#and properly putting in my citations

[throes-of-warm-tornadoes]

finally reached 15 pages!!!!

[songoftrillium]

Project Update 09/01/24

Hello, Kinfolks. We're a little under 60 days from releasing Book 1: Cliath, and I wanted to give you all a quick update, provide a few book facts, and hope this lets you share the excitement the rest of us have been feeling!

Book Layout

As you might've seen from our previews, writing is transitioning from writing to copy editing and book layout! If you haven't yet, check it out! The first two chapters are done, and chapter 3 is well underway. Outside of my work on Hearthbound, this is my first major book project, the largest book I've written, and the insights I've gained are ones I think might help future community content partners publishing work on Storyteller's Vault.

On Bluesky, a few months ago, I commented that you should "plan to take as much time doing layout as you do for writing." Even if one writes the book inline right in the desktop publishing program, annotation will still add time. With a WtE book we want to not just provide an adventure and a crash course on the Tellurian, but to also be a roadmap for Storytellers, new and old alike. This has happened on three fronts. The first and most important is we're taking the time to properly index everything in a way that'll let you look up specific book information quickly. The second is how we streamline information through the liberal use of cross-referencing in footnotes. In early chapters, you read truncated summarization, and in the footnotes, you can find book sections that expand on the information you're looking for and let you tune out the things that may not be so important for you to know at the moment. The third and most important feature, however, is where able, we cite our sources for our information. Should a Storyteller wish to learn expanded information on topics, they have a direct book and page citation where they can find deep lore to help construct their chronicles.

Cracking the Bone: now in coloring flats stage

For those that haven't been following, we are returning to old form. The moment you open Book 1, you'll be greeted with a fully illustrated and colored 22-page comic book showcasing life in the Age of Heroes. This story is centered around Dante (he/they,) our protagonist, and his first steps towards his First Change as a Bitten Homid Philodox. Throughout the book, we'll follow his journey towards becoming a Cliath, forming his pack under Earwig and his first mission as a Zedakh in a pack of other Queer Garou. In successive books, you'll see him transition from a scared baby gay Cub to a respected Elder in the Eastern Concordat! We're all absolutely thrilled to follow them on their journey. Illustrating this comic is the highly talented @mekanikaltrifle, who has partnered with us to bring Dante's story to life. I have a single pane I'd like to show you, bearing in mind these are just a first pass!

Book Pricing Information

We've also finalized some of our possible pricing on this book. On Storyteller's Vault, Community Content is priced on a per-page basis. The average is considered to be 12 cents per page. I did some early market work by releasing Hearthbound on a pay-what-you-want model with a recommended pricing of $2.99, totaling roughly 8 cents per page. I advertised exclusively here and on other social media platforms to queer audiences to help gauge a fair price for materials explicitly marketed to that audience. Of those that decided to pay for copies of the book, readers paid an average of 5$ per copy for an average of 14 cents per page. Given the voluntary nature of the release, we on the team have agreed that we'll be charging a rate of 14 cents per page for this release, which puts us on par with pricing for similar releases with a matching pagecount. With layout underway, we're currently looking at a book length of around 200-250 pages. 50% of proceeds go to the publisher, and the remainder will be split equally among all contributors, myself included. I and another artist have pledged to donate the entirety of our shares toward preserving the Kalapuyan language.

Book 1: Cliath releases on Halloween day!

I'd like to give a shout out to @a-boros-named-seamus, @madamebadger, The Bohemian, @peltofash, @ar2456, and Durodragon for supporting me on ko-fi, through yours and the donations of other ko-fi sponsors, we've managed to hire cultural consultants to review about half of what's been written. Because we weren't able to review all of our written words, we've narrowed our focus onto some of our most sensitive subject-matter, and believe that what we have coming out will be the inclusive Werewolf: the Apocalypse Quickstart you've all been waiting for. Thank you! It means so much to us that we have our own sept of Kinfolk out there who believe in this project!

If you'd like to help sponsor this project, subscribe on ko-fi to help us pay Cultural Consultants to work with us! We have some cool perks for subscribing, including access to book and setting previews, the ability to give feedback on game content we're producing, personalized advice for your own tables, and can even get a shoutout right in the book.

[fantastic-nonsense]

I have a fun [citation needed] hypothetical for you. Say you have been granted the authority to make FIVE editorial directives for DC comics that will be followed for at least the next five years. What are you demanding?

No company events.

No major events with ten thousand tie-in comics.

No big crossover events.

No big gimmick events.

No event comics.

Okay, I kid, but only slightly. I'm actually going cheat slightly and give you five plus an extra one that needs a bit more explanation:

No company-wide crossover events or gimmick events that derail major ongoing stories in individual books shall be made. If an event comic is published, any tie-ins will be published separately from the character's ongoing/mini (for reference: like the Blackest Night tie-in specials).

Institute a lore consistency team within the Archives department. Mandate that every single creative team MUST read and utilize a character/story bible before writing any scripts. The scripts will be looked over by a member of the lore team as well as the book editor before being approved for publication.

The Young Justice generation is finally allowed to grow up and, where necessary, get new hero names. In particular, Tim Drake finally gets to age and stop being Robin. He picks 'Blackbird' as his new name, gets a cool new red-and-black costume, and stars in a rebooted Young Justice book alongside his friends.

Barbara Gordon has to formally retire from the Batgirl role and become Oracle full time again. This is handled in a way that is respectful of her character and her disability. Cassandra Cain will be Batgirl full-time again while Stephanie Brown goes back to Spoiler; Cass gets a Batgirl solo ongoing while Steph would join a rebooted Gotham Knights team book that includes her, Kate, Helena, Luke Fox, and Jean-Paul Valley.

Wonder Woman's established lore is acknowledged, respected, and re-emphasized. Diana is a clay baby again, Cassie is Zeus's daughter again, The Return of Donna Troy is acknowledged as the definitive explanation of Donna's multiple-choice backstory (while the fire origin stays the definitive origin), Artemis gets her original origin back, etc. Full acceptance of the Rucka Rebirth retcon to reset Diana's origins and childhood back to the post-Crisis status quo. No references to the Zeus origin or the New 52 Amazons are allowed to be made except in context of Rucka's "it was a lie" explanation.

In priority order, those editorial mandates probably fall out to be something like 2>1>5>3 and 4 in a tie; 3 and 4 are kinda interchangable since they collectively would fix a wide swath of what's wrong with the Bat books right now.

My "extra" mandate would be that writers must utilize existing characters where possible for their stories. No new "major" heroes are to be introduced unless a writer can prove that a book needs a new character to fill an identified gap. Prioritization should go to a) characters who used to be used on a regular basis in a given book but have not been seen in 10+ years and b) characters introduced within the past 5-7 years.

I'd want this one for two reasons: one, there's a ton of pre-existing characters who used to be staple or regularly recurring characters who have failed to get regular appearances since 2011, for a variety of reasons. Forcing writers to use them instead of creating new characters would allow DC to rebuild some continuity, bring back old favorites, and provide closure to lingering storylines that were cut short or never followed up on. Two, there's a hell of a lot of new characters have been introduced and discarded without actually building them out properly the last few years. I would honestly only put this one in place for around 3 years...long enough to force DC to actually flesh out the underutilized newbies and provide some closure and new beginnings for some old favorites.

[tallerthantale]

I finally got around to doing a close reading of transcripts of the Tortoise episodes, and I am very glad that I did.

My view remains that I find all the allegations both very credible and very damning. The updates to my views are that I feel more positively (though not entirely positively) about Tortoise, and that there is a probable very bad actor in all of this that isn't getting nearly enough attention. (Not Amanda Palmer. Or well, yes Amanda Palmer, but she isn't who I'm talking about.)

Tortoise first.

I'd been seeing a lot of comments claiming that Tortoise was anti BDSM. I don't know what the people in the podcast have as their personal views, but they made a point multiple times to clarify that BDSM does not operate like what Neil Gaimen was alleged to have done, and the condemnation they had for the alleged actions was not a condemnation of consensual BDSM. As someone who has been very involved in BDSM community for decades, I am fully in agreement with everything the hosts have said. The line people got most hung up on was a guest expert snarking about degradation ever being consensual. It is ambiguous in context what definition of "degradation" he is using, but it seemed to me he was referring to processes of establishing coercive control, and not referring to degrading roleplay in a mutually invested, healthily negotiated kink scenario. My remaining critique on the host / guests perspective is that the language around abuse and coercive control used by the hosts and guests often presumes all abusers are male and all victims are female. It doesn't diminish the value of the rest of what they are doing, but I think it is worth being critical of as a side note.

The other big point of concern with Tortoise, which I got major bad vibes off of from day one, was the manner in which they talk about their "understanding of Neil Gaimen's position." That sets off my internal red flags because it immediately prompts the follow up questions, "How did you acquire that understanding?" "Who told you that?" "Why aren't you quoting and / or citing them?" I had been speculating that they were from his side of the communications provided by the people coming forward, or comments from lawyers that weren't being properly attributed. Council of Geeks had a great "Cite Your Sources!" whiteboard moment I would generally agree with.

However.

It turns out there is actually a good reason for the citation fuckery. I think a lot of people missed it, so I'm going to try to explain it. When the hosts are referencing communications provided by those coming forward, they say so. When they are referencing comments by lawyers, they say so. The issue is, the bulk of the time, their understanding is coming from piles of direct emails with Gaimen that are OFF THE RECORD. Journalists have to take that seriously to get to keep doing journalism. They are professionally obligated to NOT cite or quote him when he is off the record. Normally in such a situation journalists wouldn't do this squiggly 'our understanding of their views' thing, they would leave it out entirely to be on the safe side of their professional obligations. Sprinkled through the podcasts are comments about the moral importance of hearing from both sides, the great public interest need to hear from both sides. This is a very snarky justification for the game they are playing of vague-posting the gist of his off the record statements without ever putting the exact statement on the record.

A lot of their snark surrounding that, and some other bits, leave the very distinct impression that Gaimen and his lawyers have threatened legal action against Tortoise several times already. Honestly I hope that they do file legal action, as that would open Gaimen up to discovery. Discovery is a process by which Tortoise would be able to demand access to nearly all documents and / or electronic communications Gaimen has relating to the matter, and in doing so make them public. Discovery is far broader sweeping that what is admissible in court, because it has to be 'discovered' before the court can rule it admissible or not. But inadmissible thigs are still usually public record. A jury wouldn't see them, but we still can. Because of that, it is extremely unlikely that Gaimen will file a legal claim, but again, I truly hope that he does. Tortoise probably does too.

But there is another person deserving of investigation and discovery in all this.

The main focus of my current attention is from a bit in the first episode that jumped out at me. Like, it made my eyes bug out, jaw on the metaphorical floor, and I was shocked that I haven't seen it mentioned. But then I figured, people might just not have the context to know how big of a deal this is. So I'm going to talk about it.

According to Scarlett's account, after she came forward to Amanda, Neil asked her to take a call with a therapist that both he and Amanda see. It seemed like his financial assistance offer to her may have hinged on the call being part of the deal. At first read, it looks like Gaimen strongarming Scarlett to tell his therapist he didn't assault anyone. She does the call, and there is a message from the guy that seems designed to plant the suggestion in Scarlett that her friends are manipulating her into perceiving a consensual relationship as a non consensual one.

To me, that is a five alarm fire. Everything happening in there should not be happening, ever. A person who provides individual therapy should not provide it to both partners in a relationship. A person who provides relationship therapy should not be providing individual therapy to people in the relationship. (They should do one-on-one sessions with each in the context of the relationship therapy but that is different.) A therapist should not be framing things the way they are described in that message, or interacting that way towards someone who is not a client, particularly if they have a conflict with someone who is. Therapists are very aware of the potential for clients to coerce others into saying things that fit the client's narrative, and should not be encouraging them to try. And all that is before we even get to the part where he seems to have been tasked specifically to gasslight Scarlett into mistrusting herself and blaming her friends. By Scarlett's paper trailed account, this person should be facing very serious repercussions and investigation. According to Tortoise, he has not responded to any of their attempts to get in touch with him, and he has a phone that is set up to not accept voicemail.

The name of this alleged professional is stated in the podcast, so I looked him up. He is most widely known as an author. His first professional descriptor for himself is as an executive leadership mentor. That more or less translates to person who gives expensive pep talks to rich people. He is also a minister, and a 'consultant.' He does call himself a therapist, but he has no degrees, background, or training in psychology. His degree is from divinity school. He does not list any professional qualifications or certifications in mental health, he does not list any memberships in any mental health organizations. He did co-found an organization that appears to have put on motivational seminars for a variety of organizations. His 'client list' was last updated in 2012. His website has features that are only accessible by those who are 'fully committed.' He is based out of Arizona, USA.

Searching for his name + therapist will get you to a podcast episode with Amanda Palmer, where she had him on as a guest, described him as a therapist, her therapist, and her and Neil's relationship therapist, and promoted his books. It was recorded in 2019, and it is utterly vapid and out of touch from the both of them. Searching his name + therapist will not get you any information on his work as a therapist, because he is not a therapist.

He can't get stripped of his status as a mental health practitioner, because he isn't one. Tortoise states that he has protected confidentiality to Neil and Amanda. If he does have protected confidentiality, he has it solely through his status as a minister, not as a mental health professional because again, he isn't one. As a minister, he may have greater client privilege than an actual mental health professional, who would be required to break privilege if they have reason to believe their client is a danger to themselves or others. Religious client privilege is very strongly protected in most of the US even if the client is explicitly planning to commit specific acts of violence. This might be the main selling point to people who choose to work with ministers who pretend to be therapists rather than actual therapists.

Scarlett doesn't have confidentiality much less privilege by any avenue, his communication with her did not form a professional relationship despite the ways his message seemed to blur those lines, which would have left him free to pass on whatever she said to Neil and Amanda. That would also open the door for him to corroborate what Scarlett told him to the media, but my impression is that if he can be contacted, he will cite a duty to his real client, Neil Gaimen, to avoid saying anything. This is one of many reasons why real therapists do not take clients who have potential conflicts of interest with their other clients. I can't tell from the content of either podcast to what extent he may have materially represented himself to be an actual mental health professional to his clients, but if he has done so he absolutely should be liable if not culpable for that.

I would like to see this man investigated to hell and back, but I don't know if anyone in the media is going to bother. For anyone who needs to hear it, do not go to therapy with someone who isn't a licensed mental health professional. Do not have the same individual therapist as your romantic partner(s). If you are setting up couples therapy, it needs to be with someone who has never met either of you before, and you make first contact with them as a unit.

Obligatory this is all personal opinion disclaimer. The internal states of public figures cannot be determined or scientifically evaluated by their public statements / appearances / works / ect... I am not the behaviour panel, nor do I endorse that kind of thing. But under certain circumstances I am willing to put out some personal opinions about what certain actions, if they happened, would seem to suggest.

I've been saying for a while now, the allegations paint a very strong and compelling picture of Gaimen knowing what he was doing and engaging in deliberate strategy even if he can make pocket experiences for himself where he gets to believe that the relationships were real. I think the evidence pointing towards Gaimen having a long running pseudo 'therapist' he is comfortable sending his accusers to talk to, who then encourages the accuser to think their friends are controlling them, speaks to how deeply this approach to life can saturate a person's existence. When I say 14 represents a lifestyle choice, these are the kinds of things I'm talking about. Someone who fucked up and made a few grievous errors, and did soul searching, and is trying to do better doesn't send their victims to their on call professional gassligter with religious privilege who they outsource to. This looks like 'life revolves around finding ways to control and silence people' level shit.

[thedissociatives]

ignoring the word count on this first draft and i can already tell it's gonna bite me is in the ass when i inevitably have to cut down massively to even get to the 10% overrun allowance

procrastinated all of yesterday and sunday so only making a start on my essay now 😬

[slenderfire-blog]

Book review: Tune In by Mark Lewisohn (part 1)

Or, to give it its full name: The Beatles: All These Years: Vol. 1 - Tune In.

Here's the biggest of the biggies! I'm doing this review in two parts, part one summarising the content and the strengths, part two looking at The Issues.

Review Part 1 below the cut:

This is a detailed biography/history of the Beatles as individuals and as a band, starting with their childhoods in the 1940s and 1950s and ending at the end of 1962, as they are just taking off. I read the Standard Version, which is the one that's generally available, but there is an Extended Edition that's almost twice the length, for the real completists. This volume was published in 2013 and was intended to be part 1 of 3 volumes, but it's increasingly unclear if parts 2 and 3 will ever see the light of day.

Mark Lewisohn is basically a Professional Beatles Guy. He's been writing about the band since the 70s, and has worked for MPL, EMI and Apple. He worked closely with Paul for a number of years and had tight relationships with a number of people in Apple, including Neil Aspinall. His most well-known book prior to Tune In was The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, which he wrote after getting access to all EMI's recording archives. He's one of the very few people who've listened to all those sessions so the Recording Sessions is an invaluable reference work. He also worked on Anthology, contributing liner notes to the albums and involved with the research. So when he announced in 2005 that he was embarking on a definitive history of the Beatles, he had the credentials and access to back up the plan.

For Tune In, his sources include many (though not all) previous Beatles books, public records, newspaper reports, interviews, material from EMI and other archives, and (extensively) interviews he carried out with dozens of people close to the Beatles, as well as with Paul over the years.

The book is rightly praised for being properly cited and annotated. The endnotes in my edition run to 61 pages. It's not the first Beatles book to have citations (Bob Spitz's has too, though for some reason Lewisohn doesn't cite Spitz), but the infrequency of proper citations in Beatles books means that these annotations are still striking and commendable.

If you are already a Beatles nerd, you won't get a bombshell revelation on every page the way some reviewers seemed to when the book came out, but you will still get lots and lots of fascinating information. The parts I especially appreciated are:

Ringo's childhood

This book is the first proper in-depth look at Ringo's childhood I've seen in a Beatles book to date. Lewisohn worked really hard to get all the details of his family life, his childhood illnesses, his (brief) schooldays, his early work and friendships, and while there isn't much analysis of his character (a theme in the book in general) the accumulation of detail still helps to bring his developing self to light in a really vivid and illuminating way. I really commend Lewisohn for putting the work in here. His research could form the basis of a proper doorstop biography of Ringo in future, something he has not yet been offered the courtesy of, especially by certain biographers who dismiss him completely (cough Philip Norman cough).

Musical influences

Lewisohn is really good at mapping the contemporary rock 'n' roll or R'n'B releases that the Beatles and their peers would have been listening to as they developed musically. When the band started playing gigs and doing covers, he outlines which songs they would grab, often after only hearing them once, and bring into their stage show. He describes the changes in style and how the Beatles were tuned in (ha!) to songs and styles that were still obscure to the general public in the early 60s e.g. early Motown girl-groups.

British context

Other biographies have touched on this too, but Tune In provided great detail about how exactly recording music worked in the 1950s and early 1960s, how archaic it all still was, and just how different it was to how it would be just a few years later. He has long sections outlining George Martin's early career which are really interesting and illuminating. You can just feel the creativity of so many people bursting at the seams, waiting for a rip in the fabric so they can blossom. The old-fashioned nature of live music is also well-portrayed, as well as the liberation of playing rock 'n' roll crazy style in Hamburg. The postwar British world was really stifling, but the energy of youth still found a way to burst through.

Fan accounts

There's a section in one of the chapters devoted to quotes from early Cavern fans talking about seeing those gigs, quotes Lewisohn got from his interviews, and it's just delightful. You can really feel the excitement and the magic of those early shows, the chemistry between the band and their audience.

New information

Lewisohn has two main Big Revelations that he emphasised a lot when promoting the book. The first revelation alleges that Freddie Lennon's story of five-year old John having to choose between his parents in Blackpool is basically bunk, and what actually happened was he and Julia just had a chat and John went home with his mum. That's based on an interview with a friend of Freddie's who was in the house at the time, though not in the same room. The revelation is still in the category of 'he said-he said' because the original story comes from Freddie himself, so I wouldn't necessarily classify it as a slam-dunk, just a different perspective. Freddie's friend may have seemed a more reliable witness, which is plausible.

The second Revelation is about George Martin signing the Beatles: it's a bit long and complicated but the TL;DR is Lewisohn talked to a guy called Kim Bennet who worked in EMI's publishing department and liked an early acetate of the band Brian showed him, but says George wasn't interested - but EMI's higher ups were mad at George for having an affair with his secretary and 'punished' him by forcing him to sign a band he wasn't keen on. That's massively simplified but it's the essence of the claim. George's story for years was that he signed them on the spot because he liked their vibe or something, Lewisohn says that's BS and it was the affair thing. He relies on Kim Bennett as his main source for this although he does back it up with (some) EMI archival material. So, it's kind of a YMMV. Essentially, I don't think it really matters and doesn't change anything fundamental about the story. If I were Lewisohn I wouldn't bother leaning on this as a Huge Revelation because most people don't really care.

With those caveats, it's still interetsing and valuable to get new perspectives on well-known stories, backed up (sometimes) by documentary sources, so for that I commend Lewishohn.

Writing style

Lewisohn's a good writer, though not as good as some other, less scrupulous-to-detail Beatles writers. All the detail can be a bit overwhelming, but it's important to have and record, so I don't begrudge him that. The thing for me is, his writing style feels a bit...flat. He essentially has a 'grocer's mind', (to quote Joyce), and his strengths lie more with accumulating and cataloguing information rather than with presenting or interpreting it in a vivid and exciting way. It's not that his writing never takes off - it does in parts - but it lacks a certain fluency and colour. I read the McCartney Legacy books (reviewed here) and they are just as long and detailed, but they never dragged - I think that is because they are a collaboration between a details guy (Sinclair) and a writing guy (Kozinn), and the combination really elevates the content, brings vivacity and pace to the narrative that is sometimes lacking in Tune In. McCartney Legacy never felt like a slog, but Tune In sometimes did. I think Lewisohn would benefit hugely from a collaborator, but for reasons I'll get into in the next post I don't think that's going to happen, sadly.

Methodology

It would have been really helpful if Lewisohn had included a methodology chapter, explaining what sources he used and how he assessed their reliability. As it stands, he uses some previous biographies and not others, some memoirs and not others, and I'm sure there were good methodological reasons for that, but it'd be good to know what they are, and how he assessed the reliability of certain sources over others. For example, he usually uses books, articles or interviews, but occasionally he cites the senstarr.tripod Beatles Girls site we all know and love (even if our eyeballs don't), and he says in the endnotes that it's reliable, but doesn't clarify if he followed its sources and actually checked its reliability. That's a bit of a methodology gap, imo.

Conclusion to part 1

Based on the above strengths, I'd definitely recommend Tune In to a Beatles fan who's already familiar with the basic outlines of the story and is enough of a fan to be willing to get through the slower parts. I wouldn't recommend it to a neophyte - it'd be too dense and with too much detail for them. Generally, I'd say it's a necessary book to read for a fan, both for the detail within and for understanding where we are at the present time when it comes to 'Beatles studies' (more on that to come!)

Part 2 of my review.

[psychic-refugee]

Wenclairs never fail to whine about the toxic environment they created and then cry when the exact same energy is flung back to them.

They’re really out here in my DMs, replies, and creating burner accounts, all to cry Not All Wenclairs.

They are literally employing misogynistic incel tactics to deflect, deny, and paint themselves as victims.

Well, maybe it’s not all Wenclairs but it’s always a Wenclair.

You’ll notice how they don’t try to defend themselves from any of my points. The fact is they can’t. I bring citations and everything I’ve noted is in the public sphere and Jenna and Emma have gone on record alluding to Wenclairs and their problematic behaviour. There’s really nothing to deny.

These are all my opinions, but I cite to things to back up my opinion. I don’t create outright lies like they do.

So, what else can Wenclairs do? They show their true colours as the fancels they are.

They try to deflect and justify their abhorrent behaviour and try to say “Well, other fans are just as bad, look at this icky content they make!”

I’ve never criticized the existence of Wenclair/ship content. I specifically criticize sending Jenna, Emma, and their family ship content and harassing them about their sexuality. As far as I’ve seen, Wylers and Wenviers aren’t doing this. It is not a “few” bad apples. It’s overwhelming to the point we can’t name them all and it’s pervasive across all social media platforms.

What does fan content for ships that Jenna and Emma have not acknowledged have to do with anything I had posted about?

I do not care about ships existing, even the “shit” ones. It’s all fictional and it’s all our personal interpretation. I don’t care what anyone says about what is canon, it’s all projection and personal preference at this point.

I do not care about whatever ship you personally find objectionable that is only found in fandom spaces and is tagged properly.

I don’t care about fights that are happening between fans.

I care that Jenna’s co-workers, friends, and family are literally being sent death threats and harassed over this ship.

I care that I’m being harassed in DMs by Wenclair burner accounts for rightly criticizing their behaviour.

I care about the galling hypocrisy that only my posts and other non-wenclair blogs are being criticized and whined about while they acknowledge that Wenclairs are an issue while they do nothing about them.

Whine in your own blog like I only whine in mine.

I keep to my own blog, and I respect the Wenclair tag by not adding it even though topically it counts and I could.

Wenclairs still aren’t fucking happy and they come bitching to me about things I didn’t even mention, all to try to paint themselves as victims and deflect their own culpability.

Why is it that Wenclairs are putting the onus on everyone but themselves to acknowledge these specific fandom problems and making it my problem by going into MY posts and DMs?

Is it because most Wenclairs are ignorant, inarticulate and barely literate and can’t make a clear, concise, sensible post?

Is it because they can’t cite to anything to back up their claims or opinions?

Is it because even if they could cite, they’re too effing lazy?

Is it because they know they have no leg to stand on and cannot claim the moral high ground because of their pervasive, insidious, and overwhelming fuck assery?

I criticize and call out Wenclairs because they’re obviously the problem to the issues I specifically talked about, not about the fandom as a whole.

It’s not rocket science.

[mamawasatesttube]

augh i wish tumblr inbox had a mark unread feature... i keep forgetting to answer an ask ive been meaning to for like over a week (two weeks?) now bc i wanna go look up issue numbers for my citations but i keep putting it off and then forgetting!!!! and now i have a SECOND ask im very excited to answer but again i want to do it Properly which means when i don't have a headache (i have had a headache for like 3 or 4 days now i kinda lost track). and i just know im gonna forget again....... <- bearer of the curse (adhd)

[dapurinthos]

and then there were 1700 words about the asusto visions from dooku: jedi lost, which is just too many to put in a reply post. *headdesk*

includes: gratuitous use of small text as footnoes, a way of classifying the visions as 'true, will happen' and 'possibility', and an emperor!dooku au maybe.

the asusto visions are like sitting down at a fancy dinner table, looking up, and realizing that your host/chef is hannibal lecter (it's the ‘nothing here is vegetarian’ scene from sorbet). there are going to be a lot of indented quotes here (and the residual miasma as my annoyance at copying from apple books because it automatically adds in quotation marks and the citation info which, under other circumstances, is lovely but here a PAIN because i have to keep deleting it).

PRIESTESS: We do not know. Your blood will open our eyes—tt-tt-tt—Every future laid bare. [...] You will be consumed so all futures will be ours—tt-tt-tt—Everything that may come to pass. DOOKU: (NARRATION) I find it hard, even now, to describe what I saw. Was this what Sifo-Dyas endured every time he was visited by days to come? I saw the future. Futures. Every prospect. Every possibility. And all of them a living nightmare.

in dooku: jedi lost, the visions follow the process of wave function collapse, which is when a probable/potential state becomes definitive and measurable, most famously demonstrated by opening schrödinger’s box to find out if the cat is alive or dead (it’s not just a cat in a box, it’s a cat in a box with a flask of poison, a geiger counter, and a radioactive atom. if the geiger counter detects the radiation, it breaks the flask, poisoning the cat).

as seen with sifo-dyas’s comments about his final vision in dooku: jedi lost, this framework bears out:

SIFO-DYAS: It is now. Coming into focus. The future. [Dooku takes over the Tirra'Taka's mind, kills Ramil, the Tirra'Taka, decides to rule Serenno, and resigns from the Jedi Order] SIFO-DYAS: I can see you, Dooku. I can see everything. […] The futures have become one, Dooku. One path.

in comparison to this final serenno-based vision, the asusto visions exist as numerous individual wave functions, immeasurable and incapable of being properly regarded until after the collapse of the futures has begun, leading to what will become inevitability, indicated by the quality of voices within these visions.

THE FIRST VISION

Dooku sees a battle, turbolasers firing. Explosions. The tramp of troopers’ boots. Starfighters roaring above.

it's a generic battle. i find it interesting that it is so generic. troopers. starfighters. but! before the setting moves onto the jedi temple and, subsequently, the senate, sifo-dyas screams and dooku shouts out to him. i think this is where sifo-dyas, as @charmwasjess said, “forks off” from what dooku's seeing.

THE RULE OF THE JEDI HAS BEGUN

CHANCELLOR PALPATINE: (DISTORTED) Master Jedi. What is the meaning of this? GRETZ: (DISTORTED) Our destiny. Gretz Droom kills Palpatine with a lightsaber thrust, the vision of the Senate Building whizzes past Dooku as he hears Droom say … GRETZ: (DISTORTED) The rule of the Jedi has begun.

why is it gretz droom assassinating the chancellor, all alone? and the text saying chancellor palpatine when it identifies him as darth sidious later? from yoda's presence, it seems like this is a council meeting—is dooku himself present? when the vision shifts to the senate, the presence of “Jedi boots” is mentioned. is it an indication that gretz droom is not the only jedi to march on the senate? in revenge of the sith, we see what happens when sidious is not surprised as what's coming. gretz droom is a dutiful jedi; listens to the council, obeys the senate's rulings.

so why, in this future, did gretz kill palpatine? yoda is present in this future, saying that this is the wrong path. i'll come back to this later.

THE CLONE WARS

CLONE COMMANDO: One-Eighty-Fourth Attack Battalion, move out. Blasterfire. BATTLE DROID: Roger Roger.

without knowing that these are the two different sides in the clone wars that exists in canon, it sounds like the clone commando is ordering the droids to move out and they're obeying. it even sounds like the first descriptions of the clone wars that made it sound like the clones were the ones who the jedi and republic were fighting against (the residue of this can be seen very clearly in the thrawn trilogy). commandos are special clones; they're foxtrot group and delta squad, specific units in the greater whole of a battalion.

it's a commander who kills jor aerith, like cody, ponds, etc.

JOR AERITH: Commander Crane? CLONE COMMANDER: Order 66 must be executed. Blaster shots are fired, deflected by Aerith’s lightsaber.

the pairing of jor aerith dying to sidious's command with gretz droom killing sidious places a master-apprentice duo in opposite positions from one vision to the next, but they're still people dooku knows.

THE EMPIRE

There’s the scream of a tie fighter swooping by, leading into a space battle, the familiar scream of tie fighters against X-wings.

dooku isn't alive during the life of either of these spaceships.

every other vision is something that he's alive for: even when it's darth skrye talking about the sith being reborn, this is something he will live to see. the “i've lost sifo” and lene saying it's up to him now is said to him directly by lene; the crowd chanting his name from serenno is near the end of the book. sidious also speaks to him directly, and the council meeting from the phantom menace is off-screen in one of his tales of the jedi episodes.

so: is the prescence of the tie vs x-wing fight an emperor dooku situation, where he got the drop on sidious and killed him first? where grievous accidentally flung sidious too hard into a bulkhead on the invisible hand so dooku decided to go all-in on the invasion of coruscant and declare it captured and occupied?

(mas amedda gets away, declares temporary chancellor, and decides to inflict order 66 on the jedi as a punishment for the fall of coruscant/chooses to believe they and dooku are in cahoots if sidious is dead/sate pestage & kinman doriana manufacture evidence to make it seem that way?)

THE HAND OF:

DARTH SKRYE: (FEMALE) The Cauldron opens. The sound of a planet tearing in two. DARTH SKRYE: The Sith reborn.

the specific direction of it tearing a planet in two interests me because the death star just explodes a planet. even its lesser powered beam used on jedha carved the entire city right out of the planet instead of splitting it into two pieces. scarif was luckier, since tarkin aimed at the tower. apart from that, the destruction was limited to the oceans boiling and part of the planet burning.

(the cauldron is also the name of the fighting arena where dooku first meets asajj on rattatak and recruits her.)

dooku says lene's voice is the only true one during his vision, but this is dooku, king of the highly unreliable narrators.

LENE: (DISTORTED) It’s up to you … Dooku.

from this point on, every vision that dooku sees is a fragment of his own future.

REAL /NOT REAL

the use of the (DISTORTED) stage direction for lene's voice is intriguing, as, when viewed in concert with the directions for all of the other voices in dooku's visions, before they begin to overlap, a pattern begins to emerge:

distorted voices: 1) sifo-dyas's scream 2) all of the voices in the jedi takeover scene: yoda, gretz, palpatine 3) lene calling for dooku

regular voices: 0.5) yoda saying “control” (in the midst of distorted voices) 1) the clone wars battle scenes: the clone commando, clone commander, jor, battle droid(s) 2) darth skrye's prophecy 3) the crowd on serenno 4) sidious, qui-gon, ki-adi-mundi

events we know are real and yet to happen have undistorted voices. darth skrye's voice inhabits an interesting possibility because she has to be dead. even if she were, somehow, part of the line of bane (very unlikely as they're not really the sith who go around making artefacts and naming them after themselves. too flashy), she would still be dead. she may have spoken in the past, but her words were of the future, so they belong in the 'real and yet to happen' category.

(darth skrye might possibly be linked to a version of the 3637BBY battle of rishi from the shadow of revan tor expansion pack of 2014, which added the planet as playable, and had a three-way republice-sith-order of revan battle on it. it would make sense, as serenno’s history with the sith empire is also from the old republic, with the c. 3660BBY attack on and capture of the planet [hiii~ darth malgus hey there you’re wrong about the dark reaper location].)

(yoda's sole “control” looks out of place but there is the conversation in revenge of the sith between him and a few of the other councillors in the scene with mace's “i sense a plot to destroy the jedi”. is this an instance of the true future bleeding into/out of the takeover scene?)

ORDER & SCHISM

within each chain of visions, they proceed in chronological order: 1) yoda protesting > gretz killing palpatine 2) clone wars > order 66 3) darth skrye's prophecy > superweapon destroying planet 4) lene losing sifo > calling out to dooku 5) chanting > apprentice to sidious > tpm council meeting

if lene's own visions did follow the same sequence as dooku, splitting off when her voice becomes distorted, then sifo-dyas split off very early (from his distorted scream), and didn't have the same experience of the jedi taking over the senate > the sith returning as dooku & lene did. if anything, his words after the vision almost play through the sequence backward. i've tucked the actions his words most make sense with inside sifo-dyas's lines:

SIFO-DYAS: (DELIRIOUS) Can’t be happening. Can’t be happening. [DARTH SIDIOUS: I have chosen you, my apprentice [...] You serve a higher purpose.] SIFO-DYAS: (AS IF HAVING A NIGHTMARE) No … You can’t … It cannot be. [...] SIFO-DYAS: Master … There were soldiers … hundreds of thousands of soldiers. So much blood … washing over me, washing over us all. [DOOKU: (NARRATION) I saw battles. So many battles. The future bleeding out on a thousand worlds.] SIFO-DYAS: You didn’t hear the explosions. Didn’t hear the screams.

or. OR. if sifo-dyas's went chronologically in order, the vision of the jedi take-over of the government would match with him saying “you can’t”. we know he saw something that made him tell dooku he wanted to be alone.

my support is for a vision of a jedi schism, led by dooku who tasked gretz droom to assassinate the chancellor.

given what we know about gretz (admired dooku as an initiate, adheres to the rulings of the senate, follows the council's orders, even apologizes to dooku about not helping serenno), going rogue to assassinate the chancellor of the republic is definitely a break of some sort.

what could a dooku who was still with the order, after his many years of service to a failing republic, do? a dooku, who has been tempted with darkness, who then finds out that the chancellor of the republic is the man responsible for it all? what would a gretz droom, who is so loyal to the council and the republic, do? we know what mace windu did.

gretz droom says it's “our destiny”.

(there's a part in darth plagueis, around where plagueis is on serenno, where he wonders:

[...] whether a dissatisfied Jedi like Dooku could be insurance against a reversal of fortune—some unexpected event that would rob him of Sidious—or perhaps turned to the dark without formal enlistment, and manipulated into instigating a schism in the Order.

schism! schism! schism!)

on this same note: sifo-dyas doesn't mention seeing the sith. which seems like a pretty big omission for someone whose master's main interest is proving the sith still exist/are a threat to the order.

if he saw anything about the sith in his asusto mélange.

miscellanea: i was rereading the jedi apprentice trilogy the other day and it struck me that, while the stygian caldera is a logical choice for the mentioned cauldron (it's lit. spanish for 'cauldron'), there is an actual cauldron nebula where kyp durron uses the sun crusher to destroy several stars in an attempt to kill natasi daala in a move that's reminiscent of aleema keto using the corsair to detonate the cron cluster.

[kimyoonmiauthor]

So... Roman Plays didn't even have acts except the tragedies? Maybe.

Following up on a source. Personally, I find this super hilarious. (Not in the ridicule way...) Because this would make Aelius Donatus very wrong, and then the professors that insisted that Aelius Donatus was arguing for three acts even more wrong.

Aelius Donatus reads like a man with a huge ego, so I kinda think this would be a blow to his ego...

Didn't I say check your sources?

Yeah, check your sources and your sources' sources, if you can.

How Aelius Donatus is wrong and then gotten wrong is like a summary of my whole project on the myth of the 3-act and five-act in one figure.

If I can confirm this in full with historical detail, BTW, I'm 100% adding the story structures to the book.

I'm super amused at seeing story structure change over time this much.

Aelius Donatus falls apart with the first hurdle--checking if what he asserted was true about the Greeks.

The reason you want to cite your sources is not only the backtrace, but also when you get something wrong, which is likely, you aren't blamed. Instead, you'll more likely blamed for citing a bad source, rather than being a complete asshat that makes up shit.

Maybe if more professors put it that way, more people would be inclined to do citations. People are always on academic consequences, but never what problems it causes for scholars to not cite things properly.

[onesaltyerik]

I am now at the WORST part of essay work.

CITATION EDITING!

Yeah I've got a whole separate page open full of all the links I used to research, but I had to organise them all into "Cited" and "Un-Cited" and that took ages cause I legit forgot what each of the links led to and had re-open them, confirm that I did indeed cite them in my paper, and then not lose them amongst the sea of links as I transferred them to the final paper.

And now, I gotta go through all of them, and put them into MLA format.

And after that, I gotta do the same for all the footnotes I've included. And then edit the footnotes to not look so horrendous. And then! I've gotta make sure the whole paper reads properly and is in the standard format (I have the spacing and font size turned way up so I don't strain my eyes, I would wear glasses but my glasses make my laptop screen look like rainbows? so kinda can't.)

AND THEN!

I can call it done and hand it in two days early so I can get the annotations for the lectures done.

I hate it all so damn much. And yet, when I'm not doing any of this, I wish that I was. I don't know why! All I ever do is complain about how annoying essays are and then when I'm done it's all "Well that was horrendous! .....I wanna do it again lolololol :)"

What the fuck is wrong with my brain.

[luyepiaofeng]

˖⁺‧₊˚✦ ways to make your laptop aesthetic feat. some extensions, websites & apps for students

i created this cause i found some time to finally upgrade and properly personalise my laptop, it took me almost an entire day watching youtube videos, researching for these and setting them up. so... i'm basically posting this for myself lol, but i also feel like sharing cause these are actually really good hehe

i'm using a windows laptop but i think most of these should work on mac too. most of these are free but there are maybe like less than five that require to be paid.

those that are marked with an asterisk (*) are the ones that i'm currently using while others are recommended or alternatives!

here is what my home screen looks like now:

i. screen saver

fliqlo (ios & win) * flipit (win, an inspired & alt ver of ^) flix clock (mac & web, paid ver comes with colours other than black) aura gradient clock (mac & web) retro anime desk clock (mac) flocus (web) * studywithme (web) note: remember to right-click the file and select "install", then ensure that the wait time (e.g: 5 mins) is less than your "turn off your screen" and "put my device to sleep after" (e.g: both 15 mins) in power settings

ii. tab themes

kluk: a clock tab theme * angry study helper: a tab theme that gets angy at u whenever u open a new tab gratitutab: a minimalistic tab theme that works as a to-do list prioritab: a tab theme that shows priorities that u had set for the day, week, and month

iii. extensions

tldr this: summarizes long docs, websites, articles, etc. with just a click * paperpanda: download research papers by clicking on it, it searches on domains like google scholar, semanticscholar, aodoi, and more * coffeelings: mainly a mood tracker that also saves mini journal entries colorzilla: an eyedropper colour picker * whatfont: click on it and hover on any text to show what font it is * mybib: an apa, mla, harvard, and more styles citation generator * read aloud: a tts reader that supports more than 40+ languages * notion web clipper: creates a website into a bookmark into notion * noisli: lets u listen to relaxing playlist while u study/work

iv. websites

lofi.cafe i miss the office i miss my cafe i miss my bar i miss my library a soft murmur patatap tomato timers animedoro lifeat coolors blush designs untools fontjoy zenpen decision maker museum of endangered sounds future me

v. apps

virtual cottage chill corner notion *

vi. rainmeter skins

mond * lano visualizer amatical * small clean weather animated * ageo sonder * cloudy harmattan note: if you're new to rainmeter, it can be a bit overwhelming, u may check out this short and simple tutorial on it, make sure to read the instructions if you're using complicated skins like weather (may require u to edit in txt), i also highly rec watching techrifle's videos

vii. misc.

wallpaper engine * (highly rec getting from chillhop) my live wallpaper (free alt of ^) translucenttb * roundedtb note: u can disable your shortcut icons to be invisible by right-clicking on your home screen, go to "view", and untick "show desktop icons", this is optional and i would always enable it whenever i'm working and gaming for easier access, i also set the icons to small

[wingsoverlagos]

Lewisohn vs. Sheff, revisited

David Sheff's 1980 interview of John and Yoko was the first source I thoroughly plumbed for comparison to Mark Lewisohn's Tune In. It was interesting, engaging, and, most importantly, available at my library, so I picked it as my not-quite-arbitrary starting point.

My source was All We Are Saying (2000), the book made of this interview transcript. At the time, I was asked if there was a chance the discrepencies I'd found were actually errors or changes on the part of Sheff. I didn't think it was likely. In two of his citations to this source, Lewisohn notes transcription errors in All We Are Saying, so surely he would've done that with any other errors he encountered.

Wrong! I came across a YouTube video with 3+ hours of audio from this interview, which allowed me to properly check several of these citations against the source. This is not the full interview audio--I believe it's a supercut of the clips from the Sheff interview that were used in Elliot Mintz's Lost Lennon Tapes radio series--but roughly half of the quotes Lewisohn used are included.

Most of the differences I found between the audio/All We Are Saying were minor, with one exception. I've taken down my original posts and compiled all my updated comparisons here. I've retained some of the images from All We Are Saying where I feel they are still useful in addition to my own transcripts/links to the available audio.

I'll lead with that "one exception", and put the other updates under a cut. This is the notorious "Hitting females" quote, and the audio has introduced quite the puzzle

Tune In 10-9 vs. Sheff (1980) 2:12:10

Lewisohn's version above, Sheff's (2000) version below. I initially assumed Lewisohn had made up the first line of his version of the quote (highlighted in pink), and stuck it onto an actual quote from the interview (yellow). Rather than bringing any clarity, the audio muddies the water further. Take a listen. Audio transcript [emphasis mine]:

JL: That’s Paul and me. His main lick, but lots of the words and parts and bits from me and possibly the others in the studio. All that [sings] “I used to be cruel to my woman and beat her…” That’s me because I used to be cruel to my woman physically. Any woman, y’know. I was a hitter. I couldn’t express myself, and I hit. I fought men, I hit women. I was violent. That’s why I’m always on about peace, you see, it’s the most violent people who go for love and peace, and I sincerely believe in love and peace, but I am absolutely a violent man who has learned not to be violent and regrets his violence. [Sheff interrupts] DS: …the chorus or just the idea for it? JL: Is this Getting Better? Getting Better is his chorus and then both together writing the sort of Chuck Berry-ish sounding, but I know that input about beating was from me and references to school and things like that.

This is the discussion of "Getting Better"--in All We Are Saying, this is where John says the line quoted by Lewisohn. But John Lennon does not say, "I will have to be a lot older before I can face in public how I treated women as a youngster." Not in this context, at least. There are condensed/other edits to some of the Lost Lennon Tape clips (see the discussion of Tune In 16-8, below), but there's no cut here. Sheff spends most of the clip trying to interrupt John, and at the place in the audio where we should hear the "youngsters" quote, John and Sheff have a brief exchange--if there was a cut here, I don't see how it wouldn't be obvious.

So wtf is happening here? I can see two possible scenarios: (a) John does say the "youngsters" line, possibly with Lewisohn's "Hitting females" line, elsewhere in the interview, and Sheff decided to wedge it into this part of the transcript; (b) John never said that, and Sheff, perhaps feeling a tinge of guilt for persistently trying to derail John's train of thought, made up a line that he thought nicely summed up John's remorse.

If scenario b is true, it's farcical--Lewisohn would be quoting a fabricated John Lennon quote, and then further fabricating his own addition. But who can say? If you have audio of this quote--or if you're David Sheff and would like to explain things to me--I would be indebted if you sent it my way.

The rest of the less-interesting audio comparisons are below the cut.

Tune In 3-6 was originally noted as having minor errors; Lewisohn's transcript was actually correct, so it's been removed from the original post.

Tune In 9-13 vs. Sheff 1980 (1:44:28)

The changes I originally noted are actually faithful to the audio source. There's one minor change made in Tune In vs. the audio: the sentence ending in "bitter" doesn't end, but continues, "and the underlying..." The audio segment cuts off before the final sentence/fragment, "It was very traumatic for me."

Tune In 16-8 vs. Sheff 1980 (1:47:26)

As it appears in Tune In:

This one took some puzzling. In the audio on YouTube, there are four different versions derived from two separate retellings of this story. Numbered in order of appearance, there's Version 1, Version 2, Version 3, and Version 4. Version 3 and 4 are two separate retellings of the same story. Version 1 is the same as Version 4, with a small omission early in the clip. Version 2 is cut together from parts of Versions 3 and 4. The quote that appears in Tune In is closest to Version 4, which I've transcribed here:

I would say to the others, when they were depressed, or we were all depressed, y’know, thinking the group was going nowhere and this is a shitty deal, and we’re in a shitty dressing room. I’d say, “Where are we going, fellas?” and they’d go, “ To the top, Johnny” in pseudo-American voices, and I’d say “Where’s that, fellas?” and they’d say, “To the toppermost of the poppermost,” and I’d say “Riiiight.” And then we’d all sort of cheer up.

There’s an unmarked omission after the first “When,” “are” is dropped between “Where” and “we,” “Johnny” is added at the end of the “poppermost” bit, and there are a few small omissions in the second to last sentence. I’ve underlined the last sentence in yellow because it’s still up in the air. It isn’t in any of the above clips, but that doesn’t mean much, since they all cut off where it would otherwise appear. It also isn’t in All We Are Saying, so I’m somewhat inclined to believe it’s a Lewisohn Original, but that's only a hunch.

Tune In 16-15 vs. Sheff 1980 (25:51)

Tune In above, All We Are Saying (p.23) below. My transcription [parts quoted in Tune In emphasized]:

There was a lot of drinking and carousing when we were in Germany, but the stories built out of all proportion. Over the years, they became like legends, you know. If you go to Hamburg now, you’ll hear stories you won’t believe, about me and the other guys and the other rock ‘n’ rollers from Liverpool that were ther

I've retained the original screenshot from All We Are Saying; as you can see, both Sheff and Lewisohn took some liberties there. In Tune In, much of this quote is omitted without indication; what Lewisohn does use is chopped and moved around. I really don't hear the emphasis he puts on "boy's fun," either.

Tune In 21-3 vs. Sheff 1980 (1:19:24)

I originally speculated that this quote was invented by Lewisohn, or at least very loosely based on a kinda similar section about New York. But John does actually wax poetic about France, though Lewisohn’s version still has some problems.

My transcription [parts quoted in Tune In emphasized]:

When I first went to Paris, I was about 21-or actually, I was 21 in Paris, but- The thing was all the kissing and the holding that was going on in Paris. It was so romantic just to be there and see them even though I was 21 and sort of not romantic. I really loved it, the way people would just stand under the tree kissing, and they weren’t mauling each other, they were just kissing.

There’s an unmarked omission after “was so romantic.” The audio clip cuts off after “they were just kissing,” so it’s possible John said the “I really loved it” line again, but it may just be cut-and-pasted from the middle of the quote.

Tune In 28-41 vs. Sheff 1980 (1:51:13)

My transcription:

That’s Paul’s song. He was trying to write a ‘Soldier Boy’ like the Shirelles track. He wrote that in Germany or when we were going to or from Hamburg and back. I don’t think-- I might have contributed something. I can’t remember anything in particular, it was mainly his song.

Sheff's transcript is mostly correct here.

The final sentence in Lewisohn’s quote is fine, but his “I think we helped him a bit” is of his own invention. John says “I don’t think—I might have contributed something,” which is substantially different in certainty, along with who might have helped Paul--"I" meaning John, or "we", meaning the rest of the Beatles.

Tune In 30-2 vs. Sheff 1980 (1:51:32)

Tune In above, All We Are Saying (p.168) below

My transcription:

in the other bedroom in my house at Menlove Avenue in Woolton which was my auntie’s place, the suburbs. I remember the day and the pink eiderdown on the bed…

Both Sheff and Lewisohn omit "in Woolton" as well as "the suburbs"--can't have John Lennon living in the 'burbs! Lewisohn also omits "my house", and brings "auntie's place" forward in the quote.

Tune In 33-18 vs. Sheff 1980 (1:48:15)

This quote appears in the endnote text itself:

My transcription [parts quoted in Tune In emphasized]:

Well, I can’t say I wrote it for George in that way. I was in the first apartment I’d ever had that wasn’t shared by fourteen other students, gals and guys at art school. I’d just married Cyn, and Brian Epstein gave us his secret little apartment that he kept in Liverpool for his sexual liaisons separately from his home life. And he let us- Cyn and I have that apartment. And my mother had always—she was a comedienne. And a singer, but not professional, but y’know, she used to get up in pubs and things like that. And she had a good voice, she could do Kay Starr and all the rest. She used to do this little gag called—that apparently she’d done to me when I was one year old and two year old, when she was still living with me, which was from a Disney movie, [singing] ‘Want to know a secret? Promise not to tell. You’re standing by a wishing well’ Okay? That’s from a Disney movie. So, I had this sort of thing in my head and I wrote it, and just gave it to George to sing. I thought it would be a good vehicle for him cause it only had three notes, and he wasn’t the best singer in the world, he’s improved a lot since then, but in those days, his singing ability was very poor because (a) he hadn’t had the opportunity and (b) he concentrated more on guitar playing than writing songs and singing. So I wrote that sort of--not for him as I was writing it, but as soon as I’d written it, I thought, “He could do this.”

This may seem like a whole lotta transcript for a one sentence quote at the very end, but it will be relevant soon. For now, the sentence itself--I don't consider it erroneous to omit false starts, so that in itself isn't a problem, but Lewisohn corrects John's false start by introducing phrasing he didn't use. He also omits "as I was writing it."

Standard Lewisohn Probs, nothing to write home about, but I paid closer attention to the body text that goes with this citation, and I noticed another issue. Here's the passage from Tune In:

Check out the highlighted passages. "Do You Want to Know a Secret" is "first-born" in the Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership as codified by Brian Epstein. This is odd. How, exactly, does Lewisohn know this was the first song to come out of this period? John doesn't give a date in the Sheff interview--he places the creation of this song at some point while he lived in Brian Epstien's Falker Street flat, where (cmiiw) he and Cyn lived for a few months. Lewisohn says, "Rarely lacking motivation anyway, the agreement was spurring Lennon and McCartney to step it up as composers, to generate songs the Beatles could use in the studio." To me, "step[ping] it up as composers" implies the creation of multiple songs in this time period, and if that's the case, how can we say "Do You Want to Know a Secret" came first?

It seems a strange thing to say conclusively, another trumped-up tally in the "John" column of Lewisohn's pointless Lennon vs. McCartney dick-measuring contest.

Sources:

Lewisohn M. 2013. The Beatles: All These Years Vol. 1: Tune In. New York (NY): Crown Archetype. [ebook]

Sheff D. 1980. Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono. Partial audio available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRDfBGagFkU&t=1582s

Sheff D. 2000. All We Are Saying: The Last Major Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono. New York (NY): St. Martin’s Griffin. 229p.

[faintvibes]

I have. Been dragged into TAG thanks to piracy, so I've decided to throw the masterdoc I've been compiling into the wind, in case anyone's interested in it :)

It has:

Profiles on the brothers/Kayo/Parker/Penelope/Cpt. Taylor/Brains/O'Bannon/Jeff/Grandma T/Moffat/Col. Casey/Lucy

Profiles on each of the Thunderbirds

Information about Tracy Island (incl its location)

Misc facts about the world

Facts I have thus far acquired about the timeline

*Note that my doc isn't finished yet. I've fully scraped season 1 for info, but I've only casually watched seasons 2 and 3, so there are likely a fair few details I still need to add, particularly regarding the timeline and worldbuilding. It's also worth noting that I started this with the intention that it would be a resource only I would use, and so hadn't put much effort into referencing sources, since I'm pretty good at just remembering those details. However, certain sections are largely taken from the wiki (I make a note of these sections when they begin in the comments), but I haven't gone through the effort yet of properly crediting things. I'd like to ask if it's possible to know which editor added what to a page? If so, that's the level of detail I'd aim for in citations.

Regardless, I hope someone finds some use in this resource! I don't know how much of this is common knowledge, so it could all be very simple things everyone knows… excuse my recent entry into the fandom if so…

[erismourn]

watching the james somerton apology video so you don't have to. this isn't entirely comprehensive, just a summary, if you want the nuance of his exact wording please just go watch the video

opens by saying he's monetizing the video to donate the money to hbomb's team so they can distribute it to the harmed individuals, and if hbomb's team don't accept he'll be making monthly donos to wikipedia and trans lifeline going forward

talkign about how he's a bad representative of "the queer community" as a cis white gay man

he's reached out to as many people he harmed as he can, some haven't responded but others have been incredibly kind

he's extending a specific apology to Jessie Gender - he wants to be clear that he didn't report Jessie to the police, as is the common understanding, but a fan of Jessie's who sent him a death threat

wanted his channel to be "welcoming to every queer person" which is impossible - he says he should have made voices that aren't his more accessible, but he didn't

blaming the algorithm for his popularity over queer creators of colour, disabled queers, etc

he thought that crediting people in the opening credits of videos was enough, but he admits he was wrong - people should have been properly cited (personal note: come on man you went to business school. you know how citations work.)

he has obtained permission for use of sources in the past, but "most of the sources" he didn't get permission for

brought Nick on with the idea that Nick would write most of the scripts and James would voice them

james had to put out more videos to make more money because he was let go from work during covid and was also dealing with other stuff so he had to take on more of the writing (and we all know how that went)

[sic] "my intention was to use [giant blocks of text i pasted into the script] as a jumping off point that we would elaborate on when we did table reads but *I have memory issues as a result of a head injury I got as a child*"

the head injury is real, he has epilepsy as a result. I want to be clear here that we need to respect James' disabilities, regardless of how much of a plagiarist he is. however as someone with memory problems I don't buy that it caused him to entirely forget to cite sources over many, many hours of work that he did to churn out these videos.

"when it came to editing the scripts, I couldn't remember what I had written and what I had copy-pasted"

blames his unwillingness to take account of those issues by for example writing notes in the script so future james would know he copypasted them on recently diagnosed ADHD

he had to take on a bunch of additional responsibilities when his mom passed away because his father is illiterate and can't do the legal stuff you have to do when someone dies

Telos grew out of his need to crowdfund after his mom died because RBC's insurance policy was weird (and dunks on RBC which i agree with. fuck all canadian banks)

Telos was supposed to start small but the success of the campaign gave them bigger dreams for their films

he describes the plot of hsi final girl movie and then says "to those who say I plagiarized final girl by grady hendrix, read the book. it's nothing like the plot of the movie." talks about how "final girl" is a trope and if using a trope was plagiarism, then every slasher movie since texas chainsaw would be plagiarism. fair, but i'm suspicious.

talks about the details of having to move to ontario for better opportunities

realized that making movies is a lot more expensive than he originally thought and thus had to make more movie ideas (?? not sure about the logic here but ok)

James and Nick were both involved in writing scripts n stuff

"the intention was never, EVER, to take the [telos] money and run"

James regrets moving to Ontario

James is working with a producer now and is actually making something from Telos - he will make no money from this project

"I am not nor did I ever intend to be paid money from Telos"

stresses again that he and Nick needed to crunch to make videos to make more money and get more sponsors

describes his apology in december as "horrendous"

begins detailing his suicidality

people found James' address, he claims people showed up at his house while he was hospitalized for suicidality (I want to be clear: this is fucked, the people who did this should be shamed)

he's reactivated some videos on his channel that "dont' have plagiarized content" and has done some heavy editing on other videos so they only contain original content and revenue will be going to either Hbomb's team or the charities mentioned above

he's going to be releasing a new video written by him with cited sources

he has no sponsors now

"we didn't intend to have misinformation in past videos" - it was never malicious

he won't be relaunching his patreon but starting a new patreon account if people want to support him

hes going to "work his ass off" to earn people's trust again

"there is no excuse for what I did"

reiterates that he thought putting names in opening credits was fine

"I thought it was ok to [plagiarize vito russo] because the book was out of print and he had passed away"

he wants to make a documentary video about vito russo

"I want to do the work. I want to prove not just to you, but to myself, that I can do the work"

"I can't get across how sorry I am"

[batsplat]

love all the archival work! one question, sometimes (indeed most times) when i google certain quotes to find the source article, google cannot find anything. this quote from vale for example:

"In 2014, I and the others were "bombarded" with questions about Marquez. So I understood even more what my opponents must have felt in the past, because a rider never wants to talk about his rivals. It's also true, However, this is how the world of sport goes: people want to hear about the number one. Marquez now has the same media pressure that I had in the past."

the screenshot you provided is very clear and yet i cannot trace the words to anything whatsoever! and unfortunately this has happened enough times that i kind of have to ask… should i use a different search engine? or are there journal archives your frequent? and no hurries whatsoever i know this is a big ask… but i would appreciate any help!

oh this one's quick to answer haha I didn't even need to consult my notes - the article's here! the reason it doesn't come up immediately in search engines is that the original article was in italian, so I just threw the first sentence into google translate and. voila

I try to stick to the habit of providing sources and if I made that ranch post now, I would have properly put a list of sources at the bottom of the post lol. if you can't find a quote through a search engine, it's going to generally be for one of the following reasons:

the quote is from an article in a different language, typically italian or spanish (the german publication speedweek also gets used semi-regularly)

the quote is from a book, which I DO try to be extra diligent in providing a citation for that reason

the quote is from an article that is no longer available on the internet. it might be in my notes because I copied it there and, if I'm smart, I will have made sure I can still access the article using the wayback machine (which is sometimes what I use to find things in the first place). if I'm not smart, then my doc becomes the last reservoir of lost knowledge I suppose

the quote is transcribed from a video/podcast

I should also say that my notes aren't perfect since... well, most of them have existed a lot longer than me starting to blog on tumblr about motogp. there is just stuff I'll quickly pull from my lil mind maps or whatever when I post, which is where the 'being too lazy to give a source' thing sometimes comes in. when it's english language articles I'm not too bothered because I know people can find it pretty quickly with the use of a search engine if they are thus inclined; with the other stuff I'm trying to be more diligent. but yeah, unfortunately for three of those there's no great fix - the language one is the only one I can recommend. which, btw, if you're looking to do your own motogp research, this one is absolutely invaluable. there is a lot of stuff I've only found because I started searching for stuff using italian and spanish keywords. hope that helps!