#because there are lots of books that could go on the list

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

I think modern society has major issues with mistaking correlation for causation and it's causing a lot of problems.

For example, some years back, there was a study showing that young children from households with a lot of books were scoring higher on literacy tests and doing better academically, whether or not their parents read to them. So everybody decided that books were magical and their mere presence improved kids' ability to learn, and they started a charity to distribute children's books to low-income families.

Now, on a moral level, there is nothing wrong with this. Very few people would argue that it's bad to give books to poor kids. And it probably did some good for some of those kids. But it didn't have the huge dramatic impact that many people were hoping for, because higher literacy rates were not caused by the presence of books. Both of those things were caused by the same third factor.

What kind of person owns a lot of books? What attributes do they value? What traits would they encourage in their children?

It was never about the books. It was always about the parents.

Now for a more disastrous example:

Decades ago, people noticed that college graduates were getting better jobs and earning more money, and they decided that meant everyone should go to college and then everyone would be more successful.

But that's not what happened.

If a particular achievement is seen as optional, then having that achievement says something about you. Back then, a college degree told employers that a prospective hire was someone who went above and beyond, who was willing to work harder to improve their skills and knowledge.

Once college is treated like it's mandatory, a college degree is scarcely more meaningful than a high school diploma.

And the presence of a degree cannot confer upon you the attitude and work ethic that leads to success any more than the presence of books can bestow literacy skills.

Now we have millions of people who took out massive student loans on the promise of success that are left with mountains of debt and mediocre prospects, and we keep shoveling millions more into increasingly corrupted and worthless schools with that same empty promise.

But it was never about the degree. It was always about the kind of person that earned one.

So, my dad was working for IBM back when corporations started listing college degrees as a requirement for employment. He was a data entry guy for the old style punch card computers, which means when someone wanted to ask the computer something they came to him, he set up the punch card, fed it into the computer, and read out the answer. When all these college graduates started getting hired, his job changed. Now, it was his responsibility to train them how to do his job. But, you sensibly ask, didn't they have college degrees? Didn't they learn all this in college? And the answer is yes, they did have college degrees. They all has MBA's, which taught them nothing about how to work computers. IBM just listed "MBA" as a requirement for every non-secretarial/custodial job because they thought having a large number of college graduates on staff sounded good. So these kids spent four years in college only to come out and get not only a low paying data entry job instead of the middle manager job they were expecting, but once they got that job they needed my dad to give them on the job training they could have gotten four years earlier with no money spent on college if the job listing didn't list an MBA as a requirement. In the stories my dad told me, most of these people quit after a year because they were told in college that this degree would get them a better job, and they didn't want to be lowly data entry people.

And nothing's really changed. Jobs that can easily be taught via on the job training or an apprenticeship model require college degrees. Colleges and guidance counselors lie about what kind of job a graduate can expect. And now you have over educated people loading up the Keurig machine at Starbucks to pay off their student debt because there are too many college graduates all going after the same jobs and not enough of those jobs to go around. Mandatory college has always been a scam. It's an artificial requirement that only exists because businesses think it looks good to hire people who have a piece of paper they can hang on the wall. The fact is, only very specialized jobs where on the job training wouldn't work need a college graduate. But there are billions of dollars at stake in the college racket, so on it goes.

[dross-the-fish]

What are your most favorite and your most hated, adaptations of Erik, Adam, and Hyde.

Favorite adaptations of each For Adam, just due to the sheer lack of competition the Musical version of the creature. I kind of hate that he's a reanimated corpse of a specific guy. That's my least favorite way to start the creature's origin but the rest is pretty close-ish to the book (except for the end) and the performance from the cast album is really good. We get a lot of insight to his mindset through the songs that most adaptations don't get across. Least favorite: I almost want to say Robert DeNiro's version from the 1994 movie because the movie he's in so soooo bad but honestly he himself wasn't awful. He had some good moments. I'm going to have to give it to the Once Upon A Time creature. He's not even a proper "Adam" and they do nothing of interest with him or with Frankenstein as a concept. Hyde: Favorite Adaptation, kind of difficult because I like some that are not actually good, exactly. I liked what Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentleman did with him overall but could have done with out the scene of him and the invisible man. The musical is a guilty pleasure but I don't really view it as a faithful adaptation and tend to separate it as its own thing. I also really like Le Testament du docteur Cordelier or "The Doctor's Horrible Experiment" if you want the English language title. is probably among the most faithful and it's a genuinely very good film. Least favorite: Once Upon a Time again. This series should never have touched gothic literature or universal films. How are you going to write a Hyde who's upset that Jekyll killed his love interest. What the fuck even is that. Erik: Favorite adaptations. There's the Lon Chaney classic. Despite how much it deviates from the book I also do really like the 1990 mini series with Charles Dance.

Least Favorite: Christ there's a long list of really really bad adaptions but I'm going to put the version of Erik that exists in Love Never Dies. Holy christ, not only did he learn NOTHING from his redemption arc but I think he may actually be WORSE than before. Also am I supposed to believe Erik, the phantom of the opera, the genius composer, wrote "Bathing Beauty?" are you shitting me?

[haithhegimp]

Jason Todd is Mentally Sixteen During Under The Red Hood*

(The overly long introduction is all in brackets! You will not experience too much confusion should you choose to skip, so feel free to skip. The content of the post will be under the cut.

*As always with the DCU, consistency is far more dead than the Waynes could ever be. This post is about Jason's timeline from UTRH, and only UTRH. I will use a couple of sources from other places for information we cannot confirm from UTRH, but can vaguely assume are true there. However I will not be talking about the timelines from other media, and especially not other continuities, in this post. I will also be interpreting certain scenes, and that ultimately makes this post somewhat subjective.

I love UTRH a lot, and I found that most other Jason fans love it too. We often use it as a major content source and base a lot of our opinions and feelings surrounding Jason on it. However, in hyperfixating and re-reading it several times over, I have realised that a lot of us miss a major detail that gets exposition-ed to us in Chapter 14/[Batman(1940) Annual #25]!

Of course, if you've come to the same conclusions as I have, and choose to ignore them, then absolutely more power to you. I'm not here to police which canon you folks choose to stitch together and treat as your own, if you choose to interact with canon at all. These are all just comics, have fun!

On top of that, it sometimes gets vague and up to interpretation (which is honestly an aspect I kind of like) so this can all be considered my own opinion if you personally disagree with an interpretation I make <3

Anyways, a lot of us enjoy the angst factor that comes out of Jason being young, but not many of us realise exactly how young he is. This is something I wish to explain to you folks for your content consumption pleasure ^^

Overly long introduction done, yo!)

1. Jason dies at 15 years old.

I am so sorry, I could not find a primary source for this.

Secondary Source A- Word of mouth. Various different Tumblr and Reddit posts I have found when looking this up have listed Jason as being 15 when he dies. Including this post from @thebatmanfiles-blog, this post from @fuckyeahjasontodd, this post from @oh-mother-of-darkness, and these posts from u/GooderCand and u/InDarknessOftFindI

Secondary Source B- Jason's death certificate from [The Batman Files]

Not to be mistaken for [Batman Secret Files], Matthew K. Manning's [The Batman Files] is not a canon DC property work, to my knowledge. (It's honestly kind of confusing, but I'm listing this as a secondary source because I am... pretty sure that [The Batman Files] is not a canon DC property, it is not available on the DC Database Fanwiki or the Official DC Website).

2. Jason Is Revived Six Months After His Death

[Under The Red Hood #14] / [Batman (1940) Annual #25] *(This is just a fun fact, feel free to skip. The page of Jason being alive is taken directly from the, at the time unreleased, [Batman #428: Robin Lives!], with only being slightly recoloured. Due to the gimmick of Jason's death, [Batman (1940) #428] had two different versions drawn out, and though I wasn't able to find any interviews or comments about this on shallow research, it's nice to imagine that the producers of UTRH wanted to showcase Aparo and DeCarlo's unseen efforts ^^)

Jason was originally supposed to live (according to the narration)-- we can use this to say that his injuries (by comic book logic) were non-fatal.

Jason, in his coffin, is shown with the same injuries as his dying-but-not-supposed-to-die-body-- we can use this to say he is biologically 15 when revived.

After Revival Jason's Chronological Age- 15.5 Jason's Biological Age- 15 Jason's Mental Age- 15

3. Jason Gets Into A Coma For One Year

[Under The Red Hood #14] / [Batman (1940) Annual #25]

After digging himself out of the grave, Jason is hit by a car (man, he cannot catch a break)

He is hospitalized and operated on, before going into a coma for One Year

General-Comic-Book-Logic and Actual Research (I sincerely apologize but I'm not looking through genuine medical documents to verify this one, I'm just gonna trust the basic google search) both agree that coma patients do not mentally age

This means Jason's mental age stagnates for One Year

One Year After Revival Jason's Chronological Age- 16.5 Jason's Biological Age- 16 Jason's Mental Age- 15

4. Jason Spends Two Years Catatonic*

[Under The Red Hood #14] / [Batman (1940) Annual #25] *The original describes this state as Jason being run by his instincts, without reason, clarity, or memory. Fans have labeled this as catatonia. I will be referring to this state as catatonia for convenience sake.

Jason wakes up from his coma, but is catatonic

He spends One Year being homeless and living off of instincts (man, he CANNOT catch a break)

[Under The Red Hood #14] / [Batman (1940) Annual #25]

An international game of telephone occurs when a thug sees Jason doing some Robin moves

The Al Ghul's are at the end of the line and kidnap Jason

They keep him, in his catatonic state, for One Year

It is unclear, at this point, whether Jason's catatonia has impaired his mental aging

Three Years After Revival Jason's Chronological Age- 18.5 Jason's Biological Age- 18 Jason's Mental Age- ???

5. Jason Gets Dunked Into The Lazarus Pit

[Under The Red Hood #14] / [Batman (1940) Annual #25]

Here is where my interpretation comes in,

Jason's first words upon leaving the Pit are ["What!? What is happening to me!?"]

Jason, while running away with Talia asks, ["Talia?! What the hell do you-- Where was--!"]

Both of these show Jason being confused about his situation, and unsure of his surroundings. Especially the confusion in ["Talia?!"] means that he is surprised/confused to see her.

All of this goes to say-- he doesn't have any memory of how he came to be in this situation, and he doesn't have any memory of his time being catatonic.

HOWEVER!!! The possible counter-argument is that during his remembering sequence, Talia is a figure on screen, which has the mild implication that she is something he remembers?? This contradicts my interpretation but also has less evidence.

[Under The Red Hood #14] / [Batman (1940) Annual #25]

Jason remembers his death and the events leading up to it, but there is no mention of whether or not he remembers his years being catatonic.

I interpret this as him not remembering.

With My Interpretations, Three Years After Revival Jason's Chronological Age- 18.5 Jason's Biological Age- 18 Jason's Mental Age- 15

6. Jason Prepares For Being Red Hood

[Under The Red Hood #14] / [Batman (1940) Annual #25]

We get that... and then the BTS of Hush. That's literally all we get.

It's so unclear, I'm sorry it's really sort of impossible to give you even a vague estimate of how much time passes.

I've been trying to comb through the rest of UTRH to find things but we only get clear time stamps after Jason's debut as Red Hood. (i may have missed something, though! feel free to lmk if youve found a time stamp in UTRH before Jason's debut)

I only have my personal thoughts that it was probably a year or less between this and Jason's debut.

For the purposes of this post, we'll just say that roughly a year passes with training and preparation.

7. Jason Debuts As Red Hood

[Under The Red Hood #1] / [Batman (1940) #635]

So, at the start of Under The Red Hood, Four-ish Years After Revival Jason's Chronological Age- 19 - 20 Jason's Biological Age- 19 Jason's Mental Age- 16

And alternatively, if you mentally age him during his catatonic era, Jason's (alt) Mental Age- 18

(Now it is time for the Overly Long Conclusion! These will just be more of my personal thoughts and comments, and will be within brackets as well ^^

Honestly, despite me piecing this version of canon together, I don't usually subscribe to it lol. I find UTRH Jason attractive, and canon is what you choose to Frankenstein together, so I usually place him as actually around 19.

But if you consider the events of UTRH through the lense of a deeply traumatized and angsty teenager, that happens to have way too much power? It feels... oddly logical? Like, through this perspective, I look at Jason telling Bruce that he's the better Batman in quite possibly the most dramatic way ever and I go, "Oh of course he would, he's sixteen. I would say shit like that at sixteen if I had even half the baggage."

TBH, I don't think that Winnick actually considered this timeline when writing UTRH Jason, but it fits together really funnily well with his character.

It also makes everything quite a lot more tragic. With this perspective, its more than just losing his teenagehood to shitty circumstances. He is actively and presently still a teenager, a child, when in shitty circumstances. Jason is a sixteen year old child when his father slits his throat.

Actual For Realsies Not Just By Technicality Teenage Crime Lord is absolutely insane, deeply tragic, and more than a little bit funny to me.

If you read through all of this, I'd absolutely love to hear your thoughts and perspectives. Whether you see where I'm coming from, whether you have a completely different perspective, or whether you like thinking of this only sometimes! Hell, even if it's just to cry with me over The Tragedy of Jason Todd, I'd love to chat.

Thank you for your time, if you made it all the way through! Overly Long Conclusion done, yo!)

[My Drawing, lol]

[fictionadventurer]

Top 5 books read this year, please?

The Unselected Journals of Emma M. Lion Vol. 1-7 by Beth Brower: These books are just so much fun. They sit perfectly in my sweet spot of historical light fiction, and there's so much humor and heart and so many good characters. Maybe they're not the best books I've read this year, but they may be the only ones tempting me to buy copies for my shelf.

Washington Square and Daisy Miller by Henry James: Two short, sad, delicately-drawn novellas that may have added another author to my list of favorite classic writers.

Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin: This book started my obsession with Lincoln's Cabinet. I can't in good conscience put it lower (despite a minor qualm that prevents me from seeking out the full version). I'm also going to cheat and include Destiny of the Republic by Candace Millard, which provided me my other history niche of this year about President Garfield and his assassination. And My Dear President for all the fascinating letters offering new insight into the lives of American presidents and their wives.

The Heir of Redclyffe by Charlotte Yonge: Despite some serious issues with the story, this one had some of my favorite characters of the year, and they're going to stick with me for a long time.

Desire and The Good Comrade by Una Lucy Silsberrad: Maybe objectively not the best or even my favorites--I have problems with the plot of both--but I love how she writes Edwardian women trying to make their way in the world and their relationships with men who make them rethink the way they approach the world, and she's another entry on the list of favorite authors discovered this year.

[ffcrazy15]

There's this way of doing female-ness in Christianity that I call "pastel flower journal Christianity." I've got nothing against pastel flower journals per se, but for some reason people believe it's the end all and be all of female spirituality, and I think it's a real disservice towards young Christian women.

One of these days I'd like to start a prayer-and-reading group or something for young women, but there would be no floral themes or over-focus on how "God thinks you're beautiful even if the world doesn't" (a true statement, but it's wayyyyy too often the focus in women's spiritual reading). Instead we would be reading:

Seneca's Letters from a Stoic

Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning

Sheed's A Map of Life

Portions of Pieper's book on leisure

Kreeft's Three Philosophies of Life

Guardini's The Lord (or something similar)

Therese's Story of a Soul

and some select portions of the Nicomachean Ethics.

(Also they're all getting the porn talk. I don't know why we give the porn talk to young men but not young women. There's this idea that women don't use porn and they only need the talk about "guarding their heart." Bullshit. There's porn on the YA shelves of Barnes and Nobles and before that there were bodice rippers. Young women need the porn talk too.)

Every young woman needs to be getting a basic grounding in virtue ethics, logic, natural law, scholastic philosophy and Biblical hermeneutics if they're going to get by in today's spiritual landscape. Enough faffery and emotionalism in young women's spiritual education! Give them real food to chew on, not pasty sentimentalism!

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

I haven't read these books at all, but your art is so fun and cute that I like seeing your comics a lot regardless. Fantastic Silly Little Guy energy.

Thank you for enjoying my silly little guys and my comics B*)

[onesnoopyaday]

I AM AT MY LIMIT

Snoopy #90

30/12/2024

description under the cut

[description: a cartoon-style drawing of Snoopy's head. Snoopy is a white dog with black ears. His eyes are shut and his mouth is a horizontal line. There are two large blue teardrops, one under each eye. The text "I am at my limit" is handwritten across the top of the image.]

[unopenablebox]

lmao i have a call with a wedding venue coordinator tomorrow?? lots of things about this place are appealing but it also has a massively overpriced mandatory caterer and a very late event start time (who has the ceremony start at 6:30pm?? don't people want dinner????) so i kind of just wanted, you know, a quote and contact info in case we wanted to tour later if other things don't pan out. but the person who reached out to me was so confident that we were going to call this week that i guess... i'm going to call her? and ask about chair rental prices or something? idk man. i wasn't prepared for this. i'm not even the one primarily planning this wedding and also we're not even planning yet i just had time to send idle emails this week

[xxplastic-cubexx]

Besides X-men, what other things are you interested in?

idk..... sometimes i read Non X-men things....

[youremyonlyhope]

I'm not a "new musical theatre style music" person. Never have been.

Even when I was doing voice lessons, I'd steer towards the golden age or jazzy musical theatre songs. My voice teacher would have to drag me kicking and screaming towards adding anything new musical theatre to my repertoire. For a while, the most modern song in my book was I Know The Truth from Aida, and I wouldn't count that as new musical theatre style since I mean more the Pasek&Paul or Joe Iconis type.

And now I have an audition coming up for a small production of a show in that style and I'm supposed to sing a song in a similar style. And I'm looking at all my sheet music like... let me do some Cole Porter... or Gershwin... at least Sondheim please...

[cabeswaterdrowned]

[bitchfitch]

Thing I want to draw when i have the time and hand mobility:

a short comic of Adonis and Ione at the grocery store. Ione is carrying the basket which seems to mostly have meat candy and booze in it.

Adonis picks something up off the shelf.

I: Oh wait. Check to make sure it's not sugar free, i can't have a lot of types of artificial sweeteners.

A: How do I check?

I: It's usually written on the box? Look for something that says 'sugar free' or 'artificially sweetened.'

Adonis holds the box up and examines it closely before looking back up at her.

A: I can't read.

I: Ah.

[fingertipsmp3]

About to dnf a book that’s barely over 100 pages because either I am dumb or it’s just word salad

[madlori]

On being an older fangirl

I was probably 10 years old when I first conceived of what was, looking back, fanfiction. Me and my best friend would lie in bed together on sleepovers and I'd make up stories about what happened after the end of our favorite book, "The Westing Game." She'd ask me for more stories, and I'd tell her more, inventing them as I went along. "Then what?" she'd say.

I was 14 when I went to my first convention. I had discovered Star Trek: The Next Generation. It was 1987, and my youth pastor was a huge Trekkie. He took me to a one-day crappy Creation con, but it was amazing to me. I met Nichelle Nichols. My dad showed me the Trek movies. He and I watched TNG together.

When I went to college in 1991, my dad used to videotape TNG episodes onto VHS tapes and mail them to me, so I could keep watching (I didn't have TV in my dorm room).

By the time I was a senior, we had Trek watching parties in the dorm lounge, where the TV had cable. Star Trek: Voyager had started up, and I wrote a column about it for the college newspaper. I joined a mailing list about it, with people in it that I still know today.

I got my first computer that could go online in 1995. I was on newsgroups. I discovered Doctor Who. I went to Trek conventions where we still passed around fanzines containing fic and art and smutty K/S fan creations.

Then it was Harry Potter. Then there were websites. Then there was Geocities, where we could all make our own little spots. We organized them into webrings. We talked on newsgroups and mailing lists. There were fanfic archives. Then there was fanfiction.net.

Then...there was LiveJournal. And we could interact in entirely new ways. We could form communities, and debate things, and fight over canon, and get into ship wars. On LiveJournal, I met my best friend of 22 years. I was in her wedding. She's my sister of the heart (which is what she calls me).

Then there was Tumblr. And Twitter. And now there's Discord. But it's all the same.

I am the same.

I am still that little girl who made up fanfiction in her head to entertain her best friend. I am still the one who was amazed to find communities on the internet - which was so new, so raw, so uncommodified - where others like me could meet. I found there people to meet in real life.

I am still that twentysomething going to her first major convention, being told that someone loved my fic, being asked about my writing process.

I am still that thirtysomething watching something I wrote blow up. Seeing friends from other fandoms find me in new ones, finding them there, too. Forgetting which fandom I know someone from, because I've known them for twenty years.

I still know some of the people who created those early websites, those mailing lists, those archives. I still meet people in new fandoms who say "Oh, I read your fic in [fandom] fifteen years ago!" There's no feeling quite like having someone remember something you wrote for that long. Or meeting someone whose fic meant a lot to YOU, or who you talked with on rec.arts.drwho.creative in 1997.

Aging in fandom is a gift. Being middle-aged in fandom is a joy. Having people who still read what I write and ask "Then what?" is a blessing.

It breaks my heart that so many people see it as something to be ashamed of, when it is one of my life's greatest gifts.

[icewindandboringhorror]

Other Misc. Rambling Thoughts on the topic:

(~ !!!!!!!!! if you're just reblogging this post for the Poll section, please reblog the original post without this addition* lol. ~)

(*not that there's anything super personal or weird about the addition, just that it's meant to be kind of casual Side Commentary, not really part of the Main Point Of The Poll, so it would feel kind of weird for it to be emphasized by being included in reblogs unless the reblogs were explicitly about the side commentary, etc..... if that makes sense.. ANYWAY!)

It's neat to read the written descriptions that people are mentioning in the tags, since it's almost like I can see or conceptualize the idea as well, but it's just.. I'm not SEEING it.

Like for example: I can imagine a vase, it's a muted mint green and slightly translucent, elaborate golden birds sprawled down the side in streaks of thin rough watery paint, the base material shimmers gently in the light, there's a small chip where it's cracked on the handle, etc, etc. .. But as I'm thinking about this I see literally nothing.

It seems like perhaps some people can visualize an object first, and THEN describe what they see. But I sort of work backwards. I am building the object in my mind, I can never see it, but it's a collection of concepts. Rather than visualizing all details as a whole at once, I am adding each detail one by one, building onto the IDEA of the thing.

The vase doesn't have a crack on the handle because I just automatically visualized a vase with a crack. It was more that I cognitively understand the concept of a vase, what they tend to be made out of, how they tend to look and feel, the properties they have. So based purely on that knowledge, I can imagine "a chip is something that a vase could have, it would look this way and behave this way" - more like... I'm constructing a bullet point Fact List about the object rather than seeing it.

So if you tell me to imagine an object, I can, in a way, imagine that object in great detail, but it's just.. I'm not SEEING those details, more just knowing it's qualities in a purely conceptual way. Sometimes in the tags when people are like "yeah I can see the skin of the apple, texture, little dots on the surface" it's like… I can imagine that too, I can know it's there, but just with no visual attached.

I guess rather than SEEING something and going ''ah. I know what this looks like because I have seen it''. I more just skip that visual step entirely and go ''I know what this looks like, I just randomly have a list of information about the concept in my mind.'' etc. Maybe similar to how sometimes in dreams, even though a house may look completely different and be in an entirely fake 'dreamlike' environment, you just somehow KNOW intuitively that it's meant to be your childhood home or something. Even when it looks nothing like it in reality. There's a built-in base knowledge of the properties or information of some things within a dreaming mind, etc.

--

This also makes me wonder about like.. how storytelling and myth is so important to cultures all across time. Or how this could tie also into concepts of religion.. etc. etc. If so many people really can kind of conjure these vivid images in their mind, then maybe that's part of why certain things are so meaningful to them? Like a "religious experience" being something you can actually really SEE/feel/lingering with you in your head, rather than just abstract words on a page, detached purely theoretical ideas, etc... hmmm

.

Plus also just for average emotional stuff too, even outside of broader cultural conceptual attachments..

Like, I don't think there's a direct 1 to 1 link (obviously not all people with mental illnesses that significantly reduce their emotional or expressive capacity also MUST have aphantasia or vice versa), but it's interesting as someone who DOES also have a much more lessened emotional range/pretty flat affect/etc. etc. to think like.. Maybe I WOULD be more emotional, in a way, if I could have these vivid experiences..?

Perhaps memories would hold deeper significance if they could really stay with me vividly. Or storytelling would evoke more of a deep emotional reaction to me if I could really picture and feel the things that are going on. If things were more TANGIBLE in my brain, rather than always merely conceptual highly abstracted ideas.

Kind of like, it's probably easier to get over the death of a pet or something, if after not seeing them for an hour you already don't remember what they looked like (beyond just a vague fact list of traits), and you have no vivid memories or mental reminders of them (beyond just factual information stores). COGNTIVIELY you can appreciate the idea of their absence, of course, you still miss them, but there's just no remaining visceral sensory ties. A very "out of sight, out of mind" sort of thing in terms of attachments, memories, emotions, etc. Maybe certain things are easier to "get over", when you're not having constant mental sensory reminders that occasionally rekindle your feelings about the event or etc.??

(like for example, maybe someone could remain angry about an argument longer if they could vividly replay it in their head over and over again. VS just like.. 'Yes I can factually recall the fact I had an argument, and I do have knowledge stored about what precisely was said, but any sort of sensory data such as sights/smells/feelings, etc. from the actual moment of the event are long gone and can never be conjured again in my mind." etc.)

Which again, I think lessened emotional permanence and image permanence in the mind are NOT inherently linked, can all be caused by different things for different people. And, since I can't visualize anything in my head, maybe I'm misunderstanding how it happens and the effect it may have on stuff like remembering things you miss or replaying arguments, etc. etc. But it's still a little interesting to think about, if they could influence each other to some degree.... :0c --

Lastly, It's also weird because I'm actually pretty good at estimating distance and spaces? I can quickly assemble furniture without an instruction manual, pretty easily have a concept of how much space a chair may take up in a room, how two mechanical parts might fit together - BUT, I am literally not actually visualizing anything. I cannot see 3D objects in my mind at ALL. It's like.. just based on the pure List Of Facts About Things Which I Have Observed.. I can intuitively go "oh this works like this/this is this size" just because.. I know it's that size. I don't have to see anything to know..?

But then on the other hand, I'm terrible at directions without a map (I guess because a 3d outdoor environment has WAY more complexity than like.. "Will this square fit into another square?"etc. lol ).

BUT, I also draw/sculpt/etc. entirely without references, and seem to do mostly okay at that..? Like.. I can't even remember the last time I actually used a reference or looked at anything whilst drawing. It's all muscle memory, and me just adjusting as I go until something "looks right" on paper, I never have a set image in my head (or external reference) before hand.. Hrmm....

AND.. I used to say that I had a photographic memory when I was younger, which I know NOW is not true (I always thought it was just an expression, not that people could literally see things in a photographic way). But what I was describing is, I do often associate information with imagery, just... without imagery....

Like "Oh, I know that I took my medicine earlier today because I have a distinct memory, a snapshot of a moment in time, of me rattling the pill bottle in my hands as I looked up at a stop sign while in the back seat of a car". When I say this, I can't ACTUALLY see/feel/hear a pill bottle, or vividly picture a stop sign, but it's more just a factual recall, of. Even though I don't see these things, I know they happened, the information of them happening (me hearing a sound and also looking at a stop sign at the same time) has been stored in my brain as a memory, a collection of linked facts. --

As for other senses, I cannot taste or feel anything in my head AT ALL.. wild that some people mention that. I mean, again, I can have a purely factual recall as if reading a textbook, knowing the information of 'X item typically has X texture, therefore I can imagine what it may be like to feel it' or 'X usually has this taste' etc. - but I can never actually experience those senses in any capacity in my mind alone. I would say audio is my strongest mental sense (maybe a 2.5 or 3 (if it were translated onto the above scale where 1 is most vivid and 5 is nothing)), then visual (4.5 at most, usually 5), and then taste and smell and such are just complete 5, absolutely nothing, I didn't even know people could experience taste or feeling just in their mind alone.. lol...

I know this is just a silly bad quality random screencap of a screencap that I found on facebook lol, BUT it's a succinct enough image to easily describe the concept in a quick/accessible way hopefully :

-

(and of course, feel free to elaborate in tags, etc.! (especially elaborating about other senses as well.. can you "hear" in your mind just as well as you can "see"? taste? etc.) It's an interesting topic to me, as someone who's like a 4.5 at MOST lol. I'm curious what option will be the most common :0c )

[cheer-nympho]

Steve was always being brushed off when he asked people to read things aloud for him,

In middle school his assigned partner for their ‘Frankenstein’ project gave him a scornful glare and ignored him when he had asked them to read the passages aloud.

In his sophomore year, he’d turned to ask Robin Buckley to read a old newspaper article about the ‘Wild West’ to him, because he couldn’t make it out through the fonts and weird words. She had fixed him with a cold look but before she could respond, Tammy was tapping his shoulder offering her help.

Then, while studying with Nancy and Barb at lunch, Steve had asked for help reading study cards. His own study cards. The paper was too bright and the squiggles too squiggly. Both of them had looked at him, them each other, clearly trying to decide if it was a joke.

Barb had scoffed under Nancys pointed look and gone back to her own notes. And while Nancy hadn’t read them out for him, she had handed him her own notes on some nice blue and yellow cards. It took him a while, but he could read them. Maybe she thought he hadn’t wrote any.

After that, he went a long time without asking anyone to read him things. Turns out that once you graduate, reading isn’t much of an issue. He’d gotten by just fine by looking at his Archie comics and ignoring the swirling lines of articles surrounding them.

He didn’t need to ask again until Scoops Ahoy. For a cheap, overly themed ice cream parlour there sure was a whole lot of memorising and reading to be done. He couldn’t see the charts properly, couldn’t really make out the dates on the tubs in the freezer. But every time he asked Robin for help, her frown would deepen and deepen until she just snapped. It hadn’t been that mean, really. Just an annoyed yell followed by accusations of being lazy, her not understanding how he managed to graduate, one last comment of him being a ‘bumbling idiot’.

After the Russians, she never said anything like that to him again. And she always did the inventory and lists for him.

It takes until summer, 1987, for anyone to read aloud to Steve. They were laying across Eddie’s new bed in comfortable silence.

Steve had his legs dangling off the edges as Eddie leant back against him, legs pointing up against the wall in a way he swore was actually comfortable. He had been reading a new book called “Spellfire” and he couldn’t seem to put it down.

“Eddie?”

“Hm?”

“What’s your book about?”

“This? Well I…Not sure it’s really your thing, man.”

“Maybe.” He goes back to reading. “I could see if it’s my thing?”

Eddie twists his head sideways to look up at Steve with a slightly confused face. “You wanna borrow it?”

“Was thinking you could read it.” He fiddled with the pocket of his jeans in a hopefully casual and not freaking out way. He didn’t look at Eddie as he waited, but after a few moments he responded.

“Sure. That’s fine, yeah. Want me to start over or go from here?”

“From there is good.”

And it was good, it was really really good. Steve hadn’t been able to read a book since middle school, hadn’t really tried again after that. But as he lay back and let Eddie’s voice wash over him he couldn’t help feeling that he’d been missing out.

Sure, it actually wasn’t really his thing, but the way Eddie read aloud painted such a clear picture that Steve enjoyed it anyway. The other would change his voice slightly for different characters and added emotions into his speaking. If it was a tense moment, he’d go slow and add gaps in just the right places. If it was fast paced he’d speed up and get more and more manic until the action cut off. He felt like he was reading along. Felt like he could see the pages in the book, but also the characters and the dungeon they were combining through.

So, for the first time Steve hadn’t been brushed off. He had probably found the only person he knew who could turn reading a book into a performance. One he would happily be seated for every night.

From then on, new books turned up at the trailer every week, Steve not far behind.