public interaction with N, who is very much a current and future professional connection, and will add so much value to his public image? His behaviour is in direct opposition to good PR outcomes. I’m still trying to figure out why, as it doesn’t seem to be based in logical, rational thought. Which leads me to believe that it could be emotion-based. When we’re behaving at the mercy of our emotions, it often leads us to make poor or rash decisions. So is there high emotionality when it comes to N? Is there ‘heartbreak’ or confusion or resentment coming from either side? If feelings are purely platonic and uncomplicated, then what’s stopping him from accentuating that ‘professional’ relationship as he did previously, for his own benefit? Is there something there he doesn’t want to face?

Is the public association (likes) with A something that was arranged and agreed upon? It’s something that appears important for their relationship, but oddly not necessary for his important long-term friendships? I tend to think that it must be something that’s important to her, that she’s vocalised, because his other loved-ones aren’t getting that level of attention on a public stage (apart from R on some occasions). Is he in love with A and being guided by those emotions? If so, why are all other public behaviours towards her so distant and non-committal? Especially given that A seems to desperately want their relationship to be publicly known? It doesn’t add up. Does he want to protect her and keep their relationship ‘private’ given past experiences with J? Well, seems unlikely because the cat was out the bag very early on and not much damage control has been done to boost, save or protect her image. Plus, he’s still liking her posts, so still highlighting the association on the public stage and keeping it open to negative feedback. Are they broken up and he is liking her posts out of a sense of duty, guilt, or compassion? This would be consistent with his past behaviour with exes. It may also explain his recent ‘walk down memory lane’ unliking of exes posts.

There are lots of questions, but I tend to think that L is likely experiencing a very emotional time in his life (whatever the situation might be). I hope it will be a moment of reflection for him that will lead to better days ahead.

no notes

[shizukateal]

Grimm Variations - Episode One Review: Cinderella

Ok, starting with the heavy hitter aren't we Grimm Variations? Really have that much confidence in yourself in spite of your kinda ugly art direction? Ok. Alright. I see how it is.

GATHER 👏 ROUND 👏 CHILDREN 👏 LET'S 👏 TALK 👏 ABOUT 👏 GOOD 👏 VS 👏 BAD 👏 SUBVERSION 👏 SLASH 👏 DARK 👏 TAKES.

This is actually a pretty fascinating example, since it has both cases simultaneously.

(sorry for the shitty gif, I don't know how to reduce size without sacrificing quality)

Let's start from the beginning: This version of Cinderella takes place somewhen at the intersection of the Meiji and Showa Periods in Japan, which is to say in the Roaring 20's. Instead of our usual protagonist, the story centers on Makiko and Sawako, our prospective Evil Stepsisters, as their mother Tsuruko, a former geisha, marries Viscount Otawara, who has a single daughter: Kyoko. Kyoko enthusiastically welcomes her new family with open arms, even gifting precious things to her new sisters, who clearly love the luxuries of the social ladder that they've climbed. However things take a turn for the dark as Kyoko starts manipulating everyone around the house with wounded gazelle gambits to convince them that her sisters are mistreating her and usurping her place. The story thus becomes about Makiko and Sawako going to the ball (hosted by a count's son) to try and escape their Evil Little Stepsister.

There's also some background stuff at the start of the episode about the brothers grimm and that little girl Charlotte up there, who appears as a living doll of Kyoko's, but since none of that is explained here we're just gonna focus on what this dark take says thematically about the tale of Cinderella.

Right from the beginning the overturn starts when the first scene makes it clear that Cinderella's dad holds all the power in the relationship with the Evil Stepmother, whereas the Grimm and Perrault versions make her the one wearing the pants. It's never explicitly stated in either of them, but it's natural to infer that the Stepmother is of a higher peerage than Cinderella's Dad to explain how she would hold power over him and his daughter when trying to rationalize the story, and it's a common plot point in adaptations. However, this alone a subversion does not make. After all, if you read trashy romance in aristocratic settings (like I do), you know that it is extremely common for social climbers to be presented as sniveling usurpers, who get arrogant and greedy and turn into bullies the moment they have a modicum of luxury and rank in spite of their Inferior Manners (unless they are the protagonist of course). Lots of Cinderella stories follow that formula.

And that's exactly what Kyoko uses against her stepsisters.

Makiko and Sawako are stupid. If their unrefined manners are forgivable and a simple matter of environment and time, the way they openly slobber over and covet the riches of their new house makes them no favors. When they think one of the servants stole jewelry from them (and it was a piece that Kyoko had given them at that) they immediately get angry and physically aggressive towards a person whom they were equal in rank perhaps mere days ago. It takes them too long to stop and realize that hey, no servant would openly flaunt a piece they'd stolen from their master, so maybe something else is afoot, but by then it's too late. The other servants of the house can no longer trust them, so of course they continually take the side of the poor, defenseless little mistress Kyoko.

The tale so turns into an interesting mix of one-part hitchcokean aristocratic horror-thriller, impulsed in part by the flaws of the protagonists, and I'd say around a quarter-part view into the hypocrisies of class. Makiko and Sawako's refusal to engage with the servants with respect and compassion, trying to act the rank they've ascended to, cuts them from a support network, even as they are handed wealth and luxury. However it is undeniable that because of their lowly origins and etiquette people view them with scorn, distrust, and antipathy, a fact that is driven home when they are the ones who get mean whispers and comments upon entering the ball. They don't stop from being victims in the narrative just because they aren't likeable. By contrast, Kyoko may wear old plain clothes and do house work, but because she's nice to the staff and is seen as the legitimate blood heir, everyone looks at her with compassion and chucks her unnaturally cheery disposition towards her circumstances to good breeding, to the point that she gets away with poisoning her stepmother for years until she dies.

Likewise, at the scene of the ball the sisters fail spectacularly at captivating their prospective Prince with their uncouth behavior, so all our Cinderella has to do is be pretty and make a scene in front of everyone for things to take its predestined course. Tsuruko dies that night thanks to her stepdaughter forcibly feeding her one last cup of bleach before she leaves. And even though everybody witnesses the sisters grieving over their mother's corpse, nobody has sympathy for them the next day, when Makiko becomes the head of the family at Kyoko's (clearly secret) behest. The moment the Prince appears and declares his intention to marry Kyoko, Makiko and Sawako are expediently given the boot to the ass and thrown out of the house. Thus both of them are forever expelled from aristocratic society... and forever free from Kyoko.

Cinderella has followed her usual course of ascending to a higher to a social strata while reclaiming her lost position thanks to the intervention of a powerful man... But it's the Evil Stepsisters who have escaped an abusive situation by leaving the comforts of status behind, which goes very specifically against the message the original story gives. What's more this is due to their own character development: they knew that Kyoko would sabotage them if they tried to escape her via marriage, so they baited her into pulling a stunt and deliberately sabotaged their own chances with the Prince so that he would take her away from them.

THAT, my guys, is actual subversion. THAT is commentary. It's impeccably brilliant...! Or at least it would be were it not for the biggest flaw in the story: Cinderella herself.

Near the end of the first act the sisters try to warn their mother about Kyoko's nefarious acts. Of course, she doesn't believe them. After all, she asks outloud, what does Kyoko get out of acting like that? It seems that the scriptwriter didn't realize that asking that question explicitly in dialogue would put it at the forefront of the audience's thoughts before the whole thing went into print.

I mean the script makes Kyoko talk about her family being her precious "dolls" or whatever but that explains absolutely jackshit when her attitude is so inconsistent. Keep in mind, this Cinderella kills her own dad when he unwittingly threatens to disturb her status quo and starts the second act by saying out loud that she fears the situation she's created might end, but after the sisters do succeed in suckering her she just goes "oh well :) thems the breaks" and it's implied she'll move on to torturing the Prince for shits and giggles and that's it.

Alas, however, I must be fair and truthful in my final assessments. I came into this series expecting vapid edginess and mediocrity and while it hasn't exactly disappointed on that front, it has just enough thematic juice to move into the tier I was most afraid of: trash but still good enough to be frustrating. Join me next week for more suffering if it keeps up this way.

[zeroducks-2]

Idk if anyone is interested but in case someone is, yes, Barry reciprocates. Have my exhibits! With pictures!

.Exhibit A!

He keeps looking for Eobard subconsciously, can feel when he's there, his presence alone is able to trigger Barry's memories of past and future lives.

And look, Eobard was right there!

(panels from The Flash Vol.1: Lightning Strikes Twice)

.Exhibit B!

When he finds Eobard dead, Barry spends time with his body in the morgue struggling over how he died, what might have hurt him, observing that "whatever got him must have just slowed him down" (all the while softly whispering to and gently touching Eobard's body).

I can never not be insane over how tenderly he's caressing Eobard's forehead. Might I add that he spends just so much time in the morgue that he's late to his own birthday party. Might I also add that whatever Barry did in that morgue, it brings Eobard back to life.

This man literally told his nemesis "come back to me", and Eobard obediently did.

The last panel, that's Eobard's powers reactivating as he's revived, moments after Barry left.

(panels from The Flash Vol.4: Running Scared)

.Exhibit C!

When Godspeed starts killing people, including the woman Barry was dating, Barry is shocked but keeps being willing to forgive if August is willing to stand down. Barry gets beaten up and humiliated and still worries for August, trying to appeal to his rationality and compassion.

But then August makes the mistake to threaten to find Eobard (who at the moment is being tortured a prisoner in Iron Heights), and kill him in front of Barry's eyes. And if Barry has been rational and willing to stop fighting, after the umpteenth time August tries to get to Eobard he loses his entire shit, grabs August by his head and neck and is just about to kill him, in a scene which is a direct parallel to when Eobard forced him to break his neck.

That's apparently what Barry does when someone insists on threatening to kill the people he loves and make him watch. He doesn't kill August of course, but he gets close to it - the moment Barry lets him go August is unconscious for lack of air, he was being choked to death even without the neck breaking part. All because he had threatened to murder Eobard.

This is Barry breaking Eobard's neck to protect Fiona, Barry's fiancee at the time, after he's been incessantly threatened to be forced to watch as he kills her. He did not want to kill Eobard, he felt extremely guilty to the point that now, having killed him is one of his worst nightmares, but he was essentially forced to do it (why Eobard did this to make himself get killed is another interesting and unhinged story for another time). So as you can see, this is how Barry reacts when he gets threatened with the death of someone he loves.

And this also is Barry reacting to the threat of a speedster killing someone he loves.

I am in awe with the parallels drawn between these two panels. The same font and stile has been used for Barry's "Not again!" and "No!", and there is the same brutality coming from someone who 99% of the time tries everything but violence to solve any kind of situation. He's entirely out of his mind when he does this.

(panels from The Flash Vol.1: Lightning Strikes Twice)

IN CONCLUSION

Somehow, IDK HOW, Barry does reciprocate in some form. At least in Joshua Williamson's run he does.

...I actually have my theories on the how, which entail these two being each other's lodestone, being irremediably connected through time and space, and Barry having been loved&desired so much and so strongly for so long, both outwardly and through the natural connection of their powers, that at some point he just... started feeling back.

"But Thawne killed his mother!" LISTEN. I KNOW. I think Eo is as confused by this as you and I to be honest. And that's also something about Barry which is very fascinating imo: he will love in spite of everything.

Even if the other person doesn't understand it, even if it makes no sense, even if BY ALL MEANS HE SHOULDN'T, even if he hurts, he will still love and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Luckily for Eobard, because there is no one else in the omniverse that ever loved him, and likely ever will.

[mywingsareonwheels]

Here be yet more Fred Thursday musings ;-)

[Long post and spoilers for all of Endeavour here.]

So, I was thinking yet again (for the billionth time ;-) ) about Fred Thursday and the three people we see him kill over the course of Endeavour while trying to save someone else:-

Mrs Coke-Norris

Ludo Talenti

Raymond Kennitt/Peter Williams

The show seems to be pointing us into believing that the third of those is somehow much, much worse than the first two and I... have a problem with this.

I mean, in all three cases Fred was responding to an immediate threat to life (of someone he cared about, and in the second and third cases also Fred himself). In the case of Mrs C-N Fred was officially on duty which gives him some extra legal cover, but I'd say no extra moral cover.

I'm no legal expert, but from what I understand, under English-and-Welsh law, none of the three were murders; you're looking at manslaughter at worst, at best a good case for self/other-defence, which... is a grey area but certainly a decent defence lawyer could have had a good go.

(It is worth noting, of course, that this is the morseverse and this is Fred Thursday; he's made so many enemies both in the criminal justice system and among criminals, mostly through doing actively good things, that his chances of either a fair trial or then surviving prison are basically non-existent. I think we have to weigh all of Morse's decisions in "Exeunt" with that in mind because there's no way Morse isn't aware of it. Sam's chances of surviving prison for drug-dealing I think we can assume would also be remote, again due to the enemies Fred has made. And I think again, we have to weigh both Fred's and Morse's decisions with that in mind.)

So... yeah. I think there are only three things that you might consider as making the killing of Raymond Kennitt worse than that of Ludo Talenti or Mrs Coke-Norris:-

the use of the knife rather than a gun, which makes it theoretically possible that Fred could have found a way to end the fight that didn't involve killing Kennitt. That does strike me as something that's probably easier to see from a backseat than if you're Fred in the middle of what's happening, but still.

we know Kennitt's horrifying backstory (not that Fred does), and so feel huge amounts of compassion for him even though he's obviously awful in the "present", and sympathy for the grief that Jakes would feel if he knew what had happened. That's inevitable I think, but, well. Can we be sure that Mrs C-N and Ludo aren't child abuse survivors too? (We do know that Fred and Charley both are, though not the details.) All in all, I think this is a show that wants us to feel compassion for as many characters as possible, and I don't want to assume that Mrs C-N and Ludo didn't end up Like That for no reason.

the fact that Fred kills Mrs C-N and Ludo in defense of Morse (the protagonist, Fred's protege, and a character we all love) and kills Kennitt in defense of Sam (a more minor character, and Fred's son). I would hope that Morse wouldn't see it like that and that neither does Russell Lewis because obviously that's a dreadful position to hold, but... yeeeah. It would annoy me a lot if that's part of the reasoning of the show, but protagonist-centered morality is a flaw in an awful lot of fiction, and while Endeavour mostly doesn't give into it, I don't think any writers are immune. So I do have a horrible suspicion that this is the bit that makes the actual difference, even though I really think it shouldn't be. If Fred had killed Kennitt to save Morse rather than Sam... would we as an audience feel differently? (I ask that of myself as well as of anyone else who wants to ask it of themselves! And honestly, I probably would feel better about the killing if it was for Morse, even though rationally I know it's no different!)

I'd actually say that in the case of the killing of Kennitt there are a couple of minor mitigating factors that the first two lack:-

Fred is in the worst state mentally we ever see him in "Exeunt", and is completely falling apart; earlier in the day he had some form of heart episode or possibly severe panic attack. At any rate: he's going through hell and he is ill as a result.

I can't actually remember if he has his gun with him during the fight with Kennitt, but he certainly isn't willing to use it given the situation; the knife is Kennitt's not his, and a weapon you aren't intending to use is for practical purposes not here, so he's... taken on an armed man while essentially unarmed. Fucking berserker that he is. Rather than two people with guns going up against each other.

you can see a moment of decision in Roger's face for the killings of both Mrs C-N and Ludo; by Fred's own account to Morse (which I think we can take as honest) he didn't make any conscious decision to kill Kennitt (see above re awful mental state).

Honesty? I think that killing in immediate self-defence and/or defence-of-other is however as close to necessary and justified as killing ever gets, and I'm inclined to be extremely forgiving about all three deaths. I'm not sure Fred had a real choice in any of the three cases.

What Fred does do in the third case that really is different of course is the cover-up, in misleading everyone, in being an absolute arsehole to Morse when he comes to check on him that night. In all of it it's massively, massively understandable (as he's a) ill, b) still trying to protect Sam). Morse's sense of betrayal though is also massively understandable. Ugh. My heart hurts. *shakes fist at Russell Lewis, and also at Roger and Shaun for being so amazing*

Anyway. Do I have an overall point? Probably: Fred Thursday is a complicated character and I love him and I want to hug him and also throw things at him. He has horrible violent tendencies but he isn't a murderer under English-and-Welsh law, and I don't think s9 makes sense unless we interpret him as very mentally unwell by the end of it. Also: Morse and Thursday both need different jobs, holy shit. Also also: I reckon Morse ended up forgiving Thursday and being in touch with him, because he is pretty fair when given time to process things, and he doesn't have Morse-centered morality. Also also also: Russell Lewis is a meanie and I want more fix-it fics. ;-)